By Philippe Ploncard d’Assac
Source: Le Copmlot Mondialiste, pp 31-41, 43-49.
Provocation and Media Manipulation
The international press compared September 11 to the Pearl Harbour attack, carried out by the Japanese imperial air-force on 7 December 1941. Ironically, the journalists who made this comparison didn’t realise just how true this was.
Indeed, despite the media black-out on the true motives for the Second World War, we know today that Roosevelt (a freemason) was perfectly aware that the Japanese were preparing an attack in retaliation for the severe regime of trade restrictions imposed on Japan by the American administration.
This fact is revealed by Henry L Stimson (1), American secretary of war from 1940 to 1945. Roosevelt refused all trade negotiations with Japan and knew that they were preparing to attack America. But he did nothing as he considered that a Japanese assault on America would be a perfect opportunity to achieve his aims.
It is here that the comparison with September 11 is revealing. The trap set for the Japanese at Pearl Harbour was used to shock the American public who was, until that point, against going to war against Germany.
History is littered with these sorts of deliberate provocations to trigger conflict:
Sinking of the Maine
On 15 February 1898, an American battleship, the Maine, was blown up in Havana harbour. The Spanish were blamed for this “false flag” attack and it formed the pretext for the Americans to wage war against Spain, allowing them to drive the Spanish out of Cuba and the Philippines.
First World War
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by the Jewish freemason Prinzip provoked the First World War.
Sinking of the Lusitania
The deliberate use of passenger cruise liners during the First World War to secretly transport ammunitions for Britain was yet another example of provocation. The Lusitania was sunk by a German U-boat on 7 May 1915. Prior to this, the order had been given to remove its escort. The shock and outrage sparked by the torpedoing formed the pretext for America’s decision to join the war against Germany, as revealed by Henry Barnes (3).
The push for war against Germany
The assassination of the German diplomat Ernst von Rath by the Jewish terrorist Herschell Grynszpan exacerbated tension between the Jewish world and the German government. Germany was further provoked by the 1933 economic boycott, orchestrated by Anglo-Jewish high finance. These events paved the way for Britain and France to declare war against Germany (4)
Nagasaki and Hiroshima
The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan wiped out two Catholic cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (President Truman was a freemason.) Codenamed S1, this mission was, as Alexandra Robbins (5) recalls, imposed by members of the highly secretive Skull and Bones society: Henry Stimson, Archibald MacLeish, Georges L. Harrison, Robert A. Lowett, W. Averell Harriman and McGeorge Bundy.
The overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran
In 1951, when Dr Mossadegh came to power in Iran, the Americans lost their control of Iranian oil, and so the CIA used a whole array of dirty tricks to destabilise his government. They even went so far as to create false documents in his name, documents which praised Communism and denounced Islam.
These tactics proved successful: Dr Mossadegh was overthrown. He was replaced by an American puppet, the Shah of Iran, a mere fortune hunter. His secret police, the Savak, brutally repressed all political opposition, allowing the Anglo-Saxon powers to regain their control of Iranian oil.
The Iran-Iraq War
In 1978, the Shah of Iran was overthrown by Aytaollah Khomeiny. Iran was again liberated from the grip of the Anglo-Saxon oil lobby. Khomeiny’s revolutionary regime refused all American interference in the country. So the US attempted to overthrow the Iranian government by turning Saddam Hussein against Iran: it was this that sparked the Iran-Iraq war.
The Gulf War
Once Iraq ceased to be useful to the Americans, they then turned their guns against Saddam Hussein, victim of American duplicity.
Believing that the Americans owed him some form of gratitude, Saddam Hussein set about reclaiming Kuwait. This was an old grievance which resulted from the artificial division of the region by the British Foreign Office, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. This arbitrary partition was as humiliating for the Iraqis as the Treaty of Versailles was for the Germans in 1918.
It’s at this point we can see the Bush regime manipulated and provoked Saddam Hussein into a war. Saddam asked the US ambassador in Baghdad, Miss April Glaspie, what the American position would be if he were to reclaim the province of Kuwait. He was given to understand, on 25 July 1990, that “the US would not intervene in this domestic affair”. At the same time, however, the American administration urged Kuwait to reject all agreement with Iraq.
Interestingly, the American ambassador was then exflitrated from Iraq. But American citizens and citizens of other western nations were not urged to leave Iraq. Conveniently, this came to form part of the justification for the war against Iraq, which was deemed necessary to “free the hostages”!
