Paris under Attack: Was it a False Flag? A Pretext for NATO to Intervene in Syria

Don’t assume that This Writer agrees with every word written in the source article here, but it is food for thought.

Hollande called for revenge. France is strong. France may be hurt, but never conquered. France will fight back even stronger than before. Hollande at his best, blood revenge.

The western world is living in a blood cult. Killing is the order of the day. Blood must flow.

Is the French President seriously hoping that blood revenge will bring peace? That it will increase security in France, or throughout the world for that matter?

Read more: Paris under Attack: Was it a False Flag? A Pretext for NATO to Intervene in Syria and the Middle East? | Global Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


6 thoughts on “Paris under Attack: Was it a False Flag? A Pretext for NATO to Intervene in Syria

  1. Nick

    Very odd statement from the french president when we know from 9/11 that force is never the answer to peace

    tony blair tried force in iraq and afghanistan but it didn’t work also how could it when terrorists are worldwide and vast in numbers ?

  2. Kasey carver

    I am really hoping that this is a case of ” let us not waste a good disaster” as opposed to ” we need a good disaster”. It is difficult to be objective given that I put forward the proposition 2 weeks ago that perhaps something significant would happen in the following few weeks that will be used as an arguement for us to get involved in Syria. Perhaps I am making 2+2=5 as I think the lessons from Paris provide more reasons not to get involved, at least under current conditions. However, what really confuses me is why the embargo on oil exports from Syria was lifted by the EU for oil in rebel territory ( but not for government held territory) in 2013? This oil is largely held by Al Nusra and IS. Given that the funds thus generated for these groups are very significant and support their activities both in Syria and overseas, why are we still trading in rebel oil ?

  3. mrmarcpc

    You never know, politicians are very sneaky,devious, underhand people and will do anything to achieve what they want, even if that means killing people.

  4. Jonathan Wilson

    I personally don’t think it was a, even loose interpretation, false flag event.

    Nor do I think it was incompetence per-say, despite the fact that as so often happens the people who commit these acts were known to the spooks/police/etc. (The reality is that potentially 10’s of thousands of people are “known” at any one time and deciding which 8 to follow closely, and monitor all movements of, is like searching for a needle in a haystack of needles when you don’t even know which needle you are looking for.)

    Most civilised societies have a premise that unless one commits an act, or breaks a law, one can not be held to account for possible future events – no matter how potentially atrocious. (Hence there are “laws” that prevent the holding or disseminating of say manuals of terror or bomb making or being a member of a proscribed group, its a kind of legal “we think you’re potentially a bad un but we can’t prove it; however, you’ve got bad materials – now we can lock you up” that allows the law some flexibility, but never the less is still a law and not a cart blanch to lock people up “just in case” or “because we don’t like the look of you”.)

    The real problem, I feel, is that the reality is eventually “something” will happen and that the usual suspects are just waiting around to then use it as justification to impose laws or methods of action that would otherwise be unthinkable. The legislative vultures waiting to pick over the still warm corpses for political gain.

    May’s re-enactment of the snoopers charter is a classic example, after this event the calls from the usual reich-wing suspects are now to push the legislation through, with no scrutiny, as quickly as possible.

    David Hameron, the pig ‘ucking PM, calling for an extra 2billion to be given to the arms companies for more drones is another example of a reich-wing PM who has been waiting for an event, any event, to pay his financial backers back with more spending (while still saying we have to cut expenditure, so that 2 billion will probably come from more cuts to the disabled, sick, unemployed, and low paid – especially if that kind of money falls within the Chancers, Giddiot’s, “straight jacket spending act”). It also gives him an excuse for “a nice little war” and to bang the drums of patriotism (which should be good for a few thousand votes come the election).

  5. Phil Lee

    It was far too convenient that it happened so close to the climate talks in Paris, giving a plausibly deniable excuse to prevent the million+ strong demonstrations that were bound to accompany our “leaders” selling us down the river.
    Smells as fishy as a sushi-bar’s wheelie bin.

Comments are closed.