Al Qaeda Should Determine US Election

[Zephyr106]

Spain was bombed right before their elections, and they elected some socialists who pulled out of Iraq, and that was bad.

Now we hear from many Americans that we should vote for whoever Al Qaeda doesn't want. Apparently the terrorists fear Bush more than Kerry, because Bush is more likely to invade countries and may happen to invade one in which Bin Laden is in.

Am I correct in thinking that Al Qaeda's preferences (or rather the opposite of their preferences), should take preference over American citizens' voting preferences?

Zephyr

 

[351Cleveland]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Spain was bombed right before their elections, and they elected some socialists who pulled out of Iraq, and that was bad.

Now we hear from many Americans that we should vote for whoever Al Qaeda doesn't want. Apparently the terrorists fear Bush more than Kerry, because Bush is more likely to invade countries and may happen to invade one in which Bin Laden is in.

Am I correct in thinking that Al Qaeda's preferences (or rather the opposite of their preferences), should take preference over American citizens' voting preferences?

Zephyr

My eyeballs are spinning from this one... what are you asking again?

The whole "Who would Al Quaeda want?" tagline is a campaining tactic. I seriously doubt anyone is suggesting that terrorist preferences should actually carry weight in the election.

 

[Kibbo]

I think that Bush is who Al-Queda wants in power.

The purpose of terrorism has always been hypocritical, or ironic, depending on your view. Terrorism's goal since its invention been to inspire revenge on the part of the target. This leads to more resentment from the population they claim to represent, and more support for the terrorists goal's in the general population. This leads to more resources being sent their way, and the combination of public resentment towards the reluctant "opressors" with the domestic destabalization of the "victims" leads to more recruits.

Osama wanted you to attack Afghanistan. The fact that the invasion and occupation was relatively "clean" probably pissed him off. The messiness of Iraq is probably making him cream himself.

 

[viivo]

Logically, terrorists would want Bush. With a cowboy in office who wears religion on his chaps, any move a terrorist makes is hailed by every person who ever had an inkling of anti-Americanism as a fight for freedom against the imperial power.

 

[ReiAyanami]

ORANGE ALERT! FUSCHIA ALERT!!

actually, al qaeda has publicly stated they want bush to win the election citing that no other president could divide the people so well and bring scorn of the international majority the way he does

coincidently, $50/barrel oil happens to benefit the middle east.
coincidently, $50/barrel oil happens to benefit shrub's oil buddies.

 

[DLzone]

Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Spain was bombed right before their elections, and they elected some socialists who pulled out of Iraq, and that was bad.

Now we hear from many Americans that we should vote for whoever Al Qaeda doesn't want. Apparently the terrorists fear Bush more than Kerry, because Bush is more likely to invade countries and may happen to invade one in which Bin Laden is in.

Am I correct in thinking that Al Qaeda's preferences (or rather the opposite of their preferences), should take preference over American citizens' voting preferences?

Zephyr

Wow talk about making an ass out of u and me. First of all you're forgetting that the vast majority of Spain's population was against the war (a small detail), so how can you possibly say that it was the result of the bombing that they elected a party that would pull them from Iraq. Well, you really can't. You just assume as much because it helps your straw house argument, seems to me that Democracy just took its course. Secondly who are the American's who are telling us we should vote for whoever Al Qaeda doesn't want? Honestly, you are the first person who I've ever heard this idea from and by judging the rest of your post; I think you may be the only person dumb enough to let a terrorist organizations preference (or lack thereof) decide your vote. Thirdly, who is your contact in the Al Qaeda terrorist network that cued you in on who they are more scared of? I would say that your post is the electronic equivalent of dog bile, except I wouldn't want to offend any bile for being compared to your post.

Dom

 

[Pliablemoose]

The mess in Spain was a bit more complicated, they (the party in power) claimed the opposition was responsible for the bombings & pissed the public off that they were so stupid to make the claim.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The mess in Spain was a bit more complicated, they (the party in power) claimed the opposition was responsible for the bombings & pissed the public off that they were so stupid to make the claim.

Not the Opposition, but domestic terrorists(Basque) who have been attempting to separate for decades(I believe).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Check sarcasm meter.

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Check sarcasm meter.

I can't believe you people haven't heard this. It comes right after the line "Only Bush can protect us from Al Qaeda." "Al Qaeda wants Kerry to win because he won't fight them overseas as effectively."

I am asking if the 2nd line, that of Al Qaeda's preferences, should affect our votes.

Zephyr

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
The mess in Spain was a bit more complicated, they (the party in power) claimed the opposition was responsible for the bombings & pissed the public off that they were so stupid to make the claim.

