Cheney, Neocons Considered Killing Americans in Pretext to Attack Iran

Cheney, Neocons Considered Killing Americans in Pretext to Attack Iran

www.infowars.com

In an exclusive Think Progress story, we learn the meeting took place in Cheney’s office and the subject on the table was “how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” part of an ongoing effort to provide an excuse to attack Iran. “There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war,” Hersh explains. “The one that interested me the most was why don’t we build — we in our shipyard — build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up.”

(visit the link for the full news article)

Another Gulf of Tokin?
A follow up to Operation Northwoods?
Its another example of how the government would lie and sacrafice its own to start yet another war.

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Video here

Originally posted by Black_Fox
Another Gulf of Tokin?
A follow up to Operation Northwoods?

Another 9/11?

Yes, it's clear that this government would do anything including sacrifice thousands of its own innocent people to start a useless war. Useless to us, that is, very profitable for them.

Thanks for posting this. It is a clear example of the callous and greedy nature of people like Dick Cheney and GW Bush.

That we let maniacs like this run our country for us is baffling.

That we would elect them once is disappointing.

That we would elect them a second time is shameful.

That any would continue to support them is near unforgivable ignorance.

These are not men they are monsters. They should have been removed from office long ago for the laundry list of crimes they committed. And now this...it is time this country woke up.

No, what it is is another "clear example" of the kind of rubbish that gets posted without any proof. It's also a "clear example" of how some people will gladly believe anything they read if it's something they wish was happening...again with no proof.

reply to post by BlueTriangle


I take it you didnt watch the video then.
Cause if you had,you would see the article is based on what was said.
Next time,be sure to read my entire post before commenting,thank you

Originally posted by Black_Fox

I take it you didnt watch the video then.
Cause if you had,you would see the article is based on what was said.
Next time,be sure to read my entire post before commenting,thank you

Ah, but where's the beef? Hearsay or second hand information is not proof nor has it ever been.

I don't disbelieve that this meeting took place, nor do I think this is something that couldn't have happened, but the idea was scrapped offhand if we are to take the information on face value (always a poor idea).

Huge portions of opinion here is based on hearsay, rumor, theory, or massive speculation mixed with partisan formulation. I'd love to see some actual meat rather than more fluff.

reply to post by Black_Fox


This is like the fourth thread on this article, I just don;t get why when I posted it originally yesterday it was moved to the Terrorism forum...,

any ideas?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yeah Maxmar's thread is the original one, the first one posted on breaking news wasn't considered new enough.

We should stick to that one.

Operation North Pearl Tonkin 9/11 Iran Woody.

reply to post by Black_Fox


While I don't doubt that the hawks are trying their hardest to get this war going, and would and have stooped to false flag attacks, the source material is from prisonplanet.com. It's really nothing new for Alex Jones or his minions to be talking about us false flag attacks.

Does this kind of thing really come as any surprise to anyone who has watched this administration at work for the last eight years?

Or to anyone who has had to debate their supporters on boards like this?

These are people who live in a total moral vacuum.

Originally posted by Black_Fox
I take it you didnt watch the video then.
Cause if you had,you would see the article is based on what was said.
Next time,be sure to read my entire post before commenting,thank you

I didn't need to watch the video. I read your source article and it's source article. There's no evidence.

He did not bother to write an article of a secret meeting involving an evil plan because he somehow felt it was not important. Why do I have the feeling this is so BS?

reply to post by unnamedninja


Yeah, but the original source is Seymour Hersh.

A very reliable source - the guy that broke Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib.



[edit on 8/1/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by deltaboy
He did not bother to write an article of a secret meeting involving an evil plan because he somehow felt it was not important.

He wrote the article for the New Yorker discussing the meeting.
It's right here.

The New Yorker wouldn't allow him to publish the bit about the false flag plan, not because it wasn't true, but simply because it was a plan that was rejected in the meeting. From the interview linked in the other ATS thread on this, Hersh talkes about the New Yorkers edit of his story:

So I can understand the argument for not writing something that was rejected — uh maybe. My attitude always towards editors is they’re mice training to be rats.

But the point is jejune, if you know what that means. Silly? Maybe. But potentially very lethal. Because one of the things they learned in the incident was the American public, if you get the right incident, the American public will support bang-bang-kiss-kiss. You know, we’re into it.

... and the founding fathers actually dressed up like Indians to stage the Boston Tea Party. What's your point? Our government, just like everyone else's government, throws around a ton of different ideas at meetings, some good, some bad, some VERY bad. They didn't act on it, so it's no big deal whatsoever. We also do not know the context it was raised in... could very well have been said tongue in cheek much like a guy making a joke about speeding up his car if he saw his mother-in-law crossing the street in front of him.

Nixon discussed the possibillity of nuking Vietnam and Clinton discussed nuking Lebanon, folks. Did either event happen and did the fact that the options were talked about mean anything? Nope.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


So what somebody brings up a proposition to kill US soldiers as a pretext for war and you think it's just for chuckles?

"... So then I figure, we have somebody blow the guy's head off! AH-Hahahaha!"
Yeah I really see that happening at National Security Conferences.

Either these Neo-Con types have an extremely sick of sense of humour or they were seriously considering options like this.

I agree, these guys are some sick people, but even they have a shred of morality somewhere.

Look at Operation Northwoods, terrorist acts on innocent Americans being blamed on the Cubans.
It was backed by the Joint Chiefs and signed by the Secretary of Defence, they seriously wanted to go through with it, lucky Kennedy had the balls to stand up to these hawks and stop them from doing so.

You don't just throw around crap like that unless you think it has a reasonable chance of going ahead and the rest of the people there would agree to an extent.

Especially men like Cheney. I mean when does this guy not get what he wants?
CEO of Halliburton, two wars which will earned him who knows how many millions, shot his friend & cleared of all charges.

I think this had a high chance of actually happening but who knows, maybe an attack of conscience or a guy with an actually RATIONAL brain in the Pentagon squashed it.

[edit on 1/8/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by Black_Fox


I went to that site,, and checked it out.. talk about a bunch of misery loving s.o.bs. they contrive these stories just to make themselves feel good,.. what a pile of you know what. ... its just another example of complete hatred for the american way of life. They love terrorists,, and everything the terrorists stand for.