<< INGLORIOUSNESS PERCEIVED ~ MAIN ~ BUT ARE THEY DOLPHIN-FRIENDLY? >>
READER QUIZ
Spot the missing word in this Melbourne Age report.
UPDATE. Readers attempt to solve the mystery of the missing word:
The missing word is dissident.— Mr. Z
Evangelicals.—R.H. Hardin
I’m guessing Quakers; all that repressed hostility, seething below the surface- it was only a matter of time before they exploded in a frenzy of violence, mayhem and hymns.—Habib
‘Insurgents’ surely.—Jay Santos
Christian ... definitely christian.—Razor
I’m thinking it’s ‘Zionists’.—ArtVandelay
Does it start with an ‘M’ and end with an ‘uslim’?—Harry Buttle
It’s ‘Woodsmen’, we’re in a late run for the flag. It must be stopped.—Slatts
Those bloody Masons and their exploding billy goats?—Phranger
Poofters?—you bet
"The operation comes a year after Jack Roche, became the first person to be convicted under Australia’s new anti-terror laws. Roche, 50, was sentenced to nine years jail last June after he admitted he was plotting with al-Qaeda to blow up the Israeli embassy in Canberra.”
Cute. They made damn sure not to use the M-word throughout, but managed to slide in a barely tangentially-related paragraph at the very end about an Anglo terrorist conspirator. Wanna bet that paragraph wouldn’t have made it in if his name was Mustafa Akbar?
Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
The Age is obviously terrified of Judge Higgins. the editorial staff of the Age might join poor Daniel Scott in Jail although Jerry would surely pay the fine and avoid that.
Keep using the F word. That’s still legal in Victoria.Nalliah is a great guy and he needs our support.
As for those M***s planning to blow up Melbourne , will charging them become in itself an offence under the new laws since they were merely following their religious convictions?
Incidentally does anyone know the location of the Jihad training camps in Victoria?’Insurgents’ surely.
Isn’t that what Fairfax journo’s refer to as being anyone opposing the impost of the imperialist western infidel and their Golden Arches oppression.
Posted by Jay Santos on 2005 06 23 at 03:10 AM • permalinkI’m thinking it’s ‘Zionists’.
OT, in the ultimate Sod off Swampy news, you can now buy whale-burgers in Japan:
Burger chain adds whale to menu
Don’t these lefties get it? The louder they complain, the more likely people are to vote for Bush/Howard, drive SUVs, go to church, eat whales etc.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2005 06 23 at 03:33 AM • permalinkI haven’t even read the article yet, but let me guess - does it start with an ‘M’ and end with an ‘uslim’?
Posted by Harry Buttle on 2005 06 23 at 03:39 AM • permalinkI don’t know what “mon-existent” means, but you’d have to be either a raging partisan leftist or an idiot to deny the media culture is mostly left-wing.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 23 at 04:13 AM • permalinkgood one nic.
typical “we’re not guilty” leftie response.
plenty of evidence to the contrary.
hey mon!
Posted by Jay Santos on 2005 06 23 at 04:13 AM • permalinkPS, Muslim isn’t a race, Nic.
And if you are going to say that religion is irrelevant to this matter, I’m going to have to point and laugh.
Posted by Quentin George on 2005 06 23 at 04:19 AM • permalinkNic: Explain why whether or not these guys were Muslim is irrelevant. Do you always consider possible motive irrelevant in crimes? If the Age reported an assault case and neglected to mention that the victim was Asian and the suspects were members of whatever it is passes for the Klan in Australia these days, would you consider that irrelevant? What about if similar attacks were occuring on a weekly basis? Is it the job of a newspaper to decide which facts to report?
By the way #21, I’m not sure I subscribe to the idea that media culture in Australia is “mostly left wing”, and I am neither a raging partisan lefty nor an idiot. NEWS Corporation does after all run the majority of the major dailies. Replace “media culture in Australia” with “media culture in the Melbourne Age”, say, and I’ll nod vigorously.
The comma splice in the final paragraph gives it away, as well as indicating the role played by the
censoreditor.“Recent muslim convert,” (three words) would actually have been most accurate.
