This is a serious question. Who do you think the terrorists would vote for. Kerry? Bush? 3rd Party?

I'll Start.

In the first debate or maybe the second, Kerry was saying to Bush that if he were the president he would have put more troops after bin laden instead of having the troops in Iraq. He said that, but that is 20/20 vision looking back. He seemed to be so lax on war and conflict or any confrontation whatsoever that I have a hard time believing him when he says that he would commit troops at all. I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted bilateral talks with Al-Quaeda(sp) to try to resolve their differences. Anyway, IMO, they(terrorists) would vote for Kerry because they wouldn't see him as much of a threat to their organization. I believe the Bush Admin. has helped enforce around 50 or 60% of the al-quaeda top dogs being arrested or killed

Quigly

but what are they doing now?
what are they doing in the future?

is Al-Quaeda in iran? NK?

i doubt it or at least i doubt that they are in iran NOW (they probably will send surport when the war begins)

Islamic terrorist don't care, both Kerry and Bush support Israel.

I think they might try to throw the election by voting for the other guy.

Sorry but Al Q has already thrown its hat in favour for Bush. It's a fact.

So far drunk driving is a much bigger killer of Americans than terrorism is, but that could change.

The reason that Americans are not being killed by Islamic terrorists is not that Islamic people do not have the opportunity to kill tens of thousands of Americans in America. The reason that Americans are not being killed is that even most of those who think our foreign policy is immoral do not want to dedicate their lives to getting revenge or trying to influence us by killing some of us.

Those who already are ready to dedicate their lives to killing us know that if many more Islamic people crossed the line from only hating our foreign policy enough to rant and rave against us to hating our foreign policy enough to want to kill us then the terrorist movement would become much stronger. Bin Laden hoped we would do something like invade Iraq. We can not fight in Iraq without accidentallly killing thousands of noncombatants. Bush has pleased Bin Laden.

terrorists already elected bush. but if your talking about iraqis defending their conutry from invaders trying to steal the oil which is their largest asset on the global market. then they would vote 3rd party(thats the option where we kill all the candidates)

I selected "they don't care", in lieu of recognition of the fact that "The terrorists" are not a single-minded global conspiracy, much less are "they" a political entity that it is possible to make war upon.

quigly:"This is a serious question.

I can only guess at how this is possibly serious. Since you are apparently not hoping to devine the intent of a mythical and vast global terrorist conspiracy (as the poll suggests, but your second post does not) then I suppose you wish to learn about the goals of one specific terrorist organization (Al-Qaeda). Here's a previous thread on the subject (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=40610).

In my understanding, Al-Qaeda's clearest intentions toward America include a campaign of provocation. Therefore, it would follow that the most provocable leadership would be preferable to them. However, I imagine that within a fanatical Abrahamic-religious frame of mind, once you are convinced you are doing God's will, you consider yourself the agent of a pre-destined divine plan, with the result that American elections would seem quite trivial. That's why I don't think leaders of Al-Qaeda- or the leaders of the many other terrorist groups with revolutionary Islamist intent- I dont think any of them give a damn who wins the White House in November. They are likely thinking in longer terms than the next 4 years on the strategic level. On the personal level, true revolutionary fanatics do not expect to be alive for very long. Understand that the most fanatical really do eagerly await their personal martyrdom. OBL was such an individual, who got his wish, although a bit less public a death than he might have expected. It's doubtful that an Al-Qaeda mindset would place much importance on the US elections, because they believe that Satan, and not the man in the White House, is in charge of the USA.

Back to the original question, I don't understand its intent. But I do think that we should learn all we can about the specific revolutionary organizations that are successfully provoking us into re-shuffling the Mideast cards in their, and not our (Western) favor.

In my understanding, Al-Qaeda's clearest intentions toward America include a campaign of provocation.

I don't agree. Al-Qaeda was simply trying to rally the troops by striking a blow against "the Great Satan". I doubt they expected much more of a response than what they got the last time they attacked the World Trade Center. Osama was convinced that the US was a paper tiger when we pulled out of Somalia after suffering a few casualties. The Soviets, after all, absorbed years of casulties before ultimately pulling out of Afganistan. He figured he could attack us and all we'd do is call the police or maybe send over a few cruise missles. If he really thought we'd invade Afganistan, why did he hang around and (most likely) end up getting killed? The terrorists would love a return to the pre-9/11 mindset of terrorism as a crime or a "nuisance". Of course they'd vote Kerry/Edwards.

I think I understand the premise of this thread now, basically if terrorists were going to vote for a candidate then it must be wrong to vote for that candidate. What ever a terrorist say, thinks or does must be wrong, right?

No, Not neccessarily Wellcookedfetus, The fact is that Bush and Kerry have a very different opinion when it comes to conflict. I wouldn't say If Terrorists vote for Kerry and I vote for Kerry, then I am a terrorist. It isn't like that. It is a mere poll or thought of, in your opinion, Who do terrorists feel like would root them out and destroy their organization quicker? Again though, you can't let your own economy go to crap because you are constantly worried about the next "attack". You can't store up all the bread for a possible famine and neglect the fact that people need to eat the bread today, thus creating a famine. Does that make sense?

That a very nice explanation but it did not quite cover what I was saying. I was not implying that you are a terrorist if you vote for the same candidate terrorist vote for.

Anyone who votes for Kerry should be put up against the wall and shot along with all the other terrorists: You are either with us or against us. THis is the War on Terra.

Depends on the terrorist. Remember, we have an awfully broad classification of what equals terrorism.

Those true terrorists bent on destruction prefer Bush, because he gives a solid focus for hatred.

Those terrorists who are more properly described as opposing a specific U.S. action prefer Kerry, because he represents the possibility of a change in American policy.

Headhunters in Iraq? Bush, because he's fuel to the fire. A bunch of guys holed up in a mosque with rifles and rocket-propelled grenades? Probably Kerry, who obviously dislikes promulgating a quagmire.

Depends on the terrorist. Remember, we have an awfully broad classification of what equals terrorism.

True.

Those true terrorists bent on destruction prefer Bush, because he gives a solid focus for hatred.

I find this to be false. Most terrorists hated America pre-9/11 (Remember the attacks during Clinton's time in office?). They will continue hating America until it is no longer a super power, or more like France.

All in all, I find that no matter who wins, terrorists would still hate America; no matter what. But hey, I think they'd vote for Ralph Nader.

a fundamentalist muslim terrorist simply hates the west. they will do anything they can to take it down. whoever they think helps them to that end, they'll vote for.

I find this to be false. Most terrorists hated America pre-9/11 (Remember the attacks during Clinton's time in office?).

Not really, most Muslims pre-9/11 were not all that political, and really couldn’t care all that much. There were large portions of the population which did hate the US but it was tame. After Iraq not 9/11 did the Muslim world hate America and Bush en masse. Even in Europe there is hatred of Bush that is transforming itself into a hatred of America. There is no question that Bush is the prefect poster boy for the Islamists because the genius did all that they said America would do. Al Q already threw its hat behind Bush, so I don’t see why we are even having this conversation?

All in all, I find that no matter who wins, terrorists would still hate America; no matter what. But hey, I think they'd vote for Ralph Nader.

If you were a bacteria spore you would want a person who picks at the scab, not leave it alone. It’s Bush by a great degree.

IF I was a terrorist I'd vote Bush because that's the best way to get u guys into real shit street and to stir fudamentalist ire , thereby creating more recruits.

lessmoorish: "a fundamentalist muslim terrorist simply hates the west."

Bullshit. I knew Fatah fighters in Lebanon who liked to get high and dance to Stevie Wonder and the BeeGees, Ah, Al, Fat, AH! Stayin' alive, staying alive.

feel the city breakin, and everybody shakin.. etc was an object lesson in how nothing the West represents repels the overwhelming majority of Muslims. US foreign policy, on the Left (bad, corrupt) hand, means Mad Camel. Just because this creature looks ridiculous does not mean it can't spit slime in your eyes and bite your nose and upper lip completely off your face. So back away now, stupid American.

Sorry but Al Q has already thrown its hat in favour for Bush. It's a fact.
Prove it to me it is a fact. I hear all the time that Al Q hates bush. I thiink something to do with Saudi Arabia and it oil familys

"a fundamentalist muslim terrorist simply hates the west."[/b]

Bullshit. I knew Fatah fighters in Lebanon who liked to get high and dance to Stevie Wonder and the BeeGees, Ah, Al, Fat, AH! Stayin' alive, staying alive.

Impervious to hypocracy were they? Most of the 19 from 9/11 partied it up in America before slaughtering everyone they could. They were probably impervious to hypocracy too.

I had Osama's ilk in mind, in the notion of culture clash. It was an over-generalization though, you're correct.

feel the city breakin, and everybody shakin.. etc was an object lesson in how nothing the West represents repels the overwhelming majority of Muslims.

Given the confusion you incurred via your presumption and my over-generalization, I understand how you deem that comment relevant.

Perhaps you'd care to argue that OBL's fundy fanatics don't care to globalize Islam at all costs? Maybe culture clash has nothing to do with the reason they took down the towers?

why does everyone think that the freedom fighters wolud prefer bush, sure everyone hates him, but theyre not in it to kill people, theyre in it to ensure the freedom and safety of their people.

sure bin laden fucked up a bit with 9-11, getting all those americans to come over to iraq, but the last time he encountered american military tactics was when they had trained him to "support" their efforts to establish a government, then turned around and ran away leaving bin laden as a target for the govt they were trying to abolish.

9-11 was payback, and he thought he could deal with tha american invaders afterwards, but being out of the loop so long, he didi not know what he was up against

Sorry but Al Q has already thrown its hat in favour for Bush. It's a fact.

Howso?

:m:

wes, you're on to something, you unassuming genius:

"Maybe culture clash has nothing to do with the reason they took down the towers?"

Exactly. In the Mideast, Town Hall is the mosque. Think of Islam like stereotypical Catholicism. In 1650.

But underlying all that, the coming war is a grass-roots economic movement. Arabs want their fucking money, Jack. If we don't give it back, they are going do It Again, and the wheel will turn round and round until it knocks out every wire, stick, and thread operating our very profitable little Muppet Show.

That's why we're getting things started (why don't you get it started-Volunteer for SF!) it's the most sensational, inspirational (get it? Whoever is the most inspired wins), not celebrational... you know the rest. This is what we call a global economic war that the USA will bitterly rue forever thence.

Follow the money (note carefully any wide-bandwidth, heavy traffic changes of currency): Whose hands is it leaving at the fastest rate? Where are there soon to be independent (OPEC shits the bed) Arab oil corporations, trading in Euros. Oh No, Mr. Bill! Yes, you're only an economic fixit bill, deadlocking Capitol Hill, while soon we're waiting in line for our 5 gallon ration of FUCKING $4.9999 GAS, hoping we can pay the interest on at least 1 too many mortgages and still eat well and stay warm!!!

Prove it to me it is a fact. I hear all the time that Al Q hates bush. I thiink something to do with Saudi Arabia and it oil familys

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35365&highlight=Qaeda read and enjoy. Secondly Al Q doesn’t hate Bush, it hates America period. Bush is what they are so happy about; he gives them all the propaganda value they need. It’s like Bush is for Al Qaeda, to what Osama is to America. A great rallying point of hatred, a personification of that hatred. Kerry would not be a personification because he wouldn’t be so ridiculously reckless. The centre of Al Q’s anger is the Saudi family, and its “whoresome” ways as to pacify the US, and by “defacing” the holy land with those “infidels”.

"but theyre not in it to kill people, theyre in it to ensure the freedom and safety of their people.", vslayer

Yes, actually they are in it to kill people. The leaders of Al Qaeda may clame justice for the Arab cause is their intent, but in the end it has to do with their own power and amusement. Osama now plays a game with both the United States and Saudi Arabia, and does not care about either his own people or those of America. You simply give to much credit to those who murder civilians as a tactic.

I don't think so; people do not kill just to kill. There is no such thing, people kill for a reason. Yes the murders may be indiscriminate and disgusting but to say (or imply) these people kill for fun is just propaganda.

