Not one attack?? PLEASE :(

Originally posted by Buck Division
I am with you. OF COURSE there have been multiple attacks that have been dismissed and suppressed. Train wrecks, explosions, poisonings, and fires. In fact, the fires in California are probably terrorist related. How about the levies in New Orleans? I would believe it is possible.

I am convinced that the Columbia disaster was a terrorist plot. (They declared it to be a non-terrorist event immediately, without any investigation of whether it might be a result of sabotage!)

based on what? what inside knowledge do you have of all these attacks that noone is reporting? are you in on them? There have been fires in CA since the beginning of fire and trees. There was never any debate over why the levies failed, it was predicted that they were not going to hold up to the oncoming hurricaine. or did terrorists cause the hurricaine?

we hear all the time on the news about how 99% of the cargo containers coming into this country arent searched. why hasnt that been exploited yet? i have been wondering about that since they first spoke of it on the news years ago and it continues to come up. I think the OP has an interesting point.

this guy though... i will be waiting to hear about what inside info you have of the plethora of terrorist attacks we do not hear about.

So far I've heard three plausible hypothesis here, each with some supporting evidence:

1. Events actually have happened, but are suppressed by the media. The government has long meddled in the media, for example COINTELPRO (FBI) and Mockingbird (CIA). YouTube deletes videos all the time. It's not a stretch to believe the 'patriot motivation' another poster mentioned: denying terrorists news coverage is denying them large effect.

2. Terrorists as portrayed don't exists; they're an invention. The motive is there, a large military-based economy needs some kind of enemy, even if imaginary. And many of those bin Laden tapes do look inconsistent and faked, and not just in a way that might be explained as trying to prevent 'hidden signals'.

3. The US isn't as vulnerable as it would have you believe. Simply search ATS for info on things such as automated surveillance of communication networks, satellite imagery, etc. And come on, do we really believe that luggage and cargo containers are hardly scanned at all? A good defensive tactic is to give the enemy a false impression of your vulnerabilities.

So what is it? All three? Or is the truth in some other direction entirely?

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by Buck Division
I am with you. OF COURSE there have been multiple attacks that have been dismissed and suppressed. Train wrecks, explosions, poisonings, and fires. In fact, the fires in California are probably terrorist related. How about the levees in New Orleans? I would believe it is possible.

I am convinced that the Columbia disaster was a terrorist plot. (They declared it to be a non-terrorist event immediately, without any investigation of whether it might be a result of sabotage!)

based on what? what inside knowledge do you have of all these attacks that no one is reporting? are you in on them? There have been fires in CA since the beginning of fire and trees. There was never any debate over why the levees failed, it was predicted that they were not going to hold up to the oncoming hurricaine. or did terrorists cause the hurricaine?

You aren't reading what I wrote, and misquoting me as well. Please don't be so overly defensive. It is not productive. (Or maybe that is what you are striving for?)

Perhaps the reason that the USA can't be trusted with the truth is because people like yourself have a tendency to overreact to things, start swinging at what you don't understand, and haven't bothered to think through.

As for the fires in CA, please do some research to prove I am wrong, and then report back. It is clear that all these fires are not due to natural causes, but if you think otherwise, go ahead and show me some statistics.

Edit: Here is a link of interest. It took me ten seconds to find it. Where is YOUR supporting evidence there, buddy? Take a shot.

www.homelandsecurityus.com...



[edit on 17-7-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by Ian McLean

Well summarized, Ian. I would say items #1 and #3 are probably the case.

Regarding item #2, there is a current thread here on ATS with some convincing arguments supporting the view that terrorism is invented:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I wouldn't put it past the USA to invent the terrorist threat. And maybe that has happened. (If you say that the USA is manipulating the media to hide terrorist attacks, you might be able to make the exact opposite argument, and say that the USA has manipulated the media to make them believe terrorism is an enormous threat!)

However, I'm looking at this in a statistical light -- it just doesn't seem that reasonable, given the enormous opportunity to commit acts of terror -- that these attacks haven't happened. The only answer I can think of is that they actually have happened, and just been downplayed and dismissed by the media.

What makes this work: there is already a lot of violence. People won't notice a tiny bit more. All the government would need to do is say that they investigated, and it was not an act of terrorism. Case closed. Anyone who says otherwise is a conspiracy nut. That is a workable technique to keep things quiet.

Edit: To add link to other ATS thread.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Buck Division]

There have been act of Terrorism in the US. Most have been stopped before they happen.

www.fbi.gov...

Here is the link for the info if any body wants to look

Originally posted by dismanrc
There have been act of Terrorism in the US. Most have been stopped before they happen.

www.fbi.gov...

Here is the link for the info if any body wants to look

Great post, Disman -- this works against Ian's hypothesis #2, that terrorism has been invented by the press (and buttresses his hypothesis #3, that we are doing a good job of stopping terrorist acts.)

