Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The False Flag Paradigm: My Thoughts

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You are still aware that you are on conspiracy site right?




The press was always flawed, has always gone through periods of great sensationalism and propaganda. But it catered to OUR desires and wants, and not those of the people in power ( mostly ). By abandoning it, we hand it to those who would use it against us.


Most of the time you act like you don't believe in any government conspiracy and now you seem to be saying that the media is not largely controlled and manipulated, but that if we don't pay attention to what they say anymore they actually are going to be used against us, meanwhile you also proudly claim that you never watch tv, seemingly infering that mainstream media is not to be trusted, and you have a history of writing alarmist threads, acting like some sort of patriot, warning about the government.

There is so much opposing views and contradiction in your posts, it's like they are written by multiple persons.

Like this thread you wrote only six months ago, for instance,
,



Signs of a Coming False Flag Event? Forget FEMA - Think Department of the Interior!


www.abovetopsecret.com...




These conclusions rely upon a type of egocentric fantasy thinking that I am simply not equipped of engaging in.


No not you, maybe the other one.....






edit on 8-5-2013 by DaveStinger because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 8 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveStinger
 



Originally posted by DaveStinger
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You are still aware that you are on conspiracy site right?


Do the definitions of "ignorance" or "reality" change based upon the type of site one is typing on? What an absurd question to ask.


Originally posted by DaveStinger
Most of the time you act like you don't believe in any government conspiracy and now you seem to be saying that the media is not largely controlled and manipulated, but that if we don't pay attention to what they say anymore they actually are going to be used against us, meanwhile you also proudly claim that you never watch tv, seemingly infering that mainstream media is not to be trusted, and you have a history of writing alarmist threads, acting like some sort of patriot, warning about the government.


You really have a talent for jumping to conclusions, speaking in absolutist terms, and misrepresenting facts to suit your agenda. You should apply for work in the disinfo field, you seem to have the requisite skills down pat.

Beyond your opinion about me, which has nothing to do with the topic - and your obvious attempt to dictate how other readers see me, was there a point to any of this?


Originally posted by DaveStinger

There is so much opposing views and contradiction in your posts, it's like they are written by multiple perons.


Let me go ahead and flesh out your thought, rather than the half-assed manner in which you went about it. You are trying to suggest that I am some sort of Government agent. That's funny and it's also about the lowest hanging fruit one can shoot for. You'll simply have try harder than that to keep up.

As far as appearing as though I have opposing views and contradictions? I suppose that a person with varied interests and complex opinions would be confusing to a member who seems only to post on one subject, from one perspective, blindly and without any variation or growth of opinion.



Originally posted by DaveStinger

Like this thread you wrote only six months ago, for instance,
,



Signs of a Coming False Flag Event? Forget FEMA - Think Department of the Interior!


www.abovetopsecret.com...


I used a hot topic buzz word in a thread title. This suggests or proves what?

Again... More of exactly what I hoped to avoid when I wrote this thread. You are exactly the kind of person this OP warns against. Fanatics are dangerous. Fanatics with agendas doubly so.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





Do the definitions of "ignorance" or "reality" change based upon the type of site one is typing on? What an absurd question to ask.


The point is that you are whining about people having certain conspiracy theories, on a conspiracy site. You have no right writing a thread witgh the intent to bring down this group of people.




You really have a talent for jumping to conclusions, speaking in absolutist terms, and misrepresenting facts to suit your agenda. You should apply for work in the disinfo field, you seem to have the requisite skills down pat. Beyond your opinion about me, which has nothing to do with the topic - and your obvious attempt to dictate how other readers see me, was there a point to any of this?


Is the mod calling the member a disinfo agent or shill? I thought there were specific rules against that.

Just trying to establish how credible you actually are.




Let me go ahead and flesh out your thought, rather than the half-assed manner in which you went about it. You are trying to suggest that I am some sort of Government agent. That's funny and it's also about the lowest hanging fruit one can shoot for. You'll simply have try harder than that to keep up.


I wasn't trying to suggest that at all, your words. Just pointing out weird inconsistencies, like I always do.




As far as appearing as though I have opposing views and contradictions? I suppose that a person with varied interests and complex opinions would be confusing to a member who seems only to post on one subject, from one perspective, blindly and without any variation or growth of opinion.


Within the same thread?




I used a hot topic buzz word in a thread title. This suggests or proves what?


No, you wrote a thread suggesting that a false flag might happen. That was 6 months ago. Today you are here blasting people that think that the latest terror attacks were false flags.

What gives you the right to attack these people? Why say this,




These conclusions rely upon a type of egocentric fantasy thinking that I am simply not equipped of engaging in.


You obviously were 6 months ago.




Again... More of exactly what I hoped to avoid when I wrote this thread. You are exactly the kind of person this OP warns against. Fanatics are dangerous. Fanatics with agendas doubly so.


Why, because they are more punctual?

How bout schizophrenics?




The press was always flawed, has always gone through periods of great sensationalism and propaganda. But it catered to OUR desires and wants, and not those of the people in power ( mostly ). By abandoning it, we hand it to those who would use it against us.


Can you explain what you meant here again?



edit on 8-5-2013 by DaveStinger because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveStinger
 


Mr. Stinger: You are way over your head with this one. You use a lot of attacks and assumptions to make your point. Hefficide has to be more gentle with you because he is a moderator. If he wasn't one, trust me....you would have your tail between your legs in shame.

Moderators are allowed to have views and opinions. They are people too, not robots.

The original OP simply is trying to get into the minds of people who are drawing the false flag conclusion. It was not so much an "attack" as it was an attempt to understand.

My suggestion to you is to step back and stop trying to attack the OP, and instead, try to bolster your case as to why people are currently seeing false flags and conspiracies in tragedies.

Make your case against the theory, not the person. Elevate your game, for heaven's sake, or don't play at all.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DaveStinger
 


You twist your words.....
That is all I see right now.
Darn double talk.....



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 



Thus far I have stayed clear of replying to this thread for two reasons. First I wanted to see what sort of dialogue would happen organically. The second reason is that I was waiting for a compelling and cohesive argument, supporting the idea of a false flag, to be presented.

That did not occur IMO


You spelt In My HUMBLE Opinion wrong
Could it be you have no convincing rebuttles
and you are attempting to gloss over that with condescension?
or are you just being lazy?
or afraid to tackle the points point by point?

you posted the OP
every one here knows the onus to defend it is ON YOU
not the posters rebutting it

I'm disappointed in you Hef:
While copping out
It appears you have forgotten the motto of this site
edit on 8-5-2013 by Danbones because: fixed quote box



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Where there's smoke there is fire....

I think people get False Flag confused with TPTB knowing events will happen....and letting them happen...to further their own agenda.




posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





You are exactly the kind of person this OP warns against. Fanatics are dangerous. Fanatics with agendas doubly so.


So the OP is actually a warning against dangerous fanatics, so you feel that "the False Flag crowd" are dangerous fanatics?

Seems like this thread is an attack on a group of ATS members indeed, based on their dissenting views.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
here you go Hef

CNN Caught Faking Boston Bombings Broadcast

______beforeitsnews/media/2013/05/cnn-caught-faking-boston-bombings-broadcast-2456036.html?utm_medium=static&utm_content=awesm-publisher_static&u tm_term=http%3A%2F%2F______%2Fb3o5&utm_campaign=&utm_source=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatreallyhappened.com%2Fes%2Fcontent%2Fcnn-caught-faking-boston-bombings- broadcast

watch the clips of info babe Nancey Grace...

just lie back
relax
this won't hurt a bit



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


That seems rather backwards to me. How am I to rebut the claims of others when those claims are not based in facts, but, rather, upon gut instincts and intuition? I've sought to rebut the minutia that can be directly addressed, such as the continued misrepresentation of media clips as "the official story".

There is nothing to debunk. A very vocal minority is screaming that everything is a false flag - and the rest of us end up standing around in various states of confusion or discomfort because of it.

That is one of the reasons I began this thread - so that I might see the compelling evidence that the true believers are hanging their hats upon. Frankly, what I've seen in previous threads was nowhere near the standard for evidence of anything - well other than a few were blatant hoaxes ( such as a picture of an Asian man, with no legs, texting from his phone that was offered as a Boston picture - only to be proven to be a picture from a drill much earlier on and elsewhere ).

I still await a compelling argument that is not based upon the "Well the government is evil and I know what I know because..." concept.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


You can't just agree to disagree?

No you had to go after these people, analyzing them, saying how they are egocentric, have all sorts of psychological mechanisms causing their delusions, and even warning against them, refering to them as "dangerous fanatics".

Did you see any of them write a thread about the "fanatic disbelievers", analyzing why they just won't believe in the false flag?

#snipped#
edit on 8-5-2013 by DaveStinger because: (no reason given)
edit on Wed May 8 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

Hef

I wonder why you just generalized there when concrete examples have been posted on this thread
Im not sure whether that was a deak or a duck...

What I see are people hypothisizing while everyone in the community contributes to uncover whether or not each event examined IS or IS NOT a false flag or a state sponsered deception

You can't defend the OP because so many events have already proven to be false flags that now every news event must be examined...


and I'll say this:
NOBODY DOES IT LIKE THE ATS COMMUNITY...NOBODY

thats why ATS is number one




edit on 8-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)

ETA
on the front page now bengazi alone is enough to make my point
edit on 8-5-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I can't really offer an opinion here, after posting my conclusion in the Boston Bombing Debate.

People should go there to "Star" the most applicable posts that are congruent with their position. It would be another interesting indication of the polarity caused by this event.


Polarity, division, obfuscation of information. End goals of any FF achieved.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


This is a prime example of what I am talking about. What we have here is a video with no context at all - which is then presented with after the fact commentary that may or may not be accurate at all. Without context there is no way at all for us to know.



My thoughts:

1) Even if this video were a smoking gun for anything - it would only be that CNN tried to con people. That in no way suggests that the government is complicit, involved, aware, or behind it... nor does it prove a "false flag".
2) There is NO context to this clip. The voices are removed and we are left to rely upon the BIN OP or the Youtube poster to tell us what is happening. In this regard these two women might well have been in the same parking lot without any shenanigans going on... but presented with the implied context of the people posting it?
3) Without chain of custody we don't know if either of these women were in front of a green screen or not. One could have been in a studio with the live feed from the interview being used as her background.
4) Without knowing the date and time that this video was recorded - so that the original broadcast could be referenced and context provided to this clip? It is as useless as people fighting over whether or not the man in the silent movie is laughing or crying. Without proper context it's impossible to know anything at all.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
here is a nice star and flagger

NOT a Conspiracy: Willingly playing into the trap,

www.abovetopsecret.com...
a very interesting OP by Afterthough and some nice responces courtesy of ATS





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join