Today, on the radio as they discussed the bridge collapse in Minnesota, the hosts described how the major (corporate) news outlets had to go to the Department of Homeland Security to see if this was an act of terrorism. This, of course, caused me to start thinking, what did they mean? Wouldn't the local law enforcement on scene be a better source than a government bureaucrat thousands of miles away?
Everday we arewarned of impending doom from a department that wants to intrude even more on our privacy. This isn't the first time we've been warned of imminent terror attacks, it seems almost evry summer a warning is issued, which comes to pass with no attacks, but people forget because they're too distracted gearing up for the next season of American Idol. Is the reason the media needs official confirmation because they know that in order for the official terrorist attack to occur, it has to be allowed (or be another government black op) like 9/11.
Make no mistake, the next attack won't benefit terrorists, but will benefit the corpocracy, defense contractors, neocons, and Israel-firsters like John Hagee. The people of the Middle East, if they wish to attack the US, need only to wander into Iraq (like most of the anti-Americans over there are doing anyway) to strike at us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
My Hubby spends 5 days out of 7 on Pittsburgh's MANY bridges and then several of Ohio's interstate bridges on his way back into Ohio. MSNBC reported that PA and OH are 2 of the states that have bridges that possess 10% damage on them and risk collapse.
The MN bridge that did collapse was listed at only have 4% damage.
Hubby is pissing his pants now and whiteknuckling the steering wheeel.
Al Qaida stated that their objectives were to:
1.) Get rid of secular leaders in the Middle East. Saddam was a secular Sunni Muslim. Al Qaida thanks you for getting rid of him, Bush.
2.) Waging either a physical war with the United States and/or a financial war with the United States that will result in the physical/financial bleeding of the US. Al Qaida thanks you for doing both, Bush.
3.) Convincing all moderate Muslims and secular Muslims that the West and in particular, the USA, wants to wage a 2nd Crusade against them. Al Qaida thanks you again for that, too Bush.
Very true.
I think bridge builders may be working with the terrorists.
Tina, I agree: Al Qaeda must simply LOVE Bush. Maybe they will ramp up their efforts to attack the U.S. again before the 2008 elections, so that Bush will declare a permanent state of martial law. Then he will continue to foolishly work for their goals for years.
Nah! Nobody needs that...
How much will it take before people realize what a huge problem we face with all the crumbling and substandard bridges, dams, levees... And once it is realized, will people respond with an "Oh well" and a shrug of their shoulders, or will they get mad enough to make life uncomfortable for their elected leaders?
They were hoping it would be. Oh darn! It was failed conservative policies which crumbled the bridge.
When somebody is constantly trying to terrify people with the threat of violence really is terrorism, and it's not Al Qaeda that's doing that to us right now.
And you know what? If there is another attack while Bush is at his holiday villa, there is no intelligent reason to think it was just "lucky".
Lew, I don't know if you've been following the censorship story revolving Mike Bishop or not, but I thought you would be interested. Click here to read about it and then follow the link to sign the petition speaking out against censorship in Michigan.
it's to keep us in fear - so we won't crawl outta our shells long enough to see what's the real deal...sigh
Lew, here's the latest update. Bishop backed down and reinstated access to Blogging For Michigan.
Chalk one up for democracy.
I have a sick feeling that BushCo is planning something awful to ratchet up our fear again.
Just checking on you...miss you!
Don't miss "See No Evil" at http://www.dissidentvoice.org
Post a Comment