Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The Eagle

Singer In Paris Attacks Suggests Inside Job

Recommended Posts

The frontman of the band whose concert turned into a terrorist bloodbath in Paris has suggested the attack was an inside job, saying he was suspicious of the club's security guards.

Hughes, the singer and guitarist of Eagles of Death Metal, said he immediately felt uneasy when setting up for the November 13 show as a guard in charge of the backstage area at the Bataclan club did not make eye contact.

"I didn't like him at all. And so I immediately went to the promoter and said, 'Who's that guy? I want to put another dude on,'" Hughes said in an interview broadcast late Wednesday with Fox Business.

"He goes, 'Well, some of the other guards aren't here yet.' And eventually I found out that six or so wouldn't show up at all," Hughes said

Hughes previously made similar allegations in an interview with Vanity Fair magazine, saying he wished he had "followed my instinct" as the soundman had spotted two people inside the club before the show whose attire and behavior were at striking odds with the typical rock audience.

http://news.yahoo.com/singer-paris-attacks-suggests-inside-job-184008849.html?nf=1

More evidence it was a false flag, the last sentence is especially telling, the "two people inside the club before the show whose attire and behavior were at striking odds with the typical rock audience" were probably secret service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The frontman of Eagles of Death Metal, the band whose concert was targeted in the Paris attacks, has apologised for alleging the club’s security guards were involved, saying his remarks were the result of his struggle with trauma.
Bataclan owners condemn Eagles of Death Metal frontman's suggestion their guards were complicit in massacre
Read more
“I humbly beg forgiveness from the people of France, the staff and security of the Bataclan, my fans, family, friends and anyone else hurt or offended by the absurd accusations I made,” said Jesse Hughes, singer and guitarist of Eagles of Death Metal.
“My suggestions that anyone affiliated with the Bataclan played a role in the events of 13 November are unfounded and baseless – and I take full responsibility for them,” he said in a statement.

Or not.

Source :- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/12/eagles-of-death-metal-singer-apologises-for-alleging-inside-job-at-bataclan-show

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, it's easy to confirm or deny. Did a number of security not turn up that day? And was that absentee rate comparable to other concerts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the singer in on the inside job? :wacko:

and who was inside the singer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is saying it was a false flag.

Most crimes are actually inside jobs. I find it credible though that one of the bouncers may have had terrorist sympathy's and suggested it as a great target and then not turned up that day along with some of his favoured colleagues, that does not make it any less a terrorist act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

people casing the joint...every good crime knows its victims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Singer has issued a public apology and is suffering from PTSD but he was there on the night, if anybody else came foward and coroberated any of his observations then it may merit more scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Singer has issued a public apology and is suffering from PTSD but he was there on the night, if anybody else came foward and coroberated any of his observations then it may merit more scrutiny.

what you are suggesting is that the Police HAVE been ignoring his testimony. So, he saw some suspects acting strangely...if the police havent followed this up, THEN we have a story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he is saying it was a false flag.

Most crimes are actually inside jobs. I find it credible though that one of the bouncers may have had terrorist sympathy's and suggested it as a great target and then not turned up that day along with some of his favoured colleagues, that does not make it any less a terrorist act.

The Bataclan had been a possible target for a number of years as the former owner was jewish and it hosted a number of jewish events. The owners had asked for increased police security. As with Charlie, where security was reduced immediately prior to the attack, was this conspiracy, or ****-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who and why?

Clear, plausible and logical narrative - no waffling and obfuscation please :-)

Real life is rarely as simple and clear cut as in the movies, but you could start by reading this:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article190028.html

(warning: skim reading won't work, it's densely packed with info, covering connected events from the last 40 years so it requires concentrated reading. It's also full of references, many of which are worth reading too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's probably got a point.

But I also dont think the French are covering this up, they just have to work through evidence.

And then you've got to discount the people who did not turn just because they are French and fancied a duvet day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real life is rarely as simple and clear cut as in the movies, but you could start by reading this:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article190028.html

(warning: skim reading won't work, it's densely packed with info, covering connected events from the last 40 years so it requires concentrated reading. It's also full of references, many of which are worth reading too)

I'll try and have a look when I have time. I did however ask you for your opinion, given you suggested false flag. You have kind of ducked the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try and have a look when I have time. I did however ask you for your opinion, given you suggested false flag. You have kind of ducked the question?

Of course he has! 50 more unarmed security guards wouldn't have made any difference.

http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/article/2015/11/17/videur-pas-soldat-pas-membre-du-gign_4811400_4809495.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did however ask you for your opinion, given you suggested false flag. You have kind of ducked the question?

You didn't ask for my opinion (and since when does my opinion matter anyway) you asked for "who and why" and that article answers that pretty well (certainly better than any other article about the subject I have seen).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real life is rarely as simple and clear cut as in the movies, but you could start by reading this:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article190028.html

(warning: skim reading won't work, it's densely packed with info, covering connected events from the last 40 years so it requires concentrated reading. It's also full of references, many of which are worth reading too)

I strongly encourage interested HPC-ers to try the following test, it will take 5 mins max. Follow the above link and pay close attention to the following passage and 'reference' in the main article:

"Let us mention that according to the US Press agency McClatchy, the Kouachi brothers, the killers of Charlie-Hebdo, were linked to the French secret services [10]"

A fairly strong claim. But note how the the author initially uses "were", but when you click the reference link to the bottom of the article, the next link softens the claim to "could". Then when you follow that link and read the sub-article, it's clear the claim is pretty much conjecture and can barely hang togther. And then you follow the link the actually "credible" reference, the McClatchy article, it's clear that no such link is suggested at all, and in fact it is a complete misrepresentation.

My reaction to these type of sites is generally the same, just lots of hearsay and conjecture with nothing hanging together. But the above example (the first interesting looking claim I came across) is nothing short of pure disinformation - says it all really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't ask for my opinion (and since when does my opinion matter anyway) you asked for "who and why" and that article answers that pretty well (certainly better than any other article about the subject I have seen).

Yes I did, I replied to your post and asked you. If you put your name to something, then your personal opinion of the matter is clearly relevant. For the record I did not get any clear narative from that link, feel free to give me a few soundbites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- says it all really.

Yes it does.

If you want a 'false flag' operation then get one of your white police officers to go into a mosque on a Friday and open up on them with an AK47 and some grenades, while wearing the cross of St George. That would do it! 100% guaranteed.

What are these 'false flag' operations supposed to achieve, the death of white people and the hatred of muslims. To what end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reaction to these type of sites is generally the same, just lots of hearsay and conjecture with nothing hanging together. But the above example (the first interesting looking claim I came across) is nothing short of pure disinformation - says it all really.

All your post says is that you were purely looking for something to discredit the article rather than reading it from a neutral POV. :rolleyes:

(I had a feeling that that was your aim right from the start anyway)

With regards to the article, of course it's conjecture, the facts are only known to those who were directly involved, but the author of that article is well informed and respected when it comes to French politics, he connects the dots very sensibly, so his conjectures are in my view plausible and pretty spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are these 'false flag' operations supposed to achieve, the death of white people and the hatred of muslims. To what end?

Ever heard of the most used political doctrine since the Romans (if not even before that), "Divide and conquer"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the most used political doctrine since the Romans (if not even before that), "Divide and conquer"?

You don't need false flags for that! Where we ever united with muslims, them with us?

Try...

Destructive war in the Plains intensified after contact because of migrations of eastern tribes (the Cheyennes and Lakotas, for example) into the Plains as settlement moved west, because Europeans and Americans manipulated traditional hostilities, and because tribes competed for access to European and American trade, especially in fur-rich areas of the Northern Plains and Prairie Provinces. Contact-period war ended some long-standing hostilities: for example, the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras, decimated by disease and raiding, banded together for mutual protection during the 1860s. Other hostilities continued, and expanding European Americans exploited them: for example, Crows and Pawnees scouted in military campaigns against the Cheyennes and Lakotas. Intertribal violence in the Plains subsided with the confinement of the tribes to reservations in the late nineteenth century.

Source :- http://plainshumanities.unl.edu/encyclopedia/doc/egp.war.023

Native Americans were very ritualistic when it came to fighting wars. Most of the time they did not fight with the intent of destroying their enemy completely, rather to seek vengeance for a crime committed by the rival tribe. With the arrival of the Europeans they were forced to fight to defend their homelands against the white settlers or from other tribes that wanted to take over their land because they were already displaced by the whites.
Before the arrival of the European settlers Native Americans had been engaging in inter-tribal wars for centuries. These battles however were much different than the common large scale wars of Europe. Most of them were small blood feuds also know as Mourning Wars. They were generally caused by a neighboring tribe killing a tribal member or the theft of tribal belongings. These battles were used as a way for young tribal members to earn their manhood and respect of the tribe. Often times captives of these conflicts were used to replace the members the tribe had lost or used for religious sacrifices. Mourning wars were also used as a way for the tribe to coping with the death of the member that was originally killed.external image Stripl2.jpgexternal image Stripl2.jpg

It all seems so familiar.... I just can't put my finger on it..... Dammm.

With the arrival of the European settlers there were many changes in Native American warfare. Many of the tribes band together to resist the Europeans taking over their lands and annihilating their people. When horses were introduced this allowed the warriors to travel much faster and made it easier for them to do quick raids on settlements. Horses also made it easier for the tribe to move quickly if needed to avoid an enemy attack. Their stone weapons were replaced with iron or steel axe blades and made their arrows much more effective. They were also introduced to fire arms such as Springfield and Winchester rifles which were very effective in fighting on the plains in the later battles that took place.

Source :- https://amin210.wikispaces.com/Native+American+Warfare

Tried and tested. The rest is just a consequence of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   94 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.