Nikolai V. Starikov: Paris False Flag

  • Posted on: 6 April 2015
  • Hits: 62
Nikolai V. Starikov: Paris False Flag

"The hysteria surrounding the Paris caricature publications and subsequent terrorist atrocities is an engineered confrontation for geo-political goals, having nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with derailing peace efforts in Europe."

URL: http://nstarikov.ru/

The big story at the moment is the events in France: a series of terrorist atrocities took place there and subsequently the “March for Unity”, as it is called, among other things.

The first things that made me really suspicious:

On the 11th there was already a “March for Unity” taking place, which brought together 1.5 million people in Paris and 4 million across France.

As the leader of the PVO party, you can imagine the huge effort required to bring out a large number of people onto the streets under some slogans or banners.

Considering the huge number of people who came out, it could be that it was all pre-planned. They had all kinds of printed placards, leaflets, messages written on their heads, pencils in cast.

All of this requires preparations. I was observing this closely. To bring out just 100 people you need to spend two weeks making 100 phone calls.

There is a sense of a massive preparatory effort here. To bring out a few million people onto the streets requires the use of colossal organizational resources.

But we have to understand that this demonstration was not organized by some party or union. The demonstration was organized by the French state.

Therefore the available resources were absolutely massive. I have seen information appearing on the Internet, whose veracity still needs to be checked, that certain organizational aspects began before the terrorist atrocity.

That’s what I mean!

However, it is only indirect indications. For example, they decided to conduct some march in France. Well, why not. But then this tragedy occurred and the agenda changed. Obviously it requires an enormous preparatory effort.

Let’s not go into the details here. But it is of state-level magnitude to organize something like this in such a sort period of time. The local authorities have to be working on it.

The entire structure of all the political parties has to be involved together, etc., etc. However, notice that Marine Le Pen wasn’t invited, which in my view she was justifiably offended over.

While we are talking about the events in France, let’s not try to see what we can read into the situation – just take the bare facts.

These are the facts: A group of people attacked the offices of a magazine, which was printing material which, from the perspective of Islam, is utterly unacceptable.

Here is my position: Freedom of speech does not suffer for a single second, by a single centimeter, if material insulting hundreds of millions of people is not published.

Freedom of speech is not about insulting people. Freedom of speech is about expressing one’s thoughts. The very publication of these caricatures was obviously provocative.

However, they don’t ridicule only Islam. They have a go at Christianity and other subjects.

Agreed. But there are different degrees of antagonism. For a Muslim this is a deadly insult, which in no way can be tolerated. When these caricaturists got permission to publish drawings following the catastrophe in the Moscow metro, we regarded them as monsters.

There are things that you don’t joke about. We don’t offer them help and we don’t pick up their magazine. But we also didn’t go beat up the caricaturists, and we didn’t chuck molotov cocktails into their office.

It’s different degrees of antagonism. Getting back to the facts: These absolutely provocative publications about the prophet were started not by this magazine but a Danish one.

The French magazine re-printed them in the spirit of ‘solidarity’. Obviously, they became disliked too, to put it mildly. The place came under guard. We saw that two police officers died there. One thing led to the next.

However, the source was a Danish magazine, while the attack was on a French magazine. Why? Because specifically in France there was a need to orchestrate a certain terrorist atrocity. It was a very multi-level event.

Firstly, of course, it’s pressure on François Hollande, who was supposed to fly to Astana to discuss Ukraine in the Normandy format. Just prior, in a radio interview, he was very much advocating peace, saying that sanctions could be canceled, compromise could be reached.

Then the terrorist attack takes place. Notice now there is doubt about a meeting in Astana. It could very well not happen. Even though, in principle, none of these events change the situation in Donbass, except for a very similar one: the absolutely horrific tragedy involving the bus, which killed people, which the Ukraine and Western media ascribe to an atrocious artillery attack by DNR (Donetsk People’s Republic).

Although from the photographs of the bus where people died there is no basis to claim that this was an artillery shell or Grad – because the bus is still completely whole. Possibly this is another false flag intended to inflame the situation in Ukraine and derail the negotiations.

Getting back to Paris: A group of people burst into the magazine’s offices, killed people, then calmly hid themselves. In the “generous” tradition of terrorists, they left behind their ID at the locus, the French authorities told us.

