Three is the Loneliest Number

A followup to Three is a Convenient Number to State, in which I noted how the US was trumpeting the capture of yet another third-in-command Al-Qaeda leader — the British and world press are reporting that Captured Al-Qaeda kingpin is case of ‘mistaken identity’:

THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as “a critical victory in the war on terror”. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as “among the flotsam and jetsam” of the organisation.

As yet there is no sign of this story in the US media, at least not in the sources covered by

This entry was posted in 9/11 & Aftermath. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Three is the Loneliest Number

  1. Bricklayer says:

    Exactly how should members of terrorist organizations be “ranked”? Who was the greatest baseball player of all time? Do we rank terrorists by how many they kill, who they know, how they are perceived, “global reach” as the article implies, how? And who decides how? Who cares? What kind of assinine logic is the left resorting to now to Bush-bash?

    You’re just repeating the distortive spin of the article. It itself says:
    “He was never more than a regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and local Pakistani Islamic groups.”

    “Never more than”? Still sounds like a pretty bad guy to me.

    “The only operations in which he is known to have been involved are two attempts to assassinate Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, in 2003. Last year he was named Pakistan’s most wanted man with a $350,000 (£185,000) price on his head.”

    “only operations” was an attempt to assinate a head of state? Still sounds like a pretty bad guy to me.

    Nobody cares how these degenerates are “ranked”. Capture them or kill them. So maybe this guy wasn’t a whale, but sounds like more than a minnow to me.

    Given the tone of the article (and some of the sources, “A former close associate of Bin Laden now living in London” — one wonders why the reporter doesn’t turn him in for questioning, and why he doesn’t name him), Christina Lamb and Mohammad Shehzad give me the impression they almost sympathize with the terrorists. The article is juvenile, at best.

    Very strange taste in reading, professor.

  2. Charles Winder says:

    Speaking of distortive spin, anyone who still takes the administration’s claims of “progress against terrorism” seriously is a plain fool.

  3. Bricklayer says:

    I also take seriously NASA’s claims that Neil Armstrong actually walked on the moon. I guess that seriously makes me a retard on this blog.

  4. pike says:

    NASA apple, meet Bush Administration orange. Observe, Bricklayer setting up the newest distraction–a false ‘believe all or nothing’ dichotomy for governmental statements. That to follow the “who cares?” distraction.

    Also, why bring in such an offensive term into the fray as “retard?” Your belief in the wholly incredible WMD evidence is more damning than your belief in Niel Armstrong. I’d use “gullible” in your case, trusting that would offend no group of persons with a disability. If you truly buy into any version of “believe all or nothing” this administration is telling you, your patriotism is on the level of a first grader’s.

  5. Mojo says:

    Bricklayre wrote, “Nobody cares how these degenerates are ‘ranked'”
    Yep, nobody cares. And that’s why the government repeatedly trumpets the capture of “the number three man”. Because nobody cares. They’re just thowing a random number out there. Yeah, that’s it.

  6. Bricklayer says:

    pike-again distorting the other side. My view, as is shared with many, was that even if we NOW know the WMD threat was less than it truly was, AT THE TIME of his decision, Bush was acting in good faith and did the same exact thing that I would have done. You leave me with little choice but to conclude that because this explanation requires the mental capacity to see things through another’s point of view and the circumstances as he saw them, you must lack that capacity.

    Mojo- I care. Bush was right when he implied that many on the left would forget about 9/11 as more and more time passed on. I guess that’s a good sign, because you feel enough at ease not to care when a significant Al Queda operative is captured.

  7. pike says:

    No distortion here: AT THE TIME the WMD evidence was incredible, and the administration actively blocked efforts to find credible evidence, all the while stating its certitude. I do have the capacity to see things from the gullible point of view, by the way. I just don’t find myself using gullibility as a defense for mendacity.

  8. notherbob2 says:

    Bricklayer, what angle could YOU come up with to make the capture of such a person bad news for the Bush administration? ANYONE could make it out a GOOD thing. Follow Michael’s excellent example. Did HE stop with Google? No, he went the extra mile.

  9. Bricklayer says:

    The only thought that comes to mind is that the capture is further proof that the Bush administration is intentionally avoiding the capture of bin laden, as the Bush and bin laden families are warm friends in cahoots to control the world’s oil. They intend to wait until 2008, and Jeb Bush will capture binladen who has really been hiding in little Havana or Ocala this whole time. See Michael Moore, “Fahrenheit 911”. Only a gullible fool would seriously believe otherwise.

Comments are closed.