Dec 20 2006
US Attacking Al Qaeda, While Zawahiri Attacks Democracy
The news out today that Al Qaeda’s number two is upset at signs of democracy in Palestine is interesting. It reinforces the view that it is not Bush that caused Al Qaeda to attack the US (since 1991) but freedom. Zawahiri also was quite clear in reminding Democrats and spineless Reps that if they want to surrender Iraq they must talk to Al Qaeda and not these regional puppet regimes. Too funny. Maybe Sen Nelson should go and meet with Zawahiri, and complete is transformation into the modern Neville Chamberlain. He can tell Zawahiri we admit that we over reacted to 9-11 and that all we want is for his people to run the ME in a way that doesn’t make it hard on Congress to face the voters every two years. And while Democrats and other surrender-at-all-costs types are working to lose in the ME, the effort continues apace to destroy Al Qaeda one terrorist at a time – as we just captured the Al Qaeda leader in Mosul. So which path does America prefer: surrender or success? Well only the truly clueless would get the answer to that one wrong.
“The idea of the Bush administration is that you cut Sadr loose in parliament, so that the prime minister doesn’t depend on him, and then you have him call in the Iraqi Army against the Mahdi Army militiamen and defeat them. The Sunnis would thereby be reassured, the thinking goes, that the Sadrist death squads have been dealt with, and the Sunni Arabs would gradually become more willing to rein in their paramilitary. I don’t think it is plausible that the US military can defeat a widespread and entrenched social movement like the Sadrists at this late date, so we are in for a lot of trouble.”
That deals with your earlier hope. Juancole.com, leading
Mideast/Iraq expert.
Now, when 61% of the people support the insurgency and its
attacks on US troops and when 90% of the Sunnis do, as the polls show—-it matters little about timetables ,a problem compounded because your dear leader shows no signs of bending on that point anyway.
Russia is a mess and cannot mount any attack. China knows we are their no. 1 consumer and will not commit economic suicide. I see you think the world is the UN. We do not need permission from these 2 countries to do what we want. We are the world only super power and is time we start behaving like one.
But let’s see…you want us to loose because you are a Jew hatter and basically a neo nazi. Once Iran wins (like you want them to so) unless you are wearing a towel in your head and carrying a Koran …. you’ll be just another infidel to kill. So get ready Ken Mohamed unless you want to die as they want to do to all that are not muslim.
“I will tell you what changed. Sunni tribes finally banded together to fight al Qaida and are making headway, particularly in Ramadi. We are now seen by more tribes as an ally than as an opponent as we assist them in their fight against al Qaida.”
You have been indoctrinated by Strata. These tribes have made it clear time and again they intend to fight both al Qaeda AND the US occupation simultaneously. And some have alternated several times between supporting and opposing al Qaeda’s presence, largely reacting to US “extravagances.”
China depends on Iranian stability and intends on increasing economic dealing with them markedly. They and Russia are slowly but surely making economic arrangements to curtail America’s world power. Iran is off-limits.
And you show you are yet another baa-baa led around by the military industrial complex propaganda that unless the US domineers every corner of the world we are doomed. What claptrap.
I refer to the good doctor of course who beleives Iran can invade and conquer us. What crap.
Ken, 61% don’t support the insurgency. That is where you have it wrong. Don’t take one fact and attempt to project it onto another. I still don’t see anything that says 61% support any insurgency.
Also, I would suggest you take a quick scan of today’s news out of Iraq. In particular, you might want to go to google news and sort by date while looking up the following items:
Sistani
“al Sadr”
“moderate alliance”
If anything, it appears that the security situation in Baghdad is about to change for the better. And that would be good news for everyone, Democrat, Republican, and all parties in between.
Iran’s economy is in shambles. Their congress just voted to shorten the president’s term by one year because there is mounting unrest in their country. Still he has one year to start war and guarantee their destruction.The only thing China wants from Iran is oil. That can be arranged since there is a huge glut of oil in the world. Opec cannot control it’s member(40% of the market) and the other nations can make the difference. Once Iran’s current regime is out is out they can come back to the markets. The only reason we are paying over $50/barrel is because of terrorism.
The only crap I see here is just all the moronic coments you post from the war to stem cells.
“You have been indoctrinated by Strata.”
No, actually, I got that from the Washington Post.
And the Times of London
The Times article is particularly interesting with its headline:
Fighting back: the city determined not to become al-Qaeda’s capital
Martin Fletcher in Ramadi
A power struggle is taking place in the Sunni triangle, with tribal leaders and coalition forces aligning against a common enemy
Notice that …. “against a common enemy” thing there. Interesting, huh?
Ken, you said:”
Yeah-paste it– and if you can’t find it, allow Strata to ban you, promise?”
and my answer, no problem, only with one provision, I’ll post it immediately after you post a correct answer to which countries left the British Empire while Churchill was prime minister (and of course that has a country listed) and your cut and paste from the constitution that says Congress “must” declare war.
