Terror attacks in Paris - indications for or against a “False Flag ...

Sendungstext
herunterladen

PDF (.pdf)

Word (.docx)

19.11.2015 | www.kla.tv/7147

During the coordinated shootings and suicide bombing attacks, on the evening of November 13th, 2015 in Paris 132 people died so far, according to the current reports. 352 were wounded and 99 of these, severely injured. Within a 33 minute period the assassins attacked six times. In a public statement posted in the Internet on Saturday the terror organization “Islamic State” claimed respon-sibility for the attacks. Kla.tv reported in our last broadcast in detail. Also we pointed out that the terror attacks are to be associated with Jihad and not with the practice of the religion of Islam. It is well known and documented that the “Islamic terror network”was created by the US secret service apparatus during the Afghanistan war against the Soviet Union in 1979. Since then the so-called Jihad terror network, to which violent groups such as the Islamic State (IS), al-Qaeda as well as Boko Haram belong, has been purposely instrumentalized for political goals by the USA and other countries. The question raised was: whether the newest terror attacks in Paris could again be due to intrumentalization of the IS or whether IS acted independently and possibly even opposing the in-terests of its initiator. Or was it possibly both of these? In todays broadcast we will look into another question related to yesterday’s and helping to answer it. Namely: Could this possibly have been a so-called “false flag operation”? This news agency term, refers to an undercover operation and terror attack, generally carried out by military or secret service, and then blamed on a third party afterwards. Evaluations from media commentators and journalists about whether this was a false flag operation, in Paris, vary widely. First of all it is evident that the latest terror attacks in Paris cannot be categorized as what we com-monly understand as a false flag operation. These have the important characteristic that two groups are involved: those who carry out the operation - usually professionals or secret service agents - and the others who afterwards are blamed. This is why it is called “false flag” - it is a deception about who the real offenders are. The following terror attacks show the typical attributes of a “false flag” operation: 9/11 in New York in 2001 7/7 in London in 2005 The Boston marathon bombing in 2005 as well as the attack on satire magazine “Charlie Hebdo” in Paris on January 7th, 2015. To illustrate this more clearly: With the “Charlie Hebdo” attack, for example, there is much evidence that those who carried out the operation are not those who were then presented as the offenders. The real perpetrators were masked and could not be identified. Those presented as the suspects were identified by an identity card allegedly found in the escape vehicle. According to many witnesses however, the description of the alleged perpetrators absolutely does not fit to that of the heavily armed killer commando. Also the suspected offenders were killed while being arrested and like this silenced, as so often happens in so-called “false flag operations”. Details to this can be found at the following link. Contrary to this, according to several witnesses, the perpetrators of the latest terror attacks in Paris were not wearing masks and were not killed and silenced by the police, with one exception. They blew themselves up. This is absolutely not typical for a false flag operation. Even though it appears that this was not a typical false flag operation, two scenarios should be looked into more carefully. Commentators have various opinions concerning this as well. First: the thesis that the IS as well as other terrorists were recruited and used by the secret services but then they developed their own movement and began to get out of control. An example from Libya: al Qaeda mercenaries were used to overthrow Khadafi but, then got out of control as they attacked the US consulate in Benghazi, killing four Americans. Those who support this thesis an-swer the question: “Cui bono?” - or “Who is benefiting from this?” like this: this attack damages all those who want torrents of migrants, for example EU, Merkel, Obama, Soros and all others who are serving the so-called New World Order (NWO). The future of the “politics of open borders” is se-riously questioned now after this terrorist attack. Exactly this is what speaks for an independent act by the terrorists. Second: This opinion is contrary to the first thesis, saying that the attacks were in fact, carried out by IS or other terrorists but they did not act independently. These precisely carried out, minutely detailed attacks could only have been possible when the French or other secret services purposely shut their eyes to the situation. The assailants were professionally organized, used Kalashnikov as-sault rifles and wore identical explosive vests. Supporters of this thesis point out that the terror at-tacks from November 13th, were immediately preceded by an emergency exercise. The well known emergency response physician, Patrick Pelloux told radio station “France Info” that medical emer-gency units had carried out an exercise the same morning in Paris, where a fictitious scenario in-volving attacks at several places was practiced. Police and fire departments were also involved in this excercise. These scenarios with an emergency response exercise on the day of a terror attack are not new: with 9/11 in 2001, 7/7 in London in 2005 and with the Boston marathon in 2013, a large scale, fictitious military or police exercise was carried out on the same day. The question: “Who benefits?” is answered by those for this theory, on the one hand that the attacks justify again intensi-fying surveillance measures on the domestic political front and more restriction of civil rights. Another aspect is that the lagging campaign against the Assad government and the IS could be new-ly animated. In this scenario the IS is however simply the means to the goal of eliminating Syrian President Baschar al-Assad. Catagorizing this new terror attack in Paris proves to be everything other than clear. So it is worth keeping in mind these differing scenarios, observing and repeatedly asking the question: “Who is it benefiting?” or “Who is not benefiting?”. Kla.tv will keep you updated.

from dd.

Sources/Links: http://www.srf.ch/news/international/terror-in-paris-was-bisher-bekannt-ist
http://alles-schallundrauch.blogspot.ch/2015/11/warum-paris-keine-false-flag-operation.html
http://recentr.com/2015/11/die-relevanten-verschworungshypothesen-zu-den-pariser-anschlagen/
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/46/46585/1.html
http://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2015/11/15/anschlaege-von-paris-putin-stellt-die-frage-nach-den-drahtziehern/