Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

@parados,

Like I said, your mumblings and murmurs do not alter my point. No one said you couldn't use your sources. You just can't use Wikipedia as a source, which is my point. Are you stupid or just obstinate?

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Panetta is a politician and a spy chief--Trust but verify twice---

BTW a year ago (July, 2010) Panetta publicly stated the CIA/NSA had no knowledge of OBL's whereabouts. Was he lying then or just obfuscating the truth for political reasons?

2 Replies

@raprap,

You'll have to ask him that question. He has no reason to lie about OBL now. He's dead. You're just gonna have to face reality or not face reality. You can still believe waterboarding doesn't work. You're allowed to believe whatever you want. Then you wonder why conservatives say liberals live in la la land.

0 Replies

@raprap,

raprap wrote:

BTW a year ago (July, 2010) Panetta publicly stated the CIA/NSA had no knowledge of OBL's whereabouts. Was he lying then or just obfuscating the truth for political reasons?

What evidence is there that Panetta had knowledge of OBL's whereabouts in July 2010? I thought the tip to the possible location of OBL at that compound came in August 2010.

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

It is not accepted as a source by college professors and even the founder. Take it up with them.

I'm taking it up with you. I'm not trying to convince you that wikipedia is a reliable source. I'm telling you that wikipedia has citations, so a reader may see for themselves where the information is coming from. So your arguments against wikipedia are noted, but you are ignoring the fact that wikipedia provides their sources so you can verify details at non-wiki locations.

So did you find anything wrong with the wikipedia pages you've been linked to so far? Have you bothered to check any of wiki's sources? I think you are dismissing information blindly and calling it unreliable. This is particularly odd considering what information you do find reliable for yourself. Mainly, right-wing blogs.

What is more objective and scholarly: Wikipedia or your blogs?

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

No, you're not taking it up with me. I am not the one who said Wikipedia was not a scholarly source.

2 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

So: did someone say that sources in wikipedia are not credible, scholarly sources?

(Besides that: no encyclopaedia is generally a scholarly source.)

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

No, you're not taking it up with me.

Maybe you are not aware of your circumstances. This is very much what I am doing.

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

I am not the one who said Wikipedia was not a scholarly source.

You are using this as your refusal to view or consider information from wikipedia. You've also not answered to why it would be objectionable to use wikipedia as a means to navigate to other sources, or to fact check with the provided citations.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The founder of Wikipedia said it and most college professors will not accept a paper where Wikipedia is credited as a source. Look it up.

1 Reply

@failures art,

Is there an adult there to help you understand this?

"Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research."

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305

1 Reply

@Renaldo Dubois,

Quote:

"doesn't" would be the correct word there, not "don't". I bet you attended our wonderful public school system.

You're just ignorant enough to believe that people learn their language in school.

Using "don't" in "it don't" isn't incorrect, it's Nonstandard. I won't waste my time explaining the differences to you because you've shown yourself to be thick as a brick, Ren.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

Grammar: Run on sentence.

Run on sentences have nothing to do with grammar, Art.

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Quote:
Grammar: Run on sentence.

Run on sentences have nothing to do with grammar, Art.

You're correct. "Punctuation error," perhaps? I guess identifying it as a run on sentence is probably enough.

Renaldo has been helping the A2K community with our spelling, and grammar. I've been trying my public school best to return the favor when I can. We all benefit.

A
R
Thanks

0 Replies

What I think is most interesting is where the claim was coming from. According to the Guardian there were various different groups in Guantanamo Bay interrogating the prisoners. Some of them tortured the prisoners, (waterboarding is torture pure and simple) some of them did not. The CIA tortured prisoners the FBI did not.

The claim about waterboarding leading to Bin Laden's death comes from the CIA, not the FBI.

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

Is there an adult there to help you understand this?

"Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia compiled by a distributed network of volunteers, has often come under attack by academics as being shoddy and full of inaccuracies. Even Wikipedia’s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out to college students that they shouldn’t use it for class projects or serious research."

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-founder-discourages-academic-use-of-his-creation/2305

None of this contradicts what people have already told you about verifying wikipedia's citations.

Here. I'll use an example which demonstrates Mr. Wales point, and additionally supports the use of wikipedia in our discussions.

JTT just pointed out to me that a run on sentence is not a matter of grammar.

If you go to wikipedia's entry on run on sentences you'll read this:

wiki wrote:

A run-on sentence is a sentence in which two or more independent clauses (i.e., complete sentences) are joined without appropriate punctuation or conjunction. It is generally considered to be a grammatical error though it is occasionally used in literature and may be used as a rhetorical device.

So the article says this, but if you follow the article's citation at the bottom of the page, you'll get three sources:

http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/02/

http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/runons.htm

Hairston, Maxine; Ruszkiewicz, John J.; Friend, Christy (1998). The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers (5th ed.). New York: Longman. p. 509

Neither hotlink confirms that a run on is a matter of grammar, but the links themselves where a part of the verifying process. Do you see how this works?

If you wish to criticize the wiki articles which are presented to you, it is not enough to simply say that wikipedia is a invalid source. You still need to demonstrate that the specific information is false. If you want further verification because you find a particular piece of information suspect, you are capable of following the links/citations yourself.

You never answered my question by the way. Which is more acedemic and objective: Wikipedia (even with it's imperfections), or your right wing blogs?

A
R
T

2 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

What I said was Wikipedia is not considered a scholarly source by the founder of wikipedia and by college professors.

Does everyone on the left here have a comprehension problem?

I say it's perfectly good for arguing with anonymous dorks on the Internet.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

(Which is why anonymous dorks on the Internet invariably take issue with the Wikipedia. It's similar to an ad hominem attack: "<scoff> You can't possibly be posting information from Wikipedia!" As if that makes any difference about whether the data is actually accurate or not.)

0 Replies

@Renaldo Dubois,

Renaldo Dubois wrote:

The founder of Wikipedia said it and most college professors will not accept a paper where Wikipedia is credited as a source. Look it up.

You repied this exactly or with similar words a couple of times now.

Nothing against it, I totally agree, even say that no encyclopaedia can academically be used as a source.

Still, you never answered my questions about the sources mentioned in Wikipedia (or in any other encyclopaedia): do you think, they can't be used academically either?

0 Replies

I think the conservatives have caught a bad case of envyitis and can't stand the fact that Bin Laden was caught on Obama's watch rather than Bush. Only witness Cheney over the weekend. So they have turned the conversation away and have resurrected waterboarding as the technique that led to Bin Laden. If waterboarding was so instrumental why did it take ten years to catch him?

Bush admitted on TV that he was not interested in catching bin Laden. Obama was, he said so in his campaign and he started a renewed effort through intelligence agencies to track him down and get him. They had to sift through conflicting and misleading info obtained through torture in order to track down the courier which eventually led to the whereabouts of Bin Laden's compound.

In the end, more times waterboarding led to misinformation rather than any useful intellegence. We were right to discontinue it because waterboarding is torture. We prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding our soldiers for crimes against humanity.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Are you really this thick?

1 Reply

Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know