Another Al Qaeda Attack Coming!!!1!1!!
Sez our oh so trust-worthy intel chieftains.
Either:
1) they know because they are planning it
2) this is just hype so they can claim "success" when nothing happens
3) this is pure bull meant to help ram some obnoxious legislation through Congress
I vote for #3.
UPDATE 2/4/10: According to the ACLU, the parts of the Patriot Act are due to be voted on by Congress in the next few days. So, this supports idea #3.
Either:
1) they know because they are planning it
2) this is just hype so they can claim "success" when nothing happens
3) this is pure bull meant to help ram some obnoxious legislation through Congress
I vote for #3.
UPDATE 2/4/10: According to the ACLU, the parts of the Patriot Act are due to be voted on by Congress in the next few days. So, this supports idea #3.
posted by spooked at 6:47 AM
6 Comments:
Frankfurter newspaper: worse than the new york times.
Top_News (Feb. 1)
Helpless Against the Terrorists of the Desert
“The shadow of al Kaida falls ever longer in Africa. First the militant Islamist in Somalia openly made known their participation in the international terrorist network under Osama bin Laden and announced the establishment of an Islamic State on the Horn of Africa.”
”
“The leader of the al-Schabab militia announced that they would join the "global holy war", led by al Kaida and Osama bin Laden....”
Any or all three choices makes sense to me.
However, based on this quote: "Feinstein agreed with Blair's assessment that the nation was unprepared for the kinds of possible cyber attacks it could face.
"The need to develop an overall cyber-security strategy is very clear," Feinstein said...
I agree with S9/11 that #3 is
the most likely, and that it will involve restrictions on internet activities and the use of digital communications (cell phone, PC etc.) as probably cause reason to arrest and set up "suspicious" communicators for all manner of
crimes.
As a sop to "liberals", Congress may well restrict such criminal actions by law enforcement to ONLY crimes/potential crimes involving
national security. THEY will define what is a crime involving national security -- subject, of course, to any rulings by the courts which may limit or even expand such definition.
My vote is that it is a smokescreen to extend "full spectrum dominance" to the internet.
Mathias Bröckers is writing a book "100 years of Prohibition".
He refers to a Craig Murry (UK, Ambassor to Usbekistan, etc.), positively, in terms of exposing some drug business scandal.
But a commenter (loyal following) alerted him to the fact that Craig Murry has stated
"I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn't even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of - even Blackwater - would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn't a good idea."
-----------
"I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt."
----
"official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack."
-----------
"But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not."
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
I saw a Diebold work truck the other day...it had written on the side of the van: "We Never Rest". It might as well say 'we never rest stealing any election...for the right price.'
The motto of the national security industry could be similar: 'we never rest scaring the crap out of you all so we can collect protection money.'
I do not know which is worse, he phony scare events or the congressional hearings with hundreds of politicians, staffers, witnesses droning on and on about "our failures", and "the need to do more to protect".
A solution to the matter is this:
A congressman gets his federal pension until death unless he commits treason. The oath of office specifies enemies domestic and foreign. If another one of these hearings does not include an analysis of the possibility that the current scare event is just another clever form of industry lobbying, then automatically, all committee members are guilty of colluding with enemies as yet unknown--and their pensions are forfeited.
Congress and Senate members aren't naive nor uninformed. They have to put on an act because the public IS.
Post a Comment
<< Home