The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
Washington Refines Its False Flag Operations
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.

The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious “suicide” of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.

What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.

More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO’s Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public’s attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public’s attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?

The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks. Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?

The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government’s propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.

Initially even the Russian media served to trumphet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from politial defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn’t too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia’s borders to protect Europe from nonexistant Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.

Russian media began asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain:https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=215&ebc=ANyPxKqr8P2sln2JowUb7OtE9x-Uh73wTzgr_ROE6eJC640x6hFGrOs879tSr41gemYrY56XDSeGT0VlU_SSs6lWIcYel6SrWw&v=L7GAbVhjTSw

To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: “What is ISIL?” Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA’s operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Quadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be throughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington’s, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.

ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?

The next question is: “How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?” Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe’s borders closed, thus halting ISIL’s ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?

Who does benefit? Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways. Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington’s Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage’s Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.

The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel’s political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. “Paris changes everything,” they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.

ORDER IT NOW

The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment’s presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But “Paris changes everything.” Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. “Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race,” declares CNN:http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/16/politics/paris-attacks-isis-2016-reaction/index.html

Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande’s declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO’s Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington’s way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.

The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.

The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?

The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington’s goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington’s goal of removing Assad from power.

The answer to the Roman question, “cui bono,” is clear.

But don’t expect to hear it from the Western media.

(Republished from PaulCraigRoberts.org by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Paris Attacks, Terrorism 
Hide 8 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. This Is Our Home [AKA "Robert Rediger"] says:

    Nothing you wrote makes the slightest bit of sense.

  2. Nothing YOU wrote makes the slightest bit of sense.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
  3. @Drapetomaniac

    Excellent analysis PCR.

    I would not put anything past these bloodthirsty psychopaths and their drive for a world government. The endpoint means controlling approximately half of the world’s GDP, which would be about $35,000,000,000,000.

    Some people would kill for a pair of sunglasses. These people are killing millions and destroying countries for mind-boggling wealth to satisfy their deformed egos.

    They are not human.

  4. Akira says: • Website

    One of the hallmarks of retarded Conspiracy Theory subcultures is that they seem to exist in a strange sort of timeless void. The New-World Order/X-Files style conspiracy theories have been mainstream since the 1990s, but no accounting is ever made of their observable effects on American fringe politics.

    What exactly have the Conspiracy Theorists/Truthers/False-Flaggers accomplished?

    Art Bell synthesized a New Age Right subculture out of the pathetic babble of American Conspiracy Theory and UFO mythology. This audience has more in common with the New Age Left than anything else on the political spectrum. Alex Jones has inherited the flock and taken it in a more angrily politicized direction, but the basic themes have persisted. While the occasional mass murdering psycho takes it all too seriously, for most it is merely another toxic post-modern entertainment product.

    The end result is a shallow identity politics of political bullshit so brain dead that its adherents actually believed in both Y2K and 2012. Like the worst kind of hippies, you will believe in anything for at least five minutes. Some professional crank starts babbling about Mayan calendars (after too much DMT) and you lap it right up. This New Age Right has been successful in spreading and merchandising complete bullshit, usually of the most banal and tedious kind. The amount of UFO bullshit on the internet is now so vast as to be beyond cataloging, but the system appears completely unaffected by it.

    Within the American left we had an allegedly radical politics that oriented itself around Conspiracy Theory in the post 9/11 antiwar movement. Any analysis or discussion of the political uses of Conspiracy Theory should therefore begin with the catastrophic failure and self-inflicted collapse of that movement, and the role that the 9/11 truther disease played in this process. Of course this doesn’t happen. Indeed it would seem that (like the “radical” left) the Conspiracy Theorists are utterly incapable of even observing the failure itself, much less learning anything from it.

    William Lind introduced the Frankfurt-Jew conspiracy theory into the paleo-right decades ago. Since then the paleo-right has lost almost every major battle. The religious right coalition that was once a real political power house lies in ruins. Now the Gay Married wedding cakes are coming to take the last white Christians away to the Caitlyn Thought gender reeducation camps.

    Liberalism is dying, yes. Your elites are completely corrupt (and always have been), yes. And yes, they are constantly engaged in conspiracies against you, everyone else & each other. But they rule through public institutions, not a conspiracy. While you retards are busy looking for secret clues to the Illuminati FALSE FLAG in bad Hollywood movies, these institutions rule and order your whole world.

    This is a whole civilization, not a “Conspiracy”.

    • Agree: Stephen R. Diamond
  5. You’re saying that the attacks were staged as a face-saving measure, to enable closing the borders without appearing to capitulate to the popular will: “The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed.”

    A face-saving measure is a very meager outcome for such a high-risk event.

    What you seem to ignore is that a false flag of this magnitude incurs huge risks. There’s no good reason not to be confident you won’t be discovered, and the consequences would be utterly revolutionary. You actually view the masses in much the same manner as did the proverbial Frankfurt School, as totally duped by the media and a complete pawn of the elites. Incapable of discovering a plot that’s obvious enough to you to publish the same day! (Yes, I’m saying you’re basically an elitist.)

    Your confidence in this theory increases every time you imagine a new conspiracy. After all, didn’t they get away with the last one? You’re confident state actors believe the masses are completely maleable to propaganda because you have the same elitist confidence.

    But it can be asked, if the state is manipulatively omnipoent, why does it require actual false flags?

    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    , @Anon
  6. @Stephen R. Diamond

    There’s no good reason not to be confident

    Should be there’s no good reason to be confident

  7. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Stephen R. Diamond

    But it can be asked, if the state is manipulatively omnipoent, why does it require actual false flags?

    +1

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  8. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    The state is not manipulatively omnipotent, which is why it needs false flags which soften public opinion that otherwise would be hardened against certain kinds of unilateral, executive actions.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS