Osama bin Laden wants John Kerry to win...

[Galvatron]

That's what my mom says. Of course, she's a dyed-in-the wool, Fox News-watching, Rush-listening, Bush-loving, Christian fundamentalist so what do you expect?

But I thought about it like this: wouldn't bin Laden and al-Qaeda prefer that Bush win? He's the perfect recruiting tool for their cause!

[Keevan_Colton]

Conversley, would the most effective way of achieving that not be to back Kerry?

[CelesKnight]

I think that UBL wants to kill them both. In his eyes, "Bush or Kerry" is probably like "Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Il, or Saddam" is in ours.

However, I don't think that he wants Bush to win because Bush helps recruiting. He's probably got all the recruits he needs. Idealy, he would want a candidate who would back off from the war on terrorism for a while so that potential recruits would be embolden to join, so he can train and organize the recruits, do more planning, hold public bakesales, etc.

IMO, if he wants to defeat Bush, his best course would be to up the Iraq attacks (make it look even more like a clusterfuck) and make certain not to attack the US (an attack here gives Bush a chance to show leadership).

[Talon Karrde]

That's what my mom says. Of course, she's a dyed-in-the wool, Fox News-watching, Rush-listening, Bush-loving, Christian fundamentalist so what do you expect?

But I thought about it like this: wouldn't bin Laden and al-Qaeda prefer that Bush win? He's the perfect recruiting tool for their cause!

So why aren't you the same as your mom?

Why would Bin Laden want Bush to win when Bush has taken a very pro-active stance against him? Wouldn't he prefer someone in office like Kerry who won't be as firm on terrorists?

[Talon Karrde]

However, I don't think that he wants Bush to win because Bush helps recruiting. He's probably got all the recruits he needs. .

This is a ridiculous theory that I continue to hear be thrown around. Terrorist recruiting is up because Islamic terrorist groups (specifically Al-Qaeda) have declared a holy war on America. Plain and simple.

[Colonel Olrik]

However, I don't think that he wants Bush to win because Bush helps recruiting. He's probably got all the recruits he needs. .

This is a ridiculous theory that I continue to hear be thrown around. Terrorist recruiting is up because Islamic terrorist groups (specifically Al-Qaeda) have declared a holy war on America. Plain and simple.

Yes, obviously. And the TV images of arabs dying horribly or being tortured in an unjust war does nothing to convince the average arab that Alqaeda is right after all. You idiot.

[Cao Cao]

Bush does NOT take a firm stance on terrorists.
He just says he does. But invading Iraq on the pretense of Saddam being central to Al Qaeda support gave Osama the breathing space he needed.
That's why Bin Laden would want Bush to win.

It's not like OBL cares if he loses hundreds of recruits now and then anyway, they're just more martyrs for his cause.

[Talon Karrde]

Bush does NOT take a firm stance on terrorists.
He just says he does. But invading Iraq on the pretense of Saddam being central to Al Qaeda support gave Osama the breathing space he needed.
That's why Bin Laden would want Bush to win.

It's not like OBL cares if he loses hundreds of recruits now and then anyway, they're just more martyrs for his cause.

I have a feeling that if we committed the troops that are currently in Iraq all to Afganistan, the left would still be screaming that they shouldn't be there. According to the left, Bush can't do anything right.

Bush doesn't take a firm stance on terrorists? This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in recent memory. You may disagree with his politics, but holy crap, have we had a major terrorist attack since 9/11? No, because his administration has taken it upon themselves to prepare us for the new wars that will be fought on terrorism front.

[Cao Cao]

I have a feeling that if we committed the troops that are currently in Iraq all to Afganistan, the left would still be screaming that they shouldn't be there. According to the left, Bush can't do anything right.

Nice generalization, and one that I am not a part of.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda needed to go down hard for their vile act, occupation of Afghanistan would be a natural result of that.
But if Bush had stuck with Afghanistan and commited his troops to hunting down Al Qaeda wherever they may be I'd be the first one singing his praises.

Bush doesn't take a firm stance on terrorists? This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in recent memory. You may disagree with his politics, but holy crap, have we had a major terrorist attack since 9/11? No, because his administration has taken it upon themselves to prepare us for the new wars that will be fought on terrorism front.

Again with that. 9/11 scale attacks happen HOW OFTEN? Not very.
Plus the people of Spain would disagree with you..

