New 9/11 target “Boldly Going” to be in the Persian Gulf?

Thanks to CAMPAIGN for sending this in:

Ian Brockwell
July 19, 2007

It was suggested a year ago, that the USS Enterprise was a likely “false flag” target to provide the Bush administration with an excuse to attack Iran. The ship’s last spell in the Gulf passed without incident (let’s hope it will again), but it is now returning to apparently replace the USS Nimitz.

The USS Enterprise is due to be decommissioned in 2014-2015 and is the oldest aircraft carrier in the fleet (launched in 1960), so one could say it is “expendable” on the grounds of age. But what other reasons are there to believe that a carrier might be a possible target for a “new” 9/11?

As many already know, the US government carried out a number of exercises just before the original 9/11, to prepare for a possible air attack by terrorists on buildings within the United States (like the WTC for example), and such an exercise was underway on the day of the attack. In May 2005, the carrier USS America was deliberately sunk after a number of tests using explosives (lasting 25 days). These explosions were designed to simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a suicide attack with a small boat (like the one that damaged the destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000).

Almost exactly a year later the carrier USS Oriskany was also sunk (in 45 minutes) with 500 pounds of plastic explosives. The Oriskany was disposed of in the Gulf of Mexico to create an artificial reef.

With the governments poor record on environmental issues, doesn’t it seem a little out of character that they should introduce a “new” Navy program to dispose of old warships by turning them into reefs? And whilst the experiments on the USS America could benefit the design of future carriers, it may have also provided a good idea of what it takes to sink a ship of that size.

A great deal of pressure has been placed on Iran (because of its nuclear program etc) and it is often accused of having links with Al-Qaeda and supporting insurgents in Iraq, a view that the Bush administration would like the world to adopt. But after the lies told before the invasion of Iraq, something more convincing would be required before any action is taken against Iran.

The sinking of an old aircraft carrier (with a crew of 5,000) might be sufficient, especially if we are told that Iran “allegedly” had some involvement in it (maybe a missile attack?). But who could say for sure whether such a missile was launched from Iran, or some remote area in Iraq?

Would one missile be enough, or would we hear about some rumors of “controlled explosions” later (as suggested in the WTC buildings)? Probably not, there are unlikely to be too many cameras around to record such an event, and if there are, we won’t get to see the videos anyway.

Articles discussing the possibility of such an event might help eliminate the risk (although there is no guarantee of that) and this may be the reason why previous “predictions” have thankfully failed to materialize. However, if we are looking for a potential date, the first week of August is perhaps favorite? The Enterprise is expected to be in the Persian Gulf by this time and this is the most opportune moment. It is also interesting that some high level meetings around this time have been cancelled or postponed. This could of course be yet another coincidence.

Iran has absolutely no reason to attack the US or any of its naval ships, that would be insane, so we should bear this in mind if such a tragedy was to occur.

The US have sent a record number of naval ships near Iran and this appears to be more than just a show of strength. The Bush administration has the power in place to attack, and the desire. All that remains is the excuse!

This is one case

where SPECULATING OUT LOUD is entirely appropriate and timely ! Good Job !

I believe it was the Secretary of our Navy who said that

American sailors would have fought back instead of being arrested for trespassing in Iranian waters a few months ago, and that the British were cowards for not doing so. If I am correct, it sounds like this guy has the amoral character needed to orchestrate and authorize this type of false flag attack.(God, I hope not)

"They took it from the top to the bottom, we're gonna take them from the bottom to the top." - Dan Wallace