Bomb in New York City

by Weary Fri Mar 07, 2008 09:02

I presume that the bomber or bombers want to scare people away from US military recruitment offices - I also presume the persons or persons who are responsible for this bombings are opposed to the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or the War on Terror or the policies of the Bush administration generally.

Americans are being bombared with media telling them that they are under a sword of Damocles - they are told that Al-Qaeda or other Islamic terrorists are plotting to commit more 9/11's on American soil and that freedom is under threat and that their way of life is under attack.

Bombing a recruitment office would demonstrate the yes indeed terrorists are prepared to attack American soil.

It is likely that traditionally patriotic Americans would look upon this attack as rock hard evidence which justifies their belief structure.
I'm sure that the publicity surrounding this attack would be seized upon by the pro-war press, the Republicans and the military and individuals who were wavering on the issues of the wisdom of American foreign policy might be convinced that they should support the war on terror and the war in Iraq and would defiantly enlist to spite the bombers.

If the bombers thought they were going to discourage Americans and undermine the war on terror, they should realise they are helping the cause of the military industrial complex and the pro-war movement not hampering them.

by Coilín Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:20

... then they should join the police force.

There's no point fighting Al-Qaeda in Baghdad if the enemy is in New York.

by Free Thinker Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:37

Don't people realise that the point of the bomb was probably supposed to have the effect of hardening opinion towards the ''terrorists''. Strange just as the media was reporting on the disgusting treatment and killing of a small puppy at the hands of U.S Marines in Iraq something which is nothing new if go onto youtube you can see for yourselves and their treatment of people is worse ,but the media seemed particularly interested in this event and suddenly a little explosion happens in New York what a distraction.
People need to become aware of this false flag terror before another 9/11 happens or worse as well as to stop the slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan and retrieve the rights of people all over the world removed under the guise of ''Fighting Terrorism''

by Weary Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:14

Absolute paranoid gibberish.

By your logic you could claim that the abuse of the puppy by US soldiers was deliberately orchestrated by the pro-war string pullers so that that anti-war liberal media would seize upon thereby disgusting pro-war Americans into knee-jerk support for the troops.

Not everything is controlled by the US government.

There is no evidence about who this person was - it could be a member of Al-Qaeda, an anti-war fanatic or just a lone kook.

Or it ACTUALLY could have been the CIA.

by Free Thinker Fri Mar 07, 2008 12:42

No I said the 'bomb' at the New York recruitment office could be a ploy by criminal elements within the U.S Government {Neo-Cons} to distract from the exposure of the sadistic Marines in Iraq which in the eyes of animal loving Americans would further undermine the support for the war and bring int question the effect on the psychology of American troops in Iraq.
Having studied and researched Al-Qaeda for a few years now I find it highly unlikely that an organized group with disciplined members doesnt exists this is nothing new were told it's an ideology but every time the shadow group 'Al-Qaeda' or 'The Database' in English strikes it's always very convenient for the Government because it justifies the agenda they want to introduce.

by Coilín Fri Mar 07, 2008 13:24

Since we are formulating various different hypotheses:

It shouldn't surprise us to discover that many veterans have returned with a sense that their own government has betrayed them, repaid their patriotism and their courage by sending them to kill or be killed in an unwinnable war that has caused irreparable damage to them and their country.

Out of this resentment, maybe it was a veteran who attacked the recruitment office. Or somebody who had lost a loved one in one of these futile, destructive wars? Would it not fit that somebody who hates war may have attacked the office in such a way and at such a time that nobody got injured?

Reading about Joseph Stiglitz's book about the cost of the war in Iraq - The Three Trillion Dollar War - I see that, in addition to the four thousand killed and 58,000 troops who have been wounded or otherwise become seriously ill, one hundred thousand Iraq veterans have returned with serious mental illness.

So it seems plausible that a veteran suffering from severe combat-related mental illness may have attacked the recruitment office.

I must say, I myself do not think it is constructive to use explosives as a political tool, but somebody who has been trained as a member of the armed forces might well think this was a rational approach. It is certainly consistent with military thinking.

Best,
Coilín.

by Weary Fri Mar 07, 2008 13:33

I have no doubt it does serve the interests of the defence industry that the American people are fed a diet of paranoia.

Michael Moore went around Flint, Michigan asking a few rural hicks whether they felt under threat from terrorists- of course they did they said.

