My opinion, is that the present Australian government does not want to publicise the fact that Muslims were killing Australians in Australia for Jihad 100 years ago. Present governments are criminally liable and incompetent, because they did not look at this incident and draw the obvious conclusion that the immigration of Muslims into Australia would an unacceptable terrorist threat to the Australian people.

Please note how the author of the book about the event points to the Australians as the real villains. Children allegedly threw rocks at one man, so that justified he and his fellow Jihadi shooting dead four Australians on a picnic train.

In a way, this reflexive need to always portray Australians (or Americans, or westerners in general) as the villains, and terrorist the victims of white oppression, is one reason why most people have completely turned away from the socialist internationalist ideology. The more that pseudo intellectuals moralise and display their clear contempt of Australians, the more the Australians give then two fingers worth of righteous indignation in return.

The incident should be treated with all the sensitivity due to two murderers and terrorists, that they were Muslims and incited to their actions by a call from a highly ranked Muslim in a foreign country is no excuse.
They were our first Muslim Terrorists and should be seen as such.

The article fails to mention the following piece of information that is material , if reported correctly in Natasha Robinson's article, "When the caliph's call was answered in blood", The Australian, 1 January 2015:

'Gül left a handwritten suicide note that was discovered after he and Abdullah were shot dead by authorities. "I hold the Sultan's order ... I must kill your men and give my life for my faith by order of the Sultan (but) I have no enmity against anyone , nor have I consulted with anyone, nor informed anyone," the note said.'

Ah yes the 3rd rate Australian Zionist,Propagandist for Israel strikes again, why don't you tell us about the Settlers murdering Palestinians thieving their land & water and burning down homes with the people still inside.
Or is it a fact you wont because your masters wont let you or you ignore it as it does not suit the narrative of poor downtrodden Israel.
Not going well for you is it Dave next stop International court in the Hague & remember the Liberals wont be in power forever to do what they are told.

John Ryan, before opening your fat ugly racist/antisemitic mouth, I suggest you learn the truth, so you don't show yourself up for the ignorant racist bigot you are.

If Abbas goes to the ICC he will show himself up for the liar and murderer he is. There is already a legal case being filed against him for murder and war crimes. There were too many foreign journalists embedded during the offensive who documented the truth.

You mate just follow the wrong news.

#Raycom

Thank you for your valuable contribution to my article.

It certainly shows up the continued negative Jew-hatred spewed out incessantly by John Ryan and his inability to rationally discuss the threat to world peace and security posed by Islamic State.

I guess there are some people who do not have the intellectual ability to focus on a particular subject without letting their blind prejudice overrule their capacity to think and act rationally.

The so-called "suicide note" in this case needs to be approached with a great deal more caution than is evident here, or in the Australian article. There is no hard evidence that the two men in this case intended to commit suicide. There is no clear evidence as to who wrote the note, which was perhaps not even "left" by either of the men: all we know from newspaper reports was that it was "found" underneath rocks days after the incident. The authorship and accurate translation of the "note" was in contention at the time. As with much else of this incident, the "evidence" was so tainted by speculation, rumour, and re-enactment (even some of the photographs are not original but are staged or re-enactments) that to draw a clear story, let alone a lesson as here, from what remains to us is hazardous. A fruitful context of understanding for the 1915 story is the detention of "aliens" at that time, not some spurious transhistorical story of "jihad". After all, it was the German Club that lay in ruins after the incident, not the camel camp (in which, by the way, some people of European heritage lived).
Helen

Hear hear Isabel.
As always, some people never ever let the actual facts get in the way of a good story/propaganda/political ideology/the conformation bias!
Rhrosty.

[Deleted for abuse.]

OFF TOPIC

PALESTINIAN SANTAS SPRAY SEPARATION WALL IN BETHLEHEM
January 2, 2015
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=751268

BETHLEHEM (Ma'an) -- Palestinian activists dressed in Santa Claus outfits on Thursday sprayed graffiti demanding an end to the Israeli occupation and freedom for Palestinians on the Israeli separation wall in the southern West Bank town of Bethlehem.

Activists handed out candy to passing vehicles in celebration of Christmas and the New Year as others wrote slogans on the eight-meter high concrete wall that cuts Bethlehem off from neighboring Jerusalem.

One of the youths involved in the activity said the aim was to pass on good wishes to those celebrating Christmas in Bethlehem and hopes for a new year full of happiness for Palestinian children.

The activity took place at a major intersection in Bethlehem where the Israeli wall reaches into the heart of the city to cut off the tomb of Biblical matriarch Rachel from the city around it.

Once a shared Jewish, Christian, and Muslim place of worship, the annexation of the area by Israel's wall has also meant that non-Jews are no longer allowed to enter it. Instead, they are confronted by the wall's watchtowers on every side, while access is only allowed from the Israeli side through a checkpoint forbidden to non-Jews.

Local activist Mazen al-Azza told Ma'an that the activists hoped to draw attention to the "danger" the wall represents for Bethlehem, particularly at Christmas since international attention is focused on the city and tens of thousands of foreign tourists pass through.

Al-Azza added that the activist was a message to the whole world that there should be no ambiguity regarding the Palestinian cause in the face of the Israeli occupation.

CONTINUED BELOW

CONTINUED FROM ABOVE

Israel began building the separation wall in 2002, and the route has been the target of regular demonstrations by border towns whose land is cut off by its path.

Israel has regularly confiscated large plots of Palestinian land in order to build the wall. When the 435-mile barrier is complete, 85 percent of it will have been built inside the occupied West Bank.

In 2004 the International Court of Justice ruled that the separation wall was illegal and "tantamount to annexation."

The wall also prevents Palestinians from moving freely in the West Bank between Palestinian villages, towns, and cities, increasingly trapping them in small pockets of Palestinian control.

COMMENT

Would love to see these pictures (at http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=751268 ) on Christmas cards. Maybe international institutions might like to use them, like charities & NGO's. May peace, joy & happiness come to all those who seek it in 2015.

Pete

#isabelberners

The following Smithsonian article refutes your unsubstantiated claims.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-battle-of-broken-hill-113650077/

On Gool Mohammed's call to jihad - the Smithsonian states:
" At some point early in the 1900s his religious convictions had taken him to Turkey, where he enlisted in the army of the Ottoman Empire. In doing so, he was committing to serve a sultan who—as master of the Muslim Holy Places of Arabia—also claimed to be the caliph, or spiritual leader, of all Muslims. Gool served in four campaigns with the Turks before returning to Australia,..

... News of the outbreak of the First World War—and of Turkey’s declaration of war on Great Britain and its empire—reached Broken Hill soon after it occurred. Gool Mohammed’s loyalty to his sultan never wavered; he wrote immediately to the Minister of War in Istanbul, offering to re-enlist, and (an impressive testimonial to the efficiency of the Ottoman war department and the laxness of Australia’s postal censors, this) actually received a reply... The letter from the Ottomans encouraged him to “be a member of the Turkish Army and fight only for the Sultan,” without specifying where or how."...

On the suicide notes - the Smithsonian states:

"A note carried by Gool suggests that it was he who inflamed Mullah Abdullah with his zeal to strike back against the Australians. But it was certainly Mullah Abdullah who hand-wrote the suicide notes the two composed before they set out to ambush the picnic train. “I hold the Sultan’s order,” Gool’s note read, “duly signed and sealed by him. It is in my waist belt now, and if it is not destroyed by cannon shot or rifle bullets, you will find it on me. I must kill your men and give my life for my faith by order of the Sultan I have no enmity against anyone, nor have I consulted with anyone, nor informed anyone.” Mullah Abdullah’s note explained his grievance against the chief sanitary inspector and said it was his “intention to kill him first.” ... Other than that, though, he repeated his companion’s sentiments: “There is no enmity against anybody,” he insisted"

[Deleted for abuse.]

Come off it singer. Your whole reason for being here is to defame and stereotype Arabs. That is all you have ever done here. Show me one single article of yours that hasnt been negatively directed at arabs/moslems?

The very fact that it is you, someone with such a long history of arab hating, writing about this issue, complaining it is not getting enough "recognition", makes it impossible to believe you actually give a toss about the people who lost their lives. You are just using them as part of your ongoing hate and propaganda war.

