1. “Governments ADMIT That They Carry Out False Flag Terror
Forget the claims and allegations that false flag terror – governments attacking people and then blaming others in order to create animosity towards those blamed – has been used throughout history.
This essay will solely discuss government admissions to the use of false flag terror.
…
- As admitted by the U.S. government, 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. See 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*
There are many other instances of false flag attacks used throughout history proven by the historical evidence. See this, this and this. The above are only some examples of governments admitting to using false flag terror.
You can’t call it a conspiracy theory when the government itself admits it.
And this is not just ancient history:
- Jimmy Carter’s former National Security Adviser – Zbigniew Brzezinski – 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, 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“
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/governments-have-admitted-that-they.html
2. Can you say ‘war crime’?
“NATO Changes Story: House Full of Afghan Civilians Deliberately Hit
Three More Civilians Killed in Offensive Today
Readers will recall that NATO urged civilians not to flee before the invasion.”
3. “Frightening Voters into Submission
Fear-mongering subverts self-government. The more fears government fans, the fewer people will recall the danger of government itself. The more frightened people become, the more prone they will be to see their rulers as saviors rather than as potential oppressors. After promising freedom from fear, a politician can simply invoke polls showing widespread fears to justify seizing new power. The more government frightens people, the more legitimate its power grabs become.
We now have the Battered Citizen Syndrome: the more debacles, the more voters cling to faith in their rulers. Like a train engineer bonding with the survivors of a train wreck that happened on his watch, Bush constantly reminded Americans of 9/11 and his wars. The greater the government’s failure to protect, the greater the subsequent mass fear — and the easier it becomes to subjugate the populace. The craving for a protector drops an iron curtain around the mind, preventing a person from accepting evidence that would shred his political security blanket.
Unfortunately, few Americans seem to have learned the lessons of recent presidents. As a result, politicians can count on seizing new power after their next debacle. Nothing will change, except for the name of the oppressor. “
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0911c.asp
4. “Collateral Accumulation: Passing on the Abiding Wisdom of Empire
So that’s all right then. If the native insurgents would just stop using violence to advance their agenda the way we use violence to advance our agenda, why then, we would stop using violence to advance our agenda. It’s as simple as that. It’s their own damn fault. After all, it is a well-known fact of history — not to mention international law — that foreign invaders are not responsible in any way for any violence that occurs in the course of their invasion and occupation of other lands by force. Or as Punch might say to Judy: “If you’ll just lie down, I’ll stop hitting you.”
Then again, the Right Honourable Air Marshall, his American partners — and indeed, their many media embeds — might do well to ponder the Joseph Conrad quote with which Sukhdev Sandhu concluded his review of Mike Davis’ classic 2001 work, Late Victorian Holocausts:
As Conrad’s Marlow said in Heart of Darkness: “The conquest of the earth, which means the taking away from those who have a different complexion and slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look at it too much.”
5. Moronic tea-partiers:
“Corporate Media Hype Tea Partiers Way beyond their Actual Significance
Percentage of Americans who favor socialism: 20
Percentage of Americans involved in Tea Party Movement: 11
Number of mentions of “Tea Party” past month in Lexis radio and tv transcript search: 1042*
Number of mentions of “socialism” past month in Lexis radio and tv transcript search: 69+”
6. “Employers Take a Beating by Laying Off Employees
It’s not only employees who suffer when they get laid off but the firms responsible for handing them the pink slips can take a beating, too.
As millions of Americans have been fired by employers struggling to remain profitable, we have all borne witness to Corporate America’s calloused disregard of its workers. Now, canny business economists claim the layoffs have hurt employers, too.
That’s part of the story of now-defunct Circuit City, an article in the current Newsweek reports, after it lopped off 3,400 of its highest-paid sales associates to cut costs. “A company cuts people. Customer service, innovation, and productivity fall in the face of a smaller and demoralized workforce,” Newsweek points out.
…
Employers are also in for a rude awakening if they think slicing payrolls spells profitability. A study of 141 layoff announcements from 1979 to 1997 found negative stock returns to companies announcing layoffs, with larger and permanent layoffs leading to greater negative effects, Pfeffer wrote.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17662
7. “Syria: A Clenched US Fist Behind the Hand of Friendship
Syria has been one of Iran’s closest allies in the region. Washington “engagement” with Damascus is better understood to have nothing to do with a search for Middle East peace. By bringing Syria within the US fold, Iran is made all the more isolated and vulnerable to military attack. The latest US “bid for peace” is a cynical move to prepare the ground for war with Iran.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17664
8. “The Real Reason for Sanctions Against Iran: America’s Quest for Global Miliitary Dominance
The U.S.-sponsored drive to impose new economic sanctions on Iran has nothing to do with the noble cause of limiting proliferation of nuclear weapons on the planet. It is directly linked to the U.S. military doctrine of establishing ‘full spectrum dominance’ – i.e., military dominance on land, sea, air, and outer space over all other countries in the world.
…
U.S. Sanctions are part of Imperialism
To fully understand U.S. policy towards Iran and North Korea, we need to situate it in the wider attempt to extend its military machine across the world, and to remove any obstacles to its dominance.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17665
9. “The Media’s Billion Dollar Ad for Evan Bayh
Bayh masked his craven capitulation to corporate lobbyists with a veneer of bipartisanship and moderation. If he sold out to enough special interests, he could claim that he was on both sides. But the one side he was never against was business interests that fed him his campaign cash.
So, he is a typical fake politician; I get that and I can live with it. What bothers me is how the media plays along. They have been running a giant ad for Evan Bayh’s future political career or future lobbying career over the last couple of days. There is never a skeptical story about how Evan Bayh might be retiring to cash in on lobbyist money. And for those of you not familiar with the process – and apparently that’s the entire DC media – the most powerful tool lobbyists have is the implied bribe that politicians get at the end of their career. If you play ball and do what you’ve been told, you’re nearly guaranteed a multi-million dollar payoff at the end. Look at Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt, Billy Tauzin, Dick Armey. This list goes on and on. Everybody gets rich, oh right, except the American people.
Yet, not one knucklehead on TV has suggested that Bayh might be leaving to take the money. Instead they paint him as this hero of bipartisanship and moderation. It’s a giant ad for Bayh. If he wanted to buy this much positive media coverage in the form of commercials, he’d have to spend nearly a billion dollars on every station in the country. Instead, the corporate media does him this favor as a going away present. And my guess is there will be nary a word when he resurfaces as a multi-million dollar corporate lobbyist in a little while. And then if he resurfaces in politics later, again the mention of his corporate ties will be glorified as the moves of a savvy businessman and the so-called moderate will ride back into town as a hero.
If they’re not doing this on purpose, then they are hideously misinformed about the process and grossly negligent in reporting the real facts of Washington. If they are doing it on purpose (not the television actors posing as news anchors, they have almost no idea, but the producers and executives that make decisions on news coverage), then we’re all screwed. Everything is an illusion meant to mask the reality of corporate dominance over DC. If you play ball, you’re a hero. If you don’t, you’re a fringe outsider (otherwise known to the rest of us as a real American). Corporate robots in the media supporting corporate robots in politics. I don’t know why I ever get surprised by any of this.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24746.htm
