Terrorist Attack Soon

Superman · 10-06-2004, 05:13 AM

Like in Spain, terrorists may strike America hard, before November 2. Some of you will not admit this but you'll still know it's true: If Bin Laden strikes before November 2, he'll be ensuring a BUSH victory.

So, if that happens, I think it will settle the debate about whether Bush's strategy is kicking the terrorist's ass like so many of you think, or whether Bin Laden is actually more afraid of Kerry.

Now, some of you should post denials here, to be safe.

YAHBO · 10-06-2004, 05:24 AM

You need a kick in the balls for posting that.

bell · bell's Garage

actually we need to look at reality here and hope for the best, be ready for what could come. period.
instead of kicking each other in the balls we should keep our eyes open......it's more than political......it's life.

lendaddy · 10-06-2004, 05:58 AM

Sup,

You sure you didn't pick up a new herb habit at that fair? Terrorists more afraid of Kerry? That's a good one

white87911 · white87911's Garage

I do not think that the term "afraid" applies to terrorists. How can someone who is willing to kill themselves in an act of terrorism be afraid of any person?

I do believe that the terrorist feel that as long as President Bush is in office, they will have plently of recruits to continue there acts and will have, right or wrong, more sympathy in the Muslim world.

If John Kerry were to be elected and the United States can make some sort of timely withdraw from Iraq, and we do not invade any other countries, and actually did something about Israel / Palestine. Then, maybe the Muslim world will look at the United States as something other that the big bully on the block. This would then make it more difficult for the terrorist to recruit more people and make Muslim nations crack down on terrorist in the own countries.

But for anyone to say "the terrorist want (fill in the blank) as predident" is just ludicrous.

widebody911 · widebody911's Garage

If Kerry is elected, there will be more terror attacks; in fact, if Gore had been elected, there would have been attacks daily.

I know this to be true because Cheney and Limbaugh said so.

lendaddy · 10-06-2004, 06:20 AM

I really gotta pay attention to the rules, I didn't know we could just make **** up.

Superman · 10-06-2004, 06:31 AM

Hey, this is America and if I wanted to say that I HOPE terrorists attack, then I can do that. I could say I hope all republicans are assassinated. But I don't feel that way, so I'm nto saying those things. All I am saying is that terrorists seem to have deliberately influenced the elections in Spain with the attack on trains......some here feel that Bin Laden hopes for a Kerry victory because Dubya is very effective at fighting terrorism.....I believe the opposite, I believe that in some very important ways, no one could do more to PROMOTE terrorism than Dubya is already doing.....I believe that Bin Laden is hiding safely in the hills between Afghanistan and Pakistan laughing his ass off at the promotional work Dubya is doing for his organization. And the point I am making here is that *if* there is a terrorist attack before November 2, it will be an obvious (though many will of course deny, disingenuously) attempt by Bin Laden to influence our election by ensuring a Bush victory.

Now, I think that's pretty straightforward, and well within bounds.

nostatic · nostatic's Garage

I don't think *they* care who is elected. GW isn't going to make more or less of a dent than Kerry. Both will use the issue to their advantage (evidence GW saying we're "winning the war on terrorism", and "the war on terror cannot be won".)

I don't understand why anyone would think this is so clear cut. We are hated for past "trangressions" (their word), and leadership change might have a slow brake or acceleration, but that's about it. New world order kids, and at some point we will not be #1. Then maybe we'll be less of a target...

lendaddy · 10-06-2004, 06:36 AM

How do you rationalize the attacks in Spain then? The result was a "Kerry" being elected. Are you suggesting this was the opposite of the desired effect?

lendaddy · 10-06-2004, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nostatic
I don't think *they* care who is elected.

The attack in Spain was done just before the election by coincidence? Or are you saying terrorist are more concerned with who runs Spain than who runs the U.S.?

Ofcourse they care.

andrewmr · 07:12 AM

Yahbo,

You would kick Superman in the balls :-)

You must have a pretty big set yourself......

red ufo · 10-06-2004, 07:04 AM

Everytime Bush slips in the polls 5% they issue a terror alert. There is a graph that proves this.

