by Mary W Maxwell
Last week, at the Inquest into the 2014 Sydney siege, an interesting point came up. It was remarked that there is an undercurrent of citizen interest in whether or not the defence forces played any role that day.
I perked up as I am keen to find out what the chain of command was amongst the many police or other uniformed persons outside the Lindt café. Today, all police, troops or SWAT teams seem to be wearing the same gear, so it would be great to get an airing of the military aspects of the case.
The Lindt Café and the Twin Towers
However it has occurred to me that that’s probably not why the remark was made. The “undercurrent” may soon be soon clarified to be an undercurrent of supposed public disgust that Defence Forces were not given the right of way. Predictably that will form the basis of legislation to increase the army’s role.
I’ll be happy to eat crow if I am wrong on that, but loudly do I hear in my ear that old undercurrent about CIA or FBI involvement in the 9-11 attacks. That was soon clarified to mean that the public was disgusted by the “intelligence failures” of 9-11. Hence, of course, new laws allowing more surveillance were needed!
Meanwhile, nothing of note actually came out as to exactly what role the FBI or CIA did play in the amazing events of 9-11. The so-called 9-11 Commission certainly did not use its Congressionally mandated powers of investigation to haul in any of the officials of the covert agencies for questioning.
The truth was never sought. To the contrary, the goal was to hide what is really going on. I think Blind Freddy can see that what is really going on is a cumulative move toward a total police state.
Troops at Watertown, to capture 19-year-old Jahar (!?)
My View of the Lindt Café Siege
I have to confess to having some pre-conceived notions about the so-called siege. While it was ensuing, on that very afternoon, I posted an article at RumorMillNews.com, entitled “Terrorists My Arse.” I wrote:
Have just heard that the Middle East has come to Sydney.
Armed action in Martin Place, midday. Hostages may be shot. CBD in lockdown. Flag with Arabic writing hung from window of a cafe.
“Conflict with Muslims” also came to Bondi a few years ago (when needed) and then faded out. Something about Aussies defending their manhood against Lebanese. “We will fight them on the beaches,” etc.
Am I offending the families of the persons who may get hurt in Sydney today? Maybe so, but I am un-offending the rest of us. We need to get sensible, Folks. We should have been quicker and firmer in noting that the terrorism that befell Ottawa a few weeks ago looked very scripted.
The Powers That Be seem drunk with their success in using the word ‘terrorist,’ or the quick-symbol word ‘Muslim,’ to scare people into accepting authoritarianism. Can we please now recognize that they are in a panic. They, and we, are both in trouble. What is called for, and I hate to be so embarrassingly boring as to say it, is Sweet Reason.
To people who are at this moment having a gun put to them in Sydney, I say: the enemy is us! There, that’s not so bad, is it? We CAN deal with Parliament. We can control the media, too. We CAN get our life back. Wake up, Everybody!
Before I continue I should mention that the standard cover-up is going on before our very eyes. As dealt with in a Gumshoe article last week, by Dee McLachlan, police at the inquest proffered the ridiculous statement that the police did not have as good a view at Martin Place as we had at home, thanks to a troubled TV hook-up.
Dee later called to my attention that some of the 15 surviving hostages have given honest-sounding testimony at the inquest. For instance, they say they begged police to provide a flag. Also, those who escaped begged the police to “go in.” They also tried, via social media, to get the prime minister, Tony Abbott, to negotiate.
Man Haran Monis claimed to be demanding an ISIS flag. Oh, come on. The lives of Katrina Dawson and Tori Johnson were worth a flag or two.
So now can we hope to interview those wonderful survivors? Oopsie, apparently not. They have all signed million-dollar contracts with Channel 7, so they can’t provide vital information to us. Do you think it’s worth that kind of expense by Channel 7? Will it bring an increase in ratings or something? Sounds like hush money to me.
Chain of Command
Sorry to be “unpatriotic” but I see the Sydney siege as a blatant false flag, a set-up to make Australians toe the line. It had to have big governmental hand in it.
Media hand, too. For example, the MSM gave Monis plenty of coverage in the year leading up to December 2014. He had to be made to look “fearsome.” (Though he came across pretty wussy.)
If the siege had a governmental hand, then the cops on duty were under the command of a person who could prevent them from “going in.” We deserve to know who gave the command. One cop told the inquest that he begged for permission to shoot Monis. Permission was denied. I need to know why.
And if I may ask an amateur question: was it not very possible to send in a gas attack through the ceiling so that everybody would pass out? Was it not possible to send in a flag with a timed device in it?
Or couldn’t they have sent in a couple of dogs to confuse the terrorist? In the time Monis would spend dealing with the dog problem, our snipers could shoot him.
And who, at 2.30am, gave the command to go in? What triggered Monis to kill Johnson? One witness says Monis changed from a calm state to a heavy-breathing state just before he did the deed. What’s that all about? Monis must have known this would lead to his own death within the hour.
Enough Is Enough
Here at Gumshoe we have been venting a lot of research about the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. The “official story” is so patently false no serious adult could now believe it. And if hidden government-related agents can pull off a massacre it would be chicken feed to pull off a Martin Place “siege.”
A centerpiece of that Tasmanian drama was how the young Martin Bryant – with no history of even stealing an ice cream – held hostages and conversed by telephone for hours with a police negotiator. At two points in the evening, cops asked for permission to shoot. Permission was denied.
But there’s a new twist to the siege. An excuse has been given as to why the police did not take a shot at Monis in the Lindt Café. It was possible to do it early in the day – say after the first few hostages escaped by a back door and told police what was going on.
Here’s the reason for “permission denied” — as told by an assistant police commissioner. I quote SBS.com.au:
“Snipers positioned around the Lindt Café could have risked a murder charge if they shot and killed siege gunman Man Haron Monis at any time before the operation’s deadly conclusion, it has been revealed. [Can you picture the trial of that ‘murderous’ cop? I can’t.]
Assistant Commissioner Mark Murdoch said that while Monis was armed with a gun, suspected of carrying a bomb and threatening hostages, NSW Police were not in the practice of ‘arbitrarily assassinating people who are involved in criminal incidents.’ [Wait! Did they not assassinate the knife-wielding Numan Haider?]
“Police are trained not to shoot unless there is a risk of death or serious injury — a threshold Mr Murdoch did not consider to have been met during the time he commanded the [Martin Place] operation, until about 10pm on December 15.
“… ‘From my understanding from the vision I’ve seen of Monis walking around inside the cafe, we were a long way from being assured that a shot would be justified,’ he said.
Even in his handover to the commander who followed him, Mr Murdoch said he was confident there could still be a peaceful resolution.” [By what means? No flaggie, no resolutionie.]
Giving Each Incident the Full Colors
The use of the word “terrorism” is a game played by media at the behest of what I consider to be a World Government. This website, Gumshoe News, has published innumerable criticisms of the use of the T word. In an October 5,, 2015 article I wrote about the killing of Curtis Cheng. I said:
We still don’t know much about what transpired, except that a 58-year-old man named Curtis Cheng was shot dead by a bullet in the back of the head. He was walking out from his office at the NSW Police Headquarters in Parramatta, where he had been employed for 17 years in the finance department. (He is not a cop.)
Already there have been sweeping statements by Commonwealth and state politicians:
- Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said, “This appears to have been an act of politically motivated violence.”
- Foreign Minister Julie Bishop said “When a 15-year-old boy can be so radicalised that he can carry out a politically motivated killing or an act of terrorism, then it’s a time for the whole nation to take stock.” [Take stock of what?]
- NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione contributed the non sequitur that the attack was “politically motivated and therefore linked to terrorists.”
Putting Some Gumption into This Inquest
I’ve had it. Dear Sydney-Siege Inquest, you can’t continue to talk to me like I’m an idiot. I am not an idiot. You cannot tell me that it was impossible to snipe Monis early in the day. Everybody knows it was possible and warranted.
You cannot tell me the reason for the delay was “police hands-off-ness.” Are you kidding? You cannot even tell me that Monis was genuinely interested in the Islamic cause. What is the Islamic cause anyway?
The Martin Place event has all the hallmarks of a set-up.
The SBS piece quoted above — reporting what transpired at the Inquest — had as its headline: “Police feared Monis had help in Lindt Café.”
No they did not fear that there was an accomplice. They knew the whole score. I consider that headlined claim to be nonsense. Or, to put it plainly, a lie.
Authorities were in touch with hostages the whole day on Facebook for pity’s sake. And they knew the “terrorist” well and could have had him in jail for other things, but chose not to.
(L) Katrina Dawson, Mum of 3, (R) Tori Johnson
Plea to the Coroner: please issue a bench warrant if you spot in the courtroom the likely guilty party. That is proper procedure, isn’t it? And charge with the crime of perjury anyone who dares to tell porkies under oath.
Make Australia great again. Roll back the clock to when we did not engage in these demeaning fantasies. We are counting on you to do your job, Your Honor. And 24 million Aussies will back you up like they have never backed anyone up before.
–Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court: Reclaiming the Law, Joyfully.
Photos: medievalwarfare.info; Watertown -- msnbcmedia; Dawson & Johnson -- news.com.au