NomDebPlume's 2½ Cents

Because I have an opinion about everything…

“Mideast Terror Leaders Want U.S. to Vote Democrat”

 “Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists”  – WorldNetDaily

VoteForTerror

Senior terrorist leaders were interviewed by WorldNetDaily for an article posted on November 2nd, which stated their hope for a Democratic win in Tuesday’s election.  They see this shift in power as beneficial to their objectives because it will ensure victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.   Not only would a Democratic win prove to the terrorists that Americans are tired, but Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal “proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation.” 

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, was quoted as saying the Democrats’ talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel proud: “As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk, very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance.  This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.”   And then there’s Abu Ayman, another Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, who said he is “emboldened” by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

Responding to the claim that the insurgents will stay in Iraq for as long as the U.S. is in Iraq, when terrorists became aware of Nancy Pelosi’s recent remarks on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” they dismissed her assertion completely:

Nancy Pelosi’s remarks: “The jihadists are in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean we stay there. They’ll stay there as long as we’re there.”
Muhammad Saadi, addressing those remarks in the WND interview: “Islamic Jihad’s Saadi, laughing, stated, ‘There is no chance that the resistance will stop’.”

And Jihad Jaara agrees.  A senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem’s Church of the Nativity, he told WND: an American withdrawal from Iraq would “prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States.” Jaara said an American withdrawal would “mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America).”

The far-reaching implications of a withdrawal are expressed this way by Jaara: Vacating Iraq would also “reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view.  But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them.”  This viewpoint is shared by Hamas’ Abu Abdullah, who believes leaving Iraq would “convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance.”   “The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan.”

The terrorists have given us much to think about in this article posted by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily. Woven between all the quotes and all the malice are claims that they’ve found “the right strategy”, that they feel “proud” and “emboldened”, that they are “laughing” at us and our “tyrant empire”.  They are learning “what works” and what is “efficient”, but perhaps the best advice from the terrorist’s for this Election Day can be summed up by a quote from Jihad Jaara.  Although he is currently in exile in Ireland as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the previously mentioned church siege, he gave the following quote to WorldNetDaily:

Of course Americans should vote Democrat“.

 

Read the WorldNetDaily Post

*Some of this post taken verbatim from WND article due to the amount of quotes.

Advertisements

Single Post Navigation

8 thoughts on ““Mideast Terror Leaders Want U.S. to Vote Democrat”

  1. From Wikipedia:

    In early 2005, WND hired Aaron Klein to run a Jerusalem bureau.[8] Klein’s articles have regularly promoted the causes of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza who oppose Israeli disengagement from those areas.[9] He has frequently written about right-wing Israeli activists tied to the far-right Kach and Kahane Chai movement without disclosing those ties.[10] When Eden Natan-Zada shot and killed four people on a bus in Gaza on August 4, 2005, he was beaten to death afterwards by a crowd that witnessed the shooting. Klein wrote an article for WND claiming that Zada was “murdered” by a “mob of Palestinians.”[11] Klein has also written numerous articles critical of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.[12]

    Gotta love that objective journalism!

  2. Are you saying his bias has prevented him from including the truth in this text? Might others with a bias also write slanted opinions based on what they know, what they think they know, what they’ve seen and how they translate what they’ve seen? Might we all do this to an extent?

    Skip, of Tsunami of Blood (and his latest post), comes to mind… I love that style of journalism as well…

    By the way, when I looked up Aaron Klein on Wikipedia, I was directed to a page that listed 34 of the “many exclusive stories that Klein broke on WorldNetDaily that went on to make national/international news” and only 3 that were considered “controversial reporting”. I guess it’s all in how you want to look at it.

    ~D

  3. Hey Deb,
    It seems that America doesn’t care what the terrorists had to say. I hope we don’t pay too dearly for this.

    My migraine is almost mangeable now – but I can’t wait for the fun and games the ‘new’ congress has in store for us. With any luck, they’ll screw up so badly Hillary won’t have a chance in 2008. (I know, just trying to make lemonade out of the lemons if you know what I mean.)
    WC

  4. Oh, well, WC… when people are uninformed and vote their emotions: “I hate war (who doesn’t?) and just want change (any change, don’t really care what kind)”, we ALL end up with lemons. Let’s see what the loud-mouth lemons actually get accomplished now that they have the power they so desperately wanted, huh?

    This could be the best thing for Republicans as we approach ’08… :-)

    ~Deb

  5. If the U.S. invaded Canada because it posed a threat to its strategic interests, you would probably have a whole bunch of French people sneaking into Quebec to help defend the region. The U.S. would call them terrorists and the Canadians who fought along side them insurgents. I cannot fault them for taking up arms to defend their country. The term for that I think is nationalism.

    If 80% of the people in a sovereign nation want its present occupiers out of its country, I think they should be heard above the politicians of that country. If 60% or more of the citizens of a country want the government to get out of the occupation business abroad, I think that the government should heed the directive of its employers; the citizens.

    I know that conservatives really don’t believe in majority rule i.e. democracy. For that reason alone I think that they should stay out of the democracy building business.

    I’m going to pose a few ifs now. If we had 2001 all over again:
    If the U.S. administration had paid attention to the warnings of the previous one, Sept 11 might not have taken place at the magnitude that it did. If it happened at all.
    If they paid more than lip service to intelligence services that all had their hair on fire over the Summer of 2001, we might have averted the disaster altogether.
    If V.P. Richard Cheney had held meetings by his counter-terrorism taskforce prior to September of 2001, we might have had a handle on this plot and averted it or defended against it.

    If we went after Osama Bin Laden during the Afghan war and not screw it up so badly, we could have stifled the growth of Al Qaeda.
    If we did not allow the Taliban to have safe passage back to Pakistan; we could have crushed them, as we should. We would have had more teeth and moved on to Pakistan, the true home of the Al Qaeda.

    If we had not gone into Iraq and focused instead on strengthening Afghanistan’s growing democracy; got the tribal leaders meaningful political positions and a reason to work together; poured billions into the Afghan economy so as to remove any incentive for dissatisfaction among the people; we and they would be way better off today.

    If we treated the terrorist bombing in the U.S. as a criminal offense and used our national grief toward positive ends instead of as a political/business opportunity, we as a nation would be far better off five years later. The terrorists would have been captured, they would have been severely marginalized, the world would still be on the side of the U.S. and we would have far more eyes and ears on the ground around the world working with us instead of against us on the terrorism issue.

    We don’t have to occupy other countries to remain safe; that is a fallacy. No nation is safe while holding another hostage.
    If foreign soldiers camped out in your backyard and shot your neighbors, you would be shooting at them or be branded a coward by your own people.

    I think the U.S. can handle itself against a bunch of malcontents. Terrorism is nothing new. I lived through the 60’s and 70’s; I remember terrorism. Ask the British about the IRA.

    Please remember that in the war of 1812, the British reached the White House and damn near took back their colony. We did not give in nor did we give up the Constitution in that time of crisis. This is certainly not the time to do so either.

    Freedom ain’t free.

    Your brother,
    Dennis

  6. If doesn’t get us anywhere. Hindsight, as they say is 20/20.

    As to Iraq – perhaps you’d like to look at the recent surveys taken of Iraqi’s and their feelings about the U.S. forces being there. It might surprise you. And there there is the elected leader of Iraq saying they do not want us to leave for three years seems a little contrary to your statements.

    Why is it, you don’t include the Clinton administration in your assessment of 9/11? There was tons of opportunity to handle this before Bush ever took office – Clinton had 8 years, Bush 8 months. Doesn’t Clinton have to take at least a little bit of your scorn? I could theorize that if the Clinton Administration had not taken the first attack on the WTC as a criminal offense and rather as an act of war that 9/11 might never have happened. Of course he couldn’t because he had all but dismantled the Intelligence agencies and the military and he knew he had no respect from the military since they don’t generally like draft dodgers.

    As to your Canadian analogy – I had to laugh. The French wouldnt’ even defend themselves on their own soil – why on earth would they travel to Canada to defend another country?

    And really, what business interests has America gotten for going into Iraq. I know you guys like to claim oil – but if that’s the case why are we paying so much for gas? Why is the price of oil gone up? And up? As to Haliburton (the other favorite chestnut) the Clinton Administration used them for similar contracts constantly. The reason being that there are few companies who can do what they do. As to the no bid contracts, they are no bid because usually there is no other company who can qualify, so the government offers a price for the job and the company either accepts or passes on it.

    As to 80% of the country fighting against the U.S. forces in Iraq – are you unaware of the fact that most of those guys aren’t Iraqi’s? Oh yeah, that’s right we’re making that up too.

    Okay you win. We who support the war love to kill and maim. We want to take over the world and don’t believe in Democracy. We have raped the planet for all the natural resouces it has.

    Never mind the fact that we give more foreign aid than any other country on the planet. And if it were not for our technology, the middle eastern countries would have no way to retrieve the oil on their land and would still be running around the desert on camels. There would be no internet, instant communication, no peace corps, no automobiles – millions would be dead because they would not have had the benefit of innoculations against diseases, no AIDS research, etc. etc.

    You’re right, freedom ain’t free. Sometimes, you have to fight for it. No matter how ugly and repugnant that is – the alternative is worse.

    Or do you think all those women in Afghanistan and Iraq really liked wearing those burkhas and being denied education, jobs and the freedom to speak?

    WC

  7. Brother Dennis,

    It would be difficult to add anything to what WC said, but what the hey…

    Watching a war, any war, is bound to dredge up emotions that affect our rationale – I understand that. But I think I also have a reliable enough memory to temper those emotions and not try to rewrite policy in my head based on what we all see and know (or THINK we know) now.

    What always burns me up is how no one recalls when Bush announced that this war would be very different from any other war we have witnessed… how it would take a very long time and would need the support of the American people, not just in the short-term, but until it we beat our enemy – those who attacked us on 9/11. He explained that they won’t be wearing uniforms, won’t be from any one country and that the front can be one place and then another.

    I remember that. I remember thinking “we’re in this for the long haul”. I thought I remembered my fellow Americans being supportive as well. What I forgot was this: The U.S. has some people, perhaps most people, who live for the moment. So many want to feel good NOW. They want satisfaction YESTERDAY and will punish those they feel are responsible for not providing “Happy-town” to them.

    Well, Happy-town disappeared on 9/11… Sadly, people still don’t want to accept that. They want to keep assigning blame and looking backwards, trying to show how THEY think things could have been done better (when hypotheses, conveniently, cannot be proven).

    To me, we need to adjust our way of thinking so we can still be happy, but safe. Toward that end, perhaps we can keep the hindsight talk to a minimum.

    ~D

  8. Watching a war, any war, is bound to dredge up emotions that affect our rationale – I understand that. But I think I also have a reliable enough memory to temper those emotions and not try to rewrite policy in my head based on what we all see and know (or THINK we know) now.

    What always burns me up is how no one recalls when Bush announced that this war would be very different from any other war we have witnessed… how it would take a very long time and would need the support of the American people, not just in the short-term, but until it we beat our enemy – those who attacked us on 9/11. He explained that they won’t be wearing uniforms, won’t be from any one country and that the front can be one place and then another.

    I remember that. I remember thinking “we’re in this for the long haul”. I thought I remembered my fellow Americans being supportive as well.

    Did you think your fellow Americans were supportive all the while you and Neocon chickenhawks were taunting anyone who dissented from your views as “unpatriotic” and “traitors”?

    The Bush administration lied to Congress and the American people, to rush us into a war so that once in, Bush’s position would be “But we can’t leave now!”

    We on the political left knew the truth, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that attacking Iraq, destroying that country, removing Saddam Hussein, would destabilize the Middle East to America’s detriment.

    War is a spectator sport to you, just as 9/11 was. Those of us who have lost family and friends in 9/11 and other terrorist attacks know what a terrible president Bush is, and how he’s done nothing to protect Americans from future violence.

    We liberals were correct, and you were wrong. It’s time for right-wing conservatives to realize you don’t know what you’re talking about and listen for a change.

    The Iraqi people want us to leave:

    Editor and Publisher
    New Survey: Iraqis Want a Speedy U.S. Exit — and Back Attacks on Our Forces
    By E&P Staff
    Published: November 21, 2006 10:20 AM ET

    NEW YORK Past surveys have hinted at this result, but a new poll in Iraq makes it more stark than ever: the Iraqi people want the U.S. to exit their country. And most Iraqis now approve of attacks on U.S. forces, even though 94% express disapproval of al-Qaeda.

    At one time, this was primarily a call by the Sunni minority, but now the Shiites have also come around to this view. The survey by much-respected World Public Opinion (WPO), taken in September, found that 74% of Shiites and 91% of Sunnis in Iraq want us to leave within a year. The number of Shiites making this call in Baghdad, where the U.S. may send more troops to bring order, is even higher (80%). In contrast, earlier this year, 57% of this same group backed an “open-ended” U.S. stay.

    By a wide margin, both groups believe U.S. forces are provoking more violence than they’re preventing — and that day-to-day security would improve if we left.

    Support for attacks on U.S. forces now commands majority support among both Shiites and Sunnis. The report states: “Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq and would not withdraw its forces from Iraq even if the Iraqi government asked it to. If the U.S. were to commit to withdraw, more than half of those who approve of attacks on US troops say that their support for attacks would diminish.”

    The backing for attacks on our forces has jumped to 61% from 47% in January.

    Among Iraqis overall, 77% percent prefer that a strong government get rid of militias, including 100% of the Sunnis polled and 82% of Kurds.
    But “the Shia population in Baghdad is more skeptical than elsewhere about the wisdom of disarming the militias,” a report by WPO states. In Baghdad, Shias say they want militias to continue to protect their security (59%).

    The national survey reached 1,150 Iraqis. It was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

    Nearly every opinion poll in the U.S. has shown that roughly 6 in 10 Americans also back a withdrawal within a year.

    Bush and republicans have spent America into the poor house, all the while securing nothing.

    As the bills come due, because Bush and republicans borrowed against our future for several generations and put the money into Halliburton’s shareholders’ pockets, we on the left will make sure that Americans never forget it was Bush and Cheney and the republican party who destroyed the U.S.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: