False Flag is a term used to describe covert operations governments, corporations and other organizations, for the purpose of making it seem as if the "act or acts" are being carried out by other entities. The term is taken from the military concept of flying false colors; which is the flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations have been used during peacetime as well as during war and counter-insurgency operations.
A useful application for a False Flag operation would be drumming up a reason for a pretext for war, especially if there isn't one to speak of... Hmmm, I wonder? Who would do such a thing? That would be so dishonest and Unamerican. The most basic motive for a false flag incident would be to frame the enemy for an act of aggression for justification of a supposed "defensive" response. In short it is a way of making it appear that the other side "threw the first punch."
Some examples of notable False Flag operations are as follows:
•§ Operation Northwoods: A plot for a war with Cuba, it involved hijacking a plane and blaming it on Cuba. The idea was nixed by President Kennedy in 1962. This information was released through the Freedom of Information Act.
•§ The Reichstag Fire of February 27, 1933 has been attributed to the government of the Adolf Hitler based on documents obtained by the Allies after the war and testimony of the Nuremberg Trials. He used this as a pretext for suspending rights and eventually starting the ball rolling for the impending Jewish Holocaust in Germany.
•§ The Maine bombing (1898): This event led to the Spanish American War, there is still a ongoing debate on whether mechancial failure was the culprit in the explosion.
•§ Pearl Harbor: It is said that President Roosevelt knew in advance of the intent of the Japanese to bomb the harbor. The U.S had cracked key codes of Japan well in advance of the attack. As we all know this led to the entry of the United States into World War II.
I just named a few, but the list goes on. Interesting fodder isn't it?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
But I would have to knock 1, 3 and 4 off the list.
1. If it never went into play it never became a False Flag
3. The sinking of The Maine was only blamed on the Spanish by the press and general public. The Navy said they believed it had been sunk by a mine but were unable to determine whose mine.
4. Still not a false flag. Now if our government had paid for or arranged for the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor or simply attacked it themselves and then blamed it on Japan sure....but to me this is a far cry from a false flag.
I agree with you almost always but this one is a little muddy.. also I think the 'Gulf of Tonkin Incident might have been included.
KNOWING something is likely to happen is a FAR CRY from 'ARRANGING' for it to happen.. example: Pearl Harbor: had they been on alert they could have done a much better job of defending themsleves but they really weren't ready to repel a determined air attakc, and MANY of the brass hats simply didn't BELIEVE (see Billy Mitchell if you don't know about it, that such an attack could have been so devastating.
Good point though. As I understand it the term was an old British Navy one.
Your list is correct. You did your homework, and -- no doubt -- checked your sources and double checked them. One example is Roosevelt knowing about the Japanese invasion of Pearl Harbor prior to the attack. I don't have my notes in front of me, but the Jewish couple who broke the Japanese code -- had been working on it tirelessly -- and brilliantly broke it.
Brilliant job, Shun. Excellently written. 10, of course for the writing and for the research.
Had to come back and (lol) mention that it isn't such an unknown truth. I really thought I was on to something until my little 11 year old nephew told me he had seen the same thing(s) you speak of on THE HISTORY CHANNEL.
It still does not detract from the great research you have done; in fact it enhances it!
"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of simulated or real terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. As part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer." Wikipedia
Another common function of false flag operations is to get two nations or groups to fight each other, by attacking both, while making it appear those attacks came from each other.
For some strange reason, the culprit that started every catastrophe is lost to history, never to be uncovered.
These events we're discussing are so huge, that no one person could ever keep his/her mouth shut if they were the one who caused such a monumental turn of events. Humans just don't behave that way..............which causes me to greatly doubt that most of these events were "false flags" or Conspiracies.
"which causes me to greatly doubt that most of these events were "false flags" or Conspiracies."
It's not really a percentage question. It's not really about what we think likely. You see, the whole premise of such operations is that they seem unlikely. They would not even be considered if there weren't plenty of people that just accepted things at face value. The less likely we tend to see such things, the more likely it is that someone will do them. We therefor must NEVER stop being vigilant, just as our forefathers told us, for that is the price of freedom.
When I hear the highly improbable, then I begin to think how impossible something might be. Again, I'm a firm believer in the theory of Occam's Razor, so lots and lots of Conspiracy Theories don't even reach the thought process - they're just too outlandish.
I think we may be a little too 'vigilant' these days. We're seeing things that aren't really there. Credit the X-Files and the "trust no one" motto.........
"I'm a firm believer in the theory of Occam's Razor, so lots and lots of Conspiracy Theories don't even reach the thought process - they're just too outlandish".
And yet there sits incontrovertible proof that Operation Northwoods was conceived by the Pentagon, and championed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Lemnitzer. Now, how can it be that what is too outlandish to consider, ended up on Mr Kennedy's desk, with the full support of the highest military people in our nation?
I guess your gut, forgot that the reason people are not doing outrageous things all the time, is because we actually watch for and defend against them. If we don't watch, they will happen. There really are people that would do them. Even in our government. Or perhaps I ought to say, especially in our government.
Operation Northwoods was just a plan, never implemented. Do you understand that we have really smart guys at the CIA, NSA, and elsewhere who just dream up stuff? 90+% of it never gets used. This was one such plan.
I have rarely called for less vigilance, but in your case I think it's necessary. Let someone else hold the binoculars for you for a few days, John. You need some sleep.
Only an ignorant person would call something that was being pushed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; "just a plan". You must be ignorant.
Thank goodness Mr. Kennedy was not, and promptly removed him.
Plans are ideas drawn up on paper, but never implemented.
Actions are ideas drawn up on paper, then implemented.
So John, which one did Operation Northwoods end up being?
Do I have to go through a Logic 101 lesson with you every single time we have a contentious discussion? It seems kind of silly to have an argument when one of us knows the rules and the other has his thumb in his ear.
Next time, please have the ear wax cleaned off your thumb.
Nobody said they were not plans. I said;
Only an ignorant person would call something that was being pushed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs; "just a plan". You must be ignorant.
Any person with even a rudimentary understanding of how things work in our government would realize that if the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs presented the President with a completed work up of a false flag operation involving "terrorist" attacks on this country, then clearly they are not out of the question.
The "Bay of Pigs" was such a "plan" that did make it to the "action" phase, and was a disaster. The gulf on Tonkin incident, involving a fabricated attack on a US ship, not only made it to "action" phase, it was the justification for full scale military involvement in Viet Nam. There are more examples of these sorts of shenanigans, they really do happen. Even if you don't know or care.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs dreams up plans all the time - and not all of them get the go-ahead of the President. This was just another one in his bag of goodies. Nothing more. If it had been used, we'd be having a different discussion. But of course, that isn't the case.
I know about most of the actions John, just like you do - for obvious reasons. The plans, however, usually require a Freedom of Information Act request, because no one knows enough about them to ask, back when they were originally dreamed up.
http://www.infowars.com/
This is a discussion that was going on long before your article aired. We just chose it to continue the fun.
As you can tell, I'm the more logical one that requires documented proof of 9/11 Conspiracies, from non-whacko sources (no Truthout.org, MediaMatters, DailyKos.....etc.,etc.). John scrambles, but very, very few reputable sources have come to his aid.
John likes to believe anything negative about the Bush administration that can be published, whether there is documentation or not. It's like watching sausage being made....lol.
Thanks for the props. Here's one ya musta missed;
National Security Archive:
"Washington, D.C., 4 August 2004 - Forty years ago today, President Johnson and top U.S. officials chose to believe that North Vietnam had just attacked U.S. destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin, even though the highly classified signals intercepts they cited to each other actually described a naval clash two days earlier (a battle prompted by covert U.S. attacks on North Vietnam), according to the declassified intercepts, Johnson White House tapes, and related documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University".
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/
So you see, when the Big brass has got plans, history can change, and many many people can die, and our nation get dragged into horrible debacles which ravage our treasures, both sacred and profane, for many years. Sounds kinda familiar, don't it?
As I understand it, this is still kinda murky. No one really knows what started this incident...............and after 40 years, it seems unlikely that it will be cleared up any time soon.
Well, if you say so. I mean, hey, this is just the National Archives opinion, after glancing over some stuff. And that MacArthur dude probably just got a little fuzzy after those long four years before he testified to Congress that it was all a boo boo. You know how those generals are always fessin up to things, some kinda martyr complex deal, maybe.
Surely, having just consulted all these "textbooks", you could provide some sort of reference here for maybe . . . ONE . . . or ten. You said "almost every textbook", and THAT is obvious BS. There is no freakin way you scampered off and checked "almost every textbook" just then. You are clearly just saying anything at all which you figure would make you sound authoritative, and that makes you sound like a liar.
The few mainstream textbooks that I've looked at (Chicago public schools, since my niece is schooled there) has one sentence about the Gulf of Tonkin incident..........
Since Holton Books sells their history books to about 50 other large metropolitan school districts, I think its pretty safe to say a majority of American kids in junior high hear the same story.
