Friday, December 22, 2006

Defeat is an Orphan

ABC's blog The Blotter reports that al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party claiming credit for the Republican defeat in the midterm elections.

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost," Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News. ... "And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate," he said.


Commentary

The following I hope the readers understand, is parody.


From: DNC
To: Ayman al Zawahiri

Reverend Zawahiri,

While we have great respect for persons of your faith tradition, may we suggest that the benefits have not all been flowing one way. While we appreciate any assistance you may have rendered in toppling the Bush administration we understand that you were clearly motived, as we were, by self-interest. You didn't save our bacon, if you will pardon the expression, we also saved yours. Put it this way: we saved each other's backsides. By continuously portraying the struggle of your faith tradition in the best possible light, and that of the United States in the worst possible, our efforts have made it possible for your organization to survive and prosper. You on the other hand, have always come through whenever we needed bad publicity to show the futility of the Republic administration's efforts, and although this sometimes took the form of pointless attacks on starving men and women in distant countries whose deaths had little, if any, military value, it never failed to serve the purpose.

There's really no need to squabble over claiming credit. We both won it and can continue to win into the future. In our vision is one of the Big Tent and there's no reason why we cannot continue to develop a mutually beneficial relationship in accordance with our own desires. We would like to wish you and yours a prosperous New Year.

Happy days are here again
the skies above are so clear again
so let's sing a song of cheer again
happy times
happy nights
happy days
are here again!

38 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wretchard said, "ABC's blog The Blotter reports that al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party claiming credit for the Republican defeat in the midterm elections."

I think it's just a shameless bid to get on the DNC payroll so they can keep buying garage door openers. The funny thing is, the scam might work.

12/22/2006 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

Also "The head of an Al-Qaeda-dominated group in Iraq offered to give US troops a month to pull out free of attack in an audiotape posted on the Internet and demanded an answer within two weeks."

Link

These two messages are an enormous political opportunity for the President and Republican politicians. The whole Democratic attack on the war was a web of lies, and now that house of cards has begun crashing down. The Dems said we weren't fighting Al Qaeda, but they can't deny it now.

Bush needs to challenge the Democrats to see if they want to surrender to Al Qaeda. Republicans should also point out that the Democratic leadership has been saying that "the war is unwillable". Since we are fighting Al Qaeda, this means the Dems are saying that our military can't beat Al Qaeda. The Democrats should be asked if that is what they really believe, and if not, they should publicly apologize to our troops.

The Constitution gives president Bush the right to call the old Republican congress back into session for a few more weeks. They should do this as a publicity ploy, saying that the Republicans want to reject the Al Qaeda offer because they know if we wait for the Democratic congress, then they will surrender to Al Qaeda.

12/22/2006 03:46:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

Al Qaeda in Iraq also claims that the US tried to negotiate with it. We need hearings in the last weeks of the Republican congress to find out who did this, and if money changed hands. The first thing the democrats did is fly to negotiate with the terrorists in Syria.

Was there a deal cut where Al Qaeda helped the Democrats win the election, and the Democrats agreed to turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda? That's the direction the Democrats are headed, to retreat out of Iraq, giving it to Al Qaeda.

12/22/2006 04:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wu Wei said, "The Constitution gives president Bush the right to call the old Republican congress back into session for a few more weeks. They should do this as a publicity ploy, saying that the Republicans want to reject the Al Qaeda offer because they know if we wait for the Democratic congress, then they will surrender to Al Qaeda"

This was the laziest Congress on record. They came to work late on Tuesday morning, and Thursday by 1:30 PM they were flying back out the door, racking up a total of 103 days, seven days fewer than the "Do-Nothing Congress" of 1948. If the President called them back in for a few more "workends" in December and January they'd be so hacked off they'd probably pass Articles of Impeachment on a show of hands.

12/22/2006 04:42:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

Really makes you wonder about where all the Oil For Food money ended up.

We know that Marc Rich bribed Clinton for a pardon and that Rich was a recipent of Oil For Food money.

And that's just what we know...

And just where is Al Queda shipping their crates of dollar bills? It appears to me that they very llikely get a lot more in protection money than it costs to run their ops.

12/22/2006 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger wretchard said...

rwe,

Corruption is the insurgent's weapon of choice in 3rd world countries. It buys weapons from armories, cooperation from officials, intel from whomever, and good PR from still other willing players. Money is ammo.