And Nic, btw, given that we’re all in the midst of a self-declared holy war/jihad by Muslim terrorists and that this case appears to be part of that ... um, yeah, it’s kinda relevant, y’know. If you doubt that, go to rural Saudi Arabia and yell “I love Jesus!” and see if it matters.
Yeesh. How old are you?
Posted by localharbor on 2005 06 23 at 05:10 AM • permalinkThey didnt mention Muslim, Arab, etc… So what? The race of the terrorists is irrelevant to the article. Stop whinging about the mon-existent “liberal media bias.”
When I first read this, I thought it was satire.
Though he isn’t afraid to mention that Corby is white.
Hey Nic White, that photo of yourself, pffffffft, did you actually strike that pose and choose that photo intentionally? Its Dr. Spock meetsWayne Kerr
I’m trying to figure this out. How is it racist to speak ill of someone’s religion?
If I say to a Zulu that his Christian faith is a fool’s errand, is that racist or even xenophobic?
By moonbat reckoning apparently yes.
Just what race am I casting aspersions upon if I dare to deplore the intentions of Islamist terrorists? Arabs? Malays? Both? Any race whose members include Muslims?
You might say that such ridiculous censorship and condescension is an insult to the good sense and humanity of Australian citizens but The Age does more than report the news. For my part I’m glad I am being protected from the the hate-filled mosque burner I know I must be.
Nic White, what ARE you on about?
“They didnt mention Muslim, Arab, etc… So what? The race of the terrorists is irrelevant to the article.”
Religious affiliation is not causally linked to race. One is a belief system one can change at will (unless one is Muslim, because your ex-fellow Muslims are directed by their ‘holy’ book to kill you for converting), the other is determined by the genetic makeup of one’s parents.
Can you spot the difference, old cod?
MarkL
canberraI was told it was because to disagree here was to be banned.
You were told wrong. The way to get banned here is to be excessively rude, incomparably dense, or insufferably ineducable.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 06 23 at 09:07 AM • permalink#42 I’m there, KK!
Can I dress as a bogan?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 06 23 at 09:18 AM • permalinkI’ll give the rugrat a mullet, too. And put her in the trakkie daks and moccos.
I’ll be the cheryl with the check shirt, acid wash jeans, nikes and winnie blues. Oh, and the spiky, bleached hair. And thongs.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2005 06 23 at 09:49 AM • permalink’The race of the terrorists is irrelevant to the article.’
Attention semi-/sub-literate commenter ‘Nic White’ - race is not irrelevant at all - although you probably meant ‘issue’ not ‘article’.
Then again, you probably didn’t.
Grammar and spelling-challenged ‘Ros’ is similarly afflicted, and suggests that she imagines that to disagree here is to be banned.
She is wrong.
Hah, this is quite amusing. Few points:
1. Terrorists are terrorists. They dont have to be Muslim or Arab. In the context of this article, it is unimportant for the writer to specify the race or religion of said terrorists. Doing so would only incite further racial/religious tensions by equating that muslim/arab = terrorist.
2. I said race because to many in the Australian population, Muslim = Arab and thats how it would be perceived by the readers.
3. If the media have a left-wing bias, then why exactly did all the newspapers in the country basically campaign for Howard in the election? Doesnt sound very left wing to me.
4. I made a typo, so what? As someone here once said, preview is for pussies.
5. Andjam, it was relevant in Corby’s case because it became a racial issue - the poor white girl vs the evil darkies.
Nic: Allow me to rephrase a little…
“1. Asian restaurant firebombers are firebombers. They dont have to be members of National Action. In the context of this article, it is unimportant for the writer to specify the affiliation of said firebombers. Doing so would only incite further political tensions by equating that National Action members = firebombers.”
What’s the difference? If there really is an association between National Action and firebombing Asian restaurants, or between certain Islamic doctrines and terrorism, how the hell are we supposed to find out about it? And who is responsible for deciding what facts are and aren’t to be reported? Given that it’s Islamic doctrine which is directly responsible for the terrorism of these individuals, don’t you think it might have some tangential relevance to the story?
Still, perhaps you’re right and the Australian population can’t handle the truth. Thank heavens then for “article writers”, who will absorb the facts of the case, then carefully select for the consumption of the unwashed masses those facts (s)he deems will not trigger a hate-crazed epidemic of racial violence.
