25-04-2013, 07:31 AM
(This post was last modified: 25-04-2013, 08:41 AM by Adele Edisen.)
The "Global War on Terrorism" Mindset
The "war on terrorism" mindset builds a consensus: millions of Americans are led to believe that a militarized police apparatus is required to protect democracy. Little do they realize that the US government is the main source of terrorism both nationally and internationally.
The corporate media is Washington's propaganda arm, which consists in portraying Muslims as a threat to national security.
At this juncture in our history, at the crossroads of global economic and social crisis, the Boston bombings play a central role. They justify the Homeland Security State.
The evolving US Police State is thereby upheld as a means to protecting civil liberties. Under the guise of counter-terrorism, extrajudicial killings, the suspension of habeas corpus and torture are rightfully considered as a means to upholding the US Constitution.
At the same time, the terrorists created and supported by the CIA are used to participate in "False Flag" terrorist acts with a view to justifying the conduct of a global military crusade against Muslim countries, which so happen to be major oil producing economies.
"Massive Casualty Producing Events"
Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as "a massive casualty producing event" on American soil, (a Second 9/11) . Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the "global war on terrorism".
"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world it may be in the United States of America that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003, emphasis added)
While the Boston bombings are of an entirely different nature to the "catastrophic event" alluded to by General Tommy Franks, the administration appears, nonetheless, to be committed to the logic of "militarizing our country" as a means to "protecting democracy."
The Boston events are already being used to galvanize public support for an extended domestic based counter-terrorism apparatus. The latter would be implemented alongside extrajudicial assassinations against so-called "homegrown self radicalized terrorists":
"U.S. counterterrorism policy has since 2001 focused largely on killing terrorists overseas or preventing them from getting into the U.S. But the Boston bombings show how the diffusion of terrorist tactics easily transcends borders. Countering small groups of individuals inside the U.S. can be a bedeviling assignment.
Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said the Boston attack was likely a harbinger. "We are likely to see this as the future face of terrorist threats to the United States," he said, adding that the case of a small number of radicalized participants who have lived in the U.S. and execute a plot is "the counterterrorist community's worst nightmare, homegrown, self-radicalizing terrorism that learns its skill set off the Internet." (WSJ, April 20, op cit)
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was upheld by General Franks as a crucial political turning point.
Do the Boston Bombings constitute a point of transition, a watershed which ultimately contributes to the gradual suspension of constitutional government?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
How clever of our secret agencies to create Al Qaeda with the help of Osama bin Laden in 1979. He was CIA, you know, fighting the Russians in Afghanistan along with the Mujahideens (early Talibans) who were trying to overturn the Afghan governmet which was friendly towards Russia. The US supported* the Mujahideens and bin Laden with guns and money, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, bragged of his work and influence in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet government, weakened by fighting an arduous war for ten years in Afghanistan, the Russians' war that was their "Vietnam war".
We have had a habit of using certain elements to obtain economic domance for our commercial interests and in so doing, interferring in the political and cultural life of other nations. The role of our intelligence system, the CIA in particular, should have been restricted to only providing information to the President for policy-making purposes, as had been desired by President Truman, and not allow the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders and to change the political and economic structure of foreign countries. Because of our blatant hypocrisy and secret operations, we have earned the hatred of oppressed societies and peoples. When was the last time that we supportewd a democratic movement in some other country, and not the facistic-styled dictatorships the US had helped to establish into power?
Some of our military and our intelligence leaders have warned us many times already of what kind of dangerous future we might have. Our own 'false flag' operations have fooled some, but not all. Truth does manage to get heard, maybe not at first, but it does have much more staying power than propaganda does. The American people will eventually have to teach those who believe they are above the law and defy human ethics and morality, that in a democracy the people rule. They will not tolerate secret or open criminal activity against innocent persons anywhere.
Adele
The "war on terrorism" mindset builds a consensus: millions of Americans are led to believe that a militarized police apparatus is required to protect democracy. Little do they realize that the US government is the main source of terrorism both nationally and internationally.
The corporate media is Washington's propaganda arm, which consists in portraying Muslims as a threat to national security.
At this juncture in our history, at the crossroads of global economic and social crisis, the Boston bombings play a central role. They justify the Homeland Security State.
The evolving US Police State is thereby upheld as a means to protecting civil liberties. Under the guise of counter-terrorism, extrajudicial killings, the suspension of habeas corpus and torture are rightfully considered as a means to upholding the US Constitution.
At the same time, the terrorists created and supported by the CIA are used to participate in "False Flag" terrorist acts with a view to justifying the conduct of a global military crusade against Muslim countries, which so happen to be major oil producing economies.
"Massive Casualty Producing Events"
Former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, who led the invasion of Iraq in 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as "a massive casualty producing event" on American soil, (a Second 9/11) . Implied in General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the "global war on terrorism".
"[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world it may be in the United States of America that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event." (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003, emphasis added)
While the Boston bombings are of an entirely different nature to the "catastrophic event" alluded to by General Tommy Franks, the administration appears, nonetheless, to be committed to the logic of "militarizing our country" as a means to "protecting democracy."
The Boston events are already being used to galvanize public support for an extended domestic based counter-terrorism apparatus. The latter would be implemented alongside extrajudicial assassinations against so-called "homegrown self radicalized terrorists":
"U.S. counterterrorism policy has since 2001 focused largely on killing terrorists overseas or preventing them from getting into the U.S. But the Boston bombings show how the diffusion of terrorist tactics easily transcends borders. Countering small groups of individuals inside the U.S. can be a bedeviling assignment.
Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said the Boston attack was likely a harbinger. "We are likely to see this as the future face of terrorist threats to the United States," he said, adding that the case of a small number of radicalized participants who have lived in the U.S. and execute a plot is "the counterterrorist community's worst nightmare, homegrown, self-radicalizing terrorism that learns its skill set off the Internet." (WSJ, April 20, op cit)
The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" was upheld by General Franks as a crucial political turning point.
Do the Boston Bombings constitute a point of transition, a watershed which ultimately contributes to the gradual suspension of constitutional government?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My comment:
How clever of our secret agencies to create Al Qaeda with the help of Osama bin Laden in 1979. He was CIA, you know, fighting the Russians in Afghanistan along with the Mujahideens (early Talibans) who were trying to overturn the Afghan governmet which was friendly towards Russia. The US supported* the Mujahideens and bin Laden with guns and money, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, bragged of his work and influence in bringing about the downfall of the Soviet government, weakened by fighting an arduous war for ten years in Afghanistan, the Russians' war that was their "Vietnam war".
We have had a habit of using certain elements to obtain economic domance for our commercial interests and in so doing, interferring in the political and cultural life of other nations. The role of our intelligence system, the CIA in particular, should have been restricted to only providing information to the President for policy-making purposes, as had been desired by President Truman, and not allow the CIA to assassinate foreign leaders and to change the political and economic structure of foreign countries. Because of our blatant hypocrisy and secret operations, we have earned the hatred of oppressed societies and peoples. When was the last time that we supportewd a democratic movement in some other country, and not the facistic-styled dictatorships the US had helped to establish into power?
Some of our military and our intelligence leaders have warned us many times already of what kind of dangerous future we might have. Our own 'false flag' operations have fooled some, but not all. Truth does manage to get heard, maybe not at first, but it does have much more staying power than propaganda does. The American people will eventually have to teach those who believe they are above the law and defy human ethics and morality, that in a democracy the people rule. They will not tolerate secret or open criminal activity against innocent persons anywhere.
Adele