If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Reds under the beds or is it just Terrorists?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I have been thinking, back in the McCarthy days in America there was a terrifying fear that everyone was a Communist...the Reds were everywhere! Scary Ruskies! A cause was born for one man...a man with a mission...Senator Joseph McCarthy was that man! He set out to Purge the USA of Communists and to him everyone was a Commy!
He of course allowed power to go to his head, he accused top level war heroes and even the President himself of been a Communist and it all came down around him.
Is America's question to find Terrorists, not simply the same thing, only with out the televised courtroom purges? They see terrorists everywhere and are hunting them all over.
He of course allowed power to go to his head, he accused top level war heroes and even the President himself of been a Communist and it all came down around him.
Is America's question to find Terrorists, not simply the same thing, only with out the televised courtroom purges? They see terrorists everywhere and are hunting them all over.
0
Comments
The ideologues who have now hijacked every branch of government and overturned the Constitutional concept of separation of powers are all steeped in the idea of the power of myth to divert public perception away from holding them to account for their closed door policies and utter contempt for the rule of law.
To truly understand the extent of neocon ideology and where it seeks to lead the nation, you have to study the principal players driving US foreign policy, namely Perle, Feith, Frum, Abrams, Kristol, even Cheney and Rummy themselves (along with Wolfowitz who was a central figure behind the launch of this new paradigm of thought).
Understanding their Cold War era mentality and the corrupt administrations in which they served and conducted illicit activities behind the smokescreen of that previous long running myth of the "domino theory", is key to appreciating the truth of their true goals, not reported by our collusionist corporate media.
Armed with such insight youll see through the Rovian rhetoric more easily and come to appreciate that many events ascribed to Al Qaeda are never proven so, merely repeatedly asserted by a parade of ready and willing "experts" (each with a shared vested interest in the wholesale extrotion of national budgets that this "WoT" has made possible).
In the end the truth of the matter goes all the way back to the never proven assertions of Al Qaeda responsibility for 911, the very seminal event for this new paradigm which the PNAC's own foundational policy report insisted was necessary to blind a sufficient majority of the tv-fed and essentially complacent, uninvolved public to what they have subsequently enacted step by step according to plan.
Sadly, the paradigm is hard to demolish since so many cant be bothered to take the time to become more familiar with the players and their agenda. Far easier to pretend its all just a looney "conspiracy theory" and go back to watching the Simpsons or the next sporting event. Nevermind the fact that unstopped they are leading the sheep and the vigilant few alike toward a brick wall both politically and economically that will the scoffers wondering how the hell everything they once took for granted has become a lie and left far too many of them ruined.
I don't deny that today, certain politicians/key public figures have their own agendas like McArthy may have done, but todays threat is arguable more substantive, is it not?
the threat is fed and kept alive by the west.
And the tech war, and spying, and all that.
Just look up info on Project Gladio for documented details of its use by the PTB to advance an agenda right here in Europe quite some decades back. Such tactics have been repeated from Africa to Latin America to South East Asia, where you find our intelligence services firmly implanted.
Much more plausible and logisitically equipped than some vague shadowy boogeymen named Al Qaeda.
Hell an eye witness who was given the briefest mention in one report just after the 7/7 bombing even acknowledged that the floor of the train at the site of the explosion was blown upwards into the carriage, which suggests the bombs were planted well in advance under the train and triggered at the right moment. Those youths blamed for it were just hapless victims like the others who were injured or killed.
That they were of arab extraction simply made the coverstory fit into the bogus paradigm all the easier. Until people begin questionign the founding premise/event of this new era they will continue to buy into whatever the news tells them must be so.
Are you not thinking of the Vietnam War and the Korean War? :eek2:
Scuse me? That was my ponit - the Vietnam and Korean wars were part of the cold war. It was the Russkies supplying the weaponary.
But hey, just in case...invade everywhere possible and waste billions upon billions of pounds/dollars "fighting" an invisible threat and make yourself more susseptible of attack in the process...well done!
I find what you are saying really interesting and it almost annoys me that I'm trying to deconstruct what are clearly painstakingly thought out ideas and concepts, but your statements rely heavily on speculation which seems based on a general mistrust of the western world. (Which is understandable!) That is the problem with the entire issue I think, isn't it? So much misinformation and half thought out government press releases are going to lead to confusion and conspiracy theories.
On a tiny side note, I don't see how you can assume that those youths you seem to so readily empathise were not the actual perpetrators 7/7. Their forward planning could easily have extended to planting a bomb on the undercarraige of a specific train, or maybe I too have been brainwashed by the powers that be, into believing they were some breed of benign criminal mastermind.
In the past I have considered that 9/11 was entirely a conspiracy. But the genuine mistrust of extremist Islam over Western Culture cannot be ignored. This is neither rhetoric or propaganda, whatever your opinion on Huntington may be, it's a clash of civilisations that goes far beyond conspiracy theory IMO.
Ps - Sorry if the above was totally not the point you were trying to make, but some of your references went over my head! :chin:
No, its actually based on long researched awareness of US foreign policy, the links to the Military Industrial Complex and the double speak employed by our politicos to mask the actual intentions of any policy prerogative. That it has built up distrust in me is only a natural consequence of discovering that all you were taught your nation was rooted in and stood for is a sham.
Which is rooted in our own documented, repeated aggression towards them and manipulation of their governments and political systems, spanning decades and numerous regimes. Very much the same as the rightful anger throughout Latin America toward decades of overt and covert manipulations and aggressions by Washington.
Im sorry if some went over your head. all I can suggest is to methodically proceed with your deconstruction of what is, indeed, meticulously planned lies. Global power politics is by the very definition of the term "conspiracy".
Oh, it was? I do apologise. I thought it was called the Cold War because no armed conflict was ever entered into between the main contestants.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by this.
Would you say that the Clash of Civilisations theory is completely discountable under this heading? If so, how?
The MIC (Military Industrial Complex) is a major force driving the US political machinery and has a well documented link to how the US has conducted its foreign policy since the end of WWII.
Again, I can point you in the direction of certain topics to read up on for yourself but to detail an interconnected history of US foreign policy and the tactics it most assuredly uses to achieve its objectives would fill volumes.
Whats it called and what it is are nearly always different. Iraq was "Liberation", remember? But it seems to be naked oppression!
And when the Russians are sending in THEIR GUYS to Vietnam and Korea (Mainly to help train the Koreans and Vietnamese) And arming them their THEIR EQUIPMENT, I think they might as well be in combat.
Quite a few Russian Airforce Aces racked up some serious kills in the Air over both. Especially with the MiG-21 in Vietnam.
Now tot he topic at hand. I do respect many of the points made, and i agree with many indeed. Yes the power brokers of the US government are in key positions to manipulate through the media and the "Terror" scare that is going. Yes, also, can they position themselves and even increase their own power and positions of power through perpetuating the scare and increasing it.
Using Terrorism as an excuse to go to war for other purposes such as oil and the pursuit of wealh in the modern age, though clearly not above some countries, should indeed not be going on.
How ever much i do agree, particularly with the points on complient media outlets, as Rupert Murdoch owns many newspapers and tv channels world wide, and also many American networks ar owned by US arms companies, i do have to disagree with certain key points that have been made.
Specifically, the notion that 9/11 had nothing to do with Al Quida, and they were a convenient scapegoat to allow Afghanistan to be invaded. America never wanted to invade Afghanistan and commit its troops there at all, not when Iraq was their key target. They did indeed invade Afghanistan to "stop the terrorists" but the leaders in charge purposely were unconcerned by it and did a half-assed job as they were trying to gear up for Iraq and the invasion there which was more crucial to policy. But as i said, as the leaders of Al Quida openly took credit for the attack, and several men have been arrested for it and i believe were some of the only terrorists ever to be put on trial too, though im not sure about that, i think Al Quida can indeed take th eblame for that.
I am afraid i do not understand the point been made about the British 7/7 bombings though. I have to say i have always thought the security footage of the bombers, the fact they rehearsed the attacks twice and they were identified with links to known extremist clericks and had in their homes materials needed to create explosives, all lead to the obvious conclusion they were the bombers. yet now it seems some here are saying they were not the bombers at all, but merely passangers like anyone else, and some mastermind manipulator of world affairs actually was responsible for the bombings, even with no evidence to show such a thing? Is this right?
Finally, the Cold War was a war with no fighting between the two Superpowers in declared warfare. That does not mean to say that each side did not fight one another or kill one another at some point during it though!
Ah, good old Project Gladio. The Strategy of Tension the Italians called it, I believe. You just made my day, I havent heard of Gladio in ages.
Yes the big governments have had the fingers in many secret and not so scret pies and used manipulation, back handed deals and attempts to control the populace before but I don't think the whole thing is that.
I mean I don't Osama is a made up Boogeyman for Americans and westerners to get them to do what they wanna do.
I don't think there is a conpiracy involving 9/11 or the London bombings. They may have covered up aspects of how they handled it afterwards, but I think thats just covering piss poor management rathen then deliberate sinsietr acts of conspiracy.
I do think there is an Al-Quida and they have launched a war on the west, christians, jews and the people of Iraq.
I do know that the Bush administration intended to do something about Iraq before they got in office.
I don't think I will be killed by a terrorist any second and nor does the terror threat rule my life.
I do think the media maniuplates and scare mongers the public over terrorism.
I think the big mistake the US government made was helping what would becoem Al-Quida and the Taliban, in fighting Russia in the Afghan-Russian war. I mean they armed them, trained them, supported them and then when they won, these guys truend around and said they were gonna do the same to the west. Unsporting of them to say the least but it shows america shouldnt have in interfered. I had no problem with Russian control over Aghanistan and hwile may on here deride big super powers and colonialsim. I thinkt here is a lot to be said for it and that sometimes its better for one a few big powers to be in charge over many places then for every little area to have their independance becasue as great as it is to have independance, it takes a lot of work and in a lot of cases it ends up being fucked up.
I do think that the anthrax attacks on the USA were dodgy though. Iraq was dodgy as hell, everyone knows that. There are certain facts about the Jordanian Zarqawi that also raise questions about his true role in Iraq. Intelligence is being manipulated, for certain. Some players are not what they seem. Motives are other than they appear. But a single conspiracy its not, because the sheer amount of conflicting actors couldnt allow it. The problem with the cloak and dagger world of intelligence is that its cloak and dagger. People are turned, change sides, infiltrate, act as high priority targets to discredit the opposing sides. In that mess, getting any sort of coherent picture other than the one given to you is difficult at best.
This is a non-specific assumption which makes no distinction between the front men commonly referred to as "the government" and the much more closed door agencies that establish and execute the policies. Simply because one can point to examples of unsuccessful conspiracies such as Iran Contra (for which, I would remind you, even those convicted of felony purgery before Congress were simply pardoned by Bush Sr. and now serve in this Bush admin) it does not follow that the myriad of closed door machinations are vulnerable to the same exposure. All the more so with an administration characterised by its refusal to comply with demands placed upon them by legitimate investigators since they illicitly assumed power in 2000.
The farce of the official (yet never proven with hard evidence) 911 coverstory , by the very standards employed by its gullible apologists, is precisely that so many supposed conspirators with far less institutional/infrastructural command and control capability - as our Intelligence/MIC communities have at their disposal - could carry out such a stunning multi-pronged/multi-targetted attack in the most heavily monitored and guarded airspace in the world.
To believe this is to believe not only that alleged pilots whose own instructors documented them as incapable of flying so much as a fixed wing single engine training plane could blindly pilot major commercial airliners into their targets with demonstrated aerial maneuvres indicative of extensive military training, but that they also possessed the authority to retard long-established, federally mandated fighter response times. All of course without ANY word leaking out to jeopardise the multiple missions.
Far more plausible that a mere handful of appropriately placed senior officials in the Pentagon, NORAD, CIA (with likely Mossad collusion) orchestrated the entire scenario to the letter well in advance with their subordinates simply placed where they needed to be at the appropriate time under the pretext of a national drill.
The fact that such drills were in operation on that day combined with the refusal of this administration to release all data which should otherwise prove beyond a shadow of a doubt their "official" claims of foreign perpetrators if that be the case, should lead the coverstory advocates to ask the very question suggested to those who oppose the increasing infringements of personal privacy by our governments. That is, what have they to worry about if they have nothing illicit or criminal to hide?
Sadly, such consistent application of reason is as absent from mainstream public perception as is continuity of moral/ethical principle.
Cland, im not sure if im getting what your say correct or mis-understanding your point. Are you saying that the CIA, Norad, NSA and Mossad all worked together to carry out the 9/11 attacks and it was not Al Quida? It was not Islamic extremists of any kind? and it was not a well organised attack years in the making (since the basement bombing of the world trade centre towers) but infact a shadow government organised propaganda move?