The previous thread was overloading WordPress due to the number of comments. This thread has been opened to replace it.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Ohhh…. that’s an awful thing to say “Jorgen”.
It’s a hell of a good thing Blue and I looked you up when you got banned from posting last time….
Let me remind you what “hate crime” is…..
Actually…a better idea ! I’ll post your actual name !
Ping Ping Ping !
Mod….
Before I publish his name, is it allowed ? Anti Semitic posts are covered in EU Law as “hate crimes”.
“Jorgen C. Madsen”, are you just going to fuck off or do I have to fuck around with IP addresses and shit?
Don’t answer, just fuck off. You know we can get rid of you eventually. Just lets save each other lots of bother.
James, yeah, post his name if he posts again. It’ll make it easier to report him. What country is he in? We’ll move the blog onto a server there so it’s covered by the local laws. Or we can move it to Israel and report him there.
Intp1 as one of a select group of contributors on here that I trust (as distinct from those that can only strut and pose and insult and seed dissent just for the sake of it) I take your point about the hypocrisy and stage management of Charlie Hebdo, not least the appearance of Saudi Arabia in the “Celebrity line-up”. (I have written on this subject elsewhere) “Do I need to recount the ways?” We have the ludicrous situation on the one hand that anti-semetic remarks can be criminal offences, whilst anti-islamic ones are lauded and encouraged. The after effect of “Je suis Charlie” (I believe in total freedom of expression) was quite the opposite as it related to muslim tweets apparently with many arrested for doing so. We live in a very muddled world. Quo bono is of course a relevant question to ask and an indicator of who actually may be behind these outrages, insofar as they exist. Elsewhere I have posed the question as to what proof is there that the people shown in videos of the event were the same given the fact that there bodies were almost totally covered? It hasn’t been answered. Then with all the multiple inconsistencies of the claimed policeman shooting video, the whole thing is made suspect. Apart from all the problems discussed elsewhere, why has no one raised the basic question why all the masks, and strange escape jinks, if the purpose was martyrdom and eternal glory? As previously stated, a Mossad operation is meticulously planned both as to the killing and escape. What we see in false flag events is usually quite the opposite. Compare and contrast the Charlie chase with the Chevaline absence of one despite the fact that the latter was apparently reported in literally minutes of the killing in a remote location. The parallels with the Boston bombing are obvious.
Michael Norton I haven’t forgotten the “coincidence” of Iqbal’s first American husband dying within minutes of her own. It’s just one more. Association is not proof of cause but its certainly yet another significant indicator, which when linked to all the others makes a case compelling.
If Eric is back on normal duties, does that mean he is done with investigating
“The Slaughter of the Horses” Incident?
Here are some of the questions I posed concerning the Merabet killing. One of them has been subsequently answered satisfactorily I believe. The window from which the filming was done was the third floor left hand window. Credit to the person who worked it out.
As far as I am aware none of the other questions have been answered by anyone – rather like Chevaline.
“1. From where was the video recorded, by whom, and how was it possible given the brevity of the incident? In other words was the filmer pre-warned and prepared for the incident to take place?
2. Why did the filming cease, or why was it cut short when the shooters took off? Why were they so disinterested in subsequent events when the immediate danger had passed?
3. Why is there no indication the filmer was spotted, challenged or threatened although he/she must have been in plain sight?
4. Why is it impossible to reconcile the film footage with what we are led to believe was the location from where it was taken: i.e. second floor balcony at 62 Boulevard Richard Lenoir?
5. How and by whom was the footage immediately placed in the public domain. Was this done by the French authorities or privately? Why contrary to normal practice of French Prosecutors and police was this permitted or at least objected to, in view of its primary evidence value and very sensitive nature of displaying the fatal shooting and body of a French policeman? If done with official approval why the very opposite approach in the case of the Chevaline murders?
6. What words were actually spoken by policeman and shooters and in what language? If in French from whence comes the reported retort “OK Chief.” which sounds distinctly un-French and more some sort of American/English military slang.
7. At what point and by whom was the rear window of the Citroen C3 shot out?
8. Where did the “three policemen on bicycles” get involved in a shoot-out and was this the same location as the video portrays or different? If different why and how did the criminals shoot and injure Merabet before they got out of their car.
9. It has been suggested that the retrieved trainer that fell out of the car indicated a change of clothing. Is that still the view and was it and other items later found in the abandoned car(s)?
10. It was later reported a car they were driving was “full of weapons”. Is it the view they had these initially or obtained them subsequently? If so, how?
11. How long did Merabet remain lying on the street and why does it appear there is a complete absence of any photographic record of subsequent events by emergency services which is highly unusual?
12. What is the explanation for the absence of street traffic in the video given that it purports to be mid-morning on a very busy route? Similarly why no evidence on the recording of sirens from emergency vehicles which must have been in operation by then with so many presumed dead?
13. And finally, what is the explanation for the expert opinion that the video affords no physical evidence of a head wound and that the puff of dust away from the head is indicative there was in fact no head wound? Rather strangely we have seen no pictures of forensic investigations at this particular site and have heard nothing of recovered bullet cartridges – at least nine if the video sound recording is genuine. Why is that and what supporting forensic evidence has been discovered?
POSTSCRIPT: Since composing this piece it would appear some of my questions have been answered whilst others have been raised. It has now been stated in an “Independent” newspaper article here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-man-regrets-stupid-decision-to-put-video-of-police-officers-death-online-9971750.html dated today 13th January, 2015 that the person who took the video and immediately placed it on his Facebook page before he gave a copy to the police, was a Mr Jordi Mir, an engineer in his 50s. He says he was “horrified” to see it airing on television and You Tube and regrets doing it. He puts his decision down to his habitual practise of posting pictures on Facebook, the fact that he was alone in his flat and that he panicked. The article states:
“He did not realise what he was filming at first on Wednesday morning, when he walked to his window after being disturbed by the sound of gunshots. Mr Mir initially thought a bank robbery was being carried out and believed gunmen Said and Cherif Kouachi were part of a police SWAT team, unaware they had just massacred 11 people at the Charlie Hebdo offices. “I was completely panicked,” he said, being interviewed across the Parisian boulevard where Mr Merabet was shot dead.”
So now it is necessary to address some additional questions to the French authorities:
14. Of what nationality and religious persuasion (if any) is Mr Jordi Mir, and is there any reason to believe he is connected in any way with any foreign state or secret organisation?
15. Given the fact that shooting appears to start after the short video clip begins, what shooting is he referring to that he claims takes him to the window.
16. Given the brevity of the incident, what is his explanation for his ability to collect the device used, get to the window, open it, film the incident, all without any form of notice or warning, and is his explanation convincing to the authorities? Why did he fail to continue filming or post subsequent events on Facebook?
17. Given the precedent set in the Chevaline case, is it the intention of the French Prosecutor to take punitive action against Mr Mir for circulating crime scene evidence of a highly sensitive nature?
Now finally before leaving the subject another interesting twist from the “Independent” article referred to above, which raises more questions in this disturbing case. I quote:
“The 42-second clip shows two masked gunmen – later revealed to be the Kouachi brothers – walking towards 42-year-old Mr Merabet as he lay on the ground injured.
“You want to kill us?” one of the brothers says as he strides toward the wounded officer. “No, it’s OK, boss,” Merabet says, raising his hand in a gesture of surrender. He was then shot point-blank in the head.
“The footage prompted a new wave of horror and revulsion as the world reeled from the Charlie Hebdo attack. The front page of the next day’s Le Figaro newspaper featured a still from the video over an editorial called “war”.
“As police started arriving at the scene, Mr Mir downloaded his video on to a memory device and rushed outside to hand it to officers, before putting it online.” End Quote.
You will notice the story has now changed from that quoted by the Times earlier and roles have been completely reversed! Now it is the brothers who say “You want to kill us?” despite the very specific French rendition given earlier. And it is Merabet who says “No, it’s OK boss.” Note how “OK Chief.” has disappeared altogether.”
@Mod
Mr “Jorgen’s” love of the Denmark football players is as consistent as his anti-Semitic hate rants.
He uses “Chrome” and (not surprisingly) “Aurora” to do his surfing ! Must be because he can change his identity and “think” he’s unseen. (Clearly he’s not very “techy”).
Stick your site in Denmark and he’ll have to answer to the law there.
Or contact “Telia” in Denmark.
They have his name and number.
Tim, are you thinking Mr.Mir could be an Isralite
I wrote the above immediately following the incident, following which there has been much more internet comment and discussion on the reliability of the official narrative. As usual there has been very little forensic or investigative information emanating from the French authorities. The principle is “Create the appalling incident, then ride the emotional wave, to get adopted measures that otherwise would have appeared draconian.”
To take up Intp1’s point again, there is nothing to reliably link the Kouachi brothers to the men seen on both the videos that were very conveniently circulated on the internet almost immediately after it. The first video taken it would appear from the top of the building looking down Allee Verte conveniently deleted all the police officers that were in it. Also the gun men are seen shooting down the road at 90 degree angle to the one they drive down, in which the police car is seen facing them.
What is shown of their very calm and targeted shooting (not from the hip but using the sight) points to army-type professional, not two men from the sticks who had little or no recent training. So the question as to whether these were in fact the Kouachi brothers as was immediately put out (how did the authorities know who they were when identification was impossible – oh yes the alleged identity card absent-mindedly left in the SECOND escape car – of course!!!!) still remains an open one.
Then the second point relates to the second film of Merabet where again there is nothing to prove that EITHER they are the same men as in the first video; or indeed are the Kouachi brothers themselves. Note the name of the gentleman who happens to have filmed the shooting. Nothing is stated but “Jordi Mir” would certainly appear to be a Jewish name. Only he manages to film the scene – rather convenient don’t you think?
The variations in the Citroen C3 from video to the car retrieved, particularly as it relates to wing mirrors and side lights that throws serious doubt as to whether they are the same vehicle.
Then we have the announcement of three terrorists by name, one of whom is later arrested in Rheims with a perfect unshakable alibi. BIG PROBLEM for the planners on this one. The “witness” has already reported three but only two are shown on video and the third named is innocent apparently. Conveniently Koulibally now crops up at the Jewish convenience store. Was this a balls up or a speedily inserted “plan B”? This absolutely reeks of patsie apro pos LHO doesn’t it?
Then the ridiculous chase and the inexplicable garage incident very reminiscent of the Tsarnev’s alleged movements. As the latter was a proved set-up, a replicated incident raises the chances this was too.
Then finally for now, even prior to the actual assault, it was put out on live TV (because I witnessed it) that the intention was to “neutralise” the hostage takers. Neutralise of course meaning to kill rather an arrest. This is wild west law enforcement besides being counter intuitive. It pre-judged the outcome. It made no allowance for peaceful submission. It ruled out discovery of important information on networks. It was designed to silence not reveal. In this regard it also aped Boston.
Yet no one questioned, no one complained. Indeed those that did, got arrested in a French crackdown in the orchestrated wave of national emotion. If this wasn’t all a set-up as leading American official have suggested, I’ll eat my hat!
“Shoot to kill” policy is always bad enough but implementing it before anyone has proved that the shooters and the Kouachi brothers were actually the same thing can only be explained by something much worse. What forensics have been produced since to prove the link or do we just have to take it as read?
Michael Norton
25 Jan, 2015 – 11:54 am that’s for someone else to tell us isn’t it? What do you think of the chances?
Tim, I think that after twenty eight months of obfuscation,
it is time Eric Maillaud
spilt some clean beans.
If Eric is no longer running the murder hunt, then we should be told if somebody else is now the head honcho
or has it all been quietened down to a slow, silent crawl.
One thing about top people getting suicided and and not leaving notes,
here I am thinking of the prosecutor
in The Argentine
and the top cop in Central France.
Now straight away it was indicated that the French top cop shot himself in the head, not leaving a suicide note, he was involved with the Charlie Hebdo murders
almost certainly entering the high point of his career.
The Argentine Prosecutor was about to go to court, possibly indicating high level implication or cover up in the Jewish bombing twenty years earlier.
Likewise, he did not leave a note.
Likewise he was entering the high point of his career.
Yet the first announcement was that the Argentine chap had offed himself,
now it is being said that it could have beeen murder.
So, two quite similar cases on different continents.
Will it soon be said that the apparent suicide of Commissioner Helric Fredou
might come to be seen as murder?
“In 1989, Richard O’Neill, then a US Navy cryptologist, wrote a paper for the US Naval War College, ‘Toward a methodology for perception management.’ In his book, Future Wars, Col. John Alexander, then a senior officer in the US Army’s Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), records that O’Neill’s paper for the first time outlined a strategy for “perception management” as part of information warfare (IW). O’Neill’s proposed strategy identified three categories of targets for IW: adversaries, so they believe they are vulnerable; potential partners, “so they perceive the cause [of war] as just”; and finally, civilian populations and the political leadership so they “perceive the cost as worth the effort.” A secret briefing based on O’Neill’s work “made its way to the top leadership” at DoD. “They acknowledged that O’Neill was right and told him to bury it.”
http://inquiringminds.cc/uk-911-truth-nafeez-ahmed-how-the-cia-made-google-tony-gosling
Ex-wife of shot Argentinian prosecutor seeks new postmortem and bullet tests
Intervention by judge adds to the murder drama that is darkening president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s last term in office
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/24/argentina-prosecutor-death-mystery
@TeamV.
You wrote: “The 42-second clip shows two masked gunmen – later revealed to be the Kouachi brothers – walking towards 42-year-old Mr Merabet as he lay on the ground injured.”
Ex-actly! This can-not be a co-incidence. Wee all now the importance of smbols for some… Middle eastern countries intelligence services: the viedo lengh matches TO THE SECOND the age of the alleged victim!!! And as a naught, 42 is just 2 (duality) over 40, the epit oh me of significance for die-hard con-spiracy theorysts.
An other question covered by a French-D notice (day) is to a certain weather the Monsieur Merabet seen on the video (blurrec image) is the same per son who was berried few days let her.
@”james”
Be brave. Could br werse. Think of all the people who are really I-rich. And since your a pilot kip you’re head in Zulu, li ke the camera Sa’ad whose usine at Chevaline.
Does this ring alarm bells for anyone?
https://www.facebook.com/541717019209114/photos/pb.541717019209114.-2207520000.1422193136./658110410903107/?type=3&theater
SM and EM bareback 2 get her! Zis is breaking news, has poor Jorgen you’sed two put hit.
Hits more like alarm balls, dont u fink.
1865 – U.S. President Abraham Lincoln is shot in Ford’s Theatre by John Wilkes Booth (died April 15th).
No significance. Just thought I’d pop it in.
No prizes for anyone spotting a tenuous link.
Butt full prize for naught in that Booth (was he related to the pharma ceuical con -panyt) gave Lincoln the. ‘Double tap’ just like the Chevaline kill hers
They were sent to make it be seen, it is an expensive proposition.
That’s what she said.
Sorry to lead you astray with the wrong date. This one more appropriate perhaps?
1865 – American Civil War: A day after his surrender to Union forces, Confederate General Robert E. Lee addresses his troops for the last time.
Stranger and stranger … Topic: mordechai “motti” mishani (hebrew: מרדכי – YouTube
Video for Mordechai Mishani,▶ 0:23▶ 0:23
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BDaSHl94E8
3 days ago – Uploaded by Funnypedia
Look today on new interesting topic – mordechai “motti” mishani (hebrew: מרדכי …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BDaSHl94E8
Once your off limits, they’re are no boundaries.
That is what he hand-sword.
And that was fourty YEARS ex-actly before the FRENCH law that severed religion and nation, the seed of all future probe them. In Ire-land (the country of wrath), they’re R many brew-her-his, not to mention Guineas, the own-hers of which played a roll, not at Little Big Horn, butt in the coarse of the I-rich revolution.
What are you guys on?
This was once a thread about the killings in the Alps….
Now there is talk of Ireland QUOTE “In Ire-land (the country of wrath)”.
This has become a bitter and hate filled place…..and is completely Off Topic.
It is time someone either made the posters keep on topic, OR let these people find another place to vent their twisted hatred.
Seriously boys and girls. Reform.
@Jon
@Mod
I think this thread needs a review.
Term “agent provocateur” springs to mind. I shall resist the temptation to bite as it must by now be clear to all. Good film on tonight that may be worth watching. Shadow Dancer http://www.radiotimes.com/film/cwjcs/shadow-dancer In fact there are several with useful allusions to the present cases. The Day of the Jackal – classic film. http://www.radiotimes.com/film/65qh/the-day-of-the-jackal. Or if you prefer American under-cover work to British or French there’s Safehouse. http://www.radiotimes.com/film/mpw54/safe-house. We sleuth-types are indeed spoilt for choice, some of whom are incredibly bad spellars allso arn’t they?
Oh and sorry I missed this one http://www.radiotimes.com/film/mjcv8/shoah–shoah-second-era to square the circle.
and ‘en passant’ I just wonder what happens when a buck stops with a Home Secretary? (For chess aficionados, it’s always a good move)