Reporter schooled

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 July 21st, 2017 at 03:06 pm

Kathy from Austin reviews the news:

God, I just love John Howard. His news conference with Tony Blair has been playing on all the cable news channels here in the states. As is typical with these gatherings, a reporter asked the Australian Prime Minister a dumb ass question that indicated blame should be placed as usual, on the victims due to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Howard hit it out of the park in blunt, no nonsense language. He pointed out that 9/11, Bali and other atrocities had been committed PRIOR to Iraq and that in fact, OBL had tied his hatred of Australia to the East Timor operation. He then went on to school this stupid reporter about his tendency to blame victims instead of the terrorists. Tony Blair was left to respond that he agreed “100%” and could not have said it better. John Howard: ya gotta love a guy who calls a spade a spade.

Glenn Reynolds saw the same press conference, and wonders if Howard and Blair haven’t read Jim Bennett’s book.

Posted by Tim B. on 07/21/2005 at 11:20 AM
    1. Howard, Stop it!

      Australia will fill up with Brits emigrating from Blairistan before I too can jump ship.

      Posted by Rob Read on 07/21 at 11:34 AM • #


    1. It’s been a long time since I posted here, but I wanted to stop by to say I saw the same press conference and was highly impressed with John Howard.  In fact, I was cheering. 

      While Blair stuttered a bit and tried to avoid the question poised by the bimbo reporter, Howard jumped in with both feet.  I think we can bestow the honorary title of “Texas Cowboy” on Howard.

      Posted by Kelly on 07/21 at 11:37 AM • #


    1. I’m in London, scene of the disaster!
      79-5That’s bowling terrorism.

      Posted by Rob Read on 07/21 at 11:50 AM • #


    1. Unfortunately



      But England should only be down about 100 on the first innings – which I would have settled for at the start.

      Posted by rexie on 07/21 at 12:01 PM • #


    1. I saw the interview. Paul Bongiorno asked the question. Howard’s awesomely articulate reply was a forensic tour de force.

      Bongiorno actually directed his question to “both prime ministers” but after Howard’s reply, Blair remarked wryly, “well I agree with that 100 per cent.”

      Posted by C.L. on 07/21 at 12:06 PM • #


    1. 92-7

      You’d be getting worried if you had tickets for day 3.

      Posted by sam on 07/21 at 12:10 PM • #


    1. Oh, just wait for the outraged squealing and popping heads from the left.  Music to my ears…..

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 07/21 at 12:18 PM • #


    1. Anybody got a link to a transcript of the interview?

      Posted by rexie on 07/21 at 12:25 PM • #


    1. Good for Howard, and may he continue to show up such reporters for the lefty parrots that they are. We really shouldn’t be bothering about the “why”; let’s just focus on the “who” and the “where”.

      Also, if anyone out there can provide the name of a handy book on cricket rules, let me know. I keep running into the game in books all the time (everything from Sasoon’s, “Memoirs of a Fox Hunting Man” to various stories and novels by everybody from P.G. Wodehouse to George MacDonald Fraser), but confess to perpetual bafflement over the rules. It seems to be a kind of baseball played by men dressed as male nurses. Seriously, though, I would like to know more about the game’s intricacies (and about its most obvious externalities, for that matter).

      Posted by paco on 07/21 at 12:29 PM • #


    1. John Howard does Australia proud. No mincing around with moronic reporters for him.

      Posted by Latino on 07/21 at 12:32 PM • #


    1. Until that question from Bongiorno, I thought Howard was waffling a little bit too much (probably a bit unfair, but Blair always seems so articulate in his responses).  Blair had a similiar question early on with an link to Iraq, but even he struggled with his response.

      Howard (then possibly sensing that McGrath had just taken 2 wickets in an over) just let rip with his response. The response was just so impressive. I think it was important he gave concrete examples of why the West has already been a target. I frankly see how it is going to be difficult to counter Howard’s examples. I just hope that soundbite gets airtime on the 6pm news on Friday.

      Instead of just saying

      Howard seems to get the same question everyday and he obviously decided enough was enough. He was waiting for the question and just rattled off the answer.

      I actually hope the journos keep on asking Howard the question. He just needs to give the same answer.

      Posted by jayday on 07/21 at 12:45 PM • #



      Rather nice way to state, that the ass that asked that question had his hat handed to him.

      John Howard not only handed the ass his hat, Howard dusted the boys hat off, neatly creased it, THEN handed the asses hat back to the ass.

      Spectacular, Mr. John Howard.

      Posted by El Cid on 07/21 at 01:32 PM • #


    1. Is he available for the 2008 U.S. election? I’d rather change the amendment for him to be Pres then Ahnuld.

      Posted by JohnO on 07/21 at 01:45 PM • #



      PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don’t want to add to what the prime minister has said. It’s a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

      Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

      Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

      And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

      Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn’t have done that?

      When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan?

      When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq—a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations—when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

      Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I’ve cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

      PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

      Posted by Ursus on 07/21 at 02:00 PM • #


    1. My only real concern here is that people sometimes try too hard to make the case that it isn’t retaliation, and end up arguing that it has nothing to do with Iraq.

      It certainly is about Iraq, but not in the sense that the lefties think it is, which is the more powerful point I think. The jihadists want us out of Iraq so they can claim that territory for themselves, to use it as a base for the re-establishment of the Islamic nation., the same as they want us out of Afghanistan, and why they retaliated against the establishment of a democratic regime in East Timor, and perfectly in line with Al Qaeda’s explicitly stated goal.

      Posted by Ursus on 07/21 at 02:02 PM • #


    1. this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation.

      If only this were true

      We should not make the mistake of foisting our Western Judeo-Christian understanding of


      onto that of Islam

      Posted by Pogue Mahone on 07/21 at 02:11 PM • #


    1. Ursus: “My only real concern here is that people sometimes try too hard to make the case that it isn’t retaliation, and end up arguing that it has nothing to do with Iraq.”

      True, but the left is ALSO trying to make the clear reference to Afghanistan in the 7/7 message go away.  That message gave equal importance to Afghanistan and Iraq, and no one except a few clear idiots suggest we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan, so the left is completely ignoring it.  We must not.

      Posted by mamapajamas on 07/21 at 02:32 PM • #


    1. I think I need a taperecording of that to just play back to lefties whenever they start talk of surrendering to islamfascism.

      Posted by Rob Read on 07/21 at 02:38 PM • #


    1. #16, I thought that was the only false note too.

      Posted by Latino on 07/21 at 02:44 PM • #


    1. Good on PM Howard

      Posted by David A on 07/21 at 03:03 PM • #


    1. I saw it and I think Howard was great.

      I had the feeling he had about enough of the self loathing, self righteous, pompous, cowardly preening on the part of the reporters.

      I swear to God these people [aka reporters] would pimp their children for the oppurtunity to show their asses in public.

      Posted by terryelee on 07/21 at 04:08 PM • #


    1. Howard did indeed to well at the press conference. Blair was not bad either. If you wanted to see some pathetic watch RedKen doing a press conference with the police after today’s attacks. He was squirming.

      Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge on 07/21 at 04:38 PM • #


    1. Ya gotta love him…..Go Johnny, Go!!!!!

      Posted by 11BRAVO on 07/21 at 04:53 PM • #


    1. #18

      Here’s the video

      John Howard rocks.

      Posted by Lydia on 07/21 at 04:55 PM • #


    1. Oops, I shoulda read this first:

      The Australian PM also gave a superb response to an idiot reporter, the text is below and the video will be available shortly. Thanks for your patience.

      But anyhoo, now you know where to go to see it when Trey puts it up.

      Posted by Lydia on 07/21 at 05:00 PM • #


    1. What i got from this speech was quite simply the TONY BLAIR would have loved to have been ABLE TO MAKE IT HIMSELF!
      Does it not show how Tony is walking around with a Chain around his neck, a chain being yanked by the leftist moonbats in his government.
      Blair must now throw off these shackles and show his true mettle otherwise he will go down in history as another Chamberlain waving a piece of paper with the signatures of extremist terrorist backing mullahs!
      How will the BBC edit out the references to Terrorism in both Howard’s and Blair’s speeches ?

      Posted by davo on 07/21 at 05:07 PM • #


    1. In a previous life, I vaguely knew Paul Bongiorno, back when he was a weather man for Channel 10 in Brisbane. He was a pompous ass even then and went off the Richter scale of humourlessness after he won a Walkley Award for Journalism (it really doesn’t take much to win one).

      I don’t recall what he got his Walkley for – it might have been outstanding services to standing in front of a blue screen and reading an autocue but I seem to recall something about an ‘expose’ about elevators in high rise buildings. I said it wasn’t hard to win a Walkley.

      Anyway, my fondest memory of pompous Paul was him being hit on the back of the head with a paper plane or something at a journos’ booze-up in Brisbane. The missile emanated from our table of humble print reporters who were there simply to get tanked. Paul the star was not amused, he turned round and glared, humourless sod, and we all just laughed at him.

      — Nick

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 07/21 at 06:38 PM • #


    1. Hey gang, the best description of Howard’s remarks probably goes to Kathryn Lopez’s (National Review Online)friend who described it as “a direct, devastating bitch-slap to the nonsense that the U.S., Britain and Australia brought this on themselves from any other leader.” Yeah. That, too.

      Posted by Kathy from Austin on 07/21 at 06:51 PM • #


    1. This Iraq Thing.
      Our leaders have to stop skirting around this. Of course any intervention in any Islamic nation, however badly governed, is going to be a spur for terrorist action.
      So what?
      There is a problem to be dealt with. London keeps on illustrating this, the ongoing situation in Iraq – with mad bastards killing their own – illustrates this.
      Everything that the maddies have done for the last half century illustrates the point that they are probably not going to reform anything without a combination of help and coercion, and brute force where necessary.
      Get Used To It.

      Posted by blogstrop on 07/21 at 07:09 PM • #


    1. paco:

      i take it your a yank so here are two books of interest for you.

      * ‘war minus the shooting’….mike marquesee he’s an international american socialist [wont hold that against him] and it’s his take on cricket… of the best cricket books i’ve read.

      * ‘the tented field’…..tom melville a history of cricket in america ….. an informative historical read.

      Posted by vinny on 07/21 at 07:16 PM • #


    1. I must say that once again, or still would be a better term, I am proud of John Howard.  He will stand as head and shoulders over any PM Australia has ever had.  I live in Balmain in Sydney and if any overseas readers are wondering, Balmain is synonymous for leftie basket weaver/actor/grant getters.  Even here I no longer feel as a tortured minority. 

      The abusive tee-shirt wearers of the 2004 election are in hiding.  They are no longer carrying the fashionable crowd with them.  I confront them still but they melt away with shame on their faces.  It is so good to be finally on a roll! We will stand against Islamic nutters. Blair has to get on board.  Howard has shown the way.  This is war and they started it but we will finish it.

      Posted by allan on 07/21 at 07:37 PM • #


    1. Kathy’s phrase “hit it out of the park” in American is a six in Aussie, I believe.  Paco, I’m another Yankee (a real one, from Massachusetts) and I spent some idle minutes today looking up the rules of cricket.  Is this an unexpected side effect of the Anglosphere?

      Posted by Mitch on 07/21 at 07:56 PM • #


    1. Yay, Mr. Howard!  You gotta admire a politician who has the stones to stand up before a crowd of vultures reporters and tells them exactly what’s going on whether they like it or not.  In a perfect world, they would be properly ashamed of themselves, but alas…

      Posted by RebeccaH on 07/21 at 08:32 PM • #


    1. Given Mr. Howard’s stellar performance during the press conference today you guys might enjoy reading this written just yesterday,

      The West versus Radical Islam
      “Many people think that what is fueling radical Islam are justified grievances against the West—in particular, the United States, for among things, its support of Israel.

      Grievances against the United States are, I suggest, but a pretext for what is going on.

      I believe that radical Islamic groups have been playing the card of victim hood with a mastery like none other. To what end? The end, I believe, is a re-assertion of the glory of the Muslim Arabic world. And nothing aids that goal like the perception that Muslim Arabs are none other than victims of Western wrongdoing. For the status of victim, which the Muslim Arabic world in general enjoys in the West these days, inclines people to excuse and to be merciful with regard to the very acts of terrorism that aid that end.

      If U.S. world dominance is wrong, this is not because Muslim Arabic world dominance is right. Surely not.”

      You really ought to read the rest.

      Posted by Samantha on 07/21 at 08:40 PM • #


    1. YES! YES! YES!
      I’m a Howard convert.
      I said as much about the so-called ‘Iraq connection’ in a detailed response a couple of weeks ago on the ABC’s Four Corners website when the same silly, but predictable, arguments were made on a program devoted to the London bombings. I can’t believe they actually posted it! All my previous complaints…and there were many…to ABC Management must have paid off.
      Thank you Tim & Andrea.

      Posted by Brian on 07/21 at 09:05 PM • #


    1. I know I’ve come in late but:
      Rexie re #4 – that gave me a big laugh. No offence but as an Aussie your statement rang through as 100 percent English cricket fan to me.
      Paco re #9 – I’ve got your email, I’ll see if I can get some cricket info for you.
      Soon you’ll be smacking googlies through silly mid-on with the best of them.

      Posted by Harold on 07/21 at 09:06 PM • #


    1. Paco, here is cricket in a nutshell for you:

      “A strange game originating from Sheppard’s and their crooks. For anyone new to the game it can be hard to understand so here is a quick, easy to understand, explanation;
      You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
      Each man that’s in the side that’s in goes out, and when he’s out he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
      When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
      Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
      When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.
      There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.
      When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!”
      from the website – C.htm

      Posted by Harold on 07/21 at 09:26 PM • #


    1. Is anyone planning to produce a “Very Happy, John” tee shirt?

      If so I’m good for one.

      Posted by mr magoo on 07/21 at 10:31 PM • #


    1. “Australia will fill up with Brits emigrating from Blairistan”

      Ok by me. Lets have Brits instead of Muslims.

      Posted by dee on 07/21 at 10:31 PM • #


    1. My only real concern here is that people sometimes try too hard to make the case that it isn’t retaliation, and end up arguing that it has nothing to do with Iraq.

      I agree with this, and with Blogstrop’s point too.  Howard’s absolutely right, but at the same time, when you’re at war the enemy will strike back.  To say that they do so because we’re at war is hardly a criticism.  Hitler launched the Blitz as a consequence of Britain’s entry into the war against Germany.  What would have been the point of someone saying so, except to state the bleedingly obvious?  It surely would not have made a compelling argument against going to war.  The same applies today with regard to Iraq.

      Posted by Jim on 07/21 at 10:40 PM • #


    1. To all of you out there who attempted to fill in the yawning chasm of my ignorance on the subject of cricket, this yank sends his hearty thanks! Tim Blair not only has the coolest blog, he has the coolest commenters.

      Posted by paco on 07/21 at 11:12 PM • #


    1. Re #9

      Paco – you don’t really need the rule book. Just remeber that cricket is baseball WITH action.

      HOWEVER, if you really do want a racy read, try The Laws of Cricket

      For an explanation of the noble game, try an explanation of cricket

      Posted by kywong73 on 07/21 at 11:19 PM • #


    1. Yes Jim in the case of the Blitz war had been declared by the Brits on the german nation.
      But how to you declare war on an ideology that poses as a religion?
      An army that does not wear uniforms, does not carry army issue weaponry, does not have an infrastructure of generals, and inhabits the very soil of your country?

      Posted by davo on 07/21 at 11:22 PM • #


    1. Paco,

      The Art of Cricket by Donald Bradman is regarded by many as the best instruction manual on how to play the game.

      to give you an idea of Don Bradman’s dominance of the game, a test batting average of 50+ would get you into serious considerattion for entry in a Hall of Fame, and there have only been something like 5 or 6 batsmen with a career average of 60+, Don Bradman’s average was 99.94, which is about 35 runs higher than the next best of people who’ve played for an extended period.

      I’ve heard it described as the equivalent of batting .650 over a 20 year career in baseball.

      Posted by jpaulg on 07/21 at 11:37 PM • #


    1. Who should open the attack in the second dig? Glenn McGrath takes a mangificent 5-21 off 13 overs; John Howard pulverises every lefty journo’s wicket leaving them to carry their sad, sorry arses back to the pavilion of oblivion.
      Great day for Australia.

      Posted by slatts on 07/21 at 11:53 PM • #


    1. I saw the same press conference and was enthralled by Howard’s devastating response and eloquent summation. He made Tony Blair look second-rate by comparison. This is the kind of performance under pressure that makes voters turn to Howard when the level of insecurity rises.

      Posted by Jack on 07/22 at 12:00 AM • #


    1. Well d’uh. Of course the Iraq adventure has no connection with the terrorism. That’s exactly what we lefty pinkoid peacenik pacifists have been saying all along. Try to pay attention, people!

