• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Super Bowl Sunday Showed Us There Is No Al- Qaeda Threat
 

Super Bowl Sunday Showed Us There Is No Al- Qaeda Threat

on

  • 253 views

The threat is an all-encompassing police state and control grid ...

The threat is an all-encompassing police state and control grid
Al-Qaeda was not interested in bombing the Super Bowl. If the shadowy terror group harbored a
sincere interest in killing Americans, it would have done so by now. There is ample opportunity in
America for terrorists to engage in mass murder even with a police state lockdown.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
253
Views on SlideShare
253
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Super Bowl Sunday Showed Us There Is No Al- Qaeda Threat Super Bowl Sunday Showed Us There Is No Al- Qaeda Threat Document Transcript

    • Super Bowl Sunday Showed Us There Is No AlQaeda Threat Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com February 3, 2014 The threat is an all-encompassing police state and control grid Al-Qaeda was not interested in bombing the Super Bowl. If the shadowy terror group harbored a sincere interest in killing Americans, it would have done so by now. There is ample opportunity in America for terrorists to engage in mass murder even with a police state lockdown. This was demonstrated on Sunday when Matthew Mills, a citizen journalist described dismissively as a “9/11 truther,” managed to penetrate what was billed as unprecedented security at the Super Bowl. He was able to enter the stadium without problem, grab a microphone and go live on ESPN and declare the September 11 attacks were “perpetrated by people in our own government.” If Mills was able to easily defeat security with a press pass it seems likely al-Qaeda or other terrorists would be able to do the same. But they didn’t and they haven’t. That’s because al-Qaeda is not a threat. Al-Qaeda is something other than what the government says it is. It is a phantom. The government claims it has mastered terror interruptus. Every few months it parades a witless patsy before the media and says it prevented another terror plot. It proudly claims it has prevented dozens of attacks. But there is an unmistakable pattern here. The supposed terrorists are set-up by the FBI and its army of agent provocateurs. The fact the FBI finds dupes and arranges attacks never meant to be carried out is downplayed by the corporate media. The government dramatically exploits the cases to push its police state agenda. We saw this recently when California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee and its counterpart in the House cited phony terror plots to excuse NSA surveillance of the American people. A dedicated terrorist would have no problem walking into a mall or a post office and detonating a bomb. A terror attack like the one at the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi last year or at hotels in Mumbai in 2008 would be relatively easy to pull off here in America. The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security would be unable to stop such an attack the same way they were unable to stop the
    • Washington Navy Yard shooting. All the hoopla in the lead-up to the Super Bowl game – thousands of cops, TSA checkpoints, bomb sniffing dogs, military helicopters, F16s and restricted airspace – all of it is theater designed to make you think the government is protecting us against terrorists. Every American should realize by now the massive surveillance and police state grid systematically going into place is not about alQaeda or crazed jihadists who hate us for our freedom. It is about making sure the American people are unable to politically organize and throw out the bankster and corporatist controlled government that is destroying the country. The anti-terror Kabuki theater in New Jersey was not about scaring off the minions of Osama bin Laden. It was intended to show Americans they live in a police state. Resistance is not yet futile, but the longer we put up with this tyrannical charade and allow the state to tighten its totalitarian vice around us, it soon will be. The Continuing Al-Qaeda Threat Ron Paul Infowars.com February 3, 2014 Appearing last week before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that he could not say the threat from al-Qaeda is any less today than it was ten years ago. It was a shocking admission. Does he mean that the trillions of dollars spent fighting the war on terrorism have resulted in no gains? That those who urged us to give up some of our liberties to gain security have, as Benjamin Franklin warned, lost both?
    • There may be reasons Director Clapper would want us to believe that the threat from al-Qaeda is as strong as ever. An entire industry has arisen from the government’s war on terror, and for both the government sector and the security-industrial complex the terrorist threat is big business. Economic pressure has thus far not affected the military or intelligence sectors – despite false claims that the sequestration cut military spending. However, emphasizing continued high threat levels without being able to openly explain them due to secrecy requirements is one way to keep the security budget untouched. Also, emphasizing the continued high threat level from terrorists overseas is a good way to frighten citizens away from their increasing outrage over reports of massive domestic spying by the NSA. Unfortunately Americans may still be more willing to give up their liberties if they are told that the threats to their security remain as high as ever. What if Clapper is telling us the truth, however? What would this revelation mean if that is the case? For one, it means that we have gotten very little for the tremendous amount of spending on the war on terrorism and the lives lost. We are told that the military and intelligence community can protect us if they are given the tools they need, but it appears they have not done a very good job by their own admission. More likely, it may mean that the US government’s policies are causing more al-Qaeda groups to arise and take the place of those who have been defeated by US drone and military attacks. Clapper does mention that there are so many different al-Qaeda franchises popping up it is difficult to keep track of them all, much less defeat them. But why is that? A former State Department official stated last year that every new drone strike in Yemen that kills innocent people results in the creation of 40-60 new enemies. Likewise, the young girl from Pakistan who had been brutally shot by the Taliban for her desire to go to school told President Obama during a White House meeting that “drone attacks are fueling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people.” Are there more al-Qaeda groups out there because our policies keep creating new ones? On that point, Clapper said to the Senate that in Syria the al-Qaeda affiliated al-Nusra Front “does have aspirations for attacks on the homeland.” It is all the more disturbing, then, to have also read last week that Congress voted in secret to resume sending weapons to the Syrian rebels, who are dominated by alQaeda-affiliated groups. We have read about US-supplied weapons meant for “moderates” in Syria being seized by radicals on several occasions, and the Voice of America reported last year that our Saudi “allies” are arming the same al-Nusra Front that Clapper identifies as a threat to the US. Is the US Congress arming the very people who will commit the next attack on US soil? Why is al-Qaeda as much a threat as it was ten years ago? Perhaps it is that we continue to fight the wrong war in the wrong manner. Perhaps because we refuse to consider that many overseas are angry because of our government’s policies and actions. After ten years of no progress, is it not time to try something new? Is it not time to try non-intervention and a strong defense rather than drone strikes and pre-emptive attacks? Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 2/3/14: The Continuing Al-Qaeda Threat VIDEO BELOW http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzHG-KX7FR0 INFOWARS.COM BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND