could this possibly mean kerry will definately get in because Arafat is a major player in the world domination conspiracy? we all know who wins is not really up to the people but whoever will further the agenda the most.

wow this election is becoming more and more scary by the day. If Yasir Arafat endorses Kerry and Arafat is a bad man then that makes Kerry a bad man? Many people will say that Bush is a badboy himself so where does that leave me the voter? I'm so confused, who is the lesser of the 2 evils this year?

Curme is of course on to something.

The terrorists' cause is best supported by seeing Bush remain in power.

Israel is one of the few countries that Bush would win if they were voting. He would also win by a large number. So if the Israeli people want bush it seems to make sense Arafat would want Kerry, if for no other reason then because Israel dosent want Kerry elected.

I guess the Palestinian leader is getting his hope high to see if a new president will listen to the voices of the Palestinian people instead of the Israelis first.

Arafat may be a terrorist, but he leads his people.

John Kerry needs an Arafat endorsement about as much as he needs a hole in his head.

It will be interesting to see if anything gets made of this.

all this gives me a headache too! i wouldn't want to vote for any of the people in power in any country nowadays because the elite have control over them all. If i was an amercian i would check out alex jones for the truth then hold a demonstration saying you can't vote because there is no one to vote for because they are all corrupt!

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Curme is of course on to something.

The terrorists' cause is best supported by seeing Bush remain in power.

Please explain how the terrorists' cause is best supported by seeing Bush re-elected. I've never claimed to be one of the smartest guys in the world, but this statement just doesn't make much sense to me. Kerry wants the US military to be little more than a tool for the UN, which is easily and often manipulated by the dictators and extremists of the world.

I've seen you post the same short and simple comment on a number of threads without any real explanation. Please, explain.

Iran: Bush
Arafat: Kerry

Oooh, we must be in more trouble than we thought. Damned if you do...

I can understand why palestinians want democrats back again.

During Clinton's reign, peace was established in the middle east, Clinton used to go there all the time and he did everything to solve the situation, palestinian goverment was formed, police force trained, jails opened, hamas members arrested, infrastructure rebuilt, children were going to school without fear of being killed by snipers, rockets targeting "terrorists", etc, etc, enough pressure in the RIGHT WAY was applied to people who pull the strings there, so there were three (?) consecutive years without a single terrorist attack, tourism jumped sky high in religiously relevant cities in Palestine/Israel (now it has fallen down to zero in some areas).

A REALISTIC, working, functional plan was formed (away from two hour holywood pathetics where a super hero saves the day, president declares the end of fighting on prime time TV and everybody walks away into sunset hugging eachother) to secure peace in that region and a possible economic development in the next few decades. All that was reached with Arafat and his men, it was them who signed all treaties, agreements.

But then a change happened. In two vital countries religious right wing zealots came to power, one actually being a convicted murderer out to get PERSONAL revenge, and we are back to square one again.
Everything that has been built in the past decade was destroyed, chaos that resulted from it gave power to extremist groups again, the whole infrastructure that might have had the chance to stop all that was destroyed while none was looking (november 2001, the events in palestine at that time might have slipped your attention, you were busy with something else).
ZERO serious attempts to try to stabillise the region, completely incapable UN with their papers and resolutions and situation reports, largely ignored rise of radical groups on both sides there, all that has contributed to the chaos we have now, including the possibility of civil war in Israel, between moderate and crazy Jews. I'd say Sharon messed up there pretty bad.

So, yeah, I can see why Arafat wants Kerry. He hopes Kerry might continue what Clinton started. If it is not too late already.

Thank You Yasser!Thank You Yasser!Thank You Yasser!Thank You Yasser!


Best pro Bush endorsement in a while!

Oh, I forgot to add one thing.

It absolutely doesn't matter who endorses Kerry and who endorses Bush outside USA borders. Most americans vote traditionaly for Republicans/Democrats because of domestic issues like gun control, taxes, welfare or no welfare, more religion or less religion in goverment, gay marriage, no gay marriage etc, etc. The undecided ones are manipulated by Kerry's three purple hearts and Bush drug and alcohol addiction.

