Paris Attacks latest updates

[JimC]

Yeah, yeah, the entire universe is a conspiracy...

[Scot Dutchy]

Well it is Galaxian after all.

[Brian Peacock]

You are a truly nasty piece of work.

No, not a nasty piece of work... Just trying to open your eyes to the truth:
Charlie Hebdo was a hoax. A psyops designed to veer the western public towards even more repression, & justify neocolonialism. But it had a further purpose; to see how stupid the general public were, to test the waters, by planting some information about the security services planned operation. Enough to give away the bluff... just like 9/11 & 7/7.
In the Charlie Hebdo rigmarole these were just some of the deliberate clues, for anyone with half a brain to notice:

1) Witnesses in the office said that blue eyed fluent, non-accented French men were the culprits.
2) They all got away, but Algerian French brothers were tracked down & summarily executed to shut them up.
3) The men outside the office (as in the photo) were nonchalant, unhurried, & giving military style hand signals.
4) The policeman lying on the pavement (photo) was allegedly shot by the fully disguised man approaching. But the close-in head shot from a high powered rifle didn't even cause injury to his head; no blood, no skull fragments, no debris from the pavement.
5) The 3 "escapees" just happened to leave an ID in the getaway vehicle.
6) When the supposed driver heard his name on the radio, he went to the nearest police station & showed that he had been in class all that morning.
7) The chief investigative head police officer, right in the middle of writing his report, decided he'd commit suicide.
8) There was no counter-narrative. Only the same BS mass media propaganda campaign as now.

But keep on drinking the Kool-Aid. Never doubt the official mantra, though many lies have been exposed over the decades, that you now take for granted (Tonkin, USS Liberty, Saddam's WMD, etc). Why? Because the paid mass media presstitutes have finally been given permission to reveal a few of them. Unfortunately those lies led to war crimes, the murder of millions, total chaos, and the destruction of their societies & infrastructure....But that was the plan, wasn't it??? < Kool-Aid. Here's something to enlighten you... choose wisely!

http://anonhq.com/someone-finally-expla ... verything/
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd7_1447058458
And why this present Paris incident is also likely a bit of fun & games from various secret services:
http://presstv.com/Video/2015/11/15/437 ... or-Attacks

You need professional help man. Srsly.

[Seth]

No, they haven't. In all reported cases, the loony has either taken his own life, of been shot dead by police. Not one case of a private citizen stopping a gun massacre like Sandy Hook...

Yeh, it's all "if" and "could have" bollocks with these gun loonies.
After 9 11, there was lots of talk about armed gun-marshals in plain clothes being scattered around US flights. And guess what? Waste of fuckin time.

No US flight which had as a passenger an armed Sky Marshal has ever been hijacked, has it? So, evidently the program is effective.

[JimC]

No classroom where I have taught has ever been attacked by rabid ferrets. Quite clearly, I have a strong ability to prevent such attacks...

[Seth]

You are a truly nasty piece of work.

No, not a nasty piece of work... Just trying to open your eyes to the truth:
Charlie Hebdo was a hoax. A psyops designed to veer the western public towards even more repression, & justify neocolonialism. But it had a further purpose; to see how stupid the general public were, to test the waters, by planting some information about the security services planned operation. Enough to give away the bluff... just like 9/11 & 7/7.
In the Charlie Hebdo rigmarole these were just some of the deliberate clues, for anyone with half a brain to notice:

1) Witnesses in the office said that blue eyed fluent, non-accented French men were the culprits.

And no blue-eyed, fluent non-accented French men have ever become radicalized Muslims? Hogwash.

2) They all got away, but Algerian French brothers were tracked down & summarily executed to shut them up.

They all got dead.

3) The men outside the office (as in the photo) were nonchalant, unhurried, & giving military style hand signals.

And jihadis don't run militarized training camps in North Africa and elsewhere for the express purpose of training jihadis in military tactics and procedures I suppose...

4) The policeman lying on the pavement (photo) was allegedly shot by the fully disguised man approaching. But the close-in head shot from a high powered rifle didn't even cause injury to his head; no blood, no skull fragments, no debris from the pavement.

Not true.

5) The 3 "escapees" just happened to leave an ID in the getaway vehicle.

And jihadis never make mistakes I suppose?

6) When the supposed driver heard his name on the radio, he went to the nearest police station & showed that he had been in class all that morning.

And jihadis never use false identification implicating someone else I suppose...

7) The chief investigative head police officer, right in the middle of writing his report, decided he'd commit suicide.

Unsupported assertion.

8) There was no counter-narrative. Only the same BS mass media propaganda campaign as now.

What sort of counter-narrative would you suggest?

[Seth]

No classroom where I have taught has ever been attacked by rabid ferrets. Quite clearly, I have a strong ability to prevent such attacks...

Good for you. Oh wait, rabid ferrets and Islamic jihadis aren't the same thing, are they? Therefore your analogy fails.

[JimC]

No classroom where I have taught has ever been attacked by rabid ferrets. Quite clearly, I have a strong ability to prevent such attacks...

Good for you. Oh wait, rabid ferrets and Islamic jihadis aren't the same thing, are they? Therefore your analogy fails.

Neither have we been attacked by jihadis, or boy scouts with a grudge!

[Seth]

No classroom where I have taught has ever been attacked by rabid ferrets. Quite clearly, I have a strong ability to prevent such attacks...

Good for you. Oh wait, rabid ferrets and Islamic jihadis aren't the same thing, are they? Therefore your analogy fails.

Neither have we been attacked by jihadis, or boy scouts with a grudge!

Non sequitur.

[Galaxian]

You are a truly nasty piece of work.

No, not a nasty piece of work... Just trying to open your eyes to the truth:
Charlie Hebdo was a hoax. A psyops designed to veer the western public towards even more repression, & justify neocolonialism. But it had a further purpose; to see how stupid the general public were, to test the waters, by planting some information about the security services planned operation. Enough to give away the bluff... just like 9/11 & 7/7.
In the Charlie Hebdo rigmarole these were just some of the deliberate clues, for anyone with half a brain to notice:
1) Witnesses in the office said that blue eyed fluent, non-accented French men were the culprits.

And no blue-eyed, fluent non-accented French men have ever become radicalized Muslims? Hogwash.

Let me s-p-e-l-l it out: The brothers who were later murdered by police had brown eyes.

2) They all got away, but Algerian French brothers were tracked down & summarily executed to shut them up.

They all got dead.

What kind of dumb-fuck reply is that?

3) The men outside the office (as in the photo) were nonchalant, unhurried, & giving military style hand signals.

And jihadis don't run militarized training camps in North Africa and elsewhere for the express purpose of training jihadis in military tactics and procedures I suppose...

Convenient throw-away line.

4) The policeman lying on the pavement (photo) was allegedly shot by the fully disguised man approaching. But the close-in head shot from a high powered rifle didn't even cause injury to his head; no blood, no skull fragments, no debris from the pavement.

Not true.

Infact, very true. Look it up. You even have a frame from the actual video. Watch the video... if you dare!

5) The 3 "escapees" just happened to leave an ID in the getaway vehicle.

And jihadis never make mistakes I suppose?

The ID card was left in the car deliberately, to pin it on them... like the indestructible passport conveniently floating down from the WTC.

6) When the supposed driver heard his name on the radio, he went to the nearest police station & showed that he had been in class all that morning.

And jihadis never use false identification implicating someone else I suppose...

Nor do the CIA, FBI, NSA, DGSE, MI6, Mossad, etc? Oh, you're too glib for words. Not interested in evidence. Just interested in excuses.

7) The chief investigative head police officer, right in the middle of writing his report, decided he'd commit suicide.

Unsupported assertion.

Unsupported for YOU, because you can't be bothered doing the research. Go on; look it up. Yeah, try Google for example...

8) There was no counter-narrative. Only the same BS mass media propaganda campaign as now.

What sort of counter-narrative would you suggest?

the counter narratives I keep supplying that never interest you, in your busy schedule. So why even ask?

[Seth]

You are a truly nasty piece of work.

No, not a nasty piece of work... Just trying to open your eyes to the truth:
Charlie Hebdo was a hoax. A psyops designed to veer the western public towards even more repression, & justify neocolonialism. But it had a further purpose; to see how stupid the general public were, to test the waters, by planting some information about the security services planned operation. Enough to give away the bluff... just like 9/11 & 7/7.
In the Charlie Hebdo rigmarole these were just some of the deliberate clues, for anyone with half a brain to notice:
1) Witnesses in the office said that blue eyed fluent, non-accented French men were the culprits.

And no blue-eyed, fluent non-accented French men have ever become radicalized Muslims? Hogwash.

Let me s-p-e-l-l it out: The brothers who were later murdered by police had brown eyes.

Did they? Did the original attackers have blue eyes? Where's your critically robust scientific evidence of these assertions?

2) They all got away, but Algerian French brothers were tracked down & summarily executed to shut them up.

They all got dead.

What kind of dumb-fuck reply is that?

It's a reply to a dumb-fuck idiotic assertion based on zero evidence other than what pops into your mind.

3) The men outside the office (as in the photo) were nonchalant, unhurried, & giving military style hand signals.

And jihadis don't run militarized training camps in North Africa and elsewhere for the express purpose of training jihadis in military tactics and procedures I suppose...

Convenient throw-away line.

Fuck, dude, even *I* know "military style hand signals." You can find the information on the internet. As for "nonchalance" they were nonchalant because they knew they had little to fear from unarmed French police officers or unarmed French citizens. Most mass killers are "nonchalant" for precisely that reason, which is why they choose "gun free zones" for targets.

4) The policeman lying on the pavement (photo) was allegedly shot by the fully disguised man approaching. But the close-in head shot from a high powered rifle didn't even cause injury to his head; no blood, no skull fragments, no debris from the pavement.

Not true.

Infact, very true. Look it up. You even have a frame from the actual video. Watch the video... if you dare!

I did watch the video, when it originally happened, and there is nothing in the video to suggest that the officer was not shot dead. The fact that you didn't see Hollywood blood-splatter has to do with the fact that that's not the way such things go, particularly when the victim is fully dressed with body armor that absorbs the blood so it doesn't appear on the pavement for the duration of the video. Moreover, when someone is shot at point-blank range with solid-projectile military ball ammo, the round can go straight through without expanding, leaving two neat holes that actually don't bleed much at all. Take it from a professional, trained retired polices officer and investigator, things are not always as Hollywood portrays them.

5) The 3 "escapees" just happened to leave an ID in the getaway vehicle.

And jihadis never make mistakes I suppose?

The ID card was left in the car deliberately, to pin it on them...

Pin it on whom? Someone other than the actual perpetrators? And why is that surprising? It's just another distraction technique intended to give the perps more time to escape while the police are tracking down someone whose identity was stolen.

like the indestructible passport conveniently floating down from the WTC.

What passport is that, pray tell?

6) When the supposed driver heard his name on the radio, he went to the nearest police station & showed that he had been in class all that morning.

And jihadis never use false identification implicating someone else I suppose...

Nor do the CIA, FBI, NSA, DGSE, MI6, Mossad, etc? Oh, you're too glib for words. Not interested in evidence. Just interested in excuses.

If you had presented even a tiny, subatomic particle of evidence I'd consider it. But so far all you've done is spout conspiracy theories, and particularly insane ones at that.

7) The chief investigative head police officer, right in the middle of writing his report, decided he'd commit suicide.

Unsupported assertion.

Unsupported for YOU, because you can't be bothered doing the research. Go on; look it up. Yeah, try Google for example...

Somebody else did the research and concluded authoritatively that you're full of shit. I believe them, not you.

8) There was no counter-narrative. Only the same BS mass media propaganda campaign as now.

What sort of counter-narrative would you suggest?

the counter narratives I keep supplying that never interest you, in your busy schedule. So why even ask?

What counter narrative? All you've done is make wild and unsubstantiated claims that things are not as they seem, which may or may not be true. You haven't suggested a single reason, much less any sort of rational analysis of why these events are not in fact the result of Islamic terrorism.

[Galaxian]

Let me s-p-e-l-l it out: The brothers who were later murdered by police had brown eyes.

Did they? Did the original attackers have blue eyes? Where's your critically robust scientific evidence of these assertions?

Your off-the-cuff dismissal of witness evidence & any unofficial, but rational explanation, all the way from your first reply to the last;

7) The chief investigative head police officer, right in the middle of writing his report, decided he'd commit suicide.

Unsupported assertion.

Unsupported for YOU, because you can't be bothered doing the research. Go on; look it up. Yeah, try Google for example...

Somebody else did the research and concluded authoritatively that you're full of shit. I believe them, not you.

(Police Commissioner Helric Fredou")...indicate that you've been out of touch with current affairs at least since 2001. Just come clean; exactly who are you & what's your agenda?

[Hermit]

Oh, you beauty. A between two

[JimC]

Oh, you beauty. A between two

I love it!

[Rum]

I vote we put the two of them in a locked room.