Who would al-Qaeda vote for the next US president? - P2P-Zone

TankGirl · 23-03-04, 04:19 AM

It is quite obvious. And they might well cast their vote, should their candidate need it.

- tg

tambourine-man · 23-03-04, 04:58 AM

Quote:

From: article
But a simple truck bomb in some US city centre a few months before the election, killing just a couple of dozen Americans, could drive voters back into Mr. Bush's arms and turn a tight election around. Al-Qaeda is clever enough for that.

So is Mr Bush.

JackSpratts · 23-03-04, 09:20 AM

all this bush supporter (bs) talk about how we should vote for bush because we haven't been attacked (since the big one happened on his watch) brings up an interesting question. does this mean we shouldn't vote for him if we are attacked? that's what logic dictates. not that we can expect bs'ers to follow their own strange brand of it here. if there is another attack they'll certainly use it as the most important reason of all to vote for him, while insisting kerry's the one who waffles.

"vote for bush - we haven't been attacked!

- or -

vote for bush - we have been attacked!

like, whatever dude. don't think, just vote for him."

no thanks.

- js.

Ramona_A_Stone · 23-03-04, 12:24 PM

Quote:

The successive warnings of ill-defined threats that frighten many Americans are achieving the very aim of the terrorists.

Of course terrorism is a stratagem of provocation, so of course they want a dumbass that can not only be provoked, but stakes his ENTIRE IMAGE on the divine righteousness of being thus intimidated.

The terrorists are not only counting on Mr. Bush, they are counting on all those Americans who support him to fall for their messages around the world, to call the Spanish "wimps" etc. and to chant the slogan "you're either with us, or with the terrorists."

This very slogan must have elicited much cheering among them because they couldn't have asked for a more empowering sentiment if they had scripted it themselves... but then of course they did script it themselves, didn't they?

If you're a horsefly and you want to bring down a lumberjack, you'll consider yourself very blessed to find a lumberjack stupid enough to swing his own ax at you every time you land on him. Just a few little bites from you and the poor big dumbass will hack himself to bits.

Repo · 23-03-04, 12:27 PM

With the Madrid terror attacks, terrorism is now proving to be a risky political spin game. It was risky for Spain's outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and it is risky for George W. Bush but that hasn't stopped the Bushies from continuing their spin on terrorism...

Aznar tried to spin the Madrid attacks as the deeds of a local separatist group when the facts leaned toward Muslim extremists. According to Spanish papers voters threw out the ruling party and elected the Socialists mainly because the people were misled by Aznar's government, that and the fact that most Spaniards didn't support the Iraq war. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect campaigned on a platform to bring the Spanish troops home from Iraq. George W. Bush's reelection team is now trying to spin Zapatero's win as appeasement to terrorism. Spinning terrorism is dangerous but spinning terrorism is the one thing George W. Bush knows how to do. Bush has been spinning terrorism since the 9-11 attacks. Some of the Bush spins include: Saddam had something to do with 9-11, Saddam was trying to get nuclear components from Africa, Saddam and bin Laden worked together, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the capabilities to deliver them on the continental USA, that the world was safer with Saddam behind bars. None of the spin turned out to be true. Now Bush is trying to spin the Zapatero win as an appeasement to terrorism. Bush is the master of spinning terrorism, to some degree terrorism has been good to Bush; without terrorism Bush would be nothing more than a failed president. Terrorism lets Bush keep America distracted from his failed economic policies. Bush has to spin terrorism or he can't win reelection but it is a risky campaign tool, considering that Spanish voters threw out the incumbent party because they were misled. Will American voters now react the same way Spanish voters did by throwing out Bush for misleading them into a war?

Bush ran in 2000 on being a straight shooter, the facts prove he is anything but a straight shooter. After the 9-11 attack the Bush Administration withheld information on the quality of air in New York City misleading the public to think the air was safe and the same Bush Administration withheld the true accounting numbers to Congress for the recently passed Medicare legislation, misleading conservatives on the real cost. The Bush Administration misleads their own Republican Congress. If a Republican member of Congress can't trust their own Republican president, who can? That is why the Bush team is spinning the Zapatero win as an appeasement to terrorism, if they admit it was for misleading the Spanish public, Bush's own chances don't look good and that is without the economy and jobs factored in...

The Bush team will try and make the claim that electing John Kerry would also be an appeasement to terrorism. The reality is that Bush has already appeased the terrorists by taking the American troops out of Saudi Arabia; that is what 9-11 was all about; bin Laden wanted the American military out of the sacred lands of Mecca. It is easier for bin Laden to overthrow the Saudi Royal family if the U.S. is out of Saudi Arabia. The American troops were only there to oversee the flyovers of Iraq and now that Saddam is gone there are no more flyovers. Bush did what bin Laden wanted; he moved the troops out of Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately he moved them into Iraq with thousands more troops and National Guard units from the United States. Leave it to the empty Bush cranium to appease the terrorists and antagonize them at the same time...

Terrorists need a cause; by occupying Iraq, the terrorists have a new cause. The occupation also gives them countless recruits and the PR they needed in the Muslim world...

