Israeli AIPAC Lobbyist Calls For False Flag

page: 4
86
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DerekJR321
 


He speaks of the book of life?
Hah, what an abomination to 'life' in general!
In-credible.
Outrageous.
edit on 27-9-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
So he's a stratfor wannabe?

why waste my time!


You were claiming that the video looked doctored/illegitimate, and the guy's contact information was handed to you on a silver plate. That is why you should contact him and ask him if he said the things on the video. WEAK.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


The source you site say the speaker on the video is with AIPAC, but I see no evidence of that. Another post provides his contact page at some think tank, but is there any firm link with said think tank and AIPAC? It wouldn't surprise me, but such links should be confirmed before posting headlines like that of this post or the article from which you got your info.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


The source you site say the speaker on the video is with AIPAC, but I see no evidence of that. Another post provides his contact page at some think tank, but is there any firm link with said think tank and AIPAC? It wouldn't surprise me, but such links should be confirmed before posting headlines like that of this post or the article from which you got your info.


He doesn't work for AIPAC exactly, but close enough I guess:

my.firedoglake.com...

I personally think this is like Romney talking about his wife almost dying in a plane crash; a tasteless joke.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
Israeli AIPAC Lobbyist openly and publicly calling for a false flag is first and foremost, telling the honest and blunt truth about exactly what is being considered.

Once the public is informed in such a casual way about what is really being considered, we should go a bit deeper into the rabbit hole with another item of note. I offer this discussion on the matter.

It is clear to me that an attack on Iran by whatever reasons are used is inevitable, but in that fact, lies another telling truth and that is that anyone who thinks that Israel is not aware of what would happen to Israel if they openly attack Iran, is missing what I think is a much bigger picture or being extremely naive.

If Israel attacks Iran, then Israel already knows who the followup enemies of Israel will be. In this knowledge, Israel would then since its going for broke, is going to then also attack and take out other nations that Israel considers a threat to Israel's future.

These other enemy nation targets beyond an initial attack on Iran would in my opinion, reach deep into Europe and many places around the globe, all attacked and timed to best benefit Israel and its allies considering how the world is now becoming heated with China, Japan, Russia and Iran issues.

To think that Israel will attack Iran and then allow itself to be destroyed just for attacking Iran is still thinking very short of the bigger picture.

AIPAC calling for a false flag implies that there is a need for a staged or created disaster, or a terrorist attack that is blamed on Iran and others so that an attack on Iran can be justified. It has to be a good false flag that leads to war and the AIPAC Lobbyist alludes to this.

The sad part is that I also feel that only by allowing Israel to go for broke and in going for broke, it to me implies that Israel will have to then also attack other nations when it attacks Iran. In such a way, it eventually leads to the intentional destruction of a sacrificed Israel, so that the Zionist can have a new place called Zion.

While any false flag event would be no doubt used to help sell the attack Iran theme, it is to me more important to note that if Israel goes for it, then so it too must go after all its known new future enemies and that is where I feel many are not truly awake to what an attack on Iran truly means on a global basis.

If a false flag event is used to kick off events, then I have no doubt it will be done with arrogance and in our faces as if to say to us, what can we do? nothing... and the elites know this, so they plan their schemes and in doing so prepare us for a global war that will decimate the planet while giving control to the elites to stop the wars.

The USA, the UK and other heads of nations that are in line with a one world govt will allow Israel to attack all of its enemies and few extra nations for good measure just so the NWO can blame it all on Israel as being the culprit. Israel will be blamed and sacrificed for its actions, but to me it is a well planned effort to deceive us.

This is where I see Israel as the Joker Wild card that the elites will use as a nation state sacrifice of Israel to position themselves for the future after the wars.

Once Israel is destroyed and peace is obtained, the simple minds will think that it is is over, when in fact, the same Zionist criminals will be in charge of what is left of the survivors.

Any false flag this time around is for much bigger stakes and that is why an attack on Iran begins WWIII when Israel attacks Iran and then simultaneously attacks other enemies of the state of Israel so that the NWO can advance its one world govt agenda forward while reducing the population to controllable human population numbers.

Any major false flag event this time around, will mark the beginning of the end and for that reason alone, I hope that something or someone will intervene and prevent such a false flag plan from coming into existence.

Thanks for the thread.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Is the act of comitting a false flag a war crime?
It should be in my opinion.
The murder of people to cause a war? A war were your own people die? Even worse if it is done by another country. Some one should be held accountable.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by MaxBlack
 


I completely concur with you and it fits in with what I've been saying for a very long time.

