Do the terrorists really want Bush re-elected, or is it reverse psychology?

Full article here:

Personally, I think they really mean it. If they want to provoke a worldwide uprising against western powers, then what better way than 4 more years of someone who can be easily painted as a Christian zealot who hates Islam?

The counter argument that I’ve run across is that, if the above were true, then a media-savvy terrorist organization would have backed Kerry, knowing the republicans would really be able to smash Kerry with that sound bite. (“John Kerry: if terrorists support him, do you really want to?”)


It’s nice to see these scum finally expressing an interest in democracy. Still, they should get one of there own rather than try to play around with someone else’s.

This question probably belongs in Great debates, as it lacks a factual answer.

Moved to GD.

General Questions Moderator

Problem with having too many windows open at the same time… I meant to post it in GD, must have hit “post” in the wrong forum. Sorry.

As I have posted elsewhere, I think AQ mean it - they clearly see GWB as an asset for their objectives and would like to see him re-elected and radicalise the situation further, if that is possible.

But I think you are on to something with the Public Endorsement of Kerry strategy. That could work a dream, especially if they could donate to his campaign funds somehow through a series of fronts and then allow the fact to be “discovered” by the CIA/FBI.

Fortunately I suspect they are too hostile to democratic methods to try that sort of subtle manipulation…

As I have argued in other threads regarding the Spanish election, the terrorist’s demands are irrelevant. If they happen to tally with a democratically expressed mandate, that is merely a coincidence.

Only a fool would even consider the wishes of a terrorist when they voted.

Hear hear.

The article is by someone called

The weirdly spelled Opheera seems close to Ofira and is, I think, a female Hebrew name.

Was there a clan McDoom? Misspelling of Makdum perhaps? Duckula? Do your own free association here.

It is unlikely to be a pseudonym adopted to protect some reporter. There’s nothing worth whacking “her” for.

Whatever. No sympathiser of Al Qaeda, Muslim or Dhimmi, is likely to vote for George “Islam is a religion of Peace” Bush. They would obviously prefer to deal with someone having the intestinal fortitude of the newly elected Spanish Prime Minister.

Who can that be, I wonder.

True. However, a terrorist organisation can help create the climate in which people make their decisions. I’d expect this sort of statement to polarise some people’s support for one party or another, if only by making true believers on one side or the other come out with sweeping statements that are only partially founded in fact.

On preview, I see that we’re already there :slight_smile: .

Quite so, Bromley, Kent.

One cannot expect that a terrorist act will have no effect whatsoever on an election. (Indeed, one might advocate something on the terrorists wish-list because you actually believe that it will hamper their cause, as the Spanish might argue.)

However, to vote with their wishes in mind is anti-democratic.

Judging by the rambling incoherence of your post, I’d be guessing it’d be some kind of purple demon in a pink polka-dotted tutu looking over your shoulder.

Lay off the mushrooms, man.

The protestation that “the terrorists’ demands are irrelevant” seems to be a knee-jerk and panicked reaction to American conservative (and clueless) accusations of cowardice on the part of some of the Spanish electorate. Their demands, which we can assume are closely linked to their motives, are as relevant as their modus operandi, identity and any other information that might enable us to successfully combat them.

Surely if something as academic as the origins of Basque is fair game for intellectual inquiry, why not the demands of Al Qaeda? At least the latter is somewhat useful to those wanting to maximise their chances of lasting the year with all their limbs even if the former is still more interesting.

This is not to say that a desire to understand their motives is a readiness to justify their actions. Nothing justifies them but, for example, knowing that some bilateral trade deal between Indonesia and America might provoke the ire of Jemaah Islamiyah is an incredibly big deal. If they don’t want something that eventuates anyway, I will want to stock up on duct tape or any other terribly clever idea Jack Straw or Tom Ridge might have dreamt up. There’s nothing in there about cowardice or capitulation to the will of evil-doers. I just don’t see the value of repeating an absurd sentiment for the benefit of the same kind of people who think we’re all Godless pinkos who don’t know real football anyway. They will never think anything other than the current American approach to… anything is of value.

As for the OP, it depends exactly who they mean by terrorists. Osama bin Laden or Abu Bakar Bashir would love it if Bush got back in. Bush props up corrupt and brutal regimes that provide the context for millions of eager recruits. He also provides the essential Islam v infidel backdrop they require for the acceptance of their particular brand of eschatology The recruits themselves though, especially before getting mindfucked in a madrassa, would take anybody over Bush.

