Talk:Laurie Mylroie

message: :"Mylroie believes that Saddam was not only behind the '93 Trade Center attack, but also every anti-American terrorist incident of the past decade, from the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania to the leveling of the federal building in Oklahoma City to September 11 itself. She is, in short, a crackpot, which would not be significant if she were merely advising say, Lyndon LaRouche. But her neocon friends who went on to run the war in Iraq believed her theories, bringing her on as a consultant at the Pentagon, and they seem to continue to entertain her eccentric belief that Saddam is the fount of the entire shadow war against America."
I don't want to just get into a revert war but really, the quote from some reporter calling this person names isn't pertinent. His recap of her views is fine—although even that could just be stated in the article with a source note, the direct quotation isn't necessary—but in any event his characterization is not encyclopedic. Just by way of comparison, neither the article on Lyndon LaRouche nor the one on L. Ron Hubbard, to take just the first two examples that come to mind of genuine crackpots, use that word in them anywhere. No matter what Peter Bergen may think, Laurie Mylroie is not even in the same league as LaRouche. Comm. Sloat, can we discuss this in greater depth than edit summaries permit? -EDM 19:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the opinion of a well-known expert on this particular topic is quite relevant -- Peter Bergen is not just "some reporter" -- he is CNN's terrorism analyst because he is widely recognized as an authority on terrorism in general and al-Qaeda in particular. His evaluation is also shared by other scholars and journalists (see for example Rohan Gunaratna, Juan Cole, Jason Burke). Just quoting the first part does not make the crucial point, which is that her views are not just "in the minority"; experts consider them to be utterly without merit. As for LaRouche and Hubbard, I agree with your assessment of them, but I am no expert in either. I am certain appropriate quotations on those pages would be relevant, especially if either was the main source of a particular historical theory that was significantly influential in spite of its being based on utter hogwash. --csloat 21:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't agree, because the term "crackpot" is one of those terms that just adds heat and no light, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry. Really, that whole quote ought to go - Mylroie's views and theories should be summarized in this entry, but from a primary source (i.e. her own writings), not by quoting from an opinion piece by someone else. I don't have the energy to spend the next few days or weeks reverting this kind of thing, so I'll just leave it to your version with the sad observation that this will be another one of the many Wikipedia articles on controversial subjects, both left and right, that succumbs to the POV-pushing of editors more invested in tearing down than building up, all to the long-term detriment of the credibility of the project. -EDM 23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with you if it was just a quote from a random journalist expressing an idiosyncratic opinion. The problem is, this is representative of what real scholars and journalists think of Mylroie's so-called "work." I don't disagree with the idea of quoting Mylroie, but there is no need to censor this information -- Mylroie is a crackpot, by definition. Yes, the term is emotionally loaded, but it is also quite accurate in the sense that she argues for bizarre conspiracy theories that have a tenuous link at best to reality. Her work has been thoroughly discredited by those with real expertise who have studied the issue. I invite people of all political perspectives to improve this article by adding further information on Mylroie, and if you find information about some credible sources refuting Bergen's estimation of her work, please feel free to add it here too. But this information is here because it is quite relevant and significant that Mylroie's work, which has been very influential in many ways, is widely recognized by people with expertise on these matters as complete hogwash.-csloat 06:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Crackpot quote

message: If Bergen's views are to be represented at such length, then so should Mylroie's arguments for Iraqi sponsorship. Mporter 04:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, please add them. It's not just Bergen's view that she is totally incorrect, of course. If you examine her arguments piece by piece yourself you would actually see yourself that she is a conspiracy theorist that borders on the incoherent. But I am all for including more information here, not less, as I have frequently been saying. There is no reason to censor the fact that every credentialed expert on this topic who has examined her arguments has come to the same conclusion as Bergen.--csloat 06:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put together a synopsis. I'll have to study the page on Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda first, to see whether there's any overlap. Mporter 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, a link to her 9/11 Commission testimony will do for now. Mporter 21:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you examine her arguments piece by piece yourself you would actually see yourself that she is a conspiracy theorist that borders on the incoherent"? Please....your desire to overlook any truth behind the Bush Administration's casus belli clearly eradicates all sense of objectivity. The reality is the Mylroie has likely been right all along and Saddam's regime was involved in the '93 WTC Boming, 9/11 and possibly the Anthrax mailings. However, this truth will never come to light because of the lop-sided anti-war sentiment that pervades society. What's most sad is that U.S. authorities could easily prove her case with a simple DNA cross comparison between the four members of the mysterious "al-Baluchi family" behind al Qaeda's terrorist attacks against America. (related article) However, this will likely never happen because the U.S. intelligence community is pervaded with the same self-destructive leftist mentality that afflicts this site and world society. The hard truth is that the world probably won't recorgnize the truth until Saddam's WMDs are found floating down the streets of New York City. Spirit Of Truth 18:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, I see, so the CIA and NSA and FBI are full of leftists. And the long-defunct KGB was behind 9/11. I don't have time to argue, I have to go listen to a speech by George Tenet waxing eloquent about the dictatorship of the proletariat. csloat 22:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Long defunct KGB? Apparently you are not aware of the recent assassination of my friend, Alexander Litvinenko. The CIA, NSA and FBI are compromised, impotent intelligence organizations. 'American Intelligence' is an oxymoron. It will be a catastrophic day when the world finds out just how badly the West has been checkmated by the East in the global contest of Real Politik. Spirit Of Truth 18:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, but no doubt communists like John Negroponte and General Hayden will cheer, along with Osama bin Laden, who you claim secretly supports the atheists he fought for a decade against... Happy new year! csloat 21:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mylroie's arguments

message: Another editor removed my comment that Mylroie does not speak or read Arabic and asked for proof. Her homepage bio claims she studied Arabic at American University in Cairo (AUC) which I assume is true. But the fact is if one reviews the sources she uses or, more importantly, listens to her butcher Arabic phrases and names during her television appearances, it is doubtful that she retains any degree of proficiency. Of course, there are plenty of fine scholars who are not fluent Arabic speakers. BobSaccamanno (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mylroie language facility 

message: Most of the section "Iraq connection claims" reads as if it's directly lifted from Mylroie's book, although these parts are, coincidentally, uncited.  Shouldn't that filler be removed, or at least summarized? Rockypedia (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq connection claims 

message: I'm concerned about the actions of one editor - Jason17760 - as it appears he is removing any info that could be perceived as negative, and adding in peacock terms which I feel have turned the page into a promotional write-up.
If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to discuss it here, but in the meantime, I'm reverting the edits from the Jason17760 account as it appears he's only interested in editing one page, and not in a neutral way. Rockypedia (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tone being heavily added in by one editor 

message: After revisiting this page, I saw no one had taken any action to remove what amounted to a summary/promotion of Mylroie's book. So I removed it.  If the book itself had a wiki article, the paragraphs that I removed would likely be considered too much detail even for that article, let alone be justified for inclusion in an article about the author. It's my suspicion that this article was serving as a showcase for the theories put forth in that book. Obviously that's inappropriate. Please respond here if you disagree, the page is on my watchlist. Rockypedia (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 2015 cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Laurie Mylroie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080508041315/http://article.nationalreview.com:80/?q=NGU2Y2U3OTJkMDViZDQ2NmI3YjkzZGU1MTYwMTAyYTk= to http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2Y2U3OTJkMDViZDQ2NmI3YjkzZGU1MTYwMTAyYTk=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Laurie Mylroie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081101154056/http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html to http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2Y2U3OTJkMDViZDQ2NmI3YjkzZGU1MTYwMTAyYTk%3D
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Laurie Mylroie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917190627/http://spectator.org/people/laurie-mylroie/all to http://spectator.org/people/laurie-mylroie/all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I went to grammar school with Laurie Mylroie. She was extremely intelligent. One day in (approximately) 5th grade we were asked to write a poem. My mother had recently read some relatively obscure poetry to my sister and I at breakfast as she sometimes did. In a moment of intellectual laziness I submitted in class a paraphrased version of what I could remember I had heard, and this was eventually read to the class. A day or two later Laurie confronted me about my submission and knew exactly the poem I had plagiarized. Of course I denied it, but I think Laurie could tell I was being dishonest.
I have never forgotten this incident and Laurie's ability to ferret out the truth. I learned a lot about intellectual honesty that day. And although my personal politics lean left, I post this anecdote some 60 years later to say: I would never discount Laurie Mylroie's ability to ferret out the truth!  
JMTOBACK MD, MBA 108.184.15.28 (talk) 06:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood Sherlock Holmes