Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
ANOTHER French False Flag?: Bloody Tracks from Paris to San Bernardino Paperback – January 6, 2016
|New from||Used from|
The Amazon Book Review
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
About the Author
Kevin Barrett, an American Muslim and PhD Islamic Studies scholar, is one of America's best-known critics of the War on Terror. He has authored and edited several books and appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS and other broadcast outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other mainstream publications. A former teacher of French, Arabic, Islamic Studies, Humanities and other subjects at colleges and universities in Paris, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Wisconsin, he currently works as a talk radio host, nonprofit organizer, editor at Veterans Today, and pundit at Press TV, Russia Today, al-Etejah and other international channels. His website is TruthJihad.com.
If you buy a new print edition of this book (or purchased one in the past), you can buy the Kindle edition for only $2.99 (Save 70%). Print edition purchase must be sold by Amazon. Learn more.
For thousands of qualifying books, your past, present, and future print-edition purchases now lets you buy the Kindle edition for $2.99 or less. (Textbooks available for $9.99 or less.)
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Instead, I have eschewed such an exhaustive review, in favor of an evaluation of what I consider the book’s core exchange, the outstandingly-productive debate between the main proposition’s two detractors, Gilad Atzmon and Eric Walberg, and the lead protagonist of the central thesis, Dr. Kevin Barrett, the work’s deft organizer, in a triad of chapters placed near the end of the book.
Atzmon and Walberg essentially argue, completely without recourse to details of the evidence of the false-flag nature and role of the various related terrorist operations, as laid out in the opening twenty-three signature essays, that a false-flag op in any particular case of terrorism, whether postulating Mossad involvement or not, would be too complex and involve too many players and coordination too intricate involving diverse factions, to be plausible as an explanation.
The obvious primary answer to this has to be that whatever lay behind the phenomena of the attacks would have to be complex, so complexity doesn’t at all preclude false-flag authorship or sponsorship. And since the different manifestations (Paris1, Paris2, San Bernardino, and afterward Brussels) are indisputably all linked in a series, what is really rife for exploration is a landscape of causation, not singular events. Rather, a set-up in place of whatever sort is fairly obviously involved, productive of a whole landscape constituted of a sequence of linked events materializing one upon another upon another… day-in, day-out as is deemed necessary. And, as far as states doing this, rather than autonomous terror organizations, or postulated “networks”: if the visible portion and workings of modern super-states are labyrinthian by nature, then why not their corresponding portions intended to be covert? We know that such exist. And if secretive modern states with the means and capability did not in fact operate to manipulate events and outcomes routinely in what they see as their favor, they would most assuredly be missing a golden opportunity.
The opening twenty-three essays in this most-impressive cavalcade effectively compile and apply evidence that the Paris2 attacks were in fact internally generated by agencies of the U.S. and allied states. They indicate convincingly that the prime motive of the attacks was to scare and convince soft European allies of the U.S., both their officials and their populations, in order to strongly reinforce in action their will and allegiance to fulfilling U.S. Mideast and beyond war aims. Also involved in the likely calculation would be aligned aggressive policies aimed at Russia, Central Asia, etc. This book, in the vanguard of documents heralding a more-recent era in western thinking concerning shock events in general is, if for that reason alone, highly recommended.
As for Atzmon and Walberg, the duo who criticize the foregoing essays and essayists for the “implausibility” of their false-flag attribution of the attacks without engaging any of the evidence set forth, their shortcoming in misreading (or reading through antiquated lenses) the character of the attacks can best be attributed to their (evidently willful) lack of familiarity with the new landscape of causation common to the various linked manifestations, albeit of necessity sketchily described.
This same sort of off-throwing “lack of familiarity” with background conditions was responsible for our “primitive” ancestors’ attribution of violent storms to giants battling, or of the pronounced vertical crenellations on the gigantic volcanic plug rising from the northern Great Plains now known as Devil’s Tower to a hypothesized outraged giant bear. In both cases – if they had but known and recognized the true background elements…
Kevin Barrett, in his essay, takes this, perhaps the single, defining argument of the chaotic era we are now entering one truly Herculean step further. He suggests that what is being birthed in this book is, in fact, a vital new paradigm of western understanding, vying to displace the old. In other words, he contends that the evidence-based arguments of those we can perhaps celebrate as “The First Twenty-Three”, which comprise the bulk of this landmark book, in concert proclaiming, rather uniquely in print, that the blanket causation of the sort of events described was what we have called for a while now MIHOP – that the states deliberately and visibly claiming shared victimhood have themselves, true to their evolved, demonstrably amoral, partly-hidden nature, MADE IT HAPPEN ON PURPOSE.
I more than think he’s onto something, especially prospectively. Indeed, it would be hard to even imagine a current non-fiction book more worthy of everyone’s serious attention than this one. Happy Reading (and sharing) to all!
For a start, Barrett and several of the authors in his compendium absolutely shredded the official story of the Paris attacks and the earlier Charlie Hebdo attack and characterized them as “false flags”: events staged to some degree for political ends. Barrett is an intellectual with at least some traction in Europe and the U.S. and is Muslim. His book was, I'm afraid, such an embarrassment that those behind ISIS (the original name of the Mossad, according to a piece in the Barrett compendium) felt a need to step up their game and have some real serious explosions and casualties.
We first have CCTV footage shown on CNN allegedly showing a bombing from Zaventem Airport in Brussels. First problem: this seems identical to 2011 footage shot of the bombing of Domodedovo Airport in Russia in 2011.
Next, there are three teams and three terrorist attacks in Brussels, just as in Paris. Then there's the link to Paris fortuitously captured just prior to the event--Abdeslam--and he's being real cooperative (after having purportedly chickened out from his suicide mission in Paris) and is saying what the authorities want to hear.
Then there's the “man in the black hat” who had apparently shed his explosive vest at the Brussels' airport—providing much-needed evidence of a “suicide bomber” (just in case the ISIS flag and explosives found at another location weren't sufficient!) Using Barrett's compendium as a guide, I imagine this amazing 24-year-old “mastermind explosion survivor”--who the police were looking for ever since he survived the Bataclan in Paris--will help keep the event in the public eye for quite a while and, when needed, tie everything neatly together.
And Turkey—the EU's new indispensable partner according to Davutoglu—has “plausible deniability” even though it was key to supporting and financing ISIS according to the Barrett book. After all, wasn't it also bombed by former-paramour ISIS just the other day? (That one had me stumped until today.) This gets Erdogan off the hook for his 18 March prediction of Brussels beng bombed: "There is no reason why the bomb that exploded in Ankara could not explode in Brussels, or in any other European city," Erdogan declared during a ceremony commemorating the 101st anniversary of the Battle of Gallipoli in the coastal town of Canakkale.
Apparently it was very easy to walk into the Brussels airport with explosives—despite Erdogan's precognition. Media reports say no heightened security was present at public airports, bus and train stations or other public venues. No need to worry about increased security or nitrate-sniffing dogs. After all, why would those be present when Belgian authorities had publicly announced the previous day that “something big was being planned”—with the arrest of Paris-attack “sometime mastermind” Abdeslam?:
The top suspect in last year's Paris attacks told investigators after he was captured that he was planning new operations from Brussels and possibly had access to several weapons, Belgium's foreign minister said Sunday.
Salah Abdeslam had claimed that "he was ready to restart something from Brussels, and it's maybe the reality," (Belgian) Foreign Minister Didier Reynders said.
Reynders gave credence to the suspect's claim because "we found a lot of weapons, heavy weapons in the first investigations, and we have seen a new network of people around him in Brussels."
An examination of Salah Abdeslam that greatly discredits this official line on Brussels and the link to the Paris attacks is contained in Barrett's book: “DECODING THE PARIS ATTACKS: ISIS BLOWBACK OR FRENCH ISRAELI FALSE FLAG?” by Brandon Martinez. Firstly, Abdeslam and his allegedly deceased brother both operated a bar serving alcohol in Molenbeek, Belgium. A third brother not involved in any of the attacks states his brothers were not radicalized.
Abdeslam, after the Paris attacks, is claimed to have shed his explosive vest in a suburban dustbin for police to find and fled by car...where he was stopped and questioned by French police. This should have ended the matter, writes Martinez (pg. 41), but…when asked why police didn’t arrest Abdeslam, who had been named as a suspect hours before he was pulled over, a French police official said: “I have no explanation.”
Martinez also quotes a Daily Mail interview with Salah's sister-in-law Namia (pg. 44) to the effect that the supposed jihadi brother, Ibrahim Abdeslam, who authorities say blew himself up outside a Paris cafe, reportedly smoked “obscene amounts” of cannabis every day while he stayed at home collecting unemployment and listening to hip hop music, never went to mosque or prayed, was not the least bit interested in politics or current affairs and did not even have a TV, and had no gripe with the West.
In fact, Martinez makes a cogent case that Salah Abdeslam is one of the following: a patsy, weak minded and subject to coaching, or a government intelligence asset. (As Abdeslam is still alive, contrary to what Martinez speculated in his essay, I would say that rules out the first prospect.) He expresses strong doubts that the brothers—who were also involved in petty crime and drug dealing (hence the closing of their bar by authorities)--would have readily become jihadis in the very short period preceding the attacks. For this reason he seriously doubts the official claims that Francoise Schepmans, the mayor of the Molenbeek district of Brussels, had a list of “radical Islamists” containing the names of the Abdeslam brothers and Abdelhamid Abaaoud (allegedly seen smoking joints and drinking beer after the Paris attacks—shades of the alleged 911 attackers) on her desk a month before these attacks.
That's an important point, I think, as many official spokespersons are calling for reduced national sovereignty and the transnational sharing of information on citizens to prevent such “failures” in the future. Poppycock. This rises to the level of G.W. Bush who said of the alleged Islamic terrorists after 911,“they hate us for our freedom.” (Observe that the U.K.'s David Cameron used almost identical verbiage to classify the Brussels' attacks as similar attacks on “freedom.”)
Logically, terrorists would not want to reduce freedom as this would hamper their ability to operate! But Neocons and Zionists would welcome such attacks as they would (1) encourage the so-called clash of cultures and “Islamophobia”—the stopislam hashtag is trending in a major way on social media after the Belgium attack; (2) lock down the Western populations to facilitate future war making (this reminiscent of the infamous Protocols of Zion dictum: “We shall take away their freedom on one pretext or another. We needn’t say how long it will be until they get it back again.”); (3) make pretexts for wars against Hamas and Hezbollah and wars in Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Iran and even Russia (just heard on 22 March the speculation that Russians might be involved in hitherto unknown terror cells--on France 24!); (4) continue to depopulate areas of the Mid East according to the Israeli Yinon Plan; and, (5) make vast war profits for military contractors and banking interests.
As a youngster I learned the three elements of a crime—motive, intent and opportunity. Mujahid Kamran in the compendium essay “Why Paris 11/13?” may shed additional light in this regard as to a possible additional motive for the Brussels attack—the recent EU moves toward Palestine and labeling of illegal goods made in the West Bank. Quoting Netanyahu and Alain Soral:
“He [Netenyahu] declared to the French people on August 7th 2014, in an interview with iTele: “This is not Israel’s battle. It is your battle. If they succeed here, if Israel is criticized instead of the terrorists, if we do not stand in solidarity, this plague of terrorism will come to your country.”
If we do not understand Netanyahu’s statement as a disguised threat, it is absurd, since there is obviously no reason why recognizing Palestine and standing is solidarity with Gaza would provoke Islamist attacks on France. Referring to the Charlie Hebdo march, Alain Soral further points out: It’s the triumvirate of the police state, media propaganda, and Zionism. With this threesome one approaches a dictatorship of great modernity and subtlety.”
A reading of the Barrett compendium (Rasheed al Hajj, p. 177) tells us one thing about so-called Muslims involved in the suicide mass killing of civilian noncombatants in Brussels, Paris and other venues—they would be violating prohibitions in the Qur'an:
“Murder of innocents, even in the context of war, is strictly forbidden in the Qur’an (5:32). This is incontrovertible. Suicide is also explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an (4:29-30). Therefore, whether the terror attack of 11.13.15—Paris part deux—proves to be a political “false flag” or not, it is unalterably a religious imposter. This is to say that, whether the atrocities were carried out by ISIS sympathizers or by Israeli Mossad and French black ops forces, to attribute these actions to Islam is to raise a false flag over acts of terror.”
If the perpetrators are not strict Muslims, it is well within the realm of possibility that they are mercenaries or operatives of national players, al Hajj seems to say about the Paris perpetrators and, I'd imagine, he'd hold the same view about Brussels.
I do have serious problems with his claims that: “...100 million indigenous Native Americans (who) were slaughtered along with tens of millions of bison, both nearly to extinction, in the genocidal settling/invasion of North America by Europeans after 1492. And that barely scratches the surface of the West’s monument of war crimes against people who never attacked them.”
This is highly biased history—and many whites were attacked and massacred by Indians up until the 1870s. There were between 2.1- and 18-million Indians in what is now the U.S. in the early 1700s—the 100-million figure is beyond the wildest possibility of the land supporting this number. Less than 80,000 Indians were killed in actual military encounters. Unlike the Palestinians, most Indians did not own land nor did they have a concept of land ownership, which many considered as strange as trying to own the sky. The majority of Indian deaths occurred due to lack of resistance to diseases whites had some resistance to. As for the killing of the buffalo, blame the wealthy financial backers of the big railroads who sponsored buffalo-killing trips. Not all of them were white Europeans.
