Quote:
Originally posted by Tobiasly
In hindsight of 9/11, there were a bunch of "non-facts" that might have tipped us off as to what was going to happen.
|
All the stuff I've heard cited along those lines were facts--actual intelligence take--rather than non-facts. There's a difference between intel and rumors, and I'm sure as a military guy you appreciate that.
Quote:
...my point is that just because something isn't proven and verified and coming out of the the president's or some general's mouth doesn't mean it's <I>not</I> true.
|
But this is a Arab journalist quoting an unnamed source. How much credibility is that worth?
Just because plausible detail is attached doesn't make it in the least more credible, because festooning your story with plausible detail is one of the first lessons when constructing disinformation. Just like those urban legends where the business traveller wakes up in an ice-filled bathtub minus a kidney, sprinkling a lie with known truths causes some of their credibility to rub off on the lie inside.
Quote:
During the Tora Bora battle, there were several officers from the northern alliance stating the same thing -- that lots of al Qaeda got away because we didn't have enough troops on the ground. Is that a "non-fact", or is that A Reliable Source?
|
It sounds like what you'd expect to hear from a soldier who was frustrated that some of the enemy he was sent to kill got away.