Is Bin Laden for Bush?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

― g@bbneb (gabbneb), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:49 (twenty-two years ago)

it's nonsensical because you don't advocate the re-election of someone you consider to be in-effective and opposed to your views ("we just love being terrorists and want to continue") unless they're really convinced that things will not improve under Kerry, which is a pessimism worthy of a suicide-bomber i guess.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Al Qaeda endorses Bush in presidential election

All seems a bit convenient ner ner ne ner ner anti-Bush stuff to me.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 14:59 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, sorta not the light-hearted (if slightly nihilistic) sarcasm I would expect from a group like this.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Bush has certainly been good at both providing easy targets for islamists (troops and civilians in a lawless iraq, and by driving people o extreme islam, (by patting israel on the head and by invading iraq etc. etc.). Gievn that a more moderate president may promote a more moderate reaction amongst the people of the islamic world Kerry could be bad for business as far as Al'Q goes. Kerry may also not stop around the world stage in size 16s and may be able to forge some kind of international consensxus as far as fighting terrorism goes.

But at the same time a terrorist attack before the US elections is probably more likely to be due to AL'Q's desire to blow people up than it's desire to manipulate the US elections.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

the statement sounds false to me, but i think that kerrys election would be bad for al-qaida. (unless we are deciding now that al-qaida are all about discussion and compromise). however, there is no guarantee that kerry would pursue any different a line than bush, once in power.

i dont think there is any concerted attempt to manipulate the US elections, and even if there were, i would consider that a miscalculation on al-qaidas part, one that seems somewhat unlikely. the spanish and american situations, and electorates aren't very similar, to say the least, so i think this whole piece is a little tenuous

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, I don't think that from A-Q's POV there's a whole lot of difference between Democrat and Republican.
I mean, compared to most countries in the world, Americans don't have a lot to choose from, electorally.

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

All that sounds like al Queda is not interested in accomplishing anything - they just like to blow shit up. Wouldn't they prefer to have a more moderate leader that is interested in making changes that stop terrorism .. not by appeasing them, but by understanding why they're angry and addressing those problems, instead of just trying to suppress them further. .. I don't think they're terrorists just because they get a kick out of seeing the world gasp.

So whether or not Kerry is that agent of change in their eyes (doubtful) electing the bigger buffoon just doesn't strike me as the way fundamentalists think. .. But then, I don't know shit about fundamentalists.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

well, i think it depends if you equate al-qaida with 'traditional' political terrorists such as eta or ira, and if you think that they operate the same way.

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

it's the whole 'we prefer Bush cos he is less sneaky about fucking things up for us' aspect that's absurd. though I can see why it works for them in increasing 'anti-American' sentiment throughout the world due to his methods seeming more ham-fisted and transparent (empthasis on seeming).

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:21 (twenty-two years ago)

well, i think it depends if you equate al-qaida with 'traditional' political terrorists such as eta or ira, and if you think that they operate the same way.

it would seem not as their figureheads have designated their mandate in the past to include wiping out the Jews/Americans/infidels/anyone who disagrees with us. which basically suggests they cannot and should not be listened to at all.

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Somewhat by the by, I learned the other day that Al-Qaeda means 'The base'.

It is odd that I never stopped to think what it meant before.

― N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:35 (twenty-two years ago)

That means that Bin Laden, who is the head of al Qaeda, is the Ace of Base.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:38 (twenty-two years ago)

it opened up my eyes!

― The Huckle-Buck (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:39 (twenty-two years ago)

it would seem not as their figureheads have designated their mandate in the past to include wiping out the Jews/Americans/infidels/anyone who disagrees with us

presumably they would wish for their enemy to be a hardline leader in this case, in order to facilitate a more violent scenario, as opposed to one that might potentially express a notional idea of dialogue?

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 15:50 (twenty-two years ago)

but the hardline leader makes things more difficult for them in theory (tho re-inforces their mandate) so i don't quite see the logic (if there is any)

― stevem (blueski), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It may be that they don't think they will actually realize their goals (eg - West out of Arab countries, followed by death to infidels..?) anytime soon... but a hard-line leader may allow them to broadcast their message more effectively... ?

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 23 March 2004 16:05 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.