It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A Theory on Why Recent Terrorist Attacks are Failing

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:28 AM
One thing is certainly shared by both the skeptics and the trusters, that 9/11, whether carried out by al Qaeda or the Intelligence Departments, was a diabolical plan. As it stands, the idea of hijacking four U.S. airplanes was a seemingly impossible task, coupled with the drive to sacrifice one's life for their oppressive religion makes for great Hollywood theatrics such as the series 24. If it was an "inside job", the trusters assure us that the cover up would be too great, the conspiracy would be too massive. And yet, regardless of how you look at it, the more recent terrorist attacks have been utter failures.

With the exception of Fort Hood which did bring casualties, the rest are pathetic, examples of extreme stupidity. The underwear bomber is an embarrassment to Bin Laden and Chertoff. How would anyone be proud of someone who fails to blow up their own crotch? And how could the Intelligence Departments be proud of an operation that ends with an eye-witness going on national media and tells the world he saw a sharp dressed man guide the bomber onto the plane, only to be later admitted by the government that they gave him a pass for being an exchange student, and didn't have to show ID. Perhaps it was a good plan to begin with, but they were once again CIA-Caught In the Act, and ontop of that, another passenger wrestled the drugged out Abdulmutallab to the ground, which isn't surprising since the same thing happened to the shoe bomber. Did they not want casualties or did something go wrong? If this was just al Qaeda then it's just an embarassing show of stupidity not to mention Abdul being drugged up before he does his service to Allah. But more realistically, if it was the Intelligence Departments, they have to juggle between the possibility of a foiled plan to make the establishment look good, vs. a real attack that brings about war fever. Then there was the Time's Square/Broadway Bomber, who had ISI intelligence on how to build a bomb, made a dud, left his apartment keys in the ignition, and pleaded guilty to not being able to blow his own car up. This operation was just a dud to begin with. I think their lackey was so incredibly dumb he couldn't shill well enough to make any sense to anybody.

A possible theory for all this nonsense is that the war on terrorism ended, the fever for it, at least. Obama stopped using the phrase "war on terrorism," the Taliban has been reduced to the laughable number of 100 troops (not that it's large or small but that it's just a benign number, small for them, but just big enough so they can still matter in the war on terrorism). There was a surge in Afghanistan but the real threat is in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. There is no plan or organized movement whatsoever when it comes to Afghanistan.

I believe, that the war on terrorism is failing, big time. They can't pull off a successful terrorist attack and the steam of the war on terrorism paranoia is not strong enough to convince the public they need naked body scanners at airports while the terrorists are let onto the planes. This is why, when Bush was tanking hardcore, and the neocon darling McCain was falling apart at the seams, they changed tactics, and moved onto the economy. Suddenly the war on terrorism was no more, even though the remnants are still clogging the media every now and then, reminding us of just how stupid and inept these so called muslim extremists are. Which brings me to my point, is that a lot of people say that war is a distraction for the economy. That when the economy gets real bad, they go to war as a distraction and way to make money. My idea is the opposite:

The economy is a distraction for war.

When the war fever is over (i.e. the public uncovers the false flag event), the war fever becomes a minority rather than a majority. The average public supports war if they are not involved, but as soon as they are they usually change their mind. The hardcore that believe in the propaganda is the system's only hope. When this too falters, they have to switch tactics to the economy. The economy crisis happened in 2008, on Bush's watch, in which he delivered the first set of billions to the bankers. The reason was to bail out AIG and other zombie banks, but perhaps another reason was because the war funding was dwindling to only a few trillion dollars a year, and they thirsted for more, plus they feared the funding would be dwindled even further. So they pleaded the government to just give them money so they could cover their losses from the deflating war on terrorism in general. Their bet was not just if someone would pay their house loan, they bet on whether or not 9/11 would get pulled off. And it did, for the most part. But now it's a losing card, and they had to bail, a while ago, which is why Obama wants to focus on the economy and not the war. They have had it with the war spirit fading out of existence, they need a distraction. The economy also focuses domestically to rebuild what the war economy may have shattered. Maybe a few million for the veterans and a few billion for the politicians, that kind of thing. No doubt, when the economy starts to falter, another war will come, so the phrase works both ways:

War bails out the economy, the economy bails out war.

So the basic method is

1. False Flag
2. War
3. Increased military funding
4. Switch to economy when plan collapses

Then when the economy collapses you start over again on 1.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:45 AM
Perhaps I didn't go into enough detail on why the recent attacks are failing. My initial point was to indicate that the war on terrorism in general failed, but more specifically, why have the recent ones failed?

Take Kurt Haskell's role in the underwear bombing, if he hadn't of known about the 9/11 conspiracies and Alex Jones, he probably wouldn't have gotten such an indepth analysis of his eye-witness, it would have most likely been ignored by the FBI (which it was) and consequently ignored by the media (which it still more or less is today). If people hadn't of known about the 9/11 theories, they would have most likely just been the type to wrestle the terrorist to the ground. So either way, these terrorist attacks are stopping, not because of the cooperation with the intelligence (sic) agencies, but because certain Americans aren't afraid of wrestling a terrorist to the ground, like what happened with the underwear bomber and the shoe bomber, and I think the intelligence departments aren't smart enough to set up a terrorist attack then pay an American to stop it, which would hurt the cause that Americans need government, it would merely suggest that Americans need to stand up for themselves, so there'd be no good reason to do it, which might precisely explain why they might do it. Either way, it wasn't a catastrophe. Combined with the shoe bomber, the broadway bomber, the yemen package, the water bomber, they were all duds.

Except fort hood. I think fort hood is the most complicated to understand but holds the key to their real intentions. Now the shooter of Fort Hood was shown to be in a convenient mart the morning of seeming to be upset about the amount of change he received, which is odd thing to care about when you are about to die. Then there was accounts of multiple shooters that the Texas Governor claimed, then later retracted, this also makes sense with how many bullets had to of been fired from Nassan's gun. Some people claimed that there are pistols that have automatic capabilities, but the kind shown on a youtube clip didn't echo in the mainstream media, which would have been a supporting fact. Apparently, nothing out of the ordinary was used, no Robocop pistols, just an FN five seven which holds 10-20 bullets and even maxed out only 30 rounds ( claimed the gunmen fired at least 150 rounds. ( So it seems like a second or even third shooter possibility was plausible. It should also be noted that the officer that took him down was a female cop, who was able to shoot him four times. Perhaps she is a really good officer, and I don't want to dismiss her just because she is a female, and maybe Nissan had second thoughts firing on a female, but as it stands, a cop, not even a soldier at fort hood, took down Nissan after he killed 13 firing off 150 rounds, and still had 200 rounds with him and a second gun, a single cop off the street was able to shoot him 4 times and still survive. Male or female that is a remarkable feat.

So fort hood was a massacre, the only successful attack since 9/11. And there is no denial that Anwar al Alaki was in charge of fort hood, so how could the same guy that dined with the Pentagon after 9/11 have been in charge of fort hood and the underwear bomber?

It seems like just luck of Allah that a higher level insider of the Army was able to carry out jihad but a banker's son couldn't blow up his crotch. I suppose al Qaeda just doesn't have the superstars it used to have.

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:46 AM
well congratulations

you got it bad 80% of the rest of the world dont get it :S

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:49 AM
the real smoking gun is why doesn't the cia kill anwar al-alaki? wouldn't that make more sense than sending 30,000 ground troops into afghanistan? why not just send a black op team to get alaki? (you know, you can invite him for dinner at the pentagon, serve him the usual meal).

but the really real smoking gun, which has stopped smoking nine years ago, was Osama Bin Laden. Did we forget that guy? osama bin forgotten? oh, that's right, he's in iran, so why don't they get him? someone please explain to me why the us and al qaeda are competing for wotld's biggest buffoon?
edit on 18-11-2010 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:10 AM
Also, dont forget about the Times Square bomber "VBIED", who tried to blow up fertilizer with firecrackers. I mean come on, really? it wasn't even nitrated fertilizer.

posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 03:50 AM
reply to post by filosophia

Because,they are bieng paid What,20$ to fund a terror operation,and our counter terror operations are funded in the billions.

new topics

top topics

log in