Was the French Attack a False Flag???

a reply to: Phatdamage

the problem with what you are asserting is that anything can be a "false flag", and nothing is really true, because there ALWAYS could be manipulation....believe it or not, there are psychopaths and sociopaths in this world, that are simply not mentally wired right. they have the ability to justify murder and barbarism in rational terms....sometimes a rose is simply a rose by any other name.

a reply to: spy66

No country is doing jack # about radical Islam because it's financed by Saudi Arabia and they have oil.

If the US or Europe really wanted to fight radical Islam, they would target Saudi Arabia and not just Afghanistan and Irak.

The West are being huge hypocrites about Salafists and they certainly don't want to do anything serious about it. Sorry but you are wrong. It's just deranged individuals.



Check this out if you understand French. Otherwise you probably aren't the best qualified to comment events occurring in France today because you only have access to second hand sources.




Of course the global reaction happened after the attacks, how could it be different? That's the very point of it, to say they condemn the attack. You make no sense if you think this is a proof of fabrication, it's a normal consequence, not a proof of anything.



It's fascinating all these people from the other side of the globe commenting events happening in my backyard like they know better about it when they can't even speak my language. Like if I was commenting about the Boston bombings as if I knew better than the people living in Boston. Come on...

a reply to: JUhrman

the US and other western countries are not being hypocritical....they are in a "double-bind dilemma"...en.wikipedia.org... is where any action taken will be bad....example: if the west goes after the Saudis, the ensuing chaos in the middle east will be more deadlier than it currently is, the US would get the blame because of it's interference...if we do nothing, the sunni terrorists will receive some type of financial support from people inside that country...again, the US gets the blame for doing nothing.

a reply to: jimmyx

So? What would be the point of a false flag attack then if they can't do anything about it. You just prove my point.

10% of the people in France are Muslims. No one has anything to gain to start controlling Muslims more in France, they are part of the population.

The 3 attackers were born and raised in France. Do you really know what you are talking about or are you just parroting what you read here?

a reply to: JUhrman

also, one other point....why doesn't islam itself clean up it's own mess, why is it acting like a 4-year-old child, who screams, throws things, and blames others, until an adult comes in, calms them down, and is left to clean up after them?....but in this case, thousands of innocents are killed by this 4-year-olds tantrum.

a reply to: jimmyx

You talk about Islam like it is monolithic. That's your mistake.

I'm saying this again, this attack is from Salafists, and the point is political, not religious.

If you can't get that, of course you will understand this wrong.

Should I, as a Catholic, feel bad for the crazy Christians in the US promoting creationism? Should all Americans feel sorry for the deeds of American soldiers overseas? Are people in Irak asking Americans to go in the street to say they aren't like the rapist soldiers?

You have double standards here.

a reply to: Protectivedaddy

While I agree with most of what you've said, to me, if you believe in the NWO, then you must also believe in UFOs. In fact, without UFOs, you wouldn't even know about these conspiracies. Yet is the NWO so bad? So far, I've found myself agreeing with most of their ideas.

Also, it's possible that the hard-line communist members are part of the NWO, but are on the bad guys' side.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: jimmyx

So? What would be the point of a false flag attack then if they can't do anything about it. You just prove my point.

10% of the people in France are Muslims. No one has anything to gain to start controlling Muslims more in France, they are part of the population.

The 3 attackers were born and raised in France. Do you really know what you are talking about or are you just parroting what you read here?

the Saudis have ordered 50 lashes be given to a woman that committed blasphemy against a mythical being. what do they have to gain by doing that?

a reply to: jimmyx

What's even your point? Salafists are crazy. I agree. The problem is that the West can't do anything about it because Salafists live in Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia has oil.

This attack was from these crazy people and we can't even do anything to retaliate.

a reply to: JUhrman

The thing is we are not attacking Islam but befriending With Islam nations. Afghanistan is the best and clearest example of that until this day. But in some way its not how the public sees it. But it is the truth. Afghanistan is no loger Our main target of interest, we are moving to the NeXT target of interest. "The Afghans have not become christians". Or changed their religion in any way.

The Three attackers in france this week should not take up much of Our time. Because they are not the Clues we should pay much attention to. In the media it is not who they are that is a problem, it is what they have done that is the problem.
But these Three are only one side of the problem. No one pays any attention to the other side of the problem. There is another agressor in this terror act that no one are asking any questions about. Probably because they are the victims.

a reply to: spy66

I have no idea why you mention "Islam nations" when they aren't the problem here.


May I ask you were you live? Because Americans often have a really wrong representation about what Islam is. There is a dozen of Muslim nations not far from my country and they are all different with different sensibilities and histories. With the vast majorities of them we have no issues.

My problem is with salafism and wahabbism, and these are mainly from and funded by Saudi Arabia.

Take WWII, the issue wasn't with one religion or one race. It was a specific political movement. It's a huge difference.


Anyone claiming we have a problem with Islam is part of the problem, not the solution.


Some people are saying that money corrupts. Think about how corrupted Saudi Arabia would become with all its oil reserves.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

I have no idea why you mention "Islam nations" when they aren't the problem here.


May I ask you were you live? Because Americans often have a really wrong representation about what Islam is. There is a dozen of Muslim nations not far from my country and they are all different with different sensibilities and histories. With the vast majorities of them we have no issues.

My problem is with salafism and wahabbism, and these are mainly from and funded by Saudi Arabia.

Take WWII, the issue wasn't with one religion or one race. It was a specific political movement. It's a huge difference.


Anyone claiming we have a problem with Islam is part of the problem, not the solution.


Some people are saying that money corrupts. Think about how corrupted Saudi Arabia would become with all it's oil reserves.

I am from Norway.

When it comes to Insight it is all about geo-political goals. The US/NATO are the main force behind it the western geo-politica goals.

When it comes to geo-politcal goals it dosent really matther what Islam is. What matter is their location in Junction With our geo-political goals. We didnt go to Aghanistand to make the People of Aghanistan Christians. We whent to Aghanistan to make them Our allies. We did this by picking and supporting a side. Afghanistan was not United politically or religiously so there was a door open for US/NATO to step in. And it had to be done by force.

Afghanistan is not the only nation With political and religious indifferences that US/NATO have in their Scope. Practically every EuroAisian nations have these in different degrees. Small internal indifferences can become big issues With a bit of help from the outside.

Question is : What does geo-politics have to do With the terror act in Paris?

One Clear goal is that we will use extream Islam faith as a instigator to pick a side.


EDIT: The US have a guy from Turkey that have about 300 mosks throught the muslim world. Gues how the US create the extreamists.

Do you know who he is? He lives in the US.

EDIT: The teacher who teach in these mosks are CIA. With diplomatic Passports. Their alibi is being ardinary English Teachers. With diplomatic Passports.

a reply to: spy66

We (Europeans) did not go to war with Afghanistan because we wanted to. Afghanistan was going to be invaded by the US, and it was up to us to decide if we wanted to share the spoils of war. Same with Irak.

It was never a war against Islam, because Afghanistan and Irak aren't Islam, they are just nations with oil or gas. If you believed Europe went there for ideological reasons, you bought the lie. It was for economical reasons.

Today the attacks aren't about oil or gas, but about politics. We have to understand this and react accordingly. It's not Muslims VS the West, it's Wahhabism and Salafism VS the rest of the world, because these movements will only stop when the whole world is converted. It's not what Islam wants. It's what a bunch of parties want.

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: Phatdamage

the problem with what you are asserting is that anything can be a "false flag", and nothing is really true, because there ALWAYS could be manipulation....believe it or not, there are psychopaths and sociopaths in this world

Yes, but they are the ones that design and orchestrate the false-flags.

I'm repeating myself but is anyone here able to understand and analyze this;


Otherwise most of you are only talking out of their arses. This is a manifesto from one of the killers. If you can't understand what is said here, you are missing a ton of information.

I can and let me tell you, I'm a member of this site and all I care about is the truth. And the truth here is that it isn't a false flag, it's a tragedy involving Salafists trying to justify their acts with religious texts when none of these religious texts said so explicitly.

a reply to: JUhrman

We (Europeans) did not go to war with Afghanistan because we wanted to. Afghanistan was going to be invaded by the US, and it was up to us to decide if we wanted to share the spoils of war. Same with Irak.

That sounds a lot nicers dosent it. Almost politically correct. It would not have had the same ring to it if we said we where going to force them to become Our allies.

It was never a war against Islam, because Afghanistan and Irak aren't Islam, they are just nations with oil or gas. If you believed Europe went there for ideological reasons, you bought the lie. It was for economical reasons.

The fight is not against Islam, it is not about religion. But radicals are improted to these these nations so that we can go deep into their governments. For the US/NATO to take a nation by force is easy and quick. So they need a idiological reason to go deeper and stay longer.

a reply to: spy66

This is really naive of you to think countries go to war if they can't get anything out of it (economically speaking).

Wars cost a lot of money.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

This is really naive of you to think countries go to war if they can't get anything out of it (economically speaking).

Wars cost a lot of money.

I never said they didnt want the reasources. It is one of at least two reasons there is a geo-political agenda.

I see that you are very interested in the video. So am i. There is also more to come because this guy had a GoPro and a computer withim into the shop. He filmed the Whole thing.

But its not going to be like: Hey, CIA put me up to this.

originally posted by: spy66
[I see that you are very interested in the video.

Why wouldn't I. A manifesto straight from one of the killers. It's not like we have anything better so far.

So do you understand what the guy is saying or not?

a reply to: JUhrman

28 murdered people in a town of only 2200, there must have been a lot of talk about the incidents after they accrued. I hope no one in your family was involved in the events. If I’m not mistaken I think the alleged perpetrators where the following: Madani Bouhouche, Philippe De Staerke, Bruno Van Deuren and Patrick Haemers.

I dont think this incident have to be a false flag based on that false flag operations have occurred in the past. That is a pretty ignorant assumption based on nothing I have been writing about this case. I write what I see based on the available information regarding the subject and I have never mentioned any connections between these two cases, if anything I added information regarding the subject ”false flags” or psychological operations.

Im not going into what the agenda might be behind my theory regarding this incident. That would lead us down a very narrow path, one which I don't think you are able to follow anymore. Based on your vivid involvement in this discussion and the things you write I had to look you up, only so I could wrap my head around your way of thinking. And I apologies in advance if anything Im about to say might sound invidious because thats not my ambition.

I understand why you are trying to reduce your own cognitive dissonance based on your past and present view of how the world is operating and I understand why you have chosen the path we see in for example this discussion. But I can’t figure out why you still are in these kind of discussions when you deliberately choose not to see the other side of the coin anymore.

The real problem with conspiracies and mental states linked to it doesn’t lay in the hands of the ones who is proposing the theory, rather in the ones who strongly feel the whole idea of conspiracies are made up and delusional. Many people who are searching for answers, and especially the ones who find them are usually not getting support from their friends and family. Instead of responding with a curious interest and a open mind to the new and often frightening information these people react based on the collective view of a ”conspiracy” as well as the collective view of a "conspiracy theorist” Rendering both the message and the messenger delusional, paranoid and crazy. Consistent feedback in this form, can eventually lead to the person actually becoming paranoid. So its not the conspiracy itself, its the way the person is being acknowledged who enables this mental disorder. And there is a perfect explanation of why this is happening, but I will come back to that later.

As soon as a reader of (exclusively) mainstream news are subjected to contradictory theories that’s worrying or frightening they immediately enter the mental state of "normalcy bias” and automatically fall back on all the propaganda they’ve heard about conspiracies. Since a situation based on the information never has occurred then it never will occur is the preferred mindset, and all the indications along the way is processed in the most optimistic way possible only to reduce the perceived inconsistency which induces the mental stress. One problem with this is that the supposed situation has probably already occurred but people don’t know their history well enough, especially not the unpleasant parts.

The explanation of why the majority is reacting the way they do when subjected to conspiracies can be tied together with the enormous work intelligence agencies have done in the fields of cognitive science, crown psychology and social engineering. They know people will react this way and a lot of times these powers are behind the most absurd and delusional conspiracies themselves, all in the name of misinformation. Cognitive dissonance is very powerful because it challenges your mental state in a negative way and people who experience this will avoid situations and information which are likely to increase this feeling.

"Dissonance is felt when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in restoring consonance through misperception, rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others.”

"Review of Psychological Operations Lessons Learned from Recent Operational Experience” www.dtic.mil...

"Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind”
www.wjh.harvard.edu...

"Information Operations and Counter-Propaganda: Making a Weapon of Public Affairs.”
www.dtic.mil...

"Managing meaning: The role of psychological operations and public diplomacy in a national information warfare strategy" calhoun.nps.edu...