I have been saying that an attack on US soil would undermine all of the changes made thus far by the current admin. I stand by that.
They have restricted many things, they have violated privacy, they have re-written entire areas of the constitution and changed the wording in
thousands of policies, laws and civil liberties. 9/11 allowed them to infringe upon the rights of the people on the basis of keeping them "safe".
Tell me why they would undermine all of that? how can they claim that we are so much safer because of the changes made since 9/11 and then allow/miss
another "terrorist" attack???
There will be another attack but not on North American soil. The US is trying to avoid an egg on face scenario. They cannot afford to appear
weak/unprepared on home turf. It doesn't fit the plan.
Personally I am fearful for the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US and NATO forces will be gathered enmass watching the events live. Thousands of
uniforms in centralized locations, security will be low as the hype warns of a homeland attack...they have built in terrorists, poor to negligent
security, and literally enough munitions (stored and those "contributed" to the "enemies" via sale and trade) to destroy half of the middle
east...
Even throughout the whole financial crisis' the US has maintained the highest security levels and continued to rewrite and amend as Bush prepares to
hand over. They would be digging their own graves to allow any "terrorist attack" on home soil. The people wouldn't unite the way they did with
9/11.
Ya'll watch the ground at home...I'll be waiting for news out of Afghanistan and Iraq.
[edit on 1/14/2009 by justgeneric]
Thought I'd add a link to demonstrate the NEED and demand for troops - as yet they have no real justification to increase troops exponentially as
they want to, Iraq and Afghanistan are central to gaining access to Iran and they will NEED MASSIVE troops to accomplish that...a "terrorist strike"
gives justification does it not?
Afghanistan - troops
There are many other news items coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan hinting at and even blatantly stating that there is a great need for more
troops...there simply isn't enough "motivation" for NATO forces to agree to increase the numbers.
When the time comes there will need to be in excess of 500K US and NATO forces at the ready to tackle Iran and force a Regime change (this is what
they desire - they being the US and NATO and even the UN). Currently the situation does not warrant the massive influx of troops. they need that to
change quickly.
[edit on 1/14/2009 by justgeneric]