Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (37437)	8/13/2002 1:14:35 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

As far as Debka and Stratfor go, they both have an incredibly poor history of predicting anything. Cobalt was not quoting Debka predictions; she was quoting Debka reporting of stuff that has already happened. Debka reporting has a pretty good track record, especially in the Middle East.

To: Bilow who wrote (37437)	8/13/2002 6:25:17 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Stratfor telling us what a difficult place Afghanistan was going to be for us The really tough bits of Afghanistan, the high mountain ranges where Afghanistan, China, India and Pakistan all converge and then sort of peter away, leaving what they call on the map "autonomous regions" remain very difficult for us. That's where we're trying to track down Al Qaeda types and not having much luck. Nobody (on this thread or anywhere else that I recall) predicted that we'd be able to rely on the Northern Alliance, and nobody had any real way of knowing how little support the Taliban had in most of Afghanistan. I might add that the situation on the ground remains treacherous. Anyway, Stratfor is the most reliable, but even Stratfor occasionally cites Debka.