These types of articles are just exhausting to me. The holes and flaws in the arguments are so obvious to me that I am baffled why people take this seriously in the first place. The first thing I do when I find something that seems rather…fantastic would be a kind word, is to find a transcript and check his sources (http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100419_false_flags.htm). Of the 24 source citations here, 5 of the links are broken so the information there can’t be validated. After that you can do a line by line analysis of the sources: the source regarding Nero is broken, but the statement that he fiddled while Rome burned is in fact a myth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Great_Fire_of_Rome_.2864_AD.29). While he did take advantage of the fire to build himself a new palace and persecute Christians, there is no indication that he started the fire in order to do so (which would be a “false flag” attack) – it was merely opportunism on his part, not perfidy. Second, his source regarding the USS Maine does not support his assertion about the “warmongers of the emerging American Empire” – the cited article is a discussion of yellow journalism and does not indicate any culpability on the part of the US government in pressuring for a war for Spain. In fact a federal inquiry by President McKinley done weeks afterwards said that Spain could not be blamed for the sinking, and most information today indicate that it was simply an accident. Third, His source for the sinking of the USS Liberty by Israel also doesn’t support his assertion of Israel’s motives for sinking the ship. The sinking did occur, yes, and it was hushed up so that it wouldn’t disrupt US-Israel relations (which is something that *I* have a problem with, but that’s a different discussion) but there’s no indication that it was done to incite the US to join the war. Fourth, the first citation about Mossad posing as Muslim terrorists links to an article about how Palestinians arrested a group for posting as al-Qaida operatives and giving information to Israel – which is a standard method for gathering human intelligence, whether you are a cop or the CIA. You either find someone who is in the target group willing to give you information or you find someone who can get into the target group to give you information. This is in no way the “false flag” operation that he is describing. So the sources in the entire first half of the article are either missing or do not in fact support his assertion. Based on this, I am not sure if I should even waste my time on the second half.
His logic is also slipshod: he starts off with the assertion that “acts of violence only benefit people in power,” presumably the authoritarian regime he mentions in the first paragraph. Then later he states that governments commit these acts of violence in order to blame them on enemies. But these two are very different – committing an act of violence against your own citizens in order to consolidate power is much more serious than capitalizing on acts of violence others committed in order to consolidate power. So which is his argument? But with the USS Maine, Hearst had no involvement with the US government and would not directly profit from the Spanish-American war, so that doesn’t support his stated argument. I could continue on with this line of analysis by dismantling his sources (I already started on the second half of the article – most of his citations for FBI involvement in the OKC bombing are equally shoddy examples of sourcing, and if you go all the way back to the original documents they are basing their stories on – in this case, affidavits – they do not in fact support the ensuing articles) as well as his argumentation, but you see where I am going with this. The overall problems with his article is that he does not clearly articulate his argument – are governments attacking their own people under false flags to consolidate power, are they attacking other people under false flags to consolidate power, are they taking advantage of attacks to consolidate power, or all three? He doesn’t say what governments are gaining from doing so, or who specifically in the government is benefiting.
Crap sources, crap arguments, crap logic = crap journalism.