"I had sex with an Angelina Jolie affiliate"

I am writing this as a reply to the thread in the comments section under my Spain post. This is just too big for the comment system. You can read that stuff for the background. You have been unfair and awfully defensive. Got me a bit upset. Oh well, let’s use it for some controversial Jibblog content… The word purport: This is a total non-issue but let’s get into it. I was frustrated that you had not posted any links and had been throwing around phrases such as, “…as Al Qaeda declares a truce with Spain” and “The same document purported to be Al Queda also endorses Bush…” That kind of unclear writing without links is frustrating to me. You could have responded by explaining what you meant, but instead you wrote this: “Purport (v) - Assumed to be such; supposed: "the purported author of the story" I use that word since, any claim by Al Queda can be false, but seems to follow their pattern of releasing info. I suggest dictionary.com for word querries.” Hmm, that doesn’t seem like the right definition of purport. “The purported author of a story” does not mean “the person who is assumed to be the author,” certainly not assumed by the speaker! Doesn’t purport convey, rather, a sense of doubt? If I one were to write: “my friend is the purported victim of a broken elevator,” would that mean he is assumed to be the victim, or would it mean something like: someone says he was the victim but there is reason to doubt that fact? So I went to dictionary.com, great site, and your definition isn’t there. That’s irony on a base level, but it’s a hoot: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=purport Purport (v) - 1. To have or present the often false appearance of being or intending; profess: selfish behavior that purports to be altruistic. 2. To have the intention of doing; purpose In truth, your sentence makes a kind of more sense using the real definition of the word, as opposed to yours, but I don’t really want to get into to your purported analysis of Al Queda’s “pattern of releasing info.” Please allow me to skip on to the fact that the meaning of purport was never the issue, it was that you wrote your sentence in such as to say that a document purported to be Al Queda. How can a piece of paper, or email for that matter, BE a terrorist group? Of course this is obviously not what you meant, but IS what you wrote, and what I was really getting at in a silly way, was how can a document be written by a multi-celled worldwide terrorist network? It seems to me it cannot. Since you gave no links, I couldn’t go and check out what you were talking about, and that was frustrating. When a person writes anonymously it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt. I didn't know who the hell was writing this. I didn’t know that you are, in fact, somebody I trust and whose opinion I respect. Now, the document certainly could have been written by somebody, or by a group of people affiliated with, or even part of, Al Queda. It could even have been written by Osama Bin Laden. I never said otherwise. Rereading what I wrote after having gone out and read a bit about the situation myself, I realize that I was vague when I said “I wouldn't take it too seriously per se,” but please be fair and include that “per se.” It’s important. My point was that we have a bombing, a group claiming to have done it, and claiming, or purporting, if you prefer, to be speaking for Al Queda. That, in and of itself, doesn’t make what they say true- and it certainly isn’t accurate to say Al Queda has called a truce with Spain based on what we know. In fact there is good reason to doubt these people who are doing the purporting. I guess I assumed you would read the link I put up, which gives a lot of reasons why not to take Abu Hafs al-Masri on their word… In addition to “one official’s words,” which I agree is a horrible source, the Yahoo link paints a dubious picture of the group’s credibility. Check it out and tell me what you think. Come to think of it, the Financial Times article does the same thing. Let’s review what the FT article YOU linked to, and presumably read, says: “The brigade also claimed responsibility for the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad last year, and for last year's power cuts in the US and Canada. But Gustavo de Aristegui, a spokesman for Spain's defeated conservative Popular Party dismissed the statement: "They are not capable of committing these attacks, much less of declaring a truce." This group "is, according to anti-terrorism experts, not a very reliable terrorist organization because they have never really acted in any terrorist act," he told the Associated Press news agency.... …The Moroccan authorities have said the evidence in the Madrid attacks points toward Ansar al-Islam, a guerrilla group blamed for terrorist strikes in Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and Morocco. Other groups suspected of involvement include the Moroccan groups, Salafia Jihadia and the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group. Britain's Metropolitan Police and intelligence agencies are probing possible links.” Now, riddle me this, why was the headline of the article “Islamist terror group 'calls truce' with Spain” and not “Al Queda ‘calls truce’ with Spain?”I say it is because to say the latter would be a mischaracterization of what the article says. The Economist articles, according to you, say “most likely an Al Queda affiliate” But yesterday you said “Al Queda declares a truce with Spain.” Are these two statements the same? Or had you perhaps jumped the gun? “I had sex with an Angelina Jolie affiliate.” In fact, an affiliate of X can not be X, so if what the Economist suggests is true, then what you have said cannot be true. And let me answer your final question. You asked why I say it was not a victory for Al Queda. First, reread my post on Spain which can be found just a few posts under this one. However, I probably didn't explain the idea tht well. The idea, in short, is that Al Queda and its fingers want world war, and therefore wanted to put the right-wingers in power. Many pundits thought the Madrid bombings would do just that, so why not Al Queda too? Second, Let me give you an example of why this could be a good thing for the good guys, if we capitalize. Spain says they will not drop out of Iraq if the UN takes command. Imagine this fictitious scenario: With the election looming, the White House wants to look like they play ball internationally. Now the US has an opportunity to look like team players and let the UN take command, thereby reinvigorating the international peace effort, keeping Spain in Iraq (and allowing them to still look tough on terror), strengthening the UN, and weakening the terrorist position that the US is after the Mid-east or out to destroy Islam or whatever. Will this happen? Probably not. But there is hope. Check out the link below.