User talk:65.208.144.67

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop vandalizing the Salman Pak page.--csloat 18:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stop the fucking vandalism please

No, really, stop vandalizing the page. Thanks.

Why do you keep vandalizing that page? If you have something to say about it please use the talk page. Otherwise your edits are pure vandalism.--csloat 19:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame that you consider the truth to be vandalism. The views of the Columbia Journalism Review are the views of the Columbia Journalism Review. Hoping that they are the "Consensus" view, and labeling them as the "Consensus View" does not change reality.

Please stop trying to push your liberal views as being the consensus.

Those are not the views of the CJR but the views of the consensus as spelled out by Douglas MacCollam. The quote is already properly attributed to Douglas MacCollam as per Wikipedia guidelines. The quote specifically says that is the "consensus view." So please do not accuse me of labeling them that way. This is also confirmed by the SSCI, which concluded that no evidence of al Qaeda activity at Salman Pak has been found since the US invasion. So please stop trying to impose your illusions on Wikipedia -- your first edits simply deleted the quote and turned it into its opposite, which is pure vandalism. Please stop it. Thanks, and have a nice day.--csloat 01:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL - the consensus as spelled out by Douglas MacCollam? So who made him the expert? What data does he have backing up his opinion as the "consensus" view? What about all the hard evidence that proves the consensus that he wishes existed is false?

Wikipedia is meant to be a source of truth. Please stop spreading your propaganda. It is well known that Saddam Hussein openly supported numerous terrorist groups. Also, prior to your last post, no one mentioned al Qaeda.

It doesn't matter whether you think he is an expert. It is the truth that he made that claim, and it is the truth that nobody has published a denial of that claim. There is no "hard evidence" of any consensus saying anything other than that. Please stop attacking me; this is not "propaganda." The mention of al Qaeda is clear in the article, but my apologies if that was not your claim. In any case, MacCollam's opinion is clearly sourced as his opinion; if you have evidence of someone else who holds the opinion that the consensus view is something different, please indicate what that evidence is. Thanks.--csloat 08:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


Words are powerful things. Misused words can create false impressions. When you call something a "consensus view" because one liberal journalist for the Columbia Journalism Review falsely referred to it as a consensus, you are using propaganda to shape opnion.

The authoritative source on not Douglas MacCollam. It is the Iraq Survey Group. Charles Duelfer has said that Islamo fascists were trained at Salman Pak.

Furthermore, labeling a section of an article as the "consensus view" just because you like what it says is reprehensible. It will make the uneducated reader think that it truly is a consensus, not what one person has described as a consensus.

How would you feel if I changed the heading over "Weekly Standard View" to "Terrorist training confirmed"? (If you look at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp, you will find the word "confirmed" use in reference to terrorist training camps)

And it is a well established fact that Saddam Hussein did in fact support numerous terrorist groups. He did so in a very open manner. (Which is all part of the reason he is sitting in a jail cell right now)

Please stop spreading your lies and propaganda.

Please look up the word "consensus". And please stop your personal attacks. The "consensus" means that is what most people think; MacCollum's statement has not been refuted by anyone. And the quote is properly attributed to MacCollum, so there is no risk of a reader thinking it is anything but MacCollum's words. Your claims about Saddam and terrorism are not relevant to the consensus view of Salman pak - this article is not about money given to suicide bombers. As for the Weekly Standard, that entire section can be cut out of the article without problem; it is clearly a fringe view and it has been clearly refuted by the Senate Committee. Duelfer has not confirmed anything; he simply stated that he didn't believe the official Iraqi explanation. That is certainly reasonable, but it is not confirmation of anything.--csloat 17:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Salman Pak facility

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. Naconkantari 17:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)