The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info -----------------------
Last updated on August 9th, 2017 at 01:03 pm
East Timor is being forgiven like Iraq never is, writes Andrew Bolt:
Even as our soldiers guard refugees cowering in church yards, still no commentator sneers that it all shows we were crazy to liberate East Timor in 1999.
No one is saying these 900,000 East Timorese just aren’t cut out for democracy. Nor is anyone saying the toppled dictator—Indonesia’s old president Suharto in this case—at least kept the killers under control.
No, East Timor is allowed to make mistakes without having its new freedom questioned the way it is so gleefully with Iraq.
That’s because leftists supported East Timor’s liberation, about which they’ve since dodged and weaved and made up whatever story supports their lunatic world view.
(Via Don Surber and Instapundit.)
- Really! Must you link to a Robert Fisk interview while I’m eating?Posted by paco on 2006 06 01 at 11:42 AM • permalink
- A great editorial by Andrew Bolt. I was thunderstruck by this quote from Bob Ellis: “I mean, I assume Saddam, a ruthless, ambitious fan of Stalin, did bad things and killed a lot of people in his time. But kill them pointlessly? I don’t think so. He was too shrewd for that.” A perfectly vile statement, worthy of Ellis’ (apparent) intellectual mentor, Walter Duranty.
As long as there’s a point to it. Well, of course there was a “point”, Bob. It’s called “terror”, as in “reign of”. The state employing violence to so thoroughly intimidate its citizenry that the state’s opponents are paralyzed with fear and uncertainty, thus rendering effective anti-state measures impossible. A tinfoil hat is bad enough, but the one Bob is modeling is as big and gaudy as one of Carmen Miranda’s fruity headdresses.
- RebeccaH—A leftie told me way back when that America was in fact culpable for East Timor’s plight because the Ford Administration in the 1970’s adopted a hands-off approach and continued to do business with Suharto. So either way, we suck.
Also, didn’t Australia’s assistance in liberating the East Timorese piss off Osama enough to “create” more terrorists? Because that’s what the US is supposedly doing in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We should never do anything to offend terrorists.
- “Still, the East Timorese aren’t Muslims, are they? And their liberators weren’t Americans. Big difference.”
Pretty much explains it all, no?
Though Bolt’s argument gets pretty confusing bringing in the issue of Rhodesian liberation from the British Crown and the overturn of the aparthied regime in South Africa.
Mugabe wouldn’t show up in any of my arguments as the poster boy for freedom, and there are a lot of Marxists in South Africa’s recent history—including those spouting some pretty interesting theories (conspiracies) regarding the AIDS epidemic.
- Lateline and 7.30 Report love that good old boy Harlan Ullmann. He delivered for Jones last night:
“You cannot solve a political problem with military means”, or words to that effect.
Apart from the screaming hypocrisy of that statement in the light of the methods of Zarkawi and others in Iraq (and elsewhere), I thought military means generally cut in when the political means were in tatters?
- Actually the US had a crucial role in the liberation of East Timor. The intervention would not have been contemplated, let alone attempted, if the US had not pathed the way. The manoeuvre itself had US logistical support and my memory is there just happened to be substantial visiting US military on a “training exercise” in north Queensland at the time. Certainly President Bush could not have been clearer about what was expected of the Indonesian military.
Just how that one fits into the world view of the lickspittle “Left” I will not attempt a thought. Never happened I guess. Down the memory hole.
- #3 Paco, nobody in Australia, not even leftists, takes Bob Ellis seriously these days, either a thinker or a stylist, and his output has pretty much sunk to letters to the editor, some of which admittedly do get published. He had a bit of literary energy once that was mistaken by some for talent and intelligence, but now he’s just an aging, confused fat man.Posted by Consuela Potez on 2006 06 01 at 06:30 PM • permalink
- I’ll be the first to play devils advocate.
Firstly, some commentators have sneered that the liberation of Timor in 1999 was a bad idea, or at least have major problems with how it took place:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19257912-7583,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19255937-17301,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,19286334-7583,00.html
Secondly, according to the CIA world fact book, East Timor has the LOWEST per capita income in the world. According to the SMH they also have the highest birth rate in the world. We now have a little Africa on our doorstep. This is still better than if Indonesia had never invaded Timor in the 70’s, in which case we’d have a little Cuba on our doorstep.
