or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A Vote for Romney: A Vote for Terrorism?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Vote for Romney: A Vote for Terrorism?

post #1 of 3
Thread Starter 

A vote for Romney is likely to be a vote for future terrorism. What kind of terrorism? A new 9/11, or 7/7, Madrid 3/11 or OKC, or far worse. Most likely, it will be the type of terrorist attack which has a long history of working wonders for those who plan and execute it, in other words, a false flag attack against American people and interests, blamed on an existing enemy, or an "enemy to be", to enrage Americans into supporting an agenda that benefits the perpetrators and the furthermost of their policy set.

 

Setting up and executing a sophisticated attack is no problem for a handful of highly trained military operatives with the access to the equipment, ordnance, communications devices, and most important of all, the ability to bypass security measures without detection. State sponsored terror does not require the involvement of "thousands", a falsehood often posited by pro-establishment conspiracy theorists: It takes just a small handful of experts with privileged access. Such operatives are sworn to absolute secrecy, and are also "compartmentalized", in that the participants only have intimate knowledge about their own part in an operation, and are thus incapable of blowing the whistle (if they survive), for lack of complete evidence.

 

Why Romney? Easy. His national security, foreign policy, and transition team are stacked with "PNAC'ers", a group of political extremists, many of whom are dual Israeli-US citizens - loyal to Israel first - just as with so many on the Bush 2001 cabinet. These "Greater Israel" fanatics required a catalytic event to jolt the normally somnambulant American public against Israel's arch enemy - Arabs and Muslims, alongside a long list of other motivating factors. The Iraq war is old news, despite the continued bloodbath, and tother with the Afghanistan war, is a now seen as an increasingly irrelevant and expensive ($3 trillion+) millstone, with no positive outcome (as the Soviets learned in the 1980s). The US public, now fatigued with the last 11 years of adventurism, will require a new horrific event to reignite that "lets go to war" fervor.

 

It will happen, and the neocons who will be loading a Romney cabinet and transition team will be those with the motivation to plan and authorize such. The potential targets of blame for a new incident will undoubtedly be Iran - the most likely contender, even though Iran has everything to lose by attacking the US and hasn't attacked anyone in 500 years. The other major potential "finger-pointee" is mineral and oil-rich Venezuela. Left leaning president Hugo Chavez was recently re-elected with a 10% margin and having already survived a US sponsored coup in 2002, must be considered as a prime target to unseat… at the very least. And to equate left-leaning, or people-friendly governments in Latin America with terrorism will be the next task for the US right wing when the current and ongoing hate factor against Arabs and Muslims gets too old, even for the easily swayed US public.

 

Having said that a Romney administration would likely to be a breeding ground for a state-sponsored terror attack (via rogue elements within the military intelligence community), a second Obama term is not immune  to the same - after all, Obama hasn't exactly been much a friend of the base that elected him, and regarding the crimes of the previous administration, for example lying to the nation (twice) to starts wars amongst a smorgasbord of others, he let them off the hook, saying "let bygones be bygones". 

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #2 of 3
Or we could keep Obama and have the same old terrorism we have had all along.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #3 of 3

sammi, what's absurd about your entire post is the underlying assumption that military operations (war) are tantamount to "state sponsored terrorism."   The fact that you don't like or approve of a particular war, policy, etc does not equate it to terrorism.  As to your wild theories about potential false flag operations, they are just that...wild theories.  What's truly amazing to me, though, is that you espouse these supposed conspiracies about false flags, wars based on blatant lies, state terrorism, etc...all while ignoring the ones that are actually happening (see: Benghazi).  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › A Vote for Romney: A Vote for Terrorism?