al-Qaeda wants Bush to be elected

I am just wondering whether al-Qaeda would prefer George Bush or John Kerry as the next US President.

On one hand you have Bush who wages a horrific war against al-Qaeda friendly people but at the same time it seems to make good press for al-Qaeda in the muslim world.

Then there is Kerry who may try to make peace with al-Qaeda and cave in to their demands just to get the "war on terrorism" over with.

So who do you think would al-Qaeda prefer in the white house?

[edit on 18-8-2004 by bios]

How can you say that osama wants Bush to be elected? Bush has osama running for his life in the hills of pakistan.

I don't see Kerry making deals with Al Qaeda. I think any speculation to that regard is unsubstantiated.

Acoording to some, Bush in fact fulfilled AQ's wildest dreams by invading Iraq, thus creating millions of disgruntled population used to be benevolent to the US, but now ready to fight and ripe to be recruited by AQ.

Therefore, AQ wants to see Bush in the office so that he continues to stir the hornets nest and thus provides broader support for that evil organization.

...or can it be OBL is Bush's best friend and they're chuggin' a beer together right now and laughing at us? Remember we've helped OBL, some say as recent as just after 911.

Originally posted by godservant Remember we've helped OBL, some say as recent as just after 911.

by creating larger living space in the mountains?

I think that it doesn't matter to AQ who the next president of the United States is. However, it is true that Bush has been successful in creating more potential recruits for Al-Qaeda by the way the war in Iraq was waged. And unfortunately, the more innocent bystanders die in the Bush administration's war against terrorists, the more people will be angry at the US and the more terrorists there will be.

Of course, Al-Qaeda wants Bush re-elected back into the Whitehouse. I've even read it on news articles and, I think, from the Dept. of Homeland Security as saying Al-Qaeda wants Bush back into the Whitehouse.

Do you want to know why? Al-Qaeda is a hand of the Elite who control the United States. The arm responsible for Al-Qaeda's major terrorist operations is the CIA, with help from Mossad. And Osama?

Osama Bin Laden is a business partner of G. W. Bush and his family. He is also a CIA agent, as he has been in the past.

When the media and the leaders of the United States say that Al-Qaeda wants American Forces into the Middle East, they are telling you right to your face that Al-Qaeda is a Clandestine CIA operation. If the true Muslim Extremists in the Middle East had it their way, they would have all American forces out of the Middle East, and not to bring them in with terrorist acts.

When the media and that old CIA official who wrote a book say that Osama Bin Laden wants American forces into the Middle East, again, it is a repeat of the theme that Al-Qaeda and Osama are CIA. These major terrorist attacks are working for the Elite who control America, they are not working for Muslim extremists.

When your leaders tell you that "Al-Qaeda" wants to influence the elections, or keep Bush in the Whitehouse, that should be your chance to be vigilant because they are giving a green flag for this terror apparatus to operate in the Homeland.

Al-Qaeda wants G. W. Bush in the whitehouse because he has done very good with his operations in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Aelita

Acoording to some, Bush in fact fulfilled AQ's wildest dreams by invading Iraq, thus creating millions of disgruntled population used to be benevolent to the US, but now ready to fight and ripe to be recruited by AQ.

Therefore, AQ wants to see Bush in the office so that he continues to stir the hornets nest and thus provides broader support for that evil organization.

Al-qaeda doesn't want more terrorists, it wants the us and the west out of muslim countries and it wants to re-establish the caliphate (iow theocratic rule). The US invading and occupying iraq and transfering its Central Command into Qatar are most certainly not objectives favourable to al-qaeda.

In a sense, their overall strategy is like that of the bittereinders in the boer war, those who went out on commando and, when major operations were over and the boer armies were defeated on the field (or I suppose I should say veld) turned to hit-and-run/irregular army/quasi-terrorist tactics, hoping that the anti-war parties could turn the tide in their favour, and hoping that foreign powers would intervene. Althought, I would certainly not say that these afrikaners were terrorists.

