Would the US ever fake an attack on its own soil?

Economics Political Theory
1

Many poor and Third World countries have already done it, after all.

The police was heavily involved in the Bali bombings, and helped carry them out smoothly to execution in Indonesia.

Turkey faked attacks on its own government offices, blamed Kurdish communists, and started a large persecution of them.

Russia bombed apartments in regions near Caucasus, blamed it on Chechens, and attacked Chechnya, much in the manner of what it did several decades before, when it bombarded a border village, so it could blame Finland and start the Winter War.

The big one is this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio Italian secret service bombed Italy, just so it could blame communists and socialists for it.

Here’s an interesting thing. United States has not been in a real war since WWII. Vietnam was not an actual war, and America basically sent reinforcing troops there, before withdrawing them. Other than that, even Iraq and Afghanistan have been affairs where only a small percentage of the entire army have been deployed, while the rest remained in their bases across the world.

For all practical purposes, the current US army is a peacetime army. And yet, for a peacetime army, they have an extraordinarily large military budget, that goes up to $700 billion. By the next year, they plan to go up to $800 billion - $1 trillion. To me, it sounds like one large public sector monopoly which exists just to feed up on the wealth created by the rest of the nation, and justifies any activity it does by trying to outspend other industries. The US army helped create the earliest computers, and that’s because they could outspend other electronics companies, and can just demand more funding, and since they can achieve results what they create, it only justifies more spending on it.

Of course, it is being pointed out that it is getting more and more redundant for US to have such a large army. Their navy is larger than the 13 largest navies combined. And 11 of them are US allies.

Surely their country needs to be convinced that there is a threat to them, lest they end up losing all that funding that makes them rich. Maybe bombard one of their own oil wells, and make it seem like Russians are moving on them or something. They are not above these things; they have done worse in Dresden and Japan, so why not? It could happen.[6]

2

It already did- although I somehow doubt that you would believe it [:)]. See : http://www.septemberclues.info/

3

Aye-aye!

4

Well… not that 9-11 wasn’t really shady, but here’s something a lot more concrete:

Op Northwoods

COINTELPRO

5

Do I think it is possible? Sure.

Do I think it happened on 9/11? No. The premise that the government carried out 9/11 disavows basically 50 years of pissing off the Middle East.

6

I guess this raises the question: Does letting your own people get attacked when you know they’re going to be count a false flag operation?

If I were the government, I would never attack my own people. I would piss off the enemy and let them attack some small part of my country to gather public support for the war. Attacking your own is only necessary if the opposition is completely pacifist.

7

Indeed, but one thing is to be determined to attack the , and actually being capable of carrying out such an attack is entirely an other. I’ll never buy the fable that a handful of guys with box cutters managed to fly around hijacked aircrafts for hours while the NORAD command (supposed to be able to protect the from a MASSED invasion of the former Soviet Frontal Aviation, counting thousands of Mach-2-capable aircrafts) stood idle. I think that such an attack would have impossible to carry out, even if Alexander the Great himself tried to.

8

Don’t you mean “would the US govt attack its own soil”? I can assure you the victims of such an attack would hardly find it “fake”. Anything the US govt does to break its own crumby laws on its citizens is an attack on US soil.

9

The Spanish American War clearly got it’s support from a false flag attack. I’m also pretty sure that the OK City Bombing was to frame the right-wing militia movement.

Ron Paul has stated that he wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a false flag attack to go to war against Iran. I also wouldn’t be surprised. It seems like something Obama and his Administration would do.

10

But would you strike against a strong economic force and your base of operations? I mean the WTC ever a hub of commerce and the pentagon the hub of defense, I would see more reason behind an attack in something not so vital, like a small town or sea port but these are key industries.

11

It could be said the WTC was chosen for effect, as was the Pentagon. The Pentagon one was really strange. Of the 5 sections, the empty one was the only one that sustained damage.

Had they blown up a mall or something, it wouldn’t have been as dramatic.

12

Yes but this is the pentagon. Think of how inept it makes them look when they cannot even defend their base. I also think that if they blew up a mall, yes that would of been more dramatic because it is the small town violence that gets more people sacred.

13

LM,

either way they are inept because something hit the pentagon.

14

Sounds a lot like what FDR did, goading Japan into attacking.

15

… in answer to the OP title: yes it would, it has and will again.

16

Understood. But at the time, no one was saying this. No one took the 9/11 attacks as “hey, we spend 400 billion a year on national defense and they can’t protect us from boxcutters… wtf?”, it was all about the drama and the tragedy.

I don’t think bombing a mall would not have been as tragic. It is too regular. I think they needed an international event to do international things. If Islamists bombed a mall using a van or something, the threat would seem more domestic. But most americans think that evil dudes from some other country boarded a plane in a shady country and flew it to america because of their foreign agenda.

None of the false flag targets have ever been purely domestic areas… they’ve always gone for the international element.

So remember that the US really wanted the whole world’s support with this war, which makes the WTC more attractive. As Americans we might view this as just a symbol of commerce but its probably one of the most international buildings in the world. The media didn’t really play up the pentagon bombing, but it was probably a much bigger deal to military people, who are important to have on your side if you want a war.

And as for decimating the economy… they had an ace in the hole with low interests rates, as we all know ;). And in a democracy the leaders don’t need to safeguard the long term good of the country as Hoppe explains. And even if the whole of the US economy were decreasing, special interests could still be gaining… of course the military industrial complex took off again :stuck_out_tongue:

17

America already has more than enough enemies in the world to supplant the need for nefarious government plots. Such is life when your nation is running a global imperialist venture. Just ask the British…

18

It is even said that the US government made sure that the Pearl Harbour attack was to happen as smoothly and effectively as possible. Hell, they even knew that Pearl Harbour would be the exact place they would attack years in advance.

I don’t believe it, but the US legislature back then was extremely isolationist and unwilling to interfere in external matters, and it took Pearl Harbour to convince them to go to war. What else can be said?

19

USA has already faked attacks two times for sure:

  • Faked attack on USS Main, propaganda and lies that lead to USA attacks on Spain Kingdom where USA took control of several teritories. This was begining of US imperialism and militarism.
  • Gulf of Tonkin incident, where USA again faked the attack to engage in Vietnam war.
20

Non-interventionist. Isolationism is something different.