The Ghost of Snapped Shot

so the entire reason you're calling abu jayab a "terrorist" is because of where he lives?

since you seem to think that obama is a terrorist sympathizer, if obama wins next week then by your logic you'll be a terrorist sympathizer too, right?

and if this article from gaza is so important to you, what is your reaction to the fact that a prominent al qaeda web site has posted an endorsement of john mccain?

Noz,

On the first point, as Charles Johnson so aptly points out, nothing gets reported from the Gaza Strip without the explicit control of Hamas. Therefore, when considering the tight control that Hamas has over the media stringers that report from there, it can be pretty clearly inferred that Hamas (the terrorist organization) supports Obama. Not that there isn't already enough direct evidence to that effect already.

(I wasn't specifically calling the "youth" in question a terrorist, by the way. The terrorist group that he is acting as a [i]puppet[/i] for is, though.)

On to the second point, I think this should be sufficient to clear up your baseless allegation. One random poster on an Al Qaeda forum "endorsed" John McCain. That's not exactly the same thing as saying [i]all[/i] of Al Qaeda endorsed him, just so you know.

HTH,

Regards,
Brian

i wouldn't call charles johnson an expert on the gaza strip or hamas. hamas does censor the palestinian press in gaza, but it doesn't impose many restrictions on foreign news organizations in the territory. that's why it's quite common to see press reports about gazans complaining about conditions under hamas. the fact that AP got to talk to abu jayab doesn't indicate either way how the hamas leadership feels. for some reason johnson prefers to see the world in terms of cartoonish (and often inaccurate) depictions of the rest of the world. 2 months ago, i was in the occupied territories. it was nablus, on the west bank, and not gaza. but nablus' mayor is a member of hamas. and yet i managed to talk to whoever i wanted without any problems. i then crossed back into israel and wrote about the experience online. again, no one cared.

oh and it's more than one random poster on the al qaeda message boards. it was several.

but you're right that a few random posts on an al qaeda web site is a stupid reason to decide between mccain or obama. if you otherwise favor mccain's policies, there's no reason the rantings of crazy radicals in other parts of the world might be. but likewise, thinking that hamas' "endorsement" of obama should make any difference to anyone in the u.s. is just as stupid.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts; I'm inclined to side with CJ's interpretation of things on the ground over there, but I do always value hearing the other side of the story. (Especially from the couple of wire stringers over in the West Bank that I hear from every so often.)

On the weight that either "endorsement" will have on the election, I think we are both in agreement. There is nothing in the [i]world[/i] that is going to sway voters like these.

;)

Regards,
Brian

Ah, just occurred to me after I clicked on the Submit button (nuts):

I will add that I find it curious that pronouncements of Al Qaeda's "support" for John McCain, based on what we both agree is "random" posters on an Al Qaeda message board, were trumpeted as BIG NEWS by quite a few media outlets.

On Obama's [url=http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/16/a-hamas-problem-for-obama/][i]far[/i] more explicit endorsement[/url],—which was issued by a de-facto, honest-to-Allah [i]leader[/i] of Hamas—not so much coverage.

I find the double standard to be amusing, of course.

Regards,
Brian

Also, Obama and Ayers have something in common. They both have friends that tried to blow up the Pentagon.

wow, that's quite a slogan captainfish!

except it's not true. who is obama's friend who tried to blow up the pentagon?

AYERS!!!!! you dufus.

so then forgive me for my confusion, it appears that captain fish is not making sense. first the good captain says:

"Obama and Ayers have something in common. They both have friends that tried to blow up the Pentagon."

in other words, he is saying that ayers had friends who tried to blow up the pentagon and that obama had friends who tried to blow up the pentagon. but then it turns out, captainfish was not referring to two different would-be pentagon bombers, he was talking about ayers both times. which means his original comment was, at the very least, highly misleading.

it's actually factually wrong. as obama himself has said, ayers was not obama's friend. he is someone that obama served on a board with. many of the south side of chicago's republican leaders were also on that board. it doesn't mean they were friends with him or supported either his current or past views. board meetings are not generally gathers of friends. for what it's worth, none of the board meetings i have attended have involved any of my friends.

ayers also held a fundraiser for obama when he first ran for state senate. but again, i've been to those kinds of things too. politicians, will never turn down the invitation for a fundraising event. it doesn't mean that they are friends, or that obama has ever shown any approval for ayer's terrorism days. on the contrary, he's been quite specific in condemning those actions.

so much of the argument against obama is flimsy guilt-by-association. i really think it's the only thing that republicans are able to coherently argue these days. that's why mccain's entire campaign has descending to little more than name-calling and guilt-by-association. he loses on the merits of most issues. and, it also looks like he's losing on the guilt-by-association thing as well this year.

its sad how some people dont know that william ayers tryed to blow up the pentagon. such idiots.