U.S. Air Strikes in Syria

[Yuri Bezmenov]

In other words you hate the victors and love the losers.

EVERY society is trying to be imperialistic, some are just better than others at it.

[RageBeoulve]

In other words you hate the victors and love the losers.

EVERY society is trying to be imperialistic, some are just better than others at it.

I know. To me, that is just failing at life and being human.

>Lets kill the most god damn foreigners and steal the most shit, u guise

>high score omgzokool

[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.

 

Same old meme's.  I don't really think you have a leg to stand on Mr wikpedia. 

[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?

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?

Not on you, as you don't understand.  Boddie seemed to agree, and millions of people around the world can see the US's outrageous double standards, so yes, it works on open minded and intelligent people.  "the IS bringing the middle ages to the Middle East"     Cause the Middle East was so 21st century before IS     Israel itself goes round destroying people's homes that are in the way of them trying to find evidence for "King David", who may have existed 3000 years ago.  The statement proves plenty, but again, you aren't capable of understanding.

I'm discussing a subject, with people who need to turn it into a personal fight, to disguise their lack of knowledge. 

[benjimanbreeg]

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.

Right.

Meaning? 

[benjimanbreeg]

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.

Because you're accusing me of "tinfoil stuff", when you are using a site that you've just said has that kind of stuff on it.

True, there should be no bias, but that's not always the case on there.

[RageBeoulve]

The pro war side is biased as all hell. They argue for this because they receive information that their political ideologue releases which makes it seem as though "the enemy" is well.. an enemy. In reality the war on terror is being fought to secure resources and maintain control of supply lines. Nothing more.

What is being accomplished? Theft and murder, same as it has always been. My own country was founded on this, slaughtering the native americans and raping their lands. Although tragic, I had nothing to do with this myself. Although I am of the opinion that large pieces of America being given back to them is a good idea.

ITT: Myself and my own generation had nothing to do with the conquest in the new world, but that doesn't mean I think it is acceptable to continue wars for profit in the present. There is a better way, and I am EXTREMELY biased on this subject concerning at least my own country. This is a bias I am proud to wear right on my sleeve. I hate mass murderers, I hate oligarchs. I hate wealthy thieves.

I think it would be prudent to cut ties with Israel, defund the war on terror, and focus the military soley on national security. The money being spent on prior activities would yield many happy returns in other areas like education and infrastructure.

[odeon]

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

For it or against it?

[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.

 

Same old meme's.  I don't really think you have a leg to stand on Mr wikpedia.

Based on your brilliant reasoning so far? I'm on solid ground. I'm just not taking you seriously.

[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?

Not on you, as you don't understand.  Boddie seemed to agree, and millions of people around the world can see the US's outrageous double standards, so yes, it works on open minded and intelligent people.  "the IS bringing the middle ages to the Middle East"     Cause the Middle East was so 21st century before IS     Israel itself goes round destroying people's homes that are in the way of them trying to find evidence for "King David", who may have existed 3000 years ago.  The statement proves plenty, but again, you aren't capable of understanding.

I'm discussing a subject, with people who need to turn it into a personal fight, to disguise their lack of knowledge.

Here's a hint to you, mate: this discussion was not about the US' double standards. You went far beyond that, trying to connect dots where only your tinfoil friends and supporters see them.

Where have I claimed that the US does not exhibit double standards? The fact that they do does not validate your points. Pretty much every nation on the planet is like that. The difference between the US and, say, Sweden is that what Sweden does is not very visible in comparison.

[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.

Right.

Meaning?

Meaning that you don't allow facts to get in your way. You're no different from the rest of the tinfoil crowd. I think Pappy and parts made that clear 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.

Because you're accusing me of "tinfoil stuff", when you are using a site that you've just said has that kind of stuff on it.

True, there should be no bias, but that's not always the case on there.

Let me try to explain this. Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand.

Wikipedia is basically an online encyclopaedia. It contains articles on just about anything, from the war in Syria to Game of Thrones episode guides and pretty much everything between, including 9/11 conspiracies and ancient aliens. This means that there will be factual articles on the tinfoil stuff, just as there will be factual articles on the IS.

