“Al Qaeda has been decimated” sez Prez

| November 1, 2012

The President was in Wisconsin today and he told the crowd that “al Qaeda has been decimated”. Well, the original definition of the word is “reduced by ten percent” so he might be correct. From the Washington Times;

The president made the ire-inducing remark during a campaign stop at Austin Straubel International Airport Thursday morning where he spoke to a crowd of some 2,600 people. Obama, wearing a flight-jacket, addressed Hurricane Sandy relief efforts, then touched on the economy but highlighted what he framed as his accomplishments in foreign policy, including smiting Osama bin Laden and yes, “decimating al Qaeda.”

Well, there might be some argument on that point, if he meant decimated in the more modern sense. Like from the Chinese;

Chinese state media say Chinese Muslim separatists from the far northwestern region of Xinjiang are fighting alongside al-Qaida and other extremist groups opposed to Syria’s government.

Or the Spanish;

Spanish police have arrested six members of an al-Qaeda cell in Barcelona that was dedicated to providing a related terrorist cell in Germany with large numbers of stolen passports.

Or the Iraqis;

Al-Qaida is rebuilding in Iraq and has set up training camps for insurgents in the nation’s western deserts as the extremist group seizes on regional instability and government security failures to regain strength, officials say.

Iraq has seen a jump in al-Qaida attacks over the last 10 weeks, and officials believe most of the fighters are former prisoners who have either escaped from jail or were released by Iraqi authorities for lack of evidence after the U.S. military withdrawal last December. Many are said to be Saudi or from Sunni-dominated Gulf states.

Or the president’s own Secretary of Defense;

Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb and Ansar Dine are two militant groups suspected of human rights violations after they claimed autonomy in northern Mali following an early 2012 coup. U.N. officials said there were alleged reports of at least three recent summary executions, eight amputations and two floggings in northern Mali.

U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said al-Qaida must not be allowed to gain a foothold or “develop a command-and-control capability” in countries like Mali. “I believe the effort now ought to be to work with nations in that region to ensure that al-Qaida does not develop that kind of base in Mali,” he said.

Should we worry about the Burkha Brigade?

Al Qaeda has formed an all-female ‘Burkha Brigade’ whose cadres are being trained to infiltrate and hit military bases and official buildings in the Western nations as they are less likely to attract suspicion than men.

A film posted by fanatics online shows the all-female unit of Al Qaeda using a fearsome array of weapons, including machine-guns, grenade rocket launchers and sniper rifles during their training session at an unknown place.

The women are thought to have been recruited from the war-torn Russian republic of Chechnya by an Al Qaeda-linked group, with bases in Pakistan and Afghanistan, British tabloid The Sun reported on Sunday.

I don’t think “decimated” means what the President thinks it means.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War

Comments (28)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    “I don’t think ‘decimated’ means what the President thinks it means.” He’s up to his old tricks again, wht with the wordsmithing and all. Decimated indeed means what you said, reduced by a deci- or ten. But most of the English-speaking world understands decimated to mean annihilated. Thus, he gets to deliver the term as 10% and the crowd gets to hear it as 90%. No matter. It was a stupid rem,ark from an increasingly desperate fellow. It’s a shame he and the family get secret service protection for life.

  2. Hondo says:

    Bingo, Jonn. The term dates to the days of the early Roman Republic, nearly 2500 years ago. It was a punishment for a mutinous or cowardly unit.

    In the early Roman Republic, a unit to be decimated was divided into groups of 10; a member of each group was chosen by lot and then executed by the other nine, usually by stoning or bludgeoning. The survivors were given barley rations and forced to sleep outside the perimeter of the Roman encampment. In later Roman versions of the punishment, the persons killed were not necessarily killed by their unit comrades; however, the 1 in 10 ratio was generally preserved.

    A variation of the punishment was also reputedly used one Italian General in World War I and by one Soviet General at Stalingrad in World War II. These were apparently isolated instances vice a systemic discipline mechanism for either army.

  3. OWB says:

    The occupier is getting freakier and freakier by the day. His presser just before Sandy made landfall included the admonition that no one should worry, the gubmint was there to help everyone because “we leave no one behind” as Americans. Of all the words he could have chosen he picked those?

    Now this? Disgusting. But again, IF AQ has been decimated under his watch, it was in spite of him not because of him.

  4. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Again, OWB, you have to appreciate obamaspeak. Leaving no one behind is safe because it’s not the same as saying he would leave someone unaided or unprotected. It simply means that we’ll either get you out alive or pick you up dead later.

  5. UpNorth says:

    AQ “decimated”, as in, enabled, more widespread than ever? “Decimated”, as in their flag flying over a U.S. consulate and an Embassy? Yeah, nice job…

  6. OWB says:

    Indeed, AC. Meanwhile, his lies actually have gotten people killed dead.

  7. PintoNag says:

    Anybody ask AQ what they think about that comment?

    Might be the only time we get those homicidal cretins to laugh.

  8. DaveO says:

    Agree with PintoNag.

    Seems to me that under Obama, AQ has expanded from Mali to Syria, with the exception of Israel.

  9. Devtun says:

    Decimated as in…his sorry a$$ failed Presidency in 4.5 days…counting down to Tuesday. The Chicago thugs are going to have the shredders and incinerators running non-stop…

  10. B Woodman says:

    #3 OWB,
    “His presser” . . . ? Or do you mean his “fluffer”?

  11. LostBoys says:

    Just curious about the Obama-hate. As someone who was on the receiving end of Taliban IDF within the last 24-hours, I’m curious as to why you think Romney will be a better Commander-in-Chief. I’m concerned that Romney is already under the sway of the dipshit neo-cons who squandered our blood and treasure on the war in Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan. Now they seem to have their sites set on picking a fight with China.
    I’m really not trying to start a pissing contest, just curious as to your assessments of Romney’s potential as CINC.

  12. Hondo says:

    LostBoys: IMO, the current POTUS has set the bar for performance so low as both CINC and as POTUS that Howdy Doody could do a better job.

    And since you’re presumably relatively young, I’ll explain: Howdy Doody was a ventriloquist’s doll from a 1950s children’s TV show.

  13. SFC Holland says:

    @11- You’ll get no sympathy from me. You ain’t the only one over here.

  14. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Lost Boys #11; you’d better check and see who is picking a fight with China. I think it’s Leon Panetta.

  15. LostBoys says:

    Hondo/SFC Holland: Here’s the question again, really s l o w l y:
    “I’m really not trying to start a pissing contest, just curious as to your assessments of Romney’s potential as CINC.”

    You will note, there is no praise of the current CINC, just a simple question. You can even answer with one word like, “Incredible!” or “Blue!” or two words like “Fuck you!” But I was interested in knowing how folks on a milblog viewed Romney’s potential to command the armed forces.

    Hondo, no need to go all old school, I’m a retired Marine (DD-214 available on request with no Navy Cross or Purple Hearts), so I’m not a kid.

    SFC Holland, I wasn’t asking for sympathy, just asking whether those on this blog think Romney will be a better commander in chief and why.

  16. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    @11. To answer your question, we cannot not know what calibre of commander-in-chief Romney will be but we do know that obama’s approach has wrought havoc. We can begin with Benghazi and work back through the so-called Arab spring. One cannot evaluate a president as CIC without eyeing his approach to foreign policy. And one would be very hard pressed to find a rational and knowledgable American who would declare obama’s foreign policy a success. Here’s an opinion piece from yesterday’s Boston Globe (not exactly a neo-con haven) that hits a few obama foreign policy highlights. As for the pissing contest, I don’t want one with you either. What I want is for you and your fellow troops to get back here safe and sound.


  17. Old Trooper says:

    @15; That’s a fairt statement and question. First off; Romeny was not my first or second choice for the nomination of the GOP. I think he’s a little too middle of the road, however, compared to what is in there now, he appears to be a hard righty. I think he’ll do better as POTUS and CinC and I honestly don’t think he’s out there looking to pick a fight with anyone. Where I think Romeny is far and away the best choice is on economics. He has a track record of success in every venture he’s been involved with and has a reputation as a fixer. He came in to turn around the Olympics, when it was on the verge of collapse, and made it one of the most profitable ever. His charitable work is another source that tells you about the man. He gave away his inheritence to charity and built himself from scratch. He didn’t take a dime for all his work on the Olympics. He didn’t take a dime as Governor.

    I liked his answer in the debate that “you can’t kill your way out of the mess we’re in”, when talking about the current policy and his statement on needing to be respected. Not in the bowing, bootlicking version that Obama brought, but in meaning what we say.

  18. Hondo says:

    LostBoys: OK, here’s an answer – really S L O W L Y. For a second time.

    My previous comment implicitly gave my assessment; most people would have been able to figure that out themselves. But since you apparently need me to spell it out I will.

    Given the total fiasco we’ve seen to date IMO virtually anything would be an improvement. So I’m OK with taking a chance on a new POTUS and CINC this time around.

    Frankly, I have no clue about how Romney will do as CINC or POTUS right now. No one does. That’s true about every new POTUS. History proves that.

    A few examples: Carter had a decent record going in (USNA, served as a Naval officer, was a successful businessman and Governor) – and he was an abject failure. Truman’s record didn’t inspire much confidence as CINC or POTUS (political hack, not so good businessman, VP – and Bn Cdr isn’t exactly high command), but he did well. Ditto Eisenhower, whose prior record would lead you to expect he would. LBJ’s record was impressive, and he fornicated up by the numbers, especially as CINC. Nixon’s record was pedestrian to questionable, and he did well in both roles – until his natural paranoiac streak got the best of him, leading him to step over the line regarding Watergate.

    Bottom line: no one knows a priori how an individual will perform as either POTUS or CINC. It’s a question that cannot be answered prospectively; it can be answered only in retrospect.

  19. Ex-PH2 says:

    Why would Romney be better than Bo?

    Good question.

    Mostly because he is able to think for himself and make his own decisions. His successful record in the real world of real business shows good management skills and a valid interest in the job. He does come off a bit stiff, yes, but he’s not like that in person. I have no idea what his approach to the military will be, but I would assume that he will use some common sense and show some respect.

    Obama has allowed his entire career to be molded and directed by someone else. Based on his record in the state legislature in Illinois, and on the fact that he did not spend one minute of his time in DC creating relationships and networks with other senators but started campaigning for president as soon as he got to DC, he has shown himself to be after the glitz and glam of office, and not interested in doing the hard work required by that office.

    He has distanced himself from the legislature in DC from the beginning. He appears to be allowing someone else to make all of his decisions for him, some of which were bad decisions that have resulted in unnecessary deaths, and he has allowed unprecedented leaks of classified information to occur on a repeated basis, with the apparent intention of enhancing his ‘image’ in a campaign-related arena. Also, he began his campaign efforts in 2011, well ahead of the norm, just as he did after he was elected senator.

    He has no seeming interest in the job of president. He appears to only want the title. His campaign speeches reflect a distaste for American values, and many of his off-the-cuff remarks caught on video have been very unsettling.
    He’s shown poor, and in some cases no leadership skills. His administration has experienced what can only be politely called a revolving door of his Chicago affiliates, most notable being Bill Daley, who has a better ‘grasp’ on the Chicago ‘machine’ than Rahm Emmanuel. This is in addition to other people not from Chicago leaving his circle.

    His record is below average in legislation, however he has signed a large number of executive orders, some of which violate the US Constitution. You can find them at 1461Days, where they are published. He has not had a budget in place since 2009.

    He has regularly vacillated on taxes, national debt, and the military, so much so that it’s quite unclear what he wants, which leaves the rest of us with more uncertainty than we’ve ever faced before. He has refused to allow the sale of government-held shars of GM stock, which should have taken place two years ago, and has approved lending federal money to companies that had questionable management and are now bankrupt.

    He comes off as what many people here have justifiably described as an empty suit – all show and no go, no substance, and no real idea of or interest in the heavy responsibilities that the job of president of the US entails.

    When the debates took place this time, Obama did poorly on the first one, was overly aggressive on the second, and appeared bored by it all on the third. If you’re bored by it all, why would you expect me to vote for you?

    Are those enough reasons for you for not voting for Obama? I can come up with a lot more, but this is enough for me by itself.

    N.B.: Guys, please note I did not use one naughtt word or belittle the questioner.

  20. Hondo says:

    Ex-PH2: that is true. Then again, he didn’t belittle you, either. He did some of the rest of us.

    I lost my appetite for turning the other cheek years ago.

  21. Scubasteve says:

    He’s white. Why wouldn’t he do better? *sarcasm!*

  22. Hondo says:

    Kinda uncalled for IMO, Scubasteve – even as sarcasm. No need to give the liberals free ammunition.

  23. 2-17 Air Cav says:

    Well, he’s asking, at least. And based on some of the comments (including mine) sprinkled all over TAH, I don’t wonder that he might be a tad aggressive in an anticiaptory sort of way. Now, if I were to learn that his IP address traces to somewhere, say, in Secaucus, New Jersey, I would certainly have a different take on the matter.

  24. Devtun says:

    Helps if a POTUS actually LOVES and is HONORED to be a servant of the people in the nations highest office. That entails, you know tedious & mundane stuff like actually reading policy proposals, attending/holding meetings w/ national security officials, his Cabinet officers, members of Congress, jobs council…maybe actually liking to talk WITH and not TO people could help as well.

    No time to attend to his sworn duties, but alot of time being a celebrity, golfing, vacaying, campaigning flying to and fro on AF1…Americans have woken up to realization BO hasn’t made best use of precious time entrusted to him.

  25. Hondo says:

    IP address seems to be legit, 2-17th AirCav.

    Doesn’t excuse his being intentionally insulting or thick IMO. But it does mean he’s not doing so from Secaucas, NJ. (smile)

  26. Ex-PH2 says:

    Yes, how many actual and up-to-date photos of Bo in a Cabinet meeting have you seen in the last 18 months?

    Up until now, there was a constant stream of WH photos. I have photos somewhere of LBJ in a cabinet meeting, and I mean real prints, not the newspaper clippings, from the end of his administration.

  27. LostBoys says:

    Great answers, thanks!

  28. Casey says:

    For what it’s worth, Jerry Pournelle has measured him as a capable man who likes to surround himself with smart people, who he expects to speak up when the boss says something dumb. Sounds good to me. Just need to pick the right people.

    And yes, Lostboys, I agree that we’ve seen enough of the neo-con crusades.