Gun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11

[Hunter]

FWIW I just did a google search for the address given for the various offices and they all do come up as office buildings of a govt contractor. I dunno, weird. I dont watch much TV so I wasnt aware of that so thanks for bringing it to my attention, though this may be real, again I dont know, we will see what others dig up.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Can someone PLEASE tell me THIS is not real? Seriously.

https://public.isishq.com/public/SitePages/Home.aspx

A US based private intelligence and security firm called ISIS, really? Really?



ISIS provides worldwide security, intelligence, technology and training to government and private enterprises. ISIS is strategically positioned across the globe, with a highly credentialed management team and personnel. We have a superlative track record for delivering exceptional service and support to the most demanding of clients in the most challenging of circumstances.

I'm pretty sure the private intelligence company that Sterling Archer works for is called ISIS, are you sure that isn't sophisticated marketing for the show.

That ISIS was just absorbed into the CIA as exclusive contractors in the season premier from a few days ago.

So they probably attacked Charlie H - probably in a botched attempt to infiltrate some dissident groups in hong kong. Ask PCR.

[Hunter]

Hugh would most certainly get a kick out of all of this shit.

[jingofever]

I think if Paul Craig Roberts says its a CIA attack its a safe bet that it isn't. Did he blame the DCRI for the Boston bombing? And I think his past has everything to do with what he now says. He never disavowed his role in supporting Pinochet, who was the very model of a fascist dictator. IMO if this was a false flag then its wannabe euro aristocrats that are behind it. I doubt Roberts knows anything about anything, but I'll bet there is a market for him blaming the CIA for whatever happens.

I just mean that he is no more informed than any of us about what happened in France. Tagging him as an ex-White House official gives him an undeserved insider aura.

[Hunter]

He may not now right now what is happening but he certainly has an insider's view of how the game is played. Though I am not sure if he was really spilling beans he would be allowed to continue to do so, I am sort of torn on that sort of thing, as to whether they allow people like that to talk freely or just pay them no attention, I guess it depends on what exactly it is they are sharing.

[Hunter]

The one major problem for me wrt to CTs is that there are almost never any major deathbed confessions by major players, surely someone who knows exactly what happened to JFK would spill it on his or her deathbed, then again perhaps they have and we just never heard about it. I would expect the same with 9-11 in the coming years, no better way to seal your legacy in history than to go out with a bang like that, yet we hardly ever see it. Strange to me, if I were in that position I would have it all documented and sealed with my lawyer and read in public on the day of my death.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I think if Paul Craig Roberts says its a CIA attack its a safe bet that it isn't. Did he blame the DCRI for the Boston bombing? And I think his past has everything to do with what he now says. He never disavowed his role in supporting Pinochet, who was the very model of a fascist dictator. IMO if this was a false flag then its wannabe euro aristocrats that are behind it. I doubt Roberts knows anything about anything, but I'll bet there is a market for him blaming the CIA for whatever happens.

I just mean that he is no more informed than any of us about what happened in France. Tagging him as an ex-White House official gives him an undeserved insider aura.

Fair enough, and yeah i agree.

[Nordic]

The one major problem for me wrt to CTs is that there are almost never any major deathbed confessions by major players, surely someone who knows exactly what happened to JFK would spill it on his or her deathbed, then again perhaps they have and we just never heard about it. I would expect the same with 9-11 in the coming years, no better way to seal your legacy in history than to go out with a bang like that, yet we hardly ever see it. Strange to me, if I were in that position I would have it all documented and sealed with my lawyer and read in public on the day of my death.

http://www.examiner.com/article/e-howar ... assination

There's one. Of course do we know it's true? Of course we don't. The Rule of the Rabbit Holes must be upheld.

[Nordic]

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/A ... -0016.html

Assange on Charlie Hebdo: A Conspicuous Failure

An online post, apparently by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, asks if there were links between the Charlie Hebdo killers and the government that could have led to their protection until now.
Wikileaks published a text Saturday that appears to be written by its founder, Julian Assange, which says the failure of the French authorities in the Charlie Hebdo massacre is so conspicuous, that questions about government links to the killers must be asked.

Ostensibly replying to criticisms from British journalist Max Hastings in the right-wing Daily Mail newspaper, in which he places blame on Assange and U.S. intelligence whistle-blower Edward Snowden for the terror attacks in France over the past week, the post (reproduced below in full), neatly dismisses Hastings, before going on to ask the bigger questions.

Among the author’s questions are: Why weren’t the Kouachi brothers, both known to have extremist ties, not under surveillance?; Why were the Charlie Hebdo offices not better protected, given that the magazine regularly and strongly criticizes Islam?; and just how did two known terrorists get hold of semi-automatic weapons?

“Cherif Kouachi, had already been convicted of terrorism offences and served 18 months in prison for it. Both brothers were already on terrorism lists. Far from hiding messages under rocks or using encryption, the alleged conspirators communicated hundreds of times before and during the attacks — on regular phones.”

Targeted surveillance, not mass surveillance is needed in these instances, the post continues. Mass surveillance in France has “thieved skilled human and financial resources from targeted monitoring of obvious,” which the author says would have been the front of the Charlie Hebdo offices and the known terrorist brothers.

As for the British journalist, the post, signed only with the word ASSANGE, slams Hastings’ opinion. Hastings says that by releasing classified information, Assange and Snowden have put populations at risk from “jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies.”

Assange writes back to Hastings, “Secrecy breeds corruption, but it also breeds incompetence and the French secret service are no exception to this rule.”

#Assange and #Snowden are not to blame for Paris bloodbath.

Sat Jan 10 18:19:36 UTC 2015

In today’s Daily Mail, “Sir” Max “I have always loved Israel” Hastings claimed that me and Mr. Snowden are responsible for the bloodbath in Paris: “Traitors… Assange and Snowden have damaged the security of each and every one of us, by alerting the jihadis and Al Qaeda, our mortal enemies, to the scale and reach of electronic eavesdropping”. That a state security vampire like Hastings has pounced on the still warm corpses strewn about Paris is as grotesque as it is predictable.

Secrecy breeds corruption, but it also breeds incompetence and the French secret services are no exception to this rule. Currently the French security state has tried to present the killers as super villains in order to hide its own incompetence — something the media has been only too willing to aid and abet. The reality is the Charlie Hebdo killers were bumbling Keystone terrorists, no-hopers, who crashed their car, left their ID, co-ordinated over the phone and swiftly died. To lose nearly two dozen people to them is unforgivable.

That double digits were killed is no mark of super powers. A single idiot can do it. In Australia’s Port Arthur massacre, a man with the IQ of 66, literally an idiot, shot 58 people over the course of several hours—because he was armed with an AR-10 semi-automatic and his victims were not.

The tragedy in Paris is another example of where competent targeted surveillance, not mass surveillance, was needed.

The attackers were well known jihadis. This is not a case of needing to collect a global interception haystack in order to find a needle. The alleged needle in question, Cherif Kouachi, had already been convicted of terrorism offences and served 18 months in prison for it. Both brothers were already on terrorism lists. Far from hiding messages under rocks or using encryption, the alleged conspirators communicated hundreds of times before and during the attacks — on regular phones. The offices of Charlie Hebdo had received many death threats and had been firebombed in 2011 a week after publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad. The French mass surveillance system is already one of the most pervasive; its primary purpose, like all such systems, is geopolitics.

Mass surveillance addiction doesn’t come for free. In France it thieved skilled human and financial resources from targeted monitoring of obvious—the front of the Charlie Hebdo building and people walking out of prison with a terrorism conviction in one hand and numerous jihadi contacts in the other.

Yesterday French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said “There was a failing, of course” on French television, “That’s why we have to analyse what happened.”. Valls is right, Hastings is not.

