Too Convenient?

[Mark_Henderson]

In the nearly three years since 9/11, the U.S. has engaged in continuous, aggressive anti-terror investigation, at home and abroad. I am usually not one to buy into conspiracy theories(except the JFK assasination/Warren Commission is suspect, IMO); the simplest explanation is most often true.

But, I do find it interesting that after nearly 3 years of non-stop investigation, in the two weeks after Kerry's nominating convention there has been a sudden cascade of uncovered terrorist surveillance of U.S. targets.

I'm not saying that the terrorists aren't a very real and daunting threat. But, does anyone else question the timing of this? If I understood what I saw on the news last night correctly, the videotapes they uncovered of Las Vegas are 7 years old. In the last two weeks, a new case of this has hit the news cycle about every three days, so that continues as the lead story.

I'm not saying this isn't real -- there was a moon landing -- but does the timing strain anyone else's credibility.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I'm not saying this isn't real -- there was a moon landing -- but does the timing strain anyone else's credibility.

Not really - it's all just more blabbity-blah (at least until something happens again - sadly).

Now if they manage to nab Bin-Laden in the next two months - then I may smell a rat.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
In the nearly three years since 9/11, the U.S. has engaged in continuous, aggressive anti-terror investigation, at home and abroad. I am usually not one to buy into conspiracy theories(except the JFK assasination/Warren Commission is suspect, IMO); the simplest explanation is most often true.

But, I do find it interesting that after nearly 3 years of non-stop investigation, in the two weeks after Kerry's nominating convention there has been a sudden cascade of uncovered terrorist surveillance of U.S. targets.

I'm not saying that the terrorists aren't a very real and daunting threat. But, does anyone else question the timing of this? If I understood what I saw on the news last night correctly, the videotapes they uncovered of Las Vegas are 7 years old. In the last two weeks, a new case of this has hit the news cycle about every three days, so that continues as the lead story.

I'm not saying this isn't real -- there was a moon landing -- but does the timing strain anyone else's credibility.

Timing? Like when Clinton launched cruise missiles at an aspirin factory during the Lewinsky scandal...

[townes]

They have zero credibility, so there is nothing left to strain.

[TrueBeliever]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
I'm not saying this isn't real -- there was a moon landing -- but does the timing strain anyone else's credibility.

I'm not trying to change the subject here, but the moon landing bit brings up a whole new argument.

A few years ago I saw a TV special on Fox where a bunch of people claimed the Apollo moon landing was all a government hoax. They spouted all this evidence; there's no way the science works, there's a layer of super radioactive stuff above the Earth that would have killed the astronauts as soon as they got near it, etc.

But here's the thing - one night in college I was hanging out with a bunch of people and one of them was a guy who worked for the science department and had a key to the planetarium and knew how to operate the telescope. He set it up so we saw the rings around Saturn and then the American flag stuck on the moon.

So if our astronauts didn't put that flag there, how did it get there? I mean, even I saw it.

[dchester]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
So if our astronauts didn't put that flag there, how did it get there? I mean, even I saw it. I bet Al Gore did it, right after he created the internet.
________
apple games (http://macgame.org)

[Nomadic Logic]

We'll see more terror alerts and warnings as Nov. 2nd draws near. Spain set a very poor precedent by letting a terrorist attack alter the outcome of their elections.

The terrorists will try to do the same thing here.

As for the timing, the arrest which led to the discovery of the plots (via captured laptop) was just made last week or two weeks ago. I don't question the timing.

[TrueBeliever]

In Spain it was very clear that if the ruling party stayed in power, they would stay allied with the U.S., and the Madrid bombing did alter things.

My question is, who do the terrorists want us to elect? Both Dubya and Kerry are screaming that they will be tough on terror. I would think they'd want Dubya out since Democrats are traditionally seen as being less militaristic.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
In Spain it was very clear that if the ruling party stayed in power, they would stay allied with the U.S., and the Madrid bombing did alter things.

My question is, who do the terrorists want us to elect? Both Dubya and Kerry are screaming that they will be tough on terror. I would think they'd want Dubya out since Democrats are traditionally seen as being less militaristic.

Unless, as Richard Clarke asserts (and Al Qaida has said), their goal is to draw us into being an occupying army in the heart of the Arab world, so that more of the people will rally to their cause against us. Then, Dubya's their man.

These people envision an Islamic republic after an apocalyptic holy war. They want knee-jerk militarism to give it to them.

[townes]

No doubt, W is their man. This administration is a 24 hr. a day recruiting tool for islamic terrorists, and they would hate to see a United States that actually worked with the rest of the world to stymie terrorism, as opposed to the one that attacks secular arab states in pursuit of old debts left unpaid by poppy and DICK.

[Nomadic Logic]

Originally posted by townes
as opposed to the one that attacks secular arab states in pursuit of old debts left unpaid by poppy and DICK.
Just as a sidenote - if you ever plan to have intelligent discussion with me, it's not going to happen if you display this type of lunatic fringe conspiracy theory stuff on a daily basis coupled with the childish namecalling.

You may care, you may not. I'm new here and I'm just letting you know where I'm coming from. I'm not a huge Bush fan, as there are other (true) conservatives I'd rather have in office. However, I'm not going to go running around making the same old sexual references to his and the VP's name, as it's been done MANY times before.

Just my two cents.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
No doubt, W is their man. This administration is a 24 hr. a day recruiting tool for islamic terrorists, and they would hate to see a United States that actually worked with the rest of the world to stymie terrorism, as opposed to the one that attacks secular arab states in pursuit of old debts left unpaid by poppy and DICK.

Just to clear things up, are you just joking around with half the stuff you post on this board?

[Tiger_69]

Originally posted by spiderman
Just to clear things up, are you just joking around with half the stuff you post on this board? I believe he is not joking. That's just my opinion from reading many of his posts on another board but only townes can truly answer that.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by Tiger_69
I believe he is not joking. That's just my opinion from reading many of his posts on another board but only townes can truly answer that.

He must be joking. After all, it's all pure dribble. ;)

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by TrueBeliever
In Spain it was very clear that if the ruling party stayed in power, they would stay allied with the U.S., and the Madrid bombing did alter things.

My question is, who do the terrorists want us to elect? Both Dubya and Kerry are screaming that they will be tough on terror. I would think they'd want Dubya out since Democrats are traditionally seen as being less militaristic.

I am really shocked and amazed that nobody has posted the obvious in response ta True Believers question

"If you were a terrorist, who would you want lead the U.S?" (then vote for the oppisite of who you answed your own question with)

Me? I'm betting it's NOT the guy who has his eye on re-deploying the ENTIRE militery based on the current threat.:rolleyes:

[townes]

Whether or not I am joking depends upon what you are referring to.


I do believe, with good reason, that Dick Cheney and the neo-cons are the ones running this administration. It's hardly a conspiracy theory, and is actually a fact imo. That Dick Cheney chose himself to be vice president and all administration policy has been directly in accord with neo-con beliefs backs it up imo. Believe what you want, I have sound reasons for my beliefs.

Iraq was a secular state-That's a fact. The US State department map charting countries harboring Al Queada did not include Iraq prior to the invasion---again-a fact.Iraq did not have madrasses teaching kids to hate the west-again-a fact. Iraq was not under the control of extremist clerics and it's law wasn't based upon the Koran, unlike Iran.


The right wingers, including the Ashcroft Justice department have been clear in their view that al queada wants Kerry to win, and people even suggest that right here. Truth is, I don't think they care who wins, but anyone suggesting al queada wants a democratic administration is going to get it right back at them.


As far as intelligent discussions go, I am more than happy to engage in them when they are possible, but i will throw mud right back when Bush supporters take cheap shots at Kerry and the left. Don't like it? Too bad. Questioning Kerry's service while supporting Bush is pure hypocrisy, and i have no problem saying so.


Basically, I am fed right the f*ck up with the right wing in this country shoving their opinions down our throats as fact, and I have every intention of fighting back when it happens.

You want reasonable discussion, say something reasonable, if you want a pissing contest then continue taking dumps on Kerry, Moore, and the rest of the left. I will oblige in kind.


BTW-Nomadic Logic, if I'm not mistaken one of your first posts here was a shot at me, and you can expect it right back when that happens.

[spiderman]

I don't understand. Why does Kerry get a free pass?

If there are people out there with a different version of events, shouldn't we be allowed to hear their side of the story and make up our own minds?

Were you flipping out when the press was saying that Bush was AWOL?

Or are you just pissed because what goes around comes around, and now your guy is facing the fire?

[dchester]

Originally posted by townes
You want reasonable discussion, say something reasonable, if you want a pissing contest then continue taking dumps on Kerry, Moore, and the rest of the left. I will oblige in kind. I guess then it comes down to who gets to decide what is "reasonable". As Albert Einstein once said, "Everything is relative, it all depends on how you look at it." What is "reasonable", sometimes depends on your point of view.

Examples: Some people may think that dumping on Moore is reasonable, while others may not. Some may think that allowing Moore to attack Bush is reasonable, or think that allowing the Swift Boat Veterans to attack Bush is unreasonable.

A more complicated example: Some people may think questioning someone's character is the same as questioning their patriotism (thus unreasonable), while other feel you can attack one without attacking the other (reasonable).

My opinion in the context of debating here, is that attacking public figures like Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Moore, etc. is legitimate. Attacking someone (personally) for having an opinion that you disagree with is not legitimate. Although tactfully attacking the opinion (not the person) is also legitimate.

Tact is what often is missing from debates on the internet (when attacking someone's opinion) and that is what often leads to flame wars, of course along with personal attacks on each other.

If you've ever been sort of a neutral observer to heated debates on some of these subjects, it becomes a lot easier to see that each side rarely tries to understand the other point of view, but mostly they just preach to each other. Then someone eventually gets frustrated by the other side, and then the rhetoric tends to escalate.

Not everyone can do this, but it can be interesting when people actually try to learn why the people on the other side have a certain opinion that you believe to be so wrong (or even unreasonable), rather than just preaching back and forth.

My two cents.
________
hot box vaporizers (http://hotboxvaporizers.com)

[townes]

Good post, good points, i'll have to check my posts to see if i am attacking posters or those they support. I'll also check to see if i am being attacked personally, or if the other posters are the ones doing the personal attacks. One thing i know i am guilty of, and that's allowing politics at large to influence my comments here. Guess i'll have to find a way to keep that in check.

Spiderman, how would you have responded to Clinton supporters attacking Dole's fidelity?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
Spiderman, how would you have responded to Clinton supporters attacking Dole's fidelity?

Personally I think that a man's fidelity speaks volumes about his character, and I think it does matter.

That is not to say that I would base my vote solely on this, but I think it's a legitimate point, if it is true, or suspected of being true. I say put it out there and let the American people decide.

Also, with regards to Clinton I think it had more to do with sexual harrassment as opposed to marital infidelity.

So with regards to your statement, I would have no problem if some woman came forward to say that she was sexually harrassed by Bob Dole and the Clinton camp felt that her story should be heard by the American people.

"If a man's wife can't trust him, why should I?" - Ross Perot

[spiderman]

Townes, It's funny how you brought up Clinton's infidelity.

You speak of hypocrites, didn't you think it was hypocritical that the same people who championed Anita Hill, attacked Paula Jones?

I think it was very telling, especially when they tried to do the same thing to Miss Lewinsky, but (as disgusting as this is) she was able to produce evidence.

It can't be sexual harrassment when a Republican does it, and a harmless fling when done by a Democrat.

This is what I mean about viewing things objectively. People become blinded by ideology and begin to believe that pushing there agenda is more important then getting to the truth.

I didn't mean to change the subject, but what I'm getting at is this.

It's not fair to attack Bush's record just because he was in the Air National Guard as opposed to over in Vietnam, and at the same time give Kerry a free pass because he has a few medals on his chest.

It is either okay to bring up the past or it isn't, but you can't have one set of rules for one side, and another set of rules for the other side.

How is that fair?

[townes]

Spiderman, bottom line imo is that we can go round and round about this forever and it won't change a thing.

After a few minutes of thought i decided that dchester is right on the money in his comments, and i have no doubt that i have said things that i shouldn't have. Truth is that i am so f*cking pissed off about politics in this country and the way things are going that staying polite is not possible. I came here to talk football and that's what i am going to stick to from now on. I'll speak with my vote and stick to football when i am here.

later,

townes

[spiderman]

Originally posted by townes
Spiderman, bottom line imo is that we can go round and round about this forever and it won't change a thing.

After a few minutes of thought i decided that dchester is right on the money in his comments, and i have no doubt that i have said things that i shouldn't have. Truth is that i am so f*cking pissed off about politics in this country and the way things are going that staying polite is not possible. I came here to talk football and that's what i am going to stick to from now on. I'll speak with my vote and stick to football when i am here.

later,

townes

peace :wave:

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by dchester
Not everyone can do this, but it can be interesting when people actually try to learn why the people on the other side have a certain opinion that you believe to be so wrong (or even unreasonable), rather than just preaching back and forth.

My two cents.

Brilliant!

Seriously though - I agree with your assessment 100% If we'd have had a little more of that earlier this year during the big melt-down I imagine a lot fewer feelings would have been hurt.

It's pretty damn easy to hit the 'submit' button without a lot of regard as to how your comments will be taken.

Good post dchester.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Brilliant!

Seriously though - I agree with your assessment 100% If we'd have had a little more of that earlier this year during the big melt-down I imagine a lot fewer feelings would have been hurt.

It's pretty damn easy to hit the 'submit' button without a lot of regard as to how your comments will be taken.

Good post dchester.

One thing I find funny about all this stuff is how angry people get.

For example, my father joined the reserves in order to avoid going to Vietnam. He spent 6 years 1968-1974 stateside. So when people call Bush a coward, they are basically calling my father a coward.

Now that's something to get upset about.

But I don't, because as they say....

Politics is Politics