False Flag Operations

Hivemind187

A "False Flag Operation" is a tactic employed to deliberatly harm your own side (or an ally) in an attempt to lay the blame at an enemy's feet, normally through manufactured or planted evidence.

There are several occurances in modern history that have been accused of being "false flags" and some which have even been admitted to.

The best example is "Operation Northwoods" which was intended to make the use of false flag operations doctrine for propaganda and to provide justification for wars of aggression etc against the targets of US foreign policy.

I wonder how many other flase flag operations are being conducted today?

Claims have been made regarding the July 7th attacks in London, the 9/11 incident, the Heathrow attempt, the Anthrax attacks, a large number of terrorist attacks in the middle east (some of which have actually been verified as such), the WMD Dossier ... can you spot any other ones?

Addendum:
In order to widen the scope of this I will make an allowance for the "conspiracy of inaction" type of false flag - specifically allowing an attack to happen, or foiling it at the final moment, in order to gain the same, or similar benefits of a false flag operation.

Diogenes

Hivemind187 wrote:

A "False Flag Operation" is a tactic employed to deliberatly harm your own side (or an ally) in an attempt to lay the blame at an enemy's feet, normally through manufactured or planted evidence.

There are several occurances in modern history that have been accused of being "false flags" and some which have even been admitted to.

The best example is "Operation Northwoods" which was intended to make the use of false flag operations doctrine for propaganda and to provide justification for wars of aggression etc against the targets of US foreign policy.

The problem with operations northwoods being cited as an example of a "false flag operation" is that it falls down on the third word. Operation. It wasn't an operation. It didn't even get off the drawing board, it was rejected out of hand, and the person who came up with the idea was fired.

I wonder how many other flase flag operations are being conducted today?

You're falling on the first hurdle, Operation Northwoods was never commited, or really considered to a serious degree.

You've entered in a basic logicaly fallacy, you're working off the assumption that because of the fact there was a plan to commit a false flag, therefore false flags are common place. When your example of a false flag didn't occur, you continue to believe there are common place.

Claims have been made regarding the July 7th attacks in London, the 9/11 incident, the Heathrow attempt, the Anthrax attacks, a large number of terrorist attacks in the middle east (some of which have actually been verified as such),

Claims have been made, dubious, speculative claims. Can you give me examples of ones that have been verified?

the WMD Dossier

I'll stop you here. The WMD Dossier is an example of politics over ridding intelligence, and is actually a perfect illustration of why false flags don't happen secretly all the time. The dossier died the death of a thousand leaks, from whistle blowers like Valrie Palm's husband (who's name eludes me) Dr David Kelly, to sources in both the US and UK's intelligence community who voiced their concerns, and objections vocally, privately and publically. It demostrates that governments cannot get away with manipulating information to suit their ambitions, without people finding out and objecting to it in the free press. The WMD dossier fiasco is a perfect example of why complex government conspiracies involving thousands of people could never work.

... can you spot any other ones?

Addendum:
In order to widen the scope of this I will make an allowance for the "conspiracy of inaction" type of false flag - specifically allowing an attack to happen, or foiling it at the final moment, in order to gain the same, or similar benefits of a false flag operation.

Hmmm I think the closest you will get to this is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, I recently rewatched the excellent Fog of War, and the explanation that this wasn't a Malicious attempt to justify what followed but rather a confused and garbled chain of communication is both rational and plausible, and backed up by the facts.

Hivemind187

Diogenes wrote:

The problem with operations northwoods being cited as an example of a "false flag operation" is that it falls down on the third word. Operation. It wasn't an operation. It didn't even get off the drawing board, it was rejected out of hand, and the person who came up with the idea was fired.



You're falling on the first hurdle, Operation Northwoods was never commited, or really considered to a serious degree.

You've entered in a basic logicaly fallacy, you're working off the assumption that because of the fact there was a plan to commit a false flag, therefore false flags are common place. When your example of a false flag didn't occur, you continue to believe there are common place.



Claims have been made, dubious, speculative claims. Can you give me examples of ones that have been verified?



I'll stop you here. The WMD Dossier is an example of politics over ridding intelligence, and is actually a perfect illustration of why false flags don't happen secretly all the time. The dossier died the death of a thousand leaks, from whistle blowers like Valrie Palm's husband (who's name eludes me) Dr David Kelly, to sources in both the US and UK's intelligence community who voiced their concerns, and objections vocally, privately and publically. It demostrates that governments cannot get away with manipulating information to suit their ambitions, without people finding out and objecting to it in the free press. The WMD dossier fiasco is a perfect example of why complex government conspiracies involving thousands of people could never work.



Hmmm I think the closest you will get to this is the Gulf of Tonkin incident, I recently rewatched the excellent Fog of War, and the explanation that this wasn't a Malicious attempt to justify what followed but rather a confused and garbled chain of communication is both rational and plausible, and backed up by the facts.

Thanks for your response but I disagree on several points.

Northwoods is an "outed" example of a false flag tactic and included here for example purposes. It is by no means intended to be definitive nor to be used as a justification to believe in a conspiracy rather than a bungle or a actual attack. Northwoods IS however a justification and a poignant reminder to continue to ASK QUESTIONS and ot accept the official line as fact (think Nixon "There will be no white wash"). I never suggested that it had been carried out but I can see why you would think I did, that is an error in my wording not with my approach.

Secondly, I never stated that flase flags are the "norm" but that they are a part of military doctrine as is psy-ops, propaganda and air superiority.

Third, any sucessful "conspiracy" is sucessful for the very reason that it was able to obfuscate its real motives and purpetrators and its "evidence" (referring to false flag tactics) incriminates the target - thus suggesting that there are no conspiracies or that this kind of thing doesnt happen is the fallacy because it implies that any attempt at such a thing would be unsuccessful. Patently a statistical absurdity.

Four, the point regarding thousands of people being uinvolved ina conspiracy. I'll rubbish this simply because it implies that for a false flag op to work it requires the involvment of thousands of heads where it makes a lot more sense to only include a small number of conspirators making the plans and a single special forces or intelligence unit (for example) to carry it out. Theoretically a handful (a dozen or so) of the right people could accomplish such tasks as "sinking a ship in guantanamo bay and blaming the cubans" and get away with it - especially if there was no paperwork to follow.

Fifth. The September Dossier/WMD Dossier IS a flase flag, albeit a botched one, because it was known by those using it to be utter bunkum yet they deliberatly used it as a justification and propaganda tool against the Ba'Ath regime implying that they were breaking the rules about weapons proliferation etc. Its intention was as a flase flag, its implementation was a disaster which resulted in another possible conspiracy regarding the death of Dr. David Kelly.

Sixth; there are verified examples of false flag operations. The Reichstag Fire is a good example (down Godwin solicitors). The reports of both USSF and UK SAS setting off charges (albeit somewhat more controlled blasts) in Iraq while posing as insurgents. The admission of the UK government that MI6 (or was it 5?) was planting stories in both the British and Irish media regarding the Iraqi military machine for 6 years prior to the invasion. Operation Susannah in 1954 (the Lavon Affair), the Italian “strategy of tension”, Bologna Massacre, Algerian officers disguised as Islamic militants in the Algerian Civil war, the bombings that led to the Second Chechen War being perpetrated by the FSB etc. These are all examples of false flag operations (though not all perpetrated by governments).

Now I dont claim that everything we see is a false flag, bait & switch, misdirection, smoke & mirrors etc but considering the benefits that have come from many of the recent actions it is plausible that some were orchestrated or allowed to happen in order to provide useful propaganda or justify sweeping changes to civil liberties (Heathrow last year is a good example).

To utterly dismiss false flag operations is a little naive and quite dangerous. I am going to accept what the evidence shows me but I can't accept that evidence when it is suspect and neither should you. The issues of war, manipulation, truth, justice and freedom are far too important to leave any theory (which is all that this is, not a statement of fact) unexplored.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Addendum:
In order to widen the scope of this I will make an allowance for the "conspiracy of inaction" type of false flag - specifically allowing an attack to happen, or foiling it at the final moment, in order to gain the same, or similar benefits of a false flag operation.

Taking this looser definition, I'd include the "binary liquid bomb" scare from last year in a heartbeat. The recent events of the "foiled attack" on JFK are showing signs of being a similar type of thing.

However, in both of those, I would stress that its only under your looser suggested definition that I would include them.

Northwoods is an "outed" example of a false flag tactic and included here for example purposes. It is by no means intended to be definitive nor to be used as a justification to believe in a conspiracy rather than a bungle or a actual attack.

If its not definitive, nor justification to believe, then I woudl suggest it was a poor choice of wording to say it is the best example.

Regarding some of your other points...you argue that a conspiracy is successful if its not found out. So you're creating a definition which basically says you can believe successful conspiracies exist by the very lack of proof of their existence! Everything can be a "not-found-out" conspiracy by this reasoning. As a result, if Diogenes successfully argues that some piece of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy...he's still supporting the idea that it is a conspiracy under this approach!!! I know you go on to say you'll believe evidence unless its suspect, but if you believe that there may be a conspiracy, then the evidence is automatically suspect. Even if you can't fault it, its suspect because it could be a sign of a successful coverup.

You mention the September dossier as a False flag, but it wasn't. It was a botched attempt to implicate someone by fabricating a non-existant threat. No attack, nothing foiled, no-one harmed...nothing. Even by your own looser definition, this shouldn't qualify.

If what you want to say is "do governments lie to suit their own ends", then sure...it qualifies...but when you redefine "false flag" to that extent, then we might as well say that teh Bush Administration's stance on issues like Global Warming is a false flag operation.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Taking this looser definition, I'd include the "binary liquid bomb" scare from last year in a heartbeat. The recent events of the "foiled attack" on JFK are showing signs of being a similar type of thing.

However, in both of those, I would stress that its only under your looser suggested definition that I would include them.



If its not definitive, nor justification to believe, then I woudl suggest it was a poor choice of wording to say it is the best example.

Regarding some of your other points...you argue that a conspiracy is successful if its not found out. So you're creating a definition which basically says you can believe successful conspiracies exist by the very lack of proof of their existence! Everything can be a "not-found-out" conspiracy by this reasoning. As a result, if Diogenes successfully argues that some piece of evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy...he's still supporting the idea that it is a conspiracy under this approach!!! I know you go on to say you'll believe evidence unless its suspect, but if you believe that there may be a conspiracy, then the evidence is automatically suspect. Even if you can't fault it, its suspect because it could be a sign of a successful coverup.

You mention the September dossier as a False flag, but it wasn't. It was a botched attempt to implicate someone by fabricating a non-existant threat. No attack, nothing foiled, no-one harmed...nothing. Even by your own looser definition, this shouldn't qualify.

If what you want to say is "do governments lie to suit their own ends", then sure...it qualifies...but when you redefine "false flag" to that extent, then we might as well say that teh Bush Administration's stance on issues like Global Warming is a false flag operation.

Regarding the "binary bomb" thing, that is the exact reason I chose to include the addendum. It was widely reported on all the major news stations that the British authorties were aware of the cells activities for up to six months before doing anything about it. Allowing it to get to the stage that it did provides a justification for further restrictions, higher security levels and more powers for the security operatives.

It is the spirit and intent of the operation or tactic that concerns me most rather than the exact implementation. Would you not agree that the British government attempted to use something false (in this case a document but it could as easily be an explosion or murder) to encourage support for their war in the middle east? Perhaps not a "classic" false flag but certainly in the same vein.

And yes, the very definition of a sucessful conspiracy is one that doesnt get found out, are you seriously suggesting that the absense of evidence is evidence of absense in this case? It is less about "belief" as it is about the possibility and the potential for it to occur.

I can't prove that David Icke's lizards arent real but I dont believe them because it is implausible. That doesnt mean I dismiss the possibility that the White House was aware of an iminent and catatrophic attack and actively hindered the investigations and safe guards against such an atrocity to provide a pretext for expansionist and resource grabbing foreign policy (the conspiracy being one of "Let it happen George and we'll all get really stinking rich AND get shot of that disloyal twit Saddam").

Similarly, while Diogenes may refute some piece of evidence as supporting a theory, where that evidence is questionable (the cuts on Dr. David Kellys wrists, blood pooling etc) then there is reason to continue questioning what happened. If the evidence is conclusive, without any major room for misinterpretation, and it stil refutes the existence of a conspiracy then fine.

However, suspecting evidence when their are clear and present motives for an alternative explanation and when their was opportunity to manipulate the circumstances and the evidence is blindness. Again my point stands, the mark of a good conspiracy is the difficulty in which its persuers having in proving it. Hence the nomer of conspiracy THEORY.

Finally, regarding the "best example". It is the best example because it is all documented, the information and the document itself are available and can be read at your leisure. I didnt qualify it as the best example of a sucessful campaign did I? There are a large number of other examples that are less obvious or public, some of which I have listed previously and some of which were even sucessful in their intentions. I didnt pick these though because the information is a little sparser and access to documents difficult at best to obtain.

I wonder why people are so willing to believe that everything is as it is portrayed on the 9 o'clock news, in official statements and by interested parties? When I studied journalism we were encouraged to be cynical regarding the activities of our leaders and authority figures because they have a bad habit of working towards their own ends rather than those of the people they serve.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Regarding the "binary bomb" thing, that is the exact reason I chose to include the addendum. It was widely reported on all the major news stations that the British authorties were aware of the cells activities for up to six months before doing anything about it. Allowing it to get to the stage that it did provides a justification for further restrictions, higher security levels and more powers for the security operatives.

The distinction for me is that it appears that there was never a significant risk to anyone, nor did the Brits put anyone's life significantly at risk.

Yes, they completely blew the entire thing out of proportion and no doubt it was to further their own ends, but they neither staged an attack not permitted an attack to be staged. Rather, they ran an almost-textbook-perfect police operation, and then milked it for all it was worth and more once given the chance.

It is the spirit and intent of the operation or tactic that concerns me most rather than the exact implementation.

Whereas I'm saying that there is a distinction between "the government lied" and the implication that the government put lives significantly at risk either by threatening (or pretending to threaten) them directly, allowing an attack to take place that they could prevent, or cutting it as close as possible on a serious attack.

We have to draw a line somewhere in terms of defining what we mean by "false flag". I don't think "lieing to achieve aims" automatically constitutes false-flag.

I would argue that "inventing non-existent threats" is almost the antithesis of false-flag, which I would see as creating or permitting the execution of real threats.

Note - I'm not for a second suggesting its acceptable practice...just that if we start throwing terminology around to any purpose at any vaguely-related issue, it becomes meaningless as a term.

Again my point stands, the mark of a good conspiracy is the difficulty in which its persuers having in proving it. Hence the nomer of conspiracy THEORY.

Sure. The problem is that the mark of no conspiracy is identical.

I'll come back to this.

Finally, regarding the "best example". It is the best example because it is all documented, the information and the document itself are available and can be read at your leisure. I didnt qualify it as the best example of a sucessful campaign did I?

True. But by that standard, its also the best example of a govenrment showing that such an operation is morally repugnant enough to merit it never being taken forward and no more such plans being developed.

I wonder why people are so willing to believe that everything is as it is portrayed on the 9 o'clock news, in official statements and by interested parties?

I agree. The difference is purely in where we draw the line. I think anyone who puts their faith in a single source (or type of source) is asking to be conned. If you trust the TV/radio/print mainstream, you'll get one (misleading) perspective. If you trust the whatreallyhappened.coms of this worls, you'll get another (misleading) perspective. If you trust youTube videos which tell you what conclusion to make, you'll get yet another misleading perspective. Even science, much as I respect it, is insufficient to supply the full picture, and if that's all you trust, you'll still be wrong.

Having said all of that...

A wise man once said never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. I would say a corollary is that any ineptitude sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from malice.

So when should I decide that something was malicious, rather than inept? When there's evidence of malice that cannot be ineptitude.

When I studied journalism we were encouraged to be cynical regarding the activities of our leaders and authority figures because they have a bad habit of working towards their own ends rather than those of the people they serve.

I agree. However, I'm also pretty sure that when you studied journalism they will have told you to always be sure of your conclusions and be able to support them with proof before voicing them.

Its one thing to refuse to accept one side of a story without corroboration. Its another thing to descide what the story is and then reject any information which doesn't support you.

Journalistically, just as scientifically, we should instead be objective - witholding judgement until we have as much evidence as we can reasonably obtain, and then forming a judgement without prejudice based on that evidence.

Just because you can show that some kook dreamed up Operation Northwoods doesn't mean that some modern-day event is likely to be an FF operation. That would be as prejudicial as saying that just because Op.NW was shelved means some modern-day event cannot be an FF.

Lack of credible evidence that any given event is a False Flag supports both the notion that its a well-covered-up conspiracy and that its no conspiracy at all. (See...I said I'd come back to this!) In such a case, of course, the prejudicial stance should clearly be that of suggesting guilt based on the lack of evidence.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

The distinction for me is that it appears that there was never a significant risk to anyone, nor did the Brits put anyone's life significantly at risk.

