VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Foxfyre wrote:

Boortz also has a clear warning on the website to not take anything written there all that seriously.

no problem....

0 Replies

Ditto that.
We should really open a window in here...
sometimes it gets a bit stuffy.

0 Replies

Well start with Saudi Arabia. There is proof of official military connivance with A-Q in the kidnapping of those Westerners. Real PROOF!! Not the sort of proof that Bush and Cheney are peddling - the USA has got to stop blowing up Iraqi civilians and start targetting Saudis RIGHT NOW!!

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Let me try this again so you understand it.

I understood it fine the first time.

Maybe you don't understand me. I'm saying that your dismissal of Al Qaeda's endorsement is because they just happen to be endorsing your candidate. Had they been endorsing Kerry, its my opinion that you wouldn't just dismiss it. You would use their endorsement to further attack those who are against Bush.

I might be wrong in thinking that, but the chances are pretty slim.

Well, you can speculate all you want. It will do you as much good as farting in the wind.

The only thing Al Qaeda could really do for me would be to surrender and follow the TRUE words of Islam instead of following the lies of madmen like Osama.

0 Replies

Question: I have googled every logical keyword I can think of and have gone over the Boortz website fairly thoroughly and can find zero evidence that Al Qaida has endorsed George W. Bush (or anybody else) for president. Where did that notion come from anyway? Craven didn't cite a source when he said that earlier in this thread.

0 Replies

From Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

They don't run the whole quote but they acknowledge that Al Qaeda has endorsed bush.

This is the expired link to the yahoo version of it:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721

Anywho, if you search for the actual texts I provide you will find references, but be warned that some are distorted (for e.g. some conservative sites have been doing parodies of it in order to try to make it look like reverse psychology and several of the sites do so without alerting the reader that they are rewriting it.

The context was the aftermath of the Madrid bombings and was from European cells of Al Qaeda.

Quote:

The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."

0 Replies

Hmm interesting.

And you think the 'conservative parodies' making it look like reverse psychology are incorrect? How can you be so sure?

Seems to me knowing that they are despised and held in suspicion by the American people, it is reasonable that they wouldn't endorse a candidate they wished to be elected.

Or conversely, if you don't buy that argument, what do you think they actually see in Kerry that they would consider more dangerous to their cause?

0 Replies

McG asked: "I want you to think about how much encouragement these bastards get from the appeasement crowd in this country. Just how much do they want to see John Kerry win the White House?"

Appeasement crowd ? Are you kidding ? As much as you might like to equate the two, wanting to see Kerry elected is NOT equivalent to supporting terrorism. Are you capable of seeing how absurd that notion is ?

I support Kerry precisely because I think he will keep us SAFER. We need to work with the world community to find and eliminate the terrorist networks. In order to work effectively within that community, we need to do precisely the reverse of what Bush has done: we need to respect them and we need them to respect us.

Kerry has already proved he is a patriot and a fighter. Remember Vietnam ? (the war Bush skipped). Kerry, unlike Bush however, has also "grown up" to recognize that, often, it's not with guns -a - blazin' that we defeat our enemies, but rather through the ties that come from a strong, cooperative world community commited to mutual safety and well-being.

0 Replies

I was looking for the transcript of the Ideas radio program I listened to in about October last year that talked about this issue - I kept getting side-tracked, so I'll just bring this in for now Al-Qaida is clever enough for that.

...

Quote:

If the real goal is still revolutions that bring Islamist radicals to power, then how does attacking the West help? Well, the U.S. in particular may be goaded into retaliating by bombing or even invading various Muslim countries -- and in doing so, may drive enough aggrieved Muslims into the arms of the Islamist radicals that their long-stalled revolutions against local regimes finally get off the ground.

Most analysts outside the United States long ago concluded that that was the principal motive for the 9-11 attack. They would add that by giving the Bush administration a reason to attack Afghanistan, and at least a flimsy pretext for invading Iraq, al-Qaida's attacks have paid off handsomely. U.S. troops are now the unwelcome military rulers of more than 50 million Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, and people there and elsewhere are turning to the Islamist radicals as the only force in the Muslim world that is willing and able to defy American power.

It is astonishing how little this is understood in the United States. I know of no American analyst who has even made the obvious point that al-Qaida wants Bush to win next November's presidential election and continue his interventionist policies in the Middle East for another four years, and will act to save Bush from defeat if necessary.

It probably would not do so unless Bush's number were slipping badly, for any terrorist attack on U.S. soil carries the risk of stimulating resentment against the current administration for failing to prevent it.

Certainly another attack on the scale of 9-11 would risk producing that result, even if al-Qaida had the resources for it. But a simple truck bomb in some U.S. city center a few months before the election, killing just a couple of dozen Americans, could drive voters back into Bush's arms and turn a tight election around. Al-Qaida is clever enough for that.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Hmm interesting.

And you think the 'conservative parodies' making it look like reverse psychology are incorrect? How can you be so sure?

I know they inserted text into the quotes, some range to really silly stuff.

