Paris Attacks Summary

Standard

ISIS never claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks.

ISIS released a statement praising the attackers:

IS CLAIMS PARIS ATTACKS, WARNS OPERATION IS “FIRST OF THE STORM”

The statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports:

“Terror groups, when they claim credit for attacks, will sometimes include details of the planning or execution that establish the group was indeed responsible. There are none here; the statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports. It also includes no biographical information on the attackers, even a name or photo, though terror groups will often lionize its attackers as “martyrs” in such statements.”

(via Here is ISIS’s statement claiming responsibility for the Paris attacks)

Eight suspects identified were EU citizens. A Syrian passport was found near a ninth suspect, but its legitimacy has come under question by everybody including French and German authorities.

“A third red flag is the fact that the passport concerned was found in the first place. Analysts find it strange that a bomber would remember to bring his passport on a mission, particularly one who does not intend to return alive.”

(via Why Syrian refugee passport found at Paris attack scene must be treated with caution)

Additionally, there is the fact that the passport remained intact while the suicide bomber did not. French and German authorities say ISIS may have planted the passport to turn public opinion against refugees:

France Will Still Welcome Syrian Refugees

Since ISIS was likely not involved, since French authorities have no problem blaming people for crimes they did not commit, and since sinister people always accuse others of crimes they did themselves, it’s likely a case that more sinister French authorities planted that passport.

Despite accusing ISIS of killing 130 French citizens, France chooses to retaliate by bombing abandoned empty locations:

“all these strikes are targeting abandoned empty locations.”

(via Strikes in Raqqa in Syria Lead to More Questions Than Results)

FotorCreated paris attacks final2 jpeg

Full image: Click Here

You Can’t Trust the Headlines

Standard

(I should start by saying that Palestine always has the right to use violence against Israel as long as Israel continues to occupy stolen Palestinian land.   This is true even according to international law and the international community.  People living on stolen property are never innocent. Unfortunately, Palestinians don’t have an organized state or military powerful enough to rid themselves of the illegal occupying power.)

This is what actually happened leading up to the 2014 Gaza massacre:

“Something had to be done, and an occasion arose on June 12, when the three Israeli boys were murdered in the West Bank. Early on, the Netanyahu government knew that they were dead, but pretended otherwise, which provided the opportunity to launch a rampage in the West Bank, targeting Hamas.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed to have certain knowledge that Hamas was responsible. That too was a lie.

One of Israel’s leading authorities on Hamas, Shlomi Eldar, reported almost at once that the killers very likely came from a dissident clan in Hebron that has long been a thorn in the side of Hamas. Eldar added that “I’m sure they didn’t get any green light from the leadership of Hamas, they just thought it was the right time to act.”

The 18-day rampage after the kidnapping, however, succeeded in undermining the feared unity government, and sharply increasing Israeli repression. Israel also conducted dozens of attacks in Gaza, killing five Hamas members on July 7.

Hamas finally reacted with its first rockets in 19 months, providing Israel with the pretext for Operation Protective Edge on July 8.”

(via  Noam Chomsky: The Nightmare in Gaza)

Hamas denied responsibility for the attacks, but many headlines would eventually say that Hamas claimed responsibility for the attacks.  Examples:

NPR: Hamas Admits To Kidnapping And Killing Israeli Teens

CBC: Hamas admits kidnapping 3 young Israeli men, setting off Gaza war

CNN: Hamas leader admits militants abducted slain Israeli teens

However, when one actually reads the articles, one quickly realizes that Hamas did not claim responsibility:

Aruri said the operation to abduct the teens was not approved by the Hamas leadership or its military wing, the Qassam Brigades.

(via CNN: Hamas leader admits militants abducted slain Israeli teens)

Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, who is in exile in Qatar, denied knowledge of the abduction but praised its perpetrators.

(via CBC: Hamas admits kidnapping 3 young Israeli men, setting off Gaza war)

Being from a dissident clan from the same region, the real perpetrators of the crime likely had weak ties to Hamas.  Some of them might have been members of Hamas in the past.

The man, Hussam Qawasmeh, 41, part of a sprawling clan in the West Bank city of Hebron with ties to the militant Islamist Hamas movement, was convicted last week of handling $60,000 in five installments from the Gaza Strip to buy two cars, two M-16 rifles and two pistols for use in the operation. In September, Israeli troops cornered and killed the two men they believe carried out the kidnapping and murders: Marwan Qawasmeh, 29, a relative of Mr. Qawasmeh’s, and Amer Abu Aisha, 33.

Having ties or former association with Hamas does not mean Hamas was responsible.  Hamas praising the act does not mean Hamas carried out the act.

Likewise, the fact that some of the alleged suspects behind the Paris attacks have/had some affiliation with the Islamic State is still not proof that the Islamic State itself was behind the Paris attacks:

The Expanding Web of Connections Among the Paris Attackers

Capture Web Paris Attacks

The Islamic State praising the Paris attacks is not proof that the Islamic State was behind the Paris attacks.

Further Evidence That ISIS Was Not Behind the Paris Attacks

Standard

Here is another article that says ISIS claimed responsibility, but then gives very specific information that ISIS likely was not responsible:

“Terror groups, when they claim credit for attacks, will sometimes include details of the planning or execution that establish the group was indeed responsible. There are none here; the statement details nothing that was not publicly available information from news reports. It also includes no biographical information on the attackers, even a name or photo, though terror groups will often lionize its attackers as “martyrs” in such statements.”

(via http://www.vox.com/2015/11/14/9734794/isis-claim-paris-statement)

The following statement implies ISIS did not claim responsibility by implying they might still claim it later:

“None of this is to argue that ISIS is thus not responsible; it is entirely possible the group may later release more information to establish its role.”

ISIS Didn’t Do It.

Standard

People have to be very careful when reading these articles. The headline and first paragraph say ISIS claimed responsibility:

http://www.nytimes.com/…/isis-claims-responsibility-for-par…

However, they specifically imply throughout the article that ISIS did not claim responsibility. (The New York Times and many papers did this with Hamas during the 2014 Gaza massacre. The headlines would say Hamas claimed responsibility while the rest of the article implies that they didn’t.)

ISIS celebrated the attacks. They never said they did it. Here is a translation of one of the messages from the groups encrypted messaging accounts:

https://ent.siteintelgroup.com/…/is-claims-paris-attacks-wa…

In fact, throughout The New York Times article, there is continued debate between whether to blame ISIS or Al Queda. (Obviously, if ISIS had actually claimed responsibility, they wouldn’t be debating between blaming ISIS or Al Queda throughout the article.)  The reality is that it might not have been either group but they need to pin it on either ISIS or Al Queda so they can declare war. If it was just homegrown terrorism exploiting Islam, they would not be able to go to war, so they pretend it’s not even a possibility.

Additionally, if ISIS was going to claim responsibility and declare open war on France, an encrypted internal communique isn’t going to achieve that.

(Another scenario is that ISIS was trying to do it in secret, didn’t want France to know, and the internal communique accidentally exposed that they were responsible. However, the encrypted message only showed that ISIS knew of the attacks and praised the attackers. They never said they did it.)

The best evidence they have linking ISIS to the crime is the encrypted internal communique which actually implies ISIS didn’t do it.

ISIS say they were impressed with the way the Paris terrorists executed the attack and applauded them on a job well done, but imply that the Paris terrorists were people they didn’t actually know.

Additionally, if ISIS had orchestrated a terrorist attack they considered impressive and successful, why wouldn’t they be patting themselves on the back for a job well done? Why wouldn’t they be cockier and more full of hubris?

If ISIS had done it, they would have been more arrogant and self-congratulatory rather than merely applauding the work of others.

Thus, I highly doubt it was ISIS.

 

“Treason,” They Wrote.

Standard

(Rarely do I defend a political figure, and I really don’t know enough about this person to say I do or do not endorse her, but I still don’t think it’s fair to “frame” anybody for a crime they did not really commit.)

Canadian media has been going wild over the collapse of the Wildrose party.  Danielle Smith, the former leader of the recently dissolved party, has been accused of hypocrisy for telling others not to defect from the party, but then defecting herself.

The accusation of hypocrisy is problematic for many reasons.  First of all, Smith telling others not to leave, but eventually needing to leave herself is understandable.

A good analogy is a human pyramid.  When people start leaving the pyramid, obviously you attempt to keep the pyramid together by telling people not to leave.  However, if too many leave, (and for a “rival” pyramid that is actually quite similar,) eventually there comes a time when one has to call it quits and say that perhaps the best thing to do is for the two pyramids to merge.  Thus, it makes sense for someone to tell people not to leave, but to eventually have to leave as well.

