Israeli AIPAC Lobbyist Calls For False Flag

reply to post by longlostbrother


Nope, I don't think any "people" deserve a homeland. I was giving an example of an ethic group that have been through hard times that at least slightly resemble some of the things that the Jewish ethnic group has been through.

Originally posted by St Udio
reply to post by RealSpoke

 

the false flag event has already happened...

it was the Bengahzi assault on the Embassy & taking out Ambassador Stevens and 3 otrher embassy workers
under the disinfo that the attack was a Muslim blowback from a 8 minute YT trailer called 'the innocence of Muslims'


the power behind the assault were the Muslim Brotherhood & the USA administration that funded and s upplied the perps.

see.... the hionorable Stevens was a conduit for armed warriors that the Saudi's felt were OK
to fight the Syrian forces which both the Russians/Iran/Muslim Brotherhood supported

the sneaky part is that the USA administration is outwardly 'bowing' to the Saudi Monarchy
the fact is that Øbama is in love with the Egyptian Pres. Morsi and the whole Muslim Brotherhood more than they are for the tenuious alliance with the Saudi Arabian caste of Princes & Kings etc


www.thejc.com...'s treachery afoot !

check out these dots you can connect them:

'

What began in Syria as a limited but genuine people's uprising against a dictatorship has become contaminated with Saudi-funded foreign mujahideen who are driven, among other things, by an intense hostility toward non-Muslims - and an implacable hatred of Jews and Israel. ...

from: www.thejc.com...


i tell ya, the man in the oval office and his cadre of progressives are no better than the neo-nazis called neocons they are supporting the Saudi regional power on-the-face-of-it... but are really starting their version of the new-world-order with the Muslim Brotherhood and a USA aided Islamic Caliphate with the assistance of AQ & a Syrian-Iranian-Egyptian-Libyian core (note that the member nations acronym could be rearranged as 'LIES'

Originally posted by theroostercrowsatnite
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Nope, I don't think any "people" deserve a homeland. I was giving an example of an ethic group that have been through hard times that at least slightly resemble some of the things that the Jewish ethnic group has been through.

I actually do think that it's natural for people, linked through culture and language and even ethnicity, to want a nation of their own; whether that's a "right," well, I'm not sure that's been fully fleshed out historically, but it certainly seems to be the norm - whatever that's worth.

The Palestinians certainly DO want a homeland - a nation - though. It also seems fairly self-evident that much of the current strife, at least a lot of the players, from Hamas to the Muslim Brotherhood to Irgun, etc., all had the basis in the armed struggle to create a nation.

Just like with prohibition in the US, once the crime was decriminalised, most of ancillary crime around alcohol also disappeared. You may not think it's anyone's RIGHT to have a nation, but I'd counter that giving the Palestinians a nation would go a long way to de-radicalising the region.

reply to post by RealSpoke

What a disgace!

You can add 9/11 to that list.. without which Cheney and Bush would not have had their pre-planned war.

reply to post by longlostbrother


I don't think it would do much good for long. These people will squabble over territory until the end of time if they aren't brought out of the relative dark ages they have imposed upon themselves. Catering to them won't solve the problem, in my opinion.

Originally posted by theroostercrowsatnite
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

I don't think it would do much good for long. These people will squabble over territory until the end of time if they aren't brought out of the relative dark ages they have imposed upon themselves. Catering to them won't solve the problem, in my opinion.

I don't think it's catering?? I mean, can you tell me what you criteria for being allowed a nation are? Bigger guns than your opponents?

reply to post by longlostbrother


Well, I do think it's catering to the wants of one group over another. I don't think it's avoidable.

I can tell you that creating new nations based on ethnicity or religion, especially in that part of the world, doesn't sound like a very good idea. There will always be some other group that feels like they have a historical claim, or a divine claim, or whatever sort of claim to the lands that were given to this other group. I can't see it doing anything but fueling the shat storm.

I have to admit that I don't have a proper solution. Maybe propagandize the crap out of them (directly or covertly) to try to stop them from being so ethnocentric and backward?

Originally posted by theroostercrowsatnite
reply to post by longlostbrother

 

Well, I do think it's catering to the wants of one group over another. I don't think it's avoidable.

I can tell you that creating new nations based on ethnicity or religion, especially in that part of the world, doesn't sound like a very good idea. There will always be some other group that feels like they have a historical claim, or a divine claim, or whatever sort of claim to the lands that were given to this other group. I can't see it doing anything but fueling the shat storm.

I have to admit that I don't have a proper solution. Maybe propagandize the crap out of them (directly or covertly) to try to stop them from being so ethnocentric and backward?

Honestly, I think that the PEOPLE of Israel, the majority, would benefit from a Palestinian state. so that CATERING is actually benefiting BOTH parties, not crapping on the "wants" of anyone but EXTREMISTS ... and honestly, I'm pretty cool with crapping on the wants of religious extremists, if it furthers peace and stability for the majority. That's just me.

When you "propagandise them" which them are you referring to? Either way, I'm not so down with that idea... I personally believe education, stability and wealth are much greater deterrents to war than propaganda, in the long run. People with a stake in their society are, and historically have been, much less likely to become terrorists.

Have the emotions settled down a bit?

1.) Three times in the OP and headline Clawson is described as a lobbyist for AIPAC. Then the OP states

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

Not only has no evidence been presented that he works for AIPAC, there hasn't been shown any evidence that indicates he's a lobbyist for anybody.

2.) Each video linked (including the one described as a poster as "unedited,") is a composite of two different answers he gave at the end of the question and answer session, and was not part of his main presentation.

A few posters have noticed and mentioned these things, and I salute them for their reasonableness and thoughtfulness.

Clawson is a researcher and analyst. He works for a think tank designed to throw ideas around. His presentation was focused on diplomatic means to get the Iranians to agree to limit their nuclear activities in a deal that both sides could agree to. There have been problems with diplomacy on this subject in the past, and he quoted Obama and Clinton's statements to show they believed that time was running out if we wanted to reach Obama's goal of prevention. Several proposals were discussed.

They then moved on to the possibility that sanctions might not work if the Supreme Leader was taking North Korea as a model instead of China. It was thought possible that the Supreme Leader admired the "revolutionary fervor" of North Korea and might follow their example.

Eventually, they came to the question of what could be done if diplomacy completely and finally failed. He emphasised that it was important that if America was going to war, we would have to show the world that we had made a reasonable offer and that Iran had refused it completely, knowing what the consequences would be.

After all that was discussed, it was mentioned that it is better, if war was inevitable, that the US be seen as responding to a significant event, like the ones he mentioned. As has been pointed out, he wasn't suggesting or condoning the idea that the US should engage in a false flag operation.

As far as the submarine not coming up, that was in answer to a different comment someone had made and was edited on to the end of his first answer. There he admitted what we all know, that everybody in the area is conducting covert activities, definitely not false flags, and so are we. These activities are designed to put pressure on governments, not start wars. Did Stuxnet start a war? No, it was designed to weaken Iran's nuclear program.

I really understand the reason for the hatred, sometimes rabid, on this thread. I haven't come anywhere near believing that his two edited answers are a reasonable basis for such hatred.

reply to post by charles1952


I stated that and am not the OP, just for the record...

2.) Each video linked (including the one described as a poster as "unedited,") is a composite of two different answers he gave at the end of the question and answer session, and was not part of his main presentation.

If you're referring to me, I said, more unedited... i.e. lacking the scrawl of text. That was in response to a poster asking for a video that wasn't annotated. It's clear that the video is not fully unedited.

I agree with the majority of your post, but I still have some qualms with his "we could get nastier at it" comment.