Talk:SITE Institute

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hugh, removed quote marks for readability and flow. Personally, prefer bold to make significant material stand out .. or a separate page to explain .. or, when appropriate, put here in talk. Also wikified a bit. Artificial Intelligence 05:13, 24 May 2005 (EDT)



i'm poor at wikifying, my spelling tends to be Anglicised, i often miss easy typos, and sometimes make strange narrative jumps others do not understand. edit all you want, i appreciate it.

The SITE looks like a front to me. Katz has a book to push, has received bunches of gov money, and has a contract as an investigator with people suing muslim orgs for their complicity in 911. Her claim pf "expert" has been challenged, and the gov didn't portray her as an expert witness in the Al-Hussayen case. Many of her news appearances have been the usual suspects, FOX, National Review, Newsmax, etc, although she seems to have gained credibility as of late with more diverse news sources.

She alleged on a 60 minutes show that a N.Georgia chicken farm was skimming from their operations via inflated deaths, and funneling the money to terrorist orgs. The gov has entered the poultry farm under sealed warrants at least twice, but as yet no charges. Katz was named as a plaintif in lawsuits by the poultry farm, and by a muslim charity based in Virginia for her allegations on 60 minutes, which i believe was timed to coincide with her book's release, but i need to check actual dates to be sure.

Check the creative loafing article, and the Seattle Times links out for some of the juicy stuff. Al-Hussayen looks as if he was screwed royally by the Ashcroft DoJ.

The org caught my eye a month or two ago, because they started appearing in google news listings, and for some reason, seemed bogus when i visited the website. I'd done some light research before, but dug a little deeper tonight/yesterday.

The daily kos thread here offers a bit of infor, along with their chaty antibush commentary.

thanks again --Hugh Manatee 07:36, 24 May 2005 (EDT)

Edit note

I changed the sub heading from "Not exactly a not-for-profit organization" as the following text simply referred to one of the sources of funding being government agencies and not that it was anything other than a non-profit. --Bob Burton 19:09, 10 October 2007 (EDT)

Section Rewrite

I rewrote the "9/11 "bin Laden" video" section as I found it rather confusing, in part because it was based on third hand source material. So I have rewritten it based on the initial AP and Bloomberg posts. More could be added but I have posted some comments below on the material that was there:

  • "Adam Pearlman-Gadahn,[1] the Jewish ADL 'convert' to Islam" was the "co-star of a new propaganda film featuring historic footage of chief boogeyman and son of a Saudi billionaire, Osama bin Laden. Intelligence analysts have determined that Gadahn wrote most of the script, and it appears that the fresh dialog supposedly from 'bin Laden' has simply been dubbed in with the old images,"[2] the Editor of The Modern History Project (MHP) reported September 11, 2007.
actually it was speculated that Gadahn may have been involved but this seemed pretty weak evidence. And I'm not sure what the basis is for MHP - which I'm not sure is all that reliable a source - concluding that "it appears that the fresh dialog supposedly from 'bin Laden' has simply been dubbed in with the old images".

According to a September 7, 2007, Associated Press story,[3] "'During the video, bin Laden's image moves for only a total of about 3 1/2 minutes in two segments, staying frozen the rest of the time while his [sic] remarks continue.' This video was somehow 'obtained' and released by the highly suspect SITE Institute, whose Zionist founders are 'consultants' to the Bush administration associated with the School for Advanced International Studies. The Dean of SAIS was Zionist hawk Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's Deputy Secretary of Defense and a member of PNAC," MHP wrote.[2]

I took this back to the original AP story. The last sentence was tangential commentary that made the section rather confusing.

In an "UPDATE", MHP reported that "The SITE Institute has 'obtained' another episode[4] in the latest series from 'al Qaeda'. Perhaps they thought the first one wasn't convincing enough," MHP's Editor commented.[2]

as the page is at the moment it doesn't refer to the SITE Institute and it wasn't clear which video they were referring to.

There's more to be done on this section but that's a;; I have time for right now. --Bob Burton 02:10, 12 October 2007 (EDT)