Is another 9/11 style false flag incoming?

[Charlesiii]

Assumptions are bad. There's no evidence that 9/11 was a false flag.

If you don't have this basic knowledge, you probably won't be able to contribute much to the thread. It would be like trying to fit an equation to a polynomial relationship without knowing algebra. I'm sure there have been other (historical) threads explaining that 9/11 was a false flag.

 

[Gideon300]

Nope. There are plenty of terrorists who are not Muslims. We just don't tend to call them that.

"A terrorist is an individual or member of a group who uses violence, intimidation, and threats—particularly against civilians—to create extreme fear and achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. These acts are intended to coerce governments, international organizations, or the public."

Think covid. Lots of covid terrorists around, but the government generally smiled on those terrorists because it helped said governments maintain control. There are many other examples of terrorists, but they're just not labelled as such because they work for the government.

You have a twisted mind. I don't know where you live. If I had to guess, I'd say Canada. Your mentality is part of the reason why Islam gets a free ride. Covid is over and life is back to normal. Islam is not over and it is increasing its control over the Western world. Japan, China and North Korea are smarter the the West's useful idiots. They won't have a bar of Islam. Britain is in effect a Muslim nation. The rest of Europe not much better. If you think your nation is immune from Islam's control, think again. New York is a good example of what can happen.

First on the list of targets for Muslims is the Jews. Next is Christians. Personally, I like my head where it is.

 

[Charlesiii]

You have a twisted mind. I don't know where you live. If I had to guess, I'd say Canada. Your mentality is part of the reason why Islam gets a free ride. Covid is over and life is back to normal. Islam is not over and it is increasing its control over the Western world. Japan, China and North Korea are smarter the the West's useful idiots. They won't have a bar of Islam. Britain is in effect a Muslim nation. The rest of Europe not much better. If you think your nation is immune from Islam's control, think again. New York is a good example of what can happen.

No. Life is not back to normal. Governments stole a lot of money from ordinary people, and subjected them to terrorism - i.e. the use of violence, intimidation, and threats—particularly against civilians—to create extreme fear and achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. These governments and their agents have not yet been held to account for their terrorism, so life is not back to normal, and I do not have a twisted mind for thinking this. It's a simple matter of justice, which is important for me, because it is important for God.

First on the list of targets for Muslims is the Jews. Next is Christians. Personally, I like my head where it is.

Like most people, most Muslims just want to be left alone. If the Israeli state and its vassal the US didn't keep interfering in Muslim countries, Islamic terrorism would die out.

 

[NightTwister]

If you don't have this basic knowledge, you probably won't be able to contribute much to the thread. It would be like trying to fit an equation to a polynomial relationship without knowing algebra. I'm sure there have been other (historical) threads explaining that 9/11 was a false flag.

Your conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 being a false flag has nothing to do with facts. The so-called "evidence" (yes, I've heard much of it) isn't in fact facts. Trying to explain to you why your facts aren't facts would be like trying to teach latin to a fish.

 

[NightTwister]

Not all Muslims are terrorists, agree. Almost every terrorist is a Muslim. The Bible does not condone terrorism. The Quran mandates it.

While not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all of them support terrorism as morally righteous.

 

[Cameron143]

A simple query yielded the below. So yeah, unless you think things like torture and murdering civilians is okay, there are war crimes. If you do think war crimes are okay, then you basically believe in might is right - which is also what Satanists believe.

• Use of force between states is governed by the UN Charter. An armed attack justifying self‑defense (Article 51) or Security Council authorization can make force lawful; otherwise an unconsented interstate use of force is generally unlawful (an act of aggression).
• "War crime" is a distinct category under international criminal law referring to serious violations of the laws and customs of war (e.g., willful killing of civilians, torture, intentionally directing attacks against civilians, using prohibited weapons). Those acts are prosecutable regardless of whether the overall use of force is lawful.
• So: initiating an unlawful war may amount to the crime of aggression for which political/military leaders can be held; specific conduct during a conflict can amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other violations.
• Determination requires facts: the legal justification for the use of force, who ordered it, targets, civilian harm, proportionality, precautions, and whether Security Council authorization or self‑defense applied.
• Accountability routes: International Criminal Court (if jurisdiction exists), ad hoc tribunals, national courts (universal jurisdiction), and the UN Security Council for aggression.
• Protected status: Persons engaged in negotiations (e.g., delegates, envoys, ceasefire or surrender negotiators) are normally hors de combat or otherwise protected against attack while performing those protected functions. Intentionally attacking them can amount to a war crime (e.g., murder or willful killing of protected persons).
• Distinction and intent: IHL prohibits intentionally directing attacks against civilians and other protected persons. To be a war crime, the attack must be intentional or reckless and directed at protected persons or civilian objects, or carried out with knowledge that the target is protected.
• Perfidy/protected emblems: Attacks exploiting trust in negotiations (e.g., feigning intent to negotiate then attacking) may constitute perfidy, which is a war crime.

I'm ignorant, or Trump is ignorant? Because Trump is the one who keeps redefining what the objectives were/are.

I'll answer this fully when I have time, but you have left discussion and begun insinuation. Not necessary. Just stick to what is actually written.

Is there a law against war? Has anyone ever been charged with war?

 

[Cameron143]

No. Life is not back to normal. Governments stole a lot of money from ordinary people, and subjected them to terrorism - i.e. the use of violence, intimidation, and threats—particularly against civilians—to create extreme fear and achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. These governments and their agents have not yet been held to account for their terrorism, so life is not back to normal, and I do not have a twisted mind for thinking this. It's a simple matter of justice, which is important for me, because it is important for God.


Like most people, most Muslims just want to be left alone. If the Israeli state and its vassal the US didn't keep interfering in Muslim countries, Islamic terrorism would die out.

This is a false premise. Terrorism will only die out when hatred does. So long as children are taught to hate there will be terrorism.

 

[Cameron143]

Many are myopic when it comes to world affairs. War isn't always fought on battlefields. Often, it is waged in the arena of ideas, the accumulation of resources, and the ability to coerce the conformity of others.

We have been engaged in a very serious geopolitical war for some time. Because of America's great resources and technology, it would be very difficult to beat America on the battlefield. The only way to defeat America then is by changing its culture, weakening it financially, and by leveraging critical resources. The attack on our culture has been going on for a long time and has made significant inroads. The work of Hollywood and the wokening of colleges has created a couple of generations that don't know its own history or much of anything resembling truth. They are easily swayed and are largely immoral. Financially, we seem to have found a way around taxation without representation by borrowing money that still future generations will be burdened with. And geopolitical foes are certainly at the ready to use any means necessary to weaken us by leveraging the world's resources and economies against us.

When Trump returned to office, he recognized that China was forming alliances and resources that threaten America and the West. In April of 2025, Xi threatened to restrict the supply of rare earth minerals. In May, Trump took a trip to the Middle East. Why? The reason given was to shore up relationships with Arab nations and encourage investment. And this is true. But I believe he was gaging their interest in true Middle East peace. Also, when Trump deals with geopolitical foes, he is the one who wants the leverage. To do this, he has to be in control of something America's political foes find necessary. For China, that is oil. By taking control of Venezuela, and in taking control of Iranian oil, Trump has shown Xi, and other world leaders, that America is not to be trifled with. If they will attempt to leverage against America, Trump will do the same. The incursion into Venezuela and the war in Iran are partly to this end. The war in Iran is also beneficial because it makes peace much more probable in the Middle East.

There are other benefits as well. A communist government in the hemisphere has been tamed; possibly more. Other nations in the hemisphere have been put on notice. This is true of Europe as well, who have proven very weak allies; as has Canada.

 

[Charlesiii]

I'll answer this fully when I have time, but you have left discussion and begun insinuation. Not necessary. Just stick to what is actually written.

Is there a law against war? Has anyone ever been charged with war?

I thought you were insinuating I had said there was a law against war. But no, there is not a law against war, as there is a place for the lawful use of force. This thread, however, is about the unlawful use of force, hence my use of the term "illegal war".

The problem with the unlawful use of force is that it often goes unpunished.

 

[Cameron143]

I thought you were insinuating I had said there was a law against war. But no, there is not a law against war, as there is a place for the lawful use of force. This thread, however, is about the unlawful use of force, hence my use of the term "illegal war".

The problem with the unlawful use of force is that it often goes unpunished.

The unlawful use of force is also subjective. For instance, if a nation declares death to another nation and sworn to eradicate the other nation, is this justification for force? If they say their goal is to develop weapons to this end, is this justification? If you actually see them doing so, is this justification?

At what point is use of force justified?

 

[GaryA]

I thought you were insinuating I had said there was a law against war. But no, there is not a law against war, as there is a place for the lawful use of force. This thread, however, is about the unlawful use of force, hence my use of the term "illegal war".

The problem with the unlawful use of force is that it often goes unpunished.

I am somewhat surprised that you do not seem to know/understand the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'. You might want to do a bit of research into this - everyone needs to know/understand the difference in the modern use of these two words.

To give you a "head start" in your research - the word 'unlawful' is based on 'common law' and the word 'illegal' is based on 'statute law'.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

What do you think?
Will the Neo Cons blame those against the war they started for their false flags?

 

[gb9]

What do you think?
Will the Neo Cons blame those against the war they started for their false flags?

it is possible..

do you ever just ask yourself " how in the ------ did we get here??

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

it is possible..

do you ever just ask yourself " how in the ------ did we get here??

Yes, it bears reminding ourselves of the anti-war rhetoric that brought a lot of support.

Unfortunately, Someone close to him was guiding Trump way back at the assassination attempt.
You probably remember his response when he said, "if I d;e, _______ Iran!'

Then Republicans are like, good grief, now the deep state will definitely go after him again in order to get their war started!

 

[gb9]

Yes, it bears reminding ourselves of the anti-war rhetoric that brought a lot of support.

Unfortunately, Someone close to him was guiding Trump way back at the assassination attempt.
You probably remember his response when he said, "if I d;e, _______ Iran!'

Then Republicans are like, good grief, now the deep state will definitely go after him again in order to get their war started!

the whole thing is a big mess..

and it seems as trump was walked right into it..

 

[Coll2-8]

I can’t say much about the original question; I don’t know, but many things are possible.

As for the Iran situation… It’s complicated… To me, a lot of things suggests that Trump isn’t entirely free to make his own decisions, and that others (whoever they may be) are pulling the strings behind the scenes and that these circles have led Trump into this Iran situation. Or he was simply convinced to do it, believing it would be quickly resolved. Perhaps they also set a trap for him with the intention of politically harming him (and thus the MAGA movement).

What really surprises me as an outsider, is that the powerful U.S. military seems to be having such a hard time taking on this Iranian regime. I don’t understand that.

P.S.: As for 9/11, well, that was definitely 200% exactly as the official narrative tells it, because after all, the attackers passports were found in the ruins.

 

[Charlesiii]

I am somewhat surprised that you do not seem to know/understand the difference between 'unlawful' and 'illegal'. You might want to do a bit of research into this - everyone needs to know/understand the difference in the modern use of these two words.

To give you a "head start" in your research - the word 'unlawful' is based on 'common law' and the word 'illegal' is based on 'statute law'.

Although the 'common law' may differ between countries, I believe it ultimately originates from God (do not murder, do not steal, do not harm your neighbour). Therefore, I largely use 'unlawful' to describe immutable laws pertaining to morality (laws of God), and 'illegal' based on laws of man (not necessarily moral or rational). Both are improper (in my opinion) for describing international law, as although international laws are laws of man, these are agreed between governments (i.e. between entities with potentially different sets of 'common law' in effect - as an example, the 'common law' in some Muslim countries might differ with respect to Western countries in how much or how little females should be clothed in public).

However, largely, and certainly in this case, if even very different countries can agree on certain laws, such as prohibitions on piracy, torture, bombing of civilians, wars of aggression, use of a flag of truce as a ruse for a sneak attack, this subject refers to a matter of morality moreso than a man-made technicality.

And to what extent details have been revealed or admitted by Trump and his team, the only rational interpretation of the attack on Iran can be a breach of morality moreso than any technical matter. Hence I deemed unlawful a more appropriate term.

 

[Charlesiii]

P.S.: As for 9/11, well, that was definitely 200% exactly as the official narrative tells it, because after all, the attackers passports were found in the ruins.

Ha, ha. I agreed with your post, and this line made me laugh! If only they'd made the towers out of the same material as those passports, eh?

 

[Coll2-8]

Ha, ha. I agreed with your post, and this line made me laugh! If only they'd made the towers out of the same material as those passports, eh?

Thanks for the explanation, without it, it could have misinterpreted your emoji under my post.

Maybe they really did learn something, and the new tower is built from exactly that material!

 

[Lanolin]

Are you saying it was just a way to demolish an old 70's style building, and an excuse to put a new one up?
Who benefits from this?

Was it like when Mr T tried to evict those grandfathered tenants that were living in a rent-controlled building in NYC he didn't like because it was preventing his new constructions?

I mean we had our own acts of terrorism by the government at Bastion Point, many years ago in New Zealand. Some children died in that fire. The govt has never apologised although it tried to placate the Maori land confiscation (or land stealing) for luxury housing with the Waitangi Tribunal to address their grievances. But for Maori the amount of money will never be enough until the land is healed and restored.

They can't bring back those children. :-(
Today the land is cared for by the original tribe and their claims are recognised.