Al Qaeda seems to be doing well
 

New York Times:

Al Qaeda Chiefs Are Seen to Regain Power

Thanks to U.S. invasion, they now are a strong force in Iraq where they had practically no presence before the war. And now they seem to be getting their training organization and command structure back into shape again. It seems Bush has been doing a great service for them while doing a great misservice for his own country - there will be no lack of passionately US-hating Al Qaeda recruits during the next 20 years.

Well you just give them a big hug and tell them you can't wait till they take over your country.

Right, Because Al Qaeda was so friendly to the USA before the Iraqi invasion. I mean so they killed 3000 people in New York, bombed the USS Cole killing soldiers, bombed targets around the world killing Americans, British, Africans, but I guess you want to ignore all that and have us believe the Iraqi invasion has made America a target and recruitment is up.


But hey --

Al Qaeda's number two, Aymah al-Zawahiri, has sent his marching orders to the Democrats, which may help explain why the Democrats are pushing so hard to surrender. It really is stunning, Zawahiri is urging the Democrats to implement the policies the Democrats campaigned on implementing.

Speaking directly to the Dems, their Grand Ayatollah said:


As for the Democrats in America, I tell them:

The people chose you due to your opposition to Bush's policy in Iraq, but it appears that you are marching with him to the same abyss, and it appears that you will take part with him in the defeat and certain failure, with God's permission. And the American people shall discover that you are all one side of the same coin of tyranny, criminality and failure; that failure which - by the grace of God - has neutralized the endeavors of the traitors who entered Kabul and Baghdad on the backs of American tanks, and has dashed their hopes as they see the Mujahideen come closer and closer to victory, which has led them to urgently appeal to America for help and implore it to continue to occupy their lands and raise the banners of the Cross over their heads.

So, Democrats, your Grand Ayatollah is giving you a direct order to cut and run. You better not disappoint him.

It is not a sad commentary that the policies of the Democrats in the United States Congress are the same policies advocated by our enemies?

It's much worse than that.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02062007..._schlussel.htm

lol @ debbie schlussel. like ann coulter, except genuinely insane.

The reagan Administration is reaping what they planted back in 1983. The denial of it all is quite mind boggling.

Even more mind boggling is this, confront the typical US citizen with those facts, that their own government financed those terror org/s to begin with while it suited them. Borderline Denial.

Why do Al-Q exist? US backed Jihad against the russians. Anyone denying this are born to be bubble boys/gals.

What is truly heartbreaking is that most US citizens serving under that insane war were little babies cooing at their parents back in 1983 with no voice of their own. Now those same cooing loves comes back as shellshocked, amputated or in coffins. Quite an unfair legacy on the behalf of the Reagan administration if not a shame for the whole party.

Another matter of interest for those who lost limbs in the current Irak war and are treated less than fairly.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021701172.html

They did their part, they fought in this war yet those who says they support their troops will not do squat against this insult that is bestowed on their amputated survivors.

My heart goes to their courage and inequality on how they are treated now. IMO, they should have the top notch treatment by the best doctors, not being chided by their superiors because they cannot get a new uniform when it is time to claim their purple heart medal.

Support our troops, forget the amputees?

War with Irak, stupid to begin with.
WMD found, close to zilch.
Send your offsprings to finish war feeble Reagan started, useless.
Senators/Congressman's daughter's/son's going to war, yet to be proven. (talk about patriotism)
The media and US army ignoring their most recent war veteran, PRICELESS.

On this, I truly wonder who hates the most US citizens. Those who talk againt this insane administration or those who ignore those ripples in the pond where that rock was throwned and keep burying their head in the sand as to what becomes of most soldiers who actually "RISK" their lives over there for what they truly believes in.

Keyboard warriors sucks, enlist and serve a purpuse for once beside wearing down a piece of technology by ranting on some who are so unpatriotic because they oppose the war, according to their views.

Support the troops is one thing.
Ignore them when they come back maimed, unacceptable.

sucker politics - get a grip, sinner, you're getting played like a fiddle. your "sad commentary" is irrelevant from a policy viewpoint. the Iraq war is over for the US and, by not winning, we lost.

this is just the beginning as these people try to bludgeon everyone into thinking that a vote against their team is a vote for the terrorists..
try again losers.. no one is buying

it's time to go back to the opposition where you belong

Now knife, I am just playing the same tune as Tankgirl. As for the War I agree, seems Americans don't want to win wars any more.

Watch this video...

http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

This is what the Dems and 24 cowards of the GOP will destroy with their Slow Bleed policy.

Sinner, you might be interested in this blog. It culls together Iraq news reports that show the positive side of our presence there. The blogger is a little over optimistic, but the news reports themselves are what's important.

http://www.kmax.ws/b/goodnewsiniraq.htm

Everyone else, don't bother clicking the link. I'd hate for you to have to open your minds.

[quote=miss_silver;254171]


Keyboard warriors sucks, enlist and serve a purpose for once beside wearing down a piece of technology by ranting on some who are so unpatriotic because they oppose the war, according to their views.

Support the troops is one thing.
QUOTE]


What are you trying to say with this rant?

It sounds as if you are saying, "Be a Man" and go to war for me so I don't have to.

Doesn't Canada allow women to fight? You sure seem to enjoy confrontations, I'd think that you would fit right in. :)

Not a rant, a fact, too many keyboard warriors puffing and huffing.

As for Canadian men or women going to war in Irak... Canadian citizens never bought in the LIE that tied Al-Q to Saddam, nor did our MP at the time.

I am against the war, always were, why enlist? quite an oxymoron no?

Tony Blair gets a clue
 

Britain begins to bail:
driven by bad polls at home and an untenable situation in Iraq, Blair begins to cash in his chips and go home.
this is absolutely false and Cheney knows it - British casualties have tripled in the last several months.
make no mistake, Britain is reducing forces because they can do no more. it's a rout, not a victory.

What your hit-and-run style news reporting doesn't reveal is that Britain has steadily withdrawn their troops from Iraq over the past four years.

Attachment 12681
Source

It's only news now because Blair has started using this slow, steady pullout to his political advantage. His approval ratings in Britain are worse than Bush's in America so now he's pandering. This next troop level reduction won't vindicate him, but it will remove some of the tarnish from his legacy.

Basra is the coalition's link to the gulf, most of their supply lines run through it. If troops in Basra really had been routed then the war would be over. Well the war is decidedly not over. This idea of yours that civil war has permeated every nook and cranny of Iraq and engulfed the lives of everyone there is absurd. Basra has its share of violence, but it is not on the verge of self destruction, and neither is most of Iraq for that matter.

Perfect description of ALBED! Keep it up, girl!:W:

Lol, give it up already pisser; she prefers men.







I guess Britain is so "routed" that they're sending Prince Harry in to hold the fort.


Things will get very interesting if he gets snuffed.

As Mazer has said, this - like almost everything you hear about Iraq is all about home politics. The British have 7000 troops in Iraq right now and they are pulling 1500 out. Denmark is pulling 450 and Lithuania is pulling 53. What the media fails to tell you is Australia is sending more troops. You may see it as abandonment but I think it is a sign of hope. As Iraqi troops take control, foreign troops leave. That`s been the plan all along. Hasn`t it? Let international troops make the country safe, then go home.

There was a poll yesterday, I don’t have a link but it showed 57 percent of Americans want to stay in Iraq and finish the job, 57 percent want to win the war. That is good I guess, and you should be thanking the British because many have sacrificed their lives in this war. So the USA will have to win this war without Britain, Denmark, Lithuania, and certainly without the weasels in France. It has always been on USA’s shoulders.

actually, i regard this as a sign of hope, also - hope that the decision-makers in the Iraq debacle may finally be coming down to earth. Britain's situation is untenable : "declare victory and leave" (also know as "cut and run" in some quarters) is a fine idea - something we should have done several years ago. kudos to the Brits for the reality check. what are they leaving behind in Basra, the city where the British embassy had to be moved to the airport because they were unable to defend it ?Cheney knows this - he gets the same report. the White House assessment of the British decision is simply dishonest. i know, shocking, isn't it?

oh, and about that poll. i know it's thrilling for the right to finally find a poll that tells them what they want to hear, but let's consider the source.. if you need to latch on to this one, to get past the 30 or 40 other polls that indicate otherwise, knock yoursef out. the methodolgy is so bad, even Republicans have distanced themselves from this particular polling firm.

I think it's telling that theknife's antagonism now extends to Britain, showing that his opinion isn't based on any concern for his country but on uniform opposition to any enemy of islamic terrorists.


Though he's really no different than all the weak minded, easily swayed liberals.






"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is taken to heart by terrorists and liberals alike.

i think it's telling you can't read - what part of "kudos to the Brits" did you not get?

That probably wasn't exactly what you meant but that's what albed saw.

It's probably only coincidence that the rhetoric coming from Democrats and Iraqi insurgents sounds so much alike. They both want us out of Iraq and for the same reasons. They both think the president is a liar and a coward. Is it really any wonder that Dems are called unpatriotic? Such an accusation may be unjustified but it's the natural reaction to such uncanny coincidences. And albed is only too eager to make that accusation if it'll piss you off; no surprise there. My advice: rise above it.

None the less, when you call the British withdrawal a defeat and then give them kudos for it, it sounds exactly like 'eat shit and die.' Maybe you should pick your words a little more carefully.

I get all of it - it's just like the comments posted on radical islamic web sites. Hell a lot of your comments are indistinguishable from the terrorists', but where you used to claim concern for U.S. lives and money, it's now evident that your concern is for criticizing any country fighting the terrorists. Or hypocritical praise in this case.

fucking bullshit

stop whining

Can't we all just get abong?








you know where the ignore button is you bong sucking monkey molester

I submit that it only 'sounds alike' if you're listening through some sort of voltage controlled filter installed in your own head. In such a state I suppose everything must sound the basically the same, like the adults in Charlie Brown, but admitting you hear warbly trumpets when people speak doesn't lend you much credibility in political discussions.

Even though this statement is based on sweeping presumptions so loosely connected to any semblance of reality that one can only hazard guesses about what it's actually intended to mean, it's still fundamentally and ludicrously false.

First of all neither Democrats nor Iraqi insurgents are single minded entities.

By even referring to democrats in this way, one assumes you are actually talking about a small group of hopeful candidates who are trying desperately to appeal to their base in typical political style: by talking a lot but not saying much. Even they understand that being a democrat isn't an absolute indicator that you're against the war in Iraq, any more than being republican means you're absolutely gung ho.

As far as the insurgency, it should be patently obvious their motivations are even more disparate.

Yes, because as has been argued approximately a billion times, and must sound like warbly trumpets to some people, if the president is a liar, it's pure patriotism to point out those lies and guard one's self and others against them. No one person has more potential to damage the country one loves, and only the most 'weak minded and easily swayed' would confuse an elected office with infallibility.

LOL

why would I want to do that?
you are a fine source of entertainment :D

PS. I don't have a monkey

I was thinking the same thing

reducing numbers = exit strategy
regardless of victory or otherwise now the Brits seem to have one , so should the US and anyone else there..

W.W.G.W.B.D.? flow chart

Sorry for baiting you, Ramona, but I'm glad you responded.

Even though I don't listen to country music, I'm not the sort of person who would have boycotted the Dixie Chicks when their lead singer's offhand remarks at a concert in London stirred up so much trouble for them. They have their opinions, they had an audience, and they have a right to make their minds known. I didn't agree with Bush when he suggested that the band had no right to complain about hurt feelings. To me the whole thing was childish, but I could empathize with the band and with their crtics. I can understand why certain Americans would take shame in knowing Bush is a Texan, and I can understand why others would be offended when that sentiment is expressed publicly.

I know for a fact that you are capable of empathy so I can only assume that your one-sided response is not caused by any lack of understanding but is instead a reaction to the one-sidedness of my post. But now that we've boiled this complex debate down to two very simple, diametrically opposed arguments, let's have a look at both. You'll notice that I did not visit the intentions of either Democrats or insurgents. I omitted such speculation from my post for a reason: I am not a mind reader. I can only infer motive from what I hear and see, and were it not for this limitation I would not pick words that indict citizens of my own country for their rhetoric. I don't accuse people of 'un-patriotism' lightly and was not making that accusation here. But the self-serving reasoning you have so keenly deconstructed is what goes through the minds of half of all Americans when they make such accusations. And your Charlie Brown analogy is apt because the left does sound like parrots or a broken record or muted trumpets to a large portion of the right. Everyone's talking, nobody's saying too much.

To point out that politicians lie, besides being a statement of the obvious, may be pure patriotism when an American citizen makes the point. But Iraqi insurgents making the same statement are not in the same class; obviously their motives are different. Ditto when insurgents call for America to leave Iraq; they have different intentions for post-occupation Iraq than Democrats have. I understand this, and I think you know that. So why would I state "sweeping presumptions" that are "fundamentally and ludicrously false?" Because they are the landscape of this debate for a large portion of Americans, those fed on a daily diet of sound bites and headlines and this-many-soldiers-died-in-Iraq-today news reports. The true geography of these issues are unmapped for most people which is why a group of country singers were so blindly criticized when they expressed themselves a few years ago. But give me a little more credit than the rest of them. My desire is for you to consider both sides of the debate, not just my side and not just your side. Neither of us will convince each other, we both knew that going into this discussion. All I can do is make my side of the argument known and hope to articulate it well, even if that means I have to advocate for the small minds and prejudices of others. (If I ever sound like I'm defending albed, it's only coincidence.)

Can it be helped if Democrats and insurgents are making similar arguments? Sure it can: Democrats can point out that they don't want the insurgents to win. But they don't say so, and those who believe the insurgents have already won don't lament it. Instead they lament that we started the war in the first place, as if the Iraqis share no blame for their current troubles. In fact they share the blame with us; it is not all ours. Democrats could at least attempt to sound like they wanted us to win this war, but their politics have overcome them. The result is that they sound as if they wanted our troops to die and retreat in utter defeat in order for them to win their political games in Washington, D.C. They have allowed themselves to be perceived as agreeing with our enemies, they have invited accusations of un-patriotism. We can only assume from their glaring defeatism that Democratic politicians care more about wining votes than wining wars. Whether or not this perception is justified or supported by reality is irrelevant, it is what people have come to believe.

it's over for us and the the public is way out in front of both parties on the issue of iraq. by all available evidence, the perception is justified: US goals in iraq cannot be achieved militarily.

the only reason you're clinging to the status quo is because Bush put us there. if it was a Democratic president that had done it, in the manner that Bush did, you and every other rightie would be calling for his head on a platter. criticism of Bush by the Dems may be political, but it's entirely justified - we really are in a geopolitical abyss that will drain the nation's resources for years, if not decades. furthermore, it will not achieve any of the stated objectives - in fact, by any metric, we have multiplied the terror threat. Bush put us there and wants to keep us there - yes, there should be blame and recriminations, and they belong squarely at Bush's feet. posturing about patriotism and politics should be seen for the cheap straw-man argument that it is.

Consensus doesn't necessarily indicate truth, knife. It is possible and even likely that the mob is wrong. Therefore policy makers should keep public opinion from factoring into their decisions. The politicians wish to distract you from the important issues and set your sights on November 4th of 2008. Don't be so gullible. Democrats in congress want Bush to stay the course because it guarantees that a Democrat will be the next president. Do you like being manipulated like that?

A Democrat president wouldn't have started this war in the manner Bush did so it's not worth thinking about. Do you often fantasize about what Gore would have done in Bush's place? That ain't healthy.

Obviously our goals in Iraq won't be achieved only by the military. Just as obvious should be the fact that nothing can be achieved without the military to provide security. It's a cost this nation can bear with ease, if not finesse.

um, the last round of policy makers who ignored public opinion just went home for good (see election results for November, 2006). you're starting to sound a little bitter - like a guy who bought into a bad stock tip and then rode it all the way to the bottom. perhaps you should have bought a few shares of Gore instead investing all in Bush - you'd probably feel a little better about your judgement.
ease and finesse, hmm? the Army's top general assessed US military capability only yesterday, but he was not quite so cavalier. "ease" and "finesse" were not terms he used:edit: Mazer, i know you're a very bright guy and you have strongly-held beliefs, as i do...but sometimes your political perspective is hard to fathom. it just reads like some kind of conservative stream-of-consciousness riff that is un-sourceable (is that a word?), undocumented, and only loosely connected to reality.

fortunately, this does not mean you're not a nice fellow :W:

Please don't confuse my assertiveness for bitterness, or for animosity towards you, for that matter.

Election results: Democrats now control 51% of the Senate and 53.7% of the House, hardly the coup d'état you've made it out to be. We're still waiting on them to raise the national minimum wage, are we not? Without a supermajority they can't play hardball, they can't effect any change at all. They'll say they have, people will want to believe they have, but if even one Democrat in the Senate switches his affiliation it'll take all the wind our of their sails. The current congress is nothing to be proud of.

The wealthiest and third most populous nation in the world can accomplish anything it attempts. If our military capabilities are diminished then it's due to a lack of will, not a lack of resources. So what happened to our resolve? What is this nation risking in Iraq that it can't bear to loose? What does an average guy like me, whose friends in the army have all safely returned from Iraq and who has lived comfortably for the duration of the war, what's at stake for me? What do I gain if the troops are yanked from their posts with their jobs left unfinished? Is it unreasonable for me to support the occupation on the principle that Iraqis deserve to live free? And must I be labeled a Bush fanboy simply because I happen to agree with him on the most important issue of the decade?

List of Parrot Squawks that we've all heard over and over:

The war cannot be won militarily.Do parrots really think they can pass themselves off as military experts? Given the past accomplishments of the world's most powerful military, that's a pretty silly phrase they've learned.



If a democrat was president all the conservatives would be protesting the war.The Vietnam War was run by democrats and had plenty of protesters but they sure weren't conservatives. Another stupid thing to squawk, but parrots don't notice how stupid their phrases are, they just repeat what other parrots squawk.



The war in Iraq is a horrible mess.Another proclaimation by the make believe military experts. Wars are generally messy but the parrots seem to think they should be quick and neat like some G-rated hollywood depiction.



The U.S. military is overstretched and about to break.That's a years-old squawk that isn't much repeated because the prediction by the pretend-military experts just never happens.



Everyone hates the U.S. because of the Iraq war.Propaganda has always been a component of warfare and when you have millions of brainless parrots, even with no reason of their own to hate the U.S., you can get them squawking whatever you want and make it seem like it's true.



mandatory squawks:Any negative news about Iraq and republican politicians.

forbidden squawks:Anything positive about Iraq (heroic actions, successful missions). Anything positive about republican politicians (booming economy, lower taxation).

Quote---

While most of the world supports democracy in general, they are not willing to die to help others achieve it. And the world's attitude towards African attempts at democracy are the unspoken reason why. Developing a functioning democracy takes time, and often gets ugly. In the 1990s, after half a century of socialism, communism and dictatorship, African countries concluded that the rule of law and democracy was the way to go. But the way was mined and covered with snipers and bandits. Making democracy works means overcoming a lot of people who are willing to kill you for your beliefs. Most of the world, and a lot of Americans, don't believe it's worth getting too involved in this process. It takes courage and self-sacrifice to aid others in building democracy. But courage and self-sacrifice are seen by most as spectator sports. The world sees Americans in Iraq as arrogant fools, for trying to practice what they preach. The U.S. is divided on this point. Do we fight for what is right, or be practical? No matter who rules Iraq, they will want to sell their oil. Terrorists will always be around, and will potentially have access to more powerful weapons. So what? Let the police take care of that. Building democracy and fighting the forces that oppose it is something you talk about, not something you send your soldiers to get mixed up in. That's what everyone does with Africa. Seems to work, for everyone but the Africans. For that reason, the world is hoping that the American effort in Iraq fails. Because if America succeeds in Iraq, ignoring Africa gets a lot harder.

and so it goes, and on and on, but now and then we wonder who the real parrots are...
 

