- Joined
- May 11, 2016
- Messages
- 17,008
- Reaction score
- 11,216
I've actually thought about this numerous times.
With policies seemingly designed to cripple the very working class that supported him, Trump may need a major terrorist incident if he plans on winning re-election.
Would he stoop to engineering such an incident if one does not present itself?
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/...out-trump-staging-false-flag-terrorist-attack
In the same interview, Chomsky dismisses the charges of Russian interference with the American election as "a joke."
With policies seemingly designed to cripple the very working class that supported him, Trump may need a major terrorist incident if he plans on winning re-election.
Would he stoop to engineering such an incident if one does not present itself?
NC: I think that sooner or later the white working-class constituency will recognize, and in fact, much of the rural population will come to recognize, that the promises are built on sand. There is nothing there.
And then what happens becomes significant. In order to maintain his popularity, the Trump administration will have to try to find some means of rallying the support and changing the discourse from the policies that they are carrying out, which are basically a wrecking ball to something else. Maybe scapegoating, saying, "Well, I'm sorry, I can't bring your jobs back because these bad people are preventing it." And the typical scapegoating goes to vulnerable people: immigrants, terrorists, Muslims and elitists, whoever it may be. And that can turn out to be very ugly.
I think that we shouldn't put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly.
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/...out-trump-staging-false-flag-terrorist-attack
In the same interview, Chomsky dismisses the charges of Russian interference with the American election as "a joke."
NC: Yeah, it's all just a joke, as it was incidentally through the Cold War almost entirely. Right now the matter of Russian interference in U.S. elections has half the world cracking up in laughter.
I mean whatever the Russians may have been doing, let's take the most extreme charges, that barely registers in the balance against what the U.S. does constantly. Even in Russia. So for example, the U.S. intervened radically to support [Boris] Yeltsin in 1991 when he was engaged in a power play trying to take power from the Parliament, Clinton strongly supported him. In 1996, when Yeltsin was running, the Clinton administration openly and strongly supported them, and not only verbally, but with tactics and loans and so on.
All of that goes way beyond what the Russians are charged with, and of course that is a minor aspect of U.S. interference in elections abroad: "If we don't like the election, you can just overthrow the country."
Last edited: