Al Qaeda gloats over Rumsfeld

[garya505 2]

"... A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes ..."

"... Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq ..."

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

No, they just take the latest election results as a sign of weakness.

[Jenn! 918]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

If AQ thinks the election results were a sign of weakness, they are wrong.

[Marc and Olga 0]

"... A purported audio recording by the leader of Iraq's al Qaeda wing gloated over the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as a top U.S. general said the military was preparing to recommend strategy changes ..."

"... Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, said in the recording posted on the Internet on Friday that the group had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq ..."

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

No, they just take the latest election results as a sign of weakness.

I would think it would be the other way around, under Rumsfeld, they knew what to expect, currently they (and you and I) can only GUESS what Bob Gates has in mind for Iraq and how the new Congress will respond to his ideas.

My guess is they will accept his ideas much faster then they would Rummies idea...after all Rumsfeld's ideas failed us for the last 3 years.

[kaydee457 13]

If AQ thinks the election results were a sign of weakness, they are wrong.

Here's the source.

They allude to the fact that the defeat of the Repulicans and the fact that the Democrats have taken the house and senate is a victory for them and it's just a matter of time before they claim victory in IRAQ.

You know what? Given we have Pelosi and Kerry at the helm they're probably right......

Here's a favorite Pelosi quote about winning the war:

source

Asked whether her preference is to win the war or just end it, Pelosi said those are not the options.

"This isn't a war to win, its a situation to be solved, and you define winning any way you want, but you must solve the problem," she said."

[garya505 2]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

[Jenn! 918]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

But you quoted that "[Al Qaeda] had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq." If there's no more war in Iraq, who will Al Qaeda be fighting there?

[doodlebug 3]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

Seems to me that the Iraqis are killing more of each other than of American soldiers. It's a civil war and they need to fight it out. Did anyone help us fight our Civil War?

[Caladan 19]

So, wait a second, who's letting their votes being dictated by al-Qaeda? Who runs to bin Laden to find out who he should vote for?

al-Qaeda was going to gloat either way -- they have in the past. So why the hell do we care what a bunch of non-voter terrorists think?

[garya505 2]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

But you quoted that "[Al Qaeda] had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq." If there's no more war in Iraq, who will Al Qaeda be fighting there?

As soon as we start pulling out, they will make their move and the terrorists will become firmly entrenched in Iraq. Then they will redeploy wherever the fight is. They poured into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and other places. They'll simply go somewhere else to continue their Jihad.

[Jenn! 918]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

But you quoted that "[Al Qaeda] had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq." If there's no more war in Iraq, who will Al Qaeda be fighting there?

As soon as we start pulling out, they will make their move and the terrorists will become firmly entrenched in Iraq. Then they will redeploy wherever the fight is. They poured into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and other places. They'll simply go somewhere else to continue their Jihad.

But I thought they were waiting to fight U.S. troops.

[garya505 2]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

But you quoted that "[Al Qaeda] had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq." If there's no more war in Iraq, who will Al Qaeda be fighting there?

As soon as we start pulling out, they will make their move and the terrorists will become firmly entrenched in Iraq. Then they will redeploy wherever the fight is. They poured into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and other places. They'll simply go somewhere else to continue their Jihad.

But I thought they were waiting to fight U.S. troops.

They are. When they get entrenched in Iraq they can redeploy some of them elsewhere. It's a global war.

[Marc and Olga 0]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

But you quoted that "[Al Qaeda] had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq." If there's no more war in Iraq, who will Al Qaeda be fighting there?

As soon as we start pulling out, they will make their move and the terrorists will become firmly entrenched in Iraq. Then they will redeploy wherever the fight is. They poured into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and other places. They'll simply go somewhere else to continue their Jihad.

And who do we have to thank for "giving" them the possibilty to take Iraq to begin with?

Again it comes down to Bush giving up on Al-Qaeda's lead man for a tyrrant that would never have allowed them into his country.

It comes down to Bush lying to the American public to initiate a war that should never have been initiated at the time it was.

Then again, the Democrats know that we, the American people voted for a change in Iraq, I do think they understand that a complete withdrawl is not exactly what the American people are calling for and certainly Rumsfeld stepping down is a sign that there is going to be a "change" on our Iraq policy. No one knows (except maybe the Baker group) what changes are in store for Iraq, not you, not me, not Nancy Pelosi.

I would like to think the newly elected Dems will understand that a complete, immediate withdrawl may be worse then the status quo and if not they will loose in the next elections.

[garya505 2]

And some of you thought they would give up if we changed our policy?

What policies have changed since the elections 3 days ago?

There will be a battle to cut funding for the war. The enemy is not stupid, they will keep up the pressure and the body count. They know a lot of Americans don't have the balls to finish what we started. The Dems will succeed in getting funding cut and then blame it on Bush for losing the war.

But you quoted that "[Al Qaeda] had 12,000 armed fighters and 10,000 others waiting to be equipped to fight U.S. troops in Iraq." If there's no more war in Iraq, who will Al Qaeda be fighting there?

As soon as we start pulling out, they will make their move and the terrorists will become firmly entrenched in Iraq. Then they will redeploy wherever the fight is. They poured into Iraq from Syria, Iran, and other places. They'll simply go somewhere else to continue their Jihad.

And who do we have to thank for "giving" them the possibilty to take Iraq to begin with?

Again it comes down to Bush giving up on Al-Qaeda's lead man for a tyrrant that would never have allowed them into his country.

It comes down to Bush lying to the American public to initiate a war that should never have been initiated at the time it was.

Then again, the Democrats know that we, the American people voted for a change in Iraq, I do think they understand that a complete withdrawl is not exactly what the American people are calling for and certainly Rumsfeld stepping down is a sign that there is going to be a "change" on our Iraq policy. No one knows (except maybe the Baker group) what changes are in store for Iraq, not you, not me, not Nancy Pelosi.

I would like to think the newly elected Dems will understand that a complete, immediate withdrawl may be worse then the status quo and if not they will loose in the next elections.

They can't take Iraq, but they can become entrenched and operate out of there.

Saddam was a brilliant leader. He knew how to keep a country together (by simply killing his opponents) with so many people that hated each other. Saddam's relationship with Al-Qaeda is still disputed, and it's not just them. What about Ansar Al-Islam?

The global war against Islamic fascism is complicated and most Americans would understand it. Bush simply chose the wrong focal-point to get public and congressional approval for taking the fight to Iraq.

[eric&gen 0]

Gee why dont we all make this forum about Donald Rumsfeld lol he is hella gay.