Who’s really behind the terrorist attacks?

By Philippe Ploncard d’Assac

Source: Cercles Nationalistes Français

http://nationalisme-francais.com/communique-du-19-aout-2017-des-cercles-nationalistes-francais.html


The recent terrorist attacks in Barcelona, Cambrils and in Finland, following those in other European cities, draw attention to the strange inability of European governments to prevent these attacks. They are, however, connected via the European Union and are supposed to cooperate with one another. And yet, each time, their security services prove to be incapable of preventing these attacks, even though many of the perpetrators are, as they say, “well-known to the police.” So why then are they able to prevent these attacks against political leaders but not against ordinary citizens?

First of all, a few observations:

  1. How come the criminals are shot dead virtually every time ? And yet, it would be better to investigate the terrorist network to find out who gave the orders for these attacks. Not only has this not been done but it seems the authorities do not wish to do so…
  2. How come the alleged perpetrator of the Barcelona attack, Driss Oukabir (nicknamed “Soprano”), an Islamist “on the run” who frequently went to nightclubs with women, was not found…?
  3. How come, according to the Spanish police, he was only identified because he had obligingly left his passport in the van used for the attack…? These terrorists really do have the peculiar habit of leaving their pieces of identification for the investigators…!
  4. How come the “alleged perpetrators” of the Cambrils attack were killed, whereas we were told they wearing “fake explosive belts”…?! Odd terrorists or an odd set-up, as if they had been made to play a role, without telling them why. It is strange that the “alleged” terrorists, according to the Spanish police, were killed without due process…?!
  5. Just as US Admiral John Pointdexter, a freemason, brought in the Patriot Act following 9/11, all European governments are now taking advantage of the emotional shock sparked by these attacks to impose repressive laws which do nothing to improve the security of citizens. Indeed, we would be tempted to say the effect is just the opposite. In this respect, the recent attacks in Spain and in Finland will allow Macron to finally pass his controversial security law (which, though it would bring an end to the fallacious state of emergency, will still include its temporary measures). Thus we are gradually becoming a repressive police state, a dictatorship disguised by a security pretext […]
  6. How can we really fight against so-called “Islamic” terrorism while, like all European states, we continue to open the door to immigrants, as if following orders? And yet, the photos of the hordes of “immigrants” show that they are almost entirely all men, whose sexual outbursts in the form of rape are well known by the countries which welcome them.

It follows, then, that if European government really wanted to fight this “Islamic terrorism”, they would begin by closing the borders and would make the perpetrators talk instead of killing them, which wipes out all possibility of identifying who really gave the orders. Meanwhile, it’s only Zionism which ultimately benefits from these attacks.

So, before repeating “it’s Islamic terrorism, it’s ISIL”  like our governments and our media under orders, we ought to really remember that ISIL was created by the CIA and Israel in order to destabilise the Middle East and destroy the countries in the region which obstruct plans for “Greater Israel”, which explains the wars in Iraq and Syria.

We should also recall that ISIL is led by a certain al-Baghdadi, whose real name is Samuel Eliot, a former Mossad agent, as revealed by Edward Snowden, former member of the CIA and the NSA.

So “who benefits from the crime”, from these crimes ?!

We are in the midst of a manipulation by politicians and the media.

So is it Islamic terrorism or Zionist terrorism under a “false flag” ?!

This is the question we should ask if we want finally wipe out this terrorism, which has come from elsewhere…!


Translated from French

 

Advertisements

The creators of ISIS

By Jean Terrien

Source: Rivarol n°3291, 13/7/2017

[…]

ISIS was born in precisely the country which was the first target in the series of wars designed to break up the Arab world: Iraq. The “Arab Spring” of 2010-11 was used to spread terrorism across the Arab-Muslim world. This was the period during which the Sarkozy government dispatched agents from the DGSE to manage mercenaries financed by Qatar, coordinating air strikes with gains on the ground made by the false rebels (but true terrorists), supposedly fighting for freedom, against tyranny, etc. The Hollande government continued along exactly the same lines by arming Syrian terrorist groups, such as the Free Syrian Army (an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) which launched its offensive against the Syrian government in 2011.

Laurent Fabius, far from retracting the statement he made on December 2012 regarding the Al-Nusra Front (nothing other than Al-Qaida) which, according to him, was “doing good work”, he persisted and announced in a Tweet (August 2014) that high-performance weapons were soon to be delivered to the rebels in Syria. So it wasn’t surprising to then see photos of ISIS members carrying the Famas, a French assault rifle.

IMG_2526.JPG

Indeed, contrary to what one might think, there is no boundary or any true opposition between the dozens of terrorist groups active in Syria and Iraq. When ISIS were not supplied directly, the “moderate” terrorists of the Free Syrian Army would supply ISIS (mainly via their ally the Al-Nusra Front) with weapons they received from the Western powers.

The Creators of ISIS

On 28 September 2013, the New York Times published a new Middle Eastern map, entitled “How 5 countries could become 14”. On this map, published four months before the emergence of ISIS as a state in a territorial sense, we see a country named “Sunnistan”, located between Syria and Iraq: precisely the territory which came to be conquered by ISIS and defined the Islamic State’s borders. We must, therefore, ask whether the Americans are psychic or merely the creators of ISIS, especially since general Wesley Clark, former NATO forces chief, declared on CNN that ISIS had been “created by our friends and allies to defeat Hezbollah.” These friends and allies are no other than the Israelis…

On 2 March 2007, general Wesley Clark declared that at the Pentagon, just weeks after 9/11, he was handed a report detailing how the American government planned to invade seven countries over a period of five years, starting with Iraq, followed by Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finally, Iran. Clark pointed out that at the time this project was classified top secret.

In September 2014, the former Cuban president, Fidel Castro, condemned American support for Israel, accusing senator John McCain of having participated in the creation of ISIS.

Leaving aside the American and Israeli sponsors, let’s look at the architects of this state organisation, which had “suddenly” emerged before the astounded eyes of the world in the first week of 2014, when the Russians had just stopped (September 2013) American plans to bomb Syria.

On 18 April 2015, the German news magazine Der Spiegel published a highly informative report on the origins and organisation of the terrorist state. The German investigative journalists brought back documents they had bought from a rebel group, which had found them in the house of the ISIS organiser. These documents prove that:

“An Iraqi officer planned Islamic State’s takeover in Syria.”

“And portray an organization that, while seemingly driven by religious fanaticism, is actually coldly calculating.”

This architect in the shadows was named Abd Muhammad al-Khlifawi (killed in Janaury 2014 during a battle with rebels), but went by the name of Haji Bakr. He was a former colonel in Saddam’s intelligence service.

The secret documents, handwritten by Haji Bakr, were part of a file which included organisational charts, lists and programmes outlining the means to gradually dominate a country.  Der Spiegel describes the documents as follows:

They reveal a multilayered composition and directives for action, some already tested and others newly devised for the anarchical situation in Syria’s rebel-held territories. In a sense, the documents are the source code of the most successful terrorist army in recent history.”

Indeed, what we have here is the very replica of the Ba’athist state, which was based on a socialist model with an omnipresent security apparatus (the generals themselves were under surveillance). Moreover, Haji Bakr was not the only ISIS chief to have been a high-ranking member of Saddam Hussein’s armed forces. One of the leaders was an intelligence officer in a secret service unit attached to the anti-aircraft division, while another was a senior officer in the Iraqi sercret services.

In 2010, this small group of former Ba’athist officers, all of whom were secular if not atheist, made Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi the emir and then the “Caliph” of the Islamic State. According to Der Spigel:

“They reasoned that Baghdadi, an educated cleric, would give the group a religious face.”

They add:

“ISIS has little in common with predecessors like Al-Qaida aside from its jihadist label. There is essentially nothing religious in its actions, its strategic planning, its unscrupulous changing of alliances and its precisely implemented propaganda narratives. Faith, even in its most extreme form, is just one of many means to an end. Islamic State’s only constant maxim is the expansion of power at any price.”

All these wonderful people – former officers from Saddam’s government, Al-Qaida terrorists – came into contact with each other in 2006 not only in Abu Grahib prison but also at Camp Bucca where, according to a number of accounts, ISIS was created under the approving gaze of American soldiers.

[…]


Translated from French

Israel supports Syrian Islamists

Why Israel supports Syrian Islamists

By Antoine de Lacoste

Source: http://www.medias-presse.info/pourquoi-israel-soutient-les-islamistes-syriens/78461/


Since the beginning of the war in Syria, Israel has been directly supporting several Syrian Islamist groups. Weapons, money and medical supplies have been supplied in large quantities to the jihadists, especially along the border in the Golan Heights.

For a while, there was a rumour, denied by Tel Aviv: wounded Islamists were cared for in Israeli hospitals. A serious incident finally confirmed this news: Islamists had committed atrocities in a Druze village, before retreating, chased out by Druze reinforcements.

This highly singular and very close-knit community lives mainly in a territory situated between Syria and Israel. All the men are armed and are formidable mountain warriors. The French army retains a bitter memory of this fact from the 1925 Druze Revolt.

When chasing the Islamists, the Druzes were shocked to see their enemies running towards the border, where Israeli ambulances were waiting to take away their injured. Things ended badly for the Islamists: the ambulances were intercepted and the wounded were executed by the Druzes. The Israeli army did not intervene so as not to alienate a population with which it maintains good relations.

This rumour being factually confirmed, we should examine the reasons for this support, paradoxical in appearance only. There are two reasons.

The first reason is the desire to see Bachar fall. The Assads are old enemies of Israel and the collapse of their regime would have been the culmination of a long-standing enmity. In addition, this would have trigerred chaos in this reviled country. Indeed, the Israeli policy mainly aims at destabilising hostile regimes in order to safeguard its security. Besides, this was one of Bush’s aims with the war in Iraq, a complete success as Iraq no longer exists. This wasn’t the goal of the Americans, who failed to grasp some of the finer points of the Middle East, but it was definitely that of the Israelis.

The next target will be Iran, as Donald Trump clearly indicated recently, in order to emphasise the continuation of the relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv.

But following Russia’s intervention, Israel knows that it has lost its gamble and that Assad’s regime isn’t about to topple anytime soon. So why continue?

