AQ calls on USA to "Vote McCAin"

#4
Bogtejebo said:
They're judging his would-be presidential skills on his flying skills.
And they're generally in favour of people who crash planes, after all...
 
#6
TopBadger said:
They obviously want Obama to win too.
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....
 
#7
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.
 
#8
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?
 
#9
whitecity said:
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?
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.
 
#11
"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?
 
#12
parapauk said:
whitecity said:
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?
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.
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.
 
#13
whitecity said:
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.
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'.
 
#14
LISpace said:
whitecity said:
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.
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.
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.
 
#15
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.
 
#16
Well, he has promised to destroy AQ. Regardless if they are in pakistan.
also destroy anyone in pakistan who helps AQ.

Obama on the other hand is not so sure.

so, unsure stanoff.

sound familier.

cigar sucking fcukwit anyone. and his stupid brain dead wife (yes,blair'e wife is also a piece of shoite)
 
#17
LISpace said:
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.
There were so few CCTV cameras / working cameras in US airports that we didn't even get any clear pictures of the 19 hijackers.

Somebody should be responsible for that. (Although the cameras were consulted very effectively and got healthy income streams flowing before and after for more minor crimes.)

I don't want to drag this off thread either, by the way.
 
#18
Comments (6)Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below?

Build a strong country and you won't be so preoccupied and and the whim of a foreign election. I read these pleas from Brits about Obama and it makes me sad for a once proud nation and people.
- Donna, NY, USA, 22/10/2008 12:14
fuck off you retarded yank cunt :D
 
#19
LISpace said:
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.
Nonsense. If a face or ID is unknown, any amount of airport security is not going to prevent an said individual or group getting through if they want to. And I feel it unlikely that Al-Qaudi will try aircraft next time. It's so passe.
 
#20
LISpace said:
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.
well bearing in mind that in a traditional hijacking, the crew are to co-operate, preserve the life of passengers and crew, get the plane on the ground and let the negotiators begin the long drawn out process...

not a lot of use in a suicide attack, that tactic.

modern aircrews faced with a similar attempt would have to be prepared to sit locked in the cockpit whilst terrorists systematically murdered passengers and crew (who may be personal friends) in an attempt to get them to open the door. not to mention trying to break down the cabin door. and if their hijacking attempt failed, the hijackers' last resort might be to attempt to open emergency exits etc in an effort to bring the plane down.

the suicide element makes it a completely different kettle of fish from a traditional hijacking. so yep, it's new.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top