Terror attack election eve countdown...
- Thread starter Larry Gude
- Start date
I hope you are referring to the guy I was talking about and not me. The Democrat I reference was certainly not an official of the Democratic party. He could barely get out a thought in a congruent manner. He was wrong about most of what he said, but he brought to light the anger that many Democrats exhibit. It is not reasonable bordering on insanity. Mrs. Edwards, certainly a representative of the Democrats, was overheard to say there would not be riots if Kerry/Edwards wins. That could be construed to mean there would be riots if Kerry/Edwards does not win. There have been reports that the Democrats plan to declare that they have won even if they haven't and make the Bush team prove in court that they lost.Hot N Bothered said:
What is this country coming to? We have lost all sense of honor and propriety. Anarchy can only be just around the corner.
Hot N Bothered
New Member
Of course, I wasn't referring to you.2ndAmendment said:
I think in this topsy turvy world, the radicals and extremists get center stage. It is easy to forget the fact that without the people behind the scenes, there would be no show.
Remember, it was only a few months ago that Howard Dean was considered the Democrats best hope. Remember, all the Republicans cringed at that thought, but were convinced that it was a foregone conclusion. Remember, the only reason we have Kerry is because he beat Dean, that's not saying much.
Thanks. Just checking.Hot N Bothered said:Of course, I wasn't referring to you.
Then there was the Dean scream. That really helped Kerry.Hot N Bothered said:
oldman
Lobster Land
Nope, no terrorist attack or overturning of cars. We, and I say that with a smile, are Americans and would not cause harm because we won/lost an election. Plus you've got to remember that even the forums are a kinder and gentler place. Everybody give hugs to everybody and we'll be just fine.2ndAmendment said:
I'll bet you lunch that, if Bush wins, there will be riots all over America. Watch and see.elaine said:
Hessian
Well-Known Member
They say you want a revolution...well, you know,...we all wanna change the world.
But if you carrying picutre of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone any how.....
You know its gonna be, All right...
Civil disturbances tied to college campuses and areas of urban blight. That will all be less costly than the lengthy legal wrangling that will exhaust fragile finances in several states.....Its our legal system that will cripple us the most!
Gott Mit Uns.
But if you carrying picutre of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone any how.....
You know its gonna be, All right...
Civil disturbances tied to college campuses and areas of urban blight. That will all be less costly than the lengthy legal wrangling that will exhaust fragile finances in several states.....Its our legal system that will cripple us the most!
Gott Mit Uns.
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
I would not surprise me to see some of the left wing kool aid drinkers going nuts if Kerry loses. I'll agree with an earlier post about the majority of the problems will be in the heavily democratic cities. Some people seem to look for reasons to riot, Rodney King, OJ, their favorite sports team winning or losing. (see Boston)
SurfaceTension
New Member
Considering we have 2000 lawyers in FLA already with 10,000 more ready to invade, the press hyping "will your vote count" stories, activists everywhere claiming disinfrachisement, and a whole bunch of newly registered voters that won't be allowed to vote because either they filled out forms incorrectly or the partisan street-registrars tossed the forms not conforming to his/her party, I'd say the chance are good.
We have 2000 terrorist in FLA waiting to attack, and it's likely they'll throw the Country into chaos for months, same as any other attack.
We have 2000 terrorist in FLA waiting to attack, and it's likely they'll throw the Country into chaos for months, same as any other attack.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'm happy to see this has been given much thought by the crew...
Here, chew on this:
The attacks against Spain worked because when the idea came up the consensus among the bad guys was that it, attacks, what, 3 days before the election, would sway Spain. This was based on logic and experience.
The attacks on the Australian Embassy back fired and I submit the plotters don't know near enough about Australia and Australians as they do about Spain and Spaniards.
The same logic went into 9/11. There was every reason to believe it would work and nothing much would be done about it.
In the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the bad guys stuck a shotgun in our face and...misfired. So, for the perfectly sound reason that Bill Clinton was in charge we treated it like a candy store heist gone wrong.
Kohbar Towers? Nothing.
USS Cole? Nothing.
Not one but two US Embassies? Nothing.
Mogadishu? Turn tail and run for home.
Iraq? Endless UN resolutions, shell games with inspectors and constant thumbing of the nose at the world, except, of course, those willing to break the law and trade with Saddam.
Now, was there any, ANY, reason for the bad guys to worry a whole bunch about what we'd do after 9/11? We'd already proven zero resolve in Iraq so there was no reason to believe that the US would send it's army to bleed in Afghanistan, graveyard of the Soviet Empire.
Oh sure, we'd bluster, lob some cruise missiles here and there and have a faux temper tantrum but, in the end, the UN Dictators Club for Global Dillweeds wouldn't go along with much and besides, France, and their veto, was already in the bag.
Then, along come a cowboy.
I submit to you that the bad guys have figured out this boys crazy and takes this 'provide for the common defense' business serious. The reaction on our political left was predictable by bad guys. The resolve of George W. Bush was not.
Any domestic attack between now and the elections will spell the end of Kerry's chances and guarantee four more years of the US actively hunting them so, as long as the polls are this close, bad guys will sit and wait along with the rest of us.
That Kerry is so close is indicative of just how good a job this administration has done in the eyes of many Americans; they think we could perhaps actually afford a Kerry administration even though 2/3's of likely voters rank Bush far ahead on the issue of national security.
So, there it is; for all the pewling of Bush failure and wrong this and wrong that, John Kerry, with the most liberal (read divisive) voting record in the US Senate for the last 20 years and one of the weakest records, particularly on national defense, plus is oscillating on Iraq, actually has a chance because...
...the cowboy is doing a hell of a job.
Thus, an attack before we vote? Attack big city polls? Either would be like a full dress practice suicide bombing; it'll truly be the last thing they ever do.
Of course, if we elect Kerry anyway, they win, so, maybe the stakes are so high, they roll the dice?
Here, chew on this:
The attacks against Spain worked because when the idea came up the consensus among the bad guys was that it, attacks, what, 3 days before the election, would sway Spain. This was based on logic and experience.
The attacks on the Australian Embassy back fired and I submit the plotters don't know near enough about Australia and Australians as they do about Spain and Spaniards.
The same logic went into 9/11. There was every reason to believe it would work and nothing much would be done about it.
In the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, the bad guys stuck a shotgun in our face and...misfired. So, for the perfectly sound reason that Bill Clinton was in charge we treated it like a candy store heist gone wrong.
Kohbar Towers? Nothing.
USS Cole? Nothing.
Not one but two US Embassies? Nothing.
Mogadishu? Turn tail and run for home.
Iraq? Endless UN resolutions, shell games with inspectors and constant thumbing of the nose at the world, except, of course, those willing to break the law and trade with Saddam.
Now, was there any, ANY, reason for the bad guys to worry a whole bunch about what we'd do after 9/11? We'd already proven zero resolve in Iraq so there was no reason to believe that the US would send it's army to bleed in Afghanistan, graveyard of the Soviet Empire.
Oh sure, we'd bluster, lob some cruise missiles here and there and have a faux temper tantrum but, in the end, the UN Dictators Club for Global Dillweeds wouldn't go along with much and besides, France, and their veto, was already in the bag.
Then, along come a cowboy.
I submit to you that the bad guys have figured out this boys crazy and takes this 'provide for the common defense' business serious. The reaction on our political left was predictable by bad guys. The resolve of George W. Bush was not.
Any domestic attack between now and the elections will spell the end of Kerry's chances and guarantee four more years of the US actively hunting them so, as long as the polls are this close, bad guys will sit and wait along with the rest of us.
That Kerry is so close is indicative of just how good a job this administration has done in the eyes of many Americans; they think we could perhaps actually afford a Kerry administration even though 2/3's of likely voters rank Bush far ahead on the issue of national security.
