Last letter from doomed Al Qaida chief: 'We are so desperate for your help'

[Predicto]

I believe that for you it is bull. But for many it is the truth that they refuse to face about themselves. How else do you explain it when people climb all over themselves to post any bad news and trivialize anything good.

Because they are frustrated and have gotten into an "eternal fight" mode against the war cheerleaders, including you.

I cheer everytime I see that another Al Qaeda ****head has been sent to his maker and I desperately hope that it all turns out well for the USA.

But I still think that we are creating more and more Al Qaeda ****heads simply by being there and endless fighting is not going to make things better.

I don't think we can "just pull out" of Iraq now because it would not be responsible or fair to the Iraqis or the other nations in the region.

But I also think that the incompetent and arrogant jerks that got us into this mess should pay for it at the polls for decades to come.

So what does that make me? According to AFC, it means I am "Cheering for the terrorists and hoping America loses." But AFC is full of **** on that, and almost every thing else he says.

Harry Reid does not want America to lose. Harry Reid does not cheer for Al Qaeda. Acting like he does is dishonest and simplistic. Of course, being dishonest and simplistic is AFC's bread and butter, but it makes me sad when an otherwise reasonable poster like Bang buys into it.

[Bang]

Don't buy into that myth, Bang. It's total bull.

for the majority, I'd agree.

But some i do think probably view good news on the fronts as bad news for their eternal argument.

~Bang

[Air Force Cane]

:laugh: :laugh:

Good One Predicto! I needed a laugh today. Although your polemical skills are clearly atrophying. I expect better.

I wonder which group of arguments is "more simplistic"?

1) "This is a war for oil!!" "War is not the Answer!" "War never solved anything" "This is Bu****ler's War!!" or...

2)Al Qaeda and militant jihadi terrorism is a strategic threat to the interests and people of the United States. For thirty years since the Khomeini revolution, Irhabi and Takfiri ideology has been at war with America.

Following defeats in Beirut in 1983, Somalia in 1993, USS Cole, Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the World Trade Center in 1993 our enemies believed we were a paper tiger and unable to stop them. Following September 11, the United States could either play passive defense, or seek to actively change the Middle East and eliminate growing threats to our national security. We now have Sunni Muslims in Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala and Salah a Din province working on our side. We now have Shia Muslims in Sadr City, Najaf, Karbala and Mosul working for the American side.

Of course, to someone of Predicto's impressive intellect- the choice is easy to make in that 1) is the less simplistic argument.

For me and those in the military, the choice is that 2) is least simplistic.

Then again, I could have sworn that Predicto was stating that come September 2007- we would be withdrawing troops from a lost war in Iraq? Hmm, must have just imagined that :laugh:

Keep cheerleading for defeat my friend!

[Sarge]

Harry Reid does not want America to lose. Harry Reid does not cheer for Al Qaeda. Acting like he does is dishonest and simplistic. Of course, being dishonest and simplistic is AFC's bread and butter, but it makes me sad when an otherwise reasonable poster like Bang buys into it.

He may not want us to lose, but then that makes him too stupid to realize that the side he and other leftist advocates plays along beautifully with the terrorists goals

One need only look at the comparison video of Osama and Olbermann

I'm sure one could be made of Osama Reid/Pelosi?Kennedy just as easily

[Predicto]

for the majority, I'd agree.

But some i do think probably view good news on the fronts as bad news for their eternal argument.

~Bang

I'm sure a few do. There are kooks everywhere.

But to characterize the overall opposition to this war as being motivated by a desire to see American fail and the terrorists win is utterly dishonest propagandizing. And that is what is being done here. And that is what I want you to renounce rather than tacitly support.

[Sarge]

I'm sure a few do. There are kooks everywhere.

But to characterize the overall opposition to this war as being motivated by a desire to see American fail and the terrorists win is utterly dishonest propagandizing. And that is what is being done here. And that is what I want you to renounce rather than tacitly support.

Why renounce the truth?

Just about everyone on the left wants us out of Iraq. Reid said it. Pelosi has said it. Leaving sure isn't going to lead to America winning

And isn't leaving exactly what the terrorists want us to do?

[Predicto]

:laugh: :laugh:

Good One Predicto! I needed a laugh today. Although your polemical skills are clearly atrophying. I expect better.

I wonder which group of arguments is "more simplistic"?

1) "This is a war for oil!!" "War is not the Answer!" "War never solved anything" "This is Bu****ler's War!!" or...

2)Al Qaeda and militant jihadi terrorism is a strategic threat to the interests and people of the United States. For thirty years since the Khomeini revolution, Irhabi and Takfiri ideology has been at war with America.

Following defeats in Beirut in 1983, Somalia in 1993, USS Cole, Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, the Khobar Towers in 1996, the World Trade Center in 1993 our enemies believed we were a paper tiger and unable to stop them. Following September 11, the United States could either play passive defense, or seek to actively change the Middle East and eliminate growing threats to our national security. We now have Sunni Muslims in Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala and Salah a Din province working on our side. We now have Shia Muslims in Sadr City, Najaf, Karbala and Mosul working for the American side.

Of course, to someone of Predicto's impressive intellect- the choice is easy to make in that 1) is the less simplistic argument.

For me and those in the military, the choice is that 2) is least simplistic.

Whatever you say, chief. Put words in my mouth and then refute them. It is very persuasive.

And while you are at it, rewrite history to eliminate such nonsense as claiming that we needed to invade Iraq instead of fighting Al Qaeda in Afganistan because of those deadly WMDs. Details like that just get in the way.

Then again, I could have sworn that Predicto was stating that come September 2007- we would be withdrawing troops from a lost war in Iraq? Hmm, must have just imagined that :laugh:

Keep cheerleading for defeat my friend!

Hmmm.... I wonder why you could have sworn I said this but you didn't actually quote me? Is your search button broken, or are you just "misrepresenting" my views again?

I would say "lying" but that would be perjorative.

[GibbsFactor]

I want out, that's all I know.

[Predicto]

Why renounce the truth?

Just about everyone on the left wants us out of Iraq. Reid said it. Pelosi has said it. Leaving sure isn't going to lead to America winning

And isn't leaving exactly what the terrorists want us to do?

I don't know what they want. I know what they say sometimes, but they are filthy liars. I suspect that Osama wants us to stay for a while because it helps him to whip up the fire under his pan-Islamic Jihadist movement, to continue the struggle to throw out the infidel invaders on our soil blah blah blah. It works a lot better if we are standing there to be blamed for everyting and resented than if we are thousands of miles away.

But regardless of the correct answer, understand this: wanting the troops out of Iraq is NOT the same as cheering for the terrorists, except in AFC's twisted little world.

[GibbsFactor]

This might not be popular but I'll post it anyways.

Why do we have to stay? What ever happened to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war? They attacked us because we were over there messing with their affairs. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq throwing each government out. I think that's all we needed to do. Afghanistan for the Taliban, Iraq for the Baa'th party. Both are gone. Now we pick up and leave. If the Afgans and Iraqi's country is destroyed, perhaps it makes the people understand that they have to step up and attacking us isn't very feasible and will then turn on those that still want to. Those people have been around for a long time and have fought many more wars then we have. They will get it together and get back on track. The only reason to stay is the same reason to say in Korea, Japan and Europe; to occupy and keep a presence.

[Sarge]

But regardless of the correct answer, understand this: wanting the troops out of Iraq is NOT the same as cheering for the terrorists, except in AFC's twisted little world.

But what doesn't seem to get through to you is that it achieves the same result. In essence, we would do the terrorists work for them.

And they won't be content to stay over there and rant and rave. As soon as they get their acts back together, they'll be coming to see us again

[GibbsFactor]

And they won't be content to stay over there and rant and rave. As soon as they get their acts back together, they'll be coming to see us again

If we weren't there, regardless how we left, why would they come see us again?

[Sarge]

If we weren't there, regardless how we left, why would they come see us again?

Because we're the Great Satan, and because we'll have a presence there as long as we get oil from the oil ticks

For the real crazies, we're infidels that must either be converted or killed

[Predicto]

But what doesn't seem to get through to you is that it achieves the same result. In essence, we would do the terrorists work for them.

And they won't be content to stay over there and rant and rave. As soon as they get their acts back together, they'll be coming to see us again

I think they will try to do that anyway, whether we are in Iraq or not. To me, the question is how well they can keep the anti-US ferver up in order to recruit more new jihadis and disrupt governments all over the Middle East.

[GibbsFactor]

I think they will try to do that anyway, whether we are in Iraq or not. To me, the question is how well they can keep the anti-US ferver up in order to recruit more new jihadis and disrupt governments all over the Middle East.

If we aren't there, they won't have the passion to have a jihad.

[Predicto]

If we aren't there, they won't have the passion to have a jihad.

Well, in the short term they still will. But at least we won't be losing American lives and spending billions to help them do it.

In the long run, the passion will die down.

