I suppose it was always going to happen, and I suppose it was the fact that it was always going to happen and that 'the powers that be' knew it, that they exert so much effort in attempting to keep the people distracted. The war on terror has begun to unravel and descend into the only thing it could - farce, albeit a rather insidious and complicated one.
A few days ago, the US Senate OK'd a legislative package that was tied to the 9/11 panel recommendations and involves "more stringent screening of air and sea cargo" or to put it another way, "heightened security checks at airports". The major effect of the measures on passengers will be significantly longer wait times and more crowding at airports. The measures are, of course, designed to protect the people against "terrorism".
Jump across the pond to England, to the day before the Senate approved longer wait times and more crowding at airports, and a report by the UK Commons transport select committee stated that heightened security checks at airports, and the resulting queues of hundreds of passengers in cramped spaces, would create a potential new target for terrorists.
Basically, US lawmakers are implementing measures that they say will protect airline passengers against terrorist attacks, while at the very same time, lawmakers in the UK are issuing reports that say that the type of measures that the US lawmakers are implementing to protect passengers from "terrorist attacks" will actually put them at greater risk from "terrorist attacks".
These clear contradictions in our governments' policies to safeguard the public from "worldwide Islamic terrorism" suggest that something is seriously wrong with the way our governments are waging their "war on terror". In fact, to a skeptical mind like mine, it suggests that the "war on terror" is little more than a ruse, an excuse for governments to implement increasingly restrictive, and dare I say draconian laws. But to what end?
It could be argued that because the US military's efforts to spread "freedom and democracy" to Iraq have caused the unnecessary deaths of up to 1 million Iraqi civilians, there may well be many Iraqis, and Muslims in general, who would like nothing more than a chance to repay this kindness bestowed on their Iraqi brothers by the American and British government by perpetrating "terrorist" attacks on US and British soil.
If only 1% of the world's 1 billion Muslims were to seek revenge for the Iraq slaughter, then the US and UK would definitely be under serious threat, and increased security measures are therefore necessary indeed.
The problem with this theory is that today's already highly 'securitised' Western world, makes it very difficult for any real terrorist organisation to carry out effective attacks against targets in Western nations. The UK for example has deployed literally millions of CCTV cameras around the nation, and other European nations are moving in the same direction. In America, the population has been so brainwashed into believing that terrorists may strike at any moment that ordinary Muslims in America are beginning to understand how the blacks felt 50 years ago in Alabama. From the freedom to tap every phone in the nation (if the CIA and FBI so chose) to the hysteria generated by innocuous yet "highly suspicious" devices, there is little chance that a real terrorist group would survive long enough to implement their nefarious plans in the national security state that is America.
Not only is the ability of any would-be terrorist to carry out an attack seriously curtailed at the site of any potential terror attack, the extent to which the governments of supposedly "terrorist harboring" nations are controlled by Western governments through their control of the World bank, means that the potential for any aspiring terrorist group to even develop a realistic plan for a "spectacular" attack is almost nil. As evidence, witness the litany of extremely dubious candidates for "home-grown terror cells" that the FBI and MI5 have produced over the past few years.
There is also a serious problem with the 'logic' that any real terrorist organisation would even engage in the clearly counter-productive strategy of attacking innocent civilians of any nation. The leadership of every bone-fide terrorist organisation over the years has been fully aware of this and has ultimately included it as a central aspect of its strategy. Those "terrorist" organisations that did attempt to indirectly attack an enemy government by killing innocent civilians believing that such attacks would cause the people to turn on their own government, quickly realised that this does not work in practice because, in a state of trauma such as that following a mass casualty attack, people want revenge against 'the enemy', they do not want to think.
Such terror attacks on civilians therefore have always been a gift to governments because it immediately places the population on a war-footing. It is logical to conclude therefore that terror attacks on civilians serve one of the core agendas of The American, British and Israeli governments - to wage war - and are in fact seriously counter-productive to the "terrorist" agenda, who generally only exist as a response to and for the purpose of correcting the injustices that accompany wars of colonisation waged by governments.
Of course, it is natural that governments would want to stand this truth on its head and present the "terrorists" as a force that emerged out of nothing and against which they, our brave leaders, fight. The reality however is that there is indeed a force that emerged out of nowhere and needs nothing other than the existence of prey in order for it to feed, but it is not "terrorists", it is organised psychopathy, and ordinary humanity are their prey. All other actual resistance groups (aka "terrorists") are a response to this force, although they usually do not fully understand the true nature of that which they fight.
Sadly, none of these questions about the origin or likelihood of the reality of "terrorism" as presented by Western governments are likely to ever enter the head of the ordinary person in the street. This is due to the fear-based, blind dependency on the dictates of the state that has been created in the masses by way of the spreading of state-sponsored terrorism propaganda.
As long as the "reality" of fake terrorism can be manufactured in the minds of the people, there is no reason to believe that the people will ever question that reality. Basically, as long as it exists in the mind of the people it is a "reality".
It was to this very strategy that the unnamed Neocon referred last year when he said (as quoted by NY Times journalist Ron Suskind):
[...] he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.The judicious studying of the discernible reality of "Islamic terrorism" proves it to be not real at all. This is why the unnamed Neocon stated that "that's not the way the world really works anymore", because the Neocons cannot have ordinary people judiciously studying reality and arriving at this all-too-logical conclusion. The solution to this problem, from the Neocon point of view, is to create a "reality" that, while bearing no resemblance to actual reality, nevertheless becomes the reality because it is effectively manufactured in and propped up by the "belief center" of the general population.
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
In summing up, we can say that the reality of Islamic terror is first seeded in the minds of the people by way of the trauma of terror attacks that are ascribed to phony "Islamic terrorists". These attacks are real, but the reasons given for why they occurred are not. The real authors of the attacks - psychopaths - consolidate this fake reality by later imposing "security measures" allegedly to thwart further "terror attacks". Both the initial fake terror attack and the later security measures are both real and discernible by the ordinary person, but what has been lost in the process (by design of course) is the ordinary person's ability to think logically and critically about the 'whys' and 'hows' of the "terrorist threat". They have, in effect, been rendered incapable of questioning the reality of that which they have been forced to believe and are in fact unaware that they have been forced to believe anything at all. The 'reality' of it there for all to see!
When our government announces increased security measures, this strongly suggests to us that the threat is real, because who would believe that our governments would needlessly militarise our homelands? Having in this way convinced ourselves that the threat is real, we can then be easily provoked into further fear-based responses at the drop of a hat, or a backpack on a train perhaps. This general atmosphere of fear among the population then gives rise to an instinctive emotional-based dependence on authority to protect them from the threat, and this dependency then inhibits them from engaging in independent, critical thinking. Having made the decision that they are dependent on authority for their physical safety, ordinary people will tend to automatically acquiesce to the demands of that authority, or let the authority do the thinking for them, particularly in the context of 'terror alerts'. It is essentially a feedback loop, where the inducing of dependency on the state for protection feeds the reality of the "terror threat" in the minds of the people because they are simply unable to think logically about the practical aspects of the reality, or otherwise, of the terror threat.
This is the goal of increased security measures and one of the goals of the "war on terror" itself, which, as you should now be able to see, is more accurately described as a war of terror.
It's a trap, a virtual prison for the masses, the very substance of which consists of the credulousness of the people themselves.
All in all, we find ourselves in a bit of a quandary, to put it mildly. The only thing we can do it seems, is to strive to get the True reality of the situation firmly embedded in our brains by judiciously (or objectively and unemotionally) observing and analyzing each event as it unfolds. From there, we can have some hope of helping others to do the same. As long as our ability to see and think logically remains infected - and it is a form of infection or mental illness - with this type of reversal of reality and double/triple think however, we will be no good to anyone, least of all ourselves.