Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.conspiracy > #269604

Re: a short history of "False flags"

Show all headers | View raw

Am 12.10.2015 05:57, schrieb Thomas Heger:

>>>>> False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to
>>>>> deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are
>>>>> being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who
>>>>> actually planned and executed them. Operations carried out during
>>>>> peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government
>>>>> agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they
>>>>> seek
>>>>> to hide the real organization behind an operation. Geraint Hughes uses
>>>>> the term to refer to those acts carried out by "military or security
>>>>> force personnel, which are then blamed on terrorists."[1]
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
>>>>
>>>> some random proposals:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sandy Hook
>>>>
>>>> Columbine High
>>>>
>>>> Oklahoma city
>>>>
>>>> 7/7
>>>>
>>>> 9/11
>>>>
>>>> Baader-Meinhoff
>>>>
>>>> Pearl Harbour
>>>>
>>>> Golf of Tonkin
>>>>
>>>> Gleiwitz Radio Station
>>>>
>>>> Sarajewo murders
>>>>
>>>> Lusitania


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

The sinking of the Lusitania brought the USA into WW I.

Since we have a lot of ships, that brought the USA into wars, that are 
assumed to be 'false flag operations'  (Golf of Tonkin for example), 
there is a possibility the Lusitania incident also was.

Who actually benefited from the sinking of this ship?

Well, those who wanted to keep the USA out of the war would not do it, 
while the others (who wanted Germany to be defeated) were seeking to 
lure the USA into the war.

Profiting from the war and British victory would be:
France and Britain
the banks
the military suppliers

Who would loose:
Germany mainly
Turkey

Who had finally lost:
Germany
Turkey

Who won:
France and Britain

So, who had no interest at all in sinking the Lusitania?

Well, most likely Germany would not try to lure Americans into the war.


So: this event is a mayor candidate for 'false flag operation'.


WW I was a mayor disaster in Europe and had cost lots of lives, mostly 
British and German, but also a lot of others. It had directly caused 
world economic crisis and was a main reason for WW II.

So the profiteers of economic crisis and the destabilisation of the 
European nations would have large interest in those wars. Reason would 
be the establishment of cartels of banks and of the industry and trade 
in those countries, what have lost the war (Ottoman Empire and Germany 
mainly). I helped also to create new countries in the middle East 
(Syria, Iraq, Jordania, Palestine).

And if the entire war was staged, than the killing of the prince in 
Sarajevo could be as well.

This is a typical pattern: a prominent person (Habsburg's prince and his 
wife) are killed in public by  a 'terrorist'.

But what we don't know for certain: who was killed and who's done it and 
why.

So in cases of 'terrorist attacks' we must first verify, that no secret 
agents ('James Bond' or alike) have been involved.

Since this is so likely, it must be a proven fact, that the attacker had 
no relation to any kind of clandestine organisation or any covered 
support or any sort of blackmail happened, unless we are unwilling to 
assume, that was not a false flag operation.

Of course the identity of the victims is also of mayor concern. And 
unless proven by independent sources, the identity of the victims is 
assumed to be different to those of the prominent person.

(Famous examples: Elvis, Michael Jackson, Barbara Olson, the Tzar and 
his family ...)



TH







>

Back to alt.conspiracy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

a short history of "False flags" Shoe-Chucker 2 <georgewk10@yahoo.com> - 2015-10-09 11:05 -0700
  Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-10 07:08 +0200
    Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-11 00:27 +0200
      Re: a short history of "False flags" BDK <Control@Worldcontrol.com> - 2015-10-11 10:33 -0400
        Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-12 05:57 +0200
          Re: a short history of "False flags" "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-12 04:14 -0500
            Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-16 07:03 +0200
              Re: a short history of "False flags" "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 03:47 -0500
                Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-17 06:50 +0200
                Re: a short history of "False flags" "K Wills (Shill #3)" <compuelf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 04:00 -0500
                Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-18 07:04 +0200
          Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-13 04:57 +0200
          Re: a short history of "False flags" Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-10-13 05:33 +0200

csiph-web