The rationale behind this series is not in defence of 1MDB.
Rather, it is to bring to light the fact that schemers behind the smokescreen have been conjuring conjectures that have vilified our country, our government and the prestige of all who are Malaysians.
Concerned individuals need to realize that any opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information is abominably absurd.
To that end, one must realize this whole issue of 1MDB has become a moral trajectory.
Firstly, endorsing stolen emails or documents by hosting these in a website does not mean the host is innocent of any crime or that the host of that website is on a moral crusade for Malaysia.
How can it be as that host of SR is a British citizen? It defies logic why a British citizen would fight tooth and nail for issues that pertain to Malaysia and a Swiss citizen. Oh – I forgot that Swiss national is ‘their former colleague’ as described in 'their' post.
It almost seems as though there is an emerging trend where certain mercenaries are ready to go to extreme lengths to tarnish the image of another country, as long as the price is RIGHT or if the directive is from their boss/bosses.
Secondly, it highlights the questionable morals and ethics of all parties that support SR and its ilk despite the following:
a. SR has openly admitted to be in possession of stolen emails/documents.
Feigning innocence about the tampering of the documents does not absolve them of the cybercrime of being in possession of stolen goods, electronic documentation in the form of three million emails, which they have yet to publish. What is the legal implication of such an act?
According to this site:
The offence of property obtained by crime is made up of two parts. First, a person charged with this offence must be in possession of property that was (or was partly) gained by theft, fraud, or any other crime. Second, the person must have known that the property was stolen or gained by fraud. Also, if the Crown can show that it was obvious that a reasonable person would have thought the property was stolen and the accused failed to investigate whether it was stolen or not, he can be found guilty of possession of stolen property.
If a person is found in possession of something that has recently been stolen, they may have to provide an explanation for why they had the object to avoid guilt.
b. Ask yourself: Does this mean those who support Sarawak Report, regardless of class, status or prestige are openly condoning this form of cybercrime committed against an international company and used to damage the reputation of all implicated in 1MDB, especially the PM, government and the economy of Malaysia?
By their posts and comments, Sarawak Report and their supporters are openly endorsing and encouraging cyber theft.
c. Despite committing an international crime of this nature, SR, its team and supporters have threatened to to sue detractors when they have posted such disparaging remarks on a range of authorities locally, regionally and internationally.
Devoid of a moral compass, they insist they are right, and all (including 1MDB, the government and all at large) are WRONG.
Thirdly, it reveals the ruthlessness of Sarawak Report and its accomplices.
Instead of admitting it exploited a breach in cybersecurity via allegedly Justo to pursue its agenda of toppling the status quo in Malaysia, this group has no scruples whatsoever in how they have gone on to defend Justo, even to the extent of revealing very personal photos of Justo and its family in 'their' website.
Not only have they infringed the privacy of PetroSaudi, they have now done the same to their ‘former colleague’, Justo.
Evidently, they will stop at nothing until they get what they want.
All this while, 'they' have been conjuring conjectures on unverifiable evidence which are yet being constantly endorsed by different personalities, groups and media, each who slowly but deliberately reinforce (by sheer force of repetition) the wrong perception projected to Malaysians continuously.
This website puts it beautifully:
There are people who in spite of looking at airtight evidence like you have seen on this website, still can’t see the truth. Here’s the dynamic that is working.
A good stage hypnotist can take 100 people out to the middle of a redwood forest and convince 90 of them that there are no redwoods to be seen. As the result, 90 people won’t be able to see any redwoods at all. The other 10 who refuse to be hypnotized can still see the trees.
The 90 people who are under mind control will think the 10 people who still see the redwoods are “crazy”, “insane” or “nutjobs” or “conspiracy theorists” not realizing or even being able to realize, it is they, themselves, the 90% people who are the deceived ones…...Sound familiar? How can this be?
Psychologists use the term Cognitive Dissonance to explain the brain’s inability to consider opposing evidence in a large part of the population. Governments intentionally create this disorder in the population. That’s how they can get away with creating events like 9/11. If the population in general didn’t have Cognitive Dissonance, governments could never stage events like this.
How Cognitive Dissonance is created:
The easiest way is Repetition. Repetition is also heavily used by cults. The human mind is not a computer. It is a biological organ that can do some logical processing. It is actually more based on pattern recognition than on logic, and that’s something that cult leaders have learned (through pattern recognition) that works on people. Advertising and propaganda work the same way.
There is the BIG LIE fact that if you tell a lie over and over again that people will start to believe it.
Cult leaders exploit that using repetition so that their message is always in the top of the mind. Their message then interconnects with the rest of the individual’s life experiences and connects itself deep into the individual’s self identity.
It is like a poisoning of the mind where repetitive belief becomes dominant and rational thinking atrophies. (more at this link)
Think carefully about this whole issue. Does it all make sense to you?
Coming up next: Chapter 3: Why Justo? Why Thailand? Stay tuned!
P.S. I just checked the SR site and it is now offline at 10.25 a.m.
* the post they put up last night about their letter from Reed Smith LLP to Protection Group International has been removed.
P.S. I just checked the SR site and it is now offline at 10.25 a.m.
* the post they put up last night about their letter from Reed Smith LLP to Protection Group International has been removed.
WHY?
If you missed Chapter 1: Checkmate, read it HERE.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment