There was something I hadn’t even realised until after I’d already started writing this post: the fact that police commissioner, Helric Fredou, was reported to have been found dead from a gunshot to the head on Thursday. Fredou, a high-ranking French law-enforcement official within the command-and-control structure (and former deputy-director of the regional police), was involved in investigating the Charlie Hebdo massacre. He is claimed to have committed suicide.
This simply adds further justification to the extreme caution with which we have to regard this Paris massacre. The evidence of a false story, a staged trauma, having been carried out in Paris has been exposed very quickly, heavily indicating that we are being lied to in a big way.
Aside from the actual shock and tragedy of the fact that cold-blooded murders were being carried out against cartoonists and journalists in broad daylight, there was something else eerie about the footage of the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices even on first viewing; there’s a definite sense of how staged it felt, how perfectly executed, how easy to carry out and how little impediment there was for the culprits. From Jack Ruby waltzing up to Lee Harvey Oswald through a sea of police personnel in 1963 to Islamic State waltzing en masse across the border from Syria into Iraq in 2014, there’s always something suspicious about the ease with which certain events are able to unfold in situations where you’d expect opposition.
That immaculate sense of it, however, is merely a surface quality; speedy and laudable analysis by several independent media observers revealed almost right away how problematic and flimsy the mainstream narrative was. What emerged very quickly is that the videos we were shown of the attack appear to be an error-filled hoax; a botched job with tell-tale continuity errors and other inconsistencies (scroll further down for more details and references on that). Meanwhile suicide of Helric Fredou less than a day after the initial Charlie Hebdo attack has, as far as I’m aware, not been reported at all in the mainstream media outside of France.
It has of course become standard for most conspiracy theorists or enthusiasts to cry ‘false-flag’ whenever a terrorist attack or major incident occurs. Those unwilling to acknowledge the information of course frequently pour scorn on it or roll their eyes, but largely out of hesitation to let that information into their preferred world-view; a ‘safer’ world-view that sees contemporary Islamist terrorism purely as a ‘problem’ with ‘Islam’ and not as anything more. They are, however, missing the point that such false-flag events have demonstrably happened before and in fact have their basis in known historic programmes and operations.
In Paris, there were problems with the emerging narrative from the outset; and that’s not even talking about the classic false-flag calling card of having one of the culprits conveniently leave his I.D in the abandoned escape vehicle. Why, for example, did the road the incident occurred on have no indications of normal day-time activity or traffic? The scene presented on news-channel videos all over the world has the eerie sense of a staged operation, as though the area had been cordoned off for the attack to be carried out. The attackers themselves, though a frightening sight with their face-masks, paramilitary gear and Kalashnikov assault rifles, behave like professional hit-men, well-trained and with no hints of uneasiness. Yet apparently one of them was later careless enough to leave identification lying around for police to find.
On the subject of the attackers carrying out such a professional-seeming operation, the information allegedly exists that the brothers were trained in Syria (though Al-Qaeda in Yemen has claimed responsibility for the attack and Cherif Kouachi is claimed to have specifically cited Al-Qaeda in Yemen and American jihadist preacher Anwar al-Awlaki; a figure already claimed by several sources to have been a US government collaborator prior to his death in 2011). The footage of the Muslim police officer, Ahmed Merabet, being brutally ‘finished off’ by one of the gunmen immediately brings to mind the kind of killings carried out by monstrous, ultra-violent terrorists in Syria and Iraq and reminded me particularly of a PBS report in May 2014 in which they interviewed rebels who claimed to have been trained by the US in Qatar. According to the source, they were being trained among other things to “finish off soldiers still alive after an ambush.” The Ahmed Merabet killing had that look to it, possibly reinforcing the view that the shooters have had training and experience in the Middle East.
On the other hand, it may simply be that we the public are meant to draw that conclusion from the footage. If you scrutinise the footage of the gunmen closely, it is clear – even via what little is visible through the face-masks – that they are white-skinned men.
Curiously, all the video footage initially posted was shot from rooftops and from different angles and positions: how many people were up on the rooftop? And why were they up on the rooftop? And how did they get up onto the rooftop quick enough to film such detailed footage of an event that is said to have lasted less than a minute? Further, the Charlie Hebdo offices are reported to have usually had a larger security detail visible outside its premises, having been fully aware of death threats against the magazine staff and having already once been petrol bombed. Where was their security?
It is worth noting that it wasn’t standard for all of those Charlie Hebdo staff gunned down on Wednesday to have been in the offices at the same time. The shooters seemed to know when was the optimal time to strike. According to a CBC News report, “Journalists from Charlie Hebdo reportedly gather in their Paris office for their weekly editorial meeting. A Charlie Hebdo reporter told the French newspaper Le Monde that the attackers had to have been informed that the editorial meeting was taking place, otherwise there are not many people on the premises.”
A question arises of how the attackers were able to ascertain that timetable. Who would’ve had access to that information and shared it? And without wanting to cast aspersions or make unfounded insinuations, the fact that the shooters were allowed into the building by a member of staff, given that first question, is curious. The version of events we’re given is that the woman in question was forced to do so at gunpoint; that may in all likelihood be exactly what happened and it does admittedly feel distasteful to imply otherwise, though it could also be construed to have an element to it of Jack Ruby being let into that famous Dallas police station in November 1963. The case for the false-flag element doesn’t rest on that issue anyhow, which is admittedly just speculation. But all taken together, the different question-marks and curiosities form a picture that leaves the prevailing narrative looking highly shaky.
The French Intelligence community made no secret of the fact that the brothers were known to them and were a known threat; that fact was widely acknowledged in the media coverage and wasn’t covered up. That element of the story is familiar territory of course, with echoes in the Mumbai attacks or more recent incidents. The Canada shooter Michael Zehaf-Bibeau in October last year was revealed to have had a relationship with law enforcement parties in advance of his botched attack. This attack occurred while a new anti-terror bill coincidentally was being devised, the attack helping to give it timely weight.
Then there was the almost laughably chameleon figure responsible for the Sydney Siege before Christmas – Man Haron Monis. The suspect had so many aliases, allegiances and personas that the word “actor” seems like the only one suitable to describe him. Granted political asylum by the Australian government and well known to both Australian police and intelligence and the Australian media, he was supposedly a dissident Iranian ‘Shia’a cleric’ who made it his business to criticise Syria and Iran, but one day decided to convert to Sunni Islam and become a supporter of Islamic State. The man had ‘intelligence asset’ written all over him, bringing to mind Lee Harvey Oswald in some respects. The point is that he was fully on the radar of authorities in Australia for various crimes and allegations, including sexual offenses and involvement in the murder of his wife, Noleen Hayson Pal; it’s also worth noting that Iranian officials had warned Australian authorities about the danger posed by Monis. A particularly detailed study of Monis can be read here.
Cherif and Said Kouachi, like Monis, were a known factor and the more one assesses the story the more it begins to look increasingly likely that – at the very least – they were ‘enabled’ to carry out a twisted, barbaric “vengeance for Muhammad” as part of a controlled event (assuming they were involved at all). The third Paris terrorist, Kosher store attacker Amedi Coulibaby, was also known to authorities and had a crime-heavy history. Aside from having met former President Nicholas Sarkozy (which could be dismissed as innocuous if you look at the context of that story), it emerges that police had previously searched his apartment and found 240 rounds of 7.62mm rifle ammunition, the caliber typically used in Kalashnikov assault rifles, and also that Coulibaly had tried to break another militant Islamist, Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, out of prison in 2013. Although he was convicted and sentenced in 2013 to five years in prison for that offense, he was released early.
The other conclusion – which has almost immediately gained great momentum among various alternative media voices and analysts – is that both Kouachi brothers were actually entirely innocent of the crime and that the killings were actually carried out by either French agents, Mossad or some combination of various covert parties. Some of the supporting evidence for this is highlighted further down this page; as far as the Mossad allegation is concerned, I haven’t seen anything yet that would let me be comfortable out-rightly suggesting that theory (although given some of Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements on Sunday, it’s difficult to entirely dismiss it either).
The argument that the Kouachi brothers might not have carried out the attacks at all would go something like this: that some other party, possibly French intelligence or military operatives, carried out the Charlie Hebdo murder (remember – they’re masked men we see in the footage; it could’ve been anyone), and simply planted a fake I.D in the ‘abandoned getaway car’ to announce the identities of the ‘suspects’ to the media. The Kouachi brothers, upon seeing their names announced as the culprits, realise that they’re being set up and they panic and go on the run, eventually taking a hostage in order to protect themselves. Every other element of their situation is staged for the media and the brothers are eventually attacked and killed (as patsies usually are). There are several possible supporting factors for this interpretation of events being discussed by a variety of observers, including fire-arms experts; not only the suspiciously/conveniently available I.D to identify one of the brothers, but perceived inconsistencies in the video footage itself and inconsistencies concerning the alleged Citroen car the shooters used.
In the video below, BPEarthWatch provides a troubling demonstration of the credibility problem concerning the alleged getaway vehicle.
There is also the fact that the 18 year-old alleged getaway driver had an iron-cast alibi – he was in school at the time the attack occurred and his friends all vouch that he was in the classroom. Hamyd Mourad in fact handed himself in to the police at around 11pm on that day after he’d seen his name mentioned on the news.
Getting back to the controversial video footage that has been replayed countless times in news broadcasts all over the world, special attention is paid to the footage of the police officer identified in the media as Ahmed Merabet; outside of the corporate media, troubling observations are made about the absence of blood, the lack of recoil motion from the shooter, the clearly visible puff of dust in the ground where the ‘bullet’ hits, the indication being that the shooter was firing a blank that didn’t hit the officer at all.
A section of the footage that has been omitted from mainstream news broadcasts seems to clearly show the absence of blood or realistic actions; in some cases that part of the footage has been blurred by editors (they say because the footage is too upsetting to be shown) and in others coverage of the footage is simply cut off before that point for the same stated reason.
The initial videos showing this uncut, uncensored footage have already been repeatedly removed by You Tube from the day of the attack onwards, but this video below by the guys at Storm Clouds Gathering retains and demonstrates the glaring problems with the full-length video that both the media and You Tube has been trying to keep people from seeing.
Occupy Blogosphere has a very comprehensive library of content supporting the false-flag nature of the Paris attacks; I won’t rehash everything here, but suggest instead that you check out their site.
Now whether the now-conveniently-dead suspects were genuinely the shooters or whether they were Oswald-like patsies, actors, or whether they actually knew nothing about what has happening at Charlie Hebdo until they saw their names mentioned on the news, there are clearly substantial flaws and inconsistencies in the narrative being played out in mainstream coverage, the most troubling of which are effectively demonstrated by several alternative-media analysts and You-Tube posters who have effectively blown apart the official narrative before it could even gain traction.
That Islamist terrorists exist isn’t something I’m questioning and that they carry out terrorist activity isn’t something I’m questioning. But it needs to be understood that even if the named suspects did carry out these attacks, genuine radicalised terrorists carrying out an atrocity doesn’t make it NOT a false-flag event. What’s remarkable is how many of the most deadly and most divisive terrorist atrocities bear so many hallmarks of false-flag events. I don’t doubt or deny that genuine terrorist attacks occur (they’re occurring on a vast scale right now everywhere from Nigeria to Yemen, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria); but in recent times, and particularly when it concerns attacks in Western locations, the weight of evidence suggests most have been staged (or at the very least heavily enabled ) for various purposes, whether it’s in Sydney or Paris or Benghazi or involving something like the Houla massacre in Syria (where Assad forces were falsely accused of a massacre that had in fact been carried out by his enemies).
In all such cases, the point isn’t to refute that people have been killed and that those deaths are tragedies; but is to try to expose that their killers are ultimately much more in number (and much higher up a much more complicated chain) than the ‘lone wolves’ or individual terrorists that appear on the surface to have been the sole culprits. Until and unless the majority of people are willing to look beyond the mainstream/establishment narrative, they’ll continually fail to consider the bigger picture of what forces, agendas and agencies are at work in these and similar events and they’ll instead flounder in the kind of community breakdowns, social and racial tension, religious divisions and mosque-attacks that are all a part of what those behind this generation of terror (both real and staged) want.
But once you shift your paradigm, once you view the Perpetual ‘War on Terror‘ as the callously orchestrated, deliberately agitated, all-purpose monster that it is, all the inconsistencies in these sorts of events, as well as in international politics and policies, make sense. The radicals and terrorists that now exist in the Middle East and Europe (and increasingly Africa too) didn’t exist fifteen years ago. There were no terrorists in Iraq, no Al-Qaeda presence, prior to the US-led invasion of 2003. There was no terrorist presence in Libya under Muammar Gaddafi; Gaddafi was one of the chief enemies of terrorists and Al-Qaeda-like groups.
The French-led NATO campaign to murder him and destroy the country’s infrastructure resulted in Libya being turned into both a bloodbath and a terrorist haven. The US and the NATO community simultaneously unleashed ultra-violent terrorism in Syria in order to turn Syria too into a bloodbath and a terrorist haven and training ground. These breeding grounds are now where terrorism ‘comes from’. Xenophobes and all-too-easily manipulated minds can talk all they like about how ‘Islam’ is the problem or how ‘Muslims’ are a threat to Western civilisation; the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the Muslim populations in Europe or America don’t produce terrorists and certainly didn’t prior to 9/11.
The ‘War on Terror’, the invasion of Iraq, destruction of Libya and Syria, among other operations, the flourishing of black sites and the CIA-led torture program, all of it was designed to create *more* (not less) hatred and terrorism. Key US intelligence assets like Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, among others, meanwhile were used to radicalise scores and scores of young minds in both the Muslim world and Europe, and to create the ‘brand’, the message and the mantras that would become the enticing call-to-arms for would-be jihadists and radicals all over the world.
Iraq, Libya and Syria, were then methodically and callously turned into terrorist playgrounds by NATO and the US, providing vast training arenas and battlegrounds for wannabe jihadists and ‘holy warriors’ to be trained, further radicalised, desensitized and most importantly to get real-world experience of terrorist activity, guerrilla warfare, mass killing and blood-lust on the streets of Libyan, Iraqi and Syrian cities and towns.
Any psychologist will tell you that nothing is more effective in desensitizing someone than having them join a vast gang (with its collective/pack mentality) and be involved in (or even just witness to) violence and death on a regular basis. So naturally when these scores of young men travel from France, the UK or wherever else to Syria or Iraq to take part in the fighting, they are thoroughly brainwashed and heavily desensitized; and then they come back to their countries, bringing that psychological damage and blood-lust with them. The frankly apocalyptic situations engineered in Iraq, Libya and Syria are now serving as ‘converters’ to produce enough extremists and would-be terrorists to last for a generation.
Again, in what is becoming a highly familiar pattern by now, both Kouachi brothers had been under surveillance by Western intelligence agencies, one of the brothers having been arrested on terrorism-related charges at least once before (given three years in prison in 2008). Yet they were allowed to travel to Syria (and possibly Yemen, according to some sources) and engage in international terrorism and then were allowed to return to France.
An additional irony would be the likelihood that the brothers (assuming they did go to Syria at all) may well have been fighting and killing native Syrians with arms given to them by the French government, a possibility highlighted in this piece from France 24. You see, the unfortunate reality is that the chaos and criminality a government supports or exports to other parts of the world for whatever reasons can and usually will come back to bite you in your own house. Whether these radicalised extremists are being *intended* to come back into Western societies and cities in a controlled operation is an additional question; the thought of such people being covertly released into Western cities and societies as agents of chaos like they were in Syria and Libya is horrifying to consider.
What has to be understood is that this created ‘brand’ of hyper-extreme terrorists are being moved about from arena to arena like chess pieces; Libya, Syria, Iraq, moving in and out through Turkey and who-knows-where-else. Scores of them, let’s remember, were moved INTO Syria in the first place from other places, some having gone from the UK, the US and Australia, many from Libya and other Muslim nations, many from Europe. Curiously, the majority of them have been from France – a point made by Bashar Assad himself in a very revealing interview with Paris Match. But even putting that aside, there is the extraordinary level of hypocrisy in Western leaders and governments who in one breath advocate armed terrorism and warfare in Syria or in Libya previously and yet call it an outrage when those same people come back home and commit similar armed offenses in their own country (there could even be a parallel drawn between these guys and the widespread phenomena of violent crime, even murder, committed by unstable and uncared-for American Iraq War veterans at home).
‘Operation Gladio’ and Controlled Terrorism…
Extremist/terrorist networks and sleeper cells in the West are almost certainly being kept in place (with or without their own knowledge) by various Western intelligence agencies in order to be utilized whenever they’re needed for these kinds of attacks. These attacks are inevitable; they’re going to be happening periodically for their psychological and social effect on Western populations, as well as for various other reasons beneficial to governments, intelligence agencies and (corporate and military-industrial) foreign policies. This state of affairs has its basis the type of operations NATO intelligence engaged in during the Cold War with similar networks of radicalised militants at their disposal to be used both as foreign mercenaries and domestic agent-provocateurs.
Ironically one of these militant groups was actually Al Qaeda itself, a proxy network funded and armed by the US and Western allies initially for use against the Soviets and then later for use in bringing about and sustaining this ‘war without end’ we are currently witnessing.
This brings us to ‘Operation Gladio’, which far from being conspiracy-theory conjecture can be regarded as a demonstrable historical fact; a post-World War II program established by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart potential Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In reality it was to become a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network used for numerous false-flag operations and a wider subversion of democratic societies. The existence of the Gladio program was verified by the Italian government in 1990, when a judge, Felice Casson, discovered the network in the course of his investigations into right-wing terrorism. Here, for those interested, is a comprehensive resource concerning Operation Gladio data.
According to various sources, the function of the Gladio-style networks in the absence of Soviet invasion was to discredit left-wing groups and politicians through the use of “the strategy of tension,” including via false-flag terrorism. The ‘strategy of tension’ is a concept for control and manipulation of public opinion through the use of fear and paranoia, propaganda, agent provocateurs and terrorism, among other tools. The aim was to instill fear into the populace while framing communist and left-wing political opponents for terrorist atrocities. Simply substitute ‘communists’ for ‘Muslims’ and the program can be demonstrated to still be in operation today.
Again, to understand the War in Syria or the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya or many of the things that are happening now, you have to look outside (far, far outside) of the mainstream political or media narrative. Much of what we’re witnessing is an artificial jihad being conducted as a tool for other agendas. Within a day of the Paris attacks, talk in the UK returned to issues of changes in surveillance laws and the protection of Internet users’ private data, while in France major discussion was already going on prior to the attacks of creating new state powers to go after individuals suspected of promoting or defending terror on websites and the Internet; powers that sound fairly logical and innocuous at first glance, but that could easily be expanded upon over time.
We would be justified in harboring serious suspicions that governments want a way, in the long run, to quash the influence of alternative media and non-mainstream, non-corporate news sources and the free flow of information. The path to being able to do that has to start somewhere; and in liberal, intelligent societies like ours it needs justifications like the Paris attacks or the Sydney Siege.
In terms of these Paris shootings, I refute the opinion held by some that it is somehow a disrespect to the victims of those attacks to ask questions about the official version of events being adopted by the world’s media. In fact, quite the opposite; if I was one of the relatives or friends of any of those individuals who were murdered in Paris, I would want to know everyone who was involved and what purpose it was serving, regardless of whether or not the information fit comfortably into my world-view or not. A world-view has to be subject to alteration depending on information; if it isn’t, then it is merely dogma.
This harrowing atrocity in Paris is being framed as an issue of freedom of speech and an attack on the principles of a free society and as an issue of the cultural incompatibility of Islamic sensibilities and Western culture (and now also the safety of Jewish communities in France); all of that, as valid a subject/conversation as it is, is in this instance a red herring drawing popular attention away from the reality of what really happened last Wednesday and what’s going on in the world in general.
That free speech is vital for us to defend as societies and that murdering the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists is an absolutely unforgivable atrocity goes without saying (and I’ve already said it); but that emotionally-charged issue is serving to engulf the masses in the fog of a trauma-based emotional reaction (further amplified by the experience and imagery of Sunday’s marches in Paris and elsewhere) and is preventing people from looking beyond that fog.
People in France, as well Germany and much of the rest of Europe and the Western world, are in danger of being goaded into further social division, racial and religious tension and hatred through a long-playing orchestration of fear, paranoia and mistrust, with ordinary Muslims being used as the toxic, ‘scapegoat’ community, not dissimilar to how the Nazis used fear and vilification of the Jewish community as a tool in their own propaganda purposes. The attacks on mosques that have been occurring, the marches in Germany, all the anti-Islam rhetoric that flourishes on-line, is, if we as societies aren’t careful, just the beginning.
Events like the horrific Paris shootings or the Sydney Siege are designed to incite further reaction from populations, designed to evoke fear and mistrust, and to reinforce every stereotypical view of Muslims as ‘the Other’, while also to increase people’s susceptibility to diminishing freedoms and increasing state powers in the long term. It may or may not lead eventually to the further rise of Far Right parties and organizations and distinctly non-liberal policies, but what it will almost certainly result in is further state, police and intelligence powers, erosions of civil liberties, questions about the ‘safety’ of freedom of speech in modern societies and possibly much more.