WE WANT BUSH TO WIN


The statement said it supported President Bush (news - web sites) in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."


In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:


"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."


"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721

Interesting.

Could mean anything and the group claiming the connection is questionable, but yeah... it's interesting~

Very interesting.

rofl, so they are basically saying that the democrats are so bad they would rather have Bush?

Originally posted by contra
rofl, so they are basically saying that the democrats are so bad they would rather have Bush?
Uh, no.
not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush)
Translation: Bush is an idiot
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
Translation: Dems have the ability to convince muslims to not be extremists and terrorists.

Now where exactly did you get your interpretation?

I agree. It is totally unsubstantiated and even the connection to the blast is weak, at best, just found it interesting.

Contra-

I found your analysis quite illuminating. :rolleyes:

how about this analysis...if it is actually true.....they say they want Bush to win because they think that if they say that that people will naturally vote against him therefore putting a pacifistic moron like Kerry in office and making their job a whole lot easier.

How no one would be able to see right through something this simple is staggering.

i think they just like getting shot at.

they are doing it to undermine Bush because they want Kerry because democrats are pussies

Originally posted by igofast

Translation: Dems have the ability to convince muslims to not be extremists and terrorists.


Thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. It was under democratic leadership that the WTC was bombed in 1993 and the 9-11 planning was instigated. What about the USS Cole? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by frankiep
how about this analysis...if it is actually true.....they say they want Bush to win because they think that if they say that that people will naturally vote against him therefore putting a pacifistic moron like Kerry in office and making their job a whole lot easier.

How no one would be able to see right through something this simple is staggering.

I was thinking they were thinking they would say that, assume we would think they would want us to see through it to elect Kerry and thus really elect Bush making their original commentz actually, yet complexly, true.

It's a bit like the iocane powder thing, isn't it? :confused:

come on Spabs, you can do better than that

KERRY: NO FOREIGN ENDORSEMENTS, PLEASE... Kerry Foreign Policy Advisor Rand Beers issued the following statement today: '...It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America's presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements'...


on Drudge...politics in the US as usual hahahaaaaaa
They have to endorse Bush. Kerry won't accept it.

Originally posted by frankiep
come on Spabs, you can do better than that

I'll try harder next time. Maybe.

I did read in a different article about this same group that the British don't consider them as having ties to "real" terrorists as they haven't performed any terrorist acts and instead tend to make statements latching themselves onto acts commited by "real terrorists".

I didn't know what to make of that either.

LOL Ridiculous. Even if we were to take the stuff about Bush seriously, the suggestion that Al Qaeda would say, "If you elect the Democrats you will destroy us" is ridiculous. Al Qaeda doesn't see itself as something which can be destroyed, ESPECIALLY by the Americans.

No, I think its some European islamic fellow who keeps abreast of Western politics.

Originally posted by SpabSFW


I'll try harder next time. Maybe.

I did read in a different article about this same group that the British don't consider them as having ties to "real" terrorists as they haven't performed any terrorist acts and instead tend to make statements latching themselves onto acts commited by "real terrorists".

I didn't know what to make of that either.

I think this was the group which claimed responsibility for the New York power outage, and thats why the British dismissed them.

Pesonally, I'd like to see the correspondence in its entirety.

This is obviously some kind of psychological BS because they were able to fund, train, and operate pretty openly under the previous Democrat administration. They were also rarely, if ever, held accountable in any way for their terroism. Its clear which enviornment they would prefer.

Look, its pretty clear that they don't want Bush to win. He's dismantled a large portion of their terror network and killed a lot of their leadership among other things security wise.

I don't buy it.
Sorry.

Bush took out Saddam, why wouldn't Al-Qaeda want him re-elected?

He also gave some of his family members an express flight out of the US shortly after 9-11.

He also has taken steps to remove American freedoms, something Al-Qaeda could never do.

Who would vote for Al-Qaeada next November??

