fake news, featured, terrorism, UK
Comments 136

Why so much “fake news” about Manchester “terror attack”?

the egregious Buzzfeed has an article today collating the huge amount of alleged fake news erupting around the alleged terror attack in Manchester.

The alleged fakery includes:

1) a story about “sixty children” being given shelter in a nearby hotel, dismissed as “fake’” by the Guardian

And described thus on BuzzFeed:

“…Many popular social media accounts posted incredibly viral tweets suggesting a group of around fifty unaccompanied children had been taken in by a Holiday Inn hotel close to the Manchester Arena following the Ariana Grande gig. Many of the tweets, apparently shared in good faith, urged concerned relatives to phone Holiday Inn directly if they could not get in touch with their child following the terrorist attack….

2) a “victim grid” including people who are very much alive and many miles from the alleged event. This grid was published in the Mail and elsewhere before being debunked.

.

3) fake Twitter posts of fake searches for fake victims, including this photos of an alleged “missing child” tweeted by his alleged sister…

that is – allegedly – actually a photo of a child model….

4) claims from alleged witnesses of shootings and “gunmen” at a nearby hospital which again made it into the MSM:

but were “all seemingly sourced back to one incredibly viral Facebook post claiming a man was outside the hospital with a gun.”

Buzzfeed, of course, has its own angle on the source of this fakery, ascribing it to “trolls” and the like, and the mere fact this mountain of fraud is being discussed in such places implies it will be used to further an agenda – probably the increased censorship of social media and alt news sites to combat the meanies who tell lies. We can also be sure there will be no outcry against the mainstream outlets that published the fake news, because the MSM gets a free pass on fakery.

But we don’t need to like or agree with Buzzfeed’s approach to recognise this bizarre amount of fakery raises many important questions. It further emphasises the blurring between reality and fiction that is the norm now in our collective awareness. Whoever may be behind them, the fake Twitter appeals to find fake missing people blur seamlessly with the genuine ones. None of us can really tell where one stops and the other begins. Or how much of any alleged event belongs on which side of the divide. We can all be duped. Now more than ever.


136 Comments

  1. Taylor Swift is a fascist white supremacist she licked the KOKKK of Morsay, Benoit Hamon and ANDREW ANGLIN and she voted for Adolf Trump TWICE. Taylor Swift the hef RACIST also listens to the necro music SEWER 2154 from the racist site the DAILYSTORMER!!! Google “Taylor Swift SEWER 2154” and SEE FOR YOURSELF! The songs talk about spitting in the pussy of 12 year old GIRLS!!! BOYCOTT TAYLOR SWIFT to fight FASCISM and PEDOPHILIA!

    Like

  2. Occasionally useful idiots become indoctrinated and commit acts that can be exploited for political reasons, not necessarily “false flags”. The MSM is the best and promoting fake news, I loathe buzzfeed however they are right, online trolls like to put stories out strictly to dupe MSM and get them to publish fake news to prove how fake the MSM is. This won’t likely change any time soon.

    Like

  3. Okay, so someone posted the following (below) as “proof”… look at it carefully and ask yourself which part of it proves anything? I see people talking… period. People I don’t know. No matter where they work, or how long they’ve worked there, these are people I know nothing about… what do their “testimonies” prove? Do we really think that if the “Government” (however you refer to it) wants to condition and manipulate the electorate to achieve a desired end, they’re incapable of planning, orchestrating, executing a bit of theater that’s convincing to those who can’t imagine the “government” would deceive them? Do we think that people who look like nurses or EMTs or kindly old gentlemen, and who even are these things, can’t also be affiliated with the Military and/or Intelligence?

    I know this comment will reach only a few people. To those people: look very, very carefully at the “proof”. Don’t be Duped. Even when they call you a “heartless bastard” (because they most certainly will). Stay strong.
    The Guardian is sending people over here to fuck with your Critical Thinking.

    http://www.itv.com/news/granada/update/2017-05-25/watch-medics-reflect-on-the-terror-attack/

    Like

    • mog says

      Looks like someone wanted to control the crime scene by restricting access to ‘specialists’ for the first hour.

      Liked by 1 person

      • John says

        Usually, the emergency services are kept back in case any further unexploded devices are present at the scene.
        It is also why emergency service workers tell members of the public not to run, in case they run into danger.
        I have serious reservations about this incident and its timing but – far more importantly – I think we should be asking what process resulted in this sorry and stupid individual throwing his life away for no good purpose?
        Within the Libya context, it may well be a case for British Intelligence of: “As you sew, so shall you reap”.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. mog says

    Just for the record. I spent about 5 minutes searching (via Twitter and then onwards following links) and found a number of testimonies of doctors, nurses, paramedics and witnesses. There are lists and photos of the dead.
    If anyone really thinks this is all faked, I disagree, and cannot see a way that so many honest people could be so quickly and completely corrupted, or how the grieving friends and families could put on an act so monstrously absurd.
    Get fucking real, and challenge your own self confirming click shit.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Feel free to post those links, Mog, so we can be the judge of how authentic the material they lead to seems.

      Like

      • “Get fucking real…”

        It’s just so hard with obvious Trolls/Shills constantly ginning up so much fake emotion around such events.

        Like

        • mog says

          Testimony of nurse Joe O brian:
          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/24/i-still-feel-raw-nurse-tells-of-treating-manchester-bombing-victims?CMP=share_btn_tw

          Senior Paediatrician who has done a lot on media:

          Several doctors and paramedics testiony here:
          https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/23/absolute-heroes-praise-for-medics-treating-manchester-victims

          Ambulance driver here:

          Forgive the emotion, but this was a sick attack on kids.
          I am done here. With you anyway.

          Like

          • If you promiseyou’re “done with me”, I’ll let you in on a secret: I’ve seen photos/ “medical testimonies” from every anti-Moozlim or anti-Gun Lobby Propaganda Event from Gabby Giffords to Sandy Hook to Aurora to Boston and every single smaller event between (btw, I hate guns, but I also hate being manipulated). I watched the “carefully” (well, a large amount of time/effort/cash went into these productions, certainly, sloppy as they were) produced “documentaries” of Gabby Giffords, with her unconvincing make up, and not-quite-right symptoms, simulate a “miraculous recovery” from being shot, point-blank, in the head… much like Malala. who staged a “miraculous recovery” after being shot point-blank in the head. And so on. There are always “hero” narratives attached to these events, and “heart-rending” stuff involving children or young lovers… anything to get maximum impact. Oh, yes, and there are always Highly Upsettable, Irrational, Malleable Types (the authentic versions of the character you’re playing) screaming HOW DARE YOU etc etc PEOPLE HAVE DIED etc etc THINK OF THE CHILDREN etc etc. Because Propaganda relies heavily on High Emotion/ Melodrama/ Histrionics when it’s time to drive the point home. As we know.

            But I have seen coverage of REAL traumatic events (usually local; rarely national) and they are always and IMMEDIATELY convincing… one never questions their Reality. Such events rarely involve Hero Narratives, beautiful-young-lovers-cut-down-by-Ebil-Moozlims or “Uplifting” take-aways. They are tragic, serve no purpose, have no meaning and are a sad result of drugs or greed or jealousy on a Saturday night, and so on… but NOT Geopolitics. I once saw footage of a real woman reacting in court (weeks after the fact) to the violent death of her grown son and it was devastating. No comparison to the works of the Crisis Actors (even the ones who know how to get their faces wet, rare as that is).

            Well, that’s one of the advantages of NOT being Brainwashed, isn’t it? It’s very hard to manipulate me. I don’t watch TV (I don’t even OWN one) and I don’t cry at Hollywood movies.

            Thanks,

            Trusting that you’ll be as good as your word and Fuck Off now,

            S

            Like

            • “….All this fakery would take a lot of planning.”

              And they don’t have the time, budget, will or manpower for planning, do they? Why, if they could plan and execute a False Flag capable of fooling Gullible Citizens, what else might they be capable of…? Planning, executing and justifying illegal invasions of sovereign nations with wholly falsified justifications? Preposterous! I mean, don’t they have modest, rational goals and ethical outlooks similar to you and I…?

              Like

    • Sav says

      I don’t doubt the incident happened. But we can still speculate on who is pulling the strings directly or indirectly.

      There is a lot stuff about crisis actors strewn about over youtube which is just so over the top that I sometimes suspect it’s deliberately done to tarnish anyone questioning these incidents. That said, look at the recent disclosure of a British firm being contracted to make fake terror videos. Is it any wonder people are suspicious.

      There are unseen forces out there up to all sorts of crap that years ago I would have thought too far fetched. So everything should be at least listened to.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Yes. At this point it’s all speculation and nothing should be ruled out a priori.

        On the other hand, debunking by video analysis and “how” people imagine that people “would most certainly behave” under the circumstances is to my mind pretty weak in terms of “evidence” and even as a line of inquiry.

        My instinct is that people did die.

        It’s easier to pull the pin on a grenade in a crowded venue than to arrange a montage.

        And you are more certain of generating real outrage and lasting divisions over really dead and mutilated and traumatized children than you are if you “fake the tragedy,” and, furthermore, running a greater risk, if only for its greater complexity of execution, of being exposed in your fakery,

        Of course, there are staged incidents designed to heighten the for camera impact of the contrived ‘images’ to be disseminated. No question.

        But terror — real terror — is not something to which the intelligence and military apparatuses are at all averse, and it is by far cheaper and easier to pull off in logistical terms. Terror — the real terrorism of the murder of innocents — is, after all, their stock-in-trade.

        Liked by 1 person

        • mog says

          This might duplicate as I posted multiple links in one post and got into a moderation queue.
          I agree with Norman that it is not only easier to bomb for real than fake it all, so why fake it?
          It would be immensely complex to get all the following to hang together….
          A leading paediatrician who has spoken on several media broadcasts:

          Liked by 1 person

        • N!

          I don’t find it automatically suspicious when someone presents an opinion, one way or another, but I find it suspicious when someone keeps trying to push an EMOTIONAL RESPONSE to a story like this. Why? What good is that meant to do? When we allow ourselves to be Manipulated Emotionally, our Critical Thinking flies out the window. Why is this commenter trying to push these buttons? To what advantage? If he/she gets some people upset (upset enough to accept parts or all of the official narrative), what does he/she get out of it?

          So: does this commenter believe the event is a False Flag? If he distrusts the Official Narrative to that degree, why does he buy the rest? Or does he actually buy (or want us to buy) the entire narrative, gradually?What’s the goal?

          Are some of us already accepting that there was a Suicide Bomber? Why? What’s the proof? Is there footage of the conveniently-identified character blowing himself up? Are we suddenly taking the Government’s word for it?

          “This info is pretty easy to find” indeed. Isn’t that more of a Red Flag than not?

          Are we back to the basics of Propaganda 101, now?

          Like

          • StAug,

            Who at this point can say what the Manchester Bombing was about? The alleged event just happened. A certain amount of time will be required for the details of the matter to emerge on the bases of reliable and independent corroborations.

            What is alleged is a terror event having been committed by a radicalized Muslim youth. That’s the official line so far.

            Predictably, then, on the basis of this framing, already the ‘reaction’ among the general population in the West will tend in the direction of an antipathy toward Muslims in general and support for any kind of military intervention in the Middle East that might be presented as an attempt to thwart acts of terror against the West.

            Regardless of what really went down in Manchester, this is the nub of the value in propaganda terms of the alleged bombing.

            Furthermore, it also becomes a pretext for further curtailing the civil rights of Britons, for militarizing the streets of the U.K., preemptively deploying force, so to speak, against increasingly restive factions among the population.

            This is as much as we can assert to any degree of confidence about the alleged bombing and its significance.

            As to whether the incident was real or fake, you have to put your trust in the testimony of ordinary people speaking on the public record.

            I’ve only just begun to sift through such testimonies. Nothing I’m hearing or seeing appears to be amiss.

            I worked in a hospital for well-nigh 24 years. In that time, I witnessed firsthand terrible injuries and deaths, and along with those, the reactions of people — of responders and nurses and doctors and relatives and co-workers and myself — and there is no template by which you could possibly determine whether a person’s reaction or behavior is “normal” or “not normal” under such circumstances.

            Some people are overwrought. Others appear completely unfazed. And there is everything else between.

            You can’t watch a video and decide from the way people are behaving whether they’re under the stress of a real or fake event.

            Of that, you can’t convince me. I’ve first hand experience in such matters. Any kind of behavior is ‘consistent’ with both witnessing and having witnessed a traumatizing event.

            So at this point in time you don’t know anymore than I do whether the bombing was real or fake, and if real, whether it was a false flag, although given the information that is now surfacing about about the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), that seems increasingly likely or at least plausible.

            You write:

            Are some of us already accepting that there was a Suicide Bomber? Why? What’s the proof? Is there footage of the conveniently-identified character blowing himself up? Are we suddenly taking the Government’s word for it?

            Really, Steven? If such footage were indeed available, you’d be the first to call bullshit on it.

            So you can’t be serious about suggesting that if the Government were to produce such footage, you would be in any way persuaded about anything.

            And of course, you’d be quite correct to reserve judgement until additional corroborating information from other reliable and independent sources surfaced.

            So refusing to rush to any conclusion until evidence has accumulated to the point where a conclusion can confidently be espoused is not “suddenly to take the Government’s word for anything.”

            It is, rather, merely to exercise an eminently warranted degree of epistemological caution.

            If you think that you already know that this incident was faked on only the basis of the alleged information that has so far emerged, then you are the one pushing an emotional response because your conclusion ultimately rests on what can be nothing but as yet unreasoning intuition.

            Like

            • Norm, I would put my faith in Crowd-Sourced coverage of this event. Had it been real, there’d be lots of freaked-out teens posting viral vids of their experiences. I put as much faith in the MSM testimonials you’re falling for as I did in “Harley Man’s” testimony at Ground Zero, and Gene Rosen’s testimony at Sandy Hook, and the “Cowboy Hero’s” testimony at Boston and Suzy H’s testimony at the Gabby Giffords event, et al. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

              And if I saw CCTV footage of the perp blowing himself up, I would believe it to the extent that a False Flag could feature a real live patsy with a bomb in his backpack he may not even have been aware of. It wouldn’t prove that the named character they’re using was the perp, but it would convince me that a “bomber” actually existed and died and injured/killed others. If I see such footage, I’ll believe it.

              I feel that the bar of incredulity is suddenly reset to a naive value merely because you have been exposed to the suggestion that kids were slaughtered. I need something more stable than “eye witness” testimony as provided by Media Giants we all know are there only to lie/ occlude/ shape public opinion. If I have a friend who’s a compulsive liar, I will tend to doubt everything he says… not just the bits I don’t want to believe.

              Like

    • MS says

      Meh – it’s just part f the ongoing psyop. The yanks break the leak so the citizens of UK can see the blood and feel the shock and be convinced how real it all was, w/o the UK government having to take the rap for being insensitive. And as a bonus we can all unite in deploring the Americans.

      Personally I have my doubts any of these terror events are much more than drills now. I think they have figured a way of getting the shock and awe without having to kill people or get messy. A few (often really bad) crisis actors and a few drills going live. The evidence for this being the case in some of these events is overwhelming. Sandy Hook is a good example. And the Boston bombing. Too many anomalies, missing details, altered details, ridiculous implausible injuries, absurd contradictory narratives.

      Liked by 1 person

        • Yep. Verisimilitude. Makes it feel more “real” that the UK are “angry” with the Yanks (who are running the operation) for “leaking” (the bullshit artifacts). Ho hum.

          Like

  5. Be afraid, be very afraid! So much so that you and your family cower in your home, too scared to go out. All we need is the rest of your liberties and most of your money–we’ll leave enough for food and rent–and we’ll guarantee your safety, well kinda, because sometimes shit just happens, especially when WE are in charge.

    People were becoming inured to the garden variety false flag, so now they’ll be going after the most helpless, so stay fearful, so afraid you can’t ask questions, only quiver and hide.

    Like

  6. BigB says

    Operation Temperer – the Army on the streets – the paramilitarisation of the Police – in flagrant contradiction of our Constitution (not to declare Martial Law in times of ‘peace’) – a ‘Critical’ threat level (yes, from Downing Street at least) – a rolling declaration of a State of Emergency – a suspension of the election? Is this the start of a police state authored by Treason May? Or an enactment of the Civil Contingencies Act – a legacy of Tony fucking Blair?
    May doesn’t have to do a thing – the architecture of a police state is extant – and has been for 15 years. The Terrorism Act 2000; the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act; the Criminal (in)Justice Act; the Civil Contingencies Act (our very own Patriot Act – in the hands of someone like May); are some of the highlights.
    If Parliament were to remain suspended (which she could do) – there can still be Laws passed by Royal Prerogative; or repealed and modified with Statutory Instruments – courtesy of the enabling Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act (aka: the Abolition of Parliament Act.) Thanks Labour.
    Courtesy of todays UK Column news: the real Treason May police state bill has yet to come (we’ll have to make do with a deferred Labour police state for now) – whereby she can deploy the Army pretty much on a whim.
    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-07-08/debates/9ECC74EB-4DFE-4B75-9168-BAD04B120EC0/ArmedForcesDeployment(RoyalPrerogative)Bill(HL)
    Is anyone manning the barricades yet?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Favorite MSM Blooper thus far: shaky “urgent” and “terrifying” video of inside the arena with audio track of screams and squeals of terror. But if you look very closely (not easy to do while the camera is whipping nonsensically to and fro)… you can make out that people aren’t moving very quickly at all and some can even be seen to be playing with big pink balloons, batting them about like beach balls. Which is fairly brave behavior given the circumstances and the deafening ambient screams all around them, no?

    Like

      • Christ, I looked through about two dozen vids before I noticed that effect… if I turn that vid up again soon I’ll post it! But I did notice the same in more than one video, so it shouldn’t be too hard to come across again…

        Like

      • Well, looking quickly I’ve turned this one up, which features about half a second during which you can see kids playing with the balloons (while leaving the arena) but this one doesn’t feature the (obviously fraudulent) “screams” SFX over the scene of kids hitting the balloons around (at the :38 mark):

        Liked by 1 person

        • mog says

          I know colleagues of doctors who have been working on casualties from Manchester Arena.
          Discrepencies in the emerging evidence, even absent footage does not prove, or even strongly suggest wholesale fabrication. People are known to give conflicting accounts, it is commonly acknowledged in criminal investigation. People don’t always upload vidz of dying children for the gawpers.
          There are fabrications (eg in Syria), I do not contest that, but in a country like the UK, where victims are named, where doctors and emergency responders all have social media accounts, where the media does have some access, it is slightly absurd to infer that 22 deaths can be faked.
          Such extreme scepticism can discredit the efforts of people trying to fathom whether and where the connections between the UK security state and the alleged perpetrator lead.

          Liked by 1 person

          • We aren’t in any way doubting you, but can you explain what “I know colleagues of doctors” means? Do you mean you personally know people who personally know people who have treated victims?

            Would you be able to pass on any of their observations? It might be quite helpful when many find they are questioning if these politically-capitalised events are even real any more.

            Like

            • mog says

              All I can pass on is that I have a doctor friend who used to work in Manchester hospitals A and E departments. He told me that he knew people through his profession who had been working long hours treating victims of the Arena bomb.
              Pertinent to this exchange is the fact that this doctor is one of the few friends with whom I can openly share thoughts about the prevelence of false flag terrorism.

              Like

              • Thank you for sharing. Your statement is more believable than those expecting young people fleeing for their lives to take video on their camera phones, or ghoulishly question why the authorities haven’t released CCTV images of the carnage. Human decency, perhaps?

                Like

          • @mog… on the other hand, to be fair, I don’t know you and you’re not using a Googleable name, so… I don’t see the problem with Extreme Scepticism. It’s contingent, no? Extraordinary claims require commensurate proof, especially when deception is common. How can it discredit anything more valid than a polite willingness to conform?

            “People don’t always upload vidz of dying children for the gawpers.”

            Yeah, but teens do.

            Like

            • mog says

              Is it an extraordinary claim? History is littered with terrorist incidents.

              Deception is common I agree, and so I have no problem with people asking any questions about the statements of the UK state.
              To me though, it seems obvious that -outside of a distant war zone with a media blackout, you cannot entangle hundreds of people (doctors, nurses, first responders, police officers, witnesses) in a massive deception as the whole country looks on. Are they all going to lie to their colleagues, family and friends (and the media) as the troops are rolled out onto the streets in response to the event? Some speculation just goes too far.

              Extreme sketicism is fine by me, it’s just that I think it wise to voice it carefully, as it can distort arguments about what looks like a very timely, and terrible ‘strategy of tension’ event.

              Spooks plant just such distracting red herrings to try and discredit otherwise focused lines of inquiry, and whilst I am not accusing you of being one, I wouldn’t want anyone else to.

              Tom Secker is good on this point if you haven’t read him.

              Are there grieving parents from Sandy Hook ? Have you researched that question?

              Like

              • MS says

                To me though, it seems obvious that -outside of a distant war zone with a media blackout, you cannot entangle hundreds of people (doctors, nurses, first responders, police officers, witnesses) in a massive deception as the whole country looks on.

                I absolutely agree. IF we have a situation in which there are hundreds of doctors/hospitals/emergency teams involved then I would hesitate to say it was fakery.

                But that’s the very point – the ABSENCE of these hundreds of people. The ABSENCE of normal protocols such as triage. The ABSENCE of an evidence chain showing real victims being taken to real hospitals treated by real doctors. That’s what makes the fake-seeming events stand out. And there are more and more of them that fit this bill.

                Look close and you’ll see it. At first you’ll be bewildered by what isn’t there on close analysis. I know I was. Then, gradually you’ll see what seems to be going on.

                Look at the recent London “attack” for example. Watch the live feed footage on Youtube. You will see banks of ambulances waiting. And waiting. And waiting. But you will not see ONE victim actually put in one and taken away. In fact you will see victims being wheeled PAST the waiting ambulances and taken into a nearby hotel!

                At such events the actual ambulances and actual EMTs are there as set-dressing. They aren’t used for precisely the reason you posit, because involving real EMTs and real hospitals would blow the thing wide open.

                Like

              • At this point, the claim that a “terrorist” blew himself up in order to send a political critique to the citizens of the nation he detonated himself in is an Extraordinary Claim, yes; it’s also an Extraordinary Claim that along with hoaxed motives and a hoaxed (or patsied) perp wouldn’t also come a hoaxed weapon, hoaxed victims, hoaxed witnesses and misleading media artifacts and so forth.

                Sandy Hook was something I looked at very closely for months (having been primed by the wholly farcical Gabby Giffords event), and after looking through dozens of videos/ photographs hundreds of times, I’m confident that everything about it was a hoax. From the outlandishly unnatural behavior of the principle actors… Wayne Carver (coroner), Gene Rosen (“good Samaritan”) and Robbie Parker (“grieving parent”) with quirky supporting roles provided by Lt. Vance the state police spokesman and Anderson Cooper the CNN talking head… to the absurd stories/ fumbled script details/ off-kilter comportment of the “parents” and “siblings”… not a single aspect of that melodrama rang true. Now, one parent who can’t seem to muster actual tears for a gun-blasted child is plausible; 18 pairs of dry-eyed-and-chipper “parents” is a dead giveaway. One strange performance from an authority figure (a la Wayne Carver) is plausible; consistently weird performances from all the authority figures is yet another dead giveaway. Not to mention the dozens of anomalous or blatantly photoshopped photos or the breaches of protocol (slaughtered kids left in situ overnight? one of the “parents” reappearing in a photo dressed up as a National Guardsman, carrying his rifle in a way that no professional would imagine doing? Ambulances, lights flashing, bottled up in a cul de sac a kilometer from the school, with no road cleared for access? etc). And under all that were some very disturbing social-engineering undercurrents (including, bizarrely, the Bahá’í Faith, repetitive tropes built around the word “resilience” and the color green and much more). They reached a bit too far with that one; Obamaite Hubris?

                I think that Evil has its own learning curves and they probably realized, after Giffords/ Sandy Hook/ Boston, that it’s better to keep the narratives simple and Starring Characters to a minimum , if not completely out of these events. Fewer narrative holes to plug and performances to question, over and over again, on YouTube. And with 9/11 … after that one “Relatives of 9/11 Victims Advocacy Group” (can’t remember the actual name) got so bothersome they actually had to plane crash the widow heading it (!)… they learned to keep the body counts down (in The West, at least). Now, German citizens are lots less litigious than Americans, so there may actually have been real corpses at the Xmas truck event early this year (which happened quite conveniently soon after the German government… Germans tend to be rather stingy with the money… amended a terrorism statute to cut out Gov compensation for victims of vehicular attacks! One shits you not.. !)

                All to say that I would be surprised (though not shocked) if anyone actually died at Manchester. And, again: considering the UK’s CCTV culture and this being the era of Total Recording Device coverage I find it a little unlikely that an event featuring thousands of teens hasn’t produced a single viral video of something resembling the event or some of its aftermath… plus no CCTV footage of the actual blast, from whatever distance. Not that something 3 secs long and looking studiously blurry won’t necessarily come sneaking out about a week from now… the Americans use that trick often enough.

                “To me though, it seems obvious that -outside of a distant war zone with a media blackout, you cannot entangle hundreds of people (doctors, nurses, first responders, police officers, witnesses) in a massive deception as the whole country looks on.”

                Well, that supposition has been disproven quite handily, again and again, by history. I think it’s fairly obvious now that large payouts and the threat of death can work wonders in buying silence… not to mention the fact that any given “crisis actor” could videotape a full confession and only the Truthers would take it seriously. Even if a celebrity broke and blabbed, They would merely taint him/her as Nuts.

                “Spooks plant just such distracting red herrings to try and discredit otherwise focused lines of inquiry, and whilst I am not accusing you of being one, I wouldn’t want anyone else to.”

                People can accuse me of anything they’d like! Laugh. The beauty of commenting here, for me, is that it’s not particularly high on my list of hobbies. I’m driven exclusively by the fact that I hate bullshit. But please note I find that little riff you unleashed there a tad overplayed. Was it meant to be chilling?

                Like

                • erratum: “Even if a celebrity broke and blabbed, They would merely taint him/her as Nuts… and soon thereafter stage an utterly plausible suicide.”

                  Like

              • Oh, and re: Tom Secker: I’ve steered clear of his “work” since reading his take on the Boston Event.

                “A False Flag?

                None of this makes it any less likely (or any more likely) that the Boston bombings were a false flag event. That remains to be seen, though it is curious that two days later the FBI have yet to name even a single suspect. Within hours of 9/11 and 7/7 the blame had already been apportioned, so quickly in fact that the story must have been established before the attacks took place. No such thing has happened with Boston. There is no official story as yet, except that there were two bombings and several people died and over a hundred were injured. Governments don’t carry out false flags and then sit around for several days deciding who to blame. ”

                Lovely old LH Bullshit. And no functioning adult with an IQ of 103 or greater needs me to point out why. Still, to each its own, Mog.

                Like

  8. I’ve already seen enough tearless crying, and weird “witness” testimony (“We thought it was a balloon popping!”) and gratuitously vague, low-def video… wedded to a striking absence of blood-soaked i-phone coverage from the tens of thousands of i-phones in the area… to come to a conclusion about this event, thanks.

    Scott Creighton does his reliably good breakdown of it here:

    https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2017/05/23/as-polls-shift-in-england-and-conservatives-start-to-lose-ground-terrorism/

    Liked by 2 people

    • BigB says

      The most heavily surveilled country in the world, and when anything happens – the cameras are turned off. I’m becoming inclined to agree.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I admit I kinda miss the really flamboyantly bad productions of a decade ago, though… remember “Wayne Carver”, the head coroner in charge of the Sandy Hook thing? He was genius. I suppose they learned from that to keep the “interesting personalities” out of these narratives, but that’s the viewer’s loss, eh?

        Like

    • The US Department of Homeland Security claims terrorists “have proven to be relentless, patient, opportunistic, and flexible, learning from experience and modifying tactics and targets to exploit perceived vulnerabilities and avoid observed strengths”.
      John Mueller and Mark Stewart found – with remarkably few exceptions- the terrorists involved in attacks against the US since 9/11 were “incompetent, ineffective, unintelligent, idiotic, ignorant, inadequate, unorganized, misguided, muddled, amateurish, dopey, unrealistic, moronic, irrational, and foolish. And in nearly all of the cases where an operative from the police or from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was at work (almost half of the total), the most appropriate descriptor would be “gullible.”
      John Mueller and Mark Stewart: The Terror Delusion: America’s Overwrought Response to September 11.
      http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/absisfin.pdf

      Like

  9. BigB says

    If we want to understand events like the Manchester Arena: the broader cycles of violence, the need for terrorism, the ongoing maelstrom of global conflict, and why we need Huntingdon’s “War of Civlisations” at all – we need look no further than the reason that we engineered the pretext (9/11) and went in to destabilise the MENA region in the first place – Operation Iraqi Liberation. The clue is in the name, it has been hiding in plain sight ever since – OIL. Too simplistic? Well, we can make it as complicated as we like (which is what TPTB would prefer.) There are plenty of other concomitant factors (and other resources – including, of course, natural gas) – but the root of all evil is oil.
    Money is energy – you can’t create a penny without converting an energetic resource – thus “energy is the master resource” [Julian Simon.] The economy is embedded in energy – money creation and resource consumption (and depletion) are interdependent. Viewed through this lens, Casino Capitalism, financialization, and QE – can be viewed as an attempt to decouple the worlds two prime movers (money and oil) by leveraging debt – which failed spectacularly (unless you are in the top 5%.)
    But this attack had nothing to do with the price or availability of oil, it was (perhaps) an ideological, not an economic decision to attack the ‘infidels’ and ‘crusaders’; Abedi was radicalised; it was an attack on our freedoms; we have to defend our way of life…
    Now can we understand the Fake News – as an exercise in mythmaking? TPTB will do anything and everything to factionalise our societies (and our minds) to prevent us diagnosing the root cause of evil – lest their global Ponzi scheme should come to an end. Which it will – but not without a rise in global terrorism. Hybrid asymmetric resource wars will come to be the defining feature of the 21st century. The ‘Trail of Tears’ is a one way enforced death march to an unknown land, that has long since begun. The economy, energy (primarily fossil fuels), and terror – the three heads of Cerberus – that prevent us from escaping (a fate worse than death?)
    TPTB don’t want us to know where we are heading. Fake news, the M$M, political sophistry, terror events, the ‘good life’ meritocracy, cultural persuasion, active measures, societal stratification, – these are just some of the applied psychological means to keep us mesmerised – while they make the decisions. If they choose the way, the Manchester event will become a more regular occurrence, I’m afraid. The countermeasure to mass hypnosis is mass awareness, I can see no other way.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. flybow says

    Look how the tories get the people to stop looking at them.
    Look over there! Terrorism.
    Be afraid! The tories will protect you. Just a few more of your rights taken away in return.
    Notice how there was a fake narrative that corbyn is soft on terrorism? Now this? Convenient eh? Few days ago i believe there was a drill in manchester. Thr drill alwqays precedes the “event”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Cloudslicer says

      On Monday afternoon, several hours before the Manchester bombing event, I predicted that something like this would happen very soon. My wife and I were discussing how the election campaigning was suddenly going very wrong for the Tories, who were reeling from the negative publicity they were receiving about their manifesto and in particular their plans for the ‘Dementia Tax’. Theresa May was on the ropes, being pummelled in car-crash interviews and press conferences and clearly well out of her depth. She was virtually hysterical at times, shrilly insisting that, ‘Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!’ when everyone could clearly see that everything had changed. May evaded almost every question put to her and could do nothing but repeat, ad-nauseam, well-worn stock sound-bites about being ‘Strong and Stable’ and an overall better ‘leader’ than Corbyn. Meanwhile, Labour were beginning to surge in the polls, young people (who are much more likely to vote Labour) were registering to vote in droves, and Corbyn was holding rallies around the country which were attracting cheering crowds in the thousands. The Tories and their deep state backers were clearly desperate, and something would have to be done. I told my wife, ‘They will create some crisis or other, most probably some kind of terrorist event.’ Hours later – BANG! – there it was.

      Who benefited? The Tories and the powers behind them. It gave them everything they needed: a chance to pause and regroup; a suspension of the election campaign which they were beginning to lose and an immediate distraction from that fact; another chance to sow further seeds of hate and fear and justification for more erosions of civil liberties; and a chance for May to look ‘Strong and Stable’ as she chaired the emergency Cobra meetings and announced the raising of the threat level from severe to critical, saying that more attacks were ‘imminent’ so she was going to put 5,000 armed troops on the streets. This was her ‘Thatcher moment’, specially prepared and cooked for her use and she’s served it up to a gullible public piping hot, with wild eyes and twisted lip. She is clearly insane, along with the rest of her cohort, but that has not stopped the odds of a Tory win getting shorter since the bombing. They know that this shit works. There is virtually zero doubt in my mind that this was an inside job by the deep state and their Tory puppets. They will do anything to retain power.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Red meister says

        In 1981 a gallup poll had Thatcher, to whom May has been likened, on an approval rating of 27% & the tory party facing oblivion in any election. Thatcher’s remedy was to find a small island that no-one in Britain had heard of, nor knew where it was: The Falklands. Huge unnecessary loss of life, including the sinking of the Belgrano as Falklands were invaded in 1982, subsequernt General Election, Labour lost seats, tories gained, although suffered an overal &age loss of votes of 1,5%. The rest is what it is.

        May looked for an obscure island, briefly toying with Gibraltar, that ruse failed, so what do we do next to stifle this upsurge in Labour support? Not going to meet the people, cannot continually change policy ad nauseum, what then?

        How about…….

        Liked by 2 people

  11. passerby says

    Who would have thought that 41 years after the fall of communism it is now us who live in a country where one is forced to read between the lines; where you have to listen carefully to hear that what is not said, to read carefully to see that which is not written. The East European socialist dictatorships had censorship; here journalists have voluntarily created the Press Code of Practice, which achieves the same result. My suggestion to journalists: if you cannot write the whole truth, please do not bother and write nothing at all.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. I think it’s important to distinguish between false flags, where the people really die, such as 9/11, and false flag hoaxes where they don’t. We’re being bombarded with these false flag hoaxes on an almost weekly basis now. It’s beyond ridiculous.

    All you have to do is go to YouTube and put in “event name” + “hoax” and see what the hoax analysts have come up with. And they always have plenty. The thing to do with any of these events is ask yourself, “Is there anything here that couldn’t have been staged?” “Do the injuries look as if they could easily be a bit of bandage and fake blood or does the person’s body seem truly compromised?”

    So 19 people dead and 50 injured at Manchester. You think with a bomb you’re going to see COMPROMISED bodies. You do not. You also think you’ll see some idea of damage, a capture of the light of the bomb when it goes off and so on. Does it really feel like something truly terrible has just happened?

    Here is a video of the PA announcer at the end of the evening as people are leaving. Does he sound like a person talking after a shocking bombing?

    Now I find this one really, really spooky. I think this shows you how much we’re just pawns in their game.

    Times Square was an interesting example. In all the other events where vehicles were supposed to have run over someone – Nice, Berlin truck, Melbourne donut guy, Westminster, Stockholm – you don’t actually see the vehicle run anyone over but they’ve got more sophisticated with Times Square and added stunt people and CGI. Interesting video on that.

    Like

    • paulcarline says

      Thanks for this. Very important information. I seem to remember that a famous Hollywood action movie director was seen in the crowd (maybe even helping one of the fake injured) near to where the fake bomb went off at the Boston Marathon. 9/11 was of course the classic “scripted for TV” event.
      In Stockholm and London shots were fired (by police) before the ‘main event’ to scare people into running, clearing the scene for the vehicles and crisis actors to get into place (in Berlin it’s clear that the truck was backed into place – it was never driven through the market). In London a handful of carefully selected photographers were primed to take the key shots.
      In Manchester the police announced that there would be a “controlled explosion” sometime after 8.30pm and a 200 metre ‘cordon sanitaire/exclusion zone’ – specifically for journalists and the media – was created around the arena. Why? Presumably the arrangers didn’t want anyone to see how they were doing the staging.
      There seems to be some significance in the dates: 22/3 (or 3/22) for Westminster; 22/5 (5/22) for Manchester. Ariana Grande was apparently into Kabbalah and Satanism. I struggle to understand why any responsible parent would take their young child/teenager to see such a performer.
      I would be convinced of real fatalities if there were to be an official list of those allegedly killed, with names and addresses, and if a journalist with integrity were to check these out, including witnessing the funerals.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cloudslicer says

        In Manchester the police announced that there would be a “controlled explosion” sometime after 8.30pm and a 200 metre ‘cordon sanitaire/exclusion zone’ – specifically for journalists and the media – was created around the arena. Why? Presumably the arrangers didn’t want anyone to see how they were doing the staging.

        Could you please provide a reference for this information? If true then it’s highly significant.

        Like

  13. All part of psychological warfare designed to keep people in a permanent state of reaction. The underlying agenda might probably be political. There is an election coming up, after all.

    Like

  14. John says

    According to official reports, the person alleged to have murdered himself and a lot of mainly young girls had recently returned from a trip to Libya.
    If that is not enough to send the authorities alarm bells ringing, I don’t know what is.
    Libya – since the West overthrew Qaddafi – has turned into a total basket case of a country.
    It is divided and sub-divided up into competing and warring militias, including Daesh.
    If there is one place that can provide lessons in home-made terrorism it must be Libya.
    Why was he not kept under surveillance after his return?
    Mrs May is now able to bask in her “Falklands” moment while avoiding criticism of her dementia tax.
    Incidentally, the money is now piling in to bookies for a Conservative victory with average odds of 1/15 and the option of No Overall Majority being removed, with the odds on a Labour victory lengthening to around 10/1.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. BigB says

    After an event like this, naturally, a lot of the confusion will be genuine. The cynically manufactured Twitterstorm is 21st century ‘Window’ (a WWII radar countermeasure) designed to confuse – but is it all that confusing?
    Another bomb, another ‘Known Wolf’; Salman Ramadan Abedi (if that was his real name?) ISIS claimed him as a “Soldier of the Caliphate” – but then ISIS claim just about every attacker as theirs. Alex Thomson (an expert linguist) relayed through UK Column News that the man making the claim was Turkish – which may or may not be significant – it is too early to tell. However, it is already clear that this is to be framed as an incident of ‘radical Islamic extremism.’ It is already clear that there is the predictable Islamophobic backlash – and it is already clear that the Government will make contemptible political capital out of this event – they always do. And so the Army will be on the streets. And so the War on Terror goes on.
    I’m not going to speculate, but whoever Salman Abedi may turn out to be, and whatever his motives were – the British Government is heavily implicated in this atrocity – irrespectively. In the MENA region: we helped bomb four countries back to the stone age (including of course Libya, where the Abedi family are said to be from: and from where he is said to have recently returned); we invaded and occupied two of those countries (and deployed special forces in others); we committed atrocities of our own; we fostered the Wahabist ideology; we ‘train and equip’ the ‘soldiers of the Caliphate’; we created and fund the White Helmets, the Free Syrian Police, the New Syrian Army; we support and arm those who support and arm the terrorists (Jordan, Qatar, KSA.) We arm the Isrealis, and build the drones that kill Palestinian children – an ongoing cause and provocation of the regions suffering.
    We played an instrumental part in destabilising the whole region; killing and maiming on an industrial scale; internally and externally displacing millions.
    I wasn’t going to post this. I thought I’d made my point elsewhere – but yesterdays event changed my mind. When I say the British Government – I mean the whole LibLabCon. There seems to be some confusion that Labour is not New Labour; and thus bears no responsibility for the War on Terror. I admit to having been confused myself. In the last 20 years we’ve had a decade of Labour and a decade of Cons. (aided and abetted by the Liberals.) Now I wonder, who has the most blood on their hands? And who laid the groundwork for last nights attack? Everyone knows the Tories are capable of evil, but some seem conflicted about Labour – I’m not any more. I wonder, how much will a hypothetical Labour FM continue to fund the White Helmets by? After Rashideen, I’m sorry to say that both parties now have the blood of children on their hands. A few good men and women do not a new peace party make. For the rest of the party, their record speaks for itself.

    Liked by 1 person

    • mog says

      Fair point about Labour.
      Personally I find it more useful to think of the situation in terms of the Establishment vs. democracy. Labour have been an Establishment party and have a foreign policy record worse than any other party over the last century.
      The current leader and membership though are a major departure from the past, and I think are worth supporting. It is an anti-Establishment movement, which is why literally everything will be thrown at it in response.

      Like

      • BigB says

        @mog: I’m not wishing to dissuade you in any way – your vote is your own – but I will share my POV.
        I thought like you, I even rejoined the Party specifically to help elect Jeremy – frankly I’ve been disheartened. Support for the White Helmets was the Rubicon for me. Even applying a less idealistic, and a more pragmatic view to the Manifesto – I cannot agree. For our future energy security – tidal lagoons and nuclear. NUCLEAR! NUCLEAR, FFS! That ties us to an increasingly destabilising and inherently violent energy market for 70-100 years. Like a fart in a lift – that’s wrong on every level!
        Then Trident – JC spoke at the anti-Trident rally only a year ago. Now? If the computers don’t get ransomed by ‘WannaCry’ that is one hell of a potent WMD – especially with all that fissile material from our ‘Green’ energy programme?
        Here is the controversial, or at least not well known bit. Over at the UK Column they’ve been tracking EU Military Unification for around 2 years. It’s not going to happen, it’s happened – with virtually zero public awareness. The next step is to cede our nuclear first strike WMDs to France (then Germany.) If that happens, it will be like arming the Mafia Banksters of the Troika with nukes [to paraphrase David Ellis.] No fucking way! Over my dead body!
        Corbyn looks increasingly to me like a Socialist butterfly, broken or breaking on the Corporate Wheel, I’m afraid. 😦

        Like

        • mog says

          @ BigB
          Thanks, interested in your opinions.
          There is a lot in Labour’s stated program that I disagree with, a lot of things that are not really addressed by it.
          The mafia Banksters are in the City of London too as well you know, so I am not sure what your point is about the Troika and Euro elites.
          For me though, this is about a resurgent democratic pulse. If Corbyn was able to instigate a real democratising of the Labour Party, and thereby draw policy more and more from a growing membership, that would be something that I want to be a part of. The potential is there, even if the odds are slim.
          I really never thought that this situation would arise in my lifetime so find myself drawn into the insanity of party politics.
          I respect the idealism though. Each to their own.

          Like

          • BigB says

            @mog:
            I think (as does Chomsky) that the future lies with Momentum. If there were around 200 Corbyns instead of 1 (plus what, 30-40 he can count on?) allied with the power of the people? But, as I laid out above, these policies are disastrous, for the country and humanity. Unalloyed Corbynism is what I signed up for – when a lifetime CND campaigner advocates Trident and nuclear energy; a lifetime Euroskeptic advocates Single Market and Customs Union (but no Schengen?); and a lifetime pacifist, who used to talk of American hegemony, now talks of an “erratic” America and “more combative” Russia – supports the White Helmets – and promises 2% GDP to the war criminals of NATO? Anyway, if May gets her way, there may not even be an election!

            Like

            • mog says

              Yes the Chatham House speech was remarkable, for the fact that the former chair of the Stop The War Coalition was speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, but also for the fact that the Labour team and Corbyn have obviously made concessions to the war party in an election bid.
              I guess I don’t view Corbyn as ‘caught in a wheel’ as much as you. These policies can change, there are processes, politics is a process.
              I, at this point, believe that Corbyn would push for those changes if in a position to do so.
              I also would not be too surprised to see him fold and compromise if not backed up by a movement. So many new members have not actually got involved, this is the major failing.
              Momentum should ultimately aim to dissolve itself. What needs to change is the Labour Party itself, and radicals need to strive for positions in the party propper, not just some parallel entity.

              Like

              • mog says

                Like you say, the election is in jeopardy, and is being manipulated in a security policy hysteria.
                This all tells me that the Establishment are more worried by the Corbyn movement than most people acknowledge. Once you start getting major ralies and celebs signing up, the thing can get a momentum of its own and spiral.
                The terror attack obviously has put the Orwellian boot on this.

                Like

                • BigB says

                  @mog: here’s a rhetorical question, regarding change – given the way the party is stacked with Blairites (in both the PLP and NEC) which direction is the Party going to change? In a hypothetical election win, the PLP will have say 50-70 new MPs. Will they all be pro-Corbyn?
                  The clincher for me is that my local candidate is a ‘limousine liberal’ whose ideas on foreign policy extend to whether or not there are avocados at Waitrose. I’d basically be voting anti-Corbyn!

                  Like

  16. Sav says

    All that aside, have you seen the commentary that’s being made by media types? Absolutely atrocious. Considering Muslims have been jailed for hate speech and holding placards getting them years in prison how is it someone like Katie Hopkins gets away with tweeting ‘there has to be a final solution’?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ikallicrates says

      I prefer to assume that Katie Hopkins is just too stupid to realize the implications of the phrase “final solution”.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Bob Thomson says

        One news item I hope isn’t fake is that many muslim cab drivers gave concert attendees free rides away from the concert venue, showing muslim distain for violence.

        Like

  17. Sav says

    News media see something big and they want to network with it – money attention..the Katie Hopkins types desperate for followers and constant praise from their minions. The people posting those fake pics are likely have the same mentality, they wanted to be a part of it and get noticed, And now with Twitter etc. it is easier than ever.

    Like

  18. Manda says

    I have purposely avoided much surrounding this atrocity. It is obvious the Tory regime are going to exploit it for their own agenda and in my opinion they have no red lines, compassion, morals or ethics when doing this. Internet censorship is in their manifesto… all I can say is do not vote Tory under any circumstances.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Sav says

      I only watch titbits that come up on the internet, never the main news which I know will drag it out as much as they can.

      Saw trending on facebook that Susannah Reid off TV AM started crying….FFS..what is with all this teary eyed stuff. As if they’ve never broadcast horrible news before? Now suddenly every other narcissist in the MSM is desperate to keep their profile up with this nonsense. The whole world is a stage, indeed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Manda says

      Looks like this horrific incident has had a positive side effect for the Tories just as their campaign was tanking.

      Like

    • How disgusting. Well someone needs to tell Jeremy that it was a staged event. It’s all over YouTube but somehow the people in power who’d benefit from knowing this, don’t know? I don’t understand it. (See my comment for video evidence.)

      Like

      • Manda says

        To be frank I am not very concerned whether this was a false flag at this stage, I am concerned with how the May government is capitalizing on the atrocity. There is no parliament,there are no MPs, election campaigning suspended, only a very right wing government with powers in a so called democracy.. Where is the open. debate to discuss the issues, what Is going on and how to proceed for public safety without allowing the terrorists to be successful in undermining the little democracy that is left in UK. May regime is all powerful in the current circumstances and MSM back her almost entirely, there will be little if any questioning. I find this an extremely dangerous situation myself.

        Like

  19. Carlos says

    [FROM ADMIN: PLEASE NOTE THIS INDIVIDUAL ALSO POSTS UNDER THE NAME OF “MATT” AND USES AT LEAST 3 SEPARATE EMAIL ADDRESSES, INTERACT WITH “HIM” AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION]

    Fake news also includes Russian disinformation about MH17, which this website has reprinted without any critical thought.

    All of the posters here are repeating that this is a “false flag”, just because it happened during an election campaign.

    Of course, when these attacks happen in Russia or China, the so-called “anti-imperialists” that frequent websites like this one never stoop so low as to call those “false flags.”

    All Western terror attacks are called “false flags” by lunatics these days.

    As for fake news, it’s good that hoaxes like PizzaGate, WhereIsAssange, Seth Rich, etc. are all being debunked. I’ve done some of the debunking myself on Reddit’s /r/conspiracy sub, which I promptly got labelled a “shill” for doing and banned.

    That’s the price you pay for debunking disinformation, believed by feeble-minded, low trust folks.

    Like

    • We are not suggesting this was a false flag. We are pointing out the extraordinary plethora of fake news, including fake victims, in the media, first pointed out by the well-known Russian troll site Buzzfeed.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Carlos says

        There are very real Russian troll websites, your sarcasm aside. And there are numerous posters here who do think this was a false flag.

        But you also claim that Buzzfeed has a hidden agenda here – to promote censorship by pointing out fake news. That is something I disagree with. Debunking these hoaxes is a good thing, whether that’s PizzaGate or “Assange was kidnapped by the CIA!”

        And in situations like this event, there’s bound to be misinformation, while things are being updated. Clarifying this is not a bad thing.

        Like

        • Sav says

          Carlos, Western media’s claim of Russian trolls goes to a ridiculous story about some building in St Petersburg. That whole story is riddled with a million holes in it.

          Like

          • Carlos says

            Fascinating. You are denying reality itself. The Russian media is full of interviews with these trolls. The internal communications of these trolls were leaked online. I know some rudimentary Russian (long story) and have even looked at the documents. Here they are (there is a space before the “.nz” so the comment won’t be caught in the spam filter):

            mega .nz/#!NwZCzLAI!gUlCZkOxV733XXra4RaLTEKxeFXfpu-ztijzxSBLVeA

            mega .nz/#!J8gX2a4B!QueMoHgV4kiYbcDa4SsghwODeO400ZqG-4Uy8q8LT0Q

            mega .nz/#!04IUFCzQ!RIWjE5oCYEsyT67_ztqUg65d_jYX7X-6UahfPTi8Qmg

            There are three parts, with a large number of documents. These documents were leaked by the unofficial Russian branch of Anonymous international, back in June 2014.

            This is actually how many Western and Russian journalists were able to even get interviews with these former trolls: their contact information was obtained from the leaked files above.

            These trolls are very real. In Russia, the leader of the pro-Kremlin Nashi youth group also had their emails leaked a few years ago, which also showed that their members were paid to astroturf and spread conspiracy theories.

            Like

            • What exactly do you mean by the “unofficial Russian branch of Anonymous”? Anonymous isn’t an organisation, it’s simply a name adopted by an array of people for an array of different reasons. Anyone can call themselves “Anonymous”. Please explain how your terminology applies in a real world setting.

              And you don’t need to put a gap in the URL. Your comment will only go to the pending folder if it has more than three links. So, just make sure you stay under that. Do multiple posts if necessary.

              Like

              • Carlos says

                By “unofficial”, they simply claim the name “Anonymous” title without collaborating with other members from Anonymous.

                Their blog is banned in website (court order). Although, that was a few years ago.

                They even leaked the text of Putin’s 2014 New Year’s speech a few hours before the speech, as well as documents detailing Russia’s game plan for a supposedly “grassroots” demonstration in Moscow in support of its actions in Crimea. details about how the Kremlin prepared Crimea’s secessionist referendum, the private emails of Russian PM Dmitry Medvedev, the emails belonging to high-profile militant leader Igor Strelkov. And of course, they released documents about how Concord, a company owned by Kremlin-connected restaurant owner Evgeny Prigozhin, coordinates an army of internet trolls through an outfit called the Internet Research Agency. They even released correspondence between Alexander Dugin and infamous pro-Kremlin oligarch, Konstantin Malofeyev. In 2015, they published emails and text messages stolen from Timur Prokopenko, a Kremlin official supposedly tasked with stymying the anti-Putin opposition, Alexander Zharov, the head of Russia’s state censor, and Natalya Timakova, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s press secretary. Last year, they targeted Dmitry Kiselyov, “the Kremlin’s chief propagandist,” and Aram Gabrelyanov, the owner of several pro-Kremlin tabloids and news outlets.

                The group publishes the leaks on its website, b0ltai.org. However, Russian media watchdog Roskomnadzor ordered access to the site blocked in July 2014. Their Twitter account, @b0ltai, is blocked in Russia.

                Have you read the long Reddit post at the bottom? It has links to multiple news articles that looked through the contents of the dump and were even able to tie specific comments to specific workers at the troll factory.

                Unfortunately, there has been a large number of arrests regarding the group. And the group’s ties with Russian intelligence are also strange. In the Russian cybersecurity realm, there is a large degree of overlap between cybercriminals and state-sponsored hackers. The government usually offers criminal hackers release from prison in exchange for their hacking services. And even once these people begin working for the government, they continue with their criminal schemes “off hours”. The FSB’s cyber division is no different and the head of “Shaltai Boltai” – the real name of this unofficial Anonymous branch – was arrested back in January. Soon afterwards, the FSB arrested two other FSB employees, along with a worker at Kaspersky Lab. It is suspected that they worked with the head of Shaltai Boltai to hack into U.S. databases for election systems in Illinois and Arizona.

                It’s all very interesting. Read this for more info: https://meduza.io/en/feature/2017/01/31/the-fsb-caught-humpty-dumpty

                Like

      • Oh, it was a false flag hoax, all right. Of course, it was. They all are. I absolutely hate to say this but I’m almost wanting a real event. No I really don’t but I’m just so tired of this manufactured terrorism that is, though, of itself, its own kind of terrorism.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Carlos says

          “They all are”

          No they are not. I suggest the local psychiatrist’s office.

          Like

    • Anna Zimmerman says

      Dear Carlos

      The hallmark of trolls (like yourself) is that they are incapable of making an argument without larding it with fallacies – in your case, that of ‘ignoratio elenchi’, failing to address the point of the article.

      This was a perfectly reasonable submission pointing out that, in this increasingly looking-glass world, any malicious idiot can spread a rumour around the world in a few minutes. There is no mention of Russkies, paedos, distressed aeroplanes or similar. Anyone reading your response would have plainly seen that your only motivation was spite, in which case you have my pity. At best, trolling shows a serious dearth of ambition. Haven’t you got better things to do with your time than hang around sites you fundamentally disagree with? I don’t waste my time trolling people on, say, Conservative Home.

      There is of course the other possibility that you are being paid. I must say that I’ve never really understood the motive behind paying people to troll, which strikes me as completely counterproductive. The quality of the arguments trolls make are so poor that they are quite incapable of any persuasive impact, whilst having the salutary impact of giving the rest of us the opportunity of honing our critical faculties. Net result? Money down the drain and a galvanised resistance.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Carlos says

        How ironic. The genius lecturing me of using fallacies uses fallacies themselves. First, labelling someone you don’t agree with as a “troll” is itself a fallacy. As for your false dichotomy of me being a “troll” or “paid” then I can only respond by trolling: yes, I am a Soros-paid troll, paid by the Bank of Super Zion. How did you ever figure me out? I envy your critical thinking skills.

        “This was a perfectly reasonable submission pointing out that, in this increasingly looking-glass world, any malicious idiot can spread a rumour around the world in a few minutes. There is no mention of Russkies, paedos, distressed aeroplanes or similar.”

        That was not the point of the article. The point was that if you dare debunk a conspiracy theory or block out hoaxes from spreading on social media, then this is a tool for censorship and Buzzfeed’s motive in writing the debunking article itself had a sinister agenda. My comment merely mocked that argument.

        Please reply. Your opinion matters very much to me. And, using your paranoid logic (which, ironically, is something I also mock in my OP), I am now slightly richer for writing this post.

        Like

        • Oh, an ironist! Not a very good one, apparently. But do keep trying, Carlos. In time, maybe, you will find your true Voltairic voice and you won’t have to explain that lump that’s always pushing through your cheek looking like it might be an abscess.

          I guess that the obvious clue to the wryness of your comment was, “[a]ll of the posters here are repeating that this is a “false flag”, just because it happened during an election campaign.” Because, of course, not all of the posters were in fact repeating “that.” Indeed, after reviewing the comments to see where I went wrong, I noted that no one asserted any more than a speculative “maybe” that “it might be.”

          Well, I’ve never been overly sharp at spotting wit intentionally masquerading as dullness.

          I do apologize for the ‘down vote’ I gave you . . .

          Liked by 2 people

          • Carlos says

            Semantics. Whether someone “maybe” believes Santa Claus is real or whether he actually believes in him, is irrelevant.

            The issue with the so-called “alternative” media scene is that it is essentially a fifth column. The people are easily fooled. Just cry “”imperialism!”, “false flag!”, “CIA”, “coup!” and the feeble-minded folks will believe you.

            Maduro is using this exact tactic to fool people like you. Nothing is the fault of Chavez/Maduro. This mass poverty is not due to economic mismanagement and an over-reliance on oil exports. No sir, it’s due to big, bad imperialist Yankee Gringo U.S.A/CIA “economic sabotage”! All the protesters are right-wing fascists, paid by the CIA. /s

            He knows useful idiots will fall for his pathetic lies if he frames them in an “anti-imperialist” manner.

            But hey, “maybe” what he’s saying is true? Maybe. We’ll never know, so let’s stay confused and give in to purposely sowed doubt forever,

            Like

          • Christ, Norm, I must say I admire your energy… but where do you get it? Laugh! This guy you’re dealing with (and guys like him) will keep bombing the threads until Mission Accomplished (aka: Thread Clog). By sticking to making carefully-considered comments, shored up with logic and bits of factual data, Norm… ie, doing work equivalent to writing carefully-researched articles almost every time you post… you put yourself at a disadvantage! This guy can copy-and-paste, and repeat himself endlessly, with a couple of clicks, for every half hour of intellectual labor you expend! Well, again: hats off! Posters like you (and a handful of others around here) are unsung Counter-Propaganda heroes, imo.

            People who happen upon OffG and register a sincere “difference of opinion” are one thing but the dedicated band of Orwellian Trolls who zoom in, after every new article (on a crucial theme) is published, are knee-slappingly obvious. Well, I don’t pop over to CNN’s website, for example, to rebut everything they publish, do I? I don’t go there at all. Normal people don’t make it a habit to zero-in on the websites whose ideological principles they disdain. But Trolls have to and they have to so they can Clog Things up or Set Fires.

            And you, Norm, are the Fire Brigade!

            Like

            • Carlos says

              Accusations of trollery are common around here. And dissenting viewpoints not allowed without such accusations. As for Norman, the length of a reply has nothing to do with the argument.

              Many people in here believe this was a false flag/psyop. I simply said there is no evidence for that.

              And so far, no evidence has been presented. Unless you have some, my “anti-imperialist” friend?

              Also, believing the “false flag” narrative can lead some to believe disinformation, such as Russia’s half dozen or so conspiracy theories about MH17.

              Like

              • “Accusations of trollery are common around here.”

                Which follows directly from the fact that the OffG is a rather obvious target for trolls, no? QED

                “Also, believing the “false flag” narrative can lead some to believe disinformation, such as Russia’s half dozen or so conspiracy theories about MH17.”

                Packing in your Talking Points wherever possible, I see. Well, thanks for the warning, Chum! But the key dangers are, as ever, Gullibility and Stupidity… which are not necessarily connected. Now off you go… there are probably other Sites you need to hit. Busy week!

                Like

        • Anna Zimmerman says

          If you read my post carefully you will see that I merely speculated that you were a troll – in an ironic sense. My predominant point was that you were most likely a spiteful, angry person who gets their kicks by going out of their way to try and goad people. Seeing as every time you post on here you amply prove my point, I rest my case.

          Like

          • Carlos says

            Ah yes, the good ol “calm down and stop being angry” tactic.

            Instead of trying to perform psychoanalysis on me or accusing me of “goading” you, it would be better if you addressed the argument I’ve been making regarding automatic accusations of “t’was a false flag!”

            Like

            • “. . . regarding automatic accusations of “t’was a false flag!””

              When you began posting your comments, apart from one commenter, no one had asserted that “t’was a false flag!” Yet you claimed that everyone had.

              So you set up a ‘straw man,’ and then argued against it as though that was the general position here being advocated by the people who had thus far commented.

              So either you intentionally goaded, as Anna suggests, or you are simply insipid. Actually, in either case, insipid would be an accurate and adequate descriptor.

              AS for addressing your argument if it can even be called an argument: just because you have no evidence that this was a false flag, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a false flag.

              Having no evidence is merely a state of ignorance, of “not knowing.”

              “Not knowing” is not a proof of anything other than of itself, i.e., “not knowing,” eh.

              Now if you have no evidence one way or the other, you can neither assert that it was a false flag nor assert that it was not a false flag.

              You spend all of your time harping about the nonsense of asserting without evidence that the bombing was a false flag, but then commit the same error in logic by confidently asserting that in the absence of evidence the bombing can not be a false flag.

              You either are a troll or you are a bit of a retard in the clinical sense of being “retarded,” eh.

              That’s not me resorting to ad hominem, Carlos. That’s a conclusion I’m coming to based on the evidentiary basis of your mode of argumentation: either you are capable of the rudiments of reasoning and choose to develop illogical arguments and thereby goad or you really are more than just a little bit weak in your ability to think clearly. At any rate, regardless of whether you are able to recognize it or not, your so called argument has been addressed: it has no leg to stand on.

              Liked by 1 person

    • Dear Carlos,

      Calm down. It’s okay to be as confused as you are about everything. You’ve been watching too much T.V. and listening to too much radio and reading too much mainstream corporate dreck and getting too much of your history from Hollywood. You can be forgiven for your inculcated ignorance. You do not yet know how to distinguish bullshit from truth.

      To help get you started on the road to your badly needed disillusionment and ultimate rehabilitation, since you seem to doubt that “false flags” are part and parcel of any military’s standard operating procedures, something easy for you to read and understand and digest:

      Presidents, Prime Ministers, Congressmen, Generals, Spooks, Soldiers and Police ADMIT to False Flag Terror

      Now if you want to prove that your beloved government — whichever one it may happen to be — would never stoop to these kinds of operations, you will have to demonstrate that the references in the piece I’ve referenced for you are all bullshit. If you manage that, or even as only pertains to one or a few references, do let us know, eh.

      Oh, and just so yo don’t miss it: the point being made, eh, is that “false flags” do indeed have historical form and have indeed been used to great effect. If that’s true, what would make you think that the most murderous and treacherous military in all of history would have decided as a matter of official military policy to forgo using a tried and true method for instigating wars it wants to instigate? Why wouldn’t the American military use the method of ‘false flags’ to get you and the likes of you, Carlos, to rally behind its battle cry?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Carlos says

        I do not watch TV. I don’t even own one. As for Hollywood, I prefer anime to that. But good assumptions. Keep up the good work.

        “you seem to doubt that “false flags” are part and parcel of any military’s standard operating procedures”

        Nope. I never said there’s no such thing as a false flag. Go back and read my post again if you are confused. My argument is simple: that Western terror attacks are immediately called “false flags” by online lunatics. Very simple.

        “…. you will have to demonstrate that the references in the piece I’ve referenced for you are all bullshit.”

        Why? I never said there’s no such thing as false flags. I am merely saying that calling each terror attack by ISIS a “false flag” is wrong.

        ” Why wouldn’t the American military use the method of ‘false flags’ to get you and the likes of you, Carlos, to rally behind its battle cry?”

        Ah, how simplistic your thinking is. Consider the reverse: governments that rely on gullible Westerners who readily believe conspiracy theories? Want some references? Here:

        Operation INFEKTION – read about it.

        Another example if Russia disinformation campaign, regarding MH17 and other topics. Remember the half dozen or so different and contradictory conspiracy theories they spread? CIA/NATO false flag, imaginary flying SU-25s, machine gun fire, a BUK manned by the Ukrainian army, fake “defectors” pretending to have defected from the Ukrainian AF, and my personal favourite: “THEY WERE AIMING FOR PUTIN’S PLANE!”

        One of the earliest examples of disinformation by CyberBerkut was this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsehPE5cEFs) which it claimed it “hacked” from the laptop of one of John McCain’s aides when he visited Ukraine as a show of U.S. support (McCain is demonized in Russian media for being a hardliner towards Russia). They claimed the video shows some actors pretending to be Jihadi John and James Foley, his execution being filmed in front of a green screen! But the good folks over at MetaBunk did a frame-by-frame comparison of the real execution video and the so-called “leaked” filming of the set. They found that the actor had different movements compared to the real JJ, along with several other visual mismatches. Here’s the full debunking:

        https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-cyberberkut-video-supposedly-showing-staged-isis-beheading-of-foley.t6520/

        This “secret” video was prominently featured on sites like InfoWars and Global Research.
        Now, who would have the time, money, resources, and will power (complete with actors, clothing, cameras, props, etc.,) to put so much effort into creating a fake video to spread the conspiracy theory that America is staging ISIS’ videos and is controlling it? Only a state like Russia, of course.

        Interestingly, Russia disinformation is obsessed with making anything that puts Russia in a bad light a “false flag.” Russian trolls have been caught posting conspiracy theories of MH17 being a CIA/NATO/Ukrainian false flag or that they were aiming for Putin’s plane but accidentally hit MH17. A laughable theory, but one that many in Russia accept.

        The Russian troll factory also spread disinformation about murdered opposition activist Boris Nemtsov’s death being a CIA false flag to destabilize Russia. A former worker says:

        “When opposition leader Boris Nemtsov was shot dead within sight of the Kremlin in March, suspicion immediately fell on those with links to Russian president Vladimir Putin.
        Ms Savchuk said the orders at the Troll Factory were handed down quickly.
        “They were just told: ‘Nemtsov is killed. Everyone should urgently concentrate on this job. We shall write this and that’,” she said.
        “On that day they were writing that it was a provocation against the authorities, that he was killed by ‘his own people’.”‘

        The above tactic of calling everything a “false flag, such as MH17, is a good example of what Russia is trying to achieve: confusion and paralysis in the minds of Westerners so they question anything critical of Russia.

        There are more examples, but if I post too many links, the comment gets auto-removed.

        There you have it then. Russia is spreading various conspiracy theories, including claiming various events as being “false flags”. Think critically, my friend.

        Like

        • Jen says

          Wow Carlos, someone at Langley or Foggy Bottom must be paying you good money to say all this. The more you shoot your mouth off about Russia spreading conspiracy theories, the more lunatic you look.

          Keep going! 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          • Carlos says

            You are unable to prove me wrong, so you resort to ad hominem. Not everyone who disagrees with you on the internet is a paid troll. Only if you have hard evidence of trolling, like, say, leaked documents from a certain troll factory, can you claim I am a paid troll. Regardless, I won’t reciprocate in that regard.

            Nothing I’ve said about Russia is false. Everything I say is sourced from the Russian media itself. I wish I could provide more links, but the comment gets auto-removed.

            You can’t prove what I said wrong. The St. Petersburg troll factory is well known. You see, back in June of 2014, the unofficial Russia branch of Anonymous International leaked the internal emails of the Olgino troll factory. All of their communications, account names, names of trolls, etc. were leaked.

            This is actually how journalists were able to contact some of these trolls for interviews, leading to the infamous interview between the author of “The Agency” and a particularly cunning troll.

            Russian media also spoke to these trolls. We know that they tried spreading conspiracy theories about Nemtsov’s death being a “CIA false flag”. Remember seeing those comments, Jen? I know you do.

            Likewise, these trolls spreading the various contradictory conspiracy theories about MH17.

            And of course, the lengthy example I gave of good ol’ CyberBerkut, who forge stuff and then pretend to “hack” them from enemies of Russia. The fake ISIS beheading video of James Foley is one such example. They tried to make it look like the videos were faked and filmed, by “leaking” a video they themselves made of a green screen. They tried mimicking the real beheader’s movements, but made some crucial mistakes. But the video went viral. They succeeded. Tell me, have you seen that video? Have you read the debunking? Do you know about CyberBerkut, the source of this video? I’d wager the answer is no, hence your mocking reply to me.

            I’m not anti-Russian as others are – their foreign policy is laudable. But that doesn’t mean we should believe everything they say. Like I said: think critically.

            A full-text version of proof, including links, can be found here:

            Like

            • bevin says

              “Nothing I’ve said about Russia is false. Everything I say is sourced from the Russian media itself….”
              You cannot be arguing that because your sources are Russian everything that you say is true.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Carlos says

                That was not what I meant. I merely meant that this isn’t just my opinion.

                And I provided all the links. Thankfully, my Reddit post is previewed in the above post and it’s formatting has been preserved – all the links are given. The most important ones are the three MEGA links of the St. Petersburg troll factory data dump.

                Like

            • Jen says

              “… Nothing I’ve said about Russia is false. Everything I say is sourced from the Russian media itself. I wish I could provide more links, but the comment gets auto-removed …”

              The Russian media in question is The Moscow Times, an English-language newspaper provided free of charge to English-speaking tourists and expatriates in the places where they are most likely to congregate. Its sister newspaper The St Petersburg Times closed in 2014 and in 2015 its Finnish owners Sanoma (who publish newspapers and magazines in various EU countries) sold it.

              Other media sources quoted in the long screed include The New York Times, the BBC, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and The Guardian.

              I guess with sources like these, who needs fake news?

              Liked by 2 people

              • Carlos says

                Jen, you are using fallacious reasoning. Instead of attacking the source and denying what is true, examine the articles themselves. As an example, you attack The Moscow Times. But The Moscow Times article itself was merely reporting what RBC reported. If you don’t know, RBC is literally the foremost business investigative media outlet in Russia (and sadly, will soon be sold to the owner of Pravda; editor has left).
                So you see, with this lazy approach of dismissing reality just because of the domain name of the website, you fail to address the information at hand.

                If you read the Reddit post, it shows 3 MEGA links to the leaked files of the Russian troll factory. The internal communications of these trolls were leaked online. Here they are (there is a space before the “.nz” so the comment won’t be caught in the spam filter):

                mega .nz/#!NwZCzLAI!gUlCZkOxV733XXra4RaLTEKxeFXfpu-ztijzxSBLVeA

                mega .nz/#!J8gX2a4B!QueMoHgV4kiYbcDa4SsghwODeO400ZqG-4Uy8q8LT0Q

                mega .nz/#!04IUFCzQ!RIWjE5oCYEsyT67_ztqUg65d_jYX7X-6UahfPTi8Qmg

                These documents were leaked by the unofficial Russian branch of Anonymous international, back in June 2014.

                This is actually how many Western and Russian journalists were able to even get interviews with these former trolls: their contact information was obtained from the leaked files above. This led to the various interviews i linked in the above post.

                The above interviews are very real, despite what you say. The people are real and so is the propaganda building. I encourage you to at least read some of the interviews of these trolls, some of whom are actually independent, investigative journalists that got themselves hired to infiltrate the propaganda factory.

                Just because the news outlets that interviewed the trolls are biased against Russia, does not mean everything they post is somehow fake.

                The propaganda war is very real. To assume it is one-sided is naive. Disinformation, especially about MH17, is rampant. The goal is simple, as I wrote in the post: confusion and paralysis in the minds of Westerners (ex: could this be a false flag?) to destabilize the information environment of the West.

                Once again, please at least give the post and some of the links a read. I promise you won’t be disappointed. At the very least, it will allow you to understand my own PoV. And isn’t that what spirited debate is all about?

                Like

                • Jen says

                  You promised right, I wasn’t disappointed. Comedy does make me laugh.

                  Like

        • kim carsons says

          Carlos is right in suggesting that there is a default setting that jumps to everything being a conspiracy theory. However this post doesnt seem to bear this out. One person says psy-op, the rest really mention a wave of disinformation that doesnt seem to have a source at all. neither motive or method, more like an algorithmic spreading of the fake.
          The far large default setting in the Anglosphere is that only our enemies are capable of such things. The truth is more Debordian – an intergrated spectacle and all player are involved.
          In terms of unravelling the onion one has to look at one’s own place first, before pointing the finger at out “enemies”.
          but without critical thinking it just becomes ideological blindness.
          The events surrounding 9/11, a spectacle of mass hypnosis if ever there was one, is the beginning point, as anyone who done any investigation and work in removing the ideological glasses can see that the official narrative has no reasonable grounds to be any kind of truth hood.
          After that one has take to take each event on its own terms.
          Perhaps like ISIS these events are hydra headed – the sources point both to western psy-ops and Islamic caliphates.
          It’s a headless beast and in one sense to discern its origin is now no longer possible.
          One has suspicions, follow the money, leave one’s glasses at the door

          And Pray. (this is my ironic sentence)

          Liked by 1 person

        • Dear Carlos,

          I wrote, “you seem to doubt that “false flags” are part and parcel of any military’s standard operating procedures” – with the emphasis on the word “seem,” eh.

          I never said that you “. . .said there’s no such thing as a false flag.”

          Go back and read my post again if you are confused.

          I wrote what I wrote quite simply because you wrote:

          All of the posters here are repeating that this is a “false flag”, just because it happened during an election campaign. […] All Western terror attacks are called “false flags” by lunatics these days. [my emphases, eh]

          Now not “all of the posters here” are claiming that “this” is a “false flag.” Insist all you want, but it isn’t “all of the posters.”

          You then clearly imply that “all of the posters here,” whom you claim are “all” calling “the Manchester bombing” a “false flag,” are lunatics because “all” Western terror attacks can only be deemed “false flags” by lunatics. Except that a) not “all posters here” are calling “the Manchester bombing” a “false flag” and b) based on a long series of known historical precedents, some among the “posters here” rightly raise the “possibility” that “the Manchester bombing” might be a “false flag” incident.

          You yourself admit that “false flags” have historical form by insisting not once, but twice, that you “. . .never said there’s no such thing as false flags,” and consequently by implication concede the entirely reasonable presumption the “the Manchester bombing” may indeed be a “false flag.”

          So either a) you are affirming that “false flags” have never been committed by the West and could not now be so committed; or b) you concede that the West has committed such atrocities and that by implication “the Manchester bombing” could be a “false flag.”

          So which is it, Carlos? Please do dispel my confusion. Try to be succinct and to the point. It’s either a) or b), but not both. These are logically mutually exclusive propositions.

          Now on that little matter of semantics:

          ‘Maybe means maybe’ whereas ‘actually means actually’. There is a difference, Carlos.

          If maybe Santa Claus is real, then maybe Santa Clause is not real.

          But:

          If Santa Claus is actually real, then that Santa Claus actually is not real does not and cannot follow.

          Do you see how that works, Carlos? It’s not just semantics. It’s a matter of logic, too. Surely you can follow, Carlos? If not, you must try just a little harder, Carlos. Once you sort that detail in logic out for yourself, you will be better prepared to move on to the slightly more complex issue of applying logic both to reality and to what other people actually mean by their assertions.

          But one small step at a time, eh, Carlos? Glad I could help. You are most welcome. No need for any thanks, Carlos.

          Now you go and watch yourself some anime and relax your brain. You’ve surely earned it! And try not to get to bed too late. Sleep is important for learning and for thinking.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Carlos says

            “So either a) you are affirming that “false flags” have never been committed by the West and could not now be so committed; or b) you concede that the West has committed such atrocities and that by implication “the Manchester bombing” could be a “false flag.” ”

            False dichotomy. Just because a few false flags were committed/discussed in the past, does not mean that this could be a false flag.

