Zarqawi’s Free Hand
Tweet
So, it’s supposed to be a sign of progress when Al Qaeda’s man in Iraq, Zarqawi is able to launch a terrorist attack against our ally – Jordan – just like that?
If this is winning, I don’t want to see losing.
18 Responses to “Zarqawi’s Free Hand”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
I have some hopes that, after the dead are numbered, Jordanians begin to reject Islamists in the way Algeria did in the 1990′s. The Islamists worst enemy should be somewhere in the west, but IMO it is themselves and their crackpot ideas of how to run a country.
I hear the same bickering that usually occurs on this subject in the thread below.
“You want to ‘understand’ the terrorist.” “You don’t care if collateral damage creates more terrorists.”
“Is there anyone here who is opposed to killing the terrorists before they kill more innocents? Please raise your hand if you are.” That’s what I thought.
How about “Raise your hand if you don’t care how many civilians of middle eastern descent you kill, to get at the terrorists?” Same answer.
See, you agree on more than you think you do.
Here’s the deal. When you examine the militant political revolutionaries of the ’60′s (Weathermen, Red Brigades, SDS) who had implicit or explicit violence as the insturment of change, what do you see?
Such revolutions require the support and eventually the participation of the population at large in order to effect the change they seek.
Do those organizations have any viable operational capability today?
Correctomundo. They failed to gain popular support because they received no support from the people they purported to be assisting.
If we manage to convince the arabs and persians of this world that the rumor mills they rely upon for support are full of crap. They will cease supporting any form of terrorism, even mouth service.(which it largely is now anyway), if by our BEHAVIORS, NOT OUR DIPLOMATIC TALKING POINTS, that we are serious about not wanting to wipe them all off the map. Stop with the anti democratic methods which we admonish them to abandon, while we continue to employ them. All we have is the example of how democratic people should behave.
Aw hell, RiR, stop kiddin’ aroung and just call it a Crusade.
“If we manage to convince the arabs and persians of this world that the rumor mills they rely upon for support are full of crap.”
Don’t forget the Russian, Indonesian, Sudanese, Kashmiri and Philippine Islamist murdering scum. We need to “reach out” to all of radical Islam and understand its roots.
Newsflash from rightisright: The root is the KORAN!!!! You know, those pesky little hadiths that describe how and why to kill the infidels?
Whether the number of Moslems who follow this radical ideology is 5% or 20% of 1 billion, it is a great many who would like to see non-Moslems subjugated into dhimmitude or killed altogether.
Maybe we could start by changing the War on Terror to the War on Radical Islam.
Ah yes, the old “Timmy McVeigh was a terrorist” gambit. Boring and predictable from the left.
Where in my post did I prescribe rounding up all Moslems and hanging them by their balls? I believe most Moslems are decent people who just want to live their lives in peace and not be bothered.
But to deny there is a world-wide epidemic of RADICAL ISLAMIST (note I put those two words in caps for those who can not discern the difference between Moslems and Islamists: Semanticleo, your office is calling.) violence is either a kowtowing to PC standards or extreme Pollyannism.
‘Nite all. I am off to poop on my Koran collection.
I am sorry, what part of my post did you disagree with, Semanticleo?
Has it been the Baptists recently blowing people up all over the world?
And maniacs like you want to retain the WH.
Timothy McVeigh, I beleive, was Baptist. Shall we round up all those terrorists today and hang them up by their balls?
rightisright doesn’t like the brown skinned people. They bother him. Give in to the dark side.
Of course, simply because he does not share your viewpoint means that he “doesn’t like the brown skinned people”.
Rightisright shares more in common with radical Islamists than he would care to admit. After all, both of them pick and choose the aspects of the Q’uran that best glorify their worldview. These aspects of the book happen to be the same, but Islamists use it to justify killing innocents (something the Prophet Muhammad explicitly spoke against) and rightisright uses it to justify his view that Islam is inherently corrupt.
The fact that Christians aren’t blowing people up in suicide attacks doesn’t mean that Christians don’t kill innocent people. If I recall correctly, the BTK killer was an active churchgoer. The people who bomb abortion clinics do so in the name of a loving God.
I’m not saying that the Bible turned BTK into a serial killer or that clinic bombers are acting specifically on some passage from the book of Ezekiel. I’m saying that somebody purporting to have religion but still able to do things like blow up a Jordanian wedding will probably be in for a rude reception when they’re meeting their God in the afterlife.
Islamists do have a great deal in common with what should perhaps be called “Christianitists”. They both sincerely believe they are right, that they are in a fight against evil, and that there is no other way around it. They also use our worst fears to fuel our support.
In Algeria, their support dried up when people realised just how mad they were. Was David Koresh like this?
As long as we don’t compete with the Terrorists on brutality, they are going to lose this war for the hearts and minds of the Arab street.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9979747/
Who are you talking about? Who is it you think is a “true believer” who resorts to violence and terrorism?
Bryann,
Funny this also describes the true believer leftist:
“They both sincerely believe they are right, that they are in a fight against evil, and that there is no other way around it. They also use our worst fears to fuel our support.”
And add to that, of course, the true believer leftist resorts to violence and terrorism and in fact, his side of the political fence is the most murderous entity-ism in history.
Dugger, A doctrinaire leftist is as close-minded, hate-addled and paranoid as the most intense theocrat.
Oooh, let me guess. Stalin, right? Or the other so-called communists and socialists who were actually doctrinaire fascists?
What I don’t understand is why Dugger is attempting to defend Islamist terrorism by changing the subject back to liberals.
How about Andrew McCrae. The Unabomber. Rev Jim Jones. All good American leftists.
And how convenient for you BD in that you can take extreme leftists, murderous commies and call them fascists and thus (in your mind) absolve the left in one fell rhetorical swoop. Lets see Stalin was a Bolshevik, which I and a few historians consdiered left wing. There was Pol Pot, Mao, Mugabe, North Korea, Shining Path etc (hell I even go back to the Vendee massacres). And those all belong to the right per BD. Real intellectual depth.
Dugger
“If this is winning, I don t want to see losing.”
This is called ignoring -
So, let s add up the dead and injured American s since 1970 by Mid-east Terrorists:
700 – dead since 1970 (excluding 9/11/2001)
3,000 – (approx.) dead World Trade Centers
385 – dead Pentagon and flights crashed 9/11/2001
4,085 – dead American s KILLED by Mid-east Terrorist attacks since 1970
1,600 injured American s by Mid-east Terrorist s since 1970
5,685 – American s killed or injured in Mid-east Terrorist Attacks since 1970
http://theunitedamerican.blogs.com/the_united_american_party/2005/03/american_victim.html