Someone has just been ninja'd

Bro, chill. I never said I was skeptical. just curious. I can't just assume it was Al-Qaeda. It could've been any Islamic extremist. If you go around creditting Al-Qaeda for every muslim-related act of terrorism, you are going to be wrong a lot.

The Israeli Prime Minister said it would be a "grave mistake" for France to recognize Palestine as a state. Then the Charlie Hebdo attack happens.

Take a look: http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-netanyahu-warns-of-grave-mistake-if-france-recognises-palestine-2014-11

Perhaps this in itself wouldn't be enough to raise an eyebrow, but the fact that articles demonstrating Mossad involvement are being pulled should speak volumes. Why should we be afraid of what a conspiracy theorist says? They aren't pulling articles talking about alien abductions or stupid crap like that. No, only the things that are really true.

If that isn't enough, what do you make of Google deleting the cache for these articles? This is all Google's cached version gives you:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SqT3J7WH8h8J:www.ibtimes.co.in/charlie-hebdo-attack-mossad-link-israel-venting-its-fury-frances-recognition-palestine-state-619692+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk

Nope, nothing suspicious here. Let's just keep calling people conspiracy theorists and morons. Yeah, that will work just fine. It's easy to see why the media would blame Islam for everything. It is, after all, an easy scapegoat.

By the way, this wouldn't be the first time an organization claims responsibility for an attack they had nothing to do with. And it certainly won't be the last.

Look Hans, you're obviously knew here, and don't know shit about the Congo. They eat people down there.

The US has been against Palestine a lot too lately. Must have been the CIA!

"I never said I was skeptical. just curious. I can't just assume it was Al-Qaeda. It could've been any Islamic extremist. If you go around creditting Al-Qaeda for every muslim-related act of terrorism, you are going to be wrong a lot."

Not really. "Al-Qaeda" barely exists in the SPECTRE-like form it did before 9/11. It's more of a series of franchises now, all using the name. In and of itself, the group doesn't matter much (after all, the much more dangerous Islamic State is separate from Al-Qaeda). What matters is the ideology which inspires it, similar groups, and lone wolves to make attacks like this against modernity. You're missing the point.


As for Hans Lindemann, more proof of you being a fucking moron of the Alex Jones everything-that-happens-is-a-conspiracy variety.

@ Hans Lindemann: "The Israeli Prime Minister said it would be a "grave mistake" for France to recognize Palestine as a state. Then the Charlie Hebdo attack happens."

Yeah. Israel is pissed with the French government so it attacks the offices of a satirical magazine which is scathingly critical of the French government on a regular basis. That's completely logical.

Oh wait, no it isn't.

"What matters is the ideology which inspires it, similar groups, and lone wolves to make attacks like this against modernity." I wonder who's mentioned the name for that one before (Wahhabism). ;D

@Invictus
While I understand your sentiment, I have to disagree. Anonymous inspires a lot of lone wolf hackers to do things but in the end, if the guy isn't a part of anonymous, it is his doing and anonymous had nothing to with it.

He was trained by Al-Qaeda, though. He fought with them in Yemen before he was deported back to France.

What murders have Anonymous inspired? What ideology do members of Anonymous follow? Fundamentalist Islam is the problem, not simply a particular group.

"As for Hans Lindemann, more proof of you being a fucking moron of the Alex Jones everything-that-happens-is-a-conspiracy variety. "

You seem to like the phrase "fucking morons." Is that something you do for fun?

Alex Jones is, for all intents and purposes, an idiot. I pity anyone who believes his garbage. This is a different matter entirely.

"Yeah. Israel is pissed with the French government so it attacks the offices of a satirical magazine which is scathingly critical of the French government on a regular basis. That's completely logical.

Oh wait, no it isn't."

I'm not going to link the article because there may be pornographic ads (I've used ad block for so long that I'm not sure they're still there), but here's what Mark Marek had to say about it:

"And let’s not forget about the bigger picture – the French, Australian, Canadian connection:

An Australian Patriot Act needs the push to go through and… Surprise! Worldwide news coverage of a few random acts of violence.

A Canadian version of the patriot act is up for the vote and needs the push and… Surprise! The parliament is under attack just in time to sway the opinion of the fence sitters.

The French version of the patriot act was crammed through at the very end of a parliamentary session while nobody was watching. Then the French started mobilizing to protest and… Surprise! Islamic terrorists strike again."

You can start to see a pattern forming. Blaming Islam is the best thing since sliced bread.

"Fucking moron" describes you well. But it wouldn't be hard to think of others.

There's a difference between

"Politicians shameless abuse horrific acts to push through unpopular, illiberal policies"

and

"Politicians create horrific events to push through unpopular and illiberal policies".

The shock doctrine is strongly at work, yes, but the shock doctrine does not require conspiracy in order to function.

