If you were a terrorist ...
I hate to do this to you, but assume the distateful role of a terrorist. Rather than be irrational (or provide the irrational answer if you can) be logical and answer the laer questions.
As probably everyone knows, muslim extremists attacked spanish railways just before their general elections. Before the election, it seemed the party in power would easily win. However, an anti-war party won the elections. Some claim that the spanish were scared into voting an anti-war party by the attacks. Others claim they voted against the previous administration because it tried to hide the culprits of the attacks, instead blaming it falsely on the Basque separatists.
So, if you were a terrorist ...
Who would you rather see win the election Bush or Kerry? Why?
How would an attack on the U.S. reverberate in the U.S.? Would it make people vote against Bush or for Bush?
Would you make an attack to simply disrupt the process, possibly to force a delay in the elections and thereby make the point that democracy can be stalled if not stopped?
When would you make an attack? Would it matter if it were on American soil or is an embassy or such "good enough" (aagh, I can't believe I said that)?
posted by TheRadicalModerate @ 9/07/2004 07:46:00 PM
22 Comments:
Is it just me or have there been problems posting? This and the next topic I tried to publish on Tuesday but to no avail. Even today it claimed the next post didn't publish which it obviously did. Posts that I made for gecko's site didn't show up until much later.
An addendum to this post:
A Democratic pundit claimed that an email was sent to British papers from a terrorist group saying “We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections because his idiocy and religious fanaticism,” have aided the terrorists. While I am highly skeptical that the email originated from a terrorist organization (as opposed to an anti-Bush person) many analysts (such as STRATFOR) say that Bush is actually aiding terrorists by providing reasons to join terrorist causes. Others say, essentially, that Bush is taking the fight to the terrorists.
From Ben - an intelligent (self described) "ultra-liberal":
I don't think terrorists care if Bush or Kerry wins. To them, either man is the same. If they did anything it would be to disrupt the election. The best of all for them would be to cause a delay in the election because that would score a major victory, that is, putting off democracy.
Oops, I forgot to add the rest of Ben's comment:
As to how an attack might affect the election? I think it depends on the circumstances. If it were something that seemed to be preventable then Bush would lose (at this time, I, RM, indicated a large bomb coming in on a shipping container and he agreed with the idea).
A successful attack would either cause people to vote against Bush because he hadn't done a good job of protecting them or cause people to vote for Bush because of the "war-mentality" of Americans. The clear win for Bush would be if they announced (and proved) that a major terrorist attack had been thwarted in America. The kind you might see in a movie.
damn, I knew I shouldtve logged on. I was going to bed. I dont think terrorist can be rational. Ben was right. They don't care who wins.
But "if you were a terrorist "
I would get a cuple of guys, the i'm ready to die guys, and like Ben mentioned, purposely get caught trying to blow something up. That way Bush would win because he "stopped' an attack.
KT
Rather than ask us, why don't you just look on Google and see? There are anti-American sites online. I just stumbled into one by accident the other day.
The arab newspapers seem to dislike both Bush and Kerry. Kind of like Americans (they aren't really looking closely enough to see the major differences.)
The arabs also seem to link most of their problems on the ties between Israel and the US. They figure Israel controls us. Part of the attack in Iraq has been linked to Israeli water rights, for example.
Both candidates are seen as having close ties with Israel. Bush has supported Ariel Sharon in just about every ugly thing he's done. On the other hand, Kerry just learned that his grandfather was jewish and his brother Cameron has converted to judaism, because that was what his wife was. Cameron just visited Israel and was shaking hands with a lot of politicians there.
Now a lot of anti-Americanism is based on the idea that we are just there to steal the oil. Kerry has been promoting a plan of energy independence, which would not only make the US safer, but the arab world as well.
That would be good for the middle and lower class arabs, but obviously less good for the oil barons. On the other hand, what America has shown lately is that what we can't get fairly, we might well just take by force. So even the oil barons have to consider their national security.
So if I were a rich terrorist, I'd probably want to take Kerry out. If I were poor or middle class terrorist, I'd want to take Bush out.
Acknowledging our selective application of the term "terrorist" to mean crimes committed by official enemies against us, I think Bin Laden and others are gaining greater legitimacy throughout the Middle East as a direct result of the policies the Bush administration is pursuing there. Bush is good for the industry of jihad, which has increased recruitment, and so on. Incidences of terrorism have spiked and violence is prevalent through the region, including in places previously safe for Americans (Saudi Arabia, for example).
Kerry's Iraq policy is not meaningfully different from the perspective of most Muslims, who reasonably feel that the United States should let them manage their own affairs. For extremists like Bin Laden, it will still mean waging holy war to drive out the infidels; for nationalists like al-Sadr, it means pretty much the same thing. The upside to Kerry is that he seems at least ostensibly committed to building an international consensus about how to proceed--something that could sway moderates from an unpleasant alternative.
In any case I don't think Islamic radicals care very much about our elections; certainly not about our "democracy," which they, contrary to hating us for, probably don't even acknowledge as reality. These are things that have a much greater significance to American audiences than Muslim ones. No doubt the idea that anyone would hate you for your "greatness" is naturally appealing--even if it fails to explain why Bin Laden never targeted the US before we happened to open our first military base in his home country during the first Gulf War. Weren't we just as free and spectacular before Desert Storm as we were after?
PEZ says ...
Americans are not the Spanish. If we get attacked, especially on American soil, Bush wins in a landslide. Unless the media (or Dems) determine it happened in one of the many ways Bush is vulnerable.
That's why, if an attack occurs near the election, you can bet I'm going to wait until the last minute to vote. I'll skip school and watch the news all day to find out if there's anything fishy.
