The question we should be asking is, "does the government need a
terrorist attack?"
After all, the prominent terrorist attacks in the last 20 years
(though it doesnt stop there, the Cold War years are rather
interesting) are documented to have been carried out
by western intelligence agencies. The most prominent of all is
probably 9/11. 3 buildings (WTC 1,2 and 7) collapsed from 2 plane
crashes. Pentagon plane crash didnt even have the debris (at least
the engines) from the supposed jet airliner. Government complicity
is highlighted on 9/11 with at least 6 anti-terrorist exercises
envisioning the exact same scenario, with a
cheney-induced NORAD standdown.
And coincidentally, after 9/11, the "new pearl habour" that the
PNAC wrote about in 2000, the Bush Administration got its pretext
for the PATRIOT Act and the invasion of
Afghanistan which had been waiting for approval before
9/11.
Similarly, the 2005 7/7 bombings in London had the same signs of
government involvement as on that day, the London authorities were
carrying out an anti-terrorist exercise preparing for
the same simultaneous bombings that were to really
take place. Just like 9/11, these exercise probably enabled
so-called communications "chatter" to be disguised under the
pretext of an exercise.
The 1993 WTC bombings is even more clear about this. The FBI was
reported to have sheltered the supposed bombers. Ex-Egyptian
intelligence agent Emad Salem was an FBI informant that directed
the bombers. He was told that the 'bombing' was supposed to be an
exercise and the FBI provided him with the explosives. Of course,
this story never made the headlines.
After terrorist attacks, we got to ask "Who Benefits?"
Do the terrorists benefit from the invasion of Middle-Eastern
countries? Is Islam given a better name throughout the world? Or do
governments get sweeping powers against the people and gradually
create a police state in the name of combating terrorism? Always,
in the wake of terrorist attacks, government and law enforcement
receive expanded powers and more funds for so-called non-lethal EM
weapons like tasers and directed energy weapons (for crowd
control). Is this a War on Terror, or a War OF Terror?
I have no doubt that the latest bombings in Mumbai was probably
CIA (which has a rich history of carrying out false-flag terrorist
attacks). The bombings itself was insignificant, on a hotel and of
course, targetting westerners. If the bombings targetted
western corporate infrastructure, then I might buy the
official story. Again, ask who benefits? Perhaps, thats why the US
needs to invade Pakistan right? (Wink...)- Even as Pakistan decides
to deploy more air defences to stop US Predator strikes in
Pakistani territory.
