The End of the World as We Know It?

[spooked911]

Why, oh why, do I get the feeling that in this five weeks Bush is in Crawford, his team is cooking up some truly awful surprise for the coming year?

[Jara sang]

1. Ummmm... wait, I know this...

It's probably because they are evil to their core.

[Montauk6]

2. Like sending troops into Tehran?

[mwb970]

5. Invade Iran?

There would have to be a "new 9/11", this time with the Iranians taking the blame.

[nookiemonster]

6. Or something to that effect.

eom

[libhill]

7. I wouldn't put anything past these ass hats -

they're already feeding us b.s. about "Iranian weapons" being found in Iraq - uh huh. I believe in the fucking tooth fairy, too -

[Montauk6]

10. Damn straight, libhill!

They start slowly, let it simmer in as normal matter-of-fact rhetoric, just like "weapons of mass destruction."

I'm sure you could already create an audio montage on "Iranian weapons found in Iraq."

[libhill]

11. One, two, three, four

what are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn, it's just another Viet Nam -

[spooked911]

8. Why? Iraq wasn't behind 9/11.

I suspect any major terrorist attack will do the job for them.

[Bassic]

12. Your point being?

[libhill]

16. Don't give 'em any bright ideas -

n/t

[lse7581011]

3. Sort of Like

deja vu all over again?

[Tesha]

4. The really unfortunate part is...

The really unfortunate part is that if it's a typical Bushworld
LIHOP/MIHOP event, some of us in the Blue Zone are sure to be
the targets whereas real terrorists would probably strike a
more, umm, "Republican" target.

Tesha

[pointblank]

9. Dont you think...

That the London bombings are good enough?

It seems to me that they have all of the 'justification' they need, if they can just come up with enough bullshit to link anyone of the those turrists to Iran...like maybe one of the bombers cousin's lives in Tehran or something?

[spooked911]

13. No-- they aren't good enough to mobilize the US to a new war.

[pointblank]

17. No?

If they could make up a reason to TAKE OVER a nation that NONE of the 9/11 hijackers came from and get Congress and the majority of the nation at the time to back it...

don't you think that if our closest ally (next to Kazhikistan of course) is being 'turrirized' that they wouldn't try to spin it into us 'coming to the aid of the coalition of the willing?'...

I'm not saying it will happen, but I wouldn't put it past them, thats all.

[spooked911]

18. Yes, but they had 9/11 itself as a huge smokescreen and I don't think

that will work again. That's why they need a new excuse for war.

[libhill]

14. Or

a bombers cousins uncles niece?

[spooked911]

15. And oh yeah, the Pentagon is planning for martial law

According to a report published Monday by the Washington Post, the Pentagon has developed its first ever war plans for operations within the continental United States, in which terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country.

The front-page article cites sources working at the headquarters of the military’s Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The plans themselves are classified, but “officers who drafted the plans” gave details to Post reporter Bradley Graham, who was recently given a tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. The article thus appears to be a deliberate leak conducted for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect of military rule.

According to Graham, “the new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources.”

The Post account declares, “The war plans represent a historic shift for the Pentagon, which has been reluctant to become involved in domestic operations and is legally constrained from engaging in law enforcement.”

http://wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/mart-a09.shtml