Steve King "Al Qaeda would Cheer Obama win"

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Umm, no, that would be talking with the leader of another country that's called: DIPLOMITISM....let's say it again, D-I-P-L-O-M-I-T-I-S-M

Just because you allege that someone is a terrorist (I think he is, but not the way right-wingers make him out to be), and don't like him personally (I don't either), doesn't mean you shouldn't talk to him.

[The Duke]

And Al Qaeda in Iraq has essentially been destroyed by the surge, so no, AQ doesn't have a foothold in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7287917.stm

Perhaps spoken too soon?

If I'm speaking too soon, woe be to the US Military.  They were saying this stuff five months ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245_pf.html

Most of them still say this.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,161724,00.html

[Flying Dog]

Of the three options, it's clear that Al Qaeda would favor Obama the most.

And it's clear that ultra-violent neo-Nazis would favor John McCain the most, therefore John McCain is an ultra violent neo-nazi...  Can't fail that logic.

Given Obama's disregard for the Jews, I'm not sure who they would favor.

Especially considering Obamas pastors' close alliance with Mr. Farrakhan.

My moms cousins dads best friend is a nazi. That must mean I am too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Of the three options, it's clear that Al Qaeda would favor Obama the most.

They sure love Beelzebush.  He's Osama's wet dream...gave him everything he wanted on a silver platter...including a foothold in Iraq.  Nice going, "commander guy".  Mission accomplished!

Actually, Vander Blubb is right.

Obama's plan to attack Pakistan is Al Qaeda's dream come true.

And Al Qaeda in Iraq has essentially been destroyed by the surge, so no, AQ doesn't have a foothold in Iraq.

Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before Bush invaded.

[phk]

Of the three options, it's clear that Al Qaeda would favor Obama the most.

They sure love Beelzebush.  He's Osama's wet dream...gave him everything he wanted on a silver platter...including a foothold in Iraq.  Nice going, "commander guy".  Mission accomplished!

Actually, Vander Blubb is right.

Obama's plan to attack Pakistan is Al Qaeda's dream come true.

And Al Qaeda in Iraq has essentially been destroyed by the surge, so no, AQ doesn't have a foothold in Iraq.

Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before Bush invaded.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad who changed their name to Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 was in Iraq before the invasion.

[Person Man]

Yeah, but they wern't Al-Qaeda. AQ wasn't there until 2004.

[Flying Dog]

Of the three options, it's clear that Al Qaeda would favor Obama the most.

They sure love Beelzebush.  He's Osama's wet dream...gave him everything he wanted on a silver platter...including a foothold in Iraq.  Nice going, "commander guy".  Mission accomplished!

Actually, Vander Blubb is right.

Obama's plan to attack Pakistan is Al Qaeda's dream come true.

And Al Qaeda in Iraq has essentially been destroyed by the surge, so no, AQ doesn't have a foothold in Iraq.

Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq before Bush invaded.

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad who changed their name to Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 was in Iraq before the invasion.

wow....One freaking person.

[Joe Republic]

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad who changed their name to Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 was in Iraq before the invasion.

wow....One freaking person.

Uh, what?  Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad is a militant group, not an individual.

[Boris]

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad who changed their name to Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 was in Iraq before the invasion.

Are you sure? I thought it was formed by Zarqawi after the invasion. I know Zarqawi was reported to be in Iraq in mid-2002, but he joined Ansar al-Islam. In any case, I don't think the group took responsibility for any major terrorist attacks after the invasion (obviously).

[Person Man]

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad who changed their name to Al-Qaeda in Iraq in 2004 was in Iraq before the invasion.

Are you sure? I thought it was formed by Zarqawi after the invasion. I know Zarqawi was reported to be in Iraq in mid-2002, but he joined Ansar al-Islam. In any case, I don't think the group took responsibility for any major terrorist attacks after the invasion (obviously).

Which sort of gives my argument jaws that Al-Qaeda wasn't Al-Qaeda until 2004.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bush's own State Dept. listed Iraq as a country that didn't have Al Qaeda as late as 2004. I think then then decided to get rid of the map for political reasons. Bush should have attacked some country that was listed as having Al Qaeda, like the United States.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

[??????????]

Bush's own State Dept. listed Iraq as a country that didn't have Al Qaeda as late as 2004. I think then then decided to get rid of the map for political reasons. Bush should have attacked some country that was listed as having Al Qaeda, like the United States.

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/terrornet/12.htm

Salman Pak?

[phk]

For those that are Arabic-impaired

Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad means...

Jama'at = Group
al-Tawhid = Monotheism
Jihad = eh...

Which roughly translates to Group for Monotheism and Jihad.
 
Normally it doesn't really matter. Al-Qaeda's core organization is very decentralized and loosely structured and mostly consists of a few thousand cells of 2-3 members each scattered in many countries (Nearly any Muslim country of strategic value along with European states and the US most likely.

There are certain Sunni extremist outfits that have started out not affiliated with Al-Qaeda (and focused mostly on domestic issues and later on regional issues) but eventually have come under their umbrella. Pakistan and Lebanon have good examples of this in the form of Jund al-Sham and Lashkar-e-Toiba.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Basically how I understand is that after the US and its aligned countries invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for the 9/11 attacks is that Zarqawi then fled to Iraq and was allowed into Iraq through Ansar Al-Islam which is where he started out his base of operations. But read above anyway.

[Person Man]

You have still have failed to show that there was an Al-Qaeda outfit anybigger than the one in Germany, Britian or America...

[phk]

You have still have failed to show that there was an Al-Qaeda outfit anybigger than the one in Germany, Britian or America...

Me?

[Person Man]

Yeah. just because there was a couple of guys doesn't mean that there was a palpiable AQ there....and why was there no technical AQ until 2004?

[phk]

Yeah. just because there was a couple of guys doesn't mean that there was a palpiable AQ there....and why was there no technical AQ until 2004?

If you want to get specific about it... there really isn't any 'palpable' Al-Qaeda anywhere due to the way it is structured. 2-3 people in a few thousand cells scattered in a variety of countries.

Al-Qaeda relies on affiliates for its 'dirty work' in Iraq and the upper management to take care of that was already well in place in Iraq during that time. This model was used for Al-Qaeda affiliates in other parts of the Islamic world.  Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, Al-Qaeda in the Khaleej, Al-Qaeda in Shaam, Al-Qaeda in Pakistan.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway onward.....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh.. your kidding right? Al-Qaeda's core leadership mostly resides in Afghanistan and the tribal belt separating Pakistan and Afghanistan, whats called Waziristan. 

[Person Man]

What I was saying is that you haven't shown that AQ was any stronger in Iraq than anywhere else.

[JSojourner]

And Al Qaeda in Iraq has essentially been destroyed by the surge, so no, AQ doesn't have a foothold in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7287917.stm

Perhaps spoken too soon?

The surge has been effective.  I would LOL, except American soldiers are dying...and there's nothing funny about that. 

Of course, this is why my sig is more timely than ever.  It's classlicly reflective of Bush-Neocon "let them eat cake" nonsense. 

[Smash255]

More from this putz

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080311/ap_on_el_pr/congressman_obama

[JSojourner]

Eight American soldiers and one allied translator killed by insurgents Monday.  I know supporters of the surge will say that's just "anedotal".  But damn -- if the surge is working, I'm sure not seeing evidence of it.  At least not outside a very small area.

Now, if we put a million boots on the ground, perhaps we could bring Iraq back to what it was and eventually make it better.  The surge is still trying to win the war on the cheap.  It's basically Rumsfeld-plus 15 thousand.  Big deal.

[Person Man]

...and the surge won't last.