Latest Terror Threat - More Government Foreknowledge

[Rory Winter]

Latest Terror Threat - More Government Foreknowledge
By Joel Skousen
World Affairs Brief
8-12-6
http://rense.com/general73/latest.htm

This week's cross-Atlantic terror alert has all the markings of an orchestrated incident to maintain public support for the ongoing US-British war on terror. White House spokesman Tony Snow admitted that President Bush had not been awakened by the dramatic news of Britain's air traffic shutdown because "Bush had been getting regular briefings on the developments for days." If they knew so far in advance, why the dramatic shut-down of trans-Atlantic air traffic inconveniencing thousands, as if they intervened just in time?

The British press admitted that it was a Scotland Yard "covert operation" that disrupted the alleged plot. Another newspaper admitted that it was a "pre-planned, intelligence-led operation by the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch and security services." What we always find out later is that the government anti-terrorism forces had covert agents within these groups, monitoring their activities at best, and provoking and instructing them at worst. If the recent Canadian sting operation is any example, we will find that government agent-provocateurs were busy enticing angry Muslims to join the group and giving them training on building lethal devices. That is hardly independent, homegrown terrorism. It's induced, controlled terror for political purposes.

Tony Snow also admitted that President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair held a lengthy teleconference on the matter Sunday and spoke again Wednesday by phone. This was so pre-planned that Blair did not even break off his vacation to attend to the matter.

Meanwhile, the rest of the air traveling public will be subject to a new round of delays and prohibitions. Because this plot supposedly involved carrying explosive liquids aboard and then mixing them into a bomb while in flight, Britain has gone so far as to ban all carry-on luggage. In the US, all containers containing liquids will be banned, which in typical draconian fashion, will include all make-up, shampoo, bottled juice, etc. - just when we thought the TSA was getting rational and starting to allow nail clippers on board again. No such luck.

Today, both governments are releasing more "details." Keep in mind, information about terrorism is always a tightly controlled government secret. We never have any independent information to confirm what government tells us and much of the information given the public about terrorism has been self-serving and self-justifying.

In this case, we find the same relationship between the Pakistani ISI, the CIA and British Intelligence that produced the supposed terror links to al Qaeda in 9/11. The so called master-mind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, "used to" work for the ISI, and supposedly is still in custody there since 2003, being interrogated by the CIA, has never been brought to trial. Strange. Now the Pakistanis claimed they found two individuals that were key plotters that led to the others in Britain. How can we trust what these incestuous spy organizations do together after their shady dealings and prior contact with the 9/11 terrorists?

The supposed explosive device this time was a Peroxide-based explosive, which is mildly explosive and can be prepared from acetone, hydrogen Peroxide, and an acid catalyst. This type is claimed by governments to be "widely in use by terrorist groups," though we have no known terrorist events where it has been used, except by one Palestinian terrorist, and then as a detonator only-not as the main charge. This explosive material is usually known by its abbreviation TATP (Tri Acetone Tri Peroxide).

Both Peroxide and Acetone are clear liquids, but acetone (laquer thinner) is easily identifiable by smell and its high rate of evaporation. Experts indicate it is very unstable and highly unlikely to be a stand-alone explosive to take down an airliner. The quantities would have to be large enough to be easily noticed. Thus, even though this is a theoretical threat, banning all cosmetics and lotions is stupid and banning all liquids is unecessary. Only clear liquids need checking. There is cheap test equipment for TATP, and simple ways for TSA employees to quickly check for acetone and peroxide.

Naturally, the President's handlers put him to work fortifying the phony War on Terror. According to the AP, President Bush said Thursday that "a foiled plot to blow up multiple flights between Britain and the United States shows 'this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.'" Of course, Bush also wants it both ways. He claimed, "This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11 ... We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people but obviously we're not completely safe ... It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America."

Homeland Security Chief Chertoff chimed in, "We believe that these arrests (in London) have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted." Thus, naturally, all these new security measures and prohibitions will be implemented upon everyone, even though the alleged group in London were all identifiable as Muslims. "We are prohibiting any liquids, including beverages, hair gels, and lotions from being carried on the airplane," a DHS statement said, adding that passengers will have to go back to showing up 2 hours early for flights.

I suppose one thing we can be grateful for is that dark side government agents didn't create another actual terror event to pursue this fear-of-terror agenda. Another in a long line of phony claims to "disrupt terrorism" is far preferable to allowing provoked young Muslims to actually carrying it out-with a lot of help from insiders. But I suspect the timing of this "save" was not aimed so much as bolstering the war on terror as it was aimed at countering the growing public skepticism and anger over US and Israeli warmongering in the Middle East.

According to the latest CNN poll, fully 60 percent of Americans disapprove of the war in Iraqi. And, although the US is a traditional supporter of Israel's eternal war with the Arabs, support for Israel has dropped significantly as it is obvious Israel is engaged in purposeful bombing of civilian areas and infrastructure in Lebanon. That's probably why the President's speech writers had him use "Islamists" as the threat instead of just al Qaeda.

Political Repercussions: This week, Connecticut Democrats turned against Senator Joseph Lieberman, handing a primary victory to anti-war Democrat Ned Lamont. Most other Democrats, being secret globalists like Bush, supported the president on the war. But Lieberman continued to support the president when most other Democrats began mildly criticizing the conduct of the war. One commentator called Lieberman's defeat the "day of reckoning for US warmongering." I wish it were, but the globalists and Neo-cons aren't licked yet.

Hard core Democrats are divided now because they suspect, rightfully, that the majority of their representatives are just as much a part of the Washington establishment as the "moderate" (meaning liberal) Republicans. The margin of victory for Lamont was only 4%, but the establishment took note and has begun a campaign to stop the anti-war trend. First, Lieberman stunned Democrats by refusing to abide by the results. Instead of retiring gracefully, he immediately launched an Independent campaign. Establishment NY Mayor Bloomberg signaled his support. If other establishment sources come on board, you'll know this is not simply a Lieberman ego trip.

Lieberman didn't miss the opportunity to ride this latest terror threat to his advantage. As the New York Times reported yesterday, "Senator Joseph I. Lieberman seized on the terror arrests in Britain today to attack his Democratic rival, Ned Lamont, saying that Mr. Lamont's goals for ending the war in Iraq would constitute a 'victory' for the extremists who are accused of plotting to blow up airliners traveling between Britain and the United States ... If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,' Lieberman told a campaign crowd."

Secondly, the establishment has more war and terror inducements on their agenda to undermine people's resolve to get out of Iraq. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever see peace again in our lifetime.

Copyright 2006 Joel Skousen. Partial quotations with attribution permitted. Cite source as Joel Skousen's World Affairs Brief (http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com)

SEE ALSO
http://www.gv2000.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=104&page=2