Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Foreign Affairs: Watch for Al Qaeda to provoke nuclear war with Iran using a "false flag" operation

[On rereading this post, I'm thinking that, really, the foreign policy establishment thinks that the administration is, well, batshit. DFH types, obviously.]

In the latest issue of the very establishment Foreign Afffairs, Bruce Riedel has an excellent* analysis of the state of play in the waronterra, in particular how Al Quaeda, with the help of the Bush penchant for creating chaos, has reconstituted itself. This paragraph of Al Qaeda Strikes Back caught my eye (remember that AQ is Sunni, unlike the majorities in Iran and Iraq, who are Shiite):

Bin Laden might also be nurturing bolder plans, such as exploiting or even triggering an all-out war between the United States and Iran. Indeed, there is evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq -- and elements of the Iraqi Sunni community -- increasingly consider Iran's influence in Iraq to be an even greater problem than the U.S. occupation. Al Qaeda worries about the Sunni minority's future in a Shiite-dominated Iraq after the Americans leave. Propaganda material of Sunni jihadists in Iraq and elsewhere openly discusses their fear that Iran will dominate a postoccupation Iraq and seek to restore the type of regional control that the Persian Empire had in the sixteenth century. In a remarkable statement last November, Zarqawi's successor, Abu Hamza al-Masri, thanked President George W. Bush for sending the U.S. Army to Iraq and thus giving al Qaeda the "great historic opportunity" to engage Americans in direct fighting on Arab ground. (He also said that Bush was "the most stupid and ominous president" in U.S. history.) But he warned that the invasion had "revived the glory of the old Persian Safavid Empire in a very short period of time." Similarly, the self-proclaimed emir of the Islamic State of Iraq, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, issued a statement in February 2007 welcoming news that the U.S. government was considering sending more troops to Iraq and saying that he was eagerly looking forward to an American nuclear attack on Iran.

Al Qaeda would especially like a full-scale U.S. invasion and occupation of Iran, which would presumably oust the Shiite regime in Tehran, further antagonize Muslims worldwide, and expand al Qaeda's battlefield against the United States so that it extends from Anbar Province in the west to the Khyber Pass in the east. It understands that the U.S. military is already too overstretched to invade Iran, but it expects Washington to use nuclear weapons. Baghdadi has told Sunnis in Iran to evacuate towns close to nuclear installations.

Translation: Al Qaeda to Bush: Let's you and Iran fight.

And when the going gets tough, the tough get foily:

The biggest danger is that al Qaeda will deliberately provoke a war with a "false-flag" operation, say, a terrorist attack carried out in a way that would make it appear as though it were Iran's doing. The United States should be extremely wary of such deception. In the event of an attack, accurately assigning blame will require very careful intelligence work. It may require months, or even years, of patient investigating to identify the plotters behind well-planned and well-executed operations, as it did for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Loc kerbie, Scotland, and the 1996 attacks on the U.S. barracks at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton were wise to be patient in both those cases; Washington would be well advised to do the same in the event of a similar attack in the future.

"Careful intelligence work," eh? I'm sure we can set up another Office of Special Plans! Especially if the "false flag" operation takes place in, oh, September 2008, just in time for whatever product rollout the Republicans have planned.

Well, I think I'll hit my head with a hammer now, and then put it in a bucket of water. Put my head in the bucket, that is. The hammer would rust. Maybe then I'll feel better.

* "Excellent," that is, if you accept the Foreign Affairs notion of a kindler, gentler Imperium. But Riedel does have a lot of other interesting things to say. For example:

Iraq is, of course, another critical battlefield in the fight against al Qaeda. But it is time to recognize that engagement there is more of a trap than an opportunity for the United States. Al Qaeda and Iran both want Washington to remain bogged down in the quagmire. Al Qaeda has openly welcomed the chance to fight the United States in Iraq. U.S. diplomacy has certainly been clumsy and counterproductive, but there is little point in reviewing the litany of U.S. mistakes that led to this disaster. The objective now should be to let Iraqis settle their conflicts themselves. Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal that allows the Iraqi government to take the credit for the pullout and so enhance its legitimacy.

And:

It is now fashionable to call the struggle against al Qaeda the long war. It need not be so, even though helping to rebuild Afghanistan will require a long-term commitment. Decisive actions in key arenas could bring significant results in short order, and a focused strategy could eventually destroy the al Qaeda movement. On the other hand, a failure to adjust U.S. strategy would increase the risk that al Qaeda will launch another "raid" on the United States, this time perhaps with a weapon of mass destruction. For the last several years, al Qaeda's priority has been to bleed the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. Striking on U.S. soil has been a lesser goal. If al Qaeda survives, however, sooner or later it will attack the U.S. homeland again.

