[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Charlie Hebdo - Paul Craig Roberts The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people. Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the attack, Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist. Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi. If so, this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have to say that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachi brothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced or tortured into some sort of confession that supports the official story. https://www.intellihub.com/18-year-old-charlie-hebdo-suspect-surrenders-police-claims-alibi/ The American and European media have ignored the fact that Mourad turned himself in for protection from being killed as a terrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January 12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect had turned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports. The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that the suspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie Hebdo. Not a single US mainstream media source reported that the alleged suspect turned himself in because he has an ironclad alibi. Some media merely reported Mourad’s surrender in a headline with no coverage in the report. The list that I googled includes the Washington Post (January 7 by Griff Witte and Anthony Faiola); Die Welt (Germany) “One suspect has turned himself in to police in connection with Wednesday’s massacre at the offices of Parisian satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo;” ABC News (January 7) “Youngest suspect in Charlie Hebdo Attack turns himself in;” CNN (January 8) “Citing sources, the Agence France Presse news agency reported that an 18-year-old suspect in the attack had surrendered to police.” Another puzzle in the official story that remains unreported by the presstitute media is the alleged suicide of a high ranking member of the French Judicial Police who had an important role in the Charlie Hebdo investigation. For unknown reasons, Helric Fredou, a police official involved in the most important investigation of a lifetime, decided to kill himself in his police office on January 7 or January 8 (both dates are reported in the foreign media) in the middle of the night while writing his report on his investigation. A google search as of 6pm EST January 13 turns up no mainstream US media report of this event. The alternative media reports it, as do some UK newspapers, but without suspicion or mention whether his report has disappeared. The official story is that Fredou was suffering from “depression” and “burnout,” but no evidence is provided. Depression and burnout are the standard explanations of mysterious deaths that have unsettling implications. Once again we see the US print and TV media serving as a ministry of propaganda for Washington. In place of investigation, the media repeats the government’s implausible story. It behoves us all to think. Why would Muslims be more outraged by cartoons in a Paris magazine than by hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by Washington and its French and NATO vassals in seven countries during the past 14 years? If Muslims wanted to make a point of the cartoons, why not bring a hate crime charge or lawsuit? Imagine what would happen to a European magazine that dared to satirize Jews in the way Charlie Hebdo satirized Muslims. Indeed, in Europe people are imprisoned for investigating the holocaust without entirely confirming every aspect of it. If a Muslim lawsuit was deep-sixed by French authorities, the Muslims would have made their point. Killing people merely contributes to the demonization of Muslims, a result that only serves Washington’s wars against Muslim countries. If Muslims are responsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo, what Muslim goal did they achieve? None whatsoever. Indeed, the attack attributed to Muslims has ended French and European sympathy and support for Palestine and European opposition to more US wars against Muslims. Just recently France had voted in the UN with Palestine against the US-Israeli position. This assertion of an independent French foreign policy was reinforced by the recent statement by the President of France that the economic sanctions against Russia should be terminated. Clearly, France was showing too much foreign policy independence. The attack on Charlie Hebdo serves to cow France and place France back under Washington’s thumb. Some will contend that Muslims are sufficiently stupid to shoot themselves in the head in this way. But how do we reconcile such alleged stupidity with the alleged Muslim 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo professional attacks? If we believe the official story, the 9/11 attack on the US shows that 19 Muslims, largely Saudis, without any government or intelligence service support, outwitted not only all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, Dick Cheney and all the neoconservatives in high positions throughout the US government, and airport security, but also the intelligence services of NATO and Israel’s Mossad. How can such intelligent and capable people, who delivered the most humiliating blow in world history to an alleged Superpower with no difficulty whatsoever despite giving every indication of their intentions, possibly be so stupid as to shoot themselves in the head when they could have thrown France into turmoil with a mere lawsuit? The Charlie Hebdo story simply doesn’t wash. If you believe it, you are no match for a Muslim. Some who think that they are experts will say that a false flag attack in France would be impossible without the cooperation of French intelligence. To this I say that it is practically a certainty that the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President of France. Operation Gladio proves this. The largest part of the government of Italy was ignorant of the bombings conducted by the CIA and Italian Intelligence against European women and children and blamed on communists in order to diminish the communist vote in elections. Americans are a pitifully misinformed people. All of history is a history of false flag operations. Yet Americans dismiss such proven operations as “conspiracy theories,” which merely proves that government has successfully brainwashed insouciant Americans and deprived them of the ability to recognize the truth. Americans are the foremost among the captive nations. Who will liberate them? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
#13. To: christine, Jethro Tull, Lod, randge, Deasy, All (#0)
I just send a missive to PCR from the link above: "The problem with the idea that the cop was not really killed by the AK, is that means that all the killings were faked. Which means they were all crisis actors and involved in a plot involving thousands of people. And probably cost millions of dollars. Where are the cartoonists now? Are they going to hide forever? What about their family and friends? They're all crisis actors who are going to keep this charade up until the day they die? That's just preposterous. You, Mike Rivero, and other people who make this claim had best fly to Paris and start finding living people who you claim are dead, along with their alleged handlers/enablers. It's real easy to cry "false flag!!" from the safety and semi-anonymity of your armchair in America. Spend your money and go to Paris and back up your allegations." I'll see what he has for a reply, if anything.
Don't lose your marbles X-15. "B" does not follow from "A" in any wise here or by any logical necessity. Lots of folks just do not see a kill shot in the video in question. That does not mean that they believe that the writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were not killed. I don't see that either Roberts or Rivero asserts such a thing.
The rule in the MSM business is "three independently verifiable sources". PCR should be able to satisfy that standard for whatever he asserts. I remain a hardened sceptic.
Me too! ; )
Yep - 4 is a hardened audience.
I don't know what X-15 has a hard on about with Roberts here. He states that there's an MSM rule of "three independently verifiable sources" regarding assertions of fact. Roberts in fact makes three assertions of fact which are simply not in dispute. You'll find hundreds of sources for these factoids, not merely three. Where Roberts differs from some is in his interpretation of what they may mean. 1. They carried out the attack like pro’s, but they carelessly left an ID behind in an automobile. The ID suspect is killed. 2. The third suspect turns himself in and has an alibi. The MSM is conspicuously quiet about this in contrast to the hullaballoo surrounding the earlier manhunt. 3. There has been a suspicious suicide of a high ranking member of the French Judicial Police. Roberts goes on to speculate as to the background of the attacks. He makes several statements of OPINION, which we are all privileged to express without special reference to sources. 1. Roberts questions the motivation behind the attacks. These attacks resulted in no benefit to and much grief for causes espoused by Muslims. 2. He asserts that the MSM story of the Paris attack is as questionable as the accepted mainstream narrative of the 911 disasters. 3. Roberts further says to those that doubt that these operations could not have been carried out without the knowledge of French intelligence, that given what we know about Gladio, it wouldn’t be the first time they were privy to attacks on civilians beforehand. As they say, "While you are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts." I don't see where Roberts has broken that rule here.
Agree.
There are no replies to Comment # 22. End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||