Has Iran just signed it’s own Death Warrant?

The possible agreement between Iran and the “Western world” relating to Iran’s nuclear industry is very much in the news right now. The extent of the discussion in the Western media is in it’s usual self-serving manner, limited to whether it’s a good or bad thing for the West and so simply is an argument as to whether the West should lift the trade embargo or simply blast Iran to smithereens.

Looking at it from a different perspective, one has to question how sensible an agreement which would allow the West to inspect the nuclear facilities when ever they should so please, is for Iran! Do you get a sense of deja vous?!

No country that values it’s own independence would ever give into such terms. Countries that understand that the great equaliser in the global power struggle is nuclear power. Countries like India and Pakistan would never have achieved their nuclear status, if they had submitted to the west’s demands. The only real out from continued bullying from the West, is nuclear weapons.

Of course, from the Gangho- Saxon-White-supremacy-Crusader (GSWSC – US, UK, AUS) mob’s point of view, there is a difference between India and Iran (other than the letters following ‘I’) and that is that Iran is in the midst of the crusader battle for the  “promised land”.

The last country that submitted itself into such a controlling regime was Iraq. We all now know where that ended up!

It simply makes the country vulnerable to the opportunistic vultures that are the GSWSC mob. The mob and their Lacky Israel must be licking there lips as they get the opportunity to fully assess Iran’s nuclear capability.

No country in their right senses would declare war against a nation that had nuclear capability. That is why, it was so bleedingly obvious to anyone who was not willing to be duped by the leadership of GSWSC mob that the “weapons of mass destruction”  argument was nothing but fabrication. After the whipping that the mob had in Vietnam, there was no way that the mob was going to take on a country which had nuclear arms. Through their inspections, the mob were absolutely certain that there were no such weapons in Iraq.

When the mob refused to pay attention to the UN officials tasked with the inspections and decide to plonk Richard Butler, a puppet bureaucrat from Australia, who purposely broke the rules of the agreement with Iraq, simply to build a argument for invading the country, any questioning individual had to suspect that there was something fishy going on. The thinking nations of the world held back and let the mob unilaterally invade Iraq. Once buried to their necks in the quagmire, the mob was able to plead for assistance from some of the other western countries.

There are few Australian bureaucrats with any credibility – they simple dance to the tune of their masters. The few who do (a la Andrew Wilkie), give up their careers and are seen as failures or acting against Team Australia. Richard Butler simply wasn’t one of them.

The Australian public’s acceptance of the puppet Howard’s (remember the anti war protest with the effigy of Howard on all fours, licking the Bush derriere) position was a confliction between their sense of fairness against the anti-Muslim crusader mentality of a mob, whose dominance was being threatened from may fronts. As was the case with Nazi Germany (Hitler) and still is with Israel (all the prime ministers of Israel), people conduct atrocities when feeling threatened. Clearly the anti-Muslim sentiment won over any sense of fairness and the brown-nosed puppet won elections even after the continuing massacre of innocent people on the back of a fabrication. As General Tommy Franks so eloquently put it – “we don’t do body counts”!

Of course, as long as the mob are in control of world affairs, we will never see any of the leadership convicted of war crimes, no matter how many millions they may slaughter. Were Bush, Howard and Blair murderous villains who should be convicted for war crimes? Well, the answer to that simply depends on who the dominant power in the world order at the time is.

In half a century from now, I dread to think what Iran may look like. Will it be a delightful potpourri of innovative ideas and ideals, leading the fastest growing religious following or will it be another Iraq?!

Attack the ABC, it’s a great diversion to dupe the mob!

The Fiberals strategist have done it again. This is a display of the “Attack is the best form of defence” strategy at it’s best. The hoo-ha relating to the bias and the questioning on “whose side are you on” of the ABC has worked to a tee. See, the flack has all been directed at the ABC and Zacky Mallah and not one of the mainstream media outlets have addressed the the fascist, racist nature of some of members of the Fiberal party.

Clearly the Fibs’ control centre would have been in a total fluster and in overdrive after the arrogant, fascist, racist behaviour of the Steve Ciobo. A quick look at the party tactics manual and the decision clearly was to go on the attack – divert the focus – fill the media with terror and there is nothing like a Muslim target to enrage the mob.

Most right-wing parties are infiltrated by ultra right-wing, fascists, often referred to as neo-cons, but the smarter parties keep these guys locked away, hidden from the public eye. Bush was no different – his regime was completely governed by the neo-con faction, but he was very careful to keep these fascists hidden – the likes of Richard Pearle, Paul Wolfowitz, James Woolsey and John Bolton. These guys were locked away churning out vile anti-Islam, racist policy with the notion of white Christian supremacy. Hence the Iraq war and the drastic loss of civil liberties over that period.

Ciobo was mostly unheard of before this program (though it’s likely he would have made some vile comments before this) and surprisingly he is an elected member of parliament!!!! Well, not totally surprising, since it was from Queensland (Tasmania might have been another possibility). Whilst this sort of extremists are elected in the US and some parts of Europe, typically they get weeded out in Aussie politics with a few exceptions in the Fiberal party. Clearly the Fibs had been keeping him under cover but  ooooops(!!) the monster was unleashed at the public and we had a real insight to how fascist minds work.

The topic under discussion was threatening some of the fundamentals of a democratic free society including the separation of judicial system and politics, free speech, anti-discrimination and human rights. It appears that the Fibs believe that matters of criminality should be taken away from the courts and given to a single minister. After much argument, with reluctance they have included the right to appeal in a court of law (ridiculous because it will be strange to see even one matter not turn up in court if the “convicted” really does want to maintain citizenship(!) and if they don’t, then it might makes us feel good about taking a strong position, but it really would be irrelevant!). But this would turn our legal system upside down – guilty until proven innocent!

The policy is racist

Clearly this policy is targeted at Muslims or any group that we don’t “like” (which really includes any non-white, non-Christian and to a lesser extent non-Anglo Saxon). It is hard to codify laws that apply selectively to those you don’t like, particularly if you are under the delusion that racism is not an issue in your country and you want to portrait an image of high ideals relating to discrimination. The best way to do it is to simply take it away from the institutions that would have to apply it fairly and non-discriminatorily and let a politician make the call. Then, the decision could be made in anyway that would benefit the party at the next election.

It is also clear that the policy is not meant to target Australians involved in blasting innocent women and children on the beaches of Palestine nor the blasting of millions of Iraqi’s (they are lower level humans anyway).

Apart from the old adage that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” the very interpretation of the term terrorist is extremely subjective. In Australia we have chosen to use it only in the context of legitimising our discomfort with Muslims. State sponsored terrorism is usually not considered terrorism, particularly if we support it – as is the case with Israel.

The policy is discriminatory

A law that applies only to people with dual citizenship, clearly is discriminatory and ridiculous. How can a law punish someone only if you have 2 citizenships but not if you only have one?! So, if you only have an Australian citizenship and you fight in the middle east, then, we give you special treatment! The number of citizenships one has should be irrelevant to the punishment.

Next we will have traffic fines that vary depending on whether one has 1 or many citizenships! They will be decided by the local member, based on what’s going to get the most votes in the next election!

The separation of the judicial system and politics is paramount

The Magna Carta set some basic principles that have served Australia and other countries well. The separation of the judicial system from politics is one of the fundamental principles. It was to prevent abuse of political power. The whole concept of a member of parliament having power to determine who is a criminal and who isn’t is terrifying – particularly if you are not White and of Anglo Saxon heritage.

The Q&A program proved the value of the Magna Carta. It showed how easily power could end up in the hands of someone, such as Ciobo, who was quite happy and “proud” to take away the citizenship of a Muslim, who had been proven to be innocent of terrorism by a court of law, without the slightest hesitation – don’t bother to get the facts or let the facts get in the way of being a racist.

The question put forward by Zacky was right at the heart of this issue. The point that was missed by most commentators and the public (as they were sucked in to the quagmire of accusations by the Fibs) was that a court found him innocent but Ciobo found him guilty. A court would not have taken his citizenship away but Ciobo would, based on some flimsy accusations by law enforcement agencies. Ciobo simply fabricated a story about the retrospectivity of law (pure fiction, just as the weapons of mass destruction) and decided to find Zacky guilty. Zacky was a bad, bad, baddie, in Ciobo’s mind.

This was a Kangaroo court replacing the Magna Carta – just brilliant!