To call this attack "Australia’s first Jihadist attack" when it was obviously motivated by the first world war is just proof of your sick intentions in raising this subject and using it to "further divide our community and promote hatred against Arabs?".

It is your constant bleating of the same evil, cracked message that makes you look like a complete fool singer.

You are not fooling anyone.
This is a blatant attempt to stir up ill feeling and hatred against arabs in Australia.
Just like all your articles singer.

Mosab Hassan Yousef (Son of Hamas Founder) tells the truth about Hamas. (Islam is bi-polar.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KakxXN5Z-XI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoCLzDTlmhw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYG1IpRQUGU

#mikk

You are getting more irrational and obsessive with each post.

1. The two Broken Hill Moslem terrorists were not Arabs. They came from a region between Afghanistan and modern Pakistan.

2. If my intention was to defame and stereotype Arabs please explain why I would write the following:

"Christine Adams – Curator of the Broken Hill Sulphide St Railway and Historical Museum – provides a sensible pointer:
We think that it needs to be treated with a certain amount of tact. It was two people, what they did was a terrible terrible thing, it wasn't a nation."

3. You state:
"To call this attack "Australia’s first Jihadist attack" when it was obviously motivated by the first world war is just proof of your sick intentions in raising this subject and using it to "further divide our community and promote hatred against Arabs?".

That it was Australia's first jihadist attack is made crystal clear from the numerous historical documents and current contemporary articles including the following:

A. "When the Caliph's call was answered in blood" (The Australian)

B. " Lone Wolf" terror strike brought deaths and fear to Australians a century before Al Qaeda and ISIS" (News.com.au)

C. "Islamic suicide attack on Broken Hill" (Pickering post)

D. "A Jihadist Attack on picnickers in Broken Hill brought World War 1 home" ( The Advertiser).

When you concentrate on facts instead of attacking me personally - you may be able to climb out of the big hole you keep digging ever deeper for yourself.

[Deleted for abuse.]

#mikk

That "Pickering miscreant " referred to so disparagingly by you wrote nothing.

The author was Bernard Gaynor- whose BIO reads:
"Bernard Gaynor has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and has returned from three Iraq deployments."

Would be interested to learn your BIO and your real name.

You seem to be suffering from "fact deficiency syndrome" - shooting off your mouth before checking the facts.

Take a hold of yourself mikk.

That hole you are digging keeps getting deeper and deeper.

Maybe an anger management course might help before you get totally beyond redemption.

G'day David Singer

With your special historical take on the formative forces creating Israel I'm confident you would agree with the following?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16991#299322 "Not only were Australian forces, by their WWI invasion of Beersheba, founders of the State of Israel, but Beesheba is the closest support city for Israel's nuclear weapons center at/near "Dimona" (Negev Nuclear Research Center) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimona :

That means Australia is owed nuclear weapons (in boxes not "on the wing") from Israel whenever we need them.
Posted by plantagenet, Thursday, 8 January 2015"

Cheers

Pete

David, I'm sorry but a secondary account even by the Smithsonian does not "refute" anything. My comments were and are based on extensive research in contemporary accounts and reports of the incident, and in Broken Hill itself. And my comments are based on evaluation of those reports. We are not even certain now, as people were not then, of who the men are or their reasons for doing what they did, or what they did in fact do. Just one quick example: it is often claimed, and the Smithsonian account does this too, that one of the men was an icecream vendor. However, "the" icecream vendor in Broken Hill at that time (whose story is fascinating in its own right, by the way) was Charles Patel or Patell, who placed this advertisement in the Barrier Miner: http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/45310069. There are many other examples I could give which cast doubt on various parts of accounts like that of the Smithsonian, some small and some less so. Most of these accounts are based on other accounts, and very rarely on a careful examination of the primary sources – so when you cite the secondary accounts as "truth", you are not actually getting an accurate picture of the events but only of the accounts of the events! Caution is called for.
Helen

