Terrorism: Who Benefits?

November 16, 2015November 20, 2015 GRL Admin 1 Comment false flag, iraq, isis, paris, propaganda, statism, syria, terror, terrorism, war

Introduction

You have to ask, “who benefits?”. Does ISIS benefit? No. Attacks like those in Paris serve no purpose for them. It will just lead to more western militaries going after them. It will lead to more occupations, more boots on the ground, more bombings, more drones, more control and manipulation of Middle Eastern land by outsiders. So no, an event like this will do nothing positive for ISIS or any other “terrorist” group.

Then we have to examine what terrorist groups or the Islamic world, in general, don’t gain when things like this happen. Believe it or not “they hate us for our freedoms” is not a real thing. People of the world, radical Muslims included, actually have real grievances with other groups. In the case of Muslims and much of the Middle Eastern world, they are tired of being manipulated, invaded, overthrown, and controlled. “War is the health of the state” as Randolph Bourne noted and Smedley Butler, George Orwell, Murray Rothbard, and many others have reminded us. And the dominant states of the world have been using the Middle East as their preferred war zone for decades. Keep it safely away from Europe and America. Keep arming and funding anyone who will take the money and guns. Middle Eastern people are tired of this. They are also tired of Israel, their mistreatment of others in the region, and encroachment upon what little Palestinian land still exists.

Palestine and Israel

As a reminder, the modern Israeli state has not always existed. It was created by the British, Americans, the western establishment in general, and the Zionists, out of thin air. It might be widely thought that Israel was created after WWII to compensate the Jewish people and give them a homeland. But, the plan was actually initiated decades before. It just takes a lot of time and work to drum up support for something like the forced removal of people from their land and a takeover from the outside. In 1917 British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour sent a letter known as the Balfour Declaration to Walter Rothschild. In this correspondence, he essentially pledged the British government’s full support in bringing an Israeli state into existence. By 1920, Britain was in control of Palestine, and in 1948 Israel was created as its own state. Since then, Israel has been taking more land, mistreating people, and manipulating events in the region. And as we know, the Middle East has been a mess ever since.

We learn two things from this quick story. One, there used to be no such thing as the “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” before outsiders forcibly created the state of Israel. People should view this as bad as we do South African apartheid, African colonialism, or the takeover of Native American lands by the US government. But why don’t most people see the Israeli situation like that? Because we’ve all been trained to see Israel = good, and all Muslims = bad. We are given a 3rd grader narrative and most people don’t question it. Obviously, Israel has not been the only wrongdoer in the region. There has been a steady back and forth of misdeeds by Israel, and others upon Israel. The important point, though, is that none of it would be happening if a forced, non-organic state wasn’t put in place there by outside governments. Imagine if Russia or some other powerful country came into the US and said the entire state of Ohio was to become the new homeland of the Cambodian people. They declare that the people in Ohio can either leave or live under the rule of the new Cambodian government. Obviously, that’s absurd. You can see how problematic that might be, and Ohio isn’t even holy ground for 3 major religions.

The second thing we learn; before Israel and before the west started meddling in and using the Middle East as a tool, there was very little terrorism targeted at the west and carried out by Muslims, yet again blowing away the “hate us for our freedoms” story. Why haven’t they always been attacking the US and Europe for our relative freedom and prosperity? Again, however you see it, if all attacks are genuinely carried out by radicals, or they’re all false flags, or something in between; one way or another, this whole saga began to take shape only after the west started to mess around in the Middle East. It doesn’t make anyone’s actions right, but it is important to see the timeline of cause and effect correctly.

The French Connection

So let’s bring it back to the present and to the question posed above. What does ISIS or the Middle East, in general, not gain when an attack like Paris takes place? And let’s answer with the premise of understanding that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is supposed to be of great importance to those in the Middle East. They want to see an independent Palestine. Thus, they would want all the support they can get. After an event like this, the mood will turn strikingly against a Palestinian state. So the international support for a 2-state solution is what they don’t get.

But, let’s look at why this is even more relevant to France. In 2014 France was considering backing Palestine for full statehood. In November of 2014 Benjamin Netanyahu warns of a “grave mistake” if France recognizes Palestine. In December of 2014, France does decide to back a Palestinian state. In January 2015, we have the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. By mid-2015 it was speculated that the US might actually go along with this, by not vetoing the hypothetical decision at the UN. By September, at the UN, a Palestinian flag is allowed to fly. But, by October of 2015, with recent increased violence in Israel, the US is a little more hesitant about backing France in their push to grant Palestine full statehood. So now we have the Paris attacks, the war on terror propaganda machine will go into full force, and there will be virtually no support in France for Palestinian statehood. Anti-Muslim fervor will be drummed up, and the popular support for foreign intervention in the Middle East will be greater than ever. Of course, ISIS isn’t connected with Palestine. But, the whole thing will get connected however they want it, leading to a drop in support for Palestine, and increased support for invading Syria (sort of like 9/11 and Iraq). The drive to support Palestine will be greatly deflated, and the war machine waging against the Middle East will be stronger than ever.

In summary there, if you’re a radical Islamic terrorist organization fighting for Muslim interests, after your attack on France, a country who was supporting Palestinian independence, you lose that support. Also, since the entire international community will now be united in going after you, you lose much of your ability to wreak havoc in the Middle East by terrorizing and killing your fellow Muslims, which again, is weird. Of all possible targets in the Middle East, ISIS is not that interested in attacking Jews or Christians. They have not been very interested in attacking Israel or any bases of foreign governments. They have been oddly interested in destroying Iraq, where the west has wanted the current government gone anyway, so that a better puppet state could be set up. They have also been oddly interested in attacking the government in Syria, the other regime that the west would like to see gone. And even more strange, they’ve been getting direct support from the west to do these things. Very odd indeed. One more recent oddity – If ISIS is our worst enemy, in over a year of airstrikes why has the US made so little progress in doing any damage to them? And then why have the western governments and media outlets been so outraged that Russia actually did start targeting them and taking them out? Then, I would suspect that the US government didn’t want to either look like fools or for the truth to come out, so they supposedly ramp up the airstrikes and apparently kill “Jihadi John”, to make sure Russia isn’t the only one getting anything done.

Another example of the same idea – In 2013 the Assad regime of Syria, according to the mainstream media and the western governments, supposedly carried out a poison gas attack on his own people. This just happened to occur at the same time international inspectors were in the country, in the area where the attack took place. So let’s think about it, why would Assad possibly ever be so dumb as to commit a war crime while inspectors are there looking around, when he is already demonized in the media for being a terrible guy (which he is, for other reasons)? Of course, there is no reason. It was an obvious case of a false flag event, carried out by the “moderate” rebels, aka ISIS, aka the western proxy army, to try to make Assad look even worse.

Who does benefit?

So let’s turn our attention to who does benefit from terrorism. I hope by this point the answer is obvious; first, Israel benefits. As long as they can keep the “war on terror” going strong, they’re better off. As long as they can keep international support for a Palestinian state low, they’re better off. Second, the powers-that-be in the west benefit (NATO, the CFR, the big banks, the Bilderberg group, the Zionists, the Neocons, the Greater Israel project). These groups have certain agendas, and this includes useful wars, terror, destabilization, balkanization, and divide and conquer strategies. Third, the military-industrial complex benefits through more contracts, more funding, more weapons, and less peace. It’s disturbing and almost funny, that after any terrible event, large or small, the government agencies and their connected corporations that were responsible for preventing said disaster don’t get punished, don’t get their funding pulled – they get more money and more support!

Finally statism, in general, benefits because events like this reinforce support for government. An attack takes places, carried out by a supposedly non-state actor, right in the middle of a major, prominent city. This reminds everyone how much they need government to protect them; how necessary politicians, bureaucrats, and wars really are. Fear of attack is the holy pillar of statism. Everything else rests upon this. The entire belief in the authority of some people to rule you lies in the fear of danger, and the imagined safety that the authority “provides”. In other words, governments love to see a steady flow of violence in the world. It gives them credibility. Peace, anywhere, at any time, would be a crack in their superficial façade. It would show the people of the world that peace is possible, and that even though governments claim to provide safety and security, they really allow or even promote just enough violence and mayhem in the world to legitimize their own existence.

