Dead Pool - Pick The
Next City Attacked
By Douglas Herman
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 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



This Site Served by TheHostPros