- Call me morbid or call me fatalistic, but something tells
me--and numerous others--that some unfortunate, unsuspecting US city will
be struck sometime soon. Then blame may be shifted from terrorists in Iraq
to those in Iran and a Middle East war may continue indefinitely with a
blank check from Congress. This plausible event may mirror London but I
suspect a few blown buses or subway cars might not be sufficient to sway
most American. That would require an attack on an emotional and physical
target, a symbol of our nation, so to speak, Martial law may then be declared, and
while more conspiratorial doubters may arise, as happened post-911, whatever
residual "freedoms" that remain in America after the emotional
attack may be no more substantial
than the choice of which Blockbuster movie to rent that evening.
-
- Maybe Philly this time? Or Boston or Los Angeles?
-
- Like London, Madrid and New York, some US city (or cities)
will likely suffer a sensational attack, coupled with highly suspicious
events, none of them reported by the mainstream press except perhaps in
passing. Events like those dancing Israelis who were stopped in a white
van, the inside of the truck smelling of explosives, moments after the
NYC attack. Or suspicious stock manipulations. Put options anyone? Remember
those? Not surprisingly, the powers-that-be never found out exactly who
placed them. Maybe because, if the American people knew, the outrage might
even spur the moribund American media to ask some uncomfortable questions.
But then again, maybe not.
-
- Houston, Dallas, Lubbock, Miami, Tampa, Tallahassee--those
are just a few of the safest cities that won't be hit by any acts of terrorism.
The Bushian family imprint lingers on those cities at this moment, and
they're safe from any suspicious "attacks."
-
- Also Portland and Seattle. Those two cities contain a
majority of open-minded people. The sort of people who would conduct their
own investigations if three of the tallest buildings in Portland or Seattle
inexplicably collapsed. New Yorkers, however, being complacent little citizens,
except at Yankee games, swallowed the fraud that a 47 story steel building
could collapse from a few small acts of arson.
-
- However, I'd put Washington DC, Los Angeles, Philidelphia,
and Boston at the top of the my list. Maybe some historic site. Hey, nothing
angers the knee-jerk American patriot like an attack on something perceived
as scared. Maybe Mount Rushmore or Independence Hall. Or the Washington
Monument. Or best of all, the Statue of Liberty.
-
- Perhaps we'll witness a well-orchestrated series of attacks.
Like London. Like 9-11.
- If FEMA visits your area, intent on some "training
exercise" against terrorism, watch out. And don't expect any sort
of investigation after the destruction. Again, as in London and New York.
-
- The Dead Pool of American cities that I've compiled would
include all of the above sites, would it not? And collateral damage might
be kept to a minimum. How many people are wandering around the Statue of
Liberty at midnight, for example?
-
- Thankfully, a few patriotic Conservatives--unlike the
so-called Liberals--are finally questioning the whole fabrication of that
scam called 9-11. The Leftists see Counterpunch) appear to be left out,
and the Rightests (see WorldNet) never gave the doubts of 9-11 any credence,
indifferent to the morass called Iraq, focusing their ire on Iran.
-
- Likewise, no mainstream site even considers the possibility
that the London bombs (as those in WTC-7) may have been placed long before
the explosions. But a few brave voices-- like Paul
Joseph Watson (Wasn't he the sidekick of Shelock Holmes?)--have been
raising a one man storm of doubts. Unfortunately these suspicious discrepancies
are blithely ignored by everyone from Antiwar.com to Zeenews, never mind
the mouthpieces of government disinfo, such as Fox, MSNBC or CNN. Indeed,
if the 20th century was the Age of Information, the 21st must certainly
be called the Age of Disinformation.
-
- I'm convinced, however, that only by shedding light on
schemes devised by the Princes of Darkness, that some black ops have been
postponed, cancelled or diminished in scope. When Scott Ritter and Joe
Vialls predicted a June strike against Iran, the firestorm of controversy
may have prevented the planned strike from happening or being postponed.
-
- But let us consider the list of likely "terrorist"
targets here at home. I am convinced certain sites have already been scripted
from a multitude of angles and success ratios. Perhaps even a series of
attacks, as in London and New York.
-
- My list:
-
- 1.Washington DC---Washington Monument, with the Lincoln
Memorial a distant second but distinctly possible. Congressional buildings?
Who would miss them? Destruction of the Senate, however, might allow the
suspension of liberties altogether, as the Reichstag
Fire in Nazi Germany allowed a premise for suspension of liberties
in the Third Reich. I would think a gas attack or bomb blast in the DC
subway might not be "terror-ible" enough for the planners, in
order to suspend liberties in Washington DC which, to anyone who has visited
recently, is already a Fuhrerbunker
surrounded by concrete barriers and seige mentality.
-
- 2. New York City (again)---Statue of Liberty. Safest
place in any New York "terrorist" strike? The inside the New
York Stock Exchange during the day, because who would dare destroy this
cathedral? (except early Sunday morning when no one is around). The New
York subway system might be bombed, or one of the many bridges and tunnels
spanning the two rivers surrounding Manhattan might be destroyed, but how
would the mayor and police chief explain away the lack of security? Unless,
of course, they were part of the plot, as Giuliani
and Silverstein appeared to be in New York.
-
- 3. Philadelphia-- Independence
Hall
-
- 4. Boston-- Faneuil
Hall. This largely Democratic city might make a fine target for the
next terrorist "attack." After all, Enron's phoney energy hikes
to largely Democratic California was an economic attack by a loyal Bush
ally, and cost that state billions in damages. Therefore, any large, predominately
Democratic city should consider themself forewarned, especially if FEMA
visits your city for training exercises.
-
- 5. Los Angeles--Too many targets to list, but that insures
the safety of LA to some degree. Bridges, overpasses, tunnels and subways
are easily accessible at night, to plant bombs to explode at rush hour,
but how would this contribute to the suspension of liberties? Chaos is
a desired effect but also counterproductive to some degree.
-
- There you have it. No need to fear "terrorism"
if you live anywhere else in America, because the terrorists operate mostly
in DC and New York. Of course, if you live downwind of a nuke plant, you're
always going to be in danger but Homeland Security should have all these
well-protected. But you never know the power of a box cutter.
-
- Readers may email me with their likely target. Maybe
a defunct nuclear power plant in their home state? I doubt practical sites
like the Hoover Dam would be blown up. A huge economic target like Hoover
Dam presents many problems to the BO boys and certain well-connected elites
(economy) would wreck something that useful. Subways and buses, and the
people who ride them, are expendible however.
-
- Maybe all of those glossy travel magazine will soon feature
stories about
- America's Safest Cities From Terrorism, as they once
featured stories in the 'Eighties about liveability. Really, If I lived
in any of the target zones above, I would keep my eyes wide open to suspicious
people wearing official disguises (uniforms), flashing badges, prohibiting
entry, working at odd hours performing perplexing tasks. Watch them!
-
- Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the
author of the recent novel, Guns
of Dallas available online or autographed copies may be purchased directly
from the author at douglasherman7@yahoo.com
-
|
