4 ms·

Source for "all those "moderate" rebels switched to ISIS"? Source for "$100B in funding"? This smacks of conspiracy claptrap that adds nothing of substance to t

Source for "all those "moderate" rebels switched to ISIS"? Source for "$100B in funding"? This smacks of conspiracy claptrap that adds nothing of substance to the discussion.

rdtsc 11y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... "Defense Intelligence $80.1 billion[12] 3.3% Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure" Something makes me doubt another $20B into the intelligence budget would have changed the outcome for the better. More sauce: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1... https://en.zamanalwsl.net/readNews.php?id=5696 https://en.zamanalwsl.net/readNews.php?id=5696 (translated) http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/u-s-backed-syrian-group-joins-islamist-fighters/ http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/u-s-backed-syrian-group-joins-isl... > This smacks of conspiracy claptrap that adds nothing of substance to the discussion. Well, did you have anything to discuss, or just wanted sauce? Because I am not sure "src pls!" replies add much to the discussion.
- linkregister 11y ago
  I disagree that a request for sources is unwarranted in this situation. Your language assumed the reader agreed with your viewpoint based off of not-commonly-known facts: "of course... stupid because..." I understand your decision to reply with snark to a snarky comment, but in this instance, "src pls!" does in fact add to the discussion.
  - rdtsc 11y ago
    I think if they are interested in the conversation it is worth throwing more than a drive-by "srs pls" comment into it. For example it could have been "Well I think the budget is a bit off, CIA itself doesn't get that money, did you mean the total intelligence budget". Or "Agreed, do you have any sources for the fighters who switched side? that would be interesting to see". Imagine you are sitting by the fire and discussing something, and someone just chimes with "src pls", "srs pls", I wouldn't consider them contributing to the discussion, rather derailing it. So I agree, source would help here, did provide sources but responded snarky to give the person asking for them a hint (not so subtle, perhaps) that in general that is not a constructive way to hold a conversation.
- knowaveragejoe 11y ago
  That budget includes all of the intelligence apparatus' budget, ongoing research programs, so on and so forth. So likely not even close to the $100B mentioned. Secondly, I asked for source to support the claim that "all rebels switched to ISIS", but apparently you don't have that and are just of the opinion that that is what has occurred.

Source for "all those "moderate" rebels switched to ISIS"? Source for "$100B in funding"? This smacks of conspiracy claptrap that adds nothing of substance to the discussion.

rdtsc 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_... "Defense Intelligence $80.1 billion[12] 3.3% Because of classified nature, budget is an estimate and may not be the actual figure" Something makes me doubt another $20B into the intelligence budget would have changed the outcome for the better. More sauce: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11882195/US-trained-Division-30-rebels-betrayed-US-and-hand-weapons-over-to-al-Qaedas-affiliate-in-Syria.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1... https://en.zamanalwsl.net/readNews.php?id=5696 https://en.zamanalwsl.net/readNews.php?id=5696 (translated) http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/u-s-backed-syrian-group-joins-islamist-fighters/ http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/u-s-backed-syrian-group-joins-isl... > This smacks of conspiracy claptrap that adds nothing of substance to the discussion. Well, did you have anything to discuss, or just wanted sauce? Because I am not sure "src pls!" replies add much to the discussion.

linkregister 11y ago
I disagree that a request for sources is unwarranted in this situation. Your language assumed the reader agreed with your viewpoint based off of not-commonly-known facts: "of course... stupid because..." I understand your decision to reply with snark to a snarky comment, but in this instance, "src pls!" does in fact add to the discussion.
- rdtsc 11y ago
  I think if they are interested in the conversation it is worth throwing more than a drive-by "srs pls" comment into it. For example it could have been "Well I think the budget is a bit off, CIA itself doesn't get that money, did you mean the total intelligence budget". Or "Agreed, do you have any sources for the fighters who switched side? that would be interesting to see". Imagine you are sitting by the fire and discussing something, and someone just chimes with "src pls", "srs pls", I wouldn't consider them contributing to the discussion, rather derailing it. So I agree, source would help here, did provide sources but responded snarky to give the person asking for them a hint (not so subtle, perhaps) that in general that is not a constructive way to hold a conversation.
knowaveragejoe 11y ago
That budget includes all of the intelligence apparatus' budget, ongoing research programs, so on and so forth. So likely not even close to the $100B mentioned. Secondly, I asked for source to support the claim that "all rebels switched to ISIS", but apparently you don't have that and are just of the opinion that that is what has occurred.