In a recent article by YourNewsWire, we posed the following:
“Some very curious things have been coming out of the proverbial shadows regarding the events of yesterday’s corporate-owned mainstream media branded “Sydney Siege” – many are claiming that the naming of the event in and of itself is a way of what many believe to be the people behind these attacks’ way of telling everyone that this was, indeed a “false flag” – or planned event which hurts and scares real people into accepting new laws.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
Many are bringing up the fact that this is an interesting turn of events – a sort of shying away from “normal” false flag operations – as Australia seemingly out of nowhere implemented laws eerily similar to the loathed “Patriot Act” in America just a few months ago – claiming fear of ISIS among the many reasons that Australian’s should lose all of their rights to privacy.
An article titled “Australian Government Scrambles to Authorize Mass Surveillance” says:
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott used recent terrorist threats as the backdrop of a dire warning to Australians that “for some time to come, the delicate balance between freedom and security may have to shift. There may be more restrictions on some, so that there can be more protection for others.””
In an article written by Activist Post called “5 Reasons to Question the Official Story of the ‘Sydney Siege‘”, they take it a step or two forward:
In the aftermath of yet another highly publicized terror attack (or at least the potential for a high profile attack) in Australia by foreign-born jihadists, the Western public is once again experiencing a variety of emotional reactions that they have carefully been trained to experience whenever such events take place at home or abroad.
The xenophobic pro-war right is predictably using the attack as an example of how all Muslims are terrorists and how their total annihilation and implementation of police state tactics are the only solution. The pathetic left-wing is attempting to portray the gunman as a “lone nut” with no political motives as a justification for more “anti-terror” laws. The vast majority in the middle, however, believe the official mainstream version of events, quake in their boots, and move on to the next form of entertainment provided to them by the culture creators without a second thought.
Yet, as is almost always the case, there is much more to the story than is being reported by mainstream outlets. There exists a number of unanswered questions and unexplained inconsistencies with the story of “Man Haron Monis” and his hostage taking escapade in Sydney.
1.) Man Haron Monis (aka Manteghi Boroujerdi) is Shiia, not Sunni.
While the mainstream reports may suggest that Monis is yet another ISIS-style terrorist that finally attempted to rise and meet his destiny by engaging in terrorist attacks in the West, there are a number of problems with the presentation in terms of details.
Western media reports that, among other ludicrous demands, Monis requested to be provided with an ISIS flag while holding up the café in the Sydney business district. The problem, however, is that Monis is Shiia, not Sunni. Sunni, of course, is the brand of Islam that ISIS espouses. While both sects see their share of fundamentalism, the twain do not mix.
Why then, would a Shiia cleric (fundamentalist or otherwise) request an IS flag at the scene of his crime for all the world to see?
2.) Is Monis A “Liberal Muslim” Or A “Fundamentalist Muslim?”
While the absurd request for an IS flag during the course of an act of violence being committed by a Shitte Muslim is enough to convince the average spectator that Monis was a member of ISIS, there is a distinct lack of consistency in the way in which Monis has been portrayed in the Western media. Nearly ten years ago, Monis was presented as a “liberal Muslim” preaching a brand of tolerant and mainstream Islam. Since 2013, however, Monis has been presented as both a murderer and now a terrorist. While the latter may certainly be true, the presentations are nonetheless contradictory.
Indeed, as Tony Cartalucci of Land Destroyer reports in his article “Who Created Cartoon Character’Man Haron Monis’ Behind ‘Sydney Siege’ Crisis,” Monis has spoken glowingly of the West in the past; Canada, the United States, and Australia in particular. In an interview with The Religion Report of the Australian ABC, he stated,
[quote style=”default”]…we can say Australia, Canada, England, USA, so many western countries, they are religious societies. They don’t say ‘We are religious’, but in fact the spirit of religion, we can see the spirit of religion in these societies. And some other countries in the Middle East, in Asia, they say ‘We are Islamic’ they have a name of Islamic, but in fact they are not religious societies and religious governments. Whenever I walk in the street, whenever I go out in Australia, I feel I am in a real religious society. I don’t want to say it is perfect, we don’t have a perfect society on the earth, but when we compare, if we compare Australia with Iran and other countries in the Middle East, we can say it is heaven.[/quote]
These are hardly the words of an Islamic terrorist filled with hatred for the West. Yet that is exactly what Monis is portrayed as being in later years. Indeed, there is little evidence to the contrary that the assailant was, in fact, Monis. The question then, is why the contradictory behavior and media portrayal of Monis.
3.) Monis Served US/NATO/West’s Interests As Propaganda Tool Against Iran
Before Monis became the star of Sunday evening/Monday morning news, he served as a convenient agent of propaganda against the government of Iran, itself a major target of NATO and the West.
But before Monis/Boroujerdi’s recent run-ins with the law and his role as chief “Muslim boogeyman” in Australia, he was “Manteghi Boroujerdi,” a “victim” of the “Iranian regime” who was in love with Western society.
Australia’s ABC in its “Religion Report” dated January 31, 2001, introduced Monis/Boroujerdi as follows:
…while in Sydney we talk to Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi, an Iranian cleric espousing a liberal brand of Islam – dangerously liberal, as his views have led to his wife and two daughters being held hostage in Iran.
The interview itself is used as yet another vehicle to carry along Western propaganda long-aimed at Iran. It claims Monis/Boroujerdi’s family is in grave danger and that Monis/Boroujerdi himself would be executed should he ever return to Iran. It quotes Monis/Boroujerdi several times including claims he was formally associated with Iranian intelligence:
In Iran, mostly I have been involved with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.
And was in contact with the UN regarding security issues in Iran:
…more than four years I have not seen my family, and the Iranian regime doesn’t let them come out. In fact I can say they are hostage; as a hostage the Iranian regime wants to make me silent, because I have some secret information about government, and about their terrorist operations in the war. I sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and somebody on behalf of Mr Kofi Anan sent the answer, and they want to do something. I have hope and always I pray and ask God to solve my problem.
4.) Did Monis Love His Wife And Fear For Her Safety Or Did He Kill Her?
Notice in the statement above that one of Monis’ gripes with the Iranian government was that not only was he in personal danger as a result of his “liberal” teachings, but his family was in danger as well. Ironically, he stated that his family was being held hostage by the Iranian regime. However, fast forward to 2013, and Monis is facing charges on “accessory before and after the fact to the murder of [his ex-wife] Noleen Hayson Pal, 30, who was stabbed 18 times and set alight outside a western Sydney unit in April.”
While Monis would certainly not be the first man to kill his ex-wife, his concern for her safety at the hands of the Iranian government does not match up with the concern he allegedly showed her in Australia. If Monis was truly the “Hate Sheik” as he was presented in the articles regarding his ex-wife’s murder, then why was he first portrayed as such a loving liberal by the very same media?
It should also be noted that Monis recently made a reputation for himself by sending hate mail to the families of dead Australian soldiers who fought in Afghanistan. Monis’ letter writing campaign was used to stir up tension between the pro and anti-war factions in Australian society and cause quite the controversy publicly.
5.) Shiite Clerics In Australia Did Not Trust Monis
By 2008, Shiite religious leaders in Australia had asked Australian Federal security agents to investigate Monis and his activities. As an article in the Australian reported,
FEDERAL agents have been urged by the nation’s senior Shia leader, Kamal Mousselmani, to investigate an Iranian man purporting to be a prominent Islamic cleric.
Sheik Mousselmani told The Australian yesterday the mystery cleric – who has been identified as Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi on his website after appearing under the name Sheik Haron – was not a genuine Shia spiritual leader.
He said there were no ayatollahs – supreme Shia scholars – in Australia and none of his fellow spiritual leaders knew who Ayatollah Boroujerdi or Sheik Haron was.
“We don’t know him and we have got nothing to do with him,” Sheik Mousselmani said. “The federal police should investigate who he is. It should be their responsibility.”
Yet, as Cartalucci adds in his own article,
[quote style=”default”]But it was the Australian media itself who introduced him publicly as an “Ayatollah” and the Australian government that vetted him and allegedly granted him political asylum. He was allegedly in contact with the UN and was used to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment in Australia. It is then highly suspicious that now both the Australian media and the Australian government appear to have no knowledge of who he is or where he came from.[/quote]
Whatever the true nature of Monis may be – legitimate mental patient, patsy, or tool of Western intelligence agencies – there is clearly much more to the story than what the mainstream press is printing and promoting.
Regardless, the only thing that we can know with absolute certainty is that the Sydney Siege will be used as propaganda to the utmost effect by all Western and NATO governments in the push for further war abroad and an even greater police state at home.
 5 Reasons to Question the Official Story of the ‘Sydney Siege’
Latest posts by Royce Christyn (see all)
- Government Op Who Predicted Super Bowl Score Warns Of Nuclear War - February 18, 2017
- Video: Why Voting Doesn’t Change Anything & Democracy Is A Lie - May 7, 2016
- Did Bible Verse Predict String of Recent Quakes, Volcano, & Foam? - April 17, 2016