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.

 

Election Day Terrorism

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   
i was thinking about this while i was at work, doing nothing yesterday. I had heard people say that they thought that al queada might try a terrorist attack right before the election to influence the results, similar to how the madrid bombings worked.

it then occured to me that if this where to happen in america it might bring about a civil war.
why?
because no matter who won the election, the other side would say that the bombings influenced the results and the elections where a sham.
the whole premise of this country relies on the voting system and if no one trusts in it than what is there to trust in? plenty of people dont trust in it already from the last election. this election will be unique from others in recent times because how close the running will be and how fired up people on both sides are. I think that these factors combined with the catalyst terrorist attack near the elections could be the final straw.

any thoughts on this?




posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
i if no one trusts in it than what is there to trust in?


Thanks to the new computer voting system (which a journalist managed to hack and change results) I don't see why the AMerican people should have any faith in their election system. We all know that Bush didn't actually win, what will stop him from doing it again? This time he has had four years in office to prepare.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:05 AM
link   
I believe this has been discussed in several threads already, but wouldn't it be convenient for GWB if a large attack took place on or just before the elections, so that he could postpone/cancel the election due to a national emergency or declare the results null and void.

Let's just say I wouldn't be surprised in the least.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Terrorist group do not favor Bush so I don't think they will do anything during that time, but after the election they could if another president is elect just to cause a littler instability for the new administration.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Watch for a major Al CIAda operation between now and November.

When it happens, you MUST ask yourself, QUI BONO?

Who stands to gain?

These numbnuts in this administration are banking on the naivete' of America's citizens. Are you stoopid? Or can see through akrid smoke of their lies?

Why in God's name, Allah's name, Jehova's name would terrorists do something that would help George W. Bush get re-elected?

WHY?


Meditate upon that. Spain got it right. Hopefully America will.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
I believe this has been discussed in several threads already, but wouldn't it be convenient for GWB if a large attack took place on or just before the elections, so that he could postpone/cancel the election due to a national emergency or declare the results null and void.


Is that even possible ? Does President Bush have the power to postpone and/or cancel the election ?

The only terror I see coming on election day is the bickering between News stations predicting the winners etc... same ole crap as every election !



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Does Bush have the power?

He has absolutely assumed that power.

We are living in a dressed up Diktatorship.

He will do WHATEVER he wants. Or rather, whatever his puppet master wants him to do.

A 'terrist' attack would serve the purpose of giving him a pretext to assume absolute power.

He cannot win the next election and they know it.

Gen. Tommy Franks had this to say in an issue of Cigar Aficianado:

Franks said that the worst thing that could happen is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, ... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty weve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.

Franks then offered in a practical sense what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world it may be in the United States of America that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.


Are you a sheep who will follow Franks view - or can you think for yourself and reject this BU#?

A 'terrist' attack will only negate Democracy if the masses allow it.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   
It's a shame that people wont have an opposite reaction to a terror attack, I mean you'd think that people would say:

"hang on a sec, why is this happening? What is our country doing wrong, maybe it is our leader sending us into illegal wars in the middle east etc. lets kick him out.Hmm...



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I see your point EastCoast kid,

Do you think this president will step so low as to create an attack so he can stay longer in power? I though about it.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I see your point EastCoast kid,

Do you think this president will step so low as to create an attack so he can stay longer in power? I though about it.


The people in this administration are sensing the noose tightening.

These monsters will do anything necessary to hold onto power and to keep their a$$es out of the sling. Rest assured.

Look at what they've done in Iraq. Torturers. Evil, wicked men. They are no better than their created monster Saddam Hussein.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Look at what they've done in Iraq. Torturers. Evil, wicked men. They are no better than their created monster Saddam Hussein.


I know, it's crazy that the Iraqi people were liberated only to be put back in Abu ghab prison to be tortured again. It's incredible that heads been rolled in the administration for this. It just shows what they are capable of getting away with.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Rumsfeld makes my blood run cold.

Check this out, and PAY ATTENTION you Bush sycophants:

Poll reveals hostility to US and support for rebel cleric
By Anne Penketh Diplomatic Editor
17 June 2004


The Bush administration's last remaining justification for the invasion of Iraq has been demolished by a private poll revealing that only 2 per cent of Iraqis regard the occupying forces as liberators.

The poll results are devastating for both President George Bush and Tony Blair, who are fond of saying that future generations of Iraqis will thank them for liberating their country. Tony Blair has consistently said that history will prove him right for engineering the downfall of a cruel tyrant, even if weapons of mass destruction were not found.


[url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=532337]http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=532337[/ur l]

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
The hyperlink won't work on this. Sorry. Here's the rest of the article.

Continued -

President Bush, giving a pep-talk to American soldiers in Florida yesterday, said: "We have come not to conquer, but to liberate people and we will stand with them until their freedom is secure."

Yet the main findings of the poll, which was commissioned by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) last month and which was leaked yesterday, reveal that only 2 per cent of the Iraqis polled in mid-May see coalition troops as liberators, while 92 per cent said they were occupiers. In a crumb of comfort for the coalition, only
3 per cent expressed support for Saddam Hussein.

A total of 54 per cent believed that all Americans behaved like the guards at Abu Ghraib. But 71 per cent of those polled in face-to-face interviews in six Iraqi cities said they were surprised by the guards' behaviour.

