View Full Version : Globalist Think Tank Suggests Using Engineered Event As Excuse For War With Iran
09-27-2012, 10:24 AM
What is interesting about this discussion by the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, a Neocon (Globalist) think-tank, is that its primary purpose is not necessarily to debate the current political elements of the Iranian question. They aren't contemplating the viability or morality of a war with Iran. Instead, they are attempting to devise strategies by which the government could CONVINCE the American public and the world that a war with Iran is the "right thing to do", even if it means fabricating their own justification. For them, the war is a forgone conclusion, and they will do anything to make it a reality.
Think tanks like this not only construct policy framework, but they also write the subversive talking points used in the mainstream media that manipulate the masses into acceptance of that framework. In the video below, there is no suggestion that Iran be left alone if the will of the public leans away from conflict. Instead, Patrick Clawson (who works frequently with the Council On Foreign Relations) openly suggests that a Gulf Of Tonkin style event be ENGINEERED (he uses the phrase "covert means") in order to force a war into being.
Consider for a moment the kind of person that it takes to nonchalantly present such a scenario; a scenario which would use the unjust deaths of innocent people (likely Americans) in order to trick the masses into supporting yet another meaningless war which will undoubtedly cost hundreds of thousands if not millions more innocent lives. Think about the moral relativism and dark-heartedness that is required to embrace this philosophy in the pithy and clinical way Clawson does. Now realize that our government today is heavily populated by men and women who think in exactly this manner. This is the rotten core of America's foreign policy on display for all to see. Take note and remember what is suggested here the next time a sudden "attack" is blamed on a convenient scapegoat like Iran and used as a primer for invasion...
Can't we outsource it to asia?
09-27-2012, 01:14 PM
And bear in mind that there are elements within groups like al Qaeda who would welcome this, thrive in it, be willing participants to it. There is no irony in the thought that ideologically al Qaeda and our politicians and "think tanks" are in lockstep, it's just reality.
Monsters all around running the show.
09-27-2012, 01:23 PM
Can't we outsource it to asia?
And lead from behind.
09-27-2012, 05:13 PM
One possible False Flag Operation: An attack on the USS Enterprise CVN 65
The failure of negotiations and sanctions to end Iran's nuclear program make an Israeli attack probable in the near future, but such an attack would be of little value without US involvement. Israel doesn't have the conventional weapons necessary to cause significant harm to Iran's nuclear program (a,d). The US has these weapons including air refueling tankers, heavy bombers, and GBU-57s - massive ordnance penetrators. I submit Israel would not attack Iran if they did not calculate they could involve the US. During an Israeli attack on Iran, an Israeli submarine could get within striking distance of the Enterprise and launch a Soviet Sunburn supersonic, anti ship missile. Iran has such missiles.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated Tehran will retaliate against any attack by Israeli or American forces "on the same level that they attack us." (b) I interpret this to mean Iran is attempting to deter actions against them by threatening to respond in kind, but should they be attacked, they will not respond disproportionately. They do not wish military actions to escalate. I submit an attack on a neutral USS Enterprise would be an escalation they would not undertake.
Israel is not just bluffing in order to push through greater sanctions. Sanctions are nearly or are fully maxed out yet the saber rattling continues. Defense Secretary Panetta in early February stated his belief that there was a "strong likelihood" Israel would strike Iran in April, May, or June (c). This time line did not happen, but senior Americans doubt the Israelis are bluffing (c). In addition former, senior Israeli military and intelligence leaders have come out publicly to condemn the imprudence of an Israeli attack (d). These leaders would not take such public action if they knew Netanyahu and Barak were bluffing. They would have supported the bluff and kept quiet. They are not quiet. This is not a bluff.
Military analysts quoted in the Economist (a) indicate an Israeli attack without American support would be relatively ineffective. Mr. Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Dempsey have both warned Israeli leaders that if they, attacked they would be on their own (a). A false flag operation, however, could cause America to join Israel in actions against Iran.
On 2/13/ 2012 Actor Ed Asner on the Alex Jones Show disclosed he'd been approached by active duty Navy Seals who told Asner war was coming with a false flag operation (e). Asner is politically active, and the Seals thought he could bring public attention to this possibility in hopes of stopping it. Asner shared that the summer and fall were likely times for such an operation.
I first became concerned about a possible false flag operation against an American carrier four years ago when the decommissioning of the USS Kitty Hawk was postponed. The Kitty Hawk was stationed at Yokosuka Japan and, as I saw it, was available for service in the Persian Gulf. She was to be replaced by the USS George Washington and de commissioned. On 5/22/2008 a fire on the George Washington required extensive repairs which delayed her replacing the Kitty Hawk. Amazingly, also on 5/22/2008, House Congressional Resolution 362 was introduced. The bill specifically claimed not to authorize force but then "demanded" an embargo to keep refined petroleum out of Iran. Such an embargo could have only been accomplished with the use of military force (f). The timing of these events may have been simple coincidence, but if you're going to stage a false flag operation, it would seem reasonable it be against a well known ship soon to be decommissioned.
I and others (g) see a possible attack on the Enterprise for several reasons: She is the next to oldest ship in the fleet after the USS Constitution and is set to be de activated at the end of the year. She began her last, seven months deployment to the Persian Gulf/ Arabian Sea on 3/11th. She is also the world's longest naval vessel, the world's first nuclear carrier, and given her 50 year history (h), her sinking would make a significant political impact. America would demand vengeance. I would demand vengeance, but it would be vengeance against those actually responsible.
I submit if the neutral USS Enterprise is sunk during or subsequent to an Israeli attack, it will be a false flag operation not an attack by Iran.
America has been an aggressor since before her inception often through gross manipulation. We aggressed against native America, Canada, Mexico, Spain, Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
Manipulations include the following: General Zachary Taylor was attacked after being ordered into disputed territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande rivers, Spain could not have benefited from blowing up the Maine, the Lusitania had munitions in her hold, there were no aircraft carriers at Pearl Harbor on 12/07/1941, the first Tonkin Gulf incident was provoked, the second incident didn't happen, I don't believe jet fuel fires in the upper floors could have thoroughly demolished the superstructures of the Twin Towers on 9/11, Bin Laden was allowed to escape from Tora Bora in 12/2001 (i), and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Further, a nuclear capable or nuclear armed Iran will never be a nuclear threat to the United States.
Israel has shown its willingness to attack US ships in false flag ops as evidenced by its attack on the intelligence ship USS Liberty on 6/8/1967. The attack eliminated the possibility of US interference in Israel's planned attack on Syria the next day, 6/9/1967. Israel initiated military action on 6/5th and re initiated military action on 6/9th after Syria had accepted the UN cease-fire.
09-28-2012, 02:31 AM
From the Noam:
LEZAMA: That’s an interesting point regarding the timing of the attacks. Right now, we have to pick between one really bad candidate, and Romney. It seems like the Israeli government is taking advantage of the Obama administration’s bid for re-election. Israel is talking a lot about attacking Iran, and trying to mobilize support for it in the U.S. These kinds of things tend to have consequences for Palestine; what will happen in Palestine? I think Israel is bluffing, and looking for something else.
CHOMSKY: Well, Israel is a pretty crazy state. My suspicion is that they are trying to create the circumstances under which the U.S. will attack Iran – they don’t want to do it themselves.
LEZAMA: They want to set up a rationale?
CHOMSKY: I would not be surprised if they staged some kind of an incident in the Persian Gulf, which would not be hard. You and I can do it. The Persian Gulf is lined with U.S. Naval missiles, aircraft carriers, destroyers, and so on. Any small incident, a skiff, or, a boat bumping into an aircraft carrier could lead to a vicious response.
Actually, we should bear in mind that the United States is already at war with Iran by Pentagon standards. The assassinations – which is terrorism – the cyberwar, the economic warfare, are all considered by the United States as acts of war if they are done to us, but not if we do it to them. So, by our standards, we are already attacking Iran. The question is how much further we will take it. An important aspect of this never discussed in the United States - you never read about it - I write about it, maybe two or three other people, but you never read about it. There is a pretty straightforward solution to this, a diplomatic solution. Namely, move towards establishing a nuclear weapons free-zone in the region. That is strongly supported by virtually the entire world. The U.S. has been blocking the solution for years. However, support for it is so strong that Obama was forced to agree to it in principle, but stated that Israel has to be excluded. Well, that is a joke. Israel has hundred of nuclear weapons, carries out aggression, is a violent state, refuses to allow inspections, and so on. To say that Israel has to be exempted, then, kills the prospect of a nuclear-weapons free zone in the Middle East. This situation is coming to a head in December. There is to be an international conference on a nuclear weapons free-zone in the Middle East; Israel just announced that it is refusing to participate.
LEZAMA: Will the U.S. participate?
CHOMSKY: Everything always depends on what the U.S. is going to do. So far, there is nothing official. Up until now, Obama has said ‘yes, we are in favor of it, but Israel has to be excluded’. That exception essentially kills the possibility of a nuclear weapons free-zone. If anybody believes Iran is a threat, which I think is pretty much fabricated, but if you believe it, this is the way to do it: impose a nuclear-weapons free-zone.
Of course, that would mean Israel has to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The U.S. has to stop protecting the Israeli development of nuclear weapons. That is what is required to end whatever you think the threat of Iran is. There is a straightforward diplomatic approach. As usual, the media is supressing this information. I don’t think they even reported the fact that Israel announced its withdrawal. It was announced on the Israeli press. They all know about it.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.