Difference between revisions of "The Bombers Affair (Luxembourg)"

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(autosave)
 
(add images)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{event
 
{{event
 
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombers_Affair
 
|wikipedia=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombers_Affair
|start=
+
|image=Bomeleer.png
|end=
+
|start=30 May 1984
 +
|end=2 December 1985
 
|constitutes=false flag,psychological operation
 
|constitutes=false flag,psychological operation
|description=
+
|description=Luxembourg terrorist attacks by the local Gladio [[stay-behind network]]
 
}}
 
}}
The '''Bombers Affair''' ('''Bommeleeër affair''' in Luxembourgish) was a series of [[terrorist attacks]] that struck the [[Grand Duchy of Luxembourg]] between [[1984]] and [[1986]], very probably due done by the local [[stay-behind network]]. This case has been the subject of legal proceedings.
+
The '''Bombers Affair''' ('''Bommeleeër affair''' in Luxembourgish) was a series of [[terrorist attacks]] that struck the [[Grand Duchy of Luxembourg]] between [[1984]] and [[1986]], very probably due done by the local [[stay-behind network]]. This case has been the subject of many legal proceedings.
  
 
==The attacks==
 
==The attacks==
Line 16: Line 17:
 
There are still uncertainties regarding the participation of Luxembourg units in the mysterious "[[Oesling 84]]", a [[NATO]] exercise in the Belgian Ardennes region.
 
There are still uncertainties regarding the participation of Luxembourg units in the mysterious "[[Oesling 84]]", a [[NATO]] exercise in the Belgian Ardennes region.
  
Two weeks after the end of the maneuver, the war in Luxembourg became bitterly serious. On May 30, 1984, the "Bommeleeërs" detonated their first bomb on a Cegedel high-voltage pylon between Brouch and Beidweiler. In a series of articles in the Lëtzebuerger Journal, a high-ranking former officer in the Luxembourgian army revealed that the actions of the Bommeleeër and the scenario of the Oesling maneuver were similar “like peas in a pod” and that the army was therefore even forced to send out a notice that the actions of the Bommeleeër were real life activities and "no longer part of the exercise".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191218/http://www.revue.lu/dossier-bommeleeer/verbrechen-im-namen-des-staates/</ref>  
+
Two weeks after the end of the maneuver, on May 30, 1984, the "Bommeleeërs" detonated their first bomb on a Cegedel high-voltage pylon between Brouch and Beidweiler. In a series of articles in the Lëtzebuerger Journal, a high-ranking former officer in the Luxembourgian army revealed that the actions of the Bommeleeër and the scenario of the Oesling maneuver were similar “like peas in a pod” and that the army was therefore even forced to send out a notice that the actions of the Bommeleeër were real life activities and "no longer part of the exercise".<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191218/http://www.revue.lu/dossier-bommeleeer/verbrechen-im-namen-des-staates/</ref>  
  
 
Another explosive piece of information in the articles are the statements of a member of the [[Algemene Dienst Inlichting en Veiligheid|Belgian military intelligence service]]: “The Oesling maneuvers were stay-behind maneuvers. To deny that the Belgian or Luxembourg networks are involved is to deny evidence."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191218/http://www.revue.lu/dossier-bommeleeer/verbrechen-im-namen-des-staates/</ref>  
 
Another explosive piece of information in the articles are the statements of a member of the [[Algemene Dienst Inlichting en Veiligheid|Belgian military intelligence service]]: “The Oesling maneuvers were stay-behind maneuvers. To deny that the Belgian or Luxembourg networks are involved is to deny evidence."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191218/http://www.revue.lu/dossier-bommeleeer/verbrechen-im-namen-des-staates/</ref>  
Line 30: Line 31:
  
 
A witness had said in November 2005 that he had recognized "a person from public life" a few hours before an attack on the radar facility at Findel, in the neighborhood, but was then, as he reported to the security, of this being put under pressure, the name never to be said publicly. Even the Prime Minister [[Jean-Claude Juncker]] intervened and was told by the man the name, which he then passed on to the prosecutor, so that he could present the man's observations to the relevant investigating judge.
 
A witness had said in November 2005 that he had recognized "a person from public life" a few hours before an attack on the radar facility at Findel, in the neighborhood, but was then, as he reported to the security, of this being put under pressure, the name never to be said publicly. Even the Prime Minister [[Jean-Claude Juncker]] intervened and was told by the man the name, which he then passed on to the prosecutor, so that he could present the man's observations to the relevant investigating judge.
 
+
[[image:Jean Luxemburg.png|thumb|200px|left|Prince Jean of Luxembourg, brother of the Grand Duke]]
 
On 22 February 2006, the State Prosecutor's Office issued a statement referring to the witness' statements and stating in detail that Prince Jean (the so-called public figure) had been questioned and had an alibi (on a hunt in France ,to which he was invited, which was confirmed by others). A DNA sample was also taken, the result of which was negative. The conclusion of the statement was: The result of this is that the investigation carried out allows us to conclude that Prince Jean of Luxembourg was not implicated in the attacks on the explosive in one way or another.
 
