NationStates Jolt Archive

It seems that some sections of the media are discussing who al-Qaeda are likely rooting for to win the election. FOX News seems to be particularly interested in the topic. And as you would expect, their hosts and commentators are putting forth the groundless statement that al-Qaeda is hoping that John Kerry will win.

If you think al-Qaeda cares who wins the presidential election, I think you're a bit naive. Al-Qaeda hates the Dems and the Reps with equal passion. And if relatively moderate people like me see that there is little difference betweem the Repsand the Dems, how do you think a bunch of ultra-conservative religious tinpots see it? I have no doubt that the two parties are one and the same in their eyes - infidels to kill.

No I don't think they care. It is not going to stop their attacks either way. If we elect Bush they will spew some hate filled crap, if we elect Kerry they will make up some other reason to spew hate filled crap, and if we elect some third party candidate they would make up some reason to spew hate filled crap.
They don't care one way or the other because they will just keep spewing their hate filled crap. They were spewing before Bush was elected they will spew it long after he is no longer president.

Do Americans really believe that al-Qaeda cares who wins the presidential election?

God I hope not. I'd like to think that we're smarter than that, but hey, we've made Britney Spears into a multi-millionaire, so who knows?

Actually, I think the Al Qaeda agree with the Democrats. I mean, all this week at the DNC they've been talking about how the Democrats want to unify us in our mind like we already are in the Al Qaeda mind...

Actually, I think the Al Qaeda agree with the Democrats. I mean, all this week at the DNC they've been talking about how the Democrats want to unify us in our mind like we already are in the Al Qaeda mind...
On top of the fact that Kerry publically donated money to Al-Qaeda back in the mid-nineties.

they would likely want the world to turn against us. Bush is the man for that job.

Look at Iraq. With a President that can cause that big of a mess in under 1 year, you think Al-Qaeda will jump for joy if Kerry, a man who will calm down the force used by the U.S. military in Iraq, gets elected into office?

Al-Qaeda isn't a band of rebels. It's an organized terrorist network.

On top of the fact that Kerry publically donated money to Al-Qaeda back in the mid-nineties.Was that before or after the "sacrificing babies in Satanic ritual" incident?

Was that before or after the "sacrificing babies in Satanic ritual" incident?
After, but before the public marriage to a box turtle and a house plant.

I'm starting to think Americans don't even care who wins the presidential elections anymore, let alone what al-Qaeda is thinking.

If Kerry wins, they'll celebrate for... a few hours. Then they'll get right back to slaughtering innocents. It really doesn't matter.

I think it's rather obvious that while they may not be "rooting" so much for one candidate, they would certainly prefer to see Kerry take office as it would make their job a lot easier. All of Kerry's foreign policy ideals can do nothing but benefit Al Queda's current situation. It's rather obvious that Al Queda (and other terrorist groups) only stand to lose from another 4 years of Bush's hard line anti-terrorist policies. Frankly, I don't even see how someone could argue with this.

Actually yes, since the outcome of the US election will have an effect on their operations. I'm just not sure who they're rooting for.

One could follow the line of reasoning that electing Kerry will be a vinducation of the rhetoric they have always spouted that the US has no stomach for war and no staying power and that public opinion in the US will force it to roll over and play dead after recieving only a few casualties. One could likewise reason that a re-election of Bush will further isolate the US from the rest of the West, certainly not a bad thing. I'm sure the top al-Queda strategists feel either Bush or Kerry would be better for them (after all that's what stratagy of this sort is all about), but which one?

...bunch of ultra-conservative religious tinpots see it...

Ack. For a second I got confused whether you were talking about Republicans or Al Qaeda. Please be more clear.

I kinda think they do. They want a president that will leave them alone more. Like they don't want Bush because hes getting rid of them. They want someone who wont kill as many of them etc..

And that man is Lurch...er....John Kerry...

Either one is probably good for them, at least they percieve. Kerry will shy away from terrorists. Bush is good for recruitment (they need an enemy to unite against). It's hard to tell which will actually benefit al-Qaeda more, but I believe that Bush is more pragmatic on the issue. Kerry seems to view terrorism as something best rooted out defensively, or during the planning stages of their attack. I personally think the Bush Administration has the better approach, and is a little more creative on the issue than Kerry seems.

I think it's rather obvious that while they may not be "rooting" so much for one candidate, they would certainly prefer to see Kerry take office as it would make their job a lot easier. All of Kerry's foreign policy ideals can do nothing but benefit Al Queda's current situation. It's rather obvious that Al Queda (and other terrorist groups) only stand to lose from another 4 years of Bush's hard line anti-terrorist policies. Frankly, I don't even see how someone could argue with this.Yeah, because Bush has been sooooooooooooooooo hard on them. ugh. Give me a break.

Actually yes, since the outcome of the US election will have an effect on their operations. I'm just not sure who they're rooting for.

One could follow the line of reasoning that electing Kerry will be a vinducation of the rhetoric they have always spouted that the US has no stomach for war and no staying power and that public opinion in the US will force it to roll over and play dead after recieving only a few casualties. One could likewise reason that a re-election of Bush will further isolate the US from the rest of the West, certainly not a bad thing. I'm sure the top al-Queda strategists feel either Bush or Kerry would be better for them (after all that's what stratagy of this sort is all about), but which one?
well considering teh fact bush believes the war on terro can be won by siding with israel and playing simon says what they do and thinking the war on terror is war on people, imp retty sure they are leaning torwards bush, the best way to help a terrorist cause is create martyrs and unify the enemy through hatred

they don't want Bush because hes getting rid of them.
I don't know if they want Bush or not, as I've said earlier I don't think they care. But I take issue with this untrue statement. Maybe you've got your head buried in FOX News for 3 years, but you should know that Al-Qaeda is bigger than it has ever been. They've never had such an easy time recruiting in the Middle East. Bush's "war as a first resort" policy in the Middle east is just fuelling hatred of America in the region. And guess what some poor angry young Muslim man does then?

I don't want this to turn into yet another Bush vs Kerry flamefest, there are 50 other threads for that. It would be unwise to make claims about Kerry's terrorism policy that you can't back up.

Ack. For a second I got confused whether you were talking about Republicans or Al Qaeda. Please be more clear.
Are you serious? The Republicans are liberals compared to al-Qaeda.

On the contrary, I think Bush is horrible for Al Queda's, or any other terrorist group's, recruitment. Terror attacks worldwide have hit a low since the President began his anti-terror campaign compared to the past decade's, and the widespread destruction of terrorist cells and training camp can only be a bad thing for burgeoning terrorist populations. On top of that, killing and imprisoning terrorists is a very good deterrent: you can't be a matyr to the cause if all of you're cause's recruiters get shot.

Worldwide, look at what Bush has done with Libya. One of the foremost sponsors of terror and one of the largest threats to word safety has junked its chemical weapon stockpiles and Gidafi has personally welcomed inspectors into his country to confirm it. 28 or so days saw Iraq's regime utterly and completely annihalated. I think the lesson was clear.

*******

Yeah, because Bush has been sooooooooooooooooo hard on them. ugh. Give me a break.

I don't understand the nature of your comment. It's obviously sarcasm, but I don't see how a worldwide crackdown on terror can qualify as anything but hard. Hopefully, no matter who is elected, this crackdown will continue, but unfortunately I don't really see Kerry following this policy should he be elected come november. (especially since he repeatedly stated that he plans to curtail defense spending and lay back on the anti-terrorist campaign) That's definately a good thing for terrorists. I do hope, should he be elected, that his advisors will recomend to him a more sane approach.

On the contrary, I think Bush is horrible for Al Queda's, or any other terrorist group's, recruitment. Terror attacks worldwide have hit a low since the President began his anti-terror campaign compared to the past decade's, and the widespread destruction of terrorist cells and training camp can only be a bad thing for burgeoning terrorist populations. On top of that, killing and imprisoning terrorists is a very good deterrent: you can't be a matyr to the cause if all of you're cause's recruiters get shot.

It all depends on how you define a terrorist attack. The US does not recognise the attack of soldiers in Iraq as terrorist attacks, which is the place the Arab terrorist are probably focused on at the moment.

You cannot be a martyr for a cause if you are killed? :? Please explain this.

As Bush has pushed many otherwise moderate Muslims over the edge. There is no point in killing terrorist when there are others ready to fill their places because of you actions.

Worldwide, look at what Bush has done with Libya. One of the foremost sponsors of terror and one of the largest threats to word safety has junked its chemical weapon stockpiles and Gidafi has personally welcomed inspectors into his country to confirm it. 28 or so days saw Iraq's regime utterly and completely annihalated. I think the lesson was clear.
Bush didn't have jack-shit to do with Libya, there had been clandestine meetings with the British for months (maybe years), why do you think he is trying to form closer links with the EU rather then with the US.

There was little or no link between Gaddafi's decision and Iraq.

On the contrary, I think Bush is horrible for Al Queda's, or any other terrorist group's, recruitment. Terror attacks worldwide have hit a low since the President began his anti-terror campaign compared to the past decade's, and the widespread destruction of terrorist cells and training camp can only be a bad thing for burgeoning terrorist populations. On top of that, killing and imprisoning terrorists is a very good deterrent: you can't be a matyr to the cause if all of you're cause's recruiters get shot.
world wide terrorism has INCREASED since bush began this so called "war on terror"
and you dont know what a martyr is do you?

Worldwide, look at what Bush has done with Libya. One of the foremost sponsors of terror and one of the largest threats to word safety has junked its chemical weapon stockpiles and Gidafi has personally welcomed inspectors into his country to confirm it. 28 or so days saw Iraq's regime utterly and completely annihalated. I think the lesson was clear.
i was udner the impression the BRITISH took care of libya. maybe we should actually do stuff to people we know harboir terrorists but are our friends - saudi arabia, iran, pakistan, the rest

...Terror attacks worldwide have hit a low since the President began his anti-terror campaign compared to the past decade's...

Are carbombs being counted as terror attacks for that new "low"?

It all depends on how you define a terrorist attack. The US does not recognise the attack of soldiers in Iraq as terrorist attacks, which is the place the Arab terrorist are probably focused on at the moment.


That's a good point; I concede to you that I don't believe that they would include the rebel activities of "insurgents" as terror attacks. I guess it all depends on how you classify them. Would Vietcong attacks against South Vietnam's infrastructure's count as terror attacks in today's world? Your point is well taken.

As for matyrdom, allow me to rephrase that, a "matyrdom" can't amount for much when you are rotting in prison or shot in an attempt to kill the people you are trying to recruit. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I do believe I am correct in this) it seems that the number one casualty of insurgent activity is actually the Iraqi people. Current polling data (and I admit, polling data is a sketchy thing to follow at best) suggests that the average Iraqi citizen is far more upset with local insurgent activity than Coalition deployment.

And lastly, I just can't see how killing and imprisoning murderous terrorist scum can be anything but a good thing.

Bush didn't have jack-shit to do with Libya, there had been clandestine meetings with the British for months (maybe years), why do you think he is trying to form closer links with the EU rather then with the US.

There was little or no link between Gaddafi's decision and Iraq.

I was unaware of this. To me, the lesson learnt by the 1 month toppling of Iraq's regime had a lot to do with that, but it appears I am mistaken? Can you provide specifics? I am intrigued.

world wide terrorism has INCREASED since bush began this so called "war on terror"
and you dont know what a martyr is do you?


Actually,the world terrorism index compiled by the NSA, which tracks terror attacks globabaly, has been signifigantly reduced. To be truthful, it remains to be seen whether this is thanks to Israel's uber crackdown on terror attacks directed at them (which traditionally constitute a signifigant portion of the overall world terror) or the Coalition's own actions against terror world wide.

I do know what the word matyr is, and I just don't see someone's death from homicide bombing my family's station wagon count as a matyr. Especially when that person is trying to plunge my country back into the dark ages of an evil dictator's regime.

Are carbombs being counted as terror attacks for that new "low"?

Doubtful if they occur in Iraq. Those would likely be classified as "Insurgent" rebel activity. Just like rebel activity in Columbia is likely not compiled into the report *shrugs* It seems reasonable to me.

As for matyrdom, allow me to rephrase that, a "matyrdom" can't amount for much when you are rotting in prison or shot in an attempt to kill the people you are trying to recruit. Correct me if I'm wrong (and I do believe I am correct in this) it seems that the number one casualty of insurgent activity is actually the Iraqi people. Current polling data (and I admit, polling data is a sketchy thing to follow at best) suggests that the average Iraqi citizen is far more upset with local insurgent activity than Coalition deployment.

A matyr is someone who dies for what they (are perceived) to stand for. You have to die, preferable killed. Doesn't really matter how, as long as it isn't natural causes. This is one of the reasons I don't think that Saddam should be killed.

Also it depends where abouts in Iraq you poll. The Kurds are far more pro-American then other places like the Sunni triangle.

I was unaware of this. To me, the lesson learnt by the 1 month toppling of Iraq's regime had a lot to do with that, but it appears I am mistaken? Can you provide specifics? I am intrigued.
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1111161,00.html

Also a few other places, but this was the easiest to find.

A matyr is someone who dies for what they (are perceived) to stand for. You have to die, preferable killed. Doesn't really matter how, as long as it isn't natural causes. This is one of the reasons I don't think that Saddam should be killed.

That is certainly true. Your point is once again well taken, however, I believe, anyone can be a matry, but does that matyrdom actually amount to anything if no one cares? Certainly those who are already fighting for that cause will make all sorts of noise of the ultimate sacrifice, but their opinion isn't going to change any. The people who are most likely to be influenced by this matyrdom are, in this instance at least, the people getting killed by the so-called matyr. I apologize if my wording is incorrect; my grasp of the English language is failing me when confronted by my own ideals, but anyone who fights for "that" cause simply does not deserve the wording to me.

As for Saddam, it's out of our hands. It's up to the Iraqi Judicial system as to what they will do to him. I see no problem in executing him for his crimes if that's what the Iraqi's want to do. The only one's affected by the "matyrdom" of the Nazi's in the World War 2 war crimes trials were nazi's themselves. Iraqi's overwhelmingly hate Saddam and will likely be dancing in the streets once he's dead. *shrugs*

Also it depends where abouts in Iraq you poll. The Kurds are far more pro-American then other places like the Sunni triangle.

Very true. As I said, polling data is sketchy at best.


http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1111161,00.html

Also a few other places, but this was the easiest to find.


Ah yes, now I know what you're talking about. Those meetings were actually intitialized on the eve of the Coalition's invasion of Iraq. Once again, the message was clear. I have no doubt in my mind at all that this is a direct result of President George Bush's ultimatium and subsequent invasion. Just like Gidafi, Sadam had been playing a game with the UN for years. Once Sadam's number was called, it seems to me that it the course of action Gidafi had to take in order to survive was clear.

Here's where my sarcasm comes from Etruska.

The State Department changed its findings that 2003 had been a good year for the war on terror when it was pointed out to them that they'd changed their definition of a year and neglected to count some attacks that had occurred in November and December, attacks that resulted, conincidentally enough, in enough casualties to make 2003 the most deadly year ever for terrorist attacks.

The negotiations with Libya had been going on for years--not months. They predated the Iraq invasion by quite a while, considering that the original overtures were made to France and Britain during the Clinton administration. Why? Because while Libya has a ton of oil, the sanctions put in place during Reagan had kept Libya from being able to upgrade their production facilities. If Ghadaffi wanted to access any of that potential money, he was going to have to rejoin the world, and to do that, he had to make up for the terrorist acts he sponsored. His desire for a deal with Britain and France had little to do with the Iraq invasion and everything to do with money.

And as far as the war in Iraq is concerned, well, car bomb today, most death and destruction since the handover of "sovereignty." He's done a splendid job there too. Not to mention that there's still no link between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda, but in the places where there was a connection, we're either undermanned (Afghanistan) or not there at all (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran).

There's where my sarcasm stems from Etruska.

I think it's rather obvious that while they may not be "rooting" so much for one candidate, they would certainly prefer to see Kerry take office as it would make their job a lot easier. All of Kerry's foreign policy ideals can do nothing but benefit Al Queda's current situation. It's rather obvious that Al Queda (and other terrorist groups) only stand to lose from another 4 years of Bush's hard line anti-terrorist policies. Frankly, I don't even see how someone could argue with this.
Well, it's possible Kerry would refrain from attacking (previously?) un-Al Qaeda alligned nations. Lets face it, Al Qaeda (and indeed the entire terrorism issue) has largely been supplanted as a government priority in exchange for the Iraqi debacle. If Bush had spent the countless billions poured into Iraq on actually fighting terrorists (rather than fangless juntas) I think we'd all be a lot safer.

I don't know if they want Bush or not, as I've said earlier I don't think they care. But I take issue with this untrue statement. Maybe you've got your head buried in FOX News for 3 years, but you should know that Al-Qaeda is bigger than it has ever been. They've never had such an easy time recruiting in the Middle East. Bush's "war as a first resort" policy in the Middle east is just fuelling hatred of America in the region. And guess what some poor angry young Muslim man does then?

The question is: what is he capable of doing then? When making a strategic analysis, one must always base it on the enemies capabilities (trying to guess his intentions is secondary and full of pitfalls). Since President Bush began prosecuting the war on terrorists: their finances have been decreased, their financial methods (e.g., money laundering, transfer) are under scrutiny worldwide, their communications are monitored (forcing them to use less efficient means to maintain security), their weapons caches have been seized and destroyed, many of their number are dead or imprisoned, their cells have been dispersed (making coordination much more difficult), intelligence and counter-intelligence assets are pressuring them, and their general operational effectiveness has been severely eroded.

Without the money, communications, manpower, and coordination they need, all these presumed recruits can do is muster a few car bombs that kill innocent fellow Arabs (mostly) and kidnap soft civilian targets. In effect, this imagined army is reduced to AK-47 waving and chanting mobs, with little or no strategic power, especially in terms of projecting their operations into Western countries, where they do not possess the insurgent's vital component of support among the local populace.

If Bush had spent the countless billions poured into Iraq on actually fighting terrorists (rather than fangless juntas) I think we'd all be a lot safer.

Except for the Iraqis, of course.

The question is: what is he capable of doing then? When making a strategic analysis, one must always base it on the enemies capabilities (trying to guess his intentions is secondary and full of pitfalls). Since President Bush began prosecuting the war on terrorists: their finances have been decreased, their financial methods (e.g., money laundering, transfer) are under scrutiny worldwide, their communications are monitored (forcing them to use less efficient means to maintain security), their weapons caches have been seized and destroyed, many of their number are dead or imprisoned, their cells have been dispersed (making coordination much more difficult), intelligence and counter-intelligence assets are pressuring them, and their general operational effectiveness has been severely eroded.

Without the money, communications, manpower, and coordination they need, all these presumed recruits can do is muster a few car bombs that kill innocent fellow Arabs (mostly) and kidnap soft civilian targets. In effect, this imagined army is reduced to AK-47 waving and chanting mobs, with little or no strategic power, especially in terms of projecting their operations into Western countries, where they do not possess the insurgent's vital component of support among the local populace.
1) you assume the middle eastern terrorist organizatiosn are stuff organized on the scale of the IRA
2) killign their members makes martyrs, therefore for every one you kill, you just made 2 more
3) really? we have destroyed all their weapons, are you even referring to terrorists or just iraq, even if the latter we havnt seized and destroyed significant weapons caches
4) you live in the us? lest i heard there are large fundamentalist muslim communities in france and england who could get together and organize a large scale attack, something that involves getting a car and bombing something strategicallyor hijacking a plane can take that much planning, really. you get on a plane, take over. WOW. now high profile assassinatiosn and kidnapping are different thigns entirely

you make too many presumptions

Except for the Iraqis, of course.
Am I crazy or aren't they being blow up by the thousands? Over a hundred dead in bombings today alone, apparently.

Not to mention that there's still no link between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda...

The reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee disagree with you.

The reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee disagree with you.

Really? Could you link to this please? I was under the impression that the SIC found essentially no firm, recent connection.

The reports of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee disagree with you.
No they don't, and I already busted someone else on this. If you say they do, then it is incumbent upon you to prove it where it says it. Quote it, and then I'll show you the footnote that says the information is faulty inside the same report. Go on. I dare you.

Really? Could you link to this please? I was under the impression that the SIC found essentially no firm, recent connection.
they found links that were the equivolent of bush talking to the president of mexico, just to do it. there is nothing to suggest that iraq was involved in 9/11 nor be elated to the terrorist group al-quieda substantially

Really? Could you link to this please? I was under the impression that the SIC found essentially no firm, recent connection.

Oh, now it's "essentially" no "firm, recent connection." Want to just bump it up to "operationally collaborative" now, or after I waste my effort?

Do your own research, I'm sick of doing it for people and then having them just dismiss it out of blind ideology.

No they don't, and I already busted someone else on this. If you say they do, then it is incumbent upon you to prove it where it says it. Quote it, and then I'll show you the footnote that says the information is faulty inside the same report. Go on. I dare you.

If you already know where it is, why don't you just post it?

1) you assume the middle eastern terrorist organizatiosn are stuff organized on the scale of the IRA
2) killign their members makes martyrs, therefore for every one you kill, you just made 2 more
3) really? we have destroyed all their weapons, are you even referring to terrorists or just iraq, even if the latter we havnt seized and destroyed significant weapons caches
4) you live in the us? lest i heard there are large fundamentalist muslim communities in france and england who could get together and organize a large scale attack, something that involves getting a car and bombing something strategicallyor hijacking a plane can take that much planning, really. you get on a plane, take over. WOW. now high profile assassinatiosn and kidnapping are different thigns entirely

you make too many presumptions

1) No I don't. The only mention of scale I made was to acknowledge that many were killed or imprisoned, and that their cells have been dispersed.

2) Two more that have little or no capability, which was the main point of my post; a point you seem to have missed.

3) I never said ALL their weapons. If you want to see just how many caches are being seized and their sizes, this information is readily available on CENTCOM's website.

4) How many attacks have there been in France and Britain in the last year? I can't recall any. I do recall several prominent operations where plans were thwarted and terrorists arrested, though. Hijacking a plane is not the cakewalk you imagine. The 9/11 attacks were over 2 years in the planning. Car bombs do not pack enough power to attack anything truly "strategic." (I don't even want to guess what your definition of that is.) Good thing for the terrorists that you're not involved in operational planning for them.

4) How many attacks have there been in France and Britain in the last year? I can't recall any. I do recall several prominent operations where plans were thwarted and terrorists arrested, though. Hijacking a plane is not the cakewalk you imagine. The 9/11 attacks were over 2 years in the planning. Car bombs do not pack enough power to attack anything truly "strategic." (I don't even want to guess what your definition of that is.) Good thing for the terrorists that you're not involved in operational planning for them.

1) i can get 4 other people, sneak small weapons onto a plane and take over, not too hard. you tell me how it is. it wouldve been more waiting than planning

2) engineered car bomb, they did it to the world trade center if you remember, and oh how did that in oklahoma city happen, how did the bombing of the us cole happen. ok then

If you already know where it is, why don't you just post it?
Because you made the initial claim. It's up to you to prove that your claim is accurate. I'll give you a little hint, though--the footnote that shows the intelligence is iffy at best and is likely inaccurate is found on page 470 of the commission report, page 487 in the pdf file.

... they would certainly prefer to see Kerry...
Frankly, I don't even see how someone could argue with this.
Frankly, I don't even see how someone could argue with you :D

Al-Qaeda and Incertonia are both praying for Kerry to win, both prayed for Dean to win, and both hate my country. Kind of puts Incertonia in perspective.

Al-Qaeda and Incertonia are both praying for Kerry to win, both prayed for Dean to win, and both hate my country. Kind of puts Incertonia in perspective.
I want Bush to stay at the White house...now why dont you try to put ME in perspective. :D

And this matters because? This seems like a rediculous attempt to have a smear fest. Now for my opinion on it.

This issue is directly linked to whose terrorists policy you think is better, if you like Kerry's better you think Al-Quada will support Bush, and vice versa. It is rediculous to think that they will like either side. Both Kerry and Bush will consider pursuing Al Quada, and I would be absolutly shocked if either even considered making peice with them, and I don't think either will. The fact is, both Kerry and Bush completly detest/hate Al Quada. So to try to paint either as being "supported by Al Quada" is immature and pathetic, and shows desperation.

I just don't know. I'm so confident the informations I'm recieving at this point are biased I wouldn't be surprised if Al-Quada WAS George W. Bush.

Haven't terrorist cells swelled in numbers since the Iraq war?

Al-Qaeda and Incertonia are both praying for Kerry to win, both prayed for Dean to win, and both hate my country. Kind of puts Incertonia in perspective.
You're pathetic. Besides--I'm an agnostic. I don't pray.

Let's get into the head of an Al-Quead leader.

Let's see, Al-Queda killed 3000+ on 9/11 and Bush sends 10K soldiers give or take 1K. He's unable to capture many of our top leaders. He pulls back and runs into Iraq, who does not have WMD's or ties to Al-Queda. He topples a secular government and now Al-Queada has a new target and the US just provided Al-Queada with a new recruitment tool.

Hmmmm....Currently Zogby shows Kerry winning the electoral vote by nearly 1/3. Kerry pledges to increase global cooperation in the war on terrorism.

I think Fox News is right, Al-Queda may seek to change the outcome of the election. They want to keep Bush and his talk tough-do nothing policy on dealing with Al-Queada. One positive note for the Bush administration. Al-Queada is Paul O'Neil. That guy has done a real number on freezing their money. Nevermind, Bush forced O'Neil into resigning.

Haven't terrorist cells swelled in numbers since the Iraq war?
Who knows? Seriously, it's not like they publish TOEs. All we can do is rely on what the intelligence community tells us they think is happening, and given their track record do we really want to trust what they say?

TOE = Table of Organization & Equipment

Absolutely!

If Bush wins, that's a sign that terrorism does not work and that the american people want america to fight back.

If Bush loses, that's a sign the terrorism works and that the american people is not strong enough to support a strong leader making though choiced.

'Cause going to war is the though choice. Just staying at home, thightening security a little, that's the easy choice.

Bush made the though choice. For this he became unpopular, and lost the presidency.

Now I expect arguments along the line: If Bush loses, it's because he made a stupid choice.

Well, maybe. I don't think it was stupid, but for the sake of argument I'll go with maybe. The problem is this, the reason a though choice is though is that there is no obvious right thing to do that will satisfy everyone. The reason it is though is that you will get a lot of opposition, including a lot of claims of how stupd and wrong the choice are.

If Bush loses, the opposition will win. And this sets presedence for the future, it will be even harder to make such choices. Next time a president find himself in a similar position, he will look at history and see what happened to Bush.

That means if Bush loses, future America is more likely to get week leaders who are not able to make the though choices. And terrorisme has won a victory because terrorism is obviously capable of putting so much pressure on a country so that it will throw away it's current leader. It worked in spain (yes, the current government made some stupid statements, under pressure), and it worked in America.

So if Bush loses, that's a victory for terrorists. So I firmly believe Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden votes for Kerry.

Absolutely!

If Bush wins, that's a sign that terrorism does not work and that the american people want america to fight back.

If Bush loses, that's a sign the terrorism works and that the american people is not strong enough to support a strong leader making though choiced.

'Cause going to war is the though choice. Just staying at home, thightening security a little, that's the easy choice.

Bush made the though choice. For this he became unpopular, and lost the presidency.

Now I expect arguments along the line: If Bush loses, it's because he made a stupid choice.

Well, maybe. I don't think it was stupid, but for the sake of argument I'll go with maybe. The problem is this, the reason a though choice is though is that there is no obvious right thing to do that will satisfy everyone. The reason it is though is that you will get a lot of opposition, including a lot of claims of how stupd and wrong the choice are.

If Bush loses, the opposition will win. And this sets presedence for the future, it will be even harder to make such choices. Next time a president find himself in a similar position, he will look at history and see what happened to Bush.

That means if Bush loses, future America is more likely to get week leaders who are not able to make the though choices. And terrorisme has won a victory because terrorism is obviously capable of putting so much pressure on a country so that it will throw away it's current leader. It worked in spain (yes, the current government made some stupid statements, under pressure), and it worked in America.

So if Bush loses, that's a victory for terrorists. So I firmly believe Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden votes for Kerry.


orrite dude.... whateva......

youve obviously gone according to republican plans.... i hope that other americans believe otherwise.... or it is essentially dictatorship over there too :rolleyes:

but in the end it doesnt matter how the election goes because the president, be he republican or democrat, is a puppet to higher powers

Absolutely!

If Bush wins, that's a sign that terrorism does not work and that the american people want america to fight back.

If Bush loses, that's a sign the terrorism works and that the american people is not strong enough to support a strong leader making though choiced.

'Cause going to war is the though choice. Just staying at home, thightening security a little, that's the easy choice.

Bush made the though choice. For this he became unpopular, and lost the presidency.

Now I expect arguments along the line: If Bush loses, it's because he made a stupid choice.

Well, maybe. I don't think it was stupid, but for the sake of argument I'll go with maybe. The problem is this, the reason a though choice is though is that there is no obvious right thing to do that will satisfy everyone. The reason it is though is that you will get a lot of opposition, including a lot of claims of how stupd and wrong the choice are.

If Bush loses, the opposition will win. And this sets presedence for the future, it will be even harder to make such choices. Next time a president find himself in a similar position, he will look at history and see what happened to Bush.

That means if Bush loses, future America is more likely to get week leaders who are not able to make the though choices. And terrorisme has won a victory because terrorism is obviously capable of putting so much pressure on a country so that it will throw away it's current leader. It worked in spain (yes, the current government made some stupid statements, under pressure), and it worked in America.

So if Bush loses, that's a victory for terrorists. So I firmly believe Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden votes for Kerry.
go go gadget republican propaganda ignorance

its a zombie, RUN AWAY!

very likely they dont care ,as for the media inspired myth that bush is turning the world against us,i would point out the world is only for us when we either do thier bidding,or hand out large sums of money,otherwise how dare we do anything they dont want us to do? shame it doesnt work in reverse too.

very likely they dont care ,as for the media inspired myth that bush is turning the world against us,i would point out the world is only for us when we either do thier bidding,or hand out large sums of money,otherwise how dare we do anything they dont want us to do? shame it doesnt work in reverse too.

Can you say Pah-Rah-Noy-Ah? After 9/11 there was an outpouring of sympathy for America all over the world. Hell, apart from anything else it wasn't only Americans who died that day. Somehow -- and this must have taken really hard work -- Bush and his pop-eyed cronies managed to piss all that away. People could understand pursuing Al Qaeda, and excising the cancer of the Taliban: that's why America received international support for the assault on Afghanistan. But that doesn't mean that the whole planet should constantly approve anything America does for ever. If the US President does a stupid, dangerous thing -- like launching an unjustified, pre-emptive attack on another country, based on evidence that only a tiny handful of US client states were prepared to "believe" -- then why the bloody hell should other countries give it their unquestioning support? The UN turned down Bush's request for a sanctioned invasion of Iraq for a number of reasons, at least some of which were actually good and reasonable, such as:

1) Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11
2) The "evidence" for WMDs was shoddy and unreliable at best, and in any case we had UN inspectors on the ground
3) It would distract resources from the real fight against Al Qaeda, and from the attempt to rebuild Afghanistan
4) Bush's motives for invading Iraq seemed to have more to do with oil and Halliburton than they did with international peace and security
5) It would destabilise the region and make the world a more dangerous place

If a friend is about to do a stupid, dangerous thing, do you just stand back and let him get on with it -- or, even worse, help him to do it? Or do you say, "Look, you're my mate and all, but this is both dangerous and stupid. Don't do it."

Jeldred speaks well.

Overall, it's not going to matter at all who comes it, they are both detestable in Al Quaeda eyes.

But you got to admit, Bush has done a lovely job of forgetting about that conveniently vague enemy of his administrations own creation (terrorism: notice how this spectre of a foe can be used to rob people of civil rights- thanx to Ashcroft- in the same way that you could do it with Communism) so he can launch the most irrational attack in US history since Vietnam.

