U.S. Air Strikes in Syria

[odeon]

"The Gaza argument you're making is largely irrelevant, of course, but then, I assume you knew it when posting."

   How is it "largely irrelevant"?  It shows the US will support it when their "allies" do it, but cry their eyes out when someone they want to bomb does it.  You simply don't understand, or don't want to.

It isn't relevant because it doesn't prove anything.

[odeon]

Oh, and here's the thing about Wikipedia:

It usually provides an excellent starting point for researching subjects. There are frequently a lot of references to various sources, from newspapers to reports, which saves time since you can easily locate studies, reports and the like. Not every study and not every report, but enough to get you going, in most cases.

Wikipedia, of course, has built-in weaknesses of which the most obvious is that anyone can edit the content, at any time. If you research recent events, especially anything even slightly controversial, you need to be aware of this. It's a rookie mistake, but one sometimes committed by people who do a lot more day-to-day light research than most.

Googling a subject, while tempting and easy and therefore often the first and only research done, is far more inefficient since most Google searches are weighted based on ads, local cookies, your Google accounts, etc. If we all searched on the exact same terms, we'd each get different results, and most would still not offer the relevance needed.

Library searches are a bit more trustworthy but are usually outdated, always static, and usually weighted by some rather bizarre considerations. If you have access to a university library it's often a better bet than pretty much everything else, provided that they carry the topic you're interested in.

But still, regardless of how you go about your research, you do need to be somewhat well read to do it properly, and it means going beyond the tinfoil stuff that is oh-so-easy but frequently oh-so-wrong.

Good luck.

[ZEGH8578]

Wiki has gotten a bad rep cus of lazy students and angry teachers.

It does have its weaknesses tho. As a moderate hobby dinosaur expert, I can notice easily whenever a Jurassic Park fanboy has entered an edit

[Yuri Bezmenov]

My irony meter just pegged out. 

[benjimanbreeg]

You're assuming that I'm oblivious to some information you hint at when actually I simply reject the argumentation made. There is a difference.

Take off the tinfoil hat and show me the facts.

You made it very apparent.  Pleading for Adam to come back to rescue you, cause Adam knows more than us all about WWII, or, you agree with Adam more like.

Actually Adam's WW2 knowledge is vastly superior to ours, yes. It's one of his special interests.

However, I do know a bit about the subject. I assume you don't, since you've carefully avoided any facts in your replies.

You don't seem to understand history or facts in general.

[benjimanbreeg]

"The Gaza argument you're making is largely irrelevant, of course, but then, I assume you knew it when posting."

   How is it "largely irrelevant"?  It shows the US will support it when their "allies" do it, but cry their eyes out when someone they want to bomb does it.  You simply don't understand, or don't want to.

It isn't relevant because it doesn't prove anything.

It proves that the US aren't credible.  They will allegedly be against a country when the country is their enemy or has resources it wants to steal, and they will support and fund another country who are committing the same kind of crimes. 

What is it you don't understand?

[benjimanbreeg]

Oh, and here's the thing about Wikipedia:

It usually provides an excellent starting point for researching subjects. There are frequently a lot of references to various sources, from newspapers to reports, which saves time since you can easily locate studies, reports and the like. Not every study and not every report, but enough to get you going, in most cases.

Wikipedia, of course, has built-in weaknesses of which the most obvious is that anyone can edit the content, at any time. If you research recent events, especially anything even slightly controversial, you need to be aware of this. It's a rookie mistake, but one sometimes committed by people who do a lot more day-to-day light research than most.

Googling a subject, while tempting and easy and therefore often the first and only research done, is far more inefficient since most Google searches are weighted based on ads, local cookies, your Google accounts, etc. If we all searched on the exact same terms, we'd each get different results, and most would still not offer the relevance needed.

Library searches are a bit more trustworthy but are usually outdated, always static, and usually weighted by some rather bizarre considerations. If you have access to a university library it's often a better bet than pretty much everything else, provided that they carry the topic you're interested in.

But still, regardless of how you go about your research, you do need to be somewhat well read to do it properly, and it means going beyond the tinfoil stuff that is oh-so-easy but frequently oh-so-wrong.

Good luck.

If it isn't on wikpedia, it's tinfoil stuff?  Even though anyone can put anything on there?    I actually posted the wikpedia link about how powerful ancient alien think tanks in the US were gagging to go into Iraq before 9/11 and spoke about needing a Pearl Harbour like disaster.  I also posted a video showing all the news coverage of the Israelis who were arrested on 9/11 with bombs in their truck and posted the FBI report, then suddenly, the news forgets it all and it's never spoken of again.  Imagine 5 Palestinians had been arrested on the bridge with a van full of explosives, do you think that'd have been swept under the rug?  yet you choose to ignore that and brush it off as "tinfoil stuff".  Anyone who ignores all of that is in sheer denial. 

If I read anything on wikpedia, I will look around for numerous other sources on the issue, before taking it at face value. 

[ZEGH8578]

My irony meter just pegged out. 

The fact that you talk about irony, is ironic

[Gopher Gary]

My irony meter just pegged out. 

The fact that you talk about irony, is ironic

OMG THE IRONY!!

[odeon]

Wiki has gotten a bad rep cus of lazy students and angry teachers.

It does have its weaknesses tho. As a moderate hobby dinosaur expert, I can notice easily whenever a Jurassic Park fanboy has entered an edit

You forgot the lazy journalists.

[odeon]

You're assuming that I'm oblivious to some information you hint at when actually I simply reject the argumentation made. There is a difference.

Take off the tinfoil hat and show me the facts.

You made it very apparent.  Pleading for Adam to come back to rescue you, cause Adam knows more than us all about WWII, or, you agree with Adam more like.

Actually Adam's WW2 knowledge is vastly superior to ours, yes. It's one of his special interests.

However, I do know a bit about the subject. I assume you don't, since you've carefully avoided any facts in your replies.

You don't seem to understand history or facts in general.

 

[odeon]

"The Gaza argument you're making is largely irrelevant, of course, but then, I assume you knew it when posting."

   How is it "largely irrelevant"?  It shows the US will support it when their "allies" do it, but cry their eyes out when someone they want to bomb does it.  You simply don't understand, or don't want to.

It isn't relevant because it doesn't prove anything.

It proves that the US aren't credible.  They will allegedly be against a country when the country is their enemy or has resources it wants to steal, and they will support and fund another country who are committing the same kind of crimes. 

What is it you don't understand?

Does this argument work anywhere, in your experience? While I don't approve of what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, it's quite a leap between that and the IS bringing the middle ages to the Middle East, besides the obvious fact that your statement doesn't actually prove anything.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. You really suck at this. Do you even know what you're arguing for, or are you simply parroting the single-syllable sentences produced by your idols?

[odeon]

If I read anything on wikpedia, I will look around for numerous other sources on the issue, before taking it at face value.

Which is basically what I said. We seem to have a point of agreement.

Of course, you choose your sources far more selectively than that, as made obvious by your Chomsky video in that other thread.

[odeon]

If it isn't on wikpedia, it's tinfoil stuff?  Even though anyone can put anything on there?

I bother to explain how this works and this is your understanding if it? Your reading comprehension is as poor as your argumentation techniques.

But seriously: Wikipedia has a lot of tinfoil stuff, too. First of all, it's in the nature of a wiki. Anyone can edit one, which means that there will always be inaccuracies and poorly researched subjects. Wikipedia, specifically, does attempt to address these built-in weaknesses, however. If you're interested, the Help pages do a decent job of explaining how it works.

Second, the tinfoil stuff are valid topics, too. From 9/11 conspiracies to Zionism, the point is always to describe the subject as factually as possible, providing as many sources as possible. Ideally, there should be no bias.

[RageBeoulve]

Flat out: I am always going to have bias when imperialism is involved.