What’s more, just to prevent the emergence of a more nuanced and moderate line in this affair, the American Senate adopted a resolution warning countries that their relations with United States would deteriorate if they did not fully support efforts to overthrow Saddam Hussein (7). Accordingly, all Western nations, including France, formed an alliance to remove this “threat to world peace”.
The revelations made by Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent (6) allow us to appreciate the extent of American duplicity. On 3 August, Saddam Hussein declared that he was prepared to withdraw his troops by the 5th of the same month. Inter-Arab talks were initiated. But, according to Salinger and Laurent, “the Americans used Hosni Moubarak to derail the negotiations”
The rest is history: on 2 August 1990, Saddam Hussein’s troops invaded Kuwait.
Immediately, the globalist propaganda machine set to work to justify military action against Saddam Hussein. Iraq was portrayed as being the fourth largest military power and the world’s press fuelled the fear of a European-wide petrol shortage if Saddam were not overthrown. Images of Iraqi soldiers massacring Kuwaiti babies in incubators were relayed across the world. Some six months after the war, however, we learnt that this affair was a black propaganda operation, orchestrated by the Kuwaiti embassy in Washington in collaboration with the American government and the news channel CNN. The nurse in tears, presented as being a witness to this “atrocity”, was in fact no other than the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. And she wasn’t even a nurse: it was all an act!
Then there were the provocations made by Clinton’s Jewish secretary for foreign affairs, Madeleine Albright (née Korbelová). This was the prelude to the promotion of Islam in Europe with the war in Kosovo, under the auspices of NATO’s KFOR, triggering the collapse of Yugoslavia.
Invasion of Afgahnistan and Iraq
Finally, the extraordinary lies perpetrated by Blair and Bush, together with his Jewish neocon entourage (Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Perle, Fleicher, etc), served to push for a second war against Iraq, all in the name of “freedom and democracy”.
The British chemical weapons expert, Dr David Kelly, refused to give his seal of approval to the Blair-Bush dossier concocted to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He was discovered dead on 18 July 2003. Cause of death: “suicide”…
The occupation of Afghanistan (9) and Iraq, following September 11, was used to remove any obstacle to “Greater Israel”. Indeed, in May 1993, Ariel Sharon formally proposed in the Likud Convention that Israel should adopt the ‘biblical borders’ concept as its official policy.
What’s more, as early as 1981, he had announced that Israel should extend the domain of its strategic interests to Iran, Pakistan, the Gulf, Africa and Turkey. Today, with the Israeli presence in Georgia, the sphere of Israeli influence stretches even further.
In light of all these manipulations and provocations, it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether we might be dealing with state orchestrated terrorism of the sort organised by Operation Gladio, the possible aim being to psychologically condition the population to accept ever closer surveillance of their lives.
(1) Henry Stimson et McGeorges Bundy; On Active service in Peace and War; and J. Bordiot. Une main cachée dirige. Librairie Française. 1974.
(2) Le Télégramme, 28.6.08, quoted in Rivarol, 28.7.08.
(3) H.Barnes. The Genesis of War, A. Knopf, New York, 1926.
(4) cf. Annexe. J, p. 41.
(5) Alexandra Robbins, Skull & Bones, Éditions Max Milo, Paris 2005.
(6) La Politique N° 85-86, July-August 2008
(7) Le Soir, Brussels, 11.9.90.
(8) Pierre Salinger and Eric Laurent . La guerre du Golfe, Éditions Olivier Orban
(9) The most tangible result of this has been an explosion in opium production, which had been practically eradicated by the Taliban.
September 11 – Doubts
In the light of these provocations, aimed at triggering conflict, we can understand why doubts have been raised regarding the official version of September 11. (1) (2) (3)
Indeed, it is strange that such a spectacular attack could have escaped the attention of the Anglo-American intelligence services and their ultra sophisticated Five Eyes surveillance programme.
It is even more surprising that the Israeli secret services didn’t see this attack coming, either. After all, Sin Beth and Mossad are capable of infiltrating Islamist movements with ease.
In this regard, the American Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) verdict on Mossad, published by the Washington Times on 10 September 2001, is very revealing:
“Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
Less than 24 hours after the World Trade Centre collapsed, Islamic terrorists were blamed for the attacks!
The intelligence services failed to anticipate the attack. The black box flight recorders were not found. And yet, the American intelligence services were capable of immediately saying who was behind the attacks…
Given the skill necessary for such an operation, it is interesting to note that terrorists were considered to be poor pilots (1)
It is also interesting to note the reaction of the former Israeli prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu. According to the New York Times (12 September 2001), he described the event as being “very good” for Israeli relations with the US!
