Many poor and Third World countries have already done it, after all.
The police was heavily involved in the Bali bombings, and helped carry them out smoothly to execution in Indonesia.
Turkey faked attacks on its own government offices, blamed Kurdish communists, and started a large persecution of them.
Russia bombed apartments in regions near Caucasus, blamed it on Chechens, and attacked Chechnya, much in the manner of what it did several decades before, when it bombarded a border village, so it could blame Finland and start the Winter War.
The big one is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Italian secret service bombed Italy, just so it could blame communists and socialists for it.
Here's an interesting thing. United States has not been in a real war since WWII. Vietnam was not an actual war, and America basically sent reinforcing troops there, before withdrawing them. Other than that, even Iraq and Afghanistan have been affairs where only a small percentage of the entire army have been deployed, while the rest remained in their bases across the world.
For all practical purposes, the current US army is a peacetime army. And yet, for a peacetime army, they have an extraordinarily large military budget, that goes up to $700 billion. By the next year, they plan to go up to $800 billion - $1 trillion. To me, it sounds like one large public sector monopoly which exists just to feed up on the wealth created by the rest of the nation, and justifies any activity it does by trying to outspend other industries. The US army helped create the earliest computers, and that's because they could outspend other electronics companies, and can just demand more funding, and since they can achieve results what they create, it only justifies more spending on it.
Of course, it is being pointed out that it is getting more and more redundant for US to have such a large army. Their navy is larger than the 13 largest navies combined. And 11 of them are US allies.
Surely their country needs to be convinced that there is a threat to them, lest they end up losing all that funding that makes them rich. Maybe bombard one of their own oil wells, and make it seem like Russians are moving on them or something. They are not above these things; they have done worse in Dresden and Japan, so why not? It could happen.
Prateek Sanjay: so why not? It could happen.
so why not? It could happen.
It already did- although I somehow doubt that you would believe it . See : http://www.septemberclues.info/
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:It already happened. See : http://www.septemberclues.info/
Aye-aye!
Well... not that 9-11 wasn't really shady, but here's something a lot more concrete: Op NorthwoodsCOINTELPRO
Do I think it is possible? Sure.
Do I think it happened on 9/11? No. The premise that the government carried out 9/11 disavows basically 50 years of pissing off the Middle East.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Do I think it happened on 9/11? No. The premise that the government carried out 9/11 disavows basically 50 years of pissing off the Middle East.
If I were the government, I would never attack my own people. I would piss off the enemy and let them attack some small part of my country to gather public support for the war. Attacking your own is only necessary if the opposition is completely pacifist.
Laughing Man: Do I think it is possible? Sure. Do I think it happened on 9/11? No. The premise that the government carried out 9/11 disavows basically 50 years of pissing off the Middle East.
Indeed, but one thing is to be determined to attack the US, and actually being capable of carrying out such an attack is entirely an other. I’ll never buy the fable that a handful of guys with box cutters managed to fly around hijacked aircrafts for hours while the NORAD command (supposed to be able to protect the US from a MASSED invasion of the former Soviet Frontal Aviation, counting thousands of Mach-2-capable aircrafts) stood idle. I think that such an attack would have impossible to carry out, even if Alexander the Great himself tried to.
Don't you mean "would the US govt attack its own soil"? I can assure you the victims of such an attack would hardly find it "fake". Anything the US govt does to break its own crumby laws on its citizens is an attack on US soil.
The Spanish American War clearly got it's support from a false flag attack. I'm also pretty sure that the OK City Bombing was to frame the right-wing militia movement.
Ron Paul has stated that he wouldn't be surprised if there's a false flag attack to go to war against Iran. I also wouldn't be surprised. It seems like something Obama and his Administration would do.
Snowflake:If I were the government, I would never attack my own people. I would piss off the enemy and let them attack some small part of my country to gather public support for the war. Attacking your own is only necessary if the opposition is completely pacifist.
But would you strike against a strong economic force and your base of operations? I mean the WTC ever a hub of commerce and the pentagon the hub of defense, I would see more reason behind an attack in something not so vital, like a small town or sea port but these are key industries.
Laughing Man: Snowflake:If I were the government, I would never attack my own people. I would piss off the enemy and let them attack some small part of my country to gather public support for the war. Attacking your own is only necessary if the opposition is completely pacifist. But would you strike against a strong economic force and your base of operations? I mean the WTC ever a hub of commerce and the pentagon the hub of defense, I would see more reason behind an attack in something not so vital, like a small town or sea port but these are key industries.
