DescentBB

Pick the guy you think Al Quaeda would prefer as president. Then vote for the other guy.

Ok, I will vote Nader.

Birdseye wrote:I don't see how al qaeda prefers Kerry

They don't. It's absurd.

Are you my buddy BD?

Birdseye wrote:I don't see how al qaeda prefers Kerry

kufyit wrote:They don't. It's absurd.

Bingo. it's also assinine to belive such an idea.

Why is this concept so absurd? Which candidate is weaker on defense? Kerry. Which candidate is enamored of the idea of getting UN approval before conducting military operations? Kerry. Which candidate has already ordered military operations that have largely dismantled al-Qaeda and have overthrown Saddam? Bush. If you're a terrorist, the choice of which candidate you'd prefer to be president of the United States seems pretty obvious.

peeyoo! someone open a window.. toppy just unloaded a bunch of BS in here.

/me waves hand in front of face.

I find it revealing that instead of engaging the idea, many of you simply call it and those who believe it names... "assinine" [actually spelled asinine], "absurd", "BS", etc.

You tried to argue that AQ doesn't care about US politics. I and many others have called you on it. Then you retreat to saying AQ doesn't prefer Kerry. Again, I'm calling you on it. And all you can muster is saying that my position is "absurd"?

AQ cares about politics in this country, and every other country. Why do I know this? Because AQ (and other terrorist groups) want to completely destroy non-RadicalIslamic culture, and they want the entire world to be under the control of their particular brand of radical Islam. I'd imagine they want the quickest, easiest road to world domination with the fewest obstacles. This means they want political leaders who will stand in their way the least, and who will enable them the most. There are many issues on which I will respectfully disagree with you -- this is not one of them, because there is no rational alternative position. We're dealing with people who hate our culture and want to destroy it and conquer it with their own, and this means they care about how easy or difficult that is for them.

Now, be honest with yourself -- who do you think Al Qaeda and the Islamikazes expect to give them the easiest road? Who do you think will do the most to reduce their numbers, destroy their camps, and give people in the Middle East hope for a better life so they don't feel like they need to blow our culture up?

Consider:
George Bush continues to vow to stay the course, send more troops if his commanders ask for them, fund the troops, and stay on the offensive. He gives speeches in front of the entire UN assembly (CSPAN has video) where he makes a point to say that he plans to keep bringing freedom to people around the globe. He sent the army, which decimated Al Qaeda's leadership and is keeping them on the run. He has made fighting terrorism his #1 priority. He may not always do it in the most intelligent ways, but he's definitely going to keep doing it, and it's definitely having an effect.

John Kerry isn't sure if he's going to keep troops in Iraq. He wants to get support from France (do we really want the Iraqis learning how to defend themselves from the French?) and doesn't have a plan for if that fails. He recently said he might not even be willing to put more troops on the ground in Iraq if the commanders request them. He wants to give the UN -- an organization with more dictators than legitimately elected leaders -- a significant say in what the US military does. He doesn't let anybody know what he actually intends to do. He doesn't seem to view the War on Terror as a thing worth fighting, and certainly not as a priority. He'd rather talk about Vietnam than about going after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; he'd rather call Iraq a quagmire than talk about bringing freedom to Iraqis and making sure the elctions happen; he'd rather talk about bringing the troops home than about winning the war on terror.

Who will Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups in the world (including Hamas, etc.) prosper the most under? I don't think you can make any rational argument that they'll prosper more under Bush than under Kerry. You might be able to convince yourself of that if you already hate Bush, but you sure can't make an argument that would make an Islamikaze think "yeah, we want to keep Bush in office. Kerry would be dangerous to us."

I should note: the common argument here is that Kerry would bring more nations to the table, while Bush has squandered alliances. But, simply put, none of the aforementioned nations would've been with us if we'd gone after AQ on September 10. Bush used what little extra good will they were able to muster after 9/11 to take out the Taliban. Don't kid yourself into thinking they'd ever have given more. Kerry isn't going to bring anybody else to the table, in Iraq or anywhere else, because those nations simply don't recognize this war for what it is.

