Bin Laden would vote for Bush.

Bush is the best thing that ever happened to the radical Islamic movement, he supplies them with scores of new recruits, ready to fight the U.S. who they see as aggressive occupiers.

As Reuters reported an letter from an al-Qaeda group said �it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader �more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. � Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation. � Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected.� It seems pretty clear this isn�t reverse psychology.

www.aaronsw.com...

So, cast your vote for Bush, Bin Laden will thank you for it!

Gee, I sorta thought that 10 out of 10 Terrorist agree, anyone but Bush was correct.

Originally posted by jrsdls
Gee, I sorta thought that 10 out of 10 Terrorist agree, anyone but Bush was correct.

I'm sure they just hate being supplied new recruits hand over fist, who may not have supported them before, but since the world is forced to see this as a holy war, thanks to Bush's taking orders directly from God, young muslim men are pretty much forced to fight. Yeah, they hate Bush.

Don't fall for this load of mule muffins. Radical Islam is on the run and they are desparately doing everything they can to get the heat off, even by playing a most unsophisticated game of "reverse psychology."

This is the most laughable statement I have heard in years. It is from a "purported letter" from al Qaeda.

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."

Certainly, no one is going to dispute Kerry's propensity for embellishment or blasphemy.

Reuters. Opheera McDoom. Is she related to the Hamburglar?



[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

have to agree that OBL would vote for Bush is a silly topic..

Besides.. where would he register to vote?

Wraith

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Don't fall for this load of mule muffins.

LOL! Mule muffins!

I tend to agree with Grady... this is some pretty transparent propaganda.

Wow, Grady, I thought you HATED George W Bush!
I would never have expected you to defend him!

Don't fall for this load of mule muffins. Radical Islam is on the run and they are desparately doing everything they can to get the heat off, even by playing a most unsophisticated game of "reverse psychology."

True, but he's right about one thing....Bush is an idiot....

Of course, Bin Laden voting for Bush (assuming, for argument, that he could), is about as likely as a Hitler being revered in Jerusalem...

I think people may be taking the title a bit too seriously, not to say Bin Laden will PERSONALLY vote for Bush, LOL, but he does support their agenda. Of course he's not personally going to vote for Bush, he's just relying on America to do it for him.

[edit on 9-9-2004 by 27jd]

Don't like those sources? How about a "fair and balanced" one:

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

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.

www.foxnews.com...


[edit on 9-9-2004 by 27jd]

The United States believes the Abu Hafs group lacks credibility and has only tenuous ties to Al Qaeda (search). In the past, the group has claimed responsibility for events to which they were not connected � such as last summer's blackouts in North America and Britain. www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The United States believes the Abu Hafs group lacks credibility and has only tenuous ties to Al Qaeda (search). In the past, the group has claimed responsibility for events to which they were not connected � such as last summer's blackouts in North America and Britain. www.foxnews.com...

Wow, that's a surprise, I would expect the Bush administration to fully acknowledge this group, and their support for Bush's re-election.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In the past, the group has claimed responsibility for events to which they were not connected � such as last summer's blackouts in North America and Britain. www.foxnews.com...

This is the operative sentence.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This is the operative sentence.

What exactly does that have to do with them being a radical Islamic group that has clearly laid out their reasoning for backing Bush? How many groups claim responsibility for acts they did not commit? On the flipside, how do we know they didn't cause the blackout? Oh yeah, the government would never lie, or cover-up such an event to prevent panic, or the realization that they did not adequately protect the power grid. This not thinking for myself thing really works out.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
In the past, the group has claimed responsibility for events to which they were not connected � such as last summer's blackouts in North America and Britain. www.foxnews.com...

This statement is the word of the Associated Press. Presumably, this is a well known fact and the government, knowing this, is reluctant to believe the current statement.

Why don't you look it up, instead of ragging me about it? Do you have Google?

[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
This statement is the word of the Associated Press. Presumably, this is a well known fact and the government, knowing this, is reluctant to believe the current statement.

Why don't you look it up, instead of ragging me about it? Do you have Google?

[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

You scoff Reuters, but not AP? OK. Anyways, I guess I could easily just "Google" up proof, and blow the lid off a possible major cover-up by the U.S. government, sure.

Well, you could Google up something. I was pointing out that the statement was not that of the government. As for Reuters and the AP, they're both suspect, but at least AP looked just a little deeper than Opheera McDoom did.

[edit on 04/9/9 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Well, you could Google up something. I was pointing out that the statement was not that of the government. As for Reuters and the AP, their both suspect, but at least AP looked just a little deeper than Opheera McDoom

did.

OK. I did Google up another article supporting my belief, an interview with an anonymous senior U.S. intelligence official:

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

www.guardian.co.uk...

Bias or not, the point is clear, and it makes perfect sense (to me anyway).

Well, I'm certainly not in a position to argue. I do have to wonder about this particular anonymous source, however and his motives. But if al Qaeda wants Bush to remain President, it wouldn't be the first mistake they ever made. Maybe al Qaeda is banking on a leftist revolt and has been reading about that "time machine guy."

What mistake did Al Queda make? We have not captured Bin Laden, on the contrary, he has gained a windfall of support. We may have taken out a few leaders, but just like the Hydra, new heads have grown in, these ones younger and more saavy to the new world. Instead of Al Queda being a fairly centralized organization in Afghanistan, we scattered them all over the world, extending their reach and their recruitment of Muslims angry over the percieved war against Islam, and the unjustified war in Iraq (Bush's fault, not the soldiers). Bush is the best thing that happened to Al Queda. Bin Laden is likely living comfortably in the tribal regions of Pakistan, revered as a god most likely, waiting for Al Queda to make it's next big move against the U.S. which we will probably never see coming, just like 9/11.