Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (23923)	11/11/2006 4:02:34 AM
From: ManyMoose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35834

Mullahs running off at the mouth will turn into a victory for the GOP in '08.

To: Sully- who wrote (23923)	11/13/2006 8:24:49 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Are Terrorists the Democrats' Biggest Fans? The Debate Continues Power Line (0) Last night I posted al Qaeda: "Democrats Are Reasonable"!. That post discussed the support for the Democrats in the midterm elections that has been voiced by terrorists around the world. A lively and diverse debate on this subject is now being carried out <snip> This morning there is much more to be said on this explosive topic. The Washington Times headlines: "al Qaeda Gloats Over U.S. Election". I haven't yet seen a complete translation of the audio tape by the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, that surfaced yesterday. But this commentary by Walid Phares, a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is illuminating: <<< On 10 November, the website of the Islamic Renewal Organization, a Saudi dissident group headed by Muhammad al-Mas'ari and based in the United Kingdom, posted several links to a new audio message issued by Shaykh Abu-Hamzah al-Muhajir, AKA Abu-Ayyub al-Masri, leader of Al-Qa'ida Organizations in Iraq. After listening carefully to the tape, I realized that it is not just about one particular message as it was projected in the international media. Yes indeed, the most striking part was al Muhajir's statements about the results of the midterm elections in the US, and his direct threat against the White House. Without any doubt, to Americans today, this tape falls in the midst of their ongoing political transformations. And on that level, I will (later) provide a special reading of these statements. But the audiotape message included a revealing number of other important Jihadi issues, a real salad bowl. Here are the most salient ones: 1) al Qaeda's penetration of American politics: Interestingly, the message asks (American) politicians if they will implement their electoral promises to withdraw from Iraq. al Muhajir praises the choices by the voters of the enemy to "defeat Bush." More interestingly, he uses and American vocabulary by calling the War "stupid." Usually Jihadists calls it evil or infidel and rarely qualify it in secular "electoral" terms. But the most striking words used by a Jihadi commander is "lame duck." When I heard him uttering the words 'al-batta al arjaa' I realized he was off the classical Jihadi speech. The introduction of such words will certainly affect our reading of the speech (we will expand later on this particular point) 2) Phonetics The speech is definitely being read from a prepared text. Different subjects, with different concerns have been sawed to each other, with a variety of tones. Moreover, it is easy to realize the initial taping has been edited. His passion would explode mostly when the issues has to do with intra-Jihadist or intra Islamic issues, and his reading is faster when it is about the enemy, the infidels. The speech is a salad bowl from this perspective. 3) The intra-Islamic conflicts They are of great concerns: The rise of Iranian-Shiite power, the Sunnis who are not joining his Jihad yet and the bad Arab regimes including the Hashemites of Jordan. 4) The allegiance to a higher commander in the region Intriguing: al Muhajir, with great passion, committed 12,000 al Qaeda fighters to the "ameer al Mu'mineen" al Baghdadi. So, the Emir of al Qaeda in Iraq has pledged support to a regional "emir." Hence, the experts should be paying attention to the matter and watch for a transnational "Jihad chief" in the whole region. 5) Last but not least, from the whole speech, I begin to see that the final product is the result of two types of "material." On the one hand, the complex Jihadi jungle in the region with all the local stuff; and on the other hand Western-based (in this case American-based) Jihadist advice, relaying concepts not-native to the Iraqi Jihadists. Which explains the "salad bowl" structure of the speech and the use of alien political terms. These and more items are very helpful in the continuous analysis of the Jihadi war of ideas against the West and the United States and the emerging war of ideas in the region. >>> Blonde Sagacity is unhappy with the Democrats. Captain Ed, on the other hand, wants to cut the Democrats some slack: <<< The partisan sniping has ceased to be germane. We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts. They are Americans, and Americans put them in charge, and they have earned the right to show us how they will face the enemy now that they control the agenda.*** The reality is that we cannot win the war on terror without the Democrats after these midterm elections. Rather than continue with antagonizing rhetoric, we'd better find ways to engage them rationally in this effort if we want to survive. >>> Fair enough. But isn't a reasonable starting point for that engagement the fact that the terrorists are delighted that the Dems have won, and are convinced that the Dems' policies, as the terrorists understand them, will benefit the jihadis? Don't the Democrats have some obligation to face up to the fact that the prospect of our disengagement from Iraq--and if that isn't their "new direction," then what in God's name is?--is viewed with glee by the enemy? I join with Ed in hoping that we can prevent the Democrats from delivering Iraq to the jihadis, but my estimate of their good faith is lower than his. The Democrats have staked everything, politically speaking, on the proposition that the Iraq war is a failure and a disaster. They have every interest in ensuring that our effort there does, in fact, fail. I think, in short, that the terrorists are reading the Democrats' intentions correctly. I should add that by "the Democrats," I don't mean every rank and file member of that party, many of whom no doubt want America to succeed. I'm referring to almost all of the party's national leadership and the large majority of its elected officials. PAUL adds: I think that ED is also wrong in believing that "the Democrats are in charge" and "that they control the agenda." That may be true with respect to minimum wage legislation and the like, but it's not true when it comes to fighting terrorism. The Democrats obviously now have a say, however, and for that reason it's useful for Republicans to remind them and others of the link between certain policies that some leading Dems favor and the interests of terrorists as the terrorists themselves perceive their interests. MORE: Dan Riehl weighs in here: <<< To me, cutting the Dems some slack on this for political high-mindedness is a lofty, if superficial ideal. I find it a betrayal of the greater truth which runs below the surface. The things the terrorists are saying today didn't originate with the terrorists. It is an extension of the rhetoric those same Democrats and the MSM have used for two years to undermine our war effort and insult our troops. >>> There's lots more. STILL MORE: Roger Simon weighs in on the debate here: <<< Powerline, and this forum, takes the, I think basically correct, view that the Republican defeat last week was a message of weakness to our enemies. Only the truth is at this moment we are weak. We are a divided country unwilling to wage war against Islamic fascism. A slight, eked out Republican victory wouldn't have changed that much - and a slight, eked out victory is the only kind anyone can have in this divided land. >>> ONE MORE: Captain Ed responded to my rejoinder here. captainsquartersblog.com His perspective is different from mine, but, as always, worth reading. powerlineblog.com washtimes.com mobyrebuttal.blogspot.com captainsquartersblog.com riehlworldview.com rogerlsimon.com powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23923)	11/13/2006 9:16:06 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Single directional high-mindedness Power Line Captain Ed continues his debate with John about what to make of the jihadist's expressions of glee over the Democrat's electoral victory. Ed chooses to discount these expressions on the theory that <<< [t]he Islamists have made a culture out of spinning massive defeats into sterling victories. If the wind shifted from the north to the east, these people would claim it as a sign of Allah's grace on their jihad even if it blew half of them into the Persian Gulf. They lie for a living and a hobby. Yet I can think of one event the Islamists never claimed represented a sterling victory -- the re-election of President Bush. >>> Ed also finds it "exceedingly silly to point to a terrorist propagandist and take him at his word about people who haven't even submitted their first piece of legislation in the majority." But in assessing the landscape John is not relying entirely on what terrorists say; he's also taking the Democrats at their word. We don't yet know which Democratic faction will hold the upper hand within the party, the Clintonian pragmatists or the out-and-out defeatists. But, in advance of any legislative proposals, we know that neither Democratic faction will aupport key hard-line anti-terrorism policies of the Bush administration. Or does Ed think we must discount not just what terrorists say, but also what Democrats consistently have said, and done? Not satisfied with calling John's position "silly," Ed proceeds to suggest that it is disloyal. To Ed, those who take John's view are "acting immaturely and selfishly while putting partisan interests ahead of the nation's security." They are obsessed, Ed thinks, with "payback" and perhaps even prepared to "rely on American defeat simply for the opportunity to regain power." But Ed never explains how any of this follows from a simple claim that the positions Democrats have taken in the past (and say they will try to impose now that they have some power) are likely to be better for terrorists than current policy. How, for example, do expressions of concern about positions taken by the Dems harm the national security? Or "rely on American defeat?" Acting very much out of character, Ed has let his rhetoric get the best of him. It's commendable, in a way, that Ed wants to be high-minded, and thus is reluctant to speak ill of the Democrats at this juncture. It would be more commendable if he followed the same approach when he writes about his fellow conservatives. UPDATE: I also remain puzzled as to why Ed now views the Republicans as the "loyal opposition" (a label that has always applied to the party that does not hold the White House), and why he thinks the Democrats "govern now." The president has primary responsibility for foreign policy, and has almost always been the central player in this sphere even when the other party controls Congress. Clinton continued to control foreign policy after 1994. Nixon ran our foreign policy during most of his administration even though the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress throughout. Congress can, to be sure, stop funding the president's anti-terror efforts including those in Iraq. But Ed violates his own preaching if he assumes that the Dems are likely to do something that extreme when they "haven't even submitted their first piece of legislation in the majority." powerlineblog.com captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23923)	11/13/2006 12:25:44 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Qaeda Redefines Victory as Phased Redeployment Satire from ScrappleFace By Scott Ott on Global News (2006-11-13) — Sources close to al Qaeda and CNN now say that the terror organization has begun high-level internal discussions designed to redefine “victory” in Iraq as “phased redeployment.” “Stay the course is not a strategy,” said an unnamed al Qaeda official based in Iran. “Victory is not a strategy. We’re losing the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, not to mention other assorted body parts.” The change in tone among al Qaeda leaders comes in the wake of recent secret elections which saw moderates and progressives sweep to power and take leadership of key committees. “We can’t keep sending thousands of foreign martyrs in to do the job that local Iraqi martyrs should be doing,” said an anonymous source based in Syria. “The cost is too high in money and lives…well, mostly in money, since we have plenty of lives to spare.” Many top al Qaeda leaders now openly confess that the presence of their foreign terrorists has driven Iraq to the brink of civil war, and that the only way to “win the peace” is to redeploy al Qaeda fighters to a neighboring country. “We’re been waiting for the Iraqi mosque militias to stand up, so we can stand down,” the source said. “[Muslim cleric] Moktada al-Sadr needs to accelerate recruitment and training for his Mahdi Army. As long as al Qaeda is there planting roadside explosives and car-bombing the marketplaces, there’s no pressure on him to become self-sufficient, to step up and rule the country.” scrappleface.com

To: Sully- who wrote (23923)	11/17/2006 3:59:13 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

OUR ENEMIES' GLEE ISLAMISTS DREAM BIG AFTER U.S. ELEX NEW YORK POST AMIR TAHERI Opinion November 16, 2006 RADICAL elements across the Middle East see last Tuesday's defeat of President Bush's Republican Party as their victory. Calling the election "the beginning of the end for Bush," Ayatollah Imami Kashani told a Friday congregation in Tehran that the Americans were learning the same lesson that last summer's war in Lebanon taught the Israelis. Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats' victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. "It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran," says Ali Larijani, Tehran's chief negotiator on the nuclear issue. His view is echoed by academics with ties to "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei. "The Democrats will do their best to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through negotiations, rather than resorting to threats," says Yadallah Islami, who teaches politics at Tehran University. "Bush will be forced to behave the way all U.S. presidents have behaved since Richard Nixon - that is to say, get out of wars that the American people do not want to fight." Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. "With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play," he says. "There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue." Arab radical circles are even more hopeful that Bush's defeat will mark the start of an historic U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East. They draw parallels between the American election and Spain's 2004 vote, days after the Madrid terrorist attacks, which led to an unexpected change of government. The radicals expect U.S. policies to change on three issues: Iraq: The assumption is that America will cut and run. Salafist groups linked to al Qaeda believe that this will mean a stampede of those Iraqis who worked with the Americans. Iraq's Shiite leaders would flee to Iran, where most had been in exile before Saddam Hussein's fall. Kurdish political and business elites will flee to the three provinces they have held since 1991. This would enable the Salafists, in alliance with the remnants of Saddam Hussein's Presidential Guards, to enter Baghdad and seize power. Absent in that calculation is the role Iran might play: Will the mullahs sit back as Salafists and Saddamites lay the foundations of a new Arab regime that would turn against Shiite-dominated Iran? Radical Shiites have their own vision of Iraq after the Americans have fled. They believe that, backed by Iran, they'll be able to move into the four Arab Sunni provinces that have been restive since 2004 - and crush the Saddamites and al Qaeda. This ignores the certainty that any Iranian intervention in Iraq will provoke a massive Arab reaction - with Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and even Syria (now an Iranian ally) forced to back Sunni Arabs in Iraq. In other words, any hasty American withdrawal from Iraq could lead to either a long and bloody civil war or an even longer and bloodier regional conflict. Iran: Radical circles are unanimous in their belief that Iran can now proceed with its nuclear program without fear of U.S. and allied retaliation. They expect Democrats to revert to Clinton-era policy and seek a "Grand Bargain" with the Islamic Republic - acknowledging Iran as the major regional power and recognizing its right to the full cycle of nuclear technology. This perception has boosted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's cause in next month's crucial elections. Ahmadinejad argues that Bush's defeat vindicates his own policy of "standing firm against the Great Satan he hopes to see his faction win control of the Assembly of Experts - a body that can elect and dismiss the "Supreme Guide." Ahmadinejad would thus control all levers of power in Tehran. Yet the expected U.S. retreat on Iran may not materialize - or, if it does, produce the results Tehran desires. Why should Democrats be less worried about a rogue state armed with nuclear weapons than the vilified "neocons"? Iran's entry into the nuclear club, even if not opposed by Washington, would provoke opposition in the region. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies - all would be forced to seek nuclear weapons. And the ensuing arms race would be a heavy burden on the Islamic Republic's ailing economy. Israel: Radical Islamists in both Iran and the Arab countries believe that the Democrats' victory indicates "growing American lassitude." They believe that, once it becomes clear that Americans don't want to fight for the Middle East, many in Israel would emigrate to America and Europe to escape the constant daily pressure from Islamist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah. In visits to more than a dozen countries in the past few months, Ahmadinejad has been vigorously promoting his "one state" formula for Israel-Palestine. He claims to have won the support of Syria's Bashar al-Assad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Sudan's Gen. Hassan al-Bashir, and believes that, once it becomes clear that America wouldn't fight a war in support of Israel, most Arab states would rally along. His "one state" plan turns on a referendum in which Palestinians, including those outside the region, will vote along with those Israelis who have chosen to stay to create a single state in which Jews and Arabs live together. This euphoria, too, may prove problematic. There is evidence that a majority of Palestinians wish to have a state of their own as quickly as possible, and see outsiders' quest for a single state as a chimera. Nor is there any reason why many Israelis would choose to flee, as Ahmadinejad expects, rather than stay to defend their country. Also, most Arab states remain committed to the Bush "road map," a fact underlined last week by Saudi Arabia's call for a new peace conference based on the two-state formula. The mullahs and al Qaeda may soon find out that their celebration of "the end of Bush" was premature. Some Democrats may have promised cut-and-run. But, once in power, the party as a whole may realize (to its horror) that, this time, those from whom Americans run away will come after them. One more fact for the mullahs and al Qaeda to take into account: Their nemesis, the reviled Bush, is around for another two years, and unlikely to dance to their tune, even if the new Congress demanded it. And two years is a long time in politics. Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates. nypost.com