Home > WHO BENEFITS ?
More terrorist attacks. More people dead and dying and hurting — this time in London. Damn the terrorists! Damn the Al Queda ! Damn the Islamofascists!
I grieve for those in London who have been affected by this trajedy, and yet, is all really as it seems? Is this just another act of terror?
But why create terror just to create terror? Historically, terrorists engage in their chosen venue as a means to an end. Terror creates fear, fear results in either concessions (stopping actions the terrorists don’t like) or allows for extortion of some kind for fear of future terrorist attacks.
Surely, though, these ’terrorists’ realize that these attacks, like ’9-11’ will only result in a response against suspected terrorists, assuming they can be identified (maybe England will invade Ireland with the same justification with which we invaded Iraq)which will lead to more terrorist attacks, which will lead to more response against terrorists, etc., etc.
Who benefits?
There have been no extortion demands because until now no one has claimed responsibility. And who supposedly claims responsibility for the London attacks — "The Secret Organizations of Al Queda in Europe" ? — How convenient. To generate acts of terrorism for the sake of generating acts of terrorism might be fun for awhile for such perverted minds, but surely this can only last so long. What do these terrorists really want? George Bush’s mantra that they "hate freedom" is absurd. Surely there is much more going on than meets the eye.
The only thing ’9-11’ did was to allow those with a prescribed agenda the opportunity to pursue that agenda with little resistance. So who benefited — the terrorists or those with an announced agenda who needed only a "Pearl Harbor" to kick it into high gear?
I don’t know, and will likely never know for sure, if the Kennedy Assassination was an "inside job." But the fact I am willing to entertain the idea is disturbing enough. We know there was (and is) government coverup. But why? What is it that ’we the people’ aren’t supposed to know? And again, who benefited — Oswald? — or those with a particular agenda which Kennedy was thwarting.
I don’t know, and will likely never know for sure if ’9-11’ was an "inside job," but again, the fact I am willing to entertain the possibility is even more disturbing. We know there has been, and continues to be, coverup by the government. But why? What is it that ’we the people’ aren’t supposed to know about ’9-11’? The explanation: ’national security’ (translation: there are forces at work here that ’they’ don’t want you to know about).
What about the Madrid bombings in Spain and the fact that two of the leading suspects were found to have ties with the Spanish Office of Security? Mere coincidence? Why is that still ’under investigation’?
What about the fact that the only "actual" Al-Queda cell ever captured turned out to consist of Mossad (Israeli Secret Intelligence) operatives?
Who benefits?
Why is it that Israel (after the fact) claimed to have known about and warned against a possible attack on New York, yet afterward, no one seems to remember receiving any such warning? Why is it that Israel (after the fact) now claims to have known about and warned against a possible attack on London, yet afterward, no one seems to remember receiving any such warning?
Who benefits?
What about the fact that Osama Bin Laden is a CIA-trained and supplied former operative? What about the fact that the Director of Intelligence claims to know where he is but we can’t touch him due to "diplomatic concerns." Seems we didn’t care about diplomatic niceties when we invaded Iraq, a country with no known connection to ’9-11’ whatsoever.
Who benefits?
Constantly, it seems, we are being told to "ignore that man behind the curtain" and focus on the illusion. When rational explanations fail, the irrational begins to make more sense. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective, Sherlock Holmes observed, "when you eliminate the probable, then whatever remains, no matter how impossible, is the truth."
We must keep asking the question: who benefits? — even if the answer is impossible.