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.
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 the ‘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.
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.”
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.
Cherif and Said Kouachi, likewise, 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.
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 or possibly Mossad, 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.
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 onward, 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.
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.
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 or synagogue 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.
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.
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.
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.
Making this the perfect climate in which to manipulate everyone.
‘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.
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.