1
1/2Hawk
Guest
You hear this all the time on AM radio and in the news now that elections are coming up tomorrow. Can anybody find a second source or some actual evidence why this might be true? Is anybody Arabic-literate that can research what the local papers say about this? I'd like to see an article explore this topic.
The idea likey stems from an article from WorldNetDaily, which throws red flag #1 right off the bat. (Source weblink) The article cites statements from several "terrorist leaders" ... who by the way all happen to be Palestinians living in Jenin - as though they commonly greet Western reporters for a bit of coffee and light political banter over there. (Any terrorist leader in Palestine worth his salt can only expect a gunship loaded with hellfires en route the second he pops his head out of the ground to make a public statement - but anyway). You also get the impression that the Palestinians are responsible for the Iraqi insurgency - as though they dont have their own troubles to worry about. Anyway, lets take the article at face value.
I dont want to start a political debate here, just wanted to lay out a few counterpoints which make me think this story is false. I mean, the idea just seems contrived and appropriately timed. Certainly 'Staying The Course' also has many benefits for these terrorists.
* Its been great for recruitment. Nothing gets the boys stirred up more than foreign invaders in the home land causing financial ruin. Mucking things up in Iraq for the US and Lebanon for Israel is showing that these countries are not infallible.
* We're created a terror playground by decapitating a strong dictatorship that wouldnt have allowed such behavior to go unchecked. Saddam wasnt a religious fanatic either, avoiding strong ties back to the clerics in Iran who stoke fires.
* We're providing them thousands of targets to shoot at right in their own backyards, as well as first hand experience with how Army tactics and procedures are handled. They wouldnt have access to our people if they were home pulling one weekend a month in the Reserves.
* Resistance technologies such as IEDs and car bombs have gone way up in effectiveness through years of testing and refinement. Again, ample opportunities for training classloads of future bomb builders.
* Massive US spending on hosting a military there reduces its ability to pay for shoring up its own defenses at home or developing new weapons or keeping its public happy and healthy. The economic costs of us spinning our own fears into a frenzy are far more damaging than any plane in a building could have done by itself.
* War is ugly, and each mistake the Americans make that goes public (ie: Abu Graib) has an ill effect on support from her allies. Hell, we've setup concentration camps in Cuba, admitted to having secret detention centers all over Europe and even legalized some aspects of torture. That's great PR in the world view.
On the other hand, a withdrawl before the job gets done would be portrayed as a great victory against the Zionist backed US. Either way, it seems at best a wash for them. Certainly terrorist leaders understand it doesnt really matter who you put in Congress - they're all backed by lobbyists and similar scumbags anyway. You'd also think they'd be smart enough to know that if they really did support Democrats, anything they said publically would actually hurt the Dems chances tomorrow. Something just smells fishy about this whole thing, so if you've ever read something to support it I'd appreciate a link.
The idea likey stems from an article from WorldNetDaily, which throws red flag #1 right off the bat. (Source weblink) The article cites statements from several "terrorist leaders" ... who by the way all happen to be Palestinians living in Jenin - as though they commonly greet Western reporters for a bit of coffee and light political banter over there. (Any terrorist leader in Palestine worth his salt can only expect a gunship loaded with hellfires en route the second he pops his head out of the ground to make a public statement - but anyway). You also get the impression that the Palestinians are responsible for the Iraqi insurgency - as though they dont have their own troubles to worry about. Anyway, lets take the article at face value.
I dont want to start a political debate here, just wanted to lay out a few counterpoints which make me think this story is false. I mean, the idea just seems contrived and appropriately timed. Certainly 'Staying The Course' also has many benefits for these terrorists.
* Its been great for recruitment. Nothing gets the boys stirred up more than foreign invaders in the home land causing financial ruin. Mucking things up in Iraq for the US and Lebanon for Israel is showing that these countries are not infallible.
* We're created a terror playground by decapitating a strong dictatorship that wouldnt have allowed such behavior to go unchecked. Saddam wasnt a religious fanatic either, avoiding strong ties back to the clerics in Iran who stoke fires.
* We're providing them thousands of targets to shoot at right in their own backyards, as well as first hand experience with how Army tactics and procedures are handled. They wouldnt have access to our people if they were home pulling one weekend a month in the Reserves.
* Resistance technologies such as IEDs and car bombs have gone way up in effectiveness through years of testing and refinement. Again, ample opportunities for training classloads of future bomb builders.
* Massive US spending on hosting a military there reduces its ability to pay for shoring up its own defenses at home or developing new weapons or keeping its public happy and healthy. The economic costs of us spinning our own fears into a frenzy are far more damaging than any plane in a building could have done by itself.
* War is ugly, and each mistake the Americans make that goes public (ie: Abu Graib) has an ill effect on support from her allies. Hell, we've setup concentration camps in Cuba, admitted to having secret detention centers all over Europe and even legalized some aspects of torture. That's great PR in the world view.
On the other hand, a withdrawl before the job gets done would be portrayed as a great victory against the Zionist backed US. Either way, it seems at best a wash for them. Certainly terrorist leaders understand it doesnt really matter who you put in Congress - they're all backed by lobbyists and similar scumbags anyway. You'd also think they'd be smart enough to know that if they really did support Democrats, anything they said publically would actually hurt the Dems chances tomorrow. Something just smells fishy about this whole thing, so if you've ever read something to support it I'd appreciate a link.
