It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Bombshell from Zbigniew Brzezinski: Ex-national security adviser warns of pretext to attack Iran

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”



Brzezinski derided Bush’s talk of a “decisive ideological struggle” against radical Islam as “simplistic and demagogic,” and called it a “mythical historical narrative” employed to justify a “protracted and potentially expanding war.”

“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.

Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.



The following exchange took place:

Q: Dr. Brzezinski, who do you think would be carrying out this possible provocation?

A: I have no idea. As I said, these things can never be predicted. It can be spontaneous.

Q: Are you suggesting there is a possibility it could originate within the US government itself?

A: I’m saying the whole situation can get out of hand and all sorts of calculations can produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace.


src globalresearch.ca...

This is indeed quite the bombshell considering Brzezinskis background and what I thought was unquestionable support for US foreign matters & policy. To state that the US govt could possibly orchestrate a terrorist event to garner public support is draw dropping. I'm speechless and yet no mention of this on any major news sources (thus far). Does this give credence to the alleged 9-11 quacks?

brill


[edit on 4-2-2007 by brill]

[edit on 4-2-2007 by brill]




posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser in the Carter administration, delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the Bush administration’s policy was leading inevitably to a war with Iran, with incalculable consequences for US imperialism in the Middle East and internationally.

Brzezinski, who opposed the March 2003 invasion and has publicly denounced the war as a colossal foreign policy blunder, began his remarks on what he called the “war of choice” in Iraq by characterizing it as “a historic, strategic and moral calamity.”


And it was a war of choice- for those who waged it. Not a war of neccessity, but a war of choosing, a war based on ideology of NeoCons.




“To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy,” he said.


Precisely...precisely...precisely.

Those who say there is a war with Islam are wrong, but the more Islamic countries that are attacked, the more Muslims feel attacked, the more this false prophesy of a war with Islam will be fulfilled.



Most stunning and disturbing was his description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”


Gulf Of Tonkin internal instigation...a trigger for a war, or wars, or one great big war of wars.



This was an unmistakable warning to the US Congress, replete with quotation marks to discount the “defensive” nature of such military action, that the Bush administration is seeking a pretext for an attack on Iran. Although he did not explicitly say so, Brzezinski came close to suggesting that the White House was capable of manufacturing a provocation—including a possible terrorist attack within the US—to provide the casus belli for war.




Originally posted by brill
This is indeed quite the bombshell considering Brzezinskis background and what I thought was unquestionable support for US foreign matters & policy. To state that the US govt could possibly orchestrate an terrorist event to garner public support is draw dropping. I'm speechless and yet no mention of this on any major news sources (thus far). Does this give credence to alleged the 9-11 quacks?

brill



The burning of The Reichstag....the Germans faking a Polish attack on the German-Poland border to give an excuse to invade Poland......Gulf Of Tonkin.....Operation Northwoods.....

Remember always. He who forgets history, is condemned to repeat it.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Regensturm]



posted on Feb, 4 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm
The burning of The Reichstag....the Germans faking a Polish attack on the German-Poland border to give an excuse to invade Poland......Gulf Of Tonkin.....Operation Northwoods.....

Remember always. He who forgets history, is condemned to repeat it.

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Regensturm]


Northwoods was never actually carried out I believe it was only a proposal. I think what concerns me most here is that its not so much an admission by an unknown, we're talking about a former national security adviser who in some circles is still highly revered. Doesn't it seem odd for someone like this to break social and political rank by actually implying that the government could "produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace." This provides so much ammunition for the 9-11 conspiracy advocates.

brill



posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by brill

Northwoods was never actually carried out I believe it was only a proposal.


Or was never carried out to the extent that was proposed, indeed. But the that fact it was nontheless still a proposal, is terrifying and horrifying enough.


Originally posted by brill
I think what concerns me most here is that its not so much an admission by an unknown, we're talking about a former national security adviser who in some circles is still highly revered. Doesn't it seem odd for someone like this to break social and political rank by actually implying that the government could "produce a circumstance that would be very difficult to trace." This provides so much ammunition for the 9-11 conspiracy advocates.

brill


There are question marks, but what would be his ulterior motive?

Unless he states this, to pave way for the US to just attack Iran without a Black Flag Op beforehand, which would look like his arguement was invalid, which could be an attempt to discredit those warning of a Black Flag.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Regensturm

And it was a war of choice- for those who waged it. Not a war of neccessity, but a war of choosing, a war based on ideology of NeoCons.


'You have voted Regensturm for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.'

That is perfect.. what a way to describe it.
War should only ever be waged, when there are NO alternatives, or when not waging war means suffering and misery for your own people.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

'You have voted Regensturm for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.'

That is perfect.. what a way to describe it.


Thankyou Agit8dChop.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
War should only ever be waged, when there are NO alternatives, or when not waging war means suffering and misery for your own people.



Well said.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 07:56 AM
link   
Well, I never thought I would agree with Brzezinski about anything. But if he has really said what is reported in that article, then I certainly agree with him here. I must admit, though, I'm quite surprised by this, considering how he was pretty much promoting the very opposite of this ideology in The Grand Chessboard.

Did I miss something?



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I agree with the general notion of surprise over Brzezinski's - I hate typing that out by the way - statements and would like to add that perhaps it's not a form of self-actualization he may have gone through but a defensive strategy to exclude himself from future legal actions that may embower him. Perhaps he sees that the current administration may just be the one and first every to suffer heavy legal ramifications for it's actions in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Truly, if these men are allowed to step back into the world after this and continue their lives as only persons who were simply incompetent in their leadership roles, then the world truly has lost all virtues of justice.




War should only ever be waged, when there are NO alternatives, or when not waging war means suffering and misery for your own people.


War is such a complex issue that every incident of war cannot be studied collectively and used as a comparative to future wars prepared to be waged as is the case of the American think tanks, but as individual wars waged for topical reasons. This administration literally threw themselves into Iraq thinking overwhelming man-power and weaponry would exact subservience hastily unless they had planned on the deep political and sectarian violence; the poor efforts in reconstruction plunged the country into a impoverished state with resources marginalized and security depreciative. It was as if the current situation was culled from the time the first Marine stepped on foot in Iraq.

It's becoming very apparent that the public has becoming completely disenfranchised with the government when it refuses to garner the opinions of it's people in war, how America is run or how America deals with it's international affairs. Sadly, this apparency has always been though. We're hearing the same redundant arguments used for Iraq 4 years on and in this case of Iran, however, they don't need to garner public support as much, they can simply dictate their wish when they feel they have enough evidence to proceed with military action; and we've seen what sort of evidence manifests itself as the casus belli ...

Luxifero



[edit on 6-2-2007 by Luxifero]

[edit on 6-2-2007 by Luxifero]



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
this guy is a global elitiest dirtbag or at least he has been

either he is having a spiritual rebirth (doubtful , but who knows)

or there are alterior motives maybe he is trying to cause some more turmoil from within

these elitist's have TONS of money, there main goal is to enslave the population divide and conquor maybe trying to make the corrupt gov't idea more mainstream and hurting the pride of a country and our patriotism or love for our country maybe dividing us and creating more of a civil unrest and division.



posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 10:54 PM
link   
A fascinating twist - someone on the inside telling the truth...

Perhaps Brzezinski has realised that the neocon strategy to takeover the fossil fuel depot in the middle east is an empty strategy due to the rise in climate change concerns. The shifting emphasis away from fossil fuels seems to have left the Bush administration stuck in a quagmire of its own creation. They have gambled the US economy on controlling middle-east oil reserves, just like the soviets did in the 80's. By claiming the high ground first, Brzezinski could be absolving himself of liability. I wonder how many other rats will be abandoning the ship?

Does this indicate global warming as a major internationalist agenda? A flanking manouvre against a unilateral NWO.



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   
This is so odd. Is BigZ being blackmailed ? Found God? Getting public to protect himself from others in the inner circle?
Or maybe he is just that arrogant. He did write that book after all.

Is he going to be used to turn the public completely against the GOP and make the Dems a super-party? (god help us all)



posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   
What's more interesting again is the media blackout on this. We are talking about a popular ex-National Security Adviser before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... nothing in the press.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I'm enjoying how this article get little publication even on ATS. It seems that the patriots seem to have hushed up for now.

Where are the usuals stammering in with guns a blazing ?

Luxifero



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
I agree, this statement is the closest we've had to confirmation of a 'false flag mentality' given from a top-level insider and all we have are tumbleweeds...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I too was expecting more, especially from the hard right wingers in here. C'mon you know who you are. Let's see some responses from those who so aggressively back the current war front. This is big news and as others have stated not a peep from the toilet syndicate likes of cnn, msnbc, etc.

brill



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
i would ask the mods to read this article if they haven't and consider bumping this to the HOT TOPICS under the log in section


this is not getting much coverage and i think that it deserves more acknowledgement at least on par with a topic such as "Dan Akroyd"

also considering this is an insider talking about a corrupt gov't staging an attack it deserves IMO a bit more recognition. I mean why not. it could be very helpful in the future



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
MSNBC & Guardian (Unlimited) were the only mainstream outlets to highlight sections of Brzezinski's delivery.
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...

MSNBC & Guardian paraphrase: a terrorist act or some provocation blamed on Iran (without quotation marks).

Whereas others have directly quoted Z as saying: "some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran" (with quotation marks, emphasis mine).

You can see how some nimble editing deflects the deeper warning.

I suggest reading the originally quoted source right through globalresearch.ca...
This source more thoroughly reports that Z also discusses how a cabal operates within the Administration, and how Bush discussed false flag tactics with Blair just weeks prior to entering Iraq, with particular allusion to the leaked plot to paint a plane in UN colors and provoke Saddam to shoot it down en.wikipedia.org...

As a sidenote, MSNBC is the network where his daughter Mika freelance anchors, who incidentally (perhaps) was presenting live from ground zero when the 2nd plane hit the tower on 911. en.wikipedia.org...

Meanwhile FT recently featured a recent oped on Z's current posture: www.ft.com...



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Some great info there Shar_Chi


Thanks for clarifying the msnbc aspect as well.

brill



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
What's more interesting again is the media blackout on this. We are talking about a popular ex-National Security Adviser before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee... nothing in the press.

The Jews control the mainstream media. They don't like to have this story made more known and widespread. The Jews fear and hate Iran.



posted on Feb, 9 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   
please ignore the post above designed to deflect this thread into a racist direction. stay focused people



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join