Terrorist Scares Rigged?
For the second time in just the last two weeks a large scale terrorist scare in a major US city has turned out to be nothing more than a hoax. Information that supposedly came from an Egyptian-born Maryland resident suggested that a large scale terrorist attack was about to be centered in the Baltimore tunnel.
Last week another terrorist scare set off a heightened alert that a terrorist strike was imminent on New York City’s subways. Intelligence officials conceded that the threat warning had been nothing more than a hoax as well.
This comes as the nation’s capital is on edge over the investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Those close to the case have said that as many as 22 indictments are imminent, and rumors have been wildly circling around Capital Hill that Vice President Dick Cheney may very well resign.
Coincidence?
Last week another terrorist scare set off a heightened alert that a terrorist strike was imminent on New York City’s subways. Intelligence officials conceded that the threat warning had been nothing more than a hoax as well.
This comes as the nation’s capital is on edge over the investigation of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. Those close to the case have said that as many as 22 indictments are imminent, and rumors have been wildly circling around Capital Hill that Vice President Dick Cheney may very well resign.
Coincidence?
posted by Alva Goldbook at 11:24 PM
4 Comments:
Oberman has shown that there have been 13, well now 14 such coincidences in the past two years.
Now, if these terror threat warnings are not merely a coincidence of the politics of distraction then we may have entered into the the next phase of the "war on terror."
Since the military likes to create names to signify the ferocity of military campaigns, might we refer to this new terrorist campaign as the "Wolf who cried Boy."
Here we go again, your skills at omniscience are woefully inadequate.
I can't help think that you are a conditioned listener of Limbaugh. But that is another subject for another day.
Oddly enough it was just recently announced by the Bush administration (out of Bush's mouth no less) that there have been at least 10 different terrorist events that the public was not warned about that the government purportedly thwarted.
Funny how these things work out.
Oh yes, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this same administration has said that it cannot be successful in preventing every terrorists attack. "All it takes is one successful attack" is the operative phrase used by this administration.
But as "fate" would have it, the two latest reports of terrorist attacks have proven to be predicated upon false information which calls into question the ability of the government to discern between real threats and the hoaxes. And you thank that I should be "thankful" that the governemnt was able to prevent a hoax?
So have we entered into the a new phase of terrorism in which the terrorists turn use the U.S. governments reliance on public fear as their weapon?
Or is Oberman correct? Are his 13-14 coicidences more than mere coincidence?
Poor miamimiami, again his omniscient skills are shown wanting. I hate to break the bad bews to you, but I am not a fan of Air America. All AA does is give validate the practices of Limbaugh, Hannity (et. al) of which you are a listener.
I did for a while listen to a local radio show but that too grew tedious.
Oh I see that you are rather perplexed as you have now sought to reference faulty comparisons between WW2 and Bush's invasion of Iraq and the "war on terror." Your mention of Clinton is a non sequitur. But since you brought him into the discussion;
You wrote "there hasn't been an attack on US soil since 9/11 and it makes it that much harder for the left in this country to make their case that Bush hasn't done anything to protect us from the terrorists?"
Interestingly enough, under Clinton's presidency the US was attacked twice, one by Al Qaeda and the second by Timothy McVeigh. Clinton did (as Limbaugh like to assert) "nothing" to protect the nation from terrorism. So in review, Clinton did not invade Iraq like Bush and funny thing, no more terrorist attacks until Bush took office. So your obfuscating about attacks on US soil is meaningless.
Now then my "point" demonstrated the fallacy found in your previous comments. That is why it is funny how things work out. (Hurricanes? another non sequitur.)
Why should it be my responsibility to fix Bush's collosal fuck-up? Why don't you hold Bush accountable for his actions rather than wanting others to bail him out of his own mistakes? (Staying the course is not a solution.) The party dogma of personal accountability is shown wanting, again.
You offer obfuscations while missing the point about how the US government incites fear that it uses against it's own citizenry for political gain.
Your differing questions are non sequiturs and they do nothing to further the discussion about the US government's practice of announcing some, but not all terrorists threats. Or how many of these announcements coincide with the media coverage of breaking stories that do not bode well for this administration or the Republican Party in general.
But because you are adept at whining I would respond to your questions: One who reports something suspicious does not control the manner in which the government responds. After all as the evidence shows the government chooses which threats that warrant a public warning.
The last two publicly announced hoax threats were supposedly obtained by informants in Iraq. Notice the quaint association (coincidence) to Bush "war on terror"?
I didn't think so.
I already answered your questions. I am sorry my answers don't comport with what you expected.
I grow weary of your non sequiturs and obfuscations from, Clinton to WW2, bongs, Nazism and hurricanes.
Look if I was interested whining and Limbaughs opinions I'd listen to him. But I'm not so inclined.
Post a Comment
<< Home