More false flag ideas from Cheney to provoke Iran
- Thread starter taffboy gwyrdd
- Start date
I don't think the public are that naive about their leaders - it's not as if all the skullduggery leading to the invasion of Iraq wasn't widely reported in later years.
There's two aspects operating here side by side. Firstly, i believe, the majority of the public has no idea what their governments are up to (still talking the US and UK here), while there is obviously a minority who are aware of this skulduggery to whatever degree.
Secondly is the issue of how quickly or slowly that minority is increasing while the majority is decreasing in numbers. One day a critical mass will be reached and big political changes for the better will be the outcome.
But you ask yourself mate, if you live in england and you read your daily paper (mirror, sun, star, express, mail, ie the majority), and you get your daily dose of tv news, and that's just about the sum of any political input for you, just how could you come to know exactly what sort of crimes your government are up to?
I will add that i think many more people were much better informed internationally pre-murdoch days.
And reporting about our government's crimes after the event is not really what we want. We want them to not be committing these crimes in the first place.
Anyone, or any organisation, that has a great deal of power can do three things with it: abuse, ignore it, or use it for positive purposes. The clear objective is to get the latter into action for our species. When that might happen is difficult to guage, but with the default of politics as our organising medium, it can never happen. It is politics itself that we have to reign in. Because by its very nature, inherently, the power is abused.
This is why we should be incredibly concerned about the plans to restrict bloggers, possibly through through a license scheme, plus the 'conduct guidelines' for websites generally.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
The US government is demonstrably terrorist. Why would that not be covered? It stands to reason there is censorship (either self censorship or imposed by editors and proprieters).
It is a massive story. Certainly bigger than much of the piffle in the press.
Terror fascists have taken control of the government. The role of the press is not dis-similar to the role played under tyranny historically.
Obviously, it is better people think they have some semblance of democratic power. A major problem with many tyrannies is that the tyrannt is so in your face. That may happen to us in time.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
The more I think about this case the more I am convinved that Mr Cheney should be interviewed by police about his terrorist aspirations.
Is there a reason he shouldnt be? Is the US soft on terrorism?
Seymour Hersh and / or his sources should publicise all the ideas Cheney suggested so that if something on those lines happens he can be front in the queue for interogation.
If they do not publicise the ideas there is a bigger risk of them happening.
Is there a reason he shouldnt be? Is the US soft on terrorism?
Seymour Hersh and / or his sources should publicise all the ideas Cheney suggested so that if something on those lines happens he can be front in the queue for interogation.
If they do not publicise the ideas there is a bigger risk of them happening.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Report him to the police. It's shocking.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Cheneys just eager to pump up the value of the many shares of those many arms and construction corporations he's a part of. Can't be an staunch old corpo-fascist if you're government you're running isn't taking care of the corporations you're involved with.
Same goes for the rest of them really, the US government is a public/private partnership of board-room war-profiteers and we shouldn't be surprised that they're always spoiling for a fight.
Same goes for the rest of them really, the US government is a public/private partnership of board-room war-profiteers and we shouldn't be surprised that they're always spoiling for a fight.
editor
hiraethified
Never happened. Not even slightly. Not even a little bit. It is a total non event from decades ago - yet you seem to think it not happening nearly half a century ago, err, somehow proves that something completely unrelated happened in the recent past.
Nice logic, Sherlock!
You what?? Operation northwoods didn't have to happen. The point is that it was planned, and it demonstrates the kind of mindset that those in power in the US are capable of. It destroys the misguided viewpoint that US political people are somehow incapable of being nasty towards their own.
Have you never heard of the idea that we look to the past to help explain the present? That we learn lessons from history?
Take thy blinkers off of thee.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
why would the mainstream media not run a story, from a very well respected mainstream journalist, about the US government coming up with a false flag operation re: starting a war with Iran?
Answers on a postcard.....
Answers on a postcard.....
newharper
Manxome Tove
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/31/cheney-proposal-for-iran-war/
S CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IN LIZARD ALIENS!!111!
That the US conducts black flag operations does not validate every conspiracy theory.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Nor does the suggestion of a conspiracy mean that every one mentioned deserves to be shot down by someone instering the word 'lizard' into a reply or posting a picture of a tinfoil hat.
Nor does the lack of a 'valid source' for the story, presumably one of the same 'valid sources' that's failed to run the story contained within this thread, mean a conspiracy theory is automatically invalid.
I read that The New Yorker didn't run Hersh's story because, "it didn't happen" and was therefore, by logic, not newsworthy. If that's not ironic, I don't know what is.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
And I wonder who the first person to do that was.
Is that relevant in any possible way to the thread?
More relevant is BM's point about why the story failed to make the mainstream media.
So the fact that the current elected official, holding the second most powerful post in the world, actively tabled a "false flag" plan doesn't give you pause?
Do you have a position on the Anthrax story by the way?
newharper
Manxome Tove
Sadly, at my age this is not news and it wasn't after I left my teens.
editor
hiraethified
Gotta love the way you're trying to link it with this story, but all the evidence appears to point to the position you sneered at - "the lone nut" - unless you have hard evidence to the contrary, of course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/us/02scientist.html?bl&ex=1217908800&en=8cf38e35a8549324&ei=5087
So they're currently 'capable' of doing something that they, err, didn't do nearly half a century ago? Dazzling logic there.
You're damn straight I'm sneering at it.
*All* the evidence? LOL.
Would you care to explain:
From Gleen Greenwald
What's *your* attitude to this?
Don't care that the U.S. Admin has been so blatantly discussing the idea of using false flag ops, or some other kind of outright deception?
perhaps the SWP were behind 9/11
that wouldnt even surprise me that much tbh
Yes, they orchestrated the whole thing in order to sell more newspapers.
editor
hiraethified
You keep on sneering, then.
Meanwhile, I'll wait for all the evidence and analysis to emerge before casting judgement.
A bit of a dull and slow moving process perhaps, but then finding the truth often is.
And if you're expressing wild surprise that governments sometimes consider lying and manufacturing situations to exploit to their own advantage, you're more naive than I thought.
Yay! Ivory tower cynical aloofness for the win!
editor
hiraethified
I understand that waiting for the facts and evidence to emerge is deeply unfashionable with some folks, but the good news for you is that there's no end of fact-untroubled, speculation-ahoy! websites ready and willing to fill the gap with fascinating works of fiction.
Enjoy!
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well some people are naive about what governments, military etc may plan. Im quite sure that there are a heck of a lot of plans which are sinister, but the vast majority are rejected, never carried out for a wide variety of reasons. We are more likely to hear about those plans than any that actually do get acted on, thats for sure.
I guess the plans are looked at in terms of what chance they have of succeeding, whether they might backfire, what the chances are of getting caught with pants down, are they really necessary, etc.
So, accepting that such plans are formulated is important for having a well rounded view of the world. However, if such knowledge heightens suspicion to the point that every world event seems to have the shadow of your chosen evildoer hanging over it, its probably doing more harm than good.
I have no doubt that lying, and possibly causing the death of some of your own citizens, is considered acceptable under certain circumstances. Some people who are cogs in the machine, are likely to accept that bad things may need to be done, if the consequences of not doing the bad things are deemed to be far worse. Did anybody see that program on the BBC some years ago where they considered various hypothetical emergencies a government may face, and what 'difficult decisions' may need to be taken? Eg there is a potentially pandemic outbreak of disease, some people are quarantined in hospital and are trying to break out, do you authorize the police to shoot some of them? It was a fascinating attempt to enlighten people about this sort of thing.
I guess the plans are looked at in terms of what chance they have of succeeding, whether they might backfire, what the chances are of getting caught with pants down, are they really necessary, etc.
So, accepting that such plans are formulated is important for having a well rounded view of the world. However, if such knowledge heightens suspicion to the point that every world event seems to have the shadow of your chosen evildoer hanging over it, its probably doing more harm than good.
I have no doubt that lying, and possibly causing the death of some of your own citizens, is considered acceptable under certain circumstances. Some people who are cogs in the machine, are likely to accept that bad things may need to be done, if the consequences of not doing the bad things are deemed to be far worse. Did anybody see that program on the BBC some years ago where they considered various hypothetical emergencies a government may face, and what 'difficult decisions' may need to be taken? Eg there is a potentially pandemic outbreak of disease, some people are quarantined in hospital and are trying to break out, do you authorize the police to shoot some of them? It was a fascinating attempt to enlighten people about this sort of thing.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Have you really got through all these years without knowing what "sources" means in this context? You do realise that everyone else in the class is on the next page, don't you?
It would seem that your own brand of logic is blinding you mate. What they did half a century ago is exactly what they've done today. That is, spelling it out, powerful american people concocted and considered plans to attack themselves and then blame it on others in order to pursue their own political agenda.
The reason it is relevant of course is that many people rubbish claims that amercian presidents and the like would never harm their own people.
Similar threads
- Poll
