3 ms·
"Nutters" will find "proof" regardless of what they've been given. What this _does_ prove is what the US is willing to even _consider_ doing to justify various
by joekrill 9y ago
"Nutters" will find "proof" regardless of what they've been given.
What this _does_ prove is what the US is willing to even _consider_ doing to justify various things it wants to accomplish. So at some point you must at least consider that an event _could_ have been a false flag, don't you? Even if you come to the conclusion it wasn't, to write it off entirely without consideration is almost as irresponsible as claiming every major event is a false flag.
- pc86 9y ago> What this does prove is what the US is willing to even consider doing to justify various things it wants to accomplish. It doesn't even begin to prove that. It proves that the US military, which has plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario, has plans and contingencies for nearly every imaginable scenario.
- joekrill 9y agoUhh, yeah, that's actually exactly what it proves. If they have "plans and contingencies" for it then -- by that very fact -- it's been considered! And if you want to get pedantic, they most definitely don't have them for "nearly every imaginable scenario". The military would be overrun with simply coming up with plans and contingencies. They'd literally have to have infinite plans and contingencies to cover every imaginable scenario.
- Feniks 9y agoTo be fair, although the US is involved in every war and terrorist organisation since the 50s they rarely start them.