            Anything can be called a “false flag” using your logic. No proof is needed to say “maybe” this is a false flag. That’s because accusing something of being a false flag only requires a person to say “so and so benefit, therefore it’s a psyop.”

            Your ad hominem aside (which you require due to your weak logical reasoning skills), no evidence suggests this is a false flag anymore than Sandy Hook was a false flag, or even MH17.

            Always remember that foreign states have in the past purposely spread conspiracy theories to people like you. This is as real as false flags being committed, yet you only consider one side of the argument.

            Operation INFEKTION is a classic case of a foreign state spreading conspiracy theories and making people who have a low level of trust in the government + irrational thinking believe said disinformation.

            That is all I’m saying. Unfortunately, people like you can only use ad hominem to advance your arguments. Still, you have more upvotes than me. Have some solace in that.

            Educate yourself, Normy.

            Like

            • Dear Carlos,

              You write:

              “Just because a few false flags were committed/discussed in the past, does not mean that this could be a false flag.”

              No. Rather: just because false flags were committed/discussed in the past does not “prove” that this could be a false flag. But it most certainly provides eminently rational grounds to entertain the possibility that it was, i.e., most emphatically that this could be a false flag, and, therefore, to the investigate the possibility.

              From where you sit, do you “know” that this is not a “false flag?” If you think you do, how do you “know” this?

              If you don’t “know” that this isn’t a “false flag,” might it then be a “false flag?”

              What makes you think that if Western governments have perpetrated “false flags” in the past, they couldn’t possibly perpetrate them today?

              Are these questions incomprehensible to you, Carlos? Are you having difficulty understanding their purport?

              Liked by 1 person

              • Carlos says

                And therein lies the issue: these days, people automatically entertain the notion that an event is a “false flag”.

                Either one has evidence of something being a false flag (as in that list you linked earlier) or there is no evidence.

                Anything can be called a “false flag” just because they happened in the past, something which I find to be deeply wrong.

                Even if one only entertains these notions, when will you stop? We could entertain the notion that MH17 was a false flag, as the Russian government wants us to. Or we could pin the blame on the rebels who accidentally shot down MH17 with a BUK, thinking it was a Ukrainian military transport aircraft.

                Confusion, paralysis, conspiracy theories, etc. all dilute one’s ability to think critically. And entertaining various conspiracy theories is one such action.

                Not just false flag accusations. Even general conspiracy theories, like Maduro claiming the U.S. is sabotaging the Venezuelan economy and it has nothing to do with his economic mismanagement, rely on those who allow themselves to entertain these conspiracy theories and get confused. The purpose is to sow doubt.

                Seth Rich, PizzaGate, WhereIsAssange, terror attack false flags, etc. are all false. And yet, have you noticed how much time partisans have wasted discussing this? It’s wrong.

                Like

                  • Carlos says

                    Yes, I do know this isn’t a false flag, because there is simply no evidence to prove this was a false flag. None whatsoever.

                    If there is evidence, then please present it. Just like that list you linked me earlier which had confirmed transcripts/documents, provide the same for this event.

                    It doesn’t exist. Same goes for MH17, Seth Rich, PizzaGate, RussiaGate, etc.

                    It’s difficult to prove a negative.

                    Like

                    • “Yes, I do know this isn’t a false flag, because there is simply no evidence to prove this was a false flag. None whatsoever.”

                      How do you know there is no evidence that this was a false flag?

                      Liked by 1 person

                • paulcarline says

                  Your repeated assertion about “rebel” (i.e. DPR/LPR militias) responsibility for the downing of MH17 was refuted long ago by the report of the Dutch intelligence service MIVD, which stated that the only anti-aircraft weapons in eastern Ukraine capable of bringing down MH-17 at 33,000 feet belonged to the Ukrainian government. Even the massively compromised official report failed to incriminate the so-called ‘rebels’. The suspicious behaviour of the Dniepropetrovsk air traffic control centre – in ordering the flight to change course and altitude, and in the immediate disappearance of the ATC official – clearly indicate Ukrainian complicity in this attempted false flag designed to demonise both the separatists and Russia.

                  Liked by 2 people

                  • Carlos says

                    Note: I linked several debunkings but had to insert spaces in the URLs so my comment wouldn’t be caught in the spam filter.

                    The rebels captured a BUK from the government side.

                    The official report was never meant to “incriminate” anyone. That is the function of the criminal probe.

                    ” The suspicious behaviour of the Dniepropetrovsk air traffic control centre – in ordering the flight to change course and altitude”

                    Incorrect. Accoding to the Dutch Safety Board the aircraft was offered Flightlevel 350 by Dnipro control. The captain of MH17 prefered to stay on FL330. Likely because of the weight of the aircraft. Instead the Singapore Airlines B777 flying behind MH17 was allowed to climb to FL350.

                    At July 21 2014 at a Ministry of Defense press conference Russia stated MH17 made a strange route deviation. They made this claim on purpose, to make it seem like this was a “false flag” and the mischievous Ukrainians planned it. However at a September 26 2016 the Russians showed primary radar recordings which did not show the strange route. Russia lied at July 21 about the route. Here is the proof:

                    whathappenedtoflightmh17.co m/russian-mod-proved-it-lied-at-july-21-2014-press-conference-claims-no-buk-on-radar/

                    “… and in the immediate disappearance of the ATC official.”

                    Ah yes, my favourite example of Russian disinformation. You must be talking about the fake ATC guy, named Carlos, sharing my namesake? That guy is a proven liar.

                    This Carlos character was a known “anti-maidan” activist. He suddenly claimed in the hours after MH17’s downing that he was a Ukrainian ATC. His Twitter account, @spainbuca, tweeted on July 17 several messages stating MH17 was shot down by a missile and that Ukraine was behind it. The account was deleted the next day. Spanish authorities do not know a Spanish person working at ATC. All controllers are required to have a Ukraine passport. He lived at that time in Romania. Also someone working at Kiev is unlikely to be able to watch the radar screen of Dnipropetrovsk ATC. MH17 was at the time of the crash controlled by Dnipropetrovsk ATC. It was also very suspicious the man was interviewed by Russia Today in May 2014. Another weird aspect was that @spainbuca followed lots of anti-EU and anti-Israel Twitter accounts. Also @Spainbuca sent Tweets which were anti Israel. Not a typical Air Traffic Controller. Furthermore, he could not even speak Ukrainian. An obvious liar.

                    Read the following two posts that fully debunk this fraudster:

                    twitlonger .com/show/n_1s32agd

                    facebook.co m/notes/miquel-puertas/the-third-scenario-the-strange-case-of-carlos-the-spanish-air-controller/10153483479218659/

                    There are many other lies too. This is what RT said in July 2014:

                    “The Russian military detected a Ukrainian SU-25 fighter jet gaining height towards the MH17 Boeing on the day of the catastrophe. Kiev must explain why the military jet was tracking the passenger airplane, the Russian Defense Ministry said.”

                    This is what RIA said on September 2016:

                    “”There were no airborne side objects near the Malaysian airliner. Except for two commercial aircraft – No. 1775 and No. 4722. The first plane appeared long before the disaster, and the second was at a distance of over 30 km from it. There were no any side objects near the plane before its disintegration,” Viktor Meshcheryakov, deputy chief constructor from Lianozovo Electromechanical Plant, which develops radar station Utyos-T, said at a briefing in Moscow just two days prior to a new report to be released by a Dutch-led investigative team.”

                    Both state TV reports contradict themselves. First, they claim there was an SU-25 and milked the story well. 2 years later, suddenly not only is there no SU-25 anymore, but their primary radar showed no flight route deviation as previously claimed!

                    There are many, many more lies told by Russia in their disinformation campaign to fool people into thinking this was a “false flag”.

                    Here are two links you should read to undo the disinformation:

                    whathappenedtoflightmh17.co m/kremlin-mh17-lies-overview/

                    whathappenedtoflightmh17.co m/conspiracy-theory-debunked/

                    Like

                    • JJA says

                      TLDNR.
                      You join a long line of, for want of a better description “trolls”, who jump onto this site purely to clog it up, looks very suspiciously like a pysops from GCHQ or the US equivalent.
                      MH17 and Seth Rich, for two, are events that the MSM have been totally one-sided about, which immediately makes me highly suspicious. There is clearly a MSM agenda, NATO good, Putin bad on the lines of 4 legs and 2 legs in Animal Farm.

                      Liked by 1 person

  20. This may or may not be a false flag.

    Either way, it will be grist for the anti-Muslim mill, both to foster greater divisions among the masses and to further legitimize war, present and planned, against the people of the Middle East, or rather, against people of that “type”, tarred with one brush by the fascist corporate mainstream media and thereby in the minds of publics ignorant about the diversity of ordinary peoples in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, more generally.

    I had but a peek yesterday at a flurry of tweets upon the heels of the “breaking news,” and I was actually shocked at the intensity and uniformity of the Islamophobic opinions being expressed. Difficult to know, also, whether these shrill and hysterical messages were not prearranged or at the very least being opportunistically orchestrated.

    Yup. America (and the West) long ago descended into madness . . .

    We haven’t seen the end of what’s coming our way . . .

    But, hey, on the heels of that terrible incident, I read that the price of “gold is firming up,” just as doubtlessly are the stock values of a few other profit generating businesses . . . In America, in the Empire, no crisis ever goes to waste . . .

    Liked by 2 people

    • tommytcg says

      Gold is firming because Hong Kong is opening a new metals exchange to buy/sell the ‘metal’ in HK$ and remnibi, which will knock out Comex the now empty gold warehouse that trades in fake paper gold.. designed to keep gold low to prop up the fiat US$.

      Like

      • Gold, like every other commodity in the markets, is an object of speculation and futures. It’s primary function in the system is a “safe haven” asset. If and when the markets implode, which will happen at the point that the interest rate on margin accounts becomes too expensive to cover by anything but the selling of assets, the price of Gold will soar as intended, and the miners still capable of profitably producing the metal at current prices will rise on an even greater disproportionate exponential curve. Hong Kong isn’t playing a game any different from that being played by the COMEX. Everything is manipulated, and gold doesn’t stand outside the system, but serves its appointed counter-cyclical function.

        Like

  21. John says

    I too wonder if this might not be yet another false flag operation, designed to save May’s stalling campaign?
    I am not saying the person responsible did not think he was acting independently.
    However, we know such people are easily manipulable.
    After all, if someone wants to throw their life away for no good reason, others will always want to help them.
    The same people who may have orchestrated the attack could have orchestrated fake news on social media.
    Regrettably, the past actions of the deep state in the UK and elsewhere make almost anything possible.

    Liked by 4 people

    • paulcarline says

      There is, of course, no confirming evidence of the identity – or even existence – of the alleged ‘bomber’. He has been described widely as a “suicide bomber” – suggesting that he blew himself up. But it is also reported that the ‘attacker’ was arrested.

      Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s