Brandon Martinez — Non-Aligned Media Nov 27 2015
Much evidence has come to light that has punctured a litany of holes in the official narrative of the Friday the 13th terror attacks in Paris, which allegedly claimed the lives of 130 civilians.
Mainstream reportage surrounding the event has stimulated a number of intriguing questions about the nature of this operation and how it could have been planned, organized and executed without the knowledge of French and other Western intelligence agencies who, as we know, have constructed a vast and extreme surveillance apparatus over the past 15 years.
Shortly following the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January, the French regime implemented a despotic anti-terror bill that gave authorities virtually unlimited surveillance powers. Yet, despite this amplified power to spy on just about anybody, the French authorities “dropped the ball” once again, failing to stop a highly sophisticated, multi-faceted attack that would have required so much logistical expertise and know-how that it is palpably unfeasible such a plot could succeed without the help of insiders within the French state (and possibly other states).
Alleged Terrorists “Known to Authorities”
As has been the case with all of the staged ISIS attacks over the past year and a half – attacks that only started happening after the West launched its counterfeit “anti-ISIS” bombing campaign in August 2014 – many of the individuals accused of the newest wave of terror in Paris had been well-known to and were being monitored by authorities for years.
Samy Amimour, an alleged gunman at the Bataclan theatre, had been placed on a terror watch list in 2012 after attempting to travel to Yemen, as reported by the Guardian, the Telegraph, Yahoo News and other mainstream sources. The International Business Times, in its article “Paris attacks: Bataclan suicide bomber Samy Amimour previously charged with terror offences,” noted Amimour “had been placed under investigation in 2012 for terrorism conspiracy and under judicial supervision,” after which authorities sought his capture by issuing an international arrest warrant. He is said to have disappeared in 2013, joining the ISIS insurgency in Syria.
Amimour’s back-story mirrors that of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist patsies Cherif and Said Kouachi, both of whom had been tracked by French intelligence for nearly a decade after one of the brothers allegedly tried to join al-Qaeda militants in Iraq in 2005 and was convicted by a French court for it. Despite being on terror watch lists and the intelligence services trailing them for years, the Kouachi brothers managed to sneak in and out of France, travel to the Middle East to link up with militants, and then make their way back into France without being intercepted by authorities. Most conspicuously, surveillance was pulled off the brothers six months before the Hebdo attack, giving them a perfect window of opportunity to plan and organize the January assault on the satirical magazine’s offices. So either the stars just happened to line up for the Kouachis, or they were protected assets of French intelligence. I’ll leave it up to the reader to decide which is more likely.
Even the Telegraph feigned bewilderment about how French intelligence managed to overlook Amimour’s re-entry into France, writing: “The revelations [about Amimour being known to authorities for years] raise questions as to whether French police were aware Amimour had re-entered the country, and if so whether they had placed him under close supervision in the run up to Friday’s deadly attacks.”
There are also plenty of anomalies surrounding the alleged ringleader of the Paris attackers, Belgium-born Abdelhamid Abaaoud. A Telegraph update asked the prudent question, “How did Europe’s ‘most wanted terrorist’ slip into France from Syria unnoticed?” “French and Belgian security services are facing difficult questions as to how one of Europe’s most wanted terrorists was able to slip back into the country from Syria and mastermind the Paris attacks from a flat in the city,” the report added, further questioning the “ease with which Abaaoud appears to have been able to travel unnoticed back through Europe.”
And that is the million-dollar question. How did a high-profile member of ISIS penetrate Europe without security services nabbing him upon entry? Especially in an Orwellian surveillance state like France where the government can track communications without a warrant.
Other questions about Abaaoud linger. Growing up in Brussels, Abaaoud had a history of petty crime and run-ins with the law, including several convictions. So he was known to police. We are told he traveled to Syria and joined ISIS some time in 2013. In February of 2014, he is said to have recruited his younger brother, only 13-years-old at the time, into ISIS. That incident made headlines in Belgium, and Abaaoud is said to have become “a household name in his native country” by this time. The Wall Street Journal reported that Western countries even tracked him while in Syria and sought to assassinate him in an airstrike.
