S
somebigguy
Guest
Somebigguy: Cool little article I ran into...
> The federal authorities responded to the New Orleans disaster like
> sloths on sleeping pills.
>
> This obscenely lethargic response is not just a moral outrage. It is
> also a conundrum. Since 9/11 they've more than doubled the annual
> military and FEMA budgets, and supposedly spent massive funds and
> energy preparing for disasters hitting US cities. Over and over we
> hear the mantra: "It's not if, but when" a city gets nuked by
> terrorists. Since they admit they can't stop it, where are our
> hundreds of billions of dollars going, if not to prepare for
> ultra-rapid, hyper-effective emergency response efforts to rescue
> devastated cities?
>
> A related enigma: How to explain the disparity between the perfectly
> coordinated emergency response in New York on 9/11/01, and the New
> Orleans situation? One of the odd things about 9/11 was the apparent
> massive incompetence of everybody who should have stopped the attacks,
> in contrast with the amazing competence of the relief efforts and
> disaster management. (It turned out that FEMA was in NY already on
> 9/11/01 setting up for the Tripod 2 biowar exercises scheduled for
> 9/12/01, which explains why they were so well prepared.*)
>
> If there really is a "war on terror" and they really do expect US
> cities to be the victims of gigantic terrorist-induced disasters, how
> could they possibly be so slow getting to New Orleans, America's most
> strategic city?
>
> A possible answer: 9/11 and the "war on terror" are Orwellian hoaxes,
> as suggested by the BBC documentary series The Power of Nightmares.**
> This would explain the incompetence by suggesting that no real effort
> has been put into preparing for big unexpected terrorist events,
> because such events are not going to happen--if the wing of the CIA
> known as "al-Qaida" strikes they'll already have FEMA in place, as
> they did on 9/11/01.
>
> Is there another answer that makes more sense?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kevin Barrett
>
> Instructor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Instructor, Edgewood College
>
> *For documentation on the Tripod 2 exercises and 9/11, use search
> terms FEMA and Tripod at: http://www.complete911timeline.org/
> ** http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html
>
Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
> The federal authorities responded to the New Orleans disaster like
> sloths on sleeping pills.
>
> This obscenely lethargic response is not just a moral outrage. It is
> also a conundrum. Since 9/11 they've more than doubled the annual
> military and FEMA budgets, and supposedly spent massive funds and
> energy preparing for disasters hitting US cities. Over and over we
> hear the mantra: "It's not if, but when" a city gets nuked by
> terrorists. Since they admit they can't stop it, where are our
> hundreds of billions of dollars going, if not to prepare for
> ultra-rapid, hyper-effective emergency response efforts to rescue
> devastated cities?
>
> A related enigma: How to explain the disparity between the perfectly
> coordinated emergency response in New York on 9/11/01, and the New
> Orleans situation? One of the odd things about 9/11 was the apparent
> massive incompetence of everybody who should have stopped the attacks,
> in contrast with the amazing competence of the relief efforts and
> disaster management. (It turned out that FEMA was in NY already on
> 9/11/01 setting up for the Tripod 2 biowar exercises scheduled for
> 9/12/01, which explains why they were so well prepared.*)
>
> If there really is a "war on terror" and they really do expect US
> cities to be the victims of gigantic terrorist-induced disasters, how
> could they possibly be so slow getting to New Orleans, America's most
> strategic city?
>
> A possible answer: 9/11 and the "war on terror" are Orwellian hoaxes,
> as suggested by the BBC documentary series The Power of Nightmares.**
> This would explain the incompetence by suggesting that no real effort
> has been put into preparing for big unexpected terrorist events,
> because such events are not going to happen--if the wing of the CIA
> known as "al-Qaida" strikes they'll already have FEMA in place, as
> they did on 9/11/01.
>
> Is there another answer that makes more sense?
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kevin Barrett
>
> Instructor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Instructor, Edgewood College
>
> *For documentation on the Tripod 2 exercises and 9/11, use search
> terms FEMA and Tripod at: http://www.complete911timeline.org/
> ** http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1327904,00.html
>
Kevin Barrett
Coordinator, MUJCA-NET: http://mujca.com
But these days it's just a reminder of our pitiful state of affairs.