Quote: It appears that the current threat level increase and potential threats in NY (subways) and DC (national monument) may have been a political stunt considering the pres. recently gave an address trying to realign public support for the war. The idea that AlQ. would take over IZ if we leave, is crazy. The real deal: the administration is afraid that Iran and Syria will have an overwhelming influence on the state. Besides as stated in the speech we have disposed of 75% of AlQ, right.
In the pres. current speech he mentioned that AlQ would control of IZ if we leave, taking the war to the Mid-east protects us from being attacked here, and that 5 attacks had been foiled in the US. The NY and DC threats were probably blown out of proportion in order to knock the latter points home. Think about it, why, now say that there is a threat from IZ based terror.
What would better aid in validating what the pres said in his speech, but a terror threat from IZ!!!!!!!
Speech Analysis:
1. 75% of AlQ's leadership has been eliminated, so how can ALQ take over IZ
2. There is no proof that the Iraq war has helped us slow down attempts to strike the US, but there is evidence that IZ has energized the Fundamentalist effort (i.e. threat on NY possibly from IZ)
3. 5 attacks foiled is an attempt to further validate taking the war to IZ, who knows we may have only had 1 attempt if we had not energized the effort, and know we have a poss threats from entities in IZ.
You have to read between the lines when it comes the politics!!!!!!!!! The public is overall easily swayed because of ignorance of the political process. - yardsale
Above is from a thread on
www.politicalforum.com Sat Oct 08, 2005 6:20 pm.
Wow! Now that it is considered a hoax I definatly stand more firm in my analysis. The least to say, I agree with blueflame1! I think that those of us who are political scientist must perfect the art of reading between the lines!! :wink:
Of course, some connect reading between the lines with conspiracy theory, don't be lame!