a jihadi internet forum

That's the weirdest concept I've heard yet. I bet all of them use "virgin" for their password...

Until you let Cheney rule everything, and take all your freedoms away so that Al can feel safe, aQ wins!

A clear statement from Al Qaeda that they wanted Republicans to keep power in 2004 in order to keep "bleeding" America.

So why isn't this a headline across America?

Why aren't we reading everywhere that bin Laden wanted Bush to win in '04 and accomplished that with his late video?

Al Qaeda's best friend in America = G.W.Bush.

By the way, this whole notion strikes me as bullshit. Not because of the Dem/GOP angle, but because of statements like this:

its leaders are not yet satisfied with the American blood and treasure lost in Iraq and want more time before moving to the next stage.

- is there such a thing as "enough" when it comes to extracting blood and treasure from the Great Satan?
- this makes it sound like AQ is doing corporate strategy sessions at their Outward Bound bonding meeting. I find that an amusing, but improbable, concept.

Is the timing and content of al-Qaeda videos the new equivalent of Beijing wall posters and May Day photographs in the Kremlin?

It is for wannabe al-Qaeda-ologists.

Al-Qaeda, as an opposition to US world dominance, is a phantom of the petro-military-industrial complex' imagination to frighten the only people who can prevent its hegemony - us.

Al Qaeda's impact on US elections has been overstated. It certainly had an impact in 2002, but hardly any direct effect in 2004 (probably indirectly through the 9/11 commemorations and republican convention that invoked 9/11). A claim that Al Qaeda is "letting Democrats win" ignores the impact of the Republican party's hand in Iraq and its disastrous policies before and after 9/11. They were incompetent enough to allow 9/11 to happen and incompetent in their response. Americans are waking up to that reality...

A single anonymous posting on some message board is no basis for a newspaper article or discussion. As the New Yorker cartoon said, "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog." http://www.unc.edu/depts/jomc/academics/dri/idog.html

What's more of concern is people who ignore statements actually made by al Qaeda leadership, such as the goal of establishing a Caliphate by force.

Marc Lynch has some interesting speculation today about al-Qaeda's war aims.

Hah? We already know what Al-Qaeda wants. This was reported by the National Review.

Link

"Al Qaeda wants to make America blue."
"Osama bin Laden does not want you to vote for George W. Bush."
"Moreover, he remains belligerent: Just as you lay waste to our nation, so shall we lay waste to yours."

Why are you having trouble understanding what Al-Qaeda wants when Bin Laden has already told us?

By the way - not only have home sales dropped, but the Auto Industry isn't looking too good either:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1030/p01s02-usec.html

Best line in there:

But this summer, as fuel prices spiked, consumers shied away from buying big SUVs. Even though gasoline prices have come down, consumers are skeptical. "People think the price of gasoline is going to go up again after the election," says Scott Brown, chief economist at Raymond James & Associates in St. Petersburg, Fla. "So they are staying away from big SUVs."

People think the price of gasoline is going to go up again after the election? I mean, that's something we joke about - and it's something I really believe - but if Joe Sixpack really believes that, then the "Free Market" fundamentalists have done a really lousy job evangelizing for their religion.

Duncan Hunter for President.

That will solve all our problems. His membership in the GOP is only a minor lapse of judgment.

Except that a Democratic congress won't be able to force Bush out of Iraq without cutting off funds, or impeaching him. Both seem pretty unlikely.

Please, Kevin, until we get some actual proof that "al-Qaeda" is something more than a couple of guys in a cave somewhere, I would expect you, af all people to manage to avoid posts which not only implicitly, but overtly, compare a couple of guys in a cave with the former USSR and Communist China.

Its not that a couple of guys in a cave, especially a couple of guys in a cave which includes one guy who is a multi-millionare, cannot kill people.

However, one of the main reasons we have wasted the lives and money over the last seven years is that the Bush administration made the decision NOT to admit that a couple of guys in a cave managed to kill a couple of thousand of our citizens, in a very dramatic fashion.

I am sick of hearing of "al-Quaeda" as if they are the German army of something.

Really, Kevin, you of all people should realize this.

