The Curious Timing of the Terrorist Attacks: It's Almost Like They're On Our Side

by Scott Creighton

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before." White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, Nov. 2008

As has always been the case since 2001, the bungling blasters who end up attacking our freedom rarely do so when it isn't of the utmost convenience for the White House. This latest example, connected to the Waziristan area of Pakistan, holds true to that formula. One might start wondering if all these "terrorists" are actually on our side.

Now, I say "since 2001″ not because what they did wasn't convenient for the previous White House. In fact, the Patriot Act was sitting waiting to go, the plans for invading Afghanistan were dropped on Bush's desk on Sept. 9th 2001, Donald Rumsfeld had just announced 2.3 trillion dollars was "missing" from the Pentagon, and old "Lucky" Larry Silverstein had just secured his billion dollar insurance policy on the Twin Towers right before the event. Not to mention the fact that the Bush administration was already at a terribly low approval rating or the fact that Cheney and the other neocons had called for "a Pearl Harbor type event" to set in motion all of their foreign and domestic policies which they spelled out in a paper called Rebuilding America's Defences in 2000.

The distinction I am making is that compared to the most recent Keystone Cops type terrorist acts (Umar Fizzlepants and the Times Square parker), the terrorist of the old Bush administration were actually able to carry out their attacks and at the same time, defy laws of physics and scientific research while doing it. The 9/11 terrorists were able to knock down 7 buildings with 2 planes and at the same time bring Building 7 down at free-fall acceleration after having been hit by no plane, from office fires alone (first time in history that happened. talk about your overachiever terrorists).... and after doing all of that, they were able to hit the most heavily guarded building in history with a plane being flown by a terrorist who couldn't fly a Cesna. Then the anthrax terrorist was able to create a weaponized anthrax strain in 3 hours or so when experts in the field say it would take a thousand hours to do it in their highly specialized lab. Amazing accomplishments for our terrorists back then...

Back in the old days, they defied the laws of physics... now they can't even make a simple bomb.

Let me get back to the point... just before Umar Fizzlepants (also somehow allowed to get on a plane while the Feds knew he was dangerous, just like Faisal Shahzad) put on his "one show only Sparkler of Doom" production, President Obama had given authorization to attack targets in Yemen, a nation we had not been at war with. Varying reports surfaced about whether or not we aided the dictator in Yemen with intel or if we had actually used our weapons. The truth of this matter is still kind of hazy. But just as those stories were coming out, lo-and-behold, Umar Fizzlepants steps up to the plate and sparkles a validation of President Obama's attack on Yemen. By the way, that U.S. attack in Yemen killed many civilians and children as well. But suddenly it was ok because Umar Fizzlepants showed up.

Now we have Faisal Shahzad's attempted vending cart massacre... the story here is (I mean, AFTER the story that it wasn't terrorism and AFTER the story it was just a car fire and AFTER the story that Pakistan had nothing to do with it) that Shahzad is a naturalized U.S. citizen from Pakistan. Specifically that he was trained in Waziristan. Well, that couldn't be convenient for the Obama administration could it? Let's take a look.

When the latest apparent U.S. drone strike was conducted this week against militants in Pakistan, the obvious question appeared to be: Did the United States get a "big fish" in the Taliban or al Qaeda organizations?

But a U.S. counterterrorism official says that's now the wrong question to ask, and chances are those hit were not major players. He wouldn't discuss the specifics of the latest strike, but with the official backing of his bosses, he sought to explain how U.S. strategy has changed in the crucial effort to attack targets inside Pakistan with missiles fired from drones.

The plan now is to attack a broader set of terrorist targets far beyond the original effort to strike and kill top al Qaeda leaders, the official said. CNN

You see, we are asking the wrong question. We have to stop thinking in terms of targeting known Taliban or al Qaeda fighters. Instead, we have to look at the bigger picture. Faisal Shahzad wasn't a known terrorist or even a fighter in Pakistan. In fact, his family is known in the community as being "apolitical"... but see, you never know. Someone who LOOKS innocent, may in fact be the most dangerous terrorist since Umar Fizzlepants. And therefore we must rethink all those "innocent civilians" the drones have killed in the past. Are they REALLY innocent?

The vast majority of the deaths (from the 44 drone strikes of 2009), around 700 according to one estimate, have been innocent civilians. With such a massive civilian toll and so little to show for it, it is no wonder that Pakistani people have been up in arms over the continued strikes.

But US officials have rarely commented on the drone strikes, except on those rare occasions when they actually kill someone meaningful, and seem completely ambivalent to the hundreds of innocent people killed in the meantime. The ultimate example of this was June 22-23.

On June 22, the US struck at a house officials called a "suspected militant hideout," burying a few locals inside. When others rushed to the scene to rescue them, they launched another missile, killing 13 apparently innocent Pakistanis. When they held a funeral procession on June 23, the US hit that too, ostensibly on the belief that Baitullah Mehsud might be among the mourners. He wasn't, but the attack killed at least 80 more people. AntiWar

There were two separate drone attacks in Pakistan on April 23rd and April 25th. The combined death toll was over 13 with others wounded. No al Qaeda leaders were reportedly killed in the strike. These kinds of attacks are not being well received by the people of Pakistan nor the government.

The United States, struggling to stabilize Afghanistan, stepped up its missile strikes in Pakistan's northwest after a Jordanian suicide bomber killed seven CIA employees at a U.S. base across the border in the eastern Afghan province of Khost in December.

Most of the attacks this year have been in North Waziristan.

U.S. ally Pakistan officially objects to the drone strikes, saying they are a violation of its sovereignty and fuel anti-U.S. feeling, which complicates Pakistan's efforts against militancy. Reuters

Now consider this; a great number of dead civilians in Waziristan, in a country we are not at war with, starts to ferment and anger within the Pakistani people as well as the government, and along comes the SUV parker to confess that he in fact got his training.... in Waziristan...

U.S. officials quickly cast doubt on the claim, but the arrest of a Pakistani-American in New York who allegedly has admitted to being trained in the group's heartland in Waziristan has given it new credence. AP

(Now remember... the only source we have as to what he "confessed" to is an Obama administration official)

I mean, you just don't get better timing than that. Well, unless of course you just happen to have invasion plans drawn up for Afghanistan, you want to help UNICAL with their Trans Afghan Pipeline, you just happen to announce 2.3 trillion missing dollars the day before Sept. 11th (the biggest news story in history), you just killed some 23 kids in a different nation we aren't at war with, or of course if you want to pass the Patriot Act and a few congressmen and reporters aren't towing the line ....

But aside from THOSE examples, you just don't get better timing than that, do you?

You know, sometimes I just wonder if all those "terrorists" aren't doing the best they can to support the imperial agenda of whatever administration we get in the White House. It's mighty nice of them to help us with the Global War on Terror ain't it? I mean, without all those "terrorists" stepping up to the plate just when the White House needed them the most, where would the Global Free Market Wars be now?

Makes you think, don't it?

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/208028-The-Curious-Timing-of-the-Terrorist-Attacks-It-s-Almost-Like-They-re-On-Our-Side