Legitimate questions

Asking a legitimate question doesn’t guarantee a legitimate answer. Families bereaved due to acts of terrorism are often treated appallingly when they ask for a detailed explanation of how their loved ones died. If the bereaved family is content to accept government assurances that their loved ones were killed by Al Qaida or its affiliates, and that that organisation is led by Osama bn Laden, who is still alive, hiding out somewhere – but still plotting – then the government will be pleased to exploit that family’s tragedy as the incident is woven into the mythological fabric of a particular nation state. There can be televised funerals, lots of flag-waving, tears, grief – but please, no awkward questions. Don’t ask any, you know, security related questions – especially national security related questions. We must protect our sources, and not reveal how we gathered any intelligence, the government will claim. When all else fails and the questions are becoming too pertinent then sensetive intelligence sharing agreements with the U.S. will be given as the reason why a particular piece of information cannot be disclosed to the bereaved family.

Bereaved family members need to be allowed to go through the various stages of grief with as much care and consideration as humanly possible. That is because if they do not get past the initial anger at their loss, they will never progress to the final stage of the grieving process which is closure. If, for example, a bereaved family member’s anger at the murder of their loved one ends up consuming them, then the terrorists will have claimed another victim. One essential way to help bereaved family members deal with their loss is to tell them the truth at all times and if they want detailed answers then give them.

If the bereaved family member is not given the truth then they can be emotionally crippled by their loss – or are forced against their will to campaign for the truth as is the case of Jim Swire in the Lockerbie case.

Of course bereaved family members are not the only people to suffer because of acts of terrorism. Also directly affected are those injured in the attack and their families and friends. It is not necessary to point out to readers of this report that injuries to innocent bystanders are often horrendous. It should be pointed out, however, that many victims of terrorism end up losing their legs. This happened in the blasts of 7/7 and also the Bali attack of 2002. Losing one or even both legs would surely be a devastating loss for anyone, and if they were not given truthful answers to any questions they pose then the psychological trauma they are suffering will get worse. Injured people and their families also need to go through a grieving process of their own and recover as best they can. But the physical recovery process and the emotional recovery process are in fact two separate processes and at the same time a single process. Providing truthful information to all the various victims of terrorism is, therefore, an essential moral duty. There can be no exceptions, whatever belief system you hold.

With the above in mind, it is also necessary to avoid developing senseless conspiracy theories which may anger victims of terrorism and slow down their road to recovery. If the facts are quite clear, that a particular group carried out an attack for a particular reason, then suggesting otherwise only causes further grief. Imagine how bereaved family members would feel when confronted with some of the conspiracy theories prevelant in America. They might hear, for example, that their loved ones didn’t really die aboard Flights 11, 175, 77 or 93 but were all murdered later by government agents. They might hear, as another example, that the Twin Towers were demolished by explosives planted by the U.S. government. If they don’t have a science background and are not able to easily refute any particular conspiracy theory then they become enraged, unable to move forward in the direction that closure will bring.

Australian tourists visiting the resort island of Bali are sometimes accused of not respecting local culture, parading around the beaches semi-naked, getting drunk and riding rented motorcycles in a dangerous manner. To say that Indonesia’s Muslims are the only ones upset at this behaviour is not really accurate as many Balinese don’t like the behaviour either. Balinese people are not predominantly Muslim but practise their own version of Hindhuism which incorporates some indigenous animist traditions. The Balinese economy has nonetheless grown significantly since the advent of commercial passenger flights. An increase in visitors allowed the Balinese hospitality industry to grow significantly and previously unsealed roads were sealed. Not all the effects of tourism were beneficial, however, and it is sometimes suggested that Balinese traditional dancers, for example, have lost their tradional role within Balinese society as they now perform mostly for the tourists. As a way of summing up this perspective, it should be noted that in the second part of the last century, Bali became exposed to the rest of the world in a way that had not occurred previously. A tradional economy became a capitalist economy. The violence that rocked Indonesia in the 1960’s also had a significant impact on the development of Balinese society.

Within the above context it should be agreed that some visitors did behave inappropriately but some behaved very well. The well-behaved tourists were officially welcomed at the airport by Indonesian government employees and the Balinese themselves made a conscious effort to be welcoming, friendly and courteous. Australians who ventured overseas for the first time and found themselves at Denpassar airport also discovered for the first time in their lives that they didn’t belong to the dominant culture anymore; they had to fit in with their European or American counterparts and with the people who owned the island. For a young person who has never left one of the major Australian cities, this can be the first step on the path to a better personal understanding of the world.

Nevertheless, in late 2002, a group of terrorists identified by the Australian government as Islamic fundamentalists, attacked Bali and caused the deaths of nearly 200 mostly young Australians. The Australian government adopted the rather peculiar position of disagreeing with a joint Indonesian/FBI forensic investigation which found traces of C4 plastic explosive residue at the site of the attack. Indonesian police spokesman Brigadier-General Saleh Saaf said: “We have together with experts from the FBI processed the data jointly and we are now really certain that C4 explosive was used”. It is important to note at this point that the data was jointly processed, which could mean that experts from the FBI and Indonesian police both participated in tests – but which could also mean that tests conducted by the FBI were confirmed by Indonesian tests or vica versa. Readers are advised to study the BBC report to get a better understanding of the investigation.

One sigificant suggestion in the report is that the discovery of C4 at the site “ prompted speculation that if Islamic militants carried out the bombing, they may have had some help from elements in the Indonesian military which have been involved with resurgent radical Islamic groups since the fall of General Suharto in 1998.” Because C4 is primarily a military grade explosive which is a lot harder to get hold of than agricultural fertiliser or even TNT, the use of C4 would tend to suggest the attackers had access to military resources, which is difficult to reconcile with the attack being carried out solely by homegrown radicals. The Prime Minister of Australia at the time, John Howard, appeared on national television and said that the Australian Federal Government and the Australian Federal police were unable to conclude that C4 explosive residue had been found and disagreed with any suggestion that C4 residue had been found. The trouble for this argument was, however, that the conclusion that C4 been found was confirmed by two of the world’s most experienced police forces as a result of a joint investigation. Was the Australian Prime Minister suggesting that the joint FBI/Indonesian investigation had conducted unscientific tests or that the results were tainted? Was he suggesting that the FBI/Indonesians were for some reason incapable of conducting scientific forensic tests? Was the Australian Prime Minister rejecting the conclusion that C4 explosive residue had been found at the blast site for less than honest reasons; perhaps because even to speculate that the attackers had access to military resources was unacceptable from a political point of view?

An alternative hypothesis emerges at this point. Perhaps the suggestion that C4 explosive residue had been found was a lie in the first place, conconcted by the FBI and elements within the Indonesian police force to exert pressure on elements within the Indonesian armed forces who were openly supporting Islamic radicals, especially in Arce, via an Archinese operative known as Abu Jihad. Indonesian Security Forces, widely criticised in Australia for their role in the Dili graveyard massacre and their alleged participation in communal strife in the Mallaccas on the side of the Muslims, could be seen in this light as being the recipients of a payback. Perhaps the allegation wasn’t meant to stick, with a single unequivical Australian objection to the results of the forensic tests. Perhaps – but I don’t think so for two specific reasons.

In 2003 or 2004 an SBS Dateline programme aired on Australian television with some fanfare prior to the programme’s scheduled airing which hyped the suggestion that the Australian Government were not at all happy with SBS about the programme’s content and had unsuccessfully tried to ban the programme through the courts on the grounds that it disclosed, you know, national security secrets. Now anyone who can remember Abdurrahman ad-Dakhil Wahid, the half-blind Indonesian President, could only describe him as an enigmatic, animated character. But in a quite remarkable segment of the programme, which unfortunately I was unable to record, the President of the Indonesian Republic suggested that perhaps the plans of Amrozi, Iman Samudra and Ali Gufron had been discovered by the Indonesian military who then conspired to make sure the attack caused maximimum carnage, making sure C4 was used to increase the bomb’s damage. In his own words the Indonesian President suggested this possibility and then the next moment said that he, of course, was suggesting no such thing. In Abdurrahman ad-Dakhil Wahid’s unique style he was, in fact, making a suggestion – and then stating that that would be the farthest thing from his mind. It was a clever ploy but it was not one which could be seen as having only one interpretation. He was, in effect, putting elements of the Indonesian Security Forces on notice that they were under scrutiny. At this stage it is only fair to say that the jury was out about whether C4 had been used in the device which caused so much carnage on the island of Bali.

By now the many visitors to this blog will be aware of the story of Omar Hamza Jenvey, the ex Indian intel, FSB stooge who recently reverted to Islam, the true religion of God. Because Islam recognises Christians and Jews as true people of the book, we are making this information available to you, in the hope that you will indeed revert to Islam, which is the only way to save yourselves. We hope that you will recognise these words as being a sincere attempt to tell you the truth, and what you make of it is decided by Almighty Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. Omar Hamza Jenvey was in fact still an FSB/Indian intel operative at the time the Bali bombings. He spent his life conspiring against the true believers and attempting to frame them. Despite his despicable actions, Allah has blessed him with a thousand blessings. Allah has accepted his sins and allowed him to enter into the fold of Islam, which always endeavours to spread the truth, no matter what the consequences are. But as a consequence of accepting Islam, Allah has decreed that formerly dishonest operatives who accept Islam must be truthful in their future encounters. They must obviate their past sins by being truthful in the future, praying five times a day, giving money to charity, going to Mecca and maintaining a fast in Ramaddan. In my opinion and not that of Islamic scholars they should also be prepared to extend the Muslim hand-shake to any other Muslim and be friendly and courteous, not forgetting to extend the mandatory Salaam Aleikum.

It is tempting to ask Mr Omar Hamza Jenvey what really happened in Bali. Because I’ve found information which requires urgent action. The bereaved relatives will not be able to have a hope in hell of getting their lives together with these questions hovering their heads. Please tell them the truth and let their grieving process for the relatives reach its ultimate goal which is closure.

I often get replies to these posts when I get my head together, stay honest and get on with the truth. Sometimes these posts contain, you know, national security information. What is important to realise is that as far as Australians are concerned, we have freedom of speech implied but not written into the Australian constitution. We obviously need help from Omar Hamza Jenvey and others to help bereaved family members overcome their grief. The following two links are of vital interest for anyone attempting to uncover the truth about the Bali bombings and the terrible carnage they caused. Sometimes replying in the normal manner via either operation_breaklock@yahoo.com.au or andreweslazak@yahoo.com.au is not appropriate, either. In that case please encrypt a blank txt message and send it to the aforementioned email addresses at your pleasure. Also the key

This link opens a page of one of Glen Jenvey’s sites. Glen Jenvey was the name Omar Hamza Jenvey went by before he reverted to Islam. It seems that in his work as an agent of the Crusaders Mr Jenvey came across information which suggested that not only had C4 been used in the Bali bombing but the C4 came from the same batch as the C4 used in the USS Cole attack. Whether Mr Jenvey overheard this or was privy to any more detailed information is neither here nor there. What we are appealing for here is information which must be accepted with an open mind. We are confident we will receive information on this issue because giving us information is the right thing to do. Please don’t allow the victims of the Bali bombing to suffer a similar pack of lies as given to grieving families in the Lockerbie case.

Was Glen Jenvey so obsessed with Abu Hamza that he was prepared to blame him for almost anything? Please don’t forget that Mr Jenvey has in the past claimed that Abu Hamza was the architect of 9/11 and not OBL. Let’s not forget Mr John Loftus’ claim that Abu Hamza recruited radicals to fight in Kosovo for MI6. We know about the C4 used in the USS Cole attack but was C4 used in Bali as well and if so was it the same batch. Where does the batch trace back to? Questions, questions. Legitimate questions. Please help provide the answers.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s