False Flags and Terrorism.

It seems that with every week there is a new report in the media of an impending terrorist attack being announced by Al’Qa-ida and with every announcement they make there are a plethora of threads declaring that this is the next big possible false flag. I for one believe that for a number of reasons this assumption is inherently flawed and belittles the very real threat that terrorism presents.

One of the first problems I have with this assumption that every terrorist attack or threat of a terrorist attack is a false flag is that even form a conspiracy theorists perspective I can see no logic in such an operation. In general most argue that the reason for a false flag, such as 9/11 is to give justification for expanding imperialistic foreign policy though violent means or to further erode our civil liberties. For example 9/11 (if one believes that it was a false flag) was used as a justification commence a “War on Terror” a umbrella term that includes firstly operations in Afghanistan then Iraq, Pakistan and in Yemen. Then in addition to this 9/11 was used as a justification for the erosion of civil liberties by the introduction of the Patriot Act and arguably many of the other perceived restrictions on civil liberties that have come since. The point is that through 9/11 many of these abuses of power have become possible and even to this day it is still used as a justification for other attacks. No other false flag is needed, they” needed 9/11” to use as a pretext to gaining a foot hold in the middle east and commencing a system of covert surveillance against western populations and this has been achieved. As such no future 9/11 style false flag is required as the objective of such an operation has already been achieved and therefore it is illogical to assume that they would take the same risks again only to have the same outcome.

Furthermore I also believe that it would be far too risky for “them” to use the same tactic to achieve any objective in the face of the mass suspicions over 9/11. This to me means that any future terrorist related false flag such as this would only create even more suspicion and be harmful to government for a number of other reasons. Should another “mega-terrorist” attack such as 9/11 ever be allowed to go ahead then political fallout would destroy the administration, economy and perhaps even the very fabric of society. The risk prior to 9/11 may have been greater but now it is too great in my mind to ever be a feasible method of achieving a political or economic objective.

The other issue that I take with this view that all terrorism must in some way be some kind of cover up of a false flag is that it is to deny hundreds if not thousands of years’ worth of history. Terrorism did not start on 9/11, nor did it start with the 93’ trade centre bombing, it’s been going on for years. This phenomenon that terrorism is synonyms with a government backed false flag appears to me to be a very new idea that also for some strange reason only applies to the west. Why is it that we never assume that LTTE is actually a government front, or that ETA are really a front for Spanish intelligence yet we automatically assume that Al-Qa’ida is a branch of the CIA. Why is it that when a car bomb goes off in Iraq or a official is assassinated in Russia by “terrorists” we barely bat a eye lid yet if its anything that might even smell like it could have implications for the west it’s a false flag. I personally for the records do not believe that the CIA has ever had any control over Al-Qa’ida or that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

There is something else about this false flag trend which again leaves me perplexed. I do not understand why is it that ever time Al-Qa’ida post a threat of some kind on the internet that some observant soul automatically develops this uncontrollable urge to create a “the next Al-CIAdu false flag” thread. Every single one of these threads have the same thing in common, they all assume that for some reason the CIA would go around making it blatantly obvious when they are going to conduct their next false flag but at the same time they never provide any proof of this. They all rant about the “Al-CIAdu false flag” even before it has happened and inevitably at some point someone will go slightly off topic and take time to remind us all about Obamas birth certificate. There must be at least 2 or 3 of these threads created per month and none of them have ever proved to be fruitful all they do is provide us about information regarding a new threat made by Al-Qa’ida, they have never predicted a false flag.

I just think that we should all think twice before we start a thread with false flag and terrorism in the title. Terrorism presents a real threat to our security and to run with the false flag title every time is to seriously underestimate the true nature of the threat.

thanks for reading!

When people say 'false flag' what many are really meaning is:

I do not support war. (as though any sane person does) because I live in a valueless universe where nothing is worth making a stand for (except leftyisms)

Therefore I will refuse to recognise anything that leads to the (Western world) taking action against attacks upon it. Because to recognise that it is under attack - is tantamount to supporting military type action.

I of course also believe that Western culture is inherently evil and all black brown and yellow cultures are innocent victims and are perfectly justified in attacking white people everywhere.

They "killed" Bin Laden...then torched the camp and dumped the body all within hours after the incident.

They mocked us right in to our faces...The OBL lie was a slap in the face..just as it was intended to be.

What risk are you talking about? We are sheep.

Peace

For the sake of discussion let's not call it terrorism, since the word itself is overrated and greatly overused. Let us discuss this from the aspect of calling it counter-measures.

We are now largely in a World War. The United States has almost 700 known bases in countries overseas,not counting bases in Qatar, Iraq and Afghanistan, and many individuals do not like the idea. The United States is doing operations both overt and covert that are harmful to the lives and well-being of ordinary citizens.

It is hard for anyone to understand the point of people who have had everything taken and nothing left to loose, but imagine this was you; "When I see that my land is taken.When I see that my mother and sister are molested.When I see that my father has been killed.When I see that my resources are being taken.When I see uncertainty of being alive or killed tomorrow When I see that occupiers are greedy and want it all.I choose to kill as many occupiers as I can, even if I self destruct."

Some counter-measures are taken by governments, these counter-measures will generally hit specific targets, usually government ones. Some counter-measures are taken by leaders who are not government, they have less resources to hit specific targets although they will still make the attempt, if they are able. True acts of terrorism, will come from people who feel the things I shared above, these people want to hurt anyone they perceive hurt them... these acts are much less because these people have nothing, no money no resources of any kind, some of the more ingenuitive will however find some way to enact vengeance.

The people in the latter group are stuck in the situation they are in, they do not have the resources to come to the United States, and most likely would not be accepted for a visa even if they applied for one.

While acts of terror have throughout history been known to have an "leave us alone" reasoning, as well as effect, the last 11 years have shown this tactic no longer employs the desired "leave us alone" effect. Which is all almost any person living in the greater ME countries wants, whether they be in government or military or civilian life, this is the general consensus, people are sick to death of having their lives and resources dictated to them by a foreign power.

Therefore, the threat of having someone in any of the first two categories (government or strong leader) attempt any kind of counter-measures on US soil stopped cold on the 11th of September 2001. The only way you will see any from either of these two groups engage in any counter-measures on US soil is if you take away the "nothing left to loose aspect" Which, by the way, means you wont see it short of an entire people/country believing they are about to be exterminated in totality.

Which leaves us with the ones who do not have the funds to come to another country, do not have the resources once they arrive if they did manage to make it this far. So, these people may raise their children with hatred of you, but the only counter-measures they will be able to take is going to be on their own soil, and it will be against those leaders of theirs who they perceive as aiding a foreign enemy.

The threat of terrorism on US soil is not as great as anyone would have you believe. While it can always be a possibility, you have a greater possibility that you will get hit by a train... Let's face it, anything is possible, just not not always probable or even realistic.

Honestly, if you want to stop even the threat of counter-measures.. stop what is happening to cause them in the first place.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
It seems that with every week there is a new report in the media of an impending terrorist attack being announced by Al’Qa-ida and with every announcement they make there are a plethora of threads declaring that this is the next big possible false flag. I for one believe that for a number of reasons this assumption is inherently flawed and belittles the very real threat that terrorism presents.

What you forget is that the Western security organisations are preventing such 'false flags' as you like to call them.

For instance, in the USA Muslim Jihadi have been stopped by the police etc. from their attempts to

• Destroy the Brooklyn bridge

• Blow up an Ohio shopping mall

• Blow up the New York stock exchange

• Blow up the NY subway

• Blow up an Indian diplomat with a shoulder fired grenade launcher

• Blow up National Guard facilities and synagogues in the LA area

• Blow up the Wyoming natural gas refinery & the Transcontinental Pipeline

• Set off a dirty bomb in the USA

• Blow up the US Capitol and Word Bank Headquarters

• Blow up the Sears tower in Chicago

• Blow up NY city train tunnels

• Set off hand grenades in a shopping mall outside Chicago

• Conspiring to attack Fort Dix, New Jersey

• Set off a TAPT bomb in the NY subway

• Blow up a Dallas skyscraper

• Set off a car bomb outside the courthouse in downtown Springfield, Illinois

• Murder civilians in US shopping malls

• Blow up “aviation fuel tanks and pipelines at the John F. Kennedy International Airport”

• Shoot down planes with stinger missiles.

creepingsharia.wordpress.com...

This is a very incomplete list. There is no need to make up 'false flag' attacks. There are plenty of real ones that have only been stopped by the vigilance of the security organs of the state.

reply to post by ollncasino




www.youtube.com...

While I agree there were cases where the FBI "foiled" plots, I disagree that these people could have or would have ever been able to do these acts on their own (without FBI assistance) They had no funds without FBI funds, and no resources outside of FBI resources.

All these "plots" mean is that the minds of some men are weak and people can be talked into things they might not otherwise have done, and/or that crazies can be found to do ones bidding anywhere. I am sure this could be the case even with white Americans, they could find someone, this all depends upon which group they are currently targeting, and not necessarily the group themselves.

You just have to be a good profiler to find out who you may be able to convince to go along with you...majority of people are followers not leaders.

Just to clarify, this thread is about the absurdity of everybody screaming false flag with every terrorist attack or threat of terrorism. I don’t know if I have made that clear enough as it seems that none of the above posts seem to have discussed this point but rather appear to have gone totally of track.

Also this is not specifically about America, this is about terrorism in general and relatively speaking terrorism has very little effect on the average American walking down the street to go collect some milk.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Just to clarify, this thread is about the absurdity of everybody screaming false flag with every terrorist attack or threat of terrorism. I don’t know if I have made that clear enough as it seems that none of the above posts seem to have discussed this point but rather appear to have gone totally of track.

Also this is not specifically about America, this is about terrorism in general and relatively speaking terrorism has very little effect on the average American walking down the street to go collect some milk.

I understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you.

People seem to be in a very snappy and unpleasant mood today. They are taking it out on your thread for some reason.

For the sake of discussion let's not call it terrorism, since the word itself is overrated and greatly overused. Let us discuss this from the aspect of calling it counter-measures.

reply to post by Jameela


Well let’s not, this thread is about terrorism which I always define as set out under the Terrorism Act (UK) 2000 (and subsequent changes and amendments) I can debate definitions with you all you want. You might make some very valid points but you’re not talking about the number of false flag claims or really terrorism.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
Just to clarify, this thread is about the absurdity of everybody screaming false flag with every terrorist attack or threat of terrorism. I don’t know if I have made that clear enough as it seems that none of the above posts seem to have discussed this point but rather appear to have gone totally of track.

Also this is not specifically about America, this is about terrorism in general and relatively speaking terrorism has very little effect on the average American walking down the street to go collect some milk.

you stated "the very real threat that terrorism presents." in your opening statement going on to discuss your concern with peoples unconcern regarding that "very real threat" I explained, in detailed manner, how this "very real threat" while is a remote possibility, is not the "very real threat" you imagine. I did not discount the possibility I discounted the fear of it being any very real threat.

If my perception (outlined above) was not your intent then you did not make yourself clear. If my perception (as outlined above) is correct as to the motive behind your thread then my explanation was unclear.

Or perhaps you only wanted people who agreed with you? I do not know.

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin

For the sake of discussion let's not call it terrorism, since the word itself is overrated and greatly overused. Let us discuss this from the aspect of calling it counter-measures.

reply to post by Jameela

 

Well let’s not, this thread is about terrorism which I always define as set out under the Terrorism Act (UK) 2000 (and subsequent changes and amendments) I can debate definitions with you all you want. You might make some very valid points but you’re not talking about the number of false flag claims or really terrorism.

Well, since the word terrorism is now being used to refer to any counter-measure against the United States, and is now understood in the minds of ordinary citizens as any action outside of full blown war, I find the usage of the word terrorism to be unclear. Hence why I thought it best to use different wording so that the underlying meanings of the sentences and paragraphs are best understood.

Its better in my personal opinion than attempts at fear mongering. And better suits purposes of legitimate discussion...

But if you prefer fear mongering rather than discussing facts, be my guest..


My attempt is not to be anything outside of clear in my intent, since I do not believe I had previously made my intent clear enough.

reply to post by Jameela


Your first post had absolutely nothing to do with the nature of false flags and terrorism, you by your own admission were not even talking about terrorism but what you call “counter-measures”. Its not that I am agreeing or disagreeing with you rather it is just that I fail to see how your post has any relevance to my thread.

Discussing a definition of terrorism has been something I have discussed on ATS in the past so If you find the usage of the word “terrorism” to be unclear please feel free to read think link below.

www.abovetopsecret.com...