Questioning the Charlie Hebdo terrrorist attacks

Here is some of the anlysis that is coming out.

This analysis comes from France

Who ordered the attack against Charlie Hebdo?

by Thierry Meyssan

While many French react to the attack against Charlie Hebdo denouncing Islam and demonstrating in the streets, Thierry Meyssan points out that the jihadist interpretation is impossible. While it would be tempting for him to see it as an Al Qaeda or Daesh operation, he envisages another, much more dangerous hypothesis.

Voltaire Network,

10 January, 2015

This report, France 24 edited the video so that we do not see the attackers execute a fallen police officer.

On January 7, 2015, commandos erupted in Paris, in the premises of Charlie Hebdo and murdered 12 people. 4 more victims are still in serious condition.

On the videos, the attackers are heard shouting "Allah Akbar! and "avenge Muhammad”. One witness, a Coco designer, said they proclaimed affiliation with al-Qaeda. That’s all it took for many French to denounce it as an Islamist attack.

However, this assumption is illogical.

The mission of this commando had no connection with jihadist ideology

Indeed, members or sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda or Daesh would not be content to just kill atheist cartoonists; they would have first destroyed the archives of the newspaper on site, following the model of all their actions in North Africa and the Levant. For jihadists, the first duty is to destroy the objects that they believe offend God, and to punish the "enemies of God."

Similarly, they would not have immediately retreated, fleeing the police, without completing their mission. They would rather have completed their mission, were they to die on the spot.

In addition, videos and some evidence shows that the attackers are professionals. They wielded their weapons expertly and fired advisedly. They were not dressed in the fashion of the jihadists, but as military commandos.

How they dispatched a wounded policeman who posed no danger to them, certifies that their mission was not to "avenge Muhammad" because of the crass humor of Charlie Hebdo.

The video censored by French TV

This aims to create the beginning of a civil war

The fact that the assailants speak French well and are probably French does not necessarily indicate that this attack is a Franco-French episode. Rather, the fact that they are professional forces one to distinguish them from possible sponsors. And there is no evidence that these are French.

It is a normal reflex, but intellectually wrong to consider, when one is a victim of an attack, that one knows his attackers. This is most logical when it comes to normal crimes, but it’s wrong when it comes to international politics.

Sponsors for the attack knew it would cause a divide between French Muslims and French non-Muslims. Charlie Hebdo had specialized in anti-Muslim provocation and most Muslims in France have been directly or indirectly their victims. Though the Muslims of France will surely condemn this attack, it will be difficult for them to experience as much pain for the victims as felt by the readers of the newspaper. This will be seen by some as complicity with the murderers.

Therefore, rather than seeing this as an extremely deadly Islamist attack of revenge against the newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons and multiplied front page anti-Muslim headlines, it would be more logical to consider that it is the first episode of a process to trigger a civil war.

The strategy of "the clash of civilizations" was designed in Tel Aviv and Washington

The ideology and strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and Daesh does not advocate the creation of civil war in the ’West’, but on the contrary to create it in the "East" and hermetically separate the two worlds. Never has Sayyid Qutb, nor any of his successors, called to provoke confrontation between Muslims and non-Muslims in the territories of the latter.

On the contrary, the strategy of the "clash of civilizations" was formulated by Bernard Lewis for the US National Security Council then popularized by Samuel Huntington not as a strategy of conquest, but as a predictable situation. [1] It aimed to persuade NATO member group populations of the inevitability of confrontation that preventively assumed the form of the "war on terrorism".

It is not in Cairo, Riyadh or Kabul that one advocates the "clash of civilizations", but in Washington and Tel Aviv.

The sponsors of the attack against Charlie Hebdo did not seek to satisfy jihadists or the Taliban, but neo-conservatives or liberal hawks.

Let’s not forget the historical precedents

We must remember that in recent years we have seen the US or NATO special service:

- Testing the devastating effects of certain drugs on the civilian population in France [2];

- Supporting the OAS to try to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle [3];

- Carrying out false flag attacks against civilians in several NATO member states . [4]

We must remember that since the break-up of Yugoslavia, the US joint chiefs of staff practiced and honed its “dog fight” strategy in many countries This consists of killing members of the majority community, and also members of minorities, then placing the blame on each of them back-to-back until everyone is sure they are in mortal danger. This is the way Washington caused the civil war in Yugoslavia as well as recently in Ukraine. [5]

The French would do well to remember also that it is not they who took the initiative in the fight against the jihadists returning from Syria and Iraq. To date, moreover, none of them has committed any attack in France, where the case of Mehdi Nemmouche is not that of a lone terrorist, but of an agent tasked with executing two Mossad agents in Brussels [6] [7]. It was Washington who, on February 6, 2014, convened the interior ministers of Germany, the US, France (Mr. Valls was represented), Italy, Poland and the United Kingdom in order to make the return of European jihadists a matter of national security. [8] It was only after this meeting that the French press addressed this issue, and that the authorities began to react.

John Kerry spoke in French for the first time to send a message to the French. He denounced an attack against freedom of expression (while his country since 1995 has continued to bomb and destroy the television stations that were dissing him in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) and celebrated the struggle against obscurantism.

We do not know who sponsored this professional operation against Charlie Hebdo, but we should not allow ourselves to be swept up. We should consider all assumptions and admit that at this stage, its most likely purpose is to divide us; and its sponsors are most likely in Washington.

James Corbett: When False Flags Don’t Fly

Charlie Hebdo Shootings - Censored Video

SCG News

Evidence that sheds doubt on the official story regarding the Charlie Hebdo shootings.

I'm going to show you some footage of the Charlie Hebdo shootings which has been restricted or taken down from a number of websites. As you will see it contains no blood, gore or graphic violence. It does however punch a major hole in the official story.

You can draw your own conclusions.

The following clip was played on France 24. You'll notice in the middle that a section is edited out.

Let's look at the clip that was edited out.

Now if we zoom in and slow it down you'll see that the officer isn't actually hit by a bullet. There is a blast that hits the sidewalk just in front of him, but he is clearly not hit in the head as the corporate media is claiming.

Let's watch it again. Notice that the head isn't rocked by the blast as it would be if he was actually hit. Notice the plume of dust about a foot in front of him as the shot hits the ground. This is a AK-47. A hit to the head would splatter blood and brains all over the sidewalk.

Anyone who claims that this footage shows someone being hit in the head by a 7.62×39mm round either has no experience with guns, or is lying. This is a big bullet that does massive damage and makes a bloody mess. This officer was NOT killed by a gunshot to the head.

My first thought here was "ok, they missed". Just one problem. Every single mainstream media outlet is claiming that he was finished off with a shot to the head, and that's blatantly false.

So then you have to ask, what else are they lying about?

Funny thing is, these guys went to the trouble to put on ski masks, but for some reason, according to the authorities, they decided to leave their identity cards laying in the get away car. That's how the perpetrators were identified. Really? 

Come on.

The other funny thing, the suspects wound up dead, so case closed.

Now I'm not going to claim to know what really happened here, but we are being lied to, and lies like this mean trouble is coming.

Nine Questions About the Paris Attacks

Washington'sBlog,

11 January, 2015

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Mainstream media are busily promoting a familiar narrative for last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris. As usual this narrative demonizes Islam, calls for a reduction in civil rights, and bolsters existing military aggressions. However, a growing number of serious questions have arisen about the attacks. Until such questions are answered, citizens must consider that these events might be another pretext for an ongoing political agenda.

The Paris attacks are reported to have occurred in two parts. The first was the January 7th shooting of twelve people in and around the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a tabloid that often published offensive cartoons including some about the Prophet Mohammad. The second attack occurred the next day and was said to be the work of Amedy Coulibaly, a 32-year old Senegalese Frenchman who began shooting police officers at the scene of an accident and then took hostages in a Kosher grocery.

