It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 06:21 PM

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.

What rights have we lost yet? ....Just curious. And for some reason, I don't consider "having the government know what books I take out from the library" exactly counts as a blatant disarmation of our constitution.


It seems to me that it wouldn't be "convenient", as one prior poster said, for Dubya if there were an attack.
For instance, look at Spain. The current government at the time of the Madrid bombings was leading with appx. 9% margin in the polls. This was the same government which sanctioned the troops in Iraq.
However,a fter 200 deaths and a few explosions, it flopped the polls: The new government there, which quite resembles a socialist party, was elected. Despite the fact that it had almost a doubledigit lagbehind in the polls some one week earlier.
And what did the elected party say, prior to the bombings?
That they would remove all their troops from Spain.
Case in point, the people will vote on impulse and short-term effectiveness, rather than focusing upon the whole picture: That is, the elimination of troops in Iraq for the long term, and the election of someone who is not going to effectively wage the "war on terrorism" will open the country up to more, and severe attacks.
And yes, to avoid the bumper sticker sentiments, the terrorists would have "won".
I think pre-election is a prime time for them to strike, and it frankly wouldn't surprise me in the least.
It'll have a reverberating effect on the elections, as well.

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 08:06 PM

Originally posted by mauskov
What rights have we lost yet?
I'll reword and say that the Freedoms are being lost. For more information, consult this thread:

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:06 PM

Originally posted by IMMORTAL
I'll reword and say that the Freedoms are being lost. For more information, consult this thread:

Eh...Not to nitpick, but I don't see monitoring as a loss of freedom. It's monitoring. It's not taking anything away.
And I know this will send me to the hounds, but: If you're not doing anything bad, then why do you care if someone sees?
....It's back to the argument that the people who are gnashing their teeth over the Patriot Act, DCMA (that one is kind of scary, I will concede...), etc. are the same ones who are stamping their feet over September 11th and how it could've been prevented.
Unfortunately, no pain, no gain: There's a cost to freedom, sometimes, and - however contradictory - sometimes it means stepping on some free people's toes. Feh.

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:44 PM
Well, I still hold fast to the belief that there are groups wanting to strip the Constitution of its power. With all this war on terrorism situation, I can only see that this is being used to do just that in the United States. With the new terror threats being reported by the Government, I am suspicious about its intention, namely to alter elections and perhaps give the ruling elite more power. I think it is the Patriots of the country that these groups target, those who uphold their Constitution. The people of the United States will lose because they refuse to see what this terrorism is doing to them. I'm thinking in terms of terrorism that is let by or generated by the Intelligence Agencies.

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 09:58 PM
the sad thing is both sides of this argument make sense to me. It disturbs me greatly that there has been given more wiggle room to alter the rights of people under the constition, but at the same time how can you defeat terrorism by giving those people more room to hide their tracks?

a true puzzle, who wins?

posted on Jun, 17 2004 @ 10:53 PM
I think some of you are underestimating the terrorists. They probably believe striking the US is good for them either way. Some points

1. If the terrorists strike and GW is reelected, the war as it exists now will continue and likely newer targets will emerge. If the US continues to make war against Islamic people it will no doubt, bring more people into their fold. They win a victory and continue the struggle as it is today with more followers.

2. If the US is struck and GW lost the election, they could claim victory twice.

3. If the US is not struck, and GW is re-elected they have the same outcome as choice one, without having got in an attack- for them this is the worst outcome.

4. If the US is not struck and GW loses the election, they could still claim a victory. Even if we do not see it as a victory for terrorism, the people being hunted will most certainly see it as so. They could then attack again or not attack and see if the threat to them lessons. Either way it's win win.

You could turn out the four possible outcomes from the Bush perspective as well. But, the positives for Bush's side are halved. If he is re-elected the war will continue. If he is not, his choices are over.


new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in