Terrorism does not = Bin Laden but it easy to find Bin Laden quotes from which to guess at his mind. Unfortunately some Bin Laden material may not be Bin Laden, there is an off chance the Bin Laden may be an Ameican agent, and it is intelectually incorrect for me to believe that Bin Ladens ideas are the ideas of the all anti-American terrorists.

Bin Laden here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/
and many other places.

The following interview is from: http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/LADIN.htm

[This article was published in the 15th issue of Nida'ul Islam magazine (http://www.islam.org.au), October - November 1996
* What is the policy that should be adopted by the Islamic movement towards the scholars who defend -intentionally or unintentio-nally- the likes of the Saud regime?

It is not a concealed fact that the police states in the Arab world rely on some foundations in order to protect themselves.. Amongst these organisations is the security organisation as they spend generously on it, and its foremost mission is to spy on its own people in order to protect the person of the ruler, even if this was at the expense of the rights of the people and their security, as also the military sector, which is prepared to strike the people if they wish to reject the suppression and to remove oppression and establish truth.

The media sector is in the same category as it strives to beatify the persons of the leaders, to drowse the community, and to fulfil the plans of the enemies through keeping the people occupied with the minor matters, and to stir their emotions and desires until corruption becomes widespread amongst the believers.

There is also another organisation which takes priority with the leaders in the Arab world, and is used to take the people astray, and to open the door wide for the security factions to fulfil their aforementioned objectives.. This is the organisation of the scholars of the authorities, as the role of this organisation is the most dangerous of roles in the entirety of the Arabic countries.

History is the best witness to this.

At the same time that some of the leaders are engaging in the major Kufr, which takes them out of the fold of Islam in broad daylight and in front of all the people, you would find a Fatwa from their religious organisation.. In particular, the role of the religious organisation in the country of the two sacred mosques is of the most ominous of roles, this is overlooking whether it fulfilled this role intentionally or unintentionally, the harm which eventuated from their efforts is no different from the role of the most ardent enemies of the nation.

The regime in the land of the two sacred mosques has given a very high priority to this organisation, and has been able to enlarge its position in the estimation of the people until it made of it an idol to be worshipped aside from God amongst some of the common people, and without the will of the members of this organisation.

However, there continues to be in the land of the two sacred mosques - with gratitude to Allah - a good number of honest scholars and students who work according to their teachings, and those who have taken visible and daring stances against the Kufr activities which the regime is working.

The regime has strived to keep these scholars in the shadows and then removed them, one way or another, from being effective elements in the lives of the people in the community. At the forefront of these scholars was the Sheikh Abdullah Bin Hamid - May Allah bless his soul - who was the Mufti in the Arabian peninsula, and who headed the supreme council of judges. However, the regime constrained him and tightened their grip on him until he offered his resignation.. He has many famous writings in response to the unacceptable laws which the government had introduced instead of the Law of Allah, one of these is a treatise dealing with the law of work and workers which deals with many of the introduced laws which contradict the law of Allah (s.w.t.).

At the same time, they promoted some of the scholars who were far below Sheikh Ibn Hamid - may Allah bless his soul - those who have been known to be weak and soft, so they put them forward in a cunning plan which began more than twenty years ago.. During the preceding two decades, the regime enlarged the role of Bin Baz (Grand Mufti) because of what it knows of his weakness and flexibility and the ease of influencing him with the various means which the interior ministry practices through providing him with false information. So, a generation of youth were raised believing that the most pious and knowledgeable of people is Bin Baz as a result of the media promotion through a well studied policy which had been progressed over twenty years.

After this, the government began to strike with the cane of Bin Baz, every corrective programme which the honest scholars put forward, further, it extracted a Fatwa to hand over Palestine to the Jews, and before this, to permit entry into the country of the two sacred mosques to the modern day crusaders under the rule of necessity, then it relied on a letter from him to the minister for internal affairs and placed the honest scholars in the gaols.

The confidence of the people and the youth in Bin Baz was therefore shaken, however the price was very high, whilst the confidence of the people in the working scholars, particularly those in the prisons had been increased.

The policy of the Organisation for Advice and Rectification towards these scholars is the continuation of providing advise to them openly and secretly (as there is no person above the law, and we are not immune) and particularly in the matters where they gave public rulings, and to bring the rulings of the scholars who respond to their rulings, in order to bring awareness to the people as to the correct ruling with respect to these matters, and not to forestall the rectification programme so that the scholars are made aware, as the pressure which is applied against them is very great.

Also the promotion of the honest scholars and their mention with what they deserve in front of the people so that the confidence of the people would greatly shift in support to them.

* How do you evaluate the Saud regime's foreign policy towards the Muslim world in the past years?

The external policy of the Saud regime towards Islamic issues is a policy which is tied to the British outlook from the establishment of Saudi Arabia until 1364 ah (1945 ac), then it became attached to the American outlook after America gained prominence as a major power in the world after the Second World War.

It is well known that the policies of these two countries bear the greatest enmity towards the Islamic world.

To be taken out of this category is the final phase of the rule of King Faisal, as there was a clear interest with the Muslim issues, in particular al Quds and Palestine.

However, the regime does not cease to cry in the open over the matters effecting the Muslims without making any serious effort to serve the interests of the Muslim community apart from small efforts in order to confuse people and throw some dust into their eyes.

* The confrontation between the Islamic movement and the apostate Saud regime recorded a historical turning point following the latest attacks against the American occupiers targets. How did these attacks reflect on the internal front, and how did they affect the Saudi-American relations?

There were important effects to the two explosions in Riyadh on both the internal and external aspects. Most important amongst these is the awareness of the people to the significance of the American occupation of the country of the two sacred mosques, and that the original decrees of the regime are a reflection of the wishes of the American occupiers. So the people became aware that their main problems were caused by the American occupiers and their puppets in the Saudi regime, whether this was from the religious aspect or from other aspects in their everyday lives. The sympathies of the people with the working scholars who had been imprisoned also increased as has their understanding of their advises and guidance which led the people to support the general rectification movement which is led by the scholars and the callers to Islam. This movement - with the bounty of Allah - is increasing in power and in supporters day after day at the expense of the regime. The sympathy with these missions at the civil and military levels were great, as also the sympathies of the Muslim world with the struggle against the Americans.

