My Lexical Attack on the Terrorism Problemo
by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

What a wonderful day to wake up in Australia, July 30, 2016, and read the news from Canada and France. All our troubles are over! This is a double miracle!

1. A Judge in Canada has ruled in favor of two persons who were falsely accused of plotting to blow up the provincial legislature in 2013. She – Justice Catherine Bruce – saw that it was an entrapment by the police. Oh my!

2. French newspaper Le Figaro has uncovered a notice sent to police in Nice after the truck attack: “Delete the recordings between July 14, 2016 22:30 and July 15, 2016 18:00” (and police refused to obey!) Thank you, Le Figaro. Merci, Gendarmes.

I am going to argue here that we have been in need of quick terms to help our brain categorize the criminal behaviors of government. Already the term “false-flag” has proved useful. Now we can have KOLODIZED to mean “made to look like an Islamic terrorist.”

And there should be a new word for “destruction of evidence by the authorities.” It was France’s Anti-Terrorist Sub-Directorate that ordered the deletion of surveillance tapes at Nice. The French noun for cleaning is nettoyage. So how about “the evidence has been NETTOYAGED” -- in any country.

1. The Canadian Case of Amanda Kolody

It seems that a couple has been in prison for 3 years for supposedly attempting to blow up a building (not any building either – it was the legislature of British Columbia). The man’s name is John Nuttall and the woman’s is Amanda Kolody.

I won’t choose the man’s name for my new terminology, since “to nuttallize” could have other connotations; let’s go with “to kolodize.” You kolodize someone when you first indoctrinate them into Islam – or, if they already hold that faith, you radicalize them – and then set them up for a crime.

In my opinion, many people have been kolodized. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, comes straight to mind. He was a worshipper at the Finsbury Mosque in the UK, which everybody says is a veritable branch of MI6. It has graduated umpteen terrorists. (I’m being funny but this is not funny.)

As for the Canadian couple, Kolody and Nuttall, they’ve now had their conviction overturned by Justice Catherine Bruce. Oh how important it is that a JUDGE and not a lesser mortal issued the decision!

Straightaway I googled her name and found this charming biography at Historyproject.allard.ubc.ca:

Her Honor, with a Sense of Humor

"Catherine Bruce's prodigious energy is the envy of many of her friends. Last year [1997] she ran a marathon in under four hours. This goes some way to explain the fact that she went into labour with her second child while riding a bicycle.

"One of her most endearing qualities is her ability to bring levity to her interactions with others while displaying a legendary candour described by one of her friends as "hit them in the stomach and then laugh".

"When she was interviewing [to become an apprentice lawyer], a senior partner presented her with a book about the firm. She was then left alone while he went for coffee. On his return half an hour later, he asked whether she had any questions and she asked: "Do you have 25 cents? Because it cost me that to get here on the bus, and it wasn't worth it."

Justice Bruce makes me feel sorry for all the judges who could have scooped her by revealing entrapments.

If I recall correctly, in regard to the bombing of the World Trade Center basement in 1993, the judges had all they needed to declare a kolodization. They could have done so and become beloved heroes in America. C’est dommage, judgeiepoohs.

The Entrapment

The BC judge ruled that the Nuttall-Kolody couple were drug addicts who did not have “the mental capacity” to carry out the plot. She said the RMCP – Royal Canadian Mounted Police – had “skillfully engineered” them. (This is reported in Newstalk770.com).

The Crown lawyer Peter Eccles (oops, I think crown lawyer may soon enter the “terminology” also!) proclaimed:

“They [Kolody and Nuttall] are also quite capable of committing murder of somebody for an ideological purpose, which they were very keen to do and were dissuaded from doing, they are quite capable of random attack.”

(Are drug addicts ever “keen” to do anything?)

Luckily, there was a real defense lawyer who noted:

“Providing him with religious advice and encouraging him to commit crimes. The proof is in the pudding, why did he have to do that. Because he was expressing qualms about acts of violence being in accordance with Islam, so they isolated him, and disparaged Imams …” [Emphasis added]

Dear God, he expressed qualms!

Of course “providing him with religious advice” is what Brzezinski admits the US did – for a mere $80 billion – in Pakistan in 1980-ish, to get the mujahidin set up for military action in Afghanistan.

(Note: if you are not old enough to remember that business, which supposedly had to do with a capitalist-communist confrontation, don’t worry -- any natural confrontation can be utilised. The recent terror event of Dallas, for example, builds on people’s natural sense of racial confrontation.)

By the way, I just looked up mujahidin and got this from the FreeDictionary.com:

1. One engaged in a jihad, especially as a guerrilla warrior.

2. One of the Muslim guerrilla warriors that resisted the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s with the support of the United States and Pakistan.

Etymology: derived via Persian from Arabic mujahid, one who fights in a jihad.

Not to be confused with a kolodin: one who “fights” in a “jihad” if you know what I mean.

2. The French Method of Cleaning Out a Camera

Le Figaro reportedly got its mitts on a notice in which the feds asked the city authorities to delete “completely” nearly 24 hours of the attack captured by video cameras on the Promenade des Anglais.

Also it said: destroy any camera recordings – presumably private ones – that captured “the crime scene.”

(You may recall that the FBI, or was it the Boston Police, or are they the same thing, told the public, after the Marathon bombing, to look only at official videos of the crime, none of your home-movie stuff.)

Just as it matters that it was a JUDGE that put things right in regard to entrapment (the rest of us could yell about it till we’re blue in the face), it is vital that Le Figaro presented the actual GOVERNMENT INSTRUCTIONS to destroy evidence.

The “terrorist attack,” right there on the French Riviera, consisted of a large white truck hurtling down the boulevard, hitting anyone who was there for a celebration of – wait for it – Bastille Day.

CNN, on July 15, reported the French president’s evaluation of the attack:

We cannot deny that it was a terror attack," Hollande said in a national television address. He added that the choice of the day -- Bastille Day, when France celebrates its post-French Revolution republic -- was particularly poignant. He said that the day is a "symbol of liberty," and that "human rights are denied by fanatics and France is quite clearly their target."

Straight out of Bush’s libretto (except maybe the gem “Human rights are denied by fanatics.”)

I won’t put you through the embarrassment of the story of a man who said he drove his motorcycle right up to the terroristique driver and attacked him. He explained his survival by the convenient fact that the truckie had run out of bullets.

One man’s video was allowed to survive, however – that of Richard Gutjarh who lives in Germany -- and who also filmed the Munich “terrorist” disaster, in a shopping mall. Gutjahr shows the truck driving past his balcony in Nice.

(See Malcolm R Hughes' article of July 29, 2016 at GumshoeNews.com about the strange travels of Gutjahr.)

Everybody knows that in the 9-11 attack on the Pentagon, by Barbara Olson and others, there were plenty of CCTV cameras owned by the Defense Department, and also some owned by adjacent private facilities such as a gas station. Did their “footage” play any part in our identification of AA Flight 77 that was piloted by hijacker Hani Hanjour? Not on your Nellie.

How Do Anti-Terrorist Laws Work?

Gosh, Dee McLachlan of Gumshoe News got it right, on her first try, when Australia’s attorney-general, George Brandis proposed legislation to punish journalists who would reveal “special operations” (Note: that was on September 25, 2014, right after the Bella Vista incident.)

McLachlan wrote:

What was passed in the Senate (with bipartisan Labor support):

Australian spies will soon have the power to monitor the entire Australian Internet with just one warrant, and journalists, whistle-blowers, and bloggers will face up to 10 years’ jail for ‘recklessly’ [!!] disclosing classified information.

Are the crimes of 9-11 deemed “classified”? What happens if the intelligence operation being exposed is detrimental to the well being of the Australian community? That doesn’t matter. The rights to disclose secret criminality in government are gone.

Rejoicing All Over the Place

As I said, the two July 2016 developments are a miracle, a double miracle. A judge in Canada has slammed down on entrapment, and a leading newspaper in France has said “Enough already” with regard to destruction of evidence. Goodonya, Catherine Bruce and Le Figaro! God love ya, police!

My belief is that we should pin these two historic events down right away by naming them. I mean give them a name that can become part of everyone’s mental furniture. Then the words can be used to undo all the horrible lies of recent decades. Saints be praised!

To repeat, the verb “to kolodize” (named after Amanda Kolody) will mean the range of activities from recruiting jihadists, to finally convicting them of a terrorist attack. Do I want to put Martin Bryant in here? It may be helpful, but let’s limit it for now to Islamic stuff.

We can immediately see the relevance for the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris, attributed to Algerian Muslim brothers Said and Cherif Kourachi (who were then killed by police in a warehouse).

I’ll bet emphasizing the kolodization of the Kourachis would also cause a re-think of the “suicide” of Paris police commissioner Helric Fredou. His Mom had said “No way.”

As for the verb “to nettoyage,” it will mean to dispose of incriminating evidence – evidence, that is, which would incriminate the government. Here we don’t have to stick with the Islamic theme.

And of course we should note that destruction of evidence is a felony (felony indicates a crime whose punishment is imprisonment).

Gonna be some big crowds in prison soon! And gonna be some serious clearing of the bench! Young law students, you may get to be a judge way before time, owing to the sudden loss of the judicial population.

In any case, I hereby declare today, July 30, Gotcha Day.

In this video, from last November, i named some events that may now be relabeled "kolodizations"

-- Mary W Maxwell is the author of Fraud Upon the Court, and co-author, with Dee McLachlan, of Port Arthur: Enough Is Enough.

The forgoing article was published today by me at GumshoeNews.com. The link below is to a catch-up article on the subject of the Lindt Café siege in Sydney (in 2014), the Inquest of which I have been attending.

https://gumshoenews.com/2016/07/24/lindt-cafe-inquest-part-10-the-lead-up-to-the-siege/