'Sydney Siege' aftermath: Australian government is investigating new 'security laws'

© Unknown

Serving no purpose besides giving the West increased justification for

executing total war against Syria and then Iran as it has desperately sought for

years, the latest "terror attack" in Australia unfolds amid a community with

infiltrated mosques filled with eager supporters of America's proxy war on Damascus.

Right on schedule, following a high profile terrorist attack, the government of Australia is now "investigating new security laws" and other methods that can be used to gut the civil liberties, privacy, and general way of life of Australian citizens. Only a day after the Sydney Siege, Australian "lawmakers," intelligence agencies, legal branches, and other government officials sprung into action in order to discuss the possibility of passing yet another law allowing the collection and housing of telecommunication and Internet data of Australian citizens.

On December 16, the Australian Parliament was hearing testimony by Federal Police Commissioner Andrew Colvin who "warned of 'grave implications' for terrorism investigations if telecommunications companies are not forced to keep phone and internet data."

"I could not understate enough that it would have grave implications for law enforcement's ability in this country to investigate, deter and disrupt potential terrorist acts," Colvin said. He also claimed that, as new Telecom Companies entered the market, there was less data being collected and what data was being collected is being held for shorter periods.

The inquiry comes as part of the Joint Intelligence and Security Committee's "debate" over a third round of oppressive laws regarding phone and computer data collection and retention.

Of course, since the inquiries conveniently have come on the heels of the Sydney Siege, lawmakers are now asking whether or not these measures could serve to prevent "lone wolf" attacks as well as coordinated acts of terrorism. A separate inquiry is being requested to determine if these laws could prevent events like the Sydney Siege which appears to be something vastly different from a lone wolf attack and instead more like a state-sponsored event.

The committee is also "set to examine the next package of proposed counterterrorism laws" in the very near future.

Some major players on the committee were anything but critics of the greater implementation of a police and surveillance state such as "Australia's Top Spy," ASIO Director General Duncan Lewis, the Australian Crime Commission, and the Attorney General's office.

After the passage of the first and second round of surveillance and anti-terrorism bills in Australia, the occurrence of the Sydney Siege will conveniently serve to eliminate much of the opposition to that legislation already passed as well as those bills currently being debated.

The first round of anti-terrorism legislation passed in Australia this year, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Bill No.1) 2014, passed with bi-partisan support. As Ben Grubb of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote in September 2014, the NSLA gave the Australian government even more extraordinary powers. He stated,

Australian spies will soon have the power to monitor the entire Australian internet with just one warrant, and journalists and whistleblowers will face up to 10 years' jail for disclosing classified information.

The government's first tranche of tougher anti-terrorism bills, which will beef up the powers of the domestic spy agency ASIO, passed the Senate by 44 votes to 12 on Thursday night with bipartisan support from Labor. [...]

Anyone - including journalists, whistleblowers and bloggers - who "recklessly" discloses "information ... [that] relates to a special intelligence operation" faces up to 10 years' jail .

Any operation can be declared "special" by an authorised ASIO officer. [...]

This also gives ASIO immunity for criminal and civil liability in certain circumstances. Many, including lawyers and academics, have said they fear the agency will abuse this power.

Those who identify ASIO agents could also face a decade in prison under the new bill, a tenfold increase on the existing maximum penalty.

The new bill also allows ASIO to seek just one warrant to access a limitless number of computers on a computer network when attempting to monitor a target, which lawyers, rights groups, academics and Australian media organisations have condemned.

They said this would effectively allow the entire internet to be monitored, as it is a "network of networks" and the bill does not specifically define what a computer network is.

ASIO will also be able to copy, delete, or modify the data held on any of the computers it has a warrant to monitor.

The bill also allows ASIO to disrupt target computers, and use innocent third-party computers not targeted in order to access a target computer.

That bill passed as did the second bill (aka the Foreign Fighters Bill) which was submitted shortly after the passage of the first. The second bill, according to the bill's own language, allowed for,

• create new offences for 'advocating terrorism' and for entering or remaining in a 'declared zone';


• broaden the criteria and streamline the process for the listing of terrorist organisations;


• extend instances in which a control order may be sought; extend the sunsetting provisions of the preventative detention order and control order regimes; and include a sunset clause for the 'declared zone' offence;


• provide certain law enforcement agencies with additional tools needed to investigate, arrest and prosecute those supporting foreign conflicts;

Now, as the third round of anti-terrorism laws are being "debated," (i.e. promoted), the Sydney Siege conveniently takes place putting the event firmly in the category as those across the world that preceded such as the OKC bombing, 9/11, the Underwear Bomber, 7/7, and other "terrorist attacks" that were conveniently timed to take place either shortly before bills designed to shred civil liberties were being discussed or were to serve as the stated cause of their writing. In truth, in virtually every case, such legislation was already written long beforehand.

Of course, the new surveillance laws would have done absolutely nothing to stop Monis' rampage. After all, Monis was on the radar of the police long before he engaged in the Sydney Siege. As David Marr writes for The ,

This will be used to justify so much: controversial security laws the Abbott government has already passed, the metadata retention law waiting in the wings and heaven knows what other laws may now be dreamed up in the aftermath of the shocking deaths in the Lindt cafe.

Dealing with Man Haron Monis never needed fancy new security laws. He has been on the radar of police - and probably Asio - since at least October 2009 when he turned up at a police station in Sydney's western suburbs trying to report a bogus terrorist attack. He was charged, instead, with writing menacing letters to the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

From that point until yesterday's terrible events, police and Asio had all the authority they needed to keep track of a man who revealed himself over the years to be really nasty and really crazy.

Old laws allowed police to bug his phones, intercept his emails and place him under surveillance. They didn't even need a warrant to access his metadata and track down everywhere Monis had been and everyone he was talking to year after year.

They didn't need fresh laws threatening journalists with 10 years' jail for revealing Asio's newfangled "special" operations. Look at the superb cooperation the press displayed during the siege: forgoing scoop after scoop to follow the police strategy of denying Monis the oxygen of publicity.

In the months ahead, with due acknowledgement for the skill they showed in the siege, a failure of policing will have to be faced. Despite having all the powers they needed at their disposal, and despite Monis's erratic behaviour over so many years, the Australian federal police, the NSW police and Asio weren't able to prevent him putting into effect his crazy plan.

Of course, it is likely that the police or ASIO did not stop Monis because ASIO and other related intelligence organizations wanted Monis to do exactly what he did. Please see my article "5 Reason To Question The Official Story of the 'Sydney Siege'" and Tony Cartalucci's article "The 'Shape-Shifting' Sheik and the 'Sydney Siege'" for further discussion on this issue in particular.

Whatever the true nature of Monis may be - legitimate mental patient, patsy, or tool of Western intelligence agencies - there is clearly much more to the story than what the mainstream press is printing and promoting.

Regardless, the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty is that the Sydney Siege will be used as propaganda to the utmost effect by all Western and NATO governments in the push for further war. It will also be used to justify an even greater police state at home in Australia.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Is 'isolated' Russia about to be bailed out by the world's largest economy China?

© Sasha Mordovets | Getty Images

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping toast during a signing ceremony on May 21, 2014, in Shanghai.

Earlier this evening China's State Administration of Foreign Exchange's (SAFE) Wang Yungui noted "the impact of the Russian Ruble depreciation was unclear yet, and, as Bloomberg reported, "SAFE is closely watching Ruble's depreciation and encouraging companies to hedge Ruble risks." His comments also echoed the ongoing FX reform agenda aimed at increasing Yuan flexibility which The then hinted in a story entitled "Russia may seek China help to deal with crisis," which which noted that Russia could fall back on its 150 billion yuan ($24 billion) currency swap agreement with China if the ruble continues to plunge, that was signed in October. Furthermore, two bankers close to the PBOC reportedly said the swap-line was meant to reduce the role of the US dollar if China and Russia need to help each other overcome a liquidity squeeze.

As Bloomberg reported, earlier in the evening, China's Wang Yungui noted

• *CHINA IS CLOSELY WATCHING RUBLE'S DEPRECIATION: SAFE'S WANG


• *CHINA ENCOURAGES COS. TO HEDGE RUBLE RISKS, SAFE'S WANG SAYS


• *REAL IMPACT OF RUBLE DEPRECIATION UNCLEAR YET, SAFE'S WANG SAYS

Adding that China plans sweeping reforms to promote FX flexibility.

And then The hints,

Russia could fall back on its 150 billion yuan (HK$189.8 billion) currency swap agreement with China if the rouble continues to plunge.

If the swap deal is activated for this purpose, it would mark the first time China is called upon to use its currency to bail out another currency in crisis. The deal was signed by the two central banks in October, when Premier Li Keqiang visited Russia.

"Russia badly needs liquidity support and the swap line could be an ideal tool," said Bank of Communications chief economist Lian Ping.

The swap allows the central banks to directly buy yuan and rouble in the two currencies, rather than via the US dollar.

Two bankers close to the People's Bank of China said it was meant to reduce the role of the US dollar if China and Russia need to help each other overcome a liquidity squeeze.

China has currency swap deals with more than 20 monetary authorities around the world. Swaps are generally used to settle trade.

"The yuan-rouble swap deal was not just a financial matter," said Wang Feng, chairman of Shanghai-based private equity group Yinshu Capital. "It has political implications as it is a sign of mutual trust."

The rouble has lost more than 50 per cent against the US dollar this year, pushing Russia to the brink of a currency crisis, though measures announced by the central bank helped it recover some ground yesterday.

Li Lifan, a researcher at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, said the swap would not be enough for Russia even if it is used in its entirety. "The PBOC might agree to extend something like 15 billion yuan initially as a way of showing China's commitment to Russia."

As we discussed in October when the swap deal was signed,

...as if to assure all involved parties that there will be enough capital support on both sides, the PBOC released a surprising announcement that the central banks of China and Russia signed a 3-year, 150 billion yuan bilateral local-currency swap deal today, according to a statement posted on PBOC website. Deal can be expanded if both parties agree, statement says. Deal aims to make bilateral trade and direct investment more convenient and promote economic development in 2 nations.

To be sure, some such as Bloomberg, are skeptical that the unprecedented pivot by Russia toward China as it shuns the west, will merely harm the Kremlin. Others, however, wonder: who will be left standing: Europe, with its chronic deficit of energy and reliance on Russia; or Russia, a country overflowing with natural resources, whose economy is currently underoing a dramatic and painful shift, as it scrambles to dissolve all linkages to the Petrodollar and face the Gas-O-Yuan?

Perhaps, they already started...

© Unknown

But then again - with the BRICS currencies all turmoiling... (ZAR -22% not shown)

© Unknown

Perhaps it is not such a surprise as members take advantage of The BRICS Bank's $100 Billion reserve...

The punchline, however, is that using bilateral swaps, the BRICS are effectively disintermediating themselves from a Fed and other "developed world" central-bank dominated world and will provide their own funding.

We are pleased to announce the signing of the Treaty for the establishment of the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA) with an initial size of US$ 100 billion. This arrangement will have a positive precautionary effect, help countries forestall short-term liquidity pressures, promote further BRICS cooperation, strengthen the global financial safety net and complement existing international arrangements....The Agreement is a framework for the provision of liquidity through currency swaps in response to actual or potential short-term balance of payments pressures.

Incidentally, the role of the dollar in such a world is, well, nil.

For those who have forgotten who the BRICS are, aside from a droll acronym by a former Goldman banker, here is a reminder of the countries that make up 3 billion in population.

© Unknown

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Authoritarian U.S. State allows impunity for torturers and police shootings

The international fallout from last week's long-delayed release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's 500-page executive summary of its still-classified 6,000 report on CIA torture could hardly be more intense, with calls coming from the United Nations, foreign governments and the human rights community for prosecutions of those who carried out or authorized the torture techniques described in the report, including senior officials from the Bush administration.

But judging from the self-assured comments of CIA and former administration officials, there is no real concern over the possibility of any criminal liability, a lack of accountability which has led to a palpable arrogance among those who would be behind bars if laws were actually enforced on an equal basis in the United States.

The above-the-law sense of entitlement was perhaps most clearly on display in former Vice President Dick Cheney's appearance this Sunday on "," stating that when it comes to using torture, "I'd do it again in a minute."

When presented with gruesome details from the Senate report on torture - for example the newly revealed "enhanced interrogation technique" of "rectal feeding," i.e., anal rape - and asked for his definition of what might constitute "torture" in a legal sense, Cheney retorted that torture is "an American citizen on his cellphone making a last call to his four young daughters shortly before he burns to death in the upper levels of the Trade Center in New York on 9/11."

Short of this rather high bar, nothing, by definition, that the United States does to its detainees could conceivably be considered torture.

Similarly, when asked about the large number of innocent people (26 out of 119 CIA detainees, according to the report) who had tragically been detained and tortured in error, for example Gul Rahman - a victim of mistaken identity who was chained to the wall of his cell, doused with water and froze to death in CIA custody - Cheney stated indifferently that these individuals essentially don't matter in the grand scheme of things. The only problem that Cheney had was "with the folks that we did release that end up back on the battlefield."

"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that, in fact, were innocent," he said. Taken to its logical conclusion, Cheney's reasoning would seem to hold that it is preferable to indefinitely detain and torture a million innocent people than to allow one "bad guy" to slip through the cracks. The implications of this logic are, needless to say, chilling (not to mention completely at odds with the legal principle of presumed innocence).

A Courtroom Defense

At times, watching Cheney make these cold rationalizations on "," it may have occurred to viewers that the more appropriate venue for this interview would have been on the witness stand of a courtroom. After all, what Cheney was defending was not just controversial policy choices, but clearly defined crimes of torture and murder.

Although he was sure to emphasize that "All of the techniques that were authorized by the President were, in effect, blessed by the Justice Department," the fact remains that providing the cover of law to a crime makes it no less of a crime.

This is a point that UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counterterrorism Ben Emmerson specifically made last week following the release of the report. In a statement, Emmerson said, "The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the U.S. government provides no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability."

Emphasizing that all individuals responsible for "the criminal conspiracy" described in the Senate report "must be brought to justice, and must face criminal penalties commensurate with the gravity of their crimes," Emmerson noted that "international law prohibits the granting of immunities to public officials who have engaged in acts of torture."

Judging from Cheney's arrogant display on "," however, there appears to be very little appreciation for the niceties of international law such as its expressed prohibition on official immunity when it comes to the crime of torture. He seems to be quite confident, indeed, that official immunity is unnecessary when there is an implied unofficial immunity that is granted to public officials in the United States, this being the case whether it pertains to CIA torture or police brutality.

Police Shootings

The same arrogance that Cheney is so casually displaying can also be seen in the closely paralleled story of the recent spate of police shootings and killings of innocent or unarmed African-Americans, and the remarkable wave of demonstrations that has taken hold across the United States in response.

With large-scale protests happening in most major American cities over the past month - particularly since grand juries decided not to indict the police officers who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and Eric Garner in New York City - one might think that cops would be extra careful these days not to come across overly arrogant or obdurate. This, however, would not be the case.

In response to the NFL's Cleveland Browns' wide receiver Andrew Hawkins taking the field on Sunday wearing a T-shirt protesting recent police shootings in Ohio - reading "Justice for Tamir Rice and John Crawford" on the front and "The Real Battle for Ohio" on the back - Jeff Follmer, president of the Cleveland police union, claimed the shirt was disrespectful and he disparaged the very idea of athletes holding opinions about anything other than sports.

"It's pretty pathetic when athletes think they know the law," Follmer said in a statement. "They should stick to what they know best on the field." In other words, keep your opinions to yourself, boy, and just play football. Follmer also demanded an apology from the Clevelend Browns organization, which to their credit, the Browns did not extend.

Instead, the Browns fired back with a statement saying the organization endorses the rights of players "to project their support and bring awareness to issues that are important to them if done so in a responsible manner."

Hawkins also weighed in with comments to the media that revealed, in fact, a deep knowledge and understanding of what law and justice mean (or should mean), contrary to Follmer's condescending remarks. "Justice," he said , "is a right that every American should have. Justice means that the innocent should be found innocent. It means that those who do wrong should get their due punishment."

His six-minute locker-room monologue to reporters ended with him choking up while drawing a parallel between his own young son and the tragic death of Tamir Rice, the 12-year-old boy shot by police in Cleveland on Nov. 22 while holding a toy gun.

"My number one reason for wearing the T-shirt was the thought of what happened to Tamir Rice happening to my little Austin. And that scares the living hell out of me," he said.

Protests and Fears

This genuine, personal fear of police violence is one that has been widely expressed over the last several weeks of protests taking hold across the country. As Democracy Now's Aaron Maté reported from New York's "Millions March" on Saturday, one of the dominant themes being expressed on the streets was "a sense of not feeling safe, not feeling safe themselves and not feeling safe for their loved ones, people of color in heavily policed communities."

Interviewing protester Darrell Greene, Maté asked him to explain his sign, which read "Me, my father, my son. Who's next?"

Greene responded, "At this point, I know I'm a productive citizen, and I don't feel safe in my own community. I've never been in trouble with law enforcement. And from what I'm seeing on the news and what's been going on, I really wonder: Am I next? I'm wondering if the people in my community are next. We're all productive citizens, and we're in fear for our life. We feel like it's open season on all minorities, and we want to know if we're really safe."

Protester Nilan Johnson echoed these sentiments. "I'm here because Americans, period, are being preyed on, right now," he said. "African-Americans are once again fighting for the right to be human, and I think that's horrible."

Asked whether he feels, as a person of color, whether he is unsafe in his community, Johnson replied, "That's - I feel that daily, so I feel that's a preconditioned nature now. I feel threatened and marked and cornered. And everybody here feels the same way. And we're trying to keep our humanity."

If not a direct byproduct of the war on terror's excesses and the impunity that law-breakers at the highest levels of government enjoy, this feeling of powerlessness, insecurity and injustice is certainly closely related. Indeed, as far back as 2007, civil rights leaders were drawing these connections, in particular in a report prepared for the United Nations entitled "In The Shadows Of The War On Terror: Persistent Police Brutality and Abuse of People of Color in the United States."

Since 9/11, the report explained , "there have been dramatic increases in law enforcement powers in the name of waging the 'war on terror,'" while simultaneously, counter-terrorism policies have "created a generalized climate of impunity for law enforcement officers, and contributed to the erosion of what few accountability mechanisms exist for civilian control over law enforcement agencies."

This has led to an erosion of public discussion and accountability with respect to the use of excessive force against people of color, while at the same time, "systemic abuse of people of color by law enforcement officers has not only continued since 2001 but has worsened in both practice and severity," according to the report. As a representative of the NAACP put it, "the degree to which police brutality occurs ... is the worst I've seen in 50 years."

Troubling Trend

Even establishment publications such as the have noticed the troubling trend of rising police violence and its connections with the war on terror. As a feature article in put it in August 2013, "the war on drugs and, more recently, post-9/11 antiterrorism efforts have created a new figure on the U.S. scene: the warrior cop - armed to the teeth, ready to deal harshly with targeted wrongdoers, and a growing threat to familiar American liberties."

This threat to liberties is compounded when the justice system fails to hold accountable those who break the law and violate people's rights. Whether it is Eric Garner in New York or Gul Rahman in Afghanistan, the victims of injustice must have redress, and "those who do wrong should get their due punishment," in the words of Cleveland Browns wide receiver Andrew Hawkins.

As human rights advocates and civil libertarians have warned since the early days of the "war on terror," human rights violations of terror suspects will eventually set the United States on a slippery slope in which authorities deem it optional whether to respect the human rights of anyone, including U.S. citizens. At that point, anyone is fair game, and all of us, including law-abiding Americans, may find ourselves at the mercy of an unsympathetic authoritarian state.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Superbomb winter storm predicted for Northeastern U.S. at Christmas

A "superbomb" storm is being predicted for Christmas Day in the Northeast United states according to WeatherBell Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue who has pointed out it looks to be reminiscent of the Cleveland Superbomb of 1978 aka the "Great New England Blizzard of 1978″.

This GFS forecast model for Christmas Day shows the depth of the low, poised to gather moisture from the Great Lakes and dump it into the Northeastern U.S. over the next 24-48 hours, making Christmas and post-Christmas travel a nightmare, but ... there is a twist.

Dr. Maue adds on his Twitter feed:

Exciting to see extreme weather forecasts with an item that requires dusting off the record books. 958 mb low

For reference, a 958 millibar low pressure system is as low as the central pressure for some tropical storms and nearly that of some hurricanes. For example Hurricane Sandy had a central pressure of 940 mbar or 27.76 inHg.

According to the article on the Cleveland Superbomb of 1978:

Meteorologists have a name for a storm that occurs when air pressure drops very rapidly as a jet stream brings in moisture: a weather bomb. In late January 1978, a low-pressure system moving from the Gulf Coast met with two other low-pressure systems, one from the Southwest and one from Canada, to create one of the worst snowstorms the Midwest has ever seen. With barometric pressure so low, it was more like a hurricane than a snowstorm, the so-called Cleveland Superbomb dumped 1-3 ft. (30-90 cm) of snow on several Midwestern states, including Ohio, Indiana and Michigan. Wind gusts approached 100 m.p.h. (160 km/h), causing snowdrifts to reach heights of 25 ft. (8 m) in some areas. Such snowdrifts made roadways impassable, forcing doctors and emergency personnel to ski and snowmobile their way to those in need. Indiana's governor sent tanks down I-65 to remove stranded trucks, while in Ohio, National Guard helicopters flew some 2,700 missions to help stranded drivers. About 70 deaths are attributed to the storm.

While the Cleveland Superbomb has an intriguing name, the most well-known snowstorm of that year was known simply as the Great New England Blizzard of 1978. On Feb. 6, about two weeks after the Superbomb, a blizzard dealt Boston and other parts of the Northeast as many as 27 in. (69 cm) of snow with winds of 80-110 m.p.h. (130-180 km/h). Thousands of homes were damaged or destroyed and approximately 100 people died.

Maue adds:

I'll add, it also has nothing to do with that other favorite catchphrase of the media, the "polar vortex".

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

False flag: 5 reasons to question the official story of the 'Sydney Siege'

In the aftermath of yet another highly publicized terror attack (or at least the potential for a high profile attack) in Australia by foreign-born jihadists, the Western public is once again experiencing a variety of emotional reactions that they have carefully been trained to experience whenever such events take place at home or abroad.

The xenophobic pro-war right is predictably using the attack as an example of how all Muslims are terrorists and how their total annihilation and implementation of police state tactics are the only solution. The pathetic left-wing is attempting to portray the gunman as a "lone nut" with no political motives as a justification for more "anti-terror" laws. The vast majority in the middle, however, believe the official mainstream version of events, quake in their boots, and move on to the next form of entertainment provided to them by the culture creators without a second thought.

Yet, as is almost always the case, there is much more to the story than is being reported by mainstream outlets. There exists a number of unanswered questions and unexplained inconsistencies with the story of "Man Haron Monis" and his hostage taking escapade in Sydney.

1.) Man Haron Monis (aka Manteghi Boroujerdi) is Shiia, not Sunni.

While the mainstream reports may suggest that Monis is yet another ISIS-style terrorist that finally attempted to rise and meet his destiny by engaging in terrorist attacks in the West, there are a number of problems with the presentation in terms of details.

Western media reports that, among other ludicrous demands, Monis requested to be provided with an ISIS flag while holding up the café in the Sydney business district. The problem, however, is that Monis is Shiia, not Sunni. Sunni, of course, is the brand of Islam that ISIS espouses. While both sects see their share of fundamentalism, the twain do not mix.

Why then, would a Shiia cleric (fundamentalist or otherwise) request an IS flag at the scene of his crime for all the world to see?

2.) Is Monis A "Liberal Muslim" Or A "Fundamentalist Muslim?"

While the absurd request for an IS flag during the course of an act of violence being committed by a Shitte Muslim is enough to convince the average spectator that Monis was a member of ISIS, there is a distinct lack of consistency in the way in which Monis has been portrayed in the Western media. Nearly ten years ago, Monis was presented as a "liberal Muslim" preaching a brand of tolerant and mainstream Islam. Since 2013, however, Monis has been presented as both a murderer and now a terrorist. While the latter may certainly be true, the presentations are nonetheless contradictory.

Indeed, as Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer reports in his article "Who Created Cartoon Character 'Man Haron Monis' Behind 'Sydney Siege' Crisis," Monis has spoken glowingly of the West in the past; Canada, the United States, and Australia in particular. In an interview with The Religion Report of the Australian ABC, he stated,

...we can say Australia, Canada, England, USA, so many western countries, they are religious societies. They don't say 'We are religious', but in fact the spirit of religion, we can see the spirit of religion in these societies. And some other countries in the Middle East, in Asia, they say 'We are Islamic' they have a name of Islamic, but in fact they are not religious societies and religious governments. Whenever I walk in the street, whenever I go out in Australia, I feel I am in a real religious society. I don't want to say it is perfect, we don't have a perfect society on the earth, but when we compare, if we compare Australia with Iran and other countries in the Middle East, we can say it is heaven.

These are hardly the words of an Islamic terrorist filled with hatred for the West. Yet that is exactly what Monis is portrayed as being in later years. Indeed, there is little evidence to the contrary that the assailant was, in fact, Monis. The question then, is why the contradictory behavior and media portrayal of Monis.

3.) Monis Served US/NATO/West's Interests As Propaganda Tool Against Iran

Before Monis became the star of Sunday evening/Monday morning news, he served as a convenient agent of propaganda against the government of Iran, itself a major target of NATO and the West.

As Tony Cartalucci writes,

But before Monis/Boroujerdi's recent run-ins with the law and his role as chief "Muslim boogeyman" in Australia, he was "Manteghi Boroujerdi," a "victim" of the "Iranian regime" who was in love with Western society.

Australia's ABC in its "Religion Report" dated January 31, 2001, introduced Monis/Boroujerdi as follows:

...while in Sydney we talk to Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, an Iranian cleric espousing a liberal brand of Islam - dangerously liberal, as his views have led to his wife and two daughters being held hostage in Iran.

The interview itself is used as yet another vehicle to carry along Western propaganda long-aimed at Iran. It claims Monis/Boroujerdi's family is in grave danger and that Monis/Boroujerdi himself would be executed should he ever return to Iran. It quotes Monis/Boroujerdi several times including claims he was formally associated with Iranian intelligence:

In Iran, mostly I have been involved with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

And was in contact with the UN regarding security issues in Iran:

...more than four years I have not seen my family, and the Iranian regime doesn't let them come out. In fact I can say they are hostage; as a hostage the Iranian regime wants to make me silent, because I have some secret information about government, and about their terrorist operations in the war. I sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and somebody on behalf of Mr Kofi Anan sent the answer, and they want to do something. I have hope and always I pray and ask God to solve my problem.

4.) Did Monis Love His Wife And Fear For Her Safety Or Did He Kill Her?

Notice in the statement above that one of Monis' gripes with the Iranian government was that not only was he in personal danger as a result of his "liberal" teachings, but his family was in danger as well. Ironically, he stated that his family was being held hostage by the Iranian regime. However, fast forward to 2013, and Monis is facing charges on "accessory before and after the fact to the murder of [his ex-wife] Noleen Hayson Pal, 30, who was stabbed 18 times and set alight outside a western Sydney unit in April."

While Monis would certainly not be the first man to kill his ex-wife, his concern for her safety at the hands of the Iranian government does not match up with the concern he allegedly showed her in Australia. If Monis was truly the "Hate Sheik" as he was presented in the articles regarding his ex-wife's murder, then why was he first portrayed as such a loving liberal by the very same media?

It should also be noted that Monis recently made a reputation for himself by sending hate mail to the families of dead Australian soldiers who fought in Afghanistan. Monis' letter writing campaign was used to stir up tension between the pro and anti-war factions in Australian society and cause quite the controversy publicly.

5.) Shiite Clerics In Australia Did Not Trust Monis

By 2008, Shiite religious leaders in Australia had asked Australian Federal security agents to investigate Monis and his activities. As an article in the reported,

FEDERAL agents have been urged by the nation's senior Shia leader, Kamal Mousselmani, to investigate an Iranian man purporting to be a prominent Islamic cleric.

Sheik Mousselmani told yesterday the mystery cleric - who has been identified as Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi on his website after appearing under the name Sheik Haron - was not a genuine Shia spiritual leader.

He said there were no ayatollahs - supreme Shia scholars - in Australia and none of his fellow spiritual leaders knew who Ayatollah Boroujerdi or Sheik Haron was.

"We don't know him and we have got nothing to do with him," Sheik Mousselmani said. "The federal police should investigate who he is. It should be their responsibility."

Yet, as Cartalucci adds in his own article,

But it was the Australian media itself who introduced him publicly as an "Ayatollah" and the Australian government that vetted him and allegedly granted him political asylum. He was allegedly in contact with the UN and was used to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment in Australia. It is then highly suspicious that now both the Australian media and the Australian government appear to have no knowledge of who he is or where he came from.

Conclusion

Whatever the true nature of Monis may be - legitimate mental patient, patsy, or tool of Western intelligence agencies - there is clearly much more to the story than what the mainstream press is printing and promoting.

Regardless, the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty is that the Sydney Siege will be used as propaganda to the utmost effect by all Western and NATO governments in the push for further war abroad and an even greater police state at home.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Netanyahu slams EU taking Hamas off terror list while Defense Minister says 'Israel might be forced to attack Gaza again'

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday slammed a recent decision by a top European court to remove Palestinian faction Hamas from the EU's list of "terrorist" organizations.

"The friendship we see from the United States stands in complete contrast to what we are seeing regretfully in Europe," according to a statement issued by Netanyahu's office just before he was scheduled to meet with U.S. Senator-elect Joni Ernst.

"We saw today examples hanging before us of European prejudice," Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

Earlier Wednesday, the European Court in Luxemburg revoked a previous decision by the Council of the European Union to include Hamas on its list of "terrorist" groups.

In 2001, the council put Hamas' armed wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades, on its list of "terrorist" groups. Two years later, it added Hamas itself to the list.

At the beginning of his meeting with Ernst, Netanyahu said that, in Geneva, a group of Europeans had been calling for an investigation of alleged Israeli war crimes.

"While in Luxembourg, the European court removed Hamas from the terrorist list," Netanyahu said in the statement.

"It's like there are too many people in Europe, on the ground where six million Jews were slaughtered, who haven't learned a thing," he added.

In justifying its decision to remove Hamas from the list, the court pointed out that the Council of the European Union's initial decision to include Hamas on the list had been based on media reports rather than calculated analysis.

Nevertheless, the court maintained a freeze on Hamas funds, which will remain in place for another three months or until it is appealed.

The Israeli army might be forced to attack Gaza again, said the Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon on Tuesday, according to the army's radio channel.

Ya'alon met with Israeli soldiers and told them that they need to be ready for another war in Gaza anytime, the Israeli news radio reported. Ya'alon reportedly said, "The army might be forced to attack Gaza with all its power."

Israel has conducted several limited incursions into the Gaza Strip since it signed an August 26 cease-fire agreement with Palestinian resistance factions.

That cease-fire agreement was signed to end the Israel's seven-week-long military onslaught on the coastal territory, which left over 2,160 Palestinians dead and more than 11,000 injured - the vast majority of them civilians - in July and August.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More

Elites use fascism and war to crush revolutionary movements

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor in 1937 with Adolf Hitler.

Listening to Pauwels makes one realize the scope of the lies we've been fed about the Second World War, fascism and democracy, and how myths related to previous wars need to be upheld in the mainstream discourse to satisfy never ending war propaganda needs.

The myth of the Good War

Every time Westerners' approval for war is required, the myth of the good war surfaces: the Second World War was a good war, a necessity to quench Hitler's blood thirst. Pauwels tears this myth apart, uncovering the vicious nature of the western elite.

The reasons for the US involvement in World War II lie in the social-economic conditions of the time, not in an outpouring of compassion destined to save humanity from fascism. The US elite was actually in favor of fascism, a very convenient tool to crush the mass revolutionary movement embodied by the Russian Revolution and the USSR.

WWII was in fact a continuity of WWI. "We are always told that WWI started with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, but it's not true", Pauwels says. It is indeed a well established myth carried on by various sources, whether history is written by "thousands of eminent experts, scholars, and leaders" like in Encyclopedia Britannica, or by just about anybody, like in Wikipedia:

The outbreak of war

With Serbia already much aggrandized by the two Balkan Wars (1912 - 13, 1913), Serbian nationalists turned their attention back to the idea of "liberating" the South Slavs of Austria-Hungary. Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijević, head of Serbia's military intelligence, was also, under the alias "Apis," head of the secret society Union or Death, pledged to the pursuit of this pan-Serbian ambition. Believing that the Serbs' cause would be served by the death of the Austrian archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir presumptive to the Austrian emperor Francis Joseph, and learning that the Archduke was about to visit Bosnia on a tour of military inspection, Apis plotted his assassination. (World War I, Encyclopedia Britannica)

The immediate trigger for war was the 28 June 1914 assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, by Yugoslav nationalist Gavrilo Princip in Sarajevo. This set off a diplomatic crisis when Austria-Hungary delivered an ultimatum to the Kingdom of Serbia,[10][11] and international alliances formed over the previous decades were invoked. Within weeks, the major powers were at war and the conflict soon spread around the world. (World War I, Wikipedia)

Both WWI and WWII had two dimensions: the vertical dimension, namely the rivalry between empires, and the horizontal one, class warfare, Pauwels explains.

These wars were actually the best way for the western elite to cope with the ever growing revolutionary and democratic movements fueled by dire economic conditions and which threatened the established order.

In Nietzsche's view for example, Pauwels says "war was the solution against revolution, since in a war, there are no discussions, like there is in a democracy. In a war, the minority, the elite, decides and the majority, the proletarians, obey."

For members of the elite like Malthus, "the system could not be the cause of poverty since they were profiting from it. The cause of poverty was the poor: there were too many of them. Therefore the solution to poverty and threatening revolutionary movements was simply to eliminate poor people and what better solution than war to kill poor people?"

After WWI though, "revolution was no longer a simple idea but rather something concrete: the Soviet Union." That's when fascism came to the rescue. "Fascism was the instrument used by the elite to further the objectives of 1914, namely put an end to revolutions and communism."

Communism and socialism were gaining worldwide momentum after WWI. "The German industrial and financial elite wished to crush the revolutionary movement and destroy the Soviet Union. Adolf Hitler was their instrument."

According to popular belief Western leaders were defending democracy, engaged in a war against Germany to save humanity from fascism and the US involvement in the war led to the downfall of Hitler's war machine. Nothing is further from the truth. "Hitler was supported by other European countries and the US because they wanted him to destroy the USSR, the cradle of the revolution." The exact opposite occurred: it was the USSR that defeated Nazi Germany, losing over 20 million souls in the battle.

The US even recruited the best Nazi scientists, technicians and engineers to work for them after the war. That piece of history called Operation Paperclip (picture below) has yet to find its way in Encyclopedia Britannica.

WWII was the victory of American Imperialism, a term which is rarely used today even if it best describes the reality the world has been living in ever since.

But even more surprising is the surviving myth that we are going to war to save the world from evil dictators or terrorists and that the western world fights for freedom and democracy. Thanks to the "stenographers of power", the tactic is still reliable and used several decades later.

Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog

Read More