افق الحل في اليمن بعد صالح

في معرض تعليقه على تجربة كمونة باريس الثورية الفاشلة, قال فلاديمير لينين "ليس المهم القيام بثورة, بل المهم القيام بثورة ناحجة تحقق اهدافها وتحمي نفسها".

مضت ثلاث سنوات على "ثورة" الحوثيين - صالح على الاوضاع القائمة في اليمن, ولم يقل لنا احد حتى الان اهداف الثورة وفلسفتها وما ترجو تحقيقه من اهداف واساليب تحقيقها وهل تم تحقيق اي هدف من هذه الاهداف. خصوصا ان الحلفاء على طرفي نقيض في معظم الامور. وبعد الانفصال الدموي بين مكوني "الثورة", يحق لمؤيديها وخصوصا اليمنيين ان يعرفوا اجابة على سؤال محدد "وماذا بعد؟".

لا يختلف اثنان من الخبراء المحايدين بان تصرف الحوثيين الدموي باغتيال الرئيس الاسبق صالح وبدم بارد, واغتيال من كان معه وغيرهم من معارضي الحوثيين من حلفاء الامس في "الثورة" في صنعاء وغيرها, ستكون له نتائج وخيمة على الجميع في اليمن.

فالسعودية والتي تقود عدوانا همجيا منذ ثلاث سنين على اليمن تلقفت الخبر بالكثير من السعادة والرضا ودارت بقميص صالح على القبائل لتؤجج الثارات القبلية. كما انها تلقفت الهدية الحوثية لتزيد من تحطيم اليمن وتدميره بغارات همجية متزايدة وبطلب من اليمنيين انفسهم الذين كان اغلبهم يقاتلون ضدها بالامس. كما نجحت السعودية وحلفاؤها باسكات الاصوات المتصاعدة حديثا من منظمات دولية ودول داعمة للسعودية بضرورة انهاء الحصار وتخفيف الضربات الجوية, والتي تعالت الان شاجبة لتصرفات الحوثيين العنيفة. كما ان الغطاء الشعبي الذي كان يوفره صالح وحزب المؤتمر "للثورة" قد سحب تماما واصبحت السعودية وحلفاؤها في وضع قوي بادعائهم انهم يحاربون ميليشيات دينية مدعومة من ايران.

بعد احداث اليومين الماضيين الدموية يحق لنا كمعارضين ومنذ البداية للجرائم السعودية في اليمن ان نسأل ايضا "ما هي استراتيجية الحوثيين الان للخروج باليمن من مازقه الحرج؟".

بالرغم من تأييدنا لشعارات تحرير فلسطين ومحاربة الامبريالية الامريكية التي يرفعها الحوثيون, الا اننا نتحدث الان عن مصير ملايين اليمنيين الجوعى والجرحى والمحاصرين الذي كان لديهم امل بالوصول الى مخرج سلمي بوجود صالح وحزبه في جانب "الثورة".

فان كان الحوثيون يعتقدون انهم قادرون على هزيمة السعودية وحلفاؤها (وهم كثر ومن ضمنهم الامريكي والبريطاني والخليجي والعربي ومرتزقة كولومبيا و استراليا وووو) عسكريا, فنرجو ان يقولوا لنا كيف ؟

وحتى لو اجبر الحوثيون كل هؤلاء على ايقاف عدوانهم المباشر على اليمن, فهل يعتقد الحوثيون انهم قادرون على توحيد اليمن وهزيمة ألوية علي محسن وميليشيات الاصلاح والحراك الجنوبي والقاعدة وداعش وجزء كبير من المؤتمر الشعبي العام وبقايا الحرس الجمهوري والقبائل المتحالفة مع الامارات والسعودية وحزب المؤتمر؟ هل في مخيلتهم انهم قادرون الان وبدون صالح على "فتح" عدن ومأرب وحضرموت وووو, بعد ان فشلوا في تحقيق ذلك بوجود صالح ومؤتمره في صفهم؟

كما يحق للجميع ان يتسائل كيف سيحكم الحوثيون البلد (اليمن كلها) ان كانوا قد اعلنوا ان كل القوى السياسية والفاعلة عملاء وخونة ويرفضون التعامل معهم؟ فحكم اي بلد ليس بالسهل لوجود قوى متناقضة متصارعة ولا توجد دولة في العالم فيها شبه ديمقراطية إلا ويوجد فيها طيف واسع من القوى السياسية والايديولوجية والدينية غير المتفقة على الكثير من الامور, ان لم يكن معظمها.


انا هنا وحسب بداية مقالي لا اتحدث عن مشاعري الشخصية او تمنياتي, وانما اتحدث عن الواقع على الارض. فانا جل تمنياتي ان تهزم السعودية وحلفاؤها, ليس فقط في اليمن بل وفي كل مكان نشرت فيه القتل والدمار حتى داخل السعودية. ولكن هل هذا ممكن في اليمن الان؟ وكيف؟

علي صالح - وبوجوده اما في جانب الحوثيين او حتى كطرف ثالث في الصراع - كان قادرا على اخراج تسوية ترضي جميع الاطراف ومنها السعودية وحلفها. فالسعودية والتي كانت في زاوية ضيقة خلال الاسابيع والاشهر الماضية بسبب عدم قدرتها على حسم الامور العسكرية والازمة المالية فيها والصراعات الداخلية كانت مستعدة للقبول بحل وسطي يقوده صالح وحزب المؤتمر لاخراجها من هذه الورطة. المهم لديها ان لا تظهر ايران منتصرة بانتصار حليفها الحوثي وتسلمه السلطة منفردا.

اما الان, فالمراقبون يقرون انه لا توجد دولة في العالم تقبل او مستعدة ان تقبل بحل يسلم اليمن للحوثي منفردا, وخصوصا بوجود ادارة ترامب المعادية لايران. وعلينا التذكير هنا انه لا توجد دولة في العالم, حتى ايران, تعترف رسميا بسلطات غير سلطة هادي كسلطة شرعية في اليمن. والامم المتحدة وكل المنظمات الدولية تتعامل مع حكومة هادي باعتبارها السلطة الشرعية في اليمن. فعلى ماذا يراهن الحوثي بتصلبه؟

لا شك لدي بان الاحداث الدامية خلال اليومين الماضيين ومنها اغتيال الرئيس الاسبق صالح سيفاقم الاوضاع المعيشية لملايين اليمنيين في صنعاء وصعدة والمناطق التي يسيطر عليها الحوثيين. كما ان تصاعد المطالبات بالثأر لعشرات القيادات القبلية سيزيد تفاقم المذبحة والمعاناة في اليمن.

كما ان تصرفات الحوثيين خلال اليومين الماضيين اظهرت مراهقة سياسية بادارة امور الناس وعززت مقولات اعدائهم بانهم ليسوا رجال دولة ولا يملكون خبرة رجال دولة ولا يعدوا الا كونهم زعماء مليشيات دينية لا تقبل بالاخر.

كما ان تصريحات قيادات الحوثيين المتباهية بالتصرفات الدموية المراهقة وعدم ابدائهم اي مشاعر اتجاه الاحداث او مرونة للقبول بحل وسط او مصالحة يعزز ادعاءات خصومهم عنهم .

اليمن الان تحتاج الى معجزة حقيقية لمنع صوملة دموية, بدأت بشائرها بالظهور. فالطائرات السعودية تقصف بلا حسيب او رقيب او منتقد. بل ان اعداء الامس القريب يطالب بمزيد من القصف ثارا "للشهداء القادة" وتخليصا للبلاد من شر مستطير.

لا ندري الحسابات التي ادت بالحوثي للقيام بهذه المغامرة, ولكن كل الدلائل تشير الى خطأ هذه الحسابات بشكل فادح. ومهما طال امد المعركة, فان السعودية وحلفاؤها قادرون على ادامة القصف والتدمير وتمويل ميليشيات وجيوش محلية لسنين قادمة. كما ان الوقت ليس لصالح الحوثيين, خصوصا مع اعلام شرس يستغل كل شيء للتجييش ضد الحوثيين الذين تركوا انفسهم وحيدين في المعركة. كما ان تفاقم معركة اليمن قد يؤدي الى انتشار لهيبها الى دول اخرى, في زمن كنا نعول على ان اطفاء النيران هو الذي سيسود.


جنب الله اليمن كارثة محققة.

When I’m the only one watched by ASIO in this country

On the 4th of December 2015 I received on Facebook messenger an invitation to attend a conference in Lebanon. The organisation was to arrange everything including airline tickets, accommodation, internal transport and food. All I needed to do was send my passport and that’s exactly what I did.

The only communication I had via Facebook messenger were two messages, the invitation and me sending the copy of my passport.

The organisers contacted me regarding the return flights from Sydney to Beirut via WhatsApp. The conference was due to start on 7th December which meant I didn’t have much time to organise my trip.

On the 4th of December the organisers booked my flight to leave Sydney on 6th December. I had only about 36 hrs to pack and leave. Even my wife only found out I was leaving when the booking was confirmed.

My solicitor obtained the attached document from the Lebanese authorities where it states I was banned from entry to Lebanon on 4th December 2015. The same day I received the invitation and the same day I confirmed my attendance. How extraordinary!

Not even my wife knew that I was leaving for Lebanon until the 5th of December. No one else in my family knew, I didn’t contact anyone for a visa nor did I book accommodation in Lebanon. This has left me wondering how did the Australian authorities know about my travel plans?

Not only how did the Australian authorities know about my travel plans but how efficient of them to contact pro-ISIS Lebanese Minister for Justice General Ashraf Rifi and ask him to issue me with a permanent ban. All this within a few hours of confirming my travel.

One has to ask why our authorities were so efficient and quick to intercept my messages acting swiftly to ban me from a foreign country. These are the same authorities that allowed more than 600 extremists to slip away and leave the country to join terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq.

On 26 October 2015 I was on my way to Syria when I was detained and questioned at Melbourne airport for more than 1.5 hours. I asked the agent who was questioning me: “if you are so vigilant on an anti-extremist campaigner, how could you let 600 terrorists leave Australia for Syria?”

The young and naïve looking agent answered:” They have rights of freedom of movement”. I couldn’t believe what I heard!

Does this mean I don’t have the same rights?

Is ASIO really watching only me in this country? And why?

حقيقة الغربيين "اصدقاء سوريا": هل يفيد الحج والناس راجعه؟

دعوني اذكر بداية ان الازمة السورية ابتدأت في منتصف شهر اذار/مارس 2011. نعم في بداية عام 2011. وتذكروا هذا التاريخ جيدا بعد ان ابدأ بسرد حقيقة المشبوهين الغربيين الذين ظهروا في نهاية عام 2015. وخلال عامين اعلنوا انهم انقذوا سوريا من الهزيمة والتقسيم.

كما يجب ان اذكر ايضا ان المؤامرة على سوريا كانت تعتمد بالدرجة الاولى على نظرية "البلتزكريج", اي مفاجئة الخصم (الدولة السورية) بهجوم ساحق على عدة مستويات تؤدي الى شلل مؤسسات الدولة وانهيارها السريع. تماما كما حدث في تونس ومصر في بداية ما سمي بالربيع العربي. وبالتالي فان الدولة السورية كانت محتاجة للتضامن والمساعدة في الاشهر والسنوات الاولى للازمة.

ان الحرب الاعلامية كانت على اشدها منذ ما قبل اندلاع الازمة وكان المطلوب من اصدقاء سوريا الحقيقيين التحرك بسرعه لفضح المؤامرة في بداية عام 2011. لذلك وعندما قام الناشطون من اصدقاء سوريا الحقيقيين بتنظيم حملات الدفاع عن سوريا, تعرضوا الى ما تعرضوا له من اعتداءات وتهديدات.

هذه المقدمة كانت مهمه لتسليط الضوء على حقيقة ان سوريا واجهت اكثر الاوقات صعوبة في العامين الاولين للازمة. فالمتامرون سخروا مليارات الدولارات ومئات الاف الارهابيين ومئات وسائل الاعلام لتمرير اكاذيب ان ما كان يحدث في سوريا هو ثورة سلمية في مواجهة نظام دكتاتوري قاتل لشعبه. كمقدمة لتسهيل تفسخ الدولة السورية (كما حدث في تونس ومصر واليمن) او كمقدمة لتدخل غربي عسكري كما حدث في ليبيا.

كما انه من النافل للقول ان الدول المتامرة قد وضعت خطة الف وخطة باء وخطة جيم, للتعامل مع اي فشل لاي من الخطط الاولية. وهذا ما حصل.

وهذا يفسر كيف فجأة وبدون انذار ظهرت مجموعات "ناشطين" من شخصيات لم يسبق لها ان عملت في الشأن السوري او اطلعت على طبيعة المجتمع السوري. هذا الظهور المتاخر في منتصف عام 2014 يرسم الف سؤال وسؤال, من مثل:
- لماذا هذا التاخر المريب في الظهور على المسرح السوري, بعد ان فشلت المؤامرة في احداث انهيار شامل للدولة؟
- كيف من لم يزر سوريا ابدا في حياته اصبح خبيرا في الشأن السوري وضليعا بخفايا المجتمع السوري؟
- لماذا عادى هؤلاء الناشطون المتاخرون كل مجموعات الدعم الحقيقية التي ظهرت منذ اليوم الاول للازمة؟
- من اين حصلت هذه المجاميع المتاخرة على كل الدعم الذي مكنها من تصدر المشهد وتنظيم شبكات الدعم والتحرك بحرية بين الدول ونقل اموال طائلة الى داخل سوريا بعيدا عن اعين الدولة السورية؟
- السؤال الاهم هو ماذا استفادت سوريا من كل هذه المجاميع التي ظهرت على مسرح الاحداث بعد ان اجتازت الدولة السورية مرحلة الخطر وبدأت باستعادة زمام الامور والهجوم المعاكس وتحرير ما تم احتلاله من المجاميع الارهابية المتوحشة؟

فظهور فانيسا بيلي وايفا بارتليت وجميع افراد خليتها المتاخر المتزامن مع بدء معركة تحرير حلب, جاء متاخرا كثيرا ولم يحقق اي فائدة تذكر للدولة السورية والشعب السوري. فالدولة السورية كانت بحاجة لهذا الظهور عندما احتلت المجاميع الارهابية مناطق واسعة من حلب وليس عندما اندحرت منها. وفي عام 2015 عند ظهور هذه الخلايا المنظمة المشبوهة في سوريا, كانت الدولة السورية قد حررت الكثير من المناطق الاستراتيجية (القصير والقلمون الشرقي ومناطق واسعه من الغوطة ووو). كما ان الحليف الروسي بدأ تدخلا عسكريا حاسما لتدمير الارهاب واعلن انه لن يسمح بتدمير سوريا. وبالتالي وفي لحظة ظهور هذه الخلايا المشبوهة, كانت الكفة راجحة للدولة السورية ونهاية الازمة اصبحت قاب قوسين او ادنى. وظهور هذه الخلايا المشبوهة لم يحقق شيئا ملموسا, سوى اخذ الصور مع المسؤولين السوريين والادعاء الكاذب بانقاذ سوريا من التقسيم.

كان يمكن لهذه الشخصيات لو كانت صادقة ان تلعب دورا في اغاثة الشعب السوري بمساعدة بعض ضحايا الارهاب النازحين من بيوتهم او العائدين الى بيوت دمرها الارهاب. ولكن هؤلاء سلكوا طريقا اخر شائن بتهريب مئات الاف الدولارات بعيدا عن اعين السلطات السورية. ويحق لنا ان نسأل الان: لمن هربت (بضم الهاء) هذه الاموال ولاي هدف؟

كما تزامن هذا الظهور المتاخر مع بدء اعتراف الدول المشاركة بالمؤامرة ان هناك ارهابا في سوريا, وان هذا الارهاب قد ينتشر الى كل العالم. هذا الاعتراف الذي يعتبر في نظر الكثيرين اعترافا بهزيمة المؤامرة ومشروع تدمير الدولة السورية كمقدمة لتقسيمها وتقسيم المنطقة. وبرايي وراي الكثيرين فان هذا الظهور المتاخر في هذه اللحظة هو الخطة "ب" للدول المتامرة على سوريا لتحقق ولو جزء من المؤامرة.

الدول المتامرة وعلى راسها الولايات المتحدة ادركت تماما ان الفرصة الذهبية لاختراق سوريا على اكثر من مستوى قد لا يتكرر بعد انتهاء الازمة وعودة الدولة للسيطرة على كامل اراضيها ومقدراتها. ولذلك فقد كان من المهم لاجهزة الاستخبارات الغربية ان تقوم بزرع خلايا تجسسية واختراق المجتمع السوري متسللة تحت مسميات "التضامن مع سوريا" و "الدفاع عن سوريا" و "كشف حقيقة المؤامرة على سوريا" بعد ان ادركت هذه الدول ان المؤامرة لن تحقق تدمير الدولة السورية. وهذا يفسر سر مئات الاف الدولارات المهربة الى سورية لشراء ذمم سوريين معدمين او تجار حروب او عملاء ينتظرون شراء ذممهم. والمعلومات الموثقة التي قدمناها للسلطات السورية عمن هرب الاموال ولمن دفعت ولماذا دفعت, بالوثائق والمستندات وشهادة شهود العيان كافية لكشف الكثير من الخلايا النائمة التي تم تجنيدها ومن جندها.

وهنا يحق لنا ولكل محبي سوريا ان نسأل كيف اصبحت فانيسا بيلي وايفا بارتليت وجانيس كورتكامب خبراء في الشان السوري حتى قبل ان تطأ ارجلهم ارض سوريا. بل اننا نؤكد ان معظم هؤلاء وبسبب جهلهم وقلة ثقافتهم ما زالوا يجهلون الف باء السياسة السورية وطبيعه البلد, برغم زيارتهم لسوريا مرارا ولمدد طويلة. ومعظمهم ما زال يردد كالببغاوات كليشيهات عامة (يبدو انهم تعلموها على يد نفس المدرب) الغاية منها ان يحصلوا على اعجاب وتقدير الدولة السورية ومحبيها ومؤيدي سياستها. ان كل هذه الاسماء لم تقدم اي رواية مقنعه ومحترفة قد تلفت انتباه اي وسيلة اعلام عامة محترمة او مركز ابحاث محترم. ولهذا فان جل ما قدمه هذا الفريق هو تكرار ممجوج لشعارات العامة من مؤيدي الدولة لم يقدم او يؤخر في كسب الرأي العام العالمي وكشف حقيقة المؤامرة على سورية. والواضح ان كل ما كانوا يسعون اليه هو شهرة بين مؤيدي الدولة السورية تستخدم لاحقا كمنصة للانقضاض على الدولة في اللحظة المناسبة, تماما كما فعلت قناة الجزيرة القطرية بعد ان كسبت شعبية عارمة بعد تسويق مقولة "الحيادية" و "الراي والرأي الاخر" و "الشفافية المطلقة في الاحتراف المهني".

ثم ياتي التساؤل الاكبر عن سبب معاداة هؤلاء ومنذ ظهورهم لكل اصدقاء سوريا الحقيقيين الفعالين ومنذ بداية الازمة. فلماذا عادى هؤلاء المشبوهين العائلة قاضي والتي كان لها فضلا كبيرا ومنذ بداية الازمة في كشف حقيقة المؤامرة ووضعها في سياقها التاريخي لتدرج تامر الدول الغربية على محور المقاومة. فبدلا من التعاون لتوحيد جهود فضح المؤامرة, شن هؤلاء المشبوهون حملة بلا هوادة ضد العائلة متهمين اياها مرة بالعمالة للموساد ومرة بالوهابية. وقد اخبرت شخصيا من قبل احد هؤلاء بان العائلة وهابية متطرفة. ولم يخبرني هذا الجهبذ كيف يمكن لوهابية ان لا ترتدي النقاب او الحجاب على اقل تقدير. وكيف يمكن لوهابي ان يمدح الزعيم جمال عبد الناصر.

ثم شن هؤلاء المشبوهون هجوما حادا على كل اصدقاء سوريا الحقيقيين من ابنائها او مؤيديها بدءا بهجوم عفن على نعسان ترك وزاك الصواف وكيلي المقدسي وانتهاء بحضرة جنابي.

منذ منتصف 2015 ونحن نتعرض لهجوم تلو الاخر من مجموعه المشبوهين. وبدلا من معاونتنا بجمع تبرعات لسوريا (اوصلنا حتى الان عشرات الاف الدولارات وتبرعات عينية من ملابس وعكاكيز وحرامات..), قامت مجموعه المشبوهين بحملات تشويه داعين اصدقاء سوريا لعدم المشاركة في هذه الحملات. ولم نكن لنابه كثيرا لو قاموا هم بحملات جمع تبرعات. بل لكنا دعمناهم والغينا حملاتنا المتكررة.

اذا فالاجندات واضحه لمجموعه المشبوهين: تدمير شبكات الدفاع الحقيقية عن سوريا, وبالتالي حرمان سوريا من الاستفادة من خدمات الصادقين من محبيها. في مقابل تقديم انفسهم كمدافعين عن سوريا وكسب تاييد وتعاطف الدولة والشعب السوري لتسهيل مهمة اختراق المجتمع السوري وتجنيد عملاء ومخبرين لاجهزة الاستخبارات الغربية المعادية.

اجهزة الاستخبارات الغربية المعادية اعتمدت في نجاح مخططاتها بارسال هؤلاء المشبوهين لاقامة شبكات تجسس وخلايا نائمةعلى عدة امور:
- ضعف الدولة السورية وانشغال الاجهزة الامنية بمحاربة مئات الاف الارهابيين في سوريا, مما سهل تسرب مجموعه كبيرة من المشبوهين الى سوريا.
- ضعف الاقتصاد السوري وبالتالي ترحيب السلطات السورية باي دعم مادي قد يقدمه هؤلاء "الناشطين" ولو كانوا متاخرين كثيرا على قاعده "ان تاتي متاخرا خير من ان لا تاتي مطلقا".
- القاعدة العربية الثابته "الافرنجي برنجي", اي انبهار الشعوب العربية (والسلطات العربية) باي شيئ غربي دون التدقيق اللازم.

والسؤال الاهم الذي يبرهن بما لا يدع مجالا للشك على اجندات هؤلاء المشبوهة هو: من اين اتى هؤلاء الناشطون الفقراء الذين لم يعملوا في اي وظيفة خلال عقد من الزمان بكل الاموال التي تمكنهم من السفر المتكرر بين دولهم وسوريا والاقامة في سوريا لاشهر وفي فنادق خمس نجوم وانشائهم مواقع اخبارية واذاعات رقمية؟

فانا وبعد كل زيارة الى سوريا, احتاج الى اشهر لاسدد الديون المتراكمة علي بسبب هذه الزيارة. وكل من يعمل معنا في الشبكة معدمون فقراء لانشغالهم بالشان العام واهمالهم للامور المادية. كل ذلك دون ان نسافر عدة مرات بين كندا والولايات المتحدة وبريطانيا وسوريا ولبنان والمكسيك والاقامه اشهر في كل دولة وفي فنادق خمس نجوم. ناهيك عن ادخال مئات الاف الدولارات وتوزيعها سرا على عملاء مجندين.

ثم ياتي السؤال الاخير وهو: ماذا استفادت سوريا فعليا من ظهور هؤلاء المتاخر على الساحة السورية؟

الجواب البسيط: لا شيء. فسوريا عام 2015 كانت قد تجاوزت الخطر باسقاط الدولة وتقسيمها. والمؤامرة كانت قد بدأت خيوطها تظهر للجميع واضطرت حكومات الدول المتامرة للاعتراف بوجود الارهاب في سوريا. والحليف الروسي كان قد بدا هجوما عسكريا واسعا لتدمير اوكار الارهاب وتمكين الدولة السورية من استعادة الاراضي التي فقدتها. وقصص الثورة السلمية باتت ممجوجة لا يصدقها احد. فما فائدة ما قام به هؤلاء المشبوهون؟

حتى ادعاءات ان هؤلاء المشبوهين ساعدوا في كشف حقيقة ما يحدث هو ادعاء كاذب. فبدون التعاون مع وسائل الاعلام العامة, تكون روايات هؤلاء وشهاداتهم المؤيدة للدولة السورية بلا فائدة. فعندما تنشر ايفا بارتليت مقالا على احدى المواقع الوهمية التي تديرها هي او رفيقتها بالتجسس فانيسا بيلي, فان عدد القراء لن يتجاوز الف او الفين. ومعظمهم من اصدقاء سوريا المطلعين على الوضع والمصدقين للرواية الرسمية السورية. حتى ظهور لمرة او مرتين على شاشات تلفزيونات فضائية مؤيدة للدولة السورية كالفضائية الروسية او الايرانية, فهو ايضا محدود الاهمية باعتبار ان الراي العالمي الغربي لا يتابع فضائيات وخصوصا فضائيات معادية كما يصورها النظام الغربي.

دون اشراك وسائل اعلام عامة محلية كل في بلده (بريطانيا, كندا, امريكا, استراليا...) فالتاثير على الراي العام الغربي محدود جدا ويكاد يكون معدوما. وكل هؤلاء المشبوهين لم يكن لهم اي تواجد في وسائل الاعلام العامة الغربية.

كما ان ادعاء هؤلاء المشبوهين انهم انقذوا سوريا من الهلاك هو احتقار لتضحيات الشعب السوري والجيش العربي السوري والقيادة في سوريا. كما ان هذا الادعاء الوقح هو احتقار لعلي العلي الذي تلقى رصاصات الحقد الوهابي بسبب نشاطه لدعم سوريا في قلب مدينة سيدني. وهو احتقار لتضحيات علي ديوب وعلي العيساوي والحريري وغيرهم ممن فقد محل رزقه او تعرض لهجوم غادر بسبب مواقفه من الازمة. كما انه ادعاء وقح يبصق عليه طفلي خالد الذي اضطر ليعيش في رعب تام لاكثر من 5 سنوات بسبب نشاطاتي في فضح الارهاب في سوريا.

الى جواسيس السي اي ايه اقول: اجنداتكم فضحت. فارحلوا عن بلادنا. فالحج في غير زمانه حرام ومضيعة للوقت, وقد يكون لتحقيق اجندات التجارة بالمبادئ من اجل مصالح خاصة.

THE UNTOLD STORY OF TIM ANDERSON’S MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT OF SYRIA.

On 25 June 2013, I attended an event at the Syrian Orthodox Church in Lidcomble, in honour of the visit of Mother Agnes to Australia. During the event and light dinner, I was approached by Hanadi Assoud, a Syrian activist in Sydney. She whispered to me that the "Syrian Consul" wants to meet me.

I answered in shock "do you have a Consul in Australia?"

"Yes we have an Honorary Consul"

She introduced me to Maher Dabbagh, the Syrian Honorary Consul in Australia, appointed after the closure of Syrian embassy in Canberra.

I asked him why he wanted to meet me.

"Syrian ministry of Foreign Affairs asked me about you and wanted me to contact you".

We exchanged details, contact numbers and vowed to work together in future. I did not know much about him. Even my contacts in Syrian community could not give me any clear answers.

After one week, I contacted Maher by phone. I told him that we have an idea of sending an Australian delegation to Syria for "solidarity and fact-finding". The call was a lengthy one, as he showed a lot of interest.

I concluded the call by letting him know that I am able to organise the delegation, but would welcome cooperation with the representative of Syria in Australia.

The Honorary Consul asked me to come and meet him at the consulate. He asked me to come alone to discuss the idea and decide who to invite and who to involve later.

I went to meet him. As I was still receiving death threats and anti-terrorism agencies advised I should always have a companion if I attend any night activity, I asked a friend (Abu Ali Wazney) to go with me.

Arriving at the Consulate, I got a shock. Maher had invited four other persons to a meeting that was supposed to be discreet. Hanadi Assoud, Ahmad Isa, Tim Anderson and Marlene Obied were invited.
The meeting was unnecessarily tense. Tim Anderson was opposing everything I suggested. I suggested the delegation go during September (cheap flights and perfect weather in Syria). Tim wanted it to be during December. I interjected, as December always had big chance of getting snow in Syria and Lebanon. We decided to leave it to Maher. I also suggested some names to the delegation: John Shipton (Wikileaks), Dave Smith (Anglican church), Muslim religious leaders, businessmen supporters of Syria and some activists. Tim again interjected and suggested that we provide Maher with all names and he will decide.

I stressed that we need to meet at later stage to discuss the progress of the idea, especially as it was my idea from the outset and that I had offered assistance in organising it. Maher agreed and said he will arrange for another meeting soon after he gets some answers from Syria.

For the next two months, I received no notification from Maher. The WikiLeaks party decided to participate and send at least two from its National Council: John Shipton and myself. I contacted Maher and told him that I need to know soon about the delegation and that if he cannot organise it, I will do that. He asked me to come and meet him at the Consulate.

We met at the end of September (2013), he told me that most likely the visit will be during mid November. As I cannot leave my family behind in Australia in case extremists might try to attack them during my visit to Syria, I decided that the best solution was to travel to Jordan and leave them there.

In Jordan, I waited for a whole month for confirmation from Maher. He never answered my phone calls or my emails. I then decided to return to Australia and organise the delegation later.

Suddenly, Maher contacted me and told me that the delegation will arrive in Damascus in early December. John Shipton said he will be in Europe for a conference and he will join from there. Later, Maher confirmed the date to be 18 December 2013, and that he will contact me to let me know the details. John asked to add Gail Malone to the delegation. Maher agreed.

John and Gail arrived in Jordan on 17 December during the worst snow storm in the Middle East. For the next 48 hours Maher and his team were out of contact. Tim Anderson was delegated to coordinate the travel of people. His phone was sometimes responsive, but when asked about how we will arrive to Syria, he did not respond.

We had no alternative left but to seek help from the Syrian Embassy in Jordan. To our shock, the Consul at the Embassy confirmed that their Embassy was not aware of our delegation and that, after contacting the Foreign ministry in Damascus, they too were not aware of our delegation. He tried to help in confirming whether we had been issued a visa, but with no luck. He suggested that we have only one option: to fly to Beirut and head to Syria.

And this is what happened. We booked flights to Beirut and chartered a taxi from Beirut to Damascus. We could not fly on 18 December. We were at the airport in Amman on 19 December when we received a phone call from Maher. He asked us why we did not arrive the day before. We said that we had contacted both Tim and him more than 70 times and that they did not answer at all. He told us that he will send some people to the Lebanese-Syrian border to welcome us.

Arriving at the Dama Rose Hotel in Damascus, the atmosphere was already tense for some reason. To our sheer surprise, we learnt that the delegation arrival was coordinated with the Syrian Ministry for Higher Education. All along I had been informed that this delegation was being organised with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Any rational person would expect that a delegation of politicians and activists arriving in Syria to show solidarity and to fact-find on what is really happening there would have been coordinated with either the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or the Ministry for Information. I was puzzled as why the Ministry for Higher Education was involved, until Maher told us that he chose Tim Anderson to be the head of delegation. The normal protocols applicable were that the head of a political party, in this case WikiLeaks’John Shipton would have been the leader and not have involved the Higher Education Ministry and an academic being the head.

Tim Anderson, with his controversial past and lack of prior knowledge or connection to Syria, was definitely the wrong person to head the first Australian solidarity delegation of politicians and activists aimed to force the Australian media to report truthfully about Syria.

Every day of our stay in Damascus was both a struggle and marred with intense arguments. The delegation was divided into two sections that never interacted: the Hands Off Syria and the Wikileaks party people. All Wikileaks members were treated badly, kept in dark about activities and never consulted about any aspect of the visit. Maher coordinated with Hands Off Syria every aspect of the visit: meetings, activities and even gifts to Syrian officials. On different occasions John Shipton became very angry and vocal with Maher, highlighting what he saw as deception, among other things.

I had information that the Syrian president had agreed to meet the delegation because of the Wikileaks party officials' participation in the delegation. At that stage of the war, the president did not have the habit of meeting amateur activists or even academics. He only met politicians and well-known journalists in arranged interviews.

It was very clear that Tim Anderson and Maher Dabbagh designed the delegation to suite their agendas and interests, not the agendas and interests of supporting Syria. This was evident in the secrecy with which the delegation was formed, despite the fact that the whole idea was mine and, despite the fact that we, the Wikileaks party officials were the most important members of the delegation. We were kept in dark about all aspects of the delegation and its program.

Tim Anderson whispered to me during our stay in Damascus that prior to 2012, he had no idea where Syria is located on the map. Despite this, he was appointed for no apparent reason or consultation with us, to head the delegation. You can imagine the embarrassment of the Syrian President when Australian media started attacking Tim for his controversial past as spokesperson for an organisation that had been identified as an organisation conducting during his time, over a period of at least a decade, a minimum of 60 terrorist acts around the world, and for being in jail for years because of this association.

The embarrassment of the Syrian President was not merely felt when the Australian media began its attack on us and Tim. The embarrassment in fact, occurred much earlier. At the beginning of the meeting with the President, the President asked John Shipton to sit next to him. After being seated by the President himself, Maher and in clear embarrassment for the Syrian President asked John to vacate the seat and asked Tim to sit in it.

As if that wasn’t enough. Prior to the meeting with the President, Maher told us that the protocol guys at the President's office asked the delegation to limit the questions to the President to just two. Maher decided, again without any consultation, that Tim and John will deliver these two questions. After Tim and John asked their questions, the President asked if any of us had any comment or question. We were in limbo and we did not know what to do. We were told by Maher that there should be only 2 questions. But the President was willing to hear more than 2 questions and a couple of comments. Only Gail dared to break our promise to Maher of asking no questions. The President was very happy to hear the question and answer it. Just prior and after the meeting, the President spoke to me in Arabic, asking me questions about Australia and the WikiLeaks Party and, during the meeting, he asked me to translate a phrase that he forgot in English and also asked me to explain a few things to the delegates. Years later, Tim complained to the Kadis that I had been rude by speaking with the President in Arabic.

The whole visit was a nightmare to the point that John Shipton felt he needed to argue with Maher on a daily basis, several times. Several times he was shouting at Maher and telling him to “piss off”.

We came to understanding that Maher and Tim were happy to borrow our names and representation as officials of a registered Australian political party to secure the visit and the meetings with high profile Syrian officials. But at the same time, they did not want to give us any role in the visit and its success.

Maher and Tim knew very well that [at that time] the President, the PM and many important ministers would not agree to meet an academic and few irrelevant "activists". In following visits Maher organised for Tim and few of his "activists", they struggled to secure meetings with any important political official.

Tim until now is still irrelevant when it comes to the topic of Syria in the Australian mainstream media and public life. He gained some popularity among pro-Syrian activists and supporters. Instead of promoting the Syrian cause with this limited popularity, Tim used this popularity, built upon the suffering of Syrians and allegedly upon Syrian’s tax-payers money, to attack what he sees as rivals rather than colleagues and to discredit their campaigns.

To date, while the popularity of Tim on social media among Syria supporters developed because of his visit to Syria and the promotion of his book by Syrian media, he did not use this popularity to return the favour. To date, it appears that all he does to Syria is to visit Syria on possibly Syria-state sponsored holidays. It is possible that he spends no one cent. And, if this is correct then this is at the cost of needy Syrian people.

Recently, he joined the Christian Zionists campaign to discredit genuine Syria supporters. He is using his childish illustration charts (the charts remind me of my early primary studies and of those in schools in third world countries mid last century) to attack genuine Syria activists. And he uses these childish charts to try to convince people of twisted “facts” about a "leading war journalist" that was never on the frontline, or "independent journalists that deflated the mainstream media" when in fact these "journalists" were never heard of before by any non-Syrian supporters.

At all times, Tim, in my opinion, was liability for any cause. Thank God he was never near the Palestine cause. Now, media and politicians are easily attacking Syria and the movement that defends Syria is taunted by the media for having among its ranks a “prominent Syria supporter” such a person of a controversial background. The involvement of Tim with the Syria campaign has had a negative impact on Syria and its people. It benefited only Tim and his allies of Christian Zionist background and recently neo-Nazis.

How to become political analyst and journalist in one week?

The serious mishap happened at one of the respected satellite channels few weeks ago of presenting a 19 years old school leaver as “political analyst and researcher”, exposes clearly many serious issues we face in this social media era.

The school leaver who did not finish his year 10 schooling and working currently as laborer in Sydney, had no single published article on any subject that could interest any reader. He also did not have any experience working in any media organisation, even as cleaner. He also had never worked in any research institute or organisation. All he achieved was to film himself with his IPhone talking about Israeli crimes in Gaza. Then he published these childish clips on his Facebook account. This exercise made him “researcher and political analysts” and landed him many interviews with the same respected satellite TV station.

So, what does it takes you to become “journalist”, “researcher”, “expert” and “political analyst”?

All what you need to do is to go to the nearest shop selling smart phones. Purchase a smart phone. Go home and create Facebook page. If you create Twitter account, that will be a bonus. You need to focus on the audience you want to deceive. If you want to deceive people on Syrian crisis issue, send your invitation to anyone who has Syrian flag or Syrian president poster as profile picture. Then you can share as many articles and news as possible on the issue. It is better if you copy and paste these articles, so that you can give impression that you wrote these articles. Save and republish pictures. By doing this, you fool people and give them impression that you are journalist and have a lot of networks on the ground.

Continue like this for one week. You can change introduction about yourself on your timeline and call yourself anything you wish “investigative journalist”, researcher”, “”expert”... almost anything.

Once I wanted to prove that Facebook is just virtual imagined community that absorbs anything. I changed my profession on Timeline into “astronaut” working for “NASA”. Guess what? No one had challenged me. People who personally know me sent me private message with some “hahaha” or “lol”. The rest believed that I am astronaut working for NASA.

Why wasting 4 years study at university for a degree in media and journalism. Why waiting Murdoch to employ you in one of his organisations. You can educate yourself, employ yourself and become high-profile expert with tens of thousands of “friends and followers”.

One of the guys in Sydney who stopped with his education at year 2 of primary education, convinced people in Sydney that he is “journalist” and “strategic analyst”. Some of his followers are calling him “doctor” (assuming that he has PHD in politics or media). He even claims on his timeline that he had finished BA in Art at UNSW. When in fact he cannot construct a sentence in any language.

This is a dilemma facing our generation.

We thought that the appearance of alternative media will make things more transparent and truthful. When in fact it made things even worse, where people needs a smart phone and a Facebook account to fabricate news and events.

Of course I am not writing about this because of fun only. The issue is very dangerous and could have serious implications. Some of these “smart phones” experts could infiltrate organisations, communities and political systems to achieve destructive agendas. Of course some of these fake experts are harmless and doing this for either fun, being bored at retirement age or because of mental health problems. What concerns us are the “professional” fake experts who fake their statuses, expertise and professional abilities for deeply destructive agendas. This agendas could include spying, stealing money online... etc

I cannot find any solution for this dilemma. And I do not think that anyone has. But I deeply believe that if we give the liar enough rope, he/she will hang themselves with it. But sometimes, this happens late after many victims suffers.

It is the tax we need to pay for advanced technology we enjoy.

ادعاءات فانيسا بيلي عن التعذيب في السجون السورية: لمصلحة من؟ ولماذا الان؟ِ

فجأة ودون سابق انذار, قامت فانيسا بيلي بتبادل تعليقات مع بعض اصدقائها بان الرئيس السوري قد اسر في اذنها بان الاجهزة الامنية السورية قد ارتكبت وما تزال تعذيبا ممنهجا بحق المعتقلين السوريين وخصوصا في سجن صيدنايا. ثم قامت بيلي بمحاولة تاكيد هذه الاكاذيب بالادعاء ان الكثير من المسؤولين السوريين الذين التقتهم قد اكدوا هذه المعلومة.

وهنا لا بد لنا من طرح العشرات من الاسئلة على فانيسا بيلي ومؤيديها, وخصوصا اؤلئك الذين يدعون تأييد سوريا وحكومتها ورئيسها:
1- لماذا الان؟ في وقت بدأت الحرب تضع اوزارها بهزيمة المجاميع التكفيرية وهزيمة المشروع التقسيمي في سوريا.
2- ما هو موقع فانيسا بيلي المهم والذي شجع الرئيس السوري بان يسر في اذنها سر خطير يحاول الرئيس جاهدا وكل مؤسسات الدولة السورية على نفيه (او حسب كلام فانيسا اخفاؤه)؟ مع ان الرئيس التقى المدعوة فانيسا بيلي لقاءا واحدا يتيما عندما زارت دمشق ضمن وفد مجلس السلام الامريكي (التي هي ليست جزءا منه باعتبارها ليست مواطنه امريكية وانما اشتراكها بالوفد كان بالخدعة والاكاذيب) ولم تكن أنذاك معروفة او تتمتع باي مصداقية لدى السلطات السورية. فكيف ياتمنها الرئيس على سر خطير كهذا ومنذ اللقاء الاول والاخير؟
3- كيف يمكن لمن يدعي الدفاع عن سوريا ان يقود حملة تضليلية بنشر اكاذيب عن ممارسات السلطات السورية لتعذيب ممنهج ضد سوريين؟ كل ما نعرفه ان هذه الادعاءات التي لم يثبت صحتها بتاتا بثت بشكل واسع من قبل غرف عمليات دعم الارهاب في سوريا ورصدت ملايين الدولارات لنشر هذه الاكاذيب الملفقة.

حذرنا ومنذ عام من ان اجهزة الاستخبارات الغربية المعادية لسوريا تحاول اختراق المؤسسات الرسمية السورية والمجتمع السوري من خلال جماعات ظهرت فجأة وحديثا تدعي تضامنها مع سوريا. هذه الجماعات التي نجحت في البداية عن طريق استغلال الفوضى الامنية والحدود المخترقة وتردي الاوضاع الاقتصادية داخل سوريا بتجنيد سوريين عن طريق وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي. ومنذ بداية عام 2014 وتأكد القوى الغربية المتامرة على سوريا فشل مخطط الاطاحة بالدولة السورية, فقد لجأت هذه القوى الامبريالية للمخطط "ب" باختراق المجتمع السوري ومحاولة تغيير عقيدة هذا المجتمع عن طريق القوى الناعمة المتمثلة بالبعثات التبشيرية للكنائس الصهيونية وتنسيق مهامها مع خلايا تجسسية لتجنيد خلايا نائمة يستفاد منها بعد ان تضع الحرب اوزارها.

وخلية فانيسا بيلي وايفا بارتليت هي مثال واضح عن هذه الحرب الناعمة الخفية لانتاج العشرات من ايلي كوهين الذين سيساعدون في ابقاء الوضع السوري ضعيفا مخترقا من قبل اجهزة التجسس الغربية.

اجهزة التجسس الغربية تدرك تماما ان الفرصة الذهبية الحالية من ضعف الدولة السورية وفقدانها السيطرة على معظم حدودها وتردي الاوضاع الاقتصادية وحاجة الدولة السورية لتضامن ودعم الخارج وخصوصا في الغرب قد لا تتكرر في المستقبل المنظور. ولهذا فقد استنفرت هذه الاجهزة كل خلاياها المدربة في ظروف الشرق الاوسط ووجهتها لاختراق المجتمع السوري وتحقيق اجنداتها الاستخباراتية.

وهذا يفسر انتظار خلايا ايفا بارتليت وفانيسا بيلي الى بداية عام 2014 لتنسحب فجأة من فلسطين المحتلة حيث كانت تنشط بكثافة وتنتقل بقدرة قادر الى الميدان السوري.

التعليقات الحديثة لفانيسا بيلي تؤكد ما دأبنا على التحذير منه ان لهذه الخلية اجندة محددة تعمل على تحقيقها خلال الاعوام الثلاث الماضية. وهذا يجيب عن السؤال الاول الذي طرحته اعلاه.

التوقيت غير بريء تماما. فالدولة السورية الان تمسك بزمام المبادرة في تنظيف المناطق من الجماعات الارهابية. كما ان دول العالم وخصوصا المشاركة بالمؤامرة على سوريا قد بدأت بالاعتراف بفشل المؤامرة. كما ان الكثير من هذه الدول المتامرة قد اعلنت تراجعها عن المطالبة باسقاط الدولة السورية بل وبعضها ذهب الى حد المطالبة بالتنسيق مع الدولة السورية للقضاء على الارهاب العالمي.

ولهذا فان وضع التعليقات المشينة لفانيسا في سياقها التاريخي لمسار الازمة السورية وتخطي الدولة السورية لمرحلة احتمال اسقاطها بالقوة العسكرية اما عن طريق جيوش الارهابيين او عن طريق تدخل القوى الغربية المباشر, يجعلنا ندرك تماما سر اطلاق هذه التعليقات في هذا الوقت بالذات. واذا تذكرنا تجربة قناة الجزيرة القطرية التي قادت ثورة شفافية اعلامية في البداية من اجل السيطرة على عقول وقلوب واراء المشاهدين, ثم قادت مشروع "الربيع العربي المدمر" معتمدة على رصيدها الشعبي وقارنا هذه التجربة نجد تشابها واضحا.

فخلية فانيسا قادت (وبامكانيات مادية هائلة غير معروفة المصادر) نشاطا كبيرا للسيطرة خصوصا على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي المؤيدة للدولة السورية وحلفائها الحقيقيين. كما حققت الخلية اختراقا ليس بالبسيط لمؤسسات الدولة السورية معتمدة في الجانب الاكبر على اكاذيب وحيل رخيصة. وباتت تحظى بشعبية لا بأس بها بين مؤيدي الدولة السورية. ولذلك فعندما تطلق فانيسا تعليقات خطيرة كتلك المتعلقة بممارسة الاجهزة الامنية السورية لتعذيب ممنهج للمعارضين, فان تداعيات هذه التعليقات كان يمكن ان تكون خطيرة جدا لولا نشاط المؤيدين الشرفاء الحقيقيين للدولة السورية.

لولا ان الظروف اختلفت تماما, فان التعليقات كان يمكن لها ان تحدث نتائج سلبية خطيرة على الدولة السورية لاسباب:
1-كون التعليقات جاءت من شخصية ادعت لسنوات تأييدها المطلق للدولة السورية, فان اي نفي من الدولة السورية او من المؤيدين الحقيقيين للدولة السورية سيكون نفيا باهتا وضعيفا. ولو كانت الظروف مختلفة عما هي عليه الان (خصوصا لو كانت هيلاري كلينتون هي التي نجحت في الانتخابات ولم يتغير موقف الادارة الامريكية جذريا من الازمة), لكنا شاهدنا كيف ستتلقف كبريات وسائل الاعلام الغربية (المنشغلة حاليا بمحاولة تدمير ترامب وادارته) وتبثها على صدر نشراتها الاخبارية. كما ان الدول المشاركة بالمؤامرة كانت ستجد في هذه التعليقات صيدا ثمينا وستحيلها للنقاش في مجلس الامن على اساس "وشهد شاهد (او شاهدة في هذه الحالة) من اهله".
2-اضعاف الرواية الرسمية للدولة السورية لما حدث ويحدث في سوريا, على نفس مبدأ "وشهد شاهد من اهله". وفتح المجال للهجوم على الدولة السورية.
3-اضعاف معنويات مؤيدي الدولة عندما يعترف راس الدولة بان هناك تعذيبا ممنهجا تمارسه اجهزة الدولة.

استمعت للرئيس الاسد خلال لقائنا معه عام 2013. وقد كان الئيس واضحا عندما اقر بوجود "اخطاء متراكمة" ارتكبتها الدولة وقد تكون اعطت مبررا لبعض المتامرين. ولكن الاعتراف بالاخطاء المتراكمة شيء والاعتراف بممارسة تعذيب ممنهج شيء اخر مختلف تماما.

الملاحظة الاخيرة التي اريد ايرادها في هذه العجالة هو التساؤل عن موقف المؤيدين للدولة السورية من هذه التعليقات المشينة بحق الدولة السورية ورئيسها. بل اريد ان اتساءل هنا كيف يمكن لمؤيد للدولة السورية ان يستمر في تصديق هذه الجاسوسة والاستمرار بمتابعة اكاذيبها على وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي ومتابعة التفاعل معها بعد كل هذه الاهانات بحق الجيش العربي السوري والدولة السورية بقيادة الرئيس بشار الاسد.

كما انني اؤكد ان التعليقات المسيئة التي اطلقتها فانيسا بيلي لم تكن الوحيدة المسيئة التي تطلقها بيلي. وسنستعرض بشكل متلاحق اساءاتها المتكررة بحق الدولة السورية وحلفائها. فتابعونا.

Greens recent scandal: the end of the Greens?

Despite being very busy with my university exams, I just couldn’t resist writing about the latest and possibly the biggest scandal within The Greens party. A scandal that just saw two of their leaders kiss goodbye to their political life.

The media covered this news extensively, however one important question has not been raised so far and that is “why now?” I mean, why only now this issue has been brought to light?

Less than two weeks ago, the party senators voted unanimously against Lee Rhiannon’s actions to destabilise the “party room”. These senators voted to exclude Rhiannon from all “controversial” decisions.

Rhiannon had always counted on Waters and Ludlam’s support but was left extremely disappointed when only Adam Bandt sided with her.
Of course Bandt’s ambition is ultimately to become the leader of The Greens should Di Natale’s leadership be destabilised, so we can explain his support for Rhiannon.

Then comes the scandal.

Ludlam was in parliament for 9 years. No one noticed he was a dual citizen, not even after a few “concerned” citizens demanded publicly with a petition that the electoral commission check his citizenship status. Why after 9 years this story comes out?

The official story was that he attended an international conference where there were many questions about his citizenship. Another Greens senator resigned over a citizenship then it all becomes very clear. Someone is digging dirt on a certain group of Federal politicians.

The latest move to try and “restrain” Rhiannon has proved lethal.
At 66 Rhiannon still insists to become the head of the empire she had once built. She will never give up trying even if to do so would mean destroying the party altogether.

The whole saga reminds me of what happened with the Democrats. The disintegration of the party started the same way: a vicious public fight over leadership. Suddenly there were leaks on Natasha Stott Despoja ‘s attending meetings after long nights out, personal life of colleagues culminating with public infighting over the leadership.

Exactly 7 years ago I predicted that Rhiannon would destroy the party.

http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/lee-rhiannon-in-senate-best-chance-to.html

Today my predictions are starting to come true.

Good on you Rhiannon and good luck in destroying The Greens.

Will Ludlam stand trial for charges of fraud and wasting public money?

How could media swallow the Greens Politicians' lies that Scott Ludlam "did not know that he had NZ citizenship"... when in fact few concerned citizens initiated petition 3 years ago, after he refused to publish document that he does not have NZ citizenship, asking the parliament to take action against his illegal candidacy..

(The petition could be found on

https://www.change.org/p/scott-ludlam-show-the-public-your-new-zealand-citizen-renunciation-form-proving-you-were-not-elected-to-our-parliament-illegally#share)

We consider this to be deliberate misleading public... that could be mounted to fraud...and wasting public money in enforcing the electoral commission to re-conduct last federal election in WA... wasting millions of tax-payers money...

We cannot believe that SBS could not check this petition when it aired that the whole issue was “innocent mistake” of this politician.

Many questions should be asked here:
-How could Australian Electoral Commission not find this mistake?
- What is the need of a law if it cannot be implemented?
- Will Scott Ludlam face trial for charges of wasting public money and making fraudulent documents?

One Greens member commented after swearing on me "f... you mate, what about Abbott who is still dual citizen". Well, again: what is about Abbott? same questions above are relevant to Abbott (if he is still dual citizen until now). Also, the Greens member should remember that "two wrongs do not make a right" especially for a party that deafened our ears with "clean politics" slogan...

Hang your head in deep shame Greens party.

As a Muslim: I am also disappointed by the Australian community

After Australians refused to hear her talks on regressive Sharia Laws, Jassmin Abdel Magied resorted to her usual rhetoric: accuse all who oppose her sick claims to be Islamophobe.

Jassmin wants Australians to swallow, without any argument, that her Sharia Laws are the most feminist laws in history. Problem is, Jassmin has not told us which Sharia Laws she endorses.

Is it the Wahhabi Sharia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Sudan style?
Is it the Shia Sharia, similar to Iranian society?
Secular Sharia like in Egypt, Jordan and most of the Muslim countries

Jassmin who chose to visit countries that enforce repressive Sharia Laws (Saudi Arabia and Sudan), needs to convince me as a Muslim before trying to convince non-Muslims, how Sharia Laws are feminist? These claims are laughable and I will not debate them here.

Not only I’m disappointed with Jassmin and all her extremist supporters but I’m also disappointed by the Australian system and society.

I am deeply disappointed that Australia has allowed extreme Muslims to flourish. Where suburbs like Auburn and Lakemba are ruled by extremist thugs.

I am disappointed that the Australian government has poured millions of tax-payers money to support extreme Islamic organisations and allowed them to spread their extreme version of Islam in our society.

I am disappointed that Australia has not cracked down enough on extreme ideologies that promote underage marriage, polygamy and support for extreme jihad (both locally and overseas).

I am disappointed that our authorities are giving extremists like Jassmin full air and space as a representative of Muslims, while shutting down genuine moderate Muslims.

I am disappointed that Jassmin and other extremists can receive millions of dollars travelling to spread extremism, while moderate Muslim organisations are refused grants of less than $5000.

I am disappointed that both authorities and media have never really promoted an intelligent and factual debate on Sharia Law. It should have been allowed for people who lived under Saudi Sharia Laws to voice their personal experiences and the reality of the oppression and discrimination.

Lastly I am disappointed that Australian authorities have not helped Jassmin to voluntarily remove herself from this secular democratic society so that she could enjoy the privileges of living under Saudi Sharia Laws.

This of course does not mean that Australia is free from Islamophobia, racism and discrimination. But not the Islamophobia Jassmin talks about.

Of course we all condemn any attack on Jassmin or any other community member.

The same courtesy wasn’t extended to myself and other members of the Muslim community who were attacked by Wahhabi extremist. I guess that for Jassmine, we were not the “right kind” of Muslims.

It is the time for the ABC (especially) to stop supporting extremism.

STATEMENT OF CLARIFICATION

STATEMENT OF CLARIFICATION
In response to a post deliberately distributed to members of the Syria defence movement which portrays me as involved knowingly and deliberately in bringing into Syria an Israeli spy, I would like to write a few words here about this.

Firstly the individual who has deliberately distributed this information, damaging for the State of Syria and my own reputation, has failed miserably and only assisted in exposing more valuable information needed to close in on all the collaborators.

From the outset, this tour was under the auspices of the Syrian Ministry of Information who encourage visitors to Syria and see in this a form of economic support for the country. Our organisation’s role in this all was to liaise with the contact person from the Ministry and in a timely manner supply them the passport and details of proposed tour members. I would do initial research but as a layperson I can only research so much as was available to me. Hence, all these documents are subsequently sent to the Syrian authorities for security and intelligence security and security clearances. This is clear on the project link on our website.
www.socialjustice.net.au/syria-tours

We are a small group, we do not have an intelligence service and no do we aim to be one. Therefore, we try our best to check out people who would like to participate in one of our trips by checking their Facebook and googling their name etc. The rest is up to the Syrian authorities and their security organisations. Basically, the Syrian security Services was unable to identify this person.

The person under discussion is a journalist with a British nationality and a real British passport. He had posts in his Facebook account showing he has relationships and travel with countries that don’t have a relationship with the Zionist entity, namely Syria, Iraq and other Arab and Islamic countries. Hence, if he had managed to escape detection from the intelligence services of these States then it would likely be very difficult for us to recognize his true identity.

The fact that the person made a request for entry to Syria and got away with it and possibly had some kind of inside help or knowledge does not mean that we had any sort of prior relationship with him. This issue stems from the Syrian government end.

A person is assessed by the work, obligations they carried out and their achievements. Everyone knows the extent of my commitment to anti-barbaric and anti-conspiracy issues on Syria and other related issues. My sacrifices in doing this work, including my standing up and exposing those involved in the growing problem of extremists in Australia, Syria, the world are there for all to see and it is common knowledge that I endure death threats, vandalism of my property and many other attacks. I take this on board as record of pride. This latest attack on me, here in Australia, is a crime under the Australian laws of defamation and the matter will be pursued and prosecuted.

A Syrian journalist within Syria, Modar Ibrahim, who himself has suspected connections with Zionists and other questionable people, many of whom are forbidden to enter Syria because of their relations with hostile western intelligence, got involved in this matter when he should not have done so and has interfered with the work of the Syrian security services. Modar broke the confidentiality of this sensitive matter, tagging his foreign friends, many of doubtful connections and broke the news. By doing this, he not only interfered in the ongoing investigations but he has hurt Syria’s reputation and the reputation of the State’s security apparatus. These actions of a Syrian journalist working for Syrian State Television, a person who claims to be working in the national interests, smells of an agenda to smear my good name and leaves one questioning his larger agenda. All this Syrian journalist had to do was hand over his information he had gained immediately to the Syrian security authorities instead of make a public fiasco that damages the State, its investigations as well as my reputation.

This Zionist journalist, on his real Facebook page, laughs about the ease by which he got a visa to Syria. Clearly this is proof of inadequate coordination amongst the various bodies who facilitate access to Syria and some sort of problem that needs to be investigated as the Syrian Security services are second to none in the world.

The entry of a Zionist journalist to Syria confirms our previous statements and reports submitted to the Syrian authorities about how many of the Zionists (Christians and others) have been able to enter Syria and penetrate into Syrian society, networking and building important relationships with a wide spectrum of Syrian society as well as their targets.

Clearly, we have a disturbing situation here of a wide array of suspicious individuals entering Syria, many from churches that have proven Zionist intentions and agenda. Regrettably, despite much documentation submitted to authorities about a particular Christian Zionist who has entered Syria now three times, money has been changing hands, in some cases very large sums. Hence, in the case of this Zionist Journalist it can be assumed that money changed hands somewhere along the way for him to evade detection.

There are Syrian security failures. We have been working behind the scene with the Syrian authorities for weeks to reveal all the circumstances of this shocking topic and to work to close the gaps. The Lies of Zionist groups and their cells will not deter us from the support of Syria, Palestine and other people who are the victims of the Zionist-American project.

Article by Syrian activist Leo AlHalabi on Tim Anderson... before we lose Leo's page...

Leo Alhalabi
Yesterday at 9:02pm ·

Tim Anderson is one of those least likely to be anyone’s best friend given his colorful history and current demeanor. All one has to do is ask some of his associates to realize that with having friends like him, one doesn’t need enemies. But this is the last thing that Tim wants his international fan base to know.

Tim Anderson jumped onto the Syrian bandwagon for many reasons, one of which was that he’d been desperately looking for a come-back into fame, or rather infamy.

As a young adult, would-be professor Tim was a leading figure in Ananda Marga, a highly “devoted” Hindu-ish sect, but one that’s also highly controversial. Whether the many allegations about Ananda Marga are baseless or not, who knows, but this post focuses on what I know of Tim and what is gleaned about him from sources online. The intention here isn’t to open a closet of skeletons, but as Ananda Marga was accused of a number of serious acts of religious terrorism around the world and that Tim is connected with the cause of defending Syria, we need to understand whether his involvement is an asset or a liability, a credit or an embarrassment. Or is he merely another nutty professor.

It’s alleged that Ananda Marga’s target was the Indian Government, as at that time their leader was imprisoned by Indian authorities. Australia was one of many countries that suffered from terrorism in the late 1970’s, long before the IS ever existed.

The would-be professor wasn’t accused of one act, but actually two, and let’s get real; why would the Australian Government try to frame him as he pleaded? Why would the KGB frame him as he also pleaded? After all, before the incidents, he was a Mr. No Body.

He was a young man in his twenties and merely played the role of a spokesperson for the Ananda Margas, and the Australian Government had absolutely no reason to target him and use him as a sacrificial lamb.
He was put on trial, found guilty and spent six years in jail, before he was found guilty again of another crime which saw him locked up again. That was the infamous Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing of 1978 in which three people were killed and 11 injured, some very seriously. All up, he served a total of just over seven years for crimes he claims he never committed.

The evidence against him was later found to be not 100% conclusive, and hence he finally was acquitted and released from jail on the basis of insufficient evidence and the fact that he’d already served time, not once, but twice, on two separate incidences. His co-Margi stayed behind bars, unlike him, with incriminating evidence and confessions. Some ask why would his fellow Margi, a member from the lower echelons of the group’s hierarchy be guilty without Tim’s knowledge and involvement, given that this member confessed to the crime, stating he was ordered by Tim. That was a matter the Australian Government decided to rule about in Tim’s favor, but we should remember that although this ruling was made in his favor, his direct involvement in the acts of terror were not categorically proven, but neither was his innocence. It’s plausible to speculate that the Australian authorities wanted to close this embarrassing chapter (more on this below) and after seven years in jail all up, decided to let Tim go.

During his “tenure” in jail, the would-be professor was making in-roads towards another tenure. He started his tertiary education whilst in jail, and after receiving his PhD later on, he immediately landed on a senior position at the University of Technology Sydney, and shortly afterwards scored permanent tenure at Sydney University; one of the most prestigious universities in Australia.

Why would a prestigious university appoint a man of such background and give him a permanent position unless he was a good catch and a prolific publisher? But he is neither. His thus far tenure of two decades at the university has produced little in terms of number of academic publications, citations and advisory to post-graduate students. Such appointments are much less than the common practice in academia, they are never done.

The attached article clearly states that there was a huge upheaval surrounding the terror acts and rivalry between police and intelligence agencies and many attempts to silence some people. Was Anderson’s tenure at the university a part of a deal to keep him quiet? What’s even more odd, is that the man, according to his own admission, is “Australia’s only academic who is boycotted by the media”, so what exactly is he doing at that university when funds are hard to come by and competition is fierce?

During the transformation from a convicted criminal, acquitted free man, to a professor, Tim turned from living a devoted esoteric life into atheism and Marxism; which is odd given that he accused the KGB of framing him earlier. True believers in God don’t suddenly become atheists, and if they do, it only means that they never believed in God in the first place. But the new-found professor did have a god, and he will always serve this god with the utmost of devotion, and that god is none but his own ego.

His former Margi friends speak volumes about his eccentricities and egocentricity, as even though the group was restricted and under watch, former members continued to have a bond of friendship with each other, but not with big man Tim and it seems most loath him or feel so devastated that they wish to forget him.

Let us speed forward to 2011 when the Syria war began. In that war, the professor found a ripe opportunity to serve his ego god. Hence, he jumped on the opportunity long before most other Western supporters. He quickly built for himself a group of followers and established a movement he named “Hands off Syria”. He rounded up a good number of supporters who were much younger than him and much less experienced in politics and relevant matters. They looked up to him, regarding him as a demi god, wanting to eat from his hands. The demi god felt satisfaction, and he thought it was good.

To be catapulted to fame within the Syrian support movement, the professor needed a mega boost, so he piggy-backed on the Australian Wikileaks Party and headed a delegation to visit Syria and met with President Assad in 2013. By then, the Syrian Embassy in Australia was closed and the Syrian Government didn’t have the means to check him out.

Furthermore, Syria was in deep trouble back then, and Assad gave him audience because he needed as many windows to the West as possible, and what a boost that audience gave the professor. He became an instant hero and his ego elevated from that of a demi god to a full god.

Now his followers back home needed to plead for his audience, and it’s a wonder how his tall thin body was able to balance the big pumpkin of a head that grew on top.

However, when his controversial past attracted media commentary after his visit to President Assad, that media attention would likely have informed the refusal of his request to meet for a second time with Assad as he was refused.
His Facebook group, “Hands off Syria”, was like no other group, because originally he was the only admin and had a permanent “pinned” intro (courtesy god Tim) in which he dictated his terms and conditions. But when suggestions were made to him, he often disregarded them, as he’s the ultimate ruler of that group and it is after all, one of the many manifestations of his ego.

The professor then decided to write a book. The flimsy thin book that lacked substance was festooned with plates and graphics, and pages upon pages of references. The 250 page B5 book has almost 50 pages of references at its end, many pages of references and the end of each chapter, and many, many plates leaving at best 80 B5 pages of material of poor quality, not befitting that of an academic. Now the book is translated into seven languages. How was this paid for and who do the proceeds of sales go to?

But what the great professor didn’t realize was that its back cover as well as the last page in the final draft featured the “wrong” map of Syria, a map that acknowledges the Syrian Iskandaroun province as part of Turkey. Whilst it is internationally recognized as part of Turkey, any Syrian, genuine supporter of Syria or even an alleged supporter of Syria will find great offence in this map. The professor was able to correct his mistake before the book was launched.

In fairness to the “all-knowing” professor, it must be stated that he didn’t use the wrong map deliberately; he simply didn’t know. His lack of knowledge in regard to the map is however a true reflection of his lack of knowledge about Syria, period.

The pretense the unbecoming professor displays about his alleged love for Syria has the thumbprints of a passion that is highly pathological. Why would a white Australian who’s never been to Syria till 2013, who doesn’t know what the proper map of Syria should look like, have this kind of strong, morbid fetish that goes as far as challenging Syrians, patriotic Syrians, about their love and devotion to their own country?
The word “fetish” possibly holds the key, the ageing Prof who is in his mid sixties seems to have a fetish for brunettes. His similar aged partner is one, but within the Syrian community, the professor seemingly displays a penchant smutty streak that places himself surrounded by young Syrian female beauties who look up to him, considering themselves blessed.

This professor even once made an audacious Facebook collage about Syrian girls, displaying faces of young Syrian girls in their twenties, young enough to be his grand-daughters, with a try-hard fatherly caption, alluding these to be the angelic faces of Syria. It doesn’t take a deep probe to read into this statement and guess what was on his mind.

After a series of crimes rightly or wrongly associated with Ananda Marga in Australia and elsewhere, the most infamous of which was the 1978 Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing, Tim Anderson’s involvement or otherwise will remain in the minds of some as questionable in the absence of him being proven innocent. After all, the inconclusive evidence against him that eventually led to his acquittal, doesn’t conclusively prove his innocence either, especially that his alleged accomplice (Pederick) as mentioned above, who confessed to the crime stated he was ordered to do the bombing Tim himself.
In between 2011 and now, that controversial professor has shed many skins and turned his back on his “friends” within the Syria support movement, just like he turned his back in the past on his Margi friends and left them alone to face the brunt of the law.

A cynic’s view of Tim would not classify him as a nutty professor but rather as a smutty professor.
The smutty, flippy-floppy, self-conceited, holier-than-thou, former terror suspect who was never proven resoundingly innocent, dares take the upper moral ground in the pro-Syria movement and decrees from his self-proclaimed ivory tower that no one within the movement should call another a traitor. But he doesn’t apply his own “golden rule” to himself. He takes liberty to talk about betrayals of others and classifying some even as enemies; including very active patriotic Syrians. The alleged great pro-Syria activist who had to be told what the map of Syria looks like, has taken upon himself the license to decide who are the true patriotic Syrians and who aren’t. He also has the temerity to welcome dubious non-Syrians to Syria saying, “welcome to your second country”. It’s a mystery as to why he considers himself entitled or in such a position to do so.

Behind the scenes, the professor supports smear campaigns against genuine Syrian activists, knowing deep down inside that there is no proof to support those campaigns against them. Now, why would a man, an alleged freedom fighter, someone who was “framed” with a crime that he says he didn’t commit and spent over 7 years of his youth behind bars for it, why would he engage deliberately in defamatory campaigns against people he claims to support. It’s a bit like holocaust survivors who in turn did the same to the hapless population in Palestine. Reflecting on that, the congruency in the manner of thinking and actions display a worrying indictment on his character.

In one of his many lame attempts to acquire credibility, he joined hands with a dubious character according to the Australian media, an academic he’d put on his team and who the media reports as engaging in highly offensive racial remarks and alleged earlier years participation in a neo-Nazi website called StormFront. An experienced activist should have an eye and nose for such types, and even though the professor seemed to not know those details beforehand, he certainly displayed once again, his lack of wisdom and inability to make sound judgements.

Yes, indeed Tim has a long history of changing friends and causes like he changes socks. He’s no one’s friend and he doesn’t seem to have a permanent cause to serve. His alleged love for Syria looks like a ploy, and he only serves his ego, all the while savoring the accolade of young Syrian beautiful brunettes.

Tim Anderson has been playing with fire, stabbing his comrades in the back, throwing rocks at people when his own house is made of glass. He has a lot to answer to.

http://benhills.com/articles/scams-scoundrels/the-hilton-fiasco/

London terrorist attack: another reason why we need a Royal Commission on radicalisation

Despite being on high alert, the UK authorities were not able to stop the deadly terrorist attack in London yesterday. This event should have a great impact on how our authorities deal with local radicalisation.

In the UK (same as in Australia), the government together with authorities and opposition, acknowledged there was a problem with radicalisation but chose not to take any action against it. Some sections of the media and politicians even used this radicalisation to stir up division and more Islamophobia in our society.

In the last few years, in Australia, there has been no debate on where the source of this sudden “discovered” high radicalisation came from. We saw both the minister and shadow minister of education claim they had no prior knowledge of the high radicalisation in our public (and Islamic) schools. When in fact, myself and many of my friends, knew about this high radicalisation.

We had grave concerns when we witnessed our media, together with our politicians, support terrorism in Syria under the false banner of supporting the “Syrian revolution". It is a fact that every terror attack both in Australia and around the world, has been perpetrated by supporters of the so called Syrian revolution or by terrorists returned after participating in the Syrian revolution.

After all the terrorist attacks on home soil and the heightened alert, still to this day, our authorities have not taken any practical steps towards de-radicalisation. Extreme centres are still allowed to preach hate, mosques managed by extremists remain open, extreme Imams haven’t been deported and funding to extreme organisations is still active.

So far all we have seen from our authorities is the arrest of a few radicals just before they commit terror attacks or immediately after they have committed one. We have seen plenty of rhetoric without any meaningful action.

This lack of actions from our authorities towards radicalisation is due partly to the fact that extremist have become a very powerful lobby in this country. No government, no major party and no politician can take meaningful steps against the source of radicalisation. The radicals have infiltrated our political system, media and education system.

We believe that the only solution is to form a royal commission to reveal who allowed the radicalisation to infiltrate in our system at all levels. A royal commission, with its power to grant immunity and protection for witnesses and experts, will have a better chance to explore and reveal the reality of this sudden-discovered high radicalisation.

A royal commission can:

• Investigate how radicals infiltrated political parties and parachuted their preferred candidates on parties in safe seats.
• Investigate how terrorists were able to easily travel without passports to join the fight in Syria.
• Reveal how the authorities were actively engaging in bullying campaigns to silence anti-extremism campaigners to the point of conspiring with foreign authorities (in my case to ban me from entering Lebanon).
• Reveal how Saudi Arabia and other foreign countries were able to infiltrate our universities, schools, media and political parties.
• Explain how Australia found itself populated by thousands of hardcore radicals who are working very hard to kill our citizens and spread chaos in our beautiful country.
• Investigate how our media, especially state-funded ones, were actively spreading radicalisation by falsely reporting on what was happening in other countries, especially Syria and Libya.
• Explore how government departments are funding extremist organisations with millions of dollars and discover the extent of radicalisation achieved with such funds.

A royal commission will be able to give answers and recommendations.

A royal commission is our only hope to find out what went wrong and how to correct past mistakes. Without assertive de-radicalisation steps, we are dealing with symptoms and not with the real cause.

Without a royal commission and its findings, radicals and their foreign financiers will continue their infiltration of our political system, media and schools.

They will have enough money to build more mosques, centres and schools to continue radicalising our youth.

A royal commission is the only meaningful step to stop the blame game between the minister for education and the shadow minister on what is happening in our public schools.

We will mount a campaign demanding a royal commission to start a meaningful de-radicalisation plan. Such plan is vital not only to prevent terrorist attacks in Australia, but it is also important to start a campaign to restore faith in our authorities and the system.

We need to restore security and social harmony in our community and the only way to achieve this is through a royal commission.

When Pauline Hanson refused to meet with us to discuss radicalisation..

Pauline Hanson's latest comments about Islam and Muslims are further evidence that she is another lying politician who cannot be trusted.

Pauline Hanson deafened our ears for the last decade talking about extremism and radicalisation. Yet when we contacted her office several times offering to combine efforts in fighting against radicalisation, she just ignored our calls.

Since her election last July, we sent her two letters inviting her for a meeting to discuss radicalisation and extremism. We contacted her on 25 July 2016 and 15 February 2017. On both occasions, we received no reply (attached are the letters we sent)

Hanson’s main campaign election platform was to fight extremism. So when she refuses to meet one of the strongest voices fighting extremism, what does this tell you? Simple, it was just a mere empty election promise only to gain votes!

Pauline Hanson wants to show herself as a politician promoting transparency, clean politics and national security. So far what we are seeing from her is just more divisive rhetoric. As yet we have not seen any of her election promises in action.

Ms Hanson's empty racist and Islamophobic rhetoric will not benefit anyone in the community. Her racist and divisive rhetoric will not prevent terrorist attacks. It will not help in de-radicalisation efforts. And definitely will not help our national security.

Her divisive rhetoric will not improve housing affordability and employment security. And of course it will not repair social division and will not improve social harmony.

We would like here to publicly challenge Ms Hanson to show her true colour: if you are against extremism, let us work together. But if you want to use extremism for cheap electoral gains, we will be the first to fight against your destructive agendas and platforms.

Why I support the ban on face coverings

The debate on whether to ban the face covering has reached a point where there is talk of introducing a private members’ bill to ban it.

First and foremost I want to mention that as a Muslim, I support the bill.

Should the bill be designed only to help improve national security and to prevent terrorist attacks, then most Muslims would welcome the ban.

My concern is that members who introduced and support the ban have done so, to inflame islamophobia for electoral gains.

The reason I support the ban is as follows:

• Under the current circumstances of high extremism and high security scare of terrorist attacks on home soil, the ban could help in preventing security scare and calm fear in the community. It will help security agencies monitor extremists and might prevent attacks.

• Contrary to claims made by extremists, the burqa and the niqab are not part of the original teachings of Islam.

• There is no doubt that wearing the burqa or the niqab is an indication of extreme conservative ideology. Almost all terrorists arrested and convicted of terrorism-related charges believe so and have their female family members wearing this kind of face covering.

Having said this, I do believe the ban itself won’t bring security to this nation nor it will reduce the chance of terrorist attacks. This ban should be part of a wide-range strategy to fight extremism.

Politicians who are using the ban to stir islamophobia will in fact achieve the opposite. This ban and the growing islamophobia that accompany the debate will be used by extreme organisations to lure more youth into the rhetoric of hate. This will serve as golden opportunity for extreme organisations to recruit more terrorists.

What is more concerning is that political parties are talking tough on fighting extremism but their actions show quite the opposite.

For the last 3 years, major political parties were talking tough on fighting extremism, but were sending the opposite message by siding with terrorist organisations in Syria.

Even various local governments and major political parties are still to this day, strengthening their ties with local extreme organisations by increasing funding and inviting these organisations to all kind of consultations and events. At the same time, genuine and fierce anti-extremist organisations and individuals are still ignored and deprived of any funding.

While I and many other Muslims support the ban, we would be however reluctant to publicly support it for the above mentioned reasons. We are concerned the ban, together with other rhetoric, is designed to stir more Islamophobia in the society. With no clear de-radicalisation plan, the effect of our support to such ban will have many negative impacts.

I and many in the community welcome any engagement with any political party or group to discuss the effectiveness of such move on de-radicalising of our youth. We also are very open to cooperate with these politicians to combine efforts to fight against extremism.

The majority of Muslims in Australia have a deep feeling of belonging to this nation and share a deep fear of possible terrorist attacks. Many Muslims, including myself, were victims of attacks by extremists. We need to deal with this issue with a lot of sensitivity and not stir up more Islamophobia.

Politics of mere populism will not make Australia immune to terror attacks, quite the contrary. The same policies in France resulted in more terrorism and insecurity.