"I’m interested in seeing where everyone takes this."I thought it was a great idea, and posted a few comments. I was fully embracing the concept and thought my comments might get things moving. For example:
Why does Miranda Devine have a column in the Fairfax media? Has it got anything to do with the fact that her father Frank Devine was a journalist who knew a lot about corrupt police officers and politicians?But then I stepped into a taboo zone. Or maybe two taboo zones. The comment I wrote has been deleted in its entirety, unfortunately, but it was something like this:
Why does Gerard Henderson have a column in the Fairfax media? Has it got anything to do with his position at a prominent Australian rightwing thinktank? Who funds that thinktank anyway?
Why is Greg Sheridan still the political editor of Rupert Murdoch’s flagship newspaper in Australia? Has it got anything to do with his close contacts with rightwing politicians around the globe, or vice versa?
Given that the attacks of 9-11 "changed everything" and ushered in huge changes in civil rights, social, military, espionage, legislative and judicial spheres, why did the Bush administration strongly oppose the setting up of an independent enquiry into the attacks? Why did Bush refuse to appear in front of the commission without VP Dick Cheney beside him? Why did Condoleeza Rice hide and then repeatedly deny her own culpability in not foreseeing the attacks? Given that professional engineers have raised serious doubts about the way the towers collapsed, why has the US government not launched further enquiries? Has there ever been any official investigation into the reported decision to "pull" Building 7?Etcetera, etcetera. But here's the bit that got me into trouble:
John Howard was in the USA on the day before the attacks, meeting with Rupert Murdoch and George W. Bush. It is a coincidence that his words to the press on the day after the attack were almost perfectly in synch with the US neocon agenda:"In many respects, yesterday marked the end of an era of a degree of innocence following the end of the Cold War and a decade in which it seemed as though things which posed a continuous threat were behind us. But regrettably we now face a possibility of a period in which the threat of terrorism will be with us in the way the threat of a nuclear war was around for so long before the end of the Cold War. I think it is as bad as that and I don’t think any of us should pretend otherwise.“
Is it just a coincidence that prominent Jewish Australian businessman Frank Lowy took out commercial leases on the WTC retail area shortly before the attacks? Is it a coincidence that Frank Lowy, now the head of Soccer Australia, has signed over to Rupert Murdoch's FOX TV exclusive broadcast rights to The Beautiful Game?(For the record, I am not the only soccer fan who sees that deal in a very negative light - check the comments here).
It wasn't long before Phil and regular LP administrator Kim were on my case. Then someone called Klaus K stepped in:
"I’m scanning through the thread, and suddenly there are references to the ‘international Jewish conspiracy’. What is going on here?"It took Kim a few minutes to even work out what Klaus K was talking about, but eventually she got it.
"If you want to do conspiracy theory by insinuation based on someone being Jewish, then I suggest you take it elsewhere Gandhi."Now, I can understand LP's caution here. And not just because Frank Lowy is Australia's second richest man. But I am just asking an honest question here, something that's been on my mind for some time, and I don't think the question itself deserves to be so quickly dismissed.
Lowy owns Westfield, the shopping mall giants. This is from his Wikipedia entry:
"In May 2001, Westfield paid $US127 million for a 99-year lease on the retail area beneath the New York World Trade Center. In September 2003 it received $US17.3 million as a party in the insurance claim following the terrorist attack on the twin towers."Actually, the Herald article from which that info comes suggests that the $US17.3 million may not be the entire insurance payout, and that Westfield was getting out of the WTC site thereafter.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey handed over control of the World Trade Center to Lowy and another Jewish businessman, Larry Silverstein, less than two months before the attacks.
Silverstein and Lowy are good friends, and Silverstein has been a director of Lowy's Westfield America since May 1997. Silverstein is connected to the Zionist elite in Israel in numerous ways, most notably via his close association and friendship with no less than three former Israeli prime ministers, namely Benjamin Netanyahu, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Barak. Silverstein is especially close to Benjamin Netanyahu who was in New York on the morning of 9/11...Now maybe that would not all be so suspicious except for the fact that so many of the US neoconservatives just happen to be Jewish, the neoconservative agenda just happens to massively favour Israel, there are huge links between the neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby in Washington, and the FBI has even convicted several known Israeli spies for their work in this space. Google the name Larry Franklin for more info.
Phil opened the thread to questions and I am just asking the question. It's not like Lowy has never been associated with a major scandal:
"In May 2007 it was reported that Lowy faced Israeli police investigation over a corruption scandal involving Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, he was relieved of all charges following an investigation and all charges were dropped."But that's just the top of the story when it comes to Frank Lowy and 9-11. Anyone who thinks I am being anti-Semitic should read this and this, then get back to me with any further comments.
For the record, LP deleted my further comments seeking to explain myself on this issue. The irony is that this LP thread was supposedly a discussion of the mainstream media's failure to focus on the important but ignored angles of major stories. I have asked Mark Bahnisch to respond.
UPDATE: In retrospect, I should not have called Lowy a "prominent Jewish Australian businessman". I should have just said "prominent Australian businessman". Of course, being Jewish is not the real issue here - it is being a Zionist.
I was being lazy. But if I had said "prominent elderly Australian businessman", would readers jump to the conclusion that Lowy's age was important to the story? If I had been talking about a "prominent Catholic Australian businessman" in the context of a story where terrorists attacked the Vatican, would my comments still have been deleted? Isn't it weird how you cannot even mention the word "Jewish" (unless, of course, you are known to be a Jew yourself).
In fact, I cannot remember but it's quite possible that I just cut-and-pasted the entire text "prominent Jewish Australian businessman" from some story about Lowy. Whenever you read a positive story about him, the fact that he is Jewish is always prominently displayed. Funny that.
