• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

al-Qaida No. 3 Arreested in Pakistan

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: MCWAR
Originally posted by: conjur
See my edited post above, MCWAR. Your beloved President is engaging in pure propaganda and you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.
Excuse me, but it is you madam who have fallen hook, line and sinker for the kook left wing version of the black helicopter crowd.
mmm hmmm

You Bush-God fanbois will hold him accountable for nothing, will you?
Look out conjur! One of Bush's spy planes is over your home right now! I think he's trying to stop you from exposing his evil right wing agenda!🙂

 
Originally posted by: conjur
No, I wasn't talking to you. Your argument is non-sensical and ignores the obvious deception of this administration. You're not much better than a troll.


But, for your edification I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread:



http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_...usblog_archive.html#109156476570482138
Biltud, from Salon.com's TableTalk, posted a few days ago a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline. I also added additional news items and other instances that I found out, detailing the terror alerts over the last few years, and located the original sources for many of these news articles. Soon, Biltud and I started to research together all these occurrences, and more interesting "coincidences" started to appear. We finally built this timeline of terror alerts and how they relate to the news headlines of the days immediately prior to that very alert. I think it's very easy to see a pattern recurring (Text in blue marks the original notes by Biltud. Text and sources in black are my additions):

I'd long wondered what news events or key dates were met with terror alerts that resulted in a rise in Bush's approval ratings (keep them afraid...sell that terror...sell that fear!) This site has apparently put a lot of research into the "coincidences" of bad news for Bush and terror alerts.

A nice chart:
http://img70.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img70I=aproval_vs_alert_chart_NEW.gif
There are few things that are quite evident from the chart:

- Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.

- Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.

- Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).

- As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.

No, you *ARE* a troll. My argument makes PERFECT, FLAWLESS sense, yours makes NONE. You prove once again that you are in fact an intellectual GNAT, and make it clear why no one takes you seriously. While there are PLENTY of legitimate reasons to loathe Bush you go to such an irrational, absurd extreme that you try to find ways to blame or accuse the fool of being behind EVERYTHING that goes wrong and being the architect of an *EXTRAORDINARY* number of conspiracies that make little to no sense.

Tell you what: Go get yourself some nice, cold milk and some cookies, several season DVD sets of the X-Files, sit down on the couch and go to town. There's a world for people like you and it's not this one.

Jason
 
I see you fail to address the terror alerts and their correlation with drops in the Propagandist's approval ratings or other bad news for his administration.

I thank you for accepting the truth.
 
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Originally posted by: conjur
No, I wasn't talking to you. Your argument is non-sensical and ignores the obvious deception of this administration. You're not much better than a troll.


But, for your edification I'll repeat what I posted in the other thread:



http://juliusblog.blogspot.com/2004_08_...usblog_archive.html#109156476570482138
Biltud, from Salon.com's TableTalk, posted a few days ago a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline. I also added additional news items and other instances that I found out, detailing the terror alerts over the last few years, and located the original sources for many of these news articles. Soon, Biltud and I started to research together all these occurrences, and more interesting "coincidences" started to appear. We finally built this timeline of terror alerts and how they relate to the news headlines of the days immediately prior to that very alert. I think it's very easy to see a pattern recurring (Text in blue marks the original notes by Biltud. Text and sources in black are my additions):

I'd long wondered what news events or key dates were met with terror alerts that resulted in a rise in Bush's approval ratings (keep them afraid...sell that terror...sell that fear!) This site has apparently put a lot of research into the "coincidences" of bad news for Bush and terror alerts.

A nice chart:
http://img70.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img70I=aproval_vs_alert_chart_NEW.gif
There are few things that are quite evident from the chart:

- Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.

- Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.

- Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).

- As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.

No, you *ARE* a troll. My argument makes PERFECT, FLAWLESS sense, yours makes NONE. You prove once again that you are in fact an intellectual GNAT, and make it clear why no one takes you seriously. While there are PLENTY of legitimate reasons to loathe Bush you go to such an irrational, absurd extreme that you try to find ways to blame or accuse the fool of being behind EVERYTHING that goes wrong and being the architect of an *EXTRAORDINARY* number of conspiracies that make little to no sense.

Tell you what: Go get yourself some nice, cold milk and some cookies, several season DVD sets of the X-Files, sit down on the couch and go to town. There's a world for people like you and it's not this one.

Jason


dude, dont waste ur time, he spots her fulltime, i wouldnt be surprised if its his ful ltime job and he is paid by some left wing liberal grassroots movement
 
Originally posted by: conjur
See my edited post above, MCWAR. Your beloved President is engaging in pure propaganda and you've fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

Yes, and YOU never, ever engage in propaganda, do you? Oh, except for days ending in "Y".

Bush is a bad president, no question about it, but the extraordinary lengths you go to to conjur up baloney conspiracy theories is absurd. For one thing, Bush isn't SMART ENOUGH to carry off all the conspiracies you claim. For another, he'd have to the WHOLE of the government, the military, all the Republicans in Congress and most, if not all of the Democrats to boot.

There IS someone in this thread not making sense: YOU. There IS someone in this thread leading it off topic: YOU.

Go curl up with some X Files episodes and masturbate your handful of brain cells some more.

Jason
 
I post news articles and comment on them. Not my fault you don't share the same interpretations and prefer to live in your blind-loyalty world.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I post news articles and comment on them. Not my fault you don't share the same interpretations and prefer to live in your blind-loyalty world.

our blind loyalty to our side is just as blind as the loyalty you hold for yours
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I see you fail to address the terror alerts and their correlation with drops in the Propagandist's approval ratings or other bad news for his administration.

I thank you for accepting the truth.

Actually I didn't see the link until a few minutes ago. Regardless, your claims are absurd, just as you yourself are absurd. Is it likely that a president--ANY president--releases such information to be helpful? Sure it's likely. It's also ROUTINE and done by EVERY president, regardless of Party. You can fantasize that Democrats are noble and honest if you like, but it remains just that: A fantasy.

The IMPORTANT thing here is that this bastard was caught and held in secret for awhile whilst information was extracted and used to HELP OUR FORCES accomplish their mission while at the same time reducing some of the margins for error and injuries/deaths for our guys.

Kudos to those who captured him and got any info out of him. If others benefit politically after the fact, so be it. It's not "conspiracy", it's *standard operating procedure*. Such is the life of a politician. Duh.

Jason
 
We don't know this guy was held in secret. The article says the arrests just occurred. My guess is, though, that they've either had them in custody ready to spring them when it was opportune or they've been monitoring them and waiting for the politically-expedient time to actually arrest him.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
We don't know this guy was held in secret. The article says the arrests just occurred. My guess is, though, that they've either had them in custody ready to spring them when it was opportune or they've been monitoring them and waiting for the politically-expedient time to actually arrest him.

thats ur guess, ours is there was some valuable intel that they didint want to fall through, so they didnt release the info of capture yet

your just as bad as dmcowen is this sitatuion man, your making assumptions and pushing them as fact....
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I post news articles and comment on them. Not my fault you don't share the same interpretations and prefer to live in your blind-loyalty world.

Yes, I'm so blindly loyal to Bush that I CONSTANTLY criticize him for legitimate issues like his failure to protect our borders, his extraordinary spending on fluff programs during wartime, his cowardice toward Mexico, his lack of support for those who uphold the law and so on and so forth. I criticize Bush ALL THE TIME for his FAILINGS, which are numerous. That's not what you are doing. YOU are going OUT OF YOUR WAY to come up with reasons why EVERYTHING that goes wrong in the world is directly linked to Bush or how every announcement, accomplishment, success, failure, truth, falsehood, life or death is somehow a conspiracy orchestrated by Bush and his apparently infinite supply of super-loyal cronies.

