sadly, this will be entertainment for too many people, the ones whose minds are too narrow for thoughts to squeeze through and too puny to imagine the vastness of the resources available to the US government.
ooh. urp. excuse me, I almost went on a rant in your comments. ahem.
The details are all interesting and suggestive, but it all comes down to one question. Is the following scenario plausible?
The CIA, or some group within it, or some other government organisation, plans a wave of invasions of the middle east to secure oil supplies, and needs to manufacture some justification.
They decide that destroying the twin towers and blaming it on the middle east would do the job. They know that the towers are a major hub of the corporations which control the government and dictate the need to secure oil supplies in the first place. But what the hell, it'll look great on TV.
They also decide that destroying the white house would add to the jusification. Who's in the white house we might not want to kill? No one much. Or lets be charitable and say they only decide to fake an attempt to do it.
And finally they decide on the best justification of all - an attack on the pentagon, hopefully killing many of their collegues for maximum effect.
They sit back and ask themselves: would these events justify a war? And they answer yes.
Then they ask: is there some other way the war could be justified? It's late and they're tired, so they answer no.
Then: Aren't we going to kill a load of our collegues, friends and superiors? They shrug and say "ce la vie".
And finally: What will the rest of the CIA (or whoever) do to us if/when they find out what we've done? They smile nervously and say "No one will ever find out. We're safe".
3 comments:
sadly, this will be entertainment for too many people, the ones whose minds are too narrow for thoughts to squeeze through and too puny to imagine the vastness of the resources available to the US government.
ooh. urp. excuse me, I almost went on a rant in your comments. ahem.
King Diamond's Conspiracy is a GREAT album (AKA vinyl)
The details are all interesting and suggestive, but it all comes down to one question. Is the following scenario plausible?
The CIA, or some group within it, or some other government organisation, plans a wave of invasions of the middle east to secure oil supplies, and needs to manufacture some justification.
They decide that destroying the twin towers and blaming it on the middle east would do the job. They know that the towers are a major hub of the corporations which control the government and dictate the need to secure oil supplies in the first place. But what the hell, it'll look great on TV.
They also decide that destroying the white house would add to the jusification. Who's in the white house we might not want to kill? No one much. Or lets be charitable and say they only decide to fake an attempt to do it.
And finally they decide on the best justification of all - an attack on the pentagon, hopefully killing many of their collegues for maximum effect.
They sit back and ask themselves: would these events justify a war? And they answer yes.
Then they ask: is there some other way the war could be justified? It's late and they're tired, so they answer no.
Then: Aren't we going to kill a load of our collegues, friends and superiors? They shrug and say "ce la vie".
And finally: What will the rest of the CIA (or whoever) do to us if/when they find out what we've done? They smile nervously and say "No one will ever find out. We're safe".
Post a Comment