Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26
  1. #1
    2000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    IRRELEVANT!!!
    Posts
    2,009

    Default Brookings Inst.suggests false flags?

    WHICH PATH TO PERSIA?
    Options for a New American
    Strategy toward Iran


    June 2009

    A critical challenge for this policy option is that, absent a clear Iranian act of aggression, American airstrikes against Iran would be unpopular in the region and throughout the world........ Thus Washington cannot allow airstrikes against Iran to become a self-defeating course of action that undermines the other U.S. policies that this option is ultimately meant to enable.


    Especially in the absence of a clear Iranian provocation, averting this paradoxical danger would be a major task for U.S. diplomats in the run-up to
    such an air campaign. ..........The truth is that these all would be challenging cases to make.
    For that reason, it would be far more preferable if the United States could cite an Iranian provocation as justification for the airstrikes before launching them. Clearly, the more outrageous, the more deadly, and the more unprovoked the Iranian action, the better off the United States would be. Of course, it would be very difficult for the United States to goad Iran into such a provocation without the rest of the world recognizing this game, which would then undermine it.

    (One method that would have some possibility of success would be to ratchet up covert regime change efforts in the hope that Tehran would retaliate overtly, or even semi-overtly, which could then be portrayed as an unprovoked act of Iranian aggression.)
    Pages 83-84

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/fil...n_strategy.pdf
    Last edited by Hyldor Gwyvallt; 02-22-2012 at 20:29.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    "Which path to Persia?"

    Lovely title. Warmongers and their ability to spread death never cease to amaze me.

  3. #3
    3000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,220

    Default

    So the guys who got caught setting those bombs in Thailand, the ones with Iranian service records, who took direct flights on Iranian airlines operated by the revolutionary guard, from tehran to bangkok (and back again for the ones who escaped), were really CIA/mossad agents?

  4. #4
    5000+ GirlyMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    5,050

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krag View Post
    So the guys who got caught setting those bombs in Thailand, the ones with Iranian service records, who took direct flights on Iranian airlines operated by the revolutionary guard, from tehran to bangkok (and back again for the ones who escaped), were really CIA/mossad agents?
    MEK agents.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%...ahedin_of_Iran

    http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/loca...ti-iran-exiles

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krag View Post
    So the guys who got caught setting those bombs in Thailand, the ones with Iranian service records, who took direct flights on Iranian airlines operated by the revolutionary guard, from tehran to bangkok (and back again for the ones who escaped), were really CIA/mossad agents?
    nah that was probably revenge for killing that scientist

    but this
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/1...n_1005861.html

    its such a bad joke it just reeks of false flag

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/loca...ti-iran-exiles

    Awesome link girly. Wasn't aware of that.
    Last edited by Bissen; 02-22-2012 at 21:21.

  7. #7
    25,000+ xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    32,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyldor Gwyvallt View Post
    WHICH PATH TO PERSIA?
    Options for a New American
    Strategy toward Iran


    June 2009



    Pages 83-84

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/fil...n_strategy.pdf
    Thats not a false flag. False Flag is attacking your own citizens, getting someone else to do it is just politics.

    Regardless if you think its justified or not, no one in their right mind wants IRAN to have a nuke and not because of what the Iranian government might do with it, but what happens with them after the government eventually collapses
    Last edited by xpiher; 02-23-2012 at 00:00.
    Turning Villages into Regional sources of Conflict and PvP hot Spots
    Xpiher's DF:UW Suggestion Thread


    Thanks AV for fixing safe zones. It seems like the danger levels you talked about before beta were enough! Now FIX VILLAGES!

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Thats not a false flag. False Flag is attacking your own citizens, getting someone else to do it is just politics.

    Regardless if you think its justified or not, no one in their right mind wants IRAN to have a nuke and not because of what the Iranian government might do with it, but what happens with them after the government eventually collapses

    Perhaps you should look up the definition of false flag before you embarrass yourself any further.

    Who am I kidding. Allow me.

    False flag (aka Black Flag) operations are covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations and can be used during peace-time
    Pakistan called btw. They wanted you to know they're a fundamentalist shithole full of nukes.
    Last edited by Bissen; 02-23-2012 at 00:08.

  9. #9
    25,000+ xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    32,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bissen View Post
    Perhaps you should look up the definition of false flag before you embarrass yourself any further.
    Yea, from what I can gather from wiki and other sources I'm still right. Provoking the enemy to attack you isn't False Flag, even if you do it through subterfuge.

    Pakistan called btw. They wanted you to know they're a fundamentalist shithole full of nukes.
    Yea, and Iran would be WORSE because it actively engages in international Conflicts.

    I know this is the interwebs and all, but I do actually have a fair bit of knowledge on this subject

    edit

    Yea, re-read your definition. If the enemy actually attacks you, then its not a false flag operation. False Flag means acting as an enemy agent.
    Last edited by xpiher; 02-23-2012 at 00:16.
    Turning Villages into Regional sources of Conflict and PvP hot Spots
    Xpiher's DF:UW Suggestion Thread


    Thanks AV for fixing safe zones. It seems like the danger levels you talked about before beta were enough! Now FIX VILLAGES!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the box
    Posts
    13,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Yea, from what I can gather from wiki and other sources I'm still right. Provoking the enemy to attack you isn't False Flag, even if you do it through subterfuge.
    Provoking and attacking. Two different things. Here's what you said.


