by Philip M. Giraldi
It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack.
In the sea battles of the
eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy
flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was considered to
be a legitimate ruse de guerre, but it was only "honorable"
if one reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.
There is nothing honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do.
There has been a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services.
That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing.
Given that capability,
there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media
that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national
elections in the United States.
The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time.
The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma.
Because the rebels
succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government
had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag
efforts to have been extremely successful.
The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something."
The United Nations investigation of
the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is
unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.
The allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the UK's own chemical weapons lab.
May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London.
Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage.
Few now believe that
Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing
body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag
executed by the British government or even by the CIA.
A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.