School of Thought & Geo-Political Think Tank of Islamic World
|
|
America Need New 9/11 ? |
|
School of Thought & Geo-Political Think Tank of Islamic World
|
|
America Need New 9/11 ? |
|
|
|
[ Written by Hammad Yousuf, Chairman, MetaExistence Organization, a non-profit Organization that helps to improve policy and decision-making in Pakistan and other Islamic countries through Research and Analysis. ]
The
presumption of a Second 9/11 has become an integral part of US military
doctrine. America is under attack. The US military must respond
preemptively. Operation
Northwoods The
concept of massive casualty producing event is part of military
planning. In 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had envisaged a secret plan
entitled Operation Northwoods, to deliberately trigger civilian
casualties among the Cuban community in Miami (i.e. staging the
assassination of Cubans living in the US) to justify an
invasion of Cuba: Former
CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks, in an magazine interview in
December 2003, had outlined a scenario of what he described as a massive
casualty producing event on American soil a Second 9/11. Implied in
General Franks statement was the notion and belief that civilian deaths
were necessary to raise awareness and muster public support for the
global war on terrorism. terrorist,
massive, casualty-producing event will occur somewhere in the Western
world it may be in the United States of America - that causes our
population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize
our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass,
casualty-producing event. (General Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar
Aficionado, December 2003) Franks
was obliquely alluding to a Second 9/11 terrorist attack, which
could be used to galvanize US public opinion in support of martial law. Various
scenarios of a Second 9/11 attack on the United States were envisaged.
According to the Pentagon a second attack on America, would serve an
important policy objective. The
three Pentagon documents consisted of an overall campaign plan
plus two subordinate plans. The second subordinate
plan explicitly focused on the possibility of a Second 9/11
and how a second major attack on American soil might provide an
opportunity to extend the US led war in the Middle East into new
frontiers: Who are the Known Targets ? America
is power. America has a world’s most powerful army. America has a
powerful spy infrastructure across the world. There is no country in the
world that wants to like a fight with US. There is no group in the world
that have a ability to attack on United Stated, Not in the Past nor in
the present. Without enemy, you cannot fight a war and United States is well versed about how to fabricate an enemy.
Now
America needs another 9/11 due to the following reasons. 1.
Failure of objectives in Iraq war. 2.
Failure of Objectives in Afghanistan. 3. Sexual Abuses on US Army. 4. Disarm the Pakistan's nuclear assets before the start of Middle East Military Agenda or Attack on Iran. These
are the four key points that is why America needs new 9/11. In 2007, US Military apparatus has taken a U-Turn towards Pakistan instead of Iran. It is an important change of US Military Strategy in this region. There are a number of constant statements made by US Foreign office, State department and even the director of CIA that the next attempt on United States will originate form Pakistan. In July 2008, US started a constant air strikes inside the tribal areas of Pakistan that are still going on.
Is
Al-Qaeda really a threat
for America:
Psychological Preparation of American People US Government is continuously involved in the Psychological Preparation of American people that "We are under threat". Let us see some statements of US officials in the Psychological Preparation. The near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks... And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list. (Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, December 2003) Credible
reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to
carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to
disrupt our democratic process...
(Former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, 8 July 2004) The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured yet it is still lethal and planning to hit us again. (Vice President Dick Cheney, 7 January 2006) Our main enemy is al Qaeda and its affiliates. Their allies choose their victims indiscriminately. They murder the innocent to advance a focused and clear ideology. They seek to establish a radical Islamic caliphate, so they can impose a brutal new order on unwilling people, much as Nazis and communists sought to do in the last century. This enemy will accept no compromise with the civilized world.... (President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007) We now have capabilities in science and technology that raise the very realistic possibility that a small group of terrorists could kill not only thousands of people, as they did on September 11th, but hundreds of thousands of people. And that has changed the dimension of the threat we face. (Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security Secretary, Yale University, April 7, 2008. We
are fighting a war on terror because the enemy attacked us first, and
hit us hard. ... Al Qaeda's leadership has said they have
the right to kill four million Americans, For nearly six years
now, the United States has been able to defeat their attempts to attack
us here at home. Nobody can guarantee that we wont be hit again.
... (Vice
President Dick Cheney, United
States Military Academy Commencement, West Point, New York,
May 26, 2008) [Question:
Who's the enemy?] Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks
that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology,
who have perverted the faith of Islam, and so we have to go after them. (Barack
Obama in response to Bill O Reilly, Fox News, September 5, 2008) We
have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are
not defeated, and they will strike us again if they can.
