TODO - A good list
Worth looking through this list and see what belongs here:
- Funny enough I browsed it this morning and considered posting a comment criticising its uncritical endorsement of the Nuremberg tribunal as a reliable source of evidence when it is clearly anything but. The Reichstag fire is a case in point. It has become de-rigeur on both Left, Right and Alt, to cite it as a false-flag exemplar; whereas David Irving who, uniquely among WWII historians, personally interviewed every single surviving member of Hitler's staff together with the surviving spouses and/or siblings of most of the executed 'defendants' over a 30 year period, AND has consulted more primary sources than most, disagrees. He is firmly of the opinion that, in spite of the propaganda use to which it was put, the fire was indeed the work of the communist opposition. When I see the uncritical herd-like regurgitation of such things, it raises a big red flag for me. It's lazy and sloppy to simply accept 'Victors' history and evidence as sacrosanct. Having said that, there IS some good stuff there - but there's also a need to be critically selective about such things too. Frankly I am finding it increasingly difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff in the alt-media --Peter P (talk) 13:32, 17 November 2015 (GMT)
Tidying This Page
I removed a lot of references to non false flags, since they made the page very confusing. How about we condense it down to the most convincing points, so people can quickly get an overview, and appreciate that on occasions (e.g. Gladio, Lavon Affair) they are even admitted by those responsible. Volunteers welcome :) Robin (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2013 (IST)
"It is almost unheard of for a Western nation to carry out a False Flag attack"
Is it? In this century so far, I can think of 3 likely candidates off the top of my head: Sep 11th, the 7/7 bombings & UK operatives in Iraq stirring up sectarian violence (e.g. http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1556). What does it mean for a nation to carry out a flase flag? If we're talking about the intelligence services, it's a standard technique. Western intelligence services are by no means unwilling to try this type of stunt - maybe more willing, since they have a lot of assets in the media to help them pull it off. Listen to Annie Machon for more, e.g. at http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/533
"False flag" includes 'flag' in the etymology, but it doesn't necessarily need flags or uniforms. For me, a False Flag attack is an attack designed to be pinned on someone else - e.g. 9/11 to be blamed on Bin Laden.
It is on just such areas as these that WP falls flat on its face due to political manipulation -- so it's an important article, and one which is current confusing an unclear, IMHO. Robin 10:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia article on False Flag is extremely deceptive, as is very easy to prove. Most of their examples (even according to their own articles on those events) are not false-flag.
- I agree that 911 meets the primary requisites for being false-flag, though I have concerns for the limited amount of corroboration we're providing.
- I would work on the Annie Machon page but I hardly know anything about the subject other than IRA bombs that should and could have been prevented, secret MI5 files held on government ministers overseeing intelligence services, illegal MI5 phone taps and lying to government by the same and an alleged assassination attempt on Colonel Gaddafi. There is a review of her book "Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 and the Shayler Affair" here which would serve as a good start. And an article on the 1994 bombing of the Israeli embassy would be good, a highly suspicious event and a very possible false-flag. Toolbox 13:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've added some material on the debate over the USS Liberty, whether it was a False Flag or not. The paragraphs are good and can probably be used somewhere, but they conclude as before, the incident was not really a False Flag, unless Israel intended the US to drop a nuclear bomb on Cairo. Which is not really justified by the evidence. Toolbox 19:43, 5 April 2012 (IST)
- I agree, the USS Liberty attack certainly wasn't a 'false flag' properly understood. The Israeli attackers made no attempt to hide or falsify their identity and sported standard military markings on their aircraft and vessels throughout. The official Israeli position, as I understand it, remains that the ship was mistaken for an Egyptian signals intelligence vessel - no matter the absurdity in view of the extended length of the attack and the vast size disparity between the Liberty and the alleged suspect Egyptian vessel, clear US markings on the Liberty, etc etc. In other words, they would indeed have it (for public consumption anyway) that it was a 'friendly fire' incident. That they were actually intent on sinking the ship with no susvivors because it was likely to discover their wholesale massacres of Egyptian prisoners in the Sinai, fits rather better with Israeli military modus operandi than that they were a bunch of bungling sight-challenged idiots. But the whole thing remains taboo among serving US military top brass. I wonder why? --Peter P 20:59, 5 April 2012 (IST)
All The Italics...
This important page is rather messy. i.e. Has rather a low signal:noise ratio. Can we trim it of some of the italics? Or better yet replace them with lists of proven or suspected False Flag attacks. :-)
Robin 16:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree - all the stuff about International Law, Maritime Law (all of Section 2 and Section 3) only duplicates whats in the other place. It's pointless and degrades what's new and different in this place. We should take it out. Toolbox 18:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)