Read Robert Pape's book "Dying to Win: the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." He has compiled a complete list of every single suicide bombing that has occurred since 1980 including socio-economic conditions, religious and political views of the 'terrorists.' In over 70%, the suicide terrorists came from secular groups they were not religious fundamentalists. Additionally, not a single one has come from Sudan or Iran and there have only been two from Pakistan. And most importantly, the attacks have always been a defensive move against an occupying democracy's military forces. Once the occupiers have left the prized territory that the terrorists are protecting, the suicide attacks stop. If you don't believe my recounting of the facts, read the book. There is a lot more than what I have said. And what is even more amazing is that this man is a conservative and he came to these conclusions (which is obvious in his policy suggestions). Basically, we will keep being attacked until we leave!

Some call it Al Queda. He calls is the Base.

What's more of concern is people who ignore statements actually made by al Qaeda leadership, such as the goal of establishing a Caliphate by force.

Following on from hank's comment above, statements about some idiot's desire to re-establish a big, bad "caliphate" are also absurd. Sure, bid Laden might like to see a caliphate that encompasses all of the Islamic lands. Probable? Not in the least.

To suggest that we need to worry about a particular bin Laden wet dream is laughable.

Following on from hank's comment above, statements about some idiot's desire to re-establish a big, bad "caliphate" are also absurd. Sure, bid Laden might like to see a caliphate that encompasses all of the Islamic lands. Probable? Not in the least.

To suggest that we need to worry about a particular bin Laden wet dream is laughable.

And if we were worried about it, why would follow the Bush policy of facilitating it? After all, its not like the various Arab and Islamic societies of the Middle East and central Asia really get along together: the only way you are going to unite them under one banner is providing them with a highly visible common enemy that is prone to violent aggression and that does not appear rationally deterrable or appeasable.

So why, if we are concerned about al-Qaeda's wish for a new caliphate, are we playing exactly the role they need us to play if it is to have even an outside chance of succeeding?

So why, if we were concerned about Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy's wish for world dominence, did we play exactly the role they need us to play if it is to have even an outside chance of succeeding?

...if we were concerned about Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy's wish for world dominence...

You're suggesting that bid Laden and his fellow cave-dwellers are capable of what NG, J and I were capable of...?

NG, J and I never got nukes, did they?

It would appear that some of our beloved trolls should take a refresher course in Bonehead English.

I love that recent photo of Osama and George clearing brush together. They really need each other. One for recruits and the other for votes.

Anybody wondering what the "new phase of the conflict" would be if al Qaeda decides that America has fought enough and they can "let" Democrats take power?

NG, J and I never got nukes, did they?

Gosh, no, I guess they didn't. So what you're suggesting is that bid Laden and his fellow cave-dwellers will be able to establish a caliphate encompassing all of the Islamic lands, if only they can get their hands on some nukes?

Perhaps you could spell out their strategy a little more precisely?

So why, if we were concerned about Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy's wish for world dominence, did we play exactly the role they need us to play if it is to have even an outside chance of succeeding?

From December of 1941 we (as in "the US"; the UK and others got on the ball earlier) didn't; Nazi Germany, Japan, and Italy were major industrialized world powers seeking to conquer others by direct force, not non-state political movements hoping to use fear of a global conflict to establish a new state. What they needed to succeed was other industrialized world powers to allow them to conquer unopposed.

Last week there was an article about some guy who is locked up in Guantanamo who the Republicans described as a major threat, 'He was in three al-Qaeda training camps and knew six al-Qaeda operatives'.

Didn't strike me until the next day, but, in three training camps he met six people. Presumably one in each camp was an instructor.

This analysis is based on the very flawed notion that a democratically controlled congress will bring the troops out faster.

There is no reason to believe this. The congress does not have the power to make this president do anything, and while it can busy itself with investigations, that will not bring the troops home faster. If they passed a resolution demanding the troops be brought out, the President would likely ignore it, or set up an excuse preventing it. It is certain there will not be a veto-proof majority of democrats in the senate.

The troops are there until the president leaves office. Frankly, the divisiveness that has marked the past 4 years will only become greater when the dems have the powr to effectively oppose the president, and that cannot be seen as a negative for Al Qaida.

Essentially, this election is a no lose for Al Qaida. Iff republicans win, Al Qaida probably does better because the president will be free to continue his policy of unrestrained stupidity and beligerence. If the dems win there will be minor checks and embarassing investigations, but it further the country's path towards civil war as Republican demagogues scratch and spit like cornered cats.

valerie,

I would assume that means al Qaeda would have confidence that the U.S. would allow them to conquer Spain to Indonesia unopposed.

Wonderin,

I'm no terrorist, but if I were and got a couple nukes, I would try to kill as many infidels as possible. Duh.

cmdicely,

It's called an analogy, not deja vu, exactly because of some differences. One such difference, of course, would be nukes in the hands of terrorists.

Mysticdog,

Enough Democrats in Congress could indeed cut off funding or impeach Bush and Cheney. Nothing is impossible.

I'm no terrorist, but if I were and got a couple nukes, I would try to kill as many infidels as possible.

Right...but that doesn't tell me much about how that leads to a new caliphate.

Remember, for the bad guys to set up a new caliphate, they'll have to take over power in quite a few countries in the Middle East and Central Asia, for starters. How will nuking infidels lead to this?

It's called an analogy, not deja vu, exactly because of some differences.

Well, no, its not an analogy, because, as noted, what we (the US) did from the end of 1941 on was not what the Axis Powers needed in the sense that what we have been doing from 9/11 on is what al-Qaeda needs.

One such difference, of course, would be nukes in the hands of terrorists.

Yes, its true that nukes in the hands of terrorists would make this conflict even more completely disanalogous to WWII, and render your analogies even worse than they are to start with.

But that's a small effect, and your analogies are almost completely worthless as it is.

If you think Chuck's posts are illogical and dissapointing, you ought to click on the link Kevin suppled to whomever this Lynch chap is.

Its really amazing, that we now have virtually our entire military tied up in occupying a country, without the slightest idea what we are actually supposed to be accomplishing there.

Oh, I should say, there perhaps was an initial idea, that the various factions in Iraq would have turned out in such an expression of brotherly love that Iraq would turn into, oh, who knows, New Switzerland?

Once that turned out to not be the case, we are left with posts like the one cited by Kevin.

At least with Vietnam and the other Cold-War-Era-"Hot" Proxy Wars there was always some chance of predictability, because each side to the conflict had rational political aims.

Anyone who compares 2007 to WWI, WWII, the Cold War clearly needs to actually take a step back and consider the actual threat presented.

Hank - on my site I have a poll running that asks why we are in Iraq, and I encouraged the respondents to leave in comments their reasons for voting the way they did. One respondent gave the real-estate developers answer "The sun! tThe sand! The Beaches!"

I just shook my head. Then responded that sometimes when no one else has thought of an angle, it ain't because it's brilliant beyond the understanding of mere mortals.

The document strikes me as false, perhaps a plant. If it is true, then al-Qaeda misunderstands what is happening. The U.S. has not been seriously weakened, certainly not in a military sense, nor even in terms of its morale. The people of the United States are not giving-up on the general problem. It is true that most people in the U.S. now understand that it can't win with the current strategy in Iraq, and distrust the White House's knowledge and competence. But even a total "withdrawal" will merely be a redeployment to within the same neighborhood. The U.S. build-up in the Gulf is probably not to attack Iran (an action which has no clear objective) but rather to prevent Iran from invading Iraq. On the other hand, al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, is it not? They aren't going to win much in Iraq, unless they suddenly become friends with, and indeed take orders from, the Shia or the Kurds. So al Qaeda won't even come out of it with much of the oil resource. And the real event which might aid the cause of al-Qaeda -- i.e., a general regional conflagration -- is possible but unlikely. Therefore, al-Qaeda's main strategic problem appears to be insurmountable. They are running a guerrilla war strategy to gain recruits, but not everybody will join. They can weak havoc by getting hold of WMD's, but as soon as they take any step to form a salient structure, they can be annihilated.

Is the timing and content of al-Qaeda videos the new equivalent of Beijing wall posters and May Day photographs in the Kremlin?

Forgive my ignorance, but I don't get the reference. What were those posters/photographs?

Hank: "If you think Chuck's posts are illogical and dissapointing, you ought to click on the link Kevin suppled to whomever this Lynch chap is."

--A serious and perhaps fatal error in judgement! You could learn a very great deal indeed. Marc Lynch directly translates the Arab media for you yourself to judge, and the sum total is a very clear picture of what is going-on throughout the region. Perhaps the only clear picture in English. His book, Voices of the New Arab Public, (Columbia, 2006) should be read by everyone.

Aesop's Fable: The Fox and the Raven

The raven seized a piece of cheese and carried his spoils up to his perch high in a tree. A fox came up and walked in circles around the raven, planning a trick. 'What is this?' cried the fox. 'O raven, the elegant proportions of your body are remarkable, and you have a complexion that is worthy of the king of the birds! If only you had a voice to match, then you would be first among the fowl!' The fox said these things to trick the raven and the raven fell for it: he let out a great squawk and dropped his cheese. By thus showing off his voice, the raven let go of his spoils. The fox then grabbed the cheese and said, 'O raven, you do have a voice, but no brains to go with it!'

I agree it's possible that AQ has decided ok we have enough let's help get the US out of Iraq so we can have a victory celebration already. Perhaps they've reached a point of diminished returns wrt the Iraq war. They do have other fish to fry.

It wouldn't be surprising if the Bush people dug up some piece of neglected video and got it on the air this week. Maybe they don't need OBL for AQ pronouncements anymore.

What were those posters/photographs?
Posted by: Ken on October 30, 2006 at 1:52 PM

Because it was almost impossible for outsiders to understand the policies and intentions of the Soviet and Maoist Chinese governments, or to ascertain what political shifts were taking place inside those governments, Sovietologists and Sinologists in the '60s and '70s used to pore over obscure semantic twists in the slogans used on Beijing wall posters, or who was standing where on the podium during the May Day parade in Red Square, and try to draw overarching conclusions about what was going on inside the regimes.

The fact that people these days don't get that reference is one of the things to be thankful for about the past 20 years of world history.

And most importantly, the attacks have always been a defensive move against an occupying democracy's military forces. Once the occupiers have left the prized territory that the terrorists are protecting, the suicide attacks stop.

Miss Ashley,

that's nice, but -- 9/11?

cmdicely and hank,

Terrorists with nukes could kill more Americans than WWI, WWII, and Vietnam combined.

Terrorists with nukes could kill more Americans than WWI, WWII, and Vietnam combined.

And our response to that is what? Invade the wrong country. The former Soviet Union is crawling with unguarded nuclear material. Iran and N Korea got assistance from the father of the Pakistani bomb for their programs.

If Al-Qaeda gets it's hands on nuclear material, it will come from one of the sources above. We are doing absolutely nothing about those problems because it is more important to hold together the Iraq coalition, than it is to take the only real nuclear threat against this country off the table.

Please spare us the nightmare scenarios.

"Some call it Al Queda. He calls is the Base."
Posted by: gregor on October 30, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone checked to see if Al Qaeda is a registered Republican 527?

"I encouraged the respondents to leave in comments their reasons for voting the way they did. One respondent gave the real-estate developers answer "The sun! tThe sand! The Beaches!""
Posted by: Global Citizen on October 30, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Now all we need is an Apocalypse Now line like "God, I love the smell of IED explosives in the morning."

Can't soldiers surf off the Iraqi coast on the Gulf of Hormuz as more evidence that we're winning the war?

"that's nice, but -- 9/11?"
Posted by: brooksfoe on October 30, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Well, they did promise the Taliban a 'carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs' -- a subtle negotiation technique to get the oil/gas pipeline built through Afghanistan.

Yeah, but the bombers were Saudis living in Germany. And it's a bit much to call the US troop presence in SA an "occupation".

hank and craigie touch on this point upthread - It is incorrect and unsupportable to refer to al-Qaeda as some sort of centralized hierarchical organization making collective decisions. It is probably more like a couple dozen loosely affiliated individuals trying to foment hatred of the U.S. and Israel. And planning a suicide mission or two. These fanatics in no way threaten the American way of life and I wish intelligent liberals like Kevin Drum wouldn't assist in perpetuating this myth. It just helps ignorant assholes like our president. Thanks.

Chuck = Thomas1?

Just a feeling atm. If he is, he's disgusing some of his usual rhetorical quirks.

But not by very much :)

Bob

Brooksfoe, you might not believe troops on Saudi soil are an, 'occupying force' but Bin Laden and his minions do. They attacked us on 9/11 as 'payback' for supporting Isreal and the Saudi royal family's corruption. It's not a logical reason to attack us but it based on the sense of hopelessness that many muslims in the Middle East feel their countries are being run by puppets of the U.S. gov't.

I'm not sure that american people would react to a new al-Qaeda tape as they in previous elections. That is, I am not sure that national security, or any reminder of the war in Iraq and GWOT, is an issue that benefits the repulicans in this election (at least, I hope so). Moreover, if there is any truth to this, then I think it's likely the leaders of al-Qaeda aware of it and may not act as they have in the past.

In other words, maybe it's reasonable for al-Qaeda to believe that inaction is better for the republicans in this cycle.

D. & brooksfoe:

There's also something directly in the Koran about driving all the infidels from the Arabian penninsula -- so I'd have to think that radical Islamists could use that as a casus belli, despite the Saudi royals' explicit invitation.

Bob

Further evidence that Chuck = Thomas1:

I just discovered on the Abortion thread (in archive) that "Chuck" doesn't believe that someone who opposes abortion in all cases save rape & incest can be called "pro-life."

Hmmm .... :)

Bob

The Conservative Deflator: "These fanatics in no way threaten the American way of life..."

While it is strictly "true" that setting-off a nuclear weapon or anthrax in a large U.S. city will not (finally) threaten the American way of life, you may have trouble getting anyone to agree!

The organizational size of the danger may have been over-hyped, but in this era, that doesn't matter.

For a good short list of the grievances of the jihadists, Michael Sheuer's book Imperial Hubris boils down the voluminous pronunciamentos of bin Laden, BEFORE 9/11:

According to bin Laden, the U.S. does the following:

(A) The U.S. challenges God's word, by: (i.) declaring jihad to be a criminal act; and seizing and incarcerating, often without trial, hundreds of mujahideen around the world; (ii.) demanding that Muslim regimes place limits and controls on donations to Muslim charitable organizations; (iii.) demanding that Muslim educational authorities teach a brand of Islam more in keeping with modernity, even if it contradicts the Koran.

(B) The U.S. attacks the Islamic faithful and their resources, by (i.) supporting oppression and aggression against Muslims in Kashmir, Mindanao, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang Province, the Arabian Peninsula, and Palestine; (ii.) supporting the apostate governments of Kuwait, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere; (iii.) sometimes in concert with the UN, the U.S. has imposed economic and military sanctions on Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Afganistan, Libya, Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia; (iii.) the U.S. and its oil companies are seeking control of energy resources throughout the Arabian Peninsula.

(C) The U.S. occupies and dismembers Muslim lands, by (i.) allowing Christians separatists to gain independence in East Timor, Georgia, Croatia, etc., but forbidding Muslim independence in Kashmir, Chechnya, Bosnia; (ii.) stationing some Arab lands with troops, or exercising effective control of the governments; (iii.) backing Israel's occupation of Muslim Palestine and its plan to create a "Greater Israel" -- while Israel's state-funded religious schools are allowed to preach "that Jewish rule should extend from the Nile in Egypt to the Euphrates in Iraq, and that the Kingdom of Jordan is occupied Jewish land."

As Sheuer writes, these are the perceptions of bin Laden and his followers and admirers, as well as the grievances of tens of millions of other Muslims -- whether or not they accurately reflect U.S. policy.

The organizational size of the danger may have been over-hyped, but in this era, that doesn't matter.

Indeed, you won't find too many liberals on this site who think that al-Qaeda and their ilk do not pose any danger to the US.

Assuming that terrorists could get their hands on a nuke or on weapons-grade (and thus easily dispersed) anthrax, or any other bioweapon, what might this country do to prevent the baddies from attacking us with same?

1) pour resources into port security,
2) pour resources into strengthening our intelligence and law enforcement communities, particularly the humint components, so that they are more capable of hunting down and snuffing out cells and plotters,
3) pour resources into public health emergency agencies and first-responders; make sure that enough antivirals, antibiotics and vaccines are stockpiled,
4) work with like-minded allies; engage in military operations against baddie targets,
5) pour resources into potentially useful agencies such as the United States Information Service (which has been disbanded) to burnish the image of and knowledge about the US overseas,
6) increase development assistance, so the world understands that we give a damn about them,
7) pour resources into alternative energy development, so that we could decrease (not eliminate) our dependence on fossil fuels from dicey regions of the world.

For starters. I suggest that we grade the Bush administration on the extent to which they have succeeded in supporting such strategies.

That's the United States Information Agency.

Terrorists with nukes could kill more Americans than WWI, WWII, and Vietnam combined.

Yeah, so could literally anyone with nuclear weapons. The Soviets could have done so for forty years, as could still the Russians, the Communist Chinese, and the Pakistanis. But I don't see any of the wingnuts clamoring for us to invade Pakistan anytime soon....

Oh my goodness! A rogue individual could kill us all! Quick, pass me a lighter, I just soaked my hair in kerosene.

Al: "Why are you having trouble understanding what Al-Qaeda wants when Bin Laden has already told us?"

I'm sure it has occurred to bin Laden watchers that he might tell a little white lie about what American election outcome he thinks would favor Al-Qaeda in order to manipulate American voters into providing the desired result.

"Whatever you do, DON'T throw me in the briar patch. Anything but that."

Let's see, does he think that if he says "I hope they elect Democrats," that due to our profound admiration for the author of 9/11 we will therefore vote for Democrats, which is what he REALLY wants? Or has he strategized that we'll reject a straightforward interpretation of his statement because we think he's trying to manipulate us and vote for Republicans, which is what he REALLY wants anyway? Or does he assume that we know he's slyer than that, and that we will believe that he's trying to fool us by saying what he REALLY wants, hoping that we'll think he's trying to fool us into voting for Republicans and that we'll defiantly vote for Democrats, not realizing that is what he REALLY wants. Or . . .

I think this sort of knowledge free exercise is a great way to decide how to vote. It's a lot easier than understanding the issues in Iraq.

Although Global Citizen's post will turn out to be far more amusing than this one, I can't resist.

Gee, there is a guy in a cave who has a bizzarre laundry list of Muslim fundamentalist wet-dream talking points, and he sponsors a terrorist attack which is spectacularly successful.

For starters, how many rational people would you have to ask (and you could pick rational people from any country in the world) before you could find anyone, anyone, who would agree that even if, by some miracle unknown in the history of politics, you could get the U.S. to implement Bin Laden's bizzarro list, that sponsoring the 9/11 terrorist attack would actually achieve that goal?

No one in their right mind would ever posit that anything on Bin Laden's list could possibly be achieved by a terrorist attack.

What conclusion? Certainly, the guy is a nutcase. Second off, how many other Muslims could possibly belive in this strategy? No wonder their is video after video of what looks like armies full of "terrorist training camps" yet, its still the same 15 guys in a cave.

So, if he's a nutcase and his "wish list" and "strategy" are completely bogus -- why in the world would using our conventional military against -- against what exactly? Against the "concept" of Bin Ladenism? How could that possibly work?

The only way it works is if it turns out that Saddam Hussain is not, in fact a typical tin-pot dime-a-dozen greedy dictator who can easily be bought off or contained, but is in fact a member, along with Bin Laden, of SPECTRE or SMERSH or whatever.

Well, it turns out that is not the case. And the people, in the administration, who bet the ranch on this one and loss need to pay the electoral price.

The notion that Al Qaeda wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq is farcical. They, of course, would rejoice if the U.S. leaves Iraq.

They also would rejoice if Bush and the Republicans suffer a defeat in the election.

I would be surprised if they have much grasp of U.S. politics. In 2004, they tried to defeat Bush with the Bin Laden video They probably now realize the video did not hurt Bush and probably helped him, so I anticipate they will stay dark this time.

Writers like Lynch are naive and partisan. Their basic perspective is that Al Qeada must view Bush's actions just like democrats do, so Al Qaeda would do something to help Bush beat democrats. Farcical.

The words "Al Qaeda" have assumed a mythic proportion.

Here is a question that has never been satisfactorily answered: if the cabin doors of the airliners had been stiffened and unopenable, if pilots could be armed, is it possible that 9/11 could not have happened and this huge plot would have been seen as a much less traumatic event?

Why is everybody so afraid of Al Qaeda when there seems to be little known about it. It is very disconcerting to find no source for the strength of Al-Qaeda, no numbers of actual agents, no actual locations, no actual plots - they get pulled out as some big scary image whenever they release a video as some people use bogeymen to scare kids.

Are there 300 Al-Qaeda agents, 3,000, 30,000 or more or less? If there are 3,000 of them, do we need to be afraid of them? Fear is of something we don't know or fully understand. By this time, if our Intelligence Services haven't mapped and re-mapped them, there's something very wrong. I don't believe this "security" stuff about revealing Al Qaeda's strength or numbers or locations, not after the long long time between 9/11 and today. Years, got it, not days or months?

Why are we so afraid of them, based on the propaganda that's been bandied around? Is it based on something real? Most of the plots that have surfaced are relatively trivial in terms of threatening the real strength of our large country. That stupid guy with his sneaker bomb? The English group that has mysteriously disappeared off the radar screens, who apparently didn't get tickets for any flights? Just remember it wasn't our Intelligence Services that uncovered their "plot"; it was English and German Intelligence.

I find, when I step back, that every time the people in power want something, they scare us with "terrorism" and "war on terror." Scare, scare, scare. Be afraid and vote for the Republicans seems to be the message; the Democrats will not defend you. Against what? Against 9/11? That happened with a Republican President, remember?

So whenever a would-be terrorist puts together a video and plays it, threatening us, we need to quake in our boots ... is that what we're supposed to do? No, we're a good strong country and, if the Republican politicians who are scaring us now, really looked at it, after five, yes, five years, they aren't doing the job, maybe we ought to turn them out and put in a Democratic majority to see if they can do the job better.

After all, Bush & Co. seem to be losing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the North Koreans have run rings around his policies, ditto with Iran. Yeah, let's stop being afraid and put some Democrats in to see how they can change things.

Three thousand?

I haven't seen one shred of proof there are any more than 30! This is how history is going to record these years, one nut job in a cave and his ten or so friends making the world's number one superpower dance a jig!

Bin Laden: "Jump!"

Bush: "How high?"

Lynch makes an interesting point in the terrorists moving into "the next stage." I never though of it like that, but it's premise is logical and maybe obvious, though I never addressed it like that. We shall see, we shall see.

The first thing a Dem president would do is to track down and eliminate OBL. OTOH, the GOP needs OBL alive to justify their profitable wars for empire.

Now, tell me again, which party does OBL support?

性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸图片 祼体写真 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱小电影 美少女自拍 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性健康 性教育片 激情电影 黄色图片 成人性爱电影 性电影下载 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交视频 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 美女淫水 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购 成人贴图 情趣内衣 性生活电影 作爱自拍 艳情图片 性交电影 做爱视频 性福电影 人体艺术 明星合成裸照 裸女贴图 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦故事 性爱文学 偷拍走光 漂亮美眉 泳装写真 乳罩内裤 美女漏点 两性写真视频 美女阴部 少女乳房 自拍裸照 强奸视频 裸体美女 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 色情图片下载 激情图片 激情小电影 性感写真 淫荡妹妹 做爱小电影 裸露美少女 av美女 色情电影 同志图库 成人视频

A single anonymous posting on some message board is no basis for a newspaper article or discussion.

And yet something similar was the basis for all sorts of claims by the Bush administration. And a war. Funny, that.