There is nothing in the Grand Chessboard, or in any of Brzezinski's writings,
to suggest he would support a false flag attack on American civilians on
American soil that would serve as a pretext for Bush 43/neocon military
aggression in the Mideast. You won't be able to find any such quotes, because
they don't exist. He is probably the most influential and effective voice on
the American scene against those policies. He's on the same page with James
Baker, Bush 41, Jimmy Carter, the American oil industry, the military
establishment, the CIA and similar interests on this issue, AGAINST the
neocon-controlled mainstream media and neocon financial controllers of the
Republican and Democratic Parties.
The idea that foreign policy realists would support an op on the criminal scale
of 9/11, just to provide a rationale for a war against Afghanistan, doesn't
compute for me -- the risks and downside greatly exceed any possible upside.
You might want to seriously consider whether Luke Rudkowski is a neocon
misdirection op and plant -- that incident has a certain look and feel about it
which smells very funny and staged indeed -- much like 9/11 itself. Rudkowski
should be going after the PNACers, not their most effective opponents.
Vigilius Haufniensis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I want to be clear
on this: do you now understand that it is factually incorrect, and a gross
distortion of the truth, to suggest that Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed support
for a false flag scenario that was discussed by George W. Bush and Tony Blair?
And that there is every reason to assume that he would OPPOSE such a false flag
op because he has opposed neocon military aggression in the Mideast in general?
Furthermore, Brzezinski has warned about the dangers of a false flag op being
used to trigger and justify an war against Iran. Everything about his values
and behavior strongly indicates that he would have considered a false flag 9/11
op to be an act of self-destructive madness.
VMANN: i say that zbig opposes the hijacking of the "war on terror," not the
war on terror itself.
he calls for a pearl harbor type event in his book and he WANTS the US
military to establish control of central asia.
Now, given all of this, why would someone like Luke Rudkowski, displaying the
same bias and agenda as Michael Ruppert and Greg Palast, go after Brzezinski
while failing to mention a word about the neocons? There are only two possible
explanations: Rudkowski is either an ignorant jackass, as he appears to be, or
he is a witting neocon op, which I wouldn't rule out.
VMANN: relevance?
Feel free to be as suspicious as you like about anyone you like -- it's a free
country, at least for the time being. Based on my total knowledge of the
world, I am scratching off my list of 9/11 suspects anyone who has opposed the
Iraq War, the neocons, an Iran War and World War III/IV. By every reasonable
and commonsense measure, one should look to the chief beneficiaries and
exploiters of 9/11 to uncover the conspirators.
Colin Powell, who is as knowledgeable as anyone about high-level American
politics, complained about the role of "the JINSA crowd" (the neocons) -- NOT
the oil industry -- in promoting the Iraq War. Why would Powell have involved
himself in a criminal and incompetent plot that was designed to promote a
global holy war that he opposed? Powell was pushed out of the Bush 43
administration and the State Deparment by the neocons for opposing them.
VMANN: yep. powell is not down with the neocons.
vigilius haufniensis
