I don't see the recent "secret weapons" in Iraq thing.
And 9/11.
Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
21–30 of 138 posts
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#22And yet, one might wonder: who is it that benefits most from these stories on .gov and .mil doing these distasteful things? As much as I'd love to believe that we've all spontaneously awoken to our governments being underhanded, I cannot help but wonder if it's as organic as we'd believe.
OK, tell us who benefits most. I have no idea what you're insinuating, so why not come out and say it?
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#23And yet, one might wonder: who is it that benefits most from these stories on .gov and .mil doing these distasteful things? As much as I'd love to believe that we've all spontaneously awoken to our governments being underhanded, I cannot help but wonder if it's as organic as we'd believe.
OK, tell us who benefits most. I have no idea what you're insinuating, so why not come out and say it?
I honestly haven't thought it through too far myself--just curious, is all.
EDIT: That's the problem with conspiracies...it's conspiracies all the way down, and then beneath that happenstance.
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#24I don't see the recent "secret weapons" in Iraq thing.
As others have noted, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is an ancient and endemic practice.
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#25A lot of people's jobs in the military is to come up with plans like these. The point is that we're not actually doing them most of the time.
The fact that a US senator once proposed a false flag does not make this official US policy. If we had to take everything every member of congress said as scripture, we'd have bombed every country in the world by now.
There are a lot of disturbing stuff in this list, but the false equivalency between putting a weapon down next to an afghan civilian after being (most likely) accidentally killed (despicable, but not always likely they went in with a plan to kill civilians) and actively killing your own people just so you can say it was some militants (an actual campaign involving planning and whatnot) is preposterous
Creating a fake terrorist organisation to mess with the heads of the real ones doesn't seem like an issue in itself, and there's a pretty big line to cross between fake training camps and real bombs.
Also, the notion that a country is funding terrorism in another country is not exactly a novel one.
It's unfortunate because there are a lot of real issues, but some people who cover these issues try so hard to find all these issues with US policy (of which there are many), that they try to equate some offhand remark of a senator with years-long operations involving framing and murdering innocents with express political goals.
>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”.
This one is beyond bizarre.
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#26Isn't the whole Iraq war a false flag act of terrorism? Accepting that the 9/11 attack was executed by those purported to have done so, and even if you accept that all the knowledge of the preparation and planning for the act was overlooked and filled with institutional incompetence and failure; using one act as a justification for action of a totally different nature and rationale is just that.
Was it really just opportune that 9/11 happened to justify the Iraq war? I mean, there is an audio recording of Wolfowitz proclaiming how 9/11 should be used and is an opportunity to rationalize an attack on Iraq?
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#27I don't see the recent "secret weapons" in Iraq thing.
As others have noted, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is an ancient and endemic practice.
The actions of stupid and incompetent men
(I say "men", because women just haven't had sufficient chance to prove themselves as such; but between Margaret Thatcher, Hillary Clinton, and Condoleezza Rice they really have even a worse track record than men with their strong start of fail)
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#28A lot of people's jobs in the military is to come up with plans like these. The point is that we're not actually doing them most of the time. The fact that a US senator once proposed a false flag does not make this official US policy. If we had to take everything every member of congress said as scripture, we'd have bombed every country in the world by now. There are a lot of disturbing stuff in this list, but the fa…
>The point is that we're not actually doing them most of the time.
I agree, but is that really knowable? By definition, the successfully done ones aren't known, right? Not that it's a reason to dive into conspiracy theories.
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#29One could add the Marco Polo Bridge incident. Under inadvertent stuff one could add the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Re: Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list
#30It is actually incredibly easy to see how smart people tasked with solving complicated societal problems arrive at false flag operations as a viable solution:
Imagine you have a credible imminent threat to your society posted by a danger to which the society is not familiar enough with to fully grasp and take seriously.
Do you wait for the threat to play out and take your chances with the society sufficiently changing its attitude towards it in time? Or do you galvanize things with a false flag operation that will cause less damage than the real threat but induce the much needed urgent action against it? Almost like a vaccine. Innocent people will die either way.
It is incredibly paternalistic in a way, and a morally gray area. Ultimately it is a lack of faith in the people the operation is trying to protect, a lot of times it is flat out wrong or backfires in unpredictable and uncontrollable ways - for example Iran.
And yet. And yet, not always. And when it works you'll never hear about it.
Thought exercise: You are a marine biologist who has become convinced that over fishing is about to cause a sudden, sharp, and potentially irreversible collapse in the sea food supply. Millions will starve. But meanwhile tuna cans remain cheap and abundant in supermarkets across the world.
This is a long standing serious issue but now it is coming to a head, do you wait for the crisis to unfold and hope international politics find a way to avoid it in time or..?