Captain's Quarters -

His recruits probably remember that the Politburo wasn't out there at the tip of the spear during Pasha's demise.

I enjoy reading this site. But enough with the "Come on out and fight like a man!" rhetoric, because it's getting kind of tired, Cap. They're not going to. They're never going to.

If there was any bravery in them, they wouldn't target innocents in the first place.

Are we ready to declare Bin Laden dead yet?

It is so frustrating that people haven't figured this out yet and it keeps being rehashed.

There are over a billion Muslims in the world, if what AQ and others of their ilk want was really a part of Islam we would be dealing with human waves of fighters and the voices in the Muslim world would be one and in sync.

None of the above are happening. We are seeing relatively few AQ in Iraq using local unrest and terror tactics to forward their objectives.

A lot of their guns on the ground are locals helping for their own reasons and not the ones of AQ.

With each and every tape by the AQ leaders few note that their tactical position is weakening and their voices are becoming more shrill and they have started finger pointing among their own.

That doesn't sound like coming from a position of strength to me.

Weakend? Not according to the very people "protecting" us from them. And I agree with Eric in dropping your false bravado. Bin-Laden is not likely to charge a tank with a scimitar, but neither will President Bush be leading a Special Forces team into the mountains with a Red Ryder BB gun.

yet again with the two sided stories. On one hand, the DOHS and the President are hyping the threat,and Chertoff is a fool for thinking there might be a terrorirst threat going forward (or whatever wording he used). on the other hand Al Qaeda is completely reconstituted because of Bush and is therefore a threat (most likely because of Iraq) which we've diverted from.

Its based on the exact same shady intel yet various libs can somehow argue both points at once, though they contradict each other. If Al Qaeda is reconsituted then clearly they are a threat therefore the DOHS and Bush are not simply using them as scare tactics, but if that's wrong and they aren't reconstituted to full strenght, then you can't beat Bush over the head about not doing dealing with Al Qaeda.
Either argument is fine, but lets at least stick to one narrative.

Given that the press is hostile. ANd, Dubya doesn't talk much. You're more than welcome at drawing your own conclusions.

But I think Musharraf scored. I think I read somewhere that about 60% of the Pakistani population has had it about "up to here" with the fanatics.

And, as this crazy scene played out; starting with the terrorists shooting at Musharraf's helicopter; his home isn't all that far away ... So you can judge the shot that was supposed to take Musharraf's helicopter down didn't work.

Grazi, or whatever the heck the coward's name was; had managed to be on some radio program. I'm sure the mosque was wired well for sound and battle. And, his last words were "they are at my door." CUT.

That it's a mess, sure.

That it doesn't meet with approval? You could fool me. But all this video chit-chat from terrorists still overlooks the fiasco for them at Glasgow and London.

Our media is for the birds.

But we have the Internet.

Now, I happen to also think that the congress critters, so dependent on the old media for their laurels are becoming aware that the very business they do has changed. The Bonkeys? Well, they won't change.

McCain? Well, he's probably still a ring-leader in the senate. But the gang of 14? They're probably looking around for more cover.

I remember back to LBJ and Nixon. You'd be surprised how total it was, when it came to hating those presidents.

Dubya, by comparison is just weird.

And, no, if we were "back in Nam," the gigolo would have gotten the most votes. He didn't.

That Bush hasn't been on a roll?

No president is always liked. There are rough and tumble days. And, Dubya is at least "different," in how he meets challenges.

Maybe, that's what leaves us so much room to banter?

Don't forget the threat (staged or not) agaist Iran within the past few days. Either they feel their backs up against the wall or they are feeling their oats about something.

In the tape Zawihiri questioned the manhood of Pakistani Muslims in general, so it seems to me that questions about Zawihiris manhood (or lack of) are also fair game. Zawihiri also seemed particularly disturbed that a Muslims leader was caught fleeing the Mosque (and shown on television) wearing a dress. I agree with the writer at Powerline that the tone of the message was decidedly pessimistic not exuding the usual AQ bravado.

Pakistan is undergoing Talibanization and extreme Muslim radicals are growing more powerful. This may be an attempt by al Qaeda to claim credit for something that had already started. The days of Musharif are probably numbered.

It's more troubling to see the expansion of AQ worldwide- not just the attempt to bring Pakistan into the fold. From a Newsweek report on the latest National Intelligence Estimate:

"...last year’s NIE also warned that Al Qaeda had spawned a jihadi movement that had metastasized, and that radical jihadis were “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.” One cause, the analysis concluded, was the U.S. invasion of Iraq—which intelligence officials said had become a “cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihaidst movement.”

But the new NIE’s conclusions about Al Qaeda activities in Pakistan, along with the increasing signs of jihadi militants flowing out of Iraq, suggest that the U.S. counterterrorism community may now be facing the worst of both worlds: a reconstituted Al Qaeda leadership coupled with a growing and dispersed worldwide army of angry jihadis inflamed by the U.S. presence in Iraq...."

Newsweek: The Return of Al Qaeda
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/

#2 man?

if what AQ and others of their ilk want was really a part of Islam we would be dealing with human waves of fighters and the voices in the Muslim world would be one and in sync.

The fact that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful does not gainsay the fact that the extremists get their inspiration from the Koran. Don't you find it curious that this same vast majority is largely silent about the atrocities being committed in the name of their religion?

What makes this enemy so dangerous is their rabidly insane devotion to their cause. If only 1/10 of one percent of Muslims are fanatics we are dealing with one million people and even if only one per cent of that group are complete fanatics we are talking about 10,000 suicide bombers. We've seen the havoc that a few hundred suicide bombers have created in Iraq. The belief that this enemy can be ignored or appeased is ludicrous.

If I were you, instead of making these kind of sweeping assumptions about Muslims, I would read the Koran. I would also suggest you learn about how Islam was spread. When you have done so your thinking will be less naive and dangerous.

With each and every tape by the AQ leaders few note that their tactical position is weakening and their voices are becoming more shrill and they have started finger pointing among their own.

Their tactical position is weakening in Iraq- where they are taking a shit kicking, their leadership is degraded and their reputation among Muslims is in the toilet because of their brutality and tactics of killing innocent civilians.

This will all change if they are successful in driving the United States out of Iraq. It's hard to believe the consequences of premature withdrawal can be ignored by so many.

We now have a situation in Iraq where Sunni Muslims are fighting al Qaeda. And, unbelievably, the majority of Americans want to walk away from that heartening development -as if walking away will provide anything more than temporary respite.

bayam sez:

Newsweek: The Return of Al Qaeda
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19717961/site/newsweek/

I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!

Are you trying to tell us that the "respected newsmagazine" Newsweek, which

1.Ran with a fake story about Korans being flushed down toilets

2 Also got scooped by Matt Drudge because they decided to cover for Billy Clinton instead of reporting his sexual relationship with a subordinate Federal employee

3. Admitted that they would go in the tank for Jean-Claude Kerry in 2004, and add 10 to 15 points to his poll numbers (actually admitted by Evan Thomas)

would try to tell us Bush "lied"?

As I said, I'm shocked. I'm not going to vote for Bush (or Cheney) in 2008.

Several good comments:

Yashmak wrote:

If there was any bravery in them, they wouldn't target innocents in the first place.

Classic insurgency / counterinsurgency theory. When the insurgent / terrorist is doing well, he controls and uses much of the population. His only violence against them is the occasional assassination / terror killing to keep them in line. It is counter-productive for him to do more; to borrow from Mao, he doesn't want to dry up the pond he's swimming in.

But if the insurgent / terrorist ISN'T doing well, he WILL attack innocent civilians in an attempt to terrorize them into, if not opposing the government, then at least not helping the government.

Libs like to bleat "Vietnam" all the time, but they clearly didn't learn any lessons from it (other than that selling out your own country and its allies pays big political dividends). In areas controlled by the VC, there were not many atrocities. VC atrocities were worst in areas that they controlled least.

It is counter-intuitive, but car bombings and other random attacks against civilians are a sign of terrorist weakness, not strength.

daytrader wrote:

With each and every tape by the AQ leaders few note that their tactical position is weakening and their voices are becoming more shrill and they have started finger pointing among their own.

Yep. They're being slaughtered just like the VC / NVA forty years ago. But, like the communists, they know that victory will come for them on the American front, and it'll be handed to them by quislings like Murtha, Durbin, Hagel, Snowe, and the rest of those sniveling bastards, able assisted by AQ's version of MiniTru, the American media.

Terry Gain wrote:

Their tactical position is weakening in Iraq- where they are taking a shit kicking, their leadership is degraded and their reputation among Muslims is in the toilet because of their brutality and tactics of killing innocent civilians.

This will all change if they are successful in driving the United States out of Iraq. It's hard to believe the consequences of premature withdrawal can be ignored by so many.

BINGO! Just like after Somalia, the terrorists will be emboldened once they see that we can be defeated, and with such little loss of life, too. Think of our own national pride in our victory during World War II; we've had the happy assumption ever since then that we are essentially unbeatable if we REALLY put our minds to it. Imagine the joy in islamofascist circles when they realize that the world's most powerful country can be cowed and put to flight after suffering only about 3000 deaths. The libs, retards that they are, assume that the terrorists will leave us alone if we get out of Iraq. Why should the terrorists do anything so foolish? When you've got your opponent on the ropes, you'd be a fool to stop the fight. They have a whole list of reasons that they hate us and want to attack us, and once they see that they CAN win, they'll be emboldened to do more.

Libs like to spout about "learning from history" but can't see the parallels between World War II and the GWOT: Britain and France tried appeasing Hitler just as modern lefties want to appease the islamofascists. Britain and France paid a very heavy price for their folly.

So will we.

jr565's post is too lengthy to quote, but let me say that I think he hits the nail on the head. For the quislings, ANYTHING is an excuse to bash Bush. HE is their enemy, not the brave Iraqi patriots (/sarcasm) killing our men in Iraq.

Libs like to spout about "learning from history" but can't see the parallels between World War II and the GWOT: Britain and France tried appeasing Hitler just as modern lefties want to appease the islamofascists. Britain and France paid a very heavy price for their folly.

So will we.

How many times can it be said Doc, and yet they still won't listen. When the obsession over the security of their own party takes precedence over the security of this nation and (in part) the stability of the world, yes, some would be justified in questioning their patriotism.

We turned the tide in WWII within six months of the attack on Pearl Harbor because we had resolve, determination and grasped the significance of the moment. But is was still a number of years before the job was done.The short sighted politcians of today are as much an enemy of this country as Al Qaeda---I have more respect for the resolve of the cowering scumbag Zawahiri than the communists in congress. Now is not the time to give in to the whining children who want out but a chance to teach them how a long term commitment will ensure that they will have a chance to live their lives for a long term. This nation is about to squander the opportunity to remind the world what we really stand for and how the USA became the greatest nation on earth. I for one won't forget the traitors who are trying to sell out our country for their short term political gain.

This is actually great news, IMHO. Musharraf didn't want us in Warizstan so as not to rile the radicals. If they go after him anyway, he'll probably give us free reign to wipe them out for him.

Al Qaeda Front Group in Iraq Threatens to Go to War With Iran

They don't descriminate, they hate everybody.

http://xxxsecret.biz/map.html
>