sábado, 10 de janeiro de 2015
Charlie Hebdo and Tsarnaev’s Trial: Cui bono?
By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts
There are two ways to look at the alleged terrorist attack on the French
satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.
One is that in the English speaking world, or much of it, the satire would have
been regarded as “hate speech,” and the satirists arrested. But in France
Muslims are excluded from the privileged category, took offense at the satire,
Why would Muslims bother? By now Muslims must be accustomed to Western
hypocrisy and double standards. Little doubt that Muslims are angry that they do
not enjoy the protections other minorities receive, but why retaliate for satire
but not for France’s participation in Washington’s wars against Muslims in which
hundreds of thousands have died? Isn’t being killed more serious than being
Another way of seeing the attack is as an attack designed to shore up France’s
vassal status to Washington. The suspects can be both guilty and patsies. Just
remember all the terrorist plots created by the FBI that served to make the
terrorism threat real to Americans.
France is suffering from the Washington-imposed sanctions against Russia.
Shipyards are impacted from being unable to deliver Russian orders due to
France’s vassalage status to Washington, and other aspects of the French economy
are being adversely impacted by sanctions that Washington forced its NATO puppet
states to apply to Russia.
This week the French president said that the sanctions against Russia should end
(so did the German vice-chancellor).
This is too much foreign policy independence on France’s part for Washington.
Has Washington resurrected “Operation Gladio,” which consisted of CIA bombing
attacks against Europeans during the post-WW II era that Washington blamed on
communists and used to destroy communist influence in European elections? Just
as the world was led to believe that communists were behind Operation Gladio’s
terrorist attacks, Muslims are blamed for the attacks on the French satirical
The Roman question is always: Who benefits? The answer is: Not France, not
Muslims, but US world hegemony. US hegemony over the world is what the CIA
supports. US world hegemony is the neoconservative-imposed foreign policy of the
According to National Public Radio, Charlie Hebdo is about free speech. The US
has free speech, claim NPR’s pundits, but terrorists have taken it away from the
Just how does the US have free speech when NY Times reporter James Risen was
psychologically put on the rack to force him to reveal his source, despite the
fact that Risen and his source are protected by the US Constitution and
whistleblower protections. Clearly, in the US “national security” has trumped
“National security” has nothing to do with national security. It has only to do
with protecting the criminals in the US government from accountability for their
Every time you hear Washington invoke “national security,” you know for a 100%
fact that the government has committed yet another crime. National security is
the cloak for Washington’s criminal operations. “National security” prevents the
government’s crimes from coming to light and, thereby, protects government from
One wonders what role “national security” will play in the trial of alleged
Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Tsarnaev has been in custody since
April 2013 and under indictment since April 22, 2013. Yet jury selection is
only now beginning in January 2015. Why this long delay? The guarantee of a
speedy trial no longer means anything, but with all sorts of charges in addition
to the bombing for which the government claims eye witnesses and confessions and
with the Tsarnaev brothers already convicted in the media, the long delay is a
puzzle. Yet, we have not heard from Dzhokhar Tsarnaey himself. It is difficult
to push away the thought that Dzhokhar’s trial has been delayed in order to
compete his conditioning and acceptance of his guilt and in order for the many
questions raised by alternative media to be forgotten.
The print and TV media have dished up the government’s explanation without
investigation. However, the alternative media have taken great exception to
every aspect of the case. As the US government has taught us since the Clinton
regime, the safest assumption is that everything the government says is a lie.
The most suspicious aspect of the event was the speed with which an army of
10,000 heavily armed troops consisting of police from various jurisdictions and
National Guard soldiers outfitted in military gear and provided with tanks or
armored personnel carriers were on the streets of Boston. Never before has such
a massive force equipped with military heavy equipment been employed in a
manhunt, much less for one wounded, unarmed, 19-year old kid.
For such a force to be assembled and deployed so quickly suggests pre-planning.
What was presented as a manhunt for one badly wounded suspect looks more like a
test case and precedent for locking down one of America’s largest cities, while
squads of troops evicted US citizens from their homes at gunpoint and conducted
indiscriminate searches of houses that contributed nothing to apprehending the
alleged suspect. The chances are zero that any household would have harbored a
badly wounded unarmed fugitive dying from the lack of medical care.
Not only was Boston and its suburbs locked down, the Federal Aviation
Administration restricted airspace over Boston and issued a “ground stop” for
Logan airport. Why?
Several other cities in Massachusetts and even some other states put their
police forces on alert. Why?
On the scene were the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and
Explosives, the CIA, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the National
Counterterrorism Center. The US Attorney General committed the full resources of
the US Department of Justice.
The only plausible answer is to raise the fear level in order to gain the
public’s acceptance of the lockdown of Boston and police invasions of citizens’
homes. It makes no sense that danger from a badly wounded unarmed 19 year-old
could possibly justify such expense and trampling of constitutional rights of
A non-gullible person must wonder if the bombing was an orchestrated event for
the purpose of coordinating state, local, and federal governments in the
lockdown of a major city. A poll of Bostonians last July found that 42 percent
harbored doubts about the official version of events.
The gullible always say that if a conspiracy existed someone would have talked.
But people do talk. It just doesn’t do any good. For example, during George W.
Bush’s first term a NSA whistleblower leaked to the New York Times that the NSA
was bypassing the FISA Court and spying on American citizens without warrants.
Under US law, NSA was in a conspiracy with the Bush regime to commit serious
felonies (possibly for the purpose of blackmail), but the New York Times spiked
the story for one year until George W. Bush was re-elected and the regime had
time to ex post facto legalize the felonies.
Operation Gladio was a conspiracy kept secret for decades until a President of
Italy revealed it.
The Northwoods Project was kept secret until years afterward when the second
Kennedy Commission revealed it.
More than one hundred first responder police and firemen report hearing and
personally experiencing multiple explosions floor by floor and even in the
sub-basements of the World Trade Center twin towers, and these testimonies had
no effect whatsoever.
It only took one high school physics professor to shoot down NIST’s account of
the collapse of WTC 7. The fact that it has been conclusively proven that this
building was brought down by controlled demolition has had no effect on the
The co-chairmen and legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission published books in
which they say that information was withheld from the Commission, that the US
Military lied to the Commission, and that the Commission “was set up to fail.”
Neither Congress, the media, nor the US public had any interest in investigating
why information was withheld, why the military lied, and why the Commission was
set up to fail. These extraordinary statements by the leaders of the official
investigation had no impact whatsoever.
Even today a majority of the US population believes Washington’s propaganda that
Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed some provinces. Neither judgement nor
intelligence are strong points of the American public and juries.
Government tells Americans whatever story the government puts together and sits
and laughs at the gullibility of the public.
Today the US public is divided between those who rely on the “mainstream media”
and those who rely on the alternative Internet media. Only the latter have any
clue as to what is really happening.
The stories of Charlie Hebdo and the Tsarnaev brothers will be based not on
facts but on the interests of government. As in the past, the government’s
interest will prevail over the facts.
January 09, 2015