536
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + + +
9-11 Report
:::A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept ''all'' of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:::A) yes but this may not be the place to do it. B) Definitely. I propose we use the 9/11 Report cited as this basis for this page. That document is more/less the definitve open source account up to that time. It is very interesting reading, and ambiguos in points. We should not accept ''all'' of it as doctrinaire, but serious students could learn much from a reading of that document about government secrecy, classifications, how to read reports of this nature, and when to investigate further. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
== 9-11 Report ==
Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)