As always.

What were those brothers thinking? It’s not a big job for the criminal investigators, if their ID was left behind! Recall New York, 2001. The terrorists left behind personal documents in their autos and leaflets calling for jihad.

Then, when the planes smashed into the twin towers, everything was vaporized, including the passengers’ DNA, the aircraft engines – nothing remained.

But their undamaged passports, by careful planning, fell out in such a way as to be found. What’s going on here? What kind of terrorists always leave their calling card at the crime scene.

Moreover, they lay them into the right place, supposedly by chance. Obviously, it’s deliberate. Next, the police start searching. Soon, they uncover those identity documents, and launch the search for the suspects.

Information comes out in the media that these people participated in the terrorist atrocity. Notice how the narrative changes at a certain point from “a suspect in a terrorist attack" to “a _ participant _ in a terrorist attack”.

At a certain point a line is crossed. Where did they get those guys from? Maybe they really did participate in the terrorist attack – under instruction from secret services, who then hang them out as the scapegoats.

We don’t know the technology. So let’s not go there. What’s important for us is that their ID was left, the guilty were found, having locked themselves away.

500 people were thrown at that storming – 500! Even tanks were brought in – there are photographs – imagine? Tanks against two guys. The question arises: two guys, they are surrounded, there is reason to suspect their involvement in a terrorist attack.

It’s a very high-profile event, to put it mildly. Should they be taken alive? Of course they should. It was obvious there was no intention to take them alive – with the tanks and all.

Meanwhile, one of the brothers makes a call to some radio or TV station, identifies himself, and claims responsibility for the attack.

Who will verify his voice? The guy has just signed his own death warrant. He could have informed the police, “I will reveal certain secrets, if I stay alive”.

But here his confession was already recorded live on air. That’s the green light to shoot from the tanks. These are strange facts, to put it mildly. Against that background, on the next day following the killing of these two brothers, the investigator on the case shot himself in his office.

Remember, this is a high-profile story. What kind of investigator do you put on a case like this? The best. It’s hardly going to be someone who worked with car crashes or parking tickets.

It’s going to a genuinely good investigator, and it should be someone who knows about terrorism.

And more than one.

So he had probably seen quite a lot in his life. But suddenly he shot himself in his office. No explanations are given. I heard somewhere that he was distressed because people had died.

What kind of feeble investigator is that in the French law-enforcement system? The picture emerging is as follows: Secret services – Americans, some others – conduct a high-profile terrorist atrocity in the center of the French capital.

The investigator who took on the case, it appears, was most likely an honest, decent person. Once he saw that someone was being made a scapegoat, he made some statements or took some actions, as a result of which he was shot dead with his own standard-issue weapon.

But that’s not all. That was two facts.

A third fact: Half an hour after the terrorist attack, the French President arrived at the location of this tragedy. This, in principle, is impossible. Because there could be a weapons cache, bombs, trip-wires, snipers, terrorists, you name it.

Question: what is the point of his going there? To show how bold he is? He is the head of state. His arrival after a couple of hours changes nothing. It’s not his job to rush to the place like a fire-fighter to a fire.

Only in one case could he arrive there: if someone gives him (and not only him) – look, this is the head of state – if someone gives him and the French state a guarantee of security, i.e.

“Ok, you can go, there will be no explosions”. But we know the terrorist tactics that were used here in Caucasus. This is nothing original.

After a bomb explodes or some other attack is carried out, the investigative group arrives and a second bomb explodes. How come that couldn’t happen in Paris? Imagine the joy of the terrorists at killing the President!

I mean, that would be a dream for those terrorists. But for some reason the President doesn’t think about that, freely arrives and makes some announcements there. That means he had a security guarantee.

Who could have given such guarantees? Only those who carried out these terrorist attacks. I don’t want to say the secret services of this or that country.

But the Americans could tell him, or his own French secret services could tell him. Remember the situation a year or so ago, the so-called Toulouse shooter.

Also an Arab shooting at French soldiers, then attacked a Jewish school. He too got locked in, then 500 people again stormed the place and shot him. His father later tried to take the case to court. It’s a shady story.

It was the same story with the Tsarnaev brothers at the Boston Marathon.

The very same, but they didn’t shoot dead both of them. They shot dead one of them, and injured the other, so that he couldn’t talk, right in the throat, if I remember correctly.

Afterwards he started giving some important testimony. Here all of this murky business is replicated, including the suicide of the investigator. We understand “suicide” in quotation marks. Notice that no-one is asking themselves the glaring questions: why did the investigator shoot himself?

This whole story is virtually closed, it’s all clear. Did he make a phone call? Yes, he called into the TV station, said that the two brothers are guilty. Did they leave behind their identity documents?

Yes, they did. So that’s the end of it, case absolutely closed. Although in parallel a kosher store is seized, but that’s a kind of side branch.

There too the guy called up and identified himself, claimed responsibility and said he was from Al-Qaïda. It’s one to one the same story.

Everyone is acting strangely. However, the main strangeness is concentrated around this magazine.

What was the point of all this? To derail the negotiations?

There are many levels to this story. The first is to apply pressure on Hollande, assuming the Americans were behind it. If it was Europeans, then one could still talk of pressuring. But no matter who was behind it, we should understand that there is no such thing as Islamic terrorism.

What exists is an instrument in the hands of Western intelligence agencies, with which they act in various theaters. If they need to destroy a state, then they will establish a large armed group and start up a civil war, like in Syria or Libya.

If they need to create the image of an enemy for their own citizens, then by the hands of these people they will carry out terrorist atrocities on their own territory.

It’s entirely possible that the people in masks were not Arabs at all, but absolutely white people. Then later they made scapegoats out of these unfortunate brothers.

They are also trying to damage Russia by the very same instrument of Islamic terrorism: there were announcements about Afghanistan and advancing on the Caucasus. It has to be understood that this is an instrument.

It is not an independent structure, fighting against the West. It is an instrument in the hands of the West. It’s just that the West has to strike itself sometimes, in order to show an enemy to their society.

Otherwise imagine a horrific enemy fighting against the West, but only in Syria, in Libya, in Chechnya, in Afghanistan it’s fighting against the West.

But somehow never fights in the West itself. That would be a strange enemy. For Al-Qaïda it has become necessary to make themselves known again, because their colleagues from the neighboring department of British intelligence, which they call ISIS, have been shouting louder and probably getting more financing, more awards, so that they have to make known their existence too.

So now we have micro-interests against the background of the global interests.

Then what was the point of the march which followed?

To rally society. Let’s talk about this for a bit. What in theory should this march demonstrate? It’s supposed to demonstrate a protest by society against killing – i.e. you can’t kill people.

Well, they’re killing hundreds of people every day, so what?

That was the logic of conducting this march. But what was the result? The result was an even bigger provocation to stir up conflict between people who profess Islam and people who don’t profess Islam. Now they have printed 3 million copies of the insulting caricatures. What for?

What does freedom of speech have to do with it? What the caricaturists had done is very nasty. Those who killed them did something even more nasty. You can’t support either side in this conflict.

They just have different degrees of guilt: Killing people is a far worse crime than drawing provocative caricatures. As a result of the march, they have created an even greater provocation in the country and in all Europe, in order that this tension CONTINUES. Why is that necessary?

By the way, I examined photographs from the march and I recall that most of the people there were white. Others were very rarely seen – Africans or Easterners.

There were different people there, of course.

Yes, but few.

There were Muslims there too.  But it would be strange for Muslims to join a march, one of whose purposes is to increase the printing of material insulting Muslims.

So what is the sensible solution? Don’t print these caricatures. It’s logical: Don’t print those caricatures. Find the criminals who killed those people and punish them. Some of them, as we understand it, have already been found.

Then it’s over – by removing the reason for the conflict. It’s no damage to freedom of speech at all. They make a fuss about the freedom of speech for insulting and stirring up trouble, as if that were somehow its raison d’être.

That is indeed what they invented it for.

It has been reduced to the absurd. Imagine if what they print is not caricatures insulting people’s religious feelings, but imagine that on the front of the magazine they print caricatures of your mother, moreover presented in a very nasty light.

Just imagine it. You go to them and say “don’t do that.”. And they say, “Hey – it’s freedom of speech. We want to print caricatures of your mother”. Then they print an even more wicked caricature – naked, for example. There will be no limit to your outrage, right? But in the context of this absurdity, you have no means to act against them at all.

Apart from force.

And your justified outrage is exploited for provocation purposes by a third force, who, in your name, goes and shoots all those journalists – then says that you did it. And in response they print even more copies of the caricature which so infuriated you.

There is a desire to provoke inter-confessional conflict on a global scale, including in Europe. They started this process in 2001. It was supposed to blow up especially in our country too, when we had the problem in Caucasus – the invasion by Basayev in 1999.

Thanks to the position of the Russian authorities, the conflict inside Russia was successfully ended – and driven out beyond our borders.

But in their scenario they continue doing this in Europe, in the Middle-East, because they need perma-war, constant conflict, so they provoke these clashes.

Otherwise there is no logic in it – it is not in the national interest. François Hollande should ask for this edition of the magazine with these caricatures not to be published, using a nice spin like “Let’s have portraits of the dead caricaturists on the front page.

We should know who they are”. Just think up something, then that’s the end of it. The conflict would come to nothing. Today I read in the press that this magazine is not being sold in the Arab quarters.

Because obviously the kiosks selling it would be burned down. And not only. Why are they doing this to themselves? For the freedom to insult? Of course not.

What we see is that the position of the government, leaving aside all the strange events – the suicide, the arrival after half an hour – contradicts the interests of France itself.

It means that external forces are exerting pressure on France. But France cannot speak out about this and has to give in to this pressure. Add to this the increased attacks on Donbass, the false flag bus attack.

And once again, we see how this fragile peace is going to be broken by the Kiev government. Once again they are giving impetus to the war in Ukraine, because that’s what they need.

When we talk about terrorist activity in France, we are really talking about the “greater European Union” (including U.S.), where the big brother carries out undercover operations of absolutely any kind.

There is even an American film on that subject. I forget the name, but the point of the film was there are undercover CIA units in Paris, who can do whatever they want. Literally.

They have a few adventures, of course, but French laws absolutely do not apply to them. They go around in their all-terrain vehicles with their immunity passes and get-out-of-jail-free cards, and French jurisdiction cannot influence them whatsoever.

Evidently that’s partly true. So where is this going? Is there a war coming, one way or another? If Europe is intentionally being made red-hot, and we are now saying that this march made it worse still, if people are being divided and enraged, then at some point there will a trigger somewhere, and off it goes.

At the very least, they need to have an explanation for why Europeans’ lives have gotten worse. They need the image of an enemy. You know, in Ukraine it is Putin who is to blame for everything.

That’s all done – they have depicted the enemy. This image will function for a certain time, people will believe it. Later they will start asking questions.

Under Hitler they selected people to blame: sub-humans, Jews, whoever.  Later the Soviet Union was to blame, then the Western plutocrats. The list of those to blame was expanded according to the various parts of the planet against which Germany was entering into war.

Same story here: there needs to be terrorists, some kind of dark forces, who maliciously burden the European economy, and as a result the ordinary European has a poorer life. There needs to be the image of an enemy to fight against.

You mean the economy will go downhill because a few journalists were killed?

The economy will go downhill, not because a few journalists were killed, but because the type of economy which was built by the West is suffocating from the colossal government debt. That’s why.

You can see how this ‘athlete’ ( _ European economy _ ) is beginning to run slower and slower. And so you have to explain to the public, why the athlete is running slower. It’s not because you’re pumping more and more drugs into him every day and his organism is worn out, and that’s why he can’t run.

What you say is that someone burst out of the crowd and hit him over the head with something. You understand? Something like "Annushka has spilled the sunflower oil" (= _ cause of impending catastrophe _ ), then the athlete slips on it and can’t continue running. That’s what they need.

They need to somehow explain the ongoing natural processes of degradation of life in West. If the West fails to spark a major war, fails to destroy Russia and China, their life will become unequivocally worse.

And for that they need someone to blame. In Germany, or in Paris, they can’t say that Putin is to blame for everything. Because the Parisians would say, “Well, that is a curious idea ... but how exactly??”. They would have to spend decades running some kind of propaganda – as has been done in Ukraine – accusing him of everything.

But there isn’t the historical basis for that, or the opportunity to talk such nonsense for decades. That’s why they have to invent an enemy. Since 2001 they have been trying to present the Muslim world as the enemy.

Interviewee: Nikolai V. Starikov

Category: Politics