By Mary W Maxwell
We need some sort of guide to hostage crises, shootouts, and other terrifying incidents. In the title of this article I have gone to a ridiculous extent in suggesting that the Sydney siege of 2014 has some relation to the Port Arthur massacre of 1996.
New insights into false-flag events may come out at the inquest currently being held in Sydney.
Last Friday at the inquest it was said by a witness that Man Haron Monis huffed and puffed “like an athlete” to get himself ready before killing Tori Johnson. This surprised me as I had always assumed that Monis did what he did that day under some sort of hypnotic instructions (in which case no emotion would enter into it).
The Sydney Siege Compared to Port Arthur
Despite an 18-year break between the 1996 and 2014 incidents, some similarities pop out. One is that both were defined by police as “hostage situations.” It is obvious that the Lindt café was the scene of hostage-holding by Man Haron Monis, but few people realize that Martin Bryant was also accused of holding hostages.
I do not think the Port Arthur event had any genuine hostage-taking aspect. I believe that ‘scenario’ was cooked up so that the Tasmanian authorities could invoke a law that allowed them to involve the Australian Federal Police.
Wait, before I get to that, I should say that my interpretation of the entire Port Arthur massacre is that it was designed far in advance and was carried out by professionals. These could have been (I have no proof) members of government agencies.
Some say the whole purpose was to soften Parliament up to pass gun control laws. I don’t think that was the main motive, but gun restrictions did follow quickly.
In any case I presume that part of the plan was for the patsy, Martin Bryant, to hole himself up at the Seascape cottage. There he would be seen to have the two owners of the cottage, David and Sally Martin, under his control as hostages (and maybe one other person, Glenn Pears).
Had Bryant been thought to be alone, police could have stormed the cottage and captured him. But the rule in a hostage situation is that you must negotiate with the captor in hopes of sparing the lives of the victims. Indeed a police negotiator, Terry McCarthy, was in contact with Martin Bryant via a walkie-talkie, at some time between 6pm on Sunday April 28, 1996 and the next morning.
No Real Negotiations with Man Haron Monis!
According to Channel 9 News, reporting from the Inquest on April 5, 2016:
Marcia Mikhael, one of the last captives inside the Lindt café, criticised how emergency authorities handled the 17-hour-siege in December 2014 and said there were no negotiations.
“It was just me on the phone,” she told the inquest in Sydney.
“Monis wasn’t on the phone with (the police negotiator). There was no negotiation.” (Emphasis added)
Ms Mikhael told the inquest a police negotiator told her then-Prime Minister Tony Abbott was a “very busy man”.
As a member of the public that day in 2014, I could see right away how fake the whole thing was, simply because we were all told to expect nothing to be done in the way of negotiating. If I recall, the “gunman” had not asked for safe passage, or for ransom, or anything too difficult to appease him with. He had asked for an ISIS flag.
That sort of thing is straight out of Introductory Drama-Writing class. It allowed the public to catch on quickly to the idea that this event was based on Islamic extremism, and that the gunman was somehow associated with a major violent terrorist group, namely ISIS. Never mind that ISIS is Western-trained and Western-supplied; few people knew that.
As for Tony Abbott being a very busy man, he was not too busy to go on television, at some point during Australia’s day of terror and say in supposed sympathy with the hostages:
“I can think of nothing more distressing, more terrifying than being caught up in this situation.”
For me that one remark clinched the deal. It is out of character for a leader to excite, rather than calm the people.
(I have said before that it was firm proof to me personally that the Boston bombing was scripted when a doctor went on TV and said “There will be lots of amputations.” I know for sure that physicians are trained never to alarm a patient. They use softer words and start out with a hopeful premise — a “Mother’s on the roof” sort of thing).
Involving Other Agencies
As mentioned, the existence of a hostage situation allows for the involvement of AFP. It also triggers help from other states per a mutual-aid agreement. While all such things could of course be completely innocent I do not see them as innocent. I see, in the US, such things as SWAT teams as outside of lawful control; they are more military in nature.
In the very week before the PAM (the Port Arthur massacre), the Police Academy of Tasmania held a training exercise on the theme of a domestic aircraft accident. It involved getting help from other states. A fortnight before, there had been an exercise called Top Shelf in Western Australia.
The Big Daddy is the SAC-PAV, run from Canberra. The letters stand for Standing Advisory Committee, Protection against Violence. In what way did they protect anyone against violence during either the Sydney siege or the Seascape siege?
Either of those incidents was small beer. Granted they are blown up to be incredibly big events, justifying scads of personnel wearing every manner of protective clothing and driving the latest high-tech vehicles, but how was their talent utilized in Tassie that day, or at Martin Place?
