The Gleiwitz incident
By Capt. Fogg
False-flag terrorism is an old and effective way to justify acts of aggression that would be hard to justify otherwise. In our conspiracy-loving country, events such as the World Trade Center attack are often given as an example, the premise being that our administration staged it in order to justify a war against Iraq.
Famous examples are the Berlin Reichstag fire in 1933 that gave Hitler reason to demand emergency powers and the completely phony attack on the Gleiwitz radio station used to justify Hitler's invasion of Poland the following day. A corpse wearing a Polish uniform was arranged outside of a radio station in Silesia, anti-German messages were broadcast, and the public told that Poland had attacked.
It shouldn't really surprise anyone that there is speculation as to what exactly happened in Karbala on January 20th. The official story that the men wearing American uniforms who carried out the kidnapping and murder of American troops were just too good to be Iraqis or even members of al Qaeda is everywhere, but the source is hard to pin down.
Iran involvement suspected blares the headline on CNN. Unnamed "sources" say "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained." "People are looking at it seriously," says another "official" whose use of the "people say" trope reminds me so much of Fox News' favorite method of launching fabricated rumor. Just who is doing the suspecting here and why should we be convinced that it isn't propaganda?
Anything is possible and of course it is also possible that the perpetrators were Iraqis or others looking to get the U.S. involved in an attack on Iran, and "people are saying" that it's entirely possible that U.S. interests directly or indirectly linked to the administration would love to use this as an excuse and were directly involved in facilitating or carrying out this attack.
False-flag terrorism or not, this speculative linking of Iran with an increasing number of incidents and unverifiable stories of sudden progress in the making of nuclear weapons looks a lot like the run up to the fake state of emergency that precipitated the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is possible that Iran is involved, if not in this incident at least in other incidents in Iraq, but we are dependent upon the testimony of proven liars for our information. Does the Bush administration have enough credibility to be able to convince us that we need another war on another front? Does George really care what we think anyway? People are talking.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
False-flag terrorism is an old and effective way to justify acts of aggression that would be hard to justify otherwise. In our conspiracy-loving country, events such as the World Trade Center attack are often given as an example, the premise being that our administration staged it in order to justify a war against Iraq.
Famous examples are the Berlin Reichstag fire in 1933 that gave Hitler reason to demand emergency powers and the completely phony attack on the Gleiwitz radio station used to justify Hitler's invasion of Poland the following day. A corpse wearing a Polish uniform was arranged outside of a radio station in Silesia, anti-German messages were broadcast, and the public told that Poland had attacked.
It shouldn't really surprise anyone that there is speculation as to what exactly happened in Karbala on January 20th. The official story that the men wearing American uniforms who carried out the kidnapping and murder of American troops were just too good to be Iraqis or even members of al Qaeda is everywhere, but the source is hard to pin down.
Iran involvement suspected blares the headline on CNN. Unnamed "sources" say "We believe it's possible the executors of the attack were Iranian or Iranian-trained." "People are looking at it seriously," says another "official" whose use of the "people say" trope reminds me so much of Fox News' favorite method of launching fabricated rumor. Just who is doing the suspecting here and why should we be convinced that it isn't propaganda?
Anything is possible and of course it is also possible that the perpetrators were Iraqis or others looking to get the U.S. involved in an attack on Iran, and "people are saying" that it's entirely possible that U.S. interests directly or indirectly linked to the administration would love to use this as an excuse and were directly involved in facilitating or carrying out this attack.
False-flag terrorism or not, this speculative linking of Iran with an increasing number of incidents and unverifiable stories of sudden progress in the making of nuclear weapons looks a lot like the run up to the fake state of emergency that precipitated the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is possible that Iran is involved, if not in this incident at least in other incidents in Iraq, but we are dependent upon the testimony of proven liars for our information. Does the Bush administration have enough credibility to be able to convince us that we need another war on another front? Does George really care what we think anyway? People are talking.
(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)
posted by Capt. Fogg at
9:52 AM
5 Comments:
This administration has no credibility with me and the increased focus on Iranian "meddling" is making me very nervous. It's the build-up to Iraq all over again.
But no, I doubt Bush or his minions give a flying leap what anyone thinks.
By
Libby Spencer, at 10:58 AM
Bush has made it clear that he doesn't feel any need for public support beyond that of his wife and dog.
Evidently he does have some though, judging by the performance of the floor traders at the NYSE this afternoon - hopping up in down in idiot glee like adolescents at a pop concert. "He's one of our best presidents" said one young solon in a black trader's jacket to the CNN reporter. He thought the economy was doing great too - and it is, for him.
I think Bush feels he has nothing to lose by expanding his war and I think he's more dangerous than ever.
By
Capt. Fogg, at 3:57 PM
I just got back from lunch and saw that piece. I also noticed Bush spoke very sternly to his buds on the Boards of Directors about those CEO comp packages. That ought to really scare them....
By
Libby Spencer, at 4:47 PM
See the interview with nicholas Burns on NPR, and the similarity of his language to Ribbentrop's.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7107364
By
Anonymous, at 11:10 AM
Except that it's in English instead of German, it's hard to tell the players without a scorecard
By
Capt. Fogg, at 2:41 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home