    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Thats not a false flag. False Flag is attacking your own citizens, getting someone else to do it is just politics

    Which can only be understood as getting someone else to attack. Getting someone else to do you dirty work and make it seem like others did it is the definition of false flag.

    Yea, re-read your definition. If the enemy actually attacks you, then its not a false flag operation. False Flag means acting as an enemy agent.
    Bravo.

  11. #11
    2000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    IRRELEVANT!!!
    Posts
    2,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Yea, from what I can gather from wiki and other sources I'm still right. Provoking the enemy to attack you isn't False Flag, even if you do it through subterfuge. .
    You think the Brookings Inst. could openly say: "CIA/Mossad, please do DIRECTLY a False Flag, please kill civilians and diplomats of Friendly countries so we can start attacking Iran!!!", and IF they meant that, instead, what wording would they use?





    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Yea, and Iran would be WORSE because it actively engages in international Conflicts. ..

    I know this is the interwebs and all, but I do actually have a fair bit of knowledge on this subject
    Let me guess, you are from the US? Your hero is McBane/McCain? So probably you do NOT have a bit of knowledge on this matter, but I am prepared to accept that you have some on Dinsneyland/Hamburgers?

    You claim that IRAN ACTIVELY engages in international conflict, maybe you mean passively?

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3839002.html

    Regards
    HG
    Last edited by Hyldor Gwyvallt; 02-23-2012 at 00:52.

  12. #12
    25,000+ xpiher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    32,968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bissen View Post
    Which can only be understood as getting someone else to attack. Getting someone else to do you dirty work and make it seem like others did it is the definition of false flag.
    Getting someone else to do your dirty work, unless you control them, isn't false flag.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hyldor Gwyvallt View Post
    You think the Brookings Inst. could openly say: "CIA/Mossad, please do DIRECTLY a False Flag, please kill civilians and diplomats of Friendly countries so we can start attacking Iran!!!", and IF they meant that, instead, what wording would they use?







    Let me guess, you are from the US? Your hero is McBane/McCain? So probably you do NOT have a bit of knowledge on this matter, but I am prepared to accept that you have some on Dinsneyland/Hamburgers?

    You claim that IRAN ACTIVELY engages in international conflict, maybe you mean passively?

    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3839002.html

    Regards
    HG
    You must not have frequented these boards until recently if you think I like McCain. Also, sponsoring terrorist organizations and controlling extra-government organizations that do your bidding is ACTIVELY INVOLVED
    Turning Villages into Regional sources of Conflict and PvP hot Spots
    Xpiher's DF:UW Suggestion Thread


    Thanks AV for fixing safe zones. It seems like the danger levels you talked about before beta were enough! Now FIX VILLAGES!

  13. #13
    2000+
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    IRRELEVANT!!!
    Posts
    2,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    ..... sponsoring terrorist organizations and controlling extra-government organizations that do your bidding is ACTIVELY INVOLVED
    NATIONAL organizations (like Hamas and Hezbollah) that fight against aggressors in THEIR own country and have WON the elections in their own countries cannot be defined terrorists by any honest government or journalist...so funding them or supporting them is NOT funding terrorism....

    USA and ISRAEL fund, sponsor and use many terrorists organizations that clearly fight in OTHER countries, THAT is supporting terrorism....even if your corrupt media claims what your corrupt government states, and your dumb ignorant masses gubbles it all, reality is quite different, sorry.


    Regards
    HG

  14. #14
    12,000+
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NYC, Beta Tester
    Posts
    12,845

    Default

    The idea that we have to go to war to prevent someone from obtaining nukes is ludicrous. What right do we have when we own them? And from a practical stand point there is no reason to commit our forces to that region in the first place. So pulling out would prevent another attack as much as destroying the iranian government before they can obtain a nuke. So a smart move would be to pull out and not start even more embroiling conflicts.
    "What, you think just because you need it means you have a right to take mine?"


    Breakdown: Achiever 20.00%, Explorer 26.67%, Killer 93.33%, Socializer 60.00%

    Quote Originally Posted by Methuselah View Post
    I should get ahead of the curve and ban you now then...

  15. #15
    10,000+ Long term follower
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    10,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xpiher View Post
    Yea, and Iran would be WORSE because it actively engages in international Conflicts.
    So did the USSR. Iran doesn't even come close to being a serious threat.

    Our entire foreign policy props up the very regime that we are so intent on fighting.

    Regardless, we don't hit first; we just hit hardest. Is there some risk associated with that? Sure. Any policy will have risks but at least that one is based on the principles and law set down in the Constitution.
    Quote Originally Posted by MrBungle View Post
    If 3/4 of all the money spent on defense was diverted into education funds, public school would be dirt cheap
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack_Sparrow View Post
    99% of human resource offices are paid for by grants (non-tax dollars).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •