Talk:Alan Sabrosky

Corrections

Not sure how to edit this correctly, but there are multiple errors on this page:

(1) Sabrosky did three(?) tours in Vietnam as a gunnery sergeant in intelligence; he was not a Marine officer (enlisted).

    TWO tours (Sergeant/Staff Sergeant, promoted gunnery sergeant near end of enlistment in 1969)

(2) Stating that he was a "mid-level" civilian is incorrect, and a deliberate attempt to paint him in a particular light. He was at least a GS-13 (possibly higher), which is far from "mid-level."

    GM-15 (excepted service, not career)
  

(3) Sabrosky was the holder of the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, a prestigious recognition from the War College (where he graduated in 1986).

(4) He "taught" at the United States Military Academy, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Middlebury College and Catholic University; he held adjunct professorships at Georgetown University and the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

    Appointemnt at CSIS was not a teaching appointment, but a research appointment like the Army's Strategic Studies Institute

Whether one agrees with him or not on political or other issues, it's important to keep the wiki free of political bias.

Should there not also be a Partial Lists of Publications here?

    YES. Not sure how to do this, have not edited a Wiki page before and want to stay within the rules. A list of publications will show evolution of my research interests. My email address is: docbrosk@comcst.net - if you will send me an email address for you, I will send that material to ytou and then get out of the way! Many thanks for your assistance.

Sources: https://www.veteransnewsnow.com/author/sabrosky/

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/authors.php?auid=35301 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.105.149 (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request 29-APR-2018

Moved from User talk:Docbrosk1941

 –   SPINTENDO          06:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I hardly know where to begin - there are so m,any errors of commission and omission that it would be simpler just to delete the entry and start over. For instance - and you can use my entry in "Who's Who in the East" (23rd edition, 1993) for preliminary verification - Iuse my full name "Alan Ned Sabrosky" because omitting the middle name causes most search engines to miss my academic & government work. I am not a retired Marine officer - I served 10 years including 2 tours in Vietnam as a sergeant. I was at the Army War College as Director of Studies in the Strategic Studies Institute, but I never oversaw student reports - that happened ion the War College proper. The academic publications are partly correct, except for the "prisoners of war" - remark that was the title of a book published in the early 1990s and dealt with the propensity of states to go to war and not POWs, which simply showed that whoever did this hatchet job never opened the cover of the book. And that was only in the 1970s, missing almost all of my subsequent work.

I don't simply have "an advanced degree from the University of Michigan, I have A.M. degrees in History (1971) and Political Science (1972) and a Ph.D in Political Science (1976), as well as being a graduate of the US Army War College (1986). My academic appointments inclued the US Military Academy, Middlebury College, Catholic University, the University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown university and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). I was at the Foreign Policy Research Institute as indicated and finished with a very bad year there, followed by a slot as Senior Fellow at the Ce ter for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). And that led to the Strategic Studies Institute appointment concurrent with the General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research for more than five years, ending with a Superior Civilian Award for exemplary work as "manager, mentor and analyst."

And so on. Do you really want me to do a line-by-line suggested editing with sources? Or should I ask any one of several editors who know my work to edit the piece? Or since the Hasbara clowns who did this travesty will just edit it again, do you want to kill it and wait for me to die before re-inserting it? After then they probably won't care.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Docbrosk1941 (talk • contribs)

I like option # 2, which is to contact editors. Of whom to contact first, I would suggest @Seraphim System:, to see if they could offer assistance. That is the editor who created this article 41⁄2 months ago, and is also the editor who has both added the most information and made the most edits. In my book, that makes them uniquely positioned to know the most about the subject, and would be the logical first editor to contact about any changes which need to be made. Let's contact them, including any other editors who you think should also be contacted, and we'll go from there.   SPINTENDO          09:27, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing was sparse but I did the best I could creating the article, however I did not add the part about overseeing reports from students. There has been intermittent vandalism/BLP issues on this article that I have reverted when I have caught them. I requested page protection a while back but it was declined, I think because there wasn't sufficient recent disruption. This has been ongoing since January at least, and every time I have reverted it, it has been reinstered by a different ip. I still think page protection against ip editing is needed to prevent more of this as it has been ongoing for months.Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Docbrosk1941: I requested page protection to prevent the ips from editing. Regarding changing the article, the content in the article needs to be reliably sources to independent sources. This book says "former Marine officer" [1] — is that different from retired Marine officer? I can replace the "prisoners of war" part with a direct quote from this book [2]. Can you please let us know what other changes you want to make specifically, and also give the sources for those changes? Seraphim System ^(talk) 09:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System @Spintendo Thanks ever so much for your assistance. Hope I am doing this part right. Let me suggest I post info on me in bullet form with sources and publications then get out of the way and let you do your thing - reading what both of you wrote, whatever you decide to do is fine with me, And if I break Wiki etiquette, please advise what is correct. Thanks - I will have info to you sometime Tuesday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docbrosk1941 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me. When you're ready to proceed, kindly open a new edit request on this talk page under a new level 2 heading, preferably with the current date of request. Thank you   SPINTENDO          21:31, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System, @Spintendo . Got it done and it is LONG, although I fully expect you to edit it down (especially the list of publications). But I am still not comfortable with the Wiki posting & editing procedure, and do not wish to screw this up now that I actually have assistance with the entry. Would it not be possible to simply email you the attachments since the material I send will have to be reworked in any case? I promise I will not use the email address again. Mine is: docbrosk@comcast.net - just send a brief contact email using your Wiki handle and I'll get my work-up to you ASAP. If you want me to try doing it on Wiki I will, but it will not be easy reading for anyone in that format. Thanks - Alan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Sabrosky&action=edit# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docbrosk1941 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System and Spintendo: drawing both your attention to Docbrosk1941's material here; he pinged you both in plaintext so I'm not sure whether you realize this is here. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

information for @Seraphim System and @Spintendo

WIKIPEDIA ENTRY

[[ I am going to put down as much information as I think might be useful to you in revising the entry on me. Almost everything can be verified by "Who's Who in the East" (23rd ed, 1991-1992) or in ""American Men and Women of Science: Social and Behavioral Sciences" (13th ed). Use as much or as little as you deem appropriate. The "Publications" section includes selected articles as well as books & monographs - I expect you'll want to either cull or delete in their entirety the articles, and that's fine by me. I also kept all seven of the references in the original entry as well as what they references, slightly rephrased in a couple of places to avoid redundancy. Feel free to contact me directly at docbrosk@comcast.net if you have questions or need clarification. Otherwise I will take a "hands off" approach to this exercise.]] And I apologize for this, I tried 7 times to upload the #$@%@$ file and failed. Off to work now!Docbrosk1941 (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

ENTRY: Please use "Alan Ned Sabrosky"

Alan Ned Sabrosky is a 10-year US Marine Corps veteran and former civilian Director of Studies (GM-15) at the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute. His academic research mainly focused on quantitative international politics (especially alliance systems), military manpower policy, and great power politics. His policy work examined US and comparative foreign and defense policy, in both NATO and the Middle East, in addition to classified work for the US Army leadership. His contemporary (post-2001) publications have critiqued the "9/11 incident," Palestine and Israel, and the extent to which US Middle East policy is hostage to the influence of domestic and foreign lobbies.

Contents

Background

Academic Research

Policy Work

Contemporary Publications and Controversy

Recognition and Awards

Publications

References

Background______________________________________________________________

Alan Ned Sabrosky was born in Lansing, MI on October 10, 1941. After graduation from high school in 1959, he enlisted in the US Marine Corps. He served 10 years, including two tours in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division, receiving the Navy Commendation Medal w/V and Purple Heart among other decorations and being promoted to gunnery sergeant before the end of his second enlistment, in addition to completing his undergraduate degree at East Carolina University (1969). He then attended graduate school at the University of Michigan, receiving A.M. degrees in History (1971) and Political Science (1972) and his PhD in Political Science (1976). He is (as a civilian) a 1986 graduate of the U.S. Army War College. [1]

He worked at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (Philadelphia) for most of the 1970s and was appointed its Director in 1981. He left FPRI in 1982 after a tenure that began well and ended badly when the Institute was in debt.[2] He was selected to be Director of Studies of the US Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute in September 1983, serving in that position until December 1988, at which time he received the Army's Superior Civilian Service Award for his work as "manager, mentor and adviser."[3]

Over the years, he has also been a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. He has held academic appointments at Middlebury College, Catholic University, the US Military Academy (West Point), the University of Pennsylvania, Georgetown University, the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and Rhodes College (Memphis). [4] He has also been editor or managing editor of several journals and online publications, including Comparative Strategy, International Security Review, Orbis, Journal of Small Wars and Insurgencies, Veterans Today and Veterans News Now. He currently divides his time between Pennsylvania and Mississippi, where he has a small computer business, while continuing to write and speak on contemporary national and international security issues.

