The official Election Day 2006 thread!

[trevster2k]

30 October 2006

Thinking Like A Terrorist

By Gwynne Dyer

What are they thinking, those terrorists who hate America's values,
as the United States prepares to vote in the mid-term Congressional
elections? Do they think that a terrorist bomb somewhere in the United
States in the next few days would drive Americans back into President
Bush's arms, or discredit his strategies further? And which result would
they prefer: do they want the Republicans to lose control of Congress or
not?

To discuss these questions sensibly, you must first accept that
terrorists are not just hate-filled crazies. They are people with
political goals and rational (though vicious) strategies for achieving
them. Military officers and intelligence experts know this -- they even
study the strategy and tactics of terrorism in the staff colleges -- but it
is not often recognised in the public debate. So lay your prejudices aside
for a moment, and try to think like a terrorist.

Happily, a document has come into my hands that will help us to
figure out their strategy. True, it reads like a script written for an
amateur dramatic society, but it comes from one of the Western intelligence
agencies that certified the existence of weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, so there can be little doubt about its authenticity. I have taken
the liberty of translating it into English.

A heavily guarded compound in Waziristan. Three bearded men in robes enter
the courtyard.

Osama bin Laden (for it is he): So do we blow something up in America
before the election this time, or not? We skipped 2002 and 2004. Surely it
wouldn't hurt to do something this time.

First Henchman: Well, I don't know, boss. Not blowing more stuff up in
America has worked for us so far. Bush got the credit for keeping the
terrorists away, and that gave him the freedom to invade Iraq, and so the
Americans never put enough troops into Afghanistan, and now they're losing
both wars. I say leave him alone. It's coming along just fine.

Second Henchman: Besides, we don't really have....

OBL (interrupting): I bought that argument in 2002, and I bought it again
in 2004, but now it's different. Bush will be in power until 2008 no
matter how Americans vote, so the US soldiers will still be pinned down in
Iraq until then anyway. He's not going to pull them out. And he's not
going to send a lot more troops to Afghanistan, either, no matter who
controls Congress, so our Taliban friends will be all right. We have
nothing to lose. Let's blow something up. It will humiliate the Americans
and make us look good.

Second Henchman: That's all very well, but...

First Henchman (interrupting): You know, I think the boss is right. It
can't hurt now. Activate the sleeper cells in America, and have them blow
up a few car bombs.

Second Henchman: Will you stop talking and listen for a minute! We don't
have any sleeper cells in America. We never did. We had to bring the 9/11
guys in from abroad, and they're all dead. This whole discussion is
pointless, and furthermore... [At this point the transcript ends]

On second thought, I do wonder if this document is entirely
genuine. There's something about the style that doesn't sound quite right.
But the logic is exactly right: this is how terrorists think.

The 9/11 attacks on the United States were meant to provoke an
American military response. The point was to lure Washington into invading
Afghanistan (where Bin Laden's bases were), so that they would become
trapped in another long guerilla war like the one he and his colleagues had
waged (with US support) against the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in the
1980s. The images from such a war, of high-tech American forces smashing
Afghan villages and families, would reverberate across the Muslim world and
radicalise so many people that the Islamist revolutions Bin Laden dreamed
of would at last become possible.

George W. Bush dodged that bullet by overthrowing the Taliban
regime without causing vast destruction in Afghanistan (it was done almost
entirely by American special forces and their local allies), so there was
no guerilla war there at first. Bin Laden's gamble had failed. But then
Bush invaded Iraq, providing Arab extremists with the guerilla war they
wanted and images of horror in profusion. He even abandoned most of the
effort to rebuild Afghanistan in order to concentrate on Iraq, so the
Taliban got the chance to recover there too.

That's were we are now, and Osama Bin Laden really has not the
least incentive to try to discredit President Bush with the American
electorate by carrying out further terrorist attacks. The project is on
track, and the Americans will be largely gone from the Middle East in a few
years anyway.

And besides, there are no sleeper cells in America. There never
were.

 

[80sU2isBest]

The "pro-life" side assumes the embryo/fetus is a living human being and likes to paint the opposition as supporting murder.
(What they either don't know, or don't want to admitt is that the other side is surely not advocating murder--they are not convinced that the embryo or fetus can be considered a living human being. Even some of the posts supporting the pro-choice POV on this thread make this clear).

Well heck, excuse me for calling the killing of babies "murder". Perhaps it would make you feel better if I used the more generic and sterile term "termination of pregnancy".

In the end, it still means the same thing. An innocent human life is ended. How can anyone look at a detailed fetal development timeline, maycocksean, seeing how early vital systems and organs are developed in a fetus, and still say that fetus is not a human life?

If the pro-lifers want to change people's minds they've got to start focusing on convincing pro-choicers that they are taking human life, rather than just labeling them "baby killers".

If you don't think I do that, you have not been paying attention to me at all in reference to this subject. Almost every time I argue against abortion, I tell people to have a look at a detailed fetal development timeline to see that the fetus is a human life. I have also on occasions pointed out that the vast majority of embryologists say that human life begins at conception, and have even quoted some of them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The ontogeny of a most chordates is the same during most of the embryo's early development, it is pretty damn generic at that stage.

 

[80sU2isBest]

the group voiced its support for the reelection of President Bush, who, according to the statement, "deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

http://mediamatters.org/items/200407090004


The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

Parts of the statement were released Wednesday night by the editor of another London-based Arabic newspaper, Al Hayat. The editor read parts of the statement to The Associated Press in Cairo.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114489,00.html

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/10/29/142954/98

Good research, but that's now what I asked for.

Look at this declaration he used:

"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The key phrase is "upcoming elections". This terrorist wanted to influence voters, alright, but in the exact opposite way in which he stated. Do you think that this terrorist would think that Americans would vote for the candidate his terrorist organization endorsed? No, of course not. He knows that Americans hate terrorists as much as they hate America. This man didn't want Bush as President; if he had, he would have kept his mouth shut, not publicly supported him.

 

[80sU2isBest]

One of my dearest friends, someone who use to post here, her sister had to have a late term abortion to save her life. It's the hardest thing she's ever had to deal with. I by no means would ever relate anything satanic about her she's one of the closest things to God I know on this planet.

Was it a partial birth aborion?

 

[najeena]

Good research, but that's now what I asked for.

Look at this declaration he used:

"We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The key phrase is "upcoming elections". This terrorist wanted to influence voters, alright, but in the exact opposite way in which he stated. Do you think that this terrorist would think that Americans would vote for the candidate his terrorist organization endorsed? No, of course not. He knows that Americans hate terrorists as much as they hate America. This man didn't want Bush as President; if he had, he would have kept his mouth shut, not publicly supported him.

I didn't vote according to what the terrorists wanted, I voted for the betterment of my country.

 

[BonosSaint]

The key phrase is "upcoming elections". This terrorist wanted to influence voters, alright, but in the exact opposite way in which he stated. Do you think that this terrorist would think that Americans would vote for the candidate his terrorist organization endorsed? No, of course not. He knows that Americans hate terrorists as much as they hate America. This man didn't want Bush as President; if he had, he would have kept his mouth shut, not publicly supported him.

You asked for statements from terrorists. I am absolutely aware that you asked for post election statements. Couldn't find any, so I don't know whether they are out there or not.

Let's see, we should believe that the terrorists are speaking the absolute truth when it suits your ideology and are absolutely lying when they serve the other's ideology. Personally, I don't believe them one way or another. There is fundamentally no difference in the way they hedge their bets. Either way they declare a win. They are politicians after all. With the possible exception of the Fox devotees, nobody was voting on what the terrorists were saying. Like any good politician, the terrorist seeks to influence perception. Now whether you are wrong or right in how the terrorists are thinking (also assuming they are all lockstep in thought with one another), perception has yet to be determined to be reality.

 

[verte76]

I didn't vote the straight Democratic ticket because the terrorists were supporting them. I voted them because I wanted new leadership in this country.

 

[Varitek]

A response to several pages back where somebody said that raising the min. wage is bad because companies won't hire as many people:

Yeah, you took intro micro in college so you think you know better than people who spend their careers studying this. Let's start with the fact that raising the minimum wage will allow some people to work only 2 jobs insstead of 3, or only 1 instead of 2, thus making it less necessary for companies to hire more people. Couple this with health care reform and the point becomes stronger. Further, if you look at it from a more complex perspective, in some sectors raising the min wage (and thus people cutting back on the hours they work) will raise productivity, which is advantageous to companies and will mean they are getting their money's worth.

 

[redhotswami]

A response to several pages back where somebody said that raising the min. wage is bad because companies won't hire as many people:

Yeah, you took intro micro in college so you think you know better than people who spend their careers studying this. Let's start with the fact that raising the minimum wage will allow some people to work only 2 jobs insstead of 3, or only 1 instead of 2, thus making it less necessary for companies to hire more people. Couple this with health care reform and the point becomes stronger. Further, if you look at it from a more complex perspective, in some sectors raising the min wage (and thus people cutting back on the hours they work) will raise productivity, which is advantageous to companies and will mean they are getting their money's worth.

So I have another sister in low-wage reform!!

You addressed a bit of what I talked about before, and then added more to it. That's so awesome! I've studied it quite a bit myself. I'm hoping that Webb follows through on his promise to raise it.

 

[BVS]

I don't deny that he insulted Bush. I would expect no less of him. These terrorists have shown us in the past how cocky they are, even at times when they were facing immenint catastrophe - remember the "Minister Of Disinformation" who kept insisting that the allies weren't anywhere close to Baghdad and were losing, even as the walls around him were falling down?



Terrorists do not love America, they hate America, and yet he specifically congratulated the American People on how they voted in the elections. Do you think this congration was because he actually felt any good will or empathy toward the United States? No, of course not! In that same article, he vowed to burn down the White House. If he considered Bush and the Republicans a failure in the war on terror, he would want them to remain in office. He wouldn't be rejoicing that they had been replaced.

I love this post. You recognise the cockiness and disinformation in the first part of the post but then you take their word when it suits your agenda.

 

[BVS]

Was it a partial birth aborion?

Partial birth is a non-medical term. I don't know the exact procedure that was used, it's not exactly something you ask someone in that scenario.

 

[dazzledbylight]

No of course we won't. Why would we apologize to the world? Most of the world loves the election results. Especially the terrorists.

Listen up 8ui.......................

I don't know how old you are, where you are, and where your various friends & families hail from/live now..............


I AM a born & bred New Yorker. I spent/spend alot of time in Lower Manhattan, for fun & work. Includinga year in the World Trade Towers - South#2 tower yrs before The Atrocity.

On the 73rd floor facing the plaza there in the NorthEast Corner office. [WHAT A gorgoeus 50 mile or more view ~ like being on a little MOUNTAIN//[I've breen in the <USA> Rockies]. The windows went from below the floor to right up past the ceiling.You could look RIGHT DOWN to the central Plaza below-- kind of like standing right at the edge of the glass part of the floor in the big tower in Toronto/Canada.

SO.......between real expereince, the photos/tv footage and my VERY vivid imagination ......... I pretty much KNOW what those people saw in the higher parts of the south tower when they were looking down at the pLAZA after the 1ST PLANE HIT.

I SAW the pulverized cloud of plastic, concrete & metal & bone of the second tower collaspe rising over the buildings FROM about a mile or 2 further away.
LAter in the day that very same cloud and it further part streamed hight above ...which i could see OUT MY livingroom WINDOW.

I SAW my CITY part of it in ruins, MY PEOPLE in ANqUISH/injury & death..

BeTWEEN my 2 closest circles we had TWO DIRECT near-misses that day, one whom WOUld have BEEN dead....b/c they were up on the north tower 100 something floor and had too strong asthma to be able get down the stairs.
One of my dear sister's dearest adult friends. ANDanOTHER stopped for extra coffee.

If the 3rd other one had been in the tower that day[ there off & on} they could have died.A person very close to my mom...MY mom could have had a secere trauma attack over that, possible disability because of the shock/grief.

I cant even finish becAuase my library comp is going to log me out

I did something i normally don't do--- spent the extra money to get a guest pass to library to log on again & finish my post.........

SO.............DON'T. You. Question. MY. anger at the Terorists.


AMERICAN/ PROUD LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

 

[Varitek]

^ Good post. Just because we're liberal doesn't mean we aren't angry as all hell at the terrorists just like the rest of the country (and maybe more for people like Dazzledbylight). And just because we don't believe in human rights violations doesn't mean we're soft on terrorism.

So I have another sister in low-wage reform!!

You addressed a bit of what I talked about before, and then added more to it. That's so awesome! I've studied it quite a bit myself. I'm hoping that Webb follows through on his promise to raise it.

Yeah it's in the dem's first 100 hours plan. Hopefully it'll go through finally. Of course I live in a state where the min wage is 8.25 and I go :shock: when I think about a 4.25 or whatever it is nationally, even though I know costs of living are different.