France and Germany and Russia will come to the table when world events force them to come to the table -- when they come to the point where they can't deny WWIV is going on any more. It won't matter who's president, how much a** he kisses, how often he goes to the UN, etc. The deciding factor will be when France, Germany, and Russia realize that they have to fight the Islamikazes -- and it's not going to be diplomacy that makes that happen. It'll be another 9/11 or another Beslan that finally makes them snap. It might be the same thing that finally makes some of you snap -- or you might just keep living in 9/10 for the rest of your lives, thinking "if we just leave them alone they'll leave us alone", and never waking up to reality.

I honestly can't see how anyone couldn't understand this. But some people really do live in a fantasyland where Al Qaeda doesn't really hate us, doesn't care about our elections, and will play nice as soon as a Democrat is in office. Good luck trying to make sense of the world when your perceptions get shattered by reality.

Well said Lothar. It's another example of people looking at the world through the anyone but Bush filter. It blinds them to logic.
I really don't mind that a bunch of guys on the DBB want to keep living in their bubble but watching the anyone but Bush filter at work in congress has cost good soldiers their lives.
A united front on this issue might have even caused Saddam to realize he was going to be toast if he didn't give in, instead he held out thinking we wouldn't do it.

France, Germany and Russia along with the Anyone-but-Bushies gave Saddam hope that we would hold off and keep playing his game. Kerry is the candidate of 'the game'.

PS: to those who think al Queda doesn't care about our politics please go read bin Laddins letter of demands he sent us. Last time I checked he had some kind of management position in al Queda

Lothar, I think you're making a lot of assumptions here my man. You think that just because you can work the logic out in your head that it must be true. Yet there is no evidence. So yo don't KNOW it's true.

To me, you opinions show a sad fact- that a majority of people mistakenly view this war in conventional terms. This war cannot be won in conventional terms. People seem to assume tht terrorism is a group of people. It is not. It is a method of warfare.

All that pounding we did in Afghanistan and Iraq probaby helped some, but the fact is that terror cells are ALL OVER THE WORLD. You're deluded to think that Iraq is the epicenter of fundamental Islam. And you're deluded to think that, in the event of another attack, Kerry would somehow respond weaker than Bush. It's all speculation, affected by partisan tendancies no less that your liberal friends. What is absurd, is that you claim it to be truth when it's nothing more than the musings of your mind.

Show me some evidence, Lothar.

kufyit wrote:Lothar, I think you're making a lot of assumptions here my man.

Your response is FILLED with assumptions about me and about my response, and most of them are dead wrong. Now, pay attention to the way I respond to you -- I'll actually name off the assumptions that are wrong, instead of just saying "you're wrong".

You think that just because you can work the logic out in your head that it must be true.

So tell me, where did I go wrong? What is it that you'd like to see "evidence" for? Which of these assumptions needs proven?

1) AQ and the Islamikazes want to take over the world and destroy non-Islamikazeness
2) They want it to be easy
3) They would prefer for us to elect leaders who will make it easier, rather than harder, for them to take over the world

Seriously... what point do you think needs evidence to support it? Why doesn't the logic work?

I think you are deluded if you think any of these points require more evidence than we already have.

To me, you opinions show a sad fact- that a majority of people mistakenly view this war in conventional terms.

Then you've misunderstood my opinions. Not a surprise -- you regularly quote politicians and misunderstand them (that's how this thread got started! And you still owe me two bucks for the last one.) Listen more carefully, and ask more questions if you don't understand, instead of being so quick to try to argue against me.

This war cannot be won in conventional terms. People seem to assume tht terrorism is a group of people. It is not. It is a method of warfare.

This isn't really a "war on terrorism" to begin with -- it's a war on militant Islam, but you can't call it that without getting flamed. Terrorism just happens to be the method of choice of militant Islam. There will always be terrorism from random places -- but this war is about destroying the particular ideology that has embraced terrorism as its #1 tool. In order to destroy that ideology, we have to wage war on multiple fronts:

1) destroy the main Islamikaze voices (Bin Laden, etc.)
2) destroy the Islamikaze infrastructure and funding sources
3) replace the environment in which Islamikazeism flourishes with an environment in which a kinder, gentler Islam will flourish

All that pounding we did in Afghanistan and Iraq probaby helped some, but the fact is that terror cells are ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Agreed. Which is why it's important to demonstrate conclusively to Muslims that they can live in Muslim-run, Muslim-friendly, free societies. That's why it's important to demonstrate to them that we're willing to spend billions of our dollars rebuilding their nations so that they can live a better life. That's why it's important not to focus just on going after terror cells, but to focus on going after the ideology that breeds terror in the first place.

You're deluded to think that Iraq is the epicenter of fundamental Islam.

When did I ever say that? Iraq is one of many countries within the epicenter of Islamikazeism; it's certainly not the only one. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, blah blah blah... yeah, I know.

And you're deluded to think that, in the event of another attack, Kerry would somehow respond weaker than Bush.

You're deluded to think that the response to another attack is even what I'm talking about.

I don't know how Kerry would respond to another attack. He might go all postal and push the red button; he might sit back and give the Islamikazes a nuanced glare. He hasn't really said -- or, rather, he's said a few times, and the answer keeps moving.

What I do know, though, is that he seems to think "waiting for another attack" is a good idea. He doesn't seem to recognize the true nature of the war we're in -- he doesn't recognize that we are in WWIV, and it's a war between freedom-of-religion and Islamikazeism. To Kerry, this is a war that's going to end as soon as he can pull the troops out of Iraq. To Kerry, that's as far as this war goes -- at least, that's what his statements indicate to me. To Kerry, going on the offensive against the Islamikazes just isn't an option -- again, as far as I can tell through the layers of nuance (it's like trying to hit someone in D1 on a laggy lossy bursty 28.8. They have a lag shield; Kerry has a nuance shield.)

Listen to Kerry talk (at present, you can find recent Kerry and Bush speeches both here, though as the day wears on they may end up on the next page.) He gives absolutely no indication that he sees this war for what it is. He'll talk about what to do in Iraq in order to bring the troops home, and it's all in terms of policy -- "hurry up with the elections", "hurry up training the Iraqis to defend themselves", etc. (his latest set of talking points is essentially "do what Bush is already doing, only pretend it was my idea.") And he never talks about the war beyond Iraq -- he never talks about the roots of terrorism. To Kerry, "war on Iraq" and "get Bin Laden" is as far as it goes, and even those, he seems to have reluctantly given in to the polls. To Kerry, there is no WWIV -- there's just Iraq.

Then listen to Bush talk. As the description of his address to the UN general assembly says, he "speaks primarily about the political and military situation in Iraq and how it relates to democracy and terrorism throughout the world." Bush realizes that we're in a greater war with Islamikazeism, of which Afghanistan and Iraq are key battles but not the whole war. He realizes that the goal isn't to remove Saddam, get Iraq stable, and get out -- it's to create a place where freedom flourishes that will undermine the very foundations of Islamikaze philosophy.

The Islamikazes know this -- they know how devastating a functioning democracy in Iraq would be to their philosophy. Bush knows it, too. Kerry doesn't seem to. Again, the choice is obvious.

heh.

nice jab at my spelling Lothar. the more you do that kind of stuff, the less weight your argument holds.

Now, to me your essay-length arguments are like a sandwich with twenty slices of bread with two slieces of meat in them.

your giving an eighteen year old (who probably has yet to see how the real world works) more credit than a 25 year old who's gone through the school of hard knocks and who's seen some really whacked out things people can do to each other (group homes is one example)



"You tried to argue that AQ doesn't care about US politics. I and many others have called you on it"

no you haven't. all you did was offer an opinion and try to make it sound like fact.


"do we really want the Iraqis learning how to defend themselves from the French?"

another opinion, and an arrogant and condescending one at that.


"He wants to give the UN -- an organization with more dictators than legitimately elected leaders"

do you have something to back up this loaded claim?


"Kerry isn't going to bring anybody else to the table..."

really? and why's that.


By your logic, the terrorists would flourish under the canadian PM, Paul Martin. but they haven't. so explain that one.

Also you keep telling us that we shouldn't respond with 'bs', 'asinine' (yes I don't want to upset the SPELLING NAZI), and other words, even when they are applicable.. but you're more than happy to do it to us. so check the hypocrisy at the door.

Wow, that was weak.

Ferno wrote:you keep telling us that we shouldn't respond with 'bs', 'asinine' ... even when they are applicable.. but you're more than happy to do it to us.

Here's what I wrote: "instead of engaging the idea, many of you simply call it and those who believe it names..."

I don't care that you use words like "BS" or "asinine", or that you name-call. The problem is that you're using them as a substitute for a real argument. You name-call in order to avoid really engaging the idea -- and you did it again in your last post. So I keep calling you on it -- back up what you say with something worthwhile. Put together a coherent argument, or assemble some evidence, or something -- don't just ridicule opposing ideas and brush them off without a second thought. You have yet to engage anything substantial -- all you've done is picked a few random points and called them "BS", or brushed them off due to "lack of evidence" as if you expect me to just get Osama on the phone and have him tell you what he thinks. There's nothing wrong with telling someone their opinion sucks -- I call yours "garbage" a couple times in this post myself. What I have a problem with is your calling someone's opinion "garbage" or "BS" without any explanation whatsoever, in particular, when several of us have given support for those positions. If you want to say my position is "BS", explain why.

Ferno wrote:nice jab at my spelling Lothar. the more you do that kind of stuff, the less weight your argument holds.

Does it matter? You dodge everything I say anyway. Seriously -- look at what you responded to. You say there are "twenty slices of bread with two slices of meat" and then you go and respond to all the bread (with something that doesn't even deserve to be called bread) and ignore the meat. You don't even attempt to address any of the key assertions I make -- out of 2000 words, you thought one of the four most important things to respond to was a french joke. You picked out a few random (and mostly tangential) quotes from what I said and gave them about 5 seconds of attention, and pretended that was an adequate response. That's as clear a dodge as I've ever seen.

You argue about an 18 year old and a 25 year old (I still have no idea which 18 year old you're referring to) and you invoke age and life experience in an argument about whether or not foreign terrorists care about our elections, and if so, who they'd rather have win. How does living in a group home give you more credibility when arguing about Islamikazes? Did you live in a group home with Islamic terrorists? Can I invoke "life experience" too? Cuz this one time, when I was little, somebody called me a bad name, so now I'm an expert on Hindu culture because of my "life experience". Seriously... what a load of garbage. And then you have the nerve to say what *I* wrote was more bread than meat? Heh.

So then, let's look at what you *did* try to respond to.

"You tried to argue that AQ doesn't care about US politics. I and many others have called you on it"

no you haven't. all you did was offer an opinion and try to make it sound like fact.

Yes -- I called you on your opinion, by offering my own opinion and the reasoning that formed that opinion, and by demonstrating where the little bits of reasoning you presented are flawed. Where's the reasoning that went into your own opinion? I've called you on this -- back up your opinion with solid reasoning or evidence, and address the arguments I've put forth with something other than "I'm still skeptical". You don't have to provide proof, but at least provide a coherent explanation for your position, and valid criticisms of mine.

Recall that there are different types of opinions. "blue is better than red" is an arbitrary opinion; there's no objective basis for it, and no facts that need presented. On the other hand, "Houston won't win the superbowl this year" is an opinion based on evaluation of evidence and supported by people who analyze that type of evidence for a living (Vegas gives 200:1 odds.) Even though it's "just an opinion", you'd look kind of silly arguing against it, because it's an opinion established by solid reasoning. Now, that's what I've offered here -- at least, I hope I have. I've given my opinion, and I've given my reasoning, and I've waited for someone to poke some holes in it -- and with how long it's stood up, that itself is evidence that it's somewhat solid. On the other hand, you've given opinions without much reasoning, and what little reasoning you've given has been poked full of holes. So yeah, you can say I just gave "an opinion" -- but it's a much better supported opinion than the ones you've given so far, which gives me confidence in acting on it.

Let's look at the little bits of evidence you did give:

You say you're "not convinced" that AQ wanted to influence Spain's elections, and then you define "influence" as "something that's pushed way before an actual event occurs". That's a semantic load of garbage -- "oh, it's not influence if it's less than 48 hours." Did AQ not want to influence the elections, but then when there were less than 48 hours before them, they decided they wanted to uh... what word would you even use, if not influence? Do you really think AQ doesn't care who gets elected in this country, or that it matters whether they do something 48 hours before vs. 2 weeks before?

You also argued that AQ wants ALL americans dead, and I agree -- but that doesn't mean they wouldn't rather, temporarily, have a less threatening American in the white house. They want us all dead eventually, but until that time, I'm pretty sure they want us to mount the least effective resistance possible. If they think they can do that by beheading someone, they will; if they think they can do that by bombing something, they will; if they think they can do that by laying low, they will.

I offered an opinion. But I offered an opinion with coherent reasoning behind it. You, on the other hand, keep offering opinions without even pretending to give reasoning for them. And you don't poke holes in my reasoning -- you haven't done anything other than offer blind skepticism, which is among the least useful forms of criticism known to man (at least, outside of higher-level math, where "proof" is actually a valid concept.)

"do we really want the Iraqis learning how to defend themselves from the French?"

another opinion, and an arrogant and condescending one at that.

More accurately, a "joke". Pretty mild, by French joke standards. *shrug* if this was really one of the 4 most important things you saw in my post, that's pretty sad.

"He wants to give the UN -- an organization with more dictators than legitimately elected leaders"

do you have something to back up this loaded claim?

Don't take my word for it. Read the list of UN member states from the UN, and tell me what you think.

"Kerry isn't going to bring anybody else to the table..."

really? and why's that.

Read the paragraph from which you snipped that quote, and the 2 paragraphs following. They're back in this post.

I think that's the first time I've ever had someone pull something out of the middle of a paragraph and ask me to explain it when the surrounding paragraph was an explanation.

By your logic, the terrorists would flourish under the canadian PM, Paul Martin. but they haven't. so explain that one.

I don't have the slightest clue what part of "my logic" you think says anything about the Canadian PM, or whether or not terrorists would flourish under him. I haven't said terrorists would flourish under Kerry, either. "Flourish" is an absolute term; all I've spoken of in this thread has been in relative terms. Who would they rather have in charge? Who would they do better under? That doesn't mean they'll flourish under anyone, only that they'll do better under one guy than another -- but "better" can mean "die more slowly" as easily as it can mean "flourish".

I wouldn't dare to make the argument that terrorists would "flourish" under any president in this part of the world. I think if they get close to the point of flourishing, the whole world will come after them, because nobody wants terrorists to flourish. But I have argued, and I will continue to argue, that terrorists would do somewhat better under Kerry than under Bush. This is because Bush understands what this war is all about, and Kerry doesn't (though I fully expect this point to fall on the deaf ears of others who don't understand what this war is about.) Kerry might do an OK job of keeping terrorism basically under control, but he hasn't given any indication he'd go farther than that. He'll probably do an OK job in Iraq, but he hasn't given any indication he understands the war beyond Iraq. His average position seems to be that you respond to terrorist actions to keep terrorists in check, which overall isn't the worst we could do. But it's not the best we can do, either -- not by a long shot. Bush's position is that you keep going after the terrorists, and you shut down their support networks, and you bring hope to people who might otherwise become terrorists. Is that the best we can do? I don't know. But I haven't heard better, yet. If someone comes up with a better solution, I'm sure Bush would be glad to hear it.

Bush will be more effective against Islamikazeism than Kerry. Dodge it all you want; dismiss it all you want. The one thing you can't do is argue it. (Or, if you can, you've hidden it very well.) That is the way reality is.

Yeah, yeah, that's "just my opinion". But it's a pretty solid opinion, with the reasoning all laid out for you to criticize if you can spot any flaws in it. So, take your best shot, and see how it holds up.

oh yes, and by the way:

[url=http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/hezbollah.html]Hezbolla's[/url] Secretary General [url=http://www.prominentlebanese.com/party_leaders/nasrallah_hassan.asp]Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah[/url], in [url=http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=324481&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y]this article[/url], wrote: "The resistance movement [against the U.S. in Iraq] may not be able to remove the U.S. from Iraq within a year, but it will be able to remove Bush, [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld and [National Security Adviser] Condoleezza Rice, together with their Zionist friends, from the White House,"

That's hardly evidence that supports your claims Lothar. Perhaps it may be part of the solution?

lol...