As to whether or not it is reverse psychology I actually think it might have been and have said as much on A2K at least once.

But I know that many of the conservative sites have rewritten the quotes. As to how I know it is because I have the quotes commited to memory (as I will do with any story or quote I find memorable) and the bastardidations do not match.

Another way to tell is when only one site uses certain verbiage out of all the other ones. Then of course some are obvious. I will show you one at the end.

Quote:

Seems to me knowing that they are despised and held in suspicion by the American people, it is reasonable that they wouldn't endorse a candidate they wished to be elected.

Yeah, but I won't keep trying to devine their intent as I place little importance on their statements. If they were going for reverse psychology that too can backfire and we are in that riddle loop of "he knows I will lie, he knows I know he knows I will lie".

Their Kerry comments sound like they have some sincerity what with the sleeper blasphemy but that could of course just be clever. So of course are the bastardidations of the texts that I will link to below.

Either way, the only leaning I have expressed on A2K is the one you are inclined to.

Quote:

Or conversely, if you don't buy that argument, what do you think they actually see in Kerry that they would consider more dangerous to their cause?

Personally I think it was a lot of hot air and don't read much into it.

As promised here is one such example of a corruption of the statements trying to spin it for Bush:

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/03/al_qaeda_endors.html

Quote:

"more foolish than the AWOL Bush, who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

They inserted "AWOL" in an attempt to fabricate guilt by association for liberals.

Quote:

"Americans must NOT vote for Kerry," the message continued. "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization.

The first sentence and the netizen capitalization for emphasis is not real.

Quote:

The last thing we terrorists want is a Vietnam war hero like Kerry, who will bring peace and prosperity to the whole world, and turn the American people into complacent sheep with affordable health care and good jobs. We prefer terror and violence - and because of this we desire Dumbya to be elected - or should we say: we prefer him to STEAL the election again."

This needs no comment, it is clearly American partisans speaking and can easily be verified as not being part of the real text.

Quote:

The letter, crudely written on recycled paper in green crayon, also addressed the 200 million jobs and 750,000 American lives that have been lost on Bush's watch, before concluding with a stunning postscript:

The message was not delivered in a letter.

Quote:

"Let us clarify: The American people must not think we say we prefer Bush so they vote for Kerry just to spite us. We really do like the Shrub, who despite squandering a budget surplus and racking up record deficits, looks good in a flight suit and gives us more excuses to attack and kill you. John Kerry, however, is just too smart for us terrorists, and all the allies Bush alienated will rally behind the esteemed senator from Massachussetts. Do NOT vote for Kerry! And do NOT send money to moveon.org, either.

Allah Ackbar, sayonara, and all that good stuff - the Terrorists."

If it wasn't an obvious fake before, it should be now.

Only one sentence of all of that was a true part of the original without modification:

Quote:

Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization

Only one other sentence contained a recognizable fragment of the true text.

Quote:

"more foolish than the AWOL Bush, who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

Remove the "AWOL" and it is the true text.

The rest is fake.

0 Replies

"If the real goal is still revolutions that bring Islamist radicals to power, then how does attacking the West help? Well, the U.S. in particular may be goaded into retaliating by bombing or even invading various Muslim countries -- and in doing so, may drive enough aggrieved Muslims into the arms of the Islamist radicals that their long-stalled revolutions against local regimes finally get off the ground. "

Could it BE any clearer ?

Thanks ehBeth.

0 Replies

Okay I'll reserve judgment on this one. My instincts tell me to smell a rat and that all may not be what it seems. But as there is no way to know for sure, I'll just wait and watch.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/quotes.html (bottom of the page)

What I'm afraid of, foxfyre, is that we're all going to be thrown into the middle of this. We could all be involved in something that we won't just be watching.

0 Replies

There's always a choice.

We can pull in our horns and bring home our troops and sit tight and hope that Al Qaida or some other terrorist group leaves us alone. Before suggesting that, however, think about what we did to provoke the first attack on the World Trade Center. What did we do to provoke the second, deadly attack on the World Trade Center? What did we do to provoke the attack on the Cole? What did we do to provoke......insert any one of dozens of other incidents here. How isolationist should we be to ensure that we don't annoy a terrorist somewhere?

We can depend on the UN to monitor and police the terrorist groups. After all they've done such a wonderful job up to now.

Or we can do what we are doing and take the fight to the terrorists and away from our homeland.

There are arguments for all sides. Which do you prefer? Or what is your solution to the problem?

0 Replies

Or...
we could start dealing fairly with other nations.
For starters.

0 Replies

Give me some idea how we are dealing unfairly with other nations now.

0 Replies

Do you read the paper?
I really don't feel like searching right now, maybe tomorrow. it's almost time for the Daily Show and I have to go to the store first.
But for starters, the coup in Haiti. That was just wrong. Not to mention what we have historically done to Haiti. (not that we feel threatened by them, right?) and saving Ferdinand Marcos, and helping then hating Saddam, and Bin Laden, and always siding with Israel, even when they're clearly violating human rights. For starters.

0 Replies

Okay that's pretty good starters Suzy. Have a good evening and we can take it up tomorrow. Smile

0 Replies

Whether it's a fraud or not, the notion that al-Qaida believes Bush is foolish because he reacts with force rather than wisdom is pretty rich.

Of more interest (at least to me) is the question of what their strategy may be for the months ahead.

It's hard to imagine that they don't feel pretty good about their influence on the Spanish election - - even if you're of the opinion that there was no actual influence.

I am of the opinion that the primary goal of Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri is the restoration of the Caliphate. Whether or not this goal is shared by all of the various splinter groups that make up al Qaeda, is another question.
I believe Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri are still involved in a broad strategic sense, but I doubt very much that all of the terrorist activities perpetrated under the al-Qaeda banner have received their approval; not because they would not approve, but simply because of the logistics are prohibitive of central control. As a result, the personal goals of local terrorist leaders who are actually planning and carrying out the actions must be taken into consideration when one answers the question: What does Al Qaeda want?

Realizing a goal to restore the Caliphate requires an environment conducive to major change across the region. The only means that Bin Laden has to create such an environment is to promote chaos. Clearly chaos is served by war.

Thus it may very well be that the purpose of 9/11 was to incite a war in the Middle East, and that Afghanistan was planned for while Iraq was hoped for.

However, the record shows that Bin Laden has long thought the United States to be a soft and cowardly nation that runs from a fight when Americans begin to die in numbers (He has stated that Somalia was enlightening to him in this regard).

How to factor this into the calculus of his strategy?

Is it possible that he believed that 9/11 would cause the US to withdraw from the Middle East, and thereby give him freer reign in the region?

Even if the goal of 9/11 was to incite the US to war, in order for Bin Laden's overriding goal to be achieved, the US would eventually have to retreat within its borders, as the Soviet Union eventually retreated from Afghanistan within its own borders.

Perhaps the strategy contemplated two possible results from 9/11, one making things easier for Bin Laden, but both capable of serving his ultimate goal.

In any case, what do they need to happen now?

If the hope was that a US invasion of Afghanistan would set the region on fire, it fell pretty flat. There was a better chance that invading Iraq would inflame the muslim world and that hasn't happened either.

It would seem, therefore, that if the strategy was and continues to be fomenting chaos through war, the ante has to be raised, and it has to be raised considerably. Another US invasion of another Islamic country (Iran or possibly Syria) would cause a major ruckus around the world, but even that might not be enough. A combination of another invasion and the use of nuclear weapons in the region could be.

What could prompt such a reaction from the US? It's unlikely that random suicide or car bombings within the US could. A continuous wave of them might, but Al Qaeda doesn't have the resources to pull something like that off. Instead, it would have to be another single mega event like 9/11, but worse. Ideally, for Bin Laden's war strategy, it would involve a nuclear weapon.

Of course the strategy may be to keep bleeding the US throughout the region (with particular emphasis on Iraq) and throw in a few smaller terrorist attacks on US soil so as to generate an eventual wave of isolationist sentiment in the country and a pull out from the Middle East.

Either way I suspect that additional attacks on American soil remain part of the plan. The question is to what extent. Smaller attacks are easier to pull off, but we've not seen any which leads me to believe they are still planning a major attack.

Of course because they are planning an attack doesn't mean they will pull one off. These people are not evil super beings who can do whatever they want. Any number of things can foil their plans, and while those plans are being worked on there is a concerted effort underway to bring them down.

In the overall scheme of things, I don't think they really care all that much who wins the election in November. Their enemies are Americans, not Republican Americans. If Kerry should win, he isn't about to call for Paris Peace Talks with Bin Laden, and if they attack us again while he's president, he will have no choice but to take some kind of military action.

November's a good time for an attack, but not because it will influence the election one way or another, but because we will be vulnerable from both a security and psychic standpoint.

All of this may or may not be foolish speculation, but what is definitely foolish is any notion that these people can be engaged in a dialogue, or that we should not attack them because that is what they want. If they do want us to attack them, it doesn't mean that we can't attack them in a way that will serve our purposes and not theirs. This is our real challenge.

0 Replies

It's too late for dialogue with BinLaden, and I don't see anybody here saying otherwise, do you?
Once he and his followers are taken care of, we can do something constructive, but oddly enough, we haven't been able to locate him in Iraq yet!
I have no doubt there will be more attacks in the US, and quite possibly big ones, and it won't matter who is president. That being said, we may as well elect somebody who will do something constructive with this country, and that aint Bush.
What we need to be doing now is prosecuting those 15 Saudis. Bush is such a tough guy, why hasn't this been done yet? And then get on with plans for keeping the nation as safe as possible. Securing nuclear power plants and finding all the loose nuclear material that's out there, to keep it out of the hands of terrorists, and maybe saying no the next time another nation wants our stockpiles of eradicated disease specimens? That might be A GOOD START.

0 Replies

VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know