So, there it is; for all the pewling of Bush failure and wrong this and wrong that, John Kerry, with the most liberal (read divisive) voting record in the US Senate for the last 20 years and one of the weakest records, particularly on national defense, plus is oscillating on Iraq, actually has a chance because...
...the cowboy is doing a hell of a job.
Thus, an attack before we vote? Attack big city polls? Either would be like a full dress practice suicide bombing; it'll truly be the last thing they ever do.
Of course, if we elect Kerry anyway, they win, so, maybe the stakes are so high, they roll the dice?
K
Kain99
Guest
Larry Gude said:
D
dems4me
Guest
I don't know about any riots but I did hear from a group of democrats that are already insisting Bush "will win and it will be from cheating" and that they have already scheduled to take off November 3rd for a rather large protest in front of the White house the day after the election. :shrug:
No I won't be partaking in this.
No I won't be partaking in this.
Otter
Nothing to see here
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED OCT 27, 2004 12:42:01 ET XXXXX
ABCNEWS HOLDS TERROR WARNING TAPE
**Exclusive**
In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding on a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.
ABCNEWS strongly denies holding the tape back from broadcast over political concerns during the last days of the election.
The CIA is analyzing the tape, a top federal source tells the DRUDGE REPORT.
ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend, sources tells DRUDGE.
"We have been working 24 hours a day trying to authenticate [the tape]," a senior ABCNEWS source said Wednesday morning.
The terrorist's face is concealed by a head dress, and speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual, but US intelligence officials believe that man may be Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman - a southern California native who was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks.
According to the FBI, Gadahn, 25, attended al-Qaida training camps and served as an al-Qaida translator.
The disturbing tape runs an hour -- the man simply identifies himself as 'Assam the American.'
ABCNEWS HOLDS TERROR WARNING TAPE
**Exclusive**
In the last week before the election, ABCNEWS is holding on a videotaped message from a purported al Qaeda terrorist warning of a new attack on America, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
The terrorist claims on tape the next attack will dwarf 9/11. "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead. Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.
ABCNEWS strongly denies holding the tape back from broadcast over political concerns during the last days of the election.
The CIA is analyzing the tape, a top federal source tells the DRUDGE REPORT.
ABCNEWS obtained the tape from a source in Waziristan, Pakistan over the weekend, sources tells DRUDGE.
"We have been working 24 hours a day trying to authenticate [the tape]," a senior ABCNEWS source said Wednesday morning.
The terrorist's face is concealed by a head dress, and speaks in an American accent, making it difficult to identify the individual, but US intelligence officials believe that man may be Adam Gadhan - aka Adam Pearlman - a southern California native who was highlighted by the FBI in May as an individual most likely to be involved in or have knowledge of the next al Qaeda attacks.
According to the FBI, Gadahn, 25, attended al-Qaida training camps and served as an al-Qaida translator.
The disturbing tape runs an hour -- the man simply identifies himself as 'Assam the American.'
I'll bet it's Terry McAuliffe.otter said:
D
dems4me
Guest
vraiblonde said:
:
Toxick
Splat
ylexot said:
Let's see:
LA - Toilet bowl
NYC - Toilet bowl
Detroit - toilet bowl
Boston - toilet bowl
San Francisco - toilet bowl
Maybe we'll get lucky, and Bush will win, and the ensuing riots completely flatten these crap-tanks, and wipe their putrescent blight completely off the fruited plain.
I'm convinced.
Toxick
Splat
Larry Gude said:
Here's an interesting point that I wonder if the terrorists have considered.
How do they think a Lame Duck George W. Bush is going to behave? Up until now he's been playing (in my opinion) too nicely. He's trying to hard to appease too many sides, including the American Left and Middle Eastern Governments. (In other words, he'll make a show with this war and piss a lto of people off, but he won't fight it as dirtily as it needs to be fought).
If Bush loses, he's still got 3 months to get really REALLY ugly.
On the other hand, if he wins, he's got 4 more years to get really ugly.