Safety and security emerged as a major concern for the population in general, as nearly half of Iraqis said they felt unsafe in their neighbourhoods.

Asked whether they would feel safer if the 138,000 US troops left immediately, 55 per cent agreed, nearly double the 28 per cent who held that view in a poll carried out in January.

Asked if the Americans should leave immediately, 41 per cent agreed, while 45 per cent said they preferred US forces to leave once a permanent Iraqi government was installed.

Hostility towards the Americans was also reflected in strong support for the rebel Shia leader, Muqtada Sadr, who galvanised the resistance to the occupation in April. His blend of religion and populism has proved popular The CPA's poll shows that 67 per cent of Iraqis say they support or strongly support him, making him the most popular man in the country after the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. A total of 81 per cent of Iraqis had an improved opinion of Sadr in May from three months earlier, and 64 per cent said the acts of his insurgents had made Iraq more unified. But only 2 per cent would support him for president. The coalition's confidence rating in May stood at 11 per cent, down from 47 per cent in November, while the troops themselves had the support of only 10 per cent.

The survey questioned 1,093 adults who were selected randomly in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Diwaniyah, Hillah and Baquba between 14 and 23 May.

The White House spokesman, Scott McClelland, put on a brave face when reacting to the survey: "The President has previously said no one wants to be occupied. And we don't want to be occupiers," he said

But a coalition official in Baghdad interviewed by the Associated Press news agency, which obtained the survey, was despondent. "If you are sitting here as part of the coalition, it [the poll] is pretty grim," said Donald Hamilton, a career diplomat who helps oversee the CPA's polling of Iraqis.

In Washington, Congressman Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, said he found the poll "disturbing. ... It demonstrates quite jarringly that we are not winning the hearts and minds" of Iraqis.

Among the poll's other findings, 63 per cent believed conditions would improve when the Iraqi interim government takes over at the end of the month, and 62 per cent believed it was "very likely" the Iraqi police and army would maintain security without US forces.

A State Department spokes-
man said: "Let's face it. That's the goal, to build those up to the point where they can take charge in Iraq and they can maintain security in Iraq."

The Foreign Office had no comment last night.
17 June 2004 10:48

Search this site:

Printable Story








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy, including use of cookies | Sign up for our free daily news update
Freelance contributions | Advertise in print | Other Digital sites | Contact us

2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Very well thought out posts EastCoastKid.

In my opinion another terrorist attack will be carried out in the months before the US election as the powers- that- be will have much to gain from it. Firstly the attack could either be used by Bush to increase his support or, more worryingly, it could be used an excuse to declare martial law and suspend the election indefinately.

9/11 was carried out by the government so whats to stop them carrying out another?



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Eddie999

That is exactly what the whole point is, the way this president came to power and they irrational way he is behaving leaves this thought as a possible alternative for him to remain in power.

To many weird things happening and some of them are not given explanation as why. All this president do when ask question is answering with (A war on terrorism) as if everything that is done so far have a legit excuse. Sometimes it sounds like brainwashing!!!!!!!!!!!!war onterro.............ris.......................mo............................



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
HMMMMMM....There is a presidential election and there is confusion as to who won. Were the votes correct? What was the true popular vote? How can it be that hte presidents BROTHER is the governor of the problem state? C'mon, Speilberg couldn't write something better and sounds more like a bad plotkine of a afternoon soap-opera.

Now, for a follow up in this election, we will use computerized machines, that will happen to crash in the swing states. You say you can't believe it, that something like this could never happen. It already has, just look at the last election....I am not saying not to vote, I am stating that we should not give up. Remember Riechstag or google it if you like, and it is eerily similar to event of the past few years.

As far as terrorism, get ready, becasue it is coming soon, and there is nothing we can do to stop it, so hug your kids and call your mom.....
.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
wow, i get back from work and my how this post has gone...

I dont believe al quaeda cares who wins the election if they were to be successful in a pre-election attack.

if anyone is president of a coherent USA than al queada has failed their goal. Thier goal is the destabilization of the US. Bush,Kerry,Nader, i dont belive they care. They hate america on a moral grounds, not a political one like europe so it dosnt matter who wins from which party as long as america is stable.

The best way to destabilize a country that you cant outright overpower is to turn it against itself. That is what i believe they would acomplish by a pre election attack. No matter who wins too many people would be angry to be united.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Terrorist group do not favor Bush so I don't think they will do anything during that time, but after the election they could if another president is elect just to cause a littler instability for the new administration.


O rmaybe they want Bush in power because the longer he stumbles through the Mid-East, the longer they can use him as a recruiting tool.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
why is this another bash bush thread?

i dont think anyone sees the real issue here.



posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
any thoughts on this?
I think that there will be a terrorist attack on the United States. Will the purpose be to affect the elections? I'd say partially, yes, to keep Bush, Jr. in power. The more sinister reason for this planned terrorist attack that will occur before the elections is the abolition of laws that protect the people of the United States, martial law in some parts of the Country that will be unstable, legalized mandatory service in the military for United States citizens of a certain age, a new Patriot Act type law, disarming the peoples right to own firearms, in other words, to further dismantle the Constitution.

The people of America are losing their rights and what their Country is. Who will stand to gain after these terror attacks? Bush Co. and his unseen masters.

Working on the premise that the planned terrorist attacks will happen, the question for the people is where will they happen? I'm guessing multiple strikes in different Urban Centres using mild radiation suitcase bombs.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join