Sunday, May 02, 2010

A Bomb in the Rose Garden

The New York City car bomb may have failed to explode yet it could herald a new beginning for the ongoing overt wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. What’s new is the Taliban may now be over here thanks to Obama’s surge in drone attacks in Pakistan which was supposed to make Americans safer. We note that all of the domestic spying begun with Bush II and continued under Obama didn’t stop the attack in NYC. And I think we should understand that the government cannot really protect us from all terrorist attacks. They might be able to stop some but not all. The fact is the government doesn’t really care that much about your safety for they have figured how many civilian American deaths are acceptable a long time ago. I don’t know if this is really the beginning of a new phase but if it is, the war has finally come to these shores as was predicted by saner people than those in the White House.

What I really fear is not the terrorists but the government’s reaction to a series of bombings accomplished by the Taliban. We have seen time and again that when something like this occurs the federal government uses it to grab more power. It’s a lose/lose situation for us peons and we’re screwed either way so I wonder what god-awful legislation shall be the progeny of terrorist attacks on American soil.

Except for the attack of 9/11 you would be hard put to tell that this nation is conducting several wars simultaneously. There are no battlefields, no warplanes roaring overhead dropping their death, no tanks, no explosions, no gunshots, no dead bodies, no screams, no sign of war at all, until now that is. Recently the government has been trying to scare us with mean and scary Mexicans, what a joke that is. They are using the illegal immigrants as a scapegoat for the lousy economy. The Mexicans didn’t wreck our economy, our freaking dumb-ass government wrecked the economy so they blame the Mexicans to get the heat off their back and now they have the Taliban trying to give them a hot foot. LOL.

Still, you have to wonder how terrorist acts on American soil will affect the popularity of the Peace Prize President’s (he’s a real prize alright) escalation of the wars in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Not that it would stop the wars for what we think or care about really doesn’t matter.

19 Comments:

At May 02, 2010 9:48 PM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

Obama is an able operator. I have no doubt that he would use domestic or foreign terrorism to his personal, party and official advantage.

 
At May 02, 2010 11:10 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Jack Crow,

Yes Obama is an operator and an able one at that which is exactly what worries me. That and say, Martial Law.

 
At May 03, 2010 1:34 AM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

Al qaeda in Manhattan? Oh please.

The bomb was discovered just in time. These bombs have a habit of being discovered just in time. In the summer of 2006 it looked like Ned Lamont might beat the GOP-friendly Joe Lieberman for his senate seat, and just in time a nefarious plot to blow up the Sears Tower was foiled. In May of 2010 the BP oil slick, so horribly huge that it can be seen from space, AND the public's expectation that the gummint actually do something about those no-good Goldman Sachs varmints, were clouds on Obama's horizon.

The bombs were discovered, just in time. Whew.

 
At May 03, 2010 5:55 AM, Blogger rob payne said...

Like I said Jonathan “if” this was the work of the Taliban and even if it wasn’t sooner or later there will be attacks of that sort. Perhaps you are correct, I know I’ve suspected the same thing with the recent violence connected with elections in Iraq that is to say maybe it’s the U.S. that’s behind it so as to have an excuse not to leave Iraq. But that’s not something I can prove or disprove.

 
At May 03, 2010 6:39 AM, Blogger Jack Crow said...

Rob,

I'm not sure that Obama would willy-nilly draw out the blunt instrument of martial law.

As the nameless said, in The Layer Cake, "never underestimate the law."

Why spend in the millions, and get yourself bad press, when for pennies on the dollar you can detail an undercover, or an informant, to headlight opposition groups towards self-isolating and/or violent actions?

 
At May 03, 2010 9:13 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Where's the evidence that this could not have been false-flag?

What I have seen is blamecasting.

It's like the shoe-bomber, the liquid bomber, the underwear bomber.

It all smells like false-flag.

Reichstag Fire.

 
At May 03, 2010 10:52 AM, Blogger rob payne said...

Charles,
Yes, it is very much like the underwear bomber etc. and all we know so far is supposedly the Taliban claimed credit for the bomb and that they have some white guy changing a shirt on film, that’s it. I was just conjecturing on what would happen if indeed the Taliban were here in the States and exploded some bombs. And as I said it’s the government’s reaction that worries me.

Jack Crow,
Why spend in the millions, and get yourself bad press, when for pennies on the dollar you can detail an undercover, or an informant, to headlight opposition groups towards self-isolating and/or violent actions?
Good point as that’s pretty much what the CIA is doing in Iran and likely elsewhere but on the other hand the total control achieved by martial law would certainly have appeal for our police state and our authoritarian ego maniacal leader.

 
At May 03, 2010 11:25 AM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Rob -- supposedly is the operative word there. Someone pretending to be part of the Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility.

The cool thing about the Taliban, like al Qaeda, is its shapelessness. This secures its ubiquity as a scapegoat. The "verification" of someone's status in the Taliban or al Qaeda is left to "intelligence" and anyone who's ever had a parsec of objective thought on the notion of "intelligence" knows that what our government calls "intelligence" is called "rumor and innuendo" in most objective circles.

Arthur Silber has written on this subject of "intelligence" analysis and the supposedly rarefied stature of those who are granted "authority" to analyze such rumor and innuendo.

Short version: ANYone can analyze "intelligence" and nearly anyone can create "intelligence."

 
At May 03, 2010 1:00 PM, Blogger rob payne said...

Charles,

I agree absolutely. The intelligence community is a political tool, a tool for State terrorism, and therefore should not be trusted as a source of information. Yes I read Silber’s discussions on the intelligence community and I found it very convincing. In fact the CIA is president’s private army which Chalmers Johnson has written about extensively.

Here’s a link to some excerpts from Nemesis by Johnson.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chalmers_Johnson/CIA_PrivateArmy_N.html

 
At May 03, 2010 2:14 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

xymphora has some additional commentary about the BP oil slick, here:

"...It is possible to tap into an oil reservoir so huge that its leak would literally destroy all the world's oceans, and thus life on earth. American 'regulators', to allow some oil executives bigger yachts, were willing to stake all human life to save BP the cost of a valve. Does it make sense to have a world run that way?"

The "bomb" in Times Square is about this. In the longer term it may be about other things too, but it's about this.

 
At May 03, 2010 2:19 PM, Blogger JM said...

So now we're venturing into conspiracy theories? Great.

And no really, the Taliban did claim responsibility for this one:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2010/05/pakistani_taliban_cl.php

 
At May 03, 2010 3:07 PM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

There's no "conspiracy theory" in my posts.

But thanks for the weak-kneed attempt at derision, JM.

I'd wager nobody else here is working a "conspiracy theory" either, but I can only answer for myself.

Linking to a story that confirms what I said -- someone claiming to be associated with a Paki Taliban outfit has claimed to be responsible for the poorly constructed pseudo-car-bomb -- doesn't create any sort of disproof of what I've posted.

I'd expect more concrete proof when posting such a dismissal and such a condescending characterization of others.

But then again, this is the interwebtoobz, where any person can call him/herself "JM" and claim e-expertise. Isn't it?

 
At May 03, 2010 3:13 PM, Blogger JM said...

Well,since you're so damn sure that this was an inside job, what evidence did you find? Just because you believe something doesn't make it automatically true.

 
At May 03, 2010 6:18 PM, Anonymous some guy said...

Jenny, Charlie, get a room.

 
At May 03, 2010 6:22 PM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

JM, I don't know what your problem is. Apparently it's reading comprehension mixed with shit-stirring, though I'm sure it runs deeper than both of those things.

Here, let me give you the attention you so desperately crave:

Well,since you're so damn sure that this was an inside job,

Never said I was. Why would you state that I am "so damn sure" when that's not even in my comments?

what evidence did you find?

Didn't know it was up to me to provide evidence. I'm not making the accusation of "Pakistani Taliban," you are. Please prove your case.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it automatically true.

Please look in a mirror when you post this sentiment, and please don't direct it at me. It doesn't apply to me.

There. Now you can believe you've "won," JM. Congratulations on that.

 
At May 03, 2010 6:29 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

I don't want to speak for CFO, but I suspect his point, or at least part of it, is that simply responding to an argument you don't care for by saying "conspiracy theory" is not a sufficient counter-argument when people voice their skepticism about the official version.

Whether it was the assassination of Caesar or the Gunpowder Plot or whatever, conspiracies are legitimately a part of history. And there's no reason to believe officialdom suddenly stopped engaging in skulduggery post 1963, or post 1974, or post 1987, or at any other convenient marker in US history.

 
At May 03, 2010 6:38 PM, Blogger Jonathan Versen said...

incidentally, I was editing and re-editing my comment at 6:29 pm while the other comments from "some guy" and CFO went up, and the last comment I was aware of was JM's from around 3pm today.

 
At May 03, 2010 6:38 PM, Blogger JM said...

If you deny claiming conspiracy, then what is this:

"Where's the evidence that this could not have been false-flag?

What I have seen is blamecasting.

It's like the shoe-bomber, the liquid bomber, the underwear bomber.

It all smells like false-flag.

Reichstag Fire."

 
At May 03, 2010 6:55 PM, Blogger Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Good bye, Jenny.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home