My theory: terrorists attacked to keep Bush and Blair in power

[GeekMonkey]

Bush and Blair have done more to help recruit terrorists into Al Queda than 1000 Osama Bin Ladens.

I think the news about Rove, Plame, WMD Lies, etc have the terrorists worried about Bush being taken out of power and someone (like Kerry) being put in power that will actually fight back instead of using them as an excuse to attack another country.

The terrorists LOVE Bush, he does more for their cause than they ever could.

[sui generis]

1. I have an even more tinfoilhat theory

We had something to do with it or knew it was going to happen and didn't do anything to stop it.

no Plamegate, no DeLay shennanigans, once again terrorists control the news cycle and trump all other discussion. Look for some seriously wrong legislation to pass the house and senate over the next couple of days.

:tinfoilhat:

On Edit: my point is actually that I wish I could say I believed it impossible that we couldn't have had anything to do with it. A commentary on how much I trust the political environment, not on being a conspiracy theorist.

[asjr]

7. If the London attacks were caused by Al Qaeda, why were

there no suicide bombers? That seems to be their style--yet I have heard nothing except bombs. That may change but something seems not quite right about this.

[WoodrowFan]

13. the bombs in Spain were not suicide bombers

AQ does not just use suicide bombers, in Madrid they used bombs triggered at a distance or set on timers. Besides, we don't yet know that the London attacks were not suicide bombers, do we??

[asjr]

15. True. That is why I said it may change.

[WoodrowFan]

16. Ok (NT)

[Nabia2004]

10. I agree, this will further empower Bush/Blair policies

This advances Patriot Act II and more.

[Catfight]

2. I think it's a holy war, the Christians against the Islamist. Bush

certainly encourages it as much as Blair for being our ally. The strange thing is, it's also about oil. I agree with you, the terrorist do love Bush in power and make all efforts to keep Americans that don't think about the underlying issues scared enough to think the weak American president can protect them from the big bad jihadist. Remember Bangdor Bush and all the other terrorist that the Bush family has held hands with in the past. Remember too how the Bin Laden family was flown to safety on 9/13/2001 right out of our country. Bush is no president in my eyes, he's as corrupt as all politicians are, but he's their king of corruption.

[whatever4]

9. For women, it's a lose-lose situation

Womens rights don't do well no matter which side wins, unfortunately.

[Wetzelbill]

3. That's tough to say....

True Bush is the greatest recruiting tool they have ever had, but they would rather have somebody who is more likely to make policy changes and be engaged in the Middle East, in a positive manner. Al-qaeda has an agenda, and bin Laden has genuine goals. He believes he is fighting a defensive jihad. And in a defensive jihad, you need to have a discernible gripe to be fighting against, plus a set of goals to accomplish something. Bin Laden is clear on that. Crystal clear. His problem is that he and his organization kill innocent people, therefore once you cross that madman line, you become a target and not a negotiator. It's not simple though. I think it is too complex to say they attacked just to keep Bush in power. I don't doubt that to a degree, yet Bush doesn't represent a final solution to them, so, in the end, they would rather have somebody else in the WH.

[getmeouttahere]

5. Just one small but important reminder....

BushCo kills innocent people too...just because you call it collateral damage, doesn't make it any less horrible

[Wetzelbill]

19. that's definitely important

Bush's willingness to kill indiscriminately is one of the main reasons he is such a good recruitment tool. I don't advocate that either. But, then again, I'm sure you don't advocate that or something such as what happened in London this morning. The point is that, bin Laden has specific goals, but because of his spectacular attacks which kill people indiscriminately as well, he becomes a wannabe negotiator that we won't ever negotiate with.

[Frederik]

6. The French hostages

Charles Malbrunot and George Monbiot, who were held for several months in Iraq, said their hostage-takers, who belonged to the hard-core jihadi faction of the insurgency, told them they were hoping for a Bush victory in the presidential elections last fall, because they feared Kerry might want to negotiate and pull out, which would bereave them of the sympathy they enjoyed in the Iraqi population.

[Wetzelbill]

18. oh yeah, no doubt that many did want a Bush victory

What I'm saying is that you cannot say that they committed this attack to keep him in power or simply powerful. Because in the end, which maybe sometime from now, they need to be rid of Bush, or someone like him to accomplish their goals.

When you say insurgency it isn't specific enough for me to comment on. Sunni insurgency? A nationalist jihadist insurgency? Either Shi'a or Sunni? An Al-qaeda faction? Likely if they were held several months and before our election, it was a nationalist Sunni insurgency, in that case, they probably wouldn't be Al-qaeda affiliated, so then we would be talking about two different things. I'm talking about Al-qaeda, and you would be talking about Iraqi nationalists, who happen to be Sunni jihadists. So it probably isn't the same thing.

[Frederik]

22. Those particular hostage takers were of the

"international jihad" variety I think. They are the ones worried about the support of Iraqis for their "cause" waning. Anyway, I don't think today's attacks were meant to "keep Bush in power". Hell, we don't know anything about who might be behaind this or what their motives might be. Too soon to say.

[theboss]

4. Um...Bush is already in power

So is Blair....
I don't really think they need the help, considering they both just won elections.

[Lost4words]

12. Being elected and being able to drive the agenda are two different things

I don't put a thing past these cold blooded sycophants!

edit line,... I cant know who was behind this but I have learned not to be surprised by anything anymore. I always ask who has the most to gain?

Very sad, my condolences to the families of the victims and the British people.

[whatever4]

8. I'm all with the tin foil hat theory

I think you're both right. I don't see how anyone can look at the facts of 911 and not suspect our government was complicit. Instead, I always hear how it isn't enough proof, always not enough proof. They don't want to believe it's possible we could have monsters in power every bit as bad as Saddam. They forget our "leaders" work with the other "dictators" all the time, have for years, they get along. They work together.

But we'd never be like them, never create or allow such monsters here. That's what it seems to come down to, people don't think such monsters could be elected in our country. And further, the more elitist of them believe the repubs are too stupid and disorganized to form any kind of a conspiracy. Even with money as an incentive, they just don't think it's possible. That's what I've been told. I have no idea why they have such faith in that belief; there is nothing to justify it. Certainly not history. Not even the personal history of the president, the vice president, and many others. Nothing to base that opinion on, but yet, they hold on to it; it could never happen here. Go figure.

So...some awful people planned and managed to crashed into the towers...naw, couldn't have been anyone here...we got no one like that here...never happen here...no proof...not enough proof...and there were no innocent prisoners...and we weren't holding them in other countries...and we didn't tourure them...very many of them...too often to interupt regular meals with two pieces of fruit...and there were MWD somewhere

And the acts of violence today have NOTHING to do with 911, or anyone connected to it. Sure.

[H2O Man]

11. I think Bush & Blair

were behind the Revolutionary War for exactly the same reasons.

[WoodrowFan]

14. don't forget the War of 1812

and the french and Indian War!!!!

[H2O Man]

17. No doubt.

Bastards! They set up the Incas, too. Just for the power. Likely played behind the scenes roles in China invading Vietnam in 110 bc!

[Wetzelbill]

20. hahaha

[DaddyBear1]

21. Bush makes me.....

ashamed to be an American. God get us passed 2008 soon....