Booga Booga!: Who Really Benefits from Terrorist Threats?

More evidence of why the ONLY remedy is to enforce The Plan against the N.W.O. Elite traitors and reinstate God's Perfect Laws of Liberty:-

Whilst there's still time:-

By Matt Hutaff
Jul 12, 2004

I could barely contain my yawn when I heard Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge claim last Thursday that there was yet another vague, shapeless attack on America looming over the horizon.

It's hard to feign shock at this point, after all. These stupid sound bites always manage to squirm their way into the press when the Bush Administration is caught doing something illegal, immoral or evil (bonus if it's all three). Incendiary words like "large-scale attack" are used, Al Qaeda is linked and 100% industrial-strength horseshit is spewed. None of this nonsense is ever real, and I can't be the only one that's tired of seeing it on television like it matters.

I know it's all an act because the press releases always confer something explosive and worrisome - in this case, multiple coordinated attacks during the presidential elections  - and then immediately derail that urgency and despair just paragraphs down the page.

If there was a true destabilizing threat to the elections in November, I doubt Ridge would cavalierly state there's "obviously, no reason for panic, or paralysis" despite his admission moments earlier that the world's most "dangerous" terrorist organization is aiming to destroy one of few democratic freedoms afforded to Americans in the post-9/11 landscape. There's also a healthy dose of mistrust on my part when, after learning from credible sources that something's in the works, the DHS "Threat Advisory" stays at the same warm and fuzzy yellow we've all gotten used to in the past months.

These facts alone should give anyone pause. But there are other disturbing comments in Ridge's declaration that cast doubt on the official story.

Take for example the heartening assurances that local and state agencies have been "generally" briefed about security problems. Generally ? Can there be anything less specific than Ridge's comments? And assuming that law enforcement is made aware of imminent threats throughout their jurisdictions, what are they supposed to do? In the wake of 9/11 and our failed enterprise in Iraq and Afghanistan, cities are under tremendous financial burdens required of them by the draconian PARTRIOT Act - burdens they cannot shoulder since the federal government has eliminated much of the funding in favor of its precious wars.

Then there's the obligatory slam against Muslims. "Senior administration officials and counterterrorism experts view the coming months as a time to increase vigilance," the above-mentioned article notes, "out of concern that Islamic militants [emphasis mine] may try to replicate the political success they had in Spain with coordinated pre-election train bombings."

"Islamic militants" were never correctly pegged as suspects - recently, those thought to be behind the bombings were tied to the Spanish government . And the political "success" in Spain was the removal of a pro-war that went against the will of the people, not the terror attack. The insertion of such an ad hominem attack is completely unnecessary and seeks only to inflame the obvious anti-Arab bias the United States government is cultivating in its own people.

Really, though, the only successful terror attacks on the United States in the past 65 years were the results of either government denial or complicit cover-up. In either case, the people were kept in the dark until their jingoism and blood were needed. In some cases, the terror was deliberately staged by our own government to get the ball rolling - something that's become more and more fashionable as a psychological operation.

It's not revisionist or conspiratorial to state that incidents like Pearl Harbor or the Gulf of Tonkin were hand-crafted by U.S. leaders to start wars. It's actions like these (along with mounting evidence ) that suggest complicity in the events of September 11th and leave many feeling their government will shatter their lives to push unpopular policy forward.

After all, Bush's desire to invade Afghanistan, Cheney's plan to raid Iraq's oil fields (as seen in Energy Task Force documents ) and Rumsfeld's dismantling of the Constitution wouldn't have been possible in the public eye without the collapse of the Twin Towers.

Who benefits from terrorism?

If Osama bin Laden really hates (the Jewish State in) Israel and America, why give them carte blanche to decimate Arabs and Palestinians around the world in a pursuit for "justice?" Prior to 2001, Palestine was emerging as a sympathetic region under an oppressive Israeli regime. All that changed when the World Trade Center collapsed; hardly a boon for bin Laden and his associates.

If Arab terrorists were going to murder people by sending plague through the mail, why use anthrax, which has no secondary communicability (i.e. no possibility of runaway infection), and why send poorly written Arabic threats alongside it? Why not try and shift the blame to another culprit?

Or was the blame shifted on to Arabs? (In a word - yes .)

If Al Qaeda (an organization where the only captured agents turned out to be CIA and Mossad operatives ) is truly going to attempt a disruption of our elections this year, who benefits ?

Certainly not terrorists. The only people who will benefit from such a "terror attack" are White House politicians desperate for another distraction from their high crimes and misdemeanors. They are the only ones that could gain from a suspension of elections and the inevitable declaration of martial law that will emerge in the aftermath of whatever scheme is being cooked up to kill more Americans.

Ideologically, John Kerry and George W. Bush toe the same line with regards to the Arab world and war. They've both stated they're committed to continuing the policy of war we started just over a year ago. Stopping us from voting won't change our foreign policy. As for the election itself, I can't imagine any stunt that could incapacitate every voting booth in the country.

A terrorist attack at this point would be a poor choice for those who are legitimately fighting against the American empire; it would only further galvanize public opinion against them. It's why I believe any further attacks will come from within, and why it's so important to ask yourself who stands to gain from whatever madness is created. Those who do gain are the culprits, usually wrapped in a flag and the smug rhetoric of patriotism. It doesn't matter if they're Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson or George Bush.

Most importantly, though, I'd like the incessant, soul-sucking prevarications of my doom to quit hitting the airwaves. They're all a pant-load of lies, they don't prepare anyone for what's really going to happen and they generally depress the hell out of everyone. "Security" doesn't just mean freedom from danger, it also means freedom from anxiety, fear and doubt. Our new watchdog government agency would do well to fulfill that part of the bargain as well... or we might start wondering how all that funding and manpower couldn't come up with more concrete intelligence than: a "large-scale attack" is a-comin'.

Canon Fodder is a weekly analysis of politics and society.

Copyright © 1998-2004 The


( categories: )