Iraq; What Our Enemies Are Saying
By Steve Foley Posted in 2006 — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Apparently our enemies, the people who wish to kill us, got the Congress they wanted!
For those who believe that our enemy doesn’t take any interest in our elections or that they don’t care what the outcome is, should take heed to the statements coming from the mouths of these fanatical murderers and ask yourself. How long do we wait until we start taking these people at their word?
Here are just a few examples of what was said in the run-up to election day:
Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and the man who led the terrorist group's 2002 seizure of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, expressed this wish:
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat,"
"This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud,"
And
"Bush is a sick person, an alcoholic person that has no control of what is going on around him. He calls to send more troops but will very soon get to the conviction that the violence and terror that his war machine is using in Iraq will never impose policies and political regimes in the Arab world."
Hamas'Abu Abdullah, who worried that Democrats might not keep their pre-election promises:
"I am afraid that even after the American people will elect those who promise to leave Iraq, the U.S. will not do so."
Don’t worry the plans are in the works as we speak! He also said:
a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."
"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hizbullah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation
Update: By the way this same terror group today called for attacks against US interests
Hamas' so-called "military wing" released a statement, the first of its kind according to Palestinian observers, calling on Arabs and Muslims to attack American targets in the Middle East in response to an Israeli artillery strike that killed at least 19 Palestinians.
"The US provides political and logistical cover for the crimes committed by the Zionist occupation and it must be blamed for the Beit Hanoun massacres," the Hamas military wing said in a statement.
The statement urged Arabs and Muslims to "teach the American enemy merciless lessons they will not forget."
Islamic jihad's Muhammed Saadi said:
"As Arabs and Muslims, we feel proud of this talk," he said, because it meant the violence in Iraq had "brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."
Muslim extremist Web site Al-Qala provided this interpretation of Osama bin Laden’s declaration in a videotape meesage that Al-Jazeera broadcast on Oct. 29:
"It means that any U.S. state that will choose to vote for the white thug Bush as president has chosen to fight us, and we will consider it our enemy. Any state that will vote against Bush has chosen to make peace with us, and we will not characterize it as an enemy."
Sounds a lot like they understand the Red State – Blue State thing rather well, don’t you think???
Nancy Pelosi said:
"The war in Iraq is the wrong war. No matter how many times the president wants to say it, the war in Iraq is not the war on terror. The war in Afghanistan was."
According to this statement; not only is she completely blind to the threat of Islamofascism™ but she didn’t listen to Al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiriwho said in a letter to to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq:
"Victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world"
"The jihad movement is growing and rising," Now it is waging a great historic battle in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and even within the Crusader's own homes."-snip-
"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."
Our enemy just told you the war in Iraq is part of their war!!! Congresswomen... sheesh!
Listening closely to our enemies should be the most important thing we’ve learned from history; let’s be sure to be on the right side of it!
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
get to hanging, or shooting, or putting them in prison, or whatever it is you propose to do to the tens of millions of Americans who apparently are not American enough for you.
Tone is hard to tell on blogs, so I don't know how much tongue-in-cheek your comment may be, but really, the idea that millions of your fellow citizens are your enemy is not only absurd, but impractical: I mean, what are you going to do about it? And do people really think they will grow support for the war and future efforts against terrorists or Iran or North Korea by labelling a large part of the population--perhaps a slim majority--as the enemy? Such a strategy doesn't seem to have paid off so far--in fact, quite the opposite, perhaps.
Was? Was? Is she so detatched from the business of what our federal government actually does that she is not aware that there are still US troops fighting there?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Look what a prominent enemy of conservatives (he happens to be the governor of California) is saying about Tuesday's results:
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid...
Seriously, we're at war and propaganda is one of their weapons.
You realize they would say the same sort of stuff had 11/7 gone differently, right?
I don't think they care which party's in charge in Washington:
[The terror leaders] unanimously rejected [Pelosi's] contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.
Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."
And they're not that fond of the Democrats, either:
He called both Democrats and Republicans "agents of the Zionist lobby in the US."
Right. They hate us all and don't care to appreciate the differences (or similiarities) between our artifically self-imposed (in their minds) distinctions.
You're either with 'em or against 'em.
Bush needs to say that no one is going to mess with us, or our friends, because nothing has changed. He needs to say it like he did shortly after 9/11, when he was at his best.
That will be the first test of the Democrats, to see if they quickly second it.
Bush's heart is in the right place, but the problem has been for a long time that he can't communicate.
He's not going to say that because he has thrown in the towel. The Bush Doctrine is now history.
John
--------
Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-François Revel
I continue to be amazed that there are people in the US who would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend that everything is hunky-dory while there are people out there who want to kill us!
you believe that the attacks were all a set up by the administration.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
As someone who lost their nephew in Iraq, how dare ANYONE say that Iraq is not part of the war on terror? Joel died for nothing?? Pelosi is an idiot, come on! The democrats need to realize that their margin of win was so very slim. Some wanted change but I can bet you......most are not going to like what they voted for!
The Kos idiots are calling for impeachment and already saying they want "media reform" ie censorship. They actually believe the media is right wing! Now of course if they felt it were left wing....well everything would be hunky dorey! Pelosi is as left as it gets and most of the left have nothing but contempt of the military. Guess we should just wring our hands over 9/11 and "talk" to the terrorists. Sheesh!
We, as a nation, can hardly express our thanks for your family's sacrifice. I know I echo most of the posters here by saying we grieve with you, and sincerely hope and believe that his death will not be in vain
Any fool unable to connect the dots, to understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are but the first two fronts on the global war against radical Jihad, is unworthy of holding office.
It has always been my belief that the Democrat leadership knows full well the importance of winning in Iraq, but until now, was willing to throw Iraq under the bus in the interest of winning back power.
NOW, I feel certain they will begin to admit that we are, in fact, winning in Iraq, and the MSM will soon begin to allow stories to emerge from that country to promote that view.
Iraq is part of the WoT now because we destroyed its secular government. It was a typical Arab corrupt secular state, no better and no worse than Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yeman, Algeria, or Libya, and considerably worse than Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
How many of the terrorists were Iraqis? 0 out of 19. How many were Saudis? 15 out of 19.
How many were funded by Iraqis? 0 out of 19. How many were funded by Saudis? 19 out of 19.
Which country did we invade?
Gosh Maggie I am so glad to have someone who was the finance minister under Sadaam....oh you're not? Then how would you know this?
That pain in your behind is because you simply pulled that out of your ass.
I have no problem at all with stupid people, because they are doing the best with what limited resources they have. What I cannot stand are the ignorant...because ignorance is a choice!
I'm not even going to waste my time arguing with the deliberately ignorant. BDS is no excuse to pretend that Iraq was not a state-sponsor of terrorism for over a decade. BDS is no reason to stick your head in the sand and pretend that if we had chosen (take your pick) Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Yeman, Algeria, or Libya, as the next step in the gwot, you and your ilk would NOT be bleating, "WHY DIDN'T YOU INVADE IRAQ INSTEAD!!
I remember Ted Kennedy giving a floor speech in the Senate a few days after our invasion of Afghanistan slowed a little. "Quagmire! Quagmire!" He was sure that it was Vietnam.
If we allow the terrorists to chase us out of Iraq before the job is finished, creating a vacuum for them to exploit, they will then return to Afghanistan to chase us out of there!
The difference between the GWoT and Vietnam that the Dems never seem to grasp is that they don't just want a country, they want the WORLD! They don't just want to kill our military, they want to kill ALL of us.
Honestly, if you think immediate withdrawal is a realistic possibility, then we need to think about it realistically. Take a look at this strategy memo from the update:
"The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority over as much territory as you can spread its power in Iraq . . . in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans."
The terrorists in Iraq are foreigners, just like we Americans are foreigners. They want Iraq as a strategic base from which to fight the war against terrorism, just like we Americas want Iraq for similar reasons (except they obviously don't call it a "war against terrorism," and they fight on the opposite side).
Do you really think the Iraqi Sunni and Iraqi Shia insurgents will just lay down their arms and roll over for these foreign invaders? They certainly didn't do so for the Americans. What about the Shia-dominated Iraqi government we helped install? Not a chance. The terrorists will get bogged down in the same civil war that's bogging us down today because they will stop being an ally of the Sunnis and start makeing power plays of their own. The terrorists waste their resources fighting Iraqi factions - and probably losing the fight. Instead of fighting all parties simultaneously, the Americans watch as the least desirable of them is damaged by the others. I think Henry Kissinger would approve.
I'm not sure it'll play out that way - I just thought I'd put a better-case scenario next you your worst-case. That's all. You may now continue ranting about how we're all going to die.
