Given Everything That's Happened, Shouldn't We At Least ASK? → Washingtons Blog
Given Everything That's Happened, Shouldn't We At Least ASK? - Washingtons Blog

Monday, January 4, 2010

Given Everything That's Happened, Shouldn't We At Least ASK?

Given that Cheney is apparently at least partly responsible for creating the terror problem in Yemen ...

And that one of the most highly decorated soldiers of all time says that "war is a racket" ...

Given that FBI agents and CIA intelligence officials, constitutional law expert professor Jonathan Turley, Time Magazine, Keith Olbermann and the Washington Post have all said that U.S. government officials "were trying to create an atmosphere of fear in which the American people would give them more power" ...

And that "truth is the first casualty of war" ...

And that fear of terrorism makes people stupid ...

Isn't it worth at least ASKING whether we can rule out false flag terrorism?

False WHAT?

"False flag terrorism" is defined as a government attacking its own people, then blaming others in order to justify going to war against the people it blames. Or as Wikipedia defines it:

False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension.
The term comes from the old days of wooden ships, when one ship would hang the flag of its enemy before attacking another ship in its own navy. Because the enemy's flag, instead of the flag of the real country of the attacking ship, was hung, it was called a "false flag" attack.

There are many examples of false flag attacks through history. For example, it is widely known that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland. And it has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own government building and blamed that fire on others (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it). The fire was the event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties.

And the Russian KGB apparently conducted a wave of bombings in Russia in order to justify war against Chechnya and put Vladimir Putin into power (see also this short essay and this report).

And the Turkish government has been caught bombing its own and blaming it on a rebel group in order to justify a crackdown on that group.

Indeed, even Muslim governments appear to play this game. For example, the well-respected former Indonesian president said that the government had a role in the Bali bombings.

This sounds nuts, right? You've never heard of this "false flag terrorism", where a government attacks its own people then blames others in order to justify its goals, right? And you are cynical of the statements discussed above?

Please take a look at these historical quotes:

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." - Plato

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - U.S. President James Madison

"Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death". - Adolph Hitler

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering, Nazi leader.
"The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened". - Josef Stalin

But NOT the U.S.

It is logical to assume that, even if other countries have carried out false flag operations (especially horrible regimes such as, say, the Nazis or Stalin), the U.S. has never done so.

Well, as documented by the New York Times, Iranians working for the C.I.A. in the 1950's posed as Communists and staged bombings in Iran in order to turn the country against its democratically-elected president (see also this essay).

And, as confirmed by a former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence, NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: "You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security."

Moreover, recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.

But Al-Qaeda is Different

You might say "But Al-Qaeda is different -- powerful, organized, and out to get us", right? Maybe, but take a look at this Los Angeles Times Article, reviewing a BBC documentary entitled "The Power of Nightmares", which shows that the threat from Al Qaeda has been vastly overblown (and see this article on who is behind the hype). And a former National Security Adviser told the Senate that the war on terror is "a mythical historical narrative".

And did you know that the FBI had penetrated the cell which carried out the 1993 world trade center bombing, but had -- at the last minute -- canceled the plan to have its FBI infiltrator substitute fake powder for real explosives, against the infiltrator's strong wishes (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view)? See also this TV news report.

And have you heard that the anthrax attacks -- which were sent along with notes purportedly written by Islamic terrorists -- used a weaponized anthrax strain from the top U.S. bioweapons facility, the Fort Detrick military base? Indeed, top bioweapons experts have stated that the anthrax attack may have been a CIA test "gone wrong"; and see this article by a former NSA and naval intelligence officer; and this statement by a distinguished law professor and bioterror expert (and this one). It is also interesting that the only congress people mailed anthrax-containing letters were key democrats, and that the attacks occurred one week before passage of the freedom-curtailing Patriot Act, which seems to have scared them and the rest of congress into passing that act without even reading it. And it might be coincidence, but White House staff began taking the anti-anthrax medicine before the Anthrax attacks occurred.

Even the former director of the National Security Agency said "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism - in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation"(the audio is here)

Why Does This Matter?

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:
"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."
The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

Scott Ritter, the former UN Weapons Inspector (an American) - who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction - is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And a member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

Given the swarm of terrorism-related scares happening now, shouldn't we at least ask whether history is repeating?


  1. It is a fair question, because in an open society, questions should always be asked.

    However, the staging of a large attack by our government against our own citizenry would require the coordinated efforts, and strict silence of dozens, if not hundreds of people, who would to some extent know the consequences of their actions.

    I would think it unlikely, for that single reason.
    Can that many trustable amoral monsters be gathered into one tent, and have all maintain silence and complicity?

    It just does not seem likely--not impossible, by any means, but not likely.

    Thanks, however, for asking the questions!! You invested some major time and energy into this essay, and it is appreciated.

  2. Reminds me of Star Wars movies, the one where Queen Amidala said, "So this is how liberty dies... in thunderous applause,"

    Life mimicking our imagination or is it the other way round?

    I always find it useful to think about issues by telling myself that there's always at least 2 sides of the coin...

    Good questions, really appreciate the thought provoking perspectives... also makes me wonder if there is truth, or is it just evident after the event happens? Sometimes, the truth can be obscured for thousands of years (archaeology)...

    Maybe govts should just shut up and let people of each country mingle around by themselves...

