Deniz Yeter has prudently identified a warning from a former Bush official of a potential false flag terror operation by the Bush administration as a pretext for war with Iran. This is worth reading and following, as potential additional evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yeter writes:

"Hillary Mann Leverett, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush administration from 2001 to 2004, until she left the administration, has issued a sober warning to the public concerning Bush's intentions with Iran.

In an interview on CNN, on February 12, she accused the Bush administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict" from Iran as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" against the country's crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to "an all-out invasion like what happened with Iraq.""

Yeter also notes Brzezinski's recent remarks, which are worth repeating here:

I know it's not 9/11 news per se, but false flag activity is false flag activity. Until 9/11, I had never paid attention to the Oklahoma City inside job information circulated by what I considered right-wing nuts. I now listen to them, especially when you look at the involvement of handlers in all of these instances (for instance, Emad Salem's tape recordings in the 1993 WTC bombings). I guess the question is, if there was government involvement in Oklahoma City, what was the point? Were Arabs going to be blamed, but Clinton didn't want to go that route? Or did the government simply want to crack down on militia guys? Or was there indeed a middle eastern connection to that attack?

http://www.sltrib.com/SEARCH/ci_5271117

Affidavit: McVeigh had high-level help
According to Oklahoma bombing conspirator, ranking officials were involved in the attack
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 02/21/2007 01:03:43 AM MST

This is an important article, as it pointed out the use of false flag terror for political or war gain.

Even if the last one is missing.

***
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=YET20070213&articleId=4775

Hillary Mann, the former National Security Council Director for Iranian and Persian Gulf Affairs under the Bush Administration from 2001 to 2004, has issued a sober warning to the public today concerning the Bush Administration's intentions with Iran.

In an interview this morning on CNN(1), she accused the Bush Administration of "trying to push a provocative, accidental conflict," as a pretext to justify "limited strikes" on crucial nuclear and military infrastructures, as opposed to a large ground war as is the case with Iraq.

When asked why the Bush Administration was seeking to do this, she responded that it is a part of Bush's broader agenda for the Middle East to bring about a "democratization... peace and stability", to the region.

As opposition grows in America to the failed Iraq adventure, the Bush administration is preparing public opinion for an attack on Iran, its latest target, by the spring.

The United States is planning what will be a catastrophic attack on Iran. For the Bush cabal, the attack will be a way of "buying time" for its dis aster in Iraq."We will interrupt the flow of support [to the insurgency in Iraq] from Iran and Syria," he said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

"Networks" means Iran. "There is solid evidence," said a State Department spokesman on 24 January, "that Iranian agents are involved in these networks and that they are working with individuals and groups in Iraq and are being sent there by the Iranian government." Like Bush's and Tony Blair's claim that they had irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussein was deploying weapons of mass destruction, the "evidence" lacks all credibility.

All of you know about the bloody mess that Iraq is today .
Last week alone more than 1000 Iraqis were bombed to death.

I can not rule out that the terror was totally authentic these days, as Sunnis and Shiites are confronted in hate.
But there are serious hints that the civil war was originally created by the occupation troops.

You say that is an outlandish claim? Not so fast.

Let's go through this step by step.

The Motive- or Cui bono?

Listen to what Daniel Pipes has to say, one of the leading NeoCons:

***

The eruption of civil war in Iraq would have many implications for the West. It would likely:

[...]

Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq's political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3423

***

So the occupation troops do have a motive in creating civil war. Keep in mind that the real goal was not "victory", whatever that means, instead it was occupation of the Iraq oil from the beginning.

Is 1-31-07 a meaningful number to these creeps? Get yourself some kelp to block your thyroid from radiation poisoning. I bet Cheney is already taking his potassium iodide.

Look what CNN says today. This American mercenary attack on American troops is now being blamed on . . . you guessed it, Iran!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.main/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

CNN doesn't mention that one of the attackers was blond

An excerpt from a Ralph Schoenman speech on the false flag aspects of the events of September 11, 2001.

should say 175, not 75 .....

Please comment...

Back in October I mailed with Daniele. He gave me the hint to look for his latest work on OP Gladio,
the stay behind terror network that commited terror throughout Europe.
You know, the one the State Department dismisses by claiming a single document was a sowjet forgery.
( http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-127177.html )

Now it is online:

The CIA in Western Europe and the Abuse
of Human Rights
DANIELE GANSER

(.pdf-Download)

http://www.danieleganser.ch/fachzeitschriften/intelligence/index.htm

***

A bonus for german speaking people:
Hier ist ein Interview mit Daniele vom 20.01.2007 erschienen auf Voltaire.net

http://www.voltairenet.org/article144708.html

Die Lüge als Instrument der politischen Manipulation
Die Strategie der Spannung und die Nato

I've added two new pages to the TruthMove False Flag section. Both are works in progress and I will be happy to make any valid corrections. (http://www.truthmove.org/content/false-flag-operations/).

Oklahoma City Bombing 1995
http://www.truthmove.org/content/oklahoma-city-1995

"The 1995 Oklahoma City (OKC) bombing killed 168 people and injured more than 800. It was the worst terrorist attack on US soil up until 9/11. The government and media have attributed the bombing to right-wing, anti-government domestic terrorists. But the official story that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were solely responsible is contradicted by independent research as well as mainstream news coverage."...

