Paul Craig Roberts
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.
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 trumpet the set story that rescues the Western
political establishment from political 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 nonexistent Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.
Russian media began
asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain :
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
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.
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.
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
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, “ ,” is clear. But don’t expect to hear it from
the Western media.