Difference between revisions of "We need another 9/11"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Links: Tarpley on false-flag as an excuse to invade Iran (and declare martial law))
m (double-spam reversion)
 
(14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
If Bush himself does not condemn this idea, at least in passing, what does that tell us about Bush's attitude towards 9/11?
 
If Bush himself does not condemn this idea, at least in passing, what does that tell us about Bush's attitude towards 9/11?
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 +
===Filed Links===
 +
{{links/news}}[[category:topics]]
 +
 +
===News & Views===
 
* '''2007-08-28''' [[False Flag attack on USA on or around 9/21]]
 
* '''2007-08-28''' [[False Flag attack on USA on or around 9/21]]
 
* '''2007-08-09''' [http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html To save America, we need another 9/11] by [[Stu Bykofsky]]: "What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing? A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in [[US-Iraq War|Iraq]] - that we have forgotten who the enemy is. It is not [[George W. Bush|Bush]] and it is not [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary]] and it is not Daily Kos or [[Bill O'Reilly]] or [[Rudy Giuliani|Giuliani]] or [[Barack Obama|Barack]]. It is global [[Islamofascism|terrorists who use Islam]] to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children. Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and [[division is weakness]]."
 
* '''2007-08-09''' [http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_another_9_11.html To save America, we need another 9/11] by [[Stu Bykofsky]]: "What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing? A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in [[US-Iraq War|Iraq]] - that we have forgotten who the enemy is. It is not [[George W. Bush|Bush]] and it is not [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary]] and it is not Daily Kos or [[Bill O'Reilly]] or [[Rudy Giuliani|Giuliani]] or [[Barack Obama|Barack]]. It is global [[Islamofascism|terrorists who use Islam]] to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children. Iraq has fractured the U.S. into jigsaw pieces of competing interests that encourage our enemies. We are deeply divided and [[division is weakness]]."

Latest revision as of 12:37, 15 July 2009

Navigation

9/11: "we need another"

Overview

It has been suggested at least twice, by supposed conservatives, that we need another 9/11 to unify the United States politically against terrorism. The basic premise of these arguments seems to be that the threat represented by terrorism is far worse than the loss of a few thousand lives. In the most recent instance, the argument was presented in at least two mainstream media outlets including favorable coverage on Fox News.

Conclusions

  1. They've got to be kidding.
  2. It doesn't look like they are.
  3. Although it can be argued that "another 9/11" would politically unify the country, it would also be evidence that Bush's anti-terrorism policies had failed
  4. Unfortunately, this important point would probably be lost in the chaos and demogoguery which would inevitably follow
  5. The frenzy into which the United States would probably be whipped would certainly compare to the frenzy whipped up by the original 9/11, and we would probably end up going along with some idea just as bad as the US invasion of Iraq, possibly worse.
  6. The potential US invasion of Iran seems like a strong candidate for this "bad idea"
  7. "Another 9/11" would, under the current administration or a subsequent administration with similar attitudes, inevitably lead to further reduction of civil liberties and expansion of unconstitutional activities
  8. If no significant number of Bush-supporters promptly jump forward to condemn this idea, it lends considerable credibility to the theory that 9/11 could have been allowed to happen, encouraged, or even engineered by a group of Americans believing themselves to be acting in the best interests of America.
  9. It seems likely that this sort of attitude is intended to distract attention away from the administration's anti-democratic efforts to further consolidate its power and squash dissent.

Questions

If Bush himself does not condemn this idea, at least in passing, what does that tell us about Bush's attitude towards 9/11?

Links

Filed Links

News & Views