latest, media watch, terrorism, War on Terror

The establishment needs to make up its mind: do “false flags” happen, or not?

Just hours after the alleged terrorist attack on a St Petersburg metro station, a BBC news reporter stated (see the video above):

Well, there have been demonstrations – political demonstrations – against corruption, and against President Putin and his system…perhaps this is some kind of attempt to distract from the calls for a corruption investigation, and the calls for President Putin himself to step down.”

The BBC never uttered a single word about the possible political motives behind any other terrorist attack. Not for decades. Lockerbie, Nice, 7/7, Berlin, the Bataclan, Orlando, 9/11, JFK and the 2001 Anthrax Attacks. Every single attack or assassination has a “possible false flag” theory behind it. Some are extremely likely, others less so.

The BBC has given the same exact level of coverage to all of them: zero.

There are even proven cases of Governments planning and/or conducting such attacks: Operation Northwoods, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, the USS Liberty and Operation Gladio. These are all uncontested historical facts.

The BBC has given the same exact level of coverage to all of them: zero.

Not a single second of airtime was given over to even the faintest possibility that the Westminster attack was a “false flag”. And yet, on the very same day it happened, the BBC is already floating the idea the Russian government blew up a St Petersburg metro station “for a distraction”.

Why, all of a sudden, has the BBC changed its policy?

This comes hot on the heels of Noam Chomsky stating the following in an interview with alternet (my emphasis):

And then what happens becomes significant. In order to maintain his popularity, the Trump administration will have to try to find some means of rallying the support and changing the discourse from the policies that they are carrying out, which are basically a wrecking ball to something else.

Maybe scapegoating, saying, “Well, I’m sorry, I can’t bring your jobs back because these bad people are preventing it.” And the typical scapegoating goes to vulnerable people: immigrants, terrorists, Muslims and elitists, whoever it may be. And that can turn out to be very ugly.

I think that we shouldn’t put aside the possibility that there would be some kind of staged or alleged terrorist act, which can change the country instantly.

This is the same Noam Chomsky who said it ultimately “didn’t matter” who shot JFK, and who answered a question on 9/11 truth with a simple “Who cares?”

It seems false-flags CAN happen after all, it’s just that only certain people can do them, or only in certain specific places.

False flags are done by one of them or over there, and never by one of us over here.

That is a dangerous narrative to keep a hold of, and may end up coming back to bite the MSM en masse, just as their “fake news” epithet has done.


  1. Alan says

    I an no expert, but it does seem the role of any licensed news organisation is to adhere to the laws (in reality a set of guidelines) of the system that granted the license. Where impartial reporting conflicts with the system, the result appears obvious. There are many that espouse fine sentiments backed by absolutes, especially in the public realm, irrespective ‘media reality’ belongs to those with the biggest sticks.

  2. How strange. The good Professor Chomsky who snorted in derision at the outrageous suggestion powerful people collude and conspire to further their interests by using intelligence agencies to perpetuate acts that are blamed on the official enemy du jour thus “justifying” their heinous agenda of endless war is now peddling “conspiracy theories” of his own?

    Of course establishment figures in the US that threatened the status quo were to date assassinated by that very American phenomenon known as the “lone gunman” because only in exotic foreign lands are assassinations organized and carried out by groups with political agendas.

    Trump, we are to believe, is so unhinged he is possibly crazy enough to lie and deceive the people in the most unamerican ways. Chomsky thinks so so who am I, a mere fool who strives for consistency of thought, to wonder why the good Herr Doktor Professor Noam thinks Trump is so radically different than, say, George Bush Jr and his handlers? Is it because Trump doesn’t paint self-portraits and receive accolades from the Guardian?

    Am I being outrageous if I wonder why nobody has asked Chomsky why he thinks JFK was “obviously” shot by a guy acting alone and 911 “obviously” went down like the government said it did…and why he thinks the Trump administration is so different from the others? Seems like an obvious question to ask the man.

    As for BBC News…given its track record since 2011 it can’t be taken seriously at all. It may as well be run by GCHQ and the CIA. In fact, it probably is. It’s a joke that isn’t even funny anymore, just pathetic and absolutely cringeworthy.

  3. It’s more than obvious that the states supporting the ISIS/ISIL/al Nusra/DAESH terrorists in Iraq and Syria want Putin gone, since Russia is actually fighting the terrorist scourge while the West pretends to, in order to further it’s global goals.
    If more of these attacks against Russia happen, then it would be a safe bet that the West’s gangsters ops, like the CIA, MI6 or Mossad, is behind them to dislodge Putin and help install a a western stooge in Russia.

  4. Frank says

    Well, we don’t know with any conclusive certainty that this was not a false flag attack; a deliberate outrage which it is argued gives the Russian government the powers to introduce draconian measures against internal opposition. Having said this, however, for any rational person the obvious explanation was that this was a terrorist atrocity committed by a probably home-bred fanatic from some of the more troubled regions of the RF, Chechnya or Dagestan perhaps.

    But the western media is not concerned with probabilities or evidence but only events which can possibly be engineered to produce a negative picture of Russia. The western media is not a purveyor of news, it is a purveyor of propaganda. There is an information war going on and Russia is the target. This information/propaganda war is necessary to ramp up anti-Russian sentiment into a deranged frenzy in the anglo-zionist world in order to pave the way for a shooting war.

    • Admin says

      We would never claim the St Pete attack was definitely not a false flag. That is not the point of the article at all.

      • Frank says

        ”We would never claim the St Pete attack was definitely not a false flag.”

        I never said nor (knowingly) implied that you would. As for the point of the article well, correct me if I am wrong, but I took this to be an illustration of the different standards and slanted judgement and interpretation emanating from the WSM media when reporting on terrorist atrocities in the west and in Russia – this being self-evident.

  5. Hoax! Jesus. Do they ever stop? Surely, people are going to get wise. It just cannot go on.

  6. I cannot keep up with them all. But so interesting that there’s an attack in Russia now. Perhaps it’s actually real – have not looked yet. Surely, Russia is not part of the the establishment global power elite … or maybe it’s just doing its own version.

    Just to make a clear distinction. There are false flags and false-flag hoaxes.

    9/11 was a false flag – many people died and first responders have started to die the most horrible deaths from inhalation of toxicants at ground zero. Hang those bastards!

    Sandy Hook, Boston bombing, Oregon, Ottawa, Orlando, San Bernardino, Bataclan, Brussels, Nice, Berlin Truck, Melbourne, plus more and now Westminster are all false-flag hoaxes. Check out the gold on Westminster hoax on YouTube. Very interesting thing I learnt yesterday from Annie Logical on YouTube – all the photographs were taken by two elite insiders: Stephan Rousseau and Toby Melville.

  7. Yes, the establishment loves a good conspiracy theory as long as it’s them over there not us here.

    Take Loony Louise (the Mensch) for example. Dabbled in trashy fiction, then a go at being an MP, but it proved too stressful having to deal in reality. So resigning 2 years into her Westminster career she lands with a golden parachute as one of the Digger’s senior Murdochian executives and fake news propagator at News Corp in New York.

    She was straight in dissing the Sh*t along with the Beeb on the St Petersburg tragedy.

  8. Ian Upsall says

    We wait in hope for Mr Chomsky to change his mind and admit that it does in fact matter what is the true story behind the assassination of Kennedy and the 9-11 attacks. For a long time, his was just about the only voice speaking out to the whole world about the crimes of the US government. Lately however, he appears to have aligned himself with some very shady customers with the name of Clinton. But who knows, maybe he will see the error of his ways…or is this suggestion of his to be seen as directed at Trump personally, and further evidence that like Saunders, he has somehow been induced to shill for the Clinton/ Obama camp?

  9. Tim Groves says

    Attacks certainly happen. The ones we see or hear about in the media are not all hoaxes, although a lot of them clearly are. And when they happen, governments, media organs, talking heads such as Old Noam, and mere mortals like the rest of us, feel the need to “plant a flag” on them. And often we will will reach for a flag of convenience.

    These days in the West, has become very convenient to plant Putin’s flag on just about any atrocity or offense that will bear the weight of the flagpole, from serving polonium tea, to blowing up airliners in flight, to hacking elections, to trying to dominate the Olympics by pumping the Russian team full of performance-enhancing drugs. If we believe half of the rumors and conjectures aired about him they’ll have us fearing and loathing him as much as we are expected to hate Donald Trump.

    The problem with the BBC and mass media news reporting and coverage of science, medicine, current events, etc., in general is that these media have zero credibility. We have no reason to rely on anything they say. That’s bad for the media, but it is not necessarily bad for the sensible and sensitive segment of the public. We can take the realization that our formerly trusted media organs are thoroughly corrupt as an invitation not to be so gullible in future and to continually question our need to believe we know the truth about anything even at the cost of swallowing unverified or unverifiable assertions as fact.

    By the way, it7s early days yet but the photo I saw from the St. Petersburg explosion showing the doors of a subway car blown outwards point to a powerful blast inside the carriage. This was in stark contrast with photographic and witness evidence from the 7/7 London attacks which appeared more consistent with a bomb placed beneath the carriage.

  10. Jen says

    What the BBC is doing is the kind of projection that Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman have referred to in their propaganda model.

    Strange then that in his Alternet interview Chomsky discusses the possibility that the Trump government might engage in false flag attacks to distract his supporters but never considers that the past Obama government could have done the same (over issues such as the Ghouta chemical gas attacks in 2013 or the MH17 shootdown in 2014) or that the Democratic Party itself has blamed Russia for hacking its own emails and giving them to Wikileaks.

  11. Dead World Walking says

    “The enemy is over there!”
    Say it often enough and loud enough and the distracted proles believe.
    The enemy wears a suit, lives in a guarded mansion and is a member of the world most exclu$ive club.
    The one per cent.

  12. M. says

    For me is clear as water: Putin himself planted the bomb in a metro station of his hometown few months before the inauguration of the Russian world cup in order to boost his 80% popularity and bring about the discussion on his intervention in Syria that has been for the most part supported and given a low profile. All this with the purpose of squashing the resistance in the U.S and Russia, diverting the attention of the liberal protestors that are now very busy gloating with the blood of innocent Russians that Putin himself killed to make them look bad trying to score cheap political points. A masterstroke.

    I do pay attention. There is an slightly evasive but infallible logic: that the Russians, Iranians, Syrians and Chinese are prone to elaborated false flags and commit them every other month, proves that false flags in the West are impossible, inconceivable, only a deranged mind could even consider the possibility. Or something…

  13. Aninnymus says

    Funny, that. Using Google, Offguardian is not considered secure , but it’s fine with Duckduckgo. Why would that be, Google minions?

  14. rtj1211 says

    If you are not aware that the BBC is a roving MI6 substation within a front organisation, become aware of it.

    MI6 carries out false flags in reality but not according to The Establishment.

    The BBC is trying to outdo Murdoch right now on Russia-baiting.

    Perhaps you would like to ask why?

Comments are closed.