Oh, good: then we won't have to hear any more from you.
When you can give a name for your friend's source, let us know and I'll stop calling it an anonymous source. Whether your friend worked with Chalabi at some point is irrevelant, because you yourself stated in Post 20, "It wasn't his team but two others that worked with Chalabi that said he was not to be trusted", so by your own account your friend was not a witness to what you are claiming he heard from others and transmitted to you. Citing Burns and Wurst as sources for your hearsay is fallacious: Burns and Wurst are sources for what Burns and Wurst state, not for what you state your friend told you. I asked you questions about Burns and Wurst--which you misconvey as statements, apparently because you are so desperate for a counterargument to distract from the exposure of your posts as hearsay--because unlike you I check the background of sources making controversial statements, and I am aware that there was a journalist named John Burns covering US military activity in Iraq during the time frame you mention who opposed Chalabi's contact with the New York Times, which you would know if you were as informed as you claim to be. Your misinformation on Chalabi and Iran is outdated, as you would also know if you were as informed as you claim to be. For someone who claims to work in security, you sure blab a lot about what you pretend is privately-shared information--I guess your security training doesn't include learning the basic concept of "need to know". Finally, no one who makes as many spelling and grammatical errors as you do and types something as silly as "weirdly suggest" every other sentence should call anyone else dumb.
Ahh - now the child is finally starting to "get it" - as to why nothing more than "snake" or "untrustworthy" and the lack of specific names within the exact Team of my friend has been given out by me -
Yet it was you who was foolishly asking for "more details" to what exactly was said about Mr. Chalabi on an open forum.
It was you who foolishly suggested calling someone a "snake" wasn't descriptive enough (and who knows what could have been meant by that) -
You are learning child but you are still completely on the wrong side of history when it comes to Mr. Chalabi.
Again, Mr. Chalabi gave purposely vetted info to Iran (the info was false but was vetted through Mr. Chalabi to see where it would end up) - But no, you are righ, the US Military is wrong, those SOF who worked with Mr. Chalabi are wrong.....And you are correct.
Come on, go google some more names for us - That is just so funny and dumb I have to see you do it again. Can't you google Mr. Chalabi's name and try and convince us you have really been talking about a whole different Chalabi this whole time.