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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

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. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

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

---

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

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

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

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."

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

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?

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

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.

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?
:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by webdreamer

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". ;)

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAlexC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

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?

My personal favorite is the current one. The 120mill bill or whatever, to bring troops home that bush turned down. Yet half the money would not have gone to the troops to bring 'em home.

Isn't it lovely what the news does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

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?

---

I must have missed the big offensive against Al Queda during the 90s, I know it was all over the news and I was in a cave at the time ... and those financial seizures of Bin Laden's money ... and the securing of the borders and public transportation security measures that were enacted. Yup, all that happened, I must have just missed it.

However, I believe the reason Clinton didn't do much was partially because he was too busy defending himself against Republicans blowing the Monica nonsense out of proportion, which took the eye off the ball so to speak.

But if you find me ignorant of the series of major offensive and defensive measures the Clinton administration took against Al Queda and Bin Laden, please let me know. I can say though, we at least felt safer under Clinton than Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

However, I believe the reason Clinton didn't do much was partially because he was too busy defending himself against Republicans blowing the Monica nonsense out of proportion, which took the eye off the ball so to speak.

---

I kind of doubt he could have rallied the forces without a major incident like 9/11.

About rallying the forces pre-911:
That's what leaders do. They know, before the general public does, who's planning what. There are tons of terrorists out there in the pre-9/11 era but Al Queda had made it a habit of bombing U.S. interests. After the, i don't know, fifth time ... someone should have told the American public about it. I'm personally disappointed that I didn't know jack about Al Queda before 9/11 and then found out they had been attacking U.S. interests for years before that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

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.

---

I see plenty of demonizing on both sides. "Bush is the Devil", "Republicans are Nazis", "Bush is Hitler". It's about as bad as when Clinton was in office and people were calling him a "pervert", "deviant", "sex addict", "rapist". Exaggerations at best.

Republicans got so much power because when buildings are falling down and there are videos of people talking about killing you and your family and you neighbors, there's a push to the guy who says "I'm going to kick their butts" than the person who says "Let's try to understand and empathize with them ... and by the way, it's your fault".

Not saying either is right (because neither is the right way to deal with this), but when having a choice between the pitbull guarding my house or the poodle, I'll choose the pitbull. But now, maybe we need a poodle to smooth things over because the pitbull is way too wreckless.'

Reason number 4395083902548 we need a third, moderate, independent minded party in the United States that's not beholden to the religious right and big business, nor beholden to pseudo-socialists and anti-anything-Old School America-before-1992 activists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

I must have missed the big offensive against Al Queda during the 90s, I know it was all over the news and I was in a cave at the time ... and those financial seizures of Bin Laden's money ... and the securing of the borders and public transportation security measures that were enacted. Yup, all that happened, I must have just missed it.

---

Apparently, you did - although much of what he fought for against a resistive opposition party in the congress ultimately got killed or defused when Bush took over, that's a far cry from saying that 'nothing' was done. It's also blind to the fact that the president doesn't write legislation - Congress does, and Clinton had a hostile congress for most of his eight years, whereas Bush had a rubberstamp for 6.

I find it somewhat ironic that the list of measures you mention are exactly what he was trying to do in the 90s; a bit of googling may help you out from under that rock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Republicans got so much power because when buildings are falling down and there are videos of people talking about killing you and your family and you neighbors, there's a push to the guy who says "I'm going to kick their butts" than the person who says "Let's try to understand and empathize with them ... and by the way, it's your fault".

---

Actually, they got power by convincing people that the opposition was actually saying anything like "it's your fault."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

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.

---

Nothing? No missiles were fired? Clinton was criticized for doing it by the Republicans at the time? The 93 bombing warranted the invasion of an entire other nation? The Republican Congress at the time would've supported him?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Colin Powell would like to have a few words with you in private.

Quote:

---

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.

---

We could've chased him there when we drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We've had years to do something and have done nothing but let him sit there.

Quote:

---

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.

---

So military priorities are now determined by low-hanging fruit? Not relevance or threat? That alone should get Bush, Cheney and Rummy thrown out on the street.

Quote:

---

Secondary to that was liberating people who were being tortured by Hussein and giving them democracy.

---

I'm just gonna roll my eyes at this. I forgot, this is an altruistic war.

Quote:

---

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.

---

3/4 Generals disagree. Let's start with Shinseki.

Quote:

---

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.

---

No, it's to the CIA and FBI's credit, as well as Interpol. Not Bush's.

That's an excuse. I didn't say the Clinton administration didn't try to, I'm saying they didn't do. Even Yoda gets that one "try not. do, or do not. there is no try".

Bush has a hostile Congress and stares them down at every measure. Clinton, with an overwhelming majority of the public on his side, couldn't put forth public security measures and call the Republicans hypocrites if they tried to block them?

We're talking about performance, what is actually done and what isn't. No matter what, the Clinton administration didn't actually DO anything significant to tamp down on Al Queda. That's the point. Not saying they didn't think about it, I'm saying it wasn't a major priority and thus nothing actually happened ... but we got Don't Ask/Don't Tell?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

Bush has a hostile Congress and stares them down at every measure. Clinton, with an overwhelming majority of the public on his side, couldn't put forth public security measures and call the Republicans hypocrites if they tried to block them?

---

Bush has had an opposition-congress for less than a year. And you may not know this, but the public doesn't get to decide what happen in the halls of Congress - the public desire to impeach Clinton was much lower than that to impeach Bush. And Clinton did put forth security propositions, and the repubs. did block them. That's what your missing - what you say he should have done, he did; the opposition just wouldn't let it get through.

Quote:

---

We're talking about performance, what is actually done and what isn't. No matter what, the Clinton administration didn't actually DO anything significant to tamp down on Al Queda. That's the point. Not saying they didn't think about it, I'm saying it wasn't a major priority and thus nothing actually happened ... but we got Don't Ask/Don't Tell?

---

Exactly - performance. Bush and the repubs had the helm at 9/11 and Katrina, yet they glory in that fact instead of being ashamed of their failures; the fact that Bush was "only there for 8 months" before 9/11 is as much of an excuse as saying that Clinton only "tried" to get anti-terrorism measured passed. Bush has over seen the two greatest disasters in recent US history, and yet people still say repubs. are stronger on security.

And it was quite the priority in the Clinton years, btw - just not for the repub. congress who cried wag-the-dog everytime al queda pushed the blue dress off the headlines.

I see a lot of the "...but...but CLINTON!" argument going on. I fail to see how comparing Bush to him reconciles his shortcomings as a President.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

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?
:rolleyes:

---

V for Vendetta was a movie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PAlexC

Nothing? No missiles were fired? Clinton was criticized for doing it by the Republicans at the time? The 93 bombing warranted the invasion of an entire other nation? The Republican Congress at the time would've supported him?

---

That was against Iraq, which as we all know, is the wrong target and had nothing to do with Al Queda terrorism.

Quote:

---

Colin Powell would like to have a few words with you in private.

---

This is from "Meet The Press" on June 10th:
MR. RUSSERT: In light of the fact that we did not find the weapons of mass destruction, the president still describes the war as a war of choice—war of necessity, rather than choice. Vice President Cheney said we would do the same thing all over again. Knowing what you know today, would you do the same thing all over again?

GEN. POWELL: If we knew today—or knew then what we know today, that there were no weapons of mass destruction, I would’ve had nothing to take to the United Nations. The national intelligence estimate, which was the basis of my presentation and, by the way, was the basis of the intimation that was given to the Congress that caused them to vote a resolution of support four months before my UN presentation, we rested our case on the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to us and could be given to terrorists, making it another kind of threat to us.

Quote:

---

We could've chased him there when we drove the Taliban out of Afghanistan. We've had years to do something and have done nothing but let him sit there.

---

They didn't go further past Tora Bora because it would be entering a mountainous region in another country, and Pakistan brings up a series of other issues that the Bush admin (cowardly so) did not want to deal with. They could have, but by the rationale of most anti-Iraq War people, that would be just as much a violation as Iraq was.

Quote:

---

So military priorities are now determined by low-hanging fruit? Not relevance or threat? That alone should get Bush, Cheney and Rummy thrown out on the street.

