December 28, 2003
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
AFP reports:
An Egyptian man has been jailed for seven years after being found guilty of manslaughter in the deaths of 353 boat people off Australia in 2001.
A Cairo criminal court sentenced Moataz Attiya Mohamed Hassan - also known as Abu Quassey - to five years for "homicide through negligence" and another two for aiding illegal migration, court officials said.
This will be deeply confusing to the propagandists who were convinced that the Australian government was responsible.
UPDATE. SIEV-X believer Tony Kevin writes in comments that he is “not confused at all” and asks: “The interesting question now is - will your website print this response?”
Well, I guess it already has, seeing as Tony’s already posted the same comments four times. No crushing of dissent! And here’s a link to Tony’s site, for what it’s worth.
Posted by Tim Blair at December 28, 2003 01:52 PM"The court heard that Hassan charged 400 asylum-seekers, mainly from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, $US1000 ($1361) each to be taken to find work in Australia."
I thought they were supposed to be fleeing deadly persecution?
Posted by: Michael at December 28, 2003 at 02:54 PMTim,
I am not confused at all. This Abu Quassey trial was clearly a travesty and the light sentence subject to appeal reflects that fact. THe Egyptian court danced to the Australan Federal Police's tune from start to finish. Tell me, why were there no survivor witnesses testifying ? Why did the whole trial rest on six boxes of AFP written testimony? Why was the trial held in secret? What evidence was produced to support a light charge of "accidental" manslaughter when the overwhelming weight of public newspaper reporting at the time was of a deliberately overloaded boat with armed senior Indonesian police helping Abu Quassey press-gang terrified people on board an unseaworthy little boat? This was a disruption exercise - a planned deterrent sinking, Tim. The Australian Senate knows it. And the truth will out.
Thank you for the indirect publicity for the websites www.sievx.com ( Marg Hutton) and my site www.tonykevin.com.
The interesting question now is - will your website print this response ?
Regards Tony Kevin
Posted by: tony kevin at December 28, 2003 at 07:39 PMTim,
I am not confused at all. This Abu Quassey trial was clearly a travesty and the light sentence subject to appeal reflects that fact. THe Egyptian court danced to the Australan Federal Police's tune from start to finish. Tell me, why were there no survivor witnesses testifying ? Why did the whole trial rest on six boxes of AFP written testimony? Why was the trial held in secret? What evidence was produced to support a light charge of "accidental" manslaughter when the overwhelming weight of public newspaper reporting at the time was of a deliberately overloaded boat with armed senior Indonesian police helping Abu Quassey press-gang terrified people on board an unseaworthy little boat? This was a disruption exercise - a planned deterrent sinking, Tim. The Australian Senate knows it. And the truth will out.
Thank you for the indirect publicity for the websites www.sievx.com ( Marg Hutton) and my site www.tonykevin.com.
The interesting question now is - will your website print this response ?
Regards Tony Kevin
Posted by: tony kevin at December 28, 2003 at 07:39 PMTim,
I am not confused at all. This Abu Quassey trial was clearly a travesty and the light sentence subject to appeal reflects that fact. THe Egyptian court danced to the Australan Federal Police's tune from start to finish. Tell me, why were there no survivor witnesses testifying ? Why did the whole trial rest on six boxes of AFP written testimony? Why was the trial held in secret? What evidence was produced to support a light charge of "accidental" manslaughter when the overwhelming weight of public newspaper reporting at the time was of a deliberately overloaded boat with armed senior Indonesian police helping Abu Quassey press-gang terrified people on board an unseaworthy little boat? This was a disruption exercise - a planned deterrent sinking, Tim. The Australian Senate knows it. And the truth will out.
Thank you for the indirect publicity for the websites www.sievx.com ( Marg Hutton) and my site www.tonykevin.com.
The interesting question now is - will your website print this response ?
Regards Tony Kevin
Posted by: tony kevin at December 28, 2003 at 07:39 PMTim,
I am not confused at all. This Abu Quassey trial was clearly a travesty and the light sentence subject to appeal reflects that fact. THe Egyptian court danced to the Australan Federal Police's tune from start to finish. Tell me, why were there no survivor witnesses testifying ? Why did the whole trial rest on six boxes of AFP written testimony? Why was the trial held in secret? What evidence was produced to support a light charge of "accidental" manslaughter when the overwhelming weight of public newspaper reporting at the time was of a deliberately overloaded boat with armed senior Indonesian police helping Abu Quassey press-gang terrified people on board an unseaworthy little boat? This was a disruption exercise - a planned deterrent sinking, Tim. The Australian Senate knows it. And the truth will out.
Thank you for the indirect publicity for the websites www.sievx.com ( Marg Hutton) and my site www.tonykevin.com.
The interesting question now is - will your website print this response ?
Regards Tony Kevin
Posted by: tony kevin at December 28, 2003 at 07:39 PMthe deaths of 353 boat people off Australia in 2001.
I understood that the SIEV-X sank about 80km off the coast of Java, near the strait between Java and Sumatra, a good 1500km from mainland Australia.
That puts it "off Indonesia", doesn't it?
Posted by: Peggy Sue at December 28, 2003 at 07:54 PMTony sK eems confused about one thing. The number of times you have to press 'post' to get your message to turn up.
"I understood that the SIEV-X sank about 80km off the coast of Java, near the strait between Java and Sumatra, a good 1500km from mainland Australia.
That puts it "off Indonesia", doesn't it?"
Stop it Peggy Sue! Indonesia is of absolutely no interest whatsoever in this story unless contextualised as part of the ongoing "Australia killed them!" saga of Tony Kevin! What were you thinking by posting this affront to conspiracists everywhere?
The fact that Indonesia harboured, supported, equipped and providored both the smuggled and the smugglers cannot, in any way, be relevant. The Indonesians can't be responsible for the consequences of their (in)actions in TonyWorld - only the Howard government.
I admit that Tony's...unusual... take on the Bismarckian span of Howard's influence, is a bit surprising. The man who allegedly can't see past the nature strips of 1950's Earlwood is "directing" judicial outcomes in far-off, new millenium, Cairo? Who knew? I thought no-one listened to him apart from Bush and Blair...
Posted by: Geoff Honnor at December 28, 2003 at 08:18 PM
Who the *%#@*" is Tony Kevin, Tony Kevin, Tony Kevin, Tony Kevin????
Posted by: Kate at December 28, 2003 at 08:43 PMOh, dear, here is Tony Kevin is at it again. He has been peddling these lies for a long time now, but has never produced a scintilla of actual evidence, mainly because there isn't any. This is just a paranoid fantasy, which, on the evidence of his post here, is getting worse.
The shame of it is that he has and continues to smear many decent, honest Australian police and navy people with this disgusting crap, and seems to have a considerable following amongst the idiot left, who are eager to believe anything bad about their own countrymen, but never condemn the actions of the true evil-doers, such as Abu Quassey.
Bluntly, Kevin, you should either PRODUCE REAL EVIDENCE of your smears (not mere assertions, and speculation) or shut the fuck up.
Don't fporget Robert Manne's "Our Humanity Sank with SIEV-X," Sydney Morning Herald, 24 June, 2003. Will Sanctimonious Bob now apologise?
Posted by: sue at December 29, 2003 at 12:36 AMI think Geoff Honnor hits the nail on the head. I thought we were supposed to be no more than US lap dogs under Howard, according to the left, but now somehow we are running prosecutions in Egypt, and successfully ordering the Indonesian armed forces around, to do our nefarious bidding. All this under a Prime Minister who was supposed to be destroying what little influence and power Australia had in the world! I never thought I would say it, but at least in this case I hope Tony Kevin's assessment is right, although I really, really doubt it.
Posted by: jimbo at December 29, 2003 at 12:42 AM
No offense to my Aussie brethren (and sistren), but exactly how much pressure could Australia bring to bear on Egypt to get them to "dance" to their tune? Or was Bush loaning them the resources of Halliburton, the Skull & Bones, and the chemtrail planes?
Quick question, Tony - what was Bush's turkey made of? Seriously. Tell me.
So Howard is now able to magically influence courts as far away as Cairo?
Is this some kind of pyramid-sales scheme?
I look forward to Tony linking the trial to not just Howard but the Freemasons, the Saucer people, the reverse vampires, and the Lindbergh baby kidnapping.
Posted by: Wilbur at December 29, 2003 at 12:57 AMTim,
"Ask not for whom the Bell Tolls" seems so applicable when it comes to the media. Depending on the bias inculcated and the lack of analytic ability of the common reader/viewer the media are getting away with murder so to speak.
Have a look at this post on LGF
Tony Snow: You don’t control your own television network?
Hanan Ashrawi: No, no. There is no censorship or control on those and I never heard this speech, and I will have to take your word for it, although I would like to know your sources.
Seems the Plastic Turkey has come home to Roost!
Come in Houston, We have a Credibility GAP! :-))
"The interesting question now is - will your website print this response ?
Regards Tony Kevin"
Actually, that's not really an interesting question.
Posted by: ushie at December 29, 2003 at 02:16 AMUp to now, I wasn't aware that websites actually "printed" anything...
"And here’s a link to Tony’s site, for what it’s worth." I checked and, for what it's worth, it ain't worth the bandwidth.
Posted by: Fidens at December 29, 2003 at 07:25 AMnice 'site' tony! you'd get more interest if you had pics of nude chicks there.. it's a pity you have to troll at other more popular sites to drum up traffic isnt it?
Posted by: roscoe.p.coltrane at December 29, 2003 at 07:48 AMThe Australian government (via the AFP) co-ordinated it all? But the SMH now says that the Australian Government has "never, for example, indicated any interest in charging Quassey for the manslaughter of these people".
Posted by: Tiu Fu Fong at December 29, 2003 at 09:57 AMTony Kevin writes another chapter in the long history of fallacy:
The interesting question now is - will your website print this response
This is an almost perfect example of what David Stove calls the Ishmael effect: a proposition which entails it's own negation.
I am afraid that this impeccable illogic is a typical product of Dr Kevin's fever-swamped mind.
Alexander Downer sums it up beautifully Tony,"you are a crack pot". Oh, but I prefer the term nut bag...
Posted by: Eric Mole at December 29, 2003 at 10:10 PMTo address the central fallacy of Kevin's conspiracy theory: the People Smuggling Task Force was supposed to have conspired to engineer the demise of the SIEV-X, either by:
- commission (overloading)
- ommission (ovelooking)
Yet the AFP, the agency purportedly tasked to plan and coordinate mischief at the scene of the crime, was also the agency that recorded & transmitted the tragic embarcation & passage of the SIEV-X, thereby laying the paper trail for the Senate inquiry.
What kind of criminal sends an advance record of his crime to the cops?
I interviewed Kevin and posed this conundrum to him. He could provide no reasonable explanation for the AFP's dual role as villain and stooge.
When faced with a social bad it makes more sense to assume cock-up, rather than conspiracy. Posted by: Jack Strocchi at December 30, 2003 at 09:59 AM