How To Save Hostages’ Lives: Russia
Aren’t there ways to capture someone by use of gas? Recall the famous incident of 2002. I quote a 24 October 2012 BBC article “Moscow Theatre Siege”:
Ten years ago Russia and the world held their breath as Russian special forces surrounded a theatre where nearly 1,000 people were held hostage. On 23 October 2002, 40 Chechen militants headed by warlord Movsar Barayev took 912 hostages at the Dubrovka Theatre in Moscow [during a musical].
Three days later Russian security services pumped sleeping gas into the hall, stormed it and killed all the attackers.
But some 130 hostages died … apparently because of the effects of the gas.
Many experts say that the operation itself was carried out in a professional way, but that people’s safety was sacrificed in order to maintain total secrecy.
Public health services were not warned in advance… .
Sleeping hostages were carried not by medics, but by policemen. The authorities did not acknowledge the use of gas until eight hours later, and even then did not disclose what type of gas it was, so that doctors did not know how to treat the patients.
Many have assumed it was a compound based on fentanyl – an opioid that can be hundreds of times more potent than morphine. It can cause a fatal heroin-like overdose – but the symptoms can be reversed with the drug naloxone.
I think we can see that the several-day terror incident in Moscow was intended to fill Russian people’s minds with: 1. Terror in general, 2. The notion that Chechens do this sot of thing, and 3. A belief that the SAC-PAV-type troops are the experts (as I’ll bet they are). Foul play is clear from the fact that
the health staff were not given the needed information for treating the victims.
I believe the 2002 incident in Russia was all scripted. To which I say “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me eight or nine times, shame on me.”
Promotions and Awards
Another giveaway to the foul play of it all is the giving of awards to those who must have been the insiders of the whole affair –and who are thus well placed to demand a reward. The BBC said of that Russian incident:
The actions of the authorities during the crisis were not investigated. Nobody was brought to account for the deaths of 119 people in hospital after the liberation operation was completed, or the inability of intelligence services to prevent the attack.
Mr Putin, by a decree which was never officially published, awarded FSB deputy director Vladimir Pronichev, who managed the operation, the title of Hero of Russia.
To name just two promotions that followed the Port Arthur incident: Justice William Cox, who presided over Bryant’s non-trial, subsequently became the vice-regal of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian DPP, Damian Bugg, became the Commonwealth DPP.
As a further reminder of the similarities of how the power structure works in all such events – think 9-11– I quote again from the BBC report:
Efforts by MP Sergey Yushenkov to carry out parliamentary hearings were blocked by the pro-Kremlin majority.
According to the results of a 2010 opinion poll, 74% of Russians did not fully trust the official version of events. [!]
A group of victims and their relatives sued the Russian government, demanding an open investigation into the case and declassification of the relevant information. In January 2003 the Tverskoy court in Moscow rejected the claims.
BBC’s caption: Relatives of the victims still have not received the answers they are looking for
Why Would a Police Sniper Be Stood Down?
And now back to the question asked in the title “Was Man Haron Monis at Seascape?” — by which I mean “Were the same players involved in both incidents?”
To be cautious again I should say that this is only my opinion. It is the impression my brain gets when a pattern is perceived.
I read yesterday that a sniper at Martin Place said he had a clear shot at 7.30 pm on the day of the siege, December 14, 2014.
He could have shot the gunman, Monis, and assured the safety of all the hostages, including of course, Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson.
He phoned his boss and said “Permission to shoot?” The reply came “Permission denied.”
This rang a big bell with me. During the siege at Seascape cottage on April 28, 1996, a marksman said he had the gunman in sight. (This was at a point when “Bryant” was believed to have killed at least 20 people). The officer contacted his boss. I quote from Andrew MacGregor, retired Victorian police officer, in a speech he gave called “Conspiracy Fact or Fantasy” reported at southeastasianews.org, dated approximately 2008:
I [MacGregor] have mentioned that SES (State Emergency Service) workers and other people had listened to police communications and then certain police were debriefed after the massacre and part of the debriefing was listening to a taped conversation by uniform police with hand held radio outside Seascape cottage to their controller.
Pat Allen had the hand radio. The conversation goes like this, “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight. We have the gunman in sight. Permission to shoot.” “Permission denied.” “We have the Port Arthur gunman in sight! Permission to shoot!” “Permission denied.”
— Mary W Maxwell would like to say that “she divides her time between gardening and music” but it seems to be more the case that “she divides her time between yelling about the innocence of Martin Bryant and yelling about the innocence of Jahar Tsarnaev.” If anyone wants to invite her to an evening at the Adelaide Symphony she is ready. She is sick of the whole damn patsy thing.