As for the relationship between the regime and the American occupiers, these operations have embarrassed both sides and have led to the exchange of accusations between them. So we have the Americans stating that the causes of the explosions are the bad policies of the regime and the corruption of members of the ruling family, and the regime is accusing the Americans of exceeding their authority by taking advantage of the regime and forcing it to enter into military and civil contracts which are beyond its means, which led to great economic slide which has effected the people. In addition to this is the behaviour of the Americans with crudeness and arrogance with the Saudi army and their general behaviour with citizens, and the privileges which the Americans enjoy in distinction from the Saudi forces.

These missions also paved the way for the raising of the voices of opposition against the American occupation from within the ruling family and the armed forces; in fact we can say that the remaining Gulf countries have been effected to the same degree, and that the voices of opposition to the American occupation have begun to be heard at the level of the ruling families and the governments of the Cooperative Council of Gulf countries. The differences in outlooks between the Americans and the Gulf states has appeared for the first time since the second Gulf war. This was during the conference of the ministers of external affairs of the countries of the cooperative council of Gulf states which was held in Riyadh to look into the American missile aggression against Iraq. These differences are nothing more than a sign of the strain which has eventuated in the relationship between America and the countries of the region in the footsteps of the Jihad missions against the Americans in Riyadh and as a result of the fear of these regimes that their own lands might witness similar Jihad missions.

* It was observed that the American and Saudi officials tried to link the latest operations to some foreign countries. What is behind these attempts?

A result of the increasing reaction of the people against the American occupation and the great sympathy with the Jihad missions against the Americans is the eagerness of the Americans and the Saudis to propagate false information to disperse these sympathies. This can be witnessed in their statements that some of the countries in the region were behind the Jihad missions inside the country of the two sacred mosques, however the people are aware that this is an internal Islamic movement against the American occupation which is revealing itself in the most clear picture after the killing of the four champions who performed the Riyadh operation, the ones concerning whom, we ask Allah to accept amongst the martyrs.

It has become routine policy for countries upon facing an internal calamity is to lay the responsibility on an external country. Before the puppetry of the Arabic countries to America became plainly obvious, the security sections never hesitated to accuse any rectifying Islamic movement to be a puppet to America and Israel.

* What are the regime's choices with regards to the Muslim uprising, and what are your expectations for the future?

There are several choices for the regime, one of these is reconciliation with all the different sections of the public, by releasing the scholars, and offering essential changes, the most important of these is to bring back Islamic law, and to practise real Shura (consultative government). The regime may resort to this choice after finding itself in the position of a morsel of food for the Americans to take, after the enmity has been stirred with their people. These people today feel that the Americans have exceeded their limits both politically and economically, the regime now knows that the public are aware that their sovereignty is shared. This was particularly evident in the recent period through the American press statements which give justification to the American occupation which only exists to rob the wealth of the people to the benefit of the Americans. This option is dependent on the agreement of the people who hold the solution and have the ability to effect change, at the forefront of these would be the honest scholars.

As for the other option, this is a very difficult and dangerous one for the regime, and this involves an escalation in the confrontation between the Muslim people and the American occupiers and to confront the economic haemorrhage. Its most important goal would be to change the current regime, with the permission of Allah.

* As a part of the furious international campaign against the Jihad movement, you were personally the target of a prejudiced attack, which accused you of financing terrorism and being part of an international terrorist organisation. What do you have to say about that?

After the end of the cold war, America escalated its campaign against the Muslim world in its entirety, aiming to get rid of Islam itself. Its main focus in this was to target the scholars and the reformers who were enlightening the people to the dangers of the Judao - American alliance, and they also targeted the Mujahideen. We also have been hit with some of the traces of this campaign as we were accused of funding terrorism, and being members of an international terrorist organisation. Their aims in making these allegations were to place psychological pressure on the Mujahideen and their supporters so that they would forsake the obligation of Jihad and the resistance of oppression and American Israeli occupation of Islamic sacred lands. However, our gratitude to Allah, their campaign was not successful, as terrorising the American occupiers is a religious and logical obligation. We are grateful to Allah Most Exalted in that He has facilitated Jihad in His cause for us, against the Americo - Israeli attacks on the Islamic sanctities.

As for their accusations of terrorising the innocent, the children, and the women, these are in the category "accusing others with their own affliction in order to fool the masses". The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women, and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than six hundred thousands (600,000) Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnian Hercegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history. Not to forget the dropping of the H bombs on cities with their entire populations of children, elderly, and women, on purpose, and in a premeditated manner as was the case with Hiroshima and Nakazagki. Then, killing hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq, and whose numbers (of dead) continue to increase as a result of the sanctions. Despite the continuing American occupation of the country of the two sacred mosques, America continues to claim that it is upholding the banner of freedom and humanity, whilst these deeds which they did, you would find that the most ravenous of animals would not descend to.

As for what America accuses us of, of killing the innocent people, they have not been able to offer any evidence, despite the magnitude of their expenditure on their intelligence services. Despite what our history is witnessing in the Afghan phase of the Jihad. This was also unstained with any blood of innocent people, despite the inhuman Russian campaign against our women, our children, and our brothers in Afghanistan... Similar is our history with respect to our differences with the Saudi regime, all that has been proved is our joy at the killing of the American Soldiers in Riyadh and Khobar, and these are the sentiments of every Muslim. Our encouragement and call to Muslims to enter Jihad against the American and the Israeli occupiers are actions which we are engaging in as religious obligations. Allah Most High has commanded us in many verses of the Qur`an to fight in His path and to urge the believers to do so. Of these are His words: "Fight in the path of Allah, you are not charged with the responsibility except for yourself, and urge the believers, lest Allah restrain the might of the rejectors, and Allah is stronger in might and stronger in inflicting punishment." and His words: "And what is it with you that you do not fight in the path of Allah, whilst the weak amongst the men, and the women, and the children who say: our Lord take us out of this town the people of which are oppressive, and make for us from You a protecting friend and make for us from You a succourer", and His words: "So if you meet those who reject, then strike the necks..." We have given an oath to Allah to continue in the struggle as long as we have blood pumping in our veins or a seeing eye, and we beg of Allah to accept and to grant a good ending for us and for all the Muslims.

* Some media sources mentioned that the Afghan government demanded that you leave the country. How true is this?

The Afghan government has not asked us to leave the country... All gratitude to Allah, our relationship with our brother Mujahideen in Afghanistan is a deep and broad relationship where blood and sweat have mixed as have the links over long years of struggle against the Soviets, it is not a passing relationship, nor one based on personal interests.

They are committed to support the religion approved by Allah, and that country remains as the Muslims have known it, a strong fort for Islam, and its people are amongst the most protective of the religion approved by Allah, and the keenest to fulfil His laws and to establish an Islamic state.

That passing phase of infighting has saddened us as it has saddened all the Muslims, however, we wish to indicate that the picture of events as painted by the international press is grossly distorted, and that this infighting is much smaller and less fierce than what Muslims on the outside may imagine, and that most of the country is living a normal peaceful life; apart from some petty crimes here and there as some elements attempt to create corruption under cover of the disputes amongst some of the groups. We our hoping that Afghanistan would regain very soon - God willing - its Islamic position which would befit its history of Jihad.

* What is the responsibility of the Muslim populations towards the international campaign against Islam?

What bears no doubt in this fierce Judao - Christian campaign against the Muslim world, the likes of which has never been seen before, is that the Muslims must prepare all the possible might to repel the enemy on the military, economic, missionary, and all other areas. It is crucial for us to be patient and to cooperate in righteousness and piety and to raise awareness to the fact that the highest priority, after faith is to repel the incursive enemy which corrupts the religion and the world, and nothing deserves a higher priority after faith, as the scholars have declared, for this cause, it is crucial to overlook many of the issues of bickering in order to unite our ranks so that we can repel the greater Kufr.

All must move giving life to the words of the Most High: "Indeed this, your community, is one community, and I am your Lord, so worship me" and that they should not be like those whom Allah has described with His words: "Indeed those who have divided their religion and became schisms, you are not of them in any way." It is essential to volunteer and not to bicker, and the Muslim should not belittle righteousness in any way, the messenger ( peace and blessings upon him) said: "Whoever believes in Allah and the last day must speak good or not speak at all." and they must heed the words of the messenger (peace and blessings upon him) when they move: "Inform and do not repel, and make it easy and do not make it difficult.".. And we ask Allah to give this community the guidance to exalt the people who obey Him and humiliate those who disobey Him, and to give us a rule where decency is commanded and evil is forbidden. O Allah bless Mohammad, Your servant and messenger, and his family, and companions, and give them peace... All gratitude to Allah the Lord of the worlds.

"military, economic, missionary, and all other areas"

What specifically is the missionary threat in these times?

"Bin Laden may be an Ameican agent" nirakar

I must now kill myself for the world has gone insane. I will not leave a suicide letter, for it will not be necessary if I leave the computer screen on. By reading the screen they will understand, and soon be joining me at the pearly gates.

P.S. How strong is mouse wire, and do
think it can support... 185 pounds from
a ceiling fan?

Undecided:
Sorry for taking so long on this reply.
Not really, most Muslims pre-9/11 were not all that political, and really couldn’t care all that much.

I thought I said terrorists? Not muslims.

I thought I said terrorists? Not muslims.

Well it wasn't Catholics who rammed into the buildings now where they? Many Islamic youth have been radicalized (due to poverty, disempowerment, alienation, etc.) and now they are joining resistence groups like rabbits.

i agree with you there undecided

and knowing that i would say they would vote for whoever is going to change there lot. If bush put more money into HELPING rather than KILLING it would be him. sadly i dont think ANYONE would do this

B\W why do you think your more important than those who were killed in israil palistine Northan irland ect?

i just LOVE when people act like 9\11 is the new holicost and that its all important. its NOT, only 3000 died. How many more have been killed elsewhere?

Although I don't trust that kerry is better than bush, I kinda agree with this JOURNALIST (as opposed to the many who claim to be and are not.)



...

Whom is al-Qaeda voting for?
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the US leaving Iraq would be a major victory. And the US staying in Iraq - bleeding thousands of men and billions of dollars in the hands of a national guerrilla struggle - is also a major victory. So al-Qaeda does not bother to vote Bush or Kerry because the main sticking point - US policy in the Middle East, the thirst for oil, the one-sided support for Israel - will still be there. But in terms of accelerating a clash of civilizations - a total polarization between the Muslim world and the Christian world - of course al-Qaeda prefers a fundamentalist like Bush.

(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for information on our sales and syndication policies.)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ22Ak04.html


www.atimes.com has my seal of approval. Go see it.

:m:

Well it wasn't Catholics who rammed into the buildings now where they? Many Islamic youth have been radicalized (due to poverty, disempowerment, alienation, etc.) and now they are joining resistence groups like rabbits.

At least you admit that. Most liberals won't even acknowledge that Islam is a hateful religion, and not on of peace.

Iran endorses Bush (http://www.indystar.com/articles/0/187838-8290-010.html)

Iran endorses Bush oh man I think the puts a wrench in the “Islamic terrorist want Kerry” theory.

If I were a terrorist, I would go for Kerry. Kerry is all talk.

Iran endorses Bush oh man I think the puts a wrench in the “Islamic terrorist want Kerry” theory.

Only if "Islamic terrorist" covers Iran.

:m:

Iran endorses Bush oh man I think the puts a wrench in the “Islamic terrorist want Kerry” theory.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

That's because they're so dumb they don't realize their "official endorsement" could actually hurt Bush's chances of re-election right?


Who does a terrorist fear more? bush or kerry?

The answer is bush. Kerry will appease them.

But Bush enrages the Muslims world, getting more recruits for terrorists. Islamic terrorist want a war of cultures and Bush is the best thing for that. Islamic terrorist don’t fear if they did they would not kill them selves in suicidal missions.

