Heightened security & bomb squads to ensure terror, not prevent it

As ironic as it is, that is the new paradox of Homeland Security efforts, including but not limited to:

Drills, happen everywhere to ensure civilans that even devastation is 'just a drill'.
Bomb squads, including bomb sniffing dogs
Military contractors, including Kraft personnel scanning the whole crowd, eyes peeled
EMS, on prepared standby at a huge event.. yet without a stretcher for double amputee
General security, including backpack checks (except MilCons, officials, for they're above law)

If this could happen at one incident, and authorities rather look away and only at placing blame solely on a dead muslim and his silenced teen brother, these are the tell tale signs its bound to happen again and again, Homeland Security - like the FBI & other letter agencies - ensuring public harm, instead of preventing it.

reply to post by below

I'm sorry, but my mind must be going fuzzy. I can't understand your logic.

If this could happen at one incident, and authorities rather look away and only at placing blame solely on a dead muslim and his silenced teen brother, these are the tell tale signs its bound to happen again and again, Homeland Security - like the FBI & other letter agencies - ensuring public harm, instead of preventing it.

Couldn't it also be explained this way: "We know more and more terrorist attacks are coming. We'll step up security, but we can't catch everything, so you might as well expect that some attempts will succeed, now and then?"

reply to post by charles1952

I'm sorry, but my mind must be going fuzzy.

Could've stopped there ....

reply to post by frazzle

Dear frazzle,

You're absolutely right of course. I could have stopped there, and perhaps should have. But that would have been a minimal post.

I was hoping to explain why I was not following along, and wishing that someone (Perhaps you?) could make it clearer for me.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by frazzle

 

Dear frazzle,

You're absolutely right of course. I could have stopped there, and perhaps should have. But that would have been a minimal post.

I was hoping to explain why I was not following along, and wishing that someone (Perhaps you?) could make it clearer for me.

With respect,
Charles1952

Sorry, that was uncalled for.

All I can say to your "Couldn't it also be explained this way:" is that we DON'T know more terrorist attacks are coming, although if we keep attacking people in their own homes and countries, some blowback would be a normal response.

It could also be said that almost all of the attacks on the US to date, or at least the attempted attacks, have been FBI sting operations that were "conveniently caught" before anything happened. But you are correct that stepping up security won't protect us in the long run unless and until we get our dictatorial noses out of everyone else's internal business and start dealing with nations on a level playing field instead of coming off as the tough bully on the block and blowing things up.

reply to post by frazzle

Dear frazzle,

Hey, no harm, no foul. Besides I have to work on my humility anyway.

Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I'm having trouble seeing the future because it looks like we're trying to reduce our military and presence overseas. Would that reduce the number of terrorist attacks?

Sure, I can see American foreign policy irritating the pants off people. Where I'm having trouble is this statement from the OP:

Homeland Security - like the FBI & other letter agencies - ensuring public harm, instead of preventing it.

Ok, I understand the military, but how does he tie DHS and the FBI into it?

With respect,
Charles1952

yes virginna, there is a Satanclaus
and I am sure the government will keep you safe

The Underwear Bomber attack has fundamentally changed my life. Not in the way most would think, but it has destroyed any faith I've had in the U.S. Government, the media and this country as a whole. To say that I believe the government is corrupt and the media is complicit doesn't fully explain my beliefs. Not only have I come to those conclusions, but I've witnessed that an ordinary person who sees something important can be silenced despite his efforts to spread the truth. Such is the Underwear Bomber case. I can do nothing but laugh at the TSA's new policy of "If you see something say something." That is exactly what I did, and not only did the U.S. Government not want to hear what I had to say, but it actively lied about it, attempted to get me to change my story, and hid, by withholding (secret government) evidence or putting a protective order on the evidence and nearly everything that would support my eyewitness account.

Where are we now? We now have The Underwear Bomber (Umar) representing himself with the help of standby attorney Chambers. Attorney Chambers has indicated to me that if he were Umar's attorney, that the defense would be entrapment and that I would be a key witness. Of course, such a defense would expose the U.S. Government's involvement in the plot. It is much too convenient to have Umar represent himself and be in charge of what the defense will be, what evidence is presented, what witnesses are called and what questions each witness is asked. A trial with Umar representing himself will leave the relevant facts of this case unknown for generations. I can't help but think that Umar fired his attorneys for a reason other than he is a crazy terrorist. It is much too convenient that the entity that staged the event, also controls the evidence, what information is leaked to the media, who the prosecutors are, and the prison where Umar has sbeen staying at for the last 21 months. Let's not overlook the fact that the U.S. Government has admitted to waterboarding and torturing terrorists. Do you see the pieces of the puzzle forming a clear picture yet?

Make no mistake that Umar did in fact attempt to detonate a device (although it was a defective device) on Flight 253. He is not innocent. It remains to be discovered whether my belief that Umar is complicit with the "theatre" going on before our eyes came about before or after the event of Christmas Day 2009. It really is not important except that you must understand that he is now complicit in covering up the true story of Christmas Day 2009. There is no other explanation as to why Umar is representing himself and rejecting the entrapment defense (Which I have discovered he will do).

For those that are still skeptical of my claims, please realize that I do not make my claims without a great deal of thought and research. My firm belief is that Umar was escorted around security and given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. intelligence agent. The bomb was never intended to detonate, but merely intended to create a "simulated terrorist attack" or a "false flag attack" if you will. In December of 2009, the U.S. Government hadn't seen a terrorist attack in 8 years, It was getting more and more difficult to spend hundreds of billions a year on terrorism and to continue to fight two fraudulent wars based on terrorism. Those making their livings off of the war on terror didn't want to lose their cash cow. Enter Umar the Underwear Bomber. A second benefit of a failed bomb being found in Umar's underwear, was to enable body scanning machines to be placed in every airport. How convenient for Michael Chertoff , a former head of the DHS, to have ties to the body scanning companies. I doubt that this was any coincidence. Once again, billions of dollars would flow from the U.S. Government for body scanning machines that were needed to protect us.

haskellfamily.blogspot.ca...

for a fee

PS
problem reaction solution
*sigh* the government loves me
and knowing that makes me feel so warm and fuzzy
and safe

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by frazzle

 

Dear frazzle,

Hey, no harm, no foul. Besides I have to work on my humility anyway.

Your explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I'm having trouble seeing the future because it looks like we're trying to reduce our military and presence overseas. Would that reduce the number of terrorist attacks?

Sure, I can see American foreign policy irritating the pants off people. Where I'm having trouble is this statement from the OP:

Homeland Security - like the FBI & other letter agencies - ensuring public harm, instead of preventing it.

Ok, I understand the military, but how does he tie DHS and the FBI into it?

With respect,
Charles1952

For the three letter agencies, its all about fear. Be afraid, be very afraid. People do really stupid stuff when they're shaking in their boots because someone did a flash bang and told them to be afraid of the bogeymen with dark skin. Stupid stuff like tearing up the bill of rights, for instance.

If so many of us didn't just love being terrified half to death, Hollywood would have been a big fat blowout. The abc agencies know that very well and they work together with the producers and writers to take gross advantage of our fascination with blood and guts by providing lots of scary stories.

BTW, we are not reducing our military presence overseas, it is being ramped up exponentially. Russia and China are both watching that buildup with some serious doubt about our intentions, which is only logical.

reply to post by frazzle

Dear frazzle,

You've helped me, so it's my turn to show you something interesting. It's a .mil spreadsheet showing the change in location of US forces from 2008-2012. I went there to see where our forces were moving to.US Force Locations Spreadsheet

Here are the changes from 2008-2012:

All US forces worldwide..........................up 2.1%
All US forces in foreign countries........... down 29.9%
Nato countries....................................... down .9%
Western hemisphere..............................down 5.9%
Sub-Saharan Afric................................. down 77.1%
North Africa, Near east, and South Asia. down 14.3%
East Asdia and Pacific........................... down 24.8%
Former Soviet union............................... up 1.4%
Europe ...................................................down 3%
US and Territories.................................. up 10.2%

I just don't see the overseas buildup, but maybe it's changed very recently. It looks like we're pulling people home from everywhere.

With respect,
Charles1952