I think it is significant, just to tweak the previous poster (who probably has be ignored now) that a lot of these attempts were arson attempts with "Improvised Incendiary Devices, IIS", so I think it is more than possible some of this CA forest fire spiking is due to arson, perhaps terrorism.

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by dismanrc
There have been act of Terrorism in the US. Most have been stopped before they happen.

www.fbi.gov...

Here is the link for the info if any body wants to look

Great post, Disman -- this works against Ian's hypothesis #2, that terrorism has been invented by the press (and buttresses his hypothesis #3, that we are doing a good job of stopping terrorist acts.)

I think it is significant, just to tweak the previous poster (who probably has be ignored now) that a lot of these attempts were arson attempts with "Improvised Incendiary Devices, IIS", so I think it is more than possible some of this CA forest fire spiking is due to arson, perhaps terrorism.

it is sad how many of those fbi cases turned out to be completely empty or actually hijacked from another agency once they went to court. where is the list of convicted terrorists? show me the names and crimes and i will buy it. or were terrorists setting fires in CA ever since we got here?

reply to post by dismanrc


Here is another stand-out that caught my eye: 2005 planned attack on pipelines in Idaho, page 25 of the report.

According to this article from 2006 (below), pipeline explosions kill a dozen people each year.

www.energycentral.com...

How many of these might be terrorist related? A google search indicates NONE, but that would be easy enough to hide. Who's going to check?

All we know is that in 2005, terrorists were making USA pipelines a terrorist target, and every year there are pipeline accidents that kill a dozen people or so. Hmmm.

LOL what if someone straps dynamite and does it tomorrow...


If the theorists are right, you will see more explosions soon.

Originally posted by re22666

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by dismanrc
it is sad how many of those fbi cases turned out to be completely empty or actually hijacked from another agency once they went to court. where is the list of convicted terrorists? show me the names and crimes and i will buy it. or were terrorists setting fires in CA ever since we got here?

The article that Dismanrc posted lists a lot of arrests and convictions.

HOWEVER, it is interesting to see that the vast majority of these terrorist attacks are NOT islamic related. A good deal of them are due to eco-terrorists, racial purists, and what looks like gangsterism -- not Al Queda. The majority of them are domestic groups with no islamic association at all.

So it DOES look a bit misleading on the surface. Once you get into the report, you can see that there is a very broad definition of terrorism. That is not what most people would think about this report.

Oh yeah -- don't get be wrong. There are a few Al Queda attacks that have been frustrated, like the pipeline incident I described above, and another major plot in Nov 2005 to hijack planes, blow up buildings AND kill President Bush. (See Page 28) Ahmad Ali Abu was convicted in Virginia, with what appears to be a public trial.


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by '___'eed
LOL what if someone straps dynamite and does it tomorrow...

Oh yes '___' -- I am laughing out loud about that possibility. What a good joke!

Look, I don't take any satisfaction in speculating about innocent people being killed. I really hope that Ian's hypothesis #2 is correct, that there is no terrorist threat at all.

This topic is really about whether our government is manipulating us. It is about whether there is a conspiracy of lies being worked against you and me. I think it is 100% possible that the US government thinks we are idiotic children who can't handle the truth, and can't see obvious truth in the midst of their near constant misinformation.

I will agree, in the normal case senario: terrorism is NOT that big a worry. I will also agree that the government lying to us about something this important is in some ways much much worse. Finally, widows and orphans of innocent people, struck down in the name of some insane political motive is a major tragedy by any standards, and not something that I find funny at all.

(Edit: Removed some of my nonproductive complaining and extremities.)

[edit on 17-7-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by Buck Division
If you say that the USA is manipulating the media to hide terrorist attacks, you might be able to make the exact opposite argument, and say that the USA has manipulated the media to make them believe terrorism is an enormous threat!

Good point. It occurs to me that's not necessarily a contradiction, if the distinction is made between terrorist threats as perceived by the public (through the media), and terrorist threats as revealed by actual incidents and preventions.

From dismanrc's link:

The preceding summary of terrorism-related events and investigations offers a picture of the FBI’s response to domestic and international terrorism from 2002 through 2005. In keeping with a longstanding trend, domestic extremists carried out the majority of terrorist incidents during this period. Twenty three of the 24 recorded terrorist incidents were perpetrated by domestic terrorists. With the exception of white supremacist Sean Michael Gillespie’s firebombing of a synagogue in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, all of the domestic terrorist incidents were committed by special interest extremists active in the animal rights and environmental movements. The acts committed by these extremists typically targeted materials and facilities rather than persons. The sole international terrorist incident in the United States recorded for this period involved the attack by Hesham Hedayet, who fatally shot two people at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport.

The terrorist preventions for 2002 through 2005 paint a more diverse threat picture. Eight of the 14 recorded terrorist preventions stemmed from right-wing extremism, and included disruptions to plotting by individuals involved with the militia, white supremacist, constitutionalist and tax protestor, and anti-abortion movements. The remaining preventions included disruptions to plotting by an anarchist in Bellingham, Washington, who sought to bomb a U.S. Coast Guard station; a plot to attack an Islamic center in Pinellis Park, Florida; and a plot by prison-originated, Muslim convert group to attack U.S. military, Jewish, and Israeli targets in the greater Los Angeles area. In addition, three preventions involved individuals who sought to provide material support to foreign terrorist organizations, including al-Qa’ida, for attacks within the United States.

