2024-03-29, 01:19 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
Author Topic: "Anyone but Bush" (Al Qaeda choice for president)  (Read 20301 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« on: 2004-08-11, 10:33 »

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040811...23531-3824r.htm

Quote
U.S. intelligence officials say a high-profile political assassination, triggered by the public release of a new message from Osama bin Laden, will lead off the next major al Qaeda terrorist attack, The Washington Times has learned.
    The assassination plan is among new details of al Qaeda plots disclosed by U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports who, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the killing could be carried out against a U.S. or foreign leader either in the United States or abroad....

..."The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "

Well if it wasn't obvious before, it is now.  The terrorists see Kerry as the softer option.  Remember this when you go to the polls.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Hedhunta
 
Chton
*******
Posts: 231

« Reply #1 on: 2004-08-11, 12:57 »

shows how cowardly they are. you'd think theyd be all for bush since 'the media' keeps telling us hes the reason the terrorists are all fired up(in truth theyve been fired up since the 70s, bush jr has just been the first to actually DO SOMETHING about it, whether the right or the wrong way, thats the way our nation works, if its the wrong way, yes, it may be a huge mistake that cost lives, but what doesnt cost lives? your as likely to die in a car accident as on the battlefield if you join the army. when we make mistakes, we correct them, if bush jrs way isnt the right way to win it, the next guy will have his shot at it, and well keep trying til its done)but they want kerry cause he keeps saying hes going to pull completely out leaving the terrorists to regroup(battle of britain anyone? remember, the only reason britain did not fall was because hitler gave the RAF a HUGE break by bombing cities instead of the airfields and radar towers). quite obviously if they are going so far as to publicly admit they want kerry, bush must be doing one hell of a job destroying them! make no mistake, we are slowly winning this 'war on terror' as its called, its going to take a long time for sure, but we will win. that is how america works, were winners no matter the cost. ignore the vocal minority and you realise how many people actually agree with whats happening. 9 times out of 10 the people against the war entirely have no fricking clue what theyre talking about.

oh and before anyone goes spouting off how "you dont know what war is like you violence-hungry teenager". yes actually i do, not directly of course, because im not in the military(yet, though i will/would gladly serve should i be needed that urgently), but I have been studying military history since i was 12, and i made no effort to skip the letters home and the gruesome pictures of the war. i KNOW war is hell. thats specifically why we must stop it from coming here by fighting it over there.
Logged
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #2 on: 2004-08-11, 18:50 »

Normally I prefer to stay out of these forums as I regard this fine site as recreational, but after that speech I need to say something.

1. Al Qaeda realise that Bush has security up the arse, they don't really care which Americans they wipe out so they'll go for the easier option. Cowardice, maybe, but the aftershocks would be no less apparent.

2. The reason they are so fired up is cos, frankly, US foreign policy stinks. Al Qaeda are only able to pull off these stunts because of the kickass CIA training they got during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan during the Cold War. Not to mention stuff like the US-backed ethnic cleansing in places like East Timor, and the ongoing shit in Israel/Palestine.

3. QUOTE: "... whether the right or the wrong way, thats the way our nation works, if its the wrong way, yes, it may be a huge mistake that cost lives ..." What planet are you on, mate? There is no right way to do a wrong thing, and the slaughter of thousands of people is definately NOT the right thing, regardless of whether it's the US, Al Qaeda or anyone else, just cos you think that they MIGHT have a grudge against you. Saddam Hussein might have been a dictator, but he sure as hell was no Hitler. Yeah, so they got him, and Iraq is a "free democratic state". Now what? The country lies in ruins, with the US and British troops being killed on a daily basis, the extremists running amok and numerous assassination attempts on members of the interim government. Afghanistan is no different.


4. QUOTE: "... we will win. that is how america works, were winners no matter the cost. ignore the vocal minority and you realise how many people actually agree with whats happening ..." I pity you. You have absolutely NO idea how arrogant you sound. Yeah, ignore the vocal minority and you haven't even got the fcuking foggiest notion how many people agree with THEM. As you can probably tell, I am one of those individuals, and I like to think that I have a bit of grey matter along with it. Apart from the fact that the little place where I come from ie Northern Ireland has had its own fair share of terrorism over the last 35 years, so I assure you that I DO know what I am talking about.