Anyone can add an article or update an existing one. Regular people, the tinfoil crowd, the CIA. Anyone. And anyone can review them.

And there will be sources. Most more controversial articles get a lot of them because they get edited often, and because it's the best way to back up your stuff. An article that lacks them will be flagged as such.

If you're an expert on something, you'll probably check out the topics you're interested in on Wikipedia, to see if they are reasonably complete and correct. It's in your best interests. Take me, for example. I am an acknowledged expert on some topics and so have done just that, because I know that my knowledge will help others, but also because like so many others, I simply think it's very cool that you can look up pretty much anything on the web and get better answers than what a simple Google search will provide.

HTH

[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?

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?

Not on you, as you don't understand.  Boddie seemed to agree, and millions of people around the world can see the US's outrageous double standards, so yes, it works on open minded and intelligent people.  "the IS bringing the middle ages to the Middle East"     Cause the Middle East was so 21st century before IS     Israel itself goes round destroying people's homes that are in the way of them trying to find evidence for "King David", who may have existed 3000 years ago.  The statement proves plenty, but again, you aren't capable of understanding.

I'm discussing a subject, with people who need to turn it into a personal fight, to disguise their lack of knowledge.

Here's a hint to you, mate: this discussion was not about the US' double standards. You went far beyond that, trying to connect dots where only your tinfoil friends and supporters see them.

Where have I claimed that the US does not exhibit double standards? The fact that they do does not validate your points. Pretty much every nation on the planet is like that. The difference between the US and, say, Sweden is that what Sweden does is not very visible in comparison.

I made it about the US's double standards, and point out that the air strikes are against an "enemy" that they have created, and that if they were consistent they'd be launching strikes against their "allies".  This has nothing to do with "tinfoil".  It's about what the media hasn't informed you of. 

"The fact that they do does not validate your points. Pretty much every nation on the planet is like that."  So that validates yours?   The difference between Sweden and the US is power. 

[benjimanbreeg]

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.

Right.

Meaning?

Meaning that you don't allow facts to get in your way. You're no different from the rest of the tinfoil crowd. I think Pappy and parts made that clear in that other thread.

They, along with you, just have no idea what they're talking about.  What facts?  Tell me some that discredit some of the things i've said?  You ignore any facts i've posted and aren't capable of countering them.  Instead you resort to talking about me, or blabbing on about it being tinfoil stuff, or post the same meme.  You're out of your depth and aren't capable of a serious discussion. 

[benjimanbreeg]

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.

Because you're accusing me of "tinfoil stuff", when you are using a site that you've just said has that kind of stuff on it.

True, there should be no bias, but that's not always the case on there.

Let me try to explain this. Feel free to ask questions if you don't understand.

Wikipedia is basically an online encyclopaedia. It contains articles on just about anything, from the war in Syria to Game of Thrones episode guides and pretty much everything between, including 9/11 conspiracies and ancient aliens. This means that there will be factual articles on the tinfoil stuff, just as there will be factual articles on the IS.

Anyone can add an article or update an existing one. Regular people, the tinfoil crowd, the CIA. Anyone. And anyone can review them.

And there will be sources. Most more controversial articles get a lot of them because they get edited often, and because it's the best way to back up your stuff. An article that lacks them will be flagged as such.

If you're an expert on something, you'll probably check out the topics you're interested in on Wikipedia, to see if they are reasonably complete and correct. It's in your best interests. Take me, for example. I am an acknowledged expert on some topics and so have done just that, because I know that my knowledge will help others, but also because like so many others, I simply think it's very cool that you can look up pretty much anything on the web and get better answers than what a simple Google search will provide.

HTH

It's funny that someone so mentally bankrupt can be so condescending and arrogant.

I know what Wikpedia is.  Really it doesn't matter, cause as I said, it will be tinfoil stuff to you if it doesn't fit your beliefs. 

I agree.  You probably should stick to your expertise subjects and forget politics though.