Will Al-Quaida attack the US this month?

[smirkinjesus]

AQ doesnt care who you vote for. AQ wants you to be afraid, that is all. oh, and dead as well.

I agree with you 100%

 

[Said1]

It looks like that and more. Interesting article in the Atlantic this month, on the goal being the expansion of Islam. Is it working?

I'm sure they've managed to find a convert or two, but I would place my bets on extremists, and the growing numbers of Muslims joining them.

 

[Annie]

I'm sure they've managed to find a convert or two, but I would place my bets on extremists, and the growing numbers of Muslims joining them.

As I posted earlier, the Justice Department news conference on their sting operation arrests today, had an interesting point. It seems the imam at that mosque was speaking to the guy who eventually became the 'undercover' agent. He was speaking of 'jihad'. That there was 'internal jihad' which was for all and 'external, violent jihad' also. His original point was that it was not 'now' the time for the external jihad. Yet when asked to launder money for supplying weapon to bring down jet, that supposedly would carry the Pakastani ambassador, he agreed and did so.

 

[Said1]

As I posted earlier, the Justice Department news conference on their sting operation arrests today, had an interesting point. It seems the imam at that mosque was speaking to the guy who eventually became the 'undercover' agent. He was speaking of 'jihad'. That there was 'internal jihad' which was for all and 'external, violent jihad' also. His original point was that it was not 'now' the time for the external jihad. Yet when asked to launder money for supplying weapon to bring down jet, that supposedly would carry the Pakastani ambassador, he agreed and did so.

Shudder. Maybe it's because more people are being caught, but it seems as though they are trying to speed up their plans as more and more is revealed. Wow, this is really scarry shit.

 

[freeandfun1]

They might not be getting a lot of "converts", but they are solidifying "fundamentalism" within those that have always considered themselves Muslims, but just not "fundamentalist". Many are becoming more fervent and the "enemy" (AQ, Ansar, Hizbollah, etc.) are actually doing a pretty good job of trying to present this, in the Muslim world, as a war "religious" war. So even though they might not currently be getting a lot of "converts", those that are already Muslim are getting - well, frankly, MEANER!

 

[eseid]

I have to laugh when I hear crap like this. Look, Al Qaida does not share your obsession with Bush or his bid for reelection. They hate America. They hate America if Clinton is running it, they hate America if Bush is running it and they'll hate America just as much if Kerry is running it. They don't care. And if they even bother to think about the internal politics of the United States, you can bet they are absolutely thrilled that we have engaged them in the Middle East. They spent a decade trying to get our attention, they want War with America more then anything else. Whether it was a good decision or a bad decision, Bush has given them exactly what they want, a declaration of War. That is a fact.

The reason I wrote the initial post was not that I am obsessed with Bush's reelection (unless you consider being an informed voter an obsession). I think its safe to say that a certain number among us have been obsessed with unelecting him since, hmm, well, uh, let's see, how about October 1999 (smirk, smirk)

The point is simply that in order to survive, Al Qaeda needs to prove itself to be a force in world affairs. Why? It's all about recruitment. Every suicide bomber needs to be replaced with another. They gained a lot of credibility through the Spain bombings, but then again I guess they didn't give a crap who won that election either, did they? Talk about an ironic sense of timing...go figure.

I could be way off on this but it seems obvious to me that Al Qaeda would benefit immensely in fanatical Islam not simply by Bush being defeated, but by being able to claim credit for his defeat. Many would-be terrorists will be swayed to join the ranks because they will be more convinced that victory is possible.

Of course a Democrat will think that Al Qaeda should be more afraid of Kerry than Bush, because poor President Bush is such a simpleton that he couldn't resist the taunting and fell right into the terrorists' trap....talk about crap worth chuckling at! Unfortunately, that whole debate, albeit fun, misses the point entirely.

 

[eseid]

waiting....waiting....waiting....think I felt a nibble...must be patient...

 

[smirkinjesus]

waiting....waiting....waiting....think I felt a nibble...must be patient...

You think would-be Terrorists will be swayed to join the ranks if Bush is defeated?
Because they will be more convinced that victory is possible? Once again, you are simply projecting your interest in the reelection of Bush onto Al Qaida.
They don't care who wins the election. Bush gave legitimacy to a group of sick criminals by declaring war on "them" as if they were a state. 9-11 followed by the invasion of Iraq (which didn't make any sense) gave them all the recruitment material they need. They will try to attack if Bush is president, they will try to attack if Kerry's President.
They don't watch Foxnews 24-hours a day, they don't care who is president as much as you do. And even if there is any substance to your idea that the terrorists want us to vote against Bush, are you saying that we should let Al Qaida influence the democratic process either way? Kind of a catch-22 isn't it? Maybe you should vote for who you want to vote for regardless of what Al Qaida thinks?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Bush gave legitimacy to a group of sick criminals by declaring war on "them" as if they were a state. 9-11 followed by the invasion of Iraq (which didn't make any sense) gave them all the recruitment material they need.

They've been "recruiting" and waging war on us long, long before 9/11. Bush wasn't even a consideration for President in 93 when the first attempt to knock down the WTC was attempted. Your actually injecting your "anti Bush" rhetoric into the conversation.

 

[smirkinjesus]

They've been "recruiting" and waging war on us long, long before 9/11. Bush wasn't even a consideration for President in 93 when the first attempt to knock down the WTC was attempted. Your actually injecting your "anti Bush" rhetoric into the conversation.

Oh no, I understand that very well. But the 9-11 attacks gave them recognition; the invasion of Iraq gave them legitimacy; the subsequent occupation gave them sympathy and the successful insurgency gave them credibility, in the eyes of Muslims that is. Who wins the election means little, besides, Kerry doesn’t seem to want to do anything different then Bush so the war will go on and on either way.

 

[Annie]

Oh no, I understand that very well. But the 9-11 attacks gave them recognition; the invasion of Iraq gave them legitimacy; the subsequent occupation gave them sympathy and the successful insurgency gave them credibility, in the eyes of Muslims that is. Who wins the election means little, besides, Kerry doesn’t seem to want to do anything different then Bush so the war will go on and on either way.

SOooo, we should have just done nothing? What is your point?

 

[freeandfun1]

Oh no, I understand that very well. But the 9-11 attacks gave them recognition; the invasion of Iraq gave them legitimacy; the subsequent occupation gave them sympathy and the successful insurgency gave them credibility, in the eyes of Muslims that is. Who wins the election means little, besides, Kerry doesn’t seem to want to do anything different then Bush so the war will go on and on either way.

I don't know about you, but just because we didn't recognize them doesn't mean they didn't exist. I think 911 kinda proves that and it could be said, 911 is what FINALLY gave them the legitimacy we needed to really go after them.

 

[Annie]

I don't know about you, but just because we didn't recognize them doesn't mean they didn't exist. I think 911 kinda proves that and it could be said, 911 is what FINALLY gave them the legitimacy we needed to really go after them.

Actually Free, I think minimum the two Embassy bombings did that. If not then, surely the USS Cole. Whoops, wrong President.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Oh no, I understand that very well. But the 9-11 attacks gave them recognition; the invasion of Iraq gave them legitimacy; the subsequent occupation gave them sympathy and the successful insurgency gave them credibility, in the eyes of Muslims that is. Who wins the election means little, besides, Kerry doesn’t seem to want to do anything different then Bush so the war will go on and on either way.

I'm not sure if AQ cares who wins, we really don't have a way of knowing.
I think that when GB wins re-election, he will put the screws to NK, Iran & Syria (maybe not in that order) and rightly so.
If JK were to win, I think Iraq would wind down, and that would be the end of it. I really don't see him staying on the offensive.

 

[freeandfun1]

If JK were to win, I think Iraq would wind down, and that would be the end of it. I really don't see him staying on the offensive.

I agree. And then - POW - we will get hit again.

 

[smirkinjesus]

I'm not sure if AQ cares who wins, we really don't have a way of knowing.
I think that when GB wins re-election, he will put the screws to NK, Iran & Syria (maybe not in that order) and rightly so.
If JK were to win, I think Iraq would wind down, and that would be the end of it. I really don't see him staying on the offensive.

Fair enough, I just don't think they care. But Dubya is going to have a tough time dealing with those three while we're bogged down in Iraq. We'll see.

 

[freeandfun1]

Fair enough, I just don't think they care. But Dubya is going to have a tough time dealing with those three while we're bogged down in Iraq. We'll see.

Contrary to popular "liberal" belief, we are not "bogged down" in Iraq.

 

[smirkinjesus]

Contrary to popular "liberal" belief, we are not "bogged down" in Iraq.

Of course we're not "bogged down"! Everything is going smashingly well in Iraq! The Exit is just around the corner.

 

[eseid]

They don't watch Foxnews 24-hours a day

Although I agree with you that they probably prefer CNN to FoxNews, you seem to be doing alot of "projecting" of your own beliefs and views on them while taking exception to my contention that (and I will try to say this one more time) the terrorists would gain incredible strength and boldness if they could claim to have affected the outcome of the election of the Unisted States of America, the single world superpower. Why is that so difficult for you to admit? I encourage you to remove your anti-Bush blinders and see the bigger picture.

 

[freeandfun1]

Of course we're not "bogged down"! Everything is going smashingly well in Iraq! The Exit is just around the corner.

Actually, you are probably not that far off in your prediction. Sure, we will likely always keep a contingent of troops there (for the next say, 5 years or more even) but the major draw-down will most likely start occurring during the next year. Things are going good in Iraq. The Iraqi Police are starting to take more of a role and the US' casualties are mostly from IEDs, etc. and not from direct combat. Sure, we are helping out, but most of the fighting is now being done by the Iraqis.

See, I read and follow all points of view. I am not like you and "hoping" things go bad so Bush will look bad. I just look at the facts of it all.