After a terror Act, first ask if it is a False Flag

[Steven Gaal]

Unfortunately it seems that the attitude of most of the posters on this thread is not "ask if it is false flag", but "assume it is false flag".



--Tommy
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Spy agency planning false-flag terror acts in crowded areas, whistleblower claims

==

http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_spy-agency-planning-false-flag-terror-acts-in-crowded-areas-whistleblower-claims_369401.html

==

A Turkish whistleblower, who has a credible record of predicting police operations and government policies, has made a shocking claim, arguing that the Turkish spy agency is planning false-flag operations to blow up crowded areas to frame the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization.

Fuat Avni said early on Saturday that the President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan initially planned to use Dec. 14 raids against the media to announce the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization, but he had to resort to other ways as the previous plan failed. The whistleblower said Erdoğan approved of the false-flag operations.

"After the fiasco," Avni tweeted, "Erdoğan tasked the spy agency [National Intelligence Organization] MİT with labeling the Gülen movement as a terrorist organization." He claimed that Erdoğan has difficult time after France shootings for his support for the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) and al-Qaeda. "To get out of this difficult period and turn the tide in his favor, Erdoğan is making new evil plans," Avni tweeted.

Avni claims to be in the inner circle of Erdoğan. A recent article at Foreign Policy said Fuat Avni "has proved to have startlingly accurate knowledge of events before they happen" and he has "captivated the country with his mostly reliable predictions of events."

Noting that Turkish Islamic scholar Fethullah Gülen has displayed a staunch opposition to radical groups committing terrorism, Avni said ruling Justice and Development Party (AK Party) spokesman and the party ideologue Beşir Atalay and MİT chief Hakan Fidan "planned terror acts similar to those in France" and will frame the Gülen movement after they blow up crowded areas.

"A terror act that will kill dozens of innocent people in a large city was planned by [MİT head] Hakan Fidan and presented to Erdoğan," the whistleblower wrote, sending shockwaves through social media and hitting morning headlines of Turkish media.

He claimed that spies from the MİT will commit the terror acts and present themselves as from the Gülen movement. He added that the president didn't hesitate in approving a "terror act that would kill dozens so that the Gülen movement is remembered as a terrorist group."

"I'm warning all citizens against possible terror acts orchestrated by Hakan Fidan's unit in the very near future," the whistleblower said, urging the people to stay away from big shopping malls and crowded areas. "You could be a victim of Erdoğan's evil plans," he said.

He stated that terror acts "are planned to take place in malls and AKP buildings so it could increase rancor and violence against the Gülen movement."

===========================================================

The Sinking of The Lusitania, America’s Entry into World War I, A Bonanza for Wall Street

By Gabriel Donohoe

Global Research, August 10, 2014

=

On this day 99 years ago, a German U-boat sunk the RMS Lusitania off the southern Irish coast with the loss of 1,195 lives, including 128 Americans. 94 children perished, 31 of them mere babies. This incident became the major catalyst for drawing a reluctant America into the European slaughter pens of World War 1.

But was the sinking of the Lusitania one of those unfortunate acts that occur randomly during war or was there a more sinister and deliberate hand at work?

In a disputed incident like this, one often gets to the truth of the matter by asking the question, “Cui bono?” “Who benefits?” After a detailed examination of the facts, one can only come to the conclusion that it was the banksters who benefitted, and grossly at that.

The RMS Lusitania was one of the world’s biggest ships and the pride of the Cunard Line at the time of her demise. “RMS” stands for “Royal Mail Steamer” which meant that the Lusitania was certified to carry the mail, earning her owners an annual fee of some £68,000.

At the time of her final voyage, leaving New York for Liverpool on May 1^st, 1915, Europe was embroiled in war. Germany had declared the seas around the United Kingdom to be a war-zone and German U-boats were wreaking havoc on enemy shipping. 300,000 tons of Allied shipping were sunk every week and one out of every four steamers leaving Britain never returned. Britain was virtually cut off from her allies and her waters were fraught with danger.

In contravention of the rules of war at the time (the Hague Conventions and the Cruiser Rules) the RMS Lusitania was carrying a considerable amount of ammunition, explosives, and other war matériel for the armies of England and France.

As G. Edward Griffin wrote in The Creature From Jekyll Island, “…she [The Lusitania] was virtually a floating ammunition depot.” This meant that she wouldn’t have the status of a non-military ship and could be fired upon without warning. It was widely known that the Lusitania was entered into the Admiralty fleet register as an armed auxiliary cruiser and was so listed in Jane’s Fighting Ships and in The Navy Annual.

The Germans knew that The Lusitania was carrying military supplies bound for Germany’s enemies on the Western Front. The German embassy in Washington even took the precaution of placing an advertisement in 50 U.S. newspapers warning civilians not to sail on the Lusitania. Due to the intervention of the State Department most of the notices were not published. However, the Des Moines Register carried the following advert which was placed beside an ad for the Lusitania…

***

“NOTICE!

“TRAVELLERS intending to embark on the Atlantic voyage are reminded that a state of war exists between Germany and her allies and Great Britain and her allies; that the zone of war includes the waters adjacent to the British Isles; that, in accordance with formal notice given by the Imperial German Government, vessels flying the flag of Great Britain, or any of her allies, are liable to destruction in those waters and that travellers sailing in the war zone on the ships of Great Britain or her allies do so at their own risk.

“IMPERIAL GERMAN EMBASSY

“Washington, D.C., April 22, 1915.”

***

In the early stages of the War, England and France had borrowed heavily from American investors and had selected J P Morgan, partner and front man for the Rothschilds, to act as sales agent for their bonds. Morgan was also selected as a purchase agent to buy war materials when the bond money was returned to the States. Morgan was in the happy position of receiving lucrative commissions in both directions, which, in the case of England and France amounted to some $30 million. That’s not counting commissions on hundreds of millions of dollars of business done with Russia, Italy, and Canada.

Furthermore, through holding companies, the House of Morgan directly owned many of the manufacturing firms receiving production contracts for military goods from England and France. (Undoubtedly these firms were the foundation of the ‘military-industrial complex’ later referred to by President Eisenhower.) Soon, J P Morgan became the largest consumer on earth, spending up to $10 million per day. Morgan was in the privileged position of being buyer, seller, and producer and amassing profits from all sides.

However, when the War began to go badly for England and France, Morgan found it impossible to get new buyers for the Allied war bonds. There was a real fear in Whitehall at the time that England was about to lose the war. If the Allies were to default, Morgan’s large commissions would come to an end and his investors would suffer gigantic losses (some $1.5 billion). On top of that, Morgan’s war production companies would go out of business. Something needed to be done urgently.

As the RMS Lusitania departed Pier 54 in New York on May 1^st, 1915, Morgan surmised that if the cruiser were to be sunk by a German submarine, the resulting furore would certainly bring America into the War on the side of the Allies. Not only would Allied bonds be in great demand but Morgan’s war production companies would have to go into overdrive to outfit over four million American soldiers who would be mobilized for the European War.

Six days later, on the afternoon of Friday, May 7^th, 1915, the Lusitania approached within 12 miles of the southern Irish coast. Winston Churchill, the Lord of the Admiralty, knew that German U-boats were operating in the area after three ships had been sunk in the previous 2 days. Not only did Churchill not come to the assistance of the Lusitania but he ordered her planned escort, the destroyer Juno, to return to Queenstown harbour. Earlier, the Lusitania had been ordered to reduce speed by shutting down one of her four boilers (ostensibly to save coal). She was a sitting duck and the entire Admiralty knew it.

At least one of Churchill’s officers, Commander Joseph Kenworthy, was disgusted at the cynicism of his superior. In his 1927 book, The Freedom of the Seas, he would write: “The Lusitania was sent at considerably reduced speed into an area where a U-boat was known to be waiting and with her escorts withdrawn.”

At 2.10 in the afternoon of that fateful Friday, Kapitänleutnant Walther Schwieger of U-boat U-20 spotted the Lusitania and gave the order to fire one torpedo. The torpedo struck the Lusitania on the starboard bow, just beneath the wheelhouse. A few moments later, much to everyone’s surprise including the watching Germans, a second huge explosion took place within the hull and the ship began to founder rapidly. 18 minutes later, the Lusitania disappeared beneath the waves.

Irish rescuers sailed out from Cork, over 11 miles away, and plucked some 764 survivors from the cold waters.

Many researchers today believe that the second explosion was caused by some of the 600 tons of pyroxyline explosive, 6 million rounds of .303 bullets, 1248 cases on shrapnel shells, plus an unknown quantity of munitions that filled the holds on the lower deck.

Ever since, the British Government have endeavoured to keep the Lusitania’s cargo a secret. As late as the 1950s the Royal Navy used the wreck of the Lusitania for target practice by dropping depth charges in order to destroy any evidence that the ship breached Cruiser Rules of war or the Hague Conventions.

After the sinking, the British ordered an official enquiry under the direction of Lord Mersey. The Admiralty manipulated Lord Mersey to find the master of the Lusitania, Captain Turner, at fault for the disaster. Lord Mersey complied with the Admiralty’s wishes but, in a crisis of conscience, refused payment for his services and requested that henceforth he be “excused from administering His Majesty’s Justice.” Mersey’s only comment in later years was: “The Lusitania case was a damn dirty business.”

The sinking of the Lusitania was a major catalyst for America’s later entry into the World War. Total deaths from the War are estimated between 9 and 15 million souls; American casualties of dead and wounded were in excess of 300,000.

But the House of Morgan, House of Rothschild, and other banksters were thoroughly pleased at America’s entry into the War. It meant that they continued to benefit hugely from the wholesale slaughter and misery of millions of programmed human beings.

When one thinks of Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, and other false flags it seems that some things never change. The lessons of history are quickly forgotten. The public has always been so utterly gullible and predictable.

But thanks to the Internet and social media, that is all now beginning to change…

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

also see http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-to-start-a-war-the-american-use-of-war-pretext-incidents/28554

Edited January 11, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Jon G. Tidd]

Steven Gaal @ post #46:

Your post is a reminder that attacks which serve to cause retaliation by the U.S. need to be viewed in the context of other such attacks.

PEARL HARBOR: It's clear Roosevelt and his top advisers including George Marshall knew an attack was coming and without conscience blamed the results of the attack on Kimmel and Short.

TONKIN GULF: It's clear no provocation justifying U.S. entry into full-blown war with North Viet Nam occurred.

GULF WAR: Saddam Hussein was led by Iraq's U.S. ambassador to believe the U.S. was indifferent as to whether Iraq invaded Kuwait.

9/11: The official story doesn't hold water.

These events demonstrate the American people are easily misled into supporting U.S. military action.

Your post, Steven, is excellent.

[Ron Ecker]

9/11: The official story doesn't hold water.

These events demonstrate the American people are easily misled into supporting U.S. military action.

Depending, of course, on whom the military action is against. In retaliation for 9/11, the U.S. invaded poor, backward Afghanistan. But we know that Saudi Arabia financed or helped finance the 9/11 attacks. Why hasn't the U.S. invaded Saudi Arabia?

[Robert Mady]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSX7xcCwCk4

[Robert Mady]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAk5G9x9Jdw

[Robert Mady]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLumMF5UAvc

[Paul Brancato]

Surely the original incident at the publisher's house is real.

[Thomas Graves]

Surely the original incident at the publisher's house is real.

Paul,

Don't you understand? The unpopular socialist (probably as in National Socialist ; yes, yes yes !!! That proves everything - that evil Nazi !!!) president of France, in collusion with the evil, evil, evil U.S. Government, manufactured the whole thing just to boost his popularity ratings! In the process he succeeded in smearing and getting killed some young, totally-innocent, peaceful, sorely-aggrieved (Islamic fundamentalist and Al-Qaeda - trained) individuals.

LOL, Far From The Madding Crowd...

--Tommy

Edited January 12, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Douglas Caddy]

This past Friday Gorbachev raised the alarm of nuclear war further in a released excerpt from the German magazine Der Spiegel (The Mirror) that the Ukrainian crisis could escalate into a conventional and even nuclear war, explaining that "a war... of this kind would unavoidably lead to a nuclear war."

Question: Is it possible to use a nuclear bomb to stage a False Flag event? Could a nation possessing a nuclear bomb explode it somewhere (such as on the oil distribution facilities in Saudi Arabia) in an operation in which it could not be determined immediately which nation was behind the attack or in a way that an innocent nation was blamed? Could a nation do this without leaving its fingerprints as a means of sending a message or warning that further intensification of the new Cold War will lead to a world wide nuclear war or that a specific nation had better bow to the demands being made on it by its enemy?

I live in Houston, the Energy Capital of the world. The greater Houston area, including the Houston ship channel, is home to numerous oil refineries and chemical plants. If a nuclear bomb were exploded here, almost immediately there would be no gasoline available in the U.S. Commerce and transportation would come to a halt. If such a bomb exploded, could it be determined immediately whether Russia, China or some terrorist organization was behind it? If it could not be determined who did it, would the U.S. be paralyzed from reacting with its own nuclear weapons for fear of starting a worldwide conflagration?

[Steven Gaal]

LOL, Far From The Madding Crowd...

--Tommy

###################################

A Timeline: Where did the Paris Shooters Get Their Weapons?

By Tony Cartalucci

Global Research, January 08, 2015

Heavily armed, well-trained gunmen executed what appears to be a well-planned attack in Paris, France, killing 12, including 2 police officers. Where did these terrorists get their weapons, training, political backing, funds, and inspiration? A short timeline featuring news stories from 2011 to 2014 helps explain how France’s recent national tragedy could have been the direct result of its own insidious, callous, terroristic foreign policy that has visited this very same carnage seen in Paris, upon the people of Libya and Syria, a thousand fold.

===============================================================

2011 - France supplying weapons to Libyan rebels, London Telegraph:

=A French military spokesman, Colonel Thierry Burkhard, said it had provided “light arms such as assault rifles” for civilian communities to “protect themselves against Col Gaddafi”.

=But the decision to arm the rebels is a further move towards direct involvement in the land war on top of the air war against Col Muammar Gaddafi. The Nafusa rebels have come closest to breaking through to Tripoli itself of any of the front lines of the conflict, while three months of Nato bombing have failed to dislodge Col Gaddafi from power.

=Le Figaro, the French newspaper which first reported the air drops, said the shipment included rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, along with Milan anti-tank missiles.

2011 - Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links, London Telegraph:

=Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

2012 - France to push for arming Syria’s opposition coalition, the BBC:

=France’s foreign minister has said he will discuss supplying arms to the Syrian opposition coalition with European partners.

2013 - Syria crisis: France and Britain move a step closer to arming rebels, the London Guardian:

=The government plans to push for a relaxation of the EU arms embargo to Syria to enable “defensive arms” to reach opposition fighters.

=France and Britain have moved a step closer to arming the opposition to the Assad regime in a radical move aimed at tipping the balance in the two-year civil war while also ignoring European policy on Syria.

=The French president, François Hollande, went into an EU summit in Brussels with a dramatic appeal for Europe to join Paris and London in lifting a European arms embargo, but the sudden policy shift was certain to run into stiff German opposition.

2013 - Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda, USA Today:

=A Syrian rebel group’s April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.

=The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.

2014 - France delivered arms to Syrian rebels, Hollande confirms, France 24:

=President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that France had delivered weapons to rebels battling the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad “a few months ago.”

France Isn’t the Only One

The cartoonish nature of France first being reported to give weapons to “rebels” before these “rebels” are reported to be, in fact, Al Qaeda is not simply France’s bad luck. It is part of NATO’s very intentional, vast network of global state-sponsored terrorism. It would be reported that terrorists armed by the US in Syria with antitank missiles sided with Al Qaeda franchise and US State Department listed foreign terrorist organization, Al Nusra.

The Daily Beast would report in its September 2014 article, “Al Qaeda Plotters in Syria ‘Went Dark,’ U.S. Spies Say,” that:

=One Syrian rebel group supported in the past by the United States condemned the air strikes on Tuesday. Harakat Hazm, a rebel group that received a shipment of U.S. anti-tank weapons in the spring, called the airstrikes “an attack on national sovereignty” and charged that foreign led attacks only strengthen the Assad regime.The statement comes from a document, purportedly from the group, that has circulated online and was posted in English translation from a Twitter account called Syria Conflict Monitor. Several Syria experts, including the Brookings Doha Center’s Charles Lister, believe the document to be authentic.

=This group would later be reported by the Western press as having “surrendered” to Al Qaeda. The International Business Times would claim in its article, “Syria: Al-Nusra Jihadists ‘Capture US TOW Anti-Tank Missiles’ from Moderate Rebels,” that:

=Before the official statement, there were signs that Harakat Hazm was making alliances in Syria that could conflict with its role as a U.S. partner. In early Septemeber a Harakat Hazm official told a reporter for the L.A. Times: “Inside Syria, we became labeled as secularists and feared Nusra Front was going to battle us…But Nusra doesn’t fight us, we actually fight alongside them. We like Nusra.”

=Weaponry supplied by the US to moderate Syrian rebels was feared to have fallen into the hands of jihadist militants affiliated to al-Qaida after clashes between rival groups.

=Islamist fighters with Jabhat al-Nusra seized control of large swathes of land in Jabal al-Zawiya, Idlib province, at the weekend, routing the US-backed groups the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SFR) and Harakat Hazm, activists said.

=Washington relied on SFR and Harakat Hazm to counter Isis (Islamic State) militants on the ground in Syria, complementing its air strikes.

Clearly, Harakat Hazm willingly pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda, bringing with them Western armament. Much of Al Qaeda’s weapons, cash, training, and backing has been supplied by the West through similar “laundering” arrangements – intentionally – with plans to arm Al Qaeda and use it as a mercenary force against Western enemies in the Middle East laid as early as 2007.

Al Qaeda was intentionally organized and directed by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Israel to engage in a regional confrontation aimed at Iran and its powerful arc of influence including Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and now apparently Iraq. A similar gambit played out in North Africa during NATO’s war with Libya. Before that, in the 1980′s, the US CIA notoriously created Al Qaeda in the first place to fight a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

This most recent use of Al Qaeda was exposed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 2007 article, ”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” it which it was stated explicitly that (emphasis added):

=

Now these “extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam” and who are “sympathetic to Al Qaeda” are running loose in France spilling French blood, with and inexhaustible supply of weapons and cash courtesy in part of the French government itself, and with years of combat experience fighting Paris and the rest of NATO’s proxy wars for them everywhere from Libya to Syria.

==================

=To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

########################
GEE ITS TO ME NOT A LOL MATTER ,GAAL

Edited January 12, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Brancato]

I have no trouble believing that terrorist groups are being armed by western countries as well as Communist. That it serves our needs to have an endless enemy is obvious. Arming Syrian rebels has turned out to be a perhaps convenient way to arm Isis or Al Qaida while seeming to be going after a bad guy Assad. It's not pretty, and it's quite insidious.

That is a far cry from staging terrorist events in France.

[Robert Mady]

You believe so?

Edited January 12, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Mark Knight]

I don't think it's all that different. The US armed "rebels" in Afghanistan in 1980, and it was those same "rebels" whom we've been fighting since 2003. And that deal during the Reagan administration to "covertly" sell arms to Iran...who did we think we were arming then, other than Islamic extremists?

And now we're getting upset when those people turn those same weapons on us and our allies.

WHAT OTHER RESULT DID WE ACTUALLY EXPECT??

[Steven Gaal]

I don't think it's all that different. The US armed "rebels" in Afghanistan in 1980, and it was those same "rebels" whom we've been fighting since 2003. And that deal during the Reagan administration to "covertly" sell arms to Iran...who did we think we were arming then, other than Islamic extremists?

And now we're getting upset when those people turn those same weapons on us and our allies.

WHAT OTHER RESULT DID WE ACTUALLY EXPECT??

YES ! (36 font) Its what they had hoped would happen. Elements within the establishment benefit greatly.

Recent Defense Spending

Defense spending declined in the 1990s after the end of the Cold War and increased in the 2000s during the War on Terror.

Chart 2.32: Recent Defense Spending

Defense spending stood at 6.8 percent of GDP at the height of the Reagan defense buildup. But, beginning even before the breakup of the Soviet Union it began a decline, reaching below 6 percent in 1990, below 4 percent in 1996 and bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in 2001, about half the level of 1985.

But 9/11, the terrorist attack on iconic US buildings in 2001, changed that, and defense spending began a substantial increase in two stages. First, it increased to 4.6 percent by 2005 for the invasion of Iraq, and then to 5.0 percent in 2008 for the the “surge” in Iraq.

Spending increased further to 5.7 percent in 2011 with the stepped up effort in Afghanistan. Defense spending is expected to decline to 4.6 percent of GDP by 2015. (MAYBE NOT NOW !!!!!!,GAAL)

[Douglas Caddy]

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/11/suspicions-growing-french-shootings-false-flag-operation/

Paul Craig Roberts analysis of the event in France.