Why do YOU think terrorist want Democrats to win?

[ballz2wallz]

'Iraq al-Qaeda' welcomes US poll

A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.
The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

The Democrats' victory in Tuesday's Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said.

Outgoing US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had stepped down to flee the Iraqi battlefield, he added.

He told US President George W Bush to "stay on the battleground".

"I tell the lame duck (US administration) do not rush to escape as did your defence minister.

"The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament... they voted for a level of reason," the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | 'Iraq al-Qaeda' welcomes US poll

[Thorgrim]

well we have to stay for 20 years and have have tens of thousands of americans to die, just to spite that tape

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

well we have to stay for 20 years and have have tens of thousands of americans to die, just to spite that tape

Do I get a positive rep. point from you now that I posted the same thing from a non-'questionable' source?

[PetriW]

It may also be that they like democrat foreign policy better than republican foreign policy? I sure liked the foreign politics of the US far better during the Clinton years than during the Bush junior years, and that includes Bush before 9/11.

But maybe I'm a terrorist for having disliked both Bush and Fox... I'm after all against Bush, aka not with him, thus probably a part of the Axis of Evil.

[motivez]

Sad thing is.. "they voted for a level of reason," isn't false. It's dead on.

That's why I voted for Democrats this time around, and while so many others did too.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sad thing is.. "they voted for a level of reason," isn't false. It's dead on.

That's why I voted for Democrats this time around, and while so many others did too.

Ah yes, terrorist groups; the epitome of 'level of reason'. They DEFINITELY know what they're talking about.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by PetriW

It may also be that they like democrat foreign policy better than republican foreign policy? I sure liked the foreign politics of the US far better during the Clinton years than during the Bush junior years, and that includes Bush before 9/11.

But maybe I'm a terrorist for having disliked both Bush and Fox... I'm after all against Bush, aka not with him, thus probably a part of the Axis of Evil.

And why would terroist groups like their foreign policy better, hmmm?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Ah yes, terrorist groups; the epitome of 'level of reason'. They DEFINITELY know what they're talking about.

eh?

I'm saying, most Americans wanted a change in government because they felt the Bush Administration and Republican party were being unreasonable about a great many things..

His idea of what that is might be different, but the mindset was there.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

And why would terroist groups like their foreign policy better, hmmm?

taoist groups?!

In all seriousness, considering Osama's plan has been to run us financially dry by dragging us into a long, drawn out conflict similar to what the Soviets went through in Afghanistan, seems to me they'd prefer Republican foreign policy.

Not only do we really not share the cost burden of Iraq with the rest of the world as we have in the past where we built a real coalition with other nations and made partners of the international community rather than alienating them, but we're providing them with urban training grounds, helping them recruit, raise money, etc..

Seems like a wet dream for them. Sure some of them die, but that's the point. They want to die. It's glory and martyrdom and a sure path to heaven for them.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems like a wet dream for them. Sure some of them die, but that's the point. They want to die. It's glory and martyrdom and a sure path to heaven for them.

Here's the sweeter dream for them; the Democrats are anti-war, and pull our troops out of the Middle East. Terrorists call that a victory for Muslims around the world, emboldening terrorists and radicals from all over to attack the one people they want a victory over. They also know Democrats are more lax on security, making it even easier for them to wage their war on us.

It's a terrorist's wet dream.

[motivez]

They're going to label whatever they want a victory.. no matter what actually happens.

Everyone should be anti-war, not just Democrats. War is not something people should be eager for.. and I'm pretty sure that's the view of most combat vets.

Democrats are not going to "pull our troops out of the middle east," get real..

We may wind up leaving Iraq, but that doesn't mean we're going to end a long history of interventionism in the middle east. Our continued access to oil, or as most know it, "regional stability," is a foreign policy goal of both major political parties.

Also, Democrats are not "lax on security".. that's such a tired statement, like "cut and run." People don't believe it anymore.. and for good reason. It's not true, and there's no evidence to suggest they are. That's why they won big on the 7th.

Republicans talk a good game, but when ya get right down to it, they haven't accomplished much in 5 years in terms of making us safe. Ports still insecure, border still insecure, etc, etc.. and that's with having control of *everything*

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

They're going to label whatever they want a victory.. no matter what actually happens.

If the world doesn't recognize it, it doesn't matter what they say. However, if it truly is a loss, the world recognizes it as a loss, then the terrorist groups have that much more to go on. Nobody cares about their propaganda; people actually care about their true results and actions.

Everyone should be anti-war, not just Democrats. War is not something people should be eager for.. and I'm pretty sure that's the view of most combat vets.

Most people are anti-war, but reasonable people are able to recognize when military action is necessary.

Democrats are not going to "pull our troops out of the middle east," get real..

Ok.

Also, Democrats are not "lax on security".. that's such a tired statement, like "cut and run." People don't believe it anymore.. and for good reason. It's not true, and there's no evidence to suggest they are. That's why they won big on the 7th.

Guess we'll see in the near future, won't we? At the risk of oh, say, our national security. But we'll certainly find out.

Republicans talk a good game, but when ya get right down to it, they haven't accomplished much in 5 years in terms of making us safe. Ports still insecure, border still insecure, etc, etc.. and that's with having control of *everything*

I agree, there's still much more to be done. I trust the Democrats even less to take care of it.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

If the world doesn't recognize it, it doesn't matter what they say. However, if it truly is a loss, the world recognizes it as a loss, then the terrorist groups have that much more to go on. Nobody cares about their propaganda; people actually care about their true results and actions.

Pray tell, what was the devastating effect of our loss in Vietnam?

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Most people are anti-war, but reasonable people are able to recognize when military action is necessary.

Correct. And, most reasonable people, as evidenced by the current election, now recognize that military action in Iraq was not necessary.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Guess we'll see in the near future, won't we? At the risk of oh, say, our national security. But we'll certainly find out.

We will see, but again, there's no evidence to suggest your assertion that they're lax on security.

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I agree, there's still much more to be done. I trust the Democrats even less to take care of it.

There is, and Republicans have a poor track record of actually getting any of it done, even with control over every governmental body they'd need to get it done..

It's time to give someone else a chance.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Pray tell, what was the devastating effect of our loss in Vietnam?

Muslim extremists that cover the globe are a little more threatening than a small Vietnamese country.

Just a little.

For them this is just a small battle. They will soon realize they can attack the US at anytime, in any way, and expect little action in return.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Muslim extremists that cover the globe are a little more threatening than a small Vietnamese country.

Just a little.

Uh, yeah. Forgetting the whole "Communist" aspect and parallel I see.. ......

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

They will soon realize they can attack the US at anytime, in any way, and expect little action in return.

Not really, if we are attacked by someone we're going to go after them no matter which political party is in office.. however, Iraq didn't attack us. It had nothing to do with 9/11.

Afghanistan did, which is why it's so sad that things are starting to take a turn for the worse in that country thanks to taking our eye off the ball with this diversion into Iraq.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by motivez

Not really, if we are attacked by someone we're going to go after them no matter which political party is in office.. however, Iraq didn't attack us. It had nothing to do with 9/11.

Muslim extremists did. You of all know people this has nothing to do with one particular country. It's all of them.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Muslim extremists did. You of all know people this has nothing to do with one particular country. It's all of them.

Before Iraq was invaded, Muslim extremists didn't have power there

[avsp]

[quote=motivez;60981]Pray tell, what was the devastating effect of our loss in Vietnam?[/quote[
couldnt use US forces to counter percieved communist expansion thereadafter

alternate strategy of engagement by proxy adopted

leading to increased support for assorted 'anti-peasant' non-democratic brutal quasi-facist military regimes worldwide

as a consequence
a class of regimes that sought to pay off the USA & USSR off against each other to get ever cheaper military equipment

a class of regimes that relied upon US/USSR trained & equiped 'goon squads' to terrorise their populations

further consequences
enormous loss of human rights worldwide

increased anti-american/russian feeling

Later, after the cold war ended
all the old dictators backed by the soviets (generally) fell fairly quickly, those backed by the US hung on for a bit democracy tended to grow & remove them, ..., those regimes that had successfully played the game continued to do so , ..., some even tried to see what the new rules were

an attempt was made to 'teach a lesson' to the one of these who had got 'too big for his boots', ..., the exact fallout of this is, seeming, the subject of some contention

[avsp]

FWIW there are so mant differing groups in Iraq that they dont have a common position on much

some groupings, especially AQ, are in a win-win situaion regardless of if/when any pull-out occurs

those grouping with Iranian backing are presumably being driven by a need to keep forces tied up long enough to make an attack on Iran impossible prior to the development of an Iranian nuke bomb, ..., so they might prefer no timetable & no pull-out. OTOh the iranians gets a propaganda victory either way pull-out or not