TA-ANALYSIS: Seized al-Qaeda Documents Reportedly Years Old

Hey, Pakistan have al-Qaeda operatives working and living in their country!
Invade!!!

What a tangled web we weave.... Look, this started out either by an extremely "lucky" administration, the fact that we were attacked, (wink, wink) and from there it snowboweled into the most grandiose and opportunistic way to scare us, brain wash us, and this all has become a hot bed of lies that if an intelligent person were to examine, chapter by chapter, they could only come to one conclusion: We are being scared into submission. Our civil liberties will be completely taken away...this will be the price we have to pay in order to have "freedom"

AND might i say, IT WORKS! LOOK AT SOME OF YOU!
SOME OF YOU ALREADY SAY, LETS KEEP BUSH INDEFINATELY!!!
DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING??????????

You nuts want BUSH to PROTECT YOU????? Do you think he's actually protecting you????

My God, he's a mindless moronic idiot- spineless- just a puppet on strings.
EXCUSE ME BUT, do you think we went to war in order to protect the USA?
Do you think he got rid of saddam to make this a better world?
Do you think we've killed thousands in Iraq to make this a better world?
Of course you do.
Statistics show the United States of America has more mental illness than any other nation in the world.
It also has the highest uneducated, simple and stupid people in the world.
I understand some are not capable of forming rational thoughts.

Pics taken from January used for the "Alert":
www.guardian.co.uk...

Saturday, August 8, 2004

American Government has issued visas to 7000 Muslims in Russia.
Will be arriving (all of them) to Pennsylvania given homes and furniture and no doubt welfare- www.jeffrense.com

What is WRONG with this picture?????

Originally posted by dgtempe
What they told us was a pure lie.

alert was " New terror threats to Washington DC and New York"
THIS STATEMENT IS A BOLD A$%%% LIE!

The TRUTH: We re raising terror alert due to updating of intelligence dating back to year 2000. A situation may arise. Stay in bed.

Come on, please, give me a break- Surely, you are more intelligent than that, arent you?

The headline did say "new", didn't it? And in your mind, this strictly means that the actual information must have been CREATED by these terrorists in some time-frame less than 3 years ago? And furthermore, this cannot mean--in your way of thinking--that the information was newly discovered?

What is your expiration date for "new"?

You seem to be saying that because the data does not meet your (currently undisclosed) deadline for "freshness", then the headline is false and therefore the threat must be dismissed as bogus. That is your point, no?

I am simply saying that the age of the data clearly falls into the range "new enough to matter", as the 9-11 timeline link I cited shows.

well, new is new

since we're disecting statements:
"New information"- like just got it new

newly aquired information: could have been 10 years old but we just got a hold of it. (however it was not said like this)

If i told you i just got a pair of new shoes, you'd "assume" they're brand new, i just bought them, etc.

In this nation of genuises, i think this government should speak clearly and litteraly so that people like "me" can understand.

So now, since this happened, i can "assume" that the next terror alert will be an old fossil report, but new to me, right?

Or perhaps i should contact you so you can interpret latest alert?

-REPUBLICANS ARE DESPERATE-

Originally posted by dgtempe
well, new is new

since we're disecting statements:
"New information"- like just got it new

Let's call the information "three years old", then.

In this nation of genuises, i think this government should speak clearly and litteraly so that people like "me" can understand.

That sounds like a good idea to me.

So now, since this happened, i can "assume" that the next terror alert will be an old fossil report, but new to me, right?

Or perhaps i should contact you so you can interpret latest alert?

Might be a good idea, also. Again, you seem to be saying that the warning is a "big lie" only because it was characterized as "new". You do not believe the U.S. should take any precautions based on this data because it is three years old. Am I misunderstanding you?