Posted on 12/05/2001 12:00:36 PM PST by Magician
WHO'S TRULY BEHIND THE ATTACK ON AMERICA? Many people have compared the horrendous terrorist attack on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington to the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is an apt comparison, though not for the reasons most people think.
For true students of history, it is now nearly beyond dispute that certain high-ranking officials in Washington, D. C. knew in advance of the Japanese intention to attack the U.S. fleet in Hawaii, yet did nothing to prevent it.
President Roosevelt, who at the time was blatantly violating the Neutrality Act, has been quoted as saying, "A Japanese attack on us.would certainly fulfill two of the most important requirements of our policy [to engage America in the war despite his pledge to keep us out of war.]"
Must the citizens of the United States wait another 50 years to learn that the 9-11 terrorist attack was allowed to take place just like Pearl Harbor?
Could such an appalling scenario possibly be true? Consider the comment of Kenneth Katzman, a terrorist expert with the Congressional Research Service, who told the Washington Post, "How nothing could have been picked up [by U.S. intelligence agencies regarding the coming attack] is beyond me."
Simple countermeasures against such an attack now seem apparent. For example, if the airlines would assigned just one armed plainclothes security man to each flight, this tragedy may have been averted since apparently the hijackers were armed only with knives or other type blades. So, how were they able to overpower a plane load of people and, more importantly, gain access to the cockpits? Who taught them to fly jumbo jets?
As in the case of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the key to understanding the event lies not in who actually committed the violence but rather who was able to strip away the normal security protection.
Government and airline officials knew immediately that planes had been hijacked, yet no interceptors appeared in the air until after the attacks were completed. Who stripped away the normal security protection of America on 9-11?
At least in this most recent case, the government cannot blame the attack on a lone deranged individual, some Lee Harvey McVeigh. They must deal with a full-blown conspiracy, even though authorities were quick to point the finger at Osama bin-Laden. Any investigation of bin-Laden must look beyond the man, to the backers and financiers behind him.
The trail of the terrorists will most probably become murky, with plenty of accusations for all concerned. But one thing appears quite clear, the tragic events of 9-11 play right into the hands of persons with an agenda aimed at eroding American liberties and sovereignty.
After decades of bloated and misused defense budgets, there are now calls for doubling our defense allocation. In a time of rising recognition that the CIA is an agency never sought by the public and one which has brought so much condemnation on this nation, there are now cries for doubling its size and budget. If the chief security officer for a large company fails to protect one of its most prized assets, is he more likely to be fired or have his pay doubled?
Watch for more anti-terrorist legislation to further shred the U.S. Constitution. As we all scramble to deal with the effects of terrorism, are we in danger of losing our few remaining individual liberties? The media blithely reported that each of the cell phone calls made by doomed passengers on the hijacked airliners was recorded by the government. Doesn't this mean that all cell phone calls are, or can be, recorded? Whatever happened to telephone privacy? Where is the indignant outcry over such Big Brotherism.
But the biggest threat comes from the inner elite of the globalist societies. Within hours of the attack, the television and radio airwaves were full of ranking Council on Foreign Relations members, such as Henry Kissinger, Wesley Clark, Alexander Haig and Strobe Talbot. Talbot, President Clinton's deputy secretary of state, told Time magazine in 1992, "In the next century [today], nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority."
No matter who was speaking, their "party line" was the same: terrible tragedy, find and punish those responsible, stop terrorism. But, of course, since terrorists move between national boundaries, we must joined with other "freedom loving" nations and work with the United Nations and NATO to combat this new menace. This is a thinly-disguised effort to have a mourning and emotional American public stampeded into their New World Order.
Also, consider that we are distracted from a faltering economy [the current crisis may require more federal financial controls], a plummeting public opinion of George W. Bush and surging energy prices. Would leaders allow a public disaster to happen with an eye toward advancing their agendas? It's happened before. in Nero's burning Rome, Germany's gutted Reichstag, at Pearl Harbor and gain at the Gulf of Tonkin. While we should grieve for our losses, we must keep our heads. When the emotions of the moment run hot, we must remain cool and thoughtful so that we can find who is truly behind this attack on America.
LOL
It was a PINK CROCODILE. The man's a looney.
Screw that, what would ANYONE in the government have to benefit from allowing planes to crash into the heart of the U.S. economy, thereby driving us headfirst into recession? People wanna spout conspiracy theories, sure, I'm game, the Bush-Bin Ladin connection is the most interesting one, but you can't have conspiracy theories without concrete MOTIVES.
I no longer HAVE that problem. You said it was a mystery to you. Just tryin' ta' hep.<-----(Southern for Help;-)
What do you think of Chamish's listing above? Good One, huh?
I would say they have a darn good reason to tell us there is a threat of terrorism.
But Newsmax still has the story and funny thing the "debunk" was written in the original story. It is your standard refusal to comment type stuff that any good attorney will tell your publicist to recite in his sleep.
Someone else ran a story claiming this happened in October - and they had bin Laden being treated for kidney disease. You have him in Dubai in July being treated for diabetes. You guys really should get your story straight.
But Newsmax still has the story and funny thing the "debunk" was written in the original story. It is your standard refusal to comment type stuff that any good attorney will tell your publicist to recite in his sleep.
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Debunked is debunked, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise.
Plus, the government of Dubai says bin Laden wasn't in the country. Still care to run with this angle?
58 posted on 12/5/01 1:47 PM Pacific by airborne"
OK.. So what did they get out of the attack? How did they benefit?
64 posted on 12/5/01 1:51 PM Pacific by Patria One [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
(Now do you get it?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.