Academic Research_______________________________________________________

Sabrosky's work on quantitative international politics found that an imbalance in the alignment of major powers was often a prelude to war, and that conflicts escalate when a major power intervenes in a war between a minor state. and another major power. [5] Sabrosky has identified three types of conflict in this analysis: "localized wars" between the original belligerents, "expanded wars" which include several belligerents, and "enlarged wars" that include at least one major power on both sides of the conflict. [6] His work on defense manpower policy overlapped the academic and policy fields. It examined the transition in the US from a mixed force of draftees and volunteers to an all-volunteer force (AVF), cautioning that the new AVF would greatly increase manpower costs in the armed forces and causing the military great difficulties in maintaining force levels. And in the book Blue-Collar Soldiers: Unionization and the U.S. Military Sabrosky, who edited the volume, stated that "military unions are simply too great a risk for a political democracy," adding that it would be "unwise not to expect [military] unions not to act like unions over the long term, and in so doing call into question the basis of our national security." [7]

Policy Work__________________________________________________________

Much of his policy work, especially in the 1980s, involved classified research for the Army leadership and others. He wrote unclassified assessments on inter alia the "Weinberger Doctrine" of the 1980s on the use of force by the US; critiques of U.S. strategy in the Persian Gulf; NATO strategy for the defense of Europe against a potential Soviet onslaught; French defense policy; the persistence of the so-called "Vietnam Syndrome" into the 1990s; the US invasion of Panama; the initial Gulf War with Iraq known as "Desert Storm"; internal affairs and prospects in South Africa; the potential role of political advisers (POLADs) in divisions and corps; and the strategic value of having nominal "allies" who were in fact "encumbrances" for the US because of their internal policies and/or regional behavior. [8]

Contemporary Publications and Controversy_________________

Beginning in 2001 with the attacks on September 11 (the so-called "9/11" incident) and the ensuing "War on Terror," Sabrosky has become increasingly critical of the actions and policies of the US government, and of the role of Israel - acting through AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and its adherents - in driving US Middle East policy in particular. With the Israeli attack on Gaza City in 2008-2009, he extended that to scathing critiques of Israel itself and of the behavior of large segments of the American Jewish community on Israel's behalf - many dual US-Israeli citizens, others only holding US citizenship but espousing what he calls a form of political bigamy known as "dual loyalty" which in practice gives clear precedence to Israel. He has described the so-called "Two State Solution" (Israel and a truncated, disarmed Palestinian entity) as a failure from its inception. He has characterized Israeli practices in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and towards Gaza, as morally corrupt and nothing less than regional imperialism. And most prominently, he has written acerbically about the deliberate Israeli attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967 (in which over 200 US sailors and Marines were killed or wounded); and later on the 9/11 incident concluding that "I am also absolutely certain as a strategic analyst that 9/11 itself, from which all else flows, was a classic Mossad-orchestrated operation. But Mossad did not do it alone." [9]

Not surprisingly, this has made his current work more than a little controversial, given the influence of American Jews in the mainstream media (MSM) and the prominence of Jewish organizations within the US. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), for example, has named him a key figure in "anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories," and numerous Israelis and American partisans of Israel have echoed similar sentiments. [10] But others, such as the Jewish-run blog Mondoweiss, have published his work and many others endorse his conclusions - as do many Israeli opponents of that country's occupation policy. [11] Sabrosky himself dismisses such charges as ludicrous, and not only because he himself has some Jewish ancestry. He sees charges of anti-Semitism and of being a "conspiracy theorist" simply as propaganda tools to suppress criticism of Israel and to deflect close examinations of the US Government's explanation of the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent "War on Terror."

Recognition and Awards_______________________________

Listed in WHO'S WHO IN THE EAST (23rd ed., 1991-1992)

Listed in AMERICAN MEN AND WOMEN OF SCIENCE: SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES (13th ed)

Superior Civilian Service Award (U.S. Army, 1988)

General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research, U.S. Army War College (1985-1988)

Phi Gamma Mu (National Social Science Honorary)

Delta Tau Kappa (International Social Sciences Honorary)

Publications______________________________________________

Throughout a career spanning nearly five decades, Sabrosky's published work includes thirteen books or monographs and over two hundred sixty articles, chapters and book reviews, plus numerous classified studies. A partial listing providing some indication of the breadth of his research interests follows:

PRESIDENTIAL WAR: THE POLITICS OF AMERICAN MILITARY INTERVENTION, in preparation (author)

PRISONERS OF WAR? NATION-STATES IN THE MODERN ERA, Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath/Lexington Books, 1990 (coeditor and contributor)

THE RECOURSE TO WAR: AN APPRAISAL OF THE "WEINBERGER DOCTRINE." Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1988 (coeditor and contributor)

ALLIANCES IN U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: ISSUES IN THE QUEST FOR COLLECTIVE DEFENSE. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988 (editor and contributor)

THE STRATEGIC DIMENSION OF MILITARY MANPOWER, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1987 (coeditor and contributor)

POLARITY AND WAR: THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1985 (editor and contributor)

GREAT POWER GAMES: THE SINO-SOVIET-AMERICAN "POWER TRANSITION," Washington, DC: Council on American Affairs, 1982 (author)

DEFENSE MANPOWER POLICY: A CRITICAL REAPPRAISAL, Philadelphia, PA: Foreign Policy Research Institute Monograph No. 22, 1978 (author)

BLUE-COLLAR SOLDIERS? UNIONIZATION AND THE U.S. MILITARY, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1978 (editor and contributor)

"The American Domestic Distemper," EUROPE RELOADED (November 22, 2017)

"Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake," VETERANS TODAY (June 27, 2011)

"The Complicated Faces of Anti-Semitism," COUNTERCURRENTS (March 20, 2010)

" I express my Jewish identity in cuisine, not foreign policy," MONDOWEISS (July 9, 2009)

" The Two-State Delusion," SALEM-NEWS.COM (May 12, 2009)

"Denied Infamy: Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty," INFORMATION CLEARING HOUSE (June 8, 2009)

"...And military shenanigans," THE WASHINGTON TIMES (September 16, 1994)

" 'Vietnam Syndrome' is alive and well," COMMERCIAL APPEAL (October 15, 1993)

"As Others See Us: The American Distemper in Foreign Policy," TELICOM (March 1992)

"Red Star Falling? The Soviet 'Small War' in Afghanistan," SMALL WARS & INSURGENCIES (April 1990)

"Border Wars," JOURNAL OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STUDIES (Winter 1989/1990)

"Of Smoke and Mirrors," A Review Essay on DISCRIMINATE DETERRENCE: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON INTEGRATED LONG-RANGE STRATEGY, in PARAMETERS (March 1989)

"Policy and Strategy for the 1980s: Preparing for Low-Intensity Conflicts," in R. H. Shultz, Jr. and R. A. Hunt (eds), LESSONS FROM AN UNCONVENTIONAL WAR (New York: Pergamon, 1982) (co-author)

"Conflict Studies: A Tale of Two Cities," in B. Newman and A. Zimmerman (eds), PROCEEDINGS of the First Conference on Conflict Studies in Education (London: ISCCS, 1981)

"From Bosnia to Sarajevo: A Comparative Discussion of Interstate Crises,' JOURNAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION (March 1975).

References_________________________________________________

1. Entry in Who's Who in the East (Willamette IL: Macmillan, 1990, 23rd ed., p.756

2. Wiarda, Howard J. (2010-05-10) Think Tanks and Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Research Institute and Presidential Politics Lexington Books

3. Superior Civilian Service Award for "Dr. Alan Ned Sabrosky, Carlisle PA: US Army War College (1988-12-31)

4. Who's Who in th East, op. cit.

5. Chan, Steve (2013-08-22). Enduring Rivalries in the Asia-Pacific Cambridge University Press.

6. Vasquez, John A. (1993) The War Puzzle Cambridge University Press.

7. Sabrosky, Alan N. (1978) Blue-Collar Soldiers: Unionization and the US Military Westview Press; and Sabrosky, Alan N. (1982) "The American All-Volunteer Force" in Harries-Jenkins, Gwyn (ed.) Western Armed Forces in the 1980s London, Macmillan.

8. See e.g. his "Red Star Falling? The Soviet 'Small War' in Afghanistan" (April 1990) Journal of Small Wars and Insurgencies; "South Africa: Adrift, But to Where?" (1991) Telicom; "Border Wars" (1989/1990) Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies; "NATO: A House Divided?" (1984) Atlantic Quarterly; and "Allies, Clients, and Encumbrances" (Summer 1980) International Security Review.

9. See e.g. his "Demystifying 9/11: Israel and the Tactics of Mistake" (June 27, 2011) Veterans Today; "The Complicated Faces of Anti-Semitism" (March 20, 2010) Countercurrents; "Israel's Gaza Blockade: Letting the Chips Fall Where They May" (June 12, 2010) Salem-News.com; "Bibi Netanyahu: A Knave of Ghosts and Shadows" (October 4, 2009) Uprooted Palestinian; and "Obama Hits the Wailing Wall" (June 14, 2009) Khaleej Times.

10. Flesch, Daniel (2015) "Slandering Americans Who Fight for Israel" Commentary 139; "Decade of Deceit: Anti-Semitic 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 10 Years Later" (2011-08-30) Anti-Defamation League [PDF]; and "ADL: Anti-Semitic 9/11 theories still strong 10 years on" (2011) The Jerusalem Post.

11. See his "I express my Jewish identity in cuisine, not foreign policy" (July 9, 2009) Mondoweiss. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Docbrosk1941 (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

First things first - AfD

Please could an admin add the AfD template to the article? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Sabrosky exists. Thanks. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir:  Done, but it would have been better to use {{edit fully-protected}} rather than {{adminhelp}}, see WP:PER. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I am terrible at remembering these things. Thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed rewritten version

I've rewritten the article step by step at User:Yngvadottir/Alan Sabrosky rewrite. I'm going to make one more tweak today (I'm citing a source that doesnot mention his retirement) and then add the full list of books from Docbrosk1941's proposed version above; those I have not mentioned in paragraphs I did not find reviews or citations for, but WorldCat confirms the years and will enable me to add ISBNs. A significant number of things, including the classified research (obviously) but also the birth year, I did not find in sources. My thinking is that if the article is kept at AfD, the birth year could be added from Who's Who and I am still hoping to find an archived faculty biography, perhaps through Docbrosk1941, that will add a bit more on teaching positions, etc. And Seraphim System appears to have access to databases that I don't that may include another conference biography or two. But we have comparably slim biographies for many living academics, as I said above.

I have left out Marine officer, in deference to Docbrosk1941, but several sources do refer to him asa retired Marine officer.

So is this better?I believe it better demonstrates notability, with the named chair and the reviews of books. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I am not looking at the rewritten version until it is posted. I have found some individual listings of my academic appointments but no single biography. But anything that replaces what was there in the past is a definite improvement. I do suggest that whatever is posted be protected, or we will find the same vandalism that plagued Seraphim System coming to the fore again. But I cannot thank you enough!Docbrosk1941 (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Something I found on my late father (Curtis W Sabrosky) included a link to me that appears to have several spources that may help with birth date and other info - I did not look at them be forward them for your information: https://www.ancestry.com/genealogy/records/curtis-williams-sabrosky_184094172 . Cannot help about the retired officer, different people have called me everything from a high school dropout enlisted in the Marines in lie of jail, to the youngest major general in the US Army. Go figure. But one or more of thes records (4-5 come up by clicking on my name on this page) may help. Appreciate you! Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

And I did recall a "Letter to the Editor" published in "Leatherneck" magazine about 4 yrs ago that affirms mi military service in the Marines, service in Vietnam and graduation from the Army War College - it is the fourth letter and the bio info is at the end inserted by the editor: https://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/2014/02/leatherneck Hope this helps a bit!Docbrosk1941 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• This proposed version has solid sourcing. It does a decent job in covering his career. It is inadequate in its coverage of the antisemitic 9/11 conspiracy theory that has been the principal source of ONGOING WP:SIGCOV of Sabrosky.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks. If the sourcing is solid, would that not argue that to focus heavily on the 9/11 argument would be WP:UNDUE and recentism? It would also suggest BLP:1E. We saw in the arguments made at the just closed AfD that his notability is not just for that, so the issue is one of weight—and avoiding violating BLP by being non-neutral. Those were my thoughts in rewriting the article; accordingly I tried to cover the 9-11 stuff briefly and factually. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The sources would have to be strong enough for a BLP. I think I found the Flesch article through EBSCO and added the content with attribution, but like Yngvadottir I also decided to keep it brief. Since it's a BLP it's hard to comment further without seeing the sources.Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• In additoin to the article from Commentary (magazine) already on the page, WP:RSes describing Sabrosky as a conspiracy theorist and as antisemitic include:
• " Today's conspiracy theories are fueled largely by anti-Israel sentiment. These authors reference and reinforce each other's work and blame Israel for numerous "false flag" operations, not limited to 9/11. Among the key figures in this group... Alan Sabrosky, a former U.S. Army War College instructor who writes for Veterans Today." reported article by Sam Kestenbaum, The Forward, 9/11 Conspiracies Blaming 'the Jews' Still Rage, 16 September 2016, [3].
• Alan Sabrosky, a columnist for Veterans Today, an anti-Semitic website, is one of most widely cited sources for anti-Semitic 9/11 myths, according to the ADL. Sabrosky has declared his mission to "contain" Israel's ambition by exposing Israel's alleged role in 9/1 1 and maintains that Washington and New York are the centers of "Zionist power." Citations of Sabrosky 's work pop up not just on extreme-right websites, but also on pro-Palestinian websites such as Mondoweiss, Arab media sites and the Internet newsletter Dissent Voice, which describes itself as "a radical newsletter in the search for peace and social justice.""This is a strange world where the right and the left mix, with antiSemitism shot through," says Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. "On the left, it is shot through with anti-Zionism, on the right the fear of the international Jew." reported article by Dan Klein, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, (Sep 5, 2011), Persistent Myths, [4]
• "Les pirates de l'air étaient des agents du Mossad israélien. Ils ont agi afin de faire accuser les pays arabes de terrorisme et de justifier l'invasion de l'Irak et de l'Afghanistan. Alan Sabrosky, « ancien professeur de l'US Army War College et de l'US Military Academy », voit ainsi dans le 11-Septembre une « opération classiquement organisée par le Mossad »." Le Monde Diplomatique, Vous avez dit « complot » ?; Concurrence effrénée, 1 June 2015, [5]

I repeat that dwelling on this aspect of the man's career is recentist and undue emphasis. The rewrite already devotes a larger amount of space to it than one would normally expect for someone who has written throughout their career, and includes enough citations to support the statement that his views have been controversial. That's enough, since he is not notable just for that, and as Seraphim System has pointed out, there have been earlier citations of his professional publications/views. I also repeat my point about neutrality. We should not, for example, repeat the allegations about the website. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