It could be said the WTC was chosen for effect, as was the Pentagon. The Pentagon one was really strange. Of the 5 sections, the empty one was the only one that sustained damage.
Had they blown up a mall or something, it wouldn't have been as dramatic.
Yes but this is the pentagon. Think of how inept it makes them look when they cannot even defend their base. I also think that if they blew up a mall, yes that would of been more dramatic because it is the small town violence that gets more people sacred.
LM,
either way they are inept because something hit the pentagon.
liberty student: fezwhatley:Are you sympathetic with 911 truthers? Sure I am. The Lusitania has been exposed as a false flag. The Bay of Tonkin was a false flag, and Operation Northwoods were similar plans to 9/11 for another false flag. Why would anyone in their right mind believe the US government? And why would anyone believe a commission that the statist insiders who chaired it, now says was totally subverted? I don't know what happened on 9/11. But I don't buy the (publicly) Austrian viewpoint that the government is just incompetent and not evil. The claim that Bush could not have pulled of 9/11 because he is too incompetent, is destroyed by the fact he was able to fabricate a war against Iraq with false evidence and manufactured consent. No, I don't think it helps Austrians to run around screaming 9/11 was an inside job, or acting like a bunch of Alex Jones idiot e-fanatics. But at the same time, the whole thing stinks, from the way testimonies were falsified, no one was fired, and the engineering reports after years of study, still cannot justify the collapse of the 3rd building. Not to mention the immediate removal of all forensic evidence for what should have been something thoroughly investigated. fezwhatley:Or you believe that even if someone is rabidly for conspiracy theories, they still can have a lot of credibility. What is credibility? Obama has credibility. We do not. He gets up there and blatantly lies to millions of people, and he's got credibility. As far as conspiracy theories, do you mean the conspiracy theory that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission? Or that hundreds of engineers, pilots, physicists and politicians internationally question the official 9/11 story? Do you mean the conspiracy theory for a global currency? Or a new world economic and political order? What about the conspiracy theory that global warming is a myth? Maybe you are talking about the bank conspiracy, to have a central non-governmental cartel assume control of the nation's currency? Maybe you mean the Tuskeegee conspiracy where black men were infected with syphilis. Or where the CIA experimented on Canadians in a Montreal hospital. Is MK Ultra a conspiracy? What about Operation Mockingbird? Were the results of the Church committee hearings just a figment of our imaginations? Did Barry Goldwater rail against the Trilateral Commission? Did Reagan promise during the presidential primaries to investigate the Trilateral Commission if elected? Was Eisenhower crazy when he warned about the military industrial complex? Are these just figments of some conspiratorial fiction? I guess next we're supposed to believe that the US government isn't monitoring all communications illegally and they do not kidnap people and send them to Syria to be tortured without due process...
fezwhatley:Are you sympathetic with 911 truthers?
Sure I am. The Lusitania has been exposed as a false flag. The Bay of Tonkin was a false flag, and Operation Northwoods were similar plans to 9/11 for another false flag. Why would anyone in their right mind believe the US government? And why would anyone believe a commission that the statist insiders who chaired it, now says was totally subverted?
I don't know what happened on 9/11. But I don't buy the (publicly) Austrian viewpoint that the government is just incompetent and not evil. The claim that Bush could not have pulled of 9/11 because he is too incompetent, is destroyed by the fact he was able to fabricate a war against Iraq with false evidence and manufactured consent.
No, I don't think it helps Austrians to run around screaming 9/11 was an inside job, or acting like a bunch of Alex Jones idiot e-fanatics. But at the same time, the whole thing stinks, from the way testimonies were falsified, no one was fired, and the engineering reports after years of study, still cannot justify the collapse of the 3rd building. Not to mention the immediate removal of all forensic evidence for what should have been something thoroughly investigated.
fezwhatley:Or you believe that even if someone is rabidly for conspiracy theories, they still can have a lot of credibility.
What is credibility? Obama has credibility. We do not. He gets up there and blatantly lies to millions of people, and he's got credibility.
As far as conspiracy theories, do you mean the conspiracy theory that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission? Or that hundreds of engineers, pilots, physicists and politicians internationally question the official 9/11 story? Do you mean the conspiracy theory for a global currency? Or a new world economic and political order?
