Will there be terrorist attacks if Obama is the President?

"But the perpetrators will not have dark skin."

If there are al-Qaeda attacks, the direct perpetrators need not be dark-skinned. Even excepting European recruits, some al-Qaeda leaders are quite light in complexion (as are many populations indigenous to the Muslim world, including many Arabs, Lebanese, Kurds, Afghans, and Persians).

You know what I meant ;-)

Metaphor. Counter-framing. No need to go into deep semantics and human population genetics for this purpose.

There will be terrorist attacks, but the perpetrators will be pulling federal, state, country, or city paychecks.

There will be terrorist attacks, but the perpetrators will be pulling federal, state, country, or city paychecks.

Huh? WTF? What do you mean? What is it you are concerned about? The above quote appears to be using some definition of terrorist attack and/or perpetrator I'm not familiar with--and cannot find. Explain, please?

I'm not sure that the decline in militia attacks has been because of a Republican presidency, since in the eyes of the militia movement any president, Democrat, Republican, anything, is all part of the same Satanic globalist conspiracy. I think it's a combination of the increased amount of government surveillance since 9/11 and maybe some of the less committed rank-and-file members deciding that Islamic terrorism was a more tangible threat than the New World Order. This, at least, was the impression I got from the relevant chapters in Louis Theroux's book The Call of the Weird.

Oh, the militias had such high hopes for Bush. He was one of them, after all. They really purposefully stopped their attacks during his Presidency in hope this will help him, and through him, help them achieve their goals. This will all get reverted with a Democratic president. Just wait and watch.

It's funny that they don't blame Bush and Republicans because a terrorist attack happened during a Republican administration. They don't say, "Then Bush failed America by failing to protect the country." But if it happens under a Democratic administration, we'll be hearing endless rants that the Democratic administration failed or invited the attack or worse, probably followed by impeachment proceedings. Oh, happy days are ahead.

Actually, I agree that the right-wing-(religious)-militia is likely to become an active threat, only because someone will actually feel like watching out for them for a (restored) change.

But I also think Al Quida will attack in 2009 as well, just as they did in 1993 and 2001, and for the same reason: during a presidential office transition, we are vulnerable as the knowledge in the heads of one administration are transfered into the heads of the other...or simply ignored by the other as Clark has shown happened when BushCo first moved in.

I'm actually most fearful that *real* intelligence will be withheld from a possible Obama administration (hell, i don't even trust this administration to give McCain the straight truth), simply out of their extremely overdeveloped sense of paranoid control and the possibility of many more illegal and unconstitutional acts it would reveal.

Yes, deang, they blamed 1993 and 2001 both on Clinton, even though that's a blunt contradiction, since if 2001 was Clinton's fault 'cause he was President in the years leading up to it, then 1993 should be Bush Sr.'s fault, since he was president for 4 years up to a mere 2 months before it happened. But real reasonable arguments are beyond the punditacracy's feeble angst-driven minds.

... "Klan fellows who promise that Obama will be shot" ...

.............

One possible answer to that possibility would be to have Hillary as vice-president. This would make Obama bulletproof. Even the most radical whack job wouldn't shoot Obama if it meant Clinton would be made president. As president with Clinton as vice, safely ensconced in an 'undisclosed location', Obama could safely walk into a Mississippi Klan rally without secret service protection, climb the stage, drop his pants and moon the robe clad crowd. The enraged white-clad, racist, morons wouldn't raise a finger.

Quail and Cheney served this role for the GOP.

Project much, guys? Yeah, I see tgerrorist attacks continuing. The war on science isn't going to stop because we have a scientifically illiterate Democrat in office. Expect more of Animal Liberation whackos attack on research. I expect some of the readers here are terrorist sympathizers at a minimum.

Code Pink isn't going away. They seemed like such nice tools when used against George Bush. Too bad the Democrats don't really control them.

Of all the science blogs, after all I have written about Animal Rights terrorists, I doubt there are any sympathizers frequenting this blog any more. And AR terrorists live in their own time-capsule and operate independently of federal politics, sorta like anti-choice abortion-clinic bombers, with whom they share many characteristics.

The key difference is that Loony Left organizations have zero voice in the Democratic party, while Loony Right organizations run, and actually ARE, the Republican party.

Also, Dave (the top link in this post) has been documenting the Rightwing milita-type activities for several years - you should spend some hours digging through the archives if you are not convinced from my short snippet here.

There will be terrorist attacks, but the perpetrators will be pulling federal, state, country, or city paychecks.

It seems Coturnix that CRM-114 was right and your Right Wing Militia worries were a lot of hot air. It was a Federal Employee, if he had predicted Middle-Easterner in our Military I would have been more amazed. blf had no clue