If false flags were real??

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr



The Lusitania was actually shot down by Germany, but it was loaded to the gills with weaponry, which made it a valid military target..

So I think that falls far more neatly into propaganda, rather than a false flag.

Lusitania was carrying munitions, this was a carefully guarded secret. How could the sub commander know?

The captain of the Lusitania was not informed subs were operating in that area, some say on purpose. Thats why he chose not to zigzag, which would have spared his vessel. The sub commander responded to a target of opportunity.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think Tonkin was an obvious false flag.. the ship that was sunk was (if memory serves) a friendly fire incident. That the US government knowingly pretended was perpetrated by Koreans.

There was no sinking, no vessel wreckage, life preservers or any sunk vessels on either side. The actual evidence was supposedly some bullet hole damage on the uS destroyer that was never verified. Not that it mattered, US was going into Vietnam anyway. Johnson met with Pentagon officials in the White House soon after Kennedy was killed.

Vietnam denies attacking unprovoked to this day.

"Perhaps the most powerful evidence indicating that select Senior Administration Officials and Senior Military personnel may have had foreknowledge of the plot to assassinate the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, is found in the DRAFT of National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) Number 273. There are several smoking guns, but the one that initially stands out as the most obvious is the date of the DRAFT, which was subsequently signed by McGeorge Bundy, Special Assistant to the President for National Security. The DRAFT was written and dated November 21st, 1963 less than 24 hours before the assassination. It was ostensibly the result of the meetings that took place the previous day at the Honolulu Conference."
www.jfklancer.com...

Sou rce

a reply to: intrptr

I'm with you..

I'm not saying it was right or a good idea.. nor that propaganda of that level could be as or more dangerous than a false flag..

Just that I think false flag has a more specific definition than that.

You kinda saying everytime they knowingly lie it is a false flag, and I don't think that is the case.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You kinda saying everytime they knowingly lie it is a false flag, and I don't think that is the case.

About those specific events, if lying led to war, especially war under false pretenses, those lies are the false flag.

Like when Powell held up a little yellow vial in the UN. Like when they bombed that hilltop with a black flag on it in Syria.

Every single time they promote a "War on Terror" in the news.

a reply to: intrptr

I don't think so.. because you could have a false flag without a war..

If everytime the government uses a tradegy to their political advantage.. man that's like every thing that has ever happened.


When I think false flag I think about the government faking a terrorist attack.. where there was no terrorist.. or the terrorists were working for the government.

When say they lied about wmds in Iraq, I think that is propaganda and a conspiracy..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You want to make it into one thing, one false flag.

Its a combination of lies and actions that lead to, culminating in, what we look back on as a flash flag.

Whatever, not responding anymore.

wiki

a reply to: JoshuaCox


Cannot agree with that, the victim being the perpetrator.

The "false flag" is rather an old but well known military tactic. An event is staged, and an innocent person or group is blamed. Deception is an old military tactic.

a reply to: Salander


I meant victim, in the sense of a nation state..

The American government stages something in America..

If the American government stages something in a foreign country. I don't think that fits false flag. It would be a terrorist attack at that point..



I didn't mean the causualties. Just the same government investigating it, is who actualy did it.

I don't consider incidents where they didn't stage an event, a false flag.

a reply to: intrptr

The wiki definition specifically says they have to be the ones who orcastrated the event. Not just that they lied about one after the fact..

It is definitely a semantics argument reguardless.

originally posted by: intrptr

Is this about false flags or the riot?

False fags throughput history include but are not limited to...

Remember the Alamo

Not a false flag; an actual battle during an American land grab.

Custers last stand

Again, an actual battle, not a "false flag."

Remember the Maine

A boiler accident, admittedly exploited for propaganda purposes by the "yellow press," but not, strictly speaking, a "false flag."

Pearl Harbor

Where did you learn your history? Even Japan admits that they actually attacked Pearl Harbor!

(skips Korea)

Now you have me curious. Why are you skipping Korea?

Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin),

Fair enough. Strictly speaking, it was not a false flag. The incident happened, just not the way the American government claimed.

Grenada (student rescue)

Are you saying students weren't really rescued or what?

911

... Or so you would have is believe.

a reply to: intrptr

I see you believe that words mean what you want them to mean. You are simply not using the phrase "false flag" correctly. Is this intentional on your part?

a reply to: DJW001

Derp. False flag term originated when pirate ships falsely flew the colors of ships they were attacking, lulling them into a sense of false security unit it was too late.

The term is very applicable when analyzing the road to war this nation has been on so many times. In each case the reasons the PTB cited were false (misleading), i.e., false flag.

a reply to: intrptr

Telling a lie is not a false flag. A false flag is when an incident is staged to make another party appear responsible. Even your story about the phrase's origin is a tad off. Not only did a privateer's false flag potentially lull their victim into complacency, should there be any survivors of the attack, they will inform their government that it was an act of war by the nation whose flag was flying. That is how the term is used nowadays.

a reply to: DJW001

Telling a lie is not a false flag. A false flag is when an incident is staged to make another party appear responsible.

You see what you did there?

"False flag is not a lie. False flag is a staged incident."

Staged = lie(s).

Youre full of semantics, too.

a reply to: intrptr

Sorry, but words mean what they mean. The Presidential Inauguration was a staged event. Does that mean it was a lie? You got caught reasoning poorly... Best to just move on instead of digging yourself in deeper. No-one expects ESL speakers to be perfect all the time.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Then why aren't they???

Alex Jones doesn't live in a bunker....


If ANY of his conspiracy theories were correct enough to threaten TPTB Wouldn't they get rid of him???

Conspiracy celeb or not.. killing him wouldn't be riskier than sandy hook..

And jones is more dangerous to the narrative they hypothetically want , by far

So if they would kill kids to sell a narrative, wouldn't they kill jones and others to protect it???

Valid question. In some cases, they do. Breitbart died suddenly, less than a month after threatening to expose video on O. Others have died as well. The cases I listed are real. Someone like Alex Jones could be killed but how much proof does he have? If not a lot, killing him wold lend more credibility to his claims. So, some they leave alone.

With something like SH, well, how many times was it said that it was wrong to even speculate on that?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The cases you listed are real conspiracy theorists who died.. not necessarily real cases of the government assassinating people..

If they did, wouldn't they've have done more the couple you mentioned???

What good is it to take the risk in killing a couple and leaving arguably bigger threats on the table..

Also..

Doesn't Jones cause RIDICULOUSLY more speculation by running his conspiracy empire???


It was wrong to speculate because there was no reason for the speculation besides conspiracy theirists trying to push their narrative..

a reply to: intrptr

A staged event is s more specific topic than a lie..
a lie covers WAY more terrory.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

A staged event is s more specific topic than a lie..
a lie covers WAY more terrory.

Yah, a staged event is a basket of lies... so what?

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: intrptr

A staged event is s more specific topic than a lie..
a lie covers WAY more terrory.

Yah, a staged event is a basket of lies... so what?

So the Presidential Inauguration was a barrel of lies!