SOTT FOCUS: Charlie Hebdo: France's 9/11

In the last few days since the mass shooting at the offices of the Parisian satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which left 12 dead, France has seen massive demonstrations in support of the victims and their families, a catchy but misplaced meme of solidarity with the slogan "Je suis Charlie", and a string of anti-Muslim hate speech and attacks. The head of the French National Police is warning of "further attacks", the government is pushing a hard-line stance in the war on terror, and the country is on red alert. Some are calling it France's 9/11. That could be closer to the truth than they intend to convey by making the connection.

To see why, first let's take a look at the attack itself, the suspects, and what the media has been telling us about them.

The Kouachi Bros.

The attack starts at 11:30 local time, Wednesday 7 January 2014, at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris. Two masked men bearing Kalashnikov rifles (later identified as French-Algerian brothers Cherif and Said Kouachi) enter an editorial meeting, shooting dead 10 employees, including the magazine's editor and several cartoonists.

Their voices are recorded saying, ""Allahu akbar," "we've killed Charlie Hebdo" and "we've avenged the prophet." Witnesses described their actions as professional -- they must have had extensive combat training and experience. One witness at first confused the gunmen with France's elite anti-terrorism forces:

"They knew exactly what they had to do and exactly where to shoot. While one kept watch and checked that the traffic was good for them, the other one delivered the final coup de grace," he said.

The men then exit the building and make their getaway, before engaging in a shootout with police north of the site of the attack. One of the men calm executes a wounded police officer, Ahmed Merabet (a Muslim, incidentally), on the street. Contrary to many claims and videos 'busting this open' as a hoax, the video seems legitimate. Kalashnikovs don't recoil that much, and the video is choppy. Also, it appears Merabet was shot in the back, not the head (explaining the lack of visible blood or bullet exit wound).

Continuing their escape, the men seemingly evade police after a high-speed chase, changing vehicles several times, again with an odd sense of calm. For example, while hijacking their second car, they tell the car's owner: "If the media ask you anything, tell them it's al-Qaida in Yemen." Never miss a chance to self-advertise!

Police release the names of three suspects: the Kouachis and 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, Cherif's brother-in-law, who later turns himself in to the police: he was in class at university of the time of the attacks, confirmed by his professors and classmates. The brothers were allegedly identified by an ID card accidentally left in in the Citroën C3 car they left during their escape. Shades of 9/11! However, their names were reportedly circulating on Facebook and Twitter an hour before police confirmation of their names.

The next day, Thursday, a policewoman is shot dead in Montrouge. Initially thought to be unrelated, police then state that the shooter knew the Kouachis. This is allegedly the same man who will later take hostages in the kosher supermarket. The two Charlie Hebdo suspects are next seen driving north through Picardy, and they rob a gas station.

Friday, in a new car, the men are seen with rifles and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, and they procure a new car after the previous one runs out of gas. They are involved in another shoot-out on the N2 motorway, taking refuge in a printing works building, with one hostage. While there, a BFM reporter calls the print office and speaks to Cherif, who says:

We just want to say that we are the defenders of the prophet, and that I, Cherif Kouachi, was sent by al-Qaida in Yemen. And that I went there and that it was Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki who financed me", adding that the visit took place before Awlaki was killed.

While this is happening, Ahmedi Coulibaly, a man with a 'long criminal history' takes hostages in a Jewish supermarket in Paris. Police state this is the same man who shot the policewoman the day before. BFM also has a conversation with Coulibaly:

BFM: Are you in touch with the two brothers who conducted the operation at Charlie Hebdo?

Coulibaly: Yes. We synchronized our operations.

BFM: Are you still in touch with them? Have you recently spoken with them by phone?

Coulibaly: No.

BFM: How were you synchronized with the Kouachis? Are there further attacks planned?

Coulibaly: No, we only synchronized to kick-start things: so when they started Charlie Hebdo, I started on the police officers.

Back at the printers, shots and explosions are heard, the gunmen are killed on sight, the hostage freed, with no casualties. AFP reports the suspects "came out firing on security forces", but their professional training seems to have escaped them, as they missed their targets. Around 20 minutes later, bangs are heard at the supermarket. The hostage taker and 4 hostages are reported killed.

Before the final encounter with the police, one hostage relates hearing Coulibaly say: "I am Amedy Coulibaly, Malian and Muslim. I belong to the Islamic State." Police are still searching for Coulibaly's girlfriend, Hayat Boumedienne (who may be in Syria, by way of Turkey, according to AFP). Boumedienne was reportedly in frequent telephone contact with the Kouachis' wives. She and Coulibaly reportedly had more than 500 telephone conversations with the Koulachis.

So who were these guys?

It turns out Cherif, a petty criminal until he turned radical jihadist, was on a global watch list, and had been on the U.S.'s no-fly list "for years". Take a look at this timeline (unsourced entries are culled from this article):

• 2005: Cherif is was arrested for trying to fly to Syria in order to join the Iraqi insurgency. (He would tell a French documentary team that he was radicalized by a 'firebrand Muslim preacher', Farid Benyettou.)


• 2005: According to French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, one of the brothers was in Yemen.


• 2008: Cherif is convicted on terrorism charges for sending recruits to the Iraqi insurgency during the period of 2004-2006. In the trial, it is revealed that he has received combat training with Kalashnikovs. He's sentenced to three years, but only serves half of that.


• 2009: Le Parisien reports that French authorities begin surveillance on the brothers.


• 2010: Cherif is investigated for involvement in a plot to free an Islamic militant from prison, but is released without charges.


• 2011: Said is trained by Al-Qaeda in Yemen, according to Reuter's 'sources'. This prompts French authorities to "step up" surveillance on the brothers, during which they turn up with "nothing suspicious".


• 2014: Surveillance on the brothers is stopped in July.


• 2014: A source "close to French security services" tells CNN that Cherif travels to Syria, presumably to fight alongside anti-Assad forces, and returns to France in August. It's uncertain when he arrived in Syria (before or after surveillance ended?).

Quite the background, huh?

The Context

The timing of the attacks is curious, some might say even convenient, or worse. To demonstrate why, take a look at this sequence of events, keeping in mind the propensity of Mossad (and other intelligence agencies) for carrying out terror attacks and framing Muslims for them.

• September 24: ISIS releases video showing the beheading of French hostage Herve Gourdel, after a previous video demanding an end to French involvement in airstrikes on Syria.


• November 9: French government is on high alert after unexplained drone flights over nuclear power stations. These illegal flights, using highly sophisticated drone technology, began in October of last year and have continued, with one recent report of flights on January 3.


• November 19: ISIS releases video showing French jihadists burning passports and calling for terror in France.


• November 23: Israeli PM Netanyahu warns France that French recognition of Palestinian statehood would be a "grave mistake".


• December 2: France's Lower House of Parliament votes in favor of recognizing Palestine.


• December 6: Hollande unexpectedly meets Putin in Moscow, defying the anti-Russia brigade.


• December 20: Burundi-born Frenchman attacks police station in Tours with knife, shouting "Allahu Akbar", injuring three before being shot dead.


• December 22: Driver shouting "Allahu Akbar" runs down pedestrians in five parts of Dijon, injuring 13.


• December 31: France votes in favor of Palestinian Statehood


• January 5: Hollande urges for an end to sanctions on Russia, defying the anti-Russia brigade once again.


• January 6: The French military announces it is sending an aircraft carrier to the Gulf to fight ISIS in Iraq.


• January 6: France warns Palestinians: Don't resubmit UN statehood bid.


• January 7: Amchai Stein, the deputy editor of Israeli IBA Channel 1, just happens to be at the scene of the Charlie Hebdo attacks and posts photos of the shooting on Twitter.


• January 10: Announcement of a video released by ISIS 'days ago', with a French jihadist calling for fellow jihadis to tear down France.

Funny how those dastardly terrorists never seem to get what the want, right? Syria is bombed, so they kill a bunch of people thinking that will stay the West's mighty hand, but the West just gets angry and keeps on bombing! Who could foresee such an illogical outcome? What's the point? Well, here's the ever-litigious Alan Dershowitz to spell it out for us:

[embedded content]

In other words, France isn't tough enough on 'terrorism' (i.e., they support Palestinian statehood). What better way to change that than to flip the collective French paranoia switch, stir up anti-Islam feeling, and thus get those Frenchies to make the associative leap from 'evil Muslims' to 'evil Palestinians'. As people like Dershowitz like to point out, practically all Palestinians are terrorists (never mind that it was Jewish terrorist groups responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to begin with).

Dershowitz's friend, Bibi Netanyahoo, also wasted no time in exploiting the attacks for his own purposes, calling for the West to support Israel's own 'war on terror' (i.e., war on Palestine) and adding this mafia-esque ultimatum: "The terror of Hamas, Hezbollah, ISIL and Al-Qaeda will not stop unless the West fights it physically." And Bibi and his friends in the Mossad will make sure to see to that personally, no doubt!

But Dershowitz does have a point. France is a supporter of terrorism, of a sort. But so is Israel! After all, in 2011 France helped arm the rebels in Libya, rebels who were perfectly open about their allegiance with Al-Qaeda. Then again, in 2013, France supported the rebels in Syria, who also have made no bones about their allegiance with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. Israel supports ISIS/al-Nusra in the occupied Golan heights.

You can bet the French intelligence agencies involvement with Islamic terror goes deeper than that, though. (See Joe Quinn and Niall Bradley's Manufactured Terror for the details.) So there's always the possibility that this is a case of blowback - a result of misguided support of terrorists on the one hand, and public ideological conflict with them on the other - but the timing seems all too convenient.

The attacks also had the advantage of displacing other big stories, such as the Jeffrey Epstein/Prince Andrew sex slave scandal (in which Dershowitz himself is implicated), from the headlines, and thus, the public's awareness. It also comes after a seemingly endless string of reports and investigations revealing ISIS to be a U.S./NATO proxy. It also comes as Palestine is set to join the ICC on April 1, at which point they stand a small chance of taking Bibi and the rest of them to the Hague for war crimes.

And what's up with Israelis just happening to be on the scene in order to 'document' major terror events? (For example, at the Twin Towers on 9/11, at Schiphol airport for MH17, or Rita Katz of SITE Intelligence Group, who somehow manages to get ISIS's videos before they are 'officially' released.)

And speaking of Mossad, out of the goodness of his heart, Netanyahoo confirmed on January 9 that he "ordered Mossad to provide French officials for all the assistance they need in tackling the ongoing terror situation in and around Paris." He's also sending an Israeli Police SWAT team that specializes in "siege situations and rescues". How nice of him.

The Reality

The Charlie Hebdo attacks check almost every point in the false-flag handbook: early conflicting reports (2 shooters, 3 shooters), convenient evidence (ID in the getaway car), patsies with prior run-ins with police and counterintelligence (making them perfect CIs or victims of entrapment), convenient deaths (dead men tell no tales, leaving the government all too willing to fill in the blanks with their own version of events), contradictions (professional behavior vs. bungled last stand; third suspect with a perfect alibi), and of course, affiliation with known intelligence fronts. Of course, that doesn't prove it was a false flag. These guys may have been acting on their own initiative, or that of their 'cleric handlers' (but more on that in a moment). Either way - convenient blow-back or malevolent false flag - the result is the same, and equally helpful to Israel and the U.S.'s agenda around the world.

This has been the goal of NATO's Operation Gladio for generations: strategy of tension. And if Sibel Edmonds is right (and it sure looks like she is), the whole Islamic terror scare is simply Gladio Plan B. And some 'big names' in the terror circuit are directly implicated. For example, the Guardian has this to say about Al-Qaeda in Yemen, the group on whose behalf the Kouachis allegedly carried out their attack:

The Yemen branch of al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has some track record of attempting terrorist attacks in the West, including the December 2009 "underwear bomber" plot and the October 2010 cargo planes bomb plot, with explosives packed in toner cartridges.

The leader of AQAP, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, is al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri's second-in-command.

First of all, remember the underwear bomber? Or the toner bomber? Well, their leader's leader, Zawahiri, just happens to be an intelligence agent. At least, so says Edmonds:

Another figure of importance whose name comes up in connection with this investigation is Ayman Al-Zawahiri, formerly Bin Laden's right hand man and the current nominal leader of the Al-Qaeda organization. According to Edmonds he appeared as a figure in several FBI counterterrorism investigations in the 1990s, turning up in Turkey, Albania, Kosovo and Azerbaijan. His travels to the Balkans in the mid 1990s make sense given Al-Qaeda involvement in the so-called Yugoslav Wars, but his involvement in Turkey and Azerbaijan is of particular relevance to this study. Edmonds claims that he worked with the Turkish arm of NATO and NATO itself during this period, meeting several times with US military attaches in Baku, Azerbaijan.

And this:

"In interviews with this author [Nafeez Ahmed] in early March, Edmonds claimed that Ayman al-Zawahiri, current head of al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's deputy at the time, had innumerable, regular meetings at the US embassy in Baku, Azerbaijan, with US military and intelligence officials between 1997 and 2001, as part of an operation known as 'Gladio B'. Al-Zawahiri, she charged, as well as various members of the bin Laden family and other mujahideen, were transported on NATO planes to various parts of Central Asia and the Balkans to participate in Pentagon-backed destabilization operations.

"According to two Sunday Times journalists speaking on condition of anonymity, this and related revelations had been confirmed by senior Pentagon and MI6 officials as part of a four-part investigative series that were supposed to run in 2008. The Sunday Times journalists described how the story was inexplicably dropped under the pressure of undisclosed 'interest groups', which, they suggest, were associated with the US State Department."

And the Iraqi insurgency Cherif sent recruits to and which he so wanted to join, the one led by Zarqawi? An internal briefing from U.S. military headquarters said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. military's chief spokesman at the time, concluded that "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date." Zarqawi was a PSYOP creation.

Whether people like the Kouachis know it or not, they're working for the CIA. Mossad. NATO. MI6. And they're doing their job well. After all, what do we see so far in the aftermath of the attacks? French politicians are upping their rhetoric. PM Manuel Valls just 'declared war' on radical Islam. Troops are on the streets in preparation for mass rallies, which will include visits from such notables as David Cameron, Angela Merkel, Sergey Lavrov, Ahmoud Abbas, and Bibi Netanyahoo.

Hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise too. In the first day, a mosque was shot at and attacked with blank grenades, a prayer hall was shot at, and a kebab shot was blown up. 'Death to Arabs" was scrawled in graffiti on a mosque in Poitiers, more in Bayonne, a high school student was beaten, and a car belonging to a Muslim family was shot at.

They're also taking to the streets defending the holy mantra 'freedom of speech'. 'Je suis Charlie', the world is chanting. I'm sorry, but do these people even know what they're doing by making such an identification? I think they're making utter fools of themselves. It's somewhat akin to defending free speech be saying "I am Goebbels". Have all these people even looked at the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo? Google them and prepare to vomit: they are vulgar, insulting, juvenile, and hate speech. Glenn Greenwald nailed it in his recent article on the subject:

Central to free speech activism has always been the distinction between defending the right to disseminate Idea X and agreeing with Idea X, one which only the most simple-minded among us are incapable of comprehending. One defends the right to express repellent ideas while being able to condemn the idea itself. There is no remote contradiction in that: the ACLU vigorously defends the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors in Skokie, Illinois, but does not join the march; they instead vocally condemn the targeted ideas as grotesque while defending the right to express them.

But this week's defense of free speech rights was so spirited that it gave rise to a brand new principle: to defend free speech, one not only defends the right to disseminate the speech, but embraces the content of the speech itself. ...

So it's the opposite of surprising to see large numbers of westerners celebrating anti-Muslim cartoons - not on free speech grounds but due to approval of the content. Defending free speech is always easy when you like the content of the ideas being targeted, or aren't part of (or actively dislike) the group being maligned.

Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-Semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in "solidarity" with their free speech rights. ...

With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo "were equal opportunity offenders." Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever ) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews. Parody, free speech and secular atheism are the pretexts; anti-Muslim messaging is the primary goal and the outcome . And this messaging - this special affection for offensive anti-Islam speech - just so happens to coincide with, to feed, the militaristic foreign policy agenda of their governments and culture.

To see how true that is, consider the fact that Charlie Hebdo - the "equal opportunity" offenders and defenders of all types of offensive speech - fired one of their writers in 2009 for writing a sentence some said was anti-Semitic (the writer was then charged with a hate crime offense, and won a judgment against the magazine for unfair termination). Does that sound like "equal opportunity" offending?

So I'll repeat myself: Good job, France. You've fallen hook, line and sinker for the lowest, basest manipulation possible. You've not only become racist neandertals in service of the most cynical, racist, violent agenda possible; you've done this all the while thinking you're upholding some universal principle of good. You've had your 9/11. And you're reacting exactly the way your masters wanted: like gullible, mindless idiots. How's that for free speech?

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.