Let's wait and see if it is true - false flag operations, terrorist attacks

[david petley]

Just been reading at the information clearing house -
http://www.information*************....ticle18020.htm

Thought it might be interesting to post it now and then wait to see if these dire predictions come true.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance.

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

I don't plan to comment any more on this thread until after christmas but it will be interesting to find out then what has happened. It must be an election year there as well.

david

[FlashLackey]

The link was broken for me. Does it include any evidence for this theory or is it entirely baseless?

Why would Republican warmonger Rick Santorum say on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that "between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's (sic) going to have a very different view of this war."

I had to laugh at how obvious the answer is to this question and how transparently out-of-touch the author is with the position he is criticizing. Santorum was speaking optimistically about making progress in Iraq. Not about all of the terrorist attacks he is planning on letting through.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

Not about all of the terrorist attacks he is planning on letting through.

Wouldn't be the first time something like that was planned.

But yeah, more like a "wait and see" than anything substantiated.

[david petley]

sorry about the link, but it contained more speculation along the same lines as that quoted.

I'll try again - http://www.information clearing house.info/article18020.htm

close the gaps in the URL

david

[FlashLackey]

I actually found the radio of the Santorum talk. He does allude to believing that events like those in the UK will happen here. But, still quite a leap to go from that to, "he's planning on letting them happen."

[david petley]

as i said, the only way to really see is to wait....let the thread dissapear, and we can bring it back to life at the end of the year for further discussion to see if such predictions are just airy talk, or whether suspicions were valid.

david

[FlashLackey]

fair enough. just one clarification though, the suspicions are valid if there is a terrorist attack or if there is evidence that Republicans let it happen on purpose?

[Subway]

Meanwhile Osama Bin Laden has found the secret to anti-aging: http://www.infowars.com/articles/ter...ng_process.htm

I would'nt be surprised if Bin Laden was dead for a long time now and the Bush admin is just faking this new Bin Laden vids for the same reason as they may do a false flag operation.

Fredi

[webdreamer]

It's a sad state of affairs to even think that any civilized government would false flag in the first place.

[FlashLackey]

indeed. all the more reason to be sure you have a shred of evidence of it before drawing up elaborate theories.

[Subway]

Like that's the problem these days were even with big fat proofs of wrongdoings, nothing really happens, just talk, talk and more talk.

Fredi

[webdreamer]

indeed. all the more reason to be sure you have a shred of evidence of it before drawing up elaborate theories.

But in saying that i have never been a big fan of the Bush administration. There just something about the guy that dosnt add up.

[Loyal Rogue]

Gee-wiz Dave, you're such a cynic.

What on earth would ever make you suspect that the group responsible for defrauding two elections, committing treason by outing an undercover CIA operative during a time of war, invading a country and killing over 500,000 citizens based on a pack of lies, embezzling $9 Billion in cash, and torturing POWs to death would ever stoop to something so low as running a simple false flag operation?

[japangreg]

I actually found the radio of the Santorum talk. He does allude to believing that events like those in the UK will happen here. But, still quite a leap to go from that to, "he's planning on letting them happen."

Kind of hard to do anyway, as he lost the election.

And, along the lines of what LR said, anyone who thinks an admin. willing to use US servicemember deaths as PR material (Tillman), rediculous color-coded terror threats conveniently timed to political pressures and large-scale responses to years-old intelligence to drum up support wouldn't go so far as to do it one more time is seriously got their head stuck in the sand.

[TheOriginalFlashDavo]

It's a sad state of affairs to even think that any civilized government would false flag in the first place.

Yes. Hence how far we've regressed under Bush/Howard.

And there are those who claim we are "winning" the "War on Terror".

[TallGuyLittleCar]

info************* is pretty damned biased.. and I haven't heard that much paranoia since somebody brought brownies to a flat earth society meeting.

[PAlexC]

I don't see how it could help them. Here's my logic:

1.) You ignored warnings that lead to major terrorist attack.

2.) You lied about intelligence to start a war that was at best tangential to the war on terror, spending a tremendous amount of money and killing hundreds of thousands in the process for nothing.

3.) Bin Laden is still out there, Al Qaeda still releases videos, and they've attacked Europe several times.

If another attack went down, I'd throw the bums out on the spot. There should be no excuse for it to happen. It'd be proof of their incompetence, driven by their greed.

How these bastards are still around perplexes me like nothing else.

[villain2]

I don't see how it could help them. Here's my logic:

1.) You ignored warnings that lead to major terrorist attack.

2.) You lied about intelligence to start a war that was at best tangential to the war on terror, spending a tremendous amount of money and killing hundreds of thousands in the process for nothing.

3.) Bin Laden is still out there, Al Qaeda still releases videos, and they've attacked Europe several times.

If another attack went down, I'd throw the bums out on the spot. There should be no excuse for it to happen. It'd be proof of their incompetence, driven by their greed.

How these bastards are still around perplexes me like nothing else.

Well, this logic works if you lean to the left. It's half of the truth, the other half is:

1. The US had been attacked several times during the 90s at several bases, embassy's, ships, and the 93 bombing and no one in the prior administration did anything for 8 years. Bush didn't do anything for nine months.

2. The "Bush lied" nonsense really needs to stop. For the 100,000th time, British, Jordanian, Russian, German, and U.S. intelligence, along with Bush's admin and Clinton's admin, all believed and reported that Hussein had WMD. A small minority said he didn't. Bush chose to believe the wrong people and Congress did the same.

3. Bin Laden is out in the mountains of Pakistan on the border, where it's no-man's land, and Pakistan is having it's own problems if you hadn't noticed. We'd have to invade another country to get him ... which is what we should have done to begin with, but it's still invading another country ... and the world would look at the U.S. as bullies ... basically, the same situation we have now.

Bush went after Iraq because they have control of a huge oil reserve, it would be a safe haven in the middle of the middle east, and they were the easiest of the 3 axis' of evil to take down. Secondary to that was liberating people who were being tortured by Hussein and giving them democracy. They thought it'd be easy, like Afghanistan and the 1st Gulf War, it wasn't and they had no back-up plan ... and no one else did either.

The United States will get hit again. It's a no brainer, it's to Bush's credit (of the few things we can credit his administration for) that the U.S. hasn't been hit since 9/11. You know people have been trying hard. But when the U.S. does get hit, it'll be to the advantage of the politicians who put forth concrete initiatives to clamp down on security ... not people who are pushing for a wide open border and exaggerating wire taping of overseas calls to terrorists to the point where most people think Bush is actually listening in to my phone call to Granny on Sunday morning.

For now, Obama and Guiliani have the best defensive plans. I'd go for either one of them in the White House.

[japangreg]

If another attack went down, I'd throw the bums out on the spot. There should be no excuse for it to happen. It'd be proof of their incompetence, driven by their greed.

How these bastards are still around perplexes me like nothing else.

It's all in the spin - notice how, when the violence in Iraq dipped a while ago, it was proof that our plans were working? And, now that it has surged right back up with the troop levels, it's proof that the enemy are getting desperate?

The fact that Repubs. have been tooting their own horn on security for so long despite being the dominant party during not only the worst terrorist attack on American soil, but one of the worst natural disasters in history should be downright appalling to anyone paying attention; but their methods of demonizing their opponents and driving voters with emotion-laden wedge issues keeps them around.

[japangreg]

Well, this logic works if you lean to the left. It's half of the truth, the other half is:

1. The US had been attacked several times during the 90s at several bases, embassy's, ships, and the 93 bombing and no one in the prior administration did anything for 8 years. Bush didn't do anything for nine months.

Wow - for a post trying to point out "the other half of the truth" you sure do come out of the gate with some big lies - no one under Clinton did anything for 8 years? Really? Have you looked this up at all?