Thursday, July 06, 2006

No, No, It Was The Other Muhajir

How does the US Government decide who the number two guy in alQaeda is? Do they stick a bunch of Arabic names in a hat and draw out enough for a sinister sounding name? Do they tack photos of known alQaeda operatives to a wall and then throw a dart?
This isn't the first time the govewrnment has been wrong in the war on terror. In fact, the first time came hours after 9/11, when 7 out of 19 hijackers named by the FBI turned out to still be alive. Even then FBI director Louis Freeh acknowledged "we don't know who these people are", and yet never bothered to remove them from the list nor find out who really was on the plane. There are evn some who suggest Osama is dead, even though he has yet to stop making tapes (no more videotapes though, since the last actor playing him barely resembled him) to be released at convenient times for the Bush administration.
Now comes word that Zarqawi's successor as number two guy in alQaeda has been in jail for the last seven years!According to his lawyer, Abu Hamza-alMujahir sits in a prison in Cairo and hasn't been anywhere near Iraq. Of course, that means little to the Bush ADD-ministration, as long as they have a mean looking man of Arab decsent to shake at the American people, they can keep them terrified long enough to remove more of their civil liberties.
The US media center in Iraq had no comment on this matter, and said they had to clarify this with the Egyptian government, but until that time, all alQaeda activity in Iraq will be blamed on al_Muhajir.


pissed off patricia said...

To tell you the truth, all the names sound pretty much alike to me. I've given up trying to tell them apart.

Newsguy said...

Don't be surprised if Osama turns up in US Marine custody in Pakistan or Afghanistan in the middle of October just before the mid-terms. I speculate that he's in custody now in some remote secret prison.

kissfan said...

What kills me is the number of times we've caught al Qaeda's number 2. Just about every month we've managed to catch the #2 man in Iraq or the #2 man in al Qaeda. Hell, eventually you'd think we'd have to start catching four or five or maybe even seven. Methinks it's all just a bunch of feel-good BS to make it look like we're doing more than just stepping on our own dicks over there.

Kvatch said...

To life a line from Good Morning America...

"We go to every Arabic-looking guy and say, 'Are you al Qaeda's #2? And if he say's yes, we render him. (rendify? renderize?)"

romunov said...

With every frag of #2, the rest gets a promotion. And looks like the US military doesn't settle for anything less than #2... or more than 1 for that matter.

Perhaps they're holding him in, just like some alledge they held Hussein. They arrested him in December, but the pictures with ripe fruit looked like the event might have taken earlier. However something BIG will have to happen to blame it on Osama, becaus why would they bring him in upon leaving office?

Left of Center said...

Funny to how we just happened to find papers from the terrorists in the rubble that was the twin towers. They also say ridiculous stuff like we hqave 3/4 of Al Quidas leadership dead or captured... WTF, how do do they know? Given that a certain percent of the population will believe any lie... they just continue unopposed, and the media is their biggest coconspirator.

Cartledge said...

Okay, you got me curious, I visited, I rolled on the floor and etc.
Good to see some one who canb take the piss so delightfully!

Snave said...

"Catching Osama" would give Bu$hCo a boost, but I believe it might not necessarily provide an overall boost to GOP House and Senate candidates this fall.

I agree totally with Newsguy. The GOP is desperate, and they need an October Surprise of some kind. If Osama isn't "captured" this year, I actually think they would wait until right before the 08 presidential elections to produce him out of their political hat.

I am certainly not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but as much as the righties like to say that whatever Hillary Clinton does is for political expedience, I like to suggest that whatever the Bush administration does with Iraq and war on terror is getting to be the same way. If "gains" appear to be made in Iraq, I predict they will happen at politically expedient times for the GOP. The Republican leadership can use the Iraq war like a nice big stick with which to club its Democratic opponents. The party is desperate, losing lots of its swagger, and they will be tapping into the anti-gay-marriage, anti-flag-burning, and anti-abortion "hot buttons"... and probably the war and terrorism thing more than ever.

I believe our troops DID accomplish the military mission: they removed Saddam from power and they captured him. And I think that much was a job mostly well done, even if I think it wasn't entirely necessary at that exact time. Sure, he was probably a somewhat destabilizing influence in his part of the world. But I believe the rest of the Iraq mess can only be resolved by the Iraqis themselves. Time for us to start redeploying our military.

Watching the Bush administration tell us we need to "stay the course" simply makes me sick. I think it is just a cynical way on their part of using our fine military to keep their power here in the U.S. So some of the troops get killed in Iraq... does the Bush administration care? How many American voters can they manipulate with their war and terror stuff? Still lots, apparently.

Gaining control over more of the Middle East's natural resources is nice too. And there is the added attraction for many fundamentalist Americans of a religious conflict. I don't recall who it was that said fundamentalism is all about power... I think that is mostly what the Bush administration is about.