or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election postponement, and "al qaeda"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Election postponement, and "al qaeda"

post #1 of 154
Thread Starter 
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...lay/index.html

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism..... so much BS. This administration relies on fear, fear and more fear to keep them going. This is all they have left going for them, and this tiny sliver of credibility is being shredded each time they put out yet another phoney terror warning. With each incident of crying wolf, the people will eventually ignore them.

Al Qaeda, al qaeda, al qaeda. Al f*cking qaeda. Goddamit, that is all we ever hear of from the administration and the media. Does Al f$cking Qaeda even exist?

One of these days people are going to realize that there is far, far more danger in being struck by lightning, being run over by a bus, seeing a flying saucer or catching tuberculosis than being involved in an "al qaeda" related terror attack, real or otherwise. Terrorism in the United States has always been an extremely rare event. What attacks there have been, most are domestic terrorism (abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, anthrax distribution, the Olympics bomber, the Maryland sniper, inner city gang driveby shootings etc,).

International terrorism meanwhile is one of the rarest forms of violent incident on the US homeland, and the Administration has milked the 9-11 attacks (for which we still have NO conclusive proof as to the identity of the perps), as if there is nothing else in life besides "look out everybody, there's a muslim with a bomb about to kill you". The Bush Administration needed their Reichstag (in the form of 9-11) in the same single-minded way a heroin junkie needs a fix to function; without the universally broadcast horror-flick of 9-11, none of their policies would have ever got by the US people. Now they can do what they like, by instill as much fear as they can with the media dutifully in tow, with zero rationality or reason. Terrorists have any number of ways of attacking us...air cargo is not screened, neither is train travel (more passengers go through Penn Station in one day than via all the New York are airports combined, and none are screened, and there have been NO attacks). Similarly, anybody could smuggle a huge bomb into a megahotel in Las Vegas and kill thousands, such is the lack of security there. And if I, who visits Las vegas on occasions have thought about this while visiting the Luxor or MGM, then a terrorist group who wants to hit America has also. Not just Las Vegas, but any our the thousands of cities and towns throughout America. Essential infrastucture which would be a prime target for real terrorists remain largely unguarded, and have they been attacked? Oh look, under NAFTA, thousands of trucks can now stream across the US border without inspection...all approved by the "security obsessed" Bush Administration. What may these trucks be carrying? Al Qaeda agents? Dirty Nukes? 40 tons of military grade explosives to be parked outside a mall?

If the election is actually postponed...this will look more a case of these mythical "terrorists" (whoever they happen to be).... winning. They, not us, will be dictating the course of democracy in America. Who are these terrorists one might ask? Who is to gain by a postponement of the US electoral process? Bin Laden, the man who financed the Embassy and USS Cole bombings? Is he so bothered with who becomes president or which party has a majority in each house? Answer: probably not. And if the election is "postponed", what is to keep it from being perpetually postponed? We will be constantly "informed" that here is a perpetual "danger of an attack" by "al qaeda", whatever that may be, and life will never be the same again.

The people doing the most terrorizing are officials within the Administration...by keeping the American people in a constant state of irrational terror. When the IRA campaign was in its full swing in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s with almost daily bombings with deaths and destruction, the UK goverment didnt appease these real, flesh-and-blood terrorists, as opposed to the hot air variety by elevating their status to rock-stardom. They were treated like the lowlife they were, and now their organization has (currently) disbanded. BushCorp needs the specter of bin Laden and al qaeda, either real, or more likely manufactured...it is their lifeblood.

The likelihood of terror attacks has been inflated outside of all rational proportion, to control the mood of the people by fear of the unknown, the images of 9-11 still fresh in our national psyche. The real reason behind the the possibility of an election postponement, and why we are now being informed beforehand is most likely to keep the issue in the front of our individual and collective consciousness, and justify the phoney, unwinnable war on terror.

This administration relies on fiction, lies, conjuring tricks and false flag operations to "justify" their existence. Combine this with public ignorance and a complicit media, a lack of questioning by the public, and the unholy BushCorp-Al Qaeda perceptual alliance will continue to enjoy their mutual parasitism.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2 of 154
Is there a point you wish to discuss?

I really doubt that the November elections would be delayed unless a candidate is killed or something. It would be very hard to rationalize or put past the public. I don't think the stipulations for a delayed presidential election is up to the executive branch anyway, nor that the bar could be set so low that an attack would trigger such an event in kind excluding some extreme circumstances. I do think it's important to come up with worst case scenarios though, so I can't say the idea of a delayed election as anything too sinister in itself. The terms are what matters. You figure that people will want to vote sooner than later if something happened. Also, if you are worried about the administration setting these terms to benefit itself, you have to figure that they believe an attack near the election would hurt them, not help them. I'm not sure that's what they would think nor what would happen. People vote with their hearts though, so it's hard to say how things would go. I can't imagine a delay would make the election any more predictable.

Besides, the Executive branch can't set these terms or control how the election is run anyway, right? Seems like an inherent conflict of interest no matter who is in office. Hm, anyone feeling up for a quick run through the Constitution? I could swear that Congress would control this with the Supreme Court ultimately passing judgment on whatever they decide.

I wouldn't be too dismissive of Al Qaeda either. They may be over-hyped relative to other problems and threats, but the threat is there nonetheless. Sure, we have domestic terrorists and good ol' fashioned crime too, but that doesn't take anything away from an Al Qaeda or some other foreign terrorist threat. There's no equilibrium of actual threat or anything, just maybe a lack of equilibrium with regards to hype and coverage. I can think of a few sources for that hype, only one of which is the Bush admin.

And, absolutely, we are not prepared for an attack when it comes. It's as much CYA as it is WOT. (IMO )
post #3 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...lay/index.html

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism..... so much BS. ...


You're so right.







You're so much smart than the rest of us.
post #4 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
One of these days people are going to realize that there is far, far more danger in being struck by lightning, being run over by a bus, seeing a flying saucer or catching tuberculosis than being involved in an "al qaeda" related terror attack, real or otherwise. Terrorism in the United States has always been an extremely rare event. What attacks there have been, most are domestic terrorism (abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, anthrax distribution, the Olympics bomber, the Maryland sniper, inner city gang driveby shootings etc,).

Isn't this line of thought from out of some Michael Moore speech? (that clicking sound is the sound of someones credibility meter rapidly dropping)
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
Lauren Sanchez? That kinda hotness is just plain unnatural.
Reply
post #5 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
You're so right.

You're so much smart than the rest of us.

OK Scott: We're right down to the wire here....the $200 billion question:

(1) Who did it?

(2) Answer with undeniable proof, please.

If you can satisfy me with your answer, I will be eternally grateful.

Scott, a sensible, balanced reply would be surely appreciated, as opposed to some "anti-America" or "conspiracy theory" twaddle.

Thankyou.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #6 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...lay/index.html

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism..... so much BS. This administration relies on fear, fear and more fear to keep them going. This is all they have left going for them, and this tiny sliver of credibility is being shredded each time they put out yet another phoney terror warning. With each incident of crying wolf, the people will eventually ignore them.

Al Qaeda, al qaeda, al qaeda. Al f*cking qaeda. Goddamit, that is all we ever hear of from the administration and the media. Does Al f$cking Qaeda even exist?

One of these days people are going to realize that there is far, far more danger in being struck by lightning, being run over by a bus, seeing a flying saucer or catching tuberculosis than being involved in an "al qaeda" related terror attack, real or otherwise. Terrorism in the United States has always been an extremely rare event. What attacks there have been, most are domestic terrorism (abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, anthrax distribution, the Olympics bomber, the Maryland sniper, inner city gang driveby shootings etc,).

International terrorism meanwhile is one of the rarest forms of violent incident on the US homeland, and the Administration has milked the 9-11 attacks (for which we still have NO conclusive proof as to the identity of the perps), as if there is nothing else in life besides "look out everybody, there's a muslim with a bomb about to kill you". The Bush Administration needed their Reichstag (in the form of 9-11) in the same single-minded way a heroin junkie needs a fix to function; without the universally broadcast horror-flick of 9-11, none of their policies would have ever got by the US people. Now they can do what they like, by instill as much fear as they can with the media dutifully in tow, with zero rationality or reason. Terrorists have any number of ways of attacking us...air cargo is not screened, neither is train travel (more passengers go through Penn Station in one day than via all the New York are airports combined, and none are screened, and there have been NO attacks). Similarly, anybody could smuggle a huge bomb into a megahotel in Las Vegas and kill thousands, such is the lack of security there. And if I, who visits Las vegas on occasions have thought about this while visiting the Luxor or MGM, then a terrorist group who wants to hit America has also. Not just Las Vegas, but any our the thousands of cities and towns throughout America. Essential infrastucture which would be a prime target for real terrorists remain largely unguarded, and have they been attacked? Oh look, under NAFTA, thousands of trucks can now stream across the US border without inspection...all approved by the "security obsessed" Bush Administration. What may these trucks be carrying? Al Qaeda agents? Dirty Nukes? 40 tons of military grade explosives to be parked outside a mall?

If the election is actually postponed...this will look more a case of these mythical "terrorists" (whoever they happen to be).... winning. They, not us, will be dictating the course of democracy in America. Who are these terrorists one might ask? Who is to gain by a postponement of the US electoral process? Bin Laden, the man who financed the Embassy and USS Cole bombings? Is he so bothered with who becomes president or which party has a majority in each house? Answer: probably not. And if the election is "postponed", what is to keep it from being perpetually postponed? We will be constantly "informed" that here is a perpetual "danger of an attack" by "al qaeda", whatever that may be, and life will never be the same again.

The people doing the most terrorizing are officials within the Administration...by keeping the American people in a constant state of irrational terror. When the IRA campaign was in its full swing in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s with almost daily bombings with deaths and destruction, the UK goverment didnt appease these real, flesh-and-blood terrorists, as opposed to the hot air variety by elevating their status to rock-stardom. They were treated like the lowlife they were, and now their organization has (currently) disbanded. BushCorp needs the specter of bin Laden and al qaeda, either real, or more likely manufactured...it is their lifeblood.

The likelihood of terror attacks has been inflated outside of all rational proportion, to control the mood of the people by fear of the unknown, the images of 9-11 still fresh in our national psyche. The real reason behind the the possibility of an election postponement, and why we are now being informed beforehand is most likely to keep the issue in the front of our individual and collective consciousness, and justify the phoney, unwinnable war on terror.

This administration relies on fiction, lies, conjuring tricks and false flag operations to "justify" their existence. Combine this with public ignorance and a complicit media, a lack of questioning by the public, and the unholy BushCorp-Al Qaeda perceptual alliance will continue to enjoy their mutual parasitism.

I will make sure to tell the next terrorist group to kill your family and friends instead of the ones I lost on September 11, 2001. You ignorant prick. I believe that both the Democratic and Republican parties are participating in talks to address the chance that the election could be delayed due to a terroristic attack. We were not prepared for what happened on 9/11 and that very well could be because Clinton was too busy jamming his cigars in interns. The Bush administration is far from perfect but at least Mr. Bush takes his Presidency seriously with a sense of pride. Complicit media? You have got to be kidding me! The media is so biased toward the left I am surprised Dan Rather doesn't tip right the fuck out of his chair!
post #7 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
OK Scott: We're right down to the wire here....the $200 billion question:

(1) Who did it?

(2) Answer with undeniable proof, please.

If you can satisfy me with your answer, I will be eternally grateful.

Scott, a sensible, balanced reply would be surely appreciated, as opposed to some "anti-America" or "conspiracy theory" twaddle.

Thankyou.

I'm sure I can't. You're an unreasonable person hell bent on anti-american conspiracy theories. I think I have the perfect site for you.
post #8 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I'm sure I can't. You're an unreasonable person hell bent on anti-american conspiracy theories. I think I have the perfect site for you.

post #9 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I'm sure I can't.

Wow. You just admitted you were wrong (even if you didn't mean to do it.) This is a first.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #10 of 154
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #11 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

Find something sensible to say, and then try again.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I'm sure I can't. You're an unreasonable person hell bent on anti-american conspiracy theories. I think I have the perfect site for you.

You fell for it, Homer. How about arguing in an adult fashion. Come on..demolish what I posted instead of stamping your feet like an angry 4 year old.

Take it away....three...four:
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #13 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

Very weak, Frank. Limp as a month-old stick of celery. I want to hear a cast iron case that would stand up solidly in a court of law...not the kind of tenuous, evidence-less propaganda we've been spoon fed for the last 3 years or so. There's the remains of 3000 American dead in that lot: their families deserve 1000 times better than the appalling way they've been screwed over by this shit-heap administration and it's phoney "investigation".

I have yet to hear a explanation for what happened that day that stands up to scrutiny. Virtually every aspect of the government's explanation can be soundly debunked by juxtaposing reports which came out in the regular media many by government departments themselves. You don't need to go anywhere the "tinfoil hat land" oft quoted by Scott and co to destroy the Bush administration's kidology. You know as well as I do as to why this is such a touchy subject.

Try again.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #14 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by Frank777
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

Thing is Frank, that your 'tin hat crowd' have far more evidence against al-Qaeda being the perps than you or anyone who maintains the party line do in favour of it.

Of course this evidence is never addressed - not by anyone here, Michael Moore, the 911 commission or anyone else. That means it can be dismissed as 'conspiracy whacko whatever' but the fact is 'it revolves just the same'.

We were promised the evidence of al-Q responsibility by both Bush and Blair within weeks of 911 - it never showed up and Iraq took center stage. We still haven't seen it. All you have is Bush and Blair's word for it. That's it. No more.

Against it you have:

A (genuine this time) video tape from al-Q containing a denial by OBL

Atta's cocaine binges and alcohol fuelled whoring on the nights before this 'muslim fundamentalist' heads to his maker.

Numerous of the alleged hijackers appear to be still alive.

Un-Islamic and nonsensical Last Will of Atta which somehow miraculously survives even though he strangely attempts to draft a will which he decides to take on a suicide mission to be destroyed.

Ditto his passport.