  3. Excellent article. The link to "conducted a wave of bombings....." leads to the website, but not the article itself. Thought I'd let you know. The rest was mind blowing!

  4. Old south check this out:

    Conspiracies don't require as many evil people as you might think. So many sheep do what they're told and never ask why, never even think to ask why.


  5. old south doesn't think hundreds could conspire together? funny but 535 congressmen all seem to vote for a spending bill that includes pay raises for theirselves

  6. Time to pull back the curtian and "mention" that 911 would seem to fall in this catagory. Are we to blind (afraid) to concede the historical parallells here?

  7. You must get the video movie,"HORSE FEATHERS" staring Grocho Marx. Mr. Marx plays the role of a dictator. Other countries beg for peace,but Groucho says, HORSE FEATHERS. This is an attack and then starts a big war! Horse Feathers is a movie you do not want to miss. But hurry as most american lbraries are taking the video off the shelf. p s. the pop corn is extra,but you would chock on it anyway as you see how goverment gets us into war!

  8. Very interesting article and this article ties into what I was talking with a friend about.
    What if the two failed attempts to bomb an airliner, 1st the shoe bomber and 2nd the flight to Detroit, were given fake or bombs that would not detonate to keep the people scared so they (the government) can take away more of our rights?

  9. to "old south"--

    no, not necessarily; that is why "operatives" and "contractors" are used.

    They ask no questions.

    It's very highly possible using 'hired guns'--

    and there are many 'hired guns' in the world.

  10. Old South uses the logical fallacy sometimes called the "argument from personal incredulity" to ignore a well documented historical fact; large scale government sponsored conspiracies do exist. They can be kept secret enough to at least maintain plausible deniability **. The mechanisms for doing this are numerous, but well documented.

    Ignore "old South" and his ill-informed opinion and go read the links so carefully provided by George Washington. Google "false flag".

    Please, do some study.

    * See:

    ** See:

  11. the pharasee's are very busy


  13. Governments and elites have every conceivable tool at their disposal to perpetrate any act they wish to get unintelligent citizens to give support. Only a handful of intelligent people are able to see through the disguise.

  14. and don't forget about 9/11:

  15. As far as a massive cover-up and mumness of large numbers, I say three words; The Manhatten Project. These things along with compartmentalization, as well as threats of "suicide" if someone connects the dots makes these other conspiracies (which would involve far less than that "project") not such a far reach!

  16. I believe "Old South" is suffering from a case of cognitive dissonance.

  17. I noticed three highly dubious historical references in this little essay.

    1. The author misspells Adolf Hitler’s name and attributes to him a fabricated quote. The quote is cobbled together from two sentences in Hermann Rauschning’s The Voice of Destruction. Here are the original sentences in Rauschning, p. 84, wherein the word “terrorism” doesn’t even appear:

    "Terror is the most effective political instrument. [Six intervening sentences ommitted; the quote fabricator added the words "for nothing drives people harder than" here.] The important thing is the sudden shock of an overwhelming fear of death."

    Rauschning's conversations with Hitler never occurred. The quotes in Rauschning were already fake before Frank Capra's screenwriters mangled them to create even more incriminating statements. The fake quote that the author presents here is typical. You can compare it with two fake Hitler quotes from Why We Fight that I exposed here:

    2. The author refers to “Operation Himmler” as an alleged example of a false-flag attack.

    “Operation Himmler” is a far-fetched story that depends entirely on the testimony of one man at Nuremberg, where a number of witnesses (most notably Rudolf Hoess) made false confessions under duress.

    Alfred Naujocks’ claim is that he led convicts dressed in Polish uniforms in a pretend attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz. Those convicts were all allegedly killed in the attack. The story is preposterous on its face, for a number of reasons.

    There were 21 such cross-border attacks by the Poles. Naujocks’ story, if you believe it, only accounts for one of them.

    How would the sudden disappearance of that large number of convicts (German citizens) have been explained to their families?

    Naujocks had been under consideration for prosecution as a possible war criminal, and he might have been hanged, but after telling this ridiculous story he lived as a free man. And you don’t think there was some kind of deal made?

    I do not think that “Operation Himmler” is a credible story at all.

    3. The author claims that a program on the ludicrous History Channel has “persuasively argued” that members of the NSDAP set fire to the Reichstag in 1933.

    I guess it’s “persuasive” for somebody eager to be persuaded.

    The German police apprehended on the scene of the Reichstag Fire a Dutch Marxist named Marinus van der Lubbe. He confessed to the crime, and was executed. The History Channel video fails to mention that four other Communist defendants in the trial were cleared. If it had really been a strongly biased process you would expect most of them to have been convicted.

    The main argument that the History Channel presents against Marinus van der Lubbe’s guilt is that he had poor eyesight. Do you really find that persuasive as an argument that he couldn’t climb into a window and set fires?

    Another argument is that the day after the arrest the police were told to stop looking for suspects. So? This is strange behavior, to stop looking for suspects when you believe that you have your culprit?

    Arthur Koestler was a Communist at the time and he admitted that the story that the NSDAP was responsible for the fire was invented by the Communists and had no basis in evidence. All that the History Channel offers to prop up this old canard is innuendo.

    I am probably wasting my time saying this, but try to be a little more careful about your historical references. While it is true that those whole fail to learn from History are condemned to repeat it, it's also true that those who have learned false history have learned nothing.


  19. Canadian police admit agents posed as protesters

    Human medical experimentation in the U.S.


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.