The term false-flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. The goal is to both enrage the people as well as to generate fear.
The US has a long history of false-flag operations. Below, you will see a few.
The proposed, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro’s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
Although Northwoods was never implemented, the fact that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff would consider sacrificing hundreds of lives in order to provoke a war with and invasion of Cuba says a lot.
Then there was the Spanish-American war, 1898: The incident that provoked and angered people was the surprise explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana, Cuba, where 255 of the crew died. The press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was likely due to some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armor plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.
World War I, 1914–1918: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1,200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, Britain and France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship. In other words, they were using 1,200 passengers as shields for the transport of war weapons.
Questions have been raised as to whether the US informed Germany of the military hardware being shipped on the Lusitania. This incident was used to gather popular support for the US to enter WW1.
The attack on Pearl Harbor has raised a lot of questions. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes, the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but President Roosevelt did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.
Vietnam War: “The Tonkin incident”, where the American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. This incident was used to get popular support for the escalation of US involvement in the Vietnam War
Grenada invasion: The situation in Grenada had been of concern to American officials since 1979, when the leftist Maurice Bishop seized power and began to develop close relations with Cuba. In August 1981, the United States carried out a rehearsal of a direct military invasion by air and sea against the Caribbean island of Grenada, labeled Ocean Venture 81, to install there a pro-U.S. regime, according to a plan rehearsed that weekend in the Puerto Rican Island, Vieques.
In 1983, Bishop and others in his government, were assassinated. Protesters took to the streets and violence escalated. Citing the danger to the U.S. medical students at the St. George medical school in Grenada as a rationale, Reagan ordered nearly 2,000 U.S. troops onto the island, where they soon found themselves facing opposition from Grenadan armed forces. Reagan ordered in more troops, and by the time the fighting was done, nearly 6,000 U.S. troops were in Grenada.
Imagine, if you will, that this little country with a population of approximately 100,000 being invaded by 6,000 troops of the most powerful military in the world. It is evident that Ocean Venture 81 was a practice run for the actual invasion of Grenada, Urgent Fury, in 1983.
Was it the US, worried about the leftist government of Grenada having friendly relations with communist Cuba and by extension, the Soviet Union, the instrument behind the assassination?
Eventually, the government collapsed and was replaced by one acceptable to the United States.
And, of course, we cannot talk about false-flag operations without including the mother of all false-flag operations, 9/11. Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden, was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed would be much beyond the capabilities of anything or anyone in Afghanistan. Such an operation had to involve forgery, infiltration, coordination of activities, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation and so on.
Yet, 9/11 was the rationale for the war on terror and the continuous wars during the past 16 years. Was this event conducted by bin Laden and 19 Arabs with box cutters? Or, was it a false-flag operation that would get the American people to support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Was it about democracy and freedom in the Middle East or was it about US access to oil and gas?
In 1997, a group of neocons published a document, titled “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). This document, with the Soviet Union no longer able to counter US aggression, called for US global domination of resources and markets. They recognized that they would be unable to get public support for this endeavor without a “New Pearl Harbor.” Hence, along comes 9/11. Quite a coincidence.
Just as a matter of information, the following signers of the Project for a New American Century became high level administrators within the George W. Bush administration. They are Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby. Another interesting coincidence.
Predictably, George W. Bush declared a war on terror . . . a war that cannot be ended or won because there is no entity to defeat. It is impossible to defeat a military or political strategy. As a result of 9/11, the US has been at war since late 2001 when it invaded Afghanistan, having bombed 7 different, sovereign states, murdering hundreds of thousands, and displacing millions from their homes.
The Ghouta chemical attack occurred in Ghouta, Syria, during the fighting in Syria, in the early hours of 21 August 2013. Two areas in the suburbs around Damascus, Syria, were struck by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin. Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people to 1,729. The US and Western Europe immediately held Syrian President Bashar al Assad and his army responsible for the gassing of the Syrian people.
US President Obama had clearly warned Assad that if gas was used by his army, the US would respond by expanding their involvement in the conflict.
There was never substantial evidence produced that verified that Assad was responsible for the gas attack. In fact, there was strong indications that the so-called “moderates”, supported by the US, were the party responsible.
Let’s look at the variables. The US wanted regime change in Syria and was supporting, both monetarily and militarily, efforts to overthrow Assad’s government. Assad had the overwhelming support of the Syrian people having garnered over 86% of the vote in the last election. Why would he attack a village with poison gas that would cause the deaths of the very people who support him? US President Obama had threatened Assad if he resorted to the use of poison gas. Why would Assad take action to provoke the US into sending US troops into Syria?
On the other hand, the “moderates” had much to gain by implementing this attack on the Syrian village. It would supply the US with a justification for sending troops into Syria to overthrow Assad’s government.
Now that we have the historical background of some US false-flag operations, let us turn our attention to the current situation. The US and NATO have placed thousands of troops, tanks, missiles and other military hardware along Russia’s borders. They have planned and implemented military exercises along Russia’s borders. They have placed battleships in the Black Sea which borders Russia. While taking these actions, the US has accused Russia of aggressive and threatening behavior. The last I looked, I have not seen Russian troops along the US border.
Clearly, the US is being provocative and is waiting for an incident or will create an incident (false-flag) that will “justify” an armed conflict with Russia. For the past 3 years, the US has had an all out attack on Russia and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin . . . demonizing both, preparing the populace in the US for WW3.
False-flag incidents have been very effective in US imperialistic efforts. Once the US has targeted and demonized a country or its leaders, and with the support of our mainstream media, it is easy to kill and destroy without any protest from the American people. Imagine, while Obama bombed 7 different countries during his 8 years in office, the people have offered little resistance. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people have been destroyed and we have not only accepted it but we honor Obama and thank him for the “wonderful” 8 years.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
False-flag operations are a way to get popular support for wars
Posted on February 23, 2017 by Dave Alpert
The term false-flag describes covert operations that are designed to deceive in such a way that activities appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. The goal is to both enrage the people as well as to generate fear.
The US has a long history of false-flag operations. Below, you will see a few.
The proposed, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro’s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.
Although Northwoods was never implemented, the fact that the US Joint Chiefs of Staff would consider sacrificing hundreds of lives in order to provoke a war with and invasion of Cuba says a lot.
Then there was the Spanish-American war, 1898: The incident that provoked and angered people was the surprise explosion of the battleship Maine in Havana, Cuba, where 255 of the crew died. The press accused the Spanish, claiming that the explosion was caused by a remote-controlled mine. The USA declared war on Spain, and conquered the Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and Cuba. Subsequent investigations revealed that the explosion originated inside the Maine and that it was likely due to some type of time bomb inside the battleship. Divers investigating the shipwreck found that the armor plates of the ship were blown bending outwards, not inwards.
World War I, 1914–1918: A U-boat torpedo hit the ocean liner Lusitania near Britain and some 1,200 people, including 128 Americans, on board lost their lives. Subsequent investigations revealed that the major explosions were inside the Lusitania, as it was secretly transporting 6 million pounds of artillery shells and rifle ammunition, as well as other explosives on behalf of Morgan banking corporation to help their clients, Britain and France. It was against US laws to transport war materials and passengers in the same ship. In other words, they were using 1,200 passengers as shields for the transport of war weapons.
Questions have been raised as to whether the US informed Germany of the military hardware being shipped on the Lusitania. This incident was used to gather popular support for the US to enter WW1.
The attack on Pearl Harbor has raised a lot of questions. Having broken the Japanese encryption codes, the Americans knew what was going to happen, when and where, but President Roosevelt did not dispatch this information to Pearl Harbor. Japan had an alliance with Germany, and the Germans upheld their promises by declaring war against the USA right after the Japanese declaration.
Vietnam War: “The Tonkin incident”, where the American destroyer Maddox was supposedly attacked twice by three North Vietnamese torpedo boats in 1964 in the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. This incident was used to get popular support for the escalation of US involvement in the Vietnam War
Grenada invasion: The situation in Grenada had been of concern to American officials since 1979, when the leftist Maurice Bishop seized power and began to develop close relations with Cuba. In August 1981, the United States carried out a rehearsal of a direct military invasion by air and sea against the Caribbean island of Grenada, labeled Ocean Venture 81, to install there a pro-U.S. regime, according to a plan rehearsed that weekend in the Puerto Rican Island, Vieques.
In 1983, Bishop and others in his government, were assassinated. Protesters took to the streets and violence escalated. Citing the danger to the U.S. medical students at the St. George medical school in Grenada as a rationale, Reagan ordered nearly 2,000 U.S. troops onto the island, where they soon found themselves facing opposition from Grenadan armed forces. Reagan ordered in more troops, and by the time the fighting was done, nearly 6,000 U.S. troops were in Grenada.