Yes, they completely blew the entire thing out of proportion and no doubt it was to further their own ends, but they neither staged an attack not permitted an attack to be staged. Rather, they ran an almost-textbook-perfect police operation, and then milked it for all it was worth and more once given the chance.


Whereas I'm saying that there is a distinction between "the government lied" and the implication that the government put lives significantly at risk either by threatening (or pretending to threaten) them directly, allowing an attack to take place that they could prevent, or cutting it as close as possible on a serious attack.

We have to draw a line somewhere in terms of defining what we mean by "false flag". I don't think "lieing to achieve aims" automatically constitutes false-flag.

I would argue that "inventing non-existent threats" is almost the antithesis of false-flag, which I would see as creating or permitting the execution of real threats.

Note - I'm not for a second suggesting its acceptable practice...just that if we start throwing terminology around to any purpose at any vaguely-related issue, it becomes meaningless as a term.


Sure. The problem is that the mark of no conspiracy is identical.

I'll come back to this.


True. But by that standard, its also the best example of a govenrment showing that such an operation is morally repugnant enough to merit it never being taken forward and no more such plans being developed.


I agree. The difference is purely in where we draw the line. I think anyone who puts their faith in a single source (or type of source) is asking to be conned. If you trust the TV/radio/print mainstream, you'll get one (misleading) perspective. If you trust the whatreallyhappened.coms of this worls, you'll get another (misleading) perspective. If you trust youTube videos which tell you what conclusion to make, you'll get yet another misleading perspective. Even science, much as I respect it, is insufficient to supply the full picture, and if that's all you trust, you'll still be wrong.

Having said all of that...

A wise man once said never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

Arthur C. Clarke once said that any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic. I would say a corollary is that any ineptitude sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from malice.

So when should I decide that something was malicious, rather than inept? When there's evidence of malice that cannot be ineptitude.


I agree. However, I'm also pretty sure that when you studied journalism they will have told you to always be sure of your conclusions and be able to support them with proof before voicing them.

Its one thing to refuse to accept one side of a story without corroboration. Its another thing to descide what the story is and then reject any information which doesn't support you.

Journalistically, just as scientifically, we should instead be objective - witholding judgement until we have as much evidence as we can reasonably obtain, and then forming a judgement without prejudice based on that evidence.

Just because you can show that some kook dreamed up Operation Northwoods doesn't mean that some modern-day event is likely to be an FF operation. That would be as prejudicial as saying that just because Op.NW was shelved means some modern-day event cannot be an FF.

Lack of credible evidence that any given event is a False Flag supports both the notion that its a well-covered-up conspiracy and that its no conspiracy at all. (See...I said I'd come back to this!) In such a case, of course, the prejudicial stance should clearly be that of suggesting guilt based on the lack of evidence.

Regarding the "binary bomb" incident and the recent JFK thing, lives were put at risk. No matter which way you cut it the authorities waited until the last moments, argueably unnecessarily, in order to provide the highest propaganda benefit. They could have screwed the pooch (as they have proven they are quite capable of doing) and let a terrorist slip through, they could have acted a couple of minutes too late and one of the creeps could have set off a device or they may have botched the covert aspects and alerted the bombers to their actions. Any deviation from their plan could have resulted in loss of life, damage or injury so in that sense lives were definitely put at risk.

Regarding the distinctions. Ok. I conceed that I may have been too loose in my definition of "false flag". We can call it a conspiracy though since apparently a large number of people were involved in deliberatly misleading (outright lying to) the public to provide pretext for a so-called war (isnt war when 2 armies fight? - Bill Hicks). The dossier was not merely overblown though, it was utterly false and pilfered from the thesis of a student (side: I wonder if the student passed or failed?) - the claims in it are outlandish and are not based on facts. The claim of 45 minutes is believed to refer to small arms and initial troop deployments, the Waterford-womens-auxilary-baloon-corps could mobilise in 45 minutes by that definition.

Regarding "Northwood(s)". I think you are giving too much credit in terms of it being too repugnant to ever be sanctioned. If the right kinds of people (for arguments sake Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush) were making the decisions on it I could see it being implemented quite easily. The point here is that it came out and was called abhorrent, but behind closed doors and in the hearts and minds of those who would benefit from such a project, is it impossible to believe that sanction would have been granted?

Regarding Journalism and Conspiracy Theorie & the constituents of a successful conspiracy. Unfortunately the nature of a conspiracy, which is an entirely human construct based around obfuscation and manipulation of other man-made system, is that it tends to use misdirection and cover up to protect itself. Are you seriously suggesting that all notions of conspiracy, lies and deceit (and thus all questioning of motives, the facts and evidence) should be dismissed simly because it doesnt conform to an easily testable formula? No, you arent - because that would be madness.

As for not putting down to malice when stupidity offers a better explanation, well, for the most part you wont get any argument from me. However, I do believe that there are, and have been, many instances where malice was the motivation and stupidity merely the thing that undid them ("Northwoods" again). The war in Iraq might be over a number of things ranging from "regieme change" to the elimination of a former CIA employee (Saddam) but it is hard to deny that malicious intent to grab resources was high on the list of motives while liberating the people of Iraq was a much lower priority. The trouble is when you put down to stupidity what is actually malice, you will dismiss it as being just a bunch of idiots making a mess when it is actually very astute and clever manipulators corrupting the system they are in to their own ends.

I am not rejecting the possibility that these people might just be the thickest planks of wood ever to come out of the Ivy League but I am not going to blindly accept it as either an excuse for their behaviour or as an alternative to delilberate actions (or inactions) that are later manipulated to fit some cock-a-mamy justification for war, restriction of civil liberties or the erosion of freedom of speech.

The evidence surrounding many of the most recent cases (Binary bombers, JFK Airport, JFK assassination, The September Dossier and a host of others) is either contradictory (a usual sign that someone is lying) or suspicious (especially in the David Kelly and Litvenienko murders). When we can no longer be certain that the evidence is credible then it leaves us in a position where we can not make reasonable conclusions. I would view that as reason enough to suspect that the scenario is at least being manipulated if not subject to a full blown conspiracy.

And where governments and authorities are concerned (though I would hesitate to call it an assumption of guilt) we should always regard everything we are being told with a cynical eye. Prejudiced or not, government has proven itself to be untrust worthy in the past, just as individuals do, so I think a healthy suspicion of motives is alright, nay, should be encrouaged.

Is it just me or are we essentially agreeing in principal yet differing over grammar and definitions?

... or are you really a shill for the official agenda

Diogenes

Hivemind187 wrote:

Regarding "Northwood(s)". I think you are giving too much credit in terms of it being too repugnant to ever be sanctioned. If the right kinds of people (for arguments sake Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush) were making the decisions on it I could see it being implemented quite easily.

Thats a supposition, an argumentum ad ignorantiam, you don't know, you presume that this is the case and you have no evidence to back up that assertion.

The point here is that it came out and was called abhorrent, but behind closed doors and in the hearts and minds of those who would benefit from such a project, is it impossible to believe that sanction would have been granted?

Again supposition, and argument from personal incredubility. You don't know that these people would do you presume that this is the likely strategy.

But lets look at the timeframe of when Operation Northwoods occured. Kennedy arrived into office, and inherited the proposed clandestine invasion of Cuba in 1960. Cuba was the greatest threat that america had ever faced. A Soviet backed country within nuclear missile range of the US. A threat vastly greater and more serious than 911. The entire eastern seaboard of the unitied states could concievably be wiped out if soviet missiles were put in Cuba. There was no multialy assured destruction strategy, dubious communication lines between the US and USSR, no red telephone, no nothing.

Kennedy, aganist his better judgement continued to allow a a private army to be trained on US soil with the express intent of invading another sovereign state. He armed them, and provided them with resources including sending two bombing runs into Cuban Air Space. In April 1961, the disasterous invasion took place. Kennedy was humilated.

Over the next 8 months, the Kennedy administration, was desperate to have Castro killed, the Attorney general implicitly gave the nod for an assasination order on Castro, half a dozen, serious attempts on his life were made.

In February of 1962, in these extraordinary and desperate times, Operations Northwoods was considered and flat out rejected to the degree that the person who suggested it Gen Lyman Lemnitzer, was told within three days of proposing it that there was no way Kennedy would accept it.

Six months later, the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, and the world stood on the brink of destruction.

So you have a humilated regieme, on the brink of one the most dangerous man made crisis in the history of mankind, and they said considered a false flag operation unacceptable.

This is why I object to Northwoods being cited in the history of "false flags" and why I dispute that " Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush" would readily argee to commiting one, based on absolutely no evidence or observed prior behaviour which would support that they would consider it.

Hivemind187

Diogenes wrote:

Thats a supposition, an argumentum ad ignorantiam, you don't know, you presume that this is the case and you have no evidence to back up that assertion.



