"Thanks, Usama." "No, thank YOU, George"

[Feanor]

It seems perhaps the biggest determinant in the recent US Presidential outcome was the believe of many Americans that George W. Bush would better protect them from terrorism. To that extent, Bush can thank Bin Laden for his election victory.

On the other hand we need to consider Bin Laden's real goal. That isn't the destruction of the US and western hegemony -- much as I'd love to see that. Rather, his main goal is to topple secular Moslem regimes, (such as Saddam's was), and/or religiously hypocritical Moslem regimes, (such as Saudi Arabia). It was ridiculous error on Bush's part to see Saddam and Bin Laden having anything in common.

However taunting the US is one of Usama's principal tools to his main goal. Bin Laden thrives on heavy-handed US over-reaction to terrorism in order to recruit fanatical followers. Together with US' action is the past, e.g. favoring the Shaw of Iran, (a ruthless dictator along the lines of Saddam), and its continuing, uncritical support for Israel against Palestine, the invasion has given Usama all the fuel to feed the flames of Moslem discontent in the middle-east. To that extent, Usama Bin Laden can thank Bush.

So, as the Canadian military and political commentator, Gwyn Dyer put it, "Bush and Bin Laden are effective allies". And American voters are quite deceived if they think Bush is their best bet for security from terrorism.

[karl k]

It seems perhaps the biggest determinant in the recent US Presidential outcome was the believe of many Americans that George W. Bush would better protect them from terrorism. To that extent, Bush can thank Bin Laden for his election victory.

On the other hand we need to consider Bin Laden's real goal. That isn't the destruction of the US and western hegemony -- much as I'd love to see that. Rather, his main goal is to topple secular Moslem regimes, (such as Saddam's was), and/or religiously hypocritical Moslem regimes, (such as Saudi Arabia). It was ridiculous error on Bush's part to see Saddam and Bin Laden having anything in common.

However taunting the US is one of Usama's principal tools to his main goal. Bin Laden thrives on heavy-handed US over-reaction to terrorism in order to recruit fanatical followers. Together with US' action is the past, e.g. favoring the Shaw of Iran, (a ruthless dictator along the lines of Saddam), and its continuing, uncritical support for Israel against Palestine, the invasion has given Usama all the fuel to feed the flames of Moslem discontent in the middle-east. To that extent, Usama Bin Laden can thank Bush.

So, as the Canadian military and political commentator, Gwyn Dyer put it, "Bush and Bin Laden are effective allies". And American voters are quite deceived if they think Bush is their best bet for security from terrorism.
But what I did find interesting is that Americans considered Bush the man to protect us against Bin Ladin soley on his actions and speech's... and not necessarily on results. To me, when UBL showed up right before the election, that did remind me that the war on terror continues but also that the man that said he would protect me STILL hasn't removed the "undeniable leader" of the terrorist. I think 3yrs is along time to allow this man(UBL) to go running around stirring up trouble. I have my own theory on why this is but can't comfirm it until some more time passes and something major happens.

[jeskibuff]

However taunting the US is one of Usama's principal tools to his main goal. Bin Laden thrives on heavy-handed US over-reaction to terrorism in order to recruit fanatical followers.If that's Osama's goal, then he's failing miserably. We've successfully taken out a significant chunk of Al-Qaeda, leaving Osama with less capability than he ever had before. It is my opinion that he would have liked to have pulled a Madrid on us just before the election, but he had to resort to making a threatening film instead, from inside one of the many places he now cowers.


American voters are quite deceived if they think Bush is their best bet for security from terrorism.What a screwball opinion! There hasn't been a 9/11 since 9/11. There are now two countries heading for democracy where there were formerly two brutal regimes that harbored terrorism and fomented hatred. Besides, Kerry more than proved that he didn't have a clue about how to handle terrorism. Democrats just got a reality check. People trust Bush more than they trust Kerry. The anti-war movement was loud, with morons like Michael Mooron and Dan Rather trying to jam their message down Americans' throats. But America saw through the propaganda. The same thing happened in Australia recently. The anti-war left claimed they were going to oust pro-war John Howard. The people spoke. They put in John Howard for a 4th term! Will the same thing happen to Tony Blair the next go-around?