---

It would have made even less sense to go after Iran or North Korea to start their war on terror (keep in mind, I don't agree with the strategy at all). You fight wars you think you can win, and of the three, they thought they could win Iraq because of Gulf War I and Afghanistan. It's not that hard to figure out.

Quote:

---

I'm just gonna roll my eyes at this. I forgot, this is an altruistic war.

---

I said SECONDARY. It wasn't their main reason, but it was a secondary benefit to fighting the war. The spin was when they tried to make it seem like that was the main reason, which it never was ... but it was a good thing they thought to point to by getting rid of Saddam.

Quote:

---

3/4 Generals disagree. Let's start with Shinseki.

---

3/4 now, not as many were that outspoken back in 2002 (read Powell's transcript again).

Quote:

---

No, it's to the CIA and FBI's credit, as well as Interpol. Not Bush's.

---

But see, there's a fault in that logic. You can't put everything that goes wrong on Bush but everything that goes right on everyone else in government. It's not intellectually honest. If we're going to fault him for the failures in the "War on Terror", then he gets the successes as well and vice versa.

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm going to be fair in my assessment. I have no axe to grind except against exaggerations on either side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

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.

---

Haha. Not nearly as sexy as the conspiracy theories and wild accusations. But, at least these points are arguable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

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?

---

It's true. He did do lots of things. Just that none of them were effective, obviously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

That was against Iraq, which as we all know, is the wrong target and had nothing to do with Al Queda terrorism.

---

<pinches nose, shakes head>

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan

Quote:

---

August 21, 1998
Web posted at: 5:10 a.m. EDT (0910 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- American cruise missiles pounded sites in Afghanistan and Sudan Thursday in retaliation for the deadly bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not a fan of Bush, but I'm going to be fair in my assessment. I have no axe to grind except against exaggerations on either side.

---

Then stop repeating the exaggerations of only one side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

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.

---

...speaking of spin.

So, the Democrats would have been all for a Taliban take-down before 9/11? A deportation of all suspected terrorists?

Regarding demonizing, the Democrats seem pretty good at that themselves. Look at Loyal Rogue, he still thinks that talking about Plame's job was illegal. ;)

Just stoking the flames. Gotta go work now! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

Exactly - performance. Bush and the repubs had the helm at 9/11 and Katrina, yet they glory in that fact instead of being ashamed of their failures; the fact that Bush was "only there for 8 months" before 9/11 is as much of an excuse as saying that Clinton only "tried" to get anti-terrorism measured passed. Bush has over seen the two greatest disasters in recent US history, and yet people still say repubs. are stronger on security.

---

For the record:
9 months < 8 years

That being said, we can spend all day pointing out this and the other about Bush vs. Clinton. For me, Clinton was a far greater president than Bush. That being said, it doesn't mean that his performance on the growing threat was lacking.

Putting forth things doesn't mean you're getting anything done. I can say the same about the Dems in Congress right now, who are saying a bunch of stuff but haven't actually DONE anything to end the Iraq War. That's what I mean when I say the Clinton admin didn't do anything ... no excuses, results. That's why Congress' rating is the lowest ever, they haven't actually DONE anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japangreg

<pinches nose, shakes head>

U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan
Then stop repeating the exaggerations of only one side.

---

I stand corrected, he did drop bombs in 96 and 98 and missed him by a few hours after that. Wonder why nothing much happened after 1998? Oh yeah, Monica!

So, I'm back to my original premise, except for bombs being dropped in the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. Correction noted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villain2

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

It's true. He did do lots of things. Just that none of them were effective, obviously.

---

The facts seem to disagree with both of you.
Regarding Clinton's response to the '93 WTC attack:

Quote:

---

In October 1995, the militant Islamist and blind cleric Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for masterminding the bombing. In 1998, Ramzi Yousef was convicted of "seditious conspiracy" to bomb the towers. In all, ten militant Islamist conspirators were convicted for their part in the bombing, each receiving prison sentences of a maximum of 240 years.

---

Seems pretty effective to me... and he did it without needlessly spending half a trillion of our tax dollars, killing half a million innocent civilians, and turning world opinion against us in the process.