I have NO LOYALTY to Bush and you can't *begin* to imagine how much I wish we had someone else as our president, but that doesn't mean that I can legitimately go out of my way to make up stories and come up with the whacked-out stories that you do. You aren't presenting as a legitimate critic of Bush's policies and practices, you're presenting as a NUT who's clearly long since the point of CRACKING.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: conjur
We don't know this guy was held in secret. The article says the arrests just occurred. My guess is, though, that they've either had them in custody ready to spring them when it was opportune or they've been monitoring them and waiting for the politically-expedient time to actually arrest him.

No, we don't know conclusively that they've had him held for some time, but it's reasonable to believe that's the case. Whether it's politically expedient to tell the world about it right now is immaterial. The RELEVANT issue, as I've said before and you've ignored, is that he's been CAUGHT and either will or *has* provided some useful information to our side. Even if he HASN'T provided useful intel (which is unlikely) we've STILL managed to take away one of the enemy's top guys, and that's an accomplishment worth being happy over.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I won't be happy until bin Laden has been caught and/or killed. But, this administration isn't worried about him.

In fact, his involvement in 9/11 isn't even worthy of the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list:
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Guess who else isn't on there? The Phantom: Zarqawi

Ah, so if bin Laden is caught and/or killed but thousands of his followers remain on the loose, you'll be happy with that, eh?

bin Laden is *very* important, and I share your disgust with Bush's comments that Osama isn't all that important. At the same time, it's important and HONEST to recognize that capturing or killing Osama *alone* isn't going to do the trick. His followers have to be caught, killed, beaten into a bloody, quivering mass before the world and it's potentially terrorist-minded people will get just how serious this is.

Jason
 
Originally posted by: conjur
I won't be happy until bin Laden has been caught and/or killed. But, this administration isn't worried about him.

In fact, his involvement in 9/11 isn't even worthy of the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list:
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terubl.htm
http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Guess who else isn't on there? The Phantom: Zarqawi

Usama IS on the list

No, it doesn't specifically mention 9/11 on his sheet, but he's in the FIRST position on the Terrorist Most Wanted page.

Jason
 
They have a terror list and a most wanted list. Looks like he is on both.

conjur - have some caffene before posting please.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Damn war on terror. I can't believe that Bush would dare to arrest someone and allow Pakistan to hold him.

We should bring him here and free him on bond. That would be the right thing to do.

Who is saying that? If any thing, they should be going after Bin Laden much more forcefully. Too bad we're being distracted by the Iraq war....
 
Conjur has gone and made himself look like a total fool in this thread. I love it 🙂

He's somehow trying to turn the capture of the #3 Al Qaeda guy into a negative. Isn't it great how biased he is...?
 
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: irwincur
Damn war on terror. I can't believe that Bush would dare to arrest someone and allow Pakistan to hold him.

We should bring him here and free him on bond. That would be the right thing to do.

Who is saying that? If any thing, they should be going after Bin Laden much more forcefully. Too bad we're being distracted by the Iraq war....

we should cut off his dicck and hang him upside down from the statue of liberty with a US flag wrapped around his head...but hey thats just my feeling.... 😀
 
Originally posted by: Deptacon
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Originally posted by: irwincur
Damn war on terror. I can't believe that Bush would dare to arrest someone and allow Pakistan to hold him.

We should bring him here and free him on bond. That would be the right thing to do.

Who is saying that? If any thing, they should be going after Bin Laden much more forcefully. Too bad we're being distracted by the Iraq war....

we should cut off his dicck and hang him upside down from the statue of liberty with a US flag wrapped around his head...but hey thats just my feeling.... 😀

Heh. Yeah, I wouldn't have a problem with that.
 
Conjur:

Don't even bother getting into matches against Genx87 or Deptacon.

They dont know the first thing about South Asian politics or the dirty games Musharraf plays. Let them be ignorant to it.

Proceed to have discussions with those that actually know anything about the region.

You are absolutely correct in your statement that this is another dirty political move.

 
Back
Top