To a degree, any involvment in middle eastern affairs is 'playing' into al-qaeda's hands, because, at least we can assume, that they want us to get involved and get 'bogged down'. They figure that, being decadent, weak, cowardly unbelievers, that we will eventually either tire of the struggle or run away in fear. Either way it allows them to get involved in the second part of the struggle, overthrowing the governements currently in power. Obviously, Iraq would've been a big problem for them, but so too shold saudi arabia and iran. Iran, however, they can probably count on as an ally by that stage. The real killer is that, even if the rest of the world pulls out of the middle east, and a pan-islamic (not mere pan arab) caliphate is reestablished, its going t clash, very violently, with india. On the other borders of this fundamentalist new muslim empire things will look like chechyna and sudan, but in the hindu kush, well, things will get nuclear.

John Kerry came home from Vietnam to campaign for the communists who committed genocide in Southeast Asia. This is not the man to run the country. He is a traitor to the bone. Why should he ever be trusted again?

al-Qaeda wants a Bush/Kerry Hybrid. They want the Bush side to keep the strong Saudi ties that it has and the Kerry side to do nothing when the next terrorist attack happens. All they need to do now is work on cloning the two, to form the ultimate waste of a president, and they'll be good to go!

GradyPhilpott - that's an interesting leap of logic. So I guess you're saying that all those who campaigned against the Vietnam War actually campaigned FOR the communists and are "traitors".

Which means that among these "traitors" we find Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. Interesting, really...

Originally posted by Otts
So I guess you're saying that all those who campaigned against the Vietnam War actually campaigned FOR the communists and are "traitors".

While many were deluded into believing that their cause was just, in effect your statement is true. The blood of millions of innocents is on the hands of all those who supported the Communists in any way. There is no other rational conclusion. It's interesting that you find genocide so humorous.

How do you sleep? Never mind, I think your name says it all.





[edit on 04/8/18 by GradyPhilpott]

I sleep very well, thank you. Defining a war as a "genocide" is a big word. I'd like you to document that, please. And I'd also like to know, when we're talking "genocide", how many Vietnamese were killed by American soldiers.

It's too easy to label the killing of civilians "genocide" when the other side is doing it, and "collateral damage" when your side is doing it.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
John Kerry came home from Vietnam to campaign for the communists who committed genocide in Southeast Asia. This is not the man to run the country. He is a traitor to the bone. Why should he ever be trusted again?

I agree 100% with you GradyPhilpott. The man has no right to be considered for Commander in Chief.

Originally posted by Otts
I sleep very well, thank you. Defining a war as a "genocide" is a big word. I'd like you to document that, please. And I'd also like to know, when we're talking "genocide", how many Vietnamese were killed by American soldiers.

It's too easy to label the killing of civilians "genocide" when the other side is doing it, and "collateral damage" when your side is doing it.

Follow my links. There is plenty of documentation there.

I live with the killing I did. I pay a price for it. It's a burden I willingly accept. The taking of any human life is never to be taken lightly. I never killed innocents. We killed combatants who committed the real atrocities and ultimately the genocide.

There is no shortage of documentation of the genocide committed by the communists, whom you admit to having supported. The question is, will you own up to your part in it? It's about time someone did.

It's an odd equivalence, genocide and collateral damage. The US never makes light of the deaths of those who innocently killed in combat. Collateral damage always refers to property, not innocent human life.

Tell me who takes more care to prevent such death, the US or our enemies who target the innocent?

Oh, and I did not define war as genocide.

Have a nice day.

Not a War on Terror, so while no president is really of concern to terrorists, they benefit most by martyrdom. Their ranks don't get impacted as martyrs; specifically, the civilians sympathetic to their cause are the martyrs.....and the ones who exponentially grow their ranks.
So, in a black & white answer, yes, Bush furthers their cause. We've alienated the world, so assitance to a Bush White House is not going to turn the corner & increase...it will decrease in a second term.
Conventional warfare against terrorism, which is our modern day Redcoat march through the New England woods, does nothing but increase the martyr ranks & the susbsequent terrorist ranks.

Originally posted by bios
So who do you think would al-Qaeda prefer in the white house?

This HAS to be a trick question. OF COURSE Al-Qaeda wants Kerry
in office. No question at all. He's a traitor who lied under oath to
the senate and he has already said he'd only send US troops oveseas
to protect us if the UN said it was okay. The terrorists would LOVE
this guy. LOVE HIM.

[edit on 8/18/2004 by FlyersFan]