As for Dan Rubenstein (2), an Israeli expert on the Palestinian Authority, he considered that:
“Israel can now do what it dared not do before…”
Following the attacks, Fox News reported the arrest of a group of Israeli students, all of whom had all completed their military service in the ranks of the Israeli intelligence services. They were said to be part of a spy ring whose targets included the US Drug Enforcement Agency and the FBI. Fox covered the investigation, but then suddenly stopped its coverage of the affair. It was later revealed that the various lobby groups had intervened (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the American-Israel Political Action Committee). Nonetheless, the final outcome was that some 120 Israeli students were said to have been expelled.
In this light, it is interesting to note the cynicism of Ariel Sharon’s response to Shimon Peres, who had expressed concern about the American reaction to Israeli military action in the occupied territories (3):
“We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it”
Zacharias Moussaoui was said to be a member of the group which masterminded the attacks. Indeed, he had pleaded guilty. But he had been in prison since 16 August 2001 (4) (5) !
Claude Cheysson, French foreign affairs minister at the time, declared on 16 September 2001:
“Bin Laden is not capable of organising a sophisticated operation of this sort. Only a state could do this.”
And he added:
“This attack is catastrophe for Palestine.”
Apart from the peculiar absence of Jewish workers in the towers that day, other facts draw our attention.
- Abnormal stock market activity (massive sale of American Airlines shares just before 11 September)
- Only weeks before the attacks, Larry Silverstein, owner of the World Trade Centre, had the insurance contract modified to include coverage against terrorism (6).
So we come back to the same question: who benefits from the crime?
So who did gain ? Answer: Israel and the Zionist neoconservative clan (Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim and Richard Perle, defence adviser and former employee of SOLTAM, an Israeli defence contractor). This clan, with close links to Israel, pushed for the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, by exploiting the shock and public outrage sparked by the 11 September attacks.
In his quest for war, Richard Perle (Perlemann) (7) went so far as to demand the resignation of the German leader at the time, Gerhard Schröder, because he refused to collaborate with George W Bush’s war plans.
Today we know for a fact that Saddam Hussein had no links with Al Qaida and, as the experts had confirmed at the time, did not possess weapons of mass destruction.
The truth was concealed in order to achieve the objectives:
- Trigger a war with Afghanistan and the Iraq, in order to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a former ally to the US, and clear the way for Sharon’s Greater Israel (the expansion of Israel, in accordance with the borders defined by the bible) and the neoconservative plans to “restructure” the Middle East (the so-called Greater Middle East).
- Frighten Americans into accepting draconian security measures which curtail their freedoms, necessary, it is said, to defeat terrorism. Hence George W. Bush’s immediate decision, taken very shortly after the September attacks, to entrust Admiral Poindexter (a freemason) with the development of the Total Information Awareness programme (8). It is very revealing that the official logo of this programme is a pyramid with a Masonic-like eye surveying the world…
Interestingly, Di Bernardo, grandmaster of the Grande Oriente d’Italia (G∴ O∴ I∴), the oldest Masonic order in Italy, confirmed that both George Bush senior and junior were members of the highly secretive Skull and Bones society, a Masonic sect (9).
Indeed, it is not for nothing did George W Bush once declared:
“What we’re doing is going to chart the future of the world for the next 100 years” (10)
It’s the old Masonic and messianic dream: establish the Universal Republic!
This Masonic Universal Republic is nothing other than world government, the achievement of which demands the destruction of our civil liberties.
(1) Süddeutsche Zeitung, 1.10.01. Washington Post, 19.10.01
(2) Haaretz, 12.9.01
(3) Ko! Israël (Radio Israël) 3.10. 2001.
(4) Aujourd’hui en France, 6.3.06.
(5) In American law, by pleading guilty, the accused can obtain a reduced sentence.
(6) Rivarol, 26.10.01.
(7) Handelsblatt, 2.10.02,
(8) Le Monde, 13.11.01.
(9) La Stampa, 23.3.1990,
(10) Alexandra Robins, Skull & Bones. La vérité sur l’élite secrète qui dirige les
Etats-Unis, Max Milo, Éditions, Paris 2005.
If we may have harboured doubts about the official version of September 11, reported as being an attack carried out by Islamic terrorists, today these doubts give way to a certainty of a different kind.
These attacks were the work of the American and Israeli Zionist clan, which has gained control of the US (1), in order to fabricate the necessary pretext for the wars against Afghanistan and then Iraq, while awaiting those against Iran and Syria.
There is nothing surprising about this, in light of the historical cases examined above: the false attack against the battleship Maine; the torpedoing of the ocean liner Lusitania; the assassination of the German diplomat von Rath by Grynzpan; Pearl Harbour, etc…
These provocations all aimed to trigger wars, in order to remove any obstacle to the globalist plan. These wars and revolutions were the result of action taken by the Freemasonry, aided by international finance, with the view to imposing the Universal Republic.
In my book, La Maçonnerie (2), I demonstrated that Freemasonry descends directly from Jewish mysticism (the Kabbalah and the Talmud), a fact which is freely admitted by Jews and Freemasons alike, pace Bernard Antony (a Marrano) who denies this fact in his Vérités sur la maçonnerie !
The declarations made on 30 November 2007 by the former Italian president, Francesco Cossiga, only serve to confirm what I have written following the September 11 attacks (3). They confirm that we are indeed faced with a Judeo-Masonic world conspiracy and that we should be aware of just how far they are prepared to go in order to achieve their aims. In a major daily Italian newspaper (4), Cossiga states that:
“The September 11 attacks were planned and carried out by the CIA and by Mossad, aided by the Zionist world, in order to condemn the Arab world and push the West into war against Afghanistan and Iraq.”
According to the American historian, Webster Tarpley (5):
“The September operations could not have been carried out without the implication and infiltration of local personnel, notably in aviation security and radar.”
Similarly, in An Inside Job, Paul Joseph Watson, author of Prison Planet (6), takes up the charges made by Cossiga. More importantly, he points out that Cossiga was forced to resign after having exposed the existence of Operation Gladio, the precursor to September 11 and subsequent attacks.
Operation Gladio, exposed by Cossiga, was a “false flag operation”, as Watson puts it.
Following Cossiga’s revelations, an Italian parliamentary enquiry was set up in 2000. It was to “confirm the implication of the CIA in all the operations exposed by Cossiga” (7)
More importantly, one of Operation Gladio’s agents, summoned to testify under oath before the parliamentary commission, had declared that (7):
“We had to bomb civilians, that it is to say women and children, especially those who had nothing to do with politics, the idea being that citizens would turn to the state for security and protection”
Is this not the same method which was used for the September 11 terrorist attacks and also for those in: France, in the late 90s; Madrid, on 11 March 2004; London, on 11 July 2005; and for the assissination of Raffic Hariri in Lebanon?
In this light, then, all those terrorist attacks, which are said to be the work of Islamic extremists, would appear to be “state crimes”, aimed at manipulating public opinion. Typically, despite the numerous investigation committees, the Islamic extremists said to be behind crimes of this sort are eventually released due to lack of evidence.
Perhaps we ought to investigate the countries involved in this globalist policy. After all, a report made by the American Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies, published on the front page of the Washington Times on 10 September 2001, says that Mossad is:
“Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”
This was published less than a day before the attacks took place.
But who benefits from these crimes ?
- The September 11 attack was used to justify the war against Iraq
- The Madrid attack brought Jose Luis Zapaterro (a Marrano) to power (8). The Aznar government set up an inquiry into the Madrid attack. It found that ETA was behind the attack. But this finding was derided by the international media which, in a coordinated effort, imposed the idea that Islamic extremists were behind the attack. Discredited by the media, the conservative José-Maria Aznar lost the elections to Zapaterro. Zapterro’s policy aims to wipe out all memory of Francoist Spain, destroy Spanish Catholicism and fragment the country into regions, in accordance with the globalist plan to destroy nations.
- The London terrorist attack was used to justify Blair’s policy, as he was in a difficult position given that Bush had lied. According to the Associated Press (9), “Scotland Yard had warned the Israeli embassy shortly before the bombings”. Does this not remind us of the mysterious absence of Jews working in the Twin Towers on September 11 ?
- The assassination of the Lebanese prime minister, Hairi, was used to accuse Syria, again by means of an international media campaign, in order to expel Syrian troops from Lebanon. Indeed, no sooner had the Syrian troops left, in the summer of 2006, than Israel went ahead and launched its military campaign against Lebanon. The two events might not be linked, but this coincidence remains, nonetheless, very curious, to say the least!
