"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news

Full of inaccuracies

Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone
who gets his news via the mass media.

What??? I told you to read a book.



. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam.

Can you substantiate that?


Back in the 1990s, its leader actually
levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim
Brotherhood
made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his
continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al
Qaeda
prefers Qatar as a hideout.

Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base
of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe
very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the
opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the
war.

I told you to read a book. As unbelievable as it sound, the answer is "yes".
That's where they hide - with another one of our supposed allies.


According to people who know these things,

And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"?

Gee...I don't know. How do YOU determine that?



the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order.

That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that
feeds the outer network of support for terrorism.

The flow of money comes directly from members of the royal family. Every
time we fill our gas tanks, we contribute about a buck. This is gonna be
tricky.



Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the
leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the
book's
at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert
Baer,
a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003.

The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no
guarantee that the information contained is either factual or
complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are
either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's
highly spun recent expose.

Silly man. You provided a link that YOU apparently feel is superior to that
of a retired CIA agent. What makes you think your author is 100% accurate?
And, please stop flinging that crap about "the problem with books". That
implies that you believe that someplace on this planet, there's an unbiased
source. Please name or describe one or two.


It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from
other unconnected sources.

Yes. It would. But meanwhile, you have chosen to believe a VERY connected
source for all your information, haven't you? Know who I mean?


Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing
as absolute truth?

Is Rush Limbaugh a retired CIA agent?

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:30:34 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
news

Full of inaccuracies

Considering the source I'd tend to believe them than those of someone
who gets his news via the mass media.

What??? I told you to read a book.

Are books not a part of the mass media?




. For instance, Syria is actually very LOW on the list
of contributors to militant Islam.

Can you substantiate that?


Back in the 1990s, its leader actually
levelled an entire city where it was determined that the Muslim
Brotherhood
made its home. The whole city. Granted, the leader did this to ensure his
continuing term in office, but regardless, it worked. This is why al
Qaeda
prefers Qatar as a hideout.

Interesting. Al Qaeda hides in the same country that we used as a base
of operations for the Iraqi war? Are we blind or do they just tiptoe
very quietly? I guess they were also very inept for missing the
opportunity to perform terrorist attacks on the nerve center of the
war.

I told you to read a book. As unbelievable as it sound, the answer is "yes".
That's where they hide - with another one of our supposed allies.


According to your book. But I have not seen much evidence to support
that conjecture. Even if true, it only underscores the fact that the
roots of terrorism are active in most of the middle eastern Islamic
countries, and they are all potential enemies.


Most of my sources claim that Afghanistan and Pakistan are the current
"Home" to Al Qaeda, or at least the main "cell" of it.




According to people who know these things,

And just how do you determine who actually "knows these things"?

Gee...I don't know. How do YOU determine that?

Do you always answer a question with a question?

The answer of course is that you determine based on faith and whatever
information fits your views. Those that are contrary you dismiss as
rubbish, sort of like the stuff Harry posts.

But we all do that to some degree. The difference is that there are
many sources of information. Books are only one small part. Try
talking to some of the people who live or have worked in the region
for their perspective.


the Saudis need to take drastic measures to establish law & order.

That's rather obvious. They also have to stop the flow of money that
feeds the outer network of support for terrorism.

The flow of money comes directly from members of the royal family. Every
time we fill our gas tanks, we contribute about a buck. This is gonna be
tricky.

Yes it is. But you have to start somewhere.





Naturally, you'll ask for the year these things happened in Syria, the
leader's name and the name of the city which was destroyed, but the
book's
at home. You can buy it, though: "Sleeping With the Devil", by Robert
Baer,
a retired CIA agent. The subject matter is current through mid-2003.

The problem with books is that anyone can write one. There's no
guarantee that the information contained is either factual or
complete. Nor is the agenda of the author always understood. Most are
either self-serving, or politically motivated, such as Richard Clark's
highly spun recent expose.

Silly man. You provided a link that YOU apparently feel is superior to that
of a retired CIA agent. What makes you think your author is 100% accurate?

No one is 100% accurate. But what makes you think that someone who
once worked for the CIA (The same CIA that insisted Iraq had WMD) is
an all-knowing source?


And, please stop flinging that crap about "the problem with books". That
implies that you believe that someplace on this planet, there's an unbiased
source. Please name or describe one or two.

All I'm saying is that you can't base your whole idealogy on the words
of a few (potentially biased) authors. You have to ingest evidence
from a variety of sources before you can make an informed choice.

You also have to remember, writing books is a business. Publishers and
authors alike are pushed to write what will sell and bring in a
profit. That's why many books are jazzed up and sensationalized.
Controversy and bombshell revelations are what sell books. Anyone who
doesn't believe in the theory of style over substance need look no
further than Bill Clinton's book. It'll sell well, but there's little
useful information in it.

Do you think that "reality TV" is actually REAL? The real world of
facts is a rather boring read. To sell things, spice is added. You
just have to be able to determine how many facts were distorted to
make for a more "spicy" story.




It would help to have some verifiable corroborating evidence from
other unconnected sources.

Yes. It would. But meanwhile, you have chosen to believe a VERY connected
source for all your information, haven't you? Know who I mean?

No I don't. I don't believe any ONE source for my information. I cross
check practically everything, and make a judgement call from that.


Rush Limbaugh has written several books. Would you absorb his writing
as absolute truth?

Is Rush Limbaugh a retired CIA agent?

In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter?

I'm sure Saddam Hussein will be writing a book in the future. Will you
buy it? Would you be inclined to believe it?

Dave

www.bn.com

It's called a book store.