r/conspiracy: I'm asking myself two questions: "What does a group gain by attacking groups across multiple classes" and "Who benefits from these attacks". I cannot come to any other conclusion but one - All of France has been brought together and the US now has an ally in Syria.

I'm asking myself two questions: "What does a group gain by attacking groups across multiple classes" and "Who benefits from these attacks". I cannot come to any other conclusion but one - All of France has been brought together and the US now has an ally in Syria.

26 2015-11-14 by SixVISix

I don't see any rational benefit of a group, "terrorist" or not, to strike across a spectrum of classes in a foreign nation that to date has not done much to counter them. It seems like a "kicking the beehive" scenario and counterproductive to any real substantial purpose.

However, striking multiple classes has one effect that is fairly obvious, it causes a nation to coalesce around a single idea - vengeance, in this case if it's headed where I think it may be headed.

It feels like France has been played specifically to target Syria, and this concerns me. Who benefits from this attack more than the forces trying to topple Assad and the "ISIL" boogeymen?

I'm probably imagining things, but at this juncture it certainly feels like something is wrong with this picture and I don't think I've ever wanted to be wrong more than I do right now.

10 comments

7 arggabargga 2015-11-14

I do believe you've got it, by george.

2 Icopia 2015-11-14

There's a narrative that the powers that be are pushing. New World Order? One world government? But it's here and it's taking over our very way of life and liberties. The start of WW3? It damn sure feels like it.

1 King-Hell 2015-11-14

Your headline implies that France was sitting on the fence, and has now been pushed into supporting the USA. This is incorrect. France has been targeted because it has already carried out air strikes against ISIS.

6 SixVISix 2015-11-14

France has been incredibly limited in their support of US action in the middle east generally and Syria specifically. The population of France largely does not support the US incursion in the middle east nor Frances role as a participant. That isn't the case now. To counter the Russian tide in Syria, the US will have to put boots on the ground and as a rule, we can't "go it alone" without looking openly imperialist. We need other troops marching at our side to cast the illusion of a "coalition".

I do not believe striking France was "retaliation" as it only would serve to increase their participation. In strictly black and white military strategy, it's a "Hitler turning on Russia" level mistake. It has virtually no practical benefit save to lose popularity and gain new enemies or newly resolute enemies - neither is a benefit.

Strictly my opinion, but the attack on France has no hallmark of a sincere terrorism operation, which is typically to hit a certain type of target, a certain class of people, carry out a specific message. This is a scattershot hit that only resulted in galvanizing an entire nation to march to a single drumbeat.

1 Drooperdoo 2015-11-14

Last week France said that it will not sign the TTIP. Is it possible that the attacks are staged to de-stabilize France as a punishment for not "playing ball"?

This coordinated attack has NATO fingerprints all over it.

(See NATO's previous false flag terror attacks in Italy, called "Operation Gladio".)

1 sheasie 2015-11-14

I don't see any rational benefit of a group, "terrorist" or not, to strike across a spectrum of classes in a foreign nation that to date has not done much to counter them. It seems like a "kicking the beehive" scenario and counterproductive to any real substantial purpose.

precisely.

However, striking multiple classes has one effect that is fairly obvious, it causes a nation to coalesce around a single idea - vengeance, in this case if it's headed where I think it may be headed.

precisely.

It feels like France has been played specifically to target Syria, and this concerns me. Who benefits from this attack more than the forces trying to topple Assad and the "ISIL" boogeymen?

precisely.

I'm probably imagining things

false.

but at this juncture it certainly feels like something is wrong with this picture and I don't think I've ever wanted to be wrong more than I do right now.

precisely.

0 DiarrheaMonkey- 2015-11-14

Meh, intentionally inciting an entire population is much better accomplished by targeting children. Besides, it's not like if they'd somehow managed to limit the casualties to middle class people the elite would have just sat back and said "Whatever, it was just the povs that got hit." Besides, a rock concert and a stadium seem like good picks just because of densely packed people, not because they represent "multiple classes".

Even in the heart of the Manhattan FiDi plenty of working class people with random jobs died on 9/11. You will inevitably kill people "across multiple classes" in a mass casualty attack. I guess I just don't at all see your point...

0 sendinthespyflyguy 2015-11-14

cui bono?

-1 Gorkildeathgod 2015-11-14

I think you're completely wrong, France is not 'together', is never been further apart

1 Reteptard 2015-11-14

Agreed. And if they keep letting in migrants there could be a full-blown civil war.

1 Reteptard 2015-11-14

Agreed. And if they keep letting in migrants there could be a full-blown civil war.