Quote Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus View Post
I rely on primary sources almost exclusively, mostly media, NGO's, and government. When quoting officials and describing events, would you accept my personal observations, or prefer something with more credibility?


The common objection to my 2003 & 2004 articles was that they contradicted reports in the mainstream media.


A valid criticism and one I am addressing with this series of articles. It's easy to criticize; proposing solutions is more difficult. Of course, proposing solutions is inherently more speculative -- as I move from describing events to guessing what might work in the future.


Again a valid criticism. This was raised for the first time in my previous SWC thread; since then I obtain in advance permission to post.


This was raised in the last go-around, perhaps with some validity. Here I have attempted to specifically and clearly address questions. Including yours. Have I missed any?


It's not my place to decide what is appropriate for the SWC. That's for the folks running it to decide.


Please rebut or question! That's why I am here. Or ignore me, which is also OK. So far on this thread -- all this text! -- the only question was about the uniforms worn by Kurds. To which I replied. That was a fair test on a small but perhaps telling point of fact.


Perhaps. The meaning of the term has shifted over the years. I checked current usage when writing my reply, and I think I used it in the commonplace sense. This is a minor point, however, as I think my meaning was clear -- which is the important thing.
This is what I'm talking about. I find it very irritating for someone to selectively quote and respond, which place the entire thing out of context by construct. The Emperor should be able to respond to a post and cite his arguments appropriately. This isn't the Mariah Carey Fan Club where the lambs fight back and forth and take each other's comments out of context just because they don't know how to write a proper rebuttal.