And on and on and on......


It's all a bit boring. You either want to think, want to see the truth or you don't.

Now I'm not saying I know what the truth is or who it will implicate or exonerate, I don't, but that's irrelevant - the truth is the truth and one either wants to know it or one doesn't, wherever it leads. What we have now is a situation where no-one knows the truth but we know what we have been told is not it.

There's a door and there's something horrible behind it - may be al-Q, may be something worse, may be something opposite - we don't know.

Belief is not enough. It's not enough to just listen to our 'leaders' about what is behind that door, not any longer. We need the truth - we need to open that door and take the risk of facing what is there.

That means people like me and Sammi Jo need to face the risk that we may be wrong and Bush (and you and Scott et al) may have been right all along.

And you need to take the risk of opening the door and facing the fact that you might be wrong and have been lied to.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #15 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
You fell for it, Homer. How about arguing in an adult fashion. Come on..demolish what I posted instead of stamping your feet like an angry 4 year old.

Take it away....three...four:

Didn't Al qaeda repeatedly claim responsibility for the bombings, across multiple videotapes released to Al Jazeera who broadcast them? It is one thing to claim Bush is lying. It is another thing to include press that he doesn't control and terrorists in other lands all working actively to help his story.

There is obviously world press that took issue with Bush and Iraq. Wouldn't these same elements have spoken up if Al Quaeda were in fact being accused instead of proclaiming their responsibility?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #16 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Didn't Al qaeda repeatedly claim responsibility for the bombings, across multiple videotapes released to Al Jazeera who broadcast them ?

No. Two videotapes were released making these claims that in one case undoubtedly featured a 'fake' Osama and the other was debunked as being a counterfeit. Links available on request.

Conversely, Bin Laden denied any involvement for the attacks.

Why would he do this ? Al-Q's mo is to hit the US on small-scale guerilla attacks (as opposed to grandstand events like 911) and to take credit on all occasions. Indeed this is the complete rationale of terrorist acts - it's hardly like they care about their reputation, the more fear the better.

AQ would be far more likely to claim responsibility for an act they didn't commit than deny one they did. Especially the most 'successful' (in their terms) one ever.

Surely no-one can really believe they planned this for years, spent all that time, risk and money only to realise after the fact 'uh-oh, better deny this'.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #17 of 154
Democracy is unpatriotic.
post #18 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
No. Two videotapes were released making these claims that in one case undoubtedly featured a 'fake' Osama and the other was debunked as being a counterfeit. Links available on request.

Conversely, Bin Laden denied any involvement for the attacks.

Why would he do this ? Al-Q's mo is to hit the US on small-scale guerilla attacks (as opposed to grandstand events like 911) and to take credit on all occasions. Indeed this is the complete rationale of terrorist acts - it's hardly like they care about their reputation, the more fear the better.

AQ would be far more likely to claim responsibility for an act they didn't commit than deny one they did. Especially the most 'successful' (in their terms) one ever.

Surely no-one can really believe they planned this for years, spent all that time, risk and money only to realise after the fact 'uh-oh, better deny this'.

Yes, his credibility of blaming the "Jews" for attacking the U.S. over Florida amd the 2000 election sounds so credible.

So does the fact that the questions were submitted in writing and also received written replies.

The part where they don't want to harm anyone but are also not harmed by freezing of assets because they have sources who "love Jihad" is just the cherry on top I suppose.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #19 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by GreggWSmith
I will make sure to tell the next terrorist group to kill your family and friends instead of the ones I lost on September 11, 2001. You ignorant prick. I believe that both the Democratic and Republican parties are participating in talks to address the chance that the election could be delayed due to a terroristic attack. We were not prepared for what happened on 9/11 and that very well could be because Clinton was too busy jamming his cigars in interns. The Bush administration is far from perfect but at least Mr. Bush takes his Presidency seriously with a sense of pride. Complicit media? You have got to be kidding me! The media is so biased toward the left I am surprised Dan Rather doesn't tip right the fuck out of his chair!

Bush takes presidency seriously. Ok.

This is a man who is running around talking about how the war in Iraq has made the world ( and I assume the US is a part of the world) safer, Yet now we get this crap about postponing the election based on some fears of an 'unspecified" Al-Q attack. Get the damn shutters off your head. I got no love for Clinton ( much of what is in the Patriot Act was already law passed by Clinton's admin...), but to think that Bush and Co. is being straight with you is downright STUPID? How can the same admin tell you that "we are safer" and then turn around and even hint at moving elections based on terrorism fears.
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
As sure as the Bible is missing books
George Bush is missing sense
and violence breeds more violence
But this ain't really about Hussein
Regime change
Crashing Airplanes
or buildings falling in flames
Reply
post #20 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Yes, his credibility of blaming the "Jews" for attacking the U.S. over Florida amd the 2000 election sounds so credible.