What about the conspiracy theory that global warming is a myth?
Maybe you are talking about the bank conspiracy, to have a central non-governmental cartel assume control of the nation's currency?
Maybe you mean the Tuskeegee conspiracy where black men were infected with syphilis. Or where the CIA experimented on Canadians in a Montreal hospital. Is MK Ultra a conspiracy? What about Operation Mockingbird? Were the results of the Church committee hearings just a figment of our imaginations? Did Barry Goldwater rail against the Trilateral Commission? Did Reagan promise during the presidential primaries to investigate the Trilateral Commission if elected? Was Eisenhower crazy when he warned about the military industrial complex? Are these just figments of some conspiratorial fiction?
I guess next we're supposed to believe that the US government isn't monitoring all communications illegally and they do not kidnap people and send them to Syria to be tortured without due process...
... in answer to the OP title: yes it would, it has and will again.
Laughing Man: Yes but this is the pentagon. Think of how inept it makes them look when they cannot even defend their base. I also think that if they blew up a mall, yes that would of been more dramatic because it is the small town violence that gets more people sacred.
I don't think bombing a mall would not have been as tragic. It is too regular. I think they needed an international event to do international things. If Islamists bombed a mall using a van or something, the threat would seem more domestic. But most americans think that evil dudes from some other country boarded a plane in a shady country and flew it to america because of their foreign agenda.
None of the false flag targets have ever been purely domestic areas... they've always gone for the international element.
So remember that the US really wanted the whole world's support with this war, which makes the WTC more attractive. As Americans we might view this as just a symbol of commerce but its probably one of the most international buildings in the world. The media didn't really play up the pentagon bombing, but it was probably a much bigger deal to military people, who are important to have on your side if you want a war. And as for decimating the economy... they had an ace in the hole with low interests rates, as we all know ;). And in a democracy the leaders don't need to safeguard the long term good of the country as Hoppe explains. And even if the whole of the US economy were decreasing, special interests could still be gaining... of course the military industrial complex took off again :P
America already has more than enough enemies in the world to supplant the need for nefarious government plots. Such is life when your nation is running a global imperialist venture. Just ask the British...
Knight_of_BAAWA: Snowflake:If I were the government, I would never attack my own people. I would piss off the enemy and let them attack some small part of my country to gather public support for the war. Attacking your own is only necessary if the opposition is completely pacifist.Sounds a lot like what FDR did, goading Japan into attacking.
It is even said that the US government made sure that the Pearl Harbour attack was to happen as smoothly and effectively as possible. Hell, they even knew that Pearl Harbour would be the exact place they would attack years in advance.
I don't believe it, but the US legislature back then was extremely isolationist and unwilling to interfere in external matters, and it took Pearl Harbour to convince them to go to war. What else can be said?
USA has already faked attacks two times for sure:
Prateek Sanjay:the US legislature back then was extremely isolationist
Non-interventionist. Isolationism is something different.
Non-interventionist in foreign policy matters, I guess, but seeing the history of the Depression, they were pretty interventionist back then.
I understand isolationism can possibly imply xenophobic lockdowns and stopping free trade when it is used outside of context, but it sounds like an easy way of saying non-interventionist in foreign policy. :)
But yeah, thinking about the fact that US used to be inclined towards not intervening abroad, it makes me realize that WW2 totally changed the American political landscapes, and the old anti-war group never managed to get re-elected again. This one Republican woman in their legislature, whose name I can't remember who was a total pacifist and anti-war, was the only one who voted against going to war, and she never got re-elected again. The end of her political career possibly signalled the end of the classical liberal America. The pro-war sentiment created by a war advertised as a "good war" caused the public to favour aggressive international policy. It was just that convenient.
Much of what is considered "fringe" in modern politics, especially many so-called libertarian ideas, used to be mainstream ideas among American public. It took a Depression and a furious war fueled by hateful war propoganda to turn this nation into something else. It's like how Arabs had become a civilized cultured people around their better days, but the Crusades caused them to regress back to barbarism.
Prateek Sanjay:I don't believe it, but the US legislature back then was extremely isolationist and unwilling to interfere in external matters
Manic:Gulf of Tonkin incident, where USA again faked the attack to engage in Vietnam war.
Knowing an enemy will attack and not doing something to stop it would not be a false flag operation. The false flag ops are to frame another nation or entity to advance a political or economic agenda. Letting an enemy attack freely - like FDR allowed at Pearl Habor - is just negligence for some political or economic gain.
Could the U.S. have known about the 9/11 attack beforehand? That was the opinion of the 9/11 Report, which led to recommendations to share intelligence data. The U.S. had information it could have used to predict and possibly prevent the attack. Could some agencies have had enough data but did nothing to stop the attack? It's possible.
Here are some things we know with respect to the early days of the Bush Administration:
1. The Clinton Administration had cut into the intelligence services, in the opinion of the Bush Adminstration.2. The Clinton Administration had cut into Defense, in the opinion of the Bush Administration.3. Bush, via his father, was well connected with people in the intelligence services who did not like the way thinks had gone during the 90's.4. A good portion of the Bush Administration supported the idea of spreading democracy as a means of gaining a geopolitical advantage.5. Donald Rumsfeld intended to reshape the military from a Cold War military to one capable of facing emerging threats - like terrorism and limited nuclear missiles from rogue nations.
There was plenty of motivation to change the status quo, and a 9/11 attack presented the justification to do so - at least justification the administration could sell to the American people.
There are unproven allegations that the U.S. Government, or some part of it, staged the 9/11 attacks utilizing al-Queda operatives. There was an established relationship between the CIA and bin Laden during the 1980s, so it's possible that al-Queda may just be a front organization for some U.S. Government group (known or unknown by the Administration). The end of the Cold War left the U.S. without a publicly identifiable enemy, so a terrorist organization would have been one of the means to establish a threat for a country where a portion of it's economy (not to mention a government) depended on such threats. There are many irregularities related to 9/11: lack of air defense (stand down condition), missing black boxes, a near-perfect set of events to take down three WTC buildings (including one that was not hit), a less-than-perfect hit on the Pentagon, lack of evidence available for independent investigation, etc. Such irregularities are not proof of a conspiracy, but there is enough there for some people to question what really happened. I also do not doubt there is a lot of disinformation out there.
As for false flag operations, they are extremely difficult to prove since by design they are meant to target other nations or entities. Doctoring evidence is very much a part of the false flag ops. False flag operations of the past did not have the knowledge of modern forensic evidence, and are easier to prove than more sophisticated operations of today.
The most probable use of false flag operations by U.S. Government operatives are more likely to involve third parties in order to instigate something that may benefit U.S. national interests (as deemed to be by the Administration).
Remember the maine?
Snowflake: Manic:Gulf of Tonkin incident, where USA again faked the attack to engage in Vietnam war. Could I get a link to an overview? Wiki say it not false flag :(
It is a known fact. The Vietnamese goverment has been saying that for decades. Several years ago report came out. Here is something I found by quick search.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-5IKhFZ-bFe_Nc957JypHhNTMxQ
But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.
That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.
The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.
"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.
Snowflake: a link to an overview? Wiki say it not false flag :(
"Mr. Hanyok concluded that the NSA had initially misinterpreted North Vietnamese intercepts, believing there was an attack on August 4. Midlevel NSA officials almost immediately discovered the error, he concluded, but covered it up by altering documents, so as to make it appear the second attack had happened."
That was all I saw on wiki, everything else is non authoritative. There should be some actual declassified documents if alex jones is right.
but why would a president allow his state to be harmed when he could find any number of options to create the same effect? Pearl Harbor would've been just as infamous or offensive had the americans won the battle and it would've been just as likely to get the US into war.
Unless of course roosevelt (or any hypothetical leader) was afraid of risking his best troops? Either way -it seems hard to accept that someone who is raised on altruistic ethics can ultimately just sell-out his own countrymen unless their was some greater cause.
fakename:Pearl Harbor would've been just as infamous or offensive had the americans won the battle and it would've been just as likely to get the US into war.
Also the enemy isn't so dangerous if you can fend him off even if he surprise attacks you.
Snowflake:Also the enemy isn't so dangerous if you can fend him off even if he surprise attacks you.
well maybe but the indians, the mexicans, etc. weren't so dangerous and we attacked them pretty much all the time. The fact that there was an attack at all would be used to rouse the national honor and get people behind the war.
Snowflake:Like a ton of the navy was destroyed in pearl harbor... gotta rebuild it. Guess its good for the MIC.
Perhaps roosevelt (or anyother leader) was really concerned about the MIC. Still, why risk losing a lot of your navy just to rebuild it? There must be some other less obvious motivation or reason altogether if we are to believe that any leaderx would neglect countryb.
Merlin:NORAD command (supposed to be able to protect the US from a MASSED invasion of the former Soviet Frontal Aviation, counting thousands of Mach-2-capable aircrafts) stood idle. I think that such an attack would have impossible to carry out, even if Alexander the Great himself tried to.
Well, no it doesn't work like that.
The US has several anti-ballistic missile radars pointed directly at the former Soviet Union, which is to say, at the North Pole. These would detect missiles coming over the horizon, and identify them as missiles by their flight dynamics. Then of course they would alert the US defenses. As far as thousands of Mach-2 capabale aircraft, we have no defense on US soil which could stop such a thing, haven't since about the 60's. There USED to be Nike missile batteries near major cities, now all long gone. No need for them, no country has such a force.
As far as 9/11, the anti-ballistic missile radars would never know what was going on. They're pointed AWAY from the US. I'm not aware whether US military commonly monitors US air traffic. I doubt it.
Yet all the aircraft carriers were conveniently out to sea and they also happened to be what won the pacific war. If you had a bit of military foresight I don't think it Pearl Harbor would have been a risk at all, I am confident that people in DC knew the attack was coming and let it play out purposefully. Japan was only interested in getting the US out of the Pacific so they could go about their empire business there without being bothered, even if the worst came out of it and the US lost the war there would still be extremely little personal risk to the politicians DC.
Kraig: Yet all the aircraft carriers were conveniently out to sea and they also happened to be what won the pacific war. If you had a bit of military foresight I don't think it Pearl Harbor would have been a risk at all, I am confident that people in DC knew the attack was coming and let it play out purposefully. Japan was only interested in getting the US out of the Pacific so they could go about their empire business there without being bothered, even if the worst came out of it and the US lost the war there would still be extremely little personal risk to the politicians DC.
The great thing about being attacked by an "evil" imperialist force is that when you respond your imperialism becomes "righteous".
Hard Rain:The great thing about being attacked by an "evil" imperialist force is that when you respond your imperialism becomes "righteous".
Like at the alamo?
twistedbydsign99: Hard Rain:The great thing about being attacked by an "evil" imperialist force is that when you respond your imperialism becomes "righteous". Like at the alamo?
Yeah, the instances are repeated ad nauseum throughout human history. But the victors get to write history. I'm inclined to agree with Twain on this:
"Talking of patriotism, what humbug it is; it is a word which always commemorates a robbery. There isn't a foot of land in the world which doesn't represent the ousting and re-ousting of a long line of successive owners."
tfr000: Well, no it doesn't work like that. The US has several anti-ballistic missile radars pointed directly at the former Soviet Union, which is to say, at the North Pole. These would detect missiles coming over the horizon, and identify them as missiles by their flight dynamics. Then of course they would alert the US defenses. As far as thousands of Mach-2 capabale aircraft, we have no defense on US soil which could stop such a thing, haven't since about the 60's. There USED to be Nike missile batteries near major cities, now all long gone. No need for them, no country has such a force. As far as 9/11, the anti-ballistic missile radars would never know what was going on. They're pointed AWAY from the US. I'm not aware whether US military commonly monitors US air traffic. I doubt it.
As far as I know every flight entering or leaving the US, from airliners to private monoplanes MUST be registered and the Air Force should be notified, else fighters are scrambled to intercept the flight.
Also from the 1990’s onward, the US military strategy has followed the “1-4-2-1” pattern. US forces should be large enough to simultaneously:
a) defend continental US,
b) keep a noticeable military presence in four theaters: western Europe, middle east, north-east Asia and south-east Asia,
c) fight two local wars and,
d) win one of them.
So, at any time the US army is well capable of defending its own territory. It is true that SAM batteries are no longer present but F-16 and F-15 fighters are stationed near all major cities and can be scrambled within minutes from notice.
Also keep in mind that roughly since 1999 Russia has been intruding in NATO airspace (including Alaska) so the US Air Force has every justification to be present in the States, not only abroad.
NORAD acknowledged that being unable to intercept (note: not shoot down, merely intercept, for strafing both engines of an airliner would force the aircraft to glide to the ground, potentially leaving no casualties at all) three of four airliners that had lost contact from 90 minutes or so was gross but hid behind the fact that that very day a major air force exercise was in act and the pilots had no way to know whether the hijackings where real or simulated. What a coincidence…