Today, Britain is at Def Con one, or color code purple, or whatever scheme they use there to indicate a "terror" threat at its highest. For the second day in a row, seemingly extraordinarily incompetent terrorists have bombed a public facility. Yesterday they took out their anger with minimum effectiveness in London, and today it was in Glasgow, Scotland, an erstwhile ship building capital on the west coast. In the latest attack launched at the Glasgow airport, an SUV filled with fuel was deliberately crashed into a terminal. The vehicle subsequently exploded, and at least one of the perps was badly burned. Most of the other members of the jihad attack group are said to have been apprehended. As they say in the U.K.,"fucking brilliant."
There is very little use, or so it seems to me, in asking questions such as why now, if one operates under the assumption that such attacks are necessarily launched by actual terrorists, as opposed to operatives intended to appear as terrorists in the service of a false flag operation. Madness you say? Perhaps, but other than blind faith of the sort sensible folks condemn in religious fanatics, is there a compelling reason, other than massive societal pressure, for you and I to accept the view that we are unerringly presented with, namely that Islamic jihadists are the single greatest menace to our well being, are constantly plotting to do us harm, and are, in fact, responsible for all these bizarre attacks?
The best evidence I have that the WOT is a hoax, (at least here in the U.S), likely designed to allow elites to enact agendas they otherwise couldn't, is the fact that since the attack on the World Trade Centers, the U.S. southern border has remained, for all intents and purposes, as porous as cheesecloth, yet there has not been one attack on U.S. soil since
9/11. I leave it to you to decide if our security forces are that good, or whether it is possible, perhaps even likely, that the threat we have been led to believe we are constantly under is either wildly exaggerated or non-existent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
As for the attacks in Britain, perhaps it's because there's a changing of the guard: Tony Blair stepping down as PM and the new guy (Can't remember his name) taking over.
As for the WOT being a hoax, I don't think so. Bin Laden's had a board up his ass about the West for far too long. We'd be looking at a conspiracy that spans several admins and would start to rival alleged plots by the freemasons and Illuminati. Truth is often stranger than fiction.
I don't deny that this admin has been exceptionally opportunistic in politicizing 9/11. I think it was a "gift" for the neocons to justify their post Desert Storm agenda.
I don't believe that US security forces are that good that every potential terrorist that hypothetically crosses our porous borders is caught. I think our presence in Iraq is better for Osama's gang than sneaking over here to blow us up. It makes it much easier for them to propagandize our presence in Iraq as imperialists than it was to rally other Muslims after 9/11. We had the world's sympathy after 9/11. The Islamic world was in denial that Muslims could be responsible for it as it seemed too horrific an act to be carried out by Muslims. But after disposing of Saddam, we stayed in Iraq, thus changing our image from liberators to occupiers. Suicide bombers and IED's make for great recruitment video when the target is an occupying army and not innocent civilians. That's something even the non-radical Muslims can figure out.
You make some good points, Ded, but how, for example, do you even know Bin Laden is alive, and if he is, that he has directed events?
As for a conspiracy that spans several administrations, not really. The WOT is a creation of the present administration and as you have rightly suggested they have benefited greatly (I would argue the most) from it.
I guess I'm not clear what you are suggesting with respect to U.S. security forces and terrorist threats? Are you suggesting that the "terrorists" are satisfied to deal us blows exclusively in the Middle East, and that this explains the fact that there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?
If so, this runs counter to government reports that suggest some especially nasty terrorist plans are in place for the U.S. this summer.
how... do you even know Bin Laden is alive, and if he is, that he has directed events?
For the sake of brevity, and the fact that I don't know the names of Bin Laden's "lieutenants", I use his name when referring to the al Qaeada leadership. So no, I don't know that he's still alive, but I believe his organization still does.
As for a conspiracy that spans several administrations, not really. The WOT is a creation of the present administration...
Yes, the WOT is a creation of this admin, but bin Laden is not. His existence on the world's stage has been documented as far back as Bush Sr's admin.
I guess I'm not clear what you are suggesting with respect to U.S. security forces and terrorist threats? Are you suggesting that the "terrorists" are satisfied to deal us blows exclusively in the Middle East, and that this explains the fact that there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?
Yes.
If so, this runs counter to government reports that suggest some especially nasty terrorist plans are in place for the U.S. this summer.
After all this time, you actually still believe this gov't? We've heard about rumored threats constantly since 9/11. And the majority of those threats came about as the admin was facing political pressures. Keith Olbermann did a piece last year on Countdown showing a correlation between the two. He strongly suggested that the admin was using terror threats to distract everyone from the admin's troubles (Abu Ghraib, Warrantless Wiretaps, etc).
I no longer take those gov't reports seriously. They're political contrivance. Sadly, I'll need proof and not just their word for it.
Oh, look. Another al Qaida video.
Kinda sucks that I can't seem to get one spelling for al Qaida.
ded wrote,
"After all this time, you actually still believe this gov't? "
Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't have the attitude I do about the WOT. I was trying to make a point. In my view there is an inconsistency in your view. On the one hand, you believe that Al Queada is a danger to us all, yet you have independently decided that, by design, they are only a danger overseas. That seems to me to be, how shall I put it, tinkering with reality, a too convenient construction which allows you to explain away the extraordinary fact that not one attack has occurred on U.S. soil since 9/11.
On the one hand, you believe that Al Queada is a danger to us all, yet you have independently decided that, by design, they are only a danger overseas.
Ahhhh, I think I see where the disconnect is. By me saying that I don't believe the WOT is a hoax you think I'm saying that they are a threat to us here at home. Then 2 paragraphs later it sounds like I'm contradicting that.
I'm not sure if I can clear up what I tried to say. Feeling sub par in my meager eloquence lately.
Perhaps saying that the WOT here at home is indeed all propaganda but globally it isn't, will help. While the admin would have the public believe that there are al Qaida sleeper cells in every city across the country, it doesn't strike me as true.
As a historical example, we had the Red Scare during the Cold War in the 50's. Sen McCarthy and his ilk would have everyone at the time believing that the country and the Truman admin were infested with commies. While it was true that Stalin and the Soviet Union were a threat to us on the world stage, the US was not rotting from within by the alleged Communist infection.
Does that example help?
I guess we agree somewhat. I believe that Al Queda is vastly overstated as a threat not just in the U.S. but worldwide, and you believe that they present a threat in the Middle East but not in the U.S.
We definitely agree on the enormously insidious political leverage the Al Queda spectre has provided the Bushistas.
Post a Comment