A scary Taliban enemy with his ultra high-tech kit
Towards the end of September we began to see warnings of immanent terrorist attacks in Europe and the UK reported in the Western MSM. They included a widely reported incident involving the evacuation and searching of the Eiffel Tower in Paris and continued in a more general vein in many UK papers over the weekend of 2-3 October. These reports followed a US Newsweek article on 29 September - “The Coming Terror War” and subtitled “Intelligence agencies have stepped up drone attacks in Waziristan, but the Taliban say they’re still plotting a big attack on the West”.
As usual many otherwise good commentators appear to take such warnings at face value and proceed to analyse them in precisely the context and terms provided from on high, as though the world view and simplistically-defined conflict described were unquestionable givens.
A Good example is a piece by Paul Woodward on the “War in Context” blog. Solid thoughtful analysis but, as is almost always the case with the ‘War on Terror’ and alleged terrorist threats, not even a nod in the direction of that enormous elephant in the room – the possibility of a looming False-Flag event.
Wikispooks posted the following comment – slightly amended here after cogitation:
There is one glaring omission from this analysis. It is its failure to ask who and what would be the major beneficiaries of such attacks because, in matters of such high-stakes geo-politics, the answer is likely to be a pretty accurate guide to the real forces behind them.
The problem of course is that for even the most intelligent of establishment skeptics, it is simply not possible to ask – let alone answer – such a question publicly, openly and honestly, for two reasons which, in order of the intellectual rigor of the potential questioner, go something like this:
1. Western security and intelligence services are fine upstanding organisations focused single-mindedly on the protection of their respective populations from wicked terrorists bent on harming us. The very idea that they might condone (LIHOP), let alone organise, supply, facilitate (MIHOP) such attacks is treasonous and those suggesting otherwise should be locked up or otherwise effectively silenced.
2. To do so is to step outside the boundaries of debate acceptable to the arbiters of one’s career, position, place and possible honor (gong) in society – let alone the attendant risks to health, life and limb should (horror of horrors) such a question be well founded. So that cognitive dissonance becomes the order of the day and the system grinds on its relentless way.
Those untrammeled by either of the above but who have yet to take the Red Pill, should study the history of acknowledged and proven-beyond-a-scintilla-of-doubt false flag operations in furtherance of allegedly higher and more noble purposes than the mere protection of a few (hundred/thousand?) innocent Sheeple and the odd piece of landmark real-estate. Operation Gladio might be a good starting point for Western Europeans – together with the writings of Ola Tunander – some of it available on WikiSpooks.
…And the rationale underlying possible false-flag events in the UK and Western Europe?
The Anglo-American/NATO Imperial Project seems to have hit a sticky patch. One of its biggest current problems – arguably - is the flakiness of support for the security and military measures necessary for its continued prosecution, among Western populations. What better way to bolster and renew such support, than to facilitate/arrange/ensure – whatever – another dastardly and devastating attack by the forces of evil?
The question is rhetorical with it’s answer all too obvious – viz: There ISN’T a better or more certain way.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.