So does the fact that the questions were submitted in writing and also received written replies.

The part where they don't want to harm anyone but are also not harmed by freezing of assets because they have sources who "love Jihad" is just the cherry on top I suppose.

Nick

I'm afraid that's fuzzy logic.

The issue is whether he takes responsibility for 911 not who he thinks did do it.

So he hates Jews and (assuming he wasn't responsible) sees them as a likely candidate. That's his view and sure, it's ***ed up but what else do you expect ?

How exactly does that invalidate his claim to have nothing to do with it.

Right now we have this:

On the anti al-Q side: A (written) denial which may or may not be genuine.


On the for side: two proven faked tapes and the mass opinion of the public who derive their belief from one place (and one place only) with no supporting evidence whatsoever: Bush.

Oh and try this:

FBI admits no evidence linking hijackers to 911
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #21 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Besides, the Executive branch can't set these terms or control how the election is run anyway, right? Seems like an inherent conflict of interest no matter who is in office. Hm, anyone feeling up for a quick run through the Constitution? I could swear that Congress would control this with the Supreme Court ultimately passing judgment on whatever they decide.

NO ONE has the Constitutional authority to change the date of an election. Not that that will stop anyone from taking the initiative to do so; in the US government as it exists today the Constitution is something to be paraded in front of the cameras when it's politically expedient to do so.

FYI: Bush is about 500 yards from me right now. I have no doubt this is the closest I'll ever get.

edit: Yahoo! News link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...e_040711175832

Quote:
The head of the new US Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries Jr, wrote to Ridge urging him to ask Congress for emergency legislation that would allow his agency to reschedule the election if terrorists were to strike.
"The federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election," Soaries wrote, according to the weekly.
post #22 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by a10t2
FYI: Bush is about 500 yards from me right now. I have no doubt this is the closest I'll ever get.

Tell him AO says hi.
post #23 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Tell him AO says hi.

Better still - tell him AO says "buh-bye".
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #24 of 154
I would but I'm a little scared to go outside, what with the guys with guns on every corner.

It looks like Europe. ;-)
post #25 of 154
More Bush Spin, thats all. he has shown us he wont stop at anything for what he wants. Just more of the B.S from Bush, here is an idea if they are scared of loosing a few votes lets move the election UP! how about tomorrow so we can get this guy out of office. Current administration is amazing on how they pretend one thing and do another,war,health,enviroment, and now elections. how low can the Republicans go? throwing away all those independent votes like mine. After 4 years of Bush it will be a long time before the republicans become a majority again. watch and see. I predict a very strong Democratic showing whenever elections are held.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #26 of 154
I don't like this set-up jet, I don't like it at all
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #27 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I'm afraid that's fuzzy logic.

The issue is whether he takes responsibility for 911 not who he thinks did do it.

So he hates Jews and (assuming he wasn't responsible) sees them as a likely candidate. That's his view and sure, it's ***ed up but what else do you expect ?

How exactly does that invalidate his claim to have nothing to do with it.

Right now we have this:

On the anti al-Q side: A (written) denial which may or may not be genuine.


On the for side: two proven faked tapes and the mass opinion of the public who derive their belief from one place (and one place only) with no supporting evidence whatsoever: Bush.

Oh and try this:

FBI admits no evidence linking hijackers to 911

And while you're there, you might want to check out the 'other' articles on the Order of the Illuminati and the Council of Foreign Relations and the New World Order.

Also feel free to click on their banner "Top Conspiracy Sites"
post #28 of 154
Sammi:

Your opening post is so absurd, I almost don't even know where to begin. I will try, though:

Your post is typical of your maniacal anti-Bush, anti-corprorate and anti-American views. You are WAY beyond simply disagreeing with Bush and his administration. You're way beyond dedicating yourself to his defeat. Hell, you're even way beyond irrational Bush bashing.

According to you, Bush is essentially a politically immature Hitler. According to you, 9/11 was an isolated event and Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. According to you, Bush is so obessed with power that he would seek to permantently cement himself in power by not just postponing the election in the event of a terror attack, but by ending elecions permenantly. According to you, a War on Terrorism should not even exist. According to you, international terrorists are not plotting a catastrophic attack on the US Homeland...just because there haven't been any bombs in Vegas or Penn Station.

The above leads me to get down on my knees and thank God Himself that you will never be in a position of power.

All I can do further is address the thread topic itself. What's being discussed is a short-term postponement strategy to PREVENT terrorists from directly impacting an election like they did in Spain. The plans are similar to ones being designed to reassemble the government in case of say, the US Congress being wiped out when it was in full session. Example: The night before the US Presidential election, a fundamentalist extremist group detonates a suitcase nuclear weapon at Lincoln Financial Field in Phildelphia during a Monday night football game. We're supposed to go vote the next day? Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate.

Perhaps you should see what such a plan looks like (and by whom it was created) before you create another one of your conspiracy laden 5,000 word post bombs.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #29 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius

We were promised the evidence of al-Q responsibility by both Bush and Blair within weeks of 911 - it never showed up and Iraq took center stage. We still haven't seen it. All you have is Bush and Blair's word for it. That's it. No more.

Against it you have:

A (genuine this time) video tape from al-Q containing a denial by OBL

Atta's cocaine binges and alcohol fuelled whoring on the nights before this 'muslim fundamentalist' heads to his maker.

Numerous of the alleged hijackers appear to be still alive.

Un-Islamic and nonsensical Last Will of Atta which somehow miraculously survives even though he strangely attempts to draft a will which he decides to take on a suicide mission to be destroyed.

Ditto his passport.

And on and on and on......

Let me add a few more, taken at random from an huge list, dealing with many different aspects of the story. These have have been reported in the mainstream media, but all but forgotten about, overshadowed by the subsequent call to get into line and shut up.

Tin lids are unnecessary:

*Why did the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI pay $100.000 to Mohammad Atta prior to the attacks?

*Why, in the the knowledge that some of the hijackers are still alive, does the FBI website still feature those 19 Middle Eastern people?

*Alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour's name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket, according to American Airlines (!)

*How did the FBI distinguish between "innocent muslims" and "hijacking muslims" instantly?

*Why did Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown purchase 4,744 put options on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 calls on September 6-7? What was the purpose of doing that? Why were there 1200% more 'put options' on UA & AA leading up to 9/11?
Who was the investor who purchased 2,000 UAL put options between August and September 11, 2001, and why has his identity been classified by the Bush Administration?

*Why did an FAA manager destroy, on the day of September 11, an audiotape, crush the cassette in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and drop them in different trash cans around the building, according to a report made public by the inspector general of the Transportation Department?

*Why arent there credit card records of the hijackers' ticket purchases?

*Why did it take 411 days to form the 9/11 Commission when others took 7 days?

*Why did Cheney say that everyone in the White House started taking Cipro on September 12 when the first anthrax letter wasn't postmarked until September 18 (!!!???)

*Why was crash debris of Flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash) spread out over a 5 mile swath, with one engine landing in a lake some 8 miles from the eventual crash site? If they found metallic debris from the plane 5 miles away it was either shot down or a bomb exploded in the plane. This would make the cellphone calls from the plane, as well as the famous "lets roll" heroism, phoney.

*What was the cause of the large explosions that *PRECEDED* by a few seconds both of the twin towers' collapses, explosions powerful enough to register 2.1 and 2.3 earthquakes on the Richter scale, picked up by seismic stations, much larger ground shocks than those caused the actual towers' collapses?

*Why did the FEMA report of the collapse of WTC 7 involve a lengthy but vague analysis pointing to an unlikely/impossible scenario, while roundly ignoring the evidence of owner Larry Silverstein's decision, taken in conjunction with officials of the NYFD, who authorized they "pull the building" meaning demolish it in a controlled explosion? If WTC #7 was demolished with explosives charges, as implied by building owner Larry Silverstein, then WHO set the charges and WHEN? To fell a 47-story building onto its own footprint requires extreme skill, with detailed knowledge of the building's structure, with lots of time to set and wire the charges, all of which which must to be detonated in a precise and timed sequence, an operation that typically takes days, even WEEKS planning.

*Call me anti-Semitic...but: Why were 5 Israelis dancing and hi-fiving on the roof of a building in New Jersey while the Twin Towers burned and collapsed? When taken into custody by the FBI, they were found to be in possession of boxcutters, multiple passports, maps with the World Trade Center highlighted, explosives residue and $4000 cash hidden in a sock (!!!!!!). The arrested men were Israelis, later identified by Pacific Radio as agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. According to Carl Cameron's FOX News story on the Israeli spy ring, the US Government classified evidence that linked the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11. The Mossad agents were using a moving company, Urban Moving Systems, for a cover. The owner of the company, Dominic Suter, abandoned his business after 9-11 and fled to Israel on 9-14. Why were these men deported back to Israel without being charged? To repeat...this story was broadcast on FOX NEWS shortly after the attacks.

and

*Why did Bush just remain there in that school for another 33 minutes after learning of the second airplane hitting the WTC? Why did the Secret Service not evacuate him from the classroom a half-second after Andy Card told him, "Mr. President, the nation is under attack", when it was clear that the president himself could be a target? His whereabouts in Florida was public domain 48 hours before the attacks. But far more telling than Bush's reaction, or lack thereof, is that of Card himself who, as can be seen in the video clip, steps in to inform Bush of the second impact (without mentioning the fact that more hijacked planes were in the air), then immediately steps back without waiting for a reply. Bush's job is to make decisions. How does Card know that Bush will not make one then and there?


