Quarkhead stated in another thread(which I might add was off topic, shame on you moderator )



I think this question is very necessary indeed. And if you want to classify me as sophomoric then so be it.

Because if the answer is John Kerry(which I believe it is), then there must be a reason. Is it they believe he will not be as harsh on fighting terrorism? Do they think he will negotiate with terrorists?

Quark may deem this a Coulter type tactic, but it is a legitimate question.
I am not saying Kerry is buddies with terrorists, but there has to be a reason,if left with the choice between Bush and Kerry, why they would choose Kerry.

I'm not Kerry-bashing here, and I'm not calling him a terrorist, or a bad person. But it is fairly obvious that the terrorists would want to see a dovish Democrat over a hawkish [Possibly a dreaded Neo-Conservative ] Republican. Kerry has never voted for a military increase, would you prefer that over an in your face military guy like Bush? And when I say military guy, I mean someone prepared to use the military.

CP

I think it is quite clear, from the bombings in Spain, that Al-Queda would prefer those currently aligned against them to have a change in leadership. They are not so much pro-Kerry as anti-G.W. Bush. A very legitimate question. You have to careful of those who wish to censor debate by terms such as racism, sophomoric, anti-Semitism, etc.

Let me add that Al-Queda's position has nothing to do with liberalism and conservatism as American's typically define it.

I'm not going to vote on this because there are only two options and talk about being devicive! I think this pole is very poor taste.

I think there's a third choice. It's called anarchy and I think that's what the terrorists want. FEAR.

Actually fear and limited government (of which anarchy would be the extreme) have a strong negative correlation. Al-Queda wants governments to their liking, such as the former government of Afghanistan. Strict, tolitarian, Islamic fundamentalist governments is what AQ wants..

Well, first you'd have to figure out what the terrorists want. Then you can determine which candidate they would most likely "root" for.

According to GWB, they "hate our freedoms" and then GWB and friends give us the Patriot Act. If the terrorists hate our freedoms, then they would certainly want GWB to win, since that administration likely to continue to limit our freedoms.

If the terrorists are interested in starting a Jihad, than GWB would be the answer again, since GWB is really good at making a lot of things religious issues, thanks to his large religious right base. Also Bush is probably more trigger happy about starting wars than Kerry, so he'd be more likely to take the bait.

If the terrorists want a less secular world, well then again GWB is the answer, since Demos are a lot more supportive of the secular agenda.

If the terrorists want restricted freedom for women of the world including restricting abortion and restricted access to birth control, then again, GWB is your man.

If the terrorists are angry over our foreign policy, then I don't think they'd care for either candidate.

If the terrorists want us to have poor health and die younger:Under GWB environmental laws have been halted and in many cases reversed. And what about healthcare issues?

If the terrorists want us to lose our prosperity: again GWB is doing a great job of messing up the economy, growing the deficit, and making sure unemployment is a growing thing.

If the terrorists want us to live in FEAR: GWB has been exploiting and using our fear ever since 9/11

If the terrorists want to see us overextend ourselves militarily and leave the US weakly protected: GWB is doing a great job there.

If the terrorists want us to support their supporters by buying Saudi oil and giving Saudi Arabia carte blanche: I'm not sure about Kerry on this issue, but I suspect that GWB is better at this.

If the terrorists want us to keep selling arms and supporting despotic regimes: probably both candidates can help this situation, but again I think Bush would help a little more in this area.

If the terrorists want more recruits: GWB's "preemptive war" is helping to supply more recruits.

If the terrorists want the US to butt out of the middle east, they probably wouldn't like either candidate.

If the terrorists want us to choke (destroy ourselves) on our imperialistic machinations and arrogance: Yup, GWB has a lot of those PNAC folks in his administration.

edited to add:
I don't think they'd be overly worried about who would go after them more aggressively -- many terrorists would be "honored" to die for their cause and aren't as afraid of death as we are here. So quit giving them a cause! This goes for Kerry as well as Bush.

I agree with a few posts in here. If Al-Qaeda had to pick between the two, it'd be Kerry. Not cause Kerry is a terrorist. But because Kerry does not have as agressive of a foreign policy as Bush has. I mean, Kerry didnt bother to show up for a vote that would put the spotlight on Syria's support of terrorism. What does that tell terrorists?

John Kerry was foragainst [that's for/against] the Patriot Act.
So far I count two, gay marriage, and abortion [but then everyone is taking a relgious right position when they're against abortion].
They don't want a less secular world...They hate Jews, Christians, and everyone else who isn't Muslim...They want an Islamic world.
Right, Al-Qaeda's main issue with America is birth control and abortion. Which if you look at it in another way, isn't restricting a woman's freedom.
That's a bit of a stretch. I haven't heard what the terrorist environmental policy is. This is a huge stretch.
And John Kerry's higher taxes will surely dissapoint the terrorists. What they want is tax cuts for the rich.
How?
Saddam and the Taliban might disagree with you there.
The opposite of preemptive war is defensive war, meaning after an attack...I don't like that idea at all.
We have not been waged an imperialistic war since the Mexican-American War.

CP

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that it's pretty shaky speculation to try to guess what the terrorists want.

In my opinion this feels more like a casual conversation topic as there's really nothing much to back up either side (other than Bin Laden's tapes and GWB's speeches as to what the terrorists want, the second of which is speculative) -- and we can't really read the terrorists minds, now, can we?

I don't believe the question has any validity.

This is just a issue thought up by K. Rove and his buddies to create a wedge between the people considering voting for Kerry and Kerry.

It does not sway me in the least, and for any informed individual this inept attempt at going to any lengths to scare the public is unwarranted.

In attempting to answer this absurd question, I only have to remind myself from where it originated!!!!

P.S.

I have a small question. In Bushs words, "The world is a safer place now".

Is that true? The terrorist do not fear Bush more than Kerry.

I agree with Billy Jean that this poll is in poor taste. I nullified my vote just to see which way the poll was going. We can speculate all we want about "what the terrorists want," but unless we know one or more of them personally, it remains speculation.

Regardless of who the incumbent will be next January, the terrorists probably will not be happy. They will not be happy until the United States adopts Islamic fundamentalist positions, specifically anti-Israel.

Senator Kerry's foreign policies are, by and large, unknown. If a terrorist supposedly thinks that Kerry would be less of a threat, it's that he (usually he) is choosing the devil he doesn't know over the devil he knows (G.W. Bush).

I've got an idea--why don't we concentrate on who Americans would rather see in the White House?

If I were a terrorist I would prefer that Bush win. Hes not had the best diplomacy with traditional allies, his militarism has inflamed passions and probably recruited more terrorists, he has a certain most-hated-name recognition that is good for rallying against (similar to Hillary and the GOP).

Its unlikely that Bush or Kerry would start any more wars in the next administration and Kerry is unlikely to pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan any time soon so the differences would come down to image. Bush, his name and familiy history, simply makes a better enemy to rally the faithful.

Either way I dont see al-qaeda getting any breaks.

There is at least one good reason why Al-Queda would prefer John Kerry over GWB, all you have to do is see what they did last week in Spain. It is pretty obvious that Al-Queda preferred the far left Socialists of Spain over the conservatives. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who won the election this week thanks to Al-Queda, has been against the war with Iraq. John Kerry, who was once for war in Iraq, is now against it like Zapatero. In fact, Zapatero has come out and said that he even wants John Kerry to win the election!

Well seeing as I'm the one who spurred this debate my view has already been voiced. I think this is a fair question and those that are trying to dismiss it as "unfair", or say that its "poor taste" know the answer isn't Bush. That scares them. Some of the tactics that were used to try and say the terrorists want Bush are comical....I got a good laugh. Kerry doesn't want to hit the terrorists head on and so OF COURSE they want him to win. It gives them freedom to move around without pressure, and they can then come out of their caves and holes. Kerry wants to focus only on our anti-terrorism efforts here, and thats just not good enough. We have to continue to take the fight to them and not sit back to wait to see if they can penetrate our defense because they will.

It might be worth noting that G.W. Bush's daddy, when he was director of the C.I.A. was acquainted with Osama bin Laden, who received training from the C.I.A. to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. As a child of an oil-wealthy Saudi, it is entirely likely that Osama and the Bush family were acquainted with each other on a business level as well.

It might be that Osama bin Laden and the Bushes have been carrying on a grudge match for years. OBL probably knows Bush well.

If electing Kerry meant that this war would be less of a personal nature than it is under G.W. Bush, it might be to everyone's benefit to have Kerry in office. He might be more objective, and objectivity seems to be in short supply these days.

I agree "that scares them", in them being the Bush adminstration.

This adminstration is not used to having things not go their way(example of the first 2 years ) and now they are getting a little worried or maybe scared.

They will use any tactic to divert the peoples attention from their losing efforts concerning the economy,war in Iraq,etc.

I don't believe it will work this time. The people have wised up.

Bush is still carrying a grudge over being spanked by Osama's daddy as a child.



I think if we can speculate about a Bush/Bin Laden family feud that we can certainly speculate on this. I doubt that the timing of the bombings in Spain was a coincidence. Al-Queda certainly demonstrated that they do have a desire to influence elections. It is highly rational that they would prefer Kerry over Bush.

Is it just me, or does it seem like this thread is going off topic?

Sleeper, I think your poll question was a very good one, in fact it is such a good question that it was asked in an independent poll. The results:

Andres-McKenna Research Group found that 60 percent of registered voters believe that terrorists would support John Kerry in this year's presidential elections, while 25 percent thought they'd favor George Bush.

Poll: Kerry would be choice of terrorists

It might be worth noting that Clinton had OBL in the crosshairs and had only to give the order to kill him, but didn't, one year before 9/11. What do you know, maybe if he had killed him (after all, the first WoT bombing, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, etc had all been connected to OBL) 9/11 may have been averted.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

I believe actions like this, and treating terrorism as an law enforcement problem are very flawed (as evidenced in the link above). JK wishes to treat terrorism in much the same manner as Clinton, yes, I believe the terrorists would rather see JK as president. Hell, just look at my signature to see the head of Hezbollah's opinion on the matter.

Funny, the left complains about this poll, but have no problem throwing out ones accusing Bush of lieing and spitting the Dem talking points out...

Not only do the terrorists want to see Kerry elected, they will likely take whatever action they feel will help influence that outcome. Denying that reality is naive and dangerous.

An appeaser like Kerry will wring his hands and hope that his 'mutinationalist' bent will somehow calm these murderous thugs down. Bush on the other hand will confront them.

The choice for us is quite clear. We can choose to appease and placate them and surrender to their threats. Or we can fight and defeat them and everything they stand for.

The terrorists have already made their choice, you still have time to make yours.

Like Billy Jean, I declined to answer either of the options. Mostly because not one person on this board has a freaking clue what a terrorist wants.

Just for the hell of it though, I'll play along and say the terrorists would probably like to see George W. Bush win. He's been so consistently wrong about Al Qaeda and terrorism, so why break up a record of full of fallacies, half-truth and outright deception?

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."
Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

It's laughable that conservatives are trying to make the banal assertion that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden. Somehow the smirking simpleton currently occupying the Oval Office has been recast as a Superman who alone and unaided can fight off the forces of Al Qaeda and preserve truth, justice and the American Way.

That would be funny if it weren't so inconsistent with Dubya's history as a chickenhawk pampered party boy toy who ducked out of Viet Nam because he didn't want to get shot.

In a bizarre attempt to rewrite history, the right-wing has taken the biggest intelligence and security failure to befall the United States since Pearl Harbor and recast Bush (who was on vactation for the entire month of August prior to September 11, 2001) as some kind of sentinel who singlehandedly can save us from the wolves at the door. Too bad for 3000 Americans he wasn't as focused three years ago.

Bush is putting all of his chips on being the Cowboy-in-Chief that will protect us from the Al Qaeda Indians. He certainly can't point to the economy or the jobs he created as anything to be proud of. But if America gets hit again, who's going to take the blame for another screw-up? The guy trying to get the job (Kerry) or the guy that has the job (Bush)?

Let's hope George Bush does a better job of protecting America in 2004 than he did in 2001.

Heh, the best you could do was belittle the other side without addressing a single issue...

Good going, starting to expect that alot from the left.

As for the inflamatory 2001 and 9/11 comments you made, I point to the link above to the MSNBC special tonight.

No, actually Wanderer, you quoted my entire post and belittlled it without addressing a single issue or providing a countering argument.

Your apparent confidence in Dubya after he failed to protect the United States in 2001 is heartwarming. Please forgive me if I'm just a tad skeptical that he won't blow it again.

A leader marches to the sound of the guns. George Washington, Robert E. Lee or Napoleon would have done that. Rudy Giuliani did do that. After the first plane struck the Twin Towers, he went immediately to the World Trade Center and helped supervise emergency efforts there. But what exactly did George W. Bush do?

On that crystalline day in September, President Bush was at the Emma Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Fla. Bush was to participate in a conference and some reading demonstrations in support of his “No Child Left Behind” education program. Learning of the terrorist attacks, President Bush made a brief televised statement in which he said he had spoken to Vice President Dick Cheney, FBI director Robert Mueller and New York Governor George Pataki. He called the terrorists “folks” and promised a full investigation. Then he left for the airport.

Air Force One was wheels up from Sarasota at 9:57 a.m., a little over 20 minutes after Bush’s first statement. At that point the president, the commander-in-chief, had three choices. Bush could have returned to Washington, where the Pentagon had also been hit by one of the terrorist planes, and where the president had told the nation he was headed. Bush could have gone to New York City, which had sustained the most grievous blows in the 9/11 attacks. What he chose—the third option—was to flee somewhere else to refuel, then remain in the air. The president’s plane flew to Barksdale Air Force Base outside Shreveport, La. By choosing to fly to a remote location far away from the site of the attacks, Bush acquiesced to the demands of his security people. At the moment of the initial decision there was still some reason for the moving out of danger, because one of the terrorist aircrafts, Flight 93, was still airborne, but it crashed in Pennsylvania at 10:10 a.m., only a few minutes into Bush’s flight.

Did Bush march to the sound of the guns? Did he go to New York where his presence would have been the symbol of a nation unbowed? No. Instead, at about 10:40 a.m., when Air Force One picked up a fighter escort near Jacksonville, Bush accepted Cheney’s advice not to return immediately to Washington.

Because every aircraft over the United States except official planes got orders to land, air traffic controllers and military air defense commanders could verify within a few hours that the airborne terrorist threat had ended. Certainly the situation had been clarified by 12:36, when Bush spoke again to the nation from Barksdale, looking flustered on television but promising the United States would track down the perpetrators. An hour later Air Force One was back in the air—the real situation clearer yet—but Bush flew to Offut Air Force Base at Omaha, headquarters of the Air Combat Command, not to either Washington or New York. Offut had a secure command post where Bush could teleconference with his top national security people, but he could have done that even more easily in Washington. Only late in the day did the president return to the East coast. He stepped onto White House grounds at about 7:00 that evening.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10082

Maybe I should vote in the poll. Since Osama and his crew got so lucky with Bush43 the first time around, they might be hoping for another bite of The Big Apple.

Revisionist history is a wondeful thing. How else do you turn acts of indecision, gross incompetence and cowardly behavior into a paragon of strength, resolve and courage?

Starting to expect a lot of that from the right.

What was there to debate? All you did was spit out the left's unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Why don't you point to a bunch of www.I-hate-Bush.com or www.BushIsHitler.com sites now to support your arguements?

Bah, why bother, it appears you can't take your own medicine. For once, it's not a Bush-hate thread, but one pointing out Kerry's fallacies (of which the war on terrorism is one) and it just riles you I bet. So to retort, you choose instead of debating to belittle the other side.

Edit;

What was the point of your article? To illustrate that the president followed a security procedure to make sure he was kept safe instead of heading straight to a danger zone? That's common sense, he is the leader of the United States....

Heh, was I clairvoyent or what, you posted from a liberal source, a site for anti-war activists.

Actually Wanderer, if you troubled yourself to actually read what I wrote, I didn't have to resort to a "anti-Bush" site to counter this weak contention that the country would be less safe with Kerry as president. All I had to do was quote Dubya's remarks that he made himself.

If you can't believe your own President, who can you believe? From your posts, it would seem that it is you, not I who is more focused on belittlement than genuine debate.

Then again, facts are such messy little things, aren't they?

Heh, actually you did.

Why don't you take a little closer look at that sight.

Love the;

Eating Their Words
by William Rivers Pitt
A collection of the truly nutty things conservatives say.

The Movement's Momentum
by Mark Engler
One year after the invasion of Iraq, what has the peace movement accomplished? And where do we go from here?

Coercive Medicine
by Lynn M. Paltrow
Why should pregnant women have any fewer rights than other patients?

And so on that is found on the homepage.

The website is a liberal, anti-conservative website. Try again.

And yes, you quoted President Bush hours before the war;

Words that are mirrored by other officials for years before the war (which are in another topic).

He was going off alot of the same intelligence they were, alot of which I believe is accurate (such as what was illustrated in the Feith memo).

As to your facts, what facts? A few soundbytes? A few unproven accusations? You have no facts, you have rhetoric and nothing more.

Instead, you try to hijack this into a Bush-is-responsible-for-9/11 thread, another Bush hate-fest.

No, actually, I didn't. My FIRST link was to a website through the U.S. House of Representatives where such tidbits as this are available:

Vice President Richard Cheney on Al-Qaeda:

"We did have reporting that was public, that came out shortly after the 9/11 attack, provided by the Czech government, suggesting there had been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, and a man named al-Ani (Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani), who was an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague, at the embassy there, in April of '01, prior to the 9/11 attacks. It has never been -- we've never been able to collect any more information on that. That was the one that possibly tied the two together to 9/11."

Source: Transcript of Interview with Vice President Dick Cheney, Rocky Mountain News (1/9/2004).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Explanation This statement is misleading because it describes a Czech government report of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraq intelligence official Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani in April 2001 and states that there hasn’t been more information on that, despite the fact that Czech intelligence officials were skeptical about the report; U.S. intelligence had contradictory evidence regarding this report, such as records indicating Atta was in Virginia at the time of the meeting; and the C.I.A. and F.B.I. had concluded the meeting probably didn’t occur.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

The SECOND link was to Tom Paine.com which probably qualifies as a "liberal" web site.

Well, no duh. I am a liberal after all. Should I be quoting from The Washington Times or Townhall.com?

Oh, and a "leader" leads. A chickenhawk bugs out and waits until the all-clear is given before sticking their neck out. Your inability to accept Dubya's actions or inactions on September 11, 2001 is your issue, Wanderer. Not mine. His actions are a matter of fact and on the record. You can dispute the source where these facts are published, but that is a lot easier than trying to dispute the facts themselves.

Let's be a little more transparent, eh?

You know as well as I do that no President will go right away to a danger zone. It's foolish, it's shows a complete lack of common sense. The man is the leader of one of the most powerful nations in the world, of course he's not going to go near any danger zone (this is true for any president, Republican or Democrat) until it's secured and deemed safe.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...8fmxyz.asp?pg=2

The italics are straight from the memo. Note the date of Cheney's comments and the date of the memo.

As for your quotes, I did address that. I pointed out that all you did was pull out a bunch of soundbytes and spit out the left's rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations.

mim3 for the Maoist Internationalist Movement:

Which terrorists?

terrorism n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Source:
www.dictionary.com

The terrorists killing thousands of civilians in Iraq for political reasons or the terrorists killing hundreds of civilians in Madrid for political reasons?

The terrorists killing in Iraq probably want Bush.

The people who think that pulling out of a war is terrorism also probably want Bush.

Linking liberals to being terrorist sympathisers started back in 2001, its a nasty trend that is absurd and fallacious.

Possibly theres another way to go about the problem of terrorism that would be much more effective than that which is obviously NOT succeeding at present. After all, terrorists have moved into Iraq and escalated threats and attacks around the world to fight against 'us' , about a war which is fastly being understood here and globally to have been delivered upon false information. Now seen as a battle for Islamic peoples, we have given them a REASON and the Jihad that is so cherished. What once was a haphazard movement about our presence in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel, now is a full fledged battle of to save all of Islam from Western oppressors.

Bush said he would make America and the world a safer place, however threats are higher than ever, Spain has been bombed, many countries have had to ground at one time or another regular transport of citizens, most of the Western world is living in fear. This was not the case a mere 3 years ago.

This plays directly into terrorrist hands since the purpose of terrorism is FEAR. In this they are winning. We are continually preoccupied by thoughts of them and what they might do to us. We have changed our patterns of thinking, living and we are no longer the free citizens we once were By Our Own Hand. That is precisely what they wanted to achieve, there is NO OTHER PURPOSE, since there is no other way for a terrorist to take a nation down but have it turn on itself in fear. Terrorism, unlike traditional war upon a nation, is personal, its a mind game.

Perpetual war does nothing to thwart terrorism as seen by the example of Israel, there are always new recruits for the cause. It is soon enough, 'we', that suffer from our delusions, striking at shadows, the culprit then comes from behind. Engaging us in a perpetual war against these shadows weakens and tires us, economically and psychologically. Again, this is the ultimate Purpose.
When a government is complicit in the Purpose of scaring its citizens for its own agenda, again terrorists win.

Spain did the right thing. They were not vengeful, paranoid; did not vote for the WAR party in the face of horror. They bowed out of the fear game in a desire to go back to being a peace-loving nation, mostly about a war they were 90% against at the start, now with good reason. They did not play into terrorists hands as is being suggested, but never would have seen the situation escalate had they had a leader who represented them in their common sense about Iraq. They will continue to fight terrorism as they have done for several decades, without engaging in faulty conceptions of a reality they have so much more experience with.

Bush is a terrorists dream, for what he has done to America and americans post 911.They could not have fully predicted the extent upon which the Bush Admin would use 911 for their own agenda, but they got the fight they were so looking for.

I dont think terrorists are afraid of Bush, as has been suggested here. I think they see him as a 'raizon de etre' and a catalyst to finally show the US that they are a force to be reckoned with in the Middle East, their own territory by all standards. Self determination is a strong force, besides theft of resources coupled with meddlesome ideological foreign crusades, really *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** people off, with good reason. Ya wouldnt like it if somebody did it to you.

I'm not sure what exactly it is "I know as well as you do" Wanderer, but September 11 was a dangerous day for everyone. Bush bugged out and stayed bugged out until someone with more authority than him (presumably Cheney) told him he could come back.

But the first law of nature is self-preservation and looking out for Number One has been a skill Dubya mastered long ago.

What I would agree is foolish and completely lacking in common sense is the whole ludicrous notion that a terrorist gives a rat's butt one way or another WHO the next President is. Osama bin Laden and his scumbags hate AMERICA. ALL of America and Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative are just meaningless terms to them. They think we are all heathen infidels and they want us all dead.

Including John F. Kerry and George W. Bush.

Period.

Under GWB, we've not had a single major terrorist attack on American soil or against American interests.

Under Clinton and his soft approach to terrorism, we were targetted regularly and with success;

'93 NYC - WTC Bombing

'95 OC - Timothy McVeigh

'96 Dhahran, SA - Khobar Towers

'98 Africa - Embassy Bombings

'00 Yemen - USS Cole

On average, that's one every one to two years under the previous administration. After 9/11, Bush changed the approach to combatting terrorism and not a single major attack on us. I would say he is doing an excellent job.

As for Iraq, the leader of Hezbollah (the guy quoted in my signature) at the time of his speech was inciting Hezbollah followers to suicide attacks in an effort to sway American public opinion to vote in Kerry.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...sID=0&listSrc=Y.]

As for nighttimer;

Not worth argueing Presidential safety procedures with you. Your partisan colors are showing quite brightly on this.

As for Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists hating us, of course they do. But they're not stupid (strange how many hold doctorates and phds), they watch our media, they listen to our radio, they know what each candidate says on what issues (this includes European media and so on). They know exactly what they're doing as quite evidenced by the Spanish bombings just before their elections.

Excellent points, Artemise and well-stated.

Bush43 has done more to drive young Arab men and women into the extremism of Al Qaeda than can possibly be estimated. Why wouldn't the terrorist want Bush to win? By pouring so much of America's resources into a reactionary response that only deals with the symptoms and never the disease, Bush has made terrorism an acceptable option for powerless, frustrated people looking for a way to lash out.

Bin Laden and Bush have both exploited a tragedy to motivate and mobilize their base. Neither one has presented any real remedies to the poverty, repression and corruption that in systemic in so many Middle East governments. Trying to force feed Western Democracy in a environment such as Iraq where the concept is so alien is not promising.

Here at home the right wing is trying to scare Americans into believing they will be burned alive in their beds if Kerry becomes president. Artemise correctly surmises that creating FEAR is the motiviation of terrorists. What a shame the Bushies are peddling fear as well to win an election.

Yeah, that's the ticket! I suspect you aren't an oil tycoon, Hugo, or aware of the fact that bin Laden's family was flown out of the United States after the 9/11 attacks when all other civilian flights were grounded. Now just who would have enough clout to let them do that? And why?

In another thread, some posters want the Democratic candidate to come clean about which leaders want him to be President instead of G.W. Bush. Is there the remotest possibility that they might be honest-to-goodness allies of ours at this time? Nah....

It seems to me the President has not been forthcoming with a lot of stuff. As a matter of fact, he can be incredibly tight-lipped as well as his cabinet in what CNN commentators refer to as "the most secretive administration in recent memory." And yet we have been called upon, time and time again, to place our trust in this man who wants us to believe that it is for the nation's security, while not coming forth to reveal which Administration official outed former Ambassador Wilson's CIA analyst wife because Wilson had the audacity to state that the Niger uranium document was bogus. And G.W., the peoples' Presidential choice of 2000, feels no particular obligation to enlighten those who placed their trust in him to show his superior character (to Clinton's, to Gore's???) by being truthful and open. Okay...

How many appointees of this administration have been handed their walking papers because they would not toe the line about what Rove and Cheney, er, Bush, was pontificating to the American people? That might make a fine documentary. Oh, that's right, the standard phrase is "go spend more time with my family," except O'Neill decided not to give Bush a break by saying that.

Demonstrate to me any ties that Senator John Kerry has to the Saudis, Iraqis, Taliban or Saddam Hussein that the Bush administration doesn't have or hasn't had by virtue of their oil dealings and George Sr.'s stint as CIA director, then I will judge the credibility of the allegation that the terrorists would prefer Kerry to be President.

Yes, how about this....remove the problem and remove the threat. Jihad was declared against the Bush Admin for an unjust war in Iraq. We, HERE, now know the war was based upon incorrect information, so what is the discrepancy?

Is it illogical that a group of nations, which include Germany, France, Russia and now Spain, to have reasoned that we went to war wrongly, when we know this ourselves? That the invaded region desires to overturn an Administration that has shown itself to be irresponsible and flagrant in waging war upon faulty and fallacious premises, killing and wounding thousands? Where are we not connecting here? Who is playing into terrorist hands?

I think the dire situation in Iraq and the continued worldwide threats occuring almost weekly speak for themselves as to,' we are safer'. Im interested that you think the Spanish bombings and continued threats on Europe are not against American interests, all the more reason for them to distance themselves from us since we are that heinous in our self absorption.
Timothy McVeigh had nothing to do with Islamic terrorism.

Upon exiting the Whitehouse Clinton told the Bush Admin that terrorism would be his main concern in the next years, which they sloughed off without a care.


Wrong. We had the most major attack on american soil ever known, after the longest presidential vacation ever known, with the intell on his desk.
We then went on to wage a war in Iraq, possibly creating more terrorists than could ever be imagined on any given day, and we are now in a global conflict, affecting every western nation, delivered upon on faulty intelligence and a Rush into an uneccessary war.

Bush is good for terrorists, he creates them in droves.

Huh? 9/11? Ring any bells?

Funny that you only traced the history of terrorism against america through the clinton administration. I suppose if you honestly traced it back through the Reagan administration it would undermine your rhetoric.

I think the terrorists/arabs would like to see Nader win. He's from a Lebanese decent, and would sympathize with them. I think they want peace as well, except with a just settlement. I think their second choice would be Bush, because he is further isolating the US with its foreign policy. The war in Iraq was a blessing for the arab opposition because we were forced to troops on the ground in a more urban setting the those of Afghanistan. The cities and towns in Iraq are twice as big and civilized then anything in Afghanistan. Then Bush spread our troops so thin that there is no way we could police everyone everywhere. Kerry is an unknown for them.

Are you kidding? The best thing that could happen for the terrorist cause is exactly what Spain did. They bowed to the fear. The best thing that could happen for the terrorist cause is for troops to back out of Iraq and watch the place fall into civil war. The chaos will not be contained, and spread throughout the middle east, creating even more instability.

The best thing the world (and especially we, since we started it) can do to combat terror is stay in Iraq until they form a stable, safe society. So, the answer to this poll depends a lot on the candidates intentions in that direction. If Kerry means to pull our troops out, or not put a full effort into the process of stabilizing Iraq, he's the one the terrorists want. If he does mean to finish what we started, it's probably a draw.

Ignoring for the moment the one rather large bit of terrorism that occurred during Bush's tenure you seem to have forgotten (Look at the New York skyline, now tell me what is different)... even if we ignore that entirely, your point is still not true at all.

-Anthrax attacks on the US (source still unknown)

-mass pipe bombings in the midwest, sniper attacks on roadways
(If you include McVeigh, then these should certainly be included)

-American missionaries gunned down in yemen by Al Quaida (2002)

-Truck bomber blows up US consulate in Pakistan, killing 12 (2002)

-and then, let us not forget all those US soldiers who have died (over 400 now?) SINCE the end of the war in Iraq, by terorist attacks, roadside bombs, snipers and booby-traps, many of which are being increasing linked to Al Quaida.


So in fact, you simply could not have been more wrong. I find it amusing that you also go on to accuse others of being "blatantly partisan".



If so, then they know that Kerry will not be any softer on terrorists than Bush was. Kerry is for the war on terrorism, against Al Quaida and so on, he is just against many aspects of the war on Iraq which, despite many early attempt to make a link, had NOTHING to do with the war on terror. In fact, it seriously harmed the 'war on terror' as NOW there is a significant Al Quaida presence in Iraq whereas before there was not.

Doesn't matter. Terrorists are not rational people. They kill and you can't always tell who they are. Remember most of the 9/11 hijackers did NOT fit the profile for suicide types. They will find the silver lining in anything. If Kerry is elected he will probably not be as aggressive as Bush. If Bush he will continue to alienate our allies and build discord against us by other peoples.
Both offer advantages to terrorists. The best we seem to be able to do is accuse each other of whatever comes to mind. Meanwhile only 2 or 3 percent of containers are checked, responders still have no money. Our military is still stretched thin and bogged down in places we no longer need to be. (Let the Europeans protect themselves for a change AND pay for it out of THEIR pockets instead of mine), our borders are still pathetic. Although they are at least finally trying to start doing something here in Arizona for a change.
The best response from our so called leaders is Blah Blah Blah Blah Bush did this Blah Blah Blah Blah Kerry voted against this Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Nader for free hemp t-shirts Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah.
Each side will continue to dig in their heels and do their best to sabotauge the efforts of the other side. Nothing will be done except for intricate games of blame and misrepresentation and sooner or later people who were just trying to get through the day and go home will die.
But hey one of the 2 will win and claim victory for America

Interesting that the question mark wasn't used.

I believe terrorists around the world don't give a hoot who is president of the US. Whomever it becomes, the same hatred will always be there for the US as symbolized by the talking head known as President Somebody.

I also believe that nobody will be able to say "terrorists around the world prefer x candidate" until a poll of terrorist preferences is taken. In other words, it is all belief with no way of verification.

So I voted GWB rather than JFK just because I believe it is so. Don't even have to explain my belief, it is just that way.

Ok, let me ask this rather simple question then.

What would lead you to believe that Kerry would be softer on terrorrists than Bush? Why would you make that assumption? Perhaps you can sho me some evidence of cases where Kerry hs indicated that he is likely to ease off on the war on Terror, orthat he does not like military solutions, or anything really.

Gee, PE, why would they do something like that? Gee, might it be because the family faced danger in the US. Possibly from people with your mindset that would condemn the whole family for Osama's acts?

On topic:

If Al-Queda welcomed aggression against them, as a recruiting tool, they would have timed them bombings in Spain quite differently.



I think it is a mistake to view these people as irrational. The leaders in particular. They are quite rational in their operations. We may find their motivations irrational, and we may disagree with their means, but they are clearly a quite rational foe.

I agree with the majority of Americans in believing terrorists would rather see Kerry elected and Bush go down in flames. There is no doubt in my mind that most of "old Europe" feels the same way about Kerry.. None of them want a decisive American president. The Terrorists want a Clinton clone who will maybe look at the polls instread of leading the nation. The Europeans would rather an American president with Socialist views like their own. One who will not rock the boat and allow certain European nations the latitude of providing weapons to nations that support terrorism in exchange for Oil Contracts.

I cannot understand the half-dozen or so people who have posted here who feel this thread is: "divisive", " .... to create a wedge between the people considering voting for Kerry and Kerry.", "this inept attempt at going to any lengths to scare the public is unwarranted." " this poll is in poor taste." "not one person on this board has a freaking clue what a terrorist wants"

IMO, this is a question that asks for a simple opinion. Nothing more and nothing less. Why are these posters making much ado about nothing???

1SG

Who would the terrorists like to see win?

I didn't vote! While I have serious doubts about Kerry's free-for-all campaign rhetoric promising to fix what he claims are all the wrongs of the Bush administration. IMO it doesn't matter what man/woman or party affiliation is in power...the AMERICANS are still the NUMBER ONE enemy.



IMO, the above rhetoric is wishful thinking, simplistic, and leads me to believe that Mr. Kerry, if elected, had better be proficient in magic or exorcism if he intends to keep his pledge about righting all the wrongs in Iraq, the WOT, and diplomacy abroad...oh yes, and our domestic agenda.

I posted these links on another thread, but think they would be helpful here to present Osama's Declarations of War in 1996 and 1998. The articles are long, but a chilling reminder of what Osama and his followers hate, what melts their hearts and puts smiles on their faces.

Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans
Published in Al-Quds al-'Arabi on February 23, 1998

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

http://www.vitrade.com/sudan_risk/laden/la...tion_of_war.htm




So, my answer to the question is: A yellow chicken that runs when the sky comes falling down. IMO neither Bush or Kerry are yellow chickens!

And just what do you suggest is my mindset, Hugo? Remember, I'm a liberal, and by and large a pacifist, and I'm even against capital punishment! Besides, you didn't answer me: Just who had the clout to send the family out of the country when all other flights were grounded, hmmmm? Maybe the Bush family who didn't have any ties at all to Osama bin Laden and his family?

Sometimes it seems like some big game the leaders are playing. This country knows darn well that Osama bin Laden has kidney disease and has to go to medical facilities to undergo dialysis. So why weren't troops keeping an eye on medical facilities in Pakistan to see if a really tall guy was going in for dialysis? The federal government wants access to our medical records here to find any wrongdoing, etc.--why weren't they casing the hospitals in the war zones to actually try to capture the guy who declared war on us? It just looks to me like somebody has been cutting him some slack.

Any American President at this point is going to be an enemy of terrorists. Who the terrorists want for President is such a bogus proposition--this thread is a propaganda forum for pro-Bush posters to vent about Kerry, pure and simple.

I don't label people that way on these boards, sleeper. However, all of us, from time to time, can ask sophomoric questions - or give puerile answers. Until proven otherwise, I like to assume that any such thing is an exception.



But it's just your opinion that someone like bin Laden would support Kerry. You don't know. If, then, it is just your opinion that Osama bin Laden would support Kerry, you must already have a reason why you think so.

The reason this is a sophomoric question is because it is pure conjecture. We cannot cite any sources; we cannot ask the "terrorists." So, our reasons for choosing are based solely on our opinions of the candidates. You see Kerry as "soft on defense," perhaps as an "appeaser." Others see Bush as a wannabe autocrat who would love for America to be far more authoritarian than it is.



And this is what I mean. What's the difference between you saying that, and me saying:

Who would Stalin, Hitler, and Pinochet have voted for? If the answer is Bush (and I believe it is), then there must be a reason.

These questions have a roughly equal value - we cannot confirm them. The reason I specifically pointed out the illogic of the statement in the other thread is because such a statement is so patently, so obviously meant to inflame the debate. To you it may seem 'obvious' that the terrorists would favor Kerry. To others it may be 'obvious' that dictators would favor Bush. Both choices are just extensions of already held opinions. You probably won't find a huge number of moderates getting down and dirty in a discussion like this.

hugo:


You know what, that was totally unnecessary. I was not trying to censor debate. Or is it censorship now to disagree with someone? Pointing out something I believe to be a sophomoric comment is on par with calling something racist? I have always considered you a worthy adversary here, hugo. I find this statement personally insulting.

venom:


I absolutely disagree. I would have felt the same way if the question had been the hypothetical "dictators for Bush" question I posed earlier in my post. Maybe you should let people with a different opinion than yours actually voice what they think. It seems you've gone and done it for them. What's in poor taste is making some huge assumptions about other peoples' reasoning. Or do you really think that everyone who disagrees with Bush is really just "afraid of the truth?"

Paladin Elspeth:


Actually, I don't think GHWB knew Osama bin Laden. But he has had close ties to several of the other bin Laden's, Usama's family (his father, and many of his brothers). The bin Laden family was an investor in Harken Energy, and sat on the board of the Carlyle Group. And that's not speculation, as much as hugo might want us to believe it is.

beladonna:


For what it's worth, those two are big Republican activists. Just FYI.


hugo:


As an off-topic aside, don't you think that, rather than jumping to the conclusion that they faced danger from people with PE's "mindset," that you might have looked a little deeper? You don't find it odd? Wouldn't it be normal for, say, the FBI to question family members of someone suspected of committing a huge terrorist attack? What would you have said, I wonder, if Clinton had approved of the McVeigh family flying out of the country in the days after the OK City bombing? I shudder to think how Gingrich and his attack dogs would have reacted to that!



And on this, hugo, we agree completely.

Excellent points, Christopher.

The poll, as written, (and any ensuing elections in the US) accomplishes nothing, because the terrorists aren't voting.

As for Bush or Kerry, neither one is going to be able to stop every single attack, no matter what anyone here thinks. I believe Spain is a potent example of that.

Countries like Germany and Spain have suffered somewhat longer under terrorists than we have, and in many ways are much tougher on visitors, and immigrants in terms of identification, tracking, etc., than we will ever be. And yet they are still successfully attacked.

As someone pointed out in a recent column I read, we have to have a 100% success rate in stopping them. They only need to get past us once to be seen as having succeeded.


Seems they had no problem moving around outside their cave and holes long enough to kill 200 Spaniards last week, Venom.


Wanderer, you really should read news articles with a more critical eye. Here's a quote from the link you provided:

So, did he actually miss an easy opportunity as you claim? Hmm, think I'll go with the expert's opinion, instead of yours.



I don't really agree with the inclusion of Oklahoma City here as it was not a foreign terror attack, but I'll let it slide for now. As for the rest of your assertions, all I can say is, "how quickly they forget." Not a single major terrorist attack, under GWB, against America or western interests?

May, 2002 - Suicide bomber blows up truck at US Consulate, killing 14.

Oct, 2002 - Explosions at Bali resort and US consular agency in Indonesia kill 180 people.

Dec, 2002 - Muslim extremists in Yemen open fire in a Christian hospital, killing 22, including 3 American missionaries.

2002 - Kenya - 11 killed in in car bomb explosion of Israeli owned Hotel.

2002 - Kenya - Missile attack on Israeli passenger liner, only failed because missle missed.

May, 2003 - Saudi Arabia - Riyadh western compound car bombed, killing 29, including 7 Americans, and injuring dozens more.

May, 2003 - Morrocco - 40 people killed in hotel suicide bombing, killing many western citizens, including French, Spanish and Italian.

Tunisia - Truck bomb kills 21 German tourists.

Aug, 2003 - Baghdad - 20 killed, including UN Special Envoy in bomb attack of UN Embassy.

Aug, 2003 - Jakarta - 10 killed, dozens injured in car bomb attack on a luxury hotel frequented by western tourists and journalists.

Oct, 2003 - Baghdad - 30 people killed in terrorist attack on Red Cross Building.

Nov, 2003 - Istanbul - Two synagogues bombed, HSBC bank bombed, and British consulate bombed.

Pakistan - At least eight attacks on Western and American interests since October 2002.

Mar, 2004 - Spain - Train bombing kills 200, injures hundreds more.

Mar, 2004 - Baghdad - Hotel bombing kills 27 people were killed and some 40 others were injured in a devastating bomb attack at a hotel used by Westerners, including Brithish and American businessmen.

Let's see, wanderer. According to you, one attack every two years is a failed approach to combatting terrorism. If that's so, what do you call 26 attacks against western interests, 9 of those against strictly American citizens and/or targets in the last three years.

If you honestly believe that that constitutes "doing an excellent job" by GWB, what would you consider a bad job?

The difference is that Bin Laden was on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted list at the time of the bombings. I am certain his family had already been tightly scrutinized. The thinking that:



there is some game being played and that the US does not wish to apprehend Bin Laden is absurd. Occam's razor tells you that the Bin Laden's were allowed to leave for their safety. It was the humanitarian thing. Bin Laden ain't supporting Bush because it would keep the "big game" going by it's present rules. There was sporadic retaliation against Muslims in general after 9/11. I would say the family definitely faced danger. You don't have to go to a hospital for dialysis, you have to get the neccesary equipment to your hideout.

Osama and George are not good buddies. A defeat of GW Bush in the next election, on top of Spains election results, would give Al-Queda a bit to gloat about. Not that they would not immediately start demonizing Senator Kerry.



My apologies, no insult was intended.

Yes, Al-Queda would love see to Bush and Blair go down to defeat. More for propaganda purposes than anything else. I wonder if they have an operation planned in the US for this October or early November? I do not see Kerry being soft on Al-Queda, after 9/11 no American President would be. I think his actions in Iraq might be a bit "soft". I can't be sure of that though, that is the great unknown.

This from Al-Jazeera's website:


"We have let the Spanish people choose between war and peace," said the statement received by the London-based newspaper Al-Qods Al-Arabi.

"They chose peace by electing the party which opposed the alliance with America in its war against Islam," said the text signed by Abu-Hafs Al-Masri/al-Qaida Brigades.

This statement had not yet been confirmed, but it is in line, with my belief, that Al-Queda is very interested in the politics of other nations.