Jan Matthieu wrote: > What I called nonsense is > what comes just before the word 'pipeline' in my text: "everyone had > just been waiting to attack afghanistan because they wanted to build > that..."
The sources I provided actually point to this too. The US wanted to build that pipeline thru Afghanistan -- the only question was when, i.e. with or without the Taliban (who were long regarded as a factor of stability, compared to the Northern Alliance). The talks with the Taliban (for a cooperative solution) finally failed shortly before 9/11. And e.g. BBC reported that the US invasion in October had been planned since July. Anyway, do you really believe that such a large military operation could have been implemented in just 3 weeks after 9/11 ? > and 'Osama had nothing to do with the attacks on the towers' What matters is whether he did it, not whether he had "nothing to do with" it. If he had done it, he would have boasted with it in the many Al-Jazeera videos, and the US would have had no problems of providing real evidence. But none of that materialized. Face it, Osama is just a bogeyman (which btw had been funded by the US itself since the 1980s). > and 'it's an Israëli conspiracy, because they are the ones who will > profit most from a war against the arabs...' Those allegations are > unfounded and unverified and yes I believe nonsense. They may be exaggerated on that site, but they're certainly not unfounded. For example, what about the story about the Israeli camera team on 9/11 that cheered at the sight (and site) of the WTC crashes? (this was mentioned even in Haaretz) Why did Sharon immediately react with "very good!" when asked about the effects of 9/11 ? Why did Silverstein insure the WTC only 7 weeks before 9/11, after it had been uninsured for 30 years? And why did he insure it for only half the value and now demands the whole value "because it was _two_ attacks" ? Did he perhaps know in advance that it would be two ? etc. These backgrounds are at least a bit strange and should be investigated instead of being swept under the carpet... > I didn't write Debka is useless PR, if I thought it useless I wouldn't > read it. You said Debka is unreliable, that they use very unprofessional tricks, e.g. never revealing sources, and then staying silent about wrong claims. If that doesn't amount to "useless PR", I don't know what does. > I wrote it makes more interesting reading because (allowing for > the PR factor and being aware of their profound bias) every now and > again I read something *new* on it, things I didn't know yet from > elsewhere, and which might or might not be true. Well, when Debka cooks up fancy stories, it's no wonder that you don't find it elsewhere. But since they "might or might not be true", you can just as well cast dice. > The whatreallyetc. mostly provides info I knew already from elsewhere First you said their info is unfounded and unverified nonsense, now you already knew their info from elsewhere. Contradiction? If it _mostly_ provides info you already knew, it _also_ provides info that's new to you (and even more new info for less-informed people). > and is also deeply > biased (but that is a matter of opinion) propaganda from the 'other > side' (than the Israëli) What matters is verifiable facts, and on these, Debka rates much worse. Chris