[Talon Karrde]

I have a feeling that if we committed the troops that are currently in Iraq all to Afganistan, the left would still be screaming that they shouldn't be there. According to the left, Bush can't do anything right.

Nice generalization, and one that I am not a part of.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda needed to go down hard for their vile act, occupation of Afghanistan would be a natural result of that.
But if Bush had stuck with Afghanistan and commited his troops to hunting down Al Qaeda wherever they may be I'd be the first one singing his praises.

Bush doesn't take a firm stance on terrorists? This is perhaps one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard in recent memory. You may disagree with his politics, but holy crap, have we had a major terrorist attack since 9/11? No, because his administration has taken it upon themselves to prepare us for the new wars that will be fought on terrorism front.

Again with that. 9/11 scale attacks happen HOW OFTEN? Not very.
Plus the people of Spain would disagree with you..

Your telling me Bush is responsible for what happened in Spain? It seems to me that when Bush takes initiative to help another country out (i.e. Iraq), he gets blasted. How exactly do you blame a terrorist attack in Spain on the president of a different country?

Can you name one case of Al-Qaeda terrorist activity since 9/11? I don't care how large or small.

[Cao Cao]

Your telling me Bush is responsible for what happened in Spain?

Yes. He cajoled Spain into sending troops to Iraq. Spain was attacked because of that.

It seems to me that when Bush takes initiative to help another country out (i.e. Iraq), he gets blasted. How exactly do you blame a terrorist attack in Spain on the president of a different country?

HELP Iraq? HELP? How has Iraq been helped exactly, with Iraqis dying on the streets every day because of a messed up occupation?
That was not even the intention. Bush used the war on terrorism to settle an old score with Saddam. It has already surfaced that he was planning to attack Iraq before 9/11, and virtually ordered people to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda whether they existed or not.

George W. Bush is opportunist scum and a terrorists best friend, he is ultimatley responsible for the current state of fear in the world and the deaths in Spain and Iraq among others.

Can you name one case of Al-Qaeda terrorist activity since 9/11? I don't care how large or small.

The bombing in Madrid. Hello.

[Zac Naloen]

Can you name one case of Al-Qaeda terrorist activity since 9/11? I don't care how large or small.

Shutting down heathrow airport, the plot was blocked but the effect was still there.

[Talon Karrde]

Yes. He cajoled Spain into sending troops to Iraq. Spain was attacked because of that.

It was Spain's ultimate decision to go to Iraq, and I'm glad they fought for freedom alongside America.

HELP Iraq? HELP? How has Iraq been helped exactly, with Iraqis dying on the streets every day because of a messed up occupation?
That was not even the intention. Bush used the war on terrorism to settle an old score with Saddam. It has already surfaced that he was planning to attack Iraq before 9/11, and virtually ordered people to find connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda whether they existed or not.

Nice to know you feel Saddam Hussein was better for Iraq then their new democratic government. You actually believe that a country can recover from a tyrannical regime overnight?

George W. Bush is opportunist scum and a terrorists best friend, he is ultimatley responsible for the current state of fear in the world and the deaths in Spain and Iraq among others.

You fall into the generalization, yes, generalization of Bush haters. Most of what you say is blinded by your pure hate for the man.

The bombing in Madrid. Hello.

This to me proves that whatever happens you will just blame it on Bush. Seems like a convenient cop out to me.

[Zac Naloen]

You asked for terrorist activity since 9/11

He gave it, you can't just ignore it because it didn't happen in America.

[Talon Karrde]

You asked for terrorist activity since 9/11

He gave it, you can't just ignore it because it didn't happen in America.

And you can't blame terrorist activity in a foreign country beyond our control on our president.

[Talon Karrde]

Can you name one case of Al-Qaeda terrorist activity since 9/11? I don't care how large or small.

Shutting down heathrow airport, the plot was blocked but the effect was still there.

Well obviously the attempts won't stop, thats obvious. You can't just push a button and hope all terrorists go away. You have to do something about it. When they shut down the airport, obviously there was a threat there.

[Stravo]

That's what my mom says. Of course, she's a dyed-in-the wool, Fox News-watching, Rush-listening, Bush-loving, Christian fundamentalist so what do you expect?

But I thought about it like this: wouldn't bin Laden and al-Qaeda prefer that Bush win? He's the perfect recruiting tool for their cause!