 

[U2democrat]

Thanks for your post dazzled...anyone suggesting that Dems are terrorist appeasers makes me sick to my stomach.

Democrats are AMERICANS first, Democrats second. They would never EVER want or allow another attack. We ALL lost loved ones on 9-11, and we ALL continue to lose loved ones overseas, whether they're "red" or "blue".

Anyone who believes the terrorists are better off with Dems in power is falling into the terrorists' trap, they are dividing us. I for one think the terrorists should be terrified with Dems OR Republicans in power. Got it? Good.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Listen up 8ui.......................

I don't know how old you are, where you are, and where your various friends & families hail from/live now..............


I AM a born & bred New Yorker. I spent/spend alot of time in Lower Manhattan, for fun & work. Includinga year in the World Trade Towers - South#2 tower yrs before The Atrocity.

On the 73rd floor facing the plaza there in the NorthEast Corner office. [WHAT A gorgoeus 50 mile or more view ~ like being on a little MOUNTAIN//[I've breen in the <USA> Rockies]. The windows went from below the floor to right up past the ceiling.You could look RIGHT DOWN to the central Plaza below-- kind of like standing right at the edge of the glass part of the floor in the big tower in Toronto/Canada.

SO.......between real expereince, the photos/tv footage and my VERY vivid imagination ......... I pretty much KNOW what those people saw in the higher parts of the south tower when they were looking down at the pLAZA after the 1ST PLANE HIT.

I SAW the pulverized cloud of plastic, concrete & metal & bone of the second tower collaspe rising over the buildings FROM about a mile or 2 further away.
LAter in the day that very same cloud and it further part streamed hight above ...which i could see OUT MY livingroom WINDOW.

I SAW my CITY part of it in ruins, MY PEOPLE in ANqUISH/injury & death..

BeTWEEN my 2 closest circles we had TWO DIRECT near-misses that day, one whom WOUld have BEEN dead....b/c they were up on the north tower 100 something floor and had too strong asthma to be able get down the stairs.
One of my dear sister's dearest adult friends. ANDanOTHER stopped for extra coffee.

If the 3rd other one had been in the tower that day[ there off & on} they could have died.A person very close to my mom...MY mom could have had a secere trauma attack over that, possible disability because of the shock/grief.

I cant even finish becAuase my library comp is going to log me out

I did something i normally don't do--- spent the extra money to get a guest pass to library to log on again & finish my post.........

SO.............DON'T. You. Question. MY. anger at the Terorists.


AMERICAN/ PROUD LIBERAL DEMOCRAT.

I'm 39 years old...and...

I DIDN'T QUESTION YOUR ANGER AT TERRORISTS.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Let's see, we should believe that the terrorists are speaking the absolute truth when it suits your ideology and are absolutely lying when they serve the other's ideology

Pre-election and post-election are 2 completely different scenarios. They aren't trying to influence an election now, and that's why they are so transparent about their glee that the Dems won. Before an election, if they're trying to influence the American vote, they aren't going to tell the American people who they think will be tougher on them.

 

[80sU2isBest]

A response to several pages back where somebody said that raising the min. wage is bad because companies won't hire as many people:

Yeah, you took intro micro in college so you think you know better than people who spend their careers studying this. Let's start with the fact that raising the minimum wage will allow some people to work only 2 jobs insstead of 3, or only 1 instead of 2, thus making it less necessary for companies to hire more people. Couple this with health care reform and the point becomes stronger. Further, if you look at it from a more complex perspective, in some sectors raising the min wage (and thus people cutting back on the hours they work) will raise productivity, which is advantageous to companies and will mean they are getting their money's worth.

I didn't take intro micro in college. In fact, I dropped the only economics course I ever took in college.

Have you spent you entire career studying this? If so or even if not, you do realize that there are other experts who disagree with you, don't you?

 

[80sU2isBest]

I love this post. You recognise the cockiness and disinformation in the first part of the post but then you take their word when it suits your agenda.

BVS, I've answered this already for someone else, but I'll go ahead and post it again for you.

They aren't trying to influence a an election now, and that's why they are so transparent about their glee that the Dems won. Before an election, if they're trying to influence the American vote, they aren't going to tell the American people who they think will be tougher on them. Pre-election and post-election are 2 completely different scenarios.

