Interview With the Hostage Taken by the Mujahid of Liège

On Tuesday May 29 a convert to Islam named Benjamin Herman attacked two policewomen in the Belgian city of Liège, stabbing them from behind as they were monitoring parking meters. After they were incapacitated he took their guns and shot both of them dead, reportedly yelling “Allahu Akhbar!” during his attack. As a matter of interest, one of the murdered policewomen was named Soraya Belkacemi, which is a Turkish name, if I’m not mistaken.

Mr. Herman then killed a passerby in an attempted carjacking. After failing to make his escape by car, he ran into a nearby school and took a cleaning woman hostage. When he found out she was an observant Muslim, he spared her life. He eventually emerged from the building and was shot to death by police.

The perpetrator had been “known to police” for robbery, drug dealing, etc. He had been in prison, but was out on a one-day release when he committed the murders. The Belgian government has acknowledged that they are investigating the incident as a terrorist act.

The following video features part of an interview with the cleaning woman who was taken hostage by Benjamin Herman. Many thanks to Ava Lon for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

Below are excerpts from an article about the attack published by The Telegraph:

Belgium Shooting: ‘Radicalised’ Prisoner on Day Release Kills Two Female Police Officers in Liege

A suspected terrorist on day release from prison executed two female police officers with their own guns and shot dead a trainee teacher before he was killed in a shootout after taking two women hostage at a school in the centre of the Belgian city of Liege.

The bloody rampage on Tuesday morning, which left another four officers wounded, was captured on videos on social media, which showed the black clad man waving a pistol in each hand and shouting “Allahu Akbar” before he was gunned down by elite officers. Belgium’s federal prosecutors office has opened an terror investigation into the attack.

The “lone wolf” attacker, 36, was named locally as Benjamin Herman, who was well-known to police for a string of crimes including robbery, assault and drug-dealing and was from Rochefort, a city about an hour from Liege.

One officer was named in local media reports as Soraya Belkacemi, 45, a widowed mother of twins, who are now orphaned. The other was Lucile Garcia, 53, who was described by fellow officers as a “fantastic colleague” who had married her partner a month ago.

Herman was granted temporary release from prison on Monday night until Tuesday, despite a prison service assessment that judged him “ultra-violent” and that he was on a terror watchlist over suspicions he had become radicalised in 2017.

Such “family leave” is meant to help prisoners prepare for their eventual release, which would have been in 2020 in Herman’s case after he had served the sentence he began in 2013. He had been released for two days on 13 previous occasions.

Belgium’s federal prosecutors office has opened an terror investigation into the murders, which come after the country was accused of being a hotbed of extremism after the 2015 Paris attacks, which killed 130 people. and suicide bombings in Brussels in 2016 in which 32 died.

Here’s another article on the Liège attack from The Daily Mirror. And there’s a Wikipedia entry on it.

Video transcript:

00:00   Liège attack: “The modus operandi, in particular the attack on police officers, leads to a possible conclusion that it’s a terrorist attack”
When I closed the school door and I turned around,
00:04   “On his way the attacker yelled ‘Allahu Akhbar’ several times,” declared Belgian federal prosecutor.
I saw the gentleman in front of me.
00:08   When I looked at him , he said,
00:12   The federal prosecutor confirms that the suspect had been in contact with radicalized persons since 2016.
“Look at me,” I looked. And he said, “I’m going to ask you two questions.”
00:16   “What are you? Are you Muslim?” I said, “Yes”.
00:20   “Do you observe Ramadan?” I said, “Yes”. So he told me,
00:24   he told me, “I’m not going to do anything to you.”
“The acts have been qualified as terrorist assassinations,” specified the federal prosecutor.
00:28   “Listen, and I don’t hurt you.” I said, “All right.”
00:32   I said, “But listen to me: here you are in a school. You cannot come into schools.”
00:36   “The investigation will try to determine if the suspect acted alone,” added the Belgian federal prosecutor.
I said, “It’s not good, what you are doing.”
00:40   And I started crying. He said,
00:44   “No, you shouldn’t cry.” And after that he said,
00:48   “I am a Belgian man who converted to Islam.”
00:52   He said. I looked at him, and I said to him again
00:57   “If you want, we can leave together and you surrender.”
01:01   “It’s better that way; either you surrender or we will both be killed.”
01:05   He said, “No”. He said,
01:09   “They cannot shoot at us, because
01:13   you are with me,” — that I am a hostage.
01:17   So afterwards he told me to open the door, so I opened the door,
01:21   and he opened it a little and told me to tell the police to leave. I told the police to leave.
01:25   But they didn’t listen. So we closed the door.
01:29   And for the second time we opened the door again, and he threw out his ID.
01:33   and then the third time,
01:34   ISIS is claiming responsibility for the terrorist attack in Liège, which resulted in three deaths (propaganda agency).
01:38   then he got out, and I left, and then
01:42   there were rifles, and they killed him afterwards.

