Al-Qaeda Endorses Bush

[subgenius]

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?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721

[LuxFerum]

Al-Qaeda will endorse anything and will always pose as a winner.

[aerocontrols]

Al Qaeda: Please don't throw us in that Kerry briar patch.

[Cleon]

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.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by subgenius
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."
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.

[BillyTK]

...muslim lesbians jubilant.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Cleon
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.

Compared to suicide attacks?

Or nuking everything in sight like the morons at Free Republic would like?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Compared to suicide attacks?

Or nuking everything in sight like the morons at Free Republic would like?

Tu quoque.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Tu quoque.

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.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


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.

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

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Cleon
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.

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

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


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

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.

[subgenius]

I agree with "ironic" although nauseating also comes to mind.
Wisdom and force though are not mutually exclusive.

[gnome]

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.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by gnome
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.

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.

[subgenius]

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/opinion/16BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

[varwoche]

In a similar mode I suppose as when the black panthers endorsed George Wallace.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by subgenius
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 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

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by subgenius
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days.

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.

[gnome]

Originally posted by subgenius
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/opinion/16BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

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?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by gnome


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?
I'm sure that was a factor. The extent is speculation, that's why they call it political "science."
The message, however, is unfortunate even if unintentional.

[Random]

Originally posted by subgenius
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/opinion/16BROO.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20O p%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists

The problem I have with the entire, “We can’t change course when the terrorists strike” argument is quite simple. What if we are on the wrong course? Should we continue an anti-terrorism policy that objectively does not work for fear of encouraging terrorists?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Random


The problem I have with the entire, “We can’t change course when the terrorists strike” argument is quite simple. What if we are on the wrong course? Should we continue an anti-terrorism policy that objectively does not work for fear of encouraging terrorists?
Quite a valid point.
I have tried to make clear (elsewhere perhaps) is that changing a vote solely because of a terrorist attack is bad. To do so for other factors is understandable. The timing can still be bad and send the wrong message, but I think the message can be clarified.
I think in Spain the victors could have done a better PR job in clarifying that their victory should not be taken as any weakness against those who would kill innocents to achieve their goals. Indeed they could have emphasized their resolve against the perpetrators, and made the point that the war in Iraq is a different issue.
That's the problem with US equating the invasion of Iraq with the war on terrorism. Because the link is not clear, it has served to give the terrorists another issue to get sympathizers to coalesce around. And given them a reason to prove that the invasion has done nothing to lessen terrorism.
The law of unintended consequences.