
Governments admit to faking terrorism: a list - marojejian
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/12/governments-admit-they-carry-out-false-flag-terror/
======
rtpg
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
>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
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.

~~~
pradocchia
> 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.

Spend some time consuming foreign-language media. You'll find the same hard-
nosed realpolitik narrative on foreign governments, mixed with a much more
sympathetic treatment of the domestic government.

This has the same effect: "we" are sincere, "they" are nefarious, "we" are
straightforward, "they" are untrustworthy, "we" are working for the greater
good, "they" are working for their own advantage, etc.

~~~
rtpg
At least in France, I've found that people are a lot more accepting of
realpolitik from the french state. The limited time I spent talking to people
in Japan about politics makes it seem like nobody can be an idealist about the
japanese gov't with all the wheeling and dealing that happens there.

I'm not saying that the US is some shining standard of gov't, but that the
citizens seem to care a lot more about their ideals than in some other
countries, sometimes at the cost of seemingly sound things (healthcare, gun
rights, whatever).

~~~
waps
I think the US government is partly such a big target for criticism
(constructive and otherwise) exactly because Americans are such navel gazers.

Conspiracy theories, and flat-out badmouthing the government happens in every
country I've been in (and generally the government is far worse than the US
one in at least some ways), but they never get traction. It's different in the
US. The cynic in me would say that it's quite exceptional for the US to not
have the "main" news organization to be state-controlled. And not conspiracy-
theorist-style state controlled, actually state controlled. It is blatantly
obvious that the BBC asks for permission before running government corruption
stories for example. Hell, they even ask for permission before running
corruption stories about the US government.

But in nearly all of Europe, there is zero doubt that the main news providers
are 100% state controlled : the BBC, Nederland 1/2/3 (the Netherlands), VRT
(Belgium), France 1/2/3 (France), ... Nobody's even trying to hide that fact.

~~~
eru
The BBC is officially public, but not officially state controlled. Same goes
for the German public broadcasters. (In Germany, they are controlled by the
same people than run the political parties, though. Literally.)

------
revelation
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
One way to keep on top of the KPIs

------
recuter
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..?

~~~
heynk
Imagine you were a US intelligence officer with an extremely in-depth
knowledge of socioeconomic momentum around the world. You are aware that oil
is a relatively irreplaceable dependency and that most oil is controlled by
foreign regimes that are not allies of the US. You realize that if things keep
going this way, those in control of oil will have huge advantages in the
future. _You_ have the ability to recognize that perhaps in the long term,
this could result in these countries overtaking the US economically and
culturally. These regimes have religious connections to organizations who are
militarily anti-american, too!

But the society is not familiar enough with the threat 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.

~~~
ilaksh
"Society is not familiar enough with the threat.." Yeah, that whole line of
bullshit is definitely the sort of rationalization people unfortunately make.

Unfortunately its also bullshit.

The United States is just as much an evil, selfish empire as any that came
before it.

Someday people like you may learn to think on your own rather than
rationalizing immoral acts.

One way to make it easier for yourself. Try to think of things on a smaller
scale. Say if your dad was lying to you (as an adult) about how your sister
was killed by a terrorist. Only he really killed her in order to take over her
bedroom to convert it into a gaming room.

The established institutions need to be completed demolished. They are
destructive, unethical, worthless.

But anyway it doesn't matter too much what people do anymore. Within a few
decades artificial intelligences will take over. And it will be a much more
ethical and sane world. Because many of the problems we have are the result of
human ignorance, stupidity, and childishness.

~~~
heynk
I apologize for the miscommunication in my post. I am certainly not an
advocate for the Iraq war or the line of thinking you're criticizing. I was
hoping to propose a follow-up thought experiment to GP's in order to provoke
discussion around the fact that the US is continually engaging in such
inadequate behavior.

~~~
eruditely
Apologist

------
smtddr
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...

------
wahsd
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
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/...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2007/03/feithbased_intelligence.html)
) 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.

------
marojejian
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
> _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
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.

~~~
coldtea
> _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-
france...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-frances-
secret-war-396062.html)

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

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

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

------
angersock
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
OK, tell us who benefits most. I have no idea what you're insinuating, so why
not come out and say it?

~~~
angersock
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.

------
squozzer
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?

------
jgh
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.

------
rdtsc
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.

~~~
jackpirate
_they realize what they have to do in their jobs contradicts the high
idealized patriotic beliefs of what this country is about_

This is extremely uncommon.

For example, I used to be a submarine officer in the Navy, and I left as a
conscientious objector because of this realization. In an average year, less
than 100 active duty service members will apply for conscientious objector
status (there are over 1 million active duty personnel). If you take a look at
[this graph]([http://izbicki.me/blog/most-conscientious-objectors-are-
not-...](http://izbicki.me/blog/most-conscientious-objectors-are-not-
reservists)) based on GAO data, you'll see that the number of conscientious
objector applications dropped significantly after September 11th. This is
despite the fact that the wars afterward have been much more controversial and
less just.

 _Why is [NSA moral] low?_

I'd bet it's not because of any ethical conflicts. Instead, it's because 100s
of man-years of work is going out the window. One of their own betrayed them.
This would be demoralizing even for the most ethically unquestionable teams.

~~~
NIL8
The NSA's morale is low because shit rolls downhill.

The pressure is increased while blame flows down The Hill through every office
and cubicle. New procedures are set in place so that supervisors can tell
their supervisors what steps they've taken to ensure there won't be another
Snowden. Peons scramble to adopt these new procedures all while under closer
scrutiny from everyone around them. Everyone, including the janitors, are
pressed to find "traitors" in their ranks. All of this while
harvesting/analyzing new data and shredding/deleting evidence. I'm guessing
that $100,000+ salary is fast losing it's allure.

------
oelmekki
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.

------
jotm
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.

------
avaku
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.

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

~~~
waps
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.

~~~
mixmastamyk
They had it in the 80's and a bit later. After twenty years of sanctions they
had little left but residual infrastructure.

The inspector conclusions at the end of Gulf II weren't that there was _zero_
evidence of WMD, just that no stockpiles of it were found. It was not found in
neighboring countries either.

Turns out Saddam was bluffing, which he admitted to later. He could not appear
to be weak before US and Iran, literally surrounded by enemies. Everyone was
wrong on WMD, he had fooled them with his elaborate games. Saddam's mistake
was that he misjudged American govt resolve to oust him after 9/11\. That they
fabricated the reasons may have even surprised him.

------
atlantic
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
> 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
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.

------
akjj
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.

~~~
lambda
And you missed including these items:

    
    
      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.
    
      2 years before, American Senator George Smathers had 
      suggested that the U.S. make “a false attack made on 
      Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually 
      fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to 
      go in and [overthrow Castro]“.
    
      And Official State Department documents show that – only 
      nine months before the Joint Chiefs of Staff plan was 
      proposed – the head of the Joint Chiefs and other high-
      level officials discussed blowing up a consulate in the 
      Dominican Republic in order to justify an invasion of 
      that country. The 3 plans were not carried out, but they 
      were all discussed as serious proposals
    

While he included the disclaimer at the end "the 3 plans were not carried
out", he mixes this in with a list of actual false flag operations, and if you
didn't know better when reading these items, you may believe that these were
actually carried out by the US government.

Mixing real false-flag operations with things that were at some point
discussed as possible options is fairly misleading at best; couple with all of
the other examples you quote, I would call this post downright dishonest.

Between the paranoia about "false flag", and the line "People are slowly
waking up to this whole con job by governments who want to justify war", this
is veering dangerously close to "wake up sheeple!" territory.

~~~
mtdewcmu
False flag operations are the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists, and
I'd like to show this list to some I know...

This may not be an ideal list, but it describes things that actually occurred.
The false-flags that involved the US are the exceptions that prove the rule.
You can see how far these proposals typically get in the US government.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> The false-flags that involved the US are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Are they? They are certainly rare, but so are actual terrorists attacks in the
United States. If you choose at random an attack on the US outside of a combat
zone within our lifetimes, you have a nontrivial probability that it was an
_admitted_ false flag operation. And that's just counting the ones they've
admitted.

This isn't to say that we should fall in with the "9/11 was an inside job"
people, but rather that we should be _extraordinarily_ skeptical when there is
some kind of an attack and self-interested parties come out of the woodwork
with complicated one-sided proposals to ensure "never again" (even though they
can ensure no such thing), which just so happen to secure to the proponents an
unfathomably large quantity of tax dollars.

~~~
akjj
> If you choose at random an attack on the US outside of a combat zone within
> our lifetimes, you have a nontrivial probability that it was an admitted
> false flag operation.

Really? What are the admitted false flag operations against the US, forgetting
about how old any of us are? If I look at the list from the article, the ones
involving the US are either not false flag operations (my post), operations
never put into action, or actual false flag operations but against a foreign
country (Iran, Italy).

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Obviously if you go down this road you end up in conspiracy theory land
because everybody has their own version of historical events even after the
parts that everyone admits happened, but here are a couple of incidents not on
the list:

FBI had an inside man in the 1993 WTC bombing but chose not to thwart the
bombing by substituting the explosives for inert powder (allegedly to preserve
the inside man's cover): [http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-
depict-prop...](http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-
proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html)

Second gulf of Tonkin incident famously used to justify the Vietnam war never
actually happened. Government now admits it never happened, doesn't admit to
intentional fabrication. (Is it a false flag operation to falsely claim there
was an attack or provocation without properly verifying the truth of it before
going public? Because if it is then we also get to put the Iraq WMDs on the
list. For that matter, if we want to go that far back, the sinking of the USS
Maine which was used to justify the Spanish-American war was also subsequently
shown to not have been an actual attack:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Incident#Investigations](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Incident#Investigations)).

I don't mean to make the argument that the US is often in the business of
bombing itself in order to drum up business for the defense industry, but
rather that the defense industry will use anything that _looks like_ an attack
to opportunistically drum up business for itself. Only after they've finished
lining their pockets with our money does it come out that the original
justification evaporates upon scrutiny.

------
kelvin0
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 ... ;)

------
hosh
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_.

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

~~~
kelvin0
I second that motion.

------
transfire
* 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.

------
gremlinsinc
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
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

~~~
mercurial
But the price is cheaper if you redefine liberty.

------
hop
That Onswipe plugin is so annoying on iOS.

~~~
coin
A plugin designed to annoy the visitors

------
hadronzoo
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)

------
joelrunyon
> 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)

------
vxNsr
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.

------
esw
I'm surprised they missed this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_%28testimony%29)

------
koushikn
I thought the basic idea was documented clearly in 1984

------
known
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire)

------
lazyjones
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)

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

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

------
microcolonel
Blowing up consulates... sounds really familiar...

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

~~~
TallGuyShort
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
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.

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

------
tslathrow
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
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.

------
evolve2k
So frustrating this site is unreadable on the iPhone.

~~~
Zoomla
use a different browser? (if this is allowed)

~~~
lambda
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.

------
dustingetz
looks like a nash equilibrium to me!

------
robobro
loving the fake Hitler quote

~~~
evacuationdrill
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
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
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
Yes, I checked too, but all the misattribution links appeared to be related to
neo-nazi sites, so I'm not sure.

------
rthomas6
Is this on-topic for HN?

------
rooshdi
Old news.

------
amerika_blog
Government is the enemy.

That means no wealth redistribution.

Can the internet balance these two?

