• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Al-Qaeda Endorses Bush

subgenius

Illuminator
S
Joined
Oct 11, 2002
Messages
4,785
Posting this only to emphasize the hypocrisy of the Kerry North Korean endorsement smear, and a comment that the terrorists would be "dancing in the streets" if Kerry were elected.

Obviously you can't control who says what, and it should be kept in mind that there are all kinds of agendas involved.

Like with the godlessamerican pac's strategy, an endorsement can be used for the opposite effect.

Does raise an interesting question over who the terrorists would really prefer. Don't go there, because it never pays to speculate what goes on the mind of a madman. We will never know.

____________________


An unrelated videotape of a man describing himself as al Qaeda's European military spokesman also claimed responsibility for the Madrid bombing, saying it was in retaliation for outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's domestically-unpopular support for the U.S.-led Iraq war.
...............
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN

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."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...17/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721
 
The weird thing for me is, the description of Bush as someone who "deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom" is disturbingly apt.
 
subgenius said:
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."
Click to expand...
A pretty crude attempt at reverse-psychology.

I suppose suicide attacks are wisdom rather than force.

Kim's remark, on the other hand, is pure megalomania.
 
Cleon said:
The weird thing for me is, the description of Bush as someone who "deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom" is disturbingly apt.
Click to expand...

Compared to suicide attacks?

Or nuking everything in sight like the morons at Free Republic would like?
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Tu quoque.
Click to expand...

No I'm not just saying "you're another".

I'm making the point that if the war is a given, Bush has pursued it with wisdom rather than mere force.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:


No I'm not just saying "you're another".

I'm making the point that if the war is a given, Bush has pursued it with wisdom rather than mere force.
Click to expand...

Well, the war wasn't a given, so that's that.
 
Cleon said:
The weird thing for me is, the description of Bush as someone who "deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom" is disturbingly apt.
Click to expand...

Disturbingly apt?? How 'bout disturbingly ironic? After all these words are being uttered by a guy who just dealt death to 201 altogether innocent human beings.

If a religion crazed group of mumbling maniacs murder another 3,000 people I suppose President Kerry should abstain from "dealing with matters by force" eh?

-z
 
Mr Manifesto said:


Well, the war wasn't a given, so that's that.
Click to expand...

The terrorists proceed by maximizing casualties to the best of their ability.

If the USA proceeded on the same basis there would be tens of millions dead right now.

Somehow, I see a difference.
 
I agree with "ironic" although nauseating also comes to mind.
Wisdom and force though are not mutually exclusive.
 
We needn't pick through a statement by Al-Quaeda and hope to actually determine if they mean what they say.

The only way to avoid them influencing our election is to ignore their attempts to manipulate it.
 
gnome said:
We needn't pick through a statement by Al-Quaeda and hope to actually determine if they mean what they say.

The only way to avoid them influencing our election is to ignore their attempts to manipulate it.
Click to expand...

That's why I said "it never pays to speculate what goes on the mind of a madman" and why I believe that anyone in Spain who changed their vote solely on the bombings became their tool.
I would hope that the puported statement (I'm not convinced its even real) should not make people vote one way or the other.
Like Kim Il's "endorsement" of Kerry, although taking into consideration the policies of the administration in dealing with the Korea's is fair.
 
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/o...Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists
 
subgenius said:
Like Kim Il's "endorsement" of Kerry, although taking into consideration the policies of the administration in dealing with the Korea's is fair.
Click to expand...

I say Kim is both megalomaniac and stupid.

Kim would not have said it if he didn't think his mere word would influence our election to his advantage.

I don't think Kerry would tolerate a North Korea with nuclear weapons. But clearly Kim thinks so.

Perhaps Kim listens to Limbaugh. :D

Chirac (sane and not an idiot) would never make such mistakes. And unlike Kim, he might actually benefit from Kerry being president.

And we already tolerate French nukes. :p
 
subgenius said:
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days.
Click to expand...

Since Franco, Spain has usually had a Socialist government, always by a narrow margin.

Aznar's party also had a very slim majority while he was in.

I read somewhere or other that it only took a swing vote of 4% to hand it over to the Socialists this time.

So if the Socialists got in this time by virtue of being "appeasers", that doesn't say much about Spaniards in general. The Socialist position on the war never changed.
 
subgenius said:
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/o...Opinion/Editorials and Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists
Click to expand...

I have heard some speculate that the political reversal had less to do with the bombing itself, and more to do with deception from the incumbent administration in the wake of the bombing... at first they tried to blame it on Basque separatists...

Now... does anyone with facts know whether this is true or bollocks?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom