January 14, 2015
(ANTIMEDIA) Almost immediately after the attack in Paris, the internet was awash with blogs, videos, articles, and posts claiming that it was a “False-Flag” attack. Most people pointed to things as evidence that weren’t entirely accurate. Let’s examine the points one at a time.
“An AK-47 would make more of a blood spatter.”
This is intended to state that the cop shown in the video was not killed, and therefore the incident was a very elaborate hoax. The validity of this statement rests on several facets.
Was it an AK-47?
The AK-47 is one of the most popular rifles on the planet. The “AK” stands for Avtomat Kalishnikova (Kalishnikov Automatic in English). The “47” stands for the year of design. The AK-47 fires a 7.62x39mm round. While not a particularly large round; it’s slow, fat, and known to cause large gory exit wounds. This backs up the conspiracy theory because the wound wasn’t gory, right?
Well, first we have to note that it may not have been an AK-47. Not all weapons in the Kalishnikov family are AK-47s and not all fire the 7.62x39mm round. There are more military production AK variants than could ever be discussed in this article. There are even more produced by civilian companies. The easiest way to differentiate between different AK-pattern rifles is the shape of the magazine, however the shooter’s amateurish stance obscures the magazine and prohibits being able to say for certain whether or not it was a curved magazine (indicative of an AK-47) or an angled magazine (indicative of an AK-74). The reason this is important is the AK-74 does not fire a 7.62x39mm round; it fires a 5.45x39mm. If you aren’t familiar with how the identification system works, the number preceding the “x” is the diameter of the bullet in millimeters. The number following the “x” is the length of it. Unlike the 7.62x39mm, the 5.45x39mm round is skinny and fast. It isn’t known for being as gory. Keep in mind that civilian produced AKs are made in dozens of other calibers.
Would a Kalishnikov automatically make a huge blood splatter?
Let’s just assume (understand this is a big assumption) that the rifle was chambered in 7.62x39mm. That doesn’t necessarily mean there will be a big splatter. The round is known for making large exit wounds. The entrance wound is normally about the diameter of a Sharpie marker.
Looking at the moment the round was fired and following the trajectory, the round probably clipped the back of the officer’s head, traveled down his neck, and lodged in his shoulder. This would mean there isn’t a large exit wound, because there is no exit wound.
Did he miss?
There are several instances of people pointing to what is claimed to be the impact zone of the round hitting the sidewalk. First, note that the barrel of the weapon is not even remotely close to where the round is said to have impacted.
To understand what you are seeing, you need to understand the way a firearm works on the inside:
The bullet is sitting in the chamber ready to be fired.
The primer is struck causing a small explosion.
The small explosion ignites the charge in the case.
The explosion from the case follows the path of least resistance and forces the bullet down the barrel.
When the bullet leaves the barrel, the blast from the charge is no longer confined in the barrel and spreads away from the muzzle (end of barrel) in all directions unless directed by a muzzle break.
What you are seeing is the explosive force from the round being projected moving dust, dirt, and loose concrete on the sidewalk. Here’s a video where the muzzle of an AK is not even directed towards the ground. Notice the amount of dust that is kicked up. There would be even more force in the Paris incident because the barrel is pointed towards the ground.
“Those are different cars.”
Simply put, no they are not. The footage clearly shows the same rim package and chrome accent pieces on both vehicles.
“They wouldn’t be dumb enough to leave a passport.”
The idea behind this theory is that because the attackers left an identification card in the car, they must have meant for it to be found. Allow me to present an alternate scenario. You’re driving across town with a car full of illegal weapons. A simple traffic stop would turn into a search without an ID card, so you bring the ID card, but leave it in the car when you change into your assault gear. After gunning down a bunch of people you hop in the car to make your getaway. When you dump the car, you forget to grab it because you’re in a hurry. The choices are either a highly-trained intelligence team leaves such a bogus clue behind to make sure two patsies are gunned down by French security services, and the intelligence team just hopes the patsies don’t surrender without a fight; or a zealot hopped up on adrenaline forgot to pick up something in the car. Which is more likely?
“Israel is the real culprit because… well, sneaky Jews.”
Israel: The theory is that the Mossad staged the attack because the French government has recently begun supporting Palestine. The problem with this theory: Striking back against the French by blaming it on ISIS is not really going to send the message the Israelis want sent. If we’re playing false-flag motives, wouldn’t it make more sense to blame the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, or the Palestinian Liberation Front, or any of the dozens of other pro-Palestinian groups? Why blame it on a group that doesn’t directly involve the grievance? More importantly, the Mossad is one of the best trained intelligence agencies on the planet. Just from shooting stance alone, I can assure you the attackers were not trained by the Mossad.
France: The theory is that the French government wants to engage ISIS, but lacks popular support. Well the French government has control of the French Foreign Legion, which is comprised entirely of foreign troops. The French citizen rarely cares about the fate of these soldiers, so popular support is not needed to send them into harm’s way. Another theory is that the French government wants to impose martial law, and that this is the catalyst. Maybe. At least this theory passes a basic logic test, but if that was the desire, why not do it during the riots that recently occurred?
The United States: There is a theory that the US staged the attack to convince the French they need to be more assertive in the War of Terror. French assistance in the War on Terror is not really sought after. The US government has never really cared about French assistance. As Jed Babbin, former undersecretary of defense, said:
“…you know frankly, going to war without France is like going deer hunting without an accordion. You just leave a lot of useless noisy baggage behind.”
The people attempting to determine whether or not this was a planned action by the government don’t deserve ridicule. Questioning the government is always healthy. I stand by George Carlin’s quip:
“My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me.”
It’s sound advice, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This shouldn’t be taken in any way as an attack on “conspiracy theorists.” People leveling what seem like crazy ideas have always been at the forefront of human thought.
The most likely scenario from the evidence, however, is that religious extremists were angry because somebody poked fun of the Prophet, and they attempted to strike a blow against the organization that had insulted their religion. It’s a scenario that plays out over and over in human history. The question I have is: how egomaniacal do you have to be to believe that Allah or God Himself needs your help to defend His honor? A God that can’t smite the wicked on His own needs to work on His mojo.
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author and TheAntiMedia.org. Tune-in to The Anti-Media radio show Monday-Friday @ 11pm EST, 8pm PST.
Since you’re here…
…We have a small favor to ask. Fewer and fewer people are seeing Anti-Media articles as social media sites crack down on us, and advertising revenues across the board are quickly declining. However, unlike many news organizations, we haven’t put up a paywall because we value open and accessible journalism over profit — but at this point, we’re barely even breaking even. Hopefully, you can see why we need to ask for your help. Anti-Media’s independent journalism and analysis takes substantial time, resources, and effort to produce, but we do it because we believe in our message and hope you do, too.
If everyone who reads our reporting and finds value in it helps fund it, our future can be much more secure. For as little as $1 and a minute of your time, you can support Anti-Media. Thank you. Click here to support us