For a very simple reason: the need to establish a buffer-zone in the Golan Heights in order to prevent the Syrian army from returning to its border. Almost the entire length of the border is, then, in the hands of the Islamists who, without Israeli support, would have been defeated a long time ago.

So as soon as the Syrian army attempts to launch an offensive, the Israeli air-force is quick to intervene to rescue their protégés, the pretext being a reaction to Syrian provocations.

Aside from the Syrians, it is also a way to keep Hezbollah at bay. Israel had to put up with Hezbollah on its border with Lebanon (its 2006 offensive broke against fierce Shia resistance) and it has no intention of now seeing them roam the Golan Heights.

Nevertheless, there’ll come a moment when the Islamists will be defeated in Syria, which will not tolerate a part of its territory being once again annexed by Israel via jihadists.

Russian diplomacy will be necessary.


Translated from French

 

Obama rescues ISIS

The US president will soon take his leave but, before joining the 100 000 dollar a speech conference circuit, he will have committed another heinous crime in Syria. On the 17th September, his air-force killed some 80 soldiers belonging to the Syrian army in Deir Ezzor. Far from being accidental, this attack was carried out at the very moment when the Syrian national army was being attacked by ISIS.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour

The Pentagon declared that it was an error. But who can believe such a lie? Besides, this official version was modified by the American UN ambassador. She admitted to the Security Council that the US was behind this attack, but she minimised its importance by comparing this “unintentional” error with the “deliberate attacks” carried out by Damascus against civilians. What a bizarre explanation!

The theory of an accident doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You just have to look at the facts to realise this.

First of all, we have the modus operandi of the attack. According to witnesses, the attack lasted 45 minutes, and successive bombardments were carried out by several fighter jets.  Therefore it cannot be the act of a stray pilot who had misunderstood orders.

Secondly, consider the location of the attack. The position targeted was Jebel Tudar, 4km to the south of the town’s airport. This is a strategic high-point for the defence of the entire zone, where 100 000 civilians are surrounded by ISIS. It’s a fixed position, which has been visibly occupied by the Syrian army for months.

Thirdly, there is the triumphant press release made by ISIS. Indeed, the ISIS propaganda agency “Amaq” confirmed that the jihadist group had taken control of the hill where the supposed “anti-terrorist” coalition had carried out the attack. This superb coordination between the US and their unofficial mercenaries is worth highlighting.

Finally, it is highly unlikely that the US air-force would support the Syrian army. If it were a blunder, this would be the only possible explanation, but it is absurd. NATO forces have never lent air support to the Syrian army. Why would they? This is the question that the Russian ambassador recently asked at the UN. The answer is obvious: the aim was not to help the Syrian army but to help ISIS.

Indeed, attacking the Syrian army for ISIS allows the US to achieve three objectives. By relieving the Aleppo front, this new front in the far east of the country crushes the dream of of recapturing national territory. It weakens the Syrian state. But it also sends a clear message to the Takfiri extremists, who were in a bad position ever since the neighbourhoods in the south of Alep were recaptured. Furthermore, it strengthens Washington’s regional allies in the implementation of the deadly “constructive chaos” policy, at a time when the end of Obama’s term in office could lead to fears of a softening in the Washington line.

We knew that American cynicism was limitless. But they have just a made a quantum leap. This is the first time that the US has directly attacked the Syrian army. This new infringement is a test case, and it cannot be too long before the Moscow-Damascus axis retaliates. This support for the terrorist group shows that the neo-cons do not intend to let go of the Middle East. The fact that this attack coincides with the American donation of 38 billion dollars of military aid to Israel is revealing. Contrary to what one sometimes reads, Washington is not withdrawing from the region. It will continue to spread chaos in the region by arming all sorts of assassins.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Bruno Guigue, a political analyst and author, whose works include Les raisons de l’esclavage (L’Harmattan, 2001) et Aux origines du conflit israélo-arabe, l’invisible remords de l’Occident, (L’Harmattan, 2002).

Source : Agoravox

http://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/obama-au-secours-de-daech-184756


See also: Are we honestly fighting against ISIS? https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/are-we-honestly-fighting-against-the-islamic-state-isil/

Who are the true terrorists?

The true terrorists are the very same people who claim to fight terrorism

Johan Livernette

28 July 2016

Source: https://johanlivernette.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/les-veritables-terroristes-sont-ceux-qui-pretendent-le-combattre/#more-3251


While the truth and nothing but the truth should interest us, many people are misled by their (legitimate) hatred of savages and are duped by the mainstream media. They focus exclusively on what the (mendacious) media highlights.

11 September 2001, the Merah case, the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the Bataclan shooting on the 13 November, the Nice massacre on 14 July, a priest murdered at Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray on 26 July…

Let’s take these targets one by one: the Twin Towers (symbol of capitalism), an anti-religious satirical magazine (anti-Muslim but, mostly, anti-Christian), a rock concert with satanic overtones, the day of national celebrations to commemorate the French republic and, finally, a priest, a minister of God. All these targets constitute symbols and were by no means chosen at random.