But 9/11 did occur, there is a high organized network of Islamic groups sharing information and techniques and funds and personnel who are plotting spectacular terrorists attacks either in the US or Western Europe or the Middle East.

There are of course disaffected losers who do their own thing - a Muslim student was arrested as few years ago on a university campus in the US after mowing down and injuring several pedestrians because he objected to US foreign policy, John Allen Muhammed, the belt-way sniper killed innocent victims around Washington DC because he wanted to lock down the US capitol and many others.

The chances of being killed by terrorists is extremely remote, but the chances that they can destablise a nation psychologically is quite high.

by Sceptic Fri Mar 07, 2008 14:56

Al Qaeda translates as means "the base" not "the database" in English.

Neo-conservatism is a school of thought among foeign policy academics, journalists and other specialists. It is not a criminal conspiracy as you claim. It is an outgrowth of left/liberal thinking which led along a path towards conservatism and away from liberalism. It is described as neo-conservative to distinguish it from more traditional conservatism.

One of the defining characteristics of neo-conservatism is that it takes into account the ethical nature of regimes supporting the US and tends to reject those which are despotic, undemocratic or fear based. The contrasting realist school which included Nixon and Kissinger had a large measure of indifference as to the internal characteristics of such regimes. A number of figures closely associated with the intervention in Iraq are not neo-conservatives - eg. GW Bush himself, Donald Rumsfelt and Colin Powell.

by Free Thinker Fri Mar 07, 2008 17:24

The Term 'Al-Qaeda' is a shortened term for database this name was given to the Arab Legion their creators at Langley Virginia CIA HQ. They had a list of the Mujaheddin they trained on a database so they called them 'Al-Qaeda'.

The Neo-Conservatism movement is criminal just look at Iraq if you disagree they were the driving force. Look at their Project for a new American Century {PNAC} which called for a ''New Pearl Harbour'' to galvanize the American people.

The fact is False Flag Terror does excist and has been used by these people. This non-event in New York may be their doing I don't know but I do know it's very possible.

You can copy and paste as many articles describing Neo-Conservatism from Wikipedia as you want that does not change the facts.

by Plato Fri Mar 07, 2008 17:46

Al-Qaida, was originally a CIA computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. When the spin doctors where trawling their files to create soundbytes for Bush and his cohorts to create an enemy with origins in the Mid-east, they came across the database, Hey Presto, Al-qaida was born, a so called global network of "terrorists" planning to take over the "free" world. It is incredible that anyone still believes this fairytale.

by How'd YaLikeThemOnions Fri Mar 07, 2008 21:34

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/al_qaeda_also_fed...round

and a lovely satire on gun lobby!
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_new_i...i_law

while you're there check out:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_how_c...e_the

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/diebold_accidenta...leaks

and the frighteningly close to the truth:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/poll_bullshit_is_...rtant

by Weary Sat Mar 08, 2008 09:41

The internet is the ideal meeting point for kooks and crazies.
In the past the oddball religious or political extremist lunatics ranted alone without an audience.
Now modern communications allow these fruitcakes to communicate with each other.
Naturally most of them are dreamers and fantasists who have no intention of bringing their bizarre beliefs into practice.
But the internet is the ultimate filter - the most extreme of the extreme eventually seek eachother out.
With a little brains e-mail communications can be made almost impossible to track or decypher - the cheapest encryption software makes it impossible for even the most advanced supercomputer to crack the encrypted e-mails.
No need for dead letter drops or incriminating meetings observed by men win trenchcoats hiding in alcoves - the internet is the perfect place to hide - an internet users can change their email account at will and hide their indentity.
Like never before a motivated angry individual can access a support structure that will give him information on the planning and execution of terrorist acts using freely available information on bomb making and sagotage techniques.
A religious extremist can broadcast a his creed over the internet to literally limitless users.
Millions of Muslims are sympathetic to extremist beliefs - it only takes a tiny miniscule minority to form an effective terrorist organisation - and that is what has happened - Al-Qaeda is a loose umbrella of like minded organisations and individuals.
They thrive in total secrecy and security that the internet allows.
The London bombings cost only a few thousand sterling to execute.
The military operations in Afghanistan cost billions.
An Iraqi insurgent only needs a ubiquitous 155mm artillery shell, a battery and a pair of wires and a tripswtich.
The 19 hijackers on 9/11 only needed courage, motivation, a few thousand bucks and carpet knives and a little brainpower.
The bureaucracy of governments and militaries are like the major record companies who believed they had a monopoly.
Like the teenager in his bedroom who can fire off copy of a CD onto the net - the common man if he wants to can launch a shoe string one man war if he wants.
The Soho bombers, a right wing nut who planted bombs in gaybars in London downloaded bombing making info off the net and using simple easily obtainable materials created his weapons and held an entire city hostage.

by Sceptic Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:40

“the Neo-Conservatism movement is criminal just look at Iraq”
the intervention in Iraq by the US, UK, Spain, Italy, with the assistance of Qatar and Kuwait was controversial. It was not criminal. Even if one takes the view that lacked full UN legitimacy that does not make it “criminal”.

The PNAC was not an exclusively neo-conservative. It’s a very big and an absurd leap to conclude that 9/11 was a false flag operation because the PNAC acknowledged the historically reality that 7 Dec had a galvanizing effect on US society. That is a simplistic conclusion.

by Free Thinker Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:04

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-Qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

'In the BBC’s killer documentary called The Power of Nightmares, top CIA officials openly admit, Al-Qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundred’s of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Governments story of Al-qaeda a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after.'

The Neo-Cons pulling Bush's strings people such as Dick Cheney ,George Schultz ,Donald Rumsfeld {ret} and Paul Wolfowitz {ret} were the driving force behind America's current foreign policy

by Seán Ryan Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:10

I don't think this 'bomb' was set by someone who had any serious connections. The fact that the media (especially in the US) are hyping this for all it's worth only shows that fear sells. The vast amount of speculation that comes with most of these broadcasts only goes to show firstly how pathetic this 'terrorist attack' was and secondly, how desperate the media and the authorities are for a real attack, so that they may justify their positions and atrocities to themselves.

This 'terrorist attack' in all seriousness barely warranted making the news. I've included some footage of the device going off. I've seen bottles of lemonade go off with more power. Where's the field of debris, the shrapnel and other things associated with an explosion, etc. Look at the lights that are at ground zero; they didn't even flicker, never mind cease function. Yet everyone's in a lather and the headless chicken brigade are leading the dance.

And for the record: both the invasions, of Iraq and Afghanistan, were both uprovoked attacks and agressive in nature. I seem to remember this being described as the supreme crime after World War II. Had these atrocities been carried out by the likes of China for example, I reckon there'd be very little spin or disagreement regarding the nature and description of these attacks.

by Plato Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:24

"Al-Qaeda is a loose umbrella of like minded organisations and individuals"

That may be, but the line that Al-qaida is a single organistaion with one command structure and under some form of central control, the line that was pedalled from day one to spread fear and terror, is a myth, the figment of the imagination of some CIA backroom bright boy.

by tomeile Sat Mar 08, 2008 13:25

That army recruitment site is located at the heart of New York's Time Square and has been the focus of many anti-war protests over the past few years. It is very closely monitored by the police and the Department of Homeland Security , as are all army recruitment centres , but its prominence would make it even more well protected . To have any bomb go off there at all would be considered a serious breach of security .

by Sceptic Sat Mar 08, 2008 14:54

“Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-Qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication”

I’m not sure the BBC programme which was in any case very inimical to the US made this implausible claim. The intervention in Afghanistan was not unprovoked. That was why it was approved by both the UN and NATO. These people are not fools and would not be mislead by some conspiracy. Nor would the CIA or the neocons do deliberate harm to their own cities and citizens en mass. The neoconservatives are a school of thought – they are not an amoral conspiratorial cabal. If you have spent some years studying all of this the results are disappointing as you have come up with the bog standard internet conspiracy buff theory which is hardly worth rebutting.

by Me Sat Mar 08, 2008 18:04

Sceptic said: [the neo-cons] are not an amoral conspiratorial cabal.

Actually it is you that might need to do a little more homework. Leo Strauss, the Neo-con guru (many of the present day Neo-cons studied under him at the Uni of Chicago) believed lying was permissable in order to help you obtain you goals. That would indicate a propensity towards immorality, imho.

