Islamists Declare Spain Truce, Endorse Bush

FOXNEWS.COM ^ | Thursday, March 18, 2004 | AP

[FFIGHTER]

CAIRO, Egypt

[snooker]

This is getting funny.

How long before the Spanish people ask for a recount?

[Betaille]

But the 9/11 attacks were planned before Bush's "idiocy and religious fanatacism" came into office. And does anyone else think its strange that al Qaeda is calling someone else a religious fanatic? Their endorsement of Bush was ordered by the DNC or Kerry's campaign, the language seems just like the language liberals use.

[Argus]

This is why nobody's seen James Carville lately. He's al Qaeda's new spin doctor.

[counterpunch]

The endorsement of Bush is funny. It's a rather obvious and heavy-handed attempt at reverse psychology. They know that Americans are against whatever they are for, and think they can influence yet another election. Of course in reality it only provides further proof of how much they fear Bush.

But you may be on to something about a co-ordination between the terrorists and the Kerry campaign. It does look like this statement was faxed out from the DNC.
Perhaps these are the "foreign leaders" that Kerry was talking about?

[tiamat]

This is just too weird.

So!

Are they gonna cough up some money to help Dubya?

I'm just curious....

[GailA]

btt

[Betaille]

"It does look like this statement was faxed out from the DNC"
What really struck me was that they called Bush and Idiot and criticized him for being too Religious. This is what liberals don't like about Bush... Al Qaeda's beef with him is for far different reasons. Ive never heard Al Qaeda criticize someone for being too religious... however I hear liberals complain about it every day, so I think we know where this message came from.

[mudblood]

Anyone want to lay odds on which democrtic nation is targeted next? My guess is Poland, for defying them immediately after Spain capitulated. Don't believe the lip-service they issued about being "misled". Actions speak louder than words - and Al Qaida knows this, which is why these brave people will be next.
The UK seems like the obvious choice, but I think they are taunting the US and the UK - they want to take europe 1 cowardly country at a time.

[BlazingArizona]

I'm sure the "endorse Bush" part was just a lame attempt at reverse psychology, knowing the effect an endorsement of Kerry would have on the Aerican right. But this could backfire: if al Qaeda endorses Bush, doesn't that mean that Europeans have to automatically turn against them?

[telebob]

"Whose turn will it be next? Is it Japan, America, Italy, Britain, Saudi Arabia or Australia?" sez AQ.

"Whose turn will it be next? Is it Mecca or Medina?" sez the US.

[coloradan]

I don't think it's reverse psychology at all. Consider the statement again:

The statement tells American voters that Abu Hafs al-Masri supports the re-election campaign of President Bush: "We are very keen that Bush does not lose the upcoming elections."

The statement said Abu Hafs al-Masri needs what it called Bush's "idiocy and religious fanaticism" because they would "wake up" the Islamic world.

They want Bush, because they want the heat turned up rapidly, so the frog jumps out of the water, so to speak. If a 'rat is elected, appeasment will begin and fewer Muslims will be converted to radicals - the Islamic frog will be boiled. But if Bush stays, more moderate Muslims will "wake up" and become recruitable to terrorism.

[watchin]

That goofy explanation is just the veneer disguising their very clever and infidel-proof reverse psychology.

Think about it. What other explanation could they come up with for endorsing Bush? He's sending them all to hell.

Their best shot is parroting the lib/appeaser line that fighting back just promotes more terrorism.

There is a reason these people still live in the stone age.

[Cicero]

It sounds to me as if Teresa's foundation is probably financing this organization, and she told them what needed to be said to the media.

[Salman]

How long before the Spanish people ask for a recount?

No recounts. But given their parliamentary system and the fact that the Socialists do not have an absolute majority, they could have a "vote of confidence" any time.