Fictitious Al-Qaeda leaders killed...again.

[Ecofarm]

He doesn't understand what a sting operation is.


I suppose he thinks the US government provides prostitutes and drugs (where illegal) too. Who would have thought - the power fights the power. Tha man is gonna take down tha man. That's convenient, I guess we can just chill.

[BeBMan]

We've been over that before. The U.S. government openly admits to running terrorist websites.

Whether or not they're the ones you're referring, I dunno, since you both fail to provide sources.

No, they didn't admit to run "terrorist websites" in general as such a statement without further detail could suggest.

As for sources, meh. There are lotsa article on this. If you don't believe the articles as such exist I couldn't care less. If your post means you want a source giving the exact AQ site(s) that are reported to have given the confirmation, I don't have any, like the WaPo article btw didn't detail which site exactly was the prob.

It would be futile to have the links anyway since you never can't be sure it's not all made up, either the links, or the articles, or the site, or the planet and the universe as such

[HalfLotus]

Yes there are a lot of articles on this. Unfortunately nearly all of them parrot Pentagon/NATO talking points. You gonna take their word for it?

The fact of the matter is that US/Canadian citizens receive almost no independent verification about these so-called terrorists, and stories put forth by the U.S. military sources have more holes in them than a pound of swiss cheese.

The War on Terror is a fraud, and you're all suckers for buying into it.

[Whoha]

Bastard keeps respawning. Douche quit breaking the server rules.

[BeBMan]

Yes there are a lot of articles on this. Unfortunately nearly all of them parrot Pentagon/NATO talking points. You gonna take their word for it?

The wapo article you found cool cited anonymous *gov* offcials and some general guy, obviously someone in the comand line ending with the Pentagon/Pres. You didn't seem to have a prob to "take their word for it" when it suited you. The articles I mentioned are just as good as sources

[Darius871]

The wapo article you found cool cited anonymous *gov* offcials and some general guy, obviously someone in the comand line ending with the Pentagon/Pres. You didn't seem to have a prob to "take their word for it" when it suited you.

[HalfLotus]

The wapo article you found cool cited anonymous *gov* offcials and some general guy, obviously someone in the comand line ending with the Pentagon/Pres. You didn't seem to have a prob to "take their word for it" when it suited you. The articles I mentioned are just as good as sources

I don't take any of those stories at face value - I ridicule the entire charade.

Your still unnamed articles in Germany or Canada or wherever are just copycats of said Pentagon propaganda - the same propaganda that shows up in WaPo and Reuters.

Repetition makes believers, in this case you, but it doesn't make truth.

[BeBMan]

I don't take any of those stories at face value - I ridicule the entire charade.

I see, you posted a wapo article you don't believe and used it as argument for your POVs.

Your still unnamed articles in Germany or Canada or wherever are just copycats of said Pentagon propaganda - the same propaganda that shows up in WaPo and Reuters.

You don't even know the articles but already know what's in and if they're propaganda or not? I'm impressed. Btw, why do you ask for sources if you're omniscient? Face it, you aren't interested in any sources or whatever articles as long they paint another picture than the articles you post (but don't believe).

[HalfLotus]

You don't even know the articles but already know what's in and if they're propaganda or not?

Call it an educated guess.

Of course, it'd be very easy to prove me wrong. Just pony up said articles.

[BeBMan]

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,691082,00.html

[Darius871]

I hardly think a German is in any position to lecture others about propaganda.

[BeBMan]

Discounting first hand experience

[Darius871]

Touché.

[Wezil]

We've been over that before. The U.S. government openly admits to running terrorist websites.

Whether or not they're the ones you're referring, I dunno, since you both fail to provide sources.

Since you ask: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...711971-ap.html

I don't think it is a CIA run terrorist site. I may be wrong.

[Wezil]

The War on Terror is a fraud, and you're all suckers for buying into it.

Boy have you got me wrong.

Just because I'm not a conspiracy lunatic doesn't mean I believe everything the government tells me.