Sabastian said:No, I don't think regardless of what they are saying here that they really want Bush reelected. I think this is total BS. Terrorist are worried that is why they are desperately bombing innocent civilians in attempts to influence electoral outcomes. The matter is that these groups were conducting terrorist operations well before the Bush administration came to office. These fundamentalist are not interested in peace from what I can see.. their main agenda of expanding Islamic fundamentalism has really been stifled by the war on terror.
9/11 came without the war on terror... The western nations of the world ought to really hunker down together against these thugs. They not only attack western interest but also their own people blowing up whoever does not accept their agenda. They are blackmailing democracy.
The terrorists want Bush re-elected
If you stand resolutely in your position certain of the righteousness, in the face of others who will not agree with you, is that "ham fisted diplomatic clumsiness"?John Reynolds said:They know the Bush administration with its ham-fisted diplomatic clumsiness has almost singlehandedly destroyed the surplus of support America had when it came to dealing with terrorism and replaced it with suspicion or downright animosity, and now seek to further isolate us from former allies.
RussSchultz said:If you stand resolutely in your position certain of the righteousness, in the face of others who will not agree with you, is that "ham fisted diplomatic clumsiness"?
care to cite sources?? I dont remember the numbers ever being that high. More than one poll would be nice too.Clashman said:Polls saying weapons inspectors should be given more time were usually between a 2/3 and 4/5 majority. I would say that was "overwhelming".
Clashman said:Polls saying weapons inspectors should be given more time were usually between a 2/3 and 4/5 majority. I would say that was "overwhelming".
Clashman said:I would say Spain is probably the exception to the rule. In the U.S, Bush saw his approval ratings jump 30-50% as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Only the dumbest of luck resulted in this catastrophe not catapulting the PP past the SWP, and most of it is the PP's own doing. I would say that this notion that any vote against a hardline party candidate is a vote terrorists want you to make is blackmailing democracy more than anything.
Attack on our culture? I don't think so.It was a massive attack on American culture and financial interest.
indio said:Attack on our culture? I don't think so.It was a massive attack on American culture and financial interest.
However the Al Queda and the vast majority of the middle east believes we have been doing that to them for 40 years. It wasn't an attack , it was payback. There will never be peace (I hope that's what were after) till you see the world through your enemy's eyes. I refuse to dehumanize groups of ppl. no matter how much the media trys to brainwash us.
Sabastian said:I don't know about this exception to the rule yet. They have made threats to other states regarding this as well including United States, Japan, Italy, Britain and Australia. I guess we will have to wait and see if it is the case or not.
WRT the idea if you vote for a party that is soft on terrorist organizations being anti-democratic... Consider now Kerry can say in his campaign speeches to voters.. "the terrorist want you to vote for Bush".. even though nothing could be further from the truth. It's fodder, and it favors anyone whom opposes the war on terror. Further it is blackmailing when you threaten civilians with random murders that say "look if you vote for the wrong candidate...we will terrorize you". Even though they are not candidates it is a shame that someone actually represents what they want so to speak.
Clashman said:It's just as much blackmailing when people threaten you with bombs and politicians say "if you don't vote for me you're voting for terrorism". Furthermore, I challenge the very notion that right-wing parties are a good way to fight terrorism in the first place. It certainly hasn't worked in Israel, I don't think it worked in Spain, (ETA has actually been more active in 6 years since the PP gained power than the 6 years prior), and I don't think it's working in the United States. Talking tough does alot to win votes, but usually doesn't do a whole lot to fix the situation. I think the drug war is a good parallel, as we've managed to put alot of people into prison and break up alot of smuggling, but the nation's drug problem really hasn't gotten any better.
Clashman said:http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text1-26-2003-34380.asp
And from the "Free Republic" of all places:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/830171/posts
This shows that Americans may have favored war, but their support was not unequivicol. Most felt inspections should be given more time, and most felt we should only invade with UN support.
Sabastian said:That is not the message the terrorist are perpetuating though. Indeed they do not want you to vote for Bush. They definitely want Kerry in. It does not matter who is elected anyway they have conducted terrorist actions over and over again regardless of whom is in office. Certainly doing nothing wrt terrorist organization does nothing. 9/11 came without any struggle against terrorism and so did a multitude of other attacks on America and its interest. The pro active approach to dealing with terrorism will have a pay off in the long run I believe. Doing nothing to deal with them .. simply didn't bring any tangible results AFAICT in fact all it did was allow them to manage the single largest terrorist attack the world has ever seen. I think about this matter entirely different anyhow. I see the terrorist groups the strong arm of Islamic fundamentalism and their attacks on America and its interests are culturally based. I think in the long run this might simply be better recognized as cultural warfare.
Clashman said:Why do you always assume that not going to war is automatically "doing nothing"? The measures that are really going to make Americans safer, such as doing more thorough checks at airports and such, would have come about regardless of who's in office. What Bush has done during his presidency has in fact galvanized much of the world against the United States, and at the same time made people like Bin Ladin an international figurehead, which helps their organizations as much as it hurts them. People don't want to help us out anymore, because they feel as though they've gotten dicked by the U.S. in the past. Al Queda is given tremendous publicity. The U.S.'s handling of the Israel/Palestine question, war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc, has convinced many in the Muslim world that the U.S. doesn't intend to function as an honest negotiator, and isn't to be trusted. These sorts of things make it more difficult to fight terrorism, not easier.
Except the many in the Muslim world you're talking about aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan. Strangly, Iraqis and Afghanistanis favor the US and what is going on in Afghanistan and Iraq.The U.S.'s handling of ... war in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc, has convinced many in the Muslim world that the U.S. doesn't intend to function as an honest negotiator, and isn't to be trusted. These sorts of things make it more difficult to fight terrorism, not easier.
