Noesy Online: Makes Me Laugh
What makes him laugh is Captain Ed’s suggestion that this might be taken as a sign that Al Qaeda is weakening:
Then what the hell do you think happened on 7/7 in London? That was only a month ago. So I guess the theory that the Jordan attacks signify Al Qaeda’s downfall is a little bit baseless.
He then points out an earlier post by the Captain about how the London attack may have been coordinated.
These guys have such a short memory, I don’t think it’s possible to ever have a straight debate with them. Which one is it Ed? Are they a stinking dying corpse? Or are they a successful outfit that still gets commands from places like Pakistan? Make up your mind before making such statements.
I commented on Nosey Online:
For the record, I clearly stated that I wasn’t buying 100% of what Captain Ed was saying.
That being said, a pitiful rocket attack on some ships in port and a suicide attack against a bus and some trains a new offensive does not make. For a real offensive, you need something like 29 divisions or so. Like what the Germans used in December of 1944.
Oh, yeah. They were already a “stinking dying corpse” by then, too.
I don’t think this rocket attack (or the 7/7 attack, for that matter) proves anything, really. But in 2000 they could blow a hole in one of our ships and kill 17 sailors and in 2005 they managed to blow a hole in a warehouse and kill one Jordanian. So I’d be hesitant to use this as proof that AQ is alive and well.
I’d say, looking at the African Embassy attacks, the Cole, 9/11, Madrid, 7/7, and now Jordan (necessarily in that order), you certainly wouldn’t draw the conclusion that Al Qaeda is more or less unaffected.
I realize that there are other attacks and many other factors to be considered. But I’m talking attacks on the Anglosphere, here. And I think it’s safe to say that this trend doesn’t necessarily prove anything.
On another front, the comments section of the earlier post seems to have degenerated into a “You said the Iraqis would greet us with roses!” – “No I didn’t!” argument, which is curious. And disappointing.
Hey, NewsHour guys? It’s okay to call them terrorists instead of “attackers”. It’s what they are.
Now, I’m basically in agreement with the post, but “terrorists” attack civilians. So “attackers” is okay with me. This time.
And now on to the silliness:
All we need to do is remember “we’re making progress”, “stay the course” and remember that “freedom is hard work”…
Are you ready Bush to step up and be a leader? Cause WWIII is knocking on your vacationing ass in Crawford. No amount of flipping off the media will stop any of the situations that continue to plague your administration.
Actually, I hold the position that this is WW4, not 3. I have more than quibbles with the rest, as well.
It was the most serious militant attack on the Navy since the USS Cole was bombed in 2000.
George Bush immediately promised an invasion of Venezuela!
Dickhead Cheney immediately declared Jordan was in its “last throes”.
Donald Duck Rumsfeld declared that the people who launched the missiles were “dead-enders” or “foreign fighters” then went on to ask himself rhetorical questions.
“Am I angered that missiles were launched against our boat? Yes.”
“Do I ask myself questions that I can answer to prevent reporters from asking real questions? Yes.”
“You go to the podium to answer questions you have not the questions you want.”
Good, high-quality commentary, to be sure.
UPDATE: More on this here.