Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Al Queda Rooting For Kerry?  
User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1408 times:

Kerry definitely is much softer than Bush, regarding homeland security (patriot act) and foreign policy. He is also a multilateralist and Al Queda knows now how easy it is to break alliances.

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGo4EVA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Here come more fireworks than the 4th of July...

User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Could this be why we haven't been attacked recently and won't be until after the election?

User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

This is the background of the regime change in Spain:

Quote from the "Elections in Spain" thread:


It gets worse:

As Der Spiegel and the main evening news on ARD just report, the spanish security forces deceived at least their german counterparts by providing false information about the attack, in order to push the ETA theory. Even our interior minister went public officially with this false information fed to him.

The german BKA (Bundeskriminalamt - federal criminal investigation agency) received misleading information about the explosive material and about the igniters; The BKA was told to "expect new information on monday" - after the spanish elections.

A BKA spokesperson said that such misleading information among allied security services would have been "beyond imagination" until now. They´re pretty shocked.


In short: The safety of (at least!) the german population was knowingly put at risk by the Aznar government in the hope it would have helped them win the election! We were just lucky that no critical decisions were based on the false information. (Were the other nations´ services lied to as well? The american ones? The french? The british? What other information was false before?)

I can only hope that Aznar and his ilk will face criminal prosecution for such a blatant breach of protocol and of the inter-service trust that´s absolutely essential for an effective prosecution of the terrorists.  Pissed

Or should every official security information be second-guessed in the future?? ("Can we trust this information? Let´s check other sources first!") This can cost lives!


If anybody still believes that the ousting of this government was "a victory of the terrorists" - think again!


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6574 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1377 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

softer than Bush

Does that equate to "less effective"?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineJ.mo From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 660 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1358 times:

Reading Time magazine today, it was mentioned how the outgoing Clinton administration had a military operation setup against Al Qaeda, in response to the USS Cole bombing. However, they did not feel the timing right during a change in administration.

The operation was revealed to Rice, who thought China was the bigger threat. Oops!

Reading other articles it seems as though until 9/11, Bush continued to overlook the Al Qaeda threat. Apparently it got in the way of trying to figure out how to alienate the world and get Saddam for daddy...

-Not a Bush Fan-



What is the difference between Fighter pilots and God? God never thought he was a fighter pilot.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1353 times:

I'm sure they're not. For all his national security tough talk, Bush and his foreign policies are still a prime reason for Al Qaeda (check your spelling, by the way) to garner hatred towards America. It's a lot easier to get up support against the Great Satan US when you have somebody who says "bring it on" to threats instead of trying to solve the situation diplomatically. Besides, as Mt99 points out, softer does not means less effective.

I don't think Al Qaeda much cares who wins, and they may even be rooting for Bush, so that they can have someone to really hate. They thrive on that kind of stuff.

Cheers,

Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1347 times:


I am a Republican and I am planning on voting for George Bush, however, the title of this posting is a low blow. I get a little peeved when I see negative posted against President Bush & I get equally peeved when I see posting such as this.

The title seems to try to lead us to believe that the terrorist had given a press conference and were throwing their support behind John Kerry, which of course is inaccurate.



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1334 times:

MidnightMike, I feel sorry for you, because you're going to be really peeved after this election is over. All that's coming from both sides is negativity. I guess neither has anything good to say about themselves. What a shame.

Cheers,

Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineCytz_pilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 568 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1322 times:

Fast forward to 2005...in the event of another attack...

Pres. Bush in office
-Democrats blame Republicans for poor foreign policy decisions

Pres. Kerry in office
-Republicans blame Democrats for softer stance

Either side can be considered 'wrong' when the time comes. And just like MidnightMike pointed out, it's not like they're a functional unit, like a conference room filled with noted terrorists, drinking martinis, OBL standing at the mike and saying 'Gentlemen, I need options.' What they are are independent agents, as residents either legal or illegal, working to exploit weak spots in the security net of our countries. Hard to fight, and of course they'll slip through the net, and you can't totally stop that without learning to read people's thoughts.

I'm just saying...the issue will still be there no matter who is elected! The problem has been there for thousands of years, that when one country/empire/entity has immense power, there will be people wanting to take it.


User currently offlineSean1234 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 411 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

Come on guys, forget all this stuff about low blows and negativity. Surely they must have a preference of one over the other. Considering the goal of their jihad is foremost centered on America. The policies of the next president will have a great impact on their organization.

Yes, both Bush and Kerry want to stop terrorism, they just differ on the means.


User currently onlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

What will be better for the terrorists?

Continued alienation and confrontation, while playing by their rules of ever-increasing violence with perpetual attack/counterattack?

or

A more complex multi-pronged approach, with high prosecution pressure but in addition an increasingly tightened web of alliances and cooperations, with combined cultural and social initiatives to obstruct and undermine the terrorists´ environment and recruiting grounds?


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1290 times:

I was wondering when I would get the chance to use this cartoon.




"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1280 times:

Well if we're going for the cartoon route, maybe Kerry could focus on the following:



User currently offlineDelta767300ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2562 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

Al Queda will hate us no matter who is Prez.

-Delta767300ER


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

The difference is going to be that Kerry will have the same problem that Clinton had in dealing with Al-quarter-horse. He will view it as a police problem.

Bush deals with it as a miltary problem, and it can be said that because of that he has made much more progress then his predecessor did.

Somehow I can't endorse going back to the failed perception of Osama as a police/law enforcement problem.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1210 times:

I don't think Al Qaeda will have any quarter with whomever is president. But I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP tried to lable Kerry as the Al-Qaeda candidate, I really wouldn't.

I think the only difference with Kerry and Bush is that Kerry wouldn't fabricate something like Iraq into a Holy War on terrorism. We need togo after the real threats in the world, and not make them up, as we did in Iraq. Hopefully, a Kerry Administartion would be more judicious in their battles, but no less tough in the battles it would choose.

And L-188, if you're not smart enough to see that no one in the world sees OBL that way anymore, then you're more lost than I previously thought.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13968 posts, RR: 63
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1200 times:

I think Al Qaeda is neither a military nor a police problem. It is an intelligence problem. Nobody knows who and where the cells are and when and where they will attack next time.
If it would be known, OBL and his buddies would have been caught long ago.
On the other hand, since Al Qaeda consider themselves to be soldiers, let´s try them acc. to martial law. What happens to an enemy soldier caught behind the frontline wearing civilian clothes and possesing a weapon? He gets a minimum court martial and, if found guilty, gets executed on the spot as a spy or saboteur.

Jan


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1196 times:

i would see it exactly the opposite way.
bush is exactly what al quaeda needs, allowing them to polarize the population against the usa easier.

if kerry is in office chances are some of that momentum is going away again, due to the higher degree of multinationalism and u.n. involvement he would have.

i also think that the fight on terror will actually be more efficient under kerry since he would actually focus on terror and not military adventures and interventions, along with an international coalition determined to get rid of terror, instead of alienating allies with the military adventure politics.

either way al quada can only hope bush gets reelected, makes their job alot of easier, and he actually gives them the victories on a silver plate (patriot act etc) reassuring them that terrorist attacks do indeed help them achieve their goals of destroying western civilizations.



10=2
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1181 times:

Zak, multilateralism in terms of the U.N. means, by mathematical certainty, a dilution of overall effectiveness, as you have to please a number of people on the UN Security council - some of whom, frankly, hardly deserve to be heard on the issue, or have good reason to enjoy the fact that key Western powers are caught up in a distracting, expensive struggle against a hard-to-find enemy. I would much rather depend on a multilateral coalition of like-minded nations, such as NATO, or an ad-hoc coalition.

Secondly, Whether or not you have a scrapper or an appeaser in the White House will not make a difference in Al Qaeda's plans. Remember that 9/11 was planned long before Bush came to office, and that prior to 9/11, Bush was, for the most part, not interested in interfering with other nations - even Iraq (they may have mused over the idea, but put it on the shelf as a low priority). Even France, which has been relatively harmless to Islamic causes, has been the target of 9/11-style attacks which they luckily managed to find out about and intercept - but it was largely luck and a lack of experience of the hijackers in question.

A backing down of military and intel pressure on Al Qaeda will simply allow them to regroup more effectively and plan out their next attrocities in peace, whether against the U.S., France, U.K. or anyone that they hate just because of who they are, which unfortunately includes just about everyone.

Charles


User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4772 posts, RR: 26
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1144 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Could this be why we haven't been attacked recently and won't be until after the election?"

Actually I would have to agree with the exact opposite of that statement. My history professor gave our class a rather chilling prediction, but I would have to say it makes great sense.

Basically there is a lesson to be learned with the latest situation with Spain. Al-Qaeda used terror to influence the outcome of the election there and ultimately led to the party in support of the Iraq situation being yanked from power. Spain pulls troops out, so Al Qaeda "wins".

Look at our situation here with this election. What is the one major difference between Bush and Kerry? What does Bush have that Kerry doesn't? Bush's reputation regarding Iraq, the economy etc. all set aside, what is it that Bush has done that makes him so popular in the minds of the US? Bush gives our country a feeling a security. With Bush in power, generally speaking, the United States feels safe.

The prediction my professor gave was that between now, right this minute, and election day, we may see a similar attack here in the US as experienced in Spain. Al-Qaeda wants to mess with our heads. Think about it. Between now and election day, if we were to be attacked, Mr. Bush will appeared to have failed in keeping us "safe". So the people turn on him and vote for Kerry. If we do see another attack before election day, rest assured Bush will be finished as far as being reelected.

Anyone read the headline last week that Al-Qaeda claims they are 90% ready for the next devastating attack on the United States? In relation to the amount of time it's been since September 11, 2001, I'd say the remaining months until election day could relatively equate to the final 10% of preparation.





[Edited 2004-03-18 01:42:21]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1109 times:

NO NO NO NO...... PLEASE NO!!! Don't mix very differents things.... for the killers and fanatics of AQ,democracy isn't important at all.For this mind's ills democracy is a foolishness typical from the west.
And... if with Bush "United States feels safe" why under (during) Bush's administration happened the WORST terrorist attack in the History?
States,like now Spain need new faces,new politics and new international agreements in security issues between allieds/friends countries.
I would like to see to Kerry like the new president of the USA this year.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1102 times:

It is just a really, really, really bad case of an attempt at reverse-psychology.


Somebody should tell Osama, that it only works if the people you are trying to convince aren't aware that is exactly what you are doing.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently onlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4772 posts, RR: 26
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1090 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"if with Bush "United States feels safe" why under (during) Bush's administration happened the WORST terrorist attack in the History?"

No one expected what happened on 9/11...NO ONE...and it would have happened regardless of who was president at the time because the US was not in any kind of mind-set that told them to be prepared for such a thing. For that, I don't think the public holds Bush responsible. The point being made was, that SINCE 9/11, Bush has made it clear that he's committed to wiping out terrorism. He has made a perfectly clear statement that he is not going to sit back and do nothing about it. He's taken steps, and added new government institutions such as "homeland security"...he has us out hunting Osama etc.. Regardless of whether or not everyone believes these are entirely effective, the point is he is taking a form of action and America generally sees these priorities of his as keeping us somewhat safer.


[Edited 2004-03-19 10:23:02]

[Edited 2004-03-19 10:26:02]


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineAnxebla From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1072 times:

You are right,silver but I can't understand two things about it:
1.-Why security measures are so "soft" in dometic flights within US (I don't know nowadays but yes 2/3 years ago.A Newsweek's journalist get into without paying in a JFK-SFO flight 3 years ago...this is just TERRIBLE)
2.-Is true did Bin Laden business with the Bush family? Some people say it here, in Spain, Bin Laden is rich thanks to do business with Bush family? Do you think this can be true?


25 Cfalk : Anxebla, 1) U.S. domestic security has always been lax. The sheer volume of people flying is far above anywhere else, and there is a tradition of allo
26 AlekToronto : Al Queda rooting for Kerry is about one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Fundamentalistic Terrorist hate the American (western) way of life -
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Rooting For Eagles But Not Putting Money On Them posted Fri Feb 4 2005 05:38:16 by Pilottj
The Guardian Lost The Election For Kerry? posted Thu Nov 4 2004 21:09:25 by 777236ER
Clinton/Gore Will Be The Kiss Of Death For Kerry posted Mon Oct 25 2004 19:19:32 by Techrep
Al Qaeda Responsible For Downed Russian Jets posted Fri Aug 27 2004 16:08:57 by Thrust
Senior Al Queda Operative Arrested In UK posted Thu Aug 5 2004 23:26:21 by Gc
48 Nobel Laureates Urge US-Voters To Go For Kerry posted Tue Jun 22 2004 13:10:03 by Rabenschlag
Al Queda Has Nukes? posted Sun Mar 21 2004 15:22:27 by Galaxy5
Al Queda Weakened, But There Are New Threats. posted Tue Feb 24 2004 18:22:27 by 727LOVER
Ever Been At A Game, Rooting For The Visiting Team posted Tue Nov 4 2003 20:32:48 by 727LOVER
Al Queda: What Do They Want? posted Thu Sep 11 2003 07:24:09 by 727LOVER