Quote:
Originally posted by Scred
just cos someone says it's so, and it sounds plausible, doesn't validate it.
|
I didn't say it was "validated", I said a lot of what we've been hearing from several different places meshes into a specific sort of picture. It could all be completely way off base. My original point was that word surfacing that he was wounded might have been used as fresh criticism for the military campaign, which doesn't seem to have happened.
Quote:
|
for example: dozens of al qaeda have snuck into the US in container ships, prepared to attack US targets. true or false? according to sources®, it's true.
|
I know you think your little ® is rather witty, but those sources® are some no-name internet rag. The sources® I quoted is Reuters, which is one of the most respected news reporting organizations in the country. Yes, they in turn got it from much less reliable sources.
So let me try to phrase my original point a little more clearly. Several sources -- the head of German intelligence, a general from the northern alliance who was on the ground commanding troops, and an Arab journalist who has close ties with some members of Al Qaeda -- all give information that points to the same result.
Yes, they could all be pulling it out of their asses, and especially the last one might be trying to spread misinformation, or may be unwittingly someone else's vessel for spreading misinformation. But as Maggie pointed out, OBL being wounded in the shoulder is rather plausible, given that his arm appeared to be wounded in his last cameo appearance.
So all of this paints a picture where our military might have goofed in their assessment of the situation. I'm not saying that's how it is, or even that I believe it, just that I wouldn't be surprised if some of Bush's opponents used it for criticism. And if it <I>is</I> true that we were over-reliant on air support, then we need to change our approach to further similar situations.