One of the specific ways in which this attack will be used is to divert attention. You’ll see this often with big events. They just happen to take place right as other things are going on that they’d rather us not be focused on, or that they’d like to change our perception of. In this case, just before these attacks, it was confirmed that US combat troops have been sent into Syria. Only 50 to start, but it opens the door for a full-scale ground war. For more than two years now, a potential war with Syria has been very unpopular, and really still is. And they’ve tried everything to turn that around. In 2013 the US wanted to invade, but there was a public outcry against it. Then there was the “gas attack” incident mentioned in this article. That didn’t do the trick. Then the “moderate rebels” who the US had been funding and training, and shipping weapons to from Libya were magically turned into a new terrorist organization, ISIS. But months of propaganda and doctored videos still didn’t do the trick. So, sadly, we get Paris. Now, not only is no one paying attention to a possible total war, if they were, they would cheer it on.
One more note on France before we move on. An attack on French soil is a double whammy. As we’ve already noted, this makes sense because of France’s possible support for a Palestinian state, so it helps to nix that. But here is another reason, particular to France. The powers-that-be want to continue the war on terror and advance a statist/globalist agenda and need and want close to full acceptance by all of the powerful countries of the world. They want the big, relevant militaries on board and involved. France is a powerhouse country. They have the 6^th largest military in the world. They would have become the most powerful European country to support full statehood for Palestine. I think the powers-that-be wanted France to get in line and follow orders.

What is Terrorism?

After all of that, we must now examine what terrorism really is. I think terrorism is often backward from what people think it is. They are told and imagine that terrorism is the use of violence by a group to achieve something that group wants. But, does that ever actually happen? Does any terrorist group ever achieve anything politically, except to become hated and marginalized? The term “false flag” is counter-intuitive to many people. It’s the opposite of what they’ve been told terrorism is. At first it would seem outlandish and preposterous. People might dismiss it entirely thinking it is just “conspiracy theory”, or they might not want to breach the psychological wall in their minds that tells them who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and that the good guys would never do anything bad. In truth, could it be that more often than we might think, the terrorism we hear about simply is false flag terrorism?; and that going by the basic definition of terror, it actually is the same thing – the use of violence by a group to achieve something that group wants. Their ends just come about through deception and trickery, by making it look like some boogeyman has done the deed and is after the people.

As we’ve outlined earlier in the article ISIS has nothing to gain by carrying out an attack in Paris. So, by the standard view of terrorism, does anyone ever have anything to gain? In the self-interest of any group ever in history, how would they benefit from carrying out violence and then accepting responsibility for it? There might be isolated circumstances where I’m wrong, but in general, I see none. In reality, the result will always be demonisation of that group; cracking down on that group, and literally waging war on that group. Any terrorist attack would delegitimize the attacker, bolster support for the group attacked, and build up popular support for getting rid of the threat. Some will make the argument that what the terrorists gain is the targeted country becoming scared and weakened. I would argue that isn’t a benefit to the attacker though, but merely an outcome of the event, and that yet again, others, chiefly governments, stand to gain from the fear after an attack.

Thus, I think many more attacks than we think, are actually of the false flag variety. Not all of course. Here is the difference. If it is blown out of proportion; if there is a ready-made response to it; if there are manufactured campaigns and slogans ready to go right out of the box; if there are laws ready to be passed right away (that benefit the state and increase the size of government); if there are immediately inconsistencies in the story and in the reporting; if there are odd events like passports that survive explosions, buildings that fall down for no reason, or media that just happens to be on the scene ready to report – it might be a false flag. But if it is straight forward, simplistic, and if the media doesn’t obsess over it because it wasn’t part of the pre-planned agenda – it might be a genuine attack by some crazy people. Another difference, no one gains anything from the true terrorist attack. When some crazy guys shoot up a mall in Kenya or blows up something in Lebanon, they don’t get anything out of it. No geopolitical changes are made. No global initiatives are started. They’re brainwashed, radicalized, and think they’re going to achieve something valuable by killing other human beings. In reality, they or their group are rightly demonized, marginalized, and dealt with. On the other hand, with the false flag, plenty of people benefit, and loads of earth-changing things happen in the wake of the event.

Some specific examples; a day before the Paris attacks over 40 people were killed in Lebanon. I’m pretty plugged into the news, but I honestly had not heard about this. THAT is the difference between a genuine terrorist attack and a false flag attack that is carried out to further an agenda. Just in 2015 alone, there have been hundreds of events classified as terrorist attacks. Most of them you will never hear of. These were mostly genuine attacks by lunatics, religious fanatics, and actual extremists, carried out on innocent people.

False Flags Throughout History

Here is another difference. As time goes on, we collectively forget genuine terrorist attacks. To the court historians, they are unimportant blips in history, where some unimportant nobody killed some people. False flags, on the other hand, go down in history, for multiple reasons. We might remember them because they were such a big deal (Here is a list of 10 big ones.) We might remember them because we are literally told “never forget” and the media carries on about it forever. Or we might remember because as time goes on, evidence comes out that proves what really happened. In other words, when you look back, it becomes evident that most of the famous, memorable attacks were actually false flags, or at least, weren’t entirely what we were told they were.

Here are a few examples. In the 1890s the ship, the USS Maine, was blown up. The attack was blamed on Spain, and the Spanish-American war began. It turns out, even coming officially from the Navy, that the explosion was likely due to an internal explosion, rather than an outside attack. And even if that might have been an accidental explosion, none the less, it was blamed on another party, and a war was started. In 1964 the North Vietnamese supposedly attacked some American ships, which was the impetus to start the Vietnam war. This is known as the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Since then it has become known (and admitted by the US government) that not only did the North Vietnamese not attack anything, no one did! The entire thing was completely fabricated. This was easy at the time, pre-internet, pre-smartphone, and on the other side of the world. In 1990, a Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah testified before congress, explaining how Iraqi soldiers had stormed into the country, massacred people, and literally thrown babies out of their incubators. This, of course, helped to demonize Saddam and start the Gulf War. It later turned out that Nayirah was not just any Kuwaiti girl. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador, and they intentionally didn’t use her last name because of that. Secondly, it turned out the throwing babies out of incubators story was a complete fabrication. Way back – It is thought that the Roman emperor Nero actually had the city set on fire on purpose, because he wanted space cleared to build a palace, then he blamed the Christians, who then got persecuted and killed because of it. In 1933 a communist supposedly set fire to the Reichstag building in Berlin. This gave the Nazis an excuse to clamp down and essentially begin their regime. This might be easier to swallow than some of the others, because it’s the Nazis, not our own government, but history has shown us since then that it was the Nazis who started the fire, framed the patsy and used the event as an excuse to do what they wanted. (Here are 42 more examples.)

Those are some of the more obvious and admitted cases. As you might expect, there are many others. Some of these are more difficult to discuss and to easily say “here’s what happened”, as they haven’t been admitted to yet, but eventually the truth will out.

Why Paris is Fishy

I’ve already covered some general reasons, so here I’ll leave you with some further information on why Paris looks a little fishy. Please look into any of this on your own. Follow the links provided throughout this article.

9 Reasons to Question the Paris attacks
The Head of the CIA, the director of the French DGSE, a former Israeli security advisor, and a former head of MI6 all met at a conference about a week prior to this event.
Hours before the attack, Facebook shuts down a page run by Anonymous where they expose “ISIS” recruiters.
French and German federal police representatives had met weeks ago to discuss intelligence of a planned attack on Paris.
Weeks before, weapons and explosives were stolen from a French military armory.
Multiple countries had apparently warned of the attack, including Iraq and Turkey.
There was a “multi-site attack” drill taking place the very morning of the attacks. This is a big one, as there always seem to be “drills” planned during big attacks.
Questionable stories – like the guy who’s Samsung phone saved him from shrapnel, and in the interview, he says “and then you guys were there”, referring to the media, and thus implying that the media was on the scene basically right away.
If “the terrorists” simply hate the west for freedoms and wealth, and they’re supposed to be hell-bent on total destruction, and the most mayhem possible, why didn’t the attackers choose more high-profile targets, any of the priceless treasures in Paris, any of the very busy tourist areas, etc? I know they targeted a couple busy places, but beyond that it was little neighborhood cafes. Why not make the biggest impact possible?
The Passport – Finding passports after attacks seems to be a repeating meme. On 9/11, the passport of one of the attackers survived the fiery inferno office fire that was so hot it could apparently melt steel beams, then it neatly floated to the street, and just happened to be picked up by a FBI agent. Passports are convenient smoking guns for the media and government to quickly start pointing fingers without the need for any investigation. In Paris, multiple passports were found, and still legible (even after being carried by suicide bombers). At least one was a Syrian passport, which would immediately be used to start making connections with Syria, and bolster the move for a full-blown invasion of Syria. Plot twist: Later it comes out, though, that the Syrian passport as most likely a fake, made in Turkey.
Who were the attackers exactly, and where did they get the sophisticated weapons and equipment?
Peculiarities with the theater attack – including a Mexican girl who was possibly alive and in contact with her family after the attack, but then eventually was one of the victims and dead.
Big Reason #1: The US/Israel/NATO has been looking for years for an excuse big enough to invade Syria. It’s beyond the scope of this article, but the west wants control of Syria. Look into it.
Big Reason #2: ISIS is not what we are told it is. So the immediate connection to ISIS by government and media makes the whole thing look fishy. Again, this is beyond the scope of this article as well but look into it. See the end of this article for links to additional reading on the topic.

Conclusion

A major point here; whether or not you believe or understand what I’m saying, at least start to question what you see in the news. Chances are, there is more to a story than they are telling you in the nightly news and government press conferences.

To summarize what we’ve discussed: ISIS, migrants, and Middle Eastern Muslims in general, would have nothing to gain, and actually quite a bit to lose by carrying out attacks like this. And I don’t buy the simplistic 2nd-grade arguments that “some people just love killing other people”, or “they hate us for our freedoms”. People do things for actual reasons. Behind every simplistic explanation of anything, there is a complicated back story. There is cause and effect in the world. People generally don’t just go around mindlessly killing people. And even there, if they did, there would be more to it – Who radicalized them? Who funded them? Who trained them? Who made it possible for them to have access to certain things or pass certain borders? Who is pulling the strings? And of course, who benefits?

A note on the concept of false flags. First, they are real. It is nothing to hide from or be afraid to learn about. It has been going on for thousands of years. Governments have admitted to it time and again. And as I outlined earlier, I think they might even be the most prominent type of terrorist attack – since if you genuinely commit violence as a terrorist, there isn’t much to gain. Domestically, you’ll look like a nutjob, the cops will crack down on you, you’ll be thrown in jail or killed, and anything you say will be rightly marginalized and ridiculed. Internationally, same thing; you’ll be demonized, you’ll look like an extremist, you’ll lose support for whatever you want, and entire nations will literally wage war on you. What is the benefit there? But if we look at it differently, that many attacks are actually false flags, it makes more sense. There is a narrative advanced. There are clearly certain groups and individuals who always benefit. And it fits the framework of problem-reaction-solution; or of creating problems, offering specific and pre-determined solutions, and advancing the course of events in a way that benefits those in power, or moves a certain agenda forward. Why is that so hard to believe, or so controversial? We’ve seen people do obviously evil things throughout history. Is it that absurd to think that powerful people would want, or at least not mind, terrible things to happen, that might further their agenda or solidify their power?

False flag does not necessarily have to mean one guy dressing up as another guy and committing something in the name of the other guy. It could take many forms as evidenced by some of the examples earlier in the article. The point is, no one is literally saying French soldiers dressed up as jihadists, ran around Paris, and faked the whole thing. That is not what this is. People who are obsessed with believing everything they are told by the media and government, though, like to make it out like that; that if you question something, you must be crazy, an extremist, a conspiracy theorist, and must obviously be pushing stupid outlandish explanations. Again, this isn’t that. Things are not black and white. If there’s something fishy about Paris, its covert, subtle, well planned, and well hidden. Something is made to look as much as they can like they want it to look. The normal TV and print media is going to parrot the government line, so it is up to each of us to do our own research, think for ourselves, and come to our own conclusions.

Finally, people lost their lives in Paris. We know that. It is a place not accustomed to that sort of violence, so it really makes an impact on the world. We should all think of those individuals who were killed, and how their lives were taken from them. It is completely senseless, as in without reason, morality, or humanity. Initiating violence upon others is always senseless, whoever is behind it. I would just caution about latching on too quickly to organized sympathy campaigns, or of buying into media stories or state-sponsored initiatives and memorials. These people deserve our individual attention. If we just throw out a trending Paris hashtag in support, and accept the official story completely, without question – we aren’t really doing much for the victims in Paris, or for the tens or hundreds of thousands who might die in the wars to come, or the countless thousands already dead all around the globe, because of propaganda, deception, and the “war on terror”. In this article, earlier this year, (What We Should Really Remember On Memorial Day) I made the case that if we really “support the troops”, rather than just saying “I support the troops” and getting on with our lives, we should question the war machine that they are a part of, and investigate how they’re being manipulated and used by the powers that be – so that we might lessen the injustice, the body count, and the ruined lives, here and abroad. The same thing applies with the victims in Paris. If we support these people who have been attacked and used, let’s look into it. Let’s figure out the truth, so again, we might work to lessen the war and injustice in the world, that is often carried out in our name.

Further Reading