(John McCain, Acceptance Speech, September 5, 2008) All these authoritative statements point in chorus in the same direction: The enemy will strike again! Mainstream
Media Report: "The Need" for a Second 9/11 While
the Washington Post leaked the substance of the Pentagon's classified
documents pertaining to the opportunity of a Second 9/11, the issue has
not been the object of mainstream commentary or analysis. It
is worth noting, however, that in an August 2007 Fox News interview, A
Second 9/11 was heralded as a means to create awareness and unite
Americans against the enemy. Broadcast
on Fox News, Columnist Stu Bykofsky claimed that America needs a new
9/11 to unite the American people, because they have
"forgotten" who the enemy is. He also claimed that there will
be another 9/11, and Fox New Anchorman John Gibson concurred. Civilian
casualties would contribute to uniting the country and creating
awareness: it
iss going to take a lot of dead people to wake America up
said John Gibson. While
Stu Bykofskys controversial article in the Philadelphia Daily News
(August 9, 2007) was, at the time, considered as outlandish, what
Bykovsky was actually saying was not very different from the Pentagon's
ploy (modeled on Operation Northwoods) concerning the role of massive
casualty producing events in triggering a useful wave of
indignation, thereby galvanizing unbending public support for a
military/ national security agenda. Transcript
Fox News Network THE
BIG STORY WITH JOHN GIBSON To
view the TV interview click here August
7, 2007, 5PM, EST Columnist
Comes Under Fire for Saying "We Need Another 9/11 Attack" Anchorman:
John Gibson Interview
with Columnist Stu Bykofsky John
Gibson:
In big security, to save America we need another 9/11. That’s what one
columnist is advocating as a way to unite America. Nearly 6 years after
the heinous terror attacks he says we have forgotten our enemy. He says
the Iraq war has divided the US, the Republicans and Democrats are on
the attack over the war, we pulled together after 9/11 but he
justifies his controversial statement by saying the united front just
didn’t last. And now, bloggers are outraged. Some say the journalist
should be fired from his job for suggesting we, quote, “need”
another attack. So is this just a means to shock or offend or does this
columnist actually have a valid point? Well, he’s here now live to
explain: Philadelphia Daily news columnist Stu Bykofsky. So Stu, let
me... let’s just say it again. What do you say America needs at
this point? Stu
Bykofsky:
Well, my thesis here is that we are terribly divided, there is disunity
in this country, and as a divided country we are weak. When I look back
over what has pulled the country together over the past few years, 9/11
united the country and it remained united and we were all on the same
team for at least a year or two. John
Gibson:
Stu, but do you mean to say that we are going to be attacked
again, we will be united again, there’s a sort of inevitability
to that or that in order to achieve this unity we actually need
to suffer? Stu
Bykofsky: Uh, John, I did not actually call for an attack
on the United States. Uh, I can see where people read it that way but I
did not actually say it. However, another attack on the United States
is inevitable. I believe that, do not you? John
Gibson:
Yes, I do, actually, and I think that it’s going to take a lot of dead
people to wake America up. I think the deal, Steve, Stu, Iam sorry... Stu
Bykofsky:
Its okay. John
Gibson:
Is the word need. If you say, well, its gonna happen and it, you
know, Americans are gonna die because we’ve let down our guard one
thing but when you say we need an attack it especially has
riled relatives of the dead. Stu
Bykofsky:
John, uh, I can understand them being upset. Are you reading from the
headline or from the text of my column which I don’t have in front of
me? John
Gibson:
Well, that is a good point. Did you use the word need in the text
or was it only the headline? Stu
Bykofsky:
It is the headline. John
Gibson:
So you do not actually, you do not endorse the word need? Stu
Bykofsky:
Uh, no, I do not. There was a slight difference. Other people write
headlines and its not exactly what I was trying to say. John
Gibson:
Alright, so... Stu
Bykofsky:
But, but if you look at the context... John
Gibson:
But, but what you are trying to say is, is that, that somehow we have
been, we’ve let down our guard, were fighting each other instead of
the terrorists and that if we don’t get it together people are
going to die. Stu
Bykofsky:
Thats absolutely correct. We are fighting like a group of rabid dogs
and our attention should be turned elsewhere. And I also say that the
primary reason for that in my opinion is the, uh, the war in Iraq which
has been conducted so horribly by the administration. John
Gibson:
Stu Stu
Bykofsky:
Not by our troops. John
Gibson:
Yeah, okay, I do not want to get you in further trouble. Stu, uh, what
has been the reaction? Did the newspaper switchboard light up? Stu
Bykofsky:
Uh, no, we donot have a switchboard, John. Uh, yesterday when it
appeared, the reaction was moderate because I think people in
Philadelphia who have been reading me for a long time maybe know what to
expect. Then it got posted somewhere outside of Philadelphia and this
morning when I came in uh, there were well over a thousand e-mails and
more kept coming in during the day. And a lot of calls... John
Gibson:
A bunch want you fired, right? Stu
Bykofsky:
Pardon? John
Gibson:
A bunch of those e-mails want you fired, right? Stu
Bykofsky:
Uh, a number of people told me that they were calling my editor and they
were going to suggest that he fire me, yes. I don’t think
that’s going to happen. John
Gibson:
You standing by the column? Stu
Bykofsky:
Oh, absolutely. What is Next: The Prediction According to the analysis of Bush administration's statements and Obama, McCain statements it is widely clear that the new 9/11 is a need of American policy. Now the question is: what will the type of attack? In the current situation, Pakistan is under attack by US Spy crafts and the propaganda of US media apparatus against the nuclear assets of Pakistan. The picture is very clear. The Next Attack on United States will nuclear attack with a large number of causalities. Blame will go to Pakistan's nuclear assets.
America Need New 9/11 [ Written by Hammad Yousuf, Chairman, MetaExistence Organization, a non-profit Organization that helps to improve policy and decision-making in Pakistan and other Islamic countries through Research and Analysis. ]
|
Powered by:
contact@metaexistence.org affiliation@metaexistence.org
Information Management Department
services@metaexistence.org
|
Copyrights,
2008 MetaExistence School of
Thought |
