posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 12:48 AM
Other than word usage variations, the articles are virtually saying the same thing. Again, please elaborate on what you are implying?
I wasn't implying anything. The thread is posted like truth, but the original article has no interviews--no quotes, not even from the un-named
sources. The Washington Times gives it cred. when its from an obscure independant website. The reporter doesn't even cite the name of the
intelligence agencies that they got the info from. I did a google and the only source of this information is the the article posted on the Mid East
News Line website. I was looking for much more than that. If this is true there should be more info on it. This un-named sources crap is getting
out of hand.
are you saying they made up the story saphronia?
...well since we already know that weapons are being smuggled....
I'm not saying that the reporter is lying. I'm saying that there is no way to tell. The article is vauge and doesn't give much info besides that
some agency somewhere in the west has info of WMD being smuggled by Syria into the Sudan. If this is true then, my goodness, praise Jesus! They
found the WMD from Iraq. Why isn't everyone following this story? And why is the leak going to some un-named reporter at some obscure website?
Info like this is for sale right? Seems they would have sold it and got a larger audience and more buzz which leads to more info. And why would the
reporter even write an article with such half-ass info to begin with?
Valhall: I kinda already said my piece on that thread. The link wasn't about WMD from Syria to Sudan. Its about the ills of being a minority in
living under a dictorship--no doubt--there's need for some democracy over there but we shouldn't pay for it unless there's real proof that the guys
have the WMD and it threatens the US. I haven't seen any proof, so I'm still asking questions. Maybe it's all true...this article isn't proof
of that though.