The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims/Arabs do not want to commit acts of terrorism, while in your example the ratio is much, much different.
The article was basically saying that some potential terrorist suspects were being investigated… Does it matter what race/religion they are?
I think it’s “huge papier-mache’ protest marionettes”.
Posted by spongeworthy on 2005 06 23 at 02:11 PM • permalink1. Terrorists are terrorists. They dont have to be Muslim or Arab. In the context of this article, it is unimportant for the writer to specify the race or religion of said terrorists. Doing so would only incite further racial/religious tensions by equating that muslim/arab = terrorist.
Perhaps you could give us a long list of terrorist acts perpetrated in the last 10 years by someone other then a Muslim terrorist.
Crickets chirping, more crickets chirping.
Posted by swassociates on 2005 06 23 at 02:36 PM • permalinkPerhaps if “the overwhelming majority of Muslims/Arabs do not want to commit acts of terrorism” they could indicate this by turning in those who do, or by at least condemning them? Or maybe they could condemn those imams who call for the destruction of Israel or the Us or Christians or Jews or whatever. Perhaps they could show how peaceful a religion Islam is by helping to keep the killers out? Just a thought, nic.
Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2005 06 23 at 03:23 PM • permalinkAndjam, it was relevant in Corby’s case because it became a racial issue - the poor white girl vs the evil darkies.
Did any columnists, radio hosts or even bloggers mention Corby’s ethnicity?
Perhaps newspapers and tv should have randomly coloured Corby (green, perhaps) so that her ethnicity was unknown?
=1. Terrorists are terrorists. They don’t have to be Muslim or Arab. In the context of this article, it is unimportant
Since ETA the IRA and the Tamils have hung up their hats , i suppose one might argue obtusely that there is no need to mention or rather inform the public that they are Muslims. Unless of course a terrorist act is committed by the non Muslim remaining 0.5%.
= I said race because to many in the Australian population, Muslim
Nice to know that you consider yourself more knowledgeable that the redneck Australian population and BTW most of the world’s Muslims are second class NON Arabs. Orwell would have you working in the ministry of truth.
As for Corby and Woods it is obvious that they do not qualify for the status of “VICTIM” , the holy state reserved for non whites and haters of America and Howard.
Of course when David Hicks returns to Australia he will qualify instantly and will be whitewashed and lauded by the left.Nic White,
Whether their religion matters depends on whether their religion motivates their terrorism, or is merely coincidental. Stating that a particular member of ETA is a Roman Catholic would be irrelevant, but calling him a Basque is not.
If these terrorists only happened to be muslim and were motivated mainly by the Palestinian issue, then they could well be described as Pro-Palestinian terrorists and leave the religion out of it. But as it appears their motivation was Islam, then the term to use is Islamic Terrorist. Period.
The article was basically saying that some potential terrorist suspects were being investigated… Does it matter what race/religion they are?
Nic White, don’t be disingenuous. It is very likely these people are Muslim extremists. The public has the right to be given the facts, not talked down to.
I know I should thank you and the Age for protecting me from my ignorance and bigotry but I am quite capable of distinguishing ordinary Muslims from those who use Islam to murder.
I said race because to many in the Australian population, Muslim = Arab and thats how it would be perceived by the readers.
Nic, the contempt you and your mates on the left have for ‘many in the Autralian population’ beggars belief.
2dogs - spot on
Well I am not just grammar and spelling-challenged, I am also an appalling communicator. Hopefully though I am not insufferably ineducable. No, it wasn’t that I imagined to disagree here gets you banned. Rather I was objecting elsewhere to dissection and attacking of alternative views here expressed from a distance. I implied that snobbery was the reason individuals wouldn’t directly front here. The snobbery hint was countered with “people don’t front at Tim Blair’s site because disagreement with Blair gets you banned from commenting there”.
The use of the term you are mad has in this case reinforced the understanding that a colloquialism is acceptable in casual conversation but not in formal, written communication. I now see the value of those little smiling face things.Hope that has cleared things up and restored my RWDB status rather than the lefty moonbat label I appear to have inadvertently acquired.
“Terrorists are terrorists. They dont have to be Muslim or Arab. In the context of this article, it is unimportant for the writer to specify the race or religion of said terrorists. Doing so would only incite further racial/religious tensions by equating that muslim/arab = terrorist.”
Along with the majority of views here I think Nic is wrong and patronising Australians.
It was very striking that such care was taken to not identify the religious connections of the people raided. It was silly and in the end incites resentment. It implies that the problem isn’t that there are extreme views grounded in Islam that wish us harm, but that the problem is us racist Australians. And the media has the irritating habit of trotting out on these occasions some one who says that the worry is that there will be anti-Islamic prejudice as a result. Again as if concerns of the Australian public that they might get blown up are wrong, the big issue is that they are xenophobes. It further amplifies the gap between the “thinking people” and “those people”
Particularly silly as today we are told at length that Sheik Mohammed Omran is the cleric for some of the people of interest. Or TV broadcasts that hide a man’s face but not his beard.
They don’t have to be Muslim or Arab, but they are. The fact that the likes of the IRA or ETA connect with the Islamist terrorists isn’t an issue here. It is only the Islamists that threaten us. That is important. As others have asked would you have the same perspective if they had been informed by another religion, for example Ananda Marga. Or should that have never been mentioned.The way to get banned here is to be excessively rude, incomparably dense, or insufferably ineducable.
Yup, that’s about right. And no, you don’t get banned here for typoes (I’d have to ban myself); but if you really do believe that “preview is for pussies” then prepare to be mocked each time you make a misteak.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 06 23 at 09:30 PM • permalink"the overwhelming majority of Muslims/Arabs do not want to commit acts of terrorism”.Well that’s true at least in parts of South-Western Sydney but only because they’re too busy with other cultural pursuits such as pack-raping,drive-by shooting and that all time favorite,stolen motor vehicle re-birthing,not to mention an occasional dabble in drug importation and distribution.
’The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims/Arabs do not want to commit acts of terrorism .... ‘
How do you know that? maybe an ‘overwhelming majority’ don’t want to commit crimes themselves, but they certainly support those who do commit them. Sheik Whatever, who preached that women are responsible for their own rape, was applauded by the audience - hundreds of Muslims attend these ‘sermons’. That must be because they disagree so much with the sentiments being voiced ...
“The article was basically saying that some potential terrorist suspects were being investigated… Does it matter what race/religion they are?”
Yes, it does. From later headlines, we know that the people raided were Muslims, complete with books and pamplets spewing the usual backward bigotry we have come to expect. Australians have the right to know when members of the same religion are involved time after time in situations like this one.
The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims/Arabs do not want to commit acts of terrorism ....
Until we see evidence to the contrary that remains an opinion only. Muslims say they are all for peace and yet turn around and say death to the non believers.
Arab nations went to war against Israel 1 day after statehood, was that a minority of muslims that went to war?
PLO shot Israeli athletes at Munich, where is the muslim response decrying the PLO?
At least the Herald Sun Does not shy from calling a spade a spade.
Muslim books of hate sold
Liam Houlihan, religious affairs reporter
24jun05LITERATURE filled with hatred of Christians, Jews and non-Muslims is being sold at a mosque near a Melbourne home raided by ASIO.
Books sold at the store attached to the Brunswick mosque tell Muslims they should “hate and take as enemies” non-Muslims, reject Jews and Christians, and learn to hate in order to properly love Allah.
The texts say Muslims should learn military tactics and suggest that if a person speaks ill of Islam it is acceptable to kill them.
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15714027%5E661,00.htmlOh and you can get a signed copy of the “protocols” there too…
Perhaps you could give us a long list of terrorist acts perpetrated in the last 10 years by someone other then a Muslim terrorist.
Acts committed by PETA, ELF, Earth First, and other Enviro-fascist groups come to mind. And I seem to recall some actions by groups claiming to represent Original Americans, but don’t quote me on that one. ACT-UP has come close to the line a few times. The acts of Eric Robert Rudolph were most certainly terrorism, although his are just barely within your ten year window. Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols are just outside that window.
The overwhelming majority of terrorist acts in the last ten years (in the US, anyway) have been perpetrated by the left. Another reason they identify with the Jihadists. (Deny that! Please!)
(These guys have been quiet lately.)
Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 06 25 at 03:32 AM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I don’t know: Arab? Moslem? Islamist? Then again, it might not be anything to do with Arabs, despite the East Brunswick address.