Như PGQ đã viết và nhận định ngay sau khi tin về vụ giả địch Brussels xảy ra:

1-Brussels: Đã Bảo Trò Giả Địch Sẽ Còn Tiếp Tục

2-Dàn “Giao Hưởng Khủng Bố” với Nhạc Trưởng Âu Mỹ Mossad

Trang  PQC và Trang Paul Craig Roberts  qua bài-Is the Latest “ISIS Attack” Another False Flag? — Paul Craig Roberts (3/25/2016)  đều có cách nhìn lý giải hoàn toàn đồng quan điểm với nhau- không lợn cợn để bị những phần tử ngoại vi quyền chính phân tâm bẻ hướng. Quyền chính là quyền chính, bản chất là một dù núp dưới tên hiệu nào- và thường luôn vẫn hợp tác chặt chẽ cùng nhau ở thượng tầng của cấu trúc. Giả địch là một thủ thuật hay bước chiến lược trong bàn cờ quyền chính với mục tiêu củng cố quyền lực vai trò nhà nước an ninh trong não trạng quần chúng vì mục đích tối hậu khống trị miên tục của chúng.

Nói một cách khác, nghĩa là nhìn thẳng và quyền chính. Quyền chính không thể cải sửa, điều chỉnh, chỉ có loại bỏ, Đó là giải pháp đầu tiên và duy nhất trước khi thực hiện bất kỳ hình thái xã hội tương tác nào để kiến tạo tự do bình đẳng trong nhân phẩm và hòa bình thật sự.

Xin giới thiệu thêm quan điểm của nhóm James-Corbett và một vài quan điểm của các chuyên gia khác – mà PQC không đồng quan điểm- về ĐỘNG CƠ và MỤC TIÊU của GIẢ ĐỊCH đặc biệt sự kiện tại phi trường Brussels- để độc giả rộng đường tham khảo, lý giải và qui kết theo tầm nhìn của mỗi người.

Phi Quyền Chính






Two Fake CC surveillance Videos of the bomb attacks, Ibrahim’s Laptop Computer in a Rubbish bin; Foreknowledge of the Attacks; An EU terror emergency drill of a Metro attack held 3 weeks earlier, …


Just days after arresting French-born Belgium national and terror suspect Salah Abdeslam in Brussels, a coordinated terror attack unfolded in the very same city…


Prior to the conduct of a police investigation, the Western media went into overdrive, intimating without evidence that the ISIS was responsible for the attacks.


Is the Latest “ISIS Attack” Another False Flag? — Paul Craig Roberts

Is the Latest “ISIS Attack” Another False Flag?

Paul Craig Roberts

I have not looked into the latest attack blamed on ISIS, this time in Belgium, and I am not going to investigate it. The explanation was set in stone by the initial reporting, and any skepticism that is expressed is disregarded as conspiracy theory. I have seen reports that the bombs were in the ceilings and that the initial film released by authorities was in fact film from several years ago of the Chechnya attack on a Russian airport. If these reports are correct, they raise questions about the official set-in-stone story.

But the questions won’t be asked.

If the various bombings are false flag attacks, the governments will get away with them, because the attacks blamed on Muslim terrorists fit every agenda that is out there. Government agendas for more war, military spending, and police state measures are served. But so also are the agendas of those who want to limit immigration, those who want to blame the bombings on blowback from Western imperialism, those such as the Russian government who desire a united front against terrorism, and those who use the bombings to stress the innate goodness of the West, which attracts hatred because of its goodness. Washington likes the bombings because they keep Europeans scared and the governments under Washington’s thumb.

Anyone who raises real questions is set upon by every group for whom the bombings blamed on ISIS are a blessing to their agenda.

Just as we hear today that ISIS bombed an airport or whatever, we heard throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s that this or that communist group, such as the Red Brigades, the Red Army Faction or Baader-Meinhof gang had bombed a train station. In truth these bombings were the work of Operation Gladio, a conspiracy of the CIA and European intelligence services against the European peoples. The conspiracy was revealed by the Italian government and culminated in an extensive investigation in which intelligence operatives testified that they focused on killing woman and children because it had the greatest impact in discrediting the communists on whom the attacks were blamed. European communist parties in Italy and France were growing in electoral success, and Washington wanted the communists discredited. That is what the bombings achieved.

So today when you hear the presstitutes report that ISIS bombed this and that, all you really know is that this is the government’s claim and that governments made similar claims in the post-WWII 20th century when Washington regarded it as imperative to discredit European communist parties.

Western governments have always found it easy to hoodwink their populations, and it is just as easy today.

March 26, 2016, A Report from Warsaw, Poland:

Dear Dr Roberts,

With the reference to your article on the Bruxelles attacks, I was impatiently waiting for your comments during the recent days. As you indicated the RT immediately found that the 2011 Domodedovo airport attacks film was used by the media to depict the attack in Bruxelles. Also, no images of dead corpses were shown.

But let me report a bizarre thing from Poland. One, the right-wing PM immediately declared that there will be no refugees accepted in Poland, and it seems the authorities were waiting for such an event. Two, it came out the right-wing government, which has majority in the Sejm (Polish parliament), forced a draft of an extreme anti-terrorism bill, which grants virtually unlimited power to the secret police, the ABW, allows it and other security agencies to put anyone under surveillance without a court approval. It also grants the secret police access to all IT systems within Poland, and, most oddly, forces the registration of pre-paid telephone SIM cards, which were always accessible in Poland for a fee of just 5 PLN (ca. US$1.25) at any kiosk, supermarket or gas station without any need to provide your ID and/or address. To make matters worse, the draft did not explain what the “terrorist threat” means, which allows broad interpretation by the authorities and the imposition of martial law. It seems the draft was prepared well before the Bruxelles events because of its complicated character.

All these lead to a conclusion that the Bruxelles attacks were staged. RT also reported that an Israeli security company was responsible was Bruxelles airport security, which adds more doubts.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The motive for the attacks in Paris and Brussels

We don’t yet know who ordered the attacks in Paris and Brussels. Several potential leads have been mentioned, but only the hypothesis of an operation decided by Turkey has any serious backing. Thierry Meyssan describes the secret conflict which, for the last five years, has haunted the relations between the Europan Union, France and Turkey.

| Damascus (Syria) | 28 March 2016

JPEG - 34 kb
In 2011, Alain Juppe for France and Ahmet Davutoğlu for Turkey secretly agreed to implement the creation of a pseudo-Kurdistan and a Sunnistan straddling the borders between Iraq and Syria (this was to be Daesh’s job) in order to create a destination for the exile of the Turkish Kurds. Their project was supported by Israël and the United Kingdom.

It is too early to name with any certainty the sponsor of the attacks which struck Paris on the 13th November 2015, and Brussels on the 22nd March 2016. However, for the moment, only the elements which we are about to reveal offer a reasonable explanation.

* * *

Just after the death of the founder of Turkish Islamism, Necmettin Erbakan, and at the beginning of the «Arab Spring», the Erdoğan government concluded a secret agreement with France. According to a diplomat who has studied the document, it stipulated the conditions for the participation of Turkey in the wars against Libya (which had just started) and against Syria (which was to follow). France, represented by its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alain Juppé, agreed in particular to deal with the «Kurdish question» without «compromising the integrity of Turkish territory» – a convoluted formula which signified that a pseudo-Kurdistan would be created elsewhere, to which the members of the PKK would be exiled. This project for ethnic cleansing, which is not new, had until that time been evoked only in Israëli military literature describing the new state between Syria and Iraq.

JPEG - 34.8 kb
On the 31 st October 2014, François Hollande accompanies Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on the steps of the Elysée. Another guest had just left discretely by the back door, Kurdish leader Salih Muslim.

On the 31st October 2014, President François Hollande took the opportunity of an official visit by Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Paris to organise a secret meeting, at the Elysée, with the co-President of the Syrian Kurds, Salih Muslim. Betraying the Turkish Kurds and their leader Abdullah Öcalan, Salih Muslim agreed to become the President of this pseudo-Kurdistan which was to be created on the occasion of the overthrow of democratically elected President Bachar el-Assad.

This was during the battle of Kobane. For several months, the Syrian Kurds had been defending the city against Daesh. Their victory over the jihadists was to shake up the political chessboard – anyone who really wanted to fight the jihadists had to ally themselves with the Kurds. However, the Syrian Kurds only obtained their nationality at the beginning of the war – until then, they had been Turkish political refugees in Syria, chased from their country during the repression of the 1980’s. At that time, the member states of NATO considered the PKK, the main Kurdish formation in Turkey, as a terrorist organisation. But from then on, they would distinguish between the ’bad’ Turkish PKK and the ’good’ Syrian YPG, despite the fact that these two organisations are closely related.

JPEG - 53.6 kb
After the battle of Kobane, François Hollande changed sides and expressed his support for the Kurds, when he received a delegation of the YPG at the Elysée, on the 8th February 2015 .

A dramatic turn of events – on the 8th February 2015, France changed its previous position. Officially this time, François Hollande received at the Elysée the co-President of the Syrian Kurds (loyal to Öcalan), Asya Abdullah, and Commander Nesrin Abdullah in camouflage uniform. Salih Muslim was absent from this meeting.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reacted by ordering an attack by Daesh, in Suruç, against a pro-Kurd demonstration, on the 20th July2015. Using Western anti-terrorist rhetoric, he declared war this time against Daesh and the Kurds, but used military means only against the Kurds. By doing so, he put an end to the cease-fire and re-started the civil war in his own country. Unable to create a pseudo-Kurdistan in Syria, he provoked the exodus of Kurds to Europe.

On the 3rd September 2015, the publication of a photograph of a drowned Kurdish child marked the start of a huge wave of migration from Turkey to the European Union, mainly to Germany. During the first weeks, the German leaders were delighted with this massive influx of new workers, badly needed by their heavy industry, while the media expressed their compassion for the refugees who were fleeing the Syrian dictatorship. Furthermore, on the 29th September, the French and German leaders hijacked the empathy for the migrants in order to study the possibility of financing the continuation of the war by giving 3 billion Euros to Turkey – a gift which was presented to public opinion as humanitarian aid for the refugees.

At the end of September 2015, Russia began its military operation against jihadists of all stripes, and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was compelled to watch the progressive failure of his project. He therefore ordered Salih Muslim to launch an operation for the forced Kurdisation of Northern Syria. The Kurdish brigades expelled the Arab and Assyrian teachers from their schools and replaced them with Kurdish teachers. The Syrians revolted and reached out to the Russians, who found a way to calm the situation, not without evoking a possible ulterior federalisation of Syria. There was no reaction from France.

On the 13th November, Turkey, exasperated by François Hollande’s about-turns, took France hostage and ordered the attacks in Paris, causing 130 dead and 413 wounded.

I wrote at that time – «Successive French governments have formed alliances with states whose values are opposed to those of the Republic. They have progressively opted for waging secret wars for these states, before changing their minds. President Hollande, and in particular his Head of Staff, General Benoit Puga, his Minister for Foreign Affairs, Laurent Fabius and his predecessor Alain Juppé, are today the object of blackmail from which they can only escape by revealing the mess into which they have dragged their country.» [1].

Terrorised, Paris hastily resorted to the Juppé plan of 2011. With London, they caused the adoption, on the 20th November, of Resolution 2249 by the Security Council. Under cover of the fight against Daesh, the Resolution was intended to justify the conquest of Northern Syria in order to create, at last, the pseudo-Kurdistan to which Recep Tayyip Erdoğan could expel «his» Kurds. But the United States and Russia had the text altered in such a way that France and the United Kingdom would not be able to intervene without being invited by Syria – a situation which raises echoes of the failed colonial operation of 1956, in which Franco-British troops attempted to occupy the Suez Canal with the support of Israël and Turkey, but had to withdraw under the glares of the United States and the USSR.

During the five and a half months of the Russian intervention in Syria, Turko-Russian relations continually worsened. The attack against the Metrojet Flight 9268 in the Sinaï, Vladimir Putin’s accusations at the G20 summit in Antalya, the destruction of the Sukhoï-24 and Russian sanctions against Turkey, the publication of the aerial photographs of the interminable line of tanker-trucks carrying oil stolen by Daeash through Turkey, etc. After having considered declaring war on Turkey, Russia finally decided on the subtler plan of supporting the PKK against the Erdoğan administration. Sergeï Lavrov managed to convince his US partner to profit from the coming destabilisation of Turkey by organising the overthrow of the dictator Erdoğan. The Turkish régime, which feels threatened by both Russia and the USA, is attempting to find allies. Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu went to Tehran on the 5th March, while the Iranian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mohammad Javad Zarif, visited Ankara on the 18th March. But the Islamic Republic has no intention of causing trouble with the two great powers.

On the 14th March, Vladimir Putin announced the withdrawal of Russian bombers, at which point the pseudo-Kurdistan project once again became possible. But Moscow and Washington were one step ahead – they began to deliver, indirectly, weapons to the PKK.

Unfortunately, this time it was the European Union which no longer wanted to hear about the colonisation of Northern Syria. The majority of EU member states have followed the foreign policy imposed by Paris for the last five years, with a remarkable absence of success. In order to signal their annoyance, several states, including Belgium, offered political asylum to leaders of the Turkish Kurds. They expressed their anger during the EU-Turkey summit of the 17th and 18th March, during which they were obliged to adopt definitively the subsidy of 3 billion Euros per year to Ankara.

On that occasion, I denounced the behaviour of the European elite, who, blinded by their anti-Syrian obsession, were reproducing the same error that was committed in 1938. At that time, obsessed by their anti-communism, they supported Chancellor Hitler during the annexation of Austria and the Sudeten crisis (Munich agreements), without realising that they were arming the enemy which was about to strike them [2].

During the EU-Turkey summit, and therefore independently of any decisions which were taken there, President Erdoğan gave a televised speech on the occasion of the 101st anniversary of the battle of Çanakkale («the battle of the Dardanelles» – the victory of the Ottoman Empire over the allies) and in remembrance of the victims of the attack perpetrated in Ankara a few days earlier. He declared –

«There is no reason that the bomb which exploded in Ankara might not explode in Brussels or another European city (…) Here I am appealing to all states who open their arms and who, directly or indirectly, support terrorist organisations. You are feeding a serpent in your bed. and this serpent that you are feeding may bite you at any moment. Perhaps looking at these bombs which explode in Turkey on your television screens means nothing to you – but when the bombs begin exploding in your cities, you will certainly understand what we are feeling. But then it will be too late. Stop supporting these activities which you would never tolerate in your own countries, except when they are aimed at Turkey. » [3].

Four days later, the attacks occurred in Brussels, causing 34 dead and 260 wounded. and so that we would not think it was a coincidence, but a deliberate act, on the following day the Turkish Press rejoiced at the punishment inflicted upon Belgium [4].

Since President Erdoğan re-started the civil war, it has cost 3,500 lives in Turkey.

Pete Kimberley