Any terrorist attack where no one important dies is almost certainly a false flag a la Bologna 1980.
Throughout history, "terrorists", "freedom fighters", radical political activists, whatever you want to call them, killed important people. But in these modern terrorist attacks somehow no one important dies anymore. This makes me certain that all these "terrorist attacks" are false flag attacks done in cooperation with the secret services or someone else who is related to government or globalist structures, or whoever knows who.
The so-called "Muslim terrorism" is the most obvious example of that. We're made to believe that there are independent organized Muslim terrorist groups out there that are capable of doing things like 9/11 and sophisticated terror attacks in Paris and Brussels, yet these same terrorist groups have through all these years been somehow unable to kill a single important Western politician even though these politicians are not exactly living in bunkers but are out there in the open. If terrorism was such a threat for the West, why do politicians who should have feared the most feel so secure? It's almost as if they know they're never going to be targeted by the terrorists, right? For some reason, these terror groups that are "in war with the West" are somehow content to just kill random people in concerts and restaurants and never go after people who are actually important to the West, despite their supposed sophisticated networks. So either they're total idiots or they're in some way connected to the Western power structures. But then if they were such idiots that they would actually believe that they can achieve political goals through killing random teenagers on Ariana Grande concert, they would not be able to exist as a functional terror group to begin with because they would be to dumb to organize anything.
So because of this I'm extremely suspect of the narrative of all of these terrorist attacks, whether it's supposed to be done by the Muslims, white supremacists or whoever.
I mean just look in history how the actual terrorists operated. Gavrilo Princip didn't go to some coffee house in Vienna and shot 20 random Austrians, he killed an important person. Communist terrorists targeted important people. Anarchists targeted important people. Yet somehow we're made to believe that the modern political terrorists completely changed their modus operandi and think that it's a viable political strategy to shoot random people who have no power whatsoever?
After all, it's basically common knowledge that the Bologna 1980 attack was a false flag attribute to some mysterious fascist group, even though no one was able to explain how exactly this fascist group would benefit from killing 80 random Italians. There is a much more credible theory that it was done by the secret services, just like the other terror attacks in that time period in Italy.
Now I don't think that every single terrorist attack was a false flag. There are some cases of actual mental lunatics acting on their own and going on a rampage. I think Breivik was an actual terrorist because he killed people who were related to important people, and tried to kill important people. Also some of these Muslim attackers doing improvized badly planned attacks. But whenever there is a very well-organized attack in which no one important is even targeted, you can be sure it's a false flag until proven otherwise.
/cloudfront-ap-southeast-2.images.arcpublishing.com/nzme/IVB5PVFS4G7XX33755WKTEIRNU.jpg)
outdoorswarehouse.com.au
