If we consider a comptroller as a volatile logistics nerve center, indeed both the money flow operations which determine logistics and critical infrastructure policy (national remedy, insurance, health management, disaster mitigation) then we can assume a military strike on such a nerve center would hamper both terrorist activity and collective management procedure.
Force a scramble to resume ulterior logistics backups – moving of chess players on the board which can be observed, harrassed and interdicted (H&I).
BTW, Happy 4th everyone. What was NATO doing on the 4th of July? Apparently updating details about Article 5,
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm
From the article,
“NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States.”
Naturally this was a historic moment, one ignored by the press.
Infrastructure was attacked and we won’t dive into who did the attack, economic investigations leading up to the attack, or discuss building demolitions as this has already been thoroughly diagnosed by experts the world over. Any notion of “conspiracy theory” nonsense, like Jet A-1 fuel burning structural steel as compared to controlled demolitions has been forensically laid to rest. All architectural engineers know jet fuel doesn’t bring down buildings.
And for what purpose?
From the website: Collective defence and Article 5
“On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.”
So if we are to understand the bigger picture of a unified New World Order as Former President Bush 41 laid out, this means joint military operations with JSOC and in which ultimately everyone can take their gripe to the UN secuirty Council before the 5 permanent members: China, France, Russia U.K, and the U.S. and discuss aggressive military assistance/enforcement through resolutions.
“In 1949, the primary aim of the North Atlantic Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – was to create a pact of mutual assistance to counter the risk that the Soviet Union would seek to extend its control of Eastern Europe to other parts of the continent.” [sic] link
To further iterate from NATO,
“At the 2022 Madrid Summit, Allies committed to further concrete measures, such as deploying additional in-place combat-ready forces on the eastern flank, to be scaled up from the existing battlegroups to brigade-size units where and when required, underpinned by rapidly available reinforcements, prepositioned equipment, and enhanced command and control. They also made initial offers to NATO’s new force model, which will strengthen and modernise the NATO Force Structure and will resource a new generation of military plans. All these steps, together with the release of the 2022 Strategic Concept, which identified Russia as “the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area” will substantially strengthen NATO’s deterrence and forward defences.”
It would be my understanding that if entities are directing operations outside the scope of UN Security Council resolutions or maintain hydra operations within a NATO apparatus as an espionage infiltration in which a rogue element may be conducting operations from a bunker somewhere where Admiral Byrd once visited, as the greatest explored area in history, would it not be in the interest of the United States of America to counter-strike this AO and put to rest madmen trying to destroy the world for the purpose of reshaping into their selfish vision of a personal utopia?
Or perhaps rogue elements are allowed to run amok. Control military logistics for their own personal greed, while selling to their partners a fantastic story of helping humanity by liquidating them. Sounds crazy to me and usually when a Director has lost their marbles, you fire them. In this case, when you can’t fire the guy article 5 is invoked. The only question remains – are you going after the right terrorists?
