Al Qaeda’s Endorsement?
I have read a couple of reports that said John McCain has recieved Al Qaeda’s endorsement for president. These articles have hypothesized that Al Qaeda prefers McCain to Obama because they expect McCain to carry on Bush’s military strategy in Iraq, which gives Al Qaeda the continuing circumstances it needs to cash in on American resentment and generate support for their terrorist endeavors. This is a contrast to the expected Obama strategy, which would be more multilateral in its approach, and would utilize a combination of economic policies with limited military threats to neutralize terrorist activities. At face value, this seems plausible, as American unilateralism has been responsible for much of the anti-Americanism we have seen during the W. Bush era. However, there is something about this scenario that emits the faint odor of male bovine feces.
These reports have said that Al Qaeda is a politically sophisticated entity that for the reason mentioned above sees an ironic advantage in having a more militaristic leader in the Whitehouse. Moreover, such a leader would serve as an unwitting agent in their hopes to wear us down through a war of attrition. If they are so sophisticated, however, why would they want their preference to be known, particularly in the American public. I mean if anything is going to drive the bulk of American’s away from a candidate, it would be that that candidate has received Al Qaeda’s endorsement. So, was this endorsement meant to be private, insofar as it wasn’t meant for American ears? I have my doubts. It seems more likely that this whole thing is another cooked up expression of the crap that has stained this political season.
Wrote the following comment on November 4th, 2008 at 3:55 pm #
‘Al Qaeda’ is nothing more than a CIA created and trained group of extremists that is the modern day ‘boogie man’ out there. The truth is that our government (specifically the CIA) has engaged in more acts of ‘terror’ in other countries than any other country in history and the mainstream media is the propaganda that pushes forth the myth that terrorism is the new ‘communism’ of the 21st century. Forget that Bin Laden was a CIA trained and funded asset from back during the Afghan-Soviet war where we funded the ‘rebels’ to fight the soviets by proxy (very much the same garbage that’s going on in Georgia to this day)
“Al-Qaida,(sic) literally ‘the database,’ was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians,” admits former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, whose Foreign Office portfolio included control of British Intelligence Agency MI-6 and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), in a column published by the UK Guardian newspaper.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html)”
As for Obama or McCain – as I’ve said before it’s a false choice – the same power interests fund both sides so whatever you choose, they win. Don’t you find it funny that virtually ever single president that’s come to power has had his ancestory traced back to English Royal bloodlines? In a country where the dream is that ANYONE can be President, we have that odd coincidence? Please. The elections are staged entertainment for the public that give the illusion of choice.
So to say that McCain has the endorsement Al Qaeda is just craziness – it’s just a scare tactic to play on people and keep them guessing.
This whole system is a total play on the Wizard of Oz – keep the public watching the big scary man with the booming voice while behind the curtain over on the side are the people pulling the strings. Just follow the money trail and you’ll see who really is behind what’s going on in this nation.
Wrote the following comment on November 4th, 2008 at 11:29 pm #
Kevin – I appreciate hearing from you as you do present information out of the ordinary, but, as you know, the depth of the deceit and manipulation, as you present it, is hard for me to accept.
As far as the CIA training members of Al Qaeda, the one caveat I would point out is at that time the people receiving the training were not a part of Al Qaeda as we understand it. I speculate that the CIA provided such training and funding because of the advantage it gave to American interests. Of course, what has happened is the proverbial “chickens coming home to roost.” I see American history as a kind of playbook for irony. We did something a bit shady, under the rubric that the end justifies the means, and we are now inheriting unintended and unwanted consequences.
As far as the difference between Obama and McCain, I see a tension. On the one hand, I think that practically there is not going to be a huge change in the political landscape no matter who makes office as we are not electing the next autocrat. Moreover, I agree with you insofar as powerful forces are at work playing both sides of the political divide in order to obtain influence over the candidates, but I don’t agree as to the depth of influence that these people have. On the other hand, I do think there is a significant enough difference between these candidates’ and the changes they will seek to effect according to their different visions and values that it is worth voting, since there will be some change to American culture as a result of who holds office.
In the end, I realize that I have not read what you read, and if I did, who knows where that would lead me. But I will say that if I did read what you read, there is not guarantee that I would come to the same conclusion. If you want to in some measure understand why I say this, read my previous post about the facts speaking for themselves. In short, I will say, however, that one of the things we carry with us when we sort and weigh the facts are underlying beliefs and values about how the world is constituted that prompts us in some measure to interpret things in different ways. Summing this up on the level of attitude, I tend to be suspicious of surface presentations, and want to get below the surface by calling into question presuppositions that people operate by and how information is managed and perhaps mismanaged. By comparison, I often feel like you are basically saying we Americans have a choice: continue swallowing the blue pill, or wake up and swallow the red.
Wrote the following comment on November 5th, 2008 at 1:12 am #
Are male bovine feces more malodorous than female bovine feces?
Wrote the following comment on November 5th, 2008 at 1:16 am #
Kevin B – Good question, and the answer is “no”. However, the idiom I was alluding to was not “cow sh*t” but rather “bull sh*t.” Hence, the importance of gender regarding the producer of the feces. đŸ™‚
Wrote the following comment on November 7th, 2008 at 1:42 am #
Two perspectives on this issue.
One, that our intelligence officers and operatives belive that AQ is using “reverse spychology, er, psychology,” or that Two, it’s true.
However, there’s a third perspective, or strategy, not evdiently present.
It is this: If one can get their enemy to expend all their resources, while they save theirs, then the battle is won.
I belive that it is quite evident that strategy is being used upon us.