Al-Qaida will do whatever it takes to assure Bush is re-elected

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: chess9
Bow:

Why does a child throw a temper tantrum? To get attention.

The Muslims wanted our attention. Before 9-11 we couldn't be bothered.

They now have it. That is a big victory.

Now that they have our attention, we will be listening, and they know it. Another victory.

Once we are listening we will have to grapple with their issues. Yet another victory.

And so it goes.

What is one man's loss is another man's victory.

For Fundamentalist Muslims each "loss" is a victory, building a paradise from the desert, one grain of sand at a time.


-Robert

Interesting angle. You're right, we ignored them before but they have our attention now. So what's next?

So Clinton ignored them and 9/11 was the result.

I'd rather we didn't ignore them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I suppose I was naive. Please note, I am NOT endorsing this columnist's assertions, but I think he raises interesting questions. In a likely vain attempt to get this on-topic, let me ask again (note the question marks at the end of most sentences):

1. Why did al Qaeda attack the U.S.? What do you think about the author's suggestion that 9/11 was intended to provoke U.S. military action in the Middle East, in order to "drive enough aggrieved Muslims into the arms of the Islamist radicals that their long-stalled revolutions against local regimes finally get off the ground?"

2. Who does al Qaeda support in Campaign 2004? Why? Show your work.

Extra credit: To what extent can al Qaeda influence this election? What methods might they try to use, and do they have the means to execute? (Diebold?)

1. They attacked us because they are radicals who are hell bent on killing every last infidel (Non-extremist).. don't read into it any more than that.. they want us dead.

2. See #1.. I don't think they care. They will kill a democrat or republican.. they are not partisan in their killing.

Extra Credit: Take off the aluminum foil hat. Do you honestly think Al Qaeda could rig an election in the United States? If they could somehow hack the voting machines, don't you think it would be more effective to hack the ATM systems, or bank systems in the United States and cause financial chaos?

A little clue about conspiracy theories.. they are nearly always wrong.

1. I think that's overly simplistic. If their goal is to kill us all, they aren't doing it at all effectively. 9/11 was a horrific atrocity, but statistically speaking, it's barely a drop in the bucket for loss of American life. If killing us is their only goal, they will be more effective if they put more McDonalds in our neighborhoods or forge a study proving seat belts are dangerous. I think there is more on their mind than merely killing us.

2. You miss the point. I'm sure they support non-partisan murder. My question is, which Presidential candidate do they see as helping their causes the most?

Extra credit: Please read my words more carefully lest I tell you where to put your tinfoil hat. I did not say al Qaeda can rig an election. I asked to what extent they can influence an election. Further, what makes you so sure they haven't hacked ATMs or other banking systems? It has been reported that the FBI found evidence of sophisticated computer hacking capabilities in an al Qaeda hideout.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: alchemize
I think Al-Qaida has not a clue when it comes to America and politics. "We" cannot understand their beliefs and thought process anymore than "they" can ours. They are mutually exclusive.

For example, to even begin to understand the different political viewpoints on "Women's Rights", don't you have to fundamentally believe that a Woman has at least some rights?

I don't accept that. While there is some truth, it is overly broad. If memory serves, many of these terrorists were educated in the West. Perhaps the rank and file cannot understand our beliefs, but many of their leaders understand them just fine.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Interesting angle. You're right, we ignored them before but they have our attention now. So what's next?

So Clinton ignored them and 9/11 was the result.

I'd rather we didn't ignore them.

No, partisan one, Clinton didn't ignore them. America ignored them. The West ignored them. Most of the world ignored them.

They have center stage now.

 

[chess9]

What's next? Bow, you ask such difficult questions!

It's up to the parties as I see it. This conflict can have several different results in the short term (5 years). The best result imaginable for Bush at this juncture is a Shiite regime that isn't openly hostile to America. If we continue to actually rebuild Iraq, like we did Japan and Germany, then that is a possible result. An American style democracy, which Lieberman touted in NH is sheer lunacy. What makes anyone think that is even a remote possibility in Iraq? Already Chalabi has turned his coat and is siding with those who want elections now. (Chalabi is a snake so no one should be surprised.) Most Iraqis see America the way a cancer patient views chemotherapy. Necessary but painful, and they will be happy when the pain is GONE!

I don't think the Iraqis have the capability to directly affect this election (such as with bombings hers) because we have them occupied there. But, if Iraq starts to stabilize in the next 4-5 months, and it is palpable to the American public, then Bush benefits. So, the terrible irony here is that if they keep killing Americans at the current pace, we might have a new President because Americans have a short attention span and little tolerance for pain.

The Koran is not going to change, which means that the Muslims are not going to change very much. But the number of them who are suicide bombing crazies can drop precipitously if the U.S., Israel, and the other Western countries do something about their poverty, health care, infrastructure, and civil rights. They want some respect. You know if you don't LISTEN to someone's issues, you can't solve them. (Your wife may have mentioned this. ) This has been our failing in the past. We can't solve everyone's issues, but we can do a hell of a lot more good with butter than guns.

Just my .00002 Rials.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
What's next? Bow, you ask such difficult questions!

It's up to the parties as I see it. This conflict can have several different results in the short term (5 years). The best result imaginable for Bush at this juncture is a Shiite regime that isn't openly hostile to America. If we continue to actually rebuild Iraq, like we did Japan and Germany, then that is a possible result. An American style democracy, which Lieberman touted in NH is sheer lunacy. What makes anyone think that is even a remote possibility in Iraq? Already Chalabi has turned his coat and is siding with those who want elections now. (Chalabi is a snake so no one should be surprised.) Most Iraqis see America the way a cancer patient views chemotherapy. Necessary but painful, and they will be happy when the pain is GONE!

I don't think the Iraqis have the capability to directly affect this election (such as with bombings hers) because we have them occupied there. But, if Iraq starts to stabilize in the next 4-5 months, and it is palpable to the American public, then Bush benefits. So, the terrible irony here is that if they keep killing Americans at the current pace, we might have a new President because Americans have a short attention span and little tolerance for pain.

The Koran is not going to change, which means that the Muslims are not going to change very much. But the number of them who are suicide bombing crazies can drop precipitously if the U.S., Israel, and the other Western countries do something about their poverty, health care, infrastructure, and civil rights. They want some respect. You know if you don't LISTEN to someone's issues, you can't solve them. (Your wife may have mentioned this. ) This has been our failing in the past. We can't solve everyone's issues, but we can do a hell of a lot more good with butter than guns.

Just my .00002 Rials.

-Robert

I agree an American-style democracy is wishful thinking, at least for many years. Unfortunately, my crystal ball is too cloudy. It's hard for me to imagine anything working except an Islamic theocracy or another dictatorship. Either way, the trick will be a govenment friendly to the U.S. yet still viewed as credible by the Iraqi people. It would be easier if the U.S. ceded the driver's seat to the U.N. or some other international organization. Everything we do will be received with suspicion.

I will point out this has nothing to do with the original purpose of this thread, al Qaida's choice for President and their ability to influence our elections. I'm not really worried about Iraqi terrorists here. I am concerned that al Qaida has the means to influence our elections through terror and potentially through sophisticated "hacking".