IF WIKIPEDIA SAYS ITS TRUE, IT MUST BE TRUE

There is a growing trend in publishing circles, its called WIKIPEDIA IS GOD.

Now to be honest, when I started blogging a few years ago, I used the site as a source, but I learned quickly that it is not always accurate. Today I sometimes use the site but generally as a third source, (if it matches the first two) to find a picture, or to double check the spelling of someone's name.

If I know that Wikipedia is not reliable as a primary source, why do the Islamists who write anti-American Books use it? Well they know it's reliablity also, but if there is no LEGITIMATE source, well Jihad is Jihad, and the Job must be done.

For example..Remember Sami Al Arian?

Al-Arian completed his 57-month prison sentence for conspiring to provide goods and services to a terrorist group in April and agreed to be deported. He faces a possible criminal contempt indictment for his refusal to testify before a federal grand jury investigating terror financing in northern Virginia. He claims the subpoena is invalid because his plea deal absolved him from any cooperation with law enforcement

Sami went on a hunger strike but then chickened out.

On the moonbat site Counterpunch There is an excerpt from the book , The Tyranny of Good Intentions, The authors of the book are Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton a former assistant Treasury secretary and a former adjunct law professor at Georgetown University. Book is just so wrong these guys should have their cap and gowns surgically removed.

Al-Arian is presented by authors Paul Craig Roberts and Lawrence Stratton as the unwitting victim of "the Israel lobby" which targeted him because he was so darned effective at presenting the Palestinian viewpoint in America. That's it. It has nothing to do with the fact that he served on the governing board of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), a designated terrorist organization, or gave refuge to the man who has run the group for the past 13 years and lied about knowing the man's true identity. The authors either don't know this or choose not to mention it.

Here come the fun part

"According to Wikipedia, ‘in a verbal agreement that appears in court transcripts, federal prosecutors agreed [as part of the plea agreement] that Al-Arian would not have to testify in Virginia.'"

ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA? MY KIDS AREN'T ALLOWED TO USE WIKIPEDIA AS A SOURCE FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL PROJECTS. And now a former assistant Treasury secretary and a former adjunct law professor at Georgetown University are using it as a source for a scholarly book?

If they had, they'd have seen the plea agreement, which contains no such language. And they would have read orders from appellate courts for the 4^th Circuit and 11^th Circuit, which find absolutely no reference to this anywhere. Not in the agreement, not in the transcripts from his plea hearing or sentencing. Nowhere but in the insistence of Al-Arian and his supporters.

Of course you will see the book quoted in the MSN, but not a critical look at their work, showing its unreliable sources. Of course they might be too busy checking Wikipedia for THEIR next story.

The quotes from abover are all from The Tyranny of Ignorant Authors by IPT News
There is a lot more to this story and I recommend you click on the above and give it a read.