» CDC Admits New Flu Shot Protects Less Than 1 in 4 Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!

» CDC Admits New Flu Shot Protects Less Than 1 in 4 Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

CDC ADMITS NEW FLU SHOT PROTECTS LESS THAN 1 IN 4

Despite ineffectiveness, media still urges public to take vaccine
CDC Admits New Flu Shot Protects Less Than 1 in 4

Image Credits: Wiki Commons

by ADAN SALAZAR | INFOWARS.COM JANUARY 15, 2015


As flu season kicks into high gear, the US’ foremost health authority, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is coming clean about the current flu vaccine’s lack of efficacy.

A recent study released by the CDC regarding seasonal influenza vaccine effectiveness found the chemical cocktail concocted to battle this year’s strain to be only 23 percent effective; in other words it will protect less than 1 in 4 people.

“Its lack of punch is being blamed on multiple strains of the H3N2 virus that are circulating and making people sick, but that were not included in this season’s vaccine,” reports Agence France-Press.

“That’s one of the worst performances in the last decade…” according to the Associated Press. “In the best flu seasons, the vaccines were 50 to 60 percent effective.”

AFP has a breakdown of how the vaccine performed in different age groups, noting that it mostly “helped” younger, healthier people:

This season, vaccine effectiveness has been highest — 26 percent — in those aged six months through 17 years.

Vaccine effectiveness was just 12 percent for ages 18 to 49 years and 14 percent for people age 50 years and older, the CDC said.

Last month, the CDC also issued an advisory to physicians warning that this season’s flu vaccine was an incompatible match for the circulating Influenza A (H3N2) strain, meaning the agency knew shots which 145.4 million people received were doing little to nothing in the way of fighting the flu.

However, despite the lousy odds of it actually doing anything to combat the flu, the CDC and its mainstream media propaganda parrots have still gone on to promote vaccination, ludicrously blaming flu outbreaks on people who refuse to inject themselves with vaccines known to contain toxic adjuvants such as thimerosal, a mercury-containing compound.

RELATED: CDC Sends Fact Sheet Linking Polio Vaccine to Cancer Down the Memory Hole

Instead, the public gets watered down headlines that try to put a positive spin on the 23 percent figure, like this one from NPR: “This Year’s Flu Vaccine Is Pretty Wimpy, But Can Still Help,” and this one from the Washington Post: “CDC: Flu Vaccine Only 23 Percent Effective This Season, But Still Better Than Nothing.”

Notice the articles contain no mention of the scores of victims that incur life-altering, and sometimes lethal, adverse reactions as a result of taking the shot, such as three-year-old Ayzlee McCarthy, an Iowa tot that died soon after receiving an injection.

Or the numerous lives lost during the clinical trial phases of vaccine development, like the 23 who died after receiving high doses of the Fluzone vaccine, up from only 7 deaths earlier this year.

“No matter what vaccination choices you make for yourself or your family, there is a basic human right to be fully informed about all risks and have the ability to refuse to allow substances you consider to be harmful, toxic or poisonous to be forced upon you,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola. “Unfortunately, the partnership between government health agencies and vaccine manufacturers is getting closer and closer. There is a lot of discrimination against Americans, who want to be free to exercise their human right to informed consent when it comes to making voluntary decisions about which vaccines they and their children use.”

For a list of vaccine inserts and information click here.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5WWtqR9v4s]

Law Library of Congress Study: Police Weapons in Selected Jurisdictions

 

The following study on police armaments and militarization in several international jurisdictions was authored by researchers at the Law Library of Congress and released in September 2014.

LOC-PoliceWeapons

Police Weapons in Selected Jurisdictions
  • 105 pages
  • September 2014

Download

This report examines the weapons and equipment generally at the disposal of law enforcement officers in several countries around the world. It also provides, for each of these countries, a brief overview of the rules governing the use of weapons by law enforcement officers. Precise and reliable information on the weapons and equipment of some countries’ police forces was often difficult to find. Nevertheless, certain interesting facts and patterns emerged from the Law Library’s research.

II. Centralized and Decentralized Police Forces

Some countries examined in this report have a very unified and centralized police force. In the Netherlands, for example, a recent reform combined the former twenty-five regional forces into a single national police agency. South African and Israeli police forces are also organized at the national level. Many other countries, however, have several layers of police, with separate organizations at the national and local levels. Mexico, Argentina, Canada, and Australia, for example, have national-level police organizations as well as separate police bodies at the provincial, state, or territorial level. Estonia, Italy, and France have a national police, but some municipalities in these countries also have their own police forces.

In countries that have multilayered law enforcement, there can sometimes be significant differences between the national and the lower-level forces’ equipment. In France, for example, municipal police officers have access to a much more restricted array of weapons than members of the national force. This seems to be the exception rather than the rule, however. In most jurisdictions examined here, it appears that regional forces have access to roughly the same types of weapons and equipment as their national counterparts.

III. Police Weapons

The basic individual police weapon in almost all the countries examined is the handgun. The United Kingdom, China, and New Zealand stand out as exceptions, as their police officers do not routinely carry firearms. Even in those countries, however, police officers have access to firearms to be used when necessary.

In addition to handguns, police officers often carry nonlethal devices such as batons, pepper spray or tear gas, and Tasers. Almost all of the police departments examined here appear to have access to rifles and/or shotguns, even if these are generally not carried by officers in their day-to-day functions. Many, including the Russian, Dutch, Canadian, and Estonian police, also have access to automatic weapons such as submachine guns.

Most countries equip at least one major law enforcement organization with armored vehicles and other types of military equipment. In contrast to the United States, where military involvement in civilian affairs is limited by statute, some countries have a major law enforcement body that is actually part of the military. France’s Gendarmerie nationale, for example, is a national-level law enforcement body that is part of the French military. The Netherlands has a similar corps called the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee, Spain has its Civil Guard, and Portugal has its National Republican Guard. It appears that these corps generally have access to heavier weaponry and more military-grade equipment than these countries’ civilian law enforcement agencies. French gendarmes, for example, may sometimes carry the French army’s standard assault rifle, and they have a number of wheeled armored personnel carriers at their disposal. The Royal Netherlands Marechaussee has a fleet of Lenco BEAR and BearCat armored vehicles. Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs Internal Troops are trained and equipped in much the same way as regular military forces.

Military police corps are not the only ones to have such heavy weapons and equipment, however. South African police forces have a number of armored vehicles, as do Australian state and territorial police forces, and some local Canadian police forces. Surveillance drones are used for law enforcement purposes in Portugal and the Netherlands. Mexican law restricts the use of certain equipment to the military, but Mexico’s Department of Defense may authorize law enforcement agencies to use such weapons. New Zealand’s police force does not appear to have its own fleet of armored vehicles, but it has an agreement with New Zealand’s armed forces by which it has access to the Army’s Light Armored Vehicles when necessary.

IV. Rules on the Use of Police Weapons

While certain basic principles appear to be universal among the countries studied in this report, there are notable differences in their rules on the use of police weapons, and especially on the use of firearms. One clear commonality is that police officers are almost always required to give warning before using a firearm, except if there is no time or if giving such a warning would cause more serious and dangerous consequences. Guidelines issued in Brazil in 2010 appear to go further in that they require police officers to use at least two nonlethal weapons before using a firearm, but there does not seem to be such a requirement in other countries.

In addition to this point, all of the countries in this report ostensibly follow the basic principles that the use of force must be necessary and proportional to the threat being countered. The Council of Europe has established a nonbinding Code on Police Ethics, which recommends that police only be authorized to use force when strictly necessary, and that such force be proportionate to the objectives pursued. Case law from the European Court of Human Rights also establishes the principle that police may only use deadly force when absolutely necessary. Non-European countries appear to follow the same basic principles as well. The appreciation of what is “necessary” and what kind of threats warrant the use of potential deadly force varies considerably, however.

In some countries, such as Brazil, France, and Spain, police officers may use their firearms only in self-defense or defense of others, and only if it is proportional to the threat.1 Some other jurisdictions give their police forces somewhat more leeway for the use of firearms. South Africa authorizes the use of deadly force not only when a suspect poses a threat of serious violence to the police officer or another person, but also when there is reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime in which he inflicted serious bodily harm or threatened to do so, and no other options are available for making an arrest. Similarly, Australia allows the use of deadly force in cases of self-defense and defense of others, or to stop someone who has been called on to surrender and who refuses, if that person cannot be apprehended in any other manner.
Russian law gives an exhaustive list of circumstances in which the use of firearms by law enforcement officers is authorized. This list includes self-defense and the protection of others, the apprehension of fleeing criminals, and the suppression of riots. Chinese law also provides a list of fifteen types of circumstances where police may use firearms, including preventing acts of violence, robbery of dangerous goods, sabotage of certain facilities, or resisting arrest for certain crimes.

In many countries, including Brazil, Portugal, France, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands, any incident in which a police officer shoots someone automatically triggers an investigation or the requirement that a detailed report be made.

V. Controversies

Issues revolving around police weapons and equipment have been the root of debates in most of the countries examined here. Controversies range from disagreements over the use of drones by law enforcement in Netherlands, to the question of whether New Zealand police officers should routinely carry pistols. In addition, many countries have seen incidents where law enforcement officers were involved in controversial shootings of unarmed individuals.

firearms-police-global-1 firearms-police-global-2

Law Library of Congress Study: Police Weapons in Selected Jurisdictions
Public Intelligence
Sun, 11 Jan 2015 22:19:53 GMT

CIA Flashback: “We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.”

 

Melissa Melton
Activist Post
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
That creepy quote above has been widely attributed to Former CIA Director William Casey.
Casey was the 13th CIA Director from 1981 until he left in January 1987. He died not long after of a brain tumor in May 1987. Dead men tell no tales, as they say.
But did William Casey really say this quote?
The quote itself has been passed around extensively on the Internet, and some people claim Casey never really said it because the only main source it traces back to is late political researcher and radio show host Mae Brussell.
Brussell was the host of the radio show Dialogue: Conspiracy. She got her start when, as a radio show guest, she questioned the official JFK assassination story and the Warren Commission Hearings by suggesting that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t the only person involved in Kennedy’s murder. Perhaps the propagandized label of “conspiracy theorist” is the reason why people question the quote Brussell often repeated.

However, Brussell is not the only person that can be attributed to this sharing quote.
Someone posted this meme on Quora back in 2013 with the note, “A disclaimer: I just like Quorans debunking or showing the stupidity behind some of the worst FB memes.”

ciaquotememe

This is a new trend lately, people trying to debunk old (and most especially, establishment damaging) quotes.
This time, however, someone who claims to have been there when Casey said it showed up to validate the quote:

I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration. The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines. As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.

Barbara Honegger

Not only does Honegger claim he said it, but apparently he said it in response to what he saw as his goal as CIA Director!
This statement was further backed by an email posted by Quora user Greg Smith from Honegger regarding the quote which is consistent and apparently prompted her to tell the story above:

Seriously — I personally was the Source for that William Casey quote.  He said it at an early Feb. 1981 meeting in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House which I attended, and I immediately told my close friend and political godmother Senior White House Correspondent Sarah McClendon, who then went public with it without naming the source…

So there you go. Guess it boils down to he said she said, except when she says it, it’s because she was actually there…
The year 1981 was an interesting one for Director Casey. He just so happened to be under investigation and fighting to keep his new job over various seedy dealings that came to light; among them were claims he approved a plan to overthrow Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi to install a shadow government. (Oh I know, our government would never do that, would they?)
The agency’s plan, according to an article in the July 27, 1981 Gettysburg Times, involved toppling Qaddafi via what else?
Disinfo:

CIAplot-The_Gettysburg_Times_Mon__Jul_27__1981

Newsweek Magazine reported the covert operation was designed to overthrow Khadafy through a ‘disinformation’ campaign to embarrass him, creation of a counter government to challenge his leadership and a paramilitary campaign.

(Wow. A lot of that sounds eerily familiar… 2011, anyone?)

That same year, investigative journalist Jack Anderson published this piece in the September 22, 1981 Santa Cruz Sentinel discussing the troubling CIA disinformation campaign being waged against Americans:

misleadingtactics-SantaCruzSentinel22Sept1981

Anderson points out the CIA’s “triple assault on the public’s right to know” included 1) trying to shut off channels of information to the electorate, 2) seeking criminal penalties against reporters whose stories might identify CIA operatives, and the third which Anderson called most troubling, 3) spreading “disinformation” to news agencies.
And who else does Anderson specifically call out in this disinfo campaign but new CIA Director William Casey:

Now along comes Bill Casey, the doddering CIA director, with the argument that the government has the right to mislead the public by planting phony stories in the press.

Oh really? So the good director not only talked about his disinformation campaign but actually argued for the government’s right to wage it against the American people?
The plan involved getting around the ban on CIA operations on domestic soil by planting disinfo stories in foreign news outlets that were routinely picked up by American mainstream media agencies. Anderson also points out the various rumors and false stories going around surrounding the goings on in Libya at the time…
The bottom line here is, if anyone in our government was going to make the above disinformation statement and specifically in 1981, all available evidence points to no better person who would have likely said it than Casey.
Finally on an aside, there seems to be this mission lately to memory hole quotes or muddy the water about who said what and change history.
In this particular instance, someone who was there when William Casey said the line in question and claims to have literally heard the words come out of the man’s mouth with her own ears as he said it is vouching that this quote is true.
Then again, this is the same agency on record behind the government’s MKUltra mind control program, an illegal project in which the CIA experimented on Americans for over two decades (that we know about) to manipulate mental states and brain function with everything from drugs to microwaves — the kind of stuff DARPA is openly working on today — all of which makes the piddly quote in question here seem like mere child’s play by comparison.
Even so, people still went into the Quora thread afterwards to claim — with absolutely no evidence whatsoever as they were not personally there — the quote is false.
So, in a bitter twist of the saddest irony possible, it would seem the contents of the quote itself are also true.
Melissa Melton is a co-founder of TruthstreamMedia.com, where this first appeared. She is an experienced researcher, graphic artist and investigative journalist with a passion for liberty and a dedication to truth. Her aim is to expose the New World Order for what it is — a prison for the human soul from which we must break free.

CIA Flashback: “We’ll Know Our Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False.”
Activist
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:19:00 GMT

15 Signs The Charlie Hebdo Attack Was A False Flag

 

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post
In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo massacre and as more and more information comes to light surrounding the details of the attacks as well as the connections between the perpetrators, groups, and NATO-based intelligence agencies, the suggestion that the attacks were, in reality, of the false flag nature, is being proven more and more valid by the hour.
As is to be expected, the xenophobic pro-war right is using the attack as an example of how all Muslims are terrorists and how their total annihilation and implementation of police state tactics are the only solution. On the one hand, the pathetic left-wing attempts to blame the victim for incitement and focuses on the need to become more politically correct, self-censoring, and linguistically minimal. The vast majority in the middle, however, believe the official mainstream version of events, quake in their boots, and move on to the next form of entertainment provided to them by the culture creators without a second thought.
Yet, as is almost always the case, there is much more to the story than is being reported by mainstream outlets. There exist a number of questionable details regarding the Charlie Hebdo attack, as well as the relatively open control over terrorist groups and Islamic jihadists by the French intelligence apparatus, the US, and NATO.
While random acts of violence certainly do occur – some motivated by religious extremism and some not – it is important to examine all of the facts surrounding these acts before coming to a judgment regarding the nature of them. We cannot simply engage in knee-jerk reactions labeling every act of violence as a “false flag” yet we cannot ignore the history of such acts and the prevalence of false flags in recent times.
However, as the evidence surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the concurrent Kosher grocery store attacks comes to light, we are presented with the distinct possibility that these acts are not of the “lone wolf” variety but that they were indeed carefully coordinated false flag incidents.
Below are a number of reasons that the Charlie Hebdo and Kosher grocery store attacks are most likely false flag attacks, thus putting the responsibility and guilt for their deployment on the backs of French intelligence and their counterparts in the UK, US, and NATO structure.

1.) The suspects had traveled to Syria in order to fight against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.
Both Cherif and Said Kouachi were veterans of the NATO/Western-backed invasion of terrorist proxies fighting against the Assad government. Not only was Cherif arrested in 2005 and sentenced to 3 years in prison for attempting to join jihadists fighting in Iraq, but he and his brother eventually made their way to fight in Syria alongside the same terrorist networks being armed, funded, trained, and directed by the United States, UK, France, and NATO. The Kouachi connection to terrorist networks and jihadist forces fighting inside Syria thus put the likelihood of they and their acts being entirely controlled by the United States, UK, France, and the rest of NATO at much higher odds due to the fact that these terrorist networks are entirely controlled by Western intelligence agencies.[1]
2.) France itself is responsible for arming, training, and directing the very terrorist organizations fighting against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.
If the attackers were indeed members of one of the myriad terrorist groups documented to be under the direction and control of Western powers, France itself is to be implicated in the cause and execution of the attacks. As Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer Report writes in his own article, “France Armed Terrorists That Struck Paris,”

France, as part of a NATO-led coalition, has been arming, funding, aiding, and otherwise perpetuating Al Qaeda terrorists for years, beginning, on record in Libya with the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and continuing until today with NATO’s arming, harboring, and backing of Al Qaeda terrorists including the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) within and along Syria’s borders.
With the recent attack in Paris likely the work of the very terrorists France has been arming and backing across North Africa and the Middle East, the French government itself stands responsible, guilty of the continued material support of a terrorist organization that has now killed French citizens, including two police officers, not only on French soil, but within the French capital itself.

In his article “Timeline: Where’d Paris Shooters Get Their Weapons?” Cartalucci also provides a timeline of assistance, aid, and arms provided to Islamic terrorists since 2011. He writes,

2011 – France supplying weapons to Libyan rebels, London Telegraph:
A French military spokesman, Colonel Thierry Burkhard, said it had provided “light arms such as assault rifles” for civilian communities to “protect themselves against Col Gaddafi”.
But the decision to arm the rebels is a further move towards direct involvement in the land war on top of the air war against Col Muammar Gaddafi. The Nafusa rebels have come closest to breaking through to Tripoli itself of any of the front lines of the conflict, while three months of Nato bombing have failed to dislodge Col Gaddafi from power.
Le Figaro, the French newspaper which first reported the air drops, said the shipment included rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, along with Milan anti-tank missiles.
2011 – Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links, London Telegraph:
Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.
2012 – France to push for arming Syria’s opposition coalition, the BBC:
France’s foreign minister has said he will discuss supplying arms to the Syrian opposition coalition with European partners.
The government plans to push for a relaxation of the EU arms embargo to Syria to enable “defensive arms” to reach opposition fighters.
2013 – Syria crisis: France and Britain move a step closer to arming rebels, the London Guardian:
France and Britain have moved a step closer to arming the opposition to the Assad regime in a radical move aimed at tipping the balance in the two-year civil war while also ignoring European policy on Syria.
The French president, François Hollande, went into an EU summit in Brussels with a dramatic appeal for Europe to join Paris and London in lifting a European arms embargo, but the sudden policy shift was certain to run into stiff German opposition.
2013 – Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda, USA Today:
A Syrian rebel group’s April pledge of allegiance to al-Qaeda’s replacement for Osama bin Laden suggests that the terrorist group’s influence is not waning and that it may take a greater role in the Western-backed fight to topple Syrian President Bashar Assad.
The pledge of allegiance by Syrian Jabhat al Nusra Front chief Abou Mohamad al-Joulani to al-Qaeda leader Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri was coupled with an announcement by the al-Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, that it would work with al Nusra as well.
2014 – France delivered arms to Syrian rebels, Hollande confirms, France 24:
President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that France had delivered weapons to rebels battling the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad “a few months ago.”

3.) Both the suspects had been on the radar screen of French intelligence for a number of years. Their terrorist ties did not come as a surprise.
Cherif Kouachi, one of the brothers allegedly responsible for the Hebdo massacre, was arrested in 2005, charged, and convicted of “association with wrongdoers with the intention of committing a terrorist act” although his sentence was suspended. Slate magazine writes that

Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young “self-taught preacher” who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and “had begun having second thoughts,” going so far as to express “relief” that he’d been apprehended.

In 2010, Kouachi was again arrested and charged in an attempt to break Algerian Islamist and Paris commuter rail bomber Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, from jail. The plot failed but Kouachi was caught. The charges were eventually dropped.
According to CNN, Cherif had a “long history of jihad and anti-Semitism.” His terrorist aspirations were also well-known for some time prior to the Hebdo attacks.
CNN reports that,

In a 400-page court record from 2007, Kouachi was described as wanting to travel to Iraq “to go and combat the Americans.”
Kouachi stated in a deposition, “I was ready to go and die in battle,” and “I got this idea when I saw the injustices shown by television on what was going on over there. I am speaking about the torture that the Americans have inflicted on the Iraqis.”
Said Kouachi, left, and Cherif Kouachi are suspects in the Paris attack.
Kouachi was raised in orphanages and foster homes from a young age, and became involved in a group in Paris’ 19th arrondissement, or district, the court papers said.
Prosecutors outlined strong details of Kouachi’s interest in jihad, martyrdom and links to anti-Semitism, according to documents CNN obtained in conjunction with French newsmagazine L’Express.

The group to which Cherif was affiliated, known as the 19th Arrondissement Network (named for the neighborhood it was based out of), was involved in recruiting French Muslims to fight for al-Qaeda in Iraq. As is typical in Western-backed terrorist operations, the group preyed on poor, disenchanted, struggling, and working-class young men.
After procuring the necessary manpower, the group would then organize for weapons training and provide the necessary travel arrangements.
Although convicted in 2008, police had arrested Cherif in 2005, just days before he planned to travel to Syria.
Cherif fits the profile of a target for terrorist recruits. He was Muslim, had left school, and was working a dead-end job as a pizza delivery man. He was decidedly lower working class.
The narrative that was subsequently constructed was that a gullible young man then fell under the spell of charismatic “street preacher” known as Farid Benyettou, who trolled the East Side of Paris. It is implied that Beneyettou, who was also convicted on terrorism charges, played a role in setting up Cherif with the terrorist organization he eventually joined and his subsequent travels to Syria to slaughter innocent people ultimately for the benefit of the geopolitical goals of NATO, France, and the United States.
It should be noted that, during the course of the trial, Beneyettou was responsible for recruitment only. Out of the entire membership of his network, he was the only one not slated to travel to Iraq.
Also noteworthy is the fact that, in 2005, it was revealed that some members of the 19th Arrondissement Network had affiliations with the ad-Da’wa mosque,[2] one of the largest mosques in Paris.
CNN suggests that much of the training received by Kouachi from Benyettou involved the study of how to use Kalashnikovs. The news agency reports,

Kouachi stated that “the wise leaders in Islam told him and his friends that if they die as martyrs in jihad they would go to heaven” and “that martyrs would be greeted by more than 60 virgins in a big palace in heaven,” said documents in a section entitled “Motivations of Influence.”
The documents also said, “(F)or him any place on earth where there is such an injustice is justification for jihad; what was going on Iraq was in his eyes such an injustice.”

This information, of course, was a matter of law enforcement and court records.
Kouachi’s behavior, much like that of Mohammed Atta, did not match up with the notion of a Muslim fundamentalist.[3] CNN writes,

Court records show Kouachi said he didn’t consider himself a good enough Muslim, and said he had only been to the mosque two or three times before he met Benyettou, and he had been smoking cannabis.
Kouachi told investigators he committed himself to the idea of jihad during Ramadan in 2004. He told his friends he was going to Syria to fight.
The documents say when police interviewed his accomplices, they stated that Kouachi “said he was ready to firebomb and to destroy Jewish shops in Paris.”
When officials confronted Kouachi with that information, he told them “that’s not exactly what I said. … I don’t hide having proposed anti-Semitic ideas, but I would note that I never really would have done that.”
Kouachi’s lawyer, Vincent Ollivier, painted a different picture of his client in the 2005 incident.
The attorney said at the time that his client’s profile was more “pot smoker from the projects than an Islamist.”
“He smokes, drinks, doesn’t sport a beard and has a girlfriend before marriage,” Ollivier told the French newspaper Libération the month after his client’s arrest.
A report from the TV network France 3, which apparently first aired in 2005, described Kouachi as a young fan of rap more interested in chasing girls than going to the mosque.

According to the report, all of Kouachi’s interests changed when he met Benyettou.
Much less is known about Said Kouachi, especially in terms of his connections to terrorism, terrorist cells, and other terrorist cases. Said’s name has repeatedly appeared on the outskirts of terrorism trials in France but never as the focal point of the investigation.
In regards to Said, CNN writes,

A French official told CNN that Said Kouachi received training in Yemen. The official did not give details about when the trip occurred or how long it lasted.
A U.S. official says the United States was given information from the French intelligence agency that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen as late as 2011 on behalf of the al Qaeda affiliate there.
His time in Yemen is corroborated by a Yemeni journalist, who says that he saw Said there — and that Said claimed to have briefly been a roommate of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the convicted would-be “underwear” bomber who tried but failed to detonate a device aboard a U.S. airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.
Yemeni journalist and researcher Mohammed al-Kibsi told CNN that he saw Said Kouachi twice in the old city of Sanaa, Yemen, in 2011 and 2012. Al-Kibsi said was researching AbdulMutallab’s background in mid-January 2011 when he came across Kouachi unintentionally. He said Kouachi was friendly and used to walk around the old city, hence how he met al-Kibsi.
Kouachi said that he and AbdulMutallab used to pray together at Yemen’s al-Tabari School, and that they shared an apartment for one to two weeks in Yemen. Kouachi was studying Arabic grammar at the Sanaa Arabic Grammar Institute, al-Kibisi said.
Al-Kibsi said he saw Kouachi again in 2012, in the old city of Sanaa at another Arabic language center.
CNN does not have official confirmation that Said Kouachi knew AbdulMutallab, a Nigerian national who, authorities said at his U.S. trial, told the FBI that he that he had links to Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Last month, AQAP released a video apparently showing AbdulMutallab with the group’s leader, Nasir al-Wuhayshi.
The U.S. official who said Said Kouachi had traveled to Yemen said the man had received a variety of weapons training from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) — the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.
It is also possible Said Kouachi was trained in bombmaking, a common jihadist training in Yemen.

In addition to Said’s travel to Yemen, it is also known that at least one of the brothers had recently traveled to Syria for the purpose of acting as NATO’s proxy army in the fight against the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.
Indeed, USA TODAY has reported that both brothers had returned from Syria this summer while CNN, somewhat more vague, cites a French intelligence source as putting at least one of the brothers in Syria earlier in the year.
With all of this information available to both the American and French government and intelligence apparatus, it is thus clear that Cherif and Said’s terrorist tendencies and subsequent risks of committing a terrorist attack inside France were well known.
Thus, we are expected to believe that one of the suspects was arrested on terrorism charges twice, both suspects repeatedly expressed interest in and desire for jihad, one traveled to Yemen for training, rooming with a known terrorist who committed one of the most publicized terrorist attacks in recent years and meeting with one of the most notorious terrorist leaders of recent years (Anwar al-Awlaki), and at least one had traveled to Syria to fight with ISIS terrorists – all the while being monitored by French and US intelligence – yet the Charlie Hebdo attacks were somehow unforeseen.
Indeed, if Kouachi could have been arrested for “association with wrongdoers with the intention of committing a terrorist act” in 2005, then why could he not be arrested for the same in 2015? Why could he not have been arrested for doing the same abroad in Syria? Why were they not arrested immediately upon returning to France – from either Syria or Yemen – for receiving training from a terrorist organization, committing terrorist acts, or even known association with these organizations?
As Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer writes in his article “Paris Shooting Suspects Under French Radar for YEARS,” “It is a narrative that begs to be believed – considering the brothers had already tangled with the law, already traveled to Yemen to receive training from Al Qaeda, and with evidence suggesting they were indeed still being tracked since it is now known they have recently returned from Syria.”
Cartalucci further explains in his article how French intelligence, as well as their American counterparts, were well aware of the Charlie Hebdo attackers. He writes,

To explain how terrorists well-known to France’s legal system and intelligence community could simply “disappear,” the Wall Street Journal in an article titled, “Overburdened French Dropped Surveillance of Brothers,” would attempt to claim:

The terror attacks in Paris that have killed 17 people over three days this week represent one of the worst fears—and failures—of counterterrorist officials: a successful plot coordinated by people who had once been under surveillance but who were later dropped as a top priority.
The U.S. provided France with intelligence showing that the gunmen in the Charlie Hebdo massacre received training in Yemen in 2011, prompting French authorities to begin monitoring the two brothers, according to U.S. officials. But that surveillance of Said and Chérif Kouachi came to an end last spring, U.S. officials said, after several years of monitoring turned up nothing suspicious.

[…]

France reportedly has over 1,000 citizens under surveillance who have recently traveled to Iraq and Syria, believed to have fought alongside terrorists France itself has been arming. In an NBC article titled, “French Intelligence Is Tracking 1,000 Who Have Been to Iraq, Syria: Expert,” it is reported that:

“French intelligence is mostly focused today on more than 1,000 French citizens that traveled to Syria and Iraq since 2012,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, the author of “Zarqawi: The New Face of Al-Qaeda.”
He added that one-fifth of them were being tracked around the clock. “This is a problem of resources,” he added. “We cannot follow everyone.”
Brisard said the brothers had been “well known to French intelligence [for] several years now.”

It is almost certain that the suspects were not only being tracked by French and US intelligence, but selected as prime candidates for pulling off the provocative attack in Paris last week – as part of a greater agenda of manipulating public perception to further crush civil liberties at home and expand hegemonic wars overseas. France is already occupying several of its former colonies in Africa, had participated in the destruction of Libya and its subsequent handover to Al Qaeda terrorist, who with NATO backing, used it as a springboard to attack Syria.
In fact, it is now confirmed that France had provided weapons to terrorists fighting the Syrian government since 2011. France 24 would report last year in an article titled, “France delivered arms to Syrian rebels, Hollande confirms,” that:
President Francois Hollande said on Thursday that France had delivered weapons to rebels battling the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad “a few months ago.”
It is likely that if the Paris shooters were indeed in Syria, they may likely have been holding French-supplied weapons as they honed their skills later to be used to spill French blood in Paris.

