PDA

View Full Version : Good question: why aren't these guys dead?



Soflasnapper
05-14-2012, 04:52 PM
I do not advocate their deaths, but Paul Craig Roberts raises an interesting question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Monday, May 14, 2012
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Case of the Missing Terrorists</span>
Paul Craig Roberts


If there were any real terrorists, Jose Rodriguez would be dead.

Who is Jose Rodriguez? He is the criminal who ran the CIA torture program. Most of his victims were not terrorists or even insurgents. Most were hapless individuals kidnapped by warlords and sold to the Americans as “terrorists” for the bounty paid.

If Rodriguez’s identity was previously a secret, it is no more. He has been on CBS “60 Minutes” taking credit for torturing Muslims and using the information allegedly gained to kill leaders of al Qaeda. If terrorists were really the problem that Homeland Security, the FBI and CIA claim, Rodriguez’s name would be a struck through item on the terrorists’ hit list. He would be in his grave.

So, also, would be John Yoo, who wrote the Justice (sic) Department memos giving the green light to torture, despite US and International laws prohibiting torture. Apparently, Yoo, a professor at the Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, was ignorant of US and international law. And so was the US Department of Justice (sic).

Notice that Rodriguez, “The Torturer of the Muslims,” does’t have to hide. He can go on national television, reveal his identity, and revel in his success in torturing and murdering Muslims. Rodriguez has no Secret Service protection and would be an easy mark for assassination by terrorists so capable as to have, allegedly, pulled off 9/11.

Another easy mark for assassination would be former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who staffed up the Pentagon with neoconservative warmongers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who in turn concocted the false information used to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld himself declared members of al Qaeda to be the most vicious and dangerous killers on earth. Yet Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Richard Perle, together with neoconservative media propagandists, such as William Kristol and Max Boot, have been walking around safe for years unmolested by terrorists seeking revenge or bringing retribution to those responsible for as many as 1,000,000 Muslim deaths.


Condi Rice, Colin Powell, who delivered the Speech of Lies to the UN inaugurating the invasion of Iraq, and Dick Cheney, whose minimal Secret Service protection could not withstand a determined assassination attempt, also enjoy lives unmolested by terrorists.

Remember the deck of cards that the Bush regime had with Iraqi faces? If terrorists had a similar deck, all of those named above would be “high value targets.” Yet, there has not been a single attempt on any one of them.

Strange, isn’t it, that none of the above are faced with a terrorist threat. Yet, the tough, macho Navy Seals who allegedly killed Osama bin Laden must have their identity kept hidden so that they don’t become terrorist targets. These American supermen, highly trained killers themselves, don’t dare show their faces, but Rodriguez, Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice can walk around unmolested.

Indeed, the Seals’ lives are so endangered that President Obama gave up the enormous public relations political benefit of a White House ceremony with the heroic Navy Seals. Very strange behavior for a politician. A couple of weeks after the alleged bin Laden killing, the Seals unit, or most of it, was wiped out in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

If you were a Muslim terrorist seeking retribution for Washington’s crimes, would you try to smuggle aboard an airliner a bomb in your underwear or shoe in order to blow up people whose only responsibility for Washington’s war against Muslims is that they fell for Washington’s propaganda? If you wanted to blow up the innocent, wouldn’t you instead place your bomb in the middle of the mass of humanity waiting to clear airport security and take out TSA personnel along with passengers? Terrorists could coordinate their attacks, hitting a number of large airports across the US at the same minute. This would be real terror. Moreover, it would present TSA with an insolvable problem: how can people be screened before they are screened?

Or coordinated attacks on shopping malls and sports events?

Why should terrorists, if they exist, bother to kill people when it is easy to cause mayhem by not killing them? There are a large number of unguarded electric power substations. Entire regions of the country could be shut down. The simplest disruptive act would be to release large quantities of roofing nails in the midst of rush hour traffic in Boston, New York, Washington DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco. You get the picture: thousands and thousands of cars disabled with flat tires blocking the main arteries for days.

Before some reader accuses me of giving terrorists ideas, ask yourself if you really think people so clever as to have allegedly planned and carried out 9/11 couldn’t think of such simple tactics, plots that could be carried out without having to defeat security or kill innocent people? My point isn’t what terrorists, if they exist, should do. The point is that the absence of easy-to-do acts of terrorism suggests that the terrorist threat is more hype than reality. Yet, we have an expensive, intrusive security apparatus that seems to have no real function except to exercise power over American citizens.

In place of real terrorists carrying out easy plots, we have “terrorist” plots dreamed up by FBI and CIA agents, who then recruit some hapless or demented dupes, bribing them with money and heroic images of themselves, and supplying them with the plot and fake explosives. These are called “sting operations,” but they are not. They are orchestrations by our own security agencies that produce fake terrorist plots that are then “foiled” by the security agencies that hatched the plots.

Washington’s announcement is always: “The public was never in danger.” Some terrorist plot! We have never been endangered by one, but the airports have been on orange alert for 11.5 years.

The federal judiciary and brainwashed juries actually treat these concocted plots as real threats to American security despite the government’s announcements that the public was never in danger.

The announcements of the “foiled” plots keep the brainwashed public docile and amenable to intrusive searches, warrantless spying, the growth of an unaccountable police state, and endless wars.

The “War on Terror” is a hoax, one that has been successfully used to destroy the US Constitution and to complete the transformation of law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state. By destroying habeas corpus, due process, and the presumption of innocence, the “War on Terror” has destroyed our security.

This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts' new website Institute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. </div></div>

Qtec
05-14-2012, 06:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In place of real terrorists carrying out easy plots, we have “terrorist” plots dreamed up by FBI and CIA agents, who then recruit some hapless or demented dupes, bribing them with money and heroic images of themselves, and supplying them with the plot and fake explosives. These are called “sting operations,” but they are not. They are orchestrations by our own security agencies that produce fake terrorist plots that are then “foiled” by the security agencies that hatched the plots.</div></div>

I have said this all along.
Why go to all the lengths like the underwear bomb plot when he could have came to the USA, bought some heavy weaponry, bought some dynamite and on the day of Macy's sale, high jacked a gas truck and drove it through the front door.

If something like that happened 2 or 3 times a month, then you really have a terrorist threat.

Even if the guy went into Macey's with that shotgun that one of the posters had a threat on, that would have the same effect.

If there really was a terrorist threat, it would have happened by now.

All we see is to keep the idea going is some poor idiots that have been suckered by FBI snitches.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-15-2012, 12:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do not advocate their deaths, but Paul Craig Roberts raises an interesting question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Monday, May 14, 2012
<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Case of the Missing Terrorists</span>
Paul Craig Roberts


If there were any real terrorists, Jose Rodriguez would be dead.

Who is Jose Rodriguez? He is the criminal who ran the CIA torture program. Most of his victims were not terrorists or even insurgents. Most were hapless individuals kidnapped by warlords and sold to the Americans as “terrorists” for the bounty paid.

If Rodriguez’s identity was previously a secret, it is no more. He has been on CBS “60 Minutes” taking credit for torturing Muslims and using the information allegedly gained to kill leaders of al Qaeda. If terrorists were really the problem that Homeland Security, the FBI and CIA claim, Rodriguez’s name would be a struck through item on the terrorists’ hit list. He would be in his grave.

So, also, would be John Yoo, who wrote the Justice (sic) Department memos giving the green light to torture, despite US and International laws prohibiting torture. Apparently, Yoo, a professor at the Boalt School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, was ignorant of US and international law. And so was the US Department of Justice (sic).

Notice that Rodriguez, “The Torturer of the Muslims,” does’t have to hide. He can go on national television, reveal his identity, and revel in his success in torturing and murdering Muslims. Rodriguez has no Secret Service protection and would be an easy mark for assassination by terrorists so capable as to have, allegedly, pulled off 9/11.