I like this thread because it brings out people who were all anti-Kerry in that bizzarre "NORTH KOREA SUPPORTS KERRY" thread.

N Korea does support Kerry.

A few weeks ago, Kim Jung Il gave his endorsement in the form of positive coverage of Kerry on his state run television. Yesterday we had the new Socialist leader of Spain give his endorsement. Today we get the former leader of Malaysia coming out publicly.

Today we have;

Kerry Rejects Foreign Endorsement


Thursday, March 18, 2004

WASHINGTON — He may have not been one of the foreign leaders with whom John Kerry (search) spoke about his presidential candidacy, but former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (search) endorsed Kerry anyway on Thursday.


The former prime minister, who made headlines in October for saying at an Islamic Summit Conference that "the Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews,".


LOL.

Originally posted by Powerboss
N Korea does support Kerry.

A few weeks ago, Kim Jung Il gave his endorsement in the form of positive coverage of Kerry on his state run television. Yesterday we had the new Socialist leader of Spain give his endorsement. Today we get the former leader of Malaysia coming out publicly.

Today we have;

Kerry Rejects Foreign Endorsement


Thursday, March 18, 2004

WASHINGTON — He may have not been one of the foreign leaders with whom John Kerry (search) spoke about his presidential candidacy, but former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad (search) endorsed Kerry anyway on Thursday.


The former prime minister, who made headlines in October for saying at an Islamic Summit Conference that "the Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews,".


LOL.


Oh well, looks like we need to feed them both to the wolves, and vote for third parties..

Originally posted by Sulla the Dictator


I think this was the group which claimed responsibility for the New York power outage, and thats why the British dismissed them.

Yes, same. Thx, couldn't remember the details, I was skimming.

Look, its pretty clear that they don't want Bush to win. He's dismantled a large portion of their terror network and killed a lot of their leadership among other things security wise.

Let's look at it this way: they want to boost religious fundamentalism. Also, to a lesser degree, they want the US to stop interfering in their region.

Bush will keep meddling over there, thus providing Al Qaeda with excellent arguments to try and convince people to join them. Since they think they can ultimately beat the west this will give them an opportunity to achieve the second goal, in their view, though not a good chance.

Kerry will most likely turn the heat down. Even though this will give them their second objective, it will greatly diminish their chance for popular support.

Ergo, Bush is the better candidate for them.

Let's look at it this way: they want to boost religious fundamentalism. Also, to a lesser degree, they want the US to stop interfering in their region.

Bush will keep meddling over there, thus providing Al Qaeda with excellent arguments to try and convince people to join them. Since they think they can ultimately beat the west this will give them an opportunity to achieve the second goal, in their view, though not a good chance.

Kerry will most likely turn the heat down. Even though this will give them their second objective, it will greatly diminish their chance for popular support.

Ergo, Bush is the better candidate for them.


Do you have documented evidence that fundamentalism has increased?

Its obvious Al-Quaeda supports Kerry. This is just a jab at Bush to undermine him and prop up Kerry.

^oh yes, it's so obvious

Jeez if I was Al qaeda I would want Bush leading America to. Always glad to have a leader of my enemy who can be guaranteed to react emotionally, who dosent have the paitence for diplomacy, who really isnt knowledgeable on world geography, who can be counted on to alienate his friends, and last but not least can make a rock seem intelligent.

Why wouldnt they support Bush he has been very good to them so far. He gave them a place to target them and at the same time diverted all those lovely resources in a fight against their enemy.

.

Sorry missed one thing

Why is it that every time their is a critical juncture in Western/Judeao/Islamic relations the terrorists are able to through an attack get western/judeao governments to react and do exactly what they want them to. When Israel and Palistine enter into any discussions all Hamas has to do it set off a suicide bomber or two and when Al qaeda wants Americans to enact legislation that is oppressive or react with force all they have to do is slam a couple of airplanes into building in the USA.

When are we going to wise up and see if we are going to eliminate terrorism we need to fix the bloody things that are at the root cause of it all. Poverty, lack of education, and the left overs of actions by governments that uprooted and disenfrancised innocent people in the past. Those actions each and every one of them, the UN creation of Israel ( they way it was done ), the British domination of Ireland, Spanish Colonializeation of South and Central America, Wiping out the North American Indians, Playing Muslims against Hindu's in the Indian subcontinent, French mining the life out of South east asia, were just plain brutal on the plain ordinary people who live their.

In the case of Indochina it took a conflict like vietnam to begin to solve. In India it still is going on between Hindu and Muslim. In North America both the US and Canada have disenfrancised, addicted, segregated, populations of First Nations that continue to drain both them and us with an incredible wasted effort. (continuation of a welfare state) In Ireland centuries of conflict are finally being resolved through political rather than military action. ( It will take decades to fully resolve but in the end Ireland will be a great place). While in the Middle east the military conflict continues not to solve anyting.

The solution in the middle east lies not in military action but Political action. Quit dropping bombs, start diplomacy. Forget the bloody past. Forget that the Americans attacked Iraq. Forget the WMD's. (Phased Ban of them !!!, No exceptions USA) Get the West out of Arabia empower them to do it themselves. A Pan Middle east Solution. Create a multi National Middle eastern force through the UN get every middle eastern country to agree to Umpires from that same force. Every one share the costs dont force the US to. And most importantly find a freakin alternative energy source that makes oil obsolete that is cheap and renewable!!!!

When are we going to wise up and see if we are going to eliminate terrorism we need to fix the bloody things that are at the root cause of it all.

WE are the root of it all. It's us our them incase you haven't noticed.

Originally posted by Powerboss

Do you have documented evidence that fundamentalism has increased?

I think the fact that the twin towers are no longer there speaks volumes.

As a result of not going after the filthy bums for a decade and letting them grow, strengthen, and fester.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
I think the fact that the twin towers are no longer there speaks volumes.

So Zaphod Beeblebrox's answer to the twin towers falling would have been giving money to Afghanistan and Iraq?

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Let's look at it this way: they want to boost religious fundamentalism. Also, to a lesser degree, they want the US to stop interfering in their region.


....And you feel comfortable with your selective reading of their demands?


Bush will keep meddling over there, thus providing Al Qaeda with excellent arguments to try and convince people to join them.


Al Qaeda doesn't believe it is 'unpopular'. Al Qaeda already thinks the people agree with them.


Since they think they can ultimately beat the west this will give them an opportunity to achieve the second goal, in their view, though not a good chance.

Kerry will most likely turn the heat down. Even though this will give them their second objective, it will greatly diminish their chance for popular support.


LOL Except that they will have been percieved to have WON, which will embolden them and result in a higher recruitment due to their ACTUAL victory. Utter rubbish.


Ergo, Bush is the better candidate for them.

Except he is not, and has destroyed swaths of their movement.

Well, we have a fundamental difference in opinion considering how terorrism should be eliminated.

You two want to fight the symptoms, I want to fight the disease.

I want to completely eradicate the disease at its source, with radiation.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox

You two want to fight the symptoms, I want to fight the disease.

Appease, in other words. :p

Originally posted by Powerboss
As a result of not going after the filthy bums for a decade and letting them grow, strengthen, and fester.

Yeah, Reagan really should have done more to stop the festering Islamic Revolution in Iran besides just helping Saddam prevent the scourge from reaching Saudi Arabia. Had Reagan done more to grind the radicals into the ground then we likely wouldn't be in such a pickle now.

And geez...arming and training OBL to fight using terror-tactics against the Soviet uberenemy instead of fighting that war himself... What the hell was he thinking!?!?

That damn Reagan. This is all his fault.

Originally posted by Zaphod Beeblebrox
Well, we have a fundamental difference in opinion considering how terorrism should be eliminated.

