22 thoughts on “WINEP’s Clawson Advocates U.S. Sinking Iranian Sub to Provoke War – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. The channel hosting that YouTube video has some pretty unpleasant stuff on it. Are you sure you are comfortable linking to a video from there?

    Other titles include:

    Military now KNOWS Israel did 911- Dr Alan Sabrosky
    Globalist funded Radical Islam will invade Europe.
    Professor Mark Regnerus – Children of Gay couples suffer deficits compared to normal couples

      1. Someone should tell Bob that even fringe element people watch stuff like C-SPAN.

        I’m so strongly reminded of Netanyahu and his cartoon bomb that it’s breathtaking.

      2. No – just saying that particular channel ought not to be linked to because they is a lot of garbage there. Linking to a channel like that is bad for this blog and it’s owner, in my opinion.

        Please continue to discuss the main topic – no “Hasbara tactics”, no derailment. I encourage you to share whatever insights you’d like to share on the video or anything in the post. In fact, I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

    1. The only question I’m interested in is: is the video authentic? Did Clawson say those things? You can compare the video to the original 90 minute video & let us know. If the shortened version is faithful to the longer one, that’s all I care about.

      If you’re blind and I sit next to you will I become blind too? So what are you worried about? Did I ask you to watch any of the other videos? Do I care what’s in them? I linked to one video & that’s the only one I wanted readers to watch. If you went snooping through the channel looking for embarrassing videos that’s your problem, not mine.

      1. And as a rule, You Tube comments tend to be the most rude, vile, obnoxious and ignorant drivel humans are capable of producing, regardless of the actual video. But it’s just one of the hazards of using You Tube.

      2. Fair enough. I just think it’s better to link to a host of this video that is more neutral (C-Span or what have you). No snooping is really necessary to find embarrassing videos on that channel – one click on the YouTube link you provided reveals immediate ugliness (and just plain weirdness). No need to give any of your detractors material for criticism that is easily avoidable.

  2. If Clauson is right, as he well may be for all I know — that USA typically goes to war upon a manufactured (or induced) pretext [i.e., USA either sinks its own ship or induces the enemy to do so], then his suggestion FALLS DOWN not on technique but on the question: DOES THE USA WANT TO GO TO WAR WITH IRAN (OR SHOULD IT WANT TO).

    Thus, Clauson stands out as a leading “conspiracy theorist” — makes conspiracy theorizing mainstream almost. So what about 9/11? Why does Bob Mann say “Military now KNOWS Israel did 911- Dr Alan Sabrosky” so disrespectfully? Does he think USA did it? Does he think Al Qaida did it alone?

    I for one absolutely believe that the fellow who flew the 9/11 airplanes into NYC buildings believed they were doing it as agents of Al Qaida; but the way the buildings (in NYC) fell down suggested demolition charges were in place before the airplanes hit and were exploded after they hit, and Al Qaida had much less opportunity (and know-how) than various others to prepare for demolition. Clauson’s remark makes this sort of “conspiracy theory” much more plausible, especially as neocons were calling for war (with Iraq) long before 9/11.

  3. Bravo, Pablemont. You went directly into Bob’s trap, attempting to take the focus away from WINEP, a AIPAC-offspring, and it’s role in encouraging a war on Iran 🙂

    1. Pointing out that the YouTube video is hosted on a channel with a lot of garbage – What a clever trap that was!

      So far you’ve made two comments on this thread, neither of which address in any way the substance of the video.

      I’m not understanding what is preventing you from doing that. Maybe start with: “Even though the video is hosted on a channel with a lot of garbage, it’s important to discuss X, Y, and Z points made by the speaker…”

      Let’s get the discussion onto whatever track you want it to be on!

    2. Dear Yassin
      It seems you are prone to see others as mainly driven by tricky motives – having no other objective than getting away from the “real issues”, namely the one YOU hold central. Some healthy suspicion never hurts but how far can that be taken? For instance, if a source is quoted, especially on a sensational matter, looking into past records of that source to establish validity is quite sensible.

      1. Nope, the real issue here is embedded in Richards’ headline, and when someone turns up as the first commenter trying to direct the thread somewhere else, that’s mostly a deliberate action. I’ve been reading too many hasbaristas to know this is a common proceeding. It’s even in the Hasbara Handbook :-))
        We’re not talikng about an article here, and whether a source was rightly quoted etc, but about a public conference taking place at WINEP. Did you find any cuttings in Clawson’s speech that indicate any manipulation of his speech (as often in footages by MEMRI, for instance).
        Don’t you think it’s important that WINEP, founded by a member of AIPAC, and really nothing more than a right-wing Israeli mouthpiece in the States is encouraging some kind of a false-flag operation in order to provoke a war ? As you claim thatIran – and not Israel, that these guys are representing – is the dangerous country in the region, I guess you’re okay with that.
        By the way, you never answered my quesion on another file about santions against Israel. I guess it’s an answer in itself.

        1. It is impossible to follow all the turns here and know what`s true and what`s a canard. Likewise in “approving” moves that seem inappropriate when considered on their own but differently so within a broader perspective (when the alternatives are even worse). Wars are nasty – they have ever been – and when Iran made Israel it`s central target (with no outstanding issue between the two countries as a pretext) and in a quite venomous way they should have known that there will be (likewise) retaliations. These guys have sawn what they are reaping now and I cannot see why, given how malicious they generally are, they deserve sympathy.

          1. How malicious THEY are? Are you kidding? Did you listen to the clip? This is malice with a capital “M.” No issue with Israel? What are you smoking?

  4. The first problem with this idea, is that it’s not provoking the other side into starting a war: sinking a submarine is an act of war in itself and this would make America the aggressor, which could be very tricky in the UN.

    The second problem is that, while I concede that if you wanted to provoke the Iranians into lashing out in some way, sinking a submarine is sure-fire, America would have no control whatsoever over what form that lashing-out might take, and it could be a lot more effective than AIPAC are bargaining for.

    The hope is that the IRG will be sent out in fibreglass motorboats to do battle with the US Navy, and that assorted Bushmaster cannons will tear them to bits, followed by a bombing of Iran’s civil infrastructure, etc.

    The risk is that the USA will very promptly lose something it values extremely highly. It’s worth noting that one of the things which leaked, before Bradley Manning became officially the worst person in the whole world, was a list of all the industrial sites, worldwide, which were considered strategically essential to the United States. Some of these aren’t very big, and are located in countries without massive military resources. It was like publishing a list of potential hostages to fortune. The real sinner is not whoever leaked it, but whoever composed such a list in the first place and put it on a “secure” military data network with more than a million authorised subscribers…

    Everything from semiconductor factories in Israel to THE Insulin factory in Denmark. The world is full of facilities which America cannot do without and which America does not actually protect.

    1. What makes sinking a sub a sure piece of bait? Suppose they don’t rise to the occasion, but take revenge covertly in a third party place? The US military does not want this war and therefore there has got to be some large risk in setting it off, the risk that the military will subvert the operation to say “I told you so.” Too many imponderables here.

      1. That really is my point: it’s sure to provoke a reaction, but there’s no guarantee it will be the reaction they want.

        Overt or covert, the response may be much more effective than they are bargaining for.

        There’s also an assumption that Israel’s own submarines can’t be sunk in direct retaliation. That really is an assumption.

  5. You just gotta wonder why Israel is so willing to invite Iran to bomb the hell out of it. Which they would do if Israel attacked. Before the end of the day how many thousands of civilians would be dead, or do they think the US and Iron Dome would protect them?

    1. I really don’t think it will happen. In the end, I think it’s just a lot of saber-rattling that will hopefully mean Netanyahu’s swift departure from the political scene. There is already talk of elections coming relatively soon. Hopefully, a less bellicose leader can help tone done the rhetoric.

  6. This may seem like a dumb question, but aren’t think-tank guys like Clawson, SUPPOSED to think? Isn’t that they’re job?

    They’re not advising anybody. They wield no power or influence. They just think, write and talk sometimes. So what?

    We only have to worry when people in the Pentagon or White House, behind closed doors, start saying the things Clawson says.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link