Ray, I don't think it's quite as simple as USA operatives causing an attack on the Twin Towers. But as you say, there really are black ops and what can be imagined will be considered by at least some as a pretty good idea.
A good example was the French attack on New Zealand when they bombed the Rainbow Warrior 20 years ago. While I don't have actual evidence, I've always found my interpolations of facts very often work out to be correct, and I have strong suspicions that the French, British and Americans were in on the game when Mitterand, Hernu and French black ops attacked an unarmed civilian boat moored in Auckland harbour with two limpet bombs while there was a gathering on board, resulting in the death of one person.
That's what megalomaniacs do. Ethics are almost a negative in their world - a sign of stupidity and weakness, even cowardice. So anything that makes sense to them is fair game.
So, you can be sure that there are black ops around the world in the pursuit of Al Q and Islamic Jihad, while keeping a weather eye and continuing black ops against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria not to mention constant surveillance of "friends".
The reason the British and Americans supported the French [and why the French decided to go along with the attack] was that NZ had rejected the USA noocular weapons of mass destruction strategy by denying USA military ship visits if they could not be confirmed as nuclear-free. The British and Americans were keen to teach NZ a lesson and the French were very keen to do so.
Apparently the French considered sinking the Rainbow Warrior in open ocean, but allegedly were concerned about loss of life. I think they thought they could get more publicity, and bang for their buck, and have more fun by planning a more complex raid right in Auckland harbour.
There was also a suitcase bomb that killed Ernie Abbott in the Wellington Trade Union building, which again looks like a black op. 64.233.187.104
<The argument being advanced so far in the debate, by several speakers including the last, is that we live in a new era of terrorism. Unfortunately, Ron Mark basically said that if the Greens were affected by terrorism, they would think differently. I thought I would start at that point. Just over 20 years ago, on 27 March I was living in Wellington, and on my way down the Petone motorway to go to a meeting of the Wellington Trades Council where I was a delegate from the railway workers union. On my car radio I heard about a bombing at the Wellington Trades Hall. One of the people I was expecting to see at that meeting was the caretaker of the hall, Ernie Abbott, who I knew well and talked to a lot. When I arrived at the meeting I heard that he had been blown up by a terrorist bomb.
The second incident - there have been only two terrorist incidents in New Zealand over the last few decades - occurred on 10 July 1985. Friends of mine had come in on the Rainbow Warrior. They were active in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement, and I knew that other friends of mine were visiting the Rainbow Warrior. I was living in Auckland at that time, and when I heard that there had been a bomb on the Rainbow Warrior I was very fearful for their safety. So the idea that people in this House, and myself in particular, are not aware of the problems of terrorism and its effects on those closest to us is quite wrong.
I think what needs to be borne in mind is that those two incidents of terrorism were terrorist acts against left-wing and progressive people. So the idea that people of my political persuasion are not on the receiving end of these things and do not understand them is completely wrong >
So yes, if it serves the military industrial complex, those in power, some black ops weirdo ideas etc, nothing is out of the question.
It's not quite the same thing, but indicative of what can happen when silly ideas go awry. They had to kill a village at Waco to save it. David Koresh and his mates didn't need such a big drama to sort them out. It's not as though they were blocking the middle of downtown New York or Tienanmen Square challenging the existence of the government. They were parked out in the countryside and could have been surrounded for however long it took for them to come out with their hands up. Which of course is not as much fun as a raid with tanks.
The underlying problem is megalomania and the gap between ego and reality [to quote Michael Laws] which some deal with by booze, dope or other escapism. Some go religious. Some give full rein to their ego and seek unbridled power. When they gain ground, the number of dead people can be quite spectacular. Just as alcoholics have trouble giving up booze, the megalomaniac will brook no opposition. They will stop at literally nothing if they think they can get away with it.
Religious megalomaniacs are especially lethal, but garden variety ideological or personal megalomaniacs are no fun either. If you spot any religious megalomaniacs, run for cover!
Mqurice
PS: Yes, I am throwing some berley in the water to watch you go into a feeding frenzy. |
