BF2S Forums Why are terrorist leaders supporting Democrats in the U.S. Elections?

Wikipedia:
WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative online news site, founded in 1997. It is considered one of the top online conservative news blogs. WorldNetDaily is a controversial website that provides conservative-oriented news and editorials. Currently the webpage has a staff of approximately 20 people (wow).

In early 2005, WND hired Aaron Klein to run a Jerusalem bureau. Klein's articles have regularly promoted the causes of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza who oppose Israeli disengagement from those areas. He has frequently written about right-wing Israeli activists tied to the far-right Kach and Kahane Chai movement without disclosing those ties.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-04 06:56:02)

zeidmaan wrote:

IF they did say that than reason is simple.
IT WILL MAKE PEOPLE VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS.

No one wants to vote the way the terrorist say they should vote.

And the way they see it, republicans in power means less diplomacy and more war. And the more war there is the more non violent muslims they (terrorists) can swing their way.
Make no mistake, both sides are thinking "Long Term". Its foolish to think that all the terrorists want is America out of Iraq. And they would start farming and making sweet 16 birthday parties.

And its even dumber to think that Democrats want to surrender America to terrorists and that all the veterans in the Party dont give a fuck about soldiers and safety etc. I mean how the hell can someone believe those negative ads on the TV.

Kind of hard not to believe some of it when you Have vetrans Saying that Our current soldiers are Butchers, and Stong arming civilians, Killing women and children in the night, they speak out publicly against the troops. So why would it be so hard to believe some of it? Especially when you have a Mouthpiece like Kerry to lead the charge.

zeidmaan wrote:

well anyway that part is too "american" for me to debate so im gonna stay out of it. But I stick by my first part of hte topic.
They dont want a moderate goverment that people in the middle east could like. They want them as arrogant as posible. Thats why they "support" democrats.
And I know that there are alot of "militias" in Iraq that are not interested in global politics, but just want peace in Iraq and they fight who ever they think is responsible.

There would be better peace in Iraq if it wasnt about Religion and beliefs right now, and the insurgents being fueled by Irans propaganda and weapons. Id bet, if they were to kill Saddam, the insurgents would have nothing to fight for. Right now with him alive, they probably believe he could be returned to power.

Harmor wrote:

Several terrorist leaders are supporting Americans to vote for Democrats in the up coming U.S. Elections?  Why?

Because they are smart enough to know that the democrats will pull out of Iraq and it will be a victory for the terroists.

Last edited by SoC./Omega (2006-11-04 10:57:57)

This topic is pure hilarity. I hope the OP posts some more links, as I'm having a rather boring evening up until now, and I could really use something to laugh at.

Turquoise wrote:

You know what...  forget it.  If people want to believe that Democrats are terrorist lapdogs, then so be it.  If binary thought is what you want the Republicans to follow, then it's your loss.  I'll admit, these scare tactics may work in elections, but you've successfully scared away a lot of the more intelligent people from your party.

Any freethinking conservative or swing voter realizes that this isn't terrorists supporting one side or the other.  This is about figuring out which party actually has a better plan for getting us out of this mess.  When the Republicans actually start explaining more of an exit strategy, you'll have more of my interest and the interest of the conservatives, swing voters, and liberals that prefer a more cognitive approach to campaigning.

No where did I say that democrats are terroist lapdogs, all I said was that the terroists know that the democrats want to pull out of Iraq because they have TVs that can reach our news channels.

Another thought to those of you pushing the "terrorists want democrats to win" argument or some permutation thereof:
Why not just call the elections off? If the terrorists want democrats to win and you don't want to appease terrorists then don't have elections.

Or alternatively, declare the Democratic party an illegal party or arrest registered Democrats.

If you're not willing to do that then I would ask, simply, why? If Democrats win, will "the terrorists win"? And if that's the case, will you revolt? Rebel? Protest? If not, you (by your own logic) are complicit in a kind of terrorist victory.

Frankly, your whole line of argument is bullshit and intellectually bankrupt.

SoC./Omega wrote:

When I think we should leave is when we have finished our main mission that we had set. Yes, I do know that republicans too want out of Iraq but now is not the right time, when the time is right we should leave.

No matter how much you guys think I am an idiot, I don't really care. I may be an idiot but who cares. You don't have to keep beating a dead horse.

I'm not calling you an idiot, but I do believe you're misguided.

