🚨 Today we asked something very simple about the filling up in Tempes: Pavlos Marinakis had declared that the "work" was done to lift the carriages and find people alive. Adonis Georgiadis said that voices and cries could be heard. Makarios Lazaridis said it was a matter of human lives. 📌 However, the official report states that the last trapped survivors had been freed by 00:20. When large cranes and a bulldozer started arriving around 04:00, the operation was now about retrieving bodies. ❓ So we asked: Were you uninformed about what had really happened or were you consciously lying that the cranes were going to retrieve living people? ❌ To this question, the government spokesman did not respond. 🎯 Instead of answering, he followed the classic tactic: He tried to divert the discussion, attacking the journalist who posed the question, talking again about "career" and "weaponizing" human pain. ❓ But who is really making a career out of this case? The journalist who asks what the relatives want to be asked or a government spokesman who is paid to defend the government's positions? 💬 We are neither paid based on whether the government does well nor do we have any interest in whether a government that defends what happened after the accident will communicate well. Another ⚠️ And most importantly: these questions are raised by the relatives themselves. How is it that the one who conveys the relatives' question is "weaponizing" their pain, while the one who represents a government that treats the relatives as opponents (according to their statement) appears to be the one who respects human pain? 🔴 Then he said something else. That then he "had no such authority." And immediately afterward claimed that later he simply "transfers the real data as they are." ❓ But if he had no authority and did not know what had happened on the ground, how did he know that the work was done to find people alive? ⚖️ Here there are two possibilities. Either they did not know what had really happened and yet they spoke publicly with certainty. Or they did know. One is a huge issue of criminal incompetence. The other is much worse. 🕯️ And we are talking about a case in which there are people mourning their children and relatives. 🔎 That’s why we insisted. We asked him again, now that there is an official report: Do you still insist that the specific work was done to find people alive? Do you still stand by what you said then? ❌ He did not answer there either. ⚽ And then the familiar refrain followed. The ball is in the stands. 🎭 The classic Machiavellian tactic: I do not answer today to what you are asking me. I load it onto a third party and preferably into an indefinite future, when perhaps I won’t even be here to bear the political cost of the answer. ⚖️ The "independent" Justice will decide. Somehow. Somewhere. Someday. 📍 In short: you ask him if he acknowledges that the government made inaccuracies about the filling up and if he still defends what he said then. And instead of answering, he tells you that Justice, somehow, somewhere, someday, will decide. (translated)