 

[BVS]

BVS, I've answered this already for someone else, but I'll go ahead and post it again for you.

They aren't trying to influence a an election now, and that's why they are so transparent about their glee that the Dems won. Before an election, if they're trying to influence the American vote, they aren't going to tell the American people who they think will be tougher on them. Pre-election and post-election are 2 completely different scenarios.

They are still trying to influence, they influence fear. This is what they do, the fact that you are buying it, is insane.

You said earlier that it wasn't a lie you were sold but actions taken by Dems.

Let me ask you this: in the past 2 decades how many lives have we lost by attacks or war under Republican, and how many have we lost by Dems? For this would be the only way to truthfully say what actions are defending us better, right?

 

[BonosSaint]

Oh, come on. Do you think the terrorists really thought they were going to influence elections by a little bit of taunting? It doesn't really matter to me who the terrorists want in power. Personally, I think they are more annoyed by his swagger than his competence. Maybe if he were doing well in Iraq....maybe if we had sent in half a million troops like any realistic leader would have done once we decided we were going in anyway. Maybe if he had some freaking plan to protect our ports, our nuclear facilities or otherwise secure this country other than thwarting American law with questionable intelligence activity when apparently we are not really bright about interpreting vague intelligence like BIN LADEN TO ATTACK UNITED STATES. Maybe if we had invested our money and time and blood in going after the people who actually attacked us instead of compromising our troop strength (and our internal security) by occupying a country that didn't attack us and posed no credible threat because we were flying over them all the time and had them fairly successfully boxed in. Perhaps if we hadn't turned a secular, if brutally led, nation not in alliance with the rest of the Middle East into a probable theocracy who will then be ripe for alliance with Iran once we leave, which we will whether we cut and run or cut and saunter. Perhaps if we had taken that huge desire of the soldiers to serve their country after 9/11 and not abused it, maybe recruiters wouldn't have to lie or prey on our young to beef up their forces. Perhaps if we hadn't given the finger to the rest of the world and called Europe "irrelevant" , maybe we could have gotten together a real coalition. Maybe we could have had greater enthusiasm for other countries sharing their intelligence with us if we didn't use it to torture their citizens in error.

Maybe if we understood that we cannot do it alone anymore. Maybe if we understood that 9/11 didn't weaken our standing, but our response to it did. Maybe you don't care about our world standing. That's fine if you are an isolationist nation. Not so fine if you intend on engaging in nation building.

There has not been an attack on American soil in 5 years. There hadn't been an attack on American soil between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 (eight years). Perhaps the strategm is to attack in the year following the installation of any new President.
Or some other timing not of our making. Will they attack again? Probably. I don't think it much matters who is in power.

Sure, I'm afraid of the terrorists. Is the cost of that fight going to be our once perceived moral authority? Is the cost going to be the dismantling of law and checks and balances? Is the choice to be destroyed from without or within? What a fucking choice.

 

[maycocksean]

Oh, come on. Do you think the terrorists really thought they were going to influence elections by a little bit of taunting? It doesn't really matter to me who the terrorists want in power. Personally, I think they are more annoyed by his swagger than his competence. Maybe if he were doing well in Iraq....maybe if we had sent in half a million troops like any realistic leader would have done once we decided we were going in anyway. Maybe if he had some freaking plan to protect our ports, our nuclear facilities or otherwise secure this country other than thwarting American law with questionable intelligence activity when apparently we are not really bright about interpreting vague intelligence like BIN LADEN TO ATTACK UNITED STATES. Maybe if we had invested our money and time and blood in going after the people who actually attacked us instead of compromising our troop strength (and our internal security) by occupying a country that didn't attack us and posed no credible threat because we were flying over them all the time and had them fairly successfully boxed in. Perhaps if we hadn't turned a secular, if brutally led, nation not in alliance with the rest of the Middle East into a probable theocracy who will then be ripe for alliance with Iran once we leave, which we will whether we cut and run or cut and saunter. Perhaps if we had taken that huge desire of the soldiers to serve their country after 9/11 and not abused it, maybe recruiters wouldn't have to lie or prey on our young to beef up their forces. Perhaps if we hadn't given the finger to the rest of the world and called Europe "irrelevant" , maybe we could have gotten together a real coalition. Maybe we could have had greater enthusiasm for other countries sharing their intelligence with us if we didn't use it to torture their citizens in error.

Maybe if we understood that we cannot do it alone anymore. Maybe if we understood that 9/11 didn't weaken our standing, but our response to it did. Maybe you don't care about our world standing. That's fine if you are an isolationist nation. Not so fine if you intend on engaging in nation building.

There has not been an attack on American soil in 5 years. There hadn't been an attack on American soil between the first WTC bombing and 9/11 (eight years). Perhaps the strategm is to attack in the year following the installation of any new President.
Or some other timing not of our making. Will they attack again? Probably. I don't think it much matters who is in power.

Sure, I'm afraid of the terrorists. Is the cost of that fight going to be our once perceived moral authority? Is the cost going to be the dismantling of law and checks and balances? Is the choice to be destroyed from without or within? What a fucking choice.

Dang.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Perhaps governments are run by politicans who don't care and will compromise the fight for political goals. Perhaps only non-state actors can ever deal with terrorists properly engaging in the assassination and disruption by ruthless means that people will not (and should not) accept from their governments. Just stick the bounties out there and pay out for the bodies, a good deal cheaper than fully fledged goverment run programs.

The bipartisan push towards abandoning any Iraqi democratic self-determination and sending them to the wolves (again - see the apathy towards the Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, the stretching out of the Iraq/Iran war and the abandoning of the Shiites to the attack helicopters) vindicates the terrorists (America cannot handle casualties and can be defeated if the perception of a quagmire can be established), it will also condemn all those innocents both within Iraq and beyond who will die because of the swing towards realist isolationism (was it a coincidence that the Rwandan Genocide occured after the firefight in Mogadishu, that no great power was willing to just stop it, just like nobody is stepping in to stop the genocide in Darfur today).

 

[maycocksean]

Perhaps governments are run by politicans who don't care and will compromise the fight for political goals. Perhaps only non-state actors can ever deal with terrorists properly engaging in the assassination and disruption by ruthless means that people will not (and should not) accept from their governments. Just stick the bounties out there and pay out for the bodies, a good deal cheaper than fully fledged goverment run programs.

The bipartisan push towards abandoning any Iraqi democratic self-determination and sending them to the wolves (again - see the apathy towards the Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, the stretching out of the Iraq/Iran war and the abandoning of the Shiites to the attack helicopters) vindicates the terrorists (America cannot handle casualties and can be defeated if the perception of a quagmire can be established), it will also condemn all those innocents both within Iraq and beyond who will die because of the swing towards realist isolationism (was it a coincidence that the Rwandan Genocide occured after the firefight in Mogadishu, that no great power was willing to just stop it, just like nobody is stepping in to stop the genocide in Darfur today).

Lot a good points here.

 

[yolland]

Perhaps only non-state actors can ever deal with terrorists properly engaging in the assassination and disruption by ruthless means that people will not (and should not) accept from their governments. Just stick the bounties out there and pay out for the bodies, a good deal cheaper than fully fledged goverment run programs.

Problem is, then you risk winding up with a government beholden to or comprised of said bounty hunters.

The bipartisan push towards abandoning any Iraqi democratic self-determination and sending them to the wolves (again - see the apathy towards the Anfal campaign of genocide against the Kurds, the stretching out of the Iraq/Iran war and the abandoning of the Shiites to the attack helicopters) vindicates the terrorists (America cannot handle casualties and can be defeated if the perception of a quagmire can be established), it will also condemn all those innocents both within Iraq and beyond who will die because of the swing towards realist isolationism (was it a coincidence that the Rwandan Genocide occured after the firefight in Mogadishu, that no great power was willing to just stop it, just like nobody is stepping in to stop the genocide in Darfur today).

To be extremely cynical though--the situation in Iraq is different in that we're (arguably) likely to wind up needing to go back in again if, as some scenarios predict, a US withdrawal paves the way for Iranian expansionism. Which may in the end be a risk we'll just have to live with, but...

Unfortunately, it's very rare historically for anyone to intervene anywhere "just" to prevent genocide.

 

[maycocksean]

If he considered Bush and the Republicans a failure in the war on terror, he would want them to remain in office. He wouldn't be rejoicing that they had been replaced.

The question is who are they mocking? If they felt the American public was foolish for choosing the Democrats, they would be mocking them, not congratulating them. The following quotes are clearly meant to mock and denigrate our president. They are making fun of his "loss" and any congratulations to the American public is actually a jab directed at president.

Consider these quotes from your article below:

President Bush as a coward whose conduct of the war was rejected at the polls, challenging him to keep U.S. troops in the country to face more bloodshed.

Al-Muhajir praised the American people for handing victory to the Democrats, saying: "They voted for something reasonable in the last elections."

The second quote provides the strongest support for your conclusion that the terrorists support the Democrats, but understood in context of the rest of the article (which I appreicate your integrity in posting. I wouldn't have been able to mount this argument without the rest of the article. The sound bite alone would have served your argument much better, but I appreciate you werent' willing to do that) it's seems clear that is not what was intended. Note the sentence that immediately followed the above quote.

He also said Bush was "the most stupid president" in U.S. history

As you said, the terrorists hate America, and in their bravado they would never suggest that any American leader or leaders is capable of defeating them,no matter which party. So any "congratulations" can only be considered additional mockery of the president and not an endorsement of his opponents.

If you want to argue that the Republican party is stronger on national security, that's fine, but this statement by the terrorists is not the best way to make your point, in my opinion.

 

[maycocksean]

Well heck, excuse me for calling the killing of babies "murder". Perhaps it would make you feel better if I used the more generic and sterile term "termination of pregnancy".

In the end, it still means the same thing. An innocent human life is ended. How can anyone look at a detailed fetal development timeline, maycocksean, seeing how early vital systems and organs are developed in a fetus, and still say that fetus is not a human life?



If you don't think I do that, you have not been paying attention to me at all in reference to this subject. Almost every time I argue against abortion, I tell people to have a look at a detailed fetal development timeline to see that the fetus is a human life. I have also on occasions pointed out that the vast majority of embryologists say that human life begins at conception, and have even quoted some of them.

Ah, 80's, I have the utmost respect for you, I really do. I'm not sure why we're always at loggerheads. . .perhaps we're kind of like Paul and Barnabas. . .

I'm not necessarily challenging your right to call abortion murder if that is indeed what you believe it to be. I'm simply saying that calling your opponents murderers will probably do little to encourage them to come around to your way of thinking. I'm not personally offended by your use of the term murder, but I'm suggesting that if you want to change people's views on abortion you may need to be less confrontational since most of your opponents are not intending to advocate murder (If they were you could be as harsh as you like, I suppose).

For the record, I agree with you. I do think the fetus represents a human life. Talk to any first-time parent pinning their kid's ultrasound on the fridge, and they'll tell you: this is a living human being.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I'm 39 years old...and...

I DIDN'T QUESTION YOUR ANGER AT TERRORISTS.

your previous
statement

most of the world loves the election results.... Esp the terrorists

such a blanket statement could esily be construed to mean...

the world the loves the election results.

well, I LOVE the lection resultds.


So do the terrorists...

therefore ....a very possible interpetation / extrapolation is....i am agreeing with the terrorists.....


it's not such a far fetched assumption ESP when Bush was trying to equate democrates practally with OR supporting terrrosrisrs.

IF you ARE NOT equating domcrats with terrorists or supporting terrorists, then I shouldn't have flared up.

but if you are..

then my staement stands.

 

[dazzledbylight]

I don't doubt that they called him "The Great Satan". They call America in general the "Great Satan" all the time. And if you don't know that, you are the clueless one.

I don't see how that proves they were happy Reagan became President.

And it also does nothing to disprove what I said about the current election; Al Qaeda is happy the Dems are in power because they feel it will benefit them.

Reagan sent his peole to negoatiate with the Iranians before the election to try and get them to NOT release the hostages before the election back then.

ANd why you don't give any credence to is that A LOT of Democrats can handle intellenbence in a smarter way.

How smart is it that Team Bush fired a whole bunch of Arabic Translaters in the INtell or similar depts several months back, because they were gay. Real smart, yeah. because the defict of Translaotrs is STILL there!

PLus they also VERY quietly closed the special sub-dept for hunting Bin-laden a bout a year ago.. Oh yeah el busho really wants to catch the 6 ft plus guy w the dialysis machine dragging behind him.

do you know why at least once why CLINTON DIDN'T go after him? B/c he was with a WHOLE bunch of OTHER MAJOR heads of State in the Arab world. The INtel was spot-on! How smart would it havew been to kill all those OTHER peole then. NG.

 

[verte76]

That's so dumb about them firing the gay Arabic translators.