Charleston S. C. Shooting by White Man of Black Church Members is a Hoax

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
Do you guys believe that false flags happen?

No I don't believe that they happen.

When is something a false flag?

When you can prove it with actual evidence, which none has ever been produced for any claimed false flag. In fact, "false flag" is just another conspiracy theorist buzzword at this point.

I am curious because I can't always tell the difference and since you all know this isn't a false flag how did you determine that for certain? I want to be able to do this for myself.

It's easy to tell the difference. Just turn your imagination off when you read these things and just read the facts as they happen. Life isn't a big conspiracy.

Thank you in advance for your help!

You're welcome.

Does your statement that you do not belive that false flags never happen not affect your judgement on this matter?

If you have already made up your mind and will not allow anything to change it then debate becomes rudundant does it not?

Looks like this just got moved to the LOL forum.

Do we get any kind of explanation?

a reply to: nonspecific

Ya it is crazy to call this a hoax a day after 9 people died...
There is your explanation.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Metallicus
Do you guys believe that false flags happen?

No I don't believe that they happen.

When is something a false flag?

When you can prove it with actual evidence, which none has ever been produced for any claimed false flag. In fact, "false flag" is just another conspiracy theorist buzzword at this point.

hmm
Gulf of Tonkin incident

It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that a Second Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead evidence was found of "Tonkin ghosts"[6] (false radar images) and not actual North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2nd USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4th Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.[7]

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying US conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

The entire vietnam war was based on a confirmed factual false flag event.
..guess it does happen.
problem is, with every event now being called a false flag, it will actually make those real FFs slip past in the gigantic pile of poop being shoved out on every story ever.

But to say no such thing shows a profound level of ignorance, or even google skills.
I understand the skepticism towards ppl calling FFs though, Its good when people investigate any/all official stories, but the trend is to call FF, then try to figure out why it could be.

a reply to: nonspecific

I can make an informed opinion about false flags because I don't believe that the government does them. They require too much shadiness and for people to keep their mouths shut, meanwhile our government leaks information like sieve. It's much easier to assume by default that the government just waits for these things to happen then takes advantage of them to push its agendas. I mean, mass shootings happen a lot, why would the government even NEED to orchestrate one? Just sit back and wait for one to occur, then push your agenda.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nonspecific

Ya it is crazy to call this a hoax a day after 9 people died...
There is your explanation.

I understand that.

I suppose that what I am asking in a disembodied kind of way is how long is it deemed acceptable to discuss such an event?

There is a whole forum dedicated to 9/11 here and the numbers are not even in the same leauge.

a reply to: Klassified

Did you happen to read many of those "attacks"? Much of them were either state heads discussing the possibility of doing them, and many were different state heads talking about the same events. The rest were other countries doing them.

(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.

Neither of those are actual attacks...

(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.”

These are all the same thing.

(30) Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country.

This one is giving credit to a false flag despite the very same blurb acknowledging that it wasn't a false flag.

Though I'm not surprised at the "quality" of research done by a 9/11 truther blog...

a reply to: nonspecific

I consider it something like Occam's Razor. Until evidence is presented that definitively rules out this being a standard tragedy, I'm not going to consider the false flag angle.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

I consider it something like Occam's Razor. Until evidence is presented that definitively rules out this being a standard tragedy, I'm not going to consider the false flag angle.

That seems reasonable but given that you have stated that you do not believe that false flags happen at all then you must admit that your opinion is already made and will remain so regardless of evidence to say otherwise.

a reply to: SaturnFX

The Gulf of Tonkin isn't a confirmed false flag. There was a paper released by a state head suggesting it was, but it isn't confirmed. It could have just as easily been a radar misreading.

It should be noted that a ctrl+f and "false flag" done on that wiki page produces zero results. Also this:

In October 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the US National Security Agency, concluded that NSA deliberately distorted intelligence reports passed to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded the motive was not political, but rather to cover up honest intelligence errors.[46]

a reply to: nonspecific

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic there. That would be my bad. I just don't believe they are as wide spread as conspiracy theorists make them out to be so I just default to believing the mainstream account until it can be shown otherwise.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic there. That would be my bad. I just don't believe they are as wide spread as conspiracy theorists make them out to be so I just default to believing the mainstream account until it can be shown otherwise.

That sounds more reasonable an opinion.

I would personally choose to remain neutral until enough information was made available to construct an informed decision.

a reply to: nonspecific

There is a whole forum dedicated to 9/11 here and the numbers are not even in the same leauge.

What do you mean by that?

a reply to: nonspecific

If 99% of the events that happen in the country aren't false flags, in my eyes, being neutral IS defaulting to the position that a false flag didn't happen.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Actually I did. I saw some errors. Like I said. Best I could do on short notice. The fact remains, even if only one third were true, and another third were only discussed by those in office, that's not a pretty picture, and shows that false flags are a fact historically, and worldwide. To say they don't happen is denying the facts. They do.

Though I'm not surprised at the "quality" of research done by a 9/11 truther blog...

I won't argue that point. Nevertheless, discrediting the source is the easy way out. I've come to think better of you than that.

ETA:

Perhaps I was being a bit hyperbolic there. That would be my bad. I just don't believe they are as wide spread as conspiracy theorists make them out to be so I just default to believing the mainstream account until it can be shown otherwise.

Just saw this. As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say. "Nevermind".

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: nonspecific

There is a whole forum dedicated to 9/11 here and the numbers are not even in the same leauge.

What do you mean by that?

I simply meant to say that if anyone had suggested that the 9/11 disaster was anything other than a terrible and tragic terrorist attack on the day of the event then they would have been ridiculed whereas now there is a whole forum here devoted to the discussion of it here alongside many other sites, books, documentaries ect.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

If 99% of the events that happen in the country aren't false flags, in my eyes, being neutral IS defaulting to the position that a false flag didn't happen.

A fair point and it appears the system is working exactly as planned then.

Smoke and mirrors? the art of distraction?

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Actually I did. I saw some errors. Like I said. Best I could do on short notice. The fact remains, even if only one third were true, and another third were only discussed by those in office, that's not a pretty picture, and shows that false flags are a fact historically, and worldwide. To say they don't happen is denying the facts. They do.

I had a response to this, but I see your edit.

I won't argue that point. Nevertheless, discrediting the source is the easy way out. I've come to think better of you than that.

Aw come on. Before I wrote that line I had just gotten done going over the content of the article and why it was flawed. It's not like I lead with that sentence or it was my entire argument.

ETA:
Just saw this. As Rosanna Rosannadanna would say. "Nevermind".

Yea, even I can be hyperbolic at times. I still don't believe that false flags are in widespread usage, and CERTAINLY not within the states.

a reply to: nonspecific

Well thankfully, government employees who learn these things have a tendency to whistle blow. This is one of the primary reasons I don't trust false flag accounts. Many times, these operations require SOOOO many personnel to be in on it, that it isn't feasible that the government could keep a lid on it. Especially as time passes.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nonspecific

Well thankfully, government employees who learn these things have a tendency to whistle blow. This is one of the primary reasons I don't trust false flag accounts. Many times, these operations require SOOOO many personnel to be in on it, that it isn't feasible that the government could keep a lid on it. Especially as time passes.

I agree in full, my issue was not regarding this instance but your earlier comment as to not believing they EVER happen which you have addressed earlier.

IMO false flag is a very broad and overused term and can be used as a blanket dissmisal statement due to the overwhelming misuse of it.

A very clever way of doing things.