And you just have to love the way he is going to piss away billions of dollars (whilst lowering taxes....) on a missile defence system that MAY work, but WILL de-stabilize political relations with a whole heap of people. How many, pray tell, terrorists have their own nuclear missile arsenal? This neo-con inspired crap is going to start hurting people soon (and thats if we overlook Iraq).

One thing, however, that is REALLY tiring me is these idiots who claim that the world hates the US. Remember 9/12 01 and say that. The fact of the matter is, one actually can be critical of an Administration whilst still loving a country overall. Isn't the fundamental value of Democracy to encourage loyal dissent? It seems this quote is huntingly correct...

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country."

-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor

I just don't know. I'm so confident the informations I'm recieving at this point are biased I wouldn't be surprised if Al-Quada WAS George W. Bush.

Al Qaeda IS G.W. Bush!!
No doubt about it.
Just see how many nice family affairs the Bush's and the Bin Laden's has had in the past... all this is just a private affair. In the most perfect Mafia style. Only difference it affects most part of the world...

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same in any country." ....


well....
What to say, I don't agree.
There are countries in THIS (real) world that has decided once for all that WAR and ATTACK is not the solution of international problems. Countries that probably would not be attacked by anyone, because they don't go around beeing aggressive and arrogant, telling everybody else what to do. (US does that since WWII at least).
DEFENCE is legitimate and legal.... But attack to avoid to have to defende one day isn't.
AND there is a big difference between a terrorist action and a WAR action. Al Qaeda is very good at the first one. The US have a master on the second...
No wonder, then, that there is a lot of people in the world angry with the States..

After 9/11 there was an outpouring of sympathy for America all over the world.

Yes, a lot of sympathy, but no REAL help, except for the UK. They are the only true friends we have in the world. All other countries offered TOKEN help and are really just looking for a handout.

Of course Al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win. He has publicly said he will ask the world communities permission (UN) before he takes any action. Imagine that, the US attacked again and Kerry has to ask permission from the anti-US UN for PERMISSION to respond to the attack! Now WHO would want a LEADER who answers to the UN? Given France's attitude to the US they would veto any response anyway. The US cannot get a fair shake in the UN and Bush knew it. No matter what we do, we are always going to be wrong in the eyes of the Europeans.

It seems that some sections of the media are discussing who al-Qaeda are likely rooting for to win the election. FOX News seems to be particularly interested in the topic. And as you would expect, their hosts and commentators are putting forth the groundless statement that al-Qaeda is hoping that John Kerry will win.

If you think al-Qaeda cares who wins the presidential election, I think you're a bit naive. Al-Qaeda hates the Dems and the Reps with equal passion. And if relatively moderate people like me see that there is little difference betweem the Repsand the Dems, how do you think a bunch of ultra-conservative religious tinpots see it? I have no doubt that the two parties are one and the same in their eyes - infidels to kill.
If anything, they hope Bush will win. He has managed to HELP them these last few years, by pissing off the entire arab world. Also, basically, ignore anything coming from Fox News, its just really wierd propoganda along the lines of 'Bin Laden wants you to vote for Kerry, be a good american and vote for Bush'

On the contrary, I think Bush is horrible for Al Queda's, or any other terrorist group's, recruitment. Terror attacks worldwide have hit a low since the President began his anti-terror campaign compared to the past decade's, and the widespread destruction of terrorist cells and training camp can only be a bad thing for burgeoning terrorist populations. On top of that, killing and imprisoning terrorists is a very good deterrent: you can't be a matyr to the cause if all of you're cause's recruiters get shot.What news network have you been watching? Al Qaeda has actually expanded, there are DAILY attacks throughout the middle east and europe. The only place the attacks have cut down is here, where we jump at the slightest hint of terrorists. We have gone from ignoring all intelligence to jumping at everything. I would not be suprised if this scenario played out.
Cia: "We have intelligence that says Bin Laden has a cat."
Bush: 'EXECUTE ALL KITTENS!!!!'

go go gadget republican propaganda ignorance

its a zombie, RUN AWAY!
I like your arguments! They give a lot of insight into the depths behind your opinion and why you don't want to vote for Bush.

Another good thing about your arguments is the way they in no way bring down my arguments. That means what I said stands unopposed, at least from your post. I like that, makes me believe I've got at least some of it right.

Btw: I'm not from the US. Here in Norway we have mostly socialist propaganda, and the big majority hates Bush. I actually made the arguments up myself! There's a noble idea!

Yes, a lot of sympathy, but no REAL help, except for the UK. They are the only true friends we have in the world. All other countries offered TOKEN help and are really just looking for a handout.

Apart from Uzbekistan, who allowed the US to use its country as an airstrip. Or Pakistan, who provided intelligence and assistance in dealing with the various warlord bands in Afghanistan. Or indeed the whole bloody United Nations, who sanctioned the removal of the Taliban -- largely carried out by elements within Afghanistan, with US air support. And frankly, as a UK citizen I can tell you that our motives in helping the US in Iraq are far from noble, let alone legitimate or even supported by a majority of the population.

Of course Al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win. He has publicly said he will ask the world communities permission (UN) before he takes any action. Imagine that, the US attacked again and Kerry has to ask permission from the anti-US UN for PERMISSION to respond to the attack! Now WHO would want a LEADER who answers to the UN? Given France's attitude to the US they would veto any response anyway. The US cannot get a fair shake in the UN and Bush knew it. No matter what we do, we are always going to be wrong in the eyes of the Europeans.

Yes, because Bush has really damaged Al Qaeda, hasn't he? How are they going to cope with all the new recruits they've gained since the US's illegitimate and unprovoked attack on Iraq -- a country that Al Qaeda had regarded with hostility? Their administration must be stretched to breaking point, dealing with all those new members.

And I remind you, the UN supported the attack on Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban -- because there was a bloody good reason to go and do it. They didn't support the attack on Iraq for, as I said above, a variety of reasons, some of which were actually reasonable:

1) Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11
2) The "evidence" for WMDs was shoddy and unreliable at best, and in any case we had UN inspectors on the ground
3) It would distract resources from the real fight against Al Qaeda, and from the attempt to rebuild Afghanistan
4) Bush's motives for invading Iraq seemed to have more to do with oil and Halliburton than they did with international peace and security
5) It would destabilise the region and make the world a more dangerous place

France, and Russia, both had their own grubby little agendas, not least the amount of money that Saddam's regime owed them. In that respect they were different from the USA: they sold weapons and other questionable material to that tin-pot little murderer: America gave him weapons. It's a subtle distinction, I grant you.

Apart from Uzbekistan, who allowed the US to use its country as an airstrip. Or Pakistan, who provided intelligence and assistance in dealing with the various warlord bands in Afghanistan. Or indeed the whole bloody United Nations, who sanctioned the removal of the Taliban -- largely carried out by elements within Afghanistan, with US air support. And frankly, as a UK citizen I can tell you that our motives in helping the US in Iraq are far from noble, let alone legitimate or even supported by a majority of the population.

We had to PAY Uzbekistan for the rights to use their airspace and airstrips.

Pakistan we had to release F-16's that we were withholding due to their nuclear brinkmanship with India.

I would hardly call that WILLING help.

Yes, because Bush has really damaged Al Qaeda, hasn't he? How are they going to cope with all the new recruits they've gained since the US's illegitimate and unprovoked attack on Iraq -- a country that Al Qaeda had regarded with hostility? Their administration must be stretched to breaking point, dealing with all those new members.

Yes, ALL those new members. proof of their existance is speculatory at best. Even if their ranks ARE swelling, where will they go to fight us? In Iraq or Afganistan of course. I would much rather have them try to take on our military than take on unarmed civilians. In time Iraq will be cleared of the cowards. Now, how many times did the UN sanctions say that force could be used by ANY member state anyway?

And I remind you, the UN supported the attack on Afghanistan and the removal of the Taliban -- because there was a bloody good reason to go and do it. They didn't support the attack on Iraq for, as I said above, a variety of reasons, some of which were actually reasonable:

1) Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11
2) The "evidence" for WMDs was shoddy and unreliable at best, and in any case we had UN inspectors on the ground
3) It would distract resources from the real fight against Al Qaeda, and from the attempt to rebuild Afghanistan
4) Bush's motives for invading Iraq seemed to have more to do with oil and Halliburton than they did with international peace and security
5) It would destabilise the region and make the world a more dangerous place

France, and Russia, both had their own grubby little agendas, not least the amount of money that Saddam's regime owed them. In that respect they were different from the USA: they sold weapons and other questionable material to that tin-pot little murderer: America gave him weapons. It's a subtle distinction, I grant you.

That Saddam was hiding something is not in doubt. Trucks leaving the back gate as inspectors are entering the front gate is proof enough of that. Time will prove that right. As a UK citizen you should know that it was the UK that created the middle east and the troubles there to begin with. Oh, the British Empire was good at one thing, divide and conquer. Winston Churchill said there would never be peace there, and he was right. As for the US "giving" saddam weapons, yes we did. He was fighting Iran, an even greater terrorist state that had held 52 American hostages for almost 2 years in a violation of international law and UN mandates. That he then turned on Kuwait and threatened Isreal was his downfall. One thing is true of despots. As long as they stay within their own borders and slaughter their own people, noone cares. Once they step out of those borders, everyone suddenly wakes up.

As for Kerry, he would be the UN's whipping boy. The UN is useless as a whole and should be moved to Switzerland once and for all. It has become the League of Nations.

We had to PAY Uzbekistan for the rights to use their airspace and airstrips.

Pakistan we had to release F-16's that we were withholding due to their nuclear brinkmanship with India.

I would hardly call that WILLING help.

No, you're quite right. Not like the no-strings-attached free assitance the USA doles out on a regular basis to all and sundry, eh? Welcome to planet earth. Do you have any fruits or vegetables?

Yes, ALL those new members. proof of their existance is speculatory at best. Even if their ranks ARE swelling, where will they go to fight us? In Iraq or Afganistan of course. I would much rather have them try to take on our military than take on unarmed civilians. In time Iraq will be cleared of the cowards. Now, how many times did the UN sanctions say that force could be used by ANY member state anyway?

Much like the "proof" of the WMDs, eh? Sure, the CIA and MI5 have both said that the world is now a more dangerous place, post-Iraq, but what do they know? They were wrong before. Except you seem to think...

That Saddam was hiding something is not in doubt. Trucks leaving the back gate as inspectors are entering the front gate is proof enough of that. Time will prove that right. As a UK citizen you should know that it was the UK that created the middle east and the troubles there to begin with. Oh, the British Empire was good at one thing, divide and conquer. Winston Churchill said there would never be peace there, and he was right. As for the US "giving" saddam weapons, yes we did. He was fighting Iran, an even greater terrorist state that had held 52 American hostages for almost 2 years in a violation of international law and UN mandates. That he then turned on Kuwait and threatened Isreal was his downfall. One thing is true of despots. As long as they stay within their own borders and slaughter their own people, noone cares. Once they step out of those borders, everyone suddenly wakes up.

Ah. All you need is a bit more time. Funny -- I remember the UN weapons inspectors saying the same thing.

Thanks for telling me about UK imperial history. Oddly enough, I knew this already. I also know that Churchill was the forst person to advocate the use of chemical weapons on Iraqi civilians -- Kurds, as it happens.

I don't know why you put "giving" in quotes like that. Either the US gave him weapons, or it didn't. I also know why the US supported Iraq in the 1980s: political expediency. The same reason it funded Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and turned (and continues to turn) a blind eye to the real root of Al Qaeda: Saudi Arabia. You'd think they, and other nations, would learn, wouldn't you, that aiding one monster to fight another is seldom a good idea? Sometimes you have to, like allying with Stalin against Hitler -- but it never works out well in the end. Sadly, we can see this criminal, half-witted, short-term, self-centred policy continuing with the chummy overtures Bush & co. are making towards the crazy demagogue running Uzbekistan. Never mind: no doubt in 20 years' time we'll be sending in the troops there to liberate their poor, oppressed mineral wealth from "the greatest threat to world peace since the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler".

As for Kerry, he would be the UN's whipping boy. The UN is useless as a whole and should be moved to Switzerland once and for all. It has become the League of Nations.

The UN is the sum of its parts, nothing more, nothing less. If it is failing then it is the responsibility of its members -- especially its richest, most powerful members -- to fix the bloody thing and not behave like giant, aggressive, nuclear-armed spoiled children.

No, you're quite right. Not like the no-strings-attached free assitance the USA doles out on a regular basis to all and sundry, eh? Welcome to planet earth. Do you have any fruits or vegetables?

Actually the US has given many billions in foreign aid freely. MUCH more than any other country. Should we? No, i don't think so because that only causes more problems, not less.


Much like the "proof" of the WMDs, eh? Sure, the CIA and MI5 have both said that the world is now a more dangerous place, post-Iraq, but what do they know? They were wrong before. Except you seem to think...

The WMD's are out there somewhere. Enough sarin nerve agent has already been found, that if PROPERLY deployed could kill thousands of people, but that is overlooked. The Iraqi Air Force was found...buried in the desert, one day the WMD's will be too, but by who?

Ah. All you need is a bit more time. Funny -- I remember the UN weapons inspectors saying the same thing.

Yes, but the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam. Now, IF there were no WMD's, then why was there so much secrecy and tricks being played by Saddam?

Thanks for telling me about UK imperial history. Oddly enough, I knew this already. I also know that Churchill was the forst person to advocate the use of chemical weapons on Iraqi civilians -- Kurds, as it happens.

I am sure you did, you seem to be a very intelligent person. He also wanted to drop anthrax on Berlin. Tests were done on an island in the north of Scotland. Anthrax spores are still alive there today.

I don't know why you put "giving" in quotes like that. Either the US gave him weapons, or it didn't. I also know why the US supported Iraq in the 1980s: political expediency. The same reason it funded Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and turned (and continues to turn) a blind eye to the real root of Al Qaeda: Saudi Arabia. You'd think they, and other nations, would learn, wouldn't you, that aiding one monster to fight another is seldom a good idea? Sometimes you have to, like allying with Stalin against Hitler -- but it never works out well in the end. Sadly, we can see this criminal, half-witted, short-term, self-centred policy continuing with the chummy overtures Bush & co. are making towards the crazy demagogue running Uzbekistan. Never mind: no doubt in 20 years' time we'll be sending in the troops there to liberate their poor, oppressed mineral wealth from "the greatest threat to world peace since the greatest threat to world peace since Hitler".

Because we did not give him weapons, we sold them to him. We sold him chemical weapons as well as conventional. We provided satellite imaging and other intelligence. He was actually winning easily in Iran until he personally took command away from his generals. Sounds like someone else we know doesn't it? Do i think Saudi Arabia is behind Al-Qaeda? Yes I do. I have been all over the middle east and I do not trust the Saudi's for an instant. Why do we keep doing business with them and buying their oil? Well, they will run out one day and then we won't have anything to do with them. The sooner the better. So lets buy it quickly so their money will dry up and that will be that. One thing is funny about the middle east, not one country there actually produces anything...except oil and that is there naturally. They buy everything from others. If the rest of the world would boycott selling them anything for one year, their support of terrorists will dry up. Afterall, the sheiks cannot be seen driving last years Benz.

The UN is the sum of its parts, nothing more, nothing less. If it is failing then it is the responsibility of its members -- especially its richest, most powerful members -- to fix the bloody thing and not behave like giant, aggressive, nuclear-armed spoiled children.

Thats very true, unfortunately since the fall of the Soviet Union there has been a huge increase in anti-American activity in the UN. To the point that our government is almost ready to leave it. I would hope we do, the UN needs the US more than we need it.

Actually the US has given many billions in foreign aid freely. MUCH more than any other country. Should we? No, i don't think so because that only causes more problems, not less.

Not as a percentage of GDP; I think Japan tops that table, but I could be wrong. In any case most US foreign aid goes to Israel. I don't intend to critique that decision here but US aid to Israel is obviously not string-free and could hardly be described as wholly out of the goodness of successive US governments' hearts.

