Reply #105: Seems to be very demanding to be consistent here

[gandalf]

"Highly speculative conspiracy websites" should not be linked to. OK. For instance, one year ago, there was an intense discussion about the Plame indictments, with many very speculative posts and links to highly speculative websites (like onlinejournal). None of these threads was deleted, even though the quality of the sources and the quality and rigour of the arguments was, on average, not (much) above the threads in question here.

So, the question remains, what is a speculative conspiracy website? If this rule is not enforced consistently, this policy can amount to thought police. Everybody here wanted Rove indicted, so speculation about this in the Plame threads is ok, but speculation about government complicity in the bombings is not ok. That is inconsistent.

And, as a side effect: A strict limitation to "reputable sources" automatically limits the discussion severely, because exposure of government crime -- even though these crimes exist -- will hurt the careers of journalists (see the book "Into the Buzzsaw" by C. Borjesson), so there are only very few reputable sites discussing government crimes like Gladio. But that does not mean that Gladio did not exist, or was not supported by governments.