UK General Election 2017

[Montmorency]

When we're talking about motives, what better source is there than the horse's mouth?

The horse's feet?

Q: If you dismiss the quoted article as biased ISIS propaganda, how do you determine a better source to explain their motives?

You can look at further primary documents, observed actions of the group, reports of defectors, insiders, spies, and other observers (which count as primary sources)...

Am I to understand that you are saying that a single primary source can tell us everything we need or can know about a subject?

Q: On what grounds do you dismiss what Haras Rafiq has said?

I don't see that I have.