Imagine, if you will, that this little country with a population of approximately 100,000 being invaded by 6,000 troops of the most powerful military in the world. It is evident that Ocean Venture 81 was a practice run for the actual invasion of Grenada, Urgent Fury, in 1983.
Was it the US, worried about the leftist government of Grenada having friendly relations with communist Cuba and by extension, the Soviet Union, the instrument behind the assassination?
Eventually, the government collapsed and was replaced by one acceptable to the United States.
And, of course, we cannot talk about false-flag operations without including the mother of all false-flag operations, 9/11. Without any evidence, the former CIA-asset, Saudi-Arabian Osama bin Laden, was claimed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 strikes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Such a complex operation, if actually executed would be much beyond the capabilities of anything or anyone in Afghanistan. Such an operation had to involve forgery, infiltration, coordination of activities, illegal arms, hi-quality flight training, accurate aircraft navigation and so on.
Yet, 9/11 was the rationale for the war on terror and the continuous wars during the past 16 years. Was this event conducted by bin Laden and 19 Arabs with box cutters? Or, was it a false-flag operation that would get the American people to support the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? Was it about democracy and freedom in the Middle East or was it about US access to oil and gas?
In 1997, a group of neocons published a document, titled “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). This document, with the Soviet Union no longer able to counter US aggression, called for US global domination of resources and markets. They recognized that they would be unable to get public support for this endeavor without a “New Pearl Harbor.” Hence, along comes 9/11. Quite a coincidence.
Just as a matter of information, the following signers of the Project for a New American Century became high level administrators within the George W. Bush administration. They are Elliott Abrams, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Scooter Libby. Another interesting coincidence.
Predictably, George W. Bush declared a war on terror . . . a war that cannot be ended or won because there is no entity to defeat. It is impossible to defeat a military or political strategy. As a result of 9/11, the US has been at war since late 2001 when it invaded Afghanistan, having bombed 7 different, sovereign states, murdering hundreds of thousands, and displacing millions from their homes.
The Ghouta chemical attack occurred in Ghouta, Syria, during the fighting in Syria, in the early hours of 21 August 2013. Two areas in the suburbs around Damascus, Syria, were struck by rockets containing the chemical agent sarin. Estimates of the death toll range from at least 281 people to 1,729. The US and Western Europe immediately held Syrian President Bashar al Assad and his army responsible for the gassing of the Syrian people.
US President Obama had clearly warned Assad that if gas was used by his army, the US would respond by expanding their involvement in the conflict.
There was never substantial evidence produced that verified that Assad was responsible for the gas attack. In fact, there was strong indications that the so-called “moderates”, supported by the US, were the party responsible.
Let’s look at the variables. The US wanted regime change in Syria and was supporting, both monetarily and militarily, efforts to overthrow Assad’s government. Assad had the overwhelming support of the Syrian people having garnered over 86% of the vote in the last election. Why would he attack a village with poison gas that would cause the deaths of the very people who support him? US President Obama had threatened Assad if he resorted to the use of poison gas. Why would Assad take action to provoke the US into sending US troops into Syria?
On the other hand, the “moderates” had much to gain by implementing this attack on the Syrian village. It would supply the US with a justification for sending troops into Syria to overthrow Assad’s government.
Now that we have the historical background of some US false-flag operations, let us turn our attention to the current situation. The US and NATO have placed thousands of troops, tanks, missiles and other military hardware along Russia’s borders. They have planned and implemented military exercises along Russia’s borders. They have placed battleships in the Black Sea which borders Russia. While taking these actions, the US has accused Russia of aggressive and threatening behavior. The last I looked, I have not seen Russian troops along the US border.
Clearly, the US is being provocative and is waiting for an incident or will create an incident (false-flag) that will “justify” an armed conflict with Russia. For the past 3 years, the US has had an all out attack on Russia and Russia’s president Vladimir Putin . . . demonizing both, preparing the populace in the US for WW3.
False-flag incidents have been very effective in US imperialistic efforts. Once the US has targeted and demonized a country or its leaders, and with the support of our mainstream media, it is easy to kill and destroy without any protest from the American people. Imagine, while Obama bombed 7 different countries during his 8 years in office, the people have offered little resistance. The lives of hundreds of thousands of people have been destroyed and we have not only accepted it but we honor Obama and thank him for the “wonderful” 8 years.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.