Danny Breslin

How it is…

Planting the False Flag

On the news they’re talking about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police foiling a terror plot to derail a VIA Rail train, ah the mounties, they always get their man. You can read about it here.

When I read this I nearly fell off my chair laughing, not at the thought of the carnage this might have caused if it had happened as planned, but the way the story has been reported. Claiming that Al Qaeda are operating out of and are supported by Iran is simply ridiculous, the Shi-ite Iranians would have nothing to do with a Sunni terror organisation and if they were in Iran they would be rounded up and shot.

Then why say it? Let’s have a look at who is making this claim – the lovable rogue Bruce Riedel: 30-year veteran of the CIA and one of the gang at the Brookings Institute, a bigger mob of warmongers you’ll be unlikely to meet. A thinktank that has been pushing for the invasion of Iran, in other words the hostile corporate takeover of Iranian oil like we saw in Iraq, the first nation ever to be privatised. They float ideas on how to get the ball rolling and the scary thing is they are listened to. Don’t believe me? Read it in their own words, here is a link to a document called “Which Path to Persia:Options for a New American Strategy toward Iran” You might recognise the name of one of the authors: yes, our old pal Brucie.

On page 66, under the title “The Question of a Provocation”:

“With provocation, the international diplomatic and domestic political requirements of an invasion would be mitigated, and the more outrageous the Iranian provocation (and the less that the United States is seen to be goading Iran), the more these challenges would be diminished. In the absence of a sufficiently horrific provocation, meeting these requirements would be daunting.”

According to Jurriaan Maessen:

Reminiscent of the Pearl Harbor-quote by raving neocons pre-9/11, the authors continue imagining how excellent it would be to have an Iranian-sponsored terror attack within the US to trigger war and march off toward Iran. During all this, the authors are aware how unlikely it is that Iran would actually commit such an attack on American soil.

“…Something on the order of an Iranian-backed 9/11, in which the plane wore Iranian markings and Tehran boasted about its sponsorship.(…). The entire question of “options” become irrelevant at that point: what American president could refrain from an invasion after the Iranians had just killed several thousand American civilians in an attack in the United States itself?”

This sounds alot like the Paul Wolfowitz doctrine laid out by PNAC just one year before 9/11 where they insisted that what was needed for a change to US foriegn policy, which we have seen post 9/11, would take a long time to bring about absent a catastophic event like “a new pearl harbor.”

My dad always used to tell me: “Don’t believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.”

 

 

Advertisements

April 23, 2013 - Posted by | Uncategorized | , , ,

15 Comments »

  1. Great post. Historians will not look back fondly on these years we find ourselves living in.

    Comment by john zande | April 23, 2013 | Reply

    • The way we’re going I just hope there’s someone left to look back unkindly.

      Comment by Danny Breslin | April 25, 2013 | Reply

  2. That’s a lot of politics there – some of which I follow, but most of which I need to catch up with (thanks for that Brookings Inst. link – will certainly go across the moment I’m done here)…. so I shall only say from an everyman’s perspective: your father was a wise man and I couldn’t agree more. More on this AFTER I’ve figured out the stuff.

    Comment by mj | April 23, 2013 | Reply

    • I try to avoid things like politics and religion on this blog, but when I see things that are so blatantly false it just winds me up.

      Comment by Danny Breslin | April 25, 2013 | Reply

  3. Hi Danny – I linked your post in a comment to the Pirate who wrote about the same thing today
    http://managuagunntoday.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/news-commentary-the-foiled-terrorist-attack-in-canada-the-facts/
    Hate those psychopathic-warmonger-greedy-insane-bastard-americans.
    God help us all.

    Comment by Alison | April 23, 2013 | Reply

    • If God exists (and I’m not arguing whether he does or not, it’s not something I know for sure either way) He’s probably given up on us by now. We’re broken toys.

      Comment by Danny Breslin | April 25, 2013 | Reply

      • I think God’s within us. It’s not that we’re broken, it’s that the veil has become so polluted we’ve forgotten. And I have faith we’ll remember 🙂 – well hopefully enough of us will remember.

        Comment by Alison | April 25, 2013

  4. Wonderful words, truly a blessing to see such sense! Excellent research, too, by the way, far deeper than mine. What a shocker. PS, I never usually do this, but analysed article recently: http://managuagunntoday.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/this-is-not-journalism/

    Comment by yerpirategunn | April 23, 2013 | Reply

    • Thanks Mr Pirate, followed the link and enjoyed your post too.

      Comment by Danny Breslin | April 26, 2013 | Reply

  5. Reblogged this on Ye Pirate's Cabin Fever and commented:
    Excellent – and very important research carried out here, worth reading to get the real story.

    Comment by yerpirategunn | April 23, 2013 | Reply

  6. Brilliant post ! I couldn’t agree more – endorse this post, completely! See, if you can publish this post at ‘Global Research’ – it truly belongs there for (more) readership – as your writing has an absolute vein of truth.
    p.s. thanks to Yerpirate (dear friend) who suggested this article.
    Best wishes to you, dear Danny !

    Comment by Blood-Ink-Diary | April 24, 2013 | Reply

    • Oh thanks. I’ll take a look at the global research site.

      Comment by Danny Breslin | April 25, 2013 | Reply

  7. When Bush began ranting that Sadam Husein, probably misspelled, had weapons of mass destruction, I told my co-worker at the time that Bush was bound and determined to get us into a war, and use whatever excuse he could find to do it. And guess what, he did, and, guess what, there were no weapons of mass destruction. Granted, Husein was an evil man, but how our government can use the press to manipulate public opinion is scary.

    Comment by richardmax22 | April 24, 2013 | Reply

  8. Poor old Saddam, bless him he did everything he was told when he attacked Iran after they ousted the Shah and they still nicked the country off him. They probably hung one of his lookalikes before returning him to Langley for debriefing. It was the US that put him in place, whatever weapons he had were sold to him by the US.
    Poor old George W was like a ventriloquist’s dummy being operated by the shadowy figures behind him: Uncle Dick, Rummy, Daddy HW and the rest of the gang. You looked into his eyes and realised that half the time he wasn’t even sure where he was.

    Comment by Danny Breslin | April 25, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: