Home Siege Lind Café Inquest, Part 30: Did the Sydney Siege Have a Real...

Lind Café Inquest, Part 30: Did the Sydney Siege Have a Real Terrorist behind It?


brezinskiZbigniew Brzezinski born 1928

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

Dee McLachlan recently wrote at Gumshoe that thousands of scientists and engineers defy the official view of 9-11. They show that the buildings did not “collapse” – they were brought down by ordinary controlled demolition.

Trade union leader, Kevin Bracken made that very point on an ABC “talkback” radio show, but he was ridiculed by ex-lawyer Jon Faine. This “kafuffle” (why was it a kafuffle?) caused the prime minister, Julie Gillard, a few days later, to say in Parliament that Bracken’s belief is “stupid and wrong.” No it isn’t. It is simply correct.

We who believe in various conspiracy theories (Port Arthur, 9-11, Marathon) try to do our best as citizens to put a stop to the real terrorism – the kind practiced by those who concoct false terror scenes, false flags.

Let’s ask if the Inquest is doing its duty to find out what led to the three deaths at the Lindt café so-called “siege.”

Inquest’s Statement on Radicalisation

Counsel Assisting the Inquest Sophie Callan cites the Oxford English Dictionary definition of terrorism:  “the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

On 17 August, 2015, she wrote, in an Inquest Statement:

“I turn then, to an issue distinct from but related to the question of terrorism – that is the topic of radicalisation. [in regard to whether] Monis’ acts were the result of being radicalized. It would be of value to know whether and how IS propaganda influences someone like Mr. Monis.

(You could just phone Zbigniew, Ms Callan. He knows.)

The primary witness … will be Dr Kate Barrelle, who is a clinical and forensic psychologist with a PhD in radicalisation and disengagement. [Disengagement?]

“Dr Barrelle observes that radicalisation explains the process by which a person becomes increasingly committed to using violent methods to pursue their extreme political, religious or ideological goals. …

“Dr Barrelle observes that the fact Monis invoked IS in his stated reasons for staging the siege, and displayed an obsessive fixation with foreign policy of the Australian Government [Gumshoe has the same fixation] means his actions have to be considered at least in part to be the result of some radicalisation toward violent extremism. …

“Dr Barrelle notes that it is impossible to disentangle the question of his mental health. [Does this “forensic psych-ologist” know his mental health? She hasn’t met him.]

“She describes a psychological picture of a man with an insecure or floating sense of self, seeking to belong to a group irrespective of any political or religious agenda. … [Kate, he emphatically did not seek to belong to a group.]

“She observes that if his mental health was deteriorating at the same time, and he was becoming increasingly delusional or paranoid, then IS would increasingly appear to offer a relevant platform to take a stand on his own personal issues. [Really?]… If he died then it would be a noble act of a mujahedeen.”

Look at the circularity of reasoning going on here: Monis absorbs a political philosophy because he is mentally ill. Why is he mentally ill? Is it personal or political?


The FBI has many criminals in its ranks. Jacks of all trades. In some cases, such as the 1993 bombing of the basement of the World Trade Center, it has been established that that terrorism project began as a sting operation by the FBI.

They – admittedly – coaxed some Muslims into doing it as a way of catching other Muslims in the act.  So when the FBI accuses someone of doing a bombing today – such as the 2013 bombing of the Marathon – we can make a reasonable assumption that that poor sod did not do it.

They had to kill Tamerlan Tsarnaev on the spot [like killing Monis?] to be sure the myth would stick. His brother Jahar, on Death Row, is not allowed any communication with the outside world, nor is the outside world allowed any communication with him.

(I am not allowed to communicate with Martin Bryant. Who said so? Martin Bryant said so, per a letter I received from the Superintendent of Risdon Prison. Ahem.)

I’d like to ask Ms Callan if she can entertain the possibility of Monis having been set up in any way. Does she believe anyone has ever been set up in Australia?  Wasn’t the 1978 Hilton bombing later revealed to have been an inside job?

The Inquest’s Expert Witness on Terrorism

Ms Callan again, from 17 August 2015, at paragraph 161:

“To address this topic [terrorism] a number of experts have provided evidence by way of reports, and several will be called to give oral evidence before your Honour. Each provide useful evidence about, amongst other things, the emergence and goals of Islamic State, its recruitment methods and connections with Australia. [Why are we inquiring about this? Monis was a classic loner.]

“In assessing whether the siege was a terrorist event, Associate Professor Shanahan describes the features of recent incidents which are certainly considered terrorist events – such as the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in the UK in May 2013, and the Charlie Hebdo shootings in January 2015. [Hello? Death of Paris Police Inspector Hedric Fredou who was looking into it? Hello? His mum said defo not a suicide.]

“In [the ANU expert’s] view, Mr. Monis’ attack differed from those Islamic inspired terrorist attacks in several significant ways including that there was no indication of communication between Mr. Monis and anyone on behalf of IS prior to the siege. Also, the flag Mr. Monis displayed was not distinctly IS nor was the headband he wore.”

Associate Professor Shanahan “concludes that Mr. Monis was not motivated by a political, religious or ideological cause but rather a person with mental health issues acting on his own personal grudges.”

Grudges! Like “Ever since Sally and David Martin wouldn’t sell their farm to my Dad I just knew I had to punish them, along with maybe a couple dozen collateral-damage type guys….”

The Inquest then brought in (for how much pay?), by video link, a man “widely known internationally as one of the foremost experts on terrorism.” This is the expert witness Professor Bruce Hoffman “who is presently based at Georgetown [‘Langley’ campus] University.”

I ran to Georgetown’s website and found the following:

“Professor Hoffman previously held the Corporate Chair in Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency at the RAND Corporation [ Mon Dieu! ]. From 2001 to 2004, he was Acting Director of RAND’s Center for Middle East Public Policy. Professor Hoffman was recently appointed by the U.S. Congress to serve as a commissioner on the Independent Commission to Review the FBI’s Post-9/11 Response to Terrorism and Radicalization.”

Folks, this is not the pot calling the kettle black. This is not the fox guarding the henhouse. This is… RAND is … um … I don’t even know how I can put it. Never mind, I’ll leave it unsaid. (Compared to RAND, the FBI is your loving aunt.)

I wonder who in NSW Department of Justice chose this the expert witness for the Lindt Café Inquest?

This Inquest HAS GOT TO RAISE THE QUESTON: Was the Sydney siege a scripted terrorist event?

Two issues must be openly revealed about the theme of Islamic terrorism. It would be a sin not to cover these well-established points.

The first is One is Zbigniew Bezezinski’s “confession” that the US government – of which he was a high official – started the Mujahadin in Pakistan. The US paid 80 billion – or even five cents, does it really matter? – to somebody to set up training camps for young men, teaching them that God (aka G_d, aka Allah) wanted them to fight a jihad.

The second is that a German journalist, Udo Ulfkotte, has “confessed” that he and all his colleagues — journalists who write about Islamic terrorism – were utterly on the take from the CIA.

Our Inquest cannot brush that under the carpet!  Let the three Counsels Assisting the coroner — Mr Gormly, Ms Callan, and Mr Downing — come forward right now and state whether they are aware, or are not aware, of the Brzezinski thing and the Ulfkotte thing.

If they know about such terrorist-falsity, they have to factor it in. The purpose of the Inquest is to query the deaths at the December 15, 2014 siege.  To analyze those deaths, the main thing on the table is: Why was there a siege?

Not to factor it in is to engage in – sorry, it really kills me to say this – cover-up. Was Monis hired to do what he did? Was he hired to write letters to the families of soldiers? Was he hired to chain himself to the steps of Parliament House?

All of that has to be examined.


Photo www.rferl.org


  1. The Inquest, should be also asking why a person with criminal charges on his head (a not insignificant charge of embezzlement of a large sum) was allowed to enter and stay in Australia.

    I know law abiding English people who after applying at least twice, each time paying up thousands of dollars in application fees ( a rort), who were knocked back. How is it that a person from a different culture, with a criminal charge pending was allowed to enter the country?

    Once he was allowed to stay and was on a charge in Australia of “accessory to murder and several rape allegations” how was he allowed on bail?

    If he had not been allowed to enter in the first place, or not allowed bail there would have been no siege and no deaths. So the actual guilty party to these deaths are several servants of the Commonwealth of Australia. In that phrase, I have answered the Inquiries main question of who caused the deaths of Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson.

  2. The same Dictionary defines “unofficial” as “not officially authorized or confirmed” and “unauthorised” as “not having official permission or approval” thereby acknowledging that terrorism is a type of faceless manouvering devoid of any sort of moral conviction.

  3. The act known as terrorism as being from a outside or official source? in fact the Imperialist Nations such as America Britain and so on are well versed in terrorism, they are the most feared of all as terrorist forces, this is for money to be made such as in Syria, when a significant amount of cities and towns destroyed will require a ailing steel industry and concrete required for rebuilding and in the mean time money made from the arms industry as more or less Western propaganda can write off the Arab Nations as all part of a dispensable human cargo whom are not like us and wear weird head dress and so on and most important deny them any dignity in obtaining there resources for nothing.

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