Bin Laden benefits no matter who wins the election.

[aden_nak]

And I mean that literally. I think he sees advantages to either side winning, and he mostly just wanted to scare the shit out of us and make everyone remember he's out there. Let everyone know he's alive and kicking. But I really do think he can work well with either President in power, as far as he is concerned.

The thing to remember about terrorism is that very often, the original goal they had in mind had some merrit. The IRA is an excellent example of this. It is easy to sympathize with their plight. However, their ACTIONS were utterly reprehensible, and often inhumane. It's a case of "the ends" not justifying "the means". Not by a long shot. If bin Laden's drive is what it seems to be, a change in course in the Middle East, I can't say that I'm not in favor of that. His METHODOLOGY is absolutely disgusting.

Terrorism is utterly unacceptable on the most basic human level. However, separating the terrorists from their cause is sometimes important. Does bin Laden need to be neutralized? You bet your ass he does. Does al Qaeda need to be utterly broken? Without a doubt. But confusing his violence with his original intentions is a dangerous "black and white" game that breeds nothing but more violence.

BUSH: The biggest bin Laden advantage to having Bush as the President is that he knows his recruitment will keep going up. He knows Bush is easily distracted by oil producing nations, which keeps him safer. Plus, Bush's every action is like a recruitment ad for his cause. On the down side, Bush harms his stated goals, and certainly flogs the entire Middle East with both policy and pyrotechnics.

KERRY: The advantage for bin Laden with a Kerry win is that Kerry is more likely than Bush to end the violence in the Middle East. Bush's stance of backing Israel with almost NO concern for the Palestinian side of things is contrary to bin Laden's states goals. So if he really does wish to see the US government put to rest some of the troubles in the region, Kerry is a better choice. On the other hand, I think he knows that Kerry will focus on him far more harshly, and as the US begins to change course, the strength of his organization's message weakens.

In short, Bush would strengthen his empire but damage his original goals. Kerry would move towards those original goals, but crush his empire. At least, I do believe that's how he sees it. So I guess it's really a matter of whether he is a despot or a zealot, eh?

You may commence flaming, exageration, and worry at this time.