Booze Blogging in Response
Clark Stooksbury writes:
Perhaps Stephen Green should stop killing brain cells with booze...
Ignore for a moment, that he confuses the motivations of a terrorist organization with those of a government. Can one really argue that the "9/11 attacks haven't worked out so well for al Qaeda?" What would be the basis for that? Sure, they lost their caves in Afghanistan, but bin Laden managed to find refuge in Pakistan. On the plus side for bin Laden, the attacks killed thousands of infidels and induced the United States into two wars. I assume that bin Laden thanks Allah every day for the invasion of Iraq, which has drawn the U.S. military into a quagmire and discredited America around the world.
Does Stooksbury really believe that the government of Iran isn't a terrorist organization? And does he not understand that, with its goal of reestablishing the Caliphate, al Qaeda at least pretends at government?
And, yes, 9/11 was a disaster for al Qaeda. They have yet to strike us again here at home. Their current crop of Iraqi suicide bombers come not from the educated middle and upper classes of the Middle East, but from gullible psychopaths. Al Qaeda's constant terror in Iraq has turned even Sunni Arab populations against them. The US is so discredited that even the French have come around -- although maybe that's a point in Stooksbury's favor. And, oh yeah, we've killed thousands of the terrorist bastards on the battlefields of those two wars.
Is bin Laden, hiding in his upgraded Pakistani cave, really happy about all that? Then why was his latest video sermon directed at the likes of Stooksbury, instead of at the Muslim masses as before?
Drunk, it seems I understand more than Stooksbury does sober. He's welcome to join me at the bar.
Article printed from VodkaPundit: http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2007/9/22/booze-blogging-in-response