Again supposition, and argument from personal incredubility. You don't know that these people would do you presume that this is the likely strategy.

But lets look at the timeframe of when Operation Northwoods occured. Kennedy arrived into office, and inherited the proposed clandestine invasion of Cuba in 1960. Cuba was the greatest threat that america had ever faced. A Soviet backed country within nuclear missile range of the US. A threat vastly greater and more serious than 911. The entire eastern seaboard of the unitied states could concievably be wiped out if soviet missiles were put in Cuba. There was no multialy assured destruction strategy, dubious communication lines between the US and USSR, no red telephone, no nothing.

Kennedy, aganist his better judgement continued to allow a a private army to be trained on US soil with the express intent of invading another sovereign state. He armed them, and provided them with resources including sending two bombing runs into Cuban Air Space. In April 1961, the disasterous invasion took place. Kennedy was humilated.

Over the next 8 months, the Kennedy administration, was desperate to have Castro killed, the Attorney general implicitly gave the nod for an assasination order on Castro, half a dozen, serious attempts on his life were made.

In February of 1962, in these extraordinary and desperate times, Operations Northwoods was considered and flat out rejected to the degree that the person who suggested it Gen Lyman Lemnitzer, was told within three days of proposing it that there was no way Kennedy would accept it.

Six months later, the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, and the world stood on the brink of destruction.

So you have a humilated regieme, on the brink of one the most dangerous man made crisis in the history of mankind, and they said considered a to a false flag operation unacceptable.

This is why I object to Northwoods being cited in the history of "false flags" and why I dispute that " Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush" would readily argee to commiting one, based on absolutely no evidence or observed prior behaviour which would support that they would consider it.

More naked aggression towards people posting something that is clearly intended to be taken as a hypothetical and an opinion and is not in anyway portrayed as being a fact. You can attack me all you want and you can paint Northwoods in whatever light you choose but the fact is that it was planned, it was considered and rejected or not it was entertained albeit briefly. Personal incredulity and frankly condescending tone of voice do not a sufficiently comprehensive argument make.

Further, my opinion on Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld is based on their past behaviour, agendas, motives, actions, decisions etc and is meant as an example only.

Frankly, you sound like you are personally offended that anyone could suspect those three of being up to no good. A former alcoholic and cocaine abuser, a trigger happy senior citizen with a drink problem and a man quite likely to find himself in the war crimes dock ... too much power, not enough self control.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Regarding the "binary bomb" incident and the recent JFK thing, lives were put at risk. No matter which way you cut it the authorities waited until the last moments, argueably unnecessarily, in order to provide the highest propaganda benefit. They could have screwed the pooch (as they have proven they are quite capable of doing) and let a terrorist slip through, they could have acted a couple of minutes too late and one of the creeps could have set off a device or they may have botched the covert aspects and alerted the bombers to their actions.

Heh...this may be where I point out that its possible you've falledn into your own trap of beliving what you've read in the mainstream media?

There have been a number of scientific opinions expressed regarding the viability of the "binary bomb", and they are generally in agreement that the concept was not technically feasible. The mixing of the components, in a lab, carefully, over a long period of time...sure. In an aircraft, most probably in a sink, with no fume-chamber....effectively impossible to create an explosive. While by no means a definitive source, this is worth a read

Similarly, there are reports that the guys arrested in JFk may not have had any explosives at all, which begs the question of what it was they were trying to do.

Any deviation from their plan could have resulted in loss of life, damage or injury so in that sense lives were definitely put at risk.

Well, as it turns out, in neither case did the guys appear to have a bomb to use. One could argue that the authorities didn't know this and were playing fast and loose, but again, in the binary-bomb case, they knew enough to know what the stuff was, what the components are etc....but seem to have overlooked that its bloody hard to make a decent explosive from them.

Of course, I don't rule such incompetence out, but the cynic in me says that having run such a professional job in seeing who else they could net through surveillance, the only possible way they would have allowed things to be cut so closely is if they knew the threat was minimal.

Regarding "Northwood(s)". I think you are giving too much credit in terms of it being too repugnant to ever be sanctioned. If the right kinds of people (for arguments sake Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush) were making the decisions on it I could see it being implemented quite easily.

I was more commenting on you saying its a good example of a false-flag. Its a good example of a false-flag which was cancelled because it was deemed to be abhorrent. If you want to argue thats a good example of false-flag, then you can equally argue that its a good example that governments find such things reprehensible.

I would argue that its neither. Its an example of the system working - that while someone perverse enough to dream up this idea got into a position to put it forward, the system functioned in preventing it being taken forward. Its no different to seeing the semi-refular kooky bills proposed for the US Senate / House. People get all outraged that such things could be proposed, but then the system works and they get shot down anyway.

I'm not suggesting they will always be shot down...I'm saying that showing a case where the system works is not a good example to illustrate that the system may be broken. Its also not a good example to suggest that the system cannot be broken.

Is it just me or are we essentially agreeing in principal yet differing over grammar and definitions?

Sort of. I think we probably differ in degree as well...

I think that governments lie and manipulate all the time. One major point here , though, is that I believe they lie and manipulte based on opportunism. Most of their stuff is reactionary in nature. Sure, they have long-term goals, but the reason the big players are where tehy are is because they're the guys who can look at an event and always find an answer to one simple question :

How can I use this.

Sure, using stuff has knock-on effects, so if you're good you can use the knock-on effects of something for a long time.

But here's the thing. If you're really good at using stuff, then making things happen in order to use them is a really risky proposition. YOu run a risk of being caught, for a start. On the other hand, if you simply trust in the fact that the world is full of crazies, and make sure that you give the occasional prod and poke in sensitive areas, you can be pretty damned sure someone will do something you can use within a reaosnable period of time.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

... or are you really a shill for the official agenda

I'm a fully-subscribed and fully-paid-up, card-carrying, third-level disinformation agent (senior grade), for the NWO (Protectorate Division).

Obviously.

Hivemind187

Diogenes wrote:

So you have a humilated regieme, on the brink of one the most dangerous man made crisis in the history of mankind, and they said considered a to a false flag operation unacceptable.

Oh, and just because the people involved at that time didn't like the idea, is no reason to believe that it would or could never happen.

There are similar sentiments in the publications of the Project for the New American Century (albeit a little moe obfuscated) - a project which has close ties to the White House. But you will know that already right?

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Heh...this may be where I point out that its possible you've falledn into your own trap of beliving what you've read in the mainstream media?

There have been a number of scientific opinions expressed regarding the viability of the "binary bomb", and they are generally in agreement that the concept was not technically feasible. The mixing of the components, in a lab, carefully, over a long period of time...sure. In an aircraft, most probably in a sink, with no fume-chamber....effectively impossible to create an explosive. While by no means a definitive source, this is worth a read

Similarly, there are reports that the guys arrested in JFk may not have had any explosives at all, which begs the question of what it was they were trying to do.


Well, as it turns out, in neither case did the guys appear to have a bomb to use. One could argue that the authorities didn't know this and were playing fast and loose, but again, in the binary-bomb case, they knew enough to know what the stuff was, what the components are etc....but seem to have overlooked that its bloody hard to make a decent explosive from them.

Of course, I don't rule such incompetence out, but the cynic in me says that having run such a professional job in seeing who else they could net through surveillance, the only possible way they would have allowed things to be cut so closely is if they knew the threat was minimal.



I was more commenting on you saying its a good example of a false-flag. Its a good example of a false-flag which was cancelled because it was deemed to be abhorrent. If you want to argue thats a good example of false-flag, then you can equally argue that its a good example that governments find such things reprehensible.

I would argue that its neither. Its an example of the system working - that while someone perverse enough to dream up this idea got into a position to put it forward, the system functioned in preventing it being taken forward. Its no different to seeing the semi-refular kooky bills proposed for the US Senate / House. People get all outraged that such things could be proposed, but then the system works and they get shot down anyway.

I'm not suggesting they will always be shot down...I'm saying that showing a case where the system works is not a good example to illustrate that the system may be broken. Its also not a good example to suggest that the system cannot be broken.


Sort of. I think we probably differ in degree as well...

I think that governments lie and manipulate all the time. One major point here , though, is that I believe they lie and manipulte based on opportunism. Most of their stuff is reactionary in nature. Sure, they have long-term goals, but the reason the big players are where tehy are is because they're the guys who can look at an event and always find an answer to one simple question :

How can I use this.

Sure, using stuff has knock-on effects, so if you're good you can use the knock-on effects of something for a long time.

But here's the thing. If you're really good at using stuff, then making things happen in order to use them is a really risky proposition. YOu run a risk of being caught, for a start. On the other hand, if you simply trust in the fact that the world is full of crazies, and make sure that you give the occasional prod and poke in sensitive areas, you can be pretty damned sure someone will do something you can use within a reaosnable period of time.

AH! Someone who actually read into the "binary bomb" scenario. I didnt mention the unfeasibility of the binary explosive technique before because, well, there are certain folks who like to shout about such things a little too aggressively for a rational conversation.

However, I was aware of the issues regarding the devices that were being claimed for use which is part of the reason I looked into the binary bomb thing as a false flag operation, or the very least a subtle manipulation of the evidence and facts.

The vast majority of binary weapons are chemical agents (nerve gases etc) because it is a better way to store them in a relatively inert form. The kind of thing you would need to take out a passenger jet (explosively) is more along the lines of RDX based compounds which generally dont come in a binary format.

That said, a small bottle of glycerin and some nitric acid could still make for a loud enough pop.

The reason I am suspicious of what happened that day is because of the way it was played to the media and the actual events (information on which is spotty at best). The claims of averting a massive strike were overblown, the claims of large numbers of arrests were flase (many were released without charge) and if there were no explosives or devices dangerous enough to allow them to get anywhere near the airport then what, exactly, was the threat the authorities claimed and what were thesee men arrested for.

It would appear, from this point of view, that the authorities gained quite a bit of power to restrict movements, limit freedoms and carry out whatever jack-booted approaches they consider justifiable from this event, which may not have been all that dangerous in the first place.

In regards to Northwoods. as I said, I will conceed certain points but you are missing an intrinsic element, or rather, overlooking it. Someone did come up with the plan. Someone did get into a position of power to implement it. Yes, its a failed false flag operation but consider the scope of the project? Northwoods is quite a grand scale whereas I would contend that a smaller scale false flag would be far more likely to suceed and far more likely to be implemented.

I agreed that politicians tend to react and use things to their advantage but to suggest that they dont plot, scheme and plan and manipulate events large and small into happening is naive.

Teenagers who play a lot of video games (though a video game has a set of rules that usually cant be deviated from) will tell you that forward planning, manipulation of resources and positioning are key elements to mastering a given scenario. The same thing applies to power games in politics. Given the wealth of information available to a sufficiently machiavelian individual who is weilding the power of an entire state it is possible that they could orchestrate events to their own advantage. Conspiracy is a tool of this practice and the manipulation of the public perception is a vital element of getting things done in a democracy (sic).

Whether it is ACTUALLY happening or not I can't say for certain but the potential is there. The historical evidence shows it has happened before.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

I'm a fully-subscribed and fully-paid-up, card-carrying, third-level disinformation agent (senior grade), for the NWO (Protectorate Division).

Obviously.

/horror.

,,, they m,ake you pay a fee for being in the NWO?

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

/horror.

,,, they m,ake you pay a fee for being in the NWO?

In the NWO, everybody pays. Some fo you just don't know it

Diogenes

Hivemind187 wrote:

Oh, and just because the people involved at that time didn't like the idea, is no reason to believe that it would or could never happen.

The reverse is of course true as well. there is no reason to believe that wouldn't or could ever happen. I will judge each event of the facts of that event, and will not accept the fact that because Northwoods was concieved and never implimented I should therefore be automatically suspicious of a false flag attack, whenever a terrorist attack occurs.

There are similar sentiments in the publications of the Project for the New American Century (albeit a little moe obfuscated)

Obfuscation implies an express intent to conceal or hide something. Where is your evidence that is the case with the PNAC document?

- a project which has close ties to the White House. But you will know that already right?

Yes and if you look elsewhere on this board you'll find myself and other posters discuss it at length. Where you see obfuscation, I see conspiracy theorists, taking something that is meant as a figurative or metaphorical statement about the state of IT and technology in the US army, lifting it out of context and taking it literally. Something Conspiracy theorists are fond of doing.

In regards to Northwoods. as I said, I will conceed certain points but you are missing an intrinsic element, or rather, overlooking it. Someone did come up with the plan. Someone did get into a position of power to implement it.

No, no one got into that position to implement it.

Yes, its a failed false flag operation but consider the scope of the project? Northwoods is quite a grand scale whereas I would contend that a smaller scale false flag would be far more likely to suceed and far more likely to be implemented.

Firstly you cited both 7/7 and 911 as possible false flags, do you think they are credible false flags in your book? Why? Do you also conceed they are both on a far grander scale than Northwoods concieved of?

As to the small scale? Hmmm history has shown us time and time again when governments and security forces conspiracy to decieve us and lie to us, even on a small scale, that deception is more often than not exposed, no matter how small. Watergate and Iran Contra, are conspiracies with a tiny group of people at the heart of them yet they could not keep them secret. In Ireland and the UK when the British security services sought to pervert the course of justice, time and time again, they have been found out and the miscarriage is overturned.

The reason I am suspicious of what happened that day is because of the way it was played to the media and the actual events (information on which is spotty at best). The claims of averting a massive strike were overblown, the claims of large numbers of arrests were flase (many were released without charge) and if there were no explosives or devices dangerous enough to allow them to get anywhere near the airport then what, exactly, was the threat the authorities claimed and what were thesee men arrested for.

You've looking at a government desperate for a success in the war on terror opportunistical enflating a terrorist threat. We know they do this, we can prove they've done this before with Iraq. You've speculated that this is a false flag attack for a number of pages now, you've actually offered no real evidence

Hivemind187

Diogenes wrote:

The reverse is of course true as well. there is no reason to believe that wouldn't or could ever happen. I will judge each event of the facts of that event, and will not accept the fact that because Northwoods was concieved and never implimented I should therefore be automatically suspicious of a false flag attack, whenever a terrorist attack occurs.



Obfuscation implies an express intent to conceal or hide something. Where is your evidence that is the case with the PNAC document?



Yes and if you look elsewhere on this board you'll find myself and other posters discuss it at length. Where you see obfuscation, I see conspiracy theorists, taking something that is meant as a figurative or metaphorical statement about the state of IT and technology in the US army, lifting it out of context and taking it literally. Something Conspiracy theorists are fond of doing.



No, no one got into that position to implement it.



Firstly you cited both 7/7 and 911 as possible false flags, do you think they are credible false flags in your book? Why? Do you also conceed they are both on a far grander scale than Northwoods concieved of?

As to the small scale? Hmmm history has shown us time and time again when governments and security forces conspiracy to decieve us and lie to us, even on a small scale, that deception is more often than not exposed, no matter how small. Watergate and Iran Contra, are conspiracies with a tiny group of people at the heart of them yet they could not keep them secret. In Ireland and the UK when the British security services sought to pervert the course of justice, time and time again, they have been found out and the miscarriage is overturned.



You've looking at a government desperate for a success in the war on terror opportunistical enflating a terrorist threat. We know they do this, we can prove they've done this before with Iraq. You've speculated that this is a false flag attack for a number of pages now, you've actually offered no real evidence

Firstly I never set out to "prove" anything. Instead of attacking everything around you try and be a little more open minded and careful in the allegation you hurl. I have been hypothesising and speculating that their is a possibility and that possibility makes me suspicious of a government that has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The PNAC document refers to things in the context of IT infrastructure but the idea had to come from somewhere and frankly, that is my argument for obfuscation. The planting of a clear seed in a document. Open your mind, accpet that there are possibilities.

I believe that 9/11 and 7/7 both bare some unusual occurances. In both cases the authorities and intelligence agencies knew of the groups activities, in both cases they were aware that an attack was imminent and in both cases the events resulted in the drafting of greater powers to the authorities and a tighter grip on civil liberties - ostensibly in response to the attacks I agree, but considering the public opinion and social climate at the time they could be seen as welcome by those willing to exploit the horror or to even allow it to happen. Again, because you arent capable of comprehending this, it is a possibility not a stated fact.

I am personally suspicious of everything that I see involving government activities and so-called terrorist attacks for the very reason I am atheist and accept evolution as a fact.

People learn by doing. The mistakes made by conspirators in the very examples you give are unlikely to be repeated in every subsequent case. Move A worked, Move B worked, Move C didnt, Move D did. Change Move C. Or will you be telling me that Evolution is a "nutty conspiracy theory" deisgned to refute the exitence of a supreme being?

Honestly, just because something is written a certain way does not negate the possibility of conspiracy, of false flag operations etc. Millions of people believe that the Bible is the unabridged word of god but that doesnt make it so.

Frankly I find your tone not merely highly aggressive but decidedly condescending, dismissive and almost personal. Is it really the best you can offer by way of supporting your argument?

Lastly. Do you believe that every serial killer gets caught? If so, who was the Zodiac Killer? Do you believe that every drunk driver or speeder gets caught? If so, who was the scum bag who ran over my cousin? Do you believe that every lie a politician tells is found out? Or every truth is exposed in the end?

If you do, as your tone suggests, then you are completely ignorant of the chaotic nature of reality.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

The reason I am suspicious of what happened that day is because of the way it was played to the media and the actual events (information on which is spotty at best). The claims of averting a massive strike were overblown, the claims of large numbers of arrests were flase (many were released without charge) and if there were no explosives or devices dangerous enough to allow them to get anywhere near the airport then what, exactly, was the threat the authorities claimed and what were thesee men arrested for.

Good question.

At a guess - and I stress that I'm guessing - someone high up decided that they needed a "high profile win" to boost their case, and ensured that when the arrests were made that it was done with maximum pomp and ceremony.

Security Theatre involves making people feel safer, regardless of whether or not they are. There's an additional element to it which is that as you get people progressively used to doing pointless, ridiculous, and even counter-productive things "for their own safety", they begin to do so without thinking.

A lot of it is what I would consider background noise.

If you get people used to ideas like no-fly lists, no-liquids-on-the-plane, the ubiquitousness of security cameras (here Britain leads the US by a long shot), then one day the public hear about your illegal wire tapping operation and you say "but we did it to keep you safe" and "we didn't tell you, to keep you safe" and hey...it becomes indistinguishable from the background noise for most people. Indeed, the no-liquids-on-a-plane is more intrusive than the phone-tapping, so if you're gonna accept the former...whats the big deal about the latter, right?

Having said all that, there is little doubt that there was something afoot, and I don't believe that incompetence is a reason why the arrested peopel shouldn't have the full book thrown at them.

A stupid would-be-terrorist deserves no more leniency than a smart would-be-terrorist. THe advantage to us is that the former pose less of a threat. The disadvantage is that there's possibly more of them and as is often said...they only need to get lucky once.

I have little doubt that an arrest was going to be made. I have little doubt that someone decided to - as I said - "spin" it into a big win. Remind the public of the alleged threats without having to risk a big one. Remind them that all of this extra surveillance is for their own good, that the loss of privacy and other basic rights doesn't matter if they've nothing to hide.

It would appear, from this point of view, that the authorities gained quite a bit of power to restrict movements, limit freedoms and carry out whatever jack-booted approaches they consider justifiable from this event, which may not have been all that dangerous in the first place.

Agreed. This is exactly why there was cause to exaggerate.

Opportunism. An arrest was going to be made, it gave the opportunity to push the whole "we need to take care of you" agenda back into the forefront of people's minds....they took it and played it for everything it was worth.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Yes, but unless we learn the right lessons, we are doomed regardless.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

The PNAC document refers to things in the context of IT infrastructure but the idea had to come from somewhere and frankly, that is my argument for obfuscation.

Are you (both) referring to the Pearl Harbour comment?

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Are you (both) referring to the Pearl Harbour comment?

Well I am in part. But I think people are very happy to put aside the politics of the people who wrote the paper, where its funding comes from, the groups political affiliations and the machiavellian nature of the group itself.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

Good question.

At a guess - and I stress that I'm guessing - someone high up decided that they needed a "high profile win" to boost their case, and ensured that when the arrests were made that it was done with maximum pomp and ceremony.

Security Theatre involves making people feel safer, regardless of whether or not they are. There's an additional element to it which is that as you get people progressively used to doing pointless, ridiculous, and even counter-productive things "for their own safety", they begin to do so without thinking.

A lot of it is what I would consider background noise.

If you get people used to ideas like no-fly lists, no-liquids-on-the-plane, the ubiquitousness of security cameras (here Britain leads the US by a long shot), then one day the public hear about your illegal wire tapping operation and you say "but we did it to keep you safe" and "we didn't tell you, to keep you safe" and hey...it becomes indistinguishable from the background noise for most people. Indeed, the no-liquids-on-a-plane is more intrusive than the phone-tapping, so if you're gonna accept the former...whats the big deal about the latter, right?

Having said all that, there is little doubt that there was something afoot, and I don't believe that incompetence is a reason why the arrested peopel shouldn't have the full book thrown at them.

A stupid would-be-terrorist deserves no more leniency than a smart would-be-terrorist. THe advantage to us is that the former pose less of a threat. The disadvantage is that there's possibly more of them and as is often said...they only need to get lucky once.

I have little doubt that an arrest was going to be made. I have little doubt that someone decided to - as I said - "spin" it into a big win. Remind the public of the alleged threats without having to risk a big one. Remind them that all of this extra surveillance is for their own good, that the loss of privacy and other basic rights doesn't matter if they've nothing to hide.



Agreed. This is exactly why there was cause to exaggerate.

Opportunism. An arrest was going to be made, it gave the opportunity to push the whole "we need to take care of you" agenda back into the forefront of people's minds....they took it and played it for everything it was worth.


Yes, but unless we learn the right lessons, we are doomed regardless.

Two things really bother me about the Heathrow incident. Firstly, the number of people arrested vs the number actually charged. surely, if they had enough information to assume that the operation was totally safe they would have to know how many people they were dealing with but close to a dozen or more people were released without charge apparently because they were innocent.

That smells fishy for so many reasons but mainly, as in the context above, that the authorities found themselves with many more potentials than their plan would indicate.

Secondly. The implication that such a large scale piece of "theatre" is to suggest that their are terrorists everywhere and that it is ok to give up your freedoms for safety. Firstly, their are a very small number of terrorists out there or we would be in real trouble and second there is never a good reason to abandon liberty and freedom even for the supposed reward of security.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

But I think people are very happy to put aside the politics of the people who wrote the paper, where its funding comes from, the groups political affiliations and the machiavellian nature of the group itself.

I look at slightly differently.

On September 10th, 2001, I guarantee you that anyone who read the PNAC document in question would go through it and say that these are scary right-wing guys with a long-term plan for the US.

If the reference to Pearl-Harbour was pointed out and asked for comment, I doubt sincerely that anyone could have mounted a credible argument saying "clearly, this indicates these guys are planning an attack of this nature".

Roll forward 2 days, or however long it was, and all of a sudden people were pointing at these two words and saying that their eerie propheticness was "clearly" some sort of Freudian slip, giving the game away.

As I recently argued on the Creationst thread....propecy is simple in hindsight.

The problem is that prophecy in hindsight is generally meaningless.

You have to ask why on earth someone would put a comment like that into the PNAC document if thats what they were really up to. What possible explanation does it have?

Ultimately, we end up with two scenarios :

1) Its not prophetic at all, and should be read as it would have been read on September 10th, 2001.
2) Its prophetic, and there's an explanation (Freudian Slip, attempt to give the game away, supreme cockiness, insider joke) to explain why its there.

Of course, option 2 then requires that we somehow explain a whole load of other stuff, like how the prophesied events were carried out etc.

Until that gets done, option 1 is simpler, more complete, requires fewer assumptions, and leaves fewer unanswered questions. It is the logical choice.

Diogenes

Hivemind187 wrote:

Firstly I never set out to "prove" anything. Instead of attacking everything around you try and be a little more open minded and careful in the allegation you hurl. I have been hypothesising and speculating that their is a possibility and that possibility makes me suspicious of a government that has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

Essentially you're saying you're approach events like terrorist threats with a preconcieved notion that they are false flag operations. Thats a dangerous predetermination. I would suggest a far more rational and opened minded approach would be to examine each event on the facts, and the facts alone.

The PNAC document refers to things in the context of IT infrastructure but the idea had to come from somewhere and frankly, that is my argument for obfuscation. The planting of a clear seed in a document. Open your mind, accpet that there are possibilities.

I do love it when I'm told to "open my mind". Again you seem to be approaching the PNAC document with a preconcieved notion that it is a blueprint. You find a metaphorical turn of phrase lift it out of context, change its context and viola! Your suspicions are satisfied you have you suspect phrase.

If either one of us is being too narrow minded it is not me.

I believe that 9/11 and 7/7 both bare some unusual occurances. In both cases the authorities and intelligence agencies knew of the groups activities, in both cases they were aware that an attack was imminent and in both cases the events resulted in the drafting of greater powers to the authorities and a tighter grip on civil liberties - ostensibly in response to the attacks I agree, but considering the public opinion and social climate at the time they could be seen as welcome by those willing to exploit the horror or to even allow it to happen. Again, because you arent capable of comprehending this, it is a possibility not a stated fact.

Hmm in a bit you accuse me of personalising my attack. Interesting.

In both situations authorities where aware of generalised attacks. It's very easy with hindsight to pinpoint to the specific evidence for the 911 and 7/7 attacks, and say "it's possible that they let it happen" but again you lift it out of context. There was constant chatter about dozens of plots before 911. The Met, on the other hand, is probably one of the most capable police forces in the field of counter terrorism in the world. They accepted that a terror attack by Muslim extremists in London was a inevitibility that could not be avoided. Years of IRA bombing, taught them this. The terrorists only needed to get lucky once, we need to be lucky every time, as someone said about the north.

I am personally suspicious of everything that I see involving government activities and so-called terrorist attacks for the very reason I am atheist and accept evolution as a fact.

People learn by doing. The mistakes made by conspirators in the very examples you give are unlikely to be repeated in every subsequent case. Move A worked, Move B worked, Move C didnt, Move D did. Change Move C. Or will you be telling me that Evolution is a "nutty conspiracy theory" deisgned to refute the exitence of a supreme being?

Thats a strawman, you're stuffing words into my mouth.
I accept evolution because the facts and the science support it. I don't support conspiracy theories about 911 and 77 because the science and the facts don't support the theories. Similarly I will not be suspicious of false flag operations, until I see credible facts and solid evidence to support them.

Honestly, just because something is written a certain way does not negate the possibility of conspiracy, of false flag operations etc. Millions of people believe that the Bible is the unabridged word of god but that doesnt make it so.

Argument ad ignoratium. What millions of people choose to believe is there business, it doesn't mean what I write or think, or my opinion is equalled based on a false premise. I'm not sure what you mean by the first part, "just because of something is written a certain way" are you refering to the PNAC document?

Frankly I find your tone not merely highly aggressive but decidedly condescending, dismissive and almost personal. Is it really the best you can offer by way of supporting your argument?

You've suggested in your last post that I'm incapable of comphrending your position, that I would argue aganist evolution, and I'm narrow minded. Which one of us is condescending dismissve and personalising the argument? Meanwhile you've offered no actual evidence supporting the possibilities that certain events could have been false flags, merely speculated that they were.

Lastly. Do you believe that every serial killer gets caught? If so, who was the Zodiac Killer? Do you believe that every drunk driver or speeder gets caught? If so, who was the scum bag who ran over my cousin? Do you believe that every lie a politician tells is found out? Or every truth is exposed in the end?

Firstly I'm very sorry for the loss you've experience. And no I'm sure many a politican went to the grave carrying more than a few porkies with them. However, that is not the same a false flag operation. The scale matters, for these events to be staged people need to involved, and as history has shown us time and time again these genuine conspiracies collapse under their own weight.

If you do, as your tone suggests, then you are completely ignorant of the chaotic nature of reality.

With respect again you are the one personalising this discussion and not I. To be honest theres a degree of hyprocracy to your suggestion about the "chaotic nature of reality". It is, in my opinion, the conspiracy theorist who sees the terror and evil in the world, and who believes that this is orchestraed by their own governments in an effort to control them, the ones who are ignorant to the "chaotic nature of reality"

"terrorists didn't fly planes into those buildings, the government did, to control our freedoms"

When you do this (or similiar) you are imaging a government far more compedent and organised than this planet has ever seen. As George Monibot said recently;

People believe <conspiracy theories> because it proposes a closed world: comprehensible, controllable, small. Despite the great evil that runs it, it is more companionable than the chaos that really governs our lives, a world without destination or purpose.

Are you (both) referring to the Pearl Harbour comment?

I am presuming he is, he's not quoted it, but he raised it and I am refering to it.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Two things really bother me about the Heathrow incident. Firstly, the number of people arrested vs the number actually charged. surely, if they had enough information to assume that the operation was totally safe they would have to know how many people they were dealing with but close to a dozen or more people were released without charge apparently because they were innocent.

My guess is that they arrested everyone who had any sort of direct contact with the central guys, saw if they were gonna get anything out of them or not, then released them as they discovered they either had innocents or were going to get nothing.

That smells fishy for so many reasons

If you say so. I would argue that its pretty typical of how I'd expect the police to work. Its also yet another thing to get the public used to. Rather than arresting on genuine suspicion and evidence, you arrest widely then release.

Don't get me wrong...I don't approve of this stuff, but I don't see anything unusual about it.

Secondly. The implication that such a large scale piece of "theatre" is to suggest that their are terrorists everywhere and that it is ok to give up your freedoms for safety. Firstly, their are a very small number of terrorists out there or we would be in real trouble and second there is never a good reason to abandon liberty and freedom even for the supposed reward of security.

No. The implication of such a large-scale piece of theatre is that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Anyone could be a terrorist, or so they would have us believe. It doesn't matter how few of them there are, you can't rule out your neighbour, yoru milkman...anyone. So everyone needs to be watched.

I don't know what age you are, but if you're old enough and had any reason to be exposed to it, you should recall how the IRA campaign was handled in the 70s and 80s. People were constantly reminded to keep their eyes open for anything suspicious. If you lived near the border, getting arrested wasn't all that difficult...you just had to look suspicious.

If you went through Heathrow airport, even up until the late 90s, the security on the Irish flights was far above what any other flight would have. Stupid stuff, but it was all security theatre.

Was the threat really there? Did the IRA ever try taking out a plane? No, but it doesn't matter. The whole concept of security theatre is that its not about making people safer. Its usually got nothing to do with real threats.

Imagine if, on the day of the binary bomb, 2 or 3 people were arrested, and the police announced that a bunch of inept fools were stopped from potentially causing a non-lethal situation in a plane. What would the outcome be? The public would be complaining about how money is being wasted on these stupid things when the real terrorists are out there somewhere.

On the other hand, arrest a large number of people, shut down some airports, cause a bit of havoc and all of a sudden the public appreciate where their tax money is being spent, are delighted you are keeping them safe and are reminded once more that all of these draconian things you put in place "really" are there for their safety.

I wouldn't call that fishy? I'd call it almost-perfect spin. Connsumate opportunism.

The real shame / issue is why the media never bothered picking up on it in the aftermath....but we're both agreed on that issue already, I think.

Hivemind187

Diogenes wrote:

Essentially you're saying you're approach events like terrorist threats with a preconcieved notion that they are false flag operations. Thats a dangerous predetermination. I would suggest a far more rational and opened minded approach would be to examine each event on the facts, and the facts alone.



I do love it when I'm told to "open my mind". Again you seem to be approaching the PNAC document with a preconcieved notion that it is a blueprint. You find a metaphorical turn of phrase lift it out of context, change its context and viola! Your suspicions are satisfied you have you suspect phrase.

If either one of us is being too narrow minded it is not me.



Hmm in a bit you accuse me of personalising my attack. Interesting.

In both situations authorities where aware of generalised attacks. It's very easy with hindsight to pinpoint to the specific evidence for the 911 and 7/7 attacks, and say "it's possible that they let it happen" but again you lift it out of context. There was constant chatter about dozens of plots before 911. The Met, on the other hand, is probably one of the most capable police forces in the field of counter terrorism in the world. They accepted that a terror attack by Muslim extremists in London was a inevitibility that could not be avoided. Years of IRA bombing, taught them this. The terrorists only needed to get lucky once, we need to be lucky every time, as someone said about the north.



Thats a strawman, you're stuffing words into my mouth.
I accept evolution because the facts and the science support it. I don't support conspiracy theories about 911 and 77 because the science and the facts don't support the theories. Similarly I will not be suspicious of false flag operations, until I see credible facts and solid evidence to support them.



Argument ad ignoratium. What millions of people choose to believe is there business, it doesn't mean what I write or think, or my opinion is equalled based on a false premise. I'm not sure what you mean by the first part, "just because of something is written a certain way" are you refering to the PNAC document?



You've suggested in your last post that I'm incapable of comphrending your position, that I would argue aganist evolution, and I'm narrow minded. Which one of us is condescending dismissve and personalising the argument? Meanwhile you've offered no actual evidence supporting the possibilities that certain events could have been false flags, merely speculated that they were.



Firstly I'm very sorry for the loss you've experience. And no I'm sure many a politican went to the grave carrying more than a few porkies with them. However, that is not the same a false flag operation. The scale matters, for these events to be staged people need to involved, and as history has shown us time and time again these genuine conspiracies collapse under their own weight.



With respect again you are the one personalising this discussion and not I. To be honest theres a degree of hyprocracy to your suggestion about the "chaotic nature of reality". It is, in my opinion, the conspiracy theorist who sees the terror and evil in the world, and who believes that this is orchestraed by their own governments in an effort to control them, the ones who are ignorant to the "chaotic nature of reality"

"terrorists didn't fly planes into those buildings, the government did, to control our freedoms"

When you do this (or similiar) you are imaging a government far more compedent and organised than this planet has ever seen. As George Monibot said recently;





I am presuming he is, he's not quoted it, but he raised it and I am refering to it.

You have personalised this by refusing to comprehend basic english.

I have stated repeatedly that what I am positing are thoeries and possibilities not facts and proofs.

You are maintaining a line of "I cant see it so its not real" which is the usual ostrich mentality.

I will continue to tell you to open your mind to possibility because you are steadfastly refusing to do so.

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote:

I look at slightly differently.

On September 10th, 2001, I guarantee you that anyone who read the PNAC document in question would go through it and say that these are scary right-wing guys with a long-term plan for the US.

If the reference to Pearl-Harbour was pointed out and asked for comment, I doubt sincerely that anyone could have mounted a credible argument saying "clearly, this indicates these guys are planning an attack of this nature".

Roll forward 2 days, or however long it was, and all of a sudden people were pointing at these two words and saying that their eerie propheticness was "clearly" some sort of Freudian slip, giving the game away.

As I recently argued on the Creationst thread....propecy is simple in hindsight.

The problem is that prophecy in hindsight is generally meaningless.

You have to ask why on earth someone would put a comment like that into the PNAC document if thats what they were really up to. What possible explanation does it have?

Ultimately, we end up with two scenarios :

1) Its not prophetic at all, and should be read as it would have been read on September 10th, 2001.
2) Its prophetic, and there's an explanation (Freudian Slip, attempt to give the game away, supreme cockiness, insider joke) to explain why its there.

Of course, option 2 then requires that we somehow explain a whole load of other stuff, like how the prophesied events were carried out etc.

Until that gets done, option 1 is simpler, more complete, requires fewer assumptions, and leaves fewer unanswered questions. It is the logical choice.

Or a 3rd possibility: They never intended it as prophecy but as a step in policy to manipulate or allow such events to take place as a justification for increased military spending, restriction of civil rights etc.

Or 4th possibility: That it isnt prophecy rather it was reitereration of sentiment amongst power brokers, politicians and those in the know.

Again, we dont actually know and while I would prefer to believe that option 1 is the actual truth I am not closed to the possibility that the seeds for this kind of deliberate inaction had been sewn.

oh, and as far as prophecy goes I find "The Lone Gunmen" episode to be the best predictor. (I am being sarcastic)

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Two things really bother me about the Heathrow incident. Firstly, the number of people arrested vs the number actually charged. surely, if they had enough information to assume that the operation was totally safe they would have to know how many people they were dealing with but close to a dozen or more people were released without charge apparently because they were innocent.

My guess is that they arrested everyone who had any sort of direct contact with the central guys, saw if they were gonna get anything out of them or not, then released them as they discovered they either had innocents or were going to get nothing.

That smells fishy for so many reasons

I would argue that its pretty typical of how I'd expect the police to work. Its also yet another thing to get the public used to. Rather than arresting on genuine suspicion and evidence, you arrest widely then release.

Don't get me wrong...I don't approve of this stuff, but I don't see anything unusual about it.

Secondly. The implication that such a large scale piece of "theatre" is to suggest that their are terrorists everywhere and that it is ok to give up your freedoms for safety. Firstly, their are a very small number of terrorists out there or we would be in real trouble and second there is never a good reason to abandon liberty and freedom even for the supposed reward of security.

No. The implication of such a large-scale piece of theatre is that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Anyone could be a terrorist, or so they would have us believe. It doesn't matter how few of them there are, you can't rule out your neighbour, yoru milkman...anyone. So everyone needs to be watched.

I don't know what age you are, but if you're old enough and had any reason to be exposed to it, you should recall how the IRA campaign was handled in the 70s and 80s. People were constantly reminded to keep their eyes open for anything suspicious. If you lived near the border, getting arrested wasn't all that difficult...you just had to look suspicious.

If you went through Heathrow airport, even up until the late 90s, the security on the Irish flights was far above what any other flight would have. Stupid stuff, but it was all security theatre.

Was the threat really there? Did the IRA ever try taking out a plane? No, but it doesn't matter. The whole concept of security theatre is that its not about making people safer. Its usually got nothing to do with real threats.

Imagine if, on the day of the binary bomb, 2 or 3 people were arrested, and the police announced that a bunch of inept fools were stopped from potentially causing a non-lethal situation in a plane. What would the outcome be? The public would be complaining about how money is being wasted on these stupid things when the real terrorists are out there somewhere.

On the other hand, arrest a large number of people, shut down some airports, cause a bit of havoc and all of a sudden the public appreciate where their tax money is being spent, are delighted you are keeping them safe and are reminded once more that all of these draconian things you put in place "really" are there for their safety.

I wouldn't call that fishy? I'd call it almost-perfect spin. Connsumate opportunism.

The real shame / issue is why the media never bothered picking up on it in the aftermath....but we're both agreed on that issue already, I think.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote:

Or a 3rd possibility: They never intended it as prophecy but as a step in policy to manipulate or allow such events to take place as a justification for increased military spending, restriction of civil rights etc.

Or 4th possibility: That it isnt prophecy rather it was reitereration of sentiment amongst power brokers, politicians and those in the know.

Except that the comment, when taken in context, is basically saying that a Pearl Harbour is the only thing which would invalidate the approach being advocated in the document.

They were saying "we need to expect that we will take it slow. Why? Because thats what will happen barring another Pearl Harbour".

Neither of your offered explanations make sense in terms of how the comment would have been interpreted on September 10th, unless the entire document was a red herring and that one comment really was the message that they were trying to convey!

Its been my experience that prior to September 11th, when the PNAC document was discussed it was done so by people who had read it, and who were discussing how scary the long-term vision these guys had was, and how particularly scary the slow "creep" by which they were advocating moving from here to there was, because any individual step could seem reasonable at the time.

Post-September 11th, and the world seems focussed on two words, to the exclusion of the actual content of the document.

The Pearl Harbour event, as predicted by its authors, completely invalidated the PNAC. A new course must be set. Maybe its a preferable course for them, but thats yet again an example of opportunism.

PNAC was a document written regarding how to best leverage the conditions of the day. The Pearl Harbour comment was, as I've already said, a statement outlining how robust the plan was, in that only the totally unforseen could realistically derail it.

Its been derailed.

Again, we dont actually know

Look at the document as a whole. There is no ambiguity whatsoever about what is being said in that one sentence, except when you take it on its own, and focus on two words in it.

and while I would prefer to believe that option 1 is the actual truth I am not closed to the possibility that the seeds for this kind of deliberate inaction had been sewn.

How?

Take the PNAC document and figure out what those seeds are without referencing the Pearl Harbour comment. You won't be able to, because the entire plan as outlined was contingent on another Pearl Harbour not happening!!!

I trust you've read the document, so I don't understand how you can interpret it otherwise. It plots a slow, gradual path. It explains the end goals and how they can be reached slowly and gradually. Pearl Harbour is mentioned entirely in terms of "nothing can stop this plan, except something as unforseeable as....", and not at all in terms of "we'd love to do it faster, but that would require...."

Diogenes

Hivemind187 wrote:

You have personalised this by refusing to comprehend basic english.

So if I have this clear with my lack of basic english, because you percieve that I don't understand what you are saying, that means you are allowed to be uncivil, make personal comments, and generally be rude.

Hmm. Interesting.

I have stated repeatedly that what I am positing are thoeries and possibilities not facts and proofs.

See you're contradicting yourself, you say you support the theory of evolution, yet you then go and contradict the very nature of the definition of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is based on a rational examination of the facts. What you are actually doing is engaging in speculation and guessing. Which is fine, but you say you have some journalistic training, no? Journalists cannot do that (well they can and do, privately) journalists must report the facts. I've asked you to move beyond speculation, and present what factual evidence you have to lend credence to these false flags theories. Apparently this is the point where I personalised the debate, by not comphrending you, and you started being uncivil.

You are maintaining a line of "I cant see it so its not real" which is the usual ostrich mentality.

Again name calling and presuming to tell me my position. I don't really have bonkey's wit, and his rigourous training in logic, I'm more of a "if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quakes like a duck, then it's probably an effing duck" kinda guy.

You're coming along and telling me "it's not a duck it's a hatstand", and when I ask you to show me how it's a hatstand if it moves and has feathers, you tell me;

I will continue to tell you to open your mind to possibility because you are steadfastly refusing to do so.

that I should just "open my mind" to the possibility that Donald here, who's just crapped on my shoe, is hatstand, I'm going to be incredulous. Until I'm offered some kind of credible demostrative evidence, I'm not sticking my hat on a duck.

Kernel

Hivemind, you may enjoy this BBC documentary on the USS Liberty.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6595846710992512471