Iran, Arafat, Putin, won't change a thing with their comments.

Originally posted by veritas93
Please explain how the terrorists' cause is best supported by seeing Bush re-elected.

Because Bush is an ideal symbol to potential terrorists of what is wrong with the United States, in terms of his brash nationalism and self-professed connections with "God", lack of respect, stupidity, lack of knowledge and awareness, criminality and poor judgment coupled with military force used against innocent citizens as well as targeted individuals.

Having Bush as a fool in charge making comments like "Bring it on!" is a brilliant recruitment drive for millions of terrorists from all nations.

Of course having him in charge is more appealing to the leaders of terrorist organisations. It is as simple as that.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Because Bush is an ideal symbol to potential terrorists of what is wrong with the United States, in terms of his brash nationalism and self-professed connections with "God", lack of respect, stupidity, lack of knowledge and awareness, criminality and poor judgment coupled with military force used against innocent citizens as well as targeted individuals.

Having Bush as a fool in charge making comments like "Bring it on!" is a brilliant recruitment drive for millions of terrorists from all nations.

Of course having him in charge is more appealing to the leaders of terrorist organisations. It is as simple as that.

Some of what you've said is undeniable, however the Islamic extremist movement predates Bush and has existed (with the intention of dealing damage to the US and other Western nations) during a number of US presidencies. The WTC was attacked on Clinton's watch as well.

They will find a reason, any reason to oppose and fight us. As you've said, the leaders of these organizations are simply using us to further their own agendas. Bush may indeed make things worse temporarily, however the show of force may make legitimate nations think twice before supporting these groups and may even prevent any of them from reaching true power again. I'm not necessarily defending Bush (I didn't vote for him before, nor will I this time), but I can see the benefit of an occasional "war president".

Originally posted by veritas93
I'm not necessarily defending Bush (I didn't vote for him before, nor will I this time), but I can see the benefit of an occasional "war president".

But Bush is neither a war president nor a peace president. He flip flops on which he wants to be. He is in truth the corrupt puppet of an insidiously evil group of people who took the US into foreign incursion on fabricated and fraudulent intelligence. There is no "war on terror" but there is a daily "war on truth".

I am pleased how you can see Bush is a recruitment agent for terrorists. His own catch cry of "Bring it on!" is all the testimony needed for that.

Originally posted by veritas93
Some of what you've said is undeniable, however the Islamic extremist movement predates Bush and has existed (with the intention of dealing damage to the US and other Western nations) during a number of US presidencies. The WTC was attacked on Clinton's watch as well.

They will find a reason, any reason to oppose and fight us. As you've said, the leaders of these organizations are simply using us to further their own agendas. Bush may indeed make things worse temporarily, however the show of force may make legitimate nations think twice before supporting these groups and may even prevent any of them from reaching true power again. I'm not necessarily defending Bush (I didn't vote for him before, nor will I this time), but I can see the benefit of an occasional "war president".

The problem is not that there are a bunch of deranged leaders. The problem is that people are following them. They are trying to fight a guerilla war. The way you win a guerilla war is to erode their support. When the terrorists are poular, they can hide much more easily. Otherwise, it will be hard for them to find recruits, and they can be tracked down, and dealt with more easily.

Bush is trying to wage convetional war against guerilla war, which is a losing strategy. When you attack a country, you provoke people, and create more guerilla war. To stop a guerilla war, you have to work with people in that country, and turn them against the terrorists. Bush has done horrible job of that, and terrorists have gotten more popuar in Muslim countries throughout the world.

The easy cure for all your headaches!

It doesn't matter what any foreigners think about the U.S. Presidential Election, Bush, or Kerry. It doesn't matter who Israel, Iran, Russia, or Japan endorses. It also doesn't matter who the foreigners here on ATS endorse. All that matters is what the citizens of the United States think -- period.