The 11 September attacks must have been an “inside job”, as Paul Joseph Watson (10) puts it. This is all the more obvious in light of the media’s complete silence regarding the declarations made by Francesco Cossiga. In the mainstream press, there has been no outrage regarding the “anti-Semitism” implicit in Cossiga’s statements. And yet, the media are usually only too eager to make such an accusation. Silence was, perhaps, considered to be more prudent in order to avoid the public from asking too many questions! This just goes to show that Cossiga’s declarations jeopardise the globalist conspiracy…
(1) Ariel Sharon: “We, the Jewish people, control America and the Americans know it” (Radio Israël) 3.10. 2001.
(2) P. P. d’ Assac. La Maçonnerie, Édit. S.P.P.
(3) Nationalisme ou Mondialisme, l’Enjeu du Illème millénaire.
(4) Il Corriere della Serra, 30.11.07.
(5) Webster Tarpley. Synthetic Terror Made in US, Édit. Demi-Lune
(6) prisonplanet.com/articles/December_20071120407_common knowledge.htm
(7) Quoted by Mohamed Salmawy, Al Ahram Hebdo, N° 694, 26.12.07-1.1.08.
(8) According to Tribune juive February. 2005, J-L Zapaterro is in fact Jewish.
(9) Jerusalem Post, 8.7.06, quoted by Associeted Press.
The Merah Affair: Another State Crime?
By Philippe Ploncard d’Assac
The Merah affair and its denouement are strange.
Just as George Bush and his “neoconservatives” at the Pentagon had immediately compared 11 September to Pearl Harbour, Sarkozy rushed to claim that the Montauban and Toulouse murders, said to be committed by Mohamed Merah, constituted “another September 11.”
This is perfectly true, but not in the sense in which he made an appeal to the conditioned reflex of public opinion!
Pearl Harbour was a provocation by Roosevelt in order to push the Japanese to attack and create the emotional shock necessary to justify America’s entry into war (1).
Sarkozy had set up a miniature 11 September with the Merah case, in the same way that September 11 was set up to justify the wars in Afghanistan and then Iraq
He needed this in order to present himself as the “strong man” who defends the French but also to the benefit of Israel and Judaism […] It was also necessary to prepare for French participation in an Israeli intervention against Iran.
This how modern history is made: by means of state crimes in order to push for the continuation of the messianic globalist plan.
Indeed, the Merah case is a curious one. Although Claude Guéant claimed he wanted “Merah alive in order to find out who was supporting him”, everything was done to silence him for good.
The sequence of events is disturbing. Why did Merah shout “why are you killing me, I am innocent” when the RAID [French anti-terrorist squad] broke into his flat…?!
This is the key to the case, as confirmed by the videos supplied by people “who were at the heart of the incident and who want the truth to be known”, quoted by Zahia Mokhtari, legal representative to Merah’s father. So the question which immediately arises is: Why did Merah ask this question if he was the killer?!!!
If he had been guilty, his surprise and his question would make no sense.
He would have known why they were killing him !
Likewise, why was there a well-placed sniper to shoot him when he tried to escape, whereas officially they were claiming to “want him alive”?!
The famous statement made by Amaury de Hautecloque, the RAID chief, referring to a “raid using non-lethal weapons”, doesn’t correspond to the tragic outcome of this case.
He was given no chance to give himself up.
And yet, the forces called to the scene could have easily have overpowered him using gas, tasers…
This leads us to examine the personal history of Mohamed Merah:
1. We learnt that this Franco-Algerian, aged 23, “enjoyed going to night-clubs, partying and drinking alcohol”
This doesn’t match the description of a jihadist.
2. He was an agent for the DCRI [French internal intelligence service] and he was familiar with the chief, Bernard Squarcini. He was probably working for Mossad, too.
3. According to the Italian newspaper, Il Foglio (27/3/12), Merah was accepted in Israel, after having been recommended by Erard de Mangoux, director of the DGSE [the French foreign intelligence agency]
4. Various reports confirm that, in 2010, he had stayed in Israel, and this was confirmed by the Israelis. But there is some doubt as to the exact dates.
Did his trip to Israel take place before or after his visit “as a tourist” to Afghanistan and Pakistan?
If he went before, how could he have entered Pakistan, Syria, Jordan and Iraq with an Israeli visa in his passport?
If he went afterwards, how could he have obtained an Israeli visa, unless we believe the Israelis are naive?!
5. As the former director of the French anti-terror squad, Christian Prouteau, pointed out, if Merah had not been an agent for the DCRI, how come they let “an individual, who was known to be hiding weapons, roam about free.”
6. According to those who witnessed the murder of the Franco-Muslim troops, back from Afghanistan, the perpetrator was corpulent, which does not correspond to the description of Merah.
And so, bit by bit, “another truth” emerges: Merah was used and then killed.
Hence his question “why are you killing me”?!
He didn’t understand because he was not the killer.
7. Squarcini, his “guardian”, is a friend of Sarkozy’s. In 2008, Sarkozy put him in control of the DCRI following the merger between the DGST and the RG.
Now, it just so happens that Squarcini was indicted by judges Tournaire and Robert in the Bettencourt-Woerth-Sarkozy case […] (2)
Which reminds us that Sarkozy was the lawyer in the Union corse case, in which he defended the interests of his mentor Charles Pasqua…! (3)
Subsidiary question: How come Sarkozy, who brandishes the spectre of jihad, continues to encourage immigration from North Africa, which is a breeding ground for Islamic extremism? It is because invasive immigration is necessary for the globalist plan to destroy France.
8. We never saw the bodies of the children, nor did we see that of the teacher at the Jewish school in Toulouse. They had all been sent to Israel, we were told…
It is now impossible to have material proof of the crime.
9. Assuming that it was Mehra (a DCRI agent) who carried out the murders, why would he have killed the French Muslim soldiers, who had come back from Afghanistan ?
The declaration made on Russia Today (22/8/09) by Mahmut Gareev, the former general of the Soviet army in Afghanistan, could well be one of the keys to understanding this case:
“The American army does not prevent the production of drugs in Afghanistan, because this earns them $50 billion per year”
“The army transports the drugs abroad, using military aircraft, this is no big secret”
I had already mentioned this in La Politique N°128, this connection between the French soldiers from Montauban and Toulouse who had just returned from Afghanistan…
Were they inconvenient witnesses because of what they might have seen in Afghanistan?
Were the murders at the Jewish school (the bodies of the victims were never seen) linked to those of the soldiers in order to conceal the true cause..?
The whole affair smacks of a manipulation to the benefit of Sarkozy
- To present him as the “saviour” of France in time for the elections
- To avoid standing trial for his involvement in various affairs: the Karachi case and the Bettencourt-Woerth scandal, among others.
- To revive the saga of “the threat of anti-Semitism”…
This is why Merah had to die.
He was the pawn, the scapegoat needed to carry out this state crime.
It was necessary to ensure that, under no circumstances, he could protest his innocence.
We thus come to a very different truth.
There were two separate cases :
- The murder of the soldiers, whose bodies were seen
- The murders at the Jewish school. The bodies were never seen, as they were immediately sent to Israel, we were assured…!
(1) P. P. d’Assac- Le Complot mondialiste.
(2) Le Canard enchaîné, 18.4.12
(3) Sarkozy ou la mort programmée de la France. SPP
The Merah Affair – Update
By Philippe Ploncard d’Assac
The father of one of the Muslim soldiers killed on 15/3/12 by Muhammed Merah (we were told) in Montauban has pressed charges against Sarkozy and Bernard Squarcini, director of the DCRI [French internal intelligence service], for whom Merah worked as an agent.
Wikistrike 7.5.12 reports the father as stating that:
“The hypothesis that they killed Merah so that he couldn’t talk appears to me to be increasingly likely.”
This was my theory in N°129 of La Politique , the only one which explains the improbability of the official one.
Another analysis, published by Wikistrike (27.3.12) is more questionable:
“Allegedly, Israel had Samuel Sandler killed in order to trigger international outrage and stop a UN resolution aiming to monitor the implementation of human rights in Jerusalem and the occupied territories.”
Possible, though the example of September 11 seems to indicate that the Israelis are not inclined to kill their own, even to achieve their objectives.
The fact that the vast majority of Jews who worked in the World Trade Centre did not come to work that day clearly demonstrates this.
Likewise, concerning Samuel Sandler, not a single TV channel, to our knowledge, showed the photos of the victims of those murdered at the Jewish school.
Moreover, “the bodies” were immediately dispatched to Israel, in exactly the same way as the rubble from the World Trade centre was sent to Israel, escaping any form of analysis.
All the dubious aspects of these “murders” lead us inevitably to believe that we are dealing with a fictitious presentation and, more to the point, “forgeries”.
State crimes! (1), (2), (3).
(1) P. P. d’Assac- Le Complot mondialiste.
(2) Le Canard enchaîné, 18.4.12
(3) Sarkozy ou la mort programmée de la France. SPP
Translated from French
The original author was Philippe Ploncard d’Assac