Originally posted by Gunthr
some specific, quantifiable evidence to support your conclusion, whatever it may have been.
Well, let's decompose the nonsense, shall we?
The following interview was conducted by a reporter for the Al-Jazeera network with the third-in-command of the Al Queda organization, Mr. Mohammed Al-Asuquf.
A reporter? Who? An interview? When? Where? Isn't Al-Jazeera a television network? Why then does this piece keep referring to the interview as if it was
written in Arabic? Was it transcribed? Where's the original video tape?
Al-Asuquf's background is impressive; a doctorate in physics and masters in international economics.
From where?
In the interview, he talks of Al Queda's plans with total detachment, with deep knowledge and an unshakeable commitment to his cause.
Riiiiiiiiiight. So basically a printed interview relays all of this for us.
This interview was sent to Abel-Bari Atwan, chief editor of Al Quds, an Arabic-language newspaper published in London, but was never printed, due to its highly revealing inflammatory?] contents.
And the name dropping continues for legitmacy's sake. So the interview was not recorded then? Oh, and roadkill on the too inflammatory thing.
A copy of the interview came to Foz-do-Iguacu, and was translated into Portuguese by a university professor in the city's Arab community. This is probably the only existing version of this interview not in Arabic.
And yet here's the interview in English. Cool! Wait, doesn't that mean there must be more versions that aren't in Arabic? Hm. Oh, well maybe we can ask the professor. What was his name again? What university? Oh, well.
The whole account is so gaping with holes that it screams roadkill.
-- Todd/Leviathn
