I'm thinking a terrorist attack on America before the election would be good for Mccain.

[Moonbeam]

The story is here.

Personally, I don't see how thinking about the consequences of unpleasant hypothetical things is a thought crime. I see it more as forethought and associating what are the obvious predictions. I don't see this as politics that need to change. Scaring people over predicting there will be attacks is a different matter. That sort of shit is just low. So how do you tell if this guy is just raising this issue to put bad thoughts in people's minds or if he's just exercising the critical faculties of his brain out loud. The fact that he apologized, if nothing else, tells me he doesn't have much faith in himself or self respect.

If we are attacked by terrorists before the next election I think it will help McCain more than Obama. That is my opinion and I don't intend to change it just because it may be unpopular or somebody is superstitious it might actually invite an attack.

What say you?

---

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The story is here.

Personally, I don't see how thinking about the consequences of unpleasant hypothetical things is a thought crime. I see it more as forethought and associating what are the obvious predictions. I don't see this as politics that need to change. Scaring people over predicting there will be attacks is a different matter. That sort of shit is just low. So how do you tell if this guy is just raising this issue to put bad thoughts in people's minds or if he's just exercising the critical faculties of his brain out loud. The fact that he apologized, if nothing else, tells me he doesn't have much faith in himself or self respect.

If we are attacked by terrorists before the next election I think it will help McCain more than Obama. If you don't like that I think that go f yourself.

What say you?

Perversely, I also think that attacking Iran might help McCain more. People can say they're against it all they like, but it tends to have that effect.

Time and again, nations that don't want a war fall into line as soon as it starts, including the US. However, I think the military might not think it's a great idea.

The insurgency in Iraq may have actually prevented the Bush administration from being able to go to war with Iran.

 

[Taejin]

hopefully more Americans will die so a republican will be elected this coming November.

 

[JJChicken]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


If we are attacked by terrorists before the next election I think it will help McCain more than Obama.

That can be arranged. With anchovies or without?

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

He was outright asked what the consequences would be for the McCain campaign and he answered honestly (and in my opinion correctly). Jumping on him for this is bullshit.

As for Obama's part, once again he disappoints. What really needs to change in politics is politicians mindlessly jumping on every little "faux pa" of their opponents for that political advantage. For someone who is keen on change, Mr Obama needs to spend less time using the same old tactics to score political points.

 

[Lemon law]

I think it really depends on the way we are attacked. The way we are attacked is the choice of the attacker

A single 911 type events with a big death toll and similar property damage could get the country frothing at the mouth, especially if it comes from some who would have a ever thunk it direction. But still there will be the GWB and Cheney said home land security would stop this from ever happening again to counterbalance the effect.

On the other hand, a bunch of small home land attacks, occurring all over the United States would do much to demonstrate that GWB&co has invested nothing in making our heartland safer in his phony all offense no defense war on terror. If done correctly, not a single person need be killed, but spectacular damage can be done to the symbols of America with in America. And for maximum effect those attacks would occur over a period of weeks or months. And in such a scenario, McCain type outrage would not wear all that well after the first set of attacks. And wear even thinner when they keep coming with the correct set of released tapes hitting the television networks promising more.

I have long suspected that Al-Quida still has the operation capacity to pull off either type of attack I have outlined above. And while I think Al-Quida underestimated our counterattack and how badly it would decimate their organization, according to our own NIE, Al-Quida has now rebuilt itself up to at least pre-911 strength. So I have to ask myself why an organization like Al-Quida has not made any real attempts to attack the American homeland?

One possible hypothesis is that Al-Quida feels the initial attack has had their desired effects, the American cowboy is still in a state of panic and is bankrupting itself maintaining two quagmires. And now Al-Quida is best to let well enough alone, the danger will come when America comes to its senses and then Al-Quida will then have to
attack again to get back to their desired level of American counterproductive insanity.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
He was outright asked what the consequences would be for the McCain campaign and he answered honestly (and in my opinion correctly). Jumping on him for this is bullshit.

As for Obama's part, once again he disappoints. What really needs to change in politics is politicians mindlessly jumping on every little "faux pa" of their opponents for that political advantage. For someone who is keen on change, Mr Obama needs to spend less time using the same old tactics to score political points.

And what about this comment from the link:

First, Black described the assassination of Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto in late December as an "unfortunate event" -- but one that boosted McCain's stock just before the must-win New Hampshire primary. The candidate's "knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander in chief. And it helped us," Black said.

IMO it was classless and distasteful to use the assassination of Bhutto for political advantage and that's exactly what he did there.

 

[Socio]

Why would they do that when they can't just wait for Obama to get elected then attack without fear of a military reprisal, just a good talking to from Obama instead?

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
He was outright asked what the consequences would be for the McCain campaign and he answered honestly (and in my opinion correctly). Jumping on him for this is bullshit.

As for Obama's part, once again he disappoints. What really needs to change in politics is politicians mindlessly jumping on every little "faux pa" of their opponents for that political advantage. For someone who is keen on change, Mr Obama needs to spend less time using the same old tactics to score political points.

Careful there, keep it up and you'll be branded a heretic as you are starting to tread on the ground of those whom have been pointing out the fallacies of this change campaign since the beginning.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Sociopath
Why would they do that ?

Because the odds are after a terrorist attack this Administration will retaliate against a country that had nothing to do just like they did with Iraq.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Taejin
hopefully more Americans will die so a republican will be elected this coming November.

 

[wwswimming]

oops, i thought you said, "I'm thinking a terrorist attack on Mccain
before the election would be good for America."

 

[piasabird]

So you hate America and want to see Americans Die?

How will that help America?

I can see how Al-Qaeda might try something like this. This is what they did in Spain.

 

[Lemon law]

Ok, we have this Black fellow coming out of left field, opening up his big yap, and saying that America could find itself attacked again like in 911. Politically incorrect in the the extreme and McCain joins Obama in deep denial.

It still ignores the fact that it could well happen. And when and if it happens, Black may or may not be right on whom it helps. And I double stress what we are happy about short term may not be long term wise. GWB's peak popularity of 90%+ occurred after America liberated Iraq and before that first 50 billion tops was poured down a rat hole. We just authorized another 160 billion more as GWB popularity stands at 26% and falling.

And the Ossama Bin Laden and a good part of the Al-Quida leadership are still alive and well despite the GWB vow to get them wherever they are hiding. And in the grand scheme of things, its Al-Quida and not us who will decide to attack or not attack the American homeland. And somehow I doubt they give a damn about American political correctness.

 

[SP33Demon]

Of course it would. Fear > Reason > Faith > Fear, rinse repeat.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The story is here.

Personally, I don't see how thinking about the consequences of unpleasant hypothetical things is a thought crime. I see it more as forethought and associating what are the obvious predictions. I don't see this as politics that need to change. Scaring people over predicting there will be attacks is a different matter. That sort of shit is just low. So how do you tell if this guy is just raising this issue to put bad thoughts in people's minds or if he's just exercising the critical faculties of his brain out loud. The fact that he apologized, if nothing else, tells me he doesn't have much faith in himself or self respect.

If we are attacked by terrorists before the next election I think it will help McCain more than Obama. If you don't like that I think that go f yourself.

What say you?

Is the above seriously your opinion or do my batteries need changed?

 

[Lemon law]

Cad asks--------Is the above seriously your opinion or do my batteries need changed?

No Cad, after seeing many of the posts you have made, I would have to say nothing short of a complete brain transplant would do the job for you. But draining your batteries might slow you down. Some anti psychotic drug spring to mind as the generic equivalent of a battery drainer.

On a more serious note, I think moonbean has weighed in with a semi valid hypothesis, I do
not necessarily share his conclusion, because public opinion could go either way.

 

[RKDaley]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer


As for Obama's part, once again he disappoints. What really needs to change in politics is politicians mindlessly jumping on every little "faux pa" of their opponents for that political advantage. For someone who is keen on change, Mr Obama needs to spend less time using the same old tactics to score political points.

I think the Obama camp was outright asked their thoughts on what Mr. Black said and they answered honestly (and in my opinion correctly). Jumping on him for this is bullshit.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Socio
Why would they do that when they can't just wait for Obama to get elected then attack without fear of a military reprisal, just a good talking to from Obama instead?

Regardless of how incorrect you are about how Obama would respond to such an attack, I am shocked that you believe that is even possible. You talk as if the president actually has that option should an attack occur. It doesn't matter if the president thinks we should all just lean back and sip on long island iced teas after getting attacked. We have these little things in our country like checks and balances, the national security council, the department of defense, congress, etc. I think you would do well by reviewing your notes from high school when you took your US government class.

On that note, the OP is an example of lunacy. Supporting massive terrorist attacks on our own soil in favor of how it will impact the election in November? Can you say, "misplaced priorities"?

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Cad asks--------Is the above seriously your opinion or do my batteries need changed?

No Cad, after seeing many of the posts you have made, I would have to say nothing short of a complete brain transplant would do the job for you. But draining your batteries might slow you down. Some anti psychotic drug spring to mind as the generic equivalent of a battery drainer.

Pot meet kettle :laugh:

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: GenHoth

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Cad asks--------Is the above seriously your opinion or do my batteries need changed?

No Cad, after seeing many of the posts you have made, I would have to say nothing short of a complete brain transplant would do the job for you. But draining your batteries might slow you down. Some anti psychotic drug spring to mind as the generic equivalent of a battery drainer.

Pot meet kettle :laugh:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh well, I suppose it goes with the territory and cuts both ways across the political divides.
A sense of humor and having thick skin helps. But come to think of it, thick skin is a characteristic of elephants and not donkeys. Translation, I am doomed.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Cad asks--------Is the above seriously your opinion or do my batteries need changed?

No Cad, after seeing many of the posts you have made, I would have to say nothing short of a complete brain transplant would do the job for you. But draining your batteries might slow you down. Some anti psychotic drug spring to mind as the generic equivalent of a battery drainer.

On a more serious note, I think moonbean has weighed in with a semi valid hypothesis, I do
not necessarily share his conclusion, because public opinion could go either way.

WTF!? I asked a serious question. Moonbeam likes to play games at times and I'm wondering if that is the case here or if that is his actual opinion. If it is his actual opinion, it's an opinion I can for the most part agree with.

 

[CPA]

lol, moonie, if you're a Republican, then I must of slipped into the 5th dimension and ended up in upside-down world.

 

[Lemon law]

The bulk of what moonbeam said is here------Personally, I don't see how thinking about the consequences of unpleasant hypothetical things is a thought crime. I see it more as forethought and associating what are the obvious predictions. I don't see this as politics that need to change. Scaring people over predicting there will be attacks is a different matter. That sort of shit is just low.

I just find it impossible to disagree with that statement. Which just show moonbeam is being a realist in a real world. Beyond that he enters a world of speculation and makes the guess that an terrorists attack would benefit McCain more than Obama while also saying exploiting the possibility for political gain is just low.

I am just totally baffled to even figure out why some think there is a single thing moonbeam said that is controversial. I may disagree with his end conclusion as a necessary given, because depending on the way it could be carried out, it could go either way, but in my mind, there is no taboo being broken here.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
He was outright asked what the consequences would be for the McCain campaign and he answered honestly (and in my opinion correctly). Jumping on him for this is bullshit.

As for Obama's part, once again he disappoints. What really needs to change in politics is politicians mindlessly jumping on every little "faux pa" of their opponents for that political advantage. For someone who is keen on change, Mr Obama needs to spend less time using the same old tactics to score political points.

The guy is a top flight political operative and strategist. He violated the number one rule for GOP operatives-never, ever admit that terrorist operations will boost the GOP's chances. His boneheaded play makes all future GOP pronouncements on terrorism look like the cynical fear-mongering they are.

This is one of those third rails in GOP politics.