BBC now admits al qaeda never existed

With reference to mmiichael link to campus watch.org:

According to the Campus Watch web site, "Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students.

Daniel Pipes and CW favor the U.S. Congress passing legislation mandating university Middle East departments to adhere to "standards" when receiving Federal funding. The unfortunate consequence of the legislation is to censor academics and to prohibit a stance critical of the U.S. and Israel.

Daniel Pipes and CW favor the U.S. Congress passing legislation mandating university Middle East departments to adhere to "standards" when receiving Federal funding. The unfortunate consequence of the legislation is to censor academics and to prohibit a stance critical of the U.S. and Israel.

Winfield Myers, Campus Watch Director

Related Organizations

Comment: Prof. Beinin finds that these organizations work for the same aims, and some of the principals overlap in several of these organizations.

* ADL
* AVOT
* AIPAC
* American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA)

www.sourcewatch.org...

The link is to a pro-Israeli and anti free speech organisation in favour of censuring universities critical of Israel. Their inclusion the US in their mission is merely a fig leaf. This same group and associated organisations are currently attacking Obama's policy against Israeli take over of Palestinian property and land.

[edit on 083131p://pm3133 by masonwatcher]

Just to point out:

May 30, 1993: ’Al-Qaeda’ First Mentioned in International Media

The term “al-Qaeda” is first mentioned in the international media. An article by the French wire service Agence France-Presse on this day entitled “Jordanian Militants Train in Afghanistan to Confront Regime” uses the term, although it is spelled “Al-Ka’ida.” The article quotes a Jordanian militant who says he has been “trained by Al-Ka’ida, a secret organization in Afghanistan that is financed by a wealthy Saudi businessman who owns a construction firm in Jeddah, Ossama ibn Laden.” (The spelling is the same in the original.) [Wright, 2006, pp. 410] The term will not be mentioned in the US until August 1996 (see August 14, 1996).

Points to look into on this:

"An article by the French wire service Agence France-Presse"

This Press is associated with here:
library.dialog.com...

Fun part is they have a cached indexing on google for newsbusters.org but its url was taken down.

the other piece to look into is their acclaimed Document:

"Jordanian Militants Train in Afghanistan to Confront Regime" May 30, 1993

Though have yet to find a positive source they made this article atm.

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Libel laws prevent falsehoods being said of individuals who have the resources to defend themselves. It also stops pro-Israelis from maligning in this particular matter and I think this is good.

Of course these journalist and writers can publish and be damned and allow the courts to establish the truth. I am sure their publishers would be happy to foot the bill.

Describing UK libel laws as archaic is your description and has no basis in reality. The UK is a modern and developed country.

Of course in your frighteningly narrow world everything is referenced to Israel.

The US instituted First Amendment rights as a cornerstone of American democracy.

I knew a number of barristers and solicitors, when I lived in England, who voiced the opinion that certain archaic statues in British Common Law were impediments to justice .

An author or a publisher, who make at best a few thousand pounds with a non-fiction book, often cannot afford even the preliminary legal costs of a major lawsuit against them claiming libel. Even if what they have said in print is justified and can be proven. So important information that should be reaching the public is squashed by legalities in Britain. And attempts are then made to extend default judgements to other national jurisdicitions.

In "Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed" the American author, Dr Rachel Ehrenfeld, identified Saudi royal family banker Khalid bin Mahfouz, as a leading terrorism financier. Bin Mahfouz responded by suing Ehrenfeld not in the US, but in England, which is so much friendlier to libel claims.

Absurdly the lawsuit stated there was British jurisdiction because 23 copies of the book had entered England through on-line sales. This was overturned in the US.

Bin Mahfouz and his ilk have successfully exploited weaknesses in the British legal system that deny justice and freedom of speech.

There's some very ugly stuff being covered up here. I think anyone capable of reading between the lines can figure out what this is all about.


Mike








[edit on 9-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael

Bin Mahfouz and his ilk have successfully exploited weaknesses in the British legal system that deny justice and freedom of speech.

Still remains that if he is guilty, the authorities will deal with him. Everything else is trash talk.

reply to post by mmiichael


double click

[edit on 093131p://pm3123 by masonwatcher]

Originally posted by masonwatcher
reply to post by mmiichael

 

Bin Mahfouz and his ilk have successfully exploited weaknesses in the British legal system that deny justice and freedom of speech.

