--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > You'd think the country was constantly under siege by Islamic > > terrorists which it isn't and nowhere close. This nonsense is > > totally unwarranted but their think tanks told them that when > > the economic shit hits the fan there will be massive unrest in > > this country (that is if the massive overweight can still walk > > the few steps to the streets) so they are putting the tools in > > place to control us. > > The last thing I want to do is get involved in a > bunch of US politics and conspiracy theories, but > as long as you're doing it, I think you might want > to aim your conspiracy theory a little less far > into the future. Economic collapse, scholapse, > dude...there is an *election* coming up, and elec- > tion that the Republicons cannot possibly win. So > do you think it's possible that a few of them are > thinking, "Hmmmm...we can't win an election, so > why don't we have a terrorist attack instead? > Then we wouldn't have to *have* an election." > > That's the way we'd do a good conspiracy theory > 'way over here in Europe. :-) > > And just in case things turn out that way, I just > wanted to be on record as having said it first, > *from* 'way over here in Europe. :-) :-) :-)
Ahhh, no, not really. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard this suggested--since well before the 2004 election up to today--I'd be a wealthy woman. Trouble is, it would blow the "Fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" meme they've been using to justify staying in Iraq.