Gladio
http://www.truthmove.org/content/operation-gladio

"Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy."...

Check out the following excellent new article by Mike Whitney. This begins by looking at the February 2005 bombing of Samarra’s Golden Mosque in Iraq, and considers whether this could have been a false flag operation committed by the U.S. military. Whitney goes on to examine Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and quotes some curious pre-9/11 writings of his. Whitney ends by considering whether the Pentagon has implemented the "Salvador Option" in Iraq, and whether this in fact accounts for much of the supposed "sectarian violence" there. Read it and pass it on!

The Bombing of the Golden Mosque  

By Mike Whitney

01/20/07 "ICHBlog"

We’ve heard a lot about the bombing of Samarra’s Golden Mosque lately. Bush has brought it up twice in the last week alone. It’s a critical part of the administration’s rationale for the occupation of Iraq, so we can expect to be reminded of it nearly as often as 9-11.

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/32/1/

Mike Whitney is right on top with this one. I for myself got the same insight a few days ago, as I learned of the presidents use of this bombing as an excuse for staying there / surge the troops.

This is a must read to understand the philosophy behind the perpetrators.

***

The bombing of the Golden Mosque

By Mike Whitney
01/20/07 "ICHBlog" -- - We’ve heard a lot about the bombing of Samarra’s Golden Mosque lately. Bush has brought it up twice in the last week alone. It’s a critical part of the administration’s rationale for the occupation of Iraq, so we can expect to be reminded of it nearly as often as 9-11.

The destruction of the Golden-dome Mosque took place in February 2005 and has been identified as the “catalyzing event” that plunged the country into sectarian violence. That, at least, is just the official version. No one knows really what happened because the administration refused to conduct an independent investigation and the media excluded any account that didn’t square with the Pentagon’s spin on events.

What we’re left with is mere speculation.

...

On Thursday, January 11, 2007, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas (R) (but he's really a Libertarian) hit the house floor and put on the record what many Americans fear might be coming down the pipe; a new Gulf of Tonkin incident to initiate a shooting war with Iran.

"The truth is that Iran, like Iraq, is a third-world nation without a significant military. Nothing in history hints that she is likely to invade a neighboring country, let alone America or Israel. I am concerned, however, that a contrived Gulf of Tonkin- type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran."

The quote above is from the modified version of Paul's speech, in his newsletter, linked here.

Thanks, Joe, Silent Patriot, and altruist.

While not a 9/11 Truth article per se, this is relevant as it is one of the rare instances where a left-leaning website uses the magic words "false flag." I believe this is a solid article to educate those who believe the U.S. government is incompetent and bumbling in Iraq, therefore it could never have pulled off 9/11.

The Strategy of Disintegration:
False flags, dirty tricks and the dismemberment of Iraq
by David Montoute

December 26, 2006

The erosion of a target country’s integrity and viability has always been a conscious goal of the Western colonial project. Creating instability and dissatisfaction with existing reality was a necessary prerequisite to “tame” and then integrate native peoples into the dominant hierarchical model. Today, of course, we are told that colonialism is a thing of the past. The leading nations of the international community no longer seek to enslave their less fortunate neighbours, but rather pursue policies of world benefaction - within the limits imposed by healthy competition, of course. When this miraculous conversion took place we are not told, but perhaps it occurred incrementally, parallel to the increasing divide between the world’s rich and poor. In any case, a casual glance at the state of the Muslim world is enough to shatter this foolish delusion.

I wrote:
Dear Noam,

Recently I stumbled upon a transcript of something
you'd written on a Znet forum and I thought I'd ask
for clarification. You wrote:

"The concept of a 'false flag operation' is not a very
serious one, in my opinion."

I wonder why you would sa that. For instance, are you
suggesting that the Gleiwitz incident didn't happen or
that it wasn't important?

I should divulge that I find the evidence for US
complicity in 9/11 compellng. Specifically it seems
to me that the current administration had foreknowlege
of the September 11th attacks and were criminally
negligent at best and may have facilitated the attack.
You were discussing this issue when you claimed that
the very concept of a false flag attack wasn't
serious, but I'm not asking you about that subject
now. I'm just curious about your more general view
that 'false flag opearations' don't happen or aren't
serious.

Dear professor Chomsky,

you recently said in an interview that "the concept of 'false flag operation' is not a very serious one".

Apparently, then, you don't consider it "serious" that the Soviet artillery in 1939 fired the famous Mainila shots into their own territory, blamed them on the Finns and used them as a pretext to start the Winter War against Finland. Historians have for long known that this was a false-flag operation. But you don't regard it as "serious". Why not? Don't you think its consequences -- 23,000 dead Finns and 127,000 dead Russians -- were indeed serious?

Recently declassified documents show that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which provided the legitimation for the Vietnam War, was fictional. Don't you think that 50,000 dead Americans and millions of dead Vietnamese is "serious"?

What about the fact that Italian terrorism trials revealed operation Gladio, a Cold War project based on a "strategy of tension" in which NATO's stay-behind armies and Western intelligence agencies promoted and assisted right-wing terrorist groups, whose attacks, killing hundreds of people in several countries, were blamed on the political left? Should you not know about this, read, e.g., historian Daniele Ganser's book "NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe" (2005) or watch the following BBC documents: