User talk:137.99.117.74

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 3RR Violation

I have reported your violation of the 3 Revert Rule. Please use the discussion page on the article to discuss your changes. Other editors are concerned that your changes are introducing massive amounts of disinformation into the article that has already been roundly rejected by journalists and investigators for years. The two alleged defectors who you rely on for information have since been completely discredited. csloat (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)



Commoder Sloat, I did 2 reverts, the second after seeing the my post was completely deleted, which I thought was uncalled for. After which, I saw the post on the discussion page concerning the edit, and posted my entire add there. I think i made a minor post when i orignally saw the page so that may be a technicality. My post is now on the discussion page so I see no reason that this cannot be handled civilly.

There is no disinformation, I merely posted the facts of the allegations and how they came out about using Lexus Nexus. If there are different interpretations of the information that is publicly available i think that needs to be represented. If as you say:

"The two alleged defectors who you rely on for information have since been completely discredited."

I would like to see evidence of this, as it is not present in the Wikipedia page. The only discrediting of Al-Qasari was from Motherjones alleging that Al-Qasari remained in Iraq and the perosn in Turkey was an imposter. If this is what your notion of a consensus among "journalists and investigators for years" I'm afraid politics have warped your image of reality.

Numerous journalists and newspapers have done followups with Al-Qasari. An single allegation made by Motherjones does not "Debunk" the work of serious journalistic works over the years. As i stated, the sources i link to do call into things like the credibility of the INC, the doubt of the intelligence community, etc.... but they still report the facts in a nuetral and non-partisan tone. Apparently something certian editors here do not want to do. David Rose as done numerous works in the Guardian Observor and Vanity Fair magazine, is it really acceptable to remove all documentation of that from history... because MotherJones wrote a single peice challenging him?

Again, just saying something is "completely discredited." doesn't make it so, however much it might reaffirm our worldview. Cautious observors will take into account all the facts available before making a judgement, it would show hesitation to remove a peice of information from history because we disagree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chudogg (talk • contribs) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)