19 thoughts on “Interview With the Hostage Taken by the Mujahid of Liège

  1. We have millions of Muslims who applaud this convert as a “martyr”. The Muslims bend over in submission to the dark side. Our governments have the citizens just bent over as fodder for the multi-cult lie.

  2. Recently there has been information in the French media that the French government intends to release several “radicalized”, approximately 40 of them this year and next. 20 in this year and 20 in the next.

    Belgium has fallen so far in level that even an Islamic party has. The Netherlands is at a low level as well, but unlike an Islamic party they have had a pedophile party. They are two shameful countries that are bad examples. I am not against the Belgian people, but it is notorious that your country is a bad example to be followed. It’s all that patriots and conservatives have always wanted to avoid.

  3. There is some benefit to be derived by Muslim immigration, although it’s certainly not worthwhile in total.

    European philosophy is based on universal principles and values. You have a branch of law called “natural rights”, which assumes that principles such as the right to keep property, the right to speak, the right to not be arrested or imprisoned without a crime being proven, are universal. There principles are supposed to derive from the human condition and are supposed to precede even religious teachings.

    We now know that “universal” principles are very based on culture and genetics. The principles of freedom are not universal and do not preexist any body of teaching or culture.

    So, the Europeans, specifically the Belgians and Dutch, though not exclusively, run into trouble when they assume their body of laws and mores has any relevance for, say, Muslims. Whereas, almost all native Belgians would behave when provisionally released for a prison furlough, the Muslims, including the converts, have completely different standards of conduct. Unfortunately, as the need increases for justice to be flexible, it becomes more rigid. When the dichotomy comes up between respecting the formal “rights” of criminals versus the right of the citizen to be safe, the specific bureaucratic rules are followed every time.

    In any functional society, the person making the decision to release the ultra-violent offender on furlough would, at the least, be fired. In the US election between Dukakis and Bush in 1988, the Massachusetts prison furlough of murderer Willie Horton was a major campaign issue.

    However, in a society controlled by unaccountable bureaucracies, it’s simply business as usual to apply rules that are wildly inappropriate for the population you’re dealing with. In other words, the more Muslims, the more stress on the social fabric including the law and order assumptions of the culture. The more socialistic, and socialists love bureaucracies as sources of undeserved, unearned power, the more the lives of the citizens are controlled by outside, arbitrary authorities.

    • You state this above, almost as a theorem:

      “We now know that “universal” principles are very b[i]ased on culture and genetics. The principles of freedom are not universal and do not preexist any body of teaching or culture.”

      I don’t know how one could study this hypothesis. It is fascinating. One would have to raise feral humans in a culturally neutral way and then follow them for years on an island or some isolated region, all the while keeping them alive by feeding them and giving them some basic health care.

      Why would we think it would not be natural to be free? This is saying conversely that some people are destined to rule and that survival of our species benefits from this.

      This latter hypothesis is easy to study and has been proved “iffy” at least and more often wrong on hundreds of occasions.

      • I understand where you’re coming from, and while I have a natural sympathy for your ideas, keep this in mind.

        The assertion that there is a “natural law” depends upon either genetics, in which case it is hard-wired, or on logic, which of course depends on the premises.

        It was easy and seemed obvious that Europeans, talking to Europeans, decided there was a universal set of values and wishes. For example, who would think that murder was the right thing to do, that stealing was virtuous, that men would prefer to be told what to do, rather than to live by their own decisions?

        Now, I myself value these principles, but I don’t think they’re baked into the DNA of every living human. In fact, there are masses of humans for whom these principles have no meaning, and it is pure insanity to import these humans as voting members of our society.

        Laws should be a codification of the common values of a society, culture or people, but claiming those values existed prior to the society is standing on very thin ice.

        Unfortunately, social study is not nearly as precise as mathematics. However, when you see two opposite tendencies appearing in different human societies, it seems justified to state that one or the other of those tendencies are not a universal feature. In other words, the obverse (negative) of a general statement can be proven by displaying a counter example.

        “All dogs have four legs”
        “I have a dog with 3 legs”
        General conclusion: the first statement is not true.

        When you say “not all humans value freedom” it does not follow as a conclusion that every grouping of humans needs to have a dictator.

    • “We now know that “universal” principles are very based on culture and genetics. The principles of freedom are not universal and do not preexist any body of teaching or culture.”

      Agree. And I think it’s on this very point that Stefan Molyneux went astray with his attempt to create an objective ethical standard based on what he calls “Universally Preferable Behavior”.

      • I’m a great admirer of Molyneux. I have not heard of his “Universally Preferable Behavior” but it’s significant that he’s a huge proponent of the scientific basis for biodiversity and the effect of the genes on all aspects of the human (and other animals) behavior.\

        Molyneux makes the very sensible point that if different racial groupings have different distributions of intelligence, skills, and personality traits, racial disparities can be explained completely without bringing in “discrimination”. And gender disparities as well.

        Molyneux, though a libertarian, does not fall into the libertarian trap of advocating open borders. Open borders advocates say if government assistance and welfare is discontinued, those immigrants without the ability to exist in our country will just self-deport when they begin to starve.

        I think it would be stupid of me to comment on a principle of his that I know nothing about. I will simply repeat my statement that once you consider true “diversity”, universal values do not exist. The best we can do is maintain a relatively homogeneous society where everyone around assumes a common basis of behavior.

        • I’m right there with Molyneux on most things, including race realism and biodiversity. It’s just that your comment on universal values made me think of his position on ethics. He relies heavily on an odd concept of universally preferred behavior. He wrote a book about it.

      • I think it depends on whether you look on the principles of freedom as meaning within a social context (freedoms in society) or an individual context (freedom of will of a person) . Though the two overlap where an individual is in society, by evolutionary theory at least, some proto plankton ancestor was exercising its freedom outside of society long before its descendants decided on, or conditioned themselves into, a society.

        So I have to say that the principles, meaning the origins and not the subjective social priorities of any group of people, of freedom originated before teaching or culture.

        Even by Ronald’s view, it could be argued that the essence of survival through certain standards of cooperation was only achievable by the freedom of its predecessors to attempt different routes of behaviour to achieve survival.

        That does not detract from what the freedoms in our society mean, it is just a different way of looking at it – if those freedoms are worth their salt they will produce a society that is willing and able to defend them, if not then they will have failed as a concept.

        That is one reason freedom of speach and communication is so important, it is part of what enables society the ability to defend itself and its other freedoms .

  4. “The principles of freedom are not universal and do not preexist any body of teaching or culture.”

    I would argue that the principle of freedom pre-exists both, unless you are focusing on principle as meaning a cultural or learned reality, a dogma.

    Freedom is free will, unconditioned thought and action that exists in nature from its origin, becoming gradually trained by evolutionary success and morphing into a social reality of custom and behaviour, both pre-learned by transmission ( e.g. the display of birds to one another is not emulated but naturally transmitted) or learned by emulation of parents and surrounding society.

    That teaching and culture will then try to purposefully define what freedom is and control its meaning, is maybe distorted, because it assumes control over individual will, which is a misguided, arrogant, and oppressive direction to take.

    Freedom is :

    In reality you are able to do or say exactly as you please, whenever you please.

    That is quite beyond most people to grasp, is very daunting, they prefer the cage of society and routine, the comfort of familiarity. So society is a compromise of understanding – you are free to raise a weapon to achieve an end, just as the other, or others on his behalf, is/are free to end your existence in reply.

    When this state of natural justice, this understood balance of meaning, is tampered with, say by authority, then society becomes corrupt and the meaning of justice distorted. Society in turn may lose its own base definnition, or moral.

    Those who manage this corruption into reality should not forget – they are surrounded by millions of people who are essentially free, and quite capable of dealing justice as they see fit by their own hand, and at their own cost.

    • “I would argue that the principle of freedom pre-exists both, unless you are focusing on principle as meaning a cultural or learned reality, a dogma.”