4.) Kouachi’s ties to Anwar Al-Awlaki
As mentioned above, an interview published in the UK Mirror entitled, “Paris Shootings: Listen To Terrorist Amedy Coulibaly’s Bizarre Conversation With Hostage During Supermarket Siege,” quoted Kouachi as telling journalists that “We are just telling you we are the defenders of the prophet and that I Chérif Kouachi have been sent by Al Qaida of Yemen and that I went over there and that Anwar Al Awaki financed me.”
Said Kouachi’s trip to Yemen has been largely documented by claims coming from both US and French intelligence agencies. Quoting US intelligence agency sources, CNN reports that the “The United States is now working on the assumption that Charlie Hebdo attacker Said Kouachi met American terrorist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki at some point in Yemen and received orders from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) to carry out an attack, a U.S. official tells CNN.”
Anwar al-Awlaki is known to have links to a number of high-profile terrorists including Nidal Malik Hasan of the Ft. Hood Shootings, Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab aka the “underwear bomber,” Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al Midhar and Hani Hanjour of the 9/11 attacks and a number of others.
Awlaki’s connections to such a high number of high profile terrorist attacks as well as his connections to US intelligence was what led Webster Tarpley to label him as “an obvious US double agent who has been used to give the Al Qaeda seal of approval to dozens of terrorists.”
It is also important to note that, in the months after 9/11, Awlaki had dined at the Pentagon. As CBS News reported in its article, “Qaeda-Linked Imam Dined at Pentagon after 9/11,”

Anwar al-Awlaki – the radical spiritual leader linked to several 9/11 attackers, the Fort Hood shooting, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner – was a guest at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, a Pentagon official confirmed to CBS News.
Awlaki was invited as “…part of an informal outreach program” in which officials sought contact “…with leading members of the Muslim community,” the official said. At that time, Awlaki was widely viewed as a “moderate” imam at a mosque in Northern Virginia.
At the same time, the FBI was also interviewing Awlaki about his contacts with three of the 9/11 attackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al Midhar and Hani Hanjour – who were all part of the crew of five that hijacked the American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon.

5.) Kouachi lived with Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, in Yemen.
In its article, “Paris Attacker Said Kouachi Knew Convicted Nigerian Airline Bomber,” the Wall Street Journal reveals the fact that Said Kouachi once lived across the hall from famed Underwear Bomber Umar Faruk Abdulmutallab. The report states,

On Said Kouachi’s road to radicalization, one key stop was a four-story dormitory of an Arabic-language school in the Yemeni capital.
There he lived across the hall from a man with whom he studied and visited the mosque in the Old City of San’a: a Nigerian handpicked by an al Qaeda cleric to try to bring down a U.S.-bound airliner later that same year with a bomb in his underwear.
Former neighbors and Yemeni officials said the older of the two Kouachi brothers—both killed by French police on Friday after a three-day terror rampage across Paris—spent close to two years in Yemen, the base of al Qaeda’s most dangerous offshoot. His younger brother Chérif also spent time in Yemen in 2011, according to U.S. and French officials.
Said, a French citizen of Algerian descent, befriended Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Yemen before the Nigerian left the country in December 2009 with a sophisticated bomb given to him by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.
He tried to detonate the explosives hidden in his underwear on a Detroit-bound aircraft on Christmas Day the same year. But the attack failed when the explosives malfunctioned, and he was convicted in the U.S. in 2012 on terrorism offenses
The Nigerian was one of a handful of foreign-born jihadists who met extensively with Anwar al-Awlaki, the charismatic, U.S.-born preacher and recruiter for AQAP who groomed men for terror acts abroad. Mr. Awlaki was killed in a U.S. drone strike in September 2011.
Mr. Abdulmuttalab’s meetings with Mr. Awlaki took place during 2009, the same year when he and Said were studying at the San’a Institute for the Arabic Language. The school was frequented in part by foreign-born Muslims who were trying to improve their language skills and knowledge of the Quran while living in what they considered a more religiously pure society than their homelands.
Said’s education in jihad also appears to have corresponded to Mr. Abdulmutallab’s. There is no evidence that the older of the two brothers ever met with Mr. Awlaki, as Mr. Abdulmutallab did. But it is clear that the lives of Said Kouachi and Mr. Abdulmutallab overlapped in other respects during their time in Yemen, according to former neighbors and Yemeni officials.

CNN provides a parallel description of Said and Adbulmutallab’s relationship in a way that indicates they were more acquainted that having merely lived across the hall from one another. The article states,

A U.S. official says the United States was given information from the French intelligence agency that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen as late as 2011 on behalf of the al Qaeda affiliate there.
His time in Yemen is corroborated by a Yemeni journalist, who says that he saw Said there — and that Said claimed to have briefly been a roommate of Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab, the convicted would-be “underwear” bomber who tried but failed to detonate a device aboard a U.S. airliner over Detroit on Christmas Day in 2009.
Yemeni journalist and researcher Mohammed al-Kibsi told CNN that he saw Said Kouachi twice in the old city of Sanaa, Yemen, in 2011 and 2012. Al-Kibsi said was researching AbdulMutallab’s background in mid-January 2011 when he came across Kouachi unintentionally. He said Kouachi was friendly and used to walk around the old city, hence how he met al-Kibsi.
Kouachi said that he and AbdulMutallab used to pray together at Yemen’s al-Tabari School, and that they shared an apartment for one to two weeks in Yemen. Kouachi was studying Arabic grammar at the Sanaa Arabic Grammar Institute, al-Kibisi said.
Al-Kibsi said he saw Kouachi again in 2012, in the old city of Sanaa at another Arabic language center.
CNN does not have official confirmation that Said Kouachi knew AbdulMutallab, a Nigerian national who, authorities said at his U.S. trial, told the FBI that he that he had links to Yemen-based al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Last month, AQAP released a video apparently showing AbdulMutallab with the group’s leader, Nasir al-Wuhayshi.

The connections to Addulmutallab are important due to the fact that the Underwear Bomber’s attempt to detonate a bomb aboard an airliner was itself a false flag event aided by the US State Department and Western intelligence agencies. The links to this terrorist and to the individual who masterminded this attack (along with a number of other false flag events) thus provide more evidence that the Charlie Hebdo attacks themselves were of the false flag variety.
6.) The Charlie Hebdo attackers were apparently part of an organized network.
According to a detailed article by Henry Samuel and Patrick Sawer for the Telegraph entitled, “Charlie Hebdo attack: the Kouachi brothers and the network of French Islamists with links to Islamic State,” the Kouachi’s had ties to a number of other known terrorists, themselves belonging to organizations funded and directed by Western intelligence.
For instance, it was noted by Samuel and Sawer that, during his 2005 prison stay, Cherif Kouachi came to meet Djamel Beghal (aka Abou Hamza), a terrorist serving a 10-year sentence for a plot to blow up the US embassy in 2001. Hamza also maintained links to the Finsbury Park Mosque in London – a notorious intelligence operation used to create, recruit, and maintain Islamic terrorism.
Beghal was serving a 10-year sentence for plotting to blow up the US embassy in Paris in 2001. It transpires he also had links to London’s Finsbury Park mosque, a once notorious breeding ground for Islamist radicals.
In addition, the report states that “French intelligence agents photographed Chérif playing football with Beghal in Murat, in the Cantal region of central France, where he was on house arrest, in 2010. Two other Islamists were present: Ahmed Laidouni and Farid Melouk.”
Samuel and Sawer also write,

Chérif would later meet an even more notorious figure: Salim Benghalem, a Frenchman of Algerian descent who is among America’s most wanted international terrorists.
Benghalem met and befriended Chérif’s friend, Bouchnak, while the pair shared a cell in 2008 in Fresnes prison following his conviction for attempted murder. After his release, Beghalem extended his influence to the other members of the Buttes-Chaumont network, according to intelligence sources cited by Le Monde.
In particular, he was part of a group of Islamists in a jail-break plot to free Smaïn Ait Ali Belkacem, sentenced in November 2002 to life imprisonment for his involvement in the bombing of the suburban RER train station at Musée d’Orsay in October 1995 in which 30 people were injured. The name of Chérif’s brother Saïd cropped up on the sidelines of the investigation but charges against both brothers were dropped due to lack of evidence.
[…]Another violently dangerous individual linked to Chérif is Boubaker al-Hakim, known as Abou Mouqatel. Hakim is a French Islamist of Tunisian origin, born in 1983, who grew up in the 19th arrondissement.
It was here that he is thought to have become a key figure in the Buttes-Chaumont jihadi network, where he met Kouachi..
Hakim is suspected of being deeply implicated in the recruitment and logistical organisation of French jihadists to fight in Iraq.
He first travelled to Iraq himself in 2002, returning up to four times and according to Jean-Pierre Filiu, an expert at Sciences-Po University in Paris, he recruited militants to fight in Fallujah, the Iraqi city that became an al-Qaeda stronghold in 2004.
In 2008 both Hakim and Chérif were arrested and convicted in Paris for their role in the network.
Hakim was sentenced to seven years for running a way station in Damascus for young French Muslims en route to fight US forces in Iraq.
Mr Filiu said: “Hakim, and no doubt Kouachi, rejoined al-Qaeda’s Iraqi networks after they were released from prison and accompanied them in their transformation into Daesh [the Arabic name for Isil].
“The combat experience they acquired was useful in the cold-blooded assassinations they have carried out since.”
Hakim’s 2008 arrest and imprisonment was thought to have broken up the Buttes-Chaumont network.
But in 2013 he appeared in Tunisia, where he murdered two of the country’s left-wing opposition politicians – Chokri Belaid and Mohamed Brahmi – on February 6 and July 25, 2013.
Hakim claimed responsibility for the murders in a video on behalf of isil released last month and filmed in IS territory somewhere in Iraq or Syria, declaring: “We will return and kill several of you. You won’t live in peace until Tunisia applies Islamic law.”
Mr Filiu said that Hakim “represents the link between the Kouachi brothers and [Isial]”, adding: “It is impossible that an operation on the scale of the one that led to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo was not sponsored by Daesh”.

CNN further reports the history of Amedy Coulibaly, the individual who simultaneously held up a Kosher Grocery Store and killed a police woman and three other people. The agency writes,

Before he was killed, Amedy Coulibaly purportedly told CNN affiliate BFMTV that he belonged to ISIS, or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, the terror group trying to create a fundamentalist religious state across Sunni area in those two countries.
CNN has not independently confirmed the authenticity of the French broadcaster’s recording with Coulibaly.
Coulibaly, 32, was a close associate of Cherif Kouachi, a Western intelligence source told CNN. Coulibaly went by the alias Doly Gringny, the source said.
Coulibaly and Cherif Kouachi were involved in the 2010 attempt to free an Algerian serving time for the 1995 subway bombing.
Coulibaly was arrested May 18, 2010, with 240 rounds of ammunition for a Kalishnikov, the source said.
He had a photo of himself with Djamel Beghal, a French Algerian once known as al Qaeda’s premiere European recruiter, who was convicted of conspiring to attack the U.S. Embassy in Paris.
Coulibaly was indicted May 22, 2010, in connection with the prison break plot.
Cherif Kouachi was under investigation for the same plot, but there was not enough evidence to indict him, the source said.
Cherif Kouachi visited Coulibaly during a pre-trial detention. The prison break plot was known as the BELKACEM Project, the source said.
Coulibaly shared a residence with Boumeddiene, and they traveled to Malaysia together, the source said.

Despite all of these known terrorist attempts and connections to other terrorists and terrorist organizations, it appears that none of the individuals who were arrested and convicted could secure a prison sentence longer than some drug offenses carry in the United States.
The common law wife of Coulibaly, Hayat Boumediene, while still suspected of having some connection to the Kosher grocery store attack, was apparently not involved in the actual attack itself – presumably only taking part in the planning at most. This is because, as Design and Trend reports,

According to Reuters Turkey’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mevlut Cavusoglu told the state-run Anadolu Agency that Hayat Boumediene flew into Turkey from Madrid on Jan. 2 and stayed at a hotel in Istanbul.

“There is footage (of her) at the airport. Later on, she stayed at a hotel with another person and crossed into Syria on Jan. 8. We can tell that based on telephone records.”

Once the attack on Charlie Hebdo occurred, she made her way into Syria through Turkey without a struggle.

ABC News reported that the Turkish media published two videos of Hayat Boumediene, Amedy Coulibaly’s widow going through security at a Turkish airport on Jan. 8, a day after the attack on the Paris-based publication.
With all of this information taken together, it is clear that what we have is a terrorist cell at work. Thus, these individuals and their connections to one another point in the opposite direction of the Charlie Hebdo attacks as one of the “lone wolf” variety. The only question left is who is ultimately in command of this cell. By following the tangled strands of connections back to the center of the web, however, one will not find the spirit of Osama bin Laden hiding in a cave in Afghanistan but the Anglo-American/Anglo-European/Western intelligence network that created Islamic extremist movements to begin with and continue to use them for their own goals today.
7.) The third suspect.
It is noteworthy to mention the fact that there was initially a third suspect that was allegedly to have been engaged in the Charlie Hebdo attacks – Mourad Hamyd. However, Hamyd soon after turned himself into police after seeing his name paraded on social media as being involved in the attacks. While Hamyd has been exonerated, the question remains – was there a third shooter? If not, why was a third individual considered an accomplice to the massacre?
After all, a number of eyewitnesses reported that there was indeed a third attacker who drove the getaway car.
8.) A second suspect
With all the evidence regarding the involvement of Hayat Boumediene in the grocery store attacks pointing to the fact that she was out of the country at the time the attacks were happening, why were there reports of an accomplice to Coulibaly? Was there a second individual present at the scene or nearby the scene? Is there still a “second suspect?” Or did the accomplice simply vanish into the memory hole now that the main patsy has been eliminated?
9.) Mysterious suicides
Much like the “mysterious suicides” that surround 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination, already one of the lead French police investigators of the Charlie Hebdo massacre has committed suicide. As Sputnik news reported, “Police commissioner Helric Fredou, who had been investigating the attack on the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, committed suicide in his office. The incident occurred in Limoges, the administrative capital of the Limousin region in west-central France, on Thursday night, local media France 3 reports.”
As John Vibes comments for the Anti Media,

The strange and high profile death has been all but absent from the mainstream media, especially locally in Europe, with just one local report from the publication “Le Parisien.”
All reports have insisted that there was no foul play, but the bizarre timing and location of the apparent suicide is leaving many to wonder if there was something more going on behind the scenes. The police department has been quick to say that he was depressed, and have speculated that a meeting with one of the terror victim’s family’s may have set him off.
However, family and friends, along with the police department, have all said that this was entirely unexpected.
“We are all shocked. Nobody was ready for such developments”, a representative of the local police union told reporters.

10.) Coulibaly once met Sarkozy.
While this meeting could be considered coincidental and tangential, it would be difficult to justify leaving out the fact that Coulibaly actually met former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in person. According to an article in Le’Parisien,

“[A]n unlikely encounter between Nicolas Sarkozy, the then French President and Amedy Coulibaly, the gunman suspected of killing a police woman and of taking five hostages at a kosher grocery in eastern Paris today.
The meeting took place in 2009 in the Élysée Palace when Mr Sarkozy met nine young French men who got just jobs in a local factory. They were all from Grigny, a tough Parisian suburb torn by riots 10 years ago.”
“Quoting the “terrorist”:
“Sarkozy is not truly popular with the youth in the estates. But that is nothing personal. In fact it is the case for most politicians,” said Coulibaly. “The encounter really impressed me. Whether I like him or not, he is the president after all.”

11.) One of the attackers “left his ID” for the police to find
While one of the alleged attackers, 18-year-old Hamyd Mourad, turned himself into police late Wednesday afternoon, it was reported that police were able to identify one of other attackers after he left his identification papers in the getaway car that the two assailants ditched.
While dropping one’s ID in the process of a getaway is certainly not outside the realm of possibility, such a convenience for law enforcement cannot help but remind informed observers of the survival of the alleged hijackers’ paper passports on 9/11.
12.) The terrorists have been liquidated.
One of the hallmarks of a false flag operation involve the immediate liquidation or otherwise incapacitation of the patsies at hand. This may take the form of a hail of gunfire, drugging, or the destruction of mental faculties by other means.
If the patsies are not alive to be interrogated (Charlie Hebdo attackers), if they have been rendered unable to speak (Tsarnaev), or they have been so discredited and/or exhibit such signs of great mental instability at the time of the interrogation (Sirhan Sirhan, James Holmes,) then embarrassing or revealing information will never be gained during the process of interrogation or trial. If that information does seep out, the suspect has been so thoroughly discredited as a mental patient that nothing he says will be taken seriously.
13.) The publication that was attacked has served to promote the strategy of tension in the past.
Whether Charlie Hebdo was merely a media outlet who reveled in irreverence of Islam or whether it is something more sinister, the magazine is no stranger to controversy. As CBS News writes,

Charlie Hebdo has been repeatedly threatened for its caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad and other sketches. Its offices were firebombed in 2011 after an issue featured a caricature of the prophet on its cover. Nearly a year later, the publication again published Muhammad caricatures, drawing denunciations from the Muslim world because Islam prohibits the publication of drawings of its founder.
Another cartoon, released in this week’s issue and entitled “Still No Attacks in France,” had a caricature of a jihadi fighter saying “Just wait – we have until the end of January to present our New Year’s wishes.” Charb was the artist.

To be sure, the magazine has offended other religions and belief systems as well. However, it is interesting to note that, while the magazine and its editors have been allowed to continue operation despite the violent reactions its statements and cartoons have produced across the world as well as in France itself, some religions are apparently considered more equal than others. For instance, in 2009, an 80-year-old columnist for Charlie Hebdo was actually put on trial on charges of “inciting racial hatred” for making a joke that then-President Sarkozy’s son was converting to Judaism for financial gain. Indeed, even the act of “denying the holocaust” is a punishable thought crime in France.
Despite the uber political correctness, however, France has allowed the magazine to continue lampooning Islam and Christianity, obviously acceptable targets of derision and abuse. Of course, religious organizations from both camps have responded with the traditional and typical response of fundamentalists the world over – by attempting to stop the freedom of speech and expression of those not necessarily convinced by the arguments of the converted via the government apparatus and any other available means at their disposal.
To be clear, however, while many Christians and Muslims likely detest the representation of their faith and religious symbols in such insulting ways, the overwhelming majority express their discontent in the same way – by griping to their friends and family, turning on the game, and moving on. Only a minority are actually moved to action, and an even smaller minority to violence, the latter generally encouraged by foundations, NGOs, or intelligence agency-affiliated religious organizations.
In regards to Christianity and Islam, France has largely sided with freedom of speech at this point. Still, Charlie Hebdo has served to act as a catalyst in a number of instances of incitement (though, to be clear, the magazine itself should not be blamed for the reaction of others) of the Muslim communities in France and abroad. Is it possible that the magazine actually serves the purpose of intentionally inciting these types of religious riots and acts of violence from fundamentalists brought into France by the French government and armed by them abroad? Is Charlie Hebdo really a free and independent magazine, or is it actually a tool of the Anglo-Americans in their attempt to maintain the strategy of tension domestically and abroad?
14.) France ordered aircraft carriers to the Gulf in order to “fight ISIS” nearly a full day before the attacks in France.
While certainly not conclusive evidence that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was an “inside job,” it is without a doubt very questionable. After all, it should be remembered that, when the French people and even some of its parliamentarians were hesitant to engage in military action in Iraq, ISIS released a video of an alleged beheading of a Frenchman, which provided justification for French involvement. This was the third video in a series that prompted justification for action from each of the “target” countries.
Undoubtedly, such brazen attacks inside France will drum up even more support for French military action in the Middle East. The fact that the military action was announced a full day before the attacks took place will be no matter to the few members of the general public who discover it.
As Agence France Presse reported on Tuesday January 6,

The deployment of the marine battle group is due to be announced by President Francois Hollande when he gives his annual new year’s speech to the armed forces onboard the Charles de Gaulle on January 14, according to the “Mer et Marine” news site.
The Elysee Palace confirmed to AFP that the carrier would travel to the Gulf on its way to India, where it is due to take part in exercises in mid-April.
“The Charles de Gaulle will be available to participate, if necessary, in all operational missions”, the Elysee spokesman said.
According to Mer et Marine, the Charles de Gaulle carrier will travel to the Gulf with its fleet of air and naval craft, including Rafale and Super Etendard fighter jets and an attack submarine, to take part in the US-led bombing campaign against IS forces in Iraq.

15.) Timing takes place after French government begins to show signs of opposing Russian sanctions and recognizing a Palestinian state.
Timing is everything. This phrase is particularly relevant in the field of propaganda. Because of this, many are now wondering whether or not the attacks were some false flag type event used as an attempt to reign in members of the French government who may be straying off the reservation.
For instance, in December of 2014, the lower house of the French parliament voted to recognize a Palestinian state. While the vote will not likely affect France’s foreign policy, it is a powerful symbol of a changing of the tide in terms of popular opinion regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.
Likewise, the recent statement by French President Francois Hollande that the sanctions on Russia must end, could be seen as a threat to Anglo-American solidarity. Thus, such attacks could serve as a justification for French military action in the Middle East, a reminder to some players in the French government not to show dissension in public.
There is also the potential domestic agenda to be considered. Given the fact that the attacks are being painted as a fundamentalist response to the mockery of Islam, it is likely that the agenda will revolve around the issue of free speech and the police state. With the meme of “I stand with Free Speech” making its rounds across the Internet in response to the narrative of the attack, it is more likely that the attack will be used to increase public support for military action overseas and acceptance of an even greater police state at home. The attacks and their subsequent coverage are likely to be used to engender further hatred and distrust of Islam, thereby injecting the circle of extremism and hate (Christian to Muslim to Christian to Muslim and on and on) with fresh fuel. Convincing Christians that all Muslims are extremists and convincing Muslims that all Christians are extremists will be a goal of radicalization made all that much easier with the Charlie Hebdo attacks fresh in the minds of the French people.
Of course, with the incessant political correctness running rampant across the entire West, it is also possible that the attacks may be used to silence criticism – not necessarily of Islam – but of the policy of unfettered immigration which has contributed to even greater economic troubles and the destruction of French culture.
Conclusion
Whatever the true nature of the Charlie Hebdo attacks may be – “blowback” or false flag – there is clearly much more to the story than what the mainstream press is printing and promoting.
However, as the evidence surrounding the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the concurrent Kosher grocery store attacks comes to light, we are presented with the distinct possibility that not only were these acts not of the “lone wolf” variety but that they were carefully coordinated false flag incidents.
Regardless, the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty is that the Charlie Hebdo attacks will be used as propaganda to the utmost effect by all Western and NATO governments in the push for further war abroad and an even greater police state at home. This will not only be the case in France but in the entirety of the Western world.
References:
[1] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.
[2] Bruinessen, Martin Van; Allievi, Stefano. Producing Islamic Knowledge:Transmission and Dissemination in Western Europe. Routlege. 2013.
[3] Tarpley, Webster Griffin. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made In USA. 5th Edition. Progressive Press. 2011.
Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 300 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.

15 Signs The Charlie Hebdo Attack Was A False Flag
Admin
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:58:00 GMT

» Islamic State has Breached Saudi Borders Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!

» Islamic State has Breached Saudi Borders Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

ISLAMIC STATE HAS BREACHED SAUDI BORDERS

Things are looking grim for the Saudi authorities
Islamic State has Breached Saudi Borders

by ALEXANDER ORLOV | NEW EASTERN OUTLOOK | JANUARY 14, 2015


While the whole world was witnessing the dreadful terrorist attacks in France and the consequent 3.7 million march against terrorism, the Middle East witnessed an event that is in its significance is no less important or serious, if it is to be compared to the slaughter of journalists from Charlie Hebdo in the heart of Paris, the journal that had previously published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.

As for the events in Paris one yet has to established what has really happened. The list of odd facts is quite impressive: why the professionally trained terrorists left their documents in a car; how did the police forces manage to find them so surprisingly fast; why there was no attempts made to take them alive, instead the terrorists with killed by security forces, even though they could have arrested them by using special flash grenades. And the list goes on, since an abettor of the terrorists fled France and somehow managed to travel to Syria through Spain and Turkey; while a French police commissioner, who led the investigation, for no apparent reason took his life (or was he killed?)

And while the world’s media focused on the events of Charlie Hebdo tragedy, it has simply ignored the terrorist attacks in the Middle East. Moreover, this very attacked has highlighted a major shift in the situation in the region, putting the primary strategic partner of the US in the Arab world – Saudi Arabia at risk. And here’s why.

Early on January 5 four ISIL militants crossed the border of Saudi Arabia in the Northern Province area near the town of Arar border, on the path of the hajj to Mecca from Iraq, Iran and the republics of the North Caucasus and Transcaucasia. Therefore this area is not some deserted spot on the map, in fact it’s a busy intersection of different roads of the kingdom. On the Iraqi side of the border this area is inhabited mainly by Shiites, therefore there’s a number of Saudi units provided with armed aircraft stationed there to defend the border, this very group was reinforced when the Islamic Caliphate was proclaimed at the territory of Iraq.

 During a shootout with the Saudi border patrol that broke out when the militants attacked a checkpoint, one of the terrorists was killed while the other detonated an explosive belt, killing three Saudi soldiers including Brig. Audah Al-Balawi, a commander in the Northern Border Region. The remaining two militants were then hunt down and killed. Soldier found automatic weapons, hand grenades, explosive belts and significant amounts of money on the dead bodies.The attack on the border checkpoint near the town of Arar means that now ISIL has officialy started assaulting Saudi Arabia not only by conducting terrorist attacks in the kingdom, as it had been the case until recently when ISIL militants shot Saudi Shiites dead at the front steps of mosques in the Eastern Province, but by direct military engagements from Iraqi territory, even despite the fact that those areas are theory controlled by the Iraqi government forces. It’s also a puzzling fact a Saudi General was among the dead soldiers, since it’s highly doubtful that one would participate in such an operation. Saudi authorities are clearly hiding something. It is understandable – after all, King Abdullah is at his last legs in hospital, and the question of the possible successor in the most important country of the regionf for the US interests in the Arab world is as pressing as it could be. So why are the world’s media, especially th Western ones, trying to downplay these events? As a matter of fact this attack means that the Islamic Caliphate has virtually breached the border of Saudi Arabia, even it was for a few hours. This is a worrying trend indeed, especially now when the kingdom plays against the global energy market by persistently reducing the price of oil in favor of Washington to deliver a blow to the economies of Russia, Iran and Venezuela. But it doesn’t seem that the local elites are contended with this fact while their revenues crumble.This attack in its significance is nowhere near random drop mortar shells landing on Saudi territory, in fact it’s a direct hostile move against Saudi Arabia launched by the Islamic State. Riyadh did take all the possible security measures to secure its border with Iraq, that runs for almost five hundred miles. In December 2014 Saudi Arabia created a 12 miles deep no-man’s-land zone and provided the border guards with technical monitoring means to keep it secure. For sure one could praise the successful elimination of the militants but how did they manage to cross the buffer zone and the border in the first place, not afraid to directly assault Saudi soldiers.In any case, things are looking grim for the Saudi authorities, given the fact that a total of 5 to 7 thousand Saudi citizens are fighting under the Islamic State banner. Moreover they do find a lot of sympathy among the Saudi population, especially among young people. According to some polls, 80% of the Saudi youth of Saudis is sympathetic with the Islamic State. This basically means that at any given moment they are ready to join the ranks of the Caliphate should a massive invasion against the KSA be launched. And it won’t take long especially if King Abdullah passes away and his descendants will be busy fighting for the throne.It’s no coincidence that a massive group of American “advisers” from the USA, namely the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon agents have been in Saudi Arabia for two weeks now, trying to devise a mechanism that would enable a peaceful transfer of power. Hence, this whole story doesn’t smell good. Should ISIL militants invade Saudi Arabia while there’s no King in Saudi Arabia – the outcome will certainly be disastrous, since the country can fall apart in 3-4 pieces, including the break away of the Shiite districts of Eastern Province to the adjacent Yemen, where the majority of the population is Shiite too.But the West reminds an ostrich with its head buried deep in the sand, trying to hide a possible ISIL offensive behind a multi-million march in Paris.

The White House Has No Backup Plan If It Loses on Obamacare at the Supreme Court

 

In March, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in King v. Burwell, a case challenging the Obama administration’s decision to allow subsidies into the 36 health insurance exchanges it runs under the law.

The administration argues that Congress intended for subsidies to be available in both state and federally run exchanges; the challengers argue that text of the law, which says that subsidies can only flow through an “Exchange established by a State,” prohibits subsidies in federal exchanges. 

In recent weeks, the administration’s supporters have highlighted a number of estimates of how big the effects would be if the Supreme Court ruled against the administration; millions who now get subsidized insurance through the federally run exchanges could lose their subsidies. 

So what happens if the administration loses? This seems like an important question, but publicly, at least, the administration is giving little indication that it has developed any backup. And in a meeting with members of Congress yesterday, President Obama reportedly indicated that the administration was not working on alternatives.

“Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) says that at a roundtable discussion with congressional leaders he asked Obama why the administration hasn’t informed the public that subsidies are an endangered species,” reports this morning’s Politico Pulse newsletter. “The president replied that he doesn’t anticipate the need for a contingency plan.”

That’s in keeping with the administration’s M.O. so far, which prioritizes displays of confidence that they will emerge victorious on the case. But it’s a somewhat awkward fit with all the warnings of how disastrous a loss could be. 

The administration’s lack of public contingency planning, however, creates an opening of sorts for Republicans in Congress who back the challengers. As Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett wrote recently in USA Today, “Supreme Court justices are reluctant to invalidate a law on which many relied. It will be far easier for the justices to enforce the law’s existing language if they know there is a viable alternative that can be enacted by both houses of Congress and signed by the president within a week of their ruling.”

I have argued that the Supreme Court should consider the legal merits of the administration’s decision to authorize subsidies without regard to the impact, but Barnett is almost certainly right that the potential impact will at least be part of the discussion. It will be noted and known, even if it is not exactly determinative.

Given that consideration, the GOP should take the administration’s lack of revealed contingency planning as an opportunity to work toward the Obamacare alternative the party has promised for so long. The administration has declined to answer the question of what would happen if it loses; those backing the challengers shouldn’t ignore it. 

The White House Has No Backup Plan If It Loses on Obamacare at the Supreme Court
Peter Suderman
Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:15:00 GMT

» Economist: World Leaders Will Exploit Charlie Hebdo to Eliminate Encryption Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!

ECONOMIST: WORLD LEADERS WILL EXPLOIT CHARLIE HEBDO TO ELIMINATE ENCRYPTION

‘They will use this to strip us of all rights’.

Economist: World Leaders Will Exploit Charlie Hebdo to Eliminate Encryption

Image Credits: Twitter, ‏@David_Cameron

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | JANUARY 13, 2015

1400

Economist Martin Armstrong warns that the twin attacks in France will be used by world leaders to push for restrictions on Internet privacy and the total elimination of encrypted communications.

Armstrong, who correctly predicted the 1987 Black Monday crash as well as the 1998 Russian financial collapse, writes that, “They are using this latest event precisely as they used 911 to strip us of all rights.”

“David Cameron, PM of Britain, wants to block WhatsApp and Snapchat if he wins the next election, as part of his plans for new surveillance. Britain will lead the charge to outlaw encryption altogether when Britain has been walking hand-in-hand with the NSA. They are using this latest event precisely as they used 911 to strip us of all rights,” adds Armstrong.

The economist also relates how he has been told behind the scenes that, “They are looking to use this as a new push to gather all taxes they stupidly think will keep them operating.”

“They are BRAIN-DEAD and cannot see that what they are doing is destroying everything,” concludes Armstrong.

The Charlie Hebdo shooting and the subsequent attack on a Jewish grocery store were followed by an alleged ISIS hack of the Pentagon’s Twitter accounts.

Despite the fact that, according to the group which calls itself Anonymous, the hack leads back to Maryland, home of the NSA, the White House is likely to cite the incident as another reason to push for the reanimation of controversial legislation, as well as executive action, which will impose new controls on the world wide web.

The Sony hack, which was blamed on North Korea but was more likely to have been an inside job according to experts, was also used togrease the skids for cybersecurity measures that had previously been considered dead.

Despite world leaders marching in defense of freedom in Paris just a day after the terrorists were killed, French President Francois Hollande’s initial response was to put 10,000 troops on the streets. There has also been discussion of tighter surveillance laws and a French-style ‘Patriot Act’, despite the fact that stringent surveillance measures already in place failed to stop the attacks.

As the Guardian’s Trevor Timm writes, the attacks were quickly seized upon by western governments to put a halt to NSA reforms, while Prime Minister Cameron called for the state to be given more powers to intercept Internet communications in the name of fighting terror.

During a speech yesterday, Cameron stated that there should be no “means of communication” which “we cannot read,” preparing the groundwork for back-doors to be introduced into software that would allow continuous government monitoring.

via » Economist: World Leaders Will Exploit Charlie Hebdo to Eliminate Encryption Alex Jones’ Infowars: There’s a war on for your mind!.

Paris Attackers Funded by Pentagon Dinner Guest, and 5 Other “Coincidences”

 

Tony Cartalucci
Activist Post
Corroborating claims by French security agencies, a bizarre interview conducted just before the death of terror suspect Chérif Kouachi reveals that he had been in Yemen and in direct contact with none other than Anwar Al Awlaki – the notorious Al Qaeda leader allegedly killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011. 

Image: The Kouachi brothers, arrested twice for terrorism, convicted and imprisoned for terrorism, having met senior leadership of Al Qaeda, having trained with and fought alongside Al Qaeda, French intelligence would – 6 months ago – deem the dangerous duo a “low risk.” 6 months also happens to be the perfect time frame within which they could plan, fund, and begin executing their grand finale. Are we to believe it is a coincidence French intelligence turned the spotlight off just in time for them to piece together the worst terror attack in France in decades? Who is it French intelligence considers “high risk” and isn’t immediately arresting?

The UK Mirror in an article titled, “Paris shootings: Listen to terrorist Amedy Coulibaly’s bizarre conversation with hostage during supermarket siege,” quoted Kouachi as saying: 

We are just telling you we are the defenders of the prophet and that I Chérif Kouachi have been sent by Al Qaida of Yemen and that I went over there and that Anwar Al Awaki financed me.

Not only was Anwar Al Awlaki a senior leader in Al Qaeda, he also infamously spent dinner with top brass at the Pentagon shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks in Washington, New York, and over Pennsylvania.
CBS News would report in their article, “Qaeda-Linked Imam Dined at Pentagon after 9/11,” that:  

Anwar al-Awlaki – the radical spiritual leader linked to several 9/11 attackers, the Fort Hood shooting, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner – was a guest at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, a Pentagon official confirmed to CBS News.

Awlaki was invited as “…part of an informal outreach program” in which officials sought contact “…with leading members of the Muslim community,” the official said. At that time, Awlaki was widely viewed as a “moderate” imam at a mosque in Northern Virginia.

At the same time, the FBI was also interviewing Awlaki about his contacts with three of the 9/11 attackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al Midhar and Hani Hanjour – who were all part of the crew of five that hijacked the American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon.

Image: Just another coincidence … Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar Al Awlaki
was clicking glasses together at the Pentagon with American military brass
just months after the 9/11 attacks in 2001. Also, “coincidentally,” he had in
fact met at least one of the several alleged hijackers. He also, just before
being liquidated by a US drone attack in 2011, allegedly funded the terror cell
responsible for the recent Paris shootings.

Indeed, Anwar Al Awlaki would admit to having met Hazmi – in yet another incident the general public is supposed to believe is simply an astonishing coincidence.
The list of “coincidences” and “accidents” is so far impressive and include the following:
1. French authorities arrested and imprisoned Chérif Kouachi in 2005 for terrorism. He would be released in 2008 after sentencing was suspended for “time served,” this despite evidence suggesting Kouachi may have even gone as far with his plot as travel to Yemen. Slate Magazine would report in their article, “The Details of Paris Suspect Cherif Kouachi’s 2008 Terrorism Conviction,” that:

Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young “self-taught preacher” who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and “had begun having second thoughts,” going so far as to express “relief” that he’d been apprehended.

2. Kouachi and brother Said would be implicated in another terrorist plot again in 2010 but were not prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. The BBC in their report titled, “Charlie Hebdo attack: Suspects’ profiles,” would state: 

In 2010 Cherif Kouachi was named in connection with a plot to spring another Islamist, Smain Ait Ali Belkacem, from jail – a plot hatched by Beghal, according to French anti-terror police.

Belkacem used to be in the outlawed Algerian Islamic Armed Group (GIA) and was jailed for life in 2002 for a Paris metro station bombing in 1995 which injured 30 people.

Said Kouachi, 34, was also named in the Belkacem plot, but the brothers were not prosecuted because of a lack of evidence.

3. With French intelligence agencies’ knowledge, the Kouachi brothers would then travel to Yemen in 2011, receiving weapons training directly from Al Qaeda.  CNN’s report titled, “France tells U.S. Paris suspect trained with al Qaeda in Yemen,” would report:

A U.S. official says the United States was given information from the French intelligence agency that Said Kouachi traveled to Yemen as late as 2011 on behalf of the al Qaeda affiliate there. Once in Yemen, the older brother of the two received a variety of weapons training from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) — the affiliate in Yemen — the official said, including on how to fire weapons. It is also possible Said was trained in bomb making, a common jihadist training in Yemen. Two other U.S. officials confirmed that information about the Yemeni travel was passed to the U.S. from French intelligence agencies.
In addition, French Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in an interview broadcast on CNN International that one of the brothers traveled to Yemen in 2005. Taubira would not say which brother.

Admissions that one of the brothers had traveled to Yemen in 2005, suggests the possibility he may indeed have received weapons training from Al Qaeda before his arrest and imprisonment later that same year.
4. It was reported that the brothers then fought in Syria before returning last summer, approximately 6 months ago. USA Today would report in an article titled, “Manhunt continues for two French terror suspects,” that:

The brothers were born in Paris of Algerian descent. Cherif was sentenced to three years in prison on terrorism charges in May 2008. Both brothers returned from Syria this summer.

5. Also about 6 months ago, French intelligence decided the suspects’ serial offenses along with their direct contact with Al Qaeda – including the receiving of terrorist training and battlefield experience fighting along side them in Syria – were “low risk” cases and therefore not worthy of their attention.
Astoundingly, UK’s Daily Mail would report in their article, “Revealed: Police stopped watching Paris killers six months ago after terror cell of kosher deli attacker and his crossbow jihadi wife – who has fled to Syria – were deemed ‘low-risk’,” that:

The world’s most wanted female terrorist has fled to Syria, it was revealed last night – as police admitted they stopped surveillance on her deadly Parisian cell six months ago because they were deemed ‘low-risk’.

The Daily Mail would go on to report on other cell members including Amedy Coulibaly, also killed by police during the recent shootings and attacks in Paris – also a notorious serial offender, known terrorist, and also previously arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison for terrorism. 

Who decided this cell was “low risk” six months ago? That is probably where the French people should begin searching for justice – if justice is in fact what they seek.

Six months, coincidentally, is also about the typical length (6-10 months) of security and intelligence “sting operations” targeting terrorists. It provides an appropriate time frame within which an event like the recent attacks could have been planned, funded, and eventually carried out. The public is expected to believe this obvious terror cell who had been in and out of prison for terrorism over the course of a decade and in direct contact with Al Qaeda, was suddenly dropped from the attention of French intelligence just in time for them to carry out their most spectacular crime to date?
Who decided this cell was “low risk” six months ago? That is probably where the French people should begin searching for justice – if justice is in fact what they seek.
Europe Has Been Here Before
Unfortunately, these “coincidences” and “accidents” are not coincidences and accidents at all. They fit an obvious pattern of staged provocations within the context of an intentionally engineered “strategy of tension,” identical but scaled up from what NATO was exposed to have committed during the Cold War as part of its “stay behind networks,” more commonly known as “Operation Gladio.”
Indeed, if NATO could carry out attacks during the Cold War, targeting Western Europeans in deadly brutality designed to appear as the work of NATO’s enemies, why would NATO now be suddenly excused from the investigation as a prime suspect? With the “coincidences” and “accidents” described above, those occupying the highest of France’s political, military, and intelligence offices, should be removed, tried, and imprisoned for criminal negligence at the very least.
As the puzzle pieces continue to fit together, the picture that appears is one of brazen, intentional provocation either to divide society at home, or wage war abroad, or both. And as this picture comes into focus, the rhetoric designed to distract the public from seeing it will reach a fever pitch.
Tony Cartalucci’s articles have appeared on many alternative media websites, including his own at
Land Destroyer Report, Alternative Thai News Network and LocalOrg. Read other contributed articles by Tony Cartalucci here.

