Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by poncho, Nov 14, 2015.
CONFIRMED: French Government Knew Extremists BEFORE Attack
November 14, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - As predicted and previously reported, terrorists who took part in an unprecedented attack in the center of Paris killing over a 100 and injuring hundreds more, were well-known to French security agencies before the attack took place.
< snip >
ISIS is Behind the Paris Attacks, But Who is Behind ISIS?
With the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) emerging as being behind the attack, the question that remains is, who is behind ISIS itself? While the West has attempted to maintain the terrorist organization possesses almost mythological abilities, capable of sustaining combat operations against Syria, Iraq, Lebanon's Hezbollah, support from Iran, and now the Russian military - all while carrying out large-scale, high-profile terrorist attacks across the globe - it is clear that ISIS is the recipient of immense multinational state-sponsorship.
The rise of ISIS was revealed as early as 2007 in interviews conducted by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his 9-page report "The Redirection." The interviews revealed a plan to destabilize and overthrow the government of Syria through the use of sectarian extremists - more specifically, Al Qaeda - with arms and funds laundered through America's oldest and stanchest regional ally, Saudi Arabia.
A more recent Department of Intelligence Agency (DIA) report drafted in 2012 (.pdf) admitted:
Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/11/confirmed-french-government-knew.html#more
Attack in France = State Sponsored Terror, But Which State?
November 14, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Reports indicate an unprecedented terrorist attack has unfolded in France, with over 150 dead, many more injured and reports still trickling in regarding the full-scale of the violence. The BBC in its report, "Paris attacks: Bataclan and other assaults leave many dead," stated:
< snip >
In other words, it was an attack designed specifically to provoke French public opinion into supporting action.
The scale of the attack is that of a military operation. It would have required a large group of well trained militants, well armed and funded, with experience in planning and executing coordinated military operations, moving large amounts of weapons clandestinely, experts in the use of weapons and explosives, as well as possessing intelligence capabilities used to somehow circumvent France's increasingly colossal surveillance capabilities.
Like the terrorists and their supply lines pouring out of NATO-territory into Syria itself, clearly with immense state sponsorship behind them, those involved in the most recent attacks in Paris are also clearly the recipients of state-sponsored funding and training.
While France will undoubtedly try to use this attack to justify further intervention in Syria to topple the government in Damascus, it was most likely France's own allies in Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and even Paris itself who were directly or indirectly involved in the training, arming, and funding of those who spilled blood on Parisian streets this week.
The first and most important question in examining any great crime is "cui bono?" or to whose benefit? Attacking Paris, and in particular a football match full of nationalists already increasingly violent and hysterical seems to only benefit a government seeking further justification to wage wider war abroad - a war it is currently losing and a war it currently lacks wide public support to continue fighting.
It now, all so conveniently, has the support it was looking for.
Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2015/11/attack-in-france-state-sponsored-terror.html
Western backed? Is John Wayne still alive and backing muzzlim terrorists? Maybe Louie L'Mour wrote it all up for them?
Are they saying "backed" when what they really mean is "staged" or "initiated" ?
Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk
Almost all terrorist attacks are false flag attacks meant to implicate some other entity enabling the banksters and military industrial complex to finance war and go to war. [The world according to Poncho]
New Eastern Outlook? I love the irony that every news source I cite is tainted, but he gets to copy and paste from an organ of the Russian government.
Why, Assad's best buds the Russkies would have any bias in their reporting, would they?
If you are going to debate old Poncho you will:
1. Need to get his approval on your news sources
2. agree with everything he says or you will called names
3. Always remember rules 1 & 2
The last Poncho thread I posted in, I said that Putin/Russia had an expansionist outlook. He posted an enormous wall of text of copy and pasted news "articles" "proving" I was wrong.
I replied: South Ossetia, Crimea.
I'm still waiting for a response. Frown
I can tell you his argument on the Crimea thing. Basically it was already Russia's according to him.
Maybe we can find a middle ground. We can call their policy of recreating the borders of the USSR "resumptionist."
You are learning fast, Rob.
I remember a couple years ago someone (I don't think it was Poncho, not sure though) cited Pravda and when he was called on it said it was a legitimate news source.
I'm still waiting for the OP to use credible news mainstream news sources snd not blogs run by lonely white guys living their parents basement or out of the garage.
You must have ignored the response. I'll repeat it.
Georgia was a Washington/NATO provocation. Crimea voted to rejoin the Russian Federation after and I repeat after Victoria Nuland and her buddies staged the coup in Ukraine and put their banker buddies in power.
It's called history. You should study it. I believe I asked you that If Russia has an expansionist policy then explain why it only has a couple foreign military bases compared to the hundreds the USA and NATO have around the world?
Is Russia involved in seven regime change wars or is that Washington?
The Rev doesn't have anything nice to say about me because me I've proven him wrong so many times. You shouldn't take the word of people that have been lying to you all along Rev.
Not my fault you're so gullible.
I'm still waiting for you to explain what makes the six conglomerated news networks so credible?
There's the thread. You did not respond.
Or are links to BB threads tainted sources?
That's the world according to history and the evidence.
Actually I have any number of nice things to say about you and have said them. I in fact agree with any of your posts. When I disagree with them you call me names. You say I have not posted any sources that support my claims when in fact I do. You just do not like my sources because they come from mainstream media sources. Your sources are from obscure blogs no one has heard from/
I believe you are a nice guy who loves the Lord but does not trust most anything. I in fact have more trust in things you do not. I have never once agreed you have proven much of what you post and vica versa.
If I were you I'd be wondering why I have to lie and make things up to support my position. Evidently all those times you chose to run and hide instead of providing evidence to support your claims hasn't taught you anything.
I did respond. It's right there in black and white. Just like I left it.
And you wonder wy you have such a hard time getting people to respond to your posts
Oh gee. I call you names? You make up stuff and lie about me. How does that
make you credible? Give me a break. You post articles that are so easy to debunk it ain't even fun anymore and you want to diss my "obscure" sources? One of which is so "obscure" that his site gets more traffic than most all of your "mainstream" news sites.
That's a joke right?
Being the frequent visitor to prison planet and infowars that you and I both know you are you're going to sit there and try to convince everyone that all those links to "mainstream" sources you'd call "credible" any other time are somehow less credible because one of my sources sourced them?
How can you even reconcile that in your mind? That's some serious "twilight zone" stuff there. How can you convince yourself that a mainstream source is no longer credible because it was sourced by someone that isn't in the employ of one of the six conglomerated corporate news networks?
That makes no sense at all. To me at least.
Explain how that makes sense to you just so I can try to understand your thinking process here.
No, actually I don't wonder about that at all.
I couldn't care less if people respond. I'm not here to win a popularity or butt kissing contest. If that's your thing fine but it's not mine.
I don't even wonder why you always run away instead of providing evidence to support your claims anymore.
At this point it's self evident to everyone but you apparently.