The Charlie Hebdo False Flag in Paris: Theory, Evidence and Motive
21st Century Wire The following essay looks to present a theory of false flag terrorism in relation to evidence and motives present for the case of the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris, France.
One must preface this piece with a short statement on its intentions. The shooting that took place in Paris is a tragedy of immense proportions, ruining the lives of many people, leaving a scar on French history and threatening the ideals of freedom of expression. This writer is not concerned with theories of a hoax where nobody was killed, nor the potential involvement of Reptilians, and would prefer to leave such ideas firmly behind; in favour of those which actually have supporting evidence. This piece is interested in presenting a theory of false flag terrorism, which has occurred numerous times throughout history, in parallel with evidence that can support such a theory and also show a motive for such actions. It is only through reasoned and well argued analysis that alternative theories can hope to gain ground in the mainstream consciousness. That being said, it is not possible to present any idea, official or otherwise, without some degree of subjectivity and speculation. However, the epistemological concern should be with the weight and relevance of the evidence invoked towards the case, not positivistic absolutism, and only you, the reader, can be the judge of that.
The theory of false flag terrorism we will be exploring here is that of Dr. Webster Griffin Tarpley, which can be found in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. This theory suggests that four key aspects are required for the successful execution of a false flag terror operation.
1) Patsies, dupes and useful idiots
– These are the people which you will see on the front pages of newspapers and on the evening news as those allegedly ‘responsible’ for the attack. They can have the will to perform terroristic actions, but usually are of low mental ability lacking the means and technical capabilities to do so. In some cases they will think that they are carrying out an attack, but it is also possible for patsies to not be aware they about to be framed. They must be under a level of supervision, yet free to fulfill their role.
2) Professional executioners
– These are the actors that have the means and technical capabilities to perform terroristic actions. They usually have to be unseen, at least personally although their actions will not be, throughout the entire false flag event. This allows them to shift blame upon the useful idiots at a later point.
3) Privatised command structure
– This is the ever illusive shadowy element of false flag terrorism. The instigator and bankroll. Neither seen nor heard of, and can be tricky to specifically identify. Uses Moles within both public and private institutions to implement the Synthetic Terror apparatus necessary to carry out the event.
4) Controlled corporate media
– Through means of monopolised ownership and coercion, a controlled corporate media is required to immediately espouse the story of the useful idiots, not professionals, being responsible.
In short, the privatised command structure employs the use of professional executioners and technicians, for whatever motive they have, to instigate a terroristic incident. Following this, a patsy is placed on the scene sometimes materially sometimes rhetorically, and immediately blamed, often with zero evidence and by an unnamed source, as being the perpetrator. The controlled corporate media will then run with this version of events as factual, whether it is or not, and sometimes even seek to discredit ideas to the contrary. What we must now attempt to do is see whether any evidence and facts from the Charlie Hebdo shooting points to the presence and operation of patsies, professional executioners and a privatised command structure.
Our first point of enquiry comes from the accused perpetrators allegedly being Muslims. This led to the event being declared “an act of Islamist terrorism, as the attackers shouted, ‘Allahu akbar’”. The Foreign Policy article goes on to state that the attackers “were captured on video shouting Islamist slogans and claiming they had attacked the paper to avenge the Prophet Muhammed“. Although this is what was seen and heard, it does not mean that this is what you were seeing. Anyone can shout “Islamist slogans“, whether they are Islamic or not, and, as the attackers were disguised behind masks we cannot assume that they were indeed the Islamic extremists we are being told they are.
Now, remember the role of the professional executioners and technicians is to carry out the event and help to place blame upon the patsy to blamed later on. The use of such slogans can, therefore, be seen as evidence of an attempt to frame an Islamic patsy and steer the subsequent narrative in the direction of Islamic extremism; away from any other potential source of terrorism, which could have otherwise been plausible .
This attempt at steering the narrative was furthered once more by a ‘claim’ allegedly being made by a representative of the group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen. The problem here is, once again, that this was “provided on condition of anonymity“. It also did not come immediately after the attack and the delay was apparently “due to the executors’ security reasons”, which seems somewhat dubious . Anonymous sources should, in this writer’s opinion, always be held in a skeptical regard. Their usage in situations such as this one can be dangerous, placing blame upon those who may not necessarily be responsible. The U.S. government has since taken a similar stance, itself suggesting that there is “no credible information” that an al-Qaeda group was actually behind the attacks .
Evidence of the alleged perpetrators being patsies, dupes and useful idiots does exist. We are informed by an AP article that one of the accused, Cherif Kouachi, was “a former pizza deliveryman” and had already been arrested back “in 2008 for trying to join up with fighters battling in Iraq“. As an employee in a position that requires little intellectual ability, combined with failure in previous terroristic attempts, we can suggest that Cherif Kouachi fits the definition of a potential patsy; as he demonstrates low mental ability and a will, but lack of means and capability, to perform terroristic actions . We have also learnt that one of the alleged perpetrators was wrongly accused. The supposed getaway driver, 18-year-old Mourad Hamyd, was “in class”; leading to a Twitter campaign by his classmates, which you can find under #MouradHamydInnocent . This demonstrates the potential for failures, deliberate or not, to occur; which may not only be limited to this one suspect.
Yet, what we see on the streets of Paris are men who are described as anything but incapable in the actions which they undertook. “Masked and garbed in black, the AK-47 wielding assassins appeared to be executing a well-coordinated plan in the late-morning raid, methodically seeking out and executing those targeted for death, and making a clean getaway“. That is how Fox News details the event. Their analyst, retired Army Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, said “it was evident immediately that this was a carefully planned, sophisticated operation by well-trained, well-armed veterans of jihad. This was not a pick-up team. These butchers were methodical and efficient. They weren’t just terrorists: They were terrorist commandos”. Peters elaborates and states “they didn’t just go nuts and shoot wildly, as amateur jihadis do. They set out to kill specific people and never lost focus. They even stayed cool during the getaway phase. These men had killed before”. Furthermore, Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical analysis at global intelligence firm Stratfor, also told Fox News, “these are not amateurs. Especially when you compare it to the deadly, but amateurish lone wolf attack on Oct. 22, 2014 in Ottawa. These men were working as a fire team” . Moreover, Aki Peritz, a former CIA analyst, stated that the attacks were “very professional, well thought out and well executed“; also suggesting it is significant that, apart from the police, nobody other than the targets were killed . Lt. Col. (Ret) Anthony Shaffer suggested in an interview on Fox and Friends that the perpetrators’ arsenal of weapons indicates evidence of vast “logistical support” , which is in turn evidence of a privatised command structure . This collection of analysis does not corroborate with the profile we have of at least one of the alleged perpetrators, particularly as he had failed to even come close to killing before, and instead points to the presence of highly professional executioners; of utmost importance for successful false flag operations.
So, why then did such ‘professionals’, obviously concerned with concealing their identities due to their wardrobe choices, leave behind an ID card in their getaway car? This can be framed as a mistake, a framing we find in an article from the UK’s Mirror stating “the suspected terrorists have been identified after one of the brothers left his ID card in the Citroën C3 they abandoned as they escaped” . Could it be a mistake? Sure. But consider the analysis presented above. The professionalism and potential for advanced ‘logistical support’ suggest that the ID card story could fit in with a bigger picture. It bears striking similarity with a story that broke on 9/11, where “the passport of one of the hijackers” was discovered. This story makes literally zero sense, as in the same report it is stated that “when the two airline jets crashed into the twin towers, thousands were vaporised almost instantly; consumed in the burning jet fuel” . How then did a passport survive? Both stories suggest a deliberate attempt to plant false evidence, considering the near improbability of these events happening by chance, framing patsies, not the real perpetrators, for these crimes.
