false flag terrorism

How far can Erdogan push Putin, and who will help him?

I wrote this article for Russia Insider, whose audience is more familiar with the true situation in Syria, and disbelieving of the western propaganda which is enabling the illegitimate and dangerous attack on Syria. In Russian a 'provocation' is what we would call a false flag, and in this case applies to Turkey's shooting down of the Russian bomber. While this has been portrayed in the West as 'Turkey's right to defend its borders', the bomber was never over Turkish territory, as testified to by the co-pilot after he was rescued from the murderous 'rebels' who shot the other one as he parachuted to the ground. The Turkish government carried out this act of war against Russia in a desperate attempt to slow down Russia's bombing campaign against all the rebel groups Turkey has been supporting in Syria, including Islamic State. Whether Turkey had the assistance or aquiescence of NATO in this operation is a matter of speculation, but we can see from President Putin's statements and actions just how serious a provocation this was. That this has been followed by the vote in Britain and Germany to send military forces to 'fight ISIS' in Syria is a grave escalation of the conflict, as this is directly contrary to the actions Russia and Syria and Iran have been taking. But our media are struck dumb. Is it possible they don't know what is happening? My article below: Yet again Turkey has set up a 'provocation', in pursuit of the regime's geostrategic goals. As details emerged following its shooting down of a Russian fighter jet over Syria, any doubt that this was an act of provocation and aggression rapidly disappeared. Not that there was ever much doubt on this side of the divide because Russian planes had been operating in the area for weeks and had no reason to stray over the border. The Russian 'denials' of an incursion were soon confirmed unambiguously, when the plane's navigator was rescued and described Turkey's unprovoked attack, in an interview which was even aired by Australia's State broadcaster, the ABC. True to form however, the Murdoch press ignored this testimony, and published full page graphics showing only the plane's route as claimed by Turkey. In Newscorp's Herald Sun - famous for prosecuting Putin with mystery claims over MH17 - the accompanying text titled 'Downing Vlad's Top Guns' offered no alternative beyond 'Russia claims F-16s opened fire inside Syrian airspace'. (This was in line with US sources who backed up Turkey's fabricated story but admitted the Russian jet was in Syrian airspace when it was hit). What we have to note here, is that the only debate that existed in most Western media was on whether Turkey was justified in shooting down the Russian plane for so briefly entering Turkish airspace. The co-pilot's damning testimony was never mentioned again, so the idea that Turkey might have shot down Russia's plane intentionally, as an act of war, was never discussed. This was despite the accepted narrative that Russia was bombing 'moderate rebels' in Syria who were ethnic Turks and who Turkey had vowed to 'protect'. (Davotoglu says this is Turkey's duty) For us 'dissidents', who never doubted 'Russia's story', it still took several days before the extent of this 'provocation' became clear. With previous 'false flag' attacks, like the so-called chemical weapons attack in Ghouta two years ago, the motivation of the responsible parties was quite obvious, and itself one of the indicators that this was such a 'provocation'. In this case however it was not so clear what might be gained by Turkey in doing something which looked more like an act of anger and retribution over Russia's destruction of Erdogan's mercenary regime-change armies. And we all saw those 'regime changers', proudly holding up the parachute handles of the Russian pilot they had just murdered, described as 'Syrian Turkmen' in the caption or commentary. Such was the confidence of the organisers of this act that Western media would present it in a way favourable to the Turkish narrative, that the self-confessed assassins of the pilot made no attempt to conceal their identities in the photos and video 'posted on social media'. When a wider picture revealed that CNN Turk and Fox news apparently had foreknowledge of the event and were on the spot to photograph it, this was not a problem either. We can barely imagine how it would feel for the pilot's close relatives to see and hear his killers celebrating their loved-one's death, and knowing that Western audiences were likely sympathising with these supposed victims of 'Vlad's top guns'. We must try to remember now that this is where the story ended for the 'victims' of the Western media machine; they never got to hear what followed like we did, as Russian agencies, media and independent commentators began to investigate the crime. And they are now most unlikely to believe the true story about the planning of this attack and apparent complicity of their own governments. History shows that even the most glaring inconsistencies over this attack will escape their attention now the simplistic NATO-friendly narrative has been established, and reinforced with pacifying rhetoric from Western leaders. It may make us cringe to listen to statements from Erdogan and Davotoglu that beggar belief, about Turkey's desire for peace, and necessity to defend its people from Russian aggression, even in Syria. It may make us squirm to realise that these criminals have credibility, not just with a Western audience but with the Europeans, who only days later have rewarded them with money and renewed prospects for cooperation. Perhaps cringing and squirming aren't enough - we need to get angry; as Russian leaders have realised, they can no longer deal with such 'back-stabbers' in polite diplomatic terms. The only way forward now is to ruthlessly expose their double dealing, as Vladimir Putin has just done at the forum in Paris, and as the Russian air-force has done with its 'indiscriminate' bombing campaign in Syria. While this may not persuade Western audiences who still believe armed insurgents can be 'moderate', the message has surely been received loud and clear by their sponsors even though they behave otherwise. Given recent progress on the ground in Syria, this NATO sponsored provocation hasn't been a great success, if it was intended to foil a cooperative campaign to strangle supplies to Da'esh and other terrorist groups, like the ones called 'Syrian Turkmen'. But one fears that this provocation was actually aimed at the Western public, to whom it is invisible. They are already being fed follow-up stories about Russia 'carelessly killing civilians' by NGOs and media who may actually believe them. (like previous claims made against the Syrian government however, the 'civilians' in these nicely timed stories will nearly all be fighters, or executed prisoners). Within such a framework of disinformation and distortion, Russia's increasingly severe statements and actions are completely misunderstood or not understood at all by the Western public. While we may be powerless to enlighten them now, we will at least be better placed to address the consequences if we realise this.

Washington refines its False Flag operations

by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. Previously (16/11/15) on

Washington and its French vassal have refined how they conduct their false flag operations. With the Charlie Hebdo operation, they knew to immediately set the story in stone in order to avoid any questions from the print and TV media and in order to use the set story to take the place of an investigation.

The set story made it unnecessary to explain the mysterious "suicide" of one of the main police investigators while engaged in the investigation of the event. The set story also made it unnecessary to explain why it was necessary to kill rather than capture the alleged perpetrators, or to explain how the French authorities could be so wrong about the alleged get-away-driver but not about the two gunmen. There has been no explanation why the authorities believed there was a get-away-driver, and no such driver has been captured or killed. Indeed, there are many unanswered questions of no interest to any media except the alternative Internet media.

What the US and France learned from the Charlie Hebdo skepticism on the Internet is to keep the story flowing. Charlie Hebdo involved two scenes of violence, and the connection between the two acts of terrorism was vague. This time there were several scenes of violence, and they were better connected in the story.

More importantly, the story was followed quickly by more drama, such as the pursuit of a suspected perpetrator into Belgium, a French bombing attack on the Islamic State, a French aircraft carrier sent to the Middle East, a declaration of war by the French President against ISIL, and speculation that Hollande, pressured by Washington, will invoke NATO's Article V, which will pull NATO into an invasion of the Islamic State. By superceding each event with a new one, the public's attention is shifted away from the attack itself and the interests served by the attack. Already the attack itself is old news. The public's attention has been led elsewhere. How soon will NATO have boots on the ground?

The Western media has avoided many interesting aspects of the Paris attacks. For example, what did the directors of the CIA and French intelligence discuss at their meeting a few days prior to the Paris attacks. Why were fake passports used to identify attackers? Why did the attacks occur on the same day as a multi-site simulation of a terrorist attack involving first responders, police, emergency services and medical personnel? Why has there been no media investigation of the report that French police were blinded by a sophisticated cyber attack on their mobile data tracking system? Does anyone really believe that ISIL has such capability?

The Western media serves merely as an amplifier of the government's propaganda. Even the non-Western media follows this pattern because of the titillating effect. It is a good story for the media, and it requires no effort.