And if you fail to make that post, I don’t want you banned, I want you to voluntarily go on over to Kos and join your brethren and leave us alone. But as soon as you do make the post, I will paste my response.
Want to know what the really interesting story of the week is so far?
Afghanistan army general arrested. Then two days later, a Pakistani who apparently was part of Pakistani intelligence is arrested in Afghanistan apparently with documents concerning al Qaida. Then just today a British soldier is arrested for allegedly passing secrets on troop movements in Afghanistan on to Iran.
The story of the charging of the soldier is here.
It looks like someone has rolled up quite an espionage network in Afghanistan!
OH MY GOD
Ken thinks he’s a conservative.
WOW. Is he ever in for a surprise.
“can re-capture American Conservatism’s leadership.”
Ken, two things you said.
You’re dreaming. Russia and China among others would never let it happen for economic reasons.
Russia and China’s economies depend on the good ole USA.
I don’t think it is plausible that the US military can defeat a widespread and entrenched social movement like the Sadrists at this late date, so we are in for a lot of trouble.â€
So the reason Maliki didn’t want the US to go after al Sadr was to keep the US from getting defeated?
Don’t you think it’s more likely Maliki wanted al Sadr support and if the US went after al Sadr that as Sadr would cease to exist. To date, US troops have not lost one battle in Iraq. I doubt they would change that in a confrontation with al Sadr.
I still find it admirable that you think Iraq is so stable that it is literally overrun with Poll takers.
Have you always been a Jew hater, or is it more so lately?
Interesting … published today:
Next major hotspot:
Turkmenistan
Now the Democrats need to figure out a way to blame Bush for the coming Islamist turmoil there too.
Crosspatch
Can you read numbers? 88% of Sunnis support the attacks on US troops.
You’re a slow reader and learner. Here is a direct paste from the second story I linked you, slow reader….”Support for Attacks
A substantial portion of Iraqis support attacks on US led-forces, but not attacks on Iraqi government security forces or Iraqi civilians. Ethnic groups vary sharply on these questions.
Overall, 47% say they approve of “attacks on US-led forces†(23% strongly). There are huge differences between ethnic groups. An extraordinary 88% of Sunnis approve, with 77% approving strongly. Forty-one percent of Shia approve as well, but just 9% strongly. Even 16% of Kurds approve (8% strongly). “
Crosspatch—-Now for another lesson: Sistani’s “moderation” is vehemently anti-Israel and anti-America. He has refused to meet
any US representative, so much is his contempt for the invasion even though he also hated Saddam. But you go on believing he’s the Iraqi version of the second coming of the Shah of Iran….
For Enforcement
about the British Empire and Churchill’s self-defeating war
against Germany:
I don’t answer challenges from senile cretins who beleive peace is about to break out in the Middle East and that the Klan was a northern organization which spread south, but I’ll make an exception
provisionally. You provide Strata your name and address and
notarize a hundred dollar bet with me that I can’t provide a country which historians believe escaped British Empire rule during the world war two era. When Strata notifies me you are functional enough to perform that act, I will mail him my hundred and then provide the name. All interested others can merely consult
the history of the British Empire in Wikipedia to find the names.
Crosspatch
You will notice the Washington Post article you cited immediately challenged the military’s overly optimistic view and made clear
the optimistic scenario was contingent on a long term occupation of Anbar which is opposed by 80% of the American opublic.
FE blathers: “So the reason Maliki didn’t want the US to go after al Sadr was to keep the US from getting defeated?
Don’t you think it’s more likely Maliki wanted al Sadr support and if the US went after al Sadr that as Sadr would cease to exist. To date, US troops have not lost one battle in Iraq. I doubt they would change that in a confrontation with al Sadr.”
US troops can no more defeat al Sadr’s militia, saturated throughout
central Iraq than Israel could defeat Hezbollah, saturated throighout Lebanon.
And the US has LOST a practically four year war to the Insurgency
by all standards of guerrila warfare.
Enforcing vapidity:
As far as the accuracy of polls taken in Iraq, the essentials are verified by the resiliency of the insurgency for practically four years.
Were the Iraqis opposed to it and willing to help the US fight it, it would have been vanquished long ago. Experts in guerrilla are unanimous: this is the strongest insurgency in modern history —
in large part because the Iraqis do NOT disapprove of it in nearly large enough numbers to assist the US in fighting it. In fact, there
are historical data which outline the percentage of an occupied population which must actively oppose an insurgency for the occupying power to successfully squash it. Iraq’s population
as the polls verify come nowhere near the minimum needed, so enjoy the unfolding loss which will culminate in AMNESTY for
the majority of insurgents including those who killed US troops.