And many, many more. This is the tip of a very large and jagged iceberg.

If anyone who supports the Administration's version of events can give a credible answer to any of these anomalies regarding numerous aspects of the disaster, then I would be most grateful if you could persuade me that I'm barking up the wrong tree. And I am sorry, but to spout "anti-Americanism" and "conspiracy theory" doesn't cut it. All the above facts I quoted have been published in mainstream newspapers, and broadcast on mainstream television. To repeat, tinfoil hats are surplus to requirement.

As Segovius said: the door of 9-11 has been slammed shut in our faces, padlocked and welded up, with images of Osama bin Laden's face pasted over it in multiple layers.

The dead and their relatives deserve far better. Is America not strong and mature enough to handle the truth? If not, then as a nation we are in the deepest of trouble.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #30 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi:

Your opening post is so absurd, I almost don't even know where to begin. I will try, though:

Your post is typical of your maniacal anti-Bush, anti-corprorate and anti-American views. You are WAY beyond simply disagreeing with Bush and his administration. You're way beyond dedicating yourself to his defeat. Hell, you're even way beyond irrational Bush bashing.

According to you, Bush is essentially a politically immature Hitler. According to you, 9/11 was an isolated event and Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. According to you, Bush is so obessed with power that he would seek to permantently cement himself in power by not just postponing the election in the event of a terror attack, but by ending elecions permenantly. According to you, a War on Terrorism should not even exist. According to you, international terrorists are not plotting a catastrophic attack on the US Homeland...just because there haven't been any bombs in Vegas or Penn Station.

The above leads me to get down on my knees and thank God Himself that you will never be in a position of power.

All I can do further is address the thread topic itself. What's being discussed is a short-term postponement strategy to PREVENT terrorists from directly impacting an election like they did in Spain. The plans are similar to ones being designed to reassemble the government in case of say, the US Congress being wiped out when it was in full session. Example: The night before the US Presidential election, a fundamentalist extremist group detonates a suitcase nuclear weapon at Lincoln Financial Field in Phildelphia during a Monday night football game. We're supposed to go vote the next day? Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate.

Perhaps you should see what such a plan looks like (and by whom it was created) before you create another one of your conspiracy laden 5,000 word post bombs.

Sorry but it does seem a bit odd. Everytime Bush has had a problem in the last 3 years all of a sudden we have a terrorism alert. And you know what? None of them have come true. The one that did he didn't seem to know anything.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #31 of 154
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi:

Your opening post is so absurd, I almost don't even know where to begin. I will try, though:

Your post is typical of your maniacal anti-Bush, anti-corprorate and anti-American views. You are WAY beyond simply disagreeing with Bush and his administration. You're way beyond dedicating yourself to his defeat. Hell, you're even way beyond irrational Bush bashing.

According to you, Bush is essentially a politically immature Hitler. According to you, 9/11 was an isolated event and Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. According to you, Bush is so obessed with power that he would seek to permantently cement himself in power by not just postponing the election in the event of a terror attack, but by ending elecions permenantly. According to you, a War on Terrorism should not even exist. According to you, international terrorists are not plotting a catastrophic attack on the US Homeland...just because there haven't been any bombs in Vegas or Penn Station.

The above leads me to get down on my knees and thank God Himself that you will never be in a position of power.

All I can do further is address the thread topic itself. What's being discussed is a short-term postponement strategy to PREVENT terrorists from directly impacting an election like they did in Spain. The plans are similar to ones being designed to reassemble the government in case of say, the US Congress being wiped out when it was in full session. Example: The night before the US Presidential election, a fundamentalist extremist group detonates a suitcase nuclear weapon at Lincoln Financial Field in Phildelphia during a Monday night football game. We're supposed to go vote the next day? Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate.

Perhaps you should see what such a plan looks like (and by whom it was created) before you create another one of your conspiracy laden 5,000 word post bombs.

SDW, you can rant and rave till the cows come home about how unpatriotic, or conspiratorial, or anti-American, or whatever you think I may be. But that changes nothing about what happened on the day of 9-11. If you have some facts to back up your assertions, please, please let's have them, as opposed to just waving your arms around.

The Administration's line on 9-11 does not pass the classic "duck test". According to Bush and co. if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is more likely to be a pigeon.

**I want an explanation that holds water.

**I want to see the perps tried, found guilty, and locked up for life.

**I want to see whoever were responsible for the worst example of gross negligence in failing to defend the US mainland on 9-11 to be fired and if necessary, charged with accessory to the mass murder of 3000 people.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #32 of 154
If the election is postponed it HAS been impacted. However, your example of a bombing immediately before the scheduled election is drastically different from the Bush administration making a statement, months in advance, that basically says, "Hey terrorists! Attack and we'll postpone the election!" This is, IMHO, fear-mongering and ass-covering on a scale that's embarassing.
post #33 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but it does seem a bit odd. Everytime Bush has had a problem in the last 3 years all of a sudden we have a terrorism alert. And you know what? None of them have come true. The one that did he didn't seem to know anything.

Oh come on, jimmac. "Everytime Bush has a problem?" What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Even you can't be that cynical.

"None of them have come true". Wow. Now we're faulting Bush for NOT having more terror attacks on his watch.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #34 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, you can rant and rave till the cows come home about how unpatriotic, or conspiratorial, or anti-American, or whatever you think I may be. But that changes nothing about what happened on the day of 9-11. If you have some facts to back up your assertions, please, please let's have them, as opposed to just waving your arms around.

The Administration's line on 9-11 does not pass the classic "duck test". According to Bush and co. if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is more likely to be a pigeon.

**I want an explanation that holds water.

**I want to see the perps tried, found guilty, and locked up for life.

**I want to see whoever were responsible for the worst example of gross negligence in failing to defend the US mainland on 9-11 to be fired and if necessary, charged with accessory to the mass murder of 3000 people.

Oh, here we go. Nice try. Sammi, it's not me ranting and raving, it's you. Of that there can be no question. You have a long history of posting ridiculous claims back by tenuous or no information. You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse.

What "line" is it that you take issue with? You cannot possibly be suggesting that the ENTIRE media has ignored evidence suggesting bin laden wasn't responsible and that there is "no Al-Qaeda". Come on.

I am not making assertions of any kind. You are. These assertions are actually suppositions and the aforementioned conspiracy theories.

Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't about 9/11. It's about delaying the election in the event of a major terrorist attack. I contend that a short delay, if implemented properly by CONGRESS, would be a good thing. Are you disagreeing?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #35 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by a10t2
If the election is postponed it HAS been impacted. However, your example of a bombing immediately before the scheduled election is drastically different from the Bush administration making a statement, months in advance, that basically says, "Hey terrorists! Attack and we'll postpone the election!"

Or Franks saying over half a year ago that any further terrorist attack would result in the instituting of martial law.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #36 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by a10t2
If the election is postponed it HAS been impacted. However, your example of a bombing immediately before the scheduled election is drastically different from the Bush administration making a statement, months in advance, that basically says, "Hey terrorists! Attack and we'll postpone the election!" This is, IMHO, fear-mongering and ass-covering on a scale that's embarassing.

Oh really now. You're just playing bullshit semantical games. The point is that we would not want the OUTCOME of the election to be affected, like it was in Spain. Get real.

Edit: Most people would agree that a terror attack in the US would have the opposite effect here than it did in Spain. In other words, the citizenry would rally around Bush and elect him in a landslide. I, as a Bush supporter, am arguing a position that would prevent would, in all likelihood, prevent that from happening. But I forgot, I'm just a blind Bush partisan.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #37 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
...

**I want to see whoever were responsible for the worst example of gross negligence in failing to defend the US mainland on 9-11 to be fired and if necessary, charged with accessory to the mass murder of 3000 people.


Riiiiiight. Sure you do. And if they had done what was need to stop 9-11 and prevent future ones you be here crying about that. Oh wait you are here crying about that.
post #38 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
Riiiiiight. Sure you do. And if they had done what was need to stop 9-11 and prevent future ones you be here crying about that. Oh wait you are here crying about that.

Agreed. And Sammi's post is telling, because it's obvious from reading it that she wants terror to be treated as criminal law enforcmement matter. Gee, where have we seen that tried before?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #39 of 154
She doesn't even want that. Had they arrested Atta pre 9-11 she'd slander Bush as a racist. Had the US gone into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden pre 9-11 she'd slander Bush as an imperialist. She wants an inditement before the US does anyting and then want to indite the Whitehouse for not keeping us safe.

She's a lot like Moore. Moore likes to bash Bush for flying that group of Saudis out of the country and then slams him for going into Iraq when we all know the real target is in Afghanistan. Which is it? The Saudis that flew out? The ones in Arabia or the ones in Asia? What move could Bush have done pre or post 9-11 that wouldn't have people like Moore or SJO foaming at the mouth? None.
post #40 of 154
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh really now. You're just playing bullshit semantical games. The point is that we would not want the OUTCOME of the election to be affected, like it was in Spain. Get real.

What the hell? I responded directly to what you said. If it wasn't what you meant, word your posts more carefully.

The outcome of the election is significantly less important, IMHO, than the election itself. If someone tries to influence the outcome of an election, and the election is postponed, he HAS. Democracy is more important than some wacko with a bomb.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Election postponement, and "al qaeda"