The West, on the other hand, has legal prohibitions against the use of bribes, coercion and blatant lies. There are no direct counters to terrorism's chosen weapons. This is one way to understand asymmetric warfare. In the last post about Sandy Berger, commenters talked about one side "playing to win". That's another way to think about it.

12/22/2006 05:34:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Ya know, every time I read something like this, I think to myself, "If this is how pushy and obnoxious these guys are when we're shooting at them and they're afraid of us, can you IMAGINE what demands they'd make if they were in power and had any authority?"

12/22/2006 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

The Democrats need to be asked: You said that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11. Yet Al Qaeda today asked us to leave Iraq so that they can set up terrorist training bases like the ones in Afghanistan which were used to train the 9/11 bombers. Will the Democratic congress turn Iraq over to Al Qaeda? Is it worth fighting to prevent Al Qaeda from having those training bases, even though US troops will be killed in combat?

The Dems also need to be asked why they keep pretending that Iraq is "unwinnable", even though our military wins every battle it fights, and the Iraqi militias are going through the same stages the Afghan warloads did.

What is the relationship between the US Democratic Party and Al Qaeda? Was Al Qaeda money used by Democrats in the campaign? Why did Democrats fly to terrorist Syria after the election, and were they the ones Al Qaeda said negotiated with them? Did those visits violate the Logan Act?

12/22/2006 05:58:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre Legrand said...

What it takes to win a war…and why is this a mystery?

Wu Wei careful I am starting to agree with more and more of what you are saying. How is this convergence happening?

12/22/2006 06:11:00 PM  
Blogger enscout said...

nancee:
Really want to know?
Try:

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/chapter.aspx?g=401&i=41004

It will give you the glimpse inot darkness you are wondering about.

12/22/2006 06:14:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

NUTS!

12/22/2006 06:31:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

I've always believed in winning the war. My point has always been that the war needs to be fought harder and better in two ways:

(1) To win we need to use every tool available, not just conventional war.

(Comment: this is what Al Qaeda does now, uses every tool including irregular warfare, and what we did to win the Cold War.)

(2) We need to win the propaganda war in order to win the shooting war.

(Comment: the propaganda war does not replace the shooting war - it is a separate conflict.)

So where this makes a difference is that some people say that the American people have lost the will to fight. I disagree. Instead what happened is that our commander in chief has temporarily lost the propaganda war. For the last 3 years the Democrats and Al Qaeda woke up every day and said: "How can I make the American People turn against the war?" President Bush did not take it nearly as seriously.

Specifically, year and year the Democrats told us that the Iraq War has nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush and Rumseld answer was never strong enough. So I think the American people did not lose the will to fight in Iraq, but have been fooled into thinking we don't need to fight it, that Iraq is not a terror risk to us.

The Democrats would say "None of the 9/11 hijackers were sponsored by Saddam's government." The Bush administration usually replied "We can't afford to lose this war because of our reputation." That is a weak argument because it would apply to any war. The Democrats could reply that we shouldn't be losing lives just for that. It would be better to say "We need to win in Iraq because Al Qaeda is trying to build training camps to launch more 9/11's".

12/22/2006 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

The orders from Al Qaeda in Iraq:

Addressing the United States, al-Baghdadi said: “We are announcing today our orders for you, so obey them before you regret it.

“We order you to withdraw your troops immediately, using troop carriers and aircraft, and taking only your personal weapons. Don’t withdraw any heavy weapons. Instead you should hand over those and your military bases to the holy warriors of the Islamic State,” he said.

He said the withdrawal period should not exceed one month, and during that time “we will allow your withdrawal to proceed without being attacked by explosives or any other form.”

12/22/2006 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger allen said...

More NUTS!

12/22/2006 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

To give a specific example: Al Qaeda released these announcements at the start of the Christmas weekend in order to get maximum exposure and have the most impact.

Will the Bush Administration work just as hard on their reply? Based on past experience they probably won't even pay attention to what Al Qaeda said, let alone take full advantage of it by tearing into the Democrats with it. Bush usually ignores the propaganda war, figuring that if we are macho enough on the battle field none of the soft stuff matters. Years then go by when the citizen only hears about the war from Cindy Sheehan and the democrats, and so turns against the war. Bush can then just say "the people are weak" instead of admitting his failed leadership.

12/22/2006 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger dla said...

Al Qaeda certainly did have a hand in getting the DemoDummies back in power, but don't confuse that with tactical capability in Iraq. Al Qaeda has been hammered by the US and they know they will perish if they don't convince the US to stop pounding them.

It was apparent before the elections, (read
the scheme), that Al Qaeda's leadership saw their only chance of survival in swinging public support away from the Iraq war. Al Qaeda can't hole up in Pakistan forever, Afganistan can be retaken by US forces at any time with 1/5th the troops of the Iraqi deployment.

Their great hope now should be obvious - become recognized as something other than vermin to be exterminated. If the DemoDummies (DDs) negotiate with Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda looks better (and the DD's worse).

So Osama's been thinking again and in my opinion he's pretty darn smart. He's kindof like a skinny Clinton. But like Clinton's lack of discipline, Osama's armor chink is his crazed "pure Islam" fanaticsm. Just a matter of time.

12/22/2006 07:33:00 PM  
Blogger unaha-closp said...

And just where is Al Queda shipping their crates of dollar bills? It appears to me that they very llikely get a lot more in protection money than it costs to run their ops.

The answer is 28 pages long and at least 2 years away from being known.

12/22/2006 09:28:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre Legrand said...

Specifically, year and year the Democrats told us that the Iraq War has nothing to do with 9/11. The Bush and Rumseld answer was never strong enough. So I think the American people did not lose the will to fight in Iraq, but have been fooled into thinking we don't need to fight it, that Iraq is not a terror risk to us.

Exactly wu wei! My gosh how odd it is that we can agree so strongly on some issues.

Candidate Bush on Nation Building and Can Islam and Freedom survive one another? A snippet from that article...which was steadfastly ignored by PJ Media.
For almost 5 years I have considered President Bush’s speech on 9/20/2001 to be just the right speech at just the right time. Now I wonder if President Bush was being honest with us. Did he notice the contradictions in that very speech? For instance when he spoke these words:

They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.

Was President Bush being ironic? Ok I shouldn’t be flippant, I know he wasn’t being ironic but my gosh exactly how does one condemn the so-called radicals in Islam for wanting to expel Christians and Jews while in the very same breath mention Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Should I remind you, my gentle readers, that both of those nations have laws that restrict the rights of Christians? Indeed in Saudi Arabia merely wearing the cross can get you killed. Wouldn’t it have been at least consistent to have condemned those nations whose actions lead to the same end state as those rascally impatient radicals?

Both want to reach the same nirvana, no Jews or Christians in the world and especially not living next door. One wants to murder us till we are all gone the other being just a touch more rational understands that it might be more prudent to achieve their aims a bit more slowly. Are we merely upset at the so called radicals methods and not their desired end state? Did the Bush administration understand that attacking the end state might implicate a few of our allies?

12/22/2006 10:54:00 PM  
Blogger Grimmy said...

wu wei:

The POTUS can not wage a propaganda war. That is beyond ridiculous. There are those who's job it is to do so for their nation during a time of war but they have been subsumed into the propaganda effort of our enemy. They have become the enemy. You know who that is. The media has a responsibility to its own citizens during a time of war and this media has willfully and knowingly gone over to the enemy.

There is another gross miscomprehension among many. That is the "will to fight" in the military commands or administration.

War-fighting is a massively complex process that anyone with any clue at all understands can not be just jump started into being from some memo or meeting at some administration office.

There have been plans worked on for decades and there were a variety of plans to chose from and those who's word held most value in choosing were those who'd spent decades in learning the art and science of war-fighting. That's what the Chiefs of Staff are for. The POTUS may have selected from an array of possible plans but those plans were developed by those who's job it is to develop them.

AS to the "fight to win". How about dealing with just a little bit of historical accuracy.

30 some-odd years ago, our citizens proved themselves to be feckless, fickle, easily manipulated and spineless dupes for enemy propagandists. That lesson was very well learned by our military.

For 30 years, the entire sum total of most of this military's leadership careers, there has been one reality that has never been forgotten and has crept into every single war fighting plan.

The American people can not be relied upon for anything difficult, harsh, long term or comprehensive and any action must be modified downward in effectiveness in order to not kick off open civil disruption on the home-front due to the definite and predictable success of the enemy propagandist.

Every commander knows that the American public is as much a danger to success of a military operation as is the enemy itself.

We cant "fight to win" because that would have the potential to kick off a civil war in our own homefront. Too large a portion of our population have gone over to full support of the enemy in all ways at all times for any reason.

You want to know why we are losing? Because we can not even look a traitor in the eye and call him what he is, we have grown that degenerate.

12/22/2006 11:11:00 PM  
Blogger Alexis said...

No king likes a kingmaker. No king likes a man who falsely claims to be his kingmaker. A wise king destroys the power of a kingmaker so he secure his throne.

In one sense, al-Qaeda has become a source of political legitimacy in the West -- in a reverse sense. He who kills Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri will gain fame, fortune, and power. Andrew Jackson was able to parlay his military victories into political legend and the Presidency. King David started his political career as the man who slayed Goliath.

Tremendous power derives from slaying the dragon, far more than bowing down to a dragon known for eating its conquests.

12/23/2006 12:03:00 AM  
Blogger Wu Wei said...

> The POTUS can not wage a propaganda war.

Politicans do this during every election. The political campaign is a propaganda war.

> this media has willfully and knowingly gone over to the enemy.

The media has been anti-American and anti-Republican for a long time. The commander in chief needs to understand that fact and then overcome the media, not just give up and never try at all.

The media hated President Reagan even more than they now hate Bush. Yet President Reagan, "the Great Communicator", defeated the media and the Soviets in the Cold War.

> The American people can not be relied upon for anything difficult, harsh,

Not true at all. The people didn't lose the Vietnam war, the political and military leadership did. Instead of admitting their mistake, they blamed the American people. The Vietnam war was lost because our leadership ordered the troops to fight it the wrong way, as a conventional war instead of a guerilla war. It was lost because our leadership never give the South Vietnamese a decent government.

The same thing is happening now. Bush did a terrible job in leading us into the war in Iraq. Our troops have fought well, but the Bush administration made one political mistake after another in Iraq, and it was covered up instead of corrected. Just this week we learn that the Bush administration kept the military small, a military even Democrats like John Kerry want to expand! Just a few days ago, five and half years after 9/11, Bush finally agreed to expand the size of the army and marines.

Right now even though our troops win every battle they fight, Al Qaeda is kicking our glass in the propaganda war, and the Iraqi factions are playing the Bush Administration for fools.

The American people are doing exactly the right thing. When the commander in chief doesn't deliver, when a war falls behind schedule, they start kicking butt to straighten it out. President Lincoln knew that. When things bogged down in the Civil War, Lincoln didn't blame the people, he started firing the generals. They are paid to do a job, and if they don't deliver they should be fired. That's what happens to people in the private sector.

Lots of Americans are not trying to stop the war, they're trying to fix what is wrong. The American people trust the troops, but they think the president, any president, is just another politican.

12/23/2006 01:03:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

This is EXACTLY how we "lost" the war in Vietnam. We now have a Democratic in Congress in place to de-fund the effort, just like Nam. We now have the meme that there are no such thing as dominoes, and losing one lousy little war poses no threat to the invincible, invulnerable mighty America. (This is one area where the Dems and Al Qaeda are out of sync - the latter sees this as a world war, while the former sees it as just one more unrelated-to-anything speck of blood in O.J.'s driveway.) We now suddenly have an "anti-war" movement where none existed in the 90's.

This all stems from two things: Democrats crazed lust and greed for power, for which they are more than happy to sacrifice America's interests, thinking that only Bush/Rummy/Cheney will "lose" this war, and the rest of us will sail merrily along under Superman's cape. The second is America's historic tendency to isolationism, "let the world go away...."

Having Lt. Kerry going overseas and negotiating with the enemy is the cutest touch - just like he did during Nam, only he was still in uniform then, now he's just the least respected member of the U.S. Senate.

If you are not a Democrat, you might find it hard not to put the war in Iraq in same "global conflict" context as Al Qaeda does, so here are some mental exercises to get you there:
1. A fetus is like a kidney stone;
2. Homicide is "caused by" guns;
3. Clinton was impeached for a blowjob;
4. Iraq was never any threat (and the 1990's never happened - or we have moved on from that);
5. All the world loved America after 9/11, until Bushhitlermonkey made them hate us.

Got it?

12/23/2006 07:25:00 AM  
Blogger dla said...

Pierre Legrand wrote

but my gosh exactly how does one condemn the so-called radicals in Islam for wanting to expel Christians and Jews while in the very same breath mention Saudi Arabia and Egypt?


Mainly because both the Saudis and Egyptians allow Christians and Jews in their midst. Egypt is at peace with Israel and the Saudi's are not finacially supporting Hezzbollah.

You have to spend a little time getting beyond the hype to see the difference between the "pure Islam" crowd, and moderate Islam.

12/23/2006 07:27:00 AM  
Blogger 3Case said...

Wait a second!...Let me see if I get this straight...The bourgeois, genocidal, fundamentalist munchkin from the banks of the Nile is STILL HIDING!!

Maybe he's hiding HERE, but I doubt it...his patron COULD afford the electric, though.

12/23/2006 08:17:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wu Wei said, "When things bogged down in the Civil War, Lincoln didn't blame the people, he started firing the generals. They are paid to do a job, and if they don't deliver they should be fired. That's what happens to people in the private sector."

Today, if you're CIA Director Tenet who didn't see 9-11 coming, and who said there was WMD all over the place in Iraq, you get to retire with a Medal of Freedom. But if you're General Shinseki who said we need a surge of troops in Iraq but happened to say that three years too early, you get basically drummed out of the service.

12/23/2006 08:55:00 AM  
Blogger Pierre Legrand said...

To suggest that it is not the duty of the Commande in Chief to educate (use propaganda) to counter the enemy is ludicrous. Though I will agree that it is the responsibility of all citizens to become educated...blaming the MSM simply won't cut it. If we know what is going on then the broader public has no excuse.

But the Government from the Executive to the Legislative to the Military has a responsiblity for where we are at this moment. The recent scandals involving public officials ignorant of the sects of Islam indicates that we have a long way to go there.

Let me just say that after one of the greatest defeats this country has suffered not a single Government offical was fired. 3,000 of us die, US Citizens forced to sacrifice themselves to save the capital and instead of anyone being fired we give medals to folks like Tenet.

The excuse of Vietnam is simply not an excuse. The political and military class has foresaken pursuing victory.

Mainly because both the Saudis and Egyptians allow Christians and Jews in their midst. Egypt is at peace with Israel and the Saudi's are not finacially supporting Hezzbollah.

Not sure you have looked deep enough...

Both atheism and apostasy(conversion to another religion) are punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. And the possession of non-Islamic religious objects,including Bibles, rosary beads and crosses is strictly prohibited.
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/SaudiArabia.htm

A madrassa is an Islamic religious school. Many of the Taliban were educated in Saudi-financed madrassas in Pakistan that teach Wahhabism, a particularly austere and rigid form of Islam which is rooted in Saudi Arabia. Around the world, Saudi wealth and charities contributed to an explosive growth of madrassas during the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. During that war (1979-1989), a new kind of madrassa emerged in the Pakistan-Afghanistan region -- not so much concerned about scholarship as making war on infidels. The enemy then was the Soviet Union, today it's America. Here are analyses of the madrassas from interviews with Vali Nasr, an authority on Islamic fundamentalism, and Richard Holbrooke, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. (For more on the role of madrassas in producing militant Islamists, see the story of Haroun Fazul.)

The past decade has seen a rise in violent attacks by Islamic extremists, followed by severe govern-
ment crackdowns on their activity in an attempt to put an end to the violence and to regain control.
Unfortunately, violence against Christians still continues but state police and/or Muslim mobs are
increasingly becoming the perpetrators. Such violence has gone unpunished by the Egyptian legal
system in recent years.

In January 2000, in El-Kosheh village, Upper Egypt, 21 Coptic Christians were killed over the
course of a few days’ rioting. The General Prosecutor’s report of his investigation into the incident
blames the massacre on delinquent elements within both the Muslim and Christian communities,
disappointing Egypt’s Coptic Christians who note that all except one of the casualties of the violence
were Christians. Concern has also been expressed that no police officers were detained or
interrogated, despite the testimony of Copts regarding police negligence and complicity in the violence.

Finally, in a verdict handed down on February 5, 2001, an Egyptian court acquitted all but four of the
ninety-six people charged with crimes relating to the violence. None were convicted with murder.
This verdict outraged Egyptian Christians and human rights activists all over the world. However, a
request to appeal the verdict has been successful and the case will be retried.

12/23/2006 09:00:00 AM  
Blogger dla said...

Pierre Legrand wrote:
Not sure you have looked deep enough

Thank you for the nice C&P on wahhabbism, but that isn't the issue. The issue is the 1998 Jihad declared against the west, and one of the signers is our buddy Osama.

There are countries that have openly declared their intention to destroy Israel, there are countries that are officially at peace and there are countries that are keeping their mouths shut. All of the aforemention are Islamic.

But I'm glad you are taking the initiative to look into a tiny but virulent sect of Islam. Most of America is totally ignorant of the world's second largest religion.

12/23/2006 01:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony said, "This is EXACTLY how we 'lost' the war in Vietnam."

And NiFong is about to "lose" the case against the Duke Lacrosse players despite his persistence in trying to "Stay the Course". Total lack of evidence in the rape allegations resembles the complete bust on finding WMDs.

"We now have a Democratic in Congress in place to de-fund the effort, just like Nam."

