Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74 Posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 529 times:
Could the W Bush administration launch a terrorist attack against the US?
It may sound crazy but not beyond the realm of a possibility.
W Bushman and his administration seems hell bent on going after Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Support for an invasion is only strong IF the United Nations supports such an attack. Support is slim if the U.S. has to go alone. There is no doubt about how vicious and brutal Saddam Hussein is. However, he isn’t the only brutal dictator. Some of our allies are ‘brutal dictators’. Are we going to topple their governments too?
What lengths will W Bushman and his administration go through to gain blind public support for an invasion of Iraqi?
Also, what if W Bushman had Saddam Hussein’s head in a jar in the Oval Office of the White House? Would that be the final end-all to terrorism?
Would airline security be laxed again?
W Bushman isn’t smart enough to carry out such an operation, but his friends in his administration are evil, sadistic and will do ANYTHING to win public support to do what ever they want.
I’d be cautious of another terrorist attack before the November 5th. 2002 elections and certainly before November 2004.
The U.S government HAS plotted such sadistic acts against our own people before.
Why wouldn’t the U.S. government do it again?
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 495 times:
Superfly, you surprise me. I've generally disagreed with your views, but you've normally presented them reasonably even if I found some of your foundations a bit off-center. But hey, that's the nature of debate.
But here you really are going off-base. Are you suggesting that an American administration would actually instigate an attack on their own citizens? You claim that some of them are "evil, sadistic and will do ANYTHING to win public support to do what ever they want", but you don't support those charges. These are pretty heavy accusations, and you have no right to throw them around unless you have some evidence to support it. Please provide examples of when anyone from the current administration (or even previous ones) did anything that can actually define them as evil or sadistic. Name one example of an American administration where they actively conducted a terrorist attack on their own citizens.
Saintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 476 times:
In the sixties it would have been a lot easier for a government to control the information that the puiblic received and propaganda would have been a lot easier to administer.
These days it is different. The media is very big and independent and is available to people all around the world. The internet could also be a source of information.
What I am saying is that it would be a lot harder to keep things secret if something underhand was going on. I wouldn't put it past some politicians to come up with some crazy ideas but an idea that Bush would try to gee up support for taking out Saddam is a bit far fetched. One, there would have to be too many people involved for it to be successful and word of it would get out and two, the prize isn't big enough for the risk. Dubya will not be president forever so it would have to be really worth his while if he stood the chance of ending up in prison (I'm sure that would happen if the acts did occur and he was found out). Saddam's bit of oil is not worth it.
Now if Dubya planned to stay in power and become a dictator himself.....
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 467 times:
First of all, your sources for Northwoods are hardly reliable, but that is irrelevant. The important thing is that it never happened. Somebody put forward a concept (probably under orders to "be inventive - think outside of the box"), which was then shut down and filed away as inappopriate, illegal, and fundementally wrong. As it was supposed to.
Not to mention that that concept was shot down at the hight of the cold war, when kids were practicing "duck and cover" on a daily basis, and worried about commies under the bed. If it could not be allowed to happen back then, I think we can sleep soundly in the feeling that such a concept would be impossible today. The threat is not as large.
Superfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 40076 posts, RR: 74
Reply 6, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 463 times:
Cfalk: If it could not be allowed to happen back then, I think we can sleep soundly in the feeling that such a concept would be impossible today.
That's a fair statement. However, our country is experiencing a wave of blind patriotism never seen since modern memory. U.S. citizens are in prison as we speak because our government has labeled them a "threat".
I certainly hope that you and Saintsman are right in that our Government has matured since the days of the Cold War.
Advancedkid From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 762 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (12 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 457 times:
Your post is highly interesting.
I agree with you. There's nothing
impossible with this administration.
You sure know what false-flag
operations are. "They" have done it
in the past and they sure are ready
to play it again when needed.
Americans need to wake up and smell
the coffee, and fire the traitors who
are about to wipe the constitution.