So conspicuous is the failure in the Charlie Hebdo killings that serious questions must be asked. Cherif Kouachi had previously been involved in furthering the Sunni insurgency in the Levant. Were the brothers protected by the French services as part of French adventurism in Syria, Libya and elsewhere—as a conduit to funnel money, guns and militants into Africa and the Middle East? Were the brothers protected because they were witting or unwitting informers? Were the brothers protected in order to conduct a mediagenic, budget-boosting arrest seconds before the attack began — but the attack was moved forward? Why was the security architecture of the Charlie Hebdo building so poor? How is it that semi-automatic weapons found their way into France and into the hands of known jihadis? And most of all why has France’s crazed Sunni adventurism in Syria, Libya and other parts of Africa been tolerated despite the inevitable destabalization, radicalization and blowback? https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/16/1 ... rawal.html

ASSANGE

[8bitagent]

Who is this Jesus Charlie I keep seeing people hashtagging?But seriously folks, a few cartoonists get bumped off and the world goes to shit...oh that's right, it's France. 12 people die it's THE NEW 9/11!!! I love one of CNN's headline "Worst terror attack in Europe in a decade"(uh, except the Christian neo Nazi anti Muslim Anders Brievik who blew up part of downtown Oslo and killed 77 people on an island)
And leave it to CNN to jizz all over themselves trying to decide if "ISIS or Al Qaeda" was involved. I love how CNN.com has gone all black with huge bold scary lettering trying to out fox fox.

And geezus christ Bill Maher....someone needs to start making BUSH/MAHER '16 bumper stickers.

January is the time period where Hollywood dumps movies it just wants to try and recoup some money from and knows it's gonna suck.
File this one under much ado about nothing. SLEEPER $ELLS

[IanEye]

Currently the French security state has tried to present the killers as super villains in order to hide its own incompetence — something the media has been only too willing to aid and abet.
The reality is the Charlie Hebdo killers were bumbling Keystone terrorists, no-hopers, who crashed their car, left their ID, co-ordinated over the phone and swiftly died.

So, do we agree with Assange on this assessment?
He seems to be saying that the assassins we see on the video killing the officers are indeed the brothers, and that their performance is bumbling.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I dunno if I completely agree or completely disagree.

Assange writes back to Hastings, “Secrecy breeds corruption, but it also breeds incompetence and the French secret service are no exception to this rule.”

Assange is selling the idea that government secrecy is a bad thing - its his justification for everything he has done. So naturally he'll frame this discussion in terms that suit his world view and the image he wants us to have of him.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Anyone see this twitter post, its got a couple of photos of the world leaders joining that "protest".

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/5 ... 72/photo/1

[Sounder]

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/irish- ... ms-israel/
Dec 4 2914
Irish Republic blocks US arms to Israel

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/paris- ... e-shannon/
Jan 10 2015
Paris terror attacks: Ireland warned it is an Al Qaeda target for letting US jets use Shannon


Hmmm, it seems like a 'Muslim' would be thankful for the Irish republic blocking arms transfers to Israel. Those Muslims sure are strange.

[Searcher08]

I dunno if I completely agree or completely disagree.

Assange writes back to Hastings, “Secrecy breeds corruption, but it also breeds incompetence and the French secret service are no exception to this rule.”

Assange is selling the idea that government secrecy is a bad thing - its his justification for everything he has done. So naturally he'll frame this discussion in terms that suit his world view and the image he wants us to have of him.

I don't see it as 'black and white' as that. The whole thing reminds me of the (brilliant) movie "Four Lions" but with an extra 20 minutes Directors Cut that would be the whole reaction of assorted Governments after it. Slow responding, conservative organisations filled with risk-averse people where departments are at war with each other never mind other organisations, run by sociopaths, being gamed by other organisations that may be smaller and faster in an endless Russian-doll of organisational Kafkaesque responses.