All I'm arguing is that given how easy it is to manipulate information, you cannot, in good sense, operate under the assumption that "all" of your findings are true. I have to depart for now but we can continue this should I find it entertaining enough to do so.
1) I'm only arguing that given that all data can be fabricated, it's "possible" that WINEP's data was fabricated.
2) I'm only arguing that given their close proximity to Washington D.C., it's "possible" that they're being manipulated.
3) This has actually happened in the past so you only concede to my argument.
1) Thank you. However I was pointing to the "possibility" thereof.
2) Thank you. However I was pointing to the "possibility" thereof.
3) Thank you. However I was pointing to the "possibility" thereof.
And I'll say this in as few words as possible. I understand your position. However common sense, provided you actually possess it, does come with a certain level of scrutiny. The U.S. has a long history of information fabrication. Many entities that claimed to be public, independent of the U.S. government were found out to be, well, not as such. And of course, even so called, "public institutions" are owned and operated by private entities who use those institutions to spread propaganda. I'm not saying that WINEP is full of shit, I'm just saying that with any source, no matter where it's from, you need to be objective in deciding whether or not you are operating with facts or fabrication.
I'm beginning to see why Kaze Araki is infuritated by you. I'll say this in as few words as possible. I was not arguing that WINEP was under the total control of the government. I was arguing that the "possibility" existed that they were controlled or at least regulated by the U.S. government and with that in mind, one has to take their information with a grain of salt. I'm quite good at playing devil's advocate so it might have appeared that I was arguing that they were puppets. However, I was pointing to the fact that the possibility existed. I never said they were tools of the government. I won't have fun putting you in your place Canabary. It's just another exercise in me cleaning up society's mess.
I cannot for the life of me even imagine how anyone can consider you an objective thinker and I'm even further removed from understanding how anyone could think you actually know what the hell you're talking about in Hic Sunt Leones. I'll watch you and Kaze continue this little dance only because it's the only activity in the damn thread. But the next time I see you posting ridiculous bullshit and claiming it's an objective argument I'm going to call you out on it. I'll do what someone failed to do a long time ago and put you in your place. So for now, carry on.
It's ridiculous posts like the one you just made which only serve to anger me. "Why would it be located in Washington DC? Maybe because that's where the politics all take place? Washington DC is the political capital of the United States." A person excericising common sense would know that this is done so that it would be easier for the government to regulate information.
They do not work for the government, in fact they are funded by private individuals and groups, or "the public". By being "public" they do not mean that they are "Government controlled". Which is used to convince people like you that there isn't the possibility of them being government controlled.
Why would it be located in Washington DC? Maybe because that's where the politics all take place? Washington DC is the political capital of the United States.
Common sense would dicatate that accusing a think tank with a strong position in world politics of fabricating research is a very serious claim. If you could actually prove that it's not just a "slant" their reputation would be strongly damaged and their position in US poltics significantly diminished. That is why I consider it fairly important to prove it if you are going to accuse them of this. They do not work for the government, in fact they are funded by private individuals and groups, or "the public". By being "public" they do not mean that they are "Government controlled".
You enter these discussions with these radical citations from sources that anyone with common sense would know are bias yet you refuse to believe it unless someone proves it via absolute proof. Absolute proof does not exist so from the outset no one can prove your sources to be wrong and thus no one can prove you wrong.[Except for people exercising common sense.] Yet you claim to be objective. Any acclaim lavished upon you comes not from the intellectual elite but people who can't see through your veil of bullshit.
You are under the impression that I do not like you. You wonder why that is. Allow me, ZERO PHOENIX, to educate you as to why that is. You claim to possess knowledge that you do not actually have. This, combined with your inability and stubborn refusal to apply common sense to every facet of research makes you well, an irritant to me. You cite sources in discussions. Good good. However, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your sources may not be bulletproof. It doesn't matter if you're citing a think tank, an official document, or if you have a recording from the individual you are citing. The fact is, anyone who is truly objective knows that all information carries a chance of error whether it was done via accident or mistake.
Also, common sense would beg the following question. Why would a "public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East," be located in Washington D.C. of all places?
Besides you have to use a bit of common sense. This was in the tag for WINEP: "A public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East." Let me bold that. "A public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East." Common sense would dictate that the information found on this website is only the information that Washington wants the public to know. As such, one has to exercise caution when taking any information from this site at face value.
And again, while I understand your position I consider it nonsense. The fact that this think-tank influences U.S. politics is all the more reason to assume that they're bias and unobjective. Political influence can only be afforded through such tactics.
It's not just you Canabary so don't think I'm picking on you. Of course I couldn't care if you held that position anyway. Fact is I addressed Kaze about this same situation. I've taken a step further with you because you dared to question me. You asked me a question and I answered it.
Am I to give you brownie points or applause simply because you exercised restraint and didn't comment on the totality of Kaze Araki's posts? Don't be absurd. I'm not going to give you props for something that you, as a so-called objective intellectual is supposed to do. You and Kaze aren't going to agree on everything given his position and yours. You are free to disagree with each other. However, the two of you seem focused not on reaching an understanding but in getting the other person to submit to his respective position.
While I do understand your position I reiterate that it is nonsense. Even if you aren't citing propaganda in all of your posts, they have indeed clouded the majority of your arguments. If you hold the position that you will not, and I quote, "accuse anyone of fabricating research without absolute proof," then you're obviously not being objective are you? I mean do I really have to explain this? All research is tainted to some degree, all sources have informaiton that is, in part, fabricated. Not entirely but in part. You demand absolute proof of such things when in most cases you will not find absolute proof. Anything that comes out of Washington is in part fabricated. Most of what is facilitated by the media is fabricated. Are you really going to say that it's not simply because there is no "absolute proof" thereof?
My aim is not to somehow be a bane to you. I'll save that for the actual discussions. One thing I should tell you is that I don't enjoy repeating myself so listen to my response and do not question me again. While I understand your position, "I will not accuse anyone of fabricating research without absolute proof," that concept you have is complete foolishness. On Kaze's end he finds anything submitted by the American and Israeli higher-ups to be suspect. He is correct and anyone with even a high school knowledge of politics knows that. Kaze's issue with you is in part, because you cite sources which were undoubtedly fabricated and you somehow think the information is factual.
Fine. Let's "pretend" you aren't. Try not to antagonize Kaze Araki though. When you cite propaganda machines, even if it's done unknowingly, that does irritate him as it would anyone. Of course I'm sure you think the two of you are having a good debate and while it is increasingly comical to me it alienates some of the other members. The only people who have posted in that discussion recently were you, Kaze, and [lexus]. It's mostly served as my entertainment so I decided to watch the show but it has become rather stale.