Date: August 11, 2006 10:08:46 AM PDT
Subject: [cia-drugs] thoughts on London incident, Chossudovsky link
Right after world opinion is dead set against the US-Israel middle
east war, and Blair is being raked over the coals, they `foil' an Al-
Qaeda attack somehow by identifying ahead of time that liquids were
going to explode. I thought the existence of Al-Qaeda had been
canceled due to low ratings. Are they still looking for Osama?
All the people who have researched 9-11 and acted up about it are
our line of defense against further false flag attack by our
governments. We now have half the population skeptical about the 9-
11 attack cover story, so a repeat performance that involved actual
civilian death could lead to an unwanted backlash, while a `foiled'
attempt serves the warmongers' purposes less forcefully but doesn't
lead to victims families suing the government or being insulted by
Ann Coulter.
Bake
context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060810&articleId=2942
The Pentagon's "Second 911"
"Another [9/11] attack could create both a justification and an
opportunity to retaliate against some known targets"
By Michel Chossudovsky
August 10, 2006
One essential feature of "defense" in the case of a second major
attack on America, is "offense", according to Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff: "Homeland security is one piece of a
broader strategy [which] brings the battle to the enemy."(DHS,
Transcript of complete March 2005 speech of Secr. Michael Chertoff)
In the month following last year's 7/7 London bombings, Vice
President Dick Cheney is reported to have instructed USSTRATCOM to
draw up a contingency plan "to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States". Implied in the
contingency plan was the certainty that Iran would be behind a
Second 9/11.
This "contingency plan" used the pretext of a "Second 9/11", which
has not yet happened, to prepare for a major military operation
against Iran, while pressure was also exerted on Tehran in relation
to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program.
What was diabolical in this decision of the US Vice President was
that the justification presented by Cheney to wage war on Iran
rested on Iran's involvement in a hypothetical terrorist attack on
America, which has not yet occurred:
The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both
conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are
more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected
nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are
hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by
conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of
Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being
involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.
Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are
reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing—that
Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack—but no one is
prepared to damage his career by posing any objections. (Philip
Giraldi, Attack on Iran: Pre-emptive Nuclear War , The American
Conservative, 2 August 2005)
Are we to understand that US, British and Israeli military planners
are waiting in limbo for a Second 9/11, to extend the war beyond the
borders of Lebanon, to launch a military operation directed against
Syria and Iran?
Cheney's proposed "contingency plan" did not focus on preventing a
Second 9/11. The Cheney plan is predicated on the presumption that
Iran would be behind a Second 9/11 and that punitive bombings could
immediately be activated, prior to the conduct of an investigation,
much in the same way as the attacks on Afghanistan in October 2001,
allegedly in retribution for the alleged support of the Taliban
government to the 9/11 terrorists. It is worth noting that one does
not plan a war in three weeks: the bombing and invasion of
Afghanistan had been planned well in advance of 9/11. As Michael
Keefer points out in an incisive review article:
"At a deeper level, it implies that "9/11-type terrorist attacks"
are recognized in Cheney's office and the Pentagon as appropriate
means of legitimizing wars of aggression against any country
selected for that treatment by the regime and its corporate
propaganda-amplification system.... (Keefer, February 2006 )
In a timely statement, barely a few days following the onslaught of
the bombing of Lebanon, Vice President Cheney reiterated his
warning: "The enemy that struck on 9/11 is fractured and weakened,
yet still lethal, still determined to hit us again" (Waterloo
Courier, Iowa, 19 July 2006, italics added).
"Justification and Opportunity to Retaliate against ...the State
Sponsors [of Terrorism]"
In April 2006, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld launched a far-
reaching military plan to fight terrorism around the World, with a
view to retaliating in the case of a second major terrorist attack
on America.
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military's
most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and
retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major
terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense
officials.
The long-awaited campaign plan for the global war on terrorism, as
well as two subordinate plans also approved within the past month by
Rumsfeld, are considered the Pentagon's highest priority, according
to officials familiar with the three documents who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak
about them publicly.
Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a
significantly expanded role for the military -- and, in particular,
a growing force of elite Special Operations troops -- in continuous
operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and
Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special
Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up
of the Pentagon's involvement in domains traditionally handled by
the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.
(Washington Post, 23 April 2006)
This plan is predicated on the possibility of a Second 911 and the
need to retaliate if and when the US is attacked:
"A third plan sets out how the military can both disrupt and respond
to another major terrorist strike on the United States. It includes
lengthy annexes that offer a menu of options for the military to
retaliate quickly against specific terrorist groups, individuals or
state sponsors depending on who is believed to be behind an attack.
Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity
that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets,
according to current and former defense officials familiar with the
plan.
This plan details "what terrorists or bad guys we would hit if the
gloves came off. The gloves are not off," said one official, who
asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the
subject. (italics added, WP 23 April 2006)
The presumption of this military document, is that a Second 911
attack "which is lacking today" would usefully create both
a "justification and an opportunity" to wage war on "some known
targets [Iran and Syria]".
In the wake of the August 10 announcement by Britain's Scotland Yard
regarding the foiled large scale terror attack on transatlantic
flights, .
The objective, through fear and intimidation, is ultimately to build
public acceptance for the next stage of the Middle East "war on
terrorism" which is directed against Syria and Iran.
The announcement on August 10 by the British Home Office of a foiled
large scale terror attack to simultaneously blow up as many as ten
airplanes, conveys the impression that it is the Western World
rather than the Middle East which is under attack.
Realities are twisted upside down. The disinformation campaign has
gone into full gear. The British and US media are increasingly
pointing towards "preemptive war" as an act of "self defense"
against Al Qaeda and the State sponsors of terrorism, who are
allegedly preparing a Second 911.
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
OM
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