The media version of each terrorist attack is flawed, tainted by lies. The media routinely buries photographic evidence and statements which contradict their theory (for example: this woman who saw an armed man get out of the lorry: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0KCluRZWKs) or they interview a fake hero, such as the man from Nice, Franck, whose statement was entirely false (https://www.facebook.com/panhamza/photos/a.259863080821062.1073741827.258337060973664/691396847667681/?type=3&theater.)

From inside-job to chaos

In each case, not only are we unsure of the identity of the terrorist, but we never move up the chain of command in order to identify the brains behind the attacks. After all, this is really what ought to interest us if we want to eradicate the problem at its source. Who are the sponsors of terrorism? Who has the power and the network necessary to carry out these large-scale attacks without being caught or convicted?

According to Aymeric Chauprade :

“Terrorism is essentially the consequence of state action,  the work of intelligence services which use lunatics and fanatics in order to carry out their operations.”

To carry out their dirty work, so to speak. Working on this assumption, it is clear that the French state and its intelligence services (1) would have acted as accessories to the terrorists in these attacks. And it is highly likely that each case was an “inside-job”. We are currently experiencing the French equivalent of the 11th September 2001. The true terrorists are those who claim to fight terrorism. Obeying the orders of a foreign nation, these people are incapable of protecting the French people and are akin to pyromaniac fireman.

From September 11 2001 to this very day – for we are experiencing the continuation of 9/11 (2) – the message conveyed by the mainstream media is clear: “Radical Islam” has declared war against the “Christian” West. The plot is very simple: it has to be, so that the entire population, anesthetised by the cathode ray tube, can understand it.

If we are to believe the various comments in the main-stream media and on the internet, the enemy, the number one danger, is Islam, which seeks to conquer and destroy. It would appear, therefore, that there is no conspiracy.  This enemy acts quite openly and defies the Christian West which, incidentally, has largely abandoned the Christian faith. Therefore it is ISIL which, for 18 months now, has been terrorising the French population and claiming responsibility for each of the attacks.

Some simple questions: What is ISIL ? Who are the members of ISIL ? What is their aim? Who controls ISIL? Who stands to gain from these serial killings for which ISIL claims responsibility?

To all these questions we have neither precise answers nor conclusive evidence.  And we know just as little about ISIL as we do about recent events. Apparently, the terrorists were all Arab Muslims, followers of Wahhabi ideology. They claim that some were criminals with links to the intelligence services, while others were said to be mentally-disturbed alcoholics or Islamic extremists. Evidently, they were all mere sub-contractors, manipulated and used by the state (3). The very same state which claims to fight terrorism and Islamic extremism, even though for decades it has encouraged the massive inflow of immigrants, most of whom are … Muslims.  Spot the mistake.

If the French state really did want to fight against Islamic terrorism, it would tackle the problem differently. It wouldn’t encourage immigration from North Africa and the Islamisation of France. It wouldn’t allow the construction of mosques. Its rhetoric and its spin are contradicted by the facts, so this government has no credibility.

Let’s come back to ISIL. According to the criminologist, Xavier Raufer, ISIL “is not a terrorist group” but “a mercenary army”. Answerable to whom? “There is not a single Islamic extremist among the leaders of ISIL”. According to him, ISIL is a secular group controlled from abroad. And it is the foreign element which we find most interesting. ISIL is, objectively speaking, primarily a weapon of destruction in the hands of the international Judeo-Masonry, working for the construction of Greater Israel. Anybody can see that ISIL, Al-Qaida (“CIA Arab legion”, according to W Tarpley) and the Al-Nusra Front (Al Qaida in Syria) are shadowy and amorphous groups which have never attacked Israel.

This is perhaps just a coincidence … or perhaps not. After all, which state aims to destroy all the other nations in order secure its domination of the world? Which military power seeks to turn the world into battlefield? Motivated by hatred and vengeance, it pursues its messianic mission. Who would look to turn the Christian West against the Islamic world in order to plunge France into chaos, and then do same everywhere else in the world? Once we have examined the world revolutionary movement, that is to say the Talmudic-Masonic conspiracy, asking these questions leads us directly to the answers.

Create a Climate of Fear

Clearly, the objective of this operation, this series of terrorist attacks, is to establish a climate of fear in France. Fear had already set in with the Charlie Hebdo attack. You only have to listen to people in the street talking about how they are scared of going out. This fear, which is building to a crescendo, eerily resembles that of 1793 when the Freemasons Robespierre (his real surname: Rubinstein), Danton, Marat and Duport (the mastermind behind the massacres) were at work. This climate of fear aims to make people accept unpopular government decisions which go against the public interest (reform of employment law). This climate of fear, therefore, seeks to impose a Masonic dictatorship (4). It also aims, above all, to trigger a civil war in France.

This is what the French secret service chief, Patrick Calvar, told us last month:

“We are on the verge of a civil war. I think this conflict (desired by the extreme-right in particular) will take place. A couple more terrorist attacks and it will happen.”

In conclusion, we have every reason to fear a civil war between the Christian and Muslim communities or that foreign mercenaries ransack the country as they did in Syria and Libya (in fact, just about anywhere in the world where the American-European-Zionist axis has imposed “democracy and freedom”.)

