<< NATIONS UNITED ~ MAIN ~ BAD POLL FOR BINNY >>
LEADERS COMPARED
Richard Ackland in the SMH:
What has been fascinating, though, is the way Blair has responded to this attack. Unlike Bush, Blair has not immediately looked to invade someone.
What did Ackland expect – an aerial assault on Leeds?
...And unlike Saddam, Blair hasn’t run away and hid in a brick-lined hole in someone’s garden. What brilliant triangulation…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 14 at 10:01 PM • permalinkDo you guys write letters to the editor? You should. I got printed in the Age today and am quite proud of myself.
The SMH claims it prints letters pro/con in proportion to those received. Proving that an empty vessel makes the most noise, their letters page seldom represents social attitudes (as repeatedly proven by letters page versus election results).
It would be nice to stack the odds a bit better. Even a shitty letter (i.e. terrorists are arseholes) may help someone else’s better letter get printed.
Derivatives of Tim’s brilliant introduction above are letters in themself.
Re #6
This is not quite true. Many years ago Evonne Chapman, the then Qld Minister for Family Services suggested that single parents be supported for only one child.
You can imagine the furore that that caused.The next day the Courier Mail’s letters page was full of letters overwhelming in support of Chapman’s stance.
The following day a letter was printed from a disgruntled reader complaining that the selection was clearly biased.
The editor added a note stating that about 600 letters were received and of those only 3 opposed Chapman’s proposal and those 3 letters were printed!!
So there you have it; 100% of lefty letters are printed.
:)
You’ve got to feel sorry for a guy whose career highlight was hosting Media Watch. In the meantime, it’s breathtaking to listen to all those ALP/media types, who all screeched at Howard not to send troops to Afghanistan in the first place, and who are now screeching at him that he ‘took his eye off the ball’, ‘cut and ran’, etc., by withdrawing them. Now that troops are going back, five minutes after the first SAS boot imprints Afghan soil, these same people will be screeching at Howard: “Quagmire - Vietnam - exit strategy, etc.”
You work for Unicef Keithh? Tell me, what percentage do you guys take for admin costs?
Posted by Lucky Nutsacks on 2005 07 15 at 01:35 AM • permalinkThe Australian military may not be appropriate for a terrorist attack in Australia - it would be more a police matter.
If the terrorists attacked from a base outside Australia then it might be a military matter if force was required - and if they target Australians abroad its still a police matter, the AFP played a major role in the Bali bombing.
“How do you invade someONE”
It’s a very sensuous, sexual military operation, let me tell you.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 07 15 at 02:13 AM • permalinkAckland - prize twerp. Without downplaying the gravity of the UK bombings there is a difference in scale here, which Ackland hasn’t noticed. Had the UK outrage involved flying a loaded 747 into the Tower of London I think we can assume Mr Blair’s reponse would be somewhat stronger.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 07 15 at 04:32 AM • permalinkUnlike Bush, Blair has not immediately looked to invade someone.
Ah, it’s good to be American!
Poor Blair… I bet the evil neocons who control him won’t even let him bomb a single Leeds mosque, let alone piss on a koran or two…
Posted by zeppenwolf on 2005 07 15 at 05:23 AM • permalinkThe day after Monday’s SMH’s double whammy of defences of, or at any rate laments for, compulsory student unionism, one of them slightly novel, it published no responses for CSU and none against, not even mine. So the 50/50 editorial balance rule technically held. No commentary is required, apparently, on some issues. When I wanted to respond to an RMIT journalism student (Jaspanism I suppose) defending compulsory student unionism on the op ed page of The Age a few months ago—with the excellent hooks that I was a longtime contributor to the paper and currently a student at his institution, a real-life victim—I was told the case was closed.
Blair is off my list of good guys.
His masochistic performance in the last General Election, maudlin blather on 7/7, willingness to coddle hatemongers in the name of multicultural piety and desire for a nanny state IC card have put his brave stand on Iraq more and more in the shade.
