Terror Strikes the U$ On New Years

[Sabocat]

I found this writers views with regards to the reasons behind the "heightened terror alert" very compelling.


2004 begins with massive military mobilization in US cities

By David Walsh
3 January 2004


The new year began in the US under conditions of an unparalleled mobilization of police, army and federal law enforcement agents in major urban centers. Alleging a heightened threat of terrorist attacks and operating under the Department of Homeland Security’s “Orange Alert,” the Bush administration undertook measures such as were never seen during the Second World War or at the height of the Cold War.

Major events scheduled for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day took place under bizarre circumstances. Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge declared that Americans “need to go out and celebrate New Year’s,” even as he banned flights over New York City, Chicago and Las Vegas and ordered Black Hawk military helicopters to hover over Manhattan’s Times Square, where some 750,000 people gathered to welcome in the new year, the Las Vegas strip, and the Rose Bowl football game in Pasadena, California.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/.../2004-j03.shtml (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/jan2004/2004-j03.shtml)

[dancingoutlaw]

I found this writers views with regards to the reasons behind the "heightened terror alert" very compelling.

I found them paranoid.


Real or fabricated terrorist plots will be used to rationalize the most extreme attacks on democratic rights, up to and including the calling off of the national election itself.

oh please. If that happens even a complacent populace would be really pissed. It is an indefensable act and only irrational people would support it. 2003 U.S. is not 1930's Germany.

Peace

[Sabocat]

oh please. If that happens even a complacent populace would be really pissed. It is an indefensable act and only irrational people would support it. 2003 U.S. is not 1930's Germany.

Really? And where would the populace garner their information? FoxNews? CNN? Maybe just directly from the White House press secretary himself instead of one of the corporate media outlets. Who would represent the alternate view?

In all reality, it wouldn't be that hard to dupe the U$ population. It's not like they don't get duped on everything else the Whitehouse does.

Some recent examples:

The presidential coup/election

Bombing Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction"

Leading people to believe that there was a direct tie between Saddam and Bin Laden

Leading people to believe that Iraq was responsible for 9/11 (at least 40% believed this to be true)



Anytime there is any resistance put out by independent media to "toe the line" to their corporate bretheren, they are marginalized and called fringe, or "liberal media".

[dancingoutlaw]

Yes all of those citations are arguable but wasn't dissent of these military actions taking place every day. Presential candidates are campaining on these questions. Are bullets being put into their head? There is a difference between questionable military action halfway across the world and a direct attack on the core of the Constitution. If the election was repealed then fence sitters, liberal Republicans, libertarians, and perhaps even some good old boys would join you in the streets to condemn this act. Even Foxnews could not candy coat it.

peace