It’s perhaps worth bearing in mind that there are - broadly speaking - two types of “false flag” crimes.
In the one case, the primary purpose of the entire crime (or report, in cases where there was no actual crime) is the false flag. It’s an activist looking to make a point that they genuinely believe in, and creating a fake story to bring attention to what they feel is true in other cases if not in theirs.
The other is where there is a genuine crime but it’s motivated by things other than the ostensible ideology expressed, and the purpose of the “false flag” aspect is to throw suspicion away from themselves.
The “vote Trump” church burning appears to be in the latter category. (The Tawana Brawley story would be another - on the part of Brawley herself, not Sharpton and his crew.)
Actually committing a crime to frame someone else is a particularly loathsome action especially because of the way it devalues the experience of true victims.
Unlike Fotheringay-Phipps I am uncomfortable about mixing up of the concept of false-flagging and simply taking advantage of a real case, or making up a false accusation to divert attention from your own crime, or even a vulgar framing for extortion or revenge, under the same heading.
The facile accusation of " false flag" makes me think of how some people are seeking to redefine the phrase “fake news” to mean *wrong *news or *biased *news which have been a part of the discourse ever since there is a press. It also brings to mind how some people seem to believe there is some kind of massive onsalught of false rape accusations of which all males must live in fear (there isn’t).
For instance that gun control people point to the Gifford shooting or Newtown massacre as an argument for their increased background checks and a new “assault weapons” ban, or that the US government uses 9/11 to justify PATRIOT and waterboarding and Gitmo are NOT evidence of false flag conspiracies. The crimes were real, if officials sought to take advantage of them to make policy decisions we don’t like is another story.
On a less grandiose scale you have things like the Duke/Nifong case that was used as a “target of opportunity”, on the criminal side for a framing by an unscrupulous prosecutor seeking to score points for reelection, and on the side of the Faculty 88 for an opportunistic smear against a segment of population that “must be guilty of something” because of their “privilege”; but it was not engineered as a grand conspiracy from the start.
In that sense, it sure looks like a lot of these false accusations or attempts at framing others for real crimes are “lone wolf” or at least very localized actions devised to deviate attention or smear someone, where the claim ad subject is picked opportunistically, and may be seized on by other political opportunists after the fact. I’d be loath to call them “false flags”, as that assumes a concerted organization. But it still makes things worse for trying to spot the real crimes.
IAN JRDelirious and cannot speak for him/her, but ISTM that the objection is to using the term “false flag” to apply to both kinds of phenomena that you mentioned:
[QUOTE=Fotheringay-Phipps]
[…] there are - broadly speaking - two types of “false flag” crimes.
In the one case, the primary purpose of the entire crime (or report, in cases where there was no actual crime) is the false flag. […]
The other is where there is a genuine crime but it’s motivated by things other than the ostensible ideology expressed […]
[/quote]
I think that JRDelirious is objecting to your calling the latter category a type of “false flag”. JRD is arguing that that term ought to be reserved for the former category, where people deliberately commit crimes for the sole and specific purpose of discrediting the target ideology.
I disagree. While the distinction might be relevant in some contexts - which is why I raised it - the term “false flag” applies to both, since that’s exactly what they are - pretenses of being representative of an ideology that they do not actually represent - whatever the motivation was for doing so.
And in the context of this thread and OP, where the discussion was about a “real” versus “false flag” dichotomy, the distinction is not really that important at all, which is why I only raised it as a side point.
Ok, I can understand that and see your point. (And thanks to Kimstu for filling in and conveying my meaning). Some things are not conceived as false flags but are used as if they were by opportunists, yes, sometimes complete outsiders.
I have a battleship dressed up like a fish processing factory ship … I’m flying the Taiwanese flag and sail into Long Beach harbor … as soon as I’m close enough, I start an intense shore bombardment with all guns blazing …
Republicans don’t hate women. They hate welfare recipients all of which are Democrats because Democrats are too stupid to hold a job and incapable of taking responsibility for their own lives.
Isn’t it fun making up blanket statements that are absolute bullshit?
