notforprophet

← Previous Post

A warrior is always skeptical of a war. Why? Because a war’s outbreak either indicates that the warrior has failed to maintain peace-which is the warrior’s one true goal-and that such a failure, while not inconceivable, is soul-shattering…or…that a war has been conjured up by politicians conniving to undermine the peace to promote themselves with the understanding that

War is nothing but a continuation of politics with the admixture of other means.

--Karl von Clauswitz (I read this when I was 10 years old! Clauswitz, btw, was the military strategist sine qua non of the 19th and early 20th centuries.)

And a warrior is always skeptical of politics!

So in this spirit of uncensored skepticism- I ask: what are the possibilities?

Terrorist War I broke out because of a mortally-striking external enemy (the worldwide network of terrorism) which our finest warriors failed to anticipate, detect, and defend against?

Terrorist War I broke out because of conspiratorial political control freaks maniacally contriving a WTC “Reichstag fire” (the Reichstag fire, secretly set by the Nazis, enabled them to create a boogey-external enemy and thus engender in Germany the social opportunity to seize the country with an authoritarian hand). To what end? To abridge our freedoms through pre-meditated waves of subsequent “security restrictions”?

Did the same “terrorists” who struck in New York launch what Pres. Bush calls the “second wave” of terrorism-the anthrax attacks? Why have these attacks been so limited and inefficacious? Why wouldn’t the terrorists wait until the flu season hit to maximize the effect of an anthrax attack by cloaking it with our typically raging flu epidemics?

Would terrorists really want to attack bridges? Why? As military targets? To inflict mass killings? If so, why station troops on the bridge in harm’s way and make it an even more attractive target-why not just mount cameras for observation? Also, why not limit traffic to one car every 100 feet, or so, so that if the bridge would blow, there’d be no congestion and major loss of life? (That’s why troops deployed in the filed “spread out” instead of marching in tight formations.) (BTW, the FBI has determined after a week that the source of this information is no longer credible-though originally they themselves launched the warning!)

If ‘terrorists” are about to strike at military installations, as is now suggested by “credible but unspecific sources” according to the FBI, is it really “terrorism”? We’ve declared a war-if our military is attacked, isn’t that warfare and not terrorism? If military installations during a war are attacked by civilians, isn’t that “sabotage” and/or “espionage”-but not terrorism?

Are there any nuts or organizations out there who might stage their own renegade “terrorist attacks” if more genuine Al Qaeda-type attacks are not soon forthcoming simply to keep the public fomented and its tolerance of tighter personal freedom restrictions high?

Understanding that at least 20% of all chicken that comes to market in the U.S. is tainted by salmonella and that salmonella infections in the U.S. run at 1.4 million a year with at least 600 documented deaths, should we not be investigating the possibility that “terrorists” have cornered the chicken market? After all, are not terrorists chicken themselves??

Do you have any idea how many kids are terrorized by having to sit in Santa’s lap every Xmas? Santas that this year that will bear an eerie resemblance (in many children’s eyes) to Osama the has-bin himself? Will parents remain unwitting dupes in the perpetuation of this trauma? Will Santa crash his sleigh into the Sears Tower taking all the kiddies’ gifts with him or will jets scramble to shoot him down first?