Here's the thing...  What is the "right time?"  About the only plan I've heard that even defines specific action that works toward a definite end to the occupation is the one that Joe Biden has popularized.  Split Iraq into 3 parts by ethnicity.  After stabilizing those 3 areas, then pull out.  If chaos erupts after that, it's their problem, not ours.

It won't be easy to get 3 areas stabilized.

"The Plan" is to get Iraq on its feet before we leave.  That means that the Iraq police and military are up to snuff and that the violence in Iraq controllable by Iraqis; once that happens then we leave.  To make this faster we need to put pressure on Maliki to resolve the sectarian violence politically.

Doing so anytime before that will let Iraq be a pre-9/11 Afganistan eventually.

Extream islamic leaders want the U.S. to pull out as soon as possible.  Doing so validates their reistance movement and proves to their followers that they can beat the zionists; thus the reason why they support people voting Democrat.

To be honest I think we should be using alot more robots in Iraq...I mean I can romotely drive a truck full of supplies from the safety of Nebraska. 

This type of fighting, house-to-house, is very dangerous.  According to the video that CNN aired where 10 servicemen were killed by snipers, how do you defend against snipers?  We don't have body armor that can stop sniper bullets yet.





So unless CNN or MSNBC reports this news, you won't find any of the information provided here credible?

Last edited by Harmor (2006-11-04 16:52:10)

Harmor wrote:

"The Plan" is to get Iraq on its feet before we leave.  That means that the Iraq police and military are up to snuff and that the violence in Iraq controllable by Iraqis; once that happens then we leave.  To make this faster we need to put pressure on Maliki to resolve the sectarian violence politically.

Doing so anytime before that will let Iraq be a pre-9/11 Afganistan eventually.

Extream islamic leaders want the U.S. to pull out as soon as possible.  Doing so validates their reistance movement and proves to their followers that they can beat the zionists; thus the reason why they support people voting Democrat.

To be honest I think we should be using alot more robots in Iraq...I mean I can romotely drive a truck full of supplies from the safety of Nebraska. 

This type of fighting, house-to-house, is very dangerous.  According to the video that CNN aired where 10 servicemen were killed by snipers, how do you defend against snipers?  We don't have body armor that can stop sniper bullets yet.

So unless CNN or MSNBC reports this news, you won't find any of the information provided here credible?

I see where you're coming from, but do you really think we can afford to stay in Iraq?  I don't see this operation ending in the way you suggest until decades from now.  We can't afford that with the current rate of $6 billion a month.  Basically, yeah, the terrorists did kind of win on this one.  I'd rather we concede than go bankrupt.  Knowing when to quit is a good thing, regardless of party.

Granted, us going bankrupt has some interesting repercussions as well....  some of which may actually be positive....

Harmor wrote:

Let me go further.  You can't expect only the big three news agencies to get 'the story'.  In the recent years they are getting lazy...closing bureaus all over the world...cutting staff.

Remember what happened in Lebonon where those doctored pictures were aired?  It was a blogger who noticed it and others took notice.

So just like this a blogger, in this case WND from Israel made this article and its being reported by others.  Just because it hasn't been covered by CNN doesn't mean its not news or a lie.

Also do you have any studies of proof that WND articles are lies?  Just because a news agency is leaning to the left or the right doesn't make them unreliable - I mean look at the New York Times, they lean way to the left but they are still credible.

*shrugs*  All I can say is that we all believe what we want to.  I hope you're right about Iraq, because it looks like we're going to take the option of staying in Iraq regardless of the costs.

After Maliki's speach on the reaction of Saddam's verdict of hanging earlier shows that he's a leader.  He spoke of Iraqis, not sunies, kurds or shities, but Iraqis.  I just wish he was more hard line with the militias of Satyr who helped put him in power.

Once he can bring together the sectarian violence then we are well on our way to leave the country.

Leaving Iraq anytime before the Iraqis can control the violence themselves would be irresponsible.  We must say as long as it takes until that day or else Iraq will spiral into another pre-9/11 Afganistan.


As for the costs of the war, $6 billion per month, if any of you guys are Kaysian Economists know, that spending is helping the economy.  Kaysian Economists believe if you have a recession you infuse the economy with government spending.  Well $6 billion a month is paying all those troops and contractors to do work overthere.  Not to mention all the manufacturing plants making the materials to run a war.

Our national debt is less than 2% of our GDP, someone correct me if I'm wrong.  The problem is that we should be fighting this war with about 2x-3x more troops, at least 400,000 in Iraq since day one.