Thirdly, we need to be honest about what sort of Indonesia we want in the future. It is a very…..multicultural country to say the least, just think of the Javanese as occupying 90% of the government, 10% of the surface area and forming 50% of the population. You’d want some Lebensraum too if you were one of 130 million people stuck on some crappy little island.
When Suharto left office, it was like Yugoslavia without Tito. If we were to continue to encourage the Balkanisation process in Indonesia, as we did with Timor, it would be disastrous.
Do we want a little pair of pirate infested Afghanistanins in Aech and Riau? Another PNG in West Papua swallowing another $300+ million of our aid money every year? Little Israels in Bali and the South Moluccas who’ll need to be heavily armed in order to save them from angry Muslims? Are we going to let in a million Chinese-Indonesians when they start to get slaughtered (again)?
I actually supported Howards decision to intervene in Timor, I still do. My problem is that there are two sides to this story and the media havn’t been doing their jobs for a long time, which is why this unrest in Timor seems so shocking and unexpected. Maybe I should start a “Bad news from Timor” blog.
- The US supported Indonesian imperialism for a long time and is more than slightly suspected of having had a hand in the slaughter of the ‘Communists.’ If you are near a depository library in the US, try to dig up copies of a weird magazine from that era called ‘Indonesian Communism’ and tell us what you think of that.
AussieJim may be correct, from the Australian point of view, about a ‘balkanized’ East Indies, but the other word for balkanization is ‘self-determination.’
That used to be an American principle, up to 1919. There’s been no end of trouble since we abandoned it.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 06 02 at 02:35 AM • permalink
- The logic of equating the cause of the East Timor conflict with the cause of the Iraq conflict is, of course, unshakeable. I just have one thing to point out:
East Timor was liberated to prevent the wholesale slaughter of innocents by armed gangs allied to a foreign power.
In Iraq, the invasion has actually catalysed the slaughter of innocents by armed gangs allied to a foreign power (it starts with an “i”).
- There are very simple difference between East Timor and Iraq.
East Timor was occupied by Indonesia. Iraq was not occupied by anyone.
In East Timor, the perpetrators were the Indonensian military and paramilitaries. Once they were gone, no bases were built and we left. In Iraq, the perpetrators were the leadership. They are gone, and now we are fighting Iraqis themselves, bases are buing built and we have no plans to leave.
The objective in East Timor was simple. The purpose remained the same from beginning to end. In Iraq, the objective/rational was based on lies, it changed repeatedly.
- By all means, check out Addamo’s wonderfully unbiased source of information (information clearing house).
Here’s something from their mission statement:
“This website does not suggest that it contains the “truth”. The truth is a combination of all information and all facts relating to a topic. It is therefore unachievable (in my opinion) for anyone to say “I know the truth.”
If you came to this site in search of “the truth” you will be disappointed.”
Just the facts ma’am. Or rather, all the “facts” that you can stomach from the likes of Noam Chomsky and his ilk. No, we don’t claim to know the truth, but we can give you all the ideologically self-serving “facts” you want. Incidentally, does it matter whether they are “true” facts?
- I’m amazed Marky had time to stop by and comment, what with his busy schedule of marching to protest the 400,000 dead at Muslim hands in Darfur…
oh, wait a minute…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 06 02 at 10:58 AM • permalink
- #20:
Q: What’s the difference between a brutal dictator and an ex-brutal dictator on trial for crimes against humanity?
A: The U.S. Marines (among other allied forces)
Let’s look at Marky logic: (1) there is sometimes evidence that atrocities have been committed by military personnel; (2) therefore, in the absence of said evidence, it can be concluded that military personnel always commit atrocities. Presumption of guilt until proven innocent. You know, I can at least comprehend an out-and-out totalitarian: he’s after power and is willing to found his system on a mountain of corpses to reach his goal. A flagrantly evil thing that is to be resisted at all costs. But I really don’t know what to make of the cut-rate, knee-jerk, armchair kommissars and the lickspittle apologists for foreign despots who look about this great, wide world with all its multifarious examples of suffering, oppression, genocide, and torture and see nothing but the bloody hand of George Bush. This is a moral and intellectual astigmatism of astonishing – and in my view – inexcusable proportions.
- 21. The Age writer cited by Andrew Bolt opined that arguably Iraq could only be held together by a monster. I hope you are held by a monster.Posted by chinesearithmetic on 2006 06 02 at 12:07 PM • permalink
- #26 paco,
<snip>…I really don’t know what to make of the cut-rate, knee-jerk, armchair kommissars and the lickspittle apologists for foreign despots who look about this great, wide world with all its multifarious examples of suffering, oppression, genocide, and torture and see nothing but the bloody hand of George Bush. This is a moral and intellectual astigmatism of astonishing – and in my view
– inexcusable proportions.Thank you paco. I came to have my say about that piece of excrement and that little “joke”. And then I see that Adammo has shown up as well.
My mind is sputtering right now. I don’t ususally let such people anger me with their stupidity. I’m old enough to know better than to give them importance. Thank you for saying what I wanted to so well, better than I could have managed at anytime, but especially right now.
Snarky and Adumbo – and all their friends – had better hope that the Marines – and all their friends – do not decide that their countrymen are no longer worth defending.
In Iraq, the objective/rational was based on lies.
What lies, Addamo? The lies Clinton and Gore told? The lies the British and French intelligence agencies told? I assume you’re talking about WMD, which EVERYBODY believed Saddam had. So, if everyone believed this, but George Bush was telling “lies”, then it stands to reason that George Bush is the only one who knew the truth. Which means he is either supernaturally omniscient, or a 99.99-percentile genius who could make an analysis of the data that nobody else could.
Every time you lefty tools say it was a “lie”, you lie. Or you’re idiots. Hell, you’re both.
- Salty: I know just how you feel. #20 was just about the vilest specimen of leftist bilge I’ve ever seen in the comments section here. And almost as revolting is Addamo’s, “Good point, Marky” (say that out loud, once or twice; the very sound of it reeks of asshattery). I had cut Addamo some slack (or so I thought) in the past; that last exchange of love notes with Marky has now changed that for good: it was as explicit a statement that U.S. Marines – all U.S. Marines – will kill innocent civilians as long as they think nobody’s looking as you’re likely to see. They’re just two moonbats, grooming each other baboon style, devouring one another’s ticks. I leave them to their feast.
Why am I even bothering to have a debate with this clown?
You have a thing for big red noses and squeaky shoes?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 06 02 at 04:19 PM • permalink
it was as explicit a statement that U.S. Marines – all U.S. Marines – will kill innocent civilians as long as they think nobody’s looking as you’re likely to see.
Speaking of which, the
circle jerk of lying scumbagsdocumentary Winter Soldiers is now on DVD. I’ve seen it mentioned with capsule reviews in USA Today and my local rag. Neither bothered to mention that it was thoroughly debunked and discredited. But hell, nobody in the MSM did during the 2004 presidential campaign, either, when one of the stars of the film was in the public eye for a while.
- I’d like to know what the objection is to having long-term U.S. bases in Iraq or Afghanistan? We kept U.S. troops in Germany and Japan for sixty years, a boon to their economies and a relief to their neighbors. What’s so special about the Middle East that they can’t benefit the same way?
Or is that not really the point of the objection?
By the way, Marky #20, you are beneath contempt.
- Goddamn it, Marky, you with the so-cute nickname, you foul excretion, you lowlife moron—come on and say it: “What is the difference between cameras being on a gay and not being on a gay? Jeffrey Dahmer.” “What is the difference between cameras being on a black man and not being on a black man? John Allen Muhammad.” What is the difference between cameras being on a mother and not being on a mother? Susan Smith.”
You foul little college boy, I know your type: “Ooo, I burned a tiny flag! I’m so brave! The pigs would arrest me if it was illegal!” “Ooo, I have a condom in my pocket! I’m such a stud!” “Ooo, I bet I really fazed my lit prof when I used the word ‘cunt’ in class! I’m such a badass!”
You are so far beneath the contempt of any military personnel, you aren’t even worthy to lace their boots. What the hell have you ever done in your entire empty existence besides mock your betters and harass those you perceive as lesser than you?
I can see you at the pub tonight: “Man, I went on this wingnut blog and man, I totally reduced the whole fucking imperial lying war to a joke, man, and totally fucked with the Marines, man, I am such a tough stud (why won’t any of these chicks suck my dick? I hate that Wendy. Cunt. Laughing when I whipped out my gleaming pink fucktool. She’s such a dyke), seriously, man, you gotta go read this, I totally fucked with their minds! Their little fucking redneck minds, man! And if any Marines read that, they know I think they’re scum, man, scum! Seriously, go read it! And get me another beer while you’re up, my student loan check’s late but it’ll be here in a couple weeks, seriously!”
Go jack off to Derrida tonight; he won’t mock your completely average if-that dick. Tomorrow, you can write a paper about how you fucked with The Man, man.
Oh, and hey, I bet you’re one of those twats who screams and moans about the gov’t’s getting phone numbers as violating the Constitution, man. How do you feel about the presumption of innocence? Man.
- It amuses me the way these guys lurk around here until one of them can work up the courage to leave something obscene on the doorstep and ring the bell. They won’t be far. This kind of person never is. That why cops always check out who’s at the funeral of a murder victim.
This new type of forum brings out the best and the worst in people. We have just seen an example of the worst. Deliberately and callously offensive, so ignorant it is breathtaking and more than anything else cowardly beyond words. As gutless as a stuffed jellyfish in a flower child’s Kombie.
Never mind. There are more than enough examples of the best of people on display here to make it worthwhile.
- Let me get one thing straight !
I fully agree with and support the opinions of Mark Steyn, Daniel Pipes, Charles Krauthammer, David Horowitz, Tim Blair (he’s so funny!), Andrew Bolt, Keith Windshuttle, Greg Sheridan, Piers Akerman and Christopher Hitchens but I can’t stand his older work.I can’t stand the shit by Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Patrick Cockbrun, Naomi Klein, Phillip Adams, Paul McGeogh and I really, really hate John Pilger.!!
So can’t we just be friends?
- Marky,
Who the hell cares which columnists you like and which you hate? Who cares that you are so ignorant that you would write such a stupid post?
If you were standing in front of me, I would box your ears for giving insult to the people who put themselves between you and some nutter with a bomb around his belly or a knife at your throat. You don’t insult your betters and you don’t spit on your protectors. You did both. Off to the ninth ring of hell with you.
Where’s Andrea?
- #39 Marky:
It doesn’t matter what and who you read. What matters is what you actually believe. If you are only guilty of making a thoughtless and stupid joke, that is one thing; I myself once did that when my brain was on a 15-minute break, and was roundly – and properly – trounced for it. If you don’t really believe marines are opportunistic murderers, then say so and acknowledge your mistake – your horrendous mistake, by the way. On the other hand, if you are only reciting the names of conservative authors in the belief that they will act as “magic words” to sooth the ire of the other commenters – i.e., if you are engaging in a cheap trick to try and prove that we don’t care what you say as long as you’ve got the right “credentials” – then that would truly place you beyond the pale.
- Get back to working on a computer virus or hiding webcams in toilets or whatever it is you people do to get your rocks off these days.
Oh and don’t forget to show all your mates your work here today. People should be given fair warning about your character. You haven’t shocked anybody. People like you are as common as diarrhoea.
- I only posted that joke in the vain hope some of you psychos would go into shock……..I didn’t expect to be so richly rewarded. Paco, Post #39 was a cheap trick. I only wanted the “magic” to continue. Consider me beyond the pale. It was fun.
Get a professional to analyze this paragraph for you. Someone who gets his “fun” this way has some serious problems.
- Ah, Paco, it’s because he has never done anything in his dullass life except “ooo, act like a badass” as long as acting like a badass doesn’t actually jeopardize his physical safety or anything. There’s nothing outside his narcissistic view that affects him in any way. So, he can come here and insult Marines, men who actually put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us, and feel perfectly gleeful because, hey, none of us could find him to smack him one anyway.
Plus, he’s better than we are because oh, he’d never smack anyone. Except maybe a girl. A girl who was smaller than he was. And if he did, he’d have a bunch of excuses rationalizing the deed, having something to do with “equal rights” and such.
You just know he defies his Mom, but not enough to really upset her, just enough to make him feel like a wild young stud. And he says things when he’s drunk that could make people really mad, but then he gives them that shiteating grin, and he thinks he’s disarmed them with his wit and charm, but actually they thought, “Aw, hell, this sumbitch would probably actually press charges. Screw it.” Or, “Hell, he ain’t worth me skinning my knuckles.”
And you know he’s never going to do a thing in his entire life that doesn’t center around him.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