And guys, there is no mention of any Conspiracies in the whole book. Even though we all know one or two existed. I think the Lunatic Fringe is being marginalized, even by junior high textbooks.....lol.
"Why is it still referred to in almost every textbook as an unknown?"
"They all say pretty much the same thing."
"The few mainstream textbooks that I've looked at . . . " ??????????
" . . . has one sentence about the Gulf of Tonkin incident.........."
'Has', is singular. You have obviously seen but one "textbook", if any.
Don't suppose we could have a peek at that one sentence . . . eh?
Bret, I really don't mean to be nasty. I really would like to discuss such things as gentlemen. But you simply MUST stop acting like a big authority, it is clear you're not. There is no shame in that, and no need to try to make your opinion count for more than it is. You just have too realize that it is in fact your opinion, and it will not always correspond to the truth.
I know mine doesn't, and that is why I keep my peace till I have gotten a good look at things. Then, I don't feel a lot of pressure to be right, before I've actually done a decent amount of considering. When you just fire off first, you box yourself in, and feel the need to appear an expert . . .
One textbook that's used by almost every large school system in the country. My other little niece in Florida uses the very same one.
If you're really interested, I'll get the quote the next time I see her..........but I doubt you're interested in that. The quote itself is so small, it just doesn't really make an imprint on a 12 year old. Hopefully, neither will their exposure to any of the most popular Conspiracy Theories making the rounds these days.
Great.
Any thoughts on this most startling revelation about "just a plan"s ? I think you can see that we really can't just assume folks high in our government are always doing wonderful things, or assume that if they weren't, the mainstream media would be sounding alarms.
The entire point of my side of the conversation is to minimize the "Chicken Little" nature of your calls. Do false flag operations happen? Hmmmm, maybe. Are they done often? No.
If they were, you might have something to talk about.
Think about it - you're going back to Vietnam just to try to pull one out, just so we can have a discussion...........which completely makes my point : they aren't common enough to talk about.
I don't think it's reasonable to include Pearl Harbor on your list of "False Flag" operations. While I don't dispute that the Roosevelt Administration acted to provoke the attack, it wasn't really a false flag operation. The Japanese Empire did attack Pearl Harbor, not covert American operatives pretending to be Japanese or anything even close to that. I also think the evidence that Roosevelt knew anything specific about the attack is rather sketchy. They did know that a substantial Japanese fleet had steamed out, and that an attack was likely, but that isn't the same as knowing the specifics. Moving the Aircraft Carriers from their vulnerable position in port could very well have been prudent rather than conspiratorial. I would also point out that after the attack Roosevelt didn't ask Congress for a Declaration of War against Germany, something I believe he greatly desired. Contrast that with our current numbskull.
I also wouldn't include the sinking of the Maine. I think the Spanish-American War was more related to "Get me the pictures, I'll get you the war" Hearst (the father of modern media), than a government action. Even though the "progressive" Republicans may have wanted that war, I don't think the pretext was a covert operation. Perhaps you have evidence that I don't know about? From what I've seen the evidence is muddy, at best.
Maybe you missed one that makes good fodder for discussion, given our current situation. According to Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brezinski, the Carter Administration made a policy decision to fund Islamic extremist groups as part of their strategy to destabilize the Soviet Union. That policy was continued and expanded by the Reagan Administration.
Some might argue (including Brezinski) that this made good sense. After all, the Soviet Union had a large Muslim minority, and here in our United States there aren't many. Further, Islamic extremists, even given 9-11, hardly represent a threat equivalent to the nuclear armed Soviet Union. Brezinski also claims that they were operating covertly in Afghanistan BEFORE the Soviet invasion. (There's your false flag operation.) The objective was to provoke a Soviet response, in essence to sucker the Soviets into military action in Afghanistan, a dangerous place for a conventional army. Well, they got a response, and it proved disastrous for the Soviets. Surprise! You're fighting a proxy-war. It's curious that immediately after 9-11, President Bush sealed presidential records going back to Carter. Why Carter? Hmmm... perhaps that's not curious.
Do you recall the "terrorist" attack on the school in Beslan, Russia in 2004? After that incident Putin gave a speech that was not highly publicized in America. (Of course, that's not unusual.) He started off by waxing poetic about the unfortunate fall of "the colossal and great power" known as the Soviet Union, and mentioned that the Russian Federation was the preserved core of that state. Then he said something that caught my eye:
"Some would like to tear from us a 'juicy piece of pie'. Others help them. They help, reasoning that Russia still remains one of the world's major nuclear powers, and as such still represents a threat to them. And so they reason that this threat should be removed.
Terrorism, of course, is just an instrument to achieve these aims...." (Vladimir Putin; September 4, 2004; source: The Kremlin)
Terrorism is JUST AN INSTRUMENT for removing the Russian threat and tearing off a piece of pie??? Why would Putin say something like that?
Who are "some" and "others?" Who was he talking about and to? Rattling his nuclear saber at the "terrorists" would be pointless. So, it seems unlikely that he was talking about or to "terrorists." Even though I don't think well of Putin and don't trust him (that would be why I check out the Kremlin now and then and read his speeches), I don't think he's a fool. Could this have something to do with Carter's policy, continued by Reagan, of funding Islamic extremist groups? Did that policy continue beyond Reagan? I'd say if one is wielding a poisonous snake as a weapon on the battlefield it is probably unwise to simply drop it when the battle is over. Did that happen, though? Over the years Russia has certainly had a great deal more trouble with "terrorists" than we have.... What do you figure the juicy filling in that pie is?
~~~~~~~~~
Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed
Then one day he was shootin' at some food
And up through the ground came a bubblin' crude.... (Paul Henning)
~~~~~~~~~
Are only Americans are clever enough to play false flag games? Your list includes a German example. Would you suspect that there would be more or less resistance to such plans in, say, The Russian Federation or China, or in our United States? How did we end up in Iraq? The best bait for a trap is something the quarry already wants, eh?
How's it going? Did you get that "Why We Are Foolish" thing parsed out? Maybe this will help?
"Only the mainstream ones (textbooks), so far. They all say pretty much the same thing." (Bret W.)
Surely he must realize that the same thing could be said about Soviet textbooks. Are "we the people" educated or just well schooled? Is he trying to prove that we have been indoctrinated?
~~~~~~~~~
I went home with a waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians too... (Warren Zevon)
~~~~~~~~~
When he started talking about textbooks, I thought he was talking about COLLEGE textbooks, and I still thought it was ridiculous! Most Amusing!
" And just how do you know that?"
I only know what's made public.........just like you do. But in this era of everybody writing a book about what they did (and getting paid for it), I expect any false flaggers to publish their memoirs and ring that cash register.
Either that, or have some journalist file a Freedom of Information request and uncover it. Barring that, secrets shall remain secrets.
Which brings me back to my original point - they don't happen often...........either because they never existed, or because they can't be corroborated. That does not entitle you to fill the vacuum with whatever you think, guys. This is the nonsense that the History Channel alerted us to - Conspiracy Theorists just love an omission, or no evidence. It fuels speculation. It does not fuel truth.
Goin OK personally, can't say any such thing about the planet . . .
Yeah, Bret's a real scary adversary, what with all that education.
He's sure got our number on those wacky theories;
Can't be so, cause he would know. He checked, and he don't.
I've been off the board for quite a while. It's funny the way so little changes.... I'm not too worried about the planet. One way or another balance will be restored. Whether or not our United States, or perhaps even our human race, will be part of it is up for grabs. No matter what we do life is fleeting, eh? I think that often times problems result when folks get the idea they are real important to the grand scheme of things. Most of the time, they are wrong. Well, other than perhaps in Jerry's esoteric sense. Do you recall that when we first met I was chastising a fellow for over blowing the threat posed by Iran? See what I mean? Very little changes. Iran is a threat to us? That would be the same Iran that failed to take out Saddam in an eight year war. We took him out in about three weeks. Yet, I should believe that Iran is a threat to us. Ridiculous.
Of course, the operation that lead to the Bay of Pigs began during the Eisenhower Administration. It definitely qualifies as a false flag operation, and it's well documented. One of the covert operatives involved in that operation did write a book, and that isn't the only support. It failed because Kennedy was not willing to follow through with the whole plan. It should have been scrapped, but it wasn't. It's very likely that the whole plan would have worked, but it involved support from American forces, and Kennedy said "no" to that before the plan was implemented. Since McNamara is now a proven liar, I don't doubt he lied to Kennedy, just like he lied to Congress.
~~~~~~~~~
I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this... (Warren Zevon)
~~~~~~~~~
Given the existence of the Operation Northwoods "plan," the concept that some people in our government might use a false flag operation to convince "we the people" to go to war can't automatically be discounted, even though it is tantamount to treason. Obviously, that's not enough to slow down some of the good ol' boys at the Pentagon who may even be well meaning, but bent by their perceptions of "national security." Of course, there's that pesky Gulf of Tonkin thing, too. Incidentally, I wouldn't call that a false flag operation. But "unsubstantiated?" "Speculation?" He's kidding, right? Maybe he thinks Watergate is unsubstantiated, too? Perhaps, like former President Clinton, he would like to split hairs over the definition of the word "is"?
For myself, I think Truman made a huge mistake when he created the Department of Defense. Further, I think Eisenhower also thought so, even though he didn't reverse it. (He did leave a warning behind, eh?) I would add that the creation of the Department of Homeland Security is a repetition of the same mistake. We would be better off with a balanced approach between centralization and decentralization. Over-centralization creates an environment that fuels stuff like Operation Northwoods and the Bay of Pigs. The Katrina aftermath fits that picture, too. Why? Group think, all the power is concentrated in the hands of too few people who all "know" the same facts. Further, while the political leadership may change, the bureaucracy doesn't, not even over a long period of time, since those who were there yesterday selected and trained those who are there today.
Here's another interesting operation. During the Cold War when they were having trouble with lots of defectors, the KGB ran what was essentially a false flag operation. There was no way they could prevent all defections, so they sent out a bunch of phony defectors with false information. The idea was that it would be difficult for western governments to separate the wheat from the chaff. In other words, they set up a situation where defector information would always be suspect. Very clever, eh? Oh yeah, and don't forget that Putin was a KGB guy.
False flag operations don't happen very often? Fat chance!
I can come up with a myriad of reasons not to trust governments, make it any government you like, yet Bret suggests I should place absolute faith in ours. I've read way too much stuff written by the Federalists and anti-Federalists who established this country to think like he does. There is only one entity I'm aware of that may be deserving of absolute faith. If I were the religious type, I would consider demands that I place absolute faith in our government to be sacrilege.
My standard relative to government is "preponderance of evidence," not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Why? Because that's the level of consideration governments deserve, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a perfectly reasonable standard. If it's not, then our civil court system should be disbanded, eh?
P.S. You can call me "Noah" if you like, that's what my friends call me.
So what was the last false flag operation you know of?
Well, not sure what a "religious type" is, but what you outlined would certainly be considered "false religion" by me. Even if no God of any sort exists, what we speak of here is mindless obedience, and so sacrilege.
"Even if no God of any sort exists, what we speak of here is mindless obedience, and so sacrilege." (John Knight)
As I think you are aware, I enjoy playing with language. You hit my nail on the head, and drove the shank all the way into the wood. From my perspective, it's an affront to our founding principles.
I call the "Pledge of Allegiance" our ridiculous national prayer. We would do far better by pledging our allegiance to each other than we do by praying at the altar of an obvious false god. No state has ever been worthy of such faith. "... with liberty and justice for all." That's a worthy sentiment, but since when???
I say this in accordance with the instruction of our founding document:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (The Declaration of Independence)
While we should not be too quick to abandon the institutions we are accustomed to, we also should not pledge allegiance to them. Such a pledge may bind us and/or render us unwilling to recognize and correct the flaws and faults in our government. I suppose one could view the concepts in the Declaration of Independence to be treasonous, though. George III certainly did, eh?
~~~~~~~~~
Steve walks warily down the street,
With the brim pulled way down low
Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet,
Machine guns ready to go
Are you ready, Are you ready for this
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat... (Queen)
~~~~~~~~~
Even as a child I saw the clear wisdom of the "Founding Fathers", and was shocked to see their rejection of authoritarian principles of governance, so openly declared. Of course, they had to "appeal to a higher court" in order to themselves remain within universally accepted principles of law, when making such sweeping proclamations. I could sense from the beginning that they had done a very crucial thing when they included these words;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .
They there called clearly to all who would be enticed by the siren song of safety sung by any would-be despots . . . He has not agreed.
I wasn't quite sure who this 'HE' was, but I knew I liked him.
"their rejection of authoritarian principles of governance" (John Knight)
That's it, and one of the primary differences between authoritarian principles of governance and libertarian principles of governance is that under an authoritarian system the people exist to serve the state, and under a libertarian system the state exists to serve the people. Which system do we have today? What does our insidious use of the "Pledge of Allegiance" indicate? We teach that nonsense to our children by rote. If our government were even approaching our great ideals, such a crutch would be unnecessary, and our allegiance would be forthcoming pledge or no pledge.
Back to the subject at hand. While I can understand the strategic reasons for false flag shenanigans, I don't believe they are consistent with our founding principles. Arguments that rest on "national security" are not the arguments of a libertarian government. After all, "national security" is about protecting the state, not the people. Beyond that, I think it is irrational for us to fear an external threat. We have the dominate culture combined with a powerful economy, and military. Like Roosevelt said: "We have nothing to fear, but fear itself." Well, that and corruption driven dependency that diminishes our liberty into despotism.