Quote:

Strauss asks his readers to consider whether it is true that noble lies have no role at all to play in uniting and guiding the polis.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss#Noble_lies_and...ruths

See:
The Power of Nightmares (3 part video) here:http://www.takeoverworld.info/vid.html#sot

And

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5010.htm

before you make any more ill-informed and untrue statements regarding the neo-cons

by Sceptic Sun Mar 09, 2008 15:15

The suggestion that 9/11 was a plot engineered by the neons/CIA/Illuminati etc which would have involved a dramatis personae of thousands of conspirators to kill thousands of their own citizens in the homeland is absurd even if the BBC somehow implied it which it is not clear to me that it did. This is just innuendo about the late Strauss discussing ethical issues. It does not follow that the US Government deceived the people at large over a 9/11 grand conspiracy or anything else. It is a complete non-sequitor and a ludicrously thin reed on which the hang the grand conspiracy argument.

by redjade Sun Mar 09, 2008 16:49

''A holiday card featuring a photo showing Karnes outside the Times Square recruiting station was included with an anti-war manifesto he sent to 300 Democrats, a police source said. The "Happy New Year, We Did It" message on the card referred not to the bombing but to Democrats winning a majority in the House in the 2006 elections, police said.''

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/03/07/2008-03-....html

by Me Tue Mar 11, 2008 16:49

Sceptic:

The suggestion that 9/11 was a plot engineered by the neons/CIA/Illuminati etc which would have involved a dramatis personae of thousands of conspirators to kill thousands of their own citizens in the homeland is absurd even if the BBC somehow implied it which it is not clear to me that it did.

I'm sure there are many things 'not clear to you'. I pointed out that your statement that the neocons are not immoral enough to do such a thing would apper to have no basis in reality given their adherance to the 'philosophy' expoused by their guru Leo Strauss.

The dramatis personae of which you speak would not have been necessarily as large as you maintain. Rumsfeld transferred control over emergency FAA procedures out of the hands of the FAA and into his own hands, or more correctly, into hands over which he had direct control.

See: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=us...force, scroll down to the section beginning High Level Air Force Discussions Call for Dismantling NORAD's Alert Sites

The future of ‘continental air sovereignty’ over America is in doubt. Discussions at the Air Force’s highest levels call for the dismantling of NORAD’s seven ‘alert’ sites around the US and its command and control structure. [Filson, 2004, pp. 149] Earlier in the summer of 2001, ‘a reduction in air defenses had been gaining currency in recent months among task forces assigned by [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld to put together ....

He did this gradually in the six month period before Sept. 11. Why he might want to alter safety procedures that had been in operation for years and had operated with 100% sucess rate throughout that time is a very interesting question. It certainly wasn't in the name of efficiency, though he would no doubt claim that that was his intention. In effect what he did was insert a completely unnecessary layer of bureaucracy into a syatem that had been streamlined to provide max effeciency over the years. This is why when the FAA tried to initiate the safety procedure there was quite literally no one to answer the phone at the Pentagon. It just rang and rang.

The section I quoted above mentions 'Dismantling NORAD's Alert Sites'- it is this attempt, to affect the previous perfection of the 'Alert Site' system, that point to Rumsfelds deviousness in this matter. Throughout the summer of 2001 there were numerous Presidential briefings and much NSA discussion regarding the possibility of an attack using hijacked Aircraft. There had also been briefing papers drawn up to help decide how best to defend against just such a scenario, and I'm absoluelty 100% certain none of the suggested options in cluded dismantling the defence system.

Rumsfeld could not possibly NOT have known about this. For him to start 'Dismantling NORAD's Alert Sites' indicates at the very least a total willfull disregard of minimum safety standards in relation to protecting the U.S. from just such an attack, and in my opinion and the opinion of a great many others, Rumsfelds actions signify a deliberate attempt to cripple the U.S. defence mechanisms prior to the forewarned launching of the attack.

People that live in the 'real' world, (i.e: not the one we see on the nightly news) are fully aware there has never been any evidence to indicate that Rumsfeld should be allocated such a large degree of leeway in any attempt to discern why he might want to destroy the US's ability to defend itself from a 'terrorist' attack.

At an absolute minimum Rumsfeld's actions would indicate a callous disregard for his statutory duty as Sec. of Defense to actually ensure that the US was defended against such actions. Indeed the evidence indicate he did the exact opposite of what would have been his required duty in light of the information the US gov't was in reciept of which indicated that such an attack was being prepared.