real talk, how many of you are buying into these "thwarted attacks"? Former CIA Boss Says Iran Will
Options
![[Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/15efd8efe08bb34aae25f1808aaf5018.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 0 Regulator
Comments
-
I keep telling people stop falling for the okie doke. They not hearing it though.
-
TheJamel wrote:The underwear bomber, dude that "TOUGHT'' he had a suicide vest on...etc...
Do ya'll really believe that these acts are taking place as attacks against our country, or do you believe they are false flag attacks?
attacks engineered by our own government so we can feel safe and to further the agenda of war with iran.
Former CIA boss James Woolsey told WABC Radio in New York that Iran will retaliate against the United States by taking out the Statue of Liberty.
“We will have a very serious problem from terrorism if we insist on Iran shutting down its nuclear program, but we have to do that. And so we have to get ready to deal with assaults on government facilities, on famous symbols of the country like the Statue of Liberty, on Jewish synagogues, there are a number of things Hezbollah could go after… and they probably will,” Woolsey told Aaron Klein.
Woolsey is a high ranking neocon and one of the original signers of the January 26, 1998, Project for the New American Century letter sent to then president Clinton. He is a Rhodes scholar and Council on Foreign Relations insider connected to the Scowcroft Commission, the Rumsfeld Commission, and is affiliated with a number of neocon organizations and think tanks, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Americans for Victory Over Terrorism.
He is the former chairman on Freedom House, a CIA front, which makes sense considering Woolsey’s pedigree. He is also the chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, another neocon operation funded by the Bronfmans and home to a number of war on Islam advocates including Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, Frank Gafney and others. It is considered a refuge for the PNAC crowd.
During the interview with WorldNetDaily’s Klein, Woolsey did not bother to present any evidence that Iran or Hezbollah will attack.
I did a presentation in college in 2003 about how I believed the "War on Terror" was actually a war on Islam, and how Iran and Syria would be targeted also.
I used the information from the PNAC letter you cited along with other info I researched (including Condoleeza Rice's speech before the American Jewish Committee in 2002), yet the general reactions from my classmates and the instructor were like these:
-
Bombs are fairly easy to make, so I don't find it surprising that people are attempting to use them.
-
considering that you made this claim in 2003 and nine years later, they haven't been targeted in that "war on terror" manner, i think i know why that was the general reaction...cobbland wrote:I did a presentation in college in 2003 about how I believed the "War on Terror" was actually a war on Islam, and how Iran and Syria would be targeted also. ...yet the general reactions from my classmates and the instructor were like these:
-
Nonsense. Just a pretext for what they want to do.
-
janklow wrote:
considering that you made this claim in 2003 and nine years later, they haven't been targeted in that "war on terror" manner, i think i know why that was the general reaction...cobbland wrote:I did a presentation in college in 2003 about how I believed the "War on Terror" was actually a war on Islam, and how Iran and Syria would be targeted also. ...yet the general reactions from my classmates and the instructor were like these:
They may not have been targeted in the same manner, due to the US becoming stretched thin by being involved in two wars.
The point of my presentation at that time was geared toward the nations that Israel viewed as hostile, and how the United States and its Allies were "dealing with those problems."
-
i think this depends on if you think the incidents HAVE to be successful and if you think there haven't been successful terrorist attacks (say, Fort Hood).deadeye wrote:If these threats were legit, we would've had at least one more incident since 9/11.
But no successful terrorist attacks on our soil in 10 years???
right, but if you argued in 2003 that Iran and Syria were next, did you not make the argument that they were next even with the then-current conflicts?cobbland wrote:The point of my presentation at that time was geared toward the nations that Israel viewed as hostile, and how the United States and its Allies were "dealing with those problems."
-
I feel the same way Man. It's getting very strange how the government has been capturing these "terrorists." It looks more like some crazy form of entrapment.
In case after case, the government has gone from being an agency that waits and watches for criminal activity that is terrorist, to becoming an agency that appears comfortable designing and helping implement the crime. For instance, In the Riverdale Synagogue Case, in which the informant provided not only the ideas for the target and the weapons, but also took the lead in terms of teaching the main defendant about the ways in which "cause" of jihad might grow out of the defendant's own strongly antisemitic views.
As the judge who ruled over the case admitted at sentencing:
"The essence of what occurred here was that a government created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of one man in particular and four men generally, and then made these fantasies come true."
Also look at the size of the incentives the government offers in exchange for agreeing to commit acts of jihad. In a Bronx case, the main defendant, James Cromitie, refused government offers until he lost his income and was offered $250,000. His co-defendant, David Williams, was offered a liver transplant for his dying brother.
Look at the Liberty City Seven Case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_City_Seven
The Capital City Suicide Bomber
http://youtu.be/DOOi0dpcWCc
The suspect had been arrested by the FBI who was “en route to the U.S. Capitol allegedly to detonate a suicide bomb.” While initial reports portrayed the incident as a narrowly averted terrorist attack, CBS would report that a “high ranking source told CBS News the man was “never a real threat.”" The explosives the would-be bomber carried were provided to him by the FBI during what they described as a “lengthy and extensive operation.” The only contact the suspect had with “Al Qaeda” was with FBI officials posing as Terrorists.
And the "underwear Bomber" Case is just as weird. A lawyer saw a well dressed Middle Eastern looking man that got the underwear bomber onboard the plane because he was initially turned away for not having a passport. As seen below on CSPAN, callers brought this fact up to the rep for Homeland security who surprisingly enough, had no clue.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=uuyYiWv4xkY&sns=fb
It's just all around strange.Where is the highly efficient terrorist from the 9/11 Terror Plots? -
It's ? .
If these threats were legit, we would've had at least one more incident since 9/11.
But no successful terrorist attacks on our soil in 10 years???
Nah, I'm not buying it.
The powers-that-be are just putting that ? out there to try to legitimize their agenda.
Definitely! This is exactly how I feel. -
I buy it, only because I find all "conspiracy theories" to lack logic. I don't see why the gov would waste time and effort on false flag attacks to make us feel "safe".
-
It's not about making us safe but keeping their jobs it's all about money.
-
if it's all about keeping their jobs, then prosecuting the hell out of random idiots makes more sense than the more complicated nature of everything being a false flag attack.bootsy_jenkins wrote: »It's not about making us safe but keeping their jobs it's all about money. -
I buy it, only because I find all "conspiracy theories" to lack logic. I don't see why the gov would waste time and effort on false flag attacks to make us feel "safe".
Not all conspiracy theories lack logic. The military with cooperation from the feds itself made plans during the 1960s to bomb American cities and blame Cuba, in order to start war with it. If one thinks deeply and without bias, one can see the govt is not to be completely trusted and that many conspiracy theories have proven to be true. -
kingblaze84 wrote: »I buy it, only because I find all "conspiracy theories" to lack logic. I don't see why the gov would waste time and effort on false flag attacks to make us feel "safe".
Not all conspiracy theories lack logic. The military with cooperation from the feds itself made plans during the 1960s to bomb American cities and blame Cuba, in order to start war with it. If one thinks deeply and without bias, one can see the govt is not to be completely trusted and that many conspiracy theories have proven to be true.
Many conspiracies proven to be true? Um, no.
-
i think the government and isreal are frauds they constantly do flase flag attacks. the lokerbie bomber is now shown to be a false flag attack. iran has a right to protect itself and develop medical nuclear uses. hell isreal has nukes i dont hear anything about them. if isreal played nice to its neighbors and shown good will[palentstine is a good start] they wouldnt be attacked.
-
iran has no nukes but keep pushing them an they will
