BREAKING NEWS – FRENCH SOLDIER ATTACKED in PARIS

Is this an individual who got inspired by the woolwich attack? Or is it some kind of Muslims fight back attempt? Hidden networks?

A French soldier patrolling a business neighbourhood west of Paris has been stabbed in the neck by a man who quickly fled the scene and is being sought by police, President Francois Hollande said.

The soldier was patrolling in uniform with two other men as part of France’s Vigipirate anti-terrorist surveillance plan when he was approached from behind around 1600 GMT and stabbed in the neck with a knife or a box-cutter.

Hollande, in the Ethiopian city of Addis Ababa, commented on the stabbing to say that the man was still on the run and police were exploring all leads.

“We still don’t know the exact circumstances of the attack or the identity of the attacker, but we are exploring all options,” Hollande told journalists.

Pierre-Andre Peyvel, police prefect for the Hauts-de-Seine area, said the soldier had lost a considerable amount of blood but would survive, and was being treated in a nearby military hospital.

“The wound appears to be quite serious, but it’s not life-threatening,” he told iTele news television.

Peyvel said the man was able to flee into a crowded shopping area in the La Defense business neighbourhood before the two other soldiers, who were walking in front of him, were able to react.

French daily Le Parisien cited a police source as saying the suspected attacker was a bearded man of North African origin about 30 years old, and was wearing an Arab-style garment under his jacket.

However, Peyvel declined to confirm or deny that description and said further details about the attacker’s identity would be forthcoming.

France is on high alert for attacks following its military intervention in Mali in January, which prompted threats against French interests from AQIM.

The attack came days after a British soldier was killed on a London street by two men who said they were acting out of revenge for violence against Muslims

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/05/2013525181528533340.html

Evaluating Sources – History 101

In the light of recent events in Woolwich, as in the Boston bombings there have been many claims and counter claims of falsification, false flag ops, media manipulation and conspiracies.

So how do we process all of this information and come to our own conclusions of what we believe to be fact, and what we believe is fiction?

I feel we need to take a step back and go back to basics. Forget all this high tech mumbo jumbo that most of us are not qualified to comment on and don’t fully understand, as people who do understand it are just as easily able to manipulate us as anyone else.

Let’s look at History 101, evaluating sources as in the UK, contrary to popular opinion, our education system does actually teach us to think.

Some sources are more useful than others.

When reading/viewing a story, do we always believe what we read or see?

Obviously we shouldn’t. We make judgements on the reliability of the sources, in the same manner that we make judgements when told things by individuals in every day conversation.

For example:

Some people will have a hidden agenda,

Some people will be giving evidence for a specific reason,

Some people will leave out crucial pieces of information,

Some people will be repeating the words of others.

When studying history, newspaper articles and news broadcasts need to be examined using the same stringent methods as any other source. The official version of events is never beyond reproach, or above judgement.

We judge using simple analysis;

Purpose – why? what is the intent behind the piece of information.

Limitations – what? does it not tell you? What is missing? What would you like to know that is not apparent?

Author  – who?  made it, and what is their expertise, or involvement in event? what are the implications of this.

Content – what? Does it tell you

Type – Primary or secondary?

Purpose

Is it informational, fictional, is it to attract people to a page or site, get more you tube hits? Is it to report an officially recognised and sanctioned version of events? Is it to propogate a particular ideaology? What are the authors motives? What was the intent behind it?

Limitations

Could it have bias? Could it have information which is missed out, deliberately or otherwise? If it is a secondary source does it take in to account all of the primary information?

Author

Who wrote it? Who produced it? what is their history of accurate reporting? Do they support a particular view or ideology? Are they free to speak?

Content

What does it tell us? what new information do we learn from it?

Type

Eye witness account, at the time or after?

Other considerations

– Intended audience, why are they telling who they are telling? who is it aimed at and how would that effect it?

 – Tone, threatening, persuasive, conciliatory

 – Action Does the source motivate action? why? Who benefits? what action?

I hope the above will be helpful when determining what to believe. It is a reminder for us all, firstly myself. Don’t believe a clip saying something is doctored if you dont know anything about film making, the same way you wouldn’t accept the official version without research.

May Allah guide us all to truth.