ISIS men murder Priest in St. Etienne, Normandy, France.
Jean-Pierre Raffarin, a former conservative prime minister who now heads the Senate's foreign affairs committee tweeted: "Everything is being done to trigger a war of religions." Source: BBC
Church of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, Near Rouen, Normandy, France. Why this particular church and location?
Surely not for the twin vertical vents and tower pyramidal roof?
WIKIPEDIA HAS THIS ON THE EVENTS:
"On 26 July 2016, in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, Normandy, northern France, two Islamic State terrorists killed 85-year-old priest Jacques Hamel[1][2] (born 1930 in Darnétal[3]) of the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, during Mass. Two nuns and two churchgoers were taken hostage, in addition to the priest.[1] The attackers were shot and killed by Rouen's BRI police as they left the church.[4]
"At approximately 09:45 on 26 July 2016, a priest, two nuns and two churchgoers were taken hostage, by armed attackers, in the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, Normandy, France, during Mass.[4] Police were alerted after one of the nuns managed to escape from the church.[5]
"The nun told media that the attackers spoke Arabic and had a knife, they had forced the priest to kneel. When the priest was attacked the nun had run outside without the attackers noticing.[5] Police later said the priest's throat had been slit.[1] A hostage was critically injured, having had his throat slit,[6]while the other 3 hostages escaped largely unhurt.[1] At approximately 11:00, both attackers were shot dead by Rouen's BRI police as they left the church.[6][4]
"The Telegraph reported that the attackers had shouted "Daesh" before slitting the priest's throat.[7] Within hours of the attack, the IS-linked Amaq news agency, said that the attack was carried out by two "soldiers" from the group.[4] Police raided a house in the suburb after the attack, following which, prosecutors said one person was arrested.[4] The incident is being investigated by anti-terrorism judges.[1][4]"
"French news channel BFM TV reported that one of the attackers, Adel Kermiche, 19,[8] who lived in Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray, had twice in 2015 attempted to travel to Syria but had once been returned by Germany and once turned back by the authorities at the Turkish border and, as a result, spent time in a French jail and was released in March 2016.[6] Upon his release, he waselectronically tagged and a curfew was placed on him, requiring him to live at his parents' home, which was near the church, and to leave his house only between 08:30 to 12:30 and 14:00 to 18:00.[1]"
The Daily Mirror has published this image of Adel Kermiche here:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-priest-isis-killer-attack-8499196:
Reuters/Dawn (here: http://www.dawn.com/news/1273318) reports as follows "The IS news agency Amaq said two of its “soldiers” had carried out the attack."
"Amaq" it should be noted is a very dubious news agency source, only started in 2014, yet able to be the first to report the fall of Palmyra! It was also the channel through which ISIS claimed the Nice attack as its own. We are not party to the dark forces that are behind these channels as they are hardly transparent. There is a real possibility that they are set up as propaganda organs by the same people behind ISIS itself, arguably a secret operation between the CIA and Mossad with Saudi backing.
Another very dubious news outlet concentrating on Middle East and Jihadist affairs is "Site Intelligence Group" largely funded by organs of the American state. It channeled the ISIS claim also here:
https://news.siteintelgroup.com/Jihadist-News/is-amaq-reports-normandy-church-attack-carried-out-by-is-soldiers.html. It's worth checking out but I will reproduce the image below.
'Amaq News Agency of the Islamic State (IS) reported that the attack at the church of Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray in Normandy, France, was carried out by "two soldiers of the Islamic State".
I cannot read or translate Arabic and unfortunately neither can I copy the text into Google translate, but I am assuming this is copied by 'SITE' because it is the claim of responsibility. (No doubt someone will correct me if I am wrong) If I am right however an interesting fact emerges. Please note the date of the announcement - "25/7/2016" - that is ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL ATTACK!
'SITE' has this intro:
- Jihadist News
- Last Updated: July 26, 2016
Addendum 28.7.2016. A friend of mine, BEY HICHAM, fluent in Arabic, has now kindly done a literal translation as follows:
"Namely, a security source told the depths: outlet attack Normandy Church in France, two soldiers of the Islamic state carried out the operation in response to appeals by targeting the crusader alliance countries."
He also paraphrased it as follows: "ISIS We carried out the Attack on church."Yet they do not notice the obvious anomaly. If correct it means that intelligence undoubtedly had prior knowledge of the event, or that alternatively this was part of a fraudulent blunder by those that control 'Amaq'. Those familiar with these contrived events will remember a similar instance in the case of the Paris, Bataclan attack, when even the number of injured was correctly forecast two days before. Coincidence? (BT now has a helpful explanation for the latter here: http://home.bt.com/news/world-news/did-twitter-spambot-predict-the-paris-attacks-two-days-early-11364016926959)
Also via the Mirror this image claimed to be of shot assailant:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-priest-isis-killer-attack-8499196:
What is located at his unshod feet? Why was he not wearing trainers or shoes?
THE FOLLOWING WAS MY REACTION BEFORE, PERHAPS UNWISELY, I READ THE REPORTS
I am so sick of these orchestrated events, and the multiple lies and layers of deceit that accompany them, I can hardly bring myself to comment any more. But let me say this about this latest alleged outrage. The details conveyed b government may be true but equally they may not. That is the first sad fact proved by previous, so-called 'ISIS terrorist events'.
You will have to read my assessment of the factual evidence of the other events to see why I say this, and come to your own conclusion. I haven't dug deeply into the Rouen event but already there are familiar and worrying indicators of fraud and manipulation.
The first was the announcement that police warned people to stay away and more importantly not film or record anything they might see.
Why would they say that other than a fear that, as in other cases, it is the video that often contributes to an assessment of fraud? If the account put out was accurate, what would there be to fear in recording it?
Next we have the familiar story that the two claimed perpetrators were well known to police and intelligence services with Jihadist sympathies. How many times have we heard this before?
Apparently despite almost unlimited powers, in an extended French state of emergency, such persons are untrackable, uncontrollable? This affords said police and intelligence services the 'lone wolf' - or should that be the LAME wolf? - excuse, for not being able to anticipate or stop the attack.
Despite being 'lone wolves', ISIS quickly, and conveniently you might think, claim responsibility, and links - as in the recent Munich case - are SUBSEQUENTLY found to support the claim.
We might reasonably ask, if these individuals are so well known, including their movements to Syria, why are the home materials only discovered after the event? Surely they would have been visited at home previously, not to mention electronically monitored?
Then there is the theatrical nature of this attack. An elderly priest and nuns taken as hostages, the priests throat cut in front of them! What indeed could be more shocking in a place held sacred by a still predominantly Catholic French population?
Except I would ask, what was the purpose of taking them 'hostage' if not to negotiate something? Or alternatively if the intention was murder and carnage only, why take them hostage? In a hostage situation there is usually negotiation to free the hostages first to ensure they are safe. Where is there evidence of that?
In what circumstance would the two men leave the hostages to be shot, if they were their only guarantee of survival.
Ah you say, these were callous terrorists intent only on maximum murder and self-sacrifice. Why then would they spare the lives of the nuns? Or indeed only injure apparently the second man?
Were there no members of the congregation present? (Reports seem to suggest there were in fact two?) We are told another man was injured. So who was he and how does he fit into the picture?
Then we are told the alarm was raised by a nun who managed to escape. Does that also not sound contrived? How was that possible when there were so few of them?
Certainly a whole flotilla and variety of vehicles appears to be on scene within minutes and the whole thing is over with at least three dead persons in not many minutes more. The incident started at 9.45 and was done and dusted, so to speak by 11 am. That's not a hostage situation: more akin to a 'shoot-out'.
And we are told here ( ) that "French Interior Ministry spokesman Pierre-Henry Brandet told France Info radio that the perpetrators have been killed by France's BRI, an elite police anti-crime force, when they came out of the church."
It poses the obvious question how they were able to get to the scene in presumably half an hour say? Where did such a specialist group come from? Where are they based? Even if on permanent stand-by, it still takes time to notify, kit up and transport to a fairly remote destination doesn't it? Unless of course they were already pre-warned, pre-pared, and on station?
Special forces pictured on scene (Source: Mirror) http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-priest-isis-killer-attack-8499196:
I have just now read an account by the nun who escaped as reported by the Mirror (see above) as follows:
"Sister Danielle said she fled the parish church in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, near the northern city of Rouen, as one of the terrorists was slitting the priest's throat.
She then raised the alarm by stopping a passing motorist.
Describing the attack, the nun said: “Everyone was saying, ‘Just stop, you don’t understand what you are doing.' But it had no effect.
"They forced us to get on our knees and he [Father Hamel] wanted to defend us. That's when the violence started."
I certainly have no reason to doubt the veracity of her account but it certainly narrows the window of opportunity for the police to arrive doesn't it, because if accurate she only managed to escape AFTER Father Hamel was attacked. So if the attack started at 9.45 she could not have raised the alarm to a passing motorist until sometime after ten presumably, which then had to be conveyed to the police, who were still able to get a specialist armed group there to shoot dead the assailants before eleven. Wow!
There is also the small question of why they allowed her to escape, (it surely could not have escaped their notice?) or made no move to escape before the police arrived.
Another (hooded) boy is arrested.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-priest-isis-killer-attack-8499196:
Yet again the alleged perpetrators are shot dead, or as the preferred term is now - 'neutralised'. That policy was announced by the Minister of the Interior after Paris, so it is not accidental. Nor is it logical. Certainly if an individual, terrorist or otherwise, poses a threat to an armed officer, it is perfectly reasonable to use force, including firearms to stop him. But these two reportedly only had knives. Why would they need to be shot dead?
In any event to have such a policy in place can only be counter productive, as who would not want all the information members of a terrorist organisation could supply?
No it is clear that Government NEEDS these people dead for a reason that can only be suspicious and sinister.
We note how Sarcozy immediately endeavours to make some sort of political capital out of the event, directed at stigmatising all Muslims and refugees as potential miscreants, rather than holding to account those that again apparently failed to target the right people - if such they were - to prevent the attack.
The Financial Times (here https://next.ft.com/content/76e04cc8-5312-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60) reports him as saying in a televised address in early afternoon, “We must be merciless. Legal quibbles, precautions, excuses for an incomplete action are inadmissible.” I am sure we can all see where this is going!
Finally, I and others have shown clear and significant Israeli links to events in Munich, Nice, Brussels and Paris, with the same individuals primed and ready to provide initial video footage. This can only indicate damning foreknowledge, yet this most obvious incriminating association is never mentioned or considered worthy of investigation by the French authorities apparently. This alone should pose a huge red flag to all concerned citizens, over how these events are occurring and being portrayed.
I will refrain at this stage of providing alternative explanations for the events and the accounts of them.
AN UPDATE FROM 'LE FIGARO'
This update (Google translation -
http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2016/07/26/01016-20160726LIVWWW00086-prise-d-otage-en-cours-dans-une-eglise-de-saint-etienne-du-rouvray-pres-de-rouen.php) from the French newspaper, timed at 22.00 on the 26.7.2016 (i.e. the same day as incident) includes some
new and additional information. (It appears to be based on a videoed presentation by Francois Molins the French Prosecutor on the same day here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Pyhmuw_1Q) I have endeavoured to embolden them for ease of identification
as follows:
"What to know in 23 hours
The place of facts. Around 9:25, two men carrying knives arose in the church of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray. They took hostage six people, the priest, three nuns and a couple of parishioners. One of the sisters managed to escape and raise the alarm. The intervention brigade (BRI) and an anti-crime brigade arrived on the spot tried to open negotiations with terrorists. The police then attempted a foray, without success. Shortly thereafter, three hostages - both religious and a parishioner - are out of the church followed by two terrorists shouting "Allah Akbar", one of whom carried a handgun. The two attackers were killed by the BIS. According to the testimony of a nun managed to escape, the terrorists are "registered" at the time of the crime, one was "like a sermon around the altar in Arabic" before the assassination of priest . One dead and three wounded. A priest was killed during a hostage in his church of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, near Rouen. The murder of a priest in a terrorist attack is a first in France. Jacques Hamel, assistant parish priest, 86, was fatally wounded with a knife to the throat and chest, said Tuesday at a press conference the Paris prosecutor Francois Molins, the head of terrorism prosecutor seized of the investigation. Another old hostage, also 86, was seriously injured but his days are not in danger. Fake explosive devices. According to the prosecutor, one of the individuals had a "belly a fake explosive belt and three knives", and the other was holding a "kitchen timer surrounded by aluminum foil. "He also wore "a backpack with a fake explosive device." "
So to summarise the latest story-line from official government sources as reported by Le Figaro contains the new or changed factual details:
- The attack started twenty minutes prior to that originally stated (i.e. 09.25 rather than 09.45)
- Six hostages were taken, not five as previously stated
- In addition to the 'Intervention Brigade' (BRI) an 'anti-crime brigade' also arrived. (Note the report doesn't say when they were notified, what time they arrived, where they came from, or how they travelled to the scene)
- They tried to 'open negotiations' but it doesn't say how this was attempted and by what means.
- A 'foray'- meaning I presume an attack - was attempted without success but it gives no details what this was or why it failed.
- 'Shortly after' - it doesn't give a precise time - three 'hostages' walked out, in addition to the escaping nun earlier, meaning presumably the priest and one other were left inside. No information is given why if they were hostages, they were allowed to leave.
- Now 'three' are injured in addition to the murdered priest. No details are given as to who these are or what injuries were suffered, nor why of the six, two were spared any injury at all.
- In addition to the injury to the throat, it is now claimed the priest suffered wounds to the chest also although no reference was made to this by the witness nun.
- For the first time 'a handgun' is claimed to be carried. Previously it was just 'knives'.
- Now much more terrorist equipment is referred to, including, "a fake explosive belt, three knives, a back-pack with another fake explosive device, and a kitchen timer surrounded by tin-foil"! None of which, of course was referred to by the witness immediately after the attack.
Other possible related events elsewhere.
- Following the Nice terror attack on Bastile Day (14.7.2016) the French Justice Ministry required the city to destroy all CCTV footage! This incomprehensible request was refused and has now given rise to a criminal action by the city against the state, claiming an intention to pervert the course of justice. See: http://vladtepesblog.com/2016/07/21/nice-attack-when-justice-minister-demanded-the-mayor-destroy-24-hours-of-footage/
- Little publicised is the fact that on the 20th July, 2016 - less than a week before - three French soldiers lost their lives when there helicopter was shot down over Libya. They were on a dangerous and secretive 'intelligence' mission. See: https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2016/7/20/three-french-officers-killed-in-libyan-helicopter-crash
- At least 77 innocent civilians were killed, including many children, by American air-raids on the 18th and 19th July, 2016, described as "a mistake"! See: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/07/19/us-led-bombings-syria-kill-77-civilians-including-many-children
I ask only how much prominance has been given to these incident on British MSM? Or how the most recent shocking attack on a French peace might be useful in distracting attention from them?
Up-dated Stuff 28.7.2016
The source of the only video claimed to capture the moment the two terrorist were killed and published by the Mirror here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/french-priest-isis-killer-attack-8505666) comes originally from the French media firm 'Le Telegramme' and published here in its English version: http://www.letelegramme.fr/tag/attaque-dans-une-eglise This is a still from that page:
It reports Morning Mass was held from 9.00 am until 9.25 am, yet the attack was originally stated to be at 9.45 am later changed to 9.25 am. Was this change made to accommodate the service time?
It is worth comparing this image to the one above of a man laying prostrate, presumed deceased. This and the video referred all suggest all the action took place at the back door of the church.
It appears that the invasion so to speak must have started when it was over or nearing so and that attendance was so small that only those in the know entered through the back door. If as suggested by the police, they tried to enter but were frustrated by locked doors the question arises how the terrorists entered, or indeed how the nun left to raise the alarm?
