Anatomy Of False-Flag Events…
By Kevin Scott King
ActivistPost.com
DECEMBER 6, 2015
Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, London 7/7 bombings, Madrid train bombings, Osama bin Laden Capture/Death, 2011 Norway Attacks, Charlie Hebdo, Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, JFK, RFK, MLK, Pearl Harbor, Lusitania, USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Liberty, Aurora, CO shooting, Charleston church shooting, Tucson, AZ shooting, Port Arthur, AUS, all very real illusions.
The purpose of this article is to break down false-flag events into their parts, deconstruct them. In so doing then create a template on how to study an event and determine if it is a false flag. Normally when one thinks or speaks of a false-flag event they are referring to the Main Event. This presentation is about the entire operation or plan of which the Main Event is but one part.
Note: What follows is but a brief or summary of a much larger project. I am posting this to the community at large to inspire others to turn this into a full-fledged project which could include a website, presentation(video), and book. Further details can be found at the end of this article.
What is a False-Flag?
What exactly is a false-flag, why is it called false-flag? The term false-flag is a naval term from the age of sail that refers to a ship flying the colors (flag) of a country other than the one to which the ship belonged. This was done for multiple reasons but a common one was to lure an enemy vessel into gun or boarding range and then at the last moment drop the false-flag and run up the true colors before attacking. It was fair sport to use false-flags but considered immoral/unethical to attack under one. To the point that it was never done. But that was a different age…
The simplest definition of a false-flag is an event in which the actual perpetrators and the reported or blamed perpetrators are different. The classic use of a false-flag, and hence the military origin of its name, goes as follows. Country A’s King wants to conquer and loot Country B’s land to enrich himself. Of course if this is what King A tells his army they may choose not to fight or revolt. Or best case their effort will be lacking. In order to get the most out of their soldiers, the commanders need them to be emotionally involved… anger, hatred, revenge. Now the skilled orator and manipulator might be able to create this mood with just words. But not many have this level of skill. It is much easier to motivate and/or raise an army if one’s country has been attacked, hence you are acting in defense. And this is where the false-flag comes in. Country A’s King and its top General(s) conspire to launch an attack against itself, claiming that the attackers were from Country B. The attack needs to be big enough to create real panic and fear, and for maximum effect there needs to be real deaths. The attackers need to be convincing in their role as soldiers of Country B, so clothes, uniform, weapons need to match appropriately. The likelihood of success of the attack is high since it would be unexpected or a surprise attack. Even if the attack were to technically fail, the fact alone of an attack might be enough to manipulate a response. King A could use men from within to execute the attack, or it might be better to use mercenaries. Regardless, a successful attack will incense the populace against the ‘evil’ Country B and, therefore, justify an invasion.
The Rest…HERE