My claim was that terrorists would rather have Kerry than Bush in the white house. The quote is a terrorist sayin he'd rather have Kerry than Bush in the white house. How exactly does that "not support my claims"?

Lothar, lets take a look at the article again. "LOL" Yeah. Okay? Where does it say he would rather have Kerry? It doesn't.

Whatever you beliveve, you must admit that it could be at least REMOTELY possible that a large number of these insurgents are the result of what's called "disproportionate warfare".

Many people suffer the folly of lumping all of those who commit violence against America into the same group. While that may be cognitively and emotionally easier, it is not the appropriate point of view from which we will establish a lasting peace.

Bin Laden wants to escalate things into a full on muslim war vs. the USA. The only way to do that is to incite other countries to join in his fight. Attacking more muslim countries and a long stay in Iraq could play into that plot. Bush will probably want to invade more places, which MAY be up bin laden's alley.

I am not saying that Bush is better for bin laden, but I also don't definitively see that Kerry is better for bin laden.

Bird, Bin Laden wants a war against the west. That is basically the whole of the christian world. America is the best first offense as when america falls the other countries will be easy pickings. The terrorii want nothing more than a taliban type world govt. with guess who as the spiritual leader.
Kerry made the claim that terrorist are pouring into Iraq as though it was a bad thing. Well Iraq is a place where I'd rather have the big jihad fought than over here.

hey lothar? If something turns out to be illogical... does it make sense to actually engage it?

Birdseye wrote:Bin Laden wants to escalate things into a full on muslim war vs. the USA. The only way to do that is to incite other countries to join in his fight. Attacking more muslim countries and a long stay in Iraq could play into that plot. Bush will probably want to invade more places, which MAY be up bin laden's alley.

I am not saying that Bush is better for bin laden, but I also don't definitively see that Kerry is better for bin laden.

Hmmm. Somehow this concept isn't coming into focus for me. I just can't imagine OBL sitting around with his buddies, trying to figure out how to provoke the United States into a full scale land, sea, and air attack against them, with a view toward invoking a broader middle east conflict. Seems to me OBL's stated issue has always had to do with western infidels running around barefoot on his "holy land". I could be wrong (but I'm not).

This is an illuminating thread, because it *should* divide along two lines pretty cleanly. Straddling the fence, however, seems to be the best the dems and lefties can do, from what I'm reading.

Some of the less savvy are relegated to trying to spar with Lothar over points of logic . . . which is a bit like bringing pointy stick to a tankfight, then hiding behind a rock and shouting mean things at the tank, isn't it?

Let's be honest here. Any card-carrying Jihadist in his right mind would far prefer the anti-war democratic candidate to George W. Bush, a treacherous fanatical American cowboy with a track-record to prove it. You guys can't argue on this board (for what now, two years?) that GWB is a twisted, overly-aggressive war-loving maniac, and then later try to seriously posit that Osama and Muhammad and Akbar and the rest of those Islamo-fascist jackasses aren't likely to take the same view.

Good try, nevertheless. Keep those cards and letters coming.

BD

America is the best first offense as when america falls the other countries will be easy pickings.
-Woodchip

I think you mistyped that, but I get what you mean. I don't disagree with the idea, I just didn't see the Al qaeda/saddam connection.

Kerry made the claim that terrorist are pouring into Iraq as though it was a bad thing. Well Iraq is a place where I'd rather have the big jihad fought than over here.
-woody

I wish I could say that all the terrorists will be in iraq at the same time and we could get them all. I fear this may organize some factions even better unless we really finish them off. Iraq is a huge gamble--let's hope it pays off. Either we can get a democracy going and improve things, or we exacerbate the situation.

Hmmm. Somehow this concept isn't coming into focus for me. I just can't imagine OBL sitting around with his buddies, trying to figure out how to provoke the United States into a full scale land, sea, and air attack against them, with a view toward invoking a broader middle east conflict. Seems to me OBL's stated issue has always had to do with western infidels running around barefoot on his "holy land". I could be wrong (but I'm not). -BD

Perhaps then you could point me to Osama Bin Laden's stated reasons (in his own words) since you are so clearly in the understanding?

This is an illuminating thread, because it *should* divide along two lines pretty cleanly. Straddling the fence, however, seems to be the best the dems and lefties can do, from what I'm reading.

Why should anything divide on party lines? That's silly, static thinking. I think when things aren't strictly partisan, that is when people are actually thinking. Believe me, I constantly am second guessing my own positons, and I am pulling very hard for democracy in Iraq. I just fear the worst, and president doesn't seem to be forthright about the situation during the election season. People like McCain and Hagel are telling us the real deal.

As far as I can tell, the republicans aren't completely divided on party line in their criticism of the war. Does this make McCain or Hagel's position that Bush is being less than forthright about the reality of the war any less correct because they aren't *towing the line*? Absolutely not.

Let's be honest here. Any card-carrying Jihadist in his right mind would far prefer the anti-war democratic candidate to George W. Bush, a treacherous fanatical American cowboy with a track-record to prove it. You guys can't argue on this board (for what now, two years?) that GWB is a twisted, overly-aggressive war-loving maniac, and then later try to seriously posit that Osama and Muhammad and Akbar and the rest of those Islamo-fascist jackasses aren't likely to take the same view.

Let's be honest here: the situation is not black and white. There are some jihadists who would prefer bush, some who would prefer kerry, and some who are indifferent. The quantity of each however is up for debate.

Of course the jihadists think Bush is a war loving maniac. But I'm sure that perception has carried over to the american people--after all, we elected him. Why does Kerry really change that perception?

Birdseye wrote:

Seems to me OBL's stated issue has always had to do with western infidels running around barefoot on his "holy land". I could be wrong (but I'm not). -BD

Perhaps then you could point me to Osama Bin Laden's stated reasons (in his own words) since you are so clearly in the understanding?

Not biting on that one. You're old enough to do your own research. I'll give you a hint though -- try googling "Osama Bin Laden" and "Fatwah" and "1998".

Birdseye wrote:

This is an illuminating thread, because it *should* divide along two lines pretty cleanly. Straddling the fence, however, seems to be the best the dems and lefties can do, from what I'm reading.

(Snip paragraph)

As far as I can tell, the republicans aren't completely divided on party line in their criticism of the war. Does this make McCain or Hagel's position that Bush is being less than forthright about the reality of the war any less correct because they aren't *towing the line*? Absolutely not.

Straw man, Mr. B. Say it with me: "Arguing with myself only ensures I will kick my own butt."

Birdseye wrote:

Let's be honest here. Any card-carrying Jihadist in his right mind would far prefer the anti-war democratic candidate to George W. Bush, a treacherous fanatical American cowboy with a track-record to prove it. You guys can't argue on this board (for what now, two years?) that GWB is a twisted, overly-aggressive war-loving maniac, and then later try to seriously posit that Osama and Muhammad and Akbar and the rest of those Islamo-fascist jackasses aren't likely to take the same view.

Let's be honest here: the situation is not black and white. There are some jihadists who would prefer bush, some who would prefer kerry, and some who are indifferent. The quantity of each however is up for debate.(Emphasis added.)

I guess I thought that's what the thread was discussing. I accept there there might be the odd jihadist, who would prefer Bush be elected, rather than Kerry. It is my opinion, however, that this view would not be held by a majority of those brave, hooded, head-slicing jihadists -- but then, I don't have a Birdseye View.

If you believe otherwise, or prefer to think it's probably closer to 50-50, that's up to you, of course. Personally, I have a hard time seeing it as a serious point of disagreement. And for the Kerry crowd, it shouldn't be a deal-breaker anyway, since Kerry's base is largely opposed to the war in Iraq.

Don't hate the player,

BD

"Perhaps then you could point me to Osama Bin Laden's stated reasons (in his own words) since you are so clearly in the understanding?" Bird

Bird, while BD points out where to go for OBL statements, the following may be a more chilling view of the terrorist philosophy:

From Time Mag:

"On one tape, a man named Sheik Abu Anas al-Shami, one of al-Zarqawi's key commanders and a member of the organization's religious committee, preaches that any nation built on secular principles is "in the light of Islamic law a tyrannical infidel and blasphemous state."

So here we have the terrorists definition of whom their enemy is. Then they go on as to what the punishiment may be:

"Anyone associated with it, he continuesâ??especially soldiers and police, whether or not they are good Muslimsâ??may be murdered, as "they do not represent themselves; they are means in the hands of the tyrants." Even Muslims "who pray" may be slaughtered to punish the Iraqi government or U.S. forces. "If the infidels have good people among them, and our fighting against them necessitates annihilating these good people, we are permitted to kill them because we are ordered (by God) to do so," he says. A second tape (both are undated) obtained by Time purportedly records the voice of al-Zarqawi describing U.S. forces as "oppressors" and "doglike aliens" and criticizing the Western media for denigrating the will and character of Muslims."

In view of these comments, I'm not sure how anyone can straddle a fence with regards to exterminating these butchers in religious cloth. It is quite clear the war on terror is a religious war. The terrorist understand this, it is time the christians in the west understand this also.

I wish to God those slugs would wake up and smell the 21st century...

Ah, nice one bold--you claim you know what bin laden and the terrorists think (I don't) but you can't back it up.

I like how now on the dBB the straw man claim is becoming the real straw man

Will the real straw man please stand up.

You act like you've never seen a straw man before
shorten' sentences galore
Talking points straight from the congress floor

there's a million little posts that are just like me
Who say things just like me,
I can't tell if I'm reading Bash or DCrazy
It just might be the next best thing, but not quite me!

I need to sleep more

haha, nice Goob.

Birdseye wrote:Ah, nice one bold--you claim you know what bin laden and the terrorists think (I don't) but you can't back it up.

I like how now on the dBB the straw man claim is becoming the real straw man

Hmmm. Aw BirdDude. In my own, bearlike hopeful kind of way, I think highly of you, m'man. So I thought you had to know this information, but you know - that's my fault. When I was in college I didn't have half your interest in this stuff.

ON THE OTHER HAND -- I gave you the hint!!! C'mon man, even my little 4-year-old niece in Dallas can google a few words, for heck's sake.

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm

Now! Any clever tricky responses will be graded on creativity alone. No extra credit for slithering around, trying to avoid the obvious.

The Big Brother You Always Hoped For,

BD

P.S. Goob: No rapping in the house. Take that gibberish outside, and put your baseball cap on straight for crissake.

lol

Bold Deceiver wrote: P.S. Goob: No rapping in the house. Take that gibberish outside, and put your baseball cap on straight for crissake.

What is with this republican insistance of defending oneself with stupidity?

Goob's a republican?!?

LOL Will.....

I'm not going to read through your essays of repetitive nonsense, but all I have to say is this.

We can tell that our presidential candidates are worse than they've ever been before because we're now judging who to vote for based on who our enemy wouldn't vote for.

I fear the future, no matter who wins.

Goob's a republican?!?

Come on now, no insults

Will Robinson wrote:Goob's a republican?!?

if you are having problem figuring out the stupid in the comment i directly quoted, well, i can only tell this to you in one way: fyad.

Vertigo 99 wrote:

Bold Deceiver wrote: P.S. Goob: No rapping in the house. Take that gibberish outside, and put your baseball cap on straight for crissake.

What is with this republican insistance (sic) of defending oneself with stupidity?

And you there, tuck in your shirt.

Yer Republican Amigo,

BD

At least most conservative comments are at what was said rather then who said themâ?¦

OMFG IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RAP ITSELF YOU IDIOTS IM TALKING ABOUT BD'S REPLY

wow

Beowulf wrote:I'm not going to read through your essays of repetitive nonsense, but all I have to say is this.

We can tell that our presidential candidates are worse than they've ever been before because we're now judging who to vote for based on who our enemy wouldn't vote for.

I fear the future, no matter who wins.

Unfortunately for you, you have shown your naiveness and lack of education in the subject matter since most of the American voter's decision is NOT based on that generalized assumption.

Take a social studies class for God's sake.