Martin Place, Sydney, the Lindt Chocolate Café
by Mary W Maxwell
Gumshoe reader Paul commented to my article on the Sydney siege: “Monis didn’t seem to know what he really wanted or intended once he’d taken over the Café did he? There seemed to be no plan beyond “walk-in-take-hostages-issue-vague-demands-show-some-scary-ISIS-ish propaganda. This makes me think the poor fool was really just a prop for a made-for-TV drama…”
Paul’s observation has prompted me to review the official story as to why the Sydney hostage taker (Monis), and also the alleged Boston bomber (Jahar), and the alleged Port Arthur gunman (Bryant) did what they did.
The official stories – provided by government or media — are weak; they do not pass the giggle test once you look at them in review. Yet when a story is dramatic, and “larger than life,” any old explanation for it seems to be accepted by the public.
Could there be a deep-down reason for this? Could it be that citizens are not fooled, but in fact choose to go along with the game of our masters? Is this why parliamentarians can keep a straight face when talking about, say, “terrorism in Australia”? I propose that they know what’s going on and that the electorate does, too!
Please run through this short list covering three familiar stories:
The three men, their age and nationality:
Jahar (Dzhokhar) Tsarnaev was 19 at the time of the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013. He had immigrated as a refugee from the Russian Federation and was a US citizen.
Man Haron Monis was 50 at the time of the Sydney siege on December 15, 2014. He had permanent residence in Australia, having immigrated from Iran as an asylum seeker.
Martin Bryant was almost 29 on the day of the massacre, April 28, 1996. He was born and raised in Tasmania.
— In other words, all three “killers” expected a nice future in a safe country, so it’s implausible that they would blow it, but no one ever says this.
The “nature of the man”:
Jahar was radicalized and political. All his friends were “ethnic.”
(Remember I’m just parroting the media.)
Monis was an attention-seeker. He may have helped in the murder of his ex-wife. (“may have”?)
Bryant was mentally slow. Also, he slept with a pig!
— In other words, we like stereotypes; we gobble them up.
Amount of lead-time for a very complex event:
Jahar’s brother Tamerlan bought pressure cookers in January (three months before the Marathon).
Monis gave no particular sign of planning a siege, although had used language of incitement (“Go, jihad” sort of thing).
Bryant made gun purchase at the Hobart gun show on the weekend before the massacre, and bought a cigarette lighter (for arson) the morning of the event.
— In other words, we happily accept facts in a storyline that we would never use in our on business transactions.
The chief motive cited for their big, violent action:
Jahar: Islam. (Partly in revenge for US action in Middle East).
Monis: Islam. (Perhaps interested in bringing an Islamic state to Australia).
Bryant: Vengeance. (An elderly couple, the owners of Seascape cottage, had refused to sell a farm to his Dad years ago.)
— In other words, any proposed motive suffices as an explanation of just about anything.
The killer’s hope of escaping the law:
As overheard by Dun Meng, the carjackee, Jahar and his brother said they might go to Manhattan (where they would bomb Times Square).
Monis did not seem to have a plan for escaping, with or without the ISIS flag he demanded.
Bryant told the negotiator he wanted a helicopter to get him (and his hostage!) to Hobart and then a plane to Adelaide.
— In other words, there is no need for logic. We don’t ask what steps we ourselves would take to hide a crime or escape safely.
The satisfaction felt after performing the deed:
Jahar indicated, in writing, on the wall of a boat, that he had pleased Allah.
Monis did not live to express any satisfaction; he was shot dead at 2.30am during the siege.
Bryant was chuffed that he gained fame (he was “delighted,” said psychiatrist Paul Mullen).
— In other words, as with the motive, any explanation of the bad guy’s psychology will do.
Number of people he killed and wounded:
Jahar in Boston: 3 died, including an eight-year-old boy; “hundreds” were wounded, of which several lost a limb.
Monis in Sydney: 2 died, including a mother of three small children; a few more received gunshot wounds.
Bryant: 35 died and more than 20 others were wounded. The deceased included a three–year-old and six-year-old girl.
— In other words, what ever the death and casualty count, the stories are deserving of dramatic coverage; they’re historic.
Important lessons learned for society:
Jahar: Watch out for Muslim students becoming radicalized.
Monis: Don’t let accused criminals out on bail if they are likely to attack Australia.
Bryant: Guns should be removed from the population, and stricter laws are required in these days of so many nutters.
— In other words, despite all these events having been carried out by government, the lesson to be learned is that ordinary people are bad. (Which I suppose is true! Is there anyone who isn’t an ordinary person?)
Don’t Waste Time Refuting Silly Claims:
I believe the most efficient thing for us to do at this point would be to eschew official stories wholesale. That is, we needn’t spend precious time showing any of the crazy details to be untrue. Just to read them aloud is to destroy them (as above: the motive, the lead-time, the lessons learnt, etc.)
My research (based on the work of others) is that Jahar did not plant any bombs, and Bryant never went to the Broad Arrow Café that day. Both men were classic ‘patsies.’ As for Monis, I have not studied his background. However, the behavior of the authorities that day, including the prime minister and the police, tells me that the siege was a set-up.
I declare that activists should not have to bother disproving official claims. They should not have to argue that Tamerlan Tsarnaev didn’t purchase pressure cookers. (Recall Cheryl Dean’s article on the evidence presented for the alleged purchase. Believe me, a top comedian could not improve on the laughs in that court transcript.)
I declare, also, that we don’t have to consult experts to lean that when people feel hurt (as Bryant allegedly did over the non-sale of the Martin farm) they do NOT go on a suicide-homicide-carjacking-arson mission. They just don’t; anybody can work that out. Why spend time arguing against nonsense?
Many of us have been staying up late – for years – hoping to “crack” one of the above cases by finding some little point of perfect proof. What we need to face up to, is the fact that even perfect proof that the guy is a patsy isn’t much help.
It does not push the citizenry into action. People definitely do not rise up against the lying members of government. Think how many points of perfect proof there are about 9-11 but no member of Congress ever raises this subject from the floor.
Houston, Oh Houston, You There Houston?
We are in a worse situation than merely having allowed accused persons such as Jahar and Bryant to undergo Stalin-like show trials. We have a much bigger problem here re the public’s acceptance of the official story. I think it is time we ‘activists’ realized that folks want to believe these things.
People are probably NOT “in denial,” as we have so often hypothesized. It may seem that they are in denial, or are “dissociating from reality.” But this is their reality. People do accept the power structure! They do accept that the media is screwing us all the time.
I entitled this article “Time to accept the official stories?” What I mean is: it’s time to realize that acceptance of the official stories is an ongoing problem. This is a worry. People support the system of electing “representatives’ and do not give a hoot that those politicians start to work for someone else. They don’t give a hoot that the courts have become massively dishonest.
What To Do?
Naturally I do not recommend that we resign ourselves to the queer, queer arrangement by which absolute nitwits are running the world and wrecking the planet. (Many plant and animal species are going extinct every day – this loss can NEVER be made good. Even the oceans are polluted, something we always thought impossible.)
So I am not happy, much less “resigned” to our fate. I urge you to get in on the fight, but I think it is not quite the fight we have been envisioning. It’s not the fight to prove that Jahar and Bryant are innocent. It’s not the fight to show that the Sydney siege was a set-up, intended to implant “terror” in Australian CBD’s.
It’s a fight to rethink our social arrangements.
— Mary W Maxwell has written extensively about the Jahar case and the Bryant case. Press the Boston button or the Port Arthur button at top of GumshoeNews.com website to find her articles.
Photo credit: Flowers -- morgan-photo.com