or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 

Maybe this will help some of you understand a little better why I am so distrusting of government.

 

 

Quote:

Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror - governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed - has been used throughout history.

 

This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.

 

For example:

  • A major with the Nazi SS admitted at the Nuremberg trials that - under orders from the chief of the Gestapo - he and some other Nazi operatives faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. Nazi general Franz Halder also testified at the Nuremberg trials that Nazi leader Hermann Goering admitted to setting fire to the German parliament building, and then falsely blaming the communists for the arson
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • Israel admits that an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including U.S. diplomatic facilities, then left behind "evidence" implicating the Arabs as the culprits (one of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers, and several of the Israelis later confessed) (and see this and this)
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan toblow 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 reportthe official documents; and watchthis interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Official State Department documents show that - only nine months before - the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high-level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of that country. (While the Joint Chiefs of Staff pushed as a serious proposal for Operation Northwoods to be carried out, cooler heads fortunately prevailed; President Kennedy or his Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara apparently vetoed the plan)
  • The South African Truth and Reconciliation Council found that, in 1989, the Civil Cooperation Bureau (a covert branch of the South African Defense Force) approached an explosives expert and asked him "to participate in an operation aimed at discrediting the ANC [the African National Congress] by bombing the police vehicle of the investigating officer into the murder incident", thus framing the ANC for the bombing
  • An Algerian diplomat and several officers in the Algerian army admit that, in the 1990s, the Algerian army frequently massacred Algerian civilians and then blamed Islamic militants for the killings (and see this video; and Agence France-Presse, 9/27/2002, French Court Dismisses Algerian Defamation Suit Against Author)
  • Former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton says that a Clinton cabinet member proposed letting Saddam kill an American pilot as a pretext for war in Iraq (and see this)
  • According to the Washington Post, Indonesian police admit that the Indonesian military killed American teachers in Papua in 2002 and blamed the murders on a Papuan separatist group in order to get that group listed as a terrorist organization.
  • The well-respected former Indonesian president also admits that the government probably had a role in the Bali bombings
  • As reported by BBC, the New York Times, and Associated Press, Macedonian officials admit that the government murdered 7 innocent immigrants in cold blood and pretended that they were Al Qaeda soldiers attempting to assassinate Macedonian police, in order to join the "war on terror".
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”
  • United Press International reported in June 2005:

    U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. The numbers do not appear to have been physically removed; the pistols seem to have come off a production line without any serial numbers. Analysts suggest the lack of serial numbers indicates that the weapons were intended for intelligence operations or terrorist cells with substantial government backing. Analysts speculate that these guns are probably from either Mossad or the CIA. 

    Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance.
  • Quebec police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest were actually undercover Quebec police officers
  • At the G20 protests in London in 2009, a British member of parliament sawplain clothes police officers attempting to incite the crowd to violence
  • A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat
  • U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then "drop" automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants

There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See thisthis and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.

 

You can't call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.

 

And this is not just ancient history:

  • Jimmy Carter's former National Security Adviser - Zbigniew Brzezinski - toldthe Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation 

 

This is only the tip of a very, very large iceberg.

 

Thoughts?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #2 of 21

Where did you get this information from?
 

post #3 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Maybe this will help some of you understand a little better why I am so distrusting of government.

 

 

 

This is only the tip of a very, very large iceberg.

 

Thoughts?

 

Not sure about all of those.  But, in general, I'm not surprised.   I could caution reading too much into it.  National Security is extremely complex, and I have many other reasons to distrust government.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #4 of 21

I'm wondering what it "extremely complex" about these things:

 

 

Quote:
  • The CIA admits that it hired Iranians in the 1950's to pose as Communists and stage bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected prime minister
  • The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security" (and see this)(Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred)
  • As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan toblow 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.
  • Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization. It could have its own websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations. It could launch fake terrorist operations and claim credit for real terrorist strikes, helping to sow confusion within al-Qaeda’s ranks, causing operatives to doubt others’ identities and to question the validity of communications.”

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #5 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm wondering what it "extremely complex" about these things:

 

 

 

You're cherry-picking.  I'm talking about the entirety of national security. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're cherry-picking.  I'm talking about the entirety of national security. 

 

Cherry picking?! Nice.

 

OK. Let's go with that. Do you suppose that these "cherries" have made national security more complex or less? Have these "cherries" made us more secure or less? Are these "cherries" justifiable in any way to you? Are these "cherries" the kind of thing that might cause any kind of "blow back" to the US?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Cherry picking?! Nice.

 

I'm not sure if that is an Iraq reference, but I suspect so.  The point is that Jazz's post ironically happens to illustrate how unrealistic the libertarian approach to national security is.  There are so many covert actions amongst nations.  In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of what we see and hear on this front (from the media) is complete nonsense.  And even if we stopped covert actions, other nations would not.  To think otherwise is incredibly naive.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #8 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm not sure if that is an Iraq reference, but I suspect so.

 

What?!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The point is that Jazz's post ironically happens to illustrate how unrealistic the libertarian approach to national security is.

 

I think it demonstrates that the nations (governments actually) engaged in "national security" operations are actively doing things to provoke (often violently) opponents and even supporters to further violent action.

 

It's interesting to me the conclusion you are drawing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In fact, I'm willing to bet that most of what we see and hear on this front (from the media) is complete nonsense.

 

What is nonsense? This list?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And even if we stopped covert actions, other nations would not.  To think otherwise is incredibly naive.  

 

Two wrongs make a right. Got it.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Where did you get this information from?
 

 

Please click on the links for sources.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #10 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Not sure about all of those.  But, in general, I'm not surprised.   I could caution reading too much into it.  National Security is extremely complex, and I have many other reasons to distrust government.  

 

What is there to not be sure about? Governments admit purposefully engaging in actions that result in the deaths of their own people so they can blame it on others, but don't read too much into it?

 

I'm trying to understand your line of thinking here and I just can't.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #11 of 21

Its not "governments" that carry out false flag attacks, but "rogue elements" within a government who hire operatives to carry out an operation.

 

People who doubt the "false flag" version of controversial events often cite the notion that "the government is too big, leaks like a seive, and cant keep secrets", so therefore it couldn't have been "the government" that did it. That is essentially correct, but its the classic straw man argument (used over and over against those who express skepticism). The reality, is that it only takes a small group of appropriately trained individuals  - perhaps a couple of dozen at the most to pull an attack - not "thousands or tens of thousands". Furthermore, the few who are involved will be, by necessity, compartmentalized,  - in other words, each operative is only aware of his specific orders, and not the identities of others involved, or the overall picture.

 

Why does the false flag attack remain an "ace card" for a government, always present in the political deck when it comes to setting a political, or military agenda that would otherwise be unsellable to the public at large? Because it WORKS! It comes up trumps, every time. If you create an enemy that is perceived to threaten the citizens, then that government's political capital is unlimited. The public will clamor for not only revenge (war), but also protection and security at home. And when you have a wholly controlled, unquestioning media, with its collective lips clamped firmly around the collective "government member", then the already massive political capital potential is squared. Collateral damage - ie a number of deaths of citizens and/or the destruction of property - is considered a minor price to pay for the prize of winning the hearts and minds, and trust, of the public.

 

False flag attacks have been used since humanity started evolving political and national units, and will continue to be used until the public wises up and discards its universal 5th grade attitude towards this subject.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

What?!

 

 

 

I think it demonstrates that the nations (governments actually) engaged in "national security" operations are actively doing things to provoke (often violently) opponents and even supporters to further violent action.

 

It's interesting to me the conclusion you are drawing.

 

 

 

What is nonsense? This list?

 

 

 

Two wrongs make a right. Got it.

 

I find your conclusion interesting as well.  Understand, I'm not defending any of those actions.  I'm simply saying it illustrates how big and complex the issue of national security is in the modern world.  The real question you're missing here is WHY would governments do these types of things?  

 

As for nonsense:  I obviously wasn't clear.  I mean that much of the geopolitical "happenings" we see and hear about are simply the carefully crafted icing on the cake (for public consumption).  In reality, they don't mean anything.  There are thousands of covert operations, things happening behind the scenes, etc.  A quick anecdote here:  One of my good friends was once in the Army and fast tracked to become a Ranger.  Referencing a conversation he had with a  member of the armed forces who was actively involved in covert and/or secretive missions, he relayed the following quote from that person "Oh, the news?  Everything you see on the news happened about 6 months ago, if at all."    

 

 

 

Quote:

Two wrongs make a right. Got it.

 

 

Rarely do I quote movies here, but this is a perfect opportunity.  In the words of Mr. Spock, "I was not attempting to evaluate its moral implications."    I am not saying one is right and one is wrong, or anything even remotely like that.  I am saying it is reality--right or wrong.  

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

What is there to not be sure about? Governments admit purposefully engaging in actions that result in the deaths of their own people so they can blame it on others, but don't read too much into it?

 

I'm trying to understand your line of thinking here and I just can't.

 

I just meant I didn't evaluate/look into each item on the list.  I was focusing on the broader point about what a massive operation national security actually is.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #13 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Understand, I'm not defending any of those actions.

 

OK. Good.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm simply saying it illustrates how big and complex the issue of national security is in the modern world.

 

Actually, I think shows how uncomplicated they are. That this broader issue of "national security" is made to appear complex and too tough for the average person to comprehend when, in reality, it is built on a foundation of fairly base and crude motives and actions.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The real question you're missing here is WHY would governments do these types of things?  

 

I don't think I'm missing the question at all. I think I know why. I don't think it is terribly complicated to figure out. Why do you think they do these types of things.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for nonsense:  I obviously wasn't clear.  I mean that much of the geopolitical "happenings" we see and hear about are simply the carefully crafted icing on the cake (for public consumption).  In reality, they don't mean anything.  There are thousands of covert operations, things happening behind the scenes, etc.  A quick anecdote here:  One of my good friends was once in the Army and fast tracked to become a Ranger.  Referencing a conversation he had with a  member of the armed forces who was actively involved in covert and/or secretive missions, he relayed the following quote from that person "Oh, the news?  Everything you see on the news happened about 6 months ago, if at all."

 

This doesn't inspire me with much more confidence in the media, our political "leaders" or the government in general.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I just meant I didn't evaluate/look into each item on the list.  I was focusing on the broader point about what a massive operation national security actually is.  

 

So...national security is really complicated...and that means sometimes false flag operations are okay. Is this your reasoning?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

So...national security is really complicated...and that means sometimes false flag operations are okay. Is this your reasoning?

 

Don't strawman me, Jazz.  You're better than that.  I was not evaluating what was "OK" and what was not.  For me, that's case by case.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #16 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Its not "governments" that carry out false flag attacks, but "rogue elements" within a government who hire operatives to carry out an operation.

 

People who doubt the "false flag" version of controversial events often cite the notion that "the government is too big, leaks like a seive, and cant keep secrets", so therefore it couldn't have been "the government" that did it. That is essentially correct, but its the classic straw man argument (used over and over against those who express skepticism). The reality, is that it only takes a small group of appropriately trained individuals  - perhaps a couple of dozen at the most to pull an attack - not "thousands or tens of thousands". Furthermore, the few who are involved will be, by necessity, compartmentalized,  - in other words, each operative is only aware of his specific orders, and not the identities of others involved, or the overall picture.

 

Why does the false flag attack remain an "ace card" for a government, always present in the political deck when it comes to setting a political, or military agenda that would otherwise be unsellable to the public at large? Because it WORKS! It comes up trumps, every time. If you create an enemy that is perceived to threaten the citizens, then that government's political capital is unlimited. The public will clamor for not only revenge (war), but also protection and security at home. And when you have a wholly controlled, unquestioning media, with its collective lips clamped firmly around the collective "government member", then the already massive political capital potential is squared. Collateral damage - ie a number of deaths of citizens and/or the destruction of property - is considered a minor price to pay for the prize of winning the hearts and minds, and trust, of the public.

 

False flag attacks have been used since humanity started evolving political and national units, and will continue to be used until the public wises up and discards its universal 5th grade attitude towards this subject.

 

I largely agree with that, but wouldn't you say it's often those at the very top that command most of these false flags? 
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Maybe this will help some of you understand a little better why I am so distrusting of government.

 

 

 

This is only the tip of a very, very large iceberg.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thats a comprehensive set of examples of proven and/or admitted false flag attacks.

 

In addition, there are variations of the technique in which all a government has to do, usually via the complicit lamestream media, is to fabricate a non-existent attack, or promote an event or "national security alert" that scares/angers the public enough to support an agenda... two famous examples: 

* The attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, widely broadcast to the US public, got the American people firmly behind US military involvement in Vietnam. The attack on the Maddox never happened - it was an opportunistic fabrication.

* When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the public were not interested in US military involvement in this "local issue" in the Mid East. The DC based Hill Knowlton PR firm then pulled a stunt in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US stood in front of the UN and told a shocked audience about "Iraqi troops pulling Kuwaiti babies out of hospital incubators to let them die on the cold hospital floor". The testimony was broadcast over and over by the media - which never checked out this single sourced story - and as a result, the public's attitude leapt from disapproval to "righteously enraged", with >90% supporting the Desert Storm war.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #18 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

Don't strawman me, Jazz.  You're better than that.  I was not evaluating what was "OK" and what was not.  For me, that's case by case.  

 

Okay then, in which specific cases is/was it acceptable for governments to murder their own people with the purpose of blaming it on others?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #19 of 21
Thread Starter 

1000

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #20 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Maybe this will help some of you understand a little better why I am so distrusting of government.

 

 

 

This is only the tip of a very, very large iceberg.

 

Thoughts?

I'm pretty shocked to say the least. The problem with this is that admissions usually only come late or when some of the operatives were caught in falgranti. That means there is a lot that happens and is not known yet or will never be known. 

 

Maybe in sixty years or later we will get to know that 9/11 was a false-flag-attack to prepare the US-public and the world for a new international US-agenda. 

I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #21 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

I'm pretty shocked to say the least. The problem with this is that admissions usually only come late or when some of the operatives were caught in falgranti. That means there is a lot that happens and is not known yet or will never be known. 

 

Maybe in sixty years or later we will get to know that 9/11 was a false-flag-attack to prepare the US-public and the world for a new international US-agenda. 

The salient question to ask, as regards serious incidents like those mentioned in the thread, including 9/11 of course, is "Cui Bono", or "who benefits". Since you mentioned 9/11, it cannot be ignored that the motivation was a subject rarely mentioned, apart from when President Bush came out with his classic line "they attacked us because they hate our freedoms". How ironic indeed.  I promise to uphold the Constitution of the United States... Uphold? How about dismantle and destroy, Presidents Bush and Obama?

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror