Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 11:18:04 +1000To: CSL
From: Jim Coughlan <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [CSL]: STATEWATCH: EU plans to combat terrorism may also
cover pr otests
=====================
BUSH WAR THREATS BASED ON ANOTHER MORE DANGEROUS AGENDA
By Joel Skoussen
There is something very dangerous and wrong about this new war fever
being pushed upon the American people. Taking advantage of a nation
shocked and shaken after being "under attack," the Bush administration
is showing every sign of marshaling a much larger military force than
necessary to tackle the stated enemy--international terrorism.
Terrorism is a distributed and dispersed threat. It is not concentrated
in any single country. There are perhaps two dozen significant terrorist
training camps in the world, and any one of them can be neutralized by
the judicious use of point air strikes and special forces. There are
hundreds of smaller terrorist cells in all western countries. Some are
too well hidden to be found, but many can be tackled by existing
intelligence and police agencies. The point I am making, as forcefully
as possible, is that this problem does not have to be attacked with a
Gulf War style mobilization--which is precisely what President Bush and
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld are building. Something is very wrong with
the growing beat of Republican war drums. The 50,000 reservists being
mobilized alone exceed by almost 10 times the number of known terrorists
in the world. There appears to be a hidden agenda behind these major war
preparations--and fighting terrorism may well be only the excuse.
First, I want to establish that the official US response to this
terrorist attack showing surprise, shock and indignation is, in part, a
sham. For years the US government has known and tracked every
significant terrorist organization to raise its head, and yet has done
little to impede their growth or target their weapons procurement lines
(with the exception of one attack on a Libyan terrorist training camp in
the 80's, and those camps were back in operation within months). There
is even evidence of US intelligence agencies turning a blind eye on
terrorist preparations for just such an attack as happened this week. As
Reed Irvine, writing for NewsMax.com, reported,
"In 1995, when one of his (Osama bin Laden's) followers, Abdul Hakim
Murad, was arrested in Manila, the Philippine authorities discovered a
plot on his laptop computer that called for hijacking US airliners and
bombing them or crashing them into targets, including the CIA. It was
called Project Bojinka, and US officials were made aware of it at that
time. Murad admitted that he was being trained for a suicide mission.
He was extradited to the US and convicted, together with Ramzi Yousef,
of participating in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. That should
have focused the attention of the CIA, FBI and NSA on any indications
that bin Laden had not abandoned Project Bojinka.
Reports that bin Laden was training pilots should have set alarm bells
ringing. Only a few months ago an American Airlines crew had their
uniforms and ID badges stolen from their hotel room in Rome. At the end
of August, the airline alerted its employees to be on the lookout for
impostors, but apparently no one saw this as a possible link to Project
Bojinka. Airport security remained as lax as ever. Next came bin Laden's
warning in mid-August that there would be 'an unprecedented attack on US
interests.' With Bojinka in mind, the government should have taken the
strongest possible measures to prevent "hijackings." So, why should this
nation be surprised when it finally falls victim to an enemy the US has
allowed to prosper? It's partially because Americans always believe the
half-truths about our government's efforts to stamp out terrorism, or
even drugs, for that matter. Simply put, the people don't realize that
the government both harbors terrorism and fights terrorism
with two different sides of its police power.
It both facilitates drug importation (to fund black budget activities)
and fights against drugs using competing portions of separate federal
agencies. Naturally, the public only sees the "good guy" operations. But
the dark side exists, and now predominates--under the surface.
Terrorists have had the motive, the hatred, the weapons and the will to
attack the US for
many years. Indeed, we in this nation are very vulnerable. So, why has
America been spared for so many years? As I have pointed out before in
these briefs, the only reason that Islamic terrorism has not struck
before (with the exception of the failed bombing of the WTC in 1993) is
that someone within the US who controls these terror networks has had a
"hold" on any attacks on the US, accomplished by buying off terrorist
groups with money, drugs and weapons. Part of the reason for that hold
was to reserve the US for "domestic terrorism" that could be fomented by
the dark side of government to blacken
the reputation of the American right wing.
That hold is now obviously gone as the government's ploy to make an
enemy out of the right wing has run its course. Accordingly, we can
expect Tuesday's attack to be just the beginning. Next, I expect to see
terrorists use biological and chemical weapons, or even Stinger missiles
left over from the Afghanistan war, to shoot down more airliners. Again,
we'll hear the same "wake-up call" that is being trumpeted by government
this week.
Naturally, we will be unprepared for each new form of attack and as each
new threat looms greater, some new and powerful legislative or military
solutions will be promulgated--complete with more and more restrictions
of liberty.
Sadly, the most ominous effect of this latest attack has been the
negation of all the distrust of government that had been properly
building during 8 years of the Clinton corruption. I am saddened by the
abject submission of the American people to any edict the government
attempted to justify in the wake of these attacks. It amounted to a
partial use of martial law and the government didn't even have to use
the term to enforce its edicts. Now President Bush has declared a
National Emergency--without telling the people that former executive
orders give the President unlimited powers in such situations. He won't
use them just yet--but people will get used to living under an
"emergency" form of law, without realizing the full implications. In
future attacks people will already have become accustomed to seeing the
government shut down any sector of the nation that is affected, just as
we saw the virtual shutdown of the air traffic system--including private
aircraft flying to private fields. However, the price in billions of
dollars lost to the economy will not go unnoticed as the recession
deepens.
In the final analysis, I hold the US government in large part
responsible for the events of September 9, because they have paid off,
trained, swapped favors with, and even saved from destruction terrorist
leaders like Osama bin Laden and Yassir Arafat for decades. If they
didn't have intelligence specifically pointing to the use of hijacked
airliners as weapons of destruction, they are at least guilty of having
abetted this form of terror.
Conjecture abounds as to how, when and where the US intends to
retaliate, but it's clear now that the US intends to make a BIG military
statement to the world, and Osama bin Laden is to be the whipping boy.
Frankly, I'm not sure what the Bush CFR team is up to, but whatever it
is, it is looking ominous. My best guess is that they are going to take
on Afghanistan with both air and ground troops. This is a foolish
quagmire that the Russians stepped into and you'd think the US would be
smart enough not to go down that road. But I suspect Bush may be
promoting another agenda, which dovetails with the US/NATO intervention
in the Balkans during the last decade--fomenting hatred of the US among
the Eastern Bloc of Slavic peoples.
If NWO powers intend to use a world War to accelerate the transition to
world government, they need to help the attackers (Russia and China) to
justify the attack on the West. US meddling and bullying around the
world creates that hatred. Obviously, the Islamic world is aligned with
the Russians, and thus I suspect that in this upcoming "war" the Powers
That Be may have decided to spread even more hatred of America among the
Muslims by taking on Afghanistan, in what will appear to the Arab world
as a giant unjustly terrorizing a helpless and poor land. If the
insiders at the National Security Council (who really call the shots for
Bush) want an even larger war than Afghanistan would provide, they could
go after the dozen or so
terrorist camps in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, the Sudan, and Libya. But
this would surely usher in a major Middle East war, involving Israel. It
would also pit the US directly against Yassir Arafat and his
Palestinians--which the US is continually trying to protect from
ultimate annihilation. I don't think the insiders want a full scale war
in that region just yet.
Lastly, Bush could go after Iraq, like his father. However, there
doesn't seem to be any new evidence of direct Iraqi involvement in this
terror attack. Besides, attacking Iraq is old news and will hardly give
a sense of "justice done" that Americans are so wistfully yearning for.
I originally suspected that all this "war preparation" was mere
propaganda to justify the
$40 billion Congress has agreed to fund this bottomless cause. I have
since concluded that these leaders are investing much more money and
effort into this military buildup for simple sabre-rattling.
They really do intend to go to war with someone larger than Osama bin
Laden. A declaration of war, frankly, is meaningless unless you have an
identifiable enemy to name as the object of the war. A one-sided
declaration of war in this case would probably serve to justify more US
interventionist warmongering at home and abroad, rather than fight
terrorism. The secondary agenda is surely the consolidation of
executive authority in the US. The predictable reactionary legislation
to beef up US war-making powers in the name of fighting terrorism is
already at Congress' door. The "Elimination of Terrorism Act" is being
readied for a fast track treatment in both houses. Lost in the rhetoric,
of course, is the fact that no additional powers are necessary to fight
terrorism.
Nevertheless, this bill gives the Executive Branch permanent powers to
engage in warfare at any time without Congressional approval--an
approach to which the founders of this nation would have vigorously
rejected. I am saddened to see how unscrutinizing people have become
about the motives of government in a crisis. The reason so many people
in the US are vulnerable to manipulation by the media in this regard is
that they don't compare what the government does in any battle with what
they could be doing--what the alternatives are.
They only look at the government's story in isolation, as if its reasons
stand alone and should be taken at face value. To a certain extent the
public can't judge what's real because most people don't have much
experience working inside government. Those of us who have been inside
know how things work. When things don't follow according to how they are
supposed to, experienced people see red flags indicating something
unusual is occurring. There are red flags cropping up all over this
excessive reaction to the events of September 11th. Let's look at the
inconsistencies in the government investigation and its
various pronouncements.
Joel Skoussen
World Affairs Brief Sept 14, 2001
Forwarded by
Karolyn Martin
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
