why Bu$h need another attack

[Crypticchronoclasm]

Why Bush Needs another Attack

Bush needs another attack to distract people from the faltering economy with its stubborn and widespread unemployment, library closures, educational shortfalls, soaring medical costs, illegal immigration, homelessness, lost retirement funds, along with a queue of other civic concerns, and from the debacle in Iraq, regardless of the recent dog-and-pony show concerning Hussein--in short, to distract people from where the blame really lies, which can be deduced from a simple Not methodology: Not liberals, not welfare moms, not AWOL dads, not Osama, not Bill or Hillary Clinton, not Saddam, not Michael Jackson, not le francaise, not university professors, not collectivists, not Marxists and socialists, not the red conspiracy, not Earth Firsters, not environmentalists, and so forth ad infinitum until there's only one place left to go--the White House, or perhaps to the environs bunkered beneath the White House, as it were.

2) Bush needs another attack to stir up more support for further police state measures and for the suspension of what's left of the Constitution.

3) Bush needs another attack to create momentum for the Bush Re-Election Campaign to paint himself as the only one tough enough to lead the counterattack, since the Democratic contender will be cast as weak and as anti-war. If a contender such as Dean becomes a serious threat to the imperium, the Anglo-Saxon presidency might launch its own stealth attack and blame it on the Arabs, thereby enabling it to declare martial law and suspend the 2004 election, and thus seal the fate of the rule of law and democratic jurisprudence in America for a long while.

Fantasies of a madman? In this case, I pray they're mine, and not Bush's

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Id love to see another huge attack on the U$

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2004, 11:26 AM
Id love to see another huge attack on the U$
As would I. Make the US government pay for there actions of supremecy!!! I don't exactly wanna see innocent people die tho...but you know, if Bush would meet his end I wouldn't be too sad.

DeadMan.

PS: The FBI/CIA who might read this can kiss my Canadian ass!

[(*]

We should hope for peace, not more violence.
End the cycle

[Soviet power supreme]

Bush needs another attack to create momentum for the Bush Re-Election Campaign to paint himself as the only one tough enough to lead the counterattack, since the Democratic contender will be cast as weak and as anti-war.

No need for that.He only "finds" the weapons of mass destruction.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by (*@Jan 2 2004, 04:02 AM
We should hope for peace, not more violence.
End the cycle
The only thing these people understand is violence, unfortunately its the only way.

[(*]

One attack gave america justification (in their minds) to attack afghanistan and Iraq, as well as pursue harder lines with other nations.
Could you imagine the leverage another attack will give them?

Violence begets violence

[DeadMan]

Originally posted by (*@Jan 1 2004, 09:56 PM
One attack gave america justification (in their minds) to attack afghanistan and Iraq, as well as pursue harder lines with other nations.
Could you imagine the leverage another attack will give them?

Violence begets violence
Another attack would simply proove how much of a waste of time it is to fight terrorism (I would say 75% of terrorism is propagandha, most have there reasons to do the acts they do). I don't think the average joe needs to get attacked, but hitting some significant government property or personel would make them think straight for once.

You can kill the terrorist, but to them you are the terrorist.

DeadMan.

[IHP]

The fallacy of your logic is that you misunderstand the Conservative view point. That viewpoint is that the more the US stamps on the "terrorists" the less likely it is for another attack. Unfortunately, the thoughts of the conservative is that you are going to be attacked ASAP, therefore keep bombing. Too, they would view another attack on the US for greater justification for their war on "terror."

They don't see themselves actually fuelling more anger against them with this raping of Afghanistan and Iraq.

[LSD]

Bush would LOVE another attack, but if you look at it, he doesn't really need one.

Hell he managed to invade Iraq and push through some truly insane laws, all YEARS after september 11th. Today despite a terrible conditions, and rapidly diminishing freedoms, he is still slated to win the next election.

And in terms of the administration making up their own attack, I would point you to the declassified proposal for "Operation Northwoods", in which the Joint Chiefs suggested faking terrorist attacks on American civilian and military targets, and then blaming cuba so they could invade. Kennedy turned it down, but bush.......

[dannie]

and what if you made an attack on the with house, call them afterworths and say your from france and you are not a muslim, guess they can't attack france ....

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by DeadMan+Jan 2 2004, 08:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DeadMan @ Jan 2 2004, 08:41 AM)
(*@Jan 1 2004, 09:56 PM
One attack gave america justification (in their minds) to attack afghanistan and Iraq, as well as pursue harder lines with other nations.
Could you imagine the leverage another attack will give them?

Violence begets violence
Another attack would simply proove how much of a waste of time it is to fight terrorism (I would say 75% of terrorism is propagandha, most have there reasons to do the acts they do). I don&#39;t think the average joe needs to get attacked, but hitting some significant government property or personel would make them think straight for once.

You can kill the terrorist, but to them you are the terrorist.

DeadMan. [/b]
I agree. As these so called "terrorists" are not countries with borders, they are just people scattered around the world, they are very hard to fight against.

[ComradeRobertRiley]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2004, 01:54 PM
and what if you made an attack on the with house, call them afterworths and say your from france and you are not a muslim, guess they can&#39;t attack france ....
No they definately wouldnt attack France.

1. France has more allies than the U&#036;

2. Would start WW3

3. France would open a can of whoop ass on the U&#036;

[Hate Is Art]

3. France would open a can of whoop ass on the U&#036;

:lol: :lol: :lol: FRANCE AND WHOOP ASS :lol: :lol: :lol:

sorry, but come on what do we gain from attacking the US exept getting it more angry, it won&#39;t make it change is policies but only push down harder and harder. We need to fight for revolution