As the public's awareness of the age-old "false-flag" tom-foolery increases a new method must be devised.
The "False-Flag" Attack (FFA): Group A pretends to be Group B in order to attack Group C (which could be the same as Group A) in order to justify a response of some kind. The distinction I want to focus on is that the response is the desired outcome.
The next evolution only becomes possible when the public awareness of the concept of FFA reaches a critical mass.
The "False False-Flag" Attack (FFFA): Group A pretends to be Group B (setting them up) to get caught trying to pull off a false-flag. The important distinction is that the false false-flag attack (FFFA) is the desired attack. It is permitted due to the act being blamed on Group B's failed false-flag attempt. This would essentially allow a particularly crafty and resourceful group to attack any other group, straightaway, with no blow back or repercussions. As compared to the FFA it would require more planning, more diverse resources and a stronger control of the media narrative. It would be akin to the "long con".
You have been warned.