Some parts of the story have already proven to be inaccurate. For example, FOX News and NBC falsely reported that two of the suspects were in custody, based on information from “two consistently reliable U.S. counterterrorism officials.” One 18-year old widely reported to be a suspect turned himself in (145 miles away) and was released 50 hours later due to insurmountable contradictions.

Questions that remain unanswered include the following.

1. The Charlie Hebdo gunmen, identified by police as brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi, were said to display professional training as if they were highly-skilled Special Operations soldiers. They were calm and controlled, well equipped, and well trained. Exactly where did they get their training and high-tech equipment?

2. The Kouachi brothers were identified by DNA testing in only two hours. Although rapid DNA tests can be performed in a matter of hours, a match requires DNA from the suspect. How did the testing match with these suspects in such a short time? Did authorities have the Kouachi brother’s DNA from samples or was it already in a database? In either case, how did that happen?

3. Videos quickly showed two people in the getaway car with one in the driver’s seat. Why did authorities name and interrogate a third suspect (who turned out to not be involved) as the getaway car driver?

4. Why would the Koachi brothers wear balaclavas (i.e. ski masks) to hide their identity and then simply leave Said’s national ID card in the car? If they took the time to hide their faces, why would they bring their IDs with them?

5. Why did the masked attackers work to make sure they were quickly portrayed as Muslims and members of al Qaeda during the attacks? Witnesses said one shouted to onlookers—”Tell the media it was al-Qaeda in Yemen.” Other videos and reports indicate that they repeatedly shouted “Allhu Akbar” and proclaimed that they were avenging the Prophet Mohammad. Who benefits from this?

6. How did the attackers escape (to the northeast—the longest route through Paris) despite the police having raised the “alarm level for the greater Paris area to its highest level.” Did they have logistical support?

7. Why does the video of the shooting of victim Ahmed Merabet, reportedly killed by a shot to the head, suggest that he was not shot in the head?

8. How did Helric Fredou die? A Paris police commissioner conducting the investigation, Fredou died while preparing a report on the crimes. And why did Western media not report his death for at least three days?

9. The alleged Kosher grocery gunman, Amedy Coulibaly, met with the President of France just a few years ago. What are the odds of such a coincidental meeting and does the connection relate to the attacks?

Many people have become skeptical about mainstream accounts of terrorism. This is due to the fact that authorities, like the FBI or CIA, are often found to be involved in some way and the events always support political agendas. Therefore it is not surprising to hear people claiming that intelligence agencies were involved in these attacks, or that the attacks related to political manipulations that would “shore up France’s vassal state status to Washington.”

Whatever the truth, it seems wise to consider all possibilities when mainstream media promote stories that feed the war machine and reduce freedom. Refraining from judgment until the facts are clearer is always the best approach.

Glenn Greenwald nails the Charlie Hebdo affair

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/11/glenn-greenwald-nails-charlie-hebdo-affair/

Glenn Greenwald nails the Charlie Hebdo affair:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/

Sunday morning news channels report a huge “anti-terror” rally in France with 50 “world leaders” flown in to participate, including the Chancellor of Germany and the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and Spain.

This looks more and more like an orchestrated affair. Assembling “world leaders” in such a short time reminds me of the 10,000 man army ready to occupy Boston in response to the Marathon Bombing

Charlie Hebdo and Tsarnaev’s Trial: Cui bono?

Paul Craig Roberts

Paul Craig Roberts,

9 February, 2014

UPDATE: Well known writers Thierry Meyssan and Kevin Barrett see the “terrorist” attach on Charlie Hebdo as a false flag attack. 

See:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article186441.html andhttp://presstv.com/Detail/2015/01/10/392426/Planted-ID-card-exposes-Paris-false-flag

Update: According to news reports, one of the accused in the attack on Charlie Hebdo when hearing

that he was being sought for the crime turned himself in to police with an ironclad alibi.
https://www.intellihub.com/18-year-old-charlie-hebdo-suspect-surrenders-police-claims-alibi/

UPDATE: According to news reports, police found the ID of Said Kouachi at the scene of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. Does this sound familiar? Remember, authorities claimed to have found the undamaged passport of one of the alleged 9/11 hijackers among the massive pulverized ruins of the twin towers. Once the authorities discover that the stupid Western peoples will believe any transparent lie, the authorities use the lie again and again. The police claim to have discovered a dropped ID is a sure indication that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an inside job and that people identified by NSA as hostile to the Western wars against Muslims are going to be framed for an inside job designed to pull France firmly back under Washington’s thumb.http://www.wfmz.com/shooting-at-french-satirical-magazine-office/30571524

There are two ways to look at the alleged terrorist attack on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

One is that in the English speaking world, or much of it, the satire would have been regarded as “hate speech,” and the satirists arrested. But in France Muslims are excluded from the privileged category, took offense at the satire, and retaliated.

Why would Muslims bother? By now Muslims must be accustomed to Western hypocrisy and double standards. Little doubt that Muslims are angry that they do not enjoy the protections other minorities receive, but why retaliate for satire but not for France’s participation in Washington’s wars against Muslims in which hundreds of thousands have died? Isn’t being killed more serious than being satirized?

Another way of seeing the attack is as an attack designed to shore up France’s vassal status to Washington. The suspects can be both guilty and patsies. Just remember all the terrorist plots created by the FBI that served to make the terrorism threat real to Americans.http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/22/human-rights-watch-all-of-the-high-profi

France is suffering from the Washington-imposed sanctions against Russia. Shipyards are impacted from being unable to deliver Russian orders due to France’s vassalage status to Washington, and other aspects of the French economy are being adversely impacted by sanctions that Washington forced its NATO puppet states to apply to Russia.

This week the French president said that the sanctions against Russia should end (so did the German vice-chancellor).

This is too much foreign policy independence on France’s part for Washington. Has Washington resurrected “Operation Gladio,” which consisted of CIA bombing attacks against Europeans during the post-WW II era that Washington blamed on communists and used to destroy communist influence in European elections? Just as the world was led to believe that communists were behind Operation Gladio’s terrorist attacks, Muslims are blamed for the attacks on the French satirical magazine.

The Roman question is always: Who benefits? The answer is: Not France, not Muslims, but US world hegemony. US hegemony over the world is what the CIA supports. US world hegemony is the neoconservative-imposed foreign policy of the US.

According to National Public Radio, Charlie Hebdo is about free speech. The US has free speech, claim NPR’s pundits, but terrorists have taken it away from the French.

Just how does the US have free speech when NY Times reporter James Risen was psychologically put on the rack to force him to reveal his source, despite the fact that Risen and his source are protected by the US Constitution and whistleblower protections. Clearly, in the US “national security” has trumped everything else.

“National security” has nothing to do with national security. It has only to do with protecting the criminals in the US government from accountability for their crimes. Every time you hear Washington invoke “national security,” you know for a 100% fact that the government has committed yet another crime. National security is the cloak for Washington’s criminal operations. “National security” prevents the government’s crimes from coming to light and, thereby, protects government from accountability.

One wonders what role “national security” will play in the trial of alleged Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Tsarnaev has been in custody since April 2013 and under indictment since April 22, 2013. Yet jury selection is only now beginning in January 2015. Why this long delay? The guarantee of a speedy trial no longer means anything, but with all sorts of charges in addition to the bombing for which the government claims eye witnesses and confessions and with the Tsarnaev brothers already convicted in the media, the long delay is a puzzle. Yet, we have not heard from Dzhokhar Tsarnaey himself. It is difficult to push away the thought that Dzhokhar’s trial has been delayed in order to compete his conditioning and acceptance of his guilt and in order for the many questions raised by alternative media to be forgotten.

The print and TV media have dished up the government’s explanation without investigation. However, the alternative media have taken great exception to every aspect of the case. As the US government has taught us since the Clinton regime, the safest assumption is that everything the government says is a lie.

The most suspicious aspect of the event was the speed with which an army of 10,000 heavily armed troops consisting of police from various jurisdictions and National Guard soldiers outfitted in military gear and provided with tanks or armored personnel carriers were on the streets of Boston. Never before has such a massive force equipped with military heavy equipment been employed in a manhunt, much less for one wounded, unarmed, 19-year old kid.

For such a force to be assembled and deployed so quickly suggests pre-planning. What was presented as a manhunt for one badly wounded suspect looks more like a test case and precedent for locking down one of America’s largest cities, while squads of troops evicted US citizens from their homes at gunpoint and conducted indiscriminate searches of houses that contributed nothing to apprehending the alleged suspect. The chances are zero that any household would have harbored a badly wounded unarmed fugitive dying from the lack of medical care.

Not only was Boston and its suburbs locked down, the Federal Aviation Administration restricted airspace over Boston and issued a “ground stop” for Logan airport. Why?

Several other cities in Massachusetts and even some other states put their police forces on alert. Why?

On the scene were the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives, the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National Counterterrorism Center. The US Attorney General committed the full resources of the US Department of Justice.
Why?

The only plausible answer is to raise the fear level in order to gain the public’s acceptance of the lockdown of Boston and police invasions of citizens’ homes. It makes no sense that danger from a badly wounded unarmed 19 year-old could possibly justify such expense and trampling of constitutional rights of citizens.

A non-gullible person must wonder if the bombing was an orchestrated event for the purpose of coordinating state, local, and federal governments in the lockdown of a major city. A poll of Bostonians last July found that 42 percent harbored doubts about the official version of events.http://www.globalresearch.ca/four-in-ten-bostonians-skeptical-of-official-marathon-bombing-account/5390848

The gullible always say that if a conspiracy existed someone would have talked. But people do talk. It just doesn’t do any good. For example, during George W. Bush’s first term a NSA whistleblower leaked to the New York Times that the NSA was bypassing the FISA Court and spying on American citizens without warrants. Under US law, NSA was in a conspiracy with the Bush regime to commit serious felonies (possibly for the purpose of blackmail), but the New York Times spiked the story for one year until George W. Bush was re-elected and the regime had time to ex post facto legalize the felonies.

Operation Gladio was a conspiracy kept secret for decades until a President of Italy revealed it.

The Northwoods Project was kept secret until years afterward when the second Kennedy Commission revealed it.

More than one hundred first responder police and firemen report hearing and personally experiencing multiple explosions floor by floor and even in the sub-basements of the World Trade Center twin towers, and these testimonies had no effect whatsoever.

It only took one high school physics professor to shoot down NIST’s account of the collapse of WTC 7. The fact that it has been conclusively proven that this building was brought down by controlled demolition has had no effect on the official story.

The co-chairmen and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission published books in which they say that information was withheld from the Commission, that the US Military lied to the Commission, and that the Commission “was set up to fail.” Neither Congress, the media, nor the US public had any interest in investigating why information was withheld, why the military lied, and why the Commission was set up to fail. These extraordinary statements by the leaders of the official investigation had no impact whatsoever.

Even today a majority of the US population believes Washington’s propaganda that Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed some provinces. Neither judgement nor intelligence are strongpoints of the American public and juries.

Government tells Americans whatever story the government puts together and sits and laughs at the gullibility of the public.

Today the US public is divided between those who rely on the “mainstream media” and those who rely on the alternative Internet media. Only the latter have any clue as to what is really happening.

The stories of Charlie Hebdo and the Tsarnaev brothers will be based not on facts but on the interests of government. As in the past, the government’s interest will prevail over the facts.