[sonnyblarney]

"Would you though?"

Yes. There's a difference between drone programs 'crossing the line' say, in a hunt for known terrorists, they blow up a building that has civilians next door our just outside ... and arbitrary targeting of 'annoyances of the state'.

There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.

And besides - there would be no 'false flag' with any kind of attempt to kill Assange.

The notion that Clinton (or any agency) would go after Assange with drones and hellfire missiles is well into crazyland territory. Not even the crazy among them are thinking it, it doesn't make sense really on any level I think.

[merlincorey]

> There are actually quite scant false flag operations in US history, and many of them weren't even false flag so much as 'purposefully misrepresented'.

What's the difference between "purposefully misrepresented" and a false flag?

I am honestly not sure -- I thought the concept of a false flag was a purposeful misrepresentation of an event.

[sonnyblarney]

A false flag is an intentional action that creates false justification for something.

A misrepresentation is just that.

So - if the US sent in CIA agents and planted WMD's in Iraq, and then had the UN inspectors show up and 'find' them - that would be a false flag.

Otherwise, say the inspectors find some WMD but it's only a small account, and then the government says "Look WMDs, therefore war!" - that's another scenario. The 2003 war was not based on false flag, more along the lines of misrepresentation of information.

Sometimes it can be shady, as I believe the gulf of Tonkin was a sketchy one. There was an incident between US and Vietnamese ships, but later, during a second encounter, the US knew it was unlikely there were Vietnamese ships (just misleading radar signature) but used it anyways as justification for escalation.

But consider that this is just populism anyhow - the 'good' reasons for conflict, are often at odds with the 'populist' reasons for war. WW2 being possibly a good example: it might have been much better for everyone were the Americans to be involved much earlier ... but the public was not down with it until Pearl Harbour.

Consider for a moment if there was no attack on Pearl Harbour. Consider if the Germans did not have to pull resources from the Russian front to fight in Italy, Africa and then France ... my gosh man that would re-shape world history.

As for Assange, I don't believe his leaks represent quite the malicious acting by the US that some believe, although maybe they are important, moreover, I understand that he has very serious character flaws - this from his relationships with his own allies at the Guardian and Spiegel etc. and his recent involvement with the Russians.