Home » diaries » LJ's diary

On False Flags and Other Things...


Sometimes the news is over the edge. We all know better than to start talking about crazy conspiracy theories found on Rense, Prison Planet, and the like. Keep this stuff off the NewsWire. Fine with me.

But it only takes a few days and we are being warned to watch for a false flag operation as a pretext for war with regards to Iran. Who warned us? Was it one of the grassy knoll crowd? Some foamer? Who was it? Zbigniew Brzezinski? Oh.... Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City, we find that Terry Nichols is saying that a high-ranking FBI official to carry out the Oklahoma City bombing of Alfred B. Murrah Federal Building. Is he to be believed? Why would some high FBI official direct this operation? How should I know? But the Salt Lake Tribune ran the story.

Truth stranger than fiction? What is truth? Operation Northwood? What about Operation Gladio? It gives state sponsored terrorism a whole new twist.

But what chaps my hide, is what could happen. Remember our friend Zbigniew and his caution about watching for false flags? If only we had to worry about some state sponsored act of terror--Gladio style. With the corporate soldier of fortune types running around afraid the George W. needs some help in getting his moral clarity focused, we have a whole layer of stranger than fiction possibilities.

This is no time to be loading up the popguns that really could ignite WWIII. Oh, I forgot we're in WWIV already.

I'm going to bed. It's time for my nightly nightmare.

Update: rather than pick on "corporate soldiers" exclusively, it would be better to expand the question to ask How many groups and subgroups would like to trigger a war between the US and Iran? How many would have the means? How many Gavrilo Princips are there? How many apocalyptic nutjobs does it take to screw in a war?


LJ February 23, 2007 - 2:10am
LJ's diary | printer friendly version | digg

Bewarre of the "false flag" claim.

That one's getting a lot of mileage right now.

These are Brzezinski's actual words.

Here, for instance, is a plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran: Iraq fails to meet the benchmarks for progress toward stability set by the Bush administration. This is followed by U.S. accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States blamed on Iran, culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran.

Read them again carefully. He doesn't specify a false flag operation. He says "a terrorist act in the United states blamed on Iran". What could this potentially include?

- a false-flag terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran
- an actual domestic or foreign terrorist act in the US falsely and maliciously blamed on Iran
- an actual domestic or foreign terrorist act in the US incorrectly blamed on Iran
- an Iranian-sponsored terrorist act in the US correctly blamed on Iran

Any one of those would be "a terrorist act in the United states blamed on Iran" by definition.

Believe me, if I thought that he had unequivocally said that, I'd be off like a shot. But I don't believe he did. Now - he may have wanted to, but was uncomfortable with speaking such a thing outright, so he left it vague enough that it would send a chill up some spines yet parsed it deniably. But the fact remains - he didn't parse it in such a way that the only possible interpretation was "false flag operation coming".

Aside from that, Brzezinski is completely correct that any coming military action by the US will be called a "defensive" action. Pretty funny to anyone owning both a world map and a ruler.

Escher Sketch February 22, 2007 - 2:39am
login to post comments
You're absolutely correct...

A closer reading reveals an ambiguously worded sentence. I have reread it several times, sometimes slow, sometimes at speed. My two conclusions: he spent a lot of time in writing these sentences, and that the ambiguity is intentional.

LJ February 22, 2007 - 9:22am
login to post comments
History

History and documents made public from the last 40 years or more show very clearly that the US and other countries have planned and carried out, often through surrogates, acts of terrorism in order to advance their own agenda. Nicaragua, Chile, Iran, Jamaica and more. Although it is easy to dismiss those who make claims of govt involvement in acts like these today as wingnuts, there is plenty out there to support those who do make such claims, at least that they not be dismissed offhand.

Is the GWB administration, and previous ones, being involved with setting things up covertly to advance their agenda out of the question? Nah... I don't think so.

Caribdude February 22, 2007 - 1:24pm
login to post comments
Is there

a greater profit margin in six billion easily exploitable souls or 300 million energy sucking brats who think they are "free".
I truely prefer Rense over celebrity head shaving.

Lasthorseman February 23, 2007 - 10:57pm
login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.