I did not believe the official story of Hasna Ait Buolacehn the moment I saw it. The official line was that she was a suicide bomber who blew herself up when the police stormed the apartment in St Denis where the alleged terrorist ringleader was hiding out. But that story seemed to me completely incompatible with the recordings on which she could plainly be heard screaming “He is not my boyfriend! He is not my boyfriend” immediately before the explosion. She sounded like a terrified woman trying to disassociate herself from the alleged terrorist. It was a strange battle cry for someone who believed themselves on the verge of paradise.
Then yesterday the truth emerged from forensics that she was indeed not a suicide bomber. None of the mainstream media appeared to find this in any way troubling. And just in case anybody did, the BBC (and I assume all the French and major international media) then immediately did an interview with an anonymous member of the French Police attacking squad, who stated that Hasna was:
“trying to say she was not linked to the terrorists, that she had nothing to do with them and wanted to surrender”.
But he said that due to prior intelligence, “we knew that she was trying to manipulate us”.
Unfortunately this would have been a very great deal more convincing had it been stated 48 hours earlier, rather than only after the original reports that she was a suicide bomber had been corrected on forensic examination. As it is, it looks very much like a post facto justification, a new story to cover the new facts.
Besides, it is very difficult indeed to see what prior intelligence could explain if someone was genuinely trying to surrender or not. There appears to be no information available to the public that gives the slightest indication that Hasna was an extreme Islamist; what public information there is paints the opposite picture. The best the media have been able to dredge up are quotes from friends saying “if she was, then she must have been drugged or brainwashed”. Google it yourself.
But even were she an extreme Islamist, that does not mean she was not attempting to surrender. All of which is a bit nugatory if she were then killed by an explosion triggered by the terrorists themselves. But the changing story about Hasna makes me less than confident that is what actually happened.
I have no difficulty with the principle that the police should shoot people who are shooting at them. I outraged many friends on the left for example by not joining in the criticism of the police for killing Mr Duggan. People who choose to carry guns in my view run a legitimate risk of being shot by the police, it is as simple as that. Jean Charles De Menezes was a totally different case and his murder by police completely unjustifiable. In Paris it appears plain that the police were in a situation of confrontation with armed suspects.
There are severe intelligence disadvantages to killing people with profound knowledge of terrorist organisations. It also cheats the justice system. Nevertheless I can conceive of situations where simply taking out by an explosion a terrorist cell might be justified. But only if you are quite certain of the situation. The case of Hasna is to me troublingly reminiscent of the case of Jean Charles De Menezes, in that it became obvious in the days after his death that everything the police and establishment had leaked to the media about him (leaping over barriers, running through the tunnels, heavy jacket, wires protruding) was a complete, utter and quite deliberate lie.
The media could help if they were in any way rational and dispassionate, or ever questioned an official narrative. It is an urgent and irrepressible question as to why the BBC journalist did not ask the French policeman “and why did you not say this 48 hours ago when you were content to allow the story to run that she was a suicide bomber?”
Similar media manipulation is at use here by the Guardian in telling us the police stormed a “terrorist apartment”. What is a “terrorist apartment”? Are the walls made of semtex? The intent of course is to assure us everybody inside was a terrorist. It is not just the Guardian. The phrase is all over the media. Again, google it.
I am worried in case Hollande’s Rambo impersonation is steamrollering justice. It may well be that Hasna was a dreadful and bloodthirsty terrorist. I do not know. It may well be she was killed by the terrorists not the police. All we know at the moment is she was in an apartment with people who allegedly were terrorists, and died in the “battle”. But I do not trust the changing stories of the authorities.
Heh. The nuance gets them every time. If only the world were trollish black/white with no shading. Ach, for a simpler world. 🙂
Ben “Bull-dyke” Outraged etc:
“Belgium on high alert.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/20/world/paris-attacks/”
____________________
As already pointed out, Ben, I reported on this at 11h51. Do keep up!
I will not be unreasonable enough to ask trolls to develop their subtle skills. I can’t condemn them to futility, but I can hope for their utility.
I was wondering where Lysias was and when he would clock in.
“From the early responses, methinks Craig has struck a nerve.”
I will forgive you the silly “methinks” if you tell us which nerve in particular you were thinking of. 🙂
Chump!
Ben “Bull-dyke” Outraged, etc:
Through scented clouds of nuance, darkly.
Zionist amateurs trying to hold back the tide of people who know what they’re doing, always fun to watch!
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/19/suspected-mastermind-of-paris-carnage-killed-in-saint-denis-police-raid/
Get over there, lil’ fella!
Mixing the metaphors, shaken but not stirred.
“Why would French politicians, as opposed to the security establishment, push a line that is bound to help the Front National?”
_____________________
You tell us, Transatlantic Friend.
Feel free to link to sources in German, French, Italian, Spanish and classical Sanskrit which you may have read “recently”.
“Bull-dyke”
“Mixing the metaphors, shaken but not stirred.”
Are you the olive or the pearl onion?
Well I’m not the scented cloud, darkly….
Nuance is only for those who think, now go have a drink.
RIP this thread – it’s a shame.
****************
Still on the first page and the Eminences and Old Trolls (spear-headed as so often by Mary and our two Transatlantic Friends) have taken over yet again with their ad hominems, insults and obsessions.
That after a polite and reasoned open set of responses from Resident Dissident and myself .
As I indicated on a prior thread, it is my opinion that the event in Paris, opened the doors to the security services, rounding up or dealing with dissident voices, across France and Belgium.
No one would question the narrative, of the security services after the event in Paris. The media, would portray it as “justifiable” in the wake of circumstances surrounding Friday night in Paris.
I can only say, I’m surprised that the DGSE, didn’t get wind of such an operation, especially in the aftermath of the Hebdo event.
I can only imagine how the Muslim communities in France and Belgium must feel, right now, as they wait for a knock on their doors from the security services, meanwhile, the rest of the population of those countries will (to a certain extent) look upon them, with anger, fear and distrust.
There have been many racist attacks across Europe in the past week, over the Paris event, one often wonders if there’s a ongoing agenda in Europe to demonise the Muslim community.
Look at what’s been going on in Belgium…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/brussels-put-on-high-alert-as-belgian-authorities-warn-attack-imminent
They are rolling out the full police state.
Further evidence of this, in this little corner of cyberspace, is the total troll attack on Craig, for daring to question the official narrative.
The trolls are ‘persons of interest’ and will eventually face justice.
When the West mobilizes it is quite the Juggernaut. They have plenty of revenue from citizens to design and mass produce the steam-rollers for crushing any perceived threat to the cheers of bystanders. They are unstoppable unless the people recognize their significant risks and power.
Are folks aware that France started bombing Syria back in September..?
http://www.dawn.com/news/1206400
I was roundly cudgelled on this forum last weekend for saying I was keeping an open mind regarding the official narrative of the Paris attacks. It seems to me, though, that throughout history one of the preferred methods rulers use to get the common people to go to war has been to deceive them. More often than not in a such way that outrage overcomes their normal and wholly understandable disinclination to go and fight people they have no quarrel with.
This is done by planting a bomb in the market place and blaming it on the people they want to attack. Or by an assassination. Or they invent blood-curdling atrocity stories, such as the ones about the Germans in World War I turning allied troops into glycerine, or binding Belgian priests to their own bell-clappers. Or as in the Gulf War, the ‘Iraqi babies and stolen incubators’ story.
History supplies numerous examples. In view of all that I have no doubt that if more people were sceptical of official narratives–especially ones that sent them to war–and less trusting of their leaders, there would have been a damn sight fewer wars in Mankind’s history. This applies especially to the mainstream media who seem largely innocent of these things. I heard the BBC referring to the stolen incubators story earlier this year even though the Washington PR firm Hill Knowlton won an industry award for their work and published a book about it.
KingOfWelshNoir, WW2 started with a false flag operation…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
… and Gleiwitz was against the background of a totally controlled German media, courtesy of Dr Goebbels.
Despite the barrage of propaganda against ‘foreigners’ (in this instance, Jews) they still needed a false flag to excuse the invasion of Poland, which kicked-off WW2.
Remember the Maine, Gulf of Tonkin, WTC to name a few. You can fool most of the people most of the time. Oh, but those are conspiracees and part of the past. Let’s move on.
EobG
“Look at what’s been going on in Belgium…
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/21/brussels-put-on-high-alert-as-belgian-authorities-warn-attack-imminent”
________________
I already reported on this at around 11h00 this morning. Have you only just got up? Do keep up!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Further evidence of this, in this little corner of cyberspace, is the total troll attack on Craig, for daring to question the official narrative.”
____________________
I doubt if Craig sees the couple of polite and reasoned comments by Resident Dissident, Kempe and myself as a “total troll attack”, otherwise he would probably have said so.
But thank you for your totally unnecessary and misplaced leap to his defence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The trolls are ‘persons of interest’”
________________
Oh, do try to be original for once in your life! 🙂
Craig was kind enough to say he appreciated the troll comments because you tend to make his point clearer through your confused and misdirected commentary.
Poor lonely Habbbakuk, frantically galloping around on his little circus pony trying to lassoo all the little dogies who won’t follow his lead in stereotyped chin-scratching. Straining, Oof! Puff! Grunt! to deploy his fancied interpersonal influence and reputation. Marching all alone in his sad little fifth column, hup-two-three-four.
Did Habba say something..? (for the eight zillionth time)
Oh, my pathetic trolls, you don’t even understand that what comes around goes around…
Craig’s comment – “I am just troubled that the Rambo atmosphere leads us to lose sight of the fact that every human life has value.”
—————
Terrorists don’t value other people’s lives, and those that are suicide bombers don’t even value their own.
In a situation of extreme danger to the security forces themselves (like storming the apartment where known terrorists/suicide bombers were holed up) it is understandable that, in the moment, they reacted as toughly as they did. Which one of these forces would know whether this unfortunate woman was a terrorist (trying to con them to their own death) or not. Where suicide bombers are known (and I stress the word known) to be operating, one cannot apply normal rules of engagement if one values one’s own life. The brave men who storm these buildings, and put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens, are not the cowardly secret police types of whom we have far too many, but commando style forces who are putting their own lives on the line for their fellow citizens.
If this woman was innocent and a horrible mistake has been made it is a great tragedy, but a tragedy that was caused by the actions of the terrorists.
Surely it is becoming farcical now with the Marseillaise being played before the start of every Premier League football match today.
End Tutorial. Hope some absorbed the method.
“KingOfWelshNoir, WW2 started with a false flag operation…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident
… and Gleiwitz was against the background of a totally controlled German media, courtesy of Dr Goebbels.
Despite the barrage of propaganda against ‘foreigners’ (in this instance, Jews) they still needed a false flag to excuse the invasion of Poland…”
______________________
I very much doubt whether the German decision to invade Poland and the success of that operation depended in the slightest on the success or otherwise of the Gleiwitz false flag incident. The question of “need” did not arise. Perhaps I should also point out that it would be difficult to find any element of the Fall Weiss to which serious historians give less importance.
At least we have not had Bunny La Roche (Anon1), Alcyone (Villager) or Jemand today. For that we must be thankful.
The Menezes case showed that the log kept for Cressida Dicks was changed twice, by unidentifiable persons.
These logs are kept as rearguard, to ensure the right actions are taken and be seen to have been taken.
How come graphologists could not identify someone’s hand writing and why were these changes to the log accepted when the logs writer, an inexperienced civil servant who never had kept a log, said’ that he did not agree with these changes and had no knowledge of them’?
Thats one malleable shoot to kill policy, no wonder Corbyn wants no crocks with it. Ms Dicks retired with a CBE for her ‘managed killing’ of an innocent Brazilian and the subsequent cover up.
I do not know what happened in St. Denis and shall reserve my view on it for now.
Pollard Butner shower self-sex (16h39)
Good to hear from you again so soon, how are you keeping?
I do like your new handle, it’s very…pithy. 🙂