‘Nice’ boys from Leeds are blowing other people to pieces. What gives, Mr Blair?
Unlike Bush, Blair has not immediately looked to invade someone
er…how does Ackland know that? Is he privy to the discussions being held by Blair and his government over the issue? Or is he just making up this fact?
I suspect that if Blair has evidence that the terrorist’s were sponsored by an organisation that is quite openly being protected by the government of a country, then invasion is exactly what he is looking to do, and that country is in a whole shitload of trouble.Of course, all evidence seems to point away from this being a state sponsored attack, so it appears to be a moot point, not that that bothers Ackland apparently.
Weekday Age refused to publish my letters pointing out that one asylum seeker DID throw a child overboard (witnessed by about a dozen oz sailors - evidenced in senate hearings) despite running scores of letters sneering about mythical ‘children overboard’. Ditto my letter(s) on unreality of the ‘100,000 Iraqi dead civilians’ claims based on the study’s own ludicrous error margins, despite The Age publishing scores of letters referring to the 100,000 as fact.
When you see the media continuing to put out stories about SIEV-X as if it was some sort of dark conspiracy, and continuing to say that the children overboard was fake (as I recall EVERYONE ended up overboard in the case of that other SIEV, since those onboard scuttled it - the inaccuracy was not calling it the “everyone thrown overvboard” story) you have to wonder. The media continues to peddle the Tampa story WITHOUT the bit about the people who were picked up “using coercion to make the Captain change course” - er, isn’t that hijacking?
They are now retailing the Cornelia Rau story without any emphasis on this: that she has a history of “episodes”, and that she did her best to conceal her true identity after running away from an institution. Like giving a false name and speaking with a foreign accent. Her latest runaway event with Bob Ellis is further cause for concern.
Why would you write to the newspapers when their culture is so demonstrably partisan against the government? They are Trolls Writ Large, running their own shows. People need to give up on them and trawl for information on the www.My letter published in The Australian, August 18, 2004, is below.
THROWING THE FACTS OVERBOARD
‘Children overboard’ is truth not myth. The facts, however inconvenient, are that one child was thrown overboard (Vessel SIEV* 7, 24/10/01), and another asylum seeker made such determined efforts to throw a child overboard that he had to be handcuffed (SIEV 9, 31/10/01).
In the case of the notorious SIEV 4, asylum seekers wrecked the steering and engine on 7/10/01 and next day, unsurprisingly, the ship sank.
Navy people rescued 76 children from the sea. If the ship had sunk during darkness, children may well have drowned.
Distinctions between thrown overboard and dumped in the water are hardly material.
Tony Thomas, Ascot Vale
{Sources: David Marr & Marian Wilkinson, ‘Dark Victory’, and Paul Sheehan, ‘The Electronic Whorehouse’.) * SIEV = ‘Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel’.
NB To minimise wordage, I omitted the following facts: Threats by asylum seekers to throw children overboard were so common-place as to be virtually standard procedure when their SIEVs were intercepted. There was also at least one episode of asylum seekers ‘acting out’ a threat to throw a child overboard, using a real child but not dropping the child in.
Six months ago, the Sunday Age ran a severely-cut version of the above letter, with a sneering headline. Since then The Age has decided on several occasions not to publish similar letters from me, notwithstanding that it has been publishing anti-Howard ‘children overboard’ letter-taunts at the rate of up to six times in a single day’s Letters.
In the year to October 21, 2004, The Age made 191 references to ‘children overboard’, or 162 excluding at least 29 Letters that were almost universally attacks on Howard. The Age made only one purported attempt to analyse whether Howard lied about the ‘children overboard’ affair, by national editor Mike Gordon on August 21, and this did not even seek to define what the shorthand term ‘children overboard’ referred to. (The more ill-defined, the easier for Age writers to throw accusations about. What Howard-hating reporters are actually referring to by the term, ‘children overboard’, is mis-identification by defence wallahs, bureaucrats and advisers of a photo of SIEV 4 children in the water – not thrown overboard but dumped-in after the sabotaged boat sank; massive confusion and duck-shoving thereafter among said wallahs, bureaucrats and advisers, and public clarification by Minister Peter Reith immediately BEFORE the election day. )
The Gordon “analysis” was also written at the height of the public servant Mike Scrafton’s ‘lie detector-backed’ accusations against Howard, which were gloriously discredited later as soon as Scrafton was required to give evidence under oath and mobile phone records were produced. (That is, he had only two calls with Howard, not his alleged three, and his evidence became absurd when he alleged that his female friend had drunk “two very expensive bottles of wine” during one of the calls – which in fact lasted ten minutes.)
Even before this evidence was given, Mike Gordon might at least have wondered why Scrafton had made no written notes after such important calls to the Prime Minister. But Gordon was pre-occupied not with the facts of ‘children overboard’ but instead with opinion polls (as if they are ‘evidence’) and his own forecasts, all of which were wrong, eg that the issue would compel Howard to put the election back to November. The Age had been in pro-Scrafton hysteria mode before the Scrafton allegations were tested. Its reporters never informed readers of Scrafton’s ‘two bottles’ humiliation.
To be precise, reporter Mark Forbes on September 9 mentioned the two bottles. But he did not mention that on Scrafton’s evidence, the female friend must have drunk both in ten minutes. This is hardly a minor omission – the Scrafton issue had been touted by The Age as an election-decider. Actually I have a dim recollection that independent commentator Gerard Henderson may have exposed the Scrafton ‘two bottles/ten minutes’ debacle in a column piece in The Age – doing what Age writers failed to do.You see, Tim, for Blair to react as Bush did to this attack he would not have to attack Leeds. If he was to follow Bush logic, he would have to say “oh dear me, I’ve been attacked by people from Leeds. So logically I must
attackliberate Venezuela”.If your memory goes back a whole four years, you will remember that almost all of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. So of course we had no choice but to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yeah, it’s as silly as invading French colonies in Africa after the Japanese attack Hawaii. That would never happen.
I swear, some day we’ll get a lefty here who’s actually read a book.
Posted by John Nowak on 2005 07 15 at 10:02 AM • permalinkInurbanus — Reading is elitist; you’re just demonstrating exclusionist values against the followers of CS and Margo.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 15 at 10:13 AM • permalinkYeah, it’s as silly as invading French colonies in Africa after the Japanese attack Hawaii. That would never happen.
I swear, some day we’ll get a lefty here who’s actually read a book.
LOL, John! And you hit the nail on the head as well.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 15 at 10:18 AM • permalink“oh dear me, I’ve been attacked by people from Leeds. So logically I must attackliberate Venezuela”.
Not really. See Venezuala is a Spanish speaking Catholic Country, so, has less in common than Iraq and Saudi Arabia (both were ruled by Sunni Muslim Arabs).
You would have been better perhaps pointing to New Zealand, as a fellow English speaking Anglican country?
Regardless, your point was daft anyway.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 07 15 at 10:51 AM • permalinkAllright Quentin, looks like there’s a severe sense-of-humour deficiency in the brotherhood of Blair-readers. I chose Venezuela partly because of its obscurity but also because it has large oil reserves (and Saudi Arabia is too obvious). Of course, saying that Iraq is somehow a better connection because of the fact that it is ruled by Muslims is akin to saying that all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and the London bombings, which is the kind of racist attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.
I’m fully willing to accept that my point was daft. But my advice for Tim is: Ask a daft question, get a daft answer.
I’m fully willing to accept that my point was daft. But my advice for Tim is: Ask a daft question, get a daft answer.
And you accuse others of being
sense-of-humour deficient?
