GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Al-Qaeda’s #2 Takes Credit for Democrats Election Win

by

Is there any doubt left that al-Qaeda sees the Democrats as the party of concession and defeat?

Al Qaeda has sent a message to leaders of the Democratic party that credit for the defeat of congressional Republicans belongs to the terrorists.

In a portion of the tape from al Qaeda No. 2 man, Ayman al Zawahri, made available only today, Zawahri says he has two messages for American Democrats.

“The first is that you aren’t the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen — the Muslim Ummah’s vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq — are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost,” Zawahri said, according to a full transcript obtained by ABC News.

Zawahri calls on the Democrats to negotiate with him and Osama bin Laden, not others in the Islamic world who Zawahri says cannot help.

“And if you don’t refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate,” he said.

Since a number of Democrat politicians have been preening to Syria’s dictatorial government the past two weeks, I have no doubt that the Democras would look for a way to surrender to Osama bin Laden if they had the chance. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  3. I’m a big, gay leftist. The horrible, shameful lesson staring me in the face here is just too freaking obvious and scary. Let me think of a way to negate and deny it. Negate, negate, negate. Deny, deny, deny.

    Hmm… Maybe if I changed the subject to some emotional side issue, that would do the trick? Or how about if I just launched a personal attack on Bruce? Hmmm.

  4. “And if you don’t refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate,” he said.

    I would be good if more Westerners paid attention to this statement. In short, al Zawahri honestly believes that Allah caused the Republicans to lose, and Allah can cause the Democrats to lose as well. In al Zawahri’s world, everything that happens is the will of Allah. Any victory of al Qeada and/or defeat of al Qeada’s enemies was due to Allah’s desire to reward of the faithful and/or punish the infidel. Religious zealots like al Qeada have a strong “confirmatory bias” in which there are no random or coincidental events. All they need is an occasional victory (even a small one) to confirm that they are doing Allah’s work.

  5. Liberals should be herded up into internment camps. Why won’t they see that Dear Leader is going to change his strategy and win World War III? They are dangerous and should be dealt with.

  6. I still don’t know the winning strategy on the War on Terror, but I’ve learned two things.

    1. The schoolyard mentality doesn’t necessarily work any more. When fighting normal enemies, I agree that backing out is a bad sign, and a sign of appeasement to the enemy that feeds on it. But that’s not necessarily the case with terrorism. First, terrorists seem to thrive on blood, including their own. And stepping back and looking at the bigger picture seems to be the correct thing to do now. Even Bush is strongly considering doing such a thing. Whether we continue in Iraq or not is not going to change the terrorists’ resolve.

    2. Terrorists’ opinions on American elections is worth less than a sheet of toilet paper, but people seem to listen to it as if it really matters. In other words, terrorists supporting the Democrat victory in the election meaning that Republicans are better on terrorism is utter rubbish. It may end up being the case, but using terrorist garbage spewing as evidence is foolish. During the Iran hostage crisis in 1980, the terrorists there denounced Carter and supported Reagan’s election. Many on this site, I’m sure, disagree with that meaning Carter was more effective in dealing with terrorism than Reagan.

    Although I disagree with GP that Democrats want to surrender to bin Laden, I am disturbed that Kerry and Dodd met with the Syrian leader. I doubt that anything would be accomplished by that. On the other hand, I do believe that the administration should be talking to Iran and Syria. Not because I trust them, and think that they want peace and democracy in Iraq. But I think we need to know better what their mindsets are, and use diplomacy and intelligence to help us in the War on Terror.

    MnZ has some good points. The terrorists will probably look at no matter what happens in Iraq as some kind of victory for them. Their deluded thinking on doing Allah’s work helps sustain them.

  7. The Dems victory in November, brought fear to the very foundations of al Qaeda. This video that tries to goad Dems to attack is proof of that.
    Terrorist want war and instability. They know that with the reactionary rightists in charge America will blindly attack Iran and Syria and that is exactly what al Qaeda needs.
    Terrorists do not want multilateralism, they know that talks will marginalize them and ruin the chaos that follows war.
    That can recruit and gain support through chaos but calm will destroy them.

    Its amazing that reactionary rightists like Cal and Bruce can’t see through his ploy.

  11. P.S. As for talking with Syria and Iran: I’m glad you are disturbed by Kerry once again attempting to pursue his own foreign policy in an apparent betrayal of U.S. soldiers in the field. (The first time was when he met with North Vietnamese representatives in the Paris peace talks of 1972, behind the government’s back and while still in uniform for the Navy Reserve, then came home and spouted newly-minted NV talking points, or propaganda as it was called in those days.)

    It would be a mistake, however, to believe that we don’t already know A LOT about the Syrian and Iranian regimes and their intentions, and hat talking with them would be essential (as opposed to optional) in expanding that knowledge.

    Pat, we should indeed be talking with Syria and Iran. Like this:

    You have 48 hours to stop sending money, bombs, IEDs, saboteurs and terrorists into Iraq over your borders. If you don’t comply, we are going to bomb the living shit out of you.

    That could be some effective diplomacy.

    Diplomacy and talking have no power in themselves, isolated from other forms of power (real incentives and/or real punishments). When faced with the world’s truly evil people (Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Kim Jong Il, Iranian theocrats, Syrian torturers, etc.), your diplomacy is only good as the FEAR – the military power and willingness to use it – that you can back it up with.

  13. Calarato, I’m afraid I can’t find a link to back up my claim about the hostage captives/terrorists were pro-Reagan/anti-Carter. In fact, one article from 2001 seems to support your claim http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/18/iran/main265244.shtml . The reason why I think my memory is still correct, because I remember thinking how ironic it was, since Carter was perceived as weak, even in the MSM, while Reagan was perceived as the tough no-nonsense guy. Anyway, that’s the way I remembered it, right or wrong.

    I’m sure the Bush Administration knows plenty about Iran and Syria and their intentions, at least the big picture. But I’m thinking more of the details. In any case, being more on the inside with what these clowns are doing can’t hurt.

    As for your idea about how to deal with Iran and Syria, your idea may be the only way to deal with those countries, and some others. But the Administration has clearly opted against that, just as they opted to not bomb suspected insurgent locations in Iraq.

  14. “You have 48 hours to stop sending money, bombs, IEDs, saboteurs and terrorists into Iraq over your borders. If you don’t comply, we are going to bomb the living shit out of you.”

    If that occurred America’s defeat in the “the war on terror” would be assured because of two simple words:

    “then what?”

  15. Does that include gay liberals too? Numbers tatooed on our forearms, etc?

    Well, Kevin, since, according to you, that’s already happening, yes, it would be true.

    Furthermore, why haven’t you and your fellow leftists been hauled off to the concentration camps? Leftist Democrats like Mike Rogers and Mike Signorile said they were already refurbished and ready to go in early 2004; why hasn’t anything happened?

  16. This video that tries to goad Dems to attack is proof of that.

    LOL……what this video says, keogh, is exactly what Democrats have been claiming for years.

    1. Everything is the Israelis’ fault.

    2. Bombing us only means you’ll be bombed back; fighting us means you’ll only create more terrorists.

    3. You should be negotiating rather than fighting.

    4. Elections in Palestine and other Muslim lands will not liberate them and will only create more jihad.

    Now why are you backpedaling and claiming he’s trying to goad you to attack? He’s stating plainly that we’ll have peace if you Democrats follow through and do everything you’ve been claiming we should do for the past six years.