Then, we are told, the now-infamous jihadi “slips back into” Belgium and plots an attack on a police station in the city of Verviers with two accomplices. In January 2015, the CBC tells us, “the ring is broken up in a raid that leads to the deaths of two of Abaaoud’s suspected accomplices.” But Abaaoud miraculously manages to escape and “then somehow made his way back to Syria.” That “somehow” is never explained. There is no possible way Abaaoud could have taken a regular flight in or out of the country, so how did he do it? In July 2015 Abaaoud is sentenced in absentia by a Belgian court to 20 years imprisonment for all of this chicanery.
In an article on the Vocativ website entitled, “Paris Attacks Mastermind Brags About Escaping ‘Crusader Intelligence’,” we learn that the now-deceased Abaaoud was heavily featured in ISIS propaganda, giving an extensive interview published in the February 2015 issue of ISIS’s “magazine” Dabiq, in which he boasts of coordinating previous unsuccessful attacks in Europe and of evading authorities. Vocativ reports that Abaaoud “detailed his attempted attack in the Belgian town of Verviers that resulted in the deaths of two militants in January” and bragged of escaping back to Syria after the failed operation “despite being chased by intelligence agencies.” Abaaoud specifically said: “My name and picture were all over the news yet I was able to stay in their homeland, plan operations against them, and leave safely when doing so became necessary.”
The farcicality of this storyline should already be apparent to the reader, but it gets even more ridiculous. “I was even stopped by an officer who contemplated me so as to compare me to the picture, but he let me go, as he did not see the resemblance!” Abaaoud proclaimed in the Dabiq interview, describing his “luck” as “a gift from Allah.” So Abaaoud, a “household name” in Belgium, was right within the clutches of the police, but a moronic Belgian cop somehow failed to recognize him with his picture in hand.
Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can deduce that Abaaoud is not simply “lucky”; he is not merely “blessed”; he is most likely a protected asset of NATO, which explains why he was able to slip in and out of Europe undetected like a poltergeist without being nabbed by authorities. And even when he was stopped by police, he was mysteriously let go – not due to incompetence, as the spooks would have us believe, but deliberate connivance.
Another one of the presumed Paris attackers, Ismael Omar Mostefai (a French citizen), was known to authorities as a potential danger. The Huffington Post, in its report titled “Turkey Says It Warned France Twice About Paris Attacker,” details how Turkey twice warned France about Mostefai, once in December 2014 and again in June 2015, saying that they came across him during a terror-related investigation on their own soil. “Turkey shared information on Mostefaï with France, but didn’t hear anything back – until after Friday’s events,” the report states.
French police identified Mostefai, allegedly, “by a fingerprint, pulled from a severed finger, found in the carnage of body parts in the concert hall.” This story harkens back to 9/11, where authorities claim to have found the DNA of the “hijackers” at the Pentagon and Shanksville crash sites, despite the nearly complete absence of plane debris at either scene. Authorities, needing to explain how they so quickly identify their patsies, usually resort to these farfetched claims about fingerprints and DNA recovery, obviously not concerned with how silly such claims sound to intelligent people. Why is nobody asking the question, how does a fingerprint prove that Mostefai was a shooter and not a victim at Bataclan? The fingerprint alone (if that claim is even true, it may be a lie for all we know) may prove he was there but not that he was a perpetrator. Other evidence is required to establish guilt in this respect, but it doesn’t seem to be forthcoming, as witnesses have yet to positively identify Mostefai as a shooter.
A CNN profile on Mostefai revealed that he “had been known to authorities as a possible threat” for some time, according to a French prosecutor. The prosecutor, Francois Molins, also disclosed that Mostefai “had an ‘S’ file on him for years, which means investigators believe he had been ‘radicalized’ in some way, though it was not clear whether he would act on his radicalization.”
It is not yet proven that he was even a legitimate member of ISIS or traveled to Syria to engage in combat with the group. The Daily Mail tells us that investigators “are now looking into claims that Mostefai spent several months in Syria in late 2013 and early 2014.” But, so far, no confirmation. The Mail article also says that “it is thought” he had been radicalized by a hate preacher at a mosque in the French city of Luce. Such speculation is not proof either. The Mail quotes officials at the mosque he was supposedly “radicalized” at who deny he even went there, telling reporters they “had no knowledge of Mostefai, and that neither he nor his family were members or attended.” They also told media that, “We expel people who do not respect our rules or behave strangely, and we report them to the authorities.”
All of Mostefai’s friends, family and neighbours were “stunned” that he would have participated in the attack and say he showed no signs of being radical. So there is so far no evidence that Mostefai physically joined ISIS in Syria, and the only proof he was a radical is an unsubstantiated claim by Jean-Pierre Gorges, the mayor of the French city of Chartres, who could easily be lying to implicate Mostefai.
It’s entirely plausible that Mostefai was a total patsy, framed and set-up by authorities, and had nothing to do with this attack. It’s also possible that he was involved in some way, likely as a dupe but possibly on his own volition. In any case, the “fingerprint from a severed finger” claim, as well as bare innuendo from a French politician that Mostefai was “radicalized” at a mosque whose leaders say he never attended, does not make for a very convincing case.
More anomalies deserve exploration. A story from the Associated Press titled “‘I have no explanation’: Key suspect in Paris theatre attack was questioned – then released by police” points out a severe oddity that has yet to be explained. The article states that “[h]ours after the synchronized attacks that terrorized Paris, French police questioned and released the suspect who is now the focus of an international manhunt.” The suspect in question, Salah Abdeslam, was said to be “one of three men in a getaway car, headed for France’s border with Belgium, when police pulled them over after daybreak Saturday.” The article continues:
“The French president had already announced new border controls to prevent the perpetrators from escaping. Hours had passed since investigators identified Abdelslam as the renter of a Volkswagen Polo that carried hostage-takers to the Paris theatre where almost three-quarters of the 129 victims were killed. It’s not clear why the local French police, known as gendarmes, didn’t take Abdeslam into custody. They checked his identification, but it’s not known whether they had been informed of his apparent connection to the attacks.”
When asked why police didn’t arrest Abdeslam, who, as noted above, had been named as a suspect hours before he was pulled over, a French police official said: “I have no explanation.”
Now the storyline emerging contends that Abdeslam “chickened out” of martyrdom and tossed his suicide vest in a dumpster on the outskirts of Paris. Sky News, in its article titled “Suspected Suicide Belt Found In Paris Dustbin,” writes:
“Abdeslam is suspected of playing at least a logistical role in the coordinated shooting and suicide bombings on 13 November and police say phone location data places him in Montrouge that evening. It comes as the 26-year-old fugitive’s brother Mohamed suggested Abdeslam may have decided not to go ahead with the attack at the last moment. Another theory suggested by police is that Abdeslam, if he was involved in the attacks, may have had a technical problem with his belt.”
Another plausible theory is that Abdeslam is an intelligence asset, which would explain why police failed to arrest him after being stopped, since he’s a protected agent whose job was to facilitate the Bataclan attack and then escape. It’s also likely that he has been double-crossed by his intelligence handlers who are now pretending he was actually an ISIS operative and not working for them. The story that Abdeslam discarded his suicide vest in a dumpster sounds ludicrous, one of those too good to be true Hollywood moments. It may well be made up by authorities. Why throw it in a public dumpster instead of someplace hidden? And how did police locate it so quickly? Did they go around rummaging through waste bins in the suburbs of Paris? What did they expect to find in random waste bins? Sounds contrived.
There is a slim chance that they’ll bring Abdeslam in alive. After all, dead men tell no tales.