There are challenges with the concept of treason

Blasting people to smithereens is never the way to solve differences, but the mob is very good at doing it – in fact, possibly still the best at it. However, when someone opposes the mob, it is acceptable to do this by peaceful means only. Fighting against your own country is treason.

The problem occurs when a fascist government decides to go to war against it’s people’s wishes – a la the Iraq war. A majority of Australians did not want a war in Iraq. Most were aware of the lie that was being concocted by the leaders of the mob. If one was a dual citizen of Iraq and Australia and one could clearly see that the government was acting against it’s own people’s will and fighting an unjust war and killing innocent Iraqi’s, then, maybe the concept of treason becomes a bit cloudy.

If Germans decided to fight Hitler in world war II, was that treason? Yes, it was. Was it a crime punishable by death? Yes it was. But was it justice? Now, that’s when it becomes a bit murky.

The problem with treason is that it does not take into account as to who or what is right and wrong – it simply says, are you a member of team Australia! In fact it’s probably, team white Australia.

The Diversion

The Fibs strategy was to divert the discussion from the policy and their fascist MPs by accusing the ABC of bias. The key gripes that the Fiberals and their colluders (including the so called Human rights commissioner!!!) appear to be that

1. The ABC was giving a platform for a “terrorist” – ok an extremist.

2. The question could have been presented by a more “suitable” representative

Zacky may have many unconventional views that are displeasing to the average white Aussie, but he was proven innocent in relation to terrorist involvement. He represents a marginalised, discriminated group that the average Australian dislikes. The ABC allows many people to ask questions particularly those who have personally faced injustice. The questions was a legitimate question and was at the heart of the issue. His behaviour was quite normal until incited by the fascist, racist, vile response of the MP.

Even then, Zacky’s response, although clumsy and misinterpreted for the benefit of effect, was accurate. The on-going attacks on Muslims through racist view points prevalent in the Fiberal party, is a catalyst to further alienating groups that are already marginalised and therefore potentially making individuals more receptive to the calls of hideous organisations such as IS.

Australian governments and in particular the Fibs are in denial about their role in the so called “radicalisation” of a small number of Muslim youth. And as long as their response is purely to look stronger by implementing racist laws targeted at Muslims, under the guise of “security” and saving Australian lives, there will be no change. The evidence suggests that their actions are doing just the opposite – making Australia a target for terrorists.

On the question as to whether Zacky was the right person to represent that point view, who better than one of the few, if not the only person to have been victimised by the Fiberal party through their extreme right-wing laws. Any other person representing this point of view would have been, in the usual fashion, brushed aside and ignored.

The ABC is not anti right wing it is progressive

Recently there have been 3 Q&A episodes that have been amongst the the best. Without a doubt the Fibs have had a battering in these programs. However, it’s not because the ABC is anti-right-wing but because the topics have highlighted some incredibly hostile policy positions of the Fiberals. In the first, we had the argument on the separation of the judicial system from politics and the Fiberal’s personal attack on Triggs – Triggs undoubtedly came out the winner by far. Then we had the Zacky vs. Ciobo debacle. This one was probably a 50-50 as many die hard members of the mob blindly were caught up in the accusations of the government, but the rest of the world was astounded by Ciobo’s crazy behaviour as was highlighted in the third episode by professor Lawrence Krauss.

The ABC is clearly (and fortunately) progressive and intellectual at heart. As such, it isn’t surprising that it is more often in conflict with the Fiberals’ Neo conservative views rather than the progressive views of the left. It is obvious that the ABC does take extra effort to present the right-wing position to counter the continuous attacks they get from the Fiberals.

A pointless beat-up

So there will be a bit of a kafuffle over the next 2 weeks or so but none of the real issues that were highlighted by the episode will get addressed.

1. Upholding the principles of separation between the legal system and politics

2. Addressing the racist policies of an ultra right-wing government that marginalises, isolates and excludes Muslim communities with disastrous outcomes.

It appears that White Australia will uphold the first point, but only for white Christian Australians and remain in denial on the second point. And so, the status quo remains.

Regardless, lets hope the ABC continues strongly as ever. It is precisely when Australia is in the grip of an extreme right wing government that we most need a media outlet for the independent voice!