[marden]

Al Qaeda Endorses Democrat's Election in America

Al-Qaeda Leader In Iraq Mocks Bush Over Election Results, Rumsfeld Resignation

November 11, 2006 12:24 a.m. EST

Russell McSpadden - All Headline News News Writer

Baghdad, Iraq (AHN) - In an audio tape released on Friday, the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir mocked President Bush over the sweeping midterm election results and the resignation of defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Al-Muhajir also called for the U.S. to remain in Iraq, boasting that Al-Qaeda controls 12,000 militants and desires to continue killing American soldiers.

"We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he taunted maliciously in the tape recording.
The CIA has yet to confirm that the man in the tape, which posted on a radical Islamic web site, is actually al-Muhajir.

Demonstrating that he has kept abreast recent U.S. domestic political news, al-Muhajir said, "I tell the lame duck do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground."

Al-Muhajir also threatened to take the battle beyond Iraq, into U.S. borders, and vowed that Al-Qaeda will blow up the White House."

The terrorist leader also commended Americans for voting overwhelmingly for political change during the midterm elections saying, "They voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

Violence in Iraq continued unabated on Friday. Fifty-nine Iraqi civilians were found dead and the U.S. military said that five American soldiers had been killed.

All Headline News - Al-Qaeda Leader In Iraq Mocks Bush Over Election Results, Rumsfeld Resignation - November 11, 2006

Now, let's watch and see if Pelosi and Murtha and Co. continue to please al Qaeda's leadership.

[Kevin]

They know all the left will do is finger wag. I hope they prove me wrong. I honestly hope they do.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

They know all the left will do is finger wag. I hope they prove me wrong. I honestly hope they do.

Most of us feel exactly as you do, Kevin!

[Kevin]

I would fully support ANYONE no matter WHAT SIDE they were on that had a reasonable and honorable plan for Iraq.

Just like I was rooting for Billyboy when he acted like he was going to be strong on Saddam.

[SpaceMonkey]

Wow. Mojoabmarden becomes an Al Qaeda shill. A stunning turn of events.

[Dakar²]

I'll let you know when I begin to care what al-quaeda thinks.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Wow. Mojoabmarden becomes an Al Qaeda shill. A stunning turn of events.

Ah first post you made and it was an ad-hominem.

Thanks for not disappointing.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ah first post you made and it was an ad-hominem.

Thanks for not disappointing.

The subject matter doesn't really lend itself to anything else.

Am I supposed to feel bad that the Dems won the House and Senate because Al Qaeda says they are happy about it? This thread is a massive ad-hominem.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The subject matter doesn't really lend itself to anything else.

Uh sure it does. Just because you don't like what the message says, doesn't mean you are required to attack the messenger. How about just not posting at all?

Am I supposed to feel bad that the Dems won the House and Senate because Al Qaeda says they are happy about it?

I don't think anyone is saying that either.

This same thing happened at the end of Clinton's term.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I don't think anyone is saying that either.

The implication of "now, let's watch and see if Pelosi and Murtha and Co. continue to please al Qaeda's leadership" is clear.

It's the same "don't vote Democratic or the terrorist will win" rhetoric that was being put forward before the elections, and it's still ridiculous.

[Kevin]

So did he personally attack you? No. So why did you feel the need to do so to him?

Just don't post if you have nothing to ad other than personal attacks.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The subject matter doesn't really lend itself to anything else.

Am I supposed to feel bad that the Dems won the House and Senate because Al Qaeda says they are happy about it? This thread is a massive ad-hominem.

I'd say you all should interpret al Qaeda's endorsement as a confirmation that you were wrong about the wanting to pull out of Iraq. Just as we've been trying to tell you all along.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'd say you all should interpret al Qaeda's endorsement as a confirmation that you were wrong about the wanting to pull out of Iraq. Just as we've been trying to tell you all along.

I guarantee you that if the Republicans had maintained control, Al Qaeda would have put out an equally jubilant statement rejoicing at the stupidity of the enemy's electorate and hailing their chance to spill more American blood, yada yada. These are PR statements, after all. They're not going to say "oh, dude, this really sucks, I guess we should go home now."

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'd say you all should interpret al Qaeda's endorsement as a confirmation that you were wrong about the wanting to pull out of Iraq. Just as we've been trying to tell you all along.

