Wednesday, October 19, 2005

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?

8 Comments:

Blogger M A F said...

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."

11:56 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

And if it happened to be true and no one warned you then you would be just as quick to criticize showing that there are some poeple you cannot satisfy.

So what would you boith do if you had a more than normal suspicion that a terror attack was going to occur? Do you make the error in favor of preventing it or do you ignore it?

Maybe instead of trying to politicize it you should be thankful that local authorities are making an attempt to prevent it.

6:22 AM  
Blogger M A F said...

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?

2:34 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Here we go again, your skills at omniscience are woefully inadequate.
===>But yours are? But maybe you knew that already....

I can't help think that you are a conditioned listener of Limbaugh. But that is another subject for another day.
=====>Yes and you most definitely must be of Air America's.

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.

======>And you find that hard to believe? Have you not heard of plots that were thwarted to attack the US mainland during WWII that the public knew nothing about until the war was over? Do you find it hard to believe that during the Clinton presidency there were terror attacks thwarted or discovered that the public STILL has no knowledge about? Or is it only because Bush is president and 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?

Funny how these things work out.
=====>Not really.

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.

======>Yes. Much like it can't stop every hurricane from killing people. Your point being????

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?

=======>Again I reiterate. You do much complaining but little to help solve the problem? I will repose the question in the hopes you don't dodge it again. I fear, however, that I am doing it vain.

Question:
"So what would you both do if you had a more than normal suspicion that a terror attack was going to occur? Do you make the error in favor of preventing it or do you ignore it?"

Answer: You can type your answer here.



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?

======>Terrorists have always used fear as a weapon but somehow you still can't manage to tackle the problem or answer the question. Hmmm. Shocking....

Or is Oberman correct? Are his 13-14 coicidences more than mere coincidence?


======>So wanna answer the question?

2:58 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

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.

8:48 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Poor miamimiami, again his omniscient skills are shown wanting.
====>That's cute...silly but cute....

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.

=====>Actually I listen to everything. Truthfully though I only listen to AA for comic relief.

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.

======>Ok. Before you write you must put the bong down. That made absolutely no sense at all. By your own admission the Clinton Presidency had twice the amount of terror attacks on US soil then the Bush presidency. The fact is the for all of the rantings and ravings by the left about how horrible this president has been the fact of the matter still remains that since 9/11 there has been no more terror attacks on US soil. That is not to say that it can't happen. But it hasn't. This drives the left crazy because they have tried for years to scare the public into thinking that our war in Iraq was going to cause MORE terrorism at home when it hasn't. The left has failed miserable to derail the war on terror and the sad truth is that most of America sees this. Leaving you and Alva part of the sad minority.

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.)

=====>Hurricanes. Oh that's right. The whoile Bush caused the hurricanes thing you libs got going. Yeah that hasn't gotten much traction either. Especially down here where we are recovering from another hurricane. Yeah,um,right.

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.

=====>Yeah that "staying the course" NEVER works.....except when defeating Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Racism.....

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.

======>Was that an answer to my original question? I am lost.

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.

=====Ummm so sorry. Was THAT your answer. You lost me again.

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.

=====>Me whine? Oh no. The whiner is clearly the one who complains and does nothing about it. That sounds a lot like yourself. But I think you already subconsciously knew that already.

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.




======>So then....I Guess you can't answer my question? I mean...you libs have ALL of the answers. Here I will post it again because I don't want anyone reading this to think that you intentionally dodged the question...again.

Question:
"So what would you both do if you had a more than normal suspicion that a terror attack was going to occur? Do you make the error in favor of preventing it or do you ignore it?"

Answer: You can type your answer here.
(Not holding my breath that you will ACTUALLY answer it but one can hope.)

3:16 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

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.

8:28 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

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.



======>Indeed you have answered the question by dodging it completely. Ironically it is your inability to answer it that speaks to the larger problem. You are a perpetual whiner! You complain but have no solution. When asked direct questions you go every which way but to a direct answer. I am not surprised but actually vindicated in the sense that you reacted the way I expected you to as another misguided liberal. Tell you what I will try to make it easier for you this time. Maybe you will bite...


Question: You have a higher than normal index of suspicion that in the next few weeks there might be an attack and you have this information in your hands. Do you:

A. Keep it close to the vest and leave town.
B. Tell only your close friends about it.
C. Let everyone know about it and prepare the best you can to prevent it or mitigate it to its lowest possible danger.
D. Do nothing.

There! That's alittle easier now isn't it? By the way don't be afraid of choosing the "wrong" answer. I am hoping that you will actually choose any of them.


Here I will even make it easier for you. If those answers don't appeal to you I will leave a space for you to write in an answer "E".











Thanks for playing!

10:30 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home