Was the French Attack a False Flag???

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: Vaedur

There is less free speech in the US in the first place. Such drawings would already be considered as hate speech in America so your point is moot.

I'm not trying to prove anything, just noticing that this thread has become nothing but an echo chamber for paranoid thoughts.

Friend, I think you need to reread my post....
I did not say this was happening, I was just saying "possible motive" yet I repeatedly over and over stated *I do not believe it* as well as saying *I do not believe this is a false flag* I just was playing the "pretend game".. and coming up with a "why" if it was actually a false flag, which again, I do NOT believe it was... Sometimes there are just bad people in the world who do bad things.

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

To me it sounds as Tunisia is already Ours With all the influance we already have. As you mention.

A fraction of ISIS is been observed heading for Afghanistan. How they managed that is quite amazing in it self.
That is not a small road trip. www.newsweek.com...

I think the US have shuffled their priorities around a bit, i think Syria has been put a side for now. Since ISIS is heading for Afghanistand, and AQ is already there. I think we will hear about these guys being up to no good in either Turkmenistand, Uzbekistand or Tajikistan late this year or sometime Next year.

Turkey have relation With these nations. I also think that Turkey are the once who helped ISIS Reach Afghanistand, through Azerbaijan. Or the US have airlifted them directly from Turkey With their unmarked CIA comersial Aircrafts?

a reply to: elementalgrove

Nice to hear that we are on the same page when it comes to this subject.

I like the way you handle the situation. One important factor which you obviously have understood is to ask guiding questions rather than lecture and telling the listener how it is. Logical questions that feeds critical thinking is the key.

"Blank stare, timid huh good point, que the uncomfortable what are you going to do? Followed by whatever the latest sports/celebs/tv sitcom they can think of! ”

Haha, funny description of a classic response. Thanks for the laugh

You’re welcome. Some of them are pretty heavy, but worth reading.
Btw, thanks for the pm, unfortunately I can’t respond until I have my 20 comments.

Cheers!

Not sure if this has been posted.

Here's interesting video of Sky News reporter talking about the blood of the officer that was shot.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Prime80

The blood that was put there.....???? Strange thing to say.
I'm veering towards the manufactured stance, I think this has Mossad involvement somewhere along the line. Not sure about the lack of blood from this supposed head shot. FMJ or not I feel there would have been a far more visible result even if I do sound like a ghoul for saying so.

a reply to: spy66

"To me it sounds as Tunisia is already Ours With all the influance we already have. As you mention”

Maybe.. But there is still a great deal of money that can be squeezed out of the country, more privatization and securing control over the planned strategic pipeline. And there are still legeslations and agreements that needs to be approved by the newly elected Tunisian government before that can be made possible. The European Neighbourhood Policy, and especially the Common Foreign and Security Policy whiten it is one of those things and if they play along with the EU demands they will not end up in the situation I described in my previous comment. But if they fight the policies they will probably end up like Libya, Syria and Egypt, and the motives for a terrorist threat has already been layer out, based what I wrote before.

Sanctions have already been imposed on Tunisia and if they don't comply they will not be lifted in this year. And I believe this is what have happened in for example Egypt and Libya after their revolutions. (Which some of us know has been fabricated by foreign agendas)

I also believe that we will se more terrorist attacks in Algeria. Tunisia and Algeria are some of the strategic countries that still haven’t had a full blown crisis after their involvement in the Arab spring, but that will soon come if they don’t extend their foreign relationship with western countries as well as complying with the rules behind CFSP. Both these countries are included in the geographic area of the future planned Trans-Saharan gas pipeline. We now see that both Libya and Egypt have taken steps in this field with the Arab Co. for Oil and Gas Pipelines after their crisis. Then we have the Arab Gas Pipeline which involves Jordan, Syria and Lebanon (All countries involved in the Arab spring) This pipeline will also have a underwater branch to Israel.

