False flag attacks have been common for centuries. Given any act of apparent political terrorism, journalists should always be asking: Why these targets? Why this timing? Who really benefits? Could this be yet another false flag? Not asking = incentivizing more false flags.
I'm making the Bayesian point that false flags have been common and should be considered as one possibility. That's all. Not presuming either way.
-
-
That's not Bayesian. A Bayesian point would start by looking at the relative rates of ordinary attacks versus "false flag" attacks.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.