The video purports to be at the end of the siege, so why only a single nun comes out immediately before the attackers? If as stated there were five in total plus the priest, there must have still been three left inside. There is the question why these desperate terrorists allowed this to happen?
The information provided by Prosecutor Molin if true, suggests that these individuals were equiped more as comedians than serious terrorists. A fake suicide vest? Fake guns in a back pack? A timer wrapped in silver paper? Really! Come on! At best these are 'pretend terrorists' and knife criminals that any self-respecting terrorist organisation would disown.
The video gives no evidence that the young men were challenged to surrender before being shot and no photographic evidence of the second attacker dead on the ground. Why is this when the area of the shooting must have been immediately outside the door shown?
It certainly took some time and a rather contrived story to finally identify the second man "from DNA" because his face was obliterated by the gunshot apparently. We have had this excuse previously almost as if it is a stock answer. In any event police are invariably trained to aim at the heart I thought. Head shots are only for assassins.
The Mirror reports "The two murderers - identified by French media as Adel Kermiche and Abdel Malik P, both 19 - were gunned down by officers in the street." Yet the photographic evidence does not support that dramatic claim showing only one and then definitely not "in the street" on a path immediately next to the rear of the church itself.
Then I have (as always) questions how the video, again from an upstairs location came to be taken and disseminated so quickly via le Telegramme? Was it in fact a Telegramme employee? The Mirror report says only that it was a "17-year-old, known only as Mathis." The video - the only one of the event apparently - lasts only 40 seconds, yet if we are to believe the reports it had been going on for about an hour and a half before the men were shot dead. So an obvious question poses itself, how come he only filmed the critical 40 seconds and nothing before or after, or was this part of the editing carried out by le Telegramme that produced and published it?
The snippet of video has him saying,
"Was that a gunshot? There's the army and everything.There is someone who is shouting 'Allahu Akbar' in the church. He has explosives, f***. For sure, there has to be people who have died."
So another obvious question is how would he have heard the stock words given to all these terrorists, whether they actually say it or not, 'Allahu Akbar', if they had been made inside the church? Another report has them saying it as they attempt to leave the building but why would they if they were not firing guns or such. The nun claims they took over the service with Arabic words including those above but this was at least an hour before and anyway could not have been heard outside from the distance of the camera.
Then again how could a young observer from that distance, with sight lines obstructed that either he had explosives, or people had died or even that it was a 'he'? This certainly suggests the words are contrived to add dramatic effect maybe at the time or after, or were scripted in advance, because events were scripted in advance.
http://www.express.co.uk/pictures/galleries/7103/France-terror-church-priest-knife-Jacques-Hamel-Normandy-killed-pictures/Church-of-the-Gambetta-in-Normandy-153363
Then the Mirror makes another statement that cannot possibly be accurate. It says and I quote: "Just minutes before their deaths, the killers had brutally slit the throat of Father Jacques Hamel, 85, after forcing him to kneel in the church." The reason it cannot be possibly true is because before the police were even alerted by the 'first escaping nun' she reported witnessing the Priest being made to kneel and having his throat cut. In other words this must have happened at the start of the siege, not minutes before they emerge, apparently behing a second nun and are immediately shot dead, if the accounts can be believed.
Clearly there is unreliability in one or other or all of the accounts of what actually happened.
Note: The police slew the two men despite the fact that the risk posed by them was marginal at the most. Also they did so without actually being in a position to confirm the nun's report for themselves. So they shot two young men on a premiss and an assumption that they had killed someone. There appears to have been no effort to warn, disarm or arrest them. Indeed the stated intention, in a country that has abandoned capital punishment, is summary execution without enquiring into facts or relative responsibility. How in any scheme of things can that, in Mr Hollande's words, be upholding the rule of law? Incidentally of course the President was born and brought up in nearby Rouen.
And yet again Israel is not far from the surface. The BBC quotes the President of Normandy's regional council, Herve Morin, as calling for France to learn lessons from the countries hardest hit by terrorism. "We need to Israelise our security," the former French defence minister told Le Figaro."
So yet again we see where this is going and actually answers the age old question cui bono? ('who benefits?)
