On 21 December 2016, two days after the alleged truck attack at a Christmas market in Berlin, the media began building up the “terrorist master Anis Amri”. To this day, the media were able to publish very detailed information about the alleged perpetrators. The channel CNN boasted that he had already received a 345-page Dossier on Amri and his friends from Germany. So the play Anis Amri was already finished. The author of the play does not want to reveal his identity. Since then, one act at a time, his Opus has been performed on the stages of parliamentary committees. The actors are politicians. Leading media accompany the spectacle with comments. A few days ago, there was a dramatic new act in this drama. Who the spectacle is for? And what does Anis Amri have to do with it at all?
Before dealing with the last act, it might make sense to recall some basic facts about the Berlin event.
According to the official representation of anyone supposed to have a 40-tonne semi-trailer at a frantic pace in the crowd at a Berlin Christmas market driven. In this way, the perpetrator should have deliberately killed eleven people and injured more than 50 people. The alleged perpetrator escaped immediately from the crime scene. He is said to have been shot three days later, at night, in a suburb of Milan, by two police officers. He is called Anis Amri, a young Tunisian.
Because the alleged perpetrator died, he could be charged and brought to court. The federal prosecutor's Office refers Amri on its website as the perpetrator, without his family or a lawyer could reprimand the claims of the authority. The comments of the authority are not a accusation, but a unilateral statement. Amri is therefore the innocent victim of a homicide. To describe him publicly as a murderer or Terrorist is a criminal offence as well as a violation of Articles 1, 2 and 13 of the German press code.
There is no court proceeding against the Suspects are being held, there was no public awareness of the circumstances commonly found in the criminal proceedings is performed. The statements made by the state authorities on the Berlin event are therefore considered to be state truths. The US government's claim to Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction is a well-known example of State truth.
The Bundestag as a control organ of the Executive branch would normally have had to the failure of a court in proceedings against the Suspect by a Committee of inquiry to replace. This has been done, but only partially. Because the committee is not interested in the investigation of the alleged offence or what Anis Amri is subject to and actually took place at Breitscheidplatz on the evening of 19 December 2016. The committee requires, without reservation, the state truth about Anis Amri and focuses on alleged government failure.
A lot of questions about the facts remained unanswered to this day. Here is just a small selection:
Did anyone see Anis Amri in Berlin or at Breitscheidplatz on 19 December 2016?
Could a 40-tonne and 16-metre-long Scania truck have ever travelled the 50-metre short route through the Christmas market at this frenzied speed, as is largely claimed?
Why did some witnesses claim that the truck had been ravaged by the Christmas market at a speed of between 60 and 80 kilometres per hour, while five journalists from the weekly newspaper reported on 5 April 2017 that the truck had stopped at a red light and then slipped into the Christmas market with only 15 kilometres per hour? After all, they referred to the data of the vehicle’S GPS device and not to subjective sensations. The truck is said to have slowed down its journey even further until it stopped after 50 meters. To date, no one has complained about the statements of these journalists.
Is the speed of a truck with a maximum of 15 kilometers per hour over a distance of 50 meters enough to kill eleven people and injure more than 50? Is there a precedent? What do accident studies say about the impact of a slow-moving vehicle on pedestrians?
Why do the investigation authorities not dare to indicate the exact and verifiable speed of the truck in the Christmas market?
Why don’t the investigation authorities dare to specify the exact time of incident?
Why do not the investigation authorities dare to determine from what direction the truck came from?
Why was it first claimed that the truck’s cab was found empty by the police, but later that the legitimate driver, Lukasz Urban, was found dead in the cab?
Why does an early picture and an early video recording of the crime scene show neither panic nor a lot of dead and injured?
Why came, none of the 15 stall operators to damage at the scene of the crime?
Why did a lady creep out of the rubble of a place completely unharmed?
The purpose of acting
As many significant questions remain unanswered, it is clear that the authorities are not interested in clarifying the facts of 19 December 2016. The refusal to answer the above questions cannot be explained by failure of the authorities. In order to conceal this refusal, the public is distracted by a spectacle about the “terrorist Anis Amri”, in which not only state officials, but also members of the Bundestag and other interested parties play. One would like to know who is the director and whether the director is in Germany or in the USA.
The last act of the act is a “explosive” statement by an anonymous chief detective from North Rhine-Westphalia, who only appears as" M.". On 14 November 2019, he is said to have accused the federal criminal office and the Ministry of the interior of the federal committee of the incredible devaluation of VP-01. According to M., This V-Man is supposed to have possessed significant information about Amri. All the leading media immediately turned to the side of anonymous and courageous Commissioner M.
On 14 November, the FAZ spoke of its ‘serious allegations’, without obtaining an opinion from the accused. The Süddeutsche Zeitung of 15 November described in Detail the statement of the anonymous police commissioner, while the Ministry of the interior in response were subjected to two words. Two journalists, who particularly promote the legend Anis Amri, are trying to celebrate Commissioner M. as a brave Scout. Florian Flade tells in the tagesschau.de from 15 November 2019: “witness M. in the spring of 2016, the Federal Minister of the Interior, Thomas de Maizière, and a senior BKA official, had urged a source of the land Criminal Police Office (LKA) to make ‘mundtot’ in the radical Islamist scene, of all the informants who had provided valuable information about Amri.”
Thomas Moser describes on 18. November 2019 heise.de the statement by M. similarly: “in the investigation committee of the Bundestag, a criminal officer from North Rhine-Westphalia reports on massive attempts by the federal criminal office and the Federal Ministry of the interior to extract a source from Amri.“The Anis Amri was surrounded by many V-people is long known. However, this has nothing to do with whether he actually managed or managed to control a frenzied truck into the Berlin crowd on 19 December 2016.
With the statement of Commissioner M., once again the Drama is introduced into the boring spectacle “Anis Amri and his friends”. The audience is now eagerly awaiting the defense of the Ministry of Interior and the federal criminal office. Because the people prefer such games sober facts, you can look forward to more acts of this drama.
But what is the meaning of this game? We know the method of petty criminals: two accomplices simulate a quarrel next to the Stand of a street dealer, drawing the dealer's attention, while the third accomplice is stealing the goods.
The diversion of Anis Amri is staged as a dispute between authorities. The highlight is what appears in the Text or in the Subtext, but not particularly noticeable, namely the assumption that Anis Amri was “the perpetrator” of an attack in Berlin. This state truth seems to have to be hammered over and over again into the minds of consumers so that they do not fall into conspiracy theories like those of a certain Davidson.
Similarities to attacks in England, France, India and the USA
The Bundestag is not the only instance that performs plays like the above. They are often performed by so-called democratic parliaments after terrorist attacks that stage their governments themselves. The best documented example of this is the play by the 9/11 Investigation Commission. Just like the committee of the Bundestag, the 9/11 Commission had to assume the state truth for its investigation, namely that the USA was attacked from abroad. The commission could not question this basic assumption. The official fairy tale by Ali Baba bin Laden and his 19 youngsters, who Austrian Air Force with small knives on September 11, 2001, is now part of the second volume of the stories of Baron Münchhausen. The commission only had to explain and explain the failure of the authorities.
Similarly, the official commission of inquiry into the London attacks of 7 July 2005 did not want to allow a parliamentary commission on this event by the then prime minister, Tony Blair. After the attacks in Mumbai in November 2008, the Indian federal government established a commission consisting of two politicians, R. Pradhan and V. Balachandran. These conducted their investigation behind closed doors. Your report largely refers to the role and failure of the police and neglects many critical aspects of the events. In France, a parliamentary commission was established to investigate the various attacks from 2012 to 2016. However, it was not allowed to investigate the facts, because this is the task of the investigation authorities. The commission held numerous meetings and heard dozens of government officials, but invited only a single, deranged eyewitness to testify.
The event in Berlin also bears witness to further similarities with other terrorist attacks. With almost all the “Islamist” attacks I know-except those that take place in competitive areas such as Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Libya or Yemen-the alleged perpetrators die without the presence of eyewitnesses under dubious circumstances. This is, among other things, the alleged perpetrators of the attacks of New York City and Washington D.C. on 11. In two known cases, Mumbai 2008 and Boston 2013, one of the alleged perpetrators survived after a failed execution by the police. Both were sentenced to death after a trial.
The death of the” perpetrators " freed the relevant authorities from their burden of proving their guilt in court. Thus, the state truth is not subjected to any public examination.
Instead, the state truth is proclaimed and unmasked by useful media. We are told that some of the suspects have killed themselves, but this is also a state truth that we cannot verify. Even if the police or special forces shoot suspects, they will not release the uneasy suspicion that they will be executed, so that they will not testify about their relations with secret services.
A third common denominator between Berlin and other “terrorist attacks” is the political exploitation of the event. After each attack, governments can once again take measures to further develop a police state: restrictions on the privacy of citizens by means of massive surveillance of all areas of life and a control of political attitudes. Other measures, which are also legitimized by “attacks”, are the militarization of the police, their preparation for urban struggles, extended powers to arrests and so on. Criminal law mutates into a moral justice system. Foreign operations are legitimised in the name of the “fight against international terrorism”. You defend “the safety of the inhabitants of the Federal Republic of Hindu Kush”.
The fiction of international terrorism is an excellent illustration of many anti-democratic and anti-international measures that the population would not support under normal circumstances. The fact that international terrorism is a fiction should now be regarded as a false truth, at least if you research it yourself. In Europe with more than 700 million inhabitants, an average of 44 people die each year in terrorist attacks, less than those struck by lightning! Anyone who believes that terrorism represents a serious threat to any country in the world, may apply to the BKA.
Hypothesis to Think about …
If the Berlin event had been a case of genuine Islamist terrorism, there would be no reason for the described secrecy. This would only be useful if the official presentation of the event were false and the Operation in Berlin had been a contract work of the German state. The darkening of the murders to Uwe Mundlos, Uwe Böhnhardt, Michèle Kiesewetter and Florian Heilig in the case of NSU, in which lawyers of the General Confederation, BKA bosses, police presidents, legal practitioners and politics participate.
The specter of global “Islamic terrorism” was built in the 90s as a strategic and stable replacement for the “Communist danger”, which has more than 40 years, the unity of the transatlantic Alliance, NATO, and the Power of the industrial military complex was. In order to ensure the fear of the new enemy, attacks that can be attributed to Islamists must be committed from time to time. Operation 9/11 officially launched the new enemy image of humanity. All States were required to combat the new enemy.
Germany was pushed by the USA or NATO for the Operation Breitscheidplatz, because no significant “Islamist attack” had taken place on German soil?
France, the United Kingdom, Spain and Denmark have already fulfilled their task of maintaining the fiction of international terrorism through successful attacks, but not Germany. Perhaps Mrs Merkel will tell us something about the background of the Berlin event in her retirement. Perhaps…
For the source see the original german post.