POWERFUL: Belgian MP Exposes War on Terror Lie and 9/11 False Flag

Activist Post

On January the 17th, 32-year-old Belgium MP Laurent Louis, considered one of the most controversial and demonized national political figures, delivered the most powerful truth ever told in a political arena.

First, he explained why he voted against the Belgian support to war in Mali, that it was based on lies and rooted in neo-colonialism. Then he expressed his disgust and wrath against the criminal foreign policies of the Western elite and its submission to foreign financial and interests groups, before scolding his colleagues who voted for interventionist war with "fuck you's".  Finally, he says that the war on terror is a lie and that 9/11 was a false flag to justify aggressive military action in the Muslim world.

Click on the "Captions" icon to get the English subtitles. You won't be disappointed.


Excellent Post

Not to be missed; here is a representative excerpt from the speach: "And honestly I apologise for my low class speech, but fuck you all,the so-called do gooders,both left right and from the center who lick the boots of corrupted power...." the whole speach runs like that.

The speaker is Laurent Louis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurent_Louis

Truth to power

Speaking truth to power.


He says je m'en merde not fuck you which is pretty mild in French and means I dont give a damn or literally I don't give a shit so even though it's a strong condemnation of colonialism in Mali and elsewhere, his language isn't as shocking as you think. His attack on invasions to defend human rights is spot on pointing out hypocrisy. One problem is Sharia law he talks about is horrible and Laurent doesn't provide any solution either. Women continue to live ruined lives in Muslim countries with or without invasions.

Gertrude Bell assessing the lives of women under Islam in Iraq said in 1921, "I hate Islam".

Odd stament comming from you.......

"Laurent doesn't provide any solution either." What are we supposed to do, invade them and bring democracy? We have our own human rights problems right here at home.


Of course, I agree with you, not to invade. The best we can do is not allow Muslim women to be abused living in the UK, France and the US, and elsewhere away from Muslim countries. The police have shown little interest in defending their rights abroad. They side with the clergy and generally don't lift a finger.


... indeed. A man with cojones and an admirable thirst for straight talking.

Who does he think he is telling the truth?

He will likely gain enormous popular support and be ousted very soon.

Who does he think he is telling the truth?

Ummm, Do you think Glenn......?

That is just like the war on drugs, any country we have a drug interdiction program with winds up increasing their production. Did you mean to say "ironic" or "intrinsic?"


Or perhaps 'interesting'? Or 'revealing,' or 'telling'?

Deja vu

all over again. Western-funded militants becoming the rationale for Western invasion of these countries. Discussed here (while the author, Pepe Escobar, likes to refer to 'blowback' a lot without seeming to consider how much that 'blowback' might be intended and manipulated, I still find him much more aware of what's going on in these regions than most commentators):


Scott Horton

Scott Horton is just like that. From what I have heard of him he is the sincerest peace activist I have ever heard but he buys heavily into "blow-back" and the whole al Qaeda thing. What is just bizarre are all these new al Qaeda "franchises" that keep opening up. Al Qaeda, in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb: these names would be more at home on an American business card (Vice President of Sales and Marketing,Detroit Area) than any supposedly ad hoc terrorist organization. Also, they ironically show up right when we get there like they are using the Japanese Just-In-Time model, WTF is that. Also, of note vis-a-vis Scott Horton is that he had some woman pundit on (I forget who) who was attributing organizational affiliations for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber." Horton, who claims that he will change a position and vehemently attacks those whose entrenched positions have been exposed as erroneous, missed the opportunity to say: "hey wait, what about Kurt Haskell...."

Challenging Power With Truth : Belgian Style =Love It

"It's time to stop lying to us and treating the people like imbeciles, the time has come to tell the truth"

Blowback? FAIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I cannot buy into the "blowback" concept, especially the way it's sold. Many so-called prominent media persons, especially from the left, have latched onto this notion to "explain" 9/11 - citing that it was adverse reaction to US foreign policy that sparked the attacks. This sounds like a classic "limited hangout" scenario, in which reasons such as incompetence, ineptitude, errors in judgement or operational procedure, or some other relatively "ersatz", or commonplace, easily assimilable line of thought is actively employed to divert public attention away from a far harsher and shocking reality. "Limited hangouts" permit a certain amount of anger on the part of the public, and as such, defuse a potentially incendiary/explosive situation - pun intentional. In other words, they are a valuable mass psychology tool to help maintain the status quo, preventing the public from going "ballistic" or getting into revolutionary mode.

The blowback scenario cited with 9/11, (imho) does not carry weight. The CIA (and by extension the US) was the Afghan Mujahideen's close ally in the 1980s, and after the fall of the Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union, what "souring of relations" happened between Afghanistan and the US on an international level? Which Afghans, or Middle Easterners, apart from a few isolated incidents with a dubious history (USS Cole, 1993 WTC bombing for example), were targeting America or its interests en masse, with terrorist attacks? After all, why on Earth, would these Islamist radicals, recipients of $BILLIONS in US aid, largesse, weapons, equipment, and tactical advice, suddenly turn on their benefactors, who enabled them to regain their nation and kick out an occupying force? (They may have diametrically opposed philosophies to ours, but they are not stupid).

In real terror campaigns, such as those waged by the Provisional IRA or ETA, to cite two classic examples, bombings and shootings are/were a near daily occurrence, and in which the perpetrators invariably claim responsibility. In contrast, after the 1991 Gulf War in which 100,000 Iraqi civilians were killed by air strikes and other coalition military activities, how many terrorist incidents against the US have been ascribed to vengeance seeking Iraqis who lost loved ones or had their homes or businesses destroyed? A big, round zero. We can ask a similar question regarding the recent Iraq war - in which an estimated 1.2 million civilians were killed by the US led coalition, on the basis of known lies and fabrications. If blowback was a reality/expectation, we should have seen hordes of furious Iraqis seeking revenge against their oppressors.

Closer to home, the CIA (and again by extension the US) enabled and financed terrorist groups and death squads in a number of Central American countries - close to American soil, as opposed to the Middle East, which is on the opposite side of the globe. The Contra (etc) thugs murdered 10s of thousands of innocent people during the Reagan years - but what happened to the Guatemalan, el Salvadorean or Nicaraguan revenge and counter attacks that "blowback" would mandate? All quiet on the Western front... no Nicaraguan etc. sponsored mall bombings or theater shootings. Where was the blowback against America after the US toppled Iran's Western style parliamentary democracy in the 1950s, replacing it with a vicious dictatorship? Zip. Likewise in Chile, on September 11, 1973, the CIA, (yet again, my, these folks are busy) - organized a coup, replacing an elected leader (Salvador Allende) with a brutal thug (Augusto Pinochet) whose reign of terror went on for years and years. What happened to the Chilean blowback? Nada.

These are just a few examples in which, if we believed that blowback was a reality, then carnage would be the expectation. 9/11 was carnage by any standards, but it has been proven, on a multitude of occasions and according a vast array of facts and factors, than those blamed for it could NOT have done it. (I hardly need go into the impossibilities and wackiness that infest the official 9/11 conspiracy theory on this website, as we here are more than familiar with the realities). So, why are notables from Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky on the left to Ron Paul on the right, promoting this phony, baseless blowback theory, when there is little historical precedent? Perhaps they have a sense of self preservation, and know that it is OK to promote a "limited hangout" scenario, because it ensures not only their own safety (and that of their families), but their continued media access, while distracting their large listening base away from the awful truth.

Some unfortunate persons clearly did not get the "cease and desist or else" message that more well-known or privileged folk undoubtedly received. Barry Jennings, Beverly Eckhart, Bertha Champagne, Kenneth Johannemen, Michael Doran, Christopher Landis, Paul Smith, Deborah Palfrey, Maj. Gen. David Wherley, Salvatore Princiotta and many others died in bizarre or highly suspicious circumstances, on account of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and asking the pointed questions, while failing to air the acceptable weasel words. Others have lost their jobs, careers or being on the business end of heavy threats, just for using what remains of their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expression. To repeat, "what remains of".

ind singh

and, what do you know of indira singh of ptech w.b.fame and jp morgan chase, first responder at ground zero?? please respond. see her testimony at cynthia mckinney-chaired '04 911 citizen commission hearings, at which mike ruppert also testified. nobody anymore speaks of her selfless contributions. sibel edmonds, at least, must be grateful. perhapsprotecting her, which might be /hopefully is well and good.