Mike Flynn Aljazeera interview with Mehdi Hasan, 2015
I take some hope from this interview of Michael Flynn by Mehdi Hasan. It's almost an hour long, separated into 2 halves, so that persons interested in war and peace can think about the first half before contemplating the second half, which focuses on Iran.
I saw the interview earlier this week after reading Seymour Hersh's 2015 article about the Joint Chiefs' efforts to communicate with Assad:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-22/seymour-hersh-bombshell-us-mili...
Seymour Hersh Bombshell: US Military Shared Intelligence With Assad In Defiance Of Obama, CIA
by Tyler Durden
Dec 22, 2015… Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad…
The Aljazeera interview with Flynn is intriguing and complex. I offer it as a talking point, mainly in the form of a question to all of you who may be reading this: What do you think is going on here?
The difference in information coming from Flynn and Mattis, the mad dog, is disturbing. But in Flynn's positions, can we see some light, some hope? Both generals repeat the assertion that Iran is the foremost state sponsor of terrorism. The state department lists only 3 state sponsors of terrorism, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, but our Treasury Department has tracked Saudi funding of Al Qaeda since before 9/11 and its funding of ISIS during the current war. The repeated insistence that Iran sponsors terrorism seems to me to be a somewhat feeble attempt to distract the American people from looking at Saudi Arabia.
In any case, Flynn does talk about Saudi Arabia at the end of this interview, and I find his opinions, as constrained and disturbing as they are, to be a hopeful sign. If you have time to watch this interview, I would love to read your thoughts on Flynn's positions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG3j8OYKgn4
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael T Flynn
Published on Aug 4, 2015
Who is to blame for the rise of ISIL?Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael T. Flynn, former head of the US Defense Intelligence Agency
Comments
I don't think so but it depends on what one is hoping for.
With these generals, it's about tactics but they're still on board with U.S. imperialism and world hegemony. There's a reason they all advocate the U.S. have the biggest, baddest military by far and it's not to keep us safe, we all know that now.
Flynn is very anti-Islam, anti-Muslim so you can bet he'll be on board with an expansion of the war OF terror. He's also very anti-Iran which fits in with what appears to be the primary initial focus of the Trump regime, besides the war OF terror, which is Iran, the next piece in the New World Order puzzle.
He's basically a right wing nutjob.
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/01/donald-trumps-scariest-pick-so-far-right...
http://journal-neo.org/2016/11/21/incoming-us-national-security-adviser-...
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/11/19/trum-n19.html
Fair enough.
I will read your links as soon as I can. And I agree about your basic description of where he has to be coming from. Otherwise he wouldn't be where he is in the scheme of things. He wouldn't be Trump's choice as National Security Advisor.
But I find the fact that he was fired by President Obama, from his post as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, for having questioned policy in Syria, somewhat hopeful:
I meant my previous comment as a reply to Big Al,
and I posted it in the wrong place.
But I also think the anti-Muslim charge is a bit dishonest on the part of the media because what I've read and heard of Flynn's remarks is that he sees radical Islam as a problem, that stemming from Wahhabist influences. The same criticism is made of Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard with the same misunderstanding, I think.
Whenever I see this misrepresentation of their remarks, what I see is a deflection from any criticism of the Saudi government again, because the Saudi government does sponsor the Wahhabist schools and teachings as part of their support of terrorism.
Even though President Obama makes a distinction between radical Islam and the Muslim religion, whenever anyone with a different position on our war policy criticizes radical Islam, even if they make a clear distinction just as President Obama does, they are described as anti-Muslim, pure and simple.