By Brandon Martinez

With Iran now blaming ISIS for an attack on its parliament and a popular religious shrine, the false flag cult has come undone, exposing itself as a fraud that, like the boy who cried wolf, only yells “false flag” when the target of the attack is in the West. If this kind of attack happened in a Western country, the false flaggers would be all over it with their redundant amateur “analysis” trying to pick holes in the story. But with the attack in Iran, none of that seems to be happening. They either ignore it completely, or simply say that it’s a real attack by ISIS, but dishonestly add that ISIS are “fake Muslims” in the pay of shadowy Westerners. They won’t ask the typical “cui bono” type questions here because in this case Iran is the beneficiary, gaining world sympathy as a fellow victim of ISIS terrorism.

These cultists consider Iran to be an innocent “victim” nation under assault by the big powers, so scrutiny is never applied to its government, which was founded by a religious fundamentalist maniac who had 30,000 “dissidents” executed in one year. Interesting that they condemn other countries in the Middle East that have “collaborated” with Western powers, but sweep aside how Iran directly helped the United States overthrow the rival Taliban regime in Afghanistan in 2001, took advantage of the US invasion of Iraq to empower their Shiite proxies who had long sought to supplant Saddam Hussein (a historic foe of Iran who invaded the country in 1980), and supported the uprising against and overthrow of Libya’s Gaddafi, which they marketed as part of an “Islamic Awakening” at the time. These low-brow simpletons never call out Iran on its hypocrisy and double-dealing because that would get in the way of their current task of shilling for that regime to “avoid war,” or whatever they tell themselves to justify it.

This cognitive bias is also evident in their skewed and contradictory “analysis” of Syria. Whilst they are clearly extreme apologists for Muslims when Muslims are accused of terror against the West, they reverse themselves in the rather complex powder keg of Syria, where mainly Muslim factions are battling against the truth movement “hero” Assad. In that theater, the “truthers” claim that not only are the Muslim extremists doing all the terrorism and atrocities of the war, but they’re also behind various “false flag” attacks designed to frame the “innocent” Assad regime, which is held up as a bastion of virtue and “resistance.” So in the West these “analysts” contend radical Muslims are innocent patsies being set-up by our governments, but in Syria the narrative is exactly the opposite, where the radical Muslim rebels are portrayed as evil villains who are so dastardly and conniving that they’ve been organizing false flag massacres to frame Assad. These same people who viscerally hate the West and blame all the world’s problems on it, take the opposite line as they market Assad as a virtuous, Western-educated secularist who dresses like we do and speaks English and should thus be supported against his fundamentalist Muslim opponents. The disconnects here are stunning.

Predictably, truther scrutiny is also never applied to terror that takes place within the borders of Russia, even though most of it is usually blamed on separatist Muslims from the Caucasus. This is a case where their pro-Russian, pro-Putin bias takes precedence over their pro-Muslim bias, dusting off examples where Russia has manipulated and made scapegoats of Muslims for terror.

This is all very prototypical of politically-interested ideologues who, while falsely fronting as “truth seekers,” function as little more than emissaries propelling the propaganda of the beloved “white hat” regimes of the East. But their tricks and biases are becoming more and more apparent as time goes by.

By Brandon Martinez

On the one hand various “truthers” proclaim that al-Qaeda doesn’t exist. James Corbett even released a documentary some years ago with the title, “Al-Qaeda Doesn’t Exist.” But today their story has changed. Now a lot of these same truthers say that al-Qaeda is so dangerous that we need Russia to bomb them in Syria. Most of them support this Russian military campaign to eliminate various al-Qaeda or Isis-affiliated rebels throughout Syria. Even the non-al-Qaeda rebels are considered fair game to bomb by some of the more fanatic pro-Assad truthers. So which is it? It can’t be both. Do these groups exist or not? Are they a “manufactured threat” or are they such a huge menace that they need to be wiped out by Russia?

The incoherence of the truther narrative is comical. They’re clinging to the outdated truther narrative about the fraudulence of the “terror threat” but at the same time contend that the threat is real over in Assad’s neck of the woods. But at various points they say even some of that stuff, like the beheading videos, are fake. Even so they contend bombing Isis is good if it’s the Russians leading the campaign. Their narrative is wildly incoherent. They want to maintain that Muslims are innocent patsies who are always set-up by the West, so they’ve resorted to saying that Isis are just “paid mercenaries” under CIA mind control or masked Mossad agents. This takes the blame away from the radical Islamic ideology that drives these groups and puts it back on suited intelligence officers in the West. The poor, innocent Muslims have no responsibility or agency. They don’t make their own decisions. They’re all just hapless dupes doing someone else’s dirty work.

