{"id":66693,"date":"2005-08-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-08-12T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/12\/attention-un-nouveau-911-est-possible\/"},"modified":"2005-08-12T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2005-08-12T00:00:00","slug":"attention-un-nouveau-911-est-possible","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2005\/08\/12\/attention-un-nouveau-911-est-possible\/","title":{"rendered":"Attention, un nouveau 9\/11 est possible!"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>Il est difficile de trouver plus grande confusion que cet article du <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2005\/08\/12\/national\/nationalspecial3\/12terrorr.html?ex=1124424000&#038;en=95fd64e631a8b466&#038;ei=5070&#038;emc=eta1\" class=\"gen\">New York Times du 12 ao\u00fbt<\/a> sur une possible nouvelle attaque terroriste autour du 11 septembre (2005). Le premier paragraphe dit tout de cette complication puisqu&rsquo;il pr\u00e9sente, avec un titre \u00e0 sensation (\u00ab <em>Officials Warn of Possibility of Attack Around Sept. 11<\/em> \u00bb), la possibilit\u00e9 d&rsquo;une attaque, pour en d\u00e9mentir aussit\u00f4t le s\u00e9rieux : \u00ab <em>A group of F.B.I. counterterrorism analysts warned this week of possible terrorist attacks in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago around Sept. 11, but officials cautioned on Thursday that they were skeptical about the seriousness of the threat.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\tLa suite de l&rsquo;article d\u00e9veloppe cette contradiction, entre les d\u00e9tails de l&rsquo;attaque possible et les raisons de ne pas croire une seconde \u00e0 la possibilit\u00e9 de cette attaque, le s\u00e9rieux de la source, la r\u00e9alit\u00e9 de l&rsquo;alarme aupr\u00e8s de diff\u00e9rents services. On y entend le porte-parole du Homeland Security Department dire de l&rsquo;information diffus\u00e9e par le FBI : \u00ab <em>The information is uncorroborated, and the source is of questionable reliability.<\/em> \u00bb Un officiel d\u00e9crit comme d&rsquo;une telle importance qu&rsquo;il doit garder l&rsquo;anonyme, explique dans une d\u00e9bauche de concepts bureaucratiques tr\u00e8s intellectualis\u00e9s, ceci qui appara\u00eet comme une explication tout en clair-obscur avec zones d&rsquo;ombres \u00e9clair\u00e9es et points lumineux obscurcis: \u00ab <em>There is nothing that would cause us to react to the particular threat. What we are reacting to is the generic nature of the threat.<\/em> \u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t\u00c9tonnant d\u00e9sordre. \u00c9tonnant? On a plut\u00f4t l&rsquo;impression qu&rsquo;un jeu tactique s&rsquo;est d\u00e9roul\u00e9 dans l&rsquo;urgence, chaque agence, chaque groupe de pouvoir prot\u00e9geant ses int\u00e9r\u00eats en prenant des positions sp\u00e9cifiques qui n&rsquo;ont que de lointains rapports avec une possible r\u00e9alit\u00e9, s&rsquo;il en existe une. Il y a eu comme une panique qui parcourt le pouvoir et la bureaucratie washingtonienne \u00e0 propos de cette alerte&rsquo;, mais la panique ne concerne pas l&rsquo; alerte&rsquo;<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><p>\t(On vous explique <a href=\"http:\/\/www.dedefensa.org\/article.php?art_id=1835\" class=\"gen\">un peu plus loin et un peu plus tard<\/a>.)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><p>\tMis en ligne le 12 ao\u00fbt 2005 \u00e0 17H00<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Il est difficile de trouver plus grande confusion que cet article du New York Times du 12 ao\u00fbt sur une possible nouvelle attaque terroriste autour du 11 septembre (2005). Le premier paragraphe dit tout de cette complication puisqu&rsquo;il pr\u00e9sente, avec un titre \u00e0 sensation (\u00ab Officials Warn of Possibility of Attack Around Sept. 11 \u00bb),&hellip;&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66693","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66693","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66693"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66693\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66693"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66693"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66693"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}