I’ve had schoolmates who, last I’d heard, had gone to Kosovo to join the KLA. Admittedly, they were idiots but they were secular idiots. After seeing pictures of Serb atrocities even these two passive, dull-witted but nice guys got fired up enough to rediscover their faith. Now Bush is inspiring more recruits than Milosevic, Karadzic and the Russians ever could.

and to any future clueless posturing regarding which of the two US presidential candidates the terrorists would “prefer”.

Europeans have enough experience of terrorism that the panicked jerk of the knee is a response which has lessened over the decades. Campaigns in which the wishes of a terror group were associated with the policies of a political party would likely be seen through like clingfilm.

So, the “author” is "Opheera McDoom ".

Tee hee hee hee.

Heh. "Opheera McDoom ". Funny. Heh heh heh.

Mongo smell hoax, mongo do.

(for folks who have not yet shaken out morning’s cobwebs:

Opheera McDoom

Fear of Doom

Nope, she appears to exist.

(AFAIK, in Gaelic “mc” or “mac” means “son of”, not “of” anyway.)

All this proves is that the pseudonym has been widely used. It doesn’t prove that there is actually any such person.

For those with EXTRA brain cobwebs:

Opheera McDoom

pheer-a doom

fear a doom

fear o’ doom

fear of doom

Widely used by Reuters???

Yup, it’s true, some foreign people do have genuine names that appear stupid by our standards. But even if it is a pseudonym, it appears to be that of a journalist who has been used extensively by a large number of respected news organizations for several years.

Dogface, I’m starting to have doubts as to your relationship with reality with regard to this particular issue.

What I haven’t seen discussed yet in any of the Madrid/Spanish election threads (and I haven’t the stamina to read all of them) is the fact that, with such a severe divide as exists between the aims of radical Islamic terrorist groups and the aims of “Western” democracies, any possible reaction by an electorate to terrorist actions or statements can be propagandized by the terrorists to their advantage.

al Qaeda seek to radicalize as many of the citizens of Islamic countries (and specifically Saudi Arabia) as it will take to bring about a fundamentalist revolution in those countries. To do this, they must create and spread a belief structure (within their target groups) resting on two foundational ideas: 1) that the US and its “lackeys” wage war against Islam itself, and 2) that violent resistance is necessary, morally justified, and effective.

IMO, the genius of the Madrid bombings, from the pov of al Q, was not in influencing the vote in a particular direction, but that by timing the bombing days before a national election, a popular “reaction” to the bombing was guaranteed. Even though the election would have occured regardless of any outside agitation, any results of an election held so closely after a major, dramatic and brutal terrorist attack were bound to be perceived as having been swayed in some way by that attack. Post hoc ergo propter hoc may be a logical fallacy, but it is also quite often a correct observation, and a way of thinking that’s practically hard-wired in the human brain. Qaeda understands this, I think.

And, since al Q is immediately “credited” with the election results, either probable outcome can serve their propogandistic agenda. If the Socialists are victorious, al Q can claim they’ve moved Spanish politics in a direction less inimical to Muslims. This validates the moral correctness of their cause and the effectiveness of their organization, gaining them money and recruitment from the target support groups. If the PP are returned to power, and particularly if they return with a strengthened commitment to US leadership, al Q can cite this as validation of the Judeo-Christian world vs. Islamic world war meme, which buttresses their radicalization efforts in Islamic countries. Of these two probabilities, it is the latter, I think, which is the larger strategic victory— however, either result is acceptable. The tactical victory in Spain was the perception of al Qaeda manipulation, rather than the actual results.

This latest purported statement seems to corroborate both sides of the equation, I think. On the one hand, it spins the Socialist election victory and the consequent plans for a withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq in June as a desired decision for “peace” by the Spanish electorate. On the other hand, it declares both Bush and Kerry as enemies of Islam and depicts a victory by either of them in a way which can be used to fuel anti-US emotions; either a brutal and mindless assault against Islam or an insidious and wicked corruption of Islam.
Sentient Meat is quite correct here in my opinion. It’s not the specific electoral desires of al Qaeda which are dangerous, it’s the consideration by an electorate that those desires are relevant which is the real danger.

(Incidentally, there is some doubt as to the veracity of the statement in the article. Even the original claim of responsibility
is [url=]doubted by some
, and I can’t seem to find reference to any “Bush preference” anywhere other than this article, which seems odd.

Nevertheless, even if there is a preference for Bush, then much as I disagree with his policies I would still label you a fool for voting against him on such a premise.)