Advice for you Shay: read the post again. Tim’s “daft” question is fairly obviously a sarcastic response to Acklands completely daft (but typically moonbat like) comment that appeared to work on the equally daft assumption that the hometown of the British morons was the equivalent of the Taliban protected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan (sorry, that should be former Taliban protected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan)Shay: this makes less than no sense. You brought in the favorite phantom motive: oil. Is there oil in Leeds? BY your logic, Blair should bomb a fish and chips shop. There was oil in Saudi Arabia, but precious little in Afghanistan. The US chose to go for the terrorist camps, not the country the terrorists were born in. Is that an example of where the notPresident Chimp W. Hitler failed again? Or perhaps Dr. StrangeRove was behind it. “Let’s go for Afghanistan first! That way, they’ll never suspect our real motives!!” He didn’t reckon on Moveon.org and the rest of the Guardians of Truth dscerning his real intent.
Iraq falls in somewhere between the two, in terms of oil reserves, but that belongs to the Iraqi people, contrary to the opinions of Hussein, the UN, France and Russia, all of whom were more than eager to deal with Hussein and Hussein alone. Instead of looking for HaliburtonEnronWorldcomKeeblerLego monsters under your bed, perhaps you can have a chat with all those holding oil credits signed by “President” Hussein. They should look nice hanging on the wall next to framed Confederate currency or the Howard Dean election posters.
Yeah, it’s as silly as invading French colonies in Africa after the Japanese attack Hawaii. That would never happen.
Reminds me of the Lefty argument, “There couldn’t be an alliance between a secular socialist like Saddam and a religious fundamentalist like Osama.”
Why, that’s as silly as the idea of an alliance between a capitalist democracy and a communist dictatorship. Or an alliance between white supremacists and Asian imperialists.
Jeez. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to embarrass themselves with stupid arguments.
akin to saying that all Muslims were responsible for 9/11 and the London bombings, which is the kind of racist attitude that got us into this mess in the first place.
Pardon me, but exactly what the fuck are you talking about? What racism got us into what mess (leaving aside for a moment the obvious problem that Islam is not a “race”)?
Please explain. I’m dying to hear this one. I want your kaffir-animal-pig ass to tell my kaffir-animal-pig ass how our “racism” caused 9/11.
Shay—Venezuela is obscure only to insular little lefties who can’t see past the veranda of their usual coffee shop. We are well aware of Venezuela.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 15 at 02:16 PM • permalinkOr perhaps Dr. StrangeRove was behind it. “Let’s go for Afghanistan first! That way, they’ll never suspect our real motives!!”
Blue Hen:
Let me try to explain this to you. It’s really very simple. As the anti-war Left correctly points out, Bush went into Afghanistan for the Unocal pipeline, not for the terrorists, because the terrorists came from Saudi Arabia. See? Unjust war. Why didn’t he go after Saudi Arabia, huh?
Then he went to Iraq, which was for the oil, because again, the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, right? Plus, he took his eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, where the real terrorist threat, Osama bin Laden, is. See? Unjust war. Why didn’t he invade Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists came from, and why isn’t he concentrating on Afghanistan, where Osama is? And what about North Korea? Sure, they really had nothing to do with 9/11, but they’ve got nukes.
I know, it gets a little confusing - you’re saying, “But parts of the second argument contradict the first.” It’s easy if you practice. Pretend Bush invaded Saudi Arabia first - now you say, “It’s for the oil! Osama is in Afghanistan, and Saddam is far more dangerous with his WMD and record of using them! Oil oil oil!”
Or say he invaded North Korea - “They had nothing to do with 9/11! He’s after the [insert something here about something desired by his big business cronies and the Project for a New American Century]!”
You can reinforce these mental exercises with complementary physical ones. I suggest going to a local football field and moving the goalposts around. Or, you can scream, cut off your head, and run around in circles with your arms flapping.
Hope this helps.
I chose Venezuela partly because of its obscurity but also because it has large oil reserves (and Saudi Arabia is too obvious).
Here we go again. “It’s all about the OIIIIILLLL!”
Shay, a few questions for you about Venezuela which don’t involve religion, language, or even hemisphere: Has the leadership of Venezuela ever employed WMD against its own people or anybody else? Does Venezuela stand in violation of multiple mandatory UN resolutions? Has Venezuela attacked and/or invaded any US allies? Has the leadership of Venezuela violated a ceasefire with the US? Has the leadership of Venezuela ever taken out a contract on a US President? Does the leadership of Venezuela support and/or shelter terrorists?
If you can find a country on this planet other than pre-OIF Iraq where the answer to all of these questions is ‘yes,’ (regardless of oil reserves) then you can prattle on claiming President Bush liberated the wrong countries. Not before.
Surely the correct response to the london bombing is sorting out madrassa regions in Pakistan? In tracking and razing all the unregisterd schools we’re hearing about lately, that all these mobots seem to have attended prior to their crimes.
After all, we can use their own rants against them. If it is true that Britain “took away the Kaliphate, invaded Iraq” blather blather then it is also true that Britain created the state of Pakistan which enables terrorism to breed. It seems only fair that the Brits and allies should go in and departition it, so to speak.
The fact that Pakistan seems to be sacrosanct and immune to response, because of their now extremely tenuous Commonwealth connection, needs to be changed and quick.
Action in their ancestral homeland will make trendy young Pakistani terrorist mules in the UK stop and think about whether they should go splodey. Come to think of it, there ought to be a high profile comb over of Jamaica too, they are well represented among the nasties.
It’s a novel idea but it could just work. In the words of the Stranglers, “Something’s gotta change”.
If lefties think Iraq “inflamed” Muslims how the fuck do they think Muslims would take the idea of American troops patrolling the streets of Mecca and Medina?
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 07 15 at 07:38 PM • permalinkUmmm…. yeah Quentin. Have you ever heard a lefty promoting an invasion of Saudi Arabia? The invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama et al are all an invention of the right. If American troops patrolled the streets of Mecca I doubt there would be many moderate Muslims left.
Thank you Achilles for that roundup of the “reasons” posited for the Iraq war. You forgot “Saddam plays golf every week with bin Laden” and “They hate our freedom”. Having read such a list it appears that there is no choice but to invade Israel. (No, wankers, I’m not promoting it. I’m just saying that if the rightist sense of justice was to be rid of its hypocrisy that would be fair).
AStext was a little more on the ball. We’ve got a nascent military dictatorship in Pakistan, the perfect breeding ground for more of the same. No, again I’m not supporting an invasion, but if our leaders would start pressuring Musharraf instead of turning a blind eye in exchange for his support in the war on terra, the future might be brighter. What we DON’T need is pathetic toadying to that clown, the likes of which we saw from John Howard recently.
And as for every other commenter… this argument’s already been had for more than two years and watching you all attempt to explain away the latest unrest, torture, massacre of civilians and evidence that the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic. Folks, it’s time to face reality - your boys made a dreadful mistake and people are paying for it in Baghdad, in London and well into the future.
I remember Shay’s daddy in December 1941, calling for the US out of Hawaii…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 15 at 08:05 PM • permalinkrichard mcenroe
Right. I’m excluding do-nothing appeasers, supporters of fascist butchers and multi-culti trendoids who think that murder and oppression is someone else’s ‘culture’.
Hitchens latest piece in ‘Slate’ has some trenchant things to say about such attitudes. http://www.slate.com/id/2122395/
There has been a great deal of nonsense published in the last week to the effect that an alliance with the United States can put other countries like Britain in the position of being “targeted.” Why deny this? I reflect on what was not done at Srebrenica, and on what ought to have been done in Rwanda, and on what was put off too long with the Taliban and the Baathists, and I think what an honor it is to have such enemies. Co-existence with them is not possible, which is good, because it is not desirable or tolerable, either. The Srebrenica memorial stands as enduring testimony to that inescapable conclusion.
The invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama et al are all an invention of the right.
Vietnam: Fought for 7 years by Democratic Presidents before Nixon came in in ‘68. Yep, an invention of the Right Vietnam was!
Grenada: Cubans and homegrown Commies take over the island and promptly start building runways capable of handling flights by bomber aircraft. Reagan just invaded it because he was a mean cowboy. From the right.
Afghanistan: You don’t consider Osama to be an extreme religious conservative, he’s just a fellow progressive fighting against American imperialism, how is that a war from the right?
Iraq: Saddam was a fascist yes… although secular fascism is more the province of the Left. So far you’re 0 for 4 Shay! Let’s try Panama… Might you manage 1 for 5?
Sorry Shay, Noriega played both ends of the table. I’ll give you .5 out of 5 though.
Your idiotic babble about Pakistan is ignorant in the extreme. Musharraf and the loyal parts of the military are the only thing keeping that country from turning into another Iran. We tried democracy in Pakistan, remember? It didn’t work. Too much corruption. The country wasn’t far from going completely into the shitter when Musharraf took over. Sure, let’s take our support away from him so the more AQ-loving parts of the military intelligence over there blow Musharraf up and throw a parade down Islamabad’s main strip complete with Osama riding on a nuclear-tipped missile as the centerpiece. Is there any reason liberals are so mind-numbingly idiotic?
Torture, massacre of civilians, unrest, whole country going to hell in a handbasket… sounds like a fair description of Iraq under Saddam. But hey, at least it’s fairly easy to say “Terrorism is the fault of the USA,” it takes less time to type “Terrorism is the fault of the terrorists.” No wonder you lose elections when you act so superior and spew such obvious bullshit.
Shay, Shay, Shay - so much stupidity, I don’t know where to start. But first - where’s my answer to my post #53, buddy? I’m dying to know how “racism” caused 9/11.
watching you all attempt to explain away the latest unrest, torture, massacre of civilians and evidence that the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.
Oh, well, please, let me try:
Now, first of all, I have to explain a concept foreign to your ilk - the concept of “lesser of two evils.” That’s a grown-up thing where you have two bad alternatives, and pick the less-bad one, because the world isn’t perfect like children expect it to be. Got that? So here we go:
unrest
Kurdish and Shi’ite rebellions under Saddam, put down (with chem weapons) at terrible cost.
torture
Talk to Saddam and Uday’s victims about this one. Uday dug 12-year-old girls, y’know. Real torture here, Shay, not frat-house level hazing. Stuff that makes your stomach churn.
massacre of civilians
See above. Thousands. Tens of thousands. Hundreds of thousands. The mass graves have been dug up, but your lot doesn’t give a shit. Ten thousand or so accidental civilian deaths by the US is a tragedy, a hundred thousand executions by Saddam is a statistic, eh?
and evidence that the whole country is going to hell in a handbasket
Categorically wrong, dumbass, to anyone who is paying attention. The economy is surging, they just had their elections, and polls show the clear majority as optimistic about the future. Servicemen coming home keep saying the same thing over and over - “It’s not like you see on the news.” It’s the mark of a weak and easily influenced mind to be so swayed by pictures on the evening news, Shay. BTW, an FYI for you in case you’re worrying - no, not all attractive white women in America are being kidnapped, and shark attacks are rare, I repeat, rare, so the oceans aren’t going to hell in a handbasket, OK?
Folks, it’s time to face reality
Please, you first.
your boys made a dreadful mistake and people are paying for it in Baghdad
A hell of a lot less than compared to under Saddam. And how are the Kurds and marsh Arabs doing by comparison, Shay? Don’t they count?
in London and well into the future.
People in the West are going to die because they support abortion rights, women’s rights, gay rights, freedom of (and from) religion, and don’t worship Allah. What are your positions on these subjects, Shay? Al-Qaeda declared me their enemy for that stuff. Guess what - so are you. Appease and excuse all you want, they’ll just kill you last.
Time for you to face reality.
Appease and excuse all you want, they’ll just kill you last.
No, in fact if the Islamists were given the choice, I suspect people like Shay would be first up against the wall…or rather, first to lose their head to the guys with the rusty machetes. Remember, they want to kill as many of us as possible; weak people make easier targets.
Shay: Thank you Achilles for that roundup of the reasons posited for the Iraq war.
ooooo, look, “scare quotes.” Of course, your complete inability to mount a counter-argument against those reasons makes it hard to get scared. Maybe I’ll work on it later. Next Tuesday, perhaps.
Shay: You forgot Saddam plays golf every week with bin Laden and They hate our freedom.
Well, the first is pathetic example of a strawman that only gets trotted out by moonbat leftistas flailing around in desperate search for a distraction from the rhetorical arse-kicking they’re receiving. And the second is true, but largely secondary in the question of ‘Why Iraq?’
And I see Dave S. has fisked the rest of your nonsense bloody.
Is that the best you can do?
#15. Gee, keithh, that seems a little intemperate coming from an Australian Youth Ambassador employed by UNICEF. I thought you guys in the caring game were meant to be more compassionate. Maybe you’re the odd one out.
Whatever. I don’t hold a grudge. You’re obviously one in a million. Number crunching down there at 75th Street in Phnom Penh does, I know, make you one of the more qualified readers to have a go at Cuckoo (#11) for dissing Mr Ackland. And your own career highlights are impressive, I know.
It’s a small world, China. You’d be surprised who drops by this site.
After 25 years in Asia running my own business, I’ve come to the conclusion that people like you have had an overall negative effect on people’s lives. Go home, China; tell AusAID/UNICEF to hand out your wage in small denominations in envelopes to Cambodians on the street. The money will do more good.
IS BRITAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR Failing to protect its subjects?
Wii the British realize they have been seriously betrayed by their own government and its attendant media?
It is not Britain’s contribution to the war in Iraq that has made it a target, but its long term refusal to come to grips with the huge problem of ISLAMIC extremism. A problem it has refused to face and act upon because of its obsession with progressive multiculturism and the political correctness that comes with it.
it is precisely this that has made Britain a target for the Islamic terrorist.
The idea of the rebirth of Britain as a tolerant melting pot of cultures rising out of the ashes of the old racist imperialism was one that had to be totally accepted. No negative side to this noble idea was allowed to be considered. Anyone challenging it was ostracized as a racist.
So Britain became the undisputed center of Islamic terrorism of Europe. British terrorists planned strings of attacks throughout the world, such as the tourist bombings in Egypt, suicide bombings in Israel, the thwarted Richard Reid shoe bombing ,the murder of NYT Richard Pearl, the Ricin plots and others.
And the BBC kept the lid on my making documentaries claiming terrorism was a"figment of the public’s imagination perpetrated by nefarious right wing sources.
Britain allowed its firebrand clerics to burn effigies of George Bush, the British flag, the Israeli flag in the streets of London and even supported them with generous social security payment whilst they plotted and planned. And they even protected them from extradition to countries were they were wanted on terrorism charges. They effectively gave the jihadists carte blanche to do what they liked providing they acted abroad. Was there a covenant in which it was agreed that Britain would not be touched?
In this respect the British government has acted irresponsibly in not only allowing its subjects to become victims of horrific murder but allowing other European countries to become targets of British based terrorists.
As result Britain is now peppered with large Islamic enclaves which can easily harbour terrorists of the same ilk and now has little chance of averting further attacks as and when the terrorists think they are necessary.
Islamic terrorists in Britian are indeed needles in a mountainous hay stack, but fortunately In Australia the Haystack is much much smaller and our security forces will hopefully be able to find them.Shay or Che?
In the seventies the Brits welcomed many to their shores.This despite the fact that they immediately displaced the most desperately badly off on the top of the social security housing lists.
People coming to live in Britain were encouraged to retain their culture but become part of the British population,loyalty and pride in Britain being encouraged and sought after.
Would any host country with any sense advocate any other course.
The first people in the 70s I think were from Uganda,escaping the murderous Idi Amin, 30,000 came through Standsted airport.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
1. The Brits are already there.
2. All their deployable forces are already deployed.
3. They don’t have much else left. The mad Chancellor Gordo Brown cut the funding for the regiments, the Navy’s frigates and the last of the Navy’s Harrier jets…