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.
Crosspatch
More extra tutoring time for you: You quote and comment
“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?
The native Sunnis are numerous enough, talented enough and strong enough to fight al Qaeda, if they choose, and fight US troops
simultaneously and some are doing just that. You are grasping at straws.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/buchanan.cgi/Democracy/Democracy%20in%20the%20Middle%20East/Broken_Army_Broken_.html?seemore=y
JUST OUT-anybody read nationalist conservative Pat Buchanan’s latest on Iraq and the depleted military? TAKE THE CURE.
Hey, I said I was senile, not an idiot. This is what you said:
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.
Why would I lay out a bet for you to prove that you “can’t” name a country. The challenge was for you to prove that you ‘can’ name a country.
and it wasn’t a country which historians believe escaped British Empire rule during the world war two era. It was for a country that left the British Empire during Churchill’s terms of office. That is the statement you had made that I was challenging you on.
Don’t you think I did a Google search? Foolish French Guy?
You must also agree to post the statement from the constitution that includes the word “must” in relation to declaring war.
Let me know when you’re ready.
You don’t ever get anything right, do you?
Ken, what is this? from your post above:
beleive Is that French for believe?
Ken
You said:”As far as the accuracy of polls taken in Iraq, the essentials are verified by the resiliency of the insurgency for practically four years”
So the correct method of polling is “the resiliency of the insurgency”
Maybe Gallup and Zogby will take up that method of proving their polls, it’s novel, to say the least. They used to actually have to take polls to prove it. You’ve invented a whole new way.
You’ve been busy writing this morning, I’ve re-read it all a couple times trying to find something you got right, but haven’t been successful, so thought I would comment of some of your more foolish statements.
If you find anything true to right about,, send out an announcement first so we don’t miss it. Try to get it right.
Don’t you get tired of being wrong ALL the time?
Ken another foolish statement of yours:
“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.”
For the record, the US military did not lose any battle in Vietnam nor have they lost any battle in Iraq. This is historical fact. Just because you are praying(strange for a secular guy)(Whoops, maybe not for a Muslim guy) for the defeat of American Military people doesn’t mean it’s gonna happen.
If you believe I’m wrong(I haven’t been wrong so far) let me know.
Since you’re never right, I’ll go ahead and say your answer will be wrong also. As usual.
signed, Senile Guy
whoops, typo
If you find anything true to right about,
should have been ‘write’
You don’t need to point it out, you would’ve been wrong anyhow.
Hey French Guy:
you said:
“A power struggle is taking place in the Sunni triangle, with tribal leaders and coalition forces aligning against a common enemy”
coalition forces INCLUDE US forces.
common enemy = al Qaeda.
Man, you just never get anything right.
Wow, guys, check this haul out:
Man! That is one large cache to find in the city. That looks like the goodie box for one of the factional militias. Interesting part for me is that last sentance. I bet I know what “further examination” that stuff is going to undergo. At this point enough Iraqis have been arrested for one thing or another or applied for the army or police, to have built up a pretty extensive fingerprint database. My guess is they are now going to see if they can get prints off this stuff and then see if they get any hits from the database.
Having a computerized fingerprint database would go a long way towards finding out who is doing this stuff. My guess is that something along that line has finally been fielded in Iraq and has grown large enough to be useful.
You see For Enforcement this is why you’re senile:
“You said:â€As far as the accuracy of polls taken in Iraq, the essentials are verified by the resiliency of the insurgency for practically four yearsâ€
So the correct method of polling is “the resiliency of the insurgencyâ€
Verifying accuracy is not the initial METHOD of polling. It is a pivotal verification. Time for your nap.
Senile napper—You do admit the US lost the Vietnam War, right?
In a similar way, because the US cannot defeat the guerrillas it HAS ALREADY LOST the Iraq War. The only question is what distribution of anti-American Shias and anti-American Sunnis compose the new government and how long it will take to stabilize. Naptime.
Hey French Guy:
you said:
“A power struggle is taking place in the Sunni triangle, with tribal leaders and coalition forces aligning against a common enemyâ€
coalition forces INCLUDE US forces.
common enemy = al Qaeda.
Man, you just never get anything right.
STILL RESTLESS? It is not my quote but Crosspatch’s.
But there has never been one “alignment” attack so far
involving native Iraqi Sunni tribes and US forces. “Aligning”
is an inaccurate word from that perspective. The same tribes
are fighting al Qaeda and US troops-NONE have declared
a truce with US troops as far as has been reported.
Ken,
Senile napper—You do admit the US lost the Vietnam War, right?
Absolutely not.
A cease fire and truce was agreed on in 1972. All hostilities stopped. The US withdrew troops, Congress cut off any further aid to S. Vietnam and after the war was over, the North Vietnamese consumed S. Vietnam. No US involvement at the time of the victory by the N. over the S.
And you’ve studied history?
Wrong again. As usual.
Ken, is english your first language?
The common enemy in that story was al Qaida and those with the element in common were coalition forces and Sunni tribesmen who have come together to fight a common enemy … al Qaida. I believe I now understand your holding some of the positions that you do and it seems to be related to an inability to clearly understand what you read.
The Democrats had better hope that this gets settled before the next election because in the event they should be the party holding office, any loss in Iraq is going to come back to bite them severely. Nobody is going to be interested in who to “blame” when even more Americans are killed because of increased terrorism. We would also lose just about every ally on the planet because the world would see Democrats as unwilling to stand behind alliances and agreements.
In three years of war in Iraq we have not quite reached the number of people killed in one morning at World Trade. If we allow al Qaida a victory in Iraq, the number of troops lost there is going to pale in comparison to the number of Americans that are going to be killed later. And those dead will be both Democrats and Republicans and all other parties too.
It isn’t up to us, Ken. Al Qaida has said they are going to kill us and keep killing us no matter what we do. When they killed us in New York, Pennsylvania, and Arlington, we were not engaged in Afghanistan or Iraq. When that attack was planned, Bill Clinton was President. Bush had been in office only 9 months when the attack happened. It has nothing to do with domestic politics.
The interesting thing is that the Democrats are so hungry to hand the people of this country a defeat to make the Republicans look bad politically at the cost of many more dead down the road. It is juvenile and if you ask me traitorous.
Ken please provide documentation for your claim that no Sunni tribes have aligned with the US troops in al Anbar? I can provide you with several references that show otherwise to include the words of the tribal chiefs themselves. But you made the statement so the onus is on you to back it up. Please do.
Ken,, you can’t even keep your errors straight.
Crosspatch wrote that about the forces aligning against a common enemy
then you replied to her:
The native Sunnis are numerous enough, talented enough and strong enough to fight al Qaeda, if they choose, and fight US troops
simultaneously and some are doing just that. You are grasping at straws.
You were saying that the Sunnis were fighting the US forces and al Qaeda at the same time. That’s not what it said at all.
It said the Sunnis and coalition forces were fighting al Qaeda.
So you’ve been over there and decided that whoever originally wrote this didn’t know what they were talking about.
Strange, your custom has been to believe the liberal rags hook line and sinker.
So, you admit I have to take a nap. On the contrary, you should wake up.
So now you’ve changed your mind on the polling, again.
Wake up and put another tally up on your “wrong” count.
Ken, you said:You see For Enforcement this is why you’re senile:
actually, the cause of senility is unknown, but is thought to be caused by age and brain deterioration. Not by being wrong.
If it was caused by being wrong, that could be interpreted to mean that you yourself are in an advanced stage of senility.
because you are wrong again as always.
Wrong again, senile enforcer. The article at no time claimed
there were common battle alignments. The article did not
claim any Sunni tribes had ceased attacking US forces. Bedtime
for bonzo.
Another good sign today … six months ago there was a little over 1,000 Sunni police officers in al Anbar province. Now there are over 8.000 of them and this month alone over 1,000 more have been recruited.
So in one month alone more have been recruited than had been recruted in three years prior. Sounds to me like al Qaida is loosing support by the day.
How many of these recruits, Crosspatch, do you believe are
either infiltrators for al Qaeda or equally as anti-American
AS al Qaeda but from a nationalist rather than “internationalist
caliphate”ideology? Hint-almost all fit one or the other category,
and the latter doubtless include some bent on doing mischief
to the Shia dominated (and also anti-American) central government.
No political victory here.
Ken,
From the December 18 issue of Newsweek:
Still waiting for you to provide some hard documentation for your argument, Ken.