visible views: Planning for war?

Monday, October 29, 2007

Planning for war?

It was reported today that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said in a radio interview that warnings were given in advance of the July 7 bombings in London but that the UK government ignored them. Now, I remember that it was quickly decided that there would be no public inquiry into precisely what the intelligence services knew in advance of the event. It was known, for instance, that some of the people involved were known to the intelligence services.

I draw a parallel between Tony Blair's decision not to have a public inquiry in the UK with President Bush's decision not to have a public inquiry after 9/11. Is this more than a coincidence?

Since 9/11, a lot of forensic science information has been published which challenges the received wisdom that the Twin Towers fell solely because of impact damage and the heat of the resultant fires. An emerging consensus is that it was impossible for this scenario to have happened - the heat generated by the aircraft fuel fires was not sufficient to melt the steel or even to soften it to its yield point. Detailed analysis of video footage, and spectrascopic analysis of the dusts produced by the demolition support the alternative theory that the Twin towers collapsed into their own footprint because of pre-placed controlled demolition charges triggered soon after the impacts had occurred. This sounds far-fetched. It pre-supposes that certain agencies expected the aircraft hijacking to happen, may have allowed them to happen and planned for the demolition of the Twin Towers using the aircraft impact as a plausible excuse for the results. The fact that WTC7 also fell into its own footprint when nothing hit it at all is suspicious by itself.

Why would any agency do this? Well, take a look at http://www.armed-combat.com/brzezinski.htm and see what it has to say about Zbigniew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard", a book that has been very influential in stating the long-term policy objectives of the USA. It is described as "nothing less than a blueprint for US global domination, drawn up by an insider of the American foreign policy establishment."

What happened after 9/11. Well, the bin Laden family were spirited out of the US with government assistance when no other flights were allowed! No, that's a red herring. What really happened was the War on Terror.

Was 9/11 "allowed to happen" to enable President Bush to persuade the American people that America should go to war, to achieve its foreign policy objectives. Not, perhaps, the policy objectives stated - to go after the terrorists - but rather the ones that are discussed in The Grand Chessboard, in order to secure control of Middle East oil production in advance of peak oil.

We shouldn't be too surprised at such a scenario. If 9/11 happened in this way and for these reasons, it won't have been the first time that a government has attacked its own people, or lied to them, in order to persuade them to go to war. It is now said that The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the pretext for the US entering the Vietnam War, never happened, but at the time US foreign policy was much exercised by the "domino theory" and strategists felt strongly that Communism had to be prevented from taking control of non-Communist Asian countries. Similarly, I have read that Churchill told Roosevelt that the Japanese were about to attack Pearl Harbour and that Roosevelt did not act on the information in order to give the USA the pretext it needed to enter the war in support of the Allies.

Intelligence Services are ideally placed to effect regime change by covert means. The assassination of Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran was contrived by Western intelligence agencies to enable the Shah of Persia to return to the Peacock Throne. The fact that British and American oil interests in that country were thereby saved from a proposed nationalisation was, of course, pure coincidence. The 2nd Iraq War was to effect regime change too. And the coming war against Iran will be for the same purpose.

So, to return to the 7/7 bombings in London, could it be that these too were "allowed to happen" in furtherance of long-term UK policy objectives? To enable the UK to join in with the War on Terror in support of the USA? To enable and justify a new set of draconian laws that work to limit individual liberties - laws that were never necessary at the height of the Troubles, when the IRA was at its most destructive - bombing the Mulberry Bush and Tavern in the Town pubs in Birmingham, or destroying a large part of Canary Wharf and the City of London.

Well, there you go. There are "dark forces" at work. Do we really want to know the truth? Would it make much difference if we did?