At the beginning of last March I received phone call from John Shipton, the father of Julian Assange and CEO of Wikileaks party. He asked me about “Sheikh Fidaa Al Majzoub” and if I know him. I told him that I know him very well, since 2008. John told me that he was contacted by the sheikh seeking meeting with representative of Wikileaks party. The sheikh insisted to meet with John as soon as possible.
Talking to John, I understood that the conversation/s between him and the Majzoub was/were lengthy and in details.
I told John what I know about the sheikh, who was mentioned by name by Syrian information minister Omran AL Zubi to be “leader of rebels who kidnapped and raped hundreds of women in Latakya rural area”.
Many conversations followed about the possible meeting between John and the sheikh (and some extremist supporters).
I did not object for Wikileaks party’s representative/s to meet with these people. But John should not go to meeting alone. I discussed this with John and with other Wikileaks party active members. John agreed to go to the meeting with one of the active members/supporters.
The role of active member is to be witness in case agreement of any kind reached between two parties. It is also more professional for any respected political parties to have more than one official/active member present at any meeting. This will perfectly serve the “transparency” goals of Wikileaks declared political agenda.
The meeting was scheduled to be Friday 7 March. Please remember this date very well. Keysar Trad supposed to pick up John from Yagoona train station at 7 pm. Then both will go by Trad’s car to a restaurant in Greenacre to meet the rest of the extremists (including sheikh Majzoub).
I thought that I was successful in convincing John to call Keysar and apologise for changing the arrangements. John supposed to go with Mamdouh direct to the restaurant and meet the extremists group.
At last minute, John called me and told me that he will go alone and briefly meet the group... and no need to bother Mamdouh.
And he did exactly that.
After midnight of that day, I received phone call from John telling me that Julian wants to suspend the work of the party and demanded that we all (John, Gail and myself) to resign as National Council members to pave way for Julian’s group from London to take over.
With the stress of the whole saga, I forgot about the meeting with Keysar and the rest of extremists. Our work was focussed on salvaging the party and tries to neutralise Julian and his father’s monopoly on the party.
On Monday 10 March, there was meeting to finalise details about fundraising dinner for the mission to Syria. Members of the committee asked me about the outcome of John’s meeting with Muslim extremists. I asked them to direct their questions to John himself.
John claimed that the meeting was only with Keysar Trad. He claimed that there was no discussion in that meeting. He claimed that Keysar wanted to meet him to take photo with him so that he can claim that he met the father of Julian Assange and post the picture on his Facebook account.
Now and after month of events, let us try to examine what really happened between John and Keysar and his associates of extremists.
So Sheikh Fidaa Al Majzoub was chasing John for meeting for more than a week and then he did not attend that meeting!!!
And Keysar Trad attended the meeting with John and discussed nothing with him, instead he asked for picture with Julian’s father!!!
And then in the same night, John and Julian attempted coup inside the party to get rid of me and regain full control of the party!!!
Can a young child in year 2 believe this!!!
Let us go back to Wikileaks and Julian Assange.
Is it also coincidence that the launch of Julian Assange’s popularity was on Al Jazeera Qatari TV (in 2 interviews in Arabic and English December 2010 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/frostovertheworld/2010/12/201012228384924314.html, http://www.aljazeera.net/programs/pages/be37378d-b604-478b-af7c-2ee8da306331)?
Does this match with the fact that sheikh Fidaa Al Majzoub was member of the Istanbul Coalition of Syrian rebels financed by Qatar?
And what is the big coincidence that the meeting and attempted coup was on the eve of Saturday 8 March?
If there is no coincidence, meeting with Keysar could have happened week later of the John/Julian’s move to demand full control of the party... or even in different month altogether!!!
And why did John refuse the attendance of other Wikileaks party active members/supporters in this highly controversial meeting?!!!
John and Julian knew very well about my stance on Syrian crisis and activities that resulted in death threats and physical assaults. My activities and views were very public and broadcasted on many media outlets. So whatever they were told by Keysar or Sheikh Majzoub should not surprise them.
So what was really discussed by John Shipton and Keysar Trad (and his extremist associates) that led to the coup in the party?
Without leaks from Keysar Trad, we would not know exactly the truth. But we can speculate.
If we connect the dots, we can try to solve the puzzle...
Meeting between group that was accused of being CIA shopfront (Wikileaks group) and group of extremists financed by Qatar (agents of CIA) that led to a coup to enforce me out, will have one thing to discuss.
Did Keysar offer Qatari funding of Wikileaks (group and party) in return of this coup?
Or did he offer something else similar???
Did Keysar make any promises to help Wikileaks, on behalf of Muslim community and some Muslim/Gulf countries??
I call on both John and Keysar to come forward and enlighten Australians about the discussions and the dirty deal resulted from such discussions.
The last note on these issues: it seems that Wikileaks party does not care about politics and its political stance/achievements. Otherwise why its officials are insisting to participate in tourism tours to Iran and Syria during the WA senate by-election, while the party is crumbling and getting less than 6000 votes in WA senate by-election (despite getting the Donkey votes estimated to exceed 5000 votes)...!!!
This would lead us to believe that Wikileaks thinks that its infiltration attempts of Syria/Iran camp are more important than improving political stance and try to rebuild the party.
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Tuesday, April 08, 2014
The death of Wikileaks party
We can debate for hours and days about the results of last Saturday’s WA senate by-election, their significance and future implications on Australian politics. Except for the results of one political party: the Wikileaks party.
How would anyone dispute the straightforward results of this party?
The official results for Wikileaks party (so far) is that it got around 6000 votes (0.6%). This is a reduction of 40% of its results in last year’s election.
But this is not the end of the story.
This election the Wikileaks party secured number 1 on the ballot paper. It is well-known that there is something called Donkey-votes, where deeply dissatisfied voters just vote by crossing 1 in the first box on the ballot paper. In senate, this would usually mount to 0.5% (ie 5000 votes in WA). In lower house seats, it usually mounts to 1%.
This means that Wikileaks party indeed got only 1000 votes, despite the local TV and social media advertisements.
Last election, the Wikileaks party got around 10,000 votes, without the Donkey votes.
But the story of this party’s disastrous results and practices are deeper than this.
Originally the Wikileaks party was standing in opinion polls on 21% early 2013 (http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/roy-morgan-research/2013/06/11/1370907445/new-polling-shows-assanges-wikileaks-leads-new-partie). But with the disastrous organisational decisions taken by the Assange-Shipton junta of building secretive organisation that has no regard to basic democratic processes in any political parties in any Western democracies, the real results were reduced to 1% in the last election.
But the Assange-Shipton junta did not learn the lesson. Instead of departing their disastrous decisions and style, they went even further. And after their farce of demanding resignations of the National Council members to enable Assange total control of the party, the party lost the last straw of credibility. This is why they struggled to get more than 1000 votes in the last Saturday’s WA senate by-election.
Hey Assange-Shipton: time to issue the death certificate of Wikileaks party!!!
The Assange-Shipton junta has very good sense of humour. Instead of issuing the death certificate and deal with its consequences, Shipton is on tourism tour in the Middle East... as they have no political agenda of this tour.... unless they have secret non-political agendas....
How would anyone dispute the straightforward results of this party?
The official results for Wikileaks party (so far) is that it got around 6000 votes (0.6%). This is a reduction of 40% of its results in last year’s election.
But this is not the end of the story.
This election the Wikileaks party secured number 1 on the ballot paper. It is well-known that there is something called Donkey-votes, where deeply dissatisfied voters just vote by crossing 1 in the first box on the ballot paper. In senate, this would usually mount to 0.5% (ie 5000 votes in WA). In lower house seats, it usually mounts to 1%.
This means that Wikileaks party indeed got only 1000 votes, despite the local TV and social media advertisements.
Last election, the Wikileaks party got around 10,000 votes, without the Donkey votes.
But the story of this party’s disastrous results and practices are deeper than this.
Originally the Wikileaks party was standing in opinion polls on 21% early 2013 (http://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/roy-morgan-research/2013/06/11/1370907445/new-polling-shows-assanges-wikileaks-leads-new-partie). But with the disastrous organisational decisions taken by the Assange-Shipton junta of building secretive organisation that has no regard to basic democratic processes in any political parties in any Western democracies, the real results were reduced to 1% in the last election.
But the Assange-Shipton junta did not learn the lesson. Instead of departing their disastrous decisions and style, they went even further. And after their farce of demanding resignations of the National Council members to enable Assange total control of the party, the party lost the last straw of credibility. This is why they struggled to get more than 1000 votes in the last Saturday’s WA senate by-election.
Hey Assange-Shipton: time to issue the death certificate of Wikileaks party!!!
The Assange-Shipton junta has very good sense of humour. Instead of issuing the death certificate and deal with its consequences, Shipton is on tourism tour in the Middle East... as they have no political agenda of this tour.... unless they have secret non-political agendas....
Saturday, April 05, 2014
حقيقة موقف ويكيليكس من سوريا: من فمك ادينك!!!
في اول حديث صحفي عن الزيارة لسوريا المزمع مشاركته فيها, وضع جون شيبتون احد مالكي متجر الوكيليكس بعض النقاط على بعض الحروف عن حقيقة هذه المشاركة.
ففي رد على سؤال عن امكانية مشاركة وفد الوكيليكس في لقاء جديد محتمل مع الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد, اكد جون شيبتون, المدير التنفيذي للوكيليكس بان هذا الاحتمال معدوم تماما وان حزبه سيرفض لقاء الرئيس الاسد بتاتا وبشكل قاطع. كما اكد جون انه ووفد حزبه سيرفضون لقاء اي وزير سوري او اي مسؤول في الحكومة.
اذا لماذا انتم ذاهبون الى دمشق؟
يجيب جون ان ذهابهم الى دمشق سيكون من اجل ارسال مساعدات طبية بقيمة 15 الف دولار جمعها الوفد الاسترالي. كما انهم سيقابلون "السلام", ولم يعط تفصيلات عن عنوان هذا السلام او اين يمكن لقاؤه.
اذا فحزب الوكيليكس تحول (او يريد التحول) الى منظمة اغاثية على غرار منظمة جيش الخلاص او الوورلد فيجن وترك السياسة والانتخابات وتغيير السلطة وفضح الحكومات وتطبيق الشفافية الحكومية وكل الكلام الفارغ الذي اشبعنا بها الوكيليكس خلال الاعوام الماضية.
وبالرغم من ان الزيارة القادمة لسوريا كان من اهم اهدافها المعلنة من قبل المنظمين في لندن هو "ارسال رسالة تضامن لسوريا وحث جميع الاطراف السياسية على العمل على حل الازمة سلميا", ولم يكن ضمن اهدافها ارسال ادوية بهذه القيمة التي لا تكفي لسد احتياجات عيادة طبية في احد احياء دمشق ليوم واحد. الا ان جون يعتبر ان اهم هدف للزيارة هو ارسال بعض الادوية لسوريا, من اجل التملص من اي احراج امام الصحافة الاسترالية والعالمية عن الموقف من الارهاب الضارب في سوريا للثلاث اعوام الماضية.
ومن اجل اكمال وضع النقاط على الحروف عن حقيقة موقف الوكيليكس من سوريا, صرح جون ان حزبه قد صرف النظر عن افتتاح مكتب في دمشق لان "الهدف الاساسي من افتتاح المكتب كان محاولة تجميع معلومات مهمة". اي بكلمات اخرى, فان مهمة المكتب هو التجسس على سوريا لمحاولة الحصول على وثائق قد تحرج سوريا وتساعد في تصعيد المؤامرة, كما فعلت الوكيليكس قبل عام. ولكن وبسبب ان الاحداث تفاقمت في اوكرانيا, فان جون سينقل المكتب (الذي لم يفتتح اصلا) من دمشق الى كييف!!!
طبعا بملاحظة ان الحزب لا يملك مكتبا في اي مدينة استرالية!!!
لنعد ونلخص ما قاله جون في جملة واحدة: سنشارك في زيارة سوريا للاغاثة وليس لاي هدف سياسي او اخلاقي للتضامن مع سوريا ضد الارهاب. كما ان الحزب سيصرف النظر عن افتتاح مكتب تجسسي على سوريا....
ولم يقل لنا لمصلحة من كانوا سيتجسسون على سوريا!!!
ودعونا نسال اسئلة افتراضية هنا:
لو تم دعوة الوفد الدولي للقاء وزير او رئيس الوزراء او حتى الرئيس, كيف سيتصرف وفد الوكيليكس؟؟ هل سيتمترسوا في الباص ويرفضوا النزول, ام يعلنوا الاضراب عن الطعام؟
لو اجرى التلفزيون السوري لقاءا مع جون وسال عن هدف الزيارة والانطباعات الناتجة عنها, فهل سيجيب عنها بالحديث عن شؤون الاغاثة ونقص الادوية؟
لو التقى الوفد مع سياسيين اوروبيين متضامنين مع سوريا, فهل سيصر جون ووفده الحديث عن الادوية, دون التطرق للوضع السياسي والعسكري وامكانية حل الازمة؟
القصة عن حقيقة الوكيليكس اسهل من ذلك ويمكن الوصول اليها من كلمات جون القليلة مع موقع الغارديان الالكتروني. فالقصة لا تعدو, وكما ذكرتها انا في مقال سابق, ان تنظيم الوكيليكس المشبوه الاهداف اراد اقامة علاقات وثيقة مع دمشق للتجسس عليها.
ما لفت انباهي اليوم تعليق من احد اكثر الناشطين من اعضاء الوكيليكس والذي كتب تعليقا على صفحة الوكيليكس على الفيسبوك يقول "انا وكعضو فعال في الحزب ان اردت الاتصال بالحزب, كيف ومع من يمكنني الاتصال؟".
هذه السرية التامة تذكرني بقناة الجزيرة الاخبارية والتي لم استطع (وانا سياسي وناشط اعلامي) الاتصال بها لسنوات. مع انهم اتصلوا بي عدة مرات وطلبوا تعليقات مني عندما ارادوا ذلك.
الحزب الذي يعلن لزوم الشفافية التامة من الحكومات والاحزاب والمؤسسات, يمارس سرية مطبقة وغياب لاي شفافية. هذا الحزب لديه الكثير من الاجندات المخفية المدمرة.
نامل ان يتنبه المسؤولون السوريون لهذه الاجندات ويعملوا على احباطها وعدم تمكين القائمين على هذا المشروع ان ينفذوا مخططاتهم السرية.
Thursday, April 03, 2014
I refused Wikileaks blackmailing: Syria needs real friends not with hidden agendas
After the successful fundraising campaign to raise money to buy medical supplies for Syrians which generated so far around $10,300.00, some unfortunate development on the mission to Syria ought to be announced.
With deep sorrow and shock I note here the Wikileaks “party” move to politicise this highly humanitarian aid and solidarity mission to Syria to try to cover their deep problems of internal infighting and total lacking of transparency and democracy.
I was invited to participate in the “Peace Pilgrimage to Syria” as “Palestinian activist” in an email sent to me and to the organizers of the mission on 15 January 2014. The main reason behind inviting me is my active role in defending Syria for the last 3 years and because of my participation in organizing and participating in the solidarity visit to Syria last December.
After my public resignation and total divorce with this notorious “party”, I thought that Australian internal politics will be kept separate from the mission to show solidarity with Syria and send some humanitarian aid. I advised the organizers in London about this divorce and my hope that nothing will be changed about the mission to Syria, as a totally separate issue. The organizers agreed in an email sent to me on 14 March 2014.
The Wikileaks “party”, who has hidden agenda in participating in visits to Syria (see my article on http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/my-conspiracy-theory-wikileaks-as-al.html) insisted to mix the two issues.
The party/family convenient store put all their weight to demand from the organizers in London to ban me from going on the mission, unless I go under the Wikileaks party banner. For me this is cheap blackmailing. Otherwise how would Wikileaks demand me to go under their umbrella after my public resignation and very public criticism to the Wikileaks for total lacking of transparency and democracy inside the party?
And more importantly, why would Wikileaks compromise not only the humanitarian and solidarity mission to Syria but also the unity of pro-Syrian movement altogether by their demands to mix between the two separate issues? Also, why would Wikileaks deny the highly needy Syrians victims of terrorism and violence of thousands of dollars in medical aid and supplies?
Can you see the hidden agenda of this “family convenient store” behind its bid to prevent very active member who was campaigning for years against violence in Syria, to the point of receiving death threats and physically attacked? And how could such move help sending message of solidarity and support to Syrians?
The Wikileaks “party” argued that the Australian representatives on the delegation are either from a local Anglican church or from Wikileaks "party". Consequently, I should be allowed to participate in this mission only under one of either of these banners.
Contrary to this false assumption, I note here that the majority on the Australian delegation are neither from the church nor members of Wikileaks party. Otherwise, where would Wikileaks classify the Muslim cleric in the delegation: under Anglican Church or with Wikileaks “party” membership?
This is deeply troubling double standard of a delegation that has a lot of hidden agendas, and not a delegation to send solidarity support or aid mission to Syria.
I refused the blackmail. And I refused to participate in the mission to Syria under Wikileaks “party” banner. And this is why we are in intense talks with many sides to explore how to send the medical aid soon to Syria.
I will update the community how we will deliver the aid to Syria, soon. We will also update community about our next mission to Syria. We expect to organize one in the next few months.
With deep sorrow and shock I note here the Wikileaks “party” move to politicise this highly humanitarian aid and solidarity mission to Syria to try to cover their deep problems of internal infighting and total lacking of transparency and democracy.
I was invited to participate in the “Peace Pilgrimage to Syria” as “Palestinian activist” in an email sent to me and to the organizers of the mission on 15 January 2014. The main reason behind inviting me is my active role in defending Syria for the last 3 years and because of my participation in organizing and participating in the solidarity visit to Syria last December.
After my public resignation and total divorce with this notorious “party”, I thought that Australian internal politics will be kept separate from the mission to show solidarity with Syria and send some humanitarian aid. I advised the organizers in London about this divorce and my hope that nothing will be changed about the mission to Syria, as a totally separate issue. The organizers agreed in an email sent to me on 14 March 2014.
The Wikileaks “party”, who has hidden agenda in participating in visits to Syria (see my article on http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/my-conspiracy-theory-wikileaks-as-al.html) insisted to mix the two issues.
The party/family convenient store put all their weight to demand from the organizers in London to ban me from going on the mission, unless I go under the Wikileaks party banner. For me this is cheap blackmailing. Otherwise how would Wikileaks demand me to go under their umbrella after my public resignation and very public criticism to the Wikileaks for total lacking of transparency and democracy inside the party?
And more importantly, why would Wikileaks compromise not only the humanitarian and solidarity mission to Syria but also the unity of pro-Syrian movement altogether by their demands to mix between the two separate issues? Also, why would Wikileaks deny the highly needy Syrians victims of terrorism and violence of thousands of dollars in medical aid and supplies?
Can you see the hidden agenda of this “family convenient store” behind its bid to prevent very active member who was campaigning for years against violence in Syria, to the point of receiving death threats and physically attacked? And how could such move help sending message of solidarity and support to Syrians?
The Wikileaks “party” argued that the Australian representatives on the delegation are either from a local Anglican church or from Wikileaks "party". Consequently, I should be allowed to participate in this mission only under one of either of these banners.
Contrary to this false assumption, I note here that the majority on the Australian delegation are neither from the church nor members of Wikileaks party. Otherwise, where would Wikileaks classify the Muslim cleric in the delegation: under Anglican Church or with Wikileaks “party” membership?
This is deeply troubling double standard of a delegation that has a lot of hidden agendas, and not a delegation to send solidarity support or aid mission to Syria.
I refused the blackmail. And I refused to participate in the mission to Syria under Wikileaks “party” banner. And this is why we are in intense talks with many sides to explore how to send the medical aid soon to Syria.
I will update the community how we will deliver the aid to Syria, soon. We will also update community about our next mission to Syria. We expect to organize one in the next few months.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
حقيقة الوكيليكس: مشروع استخباراتي امريكي على غرار قناة الجزيرة!!!
في ظل تصاعد الجدل حول منظمة ويكيليكس قبل عدة اعوام, طلب مني التعليق عن هذه المجموعة. وفي حينها فضلت كتابة رايي في مقال مفصل, بدلا من التعليق بعدة كلمات على الفيسبوك او تويتر. هذا المقال الذي نشر في صحيفتي النهار والعراقية الصادرتين في سيدني وذلك في منتصف شهر كانون اول/ ديسمبر 2010.
في ذلك المقال المفصل توقعت ان انشاء واطلاق منظمة الوكيليكس جاء لخدمة اجندات سرية غير معلنة. توقعاتي في ذاك المقال ان هذه الاجندات تمحورت لخدمة احدى قضيتين:
فاما ان التنظيم وما قام به من تسريب وثائق عن الاحتلال الامريكي للعراق وافغانستان يهدف الى تهيئة الشعب الامريكي للهزيمة والانسحاب المذل من هاتين الدولتين.
الاحتمال الاخر يتمحور حول تهيئة شعوب منطقة الشرق الاوسط لحروب اهلية واسعة او حتى لحروب اقليمية مدمرة.
لم يمض على نشر مقالتي 3 اشهر حتى بدا الدم العربي يتدفق شلالا فيما اصبح يعرف بالربيع العربي.
بالرغم من ان توقعاتي بدات تتحقق الا انني اردت التاكد اكثر عن تحليلي لحقيقة هذه الظاهرة. فقمت بالاتصال باكثر من صديق من صحافيي الشرق الاوسط وسياسييها ممن لهم اتصالات بدولهم واجهزة استخباراتها. لم يعطني احد اي اجابة شافية.
كان تنظيم الوكيليكس تنظيما سريا بشكل مطلق لاسباب لا يعرفها احد. حتى اجهزة الاستخبارات المحلية لم يكن لديها معلومات كافية موثقة.
وعندما تم الاتصال بي من اجل المساعدة في انشاء حزب الويكيليكس, كنت ما ازال مشتت التفكير. كان لدي شكوك قوية. كما انني قرات كثيرا عن تقارير مشككة بالوكيليكس.
قرات تقريرا عن لقاءات بين ممثلي ويكيليكس وممثلي السفارة الاسرائيلية للاتفاق بضمان عدم نشر ويكيليكس وثائق تحرج اسرائيل. وهذا ما حدث, حيث لم تسرب ويكيليكس اي وثيقة تدين اسرائيل او تحرجها.
كما قرات تقارير عن الاسباب الحقيقية لتوقيت تسريب وثائق عن سوريا, قبل ايام من اجتماع مجلس الامن لاتخاذ قرار بادانة سوريا والتمهيد للعدوان عليها.
وقرات الكثير الكثير عن هذه المجموعة.
ولكن بالرغم من كل هذه الشكوك, الا انني قررت المضي قدما في المساعدة بانشاء حزب الوكيليكس ولكن تحت شرط اساسي: ان اكون عضوا في الهيئة القيادية وليس عضوا عاديا. ولاخر لحظة كنت عضوا في المجلس الوطني وهو الهيئة القيادية في الحزب, ولم اكن حتى عضوا. كنت اريد التاكد بنفسي عن حقيقة هذه المجموعة السرية.
ستة اشهر كعضو في المجلس الوطني كانت كافية لتاكيد شكوكي, وشكوك الكثيرين.
فخلال 6 اشهر كعضو في المجلس الوطني - الهيئة القيادية العليا في الحزب, لم تكن لدي ادنى معرفة بما كان يحصل داخل الحزب. فلا اجتماعات عقدت. ولا توجد هناك عضوية فاعلة. كما انه لا توجد نية لتفعيل اي عضوية لتصبح فاعلة. ولم نحصل على اي كشف حسابات عن الوضع المالي للحزب. ولا توجد مشاورات بشان القضايا المختلفة. كما انه لا توجد سياسات معلنة بشان اي قضية مهمة او غير مهمة. ولا يوجد مكتب للحزب. كما انه لا توجد ملفات محفوظة... لا شيء على الاطلاق يوحي باي نشاط للحزب او يوثق اي نشاط او قرار.
كان الحزب كله في يد شخص واحد: جون شيبتون, والد جوليان اسانج (هل تلاحظون فرق الاسم!!!)
قام جون بعقد كل الصفقات. قام بجميع الاتصالات. هو من اختار اعضاء المجلس الوطني. وهو من اختار المرشحين في الانتخابات. وجون هو الذي قرر صفقة الاصوات التفضيلية. قام بكل هذا بعد اتصالات تلفونية غامضة, كانت مع ابنه كما يدعي.
هذه السرية التامة ليست فقط مخالفة للمبادئ التي اعلنت الوكيليكس عن نيتها مقاومتها, بل هي مؤشر واضح على ان من يعتمدها لا يمكن ان يكون الا جهاز استخبارات (او فرع منها).
عندما اجتمعت مع القنصل الفخري السوري في شهر اغسطس/اب الماضي لتنظيم الزيارة التضامنية لدمشق وعندما تم اقتراح دعوة حزب ويكيليكس للمشاركة في الوفد, لم نكن نتوقع موافقة الحزب على المشاركة. ففاجئنا الحزب بالموافقة. بل ان قرار الموافقة على المشاركة كان فوريا تقريبا. هل كنت مقنعا لهذه الدرجة!!!
بوصولنا الى دمشق وبالرغم من بعض المصاعب وسوء الفهم والعراقيل, الا ان جون بدا يتحفنا بطلبات غريبة عجيبة.
فمبجرد وصولنا الى دمشق, هذه المدينة التي لم يزرها جون قط من قبل وهي مدينة تمر بظروف صعبة من عنف وارهاب, اول ما قام به جون هو التوجه الى باب الفندق للخروج "في نزهة قصيرة في شوارع دمشق". تخيلوا معي: رجل ابيض, لا يعرف العربية, ولا يوجد لديه اي صديق في المدينة, وليس لديه اي معرفة عن ثقافة البلد, ولا يملك اي نقود سورية واول ما يقوم به هو محاولة الخروج الى الشارع والاختلاط بالناس.
وعندما تم ايقافه, خوفا على سلامته في المقام الاول, انفجر جون بوجه رجال الامن وهدد بالخروج بالقوة حتى لو تم القبض عليه.
ثم جاء جون بطلب غريب عجيب. طلب من السلطات السورية تخصيص مصور محترف لحزب الوكيليكس ياتمر بامر جون ويصور كل ما يطلبه منه. وكرر هذا الطلب بشكل يومي حتى ساعة مغادرتنا لدمشق.
بمجرد عودتنا الى سيدني, طلب مني تنظيم لقاء مع السفير الايراني. كما طلب مني تنظيم لقاءات مع مشايخ وقيادات الجاليات الاسلامية, خصوصا الشيعية منها. الهدف كما قال هو "من اجل توحيد كل الجهود لدعم سوريا" .... وكان ويكيليكس ليست هي الجهة التي سربت الرسائل الالكترونية الخاصة للرئيس السوري وزوجته قبل انعقاد مجلس الامن لاستصدار قرار بغزو سوريا.
بعد كل هذا, نتساءل:
1- لماذا حزب الوكيليكس مهتم فقط بزيارة ايران وسوريا ولقاء سفراءها ومسؤوليها؟
2- اذا كان هذا الحزب "ثوريا" لهذه الدرجة, لماذا لم تنعكس هذه الثورية على سياساته وقراراته؟
3- لماذا الاصرار على زيارة سوريا مرة تلو مرة, في محاولة لاقامة علاقات شخصية وثيقة ؟
بعد كل هذه الملاحظات نستطيع ان نخلص الى ان مجهودات الوكيليكس خلال السنين القليلة الماضية كانت موجهة لاختراق سوريا وايران وحلفائهما ومؤيديهما, هنا في استراليا او في الخارج. وبالاخذ بعين الاعتبار نوعية الوثائق المسربة عن سوريا والمقاومة والسرية المطلقة المحيطة بالوكيليكس, فانني لا اصدق ان هذا المجهود انساني تقدمي او عابر. كما انني لا اعتقد ان هذه المجهودات هي للحصول على اصوات انتخابية فقط. فكان يكفي زيارة تضامنية واحدة لسوريا للحصول على اصوات جمهور المقاومة, ولا داعي لتكرار هذه الزيارات كل شهرين. كما انه لا داعي لزيارة السفراء. وكانت الزيارة الى دمشق ستحقق الشعبية اللازمة باخذ صور وافلام فيديو من كاميرا شخصية, بدلا من المطالبة بمصور محترف يصور كل الشوارع وكل الوجوه في دمشق.
عندما انطلقت قناة الجزيرة الفضائية, الجميع اعتقد انها ستقوم بعمل جبار من اجل انهاء سيطرة وسائل اعلام مردوخ على صنع الاخبار والاحداث حول العالم. لنكتشف بعد عشر سنوات من انطلاقها انها لم تكن سوى اداة صنعتها الاستخبارات المركزية الامريكية لتعيد صياغة التاريخ ولتشعل حروب ونزاعات تخدم السياسة الامريكية.
وبالنسبة لي فان الوكيليكس بكل اشكالها لا يعدو كونها قناة جزيرة جديدة, بعد انكشاف دور الاخيرة. حتى انها استعملت نفس الادعاءات التي استخدمتها الجزيرة "بنشر الحقائق وانهاء السرية", بينما هي تمارس اسوء انواع السرية المطلقة.
ملاحظة اخيرة: هل من المصادفة ان يكون وضاح خنفر (مدير قناة الجزيرة الاسبق وعميل السي اي ايه حسب وثائق سربتها الوكيليكس) صديق مقرب لجوليان اسانج (مدير الوكيليكس)!!!
سنتابع قريبا نشر المزيد عن هذا الموضوع.... فانتظرونا
Wednesday, March 26, 2014
My conspiracy theory: Wikileaks as Al Jazeera-style CIA project!!!
After the rise of Wikileaks star few years ago, I was asked to give opinion on the work of this organisation. Instead of giving a quick comment on Facebook or Twitter, I wrote detailed article published on Al Nahar and Al Iraqiah newspapers in Australia. The article published on 15 December 2010.
I expected in that article, that the Wikileaks organisation most likely was established for hidden agendas. My expectations for the hidden agendas were specified in that article to be either: to prepare the US citizens for the US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. The other possible hidden agenda I mentioned is: to prepare the grounds for wide conflicts, and maybe regional wars.
Surprisingly, in less than 3 months the blood started to flow as a result of the so called “Arab Spring”.
I was still not sure about Wikileaks. This is why I asked my friends (journalists and politicians around the Middle East) about their thoughts on this issue. Surprisingly, not many had definite answer.
Wikileaks brand was very tightly secretive, for some reasons. Not even intelligence agencies in the Middle East knew the reality of it.
When I was approached to help setting up Wikileaks party in Australia, I was very confused. I had suspicions. I read a lot about the secrecy inside the organisation. I also read about suspicious meetings held between representatives of Wikileaks and Israeli semi-officials where Wikileaks assured them that no “bad-news” for Israel will be released (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php ). And no “bad-news” were released. I also read about the timing of releasing “Syria-files” ahead of UN meeting to decide “authorising attack on Syria” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-intel-op-release-of-wikileaks-syrian-files-intended-to-set-up-assad/31814). I read more and more about Wikileaks and its dodgy behaviour.
Despite all these I decided to go ahead and help under one condition: I will not join as an ordinary member but as National Council member. And to the last minute, I was NC member, but not ordinary member. Since I have no evidences, I wanted to explore the truth myself.
Six months as NC member was enough to confirm my suspicions.
For 6 months as member of the leading body in the party, I had no idea what is going on inside the party. No meetings. No active membership. No intention to empower active membership. No financial transparency. No consultations about decisions. No declared policies. No agreed upon politics. No office. No stored files. Nothing.
It was one guy who knows everything and does everything: John Shipton – biological father of Julian Assange.
John made all deals. He made all phone calls. He chose NC members. He chose candidates for election. He made decision about preferences. He made all these decisions after anonymous phone calls... allegedly with his son.
Total secrecy, is not only against the core objectives of Wikileaks brand, but a suggestion for secret intelligence agency (or a branch of one).
When I met with Syrian honorary consul in Sydney to organise solidarity visit to Damascus, we both did not expect that Wikileaks party will be interested in participating. Surprisingly in less than 24 hrs, we secured the party’s participation. Well, I thought that I was convincing politician.
Arriving to Damascus, with all mishaps, John’s concerns and demands were very strange.
Upon arrival to totally strange country going through difficult times of terrorism and violence, the first thing John wanted to do was to go through the hotel door and go for a walk in the streets of Damascus. A white man, speaks no Arabic, know no local people and has no idea about culture, has no money and has no sense of direction, the first thing he did was to try to cross the door of the hotel into neighbouring streets. When stopped by security and a delegation member, John burst in the face of them. He went mad and threatened to go ahead with his “short-walk”, and “security can arrest me” threats.
Then he came with this demand “I need cameraman assigned specifically for Wikileaks party and under our direction to record everything we want”. He repeated this demand day after day till the last minute of our visit. The whole issue was very suspicious.
After arrival back to Sydney, he asked me to organise meeting with Iranian ambassador. He also asked me to organise meetings with Shia clerks and community leaders (mainly supporters of Lebanese resistance and Syria). His motive was to gather the biggest possible support for Syria ... as if it was not the Wikileaks who leaked personal emails of Syrian president ahead of UN meeting.
Here can I ask few questions:
1- Why only Iran and Syria that Wikileaks party is interested to meet with and visit?
2- If this is a “revolutionary” figure and party, why this is not echoed in its policies and politics?
3- Why the insistence to go back to Syria, once after once, in a bid to establish strong personal relations?
I can note here that all efforts inside the Wikileaks are to infiltrate Syria and Iran and their supporters and allies, here and abroad. Taking into account the history of Wikileaks leaks and the total secrecy inside all Wikileaks organisations, I cannot believe that these are innocent efforts. I also do not think that all these are efforts to gain more votes. You can gain votes by one solidarity visit to Syria. No need to repeat this every 2 months. No need to visit ambassadors. Also this could be achieved with simple pictures and videos taken by personal cameras, without a professional cameraman recording everything and every faces in Damascus.
When Al Jazeera TV started its work, everyone thought that it will serve breaking the Murdoch’s monopoly on making news around the world. Then we discovered that it was no more than CIA project that was used to re-write history and instigate conflicts that serve imperialism.
For me, Wikileaks is another Al Jazeera. It made the same claims of serving the truth and breaking secrecy. When in fact it is the most secretive organisation around the world.
Was it just mere coincidence that CIA agent Wadah Khanfar (former manager of Al Jazeera) was close friend of Julian Assange (manager of Wikileaks)!!!
More to come soon on the same issue....
I expected in that article, that the Wikileaks organisation most likely was established for hidden agendas. My expectations for the hidden agendas were specified in that article to be either: to prepare the US citizens for the US withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. The other possible hidden agenda I mentioned is: to prepare the grounds for wide conflicts, and maybe regional wars.
Surprisingly, in less than 3 months the blood started to flow as a result of the so called “Arab Spring”.
I was still not sure about Wikileaks. This is why I asked my friends (journalists and politicians around the Middle East) about their thoughts on this issue. Surprisingly, not many had definite answer.
Wikileaks brand was very tightly secretive, for some reasons. Not even intelligence agencies in the Middle East knew the reality of it.
When I was approached to help setting up Wikileaks party in Australia, I was very confused. I had suspicions. I read a lot about the secrecy inside the organisation. I also read about suspicious meetings held between representatives of Wikileaks and Israeli semi-officials where Wikileaks assured them that no “bad-news” for Israel will be released (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php ). And no “bad-news” were released. I also read about the timing of releasing “Syria-files” ahead of UN meeting to decide “authorising attack on Syria” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-intel-op-release-of-wikileaks-syrian-files-intended-to-set-up-assad/31814). I read more and more about Wikileaks and its dodgy behaviour.
Despite all these I decided to go ahead and help under one condition: I will not join as an ordinary member but as National Council member. And to the last minute, I was NC member, but not ordinary member. Since I have no evidences, I wanted to explore the truth myself.
Six months as NC member was enough to confirm my suspicions.
For 6 months as member of the leading body in the party, I had no idea what is going on inside the party. No meetings. No active membership. No intention to empower active membership. No financial transparency. No consultations about decisions. No declared policies. No agreed upon politics. No office. No stored files. Nothing.
It was one guy who knows everything and does everything: John Shipton – biological father of Julian Assange.
John made all deals. He made all phone calls. He chose NC members. He chose candidates for election. He made decision about preferences. He made all these decisions after anonymous phone calls... allegedly with his son.
Total secrecy, is not only against the core objectives of Wikileaks brand, but a suggestion for secret intelligence agency (or a branch of one).
When I met with Syrian honorary consul in Sydney to organise solidarity visit to Damascus, we both did not expect that Wikileaks party will be interested in participating. Surprisingly in less than 24 hrs, we secured the party’s participation. Well, I thought that I was convincing politician.
Arriving to Damascus, with all mishaps, John’s concerns and demands were very strange.
Upon arrival to totally strange country going through difficult times of terrorism and violence, the first thing John wanted to do was to go through the hotel door and go for a walk in the streets of Damascus. A white man, speaks no Arabic, know no local people and has no idea about culture, has no money and has no sense of direction, the first thing he did was to try to cross the door of the hotel into neighbouring streets. When stopped by security and a delegation member, John burst in the face of them. He went mad and threatened to go ahead with his “short-walk”, and “security can arrest me” threats.
Then he came with this demand “I need cameraman assigned specifically for Wikileaks party and under our direction to record everything we want”. He repeated this demand day after day till the last minute of our visit. The whole issue was very suspicious.
After arrival back to Sydney, he asked me to organise meeting with Iranian ambassador. He also asked me to organise meetings with Shia clerks and community leaders (mainly supporters of Lebanese resistance and Syria). His motive was to gather the biggest possible support for Syria ... as if it was not the Wikileaks who leaked personal emails of Syrian president ahead of UN meeting.
Here can I ask few questions:
1- Why only Iran and Syria that Wikileaks party is interested to meet with and visit?
2- If this is a “revolutionary” figure and party, why this is not echoed in its policies and politics?
3- Why the insistence to go back to Syria, once after once, in a bid to establish strong personal relations?
I can note here that all efforts inside the Wikileaks are to infiltrate Syria and Iran and their supporters and allies, here and abroad. Taking into account the history of Wikileaks leaks and the total secrecy inside all Wikileaks organisations, I cannot believe that these are innocent efforts. I also do not think that all these are efforts to gain more votes. You can gain votes by one solidarity visit to Syria. No need to repeat this every 2 months. No need to visit ambassadors. Also this could be achieved with simple pictures and videos taken by personal cameras, without a professional cameraman recording everything and every faces in Damascus.
When Al Jazeera TV started its work, everyone thought that it will serve breaking the Murdoch’s monopoly on making news around the world. Then we discovered that it was no more than CIA project that was used to re-write history and instigate conflicts that serve imperialism.
For me, Wikileaks is another Al Jazeera. It made the same claims of serving the truth and breaking secrecy. When in fact it is the most secretive organisation around the world.
Was it just mere coincidence that CIA agent Wadah Khanfar (former manager of Al Jazeera) was close friend of Julian Assange (manager of Wikileaks)!!!
More to come soon on the same issue....
Gadhafi of Australia
In the face of avalanche of criticism for lack of transparency, dictatorial practices and hidden agendas, the Wikileaks party issued rather laughable clarification. Today I saw the following on the Facebook page of the party : “Just a quickie to announce that there are now 3 ladies responsible for the Wikileaks Party social media.. Alice from the Melbourne Office, Mel from Melbourne and myself, Bree from Geelong have been asked by John Shipton to share the burden. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank Gail Malone for her wonderful work over the last 18 months and enjoy your time off!! John has also asked the 3 of us to write a little bit about ourselves so that will come over the next week”. (see Wikileaksparty on Facebook at 15 March).
Please stop laughing.
Yes, John can do everything. He is the CEO. He is also the party spokesperson who speaks to media, at events and rallies. He also is the accountant that keeps all invoices and financial matters. He is the tourist that travels overseas on behalf of the party for every mission the party was invited to participate in. And he is the political expert that writes policies, chooses candidates and decides preference deals. Lastly, he is also the receptionist who makes and answers all phone calls.
He is real political superman, despite his limited intellectual capabilities.
That reminds me of the late Gadhafi of Libya. Even his tactics are similar to Gadhafi’s.
When Gadhafi was faced with challenges of the lack of elections and democratic process his solution was simple. He declared himself to be “the revolution leader” and resigned from presidency. He even abolished presidency and adopted new system with no president nor prime minister. The system was based on “revolution leader” who is historically one, and cannot be changed. And it is true. The leader of September revolution was Gadhafi. So how can you change history!!!
And in Wikileaks party, the same is true. If you ask John Shipton about transparency, democratic process in decision making process and respect constitution, he will answer you in one word “Wikileaks brand was created by Julian, and he is free to do whatever he wants with that brand”... the same “revolution leader” argument.
And if you argue with Gadhafi, he would have told you that “opponents are CIA agents trying to sabotage the revolution”.
When half of NC resigned last August in the wake of John Shipton’s decision to preference Neo-Nazi parties ahead of other progressive, semi-progressive or centre parties, he accused them of being CIA agents trying to destroy the “brand”... and yesterday and in the wake of my public resignation and criticism of the Shipton’s “convenient store management style” of the party, he came to our table on the rally and accused me of being ASIO agent who are trying to destroy the brand... Can you see the similarities!!!
Well… the announcement of appointing 3 ladies to manage WLP social media has done nothing to improve transparency and democratic process inside the party. No one knows how the decision was made to appoint them, who took the decision and who will manage and evaluate the work of these ladies…
Gadhafi invented recurrent tricks to silence the wave after wave of criticism and lack of transparency. The original Gadhafi usually came with all sorts of naïve justifications… including funny ones that were made jokes later on to convince kids to eat their dinner… The same with our Australian Gadhafi…
This does not mean that I support what happened 2 years ago in Libya. On the contrary. I opposed NATO attack on Libya to remove Gadhafi… by this way…
(This article was published originally 2 weeks ago)
Please stop laughing.
Yes, John can do everything. He is the CEO. He is also the party spokesperson who speaks to media, at events and rallies. He also is the accountant that keeps all invoices and financial matters. He is the tourist that travels overseas on behalf of the party for every mission the party was invited to participate in. And he is the political expert that writes policies, chooses candidates and decides preference deals. Lastly, he is also the receptionist who makes and answers all phone calls.
He is real political superman, despite his limited intellectual capabilities.
That reminds me of the late Gadhafi of Libya. Even his tactics are similar to Gadhafi’s.
When Gadhafi was faced with challenges of the lack of elections and democratic process his solution was simple. He declared himself to be “the revolution leader” and resigned from presidency. He even abolished presidency and adopted new system with no president nor prime minister. The system was based on “revolution leader” who is historically one, and cannot be changed. And it is true. The leader of September revolution was Gadhafi. So how can you change history!!!
And in Wikileaks party, the same is true. If you ask John Shipton about transparency, democratic process in decision making process and respect constitution, he will answer you in one word “Wikileaks brand was created by Julian, and he is free to do whatever he wants with that brand”... the same “revolution leader” argument.
And if you argue with Gadhafi, he would have told you that “opponents are CIA agents trying to sabotage the revolution”.
When half of NC resigned last August in the wake of John Shipton’s decision to preference Neo-Nazi parties ahead of other progressive, semi-progressive or centre parties, he accused them of being CIA agents trying to destroy the “brand”... and yesterday and in the wake of my public resignation and criticism of the Shipton’s “convenient store management style” of the party, he came to our table on the rally and accused me of being ASIO agent who are trying to destroy the brand... Can you see the similarities!!!
Well… the announcement of appointing 3 ladies to manage WLP social media has done nothing to improve transparency and democratic process inside the party. No one knows how the decision was made to appoint them, who took the decision and who will manage and evaluate the work of these ladies…
Gadhafi invented recurrent tricks to silence the wave after wave of criticism and lack of transparency. The original Gadhafi usually came with all sorts of naïve justifications… including funny ones that were made jokes later on to convince kids to eat their dinner… The same with our Australian Gadhafi…
This does not mean that I support what happened 2 years ago in Libya. On the contrary. I opposed NATO attack on Libya to remove Gadhafi… by this way…
(This article was published originally 2 weeks ago)
Thursday, March 20, 2014
Australian soldier killed in Syria
So what is the implications of first Australian soldier killed in Syria fighting alongside Al Qaeda rebels (http://www.smh.com.au/national/caner-temel-killed-in-syria-revealed-as-former-australian-soldier-20140319-3510k.html)?
Last year we heard the Australian authorities warn: the news about first Australian suicide bomber (Abu Asmaa Al Australi) should be a wake-up call?
Now we have first Australian soldier killed in Syria, and this should be another wake-up calls?
I will publish soon analysis about these issues, but hope that our authorities have woken-up and will take decisive measures to insure protection of our National Security....
I note here that authorities did not update us with the numbers of extremists who already returned to Australia after they realised that the mission (of destroying Syrian government and society)is impossible to be accomplished?
Last year we heard the Australian authorities warn: the news about first Australian suicide bomber (Abu Asmaa Al Australi) should be a wake-up call?
Now we have first Australian soldier killed in Syria, and this should be another wake-up calls?
I will publish soon analysis about these issues, but hope that our authorities have woken-up and will take decisive measures to insure protection of our National Security....
I note here that authorities did not update us with the numbers of extremists who already returned to Australia after they realised that the mission (of destroying Syrian government and society)is impossible to be accomplished?
Sunday, March 16, 2014
WA election: Wikileaks party runs candidates on behalf of the Greens party!!!
Last Tuesday the Wikileaks party preferences committee decided to preference ALL very smaller progressive micro parties ahead of the Greens, Labor and Liberals. Then to put the Greens ahead of Labor and Liberals. And to put right-wing small parties last... It was semi clever decision led by the leading candidate Gerry Georgatos. His logic was right, except for putting the Greens ahead of the Labor.
The right logic is this: micro parties like Wikileaks party needs to exchange preferences with other micro parties who suppose to share some values and politics. These micro parteis include: The Democrats, Secular party, Animal Justice, Sex party, HEMP, Socialists.... By swapping preferences with micro parties who might get less primary votes than your party, this will boost your chances of reaching the quota to win senate seat. This is the logic that saw Sports party won a seat (in original count) only on less than 3,000 primary votes, by climbing on other micro parties preference votes.
So Gerry’s logic was partially right. The only wrong in that logic was to put the Greens ahead of Labor. While politically Labor and Greens are very similar in politics and were allies for years, the Labor has better deal to WLP. The Labor will most likely get primary to win more than 2 seats. So they will have some surplus to distribute to the WLP as preferences. While the Greens had never won on their own a seat in the state. So they will always need some preferences from smaller parties to climb on these votes to win one senate seat.
The WLP decision to preference the Greens ahead of all micro parties is suicidal for WLP and will most likely kill any hope for WLP candidates to win any seat in the senate. Without preferences from smaller micro parties the WLP candidates will most likely be the first micro parties to be eliminated in very early stages.
So what happened and why the WLP changed recommendations from the subcommittee on preferences and decided to put the Greens very high (the highest) on its preferences? Was this the real reason why the original and experienced candidate Gerry quit from the ticket and leaves the campaign early? And what did the WLP get from the Greens in return for this help?
Every Australian should ask questions to both WLP and the Greens to come clean on the secret dirty deals done. And I think it is time for Australians to demand the end of preferential voting system. Such system that encourage dirty deals that mount to corruption and fraud.
The right logic is this: micro parties like Wikileaks party needs to exchange preferences with other micro parties who suppose to share some values and politics. These micro parteis include: The Democrats, Secular party, Animal Justice, Sex party, HEMP, Socialists.... By swapping preferences with micro parties who might get less primary votes than your party, this will boost your chances of reaching the quota to win senate seat. This is the logic that saw Sports party won a seat (in original count) only on less than 3,000 primary votes, by climbing on other micro parties preference votes.
So Gerry’s logic was partially right. The only wrong in that logic was to put the Greens ahead of Labor. While politically Labor and Greens are very similar in politics and were allies for years, the Labor has better deal to WLP. The Labor will most likely get primary to win more than 2 seats. So they will have some surplus to distribute to the WLP as preferences. While the Greens had never won on their own a seat in the state. So they will always need some preferences from smaller parties to climb on these votes to win one senate seat.
The WLP decision to preference the Greens ahead of all micro parties is suicidal for WLP and will most likely kill any hope for WLP candidates to win any seat in the senate. Without preferences from smaller micro parties the WLP candidates will most likely be the first micro parties to be eliminated in very early stages.
So what happened and why the WLP changed recommendations from the subcommittee on preferences and decided to put the Greens very high (the highest) on its preferences? Was this the real reason why the original and experienced candidate Gerry quit from the ticket and leaves the campaign early? And what did the WLP get from the Greens in return for this help?
Every Australian should ask questions to both WLP and the Greens to come clean on the secret dirty deals done. And I think it is time for Australians to demand the end of preferential voting system. Such system that encourage dirty deals that mount to corruption and fraud.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Wikileaks party: political party or family convinient store!!!
Last Saturday was not ordinary one. I received a phone call just after midnight of Friday which stunned me to total shock.
On the other line was John Shipton, the father of Julian Assange and CEO of Wikileaks party. What he said was extraordinary and shocking. It was also arrogant and disrespectful.
This is what he said “Julian decided that the party is affecting the level of media he receives. So he decided to end up the party. This is the plan. I and (,,,,) will resign immediately. Julian replaced us with his people from Wikileaks organisation in London. Then and after your return from Syria, you resign, and Julian appoints one of his people in Wikileaks organisation to replace you. Then the party will die: no candidates, no activities and no media and the media will be focusing on him solely again”.
How would I respond? The more important question is: how could I have replied?
I was shocked. I did not imagine that I could hear something like this ever, especially in democratic society in the 21 century. So I said: I need to think about this. Ok… talk to you later.
Immediately after this conversation, NC members received short email from John “Julian do not want us to run candidates in WA”. Was the most ridiculous and humiliating email I ever received. The NC members decided unanimously few days earlier to run candidates and preparations were in progress to make it happens. Julian on his own decided not to run any candidate. WOW.
In the next day, I received phone call from John in the morning. “Are you ready to implement? What do you think about the plan?”. I reiterated “I need more time to explore options. It is not acceptable that such big issue decided in few hours. I need to discuss things with others” I said. “After I resign, and (....) follows, you will be alone in the National Council. I do not want you to fight against my son. You have no other choice. The party is an obstacle in the way of Julian to get media and coverage” John said.
“Yes, but other options are possible. Like severing ties between both organizations which will give Wikileaks organization fair coverage in the media of the work they do. It is unfair for one person to use thousands of members and volunteers and then disregard their feelings, aspirations and ambitions. I need more time to decide. Talk to you soon” I was firm.
I immediately sent email to other NC members. Beside John, Julian and Gail, there are Omar Todd and Matt. I really do not know their politics or loyalty.
After sending email to both Omar and Matt, I knew where they stand: Matt is blindly loyal to John and Omar did not express clear position. After sending the email, John called again. I was still in shock. I was also waiting to hear back from Matt and Omar. I did not answer. So John sent sms “I have solution… let us talk”.
Julian got it. I will not leave easily. So time for subtle deceiving tactics.
Here is the plan suggested by John. John suggested adopting my solution. Change party name. Then Julian resignation. John said that he is much hated in Australia, and so it is in the interest of everyone for him to resign too. These steps will make total separation between 2 distinct entities. I agreed. Let us work on it. It is unfair for thousands of members, supporters, volunteers and voters to let them down so badly.
The first victim came forward quickly. (....) sent shocking email. (....) is deeply depressed because of Julian actions “again Julian's timing shows a blatant disregard, or more to the point contempt, for the NC and his support base.” We know now that (....) is devastated and does not want to be associated with the party. (...) even insisted that NC accept her resignation on 1 March 2014, as she cannot take anymore any public storm at her credibility.
So they did lie too. (....) did not agree to resign voluntarily. I suppose that (....) was told the same words “you will fight alone on NC and will be defeated… so the easiest is to resign silently and hand the party to Julian”.
After we agreed on this extraordinary plan to save the party from the jaws of Julian, I thought that John will honor his commitment: Declare to the NC the plan we put together to achieve the separation. And then resign quietly and tender the resignation of Julian. I was told by John that he does not want to be seen in public until the plan accomplished.
But what happened in the next day was the opposite.
John was on full active mood. He attended meeting that does not require him to attend. He confirmed that he will speak at rally on Syria. He also confirmed that he is speaking at fundraising dinner for Syria.
What is going on!!! Maybe it is just tactics not to attract attention to the saga- disgrace.
But suddenly John delegated to Matt to resume leadership role in trying to continue deceiving us to achieve hidden-clear agenda: manage this farce, give us hard time then expel us (myself and Omar... maybe) in diplomatic way. Maybe even through election at AGM. Who knows? John has accumulated all power in his hands: membership list, facebook page, website, blog….
So what makes me so angry and depressed?
Julian has used thousands of members and volunteers to build another public organization. Then he tried (mostly successful) to get rid of all these people to achieve another hidden agenda. You all can imagine what is the real agenda of Julian to use all these people, including my work, efforts and reputation.
What is the next move for me???
Still to be decided. But the truth should be exposed. Was not this the heart of the Wikileaks work…!!!
We clearly need another Leaks organization to leak the real story of Julian and his Wikileaks organizations… But public deserves to know the truth: Julian and his father were successful in using noble people who has reputation and stance in the community to accumulate even more power... and maybe wealth too… by bullying them silently and secretly and enforce them to resign quietly… then to jump on another punch of noble people and use them for personal agendas… Do you note here that such tactics upset even his mother!!!
This needs to stop now and forever…
On the other line was John Shipton, the father of Julian Assange and CEO of Wikileaks party. What he said was extraordinary and shocking. It was also arrogant and disrespectful.
This is what he said “Julian decided that the party is affecting the level of media he receives. So he decided to end up the party. This is the plan. I and (,,,,) will resign immediately. Julian replaced us with his people from Wikileaks organisation in London. Then and after your return from Syria, you resign, and Julian appoints one of his people in Wikileaks organisation to replace you. Then the party will die: no candidates, no activities and no media and the media will be focusing on him solely again”.
How would I respond? The more important question is: how could I have replied?
I was shocked. I did not imagine that I could hear something like this ever, especially in democratic society in the 21 century. So I said: I need to think about this. Ok… talk to you later.
Immediately after this conversation, NC members received short email from John “Julian do not want us to run candidates in WA”. Was the most ridiculous and humiliating email I ever received. The NC members decided unanimously few days earlier to run candidates and preparations were in progress to make it happens. Julian on his own decided not to run any candidate. WOW.
In the next day, I received phone call from John in the morning. “Are you ready to implement? What do you think about the plan?”. I reiterated “I need more time to explore options. It is not acceptable that such big issue decided in few hours. I need to discuss things with others” I said. “After I resign, and (....) follows, you will be alone in the National Council. I do not want you to fight against my son. You have no other choice. The party is an obstacle in the way of Julian to get media and coverage” John said.
“Yes, but other options are possible. Like severing ties between both organizations which will give Wikileaks organization fair coverage in the media of the work they do. It is unfair for one person to use thousands of members and volunteers and then disregard their feelings, aspirations and ambitions. I need more time to decide. Talk to you soon” I was firm.
I immediately sent email to other NC members. Beside John, Julian and Gail, there are Omar Todd and Matt. I really do not know their politics or loyalty.
After sending email to both Omar and Matt, I knew where they stand: Matt is blindly loyal to John and Omar did not express clear position. After sending the email, John called again. I was still in shock. I was also waiting to hear back from Matt and Omar. I did not answer. So John sent sms “I have solution… let us talk”.
Julian got it. I will not leave easily. So time for subtle deceiving tactics.
Here is the plan suggested by John. John suggested adopting my solution. Change party name. Then Julian resignation. John said that he is much hated in Australia, and so it is in the interest of everyone for him to resign too. These steps will make total separation between 2 distinct entities. I agreed. Let us work on it. It is unfair for thousands of members, supporters, volunteers and voters to let them down so badly.
The first victim came forward quickly. (....) sent shocking email. (....) is deeply depressed because of Julian actions “again Julian's timing shows a blatant disregard, or more to the point contempt, for the NC and his support base.” We know now that (....) is devastated and does not want to be associated with the party. (...) even insisted that NC accept her resignation on 1 March 2014, as she cannot take anymore any public storm at her credibility.
So they did lie too. (....) did not agree to resign voluntarily. I suppose that (....) was told the same words “you will fight alone on NC and will be defeated… so the easiest is to resign silently and hand the party to Julian”.
After we agreed on this extraordinary plan to save the party from the jaws of Julian, I thought that John will honor his commitment: Declare to the NC the plan we put together to achieve the separation. And then resign quietly and tender the resignation of Julian. I was told by John that he does not want to be seen in public until the plan accomplished.
But what happened in the next day was the opposite.
John was on full active mood. He attended meeting that does not require him to attend. He confirmed that he will speak at rally on Syria. He also confirmed that he is speaking at fundraising dinner for Syria.
What is going on!!! Maybe it is just tactics not to attract attention to the saga- disgrace.
But suddenly John delegated to Matt to resume leadership role in trying to continue deceiving us to achieve hidden-clear agenda: manage this farce, give us hard time then expel us (myself and Omar... maybe) in diplomatic way. Maybe even through election at AGM. Who knows? John has accumulated all power in his hands: membership list, facebook page, website, blog….
So what makes me so angry and depressed?
Julian has used thousands of members and volunteers to build another public organization. Then he tried (mostly successful) to get rid of all these people to achieve another hidden agenda. You all can imagine what is the real agenda of Julian to use all these people, including my work, efforts and reputation.
What is the next move for me???
Still to be decided. But the truth should be exposed. Was not this the heart of the Wikileaks work…!!!
We clearly need another Leaks organization to leak the real story of Julian and his Wikileaks organizations… But public deserves to know the truth: Julian and his father were successful in using noble people who has reputation and stance in the community to accumulate even more power... and maybe wealth too… by bullying them silently and secretly and enforce them to resign quietly… then to jump on another punch of noble people and use them for personal agendas… Do you note here that such tactics upset even his mother!!!
This needs to stop now and forever…
Sunday, February 16, 2014
How many security agencies' failures acceptable before disaster struck!!!
Where we start here on security agencies' failures in relation to the Telegraph story http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/a-bush-hideaway-has-become-the-focus-of-a-counterterrorism-investigation-amid-fears-it-was-used-by-khaled-sharrouf/story-fni0cx12-1226828044632 :
1- Convicted terrorist left country on brother's passport...
2- failure to charge and jail well-known extremist and let him escape on "community builder" claim....
3- failure to crackdown on well-known terrorists training on high-powered guns ....
4- failure to stop convicted terrorists and well-known extremists possessing weapons........
Can we trust security agencies who failed miserably on keeping us safe when well-trained terrorists start to flood our streets back from Syria!!!
These are quick notes but will publish soon more detailed analysis of the situation and our observations and information we have...
Stay safe
1- Convicted terrorist left country on brother's passport...
2- failure to charge and jail well-known extremist and let him escape on "community builder" claim....
3- failure to crackdown on well-known terrorists training on high-powered guns ....
4- failure to stop convicted terrorists and well-known extremists possessing weapons........
Can we trust security agencies who failed miserably on keeping us safe when well-trained terrorists start to flood our streets back from Syria!!!
These are quick notes but will publish soon more detailed analysis of the situation and our observations and information we have...
Stay safe
Friday, February 14, 2014
Hizb uTahrir supports paedophilia!!!
Hizb uTahrir (Tahrir party) has done it again. It issued media release praising paedophilic action of "Muslim" boy "marrying" 12 years old girl (http://www.news.com.au/national/imam-charged-with-overseeing-the-marriage-between-12yearold-girl-and-man-26-is-dismissed-by-mosque-elders/story-fncynjr2-1226823004905). The media release was also published on takfiri Facebook pages. The release criticised the Muslim leaders who condemned the action, including the Grand Mufti of Australia...
Th media release was in Arabic, perhaps not to attract the attention of mainstream media or society members.
The media release can be found on: https://www.facebook.com/NoWahhabiExtremismInAustralia/posts/591818637572493
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
تناقلت وسائل الاعلام في استراليا في الايام الماضية خبر زواج شاب عمره ٢٦ عاما من فتاة عمرها ثلاثة عشر عاما .
الاعلام الذي يمثل ويعتز بحضارة!!! المثلية والشذوذ الجنسي ويفاخر بمواخير البغاء وتجارة الجنس ، الحضارة!!! التي جعلت من الزنا ثقافة وممارسة مشروعة منتشرة لدرجة ما عاد احد من اتباعها يكاد يعرف اباه ، ذلك الاعلام اراد استغلال تلك الحادثة كعادته للاساءة للاسلام والمسلمين.
كان من الممكن عدم الرد او التعليق على ذلك الاعلام ، لانهم اقل شأناً من ان ينالوا من الاسلام .
لكن صدرت تعليقات وبيانات من جهات اسلامية ، اتخذت القيم والقوانين والرأي العام والذوق الغربي مصدرا لتجريم فعل دون اي اعتبار للادلة الشرعية لا بل ولا اعتبار حتى لفعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو الذي وصفه سبحانه ،، وانّك لعلى خلق عظيم .
نعلم ان القانون سواء هنا في استراليا او في غيرها من الدول يمنع مثل هذا الزواج ويعاقب عليه ، وبالتالي فان على من يخرق القانون ان يكون مستعداً لتحمّل التبعات القانونيّة،
اما الانكار الشرعي على اي فعل او مدحه او تحليله او تحريمه او حبه اًو بغضه او وصفه بأنه اخلاقي او غير اخلاقي فلا يجوز بحال من الاحوال الا ان يكون مبنيا على الادلة الشرعية حصراً . لقوله تعالى فلا وربك لا يؤمنون حتى يحكموك فيما شجر بينهم ....
ولقوله عليه السلام : لا يؤمن احدكم حتى يكون هواه تبعاً لما جئت به.
والاسلام هو الحق بذاته وفي ذاته ولا يُدافعُ عنه بمخالفة احكامه .
انّ هناك فرقاً بين توجيه الناس وإرشادهم في المباحات وبين تحريم او تجريم مباحٍ بعينه .
الكتاب والسنة ومنها فعله صلى الله عليه وسلم دلت على جواز مثل ذلك النكاح والذي يخلو من اي مانع شرعيّ اخر، ولا يحتاج الامر لسوق الادلة المعروفة حتى للمبتدئين .
انّ التحريم والتحليل بناءً على طلبٍ او توجيهٍ او ضغطٍ او ضعفٍ خيانةٌ للامانة ، ومن لم يجد في نفسه القدرة على قًول الخير والحق فليسكت .
وإذا كان البعض يريد ان يتّخذ من نفسه حبراً او راهباً يحرم ما أحلّ الله او أن يحلًًَّ ما حرّم الله ، فلا يجوز لمسلم ان يتخذه رباً بإطاعته في ذلك .
ألا بذكر الله تطمأن القلوب
اسماعيل الوحواح / ابو أنس
Hizb uTahrir should know that this is criminal act in Australia. It is also criminal act in the majority of Muslim countries.
The only exception is in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia...
As Muslims, Hizb uTahrir does not represent me... and does not represent the majority of Muslims in this country... and if its members want to live in societies ruled by medieval rules, they can remove themselves from Australia to live in Tora Bora or Mecca.
Th media release was in Arabic, perhaps not to attract the attention of mainstream media or society members.
The media release can be found on: https://www.facebook.com/NoWahhabiExtremismInAustralia/posts/591818637572493
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله
تناقلت وسائل الاعلام في استراليا في الايام الماضية خبر زواج شاب عمره ٢٦ عاما من فتاة عمرها ثلاثة عشر عاما .
الاعلام الذي يمثل ويعتز بحضارة!!! المثلية والشذوذ الجنسي ويفاخر بمواخير البغاء وتجارة الجنس ، الحضارة!!! التي جعلت من الزنا ثقافة وممارسة مشروعة منتشرة لدرجة ما عاد احد من اتباعها يكاد يعرف اباه ، ذلك الاعلام اراد استغلال تلك الحادثة كعادته للاساءة للاسلام والمسلمين.
كان من الممكن عدم الرد او التعليق على ذلك الاعلام ، لانهم اقل شأناً من ان ينالوا من الاسلام .
لكن صدرت تعليقات وبيانات من جهات اسلامية ، اتخذت القيم والقوانين والرأي العام والذوق الغربي مصدرا لتجريم فعل دون اي اعتبار للادلة الشرعية لا بل ولا اعتبار حتى لفعل رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو الذي وصفه سبحانه ،، وانّك لعلى خلق عظيم .
نعلم ان القانون سواء هنا في استراليا او في غيرها من الدول يمنع مثل هذا الزواج ويعاقب عليه ، وبالتالي فان على من يخرق القانون ان يكون مستعداً لتحمّل التبعات القانونيّة،
اما الانكار الشرعي على اي فعل او مدحه او تحليله او تحريمه او حبه اًو بغضه او وصفه بأنه اخلاقي او غير اخلاقي فلا يجوز بحال من الاحوال الا ان يكون مبنيا على الادلة الشرعية حصراً . لقوله تعالى فلا وربك لا يؤمنون حتى يحكموك فيما شجر بينهم ....
ولقوله عليه السلام : لا يؤمن احدكم حتى يكون هواه تبعاً لما جئت به.
والاسلام هو الحق بذاته وفي ذاته ولا يُدافعُ عنه بمخالفة احكامه .
انّ هناك فرقاً بين توجيه الناس وإرشادهم في المباحات وبين تحريم او تجريم مباحٍ بعينه .
الكتاب والسنة ومنها فعله صلى الله عليه وسلم دلت على جواز مثل ذلك النكاح والذي يخلو من اي مانع شرعيّ اخر، ولا يحتاج الامر لسوق الادلة المعروفة حتى للمبتدئين .
انّ التحريم والتحليل بناءً على طلبٍ او توجيهٍ او ضغطٍ او ضعفٍ خيانةٌ للامانة ، ومن لم يجد في نفسه القدرة على قًول الخير والحق فليسكت .
وإذا كان البعض يريد ان يتّخذ من نفسه حبراً او راهباً يحرم ما أحلّ الله او أن يحلًًَّ ما حرّم الله ، فلا يجوز لمسلم ان يتخذه رباً بإطاعته في ذلك .
ألا بذكر الله تطمأن القلوب
اسماعيل الوحواح / ابو أنس
Hizb uTahrir should know that this is criminal act in Australia. It is also criminal act in the majority of Muslim countries.
The only exception is in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia...
As Muslims, Hizb uTahrir does not represent me... and does not represent the majority of Muslims in this country... and if its members want to live in societies ruled by medieval rules, they can remove themselves from Australia to live in Tora Bora or Mecca.
Wednesday, January 01, 2014
Why the attack on Wikileaks party participation in Syrian solidarity visit
After a week in Syria and many weeks in the Middle East, I am back to Australia. It was shocking that the media is attacking the Wikileaks party for participating in fact-finding visit to Syria. We also were in Syria for solidarity with Syrians, who were subjected to the worst waves of terrorism in contemporary history.
Even before making any comments, we were attacked and accused of all sorts of accusations. This raises very deep concerns.
I thought that media’s roles include trying to investigate issues and expose the truth. As any issue has many sides and involves many parties, it is very vital for any respected investigative journalism to contact all sides, get their version of what happens and then make conclusions.
The Australian media in its attack on our participation in the visit to Damascus sent the wrong message into the wrong direction. Some section of the media is in fact trying to hide truth, keep people ignorant, shut debate and keep trialling people by media reports.
In our visit, we met ordinary Syrians and heard their stories.
We heard the stories of Damascus University students who lost 8 of their colleagues when terrorists launched mortar attack on the Faculty of Architecture. They were not soldiers and carried no weapon.
We also heard stories of families who lost relativise in Adra. Some of their family members were kids who were thrown into industrial ovens alive.
We witnessed mortar attacks on civilians next street where we went shopping.
We heard countless stories of Syrians, both supporters and opponents of President Assad and his government. But both agreed on one issue: the alternative to the regime is total chaos. This includes wide-spread sectarian war as terrorists are declaring the majority of Syrians to be infidels that needed to be beheaded.
We are very disappointed that Australian media was very biased and sees in “one-eye”. I am very disappointed that no one single Australian media outlet mentioned the horrendous massacre of Adra. I could not find any report mentioning of confirmed account of throwing kids into oven by Wahhabi terrorists in Adra.
It seems that our media does not want to talk truth, and does not want any to talk about this truth.
Our politicians on other hands are trying to set precedent in international relations.
Our FM and opposition spokesperson want to cut ties with Syrian government and every Politician that talks directly to it. So our government and opposition want Australia to stop dealing and talking to Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, India, Brazil, Cuba, South Africa..... and the list will include dozens of influential governments. Our politiains in fact want to sideline Australia and marginalise its foreign influence.
I can reveal here that during our talk with Syrian PM Dr Wael Halqi, I asked him to confirm or deny many reports that Western countries are talking directly to Syrian government and seek security cooperation. He confirmed that many Western countries members of NATO are seeking cooperation in “fighting against terrorism” before its spread to their countries.
With confirmed reports that ASIO has serious concerns about Australians fighting currently in Syria and their possible return to Australia, the Australian politicians’ attitude here is denying Australia cooperation with Syrian authorities to fight against possible terrorism coming from Syria to the streets of Sydney and Melbourne.
We will post many specific stories of atrocities committed by rebels in Syria in the next few days. Such atrocities that turned the majority of Syrians against the so-called Syrian revolution. Not only this. The devastating impact of Syrian “revolution” is having many negative impacts on neighbouring countries. In Jordan, for example, the majority of Jordanians prefer corrupted government over any repeat of Syrian scenario. On the contrary. Jordanians are demanding from their government more crack down on extremists, even if this means more restrictions on human rights to avoid such evil scenario.
Even before making any comments, we were attacked and accused of all sorts of accusations. This raises very deep concerns.
I thought that media’s roles include trying to investigate issues and expose the truth. As any issue has many sides and involves many parties, it is very vital for any respected investigative journalism to contact all sides, get their version of what happens and then make conclusions.
The Australian media in its attack on our participation in the visit to Damascus sent the wrong message into the wrong direction. Some section of the media is in fact trying to hide truth, keep people ignorant, shut debate and keep trialling people by media reports.
In our visit, we met ordinary Syrians and heard their stories.
We heard the stories of Damascus University students who lost 8 of their colleagues when terrorists launched mortar attack on the Faculty of Architecture. They were not soldiers and carried no weapon.
We also heard stories of families who lost relativise in Adra. Some of their family members were kids who were thrown into industrial ovens alive.
We witnessed mortar attacks on civilians next street where we went shopping.
We heard countless stories of Syrians, both supporters and opponents of President Assad and his government. But both agreed on one issue: the alternative to the regime is total chaos. This includes wide-spread sectarian war as terrorists are declaring the majority of Syrians to be infidels that needed to be beheaded.
We are very disappointed that Australian media was very biased and sees in “one-eye”. I am very disappointed that no one single Australian media outlet mentioned the horrendous massacre of Adra. I could not find any report mentioning of confirmed account of throwing kids into oven by Wahhabi terrorists in Adra.
It seems that our media does not want to talk truth, and does not want any to talk about this truth.
Our politicians on other hands are trying to set precedent in international relations.
Our FM and opposition spokesperson want to cut ties with Syrian government and every Politician that talks directly to it. So our government and opposition want Australia to stop dealing and talking to Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, India, Brazil, Cuba, South Africa..... and the list will include dozens of influential governments. Our politiains in fact want to sideline Australia and marginalise its foreign influence.
I can reveal here that during our talk with Syrian PM Dr Wael Halqi, I asked him to confirm or deny many reports that Western countries are talking directly to Syrian government and seek security cooperation. He confirmed that many Western countries members of NATO are seeking cooperation in “fighting against terrorism” before its spread to their countries.
With confirmed reports that ASIO has serious concerns about Australians fighting currently in Syria and their possible return to Australia, the Australian politicians’ attitude here is denying Australia cooperation with Syrian authorities to fight against possible terrorism coming from Syria to the streets of Sydney and Melbourne.
We will post many specific stories of atrocities committed by rebels in Syria in the next few days. Such atrocities that turned the majority of Syrians against the so-called Syrian revolution. Not only this. The devastating impact of Syrian “revolution” is having many negative impacts on neighbouring countries. In Jordan, for example, the majority of Jordanians prefer corrupted government over any repeat of Syrian scenario. On the contrary. Jordanians are demanding from their government more crack down on extremists, even if this means more restrictions on human rights to avoid such evil scenario.
Sunday, October 27, 2013
مؤتمر جنيف 2: انعقاد بين الحقيقة والخيال
المراقب لتسارع الاحداث و "حرد" المملكة العربية السعودية واوامرها الاخيرة للحركات الارهابية التابعة لها من جبهة النصرة الى داعش بالتصعيد وتصفية ما يسمى بالجيش الحر لاضعاف الصفة التمثيلية لائتلاف الدوحة ومجلس اسطنبول, يخيل اليه استحالة انعقاد مؤتمر جنيف 2 للوصول الى تسوية سلمية للصراع في سوريا. واذا اضفنا الى ذلك التصريحات المتشائمة التي يطلقها المسؤولون السوريون عن امكانية انعقاد المؤتمر, هذه التصريحات التي توجتها تصريحات الرئيس السوري بشار الاسد لقناة الميادين عن عدم نضوج الظروف لانجاح المؤتمر, تكون الصورة السوداوية قد اكتملت فصولها.
الا ان الواقع والتحليل المنطقي يودي الى استنتاجات مغايرة تماما.
فمؤتمر جنيف اصبح حقيقة مرتبطة بالقرار الاممي الصادر قبل شهرين بما يخص الكيماوي السوري. هذا القرار الذي جاء لربط مسالة تجريد سوريا من سلاحها الكيماوي بالتسوية الشاملة للازمة وبقرار اممي.
كما ان اندفاعة الجيش السوري الضخمة وعلى كل المحاور واستعادته معظم الغوطة الشرقية والكثير من احياء حمص وحماة وحلب ودير الزور وتقدم الاكراد في معظم المحافظات التي يتواجدون بها, تعطي مجالا ضيقا للدول المشاركة في المؤامرة على سوريا للانتظار اكثر قبل القبول بالتسوية. فان كان هذا المحور المتامر يستطيع التلويح ببعض اوراق سيطرة المعارضة على مساحات من سوريا الان, فان هذا التلويح سيفقد الكثير من قوته بتناقص مساحات المناطق الاستراتيجية التي تسيطر عليها مجاميع ارهابيي المعارضة.
كما ان تغير لهجة الدول المشاركة بالمؤامرة, ومنها اغلاق تركيا لمعابرها مع سوريا واعلان عمان انها لا تؤيد المعارضة السورية وان استمرار العنف سيؤدي الى انتشار الارهاب في الاقليم وبدء الاردن باعتقال افراد المجموعات الوهابية التي تحاول التسلل الى سوريا, يعطي انطباعا قويا عن مرحلة جديدة. كما ان تغير لهجة الرئيس اللبناني وتحرك الجيش اللبناني ضد الجماعات الوهابية في البقاع وطرابلس هو ايضا مؤشر قوي على ادراك دول الاقليم وخصوصا المجاورة لسوريا عن طبيعة المرحلة القادمة.
حتى التشنج الغربي ضد ايران واللهجة المعادية تراجعت كثيرا وحل محلها الكثير من الغزل واللغة التصالحية ووعود بتخفيف العقوبات القاسية, في مشاهد تدل على ان انتصار محور المقاومة في سوريا سينعكس ايجابا على كل دول المحور.
اما ما نراه من تصعيد للجماعات المسلحة لاعمالها الارهابية من قصف بالهاون لمناطق في العاصمة او العمليات الانتحارية في بعض المناطق, فما هي الا محاولات متوقعة ومعتادة في مناطق النزاعات من اجل تحسين شروط التمثيل والتفاوض لمحاولة الحصول على اكبر قدر من التنازلات من الدولة للخروج من هذا المازق ببعض ماء الوجه, وخصوصا انهم وعدوا مشغليهم وجماهيرهم بانهم قادرون على اسقاط الدولة باشهر معدودة.
اما حرد السعودية فهو شيء متوقع لا يجب ان يعطي انطباعات قوية بهذا الاتجاه او ذاك. فالسعودية وضعت كل امكانياتها في تصرف المؤامرة ورسمت مستقبل علاقاتها الاقليمية على اساس ان الدولة السورية ستنهار وتتقسم الى دويلات ومعها سينهار محور المقاومة والممانعة. وهي تدرك تماما ان خروج سوريا من ازمتها, سيؤدي بالضرورة الى ادخال المملكة في اكثر من ازمة.
بالرغم من ان القيادة السورية تدرك تماما ان مؤتمر جنيف سينعقد, فانها لا تريد ان تعول على المؤتمر قبل انعقاده لحل الازمة. ولهذا فان الجيش السوري تلقى اوامر بزيادة وتيرة العمليات لانهاء العنف المتصاعد ولوضع جميع الاطراف امام حقائق الميدان لوضع حد لكل احلام المتامرين بتمرير تسوية على حساب الدولة او بتسوية تمس بخياراتها الاستراتيجية ضمن محور المقاومة. هذا التصعيد والذي يعتبر مهما لمنع محاولة اي من الاطراف المتامرة للمطالبة بتنازلات من الدولة السورية بسبب ضغط الجماعات المسلحة وسيطرتها على مساحات من البلاد.
دول الممانعة متاكدة ان مؤتمر جنيف 2 سينعقد عاجلا وليس اجلا لاكثر من سبب. فكلفة المؤامرة اقتصاديا على الدول المتامرة عالية جدا وبدون ارباح متوقع جنيها في حال عدم سقوط الدولة. والكل متاكد من عدم القدرة على اسقاطها. كما ان الكلف الامنية على الدول المتامرة من حيث انتشار الارهاب الى هذه الدول, تزداد باضطراد مع تزايد امد الازمة.
المؤتمر سينعقد قبل نهاية العام. ومعارضة الخارج من ائتلاف الدوحة ومجلس اسطنبول ستحضر المؤتمر صاغرة وحسب الاوامر الامريكية. وايران ستشارك بفعالية وستكون دولة محورية للقضاء على الارهاب, والذي سيكون مطلبا دوليا ستشارك بتحقيقه كل الدول ومن ضمنها المتامرة.
قلنا وفي اكثر من مقال ومنذ بداية الازمة السورية ان نتائج ما سيحدث في سوريا سيؤدي الى رسم نظام عالمي جديد. وهذا ما سيؤكده مؤتمر جنيف 2 المتوقع انعقاده الشهر القادم. نظام عالمي ينهي احادية القطب المتوحش ويعيد التوازن للعلاقات الدولية.
Thursday, October 24, 2013
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Analysis of Federal Election 2013 results
We expected that in the wake of devastating loss of Labor and Greens in last Saturday’s election, the loss will promote these two parties to admit their failures and work on correcting them. Surprisingly, leaders of both parties resorted to cover-up and hide these devastating results under many arguments. The Labor claimed (maybe rightly) that the loss could have been worse. But they claim that this loss was due to “disunity” in the party over Rudd-Gillard revenge fight over leadership.
On the Greens side, the party could outrageously claim that they achieved “outstanding results” despite the fact that their primary votes collapsed by 30% of their previous results.
The real story behind the loss:
- For Labor:
The Labor was quick to blame the infighting between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard since mid 2010 for the loss of their popularity and scoring the worst results since WWII. This argument can be refuted easily by pointing to the fact that the opinion poll since the beginning of 2010 was worse than what they actually got after the infighting started. This is very clear indication that the real reason behind the loss of popularity was the Labor’s inability to deal with the issue of boat people, at that time. The Labor was quick since April 2010 to retreat on this front. The Labor under Kevin Rudd was quick to cave-in for the Liberals racist attacks by freezing the processing of applications of Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, April 2010. This sent clear sign that Labor is ready to back down on this issue and so cannot offer real alternative to the coalition racist arguments about boat people.
Instead of Labor understanding that Australians expected Labor to act more bravely on this issue, the Labor strategists thought that leaning more right on this issue would bring back to them some of their lost popularity. This is why these strategists thought that the leadership change would fix everything by replacing the PM, change the policy on boat people by adopting the Liberals racist harsh approach and then blame the previous PM for the leniency on boat people issue.
The move back clashed. We can prove this for second time by pointing to the fact that Rudd’s return to PM’ship saw surge in Labor’s popularity. This popularity evaporated the day Rudd announced the very harsh policy of adopting “PNG solution”.
The second most important issue in this election was the economic standstill. The voters saw the deteriorating financial circumstances in Australia and witnessed the Labor’s inability to do anything to try and stimulate the economy.
The third main important issue which lead to these devastating results was the voters’ outrage for the Labor weakness to manage minority government and succumb to Greens “black-mailing”. Many analysts indicated that introduction of Carbon Tax was not major issue in this election on its own. It was important as it was seen to be clear evidence that Labor was under Greens influence, or even control.
The Labor post-election post-mortem did not recognise these issues. And I think that the Labor’s popularity will remain low until they acknowledge these factors and work to correct them.
For the Greens:
The primary votes of the Greens were collapsed in ALL states. Nationally they got around 8.7%, when in fact they got more than 13% in the previous election. This means that the Greens lost around 4.4%, i.e. 33% of their popularity. Yet, the Greens MPs were outrageously claiming that they got “outstanding” results.
We believe that the Greens leadership will justify these disappointing results by resorting to their traditional cover-up argument of “in an election where voters was leaning to the right, it is very good that the Greens could keep the current level of popularity”. They did this to justify their failure to capitalise on the total collapse of Labor popularity in Victoria 2010 and NSW 2011, where the Greens failed to increase their voting base.
I think that the real reasons behind this collapse of voting were the fact that the Greens was seen as the small partner of the Labor government and share many responsibility for its failures. The largest failure attributed to the Greens is the introduction of Carbon Tax and the Liberals continuous link of this to the deteriorating life-style of Australians and the increase of life-costs.
In addition to this, the Greens, a party that controlled on its own the balance of power in the senate and shared in controlling the balance of power in the house of representatives (in addition to the fact that the government was dependent on Greens support of it) for the last three years could not prevent the government from going to the far-right on boat people issue. The Greens was able easily to introduce Carbon Tax, where the previous PM Gillard promised before 2010 as “will never be introduced under any government I will lead”, but was unable to move the government to ease its extreme dealing with thousands of desperate boat people.
Instead of Greens facing these failures, admit them and promise to work on correcting them, they deny that they in fact lost heavily in this election (even if their luck will see their representation stay the same or even increased by one senator). The reason behind this is the fact that the Greens party is still betting on the argument that there is no alternative to them on the left spectrum of the political scene. The Greens will be surprised to realise that this argument is not valid anymore. Many progressive voters are resorting to voting informally (informal voting was increased significantly in the last 6 years). We also believe that many progressive people will be able to create more progressive alternative to the Greens.
SO what is about Liberals?
The Liberals won in increasing majority because the other side failed, and not because any voters were convinced that they would be better government that will find solutions to the Australian challenges. We need to remember that the Labor massive loss in NSW was not because the opposition Liberals had better plan for the state. On the contrary. The Liberal government made more damage to the NSW residents’ lives than ever. The voters just gave up on Labor government, and did not trust the Greens, and wanted to send them strong message.
The Liberals did not present during the course of the election campaign any alternative plan to lift the people’s life-style and financial security. The Liberals campaigned on the failures of the Labor and Greens.
The practical results of the election:
The Labor-Greens after this election became powerless totally. The two parties have no influence (by numbers) in both houses. In the House of Representatives, the Liberals has absolute majority of 88 seats (they needed 76 to govern on their own).
In the senate, the Labor-Greens combined seats won is less than 39 seats needed to be able to stop important controversial legislations. While I do not think that “Balance of power” does exist at all as the majority of legislations (more than 85%) were passed by bipartisan support for the last 2 decades. Even this was lost in the last Saturday’s election. The balance of power is now in the hands of few senators mainly defected from Liberals and Nationals, which would be easier for Liberals to convince them to pass controversial legislations when Labor would not support them. Again, NSW LC is very clear example, where Liberal government did not have any legislation defeated in the LC for the last 2 years, where it depended on MLC from small conservative parties.
We hope that the Labor will admit the real reasons for their defeat last Saturday and start working on correcting them. Without doing this, we believe that Labor is heading for long time in opposition by repeating Beazley’s mistakes on the same issues.
We also understand that the Greens will find serious rivals in the next elections. If the Greens want to increase their voting, I believe that they need to start “putting their mouth where their money is” by acting on issues and not vending rhetoric and lies. We believe that the Greens party is not able to do so, and this is why we expect the Greens to head to more electoral defeats in the next 2 years. The first would be Tasmanian election next year.
On the Greens side, the party could outrageously claim that they achieved “outstanding results” despite the fact that their primary votes collapsed by 30% of their previous results.
The real story behind the loss:
- For Labor:
The Labor was quick to blame the infighting between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard since mid 2010 for the loss of their popularity and scoring the worst results since WWII. This argument can be refuted easily by pointing to the fact that the opinion poll since the beginning of 2010 was worse than what they actually got after the infighting started. This is very clear indication that the real reason behind the loss of popularity was the Labor’s inability to deal with the issue of boat people, at that time. The Labor was quick since April 2010 to retreat on this front. The Labor under Kevin Rudd was quick to cave-in for the Liberals racist attacks by freezing the processing of applications of Afghani and Sri Lankan asylum seekers, April 2010. This sent clear sign that Labor is ready to back down on this issue and so cannot offer real alternative to the coalition racist arguments about boat people.
Instead of Labor understanding that Australians expected Labor to act more bravely on this issue, the Labor strategists thought that leaning more right on this issue would bring back to them some of their lost popularity. This is why these strategists thought that the leadership change would fix everything by replacing the PM, change the policy on boat people by adopting the Liberals racist harsh approach and then blame the previous PM for the leniency on boat people issue.
The move back clashed. We can prove this for second time by pointing to the fact that Rudd’s return to PM’ship saw surge in Labor’s popularity. This popularity evaporated the day Rudd announced the very harsh policy of adopting “PNG solution”.
The second most important issue in this election was the economic standstill. The voters saw the deteriorating financial circumstances in Australia and witnessed the Labor’s inability to do anything to try and stimulate the economy.
The third main important issue which lead to these devastating results was the voters’ outrage for the Labor weakness to manage minority government and succumb to Greens “black-mailing”. Many analysts indicated that introduction of Carbon Tax was not major issue in this election on its own. It was important as it was seen to be clear evidence that Labor was under Greens influence, or even control.
The Labor post-election post-mortem did not recognise these issues. And I think that the Labor’s popularity will remain low until they acknowledge these factors and work to correct them.
For the Greens:
The primary votes of the Greens were collapsed in ALL states. Nationally they got around 8.7%, when in fact they got more than 13% in the previous election. This means that the Greens lost around 4.4%, i.e. 33% of their popularity. Yet, the Greens MPs were outrageously claiming that they got “outstanding” results.
We believe that the Greens leadership will justify these disappointing results by resorting to their traditional cover-up argument of “in an election where voters was leaning to the right, it is very good that the Greens could keep the current level of popularity”. They did this to justify their failure to capitalise on the total collapse of Labor popularity in Victoria 2010 and NSW 2011, where the Greens failed to increase their voting base.
I think that the real reasons behind this collapse of voting were the fact that the Greens was seen as the small partner of the Labor government and share many responsibility for its failures. The largest failure attributed to the Greens is the introduction of Carbon Tax and the Liberals continuous link of this to the deteriorating life-style of Australians and the increase of life-costs.
In addition to this, the Greens, a party that controlled on its own the balance of power in the senate and shared in controlling the balance of power in the house of representatives (in addition to the fact that the government was dependent on Greens support of it) for the last three years could not prevent the government from going to the far-right on boat people issue. The Greens was able easily to introduce Carbon Tax, where the previous PM Gillard promised before 2010 as “will never be introduced under any government I will lead”, but was unable to move the government to ease its extreme dealing with thousands of desperate boat people.
Instead of Greens facing these failures, admit them and promise to work on correcting them, they deny that they in fact lost heavily in this election (even if their luck will see their representation stay the same or even increased by one senator). The reason behind this is the fact that the Greens party is still betting on the argument that there is no alternative to them on the left spectrum of the political scene. The Greens will be surprised to realise that this argument is not valid anymore. Many progressive voters are resorting to voting informally (informal voting was increased significantly in the last 6 years). We also believe that many progressive people will be able to create more progressive alternative to the Greens.
SO what is about Liberals?
The Liberals won in increasing majority because the other side failed, and not because any voters were convinced that they would be better government that will find solutions to the Australian challenges. We need to remember that the Labor massive loss in NSW was not because the opposition Liberals had better plan for the state. On the contrary. The Liberal government made more damage to the NSW residents’ lives than ever. The voters just gave up on Labor government, and did not trust the Greens, and wanted to send them strong message.
The Liberals did not present during the course of the election campaign any alternative plan to lift the people’s life-style and financial security. The Liberals campaigned on the failures of the Labor and Greens.
The practical results of the election:
The Labor-Greens after this election became powerless totally. The two parties have no influence (by numbers) in both houses. In the House of Representatives, the Liberals has absolute majority of 88 seats (they needed 76 to govern on their own).
In the senate, the Labor-Greens combined seats won is less than 39 seats needed to be able to stop important controversial legislations. While I do not think that “Balance of power” does exist at all as the majority of legislations (more than 85%) were passed by bipartisan support for the last 2 decades. Even this was lost in the last Saturday’s election. The balance of power is now in the hands of few senators mainly defected from Liberals and Nationals, which would be easier for Liberals to convince them to pass controversial legislations when Labor would not support them. Again, NSW LC is very clear example, where Liberal government did not have any legislation defeated in the LC for the last 2 years, where it depended on MLC from small conservative parties.
We hope that the Labor will admit the real reasons for their defeat last Saturday and start working on correcting them. Without doing this, we believe that Labor is heading for long time in opposition by repeating Beazley’s mistakes on the same issues.
We also understand that the Greens will find serious rivals in the next elections. If the Greens want to increase their voting, I believe that they need to start “putting their mouth where their money is” by acting on issues and not vending rhetoric and lies. We believe that the Greens party is not able to do so, and this is why we expect the Greens to head to more electoral defeats in the next 2 years. The first would be Tasmanian election next year.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Why lenient sentencing of Wahhabi extremist: poor judgment or "minorities: who cares... kill each other" argument!!!
Imagine that I am WHITE ANGLO-SAXON freelance journalist, blogger, political activist and community leader. Imagine that I am CHRISTIAN or JEW by religious faith affiliation. And then imagine that I was attacked physically in front of hundreds of community members and in front of channel 7 camera. Imagine all this and then imagine what would be the judgment by the judge..
Then imagine how the media will response to such attack. You can guess what kind of description of the attack and attackers...
I remember when member of parliament Belinda Neal was caught threatening (just threatening) staff member at a restaurant. She was enforced to retreat, apologise and quit politics altogether after media made her look as vampire. Imagine if she was caught punching the staff member....
And she was “true” outstanding member of the society.... and “true” community builder... and part of the attack on her that a “community builder” and “community leader” should not act this way....
So do we understand that there is two system of justice in this country: one for White Anglo- Saxon Judo-Christians and other for the rest of “minorities”?!!!
Was the judge given wrong information only, or he was “ignorant”.... Did he tell himself while making the decision “Muslim against Muslim..., who cares, let them kill each other”....
The judge should remember that it is now Muslim against Muslim... But in Britain it was recently “Terrorist Wahhabi against Anglo-Saxon soldier”... And in France, it started to spread to be “Extremist Muslims against the rest of France”... and in Spain, the bombing of trains there did not target Muslims and the bomb killed indiscriminately. So “Muslim against Muslim” argument is immature, as the violence of these “community builders” will spread to reach the judge himself.
I deeply believe that authorities now act on argument of “non-Anglo Saxons: who cares”... Let them kill each other.... We can even encourage them to do so by encouraging “tit for tat” attacks... And they may be right and things could be progressed soon to this...
Racism in our system??? We warned of this for long time... but this time it is very serious and will have great impact...
Justice was not done today.... and I am sure the implications will be dear... Australia should be prepared for the worst...
And listen to this sarcasm: the judge considers holding Al Qaeda flag and follow its teaching of absolute hate towards all “others”, attack police last September, burn down businesses, shooting innocents, spread sectarian hate and threatening Australians are in fact “community building” . If a magistrate in our judicial system has such thoughts, God helps Australia.....
I now understand why Ali (who was shot by Wahhabi extremists and was let down by our judicial system) decided to give up on the system and chose just to isolate himself totally form the community. The system did not protect him because the legal system works on “minorities: who cares... kill each other”....
We will not allow the system to prevail... We will use all available venues to change this argument of “minorities: who cares”...
Then imagine how the media will response to such attack. You can guess what kind of description of the attack and attackers...
I remember when member of parliament Belinda Neal was caught threatening (just threatening) staff member at a restaurant. She was enforced to retreat, apologise and quit politics altogether after media made her look as vampire. Imagine if she was caught punching the staff member....
And she was “true” outstanding member of the society.... and “true” community builder... and part of the attack on her that a “community builder” and “community leader” should not act this way....
So do we understand that there is two system of justice in this country: one for White Anglo- Saxon Judo-Christians and other for the rest of “minorities”?!!!
Was the judge given wrong information only, or he was “ignorant”.... Did he tell himself while making the decision “Muslim against Muslim..., who cares, let them kill each other”....
The judge should remember that it is now Muslim against Muslim... But in Britain it was recently “Terrorist Wahhabi against Anglo-Saxon soldier”... And in France, it started to spread to be “Extremist Muslims against the rest of France”... and in Spain, the bombing of trains there did not target Muslims and the bomb killed indiscriminately. So “Muslim against Muslim” argument is immature, as the violence of these “community builders” will spread to reach the judge himself.
I deeply believe that authorities now act on argument of “non-Anglo Saxons: who cares”... Let them kill each other.... We can even encourage them to do so by encouraging “tit for tat” attacks... And they may be right and things could be progressed soon to this...
Racism in our system??? We warned of this for long time... but this time it is very serious and will have great impact...
Justice was not done today.... and I am sure the implications will be dear... Australia should be prepared for the worst...
And listen to this sarcasm: the judge considers holding Al Qaeda flag and follow its teaching of absolute hate towards all “others”, attack police last September, burn down businesses, shooting innocents, spread sectarian hate and threatening Australians are in fact “community building” . If a magistrate in our judicial system has such thoughts, God helps Australia.....
I now understand why Ali (who was shot by Wahhabi extremists and was let down by our judicial system) decided to give up on the system and chose just to isolate himself totally form the community. The system did not protect him because the legal system works on “minorities: who cares... kill each other”....
We will not allow the system to prevail... We will use all available venues to change this argument of “minorities: who cares”...
My statement on the very lenient sentence of Wahhabi extremist: Dangerous message into many directions
Today the judicial system has sent very dangerous message into many directions.
An extremist was not charged for assaulting high profile community member in front of hundreds of community members in the day broad light and in front of the media cameras.
The physical assault was not because of brawl on financial dispute or fight between neighbours because of the behaviour of their children. The assault was to silence high profile community member from criticising radical elements in the society. These radical elements were free in the last 2 years to shoot people in front of their homes, attack businesses and burn them down, set up facebook pages to spread sectarian hate and violence and physically assaulting people in the streets of our peaceful cities. All these based on radical teachings and radical interpretation of Islam.
The devastating impact of such verdict will be seen and felt across Australia almost immediately.
This verdict will give the radical groups inspired by Al Qaeda terrorist organisation teachings green light to intensify their campaign of terrorising community members and business owners that do not agree with their radical views. This verdict will give these radical groups moral boost for their extreme agenda that started few years ago.
This verdict tarnishes community members’ faith in authority’s abilities and will to protect them from religious radical groups.
After this verdict can I ask few questions: who in Australia will dare to come forward and cooperate with authorities on criminal activities conducted by religious radical groups?? After this verdict who in Australia will dare to contact authorities to report suspicious activities by such radical groups??? After this verdict how will authorities expect our cooperation to fight against radicalisation and crimes related to religious extremism???
All this come at a time when our authorities are declaring that there is real threats of terrorist activities in Australia in the awake of the return of hundreds of Australians fighting currently in Syria. Such verdict will leave authorities on their own to stop terrorist activities in Australia conducted by these groups. And this is another and the real victory to these radical extreme groups.
After today’s verdict, I hold authorities and the judge who made this judgment the full responsibility of my safety and the safety of my family’s. After this verdict I hold authorities and the judge that made the judgment the full responsibility of any consequences to the verdict.
We believe that this verdict will send clear message that Australians should not wait for authorities to protect them from radical groups and they should be prepared from now on to take law in their hands.
The judicial system has failed me and my family miserably. It actually failed large section of society who was hoping for harsh decision to stop future similar crimes.
The judicial system has set a precedent in supporting radical groups to terrorise people based on their political views. The judicial system has set precedent to encourage violence based on political views and disagreement. The judicial system today has stood hand in hand with Al Qaeda terrorists teachings by allowing them to bully and physically assault opponents.
This is very sad day for Australia. We, I and my family, believe that all Australians will pay heavy price for this wrong message sent by this unfair decision.
We call on the government and authorities to take all necessary means to correct this fatal mistake. I, and other community leaders and members, will be in contact with our government to explore how to correct this mistake.
The last question to our judicial system: do you want to see ugly action of extremist Michael Adebolajo in London repeated in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne??? Are Australians prepared to see extremists cutting the flesh of fellow Australians (and maybe eat their hearts and livers) in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and other cities???This verdict could encourage extremists groups to carry on similar attacks. They would believe that they have immunity and green light from judicial system to do so...
For the last 2 years, no one extremist was convicted and sent to jail for his crimes related to Syrian crisis and their radical views related to what is happening there.
We have all reasons to suspect that for political reasons, authorities want to cover on these crimes and not making them issue of public interest. During the last few months since the actual assault, I was kept in dark on the progress of this trial. Despite my repeated communications with authorities, including communications with NSW Minister for Police, enquiring about the progress of the case, all these communications were ignored and no reply to them was received. And here we need to know what is Australia’s interest in protecting extremist groups and their horrendous crimes against fellow Australians that do not share their extreme ideology...
And want to thanks all friends and supporters who flooded me and my family with support messages. And I call on all of them to stay calm and do not take any actions in response to this verdict. We still have hope that other levels of authorities will work on turning back this decision.
An extremist was not charged for assaulting high profile community member in front of hundreds of community members in the day broad light and in front of the media cameras.
The physical assault was not because of brawl on financial dispute or fight between neighbours because of the behaviour of their children. The assault was to silence high profile community member from criticising radical elements in the society. These radical elements were free in the last 2 years to shoot people in front of their homes, attack businesses and burn them down, set up facebook pages to spread sectarian hate and violence and physically assaulting people in the streets of our peaceful cities. All these based on radical teachings and radical interpretation of Islam.
The devastating impact of such verdict will be seen and felt across Australia almost immediately.
This verdict will give the radical groups inspired by Al Qaeda terrorist organisation teachings green light to intensify their campaign of terrorising community members and business owners that do not agree with their radical views. This verdict will give these radical groups moral boost for their extreme agenda that started few years ago.
This verdict tarnishes community members’ faith in authority’s abilities and will to protect them from religious radical groups.
After this verdict can I ask few questions: who in Australia will dare to come forward and cooperate with authorities on criminal activities conducted by religious radical groups?? After this verdict who in Australia will dare to contact authorities to report suspicious activities by such radical groups??? After this verdict how will authorities expect our cooperation to fight against radicalisation and crimes related to religious extremism???
All this come at a time when our authorities are declaring that there is real threats of terrorist activities in Australia in the awake of the return of hundreds of Australians fighting currently in Syria. Such verdict will leave authorities on their own to stop terrorist activities in Australia conducted by these groups. And this is another and the real victory to these radical extreme groups.
After today’s verdict, I hold authorities and the judge who made this judgment the full responsibility of my safety and the safety of my family’s. After this verdict I hold authorities and the judge that made the judgment the full responsibility of any consequences to the verdict.
We believe that this verdict will send clear message that Australians should not wait for authorities to protect them from radical groups and they should be prepared from now on to take law in their hands.
The judicial system has failed me and my family miserably. It actually failed large section of society who was hoping for harsh decision to stop future similar crimes.
The judicial system has set a precedent in supporting radical groups to terrorise people based on their political views. The judicial system has set precedent to encourage violence based on political views and disagreement. The judicial system today has stood hand in hand with Al Qaeda terrorists teachings by allowing them to bully and physically assault opponents.
This is very sad day for Australia. We, I and my family, believe that all Australians will pay heavy price for this wrong message sent by this unfair decision.
We call on the government and authorities to take all necessary means to correct this fatal mistake. I, and other community leaders and members, will be in contact with our government to explore how to correct this mistake.
The last question to our judicial system: do you want to see ugly action of extremist Michael Adebolajo in London repeated in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne??? Are Australians prepared to see extremists cutting the flesh of fellow Australians (and maybe eat their hearts and livers) in the streets of Sydney and Melbourne and other cities???This verdict could encourage extremists groups to carry on similar attacks. They would believe that they have immunity and green light from judicial system to do so...
For the last 2 years, no one extremist was convicted and sent to jail for his crimes related to Syrian crisis and their radical views related to what is happening there.
We have all reasons to suspect that for political reasons, authorities want to cover on these crimes and not making them issue of public interest. During the last few months since the actual assault, I was kept in dark on the progress of this trial. Despite my repeated communications with authorities, including communications with NSW Minister for Police, enquiring about the progress of the case, all these communications were ignored and no reply to them was received. And here we need to know what is Australia’s interest in protecting extremist groups and their horrendous crimes against fellow Australians that do not share their extreme ideology...
And want to thanks all friends and supporters who flooded me and my family with support messages. And I call on all of them to stay calm and do not take any actions in response to this verdict. We still have hope that other levels of authorities will work on turning back this decision.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
The Greens real stance on Palestine: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”
When I joined the Greens in 2001, there was no clear position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The only justification I got from Greens officials and politicians that “the Greens is very small party that did not have a chance to be involved in foreign politics”. This was not accurate, as there was Greens member of Federal parliament (Bob Brown).
The Greens campaign that year was based on one issue: Tampa and boat people, despite the fact that the Greens until that time did not have policy on refugees and boat people. It was popular issue that Bob Brown thought he could capitalise to win more votes. But the Greens discovered from the campaign that there are many issues that form strong basis for their votes. One of them was the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine.
At one campaign gathering the Greens were faced with one question: what is your position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The Greens member referred the voter to Lee Rhiannon (NSW MLC at that time and current senator for NSW). Ms Lee did not find any answer. She referred the public member to me. I made lies on the Greens position on Palestine. Lee and her Greens members were happy that I saved them from very crucial and embarrassing question.
After the election of Kerry Nettle in that election, Australians (including me) was sucked to the Greens lies that it is a progressive party. And they let them down badly.
In 2002 and in the wake of Israeli massacres during Defensive Wall operation, the Palestinian and pro-Palestinians decided to hold a fundraising event to help Palestinian victims of Israeli latest brutality. The organisers of the event (held in Addison Road Community centre) decided that no politician deserves to speak at the event, except the Greens politicians. The organisers decided to invite Bob Brown and ask him to speak at the event. The organisers were shocked when Bob Brown’s office declined the invitation. Not only this. No Greens politician attended the event. It was very clear that the Greens leadership took a decision not to show solidarity with Palestinian people. To be fair, I should mention that 2 Greens council members attended the event in very low profile way.
In the same year, the Australian unions decided to send fact-finding mission to West Bank to investigate what really happened and report back to Australian parliament and people. The same decision was taken: to invite only Greens politicians to head the mission. The organisers were shocked to receive very clear decline of this invitation. The organisers asked me (as Greens member and spokesperson) to explore the reasons behind the refusal. I met Kerry Nettle on 1 May 2002 at the rally for Labor Day. I asked her, on behalf of the organisers, and her reply was deeply shocking. She told me that the Greens cannot do this and face the upheaval of conservative media attack. She told me exactly: “I do not want to be branded as pro-Palestinian politician from the beginning of my term”.
Frankly I was not shocked. The same person (Kerry Nettle) asked me after her election to the senate to provide her with literature on Palestine issue as “I do not know anything about the issue”.
The Greens to date did not do anything significant, apart from rhetoric, to give specific practical support to advance the debate about the issue on the way to change official Australian position on the issue.
Maybe some people will tell me that some Greens former politicians participated recently in solidarity ventures. And the question remains: why they could not participate in such missions when they were members of parliament???
The answer is very clear. This is the heart of Greens deceptive campaign to keep “all sides happy”. When the media asked Greens party about Sylvia Hale (former Greens MLC) participation last year in Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, the answer was very clear. She is former politician and her actions do not represent official Greens position.
Even the latest Greens bid to deceive voters by introducing motion in Marrickville council to adopt BDS, the reasons for this motion and the final result was clear. The majority of Greens politicians retreated and condemned the BDS. And the party governing body met to confirm this. Officially, the Greens rejects the BDS.
My other articles on the issue is on: http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/bds-campaign-in-australia-one-step.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/greens-thirst-for-palestinian-blood.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/10-more-reasons-why-not-to-vote-greens.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/marrickville-council-motion-on.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/how-to-get-greens-attention-to-gaza.html
The Greens real stance on Palestine is simple: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”... And this is the main reasons why I left the Greens in 2006....
The Greens campaign that year was based on one issue: Tampa and boat people, despite the fact that the Greens until that time did not have policy on refugees and boat people. It was popular issue that Bob Brown thought he could capitalise to win more votes. But the Greens discovered from the campaign that there are many issues that form strong basis for their votes. One of them was the Israeli brutal occupation of Palestine.
At one campaign gathering the Greens were faced with one question: what is your position on Israeli occupation of Palestine. The Greens member referred the voter to Lee Rhiannon (NSW MLC at that time and current senator for NSW). Ms Lee did not find any answer. She referred the public member to me. I made lies on the Greens position on Palestine. Lee and her Greens members were happy that I saved them from very crucial and embarrassing question.
After the election of Kerry Nettle in that election, Australians (including me) was sucked to the Greens lies that it is a progressive party. And they let them down badly.
In 2002 and in the wake of Israeli massacres during Defensive Wall operation, the Palestinian and pro-Palestinians decided to hold a fundraising event to help Palestinian victims of Israeli latest brutality. The organisers of the event (held in Addison Road Community centre) decided that no politician deserves to speak at the event, except the Greens politicians. The organisers decided to invite Bob Brown and ask him to speak at the event. The organisers were shocked when Bob Brown’s office declined the invitation. Not only this. No Greens politician attended the event. It was very clear that the Greens leadership took a decision not to show solidarity with Palestinian people. To be fair, I should mention that 2 Greens council members attended the event in very low profile way.
In the same year, the Australian unions decided to send fact-finding mission to West Bank to investigate what really happened and report back to Australian parliament and people. The same decision was taken: to invite only Greens politicians to head the mission. The organisers were shocked to receive very clear decline of this invitation. The organisers asked me (as Greens member and spokesperson) to explore the reasons behind the refusal. I met Kerry Nettle on 1 May 2002 at the rally for Labor Day. I asked her, on behalf of the organisers, and her reply was deeply shocking. She told me that the Greens cannot do this and face the upheaval of conservative media attack. She told me exactly: “I do not want to be branded as pro-Palestinian politician from the beginning of my term”.
Frankly I was not shocked. The same person (Kerry Nettle) asked me after her election to the senate to provide her with literature on Palestine issue as “I do not know anything about the issue”.
The Greens to date did not do anything significant, apart from rhetoric, to give specific practical support to advance the debate about the issue on the way to change official Australian position on the issue.
Maybe some people will tell me that some Greens former politicians participated recently in solidarity ventures. And the question remains: why they could not participate in such missions when they were members of parliament???
The answer is very clear. This is the heart of Greens deceptive campaign to keep “all sides happy”. When the media asked Greens party about Sylvia Hale (former Greens MLC) participation last year in Freedom Flotilla to Gaza, the answer was very clear. She is former politician and her actions do not represent official Greens position.
Even the latest Greens bid to deceive voters by introducing motion in Marrickville council to adopt BDS, the reasons for this motion and the final result was clear. The majority of Greens politicians retreated and condemned the BDS. And the party governing body met to confirm this. Officially, the Greens rejects the BDS.
My other articles on the issue is on: http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2012/01/bds-campaign-in-australia-one-step.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/greens-thirst-for-palestinian-blood.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/10-more-reasons-why-not-to-vote-greens.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/marrickville-council-motion-on.html
http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/how-to-get-greens-attention-to-gaza.html
The Greens real stance on Palestine is simple: “deceive all sides to make all sides happy”... And this is the main reasons why I left the Greens in 2006....
Saturday, August 24, 2013
The “turmoil” in Wikileaks over preferecnes: the real reasons and Greens role in its making!!!
I would like to state first that I am not member of any party at the moment. I am also not doing any work for any party, including Wikileaks, at the moment.
In regard to the “turmoil” inside the Wikileaks currently, which resulted so far in resignation of candidate on the second place in Victorian ticket and many National Council members’ resignations, I expect that:
1- The turmoil resulted when Wikileaks party refused to accept to be a “shop front” for the Greens, when they (Greens) asked Wikileaks to run fake tickets under Wikileaks banner to enable re-election of Greens struggling senators. Information emerged that Greens offered to help Wikileaks (which was hesitant to run candidates in Western Australia because of limited resources) run fake ticket to attract voters from both Labor and Liberals and then direct them to the Greens through preferences. The Greens committed to finance the campaign and provide all logistical and organisational support it needs. This is clear bid to rig our electoral system with fake candidates to deceive voters.
After many opinion polls conducted in Western Australia, Wikileaks party came to understanding that good campaign could see Wikileaks candidates get more votes than unpopular Greens senator. So they refused the offer and instead run strong candidates and good campaign.
2- The Greens flooded the Wikileaks party with members at all levels to be able to know all decisions and directions inside the Wikileaks party. The Greens used these “sleeping cells” also to try to destroy the party at the right time (current time). Some Greens members are indeed on the National Council and as candidates. Otherwise, why the main reason for Dr Mathew’s resignation (and the resignation of the other National Council members) was that the preference deals will see Scot Ludlum lose his seat. And how would such high profile officials in any party abandon the party from the first obstacle or debacle they face???
3- The Greens cannot claim high moral ground when it comes to preferences. The Greens entered or tried to enter at many different occasions preference deals with very extreme right parties. This include the preference deal reached with One Nation at 2001 election, which saw the Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, win senate seat in NSW on just 4.5% of primary vote, defeating Democrats on 6.5% and One Nation on 8%. The Greens claimed that there was no deal with One Nation and that One Nation just decided to give the preference to the Greens candidate. This is mere lies, as the Greens entered intense negotiation to convince the One Nation to preference the Greens ahead of ALL other minor and major parties. The negotiation was conducted between Jo Edwards and Geoff Ash form the Greens with One Nation campaign manager. Read my detailed account on this deal on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-did-one-nation-preferecned-greens.html . The Greens also got preference deal with One Nation during Cunningham by-election 2002 that saw Greens candidate win. This is in addition to many secret negotiations between the Greens and Liberals which resulted in deals in Victorian election 2006, but was refused by Liberals in NSW 2007.
4- The Greens themselves, as according to their high profile candidate Hall Greenland, are no more than eco-Fascists and very extreme right. For Hall Greenland, Greens are more right-wing and conservative than Fisher and Shooters party, which is not following any ideological right, apart from fighting to increase recreational hunting sports.
5- This is not the first time the Greens is engaged with this low and cheap politics to destroy rivals that have potential to deprive Greens from seats. In 80s and early 90s the Greens were successful in swamping the Socialists and destroy the movement by spreading division and tactics to destroy morale. We also experienced such dirty tactics for the last 4 years when we tried to expose the real regressive agendas of the Greens. We will keep posting some of these tactics in the next few days.
6- Despite all these, we believe that time is approaching when the Greens will be totally exposed and will pay dearly for such dirty tactics.
Australians should not allow the Greens to rig our political system by resorting to dirty tactics of running fake candidates, spread roumers and lies and hide behind progressive face to achieve destructive agendas.
We do not know what is the urgency of mass resignations of people who were arguing from the first day of the need to make Greens happy, the need of keeping Greens in politics and the need to consult the Greens on decisions. The people who resigned in the last week in mass were in fact citing the Greens interests and not their “own” political party’s. Otherwise, the whole issues raised in their resignations are not urgent issues that require destroying the movement altogether and could wait until the dust of this crucial election settled...
In regard to the “turmoil” inside the Wikileaks currently, which resulted so far in resignation of candidate on the second place in Victorian ticket and many National Council members’ resignations, I expect that:
1- The turmoil resulted when Wikileaks party refused to accept to be a “shop front” for the Greens, when they (Greens) asked Wikileaks to run fake tickets under Wikileaks banner to enable re-election of Greens struggling senators. Information emerged that Greens offered to help Wikileaks (which was hesitant to run candidates in Western Australia because of limited resources) run fake ticket to attract voters from both Labor and Liberals and then direct them to the Greens through preferences. The Greens committed to finance the campaign and provide all logistical and organisational support it needs. This is clear bid to rig our electoral system with fake candidates to deceive voters.
After many opinion polls conducted in Western Australia, Wikileaks party came to understanding that good campaign could see Wikileaks candidates get more votes than unpopular Greens senator. So they refused the offer and instead run strong candidates and good campaign.
2- The Greens flooded the Wikileaks party with members at all levels to be able to know all decisions and directions inside the Wikileaks party. The Greens used these “sleeping cells” also to try to destroy the party at the right time (current time). Some Greens members are indeed on the National Council and as candidates. Otherwise, why the main reason for Dr Mathew’s resignation (and the resignation of the other National Council members) was that the preference deals will see Scot Ludlum lose his seat. And how would such high profile officials in any party abandon the party from the first obstacle or debacle they face???
3- The Greens cannot claim high moral ground when it comes to preferences. The Greens entered or tried to enter at many different occasions preference deals with very extreme right parties. This include the preference deal reached with One Nation at 2001 election, which saw the Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, win senate seat in NSW on just 4.5% of primary vote, defeating Democrats on 6.5% and One Nation on 8%. The Greens claimed that there was no deal with One Nation and that One Nation just decided to give the preference to the Greens candidate. This is mere lies, as the Greens entered intense negotiation to convince the One Nation to preference the Greens ahead of ALL other minor and major parties. The negotiation was conducted between Jo Edwards and Geoff Ash form the Greens with One Nation campaign manager. Read my detailed account on this deal on http://jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/why-did-one-nation-preferecned-greens.html . The Greens also got preference deal with One Nation during Cunningham by-election 2002 that saw Greens candidate win. This is in addition to many secret negotiations between the Greens and Liberals which resulted in deals in Victorian election 2006, but was refused by Liberals in NSW 2007.
4- The Greens themselves, as according to their high profile candidate Hall Greenland, are no more than eco-Fascists and very extreme right. For Hall Greenland, Greens are more right-wing and conservative than Fisher and Shooters party, which is not following any ideological right, apart from fighting to increase recreational hunting sports.
5- This is not the first time the Greens is engaged with this low and cheap politics to destroy rivals that have potential to deprive Greens from seats. In 80s and early 90s the Greens were successful in swamping the Socialists and destroy the movement by spreading division and tactics to destroy morale. We also experienced such dirty tactics for the last 4 years when we tried to expose the real regressive agendas of the Greens. We will keep posting some of these tactics in the next few days.
6- Despite all these, we believe that time is approaching when the Greens will be totally exposed and will pay dearly for such dirty tactics.
Australians should not allow the Greens to rig our political system by resorting to dirty tactics of running fake candidates, spread roumers and lies and hide behind progressive face to achieve destructive agendas.
We do not know what is the urgency of mass resignations of people who were arguing from the first day of the need to make Greens happy, the need of keeping Greens in politics and the need to consult the Greens on decisions. The people who resigned in the last week in mass were in fact citing the Greens interests and not their “own” political party’s. Otherwise, the whole issues raised in their resignations are not urgent issues that require destroying the movement altogether and could wait until the dust of this crucial election settled...
Why did One Nation preferecned the Greens in 2001?
In the mid of October 2001, Jo Edwards (Greens campaign manager in NSW and then media advisor for Senator Kerry Nettle) got on the phone. On the other side of the line was One Nation campaign manager. One Nation was cornered, where all political parties refused to make preference deal with it. One Nation was made to be perceived as the only racist evil. Though other parties, including Liberal party, was more racist than One Nation. Currently, the politics of both major parties were stolen from One Nation policy on refugees and asylum seekers.
The One Nation negotiator wanted to come with clearer picture of the Greens politics to see how close the Greens policy to the One Nation’s. Apparently, One Nation negotiator was contacting all minor parties to put them in order on their Preferences Voting card. One Nation knew that no political party would dare to swap preferences with it. But at least they want to make sure that they give their preferences to the party that have something in common.
One Nation negotiator asked the Greens many questions about their (Greens party) policies on immigration, globalisation, work relations .... The negotiations continued more than once. Only Jo Edwards and Greens power broker Geoff Ash knew the details of the negotiation. No party member (including myself at that time) was aware of these details.
At the end of the negotiations, One Nation was convinced that the Greens was the closest party to them on many platforms. This understanding was echoed in their decision to give their preference to the Greens. The Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, won her seat on One Nation preferences. It was not random preferences. It came after intense and serious negotiations including exchanging documents and policy statements.
This was not the last time One Nation preferenced the Greens and gifted them seats. In the following year and during Cunningham by-election, One Nation took the same decision. They put the Greens second. And the Greens candidate Michael Organ, won the seat for 2 years.
Now we leave it to all of you to think: why did One Nation extreme racist party decided to give preferences to the Greens??? Does this ring bell about the Greens real commitments and politics?? Why the Greens is the only pure White political party in Australia?? Do you know that the Greens want our government to phase-out migration program gradually??? Did this come hand in hand to explain why the Greens did not use the power given to them in the last 3 years to end the suffering of refugees and asylum seekers, despite the big noise against this treatment???
We do not believe that fascist party like One Nation would decide to preference Greens more than once on no basis. For any principled politician, he/she should refuse to negotiate with any fascist extreme racist party like One Nation....
And the story has continuation.....
The One Nation negotiator wanted to come with clearer picture of the Greens politics to see how close the Greens policy to the One Nation’s. Apparently, One Nation negotiator was contacting all minor parties to put them in order on their Preferences Voting card. One Nation knew that no political party would dare to swap preferences with it. But at least they want to make sure that they give their preferences to the party that have something in common.
One Nation negotiator asked the Greens many questions about their (Greens party) policies on immigration, globalisation, work relations .... The negotiations continued more than once. Only Jo Edwards and Greens power broker Geoff Ash knew the details of the negotiation. No party member (including myself at that time) was aware of these details.
At the end of the negotiations, One Nation was convinced that the Greens was the closest party to them on many platforms. This understanding was echoed in their decision to give their preference to the Greens. The Greens candidate, Kerry Nettle, won her seat on One Nation preferences. It was not random preferences. It came after intense and serious negotiations including exchanging documents and policy statements.
This was not the last time One Nation preferenced the Greens and gifted them seats. In the following year and during Cunningham by-election, One Nation took the same decision. They put the Greens second. And the Greens candidate Michael Organ, won the seat for 2 years.
Now we leave it to all of you to think: why did One Nation extreme racist party decided to give preferences to the Greens??? Does this ring bell about the Greens real commitments and politics?? Why the Greens is the only pure White political party in Australia?? Do you know that the Greens want our government to phase-out migration program gradually??? Did this come hand in hand to explain why the Greens did not use the power given to them in the last 3 years to end the suffering of refugees and asylum seekers, despite the big noise against this treatment???
We do not believe that fascist party like One Nation would decide to preference Greens more than once on no basis. For any principled politician, he/she should refuse to negotiate with any fascist extreme racist party like One Nation....
And the story has continuation.....
Monday, September 03, 2012
Our story with the Australian extremists: Enough is enough!!
When we decided not to back down on the barbaric attacks by local extremists, we took this decision as enough is enough. The current barbaric medieval attacks on our democratic rights of freedom of speech and thoughts were not the first attacks we sustained. But we have decided that they should be the last.
The first time we decided to run candidates in local election was on September 2008. At that time, there were no controversial issues like the current violence in Syria. Our election campaign was going on very smoothly. Until one day we were alerted by a friend who attends Friday praying at musallah operated by one of these extremist groups.
We were told that the imam of the musallah had urged his followers not to vote for us, namely. The reason for this because he suspects that we are Shia seeking representation in the local council. The calls to boycott us spread like fire in the hay. We heard accounts that all other musallahs, masjids and mosques operated by extreme groups affiliated with Al Qaeda had done the same.
We approached one of these musallahs and encouraged the leaders of that musallahs not to spread sectarian hate. Regardless of the fact that we are not Shia, sectarian hate should not have place in Australian democracy and life-style. The leaders denied that they spread such sectarian hate. But at that election we heard more horrific accounts. The extremists in fact used all venues available to them to advocate people not to vote for us. They even utilised Islamic school to spread sectarian hate. Some of the school kids are in fact Shia, studying in Sunni dominated school. They were urged to tell their parents not to vote for “infidels” like us.
We decided not to take any action, as this could hurt the reputation of the community and could affect the fragile harmony between its sects.
The same story was repeated, in more ugly way, during the last year’s state election. While again during the last year’s election, the issue of Syria was not a factor in the election, violence against our campaign was very high. With no warning, we woke up one day to discover that all our posters had disappeared from the streets. Even posters inside shops were torn apart by angry mob. We then were told that the mob has left us message that they belong to Al Bukhari bookstore. When we tried to talk to Al Bukhari bookstore, we met with mixed response. Officially they denied encouraging their members to attack our posters because we are “infidels” and no Muslim should vote for us. But practically there were few members who admitted that they did all this. And the campaign to sabotage our campaign went on and on. All our efforts to stop these Al Bukhari members from attacking our campaign were unsuccessful. We left with one option: report these barbaric medieval attacks to authorities, including police. We also leaked news alert to media.
The police could not take practical step to stop these attacks. It was only when The Daily Telegraph published small article about these attacks that Sheikh Feiz and his group moved to stop their members from continuing their campaign. But with more threats to us.
At that time we again decided that the reputation of the community should be put above our interests of getting decent votes. And this is why we refused to talk directly or indirectly to the media. We had several requests from different TV stations (including SBS, ABC and other channels) in addition to newspapers and radio stations (including 2GB and 2UE). Even the Times contacted us from its offices in London and offered to send journalist to meet us and get the full story.
Eventhough it was the golden opportunity for us to get a lot of media during election campaign, we refused all offers. Some think that we could have lost a lot of Muslim votes if we accepted the offers. This is not true. And the result was clear evidence.
A lot of community members are against these extremists. We should remember that in the community there are a lot of Shia Muslims, Alawis and moderate Sunnis that are sick of these extremists and their extreme ideas and tactics. There are also a lot of racist and Anti-Muslim community members. Let us remember that One Nation racist and Anti-Muslim party got in many elections more than 10% of the votes in Auburn seat.
We did not take all these numbers and facts into account when we took the decision to refuse to talk to the media. All what was important for us is the interests of the community, including its reputation and harmony among its members.
But the attacks during this election led us to clear understanding that the reputation and interests of the Muslim community require us to stand up and stop these extreme groups from going on with their extreme tactics and agendas. If we continue to cave in and absorb attacks without counter attack, these groups will take the whole community as hostage. And the same tactics will be repeated in any future elections or public campaigns.
These groups were the reason for the very bad reputation of the Muslims around the world and gave us the bad name as “terrorists” “monsters” and “inhumane”. They in fact do not care about the reputation and harmony in the community. Not only this. Their tactic is very simple: to abuse our careful steps not to hurt the community’s reputation. They then attack and claim that any counter attack on them will divide the community and give the community bad reputation.
In this election we decided that “the best way to defend yourself is to attack your enemies”. And so we went on counter attack from the first day the extremists started to send us threatening sms, phone calls and Facebook messages. And we continued by alerting the media, politicians and other community members. And we will continue until they stop their dirty tactics.
We believe that in democracy people can exchange ideas, debate, make accusations and compromises to settle disputes. These extreme groups do not recognise democracy at all. This is why they resort immediately in any debate to threats, physical attacks and use of religious centres to attack opponents. We will do the same.
We know that the damage was done this election. We know that these groups resorted to all dirty tactics; including using “Islamic” schools to spread sectarian hate and lies.
But we are doing all this for future. They should stop taking the whole community a hostage for their extreme agendas. They should start to act like any other Australian in the society. If they do not like things, they can either shut up or debate, within the laws. Not threats and no physical attacks.
And we know that they are well organised and have no morals to do any low acts. And this is why we need to better organise and show them that we will not allow them to go on with their dirty tactics.
And we will do this.....
The first time we decided to run candidates in local election was on September 2008. At that time, there were no controversial issues like the current violence in Syria. Our election campaign was going on very smoothly. Until one day we were alerted by a friend who attends Friday praying at musallah operated by one of these extremist groups.
We were told that the imam of the musallah had urged his followers not to vote for us, namely. The reason for this because he suspects that we are Shia seeking representation in the local council. The calls to boycott us spread like fire in the hay. We heard accounts that all other musallahs, masjids and mosques operated by extreme groups affiliated with Al Qaeda had done the same.
We approached one of these musallahs and encouraged the leaders of that musallahs not to spread sectarian hate. Regardless of the fact that we are not Shia, sectarian hate should not have place in Australian democracy and life-style. The leaders denied that they spread such sectarian hate. But at that election we heard more horrific accounts. The extremists in fact used all venues available to them to advocate people not to vote for us. They even utilised Islamic school to spread sectarian hate. Some of the school kids are in fact Shia, studying in Sunni dominated school. They were urged to tell their parents not to vote for “infidels” like us.
We decided not to take any action, as this could hurt the reputation of the community and could affect the fragile harmony between its sects.
The same story was repeated, in more ugly way, during the last year’s state election. While again during the last year’s election, the issue of Syria was not a factor in the election, violence against our campaign was very high. With no warning, we woke up one day to discover that all our posters had disappeared from the streets. Even posters inside shops were torn apart by angry mob. We then were told that the mob has left us message that they belong to Al Bukhari bookstore. When we tried to talk to Al Bukhari bookstore, we met with mixed response. Officially they denied encouraging their members to attack our posters because we are “infidels” and no Muslim should vote for us. But practically there were few members who admitted that they did all this. And the campaign to sabotage our campaign went on and on. All our efforts to stop these Al Bukhari members from attacking our campaign were unsuccessful. We left with one option: report these barbaric medieval attacks to authorities, including police. We also leaked news alert to media.
The police could not take practical step to stop these attacks. It was only when The Daily Telegraph published small article about these attacks that Sheikh Feiz and his group moved to stop their members from continuing their campaign. But with more threats to us.
At that time we again decided that the reputation of the community should be put above our interests of getting decent votes. And this is why we refused to talk directly or indirectly to the media. We had several requests from different TV stations (including SBS, ABC and other channels) in addition to newspapers and radio stations (including 2GB and 2UE). Even the Times contacted us from its offices in London and offered to send journalist to meet us and get the full story.
Eventhough it was the golden opportunity for us to get a lot of media during election campaign, we refused all offers. Some think that we could have lost a lot of Muslim votes if we accepted the offers. This is not true. And the result was clear evidence.
A lot of community members are against these extremists. We should remember that in the community there are a lot of Shia Muslims, Alawis and moderate Sunnis that are sick of these extremists and their extreme ideas and tactics. There are also a lot of racist and Anti-Muslim community members. Let us remember that One Nation racist and Anti-Muslim party got in many elections more than 10% of the votes in Auburn seat.
We did not take all these numbers and facts into account when we took the decision to refuse to talk to the media. All what was important for us is the interests of the community, including its reputation and harmony among its members.
But the attacks during this election led us to clear understanding that the reputation and interests of the Muslim community require us to stand up and stop these extreme groups from going on with their extreme tactics and agendas. If we continue to cave in and absorb attacks without counter attack, these groups will take the whole community as hostage. And the same tactics will be repeated in any future elections or public campaigns.
These groups were the reason for the very bad reputation of the Muslims around the world and gave us the bad name as “terrorists” “monsters” and “inhumane”. They in fact do not care about the reputation and harmony in the community. Not only this. Their tactic is very simple: to abuse our careful steps not to hurt the community’s reputation. They then attack and claim that any counter attack on them will divide the community and give the community bad reputation.
In this election we decided that “the best way to defend yourself is to attack your enemies”. And so we went on counter attack from the first day the extremists started to send us threatening sms, phone calls and Facebook messages. And we continued by alerting the media, politicians and other community members. And we will continue until they stop their dirty tactics.
We believe that in democracy people can exchange ideas, debate, make accusations and compromises to settle disputes. These extreme groups do not recognise democracy at all. This is why they resort immediately in any debate to threats, physical attacks and use of religious centres to attack opponents. We will do the same.
We know that the damage was done this election. We know that these groups resorted to all dirty tactics; including using “Islamic” schools to spread sectarian hate and lies.
But we are doing all this for future. They should stop taking the whole community a hostage for their extreme agendas. They should start to act like any other Australian in the society. If they do not like things, they can either shut up or debate, within the laws. Not threats and no physical attacks.
And we know that they are well organised and have no morals to do any low acts. And this is why we need to better organise and show them that we will not allow them to go on with their dirty tactics.
And we will do this.....
Monday, July 23, 2012
The Greens lies on Melbourne by election results: It is the time to rid of the Greens!
The Greens had deafened our ears for the last decade that they will win Melbourne seat, become major party and that they are lefty party seeking “clean politics”. The results of the Melbourne
by- election yesterday would be clear evidence against all these myths and lies.
I personally heard the Greens leader, Bob Brown, during the Victorian state election 2002 stressing to the members and media that the Greens will win Melbourne seat from Labor. He even went further. He predicted that the Greens will win 5-7 seats in the Victorian both houses. The results of that election were clear: the Greens won no seats. Not only this. Without Labor’s major reforms to voting system in Victoria, the Greens would have won no seats until today.
I also personally heard Mr Brown (who could be comfortably described as the best lying politician in Australian contemporary history) promising Greens members and supporters that the Greens will end Labor dominance in politics and would replace it. So far the best results for the Greens were during the exceptional 2010 election by winning 11.7% of the votes. This is not even near the 38% to Labor.
The other myth is that the Greens advocate and exercise “clean politics”.
The Greens so far vended many lies to justify their deceptions about winning the Melbourne seat easily from Labor. Logically, the Greens should have won the seat in this by-election for the following reasons:
1-This is a by-election, where voters usually vote against incumbent party. The voters usually can afford to send message of dissatisfaction to their traditional party, without costing them office.
2-The Greens control the seat Federally.
3-The Labor is sliding in all opinion polls with the mess at Federal level and extremely unpopular Federal government.
The Greens, instead of admitting the truth that they failed to impress the voters, resorted to vend more lies after lies of the reasons of such failure.
At the beginning, they accused Labor of making dirty deals with Christian conservative party, Family First.
Then they accused the voting system of handing the seat to Labor, despite the fact that the Greens won more primary votes than Labor.
The Greens have vended these accusations/lies disregarding the following facts:
1- The Greens have won almost ALL their seats on the back of preferences from conservative parties.
2- The Greens almost never won any seat on primary votes.
Let us mention details here:
- The Greens sealed a deal in 2001 Federal election with extreme racist One Nation Pauline Hanson party. The Greens senator, Kerry Nettle, actually won on the preferences she received from One Nation.
- In 2006 Victorian state election, the Greens entered negotiation with conservative Liberals party (who sealed at that time a preference deal with Family First) to swap preferences. The Liberals refused to swap deal with the Greens on principled reasons (because of the Greens Anti-family policies).
- In 2007 NSW state election, the Greens attempted to bribe the conservative Liberals party (controlled at that time by extreme Neo-Conservative faction) to swap preferences in certain areas (namely Balmain and Marrickville). Again the Liberals were more principled than the Greens and refused to swap deals with the Greens because of the Greens Anti-Family policies.
- The Greens leader, Bob Brown, won his seat in Tasmania first time (1998) on less than 5% of primary votes (the quota to win seat is 14.5%). Without preference deals, the Greens leader would never win the seat then.
- Almost ALL Greens politicians won on preference deal. The Greens only win on primary vote were in Tasmania and Victoria, 2010.
These facts would dismiss any claims by the Greens of “clean politics”.
So why the Greens lost this “unlosable election”.
The loss of election came after almost ALL political forces in Australia understood that the only way to increase their vote is to get rid of the Greens. Almost ALL parties understood that the Greens are very good in propaganda, including lies and deceptions on commitments and achievements. And it is very clear that they will combine forces to end this farce.
The Greens for the last decade could get votes from all political parties. Some votes came from Labor. Other votes came from the Democrats. A lot of votes come from new voters who swallowed the lies and deceptions of the Greens commitments to Multiculturalism, refugees rights, Anti-War and pro-public sector.
Let us go back to preference deals in yesterday’s election. The Greens failed to get any decent preference deal, even from parties that would have many in common with the Greens.
The Greens even failed to get preferences from Sex Party (even though the Greens are staunch supporters of promoting prostitution, drug abuse …). The Sex party came to clear understanding that they will never win any decent primary votes while the Greens get such level of voting and representation in parliaments.
The Labor started the campaign to isolate the Greens and convince other parties to direct preferences away from the Greens. The Labor and ALL other forces should intensify this campaign. The Greens should be isolated and denied preference votes, to enable other decent parties to get fair share of primary votes. And it seems that this is what will happen.
The only exception to this so far is the Socialists within the Socialist Alliance. They are still in bed with the Greens, despite the fact that the Greens are refusing to adopt any Socialist agenda and are considering the Socialist ideology to be laughable matter from dark era. The Socialists do not understand that the good work they are doing on many platforms, including refugees rights, Anti-War….. were hijacked on election days by the Greens. The Socialists alliance with the Greens gives wrong indication to the voters of who really have commitments and actions on social justice issues. The Socialists should start to distance themselves from the Greens, especially the Greens are treating the Socilaists as inferior, naïve and irrelevant in Australian politics.
If the trend will be repeated in the next elections, we would expect the disappearance of the Greens form the political scene soon. The same happened to extreme Pauline Hanson One Nation.
by- election yesterday would be clear evidence against all these myths and lies.
I personally heard the Greens leader, Bob Brown, during the Victorian state election 2002 stressing to the members and media that the Greens will win Melbourne seat from Labor. He even went further. He predicted that the Greens will win 5-7 seats in the Victorian both houses. The results of that election were clear: the Greens won no seats. Not only this. Without Labor’s major reforms to voting system in Victoria, the Greens would have won no seats until today.
I also personally heard Mr Brown (who could be comfortably described as the best lying politician in Australian contemporary history) promising Greens members and supporters that the Greens will end Labor dominance in politics and would replace it. So far the best results for the Greens were during the exceptional 2010 election by winning 11.7% of the votes. This is not even near the 38% to Labor.
The other myth is that the Greens advocate and exercise “clean politics”.
The Greens so far vended many lies to justify their deceptions about winning the Melbourne seat easily from Labor. Logically, the Greens should have won the seat in this by-election for the following reasons:
1-This is a by-election, where voters usually vote against incumbent party. The voters usually can afford to send message of dissatisfaction to their traditional party, without costing them office.
2-The Greens control the seat Federally.
3-The Labor is sliding in all opinion polls with the mess at Federal level and extremely unpopular Federal government.
The Greens, instead of admitting the truth that they failed to impress the voters, resorted to vend more lies after lies of the reasons of such failure.
At the beginning, they accused Labor of making dirty deals with Christian conservative party, Family First.
Then they accused the voting system of handing the seat to Labor, despite the fact that the Greens won more primary votes than Labor.
The Greens have vended these accusations/lies disregarding the following facts:
1- The Greens have won almost ALL their seats on the back of preferences from conservative parties.
2- The Greens almost never won any seat on primary votes.
Let us mention details here:
- The Greens sealed a deal in 2001 Federal election with extreme racist One Nation Pauline Hanson party. The Greens senator, Kerry Nettle, actually won on the preferences she received from One Nation.
- In 2006 Victorian state election, the Greens entered negotiation with conservative Liberals party (who sealed at that time a preference deal with Family First) to swap preferences. The Liberals refused to swap deal with the Greens on principled reasons (because of the Greens Anti-family policies).
- In 2007 NSW state election, the Greens attempted to bribe the conservative Liberals party (controlled at that time by extreme Neo-Conservative faction) to swap preferences in certain areas (namely Balmain and Marrickville). Again the Liberals were more principled than the Greens and refused to swap deals with the Greens because of the Greens Anti-Family policies.
- The Greens leader, Bob Brown, won his seat in Tasmania first time (1998) on less than 5% of primary votes (the quota to win seat is 14.5%). Without preference deals, the Greens leader would never win the seat then.
- Almost ALL Greens politicians won on preference deal. The Greens only win on primary vote were in Tasmania and Victoria, 2010.
These facts would dismiss any claims by the Greens of “clean politics”.
So why the Greens lost this “unlosable election”.
The loss of election came after almost ALL political forces in Australia understood that the only way to increase their vote is to get rid of the Greens. Almost ALL parties understood that the Greens are very good in propaganda, including lies and deceptions on commitments and achievements. And it is very clear that they will combine forces to end this farce.
The Greens for the last decade could get votes from all political parties. Some votes came from Labor. Other votes came from the Democrats. A lot of votes come from new voters who swallowed the lies and deceptions of the Greens commitments to Multiculturalism, refugees rights, Anti-War and pro-public sector.
Let us go back to preference deals in yesterday’s election. The Greens failed to get any decent preference deal, even from parties that would have many in common with the Greens.
The Greens even failed to get preferences from Sex Party (even though the Greens are staunch supporters of promoting prostitution, drug abuse …). The Sex party came to clear understanding that they will never win any decent primary votes while the Greens get such level of voting and representation in parliaments.
The Labor started the campaign to isolate the Greens and convince other parties to direct preferences away from the Greens. The Labor and ALL other forces should intensify this campaign. The Greens should be isolated and denied preference votes, to enable other decent parties to get fair share of primary votes. And it seems that this is what will happen.
The only exception to this so far is the Socialists within the Socialist Alliance. They are still in bed with the Greens, despite the fact that the Greens are refusing to adopt any Socialist agenda and are considering the Socialist ideology to be laughable matter from dark era. The Socialists do not understand that the good work they are doing on many platforms, including refugees rights, Anti-War….. were hijacked on election days by the Greens. The Socialists alliance with the Greens gives wrong indication to the voters of who really have commitments and actions on social justice issues. The Socialists should start to distance themselves from the Greens, especially the Greens are treating the Socilaists as inferior, naïve and irrelevant in Australian politics.
If the trend will be repeated in the next elections, we would expect the disappearance of the Greens form the political scene soon. The same happened to extreme Pauline Hanson One Nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
My experience inside the United Australia party: why UAP’s humiliating defeat & When will Ralph defect from UAP?
After running as a federal candidate for the United Australia party in the seat of Reid, these are my observation about the reasons why UA...