Sure, and the typical guy on the battlefield wants to kill terrorist raghead sumbitches because they're the guys we're after.

The smart ones will think twice though. Bush is a cowboy. He's "out of control", and regardless of how much you want a culture war, you can't take the US militarily. Can't be done.

The question is: Which of the two has the political will to relentlessly implement policies that will result in the death of their breathren (which they will view as martyrs). It's a clear choice. Bush is going to kill martyrs. Kerry won't.

So the idiot terrorists who are all about martyrdom (not the smart ones who pimp the weaker minds into such stupidity) would vote bush, and the smarter ones would vote kerry (inverse of how it lines up for US citizens) as they can roll him over much easier and perform wonderful acts of terrorism to kill the west. The smarter terrorists know they don't need to kill us, they only need to take down our economy and let us squable amongst ourselves, then they can swoop in, converting and killing as they go. They have to beat us economically though, or they'll never stand a chance... unless of course they can get us to fuck ourselves by for instance voting for a very dangerous asshat like kerry.

I would not start calling people names. Also no matter how smart you are if your delusional you will do very illogical things. But also as you have just stated terrorist are not a single minded group. The question who will terrorist vote for is just as varied an answer as who will Americans vote for.

What is really odd is depending on your political bias you will say the other guy is the one the terrorist want, as if it mattered what terrorist want so that we can do the opposite.

they want Bush. He supplied them with the largest recruitment/training camp is History, an entire nation under their control.

I

Sprafa,

What nation would that be?

The question is: Which of the two has the political will to relentlessly implement policies that will result in the death of their breathren (which they will view as martyrs). It's a clear choice. Bush is going to kill martyrs. Kerry won't.

It's a matter of method. With Bush, "America" is nothing more than a sales pitch. With Kerry? Well, that's the test the Senator puts before himself, isn't it?

The U.S. could have won the drug war, but it would have meant that drugs defeated "America" inasmuch as we would have had to go well beyond the pissing on the Constitution that even the Clinton administration managed.

If a guy sells you a lemon, and then fixes that by giving you another lemon, are you going to go buy another car from him?

How much of this beating can "America" take? How much can our reputation and assertions of nobility withstand? Why does it not matter to Bush supporters?

In history, we were the rebels with the X-Wings. In the modern era, we are the Coruscant Empire. And all it took was a "Bush Doctrine" and a few petty lies--excuse me, intelligence mistakes--to the international community. Well, that and a few decades with Rumsfeld.

We could have learned from the Cold War, but we didn't.

We could have learned from the Cold War, but we didn't.

I thought you said the Cold War never happened?

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/images/war.299.gif

Sprafa,

What nation would that be?

Iraq.


Read - http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=39442

and - http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=44593

I thought you said the Cold War never happened?

Really?

Now why, do you think, would I say that? And would it be relevant here?

Note on Edit: Your hint is "634022". Although I am curious why you raise the issue at this point.

With Bush, "America" is nothing more than a sales pitch.

Conjecture based on hate.

With Kerry? Well, that's the test the Senator puts before himself, isn't it?

Not that I can tell no. It seems the senator puts the test before him "can I bullshit a nation into gratifying my blind ambition?" with little regard to much else.

The U.S. could have won the drug war, but it would have meant that drugs defeated "America" inasmuch as we would have had to go well beyond the pissing on the Constitution that even the Clinton administration managed.

So the war on terror can't be won without shredding the constitution?

If a guy sells you a lemon, and then fixes that by giving you another lemon, are you going to go buy another car from him?

The fact is that you don't know if it's a lemon yet. It's still on the tree.

How much of this beating can "America" take?

What beating? World opinion?

How much can our reputation and assertions of nobility withstand?

Reputation? So it's "skin deep" eh? While popularity is a realisitic consideration in the long run, global opinion sways to and fro very quickly. I mean, just 3 years ago would you have asked the same question? Are you sure that 3 years from now you'll be asking the same question? Are you just going to say "if things continue the way they are then yes, blah blah"? While that may be correct, I think it's presumptuous. It's not done, so you don't know "it can't work". How about a little hope? It's always too late for regret.

Assertions of nobility? Why don't you talk to the troops about that. Not Lindey, but the majority who earnestly want to make Iraq a safe place? You can take a dump on the sacrifices of 1000 american soldiers if you want, but IMO, the lack of nobility in this scenario is does not lie with the presidential administration or most of those doing their bidding. The lack of nobility lies with people who hate Bush because he's Bush, like you. Nah, maybe you just hate him because he's part of the GOP, which you are so certain is bankrupt. You're wrong, but your partisan goggles don't allow you to see it.

Why does it not matter to Bush supporters?

I can't speak for others, but to me it's because the nobility in question is far more than a claim and I'm not overly concerned with reputation when it comes to making decisions regarding the continued security of America/the world.

In history, we were the rebels with the X-Wings. In the modern era, we are the Coruscant Empire.

Says you and a butt-ton of self-important leftists. IMO, that's a ridiculous characterization unless you're prone to slurping up dogma or twisting to the world to meet your expectation. You hate the GOP. The GOP is in charge. It must follow that now America is evil. You then use elaborate justifications to back up your presumption. You're incapable of giving the GOP "a chance" because you fucking hate them. Your hate, like that of many leftists - forces you to spin everything in your own mind towards justification of continuance of your hate.

Let me ask you something. In history as you state: When you look back on it in retrospect we may seem the way you say (and I'd agree), but how were we viewed by the majority of the world during those periods? How is that view different from today? Is it formed differently now because the world has changed? Are you positive your analogy is correct and unbiased, or are you just releasing your frustration?

And all it took was a "Bush Doctrine" and a few petty lies--excuse me, intelligence mistakes--to the international community.

You can't demonstrate the lies, but you can certainly wag your finger and then pretend you aren't? (I can't figure out which thread it was where you asked me "what is a lie" or whatever, I was going to address this there) It's not a lie if he believed it, it's a mistake. It's a mistake that apparently much of the world made.

Well, that and a few decades with Rumsfeld.

What? The "US popularity" you refer to was quite strong a mere 3 years ago wasn't it? Were we the Empire then?

We could have learned from the Cold War, but we didn't.

Can you be more specific?

The ruling establishment beleive that the harder America focuses on Iran, with the axis of evil stuff, the more secure the hard liners are from the reformers.

As in Iran, just like in most countries, the conservatives the ones more trusted with national security.

Just think of who a republican president who wants to stay elected would prefer to become the leader of the USSR

A person who is concilary and talks about peace and summits and barks about how he wants to engage america in communication

A person who calls america evil capitlistic bigs that must be destroyed.

Of course this does not mean that bush is less of a threat to iran as a country then kerry, it just means he is less of a threat to the power of the hardliners when talkign about internal politics.

Conjecture based on hate

Retort based on lack of information. Is it ignorance or apathy?

Not that I can tell no. It seems the senator puts the test before him "can I bullshit a nation into gratifying my blind ambition?" with little regard to much else.

See? You're presuming the worst in people at the outset again. I suppose the real question you ought to be asking yourself is why you always cast everyone as if they were you.

Your fears, based on a lack of information,

Ahhh, the desperation of conservatism.

So the war on terror can't be won without shredding the constitution?

According to the actions of the Bush administration, that's what we're supposed to believe.

The fact is that you don't know if it's a lemon yet. It's still on the tree

It's stalled in the middle of a road in Baghdad, Wes.

What beating? World opinion?

You hadn't noticed? Okay.

Reputation? So it's "skin deep" eh? While popularity is a realisitic consideration in the long run, global opinion sways to and fro very quickly.

No, Wes. You are merely skin deep, as we see.

I mean, just 3 years ago would you have asked the same question? Are you sure that 3 years from now you'll be asking the same question

You haven't been paying attention.

As to the future? Depends on what it brings.

blah blah

We know, Wes. We know.

It's not done, so you don't know "it can't work".

Yes. Tell a woman amid a rape, "It's not done, so you don't know you don't like it."

:rolleyes:

Every once in a while, what's already in evidence can be assessed. For instance, this is an election year. We're sort of asked, as Americans, to have an opinion about these things.

How about a little hope? It's always too late for regret.

A little blind faith, you mean? My hope is for America, and the way to fulfill that hope is to end the descent into bullshit imperialism.

Assertions of nobility? Why don't you talk to the troops about that.

Troops follow orders, and don't make them.

• Tyson, Ann Scott. "Troop morale in Iraq hits 'rock bottom'". CSMonitor.com, July 7, 2003. See http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0707/p02s01-woiq.html
• Associated Press. "Survey: Iraq Morale Could Be Better". FOXNews.com, October 16, 2003. See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100269,00.html
• Ricks, Thomas. "Troops cite low morale, poor leadership in Iraq / Army surveyed soldiers last summer after rash of suicides". SFGate.com, March 27, 2004. See http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/27/MNG6V5SCVT1.DTL

And we'll get the chance to ask them in a couple weeks.

I can't speak for others, but to me it's because the nobility in question is far more than a claim and I'm not overly concerned with reputation when it comes to making decisions regarding the continued security of America/the world.

You know who failed the "global test"?

Adolf Hitler. Neither was he concerned with reputation when he thought he could win.

You hate the GOP. The GOP is in charge. It must follow that now America is evil. You then use elaborate justifications to back up your presumption.

Get off your high horse, you brat. If only everything was as simple as you assign it, then the world would be just like you want.

Some people are capable of judging by action. That the GOP is in charge does not demand that America be evil. Rather, it's the policies advocated by this president, enacted by his administration, and the results it brings.

Someday, you might want to do some reading and figure out what those things are.

We're not all as superficial as you are, Wes.

You're incapable of giving the GOP "a chance" because you fucking hate them.

You can do better than that, boy.

Why is it that you have such a problem arguing about facts on the table? Why do you have to invent something to attack?

That's right--it's because you've got nothing.

Your hate, like that of many leftists - forces you to spin everything in your own mind towards justification of continuance of your hate.

Not all of us are so predetermined by your labels as you are.

I've noticed a lack of substantial fact in your response. Are you going to do anything better than piss on caricatures? Or is that all you're capable of?

When you look back on it in retrospect we may seem the way you say (and I'd agree), but how were we viewed by the majority of the world during those periods? How is that view different from today? Is it formed differently now because the world has changed? Are you positive your analogy is correct and unbiased, or are you just releasing your frustration?

It's a very simple difference: the Bush Administration has decided to cast America in a new, belligerent role in which peace and cooperation are defined by other nations serving our interests without regard for their own people.

You can't demonstrate the lies, but you can certainly wag your finger and then pretend you aren't?

Every time you want to rehash what has been beaten to death both here and in the public arena, you simply confess your ignorance, your apathy, and your bad faith in discussions.

You're always presuming the worst in order to complain, Wes. Why not simply deal with what's already in evidence? You'd look a lot less silly if you did.

It's not a lie if he believed it, it's a mistake. It's a mistake that apparently much of the world made.

So let's take a look at one infamous incident:

Bush: Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa!
Intelligence: Um, Mr. President? That report is false.
Bush: False? I don't believe it. Colin, get up there and tell the U.N.

Whatever you say, Wes.

What? The "US popularity" you refer to was quite strong a mere 3 years ago wasn't it? Were we the Empire then?

Do you really want an answer? Or are you just going to complain about "elaborate justifications"?

Really, Wes, are you so oblivious to history? The "mere three years ago" reflects the world's sentiment in the wake of 9/11. Bush hadn't blown that credibility yet.

Stop pretending people are as stupid as you need to imagine them in order to have a point.

Can you be more specific?

Gladly: Going out and creating enemies is not the way to find peace.

Really, Wes, that outing of yours was a disappointment. Such a lack of personal integrity as you have shown is exactly the problem with your brand of conservatism: honesty destroys it.

Crawl back into your hole. Pretend that people outside this country don't matter. Continue to worship yourself. Or else learn to think.

Europe has just proposed giving Iran the money so they shut down their nuclear program.

They said they'd negotiate. How good is that in comparison with the months of hard-talk from the Bush administration?

Really?

Now why, do you think, would I say that? And would it be relevant here?

Some of what we're talking about is the result of a Cold War. The overthrow of Iran, the sponsorship of OB back in the day. It's all relative to this conversation. But so is France, right?

Note on Edit: Your hint is "634022". Although I am curious why you raise the issue at this point.
Thank you for the hint.
Seriously. Go watch The Atomic Cafe. And remember that the Cold War and the nuclear scare never happened. At least, in "I Hate Michael Moore" world. Why? Because like Michael Moore, the director of TAC put the film together in a way that was designed to entertain.

Ah, I see I read someone quoting you (Forgot to link that, but I'm not searching through 10,000+ posts again).

Ah, I see I read someone quoting you (Forgot to link that, but I'm not searching through 10,000+ posts again).

I vaguely recall that post. Hardly necessary to dig it up.

Aye. France is relevant. It's all relvant. A philosophical consideration goes here, but at the moment it's unrefined: something to do with how Americans cast the odd actions of internationals as if those folks held identical values and experiences. I can't imagine that one will go away until it's resolved itself, so maybe I'll have more on it later in the week. Or next month. Or in ten years. Who knows?

The sad thing is that by the time people figure it out, it will be at such a point in the future that society will have stopped caring about the issue. Of course, that cycle is tightening, as the debate surrounding Michael Moore shows.

So tiassa, one question:

Do you hate George W. Bush and/or his administration?

It's a tough question to answer, Wes.

In terms of what I consider true hatred, no.

In terms that are too subtle for you to understand, yes.

I hate the lies of the administration; I hate its escalation of political deception; I hate its reliance on and exploitation of people's ignorance; I hate its dishonesty.

I can pretend that George W. is a victim, and somehow feel sorry for him, and to a degree I do. But some of that ill sentiment necessarily stains George W. His regard for other people is repugnant; his willingness to excuse evil is abominable. At some point, I have to hold him responsible, and that line definitely treads on hatred.

He is evil. He is a scourge against humanity. It is what he chooses, and is the result and manifestation of that choice that I hate. If that necessarily means I must hate the man, then so be it.

One question for you:

Why do you hate humanity?

yes

So you hate him and the tone your rant above is a just your emotional reaction to the fact that I brought it up. Okay.

One question for you:

Why do you hate humanity?

LOL. I don't, you fool.

So you hate him and the tone your rant above is a just your emotional reaction to the fact that I brought it up

Like I said, "In terms that are too subtle for you to understand".

Thank you for proving that point.

If only you were literate, Wes, then maybe you'd have a point worth respecting.

In the meantime, if you're incapable of reading what's there, then perhaps you should reconsider the wisdom of being a petty brat about it.

LOL. I don't, you fool.

Is this one of those times when I'm not supposed to question you?

(chortle!)

Whatever you say, Wes. Whatever your cowardice inspires you to say.

In the meantime, learn to read, stop the hate, and get an attitude adjustment.

You presume the worst in people, can't respond to an argument without inventing windmills of your own to tilt.

You can say you don't, you fool, but that doesn't make it true. Anything too complicated for you to figure out you simply presume is hatred.

Why can't you be honest, Wes? It won't kill you.

Just because you're not smart enough to understand the things you choose to bitch about doesn't mean you should make it other people's problem. Straighten your own self out first, boy.

Like I said, "In terms that are too subtle for you to understand".

Uhm...

You spelled it out pretty plainly?

"I hate the lies of the administration; I hate its escalation of political deception; I hate its reliance on and exploitation of people's ignorance; I hate its dishonesty.

I can pretend that George W. is a victim, and somehow feel sorry for him, and to a degree I do. But some of that ill sentiment necessarily stains George W. His regard for other people is repugnant; his willingness to excuse evil is abominable. At some point, I have to hold him responsible, and that line definitely treads on hatred.

He is evil. He is a scourge against humanity. It is what he chooses, and is the result and manifestation of that choice that I hate"

Thank you for proving that point.

If only you were literate, tiassa, then maybe you'd have a point worth respecting.

In the meantime, if you're incapable of reading what's there, then perhaps you should reconsider the wisdom of being a petty little bitch about it.

Is this one of those times when I'm not supposed to question you?

(chortle!)

Whatever you say, tiassa. Whatever your cowardice inspires you to say.

In the meantime, learn to read, stop the hate, and get an attitude adjustment.

You presume the worst in people, can't respond to an argument without inventing windmills of your own to tilt.

You can say you don't, you fool, but that doesn't make it true. Anything too complicated for you to figure out you simply presume is hatred.

Why can't you be honest, tiassa? It won't kill you.

Just because you're not smart enough to understand the things you choose to bitch about doesn't mean you should make it other people's problem. Straighten your own self out first, boy.

You spelled it out pretty plainly?

And you still got it wrong. Such stupidity doesn't surprise me, though. I've come to expect it.

If only you were literate, tiassa, then maybe you'd have a point worth respecting.

In the meantime, if you're incapable of reading what's there, then perhaps you should reconsider the wisdom of being a petty little bitch about it.

Is this one of those times when I'm not supposed to question you?

(chortle! )

Whatever you say, tiassa. Whatever your cowardice inspires you to say.

In the meantime, learn to read, stop the hate, and get an attitude adjustment.

You presume the worst in people, can't respond to an argument without inventing windmills of your own to tilt.

You can say you don't, you fool, but that doesn't make it true. Anything too complicated for you to figure out you simply presume is hatred.

Why can't you be honest, tiassa? It won't kill you.

Just because you're not smart enough to understand the things you choose to bitch about doesn't mean you should make it other people's problem. Straighten your own self out first, boy.

Ah, Wes, you've been a liar and a jerk since you first arrived. Why do you think you have any credibility now?

Perhaps you think you're clever, but then again perhaps you simply forgot about the time you told me you wanted to offer me friendship on the terms that I could never question your character.

Whatever. You have no character worth questioning.

It's pretty plain what you are. Excuse me while I scrape it off my shoe. (Bad Fido! Do that in your own yard!)

Ok enough :mad: