Who would Alqueda vote for? 49 replies

Please wait...

Quetron

USA

50 XP

28th August 2006

0 Uploads

1,155 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

You know who it would be, or would'nt be, right?




Mr. Matt VIP Member

#BanRadioActiveLobster

356,406 XP

17th June 2002

7 Uploads

33,654 Posts

779 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Now this is a loaded question if ever I heard one! Presumably, whoever wins in the poll will become a 'terrorist supporter' and anybody voting for them will be branded the same, right?




masked_marsoe VIP Member

Heaven's gonna burn your eyes

50 XP

16th April 2005

0 Uploads

8,063 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago

Clinton.

McCain is an easy target, he's too much of the same old white man image, but to his advantage there's not much new content on that front. He's probably more wily too. Obama is a more difficult target, because he portrays an alternative image that is much harder to rail against, and would be committed to alternative strategies, attacking the causes rather than the results.

Clinton stands out as being too easy to create publicity, being a woman, and is most likely to being torn between instant public vengeance, and actually changing the greater forces at work. She has neither the guts nor the ideology to attempt a violent or non-violent solution, and will be trapped into a circle of half-arsery.

By the two solutions, I use Yehoshafat Harkabi's analysis on terrorist Islam "When the swamp disappears, there will be no more mosquitoes."

"The Swamp" is that discontent, that frustration so prevalent in young Arab men, caused by the friction between a liberal West and their conservative nations. Stuck in a cycle that alienates them from society - the economies are broken, and they are unemployed, unable to get homes or wives, and living of their parents or charity.

A military solution would be to kill all the mosquitos. A non-violent solution would be to "drain the swamp" through and economic, cultural, and political modernisation of the Arab nations, and to deprive those hate-mongers their audiences. Both are idealistic, and require immense commitment.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#4 10 years ago

Do you mean who would they vote for in order to harm the US or who would they vote for as result of their fundamentalist religious views?

In the first case they'd probably vote for someone like Bush who ensures that the US makes more debts, alienates potential allies and creates more terrorism by unnecessary use of brute force; that would be the best long-term choice. For a quick short-term result it may be better to vote for Clinton as she is a woman and more likely to withdraw forces from Iraq.

In the second case the choice would probably be similar as it is mostly conservative hardliners who try to get the votes of religious fundamentalists in the US.




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago
MrFancypants;4277439In the first case they'd probably vote for someone like Bush who ensures that the US makes more debts, alienates potential allies and creates more terrorism by unnecessary use of brute force; that would be the best long-term choice.

Not really, Al-Qaeda has been very clear that they prefer left leaning candidates for simple reason that they are less likely to engage them in military scenarios and (at least US) left leaning presidents have historically been less troublesome to these people, which is exactly what Al-Qaeda is hoping for. If you’ve had the time to watch some of Osama’s propaganda films it follows rhetoric that could land him a job with the DNC, course he don’t believe any of it, but if it conveniences the American people that he really has the same ideas in mind (peace and harmony) if only we vote a candidate that will adhere to staying out of the Middle East then peace will ensue. Bush threw a wrench in Osama’s plans when he was reelected. Osama publicly was attempting to petition the American people that if we re-elected Bush it would spell “doom” to our way of life and that they would wage war against the “great Satan”. Whatever… No way, Al-Qaeda wants a Bush or McCain in office.

For a quick short-term result it may be better to vote for Clinton as she is a woman and more likely to withdraw forces from Iraq.

Clinton, despite what she's says has no intention of withdrawing troops. She knows the reality of the situation and in all likelyhood will not remove troops. Al-Qaeda knows this, which is why they too have been in opposition of her as potential President.




Karst

I chose an eternity of this

50 XP

6th January 2005

0 Uploads

4,505 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago
AlDaja;4277496Not really, Al-Qaeda has been very clear that they prefer left leaning candidates for simple reason that they are less likely to engage them in military scenarios and (at least US) left leaning presidents have historically been less troublesome to these people, which is exactly what Al-Qaeda is hoping for. If you’ve had the time to watch some of Osama’s propaganda films it follows rhetoric that could land him a job with the DNC, course he don’t believe any of it, but if it conveniences the American people that he really has the same ideas in mind (peace and harmony) if only we vote a candidate that will adhere to staying out of the Middle East then peace will ensue. Bush threw a wrench in Osama’s plans when he was reelected. Osama publicly was attempting to petition the American people that if we re-elected Bush it would spell “doom” to our way of life and that they would wage war against the “great Satan”. Whatever… No way, Al-Qaeda wants a Bush or McCain in office.

I can't agree with that. Before the last elections, Bin Laden released a video ridiculing Bush, and ridiculing those who would vote for him. Does this mean he supported Kerry? Hardly, he was trying to trick the Americans into rallying behind Bush in defiance of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden knows well that the ideology he follows can't be defeated militarily by the clumsy attempts made by people like Bush. If anything, what he fears is losing ideological support because he doesn't have a scapegoat in the US.

Obama would be the worst president for extremists because of his heritage and willingness to dialogue, it will be more difficult for extremist preachers to convince the masses how evil the US are.




Octovon

Spaceman

54,945 XP

5th August 2003

0 Uploads

5,317 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

Wouldn't they rather elect a candidate chosen amongst themselves, a third party candidate? There's no rule saying you have to vote Republican or Democrat, the (largely) two-party system doesn't really leave many options.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,011 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,003 Posts

6 Threads

#8 10 years ago

AlDaja;4277496Not really, Al-Qaeda has been very clear that they prefer left leaning candidates for simple reason that they are less likely to engage them in military scenarios and (at least US) left leaning presidents have historically been less troublesome to these people, which is exactly what Al-Qaeda is hoping for. If you’ve had the time to watch some of Osama’s propaganda films it follows rhetoric that could land him a job with the DNC, course he don’t believe any of it, but if it conveniences the American people that he really has the same ideas in mind (peace and harmony) if only we vote a candidate that will adhere to staying out of the Middle East then peace will ensue. Bush threw a wrench in Osama’s plans when he was reelected. Osama publicly was attempting to petition the American people that if we re-elected Bush it would spell “doom” to our way of life and that they would wage war against the “great Satan”. Whatever… No way, Al-Qaeda wants a Bush or McCain in office.

Clinton, despite what she's says has no intention of withdrawing troops. She knows the reality of the situation and in all likelyhood will not remove troops. Al-Qaeda knows this, which is why they too have been in opposition of her as potential President.

Al Qaeda may be using reverse psychology though. It isn't exactly difficult to predict that the average American will be tempted to do the exact opposite of whatever Osama tells him to do.

I also don't think that it is a good idea to assume that Al Qaeda is more afraid of conservative politicians. They aren't afraid to die for their cause in the first place and after all the mismanagement in Iraq they are probably big fans of the current US administration.

Those terrorists may be evil criminals, but they are not dumb; because no matter who you vote for, they'll be able to make profit from the result (they'll either celebrate that the US gave in to their demands or have another motivation for killing those who disagree).




Dot Com

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

26th June 2000

0 Uploads

6,116 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago
Mr. Matt;4277332Now this is a loaded question if ever I heard one! Presumably, whoever wins in the poll will become a 'terrorist supporter' and anybody voting for them will be branded the same, right?

You made the first mistake of taking anything Quentron says seriously. The guy has been a baiting troll ever since day one...




AlDaja

SFC III Troubleshooter.

50 XP

5th September 2006

0 Uploads

11,263 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
Jeffro;4277540post deleted

He’s just staunch in his political views – like others including yourself. I don’t take what anyone says here seriously either (except for a few whom I believe to be on their game: Saq. is one of them:)) – I leave that for more academic venues I visit…this is just a gaming forum and I treat it as such.