The WMD's are out there somewhere. Enough sarin nerve agent has already been found, that if PROPERLY deployed could kill thousands of people, but that is overlooked. The Iraqi Air Force was found...buried in the desert, one day the WMD's will be too, but by who?

We know that Saddam Hussein used to have WMDs. After all, we provided the stuff which he used on the Kurds, while we all sat back smiling complacently. He used them against the Iranians, while the US fed him satellite intelligence to help him deploy them properly. And enough sarin which, if properly deployed, could kill thousands, is not a lot of sarin. However, it is manifestly obvious that Iraq did not have an active WMD programme or any major stockpile of WMDs, nor did it have the capability to weaponise, let alone rapidly deploy, any remnant which might be lying around.

Yes, but the inspectors were kicked out by Saddam. Now, IF there were no WMD's, then why was there so much secrecy and tricks being played by Saddam?

No, they were not: not in 2002. The UN weapons inspectors were forced to withdraw by the USA, when it made its intentions to invade Iraq public and obvious. Admittedly, Bush's belligerent attitude had been instrumental in getting the inspectors back in -- this was a positive achievement that should have been built on, though, and not undermined by precipitate and unnecessary invasion.

On the "secrecy and tricks": did you ever think how hard it must be to surrender WMDs that don't exist? Also -- and this is something that fooled the CIA as well -- Saddam probably thought that he did have WMDs. For years a black economy had existed in Iraq, orbiting around claims of WMDs and their manufacture. This has been recognised by the UK and US security agencies.

I am sure you did, you seem to be a very intelligent person. He also wanted to drop anthrax on Berlin. Tests were done on an island in the north of Scotland. Anthrax spores are still alive there today.

The island is called Gruinard, it's distressingly close to the shore, and -- so they would have you believe -- it's apparently safe now. Not that I'm desperate to check.

Because we did not give him weapons, we sold them to him. We sold him chemical weapons as well as conventional. We provided satellite imaging and other intelligence. He was actually winning easily in Iran until he personally took command away from his generals. Sounds like someone else we know doesn't it? Do i think Saudi Arabia is behind Al-Qaeda? Yes I do. I have been all over the middle east and I do not trust the Saudi's for an instant. Why do we keep doing business with them and buying their oil? Well, they will run out one day and then we won't have anything to do with them. The sooner the better. So lets buy it quickly so their money will dry up and that will be that. One thing is funny about the middle east, not one country there actually produces anything...except oil and that is there naturally. They buy everything from others. If the rest of the world would boycott selling them anything for one year, their support of terrorists will dry up. Afterall, the sheiks cannot be seen driving last years Benz.

No, we gave the weapons to him. We might have pretended to sell them, but they were gifts, and he knew it. In the UK we have something called "export credit guarantee", and I'm sure the USA has something similar. We "sell" the weapons to a tin-pot mass-murderer; the t-p m-m fails to pay: who would have thought it? He seemed such a nice man. Never mind, the British taxpayer will compensate the poor arms manufacturer who was unnacountably ripped off -- again! -- after dealing with an apparently reputable criminal.

The middle east has massive problems, this is true; most of them stemming from decades of European imperialism in the region, followed by a fawning whatever-you-want attitude as soon as we found they owned most of the oil on the planet. The sooner we rid ourselves of our societal addiction to oil, the better.

Thats very true, unfortunately since the fall of the Soviet Union there has been a huge increase in anti-American activity in the UN. To the point that our government is almost ready to leave it. I would hope we do, the UN needs the US more than we need it.

The only "anti-American" activity I can recall at the UN was the reluctance to accept the somewhat shoddy "intelligence" about the imminent danger posed by Saddam and his massive mystery weapons. And it's not as if the UN wasn't concerned: they just felt that the weapons insepctors in Iraq should be given more time. Apart from that, the UN has done little which could be described as "anti-American", as far as I know. It does keep passing resoultions against Israel, but that's a whole extra can of worms which I'm not going to open.

Not as a percentage of GDP; I think Japan tops that table, but I could be wrong. In any case most US foreign aid goes to Israel. I don't intend to critique that decision here but US aid to Israel is obviously not string-free and could hardly be described as wholly out of the goodness of successive US governments' hearts.

True, MOST foreign aid we give today does go to Israel. I believe it was in 1990 that Congress finally got around to limiting foreign aid. lets not forget who pays (when we pay) the greatest amount of the UN budget. We quit paying when it was found that there was immense waste and fraud being perpetrated. Lets also not forget the vast amounts spent on NATO. While not strictly foreign aid, it could be argued that the European nations might not exist without it due to possible Soviet aggression. That our troops remain in Europe and contribut heavily to the European economies could also be construed as foreign aid at this point in history since they really do not need to be there. I know when I was stationed in the UK I contributed much of my paycheck to the local pubs. ;)

We know that Saddam Hussein used to have WMDs. After all, we provided the stuff which he used on the Kurds, while we all sat back smiling complacently. He used them against the Iranians, while the US fed him satellite intelligence to help him deploy them properly. And enough sarin which, if properly deployed, could kill thousands, is not a lot of sarin. However, it is manifestly obvious that Iraq did not have an active WMD programme or any major stockpile of WMDs, nor did it have the capability to weaponise, let alone rapidly deploy, any remnant which might be lying around.

In time we will know if what we thought was there actually was there. Remember, Saddam said he had NO chemical weapons, therefore we should not have found ANY. I don't think we could ever find enough to prove to everyone that there was indeed a program. Maybe not on a great scale but a program nonetheless. For some we could find a program still in production and it would not be enough.

No, they were not: not in 2002. The UN weapons inspectors were forced to withdraw by the USA, when it made its intentions to invade Iraq public and obvious. Admittedly, Bush's belligerent attitude had been instrumental in getting the inspectors back in -- this was a positive achievement that should have been built on, though, and not undermined by precipitate and unnecessary invasion.

In 1998 when Saddam made the inspectors leave, I was deployed to Bahrain for 45 days. Saddam was up to something, he was producing missles that had a greater range than that authorized by the UN. He had chemicals he could load onto them to. No, it was not a large program, but it was a program. Why did he not just cooperate? I honestly think the French and Germans were doing business with him in violation of the UN mandates and did not want that to become public.


On the "secrecy and tricks": did you ever think how hard it must be to surrender WMDs that don't exist? Also -- and this is something that fooled the CIA as well -- Saddam probably thought that he did have WMDs. For years a black economy had existed in Iraq, orbiting around claims of WMDs and their manufacture. This has been recognised by the UK and US security agencies.

You might be right, there is evidence of that happening. Many scientists from Iraq have said they just told Saddam whatever he wanted to hear. That of course is tempered with the fact that those who did not were usually taken out back and shot.

The island is called Gruinard, it's distressingly close to the shore, and -- so they would have you believe -- it's apparently safe now. Not that I'm desperate to check.

No, anthrax spores can survive for centuries. They have a protective coating that protects them until activated....which means inhaled.

No, we gave the weapons to him. We might have pretended to sell them, but they were gifts, and he knew it. In the UK we have something called "export credit guarantee", and I'm sure the USA has something similar. We "sell" the weapons to a tin-pot mass-murderer; the t-p m-m fails to pay: who would have thought it? He seemed such a nice man. Never mind, the British taxpayer will compensate the poor arms manufacturer who was unnacountably ripped off -- again! -- after dealing with an apparently reputable criminal.

You might be right on this one. I do not have all the info, but iirc we did sell him the weapons systems but provided the satellite info for free.

The middle east has massive problems, this is true; most of them stemming from decades of European imperialism in the region, followed by a fawning whatever-you-want attitude as soon as we found they owned most of the oil on the planet. The sooner we rid ourselves of our societal addiction to oil, the better.

No argument here. I would buy an electric or hydrogen fueled car in a heartbeat if they were available.

The only "anti-American" activity I can recall at the UN was the reluctance to accept the somewhat shoddy "intelligence" about the imminent danger posed by Saddam and his massive mystery weapons. And it's not as if the UN wasn't concerned: they just felt that the weapons insepctors in Iraq should be given more time. Apart from that, the UN has done little which could be described as "anti-American", as far as I know. It does keep passing resoultions against Israel, but that's a whole extra can of worms which I'm not going to open.

Israel is one of the US's closest allies. We support them like noone else. The UN has steadfastly held Israel to a higher standard than the Palestinians. A bus is blown up and Israel retaliates and the UN condemns them. How many UN resolutions have been against Israel? Now we have so much anti-semitism in Europe that Jews are fleeing to Israel. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540227/ Why am I not surprised that France is the major player in this?

in a word; yes

wouldn't you if you were al-quida

a raging christian crusader vs. (what is at least percived as) a softy leftists

I can't believe I'm actually going to try to give a serious answer to the question answered instead of being snarky--snark is all the question deserves after all--but here goes.

The problem is with the premise of the question--does al Qaeda care who wins and if they do, who do they want to win, the idea being that we should vote against that candidate.

Problem 1) can we know with any degree of certainty who al Qaeda supports? Simple answer--no. We don't know and we can't trust anyone who claims to know because that individual or group might have an agenda of their own.

Problem 2) Assuming that we were able to magically determine who al Qaeda supports--say Bin Laden appeared on al Arabiya and endorsed someone--could we believe him or would we question of he was trying to screw with us in order to mess with the elections?

Problem 3) If we were to vote based on the opinions of al Qaeda, don't we cede the operational advantage to them? The idea is to be the aggressor in any war, so if we react to al Qaeda rather than having them react to us, don't we lose the advantage?

All of the other arguments aside--if the war against al Qaeda s the most important issue for you, then vote for the person you think will prosecute that war most effectively, and make the case for why you think he'll do the best job on it. But don't fall into this idiotic trap of trying to figure out what al Qaeda wants and then voting against that--it doesn't work and it's dumb besides.

Now we have so much anti-semitism in Europe that Jews are fleeing to Israel. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540227/ Why am I not surprised that France is the major player in this?
Maybe it's because France has the world's third largest Jewish population? France also has the largest Muslim population outside of the Middle East and South-East Asia (around 10% of the population). A lot of these Muslims are poor, sidelined and therefore angry with the society that has failed to integrate them. They find Jews to be an easy target. I'm not saying this is OK, I'm just saying why I think it's happening. I think that a lot of these Muslims are angry about the way Israel treats the Palestinians too (let's not get into that here).

You seem to be an intelligent person so I'm surprised that you imply that the French government or people are complicit with anti-Semitism.

Problem 1) can we know with any degree of certainty who al Qaeda supports? Simple answer--no. We don't know and we can't trust anyone who claims to know because that individual or group might have an agenda of their own.

But don't fall into this idiotic trap of trying to figure out what al Qaeda wants and then voting against that--it doesn't work and it's dumb besides.
Yeah, this is what I was basically trying to say.

You seem to be an intelligent person so I'm surprised that you imply that the French government or people are complicit with anti-Semitism.

I never said they were involved or approved of it. I just find it ironic that France, who decries the US at every turn has such a problem. What are they doing about it? Nothing much really it would seem. France has backed the Palestinians in the UN over Israel at every turn. Maybe that has emboldened the Muslims living there. France has 5 million Muslims and 500,000 Jews. This is not confined to France either. Germany, The Netherlands, Austria, Italy and the UK are ALL seeing an increase in Anti-Semitic attacks. Just not to the extent as France....yet. The enemy within is always more dangerous than the enemy from outside.

The question is: what is he capable of doing then? When making a strategic analysis, one must always base it on the enemies capabilities (trying to guess his intentions is secondary and full of pitfalls). Since President Bush began prosecuting the war on terrorists: their finances have been decreased, their financial methods (e.g., money laundering, transfer) are under scrutiny worldwide, their communications are monitored (forcing them to use less efficient means to maintain security), their weapons caches have been seized and destroyed, many of their number are dead or imprisoned, their cells have been dispersed (making coordination much more difficult), intelligence and counter-intelligence assets are pressuring them, and their general operational effectiveness has been severely eroded.

Without the money, communications, manpower, and coordination they need, all these presumed recruits can do is muster a few car bombs that kill innocent fellow Arabs (mostly) and kidnap soft civilian targets. In effect, this imagined army is reduced to AK-47 waving and chanting mobs, with little or no strategic power, especially in terms of projecting their operations into Western countries, where they do not possess the insurgent's vital component of support among the local populace.All this has truely done is keep the terrorists from performing another September 11th. In other words, they don't have the funding or infrastructure to plan and execute the murder of thousands of people in one go. However, kill 10 people a day for a year you have another WTC. Thats what pissed me off so much on September 12th. We were furious that they dare attack us on our own soil, yet we had no sympathy for people who undergo terror attacks as a fact of life. In a single year (at the time) Israel and other nations lost more people than we did to terror, the only difference is we lost a lot of them all at once. Also, most of Bush's anti-terror precautions have basically let the terrorists truely win. Its been over 3 years, and life STILL hasn't returned to normal. Guess what Bush. Bin Laden won, we're scared sh*tless, we won't let people take nailfiles onto airplanes. We search old women for knitting needles.

Who knows? Seriously, it's not like they publish TOEs. All we can do is rely on what the intelligence community tells us they think is happening, and given their track record do we really want to trust what they say?

TOE = Table of Organization & Equipment
Didn't we bomb our own embassy back in the clinton days?

Yes, a lot of sympathy, but no REAL help, except for the UK. They are the only true friends we have in the world. All other countries offered TOKEN help and are really just looking for a handout.

Of course Al-Qaeda wants Kerry to win. He has publicly said he will ask the world communities permission (UN) before he takes any action. Imagine that, the US attacked again and Kerry has to ask permission from the anti-US UN for PERMISSION to respond to the attack! Now WHO would want a LEADER who answers to the UN? Given France's attitude to the US they would veto any response anyway. The US cannot get a fair shake in the UN and Bush knew it. No matter what we do, we are always going to be wrong in the eyes of the Europeans.
Okay, do us all a favor, stop watching FOX News, use your little v-chip and block it, and then forget the password. There isn't a country out there that hates America, there are PLENTY that hate ignorant rednecks who's sole goal in life is to prove that America is the best by pissing on every other country. Btw, we happen to have one of those running the country at the moment...

Do Americans really believe that al-Qaeda cares who wins the presidential election? I do believe that Ossama cares...

Okay, do us all a favor, stop watching FOX News, use your little v-chip and block it, and then forget the password. There isn't a country out there that hates America, there are PLENTY that hate ignorant rednecks who's sole goal in life is to prove that America is the best by pissing on every other country. Btw, we happen to have one of those running the country at the moment...

Sorry, Mr. Kerry actually said that, noone made it up. I would rather have a redneck who will stand for himself than a wimp who will run to the UN and complain that some bad person did something and can we have permission to hit him back.

I am not sure that America is the BEST country. I have not been to them all yet, just 31 so far. But out of those 31 it certainly is by far the best. As for countries hating America....I think Iran, North Korea and Syria would qualify, but those are not really nice countries anyway. One is run by religious fanatics, one is literally starving to death and the other is a terrorist state beyond compare.

I can't believe I'm actually going to try to give a serious answer to the question answered instead of being snarky--snark is all the question deserves after all--but here goes.

The problem is with the premise of the question--does al Qaeda care who wins and if they do, who do they want to win, the idea being that we should vote against that candidate.

Problem 1) can we know with any degree of certainty who al Qaeda supports? Simple answer--no. We don't know and we can't trust anyone who claims to know because that individual or group might have an agenda of their own.

Problem 2) Assuming that we were able to magically determine who al Qaeda supports--say Bin Laden appeared on al Arabiya and endorsed someone--could we believe him or would we question of he was trying to screw with us in order to mess with the elections?

Problem 3) If we were to vote based on the opinions of al Qaeda, don't we cede the operational advantage to them? The idea is to be the aggressor in any war, so if we react to al Qaeda rather than having them react to us, don't we lose the advantage?

All of the other arguments aside--if the war against al Qaeda s the most important issue for you, then vote for the person you think will prosecute that war most effectively, and make the case for why you think he'll do the best job on it. But don't fall into this idiotic trap of trying to figure out what al Qaeda wants and then voting against that--it doesn't work and it's dumb besides.:HUG:

No problem--just trying to add a little sanity to an otherwise stupid discussion.