Misplaced Pages

User talk:KazakhPol: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:35, 11 April 2007 editEl C (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,833 edits BLP: if you restore the comment again, you will be blocked from editing← Previous edit Revision as of 21:40, 11 April 2007 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits BBCNext edit →
Line 57: Line 57:
::Hi. Please do not restore that inflamatory comment again (even with qualifications that it is your opinion). Thanks. ] 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC) ::Hi. Please do not restore that inflamatory comment again (even with qualifications that it is your opinion). Thanks. ] 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Hi again. I see you have restored the comment. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. ] 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC) :::Hi again. I see you have restored the comment. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. ] 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

== BBC ==

The BBC isn't colloquial. It's what people usually write. Could you make these points on the article talk page, please, instead of on my talk page, so that others see them? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:40, 11 April 2007

What is KazakhPol up to? What are the critics saying?

As of this posting I have made 17, 279 edits to the English Misplaced Pages, 7497 of which I made with this account. KazakhPol 05:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)






Hizb ut-Tahrir

Yes, I fear you are right. It has a million members, I suspect most of them computer savvy. It's like trying to hold back a flood. My hope is if I quote from their cannonical books they won't delete those edits. But perhaps I should just follow your advise. --Leroy65X 18:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How competent are the intelligence analysts at JTF-GTMO?

How competent are the intelligence analysts at JTF-GTMO?

I'd read the transcript from Ilkham Turdbyavich Batayev CSRT, but I hadn't gotten around to reading his ARB transcript until tonight.

Have you ever heard of a hawala named al-Barakat? Have you ever heard of a guy named Adbuhalim Pakhrutdinov, or reasonable equivalent? Batayev was alleged to have worked for Pakhrutdinov, in his "Al Baraka", or "AL Barakat" office. (It is spelled both ways.)

Well, al-Barakat is a hawala that serves the Somali diaspora. I wonder how many Somalian immigrated to Uzbekistan, or are guest workers in Uzbekistan? American intelligence analysts initially believed that funds had been sent to the 9-11 hijackers via the Saudi hawala al-Barakat. Its assets were frozen, and some of its agents were arrested. But the 9-11 Commission concluded that it had not been used by the 9-11 hijackers.

Sucks that Guantanamo captives remained in detention over an allegation that the 911 Commission had refuted years earlier.

The description of the al-Barakat where Batayev had been a cashier seems to match that of a hawala. It also looks like the intelligence analyst who drafted the allegation didn't bother to inform him or herself of the services al-Barakat sold.

Do you think that Uzbekistan had an organization, that provided financial services, that was also called al-Barakat, that was not connected to the Somalia hawala?

I suspect that the Batayev who ended up in Guantanamo was sent there due to a case of mistaken identity like that of the German Khaled el-Masri . If he was really captured smuggling $600,000 in counterfeit US funds, to finance a terrorist training camp, in June 2000, how did he end up, at large, in Afghanistan in late 2001?

If there is only one al-Barakat, and it mainly serves the Somalia diaspora, you would think the cashiers would all be Somalian, else how could they talk to their customers?

Anyhow, I thought you might be interested.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 04:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I would appreciate if in the future when you make substantive edits you not use the edit summary "tidying." A new user might forget to assume good faith and accuse you of being deceptive. We would not want that. Jayjg 05:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd really much rather prefer to believe otherwise. As I said before, the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Jayjg 05:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm incapable of providing you with "inane" responses; fortunately, you don't appear to need my help for that. Jayjg 05:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My comments would be easily understood by a native English speaker, so I fully understand the difficulty you are having. Jayjg 05:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP

This is a BLP violation. If you post anything like it again, I'll request admin action. SlimVirgin 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I find you a helpful, courteous contributor. And I said so.
Cheers! -- Geo Swan 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. Please do not restore that inflamatory comment again (even with qualifications that it is your opinion). Thanks. El_C 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. I see you have restored the comment. If you do so again, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks. El_C 20:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC

The BBC isn't colloquial. It's what people usually write. Could you make these points on the article talk page, please, instead of on my talk page, so that others see them? SlimVirgin 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:KazakhPol: Difference between revisions Add topic