Ya, sure another phony terror attack happens. Bush covers it up, refuses and investigation. Later we'll find out that dumb monkey refused to read PBDs or take action. Another military stand down from Norad, F-16 flying to intercept at 1/4 speed. Condi Rice calling all her buddies a couple days before warning them not to travel, by happenstance the military/pentagon is rehearsing drills indentical to the attacks, put options are placed on the places attacked by never investigated, Bush flies out all the Bin Laden family who are here again, the GOP passes the TIA act any other anti-terrorism stuff written up in 1998, Pat Robertson blames gay people for the attack, MM makes a fortune off it from his movie.

Same **** different day.

dtw · 10-06-2004, 07:46 AM

Jaded.

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

Quote:

New world order kids, and at some point we will not be #1. Then maybe we'll be less of a target...

You are spot on, Nostatic. The true war is not the war on terror, it is a power struggle between the UN and the USA. A New world order or a pax americana. And in order to stay in power, the US has to flex his muscle, invade oil rich countries, even if it has to make up a terrorist threat for that. Does not it seem obvious to all of you that all Bush is doing results in inflaming the middle east even more ? Resulting in more war and destruction, which will justify more american involvement ? Was not Saddam doing a better job a keeping the religious extremists in control, after all ?

Aurel

lendaddy · 10-06-2004, 09:32 AM

Wow are you serious? A power struggle between who now? We ARE the UN. Remove us and they got nothing, period. New world order? You guys read too many comic books.

304065 · 10-06-2004, 09:38 AM

Spoken like a true proponent of appeasment, Aurel.

No, Saddam's murder of his own people, cutting off of hands, etc., was NOT doing a BETTER JOB of keeping religious extremists in control. It WAS a brutally repressive regime with a nightmarish record of human rights.

Your position reminds me of the people in the former USSR who think that they were better off under communism. Democracies certainly aren't as EFFICIENT as a dictatorship at supressing divergent viewpoints and actions, which is exactly why they are desirable.

I find it nothing short of incredible that there are people on this board who suffer from moral relativism so badly that they are willing to ignore the record of dictators like Saddam Hussein just to bash the Bush Administration.

dd74 · 10-06-2004, 09:41 AM

Great observation, Supes. But it's a coin toss as to whether whose victory a terrorist attack will ensure. The only variable I can see (possibly) is the size of the devestation. If the attack is large enough, kills enough, and damages our infrastructure enough, I can see voters booted GW right out of office just as in Spain. However, if small and contained, it will be like a glancing blow, and only serve to anger voters and with that, might cause them to rally harder around Bush.

It's like in boxing, where the difference between a good jab that draws blood can only anger an opponent, where a knock out causes an opponent to give up.

If it's a knock out, surely I'd expect us to react like Spain. Fear is fear. Being American and "resolved" has nothing to do with human nature. To say otherwise is ridiculous.

If this event you outline does happen, the irony will be tremendous. Bush governs by fear, and we cave in to exactly the fear he projects. The Emperor has no clothes...

Aurel · Aurel's Garage

You know John, if the USA was truly worried about human rights, they would be heavily involved in Sudan, where an horrible genocide is taking place right now, but where there is no oil and no benefit to take from it. How is that for moral relativism ?

Plus, I never said that Saddam was doing a better job OVERALL, neither that he was a good guy. I am just saying that he was able to keep his country stable, which the Bushies do not seem to be able to do. But you broke it, now fix it !

Aurel

concentric · 10-06-2004, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Wow are you serious? A power struggle between who now? We ARE the UN. Remove us and they got nothing, period. New world order? You guys read too many comic books.

This is a very naive point of view. The UN and most other political alliances have less to do with defense and more with money. At this moment, there are very large economic blocks (the EU, Russia/China, OPEC) that we are positioning to try to gain an advantage over and vice versa. Notice how nicely the list encompasses those who were opposed to force in Iraq? Coincidence? No way.

The US has less than 50 years until we are out of the top econ spot in the world. Outsourcing (which among other things allows an easy flow of pirated technologies) will speed up the process.

The nation state is a dying breed.

JCM