Paris Attackers Funded by Pentagon Dinner Guest, and 5 Other ”Coincidences”
Activist
Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:47:00 GMT

Obama Declares War On ‘Extremism’ – Are You An ‘Extremist’ According To His Definition?

 

Michael Snyder
Activist Post
Do you know what an “extremist” is?  In the wake of the horrible terror attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo in France, Barack Obama is speaking very boldly about the need to win the war against “extremists”, and he has announced plans to host a major global summit on “extremism” next month.  And on the surface that sounds great.  But precisely how are we supposed to determine whether someone is an “extremist” or not?  What criteria should we use?
As you will see below, your definition of an “extremist” may be far, far different from the definition that Barack Obama is using.  When you do a Google search, you will find that an “extremist” is defined as “a person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, especially one who resorts to or advocates extreme action.”  According to Wikipedia, “extremism” is “an ideology (particularly in politics or religion), considered to be far outside the mainstream attitudes of a society or to violate common moral standards.  Extremism can take many forms, including political, religious and economic.”
Please notice that neither of those definitions uses the word violence.  In this day and age, you can be considered an “extremist” simply based on what you believe, and as you will see later in this article there are now tens of millions of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” according to official U.S. government documents.
When you use the word “extremist”, you may have in your mind a picture of ISIS fighters or the terrorists from the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
But for elitists such as Barack Obama, the word “extremist” has a much broader meaning.  In recent years, it has become a code word for those who do not have an “enlightened” view of the world.  If your views on politics, religion or social issues are extremely different from the liberal, progressive views of “the mainstream” (as defined by the mainstream media and by “mainstream” politicians such as Barack Obama), then they consider you to be an extremist.

Early in the presidency of George W. Bush, we were told that Islamic terrorists were the enemy.  And so most of the country got behind the idea of the War on Terrorism.  But over the years that has morphed into a War on Extremism.  In fact, the Obama administration has gone so far as to remove almost all references to Islam from government terror training materials

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

“I recently directed all components of the Department of Justice to re-evaluate their training efforts in a range of areas, from community outreach to national security,” Cole told a panel at the George Washington University law school.

Now, much of the focus in law enforcement training materials is on “domestic extremists”.  We are being told that “domestic extremism” is just as great a threat to our national security as terror groups overseas are.
But exactly who are these “domestic extremists”?
Well, the truth is that you may be one of them.
I want to share with you a list that I have shared in a couple of previous articles.  It is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” or “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents.  This list will really give you a good idea of what Barack Obama means when he uses the word “extremist”.  Each of these 72 items is linked, so if you would like to go see the original source document for yourself, just click on the link.  As you can see, this list potentially includes most of the country…
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
Do you fit into any of those categories?
Personally, I fit into a couple dozen of them.
That is why alarm bells should go off whenever Barack Obama speaks of the need to crack down on “extremism”.
If Barack Obama wants to denounce Islamic terror, he should do so.  But because of his extreme political correctness, he goes out of his way to avoid any connection between Islam and terror.  Instead, he speaks of the need to recognize “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings” and he insists that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”
Meanwhile, our liberties and freedoms are being eroded a little bit more with each passing day.  In the name of fighting “terrorism” or “extremism”, our government is constructing a Big Brother police state control grid all around us.  I like the way that Ron Paul described what is happening to us just the other day

If Americans were honest with themselves they would acknowledge that the Republic is no more. We now live in a police state. If we do not recognize and resist this development, freedom and prosperity for all Americans will continue to deteriorate. All liberties in America today are under siege.

It didn’t happen overnight. It took many years of neglect for our liberties to be given away so casually for a promise of security from the politicians. The tragic part is that the more security was promised — physical and economic — the less liberty was protected.

With cradle-to-grave welfare protecting all citizens from any mistakes and a perpetual global war on terrorism, which a majority of Americans were convinced was absolutely necessary for our survival, our security and prosperity has been sacrificed.

It was all based on lies and ignorance. Many came to believe that their best interests were served by giving up a little freedom now and then to gain a better life.

The trap was set. At the beginning of a cycle that systematically undermines liberty with delusions of easy prosperity, the change may actually seem to be beneficial to a few. But to me that’s like excusing embezzlement as a road to leisure and wealth — eventually payment and punishment always come due. One cannot escape the fact that a society’s wealth cannot be sustained or increased without work and productive effort. Yes, some criminal elements can benefit for a while, but reality always sets in.

Reality is now setting in for America and for that matter for most of the world. The piper will get his due even if “the children” have to suffer. The deception of promising “success” has lasted for quite a while. It was accomplished by ever-increasing taxes, deficits, borrowing, and printing press money. In the meantime the policing powers of the federal government were systematically and significantly expanded. No one cared much, as there seemed to be enough “gravy” for the rich, the poor, the politicians, and the bureaucrats.

The country that our forefathers founded is dying.
Now, individuals and organizations that attempt to restore the values that our founders once believed in so strongly are regarded as dangerous “extremists” that need to be watched carefully.
Sadly, most Americans don’t even realize what is happening to this nation.  As long as they are fed a constant diet of mindless entertainment, most Americans are perfectly content to let “the experts” do their thinking for them.
We are steamrolling toward oblivion, and most of the country is dead asleep.
So is there any hope for us?  Feel free to share what you think by posting a comment below…
This article first appeared here at the Economic Collapse Blog.  Michael Snyder is a writer, speaker and activist who writes and edits his own blogs The American Dream and Economic Collapse Blog. Follow him on Twitter here.

Obama Declares War On ‘Extremism’ – Are You An ‘Extremist’ According To His Definition?
Activist
Sun, 11 Jan 2015 23:47:00 GMT

REPORT: DRUG CARTEL PLACES $45 MILLION BOUNTY ON RICK PERRY’S HEAD

http://www.infowars.com/report-drug-cartel-places-45-million-bounty-on-rick-perrys-head/

Cartels previously set bounties on Sheriff Arpaio and Border Patrol agents

Report: Drug Cartel Places $45 Million Bounty on Rick Perry's Head

Image Credits: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

by KIT DANIELS | INFOWARS.COM | JANUARY 9, 2015


A Mexican drug cartel reportedly placed a $45 million bounty on Texas Gov. Rick Perry, prompting heavy security around the governor, a political insider said.

The insider, who is deep within Republican politics, said an unusual number of black-clad, heavily armed state troopers are escorting Perry to speeches and other public events, such as a recent dinner in South Carolina.

“My state representative was just at a dinner honoring Gov. Perry and observed an unusual amount of security, so [he] asked around and found Perry has a $45 million bounty on his head from [a] Mexican cartel,” he said. “They have been trying to keep it quiet for obvious reasons, but the security is humongous.”

When reached for comment, Perry’s press secretary, Lucy Nashed, confirmed the dinner but referred security questions to the Texas Department of Public Safety, which when contacted refused to give “specifics.”

Cartels placed several multi-million dollar bounties on Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio over the past several years and they also routinely set bounties on Border Patrol agents ranging from $250,000 to $2 million.

Perry previously called the cartels and drug gangs “narco-terrorists” in a 2011 speech.

“What we are seeing south of our border is nothing short of a war being waged by these narco-terrorists,” Perry told the audience. “They represent a clear and a present danger.”

In response, he spearheaded a rapid deployment of state law enforcement agencies to the border, which filled the gaps left by the Border Patrol after the White House ordered the agency to stand down from enforcing immigration and trafficking laws.

State troopers in particular heavily outnumbered the Border Patrol agents seen in and around a border highway in Texas this past summer when the U.S. was hit with a surge of illegal immigrants.

Perry even deployed National Guard troops to the border.

“As the Border Patrol is spread even thinner and thinner with this high influx of the illegal aliens, the gaps in the border have become bigger and you now are the tip of the spear protecting Americans from these cartels and gangs,” he told troops in Bastrop, Texas.

So while the feds backed off, the state of Texas stepped in, so it’s plausible a cartel has placed a price on Perry’s head.

#‎StopHillary‬ ‪#‎DontGetDupedAgain‬ ‪#‎

#‎StopHillary‬ ‪#‎DontGetDupedAgain‬ ‪#‎HitleryWatergateWhitewaterBenghaziClinton‬ ‪#‎ClintonsEqualsTraitors‬ ‪#‎WakeupAmerica‬ ‪#‎HillaryNotFitToLead‬ ‪#‎HillaryIsAWarhawk‬ ‪#‎HillaryHatesTheWomenOfAmerica‬ ‪#‎SecretPoliceAbhorDutyWatchWithHillary‬ ‪#‎TurnOffYourTelevisions‬ ‪#‎GoToAlibrary‬ http://ow.ly/i/89FNL

#‎StopHillary‬ ‪#‎DontGetDupedAgain‬ ‪#‎

#‎StopHillary‬ ‪#‎DontGetDupedAgain‬ ‪#‎HitleryWatergateWhitewaterBenghaziClinton‬ ‪#‎ClintonsEqualsTraitors‬ ‪#‎WakeupAmerica‬ ‪#‎HillaryNotFitToLead‬ ‪#‎HillaryIsAWarhawk‬ ‪#‎HillaryHatesTheWomenOfAmerica‬ ‪#‎SecretPoliceAbhorDutyWatchWithHillary‬ ‪#‎TurnOffYourTelevisions‬ ‪#‎GoToAlibrary‬ http://ow.ly/i/89FN8

THE HUMAN STORY