If I were a terrorist ...
Who would I want to win? Hard question. Bush is like a bull in a chinashop. He may smash everything in sight and maybe smash me (as a terrorist). It's even worse now that Russia seems like its going to follow Bush's lead. Kerry could be a danger because he may be able to get the other nations, especially Russia now, to actually do something (but I doubt it). I would probably just sit back and see who I get before doing anything.
What alot of countries call Bush's "unilateralism" has a drawback I hadn't thought of. Now that Russia's been hit hard and seems to be taking the same road as Bush what are we going to do if they invade another country (like Georgia). Are we going to sit back and say "That's ok they're just defending their country"? I doubt it.
Just to show how much this election is on the arabs minds, here is a link from addustour.com's cartoon page (it kind of reinforces what I said last night about the arabs thinking it doesn't matter who wins):
http://www.addustour.com/img_cartoon/14390_1.jpg
Hey Rad Mod,
I was screwing around with Photoshop and one of these arab newspapers. Based on the cartoons, I noticed how they were spelling the two candidates names, so I made a banner for this debate:
http://www.geocities.com/precinct3035/kerryvbush.jpg">I put a an entry in my blog to it. :-) That was fun.
call me stupid Sheryl but I dont understand the cartoon. mebbe its because I dont speak arabic. is the cartoon suggesting that the arabs are asleep when it comes to the electoin. they dont care?
if I were a terrrorist ...
I would want Kerry to win cuz the 'stupid americans' would just go back to not doing anything about terrorism. I mean look at carter. what did he do about iran? clinton and the cole, WTC, embassies? nothing.
so unless they can figure out an attack that takes out bush in the election, I would not do anything and hope Kerry wins. problem is I dont think they undesrtand america so they probably would try to do something big and think we'll vote out Bush like the spanish did. also I think that they would make an attack just to show that it can be done, that we will never win the war on terrorism.
pez, what ways would it be Bush's fault? cna you elaborate?
gregB
gregB
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't think the terrorists care either way. It may only be a matter of how long they can last depending on which candidate wins.
If I was a terrorist? I would probably want Bush to win because the radicals in this country would be all the more incensed, therefore possibly providing more Tim McVeighs to recruit to the cause.
I double posted, sorry.
BTW the star of david on the sleeping guy in the cartoon symbolizes Israel, who doesn't care who wins, because both will support them against the arabs.
PEZ says ...
"what ways would it be Bush's fault?"
I actually said "where Bush is vulnerable" but that's fine.
Let's see, where would people think it's Bush's fault?
1) If the attack occurs because of one of the ways the Dems keep saying homeland security is failing, like shipping containers.
2) If whereever the local attack occurs, local officials blame the government for lack of prevention.
3) If it's discovered that one (or more) of the intelligence agencies knew something but failed to inform other agencies. (Intel agencies are notorious for with-holding info from each other.) This could be seen as Bush's fault for not implementing a central director sooner.
4) If it's discovered another country had information that may have helped prevent the attack and they with-held or delayed the info. For example, what if Germany captures a terrorist and gets info on other terrorists? Because they're pissed at us they may delay giving us the information or afraid we might 'leak' it as a political maneuver.
PEZ - Peaceful Except Strong
to most terrorists it won't matter...
Basically they think that the US would inflict harm no matter who was elected...
some would think they hate the "hypocritical" soft talk of the deomcrats because it might lower the popularity they are getting right now among muslims... They prefer Bush pushing the whole muslim world to the right and subsequently more of them to the far right... and from there to people willing to die to hit back at the US...
Al-Qaeda released another tape winding up the US about 9-11. So the question is whether this was to make Bush look bad, or to stir up the US behind him and perpetuate the "war on terror," which keeps the process going.
I agree 100% with Gecko's interpretation of the cartoon. Many arabs clearly connect Middle Eastern conflicts to the US unqualified backing of Israel.
On the other hand, if you believe Michael Moore and Bob Graham's latest book, then it seems like we are also in bed with the saudis too. And the saudis fund the palestinians.
So just who are we in bed with? The saudis or the israelis? And more to the point, who's on top? And are we "protected"? Because if we aren't, we'll need to know who to sue for child support when we give birth to this unholy alliance. X-/
I nice blog I have one too Horse racing tips galorework at home
Hey I was just blog surfing amd I found your blog! Looks Great!
I also have a airline philadelphia ticket
It deals mostly with airline philadelphia ticket plus other stuff,
You can save up to 50% your next flight!
You should check it out if you get a chance!!
Hey I was just blog surfing amd I found your blog! Looks Great!
I also have a airline orbitz ticket
It deals mostly with airline orbitz ticket plus other stuff,
You can save up to 50% your next flight!
You should check it out if you get a chance!!
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
I have a casino targeted traffic site/blog. It pretty much covers casino targeted traffic related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time:-)
Hi, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to visit again! Please feel free to visit my blog too at http://rushprnews.iuplog.com, RushPRnews Daily Gazette.
My site is ** RushPRnews press release services, distribution and free web posting** . Cordially, Anne Laszlo-Howard
Veteran's Day is November 11th and I hope that EVERY American will be flying the flag in honor of our troops fighting in Iraq and around the world to preserve our freedoms!
I can even tell you where to get one for free! Visit AmericanFlags.com right now and they'll send you a FREE American Flag. These flags were $19.99, but now they are FREE. You pay just for shipping/handling and they'll ship one to your door. (Actually - I've ordered more than 20 from them to give to my neighbors, as gifts, etc!)
Get your free flag now: **FREE AMERICAN FLAG**
Semper Fi!
Bill Adams
Post a Comment
<< Home