Iraqi Insurgents Endorse The Poodle

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Well, if the bad guys want Kerry, what more is left to say? Oh yeah, Halliburton, right. . .

IRAQI INSURGENTS ENDORSE THE POODLE

This has to go at the head of the Nuze today. It’s official. The Islamic bastards killing our men and women in Iraq are pulling for John Kerry. Most of us aren’t surprised.

The Islamic murderers in Iraq (“insurgents,” as the media calls them) have now removed all doubt as to their objective. Is it just to kill Americans? Prevent democracy from taking hold in Iraq? Avenge the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? None of the above. They have now said their #1 objective is to elect John Kerry president of the United States next Tuesday. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. A lot of people, including myself, have been telling you this for months.

Listen to the words of Mohammad Amin Bashar of the Muslim Scholars Association, a pro-insurgency group: “If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people,” Another of The Poodle’s supporters among the Iraqi resistance is Abu Jalal. He had this to say: “American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We’ve got to work to change the election, and we’ve done so. With our strikes, we’ve dragged Bush into the mud.”

Now you have to ask yourself just why would these America-hating Islamic terrorists be against George Bush?

Easy. Because they fear him, that’s why. Because he has vowed to destroy them, and they believe him, that’s why. Terrorists like to be appeased, not destroyed. They like to be given numerous chances to clean up their behavior, then slapped on the wrist when they keep chopping off innocent people’s heads. They know that they will get their way, that America will cower in fear, when John Kerry is elected president of the United States.

Complicit in all of this is the mainstream media, the Islamic jihadists’ public relations arm. The media in this country plays right into their hands, supporting their agenda and blowing their accomplishments out of proportion whenever possible. The left shares the goal with the Islamic terrorists in Iraq: defeat Bush and elect Kerry. So the attacks get over-reported, Iraq is made to look like it is a disaster, videotapes showing hostage-taking and demands are show on TV, and so on.

So the burning question is this: will John Kerry accept their endorsement? Probably so, and then he’ll blame Bush for making him do it.

Just remember, when you walk into that voting booth next Tuesday Mohammad Amin Bashar and Abu Jalal, along with a bunch of their friends, want you to vote for John Kerry.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Neal Boortz

2

Uh, have you thought about the fact that maybe they simply want someone who will approach Iraq differently?

Instead of killing everybody in your way, maybe someone who will actually work with them and seek their input to build a strong nation?

Do you actually believe that these people are simply out there to hurt their own country? No, they are trying to spread their beliefs, which are that they should be left alone. I don’t believe that’s right (now that the US is in there, they can’t just leave), and of course it’s not good that they’re killing innocent people, but you can’t change people’s opinions using force. Rather, you have to apply democracy, diplomacy and aid, and all of these are lacking a bit behind in Iraq.

What if someone were to invade the United States and take it over? Would you not try to do what you think would be ‘freeing your country’ by doing the exact same thing the terrorists in Iraq are doing right now? Try to see things from the invadees (I know, it’s not a word) perspective instead of the invaders perspective.

It’s not always about you… there are 6,391,281,841 people out there (according to an estimate), other than you. They have opinions and rights as well.

3

Hey, its a trick, they are just saying they want Kerry elected so that people will elect Bush. They want Bush because they know he is incompetent and not able to lead effectively.

However, maybe they know that we will think that and that they really do want Kerry.

Or, maybe they know that we will know that they know that we will think that and that they really really want Bush.

Oh fuck it. It’s bullshit. Pick your president based on your own beliefs…

4

The insurgents are terrorists who do not want a democracy in Iraq. They know Bush will do everything possible to kill each and every one of them. They know Kerry will rely on appeasment and law enforecment and the pussy UN. It’s more simple than your long winded answer. Be a patriot and vote for Bush.

5

The idea of Kerry winning in Iraq is IDIOTIC.

No American President has ever won a conflict he didn’t believe in.

“Wrong War, Wrong Time.” “Iraq is a Grand Diversion.”

Don’t believe me? Read. See Somalia.

JeffR

6

Navin, you are just parroting the spundits messages and proving my point.

The spundits say that Kerry will do those things, but that is not what Kerry says he will do, nor what he is actually expected to do if he is elected.

Vote based on your own beliefs, not the beliefs of foreigners – myself included.

7

Terrorists want Bush, he is good for recruitment.

Under Bush, hatred of the US across the entire Middle East is at an all-time high.

Bush is creating a whole new generation of terrorists that aren’t even old enough to shave yet.

8

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Terrorists want Bush, he is good for recruitment.

Under Bush, hatred of the US across the entire Middle East is at an all-time high.

Bush is creating a whole new generation of terrorists that aren’t even old enough to shave yet.[/quote]

Lumpy,
Just curious, how many times have you been to the Middle East? I am in Iraq(again) and am just curious from where you are getting your “facts”. I think you would have a different opinion if you actually interacted and spoke with people over here and not rely on CNN for your “facts”.
Although you are correct on one point. Hatred and fear of the US and Bush is at an all time high over here. That is among radical Islamic %$#^ who know their days are numbered under Bush’s leadership.

9

I am sure Kerry is fond of these groups too. After all he supported North Vietnam against us in the war!

I wonder why they hate us but they all want to move here? Is it the freedom?

The liberals need to stop blaming the US for the attacks of 9/11. The planes were flown by terrorists not US citizens.

Regarding the Middle East…study the history. They have hated everyone for thousands of years. British, Turks, Christians. Islam is a religion that preaches death, killing and conquest in the name of Allah. Not forgiveness and loving your neighbor. Islam in Arabic means “to submit”. They will always hate us. They will always hate anyone who is not Islamic and holds a position of power. It is the way it works in the Middle East.

10

Lumpy,

Did you catch crash’s post?

Read it.

He/She is there right now.

Care to argue with him?

JeffR

11

Anyone read or heard of “Imperial Hubris”? The author, who is a current member of the CIA, said that terrorists would want to influence the election so that Bush would win and they would have a new wave of recruits.

Bush is the one who said this is a crusade.

You couldn’t write a better recruiting poster.

12

Soco,

“The author, who is a current member of the CIA, said that terrorists would want to influence the election so that Bush would win and they would have a new wave of recruits.”

This is all a garbage. There were plenty of recruits before, they’ll be plenty after. There were plenty enough to conduct 9/11. Ever since 1979, when we handled Islamists with apologetic kid gloves, there has been a surplus of these barbarians.

A soft, understanding Kerry getting elected won’t make terrorists suddenly opt for a different line of work. The swamp that produces these scum has festered for many administrations, and Kerry is unlikely to do anything to drain the swamp.

Fact is, terrorists generally don’t care who is in office - they think the West is weak, hedonistic, and too drunk on consumerism to take this war seriously. Most probably don’t truly know that Bush does not fit this mold.

13

Lumpy,

“Under Bush, hatred of the US across the entire Middle East is at an all-time high.”

Yeah? You got a stat for this? The Arab street is always raging at something - I’ll bet the US hatred was higher when Israel fought its war against Egypt.

But of you have empirical evidence of ‘all time high’, I’m all ears.

“Bush is creating a whole new generation of terrorists that aren’t even old enough to shave yet.”

Bush is responsible for a thousand year cultural backslide that features a fear of modernity, gender apartheid, and tribal divisions that go back to the Biblical era?

Who knew?

Fact is, it doesn’t matter if Macauley Culkin were president - until something changes in the Middle East, there will always be barbarians killing themselves.

14

I never expect terrorists to adopt a softer line. There are always going to be psychopaths out there who will use religion to advance their own ego driven fantacies. The question is whether they have support or not.

Invading Iraq only helped bolster terrorist support as does this weird neo-conservative view of foreign policy that is advanced by Bush’s team. After reading Kerry’s views of the war on terror, I find his a better method than Bush’s.

15

What is his method on dealing with terrorists? Seriously.

What i can gather. He wants to kill them (no shit)

He wants allies to help, yet they have no spine for it.

He’ll do things smarter (right)

He’ll make it a law enforcement issue and treat them in a gentler matter (disaster in the making)

Seriously can you elaborate his position because I do not see he has a better method.

16

It seems that many of the liberals on this site wish that we never invaded Iraq and toppled Sadams regime. I can understand that in part. As the liberals state, Sadam did not attack America, Bin Laden did.

What the liberals must realize is that we cannot turn the clock back. Iraq is forever changed. The question is what do we do now?

Do you think that John Kerry has the intestinal fortitude to finish the job that you (and he) think should never have been started? Forget politics, just look at the two men who are running, which one do you really think will finish the job properly?

Changing leaders during a time of war, especially to one who thinks that the Iraq war was/is a mistake, is a poor decision. I think we need to allow President Bush four more years to finish what was started.

