The logic of "Terrorists love Bush, they want him to win again" C/D, T/F?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Two chubby ladies were sitting behind me in the library today having an animated discussion about current events. I couldn't help overhearing most of it - and it was logical, informed, and halfway-decent - but they kept returning (as, basically, irrefutable fact) to the statement that the terrorists would want GWB to win the '04 election. I don't understand where this statement finds support, though it seems to be a pretty popular belief. I'm currently undecided on its veracity and applicability. Thoughts?

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:19 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps because Bush's policies encourage new terrorists throughout the Muslim world, and because the same policies generally decrease support for the US across the globe, increasing our isolation and making al-Qaeda's job easier?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:23 (twenty years ago)

After the March 11 bombing in Spain, a terrorist group supposedly issued a statement saying something to the effect of, "A Democrat would seduce the Muslim world with lies and moderation, while Bush shows America's true face, so we'd prefer he remains in office."

x-post

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:23 (twenty years ago)

can't have a holy war without an opponent!

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:25 (twenty years ago)

Bush makes a fine Great Satan.

― CeCe Peniston (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:26 (twenty years ago)

xxxxpost

Honestly? ... I agree with the first part of your statement, milo, but it's difficult for me to believe that the terrorists have as goal nothing more than desystemized anarchy. I'd think that to them Bush would represent a real threat, an unpredictable and loose-cannoned nemesis, and (while alienating) an extremely attractive Great Satan (per Anthony), but also one with which I'm sure they'd gladly dismiss.

ALSO: http://www.counterbias.com/047.html ?

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:28 (twenty years ago)

Bush's actions are perfectly in line with the image Bin Laden would love to project to the Muslim world: that the US is at war with Islam.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:29 (twenty years ago)

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040804/i/r3923286853.jpg

"Call me Satan once, shame on you. Call me Satan twice, ph3@r my c0rn!"

― martin m. (mushrush), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:30 (twenty years ago)

I don't think they find Bush to be any more (or less) of a threat (to them) than any other President would be. And they love his loose-cannoned wars. It's perfect for them.

xxpost

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:31 (twenty years ago)

But if the ultimate goal is an ideological confrontation, isn't he totally the wrong hick for the oval office (which, I just realized, when quickly elided sounds like 'offal orifice')?

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:33 (twenty years ago)

Inasmuch as he has actively and clumsily provoked greater levels of confrontation he's exactly what the asshats want.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:34 (twenty years ago)

Just as the goal of certain anti-state/anarchist domestic terrorist groups is to "put pressure on the system" and "reveal its fundamentally oppressive nature" (by provoking responses like martial law, repeal of civil liberties, etc.), I'd guess that Al Qaeda et al. love the fact that they've provoked things like the Iraq war - and hope to provoke more.

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:35 (twenty years ago)

Bottom line: the terrorists WANT to bring about Jihad. They WANT to wage a "holy war". Bush happily accomodates them.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:37 (twenty years ago)

"Bring 'em on"

― oops (Oops), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:38 (twenty years ago)

Hmm... I see that point.

― x j e r e m y (x Jeremy), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:39 (twenty years ago)

Tangentially, see also Paul Krugman's NY Times column a few weeks back, riffing on "The Manchurian Candidate" - W. as "The Arabian Candidate."

― morris pavilion (samjeff), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:42 (twenty years ago)

I don't necessarily agree with the idea the ladies are floating (despite my earlier post). Given Kerry's terror rhetoric and our history of intervention (rather non-partisan, this disregard for human rights and democracy), al-Qaeda will still have plenty of ammunition with which to demonize us.

re: the latter point, it's not about anarchy, necessarily (though morris is OTM there) but about the US's inability to form a strong coalition or work with its recent traditional allies. Imagine how much more effective the War on Terra would have been if the US capitalized on the era of good feeling post-9/11 rather than spending the next three years pissing off everyone. It's better/safer for al-Qaeda to have their primary enemy acting as a rogue state.

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Thursday, 5 August 2004 21:51 (twenty years ago)

From what I can tell, they don't distinguish between candidates in terms of a military or intel threat to their organization. I think that they did not necessarily anticipate the extent to which they would be damaged after 9/11 in that respect, but to the extent they underestimated it, it was an underestimation of national character and/or military strength, not something tied to an individual or administration. And while they have been damaged, perhaps significantly, they have also adjusted rapidly, and perhaps significantly. I think that Kerry would quite likely do more to hurt their organization, but I'm not sure they have an opinion in this regard.