He is scarcely notable at all, as the recent AfD shows. The sole reason this article was not deleted for sheer lack sources or accomplishments to support notability is that he passed WP:PROF due to having held a named chair at a notable graduate faculty. Why he left such an enviable job at such an early age is not clear. His lack of notability is. He had one book that got some attention. And a policy article that got a few dozen citations. The only other aspect of his career that has gotten significant attention is coverage spread over a couple of decades in WP:RS media such as La Monde, Commentary )magazine and The Forward of his advocacy of antisemitic conspiracy theories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And the rewritten article reflects the fact he is notable for that combination of things, because I based it on the sources. His writings on 9/11 and related topics get a lot of space there for what they are, but any more heaping up of citations, let alone space, would suggest that's the only source of his notability, which is not accurate. (We shouldn't speculate about his retirement or anything else.) At this point I'm going to ping Docbrosk1941, in case he hasn't already seen this current discussion, and I'll also drop anote on his talk page about the AfD having been closed. (I should have done these things before bed...) Yngvadottir (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS Coverage of Docbrosk1941 retracting the conspiracy theories and racist accusations he published in FRINGE publications over the decades would be eligible for inclusion. If he every made such retractions. But, in general, an individual who has been using his page as PROMO for years is not a useful discussant. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) A significant portion of the coverage this individuals has from WP:IRS is the 9/11 conspiracy heading. I suggest three things - one this goes into the lede (single sentence), two this gets a sub-section title, three this gets an appropriate category - Category:9/11 conspiracy theories.Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Aren't there other sources? There should be more coverage in mainstream sources if the section is going to be expanded. Based on the quote above, I don't think JTA is reliable enough to source negative BLP content. The quote from Potok doesn't even seem to be about Sabrosky. It would be better to go directly to SPLC or ADL as they may have more details. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

JTA is a highly reliable news wire - this is a top-notch source. As for the ADL - yes - there is the full report + coverage from JPost (which would be a strong source as well).Icewhiz (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

extended discussion about JTA

The JPost article is already cited. JTA is a weak source and its not particularly reliable for random comments about Mondoweiss. I wouldn't use JTA for ARBPIA content (but I also don't use Mondoweiss). I have used it for articles about Jewish Democratic organizations in the US (as an example). Common sense should prevail here. I'm open to adding some content if additional details can be reliably sourced but at this rate I'm more likely to oppose. Seraphim System (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC) JTA is a bluechip source, a mainstream wire service that can be used the same way other mainstream wire services are used. MondoWeiss is a partisan blog.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC) JTA is used by around 100 different newspapers world wide - including some which are quite blue-chip - e.g. Haaretz and Forward - which often run items by JTA as-is. It is an independent outlet, its level of partisanship is very low (they stick to the the facts. They do choose to concentrate on regions of interest to the Jewish community - such as 9/11 conspiracy theories or the death penalty in Serbia for helping Jews (1942) - that other wire services sometimes neglect), and it maintains a number of desks and correspondents wolrd wide. It is by no ways similar to Mondoweiss - which is a small blog / news portal. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) It's not a bluechip source. Princeton University Press is a bluechip publisher, though sometimes a bit conservative. Brill is a bluechip publisher. Carlotta Gall is a bluechip pulitzer prize winning journalist. JTA is a weak source and Dan Klein is a non-notable writer. You are free to post that quote at RS/n or BLP/n and seek additional opinions.Seraphim System (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC) As a News agency - a WP:NEWSORG source - it is a bluechip source, and has been discussed in RSN previously. NEWSORGs are frequently used for BLPs.Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Yngvadottir I tried, but this discussion is going nowhere. Seraphim System ^(talk) 13:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• The proper venue for this is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If you intend to start such a discussion, do it there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree; I think the discussion belongs at the BLP noticeboard. It's a question of bias by undue weight. The matter is in the rewrite, with adequate sources. It should not take over the article. IMO, with BLP being the foremost concern. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if posted somewhere it should be BLP/n. It would be better if E.M.Gregory posted it himself, since I don't know what his final proposed text will look like. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Not about the article
Seraphim System, posting warnings [6] on the pages of experienced editors who have edited many BLPs is not collegial.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC) It's not a warning, it's a DS/alert. This comment would be more appropriate on my talk page. Seraphim System (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: You say above that the subject of the article has been using this page for promotion for years. Let's see some evidence to support that, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Note - the appropriate venue for discussing the subject would be Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Regardless of whether the subject has been using Wikipedia for promotion, we should not promote the subject unduly. In the past decade, when covered by RS, it is as a conspiracy theorist.[7][8][9] Relevant policy is WP:PROFRINGE and WP:BLPFRINGE.Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: You have apparently missed my point. Stating that the article subject has used the page for self-promotion is an aspersion unless supported by evidence. Regardless of the popularity of the person's views. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - I do not have evidence or belief this is the case - I was trying to say this is irrelevant to how the article should be edited.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Until there is a specific proposal this isn't a good use of anyone's time. The sources are not anything close to the wide coverage required by WP:LABEL and comments on the talk page are also covered by BLP, within reason. It can't be so strict that we're not able to discuss it at all, but there is no need to keep repeating the same point again and again. It's also not a good sign that the IB Times is the same as the forward article and calls him "a former U.S. Army War College instructor who writes for Veterans Today" Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

One editor suggested I weigh in. So let me do this. First, not only did I never use Wiki for promotion of anything, I have been surprised that anything on me was there - I never looked for it. An earlier article was SO bad I argued for its removal a few years ago, and that finally happened. This version also surprised me, and while better needs the sort of rewrite being proposed. The notion that I have been "using" Wikipedia for anything is simply ludicrous and suggests a degree of bias on the part of the person who made that allegation that ought to have him/her removed as a Wiki editor.

Second is the question of my own ethics and perspective. Essentially I came to the entire 9/11 controversy midway through 2009 - hardly an issue spanning decades. I wrote an article on the subject, "The Complicated Faces of Anti-Semitism," https://www.countercurrents.org/sabrosky200310.htm More specifically (having read the comments), it might be worth noting that "Veterans Today" is hardly an antisemitic website, given the number of Israelis and Jews who write for it. It is anti-Zionist (as am I), which Israel's advocates assert is the same thing - which is nonsense, can one imagine (e.g.) equating a condemnation of British imperialism with a prejudice against the British people? And besides, the Middle East constitutes a very small part of the subject matter in "Veterans Today" anyway. Same with the blog called "Mondoweiss." It is hardly pro-Palestinian, like VT it is more anti-Zionist, but looks at many more issues - and it is worth noting that the three guys running "Mondoweiss" are all American Jews.

The real problem that Israel and its supporters face is that it - and they - cannot afford an open disclosure of what Israel is and does. Many people in other countries realize this. South Africa today, for instance, has the most active BDS movement in the world and a government openly critical of Israel as an apartheid state - and whatever South Africa's other failings, it knows apartheid when it sees it. Americans don't see. hear or read about this pn TV or in the press. Look at the ownership and you'll understand why. I do point out these things, plus the fact that dual Israeli citizens litter the US government, and that the official US government case foe 9/11 is a bad joke - how (e.g.) could someone who could not fly a single-engine propeller Cessna fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon?? Pointing out these things gets one named as a "conspiracy theorist" (in an attempt to belittle their arguments), but as a Danish chemical engineer said on Danish TV, there is only one conspiracy theory out there, and that is the one put out by the US Government. Docbrosk1941 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Docbrosk1941 (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

So what do most of the RS talk about, seems to be his recent work. So if we removes all the conspiracy stuff what are wee in fact left with?Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC) People please remember this is not a forum.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed at the AfD, his work was influential at the policy level and included in DTIC bibliographies on low-intensity conflicts. Most of those RS are not easily accessible, and they're not indexed by Google scholar. Most of the recent sources are relying on the ADL, which is an RS that is already included. Additional details can be added, but would require a successful edit request to be implemented by an admin. There is nothing to be done if editors don't want to post an actual proposal. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Taking a closer look at this proposed revision. It is highly problematic.. Early life and education needs WP:RSs for all of the facts it contains, with the exception of the title of the PhD dissertation. This is an example of the way this subject appears to fail WP:BASIC. Career, sources 3 and 4 are Primry (Sabrosky's own potten bio in a collection of essays, and a Sabrosky authored article in a FRINGE publication). Sourse #2 is solid, but does not support all the info in the text. Research and publications source #7 is an article that cites a book Sabrosky edited; if it engages his work within that book in a significant way, please bring the text or a page # and description of the material that shows it to be significant.#6 is a 2 sentence, snippet review, the sole chapter it mentions is not by Sabrosky. #5 is a longer review, it discusses two of the chapters, neither by Sabrosky. #6 discusses the work of several chapter authors. Did Sabrosky have a chapter in this book? Or write a scholarly introduction? Because if he did, I see no indication of it in these reviews, and it therefore looks as though the book merits a meniton in hte list of his edited books, not a paragraph in thie body of this page. Citation #10 is a book by somebody else, please explain why it is being cited - no page # is given. Citation #9 should read "edited by" not "by". It is a reveiw of a book Sabrosky edited that discusses the chapters written by several people in some detail, can you point us to the part that discusses anything Sabrosky wrote? #11, 12, 13 again, please point us to the pages in these articles and books that discuss Sabrosky's work. #14 is yet another of Sabrosky's articles in a FRINGE publication. #s 15-19 are journalism in WP:RS media discussing Sabrosky as a FRINGE conspiracy theorist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources for conspiracy theorist

@E.M.Gregory: Let's try to compile a list here for weighting.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• ADL - 2011 report. Additional coverage in ADL - [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
• secondary coverage of 2011 ADL report in JTA (+reprinted a few times - JTA is the newswire) and JPost.
• In 2016 - Forward and IB Times -- attributed to ADL.
• Business insider - 2016 unattributed use - in their own voice.
• "Les pirates de l'air étaient des agents du Mossad israélien. Ils ont agi afin de faire accuser les pays arabes de terrorisme et de justifier l'invasion de l'Irak et de l'Afghanistan. Alan Sabrosky, « ancien professeur de l'US Army War College et de l'US Military Academy », voit ainsi dans le 11-Septembre une « opération classiquement organisée par le Mossad »." Le Monde Diplomatique, Vous avez dit « complot » ?; Concurrence effrénée, 1 June 2015, [15]

That's what I've got so far.Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• 2015 Commentary Magazine "Slandering Americans Who Fight for Israel" Daniel Flesch, February 1, 2015 [16]. "Alan Sabrosky, a conspiracy theorist and former director of studies at the U.S. Army War College, has written that 'a large majority of American Jews…espouse a form of political bigamy called ‘dual loyalty,’' particularly the many 'Rahm Emanuels out there who serve in the IDF but NOT in the U.S. armed forces' (emphasis in original). Sabrosky justifies his larger slur against Jews by citing the alleged perfidy of lone soldiers."
• Jerusalem Post, reported article, 1 September 2011, "ADL: Anti-Semitic 9/11 theories still strong 10 years on [17]: "The prevalence of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about the September 11 terrorist attacks... Several writers and publications have attempted to taint the history of the attacks, shifting blame from al-Qaida, who claimed responsibility for the event, onto Israel and the US itself... In one case, Alan Sabrosky, a columnist for Veterans Today, gave an interview in which he explained that 'The gate to containing Israeli ambitions, and to uncovering Israeli crimes, and thus saving Palestine, is in the United States, and not in Jerusalem or Gaza or Ramallah... the lock to that gate is not in Washington, DC, or New York City, which are the centers of Zionist power, but in the heartland of the United States... the key to that gate is 9/11.'"

• In addition to the WP:RS media quoted above, Sabrosky's 9/11 conspiracy theorizing is approvingly described by fellow 9/11 conspiracy theorist David Geofrey Smith Professor of Education at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, in an academic journal article, "The Deep Politics of War and the Curriculum of Disillusion", Policy Futures in Education, 2012 p. 346 "The point of these last remarks is to draw attention again to the real causes of the War on Terror... 9/11 was most likely an event orchestrated by forces within the Bush White House with strong links to the state of Israel. Indeed, Israeli involvement in 9/11 has recently been proposed by Dr Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, as a ‘100 percent certainty’."

In addition to the WP:RS publications above, his conspiracy theorizing is echoed in non-relieble publications such as:

• Foreign Policy Journal (a non-reliable publication) by Maidhc Ó Cathail, 7 April 2010, Who’s Afraid of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? [18], "Other experts, such as Alan Sabrosky, are less circumspect. Dr. Sabrosky, former director of studies of the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College, has recently stated that 'it is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation. Period.'"
• He also publishes opinion/policy analysis columns in foreign, below his opinion is up by BBC Monitoring, a BBC service that translates articles and snippets form the world press into English:
• BBC monitoring: "Jews working in the twin towers running away before the explosions shows that the Mossad knew about this attack; The sun of 11 September behind Zionist clouds" published by Iranian newspaper Javan on 15 September, 2010: "In March 2010 in a radio interview, Dr Alan Sabrosky, former head of strategic studies at the war college [a reference to the US Army War College], said: "It is 100 per cent evident that 11 September operations were carried out by Mossad." He also said senior US military officials know that Israel was involved. Dr Sabrosky is the first American military official who has openly supported this theory that the Israeli intelligence agency was behind 11 September."[19]E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As for Veterans Today (where Sabrosky is a columnist) - it is described as antisemitic-conspiracy by - SPLC in 2011 (and as neo-nazi by SPLC in 2013), JC, Ben Gidley at Haaretz, Tablet, Times of Israel, TIME, IB Times, Media Matters. Others have conspiracy labelled it - VICE, Politico, Salon.Icewhiz (talk) 09:21, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I have said, this seems to be what he is most famous for.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point there is no proposal to add content, so I'm not sure what to say here. A proposal would be better then a random list of sources. This ADL blog is a passing mentions [20]. This only only says that Mark Dankof says agreed with Sabrosky. [21]. This one says American Muslims for Palestine has circulated articles by Sabrosky, which I guess we could add [22]. This one has some details that are not about 9/11 that we could add [23]. It would be better to find sources for content you want to add and make a specific proposal/edit request. We could discuss the edit request, and if there is consensus the responding admin will implement it.Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments by article subject

I have never quite understood why questioning an official government account of anything ought to be considered a "conspiracy theory," other than as an exercise in trying to belittle the argument or to demean its author. Certainly the propensity to call me (and many, many others) "conspiracy theorists" or "racists" or "Anti-Semites" is in large part due to an inability on the part of our critics to respond substantively to the arguments we present. Happens all the time.

I would like to make two observations. One is that if one excludes Israeli or Jewish dominated sources like JTA, Commentary, ADL & SPLC (and please remember I am half Jewish...) allegations of Anti-Semitism are at best (or worst) very sparse. The other is that I made my position on Jews and Anti-Semitish very colear in the published article I noted above on "The Complicated Faces of Anti-Semitism." Please do me the courtesy of reading it. If you then consider me truly Anti-Semitic, regardless of my own views, then kill the damn article. Otherwise please evaluate it on whatever other (and more realistic) standards you choose to use. Thank you, Alan Docbrosk1941 (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

According to the ADL - "Sabrosky, a regular columnist for the Veterans Today, is currently one of the most cited sources for anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories. Sabrosky, like Duff, typically ties these theories to other anti-Israel themes. When Sabrosky alleges that Israel and the Mossad were behind 9/11, he inevitably brings up Israel's alleged treatment of the Palestinians or its attacks on Gaza. Sabrosky has repeatedly made comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany, in which Israel fares far worse than the Nazi regime in his weighing." and "that the Mossad and U.S government officials (namely Jewish neo-conservatives) were responsible for the 9/11 attacks and carried them out for Israel's benefit"2011 report. Conspiracy theories are described as such not since they challenge a government view, but since they contradict established fact. As for sources - we do not exclude sources on the basis of being "Jewish dominated" nor would this seem to describe IB Times, Business Insider, or Le Monde.Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the issue that you want to remove the attribution? I'm not sure what the objection is to the version currently in the article: Anti-Defamation League named him as a key figure in anti-Semitic 9/11 conspiracy theories. Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Flawed AfD based on mistaken premise

