It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

White House Claims Al Qaeda May Target 08 elections

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
and in other related news.. A man with connections worlwide carrying a bag of unknown substances will be breaking and entering homes all across the globe with major activity expected on dec.25 Readers are warned that we do not know what they might be expose to but are asked to be diligent and report any suspicious activity.

Another attack from a character is expected around easter. This attack will also result in many attempts by the intruder to enter ones home and distribute and plant unknown substances around the home. One of these substances should not be interacted with and emits a gas that smells like eggs, as officals report.

Also watch out for al qaeda




posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
For those that are dismissing this as foul play, are you saying that it is not even a possibility?
Let me guess, if something would happen, I have a feeling most here would think the Bush administration was involved right?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


everytime i hear the news,someone is telling me that al qaeda is going to be attacking some target or the other.

they dont have to attack anything,terror is being spread for them!.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 

You're absolutely right. I would point to Bush first.

If something were to sabotage or disrupt the '08 elections, to the point that a new president is not named or martial law is declared, I would be VERY VERY skeptical of ole' Georgey Boy. His administration (and puppet-masters) would stand to gain the most from such a situation.

While a disruption during election time would most likely be the work of Bush & Co., I realize that such an occurance doesn't automatically mean it's 100% their fault. Terrorism does happen. But usually only when Bush wants it it to.


If it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, tastes like an orange...
ITS AN ORANGE. Especially if you are already suspicious of an orange.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


Yes, I would be suspicious of BushCo staging it, you wouldn't? Who would gain most from an attack that would disrupt the election process? The "Evil Doers" that would then be subject to an escalation of war, or the Bush Admin that would be forced to remain in power for the good of the country?

I don't understand how you couldn't even entertain the notion that it is possible, especially with the current administration and the Executive Orders that they have put in place for just such an event.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
If something were to sabotage or disrupt the '08 elections, to the point that a new president is not named or martial law is declared, I would be VERY VERY skeptical of ole' Georgey Boy.

How far will you take it?
Meaning, what if there was a terrorist attack BUT there was no martial law declared and a new president was named. Would you still think the Bush administration had something to do with it?

On the next level, what if the terror attacks disrupted the elections to the point where people got scared and did not go out and vote. I am talking about a ridiculously low turnout. Would you consider that a fair election?
Should Bush stay in office until another election was held, say 1 or 2 months later?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 

See my previous post.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 


Well, like I said in my previous post, it all depends on what they gain from the attack happening. I can't really see how a terrorist attack would make the voter turn out much lower than it usually is. But if the Bush Admin doesn't gain anything from the attack, then no I wouldn't think that they were responsible.

Now to you, if the attack were to happen and the Bush administration gained massive amounts of power, would you be suspicious?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Despite the laughter this invokes, we should think about this. Consider the tension building over some plot by terrorists. Now to make the people feel safe for that day, what would be more easily explained than troops and tanks on the street to "protect" the public.

Even if nothing happened, it would be one more step towards the Banana Republic state of mind in this nation. How long until these troops would be "needed" on the 4th of July, and Easter, and Memorial Day?

It sure would be a way to ease people into not even noticing the buildup of troops on American soil in full combat gear and live rounds.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Karlhungis
 


She said that while there is currently no “specific information,”

That pretty much says it. I did not read the thread but I'm sure others responded similarly.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karlhungis
Now to you, if the attack were to happen and the Bush administration gained massive amounts of power, would you be suspicious?

What sorts of massive power are you talking about?
I don't understand your premise. If something would happen, how would that mean the Bush administration would gain massive amounts of power.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Maybe people will be too scared to go vote- then they wouldn't have to throw the election with some lame@$$ excuse like an electronic vote counting glitch only to be settled once and for all in a state that is run by a relative. Now that was funny!

btw, 4thdoctor your avatar is hilarious!

John Carpenter rules!

[edit on 21-11-2007 by dk3000]



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by damajikninja
reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan
 

You're absolutely right. I would point to Bush first.

If something were to sabotage or disrupt the '08 elections, to the point that a new president is not named or martial law is declared, I would be VERY VERY skeptical of ole' Georgey Boy. His administration (and puppet-masters) would stand to gain the most from such a situation.

While a disruption during election time would most likely be the work of Bush & Co., I realize that such an occurance doesn't automatically mean it's 100% their fault. Terrorism does happen. But usually only when Bush wants it it to.


If it looks like an orange, smells like an orange, tastes like an orange...
ITS AN ORANGE. Especially if you are already suspicious of an orange.


There was a time I felt as you the possibility of Georgie-Poo ending up as dictator- but the truth is- he is a stupid tool and the elite made a huge mistake with him.

More likely they will dump him and try for Guiliani- now won't that be a drag!



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
People you know how bad Osama wants Bush to stay in the white house, and how much he hates holiday spending.

So do not go to the malls and forget about voting next year because Osama is going to blow us all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dg you rock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
should read " if Ron paul wins, 08 elections will be a target, if billary gets in expect nothing"

These people make me sick.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
all i have to say is: Go Team!

(i wont say what team, but ill give you a hint, its not bush and its not the anti terrorist people)



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tankthinker
all i have to say is: Go Team!

(i wont say what team, but ill give you a hint, its not bush and its not the anti terrorist people)


Its good to know you are part of the pro-terrorist team.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:17 PM
link   
so when exactly are the elections, (from canada so i dont know)?



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
if there is a large enough terrorist attack to warrant a state of emergency being imposed.there will be no elections,period.



posted on Nov, 21 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

What sorts of massive power are you talking about?
I don't understand your premise. If something would happen, how would that mean the Bush administration would gain massive amounts of power.



Specifically, I am referring to staying in office for one. Making more "patriot act" type changes to peoples personal freedoms. Greater expansion to domestic spying... etc. That is the type of power gain that I am thinking of.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join