back in the news
The top story today: bin Laden's audiotape.
Let me begin this article by stating for the record that I believe Al Qaeda are here in America. They are here, and they are planning something.
Call me cynical, or paranoid, or whatever you want, but I think anybody who asserts categorically that we are completely free of any threat from terrorists on U.S. soil is either selling something or lives in a world where the sky is constantly rainbow-colored.
And I have a feeling that they are planning something big. Again, I have no facts here to back that statement up--just a slight understanding of the history of terrorism as it relates to incidents here in the States and a knowledge of the Islamists' hate for the American way.
But I had a sense for that before yesterday. I didn't need bin Laden to tell me these things.
But what I didn't KNOW before his audiotape yesterday is that his forces are being routed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I realize that I'm reading between the lines a bit here, but ask yourself this: why else be the first "player" to speak of a truce?
Usually, "truce" is arrived at through three general developments: one party has accomplished their goal OR an impassable stalemate has emerged and the will to fight on is lacking on both sides OR one party decides they need to cut their losses before they are faced with annihilation. (Mind you, this third option only works if the offering party makes concessions significant enough to satisfy the war's other half)
From bin Laden's standpoint, I believe it would be very difficult to make a substantial claim that AQ has accomplished their goal in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan in particular, such a statement does not pass the sniff test at all.
And while the American left gets dizzy over comparing the situation in Iraq with VietNam, I ask you this: at what time did the North Vietnamese ever offer a truce with the U.S.?
And even IF Iraq and Afghanistan are at a total stalemate, have we not heard from every leader of the insurgency that they will fight until victory is theirs? The Islamist will to fight the infidel wherever he may be is a given--and therefore the second of the three situations generalized above will not ever apply to the radicals of the Islamist movement.
So there's only one option left: the AQ forces are in a bad situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "truce" talk is a brilliant tactic by bin Laden, of course: not only does it attempt to legitimize his terrorism in the international diplomacy arena, it also tries to change the battlefield away from Iraq and Afghanistan. And it employs a vastly superior warrior for AQ's cause to force U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East: the United States MSM that serves as a mouthpiece for the "left".
But serious people will not fall for OBL's lies.
Of course, "serious" people are not normally featured on the MSM.
Let me begin this article by stating for the record that I believe Al Qaeda are here in America. They are here, and they are planning something.
Call me cynical, or paranoid, or whatever you want, but I think anybody who asserts categorically that we are completely free of any threat from terrorists on U.S. soil is either selling something or lives in a world where the sky is constantly rainbow-colored.
And I have a feeling that they are planning something big. Again, I have no facts here to back that statement up--just a slight understanding of the history of terrorism as it relates to incidents here in the States and a knowledge of the Islamists' hate for the American way.
But I had a sense for that before yesterday. I didn't need bin Laden to tell me these things.
But what I didn't KNOW before his audiotape yesterday is that his forces are being routed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I realize that I'm reading between the lines a bit here, but ask yourself this: why else be the first "player" to speak of a truce?
Usually, "truce" is arrived at through three general developments: one party has accomplished their goal OR an impassable stalemate has emerged and the will to fight on is lacking on both sides OR one party decides they need to cut their losses before they are faced with annihilation. (Mind you, this third option only works if the offering party makes concessions significant enough to satisfy the war's other half)
From bin Laden's standpoint, I believe it would be very difficult to make a substantial claim that AQ has accomplished their goal in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan in particular, such a statement does not pass the sniff test at all.
And while the American left gets dizzy over comparing the situation in Iraq with VietNam, I ask you this: at what time did the North Vietnamese ever offer a truce with the U.S.?
And even IF Iraq and Afghanistan are at a total stalemate, have we not heard from every leader of the insurgency that they will fight until victory is theirs? The Islamist will to fight the infidel wherever he may be is a given--and therefore the second of the three situations generalized above will not ever apply to the radicals of the Islamist movement.
So there's only one option left: the AQ forces are in a bad situation in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "truce" talk is a brilliant tactic by bin Laden, of course: not only does it attempt to legitimize his terrorism in the international diplomacy arena, it also tries to change the battlefield away from Iraq and Afghanistan. And it employs a vastly superior warrior for AQ's cause to force U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East: the United States MSM that serves as a mouthpiece for the "left".
But serious people will not fall for OBL's lies.
Of course, "serious" people are not normally featured on the MSM.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home