Initially even the Russian media served to trumphet the set story that rescues the Western political establishment from politial defeat at home and Russian defeat in Syria. But it wasn't too long before some of the Russian media remembered numerous false stories about a Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Assad's use of chemical weapons, about US ABMs being placed on Russia's borders to protect Europe from nonexistant Iranian nuclear ICBMs. And so on.

Russian media began asking questions and received some good answers from Gearoid O Colmain:

To understand the Paris attacks, it helps to begin with the question: "What is ISIL?" Apparently, ISIL is a creation of the CIA or some deep-state organization shielded by the CIA's operations department. ISIL seems to have been used to overthrow Quadaffi in Libya and then sent to overthrow Assad in Syria. One would think that ISIL would be throughly infiltrated by the CIA, Mossad, British and French intelligence. Perhaps ISIL is discovering that it is an independent power and is substituting an agenda of its own for Washington's, but ISIL still appears to be at least partially dependent on support, active or passive, from Washington.

ISIL is a new group that suddenly appeared. ISIL is portrayed as barbaric knife-wielding fanatics from medieval times. How did such a group so quickly acquire such extensive global capability as to blow a Russian airliner out of Egyptian skies, conduct bombings in Lebanon and Turkey, outwit French intelligence and conduct successful multi-prong attacks in Paris? How come ISIL never attacks Israel?

The next question is: "How does the Paris attack benefit ISIL?" Is it a benefit to ISIL to have Europe's borders closed, thus halting ISIL's ability to infiltrate Europe as refugees? Does it help ISIL to provoke French bombing of ISIL positions in the Middle East and to bring upon itself a NATO invasion?

Who does benefit? Clearly, the European and American political establishment in so many ways. Establishment political parties in France, Germany, and the UK are in trouble, because they enabled Washington's Middle East wars that are bringing floods of refugees into Europe. Pegida is rising in Germany, Farage's Independent Party in the UK, and Marine Le Pen's National Front in France. Indeed, a recent poll showed Marine Le Pen in the lead as the next president of France.

The Paris attack takes the issue and the initiative away from these dissident political parties. Among the first words out of the mouth of the French president in response to the attack was his declaration that the borders of France are closed. Already Merkel's political allies in Germany are pushing her government in that direction. "Paris changes everything," they declare. It certainly saved the European political establishment from defeat and loss of power.

The same result occurred in the US. Outsiders Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were slaughtering the establishment's presidential candidates. Trump and Sanders had the momentum. But "Paris changes everything." Trump and Sanders are now sidelined, out of the news. The momentum is lost. The story has changed. "Paris attacks become focus of 2016 race," declares CNN." id="txt3"> 3 

Also among the early words from the French president, and without any evidence in support, was Hollande's declaration that the Islamic State had attacked the French nation. Obviously, it is set for Hollande to invoke NATO's Article V, which would send a NATO invasion force into Syria. This would be Washington's way of countering the Russian initiative that has saved the Assad government from defeat by the Islamic State. The NATO invasion would overthrow Assad as part of the war against the Islamic State.

The Russian government did not immediately recognize this threat. The Russian government saw in the Paris attack the opportunity to gain Western cooperation in the fight against ISIL. The Russian line has been that we must all fight ISIL together.

The Russian presence, although highly effective, is small in Syria. What does the Russian government do when its policy in Syria is crowded by a NATO invasion?

The only benefactor of the Paris attack is the Western political establishment and Washington's goal of unseating Assad in Syria. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the French, German, and British political establishments from the National Front, Pegida, and the UK Independence Party. The Paris attack has removed the threat to the US political establishment from Trump and Sanders. The Paris attack has advanced Washington's goal of removing Assad from power.

The answer to the Roman question, "cui bono," is clear.

But don't expect to hear it from the Western media.

" id="SyrianGirl">Appendix: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks Exposed by Syrian Girl Partisan


" id="fn1">1. ">↑  Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts' latest books are and .

" id="fn2">2. ">↑  See Appendix: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks Exposed by Syrian Girl Partisan, ">above.

" id="fn3">3. ">↑  (16/11/15) | CNN