Friday, December 22, 2006

The Rat Shows His Face Again

Zawahri to Democrats, You're Welcome.



Anonymous said...

This is amazing. The terrorist elements are now opening declaring their alignment with Amrican Democrats.
The Dems should be fearing this as much as non-dems will be furious.
Can anyone say "kiss of death"?
If the main stream media burys this; it will still be made front and center in public debate.

blank said...

That should help the Democratic Party in 2008 ---

Vote Democrat, the party approved of by 9 out of 10 terrorists. I may have register as a Republican for the next election.

Anonymous said...

That is amazing...
and pretty clever strategy. It's a really quick and simple way of causing a huge amount chaos, it's not like anyone's going to be allowed to forget this before the next election.

"kiss of death"? it's the one endorsement that every politician would rather do without. While Republicans and others will make plenty out of this, it would take someone seriously stupid to think that Al Qaeda has any real love for the American Democrats. I wonder what Zawahri fears in the Dems that he'd do this to them (It's not like you'd do this to anyone unless you were trying to make trouble for them)

It'll be interesting to see how this thing plays out

Christopher Lee said...

Or it could just be Zawahri knows that Dems don't have the balls to actually do something. If history teaches us anything, it's that Democrats would rather shove cigars up fat girls than fight terrorism.

Anonymous said...

Um... I'm not finding anything in there that says that Zawahri is aligned with the Democrats - I mean, he outright says that the Democrats didn't win, that the Mujahideen did.

And he outright threatens the Democrats against following their constituencies and backing Israel (I assume you're aware that Democrat voting areas tend to have large Jewish communities?).

Anonymous said...

cheap dofus kamas from

cheap mesos from
[url=]maple story[/url]
maple story

cheapest gaia gold on sale
[url=]Gaia Online Gold[/url];
Gaia Online Gold

Anonymous said...

It's not that Zawahri is in anyway aligned with the Democrats, it's that he even addresses them with anything less than total animosity. That could just be acknowledgement that the Democrats aren't bone-headed war-mongers of Bush's caliber, but that still leaves the question of 'what Zawahri thinks this public dialogue could possibly achieve'?

Anonymous said...

Bone-headed War Mongers? :O
Perhaps the Dems are the opposite then? Conceited Pacifist Cowards? Sounds good to me since name calling Bush Hatred seems to be thier favorite tool.
When are you Libs going to get over it all?

Anonymous said...

"Bone-headed War Mongers? :O
Perhaps the Dems are the opposite then?"

no , no, you got it all wrong, they just aren't in the same league.
The Democrats (and liberals everywhere) walk a fine line between two tensions: They can't be seen as 'soft on terrorism', but also can't be seen as 'overtly aggressive'.
The net result is that in the quest to avoid 'adverse peceptions' of either extreme, they end-up worrying too much what the media, the conservatives, and the public think, rather than 'doing anything' particularly well.

The positive side of this is that the Democrats are less likely to blunder into a parade of; ill-prepared, pointless wars.

...and maybe Zawahri's message will have greater disruptive powers on the Democrats' 'rudderless' approach to terrorism, than it would on Bush's single-minded desire to destroy

Anonymous said...

"When are you Libs going to get over it all"

I'd prefer if you didn't call me a lib... but me personally, I'm likely to 'get over it' when the Bone-headed War Mongers clean-up the mess they've made of Iraq

Anonymous said...

"The positive side of this is that the Democrats are less likely to blunder into a parade of; ill-prepared, pointless wars."--Murphy

Truman--Korean War; still not over
Kennedy-- Vietnam
Clinton-- Balkins

Anonymous said...

Less likely, not incapable...
and if I'm not mistaken, the Balkans were not a unilateral war initiated by the US, but an existing conflict that the external parties were trying to stop. That's a very different matter from initiating or escalating a conflict.

Anonymous said...

The Iraq war also was not a unilateral war initiated by the US; but an existing conflict from Desert Storm in which the UN could not get Saddams Government to adhere to the UN resolutions it had passed; and the cease fire agreements with the US stopping ground ops in Desert Storm.
27 nations were participating at last count.

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting the way you bring out the fact that 27 nations are participating here on Chris' blog, yet on mine you tell me that there is no "we", because Australians apparently have no stakes in Iraq.

