Working with us until we've outlived our usefulness! They've learned so much from America. *tear*

Posted by: Alex at October 13, 2007 10:01 PM | Permalink to this comment

Maybe he's a Pratchett fan.

Posted by: Mike at October 14, 2007 12:07 PM | Permalink to this comment

I'm more intrigued by the revealing words that we didn't read (hear) from the source's mouth, but which he certainly implied: "...cause I'm busy killing Al Qaeda at the moment."

Posted by: reshufflex at October 14, 2007 04:09 PM | Permalink to this comment

Yes, I'm sure that after they've gotten rid of (the small number of)al-Qaeda soldiers in Iraq, an Iraq governed by other Arabs implacably hostile to us will be a VAST improvement. Certainly worth 3000 lives and half a trillion dollars.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw at October 14, 2007 05:30 PM | Permalink to this comment

Bruce-

Oh, so now it's suddenly a "small number of AQ soldiers," eh? I wish you guys would make up your mind. When last we heard from the wax-indignant crowd, the US invasion was singularly accountable for breeding a tsunami of Bin Laden clones. Terrorism would reign supreme.

But that was yesterday's noise.

Now that the principal-and manifest- mission of many of the native's in Iraq is, in fact, to rid the place of AQ varmint, you would have us accept that the matter is trivial, involving barely a handful of lonely terrorists. What terrorism network? Where?

And, of course, you'll be the same guy ten years from now who reminds all the world of another thing; how you just knew that the seismic shift in Islamic terrorism's demise began when the vigilant west placed a transcendent stake in the mideast's heart, circa '03, Iraq.

Posted by: reshufflex at October 14, 2007 08:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

I can't speak for Bruce Moomaw, but if it helps at all I will promise that ten years from now I will not say anything about how I "...just knew that the seismic shift in Islamic terrorism's demise began when the vigilant west placed a transcendent stake in the mideast's heart, circa '03, Iraq."

You have my word.

Posted by: Zathras at October 14, 2007 08:46 PM | Permalink to this comment

reshufflex, making up ridiculous claims and pretending that people you don't agree with said them, is a fun game for comedy shows, but it looks a bit silly on a discussion board. Of course, you may already know that -- maybe you are just going for farcical effect, and it went over my head.

Posted by: Harvey Wallbanger at October 15, 2007 04:09 AM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras' sarcasm didn't go over my head though; it made me laugh :)

Posted by: Harvey Wallbanger at October 15, 2007 04:13 AM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras-

I'm happy to hear that you'll bite your tongue. I 'd imagine that's no easy task when the gospel is all that rolls off of it.

Posted by: reshufflex at October 15, 2007 05:44 PM | Permalink to this comment

Hi Harvey-

What claims would those be? You mean the one where our Iraq venture would readily lead to 1000 Bin Ladens and beyond? Oh, ok. I guess that canard was never advanced by the antiwar left.
My bad.

Maybe I read it on NRO....

Posted by: reshufflex at October 15, 2007 05:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Oh, no, reshufflex, the Iraq venture is leading to more Bin Ladens. They're the ones not stupid enough to stay in Iraq when it means they'll be butchered by tribesmen. Why stay in Iraq when you can stay in Paris or Rotterdam or Manchester or Munich or Ankara? Or Cairo or Kuwait or Dubai or Rabat for that matter.

Posted by: Greg at October 15, 2007 06:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Zathras, reshufflex says you're a preacher (and I know that all that reshufflex says is unadulterated truth), so may I ask, which brand? Only out of curiosity, mind you.

Greg, I'd suggest that the fiasco in Iraq may becreating a lot more anti-US footsoldier volunteers, including some "suicide bomber" volunteers, than creating more rich Saudi masterminds. :)

Posted by: Harvey Wallbanger at October 15, 2007 07:55 PM | Permalink to this comment

Harvey, that's actually what I meant, I just chose to respond based on what reshufflex said.

Although, that being said, I would be utterly unfazed to learn that other wealthy Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al. have decided to follow Osama's path.

Posted by: Greg at October 15, 2007 09:15 PM | Permalink to this comment

Hi Greg-

"They're the ones not stupid enough to stay in Iraq when it means they'll be butchered by tribesmen. "

So AQ is now running from the immediate fight? I guess you have a better sense of their mission than I do. I long thought that Bin Laden's jihad-and that of his mindless puppets like Zarqawi-was to actually conquer the west, mano a mano.

Tell me I misread Qutb and Maududi; tell me that Zawahiri and Bin Laden really see their vanguard as passive-aggressive. It's jihad-lite, ladies. We were only kidding. Tell me those tapes he releases every quarter like some fiscal report really are timely whispers of caution. Or please, tell me I just don't get it.

Perhaps their collective exit to parts unknown (and to parts you seem to divinely know about) as the Great Satan stares them directly in the face is ingeniously Machiavellian. Maybe it's their Master Plan. Maybe jihad secretly means, run like hell when confronted.

Or maybe that's what it means now, now that we're shooting back.

Posted by: reshufflex at October 15, 2007 11:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

RE "Or maybe that's what it means now, now that we're shooting back."

Just curious, when were we NOT shooting back? Have we just in the past few months started shooting at them, because if so, maybe that's why mission has not been accomplished yet. Did the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines (and let's not forget the National Guard) neglect to tell their troops to shoot back? Did someone in the Pentagon smack his forehead and say, "Holy crap, we forgot to tell them to shoot back! Quick, issue a memo!"

Posted by: LL at October 16, 2007 12:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

reshufflex, the entire point of this dangerous tribal strategy is that we are stepping aside and letting people who see AQI as an even bigger threat than the US, due to AQI's high handed brutality, to their way of life. They have no problem with killing these people, often foreigners, in their beds.

Then, once that threat is gone, they'll puzzle out whether they'd rather blow us up or strike back at the Shia. My guess is that our strategy, for lack of a better word, is to cozy up to the Sunni tribes so that they'd rather go after the Shia. Which is, of course, sheer brilliance, if by brilliance you mean making enemies of 60% of the population.

These fellows have waited decades, centuries, in fact, over a millenium, to get back at each other. Do you honestly believe that there's anything we can do except let them blow each other, other than preventing our guys from being caught in the blast?

Because if you do, I've got some great land in Srebenica to sell you.

Look, it took Western Europe a few hundred years, millions of lives, and even an English king losing his head, before the rulers finally gave up and essentially allowed religious cleansing so long as no one went after their own. Of course, idiots like Thomas Friedman ignore this and call for an Islamic Reformation.

Why in God's name do you expect it to take any less in an Islamic world that has seen far more brutality recently?

All I can say is that watching Iraq has made me eternally grateful for being American, since I had the choice luck to be born into a society that was founded by refugees from the Old World's.

Posted by: Greg at October 16, 2007 04:17 AM | Permalink to this comment

Do you honestly believe that there's anything we can do except let them blow each other,

Make love, not war.

Posted by: Anonymous at October 16, 2007 01:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

Reshufflex's logic is the same as those Reaganites who thought it wonderful that we were arming and training bin Laden and other jihadis in order to kill Russians. The linked quote could have been bin Laden in 1986 to a CIA handler.

The point is that arming your enemy so that he kills one of your other enemies is rarely a good long term strategy. You still end up with an Iraq full of people who hate you.

Plus Al Queda for the most part is not in Iraq, and the thousands of new jihadis resulting from Reshufflex's campaign to kill Muslims are also largely not in Iraq.

Posted by: dmbeaster at October 18, 2007 12:15 AM | Permalink to this comment

Reshufflex's logic is the same as those Reaganites who thought it wonderful that we were arming and training bin Laden and other jihadis in order to kill Russians. The linked quote could have been bin Laden in 1986 to a CIA handler.

The point is that arming your enemy so that he kills one of your other enemies is rarely a good long term strategy. You still end up with an Iraq full of people who hate you.

Plus Al Queda for the most part is not in Iraq, and the thousands of new jihadis resulting from Reshufflex's campaign to kill Muslims are also largely not in Iraq.

Posted by: dmbeaster at October 18, 2007 12:16 AM | Permalink to this comment