you said "I asked you before ..."
But I did not see that as I don't stay here all night... so I did not see this earlier post of yours. Sorry.
As for DEBKA, I have zero idea who or what it is you are referring to... only that it was pulled. NOT an issue with me, I just did not understand WHAT was being referred to in earlier comments by other posters.
I have NO dog in this fight regarding debka. Only a sense of surprise of an alleged source being erased due to guidelines that I have not yet seen.
Are there a list of "questionable sources" that we all can be careful to avoid??? Welcome to post me through email if there is something I don't know... Peace out.
What level of proof is required? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? Reasonably prudent man? Reasonable suspicion?
The thread I posted certainly passes the lowest two levels just on its internal contents. Sources such as books about the geopolitics of the Gulf War and general histories about Saud Arabia and the House of Saud (The Kingdom is a good one) indicate that Saudi Arabia is less a nation than a family-run corporation. Such spats described in my post are common, and in the past have been violent. Nor, despite the common belief in this country, was the Saudi decision to admit U.S. forces in 1990 a foregone conclusion. There was a deep and bitter arguement at the time, which according to many books written (including that of Powell and the Saudi Prince Bandar) was settled only by King Fahd's intervention.
Or are we to hold DEBKA to a different standard because of who they are and because they have somehow got wrapped around the axle of the Administrators. That FreeRepublic will allow postings from tinfoil hat conspiracy sites, or such notably accurate and admired publications and organizations like the tabloid whose wacky thread on C&W music was allowed to stand, DU, etc, but not DEBKA?
Beyond that, the idea of pulling threads because of the source is Clintonesque. I can see Joe Lockhart standing in front of the Presidential Press Corps refusing to answer questions that had their origins in a report by one Matt Drudge. Additionally, it makes it easier for outsiders to disregard information and activities of Freepers, because all they have to do is hold themselves to the same standards as FreeRepublic. (Well, after all, it is from FreeRepublic. We know what those people are like.)
Still it is said that one danger of a war is that you tend to become your enemies, if not careful. So I am really not surprised.
Again, the thread I posted lacked military content, and was reasonable in the context of the nation with which we were dealing. If we are going to hold to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, it would be impossible to post any thread involving the internals of a government's decisions until after the war was over, and the memoirs are written. Since this article involved a family dispute, the family puts a united face once the decision is made -- even if it is later reversed (and this could have been) and then they put on a united face that they never held the first position.
And no, I will not post any more threads originating from DEBKA, until they are pulled from the purdah list.
How about http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3badda6953d4.htm?
Seems to confirm that the DEBKA info on the use of bases passes the Reasonably Prudent Person criteria for proof, and is pretty close to the Preponderance of the Evidence criteria.