The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Becoming (Jihad) jacked off by our courts > Comments

Becoming (Jihad) jacked off by our courts : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 25/8/2006

The legal farce that led to the overturning of the terrorist conviction.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
There has been a strong reaction to this finding, but at the same time, I'm more concerned by the implications of any backlash than I am by this finding.

From the start, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not defending 'jihad' jack, I've no doubt he should have been punished in some way, but we need to keep things in perspective.

Ask yourself - what did he actually do?

He hasn't actually killed anyone. He hasn't raped, nor even thieved.

He has tampered with a passport, and he has clearly gotten involved with dangerous people, and handled money on their behalf.

I can understand the victims of terrorism wanting justice - though as far as I can see, this man was a pawn.
He should have been sentenced, but I question those calling for a long prison sentence.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 25 August 2006 9:37:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The function of the courts is to implement the law. If society thinks that confessions should be admitted even when obtained in unacceptable circumstances, then there is a very simple solution: The government can change the law. If the government does that, then the courts will apply the new rules.

It's that simple.

Of course, changing the law so that confessions obtained under duress become admissible would be a politically difficult step.

Don't blame the courts for refusing to do the government's dirty work.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 25 August 2006 10:00:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shock-jock Bagaric posts his usual mean-spirited, ethics-free mediocrity. For the opposite view see http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-triumph-for-australia-not-a-failure/2006/08/24/1156012673351.html

Terrorism threatens our way of life and our freedom. This includes our right to a fair trial, due process and freedom from torture or duress by the state. What's the point of having democratic processes distorted by governments cowed by callow commentators and mindless media screaming 'Jihad Jack' headlines? We just substitute one form of terrorism with another.

As Alan Atwwod put it in today's Age, "Railing against Appeal Court judges who called it as they saw it in the flawed case against Joseph Thomas is to invoke an ugly kind of journalistic jihad."
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 25 August 2006 12:21:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am tiring fast of this wannabe member to the commentariat - I am sure he yearsn to sit alongside Andrew Bolt or David Marr on the ABCs Insiders program.

I also find his logic a bit flawed on 2 counts - firstly he his an advocate of torture - he is on the record as believingit to be OK

- now he may have a few caveats on its application - but thats a bit like the woman who concedes she will have sex with some one for 1 million dollars - but quibbles when he tries to haggle down to a couple of bucks -

He also contends that if the interragator over steps the mark - it is he who shold be punished - no problem - but the information illicited should be considered valid -

If we are fighting a war on terror - at the very least we are fighting for the preservation a society governed under the rule of law - not opinion, or fear or political whim but law - and even if there are anachronistic elements to the exisiting code it is up to us to change them under principles which we have followed since federation - if there is anything we can claim to be an Australian "Value" or a clearly identifiable part of our 'way of life" - excuse me while I puke - it is a commitment to the rule of law.

MB argues for a change - fine change it - but under the laws we have - Jack is a free ma
Posted by sneekeepete, Friday, 25 August 2006 12:57:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvia Else is right that security services, including the AFP, only have the option of working within the law.

If the Government (the AFP) wants to bring Jihad Jack (JJ) before the Courts in the hope he might be convicted it has to accept the decision of the judiciary on major points of law.

Several observations:

- Fortunately JJ is likely to be tried again on the basis of the Four Corners interview.

- JJ should bless his luck that he was saved by the AFP officers from further torture and possible death in the Pakistani jail. He may also have been sent to Guantanamo to join hiss buddy David Hicks.

- Given the AFP's helping hand to JJ and that JJ's confession organised by the AFP officers in close communications and agreement with the AFP hierarchy it is ludicrous for Mirko to suggest that the AFP officers should be disciplined. Does Mirko want suspects to be condemned or policemen?

- In addition to JJ being released as a threat to the community the cost of keeping tabs on him would be likely running into $1,000s per day (tax payers money and the resources are better used elsewhere).

BTW I'd say that if Hicks returned from Guantanamo there would be less evidence against him than on JJ under current Australian law - hence the Government has not been overhasty in calling for Hick's return.

aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 25 August 2006 1:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko, I totally agree with you. This law is a joke. If an officer has acted improperly then they should deal with the officer. But they should still present all evidence collected, together with the manner that it was collected, to the Judge so all the information can be available in the case for the Judge/Jury to make a decision.

I am sure the Judges and people on the Jury are smart enough work out what is right and wrong.
Posted by Jolanda, Friday, 25 August 2006 1:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the very thing we are fighting for "the rule of law" and with it the process and procedures. Just what is the author teaching his students if he doesn't believe in the process of law.

No better message will be sent to those that oppose our way of life then us leading be example. That everyone one is equal under the law and the rules apply to everyone no matter what the issue.

It's really getting silly the terror treat is very low in reality yet people are pushing to have those charged with terror offences to have less rights the rock spiders.

Now if the author was a public defender and he was assigned this case this is what he would be arguing for his client.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 25 August 2006 1:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author makes a mockery of his occupation and profession. He is an officer of the Court, as all lawyers are, and his duty is to advance the rule of law.

When you are alone, and have the might and machinery of the state assembled against you, with its bottomless pit of funds to prosecute/persecute you, you need a few checks and balances. While most judiciary uphold these, a few around are cutting corners simply because Mirko B. or Piers Akerman Alan Jones or whoever says that the bad guys are getting too easy a run.

Its not easy a run when you're alone up against a big enemy with a bottomless pit of funds, and the enemy [under]funds a legal aid system deliberately starved of funds so you might be denied counsel, or if you get one, usually get some career public servant more worried about their promotion or salary review rather than doing their best advocacy on your behalf.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Friday, 25 August 2006 2:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The man who was freed by the Victorian Court of Appeal and subject of current debate is named Joseph Thomas. That's what his family and friends call him. That's what he is called in all settings except the media and the fringe commentariat. Why does Professor Mirco Bagaric call him “Jihad” Jack Thomas (and posters follow suit and can even save time and call him JJ)?

Why do the popular media and people like Professor Mirko Bagaric use that nickname? Is it because 'Joseph Thomas' is too Anglo-ordinary? Lacks colour? Won't sell papers (whether they be newspapers or pseudo-academic papers)? Or is it because the use of 'Jihad' with its connotations of terror and fear suits their purpose much better? As Alan Atwood points out, "A jihad is a serious thing; a holy war waged by Muslims against unbelievers. It is not, incidentally, something that Thomas was charged with."

The pejorative nickname is a suggestive shorthand for implying evil and guilt without the need to prove anything. It removes the need to refer to the primary facts. The nickname is a neat way of imply culpability without the need to refer to uncomfortable evidence (or the lack of it).

So when Citizen Bagaric uses nicknames like 'Jihad Jack' he softens up his readers to more readily accept his real agenda. He wants a terrorist or two to be convicted and we should not pussy-foot around with conventional legal safeguards. To use his words, "The community should no longer be punished by having its safety jeopardised for the sins of police officers." Not for this Professor of Law to worry about a mere trifle like proof beyond reasonable doubt: "...we should not compound the harm constituted by police transgressions by allowing the guilty to walk free. While Jihad Jack is enjoying his new found freedom, the rest of the community is becoming jack of the rights of suspects constantly trumping the common good."

Were Citizen Bagaric made Public Terror Prosecutor would we all sleep better at night?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 25 August 2006 2:15:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In a bygone time winning something was dictated by a charity run ‘chocolate wheel’. The chocolate wheel approach to law is similarly a game of chance. In court No 1 a judge is disturbed by the fact that inducements are offered to secure a confession and so the accused must be set free. Juxtapose that with the scene in court No 2 just down the hall. The judge conducting a Royal Commission seeks to induce the witness by threatening him. Rejecting the judicial inducement will lead to imprisonment for the witness. If our judges are to make a burlesque of their office why not dress them in clown outfits?

We are tough on drugs but the courts won’t deport a drug dealer because it might deprive a family of a husband and father. When we catch a pedophile he can’t be put on trial because he’s got a bad back. A former judicial officer has nominated two deceased persons as the drivers of his car. Why not complete the comedy by nominating Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe as his passengers. A magistrate bids him ‘have a nice day’ and the circus moves on. The DPP gives a prosecutor about 2 hours notice to clear his hard drive of porn and other pedophile material and then contacts the police. A high court judge is so pure and honest that we may not gaze on the contents of his file until 2016. Another high court judge remains beyond the reach of the law even though he admitted to breaking the law. To top it all off along comes a high-minded judge who is concerned with the appearance of the law.

I’d like to join the legal club but I don’t know what this week’s rules are
Posted by Sage, Friday, 25 August 2006 2:50:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol

Time to do a bit of research mate.

Thomas has been referred to in the media as "Jihad Jack" because when he converted to Islam he took on the name "Jihad". Before he went off to Pakistan and Afghanistan for terrorist training he announced that his new name was "Jihad".

However once he was freed from the Pakistani prison by the AFP and returned to Australia he had sound legal, personal and propaganda reasons for not wanting his Muslim name anymore - even though he wears that religion on his sleeve in other ways.

He's now the "cleancut, naive Aussie lad" ;-) didn't you know.

If we want to call Jack by his pre terrorist training name (that he called himself) isn't that OK?

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 25 August 2006 2:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree with Mirko Bagaric, but Sylvia is right: the law is the law, and the Government, not the Court, must take full responsibility for this pathetic result. Terrorism 1, Australia 0.

The bum kicking should start with the Prime Minister and work on down to ensure that this farce can never happen again.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 25 August 2006 3:26:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are living in a new era, therefore we need new laws that will fit in with that age that we are facing.
The Immigration convention of 1951 was made for that era, it does not fit today nor should it apply.
"Terrorism" is a newcomer, laws must be made to cope with this because it could last a long time .
People accused of terrorism must not be tried under laws that existed before such terrorism existed.
Australian laws should be enacted to protect Australian people, not let supposed terrorists off the hook because of outdated laws.
Posted by mickijo, Friday, 25 August 2006 3:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought that we were actually fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our liberal democratic way of life, including rule of law and courts that require proper evidence tested by lawyers, judge and jury. Yet Bagaric wants that overturned to suit his whim, much as terrorists apparently want rule of law overturned to suit them.
I dont know why parents of Bali victims are weighing in. I havent seen any evidence that Thomas had anything to do with Bali terror plots. Have I missed something?
If we call for anyone who is 'suspected' or 'accused' of mixing with terrorists to be simply punished without proper trial, surely we have become the kind of society that we believe terrorists want to create. Tyranical Dictatorship.
Posted by Ironer, Friday, 25 August 2006 3:29:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko has clearly been sucking off the tit of DIMA and it's corrupted institutions for far too long if he believes this tripe.

Here is a scenario to consider - DIMA make a false travel document claiming a person is born in a different country, get prison guards to escort him on a plane without visas, dump him illegally in a different country and he is tortured and imprisoned for travelling without documents. Who is the criminal here Mirko?

Then we get to the Federal police who have a history of criminal behaviour in Indonesia, with a commissioner who pleaded for immunity from prosecution when called to the senate to give evidence about his filthy illegal people smuggling operations, who was caught up in the scandal of false sickness certificates and now stand by and allow Australian citizens to be tortured and denied the right to a lawyer.

Joseph Thomas did not do anything but DIMA and their toadies in the Feds have been committing crimes against men, women and children for decades.

Mickijo, what has the refugee convention got to do with Joseph Thomas? He is an Australian citizen born and bred so what does immigration have to do with him?

If I was Deakin Uni. I would sack Mirko this time - we cannot have law professors teaching rubbish that would have suited Adolf Hitler but should never, ever fit in Australian law.

Brian Deegan was spot on about this, he was gracious and honest and you should listen to this decent man. Joseph had nothing whatsoever to do with Bali and nor did Bin Laden.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Friday, 25 August 2006 4:49:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank gol, excellent post. Sadly the paranoid ones including tort educated MK, are letting their religious emotions take over, again.

I mightn't like JT or his beliefs, but all he did was meet a powerful man and take some money from the blokes associates. I abhor what those people are now doing, but I don't think JT was fully aware of what he was getting into, at the time.

For once I fully support the court in its decision. JT didn't blow anyone up, fight anywhere, nor did he harm anyone. The only crime he committed was making a couple of bad decisions. Should he be watched, yes, but I believe he'll be very happy to forget his flawed decisions and get on with his life. If he doesn't, I'm all for capital punishment or citizenship lose and deportation.

It never amazes me the zeal with which monotheists rabidly hunt down and condemn anyone, who gives them the excuse to put blame for the problems they cause, onto some other poor soul. Maybe they will accept being charged with collusion when in 5 years time John Howard and Co, are brought before the courts for their war crimes and treason in selling of the countries assets.

We have a catch 22 situation as Sage points out, a corrupt system run by corrupt people, using bizarre language no one understands to give injustice, not logical at all.

No evidence should be obtained by threat or torture, or with out independent verification. That way you solve all problems. If you've really done a crime, in end you will dig your own hole. Until we develop a legal system that removes the power and control from the legal profession and puts it in the hands of the people, we will never get true justice for anyone.

We need a system answerable for its decisions, compassionate with foolish mistakes, but ruthless against blatant crime and barbarity.

Prof, Mirko Bagaric gives an excellent example of the current state our legal system is in, poor us.
Posted by The alchemist, Friday, 25 August 2006 4:50:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the article: "A long standing rule of evidence is that confessions obtained from suspects as a result of threats or inducements are normally inadmissible. This is even if the reliability of the confession is not in question..."

And how exactly do you establish that?

Surely the whole point is that the reliability of such confessions has been called into question by the way they were obtained. If everything in the confession is independantly backed up, then you don't need it in evidence, do you?
Posted by Dewi, Friday, 25 August 2006 5:38:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we should rely more on the jury. The quality of the evidence should be explicated during the trial. The defence can argue that the evidence is tainted and unreliable. The prosecution can maintain that despite the contingencies the evidence is useful. The jury, advised by the judge, should be able to decide whether the case is reasonable or not.
Posted by Fencepost, Friday, 25 August 2006 6:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All the lefties are defending our weak kneed courts.The left merely uses Muslim Facism to tear asunder the present status quo,since it satisfies their thirst for power no matter what the consequences.

This guilt ridden self flagelation by the West is nothing more than slow suicide that see a new world order of bereft of democracy and the freedoms we now take for granted.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 25 August 2006 11:32:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko, your position is so incompetent it is beyond belief. The issue is whether a confession induced by repeated threats of torture and by a promise of a safe return to Australia is to be believed--and whether its truth is beyond reasonable doubt. Is that so complicated and so odd that you cannot understand it? Of course the confession is useless.

The first requirement of an academic is intellectual honesty. The second is to do the work necessary to get things right.
Posted by ozbib, Friday, 25 August 2006 11:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The courts decision to dismiss the Australian, Jack Thomas' case is absolutely correct, the worst thing that can happen to Australian law is an acceptance of confessions made under duress.

It is true that Bagaric has argued in favour of torture on previous articles - thus proving he is no better than the jihadists, terrorists or despots.

I hope that Jack Thomas will be trialed - fairly. Just as I hope that David Hicks will be tried - fairly.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 26 August 2006 11:26:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jack seemed like a good bloke, but remember that so do alot of serial killers, death row inmates and rapists.

If he gets set free, so should Hicksy
Posted by Realist, Saturday, 26 August 2006 1:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Realist, your logic amounts to this:

1. A lot of serial killers, death row inmates and rapists seemed like good blokes.
2. 'Jack' seems like a good bloke.
3. Therefore 'Jack' must be guilty.

And then you produce the simplistic 'tu quoque' extension: If 'Jack' gets set free, so should 'Hicksy' - implication 'Hicksy' is guilty too. Does 'Hicksy' seem like a good bloke too?

What do you think of the logic of this syllogism?
1. A lot of posters on On Line Opinion are illogical.
2. Realist is a poster on On Line Opinion.
3. Therefore Realist is illogical.

No too flash is it? Could I recommend a couple of books:

Susan Stebbing, "Thinking to Some Purpose" and Stuart Chase, "Guides to Straight Thinking: with thirteen common fallacies".
Posted by FrankGol, Saturday, 26 August 2006 5:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not a lawyer but have always felt uncomfortable with the new anti terrorist law. Did we not have adequate laws to deal with this situation already?

If JT ia a dangerous person then perhaps it is the police who are at fault. No doubt the court considered the evidence and made a careful decision. If there is a need for a change in the way courts operate is this not a job for government? Judges must act within the law as it is at the time of the alledged offence, retrospective law is an abomination.

I worry that JT is now being judged by armchair courts thanks in no small part to a Government that has saved its skin on the War on Terror and a public that laps up sensation.

I am equally sceptical both of those who judge him guilty and those who judge him not guilty on the basis of newspaper articles. I have no reason to question the existance of a nasty anti freedom religious group who have done harm (suicide bombings and the like) and may be plotting world domination but on the other hand the reaction must be reasoned.

I also question those who support a silly conspiracy theory that Western Governments and agencies are all running a hidden agenda against the common people (whoever they may be).

No doubt JT is now being watched by police in case he commits an act that could harm us. And that is as it should be.
Posted by logic, Saturday, 26 August 2006 5:16:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not one of these lawyers I hope. http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=1132

I have a sneaking suspicion some of the commentarial have a lot in common just by reading the first few words in their writings: Something to do with the Marxoid theory of Sub text-ing or some crap. You know how they carry on about existentialist theorist junk archetypical of a wombat with concussion after falling out of a tree.
If it was Jihad Jackie, would we expect the Useless Idiot feminists to speak up?
Here is a good compilation of articles whilst on the subject of Useless Idiots: And the Archetypical wombats, Take note, you are on notice from here on; http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/127/
Simile.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 26 August 2006 6:34:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Logic, we did have adequate laws to handle almost any situation. Any law allowing forced or threatened evidence, should not be applicable nor tolerated. What's obvious is we are quickly having our freedom of dissent removed. Along with lots of people, I don't support any form of terrorism, civil disruption, authoritarianism, nor right or left wing pandering. But we do need the right to express our non ideological dissent at the way our country is run, not other countries.

What's glaringly obvious, is all those charged with terrorism in this country have so far walked free, and quite rightly so. When you have laws implying intent with no fact, other than forced or implied intent, you have unfair laws. You can have preventative laws, but you must be able to support their application with fact, not supposition or implied or imagined intent

Everyone should have the right to express dissent, but not at the expense of peace and harmony. The best way to demonstrate your intent, is by example, not by implied or deceptive supposition.

Laws should be explicate, not filled with moral or ideological moral supposition. You can't have laws denying capital punishment, then go to war in another country. We are either a defensive non ideological country, or a warmonger with ideological elitist intent.

The former offers us equality and peace, the later, continuing devastation.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 26 August 2006 7:35:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps we should all take a leisurely stroll back to where this all began - New York City, 11th September, 2001.

To this day, there is NO substantive evidence that the official narrative is true. There is NO warrant for Bin Laden in connection with that atrocity - the FBI have no evidence. The planes were never forensically identified. Cheney never had to explain his actions on that day. There is NO explanation for the demolition of WTC building 7. The profiteers are protected by commercial-in-confidence. They just got off - scot free.

Yet this tissue thin myth is offered as the causus belli for the subsequent resource wars, the utterly bogus War on Terr'r and the war on civil rights (the US Constitution is being shredded before our eyes).

It's a nice little earner for those of us willing to "go along to get along", made all the more odious by aspirational people who claim to be members of the "law" fraternity. Does the name Quisling ring a bell?

There are many little stories like that of Jihad Jack's - all designed to keep us away from the real narrative. Whatever you do, don't ask, "Who gains?" Just keep your nose to the TV - there will be a thousand more Jacks to baffle you.

Who knows, the next Jack might be you - or me
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Saturday, 26 August 2006 11:18:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I may be wrong, but I thought Bin Laden claimed credit for 9/11
( & a host of other terrorist acts).

OK Chris, Qui bono?
Please tell us?
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 26 August 2006 11:32:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, bin Laden did eventually claim credit for the WTC attacks. While it's unlikely he'll ever be brought to trial, I suspect that if the law was followed to the letter he'd be acquitted anyway. To date there is no proof of his involvement so Chris Shaw has a point.

Most people are now aware of the patina of lies and distortions enveloping the entire US rationale for their bumbling Iraq adventure. The tragedy now is that governments of many coutries lie to the people as a matter of course.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 27 August 2006 11:08:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
9-11 Part 1

Osama Bin Laden (Tim Osman to his CIA handlers) seems to have left a litter of blurry clues. Here's the first one that I read back then (Sept 28, 2001):

“I have already said that I am not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other human beings as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle.

The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; the people who are a part of the US system but are dissenting against it. Or those who are working for some other system; persons who want to make the present century as a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity so that their own civilization, nation, country, or ideology can survive. They may be anyone, from Russia to Israel and from India to Serbia. In the US itself, there are dozens of well-organized and well-equipped groups capable of causing large-scale destruction. Then you cannot forget the American Jews, who have been annoyed with President Bush ever since the Florida elections and who want to avenge him. ... Then there are intelligence agencies in the US, which require billions of dollars worth of funds from Congress and the government every year. ... They needed an enemy. ... Is it not that there exists a government within the government in the United Sates? That secret government must be asked who carried out the attacks.”

[Daily Ummat (Karachi), 9/28/2001]

I dunno about you, but I am inclined to think that the local rag might be a better source of info than say, a missive found under a piece of goat's cheese in a shepherd's hut - your classic OBL correspondence.

*
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Sunday, 27 August 2006 11:26:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus,

Your attitude is very typical. 'I may be wrong, but I thought Bin Laden claimed credit for 9/11'

Everybody thought this and thoughtthat without looking at the facts for themsleves. One survey suggested that over 50% of Americans didn't even realise that 3 buildings, not 2 collapsed in NY on 9/11. Anybody who looks at the facts about that day will conclude that we are not being told the whole truth
Posted by Carl, Sunday, 27 August 2006 6:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHRIS....

1/ You still have not answered my question from the other thread...
here it is again.

"What are u proposing as a workable (key word) alternative ideology to democracy to solve the problems that you highlight" ?

2/ Quoted from your post re Osama Bin Ladin "Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of battle."

COMMENT "That is an OUTRIGHT LIE" and here is the evidence in black and white.

Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html
Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.

The Hadith BEFORE that one... DOES say It is not permissable to kill women and children in war...but ask yourself this.. One says "A" the other says "B" and they are in conflict.. so bottom line, you can pick which ever suits at the time. The one I showed here DOES allow it as long as not 'deliberate'...... but nevertheless ALLOWS.

Now..on 9/11 the mind truly boggles.. I'm beginning to wonder if you are being employed to spread disinformation. Did you not SEE the planes hit the towers ? Gee..I did.(as did the world)

Osama DID admit to involvement. But questioning the video, is tantamount to questioning ALL things no matter how clear they are simply because of a pre-determined attitude of fixatedness with conspiracy theories. I'll BET you would deny the Holocaust also right ?
Don't forget my MOST important question you seem to be avoiding. (above)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 27 August 2006 11:51:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
9-11 Part 2

(Hi Carl and Dave - still trying to write a lead article on this)

It seems that we make choices based on our pre-conceived bias, with a generous amount of help from the MSM and our government.

Even the more impressionable Muslims seem to have fallen for the romantic notion of their bearded Robin Hood. For them, disbelief in OBL's prowess is a bit treasonous - what a perfect setup. Everyone wants to believe for their own reasons.

Look - Hopalong Cassidy really existed - no doubt. He could ride, sing and shoot. But did he REALLY help make the wild west a better place for settlers, little old ladies and bald-headed babies?

Likewise Mr Zarqawi, the ubiquitous unidexter of Umm Qasar - the one-legged Tarzan of Tikrit. Too bad he had to go, just as I was becoming fond of him.

See - we are at it again. Fiddling around the edges, talking nonsense while the perps laugh all the way to the bank. Vast fortunes are being made while we avert our gaze. Our laws are being changed to make the world a safer place for corporate overlords.

A classic f'rinstance -

When the price of fuel hits two bucks a litre, our bitumen highways will have to be augmented by the information highway. That communication will be crucial to maintaining some sort of democratic society in a future filled with uncertainty. Yet the price of a share of this crucial asset is tumbling, even as the sale approaches. What do you want to bet that the bulk of it ends up in the hands of the hedge funds? From then on, that information highway will be populated with Dick Turpins who will exact a toll at every turnpike. See if they don't.

- and what will we be doing while this highway robbery takes place? Probably goggling at the revelation that you can defeat an aeroplane's navigation system with tissue paper and comb.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 28 August 2006 12:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can't believe this rubbish was penned by a professor of law. By starting the article with the same trick as the Murdoch press and ABC in exploitatively using statements from victims of the Bali bombings, you immediately discard serious legal argument in favour of populist commentary. What kind of law do they study at Deakin? Law of the jungle?
Posted by Bilko, Monday, 28 August 2006 9:50:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Bilko!

A professor at law should not be peddling this drivel. He states:

"A long standing rule of evidence is that confessions obtained from suspects as a result of threats or inducements are normally inadmissible. This is even if the reliability of the confession is not in question and the case would collapse without the confession."

Of course, if the confession is deemed unreliable and questionable then it will consequently be inadmissable.

I sincerely hope the professor is not practising law.

tassiedevil
Posted by tassiedevil, Monday, 28 August 2006 12:00:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave.

Marlene and I sat up all that night and watched in transfixed horror - as did you, I bet. No doubt about it, planes hit the towers, people died horribly.

We remember many things that were said during the live multiple broadcasts. It's stamped in our minds. The trouble is, so much of that disappeared during subsequent days - expunged from the official narrative. Yet these were really important details.

It helps if you are willing to watch one of the several documentaries that include the "redacted" eyewitness footage. My very favourite is by three young fellers in their twenties. I have personally corresponded with them, one of whom is a veteran of the Iraq invasion - hardly a bystander. If you will take my word for it (for now) that they are the genuine article, then please take the time to see their film (Google video):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

Here's a remarkable ABC audio interview with the late, great Hunter S Thompson (2002):

http://www.loosechange911.com/download/hunter_thompson_aug29_2002.mp3

The very best explanation of the underlying geopolitics (narrowband video):

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/history_of_oil.ram

(I checked every detail of the above - it is all well documented)

Finally, in the bit of space left, I should explain myself. Marlene is afflicted with chronic arthritis, so I am on a carer's pension (this is a good opportunity to thank OLO contributors for their tax dollars). Her misfortune has granted us the gift of time not available to working families. We try to use our time to put something back through forums like this one, having free-ranged across the Internet all day in search of knowlege. We don't consider ourselves to be more intelligent than others, and every day we become more astonished at our past ignorance.

Finally, I'll squeak this in:

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/george-the-axe-and-the-cherry-tree/

- and bid you adeiu - here comes the robot to chop off my head -

Cheers
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Monday, 28 August 2006 12:13:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanx Chris
appreciate your dedication to the cause :) I'll view the information you provided later today.

but..tap tap tap... you still have not given me the gold :)

I'm trying to work out if you are providing all this information simply to undermine the Bush/Blair/Howard trinity of 'evil' as you see it, and then allow democratic processes to produce alternatives OR....
whether you are attacking them because you have an alternative ideological position you are seeking to advance.

Would you mind clarifying this important point ? Thanx
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 6:23:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BD,

Just to clarify mate, no I am not a holocaust denier, in fact I speak out the way I do because I am genuinely concerned that facism is coming back in fasion. No I am not employed to spread disinformation. And no I do not have a pre-determined fixatedness with conspiracy theories, I have never subscribed to a conspiracy theory and I believed the official stroy about 9/11 up until only late last year.
Posted by Carl, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 9:01:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dave's Reply (Part 1 of ?)

Dave, the robot doesn't allow the space for the kind of thorough reply I would like to give. Likewise I have had no success in producing a lead article (yet), which doesn't look like the ravings of an anarchist nutter.

1. I have no "isms" whatsoever - no loyalties or strongly held views. I never read Marx, never had a philosophical education (other than classical literature), never been involved with any church. From my egocentric point of view, I see myself as a blank sheet. Until the age of 40, I did all my "writing" with a soldering iron at an electronics workbench. A move to a mining locality precipitated a fascination with the extractive industries.

2. I did join our tiny local Labor Party in the days of the Kennett Govt, because I was alarmed by the selloff (theft) of public utilities. I resigned when Oppo Walrus resumed the federal leadership.

That's my history in the smallest possible nutshell.

Right now I feel that I am back at Uni, with the whole library of the Internet at my fingertips. The fellers who claim that my history books contain only the history that's "fit to print" are right. You do get led astray by those with an axe to grind, but in most cases it's possible to isolate something back to it's origins in an official document, or in the words of a perpetrator himself.

Cui bono - "Who gains?" - is a wonderfully sharp tool.

Pehaps it's time to quote Maj Gen Smedley Butler (US Marine Corps) who was America's most highly decorated hero at the time of his death in 1940:

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."

*
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 10:06:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As you would have heard Jihad Jack Thomas, or JJ, has been put under a control order.

Thomas has been told to remain in his Melbourne home under curfew between MIDNIGHT and 5am.

Under the Anti Terrorism Act, control orders can be used where they substantially assist in preventing a terrorist act or where a person has trained with a terrorist organization.

The orders must be issued by a court – in JJs case it was the Federal Magistrate’s Court. A spokesman of the Court said the Court issued the interim control order after the AFP was able to satisfy the court it was necessary.

The AFP's case before Magistrate appears to have been fears JJ could use his al-Qaeda training and a possible family link to terrorist organization, JI to carry out a terrorist act in Australia.

A confirmed control order can last for up to 12 months. The penalty for breaching a control order is up to five years in jail.

This might reduce the substantial security resources necessary to keep tabs on JJ. These resources would be better used against less well known terror suspects.

[reference to Four Corners interview deleted]

aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 10:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Considering JT has had a totalitarian fascist state curfew and travel restriction placed upon him, by a secretive court using alleged unsubstantiated suspicion, and not allowing him representation. Should send signals of panic through sensible people in the community. He's been convicted on the grounds of “reasonable belief”, without evidence, right of defence or reply. Welcome to our police state and associated monotheistic lies, suppressions and psychopathic behaviour, that goes with it.

The comments on this thread from Judea christians, show how rabidly racist they are. The man hasn't committed a crime, he has the wrong religion. Why aren't Jewish organisations actively fighting for, and supporting financially, Israelis terror war machine arrested and tried as supporters of terror.

Simple they have the right religion and their verifiable murderous actions, are acceptable over someone who checked out a different lifestyle, came home and hasn't caused harm to anyone.

But by his belief, he's a threat to this country. Yet Judea christians, through their beliefs, are supporting his suppression with their bigoted hypocrisy. However we all realise when it comes to logical rationale, the world and followers of Yahweh are totally bereft.

The real threat to this country, is from those running it and the constant snipping by monotheists drooling to inflame situations. Until, they can get their warped justification to suppress anyone not bowing down to their Yahweh, nor supporting their global war on peace.

We don't have a secualr state, we have a religious dictatorship trying to pose as seperating state and religion. Whilst doing the opposite.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 10:44:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHRIS....ok.. thanx for that. I now have an idea of where you are coming from.

You know the scary thing about you ? :) you have the same technical background as ME... GRRRR haha...

Well.. let me encourage you to direct more of your energies against the RRT2001 in Melbourne, rather than 9/11 "us or them".......

It worries me when a 'techo' has such a weird spin on the obvious :) reflects badly on me *whine*.....

Why not try the 'half split' method.... look into the 911 thing, and see where the problem exists.. then work back etc.. Or.. to use A to D converter terminology 'Successive Aproximation'.... I don't doubt for a moment that there is a bit of 'spin' surrounding those events.
But I also don't for a moment think that any democratic government would even look sideways as using such a scheme to promote its imperialist agenda.. don't you remember the Vietnam war and the Nixon tapes etc.. I mean.. u just cannot get away with such things in the USA.

On "Jack"..... I wonder, did he really falsify his passport ? If so..this in itself is a very serious crime. I heard Rob Stary foaming at the mouth again this morning "There is no evidence IN AUSTRALIA suggesting that he is guilty of any terrorist act"..... Yawn.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 11:16:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The alchemist, pardon me but your own racism is screeching quite loudly.
If we 'judeo christians' are carrying on a bit ,it is because we have seen just how these converts can get so brainwashed ,they would cheerfully do damage to their own kind simply to please their religious masters. They become obedient. That is where the danger lies.
The terrible tragedies occurring all over the planet now are coming from one sector and we have a right to protect ourselves from that sector and gobbledy gook legal arguments are not much cover to hide behind when bombs get thrown about.
Such fanatical converts should not be permitted to mix in ordinary society, they are far too dangerous.
Posted by mickijo, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 2:45:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reply to Dave (Part 2 of ?)

Smedley Butler:

"WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows."

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested."

(more to come - the robot is playing me like a fish)
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 7:54:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Today the ABC's Four Corners program has been served with a subpoena to surrender its tapes and notes of interviews with Melbourne man Jack Thomas. Mr Thomas appeared on the program earlier this year.

Also for rare comments on Air Marshal activities see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 1:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are no shortage of lawyers to leap to the defence of Jihad Jack and his mates Habib and Hicks. The image of lawyers chasing ambulances and the tax evading behaviour of our barristers is no recommendation for this profession. The numbers of judges and magistrates who cross the line has also become a signature of a failed or corrupted legal system.
I suggest we close the law schools and direct the talents of our youth to where it is needed.
Posted by SILLE, Thursday, 31 August 2006 7:46:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Take good note ye who doubt the dangers of terrorism:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20310774-5001561,00.html

NEW York law academic and writer Thane Rosenbaum spent one night in Melbourne during the furore over the handling of the Jack Thomas case, and came to the conclusion: "I actually don't think Australians take terrorism seriously."

The realisation hit him during a Melbourne Writers Festival panel discussion on Australia's new terrorism laws.

Pete

... reflected his experience of September 11, 2001.

"This country ... it's removed, it's remote. I live 100 blocks from Ground Zero, you live 10,000 miles from Ground Zero. For you, it's much easier to look on this (anti-terror laws) as an impermissible encroachment - that the Government is taking advantage and exploiting something that happened in New York and is using it to force ... a whole series of civil liberty harassments or infringements - ID cards, security checks, surveillances."

"You didn't hear from people like me in the aftermath of 9/11 complaining about what the Government was doing. We were too afraid. And not because we didn't want to criticise the Government, but because we were reaching out to the Government. Do something. Protect us.

"I AM A LEFTIST AMERICAN PROGRESSIVE. I teach human rights. But I'm also not stupid. I live in a world where I'm concerned."

Rosenbaum caused a stir during the festival session when he referred to "Jihad Jack", ...

Having read online media reports of the case, Rosenbaum thought it an appropriate reference in a discussion about the new terrorism laws.

"The minute I said it, one woman challenged me for treating him as Jihad Jack rather than dignifying him with his real name," Ronsenbaum said yesterday. "I thought I was being an insider, I thought I would endear myself to people."

After protests, he apologised.

It was another example of the dilemma many Western societies face as they reconcile tough new anti-terrorism laws with a democratic legal system.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 31 August 2006 1:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
planetagent, the person you refer to should take a good hard look at the events of 9/11 and demand that a proper investigation of that terrible crime be undertaken, if he took the events of that day so seriously to heart (which I am sure he did) he should demand answers, not sacrifice his liberty.
Posted by Carl, Thursday, 31 August 2006 2:12:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carl

You have your fixations. I have mine.

9/11 as a product of a US/Israeli plot...hmmm

Well I hear WWII was, after all, a "money maker for the Gnomes of Zurich...".

I'm always surprised how the admitted aggression of al Qaeda gets turned into yet another opportunity to bash America.

Is it merely us Aussiess apeing the Americans who bash America?

Its a complex world and one can selectively "prove" any theory to fulfil a prejudice - Bush showed this by "proving" WMDs were in Iraq.

However the evidence that 9/11 was caused by al Qaeda overwelmingly outweighs the evidence of conspiracy theories.

Regards

Pete

P.S. OLO ruless prevent me from having a timely dialogue with you. But if you want to visit my blog at http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com please do.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 31 August 2006 3:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thanks for the invitation planetagent, I will get there when I have a bit more time.

You are right, I do have my fixations. I wasn't always like this you know, 9/11 truth has been referred to as a cult, it does certainly get under your skin.

For a few years I took it as fact that al qaeda was responsible, you are right they have admitted agression towards the US, but there are conflicting reports over whether or not Bin Laden did claim responsiblity or not.

But when I thought about it I relaised, actually, what proof is there? Well there is a passport that leaped miraculously from the burning WTC down to the road where it was found, yet the amazingly resiliant black box recorders were supposedley incinerated.

I have my theories planetagent, but I am the first to admit that they are only theories. Don't forget that the suggested al qaeda plot is an astonishing and elaborate conspiracy theory itself. To me, the crime remains very much an unsolved mystery.
Posted by Carl, Thursday, 31 August 2006 4:02:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mirko Bagaric, your articles are a mockery of intelligent thought..what a horrible great mess of unfounded assertions and fuzzy logic. How did this guy ever get to become a Professor of Law? Now that is a mockery!
Posted by pickledherring, Thursday, 31 August 2006 9:25:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CARL

"For a few years I took it as fact that al qaeda was responsible, you are right they have admitted agression towards the US, but there are conflicting reports over whether or not Bin Laden did claim responsiblity or not."

" Well there is a passport that leaped miraculously from the burning WTC down to the road where it was found, yet the amazingly resiliant black box recorders were supposedley incinerated."

Are you serious? May I ask you where you got your "conflicting reports" on the bin laden claim?

Also where did you read or hear the black box recorders were incinerated?
Posted by Femmcop1222, Thursday, 31 August 2006 11:19:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The passport belonged to Satam Al Suqami, a supposed hijacker - all mentioned in the 9-11 Commission's report. FEMA diagram here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/passport.html

The unburnt passport was the "smoking gun". Rescue workers did find aircraft black boxes, but that was never officially admitted:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html

The planes were never forensicated, nor were the building materials in this, arguably the most startling crime in history. The steel from the buildings was fenced from access by the public and metallurgists, before being shipped to a Chinese smelter ASAP.

NY Mayor Giuliani had his reinforced HQ in WTC7 (some distance away) which mysteriously fell into it's own footprint that afternoon, despite only being hit by a few fragments. The destruction of that building was declared a mystery by the Commission. It is never mentioned in the mainstream press:

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

....there are dozens of simple, logical yet unanswered questions about 9-11, but it is "unpatriotic" to ask them.
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 1 September 2006 7:56:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a thorough description of Al Qaeda, if you have the patience to read it... it's worth your while.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=131

More can be found in Episode 1 of The Power of Nightmares (BBC), which was aired on SBS a few months ago:

Streaming:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517

The thing that amazes me is how earnestly our politicians trot out this Al Qaeda muck, even though they must be aware how tissue thin the myth is becoming.

The sad reality is that they are far more afraid of the creators of the myth than they ever could be of mysterious blokes with rags around their heads.

Welcome to "sovereign" Australia.

*
Posted by Chris Shaw, Carisbrook 3464, Friday, 1 September 2006 8:58:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
femmcop

I think Chris Shaw has answered your enquiries for me. Have a look at one of his above posts for Bin Ladens quotes in a Pakistani newspaper. Frankly, I dont beleive anything I hear about Bin Laden. I dont consider FOX and CNN to be anymore reliable than middle eastern media.

The only black box officially recovered on 9/11 was the one from flight 93 in Pennsylvania. Commercial airliners in the US are federally mandated to have 2 black box recorders, 1 to record flight data, the other to record audio in the cockpit. 8 recorders should of been recovered on 9/11, yet only one has had its contents made public.
Posted by Carl, Friday, 1 September 2006 3:03:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris & Associates,
You may like to have a read of an article titled “Those Cunning Westerners” in the Review (7) section of The Australian Financial Review 01/09/06.

Written by someone of Pakistani origin, it says amongst other things:
"Pakistanis are bitterly aware their newspapers & television do not tell the truth"

It seems that the Pakistani public is more discerning than some western readers of their press!

(It also gives a number of other interesting insights which may challenge a few urban myths peddled on this thread.)
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 2 September 2006 2:14:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I really don’t think “Gelignite Jack” would care too much about black box recorders when, or if his opportunity arose to go BANG:
Check out his love at first sight romance, married the same day they met. Must be some Moslem custom hay. OOO yeh baby. Or was he just a Useless idiot.

That is a very astute observation Horus; world media outlets do have the some affliction to reporting facts. And in true Illuminati style: Don’t let facts get in the way of a good conspiratorial reverse speak story. Or otherwise they will create its existence in text and doctored pictures.
I wonder if the Idiots ever realize that software and security code signature exist and identifies every little thing digital. Obviously not.
Posted by All-, Saturday, 2 September 2006 2:34:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Horus

Could you please provide a link to the article you mentioned?
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 3 September 2006 12:54:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,
I'm not aware of it being available through the internet.
If you obtain a copy of Friday's, Australian Financial Review, it's in the Review section (page 7).
Posted by Horus, Sunday, 3 September 2006 8:30:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent perception of the facts, Mirko - dobra, dobra!

Joseph Thomas is a traitor;

He consorted with the enemy;

He betrayed his country;

How fortunate for him that he was afforded a trial in a Western court;

Let's update legislation - pronto!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 21 September 2006 2:54:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy