42 ADMITTED False Flag Attacks

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Wrong, it only fits the criteria if an event was staged by a Group A with the intention of Group B carrying the blame.

If an event occurs and Group A simply tries to lay the blame on Group B, it is manipulation, but it is NOT a False Flag.

Read the Wiki definition again: "covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations".

originally posted by: seabhac-rua

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

Example: Every time Israel gets international pressure, a plane falls out of the sky. What is obvious is Israel's trouble-making, what is not obvious is what happens to the planes.

Are you seriously contenting that Israel is responsible for that recent plane crash?

Edit: I swear to God I'm starting to get sick of ATS and the idiots who frequent this website.

That is the great thing about the internet. I can believe what I want to believe and it doesn't hurt anyone. And YOU can call me an idiot and not end up in the ICU. WE ALL WIN!

a reply to: MALBOSIA

The most telling word in your post: "believe" as in you have zero evidence to support your opinions.

And yes, only an idiot would suggest that Israel will somehow make a pilot deliberately crash his plane and its passengers into the side of a mountain in order to distract the rest of the world from its(Israel's) problems. As if Israel give's a flying F**K what you or I think about how they conduct their business.

ATS should create a fantasist forum for people on here who have watched too many hollywood movies.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Wrong, it only fits the criteria if an event was staged by a Group A with the intention of Group B carrying the blame.

If an event occurs and Group A simply tries to lay the blame on Group B, it is manipulation, but it is NOT a False Flag.

Read the Wiki definition again: "covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations".

Did you even read the list....seriously?
Take a look at what I underlined in your post. I see prime examples in the link posted by the OP.
Now, staying in line with what you and the definition pertains to, with your "groups A and B" included. The "groups" are underlined and the "stage" is in bold:

#1. Group A - Japanese troops set off a small explosion on a train track in 1931
Group B - falsely blamed on China in order to justify an invasion of Manchuria

#2. Group A - A major and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources
Group B - blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland

#3. Group A - Soviet Union’s Red Army shelled the Russian village of Mainila in 1939
Group B - blaming the attack on Finland – as a basis for launching the “Winter War” against Finland

#4. Group A - FBI anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists
Group B - tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

#5 . Group A - Macedonian government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood
Group B - pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order
to join the "war on terror"

#6. Group A - Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002
Group B - blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist
organization

#7. Group A - KGB blew up Russian apartment buildings in 1999
Group B - falsely blamed it on Chechens, in order to justify an invasion of Chechnya

There are more but I think you get the picture now....I hope.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Yes everything you posted fits with the definition of a false flag attack.

You're getting mixed up here. MrSpad originally pointed out that some of the attacks in the OP were events that were not covertly staged. As is my point: in order for an event to qualify as a FF it has to be covertly staged.

Nobody said that the whole list was wrong.

Yawn.

Edit: Here's an example, as I pointed out earlier in the thread. The GOT incident, was not a covertly staged event. Look it up, it's not open to interpretation either, the US Navy did not stage any running around cat and mouse games with North Vietnamese torpedo boats, this happened. What was originally reported by the crew of a US ship as an attack turned out later to be a radar error, but by then it was too late. News of the 'attack' quickly reached high command and then the politicians took over, it wasn't till a later investigation revealed the radar operators mistake but that was ignored. Not a False Flag.

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Yes everything you posted fits with the definition of a false flag attack.

You're getting mixed up here. MrSpad originally pointed out that some of the attacks in the OP were events that were not covertly staged. As is my point: in order for an event to qualify as a FF it has to be covertly staged.

Nobody said that the whole list was wrong.

Yawn.

The thing is MrSpad didn't give any credit to there being a culprit involved with the staging of any of these events. Anyway, nice 360 degree turn around from "wrong" to "yes everything fits".

a reply to: TrueMessiah


No you're still wrong.

...and you're missing the point.

See above post.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

Meh...slight semantic differences aren't worth debating. All that matters is that the criteria is in accordance.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Hahaha, "semantic differences"???

You're the one who started underlining text and trying to get semantical.

If I disguise myself as you and break into your neighbours house with the intention of your neighbour seeing somebody on his CCTV that looks like you rooting through his wife's underwear in the hope that you will get framed for breaking and entering....that is the same as a False Flag.

Whereas, if some random thief breaks into you neighbours house and robs his missus's knickers, and I go and tell your neighbour it was you who did it...that is not the same as a False Flag.

Do you think the difference between these two example is semantical?

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Hahaha, "semantic differences"???

You're the one who started underlining text and trying to get semantical.

If I disguise myself as you and break into your neighbours house with the intention of your neighbour seeing somebody on his CCTV that looks like you rooting through his wife's underwear in the hope that you will get framed for breaking and entering....that is the same as a False Flag.

Whereas, if some random thief breaks into you neighbours house and robs his missus's knickers, and I go and tell your neighbour it was you who did it...that is not the same as a False Flag.

Do you think the difference between these two example is semantical?

Not trying to rag on MrSpad but he did leave out an important detail.

In the second scenario, only if you were behind the robber being sent, it's a false flag.
It would go like this:

Group A - seabhac rua sent agents to burglarize a house
Group B - Blamed True Messiah for theft in order to covertly continue entertaining sick fetishes

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Agreed

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
a reply to: MALBOSIA

The most telling word in your post: "believe" as in you have zero evidence to support your opinions.

