This would be a terrible false flag. I know people like conspiracy theories, but nothing about this suggests false flag.

▲

oliwarner 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> nothing about this suggests false flag

Except that one nation has found cause to blame another. If it wasn't Iran, seems like the perfect false flag.

▲

rdtsc a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> I know people like conspiracy theories, but nothing about this suggests false flag.

I am not saying it is, just interesting to analyze who it would have been if it was. Does it benefit Iran to attack France? I guess? Maybe just a target of opportunity. US freezers are just too damn locked down(!). Or does it benefit someone else to make it look like Iran did it, kind of a thing...

Well you were betting it was Russia, and I kinda expected that as well. But then, yeah, probably Russia would want to boast that they did it as a threat or show of force not make it look like their semi-allies (Iranians) did it.

▲

bawolff a day ago | parent [-]

Mostly i'd just say - false flags are extremely high risk. You don't do something like that just to get france a little bit upset with Iran. If you are going to go for a false flag, you do something extreme as that is the only way for the expected pay off to counterbalance the severe risk.

▲

t-3 a day ago | parent [-]

The most important part of a false flag is to have media support pushing the false narrative before any alternative narratives have a chance, and Iran definitely doesn't have that. The uncertainty about who was attacking and these late revelations make it even less likely to be a false flag, IMO. Everybody was expecting this to be the Russians.

	▲	m000 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> these late revelations make it even less likely to be a false flag I don't think the timing of the announcements shifts the balance much against the possibility of the attack being a false flag. The question is: If the real culprits weren't among the convenient "usual suspects", would the French authorities have the guts to name them? My guess is no. Because if you name a specific country as being involved, you also need to take action against it, or you risk appearing weak and meek in the eyes of your own citizens. So, there may have been political pressure during the investigation and/or its interpretation to steer it towards a convenient outcome: - "Iranian IP address" you said? It was them after all! I knew it! I knew it! - But, sir!... - I knew it!