It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


R: a Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain support for an attack

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 04:33 AM
Hereunder you can read an article written by republican Ron Paul. Even though I don't share most of the republican principles, I greatly admire this politician for his bright view on this matter and others. He's one of the few on the republican side very worried about the state of the US economy.

In the following article he reflects his opinion on a possible attack on Iran and describes that a false flag operation to gain support for an attack would be very well possible.

Personally, I don't think that such a false flag operation would hit US forces, but rather Israelis. They will lead the attack, the US will only back it up.

What I am wondering is how exactly the average Joe would take up such a false flag operation. People on ATS are far more sceptical as they research conspiracies and world changing event, but would you be so sceptical as well if you are not interested in conspiracies at all? Lately, mainstream media did give some attention to 9/11 conspiracies, but too little to convince the average Joe of a false flag operation to invade Iran.

Initially, I think that the US and Israel would have expected Iran to retaliate and they are trying to put Iran into the role of aggressor but they find out Iran doesn't get caught in the trap.

While the president’s announcement that an additional 20,000 troops would be sent to Iraq dominated the headlines last week, the real story was the president’s sharp rhetoric towards Iran and Syria. And recent moves by the administration only serve to confirm the likelihood of a wider conflict in the Middle East.


As I said last week on the House floor, speculation in Washington focuses on when, not if, either Israel or the U.S. will bomb Iran-- possibly with nuclear weapons. The accusation sounds very familiar: namely, that Iran possesses weapons of mass destruction. Iran has never been found in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and our own Central Intelligence Agency says Iran is more than ten years away from producing any kind of nuclear weapon. Yet we are told we must act immediately while we still can!

This all sounds very familiar, but many of my colleagues don’t seem to have learned much from the invasion of Iraq. .... We need to return to reality when it comes to our Middle East policy. We need to reject the increasingly shrill rhetoric coming from the same voices who urged the president to invade Iraq.

Full story

[edit on 19-1-2007 by Mdv2]

posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 05:32 AM
Is he in fact a republican or is he a Libertarian? Whatever he is, I sent him an email, even though I'm not a constituent and thanked him for his level-headedness. Its good to see someone speaking out of the party-line when its the right thing for everyone. Wether or not the false-flag is possible it was good that he called the facts up in regards to Irans capabilities and speaking with syria and Iran rather then just attacking them.

I wouldn't be surprised if AIPAC tries to smear this guy in the near future.


posted on Jan, 19 2007 @ 06:09 AM
A little more on his background:

Ronald Ernest “Ron” Paul (born 20 August 1935) is an American physician and politician from the U.S. state of Texas. On 11 January 2007, Paul announced the formation of an exploratory committee for a 2008 presidential campaign. A Republican, he has represented Texas's 14th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives since 1997, and had previously served as the representative from Texas's 22nd district in 1976 and from 1979 to 1985.

In 1984, Paul ran in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by John Tower, but the nomination went to Phil Gramm. Paul also supported term limits for members of Congress at the time and likened himself to the famous Senator Robert A. Taft. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in the 1988 election. After his failed presidential bid, Paul returned to Congress in 1997. He was again elected as a Republican, but against the wishes of the party leadership, which had backed Paul's primary opponent. His opponent in the primary was the incumbent representative, a former Democrat who had switched his party affiliation to Republican in the aftermath of the 1994 Republican Revolution.


For those who are interested, he wrote another excellent article which you can read here: The End of Dollar Hegemony

posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 03:39 AM

WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders in Congress lobbed a warning shot Friday at the White House not to launch an attack against Iran without first seeking approval from lawmakers.

"The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

The administration has accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and contributing technology and bomb-making materials for insurgents to use against U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

url=]Bradenton Herald[/url]

The above stated article makes it even more plausible a false flag operation could occur. The congress would likely not give approval for an attack on Iran, but opinions could change rapidly if ''Iran'' would attack US forces.

new topics

top topics

log in