AQ calls on USA to "Vote McCAin"

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by OLDBIGHEAD, Oct 22, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. They obviously want Obama to win too.
  2. They're judging his would-be presidential skills on his flying skills.
  3. And they're generally in favour of people who crash planes, after all...
  4. 4 Nil, I believe.
  5. It's a double double bluff. They support Mc Cain therefore the septic voters will think they really want Obama to win. Therefore they will vote for McCain to spite them. er....
  6. McCain is just too close to death - and if he wins and pegs out, the replacement POTUS is just unthinkable.

    Donning tinfoil, I don't think Obama will last long either, particularly if he isolates a certain Middle Eastern country beginning with I and ending with L.
  7. The American public has been convinced it is better, 'to fight them over there rather than back home.'

    Al-Qaida is very keen to have the US military fighting in 'Islamic states' too.

    The Iraqi and Afghan population thus suffer.

    Who gains most and loses least if these conflicts drag on: the US or Al-Qaida?

    Who is keen to scale down US involvment and who to keep it sustained: Obama or McCain?
  8. Al-Qaida loses. The US can fcuk off home whenever they want - Al-Qaida is stuck trying to explain to the locals why it should be put in charge when it's just spent the last x-years blowing them up. Jihad looks pretty when it's on TV - not so much when it's through the window.
  9. Looks to me like a classic peice of reverse psychology. If its not complete rubbish that is.
  10. "A message was posted" on a nasty website - and the Daily Mail gets in a froth.

    I wouldn't be surprised if "Bin Laden sends a video" soon. We haven't seen one for a while, and it's a key moment coming up.

    It would put the cat amongst the pigeons if something really surprising was revealed - perhaps something that could benefit John McCain in his hour of need?
  11. Eh???

    Al-Qaida is not interested in running Iraq. It's only in Iraq to humble the US. There hasn't been another Twin Towers effort since there has been no need to bait Uncle Sam. He's already doing just as required.
  12. Yes, and there also hasn't been another Twin Towers/Pentagon effort because the US belatedly introduced the security measures which should have been implemented when the CIA first warned that an attack was imminent.

    Condi Rice, who was National Security Advisor at the time, has the distinction of being responsible for that little 'error'.
  13. I remain unconvinced that the 'security' measures implemented are that helpful against the type of threat Al-Qaida poses.

    They are, however, very good at giving the impression to the general public that a lot is being done, and also fairly good at making things difficult for 'ordinary' criminals such as money launderers and so on.
  14. I don't wish to drag this off topic, but how does the AQ threat differ from other terrorist threats? 9/11 was, fundamentally, a hijacking. Hardly new. Ditto the truck bombs in the 90s. The USS Cole attack was novel, it's true, but nevertheless countermeasures are available.

    If the US govt had implemented the airport security measures recommended to them prior to 9/11, it's unlikely that the attack would have been possible.