You could be right about that Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Tajikistan will be targets in the near future (based on future energy demands). But these countries are largely influenced by Russia and China and to pull of something in these countries will probably lead to WWIII. One thing that makes these countries ”bad targets” besides their geographical location is the Tripartite agreement which was signed between Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Russia in 2007. This agreement regards the Central Asia–Center gas pipeline which also includes Uzbekistan. And even if US wants them to be onboard with the Caspian Basin Energy Initiative I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

"In general terms, the EU imposes its restrictive measures to bring about a change in policy or activity by the target country” Common Foreign and Security Policy - EU

abcnews.go.com...
www.al-monitor.com...#
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
eeas.europa.eu...
eeas.europa.eu...
europeansanctions.com...
eur-lex.europa.eu...
qid=1408111440339&uri=CELEX:32011D0072
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalresearch.ca...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...–Center_gas_pipeline_system
www.esi-africa.com...
www.ogj.com...

originally posted by: Prime80
Not sure if this has been posted.

Here's interesting video of Sky News reporter talking about the blood of the officer that was shot.

www.youtube.com...

I think the reporter was meaning the people who put the flowers there also put the blood there.....as some sort of shrine ?
Because he says " the blood that was put there because of the blood that was shed yesterday ".

It`s obvious the people who put the flowers there to mark what happened and then put blood on the floor......strange, as I`ve never heard of anyone doing that but it seems in France.....at least on this occasion....they do.

a reply to: Fermy
a reply to: Prime80
a reply to: lambros56

Yes, it's a strange thing to say.

And as we can hear in the clip the reporter is correcting himself when talking about the blood, almost like he has been given a specific sentence which he was supposed to say. If this is the case, the person who told him to say it knew that questions was going to be raised if someone didn't mention it. (we didn't see any blood in the video, how can there be that much blood now) or if there wasn't any blood at all when he made this report (why isn't there any blood at all after the killing of the police officer)

The "blood" was probably placed there directly after the incident to eliminate the argument of no blood. Then they put out the story that it was "placed there to show the blood shed that took place". Normally after a killing, and especially after a incident of this proportion people take pictures/videos of the crime scene and the remaining evidence (blood) But those pictures are no where to be found. The guy who recorded the killing of the police officer from his roof or window would logically record more after the terrorists left. But he didn’t, and neither did anyone else.

a reply to: lambros56

He meant to say sand, as in sand had been put there to soak up the blood.

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: lambros56

He meant to say sand, as in sand had been put there to soak up the blood.

Hmmhmmmmm, hahaha that's a good one.

You still haven't shown those id's you posted earlier in this thread being documented and collected from their resting positions, oh that's right you can't can you?

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: lambros56

He meant to say sand, as in sand had been put there to soak up the blood.

But they dont use sand to soake up blood. Ususally the firedepartement Wash the street With ordinary water.

a reply to: spy66

a reply to: OnlySinnersHere

Bring it up in the appropriate thread and stop derailing this one..

a reply to: Chadwickus

Ahhhhhh you posted the picture in an attempt to prove identification cards from terrorist attack plane crashes of 9/11 survived and the pilots of those planes paper identification survived And, that the French attackers id's found in the car is legit.

It's defiantly appropriate to respond to your attempt to mislead the readers. And of course to escape, you accuse me of derailing. I see straight through you!

a reply to: spy66

This reporter can't seem to remember or read his script very well. He said blood but meant sand No wait or did he mean sawdust??

Now he also won't respond anymore either. Probably because he's in a shallow grave or dumped out at sea Or not!
Would of been nice to see him amend his mistake in person live on air, but I doubt that would of been allowed because I doubt he actually rebutted his comments personally.

Phatdamage:

Was the French Attack a False Flag?

My personal opinion is no, it wasn't a false flag, but was quickly used as such to gain appeal, compliance and support from the general public. It was the same with 9/11, that too, wasn't an inside job, but one of complicity and subterfuge and misdirection. They could have stopped it, but they needed their war in Iraq so they could move their agenda forward, 9/11 was allowed to unfold in order to gain the same public reaction of outrage. In your anger and grief, you would have agreed to anything they told you, you wanted a destructive response and got it.

The Charlie Hebdo attack was not a false flag, nor was it allowed to unfold as per 9/11, but it was sustained and manipulated (over-sensationalised) for maximum impact in the public's consciousness, a manipulation of the general public's sympathy, not just in France, but around all of Europe and other parts of the world.

The so-called 'War On Terror' isn't a war, it is simply an argument between ideologies and belief systems, my vision against yours. As the argument rages on, it looks like a war, but wars are fought by armies, and there are only Western armies in play, the other antagonists are simply rag tag groups fighting for their belief system.

a reply to: Chadwickus

Well well well, Chadwickus seems to back in the discussion. Welcome back!

First of all you haven’t answered any part of the 5000 letter reply I made to you, and frankly the only thing you have contributed with in this thread is your deceptive comments. Sure, for a uninformed person the questions you asked me are acceptable, and thats why I took my time to write a reply. But sadly I got nothing in return for this contribution.

Your actions are understandably justified, I mean not many people like the psychological aspect of being refuted and especially not after going out as strong as you did. In all honesty, your comment in whole, and the contexture of it was pretty comical. You answered a selected part of the points in my theory and most of your contentions while debunking the theory was personal insults and preconceptions of me as a person. In other words, not very useful.

But now you’re back in business and like I said before welcome back, henceforth I really hope you will contribute with logic and knowledgeable contributions to this discussion. But before I can analyze that lets look at your newly posted comments.

The first thing you contribute with is by saying:

"He meant to say sand, as in sand had been put there to soak up the blood.”

Then instead of posting the twitter post straight away you waited seven and a half hours to get a contradictory response from other members so you later could prove their comments wrong based on the twitter picture. Im I right!?
I find the twitter post rather odd, and if anything it will fuel suspicion regarding the official story. Why even address the subject? Conspiracies are according to mass media and society based on delusional people. Aren't they?

I like the fresh air coming from the facts spy66 posted regarding this:

"But they dont use sand to soake up blood. Ususally the firedepartement Wash the street With ordinary water”

This statement is absolutely correct. The measure spy66 wrote is the standard approach after a incident like this. But if you (Chadwickus) have any concrete facts that say’s otherwise, feel free to post them.

Then you accuse OnlySinnersHere for derailing the thread, when you obviously is one of the people who is doing that particular job. Don’t forget, the thread is about: "Was the French Attack a False Flag???” And for us to evaluate that we need to look at the situation in whole (if you understand what that means) not just the parts mass media influences us with.

Bottom line, the reporter from sky news wasn’t involved in the incident (false flag) His only job was to say a specific (and probably rehearsed) sentence when making the report but under the pressure of live airing and the situation in whole, he failed. The twitter post was ordered by someone else and the decision was based on; the things the reported said and how he behaved, the fast growing searches of ”false flag charlie hebdo” and the widely discussed conspiracy aspect of this incident.

Cheers!

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Would love to have as much time as you appear to have to post here but I work over 80 hours a week, I also post using an iPad these days and would love to quote your unnecessarily long posts pice by piece but Safari has a tendency to reload itself at random times, and has become almost unusable since iOS 8.2 update...copying and paste has been a bitch! Couple that with the new way ATS does replies and I've decided my sanity is more important than dealing with you, you're way down on the priorities list buddy, don't feel bad as I've dealt with plenty like you before. Those that love the sound of their own voice, or in this instance love the look of their text.

I also found out the hard way that people like you, aren't worth the effort, as you never change your preconceived biases, I spat the dummy a couple of years ago over muppets and their sandy hook theories, I've learnt to not get so emotionally attached these days.

So, enjoy your fantasy of everything is a false flag and everyone's in on it, it's laughable.

Example of laughable, none of you or your starring buddy's would have ever bothered to follow up on what that reporter said, Nope he fumbled over his words so it must be part of the conspiracy, that's where it ends for you because anything more may step out of your confirmation bias.

No news reporter ever fumbles over their words do they?

Geniuses the lot of you.

Text book response

Laughable alright ^ wouldn't of expected any less. Not much of a reply, just more insults. WEAK and cornered. Like I said earlier, see straight through you.

Do you actually believe in any conspiracies ?

a reply to: Chadwickus

So, enjoy your fantasy of everything is a false flag and everyone's in on it, it's laughable.

You didn't just...you did. I've been hearing that a lot lately. I suppose it's all part of the PSYOP.

I love the slogan of this one personally. Je Suis Charlie so catchy, I am Legend, kinda makes you bad ass by simply standing in solidarity. Very, very clever....Good ole shoe. Reminds me of ""Stormin Norman" of Desert Storm fame.