You two want to fight the symptoms, I want to fight the disease.

Mid-East poverty is a structural defect of their system, not a poverty of resources, in the major cases. Your answer is negotiation and friendship with their governments. Mine is putting the criminals on trial and returning the nation to its people.

LOL BTW, I would like to hear how poverty is responsible for Saudi extremism, particularly in the case of Osama bin Ladin. :p

Yeah, Reagan really should have done more to stop the festering Islamic Revolution in Iran besides just helping Saddam prevent the scourge from reaching Saudi Arabia. Had Reagan done more to grind the radicals into the ground then we likely wouldn't be in such a pickle now.

You're right.
He also should not have cut and run out of Beirut the way he did.
That only sent terrorists a message that if they inflict enough death we'll run, similar to what recently has happened in Spain.

And geez...arming and training OBL to fight using terror-tactics against the Soviet uberenemy instead of fighting that war himself... What the hell was he thinking!?!?

The decision to fund the Pakistani Intelligence agency so they could recruit and train the Afghan resistance was the right thing to do. The Soviets were on a mission of expansionism and finally someone stood up to them.
The mistake was in not helping Afghanistan rebuild itself after the Soviets pulled out.

That damn Reagan. This is all his fault.

No, but there is a clear pattern of error beginning in 79 under Carter up until 9/11. We should've taken it more seriously.
Hindsight is 20/20.
What I find inexcusable regarding Clinton though is that OBL was offered to him, no muss, no fuss, on more than one occasion and he passed on it. It became very evident this was becoming a serious problem during the 90's. He also allowed several attacks to happen without any meaningful response.

Mid-East poverty is a structural defect of their system, not a poverty of resources, in the major cases.

Wow. I agree with something you posted. Too bad you reached the wrong conclusion.

Countries in the mid-east have made enormous amounts of money, which has all gone to their leaders instead of the people, just so the west could drive their cars and develop their societies even further.

Also, the west has seriously helped create that situation, and that has been a perfect breeding ground for hatred against it.

To a degree, it's too late to undo that error, but we could at least stop behaving that way and allowing those people to develop their own countries instead of 'stealing' their natural resources.

And people like Osama aren't acting in anger about that, but are merely taking advantage of existing sentiments to further their own goals. Power.

Originally posted by Powerboss
What I find inexcusable regarding Clinton though is that OBL was offered to him, no muss, no fuss, on more than one occasion and he passed on it. It became very evident this was becoming a serious problem during the 90's. He also allowed several attacks to happen without any meaningful response.

This is indeed a mystery. Perhaps the commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy will be able to grill Clinton and his crew in regards to this issue. I hope they do; after this commission wraps up its work there may be few, if any, chances to find out why things were done/not done in that time period by that administration.

Originally posted by contra
rofl, so they are basically saying that the democrats are so bad they would rather have Bush?
- I think that statement is very interesting. I can imagine how you had to bend your mind to think this. I mean, this is not logical at all. How can you justify abusing your mind in this way?

Originally posted by Powerboss
As a result of not going after the filthy bums for a decade and letting them grow, strengthen, and fester.
- Well, you see. The thing you don't see is that these are not like an infestation. They are not a predefined number and all you have to do is kill X amount of terrorists and they'll all be gone. And it's not "the more they are the quicker they grow" either. Though I think the first post here is nothing but a spoof, the point that you can't actually make people listen to you by killing their neighbours and family is very valid.

I'm curious of how the new propaganda channel is doing in Iraq :hmm:

http://24.17.178.234/life045/images/life045-20040322-color-sm.jpg

Though I think the first post here is nothing but a spoof, the point that you can't actually make people listen to you by killing their neighbours and family is very valid.


LOL. You need to read up on your history. Sucking the will out of these people, for instance 2 nuclear bombs like we did with the japs, certainly made them listen. They are now among the most gentle people on earth.

http://terpsboy.com/blogpics04/sgtkerry.jpg