When most people post a link without comment it is usually believed (by those who see the good in others) to be information. As for those who see posted links as propaganda or otherwise they have themselves to blame for misinterpreting the motivation of another. (Most still hold, very dear, the saying: "Innocent until proven guilty")

Perhaps we should read the topic and argue the points in place of criticizing a person who had nothing to do with what was written. Please bring good arguments to be discussed. There may be some credibility to at least some of the article / propaganda. No one has argued that security was not compromised (Would you please spare me the pain of having to type a defense for myself in the future) I am not motivated by propaganda machines. Most objective readers read between the lines and deduct the obvious (a good detective never passes up on any evidence!)


As ever humble
Forever peace

Jisbond

• When something is obviously propaganda - yanniru - September 27, 2001 - 13:18 UTC
  • conclusion - jisbond - September 28, 2001 - 04:25 UTC
    • On your back always - yanniru - September 28, 2001 - 13:13 UTC
      • learn how to grow up please. - jisbond - September 29, 2001 - 00:11 UTC
        • I listed the most important point- - yanniru - October 1, 2001 - 16:06 UTC
          • I replied to this - jisbond - October 6, 2001 - 03:21 UTC
            • No - yanniru - October 11, 2001 - 14:16 UTC
• Jisbond, by promoting the vision of hate... - richard - September 27, 2001 - 21:23 UTC
  • not interested - jisbond - September 28, 2001 - 04:33 UTC
    • Well sure. That's why I only watch - richard - September 28, 2001 - 12:17 UTC
      • Propaganda is advertisement - jisbond - September 29, 2001 - 00:37 UTC
        • Jisbond, what's with your "crusade"? - richard - September 29, 2001 - 00:48 UTC
          • Now we have two sides. - jisbond - September 29, 2001 - 01:11 UTC