      Well, I respectfully disagree with you.

      The principle of freedom has a meaning a society of northern Europeans, where cooperation and conformity was selected for because of the harsh environmental conditions requiring group support and cooperation.

      The principle of freedom, such as it is, has a different meaning to a people from Africa, developing in a tropical environment, limited only by the limits of food and disease, not having to solve environmental threats. And still another meaning to desert tribesmen, completely dependent on their status in the tribe to give them protection and resources.

      And if we value the northern European values, or some variant of them, we’d do very well to exclude peoples whose ancestry developed under completely different circumstances.

      Libertarians and classical free-marketers miss an important factor: the overwhelming power of group interest and identity groups. By allowing in Mexicans, Lebanese, Muslims of all stripes, we are not simply allowing in a mass of individuals who will complete as economic units of value. We are allowing in people who will act as a gang. There is no evidence except speculation that the free market will provide a remedy for this.

      Our best guarantee of individual liberties is a constitutional, representative government, but this can be overwhelmed by special interest groups and especially by identity groups. Why are dictatorships so functional in Muslim countries? Because the individual values of the people (Islam) compel them to support abrogation of the freedoms we consider necessary for a free and prosperous society. A dictatorship, which has its own problems, is a solution to the problem that the individual values of the people do not correspond to a functional country.

      • Well I think we are talking definitions here more than anything.

        Freedom as a social norm where certain values of respect are understood to be already part of the fabric of society.


        Freedom in absolute terms, where any individual is understood to be able and allowed to act in any way but for rules of law designed to protect society.

        The second kind of freedom is original and hypothetically at least ever present, the first one though is a sense of escaping from, or not having, fear of harmful actions of others in a society, hence the ability to go about life without self restriction based on that fear.


      • “The principle of freedom has a meaning a society of northern Europeans, where cooperation and conformity was selected for because of the harsh environmental conditions requiring group support and cooperation.”

        If it has, it is a very recent universal principle. All of Europe (including the north) was feudal for more than a 1000 years. Freedom was limited to those with wealth, power and status. Tribal affiliations and religion were a more important glue that held societies together.

  5. Anon, I think you are correct here. To say one doesn’t have the natural right of freedom is the same as saying that certain people or deities or spirits serve mankind better as rulers and deserve to run mankind’s lives.

    • It is simply unavoidable that people are ever capable of acting, saying, and thinking freely. It is not even a right, it is an individuals choice or reality , and only his own.

      Though we are conditioned by nature, society and learning, that does not remove the freedom that is our own, and no one else’s. You might cage a man, removing certain freedoms in terms of ability, or you might condition a person and he might be freely persuaded as to the necessity of that culture and the value it holds as part of the society of which he is content within, but in both cases they will fully hold their own perspective and choice, may choose to take other points of view and act on them. Even a caged man may completely readjust his view of the world as he sits there waiting, either in favour or against his captors, or to something completely different even.

      Though there is no denying that people are quite masterful at manipulating one another, that levels of acceptance of that are common and seem to indicate concensus, personally I would label that more often as compromise or deception. In fact I think it becomes extremely dangerous the moment one person believes he has outright control of another without accepting there is always a minimum of complicity necessary by the other, because the only way to seemingly achieve that is to imprison them or kill them, the first is limited and temporary, and the second is no control at all.

      Basically people often become quite insane when it comes to realising their own existence and condition, control over others, even destructive control, gives them a false sense of achievement or superioration of their own dilemna. They will then dress their actions with any number of reasons as justification.

      Such is life, but I am quite the happier with simpler creatures as most animals only act aggressively for very clear reasons (which people should be able to also, some societies however try to teach that individual defence is wrong, and for some very unsound reasons ) and otherwise leave each other alone…. only people seem to go beserk over one ideology or other… go figure.

  6. What is amusing about Belgium is that the Flemish and the Walloons barely get along. Yet the Belgians in their infinite Progressive brilliance have decided that more diversity (by adding deranged Muslims to the mix) is a good thing.

  7. This woman is a a believer in the genocidal teachings of Mohammad. She was, by her own admission, not a ‘Muslim in name only’. She is a human cancer cell on the body of Europe. If her country were conquered by victorious Muslim terror she would be a Quisling without doubt.

Comments are closed.