TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

"Should everyone in the country be scared every three months?" (5 posts)

1. truthmover
   Administrator

   So here it is. On schedule.

   Dangerous Crossroads: US Sponsored War Games by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&...

   US Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) has announced the conduct of major war games under Vigilant Shield 2008 (VS-08).

   Vigilant Shield 2008 (15 to 20 October, 2007) is designed to deal with a "terrorist" or "natural disaster" scenario in the United States. The operation will be coordinated in a joint endeavor by the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security.

   This is not a prediction. But with that title, and as the top story on Global Research, it does lend itself to that kind of speculation.

   Now right back to my comment from three weeks ago on the 'Portland Warning" thread.

   Our military and intelligence agencies have all manner of yearly, bi-yearly, and quarterly training exercises, held all over the country. Some of the public, some of them secret. Many of them involve the cooperation of multiple agencies. For instance, there are many overlapping exercises planned for Oct. 11th, unless I hadn't heard otherwise. That's the date every year when some of the same drills happening on 9/11 will be happening yet again. They pulled back the drills one month for only that year. http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/669?replies=3...

   Just making a point, and evidently not very accurately. But it was Vigilant Shield that I was so indirectly referring to. Gotta look it up.

   So we're having the intuition that now is a good time for another false flag attack? And so the latest yearly training exercises become more suspect than usual? I don't remember anyone being all that concerned about Vigilant Shield last year? We are right in the middle of this exercise. Two more days! Shall we go buy some duct tape?

   Or maybe we could investigate when the next training exercise is happening, maybe a couple months from now, and start speculating about how that one could 'go live.'

   I'm being sarcastic to make a point. False flag attacks are real. But none of us will ever have any idea when one is likely, irrespective of the the 9/11-7/7 link. As people keep making these predictions, occasionally a few of them are correct. That's no kind of scientific method.

   I do not have any knowledge of present covert actions within our secret government. That is rather self evident, but very important. We have been talking about this being a movement committed to promoting facts. Predicting future false flag attacks is a speculative business that may not sit well next to our fundamental priorities.

   It seems that false flag prediction is sweeping the movement. Yes it could happen. Yes we should educate people about false flag attacks, and 9/11 truth. Facts. But prediction has never been a part of our strategy here at TruthMove.

   All the information we present certainly lends itself to many suspicions, some of them more reasonable than others. Some we might promote, such as our probable cause to suspect some form of government complicity in 9/11, while others we might not, like poorly founded predictions of upcoming false flag attacks.

   Anyone seeing the silver lining here? Always ready to change my mind.

   Posted 17 years ago #
2. Arabesque
   Member

   As someone who has tried to collect the predictions, it's obvious how problematic this can be.

   There is a difference between speculating about observed facts, and reporting them. One brings awareness while the other is a form of disinformation because it cannot be confirmed.

   Ray McGovern, George W. Bush: A CIA Analysis, http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11481, August 22, 2007

   “The craft of CIA analysis was designed to be an all-source operation, meaning that we analysts were responsible – and held accountable – for assimilating information from all sources and coming to judgments on what it all meant. We used information of all kinds, from the most sophisticated technical collection platforms to spies to open media. Here I have to reveal a trade secret, which punctures the mystique of intelligence analysis. Generally speaking, 80 percent of the information one needs to form judgments on key intelligence targets or issues is available in open media. It helps to have training from past masters of media analysis, which began in a structured way in targeting Japanese and German media in the 1940s. But, truth be told, everyone with a high-school education can do it. It is not rocket science.”

   “The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.” Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truth

   Posted 17 years ago #
3. chrisc
   Member

   There is a difference between speculating about observed facts, and reporting them. One brings awareness while the other is a form of disinformation because it cannot be confirmed.

   And this appears to me to be the difference between Michel Chossudovsky and a number of other activists who I don't need to name...

   Cindy Sheehan's article, The 'Fix', http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/17/462... is good on this issue:

   The order of events in the conversations I have heard or read go something like this: BushCo and Congress, Inc. are ramping up the rhetoric for an attack on Iran (true). In their little minds and black hearts they still assume that most of us are still stupid and we will believe anything they ever say again (true). Yet, they have told us that Iran and Ahmadinejad have done just about everything except try to assassinate George’s Pop (still true). So, if you believes that 9-11 was a “false flag” op, then you say that BushCo will engineer ANOTHER false flag op, blame Iran, declare martial law, (George can do that unilaterally now because of Presidential Directive 51) and attack Iran, possibly using “strategic” nuclear strikes on “military” targets. Then of course, when our Homeland is in such a terrible state of emergency, it would be an awful idea to “change horses in the middle of the stream,” you know, so we must suspend elections, thereby staging yet BushCo’s third coup in a row, the first two being the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004.

   If, God forbid, any of this does happen, my guess is most of us will go shopping and have our holidays as usual; however, I am not so certain that martial law or even suspending elections will be necessary. Whoever becomes our president in 2008 will likely be more than happy to continue the neo-con agenda of global, imperial and military American hegemony.

   The likely nominee for the Democratic Party will be Hillary Clinton, a Fem-Bush who has been virtually endorsed by George and accepts money from Rupert Murdoch, he of Fox “News” infamy and who will soon own every newspaper and cable news network in the Homeland. Hillary guarantees and assures us that if she is elected she could nuke Iran and maybe, just maybe have most of our troops home from Iraq by the end of her first term. One would have to step down onto the 2nd tier of Democratic hopefuls to find a candidate who would guarantee us a swift end to the occupation of Iraq, but they are no match to the money or machine behind the Clinton mojo.

   And Michel Chossudovsky's latest on Bush's World War III comment, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&... is also worth a read:

   At present US and coalition forces including NATO and Israel are in an advanced state of readiness to launch an attack on Iran. Leaders of the coalition fully understand that such an action will result in a World War III scenario. Escalation scenarios have already been envisaged and analyzed by the Pentagon. US sponsored war games have even foreseen the possible intervention of Russia and China.

   Posted 17 years ago #
4. NicholasLevis
   Member

   Jeff Wells excellent as always touched upon this in his latest piece, focusing on the same m.o. coming from Alex Jones: a series of guaranteed predictions of terror explosions and martial law that never came.

   http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/10/blowd-up-real-g...

   I looked it up and discovered that Jones was doing this just as constantly before 9/11. In fact, his biggest hype ever was for Y2K. (Remember that? For the 15-year olds among you, it was the IT industry's marketing scheme to pump up the tech bubble by terrorizing computer illiterates into buying new machines in 1999.) Y2K was going to cause disasters as a pretext for martial law and NWO activation, guaranteed, Jones said (or rather, barked for hours on his show). In that light, Jones's guesses before 9/11 no longer seem so remarkable, unless of course Jordan, Israel, Russia, Able Danger et al. were feeding him the same "warnings" they delivered to the U.S. government. (Full disclosure: prior to 9/11 I was telling everyone within earshot that the return of the Bush mob to open power via a stolen election would lead straight to a Reichstag fire and war on Iraq; as Bob Bowman might say, "it's only rocket science.")

   Military exercises are a proven means of covering for operations. This is well known. It only works to surprise, however, because so many exercises are held all the time that don't turn into operations. That doesn't make the exercises harmless; on the contrary, besides being an awesome fiscal, human and ecological waste, the many rehearsals serve in developing the later operations, and the machine of course inevitably does what it trained to do; just as all weapons systems developed are used at some point, just as no crime of state was ever committed without a scenario for it devised and drilled in advance. The focus on exercises needs to move away from the alarmism that ends up crying wolf, and to a dissection of the system that necessarily produces the occasional wolf on an irregular schedule.

   Every day after 9/11, for months, I was waiting for the next number. The last one I fell for in my mind was 6.6.2004 (numerologically: 666!). It's obvious you can't predict these things and such expectations may be based in a misunderstanding of the real psychology behind synthetic terror (a fine term despite its coiner). These are punctuating or atmospheric events as much as they are enabling; I think they're logically placed at the start of administrations to force the agenda for years at a time (WTC Classic was six weeks into Clinton; six weeks into Reagan it was merely Hinckley). The shock part lets everyone think the world's ending today, when it's just a notch up in slow strangulation.

   By that logic, the next big domestic terror number is likely in 2009, whereas a possible Iran attack - given that it's already received sufficent Congressional imprimatur from the Bushist perspective - will need no more for a pretext than claims of supposed Iranian actions in Iraq that kill US soldiers there. But at this stage, I'm not expecting Iran except as a mad-dog action by the PNAC crew, without establishment cover.

   Posted 17 years ago #
5. truthmover
   Administrator

   Jeff Wells keeping step with the movement as always.

   http://rigint.blogspot.com/2007/10/blowd-up-real-g...

   Fixing dates for the end of the world and bouncing with goosebumps from one fabricated scenario to the next is imposing a false narrative upon a story that has yet to be told. And the temptation is great, in part because many of the plot points are whispered suggestions of the storyteller who'll never tell us the whole story, but simply means to give us a good fright.

   He mentions many examples of past predictions, including those made my Alex Jones, and the Kennebunkport Warning, linking to Arabesque's coverage.

   Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.