All rational suggestions, given the caveat above. If only our government weren't led by a sociopath-in-chief pandering to a base that's been crazed by fear.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by Chris (not verified) on

The next false-flag event will be orchestrated by Mossad. Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars. Iraq is the beginning. As we commit war-crimes in Baghdad, the US gov't commits treason at home by opening mail, eliminating habeas corpus, using the judiciary to steal private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon and Wikipedia America Deceived (book), conducting warrantless wiretaps and engaging in illegal wars on behalf of AIPAC's 'money-men'. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier by Mossad) and the US will invade Iran.. Then we'll invade Syria, then Saudi Arabia, then Lebanon (again) then ....

Submitted by The Prize (not verified) on

"Only Israel benefits from these endless Middle East wars." This is a ridiculous, misguided statement. The Western military-industrial-petroleum-intelligence complex does indeed benefit from such wars as Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the nuance involved can't be distilled into one statement blaming Israel.

Submitted by anonymous coward (not verified) on

it's a fraud- and the people see it.

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on

It is coming from the Establishment itself. the circle of surrender to Iran is complete. Even if the Iranians hit the USA, the USA will say, "Na, it cannot be Iran." This is an invitation by the Establishment for Iran to strike, for Al-qaida is an American-Iranian outfit that pursues only what is in the interest of Iran and the USA(the Establishment).
The Khobar Tower, the Jewish center in Argentina, the Marines Barracks, and yes, 9-11 were all orchestrated by Iran, but we wanted it so bad we decided to reward Iran by intentionally handing over Iraq to their dealiest enemy.

Submitted by Eric Vaughan (not verified) on

So, if the best of American money can't subjugate the brownies into virtual slavery, what does that mean? We could've achieved the exact same BS with the weaponry of WWII at a far greater savings.

This is what I think it means. Remember that cartoon where Sylvester the cat tries to negioate this pit of barking dogs with a pair of stilts and then he hears sawing and has to run until the dogs are almost parallel with him? That's what happened with the Muslims. I can't see any scenario with the disposable-as-plastic-lighters Chinese or the downright nasty Russian white pitbulls being way more uglier.

George W. Bush and his military-industrial complex cronies have tried to pass a bad fifty at the grocery store and failed, complete with a "Mission Accomplished" ceremony. Why would they try the same stunt at a racetrack or a supermarket?

Ignore the comments about that damned "America Deceived" book---that moron finds an excuse to post that same message EVERYWHERE, always hyping his shitty little book. Go to amazon and read a sample of it! What junk! Either someone pays him to clog blogs with that junk or he just can't face the fact that he won't make money with that dumb book.

Submitted by get real (not verified) on

To the dolt suggesting Iran was behind 9/11:

Get real! There's even less evidence of Iran being involved with 9/11 than IRAQ!

9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by an "invisible government" of oligarchical elites within the U.S., who have nothing but disdain for the 'mob rule' of democracy. They work behind the scenes to guide events as they see fit. John F. Kennedy's flagrant headshot ("back & to the left"!) should have been a wake-up call to America that democracy here has become a sham, a fraud, a show designed to blind us to the real structures of power operating at the upper echelons of our society. Some of the same people & groups behind the JFK assassination are probably still in power today--it's basically a crime syndicate, like the mafia.

Anyone who still buys the official 9/11 story needs to look into some facts. 2 jets hit 2 towers on 9/11, yet *3* buildings fell that day! WTC Building #7! Google it, download the video and watch it in flagrant free-fall, an obvious case of controlled-demolition. It was hit by no plane, sustained relatively little damage from the collapsing Twin Towers, and had only very minimal fires burning in it--yet it all fell straight down in SECONDS. As it happened, on CBS news, Dan Rather commented that the building's collapse looked like a controlled demolition! He didn't realize how true his words were. Larry Silverstein later admitted the decision to "pull it", which is a term used by demolitions teams! But controlled demolitions take DAYS to set up, you can't just slap some explosives on there and do it in a few hours--it takes PLANNING.

This shows that criminal sectors of the U.S. government MADE 9/11 happen. The fall of the Twin Towers was caused by thermate charges, which cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. Watch video of the towers and you'll see orange/yellow molten steel pouring out of the towers in some areas! Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to make molten steel! No steel tower has EVER collapsed due to fire, even fires hotter & longer-burning than those Twin Tower fires. And even if the fires DID weaken the Towers, they would NOT have fallen demolition-style, in nearly free-fall speed, perfectly downward into their own structural footprint! They were rigged to fall, thereby providing an unprecedented PR spectacle to get Americans scared & angry.

Look into all the different NORAD drills just "coincidentally" being run on that day! It confused air-defense people enough that their tapes reveal the confusion--"Someone started the simulation early...?" No, the NORAD hijacking simulations were planned for that day to distract air-traffic controllers & air-defense community, because people like Cheney knew what was really going on.

9/11 was designed as an excuse for the U.S. to invade the Middle East while beginning a roll-back of civil liberties here at home. The elites know that the U.S. dollar is weakening, and they want to remain top-dogs of the globe. They know that their main trump card is MILITARY POWER, so they needed a plausible excuse to use it while they still can. Google the neo-con Project for a New American Century (PNAC) document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It was released in Sept. of 2000, a full year before 9/11. It called for expanding America's role throughout the world and beefing up America's military power, while admitting that these changes would be hard to institute "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor." That is a direct quote. The neo-cons got their wish 1 year later in the form of 9/11. If you think this is a coincidence then you are either very naive, very gullible, or very stupid.

Look into 9/11 facts. There's too much for me to list here. 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB, and we are being conned daily, every time someone like Cheney defends the Iraq debacle by saying, "We were attacked on 9/11!" 9/11 was the neo-con wet-dream, they thought it would be a wild-card to let them get away with whatever they wanted by scaring the American herd into submission. Wake up before they stage another false-flag terrorist attack and blame it on Iran.

Submitted by anonymous coward (not verified) on

I did not say that the US Government was not involved in it too. the above facts are clear indication of our foreknowledge and complicity, but the fact remains that for the last 27 years we have just done nothing but talk about Iran. In the meantime, we have done everything to promote the Persian interests. We have Iran-Contra (I do not know how many of them), and the unending calls to Iran to come and talk while authorizing behind the scene cavorting.

Just a question, Why would we attack Iraq FIRST if we are really bad enemies of Iran? Unlike Iraq, Iran flaunts its ties to terrorism, admit WMD, has the oil, the connection to terrorism ...etc. wHY DIDN'T WE GO TO IRAN FIRST?

Just in you were wondering why we always "bungle" things up and put on a nice cover-up of innocent "incompetence"; why terrorism increase with all of our "good intentions". There may be a good reason: We are intentionally always going against the wrong enemy, to keep terrorism alive.

Submitted by lambert on

I believe 9/11 to have been one such.

It's probably foolish for me to argue this point, but I'll say it anyhow:

Nobody who has an inkling about how the construction and the real estate business works in New York could possibly believe in the thermite charges theory. It's an academic construct fabricated from paper and digital imagery.

Loading the WTC with thermite charges without the unions finding out -- let alone the cleaning crews and the security people -- would be like trying to smuggle a hooker into the Park Regency without tipping the doorman. Can't be done.

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

Speaking as one who has pointed a few fingers, all this finger pointing [the Mossad! No! the Company! No! Saddam! No! the Saudis! No!] simply begs the question.

Somebody- as a matter of fact, several Somebodies- made a fianancial killing on and about the events of 9/11.

Some people scored big in many, many, ways.

I will leave it to you to figure out who copped what off of whom.

And a certain major political Partei still bangs that drum. Whenever possible. Because many of its Ba$e still salivate to the sound.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

Get your conspirators right, anonymous coward.

Al Qaeda is a faction of the Saudi Royal House, organized with the help of the CIA to fight the Rooskies in Afghanistan back when the Gipper had as poor a grasp on what was happening in the world as Dear Leader does now.

Fortunately for Those Would Rule, now as then as forevermore (the way his rabid gerbil offspring breed), Cheneyburton was there to smooth the way and keep the facts away from the agenda of the Righteous.

Nice analogy, Eric: Remember that cartoon where Sylvester the cat tries to negotiate this pit of barking dogs with a pair of stilts and then he hears sawing and has to run until the dogs are almost parallel with him? Now who do you suppose gave Sylvester the stilt idea? Somebody more interested in feeding the dogs, maybe?

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Submitted by Well What If (not verified) on

you raise a good point and others have alrady answered those questions long ago:

1. Bush's brother ran or owned the security company that operated in the towers just prior to collapse.

2. The buildings underwent evacuations and power downs during which people allegedly could not even know what was taking place in the buildings.

Submitted by anonymous coward (not verified) on

Ah, now there's some credible proof that the NIST got it right - the tower's doormen.

An investigation first attempts to discover if a crime has been commited; one doesn't automatically ignore physical evidence of a crime simply because the mechanics of perpetrating the crime are unknown.

To say the tower collapses could not have been planned because it is difficult to grasp the logistics of pre-planting devices does not eliminate the forensic evidence of thermate use, the uneplained free-fall rates, and the energy requirements to turn concrete to dust.

I believe it is the U.S. Marines who say, "If it is difficult it will be done immmediately; if it is impossible, it will take a little while longer."

But then, we all know the conspiracy theory that the Titantic was sunk by an iceberg is phony because the ship was unsinkable - the builder's said so.

Let me humbly offer some eyewitness accounts of building collapses. i recently retired from Columbia, Missouri Fire Department (FD) as a career fire fighter. Retired with the rank of Lieutenant.
In 20+ years of service, i was on the scene of more than a few structure fires. Fires in various types of buildings, including residential, commercial and industrial. Even high rises. Most times, we were able to fight the fire successfully, extinguish the flames and return a sizable portion of the building and contents back to the owner.
However, some of the times, we lost the fight--and as the post fire investigation by the Fire Marshal's office would find, those fires involved arson--and were forced to go from an offensive mode, in which we would conduct interior fire fighting, to a defensive mode, in which we would "surround and drown" the building with immense amounts of water from the exterior.

When that happened, some of the times the building would collapse, due to interior fire damage and the immense amounts of water applied in fire suppression. The structure would collapse in a random, haphazard, piecemeal manner. Not once did i personally witness one of those structures collapsing in the rather controlled and somewhat neat pancake fashion as the WTC towers and Building 7.

i might be able to believe that one of the towers could fall that way, but all three? Think that would be physically impossible.

There has been much made about the interior fire's heat contributing to the collapse of the WTC's. i also disagree with that.
Those buildings, thanks to the fire codes enacted over the years, were built to withstand fire and not add to the flames.

The type of fires left burning after the jet fuel flamed off are what we call "contents fires". They involve the burning of the contents of the rooms/building, such as furniture, carpets and the like.
Initially, these fires are hot, but either burn out quickly or suffocate themselves due to the fire needing a large amount of oxygen and not being able to receive the proper amount of oxygen due to the large amount of smoke generated or no fresh sources of oxygen.

Last year, the NYFD released some of the on scene radio transcripts from some of the interior fire fighting units. i've read thru some of the radio traffic and from their accounts, in one of the towers, they not only had the fire extinguished, they were going to start providing medical care to the victims.
i believe the published radio accounts, not only due to the authentic sounding radio traffic, but the fact that they acted like fire fighters; that is, you make a decision at the beginning of the operation as to whether or not you are going to fight fire or rescue victims.
Since most FD's are usually understaffed and cannot provide both services, you usually elect to fight the fire, while ventilating the building to push out the toxic gases and smoke so the victims can at least get fresh air.

If the on scene fire crews had not only extinguished the fire(s) and determined that the building was safe enough to conduct medical care and rescue, then there is something terribly amiss and wrong with the so called "official" 9/11 version.

Maybe, just maybe, one of these days, we will get to the bottom of the events regarding 9/11 and bring the true instigators and mass murderers to justice.

Greg Bacon
RR 1 Box 3518
Ava, MO 65608

kelley b's picture
Submitted by kelley b on

"Iran is behind 9/11"

Which is why, of course, the pilots were Saudi jihadists trained by an organization created by the CIA.

Follow the money if you want to figure it out. I'm not kidding. But don't ever expect it to be officially approved.

We still haven't got the officials to tell the truth about the Kennedy assasination 44 years ago. Or Iran-Contra- it was not masterminded by Iran. With the lion's share of the money in our economy controlled by people who benefited by 9/11, we get a lyin' share of obfuscation and distortion.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

Submitted by anonymous coward (not verified) on

THE IDENTITY OF THE HIJACKERS IS ANOTHER SIGN THAT IRAN AND USA ARE BEHIND 9/11. DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO SEND IRANIANS IF THE GOAL IS TO LAY THE BLAME ON SOMEBODY ELSE? IT IE AN OPEN SECRET THAT MOST JIHADIS, WHO ESPOUSE A EXTINT KHARIJITE PHYLOSOPHY (GOOGLE THE TERM FOR HISTORY AND INFORMATION), WERE SUPPORTED BY IRAN. THE LEADERS OF EGYPT'S ISLAMIC JIHAD (AMONG THEM AYMAN ZAWAHIRI)WHO ASSASINATED SADAT ARE ALL KHARIJITES.
WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, DO NOT MIND EVEN SUPPORT IT,IF IT SUITS OUR GOALS.
JUST ASK THE FOLLWOING QUESTION: WHO BENEFIT FROM 9/11?
NATURALLY, SAUDI ARABIA (THE GOVERNMENT) LOST A LOT FROM WHAT HAPPENED. THE USA AND IRAN BENEFITTED TREMENDOUSLY FROM 9/11. AGAIN THE QUESTION IS NOT ANSWERED: WHY WOULD THE USA ATTACK IRAQ FIRST IF IT REALLY INTEND TO ATTACK IRAN LATER.
DO NOT BUY THE STUFF ABOUT OUR TROUBLE IN IRAQ AND THE CIVIL WAR THAT WE CANNOT STOP. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT IN IRAQ THERE IS GENOCIDE AGAINST SUNNIS, AN ACTION THAT IS PLANNED BY US AND EXECUTED BY THE SO CALLED IRAQI GOVERNMENT.
BUSH TELLS YOU RIGHTLY THAT IF WE PULL OUT A GENOCIDE WILL ENSUE. BUSH, HOWEVER, DOES NOT TELL YOU THE WHOLE STORY, WHICH IS THAT THE GENOCIDE IS ONGOING, THAT IT IS PLANNED AND SUPERVISED BY US, THAT THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT IS EXECUTING IT, THAT WE JUST OPPOSE TO THE RATE AT WHICH IT IS GOING UNTIL WE CUT A DEAL WITH THE IRANIANS REGARDING THEIR NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES AND THEIR INTENT TO SWITCH TO THE EUROTHAT WE REALLY CANNOT WAIT TO HAND IRAQ, LOCK STOCK AND BARREL TO IRAN BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT WE PLANNED FROM THE BEGINNING BUT WE ARE WAITING FOR THE PRICE TO BE PAID.
EVEN IF MY THEORY IS RIGHT, THERE IS NO NEED TO FEAR RETALIATION BY THE USA AGAINST IRAN: THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE IRAN IS CURRENTLY OUR FRANKENSTEIN.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

Also, may I thank you for your service as a fire fighter.

It was my understanding that communication between firefighters who went into the two towers and those in command was terrible.

I'm curious about something - this for anyone of you who think there is more to what happened that day than has yet been told - we know the planes did slam into the buildings - how on earth could there be some kind of coordination between our government, or whomever and those who were part of the highjacking planes into the buildings scenario so that a planned explosive event of some kind was rigged to collapse the buildings? What if the highjackings had gone bad, and the buildings had blown up? Or are you saying that the controlled collapse might have been a back-up plan that was part of the Al Queda plan?

I'm completely sympathetic with the notion that our government failed utterly to respond to the signs that this was coming and that there unresponsiveness insured the highjackers success, and that to some extent this carelessness on the part of the Bush administration was and is very much about an attitude that accepts the notion of being in a state of perpetual war as the proper posture for this country, because it insures Republican control. But the look on Bush's face in that classroom in Florida tells me he didn't know this was coming, but he knew instantly that he should have - that all those warnings were right, and that his first fear was about his being held responsible.

On the other hand, who ever thought even this guys would repeal habeas corpus?

Submitted by Andrew Crane (not verified) on

For over two years, I had no reason to doubt the official story of 9/11. But after viewing three short videos in early 2004, everything I believed about that day started to change.

I will never know what really happened that day. Nor who was involved in its execution. Nor who made "the money". But I do know what my eyes saw in those videos. They saw a barely damaged, rectangular, 48 story, steel frame building go down completely symmetrically in under 9 SECONDS!

So I got copies of the NIST and FEMA reports on the calamities of that day. I started researching both sides of the issue on the Web and elsewhere.

And the "official" explanation was: fire, enhanced by diesel fuel stored on the lower floors of the building, melted the support columns of the building to the point where they finally gave way - and the building collapsed.

I know what I believe. All I can ask is for others to watch the videos of the collapse of WTC 7 at this site (many other sites have copies of these):

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence...

And then ask yourself this question: Do you really believe that fire caused all of the support columns in WTC Building 7 to melt AT EXACTLY the same time so that the building collapsed as seen in the videos?

If not, then what can you believe when this Administration tells you anything.

We found found the enemy, and he is us.