Seems you'd be in as good a position as anyone to answer that question since your military expertise apparently allows you to confidently assert the opposite. Of course I could point out that many 'actual military experts' seem to agree that the war cannot be won militarily, but I realize that your criteria for deeming someone a military expert will depend primarily on whether they agree with your beliefs or not.

No, probably just the assholes masquerading as conservatives like yourself who've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that their chief area of concern is not the good of the country, the good of Iraq or indeed any good, but simply taking any opportunity for lambasting democrats and 'liberals'.

Your staggeringly utter inability to deal with any given issue without invoking this relentlessly polarized caricature in your head--representing, arbitrarily, the absolute unwavering and uniform antithesis of all you consider decent, practical and effective--definitely does tend to make one think that a superfluous little detail such as 'the opposition doing the right thing' (if such a thing were indeed even possible in the version of the world which filters into your cramped little skull) would never, ever sway you from your jolly and purely imaginary crusade against them.

Yeah, it isn't nearly so romantic when you strip away the flag draped coffins and patriotic soundtrack, and it aint saturday afternoon paintball.

But, wasn't it 'your team' who claimed the war would be so cheap, quick, and neat--a virtual liberated glee club? And gee, I thought it was also part of the 'liberal agenda' to actually complain about the G-rated hollywood depiction of the war we are getting!

Did I miss the new liberal parrot handbook?

I'm almost certain the average 'liberal' is probably blessed with enough basic human empathy to have a clearer picture of the reality of war than you do, which is why they don't like it much and why they feel a damned good reason is needed for it.

Your poster boy for the reason to go to war is hung and buried. For years you claimed with every fiber of your little typing fingers that the evil bastard must die so that Iraq could become master of its own destiny, certain they'd choose good ol' American democracy as their model for progress, which, you assured us, would be as easy as picking out a new wardrobe at the mall of governments under armed escort. And for years the 'liberal' antiwar argument has been that this was sheer fantasy, that the reality would be far more difficult and that even the best case scenario would fall short of this imaginary panacea. Now you're faced with the reality and the difficulty but still don't bother to concern yourself with it in any real way, instead squawking Stay The Course bwawk Stay The Course simply because that's what you've been taught to say.

Actually it's probably not repeated much because whether or not it's true, it has, or ought to have no real purpose in an argument for or against a war. War is a neccessity, right?

I can't help but wonder what conservative website you're parrot-phrasing, but besides that, I think a fair amount of people hated the U.S. well before the Iraq war and obviously, even well before 911. What concerned and concerns a lot of people is that certain jihadists, people who easily think of war in terms of generations, were able to so easily exploit this and get exactly the reaction they were looking for from people like you, in a timely and choreographed fashion, to solidify and amplify their cause.

If there were a bit of sense in the "war on terror" it would in fact be a war against the hatred of America that brings terrorism about, not a feeding frenzy held in its honor; certainly not a platform for parrots like you to announce to the world that it can go to hell over and over and make people consider that all Americans might be as thoughtless, flatulent and vile as you.

As far as the political commentary, you're simply being a parrot pointing out the color of other parrots.
:dhorse:
As far as Iraq, it's certainly not our fault that the airwaves are not constantly awash in all those wonderful humanitarian documentaries that are unfolding.



...Oh, but wait, liberals control the media don't they.

SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

Well gee,
They seem to....

:PIR: :PIR: :PIR: :PIR: :PIR: :pflag: :pflag: :pflag: :PIR: :PIR:

:PE: :PE: :PE: :PE: :bc: :bc: :bc: :bdance: :bdance: :bdance:

:EA: :EA: