The Greens party was described on several occasions by disappointed members and supporters as “ecological fascists” for putting “protecting environment” slogan ahead of “people’s lives and wellbeing”. Of course all of us (including these disappointed members and supporters) do believe that protecting environment is very important task and noble job to strive to achieve. But balance should be made and we should not be locked in the Byzantine argument of “who is first: the chick or the egg”.
Yesterday’s decision by the Greens to support increasing the tax on petrol is clear example of the Greens ecological fascist behaviour.
The Greens support this hike because they believe that this increase will increase the price of driving a car, and so it will enforce people to abandon their private cars and start joining public transport. This is the most stupid and short-sighted assumption any moron can consider.
With the current mess in our public transport, no hike on petrol price will enforce me (as an example of educated Australian with deep commitment to protecting environment) to leave my car outside my home or train station and join a trip of long hours to reach a destination that could be reached in less than half an hour.
Before fixing our public transport and make it both reliable and competitive (economically), no major change of public attitude will be achieved.
But what about the catastrophic impact of this hike on the life-style of Australian battlers, especially during these hard time of financial slowdown?
Such hike will definitely mean increase of our fruits, vegetables and other food delivered to our stores from producers by trucks.
Such hike will also increase the price of electricity and water.
It will also increase the price of clothes, shoes, furniture, electrical and non-electrical appliances delivered to local stores by trucks, planes and ships.
And consequently to all these hikes, the cost of renting or buying home will be increased as workers and business people need to compensate for the hike of all materials and labor.
This hike, which will be increased every year, will make the life of poor and marginalised hell. And there will be no compensation for poor. So this is a tax that will be paid by poor only. The rich will compensate their losses by increasing the price of their products on the customers.
The Greens, who opposes the Debt Levy on rich but support the petrol tax on poor, is the worst enemies (together with the Liberals) of the poor and marginalised.
The Greens want to protect environment by torturing poor people. The responsible for the attack on our environment (the big corporations) will escape by passing the burden on our poor and middle class (if there will be middle class left after this budget).
If the Greens want to enforce poor to leave their cars and use public transport in all their travel, I want to tell them that this will not happen and will not affect the carbon emissions. What will happen is destroying people’s life (especially the poor).
When I was in the Soviet Union, the government started a campaign to curb the citizens’ abuse of alcohol. They introduced big hike to Vodka prices. So one kid came to his father and told him: hey dad, you will drink less now? The father asked: why? The kid said: because the government doubled the price of Vodka. The father replied: ohhh, I guess you will eat less... and in fact, the Russians started to eat less, spend less on all other necessities... and when they could not afford buying Vodka despite all these, they started to abuse home-made alcohols or spirits stolen from hospitals and clinics.
Is this what the Greens want the Australian poor to go through: poverty and neglect to well-being.
Did you notice that the Greens is not talking at all about Abbott government’s attack on Medicare??? Does this mean that Tony Abbott in fact struck a deal with the Greens to re-introduce petrol-excision in return of the Greens approval of dismantling the Medicare???
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
Abbott’s government budget: ideological goals, not financial slowdown
Tony Abbott and his government try to deceive all of us using argument about government’s debt and financial slowdown to achieve old ideological agendas. The government is hiding the truth about the status of Australian economy as one of the best performing economies (if not the best) amid the current financial slowdown.
All this is just to continue the neo-liberal agenda started by Howard’s government. Let us put everything in its perspective.
John Howard’s government tried to destroy the Medicare in 2003. (Read: How Howard plans to destroy the Medicare system http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563641.html ). He, then, was met with strong opposition, even from within his own MPs. Ironically; Tony Abbott was minister for health in Howard’s government during his attempt to destroy the Medicare. So the attack on Medicare is not related to the economic slowdown. At that time, 2003, the Australian and global economy were flourishing and there was no financial needs to destroy Medicare. All was about reversing the decreasing numbers of Australians taking up private health insurance and declining profit for these insurance companies.
The attack on welfare system is not also related to financial slowdown. It was John Howard who introduced all “reforms” in our welfare system. From “reforming” Disability Support Pension determination and review to introduction of “mutual obligations” principles. Of course do not forget the “Work for the Dole” program and all other “reforms” including demanding mothers to look for work when the youngest kid turns 6 years old.
So nothing to do with global financial slowdown or the increasing government debt. It is all about ideological neo-liberals agendas to Americanise our system by destroying workers rights and privatise public assets.
But the most important question is: How does Tony Abbott guarantee that this catastrophic budget and “reforms” will not end the chances of re-election of his government?
Tony Abbott believes that he can repeat the legacy of his mentor, John Howard, who despite all his attacks on poor and marginalised, succeeded to stay in power for more than 11 years.
But Tony Abbott should be totally mad not to observe the difference between current circumstances and the circumstances during Howard’s rule.
During Howard’s days, the Australian (and global) economy was flourishing. Howard could always convince people that despite these attacks, his government was able to maintain good economy and strong employment. He could deceive all of us that he is genius when it comes to economy management. When in fact, his management of the economy was disastrous and most of Australians missed out on the benefits of golden era of economical growth. He was just lucky to come to power with mining boom and global economical strong growth.
This is not the case with Abbott’s government. No doubt that global economy is suffering for the last few years serious slowdown. This has negative impact on Australian economy. These negative impacts being felt in all sectors and at all levels in Australia.
So when Howard could divert Australians attention from his vandalism of our socio-economical system by claiming that he is brilliant in managing the economy, how would Abbott divert the marginalised attention?
In times of financial hardship, especially on poor and marginalised, how Abbott’s government can win any heart by introducing more burdens on them and find them no economical solutions for their needs?
In a time when large numbers of Australians cannot find shelter on the top of their heads, how would they react to government that wants them to pay for local GP’s visit or to public hospital?
In a time when 10,000 Australians lose their jobs monthly, how would this government expect Australians to accept hike of petrol prices that will skyrocket the cost of living?
Tony Abbott should be either totally mad. Or maybe he is so genius that he could see beyond all of us.
All this is just to continue the neo-liberal agenda started by Howard’s government. Let us put everything in its perspective.
John Howard’s government tried to destroy the Medicare in 2003. (Read: How Howard plans to destroy the Medicare system http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563641.html ). He, then, was met with strong opposition, even from within his own MPs. Ironically; Tony Abbott was minister for health in Howard’s government during his attempt to destroy the Medicare. So the attack on Medicare is not related to the economic slowdown. At that time, 2003, the Australian and global economy were flourishing and there was no financial needs to destroy Medicare. All was about reversing the decreasing numbers of Australians taking up private health insurance and declining profit for these insurance companies.
The attack on welfare system is not also related to financial slowdown. It was John Howard who introduced all “reforms” in our welfare system. From “reforming” Disability Support Pension determination and review to introduction of “mutual obligations” principles. Of course do not forget the “Work for the Dole” program and all other “reforms” including demanding mothers to look for work when the youngest kid turns 6 years old.
So nothing to do with global financial slowdown or the increasing government debt. It is all about ideological neo-liberals agendas to Americanise our system by destroying workers rights and privatise public assets.
But the most important question is: How does Tony Abbott guarantee that this catastrophic budget and “reforms” will not end the chances of re-election of his government?
Tony Abbott believes that he can repeat the legacy of his mentor, John Howard, who despite all his attacks on poor and marginalised, succeeded to stay in power for more than 11 years.
But Tony Abbott should be totally mad not to observe the difference between current circumstances and the circumstances during Howard’s rule.
During Howard’s days, the Australian (and global) economy was flourishing. Howard could always convince people that despite these attacks, his government was able to maintain good economy and strong employment. He could deceive all of us that he is genius when it comes to economy management. When in fact, his management of the economy was disastrous and most of Australians missed out on the benefits of golden era of economical growth. He was just lucky to come to power with mining boom and global economical strong growth.
This is not the case with Abbott’s government. No doubt that global economy is suffering for the last few years serious slowdown. This has negative impact on Australian economy. These negative impacts being felt in all sectors and at all levels in Australia.
So when Howard could divert Australians attention from his vandalism of our socio-economical system by claiming that he is brilliant in managing the economy, how would Abbott divert the marginalised attention?
In times of financial hardship, especially on poor and marginalised, how Abbott’s government can win any heart by introducing more burdens on them and find them no economical solutions for their needs?
In a time when large numbers of Australians cannot find shelter on the top of their heads, how would they react to government that wants them to pay for local GP’s visit or to public hospital?
In a time when 10,000 Australians lose their jobs monthly, how would this government expect Australians to accept hike of petrol prices that will skyrocket the cost of living?
Tony Abbott should be either totally mad. Or maybe he is so genius that he could see beyond all of us.
Friday, May 02, 2014
رسالة مفتوحة الى سياسيينا وصحفيينا: متى تستفيقون على الكارثة التي شاركتم بها في سوريا
منذ اليوم الاول لانطلاق الكارثة الانسانية والتي انطلقت تحت مسمى الثورة السورية, حذرت بكل ثقة عن الكارثة التي ستتمخض عنها هذه الظاهرة وعلى كل شعوب العالم. هذه الكارثة الانسانية التي اصبحت الشغل الشاغل لكل شعوب العالم بعد اكثر من ثلاث سنين لانطلاقتها اللامباركة.
قناعاتي ومنذ البداية عن هذه الكارثة كانت مبنية على شواهد وظواهر لا يمكن ان تخفى عن متابع او محلل يتسم بالقليل من الذكاء والحنكة.
فكيف يمكن للولايات المتحدة, وهي عدوة تطلعات كل شعوب العالم للحرية والتقدم, ان تكون الراعية الرسمية لهذه الظاهرة/الكارثة؟ وكيف يمكن لانظمة ظلامية تنعدم فيها ادنى مقومات الحرية والعدالة الاجتماعية لمستوى رجم امراة لانها ضبطت تقود سيارة, ان تكون راس الحربة في دعم وادامة حراك يطالب بسقف عال من الحرية والعدالة الاجتماعية؟
وكيف يمكن لعدوة البشرية الاولى اسرائيل ان تكون المعالج لجرحى هذه "الثورة"/الكارثة والمدرب لكثير من "ثوارها"؟
في البداية, وبعد انحياز كل سياسيينا في استراليا (ومن ضمنهم سياسيون يدعون بالتقدمية كالنواب الخضر اوسياسيون حمر) وكل وسائل اعلامنا لهذه الظاهرة/الكارثة على جبين الانسانية, حاولنا ان نجد لهم بعض الاعذار بان الضجيج الاعلامي المواكب لهذه الظاهرة قد صنع هالة حولها اعمت اعين هؤلاء. وبالرغم من تحذيراتنا واتصالاتنا المكثفة بهؤلاء ووضع كل ما نملك عن اكاذيب هذه "الثورة" و "ثوارها" بايديهم, الا انهم اصروا على عماهم.
بل ان نواب الخضر (والذين يدعون معارضتهم للعنف في كل المجالات) كانوا الاشد في مطالبة العالم اجمع بمعاقبة الحكومة السورية ورئيسها الى حد المطالبة بطرد السفراء وفرض حصار ومنطقة حظر طيران وتكرار السيناريو الليبي المدمر. كما ذهب الكثيرون من ناشطي ومنظري اليسارية الاشتراكية الى نفس الاتجاه في دعم "الثورة"/الكارثة بناء على التسمية فقط. فتروتسكي كان يدعو الى ثورة مستمرة متواصلة, وعلى الاشتراكيين ان يدعموا اي ثورة في العالم, ولو كانت ثورة ظلامية تطالب مسيحيي سوريا بدخول الاسلام او دفع الجزية او الصلب علنا.
كنا نحاول ان نجد الاعذار لهؤلاء في بداية الازمة معتقدين ان مواقفهم المخزية كانت نتيجة لغياب الحقيقة بين دهاليز الجزيرة و والسي ان ان والعربية والبي بي سي.
ولكن وبعد اكثر من ثلاث اعوام من هذه الكارثة وما تمخض عنها من كم هائل من جرائم يندى لها جبين الانسانية, اصبح محتما علينا ان لا نجد عذرا لهؤلاء. كما اصبح واجبا علينا ان نعلي الصوت ونقول ان من لم تفتح اعينه وهز ضميره هذا الكم الهائل من الجرائم, فانه مشارك فيها ومسؤول مباشرة عنها.
فكم سوري يجب ان يقطع راسه او يفتح جسده ليلتهم وحش تكفيري قلبه وكبده قبل ان يستفيق سياسيونا, وعلى راسهم الخضر والحمر؟
وكم سورية يجب ان تخطف وتغتصب وينقل ابناؤها الى غوطة دمشق ليقتلوا بالغازات, قبل ان نرى تقارير محترمة ومحايدة من وسائل اعلامنا, وخصوصا الممولة من دافعي الضرائب, عن حقيقة ما يحصل في سوريا؟
وكم تقرير موثق من مراكز ابحاث محايدة او شبه محايدة او من صحفيين محترمين عن ان "ثوار الناتو" التكفيريين في سوريا هم من استخدم الغازات السامة, يكفي ليكف سياسيونا واعلاميونا عن ترديد اكاذيب الارهابيين كالببغاوات عن جرائم النظام الكيماوية؟
وكم مصنع سوري يجب ان يسرق ويهرب الى دول الجوار, ليقتنع سياسيونا الخضر والحمر ان ما يحصل في سوريا لا هو ثورة ولا حراك وطني, وانما كارثة انسانية ارتكبها مجرمون وقطاع طرق وارهابيون متطرفون؟
وكم مسيحي سوري يجب ان يصلب او يقطع راسه لانه رفض دخول الاسلام ولا يجد اواق ذهب كافية ليدفع جزية لارهابيي حلب والرقة ودير الزور؟
وكم اعلامي يحمل كاميرا محاولا توثيق ما يحدث يجب ان يقتل قبل ان يقتنع اعلاميونا (الذين يصنعون اخبار سوريا من استوديوهاتهم المكيفة الفارهة في سيدني وملبورن) ان ما يصلهم من اخبار عن طريق "شهود العيان" الذين تمولهم السعودية وقطر هو فبركات اعلامية لا تمت لحقيقة ما يحصل في سوريا بصلة؟
وكم استرالي يجب ان يتحمل احراق منزله او متجره او حرية معتقده, قبل ان يعترف سياسيونا واعلاميونا ان الكارثة التي ايدوها وشجعوها في سوريا, وصلت نيرانها الى عقر دارهم وتؤثر على الالاف من مواطنيهم؟
والسؤال الاخير: ما هو حجم الكارثة التي يجب ان تضرب سوريا واستراليا والعالم قبل ان يصحو ضمير هؤلاء السياسيين والاعلاميين ويبداوا بتغيير مواقفهم وتصرفاتهم؟
نحن نعرف ان كثيرا من سياسيينا ينتظرون الاشارات لهكذا تغيير وصحوة ضمير من واشنطن وكوريدورات السي اي ايه. ولكن ماذا بشان اؤلئك الذين "خزقوا طبلة اذاننا" عن تقدميتهم ورفضهم لهيمنة الامبريالية على السياسة الاسترالية والعالمية والذين ما زالوا غارقين حتى طبلة اذانهم بالمؤامرة على سوريا والعالم خدمة لمخططات هذه الامبريالية.
بل ان ما يزيد الطين بلة ان هؤلاء المدعين بالتقدمية والثورية من خضر وحمر تهجموا وتهكموا على تحذيراتنا ومقالاتنا والحقائق التي سربناها للصحافة والاجهزة الامنية عن حقيقة هذه "الثورة"/الكارثة وممارسة "ثوارها" الاجرامية في سوريا وفي استراليا ونعتونا بكل الصفات. بل ان الهجوم على مشاركتي في الوفد الذي زار دمشق نهاية العام لاثبات الحقائق واستطلاع الجديد, قوبل بهجوم حاد ممن يدعي الحرص على الحقيقة تحت ستارة التشدق بالتقدمية من سياسيين واعلاميين خضر وحمر ومؤيديهم.
نرجو ان يستفيق هؤلاء من غيبوبة ضميرهم وانسانيتهم قبل ان يضرب الارهاب في احيائهم ومناطقهم الانتخابية.
نرجو ان لا نكون في قوم كما قال الشاعر فيهم:
لقد أسمعت لو ناديت حيا ولكن لا حياة لمن تنادي
ونارا لو نفخت بها أضاءت ولكن أنت تنفخ في رماد
قناعاتي ومنذ البداية عن هذه الكارثة كانت مبنية على شواهد وظواهر لا يمكن ان تخفى عن متابع او محلل يتسم بالقليل من الذكاء والحنكة.
فكيف يمكن للولايات المتحدة, وهي عدوة تطلعات كل شعوب العالم للحرية والتقدم, ان تكون الراعية الرسمية لهذه الظاهرة/الكارثة؟ وكيف يمكن لانظمة ظلامية تنعدم فيها ادنى مقومات الحرية والعدالة الاجتماعية لمستوى رجم امراة لانها ضبطت تقود سيارة, ان تكون راس الحربة في دعم وادامة حراك يطالب بسقف عال من الحرية والعدالة الاجتماعية؟
وكيف يمكن لعدوة البشرية الاولى اسرائيل ان تكون المعالج لجرحى هذه "الثورة"/الكارثة والمدرب لكثير من "ثوارها"؟
في البداية, وبعد انحياز كل سياسيينا في استراليا (ومن ضمنهم سياسيون يدعون بالتقدمية كالنواب الخضر اوسياسيون حمر) وكل وسائل اعلامنا لهذه الظاهرة/الكارثة على جبين الانسانية, حاولنا ان نجد لهم بعض الاعذار بان الضجيج الاعلامي المواكب لهذه الظاهرة قد صنع هالة حولها اعمت اعين هؤلاء. وبالرغم من تحذيراتنا واتصالاتنا المكثفة بهؤلاء ووضع كل ما نملك عن اكاذيب هذه "الثورة" و "ثوارها" بايديهم, الا انهم اصروا على عماهم.
بل ان نواب الخضر (والذين يدعون معارضتهم للعنف في كل المجالات) كانوا الاشد في مطالبة العالم اجمع بمعاقبة الحكومة السورية ورئيسها الى حد المطالبة بطرد السفراء وفرض حصار ومنطقة حظر طيران وتكرار السيناريو الليبي المدمر. كما ذهب الكثيرون من ناشطي ومنظري اليسارية الاشتراكية الى نفس الاتجاه في دعم "الثورة"/الكارثة بناء على التسمية فقط. فتروتسكي كان يدعو الى ثورة مستمرة متواصلة, وعلى الاشتراكيين ان يدعموا اي ثورة في العالم, ولو كانت ثورة ظلامية تطالب مسيحيي سوريا بدخول الاسلام او دفع الجزية او الصلب علنا.
كنا نحاول ان نجد الاعذار لهؤلاء في بداية الازمة معتقدين ان مواقفهم المخزية كانت نتيجة لغياب الحقيقة بين دهاليز الجزيرة و والسي ان ان والعربية والبي بي سي.
ولكن وبعد اكثر من ثلاث اعوام من هذه الكارثة وما تمخض عنها من كم هائل من جرائم يندى لها جبين الانسانية, اصبح محتما علينا ان لا نجد عذرا لهؤلاء. كما اصبح واجبا علينا ان نعلي الصوت ونقول ان من لم تفتح اعينه وهز ضميره هذا الكم الهائل من الجرائم, فانه مشارك فيها ومسؤول مباشرة عنها.
فكم سوري يجب ان يقطع راسه او يفتح جسده ليلتهم وحش تكفيري قلبه وكبده قبل ان يستفيق سياسيونا, وعلى راسهم الخضر والحمر؟
وكم سورية يجب ان تخطف وتغتصب وينقل ابناؤها الى غوطة دمشق ليقتلوا بالغازات, قبل ان نرى تقارير محترمة ومحايدة من وسائل اعلامنا, وخصوصا الممولة من دافعي الضرائب, عن حقيقة ما يحصل في سوريا؟
وكم تقرير موثق من مراكز ابحاث محايدة او شبه محايدة او من صحفيين محترمين عن ان "ثوار الناتو" التكفيريين في سوريا هم من استخدم الغازات السامة, يكفي ليكف سياسيونا واعلاميونا عن ترديد اكاذيب الارهابيين كالببغاوات عن جرائم النظام الكيماوية؟
وكم مصنع سوري يجب ان يسرق ويهرب الى دول الجوار, ليقتنع سياسيونا الخضر والحمر ان ما يحصل في سوريا لا هو ثورة ولا حراك وطني, وانما كارثة انسانية ارتكبها مجرمون وقطاع طرق وارهابيون متطرفون؟
وكم مسيحي سوري يجب ان يصلب او يقطع راسه لانه رفض دخول الاسلام ولا يجد اواق ذهب كافية ليدفع جزية لارهابيي حلب والرقة ودير الزور؟
وكم اعلامي يحمل كاميرا محاولا توثيق ما يحدث يجب ان يقتل قبل ان يقتنع اعلاميونا (الذين يصنعون اخبار سوريا من استوديوهاتهم المكيفة الفارهة في سيدني وملبورن) ان ما يصلهم من اخبار عن طريق "شهود العيان" الذين تمولهم السعودية وقطر هو فبركات اعلامية لا تمت لحقيقة ما يحصل في سوريا بصلة؟
وكم استرالي يجب ان يتحمل احراق منزله او متجره او حرية معتقده, قبل ان يعترف سياسيونا واعلاميونا ان الكارثة التي ايدوها وشجعوها في سوريا, وصلت نيرانها الى عقر دارهم وتؤثر على الالاف من مواطنيهم؟
والسؤال الاخير: ما هو حجم الكارثة التي يجب ان تضرب سوريا واستراليا والعالم قبل ان يصحو ضمير هؤلاء السياسيين والاعلاميين ويبداوا بتغيير مواقفهم وتصرفاتهم؟
نحن نعرف ان كثيرا من سياسيينا ينتظرون الاشارات لهكذا تغيير وصحوة ضمير من واشنطن وكوريدورات السي اي ايه. ولكن ماذا بشان اؤلئك الذين "خزقوا طبلة اذاننا" عن تقدميتهم ورفضهم لهيمنة الامبريالية على السياسة الاسترالية والعالمية والذين ما زالوا غارقين حتى طبلة اذانهم بالمؤامرة على سوريا والعالم خدمة لمخططات هذه الامبريالية.
بل ان ما يزيد الطين بلة ان هؤلاء المدعين بالتقدمية والثورية من خضر وحمر تهجموا وتهكموا على تحذيراتنا ومقالاتنا والحقائق التي سربناها للصحافة والاجهزة الامنية عن حقيقة هذه "الثورة"/الكارثة وممارسة "ثوارها" الاجرامية في سوريا وفي استراليا ونعتونا بكل الصفات. بل ان الهجوم على مشاركتي في الوفد الذي زار دمشق نهاية العام لاثبات الحقائق واستطلاع الجديد, قوبل بهجوم حاد ممن يدعي الحرص على الحقيقة تحت ستارة التشدق بالتقدمية من سياسيين واعلاميين خضر وحمر ومؤيديهم.
نرجو ان يستفيق هؤلاء من غيبوبة ضميرهم وانسانيتهم قبل ان يضرب الارهاب في احيائهم ومناطقهم الانتخابية.
نرجو ان لا نكون في قوم كما قال الشاعر فيهم:
لقد أسمعت لو ناديت حيا ولكن لا حياة لمن تنادي
ونارا لو نفخت بها أضاءت ولكن أنت تنفخ في رماد
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Greens need to learn from Palmer United on achieving goals
I must admit of few things before discussing the issues mentioned.
First of all I need to admit that Palmer is surprising me everyday with his political tactics and positions. But I need to admit also that I am no fan of this right -wing conservative politician. But this does not mean that I do not agree with him on many things.
With only limited political expertise and limited numbers of politicians in both houses, Palmer is challenging the government on major issues. And it seems that he is winning.
Comparing all this with the case of the Greens party, The Greens case is very disappointing and depressing.
With the Greens experience in politics of more than 40 years and 11 Federal politicians, tens of politicians in state parliaments and hundreds of local councilors, one would expect that the Greens would have changed the Australian politics long time ago. When indeed despite all the above mentioned strength in the Greens case, the only achievement they achieved for the last 4 decades is Carbon Tax. Ironically it seems that Palmer will deny them from even this orphaned achievement.
So where things went wrong for the Greens and right for Palmer?
The Greens party has no principles and follow no principled politics. All what matters for them is to accumulate power, regardless of the cost. For them, the most important is how to win more votes, not how to enforce socio-political changes.
Let me discuss one clear example.
Between 2010-2013, The Greens held the balance of power in the senate, shared the balance of power in the parliament and could enforce shift of power from Labor to Liberals with one single MP. But despite this huge power at all levels in federal politics, they did not use such power in responsible way to maximise their achievements and influence.
The Greens were taking each issue on its own: discus it with the government and vote on it individually. So when the Labor cabinet introduced Malaysian Solution, for example, all what the Greens did was to vote against it in both houses.
Comparing this pathetic approach with the more sophisticated and clever approach of Palmer, one could understand why this politician became so important in very short period.
In Palmer tactics, issues will be discussed and negotiated in group. Palmer, for example, does not want any cut of allowances to orphans of fallen soldiers. He could vote against the legislation individually. The government might be able to negotiate with Labor and pass it. But Palmer made it very clear: if Liberals insist on passing this legislation, we will block scraping the Carbon and Mining Taxes (even though Palmer United supported scrapping these taxes during the election campaign). But by doing this, Palmer is doubling his political influence and strength.
When Labor attack on refugees rights were at its height, I wrote to Adam Bandt, the Greens MP for Melbourne, and asked him to act by threatening to withdraw Greens support for Julia Gillard’s government. Such move could send the government to double dissolution election. A move that Labor was not ready for. The Greens utterly refused to use their power. They, however, assured me that they will vote against these legislations that saw re-introduction of Pacific Solution, freeze the process of applications of newly arrived boat asylum seekers for more than 5 years and other draconian changes. But all these laws passed anyway because the Liberals supported them and the Greens did not use their power.
At that time, the Greens should have used Palmer tactics: If Labor insists to pass these legislation, we (the Greens) would stop supporting the government. We (the Greens) will also side with Liberals to veto other legislations to embarrass Labor and enforce them to give more compromises.
The refusal of the Greens to use these tactics limited their influence and resulted in the sole achievement of introducing the Carbon Tax.
I would not claim that the Greens are naive and this naivety was the reason for not using such tactics (which limited influence and achievements). The Greens did not want to use their tactics because they did not want to bury some of these issues, which theoretically distinguish them form Labor and gave them a lot of support.
The Greens knew that if refugees’ suffering stop for good, a lot of Labor disgruntled voters will go back to Labor. And this is the case for other issues that the Greens refused to act on to enforce the Labor to retreat.
This is the highest opportunist political prostitution you can ever witness.
Palmer on the other side showed high principled political ethics in Australian politics for decades. He talked loud of what he thinks and insisted to achieve his goals. He bargained well and used all circumstances available. And he will achieve. This is why his party will grow steadily (to some extent).
Again, I do not agree with Palmer on many issues. And I noticed that he did not come clear on a lot of sensitive issues. He does not talk much about refugees, foreign issues (Palestine, Syria, Libya...) and housing crisis. He is not talking about crisis in our health and education (especially tertiary) systems. And he is leading a party based around and owned by one person. And for all these, I do not support him.
Despite all this, I respect him, because he is showing no political opportunism.
The Greens will claim that they are still significant players in our political system. For me, this is the case so far because on the left there is no better alternative. Despite my strong resistance to call the Greens “left”, but the perception among Lefties is that the Greens is the best choice currently.
And this is why we need to create strong principled left alternative to challenge such perception of Greens monopoly on left representation.
First of all I need to admit that Palmer is surprising me everyday with his political tactics and positions. But I need to admit also that I am no fan of this right -wing conservative politician. But this does not mean that I do not agree with him on many things.
With only limited political expertise and limited numbers of politicians in both houses, Palmer is challenging the government on major issues. And it seems that he is winning.
Comparing all this with the case of the Greens party, The Greens case is very disappointing and depressing.
With the Greens experience in politics of more than 40 years and 11 Federal politicians, tens of politicians in state parliaments and hundreds of local councilors, one would expect that the Greens would have changed the Australian politics long time ago. When indeed despite all the above mentioned strength in the Greens case, the only achievement they achieved for the last 4 decades is Carbon Tax. Ironically it seems that Palmer will deny them from even this orphaned achievement.
So where things went wrong for the Greens and right for Palmer?
The Greens party has no principles and follow no principled politics. All what matters for them is to accumulate power, regardless of the cost. For them, the most important is how to win more votes, not how to enforce socio-political changes.
Let me discuss one clear example.
Between 2010-2013, The Greens held the balance of power in the senate, shared the balance of power in the parliament and could enforce shift of power from Labor to Liberals with one single MP. But despite this huge power at all levels in federal politics, they did not use such power in responsible way to maximise their achievements and influence.
The Greens were taking each issue on its own: discus it with the government and vote on it individually. So when the Labor cabinet introduced Malaysian Solution, for example, all what the Greens did was to vote against it in both houses.
Comparing this pathetic approach with the more sophisticated and clever approach of Palmer, one could understand why this politician became so important in very short period.
In Palmer tactics, issues will be discussed and negotiated in group. Palmer, for example, does not want any cut of allowances to orphans of fallen soldiers. He could vote against the legislation individually. The government might be able to negotiate with Labor and pass it. But Palmer made it very clear: if Liberals insist on passing this legislation, we will block scraping the Carbon and Mining Taxes (even though Palmer United supported scrapping these taxes during the election campaign). But by doing this, Palmer is doubling his political influence and strength.
When Labor attack on refugees rights were at its height, I wrote to Adam Bandt, the Greens MP for Melbourne, and asked him to act by threatening to withdraw Greens support for Julia Gillard’s government. Such move could send the government to double dissolution election. A move that Labor was not ready for. The Greens utterly refused to use their power. They, however, assured me that they will vote against these legislations that saw re-introduction of Pacific Solution, freeze the process of applications of newly arrived boat asylum seekers for more than 5 years and other draconian changes. But all these laws passed anyway because the Liberals supported them and the Greens did not use their power.
At that time, the Greens should have used Palmer tactics: If Labor insists to pass these legislation, we (the Greens) would stop supporting the government. We (the Greens) will also side with Liberals to veto other legislations to embarrass Labor and enforce them to give more compromises.
The refusal of the Greens to use these tactics limited their influence and resulted in the sole achievement of introducing the Carbon Tax.
I would not claim that the Greens are naive and this naivety was the reason for not using such tactics (which limited influence and achievements). The Greens did not want to use their tactics because they did not want to bury some of these issues, which theoretically distinguish them form Labor and gave them a lot of support.
The Greens knew that if refugees’ suffering stop for good, a lot of Labor disgruntled voters will go back to Labor. And this is the case for other issues that the Greens refused to act on to enforce the Labor to retreat.
This is the highest opportunist political prostitution you can ever witness.
Palmer on the other side showed high principled political ethics in Australian politics for decades. He talked loud of what he thinks and insisted to achieve his goals. He bargained well and used all circumstances available. And he will achieve. This is why his party will grow steadily (to some extent).
Again, I do not agree with Palmer on many issues. And I noticed that he did not come clear on a lot of sensitive issues. He does not talk much about refugees, foreign issues (Palestine, Syria, Libya...) and housing crisis. He is not talking about crisis in our health and education (especially tertiary) systems. And he is leading a party based around and owned by one person. And for all these, I do not support him.
Despite all this, I respect him, because he is showing no political opportunism.
The Greens will claim that they are still significant players in our political system. For me, this is the case so far because on the left there is no better alternative. Despite my strong resistance to call the Greens “left”, but the perception among Lefties is that the Greens is the best choice currently.
And this is why we need to create strong principled left alternative to challenge such perception of Greens monopoly on left representation.
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Wikileaks “party”: Unique One-man "party" operated through Facebook page
Australia can enter Guinness World record for different things. One of these things could be the introduction of the most unique “political party” in the world.
The Wikileaks “party” was established around one year ago. For the whole period, the party never functioned as any other parties (in Australia or in any country around the globe, including dictatorships).
Let us mention the unique nature of this “party”.
The Wikileaks “party has no policies, no offices, no party meetings, no spokespersons, never issued media releases, elected no official leader, elected no official management committee member, never debated position on any political issue, never discussed initiative or political move, never initiated rally or protest, has no active membership, issued no financial statement, published no one phone contact details of a leader or a spokesperson and has no known source of funding.
So how do you know about the existence of this “party”?
If it is not for its Fascebook page, you will not feel that such “party” is still operating in Australia. But even the Facebook page does not represent the “party”.
All what is published on the Facebook page is either an article written by others or news item quoted from News agency. Nothing can tell you if this status reflects the “party’s” views or it is just for general knowledge and to know what is happening in the world. And this was made on purpose.
Journalists were contacting the only known “official” of the “party” (John Shipton) and asked him if the “party” supports what was published on the Facebook on certain issue. John would reply that it is just a quotation that does not represent the “party’s” view. The same with enquiries on the seam Facebook page. When reader/s asked if the article represent the “party’s” official position , tbhe reply will be so quick “No... it is just an article or news item to alert members or supporters of views of writer/s”...
But nobody so far knows what the official view of this “party is on any issue that matters.
Even on the issue of the crisis in Syria and despite the Wikileaks “party” participation in 2 visits to Syria, we heard nothing about their official stance on the crisis. The only official comments after the two visits were “we went to Syria to explore the truth of what is happening there”. But no official account of the truth they explored.
One time I was told by the owner of the “party” John Shipton that the party consists from three persons only: John Shipton, myself and Gail Malone. No more, no less.
Can you imagine!!!
Practically it was true. Since September 2013, only these three people were doing all the jobs inside the “party” and the only ones visible to public. From talking to community leaders, to putting stories in the media and answering the journalists it was only John (myself on few occasions when John did not want to be seen in public on the issue). The Facebook page and the blog were assigned to John’s much-trusted Gail Malone.
I should admit that occasionally it was necessary for John to assign some minor jobs to others loyal to him. Sometime, Matt was asked to pass to members emails that were written to him by the major players in the “party”. At some stage, former candidate will be asked to make comments.
Would not you recommend such farce to be mentioned in Guinness World Records under “political party of one person operating through Facebook page”???
Maybe the more correct question to be asked here is “do you think that this “organisation” could be considered “political party”?
The Wikileaks “party” was established around one year ago. For the whole period, the party never functioned as any other parties (in Australia or in any country around the globe, including dictatorships).
Let us mention the unique nature of this “party”.
The Wikileaks “party has no policies, no offices, no party meetings, no spokespersons, never issued media releases, elected no official leader, elected no official management committee member, never debated position on any political issue, never discussed initiative or political move, never initiated rally or protest, has no active membership, issued no financial statement, published no one phone contact details of a leader or a spokesperson and has no known source of funding.
So how do you know about the existence of this “party”?
If it is not for its Fascebook page, you will not feel that such “party” is still operating in Australia. But even the Facebook page does not represent the “party”.
All what is published on the Facebook page is either an article written by others or news item quoted from News agency. Nothing can tell you if this status reflects the “party’s” views or it is just for general knowledge and to know what is happening in the world. And this was made on purpose.
Journalists were contacting the only known “official” of the “party” (John Shipton) and asked him if the “party” supports what was published on the Facebook on certain issue. John would reply that it is just a quotation that does not represent the “party’s” view. The same with enquiries on the seam Facebook page. When reader/s asked if the article represent the “party’s” official position , tbhe reply will be so quick “No... it is just an article or news item to alert members or supporters of views of writer/s”...
But nobody so far knows what the official view of this “party is on any issue that matters.
Even on the issue of the crisis in Syria and despite the Wikileaks “party” participation in 2 visits to Syria, we heard nothing about their official stance on the crisis. The only official comments after the two visits were “we went to Syria to explore the truth of what is happening there”. But no official account of the truth they explored.
One time I was told by the owner of the “party” John Shipton that the party consists from three persons only: John Shipton, myself and Gail Malone. No more, no less.
Can you imagine!!!
Practically it was true. Since September 2013, only these three people were doing all the jobs inside the “party” and the only ones visible to public. From talking to community leaders, to putting stories in the media and answering the journalists it was only John (myself on few occasions when John did not want to be seen in public on the issue). The Facebook page and the blog were assigned to John’s much-trusted Gail Malone.
I should admit that occasionally it was necessary for John to assign some minor jobs to others loyal to him. Sometime, Matt was asked to pass to members emails that were written to him by the major players in the “party”. At some stage, former candidate will be asked to make comments.
Would not you recommend such farce to be mentioned in Guinness World Records under “political party of one person operating through Facebook page”???
Maybe the more correct question to be asked here is “do you think that this “organisation” could be considered “political party”?
Tuesday, April 22, 2014
Why did Syrian president Assad ask me about Wikileaks?
By the end of the meeting on 24 Dec 2013, Syria President Bashar Assad farewelled Australian delegation visited Syria one by one. My turn came. I shook the president’s hands saying many words of solidarity with Syrians. I stressed that many Australians (unlike what our media shows) do not support the violence against Syria and Syrians.
To my surprise, President Assad asked me about my involvement with Wikileaks party and how long I was active with this party.
At the time, my answer was instant and honest. But the reason for the president to ask me this question did not ring a bell until later. Until now, I am not sure if my conspiracy theory is real or just imagination.
From the beginning of our visit, John Shipton was adamant that the bid of the Australian organisers of the visit to sideline Wikileaks party delegations was decided by Syrian authorities and not by the organisers themselves.
From the moment we arrived to Damascus, Australian organisers of the visit (Syrian honorary consulate to Australia) gave us strict guidelines and protocols to follow during our visit. We cannot leave the hotel until we notify him or the delegation head. If we have any complaint or observations, we need to communicate this to him or to the delegation head... The most important issue for John is that we were not given the approximate itinerary until the end of the visit. For the organisers, it is all about security of the delegation.
But we noticed, for example, that all other delegation members had the itinerary, except the Wikileaks delegation members.
For me, it was personal decision by the Australian organisers to keep us away from media comments because the organisers wanted all media focus on them. For personal ego, only. On this issue I should mention here that we were allowed to visit any place we wanted and talked to any person we wanted. For me all was about security and personal ego problems.
But for John, he was convinced that such treatment was ordered by Syrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. According to John, it was a punishment for Wikileaks for its leaking of millions of personal emails of Syrian officials, including President and his wife’s emails.
John was sure that the Syrian authorities do not trust “us” (Wikileaks party). This is why they imposed such strict guidelines and refused to give us the full itinerary.
Now, I think that John was right. And I think that Syrian authorities were right to keep Wikileaks party delegation in dark about the visit and the details of people we are meeting.
The latest development of Wikileaks party CEO meeting with Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood extremists in Australia and securing anonymous deal with them (http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-night-wikileaks-met-with-extremists.html) proved that Wikileaks brand organisations cannot be trusted.
Everywhere we visited in Damascus, John was always met with this question “why Wikileaks did not leak so far any important and significant documents about Israel”. John tried his best to refute this by saying “there were significant leaks about Israel, but no major newspaper agreed to publish them”... He repeated this time after time, as if he was a parrot that was taught to imitate sentences without understanding its significance or meaning.
Not only this. When we visited Al Nahar Arabic newspaper mid last year, he was asked this question “Julian is a CIA agent, is not he?”. John got angry. But who cares. It amazes me how the journalist of AL Nahar did not care about John’s frustration and loss of temper. And it seems to me that the journalist was not convinced of John’s reply.
I understand now why President Assad asked me about Wikileaks. I understand why Syrian authorities kept us in dark on the itinerary of the visit.
It is most likely that they have a lot of information about Wikileaks real agendas and coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. This is why they did not give Wikileaks any chance to get access to any source to infiltrate Syria.
The last point I want to mention here: the issue of Wikileaks bid to have office in Damascus.
Before arriving to Syria, I was asked by John about my information and expectation of increase in the prices of homes and properties in Syria after the end of the crisis. I confirmed to John what he expected earlier that properties’ prices will be skyrocketing after the end of the crisis.
I think that John was interested in buying properties in Syria for both reasons: for investment (money making out of Syrians’ misery) and to have headquarter for Wikileaks dirty operations in the Middle East. Or maybe it was the second under the excuses of the first.
But as Wikileaks could not fool Syrian authorities, I doubt that such project (establishing Wikileaks office) will go ahead. And this was mentioned clearly by John in his talk with the Guardian journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/wikileaks-party-returns-to-syria-in-mission-to-help-ordinary-people )...
To my surprise, President Assad asked me about my involvement with Wikileaks party and how long I was active with this party.
At the time, my answer was instant and honest. But the reason for the president to ask me this question did not ring a bell until later. Until now, I am not sure if my conspiracy theory is real or just imagination.
From the beginning of our visit, John Shipton was adamant that the bid of the Australian organisers of the visit to sideline Wikileaks party delegations was decided by Syrian authorities and not by the organisers themselves.
From the moment we arrived to Damascus, Australian organisers of the visit (Syrian honorary consulate to Australia) gave us strict guidelines and protocols to follow during our visit. We cannot leave the hotel until we notify him or the delegation head. If we have any complaint or observations, we need to communicate this to him or to the delegation head... The most important issue for John is that we were not given the approximate itinerary until the end of the visit. For the organisers, it is all about security of the delegation.
But we noticed, for example, that all other delegation members had the itinerary, except the Wikileaks delegation members.
For me, it was personal decision by the Australian organisers to keep us away from media comments because the organisers wanted all media focus on them. For personal ego, only. On this issue I should mention here that we were allowed to visit any place we wanted and talked to any person we wanted. For me all was about security and personal ego problems.
But for John, he was convinced that such treatment was ordered by Syrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs. According to John, it was a punishment for Wikileaks for its leaking of millions of personal emails of Syrian officials, including President and his wife’s emails.
John was sure that the Syrian authorities do not trust “us” (Wikileaks party). This is why they imposed such strict guidelines and refused to give us the full itinerary.
Now, I think that John was right. And I think that Syrian authorities were right to keep Wikileaks party delegation in dark about the visit and the details of people we are meeting.
The latest development of Wikileaks party CEO meeting with Wahhabi and Muslim Brotherhood extremists in Australia and securing anonymous deal with them (http://www.jamaldaoud.blogspot.com.au/2014/04/the-night-wikileaks-met-with-extremists.html) proved that Wikileaks brand organisations cannot be trusted.
Everywhere we visited in Damascus, John was always met with this question “why Wikileaks did not leak so far any important and significant documents about Israel”. John tried his best to refute this by saying “there were significant leaks about Israel, but no major newspaper agreed to publish them”... He repeated this time after time, as if he was a parrot that was taught to imitate sentences without understanding its significance or meaning.
Not only this. When we visited Al Nahar Arabic newspaper mid last year, he was asked this question “Julian is a CIA agent, is not he?”. John got angry. But who cares. It amazes me how the journalist of AL Nahar did not care about John’s frustration and loss of temper. And it seems to me that the journalist was not convinced of John’s reply.
I understand now why President Assad asked me about Wikileaks. I understand why Syrian authorities kept us in dark on the itinerary of the visit.
It is most likely that they have a lot of information about Wikileaks real agendas and coordination with foreign intelligence agencies. This is why they did not give Wikileaks any chance to get access to any source to infiltrate Syria.
The last point I want to mention here: the issue of Wikileaks bid to have office in Damascus.
Before arriving to Syria, I was asked by John about my information and expectation of increase in the prices of homes and properties in Syria after the end of the crisis. I confirmed to John what he expected earlier that properties’ prices will be skyrocketing after the end of the crisis.
I think that John was interested in buying properties in Syria for both reasons: for investment (money making out of Syrians’ misery) and to have headquarter for Wikileaks dirty operations in the Middle East. Or maybe it was the second under the excuses of the first.
But as Wikileaks could not fool Syrian authorities, I doubt that such project (establishing Wikileaks office) will go ahead. And this was mentioned clearly by John in his talk with the Guardian journalist (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/04/wikileaks-party-returns-to-syria-in-mission-to-help-ordinary-people )...
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
ليلة اجتماع ويكيليكس مع متطرفين: ما هي الصفقة نتيجة هذا الاجتماع!!!
في مطلع شهر اذار/مارس الماضي تلقيت اتصالا غريبا من جون شيبتون, والد جوليان اسانج ورئيس حزب ويكيليكس. سالني الرجل عن الشيخ فداء المجزوب وان كنت اعرفه. كان جوابي سريعا بانني اعرف الشيخ جيدا منذ عام 2008. كما اشرت الى ان مقتل اخيه مصطفى المجزوب في سوريا وانتقاداتي لقتاله في سوريا كانت خلف الحملة الشرسة التي تعرضت لها منذ عام 2012 وتضمنت تهديدات بالقتل واعتداء جسدي في منتصف عام 2013.
اخبرني جون ان الشيخ يلح عليه ان يلقاه في اقرب فرصة. فهمت من كلام جون ان الاتصالات التي جرت بين الشيخ وجون كانت اتصالات ماراثونية وتضمنت نقاشات مطولة ودقيقة.
ذكرّت جون ان اسم الشيخ كان قد ورد في لقائنا مع وزير الاعلام السوري عندما ذكر الوزير عمران الزعبي ان الشيخ كان مسؤولا عن فصائل مسلحة واعطى الاوامر بالهجوم على ريف اللاذقية وخطف مئات النساء والاطفال. اعتقدت لوهلة ان جون اصابه الخوف من هكذا لقاء. ولكن وبعد عدة مكالمات, اكد جون انه سيلقى الشيخ وبعض اصدقائه يوم الجمعة 7 اذار/مارس.
لم يكن لدي تحفظ على ان يلتقي جون مع الشيخ واي من مؤيديه من متطرفي استراليا. فجون يعرف تماما موقفي من العنف في سوريا. كما يعرف جون وولده نشاطاتي في هذا المضمار وما واجهت من مصاعب وتهديدات وعنف نتيجة ذلك. ولكن كان لدي تحفظ ان يذهب جون الى الاجتماع لوحده. لذلك اقترحت عليه الذهاب مع احد اعضاء او مؤيدي الحزب.
في البداية, وافق جون على الفكرة.
كان الاتفاق ان يلتقي جون بقيصر طراد امام محطة قطارات ياغونا الساعة السابعة من مساء الجمعة, ليذهبا سويا الى الاجتماع في احد مطاعم جرين ايكر في سيارة قيصر. ثم اصبح الاتفاق ان يتصل جون بقيصر ويحصل منه على عنوان المطعم. ويذهب جون مع ممدوح الى الاجتماع. بهذا الترتيب يستطيع ممدوح ان يحرج الشيخ وقيصر بان يكون شاهدا على اي كلام يقولونه لجون واي عرض قد يعرضوه. كما ان وجود ممدوح قد يعطي جون الفرصة للانسحاب من الاجتماع في الوقت المناسب ان حدث تطور غير محسوب. كما ان هذا الترتيب سيتيح شفافية لعمل حزب الوكيليكس, وهذا من صلب فلسفته كما يدعي.
في اخر لحظة ولاسباب غير مقنعة, غير جون المخطط وقرر ان يذهب لوحده للقاء المجموعة ويجتمع معهم لفترة قصيرة ... ولا داعي لاحراج ممدوح. وهذا ما حصل.
بعد منتصف نفس الليلة تلقيت مكالمة من جون يخبرني بها عن مخطط جوليان لتجميد الحزب عن طريق استقالاتنا انا وجون وجايل من عضوية المجلس الوطني... ثم يستحوذ جوليان على الحزب ويجمده...
في ذلك اليوم وبسب ضغوط المفاجاة التي فجرها جون بوجهي, لم التفت للربط بين توقيت اجتماع جون مع المتطرفين والانقلاب الذي قرره جون-جوليان. كان كل همنا هو انقاذ الحزب وتحييد جون وجوليان وانهاء سيطرتهما المطلقة عليه.
يوم الاثنين التالي وفي اجتماع كان مقرر سلفا للجنة جمع التبرعات من اجل سوريا,سالني بعض المجتمعين عن نتيجة الاجتماع الذي ضم جون لمتطرفين. طلبت منهم ان يوجهوا السؤال لجون مباشرة.
ما قاله جون كان مفاجئا وغير متوقع و "لا يركب على راس". قال جون انه لم يحضر للاجتماع معه الا قيصر طراد. كما قال جون انه لم يحدث اي نقاش في العشاء. قيصر كان مهتما فقط بالتقاء جون واخذ صورة معه لوضعها على صفحته في الفيس بوك.
الان وبعد شهر مما حدث, دعونا ننقاش حقيقة ما حدث بين جون من جهة وقيصر ورفاقه المتطرفين من جهة اخرى.
هل يمكن ان نصدق ان الشيخ المجزوب والذي لاحق جون لاسبوع لعقد هذا الاجتماع, يتخلف عنه ودون اسباب مقنعة؟
وكيف يمكن تصديق ان قيصر طراد اكتفى بطلب الحصول على صورة مع جون, ولم يحصل عليها ولم يناقش شيئا مهما؟
ولماذا تزامن الاجتماع وبنفس اليوم مع انقلاب جون-جوليان على كل الممارسات الديمقراطية في هذا البلد للتخلص مني واحكام السيطرة الكاملة على الحزب.
لفهم ما حدث, دعونا نعود لانطلاق الوكيليكس ونجومية جوليان.
هل من المصادفة ان انطلاق نجم جوليان كان من على شاشات قناة الجزيرة القطرية في مقابلتين واحدة بالعربية والاخرى بالانجليزية في اواخر شهر كانون اول/ديسمبر 2010!!!
وهل هي مصادفة ان الشيخ فداء المجزوب كان عضوا في مجلس اسطنبول للمعارضة السورية, الممول من قطر!!!
وماذا عن ام المصادفات: ان يحصل الاجتماع مع المتطرفين في نفس يوم انقلاب جون-جوليان عشية يوم السبت 8 اذار/مارس!!!
والا لماذا لم يحصل الاجتماع مع قيصر ورفاقه بعد اسبوع او حتى شهر من الانقلاب؟
ولماذا رفض جون حضور عضو اخر من الوكيليكس للاجتماع مع قيصر ورفاقه؟
بل السؤال الاهم هو لماذا طلب الشيخ المجزوب ورفاقه المتطرفون لقاء جون ومسؤولي حزبه؟ للشكوى ضدي؟ بالرغم من ان كل نشاطاتي ومواقفي معروفة علنيا.
وياتي السؤال الاهم: ماذا دار في الاجتماع بين جون وقيصر (ورفاقه) وادى الى الانقلاب داخل الحزب وبنفس الليلة؟؟؟
بدون ان يكسر قيصر او احد من رفاقه الصمت ويخبرنا عن حقيقة ما حدث, فانه من الصعب ان نعرف حقيقة ما دار من نقاشات في مطعم جرين ايكر. بالرغم من ذلك, يمكننا ان نتوقع ما حدث.
هل من الصعب تصور ما حدث في اجتماع المطعم بين منظمة متهمة بانها صنيعة المخابرات الامريكية (الوكيليكس) ومجموعة من المتطرفين الممولين من قطر (عملاء نفس الاستخبارات) والتي ادت الى الضغط علي لاخراجي من الحزب!!!
هل عرض قيصر طراد تمويلا قطريا لحزب الوكيليكس مقابل هذا الانقلاب؟ ام ان العرض كان مختلفا في نفس السياق؟
ام ان قيصر عرض وعدا للوكيليكس بالدعم نيابة عن الجالية وعن بعض الدول الاسلامية/الخليجية؟
ادعو هنا كل من جون وقيصر ان يعلنوا حقيقة ما جرى في ذلك اللقاء وما تمخض عنه من صفقات حقيرة.
اخر ملاحظة هنا:من الملاحظ ان حزب الوكيليكس لا يهتم كثيرا بالسياسة وموقعه على الخريطة السياسية في استراليا, والا فكيف يرسل اهم مسؤوليه في زيارات سياحية الى ايران وسوريا بينما الحزب يواجه انهيارا تاما وخسارة مذلة في انتخابات ولاية غرب استراليا.
هل هذا يقودنا الى استنتاج ان تنظيم الوكيليكس يعتقد ان اختراق سوريا وايران وحلفهما اهم من نجاح الحزب سياسيا.
The night Wikileaks met with extremists: what was the outcome/deal?!!!
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.
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.
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.
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...
