Prime Minister Tony Abbott and wife lay flowers at Martin Place
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB
Beyond any doubt the 9-11 attacks in New York and the July 7, 2005 attacks on the London Tube were false flags. How do we know? Because there were very elaborate drills taking place officially, on the same day, for an incident very similar to the one attributed to “terrorists.”
The Coroner, Magistrate Michael Barnes, has said he needs to get the Lindt Café Inquest done right (and speedily), as another incident could be waiting in the wings. Too right! Another false-flag attack within Australia may be on the books even as we speak.
The probable purpose of such attacks is for our government (or a foreign entity) to tighten control over all Australians and to gear us up for war. So then it’s good to try to stop this bamboozling of Aussies. Let’s sort out what happened.
To date the inquest has not put the Sydney siege in any context. I say: say, can we please stop treating that December 15, 2014 event as something to be investigated solely by focusing on mad-man Monis? (Hello, remember mad-man Martin Bryant?)
Why False Flags Exist
Pretend you want to start a war with Ruritania. You want your own people to join you enthusiastically. What better way than to stage an attack against your own people, and attach the flag of Ruritania to the (disguised) attackers?
ave the media standing by to make the most of the story, which must always include:
- The outrageousness of what the attackers did
- The ever-increasing threat, that if the attackers (the Ruritanians) are not stopped they’ll do more harm
- The need for our nation to draw close together in reacting.
False-flaggery is nothing new and never had any particular association with the religion of Islam. Nowadays, however, when you see a terrorist operation you can be sure the media will have a headline ready to blame “Muslims.”
Here are a few of the big ones:
1993 the bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center
1995 the bombing of the Paris Metro
2001 the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York
2005 the bombing of three London Tube stations
2013 the bombing of Boston’s Marathon race
One might think it odd for a group of people that had no known talent for major operations, Muslims, to suddenly be able to carry off such things as a coordinated attack on three Tube stations or the actual bringing down of skyscrapers!
But if media says it is so, it is so – for most people at least.
(Note: everyone is afraid to challenge a great, big media story, and also it would make one appear to be sympathetic with that horrible terrorist!)
How To Magnify an Event
What happened in the CBD of Sydney was pretty low-budget compared to the biggies listed above. For example, it had three deaths as compared to the three thousand deaths of 9-11.
It had only one perpetrator, compared to the two brothers that allegedly did the Marathon, four friends that allegedly did the London Tube, or 19 men that hijacked the 9-11 planes.
Nevertheless it looks to me that the Sydney siege “qualifies” as a false flag despite its smallness.
In any case, the media hyped it effectively to make it seem much bigger. After all, if Monis had many accomplices out there, a bomb could have been ready to go off in every capital city. Perth folk, say your prayers!
Note: The human mind is always inclined to magnify its estimate of danger – to be on the safe side.
Monis’ life and career was also played up to magnify his fierceness. Once you study him today, you might conclude that he was a wimp if not a wuss. But on the day, all that needed to be said was that Monis had been an “an accessory to murder.”
I noticed in the hearing of August 16, 2016 that barrister Philip Boulton, QC, actually referred to Monis as a murderer. Monis was never charged with any murder. “Accessory” can mean all kinds of participation, from small to large.
Even today we don’t know what role Monis played in the death of his ex-wife, Noleen Hayson Pal, or if he would have been convicted. It’s idle speculation for now.
The Government magnified the reaction, also, by evacuating part of the CBD. The trains did continue to run, however, unlike in Boston where the whole system of public transport got shut down during the search for a 19-year-old Muslim.
The Murdoch press went in for such headlines as “A Nation Weeps” and – rather presciently –“The Day That Changed Australia Forever.”
The Prime Minister contributed to the Sydney excitement by saying “I can think of nothing more terrifying and distressing than to be caught up in such a situation.” (Please ask: Who writes his speeches?)
And the event, which by any honest definition was not a siege, soon came to be called a “siege.”
Could It All have Been As Described?
I claim that the event that occurred in the Lindt Café on December 15, 2014 does fit the bill as a false flag event. Yet I cannot rule out the converse — that it all was as described. In this section I’ll play devil’s advocate against the conspiracy theory.
The official story is that a man who had various involvements with political and religious groups turned terrorist one day and made demands on Australian leaders.
Monis claimed that “Australia was under attack” — apparently meaning under attack by himself, armed with a shotgun that he carried in a Woolworth’s bag. It is within the realm of possibility that he had no help at all from any person, a true lone gunman.
Thus, he himself may have thought up the clever note to his non-existent “buddies” who were reportedly armed with a bomb to blow up the Sydney Opera House. (The other possibility is that such buddies do really exist, but melded back into the population.)
It’s also credible that the hostages, who were not physically blocked from leaving (the doors were locked only to outsiders), were so taken in by Monis’ threats that they dared not make a run for it.
It is possible that the male hostages had no training in how to fight or ambush an armed person, and that the three barristers in the café, and two banking executives, and two IT experts, were unable to conspire to trick Monis, or to bargain with him.
You’ll note that I’m bending over backwards to be “normal” here.
Do the Measures Taken by Authorities Seem Plausible?
Again, I cannot rule out that the actions police took after Monis started his crime of hostage-taking may make a lot of sense. So in this section I look at their plausibility.
Beyond doubt, the order to evacuate part of the CBD was normal. I would have done that if I were in charge.
I agree that the police negotiators could have been hamstrung by lack of equipment and by inferior technology, such as the 5-minute delay of the Listening Devices in the cafeteria, or having only one landline for incoming calls.
It is possible, albeit at a stretch, that the team of negotiators, (including a psychiatrist) acted diligently, according to their lights, to try to get the terrorist to surrender peacefully.
And it’s conceivable that the refusal of offers for third-party negotiators, such as Monis’ lawyer and the Grand Mufti, was based on the principle that “amateurs tend to lose control.”
Also, I can see how police may have felt they should not quiz the first batch of escapees at 3.30pm for suggestions on how to take Monis off guard, or ask them if Monis had a detonator for setting off his bomb. It could have added to their trauma.
Finally, it is worth looking at the police’s lack of a DA plan (direct action to storm the café at the time of their own choosing). Some have said it was because of a calculation that any premature move could bring about a “catastrophic” number of deaths.
Maybe that did indeed eliminate any DA option.
But I Personally Don’t Credit It
I won’t be surprised if people who know me think I always had a closed mind on the subject. Granted, from the very moment I heard, in Adelaide, that Sydney was experiencing a terrorist incident I scoffed at it.
And granted I take conspiracy theory to be a necessary tool of trade for those researching today’s worldwide violence.
But going to Sydney and sitting in the coroner’s court (on eleven days, over the period from June 2 to August 16, 2016) made me feel part of the in-crowd of believers.
I have already written that this happened to me when attending a Marathon-related court case in Boston. The setting gets to you. Form dominates over substance – or something like that.
So, whether you believe me or not, I did allow myself the thought, as outlined above, that all was according to Hoyle.
One wants to respect people who are well-spoken and versed in the high principles of the law. I’m averse to thinking that the barristers at the Inquest are engaging in deceit.
But on reflection I certainly think the false-flag version of events is a much better fit than the official version. Since we absolutely know that the official stories of 9-11 and of the London tube are false, why not also the Sydney “siege”?
In Part 16 of this series, I light-heartedly showed what it would look like if an expert in “scripted terrorism” – Dr X – gave witness to the Inquest.
I think it’s time to call Dr X to the stand, officially.
— Mary W Maxwell can be reached at her website maryWmaxwell.com
Photo credit: James Alcock at smh.com.au