PDA

View Full Version : Terrorists prefer Bush, fear Kerry, just like Republicans!



Ka-Bar
2nd October 04, 08:16 PM
"We say to you that we are very eager that you not lose the forthcoming election. We know that a single big operation would destroy your government, but we do not want that. We will not find anyone more stupid than you who deals with masses with force rather than wisdom and intelligence. Yes, your stupidity and religious extremism is what we want, for our nation will only wake from sleep when it faces an agressive enemy...Kerry will kill our nation while it is not looking because the Democrats have the cleverness to make unbelief attractive and to persuade the Arabic and Islamic world to swallow it in the name of civilization." -- Abu Hafs al-Masri "Black Propaganda" Brigade

Source: National Public Radio, "All Things Considered" Oct. 2, 2004.

Islamic extremists like Bush's one-track mind because he presents a very identifiable enemy who is easy to hate, not only among educated American liberals and Europe, but in the Middle East as well.

They know that if Kerry is elected, it is very possible that Europe will eventually have to support the effort in Iraq. Turkey, desperate to be seen as part of the E.U. will assert a lot of influence on it's less-secular neighbors.

ICY
2nd October 04, 08:20 PM
I agree, the extremists on both sides like having identifiable, vilifiable enemies rather than wishy-washy, talk-before-action types.

Stick
2nd October 04, 09:11 PM
Which get's less people killed..... so people still support Bush because?

Bush isn't in the least bit interested in dealing with the roots of terrorism, his war on a strategy will do nothing but proliferate it.

ICY
2nd October 04, 09:12 PM
That's the whole point...a proliferation of terror means a proliferation of arms contracts.

inde
2nd October 04, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by I Choke You
I agree, the extremists on both sides like having identifiable, vilifiable enemies rather than wishy-washy, talk-before-action types.

Isn't this what we had with Clinton?

5FingazofDeath
3rd October 04, 12:27 PM
Thats retarded, they prefer Buch because they know he will bomb the shit out of them?

Dralion
3rd October 04, 12:53 PM
5:

And those bombings will lead to more recruits.

SRK85
3rd October 04, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by 5FingazofDeath
Thats retarded, they prefer Buch because they know he will bomb the shit out of them?

Yes but bombing the shit out of the Arabs will cause more young Arabs to become sypmathetic to terrorism groups like Al-Queada.

PeedeeShaolin
3rd October 04, 01:09 PM
No shit. The best way to stop terrorism is to sto participating in it.

As long as the U.S. supports Israeli terrorism and continues its imperialism the U.S. will have to face the negatives that come along with that type of behavior.

Read history and find out what happens to empires. There have been no true exceptions.

SRK85
3rd October 04, 02:34 PM
^^Agreed why cant we just stay neutral?

Ka-Bar
3rd October 04, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by 5FingazofDeath
Thats retarded, they prefer Buch because they know he will bomb the shit out of them?

Yeah, we're really cleanin' up in Iraq, aren't we? In fact, it's so easy, why don't we just go ahead and invade Syria and Iran while we're at it?

Dumbass.

Shug
3rd October 04, 05:37 PM
the scary part about that......

ICY
3rd October 04, 05:45 PM
Syria is working with the US now, according to Powell anyway, I saw it on CNN. Iran will have a coup, and all will be well...one gigantic festering hotbed of extremists from the border with Syria to the border with Pakistan.

SRK85
3rd October 04, 06:05 PM
Originally posted by I Choke You
Syria is working with the US now, according to Powell anyway, I saw it on CNN. Iran will have a coup, and all will be well...one gigantic festering hotbed of extremists from the border with Syria to the border with Pakistan.

Wow then we totally fucked up the war on terrorism.

ICY
3rd October 04, 06:16 PM
No, the point of the war on terror was never to wipe out terror, it was to spend money on weapons.

CaptShady
4th October 04, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by SRK85
^^Agreed why cant we just stay neutral?

If that were to happen, people like PeeDee and Pizd would go on and on about how terrible America is for not helping.

Judah Maccabee
4th October 04, 12:42 AM
See current progress of Israel vs Hamas and other militant groups. Most pundits are calling the Intifada a "failure", and even SecState Powell acknowledged that the Intifada got the Palestinians nothing.

Israel successfully targeted and killed leaders and senior members of these organizations. In conjunction with their Security Barrier being constructed in the West Bank, terrorism has gone down dramatically. Palestinian people finally realize that the terrorists in their midst are the origin of their misery and are trying to keep them away from their homes, not bringing them in. A teenager was shot and killed by Al Aqsa Brigade members because he prevented them from coming into their yard to shoot rockets at Israelis.

There will have to be a negotiated settlement, but my sense is that as long as Arafat is in power, there will be no agreement.

But back to the original topic:

Europe will never support the effort in Iraq. Both Germany and France already said that even if Kerry were elected, they would not shift their views on Iraq. In a recent conference, France said they would only participate in political discussions of how the international community should deal with Iraq ONLY if there were options for immediate withdrawal.

The US is de facto the current world policeman. It maintains constabulary missions in Saudi Arabia (at their request), S. Korea (at their request), Japan, the Balkans, Germany, Turkey, etc. The most likely skirmishes the US Armed Forces will find itself in will be small-scale conflicts that have a much different dynamic than large-scale conflict. Staying neutral isn't an option for US interests or international interests. Prior to the end of the cold war, maintaining a large contingent to check a potential Soviet push into Europe was necessary to make guarantees to our W. European allies. Part of US diplomacy and guarantees is its ability to back up its claims. If the US can tell W. Europe that it'll protect against a (now-defunct) Soviet incursion, that enables those states to stop worrying as much about national security and focus more on issues such as commerce and trade.

I'd be interested in seeing your argument that a Kerry win = European support on current US operations in Iraq, Ka-Bar. My understandings have an opposing view.

Ka-Bar
4th October 04, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by samurai_steve
I'd be interested in seeing your argument that a Kerry win = European support on current US operations in Iraq, Ka-Bar. My understandings have an opposing view.

I didn't say it was automatic, I said it was a lot more likely under Kerry than Bush. Despite what their leaders say, French and German citizens are a lot more likely to support troops in Iraq. At the very least, the fact that German and French governments are at least willing to talk with Kerry is a vast improvement over Bush.

SCO
4th October 04, 06:20 AM
Neither France nor Germany are likely to send troops to Iraq, but if Kerry wins the US would be in a better position to negotiate other helpful things, more or less direct financial support, takeover of more military responsibilities in other places than Iraq (maybe not by Germany, it`s small forces are stretched already), diplomatic support in the UNO, etc.

What would happen under a different admin is uncertain, the situation in Iraq is completely fucked and anyone with a five-minute briefing on the general political situation before the war who isn`t competely delusional would have foreseen that things were likely to get really tricky.

The European countries have a vital interest in the stabilization of Iraq, but as long as the Bush admin is completely neglecting everyone`s interests but their own (whichever that supposedly are), it is not possible for others to support them. The inflexible, singleminded egoism of the Bush admin locks everyone in their positions.
And no, simply moving out of Iraq is a bad idea, it would probably mean the end of Iraq as a nation and lead to a situation like Afghanistan experienced after the Soviets moved out, which no one can afford.

ICY
4th October 04, 11:20 AM
Despite what their leaders say, French and German citizens are a lot more likely to support troops in Iraq.

Um...no, these people want no part of that mess, seriously, it'll NEVER happen.

SCO
6th October 04, 05:58 PM
I correct myself, if Kerry managed to negotiate a UN-mandate, which seems possible, then there would be a reasonable probability that this deal included France or Germany sending some troops, regardless of what is being said now.