|Sign up now!|
Was the Paris terrorist attack the latest in a long line of false flag attacks?
By Peter Drew - MSc
False Flag Attack – an act of terrorism organised and perpetrated against one’s self or against someone else, and then blamed on the enemy in order to justify taking certain desired actions against that enemy
What really happened in Paris? Was it really just Islamic extremists taking their vengeance for blasphemy against their god, or was it more complex and even more sinister than that? Were the Paris attacks the latest in a lengthy line of state sponsored false flag terrorist attacks, including 1) 9/11, 2) the London bombings, and 3) the recent loss of three Malaysian airliners, which were aimed at achieving specific geo-political agendas for the governments or organisations involved? There is increasing suspicion and evidence that what happened in Paris was in fact related to other much more substantial geo-political issues, including France’s recent declaration that the United Nations should recognise Palestine as a sovereign state, the recent call by a number of nations that Israel’s attacks on Palestine should be treated as serious war crimes, and France’s recent call for sanctions against Russia to be dropped. These are extremely emotive and heavy hitting political issues that were all very much in the global spotlight just prior to the Paris attacks. This is very similar to the situations with 9/11, the London bombings, and the Malaysian airliners. There is a very similar pattern that can be seen with all these events which suggests that false flag terrorism has been in play in all of them.
Before we look into these questions, we need to look at whether false flag terrorism by Western government agencies is possible or has occurred in the past. Many people will perhaps still be of the opinion that this could never happen, however, two major Western government sponsored terrorist operations that are now officially confirmed should shatter this illusion.
Firstly, Operation Northwoods. In 1962 the CIA made plans to implement a major false flag terrorist attack against US citizens to justify war with Cuba. The plan recommended hijackings of planes and bombings of US citizens, followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. The Operation Northwoods proposal was officially confirmed in 1998 with the release of the official documents from the National Security Archive. President Kennedy refused to implement those plans when they were presented to him, but the fact remains that the CIA had those plans drawn up and were ready to conduct a major false flag terrorist attack which would kill many of their own people and blame it on the enemy of the time.
Secondly, Operation Gladio. Operation Gladio involved the CIA and other associated national intelligence agencies supporting right wing extremist groups to conduct false flag attacks and create internal social-political unrest in targeted nations across Europe in order to facilitate government regime change. Part of this strategy was to specifically target civilian victims, in particular women and children, in order to create the necessary levels of emotional response from the public. High level testimonies in the 1990’s have now confirmed the existence of Operation Gladio. These testimonies include former Prime Minister of Italy, Giulio Andreotti, who confirmed Operation Gladio’s existence and how it operated. The BBC has since run major documentary programmes about this. The principles of Operation Gladio can still be seen being implemented in today’s world. Three very recent and obvious examples are Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.
Former MI5 Agent and whistleblower Annie Machon has openly stated that false flag attacks are the standard method for governments to implement unpopular policies, including 9/11 and the London bombings.
Before we look into the current situation further, what are the operational principles for how and why state sponsored false flag terrorism is implemented? A good way of describing this is the Problem-Reaction-Solution model. A government or an organisation has a particular political objective and it knows that the public will be against taking the measures that it wishes to take eg. the government wants to invade another sovereign nation to get control of its oil but the public is against this. So a false flag attack is implemented which the government or organisation knows will elicit a strong emotional reaction from the public. The public then demands a solution to this horrendous attack. The solution to the attack is then constructed in such a way so as to achieve the original objective of the government or organisation, and the public will then go along with and accept those measures. So one of the very important things to look for when assessing an alleged terrorist attack is, what were the strategic/policy outcomes or solutions that were implemented by the government/s in the aftermath of the terrorist attack, and do these solutions or outcomes match up to a significant problem that the government/s had leading up to the terrorist attack. When this is approach is taken, the conclusions are usually quite obvious.
Let us now use this model to assess the four recent examples I have mentioned here, namely 9/11, the London bombings, the Malaysian airliners, and Paris.
It has now been proven beyond all doubt that the three towers which collapsed on 9/11 were brought down through controlled explosive demolition and that there was also some kind of military stand down to allow the alleged hijackings to proceed unimpeded. There is abundant scientific evidence and eye-witness evidence proving this beyond all doubt, despite the majority of mainstream media refusing to disclose this evidence to the public. For more information on this, people can start with the ground breaking recent interview conducted by the Washington Journal C-SPAN television network in the US or go to www.ae911truth.org . So 9/11 was clearly conducted using considerable insider assistance, as opposed to only being perpetrated by Al Qaeda terrorists with box cutters.
