Sunday, January 25, 2009

What Obama means to Al Queda

Lets call it a tale of two president-enemies. Who would Al Queda rather have in power? It's pretty clear it 's W. I base that on how Al Queda is responding to Obama. He has them so worried about the reversal his election means in American image around the world, that they have they went so far as to blame him for the recent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Which was OVER by the time Obama assumed office. The Post is right when it points out:
The departure of George W. Bush deprived al-Qaeda of a polarizing American
leader who reliably drove recruits and donations to the terrorist group.
It's the same reason the consensus opinions given prior to the election indicated they wanted McCain to win. They saw him as continuing W's policies and further digging America into a hole.
More recently, they've taken some hints from the Bill O'Reilly-Marc Thiessen bandwagon and did the following:
Friday, a new al-Qaeda salvo attempted to embarrass Obama, a day after the
new president announced his plans for closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.
Appearing on the videotaped message were two men who enlisted in al-Qaeda after
being freed from that detention center.

"By Allah, imprisonment only increased our persistence in our
principles for which we went out, did jihad for and were imprisoned for," said
Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, who described himself as a deputy commander for
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The translation was also provided by the Site

Site founder Rita Katz said the messages show "just how much al-Qaeda
is intimidated by Obama."
So...when will people start questioning the O'Reilly and Thiessen crowd's patriotism. I mean, they're going beyond undermining our national security with their comments. It looks like the terrorists are actually using their horseshit as strategy.


Cheesefrog said...

Sure, Bush was the perfect foil, abroad and at home. And Obama is going to enjoy more support world-wide, at least in the foreseeable future, although whatever impact that has on terrorist groups remains to be seen.

Maybe, just maybe the radical Islamists are going to want to kill us (or convert us, our choice!) no matter who our president is. I mean, do people who strap bombs onto their own kids really give a rat’s ass about who's name is on the mailbox at 1600? I don’t know, just thinking out loud…

pluvlaw said...

I honestly believe the actions we took over the last 8 years have made things worse, not better. We squandered a shitload of goodwill after 9/11. What if we had poured all those resources into just making Afghanistan work? In the process, we would have given the Muslim world a viable alernative to the path the radicals preach.

Who knows where we would be? Hell, radical religion is radical religion. Our own here in the US ain't no angels. And we ain't that old. How crazy would they be in another 100 years?

Cheesefrog said...

I don't know man... I generally have only questions and not answers.

One of the many questions I have which cannot be answered, besides why is Cracker not known as the greatest band in the world, is will there ever be peace in the middle east? I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but I wonder if it's like the SAT where it's best not to guess if you don't know the answer for sure.

Ah, never mind. There'll never be peace in the middle east. There I go thinking out of the box again...

pluvlaw said...

Oh...hell no, there will never be true peace in the Middle East. No way. I's religion afterall. My imaginary figure is better than your imaginary figure. How the hell can that be settled?

But what we can do is marginalize the hell out of the real crazies and get it down to a level where it is somewhat manageable.