On 27 Oct 2004 07:09:45 -0700,

On October 27, 2004, the Washington Times posted an article
by Borzou Daragahi titled: "Terrorists Hope to Defeat Bush
Through Iraq Violence." Go to:

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041027-121030-7792r.htm
__________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:

"BAGHDAD — Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S.
insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have
a clear objective: The greater the violence, the
greater the chances President Bush will be defeated
on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

"'If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating
losses, [Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John]
Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American
people,' said Mohammad Amin Bashar, a leader of the
Muslim Scholars Association, a hard-line clerical
group that vocally supports the resistance.

"Resistance leader Abu Jalal boasted that the mount-
ing violence had already hurt Mr. Bush's chances.

"'American elections and Iraq are linked tightly
together,' he told a Fallujah-based Iraqi reporter.
'We've got to work to change the election, and we've
done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into
the mud.'
[...]
__________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack commented:
The terrorists know where President Bush stands on the
issues of interest to them. They (like everyone else)
aren't real sure where Kerry stands -- so, they'll try
to help Kerry in the hopes he will be soft.

Unless they run Iran or al Qa'ida, of course. Then they'll wish for
Bush to win so they can keep recruiting to terrorist organizations
hand over fist.

It's just amazing that people living in a country invaded by the US on
the strength of nothing more than deceptions wouldn't want the
occupying forces there all the time, isn't it? Ungrateful bastards. I
guess the US could drop bombs on their houses to teach them a lesson -
no, wait, that didn't work the first 2000 times, did it...

jsavard@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid (John Savard) wrote
in message news:<41810578.1485937@news.ecn.ab.ca>...

papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote:

Papa Jack wrote, in part:
The terrorists know where President Bush stands on the
issues of interest to them. They (like everyone else)
aren't real sure where Kerry stands -- so, they'll try
to help Kerry in the hopes he will be soft.

John Savard wrote:
That's true, but on the other hand, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,
a major leader of the attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, was
kind enough, recently, to say that he had settled his
differences with Osama bin Laden, and now acknowledges
him as the leader of the world Muslim struggle.

How better to help Bush than by letting the American people
know that we really _are_ fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Of course, I discount as mere posturing the earlier state-
ment by al-Qaeda that they hope Bush wins because Kerry
would be "clever enough" to make America seem like a friend
to the Arab world, and take the wind out of al-Qaeda's sails.

It would be in poor taste, perhaps, to say that Barbra
Streisand would never sing at another Democratic fundraiser
again if Kerry decided to let the Arab world push Israel into
the sea, but (1) nothing less is going to make that part of
the world like us enough to put a real crimp in al-Qaeda
recruiting efforts, and (2) it is the Democrats, not the
Republicans, that regard Israel as a friend rather than an
unavoidable burden.

I tremble for fear for the Arab world should Kerry be elected.
His distaste for war may place America in the position of a
cornered rat... from which position, of course, comes the
fiercest fighting.

I think that we may well be in a position already that we will
need to impose on the entire Islamic world cultural changes,
much as the U.S. imposed cultural changes on Japan after World
War II. But I am strongly against the position that we should
just exterminate the world's Muslims and "let Allah sort them
out", as I've seen recently advocated in another newsgroup.

It isn't unimaginable to me, though, that if terrorists destroy
several American cities through the use of weapons of mass
destruction on one day in the near future, that it might seem
there is no alternative to doing just that. It is in the interest
of the Muslim world that terrorism be crushed before that day
comes.

On 27 Oct 2004 07:09:45 -0700,

The terrorists know where President Bush stands on the
issues of interest to them. They (like everyone else)
aren't real sure where Kerry stands -- so, they'll try
to help Kerry in the hopes he will be soft.

That's true, but on the other hand, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a major leader
of the attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, was kind enough, recently, to say
that he had settled his differences with Osama bin Laden, and now
acknowledges him as the leader of the world Muslim struggle.

How better to help Bush than by letting the American people know that we
really _are_ fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq?

Of course, I discount as mere posturing the earlier statement by
al-Qaeda that they hope Bush wins because Kerry would be "clever enough"
to make America seem like a friend to the Arab world, and take the wind
out of al-Qaeda's sails.

It would be in poor taste, perhaps, to say that Barbra Streisand would
never sing at another Democratic fundraiser again if Kerry decided to
let the Arab world push Israel into the sea, but (1) nothing less is
going to make that part of the world like us enough to put a real crimp
in al-Qaeda recruiting efforts, and (2) it is the Democrats, not the
Republicans, that regard Israel as a friend rather than an unavoidable
burden.

I tremble for fear for the Arab world should Kerry be elected. His
distaste for war may place America in the position of a cornered rat...
from which position, of course, comes the fiercest fighting.

I think that we may well be in a position already that we will need to
impose on the entire Islamic world cultural changes, much as the U.S.
imposed cultural changes on Japan after World War II. But I am strongly
against the position that we should just exterminate the world's Muslims
and "let Allah sort them out", as I've seen recently advocated in
another newsgroup.

It isn't unimaginable to me, though, that if terrorists destroy several
American cities through the use of weapons of mass destruction on one
day in the near future, that it might seem there is no alternative to
doing just that. It is in the interest of the Muslim world that
terrorism be crushed before that day comes.