[Sarge]

I think they will try to do that anyway, whether we are in Iraq or not. To me, the question is how well they can keep the anti-US ferver up in order to recruit more new jihadis and disrupt governments all over the Middle East.

I know it's old and cliche now, but as long as we're occupying/killing them over there, they wont have time to come here.

Trust me, there are enough of them already here waiting

[Bang]

I'm sure a few do. There are kooks everywhere.

But to characterize the overall opposition to this war as being motivated by a desire to see American fail and the terrorists win is utterly dishonest propagandizing. And that is what is being done here. And that is what I want you to renounce rather than tacitly support.

I'm not characterizing the entire opposition to the war as such. I'm saying there are some, and some in this thread who bait for this.

Perhaps i shouldn't have said "a lot of people" even though given even the slight percentage of kooks, that is quite a few actual people.

~Bang

[Sarge]

Well, in the short term they still will. But at least we won't be losing American lives and spending billions to help them do it.

In the long run, the passion will die down.

Tell that to the Buddist in Thailand

Or the Christians in the Philippines

Or the Hindu's in India

[twa]

This might not be popular but I'll post it anyways.

Why do we have to stay? What ever happened to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war? They attacked us because we were over there messing with their affairs. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq throwing each government out. I think that's all we needed to do. Afghanistan for the Taliban, Iraq for the Baa'th party. Both are gone. Now we pick up and leave. If the Afgans and Iraqi's country is destroyed, perhaps it makes the people understand that they have to step up and attacking us isn't very feasible and will then turn on those that still want to. Those people have been around for a long time and have fought many more wars then we have. They will get it together and get back on track. The only reason to stay is the same reason to say in Korea, Japan and Europe; to occupy and keep a presence.

I think this is a fair argument, but it is in our(and the worlds) best interests to stay and try to remake Iraq and Afghanistan into something better to prevent future conflicts....no one wants a third Iraq war. :2cents:

To tell the truth even my patience is running out and consider the surge the last chance for Iraqi's to step up..

We broke it(right or wrong) and we need to at least give a best effort to effect a positive outcome.

[twa]

If we aren't there, they won't have the passion to have a jihad.

We will be somewhere in the ME, and anywhere is enough of a excuse for a jihad(not to mention Israel)

There is no way we will withdraw from the area.

[GibbsFactor]

I think this is a fair argument, but it is in our(and the worlds) best interests to stay and try to remake Iraq and Afghanistan into something better to prevent future conflicts....no one wants a third Iraq war. :2cents:

.

Why? What's better? Our definition? Isn't it their country?

[chomerics]

But what doesn't seem to get through to you is that it achieves the same result. In essence, we would do the terrorists work for them.

And they won't be content to stay over there and rant and rave. As soon as they get their acts back together, they'll be coming to see us again

Sarge, what the feeble minded knuckle daggers fail to realize is that we are doing exactly what Al Qaeda wants, and we have played into their hands all along. We have occupied an Islamic nation, as the "great Satan", and have given them a generation of recruits. For the ignorant not to realize this, and to insinuate that wanting our troops home is akin to wanting Al Qaeda to succeed is so far from the truth it is mind boggling. Unfortunately there are enough nitwits and morons in this country that buy into that bs.

Furthermore, when a generally good poster, such as Bang, falls into the same trap, and tacitly approves of the methodology, it gives credence to the morons who got us in this mess in the first place. But then again, I don't expect either you or AFC to understand, or actually comprehend what I am trying to convey here, both of you lack the internal honesty needed to understand the point of view, and to accept it for what it is. Instead, you will continue to profess the party line no matter how illogical, immoral or ignorant it is, because you know there are morons who will follow. It proves not that you are good leaders, only that there are people in this country who are utterly clueless when it comes to actual rationalization and understanding the nuances of mob mentality and sociological half truths. Maybe one day you will be part of the enlightened, but I highly doubt it, I don't think you will ever be honest enough with yourself to allow yourself to be enlightened. Instead, you will be part of the mob, part of the problem, never searching for a solution, only searching for a new person or idea to castigate. But hey at least you are predictable and consistent, so we will know what to expect from people of your ilk.

[GibbsFactor]

We will be somewhere in the ME, and anywhere is enough of a excuse for a jihad(not to mention Israel)

There is no way we will withdraw from the area.

But there really is.

Why are we in the Middle East? Why aren't we in Burma and the Sudan? You don't need to state the obvious, but why is it the obvious?

[twa]

Why? What's better? Our definition? Isn't it their country?

Last time I looked we were letting them decide the course,rather than appointing our chosen strongman,which is a major reason it is taking so friggen long.