Not according to, nor "sources say..."
It's important to make the distinction. Language can be deceptive.
Let's look at some examples...
When I say, "At least one of the two main World Trade Center towers was brought down on September 11 with the assistance of nano-thermitic material", that is a fact.
It is not debatable; it is not an opinion; it is not a theory.
Not alleged, nor suspected, nor is it "according to sources".
It is scientific, proven, incontrovertible....fact.
When I say, "It's a shame that so many great people make the mistake of joining the military, because there is a good chance that the military will turn you into a murdering, insane, drug-addicted, amputee, homeless person....or some combination therof....or worse..."
That's a bit tricky. Can you find the fact?
"...there is a good chance..." You can call that a fact. But it's imprecise - how do you quantify a good chance?
So: is it still fact? Is it true? Do we even know what it is?
Moving right along...
How about this:
"Iraq has links to Al-Qaeda."
Most people who know their recent past will get understandably pissed at this assertion, and they will say that it's completely untrue...And in a military, operational sense, they are right.
But saying "Iraq has links to Al-Qaeda."...
Well, what is Iraq? A Country. What is it full of? Iraqi citizens. Is it possible that, out of millions of Iraqis, one of them has a cousin who once bought a counterfeit DVD from a guy on the street...and that guy bought the DVD's wholesale from a guy who also does business with Al-Qaeda....
Then shit yeah, Iraq has links to Al-Qaeda. Verified.
That's how these idiots work. This the kind of investigative logic they employ.
Don't believe it? They pull the same shit domestically too.
If they want it to be, your bathroom is a chemical weapons factory.
By their own logic, not even stretching it, they are the overwhelming supporters of death and misery worldwide.
More to come...