Talk:False flag

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Maritime warfare task force Military science task force Military technology and engineering task force

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 9/11 Terrorism 2 Mainila Summary inaccuracy? 3 Votes for deletion 4 Sources and NPOV 4.1 No Flag? 5 references to US history and current events 6 Historical and contemporary parallels 7 RAF material 8 Algerian civil war 9 Massive Attack 10 Alleged fake email example 11 The Lavon Affair as a "false flag" (sources) 12 The expression "false flag" 13 How is Operation Ajax a "false flag" operation? 14 Disambiguation - Two meanings of false flag 15 In politics 16 Examples of False Flag attacks as pretexts for war. 17 Gulf of Tonkin Incident 18 We have a problem 19 Comcast

[edit] 9/11 Terrorism

I'd like to remove the sentence "9/11 is thought by some of being false flag terrorism, conducted by the U.S government so they can invade Iraq for oil." because it is quite clearly only "thought by some" who think about conspiracy theories, and is not an accepted theory by any normal person. May I? GaelicWizard 11:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure! At most a link could be kept in the "see also" section, linking to 9/11 conspiracy theories (IMO, the link should be kept: if it is, I think, a fact that 9/11 was not a false flag attack, it is also a fact that parts of the public opinion and several political groups claim that it was such a false flag attack: the problem is not so much in alluding to 9/11 — anyhow, the allusion is not very original — but rather in the vagueness of the sentence — "is thought by some" — and the unilateral motive given — "so they can invade Iraq for oil" — I'm not a specialist of conspiracy theories, but I gather that hundreds of motives might be given to an alleged false flag attack during 9/11, and oil is only one in a dozen of them...) Tazmaniacs

I seriously doubt the US had anything to do with 9/11 but it would still qualify as a false flag event if the government although not involved knew it was to happen. I've seen many polls which show a very large minority (40%?) of people in the US do believe the government had foreknowledge which takes it out of the realm of conspiracy theories. Wayne 02:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would qualify as a false flag operation. A false flag operation is carried out by a government but attributed to others. Alternatively, it could be that a government has foreknowledge of such an operation but allow it to be completed because the result might be used for political gain. Though it is clear that the US government had some foreknolwedge of a possible attack, there is little to suggest that reports were deliberately ignored for political gains. Otherwise, we might as well publish all sorts of conspiracy theories surrounding possible false flag ops. 85.210.32.208 15:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The evidence is there that the 9/11 terror attacks were a product of false flag operations as a pretext for war. More and more people are questioning the attacks including the way the towers were brought down including WTC 7 which somehow caught fire and ended up falling like one would pull a building under demolition.208.107.168.154 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the WTC and Pentagon as false flag attacks as a pretext for war - maybe presumptuous of me, maybe there should be a citation. Don't really want to get involved here. Also let's get things straight - 9/11 was treated as an attack on NATO and part of the lead up to war in Afghanistan - not Iraq - at least get those facts straight. How quickly people forget what happens.

I just love the fact that every case given under "Terrorism and false flag operations" is either the US or one of its allies doing something naughty It just confirms my long held belief that Wikipedia is a bastion of liberal/socialists/communists writing history. Let's just rename the article "American and Allies BAD, Islamists and Commies Good".Doug rosenberg 12:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide examples of other countries performing false flag operations, in fact, I hope you do so. I suspect the real reason why there are no examples listed for non-US allies is that most other countries in the world are not nearly as open with their information or investigations as America. Imagine if, say, Syria were to perform a false flag operation. Do you think they'd let the media talk about it, or hold an investigation in public view? Not likely. The reason we see more false flag operations listed for America and it's allies is not a bias in the editing but a bias in the reporting of such events, due precisely to our relatively government transparency as compared with the rest of the world. -Interested2 15:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reichsteig and Operation Gladio(although that was CIA and Italy), Putin did a false flag with that school in Russia. I'm pretty sure you are right that there have been thousands of other false flags dating back thousands of years. I think you are not getting the point if you think we are anti-american for pointing out US false flag attacks. We only point them out because we believe America is about being better than all the Communist, Fascists and the rest of the tyrannical regimes throughout history. If we are doing false flag attacks then we as a people who believe in hard work, honesty, turhtfulness, free markets and free people....we need to fix the corrupt government that is targeting us civilians with tyrannical strategies only fit for the type of people you are ignorantly accusing us of being...ONE false flag attack in AMERICA is too many! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.219.192.46 (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess it is only natural and human to wish to think that conspiracies or false flags only happened in the past and in other countries. We Finns are no strangers to false flag operations: we have the Mainila shots, perpetrated by the Russian army and blamed on Finland as a pretext for the Winter War.

In the last several years I've learned about operation Gladio, the FSB involvement in the Moscow apartment bombings in order to trigger the Second Chechen War, the imaginary Gulf of Tonkin incident (technically speaking not a false flag op), and many others... including, I dare say, 9/11. Why do I think so? There are just too many things that point in that direction, including (in no particular order):

• who profited (qui bono) from the attacks and the "unending war" that ensued, and had the motive and the means
• what has happened (legislatively and otherwise) after 9/11 in the USA has frightening parallels to what happened in Germany in the 1930s
• the lack of any kind of air force response during the almost 2-hour hijacking drama (and I refer to interception, not shooting down)
• the fact that the Pentagon (of all buildings) was not protected in any way, even though an air force base was not far, and flight 77 could approach it for 40 minutes
• Norman Mineta's testimony, placing Cheney in the white house command bunker, talking about the plane approaching the Pentagon; the 9/11 Commission disregarded this and other evidence and stated that Cheney wasn't even there at the time without providing counter-evidence
• the changing official explanations for the lack of air response; the second official explanation, which was replaced by the Commission's version, was held for several years (yet that would have been amounted to lying to investigators, which I think is a crime)
• the fact that there was a large anti-hijacking exercise under way simultaneously with the real events
• no one was ever fired or otherwise punished after 9/11, which runs counter to the "disasterous incompetence" argument
• the relative lack of a examination of the debris of the three skyscrapers, especially that of building 7 (NIST: "no steel was recovered from WTC 7" - this is against all normal investigation practices)
• the reports by first responders and even by media people of explosions in the towers, and the non-examination of the cause of these explosions. Several explosions can actually be heard in the Italian documentary to be found on YouTube, the relevant part titled - according to what one first responder said - "Seven is exploding"
• all three buildings came down at the speed of approximately 7 floors per second (or one floor in 0.14 seconds)
• they cannot explain the freefall destruction of WTC 7, showing all the characteristics of a skillfully executed controlled demolition; the NIST report on it has been postponed once again

These are just some quick examples. And, for the record, I abhor the idea that 9/11 belongs to the long list of false-flag operations. I wish it didn't. But if that is where the evidence leads me, I have no choice but to go there. And that is where people all over the world are increasingly going - cf. the recent statement by Italy's ex-president Francesco Cossiga that 9/11 was an inside job. Note that Cossiga had been setting up operation Gladio and played a part in revealing it, so his comments cannot be dismissed lightly. The possibility that the "war on terror" is based on a false flag operation has also just been raised at the top political level in Japan.

I think it is time that more Wikipedia editors, too, take a more serious look at the evidence provided by the 9/11 Truth Movement. If 9/11 too was a false flag, we cannot afford to let it only be acknowledged in the history books of the future. The official conspiracy story needs to be submitted to the same critical scrutiny as the alternative conspiracy stories. Perscurator (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the above: Nowhere close to "40%" of Americans think the government knew we were going to be attacked then. Enigma ^message Review 14:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mainila Summary inaccuracy?

In the article, on Mainila, it says: "Some Russian historians have claimed that the Finns shelled themselves with the intent of later attacking the Soviet Union." However, reading the main article on Mainila, and from the context of the talk comment above, it looks like it was the russians that were shelled by the russians. Given that, the above quote from the article doesn't seem to make any sense. If mainila was a russian village, as clearly stated in the main Mainila incident article, why would russian historians be saying that 'The Finns shelled themselves'? This doesn't make any sense and needs to be fixed, or at least clarified. It seems to be the case that someone though it was a Finnish village that was attacked, and extrapolated from there. I'm not sure why it's so badly wrong in this article, but I just came across it by random browsing, so I'm going to leave it to someone more knowledgeable about the domain to fix.

[edit] Votes for deletion

This page was recently nominated for deletion, and the consensus decision was to keep it. The deletion debate is archived here. ugen64 04:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and NPOV

Clean up rqd. 172.213.180.69 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC) With so little as a comment. Done. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• We probably do need to work on providing more published sources for this article, though. I will try to do my part when I get some time. --Satori Son 13:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Flag?