Faced with this situation, what should we do? Most importantly, we should not get involved in a conflict from which we have nothing to gain and everything to lose, for the die has been cast. While waiting to discover the truth about these terrorist attacks we must, more than ever, remain level-headed and we should not heed the media siren calls luring us into a civil war. Remain vigilant and, if you are a Christian, find time for prayer.

See also: Does the FBI create terrorists?

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/le-point-asks-does-the-fbi-create-terrorists/


(1) According to Roland Dumas, former French foreign affairs minister, the French intelligence services are controlled by Mossad:

https://lacontrerevolution.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/israel-controle-les-services-de-renseignements-francais/

(2)  According to Kabbalists, the number 911 denotes the eviction of God.

(3) Mind control techniques can be used in this case.

https://lacontrerevolution.wordpress.com/2016/06/11/sortie-du-livre-mk-abus-rituels-et-controle-mental-dalexandre-lebreton/

(4) The Masonic dictatorship is the true face of democracy.


Article Translated from French

ISIL Oil Bought by EU Countries

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or Daesh) currently controls eleven oil-fields in northern Iraq and in the region of Rakka in Syria.

Du pétrole de l’Etat Islamique acheté par des pays européens

According to the Andalou News Agency, Jana Hybášková, Ambassador of the European Union in Iraq, oil tankers filled with oil purchased from ISIL had arrived in European countries. She refused to go into further detail or give a list of the countries concerned.

Meanwhile, the site Atlantico has indicated the ISIL sells its oil at around 25 to 50 dollars per barrel (it sells for 100 dollars per barrel on the international market) via its network of smugglers in Jordan, Turkey, Kurdistan and Iran, and that it cannot be ruled out that this crude oil then comes into the US or into Europe.

As for the supply of weapons to the Kurds, the ambassador claimed that it was impossible to verify whether the true recipients were still the Peshmerga or “Kurdish terrorist groups”. According to her, moreover, support for Kurdish independence would trigger “the complete collapse of the Middle East”.

22 September 2014


Translated from French

The original author was Gilles Munier

Source : France-Irak Actualité

http://www.france-irak-actualite.com/2014/09/du-petrole-de-l-etat-islamique-achete-par-des-pays-europeens.html


See also: “ISIL: Are we honestly fighting against the terrorists?”

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/are-we-honestly-fighting-against-the-islamic-state-isil/

Terrorism

Terrorism – A Geopolitical Perspective

Who will tell you about the origins of the different forms of terrorism ? Who will explain the geopolitical role of this destructive logic in the confrontation between the two opposing blocks in the world? So far, sociologists and other experts have not been able to usefully categorise the different types of terrorism, according to their geostrategic role, and place them in a historical perspective.

By Youssef Hindi

Source: Arrêt Sur Info


The Clash of Civilisations – A Messianic Strategy 

Some people know, superficially at any rate, Samuel Huntington’s pseudo theory which has been greatly promoted by the media. The “clash of civilisations” divides the world according to religion and civilisation and presents the diversity of cultures as the root cause of geopolitical conflict. It therefore implies that only cultural and political unification will eliminate all conflict.  This is in line with Francis Fukayama’s idea of “the end of history”, which is constantly proven wrong by reality

.

Few know that this so-called theory was taken from Bernard Lewis who, in 1957, developed his clash of civilisations concept. According to this, the Christian world and the Muslim world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other until the end of “history” or rather until both of these civilisations destroy each other in an eschatological war which will be to the benefit of a third party

My latest historical research (1), which identifies the origins of Zionism and this clash of civilisations strategy, shows that what Lewis had put forward as theoretical conflict between the most important religions in the world is in fact a messianic strategy, which was developed during the Middle Ages as part of the project to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. This project gave birth to political Zionism in its atheist form at the end of the 19th century.

Bernard Lewis – who holds Israeli, Britsh and Amerian passports – is not just an historian. He also a strategist who has worked at the heart of both the British and American state, and has done so ultimately for the benefit of Israel. He is, moreover, one of those influential stateless people who are members of, or allies to, the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, which pushed the American administration to destroy Iraq (2) to the benefit of Israeli expansionism. Lewis will go down in history as having given a scientific facade, a theoretical disguise, to this messianic strategy. History will recognise that Huntington brought this strategy to the masses in order to justify global chaos, which is not a natural state of affairs, but is encouraged by powerful forces (3).

Terrorism has not always been international. Nor has it always had that shade which certain ideologues close to Zionist and neo-conservative circles describe as “green-fascism”+. Neither has terrorism always benefited from Hollywood-style media promotion on a global scale.

What we describe as being terrorism, sometimes wrongly, can take a large number of forms and have many definitions.

We can draw a parellel between the terror linked to the expansion of the Cromwell regime in the 17th century with that of Wahhabism in the Arab peninsula in the 18th century. We can also make a comparison with the French revolution of 1789, which preceded the social-anarcho revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.

These revolutions, which were accompanied by territorial conquest, all had one point in common : mass extermination as a means of achieving ideological domination. The goal was to construct modern institutions on the ruins of the traditional society.

The socialist ideology behind these historical catastrophes also gave birth to the Haganah, created in the early 1920s, which in turn led to the creation of the Irgun. These Jewish homeland (Yishuv) terrorist organisations, which formed the basis of what was to become the IDF, were created to support and expand the Jewish settlements in Palestine.

Wahhabi Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism and False Flag Attacks

It is necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism, the analysis of which will allow us to see geopolitics from a different perspective:

  • Wahhabi terrorism, directed by America, whose aim is territorial conquest and the disintegration of nations.
  • Zionist terrorism which aims to divide and provoke.

Although the British created a Jewish homeland for the Zionists at the end of the First World War, the Irgun led a violent campaign against the British in order to drive them out of Palestine (4).

This culminated with the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the Hotel King David on the 22 July 1946. An important detail : the Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs for the occasion so that the Palestinians would be blamed for the attackThis is an excellent example of a “false flag” attack.

The Israelis carried out several disguised attacks of this sort in order to drag their allies into armed conflicts:

  • In 1954, Israeli agents attempted to blow up several American buildings in Egypt in order to turn the Americans against the Egyptians.
  • In 1967, the Americans avoided intervening in the Six-Day War as the Soviet Union was an ally to Syria and Egypt. The Israelis attempted to draw the Americans into the war by attacking their reconnaissance ship, the USS Liberty. The Israelis attempted to pass this off as an attack by the Egyptians, in the same way as they had done in 1954.

The same pattern can be found with the 9/11 attacks which led the United States into a permanent war with one part of the Muslim world, in accordance with the clash of civilisations strategy and the Israeli project to redraw the boundaries of the Muslim world (5). The World Trade Centre attacks were viewed with suspicion by various analysts, scientists and politicians.

Certain facts lead me to believe that we are dealing with the same strategy as that deployed in 1946, 1954 and 1967.

Among the stack of evidence highlighting the implication, albeit indirect, of the Israeli secret services in these spectacular attacks, we have the fact that five Israelis were arrested by the New York police: they were caught rejoicing while taking photos of each other in front of the burning towers.  The police had discovered documents in their possession which proved that they knew the exact time and location of the attacks. It turned out that they were Mossad agents. Their names: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

Some thirty other Israeli agents, who went undercover as art students in America, lived close to 15 of the supposed hijackers (6).

An article in the New York Times, published on the 18 February 2009, revealed that Ali al-Jarrah, who was a cousin of Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker of flight UA93, had been a Mossad spy for 25 years and had infiltrated the Palestinian resistance movement in 1983.

Moreover, the US Army School for Advance Military Studies published a report, quoted in a Washington Times article *, which stated that Mossad “has the capability to target US forces and make it look like an Arab/Palestinian act”.

What’s more, journalists working for Le Monde revealed on February 2015 that a Mossad agent in Panama, Shimon Yalin Yelinik, had confessed to having funded the 9/11 terrorists.

Benjamin Netanyahou, the current Israeli Prime Minister, gladly admitted that the terrorist attacks benefitted Israel. The Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Netanyahou, who declared the 9/11 attacks had been “good for Israel” and added: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events have swung American public opinion in our favour”

When interviewed by a French journalist for I-Télé on the 7 August 2014, Netanyahou implied, somewhat menacingly, that terrorists would attack France if it did not support Israel in its policy with regard to the Palestinians.

We do not have solid proof to hand of Mossad involvement in the terrorist attacks against France, carried out in 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, Georges Malbrunot, journalist for Le Figaro, stated in a Tweet 17 days after the November attacks that: “A military official confides that the DGSI (the French secret service) refused Israeli assistance in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks” and adds that “Mossad took advantage of the honeymoon between Sarkozy and Israel to reinforce its presence in France”. He concludes with the DGSI’s own words:

“Mossad already has an active presence on French soil and we must not reinforce it”

This confirms the statement of the former French minister for foreign affairs, Roland Dumas. In his book, Coups et Blessures, he delared that:

“The Israelis do what they like in France and manipulate the French intelligence service, the DST, in any way which suits them … The Jewish lobby, as Mitterrand used to call it, was extremely active”.

This Zionist form of terrorism combines perfectly with the nihilistic Wahhabi form of terrorism, a product of two ideologies which appear foreign to one another. From an historical and geopolitical point of view, they merge within the framework of the clash of civilisations strategy.

What is extraordinary is the fact that Wahhabism and Zionism, as incarned by a nation state, appeared at the same time and were both backed by the British armed forces.

The British, who supported at arms’ length the accomplishment of the Zionist project in the aftermath of the First World War, also encouraged Saudi-Wahhabi expansionism in the Arab peninsula in the early 1920s.

In 1945, the Americans took over from the British in their support for Saudi Arabia, in the same way as they did for the state of Israel, and contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi doctrine across the world (7).

Wahabbi terrorism was, right from the very start, a geostrategic weapon used by the British and Americans against their enemies. As mentioned previously, this form of terrorism is used by the Anglo-Saxons as a corrosive to fragment target nations.

Indeed, in the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at the time National Security Advisor to President Carter, masterminded the coordination of the CIA with the Pakistani and Saudi intelligence services in order to finance future terrorists, including Bin Laden, in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.

In the late 1990s, this strategy was again deployed in Chechnya in order to trigger the collapse of the Russian Federation. It was then used in Iraq (in 2003) and again in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen. And, perhaps, it will again be used in Algeria.

This fact was finally admitted by the New York Times on the 23 January 2016:

“US relies heavily on Saudi money to support Syrian Rebels” **

Geopolitical Conclusion – America versus Russia in the Struggle to Control Eurasia

Let’s put this into a geostrategic perspective. The key issue in the geopolitics of opposing continental blocks is the control of Eurasia, the centre of which is the Middle East.

The Atlanticist policy, whose strategy for the year 2000 onwards was developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997, consists of penetrating deeply into Eurasia by making Europe one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored Eurasian structure of security and cooperation (8).

This strategy aims to destroy, or at least weaken, Russia by pushing for Ukrainian independence. This would change the very geostrategic nature of Russia: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire (9)”.

Russia is the main target. It is having to cope with a double strategy, as explained in article published in 2015 (10). First, there is the Brzezinski strategy, which serves American imperial interests. Secondly, there is the more covert Zionist strategy, epitomised by Henry Kissinger. This consists of disconnecting Russia from its allies in the Middle East, in particular Iran and Syria.

So far, Putin’s Russia has withstood the Kissinger strategy. On 11 May 2014, Kissinger declared that “we should not isolate Russia and it’s in everybody’s interests that it be maintained in the international system.”

As far back as 2008, he reached out to Russia, claiming that the United States should seek agreement with Russia, while describing Iran as being a danger for the region, in accordance with the Israeli geopolitical doctrine. This sent a clear message to the Russians : you will remain in the international system provided that you abandon your Middle Eastern allies in favour of Israel. But this geopolitical deal is a trap, the ultimate goal being to weaken Russia.

The conclusion is obvious: the stabilisation and the continued existence of the Middle East, the Maghreb and Europe depend on the formation of a mutually beneficial strategic axis, stretching from Brest to Vladivostock, running through Rabat and Alger. This would lead to Brezinski’s worst nightmare: the loosening of transatlantic ties which would bring an end to America’s primacy in Eurasia.

+Islamic extremism. Green is the colour of the cloth used to cover coffins in Islamic funerals.
*See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/sep/10/20010910-025319-6906r/
**See http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-saudi-money-to-support-syrian-rebels.html?_r=0

References:

(1) Youssef Hindi, Occident et islam – Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme, éd. Sigest, 2015.

(2) Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2008

(3) Youssef Hindi op. cit.

(4) Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe, Arabisme et islamisme de 1798 à 1945, éd. Armand Colin, 1993, p. 353.

(5) Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document N° 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8).

(6) Youssef Hindi, op. cit.

(7) Hamadi Redissi, Le pacte de Nadjd, ou comment l’islam sectaire est devenu l’islam, 2007, éd. Seuil.

(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997.

(9) Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit.

(10) Youssef Hindi, La Russie, l’Europe et l’Orient, Revue Europe & Orient, N° 21, 2015.


Translated from French

Governing by Chaos

Following yet another tragic and avoidable terrorist attack on French soil, it is salutary to remember that sometimes not is all what it seems and that chaos and carnage attributed to an enemy, either real or imagined (the victims, sadly, are always only too real), can in fact be a way of maintaining power. The following extract from Lucien Cerise’s Gouverner par le Chaos (Governing by Chaos), details the psychological operations used by governments in order to crush any opposition to their rule.


Afficher l'image d'origine

Counter-insurgency warfare

In their work on the virtualisation of politics, social engineers have drawn much inspiration from the methods of counter-insurgency warfare. Manufacturing the population’s consent demands the ability to side-step, counteract and eliminate the risk that it stages a rebellion.

Faced with the various civil insurrections which have marked the 20th century – colonial wars, revolutions, guerrilla warfare, uprisings and social conflict – military officers of various countries have sought to formalize counter-insurgency tactics. By counter-insurgency tactics we mean proven coercive methods to prevent any form of popular resistance to government power, ideally nipping it in the bud even before it appears.

The most famous manuals are :

Modern Warfare by Roger Trinquier

Counter-Insurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice by David Galula

Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping by Frank Kitson.

The retired British army general, Frank Kitson, held the most prestigious posts (he was Commander in Chief of UK land forces) and gained the highest distinctions (he was awarded Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire).

With many years of experience gained in operations on the ground (Kenya, Malaysia, Northern Ireland, Falklands), he wrote a manual which provides a summary of the tactics to be deployed by an armed unit seeking to prevail over a rebellious local population.

This book was never published in French and we only know of five copies in the French university library system. In fact, the mere publication of this book in larger numbers could radically shift the world’s geopolitical balance of power.

The investigative journalist, Michel Collon, summarises the content of this holy grail of political thought :

“Though a general, Kitson considers that conventional police and military tactics have no chance of working in a campaign for ‘hearts and minds’, what he terms strategic psychological warfare”.

What lies behind this obscure term, “strategic psychological warfare” ?

It becomes clearer once we examine the range of techniques advocated and used by Kitson :

  • Give all government chiefs (in the army, ministry of foreign affairs, etc) training in the methods of psychological operations or “psy ops” (the psychological manipulation of public opinion)
  • Form “psuedogangs” to gather a maximum amount of intelligence. More importantly, by carrying out operations attributed to the enemy, these gangs will discredit the opposition.
  • Create diversions by, for example, fermenting religious wars.
  • Create false documents (“black propaganda”) and attribute these to the enemy in order to discredit him.
  • Place agents in the opposition groups or incite members to betray the group (either by using blackmail or corruption) in order to discredit these organisations or even create splits.
  • Militarise the news and completely censure all opposing opinion. Control the international news and ensure collaboration. Provide photos to influence public opinion. Use journalists on the ground as spies.
  • Use music to attract young people with a message which appears non-political.
  • Set up and promote artificially “spontaneous” groups, presented as being neutral and independent but which are in fact financed and controlled with the aim to weaken support for the opposition.

Thus Kitson reviews the entire arsenal of weapons used by political leaders today: create false enemies, false friends, false problems and false solutions by means of erroneous perceptions induced by false terrorist attacks (what’s termed “false flag” attacks in the military jargon) and false news (black propaganda, which is entirely false, or grey propaganda, which is mixture of both truth and lies, in order to make the population accept what is not true). All these techniques can be categorised as “psy ops”.

As Christian Harbulot higlights in his Cognitive Warfare, manipulation, lies, decoys and deception are age-old political techniques when it comes to controlling minds via images and words. In the very first chapter of his manual, Sun Tzu declares “All warfare is based on deception.” More recently, general Francart explains in great detail how propaganda should emulate advertising techniques in order to gain the approval of, or even curry favour with, the target population.

The ‘derealisation’ of politics has reached its high point thanks to mass media, especially the television, a fabulous tool of social control, a spy which has penetrated as far as the bedrooms of our teenage children. Television alters perceptions and shapes the way that millions of citizens see the world. The most important tool in psychological operations, the television has placed whole populations in an artificial reality, which has been completely constructed by the government.


Translated from French

Source: Gouverner par le Chaos (Governing by Chaos), written by Lucien Cerise and published by Max Milo. Pages 58-61.

 

 

 

Terrorism in France : Who’s really guilty?

Yet again, France is deep in mourning following an atrocious crime carried out by a savage.

Obviously, our first thoughts are for the victims and their families to whom we express our most sincere condolences and who are in our prayers.

But we must also call for the French to be clear-headed. Neither candles nor cartoons are an appropriate response to what is happening before our eyes.

It is vital to identify where the responsibility lies by going back to the causes of terrorism and everything that goes with it.

Those who are truly guilty are the politicians, whether they be left or right-wing, from Nicolas Sarkozy to François Hollande, along with Bernard-Henry Lévy and Laurent Fabius, who orchestrated the chaos in the Middle East in the name of interests which are not those of France and who supported Islamist groups, which now operate here.

Also guilty are those organise mass immigration into Europe. Terrorists hide among the groups of immigrants. Two scourges, in collusion with our government, join forces to hit our continent hard.

Also guilty are those who are in charge of protecting the French and who continue to serve the anti-France ideology, such as Patrick Calvar, head of the French intelligence service (DGSI), who, during his address at the parliamentary inquiry into the 2015 terrorist attacks, stated that further terrorist attacks were to be expected and, at the same time, asked for additional resources to “deal with the extreme right”.

Also guilty are those who, in a Machiavellian fashion, use the terrorist attacks to introduce more laws to restrict our freedoms, laws which are not designed to put the terrorists out of action but which aim to put the French under surveillance in order to silence any real opposition.

Also guilty are the self-righteous who, honouring the principle of “we mustn’t make generalisations”, oppose basic measures aimed at protecting us from all those in our country who have been identified as supporting ISIL/ISIS, the Al-Nusra Front and other Islamic extremist groups of this sort. This principle of “we mustn’t make generalisations” is in fact the most effective way to ensure that people make generalisations.

True political courage begins by telling the French the truth.


Article Translated from French

The original author was Alain Escada, president of Civitas

Source: Egalité et Réconciliation

https://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/Terrorisme-en-France-qui-sont-les-veritables-coupables-40441.html

Turkey transports weapons and ammunition to jihadist armed groups in Syria

On 3 June 2016, the Russian ministry of defence made public video images taken from a reconnaissance aircraft. The video shows long lines of lorries transporting ammunition and weapons from Turkey to armed groups in Idleb, Syria.

It is not yet possible to precisely identify these armed groups. At best we know that the West currently supports the Turkmen, the Kurds as well as former Arab members of the Free Syrian Army.  According to Russian and Syrian defence ministers, the majority of the armed individuals are members of the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian branch of Al-Qaida.

On the same day, the Pentagon had itself dropped weapons and ammunition into Marea*. We do not know which armed group took these supplies.

The liberation of Idlib would allow Syria and Russia to free Alep, which would spell the end of plans to overthrow the Syrian republic and establish an Islamic fundamentalist government.

*See https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2016/06/09/syria-pentagon-drops-weapons-to-armed-groups/

See also “Are we honestly fighting against the Isamic State (ISIL)?”

https://geostrategieblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/08/are-we-really-fighting-against-isis/

 

Translated from French

Source: Réseau Voltaire

http://www.voltairenet.org/article192146.html