terror attack? not IF, but WHEN

[radfringe]

one of the "sound bites" flung around during the campaign was a shrug of the shoulders as a member of the echo chamber quipped (paraphrased) "...if the President isn't doing a good job - why hasn't there been another terror attack in the US?"

we pretty much know that bin-Laden attacks on his own schedule. There are long periods between attacks -- the fact we haven't experienced another 9-11 since 9-11 would not be unusual.

So are we really safer? Doubtful. Most Americans know that it's a matter of WHEN another attack will occur. Cheney spent most of the campaign waving BOOGA-BOOGA-BE-AFRAID signs. Should we be afraid? Yes, but not because bush* inc. says so -- but rather because we are not really safer.

CIA is undergoing a shake-up or purge (depending on which side of the spin you are on). Under reported stories all point to bush* inc. dictating conclusions and then demanding "evidence" to back it up. I expect more of the same.

With Colin Powell's resignation and Condi Rice being touted as the next Secretary of State -- don't expect any voices of moderation mumbling in the background to hold back future YEEE-HAAWWW Foreign policy directives.

One thing I've been doing when a 'terra-lert' has been issued it to ask people "if we are so safe with bush* -- why all the terra-lerts?"

[DELUSIONAL]

1. Will this one be orchestrated by Cheney?

Fear is their means of control. They need to control the ancient part of the human brain which operates on a reaction to fear stimulus.

This attack (and I hope it never happens) will probably be bigger than what happened on 9/11 -- very shocking and the media will keep playing the images over and over and over and over and over and over again. Thus reinforcing the fear reflex.

Learned Helplessness needs to be reinforced.

[radfringe]

7. at this point -- why do they need fear for control?

bush* is in for 2nd term, repugs rule the congress and the supreme court -- who's to stop them?

prior to Nov 2 -- bush* needed people to be afraid in order to keep his poll numbers aloft, and to get votes

the only thing they could possibly use fear for now is for 2006 mid-terms, but they have "moral values" soapbox for that

Look at his replacements for the cabinet -- all insiders and accomplished bush-butt-lickers. Frist is threatening to go "nuclear" if Dems put up a filabuster, moderate repugs will be flogged into submission

so who's out there to stop bush*? NO ONE - he doesn't need votes, and in 4 years this mess will be someone else's problem. Dems will make some noise but eventually roll over and play dead. We the people can make some noise -- but will it do any good? Our "noise" is best depicted in polls - but bush* doesn't govern by polls, he doesn't give a shit what we think.

will the media do anything? not likely -- lap dogs looking for a cookie, and those that do dissent, make noise are escorted out or relegated to the back of the room

Protests will be spun as the actions of a few radical elements.

sorry for sounding a bit down -- but we are royally screwed

[DELUSIONAL]

8. If they want to lock up the white house for the foreseeable future

(1) Major Terrorists attack -- or so it will seem -- but since the CIA is now under the strict control of the bush mafia -- who knows?

(2) Constitutional Convention called -- the presidential term is extended and renewable at his whim.

(3) Other pesky pieces of the Constitution are eliminated.

(4) Citizens don't care -- they get free cable or some such mind numbing government propaganda packaged as entertainment.

I hope to dog that I am wrong -- but with the democrats choosing Sen. Harry Reid as minority leader -- I have no hopes for the democratic party to survive. The grass root democratic activists -- will just have to move on.

I do know that on this day the democratic party has rejected me as a members by choosing Harry Reid.

[Florida_Geek]

2. I would not fly on any planes the day *

gets sworn in.

IMHO, it would be the best day for bin Laden to hit his enemy Bushie.

[izzie]

3. I think we will have one.

First WTC was in 1993 I think and it was many years until 911 My God the Brits fought the Irish terrorist for a few hundred years and they always came back.Look at the American Indian and how long that took and what we did. Look at India and the Brits. For some odd reason people do not like others taking over their country. Osama thinks we have taken over his country.

[auburngrad82]

4. Clinton went 7 years without a second terrorist attack on US soil

I'm talking about the first attack on the WTC. Yes, we had Oklahoma City, but that was a radical conservative white male from Michigan. Not a foreign terrorist.


Bush has only gone three years. We'll see what happens.

[bluetrain]

5. I'm not sure

Some are saying an attack to completely distract and disrupt once the evidence is conclusive enough that this Fraud shit real and is in court and finally getting the press it deserves. -- That would be for the folks who believe The Chimperor was complicit in one way or another in 9/11.

I don't buy the weapons through Mexico thing they've been floating.

But wouldn't an attack once shrub is sworn back in piss off the people who actually did vote for him under the guises of how much protection he offers? You've already got more than (I believe the Fraud accusations) half the country furious with you to overtly betray your followers seems really stupid.

[Vickers]

6. When? The first 3 months of 2005

Where? Well, that depends.

If it is Chicago, San Francisco or Ohio, it will be done by BushCo.

If it someplace in a red state (mega-church on a Sunday morning, highschool football stadium on a Friday night, etc.), it is Al Qaeda.