(Ex CIA) Philip Giraldi notes "concerns" by spooks of Israeli false flag op

[metamars]

From American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/07/24/if-iran-is-attacking-it-might-really-be-israel/), Philip Giraldi has written in If Iran is Attacking It Might Really be Israel:


Some intel types are beginning to express concerns that the Israelis might do something completely crazy to get the US involved. There are a number of possible “false flag” scenarios in which the Israelis could insert a commando team in the Persian Gulf or use some of their people inside Iraq to stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Tehran’s involvement.


Ex-CIA Ray McGovern has also warned about an Israeli false flag attack (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=116843).

[theprestige]

And I guess until some real evidence comes out we'll never know.

[dudalb]

Those sneaky Joos are behind everything.
Considering the number of times metamars has posted on this topic, I suspect he has some "issues" with the Jews......

[Loss Leader]

From American Conservative Magazine (http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/07/24/if-iran-is-attacking-it-might-really-be-israel/), Philip Giraldi has written in If Iran is Attacking It Might Really be Israel:




I like the fact that the only actual evidence the little editorial cites is the Liberty incident.

Assuming the consequent is as good a way to win an argument as any, I suppose.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

"American Conservative" is Pat Buchannans rag.

Nuff sed.

[metamars]

"American Conservative" is Pat Buchannans rag.

Nuff sed.

If you're implying that all writers for the American Conservative must march in intellectual lockstep with Pat Buchanan, then you clearly don't know what you're talking about. The current issue has quite a few commentaries re Buchanan's new book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. One of them, called How Good Was the Good War? (http://amconmag.com/2008/2008_07_14/cover5.html), has the following


In arguing that Winston Churchill helped bring on World War II, Pat Buchanan aimed at the wrong target. The perniciousness of Churchill’s role lies not in his contribution to the march to war but in the way he shaped historical memory of the events of that portentous decade.

During the 1930s, Churchill was sidelined politically and had no discernible influence on British policy. By the time he joined the cabinet in August 1939, the critical decisions that led Britain into World War II had already been made. But Churchill painted an infinitely more heroic picture of his role during the 1930s: that of a modern-day Cassandra. In The Gathering Storm, Churchill alleged that—except for him—British leaders were willfully blind to the German threat and failed to meet it by rearming. Had Britain followed a different—Churchillian—policy during the 1930s, he claimed, the disasters of 1940, and possibly war itself, might have been avoided.


Maybe you should return your Sword of Truth to Wal-Mart.... If you're lucky, they may be running sales on Feather-Dusters of Confusion. :)

[gtc]

Have I interpreted it wrongly or do both 'sides' of the 'debate' you just linked to pro-Hitler?

[metamars]

Have I interpreted it wrongly or do both 'sides' of the 'debate' you just linked to pro-Hitler?

I'd say that either your reading comprehension or integrity is in question. Try again.