So why aren't you the same as your mom?

Why would Bin Laden want Bush to win when Bush has taken a very pro-active stance against him? Wouldn't he prefer someone in office like Kerry who won't be as firm on terrorists?

Surely you're not this stupid....wait I've read your contributions in other threads of late and you indeed are.

Ossamma Bin Ladin is STILL AT LARGE you fucking moron. You call that being proactive. There was ZERO inteligence that Osamma was anywhere near Iraq and we inavded Iraq instead of chasing that fucker wherever he went out of Afghanistan. You realize that he NOT Sadaam or Iraq is directly responsible for the death of thousands of Americans (including friends of mine) and we have let him go???

This is a man on dialysis who is sick and infamous the world over and we can't find him just like we can't find WMD's in Iraq. I'd say Bush's track record on getting anything done that he promised (getting Sadaam, destroying Al-Qaeda, Finding WMD in Iraq) is ABYSSMAL!!

Yet you think he's doing a spectacular job as the nation is put on high alert until election day?

Can I ask you a simple question? What color is the sky in your world?

[Durandal]

Again with that. 9/11 scale attacks happen HOW OFTEN? Not very.
Plus the people of Spain would disagree with you..

Your telling me Bush is responsible for what happened in Spain? It seems to me that when Bush takes initiative to help another country out (i.e. Iraq), he gets blasted. How exactly do you blame a terrorist attack in Spain on the president of a different country?

He's not responsible, but that's not the point, is it? If Bush had really crippled al Qaeda as you and your right-wing fapping buddies would have us believe, then the attack on Madrid would not have happened. The attack on Madrid showed that al Qaeda had regained much of its former strength because Bush struck back at their base of operations ... and then halted when it was destroyed, instead opting to waste time deposing a tin-pot dictator like Hussein.

Can you name one case of Al-Qaeda terrorist activity since 9/11? I don't care how large or small.

THE ATTACKS ON MADRID'S TRAINS YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

[Thunderfire]

Can you name one case of Al-Qaeda terrorist activity since 9/11? I don't care how large or small.

Djerba , Madrid , Bali to name three bigger ones.

[Galvatron]

So why aren't you the same as your mom?

Because I think for myself. Are you one of those people who thinks it's disrespectful to have an opinion that doesn't fall in line with your parents?

Why would Bin Laden want Bush to win when Bush has taken a very pro-active stance against him? Wouldn't he prefer someone in office like Kerry who won't be as firm on terrorists?

I think he prefers someone who'll fuel the anti-American sentiment in his region, thereby increasing his power and influence.

[Darth Wong]

That's what my mom says. Of course, she's a dyed-in-the wool, Fox News-watching, Rush-listening, Bush-loving, Christian fundamentalist so what do you expect?

But I thought about it like this: wouldn't bin Laden and al-Qaeda prefer that Bush win? He's the perfect recruiting tool for their cause!

So why aren't you the same as your mom?

Because insanity is not necessarily inherited.

Why would Bin Laden want Bush to win when Bush has taken a very pro-active stance against him? Wouldn't he prefer someone in office like Kerry who won't be as firm on terrorists?

Wow, another knee-jerk right-winger who equates Iraq to Terror. What a shock.

[SyntaxVorlon]

According to a report I heard on NPR yestereday by Alan Cullison, the guy who bought one of Al Qaeda's computers, 9-11 was a ploy to start a large scale conflict in the middle east/islamic asia that would bring in huge numbers of americans and create a severe islamic backlash that would draw more people to Al Qaeda. They were surprised by the swiftness and precision of the US in Afghanistan, they thought it would be like fighting the USSR again. Surprise, we come in and kick their asses, but then the invasion of Iraq does their work for them.

[JME2]

According to a report I heard on NPR yestereday by Alan Cullison, the guy who bought one of Al Qaeda's computers, 9-11 was a ploy to start a large scale conflict in the middle east/islamic asia that would bring in huge numbers of americans and create a severe islamic backlash that would draw more people to Al Qaeda. They were surprised by the swiftness and precision of the US in Afghanistan, they thought it would be like fighting the USSR again. Surprise, we come in and kick their asses, but then the invasion of Iraq does their work for them.

(Ala a 1950's radio ad)

Once again, this whole continual Islamic backlash has been brought to you by terror. It's everywhere - get used to it!