Paris Attacks Damage Control: New Would-be Shooter Suddenly “Captured” Minority Report-Style

By Bernie Suarez

With the recent story about the sudden capture of a “top suspect” Salah Abdeslam in the Paris shooting event of November 13, 2015, it appears the Paris shooting was brought back into the news this weekend perhaps to reinforce the story in the minds of the masses as damage control stemming from the recent damning public statements made by “Eagles of Death Metal” band frontman Jesse Hughes who had admitted the entire event seemed staged before completely retracting his story just 48 hours or so afterward.

Perhaps the controllers felt the retraction by Hughes was not enough so they pulled what I called an “I shot Bin Laden” stunt on the masses. An “I shot Bin Laden” moment is when a story is engineered and put out by the mass media for the primary reason of bringing the “story” back to life after a long period of being on the shelf. We see this all the time; for example, whenever they put out a story about how they “found” a plane part of MH-370, or the San Bernardino “cell phone cracking”, or even the new Boston bombing movies that will be released later this year. The “I shot Bin Laden” reference itself, of course, stems from the 2014 “story” about the Navy SEAL Robert O’Neill who suddenly claimed he alone shot Bin Laden to death. This story mostly served to resurrect the Bin Laden capture hoax in the minds of the masses.

So let’s face it, the gap between Hollywood fantasy and mainstream media is now mostly gone. The two ideas have merged. Every piece of news-related “evidence” is now a fully controlled scene with carefully edited video clips and soundbites. Because he is charged with the broad paintbrush of “terrorism”, like the individuals at Guantanamo Bay prison, we’ll never know what exactly the accused man, Salah Abdeslam, is guilty of, if anything, who manipulated the evidence, and who acted as final judge.

And for anyone who is caught in the middle of the game and finds themselves to be a pawn in a much larger game, to these people there is little hope of escape from political prosecution as many of the Guantanamo prisoners have learned all these years. Unfortunately for the newly accused Salah Abdeslam, the supposed “top suspect” in 2015’s Paris shooting, historically speaking, political patsies have not fared well. Like the Dzhokhar Tsarnaevs of the world, Abdeslam will have no voice, no leverage and no influence on the final outcome of what will happen to him because whether he realizes it or not he is nothing more than a patsy in a much bigger story being told. What story is that?

First of all, as implied I believe the first goal of the story is to simply bring the Paris attacks back into the news and thus back into our consciousness. As I already mentioned, I believe this is damage control for the embarrassment the establishment suffered last week. Secondly, I believe Paris was a dress rehearsal for a much bigger future false flag. Thirdly, with the 2 new Boston bombing films to be released later this year (2016), the idea of martial law will be sold in the form of “lockdown” and they will portray it as something you should be respectful of, kind of like standing and holding your hand over your heart during the playing of the national anthem. They will sell the idea to the masses that there is a connection between respecting lockdown and patriotism, honoring lockdown and showing your love for your country. Submitting to lockdown will be portrayed as a way of rooting for the good guys while the militarized scary looking police chase often actually KILLS the supposed bad guys without any trial or proof of guilt.

These are just a few agendas in play right now. But to add more to the suspicious irony of this story, a close look at the “evidence” against Abdeslam raises Minority Report-like concerns. Abdeslam is clearly being charged for speculations about what he was GOING to do not for anything he actually did. Emphasis in bold.

Salah Abdeslam, the top suspect in last year’s Paris attacks, was charged with “terrorist murder” on Saturday by Belgian authorities for the carnage that left 130 people dead.

A French prosecutor said Abdeslam had planned to be a stadium suicide bomber but backed out at the last minute.

Yes, you read it correctly for yourself. Unlike the other supposed shooters, this guy actually chose NOT to partake in shooting anyone. But, according to the “terrorist murder” charges he was THINKING of doing it and that makes him a “top suspect” murderer. This is a classic thought crime playing out right before our eyes and no one is even saying a word. Oops, I take that back. Someone is saying a word. The prosecutor and the Belgium authorities:

Molins said the suspect abandoned his suicide vest that night after he drove other attackers to Paris — but he did not say why. Belgium authorities on Saturday officially charged him and an alleged accomplice who has used two aliases “with participation in terrorist murder … and in the activities of a terrorist organization.”

So what can we learn from this? “Participation” is a generic term that can be used to link almost anyone to terrorism. But what exactly constitutes “participation”? Did he drive the would-be shooters to Paris specifically as a “mass shooter cab driver service”? Was he just a generically hired driver? Did he know what specifically his passengers were going to do? How do we know for sure? If so, does that set a precedent that if someone comes in contact in any way shape or form with an eventual would-be terrorist, does that make that person a “terrorist murderer” as the state implies?

Doesn’t it seem like it’s getting easier and easier to frame someone with generic charges for things they were GOING to do and for playing any minor role in an eventual event? That’s the implication behind generic charges such as “participation” and being “in the activities” of terrorist organization.

To many Americans reading all of this thousands of miles away you might think, oh well, he’s guilty, it doesn’t matter to me. But what about if you were hired to deliver a package for someone that day and the delivery turned out to be a key item they needed in the attacks, does that make you a “terrorist murderer” too for “aiding” terrorism? What if you repaired the car that was used in the attacks, are you part of it too? Even if he actually was part of the conspiracy, like the person who provides the getaway car in a bank robbery, the charges should be less severe since you only aided, right?

The fact is that since this whole case falls under the magic label of “terrorism” all justice, morality, logic and reason goes out the window. We all know that “terrorism” is a label that automatically forfeits all rights and marks you guilty as charged without a need for a trial, and that’s the main issue here. They are creating a case against Abdeslam regardless of what his role if any was, because they can. It’s literally a freebie for the controllers.

This is one of the points to watch closely here. There is nothing in this recent story pointing to definitive evidence that Abdeslam is this super-dangerous top ISIS terrorist guy. But that doesn’t stop the controllers from painting this picture with dramatic verbal flair claiming simultaneously that his capture is both a huge blow to ISIS and that everyone should be afraid of almighty ISIS.

Bernard Cazeneuve, the French interior minister, said he hopes Abdeslam can be brought to France to face justice. He called Abdeslam’s arrest a “major blow” to the Islamic State group in Europe, but warned the threat of new attacks remains “extremely high.”

How convenient, huh? Did you expect anything different? All of these stories fit in perfectly with the ruling elite’s long-term plans for the planet, for America and for each of us as individuals. This story serves their purpose in so many ways that everyone should be familiar with how this works and how this usually ends. That the suspect wasn’t involved in killing anyone and all the evidence against him is just a prosecutor mentioning his “association” with the other now-dead patsies, only serves to reinforce the Minority Report thought crimes new court of government opinion.

Have we considered that this entire suspect “capturing” event could be one big judicial system experiment (think Jade Helm) to see how quickly they can charge, try and maybe even execute a patsy with no real evidence against him? Have we considered the ease by which someone can be accuse of “associating” with “terrorists”, or how much easier it is to accuse someone of ALMOST committing an act of terror, or for THINKING of committing an act of terrorism?

Let’s review: Someone else commits a crime, the system retroactively “links” you to them, and you are then guilty of “associating” with terrorists; therefore, you are a terrorist and you are, therefore, guilty by default.

I’m reminded of the Oklahoma City bombing and the Boston bombing event where the patsies were quickly processed, convicted and sentenced before the public could wrap their heads around what really happened.

If nothing else, let’s remember that the controllers have events for scenarios where the shooter conveniently kills themselves (most common) as well as these aftermath patsies-in-court events where they capture ancillary suspects they want, and they try them in the courtroom of mainstream media engineered public opinion. As we saw in the cases of Tsarnaev and Tim McVeigh, by the time the actual trial comes around the patsy is already beyond guilty in the public consciousness and thus the trial is just a formality side show with a predetermined conclusion.

It’s concerning to think this is the new courtroom. We saw this recently during the Oregon standoff as well, in the immediate aftermath we observed as mainstream media judged and sentenced all of those involved in the courtroom of mass media engineered public opinion.

Either way, if this new “captured” suspect is guilty of a specific crime, that should be established concretely. In order to do that we’ll have to drop the “terrorism” linguistic programming psyop and go back to innocent until proven guilty. In other words we need to re-establish the rule of law.

Given that the War on Terror is a hoax perpetuated by the presence of ISIS, which is a creation of the U.S. and its allies, we have no compelling reason to believe anything the Western media and its allies are claiming about this case and this suspect. And the fact that they cannot pin a specific act of violence or crime against him only shows you how artificial this entire thing is.