Sure. The same can be said for the comment he’s replying to saying it’s stupid. Either a small thing literally saying they worked with us is enough evidence that they worked with us, or something saying they worked with us has too little context to know the full story. This guy is in the wrong either way. You can decide which way yourself, but you’re just trying to defend him for no good reason.
None of it in the comment he was contradicting indicates cooperation. It says “relied on” which seems true. He implied cooperation, so, again, he’s wrong regardless.
Geopolitics are complex, the enemy of your enemy is not your friend but they can be a tool.
Reading one snippet from an email with no context is hardly going to give you the full picture.
Sure. The same can be said for the comment he’s replying to saying it’s stupid. Either a small thing literally saying they worked with us is enough evidence that they worked with us, or something saying they worked with us has too little context to know the full story. This guy is in the wrong either way. You can decide which way yourself, but you’re just trying to defend him for no good reason.
Nothing about his original comment or the highlight about being ‘on the same side’ indicates cooperation.
You can work towards the same goal as another group/faction without providing assistance or cooperation.
Again, there simply isn’t enough information to make the judgement you are leaping to.
None of it in the comment he was contradicting indicates cooperation. It says “relied on” which seems true. He implied cooperation, so, again, he’s wrong regardless.