15 ms·

Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list

447 points by marojejian 13y ago

marojejian 13y ago
I generally find this blogger too alarmist, but much of the list here appears accurate, and shocking to me. Faked terrorism seems much more common than I would guess. Of course, the more liberal/democratic the country, and the more recent, the more weak/stetched the case is. but still, the lesson to me is that this sort of "conspiracy" is not at all implausible, even in a country like Canada....
- coldtea 13y ago
  >Of course, the more liberal/democratic the country, and the more recent, the more weak/stetched the case is. Not really, quite the opposite. The most "liberal" countries are the worst perpetrators of such things, if we're talking about Western democracies. They usually do it outside their territorry to assert influence on countries and place allies in power, grab resources, prevent unfavorable regime change etc. (Nothing to do with establishing democracy either: they are impartial to that, and have worked with regimes such as the apartheid in S.A., Pinochet etc, including of course people like Noriega, Saddam and Ossama, which they later broke ties with when their foreign interests didn't ally as well, but who were just as scum when they were pals).
  - leot 13y ago
    What? This is like saying that peaceniks are, in reality, the most violent of all. That after leaving Love-All-Equal Unitarian Church, the church-goers spend time studying the strategies of Hermann Goering. That's utter hogwash. For some reason, neither Scandinavia, nor Canada, nor Switzerland appear on the list as perpetrators. And when Italy does, it's when the country is run by a decidedly illiberal corporatist/fascist. Indeed, for some reason, liberalism -- that is, the philosophy based on the ideas of freedom and universal human equality under the law -- is seen as antithetical to violent mendacity.
    - bigd 13y ago
      Italy doesn't need false flags anymore. We believe whatever the TV says since 30+ years.
    - coldtea 13y ago
      >What? This is like saying that peaceniks are, in reality, the most violent of all. That after leaving Love-All-Equal Unitarian Church, the church-goers spend time studying the strategies of Hermann Goering. That's utter hogwash. Study the history of colonialism. BILLIONS of people enslaved, suffered, killed, mamed, had their resources and country stolen and such. All by "civilized western societies" such as England, France, Belgium, Holland, et co. And then post-colonialism, where US plays a major role. >For some reason, neither Scandinavia, nor Canada, nor Switzerland appear on the list as perpetrators. Yes, and the reason is they didn't do much if anything bad in that regard. Then again, I didn't say that ALL western democracies did such things. I also didn't say that this behavior is inherent to being a democracy. I only said that the worst offenders in such matters have historically been (and continue to be) western democracies. Here's just an example, the tip of the iceberg, of what they still continue to do: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-secret-war-396062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france...
- alan_cx 13y ago
  In general, I thinking its reasonable to say that regardless of whether or not the accusation turns out to be true, the initial evidence is always weak. It takes time and a drip drip effect until the case becomes true, or not.
baby 13y ago
I don't see the recent "secret weapons" in Iraq thing.
- uaygsfdbzf 13y ago
  And 9/11.
- maxk42 13y ago
  As others have noted, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is an ancient and endemic practice.
  - wahsd 13y ago
    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)
    - vacri 13y ago
      What offensive activities have Yulia Tymoshenko, Yingluck Shinawatra, Julia Gillard, Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir, Angela Merkel or Helle Thorning-Schmidt done to contribute to this false-flag 'start of fail'? Where are their wars? Why even bring in a needless gender divide, instead of just saying 'people'?
- stfu 13y ago
  You mean the recent "secret weapons" in Syria thing? [0] [0]= http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
- waps 13y ago
  Maybe someone can explain this one to me ... about WMD in Iraq. 1) Iraq kills > 500 civilians using chemical weapons (google Ali Chemicali, Halabja, ...) (documented, amongst others, by the UN) 2) it is known that for at least a decade after that, Iraq was producing chemical weapons. (again, documented by the UN) 3) US invades 4) finds no weapons Apparently the conclusion after this series of events is "there never were any chemical weapons", with a subtext of "Bush/CIA was not wrong, just lying". I find it VERY hard to honestly draw that conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that those weapons were moved, the question is where.
coldcode 13y ago
I think most of us have come to believe that governments themselves are better terrorists than the real ones.
- squozzer 13y ago
  Generally the distinction between gangster and terrorist depends on the motive. But the methods don't differ much.
gremlinsinc 13y ago
Not really surprising, but how do we stop it? Can it be stopped, or is corruption in government, just something we're forced to live with forever?
- adventured 13y ago
  "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
  - mercurial 13y ago
    But the price is cheaper if you redefine liberty.
- coldtea 13y ago
  It's not "corruption in government" (e.g some rotten apples). It's what people used to call the "military industrial complex" which operates the government too. Those are not the works of some lunnies -- those are examples of official policy, discussed, planned, and executed long term for decades...
- glesica 13y ago
  Well I don't know if this is a solution, but a useful observation might be to point out that war and violence is extremely financially profitable for a large number of people. When we want more of something, we make it profitable (solar energy, whatever), so can we really expect any different when we make violence profitable?
- kmcd 13y ago
  > but how do we stop it? Can it be stopped, or is corruption in government, just something we're forced to live with forever? Excellent question - the question of our time. I think you'd have to learn what lessons you can from the peace movements of South Africa, East Germany, the color revolutions and so on. However, this raises the question: if the government has unofficially declared war on the civilian public - should the public declare war on the government? These books by Gene Sharpe are worthy of further study (especially "From Dictatorship to Democracy"): http://www.aeinstein.org/english http://www.aeinstein.org/english Perhaps a new form of government entirely? e.g. decision making using the jury system: http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com Very encouraging that more people are becoming aware of the machinations of power. The real terrorists are much closer to home unfortunately ...
mercurial 13y ago
It's a bit of a mixed bag. The Columbian think wasn't a politically motivated false flag operation, for instance, it was murder for financial gain.
- mef 13y ago
  Yes, it's a bit misleading to mix in US State Dept contingency plans (Northwoods) with actual false flag operations (Israeli bombings in Egypt).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hosh 13y ago
FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real. False flags are symptoms of a deeper problem. The root problem is that we want war to be justified, because we want to be the good guys. War is unjustified, period, even when you think you are doing the right thing -- it is this that a lot of people have moral problems with Ender's Game.
angersock 13y ago
And 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.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  OK, tell us who benefits most. I have no idea what you're insinuating, so why not come out and say it?
  - angersock 13y ago
    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.
- etherael 13y ago
  To answer your question quite simply; we do. When people realise it's all a shell game and they are being manipulated by a parasitic organism that pretends to act for their benefit while actually doing its utmost to control and extract everything that it can from them, this is the first step to really changing that state of affairs. As long as the truth, justice and apple pie rhetoric holds sway, all momentum to destroy the system remains muted. When people stop buying it on the other hand... Things will really start to change. I stopped buying it years ago, the extent to which my life personally has changed as a result is absolute. Not a single thing remains the same as prior to my fundamental rejection of the premises of the modern nation state as a beneficial organisational unit. Scaled up from just rare individuals scattered across the world into wide societal acceptance this will be an unstoppable force for change.
revelation 13y ago
It's really just the tip of the iceberg. How many "terrorists" has the FBI arrested where the FBI delivered the plan, the motivation, contacts and most importantly, the explosives? They are actively fabricating terrorist plots.
- dreamfactory 13y ago
  One way to keep on top of the KPIs
squozzer 13y ago
The problem with distinguishing agents provocateur from real terrorists lies in the proof. Enough real terrorists / revolutionaries / gangsters exist that one cannot assume governments acting as the sole generator. And reasonable people do not - or at least should not - act solely on suspicion. Leakers might provide a solution, but a lot of conspiracies are very small and tightly-bound. And one cannot discount the possibility of the leak - or the leaker, e.g. Snowden - being discredited. I would also add that the decentralized command-and-control model of terrorist organizations (i.e. cells) allows outside organizations to hijack cells for their own ends, at least temporarily. With no higher-ups actually giving orders, who can really determine the source of a particular objective?
rdtsc 13y ago
This is a tried and true tactic. It would take extensive use of brainwashing and belief in fairy tales about an enlightened government, a city on hill exceptional-ism or what-have-you to think these don't happen. However, this level of brainwashing is achieved in US quite often. It is a lot worse vis-a-vis the rhetoric of independence, free thinking, individualism. But that in an of itself (this belief that we are no brainwashed) is also a result of brainwashing. The issue is quite subtle and there are a few factors at play. One is the basic need to believe their "team" is a good team. This works with the brainwashing. "Teams", "us vs them" is ingrained in our tribal brains. We want to think our team is the winning team. We are better, special, not like "those others". It is really working against the flow when attempting to show our citizens that "yes, our country has done these horrible things to others". They is an irrational immune response against it, they have been believing their family/their team they've rooted for now has a dark secret, its past marred in shameful things. They have been telling others, their kids, and themselves how great our country is, and now look! -- a total reversal, "what, have I been living in a fantasy world all this time?" kind of bewilderment. So instead of exposing and handling the hard truth, it is easy to bury it, stick fingers in the ears and say "la-la-la, I am not hearing you, ..." This also is interesting because it kind of explains what happens in the brains of many who work for CIA, NSA and other such agencies. They are supposedly hired for their exceptional patriotism. Now sometimes it backfires, because they realize what they have to do in their jobs contradicts the high idealized patriotic beliefs of what this country is about. So there is Snowden, he is one of them. What about others? There was an article just yesterday about how "Morale at NSA is low after the leaks". Hmm, it is low. Why is it low?. Good to explore. Did many realize they have been playing for the bad guys all this time? Or do they just feel angry about one of their team members "betraying" the team and they don't see anything wrong at all with what they do. To keep their nice govt job are they forced to believe one thing in their heads ("this fucking contradicts what our Constitution is all about!"), and profess another thing at work publicly. Much like North Koreans perhaps. Cry with happiness when "Dear Leader" drives, but curse his guts in their head? Who knows. Another way to look at it is from a psychopathic, practical aspect. Do people just acknowledge the situation for what it is and say "yes we are bad and we love it". "We conducted these attacks? Great! Let us do more. If it means a blowing up a few civilians so be it." I can image many at the top operate on this principle.
hop 13y ago
That Onswipe plugin is so annoying on iOS.
- coin 13y ago
  A plugin designed to annoy the visitors
rtpg 13y ago
A 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.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  >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.
  - rtpg 13y ago
    I'm maybe too much of an optimist , but I've always felt like we're(Americans) a bit less realpolitik than the rest of the world, and that if it were to come to shooting Americans for political gain, somebody would say something. I think the biggest proof is in the Snowden revelations, american politicians seem to be the only ones complaining about their own country's systems. We seem to have a good culture of protecting government institutions above politics, even if our politics end up being pretty shitty anyways. Other countries are loud about the leaks, but only to hit on other countries. I've heard nobody in France complain about the DGSE's complete unfettered usage of everyone's data. I'm also of the opinion that there are enough incompetent people in every part of the government that we'd somehow end up hearing about it anyways.
wahsd 13y ago
Isn'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?
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  Not really. I've read the books of Clarke and Tenet, and according to them yes, it was just opportune. Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al had decided to go to war years before and had written about it extensively. After Afganistan, intelligence services were directed to "find a link" over and over again until such information could be gathered, no matter how flawed. Feith at DOD was (inappropriately) tasked with finding intelligence that supported the administrations conclusions. ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2007/03/feithbased_intelligence.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... ) Cheney even went out and made several speeches saying the link was substantial to the bewilderment of CIA. In truth, no significant link was ever found.
cafard 13y ago
One could add the Marco Polo Bridge incident. Under inadvertent stuff one could add the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
- kelvin0 13y ago
  I second that motion.
recuter 13y ago
It 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..?
- mercurial 13y ago
  > It is actually incredibly easy to see how smart people tasked with solving complicated societal problems arrive at false flag operations as a viable solution: The end justifies the means. And we surely shouldn't be naive about it. And if we don't do it first, the opposition will no doubt get ahead. And that's all that matter in the end. It's a pissing contest taking place in a graveyard.
  - Brakenshire 13y ago
    > Show us not the aim without the way. For ends and means on earth are so entangled, that changing one, you change the other too; Each different path brings other ends in view. - Arthur Koestler
- dreamfactory 13y ago
evolve2k 13y ago
So frustrating this site is unreadable on the iPhone.
- Zoomla 13y ago
  use a different browser? (if this is allowed)
  - lambda 13y ago
    Using a different browser (technically, a different rendering engine) is not allowed on the iPhone. There are alternative browsers like Chrome, but they use the iPhone Safari rendering engine and serve merely to sync your bookmarks and whatnot with your other Chrome bookmarks and provide a slightly different UI.
- wkearney99 13y ago
  Equally frustrating to see otherwise intelligent people using such arbitrarily crippled devices. Try using a better phone, one without such despicable corporate hostility driving it.
JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Not to diminish the issue, but many items were not 'governments' but rather members of govt covering up errors.
- TallGuyShort 13y ago
  I think that's the key thing, though. I would gladly live under practically any government system if I knew that all the officials and citizens were perfectly honest, responsible and charitable. I don't think I'd like any system that was repeatedly plagued by the types of individuals that are committing these acts.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    I'm really tempted to say "that's life"; there are no perfect people to run the govt any more than in any other sphere.
esw 13y ago
I'm surprised they missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29
robobro 13y ago
loving the fake Hitler quote
- evacuationdrill 13y ago
  More info: "Hitler on Terrorism "Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." This quote is based on two invented remarks in Hermann Rauschning's mendacious book, The Voice of Destruction." http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html
  - phaemon 13y ago
    That might very well be accurate, but I'm not daft enough to believe anything posted on the "Institute for Historical Review" site. Do you have any better sources?
    - evacuationdrill 13y ago
      That was just the number one result, this post number two (9 total). I googled the quote without Hitler, and all results came up as a misattribution, but in my quick skim, there wasn't a different attribution.
      - phaemon 13y ago
        Yes, I checked too, but all the misattribution links appeared to be related to neo-nazi sites, so I'm not sure.
kelvin0 13y ago
This article is very 'unpatriotic' ... I don't think normal god fearing individuals with so much power would even think to do these horrible things. Time for my 'delusion' pills ... ;)
microcolonel 13y ago
Blowing up consulates... sounds really familiar...
atlantic 13y ago
Considering things in this perspective, is it so far-fetched to at least consider the possibility that 9/11 was a false-flag attack?
- fsck--off 13y ago
  > Considering things in this perspective, is it so far-fetched to at least consider the possibility that 9/11 was a false-flag attack? Yes, it would be completely far fetched and cretinous. You would have to completely ignore the history of bin Laden's interactions with American and the CIA, the attack on the USS Cole the year before, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
  - jakeogh 13y ago
    The Bin Laden and Bush families go way back. FBI Agent Robert Wrights press conference is a good place to start. http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Robert_Wright http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Robert_Wright Also the calls Emad Salem (1993 WTC Bombing) recorded with his FBI handler where he talks about who built the bomb.
- lambda 13y ago
  Considering things in what perspective? Everything listed here about the US was either just a proposal that never came to fruition, or not actually a false flag attack (a grunt trying to cover up civilian casualties by planting weapons on them, as reprehensible as it is, is a far cry from a false-flag terror attack on your own people).
rthomas6 13y ago
Is this on-topic for HN?
hadronzoo 13y ago
A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
smtddr 13y ago
From the article: >>"As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings." I know I'll be 65+ years old; retired in a Nigerian village eating some Obe Ata Dindin. Suddenly someone is going to show me a breaking-news article about the real truth of 9/11. Based on this, I see it takes about 55 years before the truth comes out. Anytime you read something about seemingly insane 9/11 truthers talk, keep this bit of info in the back of your mind and consider that they just might be right...
jotm 13y ago
Yeah, we've known about these tactics for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now, 9/11 is also revealed to have been a false flag operation.
akjj 13y ago
This list is quite confused and several of the examples are not false flag operations. As Wikipedia's definition says, it has to be carried out with the purpose of pinning blame on another group and tarnishing their reputation. > Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials. Is the author suggesting that the US government in fact organized the anthrax letters? That's a long stretch from the evidence that the letters were sent by a government employee. It's unfortunate that the government would try to blame al Qaeda, but it's just opportunistic dishonesty since they didn't plan the attack. > Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization." This seems to be taken from an op-ed, which is a pretty terrible place to plan a false flag operation if you think about it. Yoo seems to be suggesting disrupting al Qaeda through disinformation, but I guess the name leads people to assume that something more evil must be going on. > U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. ... Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance. Pretty speculative and doesn't fall under the category of "government admissions." In any case, even if true, it's questionable whether it's qualifies as a false flag operation. > A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat War crime, followed by cover-up. Not false flag. > U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants. Same as previous. > The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted last the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists. I don't even understand how this could be confused with a false flag. Just a threat of using a proxy force, and who knows if it's true. Then to further confuse things the author defines "false flag terrorism" as "a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames." I don't know why the author includes "its own people" and that the purpose must be to start a war, because neither of those appears in the Wikipedia definition and each is violated by several of his examples. But it just goes to show the sloppy thinking that went into putting together this list. Look, many of these incidents were despicable and those responsible deserve to be called out, but the list is such a mixed bag of actual violence, planned violence, or speculation of planned violence, sometimes by the military, sometimes by police forces, sometimes by radicals. I don't see what the message is supposed to be by listing all of these together.
rooshdi 13y ago
Old news.
lazyjones 13y ago
That's an impressive list, but far from complete. Here's a famous false flag operation in post-Nazi Germany for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole
transfire 13y ago
* Bombing of the golden mosque * Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists * Stuxnet * Smuggling rocket launchers into Gaza * Gulf of Tonkin * Assassination of JFK * Oil Embargo on Japan * Selling arms to Iraq * Iran-contra * 9/11 Tip of the iceberg.
koushikn 13y ago
I thought the basic idea was documented clearly in 1984
tslathrow 13y ago
Just FYI ritholtz is a complete fake... tried to build a brand out of working as a strategist at a bombed out bank. Not saying that his articles are invalid, just that he is a serial marketer with little in terms of relevant credentials.
- TDL 13y ago
  What? He's been a trader/strategist for nearly 30 years and is CEO of his own firm. Furthermore, he one of the most widely read financial bloggers around. Why don't you post some evidence supporting your claims. P.S. He didn't write this, he posted to his blog.
jgh 13y ago
This is something that is really starting to bother me: More and more websites are doing this thing (on tabets such as the nexus 7 I'm on now) where they load most of the way in a second or two, and then some loading screen pops up and I have to wait 15-20 more seconds for some god-awful "mobile" paginated monstrosity that is slower and harder to read than the desktop site. Can we stop that please? Just...stop.
avaku 13y ago
I would like to say that the Russian apartment bombings, although not officially proven to originate from the government, upon thorough investigation appear to have a very significant probability of being an actual brutal false flag. In addition to the available facts and possible motives, one can also consider that all serious journalists investigating this in Russia, and several KGB whistleblowers, have been assassinated.
known 13y ago
A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.
known 13y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
oelmekki 13y ago
I'm shocked by the amount of comments here saying things like "they didn't planned to kill, they just took advantage of it" or "they planned it but didn't do it", so it's ok. It's not ok, it's miscreant attitude that demonstrates poor human skills. I want to be represented by people with high human skills. Call me an idealistic if you want, it's ok for me in a world where vice is common place. Any way, we can't do anything great if we don't expect much of ourselves.
joelrunyon 13y ago
> People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war. More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before. Here's an interesting google trends graph of the phrase over time - http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=false%20flag http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=false%20flag
phaer 13y ago
I personally think that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1980_Bologna_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1980_Bologna_bombing should be part of that list.
tiagobraw 13y ago
In the recent Brazilian protests, infiltrated undercover policemen made several violent actions as an excuse to lower the credibility of peaceful protests.
jstrate 13y ago
I wonder what this list would look like in comparison with a list of legitimate acts of terrorism. Hint: it would look pretty insignificant.
amerika_blog 13y ago
Government is the enemy. That means no wealth redistribution. Can the internet balance these two?
dustingetz 13y ago
looks like a nash equilibrium to me!
vxNsr 13y ago
My only problem is with this one: >Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians 2005 was the height of the 2nd intifada, there were nearly daily suicide bombings in Israel there was no need for excuses and undercover agents. Also the source basically says that the soldiers were originally supposed to work undercover and locate the organizers to be arrested (quality arrests, say what you want about that...) but as things appeared to get out of control the undercover agents (who were first timers) took matters into their own hands.

447 points by marojejian 13y ago

I generally find this blogger too alarmist, but much of the list here appears accurate, and shocking to me. Faked terrorism seems much more common than I would guess. Of course, the more liberal/democratic the country, and the more recent, the more weak/stetched the case is. but still, the lesson to me is that this sort of "conspiracy" is not at all implausible, even in a country like Canada....

coldtea 13y ago
>Of course, the more liberal/democratic the country, and the more recent, the more weak/stetched the case is. Not really, quite the opposite. The most "liberal" countries are the worst perpetrators of such things, if we're talking about Western democracies. They usually do it outside their territorry to assert influence on countries and place allies in power, grab resources, prevent unfavorable regime change etc. (Nothing to do with establishing democracy either: they are impartial to that, and have worked with regimes such as the apartheid in S.A., Pinochet etc, including of course people like Noriega, Saddam and Ossama, which they later broke ties with when their foreign interests didn't ally as well, but who were just as scum when they were pals).
- leot 13y ago
  What? This is like saying that peaceniks are, in reality, the most violent of all. That after leaving Love-All-Equal Unitarian Church, the church-goers spend time studying the strategies of Hermann Goering. That's utter hogwash. For some reason, neither Scandinavia, nor Canada, nor Switzerland appear on the list as perpetrators. And when Italy does, it's when the country is run by a decidedly illiberal corporatist/fascist. Indeed, for some reason, liberalism -- that is, the philosophy based on the ideas of freedom and universal human equality under the law -- is seen as antithetical to violent mendacity.
  - bigd 13y ago
    Italy doesn't need false flags anymore. We believe whatever the TV says since 30+ years.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >What? This is like saying that peaceniks are, in reality, the most violent of all. That after leaving Love-All-Equal Unitarian Church, the church-goers spend time studying the strategies of Hermann Goering. That's utter hogwash. Study the history of colonialism. BILLIONS of people enslaved, suffered, killed, mamed, had their resources and country stolen and such. All by "civilized western societies" such as England, France, Belgium, Holland, et co. And then post-colonialism, where US plays a major role. >For some reason, neither Scandinavia, nor Canada, nor Switzerland appear on the list as perpetrators. Yes, and the reason is they didn't do much if anything bad in that regard. Then again, I didn't say that ALL western democracies did such things. I also didn't say that this behavior is inherent to being a democracy. I only said that the worst offenders in such matters have historically been (and continue to be) western democracies. Here's just an example, the tip of the iceberg, of what they still continue to do: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-secret-war-396062.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france...
alan_cx 13y ago
In general, I thinking its reasonable to say that regardless of whether or not the accusation turns out to be true, the initial evidence is always weak. It takes time and a drip drip effect until the case becomes true, or not.

baby 13y ago

I don't see the recent "secret weapons" in Iraq thing.

uaygsfdbzf 13y ago
And 9/11.
maxk42 13y ago
As others have noted, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is an ancient and endemic practice.
- wahsd 13y ago
  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)
  - vacri 13y ago
    What offensive activities have Yulia Tymoshenko, Yingluck Shinawatra, Julia Gillard, Jóhanna Sigurdardóttir, Angela Merkel or Helle Thorning-Schmidt done to contribute to this false-flag 'start of fail'? Where are their wars? Why even bring in a needless gender divide, instead of just saying 'people'?
stfu 13y ago
You mean the recent "secret weapons" in Syria thing? [0] [0]= http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
waps 13y ago
Maybe someone can explain this one to me ... about WMD in Iraq. 1) Iraq kills > 500 civilians using chemical weapons (google Ali Chemicali, Halabja, ...) (documented, amongst others, by the UN) 2) it is known that for at least a decade after that, Iraq was producing chemical weapons. (again, documented by the UN) 3) US invades 4) finds no weapons Apparently the conclusion after this series of events is "there never were any chemical weapons", with a subtext of "Bush/CIA was not wrong, just lying". I find it VERY hard to honestly draw that conclusion. The obvious conclusion is that those weapons were moved, the question is where.

coldcode 13y ago

I think most of us have come to believe that governments themselves are better terrorists than the real ones.

squozzer 13y ago
Generally the distinction between gangster and terrorist depends on the motive. But the methods don't differ much.

gremlinsinc 13y ago

Not really surprising, but how do we stop it? Can it be stopped, or is corruption in government, just something we're forced to live with forever?

adventured 13y ago
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
- mercurial 13y ago
  But the price is cheaper if you redefine liberty.
coldtea 13y ago
It's not "corruption in government" (e.g some rotten apples). It's what people used to call the "military industrial complex" which operates the government too. Those are not the works of some lunnies -- those are examples of official policy, discussed, planned, and executed long term for decades...
glesica 13y ago
Well I don't know if this is a solution, but a useful observation might be to point out that war and violence is extremely financially profitable for a large number of people. When we want more of something, we make it profitable (solar energy, whatever), so can we really expect any different when we make violence profitable?
kmcd 13y ago
> but how do we stop it? Can it be stopped, or is corruption in government, just something we're forced to live with forever? Excellent question - the question of our time. I think you'd have to learn what lessons you can from the peace movements of South Africa, East Germany, the color revolutions and so on. However, this raises the question: if the government has unofficially declared war on the civilian public - should the public declare war on the government? These books by Gene Sharpe are worthy of further study (especially "From Dictatorship to Democracy"): http://www.aeinstein.org/english http://www.aeinstein.org/english Perhaps a new form of government entirely? e.g. decision making using the jury system: http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com Very encouraging that more people are becoming aware of the machinations of power. The real terrorists are much closer to home unfortunately ...

mercurial 13y ago

It's a bit of a mixed bag. The Columbian think wasn't a politically motivated false flag operation, for instance, it was murder for financial gain.

mef 13y ago
Yes, it's a bit misleading to mix in US State Dept contingency plans (Northwoods) with actual false flag operations (Israeli bombings in Egypt).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hosh 13y ago

FEAR: False Evidence Appearing Real. False flags are symptoms of a deeper problem. The root problem is that we want war to be justified, because we want to be the good guys. War is unjustified, period, even when you think you are doing the right thing -- it is this that a lot of people have moral problems with Ender's Game.

angersock 13y ago

And 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.

jnbiche 13y ago
OK, tell us who benefits most. I have no idea what you're insinuating, so why not come out and say it?
- angersock 13y ago
  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.
etherael 13y ago
To answer your question quite simply; we do. When people realise it's all a shell game and they are being manipulated by a parasitic organism that pretends to act for their benefit while actually doing its utmost to control and extract everything that it can from them, this is the first step to really changing that state of affairs. As long as the truth, justice and apple pie rhetoric holds sway, all momentum to destroy the system remains muted. When people stop buying it on the other hand... Things will really start to change. I stopped buying it years ago, the extent to which my life personally has changed as a result is absolute. Not a single thing remains the same as prior to my fundamental rejection of the premises of the modern nation state as a beneficial organisational unit. Scaled up from just rare individuals scattered across the world into wide societal acceptance this will be an unstoppable force for change.

revelation 13y ago

It's really just the tip of the iceberg. How many "terrorists" has the FBI arrested where the FBI delivered the plan, the motivation, contacts and most importantly, the explosives? They are actively fabricating terrorist plots.

dreamfactory 13y ago
One way to keep on top of the KPIs

squozzer 13y ago

The problem with distinguishing agents provocateur from real terrorists lies in the proof. Enough real terrorists / revolutionaries / gangsters exist that one cannot assume governments acting as the sole generator. And reasonable people do not - or at least should not - act solely on suspicion. Leakers might provide a solution, but a lot of conspiracies are very small and tightly-bound. And one cannot discount the possibility of the leak - or the leaker, e.g. Snowden - being discredited. I would also add that the decentralized command-and-control model of terrorist organizations (i.e. cells) allows outside organizations to hijack cells for their own ends, at least temporarily. With no higher-ups actually giving orders, who can really determine the source of a particular objective?

rdtsc 13y ago

This is a tried and true tactic. It would take extensive use of brainwashing and belief in fairy tales about an enlightened government, a city on hill exceptional-ism or what-have-you to think these don't happen. However, this level of brainwashing is achieved in US quite often. It is a lot worse vis-a-vis the rhetoric of independence, free thinking, individualism. But that in an of itself (this belief that we are no brainwashed) is also a result of brainwashing. The issue is quite subtle and there are a few factors at play. One is the basic need to believe their "team" is a good team. This works with the brainwashing. "Teams", "us vs them" is ingrained in our tribal brains. We want to think our team is the winning team. We are better, special, not like "those others". It is really working against the flow when attempting to show our citizens that "yes, our country has done these horrible things to others". They is an irrational immune response against it, they have been believing their family/their team they've rooted for now has a dark secret, its past marred in shameful things. They have been telling others, their kids, and themselves how great our country is, and now look! -- a total reversal, "what, have I been living in a fantasy world all this time?" kind of bewilderment. So instead of exposing and handling the hard truth, it is easy to bury it, stick fingers in the ears and say "la-la-la, I am not hearing you, ..." This also is interesting because it kind of explains what happens in the brains of many who work for CIA, NSA and other such agencies. They are supposedly hired for their exceptional patriotism. Now sometimes it backfires, because they realize what they have to do in their jobs contradicts the high idealized patriotic beliefs of what this country is about. So there is Snowden, he is one of them. What about others? There was an article just yesterday about how "Morale at NSA is low after the leaks". Hmm, it is low. Why is it low?. Good to explore. Did many realize they have been playing for the bad guys all this time? Or do they just feel angry about one of their team members "betraying" the team and they don't see anything wrong at all with what they do. To keep their nice govt job are they forced to believe one thing in their heads ("this fucking contradicts what our Constitution is all about!"), and profess another thing at work publicly. Much like North Koreans perhaps. Cry with happiness when "Dear Leader" drives, but curse his guts in their head? Who knows. Another way to look at it is from a psychopathic, practical aspect. Do people just acknowledge the situation for what it is and say "yes we are bad and we love it". "We conducted these attacks? Great! Let us do more. If it means a blowing up a few civilians so be it." I can image many at the top operate on this principle.

hop 13y ago

That Onswipe plugin is so annoying on iOS.

coin 13y ago
A plugin designed to annoy the visitors

rtpg 13y ago

A 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.

MichaelGG 13y ago
>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.
- rtpg 13y ago
  I'm maybe too much of an optimist , but I've always felt like we're(Americans) a bit less realpolitik than the rest of the world, and that if it were to come to shooting Americans for political gain, somebody would say something. I think the biggest proof is in the Snowden revelations, american politicians seem to be the only ones complaining about their own country's systems. We seem to have a good culture of protecting government institutions above politics, even if our politics end up being pretty shitty anyways. Other countries are loud about the leaks, but only to hit on other countries. I've heard nobody in France complain about the DGSE's complete unfettered usage of everyone's data. I'm also of the opinion that there are enough incompetent people in every part of the government that we'd somehow end up hearing about it anyways.

wahsd 13y ago

Isn'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?

mixmastamyk 13y ago
Not really. I've read the books of Clarke and Tenet, and according to them yes, it was just opportune. Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al had decided to go to war years before and had written about it extensively. After Afganistan, intelligence services were directed to "find a link" over and over again until such information could be gathered, no matter how flawed. Feith at DOD was (inappropriately) tasked with finding intelligence that supported the administrations conclusions. ( http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2007/03/feithbased_intelligence.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/... ) Cheney even went out and made several speeches saying the link was substantial to the bewilderment of CIA. In truth, no significant link was ever found.

cafard 13y ago

One could add the Marco Polo Bridge incident. Under inadvertent stuff one could add the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

kelvin0 13y ago
I second that motion.

recuter 13y ago

It 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..?

mercurial 13y ago
> It is actually incredibly easy to see how smart people tasked with solving complicated societal problems arrive at false flag operations as a viable solution: The end justifies the means. And we surely shouldn't be naive about it. And if we don't do it first, the opposition will no doubt get ahead. And that's all that matter in the end. It's a pissing contest taking place in a graveyard.
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  > Show us not the aim without the way. For ends and means on earth are so entangled, that changing one, you change the other too; Each different path brings other ends in view. - Arthur Koestler
dreamfactory 13y ago

evolve2k 13y ago

So frustrating this site is unreadable on the iPhone.

Zoomla 13y ago
use a different browser? (if this is allowed)
- lambda 13y ago
  Using a different browser (technically, a different rendering engine) is not allowed on the iPhone. There are alternative browsers like Chrome, but they use the iPhone Safari rendering engine and serve merely to sync your bookmarks and whatnot with your other Chrome bookmarks and provide a slightly different UI.
wkearney99 13y ago
Equally frustrating to see otherwise intelligent people using such arbitrarily crippled devices. Try using a better phone, one without such despicable corporate hostility driving it.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago

Not to diminish the issue, but many items were not 'governments' but rather members of govt covering up errors.

TallGuyShort 13y ago
I think that's the key thing, though. I would gladly live under practically any government system if I knew that all the officials and citizens were perfectly honest, responsible and charitable. I don't think I'd like any system that was repeatedly plagued by the types of individuals that are committing these acts.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  I'm really tempted to say "that's life"; there are no perfect people to run the govt any more than in any other sphere.

esw 13y ago

I'm surprised they missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29

robobro 13y ago

loving the fake Hitler quote

evacuationdrill 13y ago
More info: "Hitler on Terrorism "Hitler has often been quoted as saying: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." This quote is based on two invented remarks in Hermann Rauschning's mendacious book, The Voice of Destruction." http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html
- phaemon 13y ago
  That might very well be accurate, but I'm not daft enough to believe anything posted on the "Institute for Historical Review" site. Do you have any better sources?
  - evacuationdrill 13y ago
    That was just the number one result, this post number two (9 total). I googled the quote without Hitler, and all results came up as a misattribution, but in my quick skim, there wasn't a different attribution.
    - phaemon 13y ago
      Yes, I checked too, but all the misattribution links appeared to be related to neo-nazi sites, so I'm not sure.

kelvin0 13y ago

This article is very 'unpatriotic' ... I don't think normal god fearing individuals with so much power would even think to do these horrible things. Time for my 'delusion' pills ... ;)

microcolonel 13y ago

Blowing up consulates... sounds really familiar...

atlantic 13y ago

Considering things in this perspective, is it so far-fetched to at least consider the possibility that 9/11 was a false-flag attack?

fsck--off 13y ago
> Considering things in this perspective, is it so far-fetched to at least consider the possibility that 9/11 was a false-flag attack? Yes, it would be completely far fetched and cretinous. You would have to completely ignore the history of bin Laden's interactions with American and the CIA, the attack on the USS Cole the year before, and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings.
- jakeogh 13y ago
  The Bin Laden and Bush families go way back. FBI Agent Robert Wrights press conference is a good place to start. http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Robert_Wright http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Robert_Wright Also the calls Emad Salem (1993 WTC Bombing) recorded with his FBI handler where he talks about who built the bomb.
lambda 13y ago
Considering things in what perspective? Everything listed here about the US was either just a proposal that never came to fruition, or not actually a false flag attack (a grunt trying to cover up civilian casualties by planting weapons on them, as reprehensible as it is, is a far cry from a false-flag terror attack on your own people).

rthomas6 13y ago

Is this on-topic for HN?

hadronzoo 13y ago

A series of CIA memos describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as American spies to recruit members of the terrorist organization Jundallah to fight their covert war against Iran: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag

smtddr 13y ago

From the article: >>"As admitted by the U.S. government, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960′s, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. See the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC’s World News Tonight with Peter Jennings." I know I'll be 65+ years old; retired in a Nigerian village eating some Obe Ata Dindin. Suddenly someone is going to show me a breaking-news article about the real truth of 9/11. Based on this, I see it takes about 55 years before the truth comes out. Anytime you read something about seemingly insane 9/11 truthers talk, keep this bit of info in the back of your mind and consider that they just might be right...

jotm 13y ago

Yeah, we've known about these tactics for decades. I wouldn't be surprised if 50 years from now, 9/11 is also revealed to have been a false flag operation.

