Hypothetical....

[tolbiny]

OBL's tape has led to a lot of speculation as to who he (and presumably most of Al Queda) wants for president of the US. As MMMMMM posted there is an interpretation of his video that says any state that votes for Kerry (well, not for Bush) will have its security garunteed as far as OSB is concerened.
Now OSB really does not deserve to influence this election in this way. But here is the Hypothetical Question-
If OSB could be trusted in this instance (hypothetical remember) Would you be willing to change your vote because of it (either way), Would you consider voting for Kerry giving up your "right" to vote for Bush, or would you look at it more along the lines of Kerry's election would provide better security? Could it be both?

[Nicholasp27]

well i'm voting for Kerry, but i'm in Atlanta and GA will go to Bush, which means that if OBL is telling the truth, i'm in danger of getting attacked, so hopefully he's just talking [censored]

[elwoodblues]

OBL has already affected American politics in very significant ways both directly and indirectly. His actions have led to making terrorism one of the top issues in American politics (if not the top issue.) This little threat would have no effect on my vote one way or the other. The only thing it might make me do is if I were going to not vote, I might vote (either way) just to give him a big f*ck off.

[Bigdaddydvo]

I don't agree w/Elwood's politics, but he's dead in his last post. I think any American changing their vote based on a new terror tape (regardless of Bush to Kerry or vice versa) is pretty pathetic and plays right into what OBL wants, which is to impact our political process.

Honestly, I see the tape's appearance as a desperation ploy on OBL's part. I'm certain he would have preferred to influence our election with another attack of some sort. Since he's unable piece together an attack at the moment, he tries the "Hail Mary Pass" by releasing a terror tape. It's pretty clear he failed, and most everyone will vote the way they planned before OBL's mug showed up again on Al Jazeera.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
don't agree w/Elwood's politics...

[/ QUOTE ]

How could you possibly disagree with my politics? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
but he's dead in his last post.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way! Elwood is alive and well.

[elwoodblues]

Alive - Yes.

Well?????

[tolbiny]

But this isn't a question about OSB's actual abilities. Its about a hypothetical.
If you fully believed he was capable of an attack, and you fully beleived he would not attack any state that voted against Bush in this election, would you change your vote?
Would you be willing to risk your security to make your own choice? would you be willing to risk others' security to make your own choice? Or would you just look at it as part of a greater issue (ie candidate x's election will make me safer)?

[MMMMMM]

The problems I see with this hypothetical are twofold:

1) I don't believe he can be trusted, and that this is just a ploy to try to influence the electorate to not re-elect Bush, and

2) Even if he could be trusted, it would only be only a temporary respite from attempted attacks. Let's say every state voted for Kerry: OBL could not very well keep his part of the bargain not to try to attack America indefinitely, since he has much larger irreconcilable ideological and practical differences with us than merely who we elect, and he has sworn in the past to attack us, and has exhorted Muslims everywhere to "kill and plunder Americans wherever they can be found".

But let's just say I did think he could be trusted to temporarily not attack any American state that votes for Kerry. Would I vote for Kerry on that basis? No, because I don't believe that giving in to blackmail is generally a viable long-term strategy. Giving in to blackmail has serious long-term negative EV, and is generally bad meta-game theory, and I doubt this case would be any different. Hence I think the best response to OBL is to give him a big "F*** You!".

[CarlSpackler]

I believe it was Sun Tzu who basically said terrorism is a last resort when it comes to war, and is only used by the weak. If you don’t have a military, then terrorism is realistically the only way to attack your enemy, as fear is your most effective weapon. We are a superpower, and have the strongest military in the world. Realistically, we should fear no one unless they have nuclear capabilities. Even then, the nuclear countries should fear us more than we fear them. What OBL says, should have absolutely no influence on who you vote for in this election, even under your hypothetical circumstances.

This is a major part of the reasoning behind Bush being weak on terror—why does he keep telling us in a sense to be afraid of these terrorists? If Americans who live on US soil need to be consciously afraid of terrorism, then Bush isn’t doing his job. Bush/Cheaney are basically telling voters that if they aren’t elected, that we will be attacked again, but then Bush turns around and says he can’t promise we won’t be attacked again. A strong leader wouldn’t need to politicize the threat of terrorism.

[tolbiny]

MMMMMM-
I guess i didn't get my intention across. I am more concerned with how people view their security versus their right to vote. OBL's tape only allowed me to give a sketch description of a scenario.
I agree that giving in to blackmail is a dangerous proposition, but i do have a serious question for you-
Would you really put the lives of say 1,000 americans (a major attack, though one not quite to scale with 9/11) directly at risk to say F*** you to Our "biggest" enemy?
Personnally, since we cannont really know what his intentions in releasing the tape are, i think we ought to vote as if it doesn't exist and let the CIA/special forces/BA Baracus figure out how to frag his ass.