It is ironic that Bush spins the premise that opposing him appeases the terrorists when in fact George W. Bush is the best thing that has ever happened to terrorists. Terrorism is a risky political spin game but misleading the public is even riskier, just ask Spain's outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar...

daddydirt · 24-03-04, 02:44 AM

it's quite obvious to me after reading Al-Zawahiri's Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, that Al-Qaeda sees no difference between a Democratic or Republican administration.

if elected, it's not as if Kerry is going to cut off aid to Israel, abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, or let the regimes fall in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. the only thing that will change are tactics, and these changes will not make the jihadists hate us any less.

given the Democrat's proclivity for overreaction when perceived as "soft" on an issue, *cough*(increased marijuana possession arrests during Clinton administration) things might get even tougher for Al-Qaeda if Kerry gets elected.

there's the revenge factor to consider also. if given a second chance, those who screwed up so royally during the Clinton years will be out for blood.

23-03-04, 04:19 AM	#1
TankGirl Madame Comrade Join Date: May 2000 Location: Area 25 Posts: 5,587	Who would al-Qaeda vote for the next US president? It is quite obvious. And they might well cast their vote, should their candidate need it. - tg

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23-03-04, 09:20 AM	#3
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,016	all this bush supporter (bs) talk about how we should vote for bush because we haven't been attacked (since the big one happened on his watch) brings up an interesting question. does this mean we shouldn't vote for him if we are attacked? that's what logic dictates. not that we can expect bs'ers to follow their own strange brand of it here. if there is another attack they'll certainly use it as the most important reason of all to vote for him, while insisting kerry's the one who waffles. "vote for bush - we haven't been attacked! - or - vote for bush - we have been attacked! like, whatever dude. don't think, just vote for him." no thanks. - js.

23-03-04, 12:27 PM	#5
Repo Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 123	With the Madrid terror attacks, terrorism is now proving to be a risky political spin game. It was risky for Spain's outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and it is risky for George W. Bush but that hasn't stopped the Bushies from continuing their spin on terrorism... Aznar tried to spin the Madrid attacks as the deeds of a local separatist group when the facts leaned toward Muslim extremists. According to Spanish papers voters threw out the ruling party and elected the Socialists mainly because the people were misled by Aznar's government, that and the fact that most Spaniards didn't support the Iraq war. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect campaigned on a platform to bring the Spanish troops home from Iraq. George W. Bush's reelection team is now trying to spin Zapatero's win as appeasement to terrorism. Spinning terrorism is dangerous but spinning terrorism is the one thing George W. Bush knows how to do. Bush has been spinning terrorism since the 9-11 attacks. Some of the Bush spins include: Saddam had something to do with 9-11, Saddam was trying to get nuclear components from Africa, Saddam and bin Laden worked together, Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the capabilities to deliver them on the continental USA, that the world was safer with Saddam behind bars. None of the spin turned out to be true. Now Bush is trying to spin the Zapatero win as an appeasement to terrorism. Bush is the master of spinning terrorism, to some degree terrorism has been good to Bush; without terrorism Bush would be nothing more than a failed president. Terrorism lets Bush keep America distracted from his failed economic policies. Bush has to spin terrorism or he can't win reelection but it is a risky campaign tool, considering that Spanish voters threw out the incumbent party because they were misled. Will American voters now react the same way Spanish voters did by throwing out Bush for misleading them into a war? Bush ran in 2000 on being a straight shooter, the facts prove he is anything but a straight shooter. After the 9-11 attack the Bush Administration withheld information on the quality of air in New York City misleading the public to think the air was safe and the same Bush Administration withheld the true accounting numbers to Congress for the recently passed Medicare legislation, misleading conservatives on the real cost. The Bush Administration misleads their own Republican Congress. If a Republican member of Congress can't trust their own Republican president, who can? That is why the Bush team is spinning the Zapatero win as an appeasement to terrorism, if they admit it was for misleading the Spanish public, Bush's own chances don't look good and that is without the economy and jobs factored in... The Bush team will try and make the claim that electing John Kerry would also be an appeasement to terrorism. The reality is that Bush has already appeased the terrorists by taking the American troops out of Saudi Arabia; that is what 9-11 was all about; bin Laden wanted the American military out of the sacred lands of Mecca. It is easier for bin Laden to overthrow the Saudi Royal family if the U.S. is out of Saudi Arabia. The American troops were only there to oversee the flyovers of Iraq and now that Saddam is gone there are no more flyovers. Bush did what bin Laden wanted; he moved the troops out of Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately he moved them into Iraq with thousands more troops and National Guard units from the United States. Leave it to the empty Bush cranium to appease the terrorists and antagonize them at the same time... Terrorists need a cause; by occupying Iraq, the terrorists have a new cause. The occupation also gives them countless recruits and the PR they needed in the Muslim world... It is ironic that Bush spins the premise that opposing him appeases the terrorists when in fact George W. Bush is the best thing that has ever happened to terrorists. Terrorism is a risky political spin game but misleading the public is even riskier, just ask Spain's outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar...

24-03-04, 02:44 AM	#6
daddydirt even the losers Join Date: Jun 2000 Posts: 1,090	it's quite obvious to me after reading Al-Zawahiri's Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, that Al-Qaeda sees no difference between a Democratic or Republican administration. if elected, it's not as if Kerry is going to cut off aid to Israel, abandon Iraq and Afghanistan, or let the regimes fall in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. the only thing that will change are tactics, and these changes will not make the jihadists hate us any less. given the Democrat's proclivity for overreaction when perceived as "soft" on an issue, cough(increased marijuana possession arrests during Clinton administration) things might get even tougher for Al-Qaeda if Kerry gets elected. there's the revenge factor to consider also. if given a second chance, those who screwed up so royally during the Clinton years will be out for blood.