First off it is not Jews that are pushing this it is zionists.

Zionists are using Jews to push their own agenda.

Jews will be sacrificed for the zionists grand plan.

The worst zionists are Christina zionists ..... like the guy in the video.

It is Christian zionists who are using Jews to achieve their goal.

When will the Jews wake up and see how they are being played ?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I can see why everyone is up in arms about this guys speech, but did all of you who are jumping up and down actually watch everything he had to say? I initially thought, no way, how could he say such a thing. I then thought the audio was way to good/direct for the vid quality/conference type speech and so went to find the original video in case it had been doctored. I then came across the whole conference on the Washington Institute youtube channel and so watched that as it would be the real deal.
I then changed my initial point of view of being up in arms at what he said after I thought about it a bit. This is what I concluded.

He basically was stating how things are game planned out. From negotiation (where possibly Iran is allowed to enrich uranium but then has to immediately ship it to another country to be made into rods/plates which is then shipped back to them, thus making it extremely difficult for it to be used in weaponry - if Iran is not interested in nukes as they say they are not, then this could be a good way forward), and why other negotiations have and could fail to the danger of proposing a 'final offer' from which there is no way back and the next step can only be war if Iran does not agree to this final offer. He explains how final offers don't work because the offering side will not want to be seen as being weak and changing the final offer, because it was stated as 'final' to the other side wanting to get a bit more out of it than offered so they get the best deal.

Now with ref to the false flag part of his speech. He did not out right say that the USA should create a false flag to justify a war. What he did was to throw up examples where USA have used false flags in the past in order to get a 'justifiable' war so they could get what they wanted in the first place. This is no big revelation, we all know this has been the case in the past, though interesting he should admit it so freely. But what he did do, especially with hinting about covertly taking out subs and admitting it was the USA/Israel that have already started attacking Iran with things like virus programmes, whether as a pressure force or an underhanded provocation, was to highlight the very real possibility that a false flag may be iminent if USA can not get Iran to bend to their wishes. Perhaps, as he has game planned this all out, as the Pentagon and the Obama Aministration have done, he knows this is where it is headed and is maybe trying to warn people that if something goes down that looks like Iran has made the first strike which leads to USA/Israeli war cries, then to be skeptical of the reports / news because there is a good chance it is a false flag and so don't believe it.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


wasn't there a thread about this yesterday?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:12 AM
link   
He forgot the USS Liberty. That little gem of a false flag op. You know, the strafing of ships with canon fire, torpedo boats, and the best part shooting at unarmed sailors in the water and life rafts....

Israel is our friend....

What a joke.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I am admittedly on the extreme fringe of the anti-war spectrum in terms of when I feel military conflict is acceptable. Essentially I never feel that there is a sufficiently justifying reason for war. I won't be happy until we have Star Trek (sans the battles with Klingons and Romulans) and we all live in peace and without scarcity. war, or poverty. So not many people find themselves agreeing with my views, which is fine. I respect everyone's opinions.

But I want to raise a different point, which is this. Even if I had a far less extreme and pacifist position, one much more pragmatic and centrist, I'm not sure I could support a war with Iran at this stage. We have some evidence of detonator technology that could be utilized in a nuclear payload delivery system being developed by Iran. We have some uranium enrichment. We have the IAEA saying that there is no evidence of enriched uranium being diverted to weapons programs. We have some historical resistance on the part of Iran's leadership to the very notion of nuclear armaments. We have no concrete proof that they are pursuing a nuclear weapons program, but evidence that they may be. We have a lot of political posturing and statements by Iran that can be interpreted in a variety of ways, one of which is that they have hostile intent and malevolent designs against Israel in terms of an outright military attack. But no proof that they have directly stated that they plan or intend to attack Israel.

So, on balance, all of the above taken together does not constitute sufficient cause - even if I had a much more conservative or centrist stance - for preemtive military action in my opinion. I am no great fan of Iran's government, as i have said before quite candidly. I do feel that this is all cause for very real concern and observation. But I do not believe that an Iranian attack on Israel is imminent or that military action is now the only way to prevent such an attack from becoming imminent or inevitable.

Meanwhile, at the same time, things like this individual's statements make it difficult to ignore the apparent trend toward making it the policy of Israel and the United States that war is inevitable and should therefore be accelerated rather than delayed or averted. I have witnessed this thinking before, and in my opinion it is dangerous and ill conceived. When options to the contrary remain, even were I a less anti-war individual, even if I believed that war is necessary to protect national security and save lives, etc. etc. I would not be able to come to the conclusion that war is at this stage inevitable or necessary.

A problem allegedly exists. There is not yet concrete proof of that problem's existence. Yet the aim appears to be to leap frog over the proof (because that proof "might be a mushroom cloud." Remember where we've heard that before?) and go straight to a policy of actively trying to precipitate and justify military hostilities. This does not strike me as rational. It strikes me as willfully ignorant of the cost in human lives such a conflict would carry. It strikes me as dismissive of any alternative other than conflict, because the expedient road to war might be more favorable to our national interests than one of delay and diplomacy that might avert a war.

Which brings me to my ultimate point: What am I to think of a man - or groups - which ignores the very possibility of diplomacy, overlooks or simply justifies the cost in human lives involved, assumes war is inevitable and necessary even in the absence of proof of the claimed basis for said war, and publicly advocates intentionally precipitating said war via artificial and clandestine means? I do not assume that this is correct or factual, but the word which springs to mind, if I'm honest, is "sociopath."

I hope that gut response is incorrect. I do not have a "dog in this race." I don't agree with either side. I only hope war can be averted. I hope war will not be triggered intentionally rather than every means to avoid it first being exhausted. I hope I do not have to see the cost in human lives I fear realized before my eyes on the news in years to come. I hope we are not governed (or predominantly influenced, in the case of lobbyists) by sociopaths commanding powerful armed forces. That's all I can say.

Peace.
edit on 9/27/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typos



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


Is there, perhaprs, another video of this with JUST the clip and not someone else' ridiculous, personal opinion (correct or not, is irrelevent) isn't splattered across and scrolling over the damn video?

Jesus. People can't just post a goddamn video anymore and let people come to their own conclusions - you know, that's what the comments section is for.

Thanks, anyway (S&F for bringing it to light)



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I've seen several people asking for a more unedited video, so here is this one:



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Why don't they use some of those old torpedoes bought on the black market and use their subs to sink a South Korean war vessel and blame it on North Korea to do a false flag?

Ohh.....already been done.


...Well there's a shiny new Chinese aircraft carrier......why don't they sink her with the same kind of torpedoes that Taiwan uses? Or even better....use torpedoes that India uses.....that'll get the ball rolling.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
" I'm not advocating it..." he says...

What do you call it then you piece of # and everything that's wrong w/ us!!!!



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Almost every war was started with a false flag. Including Americas.

They want a one world government, and with all the sheeple sleeping, they will get it.

Unfortunatley, its not America that will run the NWO. Not if nastrodamus was right. Not if current events keep heading where tey are heading.

Here is my hypothosis.

Israel will have a false flag attack, Pulling America into war on false grounds. Theyll begin their carpet bombings of Iran. Iran has Russian and Syrian soldiers that will die in the bombings. Forcing Russia to war with America.

China and North Korea will use this time when american forces are spread thin, China will attack Japan, while Sout Korea is attacked by the North.

World War 3 will be announced, but not by the Americans, but by the Russians, Iranian and Chinese.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


To state it simply, the Jewish people deserve nothing. What have the Jewish people done to deserve anything? Why don't the Gypsy people deserve a homeland? They got holocausted on. They've been hated and kicked around, too. Only thing is, they haven't become bankers and such, and don't have the influence.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Surely this was a comedy skit for Saturday Night Live...

Patrick Clawson is director of research and head of the Iran Security Initiative at the Institute.

Seriously? What is the criteria needed to assume those positions? I.Q. of less than 100, and rabid Zionist sycophancy? What a clown.

Want to hear somebody with an informed opinion on Iran, Israel & the US... Try Dr Zbigniew Brzezinski. (the Iran discussion starts at 4.24, but do yourself a favour and watch the whole thing).




posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by theroostercrowsatnite
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


To state it simply, the Jewish people deserve nothing. What have the Jewish people done to deserve anything? Why don't the Gypsy people deserve a homeland? They got holocausted on. They've been hated and kicked around, too. Only thing is, they haven't become bankers and such, and don't have the influence.


Sorry, are you saying a nomadic people deserve a homeland...? I get it's hard, if not impossible, to live a nomadic life in Western Europe, say, but would they not just roam out of their homeland? I could just be ignorant, but... nomadic and homeland seem a bit contradictory...?



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I saw this video that posters are calling "Anti-Jihad". I don't see it that way at all.

www.liveleak.com...
edit on 27-9-2012 by ugmold because: bad link





top topics
 
86
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join