The successor to Zarqawi accepts Dan’s gracious invitation.
I wonder if you could show me an example of “terrorists†rejoicing in this election
All hail the Democratic victors!
A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.
The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.
The Democrats’ victory in Tuesday’s Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.
…
“The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament… they voted for a level of reason,” the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.
27 Responses to “Dan, Steve, and Abu Hamza al-Muhajir celebrates the glorious Democratic triumph”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
from powerline.
to answer Powerline’s question, of why terrorists are so happy that democrats won. The answer is very simple. They are as stupid as Republicans are, in actually believing that a vote for Democrats is a vote for terrorists.
by the way, i’m flattered. Yet again I am influencing the direction and posts on this blog, and i’m like brand hew here.
It’s too easy to push your guys’s buttons. The election is over. I’m taking a break from politics for a while.
Brilliant Doug! I’ve figured you out. You actually believe terrorist propaganda. That explains a lot.
Let Mr. Webster and me help you out. Propaganda: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.
Now I’m just wondering if you believed everything the Iraqi Disinformation Minister said. You probably had a few anxiety attacks along the way. It’s okay. Americans did reach Baghdad and no soldier’s stomachs are roasting in hell. Shake it off Doug. You can do it. Even one programmed with a BYU education can overcome the Jone’s punch. Really, I’ve seen all three of them.
Seriously though, why do you believe this crap and not that put forth by our own intelligence agencies. Iraq has made us less safe. Period. End of story. Even Britain’s intelligence service duly notes that terrorists are lining up for suicide missions now. If you really believe the US is safer because of George’s bungled foreign policy, your credibility as a critical thinker is nonexistent. For example, we all know that nothing has been done to fix the problem of cargo coming into the US. We are just fortunate that terrorist actions of the magnitude of 9/11 are not that easy to pull off. Most likely though Doug, unless we get the moderate Muslims on our side and get them to help us with the intelligence effort, we will see more terrorist attacks on US soil. Thus the illegitimate Iraq war was very stupid. On a side note, trying to fund it by cutting taxes was even more stupid.
Another quick question, when you are presented with an argument such as that supported by the national intelligence estimate, why don’t you address it? Why do you obfuscate and blow smoke by using terrorist propaganda as evidence? Actually I know the answer. Your position cannot be supported with logic. Thus Americans spanked the GOP. Again, keep it up so that we can have the White House too.
Well, I’m not sure about that.
Maybe, “It’s too easy to waste you guys’ free time.” That sounds about right.
In any case, I probably shouldn’t have lumped your name into the title with Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, a true enemy of America.
This argument is baseless when considering the world concensus and intelligence leading up to the war. I mean, all that plus Iraq was trying to shoot our fighter jets down for 10 years all the while obstructing UN inspections. Did you read the headline that Saddam will hang soon? Wow, Justice at work and we are less safe! Empty the prisons! We may anger condemned prisoner’s friends and relatives!!!
Ultimately, to be considered is the long term role this war plays with regard to Iran and other radical Islamic powers.
You are not going to destroy the hornet’s nest by letting it sit and grow. The hornets are going to get angry as their nest is destroyed. Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t like to get stung and would rather run away and hide under a rock, hoping that the nest will somehow…go away….how? By hiding under a rock…on Okinawa!
Ryan,
you want to know why removing Saddam has not made America safer? Look at it this way. You’ve got a wall protecting your village. Behind that wall is a lake. The wall has a crack, and the only thing keeping it from breaking wide open is a moldy, stinky nasty plug.
There is a reason Reagan supported Saddam Hussein back in the 80s, even though the crimes he was just convicted of happened under Reagan’s administration here in America. Reagan knew about that act, yet turned a blind eye. He needed that plug, the stop, the check on Iran.
You want to know why we are less safe? Because our enemies predicted, and admonished us, to attack a Muslim nation. They goaded us on, and they baited us with 9/11. Attack the Muslim world, they said. DO it. Prove us right. We did. We proved them right. Now Islamic Jihadists are exploiting the war in Iraq to recruit more jihadists. The War in Iraq has not reduced the number of terrorist attacks, nor even the number of terrorists. Why? Because we proved the extremists in their midst right. We gave them the credibility to recruit more jihadists.
You want to know why America is less safe with no Saddam in Iraq? Iran. The reason Reagan backed Saddam was because Saddam was a check on Iranian influence and power in the region. With Saddam in place, the wall would not come crashing down, and the lake would not flood the village. Now Iran has greater control and influence in the region, greater than it has ever had. Thanks to America removing their most vile enemy: Saddam Hussein. What’s that old phrase? “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Who is Iran’s best friend right now? Bush’s America.
You know what the Baker commission is going to tell Mr. Bush to do in order to fix Iraq? Talk to Iran. Yeah, great work Mr. Bush. Way to curb the power and influence of Iran in the region. The worst thing Bush ever did was invade Iraq. America will come to regret this decision.
Ryan you don’t even know what you are talking about. From the NIE:
“The Iraq conflict has become the “cause celebre” for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.”
And also:
“Although we cannot measure the extent of the spread with precision, a large body of all-source reporting indicates that activists identifying themselves as jihadists, although a small percentage of Muslims, are increasing in number and geographic dispersion.
If this trend continues, threats to US interests at home and abroad will become more diverse, leading to increasing attacks worldwide.”
These are words from our own intelligence agencies. Not mine Ryan. Argue with them. You are completely wrong and fortunately the American people are being duped anymore by the GOP.
Sorry meant to say “aren’t being duped”.
Using your logic, Israel would no longer exist.
Brilliant Ryan. I’d say you are putting words in my mouth. How do you piece that nonsense together?
Do I think that Bush needs to be more engaged in a Palistinian, Israeli settlement. Certainly! The problem is our President is a religious fanatic. He’s so myopic about the process. He’s looking at it through the lens of right wing, christian fundamentalism. He doesn’t realize, like Mormons do Ryan, that maybe the Bible has a few errors in it.
Sorry. Meant to say “Palestinian”.
I say that Israel would no longer exist because as I understand your argument, retaliating against Palestinian or Hezbollah aggression simply “fuels the fire” and Israel should “take a more passive/proportionate approach.”
However, I would argue that Israel must retaliate because the sworn goal of the enemy is “from the river to the sea.”
My impression is that you think that Israel (or the US) should not be so aggressive in pursuing bad guys because it simply makes it worse.
However, my belief is that not aggressively pursuing Palestinians (or other Islamic terrorists) results in more dire long term consequences than if we do aggressively pursue. They believe they’re fighting an idealogical war where they measure victories quite differently than ourselves. They have attacked us abroad and on our own soil.
Citing that report is fine, I totally understand that. When you destroy the hornet’s nest, they aren’t going to be happy. But just because you are getting stung doesn’t mean you will lose or that you should run away.
The fundamental thing that seems to be lacking in your argument is an aknowledgment of the prejudiced, rabid, radical, raving, single-minded, stubborn and altogether fanatical death wish that Islamic terrorists have for the United States and anyone that agrees with them.
Ryan,
When did the Iraqis attack us on our own soil?
Actually, look at yourself. You last paragraph seems pretty rabid right now.
I think what you guys miss is that Islam is capable of living with other relgions in peace and has done so for centuries. They are not all terrorists.
I still agree with the NIE. If you are creating more Jihadists by your actions, it’s time to rethink them.
Ryan, you guys lost on this one. Rumsfeld is gone. We’re not going to stay the course in Iraq. Give it up.
Name three countries where this is true.
I can’t think of one, aside from the United States, where there is any sizable Muslim population and there aren’t serious problems with that population.
I should add:
I don’t think that all Muslims are violent, terrorists, etc. But radical Islam is a real problem.
Islamic Terrorists attacked us on our own soil. These same Islamic Terrorists are waging a war against the U.S. in Iraq.
I’ll point out right here that your post completely avoids addressing my “rabid” argument which is fundamental to the entire discussion.
We’re talking about Islamic Terrorists. Do not pull the “race” card, or “religion” card.
This is truly an important point to discuss. However, my belief is that the mentality of avoiding conflict to reduce the jihadist movement must be addressed in context. If the NIE were to write a report following Pearl Harbor, I imagine they’d have written something along the lines of, “Increased US Military presence and action in the Pacific will only further stimulate Japanese Military aggression.” Pacifism has shown itself to be unfavorable.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Ryan, Ryan, Ryan,
Don’t try to equate 9/11 with Iraq. The real war on terror should have staid in Afghanistan. Going in to Iraq was a mistake. Mostly everyone sees that now.
And incidentally, I’m not trying to pull the “race” card on you. Take a look at what Doug has said above. Clearly he is equating all of Islam with terrorism. And when you make rants like the one you just did, it is clear you agree.
Really Ryan, when you try to equate something as difficult to define as the war on terror with WWII, you really are grasping at straws. Remember, we were attacked by the Japanese; we were not attacked by the Iraqis. To what should be our disgust, our actions have resulted in the deaths of more than a hundred thousand innocent people. You tend to leave them out of the discussion. Oh I get it now, you think we should nuke Iraq.
Doug, Doug, Doug,
Islam has coexisted with other religions for 14 centuries. During that time there have been many regions where they have coexisted in peace. Or did you think that whenever they came into contact they just murdered each other to the last man (sort of a Jaredite thing played out repetitively across the Old World)? If you want a list of nations, try every nation where they have coexisted. Even in Africa, Islam was able to get along with tribal religions. Of course when resources become scarce or when one group is marginalized politically you have problems. It’s been that way since the dawn of time (not uniqe to Islam). You have to acknowledge the fact that Christians quite often were the perpetrators of terrorism too.
Doug:
Steve:
I see now why we have problems even agreeing on simple definitions like “realism”, reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
I’ll wait for that list of three countries…
Again, try every nation as I mentioned above.
The Jaredites and Africa aren’t countries, fyi.
Doug duh. I said try every nation where they coexisted in the past. Obviously you missed it. No, I’m not as stupid as Bush. Over the centuries of course nations have come and gone. I’m sure you understood what I meant and are actually pulling a Bush (when he pretended to not know that Kerry was ripping on him).
Doug, you shouldn’t lecture others on reading comprehension.
Breaking news: John returns to all-encompassingly.
I was actually looking forward to some good discussion. However, this seems to have turned into a name calling game coupled with some misunderstanding.
[...] Dan, 11 Nov 2006 (who took about a 24 hour “break” and was back to posting on politics on his blog on 13 Nov 2006) [link] I’ve figured you out. You actually believe terrorist propaganda. That explains a lot….You probably had a few anxiety attacks along the way….Shake it off Doug. You can do it. Even one programmed with a BYU education can overcome the Jone’s punch. Really, I’ve seen all three of them….why do you believe this crap….If you really believe [that] your credibility as a critical thinker is nonexistent….Why do you obfuscate and blow smoke? Actually I know the answer. Your position cannot be supported with logic….keep it up so that we can have the White House too. Doug, you shouldn’t lecture others on reading comprehension. [...]