[emphasis added] Source

So, if you posit that terrorism is portrayed in the media as perpetrated almost exclusively by Muslim extremists, then at most 5 of 38 incident+preventions have been 'played up', and presented as evidence of an "enormous threat", and the remaining events have been mostly ignored, or "hidden".


Edit: lol... I see you read the pdf, too


[edit on 17-7-2008 by Ian McLean]

Good points. Reminds me of those sayings that go something like, "I have a magical rock that keeps tigers away, see no tigers around? It's because of this magical rock."

reply to post by Buck Division


Al Queda and Islamic extremist are better organized than home land terrorist in the US and more successful. For all we know they are planning an attack right now that will be years in the making.

Originally posted by Ian McLean
It occurs to me that's not necessarily a contradiction, if the distinction is made between terrorist threats as perceived by the public (through the media), and terrorist threats as revealed by actual incidents and preventions.

So, if you posit that terrorism is portrayed in the media as perpetrated almost exclusively by Muslim extremists, then at most 5 of 38 incident+preventions have been 'played up', and presented as evidence of an "enormous threat", and the remaining events have been mostly ignored, or "hidden".

I wish I could give you two stars for that idea! It represents the ultimate control senario by the government: they deny and surpress REAL terrorist attacks, at the same time fanning the flames of fear and hatred against the enemy of their selection.

It has to be true! But I hope not! Great thinking, Ian.

Interesting thread - here it is for you -

There is no war on terrorism - there is a war on anything not American style democracy which is being called the war on terror.

There are terrorist attacks every day - however these tend to occur in countries resisting the push for westernisation Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many African and central Eastern European countries. Further there is limited need to inflict terror in America when there are Americans right on their door step.

The twin towers attack was of course allowed to happen to generate domestic support. However most immigrants to the U.S. are there for the benefits of your country and have no desire to harm it.

The recent article in the British press summed it up well - there is less anti-American sentiment in Iran than there is in modern liberal western Europe - and that is completely true.

Originally posted by Ian McLean
So far I've heard three plausible hypothesis here, each with some supporting evidence:

So what is it? All three? Or is the truth in some other direction entirely?

That would be Door #2: Terrorists as portrayed don't exists; they're an invention. The motive is there, a large military-based economy needs some kind of enemy, even if imaginary. And many of those bin Laden tapes do look inconsistent and faked, and not just in a way that might be explained as trying to prevent 'hidden signals'.

Read '1984' or watch the excellent BBC series, "The Power of Nightmares:"

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Communism went away and the corporate/military/industrial/banking complex needed a new global enemy.

reply to post by Ian McLean


I was waiting for this post. Glad you made it. Saved me from doing it. I agree the war on terror is hyped up by G.B. and the media to justify the wars in the middle east.

But if you were to show that report to the average good old republican or democrat that thinks govt. is God and make the same point made by the author of the thread, they'd argue that it's exactly the fact that the U.S. is over there that there's been no threat over here.

And don't mention how easy it would be to get in our borders and create all kinds of terror if there was a huge terrorist army out there, cause then they'll just say they're too busy fighting over in Afghan. and Iraq to be a threat over there.

What are ya gonna do!

I am suprised that gangs and other "organised" criminals are not being prosecuted as terrorists. If they wear identifying clothing and matching tattoos shouldn't they be sent to a prison reserved for terrorists?

These are the groups that are causing the most problems to the general public than any other. The shootings and stabbings at the local social places have kept me from going out for several years when I once frequented them regularly.

People also blame school shooters fully for their actions but what about the bullies and social abuses that terrorised them for years that led them to murder their peers?

reply to post by Buck Division



The thing about your premise is that these hypothetical terrorist organizations would be working against themselves. The entire point of terrorism is to strike fear into a populace. If you're going to derail a train, start a crazy big fire, cause pipeline explosions, etc, then you need to let people know that it was you, or that at least it was not a natural event. Even if the government has total control of the media, these groups could send footage to a foreign network, which would promptly be posted on the internet, or even just put it on the internet themselves. I think the odds of this hypothetical group NOT claiming responsibility for their hypothetical attacks, by definition, makes them something other than terrorists, as they're not trying to inpire terror. And to counter the inevitable, "Maybe they just want to kill Americans, and don't care if anybody finds out!" argument, then shouldn't every random accidental death be an incident of suspected terrorism? The inflation of such a scenario is mind boggling. Traffic collision? TERRORISM. Toddler swallowing chemical cleaning agents? TERRORISM. You see the point? There can be no clear line drawn, and that lends the entire premise an air of absurdity which makes it difficult to take seriously. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, just trying to show why I feel the idea is flawed....



[edit on 17-7-2008 by '___'eviant]