Another easy mark for assassination would be former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who staffed up the Pentagon with neoconservative warmongers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who in turn concocted the false information used to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld himself declared members of al Qaeda to be the most vicious and dangerous killers on earth. Yet Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Richard Perle, together with neoconservative media propagandists, such as William Kristol and Max Boot, have been walking around safe for years unmolested by terrorists seeking revenge or bringing retribution to those responsible for as many as 1,000,000 Muslim deaths.


Condi Rice, Colin Powell, who delivered the Speech of Lies to the UN inaugurating the invasion of Iraq, and Dick Cheney, whose minimal Secret Service protection could not withstand a determined assassination attempt, also enjoy lives unmolested by terrorists.

Remember the deck of cards that the Bush regime had with Iraqi faces? If terrorists had a similar deck, all of those named above would be “high value targets.” Yet, there has not been a single attempt on any one of them.

Strange, isn’t it, that none of the above are faced with a terrorist threat. Yet, the tough, macho Navy Seals who allegedly killed Osama bin Laden must have their identity kept hidden so that they don’t become terrorist targets. These American supermen, highly trained killers themselves, don’t dare show their faces, but Rodriguez, Rumsfeld, and Condi Rice can walk around unmolested.

Indeed, the Seals’ lives are so endangered that President Obama gave up the enormous public relations political benefit of a White House ceremony with the heroic Navy Seals. Very strange behavior for a politician. A couple of weeks after the alleged bin Laden killing, the Seals unit, or most of it, was wiped out in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

If you were a Muslim terrorist seeking retribution for Washington’s crimes, would you try to smuggle aboard an airliner a bomb in your underwear or shoe in order to blow up people whose only responsibility for Washington’s war against Muslims is that they fell for Washington’s propaganda? If you wanted to blow up the innocent, wouldn’t you instead place your bomb in the middle of the mass of humanity waiting to clear airport security and take out TSA personnel along with passengers? Terrorists could coordinate their attacks, hitting a number of large airports across the US at the same minute. This would be real terror. Moreover, it would present TSA with an insolvable problem: how can people be screened before they are screened?

Or coordinated attacks on shopping malls and sports events?

Why should terrorists, if they exist, bother to kill people when it is easy to cause mayhem by not killing them? There are a large number of unguarded electric power substations. Entire regions of the country could be shut down. The simplest disruptive act would be to release large quantities of roofing nails in the midst of rush hour traffic in Boston, New York, Washington DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco. You get the picture: thousands and thousands of cars disabled with flat tires blocking the main arteries for days.

Before some reader accuses me of giving terrorists ideas, ask yourself if you really think people so clever as to have allegedly planned and carried out 9/11 couldn’t think of such simple tactics, plots that could be carried out without having to defeat security or kill innocent people? My point isn’t what terrorists, if they exist, should do. The point is that the absence of easy-to-do acts of terrorism suggests that the terrorist threat is more hype than reality. Yet, we have an expensive, intrusive security apparatus that seems to have no real function except to exercise power over American citizens.

In place of real terrorists carrying out easy plots, we have “terrorist” plots dreamed up by FBI and CIA agents, who then recruit some hapless or demented dupes, bribing them with money and heroic images of themselves, and supplying them with the plot and fake explosives. These are called “sting operations,” but they are not. They are orchestrations by our own security agencies that produce fake terrorist plots that are then “foiled” by the security agencies that hatched the plots.

Washington’s announcement is always: “The public was never in danger.” Some terrorist plot! We have never been endangered by one, but the airports have been on orange alert for 11.5 years.

The federal judiciary and brainwashed juries actually treat these concocted plots as real threats to American security despite the government’s announcements that the public was never in danger.

The announcements of the “foiled” plots keep the brainwashed public docile and amenable to intrusive searches, warrantless spying, the growth of an unaccountable police state, and endless wars.

The “War on Terror” is a hoax, one that has been successfully used to destroy the US Constitution and to complete the transformation of law from a shield of the people into a weapon in the hands of the state. By destroying habeas corpus, due process, and the presumption of innocence, the “War on Terror” has destroyed our security.

This article first appeared at Paul Craig Roberts' new website Institute For Political Economy. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. </div></div> </div></div>


<span style="color: #990000">My take on the Rodriguez guy is that he's an outright liar. Woo? Wasn't he protected by the Bush RW Supreme Court recently?

As for the Seals, I think it is only reasonable that their identities would be protected, for a whole range of reasons apart from their own safety.



Hmmm, I don't know anything about this guy, the author, that is. He sounds like one of those consipracy types. I do think there are people, terrorists, who are plotting all the time, and being spied upon all of the time, but I don't think these people are looking for the easiest way to kill the most Americans, I think they want a big huge show. They are, after all, total sicko egomaniacs.

Former Bush Officials, for example, may well have purchased their own sophisticated security systems, in their personal lives. They can all certainly well afford it, given all of the billions that we never even found, "lost: in Iraq.

Additionally, there has already been one plot to kill Bush, is the author unaware of that? It was foiled, just within the last year, I believe.

Associate editor of the Wall Street Journal? That doesn't give him much credibility for me, given who owns the Wall St. Journal these days.

I hope you don't think I'm being difficult, that isn't my mood, trust me. But, this piece strikes me as a bit suspicious, like maybe by a former Neocon, who is now trying to turn around the previous administration's non stop successful fear mongering, ad War Of Terrorizing, to try to further raise suspicion about, and weaken the power of the current administration.

I do think that this terrorism business, and additionally all of our historical Military operations, Since the Korean War, have been used and abused, to promote loads of Government spending, fear mongering for the financial benefit of a deeply embedded, war profiteering military Industrial/Congressional Complex.

I cannot believe the number of huge buildings which Bush's Administration had designed and built, and many of them still under construction, in fact, all over Washington D,C, and some in Virginia. I do find that very strange, and I don't recall very much being written about the costs of developing all of these so called, "National Security" complexes. None of these buildings have names on them, and in fact, Richard Clarke mentioned them, as well, during his recent appearance on Bill Maher's program, and also during a C-Span interview about his new book on Cyber Terrorism. I get the impression from Clarke that under Bush, trillions were wasted on policy which doesn't do a damn thing to make us safer.

One thing I can agree with, is that there is way too much money being wasted on defense. It's a crock!


But, you know, we so have such serious obligation to our Nnational Defense.....just must take care of paying for our defense contractors, they simply MUST go hob nobbing around Europe, and it must all be worth it, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif they seem to just LOVE London. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif so what the heck, why bicker over a small city of multi-million dollar buildings, with no names on then, in prime Real Estate. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Funny, isn't it, how AUSTERE Republicans have become? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif





Thoughts?</span>

Soflasnapper
05-15-2012, 10:16 AM
Paul Craig Roberts is a member of an honorable but vanishing breed of paleo-cons, who are in mortal opposition to the neo-cons. His tenure at the WSJ was from long ago now, but you're correct that it somewhat impeaches him (the WSJ op/ed page was fringe right a long time ago, prior to Murdoch's far more recent purchase).

Still, he's apparently almost a pacifist now, with regard to the imperial ambitions of the neo-cons, a fierce critic of theirs, and obviously, by the above, a critic of the notion of a true war on terror. He thinks it's a racket, and so is correct. Whatever the extra security of a W or a Cheney, that cannot be the case for lower level functionaries like Doug Feith or John Loo or any of the assortment of mid-level neo-con functionaries from that dark period of our recent history.

The Israelis hunted down all the Black September group that had performed the Olympics massacre. Is the alleged al-Qaeda less revenge minded, considering the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Moslems?

LWW
05-15-2012, 01:47 PM
Because of the second amendment is my guess.

Soflasnapper
05-16-2012, 09:14 AM
There is no evidence I've seen to indicate these various players all pack heat.

Even if they did, that would hardly prevent attacks, and we would have heard about their shoot outs in self defense.

Unless you think stone cold killer fanatics couldn't figure out an ambush with a cross-fire, with weapons with ranges far beyond that of a hand gun, not subject to return fire.

Or simply walk up to one of these guys with a backpack bomb on them, or have such a bomb secreted on the guy's pathway, triggered by radio frequency. IEDs are not deterred by having a hand gun.