Charlie Hebdo shooting: eleven dead at Paris offices of satirical magazine

[araucaria]

Posted by Jean-Luc (here)
I confirm vis à vis post 130 & 134 : "illuminés" in French = crackpots (most of the time, and certainly as expressed by Hollande).

I confirm vis à vis post 133 : the covering by the BBC is quite something.

January 11, 2015
Doubts raised over authenticity of Charlie Hebdo footage.

A video clip broadcast by news agencies across the world in relation to the recent events in Paris is now under scrutiny.
http://bbc-news.co.uk/doubts-raised-...hebdo-footage/

As a side note, notice that the end of the quote in the written commentary

Whilst numerous theories have sprung up concerning this and other details, the general consensus among not just sceptics, but some major news agencies, is that the entire event was a ‘False Flag’ attack perpetrated by the CIA and/or Mossad in a “psy-ops” exercise to rouse hatred against Islam and support for what has been so far, a failing campaign in Iraq, Syria and the Middle East.

was left out in the spoken commentary

Whilst numerous theories have sprung up concerning this and other details, the general consensus among not just sceptics, but some major news agencies, is that the entire event was a ‘False Flag’ attack.

Nonetheless, the phrasing "not just sceptics, but some major news agencies," is of value.

Yes, Jean-Luc, yours is one valid, man-in-the-street interpretation, which falls within the scope of what I am saying; ‘crackpot’ has to be the basic sense in which he is using the word since he is not talking about the truly illuminated but the misguided. But there is no denotation without connotation. You need to take into account the reason why the word ‘illuminé’ came to mean crackpot in the first place. Careful use of language, such as one would expect from a head of state in a time of national crisis, connotes all the other meanings of a word, and if these connotations are in conflict with the message, another word will be preferred for the sake of clarity. Other established meanings resonate like harmonics. When a pianist uses the loud pedal, it is to bring out the harmonics of a note or chord, and when it produces disharmonies it is being used either carelessly (unskillfully) or deliberately to bring out the dissonance. Language is the same: any dissonance will trigger ambiguities or unintended interpretations – which may sometimes be intended interpretations, as in the case of a mind-controlled person reacting totally abnormally to an everyday word used as a codeword.

RT is fully entitled to read a deeper meaning into this word; the question then becomes: was this connotation careless or deliberate? You suggest careless, which amounts to siding with the man in the street, who doesn’t even notice these things, against the conspiracy theorist, who does. Good! But you would be inconsistent if you used this argument to actually apply said conspiracy theory to the situation in question. Then, as someone in the know, you would need to explain why a leader who is allegedly part of the cabal would draw attention to it in this unnecessary manner. The glib answer in such cases is of course that for whatever reason these otherwise secret societies have to expose what they are up to in plain sight. This leads to total paranoia: whatever I see shows me they are out to get me; when I miss something, someone will show me they are out to get me. And when Hollande says the misguidedly ‘enlightened’ are killing free thought and free speech, I understand that he means me and is out to get me. Perhaps he does, and I am, and he is.

You then have a ‘problem reaction solution’ situation of your own making. Problem: the cabal are up to their tricks again; reaction: they have all bases covered. Solution: post your findings on the Internet, feel helpless – be helpless. Time to do away with all this nonsense.

[MorningFox]

Just to point out that BBC link in the above post is fake. BBC news is found at bbc.co.uk/news not bbc-news.co.uk

[Jean-Luc]

Two valid questions :

1. Did the man shooted down at the Kosher supermarket have his hands tied up in the back? If so, why?

https://www.youtube.com/verify_contr...%3D_K-Ob6h8OHc


2. Why is this cop firing from way behind at the supermarket scene? Blank ammunition?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Z3RcLF1uOTc

[Jean-Luc]

Posted by MorningFox (here)
Just to point out that BBC link in the above post is fake. BBC news is found at bbc.co.uk/news not bbc-news.co.uk

It seems indeed that was a wery well done fake : excellent layout, all links functionnal and re-directing smoothly towards BBC unnoticed.
A professionnal job.
And weird trap.
Thanks for pointing it out.

http://bbc-news.co.uk/doubts-raised-...hebdo-footage/ :fake
http://bbc.news.co.uk/doubts-raised-...hebdo-footage/ :non-existent

[araucaria]

This reaction from Russell Brand is presented in an unusually neutral way:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...e-9971908.html

[MorningFox]

Someone has asked me via PM to clarify the fake link comment I made. I'm not sure how much more clarification I can give further to my original post but here goes...

BBC news is found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/

A real example news article from the BBC is here, notice it's at bbc.co.uk/news - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30774114

Now, the fake one here is not bbc.co.uk/news but bbc-news.co.uk. -
http://bbc-news.co.uk/doubts-raised-...hebdo-footage/

It's a fake site.

[naste.de.lumina]

Posted by Jean-Luc (here)

Posted by MorningFox (here)
Just to point out that BBC link in the above post is fake. BBC news is found at bbc.co.uk/news not bbc-news.co.uk

It seems indeed that was a wery well done fake : excellent layout, all links functionnal and re-directing smoothly towards BBC unnoticed.
A professionnal job.
And weird trap.
Thanks for pointing it out.

http://bbc-news.co.uk/doubts-raised-...hebdo-footage/ :fake
http://bbc.news.co.uk/doubts-raised-...hebdo-footage/ :non-existent

I'm sorry. I really falls into the trick.
Thank you for the clarification MorningFox.

Fake site with real news
Real site with fake news.

At least ironic.

Naste.

[Mutchie]

Posted by EWO (here)
This video is unedited it shows all the details.
User Discretion Advised
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvi...FRENCH_SATIRE/

I do find it strange that he could shoot him point blank and have no sign of blood splatter or damage to the body.
The officers body movement as he is being shot is very strange as well.
A high powered bullet at that range would have gone through and nicked the sidewalk maybe even caused a spark or a burst.

Ive seen a guy get shot on the sidewalk with a ak-47, lots of sparks and blood.

This all looks very suspicious.

To ME this is a DEFINITE FALSE FLAG i mean straight after the shooting one of the men goes on YOU TUBE to JUSTIFY why they did it ...he wasnt sweating ...he was extremely Calm and i just thought NAH if you were that MAN you would be extremely on EDGE i just think this type of thing IS A TOOL ... To push the public train of thought in the direction they want it in !!! The Powers that Be are VERY SCARY makes me wander where this is all heading !!!

[Slorri]

Posted by atman (here)

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
French President's speech on National TV - "the illuminati are behind the Paris attacks“.

On the 9th January French President François Hollande gave a live speech on national television about the recent terror attacks in Paris.

An RT video - so take with a grain of salt - KE

http://yournewswire.com/french-presi...paris-attacks/

During his speech he says that “the illuminati are behind the Paris attacks“.

Watch the speech and hear the President of France declare who are really behind the Paris terror attacks
- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/french-presi....52p9b1Cy.dpuf

The French President did not use the word Illuminati in his speech, but rather the word "illuminés", which in this case means individuals whose convictions and behavior are governed by irrational principles (most often of a religious nature) and which could roughly be translated to "crank" or "crackpot".

His exact words in French: "Ceux qui ont commis ces actes—ces terroristes, ces illuminés, ces fanatiques—n'ont rien à voir avec la religion musulmane."

Translation: Those who committed these acts—those terrorists, those cranks, those fanatics—do not have anything to do with (are not at all representative of) the Muslim religion.

Hold on a moment here.

Can you offer us any kind of proof of this translation of yours?

Remember it was a presidential speech to the nation, so we should not accept any kind of suburban slang, if that is what you are hinting at.

[Agape]

Posted by araucaria (here)
This reaction from Russell Brand is presented in an unusually neutral way:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...e-9971908.html

If it was not for all these thousands of people marching through Paris who I am sure mean it sincerely and mean what we /they mean - psyops or not -
that's something not only touching ones heart but moving concepts of consciousness and conscience - I believe -
responses from so called 'religious authorities' , including this one :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9971981.html ( Charlie Hebdo: Pope slams 'deviant forms of religion' in wake of Paris attacks)

are very lukewarm and insufficient . They reflect fatigue and unwillingness to deal with the philosophical and pseudo-religious crisis in any advanced manner ,
from either side of metaphor . In todays world especially .. where languages are translatable, scriptures and education available, comparative religious works exist for several hundred years , covertly or openly ,
I consider religious fundamentalism of any sort absolutely outlived , but I see no sign from either authority , either Muslim or Christian - as these two seem to be the chief major dogmatists in the game for going beyond their church fundamentalism and opening a dialogue that would embrace all believers equally .

If Hinduism and Buddhism are able to do this , yes they are ..except for few close minded groups who dwell on their own version of religion and society ,
and both of them are historically and philosophically older to Christianity and Islam ,

why not learning a lesson from these true , uninstalled Elders .

Of course ... religions are not true reason for any act of violence .. can't be . The truth of Koran is the same if not too similar to the truth of Bible .

Yet .. in the atmosphere of this world lacking ANY resolute philosophical stand of UNITY of all religions .. and basic denial of authenticity and 'righteousness' of other schools of thought ( namely, from adherents of the 3 big monotheistic religions ) the ground is left open .. and vulnerable for anyone misusing the situation in their name.

In short .. if those 'Popes' of All Churches can not stand united in thought , wisdom and prayer ..
and some of them would even consider such unity sort of 'fundamental sin' against their church ,
what kind of wisdom can be expected from their true followers .

Unless they know better ..and 'God' or 'Higher Wisdom' blesses them all.

[SilentFeathers]

As we leave the age of pisces and step in to the age of aquarius, all these religions are going to take a beating....

Sure the "illuminati" and other NWO cronies has their part to play in all of these types of events etc, but religions play a deeper part than most are aware of......

There's a lot more going on in this world than the eye can see.....

[Wind]

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dg8Y0WpbfZw

[araucaria]

The French constitution ‘respects all beliefs’, a difficult position to hold in practice because that includes the belief that all religious beliefs are stupid. There is no end to the possible conflicts. What has just happened, on the face of it, is an instance of religious intolerance of intolerance of religious intolerance. In constitutional terms, the State intervenes through the police whenever such a conflict generates into crimes or misdemeanours, and through the courts when an arrest can be made or a summons can be issued. The secular State per se holds no beliefs, and hence blasphemy is not a crime. Nor can blasphemy be a crime, or even a sin, for any individual who does not share a religious belief. The separation of Church and State is still a fairly novel concept for many, but it is actually what makes for greater tolerance towards Islam or Judaism in what was a predominantly Catholic country that gave up its traditional role as ‘the Church’s eldest daughter’ (la fille aînée de l’Eglise) in order to embrace this secular position.

What we have then is freedom of speech being used to attack others’ freedom of speech. Until blood was spilt, no one was in the wrong. The only way to halt this process is for people to exercise that freedom by holding back, not out of agreement or deference, just politeness. A spot of good manners is plain common sense: when two people are passing simultaneously through a doorway, at least one person has to be gracious and momentarily waive their equal right, otherwise there would be an incident every time. What is needed is the tolerant impartiality and politeness of the above kind of (perfectible) State to filter down more to individuals. With religion, the opposite seems to be the case, with leadership coming from decent people of all denominations and none, at the grassroots, rather than from bishops and imams.

Hence the secular State gets my preference over any religion as a vehicle for improved human relations. To anyone who is more familiar with something rather different, I recommend the Preamble and Articles 1-4 of the French constitution and the earlier texts to which it refers.
http://www.thisnation.com/library/france.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declara...of_the_Citizen
www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/root/bank_mm/anglais/cst3.pdf

[SilentFeathers]

Hmmm?

Charlie Hebdo top cop Helric Fredou kills himself hours after magazine massacre

[Hervé]

Another stupid blunder (from the video audio):

"Non, c'est bon chef!"

The shooters are supposed to be two siblings/brothers... right?

For those of you who have siblings, have you ever called them "chef"/boss? or, rather, their first name or nickname?

So... these shooters ain't no sibling brothers... only brothers at arms! (you heard/read it here first)

According to some other speculations, the real blood brothers/siblings were already stone cold dead (inferred from the "forgotten" ID card) and put on ice, ready to be served to the coroner...

[Olam]

Posted by Slorri (here)

Posted by atman (here)

Posted by KiwiElf (here)
French President's speech on National TV - "the illuminati are behind the Paris attacks“.

On the 9th January French President François Hollande gave a live speech on national television about the recent terror attacks in Paris.

An RT video - so take with a grain of salt - KE

http://yournewswire.com/french-presi...paris-attacks/

During his speech he says that “the illuminati are behind the Paris attacks“.

Watch the speech and hear the President of France declare who are really behind the Paris terror attacks
- See more at: http://yournewswire.com/french-presi....52p9b1Cy.dpuf

The French President did not use the word Illuminati in his speech, but rather the word "illuminés", which in this case means individuals whose convictions and behavior are governed by irrational principles (most often of a religious nature) and which could roughly be translated to "crank" or "crackpot".

His exact words in French: "Ceux qui ont commis ces actes—ces terroristes, ces illuminés, ces fanatiques—n'ont rien à voir avec la religion musulmane."

Translation: Those who committed these acts—those terrorists, those cranks, those fanatics—do not have anything to do with (are not at all representative of) the Muslim religion.

Hold on a moment here.

Can you offer us any kind of proof of this translation of yours?

Remember it was a presidential speech to the nation, so we should not accept any kind of suburban slang, if that is what you are hinting at.

I'm french, atman is right, it's exactly as he describes and so the statement has nothing to do with illuminati.

[araucaria]

Posted by Olam (here)
I'm french, atman is right, it's exactly as he describes and so the statement has nothing to do with illuminati.

I’ve already discussed this word but since there still seems to be some confusion, let me add the following.

‘Illuminé’ is not slang, and it is not a metaphor either. The recent usage of this old word (1625) has come about merely through slippage from ‘enlightened mystic’ to the credulous irrational sort reacting against the rational scientific mind of the Enlightenment (le siècle des Lumières). The Grand Robert dictionary provides quotes including names associated with the notion and reflecting the discredit that such mystics gradually encountered: Swedenborg, the Rose-Croix, Saint-Germain, Mesmer, Cagliostro, Weishaupt, Freemasonry.

So the word has not in fact changed meaning, from illuminatus to crackpot: what has changed is the status generally granted to such a person, very much as the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ has come to be synonymous with crazy. The dictionary definition of ‘illuminé’ is a quotation from one Lalande: ‘uncritical mind, that blindly follows its inspirations or takes its imaginings for revelatory intuitions’. A particular sort of crazy.

[Slorri]

Posted by araucaria (here)

Posted by Olam (here)
I'm french, atman is right, it's exactly as he describes and so the statement has nothing to do with illuminati.

I’ve already discussed this word but since there still seems to be some confusion, let me add the following.

‘Illuminé’ is not slang, and it is not a metaphor either. The recent usage of this old word (1625) has come about merely through slippage from ‘enlightened mystic’ to the credulous irrational sort reacting against the rational scientific mind of the Enlightenment (le siècle des Lumières). The Grand Robert dictionary provides quotes including names associated with the notion and reflecting the discredit that such mystics gradually encountered: Swedenborg, the Rose-Croix, Saint-Germain, Mesmer, Cagliostro, Weishaupt, Freemasonry.

So the word has not in fact changed meaning, from illuminatus to crackpot: what has changed is the status generally granted to such a person, very much as the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ has come to be synonymous with crazy. The dictionary definition of ‘illuminé’ is a quotation from one Lalande: ‘uncritical mind, that blindly follows its inspirations or takes its imaginings for revelatory intuitions’. A particular sort of crazy.

Not at all a particular sort of crazy.

Firstly: There is no connection at all between the terms conspiracy theorist and being crazy. And there is no connection at all between the terms illuminated/zealot and being crazy.

Secondly: These speeches to the nation are well thought through. The words used are meant to be interpreted correctly. These speeches might well end up in our history books. It is not a haphazard thing.

When they described these perpetrators they were being very clear. Putting the three terms together: "ces terroristes, ces illuminés, ces fanatiques" can hardly have meant anything but: these terrorists, these zealots, these fanatics.

There is no way he could have meant crackpot or crazy. There is no support for it, nor is that the meaning of the word.

He either meant fanatic zealots or he meant members of some religious sect.

[Akasha]

Posted by Wind (here)

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dg8Y0WpbfZw

More pseudo-alternative twoddle from the twoddlemeister- as usual, avoiding the hot potatoes, instead firing blanks - just like the "terrrrists" and Paris constabulary.

[Wind]

Posted by Akasha (here)
More pseudo-alternative twoddle from the twoddlemeister- as usual, avoiding the hot potatoes, instead firing blanks - just like the "terrrrists" and Paris constabulary.

Don't you have anything better to add than that? What Russell said was great and I agree with him.