Another element of the potential false flags discussed in Barrett's compendium is the issue of Satanic and occult footprints, numerology and the like. His interview with Ole Dammegard is reproduced in full and worth reading. Since Ole hasn't commented on Brussels yet, I'll have to start the discussion here. The occult Skull & Bones Society at Yale, of which G.W. and G.H.W. Bush and John Kerry were members, places great significance on the number 322—relating to German Illuminism-- and was founded in 1832. Some numerologists feel 322 is somehow related to the Hebrew letter representing 6–the Hebrew “vav” or “W”--666 in this case. The frequent occurrence of 13s related to false flags seems to be connected to the destruction of the Templars (forerunners of Illuminism and Freemasonry) on Friday the 13th.
Besides its many good points, ANOTHER French False Flag? contains essays like “White Lives Matter” of Ajamu Baraka that seem out of place. To any people (including Asian, black and brown people) the lives of their own kind matter most as they are most familiar. Often, the problem is with the mainstream media coverage of the Middle East rather than with “white psychopathology.” Whites have donated uncounted millions of dollars to aid in disasters in nonwhite countries and spent trillions on social services for American blacks. So they obviously do care. In the U.S., I see whites at “black lives matter” rallies but I see no blacks protesting the violent crime wave against whites.
A similar piece, U.S. IMPERIALISM AND THE WANTON DESTRUCTION OF CULTURES by Anthony James Hall, implies white imperialists are trying to colonize the Levant.
I found the view of James Petras in this compendium to be far closer to reality in this regard than Hall (pg. 136): “The American public provides the gold and blood for these misadventures and reaps nothing but domestic deterioration and greater international strife.”
It's also refreshing to see Petras' demolition of the canard that the evil “Westerners” attack the Mid East solely for the oil and gas. In the case of the destruction of Libya, Petras points out:
“The Zionist faction destroyed Gaddafi (whose capture, grotesque torture and murder was filmed and widely disseminated), eliminating another real adversary of Israel and supporter of Palestinian rights. The US militarist faction, which led the war, got nothing positive—not even a secure naval, air or training base—only a dead Ambassador, millions of desperate refugees flooding Europe and thousands of trained and armed jihadists for the next target: Syria...
Once again the least influential faction in Washington turned out to be the oil and gas industry [Emphasis mine] which lost lucrative contracts it had already signed with the Gaddafi regime. Thousands of highly trained foreign oil workers were withdrawn. After Iraq, it should have been obvious that these wars were not “for oil”!
Those who share such views as Baraka and Hall should consider that in so-called “white” countries with large immigrant populations, the resident white populations were seldom if ever consulted about this immigration and it was imposed on them by edict and “lawfare”. Forcing so-called “diversity” in this way is a form of asymmetric warfare—if done to nonwhites it would be called biological and cultural genocide. (I personally think collapsing of the social-safety net is also a major neoliberal goal with this effort.)
Gearoid O Colmain makes a good case against the knee-jerk support of this type of “immigration” by misguided liberals and “third world” peoples. I finish this review with one of the most profound observations in Barrett's compendium—about what O Colmain calls “Coercive Engineered Migration” (pg. 115 ff.):
“Immigrants are used as weapons by one state to destabilize another...being carried out with ruthless efficiency by US funded NGOs which are also linked to oligarchs such as George Soros and Carlos Slim...(and) to powerful US and Israeli financial institutions, while ORS systems, one of the main project management companies dealing with refugees in Europe, is managed by a company affiliated to Barclays bank. The “refugee crisis” is big business and is part of a global class war which seeks to uproot humans from localities, languages, cultures and traditions, transforming man into an economic nomad eternally worshiping at the altar of commodity fetishism…The Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the brainchild of Zionists and neo-conservatives, threatens to enslave humanity...The war on terror is a creation of Zionism which... seeks to divide and conquer “the nations” (goyim) through takfiri proxy armies who mimic the Assassins of the Middle Ages, clearing the ground for the expansion of Zionist hegemony in the Middle East...
The Gaza concentration camp is a microcosm of the world to come, for the entire global policy of Zionism is attempting to reduce man to the status of a refugee, an outlaw, a terrorist. The troops on our streets and surveillance in our skies, far from temporary measures designed to protect civilians from terrorism, represent the encroaching Gaza-fication of the world.”