Home Siege Lindt Café Inquest, Part 15: Not All Islamic Terrorists Are As...

Lindt Café Inquest, Part 15: Not All Islamic Terrorists Are As Advertised



muslim_kids_praying Muslim kid praying

by Mary W Maxwell

In a July 30 article at Gumshoe, “It’s Gotcha Day,” I made up two words: kolodized – “to have been made to look like an Islamic terrorist” and nettoyaged “there has been a destruction of evidence by the authorities.” The latter is not just standard for the FBI; it is their reason for living. (Oh sorry, along with planting evidence, of course.)

It was pleasing that francophone Mme Lépine approved my use of the French word for cleaning — nettoyage . However, kolodin hasn’t won any admirers so far. In this article I identify three kinds of kolodin, that is, three kinds of persons who are labeled Islamic terrorists, but should not be.

First, remember not to make the word “kolodin” a haven for every patsy in town – every Oswald, every Martin Bryant, every James Earl Ray. It has to be a case where the accused person does not deserve the label “Islamic terrorist.”

Note: I don’t intend to discuss the Sydney siege’s hostage-taker, Man Haron Monis, in this regard. He may or may not prove to be a kolodin. I only want to go with proven cases — cases, if you’ll excuse the expression, that even Blind Freddy can see.

Kolodins Who Have No History of Proseletyzing

In my Gotcha Day article, I pointed to Justice Catherine Bruce’s exoneration of a couple in Canada who had no record of Islamic extremist beliefs. Such cases are legion. (The exoneree’s name is Amanda Kolody;  inspiration for the word Kolodin. At best she was in a sting operation.)

To begin, we can make a subcategory of kolodins, accused terrorists who don’t deserve to be considered signficant proseltyzers.

As far as I know, the following “famous terrorists” – famous for having allegedly caused a bombing – did not, on any previous occasion, display a tendency to force “Islam” on the public.

  1. The four boys who blew up the London tube on July 7, 2005. (Yes, I know we should say “allegedly blew up” but let’s be abstemious with the ink and omit the allegedly.)
  1. The two brothers who shot a number of persons in the editorial office of the magazine known as Charlie Hebdo in Paris: Cherif and Said Kouachi.

Apparently if the authorities say “this guy hung out at a mosque” or “this guy was friends with so-and-so, a known religious extremist” that’s enough to get you accused of terrorism.

(How about “this guy’s aunt’s neighbor’s kindergarten teacher once sent a $10 cheque to the Help the Muslim Children’s Fund”?)

  1. Jahar Tsarnaev who bombed the Boston Marathon. Note: I did not say “and Tamerlan.” Sure, I think both Tsarnaev brothers are innocent of the bombing of the Marathon, and sure, I think the pressure cooker story is crock city. But the list of kolodins here is strictly a list of those who never pushed Islam. The record shows Tamerlan was pushy.

Note: if we were going to nominate Man Haron Monis as a kolodin, he could not be in this sub-category as he, too, was pushy. You say his pushing of Islam was so eclectic that it proves he was not sincere? Who cares? Sincerity is not a criterion.

What we’re looking at, at the moment, are persons against whom a terrorist case was made – like Jahar – simply on the basis of their being Muslim, or Muslim-ish.

  1. Mohammed Atta who flew a plane into the World Trade Center. He not only was not excessively interested in the Holy Koran, but drank a lot and “had a girlfriend with pink hair” (a sure sign of not being religious, I guess).
  2. You may balk at this one. Go ahead, balk.  The 15-year-old who shot dead Mr Curtis Cheng, a civilian employee of the police, outside the Parramatta police station. Then he was immediately shot dead.

This is not the place to canvas police methodology, but just to note that the boy seemed “an obvious choice” to be killed, based on his name: Jabar. (He also did praise the Islamic State, but his name would have sufficed, no? Come on, he was 15.)

Two typical quotes after the death of Mr Chung:

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 time for the whole nation to take stock.”

NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione opined that the attack was “politically motivated and therefore linked to terrorism.”


Kolodins (Persons Made Out To Be Islamic Terrorists) Who Led a Whole Group

Here is a second subcategory of kolodins: ones that led a group or even a nation. The first person to be listed here should perhaps be the Prophet Mohammed, as he not only preached jihad but practiced what he preached.  However, our concern in this article is with stuff that began only about 40 years ago.

  1. Ayatollah Khomeini. The US-backed Shah of Iran took the reins in 1954, but by 1979 Kissinger did not want him there anymore. The Shah developed cancer. The CIA (or whoever it is that does these things) arranged that a rebel with a cause would sweep in.

That turned out to be an Iranian cleric, waiting in Paris, who was able to lead a religion-based revolution: the Ayatollah. He turned back the clock on the secularization of Iran, demanding for example that women cover up. He renamed his country “The Islamic Republic of Iran.” 1979 is considered “the revolution.”

Robert Dreyfuss (in Hostage to Khomeini, 1978) makes a good case that the Ayatollah himself was CIA. John C. Coleman does, too (in The Conspirators’ Hierarchy, 1992).

Note: we jettison our discernment whenever we hear that someone is leading a revolution.  Who knew that the lenin-trotsky types of 1917 were not an uprising? Defo not an uprising: the Russian “revolution” was organized on Wall Street. Pretty confusing, eh?

Note: to categorize Ayatollah Khomeini as a kolodin is admittedly a stretch. He certainly wasn’t “smeared” with the name “Islamic rebel”; he embraced it.

  1. Saddam Hussein. I am listing Saddam here to bring up the fact that Americans were so willing to believe that all Muslims fight for their religion, their theocracy, that they even extended this to Saddam who was secular to the core.

Our brains are foggy when we’re trying to unite against an enemy. God made it that way. Or, if you prefer, evolution produced minds that get focused on certain things and get foggy on others. For example all that’s needed to unite people is a symbol, such as a flag.

All that is needed to arouse one’s soldiers to action is the name of an enemy, and a mention of some outstanding bad characteristic of that group. “They use weapons of mass destruction.” “They discriminate against women (OMG)” Or sometimes – this is rich – “they harm their own people.”

Believe it or not, in the year 2003 when Iraq got destroyed, most Americans thought it was to punish Saddam for 9-11 – even though it had never been suggested that he was involved in 9-11. Foggy brains will be happy with the simplest, symbolic cues (Arab hijackers, World Trade Center, Saddam).

Bottom line: when you hear that a Muslim has done something bad, check your brain for fogginess or you will get tricked.

Be sure to demand good evidence that the person – Jahar Tsarnaev, say – committed the crime he is accused of.  Did Jahar kill Officer Sean Collier? The Carmen Ortiz’s of this world pretty much say “He must have done it. He was wearing the right color backpack, wasn’t he?”

Oops, Carmen, no he wasn’t, and by the way your video evidence of the tiny figures shooting Collier is an absolute scandal.

Kolodins Who Have No Physical Presence

Now for a third subcategory of kolodins (besides the ones who didn’t proseletyze and the ones who lead a big group). These ones have no actual physical existence.

Thanks to Hollywood’s ability to conjure up fictional characters, we all understand that it’s possible for a person to be breathed into existence, and breathed out again, and yet to make quite an impact during those days or hours that he “exists.”

Consider the two Middle Eastern men who attacked, a uniformed member of the Australian Navy near Bella Vista, Sydney, at 6.30am on September 25, 2014. The sailor reported his injuries immediately to the King’s Cross Police station.  (Well, you would, wouldn’t you.) For about 14 hours, the two Middle Eastern men had existence.

How do we know? Because the media said they did. And because the Australian Senate that very evening voted new anti-terrorist measures, at least partly in response to this new incursion of Muslims onto Oz soil.

Days later, “the charges were dropped.” Soon, the government apologized to the Muslim community for this little episode of guilt-by-association.

And further down the track, regarding this “Bella Vista incident,” the police media liaison admitted to Gumshoe News “We don’t believe it happened.” Amazing, a total fiction. No such sailor. Never given birth to by a human mother. Nothing.

In sum – recalling that the definition of kolodin is “one who is made out to be an Islamic terrorist” – those two “Middle Eastern men” were kolodins. Granted they’re a special species of kolodin — ones that lack the flesh, blood, skeletal structure, and other things so characteristic of H sapiens.

How Many Kolodins Would a Judiciary Exonerate If a Judiciary Could Exonerate Kolodins?

What is the chance of a kolodin making it through to an acquittal, or a later overturning of a conviction?

The answer is “poor, so far.” The only case that has come to light so far is the exoneration of Amanda Kolody and her spouse John Nuttall, both accused of a terrorist bomb-plot.

To repeat, the act of kolodizing someone (which is an act performed by law enforcement or a Independent Prosecutor type thing), means to accuse them 1. Of being Islamic  2. Of being a terrorist, and 3. Of having done something violent (or lusted in one’s heart about doing something violent, as in the case of Amanda Kolody).

A really beaut example of some non-exonerated kolodins are the seven men who were included in the 9-11 Commission’s Report as being among the 19 hijackers – who have since come forward. They say “See? We did not plunge into the Twin Towers; we are alive and well and unrelated to any such event.”

Naturally we can’t blame any particular judiciary for not acquitting those 7 men, since they were never indicted or tried in the first place — on the basis that you can’t bring a dead person to trial even if he be alive.

(Say what?)

But many other kolodins have been accused and convicted – let Jahar Tsarnaev stand as the model case – where all evidence points in the direction of a set-up, a Podstava.

There, a court that had any sense o’ decency would intervene to say “Ahem ahem, cough cough, it looks to us that this case is an abuse of process. And frankly, it’s nettoyage city.”

As to the question I raised in the heading “How many kolodins would a judiciary exonerate if a judiciary could exonerate kolodins?” the answer seems to me to be: why all, of course!

Yes, a judiciary could easily acquit or overturn any such case. And as to whether a judiciary “would” exonerate kolodins – falsely accused Muslim people, people suffering in prisons, cases where the law was mocked, etc — yes, of course judiciaries would fix that.

So … um, er, well … what’s stopping them?

— Mary W Maxwell is a dual US-Australian citizen. She receives compliments for her “humor” but if you inspect the above article you will see that a narration of the actual facts is inherently hysterical.

Photo credit: ultimatemuslimwarriors.files.wordpress.com




  1. Heavy-handedness is the hallmark of a system in collapse. The terror felt by Ms. Bishop & Co. just testifies collective guilt. They have categorically failed to serve the Country’s needs; small wonder they are scared shit-less

    By adopting a control-all-by-incorporating-all policy they have signed their own death warrant. They are thereby more or less bound to engage in the same recklessness insobriety and cruelty that heralded the fall of Rome

    • You won’t believe me but the Royal Commissioner used a WORD today. I am referring to Justice Peter McCallum and yes he did let it all hang out. Did you watch it? Then you can vouch for me. He used a word that I wouldn’t have ever expected to hear in a courtroom.
      The person in the witness box is a solicitor who had represented an abused boy in a lawsuit against the Anglican diocese of Newcastle. i think it had to do with minutes of a meeting at which this guy is minuted as having said something like “It will be easy to turn him [the lad] away.” The minutes were from a diocesan meeting.
      The judge noted that his was a conflict of interest. Obviously the solicitor couldn’t very well advocate for his client while being in cahoots with the church.
      So here’s what the Commissioner said – verbatim:

      “Beyond being unprofessional it would just be dishonest, wouldn’t it?

      Yep, he said that. He used the word DISHONEST.
      Bring me my smelling salts.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion