Posted on 01/03/2005 11:00:20 AM PST by I Gig Gar
STOP PRESS: Abu Musab al-Zarqawi captured by US forces in Iraq
3.1.05
12.00 GMT. IDAO exclusive. According to IDAO's own sources in Baghdad and Sulaimanya, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been arrested in Bagouba by US forces.
The US occupation forces will cite this arrest as a victory for their war on terrorism. The people of Falluja in their demonstrations demanding US withdrawal of the last few days,which has topped 30,000 people according to news agency reports, have raised slogans distancing themselves from the Zarqwai group. The people of Falluja have repeatedly accused US forces of using Zarqawi as a pretext to demolish a city of 300,000 in an attempt to quell its resistance to the occupation. Many in the Iraqi resistance have expressed opposition to Zarqwi's methods in the past, who is regarded as a small force in the anti-occupation movement.
I have a variety of techniques I use in determining whether or not a statement I read is likely to be true or false.
Please enlighten me.
-good times, G.J.P.(Jr.)
Actually I tried, and thought I had because before posting it, I did a search for it, then I clicked on the "Breaking News" catagory and then clicked on "News and Activism" where it makes you pick a catagory ("Breaking News" is not in there), and then posted.
So yes...I was "Brave enough", as you put it. But, this place is like a house of mirrors and I have no idea why it didn't work or how to do it properly in the future since that didn't work.
Comstock would probably have been a big fan of the burkha.
Give this guy a break please! He never said it was true, didn't post it in "breaking News", and thought we may find it interesting. It was sourced, and though the source isn't the most reliable, I for one hold out a slim hope that the rumour is true. Granted he should have posted it as a rumour. He meant no harm, stop beatin up on him. I'm sure he got your point.
It was only a suggestion. Lighten up.
Actually, he said he did post it in breaking news, but apparently admin removed.
No.
I said I tried but it didn't post here. I have no idea why not, nor do I know where it is posted.
Anything else I can help you with?
I'm not going to tell you what you should read,
That’s exactly what you were attempting to do when you told the person who posted this, “You should wait until it hits Reuters or the AP first next time.”
If you don’t want to read things that haven’t been verified by Reuters or AP, don’t. But don’t tell other people not to post articles from outside that sphere. Many of us are interested.
I have a variety of techniques I use in determining whether or not a statement I read is likely to be true or false.
Please enlighten me.
Good Lord, you really are at a “Reading News 101” level!
Well, for starters, try to use knowledge previously gained and evaluated as reliable to begin to gauge the reliability of new information.
Also, consider the source of the information. They could be a dubious source that has previously shown themselves to be unreliable or biased (like Reuters or the AP) or they could be a new source that you are not familiar with (like IDAO).
If the source is not one you trust for one of these reasons, try to find other sources that confirm the new information. If you are able to find a variety of sources that confirm the information, it is likely (but not assured) that the information is correct.
There are more subtle techniques that you can employ later (like clues in the terminology used that point towards an unstated agenda, for example), but try the simple ones first to get started.
Good luck to you!
This is not true until Brit Hume says it is.
I saw that he said he attempted to post it there. He posted that comment while I was typing mine. Still, my point remains. He meant no harm. The idea of the guy being captured excites me! He didn't write the story or make it up, he sourced it and left it up to us on whether we found it credible or not.
Wish it were true.
Hope this is true, probably not unfortunately.
The fact that it has not been picked up by news sources does not necessarily make it untrue. It would be good strategy to not make this public for a while to increase the probability of other arrests.
Well, Brit or m1-lightning.
Hey thanks man. It's not that big of a deal...Kind of funny, really. Or at least I'm having fun with it.
The freepers can be brutal sometimes, but they mean well.
I understand that this story requires verification.
Yes, there are some morons who wont wait for a second source. But then again, there are some morons who voted for John Kerry, and there are many morons who wasted their money on Micheal Moores propoganda flick.
So dont take it personal, and IMO this is a good post. Who knows it coulb be a 'You Heard It Here First' situation.
"The fact that it has not been picked up by news sources does not necessarily make it untrue."
I agree with this statement, but it does make it unlikely. However, it has been stated that we have to win the information war. If it is true, perhaps we are keeping it secret so we can do some true interrigation done.
Thanks! I don't take it personal, especially since I really didn't do anything wrong. I followed the FR rules...And knew it (I may not understand how this place works, but I can read the rules).
But I do like poking people with sticks if they are intent on being poked.
;-)
What source would pick this up first if it were true? Reuters? Fox? Al Jazeera?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.