Selective memory John?

While we're on the topic of selective memory though, how's about we refresh yours on the definition of "unilateral", eh?

unilateral adj.
1) relating to, occurring on, or involving one side only
2) undertaken or done by or on behalf of one side, party, or faction only; not mutual

Now if I recall correctly, Bush started this war to... protect Americans from the imminent threat of WMD attacks, didn't he? Even with the other coalition member nations, that's still a unilateral war.

Anonymous said...

First of all; its selective interpretation on YOUR part. Your post was about AMERICA and AMERICA's policy in Iraq. Not Australia. YOU have no stake in America nor do you support your troops nor your own government. I never siad "Australians" have no stake; just YOU!
Second; protecting America against the possible use of WMD's by Saddams government was just one of many reasons for going to war there. NOT the only one nor was it the main reason given in many speaches to Americans. The main reason was the continued flaunting of UN resolutions and failure to abide by the Gulf War ceasefire agreements.
Selective Interpretation and context is YOUR specialty; Herr SpinMeister. Your recall is defective.

Anonymous said...

Right, I don't support Australia's troops, because I disagree with the war, is that it?
And Australians have a stake, but I don't?

Logical fallacy after logical fallacy John. I have friends in the army who mean a lot to me. And our forces shouldn't have been sent to Iraq - since we were aware that America's "evidence" was bogus.

The main reason was the continued flaunting of UN resolutions and failure to abide by the Gulf War ceasefire agreements.
Except that the proof America offered wasn't accepted by the UN pending their own investigations which America cut short, and America failed to abide by those same Gulf War ceasefire agreements.

Anonymous said...

"The Iraq war also was not a unilateral war initiated by the US"

you are joking, right?
it was unilateral in everything but name.

Resolution 678 (1990) effectively authorised the use of force to get Iraq to comply with resolution 660 (1990) (there was plenty dodgy stuff going on behind the scenes on that vote. Just ask Yemen and others what happens to aid if you vote against a US-backed resolution)

Resolution 1441 (2002) gave Iraq a deadline to provide details of its weapons/disposal thereof. Iraq met that deadline, but the document was dismissed as fiction (yet, no weapons have been found).

Resolution 1441 did not have provision for military action. America calimed that resolution 678 was basis for an invasion, despite a decade of resolutions that superseded it, and a 'cease fire' on which the subsequent resolutions were based. The US then claimed that resolution 1441 was basis enough for war, despite Iraq's (disputed) compliance, and that 1441 didn't contain provisions for military action. The US's lack of authority for unilateral action (if 1441 did have provision for military action it would be the UN who initiated that action, not the US) was acknowledged in the US's attempt to get a further resolution that allow the use of military force. The French vowed to veto such an action (is that why Americans have such harsh things to say about the French).
As result, the US proceded WITHOUT LEGAL BASIS, and tried to make it look legit by conning/coercing as many nations to be involved as they could, for the appearance of multilateral action, but that is a farce. Almost all other nations involved (with the exception of the UK) have given token support; a couple-hundred specialists, just so people like John can say there are 27 countries involved.
(It seems like the question was: 'how can we get to war?', not 'should we go to war?').

While there are countries whose spineless leaders only needed promise of a future 'free-trade agreement', there are others like Pakistan who claim that their only two options were to cooperate, or "be bombed back to the stone-age".
I guess that's what that statement "you're either with us or against us" means.

If you really want to know whose war it is? Just look at who's doing the dying?
That 2900 or so dead americans represents almost all of the death of the 'coalition of the williing' (it sounds like euphemism, reminiscent of the 'ministry of truth' from Orwell's 1984).
Most of those 27 countries have causualties between 0 - 5.

The Bush administration was willing to accept UN support, but if it required patience, or compromising their plans, then it was too much trouble. It's not like Bush and co would actually see the inside of a war-crimes tribunal
(laws are for the 'little people', eh Dubya? .... maybe if there were some real consequences for Dubya's cocaine arrest, then he wouldn't have such a total disgard for legal process)

The invasion of Iraq was a unilateral war initiated by the USA.

Anonymous said...

"nor do you support your troops nor your own government"
"Logical fallacy after logical fallacy John"
It can be clased as a 'socratic syllogism', and it works something like this:

'Za is critical of/opposed to the war in Iraq' (sorry if that's not right, I don't mean to put words in people's mouths).
'Australian troops are in the war in Iraq'.
'Therefore, Za is critical of/opposed to Australian troops!'
(You can blame Socrates for finding a way to make logic, seem illogical!)

"The main reason was the continued flaunting of UN resolutions and failure to abide by the Gulf War ceasefire agreements."

America was reponsible for the most significant breach of the ceasefire, they invaded, in direct violation of the ceasefire, Iraq's supposed transgressions were along the lines of 'not declaring/surrendering weapons, and as the weapons haven't been found, it is dubious as to whether they did anything wrong.

Anonymous said...

You two guys sure have to forget alot of facts over the last 12 years to make conclusions like those above about the reasons to take Saddams Government down. Plus throw in a heapin helpin of Bush derrangment Syndrom.
I'am sure glad folks like you two have not been in charge of anything for the last 25 years!
I'am done arguing with you though. your reasoning has been debunked many times over the last few years by lots of folks; so there is no need any longer. Your opinions will never change no matter how much eveidence contrary to your opinions is presented. But one slogan I remember seeing on a Protest Warrior sign seems to sum up how you two present yourselves.

"SAY NO TO WAR! Unless a Democrat is President.

Anonymous said...

sorry if that's not right, I don't mean to put words in people's mouths
Nope, it's perfectly alright, and perfectly correct. I'm critical of it, and opposed to it (although that's of little use now).

And John, I love the way you are able to casually dismiss everything that's been said without having to say anything, because it's "obvious wrong".

I also like the way you put words in our mouths - I'm not a Democrat supporter, and I was anti-Clinton. He was just better than Bush.

Were I to act like you, I'd simply say you suffered from "Deranged Republican Syndrome", and apparently that would magically make everything you said incorrect and obviously wrong.

Anonymous said...

Blah Blah Blah..SOSDD.
Za; is on crack. What else is new?

Anonymous said...

"SAY NO TO WAR! Unless a Democrat is President."
I thought I made it clear that I'm not impressed by the Democrats either (see earlier in this thread).
John, you seem to 'lump together' everyone who has something critical to say about: Bush or Rebulicans or the war. Just because someone has something negative to say about a republican/a republican policy, doesn't mean that they are cool with the Democrats

"your reasoning has been debunked many times over the last few years by lots of folks"
I think you mean 'the generic democrat supporter stereotype'. I haven't seen you doing any debunking, just 'cheap shots' and assumptions

"Blah Blah Blah..SOSDD."
I suppose it would all sound the same if you 'switch off' whenever someone disagrees with you.

Anonymous said...

It all sounds the same whether I switch off or not. Everything you guys say; I have already heard thousands of times. This is only one of several hundred blogs and internet news sites that I visit daily or weekly.

Anonymous said...

I love it when John resorts to libel because he can't actually think of a reasonable argument.

Anonymous said...

"sounds the same whether I switch off or not...I have already heard thousands of times".

"several hundred blogs and internet news sites that I visit"

So why do you bother with all those pages if you have already heard it all before, and don't need to listen to know what someone is saying?

Anonymous said...

A person just gets very very tired of hearing the "rehashing" of several conspiracy theories which have become the "Truth" to left-wing wackjobs. I guess I have become conditioned to turning off everytime time one is alluded to.
Which seems to happen alot around this blog.

Anonymous said...

"I guess I have become conditioned to turning off "

I think that more accurately reads 'turn off when someone doesn't push the same agenda as you'
... which means you miss a lot of possibilities as they were written by someone you've branded as a 'left-wing wackjob'.
Again with those abusive names, which remove the possibility that the author has a good idea (soon as people read that 'so and so' is 'left-wing wackjobs', it removes the chance of then being taken seriously, and of course, YOU, JOHN, having to actually think of what is wrong with the idea, and explain yourself....
it's a cheap and cowardly way out, but if the shoe fits!)

.... and what are these "conspiracy theories which have become the "Truth"". I'm not a leftie or a wackjob like those John was referring to (but I get the impression that John's definition of a 'leftist' is someone who 'doesn't advocate a scorched-earth policy in all Arab nations').