Overlapping geopolitical interests have caused various states (including the US and Israel, but principally the Gulf States) to tacitly enable Isis’s rampages, but that doesn’t mean the group isn’t genuine in its stated goals to establish a Caliphate and implement Sharia law as all Islamic radicals say is their divine mission here on earth. Manipulation is not the same thing as “creation” or top-down pyramidal “control.” Even a leading Saudi cleric admitted that:

The Isis Caliphate is clearly real as this documentary shows:

The devilish Saudi regime has influence over these radical groups and can steer their direction through the funds it gives or withholds from them. The Saudi monarchs use these terrorists as tools of their jihad to purge “heretics” (Shiites, Sufis, etc.) within the Muslim world as well as to slaughter non-Muslim kaffir. But the Saudis know these deranged maniacs will eventually turn on them because the pure zealots believe Saudi Arabia itself is an illegitimate monarchy even if it has implemented some form of Sharia law. There have been numerous Isis-inspired attacks within the kingdom over the past two years. The Saudis are content to direct the most militant of the bloodthirsty beheaders that their ideology has produced into neighbouring rival states, thereby containing them within their own kingdom. But not even they can fully control it and it will eventually come back to haunt them.

Liberal “truthers” cannot face up to the fact that radical Islam is a real thing because it would put a huge dent in their flawed narrative that all evil stems from “the West.”

Commentary by Brandon Martinez

America’s premier Islamic truther, Kevin Barrett, is always hot on the trail of every alleged “false-flag” terror event. His life is essentially committed to “debunking” every single act of terror or violence when the perpetrator is a Muslim. That’s all that he does. It’s likely he will go to his grave shouting, “the Muslims are innocent!”

His formula is always the same for each attack: speculate about timing, “cui bono” and other small details; point to some unverifiable use of Masonic Illuminati numerology supposedly present in the date, number of victims, etc.; accuse victims and witnesses of being “crisis actors” because they didn’t weep hard enough; and then declare the whole thing “just another” staged event.

He’s leaning heavily on the patently silly numerology angle with the latest Manchester bombing. Then he cites the logic of some random Twitter users and commenters who think it was a false-flag to back up his bias.

On the whole, his case for a false-flag in Manchester rests entirely on pure speculation about numerology, beneficiaries, and other small details. He provides no smoking guns for this one or any of the other recent attacks. Like all the others, he’s approaching this one from a preconceived conclusion that it was a false-flag, and then weaving his story accordingly to make it fit. So one day after the bombing Barrett’s marshalled together some speculative “evidence” and declared: “Bottom line: Abadi was very likely innocent.”

Who would take this unacademic wild theorizing seriously besides like-minded ideologues?

As I’ve mentioned elsewhere on this blog, Barrett and other false-flag obsessives have a clear Islamic or leftist agenda. In Barrett’s case, he’s a Koran-thumping Islamic missionary who wants to spread the faith and Islamize the world. He feels it’s his religious duty to defend the faith (and the faithful) from hostile infidel “accusers.” It’s therefore in his religious interest to “debunk” all instances of Islamic terrorism. During the migrant crisis of 2015, Barrett shockingly came out in support of the invasion on the basis that it will increase Islamic demographics on the continent and thereby make Europe more sympathetic with the Palestinians and other Muslim/Arab issues. So Europeans should just hand over their countries to weird foreigners so that “Palestine can be free from the river to the sea”? Yet he hypocritically condemns pro-Trump Americans for prioritizing the immigration issue over Palestine and other quagmires that Muslims care about.

Barrett is markedly engaged in little more than a counter-propaganda jihad for Islam. He calls his own activism a “truth jihad.” But in this case “truth” is whatever benefits Islam’s public image. This is his “response” to the war on terror: orating claims that the West and Zionists are behind all Islamic atrocities. He does what the Zionists do for their cause – scrupulously twisting everything to suit their tribal agenda and bias – but in reverse. He’s not particularly concerned with facts or evidence regarding these events. He even said that his approach is to assume every attack (involving Muslims) is a false-flag and demand the government prove that it’s not.

If you look at the Twitter feeds of some of these false-flaggers, like this nut job impersonating Paul Joseph Watson, it’s all the same repetitive stuff played over and over again. They are like automated bots blasting the same talking points about the Iraq war, 9/11, and Israel, 24/7. Nothing else matters to them as they endlessly pursue an impossible social justice crusade for the Middle East.

However, their narrative is convoluted and often self-contradictory. They’re quick to dismiss ISIS-related terror in the West as fake, but when evangelizing about the civil war in Syria, many of them actually claim ISIS and other Islamic rebel groups have conspired to stage “false-flag” chemical attacks to frame Assad. So how does this work? ISIS is being framed for “false-flags” in the West, but in Syria ISIS is doing the false-flags with the help of the West? So with Syria their false-flag formula is reversed, in that whenever Assad is blamed for an atrocity against civilians, the “truthers” come out with claims that it was really ISIS or other Islamist rebels that did it!

If Western governments are exclusively going after Assad, and are secretly helping ISIS as some claim, why would they constantly attack themselves and frame Assad’s enemies for it? Why wouldn’t they just frame Assad or Hezbollah? By doing so they’re actually generating sympathy for Assad, which is counter-intuitive to their supposed agenda of toppling him. And what would be the point of a continuous string of attacks in the West when the anti-ISIS coalition air war has been going on for three years now? Nothing much happens after these fresh attacks that hasn’t already been happening for years.

If these people are against ISIS in Syria/Iraq, why then would they want to shill for them in the West? The formula seems to be that when ISIS blows something up “over there,” it’s real, but if it’s done “over here,” it’s fake. Makes you wonder what the hell is the point of disproving one solitary act of terror blamed on ISIS when they’re simultaneously saying that the group is doing real terror elsewhere. They never question the terror “over there” because the target of that violence is their beloved Ba’athist strong-man, Assad.

Kevin Barrett is also contradictory on this. When he goes on Iranian PressTV he acts as a mouthpiece for Iran, Hezbollah and Assad in Syria (the Shiite bloc), blasting the “Takfiri” Muslims of ISIS and al-Qaeda as sell-outs. But elsewhere he essentially defends al-Qaeda and other Islamists as innocent patsies being framed for terrorism by Western intelligence agencies, largely denying Islamic extremism even exists. He has also philosophized in favour of establishing an Islamic caliphate, a goal shared with the more hardline Salafi Muslims rather than the Shiites who he propagandizes for on PressTV. It looks to me like he’s a chameleon, saying different (often contradictory) things depending on his audience.

So these people are zealously backing the Assad regime in its civil war with other Muslim factions and do not hesitate to label Assad’s opponents collectively as “terrorists.” So then what is the purpose of 9/11 truth? 9/11 was blamed on al-Qaeda, a group which forms a significant bloc battling the Assad regime and other dynastic dictatorships in the Middle East. Assad himself doesn’t dispute that narrative, saying numerous times that he’s “fighting the people that did 9/11.” This presents a problem for the “truthers,” who can’t decide what’s more important, proving 9/11 was an inside job (and thus letting al-Qaeda off the hook) or shilling for Assad (which requires al-Qaeda and Islamism in general to be discredited).

What it comes down to here is that these people are nihilistic anti-Western (and anti-white) leftists. So when Muslims are accused of terror against Westerners, they come to the defense of the Muslim regardless of that Muslim’s bent. But in the Middle East they shift the goal-posts a little bit, choosing sides with certain Muslim factions (usually the more secular ones, with the exception of Iran) over others. But even in the Middle East they posit that the “bad Muslims” are the ones working with the West and the “good Muslims” are those fighting the West. But what about when those “bad Muslims” are fighting the West, as ISIS and al-Qaeda have done at times, or when the “good Muslims” are working with the West (as Assad, Gaddafi and Hussein once did)? Will they suddenly start cheerleading for the “bad Muslims” and denouncing the “good Muslims”?

These biased dolts wail when the CIA sends a drone into Yemen or Pakistan to kill an al-Qaeda or Taliban chieftain, but then whip out their pom-poms and do a cheering routine when Russia does the same thing in Syria to take down the rebel leaders there. They moan about “civilian casualties” when it’s a Western coalition jet that caused the carnage, but dutifully sweep under the rug the thousands of civilians killed by Assad and the Russians. Selective outrage is typical of leftists who are only using “humanitarian” rhetoric in efforts to discredit their perceived enemies, while abandoning such arguments for regimes they support.

These hacks are clearly nothing more than war propagandists for anyone seemingly in opposition to “the West.” They’ll shill for any regime or group that says or does anything contrary to the agenda of Western powers. They’ve become prostitutes for tyrants and dictators on the sole basis that those despots are “anti-American” or “anti-Israel.”

For all their bluster about uncovering false-flags, they seem awfully uninterested in the likely one that brought Vladimir Putin to power in Russia. In fact, they don’t seem to scrutinize any terror events, even ones implicating Muslims, when the target is Russia. Again, that shows their highly selective “concern” and “outrage” about abuses of power by governments. If you’re a brutal regime situated outside the Western hemisphere, you can count on these despicable charlatans to whitewash your misdeeds.

And ultimately these self-destructive people give a bad name to decent researchers who have uncovered real false-flags (and there have been some real ones). But the whole field has become so inundated with skittish ideologues pursuing narrow political or religious agendas that it’s virtually useless at this point.