Interview with Gerhard Wisnewski: Contradictory points in the Paris terror attacks. The role of the secret services.
Already earlier this year there were terror attacks in Paris and now again in November. So not without reason - the shocked and uncertain population asks the question: how is this possible? Are the police and intelligence agencies asleep or what is going on?
In the following interview, Gerhard Wisnewski, journalist and author pursues these ques-tions and other inconsistencies...
License: Creative Commons License: Attribution CC BY
19.12.2015 | www.kla.tv/7358
Already earlier this year there were terror attacks in Paris and now again in November. So not without reason - the shocked and uncertain population asks the question: how is this possible? Are the police and intelligence agencies asleep or what is going on? In the following interview, Gerhard Wisnewski, journalist and author pursues these ques-tions and other inconsistencies together with RT presenter Maria Janssen. Maria Janssen: Welcome, Mr Wisnewski? Gerhard Wisnewski: Hello, Mrs Janssen. M J: Tell us please what do you think, how could such an attack completely pass by the secret services again? G W: First of all it would be a huge scandal, if it really had happened like this. And such failure shouldn’t be rewarded by creating more jobs for the secret services and security agencies. Actually instead some "heads should roll". Secondly, I said, if this was the case - then, astonishingly it`s never the great unknowns who commit such attacks, lo and behold, it turned out that these people were already known by the security services, but they didn’t expect it. They had been observing them but lost track of them. This question should be cleared up: what is actually going on with the security services. M J: Why, are these only arrested after the attacks? G W: Right that’s the point. That’s a good question. Like I said: Some were known to the secret services. This is actually always the case, that it comes out afterwards, that assas-sins were already known by secret security beforehand. The same thing with the attacks on Charlie Hebdo in January which I wrote a book about: "The truth about the attack on Charlie Hebdo" Anyway, these are always the same patterns and whatever is going on with the security authorities should be investigated M J: Yes, and that leads me to the next question: All the suspects were immediately shot and killed. Wouldn’t it make more sense to question them? G W: Well, especially in the case of Charlie Hebdo it was very suspicious, that all assas-sins died - were so to say eliminated. It is in every case not only about a human life which was eliminated, maybe even legitimately, for instance acting in self-defence. But rather it's about destruction of evidence! Every one of these people, these assassins - these suspects - is a large reservoir of information. And this I can’t simply destroy, but have to make a huge effort to arrest these people alive in order to gain them as witnesses. M J: Uhm. Maybe you have heard about this: The French emergency physician, Patrick Pelloux, told the British newspaper "The Guardian" the following: “Directly after I heard about the attacks on Friday evening I rushed to the emergency ward. The emergency ser-vices in Paris had actually done a training exercise for a major terrorist attack just that same morning. We were well prepared." And that isn't the first time, either, that parallel to terror attacks or shortly beforehand anti-terrorism exercises had taken place. Is this a co-incidence? G W: No, absolutely not. Statistically speaking this can’t be a coincidence because of the same pattern in nearly all the major terror attacks in the last 10 to 15 years. From the 9/11, 2001 attack to the 7/7, 2005 attack up to the current attacks on November 13, 2015 they all showed the same pattern. By pure chance - anti-terrorism exercises took place, either shortly before or at the same time of the attacks, with exactly the same content as the ac-tual attack. This is then sold to the public as a real terror attack. Looking back to London in 2005 there is an original quote from a participant in this anti-terrorism exercise that leaked out. In this statement he described how closely this exercise fitted to the bombing attacks in London. He said: "We had been doing this practice exercise and suddenly at the very same places at the exact time, we had planned, bombs really exploded”. Just imagine that! M J: And another repetitive coincidence is that they again and again find the passports of the alleged assassins. Is this coincidence, too? G W: Well, apparently I have to study my passport and really have a closer look at it. These modern passports seem to be absolutely indestructible. Whether they were found on the street after 9/11 next to the collapsed towers or, in this case, fallen next to a suicide assassin who blew himself up, and they were still intact - well, no I'm sorry, but if tried to offer such a screenplay as a detective thriller to the same television producers which are presenting all of this to us as the truth, this screenplay would certainly be rejected as ri-diculous and trivial. M J: And do you think there is a strategy behind the fact that specifically now France has been attacked? G W: We always need to ask... the famous question after each crime: Cui bono? Who ac-tually benefits? And I can only say: Wow, France now can convince - showing a great game, globally. After the great US-show off after September 11, 2001 now France is trumping up. The light shows of French national colors on national symbols – in other countries like in Germany on the Brandenburg Arch. So it’s rising like a phoenix from the ashes. You have to know the background, that first of all, France is a country in crisis and second its President is a crisis President – the most unpopular President ever in French history – and so we do really need to ask: Who benefits from all this? And of course, one of very important product of these attacks: the French war against Syria can be continued and the entire population probably will unitedly support this. If these attacks were staged by intelligence agencies themselves – which is what it really looks like – then one can only “congratulate” them on this operation. M.J. And do we now have to expect attacks in Germany as well? What do you think? G.W. In Germany it is apparent that up to now they never went that far, but rather just to the verge of such an attack. That means that - as some people may remember suitcases being found on train platforms, a gas cylinder in a train – and always the police has been sort of lucky enough to spot it just in time or it didn’t work. We can be observe this in Germany, that for some reason, they are currently reluctant to commit such a huge attack here. I suppose, this goes hand in hand with the weak global role of Germany – it should possi-bly not be allowed to draw strength, no propaganda power from such attacks – but these are speculations. The observation is a fact though. M.J. In your opinion, what are the biggest inconsistencies in this whole investigation of these attacks in general? G.W. Well there is a whole range – as I said, I recently published this Charlie Hebdo book – there you find many examples. But also here in this new attack in France on November 13, 2015, for example concerning these two assassins who allegedly blew themselves up in front of the stadium – at the soccer stadium Stade de France – there the question arises: “What are they doing there in the first place?” and then they claim: “They wanted to go into the stadium but were turned away.” Aha, that means, a person wearing a belt rigged with explosives goes to the entrance of a stadium, the warden sees this explosive belt and says: You’re not allowed to enter here! Please move on! Or how should I imagine this? Of course the man should have been arrested immediately, right. So, once again this story does not work - from the start to the finish! M.J. Yes, and of course getting the explosives - how was it possible to smuggle through that much explosives unnoticed into the concert hall also? G.W. Yes, these are all the right questions. That actually should be obvious. You know, these days concerts usually have a security controlled entrance – I’m not sure whether it was like that in this case – but usually they do. Yes and then there was another case – which also appeared all over the media – a person, a certain Silvestre, who showed how his cell phone saved his life by fending off a splinter from his cheek. He held his cell phone there to call - and then showed the phone – the projectile - an explosion splinter - didn’t penetrate, but on the backside (of the cell phone) there was a sharp spike which should,theoretically, have really hit him straight into his cheek. You should have been able to see this in his face, but there was absolutely no mark, bruise or such things to be seen. Well, there are certainly more such things. They should all be examined much better. M.J. But what would be the best case scenario? What should the secret services do, to prevent such attacks in the future? G.W. Well, you know, I believe that the intelligence agencies don’t want to prevent such attacks at all. When you consider – as I have mentioned before - what power the country concerned can draw internationally from such an operation. Just consider how the USA attacked all kinds of countries afterwards, how France now justifies its war in Syria, how it goes on justifying with this its own anti-terror laws, how it justifies downright totalitarian security measures against its own population... I’m not quite sure - but the intelligence agencies – as you just mentioned them – are the beneficiaries of such attacks themselves, because afterwards they are rewarded with all kinds of jobs instead of setting an investigative commission on them to find out how it is possible that they fatally fail again and again. M.J. Yes, the secret service agencies have already announced, that even expending all possible effort and all their forces, they will probably not be able to prevent everything. What do you think of this statement? G.W. Yes, this is in a way a hint of plausibility and so practical and, from a human point of view, understandable at the first glance: “Yes of course, poor secret service agencies, they just don’t manage to foresee and prevent all the attacks of this horrible terror group.” But of course this should also already prepare us: “Watch out, also in the future one thing or another might slip through our fingers. You have to understand this.” M.J. Thank you very much, Mr. Wisnewski G.W. You’re very welcome, Mrs. Janssen. Good bye.