Incredible acts like these are usually found in false flag operations, yet the controlled corporate media usually refuses to address such events; instead choosing to parrot, and never question, the official story that is fed to them. We find further incredulous acts through reports stating that the alleged attackers “had been listed in databases for years” . They “were both logged in the US government’s Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) system“, meaning they were also both on the notorious U.S. “No Fly List” . Moreover, the “two brothers accused of the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris have been on a British watch list for the last four years“, “to deter them from entering the UK or transiting through a British airport” . This might explain why “French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said Thursday that the suspects were “probably followed” prior to the shooting” . If true we therefore find evidence of potential handling, a process of supporting and guiding someone for specific means and ends; often employed by intelligence agencies and police when they ‘handle’ an asset. It makes sense that such well known ‘potential terrorists’ would be followed on a regular basis, so, assuming it was them, why were they not stopped? It would have been obvious where they were heading and their outlandish actions on the streets of Paris do not allow for a defence of ‘confusion’ as to what was going on. This is strong evidence of patsies having their freedom maintained to carry out, or at least be able to blamed for, an operation; necessary for successful false flags. It is also evidence of the privatised command structure necessary, as people were keeping track of the potential patsies.
The fact that one of the alleged attackers apparently trained with al-Qaeda in Yemen might explain their presence on so many international terrorist watch lists. “Said Kouachi, 34, was in Yemen for a number of months training with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula“, so perhaps at least one of the suspects may have had some of the technical skills necessary to carry out the event . Assuming then that it was the brothers at the crime scene and not covert professional executioners, we could suggest a merging of the roles of patsy and professional; but still a false flag event nonetheless. This is because, as evidenced above, we still have the existence of a private command structure in the supply of the weaponry and tailing of the suspects prior to the event.
Now this is where things get really suspicious; potentially tearing apart the argument in the previous paragraph of this analysis. We are now told that Cherif, not Said, conducted an interview over the phone “to BFM-TV before his death while holed up inside the building“. In this interview, he said: “I was sent, me, Cherif Kouachi, by Al Qaeda of Yemen. I went over there and it was Anwar al Awlaki who financed me” . Yet, we heard above that it was Said who was in Yemen. So who really was in Yemen? This, once again, appears to be an attempt to frame a patsy. What was stated explicitly identifies someone who had, apparently, previously undertaken efforts to disguise their identity with the use of a mask and quick getaway, which is an obvious inconsistency. The fact that the wrong name was used also raises suspicions as to the true origins of this phone call. Is this perhaps more evidence of the privatised command structure working to feed the controlled corporate media with its story? How did this television station get in contact with the suspects? What evidence, aside from claims of the station, do we have that this phone call is legitimate? It is interesting that the name Anwar al-Awlaki was mentioned too. This figure was invited by the Pentagon “to a luncheon just months after the 9/11 attacks“, supposedly to “to ease tensions with Muslim-Americans after the terror attacks” .
According to our analysis here, we can instead suggest that this too is evidence of handling. To what extent was al-Awlaki involved with military intelligence in the future? Did he receive funding, training or assistance of any kind under the guise of ‘easing tensions’? Involvement with such a figure casts further doubt onto the authenticity of the Paris attackers.
As keen investigators we should always look for specific and relevant motives, which avoid vast and vague sweeping ideas, to ensure both heightened credibility and potential for our work. First, let us contextualise the current geopolitical situation.
Anglo-American hegemony is on the decline due to vast, perhaps terminal, financial crises, and measures attempting to rectify this situation, austerity in particular, appear to failing on all fronts; especially as we now how have an anti-austerity party, Syriza, poised to come to power in Greece and reject the IMF. The IMF is an institution favoured, owned and operated by the Anglo-Americans for purposes of financially seizing countries throughout the world; through a process of destroying the capabilities of the state, under ‘structural adjustment’, and then burdening the country with exorbitant amounts of debt effectively leading to the IMF ‘owning’ the country. This decline of Anglo-American hegemony, and rejection of their methods, is putting these waning Western powers into a difficult position. Of course it would be possible for them to accept that their time as the dominant force on the world stage was coming to an end but, alas, we see a mad scramble to sustain hegemonic power at any cost; particularly through actions to destabilize the Middle East in favour of Western interests, attempts to portray Russia as a threat to Western liberal international order, and, even attempts at starting a new regional war through destructive clandestine operations in Ukraine. It is this stance of desperation that makes the Western powers unstable and, in turn, incredibly dangerous.
However, not all Western leaders agree with the stance of desperation. In an “unprecedented two-hour interview with France Inter radio“, French President Hollande took it upon himself to address the world situation as dire and in need of immediate change. Hollande said, “Putin does not want to annex eastern Ukraine“, putting him at odds with an entire narrative Western, NATO governments have been pushing relentlessly for months on end. He went past these rhetorical insinuations, of takeover desires, into hard reality stating that “the sanctions (against Russia) must stop“, which can be seen as a direct challenge to the already declining Anglo-American financial hegemony. Furthermore, he “ruled out unilateral military intervention in Libya“, where we heard above the West has been attempting to shift the balance of power in their favour; something that is much harder to accomplish without direct Western intervention. Hollande suggested that such an intervention would only include France under a “clear mandate, clear organisation and the political conditions” necessary for legal and international, not unilateral, action.The French President also spoke of the situation in Greece, mentioned above, saying “the Greeks were free to choose their own destiny“, and warned “not to interfere with the Greek election“. This “has been interpreted as a swipe at German Chancellor Angela Merkel“, as it once again directly challenges the West’s financial hegemony . So, what we have here is a Western leader directly challenging all of the points of desperation described above; a move which demands respect from those of us also against such practises. This undoubtedly places a target upon the back of Hollande and provides motive for a false flag event, which acts as a warning to the French government to stop acting in such a conflicting manner or expect to face consequences far worse than what was seen at Charlie Hebdo.
The interview was a full-on assault against Western policy, as Hollande stated “I’m not for the policy of attaining goals by making things worse” . If Angela Merkel was angered, it is certainly possibly for others within the Western power structure to have also felt that way. So is the suggestion above, of a false flag occurring after such an assault on Western policy, possible? Yes. This can termed geopolitical terrorism. It is not the view of the mainstream, which ascribes terroristic actions to the supposedly oppressed who are fighting back, violently, against their oppressors. This is an incredibly naive view of the subject of terrorism, and ignores the countless incidents of terrorism being used for geopolitical purposes throughout history. Operation GLADIO was a component of a NATO stay-behind operation aimed at preventing any assaults upon Western anti-communism policy in Europe during the Cold War. It did this by supporting radical right-wing groups by utilising “terror attacks and shootings in public venues to later be blamed on leftist and socialist groups” . Here we have a concrete, undeniable example of terrorism being used to achieve the geopolitical aim of preventing attacks upon Western policy objectives. So, we are left with a situation where it is not inconceivable that the events of Paris may too have been acts of geopolitical terrorism; to prevent a rebellious Hollande from attacking almost all global, Western policy aims. The President of France has much wider powers than say the American President, with the ability to dispel parliament, which makes Hollande a real threat to Western norms as he could begin to work outside of them and against them; making his divisive rhetorical stance a reality. A desperate Anglo-American power structure can not afford such a challenge. Was this event their attempt at preventing it?
From the analysis presented here, we can point to numerous pieces of evidence supporting a theory of flag terrorism being applied to the events in Paris. There exists evidence of patsies, professionals and a privatised command structure. We have also looked at inconsistencies within the official story, which only add further suspicions. But, as stated at the beginning of this piece of work, only you the reader can decide if the evidence that has been invoked in this case is adequate to support the theory. This writer would argue that it is. The motive provided here has been presented within a larger framework of current geopolitical realities, which again, in this writer’s opinion, only strengthens the case for a potential false flag. Remember, just because geopolitical terrorism is not the mainstream view of terrorism, does not mean that it is not the correct interpretation of terrorism; for many years, a mainstream view existed that said the Earth was flat.
As a parting thought, let us consider the power that an intelligence agency wields over a government. The agency is, usually solely, tasked with informing the government of threats and in turn safeguarding the citizens of said country. Imagine the potential for abuse here. To what extent should a government trust an intelligence agency? How can a government know when a threat is truly credible? Is a pledge of allegiance enough to place such high levels of trust in an intelligence agency? How can we ever assure proper oversight of organisations that regard secrecy as the order of the day? Is it possible to provide any check or balance upon such an organisation? Surely, a cunning, albeit criminal, leadership in an intelligence agency would recognise this position of immense power which they occupy and use it to their advantage. Calls for expanded powers and enhanced funding for intelligence agencies to prevent terrorism from occurring, only places more power into the hands of these already questionable organisations. The time may now be right for a complete overhaul of the intelligence world, perhaps along the lines suggested by President John F. Kennedy:
“I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds!“
Stuart J. Hooper