Leonard Hatred 8:28 Sat Jan 10
Paris - an inside job?
|
|
Antly will love this
: http://youtu.be/SEWJEiXcQFI
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
tommythebubble
5:59 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
don't now if it was an inside job more likely to be done with the aid of Mossad to punish France for voting in to recognize the palestinian's right to a state
|
Fat Del
5:53 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Absolute cranks. Amazing.
|
Alex V
5:28 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
>>> Whichever way you look at it, there are zero supporting non-military/wartime incidents of false flag events. They simply do not occur.
I don't fully agree with that. Better to say that many incidents that are claimed to be false flag events, are often unproven or have weak evidence to support that conclusion.
|
riosleftsock
5:25 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
There were at least 7 confirmed false flag operations carried out by nazi ss troops masquerading as Polish soldiers under operation Himmler, Glieweitz was just one of them.
|
Zion
5:18 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Monk~koknee 4:01 Tue Jan 13
I'm not discounting anything. The Iran Coup was not a false flag. It was a Coup.
The Gulf of Tonkin cannot be a flase flag because the first incident really did take place on the 2nd August. The second incident on 4th was the US Navy getting it spectacularly wrong - which was subsequently covered up.
http://www.historynet.com/case-closed-the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident.htm
Whichever way you look at it, there are zero supporting non-military/wartime incidents of false flag events. They simply do not occur.
|
Alex V
5:11 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
>>> ...some of what we now know believe to be true would have started as a conspiracy theory e.g. Watergate.
Theoretically yes. But I'm not convinced Watergate spent any actual time being discussed as such. The truth there was uncovered by mainstream journalists (the ones we should distrust) being contacted by primary sources, and through investigation. With the emphasis being on what they felt they could prove, not necessarily what they believed. It certainly didn't float around the internet for a decade while amateur sleuths sifted through existing media coverage for inconsistencies. If any conspiracy theory in history were ever uncovered through the latter method I would guess it would be by absurd chance.
I'm all for good journalism. And proper investigation based on evidence. Those who engage in this tend to never be labelled conspiracy theorists in the first place.
|
BRANDED
5:08 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Some false flags and conspiracies have been proven. Others are just a load of twat.
|
Far Cough
5:02 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
It doesn't prove anything, likewise it doesn't disprove anything, it's only conjecture but the likelihood that the Nazis were behind it is on the balance of probabilities, more true than not.
We're talking about a government that were actively involved in genocide not some latter day government that has been accused of orchestrating the unbelievable event of 9/11
|
Alex V
4:52 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
>>> I didn't dispute anything you said, I said when it suits, you used Wiki to dispute Lily Hammer but when I posted a link from Wiki, you turned your nose up at it
Because I don't know what it proves. What does it prove?
You say you didn't dispute what I said. But you accuse me of 'selective quoting'. Even though I never directly quoted anything.
|
Far Cough
4:29 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
I didn't dispute anything you said, I said when it suits, you used Wiki to dispute Lily Hammer but when I posted a link from Wiki, you turned your nose up at it
|
Monk~koknee
4:01 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Zico
You are simply discounting things that don't suit.
It is well documented that the CIA undertook various false flag attacks as a way of festering discontent leading to the Iran Coup.
Even if the Gulf of Tonkin was initially a cover up as the US navy was firing at a non-existent enemy the US still used it as the justification to send in their army.
Similar arguments can be made about the other incidents. That they were covered before is not any proof - either way.
|
cholo
3:54 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Had the watergate scandal remained unproven it would have been subject to rumour and suspicion over the years but would not qualify as a conspiracy theory alongside the likes of 9/11, lunar landings etc.
Just not sexy enough.
|
Eerie Descent
3:45 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
I've had it confirmed, by a very reliable source, that the Tonkin incident was indeed a cover up, and the apparent 'broken CCTV camera' outside the Sugar Hut was disposed of in a skip on the outskirts of Basildon.
|
Zion
3:39 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Monk~koknee 2:31 Tue Jan 13
Zero evidence that the Reichstag Fire (I'm asssuming you mean '33, not '53) was a false flag.
Iran Coup - ws a Coup. Much like Chile and Allende, not a false flag.
Gleiwitz - conforms to a flase flag. Military operation as a prelude to engaging in war. As long as you believe Alfred Naujocks as the whole story depends on him telling the truth.
Manchurian Incident - covered already.
Tonkin - covered already.
Still can't see a false flag incident outside of wartime, carried out by the military or secret services - or as a prelude to war, carried out by the same.
So far zero ringing endorsements that false flags are carried out in peacetime by non-military or secret service personell.
|
Alex V
3:28 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Monk~koknee 3:16 Tue Jan 13
Couldn't agree more. I couldn't imagine anyone could possibly think any different, in fact. Which begs the question, what position are you really arguing against?
Distrusting all sources is all well and good. But it absolutely does not mean that any conspiracy theory is more or less likely.
|
Alex V
3:22 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
>>> That's funny, you were quoting Wiki to dispute Lily Hammer's post. Selective quoting I believe is the term?
Presumably we've both read the wiki now. What exactly do you dispute that I said? It's very clearly proven to be in the wiki. Even in the bits you pasted on here.
|
Eerie Descent
3:20 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Monk~koknee 3:16 Tue Jan 13
|
Alex V
3:19 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
>>> Zico mentioned some false flags ops that are known about, but were considered failures. The fact they were failures is besides th epoint that the plans were made and the objective was false flag ops.
Surely nobody would argue otherwise. The existence of false flag planning, or actual operations, in no way makes conspiracy theories more or less likely. It is (in my experience) only conspiracy theorists who would falsely claim otherwise.
>>> not every conspiracy theory is complete bollocks.
No. But nearly every one that I have ever examined IS complete bollocks. Including most of the modern, more famous examples.
|
Monk~koknee
3:17 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
And some of what we now know believe to be true would have started as a conspiracy theory e.g. Watergate.
|
Far Cough
3:16 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
That's funny, you were quoting Wiki to dispute Lily Hammer's post
Selective quoting I believe is the term?
|
Monk~koknee
3:16 Tue Jan 13
Re: Paris - an inside job?
|
Alex V
I always think that truth and proof in these matters are not as black and white as people often think. It often depends what you do or wish to believe or accept. After all none of us were there on the inside and we take what become the facts from sources that may have an interest.
I may be having a recreational argument but I find cynicism the best policy.
|
| 