akjj 13y ago

This list is quite confused and several of the examples are not false flag operations. As Wikipedia's definition says, it has to be carried out with the purpose of pinning blame on another group and tarnishing their reputation. > Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials. Is the author suggesting that the US government in fact organized the anthrax letters? That's a long stretch from the evidence that the letters were sent by a government employee. It's unfortunate that the government would try to blame al Qaeda, but it's just opportunistic dishonesty since they didn't plan the attack. > Former Department of Justice lawyer John Yoo suggested in 2005 that the US should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, having “our intelligence agencies create a false terrorist organization." This seems to be taken from an op-ed, which is a pretty terrible place to plan a false flag operation if you think about it. Yoo seems to be suggesting disrupting al Qaeda through disinformation, but I guess the name leads people to assume that something more evil must be going on. > U.S. intelligence officers are reporting that some of the insurgents in Iraq are using recent-model Beretta 92 pistols, but the pistols seem to have had their serial numbers erased. ... Analysts speculate that agent provocateurs may be using the untraceable weapons even as U.S. authorities use insurgent attacks against civilians as evidence of the illegitimacy of the resistance. Pretty speculative and doesn't fall under the category of "government admissions." In any case, even if true, it's questionable whether it's qualifies as a false flag operation. > A Colombian army colonel has admitted that his unit murdered 57 civilians, then dressed them in uniforms and claimed they were rebels killed in combat War crime, followed by cover-up. Not false flag. > U.S. soldiers have admitted that if they kill innocent Iraqis and Afghanis, they then “drop” automatic weapons near their body so they can pretend they were militants. Same as previous. > The highly-respected writer for the Telegraph Ambrose Evans-Pritchard says that the head of Saudi intelligence – Prince Bandar – admitted last the Saudi government controls “Chechen” terrorists. I don't even understand how this could be confused with a false flag. Just a threat of using a proxy force, and who knows if it's true. Then to further confuse things the author defines "false flag terrorism" as "a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames." I don't know why the author includes "its own people" and that the purpose must be to start a war, because neither of those appears in the Wikipedia definition and each is violated by several of his examples. But it just goes to show the sloppy thinking that went into putting together this list. Look, many of these incidents were despicable and those responsible deserve to be called out, but the list is such a mixed bag of actual violence, planned violence, or speculation of planned violence, sometimes by the military, sometimes by police forces, sometimes by radicals. I don't see what the message is supposed to be by listing all of these together.

rooshdi 13y ago

Old news.

lazyjones 13y ago

That's an impressive list, but far from complete. Here's a famous false flag operation in post-Nazi Germany for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celle_Hole

transfire 13y ago

* Bombing of the golden mosque * Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists * Stuxnet * Smuggling rocket launchers into Gaza * Gulf of Tonkin * Assassination of JFK * Oil Embargo on Japan * Selling arms to Iraq * Iran-contra * 9/11 Tip of the iceberg.

koushikn 13y ago

I thought the basic idea was documented clearly in 1984

tslathrow 13y ago

Just FYI ritholtz is a complete fake... tried to build a brand out of working as a strategist at a bombed out bank. Not saying that his articles are invalid, just that he is a serial marketer with little in terms of relevant credentials.

TDL 13y ago
What? He's been a trader/strategist for nearly 30 years and is CEO of his own firm. Furthermore, he one of the most widely read financial bloggers around. Why don't you post some evidence supporting your claims. P.S. He didn't write this, he posted to his blog.

jgh 13y ago

This is something that is really starting to bother me: More and more websites are doing this thing (on tabets such as the nexus 7 I'm on now) where they load most of the way in a second or two, and then some loading screen pops up and I have to wait 15-20 more seconds for some god-awful "mobile" paginated monstrosity that is slower and harder to read than the desktop site. Can we stop that please? Just...stop.

avaku 13y ago

I would like to say that the Russian apartment bombings, although not officially proven to originate from the government, upon thorough investigation appear to have a very significant probability of being an actual brutal false flag. In addition to the available facts and possible motives, one can also consider that all serious journalists investigating this in Russia, and several KGB whistleblowers, have been assassinated.

known 13y ago

A terrorist is a freedom fighter who isn't on your side.

known 13y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

oelmekki 13y ago

I'm shocked by the amount of comments here saying things like "they didn't planned to kill, they just took advantage of it" or "they planned it but didn't do it", so it's ok. It's not ok, it's miscreant attitude that demonstrates poor human skills. I want to be represented by people with high human skills. Call me an idealistic if you want, it's ok for me in a world where vice is common place. Any way, we can't do anything great if we don't expect much of ourselves.

joelrunyon 13y ago

> People are slowly waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war. More people are talking about the phrase “false flag” than ever before. Here's an interesting google trends graph of the phrase over time - http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=false%20flag http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=false%20flag

phaer 13y ago

I personally think that the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1980_Bologna_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_1980_Bologna_bombing should be part of that list.

tiagobraw 13y ago

In the recent Brazilian protests, infiltrated undercover policemen made several violent actions as an excuse to lower the credibility of peaceful protests.

jstrate 13y ago

I wonder what this list would look like in comparison with a list of legitimate acts of terrorism. Hint: it would look pretty insignificant.

amerika_blog 13y ago

Government is the enemy. That means no wealth redistribution. Can the internet balance these two?

dustingetz 13y ago

looks like a nash equilibrium to me!

vxNsr 13y ago

My only problem is with this one: >Undercover Israeli soldiers admitted in 2005 to throwing stones at other Israeli soldiers so they could blame it on Palestinians, as an excuse to crack down on peaceful protests by the Palestinians 2005 was the height of the 2nd intifada, there were nearly daily suicide bombings in Israel there was no need for excuses and undercover agents. Also the source basically says that the soldiers were originally supposed to work undercover and locate the organizers to be arrested (quality arrests, say what you want about that...) but as things appeared to get out of control the undercover agents (who were first timers) took matters into their own hands.