If we look at our Problem-Reaction-Solution model, can we see evidence of some major political problems or challenges for the US government or some of its agencies, and do these problems then match up to the solutions that were implemented? There were so many major agendas that were achieved as a result of 9/11 that it would require an entire book to outline them all, and there are many of these available. However, perhaps the largest and most obvious example is the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) agenda.
PNAC was a Washington think tank which was founded in 1997 with the stated objective to ‘promote American global leadership’ in the 21st century. The PNAC group was made up of a mixture of high level government officials and influential corporate individuals, and a number of these individuals ended up in key positions in the 2000 Bush administration, including Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. While documentation about PNAC’s plans can easily be found and viewed in detail, a key part of these plans identified seven specific nations in the Middle East where it was felt that regime change and greater control by the US needed to be achieved. These seven countries included Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia. However, in September 2000 PNAC acknowledged that this will be a very long and slow process unless there is a 'catastrophic and catalysing event…….like a new Pearl Harbour' to make the public more accepting of large scale war in the Middle East. Exactly one year later PNAC got that catastrophic and catalysing event with 9/11.
Just a few days after 9/11, 4-Star General Wesley Clark, a 2004 Presidential candidate, was shocked when he was given information at the Pentagon outlining plans on the back of 9/11 to implement regime change in seven countries over the next few years. You can see his speech about this here . Those seven countries given to General Clark were the exact same seven countries as outlined by PNAC just one year earlier. Since then we have witnessed the regime change and the US taking greater control in most of those seven countries, and the other countries are currently a work in progress, including Syria and Iran. So with 9/11 we can very clearly see the Problem-Reaction-Solution (P-R-S) model being implemented. There were numerous other agendas linked to 9/11, including the need by the New York Port Authority to demolish the Twin Towers at an affordable cost, the desire of the Bush Administration to circumvent the US Constitution through the Patriot Act, and the Pentagon needing to cover up $2.3 trillion which had ‘gone missing’. However, the PNAC agenda is probably the largest and most obvious example in history of the P-R-S model being implemented.
2. London Bombings
While the evidence for the London bombings being a false flag attack is perhaps not quite as extreme as 9/11, it is still extremely powerful. Not least being that the 7.40am train which the alleged bombers supposedly took to get them from Luton to London in time for the bombs that went off, was cancelled and did not run, meaning it was impossible for them to get to Kings Cross in time for what occurred. Later that morning several individuals were gunned down at Canary Wharf by British Officers, even though this received almost no media coverage http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10334992 . Was this the Muslim patsies who had arrived in London believing they were just part of a training exercise and arrived well behind schedule and instead found that real bombs had gone off? Did they then realise their predicament that they had been set up as the patsies for a real terrorist attack, at which point they went on the run from those coordinating the bomb attacks and attempted to turn themselves in or get to the media? It would seem that these endeavours were terminated at Canary Wharf.
On the issue of training exercises, there was the usual smoking gun of false flag attacks where a counter terrorism training exercise is organised for the exact same terrorist attacks, at the exact same locations and same time as what then actually occurs with the real life terrorist attacks. This happened for both 9/11 and the London bombings, and according to the mathematicians who have done the calculations for this being due to pure coincidence, the odds are not even worthy of mention they are so astronomically small. Common sense should also answer that question. Further information on this can be seen by watching the very good documentary called ‘7/7 Ripple Effect’.
If we use the same P-R-S process as 9/11, what can we see? The problem that Tony Blair faced in July 2005 at the time of the London bombings was that the invasion of Iraq in 2003 had become deeply unpopular across all sectors. There was great pressure on Tony Blair in the wake of the highly suspicious death of Dr David Kelly, there were increasing claims of the invasion of Iraq being a war crime, and there were major accusations being made that Tony Blair and his government had illegally ‘sexed up’ the case for the invasion of Iraq. On the back of these major controversies, two months before the London bombings occurred, Tony Blair’s labour party had seen their parliamentary majority slashed from 160 seats to just 66 seats in the general election. Tony Blair and the labour party were under siege with regards Iraq and the war on terror. Changing the public’s minds on these things and distracting them away from these major controversies would be virtually impossible without some kind of significant intervention.
The shock and horror of the London bombs allowed Tony Blair to successfully introduce extremely controversial anti-terror legislation where Blair announced that the ‘rules of the game’ for terrorism were changing. It also had the effect of at least temporarily reducing the anti-Iraq rhetoric and temporarily deflecting the intense political heat that he was feeling over Iraq.
3. Malaysian Airliners
We should get our mathematicians from the London bombings onto the job of calculating the odds of two airliners both from Malaysia Airlines being lost in quick succession in extremely mysterious and controversial circumstances, and then a third airliner also linked to Malaysia going down shortly after that? There are two potential lines of political agenda here. One could be more closely linked to a straightforward Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario, and the other one is more likely a simple issue of revenge or intimidation.
We can cover the issue of revenge/intimidation first and then look at the P-R-S situation. So what did Malaysia do that could have upset some of the major power brokers of the world to such an extent? In 2007 Malaysia established the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) which was set up as an alternative to the International Criminal Court in The Hague as Malaysia felt that The Hague was not trustworthy. The KLWCC is made up of individuals such as federal court judges, international lawyers, and high level legal academics. Here is a short list of some of the recent outcomes from the KLWCC:
November 2011: Found George W Bush and Tony Blair guilty of war crimes for genocide in Iraq
May 2012: Found George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld guilty of torture
November 2013: Found Israel guilty of genocide and war crimes in Palestine
Just a few months after that final outcome, Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 was lost in a manner that can only be described as indescribable. It is not possible for an airliner to just drop off military tracking capabilities like that unless there are major military forces in play, such as the US military, who were possibly following instructions from Israel. Adding to the mystery, why did Israel purchase the sister plane of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 just a few months before Flight 370 vanished and had it sitting un-used in a hanger at the time Flight 370 disappeared? It still hasn’t been used. A very strange situation. Then of course we had Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 being shot down over Ukraine several months later, followed by a clear cover up in the investigation. This was quickly followed by the AirAsia flight going down. Certainly airliners from Malaysia were hit by an incredibly unlucky run of mysterious catastrophes shortly after the KLWCC made the third one of their highly controversial legal findings against the US and Israel.
Now the Problem-Reaction-Solution scenario. For a broad range of reasons, there is currently a fully-fledged assault/war by the West against Russia. The political overthrow of Ukraine is a vital destabilising part of this assault. The democratically elected government of Ukraine was overthrown by a West coordinated coup in a classic example of Operation Gladio. The democratically elected government was replaced by a Neo-Nazi group who immediately waged outright war on the areas of Ukraine with strong Russian links, including Crimea who fought back by breaking away and becoming independent. The new government of Ukraine and the entire Western World, spearheaded by the US and Israel, have been demonising Russia on every front and virtually baiting them into making an aggressive response. So far they have been unsuccessful in this pursuit and Russia has shown immense restraint and diplomacy to the situation. This demonising of Russia culminated in the shooting down of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 with the blame immediately being placed on Russia and global sanctions imposed before the dust had even settled on the downed airliner. While the West steadfastly stuck to the line of Russia being the perpetrators, despite absolutely no evidence to support this, the true evidence gradually emerged which showed that the airliner was almost certainly shot down by Ukrainian fighter jets instead http://www.globalresearch.ca/evidence-is-now-conclusive-two-ukrainian-government-fighter-jets-shot-down-malaysian-airlines-mh17-it-was-not-a-buk-surface-to-air-missile/5394814 .
So, the Problem-Reaction-Solution objective with shooting down Flight MH17 was to greatly increase the demonisation of Russia and turn the Western World against Russia for multiple political reasons, including financially weakening Russia, and forcing Ukraine to join the EU and NATO which the democratically elected government of Ukraine had previously refused to do.
While it is still early days after the Paris attacks, there are already many difficult questions arising from the official story we have been given that it was carried out by Al Qaeda affiliates in retaliation for blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammad. The perpetrators were extremely professional in the way they conducted the attacks and they operated much more like professionally trained military personnel than jihadists. However, despite being ultra-professional, they conveniently left one of their ID cards in the car so that they were able to be immediately identified. This is an exact replica of what happened on 9/11 with the ‘miracle passport’ that was found by the FBI in the streets of Manhattan which had somehow miraculously survived unscathed from the fireball of the airliner crashing into the tower.