Isabelberners

The Smithsonian article can hardly be characterised as a "secondary account" as it was based on the following sources:
"‘The picnic train attack‘. ABC Broken Hill, February 24, 2011; Australasian, January 16, 1915; Barrier Miner , January 1+2+3+4+5, 1915; Clarence & Richmond Examiner January 5, 1915; Northern Territory Times and Gazette, January 7, 1915; The Register, Adelaide, January 8+13, 1915; Patsy Adam Smith. Folklore of the Australian Railwaymen. Sydney. Macmillan of Australia, 1969; Christine Stevens, ‘Abdullah, Mullah (1855–1915)’, Australian Dictionary of Biography, National Centre of Biography, Australian National University, accessed September 18, 2011; Christine Stevens. Tin Mosques and Ghantowns: A History of Afghan Camel Drivers in Australia. Sydney: Oxford University Press, 1989; War in Broken Hill. Collections Australia, accessed September 17 2011."

Would you care to

1. List your sources that indicate variations -"some small, some less" - from the Smithsonian article

2 what those variations are.

Well, it would seem that two men with an emblem of Islam fired without warning on unarmed holiday makers in a train near Broken Hill and that they murdered some of the holidaymakers.
They were subsequently shot dead/died from wounds.
It would appear to have been acowardly attack by men who were Muslims.

Or is it all a conspiracy dreamed up by the Prime Minister of the day and carried out by the secret service?
The two members of the then Secret Service were code named Aye and Seeoh.

David, if you are unfamiliar with the distinction between primary and secondary sources, there are any number of explanations freely available on the net. This is a useful one, from my old university: http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.htm. So: "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event." This is simply what primary sources are, it's not controversial to say this. The Smithsonian account is a secondary source, and it relies on some primary and some secondary sources in its compilation. In seeking accuracy, analysts should always go back to the primary sources. Secondary sources have their uses, but as we can see with this story, they can be like what we used to call the game of "Chinese whispers", accreting errors as they are repeated by each other. Of the sources relied upon by the Smithsonian, some would be considered primary and some secondary eg "‘The picnic train attack‘ [S]; Patsy Adam Smith. Folklore [S]; Christine Stevens, ‘Abdullah, Mullah' [S] Christine Stevens. Tin Mosques [S] War in Broken Hill. Collections Australia [S, but reproduces P documents]. The Barrier Miner is prima facie a P source, but there is much more useful stuff in the BM after 5 January. The Richmond Examiner is not really a primary source for the incident, although it could be a useful P source on contemporary attitudes to the incident, for example.
I'm sorry but I don't have the time at the moment to do unpaid labour for you or the Smithsonian to catalogue completely the errors and half-truths, but when my chapters on the event are published (later this year, fingers crossed), I would be more than happy to send you a copy, which will of course indicate sources and limitations etc. in an exhaustively scholarly manner. The chapters are concerned not only with what happened, but how evidence was constructed and in some cases manufactured. The chapters should answer fully your two demands of me.
kind wishes, Helen

Isabelberners

Up to you Isabel.

Your lecture on primary sources and secondary sources is irrelevant.

You alleged the Smithsonian article was a "secondary account" - but it is clear primary sources were relied on.

Guess we all just have to wait until your chapters hit the light of day sometime in the future to find out what primary sources you used in your account.

Until you do so - even the supposed variations "some small some less" so tantalisingly alleged by you will have to remain under wraps.

At the moment we only have your word.

Sounds like it could be a best seller if you can discredit the Smithsonian article and 100 years of perceived history.

David, I still "allege" that the Smithsonian account is a secondary account of this event. Because that is what it is. My chapters are also secondary accounts about this event. Can you not see the point being made here about the importance of ceding authority to primary sources? ALL sources also need to be handled with caution, whether they are primary or secondary of course: even eye witnesses can be mistaken about what they see or the meaning of what they see. That is why I spend a lot of time in writing more about how even the primary sources were constructed in this case.

I agree with your sarcastic comment that my chapters will not make my fortune. Alas.

My offer to send you the chapters when I have completed them stands. I'm sorry that I can't add any more that is useful or that you would listen to anyway at the moment. Thank you for allowing me to say this much on your comments page.

Helen