Who is deceived here? The anti-war liberals think that because their voices are louder that their message is universal. "All the world hates the U.S. All the world hates Bush. All of America hates Bush" On November 2nd the silent majority spoke a little louder, in the only opinion poll that really mattered.


To me, when UBL showed up right before the election, that did remind me that the war on terror continues but also that the man that said he would protect me STILL hasn't removed the "undeniable leader" of the terrorist.Ah, but finding one man is extremely difficult, especially in a hostile environment that has many hiding places and a loyal following that will protect him at all costs. It took us, what...5 years to capture Eric Robert Rudolph IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Good grief! Don't expect miracles, but use a little common sense and let reality kick in for a change. It's VERY difficult to find one person when YOU DON'T KNOW even what country he is in!

[karl k]

Ah, but finding one man is extremely difficult, especially in a hostile environment that has many hiding places and a loyal following that will protect him at all costs. It took us, what...5 years to capture Eric Robert Rudolph IN OUR OWN COUNTRY. Good grief! Don't expect miracles, but use a little common sense and let reality kick in for a change. It's VERY difficult to find one person when YOU DON'T KNOW even what country he is in!And that's what happens when the manhunt starts as a top priority and ends as a matter of containment(as in ERR). The big problem with containment... the message still gets out. Not saying that IS the case here(yet) but the evidence to such a conclusion IS mounting. We aren't just looking for "one man" since he doesn't travel alone. If a group of men is easier to track/spot(unlike ERR), and this group isn't covering their tracks 100%(ie video/audio tapes delivered), I have to question three things.

Either...

1) our intellegence agencies aren't up to the challenge...OR

2)he is no longer a "top priority" and we consider him contained and therefore acceptably ineffective at doing us damage... OR

3)he is in a known specific location and it is impossible to act due to geo political problems that would ensue.

Either way, I wouldn't necessarily consider myself safer under "W" with the messenger still alive and no resolution to that matter in sight.(that's not to say the alternative would do better, just that the alternative should be seriously considered)

I don't expect miracles(not in my nature), but I am being asked to believe that our priorities are in order, that we are doing our BEST to fight this war on terror, and we are getting the results we set out for as described by our government.

Have a good one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What a screwball opinion! There hasn't been a 9/11 since 9/11. There are now two countries heading for democracy where there were formerly two brutal regimes that harbored terrorism and fomented hatred

What has completely amazed me is how short sighted, and how stupid most Bush supporters think terrorist are. You mean to tell me just because we haven't had a 9/11 up to now you think your safe??? LOL. That is utterly rediculous. These guys are not stupid. They are going to wait until that thought process settles in your mind, and you relax. Then your ignorance, and arrogance will totally betray you. Bush has stirred up a hornets nest, agitated them, and made them MORE bold and aggressive. Our soldiers are now learning that first hand, and so are the Iraqi people. Body bag, after body bag is the physical proof.


Who is deceived here? The anti-war liberals think that because their voices are louder that their message is universal. "All the world hates the U.S. All the world hates Bush. All of America hates Bush" On November 2nd the silent majority spoke a little louder, in the only opinion poll that really mattered.

Did you read any of the newspapers around Europe after the election was over. They moaned. They thought we were stupid for re-electing a man who on every count is a failure, but he mentions God, and the religious right get's into action. Well the religious right is going to demand payment for getting him into office. That payment will further split this country in two, polarize it more, and further blurr and blend the church and state. It is a huge mistake Jeskibuff to think that all anti war people are liberal, or particularly anti war specifically. I was all for ;the war in Afghanistan. The people who killed my uncle and cousin were there. But none of the terrorist that killed my uncle and cousin were in Iraq, so why are we there? And the post war(or supposidly post war) has been a complete diaster with more people dying than in the war itself. The lack of post war planning has cost us a rediculous amount of american lives, and an even more rediculous amount of Iraqi lives. How many more will die before we end up killing as many as Saddam did. At the rate that it is going, it won't be long.

These next four years are going to be very interesting. I just hope foreign investment in this country continues, because if it does not, we are in a crap load of trouble. There are going to be huge deficits when Bush is finished, and we are going to need foreign money to bail us out big time. I just hope we have some friends left when it is over. Having the white, senate, and house of representatives is a huge advantage for the republican party. But it is also a huge curse, because when things fail, there is nobody but the repubs to blame. This is going to be a very interesting four years. I cannot wait as a christian to see were the more racist and hateful side of christianity will take us all.

[Feanor]

Was a net set back to Bin Laden, but the invasion of Iraq is another matter. The latter plays into his hands to a large extent. First, it further radicalized the substantial minority of Arabls who were inclined that way as a result of decades of US policy errors regarding Israel/Palestine and Iran. Second, it eliminated a secular regime that was fundamentally, (no pun intended), his enemy.

My position is pragmatic; it isn't a matter of me being "anti-war". The Bush policy is simply misguided towards his stated goal, defeating terrorism.

By the way, while the "war on terrorism" might go on, but the war on Iraq is over. Bush had no plan to "win the peace" and he still doesn't. This is further aids Bin Laden's goals.

[piece-it pete]

Can't "win the peace" without winning the war.

Pete

[Keith from Canada]

[QUOTE=jeskibuff]If that's Osama's goal, then he's failing miserably. We've successfully taken out a significant chunk of Al-Qaeda, leaving Osama with less capability than he ever had before. It is my opinion that he would have liked to have pulled a Madrid on us just before the election, but he had to resort to making a threatening film instead, from inside one of the many places he now cowers.QUOTE]

The core question that no-one seems to ask is how is the war in Iraq perceived by moderate Muslims watching from the sidelines? It seems to me that the Repubs are trying to convince everyone that these Muslims are looking at Iraq and Afghanistan as shining examples of "freedom on the march" and a step towards their own democratic society. Those on the left (generally speaking) seem to be viewing this in terms closer to reality IMO. The radicals in countries like Pakistan (just to name one) have used Iraq to convince a new legion of followers to their cause. Moderates are becoming angry and ripe for extremism. Most of the documentaries and reports that I have come across indicate that extremists are finding it easier than ever to recruit people to their 'cause'

One other point that I find interesting...Bush is stating that he will bring Democracy to the Middle East which he equates to "freedom". Has anyone asked if Muslims in these countries want democracy? Has anyone even asked whether or not 'democratic values' work within their religious beliefs? If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then the US is embarking on an impossible mission that will only act to light the powder keg.

[piece-it pete]

Has anyone asked if Muslims in these countries want democracy? Has anyone even asked whether or not 'democratic values' work within their religious beliefs? If the answer to either of these questions is "no", then the US is embarking on an impossible mission that will only act to light the powder keg.

Rent "Voices of Iraq" - it has your answer.

They could still fail, of course.

Pete

[Keith from Canada]

Rent "Voices of Iraq" - it has your answer.

They could still fail, of course.

Pete

When I was referring to the moderate and extremist-leaning Muslim's, I was not speaking about the people of Iraq who have always been quite moderate. It is countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc, who house the religious extremists, not Iraq (they have never been in Iraq).

Voices of Iraq sounds very interesting but it should be viewed in the proper context. The people of Iraq have always been religious moderates in comparison to other Middle Eastern countries, hence the reason why there are so few Iraqi's in Al Qaeda. If you want to know where the recruits come from, we would need to see a "Voices of Pakistan", "Voices of Saudi Arabia", or "Voices of Iran" to get a better view.