In the recent, no consensus AfD, I switched what had been my very firm "delete" opinion to "keep" when an editor who had been doggedly arguing "keep" turned up the fact that Sabrosky once held a named chair. However, in the process of looking for sources on Sabrosky's conspiracy theories as requested by editors above, I stumbled into the fact that the named chair in question does not appear to have been a full professorship. It does, of course, happen that a college has an named endowment used to fund for a lecturer, or researcher or position at less than the distinguished professor level (many post-doc positions are endowed and "named" in this sense), but the automatic pass in WP:NACADEMIC.5 is restricted to chairs at the full professor level. (Think Tanks and Foreign Policy: The Foreign Policy Research Institute and Presidential Politics; Howard J. Wiarda,Lexington Books, 2010. p. 26) According to Wiarda: "During most of the 1970s he had been a research associate at FPRI but he had never achieved the status among peers and associates in Philadelphia (FPRI) that comes from a full, tenured position at a major university. He taught for a time at Catholic University in Washington D.C., was an adjunct professor at Georgetown, and was listed during FPRI days as a "lecturer" at Penn. Sabrosky had a respectable publications record mainly focused on alliance systems, prisoners of war, and unionization in the U.S. military, but no breakthrough or pioneering works. He stayed only for about one year at FPRI before he, too, decamped, first to Washington D.C. for a year, and then finding a permanent job as director of studies at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle Barracks Pennsylvania." E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I looked at it a bit during the AfD - it seems this is some sort of "Honorary Academic Chair" that is associated with the position of director of studies. It is also not permanent - see description here. See coverage of who/how gets these - here and here - while "Uniquely among academic institutions, USAWC chair holders receive an actual chair, courtesy of the Army War College Foundation" - I'm not sure this is equivalent to an actual endowed chair at a major university.Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: - could you offer an opinion in regards to Army War College chair ("General of the Army Douglas MacArthur Chair of Research")[24] in regards to meeting WP:NACADEMIC(5)?Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point it looks like there was no consensus for your proposed changes, and insufficient sourcing to support them, so you are trying to reopen the deletion discussion. The Wianda quote is obviously discussing his career prior to the US Army War College. From what you guys are saying, the appointment would meet criteria 2 even if it doesn't meet criteria 5, as it is certainly a prestigious and highly selective academic honor to be appointed. It's also clear that additional sources are available beyond what is easily accessible and that it is way too soon to revisit the AfD, before editors have had a chance to look for and add additional content that would support inclusion under criteria 1 (which is based on a lot more then the citation count on Google Scholar).Seraphim System ^(talk) 16:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you explain the evidence that this is an ex officio chair ("associated with the position of director of studies") rather than a personal chair? Because the links you give above look (except from the symbolic gift of a physical chair) to be exactly the usual kind of named chair that #5 is about, but also are generically about chairs at that institution rather than Sabrosky specifically. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

On second look - actually I'm not sure about that - this link seems to suggest that for some chairs, and it also seems the same chair is awarded to the same position (but that's OR). Also I'm not sure what was in place in the 80s. If you could take a look at the sources (such as they are) - I'd be much obliged - my experience with chair notability for PROF(5) is low. Icewhiz (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That link says nothing about that specific chair, and does nothing to challenge my default assumption that a named chair such as the one Sabrosky held would pass #C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

On another note

E.M.Gregory, I'm sorry I have to ask you to tone it down a bit. You said the subject had been self-promoting in article space for years; as the president's lawyer said, either put up or shut up (sorry, that's what he said)--you've offered no evidence, even when asked, and if there isn't any, please retract it. And y'all please be careful with accusations of antisemitism: it's a heavy charge, so please keep it to the theories if that's properly verified (a look at the article suggests that RS say that's the case), and don't play the man. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

on the self-promo, my error. struck.

• However, the effort to exaggerate this man's academic reputation is problematic, assertions, for example, that he co-authored a book that is a collection of articles that he co-edited; poorly-sourced assertions of the notability of his work; and, at the recent AfD, assertions that he passes WP:PROF by holding an named chair (an assertion I fell for, to my shame,) when he in fact does not appear to have ever been a full professor at any university and the endowment supported his position as the head of a WP:MILL academic research institute. In contrast to this, the assertion that he is an anti-semitic conspiracy theorist is well-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, E.M.Gregory. Have I called him co-author rather than co-editor and contributor of the book in question in my proposed rewrite? I believe you originally agreed that the rewrite was superior, except you wanted more about the 9-11 article and other statements about Jews and responses. Since the article is protected so I did a complete rewrite in user space, we have two very different versions to consider. On the named chair, I don't see the problem with its being associated with an academic position. Named chairs are often associated with headships of particular departments within an institution. I also disagree that the Army War College is run-of-the-mill. But you saw me argue at the AfD that his notability rests on a combination of factors, including the publicity that particular article has received (which is why I accorded so much space to it in my rewrite). Our major disagreement, I believe, is over whether it should be accorded any further prominence. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

As I carefully argued at the AfD, the Army War College is a major academic institution; what I wrote above is that the Strategic Studies Institute of the War College that Sabrosky headed for a time is a WP:MILL institute. It, therefore, does not confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It is not one article. Per the ADL (and others) - the subject is a regular columnist for Veterans Today - and this content is in many cloumns as well as in interviews - this is far from a one off article.Icewhiz (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We can add that he was a columnist for Veterans Today or contributed to Veterans Today, but since the article was speedied as an attack page or negative unsourced BLP, then restored and deleted again by the restoring admin for BLP concerns, I don't know how helpful that would be. We can't add synth from different sources to imply or state anything about Sabrosky that isn't expressly stated by the RS. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note that Sabrosky is a serial writer of overtly anti-Semitic articles, albeit not in mainstream American publications:

Khaleej Times, 14 March 2010, Zionism and Jewish Nationalism :"But whereas extremism in other nationalist movements is an aberration, extremism in Jewish nationalism is the norm, pitting Zionist Jews (secular or observant) against the goyim (everyone else), who are either possible predator or certain prey, if not both... The differences between Jewish nationalism (Zionism) and that of other countries and cultures here I think are fourfold: 1. Zionism is a real witches' brew of xenophobia, racism, ultra-nationalism, and militarism that places it way outside of a "mere" nationalist context... and goes far beyond the misery for others professed by the Nazis." (He continues, describing the government of the United States as having been) "bought or bribed into submission" (and President Obama as) "Bibi Netanyahu's own "Uncle Tom" come to Washington." [25]

• Arab News, June 8, 2009, Israeli attack on the USS Liberty Sabrosky calls the mistaken identification of the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) by Israeli fighters during the Six-Day War a "deliberate Israeli air and naval attack..." (accuses President Johnson and the Secretary of State of) "giving precedence to a domestic Jewish lobby... over the lives of Americans in uniform. At the very least, both were indictable accessories in the murder at sea of 34 Americans and a breach of international law, in open violation of their own oaths of office. So why did the Israelis do it? One possibility is that for them, it was simply business as usual. Israel has a long history of attacking anything in its path - a civilian airliner, UN posts and officials, refugee camps, hospitals, the lot - and then denying culpability, so the question is not 'why,' but 'why not?'... What is important to note is that the Israelis had no qualms about deliberately killing Americans and concealing their own identity... It is something to keep in mind as a possible precedent when we look later at the attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001 and made the US an active belligerent intent on destroying Israel's enemies."[26]

• Sabrosky has published many similarly anti-Semitic articles and conspiracy theories. These are just two examples.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Which of these is a secondary source for what you just said and how are you proposing we use this in the article?Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that articles he wrote are notable or that they are secondary. I bring a sample of his antisemitic writing only to refute assertions/assumptions above that he wrote only one overtly antisemitic article or conspiracy theory, or only a couple of such, or only rarely, or that they constitute a minor part of his oeuvre. His conspiracy theories range beyond 9/11 to the USS Liberty, nefarious Jewish control of American Presidents, of the American Congress, of the media, and more. And he published many. This is why the WP:RS coverage of them cited above should be a significant part of the article. In the lede, and as a subhead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

But what do you want us to add to the article? The proposed content would have to supported by reliable secondary sources.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• I've posted to the BLP noticeboard. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Where the subject of this page again joins the discussion: "Interesting exercise in small group dynamics, no? Marginal or not, if you wish to verify my military record, my DD214 (given on discharge by US Government) has it all - I can upload it if you wish. For the rest, allegation is not evidence, and disputing the veracity of a government explanation does not consign one to outer darkness - we all know governments never lie, right? And why should Israel be treated differently than any other country? 10:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)Docbrosk1941 (talk)"[27].E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that this discussion is about adding reliably sourced material to the page, not about treating "Israel... differently than any other country."E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sabrosky's edited books

• About his books. Sabrosky edited and co-edited a number of books, collections of essays and articles by multiple scholars. Did he write any books?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• So, he co-edited several volumes, and authored two monographs (of 80and 100 pps) that were published by think tanks. Eash is part of a series held by a few specialized libraries. One shows only 2 citations in gScholar, both by Sabrosky in other things he wrote [28]. The other has been cited 3 times by people other than Sabrosky [29], [30].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yngvadottir's proposed revision and notability

• After taking a close look at User:Yngvadottir proposed revision [31], I have grave reservations. The proposed revision cites too many fact directly to Sabrosky, sometimes to articles by Sabrosky in FRINGE publications. It discusses two books he wrote using what look like reliable sources, however, as I note in detail above, several of these sources turn out to be sources that discuss particular chapters in the books, but not material that Sabrosky wrote. And several cited books or articles lack page numbers (I have now requested page numbers) making it difficult to know whether what is being cited is Sabrosky's work or that of a chapter contributor. At this point, I have serious doubts about Sabrosky's notability, despite the arduous efforts tha tI and others have made to find some (notability).E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

  Sabrosky himself can not be used as WP:FRIND trumps ABOUTSELF in this case.Icewhiz (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

• True. And without the self-sourcing it's really hard to see this subject passing WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@E.M.Gregory: He passes WP:NPROF. Please close this section. You opened another section about the same thing 3 days earlier and after David Eppstein who was pinged to the discussion commented that Sabrosky seems to fulfill C5, you opened this second section. I'm considering taking this article off my watch-list again, but last time I did that it ended up needing full protection. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus. And, yes, articles on people with very tenuous claims to notability who publish WP:FRINGE and 9/11 conspiracy theories often become problematic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

It closed only a few days ago and the article talk page is not the right place to keep complaining that you are unhappy with the result. If you didn't think he passed C5 why did you vote to keep during the discussion? You said during the discussion If kept, the article would have to be sourced to articles that use the phrasing I use above and this seems like a continuation of that. Right now, I think it's best to prepare Yngvadottir's rewrite for posting. Let's try to stay focused on that. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Source check

• The quote from Blue-Collar Soldiers? Unionization and the U.S. Military comes from a book review and says "as stated by Sabrosky"
• The second source for Polarity and War is cited to Sabrosky in Sabrosky, so yes it is material that Sabrosky wrote. Unless you are saying the source is wrong.

@E.M.Gregory: In fact, looking at the section most of it seems to be well-cited. Can you tell us which citations specifically have errors so we can fix them? I will agree that Veterans Today should not be cited, but the only other cite I see directly to Sabrosky is for the primary article Treason, Betrayal and Deceit: The Road to 9/11 and Beyond - this may be SYNTH, as the article does not seem to be named in the cited secondary sources. If a secondary source can't be found this should probably be reworded. Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

We lack secondary for his service record, and for details - like dates her worked where - of his life and career. Above, I specified all of the citations in the proposed article to books and long article that lack a page number, text excerpt, or text summary. Unspecific citations of this type, and to books and articles that I flag above as merely citing something he wrote, are not enough to support notability. And he fails WP:SOLDIER despite your argument that he passes WP:SOLDIER.7, a clause intended to cover chaps like Jan Žižka who actually "Were the undisputed inventor of a form of military technology which significantly changed the nature of or conduct of war". Sabrosky had a WP:MILL military career and a WP:MILL academic career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

You voted that it passed WP:NPROF C5 at AfD with the comment Article will need major revisions for accuracy and to give WP:DUE to the coverage his (redacted) 9/11 conspiracy theory advocacy has gotten. An admin was consulted about the application of C5 and confirmed that the named chair appears to the be the type of named chair covered by WP:NPROF. You should have dropped this then. I'm not going to continue replying to this. I can't even quote your discussion comments without accidentally repeating your BLP violations. I think if it doesn't stop this needs to go to AE. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, well, we all make mistakes. In this case I mistook what appears to be an endowment used to support faculty, including non-tenured and junior faculty, with the kind of distinguished professorship that passes WP:PROF. His position at the war college appears to have been in research and administration. And he moved on, moving from institution to institution, but never held tenure, and was never a full professor, and although he held posts as a lecturer and researcher at various schools and think tanks, with no accomplishments (books, articles,) nothing that I can see as passing WP:PROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

He held a named chair and was high in the administration of an institution. Looks like tenure and more, to me, and for that matter we recognize that administrators can be notable. You go on to write as if he had no publications, or none that attracted reviews? What about all those reviews I was able to cite? I believe Seraphim System has pointed out that military-related research is less likely to have a lot of hits on Google Scholar for reasons of denial of public access. But whether or not that's the case, where are you getting "no accomplishments"? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering that as well - the comments that resulted in the page needing full protection were similar [32] - the article, talk page and AfD all may benefit from quite a bit of redacting, because there are so many of these types of comments being made without supporting sources Seraphim System ^(talk) 20:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Brief response. I second Seraphim System in repeating that the BLP violations are unacceptable. To my eye even at the BLP noticeboard. I'm hoping someone there will finally back me up in that opinion. As to needing page references, I'll look, but I don't believe I left any out. Online versions of newspapers and magazines often don't have the pages, but if I omitted any pages in citations to JSTOR and so forth, I'll certainly remedy that. We need to cite Veterans Today at least as the location of an article published there, and in any case, it's not such a pariah site that we should not link to it. I'm afraid that's ridiculous. As to absence of dates, I was able to cite a book passage summing up his career up to his taking the Army War College post: that's more than can be found for many living academics, and full recitation of dates would probably look too much like a résumé anyway. But as I say, I don't have time to look and to hunt down any omitted page numbers right now; it's my bedtime. Thanks for the ping. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• I, not infrequently, find it necessary to walk into a real library and take a dusty journal or paper copy of a book off a shelf in order to provide a page number. We cannot keep articles where the notability is supported largely by references lacking the specificity that makes them verifiable. The claim to notability here hangs on assertions that material exist, but verifiable sources supporting notability (except for reliable media media reporting on his FRINGE essays,) have been extraordinarily difficult to find. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

No, they have not. I built the entire publications section on reviews of his work. Nor are page numbers required where we have a link to the entire text. As I say, I plan to look and see what you have marked as requiring further verification,but not long ago you were saying the rewrite looked fine except it didn't go on at length about his 9-11 writings. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, there is no requirement to use a particular citation system for notability. When reviewing articles at AfC articles can't be declined for this reason - only BLPs require inline citations, and that requirement is met here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Umm no. We should not be citing a fringe website (described as a antisemitic-conspiracy by - SPLC in 2011 (and as neo-nazi by SPLC in 2013), JC, Ben Gidley at Haaretz, Tablet, Times of Israel, TIME, IB Times, Media Matters. Others have conspiracy labelled it - VICE, Politico, Salon.). Nor should we be using Sabrosky himself as a source at all - WP:FRIND is quite clear here. We do not use what conspiracy theorists say about themselves - we use only independent reliable sources - which do exist here, briefly, stating that Sabrosky publushed a 9/11 conspiracy thoery. Anything Sabrosky said/wrote (at any point of time in the past) is out of the door per FRIND.Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz, I'm afraid I disagree that the sources support classifying the article subject as "a conspiracy theorist",pure and simple, and it is useful to the reader to have the article(s) in question referenced. I believe what the section you are pointing to is about is making the article report fringe views entirely in the author's words? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• He is referred to as a "conspiracy theorist" by RSes, when they actually refer to him.[33] Regardless of whether we call him so in our voice or attribute to the ADL, we do not use conspiracy theorists as sources on Wikipedia - WP:FRIND is policy. Anything Sabrosky himself wrote is not usable as a source. The ADL report, and reporting in RSes is usable. Any bio detail relying on Sabrosky saying/writing something (also not conspiracy related) is precluded as well per FRIND. Quite simply, Sabrosky, as other individuals described as conspiracy theorists, is not a RS - FRIND trumps ABOUTSELF.Icewhiz (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous citations of his academic publications, none of which call him a conspiracy theorist or even imply it. Nonsense, limited use of a person's own writing for biographical details and to document where it appears is very much allowed: what is forbidden is using it as the major source or for establishing notability. (For example, self-written faculty pages are used all the time to source where a person has worked during their academic career, although secondary sources—such as we have here—are preferable. I've just checked through the rewrite and remedied the citations I think E.M.Gregory was objecting to as insufficient (I was under the mistaken impression they'd marked them) except for one where, as I noted in my edit summary, the publication Sabrosky edited and contributed to is footnoted several times, which meets what I'm citing it to demonstrate—the book exists, he edited it, and notice has been taken of it. I also checked whether I was citing Sabrosky himself overmuch: two essays, both of which are referred to in third-party publications some of which I cite, and one that I also used for biographical information that, thanks to Seraphim System, is also cited to a decent third-party source. This is way below the level of concern, and one of them was published on the Veterans Today site: saying so can hardly be avoided, and hardly constitutes an endorsement. (In any case Docbrosk1941 has said it is not an antisemitic site, and I see no reason to disbelieve him. Since we now have an article on it, I trust it's neutrally written.) Yngvadottir (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Veterans Today is referred to as an antisemitic conspiracy website by a multitude of RSes (cited above). If you are trusting Sabrosky's word here (over say SPLC 2013 or Politico) - you should not be editing this article. WP:FRIND is policy. Unlike most situations, in this case we are writing the bio of an individual described as a conspiracy theorist in sources (e.g. [34]) - which means the individual is not a RS even for the limited ABOUTSELF carveout. That Sabrosky was previously an academic is irrelevant for his usability as a source. Promoting fringe theories on Wikipedia, using non-reliable sources, and not adhering to NPOV is very much a cause for concern.Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The policy is when describing fringe theories. No one is promoting fringe theories. The only thing it is cited for is that Sabrosky had won "the Superior Civilian Service Award". The quote from Sabrosky is sourced to an independent source - I don't know why Yngvadottir changed the cite to Veterans Today because it is also quoted in the Commentary article. The Veterans Today cite can be removed without losing much, the only thing we need VT for is the "Superior Civilian Service Award" (for which there is almost definitely another source somewhere that is not easily accessible). Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Note also that source #16 in the current version of User:Yngvadottir's proposed version is a FRINGE essay peddling antisemitic CONSPIRACY THEORIES by Sabrosky (among others) that ran in the FRINGE publication American Free Press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I say above, my rewrite cites two pieces of writing by Sabrosky that are mentioned in 3rd-party sources and are therefore significant, but are not book-length and therefore don't belong in the list of publications. They are cited for that reason as well as the biographical detail Seraphim System mentions. One can't have it both ways: make a big deal of the reactions to those essays/articles (for example with screaming capital letters above) as well as seek to hush up where they can be found for verification purposes. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Reliable 3rd party sources are the only acceptable source here - we do not promote conspiracy theories published in a site that SPLC calls neo-Nazi.[35] Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
      • Nonsense: a link to the actual articles being discussed is highly desirable, only to be omitted if there is no reliable text online. Moreover, such a reference is not "promotion" and declaring something a "bad site" never to be linked to on any organization's say-so is non-neutral. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

straw man argument. What Icewhiz and other editors argue in many comments above and at the recent AfD is that many WP:RS s, including a long, INDEPTH report in Politico, and reports in other highly regarded publications, characterize the websites you are citing as peddlers of race hatred and conspiracy theories. See some of this sourcing at: American Free Press and Veterans Today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) No lack of sources labeling this site. Per TIME - "virulently anti-Semitic website Veterans Today"[36], per IB Times - the anti-Semitic Veterans Today[37], per ToI - "an extremist whose bland-sounding website, Veterans Today, is a clearinghouse of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.[38], per VICE - "the conspiracy-oriented Veterans Today"[39], per Salon - "the leftist conspiracy website Veterans Today"[40], per Politico (quite in depth coverage of this site) - "Veterans Today is a homegrown American site that was founded in 2003 in opposition to the invasion of Iraq and soon began publishing wild conspiracy theories[41]. This site can not be considered a RS even for the byline of the author (besides WP:FRIND precluding use of conspiracy theories as sources). We do have actual WP:RS saying Sabrosky published such and such on Veterans Today, however Veterans Today itself is not a reliable source even for the byline.Icewhiz (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You know, much as I would prefer to watch this exercise unfold (and I appreciate all of the effort the editors are putting into this, no matter what their opinions of me professionally), I am simply not going to sit back and let these allegations of anti-Semitism go without a response. First, because anyone reading what I write and who knows me understands those allegations are nonsense - and not just because I have some Jewish heritage. Second, go to "Veterans Today" - the website, not comments on the website - and look at the material. Most of it has nothing to do with the Middle East or 9/11, many of the writers are Israelis or non-Israeli Jews (not great candidates for an anti-Semitic site, no?), and those of us who do sometimes address those subjects are generally anti-Zionists and not supportive of the US Government "war on terror" - but why should a refusal to accept ANY government explanaton for anything put one beyond the pale? And last, tyou do find sources saying those unpleasant things about me and/or "Veterans Today," but there are two things to remember: most of them come from a narrow part of the political spectrum, and none of them is a military journal - you might ask yourselves why NONE of the military journals in the US share the views of (e.g.) the ADL or Politico or Commentary or the SPLC, which share a lot of the same leadership? You think they might know better what those of us who write on these subjects are about? Cheers, Alan Docbrosk1941 (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

On citing Veterans Today

• Veterans Today is a FRINGE website. Pages have been created for it and deleted. It is, however mentioned with appropriate qualifiers on James H. Fetzer#Promotion of conspiracy theories.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
• I just filled the longstanding redlink Veterans Today. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Did Sabrosky Claim that Mossad Did 9/11?

I just saw an internet meme to that effect, and came here to see if there is any truth to it. The Article is very sparse. 1) Is there any truth to this? 2) If there is, should that be included in the Article? 3) If there isn't, should the fact that it's not true be included in the Article? 4) In general, in Terms of Wikipedia Policy, is there any guidance with regard to Articles being used as a means by which to correct "fake news", i.e. there's a popular rumor or belief that's wrong. Does the popularity of the rumor and/or the quality of it's wrongness give some kind of "notability" threshold to include some kind of correction in the Article? This is the 3rd time in about 2 weeks I've experienced this kind of thing, and I'm wondering about Wikipedia Policy in general. Is it commonly done? Occasionally done? NEVER done? Etc... I can see the obvious downside to addressing every flea-bitten rumor, but can also see the consequences of passively allowing such a rumor to continue unchecked.Tym Whittier (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There is brief coverage of this in the "Controversy" section. Yes it should be expanded, and should be in the lead as well.Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

See above for discussion of a rewrite that I did in which this is included. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Reopening Discussion of Rewrite.

I'd like to reopen the discussion of replacing the article with the version created by Yngvadottir [42]. Naraht (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

It downplays his role in promoting conspiracy theories - which is his main claim to notability (his war college career being rather borderline) - and main coverage of him. Placing his post-2000s conspiracy theories under "Research and publications" is a travesty. Using Veterans Today as a source is a no-no as well. His 9/11 conspiracy theories should be in a separate section and be given a large chunk of the lede.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I disagree on all counts: the basis for his notability, the barring of use of Veterans Today (which is after all the location of publication of the article you propose making a major focus of the article), and making of the article into a hit piece by prominent placement of his 9/11 theory as a conspiracy theory in the lede and in a separate section. In my view that is not merely unbalanced and editorializing but a BLP violation. Short and factual is the way to go. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Would splitting the publications into "scholarly" vs. "controversial" (and yes, I'd appreciate better names) help with this?Naraht (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"Opinion"? I don't think it would satisfy the one or more editors who want to frame this as an article about a disapproved of person. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sabrosky did Claim that Mossad Did 9/11

I've just finished reading some of Ronnie Unz's self-citations contained within his op-ed entitled 'American Pravda: Mossad Assasinations' from January 27, 2020. Unz writes the following:

"... Dr. Alan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College, stepped forward and publicly declared that the Israeli Mossad had very likely been responsible for the 9/11 attacks."

Sabrosky wrote the following:

"Many years ago I read a fascinating discussion of the “tactics of mistake.” This essentially entailed using a target’s prejudices and preconceptions to mislead them as to the origin and intent of the attack, entrapping them in a tactical situation that later worked to the attacker’s strategic advantage.

This is what unfolded in the 9/11 attacks that led us into the matrix of wars and conflicts, present (Afghanistan and Iraq), planned (Iran and Syria) and projected (Jordan and Egypt), that benefit Israel and no other country — although I concede that many private contractors and politicians are doing very well for themselves out of the death and misery of others."

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-mossad-assassinations/#the-9-11-attacks-who-did-it https://dissidentvoice.org/2011/06/demystifying-911-israel-and-the-tactics-of-mistake/