On 22 February 2006, the State Prosecutor's Office issued a statement referring to the witness' statements and stating in detail that Prince Jean (the so-called public figure) had been questioned and had an alibi (on a hunt in France ,to which he was invited, which was confirmed by others). A DNA sample was also taken, the result of which was negative. The conclusion of the statement was: The result of this is that the investigation carried out allows us to conclude that Prince Jean of Luxembourg was not implicated in the attacks on the explosive in one way or another.
  
Line 67: Line 68:
 
*25 March 1986: Colonel Wagner – [[Belair, Luxembourg|Belair]], [[Luxembourg City]]
 
*25 March 1986: Colonel Wagner – [[Belair, Luxembourg|Belair]], [[Luxembourg City]]
 
<ref>https://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/chronologie-der-anschlaege-4f61b12ae4b0860580a9b74e</ref>
 
<ref>https://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/chronologie-der-anschlaege-4f61b12ae4b0860580a9b74e</ref>
 +
 +
 +
{{SMWDocs}}
 +
==References==
 +
{{reflist}}

Revision as of 12:21, 13 April 2021

Event.png The Bombers Affair (Luxembourg) (false flag,  psychological operation) Rdf-entity.pngRdf-icon.png
Bomeleer.png
Date30 May 1984 - 2 December 1985
DescriptionLuxembourg terrorist attacks by the local Gladio stay-behind network

The Bombers Affair (Bommeleeër affair in Luxembourgish) was a series of terrorist attacks that struck the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg between 1984 and 1986, very probably due done by the local stay-behind network. This case has been the subject of many legal proceedings.

The attacks

According to the offical story, the perpetrators carried out thefts of detonators and explosives from local quarries. The perpetrators used the stolen materials to blow up electricity pylons from the electricity company Cegedel.[1] Cegedel received multiple ransom letters. The company contacted the police and decided not to pay. Later, once the company had come to a conclusion and decided to pay the ransom, the perpetrators declined the transfer of money, stating that they knew of the Police interest surrounding the attacks. Cegedel's electricity pylons remained the target of later attacks. However, the perpetrators diversified the targets of their later attacks to include the Headquarters of the Gendarmerie and the Palace of Justice. A particularly significant incident happened during a meeting of the European Council on the Kirchberg plateau, the incident in question involved a small explosive device which was thrown out of the windows of a moving car. After two further attacks, one on the apartment of a Notary (Car Bomb) and the apartment of a retired commander of the Gendarmerie, the attacks ceased.

No-one was killed by the 18 attacks. The perpetrators also set up an explosive trap in a forest, which was discovered before it could be put to use, however it could have resulted in the death of many people. Furthermore, an engineer’s hand was severely injured when he picked up a flashlight which had been fitted with a detonator. A number of people were injured as a compromised electricity pylon fell upon a highway, which caused traffic to collide on the highway, however nobody was severely injured. It is understood that the perpetrators wanted to avoid human casualties, however in a number of incidents it was pure chance that no-one was injured.

NATO exercise

There are still uncertainties regarding the participation of Luxembourg units in the mysterious "Oesling 84", a NATO exercise in the Belgian Ardennes region.

Two weeks after the end of the maneuver, on May 30, 1984, the "Bommeleeërs" detonated their first bomb on a Cegedel high-voltage pylon between Brouch and Beidweiler. In a series of articles in the Lëtzebuerger Journal, a high-ranking former officer in the Luxembourgian army revealed that the actions of the Bommeleeër and the scenario of the Oesling maneuver were similar “like peas in a pod” and that the army was therefore even forced to send out a notice that the actions of the Bommeleeër were real life activities and "no longer part of the exercise".[2]

Another explosive piece of information in the articles are the statements of a member of the Belgian military intelligence service: “The Oesling maneuvers were stay-behind maneuvers. To deny that the Belgian or Luxembourg networks are involved is to deny evidence."[3]

Demands for a parliamentary commission of inquiry were made in November 1990. But the CSV-LSAP majority rejected it.

Investigation

Despite a special commission up to 30 men investigating the case, for years the police investigations did not come to any definitive conclusions of who would be behind it. They investigated in all possible directions: from people who did not pay their bills at Cegedel, through student circles (because the attacks were mostly over the weekend), and the inhabitants of certain places, to possible connections to the Waldbillig affair, but also to foreign terrorist organizations such as the RAF or the Belgian Cellules Communistes Combattantes[4].

The fact that there was a lack of resources for the police, and also that within a short time four investigating judges were concerned with the case, contributed to the fact that for almost 20 years no results could be communicated to the public.

At the beginning of the 2000s, the investigation intensified again. Between April 2005 and February 2006, RTL Radio and Television covered the events of the previous 20 years in special reports. In addition, old details were revealed to the public, in particular witness reports, some of whom stated they had not been taken seriously, or not contacted, as they wished to make a statement.

A witness had said in November 2005 that he had recognized "a person from public life" a few hours before an attack on the radar facility at Findel, in the neighborhood, but was then, as he reported to the security, of this being put under pressure, the name never to be said publicly. Even the Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker intervened and was told by the man the name, which he then passed on to the prosecutor, so that he could present the man's observations to the relevant investigating judge.

Prince Jean of Luxembourg, brother of the Grand Duke

On 22 February 2006, the State Prosecutor's Office issued a statement referring to the witness' statements and stating in detail that Prince Jean (the so-called public figure) had been questioned and had an alibi (on a hunt in France ,to which he was invited, which was confirmed by others). A DNA sample was also taken, the result of which was negative. The conclusion of the statement was: The result of this is that the investigation carried out allows us to conclude that Prince Jean of Luxembourg was not implicated in the attacks on the explosive in one way or another.

This statement caused controversy in the legal circles. In particular, lawyer Gaston Vogel called this a violation of the Principle of Equality of Citizens before the Penal Code.

2013 Investigation

In February 2013, two former members of the mobile gendarmerie brigade (BMG), an elite group of the Luxembourgian gendarmerie[5], were accused of having participated in the attacks. Ben Geiben, the former head of the mobile gendarmerie appeared at the trial[6]. The possible involvement of stay-behind networks in the name of a strategy of tension has been mentioned by the lawyers of these people[7].

The lawyers of the two gendarmes accused the investigators of wanting at all costs to find "a culprit" after 30 years of failed investigations.[8]

However, in April 2013, a former member of the Luxembourg State Intelligence Service (SREL), André Kemmer, confessed that the SREL "would have informed the government seven years ago of his thesis concerning the involvement of the stay-behind network". Gérard Reuter, former president of the Luxembourg Court of Auditors, confirmed on RTL that the SREL thesis which evoked the involvement of the stay-behind network, adding "that the series of attacks had been sponsored by the CIA" and confirming "the presence of Licio Gelli, member of the Gladio network, in the early 1980s in Luxembourg"[9].

Le Monde diplomatique of February 2016 writes that, during a specific parliamentary inquiry carried out in parallel with the trial of the attacks, it was revealed that the Luxembourg State Intelligence Service (SREL), “holds a recording dating from the beginning of the 2000s in which the head of government Jean-Claude Juncker discusses with the Grand Duke Henri the involvement of his younger brother, Prince Jean, in the attacks.[10]


Chronology of the attacks

[11]


Many thanks to our Patrons who cover ~2/3 of our hosting bill. Please join them if you can.


References

  1. http://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/chronologie-der-anschlaege-4f61b12ae4b0860580a9b74e
  2. https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191218/http://www.revue.lu/dossier-bommeleeer/verbrechen-im-namen-des-staates/
  3. https://web.archive.org/web/20140201191218/http://www.revue.lu/dossier-bommeleeer/verbrechen-im-namen-des-staates/
  4. https://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/bommeleeer-ermittlungen-abgeschlossen-und-doch-nicht-5e5409dcda2cc1784e356dd9
  5. http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lequotidien.lu%2Fbommeleer%2F45799.html
  6. Émile Krieps, a former resistance fighter and a career officer who became Minister of Defense in 1974, in 1978 asked "Ben Geiben to create the mobile brigade of the gendarmerie, of which the two defendants are former members. After he had left the BMG, Ben Geiben was tasked with writing a report aimed at improving the functioning of the gendarmerie. But the leader of the gendarmerie, Colonel Wagner, threw this famous report into the dustbin,so to speak. This would have greatly irritated Émile Krieps, who, after the 1984 elections, lost his post in the government. Ben Geiben left the gendarmerie the same year and sought a professional future in Belgium",Nwspaper article « Geiben s’identifiait aux attentats » Le Jeudi 05/15/2014
  7. http://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lemonde.fr%2Feurope%2Farticle%2F2013%2F07%2F10%2Fm-juncker-mis-en-difficulte-par-un-scandale-touchant-les-services-de-renseignement-du-grand-duche_3445454_3214.html
  8. https://www.rtbf.be/info/societe/detail_bommeleeer-l-affaire-luxembourgeoise-non-elucidee-apres-30-ans?id=8210614
  9. https://www.wort.lu/fr/luxembourg/bommeleeer-le-reseau-stay-behind-a-l-origine-des-attentats-5170ceffe4b064fdcdfaad80
  10. Susan Watkins, Le Parlement européen est-il une solution? dans Le Monde diplomatique de février 2016, p. 18-19, p. 19.
  11. https://www.wort.lu/de/lokales/chronologie-der-anschlaege-4f61b12ae4b0860580a9b74e