Where I think they do distinguish between Bush and Kerry is in the fight for the hearts (and minds?) of the Islamic and Arab worlds. Kerry represents a much greater threat in this regard, and they know it.

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 5 August 2004 22:18 (twenty years ago)

I'm not convinced that Kerry will represent a major ideological threat and scare off the average terrorist candidate. If he reduces the culture clash aspect of this and increases cooperation and trust with our allies, he will be more a tactical than ideological threat.

― Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 5 August 2004 22:31 (twenty years ago)

Wouldn't terrorist groups try to issue statements revealing to Americans that they would prefer Bush if in fact they really just want to get the voters to vote against whom they appear to prefer? Maybe in reality they are hindered by Bush's dedication to the war on terror. Kerry would seem to focus more on issues in America as opposed to other countries troubles, the kind that provoke or cause terrorism.

― A Nairn (moretap), Thursday, 5 August 2004 23:17 (twenty years ago)

As long as we still have a military presence in Saudi Arabia (the spiritual epicenter of Islam), we could vote Carrot Top into office, and they'd still want to murder us all.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 5 August 2004 23:31 (twenty years ago)

US (read Bush) policy towards the Muslim world post 9/11 has made many moderate Muslims more radical, has made many more Muslims choose to identify themselves much more as Muslim than they previously had.

The (relatively) few other places in Africa I've travelled to, I see much more extremeist positions among popele than when I used to be there previously. People here in Ethiopia, which has always had peaceful co-existance, are starting to - as statements - wear headscarves as women, identify far as Muslim,

hmm, it is hard to explain this but the Ethiopian Muslim community has always been one of the most secular I've ever seen, nightlife used to die during Ramadan coz all the partiers were fasting. Now people feel forced to identify with that Muslim identity because what is seen by many around the world is that this is a crusade againt Islam. Hell, why wouldn't Al-Qaeda want this admnistaration to come back - theyre doing a better job of recruiting than anything else they could do.

― H (Heruy), Thursday, 5 August 2004 23:45 (twenty years ago)

A Nairn OTM

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 5 August 2004 23:57 (twenty years ago)

As long as we still have a military presence in Saudi Arabia (the spiritual epicenter of Islam), we could vote Carrot Top into office, and they'd still want to murder us all.

Actually if we did that I think I'd want to murder us all.

― Gear! (Gear!), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:08 (twenty years ago)

I'm waiting for the day when a US president realises the number one -NUMBER ONE -priority in the war against terror is to put a stop to Isreal's oppression of the Palestinians. Only when that's accomplished can the West start to intervene in Arab affairs without seeming utterly and irredeemibly hypocritical. And until that's accomplished, any Western military action in the Middle East is is just going to cause more factionlism, chaos, and contempt for the West.

I'm under no illusions that it's going to be achieved any time soon.

― Wooden (Wooden), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:10 (twenty years ago)

I may be alone and naive in this, but I'm hesitant to believe that terrorists really love being terrorists, as opposed to say, happy. Didn't they become terrorists in the first place because they have a beef with oppression and poverty (mainly) and what they percieve as a corruption of their religion (secondly)?

That said, Wooden VERY much OTM, and they have a beef with capitalism in general, which no American president is likely to change.

But still, wouldn't they calm the fuck down a bit if we stopped bombing them for bullshit reasons? Isn't that a very good reason to NOT want Bush in office?

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:14 (twenty years ago)

Actually if we did that I think I'd want to murder us all.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:24 (twenty years ago)

I've long thought that the only reasonable response to any of this line of questioning is, "Who gives a fuck what the terrorists want?" I mean, those fuckers are crazy. They're death-cult wackos with a severely twisted sense of both the past and present. It's useful to understand their perspective so you know what you're dealing with, but actually caring who they'd prefer as president seems like a complete waste of time. I don't care who they'd prefer as president or what they'd prefer for dinner or whether they're more in favor of stoning or hanging as punishment for extramarital sex.

What I do care about is the opinions and ideas of the many, many people in the region who are not terrorists and who don't necessarily want to trade their current autocratic regimes for a whole new flavor of religious fundamentalist oppression, but who also view the U.S., Israel and the West in general with something less than enthusiasm. Those are the people who really matter. And I'd prefer a president who knows how to reach them with something other than the barrel of a gun. That's what I'd prefer.

― spittle (spittle), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:44 (twenty years ago)

OTM

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:46 (twenty years ago)

Well, the last part is, anyway. For the first half of that post, I was thinking that you were being too dismissive of people who, let's face it, are our primary enemies. If we have no interest in what they want, who will sign the treaty? Do you want neverending war?

But then you won me over.

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:49 (twenty years ago)

OK, maybe "treaty" is an outdated idea in this case. But still... why should we assume they will never make a reasonable demand?

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 00:53 (twenty years ago)

It's not so much that they ("they" being an amorphous and problematic concept here, obviously) can't or won't make reasonable demands -- I mean, whoever that was, Zarqawi or whatever, who demanded the Philippines pull their troops out of Iraq, that was kind of reasonable. More reasonable than asking for a moon-destroying laser cannon, say. But to the extent that by "they" we mean here specifically militant Islamic fundamentalists, they're automatically unreasonable. Their model of governance is the Taliban. They're not just fighting oppression and poverty and so forth, they're fighting to restore the Caliphate. Some of them even want Spain back. They're bonkers, basically. Which is why the best hope for dealing with them is to marginalize them within their own societies and keep them on the margins no matter how many buildings they blow up. But that can't really happen until there are other viable options within those societies. I don't think the reason, say, Hamas or Hezbollah have popular support to whatever degree they do in the West Bank and Gaza is because most Palestinians really approve of all of their tactics, it's because they're the only available means of expression. Bin Laden has obviously tapped into similar kinds of resentment and anger and cultural pride.

― spittle (spittle), Friday, 6 August 2004 01:03 (twenty years ago)

They're bonkers, basically. Which is why the best hope for dealing with them is to marginalize them within their own societies and keep them on the margins no matter how many buildings they blow up. But that can't really happen until there are other viable options within those societies.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: OTM. You make points I wouldn't have though to make myself.

As for the terrorists having a preference, I'd like to think that justice anywhere is a threat to terrorism everywhere.

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 01:17 (twenty years ago)

I'm waiting for the day when a US president realises the number one -NUMBER ONE -priority in the war against terror is to put a stop to Isreal's oppression of the Palestinians

You've been listening a bit too carefully to the recent interviews with King Abdullah of Jordan, haven't you?

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Friday, 6 August 2004 01:33 (twenty years ago)

One shouldn't have to be familiar with recent interviews with the King of Jordan to know that U.S. support of Isreal is the most significant issue worth dealing with in a realistic discourse about terrorism. Although it is the gigantic elephant in the room everyone chooses to ignore.

― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Friday, 6 August 2004 02:13 (twenty years ago)

http://www.aftermidnite.com/photos/instudio/carrottop/instudio_1.jpg

Carrot Top for president!!

― Andrew (enneff), Friday, 6 August 2004 03:28 (twenty years ago)

Although it is the gigantic elephant in the room everyone chooses to ignore.

No, that would be Ariel Sharon. *zing!*

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 03:48 (twenty years ago)

But seriously, folks, one of the greatest foreign policy challenges EVER must be finding a way to support Israel while refusing to deal with their fence-building bullshit and all that it implies. The precedent has been set, we gave them the weapons, we gave then carte blanche, and they're running all over international law with it.

Sometimes I wish there was another country that had the military might that we have, while being as hesitant to use nukes. Checks and balances, you know.

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 03:52 (twenty years ago)

why is it necessary to support Israel in the first place?

― ---------------------- (gareth), Friday, 6 August 2004 05:15 (twenty years ago)

The short answer: because of WWII.

― Harold Media (kenan), Friday, 6 August 2004 05:19 (twenty years ago)

One shouldn't have to be familiar with recent interviews with the King of Jordan ...
Well you also seem to already be familiar with his interviews, because I swear you were him from what you are writing here.
His point, of course, is that the Israeli-Palestinian issue is the most pressing issue in the Middle East today, and because of that, oh gee, he couldn't POSSIBLY try to get around to dealing with the problems in his own country, one of which (of many) is terrorism.
The "why should we deal with our problems until those other guys deal with theirs first" line is a flimsy and pathetic excuse used by people to avoid, you know, solving their problems.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Friday, 6 August 2004 05:36 (twenty years ago)

The U.S. puts pressure on Arab leaders to stop terrorism in their countries although our government's unquestioning support of Isreali apartheid goes a long way toward creating those terrorists. We can't expect the Arab world to solve the problem of terrorism on its own when we're complicit in the cause. Though I can't speak for the situation of Jordan (I am in fact not the King of that counry, nor did I read the interview you've referenced) I'm merely offering a basic truth about the situation U.S. politicians aren't allowed to acknowledge. Granted, the only viable solution to the conflict at this stage would sadly necessetate a time machine.

― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Friday, 6 August 2004 06:32 (twenty years ago)

Granted, the only viable solution to the conflict at this stage would sadly necessetate a time machine.

Fuck, the things I would do to solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis if I only had a time machine...

― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 6 August 2004 06:52 (twenty years ago)

You may laugh but that is the exact kind of utopian possibility that motivated the great "Doc" Brown from the motion picture "Back to the Future" in his invention of the flux compacitor, which makes the time travel car a fictional possibility.

― herbert hebert (herbert hebert), Friday, 6 August 2004 07:01 (twenty years ago)

I was being totally serious.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Friday, 6 August 2004 07:30 (twenty years ago)

I AM the King of Jordan. Rumbled.

― Wooden (Wooden), Friday, 6 August 2004 11:25 (twenty years ago)

The short answer: because of WWII.

that was why it WAS necessary not why it IS necessary.

― MarkH (MarkH), Friday, 6 August 2004 12:43 (twenty years ago)

one of which (of many) is terrorism

eh??? there isn't a lot of terrorism in Jordan, it's one of the safest places in the Middle East!

― MarkH (MarkH), Friday, 6 August 2004 12:45 (twenty years ago)

Supporting Israel should consist of securing a long-term peace plan, long-term multi-national water rights agreements, and encouraging the tradititional Jewish respect for the law. Instead, we have given them an automatic veto of any criticism however loony or justified emanating from the U.N. We have nominally been against settlements and sole Israeli sovreignty over Jerusalem but under this administration Sharon has been basically given carte blanche to do whatever he wants under the logic that any concession to Palestinian terrorists' viewpoints is a defeat for the war on Terra. If Justitia really is blind, right should be right regardless of who says it.

That said, even should Arabs push Israel 'into the sea', their problems wouldn't even be remotely over. Many of their countries waste half their potential through sexism. Their vestigial attachment to old-style (national) socialist controlled economies (reinforced by Islam's famous dedication to equity and justice) has left their economies ennervated and under-capitalized. While they can justly claim that Britain, France, the U.S., and the Russians have screwed them in the past, they seem all to eager to blame all their troubles on shadowy Zionist-inspired bogeymen instead of engaging in some self-criticism. They seem to want the wealth and power of the developped world but they don't want to do the things necessary to get there.

― Michael White (Hereward), Friday, 6 August 2004 13:18 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I think most of the people who live in the countries would be willing to do the things necessary to get there. It's their leadership that's not so crazy about the idea. Standing for re-election? Letting women vote? Privatizing industries that provide abundant cashflow to their own bank accounts? Where's the upside for them?

― spittle (spittle), Friday, 6 August 2004 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Michael White otm.

We can't expect the Arab world to solve the problem of terrorism on its own when we're complicit in the cause
That's exactly the King of Jordan's viewpoint. So the next time an Arab leader wants to criticise an Israeli policy, the ready made answer (according to you and the king) is "we clearly can't be expected to change our ways untiil you Arabs stop killing blacks in Sudan" (the REAL apartheid state).

The short answer: because of WWII.
the real short answer: because the Soviets supported the Arab states during the Cold War. Even then, the US didn't get deeply involved in their support for Israel until the early 70's, which is a considerable amount of time after WWII.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Friday, 6 August 2004 23:13 (twenty years ago)

yeah, israeli won the war of independence (or whatever you want to call it) in large part cos stalin gave the green light for the czechs to send the jews a big old arms shipment. things sort of reversed themselves within a decade.

― ||amateur!st|| (amateurist), Saturday, 7 August 2004 18:47 (twenty years ago)

No argument there, except for the "within a decade" part (at least regarding US/Israel), because France was Israel's biggest military supporter for the next two decades. But the point is clear : WWII is not the main reason for the US' support. Harold had best do his reading.

― Barry Bruner (Barry Bruner), Saturday, 7 August 2004 19:31 (twenty years ago)

I humbly agree to read more about it. Learnding is fun!

― Harold Media (kenan), Saturday, 7 August 2004 20:14 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...

I still think that this logic is shit.

Case in point:

The CIA and FBI have authenticated a new al Qaeda videotape which warns of retribution for Americans electing Bush and Cheney...

― Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 29 October 2004 03:21 (twenty years ago)

I'm surprised the NRO/Weekly Standard wing doesn't assume it's an actual threat from Democrats.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 03:37 (twenty years ago)

Hah! It's a matter of time. Actually, I'd think that this threat might be played up by the less-intellectual branch of the GOP; 'AL QUEDA WANTS KERRY TO WIN!' kinda stuff.

― Remy (x Jeremy), Friday, 29 October 2004 03:41 (twenty years ago)

The thing about that tape is that the stories are conflicting. Some press reports say it says attacks on the US might come 'at any moment', which would play into the Bush campaign's fear ploys. But the New York Sun says the tape threatens attacks 'if Bush wins', which would clearly be a filip to the Democrats. Anybody know if the phrase 'if Bush wins' figures in it? And if it does, why are the huge majority of reports about this tape not mentioning that?

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 29 October 2004 09:52 (twenty years ago)

I was convinced that the fellow (I use a word here that Bush might use) was Aaron Brown until he said 'opening salvo'. So he must have some rock criticism in his background.

"We will burst upon the scene, rising like a phoenix from the ashes..." -- that would've really sealed it.

― Andy K (Andy K), Friday, 29 October 2004 10:08 (twenty years ago)

'How can you be a terrorist without knowing about the land where the Hobbit dwells?'

― Temp Mod J, Friday, 29 October 2004 10:25 (twenty years ago)

CNN: "CIA can't authenticate alleged al Qaeda tape."

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 29 October 2004 14:58 (twenty years ago)

If Bush wins:

November 1st: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 2nd: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 3rd: Terrorists want to kill Americans

If Kerry wins:

November 1st: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 2nd: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 3rd: Terrorists want to kill Americans

― bnw (bnw), Friday, 29 October 2004 16:43 (twenty years ago)

Terrorists do not simply want to kill people. They want publicity, power, position. They want their agenda carried out. Killing people is only a means to that end. There are few differences between terrorists and regular politicians, except that terrorists are more desperate. But history shows that there is often a transition from 'terrorism' to conventional democratic party politics.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:11 (twenty years ago)

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:13 (twenty years ago)

I'd like someone to explain to me the mentality of someone who simply 'wants to kill Americans'. Why?

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:16 (twenty years ago)

Same as someone who simply wants to torture POWs, I'd imagine.

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:17 (twenty years ago)

Terrorism is a semantic activity. It is about getting a message across. It is not irrational or sadistic butchery. Some torture is also 'semantic' in this sense. It's about extracting hidden information.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Momus is OTM here.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:21 (twenty years ago)

Richard Pryor (I forget which concert film):

"I talked to this one dude and I said 'Man how could you do that?' He was in Kansas and he killed a whole family in a farmhouse--he killed the mother and the father, and, like, six children, and the grandmother and two neighbors and just a whole bunch of people. And I said, 'Man, how could you do that? You just walked into the house and killed all those people?' And the guy said, 'Well, they was home.'"

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:22 (twenty years ago)

Perhaps the Bush administration really thinks that terrorists 'just want to kill Americans because they're evil and hate freedom'. But I think that's just what they say they think. They know very well that terrorism is a form of politics, just as the British government did at the height of the various IRA bombing campaigns. In public the government said they wouldn't negotiate with 'evil' people. In private, however, they were sending messages all the time to the IRA, bargaining with them like one government with another, trying to encourage them to abandon armed struggle and pursue the exact same aims by peaceful means.

― Momus (Momus), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:23 (twenty years ago)

You're right about that. Still, the line between terrorism and bloodlust must be very fine, and there's no way to know when someone's crossed it.

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:24 (twenty years ago)

Um, yes there is; when the person doing the killing stops making demands and starts going "WHEE WHEE LOOKIT ALL THE LOVELY BLUD I SHALL MAKE IT INTO A SLURPEE".

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:25 (twenty years ago)

(Standard disclaimer which shouldn't be necessary but this is ILE: I do not appreciate, condone, sympathize with or approve of people who resort to terrorism, largely because I am in a position where I don't have to.)

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:27 (twenty years ago)

Dan you must be thinking of the line between terrorism and being a vampire

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Friday, 29 October 2004 17:31 (twenty years ago)

That's what Buffy and Angel lacked, blood slurpees.

― Leon Czolgosz (Nicole), Friday, 29 October 2004 17:33 (twenty years ago)

Clarified for liberal viewing!

If Bush wins:
November 1st: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 2nd: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 3rd: Terrorists want to kill Americans

If Kerry wins:

November 1st: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 2nd: Terrorists want to kill Americans
November 3rd: Terrorists want to kill Americans

By Terrorists, let it be known that I mean Al Qaeda, in paritcular Osama bin Laden and his cronies.

Additionally, let it be known that I am aware of Palestine and Abu Gharib and Iraq and globalization; and while these issues and injustices may exacerbate and fuel the problem, I do NOT consider them to be justification for terrorism. I also find it depressing that people can't even acknowledge Osama fucking bin Laden wanting to kill people without their Amerihate alarms going off.

― bnw (bnw), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:16 (twenty years ago)

whew, I am grumpy today, sorry. I need to keep my liberal annoyances in check until post-election...

― bnw (bnw), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:17 (twenty years ago)

Dude, learn to read or at the very least grow up.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:19 (twenty years ago)

Pointing out that terrorists have aims that go beyond just killing people for the fun of it does not really equal Amerihate (just to make my point explicit because the one thing that you can expect from ILE is that people can't follow a rhetorical point).

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:21 (twenty years ago)

I was never implyng that they are doing it for the fun of it, but it think it's equally hyperbolic to assume they are killing Americans to try to initiate sane diplomatic negotiation.

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:23 (twenty years ago)

Who said anything about diplomatic negotiation? It's an intimidation technique intended to bully a concession out of a stronger opponent.

Jesus Christ, no wonder we can't deal with terrorism.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:29 (twenty years ago)

It's an issue of term and timeframe. It's a bit hopeless to imagine that seriously radicalized terrorists like those in Al Qaeda are anywhere near the point of acting in any rational, political way. But in addition to marginalizing and eliminating them, there are obviously loads of things that can be done to ensure that their next round of young followers is smaller and less radicalized, and so on and so on; this isn’t a strange proposition, I don’t think, and it would be deliberately thick for anyone to interpret that statement as arguing that you can negotiate with someone like bin Laden and reach any kind of agreement.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:36 (twenty years ago)

Better way of putting that. Dan and Momus are right; terrorism is, or at least stems from, a political act. If the political impulse underneath it is completely hopeless or grandiose, well, you get the kind of retributional terrorism that you don't have much hope of dealing with on any political leve. But if the political impulse behind it can be given any other attractive direction to flow, chances are a good deal of the energy will go there; and those entities, in turn, will be a lot easier to deal with in a conventional political fashion.

― nabisco (nabisco), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:40 (twenty years ago)

So are you saying we shouldn't have invaded iraq?

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:42 (twenty years ago)

Oh for fuck's sake.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:43 (twenty years ago)

I was kidding, Dan. I agree with nabisco, of course.

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:46 (twenty years ago)

I seriously am going to have a high blood pressure-induced medical emergency before Tuesday.

― The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:48 (twenty years ago)

It's precisely because I slightly fear getting one ON Tuesday that I am cutting off contact with the outside world that evening.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:49 (twenty years ago)

Erm, I third Dan & Momus & nabisco, that's all I'm gonna say.

― k3rry (dymaxia), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:50 (twenty years ago)

Just so y'all know, some reports are saying Al Jazeera's going to play a new Bin Laden tape in a few minutes.

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:50 (twenty years ago)

"Hello, I'm Osama bin Laden. You might remember me from such previous videos as..."

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:51 (twenty years ago)

I sympathize with Dan's impending medical emergency problem 100%.

― Kenan (kenan), Friday, 29 October 2004 18:52 (twenty years ago)

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