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.

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?

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

“then what?”

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.

The man may be a lunatic, but he is a well educated one. He understands that most throughout the Arab world are not taught the actual history, but they are spoonfed hatred, morning, noon and night, he understands that the History of the Jewish people…..

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.

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

Regards,
Peter H.

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

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.

According to ABC’s The Blotter, Al Qaeda has sent a message to the Democrats, taking credit for the mid-term election victory….

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.