Al-Qaida's deputy leader denounced last month's Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Md., as a "betrayal" of Palestinians in a new audio message posted Friday on an Islamic militant Web site,

It was the first reaction by the terrorist network to the Mideast conference, sponsored by President Bush and attended by key Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, Syria and Egypt, as well as Palestinian and Israeli leaders
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071214/...aida_message_3
************************************

Rave on, cat doo-doo. Somebody will cover you up.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

The Goebbels of al Qaeda.
Not nearly as effective, not nearly as intelligent, and will not be remembered nearly as long but he seems to be the face of al Qaeda and has been.

__________________
McCain 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Ahhh....too bad. Al Qaeda is seeing their little organization falling down around them. That's good news. And it all started with Iraq and Afghanistan and the successes we've had there.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

What all started.... huh?

Hey, uh, I must be missing something.....

Where is that platter again? The one that has Osama's detached head on it?

I'm sorry, the US is looking a little incompetent and ineffectual these days - you know, four years and a trillion dollars later, we still don't have Osama's head on public display.

Shameful..... I say, it's time we get a new Commander-In-Chief.

I don't like being looked at as not only incompetent but also immoral at the same time -

And I mean, if you guys are okay with that, just keep going the way you're going. There's only one place that leads though - sooner or later your ally is gonna take a good hard look at all the forces arrayed against you, and at that point is gonna make an "operational" decision - and I mean, you know, at that point you better be worth more inside the tent, or else you're gonna wind up outside.

It's very simple, really. Psychology 101. Any perceived weakness on the part of the top dog, and pretty soon all the little dogs are nipping at his heels. And that's exactly what we're seeing - people like Chavez and Ahmedinejad are kinda stickin' the finger in our eye, and they're getting away with it 'cause there's not a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing we can do about it (outside of begging everyone else to okay "sanctions") -

And I mean, the reason they're able to do that, is 'cause they're looking at the US spending 4 trillion going after some bozo with a tiny and barely capable organization, and not succeeding, and they're going, "geez, they could never fight a real war that way" - and you know what? They'd be right. And meanwhile, China is just kicking back going, "ho hum, it's so much fun watching these western devils shoot themselves in the foot" - you know, they're just kicking back laughing at us, enjoying every minute of it. China hasn't even entered the geo-political fray yet, they haven't "aligned" with anyone yet. But they're testing "everyone's" defenses....

So I mean, if you wanna justify patting Bushie on the back over this - okay, you know, I'll go along with that. I mean, it's a "success" of sorts, right? So, thumbsup I guess - it just strikes me as "too little too late" kinda thing, 'cause now, I mean, the dice have already fallen, and Iran's kinda come out the winner in this whole thing, and I mean, the result of that, is only that it would be kinda preposterous to leave the world's largest and most expensive embassy compound, behind to the Iranians and their proxies.

I still have a feeling, the whole thing is gonna disintegrate eventually. I think the Kurds are eventually gonna be a source of "big problems" up in the north, and I mean, the Kurds have "infiltrated" all the relevant arms of government and enforcement, even more than the Shi'a have, so.....

I mean, they already got Turkish warplanes involved, right? I predict more of the same, in the months and years to come.

But eh... you know, anything that helps the Iraqi people is probably a good thing, 'cause I mean, we really screwed 'em up, tryin' to "help" 'em and all.... so, yeah, definitely - any amount of "relative peace and stability" we can contribute to, even if it's only for a little while, is a good thing.

You, too, can keep raving on right along with al Whatzizface, if it makes you feel better.

All seriousness aside, I still haven't figured out whether you're genuinely worried about all the stuff you bring up, or you're just resentful that a Republicican is at the helm, and we have a do-nothing Congress with Democrats as the figurehead. Might as well get used to it; in '09 we'll still have a Republican president, and likewise for a Senate majority. How does that make you feel?

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

Have they done one thing to strengthen our security? Seems like all they have done is make America more vulnerable to terrorists. They don't want us spying on terrorists, squeezing terrorists for information or for our troops fighting terrorists to have the necessary funding. This Congress just sucks.

the palestinian cause continues to serve the islamic terrorists interests. they can co-opt the misery inflicted on that segment of the arab population to illustrate why the USA is obviously pro-israel and anti-Palestinian.
we give them that card to play and they play it well against us.
no sympathies here for the terrorists but our lack of empathy for the Palestinians and our blindness to the overt actions of israel against innocent arabs does nothing but fuel the flames of terrorism against us.


what is especially amazing is how so many refuse to see what is so obvious

__________________
i think sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free and good men die like dogs every day.
And there's also a bad side."
-- Hunter S. Thompson

I agree it's a bad situation. As I see it, two things have to happen: 1. The Palestinians get their own statehood; 2. Israel retains her sovereignty without being molested by anybody. Sounds simple enough.

Al Qaeda may have a somewhat legitimate point about Israel, but the rest of their agenda stinks. They want religion-based government to rule all the Middle East, and who knows where else -- maybe even the world. Iran is their model, and I highly suspect that Iran is behind much of al Qaeda's nefarious activities. That's just my little opinion.

__________________
http://www.freedomswatch.org/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx

When religion ruled the world...wasn't that the Dark Ages?

Glitch and I agree!!!!

I really do care, Mr. Mag.

Mr. Mag - what I want, is very simple. When it comes to politics, I want people to adhere to the contract.

I mean, I don't really care from "red or blue". "Natively", I'm probably politically conservative, I "lean towards" the Republican mindset "most of the time", on issues like fiscal sanity, strong national defense, you know, the "traditional Republican politics", that kinda thing -

But I mean, I could see myself voting for a Democrat, or a Libertarian - as long as they can assure me in some way, that they recognize and are willing to uphold the importance of the Constitutional contract. (And probably by extension, "any other contract" that our nation makes).

And I mean, that would be true for the government, as well as for its citizens. I would "hope", that everyone would support and voluntarily buy into the contract.

So I mean, the only place I really "differ" from the "Republican Party" per se, is in the "logic" that has to do with "social conservatism". 'Cause I mean, I have acute first-hand experience with the whole issue of "moralism", and it's affected my life so greatly that I actually went out and studied the subject, to find out what (if anything) is known about it, so I mean, now I have a PhD that kinda covers the territory of "morality and values", and all it's really done is to reinforce my belief that these things are personal and it's kind of an "evil" thing to try to foist them upon others. I think it's fair to "educate" and "inform" - and I mean, I'd even say that latter part almost acquires the flavor of a "responsibility" in the context of an interdependent society - but I don't think it's fair to clobber people over the head with any kind of "model".

I mean, that's part of what I call "self-determination", 'cause that has "concepts" and then it has "meta-concepts". But you know, that "freedom from tyranny" thing, definitely encompasses morality.

So, you know, when I look around at the space of "candidates", what do I see? I see a lot of "policy", but I also see a lot of "morality". And it's not "personal" morality, it's someone trying to convince me that I "should" believe a certain way, because if I don't I'm not a "good citizen" or something.

Well, you know, to me, being a "good citizen", means that you're aware of what's in the contract, and that you do your best to "voluntarily" adhere to it. And if there's some reason you're "not" adhering to it, I expect that to be a very good one - you know, it needs to be something along the lines of "civil disobedience", or whatever, something "reasonable", something "justifiable" -

You know, it specifically can't be something like, "I woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, so I'm gonna go shoot a few students" - you know, that kind of disregard for your responsibilities under the contract, is why people go off and do crazy stuff. And I mean, you can tell me they're not keeping "morality" in their head when they're doing stuff like that, but then I'm also gonna come back and tell you that they're not keeping the "contract" in their head either.

So, you know, then my next "tier" is only the "mechanistic" piece - and I mean that part, is mostly why I hate Bushie. That, and the guy's a weasel, but mostly, it's because he's a clueless weasel. If he had half a brain, I wouldn't even mind so much, you know - I mean, every Prez has had to do some "not altogether perfectly above-board and kosher" stuff - but I mean, at least be smart about it, right? Don't sit there and use the word "crusade" in a speech that's supposed to let Muslims know that it's Saddam we're after and not "all of Islam". Right?

So, I mean, my complaint with Bushie isn't so much "ideological", it's more "operational". You know, I agree with him on a lot of principles, like, there is a threat from radical Islam, and it is a good thing to control nuclear weapons proliferation, and we do need some kind of intelligence capability in the Islamic world -

But I mean, that whole piece, becomes a question of "how". You know, like in Iraq for instance, "how" that was done, is the part that I complain about. Not "that" it was done. I complain that we're still there, and I still think it was a bit of a mistake to go there in the first place, but I mean, that the Prez's call and not mine, and the mil did its job in like five days, right (I mean, exactly when Bushie said "mission accomplished" - that's when it was, in fact, accomplished - so Bushie was right) -

So I mean, see, he starts with good thoughts and principles and ideas, but then he blows it the minute he touches something.

So I mean, what I would like to see in the Republican Party is a competent manager. Rudy is such a person. He's definitely competent. I know this, 'cause I lived in NYC under his administration for a while, and I mean, I was "there", right? I saw the whole thing with my own two eyes. I know exactly how this guy operates, and what to expect. And what I'd expect, is that he'd try to do some good and helpful things, and he'd be completely merciless with anyone who got in his way. And I'm kinda aligned iwth him on the "social" bit too, I think it's a personal thing and it's none of the government's business. The only way I'd be "concerned" about Rudy, is that he's a cop, and so cops have a certain kind of "enforcement" mentality, that would probably lead to some kinda crossover into Bush-space in terms of "expediency" in that regard - but I do think, and this is probably just an "impression", but I do think, that Rudy has considerably more regard for the Constitution of the United States, than George W Bush does.

I really truly, in my heart of hearts, believe that Bushie is an aberration. You know, the 'Con sheeple are gonna stand up for whoever the top dog is, and Bushie happens to be the mutt-du-jour, so he gets praise and accolades. But ah.... you know, I "talk" to a lot of people too, face to face, and I mean, some of 'em will tell you things in person, that they won't say in any kinda public forum. I was talking to a Republican Party strategist on the phone this very morning, not three hours ago, and I mean, I heard all kinds of interesting stuff (most of it was pertaning to the possibility of "yet another" debate, since the last one was such a miserable failure) - but ah, you know....

I would like to see a good politically conservative President, who doesn't bring all this moral "baggage" to the table. 'Cause I mean, you know, if we're talking "conservative" politics, in the true sense of the word, then we're kinda on the opposite side of the fence from the collectivist-statist thing. That latter piece, would probably be more closely associated with the "Democratic Party's" way of thinking, wouldn't it?

So I mean, I "think", that puts me kinda "right of center" politically, but with plenty of crossover into liberal- and libertarian- spaces, so I mean, wherever I can draw from, is okay, if I can get the kinda representation I want. And you know, once we've understood that, then we can start talking about "policy".