Charlie Hebdo. The reliability of the Mir video and Al Qaeda connections, as of 14.1.2015.
Tim Veater.

Now, we have what appears to be a completely different account of where and how Ahmed Merabet, the French Gendarme, was shot and killed! Very significantly it is quite impossible, unless someone explains otherwise, to reconcile this latest version to the alleged video of the event by a resident in the block of flats opposite, a “Mr. Jordi Mir”.

These variations and changes to the story are not insignificant or hypothetical, but central to understanding what happened, and ultimately who or what is actually behind it.

In a Guardian article entitled “Charlie Hebdo attack: fallen policeman Ahmed Merabet buried in Bobigny” by Kim Willsher in Paris dated Tuesday 13 January 2015 16.10 GMT, he relates the circumstances of his death, presumably from reliable police sources, as follows:

“The officer was one of two police patrolling the street near the magazine offices on his bicycle on Wednesday morning. It was his patch, and he had patrolled it for eight years, but had recently passed his promotion exams after months of intense study. Wednesday was to have been his last day on bicycle duty, but as he and his colleague rode along Boulevard Richard-Lenoir in the 11th arrondissement, they were confronted by brothers Saïd and Chérif Kouachi fleeing the scene where they had already killed 11 people.”
“Merabet drew his weapon and fired at the gunmen’s car, but his police-issue pistol was no match for their Kalashnikovs, and he was shot and injured.”
“What followed next demonstrated the chilling determination of the attackers. Heading for their black Citröen C3 getaway car, the Kouachi brothers halted before calmly running back to where Merabet lay injured.”
““You want to kill us?” one of the hooded gunmen asked the injured officer “No, it’s fine, boss,” Merabet replied raising his arm over his head. The jihadi gunman slowed down for a fraction of a second then shot the officer in the head at point blank range before returning to the car.” End Quote.

Now please note some salient facts:

He was patrolling on his bike …. near the offices of Charlie Hebdo …. with a colleague …. THEY were confronted by the fleeing Kouachi brothers …. Merabet drew his weapon and fired at the car …. at THAT stage he was shot and injured …. after being hit the Kouachi brothers RETURN to their vehicle before again returning to deliver the fatal shot.

The reported conversation repeats the ‘second amended version’, as highlighted in my earlier article, despite a quite specific French rendering and translation given earlier, that gave the words “Are you going to kill me?” to the policeman NOT the killers.

So let us examine this account and compare it to the alleged real-time video of the event.

First the location opposite 62 Boulevard Richard-Lenoir is on the OPPOSITE side of the pedestrianised recreational “island”, with a one-way system operating on both sides, first south and then north via a transverse connecting road. In other words to get to the video location, the car must have taken a long detour. This cannot fit the description of “confronting the brothers fleeing the scene”. How can the location of car and officer be thus described even were it on the OTHER side of the island?

Second, the video does not support in any way the statement Merabet had drawn or fired his weapon. It is no where to be seen on the video. Surely if under fire, the last thing he would have done was have thrown it away? Why does he not attempt to take cover behind a vehicle? Who knows?

Third, where is the other officer to which the report refers? It is said they were both together but there is absolutely no sign of him on the video.

Fourth, leaving aside the troubling issue of the absence of serious armed forces arriving immediately, where are their bicycles? No sign of them on the video either. A damaged police bicycle located in what seems the same locality is here:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03156/paris-police-bicyc_3156748c.jpg

Fifth, the video gives no indication of a prior gun fight, the gunmen returning to the car, then back again. Rather it appears they have just stopped and go after the officer further up the road. Could this be explained by an earlier confrontation there, in which case how does one explain the relative positions of criminals and policeman? And how to explain absence of other officer, bikes and TWO police weapons NOT represented or fired? Where is the other officer whilst his partner is being shot?

Sixth, who was it who presumably shot and shattered the REAR window of the Citroen C3 when Merabet is shown to be well in front of the car and how many gunmen were there actually? On the day Parisien had the following headline plus a photograph that is difficult to locate precisely:

“A manhunt was launched to stop the THREE (my capitals) terrorists on the run after an attack against Charlie Hebdo on Wednesday morning that killed at least twelve dead.”

http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/en-direct-paris-fusillade-au-siege-de-charlie-hebdo-07-01-2015-4425881.php

Seventh, the change in reported conversation between the two is intriguing. Who in that situation is the more likely to ask “Are you going to kill me?” Why if logically Merabet said it, has someone changed the narrative? Is it to remove from the killer’s mouth the words “OK, Chief,” as earlier related, that sounds distinctly un-French and might point to a foreign national?

It should be noted that the shooters have been variously reported as “two or three”, yet only two have been identified by name. One witness has reported seeing three in the get-a-way car. Further it must be stated in their black garb and face masks, it is in fact impossible to firmly identify the men other than by voice, clothes, physique or distinctive features such as height and posture. Yet no one has questioned whether in fact the men in the said video are the same as those who shot and killed officer Merabet, or indeed appear in the video. Similarly photographs on the internet purporting to show the escape car being loaded onto a police lorry has different coloured wing mirrors.

See here: http://www.20minutes.fr/lyon/1513403-20150109-lyon-arretee-car-voiture-portait-immatriculation-celle-tueurs-charlie-hebdo

compared to this a still from the video:-

Others have argued this may be just a trick of the light and of reflection. The point needs to be settled definitively.

A rather strange photograph appeared in the press of two men in black clothes and face masks, apparently under arrest but appearing strangely relaxed with an informally dressed police official who has a coat labelled “Police Technical Scientific” and appears to be a camera man. Is it possible that these men, similar in size and dress to those in the video are indeed they, but apparently being treated in a very relaxed manner (for example their faces are still covered and their masks have not been removed nor are they being treated as is normal for potentially dangerous fugitives) The photograph tagged “An unidentified man is detained in Reims” can be viewed here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-attack-seven-arrested-as-french-police-continue-manhunt-for-two-suspected-gunme-n-9964137.html

It is just one more inexplicable aspect of this extraordinary event that has been pounced on particularly in France, Britain and Israel to support a very similar message and agenda.

The latest reports coming out of America, now suggest Al Qaeda in Yemen – “AQAP” – has accepted responsibility and that the operation has been in the planning stage for at least four years!

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/23/world/meast/anwar-al-awlaki-fast-facts/

Now the first thing we have to swallow is that despite all the surveillance poured into Yemen and adjacent Saudi Arabia and all other sources domestic and foreign, an attack four years in the planning of what must always have been an absolutely top potential target in France’s Capital City, had never been detected by any of the multiplicity of Western State security organisations, so that not even a proficient armed guard was provided outside the Charlie Hebdo offices? Nor that with all this time the attackers knew names of targets but not where they were located in the building. This is surely quite unbelievable.

Another extrordinary claim by American intelligence (for which read CIA, and we know how aligned It is with the whole Zionist Middle East destabilization programme now reaching its tentacles into European capitals) is that Anwar-al-Awlaki who was killed by American drone strike on the 30th September 2011 having survived an earlier one on the 6th May that year. In other words that the attack at Charlie Hebdo had been master-minded and planned by a man who had been dead for over three years!

Of course any research on Anwar al Awaki will reveal a very dubious character, closely linked to all the shady events and players of the 21st Century. Was he who American Intelligence portrayed him? Was he working for or against the CIA? As so often happens in these circumstances he was high bred, his father being Nasser al Awaki founder of Ibb University and former president of Sana University, served as Yemen’s minister of agriculture and fisheries. Here he makes an impassioned plea to President Obama over the death of his son and grandson and a unilateral denial that either were Al Qaeda affiliates or leaders.

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/6/7/exclusive_nasser_al_awlaki_to_obama

The fact that Anwar was an American citizen and effectively assassinated by the American state without trial or conviction (one of four, including his sixteen year old son) is of course a new and worrying low in the behaviour of that country that could well be mimicked by others including our own. All the omens point that way.

Anwar was not only American and lived there from birth to seven and from twenty to thirty-one, followed by a period in London before returning to the Yemen but the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that al-Awlaki preached to and interacted with three of the 9/11 alleged hijackers. Given what we now know about them and it, his provenance and probity is even more clouded. If the CIA was closely involved in the 9/11 event and alleged hi jackers, in association with foreign states as appears almost certain, any claims by them about Awaki are clouded by the same stain of intrigue and treason.

So now we have, from American sources, the Kouachi brothers linked to the same individual, despite the doubt over Awaki’s role and function and the passage of more than three years, having first being described as working independently of any network or outside influence.

Obama described Anwar al Awlaki as a dangerous terrorist with blood on his hands. His highly respected father flatly denies this, and points out that not a shred of evidence has ever been included in an indictment or tested in a court of law before he was assassinated by drone, whilst living quietly in a desert village. Not only so, but his sixteen year old son and American citizen, was similarly targeted and killed by drone apparently merely on the basis of association!

Does this not prove the pretty pass to which the United States principles of justice and due process have been reduced? If it is this connection on which the Western intelligence community is relying, we should be very very concerned and wary.

My, how the story develops and is embroidered by potentially one dubious line on top of another. If lies are being told, we need to challenge them. We need to pose the question, are the perpetrators and backers who we being told they are?

Meanwhile, “Je Suis Charlie” – a protest in support of free expression, appears to being used for precisely the opposite objective! CNN reports (see above) that Controversial French humorist and actor Dieudonne M’bala M’bala, better known as simply “Dieudonne”, was arrested in Paris, accused of publicly supporting terrorism, French media has reported.

“He posted on his Facebook page: “You should know tonight that as far as I am concerned I am Charlie Coulibaly” — an apparent reference to Amedy Coulibaly. Dieudonne’s Facebook post has been removed.

“Dieudonne has previously been fined several times in France for anti-”Semetic commentary. Last year, the French government said it wanted to ban his live performances. On Monday, Dieudonne issued a statement with his stance on the terror attacks.

“Since the beginning of last year, I have been treated as public enemy number one, when all I try to do is make people laugh, and laugh about death, because death laughs at us all, as Charlie knows now, unfortunately,” he wrote in a letter to the French interior minister.” End quote.

Another fifty four cases have been opened against people in France for allegedly expressing support for terrorism since the attacks, the Justice Ministry said Wednesday. Not you notice for “expressing free speech”.

“It’s unclear how many people are blamed for the 54 infractions, said ministry spokesman Pierre Rance. The investigations involve phone threats, cyber attacks, Facebook posts, and more.”

“Some people are in prison awaiting trial and others have already been convicted, Rance said. Some people have been released after being reminded of the law or give a notice of a court date.”

“Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira “considers that words or actions of a racist or anti-Semitic nature, or that cause hateful, violent, or discriminatory behaviour, or advocate terrorism, or target security forces must be fought and pursued with the utmost vigor,” Taubira’s office said in a statement. “Taubira “asked prosecutors to exercise extreme reactivity in the conduct of public action against the perpetrators of such crimes,” the statement said.” End quote.

Wherever you stand on the issue of “freedom of speech” versus “limitation to insult”, what we should be very clear about, and insist upon, from our political leaders is that the same rules apply, whether it centres on Christian, Jew, Muslim or any other religious, political or ethnic persuasion. What we cannot have is the right of one group to insult and inflame another, if the same standards, limits and protections are not afforded all. Into which trap France and western democracies in general, appear to be determined to fall. END.