Defund is a term which implies that Congress owes funding to Mr. Bush to continue his war. Think of it this way, when Bush is no longer commander-in-chief, the Democrat congress will budget for demobilization.

"We now have the meme that there are no such thing as dominoes, and losing one lousy little war poses no threat to the invincible, invulnerable mighty America."

This is the second lesson in the course entitled "NO POLICE ACTIONS ON THE ASIAN LANDMASS".

"We now suddenly have an 'anti-war' movement where none existed in the 90's."

Possibly because Clintoon never committed troops to three, four, even five deployments in some craphole with the objective of turning it into Peoria, complete with town hall meetings.

12/23/2006 02:43:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I posted over at wilsonizer.blogspot.com on how Al Qaeda, while masterfully using the media to spread and reinforce their message across the muslim world, are considerably tone deaf when it comes to impacting the West (esp America) with their various press releases.

Check it out!

12/23/2006 03:16:00 PM  
Blogger Pierre Legrand said...

But I'm glad you are taking the initiative to look into a tiny but virulent sect of Islam. Most of America is totally ignorant of the world's second largest religion.

Ah well being in the same room as someone as brilliant as you is dazzling. Perhaps you don't mean to be condencending and I am misinterpreting your words. But...

Trying to find a difference between radical Sunnis and Shia's is a fools game. Sure there are differences but as far as we are concerned those are distinctions without differences. Both of those sects have attacked us...both are dedicated to our destruction. And both are supported by States.

12/23/2006 05:02:00 PM  
Blogger Guy Barry said...

Al QAEDA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEMOCRAT SUCCESS,DON'T YOU THI K PEOPLE ARE TIRED OF THE REPUBLICANS?

12/24/2006 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

The dreaded neo-conservative policy is a reaction to the failed Realpolitik of people like Kissinger, who were happy to deal with dictators, and even install dictators. In the Middle East, such policies delivered us the past two generations of ever-more-dangerous-and-far-reaching wars and attacks on us.

The neo-con goal in Iraq was not to make Baghdad like Peoria, it was to break out of this cycle by encouraging freedom and democracy as the last, best chance of avoiding Wretchard's Three Conjectures.

For all these Democrat fools who think we need to "talk to" Iran and Syria, living with dictators and ignoring the threats of Islamofascism is just fine. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda is taking the "friend of my enemy is my friend" approach to their new allies the Democrats, who mindlessly oppose Bush and the noble goals of the neo-cons. Another stroke of bad timing is the finding that Iran was behind the Khobar Towers bombing. In his book, "My FBI" Louis Freeh says his greatest frustration was being blocked from investigating Iran and pinning the blame on them.

Oh, and who was he blocked by? These same Democrat geniuses who now think we should "talk to" our sworn enemies. I'm sure today's Dems could have worked something out with Hitler, too, who cares about the Jews?

For the record, I don't bicker, but if people want to challenge my posts ... would it be too much to ask for if you could be vaguely historically accurate?

12/24/2006 09:13:00 AM  
Blogger directorblue said...

The Bush administration should request the State Department issue "safe-passage" visas to Iran's president Ahmadinejad, Syria's leader Assad, Ayman al Zawahiri, etc. in order that they can attend the Democrats' four-day victory fete for Nancy Pelosi... here's a photoshop of the celebration!

12/24/2006 09:28:00 AM  
Blogger Sardonic said...

All of which reminds me of the good old Lensmen Series by EE Doc Smith back in the day. He really had the "inimical civilizations" thing down pat, and what it REALLY takes defeat a sneaky, war-like, and in some ways brilliant enemy. He also during the series (I think in Book 1 or 2) points out the intrinsic problems of Law Enforcement against Terrorist/Criminal Organizations. Very interesting. The only problem is that the solution requires a God-Like race of Super Aliens to resolve the issue, and even then - it's a hell of a fight! Great read!

12/24/2006 11:04:00 AM  
Blogger Sardonic said...

... oh, and it also requires REAL MEN. Don't forget that part. Very important.

12/24/2006 11:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sardonic wrote, "...oh, and it also requires REAL MEN. Don't forget that part. Very important."

Plus two pairs of twin daughters, all telepathic.

12/24/2006 06:40:00 PM  
Blogger Sardonic said...

Well that goes without saying, of course. :)

Glad to see another fan out there.

12/27/2006 02:27:00 PM  
Blogger ha said...

ISLAM EXPOSED

http://answeringPROPHETOFDOOM.net

10/26/2007 07:38:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger