background preloader

False flag

False flag
"False colors" redirects here. For the imaging technique, see False-color. False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation. In its most modern usage, the term may also refer to those events which governments are cognizant of and able to stop but choose to allow to happen (or "stand down"), as a strategy to entangle or prepare the nation for war. Use in warfare[edit] [edit] Air warfare[edit] In December 1922–February 1923, Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, drafted by a commission of jurists at the Hague regulates:[9] Art. 3. Art. 19. 1.

Evidence Conclusive: Ukraine Military Shot Down MH17 In False Flag Operation There is now a growing body of irrefutable evidence which points directly to the MH17 shoot down being a classic false flag operation. Each piece of evidence definitively places at least three nations at the scene of both the crime and the cover-up. Whereas the Ukraine government and military executed this cold-blooded murder of innocent civilians, most likely under the direct supervision of the CIA, the US and UK governments have been implementing the non-stop coverup and false flag operation. What follows is a step-by-step refutation of the fake evidence advanced by the US, as well as a presentation of the true facts of this heinous crime. The chronology of events is particularly telling in how it chisels out the circumstantial, yet solid case, against the US/UK and Ukraine as co-conspirators. Summary of Evidence Malaysian Flight MH17, a Boeing 777 carrying a diverse group of civilian nationals, departed from Amsterdam en route to the Indonesian city of Jogjakarta. FIRST: George W.

The Destabilization of Ukraine: A Classic “False Flag” Operation | Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization The main actors of the PNAC “All warfare is based on deception.” Sun Tzu (c. 544 BC – 496 BC), “The Art of War” “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” “World War III will be a guerrilla information war with no division between military and civilian participation.” Even though all that follows is public knowledge, it is important to connect the dots if one is to understand fully what has happened in Ukraine recently. As of now, the key figure of that policy of intervention in the affairs of other nations in the Obama administration is Victoria Nuland (1961- ), an Assistant Secretary of State for European and Euroasian Affairs at the State Department. Nuland is the wife of historian Robert Cagan, a Council on Foreign Relations member, and one of the co-founders with William Kristol of the infamous “Project for the New American Century” (PNAC) founded in 1997. The “New Pearl Harbor” Controversy Dr. To read Dr.

Everyone Agrees that Ukraine Sniper Attacks Were a False Flag ... They Only Argue About WHO Is the Culprit Washington's Blog Who Stood to Gain from a False Flag Operation? We pointed out Wednesday that the Estonian foreign minister claims that the new Ukrainian coalition deployed snipers to discredit the former government of Ukraine. We documented Thursday that snipers are a common form of false flag terrorism. Interestingly, while the new Ukranian coalition denies that it deployed snipers, it is now accusing someone else – Russia – of deploying the snipers as a false flag event to create chaos. AP reports today: One of the biggest mysteries hanging over the protest mayhem that drove Ukraine’s president from power: Who was behind the snipers who sowed death and terror in Kiev? Since Russia supported Yanukovych, it makes no sense that the people who ordered the sniper attacks would want to topple Yanukovych and launch a Russian invasion. In any event, AP continues: Russia has used the uncertainty surrounding the bloodshed to discredit Ukraine’s current government.

The Israel-Gaza Twitter war Last week, Khulood Badawi, a U.N. relief worker in Jerusalem, tweeted a photograph of an injured Palestinian girl, saying “Palestine is bleeding. Another child killed by Israel. Another father carrying a child into a grave in Gaza.” The photograph, it turned out, was more than six years old — captured by a Reuters photographer, and depicting a child who had been injured in a swing accident. “She was not killed by Israeli forces,” Ron Prosor, Israel’s U.N. ambassador, wrote in a letter to the U.N. emergency coordinator, Valerie Amos, in which he demanded the woman be fired “Although Ms. The U.N.’s chief spokesman, Martin Nesirky, today confirmed that the tweet was not true, adding that “it is regrettable that an OCHA [Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs] staff member had posted information on her personal Twitter profile which was both false and which reflected on issues that are related to her work.”

Psychological warfare In Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes, Jacques Ellul discusses psychological warfare as a common peace policy practice between nations as a form of indirect aggression in place of military aggression. This type of propaganda drains the public opinion of an opposing regime by stripping away its power on public opinion. This form of aggression is hard to defend against because no international court of justice is capable of protecting against psychological aggression since it cannot be legally adjudicated. The only defense is using the same means of psychological warfare. History[edit] Early[edit] Since prehistoric times, warlords and chiefs have recognised the importance of inducing psychological terror in opponents and currying favour with supporters. Another warlord, notorious for his use of provoking mass terror among his enemies, was Genghis Khan, leader of the Mongolian Empire in the 13th century AD. Modern[edit] First World War[edit] World War II[edit] Vietnam War[edit]

The Emergence of Psychological Warfare The beginning of the Second World War brought with it the beginning of a new style of war. No longer was war a strictly military test of superior weaponry and armed troops; it was suddenly a mental struggle for the minds and spirits of citizens and soldiers alike. Throughout the war, the Axis and the Allies engaged in massive use of propaganda specifically aimed at psychological manipulation of each of its subjects--they soon discovered that such forms of persuasion could be equally as effective against the enemy, given the proper investigation. Learning from Hitler's example in the early stages of the war, Britain began its mission to revolutionize its propaganda by utilizing it on a scale never before imagined. Beginning with the establishment of the Ministry of Information, Britain developed psychological warfare into a science through careful studies of the psychological vulnerabilities of the human mind. Quotes: To Go Back to the Home Page Click Here

The science behind psychological warfare Psychological warfare techniques involve the analysis of long-term psychological strengths and weaknesses of both individuals and societies to ascertain their most vulnerable points. On an individual level, this is accomplished based on the use of Personality Psychology and Combat Psychiatry with the goal of identifying "psychological phenomena applicable to the development of psychological weapons" The 2 main questions of this research are: how individual fears can be manipulated how the stresses of war can be systematically increased Combat Psychiatry examines the psychological effects of warfare on the individual. 5 enemies of individual survival: pain cold hunger/thirst fatigue, boredom/loneliness By exploiting these factors, psychological warfare attempts to focus on suffering rather than death Typical psychological reaction pattern in battle

Psychological Warfare One of the most powerful yet commonly overlooked aspects of warfare is that of psychological manipulation. People are often made so aware of the brutality and violence of war itself, that they ignore a commonly employed weapon, known as psychological warfare. World War II offers a vivid example of psychological warfare and they way it was employed to target the morale and sentiment of numerous troops. The most fascinating means of dissemination was in the form of leaflets dropped from bomber planes. These paper filled bombs contained messages intended to curb the motivation and enthusiasm of the soldiers. For example, some leaflets depicted scenes of marital infidelity, a theme that no doubt touched on an insecurity felt by many soldiers. Analysis of Psychological Warfare The Emergence of Psychological Warfare The Field of Psychology During WWII The Science Behind Psychological Warfare The Social Psychology of War The Ethics of Psychological Warfare World War II Leaflets Sources and Links

Russia on the Silver Screen Anglo-American popular culture seldom depicts Russians as heroes or even good guys—unless they come from the novels of Leo Tolstoy and Boris Pasternak. The best hope for a Hollywood Russian is to follow the example of Sean Connery’s Marko Ramius, the captain of a Russian submarine in The Hunt for Red October (1990), who rebelled against his national government. Of course, perceptive viewers noticed that the captain’s surname, Ramius, indicated that he was not ethnically Russian but hailed from the captive Baltic republics. He was thus a trusted slave plotting against his masters. Russians have almost always been cast as the Great Other, as removed from Anglo-American values as East is from West. There was only a brief period when this was not so. Russia was kicked off the team soon enough. Cold War anxiety about Russians played out in several key ways. But Russians often figure in Cold War movies without the filter of the fantastic.

Mission Unstoppable: Why Is the CIA Running America’s Foreign Policy? Dennis Blair was itching for a fight. In May 2009, the retired U.S. Navy admiral was serving as the director of national intelligence (DNI). Theoretically, Blair’s title gave him oversight of the CIA and Washington’s constellation of 16 other spy agencies. Yet, in reality, the director was powerless even to designate the senior American spy in a given country—a rank that, for decades, had traditionally been given to the CIA station chief in capitals from London to Beirut. The media dubbed it a “turf war,” but it was surely an asymmetrical one: Blair’s office was rendered impotent, simply shoved aside by a CIA bent on securing its hold on power. A few months later, when President Barack Obama’s tumultuous first year in office was drawing to a close, Blair saw another opportunity to reassert the prerogative of his office, writes journalist Mark Mazzetti in The Way of the Knife, a detailed account of the period. To be sure, an empowered and largely autonomous CIA has global repercussions.