I don't think Al Qaeda has as much influence in Iraq as you think. All the fighters are local, some of them calling themselves Al Qaeda in name only. The administration would like you to think Al Qaeda in Iraq is part of some larger group, but they're not.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I don't think Al Qaeda has as much influence in Iraq as you think. All the fighters are local, some of them calling themselves Al Qaeda in name only. The administration would like you to think Al Qaeda in Iraq is part of some larger group, but they're not.

Um a good part of the insurgency are made up by people not even from iraq. What are you talking about?

These people hardly make up the majority of Iraqis. Nor do they speak for them.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Um a good part of the insurgency are made up by people not even from iraq. What are you talking about?

Not true. It's pretty much all local.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

These people hardly make up the majority of Iraqis. Nor do they speak for them.

Again, not true. It's local religious violence.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Not true. It's pretty much all local.

Please back that up.

Iraqi insurgency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iraqi's own gov sees this insurgency as being ANTI-IRAQ, and not for the people.

The link above shows indeed Al-qaeda memberships.

The insurgency DO NOT speak for the people of Iraq.

And care less to what happens to them. They care about the land, and who is on it.

What IS a myth is people claiming that Iraqis as a whole are rising up against the US in these insurgencies and support them fully.

Hardly the truth. Most Iraqis think the insurgents are doing more HARM than good.

While most don't want the US there now, most are happy we got rid of Saddam.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Please back up that assertion.

In Iraq, Shiite vs. Shiite power play | csmonitor.com

Google also returned about a million other results.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

In Iraq, Shiite vs. Shiite power play | csmonitor.com

Google also returned about a million other results.

That doesn't back up your assertions goMac.

Go read the link I posted.

[hyteckit]

Oh Sh*t Al Qaeda supports the resignation of Rumsfield.

Damn you Bush! We can't let the terrorist win. Bring back Rumsfield not matter how useless he is. If Al Qaeda is for Rumsfield's resignation, then Rumsfield must be doing a good job.

We Republican, we smart.

We like to spread terrorist propaganda when it serves us.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I guarantee you that if the Republicans had maintained control, Al Qaeda would have put out an equally jubilant statement rejoicing at the stupidity of the enemy's electorate and hailing their chance to spill more American blood, yada yada. These are PR statements, after all. They're not going to say "oh, dude, this really sucks, I guess we should go home now."

Here's a clue.

When the enemy criticizes us that means we did good.

When the enemy praises us that means we hurt ourselves.

And for those who really have no clue, al Qaeda is the enemy.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Oh Sh*t Al Qaeda supports the resignation of Rumsfield.

Damn you Bush! We can't let the terrorist win. Bring back Rumsfield not matter how useless he is. If Al Qaeda is for Rumsfield's resignation, then Rumsfield must be doing a good job.

We Republican, we smart.

We like to spread terrorist propaganda when it serves us.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I don't think Al Qaeda has as much influence in Iraq as you think. All the fighters are local, some of them calling themselves Al Qaeda in name only. The administration would like you to think Al Qaeda in Iraq is part of some larger group, but they're not.

Who doesn't know that al Qaeda is a 'franchise' that one may join by simply acting as al Qaeda has, does and would...violently, against the US and in accordance with Koran instructions?

The administration tries to make things easy for people to understand but I don't think they have ever tried to do as you suggest.

And I agree with Kevin. I believe the Iraqis insurgents are the minority.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

In Iraq, Shiite vs. Shiite power play | csmonitor.com

Google also returned about a million other results.

Here's an anti-Administration blogger who I've selected to cite here because he lists a number of sources on BOTH sides of the issue so you can see a number of sources in one link and they are from both sides of the issue.

Rodger A. Payne's Blog: Foreign fighters

But here is what I've seen no one point out...

The majority of Iraqis who are considered insurgents are not fighting the US, they are indulging in ANTI-SECTARIAN violence. Sunnis vs Shiites and Shiites vs Sunnis.

[christ]

Originally Posted by marden 

... wanting to pull out of Iraq. ...

Who wants to pull out of Iraq?

The US and its allies should never have gone in to Iraq, but now they are in they must do something useful, not just pull out. The absolutely worst possible thing that could happen in Iraq is for the US and its allies to pull out now, with the place in complete chaos. I expect it to be proposed soon, though, and in the terms that you used. "Oh, we pulled out because the left told us to, therefore the whole mess is the liberals fault."

[marden]

Originally Posted by christ 

Who wants to pull out of Iraq?

The US and its allies should never have gone in to Iraq, but now they are in they must do something useful, not just pull out. The absolutely worst possible thing that could happen in Iraq is for the US and its allies to pull out now, with the place in complete chaos. I expect it to be proposed soon, though, and in the terms that you used. "Oh, we pulled out because the left told us to, therefore the whole mess is the liberals fault."

You criticize our invading Iraq seemingly without:

1-Knowing whether there were or weren't WMD's...at the time. After the fact doesn't count.
2-Knowing about the real doubts of our WMD intelligence.
3-Regard to any possible danger to Israel.
4-Regard to any possible impact on world peace.
5-Knowing how our oil access would be affected.
6-Knowing how global leaders would react to our actions.
7-Regard to Saddam's oppression of the Iraqi people.
8-Recognizing that the containment was crumbling.
9-Recognizing that the US was committed to regime change (see: The US Iraq Liberation Act).
10-Regard to the multiple UN resolutions Iraq had ignored.
11-Appreciating the need to confront jihad on a second front, in the heart of the Muslim world.
12-Understanding the need for a convenient battle ground other than America or Afghanistan.
13-Appreciating the need for stability in the chronically volatile M.E. by introducing democracy.
14-Acknowledging the cooperation Saddam had shown radislamics.
15-Being aware of Saddam's history of attacking the US forces

Yours is a trick question.

Who WANTED to pull out before the election or who still wants to pull out?

Even though you still don't understand the most important reasons for staying, I'm just happy you've found ANY reason to stay.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

Here's a clue.

When the enemy criticizes us that means we did good.

When the enemy praises us that means we hurt ourselves.

And for those who really have no clue, al Qaeda is the enemy.

More "if you're with the Democrats, then you're with the terrorists" B.S.

These statements you are quoting from Al Qaeda are directed at bolstering their image in the Arab world, gaining recruits, etc. They would spin it toward that end no matter what happened during the election.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

More "if you're with the Democrats, then you're with the terrorists" B.S.

These statements you are quoting from Al Qaeda are directed at bolstering their image in the Arab world, gaining recruits, etc. They would spin it toward that end no matter what happened during the election.

What you are saying in effect is that there is no difference between the democrats or the republicans as far as the jihadists are concerned. That either party was going to follow the same course of action in Iraq or that it doesn't matter to al Queda and that they would have said the same thing had the GOP won.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

That doesn't back up your assertions goMac.

Go read the link I posted.

Don't mind him and his ilk. They don't even read the links they post either.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

What you are saying in effect is that there is no difference between the democrats or the republicans as far as the jihadists are concerned. That either party was going to follow the same course of action in Iraq or that it doesn't matter to al Queda and that they would have said the same thing had the GOP won.

I'm saying they would have formulated their statement to have the same effect: bolster their image and try to gain more recruits.

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm saying they would have formulated their statement to have the same effect: bolster their image and try to gain more recruits.

Well, when would you be forced to recognize they weren't just spinning the reality to bolster their image and that they actually were laughing at the advantage America voted them?

When these guys are marching through downtown Baghdad?

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Not true. It's pretty much all local.

Yeah, locals with a boatload of cash, weapons, and other resources provided by Iran.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

Well, when would you be forced to recognize they weren't just spinning the reality to bolster their image and that they actually were laughing at the advantage America voted them?

So are we back to calling Democrats useful idiots? Or outright terrorist sympathizers?

[marden]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So are we back to calling Democrats useful idiots? Or outright terrorist sympathizers?

I'll call you patriots if you recognize the danger of Jihad and show me that you all take it seriously.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by marden 

I'll call you patriots if you recognize the danger of Jihad and show me that you all take it seriously.

And how are we supposed to have a chance to do that if we're only allowed to vote Republican?

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And how are we supposed to have a chance to do that if we're only allowed to vote Republican?

How about one of you prove how big you are by putting aside your petty partisan bickering and talk about the issues? What a concept huh?

From where I stand, I don't see Republicans or Democrats but a bunch of idiots avoiding the real issues.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

How about one of you prove how big you are by putting aside your petty partisan bickering and talk about the issues? What a concept huh?

From where I stand, I don't see Republicans or Democrats but a bunch of idiots avoiding the real issues.

That would be a welcome development indeed.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

Don't mind him and his ilk. They don't even read the links they post either.

You could read the news today:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac 

You could read the news today:
Iraqi Sunnis kill 10 Shiites, kidnap 50 others - CNN.com

EDIT: I just clicked the link and found the musical allusion to the Beatles' "A Day in the Life" was inappropriate due to the nature of the news item.

[christ]

Originally Posted by marden 

Yours is a trick question.

Who WANTED to pull out before the election or who still wants to pull out?

Even though you still don't understand the most important reasons for staying, I'm just happy you've found ANY reason to stay.

Mine was not a trick question. You implied that some 'you' wanted to pull out of Iraq. I think that world divides itself pretty neatly into two:

(1) those that didn't think invading was a good idea, but acknowledge that leaving now would be worse than not invading in the first place, and

(2) those that thought that invading was a good idea, but had no idea how to get out, and would love to blame regime change in the US for a decision to leave prematurely.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden 

Here's a clue.

When the enemy criticizes us that means we did good.

When the enemy praises us that means we hurt ourselves.

And for those who really have no clue, al Qaeda is the enemy.

Hmm, Al-Qaeeda calls Bush not to withdraw US-forces from Iraq, because Al-Qaeeda likes to kill US-soldiers.

So given your logic, the right thing would be to do the opposite of what Al-Qaeeda wants, and to withdraw, right?

Taliesin

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Taliesin 

Hmm, Al-Qaeeda calls Bush not to withdraw US-forces from Iraq, because Al-Qaeeda likes to kill US-soldiers.

So given your logic, the right thing would be to do the opposite of what Al-Qaeeda wants, and to withdraw, right?

Taliesin

Or stay and remind them that they ought to be careful what they wish for, they might not like the results.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Or stay and remind them that they ought to be careful what they wish for, they might not like the results.

That's not marden's logic, which he was specifically referring to.

Marden/abe/mojo2/aberdeenwriter doesn't to tangents or more than binary options, unless it's to deflect from the fact that he hasn't the slightest ****ing clue about much of the propaganda he's paid to argue.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by marden 

What you are saying in effect is that there is no difference between the democrats or the republicans as far as the jihadists are concerned. That either party was going to follow the same course of action in Iraq or that it doesn't matter to al Queda and that they would have said the same thing had the GOP won.

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I'm saying they would have formulated their statement to have the same effect: bolster their image and try to gain more recruits.

Originally Posted by marden 

Well, when would you be forced to recognize they weren't just spinning the reality to bolster their image and that they actually were laughing at the advantage America voted them?

Do you really think the election of Democrats to the majority party in Congress gives an advantage to global jihadists? And if so, what type or sort of advantage would that be?

How does a majority-Democrat Congress prove to be advantageous to global jihadists?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Do you really think the election of Democrats to the majority party in Congress gives an advantage to global jihadists? And if so, what type or sort of advantage would that be?

How does a majority-Democrat Congress prove to be advantageous to global jihadists?

Well, for one, they might call for a real exit strategy from Iraq and tone down the war on terror, thus generating less anti-American feelings and removing fuel from terrorist recruiting campaigns ...

oh, wait ...

[marden]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Do you really think the election of Democrats to the majority party in Congress gives an advantage to global jihadists? And if so, what type or sort of advantage would that be?

How does a majority-Democrat Congress prove to be advantageous to global jihadists?

It encourages the enemy to believe that our pullout is now within sight.

Just as OBL predicted. 'Bloody their noses and they will run away.'

It's like if the Jihadists have an "Easy" button they can push to make us go away...EVERY TIME.

By contrast, we have NOTHING to stop them.

What's more, it shows we still have people who are so confused about what the dynamics are they still believe Jihadists are like Jehovah Witnesses. Far away, insignificant and pesky, but able to be negotiated with or easily dismissible. And they still think all of the examples of Islamic violence or hot spots are isolated examples of casual violence instead of symbols of a world wide campaign.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Well, for one, they might call for a real exit strategy from Iraq and tone down the war on terror, thus generating less anti-American feelings and removing fuel from terrorist recruiting campaigns ...

oh, wait ...

But then they would no longer be good jihadists because they would not be following the instructions of the Prophet.

[marden]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Or stay and remind them that they ought to be careful what they wish for, they might not like the results.

Of course you are right.

Dear Readers, the difficult thing here sometimes is to taylor the material to the audience. When directing a comment to someone with one level of understanding you sometimes get jumped by someone else who is capable of grasping more complex thought who sees the flaws in the intentionally simplistic comment to another.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by marden 

By contrast, we have NOTHING to stop them.

hah.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by marden 

But then they would no longer be good jihadists because they would not be following the instructions of the Prophet.

Sounds like you're saying the Prophet instructs them to be violent.