Terrorist attack on US again???, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 11:13 AM by Helig
Hrm, this will probably only feed the fires but have a look for yourselves...

www.fema.gov...

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The President today declared an emergency exists in the District of Columbia and ordered federal aid to supplement the District's response efforts in support of the 56th Presidential Inauguration. The declaration makes available funding and support for the purposes of ensuring the District of Columbia and the federal government are optimally prepared and postured to respond to the 56th Presidential Inauguration, beginning on January 17 through January 21.

The President's action authorizes the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to provide appropriate assistance for certain emergency protective measures, authorized under Title V of the Stafford Act. FEMA will also be authorized and prepared to coordinate any necessary response efforts, should an emergency arise. Specifically, assistance is available to the District for emergency protective measures that are undertaken to save lives and protect public health and safety. Direct Federal assistance, at 100 percent federal funding will be provided during the period of January 17-21, 2009, and reimbursement of emergency protective measures (Category B), under the Public Assistance program, at 100 percent federal funding for work performed on January 20, 2009. FEMA will reimburse for eligible emergency protective measures performed on January 20, 2009, only if the District has expended on the Presidential Inauguration during the period of January 17-21, 2009, the $15 million appropriated to it for "Emergency Planning and Security Costs" by the Continuing Appropriations Resolution 2009, P.L. 110-329.




reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 11:40 AM by FightLies


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:42 PM by justgeneric
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]



reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:47 PM by TheKingsVillian
reply to post by justgeneric



Do you think that Iran will invade Iraq?

Or is it just plain ol world war three.

I say world war three.


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:54 PM by metalmush
Originally posted by TheKingsVillian
reply to
post by justgeneric



Do you think that Iran will invade Iraq?

Or is it just plain ol world war three.

I say world war three.


why would Iran invade iraq ???


reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 12:54 PM by justgeneric
reply to post by TheKingsVillian



the King - nope Iran loves to talk and puff up. They are an amazing people but they get themselves into trouble following their extremist and obviously nutty leader.

It is far more likely that US and NATO will invade Iran to force a regime change. They need troops for that and as I said above, there is no current "need", thus a need must be created.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Did Carl Sagan know something?
  Posted 18 days ago with 276 member flags
Earthly coincidences...or not.
  Posted 14 days ago with 122 member flags
Was this the real reason why Megaupload was closed down?
  Posted 18 days ago with 96 member flags
The Mysterious Death of Marilyn Monroe
  Posted 16 days ago with 85 member flags
Denver Airport Allows Camera Crew in Underground Facility
  Posted 16 days ago with 83 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 16 hours ago, 69 replies
Official Maine Caucus Results Thread!!
  2012 US Elections, Posted 6 hours ago, 58 replies