False flag operations are covert (black) operations conducted by special forces, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as though they are being carried out by an enemy. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colours; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. Generally considered a dishonourable and extremely cowardly act. False flag operations are not limited to war or counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during the Italian Strategy of Tension.
INDONESIAN police or military officers may have played a role in the 2002 Bali bombing, the country's former president, Abdurrahman Wahid has said.
In an interview with SBS's Dateline program to be aired tonight, on the third anniversary of the bombing that killed 202 people, Mr Wahid says he has grave concerns about links between Indonesian authorities and terrorist groups.
While he believed terrorists were involved in planting one of the Kuta night club bombs, the second, which destroyed Bali's Sari Club, had been organised by authorities.
Asked who he thought planted the second bomb, Mr Wahid said: "Maybe the police... or the armed forces."
"The orders to do this or that came from within our armed forces, not from the fundamentalist people," he says.
The program also claims a key figure behind the formation of terror group Jemaah Islamiah was an Indonesian spy.
Former terrorist Umar Abduh, who is now a researcher and writer, told Dateline Indonesian authorities had a hand in many terror groups.
No! Non ci credo! Veramente?!
"There is not a single Islamic group either in the movement or the political groups that is not controlled by (Indonesian) intelligence," he said.
Damn, these conspiracy theorists ARE EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
INDONESIAN police or military officers may have played a role in the 2002 Bali bombing, the country's former president, Abdurrahman Wahid has said.
In an interview with SBS's Dateline program to be aired tonight, on the third anniversary of the bombing that killed 202 people, Mr Wahid says he has grave concerns about links between Indonesian authorities and terrorist groups.
While he believed terrorists were involved in planting one of the Kuta night club bombs, the second, which destroyed Bali's Sari Club, had been organised by authorities.
Asked who he thought planted the second bomb, Mr Wahid said:
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
its unbelieveable just how many terrorist groups seem to be controlled by intelligence agencies..
i've recently been doing a bit of looking up on the IRA/kevin fulton etc... i kind of wanted to believe that they were just a bog-standard/isolated terrorist group. but no! more tax payers money going into killing innocent people it seems!
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act"
TimmyG wrote:its unbelieveable just how many terrorist groups seem to be controlled by intelligence agencies..
i've recently been doing a bit of looking up on the IRA/kevin fulton etc... i kind of wanted to believe that they were just a bog-standard/isolated terrorist group. but no! more tax payers money going into killing innocent people it seems!
Yup. I live in Northern Ireland and many people here are all to aware of MI5/MI6 involvement in BOTH sides of the conflict here. Have a browse over the details of the Omagh bomb. British intelligence from start to finish.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Anti-sophist wrote:Why do I even care? In what kind of bizzarro universe is evidence of some minor conspiracy in Bali change anything that happened on 9/11?
Maybe we are avoiding it because it's a non-sequitor.
Holy nonsense.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Ad hominem. Another hallmark of logical and rational thought. Anything else for me, or are we done here, so I can go back to letting you believe this nonsense is even mildly relevant.
I was reading an article about Iraq. The Shiites were saying they never do revenge attacks on Sunnis after car bombings, the Sunnis were just faking the attacks so they would have an excuse for more bombings. Meanwhile the Sunnis said they never bombed anybody, the Shiites were bombing themselves so they would have an excuse to attack the Sunnis.
So apparently there is no civil war in Iraq, just two sides busily attacking themselves.
Either than or maybe the fact that someone somewhere says something is a conspiracy doesn't really mean much.
Well, it's exactly like the new loose change video that's coming out. They are going to devote huge sections of it proving OTHER conspiracies have existed. They honestly believe that if they can prove OTHER conspiracy, that some how changes the events of 9/11. Somehow, the missing element in a proof of 9/11 conspiracy, is the suggestion that other conspiracies have happened.
It's the same stupid fallacy as "No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire, therefore they didn't". Nothing about previous collapses, or previous conspiracies, changes anything that happened on 9/11.
This is all an important point, though, with CTers... it's not just about getting the facts right... it's also making sure the logic that gets you from facts to conclusions is sound. They are quite good are basing conclusions on actual facts, but utterly terrible logic.
The fact you think you are fighting for the victims by desecrating their memory every day is slightly more humorous than your belief that there is an actual, useful, and meaningful piece of evidence to be found in the topic of this thread.
I think I've said enough to convince any random passer-by that this isn't worth considering, and you clearly are well beyond the point of rational thought, so I've completed all that needs done, in this thread.
Those who don't draw conclusions first, and ignore evidence that doesn't support their conclusions, have seen it. You are too busy looking for evidence to support your conclusion, to see the evidence against it.
Anti-sophist wrote:Those who don't draw conclusions first, and ignore evidence that doesn't support their conclusions, have seen it. You are too busy looking for evidence to support your conclusion, to see the evidence against it.
Any examples of me doing that me-lad-eo?
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Have you not been paying attention to the PNAC conversation? I've only been accusing you of using circular logic for 15 posts.
When you presuppose a conspiracy, you "read into" the PNAC sentence what you want to read. You read things that aren't there. You are "reading between the lines" based upon your preconceived notions of conspiracy. You are _looking_ for evidence of a conclusions you've already formed. It's a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
If you presuppose a conspiracy, it's _very_easy_ to find it, anywhere you look. In formal logic, if you presuppose a notion, you can (obviously) always prove it to be true.
Anti-sophist wrote:Have you not been paying attention to the PNAC conversation? I've only been accusing you of using circular logic for 15 posts.
When you presuppose a conspiracy, you "read into" the PNAC sentence what you want to read. You read things that aren't there. You are "reading between the lines" based upon your preconceived notions of conspiracy. You are _looking_ for evidence of a conclusions you've already formed. It's a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.
If you presuppose a conspiracy, it's _very_easy_ to find it, anywhere you look. In formal logic, if you presuppose a notion, you can (obviously) always prove it to be true.
Funny that, seeing as how my arguement on th PNAC topic has not mentioned them having anyhting to do with 911. My arguemnet is one over the use of language in the document.
You have been pointing out how i have read too much in to the document yet my arguement has not even commented on that what so ever. Like i say, it is about clarifying the use of terminology, not the intent of its creators. We can get to that if you like but once my points have been addressed.
Sorry to rain on your parade.
So again;
Those who don't draw conclusions first, and ignore evidence that doesn't support their conclusions, have seen it. You are too busy looking for evidence to support your conclusion, to see the evidence against it.
Any examples?
Please also bare in mind that you have no idea what my conclusions are.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
No one is impugning the death of 200 people. We are all sitting around scratching our head and what kind of model of proof allows for this story, in any way, to be connected to 9/11 as support of any logical position.
It just doesn't make any sense. I know you think everyone is reading this and going "oh no! I can't respond! He's figured it out!". In reality, we are thinking... "This is completely off-topic and irrelevant to the events of 9/11".
Anti-sophist wrote:No one is impugning the death of 200 people. We are all sitting around scratching our head and what kind of model of proof allows for this story, in any way, to be connected to 9/11 as support of any logical position.
It just doesn't make any sense. I know you think everyone is reading this and going "oh no! I can't respond! He's figured it out!". In reality, we are thinking... "This is completely off-topic and irrelevant to the events of 9/11".
And yet you all start topics about chemtrails....
BTW, no one is fooled by your "this isnt connected to 911" nonsense. It is part of the hoax war on terror, it was blamed on Al Qaeda and has been used to bolster your leaders policies around the world. So yes, it has relevance.
And even if it doesn't, then what? I posted a topic. If you care to comment, fine. If not, great! I can pretent for five minutes that hr 6166 has thrown you in some dark hole of the world.
Actually, let me turn this in to a direct question;
Do think there should be further investigation in to the Bali bombings? (Bare in mind that i have plenty more on the subject should the need for me to post it arrive.)
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
BTW, no one is fooled by your "this isnt connected to 911" nonsense.
No one? Who are you talking about? All the other people who are involved in this thread, other than you and I? This is what it always comes back to with the paranoid types, the ever-present "crowd" watching.
Until you have some actual proof of a connection between this and the 911 conspiracy (which you haven't proven, either), this is, at best off-topic, and at worst a red herring.
PS: Your use of "no one" here is called an "appeal to the majority". It's also a fallacy.
Do think there should be further investigation in to the Bali bombings? (Bare in mind that i have plenty more on the subject should the need for me to post it arrive.)
Are there unanswered questions in the Bali bombings of any significance? If so, then yes, I'd say they should be investigated.
Until you have some actual proof of a connection between this and the 911 conspiracy (which you haven't proven, either), this is, at best off-topic, and at worst a red herring.
I'm giving examples of how the war on terror is a sham. Any problems understanding that?
Even if it is off topic, so what? Dont want to comment? Then dont. Though it seems to me that this is your method of dismissing a subject that you simply dont wish to properly engage in.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
Unfortunately, you, as a CTer, took the usual fallacy of false dichotomy (look it up) and forced me to respond.
You took the critics "lack of response" as evidence of the validity of your argument, completely ignoring the the other option: that it wasn't even worth talking about, because it was so far afield.
I jumped in merely to correct your own statement and point out that what you are claiming does not necessarily follow from the facts. In other words, there are more reasons than "OMG THE EVIDENCE IS SO GOOD!" for critics not responding to your off-topic ramblings that you can connect through circular logic and paranoia, in place of hard evidence.
Had you not brought up our "silence" as "proof", I wouldn't be here. I am merely responding to your fallacious logic.
DeFecToR wrote: It is part of the hoax war on terror, it was blamed on Al Qaeda and has been used to bolster your leaders policies around the world. So yes, it has relevance.
And even if it doesn't, then what? I posted a topic. If you care to comment, fine. If not, great! I can pretent for five minutes that hr 6166 has thrown you in some dark hole of the world.
So you believe al Qaeda was blameless in the 9/11 attacks?
Can you do me a favor, and play the devil's advocate for a moment? Tell us what evidence the authorities have (or claim to have) that al Qaeda is behind the 9/11 attacks.
This is important, because if you can answer the question accurately, it shows you have given careful thought to both sides of the issue before coming to your conclusion.
Anti-sophist wrote:
You took the critics "lack of response" as evidence of the validity of your argument,
No. I was just waiting for the critics response. Now that you have responded by dismissing the article THAT has given me evidence of the validity of the arguement. He he.
Anti-sophist wrote:
Had you not brought up our "silence" as "proof", I wouldn't be here. I am merely responding to your fallacious logic.
Sorry, but remind me where i stated that the proof of inside job in the Bali bombing was in you critics not responding?
Jesus Christ, now who's forgotten to apply logic?
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James
If you aren't saying that, then I reiterate, why are we talking about this? The silliness of this conversation has grown tiresome. You've said nothing of value.