Let me tell you something. This "war on terror" can never be won, because the only thing that will result from Bush's antics (as we have seen) is that all they do is piss the extremists off even more. I harken back to the Bloody Sunday massacre in Derry, Northern Ireland in 1973 where British troops opened fire on a group of unarmed civil rights protesters, killing 13 and wounding many more. After that the IRA got more applications than ever before. I am not saying that the US troops are deliberately wiping out innocent civilians, but ultimately they do and they have backed nations that do for many years (see above) and all that this campaign will lead to is more bloodshed. Evil begets evil.

Joining the military is, of course, your choice, but how long for?
« Last Edit: 2004-08-11, 18:57 by scalliano » Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Genialus
 

Shambler
*****
Posts: 119

« Reply #3 on: 2004-08-11, 19:34 »

I'm not sure I understand the cowardise thing, what do you want from them? To me it sounds like you want them to openly go to war or something, that wouldn't be brave that would be stupid; men on camels against planes and and laser guided missiles?

If we wanted to we could prevent the terror from spreading by allowing free trade. It's so much easier for Osama and all his followers to convince more people to join their cause if the people they are trying to convine are starved and poor. I'd like the war on terror to more like that in stead of what we are doing.

I was still for the war in Irak, I hate war but this time it seemed there was no other way. If we hadn't interfered the population would have suffered eternally, at least now they have a chance to create a somewhat better country.
« Last Edit: 2004-08-11, 19:34 by Genialus » Logged
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #4 on: 2004-08-11, 20:00 »

They're still suffering. And will be for a very long time.
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
games keeper
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1375

« Reply #5 on: 2004-08-11, 20:04 »

I would still vote for kerry . I still dont like bush .
weird isn't it , that just the tape with his pictures on where he served the army has gone missing or whatever .
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #6 on: 2004-08-11, 20:38 »

I would invite anyone discussing this topic to begin some research on Wahabism.  The roots of terrorism weren't sown by the CIA or any US policy.  They've been there for a few hundred years now and they're growing, like a cancer, spreading out through the world and poisoning Islam.  The Wahabi sect of Islam goes by a very twisted interpretation of the Qur'an and it is this group that is waging this Jihad against basically the whole world.  Anyone who thinks economic aid, feeding the hungry, or any other feel-good appeasement nonsense is going to have any effect on these people is completely ignorant of what they stand for and what they do with such aid.  Look at how many charity organizations have to be shut down.  Why?  They're funneling money and supplies to the terrorists.  All they care about at the end of the day is getting everyone to worship Allah THEIR WAY.  If you don't, you die.  It's that simple.

Other Muslims have been butchered by this sect and have constantly been at war with them as a result.  To the Wahabi, if you are not fighting Jihad against the "infidels" then you are not following the will of Allah, and you are to be put to death as well.  Has anyone forgotten the daily public executions of the Taliban?  That's the kind of world that they wish to create.  I cannot stress this enough - this is NOT a "US and Israel" problem, the whole world is the battle field.  Wake up already!  If you extend a hand in friendship to these people expect it to be cut off, with your head shortly behind it.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Genialus
 

Shambler
*****
Posts: 119

« Reply #7 on: 2004-08-11, 20:55 »

Quote from: scalliano
They're still suffering. And will be for a very long time.
yeah they will, but I still stand by what I wrote at least now there is a chance for it to get better.
Logged
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #8 on: 2004-08-11, 22:35 »

I am aware of Wahabism. I understand that Bin Laden's motives have nothing to do with globalisation or anything like that (he probably doesn't even know or care what it is for that matter), my point is that the current political climate is ultimately hindering, rather than helping matters. The more bullshit like this that goes on, the more extremists there are inevitably going to be. Al Qaeda is a global network. New members join every day and I'm willing to wager that since 9/11 and all subsequent events their rate of growth is increasing. Like I said, evil begets evil.

I also understand that Saddam had absolutely NOTHING to do with Wahabism, Bin Laden or Al Qaeda, yet still he was regarded as an immediate threat, in spite of no WMD's being found, and even if he DID have nukes, who was he gonna fire them at? The US? Britain?There are only 3 nations in the world with the technology (ie satellite guidance systems) to fire a missile that far. The USA, Great Britain and Russia. OK, so maybe he could hit Israel, and that would mean the loss of a very valuable customer. The US probably could prove that Saddam had these weapons, but that would mean showing the UN the receipt.
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #9 on: 2004-08-12, 01:17 »

They've found UN tagged missile parts in Europe and a bunch of other places where Saddam shipped out weapons prior to and during the first stages of the assault.  There's no telling how much actually went out and to where.  Let's also not forget the trucks intercepted that were going to set off chemical bombs in Jordan that were crossing Iraq from Syria, where a lot of the WMD's are believed to have been sent.  As quick as everyone wants to get on the "no WMD" bandwagon I might remind you that everyone including the UN, and those Democrats now decrying the war said Iraq had WMD's and was an imminent threat, INCLUDING Senator Kerry, who is again waffling on his decision to vote for the war.  If you want I can dig up quotes on all of this but I think the man has embarrassed himself enough as it is without me having to add to it.

The entire point of my post was in regards to the dangers not JUST of Al Qaeda but the entire Wahabi sect.  There's an old Arab proverb that states "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  They very much follow this philosophy, and will use anyone who opposes their perceived enemies as long as it's convenient to them.  The plain truth is they see Bush as a threat, and Kerry as a non-threat.  I'm offering this only as something to keep in mind, regardless of who you support.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #10 on: 2004-08-12, 01:19 »

Quote from: scalliano
OK, so maybe he could hit Israel, and that would mean the loss of a very valuable customer.
Nice to see that you think of them as people first...
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Skullhunter
 
Guest
« Reply #11 on: 2004-08-12, 01:54 »

The CIA may not have planted the roots of Wahabism, but they've done an awful good job of making sure that it's had fertile ground to grow in.  If we're going to talk about the history of Wahabism, we should also talk about the history of US intervention in the region, starting from our government propping up murderous dictator Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. He's a guy that matched Saddam Hussein decades ago in the field of  "my secret police abduct my citizens and torture them to death on a lark".  When he was finally forced out, the Iranian people remembered our government's support of that slimeball and were ripe for being conned by the hardline fundamentalist Islamic Ayatollahs. Cause and effect works. Wahabism didn't spring up in a vacuum, outside factors contributed to its growth. The foaming-at-the-mouth mullahs get a lot more street cred when they can point to piles of civilians killed by weapons purchased from the US. Personally, this just smacks of more "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" nonsense. If "Al Qaeda" really wanted someone besides Bush as president in this country, why exactly would such a supposedly cagey and inscrutible organization allow that information to get out, practically ensuring that their "softer" choice would never make it? For that matter, what exactly would be the point in any high-ranking Al Qaeda member saying something like that? Our "intelligence" community can't even figure out where these guys are, but supposedly they know who they want as president of the US? Which are they, devilishly clever or self-destructively stupid?
Logged
scalliano
 

Elite
*
Posts: 1095

Yup, that's me

« Reply #12 on: 2004-08-12, 02:02 »

QUOTE: (Pho) Nice to see that you think of them as people first...

Indeed I do. Whether or not Congress does is a different matter ...
Logged

PSN ID: scalliano

The Arena knows no gender, colour or creed, only skill.
Lilazzkicker
 

Beta Tester
Quad God
**********
Posts: 571

WWW
« Reply #13 on: 2004-08-12, 05:05 »

Quote
even if he DID have nukes, who was he gonna fire them at? The US? Britain?There are only 3 nations in the world with the technology (ie satellite guidance systems) to fire a missile that far.

Why use all the above? A nice truck carrying the bomb would be all it takes....think...who needs millions in tech when it can be done by simpler methods?

Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #14 on: 2004-08-12, 05:36 »

Quote from: Skullhunter
Personally, this just smacks of more "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" nonsense.
Skullhunter:  the Arabs think that way.  "The enemy of my enemy is my friend", as I pointed out earlier.  I see three kinds of people - those trying to fight the terrorists, those helping (directly or indirectly) the terrorists, and those with their heads in the sand about the whole thing.  You bring up all sorts of valid points in regards to foreign policy, that's all well and good,  but the truth of the matter is Wahhabism will continue to grow if left unchecked regardless of past policies.  Right now Saudi Arabia is funding 80% to 90% of all the new mosques in Canada and the US, and guess what form of Islam is being promoted there?  Pointing fingers for past events isn't going to solve the problem that exists TODAY.  Hindsight is always 20/20, but look backward too much and you tend to run into things.  At the end of the day you have to ask yourself if the guy you want to put in the Oval Office is going to make the tough decisions to defend the citizens of the country, or defer those decisions to some foreign body or act with hesitation.  If you think Kerry has the balls to push the button if it comes down to that then by all means vote for him.  I'm just laying out on the table what I know, and right now the situation doesn't look too good for the US, Israel, or any other free nation.

Lilazz:  Exactly.  There's also reports that the current strain of West Nile Virus was weaponized by Hussein and smuggled to Cuba, that same strain was given to Iraq by the CDC during the 1980's for "legitimate research purposes".  This was, of course, before the Gulf War in 1991, which it is believe Saddam later weaponized it in revenge for the US kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.  Let's also not forget that Russia is missing around 100 or so suitcase-sized tactical nukes, which have yields up in the 1-3 megaton range.  Nobody knows where they are, who has them, or what shape they're in.
« Last Edit: 2004-08-12, 05:41 by Phoenix » Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Assamite
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 271

« Reply #15 on: 2004-08-12, 07:10 »

Banging Head against Wall  Banging Head against Wall  Banging Head against Wall

The wonderful and reliable source known as the Washington Times gives us this: If you vote anyone but Bush, THE TERRORISTS WIN!!! Never mind the fact the Kerry and Edwards promised to go HARDER on terrorists in their platform at the convention. All that matters is, since it's from a major pro-Bush newspaper, it MUST be true!

Contrary to wingnut belief, Democrats want to see terrorism eradicated off the face of the earth, too - not just Zell and Joe, either. I used to think that Kerry-Edwards's Bush-like "tough stance" on terrorism was simply to satisfy mainstream voters concerned about national security, the ONLY category where Bush remains high. At the convention, it looks like they meant it.

And here I was thinking that stance would render them immune to such bullshit like this. Nope, they STILL try to smear Kerry as weak, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Look, both candidates' records are about evenly matched when it came to national security. Bush proposed, Kerry approved. Now, they're even matching on rhetoric.

Fact is, what the terrorists think don't matter a HOOT. It weill be what AMERICANS think, based on their own views on foreign AND domestic policy, when Election day comes. Speaking of American voters, this article even goes as far as to imply that Kerry-voters are FOR THE TERRORISTS! I mean, if that is NOT utterly disgusting.... (My stomach churns at this moment... I need a vomit icon...)

Phoenix... tsk tsk... I had no idea you would stoop this LOW.
Logged
Phoenix
Bird of Fire
 

Team Member
Elite (7.5k+)
*********
Posts: 8805

WWW
« Reply #16 on: 2004-08-12, 08:46 »

Quote from: Assamite
Never mind the fact the Kerry and Edwards promised to go HARDER on terrorists in their platform at the convention.
Oh I see, I should believe them because they "promised".  Right.  Should I believe Kerry's promises as much as I should believe his war record?  Seriously, believing the promises of politicians is a very naive and downright ignorant thing to do, I'm surprised you expect that of me and I pity anyone who takes a politician at their word.  Words must be backed up with actions.  Kerry's voting record is extremely weak on security, he's flip-flopped more times on Iraq than I can count on my primary feathers, and he's missed important national security meetings on a number of occasions, as well as missing a number of important votes in the Senate.  You have a retired Admiral, the guy who took over his swift boat in Vietnam saying he flat out LIED about his war record and is not fit to be Commander in Chief of the US military.  Sure, you have 13 war buddies of Kerry's going around saying he's such a hero, when you have 122 other swift boat grunts (including former CO's of his) saying he's a liar and a traitor, that he lied about how he got his medals, that he lied about the "war crimes" he witnessed, and have signed sworn statements to that effect.  It's pretty clear to me at least who's more believable, and it's NOT John Kerry.

If getting to the truth of the matter is "stooping low" I'll be happy to disappoint you every single time.
Logged


I fly into the night, on wings of fire burning bright...
Skullhunter
 
Guest
« Reply #17 on: 2004-08-12, 08:54 »

Heh, actually I have no intention of voting for either of them. Or Nader for that matter. They're all part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. Bush, well, it doesn't take balls to push a button, nor does it take balls to sit in an air-conditioned office behind Secret Service and Marine guards and say "Bring it on!" while people thousands of miles away are the ones it'll get brought on. Kerry's busy trying to match Bush word for word with the "war president" rhetoric and freely admits that he still would have voted in favor of the war even though none of the reasons originally given for said war have panned out. Nader's busy pulling in contributions from the same kind of corporate slime that the other two parties cozy up to. And none of it changes the fact that while Wahabism may continue to grow in the Middle East no matter what the US's policy approach, continuing the same policies are definitley not going to stop it and most likely will encourage it.

Quote
I see three kinds of people - those trying to fight the terrorists, those helping (directly or indirectly) the terrorists, and those with their heads in the sand about the whole thing.

The only people legitimately helping the terrorists are those that give them financial, material or military support. "Indirectly" is really fudging things. I refuse to accept the ridiculous assertion that someone here in the US protesting American policy in the region is even remotely responsible for terrorism. No one here says "capitulate". No one here says "Let's surrender and become an Islamic republic.". The suggestion is to stop living up to the negative image. Too often it seems that our government hears the US being called "the Great Satan" and responds by saying, "Oh yeah? We'll show you Satan!". It is possible to be tough and strong without being a bully. Right now all I see is a lot of chest-thumping (from both sides of the aisle), a lot of high-tech firepower being brought to bear on two horribly technologically inferior nations, and not a single thought to the fact that our actions are probably doing more to recruit for Al Qaeda than anything else.

Quote
Right now Saudi Arabia is funding 80% to 90% of all the new mosques in Canada and the US, and guess what form of Islam is being promoted there?

And guess what Bush (or Kerry for that matter) is going to do about it? Jack and squat. Almost all, if not all, of the hijackers responsible for 9/11 were Saudi nationals, from organizations with ties to the Saudi government. So we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. You do the math. Besides, if you're worried about the US being innundated with wild-eyed fundamentalist Muslim terrorists, you'd better not read stories like this one. We've all ready got a good crop of domestic terrorists, and I'm not talking about the ELF or their like, they just damage property, I'm talking about ones that have all ready been caught trying to make or procure their own WMD, or actually have been caught about to use it against American civilians. Doubt you'll see that one on FOX News any time soon.
Logged
Skullhunter
 
Guest
« Reply #18 on: 2004-08-12, 08:58 »

Quote
Should I believe Kerry's promises as much as I should believe his war record?

I'm not a huge Kerry fan myself, but at least he ended up in the right country, not defending Texas airspace against the North Vietnamese.
Logged
Assamite
 
Hans Grosse
*******
Posts: 271

« Reply #19 on: 2004-08-12, 10:05 »

Those swiftboat vets are a crock of bull. They never actually served on John Kerry's boat, you know that? Meanwhile, those who actually served WITH Kerry went to praise him at the Democratic Convention! (Were invited! Whatever...)

John McCain - "Swiftboat veterans = dishonest, dishonerable; Bush must repudiate them"

If you can't believe McCain, who can you believe? Hell, even John O'Neill, who spearheaded this, is retracting his statements.

Meanwhile, the American public, influenced by a subservient press, STILL trusts Mr. AWOL (I'm sorry, "Honorably Discharged") from the Texas Air National Guard on national security. There's a REASON Kerry pumps his Vietnam record.

On "flip-flops" - Oh, please. The biggest flip-flopper so far has been George W. Bush himself. First a war president, then a peace president, then a war president again. First, his primary concern was Osama and Al-Qaeda, then it wasn't. First he's against nation-building, then he's all for it! At least MY candidate (People with good memory will recall who he is) was consistent on his position on the war.

The point is, the fact that the Kerry-Edwards utterly CRUSHED the anti-war platform proposals shows that they DO want to appear tough on terrorists.  Maybe it's an election thing, but I doubt that they would adopt positions that they so utterly crushed beforehand. Then again, it's probably just my perception that Kerry will end up not being different from Bush when it comes to the war. But calling Kerry "weak on terror", something that you can probably say about MY candidate, is a crock of shit.

Speaking of flip-flops, did you know that after the bombing in Spain, Al-Qaeda stated that they wanted Bush to LOSE? I cannot recall an instance where the left-blogosphere ran with THAT instance - they just said "Bush is in deep trouble".

Seriously - if regurgitating Republican talking points (Often conjured up by Rove, Scaife, etc., or in the case of the Washington Times, MOON) is your idea of "truth", I don't know if I could have respect for your arguments as I did in the past.
« Last Edit: 2004-08-12, 10:08 by Assamite » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3
  Print  
 
Jump to: