|
21 Sep 04 - 03:40 PM (#1277586) Subject: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow thought that since there's been this thread BS: Kerry supported by Iran?, this might even things up a bit. And I have a suspicion it might not get that uchg attention in the US news media. That heading is the reported comment of the British Ambassador to Rome, Sir Ivor Reoberts, talking in a closed conference of 100 British and Italian diplomats a few days ago. Here's a link to the story in the conservative London paper The Daily Telgraph today - with the quote "Al-Qa'eda would vote for the re-election of President Bush. It regards President Bush as the best recruiting sergeant ever," participants quoted Sir Ivor as saying. Apparently it was all supposed to be off the record, but it was leaked to the press, much to the embarassment of the British Government. Predictably enough the Telegraph story ends with a formal denial from Sir Ivor: Sir Ivor said last night, through the Foreign Office: "The remarks as reported did not reflect my personal view." However in the light of an earlier paragraph it looks as if the Telegraph, in common with teh rest of the press, took this denial with rather a large pinch of salt: British officials said Sir Ivor would at most receive a verbal rebuke, as he was speaking "under Chatham House rules". Chatham House, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, holds meetings under a privacy rule that allows comments to be reported as long as the identity of the speaker is protected. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 03:47 PM (#1277590) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow I thought that since there's been this thread BS: Kerry supported by Iran?, this might even things up a bit. And I have a suspicion it might not get too much attention in the US news media. That heading is the reported comment of the British Ambassador to Rome, Sir Ivor Reoberts, talking in a closed conference of 100 British and Italian diplomats a few days ago. Here's a link to the story in the conservative London paper The Daily Telegraph today - with the quote "Al-Qa'eda would vote for the re-election of President Bush. It regards President Bush as the best recruiting sergeant ever," participants quoted Sir Ivor as saying. Apparently it was all supposed to be off the record, but it was leaked to the press, much to the embarassment of the British Government. Predictably enough the Telegraph story ends with a formal denial from Sir Ivor: Sir Ivor said last night, through the Foreign Office: "The remarks as reported did not reflect my personal view." However in the light of an earlier paragraph it looks as if the Telegraph, in common with the rest of the press, took this denial with rather a large pinch of salt: British officials said Sir Ivor would at most receive a verbal rebuke, as he was speaking "under Chatham House rules". Chatham House, the Royal Institute for International Affairs, holds meetings under a privacy rule that allows comments to be reported as long as the identity of the speaker is protected. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 03:54 PM (#1277593) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: artbrooks Yep. Saw that in my local paper and on CNN.com. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 04:09 PM (#1277613) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang McGrath, I'm curious, who do you think the terrorists responsible for the Madrid carnage wanted to win the Spanish election? I personally find the 'Kerry supported by..' thread (though in this case it is still a government and not a terorist organisation) in as bad taste as this thread. Even if we correctly guess the terrorists's point of view (the real, not the published one) for one particular decision what they think should in no way influence our decision. Al Qaeda wants the oil to get more expensive, so do I. Al Qaeda wants Bush getting reelected (let's assume for a moment that is true), I don't want him getting reelected. These people should have no power on our minds and actions, even considering what they might like or not gives them too much power. Assuming it is true they want to get Bush reelected it should be as irrelevant as if they published that they opt for Kerry. Wolfgang |
|
21 Sep 04 - 04:38 PM (#1277634) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow It seems pretty clear that the war in Iraq has had the effect of strengthening the influence of the Al Qaeda variety of fundamentalism, and that a victory for Bush in the coming US election will be in the interests of such people. It is also pretty widely believed that a further Al Qaeda atrocity in the USA, in the run up to November, would be likely to help Bush get re-elected - and that an attempt at something along these lines can be expected. I think that it is very relevant indeed for voters in that election to take into account whether the way they vote is such as to serve the perceived interests of Al Qaeda or not, and to refuse to be manipulated in that way, whatever happens. I'd not be the least surprised "if they published that they opt for Kerry." I'd take that as confirmation that they actually wanted Bush to win. The Spanish situation was very different - most especially insofar as Spain was very much a minor player in this nightmare game. I would suspect that the actual result in that election would have not have been a very important issue in the minds of the terrorists. The important thing would surely have been to have been seen as affecting the elections - I suspect either result would probably have been as satisfactory. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 05:26 PM (#1277671) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Bobert Best terrorist recruitment pitch man that Osoma could have found... Bobert |
|
21 Sep 04 - 05:28 PM (#1277675) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang I agree with the first statement after the It seems pretty clear phrase but not necessarily with the second. You come dangerously close to saying 'Bush is hoping for a second atrocity'. Regarding Spain, I understand that you say the important thing for them was to be seen affecting the Spanish elections. Since all commentators agreed that without the terrorists's interference the Spanish elections was a clear victory for the conservatives, a victory of the opposition was the clearest sign that they have an effect. The elctorate you say should refuse to be manipulated in that way. So the Spanish electorate should have voted as they wanted before that is they should have voted conservatives. That's how I understand what you write. But I don't believe that is your opinion. Wolfgang |
|
21 Sep 04 - 05:48 PM (#1277692) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,petr regarding Spain, the real puzzle is the 2nd bomb found along the high speed rail line - after the Madrid bombings. what was the point of that? if the terrorists achieved their desired goal of having Spain pull out of the Iraq coalition. if that bomb had gone off as a train was passing it could have killed thousands. petr but I do believe that Bush is Al Qaeda's choice |
|
21 Sep 04 - 05:54 PM (#1277698) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Uncle_DaveO "Predictably enough the Telegraph story ends with a formal denial from Sir Ivor: Sir Ivor said last night, through the Foreign Office: 'The remarks as reported did not reflect my personal view.'" Of course not. It merely says that's the Al Qaeda view, not his, so he can deny that it's his. Dave Oesterreich |
|
21 Sep 04 - 06:11 PM (#1277708) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow You come dangerously close to saying 'Bush is hoping for a second atrocity'. That's going way beyond anything I said, Wolfgang. I think that such an event would help his chances of getting elected, and that seems to be he consensus of media commentators generally, regardles of whether theybfavour Bush or are opposed to him. I don't think that anyone would suggest that this implies that they all believe that 'Bush is hoping for a second atrocity'. The crucial thing in the Spanish election appears to have been anger at the cynical attempt of the government to manipulate the vote by making out that the bombing had been carried out by ETA, and the consequent significant increase in the number of people who actually voted. There is no evidence, so far as I am aware, about what kind of result the bombers wished to see, assuming that they had any particular interest in Spanish domestic politics. American domestic politics, on the other hand, is a rather more significant issue, wherever we live. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 07:14 PM (#1277766) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,petr as I said the second bomb discovered on the rail tracks (which was clearly put there a few weeks after the Madrid bombing) raises the question of what the bombers were seeking. In this case the bomb did not go off (apparently it was not setup properly) and the terrorists responsible posted on a website that it was meant as a warning. However Spanish authorities said that was unlikely. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 07:32 PM (#1277780) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Don Firth Of course there is the other side of the coin: Bush keeps saying in his compaign speeches that his policies have made America safer from terrorism. Kerry keeps saying that we are not safer--in fact, we are less safe. An "October surprise" in the form of a terrorist attack within the U.S. would be a graphic demonstration that Kerry is right and Bush has been whistling in the dark. Don Firth |
|
21 Sep 04 - 07:47 PM (#1277790) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Chris Green I wish people outside the US could vote for President. |
|
21 Sep 04 - 09:28 PM (#1277849) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan duellingbouzoukis - If you are a U.S. citizen living outside the U.S., you can vote. In fact, those living abroad could swing this election. It seems that there is alot of confusion about Al Qaeda (who supports them and where they recruit). Al Qaeda is the military wing of the Islamic Fundamentalists who presently hold power in Iran. They recruit throughout the middle east but especially in Iran where they have easy access to young schoolboys. There is very little evidence to link Saddam to Al Qaeda. Since the invasion by the U.S., however, Al Qaeda and other extremists have been able to increase their recruitment in Iraq due to hopelessness and despair. So yes, terrorist organizations are stronger than ever. I do not trust Iran or Iraq when it comes to buying U.S. favours by making campaign contributions. Wolfgang, I think you are very naive to believe that Iranian contributions to Kerry's campaign come without a price. That is not to say I favour Bush. I think both Bush and Kerry have a price which is to say neither have any integrity. d |
|
22 Sep 04 - 02:24 AM (#1277970) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,Boab Seems Mr Bush was handed a messageof greeting from Osama. He couldn't make head nor tail; of it, and sent it to the code-breakers in the CIA. No joy the message code had them beat--- 370H55V-O773H--- finally it was sent to the RCMP in the cold north. A short message came promptly--"Mr President, you are trying to read it upside down!" |
|
22 Sep 04 - 03:51 AM (#1278011) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: polaitaly Dianavan, I think that Al Qaeda has very little to do with Iran. In Iran they follow the Shiite wing of the Islam religion, the same wing of Moqtada Al Sadr and the Ayatollah Al Sistani in Iraq. Osama Ben Laden is Sunni, and of a particular fundamentalist sect of Sunni, the Wahabites, that are strong in Saudi Arabia.Sunni and Shiites are not good friends. I' m sure that the Shiite extremist have their own terrorist wings, but Al Qaeda recuiting among the Iran schools is like the IRA recruiting in a Protestant school in Northern Ireland. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 06:59 AM (#1278094) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow " Al Qaeda is the military wing of the Islamic Fundamentalists who presently hold power in Iran. " And the capital of the USA is Buenos Aires...Well, it's in America isn't it? And it's a capital city. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 08:13 AM (#1278142) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang There is no evidence, so far as I am aware, about what kind of result the bombers wish(ed) to see (McGrath) And you are not willing to have similar doubts about Al Qaeda's preferences for a US election result. The only difference I see is that Al Qaeda wishing for Bush's reelection fits in your political preferences and Al Qaeda having wished for a change of government in Spain doesn't. Don, that's an interesting argument that should keep Al Qaeda quiet up to November if they share it and are for Bush. Well, I personally think (without good evidence) they'd vote for Kerry, for in all their (both Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terrorists groups) actions they always try to press Western governments towards a weak approach to terrorism. They are wrong, by the way, in assessing him. I consider both Bush and Kerry to act strong when dealing with terrorism. I prefer Kerry for I think the Bush approach was both strong and stupid and just for a change I'd like someone with a less stupid politics doing that dangerous job. Wolfgang |
|
22 Sep 04 - 08:27 AM (#1278156) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang There is no evidence, so far as I am aware, about what kind of result the bombers wish(ed) to see (McGrath) And you are not willing to have similar doubts about Al Qaeda's preferences for a US election result. The only difference I see is that Al Qaeda wishing for Bush's reelection fits in your political preferences and Al Qaeda having wished for a change of government in Spain doesn't. Don, that's an interesting argument that should keep Al Qaeda quiet up to November if they share it and are for Bush. Well, I personally think (without good evidence) they'd vote for Kerry, for in all their (both Al Qaeda and other fundamentalist terrorists groups) actions they always try to press Western governments towards a weak approach to terrorism. They are wrong, by the way, in assessing him. I consider both Bush and Kerry to act strong when dealing with terrorism. I prefer Kerry for I think the Bush approach was both strong and stupid and just for a change I'd like someone with a less stupid politics doing that dangerous job. Wolfgang |
|
22 Sep 04 - 09:18 AM (#1278187) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow I very much hope that Al Qaeda do see it the way Don suggests, and that they hold off terrorist attacks for fear of damaging Bush's election prospects. And the other factor that could enter into it would be that such an attack could well push a lot more people out to vote, as some kind of demonstration of national solidarity, and it seems pretty clear that other things being equal, the higher the poll, the better chance the Democrats have of winning. Like Wolfgang, I can't see any indications that a Kerry administration would be likely to be any "softer" than a Bush administration, and I think it's highly unlikely that Al Qaeda would be thinking along those lines. If they prefer Bush, it would be because they saw a Bush administration as more likely to continue acting in a way that reinforces the strength and credibility of Al Qaeda, in the way reportedly remarked by the British Ambassador in that conference. It doesn't make sense to me to see the Madrid bombings as primarily about Spanish domestic politics, any more than to see the attack on the World Trade Centre as about trying to affect the political balance in NewYork. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 02:02 PM (#1278452) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Nerd McGrath, I think the Spanish bombings were not INTENDED to be about domestic politics, but that's how it turned out. Unfairly blaming the Basques was a political blunder that cost the conservatives dearly. dianavan, your lack of knowledge about Iran and Islam is astounding. We were once being told that Al Qaeda was bolstering the government of Iraq, even though every Middle Eastern expert knew it wasn't so. Now suddenly Al Qaeda is bolstering the government of Iran? Ironically, if you put Saudi Arabia in there instead of Iran, you'd be half right: the Wahabis do not "hold power" there, but from behind the scenes they allow the corrupt and impotent house of Saud to hold power. US conservatives are so addicted to Saudi Arabian oil that they can't or won't call them out, however. So it's Iran that gets made into a fall guy. Don't get me wrong. There's plenty wrong with Iran, just as there was plenty wrong with Saddam. But to just shift your focus and say "but where Al Qaeda REALLY recruits is Iran" is ludicrous. After we are occupying Iran, will you claim that "Al Qaeda is the military wing of the Islamic Fundamentalists who presently hold power in Syria"? |
|
22 Sep 04 - 04:14 PM (#1278555) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,Frank I think that Al-Qa'eda were jumping up and down with joy when Bush invaded Iraq. It gave them international credibility. Frank |
|
22 Sep 04 - 04:28 PM (#1278571) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow And it set them free to operate in Iraq. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 08:27 PM (#1278736) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Al Qaeda is bolstering the government of Iran - no, its the other way around. Al Qaeda recruits from many middle eastern countries but it thrives in Iran where fundamentalists hold power. |
|
22 Sep 04 - 08:31 PM (#1278739) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC dianavan, where are you getting your information about Al Qaeda and Iran? |
|
22 Sep 04 - 10:17 PM (#1278785) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Nerd dianavan, there is some evidence of a connection between Al Qaeda and one or two Iranian-backed Hezbollah actions. This means Al Qaeda and hezbollah may have worked together in common cause and taken some money from Iranians. To equate this with Al-Qaeda "thriving" in Iran is like saying that Al Qaeda "thrives" in Germany or Britain. There is no good evidence outside of right-wing conspiracy circles, that Al Qaeda has a strong presence in Iran, particularly in recruitment. Some operatives may be in Iran, just as there are some in the US and Germany, for example. But recruitment from one brand of fundamentalism to another is not so easy. Countries where Al Qaeda DOES, obviously, have a strong presence in terms of recruitment, are Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which the US government is doing its damnedest to ignore. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 02:23 AM (#1278888) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Nerd - Thanks for stating it simply. In regards to Iran, however, I do not know why it is so hard to understand that the fundamental, religious beliefs taught in their schools, provide fertile ground for recruitment in terrorist organizations. Add to this, mandatory military service for males over 14 and you have a nation of men ready and willing to serve the "will of Allah" as dictated by the mullahs. Furthermore, there is no escape. If you are over 14, you are not allowed to leave the country. Politics makes strange bedfellows but lets not forget that when someone contributes to a campaign, the favour is usually returned. I think Kerry should be very careful about his allies or he may just end up eating out of their hands. Carol C - I get my information from members of religious minorities from Iran who are now refugees in Canada. Talk to an Iranian Jew, a B'hai or a Zoroastrian. They have a pretty good perspective on the Iranian government and the mullahs of Iran. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 06:25 AM (#1278989) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow There are all kinds of "fundamentalists" - and by and large they hate and despise other sorts of fundamentalists. Al Qaida and the Iranian mullahs are examples of that. Their understanding of what an Islamic society should be like are vastly different and incompatible with each other. That doesn't mean that the Iranian regime hasn't got some terrible thomhs wrong with it. But for Al Qaida it is the last place for it to look for recruits - unlike Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. True enough "politics makes strange bedfellows". There are some very strange people indeed who have bankrolled Bush. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 12:23 PM (#1279191) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Nerd Exactly, McGrath. |
|
23 Sep 04 - 01:48 PM (#1279247) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC dianavan, do the refugees you've been talking to want what has happened in Iraq, as a result of the actions of the US government, to also happen in Iran? |
|
23 Sep 04 - 09:30 PM (#1279518) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Lepus Rex Dianavan, disgruntled minorities are not the best sources of information regarding the source of their disgruntlement. Such people are, naturally, extremely biased, and perhaps the worst sources of information you can get. (Ahmed Chalabi, anyone?) "Members of religious minorities from Iran who are now refugees in Canada." This would be the Zoroastrian your daughter is going with? Look, I'm happy your daughter has found a nice, if woefully uninformed, guy, and it's nice of you to be supportive. But your statements about Iran this week have been... inaccurate is not a strong enough word. "Young schoolboys?" Iranian terrorists? When was the last time you heard about an Iranaian suicide bomber? Do you even know the difference between and Arab and a Persian? I mean, if you were living in a log cabin, in Siberia, in the 18th century, well, sure, I can imagine that you might believe everything the only Iranian you've laid eyes on might say about his homeland. But as you're posting on an internet forum, and thus have access to perhaps the greatest sources of information in human history, your ignorance is inexcusable. There is plenty of excellent, unbiased information, literally at your fucking fingertips, on Iran. Educate yourself, dammit. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
23 Sep 04 - 10:34 PM (#1279550) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Lepus Rex - Yes, I do know the difference between a Persian and an Arab. Do you know the difference between a Persian and an Iranian? My daughter's boyfriend is not the only source of information I have although he has certainly made me think twice about Iran's present government. I am not defending any particular minority or any particular political party. I am saying, however, that the Iranian government has a less than perfect human-rights record and that this should be taken into consideration before Kerry accepts any more blood money for his democratic campaign. I detest Bush. I am wary of Kerry. d |
|
23 Sep 04 - 11:40 PM (#1279596) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Carol C. - Of course not. War is not the answer. Nuclear weapons are certainly not the answer. Kerry says he will take a hard line with Iran regarding nuclear weapons but that remains to be seen, especially when campaign contributions are coming from Iran. I want to know exactly what Kerry proposes and what Bush proposes in regards to nuclear weapons being developed by Iran? The last thing we need are terrorists armed with nuclear weapons. It seems there is some confusion about Iran and their involvement with terrorist movements. It is my understanding that Iran is very high on the list when it comes to supporting terrorist organizations. It may not be AlQaeda but does it really matter which terrorists recruit from Iran? Actually, its their methods of recruitment that really sicken me. d |
|
24 Sep 04 - 12:06 AM (#1279605) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Lepus Rex - Disgruntled? Would you like to be expelled from university, drafted into the Iranian army at seventeen and then captured by the Iraqis and held in a POW camp? Luckily he escaped to a refugee camp in Turkey. They say what doesn't kill you makes you stronger and in his case it is certainly true. He is well informed as his wisdom comes from experience. Where do you get your knowlege? It is I who have caused the confusion regarding which terrorist groups recruit in Iran. Does it really matter? My point is that neither Iran or Iraq should be contributing to either candidates campaign funds. My other, best source, is an Iranian Jew. I have yet to speak to a B'hai but I understand they have also had a tough time in Iran. Why not listen to the minorities? I'm sure if you listened to the Afro-American perspective or the Native perspective or the Japanese-American perspective on democracy, they might give you quite another look at the American ideals that you hold so dear. The fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are as wrong as the fundamentalists in America. ...and everyone thinks they are so righteous. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 05:27 AM (#1279740) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow I am saying, however, that the Iranian government has a less than perfect human-rights record Nobody denies that - but that isn't the same as them being lined up with Al Qaida, which is what you did say, dianavan. A horse has four legs, and a frog has four legs, but they aren't to be confused, and nor are the different varieties of mutually hostile fundamentalists in this world. It isn't that long since we had bloody wars of religion between different varieties of Christian. fundamentalists. Al Qaida has far more leeway to operate in Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan than in Iran. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 05:58 AM (#1279750) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Lepus Rex Certainly, dianavan, one should listen to what minorities, persecuted or otherwise, have to say. But by relying mainy or exclusively on these sources, you're not allowing yourself to see the full picture. Your image of Iran as a big terrorist training camp, where the citizens live in dread of wicked mullahs just WAITING to fuck them over because, like, they're evil an' shit, is ridiculous. Believe it or not, Iran is home to tens of millions of people who love their country and are happy to live there. And Iran, for all its flaws, is becoming, on its own terms, a vibrant democracy. And not only does Iran have democratic elections, but women can even vote in them, unlike in wonderful, "free" Kuwait. And some of your statements... Christ...: "Would you like to be expelled from university, drafted into the Iranian army at seventeen and then captured by the Iraqis and held in a POW camp?" Uh, no. Replace "Iranian" with "US," "17" with "18," and "Iraqis" with "Vietnamese," and I've met several people who REALLY didn't like it. So he was drafted. Tough shit. Life isn't fair. "It is I who have caused the confusion regarding which terrorist groups recruit in Iran. Does it really matter?" Uh, yeah? Yanno, since it's not true and all? By spreading false information, you're only helping those who do want to go to war against Iran. (Never going to happen, btw) Do you know what the only Iranian group on the US list of terrorist organisations is? The radical leftist group Mujahedeen-e Khalq. They're based in Iraq, and had been fighting against the Iranian govt. for years with Saddam's help. They even killed some Americans in the 70s, heh. "They recruit throughout the middle east but especially in Iran where they have easy access to young schoolboys." INSANE. Where did you hear this? A source. One fucking source, please. PLEASE continue to give your opinions, but without the bullshit. Maddening. ---Lepus Rex |
|
24 Sep 04 - 07:36 AM (#1279810) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang disgruntled minorities are not the best sources of information regarding the source of their disgruntlement. Such people are, naturally, extremely biased, and perhaps the worst sources of information you can get. (Lepus Rex) That's why we always preferred PRAVDA to reports from exiled Russians, RENMIN RIBAO to reports from exiled Chinese reporting of tortures and why we never believed AN PHOBLACHT reporting RUC assaults and that's why we never believed reports from exiled Iranians telling about cruel treatment in the prisons of the Shah. Never trust minority reports. The real and main reason why most of us (including me, of course) believe one source of information rather than the other is not from how many people this information comes, but simply how congruent the new information is with what we already believe to be true. Life is sometimes more complicated than our ideologies allow for. What Dianavan writes about Al Qaeda getting a hold (and recruiting) in Iran is wrong (unless you let the word 'Al Qaeda' cover all religious fundamentalists from anywhere in the Muslim world). What she writes about exiled Iranians' opinions, on the other hand, is corroborated by my personal experiences with them (two, actually, and both Muslim and no future relations to me). It is a country with a dismal record on human rights, far worse than most other countries in this world, knows no religious freedom except on paper, tortures freely, knows nothing remotely similar to freedom of speech, and so on. Just because one country happens to be on Bush's hit list doesn't make all reports about the atrocities and violations of human rights in this country wrong. Wolfgang |
|
24 Sep 04 - 07:47 AM (#1279822) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow "It is a country with a dismal record on human rights", no better than some countries which are close allies of the USA. And if Iran was to get attacked, in the same way as Iraq was, its prospects for moving towards becoming a freer society would be far far worse than they will be otherwise. A major factor in preserving a repressive regime in Iran has been external pressure, notably including the murderous war against Iran launched by Saddam Hussein with the encouragement and support of the then US government. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 08:19 AM (#1279846) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang McGrath, please name some close allies of the USA with a human rights record as bad as Iran. Why name just one of the many countries supporting Iraq in that war? notably including the murderous war against Iran launched by Saddam Hussein with the encouragement and support of the then communist USSR government. As true as the sentence you actually have posted, McGrath, but we do not expect to read such a sentence from you. notably including the murderous war against Iran launched by Saddam Hussein in which the USA supplied Iran with weapons. Also true, but we wouldn't expect you to post such a sentence in the present political situation. The USA, though they openly had declared neutrality, saw that Iran could buy new US weapons by their close ally, Israel, who had openly sided with Iran then. When it is known, that the USA and several other countries) during that war supplied both parties with weapons, just to mention the supply from the USA to Iraq |
|
24 Sep 04 - 08:35 AM (#1279858) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang A map (scroll a bit) about who supported Iraq, Iran, or both My post got truncated that is better so, for I can replace this way the end of my post a bit nicer than it would have read originally. Read the last sentence as When it is known, that the USA and several other countries) during that war supplied both parties with weapons, just to mention the supply from the USA to Iraq is an ingenious use of a factually correct statement. Wolfgang |
|
24 Sep 04 - 10:08 AM (#1279948) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,Larry K If you polled Al Queda I would suspect that the 75% of Al Queda members that have been captured or killed under George Bush would support Kerry for president. Kerry is also the favorite of fellons, dead people (read Detroit Free Press 9/23) people that don't exist (Detroit Free Press 9/23)and most other terrorist groups. Yes- most of the rest of the world would vote for Kerry. It is there best chance to bring down the United States and catch up with America in the world economy. (US is 5% of population and 40% of world GNP/50% of world research) On the other hand, millions of people risk their lives every year to sneak into the USA illegally. I don't see anyone risking their lives to sneak into Europe or the Middle East. Of course, when a heat wave kills 10,000 in France, I can understand why. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 10:18 AM (#1279959) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang I don't see anyone risking their lives to sneak into Europe (Larry K.) That is complete ignorance speaking. Wolfgang |
|
24 Sep 04 - 10:31 AM (#1279972) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,milk monitor Hundreds of people every year, maybe thousands, risk their lives trying to 'sneak into' Europe. The undercarriages of lorries and the insides of unventilated trucks are just two methods. Then there are those who try and board moving lorries as they enter the Chunnel. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 03:03 PM (#1280218) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow True enough I could have said "with the support of the then USA and USSR governments", and I very likely would have, if there still was a USSR government. But since there isn't, I can't see what would have been the relevance of mentioning the USSR in this context? I suppose the implication would have been "when it came down to it there was nothing to choose between the USA and the USSR", which wouldn't really have been relevant here. As for countries with comparable human rights records to Iran which are currently allied to the USA (eg have welcomed US bases), there's Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria for a start. True enough, the USA colluded in supplying arms to both sides in the Iraq/Iran war, but the backing for Iraq was a lot weightier. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 03:29 PM (#1280238) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC The idea behind backing both countries was to keep both countries weak. I can't really see any difference between that goal then and what we are doing now, except for the method being used. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:07 PM (#1280271) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,Larry K Every year millions of people try to sneak illegally into this country from all over the world. That is in addition to all the immigrants who legally enter is country. If the USA is so evil, why is that happening- far more than anywhere else in the world? Because people strive for freedom and opportunity. Sorry Wolfgang- socialism just isn't cutting it any more. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:12 PM (#1280274) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC If the USA is so evil, why is that happening- far more than anywhere else in the world? Because the US is making their lives a bloody hell where they come from and they think mabye the only place they can be safe from the US is in the US? |
|
24 Sep 04 - 04:29 PM (#1280289) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST Well said Carol. |
|
24 Sep 04 - 10:06 PM (#1280506) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan McGrath - AlQuaeda does recruit in Iran as well as other terrorist groups but don't get me wrong - I am not in the Bush camp and I am not advocating war on Iran. Since you seem to have such vast knowlege of Iran, maybe you can explain why the U.S. has had no dialogue with Iran regarding the plight of women in Iran for the last 25 years. Wolfgang, I already acknowleged by error when lumping all terrorists under the name of AlQaeda. I will stand by my claim that they and other terrorist groups do recruit (big time) in Iran and that the mullahs do, in fact, use terrorists to carry out their objectives. Thank-you for confirming my statement that Iran has a ghastly human-rights record. Lepus Rex - Yeh, the only terrorist group listed by the U.S. in Iran is the "radical leftist group Mujahedeen-e Khalq." I wonder why? I never said that Iran is the training ground for terrorists. They recruit in Iran but most of the training occurs in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan. As to your statement: Tough shit. Life isn't fair.... Does that mean we should stop striving for what is fair? Unlike the young men drafted in the U.S. - there were ways out of that (seeking refuge in Canada, getting a "medical", faking homosexuality, or asking daddy to pull a few strings). In Iran there is no way out. Once you turn 14 you are not allowed to leave the country. Doesn't matter is your family has been pacifists for 1000 years. In fact, the sons of minorities are often sent to the front lines. Ever heard of genocide? By the way, I will never defend a country that executes girls who have been raped. And yes, I do believe the Mullahs are evil. The U.N. should have done something about this problem long ago. Lets hope that now that the Mullahs are talking about nuclear power, the U.N. will do everything in their power to stop that from happening. If the Mullahs have nuclear weapons, it will leave Israel very little choice but to launch a first strike. d |
|
24 Sep 04 - 11:24 PM (#1280532) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC dianavan, do you really believe that the Mullahs of Iran would launch a first strike nuclear attack on Israel? I find it quite astounding that anyone would suggest such a thing. If Iran made a first strike nuclear attack on Israel, it would be not only be murdering a lot of Israeli Jews, but also many, many Muslims in Israel, in the Palestinian Occupied Territories, in Syria, in Jordan, in Egypt, and goodness knows where else. Plus, they would probably be flattened by the nuclear weapons of countries such as the US if they did that. What could the Mullahs hope to gain from such a move? Surely the repercussions would be far greater than anything they might hope to gain. Why would they do such a thing? They may, as you say, be evil, but I bet they're not as stupid as you seem to think. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 12:47 PM (#1280795) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang Sorry Wolfgang- socialism just isn't cutting it any more (Larry K) That is still complete ignorance speaking. They are coming now, each week and thousands risk and have lost their lives. The rate of deaths now is much higher than during the communist oligarchy. If you don't read about it in your newspapers that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Wolfgang |
|
25 Sep 04 - 12:49 PM (#1280798) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Carol C. - Please read again. I said, "...it will leave Israel very little choice but to launch a first strike." d |
|
25 Sep 04 - 12:58 PM (#1280805) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Chris Green dianavan - I'm not a US citizen so sadly cannot partake in the forthcoming election. On another point entirely - "maybe you can explain why the U.S. has had no dialogue with Iran regarding the plight of women in Iran for the last 25 years." Er... as I understand it the US had no dialogue whatsoever with Iran for the last 25 years! Our Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, on the other hand, was engaged in potentially constructive and fruitful talks with the Iranian government on a number of security and human rights issues which was abruptly torpedoed when "Bomb the Bastards" Bush delivered his Axis of Evil rant. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 12:58 PM (#1280806) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow "AlQuaeda does recruit in Iran" - I'm sure that's true; and it's also true that it recruits in the UK and probabaly the USA and definitely (and very succesfully) in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. "...why the U.S. has had no dialogue with Iran regarding the plight of women in Iran for the last 25 years." My understanding is that the USA has had very little dialogue with Iran about anything much over the past 25 years. And of course I don't claim to have "vast knowlege of Iran" - but enough to know that there's not much in common between the Iranian variety of fundamentalism and the Al Qaida style. That doesn't mean that I'm claiming the Iranian system isn't pretty badly screwed up. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 01:32 PM (#1280829) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC dianavan, why would Israel be left with no choice but to wage a first strike against Iran unless they thought the Iran had the intention of waging a first strike nuclear attack on them? If Iran has no intentions of waging a first strike nuclear attack on Israel, then whether or not Iran has nuclear weapons is completely irrelevant to what Israel has a choice of doing or not doing. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 03:07 PM (#1280900) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan Carol C. - I agree with your logic but that doesn't seem to be the reality of the mid-east. Intentions? With their record of religious intolerance and ruling with an iron fist, I wouldn't even want to guess at the intentions of the Mullahs of Iran. It is, I believe, a question of capability. d |
|
25 Sep 04 - 03:19 PM (#1280909) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC The US and the Soviet Union were in a nuclear stalemate for decades. It was never necessary for either side to wage a first strike nuclear attack against the other. It came close to happening a few times, as much because of the US as because of the Soviet Union. But the US government had us believe that the Soviets were evil madmen, who didn't need any reason to attack us other than the same sort of thinking that you are attributing to the Iranian Mullahs. The reason countries like Iran want to arm themselves with nuclar weapons is because they know from the behavior of the US, that they are relatively safe from US meddling if they have nuclear weapons. I don't necessarily think that it's a good idea for the Mullahs to have nuclear weapons. However, if Israel chose to wage a first strike nuclear attack on Iran, I would pretty much guarantee you that it would be for reasons other than the idea that they expected a first strike nuclear attack against them coming from the Mullahs of Iran. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 03:33 PM (#1280923) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: dianavan I'll remember that guarantee, Carol C. What do you think those reasons might be and does it really matter? A first strike nuclear attack defies logic and reason. d |
|
25 Sep 04 - 03:50 PM (#1280932) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC Well personally, I don't think Israel would wage a first strike nuclear attack against Iran, for essentially the same reasons that I don't think Iran would wage a first strike nuclear attack on Israel. So unless Israel were to do such a thing, I don't see much point in speculating about why they might do it. I do see a possibility that Israel might want Iran to think that they would wage a first strike nuclear attack on them. I suspect that if this is the case, there are quite a few reasons they might do that. The biggest reason I can think of would be the deterrent factor. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 03:58 PM (#1280938) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC I should probably elaborate on what I mean by "deterrant factor". In this case, I'm guessing that Israel would like the Iranian Mullahs to believe that Israel would wage a first strike nuclear attack on them if they (the Mullahs) had nuclear weapons, in order to try to dissuade the Mullahs from trying to build and/or obtain any nuclear weapons of their own. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 04:59 PM (#1280968) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow MAD was a good acronym, because it relied on making the other person believe that you actually might do something insane, if you were put in a corner. One of the worst consequences of the attack on Iraq will very likely turn out to be the incentive to get hold of nuclear weapons, which it has given to other countries that feel at risk of being attacked in the same way. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 06:49 PM (#1281038) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang Hitler was quite capabe ...of coming across to people as pleasant and affable One quote of the very many good thoughts that made me think a lot. Thanks for that. Wolfgang |
|
25 Sep 04 - 06:53 PM (#1281040) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Justa Picker do you really believe that the Mullahs of Iran would launch a first strike nuclear attack on Israel? Without hesitation. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 07:02 PM (#1281045) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow Why on earth should they? The only value of atom bombs for Iran would be as a deterrent, and if they used them they'd hav've blown it. Israel is estimated to have about 200 nuclear weapons. The regime in Iran has never gone in for that suicide stuff. However "fundamentalist" it may be - whatever that word means by now -the regime has generally acted in a fairly conventional seeking-to-protect-national-interests way in international affairs. |
|
25 Sep 04 - 07:55 PM (#1281075) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: CarolC Why do you believe that, Justa Picker? |
|
26 Sep 04 - 10:23 AM (#1281405) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST dogma |
|
27 Oct 04 - 07:58 AM (#1308519) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang If Al Qaeda really cares about who wins the elections the moment to exert maximal influence is now. If they are clever they would not make a terrorist attack for the impact of that upon elections is difficult to asses. A video of Osama to an Arab TV station mentioning one of the candidates (the one he does not want to become president) as his personal preference could decide the election. Wolfgang |
|
27 Oct 04 - 08:28 AM (#1308536) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow Could well be, and could well happen. If it were to happen the party spin-machine of the candidate he said he favoured would promptly move into action making the same point you have, Wolfgang, and saying that this clearly indicated that Bin Ladin wanted the other man to win. What would really be needed would be for it to be a secret tape that hadn't been intended for public consumption, but had been obtained at enormous risks by some heroic CIA agent. (Perhaps a doubly heroic agent, who had leaked it to Kerry, if it were such as to help him.) In which case the spin would be that it was a fake. And in both cases the spin would probably be true. |
|
27 Oct 04 - 05:30 PM (#1308998) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST I believe that Al Quaeda wants Bush because it gives them a "high moral ground" in the Muslim world. With Kerry leading, this would not be possible. Bush has emerged as an American dictator and this fuels the ammunition for Al Quaeda's propaganda machine. Frank |
|
27 Oct 04 - 07:11 PM (#1309069) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: DougR Reports I am hearing here (U.S.)state that Al Qaeda wants Kerry to win believing he will pull the U. S. troops out of Iraq. Makes sense to me. Kerry pulls the U. S. troops out and the country belongs to Al Qaeda. DougR |
|
27 Oct 04 - 08:19 PM (#1309124) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: McGrath of Harlow "Reports I am hearing" - that really is meaningless. What reports, who from, how credible? You should be able to do better than that, Doug. |
|
28 Oct 04 - 08:45 AM (#1309485) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Wolfgang "Reports I am hearing"? It is even worse: Reports I am hearing that Al Qaeda believes... Wolfgang (believing to have heard once that Al Qaeda doesn't care or does care but doesn't know which way they can be helpful) |
|
28 Oct 04 - 02:42 PM (#1309773) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: GUEST,Frank Dianavan, I would bet that there are as many Al Quaeda operatives working undercover in America as there are in Iran. And someone is financing them. Al Quaeda is not a nation-state outfit. It's kinda' like international corporations who are not beholden to any governments. Don't know about the Zoroastrians but Bahais and Jews are hardly impartial about their views regarding Iranians. The Bahais have a long history of animosity toward Iran since their leader was jailed long ago. This mistrust of iran is built-in to their religious views. Could be said for most pro-Zionist Jews as well. Frank |
|
28 Oct 04 - 03:02 PM (#1309797) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: pdq Why isn't this a bigger story? _________________________________________________________________________________ Kidnapped head of CARE pleads for life in video By Nancy A. Youssef Knight Ridder Newspapers BAGHDAD, Iraq - Margaret Hassan, the kidnapped Iraq director of the aid group CARE International, pleaded for her life in a video that played on the Al-Jazeera Arabic news network Friday, asking the British government to do something to win her release. In Baghdad, religious leaders called on Muslims to help residents of Fallujah, Iraq, defend the embattled city from an anticipated offensive by U.S.-led multinational forces. On the tape, Hassan begged for someone to help her in what might be her "last hour." She looked haggard and frail and sounded distressed. "Please help me," she kept saying. The tape did not identify who had kidnapped her or what they were demanding. Hassan asked the British people to help her and for their government not to move troops from the south toward Baghdad, as the American government had asked them to do. Her plea shook many residents here, who perhaps naively assumed the kidnappers would not keep holding a woman who had lived in Iraq for 30 years, spending most of that time in humanitarian work helping its residents. Six women have been kidnapped in Iraq recently, but none has been killed or harmed. As Hassan wept and said she did not want the same fate as Kenneth Bigley, the British national beheaded earlier this month, her safe return seemed less certain. "Please help me. The British people, tell Mr. Blair to take the troops out of Iraq and not bring them here to Baghdad," Hassan said. "That's why people like myself and Mr. Bigley are caught. And maybe we will die like Mr. Bigley." Neither CARE, which is based in London, nor the British government had any comment about the tape as of Friday night. CARE has suspended its operations in Iraq since the kidnapping Tuesday, which occurred as Hassan was on her way to work. Although born in Dublin, Ireland, Hassan has British, Iraqi and Irish citizenship. She is married to an Iraqi and her friends said she had converted to Islam. On Thursday, her husband, Tahseen Ali Hassan, held a news conference, saying: "I don't know who has kidnapped her but they should know that my wife has worked almost all her life for the Iraqi people and considers herself an Iraqi." In a familiar pattern, the kidnappers delivered the tape showcasing their hostage to Al-Jazeera, and the Qatar-based news organization defended its decision to air it. "Al-Jazeera is not a political party and it is not with or against anyone. We are just trying to deliver a message to the Arab audience," said Jihad Ballout, a spokesman for Al-Jazeera. Ballout added only newsworthy portions of such tapes are shown and the network plays them less frequently as the day progresses. He said playing the tapes did not contribute to the epidemic of kidnapping, calling that "part of the Iraqi reality." The network, which the Iraqi government has banned from broadcasting in its nation, has aired Hassan's husband's appeals repeatedly as well as those by Irish Prime Minster Bertie Ahern. >continued on KnightRidder Washington Bureau... Posted on Fri, Oct. 22, 2004 |
|
28 Oct 04 - 03:40 PM (#1309826) Subject: RE: BS: 'Al-Qa'eda will vote for Bush' From: Nerd Reports I am hearing here (US) indicate that Al Qaeda wants Bush to win. After all, Kerry has not said he will pull the troops out of Iraq immediately, but will stabilize the country and turn it into a functioning democracy BEFORE pulling out. Bush and his forces have shown themselves to be too incompetent to do this, most recently evidenced by the loss of huge cache of explosives which may be in Al Qaeda's hands right now. Al Qaeda LOVE having an incompetent administration in charge of the forces in Iraq, and therefore would want Bush for that reason alone. Add the reasons GUEST 27 Oct 04 - 05:30 PM mentioned above, and it's pretty clear that Bush would be better for Al Qaeda. BTW, instead of insinuating and spreading misinformation, you can see what Kerry's ral plan for Iraq is. It's here. an excerpt: We must change course in Iraq. Having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at peace. The United States must take immediate measures to prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. John Kerry and John Edwards will make the creation of a stable and secure environment in Iraq our immediate priority in order to lay the foundations for sustainable democracy. That is the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home. John Kerry and John Edwards believe the following principles should guide American policy in Iraq right now and that if these steps are not taken, options in the future will become more limited. This needs to be an urgent agenda to: * Internationalize, because others must share the burden; * Train Iraqis, because they must be responsible for their own security; * Move forward with reconstruction because that's an important way to stop the spread of terror; and * Help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it is up to them to run their own country. Full plan is here. |