The alleged perpetrators in Paris were well known to the intelligence agencies as ‘extremists’ and had already served time in prison. This is exactly the same situation with the alleged perpetrators of both 9/11 and London. In all three cases the intelligence agencies were extremely well aware of the alleged perpetrators prior to the terrorist attacks, and in some cases the intelligence agencies were actively linked with them. How is it possible in this day and age for the intelligence agencies not to have been aware of what the alleged terrorists in Paris were doing? If they had been training with ISIS in Syria as has been suggested, how could they possibly have got back into France with no questions asked? This is exactly the same situation as 9/11 where the CIA knew that several of the alleged hijackers were in the US and planning something big, but they actively prevented the FBI from tracking them down and arresting them prior to 9/11 despite the FBI’s efforts to do so. This was confirmed in 2011 by Richard Clarke, the US Head of Counter Terrorism at the time of 9/11.
So we have the Kouachi brothers clumsily on the run leaving ID cards in cars and holding up a petrol station, which is behaviour that is totally at odds with the professionalism of the actual attacks. Meanwhile we have the third alleged attacker, Hamyd Mourad, who immediately turned himself in to the police as soon as he heard in the media that he was supposedly one of the attackers. He states that he has an absolutely cast iron alibi and that he turned himself in for his own protection to prevent the same fate that the Kouachi brothers inevitably met. This seems very similar to the situation of the four Muslim patsies of the London bombing.
Were the Kouachi brothers and Hamyd Mourad really the chief perpetrators in Paris, or was there a more professional element of military expertise involved from a different source? Can the Kouachi brothers now be added to the long list of false flag ‘terrorist patsies’, including Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged 19 Al Qaeda hijackers on 9/11, and the four alleged London bombers? The President of Turkey certainly believes this to be the case in this article published by the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2908358/Turkish-president-accuses-West-Charlie-Hebdo-attacks-deliberately-blaming-Muslims-conspiracy-theories-sweep-Internet-accusing-Israel-orchestrating-it.html
It has been well documented that state sponsored false flag attacks are the oil that those in power use to make the geo-political wheels turn. The Paris attacks have all the tell-tale signatures of this, just like 9/11, the London bombings, and the Malaysian airliners. This is how those in power get their work done, and it has been this way throughout history. Throughout history, those in power have always sought ways of manipulating the masses into giving away their power and freedom. If the human race is going to survive, thrive, and at some point evolve into something better than this, then at some point the human race has to wake up to being manipulated in this way and say no to being played like this. The human race needs to rise above these ruthless and horrific games and refuse to accept the age old control technique by those in power, which is to divide and conquer through fear and hatred.
What has been the outcome of the Paris attacks? Certainly it has been very beneficial to Israel in the wake of the global onslaught they are currently under for their alleged war crimes in Palestine. It has also turned many more people around the world against Muslims. So without question the Paris attacks have been extremely damaging to the cause of the people who we are being told carried out the attacks. But perhaps most importantly, what it has successfully achieved is to hugely ramp up tribal hatred and fear, and turn one group of people against another group of people. This is now being ruthlessly used by those in power to implement even more extremist attacks on everyone’s liberties and freedom.
We now have 10,000 military troops on the streets of France in a virtual state of martial law, and 1,900 military troops on the streets of London. Similar things are occurring in the US and other countries, and David Cameron has already stated that many forms of social media will now be banned, and government powers to spy on the public greatly increased. In the wake of the global NSA spying scandal, honest individuals, organisations, and companies have been hitting back by developing more sophisticated methods of encryption in order to protect themselves from this global big brother surveillance culture. So what is the first thing that David Cameron and Barack Obama do in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? They get together to announce that in order to prevent future such terrorist attacks, they need to develop and use technology which will prevent the encryption processes that are now being used by honest members of the public to prevent the NSA from tapping into absolutely everything they do. All these draconian outcomes from Paris are all exactly as intended and all supposedly for our own freedom and protection from the enemy. Is this liberty and freedom?
As Benjamin Franklin famously once stated, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. At some point we as a species need to understand those words and act accordingly.