How many other situations are not to be considered False flag operatons? The Uss Liberty used UNMARKED planes and boats as the victims have stated AND they Jammed American Radio frequencies so as to limit the calls for help until the ingenious radio operator found a workaround. If not displaying proper insignia; is not the absense of insignia FALSE and or deceptive? Does that make it a pirate or private operation and not a False Flag? The ploy was apparently ment to be blamed on the egyptians although the official story is "accident" (the israeli government paid some compensations-in a round about way, we did by sending the aid dollars and loan forgiveness so it was a wash) but accident sure bothers me if american frequencies were jammed and the attack was in stages not just one isolated incident like oops I push the missle button before I got close enuff to see the bow numbers sorry?.

A conspiracy to encourage a real incident or a conspiracy to further an agenda by using an opportune incident are false flag if the intent is to make another party look like the agressor. Major examples of these should be given a paragraph. Pearl Harbour would be a good example of the first and the Reichstag fire an example of the second. Wayne 03:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Reichstag Fire should definitely be listed. WP:Be bold! Tazmaniacs

[edit] references to US history and current events

All references to false flag ops by the US or UK were deleted from the original version of this article. I have restored and amplified this coverage in a new section, Historical and contemporary parallels, and given false flag ops a place in the overall categories of war provocation and subversion; so to place them in context, i have included examples of similar incidents which are not strictly false flag ops per se. Please do not delete or cut this section without submitting changes for consensus, in order to avoid an edit war. Thank you. JPLeonard 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

JPLeonard, stop putting false "facts" in about the Ike, you are simply trying to color the article to support your predetermined conclusion. She was active during the six years prior to her RCOH, contrary to what you wrote (which can be easily determined), and her RCOH took four years, not six, and was a scheduled part of her lifespan (USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) is currently in for her overhaul and will be out of service until early 2009). Further, the fact that she's the second-oldest Nimitz carrier is irrelevant as she is 29 years into a scheduled 55-year lifespan and in very good condition having just completed a complex overhaul in the most sophisticated and advanced shipyard on the planet. Sheesh. Iceberg3k 00:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire history and current events section needs a serious rewrite, it reads like an awful ramble and isn't very convincing. Particularly making numerous contentious claims and then skipping past them without even a token attempt at backing them up. Iceberg3k 01:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cut back the text about the Ike to the statement that it's the 2nd oldest Nimitz class carrier. That fact comes from its own wiki page. The overhaul is not that notable (and that digression is starting to ramble!) Whether it being off the road and getting an overhaul speaks for one or the other side of the argument is moot. The "sidelined for six years" comes from the two source references you deleted, the Hampton Roads paper and the website of the ship itself, last line on the page. Sidelined does not seem to mean completely immobilized.
Whether this article is convincing or not might be in the eye and predisposition or belief set of the reader. Anyway, it's a subjective notion. You say it's a ramble; but I'm just hitting headline high points, famous examples. It's not the place to write a detailed revisionist history of the world here.
I've added citations where requested so you know i'm not making anything up.JPLeonard 01:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, you have not provided citations for all of the information you have re-added. I will be going through the article and deleting any and all information that is unsourced. The requirements of WP:VERIFY are stringent and non-negotiable. If, as you say, you are not "making anything up", then it should not be a problem to cite your sources so that other editors may properly evaluate them. --Satori Son 01:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the key quote from the source about Kitson: [1]
"Col. Frank Kitson, in his 1960 book Gangs and Countergangs, revealed that the British were leading large-scale Mau Mau units, and that many (if not all) Mau Mau units were synthetically created by the colonial authorities. Through orchestrating violence between their "gangs" and "countergangs," the British ensured that only native slaughter, and not revolution, would result."
Unfortunately, the book seems to be very rare.
But I HAVE added sources for all three of those passages. Which sources are you not satisfied with? The status of the guideline on reliable sources is disputed, by the way.
I have tried to adopt a NPOV here and say that certain people claim certain things. The standard cannot be that I have to prove these things. If we write a Wiki article about Jesus, we do not have to prove he is the Son of God. But we can still note that some people do believe that. JPLeonard 05:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Satori, I have to reiterate my opening comment above,
Please do not delete or cut this section without submitting changes for consensus, in order to avoid an edit war. Thank you.
I will try and source each statement. It will improve the article. But please don't go deleting a lot of material on your own because you don't think my sources are sources, OK? JPLeonard 06:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't call for discussions before edits just because you personally want the article to represent your own point of view. Iceberg3k 14:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Maine, the Wiki article on the Maine and on the 1898 war contain no conspiracy theories about an intentional, false flag explosion. Admiral Rickover found that it was an internal explosion, not a mine, and took the neutral path of positing an accident. (A kind of coincidence theory, but all in all it was an interesting initiative on Rickover's part.) I'm afraid I had to google in Spanish to find a serious article discussing the incident from a false flag viewpoint, and am posting that source. It's http://www.mgar.net/cuba/maine.htm. If anyone finds a good recap of the arguments in English, then muchas gracias a Usted.
Interestingly, it appears that false flag incidents by enemies of the Allies are sourceable directly from Wiki, but alleged fakery by the US or UK is usually not to be found in the Wiki articles on the pertinent historical incidents, or if it is, then it gets only a line or two (e.g. Gulf of Tonkin incident). "The victors write the history books," at least the ones in English, it seems. Could be a good reason for listing those allegations here. JPLeonard 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not (yet) removed any information that is sourced by poor quality references. We can have those discussions at some point. But I have deleted, and will continue to delete, any information that does not have any source whatsoever. If you have a source, cite it; if you don't, then please don't add the info. --Satori Son 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Satori keeps deleting my reference to a revisionist view that false flag tactics have been used by the Anglo Americans to create war pretexts. First he said I sourced a personal blog. I put it back noting that the sources were a book author and a magazine article by a society, not one person. Then he deleted it again without explanation. I submit that neutrality according to Satori means the Anglo American POV. It means "We Anglo-Americans are always the good guys, and whoever we make war on are the bad guys, and if you don't like it well we are the majority and we call it neutral." I question the neutrality of this page and of the Wikipedia community as a whole as regards history and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 03:56, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the source you provided was coat.ncf.ca, which is a personal blog and/or advocacy website that does not meet the requirements of WP:Attribution or WP:Reliable sources, which states "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events [and] politically-charged issues...". If you can find multiple credible and verifiable sources for your claim, then please post them here and we can evaluate them and discuss the issue.

Second, I did not feel the need to leave a detailed comment the second time I removed it because I was reverting an edit by an anonymous IP editor who left a false edit summary ("vandalized"). Finally, please keep your personal attacks to yourself and be civil. An argumentum ad personam that skirts the real issue does not aid us in understanding your position. -- Satori Son 15:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical and contemporary parallels

I am for deleting most of this section (or all of it) because it encourages the addition of half baked conspiracy theories. For example "that the British empire itself was actually founded on a false flag intrigue, the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and that Guy Fawkes was a patsy in a countergang used to create the pretext then for a series of wars with Spain." is a conspiracy theory which has been around for a very long time and is probably not true, but it is impossible to prove absolutely that it is not true, as it is that it is true. Almost any incident can be spun this way and as such is not worth the disk space and band width it takes up.

I suggest that all incidents that are not universally or near universally accepted as false flag operations are deleted from this section. An example of universally or near universally accepted false falg operation is Operation Greif and I would not object to it being included here if it was not in the in a previous section. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. This started out as a decent article about false flag activity, but this section has degenerated into a semi-comprehensible morass of conspiracy theories and tangentially related propaganda examples. What sources are provided are of poor quality, and much of the material is blatantly editorial. I strongly support its complete removal or, at the very least, a major purge of the majority of "information" here. --Satori Son 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Re: "half baked conspiracy theories", a false flag op is by definition a conspiracy. Concerning theories, you almost never get a smoking gun like Operation Northwoods. Usually the suspected culprits are the sovereign power, so you never get a court. So you have opposing theories. In such cases, I doubt if "universally accepted" is Wiki policy, because it amounts to censorship and blindly authoritarian views.
• Re "started out as a decent article about false flag activity" please note my remark that originally this article contained material about US false flag ops, which has all been removed. I am restoring it. "Decent" apparently means to the vigilantes, as I noted above, that only foreign countries are implicated. That is blatant bias.
• Re "blatantly editorial," as noted above I am trying to use NPOV. Please specify any choice of words that you think should be improved, and I will try to improve them, or be so good as to try yourself instead of deleting the whole section.
• The argument about bandwidth is a pathetically weak fallacy. Why not dismantle the whole internet and save miles of bandwidth? Why not delete all topics and have an encyclopedia with no pages, look at all the paper and space you would save? I have made my references brief; you call this rambling. You just don't like the topic. But it is by any standard a very important one. You don't think it's important if the US starts wars by fabricating pretexts? Maybe it was important to 650,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the last couple years? Along with thousands of soldiers who were just trying to support their families? How does your bandwidth stack up against their concern?
• If this is an edit war, for the record, you have started it. I am working to improve in line with suggestions made. Let us put it back as it was and continue work on it. I will continue to do so if you are willing to be more specific and logical about suggestions for improvement, other than simply deleting topics.
• The title of this section includes the word "parallels." I include some related types of operations because this gives the context of a false flag op in the category of provocations. I think that is appropriate for an encyclopedia. If there is a good article on provocation, then I'm agreed to include that material there, but it makes it easier to understand to have these related types of operations at least parenthetically mentioned together.

--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by JPLeonard (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The expression "disk space and band width it takes up" is an different way of saying "not worth the paper they are written on" which means of very little worth. Please keep to well documented cases. Those with court cases are particularly good because there is a valid and detailed paper trail. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, according to conformist thinkers, apparently means conspiracies do not exist. But how can you have a false flag operation without a conspiracy? There are no neutral viewpoints in politics. The closest you can get to a neutral point of view is to allow the interplay of opposing views, not force everybody to listen to your conformist onesided POV.

[edit] RAF material

I removed the following paragraph on the RAF, where it is more relevant (in which way did the RAF carry out false flag attacks? this text is about support by East Germany, not about false flag attacks) (Tazmaniacs 20:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)):

"East Germany gave covert support to the Red Army Faction (RAF), which was active from 1968 and carried out a succession of terrorist attacks in West Germany during the 1970s and to a lesser extent in the 1980s.Germany after 1945: The RAF(PDF) After German reunification in 1990, it was discovered that the RAF had received financial and logistic support from the Stasi, the security and intelligence organization of East Germany.Germany - E. Germany - Gen - MZ Schmeidel, John. "My Enemy's Enemy: Twenty Years of Co-operation between West Germany's Red Army Faction and the GDR Ministry for State Security." Intelligence and National Security 8, no. 4 (Oct. 1993): 59-72. "East German training and active support of the RAF by the GDR Ministry for State Security [footnote omitted] is now a documented fact." It had also given several RAF terrorists shelter and new identities.Espionage in a Divided Germany: The Stasi and the RAF It had not been in the interests of either the RAF or the East Germans to be seen as co-operating. The apologists for the RAF argued that they were striving for a true socialist (communist) society not the sort that existed in Eastern Europe. The East German government was involved in Ostpolitik, and it was not in its interest to be caught overtly aiding a terrorist organization operating in West Germany, but as a proxy war forming part of the Cold War it was a cost effective strategy. For more details see the History of Germany since 1945."

It was a false flag operation because "The East German government was involved in Ostpolitik, and it was not in its interest to be caught overtly aiding a terrorist organization operating in West Germany, but as a proxy war forming part of the Cold War it was a cost effective strategy." It turned out that the RAF were in fact an instrument of the Communist block something their detractors at the time had said and their apologists had denied. This is very different from President Reagan's overt support for the rebels of the Afghan war. Or the usual situation like the Libyan support for the IRA, ("my enemy's enemy") where no one ever accused the IRA of being puppets of the Libyan secret service. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you here, but we should wait for input from other persons. The RAF may very well have been supported by the Stasi, but the RAF reinvidicated its attacks. It never blamed them on someone else, as far as I know. It claimed being independent, and wasn't. But that's not false flag, they were not "wearing the enemy's uniform". Tazmaniacs 15:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

We haven't had others comments yet. Can you please explain more clearly why they were "false flag" attacks? In which sense did the RAF disguise themselves as political opponents? They disguise support from the Stasi, all right. But this is very common, and in no way entail pseudo-ops or false flag attacks: do you know one guerrilla, urban or not, that hasn't been supported, in some way or another, by another state? In do you know many guerrillas who openly disclose where they take their funds from? Or states which publicly recognize interfering in the business of another country by funding or providing other assistance to such or such guerrilla? I really think this part should be moved to, on one hand, history of Germany, and, if you want, to urban guerrilla. Technically, you really can't consider it as either false flag or pseudo-ops. It is, I think, a shame, for you to take care of this article, in particular by this nicely written section on "laws of war", and by cleaning it from time to time of conspiracy theories related to 11-S, and on the other hand to insist including this section on the RAF for unknown reasons. Tazmaniacs 03:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the connections between the RAF (I always find it odd using that acronym for the Baader-Meinhof Gang!) turned out to be sufficiently close that the RAF were infact fighting a low intensity war by proxy for the East Germans. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, Philip. But still, this does not technically makes it false flag: they did not disguise as Nazis, for example? A false flag attack would be, say, if Soviet agents disguised themselves as members of the KKK and burned crosses in the US in order to stir racial hatred. The Eastern Bloc has supported many guerrillas, and the Western world also supported, more or less openly, others. Jonas Savimbi has been supported in his life by many different powers. There are no guerrillas that can afford not to be supported by some state: you need weapons, you need money, and you need a sanctuary from which you can organise stuff. But it is one thing to have political, financial or military support, and another to carry out a pseudo-operation. Tazmaniacs 12:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you don't know your communist factions! The RAF were basically Luxemburgists & Trotskyists, and which to the decendets of Stalinists were beyond the pale and to the two factions were totally different. It is like mixing up national socialists and social democrats -Philip Baird Shearer 17:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care, but I think you ought to be a bit more sceptical about my POV... Anyway, now I do hear your argument, why don't you clearly express it in the article. Something like: "although the RAF claimed to belong to the anti-Stalinist left, they have allegedly been supported by the Stasi"? Tazmaniacs 18:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the RAF - Baader Meinhof material was here originally as an example of NATO sponsored false flag terrorism along the lines of the Red Brigades in Italy. It's ironic that it's now been pointed at East Germany.

The problem with this page is that conformist thinkers don't like to the idea that the Anglo Americans are probably biggest (ab)users of false flag war pretexts of anybody, so they find an excuse to take down as many such referances as possible, leaving the Japanese, Germans and Russians as the obligatory villains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.32.206 (talk • contribs) 00:52, March 1, 2007 (UTC)

I personally strongly suggest to keep this page for false flag incidents in the strict sense of the word, which is "disguising one self as his own enemy and engaging into attacks under this disguise". This rule out both RAF - since RAF did not disguise themselves as nazi terrorists; and Gulf of Tonkin incident, since the US didn't shoot on themselves during this incident. That they are manipulation in history & politics is an all too-well known facts. Suffice it to recall Saddam Hussein's alleged WMD, the yellowcake forgery, etc. But all of this has got nothing to do with false flag. RAF material, if Philip was honest, should be moved to a more relevant page. Honestly, I don't think RAF or Gulf of Tonkin are really controversial matters... Tazmaniacs 04:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved it again. Really, it doesn't suit the definition. It should goes, I don't know, RAF, Stasi, History of Germany or Active measures. Tazmaniacs 04:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tazmaniacs. This was not a truly "false flag" operation (i.e., "RAF did not disguise themselves as Nazi terrorists"). -- Satori Son 15:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Algerian civil war

Move here for further discussion

I think it is badly written and does not make sense to me. It seems to be a ramble about lots of things not to do with false flag operations like "death squads, systemic torture, kidnapping and disappearances, manipulation of the violence of opponents,". If any ond this information is to stay in this article it should only be that which is specific to the topic. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explanations. I thought it best to quote directly, and translation may be akward. But I'm sure you'll agree that it doubtlessly concerns false flag actions: Algerian intelligence officers were disguising as Islamist terrorists. The Algerian Civil War was full of events like that, and it is one of the reason of the controverse regarding the amnesty towards Islamists (while state agents have yet to be judged). So, maybe we can reduce the whole thing to :

"False flag tactics were also employed during the Algerian civil war, starting in the mid-1994. Death squads composed of DRM security forces disguised themselves as Islamist terrorists." with the source if someone wants to check? Tazmaniacs 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Provinding the cited sources are left with the text that seems much better to me. But it might be better to start it "Xyz and others have claimed that false flag tactics were employed during the Algerian Civil War..." --Philip Baird Shearer 16:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Massive Attack

Massive Attack released a single titled "False Flags" that features political elements and national elements. Should this be noted?--[[User:Yossi842| Yossi842]] 02:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged fake email example

The reference provided in support of the claim against Belinda Stronach is highly questionable. The link is to a right wing blog, which can hardly be considered an authoritative resource since the editors could easily have created the sample email and clearly have a political motive for promoting it. Unless someone can provide an independent verification of the fake email, this reference should be removed.

[edit] The Lavon Affair as a "false flag" (sources)

Uri Avnery:

"The end was sad. Following this line, the army carried out a false-flag sabotage campaign against US and British targets in Egypt designed to cause strife between Egypt and the West. The action failed, the agents were caught and the army chiefs pointed the finger at Lavon, who had to resign shamefully. (This "affair" had far-reaching political results and led eventually to the downfall of Ben-Gurion himself)." (emphasis added) [2]

Uri Avnery again:

"Haolam Hazeh fought for the separation of state and religion, for human rights, the rights of the Arab minority, equality between Jews of European and Oriental descent, the adoption of a written constitution (still lacking), women’s rights, civil rights and much more. It was the first to uncover the facts of the infamous Lavon Affair (concerning an Israeli false flag operation in Egypt), as well as scores of corruption affairs." (emphasis added)[3]

Jewish Review:

"Within weeks, an Israeli military intelligence unit known by its code-number, 131, recruited nine young Egyptian Jews to stage terrorist attacks that, they thought, would be blamed on local insurgents and would discredit Nasser's rule. Seen as a potential bulwark against Soviet influence in the Middle East, Nasser enjoyed the quiet backing of the United States. But Israel wanted to prevent Washington from becoming too friendly with the Cairo junta, which was spearheading Arab hostility to the Jewish state. The Egyptian Jewish spy cell firebombed American-linked sites--libraries, post offices, cinemas--in Cairo and Alexandria, causing some consternation but no casualties. And then the plot backfired, literally. A bomb exploded in the pocket of one of the recruits, Philip Natanzon, before he could plant it in an Alexandria movie house, setting his clothes on fire in the middle of the bustling port city." (emphasis added) [4]

The book "Global Terrorism" by James M Lutz, Brenda J Lutz - 2004 (it appears to be a school textbook):

"Israel even used 'false flag' operations. In 1954 sympathetic Jews in Egypt used bombs and arson against US installations. The objective was for local Arab..." improved link provided by PR^talk

This is just the first few I found. --64.79.161.40 17:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The expression "false flag"

Is there any documented use of the expression "false flag"? Cowpriest2 15:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is Operation Ajax a "false flag" operation?

While it is common knowledge that both the US and Britain had a part in the 1953 coup in Iran, but I fail to see how that makes it an example of a false flag operation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah well its common (scientific) knowledge the attacks on the pentagon and world trade center are not consistent with factual information....sheep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.135.111 (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think 162.136.192.1 might be correct. How is Operation Ajax a false flag operation? It sounds like a coup to me. The article doesn't explain why Operation Ajax should be considered a false flag operation. Can anyone explain why? If not, this section should be removed. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation - Two meanings of false flag

There appear to be two meanings of "false flag" used on this page:

1) To display another countries flag, wear uniform or otherwise disguise oneself in order to make an attack on an enemy in war. Example, german soldiers wearing american uniforms during wartime.

2) To frame another country for an attack as a pretext for some further action (starting a war, misleading the public, skewing an election) Example, if the Nazis burned down the reichstag to blame it on the communists.

While both these involve deception, the goals are different. Hence, These are quite different meanings and the page treats them as if they are the same. This may lead to some confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C8to (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] In politics

False flag operations in politics is at least 50 years younger (and probably much more than that) than the 2006 incident mentioned in the article. Robert A. Heinlein went as far as write a short story in which this technique was used, and commented on the short story that all the political techniques in the story were genuine, of which he had first hand knowledge. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 07:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to political campaigning in the "civilian usage" section? If so, please provide some sources, and I'd be glad to research and incorporate them. Legitimus (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of False Flag attacks as pretexts for war.

This section is supposed to list examples of false flag operations. I'm troubled by the fact that several well-known examples of false flag operations (such as Operation Himmler) are given even weight with 9/11 conspiracy theories and other non-false flag operations.

Although there is much controversy whether the USS Maine was destroyed by a bomb or by a boiler room accident, I've never heard any serious historian ever claim that it was a false flag operation. Likewise, I have never heard of any historian ever claim that Gulf of Tonkin Incident or 9/11 was a false flag operation.

I propose we split the section into three. Confirmed False Flag Operations (Mukden incident, Operation Northwoods, etc.), Potential or Possible False Flag Operations (Reichstag Fire), Debunked or Unsubstantiated False Flag Operations (9/11). 12.10.248.51 (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gulf of Tonkin Incident

I removed the 3 paragraphs regarding the Gulf of Tonkin Incident since it was not a false flag operation. In fact, the three paragraphs on the Gulf of Tonkin Incident didn't even attempt to the make the case for it being a false flag operation. This suggests to me that the original author either had a hidden agenda or did not understand what the term 'false flag' means, or perhaps both.

Hint: false flag would mean that US troops secretly dressed up as North Vietnamese and pretended to be NV as they attacked USS Maddox. Since the August 4 attack didn't happen, it couldn't have possibly been faked. Like I said, it appears to me that the original author either didn't understand what 'false flag' means or they had some sort of hidden agenda. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We have a problem

Whether it's the same user (my suspicion) or a small group of users, this 9/11 nonsense keeps getting added back in. Aside from the fact that it's unsourced and uncited, it's also nonsensical and defamatory. Enigma ^message Review 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's being added by that lunatic fringe group. I had forgotten about them. Wikipedia would be a better place if they stopped coming here. Enigma ^message Review 19:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It's still a regular occurance on this page, almost constant by my observation. I don't normally get involved, but I always see little "drive-by" edits from anonymous users adding the information in, which are quickly reverted. This user just happens to be a bit more persistent. Legitimus (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile to leave it there in a very abbreviated form and just link it to the 9/11 conspiracy theory page. An example of the difficulty of confirming false flag activities is probably better linked to the Reichstag fire since it's less inflammatory (irony intentional).Somedumbyankee (talk) 22:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah, the last edit was to trim down the 9/11 junk to just one sentence. I'm undecided on whether we should keep that reference or not. Enigma ^message Review 07:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand 9/11 conspiracy theories are a rather famous claim of false flag. It's all bull of course, but it's famous bull, and an encyclopedia documents famous bull. Weregerbil (talk) 07:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comcast

I removed the paragraph about Comcast since it was not a false flag operation. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Comcast paragraph has been reworded to illustrate how it is a false flag stunt. Also, this IP has a long history of vandalism.Legitimus (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

False flag would be if Comcast pretended to be another company and then made statements/actions attributed to said company. No offense, but you don't seem to understand what false flag means. But to make matters even worse, you make false accusations against fellow Wikipedia editors. This only damages your credibility and makes all your edits suspect. I've reverted your changes. Please do NOT vandalize this article again and please do NOT make false allegations against fellow Wikipedia editors. Thank you. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not false flag in a government/military sense, but it is false flag as it's defined for businesses, IMO. I undid your removal. Please don't remove without a discussion. Enigma ^message Review 05:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Do any reliable sources describe it as a "false flag" operation? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to concede that it may not be, in the face of informed opinions from other editors. Technically it may be considered "astroturfing," (pretending to be the general public) which this article seems to indicate is a kind of false flag. I also originally wanted to not include the company's name for fairness, but somebody else put it back in.

However, I simply found the deletion suspicious after reading the history of warnings on that IP's record. And I said "IP," not "user." This is not an idle accusation either, mind you. That IP has DOCUMENTED warnings that stretch back for years.Legitimus (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What's tricky with IPs is that it's difficult to know if it's the same user. Technically, this user may not have vandalized any of those old articles. You have to be careful when attributing vandalism to an IP, especially if it goes back years. Enigma ^message Review 15:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said it wasn't me. In any case, I don't think this qualifies as a false flag operation and as Jayjg pointed out, we do not have any reliable sources describing this as a false flag. BTW, regarding the new edit, the first sentence says "mimic a seemingly unassociated public audience." While I can see why someone might draw that conclusion, the article doesn't actually say that. Sounds like this might qualify as original research. In fact, the second sentence kind of contradicts the first. Did Comcast pack the room to mimic an unassocatied public audience or to keep opponents from attending? Either way, I don't see this as a false flag operation. I'm not sure if this qualifies as astro-turfing either. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

eh, it was never a great example anyway. I was shooting for one sourced news article per sub-section. Originally I was looking for the story of this abortion clinic accountant that burned his place down to hide his embezzlement, then made it look like it was pro-lifers. Or the pro-life group that trashed their own office to make it look like pro-choice people did it.. But it felt kind of sensitive politically and anyway I could not locate the articles. It can go I guess, I'll keep looking for something better.Legitimus (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be fairly straightforward; you should look for things that reliable sources describe as "false flag" operations. You shouldn't be trying to find examples based on your own definition of the term, and how well you think various actions fit it - that's original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)