[piece-it pete]

When I was referring to the moderate and extremist-leaning Muslim's, I was not speaking about the people of Iraq who have always been quite moderate. It is countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan etc, who house the religious extremists, not Iraq (they have never been in Iraq).

Voices of Iraq sounds very interesting but it should be viewed in the proper context. The people of Iraq have always been religious moderates in comparison to other Middle Eastern countries, hence the reason why there are so few Iraqi's in Al Qaeda. If you want to know where the recruits come from, we would need to see a "Voices of Pakistan", "Voices of Saudi Arabia", or "Voices of Iran" to get a better view.

Agreed, with one caveat: There have been/ are extremists in Iraq, including our buddies over at al-qaeda. On the Voices dvd folks are like, "Yeah, one lived over there, and down the street there was another....

A quick survey looks like this to me: Saudi Arabia, haters of the US but quite firmly controlled by folks who love our money and their power. Iran, some haters, but brighter outlook, they had the only Arab gathering in SUPPORT of us on 9-12, many friends there. It'll be tough to get the mullahs out, though. Syria, I don't know, we really aren't getting much from the gov't on them. I think we've been playing REAL hard with them. Unknown. Afganistan has been an unbridled success, so far. Long way to go. Pakistan is a real wild card.

Overall, we've had it a lot worse in our history. One advantage that even the Loyal Opposition can celebrate about Bushs' reelection is that the US took casualties and elected him again - we proved the mullahs wrong, we are NOT weak and will take casualties without running with our tails between our legs. Gives us a MUCH stronger hand.

Pete

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agreed, with one caveat: There have been/ are extremists in Iraq, including our buddies over at al-qaeda. On the Voices dvd folks are like, "Yeah, one lived over there, and down the street there was another....

Are they sure they were al-qaeda, or were they just local extremist belonging to terrorist groups in Iraq?


A quick survey looks like this to me: Saudi Arabia, haters of the US but quite firmly controlled by folks who love our money and their power. Iran, some haters, but brighter outlook, they had the only Arab gathering in SUPPORT of us on 9-12, many friends there. It'll be tough to get the mullahs out, though. Syria, I don't know, we really aren't getting much from the gov't on them. I think we've been playing REAL hard with them. Unknown. Afganistan has been an unbridled success, so far. Long way to go. Pakistan is a real wild card.

Pete, I agree with you about Saudi Arabia. I am really angry at our governments participation with the evil, two faced dictator regime. They have these madjrassa(spl?) within their country, and they say they are controlling them, but they keep pumping out these anti western hate mongers, hell bent to kill us all here. They allow their men to keep american born children hostage in their country, against the wishes of the mother because women have no rights in this country. When I watched a story on CNN about this, it made me so mad that I wrote to my local senator Diane Feinstein. The answer I got back pissed me off even more. Since we do so much business with them, there isn't much that can be done about this problem is what she wrote. Our oil money sure doesn't buy us much influence does it? Iran showed support for us because they are a young country(70% under 30 y/o) who strongly desires to engage with us, mimick us, and befriend us. It's the religious kooks who do not want to see this happen.


Overall, we've had it a lot worse in our history. One advantage that even the Loyal Opposition can celebrate about Bushs' reelection is that the US took casualties and elected him again - we proved the mullahs wrong, we are NOT weak and will take casualties without running with our tails between our legs. Gives us a MUCH stronger hand.

Pete

This is probably the only bright shining light I could put on re-electing a domestic failure that has made this country the most hated country in the world...bar none. The only reason why we CAN take these casualties is because they are invisible. During the gulf war, we saw pictures of coffins coming if from Germany. In this war we have yet to see one coffin come into Dover AFB. This administrations blackout on this I find reprehensible, and has done much to disengage the attention away from the loses, while trying to put a smiling face on all the terrible death that is occuring in this war. Makes really easy to take the casualties when you cannot see them!