Title : Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.?
link : Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.?
Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.?
I had a wonderful Christmas vacation -- a vacation from writing, from the news, from Trump, from everything depressing. I'd have preferred to stay on vacation for a while longer (maybe forever). But as always, something came up -- a reminder that we all have to do what we can, however small, to fight the forces of villainy. Even a seemingly-pointless gesture of defiance carries more honor than silent acquiescence.I think that the killing of Soleimani could well be the pretext for a war that the neocons have demanded since the W administration. However, I do not agree with Jonathan Chait is correct that Trump is under the impression that the killing of Soleimani will help the president gain re-election. In order to gain the power he seeks, Trump may need to do something far more audacious.
Taking out the General was only step one of the plan.
Step two may include the staging of a terrorist event in the United States -- probably directed against one of Trump's properties. For reasons I've given in previous post, I have tentatively predicted an attack (possibly using a portable nuclear device) on Trump's troubled tower in Chicago.
A terror attack on this nation will allow Trump to declare emergency powers. God help us.
Are you going to accuse me now of being an Alex Jonesian fearmonger? So be it. One of the few advantages of being a "fringe" writer is that I can put my worst fears on the record. Similar thoughts have no doubt occurred to many more respectable pundits and analysts -- but they aren't allowed to say such things out loud.
Pompeo has claimed that Soleimani had made unspecified plans that posed an imminent threat to the lives of American diplomats. (Wait. This administration now likes diplomats?) This absurd assertion deserves to be classified alongside Bush's big whopper about Saddam's WMDs.
Think about it. Why would Soleimani have plotted to "kill many more Americans," as Trump claimed on teevee a short while agao? Iran would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from a provocation.
The Iranians know full well that the neocons have been trying to gin up an American invasion of Iran for at least fifteen years. Why would the Iranians choose this historical moment to give their enemies the pretext they have long sought?
Iran spent years of fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq. More than any other single individual -- and certainly more than Trump -- Soleimani deserved to be called "The man who conquered ISIS." As a result of this struggle, Iran had finally gained everything it wanted in Syria -- the withdrawal of the Americans, the abandonment of the Kurds, and end of the threat to Assad. Iran had become the de facto power within Iraq, where Soleimani basically called the shots.
Why on earth would Iran do something now to invite the Americans back into the region?
Simple logic forces us to doubt Trump's claim that Soleimani had planned an attack on American diplomats. Simple logic tells us that no such threat existed. It's another Big Lie from the biggest liar in the history of American politics.
I'm sure that the Trumpers will eventually backstop this Big Lie with just enough pseudo-evidence to intimidate the Democrats. We must pressure the Dems to treat this pseudo-evidence with the contempt it defers. Let's not repeat the mistakes of 2003.
If an "imminent threat" existed, we would have heard specifics already.
More importantly, Congress could have heard specific details in closed hearings.
The claim that Congressional leaders could not have been notified is still another lie, easily proven as such. Trump managed to give a heads-up to Lindsey Graham, who is not one of the so-called "Gang of Eight" who are required by law to be notified. Lindsey received word of the coming strike on Soleimani while playing golf with Trump out at Mar-A-Lago -- a trip which lasted from December 21 to December 29.
If Trump blabbed everything to Lindsey, he could have informed the Gang of Eight, as law dictates. All members of that group would have treated secrets as secrets, as they always have in the past.
Most telling of all was a New Year's Eve tweet from Eric Trump, a towering intellectual who always knows when to play it subtle.
Lindsey Graham was in Florida from December 20-29th, and he was briefed on this operation then. So tell me again, why is @EricTrump's tweet, which took place on the 31st, definitely not about this? pic.twitter.com/5ADT5QLc9m— Shrouded☠Sciuridae (@ShroudSciuridae) January 3, 2020
Nothing there about a grave threat to American diplomats. Instead, Eric offered gleeful, sniggering childishness.
You may also want to take into consideration this tweet from Mark Ames:
Been hearing for awhile that Trump Admin seriously believes the DC think-tank brainslop that Iran is on the verge of a youth-led color revolution, just needs one last push to bring about a pro-NATO Maidan revolution in Tehran. We're ruled by dumb psychos. https://t.co/l3wIfnX0qK— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) January 3, 2020
Ames is hardly my favorite person. He's a YAFL (Yet Another Fucking Libertarian), and he's close to the vile Taibbi. But sometimes you have to chat with a demon if you want to learn the latest rumors from Hell.
In that light, you may want to check out this tweet:
Follow-up tweets:Like clockwork, here come the troll and bot accounts with the @.word12345678 usernames that were created literally *today*, to spread propaganda defending the US war of aggression against Iran and call for regime change— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 3, 2020
This is so obviously a gov-backed disinformation operation pic.twitter.com/jokpd0yQj9
Like clockwork, here come the troll and bot accounts with the @.word12345678 usernames that were created literally *today*, to spread propaganda defending the US war of aggression against Iran and call for regime change— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 3, 2020
This is so obviously a gov-backed disinformation operation pic.twitter.com/jokpd0yQj9
Tens of thousands of bot accounts spread mountains of propaganda to support the US-backed fascist coup in Bolivia— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) January 2, 2020
These fake accounts flooding social media with disinformation have become a standard feature of US hybrid warfare against independent nationshttps://t.co/4kTCwz5JJE
Message to the Dems: Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq, coupled with the economic disaster of 2008, should have ended the GOP once and for all. But that didn't happen.
Why didn't it? Because the mightiest propaganda machine in history managed to convince millions of people that the Dems bore co-responsibility for Dubya's insanity: "Hillary voted for the authorization of force! Therefore, she made Bush invade Iraq! She made Colin Powell lie about WMDs!" We saw that message all over the right and left side of the web.
The dolts who now blame that evil war on the Dems are the same dolts who, throughout 2003, chanted thought-stopping cliches like "Freedom isn't free!"
Fact: In 2003, only the lefties mounted large-scale anti-war protests. Nobody on the right did so, although there were a few ineffective anti-war murmurs on the libertarian and paleocon blogs, who opposed the invasion for reasons of their own. Rightwingers of that era pressured the Dems mercilessly by screaming "TRAITOR!" at anyone who questioned Dubya's honesty. In 2004, Ann Coulter wrote an entire book which pushed the idea that liberals were in the secret pay of Saddam Hussein.
Seventeen years later, the history of that period has received an Orwellian rewrite. Trump portrays himself as an early opponent of the Iraq war, even though he was no such thing. The Republican party has suffered almost no consequences for engineering America's most disastrous conflict.
Such is the mind-warping, history-twisting power of the right-wing media.
If there is war with Iran, the situation will go south very quickly. Bank on it. When war happens, before it happens, the public must understand that the sole responsibility for this coming debacle lies with Trump and the Republican party. Elizabeth Warren's initial response is pretty good, but she must be more forceful. So must all of the other Dems.
The best way to prevent further wars is to de-fang the right.
Thus Article Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.?
That's an article Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.? This time, hopefully can give benefits to all of you. well, see you in posting other articles.
You are now reading the article Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.? with the link address https://darmonewst.blogspot.com/2020/01/pretext-for-war-will-trump-now-stage.html
0 Response to "Pretext for war: Will Trump now stage a "terror" attack in the U.S.?"
Post a Comment