Who's Truly Behind The Attack On America?
by
Jim Marrs
Many people have compared the horrendous terrorist attack
on New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington to the attack
on Pearl Harbor in 1941. It is an apt comparison, though not for the reasons
most people think.
For true students of history, it is now nearly beyond
dispute that certain high-ranking officials in Washington, D. C. knew in
advance of the Japanese intention to attack the U.S. fleet in Hawaii, yet did
nothing to prevent it.
President Roosevelt, who at the time was blatantly
violating the Neutrality Act, has been quoted as saying, "A Japanese
attack on us.would certainly fulfill two of the most important requirements of
our policy [to engage America in the war despite his pledge to keep us out of
war.]"
Must the citizens of the United States wait another 50
years to learn that the 9-11 terrorist attack was allowed to take place just
like Pearl Harbor?
Could such an appalling scenario possibly be true?
Consider the comment of Kenneth Katzman, a terrorist expert
with the Congressional Research Service, who told the Washington Post,
"How nothing could have been picked up [by U.S. intelligence agencies
regarding the coming attack] is beyond me."
Simple countermeasures against such an attack now seem
apparent. For example, if the airlines would assigned just one armed
plainclothes security man to each flight, this tragedy may have been averted
since apparently the hijackers were armed only with knives or other type
blades. So, how were they able to overpower a plane load of people and, more
importantly, gain access to the cockpits? Who taught them to fly jumbo jets?
As in the case of the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy, the key to understanding the event lies not in who actually committed
the violence but rather who was able to strip away the normal security
protection.
Government and airline officials knew immediately that
planes had been hijacked, yet no interceptors appeared in the air until after
the attacks were completed. Who stripped away the normal security protection of
America on 9-11?
At least in this most recent case, the government cannot
blame the attack on a lone deranged individual, some Lee Harvey McVeigh. They
must deal with a full-blown conspiracy, even though authorities were quick to
point the finger at Osama bin-Laden. Any investigation of bin-Laden must look
beyond the man, to the backers and financiers behind him.
The trail of the terrorists will most probably become
murky, with plenty of accusations for all concerned. But one thing appears
quite clear, the tragic events of 9-11 play right into the hands of persons
with an agenda aimed at eroding American liberties and sovereignty.
After decades of bloated and misused defense budgets, there
are now calls for doubling our defense allocation. In a time of rising
recognition that the CIA is an agency never sought by the public and one which
has brought so much condemnation on this nation, there are now cries for
doubling its size and budget. If the chief security officer for a large company
fails to protect one of its most prized assets, is he more likely to be fired
or have his pay doubled?
Watch for more anti-terrorist legislation to further shred
the U.S. Constitution.
As we all scramble to deal with the effects of terrorism,
are we in danger of losing our few remaining individual liberties? The media
blithely reported that each of the cell phone calls made by doomed passengers
on the hijacked airliners was recorded by the government. Doesn't this mean
that all cell phone calls are, or can be, recorded? Whatever happened to
telephone privacy? Where is the indignant outcry over such Big Brotherism.
But the biggest threat comes from the inner elite of the
globalist societies. Within hours of the attack, the television and radio
airwaves were full of ranking Council on Foreign Relations members, such as
Henry Kissinger, Wesley Clark, Alexander Haig and Strobe Talbot. Talbot,
President Clinton's deputy secretary of state, told Time magazine in 1992, "In
the next century [today], nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states
will recognize a single, global authority."
No matter who was speaking, their "party line"
was the same: terrible tragedy, find and punish those responsible, stop
terrorism. But, of course, since terrorists move between national boundaries,
we must joined with other "freedom loving" nations and work with the
United Nations and NATO to combat this new menace. This is a thinly-disguised
effort to have a mourning and emotional American public stampeded into their
New World Order.
Also, consider that we are distracted from a faltering
economy [the current crisis may require more federal financial controls], a
plummeting public opinion of George W. Bush and surging energy prices.
Would leaders allow a public disaster to happen with an eye
toward advancing their agendas? It's happened before. in Nero's burning Rome,
Germany's gutted Reichstag, at Pearl Harbor and gain at the Gulf of Tonkin.
While we should grieve for our losses, we must keep our
heads. When the emotions of the moment run hot, we must remain cool and
thoughtful so that we can find who is truly behind this attack on America.