All the post-event theatrics and political grand standing we have come to expect!
Despite the fact that 'ISIS' as a terrorist organisation has been defeated and irradicated, according to western government sources, it still appears to have individuals dedicated and inspired by it, to carry out quite irrational violent acts. At least that is what we are told by those in charge of the response at the latest incident in Strasbourg.
I have already published an article on the subject here: http://veaterecosan.blogspot.com/2018/12/strasbourg-shooting-so-strasbourg.html yet I feel I have not done it justice, nor perhaps made my arguments clear enough as to why I believe, whatever the the true circumstances were, the official story about what happened cannot be true.
Questions not asked and answers not given.
? How was the alleged shooter - Cherif Chekatt - identified so quickly to enable his photo and details to be circulated within minutes or hours, particularly in contrast to usual criminal investigation?
? How was it possible that details not only of the incident but also the claimed perpetrator appeared first in the Israeli press?
? Why did the official description of Chekatt contrast so radically from those that knew him intimately?
? If Chekatt was the murderer, what prompted him to take the action he did? Official explanations conflict. Was it from personal motives or at the behest of Islamic State?
? If from personal motives, why the extraordinary timing, with political and deep state resonances?
? Given the fact that Strasbourg was already on a high state of alert, how was it possible for Chekatt to cover the distance he did without effective challenge by either police or army personnel?
? Once identified and located, how was he possible to escape in a taxi without even being followed by mobile police units?
? If as is claimed he was armed only with an old six-chamber revolver and a knife, was he able to fatally injure five people, some with 'multiple shots' and seriously injure eleven more?
? Just in one street, the firing was described as at least twelve shots including a 'burst'. How can this be possibly reconciled with a six-shooter?
? Being an antique pistol using unusual ammunition, how did he obtain sufficient for a shooting spree, where and how did he carry them and how did he keep re-loading when presumably carrying a knife in the other hand?
? Where were the precise locations of those fatally or otherwise injured - sixteen in total - as this has not been revealed?
? Why despite belated deaths, increasing the number killed from two to five (three of whom were previously classified as injured) the final number of injured always remained the same at eleven?
? Several of the dead were shot in the head, some with a 'double tap'. What are the implications of this unpublicised fact?
? Why when the details of four of the deceased were made public in detail was information relating to a fifth kept secret other than stating he was a 61 year old retired banker?
? How many bullet shells were recovered from where and do they match the alleged fire arm?
? How can the alleged visit to Chekatt's house that very morning be explained and why do opposing versions of it exist? Was he there or wasn't he?
? If he was at home as some reports suggest, why wasn't he arrested and why was the cache of arms and other incriminating evidence not discovered at that stage?
? The police report he was being sought for attempted murder in connection with an alleged robbery. Why have no precise details been published to back up that claim?
? Is the story relating to his escape in a taxi and the taxi driver's description of it, credible? Isn't one of the first things a shooter does is to get rid of his weapons after an attack?
? Why if this was a planned terrorist event did it not include a less obvious means of escape and what terrorist would give away information to a stranger without killing him also?
? Two days after the shooting (13th.Dec) at about 9.00 pm (when it was quite dark) a 'special ground unit' of three policemen following up a tip-off from a woman, saw him walking down the road in the area where the taxi had allegedly dropped him off. Why had he made no attempt to keep off the streets or even make a run for it?
? We are told that over 800 personnel were searching for him but he was located by a special group of three on the off-chance! How realistic is this account and doesn't it sound more like a pre-planned 'hit' or assassination?
? We are also told there was a "gunfight" (The Telegraph) and that he shot at police but how can this be possibly reconciled with other reports that his revolver was recovered full of bullets and unfired?
? Where is the post-mortem report of the injuries he sustained and why has the team of three officers remained anonymous and un-interviewed?
? Why despite the city being on a state of alert, was there no CCTV footage of the actual events as per normal with these things?
? Why do some reports refer to 'gunMEN'?
As always this cannot be put down to misunderstanding or innocent incompetence, because if a simple observer of accounts, very much second hand and at a distance, can spot the problems, those in charge of the investigation and in possession of all the facts, must be aware them. This results in a much more sinister conclusion that yet again there has been positive deceit and misrepresentation by these very same authorities.
Lies in any part of the official story renders all of it unreliable and must suggest something far more worrying - the organisation by state or other sub-contracted agencies to plan and execute the 'terrorist' event. Even if the blamed individual was indeed in some way involved, it is physically impossible that he at least acted alone as has been stated. If this was a fabricated event, it is not impossible that Cherif Chekatt was merely the fall guy chosen to take the blame and to be killed merely to protect the true culprits. This in the lexicon of such conspiracies is referred to as a 'Patsy'.
Chekatt's actual role and actions are therefore central and paramount. Various options are possible. They range from him being in the vicinity of the attacks but not involved in them; through some minor role at the behest of secret agencies; to full blown terrorist shooting designed to murder. But we can certainly assert, if other parts of the officially approved story are true, that he cannot have done what he has been said to have done. The contradictions are so obvious as to make the official story ridiculous and therefore intentionally misleading and unreliable.
The first merely suspicious element was the speed with which he was positively identified as the shooter and the fact that it appears he made no attempt to either conceal his identity or have a plan of escape. How were the police not only able to state with certainty who this assailant was but be able to have his portrait and details circulated to media outlets literally within minutes of the attack being made public?
True criminals and terrorists have anonymity and aversion to capture deeply embedded in their training and make-up. This in contrast was an amateur affair that might be explained in some personal way but not as the work of an inculcated and trained ISIS operative. In this connection the story of his conversation with the taxi driver whilst making his escape is fanciful. What professional terrorist would not arrange an undetectable means of escape let alone tell his driver where he was heading and that he kept weapons, including a grenade there?
Then this has to be cross referenced with the fact that very morning the police had been at his address - the same address - looking for him, for the very serious crime of attempted murder as part of a robbery. This element of the official story is also suspect because there are directly contradictory elements to it. One says he was not at home and could not be arrested because of it. Another that he was at home but not arrested. Which is the accurate one?
Indeed does the claim of attempted murder even stand up when no specific details of it have been given?
We are further told that a grenade, a rifle and many knives were retrieved which rather too neatly accords with the taxi driver's alleged account. But if it was at his known address that morning, why were the items not located then. Or if at a different address, where? Important holes in an official story always lead to suspicions of intrigue and falsification.
The ISIS link is clearly important. It is said he was radicalised whilst in prison and was already on an official watch list. Yet again we have an official description of a desperate criminal that jars with other descriptions from those that knew him. Of course people can lead two separate lives but we must also be very aware of the possibility that if he was framed, a created bad reputation is an essential element whether true or not.
So the story of his link to ISIS seems to have been built with time. From the criminal record with progressively more serious crimes; to reports that he shouted 'Allahu akbar' as he carried out the attacks; to ISIS itself claiming he carried it out at their behest; to finally revealing that a self made video has now been discovered in which he makes a claim of allegiance.
If true these elements would be convincing, but they also raise obvious questions. First it is formulaic and questionable, almost as if it is an obligatory theatrical device. Can the reports be believed or were they fabricated? Even if the shout was heard, how can it be linked to Chekatt rather than someone else?
The route Chekatt was supposed to have taken is quite extensive with multiple shooting episodes as he went. He is said to have engaged both soldiers and police in gun fire but he appears to be relative unmolested or prevented from proceeding to his taxi exit, despite the area already being subject to heavy security involving both armed soldiers and police. He is said to be shot in the arm but there is no mention by police or taxi driver that interferes with him carrying his weapons or getting in or out of the taxi.
Presumably once identified and engaged, efforts would have been made to follow him through the streets. And how about the taxi - no mention is made of following that. How did he so easily make his escape undetected. And if so distant how could they be so immediately sure it was the person they identified immediately?
We even have a story of soldiers taking over a first floor flat and firing into a building on the opposite side of the street. Was this also Chekatt and if so how long did all this take? Times differ. "About 8 pm or 7.50 pm?" How long would that route and activity actually take if it was Chekatt. A pre-organised event by a small contingent would have been a different matter.
The only weapons attached to Chekatt were a six chamber revolver and a knife. This is the most damning part of the evidence which incredulously seems not to have been challenged even once by media outlets. We are right back in Dealey Plaza arn't we?
I have previously quoted Austrian journalist Bruno Poussard on scene saying on Twitter, "there had been a dozen shots fired on his street in the city centre - one or two to begin with, then in bursts." A revolver could hardly be described as shooting in bursts. And how to account in just one location about a dozen shots. This would have obviously involved at least one full reload. And clearly he could not have held a knife at the same time - how did that work? A bit of stabbing, then a bit of re-loading, then a bit more up close and dangerous stabbing?
But he apparently did more shooting elsewhere. No doubt police made a point of accounting for all the bullets, their type and locations. Are we really to believe this was all done by just one man with an ancient revolver and a knife?
The fatally injured
Anupong Suebsamarn (45)
Peter Fritz tended Anupong Suebsamarn (45) and was widely quoted by the BBC. As luck would have it he also is a journalist for the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation based in Brussels.
Anupong Suebsamarn visitait Strasbourg avec son épouse. Document remis https://www.google.com/search?q=Anupong+Suebsamarn+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiaht_C1r3fAhXZVRUIHQ14BakQ7Al6BAgGEA0&biw=1280&bih=882#imgrc=m6vyyvp9TnzcYM:
This composite image has been widely circulated:
Body of Strasbourg shooting victim arrives in Thailand for funeral rites | Coconuts Bangkok https://www.google.com/search?q=Anupong+Suebsamarn+images&rlz=1C1ARAB_enGB463GB464&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiaht_C1r3fAhXZVRUIHQ14BakQ7Al6BAgGEA0&biw=1280&bih=882#imgrc=rJVFhbGVwH6Z-M:
From this immediate witness it is clear that the Thai victim was shot TWICE in the head. This suggests close range, targeted rather than stray bullet. Also potentially a profession 'two-tap' job? Why has this important fact not been reported anywhere else?
Peter Fritz : @
Radio and TV journalist, head of the ORF Brussels office,
ORF – The Austrian Broadcasting CorporationFrom TWITTER: https://twitter.com/hpfpeterfritz?lang=en
I stand next to a man with two headshots, we have set resuscitation after 45min. # Strasbourg
(My emphasis. Google translate)