Simply take a look at Afghanistan. Twice the people voted in those free elections than even the most optimistic had predictied. Can Iraq be far behind? The terrorists would have you believe so, but history tells us something different. As soon as democracy takes hold and the taste of freedom is enjoyed, the Iraqi insurgent groups will fade. They know that President Bush has the will to continue this fight for freedom.

Finally, I would bet that as soon as the election is history the insurgent violence will begin to subside. The latest violence is obviously an attempt to influence the American election. The terrorists know something that many liberals still do not understand, John Kerry is not the man who has the will to defeat terrorism!

In John Kerry’s own words: “It was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place” those are not the words of someone who will lead the US to victory in Iraq!

I will vote against the terrorists and for President Bush!

17

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Terrorists want Bush, he is good for recruitment.

Under Bush, hatred of the US across the entire Middle East is at an all-time high.

Bush is creating a whole new generation of terrorists that aren’t even old enough to shave yet.[/quote]

Another classic example of a leftie spewing unsubstantiated B.S. with no regard for factual proof.

Where’s your outrage, tme? Call Lumpy a liar. He has no proof. You won’t - you two are getting your kool-aid from the same left-wing sippy-cup.

18

Lumpy, you are so owned. I know you won’t post in this thread again.

19

[quote]ZEB wrote:
It seems that many of the liberals on this site wish that we never invaded Iraq and toppled Sadams regime. I can understand that in part. As the liberals state, Sadam did not attack America, Bin Laden did.

What the liberals must realize is that we cannot turn the clock back. Iraq is forever changed. The question is what do we do now?

Do you think that John Kerry has the intestinal fortitude to finish the job that you (and he) think should never have been started? Forget politics, just look at the two men who are running, which one do you really think will finish the job properly?

Changing leaders during a time of war, especially to one who thinks that the Iraq war was/is a mistake, is a poor decision. I think we need to allow President Bush four more years to finish what was started.

Simply take a look at Afghanistan. Twice the people voted in those free elections than even the most optimistic had predictied. Can Iraq be far behind? The terrorists would have you believe so, but history tells us something different. As soon as democracy takes hold and the taste of freedom is enjoyed, the Iraqi insurgent groups will fade. They know that President Bush has the will to continue this fight for freedom.

Finally, I would bet that as soon as the election is history the insurgent violence will begin to subside. The latest violence is obviously an attempt to influence the American election. The terrorists know something that many liberals still do not understand, John Kerry is not the man who has the will to defeat terrorism!

In John Kerry’s own words: “It was the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place” those are not the words of someone who will lead the US to victory in Iraq!

I will vote against the terrorists and for President Bush![/quote]

My reasons for voting Kerry run are quite simple and are related to the reasons you stated in the above post Zeb. Bush invaded Afghanistan, this was never greatly opposed. Then, he invaded Iraq, many would say under false pretences, he did not give the UN time to make weapon inspections and such, instead saying it was an immenent threat, which is clearly not the case.

Now of course occurs the question can Kerry clear up the mess Bush started any better than Bush? I’m not so sure he can clear up Iraq better truthfully, but, I beleive he had less of a chance of invaded Iran or any other countries that actually fit his reasons for going to war with Iraq. WMD, blatant ties to terrorism etc… And i think if a country truly does need to be invaded, Kerry will have an easier time gaining support by the UN and other countries. After all, Bush has not waited for their weapon inspections to finish at the start, then said if you didn’t help attack the country don’t even think about asking to rebuild it, and presented now proven flawed intelligence to the world. If he was good evidence next time I think the UN will still be wary. Just my opinion.

20

DLM,

I think you are a thoughtful person. Thanks for your post.

Remember, in 1998 the inspectors were thrown out.

Saddam only allowed them limited access in 2002-2003 because we were massing troops.

The inspectors were not detectives. They only could inspect what they were given access to.

Now allow yourself to extrapolate your logic to their likely conclusions. If we had waited (costing money/time/resources to keep our troops massed in foreign countries) what would have happened? Saddam would have continued his active policy of deception.

Do you remember him moving things around prior to various inspections? We have his military on recorded tapes discussing moving weapons around.

Think about this. Did we really have a viable alternative. Throw in the U.N./French being actively bribed, and I think you can make a very persuasive case that sanctions/inspections were a farce.

A farce.

Would you really like to take the chance that our enemy, Saddam, wouldn’t have tried to give a vial of VX/Ricin to Al Qaeda/Palestinian terrorist?

I would not.

JeffR