(however, we are). He said they want to kill all of us. That is indisputable, unless you think Americans will convert to Islam en masse. I don't believe they'll kill all of us, but they certainly will try.
Why do you not take Islamists at their word?
Yes, Democrats: Please, please PLEASE try to impeach the president during wartime.
Yes, they say they want to kill us all. For the record, that's about the only thing a jihadist could tell me that I would take at his word. ("Islamist," your term, includes the governing coalition in Turkey among an aweful lot of people who do not, in fact, want to kill all Americans.)
However, you are just going to have to accept the fact that staying in Iraq is not the only way to possibly thwart their efforts. Depending on the actions of this congress and/or the next president, we all may have to accept that staying in Iraq is also not the best way to do so. Honestly, I don't know if it is or not. I do know that screaming "THEY WANT TO KILL ALL OF US! DO THE DEMOCRATS WANT US ALL TO DIE????!!!" or some similar hyperbolic rhetoric won't help us figure out the answer.
Care to weigh in?
what you are suggesting would be better is a country with no central government, in which warring factions each own portions of the countryside, battling each other, and presumably the "foreign fighters" as well. Hmmm, sounds much like the situation that existed in Somolia when Osama bin Laden was there, or the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, when Osama bin Laden was there. See a pattern here?
Actually, it sounds like the situation in Afghanistan before the Taliban took over. The warring factions wore themselves out (no pun intended), allowing a bunch of radical Islamic students with bizzar psycho-sexual problems who had kept out of the fighting because they were busy growing up as reffugee children in Pakistan to sweep through the country offering promises of stablility after decades of civil war.
[deep breath] I'm suggesting that in Iraq, the Taliban stand-ins are foreign rather than a native group to Iraq. I'm also suggesting that they will start out as a participant in the fighting, rather than biding their time elsewhere. The result will not be a new Taliban but a defeated band of foreign terrorists and a new strongman who might just decide to be "our" strongman with the right incentives. Certainly not ideal, but also certainly no disaster for American security.
Let's turn this around; what makes you so sure the terrorists can defeat the indigenous players in Iraq?
First of all, if you go back to what I wrote, and you originally responded to, you will see that I point out that the Islamofascists will not be content to stop with Iraq, but once we have cut and run they will see which other countries they can kick us out of...see Vietnam in the 70s; see Lebanon in the 80s: see Somolia in the 90s. You see, as I stated elsewhere, one country is NOT enough, they want the entire world.
If we cut and run, Iraq will be ungovernable, and will be a terrorist haven...and YES, Iraq under the secular Saddam Hussein WAS a state sponsor of terrorism, and YES terrorist training camps were used by all manner of terrorist organizations including al Qaeda...see Salman Pak. With Iran pouring IT'S resources across the border into Iraq, I find it unlikely that a "strongman" able to consolidate power in Iraq will be sympathetic to the US, but HEY, perhaps if the Iranians are able to get their man into a position of power, we could fund a mudjaheen movement against them, covertly of couse, say through the CIA>
AND, finally, of course, there is the matter of credibility in the world. I know this is of little import to most people. The libs would have you believe that the US has no credibility in the world today anyways. And, with the example of Vietnam to show how we react to adversity, it is possible that our credibility IS in question.
However, if we leave Iraq in chaos, you can be guaranteed that we will never again get ANY ally to back us. If we cannot be seen to honor our word to an ally, we will no longer HAVE allies.
- or their version of the Soviet experience in Afghanistan? They want the entire world (or at least the restoration of the Caliphate); that's true. But like most people, the jihadists can't have everything they want. If they are defeated by the indigenous factions in Iraq, they will not have their one country, let alone a position from which to launch their play for control of the world. They'll have been repudiated not just by their adversaries the Americans but by the Muslims they seek to rule. I cannot think of a weaker position for them to be in. If we kill them ourselves, at least the remaining organization can claim martyrdom at the hands of [insert anti-American phrase] and try to build up new recruits.
The Jihadists are Sunni. They are foreign to Iraq, but they are also Sunni. So, they've alligned themselves with the Iraqi Sunni faction that fears Shia domination. This is why they conduct suicide attacks against the Shia in addition to their attacks against the Americans. If the Shia win the civil war with Iranian support, this will not be forgotten - no more than we Americans would invite al-Qaeda to build camps in our own country.
If, on the other hand, the Sunnis win the civil war, the Jihadists are going to run smack into the reality that the very same elites Hussein depended on for his power base are far, far away from the receptive Taliban that al-Qaeda depended on for their old base. In fact, they formed the backbone of one of the corrupt dictatorships that stood in the way of al-Qaeda's goal of control of the lands of the Caliphate. No - the only way al-Qaeda gets its base is to take control itself. They know it, and the Iraqi Sunni factions also know it - be best evidence we have that they understand the threat posed to their power was their assistence in killing Zarqawi. The Iraqi Sunni factions are more powerful within Iraq than the jihadists, so if the Shia are subdued the jihadists will be next.
Now I think we're getting somewhere.
...but it's getting kinda late where I am. I realize I've neglected your argument about credibility - but suffice it to say that I'm not sure the obligations of an alliance extend to intra-state conflict.
compared to what is bound to follow as we lose our will to fight Islamofascism. I think we see what may be coming, but believe me the Dems have no idea. I really don't want it to take a nuked American city for this country to rediscover its steely resolve.
Yes, Democrats: Please, please PLEASE try to impeach the president during wartime.
Today on TV I heard some dem pundit say that now that the dems have the Congress they can no longer blame Bush and the Republicans for everything that happens from here on in Iraq. The tone and descriptions of things happening wrt Iraq have already changed.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Dems will take credit for the job in Iraq when it turns out to be a success. Nothing new- happens all the time. Remember when they took credit for an improving economy, saying it was because of Clinton, when in actuality it was due to Bush 41? Hee-haw.
Annoy a liberal. Work, succeed, be happy.
~Seen on a bumper sticker in Ann Arbor, MI (really!)
I am so glad I found this site, I need to be with like minded people who are working towards a better America.
And unlike the Kos site (where you must say You da man Kos every so often or be zapped as a troll) I appreciate that other points of view are welcomed. Even though I disagree with them :)
Difference between Conservative Republicans and Democrats, one of the biggest in my opinion, is that we don't require lockstep agreement and don't block other opinions.
"the other steve" is the same name as a poster on Kos. Just a little heads up.
Oh god what did this country do last Tuesday. [We have to actually come up with a plan now! Who has the plan!?! Where did we put the plan!?!] OH GOD PLEASE HELP US!!! WE FELL RIGHT INTO THEIR T[R]AP!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO [breath] OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[Just thought that I'd modify the above so as to make it a bit closer to this guy's reality. - Moe Lane]
[*The above should not be taken as either an explict or implict suggestion that terrorists equal Democrats, or that Democrats equal terrorists.]
Wait, so I'm supposed to believe what the terrorists say now? And take would-be mass murderers at their word? If you can't trust Osama, I guess, who can you trust...
Seriously, though, if Al-Qaeda wanted the Democrats to win, why on Earth would the come out and say so? That's not exactly a vote-winning endorsement.
From this morning:
Describing George W. Bush as "the most stupid president" in U.S. history, the al-Qaeda leader reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning faster than expected in Iraq.The U.S. president's policy had enabled the militant group to achieve their goal of fighting more Americans, said the al-Qaeda leader. "We haven't had enough of your blood yet," he told the U.S.
He called on Bush to remain "steadfast in the battlefield" so al-Qaeda would have more opportunities to fight U.S. soldiers.
"We call on the lame duck (Bush) not to hurry up in escaping the same way the defense minister did," he said, referring to the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary following the Democrats' victory in Midterm elections.
"They are getting ready to leave, because they are no longer capable of staying," the al-Qaeda leader said.
"Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward," he called on the U.S president.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-11-10-alqaeda-iraq_x.htm?csp=24
Jon Stewart thinks all that stuff is a bunch of hooey. He should know, because he has a television show.
Reputed to be a pretty funny guy, that Jon.
One person who is not such a funny guy, however, is Eliot Cohen of JHU-SAIS who thinks it might take having America get hit again before people really wake up. Kinda like a double-tap. My money is on Cohen.
We just need to bomb the responsible countries hard, not try to make them into "democracies."
I knew Bush would be a failure as a war leader when he said that if you think Arabs will never be able to have a functioning democracy then you're a racist.
Political correctness is bad enough on campus. But on a battlefield?
particularly the leadership of the Party, are numbered among America's enemies.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?