Al Qaeda on the ropes

So for my liberal friends (and all liberals) the question is "was Bush wrong to go into Iraq?"

The answer, from our liberal friends, will be, predictably, "yes, Bush was wrong to go into Iraq!!!"

Afterall why let facts interfere with one's preconceptions?

Which leads inevitably to the issue of continuing to hold to beliefs clearly and irrefutably contradicted by established facts.

Continuing to hold beliefs contrary to established facts is the epitome of non-reason. In fact, it might fairly be described as a thought disorder. Think about it, you see with your own eyes that the sun is shining, yet, because you believe it is nighttime you insist that it is still dark.

That would certainly be fairly described as some kind or thought disorder (or stupidity). Set aside the question of stupidity for the moment, your friends are not stupid. They may, however lack the ability to reason.

Try it on your liberal friends. I predict that they will stick to their belief that Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, and that he should have been chasing bin Laden in order to defeat al Qaeda.

If you point out the contrary facts, that al Qaeda chose Iraq as a battlefield, they will a)deny the facts or b)suggest a conspiracy to conceal the "true" facts. Let me know if I am wrong.

In the meantime, let me suggest to you that there is something seriously wrong with a mental process which denies the facts to support cherished beliefs to the contrary.

Such delusions are common in schizophrenics. I'm not saying that all liberals are schizophrenics, but I am saying that denying clearly established facts in order to cling to contrary beliefs is some kind of thought disorder.

I must disagree with Ralph Peters on one point. I carefully read the non-classified portion (all 94 pages) of the IDA report and have come to the conclusion that, while the web connecting terrorist groups and sponsor nations is complicated and multidimensional, Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Saddam Hussein, himself, were very much connected. In fact, I would go so far as to say that although Osama bin Laden quickly grew to icon status, for a time, he and Al Qaeda were Saddam Hussein's proxies. Strange bedfellows, to be sure, but bedfellows, nonetheless.

The author is right when he says Al Qaeda is fighting for it's life, yet the the MSM reports on Al Qaeda's "resurgance" in Afghanistan. It's obvious what has happened, they've lost in Iraq and they are shutout of the rest of the world. Afghanistan is their last stand and since we don't have many troops there right now they can have some limited success and get in the news. As we start moving more forces from Iraq to Afghanistan it will be over for AQ. And then the MSM will drop this story so fast it will make your head spin.

Al Qaeda on the ropes? Only until the Messiah breaths new life into them.

I have a lot of anti-Islamist contacts in the Muslim world, and they confirm what Ed is saying. The flip side is that Islamists remain strong in South Asia (where close to 30 percent of all Muslims live, as opposed to 20 percent in the Middle East). This includes Al Qaeda and affiliated organizations there.

We've done a much better job than the left and the MSM will admit; but we need to push on and not allow our enemies to grow strong. There is a lot of anti-Islamist sentiment there, but we face pressure from Islamists, Communists, and appeasers that currently run every government in the region.

The threat is real and includes almost daily terrorist attacks on India as well as ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan.