How the United States Actually Uses False Flags to Terrorize Its Own Citizens and the World!

Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:17

0

(Before It's News)

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. How the United States Uses False Flags to Terrorize Its Own Citizens and the World!
False flags operations are when somebody pretends to be somebody else in order to start wars. The purpose is to start trouble between other countries, and frighten the people into believing in the necessity for a war. Aside from the potential for monetary gain, the logic here is simple: a frightened people are easily to manipulate. And the purpose is likewise simple: a frightened people are an enslaved people.
An English sailing vessel enters a French harbor with the French flag flying. The English are flying French flag, so the French think the ship is friendly, so they don’t blow it out of the water. The English then raise the Flag of Norway, blow everything up, and sail out of the harbor. The French now go to war with Norway.

Is this a false flag intended to enslave the American people?

Do you understand how it works? You pretend to be somebody else, deliver a blindside attack, run away, and let your victim get in a fight with whoever you pretended to be. And, in a full on false flag operation, you would get various people all frightened and riled up so they would fight for you.
Pretty nasty.
And, it is pretty common throughout history.

In Germany in the early thirties a young fellow name of Hitler is the likely suspect in the burning of the Reichstag building. He blamed the communists, and while everybody was angry at the commies, he rose to power. Perfect false flag.

In the early 1950s the United States executed a false flag operation in Iran. In conjunction with the British, the United States Central Intelligence Agency used politics, propaganda, and agreements with tribal leaders to create a coupe that resulted in the United States replacing Iranian oil companies with United States oil companies. This is a matter of declassified record, should you wish to search the CIA archives.

In the 1960s the United States Department of Defense almost conducted a false flag operation called ‘Operation Northwoods.’ The plans were to hijack or shoot down passenger or military places, burn crops, sink ships (filled with Cuban refugees!), and thus create a war with Cuba. The attacks would involve Cuban infiltrators and airplanes disguised as Cuban MIGs, and acts of terror on American soil. The only reason this operation didn’t get off the ground was because a young fellow name of John F. Kennedy said no to it. The complete plans were uncovered during investigation into Kennedy’s assassination by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid 90s.

Also in the sixties is the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident. The United States claimed it was under attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. No proof was ever had, but the result was 10 years of war in Viet Nam with thousands of lives lost. And the real winners here were the people who made war materials, who lent money (can you spell Bankster?) and otherwise profited.
Coming into modern times, we have some downright startling revelations concerning False Flag Operations.

To pay a quick trip to Russia, that country actually bombed itself so as to go to war with Chechnya.

In 1993 the Federal Bureau of Investigation infiltrated a cell of terrorists who wanted to blow up the trade center. In an absolute stunner, the FBI apparently had the ability to replace the explosives with fake explosives, but didn’t do so!

Then there is the False Flag of 9/11. There are videos showing–proving–that the buildings went down because of planned demolition. These videos include a rather stunning look at one of the minor buildings suddenly collapsing and going down exactly like a building would go down if a demolition company took it down.

And there are records of the CIA actually letting Osama Bin Laden escape from Afghanistan into Pakistan–when they could have caught him–after 9/11. Thus letting him be a living purpose for the war making somebody so much money.

And, an interesting tidbit this writer had not heard of before doing his research on this article: the only instances of anthrax attacks were against key politicians…right before the patriot act came up for a vote!

These events are all False Flag operations, or, at the very least, dire occurrence being taken advantage of as if they were false flag operations.
The point of this article is simple: to educate people as to what a false flag is, and how it is used to rile up the population, therefore making them prone to war, and eventual enslavement.
And, make no mistake, the purpose of a false flag is exactly as stated: to rile up the population, to make them go to war, to exhaust and confuse them, and to enslave them.
Consider: 9/11 happened, and laws were passed which abrogated the constitution…and the people were happy!
Darn! We’re fighting the enemy! And they come together in camaraderie, had common purpose, and cheerfully gave up their rights.

Consider the words of Adolf Hitler. “The art of leadership… consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.”
These are the words of the man who likely burned the Reichstag, and then killed millions of people, and they describe a False Flag operation, and they describe events that if they are not outright false flag operations, are at least being taken advantage of as if they were false flags.
We are talking about the Boston Bomber as as excuse to exercise military might on the streets of America, which is blatantly in opposition to the Constitution.
We are talking about the media advertising illegal wars around the globe, that the banksters may get rich.

We are talking about hurricane Katrina, which has resulted in a whole city being uprooted and not being allowed back to their homes, and somebody in New Orleans is getting rich.
And, we are talking about the next staged event, the one that will put soldiers on the streets to enforce martial law, fill the FEMA camps, and put aside, once and for all, the Constitution for the United States.

In closing let me point out something. in the 1950s Israel attempted a false flag operation. They planted bombs in Egypt in US diplomatic facilities. But Israel was found out, and the scandal that resulted brought down the government.

Here is the thing…a government involved in false flag tactics doesn’t want to be found out. They want to go ahead and pat themselves on the back even as they shunt the constitution and enact slavery.

But finding the government out is the key…and it is the way to stop them…and it is the way to let the world know that the United States chooses freedom over tyranny!
So when the IRS is found cheating for political gain…when NSA is found to be spying on all of us…when politicians line up to attack somebody who reveals the existence of the NSA spying game…when events happen that rile you up and make you want to fight somebody, remember what a false flag is, and become the voice of reason.

It is the voice of reason that the bad guys fear most of all. For the voice of reason undoes their attempts to sow chaos and war, and illuminates evil people for what they are. It is the voice of reason that must hold sway in the coming days that we would survive these times, and that our children may run free.

This has been a page concerning false flag operations.
If you like this article, go to The Daily Neutron and subscribe!
Original source for this article was http://www.wanttoknow.info/falseflag


Source: http://thedailyneutron.com/united-states-false-flags-terrorize-citizens-world/

NO, CANDY, OBAMA DID NOT CALL BENGHAZI “TERRORISM" AND, BY THE WAY,…BUTT OUT!

from THE DAILY PEN by Penbrook One

TWO AGAINST ONE: In an unprecedented violation of presidential debate moderation protocol, CBS' Candy Crowley takes sides during a critical discussion between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama over the September 11^th terrorist attack in Benghazi further confirming the reasons why commissioners and organizers did not want her to moderate the debate.

Commentary by Dan Crosby of The Daily Pen

HEMPSTEAD, NY – The September 11^th tragedy in Benghazi is yet one more reason why you should never vote for an illegitimate president. The election of an ineligible candidate breeds a weakened sense of sovereignty among the people and, therefore, a diminished sense of unity as a nation which, ultimately, leads to a slackened appreciation of the need to remain diligent in the security of Americans overseas.

The terrorist attack in Benghazi is the seventh terrorist attack attempted or carried out against Americans since Obama became president.

Moreover, now we understand why the Commission on Presidential Debates should never allow a liberal member of the media to moderate a presidential debate in a liberal state.

In moderator Candy Crowley’s vigor to help the usurper, Barack Obama, she committed the cardinal sin of argument facilitation during the second of three 2012 Presidential debates. At Hofstra University on Tuesday night, in the bastion of all blue states, New York, CBS' Crowley plumed her true liberal colors and allied herself with Barack Obama.

 

 Surprise, surprise.

Crowley’s shocking intrusion into the debate between Mitt Romney and Obama occurred near the 66 minute mark of the hour and a half debate when she actually joined the discussion in defense of Obama, thereby committing and act of journalistic malpractice.

During a tense exchange, Romney questioned whether Obama had explicitly called the Benghazi attack an "act of terror" rather than "spontaneous" violence that grew out of a protest against an anti-Islam video.

“I think this is interesting. The president just said something which is, on the day after the attack, he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.”

“That's what I said.” interrupted Obama.

Romney fired back, “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?”

“Please proceed governor,” said Obama.

“I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.” said Romney.

“Get the transcript,” quipped a visibly annoyed Obama.

Crowley then intervened by taking Obama’s side, “It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir ... call it an act of terror.”

Taking Crowley’s queue, Obama turned into a five year old brat, “Say that at little louder, Candy.”

Crowley seemed to immediately acknowledge her error telling Romney, “It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

 

After the debate, Crowley said, “He (Romney) was right in the main. I just think he picked the wrong word.”

“Regardless of her assessment of who was right or wrong, it is not the place of any moderator to correct what a candidate says. A debate is meant for the candidates to display their level of understanding to the people!” says TDP editor, Penbrook Johannson.

“Unfortunately for Crowley and Obama, Obama did not explicitly call the attack in Benghazi an act of terrorism. He merely made a broad statement about any act of terrorism, not this one specifically.”

Here is what Obama actually said:

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said a day after the attack.

If you are an Obama supporter, this statement was in direct reference to the Benghazi attack, even though Obama does not explicitly say that the Benghazi attack is one of those acts of terrorism he is referring to. This lack of referential integrity is further indicated by his next sentence:

"Today we mourn for more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers."

Notice he never says that the attack in Benghazi was an act of terror, just that any act of terror will never shake the resolve of this great nation. More specifically, Obama never put the words “Benghazi” and “terrorism” in the same sentence for two weeks.

If you are not an Obama supporter, this statement was nothing more than a premeditated c.m.a. “escape hatch” intentionally put in place by a calculating politically-minded creature just in case he might be challenged on his competency on the issue of terrorism. This way, Obama knows he could, at least, stand on the word “terrorism” during his reaction to the Benghazi attack without actually calling that specific attack terrorism.

 

He made the broad sweeping statement intentionally to avoid the specific accusation which would appear unfavorable to his intellectually dishonest position that terrorism has been diminished because of his administration’s efforts in the Middle East.

People love to laud Obama’s intelligence. However, the Obotic horde fails to remember that Obama is the first Nobel Peace Prize winner with a kill list. He is a man divided among himself.

The problem with Obama’s lack of commitment to his wobbling position is that his administration said the attack was a spontaneous riot spurred by a YouTube video for almost two weeks while intelligence sources contended it was terrorism from day one.

Four days after Obama’s speech in the Rose Garden, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.

"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack.

That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.

"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."

Obama, himself, cited the video as the culprit six times in his address to the United Nations…eight days after his appearance in the Rose Garden.

Flip-Flopper or was he just for a terrorist attack before he was against it…before he was for it again?

All this ugliness and tragedy…and just think…the guy is not even eligible to hold the office.