I've been seeing a great deal of what I consider jumping to conclusions concerning the Paris Attacks. Here's this:
Just because there was a drill does not mean the attacks were a false-flag event. There are many reasons besides a false-flag attack for why a drill and actual attacks could happen on the same day.
More and more, people are jumping on the "pattern" notion. Well, the more terror attacks there are, the more drills there will be. The odds of a drill being even possible circumstantial evidence is going down constantly and will at some point reach zero. Maybe that has already happened since false-flag planners have definitely been aware of libertarians seeing and reporting on patterns, real and imagined.
Yes, governments can and do lie. The US is no exception, and neither is France; but, the more these things happen, the more opportunity for making the error of jumping to hasty, false conclusions.
My statement in no way excuses the "West's" violent and underhanded regime-change efforts around the world.
The following is largely from a comment I left on a "false-flag" video:
Maybe IS has a mole who informed IS operatives who then carried out an attack during a planned drill just because it would add to the confusion.
Just because there have been drills in the past on the same day as attacks (fake or not) does not mean there is necessarily still a pattern by the drill planners at the top that would be so consistently revealing that simultaneous attacks were false-flag.
If they are doing false-flags and deliberately always doing them on the same day as drills matching the attacks, would they be intelligent enough to pull off the false-flags over and over in the first place?
Also, if they are doing it and the whole "libertarian" community can't actually bring them to court with real proof, then what's really going on is really a good question.
There really was a Caliphate. It wasn't created by Westerners. There really are Muslims who want one again. They do want it to encompass the entire world. They base that desire on the Qur'an, not CIA coaching. They've been there for decades regardless of the CIA, waiting and planning too without the CIA and even against the CIA. They really are killing people who stand in their way.
Payback/blowback is Hell: Paris massacre of 1961.
Oh, and by the way, the Boston Marathon bombings turned out to be not false-flag. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev really was radicalized by Muslim material, not the FBI or CIA.
There are plenty of things I don't like that the US government and others do, but it pays to be careful before jumping to conclusions. It's not always easy, but it does pay. It also pays to back up and admit errors in judgment.
I know there are other supposed points raised in support of the false-flag notion.
A passport was found intact, however, passports can survive explosions intact.
It has also been sarcastically asked whether a terrorist would carry a passport into an attack. Well, why not? If one's mission is to carry out an attack, one ought to consider all the possible ways such a mission could be foiled. One would be where the authorities were to stop someone, ask for ID, and the person not having any. The authorities would then want to hold the person, check the person's story and try to identify him/her, and not having luck with that, become more suspicious, and then search the person only to find weapons and/or explosives, if the terrorist hadn't already tried to pull a weapon or set off an explosive vest....
Nafeez's article is quite good, though I take some exception to his one-sided characterization of Assad's reaction to the "protests" and that he is "illegitimate" relative to Barack Obama or any other such leader.
Also, a fellow reported that his cellphone stopped a piece of flying debris from an explosion. The complaint is that there would have been more things that would have hit him. That's not necessarily true. Even shrapnel pieces can be quite far apart. I was hit by a single piece of shrapnel from an explosion that was only about twenty feet in front of me.
There was also a supposed Twitter bot that posted something that looked exactly like reporting on the actual attacks but the Twitter post was from before the attacks happened. That is very interesting, but who's investigated it? Who's contacted the bot owners and operators and asked the right questions? I've seen no follow-up on it. There could be a very reasonable explanation. There could also be a connection to the actual attacks, but the connection might be from the IS side or from some other intelligence network. That wouldn't necessarily prove that France or any Western intelligence knew enough to stop the attacks.
More has been said about the possibility that an attacker was, or some attackers were, able to slip through different nations, particularly Greece, to get to France. Greece is in a severe economic depression and has been having to deal with a sizable influx of refugees. Why would it be so surprising that a terrorist could slip through, especially using a forged or stolen passport?
There's a great deal of consternation right now about the fact that while the EU is supposed to be open-border within, the various nation-states do not share intelligence very well at all. Many in the EU are seeking to remedy that.
In addition, there are those who are saying that IS is a false-flag organization, that it was started by the West. I've already addressed that above. The West can be involved and is, but the idea that all Muslims are mindless robots doing only what the West tricks them into doing is simply ridiculous.
Is the US guilty of claiming to be at war against IS while being deliberately duplicitous about it so as to do more to bring down Assad even via IS? Yes, that was at least the case. I suspect that's changed because of President Putin's actions that have exposed to the world that US duplicity.
IS arose because of the de-Debaathification of Iraq. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was an extremely stupid move. The war in Afghanistan was likewise stupid. The way Libya was handled was just as bad. Assad should have reformed more and sooner, but he was not wrong that al Qaeda and worse (what is now IS) was right there waiting. The US should have listened and been vastly smarter and worked it out so that Assad could reform an the war could have been avoided.
Here's the real deal. You've heard the expression that the US wants to "make the world safe for democracy." That's not what the US has ever been up to. The true saying is to "make the world safe for capitalism." It's not the capitalism of the anarchist capitalist (which would be a disaster in any case) but crony capitalism: capitalism that gives just enough so the people won't rip it to shreds and replace it, replace the plutocracy, with, yes, democracy, real democracy.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)