@Invictus
Anonymous has ideologies that I am too lazy to look up at the moment.

I agree that fundamental Islam is the problem. We've gotten a bit off topic. What I was saying is that I am not assuming that Al-Qaeda was behind the attack, because as you said there are a lot of people that follow islamic extremism.

@ Hans Lindeman:

Wait a second there....

A few moments ago, you claimed Israel orchestrated these attacks to punish the French government for supporting Palestine.

NOW you're claiming that Israel orchestrated these attacks to *help* the French government justify new anti-terror laws.

Those claims are totally at odds with each other. What is your actual theory??

"A few moments ago, you claimed Israel orchestrated these attacks to punish the French government for supporting Palestine."

The point is that he was hinting at some future event that would happen if Palestine were recognized as a state. It was, and Charlie Hebdo happened.

"NOW you're claiming that Israel orchestrated these attacks to *help* the French government justify new anti-terror laws."

More or less. What better way to fuel the war on terror than to manufacture terror?

Yup, and it was so complex a plan they got a French citizen who is known to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda to be in on it.

You cannot hold both of those views simultaneously.

If you happen to be right (which you aren't) and Israel was behind this - Is it your view that Israel acted to PUNISH France, or to HELP France?

You cannot claim both simultaneously.

Now, I don't want to side with Hans here because he is wrong in this case. But throughout history there have been figures who manufactured violent events for political purposes (literally Hitler). So to dismiss him on the grounds that these things never happen is not the best way to approach it.

On a side note, a whistleblower came out the other day saying that Erdogan was ordering his spy agency to do a false flag attack to blame on the Gulenists. Now, would Hollande or Harper do such a thing? I doubt it. Would Erdogan? Perhaps.

@ goldfinger - Noted. But do you at least agree that it is not logical to claim that Israel could have orchestrated this attack to punish the French govt for supporting Palestine *and* in collusion with them, to help them embed stricter anti-terror laws?

You can't collude with an actor to simultaneously help and punish it in a single act.

Israel: "Watch out France - if you support Palestine we'll punish you by helping you to get that controversial legislation through!"

Does not make logic.

Oh of course it isn't logical that Israel did it. I agree with you there

Hans,

Israel certainly had a motive, but did they have the means?

Using Israeli nationals as the trigger-pullers was too great a risk - if one had been caught or injured (a real possibility, considering that French police apparently had time to respond to the attack), the whole false flag cover story would've unraveled in a heartbeat with considerable blowblack. And considering the hyper-tribal nature of the Mossad, I find it inconceivable that they would've even thought of outsourcing an attack of this nature to begin with. And while finding some disgruntled Franco-Maghrebis to pin this attack on would've been a fairly simple matter, how could the Mossad have guaranteed that their patsies would have responded by pulling off terrorist attacks of their own (or have been able to orchestrate another set of false flag attacks and resulting cover-ups so quickly)?

I have no problem with "conspiracy theories", but the problems with the narrative you're proposing are numerous and severe enough that I'm inclined to accept the official story, at least until/if contrary hard evidence comes to light.

"But do you at least agree that it is not logical to claim that Israel could have orchestrated this attack to punish the French govt for supporting Palestine *and* in collusion with them, to help them embed stricter anti-terror laws?"

You make the mistake of assuming that "the French" are monolithic entity with a single consistent set of goals, objectives, and perspectives. They are not. Undoubtedly, some French want stricter anti-terrorism laws, and I suspect they would be the same people who would be willing to collaborate with the Israelis and would not see the death of a few cartoonists for a left-wing (depending on your definition, of course) satirical magazine as a great loss. Meanwhile, a majority of French might be supportive of Palestinian rights yet be horrified by the attack and eager to punish the perceived perpetrators *and* oblivious to the fact that it was a false flag attack (which I don't think it was, but this is the theory under consideration).

I specifically said "the French govt".

"Govt" is short for "Government".

You cannot claim that Israel would direct an attack at the French government to punish them for something, whilst also claiming that that same attack was in collusing with that same government, in order to be of benefit to them.

Why are you even bothering to argue with these people, Jamiet99uk? They *want* a conspiracy to happen, and will arrange facts to make it look like there was one. It's a matter of fitting what happened to support a preconceived result. Tolstoy's doing this explicitly, even though he personally does not believe it.

Next you will claim the US government caused 9/11 to takeover Iraq. Wait some one already did claim that. You can make up almost any conspiracy theory.

"The Simpsons" did a last minute change to the new episode tonight to add Maggie holding up a "Je suis Charlie" banner.

I don't know which is more ridiculous, this half baked conspiracy theory or Putin33, the great defender of mapleleaf's "misunderstood satire" calling another satirical magazine racist.

Did you lose your "sense of humor" over the last couple of months?