Still remains that if he is guilty, the authorities will deal with him. Everything else is trash talk.

Well we were doing so well in agreeing for a little while anyway.You know that the Saudi government would never let him stand trial anywhere.Hes in control of there financial system and I'm sure has some damning evidence against the royal family. So just don't say if he did this they would arrest him you know thats not true! The Saudi Govt has a vested interest in spreading wahabism throughout the world and will finance terrorists if they think it will help them complete there goal.

As far as Israel I'm not really seeing your point as to why you keep inferring back to them breath let the hatred go. Israel has done alot wrong but they are not the root of all evil in the world.Most Israelis at this point would just like to be left alone. Unfortunately certain people in there government see conspiracies every where.Though i cant say i blame them it would suck being surrounded by countries that want to kill you.And the reality is the reason they want to kill you is nothing more than beliefs and cultural differences.The arab governments believes no one but arabs should be in the middle east and as such developed a hatred towards the jews. In truth many arabs in the middle east dont have this hatred but they arent the ones in charge either however it does give hope that maybe someday they will learn to get along.

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Ahh of course .lol. that one went right over my head

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
reply to post by GoldenFleece

 

Ahh of course .lol. that one went right over my head

Don't feel bad i almost commented as well rereading the post before i hit reply i got it!

reply to post by dragonridr


Clearly you pretend to sit on the fence and every so politely get out of your way to correct me. Israel was only mentioned when mmiichael used campuswatch.org as a reference.

campuswatch.org is a zionist sponsored pro-Israeli organisation tasked with dictating and censoring US academics aiming to teach Middle Eastern history, politics and culture. The enforcers are pro-Israeli students that record lectures surreptitiously and forward issues they take exception to to campuswatch.org who in turn distribute the details to various zionist organisations such as the Mideast Forum.

Here is link to the growing list of academics and their supporters being targeted by zionists in the US;

www.campus-watch.org...

So my points are pertinent in highlighting the disreputable sources produced by mmiichael,

As for your allegation that I hate Israel really has no relevance to the accuracy of my statements and is a trigger word meant to signal ill repute by zionists. You are a zionist, aren't you what with the pretending to be an honest broker but always siding with obnoxious zionist claims in the nicest possible way.

[edit on 013131p://pm3140 by masonwatcher]

Originally posted by masonwatcher
Israel was only mentioned when mmiichael used campuswatch.org as a reference.

campuswatch.org is a zionist sponsored pro-Israeli organisation tasked with dictating and censoring US academics aiming to teach Middle Eastern history, politics and culture. The enforcers are pro-Israeli students that record lectures surreptitiously and forward issues they take exception to to campuswatch.org who in turn distribute the details to various zionist organisations such as the Mideast Forum.

So my points are pertinent in highlight the disreputable sources produced ny mmiichael,

This is total malarkey or maybe lunacy is a better word. The campuswatch site did not even write the piece. They just carried and linked to a New York Times Book Review article

www.nytimes.com...

The article reports on the British 'Libel Tourism' and Khalid bin Mahfouz's legal contestations of works about terrorism funding in which he is invariably mentioned. It became a matter or worldwide outrage when Cambridge University Press, maybe the oldest publishers in the world, was forced to destroy all unsold copies of their book "Alms for Jihad" by American authors Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr in response to a libel action brought against them in British courts.

The same story has been covered online and in print in hundreds of places and many countries. It is significant news on the censorship and the suppression of information.

To dismiss something because a news report happened to also appear on what you consider a Zionist sympathetic site is the height of ignorance and absurdity. As absurd and simple-minded as believing any criticism of actions by any Muslims anywhere is automatically part of a disinformation campaign emanating from Israel.



Mike


[edit on 10-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Regarding your NYTimes link, this what it says:

But in recent weeks the book has become an international cause célèbre, after Cambridge University Press agreed to pulp all unsoldcopies in a defamation settlement.

There you have it. It was not an international cause célèbre. Cambridge University Press pulped the libellous book because the authors could not substantiate the claims in their book against Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. They just wrote it for effect and thought they could get away with it. The book was part of the flood of articles, books and stories slandering and dehumining Muslims and it proven to be a fabrication.

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz......sued the publisher over the book’s depiction of his family as financiers of terrorism. In English libel law, the burden of proof falls on the defendant, and bin Mahfouz had won judgments in several other cases.

Rather than challenging the accusations, the press agreed in August to destroy the remaining 2,300 warehoused copies of the book. It also paid bin Mahfouz an undisclosed sum for damages and legal fees, issued a written apology and, to the anger of librarians, asked libraries that refused to insert an errata slip to remove the book from their shelves.

There you have it. The terms of the settlement was comprehensive.

The book itself, Alms for Jihad, is founded on the thesis that the Islamic obligation of tithing, a must for Muslims, is a means of financing terrorism. The authors allege that charitable giving by Muslims is terroristic and at the heart of is bin Mahfouz. They could prove their claims yet zionist like you attack English common law as being at fault.

Irony of ironies.

Originally posted by masonwatcher

Cambridge University Press pulped the libellous book because the authors could not substantiate the claims in their book against Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz. They just wrote it for effect and thought they could get away with it. The book was part of the flood of articles, books and stories slandering and dehumining Muslims and it proven to be a fabrication.

Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz......sued the publisher over the book’s depiction of his family as financiers of terrorism. In English libel law, the burden of proof falls on the defendant, and bin Mahfouz had won judgments in several other cases.

Rather than challenging the accusations, the press agreed in August to destroy the remaining 2,300 warehoused copies of the book. It also paid bin Mahfouz an undisclosed sum for damages and legal fees, issued a written apology and, to the anger of librarians, asked libraries that refused to insert an errata slip to remove the book from their shelves.

There you have it. The terms of the settlement was comprehensive.

The book itself, Alms for Jihad, is founded on the thesis that the Islamic obligation of tithing, a must for Muslims, is a means of financing terrorism. The authors allege that charitable giving by Muslims is terroristic and at the heart of is bin Mahfouz. They could prove their claims yet zionist like you attack English common law as being at fault.

This is of course has nothing to do with Zionists. This of course has nothing to do with attacking British Common Law. This of course has nothing to do with questioning Islamic tithing. Except in your head.

This has everything to do with the wealthy and their ability to suppress compromising information through legal channels by intimidating publishers. The book was not proven libellous. The Cambridge Press rather than challenge the accusations agreed to dictated outrageous terms including the unheardof requesting copies back from libraries. This is Stalinism.

The American authors stand by the research and conclusions and have reclaimed copyright on the book. American libraries refuse to comply with the request to remove copies from their shelves.

Bin Mahfouz has the financial clout to keep off shelves books and articles he dislikes as he’s reportedly done 36 times in the last 7 years. Despite his attempted circumventions of direct responsibility for the actions of organizations he finances there is little doubt of his complicity and centrality to terrorist funding.

An interesting commentary on this case here

bsimmons.wordpress.com...

the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of “Alms for Jihad” and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:

“Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.

“As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false.”

Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he’s a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.

I’m not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it’s considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.

As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his “family, businesses and charities” are “entirely and manifestly false,” the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank’s funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz’s lawyer has said: “Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them.” Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or “Blessed Relief”) Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.

In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as “an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen” and its chairman as a “specially designated global terrorist.” As the Treasury concluded, “Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief.”

Indeed, this “charity” seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he’s called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.

So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?

Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call “libel chill” is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He’s one of the richest men on the planet, and they’re an academic publisher with very small profit margins.

Mike



[edit on 10-8-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by masonwatcher


Oh now I'm a Zionist wow you sure brand people quickly don't you. In actuality could care less what happens to Israel I'm assuming your talking about a Zionist being one who defends Israeli nationalism and not the derogatory term with racist overtones. Either way You make it very clear to people that you have a deep ceded hatred of Israel. You may have reasons you believe this valid but it does cloud your judgment.Things which are propaganda you readily believe as long as it makes Israel look bad. Ill tell you I'm a history major and the one thing i hate the most is when people try to rewrite history. The reason is if you tell a lie long enough people begin to believe you.

Ill go as far as agreeing Israel is at fault for the Palestinian crises but I'm not going to let Hamas off the hook either and for that matter neither should you.If you feel you need to support the Palestinians thats great but When people see hatred they tend to not take your message seriously.

Hamas was created by Mossad to help split the religious opposition to Israel from the more Marxist, political opposition represented by the PLO.


'Zionist' is not a racist term - what's the race being referred to?

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Hamas was created by Mossad to help split the religious opposition to Israel from the more Marxist, political opposition represented by the PLO.

Based on a ton of documentation and testimony, Hamas was created in 1987 as a Palestinian offshoot of of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Today's Hamas leadership seems to have a very different opinion of events from yours. One would expect them to know who they are and where they came.


M

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Hamas was created by Mossad to help split the religious opposition to Israel from the more Marxist, political opposition represented by the PLO.

Based on a ton of documentation and testimony, Hamas was created in 1987 as a Palestinian offshoot of of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Today's Hamas leadership seems to have a very different opinion of events from yours. One would expect them to know who they are and where they came.


M

You would expect them to know that, I wouldn't. Such movements have often been the unwitting creations or manipulations of intelligence services.

Care to cite some of this documentation and testimony?

Originally posted by Vinciguerra

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Vinciguerra
Hamas was created by Mossad to help split the religious opposition to Israel from the more Marxist, political opposition represented by the PLO.

Based on a ton of documentation and testimony, Hamas was created in 1987 as a Palestinian offshoot of of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

Today's Hamas leadership seems to have a very different opinion of events from yours. One would expect them to know who they are and where they came.


M

You would expect them to know that, I wouldn't. Such movements have often been the unwitting creations or manipulations of intelligence services.

Care to cite some of this documentation and testimony?

Of course the US as well as the Russians, British, French, Saudis, Egypt, and affiliated Sunni regimes, have financed and outright sponsored nascent terrorist organizations at different points. Naiver so-called researchers label this as 'creating'. The deeper the look the more complex origins become.

I don't have this at my fingertip, but expect there is much online about Hamas evolution. Just be wary of disinformation sites and conspiracy sources who by default blame the US for everything on the planet.

There are more in depth examinations, but I go to History Commons

www.historycommons.org...

for quick summaries. As an open source forum, their information is usually better cited and less tainted by agendas.

Mike

reply to post by mmiichael


the accusation that Hamas was created by Israeli intelligence has become so commonplace that it often requires no serious substantiation. While the claim, as it stands, is erroneous, there is certainly a reason and history behind it.

It is true that for years, Palestinians have suffered poverty, hunger and humiliation under the Israeli occupation. And while the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) has played a major role in representing and speaking on behalf of the Palestinian people abroad, its role in the occupied territories has been, at best, lacking. Now this left a void which Hamas was happy to fill.

Hamas trying to create an Islamic movement in Gaza strategized an effort that would require a strong and well-established foundation. Initially, the movement refuted the notion of armed-struggle and was often criticized and ridiculed by secular liberation movements for masking their weak nature as "pacifism". The truth is, the Islamic movement in Gaza didn't disregard armed struggle in and of itself; it felt that this nation of mostly refugees was in a vulnerable state and would need years of preparation before they could actually become a force to be reckoned with. For this reason, they invested decades to strengthening social bonds in Gazan society, by building mosques, childcare centers, hospitals, schools and so forth.


In 1973, the Islamic Center was established in Gaza, the actual body that served as the heart of all the movement's activities. It was widely understood that the center was an extension of the Egypt-influenced Muslim Brotherhood of the past. Israel purposely did little to halt the establishment of the organization, as it also did little to assist in its growth.

Israel's curious attitude could be explained as part of its policy of reward and punishment. Since the Islamists had - at that particular time - renounced armed struggle, and were providing services, which spared the Israeli budget many millions, there seemed little need to discontinue what at the time may have seemed innocuous activities.

So it was that "Hamas" finally made its official appearance in 1987, taking the transformation of the Islamic movement in Gaza one step further, with the birth of the first Palestinian Intifada. Nearly two decades later, Hamas enjoyed a landslide victory in Palestinian elections, another testimony to its phased and calculated growth.

So in truth if you consider not stoping them creating them than yes your right.

