Something is rotten in the state of Denmark
Posted by siad on February 24, 2008

On Saturday the 9th of February we received a letter from the Copenhagen Police, Investigation Department at Amager, signed by to persons unknown to us, Mr. Finn Chr. Christiansen, police solicitor, and John Amdisen, vice police inspector. In their letter they informed us that in pursuance of Section 749(2) of the Administration of Justice Act they had decided to stop the investigation of the attack on SIAD in the parking cellar in Wildersgade.
So much for the impressing words of the Minister of Justice stating that the police are still working on the case, and that they do not smile on this kind of attacks.
What makes us particularly angry is that a couple of smashed office windows at the Enhedslisten (political extreme left wing party) led to the establishment of a special investigation department which had to decide whether or not it was a politically motivated attack and to find the guilty, whereas the resent assault on SIAD with intent to kill is only being classified as brutal violence and not as an assault with intent to kill. Add to this that only one official burdened already with a pile of cases to solve was put on our case.
Actually, we had given the police good information about those behind the attack and about the person who had drawn us into an ambush. During the attack this person was absent for 5 minutes. Everything points to his guilt. We have made our own interrogations of the persons present at the event and almost everybody is telling the same thing unless the person strongly suspected.
In the meanwhile, a person called Tage from the police intelligence service (PET) told us that he had sent on our information to the Copenhagen police. It was not a kind of information which would have led directly to the detention of someone, but it contained some details which might have served as basis for further investigations. This information was never received by the investigator at the Amager police department! Very mysterious.
It ought to be found out what caused the mistake. Does PET not speak the truth or has someone at the Copenhagen police headquarters decided to let the information disappear?
- Also the conditions about the demonstration in Holland are very mysterious.
From the beginning the Dutch police had promised Anders Gravers their protection during the demonstration, recently held in Amsterdam in corporation with SIOE Holland, because the police had learned about the attack on Anders Gravers.
When Anders Gravers asked Tage from the Danish police what had happened to the information about the attack on SIAD, Tage began to talk about the demonstration in Holland reminding Anders and the other SIAD members to be careful in Amsterdam. Anders then told Tage that they had been granted protection by the Dutch police.
During the following conversation between Anders Gravers and the Dutch police the latter wanted to speak to PET about the attack and perhaps a need for further protection during the demonstration. The Dutch police got Tage’s telephone number.
On the day of the demonstration a place to meet with the Dutch police after the arrival of the SIAD members in Amsterdam had to be arranged.
However, when Anders Gravers contacted the Dutch police he learned that the protection had been annulled because the police had been told by PET that there would be no need for protection. Suddenly the police saw no major danger in Anders Graver’s participation in the demonstration in Amsterdam.
Protection was granted, however, but this was not owing to PET, only due to SIOE in Holland.
Below we shall mention all the mysterious events:
1) The police knew that the left wing gangs would try to stop the demonstration in Copenhagen but they did not inform the persons in charge of the arrangement. The police had even prepared a sector patrolling to prevent problems.
2) The silence of the press about the attacks and the assaults with intent to kill, and the lies and concealment of the events by Rizau focusing on detentions of some demonstrators wearing teeth protection, but not one word about assaults with intent to kill.
3) In spite of stab marks on clothes and safety vests, the case is not upgraded from brutal violence to assaults with intent to kill.
4) It is our opinion that the police will never confront the principal suspect with his insufficient explanations and information which are inconsistent with those of the rest of the group. Neither will he be asked about the cart to the parking house which he suddenly found.
5) The information that never reached the investigator but disappeared due to PET.
6) The Minister of Justice ensures in her answer to Søren Krarup (MP) that something is really being done about the case, but at the same time the case is dropped by the police.
All these items lead inevitably to some questions.
One thing can be said with certainly: Something in the system is rotten, either it lies with the police or PET, but there are some indications that both are involved.
Why do neither the police nor PET take a firm grip on our principal suspect? It rather seems as if he is being protected. Is he a PET man? We know that PET has agent provocateurs as seen in the terror case from Vollsmose.
If he is a PET man is he then their contact to the left wing gangs? In the affirmative is it then possible that PET wants to force us to silence, and that the attack of the left wing gangs was becoming to
their ends, i.e. they did not do anything to stop the gangs although they knew about what was going on.
Why does PET urge the Dutch police to drop the protection of Anders Gravers by telling them that his participation in the SIOE demonstration in Amsterdam would not cause any danger?
Why do the police classify the crime committed against the SIAD members as brutal violence and not as an assault with intent to kill? Is this in order to down grade the importance of the case and thus prevent it from being unravelled? Most normal people will probably see stab with knives in the stomach and hard blows with iron tubes in the head as assaults with intent to kill.
Why do the police only put one man on the case, even someone who is already buried in work? When Anders Gravers calls him a couple of months after the attack he tells Anders that he almost never works on the case anymore due to lack of time.
One thing is for sure: Every attack on SIAD makes us even more firm to stop the islamisation of Denmark. However, we shall of course take note of the fact that there is no support from the official Denmark, and we shall act accordingly.
Posted in Danmark, SIAD News | 4 Comments »




Consider what we have lost and what we have now become.
December 2007.































For a long time it has been said in islamic circles that the danes now have to learn to show muslims respect. That this mantra starts to spread is obvious when one looks at crime statistics where we see an increase in stabbing attacks on inoffensive danes and brutal knock-downs of people coincidentally walking by.
Mullah Krekar (left), expelled from Norway in 2005, but still staying in the country, has given unrestrained support to both Osama bin Laden and Iraq’s deceased al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.