Signs suggest new “9/11” imminent
Ian Brockwell
July 15, 2007
There has been considerable talk, this last week or so, about how a “new” 9/11 would gain fresh support for the Bush administration’s “war on terror”. We all remember of course how the first one gave Bush the ammunition to invade Afghanistan, and helped to provide excuses for attacking Iraq. But it also enabled the administration to introduce new laws that made it easier to track and control the US public (all done in the name of “National Security”), so the laws and Constitution could be bent and broken as they pleased.
With Bush’s support for the wars hitting record lows, and even members of his own party jumping ship, he can clearly see that the political benefits he gained from the original 9/11 have all but vanished. Many leading military figures have admitted that the only way the Bush administration are going to regain any public backing for the “war on terror”, is if another 9/11 was to occur.
A remark by the Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, earlier this week, was certain to have set off more than a few alarm bells, when he said he had a “gut feeling” that the US faced an increased chance of a terrorist attack this summer (and he wasn’t talking about any car bomb!).
Remarks like this were heard prior to the WTC “attack” almost 6 years ago, and it makes you wonder whether history is going to repeat itself.
Naturally, Chertoff’s comment has caused some anger, and he has tried to make excuses for his remark. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said “There continues to be no credible, specific intelligence to suggest that there is an imminent threat to the homeland”. If this is the case, why should Chertoff make such a claim and why is the “talk” on al-Qaeda being stepped up?
As many already know, the Bush administration (and Israel) have been keen to find a “valid” reason to attack Iran for some time (just as the US did with Iraq), to halt their nuclear program and perhaps provide an opportunity to introduce some “US style Democracy” into the country (read that as “control” and the power to steal their oil).
Whilst an attack on the “homeland” may not be imminent, does this rule out a “sea going” version of 9/11 (an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf perhaps)? What could possibly provide a more convenient excuse to strike Iran than an “alleged” attack by Iran itself? How difficult would it be to destroy a carrier with a missile and blame it on Iran? Dick Cheney would keep all the “proof” under his personal control, so who would know?
Many would probably fall for a story like this (they did before), but thanks to the internet and alternative news sites, some will examine the details more closely this time (before making any judgment). The important thing to remember is “who benefits the most?” Would Iran really be stupid enough to give Bush the very thing he wants most, and lose any support or sympathy they have? And who is gaining the most from the war in Iraq at the moment? Certainly not the Iraqi’s, the US troops or the American public. The only winners are the companies who profit from war, and we all know who they are and who they are connected with.
It would be nice to hope that highlighting the “dangers” might prevent the Bush administration from doing anything foolish, but their complete disregard for other people’s opinions (in the US and around the world) is all too obvious and they no longer care what the rest of us think. But if we allow people like this to place themselves above the law, what else can we expect?
With Bush’s support for the wars hitting record lows, and even members of his own party jumping ship, he can clearly see that the political benefits he gained from the original 9/11 have all but vanished. Many leading military figures have admitted that the only way the Bush administration are going to regain any public backing for the “war on terror”, is if another 9/11 was to occur.
A remark by the Homeland Security Secretary, Michael Chertoff, earlier this week, was certain to have set off more than a few alarm bells, when he said he had a “gut feeling” that the US faced an increased chance of a terrorist attack this summer (and he wasn’t talking about any car bomb!).
Remarks like this were heard prior to the WTC “attack” almost 6 years ago, and it makes you wonder whether history is going to repeat itself.
Naturally, Chertoff’s comment has caused some anger, and he has tried to make excuses for his remark. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said “There continues to be no credible, specific intelligence to suggest that there is an imminent threat to the homeland”. If this is the case, why should Chertoff make such a claim and why is the “talk” on al-Qaeda being stepped up?
As many already know, the Bush administration (and Israel) have been keen to find a “valid” reason to attack Iran for some time (just as the US did with Iraq), to halt their nuclear program and perhaps provide an opportunity to introduce some “US style Democracy” into the country (read that as “control” and the power to steal their oil).
Whilst an attack on the “homeland” may not be imminent, does this rule out a “sea going” version of 9/11 (an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf perhaps)? What could possibly provide a more convenient excuse to strike Iran than an “alleged” attack by Iran itself? How difficult would it be to destroy a carrier with a missile and blame it on Iran? Dick Cheney would keep all the “proof” under his personal control, so who would know?
Many would probably fall for a story like this (they did before), but thanks to the internet and alternative news sites, some will examine the details more closely this time (before making any judgment). The important thing to remember is “who benefits the most?” Would Iran really be stupid enough to give Bush the very thing he wants most, and lose any support or sympathy they have? And who is gaining the most from the war in Iraq at the moment? Certainly not the Iraqi’s, the US troops or the American public. The only winners are the companies who profit from war, and we all know who they are and who they are connected with.
It would be nice to hope that highlighting the “dangers” might prevent the Bush administration from doing anything foolish, but their complete disregard for other people’s opinions (in the US and around the world) is all too obvious and they no longer care what the rest of us think. But if we allow people like this to place themselves above the law, what else can we expect?
Print
Email
