109 votes

Video: Israel Lobbyist Suggests False Flag Attack Could Spark War with Iran

Full story:
http://www.tennesseesonso...

Video:

http://youtu.be/M84l19H68mk

Text:

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough,” said Patrick Clawson, who also heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, in response to a question about what would happen if negotiations with Tehran fail. “And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … President can get us to war with Iran.

"As a consequence, Clawson said he was led to conclude that “the traditional way [that] America gets to war is what would be best for US interests.

"Intriguingly, he went on to recount a series of controversial incidents in American history — the attack on Pearl Harbor, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and the blowing up of the USS Maine — that US presidents “had to wait for” before taking America to war.

“And may I point out that Mr. Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked,” Clawson continued, “which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing which the South Carolinians had said would cause an attack.

“So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, the Israel lobbyist concluded with a smirk on his face, “it would be best if somebody else started the war.

"One can combine other means of pressure with sanctions. I mentioned that explosion on August 17th. We could step up the pressure. I mean look people Iranian submarines periodically go down someday one of them may not come up. Who would know why? We can do a variety of things if we wish to increase the pressure. I'm not advocating that but I'm just suggesting that ... this is not a either or proposition.... We are in the game of using covert means against the Iranians. We could get nastier at that."

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

WATCH THE USS EISENHOWER

1. It's headed to the Persian Gulf.
2. Its the 2nd oldest(1977) Aircraft Carrier in our fleet.
3. Its replacement has ALREADY been ordered. A new Ford-Class Carrier.
4. Its sinking will kill 3,000+ Sailors. A higher deathtoll than 9/11 or 11 years in Afghanistan
5. It's named after a famous WWII General and President
6. Attack while its still dark. Whose to say what happened. Everyone was asleep. Nightvision cameras were down. No one was at their post/right at shift change.
7. America wakes up to visceral Morning TV imagery of the USS Eisenhower's smoking ruin slipping below the water
8. Its sinking will cause instant Wardrums & sweeping nationalism "REMEMBER THE EISENHOWER"
9. Eisenhower warned us about the Military Industrial Complex, a warning the MSM will negate with it's namesake sending us into WWIII.
10. Opportunity for the elimination of a LOT of loose-end Military Officers/contractors who could be could be invited onboard right before the sinking.
11. Opportunity for the vaulting of a Raymond Shaw/Nicholas Brody-type for heroism/groomed for office.
12. That whole region/Mossad are just waiting for a spark to light the inferno.

"First rule of Government Spending: Why build one when you can have 2 at twice the price?"
-S.R. Hadden

Given we are on the brink of war....

how could we even be talking about gun control, when a well armed citizenry is the primary reason for gun control.

http://www.dailypaul.com//256417/best-5-arguments-for-2nd-am...

www.SuccessCouncil.com
Protect your assets and profit from the greatest wealth transfer in history.

Found the full video for context

This clip is taken from an hour into it but there are equally inflamatory language and suggestions made throughout the video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsvDWZTVP3E#t=1h15m10s

ytc's picture

Here we go, again, *Noble Lies* neocons cooking up. . .

NOT so noble lies, tricks, false-flag events or anything to drag us into another fruitless, wasteful, immoral WARs.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
See * Chapter 33: Noble Lie * on NeoCon infestation in American politics. . . for this misguided pro-aggression failed dangerous policy.

Joη's http://libertydefined.org
http://www.dailypaul.com/162301/introducing-libertydefinedorg

And the video version:
http://www.dailypaul.com/254577/ron-paul-pulls-the-curtain-b...

That is a very disturbing

That is a very disturbing clip.

DailyPaul does not represent the Liberty Movement

I love how no one below can respond to my questions. I reference facts and clear logical observations, and you just ignore it.

This site has the same mentality that Redstate and Rush's audience have.

Be critical in your thoughts. Analyze what is happening. Stop promoting things just because it fits your conspiratorial worldview.

I'm done with this site for awhile. It do not represent me.

I have been answering your questions.

I do not understand why you keep using the phrase terrorist attacks.

Since the U.S. has previously committed a false flag, who says they will not do it again.

The video implies that the U.S. will do dirty stuff.

If the title did not have the words False Flag in it, my determination would be the same. Then people on the board would probably be stating, "Uh oh, the U.S. is going to do a false flag." Would these people be correct? I don't know. But could the U.S. do a false flag? Yes. Why? Because they have done it before.

To not state that the U.S. could do a false flag, would show narrow thought processes.

No Problem finding an enemy

He points out historically how wars are started or escalated. An excuse is necessary so everyone can go no kidding themselves. Of course the victors are suppose to write the history. I am waiting to read the Vietnamese version of how their war with France and the U.S. went. Most here have been taught that the Confederacy started the War of 1860 because that is the victors version. This fellow hints that Lincoln actually started it. That is obvious to anyone who reads the fact that President elect Jefferson Davis sent a peace commission many months before the shooting started to negotiate a peace treaty with the U.S. Lincoln nor the Secretary of State never would meet with the commission. All the time Lincoln and his syndicate were planning how they could start the war and make it look as if the Confederacy started it.
The U.S. is already at war with Iran it just needs help escalating it. That is what this fellow is saying. It does not mean he is advocating it he is saying this is what is going to happen. As Marc Faber always states “The U.S. has never had a problem finding an enemy to go to war with.” Iran is no Iraq. These war mongers will bit off much more than they can chew. This is what is needed the finally end the criminal activity of the counterfeiters call the Federal Reserve. Don't sell your gold and silver.

You don't need a consipratorial world view

OK, the guy may not be advocating a false flag attack. I agree with you. Maybe the guy is only trying to incite fear, violence, and war.

By the way, no web forum is going to represent you. The Daily Paul doesn't represent me either. If you want a web site that represents you, start a blog.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

How could we as the American

How could we as the American people allow such a bubble to be created around Washington that a man like this can exist in any serious fashion? My god....

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.

Wow

I would like to hear that one played backwards.

Since he feels so strongly about this war...

I think he should pick up a weapon and join the military service....in Israel.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

And pay the costs for the war...

.....too.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

This post made it on Veterans Today

Dr. Kevin Barrett must read the DP. He used nearly the same title, but no credit given :( Still, the more the exposure, the better.

Israel Lobbyist suggests False Flag attack to start war with Iran

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/09/25/911-truth-chutzpah-f...

I am Ron Paul.

Here's his mini-dossier

http://www.nndb.com/people/558/000174036/

He's a World Bank/IMF boy.

Update: His daddy(Marion Clawson) was an Agricultural Economist who was tied up with the UN, consulted for the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations - you get the picture nice and clear now, don't you? Probably laying the groundwork for Agenda 21, whether he knew it or not.

I like to get the background on these people to make sure they didn't just pop out of pods in the swamp or something.

Cyril's picture

+1 Thank you for the homework

+1 Thank you for the homework.

Why am I not surprised by your findings ?

Meh.

Purely rhetorical question.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Smoking gun call your congressman

Mentions Gulf of Tonkin, that would mean a false flag attack on US, not Iran. Should be hauled before a congressional committee and asked if he knows or has heard of any operational plans by Israel, or charged with treason.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

All you have to do is...

...watch a little bit of MSM news and you can see they are trying to drum up public support for it when(I would like to say if) it happens. You would have to be blind as a bat not to figure them out.

While what he is talking

While what he is talking about is not a false flag its just as bad. A false flag is where you make up a false event that never happened or you create the event yourself but tell everyone that someone else did it.

What he is saying we should do is something we have been doing for a long time, he is suggesting they do it even harder. Which is to antagonize someone as much as possible and when they finally retaliate you claim how vicious they are and that is why you have to go in and stomp them. We are already doing this with things like the sanctions and blowing up their scientists etc, and when they respond in defiance we shout see how violent they are, they want to hurt us.

Yes its just as insidious a tactic and yet many of us Americans fall for it over and over again it our belief that somehow we are superior and more rational group. Just like the parts about them threatening to attack us/isreal but they try and block out the part of if they are attacked, hello is anyone home you mean if we attack them they should just sit down and say oh thank you for coming to visit us we will clean up our dead bodies master so so sorry. Yeah we wouldn't do it and neither will they.

He WAS talking about false flags

The Gulf of Tonkin event was admitted to be a false flag. There is a possibility that many of the other events, like the USS Maine and Lusitania, were similarly carried out of allowed to happen specifically for the purpose of changing public opinion.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Yes he does mention the guif

Yes he does mention the guif of tonkin but I don't believe he thinks it was a false flag event. I believe he thinks it was a real event, but a catalyst to get us in the war. I think he was just looking for catalysts to get support for us going to war with Iran, and was admitting and pushing for antagonistic actions toward Iran covertly to get it to look like Iran strikes first. Its easy to justify to the populace to attack them if you feel you were struck first and if they do their actions covertly enough the populace will never believe the Iranians when they say US did XYZ actions to us etc.

Don't you mean the Gulf of Tonkin ?

I think you do. And I think he presents a clear case of False Flag events. One after another after another after Another.

____

"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

Eternal September.

This is not the context he is speaking in. I agree mostly with the sentiment here. But I am also rational. And I see the video. He was not talking about staged terrorism.

The quality of posts on this forum is very very low.

You have an irrational reaction to the video, it just HAS TO BE PROOF of all the theories in your mind. Yet, here I am promoting Zbiginew for actually warning of Iran false flags and for being a critic of the Israeli Lobby, but I will be attacked for that and this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking

no he wasn't

As I've mentioned, no one with his background has ever endorsed the theories that all those events were staged.

Is it really logical to believe someone would publicly ask for a false flag attack right prior to it? doesn't that defeat the entire concept?

It is logical...

He is talking to an audience that knows what message he is trying to get across. He doesn't have to spell everything out. Anyone who is informed can read between the lines.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

Sorry, you just don't know

Sorry, you just don't know how the world works. Go talk to some people in the US Government or think tanks or the Intelligence Community.

This is not how they talk.

Here is the full length one,

Here is the full http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsvDWZTVP3E&feature=youtu.be length one, itz long over an hour and there is tons of stuff said during it that I just shook my head about. In my opinion the two speakers were anxious to go to war although they couched their arguments several times with things like I am not suggesting what ever it is they start talking about. They say we should do preemptive war because by the time we have proof that Iran really has a weapon its to late so we should just do it now. They also say they know Romney will not win several of you might like that statement, but you can tell they are upset by that as they don't feel Obama is doing enough for their cause. And imply if the election was closer they would try and skewer Obama but since its not close they think it would possibly just help him more and they don't want to be seen as interfering.

Lots of stuff we assumed those of that mindset were thinking, just surprised they up and said most of it out in a semi public forum as far as I know this wasn't on tv but they did stream it to their own viewers.

IRAN is INNOCENT

of attacking other countries, and as we all know has a history of NON-ATTACKS going back hundreds and hundreds of years, or more!

This guy is hoping that his "suggestions" will fall onto some influential warmonger who has connections, and who can figure out a way to force Iran's hand.

I think it's TOTALLY DESPICABLE! And, this young man is so brainwashed and such a warmonger, he doesn't even know his head from a hole in the ground!

this is bad information

Can a moderator explain to me how this speaker is advocating a false flag attack? Why is this on the front page?

If this guy advocated a staged terrorist attack to incite a war with Iran, it would be all over international news.

All he said is the US shouldn't wait for it to be attacked by Iran and that instead, the US should start the war to contain Iran's nuclear program. And he said Israel could incite Iran to start the war by waging cover war, such as sinking an Iranian submarine.

There's not two truths here. There is one. Which is it?

Prove to me this guy referenced those events in context with false flag staged terrorist attacks.

If we were honest, we would just attack them.

But, we need a reason. And we have some history of jumping into the fray after the other guy does something.

Why is the guy bringing the strategy behind Ft. Sumter and his "satire" of the submarine scenario. What is he trying to get across.

The guy is not using the words staged terrorist attack. He is implying strategy.