Talk:Internally distributed DHS memo: al-Qaeda and Hezbollah may attack U.S. within three years

OR
Researched to write from official government document. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The link you attribute to Homeland Security a link to Wikileaks. --SVTCobra 01:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

come on
What is with you guys? Wikileaks is NOT a reliable source for information! If you think it is, and are concerned about reliable sources for things not from wikileaks, than you are a hypocrite. Contralya 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See first source from USDA. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That source wasn't listen when I posted my message. Just two wikileaks links. Contralya 09:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This article verges on slander
I have a real problem with the headline - "Hezollah planning to attack the US" no less! The evidence for this? ONE line in a 27 page slide-show which says "Lebanese Hizballah may attempt to attack the Homeland" (my emphasis). Is there a single word, anywhere, to back this up? Not a single one! It's hardly news that the DHS has published an internal document trying to beat up every conceivable threat it can. This statement verges on slander as it stands, and should be removed.

I talk in detail about how absurd the source document is - see the comments section. --Dox96 02:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just added a source from the USDA. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This article is close to not news!
Atleast remove it from second lead or god kills a kitten. international 02:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this a leak or not?
Now I'm really confused. Is this a leaked document or not? At first, it appears to come from Wikileaks. Now, thanks to the new source added, it appears that the document has actually been publically available for at least 3 weeks! I haven't looked closely, but the two documents appear to be the same. I don't understand how it's even news. The document itself is a joke. See here where I go into detail about how unreliable this document is as a source of information. And I'm still not happy with the accusations on Hezbollah. There is no evidence provided to back up this statement. What does "may" mean anyway? 50% chance? 20% chance? 0.0001% chance? There's a chance that Brad Pitt may attack the US! After all, I suppose its possible for him to sustain a head injury leading to mental illness causing paranoia leading to an attack. Well? It may happen. Maybe a 0.0000001% chance, but still theoretically possible I suppose. I'm not suggesting that it's that unlikely for Hezbollah to attack, but you have as much as an idea as I what the probability is. (And I suspect the DHS has no idea either). I'm not the only one with a problem with this article. I suggest that it should be moved back to the development stage, but frankly I can't see how it can be rescued. --Dox96 04:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)