And yes, only an idiot would suggest that Israel will somehow make a pilot deliberately crash his plane and its passengers into the side of a mountain in order to distract the rest of the world from its(Israel's) problems. As if Israel give's a flying F**K what you or I think about how they conduct their business.

ATS should create a fantasist forum for people on here who have watched too many hollywood movies.

Mrspad made the assertion that false flags are usually very sloppy and not noticed as much as the event that follows. I used that scenario as an example to ask what it would it would be when the attack is VERY obvious but the event is not noticed.

And obviously you do not know the history of Israel if you do not believe Israel would murder innocents to get what she wants.

I think I called it. When Netanyahu made those racist comments and the US released that report on Israeli nukes, I called it that people were about to be murdered because that is what Israel does when her back is against the wall. Sure as *snip* soon after another plane crash.

I guess Israel is just lucky that so many people died and got the attention off her.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
And obviously you do not know the history of Israel if you do not believe Israel would murder innocents to get what she wants.

Where did I say that Israel would not murder innocents? I know enough history to know that many modern governments are prepared to kill innocent people to achieve their goals.

I think I called it. When Netanyahu made those racist comments and the US released that report on Israeli nukes, I called it that people were about to be murdered because that is what Israel does when her back is against the wall. Sure as *snip* soon after another plane crash.

I guess Israel is just lucky that so many people died and got the attention off her.

You didn't call anything.

Just wild speculation, based upon nothing, with no evidence, nothing but your own opinion.

The very idea that a government like the Israeli government, who does whatever the f**K they like in the face of international outrage, would contrive a plane crash in order to get "attention off her", is beyond laughable, it's pure childish fantasy.

(12) In 1960, American Senator George Smathers suggested that the U.S. launch “a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and [overthrow Castro]“.

(13) Official State Department documents show that, in 1961, the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. The plans were not carried out, but they were all discussed as serious proposals.

(14) As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in 1962, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

(15) In 1963, the U.S. Department of Defense wrote a paper promoting attacks on nations within the Organization of American States – such as Trinidad-Tobago or Jamaica – and then falsely blaming them on Cuba.

(16) The U.S. Department of Defense even suggested covertly paying a person in the Castro government to attack the United States: “The only area remaining for consideration then would be to bribe one of Castro’s subordinate commanders to initiate an attack on Guantanamo.”

Suggested, Discussed, promoted, or even signing off on does not make for a false flag attack unless it ACTUALLY happens

a reply to: seabhac-rua

One is planned injustice and evil, the other is opportunist evil and injustice.
When it comes to murder in the 1st or 2nd degree, one is punished more severely because it is considered as more evil.

Only 42?

originally posted by: seabhac-rua
The Gulf Of Tonkin incident was not a false flag attack.

A FF is a 'staged' event, the GOT incident was not staged, the data was originally misinterpreted, and details of the event were ignored later. Yes it was used as one of the many pretexts for military escalation in South Vietnam, but it was not a 'staged' event, and therefore not a false flag.

The amount of people who cite this incident as a false flag attack is indicative of how people in the 'conspiracy' world are more interested in jargon than they are in actual details.

How about the rest? Where's there's smoke, there's fire.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Nobody's saying False Flags are not real.

What I'm pointing out is that people call a fart a false flag these days.

It's that lack of attention to detail that illustrates one aspect of the conspiracy genre that bugs the sh*t outta me: people are more interested in rhetoric than actual investigation.

The GOT incident proves this point exactly. Somebody like Alex Jones says "the GOT incident was a false flag" and people parrot this rhetoric without actually examining what happened in the sea off the coast of North Vietnam in 1964.

But why would they? Calling every major event that happens these days a FF is way easier than trying to maintain an objective perspective, especially for people with the attention spans of goldfish.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This is why human governments fail, they attack their own people, lie about it and go to war. And the pattern keeps repeating itself because it works. That quote from Goering at the end is telling.

Do you remember how the Dixie Chicks were vilified for not being patriotic for not supporting Bush and his invasion of Iraq, I do. Just like Goering said you denounce those that oppose the war.
Now who was on the right side of history in retrospect.

Yeah, that was horrible how they were vilified.

I don't really know.

To be honest, just the Iraq War situation alone makes me think that some people are more in tune spiritually than others. For example, many of us out in California including myself knew right away that the Iraq War justifications were all lies. I knew that before I later studied a ton of international politics, history, etc.

A lot of other people bought all of the claims of the media, and I wonder if their internal lie detector is turned on or in tune. At the time my conservative family thought I was crazy for saying that it was all wrong.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

Aside from you being a complete dick, how do you know the Israelis weren't behind a plane crash? How can you, in your infinite wisdom, call someone an idiot because he noticed a coincidence you didn't pay any attention to?

And, you're wrong about false flags. A false flag doesn't have to be covert at all. All it has to do is appear as if someone else carried it out. That's all. Every single military operation is "covert" to a civilian, but you don't call it covert, do you? It's called need to know, and you don't need to know.

For example, Operation Northwoods, designed to fool the American population into thinking Cuba was attacking, was rejected by the Kennedy administration. That's not too covert, is it? Having a false flag mission get all the way to the President's desk. Isn't that what the CIA is for, planning covert operations with little to no oversight?