Not the Opposition, but domestic terrorists(Basque) who have been attempting to separate for decades(I believe).

Opps, you're right...

 

[PELarson]

"Topic Summary: Hitler Picked Roosevelt In Fact"

If you aren't jokin' then your history time line is quite wacked.

"February 22, 1932 Adolf Hitler was the Nazi Party candidate for the presidential elections in Germany. The election of Hitler was supposed to mark the beginning of the Thousand-Year Reich.
February 25, 1932 Hitler was granted German citizenship.
July 1932 The Nazi Party became the countries strongest party. Hitler ran for president in the election, but he lost.
July 31, 1932 The Nazi party doubled its strength in legislative elections.
August 13, 1932 Hitler refused to serve as Franz Von Papen's vice chancellor
January 30, 1933 Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany. In order to get the position he had promised President Paul von Hindenburg that he would not act unlawfully.
February 4, 1933 Hindenburg signed a decree that gave the Nazis legal authority to prohibit assemblies, outlaw newspapers and other publications, and to arrest people under suspicion of treason."

FDR was inaugrated in March of 1933. Adolf Hitler and Germany where barely a blimp on most of the voters radar in November of 1932.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: PELarson
"Topic Summary: Hitler Picked Roosevelt In Fact"

If you aren't jokin' then your history time line is quite wacked.

"February 22, 1932 Adolf Hitler was the Nazi Party candidate for the presidential elections in Germany. The election of Hitler was supposed to mark the beginning of the Thousand-Year Reich.
February 25, 1932 Hitler was granted German citizenship.
July 1932 The Nazi Party became the countries strongest party. Hitler ran for president in the election, but he lost.
July 31, 1932 The Nazi party doubled its strength in legislative elections.
August 13, 1932 Hitler refused to serve as Franz Von Papen's vice chancellor
January 30, 1933 Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany. In order to get the position he had promised President Paul von Hindenburg that he would not act unlawfully.
February 4, 1933 Hindenburg signed a decree that gave the Nazis legal authority to prohibit assemblies, outlaw newspapers and other publications, and to arrest people under suspicion of treason."

FDR was inaugrated in March of 1933. Adolf Hitler and Germany where barely a blimp on most of the voters radar in November of 1932.

I don't think Voters had Radars back then!

 

[cpumaster]

I am not listening to Al-Qaeda, should I? Do they ran any political ad in Texas as to who they support?

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I am not listening to Al-Qaeda, should I? Do they ran any political ad in Texas as to who they support?

No. [sarcasm]Hmmm.. Texas(wonder who will win there?) + no ad from Al Queda = <support for ?>[/sarcasm]

 

[PELarson]

Originally posted by: sandorski
FDR was inaugrated in March of 1933. Adolf Hitler and Germany where barely a blimp on most of the voters radar in November of 1932.

I don't think Voters had Radars back then! [/quote]

Who'd a thunk it. I are dun lernin' 4 the day!

Radar was on the radar as early as 1887 but not named that.

 

[MAW1082]

PELarson: Actually Hitler was a player even back in the 1920s when he attempted a coup d'etat. The coup failed but he was certainly a political player after that.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I am not listening to Al-Qaeda, should I? Do they ran any political ad in Texas as to who they support?

The Al Qaeda for Bush/Cheney ads are airing on al Jazeera

 

[RabidMongoose]

How about Bin Laden just becomes the next US president?

 

[cpumaster]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I am not listening to Al-Qaeda, should I? Do they ran any political ad in Texas as to who they support?

No. [sarcasm]Hmmm.. Texas(wonder who will win there?) + no ad from Al Queda = <support for ?>[/sarcasm]

Your sarcasm is appreciated but think about it for a moment, if AQ ran an ad supporting Bush in Texas, who do you think would win in the election here?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: sandorski
FDR was inaugrated in March of 1933. Adolf Hitler and Germany where barely a blimp on most of the voters radar in November of 1932.

I don't think Voters had Radars back then!

Who'd a thunk it. I are dun lernin' 4 the day!

Radar was on the radar as early as 1887 but not named that.[/quote]

Hehe, well, maybe they did.

 

[soundforbjt]

Originally posted by: cpumaster

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: cpumaster
I am not listening to Al-Qaeda, should I? Do they ran any political ad in Texas as to who they support?

No. [sarcasm]Hmmm.. Texas(wonder who will win there?) + no ad from Al Queda = <support for ?>[/sarcasm]

Your sarcasm is appreciated but think about it for a moment, if AQ ran an ad supporting Bush in Texas, who do you think would win in the election here?

GWB.