There is nothing new about false flag terrorism. It serves to create an enemy where none previously existed.
And yet, despite the historical evidence of false flag terrorism, when tragedies arise that appear to have its hallmarks, the idea that the tragedy might have been engineered becomes taboo –and governments go on a war footing.
Domestically, the security apparatus is empowered to sacrifice rights and freedoms in the name of “safety”, while aggressive wars are launched abroad.
Dr. Graeme McQueen, founding member of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster University, Canada and author of The 2001 Anthrax Deception, decodes terrorist events using this framework:
In the context of the October 22, 2014 Ottawa shootings, for example, the threat was the shooting at the War Memorial, and at the House of Commons, where Canadian politicians were in lockdown.
After the shooter was killed, there was a palpable sense of unity among Canadian politicians, which was highlighted when then Prime Minister Steven Harper embraced party leaders Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair.
The response to the shooting was immediate. Internally, Canada’s security apparatus was expanded with the passing of C-13, C-44, (and eventually Anti-Terrorism Bill C-51), while Canada was put on a war-footing, ISIS was identified as the enemy, and bombers joined the illegal campaign in Syria.
Everything happened too quickly. Senator Mobina Jaffer, who had been in the House of Commons, later explained:
“This was not a terrorist attack, what happened to us … people are laughing at us around the world. This was some young man who had mental issues. I know his mosque, because I helped build it.”
There is good reason for skepticism.
According to a report by Human Rights Watch, most high-profile terrorism plots in the U.S. since 9/11, saw the “direct involvement” of government agents or informants.
Domestic terrorism cases in Canada appear to follow the same pattern. Government agents were directly involved in the “pressure cooker bomb plot” and the “Toronto 18” terror case.
Given the record of domestic terrorism cases in both the US and Canada —where the perpetrators were arguably entrapped to commit crimes that they would ordinarily be incapable of committing, – intelligence services should be prime suspects.
Instead, talk of false flag terrorism is taboo. Politicians, the mainstream media (MSM), almost everyone who asks reasonable questions about domestic terror incidents invariably censor themselves, or are censored by others.
If someone is arrested for shoplifting, a legal process ensures a measure of justice. Yet in the recent spate of transformational shootings in Canada, the US, and now France, conclusions are drawn before investigations have had time to play out.
And the result? Whereas Russia is following the rule of law in its intervention in Syria – not only was Russia invited by President al-Assad to form a coalition against terrorists in Syria, but the UN Security Council has now given its approval -– the West remains in contravention of the rule of law.
There is a pattern: In countries where foreign policy is driven by what may well be false flag terrorism, interventions typically do not conform to the rule of law. Canada’s Minister of Defense, Harjit Sajjan, for example, recently stated, “President Assad does need to go…”. Regime change contravenes the rule of law. Syrians alone must decide if Assad stays or goes.
Meanwhile, France’s ostensible commitment to defeat ISIS – on the heels of the Paris attacks, and despite its covert support of ISIS – may well camouflage operations for regime change. Time will tell.
The first priority, however, should be to properly investigate domestic terror events through independent public and judicial inquiries. Failing this, the terror cycles will perpetuate themselves, and the rule of international law will continue to be discounted and unobserved.