Originally posted by dragonridr
"Hamas" finally made its official appearance in 1987, taking the transformation of the Islamic movement in Gaza one step further, with the birth of the first Palestinian Intifada. Nearly two decades later, Hamas enjoyed a landslide victory in Palestinian elections, another testimony to its phased and calculated growth.

My understanding of Hamas is that they bloomed as a natural reaction to the increasingly corrupted PLO and Fatah. Palestinians became aware of being 'jerked around' by the needs and agenda of Yasser Arafat and his cronies. Offers of settlement with Israel were turned down in favour of escalating the confrontation. Some of this came at the advice of the Arab League, much of it happened as the realization for Arafat sunk in that being at constant war meant continued and increasing funds from European sources and elsewhere. Being at the head of a Palestinian freedom fighting regime became a better business model prospect than running an independent impoverished state.

Hamas now may be presented with this same conundrum. Being on the defensive means more support from Iran and elsewhere. Hamas has an image and a revenue base to maintain. Struggle and the continual suffering of Palestinians is what drives the economic and political engine.

How sincere Hamas is today is a good question. They are the more sympathetic alternative to the Western, Arab League and Israeli propped up Fatah. But there are also serious rifts between those in Gaza and the distanced administration in Syria. A lot of parties vying for control of the Palestinian money machine.

Cynically I see the Palestinian people used as pawns by too many factions. Israel will take advantage of their internal conflicts as much as much as anyone. But the Muslim World tries to keep them as a showcase of their struggle rather than actually help them find solutions. Their homelessness could have been resolved with the stroke of a pen.

Hamas is now caught in an internal struggle between ideology and present day practicality. Whatever their origins may have been, they are in a very different situation today, with difficult choices to make.


Mike


[edit on 12-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Of course the US as well as the Russians, British, French, Saudis, Egypt, and affiliated Sunni regimes, have financed and outright sponsored nascent terrorist organizations at different points. Naiver so-called researchers label this as 'creating'. The deeper the look the more complex origins become.

Do you know what it's like to have your shin bone rammed up your arse?

If you don't want to find out, I suggest you do not call me naive. I appreciate the difference between infiltrating and manipulating an existing group (as happened to the Red Brigades) and creating one as a parallel structure for covert operations (as with Ordine Nuovo).

I don't have this at my fingertip, but expect there is much online about Hamas evolution. Just be wary of disinformation sites and conspiracy sources who by default blame the US for everything on the planet.

Thanks for the patronising, hackneyed advice there M&M, though I was actually blaming Mossad, who aren't the US, for one specific thing, not everything on the planet.

There are more in depth examinations, but I go to History Commons

www.historycommons.org...

for quick summaries. As an open source forum, their information is usually better cited and less tainted by agendas.

Mike

This is #ing ridiculous Mike. I ask you to cite some of this evidence and testimony, and you link me to a general page on historycommons which doesn't relate specifically to what we're discussing. Yet you seek to patronise and lecture me about naivety and research.

Even more ridiculous is that if you look up the creation of Hamas on historycommons you get the following:

1987: Hamas Forms with the Support of Israeli Intelligence

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin forms Hamas as the military arm of his Islamic Association, which had been licensed by Israel ten years earlier (see 1973-1978). According to Charles Freeman, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, “Israel started Hamas. It was a project of Shin Bet, which had a feeling that they could use it to hem in the PLO.” [CounterPunch, 1/18/2003; Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 191, 208] Anthony Cordesman, a Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies, states that Israel “aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO.” A former senior CIA official speaking to UPI describes Israel’s support for Hamas as “a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative.” Further, according to an unnamed US government official, “the thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the other groups, if they gained control, would refuse to have anything to do with the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place.” Larry Johnson, a counterterrorism official at the State Department, states: “The Israelis are their own worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism. They are like a guy who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it.” [United Press International, 2/24/2001 Sources: Larry C. Johnson, Unnamed former CIA official]

www.historycommons.org...

Your own source of information backs up my position rather than yours. If you have an ounce of sense or self-respect you'd apologise for your patronising remarks and your bull# opinions and for citing a source which contradicts your position. You've assumed I'm just another conspiracy theorist. This is a tremendous mistake on your part. Almost as bad as citing a source which contradicts your position.

Now, apologise or face my mother#ing wrath.