Dan R Allen wrote:

> Marc:
> What the U.S. government has has to come from its intelligence agencies.
> Unless
> you have a suggested alternative source?
>
> Dan:
> What I'm suggesting is that they are not releasing every bit of information
> to the press.

Uh, yeah, I'd go along with that. Heck, they're not even sharing it with each
other.

>
> Marc:
> > I see they haven't given a specific citation to Jane's. Also, CNS is a
> > subsidiary
> > of the Media Research Center, whose stated purpose is to be "The Leader
> in
> > Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias"
> > http://www.mediaresearch.org/
> >
> > Gosh, you don't think they'd have a conservative, pro-war bias, do you?
> >
> Dan:
> Certainly conservative - therefore unreliable?
>

No, not necessarily, but they don't give their sources. And whether they're
conservative or liberal, that makes them sloppy journalists. Also, hiding their
background is, in my opinion, dishonest. Everyone knows that CATO has a house
organ, for instance, and that the WSJ is owned by Dow Jones. That's okay (and
they're conservative. So to repeat, that's not my point).

>
> > >
> http://www.cnsnews.com/ForeignBureaus/Archive/200204/FOR20020412f.html
> >
>
> Marc:
> > Did you even read this? It doesn't talk about Iraq, but *Saudi Arabia*
> > giving the
> > survivors cash payments. Sounds like Rumsfeld's confused. The article
> said
> > he
> > didn't know anything about the Saudi program. Oh well, they all look
> alike,
> > don't
> > they :-/
>

I'm sorry, but I don't have my original post, so I'm not sure what you're
criticizing. For the record, the very first sentence mentions that Saudi Arabia
makes the payments. Are you sure *I* wasn't correcting *you*?

>
> Dan:
> Yes I did read it; this is one of three paragraphs discussing how Saddam
> _also_ provides payments to the families of the bombers.
>
> But since CNS is too untrustworthy, how about the Guardian?

Too ideological and wacky for my tastes. In any case, the summary you give
strikes me as an accurate account of their beliefs and the payments their
families receive. So again, ideology isn't the point.

>
> http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,619495,00.html?FACTNet
> "In life most suicide bombers are nobodies, but in death they rise and
> become shaheed, and their families rise with them. Each martyr's family
> receives an official certificate of martyrdom from the Iraqi dictator
> Saddam Hussein, and a prize of $10,000."
>
> Or here: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
> Or here: http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020825-77873160.htm
>

I have no idea what your point is

--
Marc A. Schindler
Spruce Grove, Alberta, Canada -- Gateway to the Boreal Parkland

"The greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and
falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark."
--Michelangelo Buonarroti

Note: This communication represents the informal personal views of the author
solely; its contents do not necessarily reflect those of the authorís employer,
nor those of any organization with which the author may be associated.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

==^^===============================================================
This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register
==^^===============================================================

Reply via email to