Danielle Smith Wildrose Party

(I have no idea what the Japanese banner says.)

Furthermore, the Alberta Wildrose and Alberta PC parties are both conservative parties.  The federal “Liberal” and Conservative parties of Canada are already fundamentally indistinguishable.  There’s no point in the media focusing on bickering between parties that are fundamentally the same.  All this does is serve as a distraction from the fact that we are being ruled by a one-party system.  Thus, it’s a good thing for parties that are fundamentally the same to eventually merge so a REAL opposition can emerge. (I still think direct democracy is far superior to representative democracy though.)

Furthermore, people in the Canadian media are merely exploiting this incident so they can pretend they care about “hypocrisy” and the public.  People working in mainstream Canadian media are the most shameless, elitist hypocrites of all.  For them to exploit this to pretend character even matters to them is an extension of their hypocrisy.  Why don’t they report on the extreme hypocrisy of Harper condemning attacks on children in Pakistan while supporting the GENOCIDE of children in Gaza? Why is there no discussion of the extreme hypocrisy of condemning ISIS while cozying up to Saudi Arabia?

Nothing is more disturbing than people in mainstream media pretending they themselves have character. (Honest journalists and news people are sidelined or fired.)

Danielle Smith CBC Canadian News

“Yes! A chance to pretend I give a fuck about hypocrisy, character, or the public!” -His true nature

This is how much people actually care:

Standard

Obviously, Western media is going crazy over the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall as they would over anything commemorating end of apartheid in South Africa.  However, the wall surrounding Gaza also represents horrendous oppression & apartheid.  The amount of attention that wall gets in Western media represents how much genuine concern there is for such matters. The amount of extra time the Berlin Wall gets over the Gaza blockade is how much time/energy is dedicated to creating the illusion of a liberal democracy.

ISIS not enough? How about another Cold War?

Standard

Both Western as well as Russian media sources seem to want to create another Cold War.  (Yes, some people are that evil.)  We can’t forget that within every authoritarian regime there have been propaganda agents diligently working to maintain some type of diversion so that oppression/elitism/inequality are never discussed.  Western propaganda is no different.

This is very dangerous because media trying to stir up Cold War conditions just so they have a constant scare tactic (and a constant source of eye-catching news) can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

BBC logo

Gorbachev

(Click for link)

RT Logo Question More

Noam Chomsky

(Click for link)

From my perspective, I don’t think the Cold War was nearly as big of a deal as it was portrayed.  I’m positive the elitists on both sides quickly developed a common understanding that such things could be exploited to divert attention away from more pressing matters.  As much as I dislike George Orwell, he was right in depicting three global superpowers dominating the world with a piece left as undisputed territory.

Let’s pretend the West is Oceania, Russia is Eurasia, China is Eastasia and that the Middle East and Africa represent the disputed territories.  Despite the mental gymnastics one must do to visualize something so otherworldly, once this mental analogy is solidly in place, one can begin to see that the tactics of constant warfare, fighting for global dominance, and shifting of alliances seen within the novel also apply to the real world.

Russian media genuinely tries to make the West out to be a bad guy while Western media does the same to Russia (as well as China.)  Both Russian and Western media use chaos and terrorism within “the disputed territories” to their advantage.  However, if that tactic is becoming too obvious, neither have a problem recreating another Cold War stalemate that can be exploited by both sides.  Upon hearing about possible warfare, right-wing extremists will immediately start calling for greater military investment (just like during the Cold War, just like Nineteen Eighty-Four, just like Ancient Rome, etc.) just like they did when Putin and the West first tussled over Crimea:

Daily Signal Logo

Putin Obama

(Click for link)

People pathologically push for conditions where their natural/instinctive drives are selected for.  If someone is a natural born slave driver, they need a system that is oppressive (it doesn’t matter which one as long as there is a demand for slave drivers.)  If somebody is pathologically wired to constantly call for investment in warfare, they will do so regardless of common sense or lessons from history.


(However, there are also those who genuinely do want a more fair and harmonious world and try to push for such conditions since it’s a complete waste of time/energy/resources maintaining gross inequality purely for the sake of those who are good at maintaining it.)

In Chomsky’s defence, I feel RT sensationalized what he was saying:

Chomsky:

“…it’s come ominously close several times in the past…”

Headline:

‘World ominously close to nuclear war – Noam Chomsky to RT’