      And oh, if you like Mr Howard so much, keep him. No, really.

      Posted by Nemesis on 07/22 at 12:28 AM • #


    1. Don’t you think Tony Blair would have loved to have made that speech himself, Jack ?
      Think of WHY he is unable to do it.

      Posted by davo on 07/22 at 12:28 AM • #


    1. Interesting that Channel 10 news this morning (the outlet that Paul Bongiorno works for), didn’t even have the guts to show the PM’s devastating answer to his inane question.

      Posted by ArtVandelay on 07/22 at 12:41 AM • #


    1. Before Sep 11 Howard was a virtual unknown outside of Australia.  It is a measure of his success that his remarks today are shown on US Cable and discussed on Instapundit.  (Australians are used to a fairly international coverage of news, my experience in the US was if news wasn’t about the US it virtually wasn’t).

      Stick that in your bong and smoke it lefty-pacifists.

      Posted by Razor on 07/22 at 01:23 AM • #


    1. Fascinating, isn’t it, how both left and right try to make the ‘Iraq-terror’ connection when it suits them, and avoid it when it doesn’t?

      The Right says, we’re in Iraq ‘cause its a battlefield in the GWOT – and yet any attack by the terrorist enemy has nothing to do with Iraq.

      The Left says the Iraq war is the ‘root cause’ of it all – but conveniently forgets the many attacks before Iraq, and also attacks on several that opposed the war or were neutral (Turkey, Morocco, planned bombings in France, Germany, etc.)

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 07/22 at 01:26 AM • #


    1. My point is, if Howard were honest, in response to a question about Iraq and the bombings, he should have said something like:

      I don’t know. We’ll never know exactly what factors motivated any particular suicide bombers.

      Iraq may or may not have been an important factor. But be sure of one thing – terrorism will never deter us from finishing the job in Iraq.

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 07/22 at 01:37 AM • #


    1. Of course the Iraq adventure has no connection with the terrorism. That’s exactly what we lefty pinkoid peacenik pacifists have been saying all along.

      Actually you’ve been saying that it’s the only connection and practically asserting that we wouldn’t be attacked otherwise.

      “There is no terrorist threat,” in the immortal words of your leader Michael Moore.

      Posted by Ursus on 07/22 at 01:38 AM • #


    1. Ooh, you little fibber, Ursus. Quote famously radical lefty Kevin Rudd: “The Iraq war is a distraction from the war on terror, which should be the real battle.”

      It seems all parties agree that the Iraq jaunt has no connection with terror. Actualy, there’s a growing list of things that the Iraq war is NOT about – WMD, Al Qaeda, Oil, Terrorism, ousting Saddam (ask your man Howard about that one)…

      One is left to wonder what on earth it IS actually about…

      Anyways, I’m off home to watch the Ashes. This is not part of the war on terror either, as I’m sure Mr Howard would strongly, firmly, irrelevantly confirm (with backbone).

      And like I always say – don’t blame the terrorists, blame the lefties!

      Posted by Nemesis on 07/22 at 02:23 AM • #


    1. The only thing Britain has to answer for is lax asylum laws and allowing these monkeys to go too far!
      Thanks T&A!

      Posted by Brian on 07/22 at 02:27 AM • #


    1. PBS’s Newhour program showed Howard’s comments in full.

      Posted by Brian on 07/22 at 02:28 AM • #


    1. Iraq is but one theatre of operation in a war against terrorism (perhaps, more accurately, a war against Islamic totalitarianism). As Howard has pointed out (not for the first time) Iraq is not, and cannot have been, the cause of this war because the war had been declared by Bin Laden and was already being waged long before the Iraq front was opened up.

      Naturally, the left argues that Iraq is the cause of this or that murder or bombing or other atrocity, no matter how irrational the argument may be, because the left’s objective is to undermine the confidence of the public in its political leadership. The left tries to use our own casualties, both military and civilian, as propaganda. This was the left’s strategy in the Vietnam War and it is the same now.

      This is why even humble bloggers and their readers have an important role in this war. You’ll never turn a lefties treacherous heart, but you can support your country and its allies.

      Posted by larrikin on 07/22 at 03:28 AM • #


    1. Leave it to Nemesis to prove just how mutually exclusive and contradicting many of the Left’s claims are. Thanks Nemmy!

      Posted by PW on 07/22 at 04:50 AM • #


    1. Lionel Mandrake – see #29.
      Nemesis – I don’t know why you bother, really. You aren’t impressing anyone.

      Posted by blogstrop on 07/22 at 05:34 AM • #


    1. The left persists in projecting its discontent with the advance of liberalism and global capitalism onto Islamist murderers. They like the terrorists’ anger and admire their ‘bravery’; it smacks nostalgically of the old Marxist fervour – cleansing year zero stuff, the emergence of the new man from the furnace of revolution, etc.  Certainly the radical left in the West and Islamists both wish for the end of a civilisation they regard as diseased at root.

      Islamist butchers have soaked up this radicalism from the West, along with its old tradition of terror-style bombings, but they have firmly welded it to their peculiar brand of religious totalitarianism.

      They are, of course, happy to repeat the motives put into their mouths by some unbelievers, particularly the wonderful argument that action against terrorism is a ‘breeding ground’ for it.

      But when they speak among themselves, a single bedrock goal is baldly apparent – the necessary transformation of the world into the image of their Moloch.

      As long as influential opinion on the left continues to ply such deluded ventriloquism, its political representatives can not be fit for office on this ground alone. Such useful idiots are more dangerous than the jihadists themselves.

      Posted by Inurbanus on 07/21 at 08:19 PM • #
      on thread “strategy identified”
      Thanks Inurbanus

      Posted by blogstrop on 07/22 at 05:42 AM • #


    1. Cops shot a guy (dead) Stockwell Station, anyone know what is going on? SMH and SBS

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 05:53 AM • #


    1. Just in- a suspect has been shot and killed at Stockwell, one stop out from The Oval. Reported to be southern Asian looking, no backback but a bulky jacket- chased by the SOG over the barriers, tripped and shot five times in the head at close range. Some conjecture that it’s the same one as yesterday who failed to ignite. Expect howls from the civil libertarian collective about summary executions. About bloody time.
      Memo to Middle Eastern/Sub Continent looking chaps, especially beared and carrying bulky packs and wearing heavy jackets in summer- even if you’re late, don’t run for the tube.

      Posted by Habib on 07/22 at 05:54 AM • #


    1. But surely they read him his rights before unloading into him?  I’m concerned that actions such as this unfairly target Muslims.

      Posted by cuckoo on 07/22 at 06:01 AM • #


    1. Yes Habib. The British cops shooting him 5 times would suggest they were very worried about him. The appropriate response and to hell with the sob sisters as they used to be called.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 06:02 AM • #


    1. Terminated with 5 extreme prejudices.

      Posted by blogstrop on 07/22 at 06:05 AM • #


    1. News services here in Australia have only run a very truncated (one sentence) version of Howard’s standout answer to Paul Bongiorno’s question (Arrivederci, Bongiorno).  Especially SBS, which devoted their first 10 minutes last night to the Australian bombing survivor who grilled Howard about how it was all because of Iraq.

      Posted by cuckoo on 07/22 at 06:12 AM • #


    1. Does he get the 72 virgins (or is it raisins)?

      Posted by rexie on 07/22 at 06:13 AM • #


    1. About Iraq or not about Iraq? Well, read this.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 07/22 at 06:25 AM • #


    1. Louise Barry it was and her question was What do you think? Everyone says it’s all…because of the Iraq war,”
      Louise said in a previous interview with the ABC, “No, well I knew it was bound to happen. I mean, I knew… I always said… I remember coming over and I knew that Kings Cross would go. I mean it’s… you know, there’s so many people in London, it’s such a big city, it was bound to happen, and it’s probably bound to happen, you know, in Australia soon too.” A cynic might think that the ABC planted the notion with her.
      The transcript of the PM”S interview shows that the journos pursued the comment of Louise with vigour and at length.
      No hint that they thought that she might think anything other than PM and the involvement in the Iraq war was the reason she was hurt.
      Oh well, my sympathy to her but if she wants us to do a Spanish then what ever her pain, no way.
      I gather from some blogs that the Spaniards are a smidge embarressed by their behaviour particularly since the info found from the bombers computer that they claimed earlier than usual on that bombing to get the Spanish to take out their PM. And the Oman in the UK WHO made the point several times on the BBC that the British public had been warned by Osama in 2004 that if they didn’t dump Blair in the elections they would wear it, and for this Omman, so be it. Again no way.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 06:33 AM • #


    1. Oh and the charming chap didn’t just have a problem with Iraq, there was Afghanistan and Kashmir and Palestine as well. And as even the BBC reporter said, he never spoke of our MPs and PM rather YOUR MPs and PM.
      That the appeasers are so fast out of the blocks is depressing.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 06:45 AM • #


    1. You Ozzies must be very proud of your PM today, I know we Americans are proud to call him friend. I hope Bush presents him some honorary “kick-ass” boots and spurs.

      Posted by Abu Qa’Qa on 07/22 at 07:37 AM • #


    1. I am developing an evil theory…..
      Howard was in Washington on 11/09/01, and again in London on 21/07/05.Once was happenstance, was twice coincidence, or….?


      Posted by entropy on 07/22 at 07:37 AM • #


    1. I’m already hearing hints of questions by the British “press” on “Why was this poor man killed instead of wounded, wah wah wah?”.

      Also that, though he was wearing a heavy coat in July, no explosives found on him as of yet.

      Now, given that he was a suspect being tailed, not just a random guy “looking Middle Eastern” or whatever, and that he fled from the police into the subway wearing this coat…

      … it will be extremely interesting for all of us to follow a simple question.  Will the British and other media place more value on his life than on the 50 others recently lost? Which lives will matter more? Who will they be more sympathetic to? Whose motiviations will be held in contempt, the Jihadists or the police?

      I think we are about to find out. Let’s watch.

      Posted by Andrew X on 07/22 at 07:44 AM • #


    1. Andrew X

      I trust that the man killed wasn’t just a sassy Asian fare-dodger.

      Posted by rexie on 07/22 at 08:00 AM • #


    1. Rexie –

      If he was, the BBC would just be sympathetic.

      Since he was (likely) a Jihadist, they will be VERY sympathetic instead.

      Posted by Andrew X on 07/22 at 08:07 AM • #


    1. Andrew X:  I don’t think the media you refer to place much value on either the lives of the suspect being tailed or victims of 7/7.  Their values will be revealed in how they treat the deaths.

      Posted by debo on 07/22 at 08:09 AM • #


    1. Re #51:

      The Right says, we’re in Iraq ‘cause its a battlefield in the GWOT – and yet any attack by the terrorist enemy has nothing to do with Iraq.

      No one (left or right) doubts that the terrorists are attacking because of Iraq.  If nothing else, the terrorists have been saying so.  Nice way to twist things, Lionel.  Not. 

      It’s that we on the right (or at least, non-left) don’t accept the hysterical screechings by idiots like Red Ken or Nemesis.  This is a far cry from saying terrorist attacks have nothing to with Iraq. 

      What twaddle.  It must be convenient to sit on the fence with your eyes closed and hands over your ears.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 07/22 at 08:15 AM • #


    1. Terminated with 5 extreme prejudices.

      Also known as “quintupled tapped”

      (As opposed to “double tapped”)

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 07/22 at 08:27 AM • #


    1. If not Iraq, Afganistan.  If not Afganistan, US troops in Saudi Arabia.  If not troops, East Timor. If not East Timor, Israel.  If not Israel, colonialsim. If not colonialism, the Reconquista.  If not the Reconquista, the Crusades, etc, etc, etc.

      Terrorists can always give excusses for their hatred.  What is sad is some relatively decent people buying the excusses for political gain.

      Posted by David A on 07/22 at 08:30 AM • #


    1. One round for each brain cell, just to be sure.

      BTW, I thought Howard showed some bottle being filmed with Barry- he would have known the line she would take, it being publicised beforehand that she was an environmental crime investigator– Bob Brown in a cranio-cervical immobiliser. Just shows how daft these moonbats are- they try to kill her, but they’re not responsible, it was GWB by Pakistani proxy.

      Posted by Habib on 07/22 at 08:45 AM • #


    1. No one (left or right) doubts that the terrorists are attacking because of Iraq.  If nothing else, the terrorists have been saying so.  Nice way to twist things, Lionel.  Not.

      JeffS, I could find many instances of people politicians expressing such doubts. Remember how Howard apparently came down on the AFP chief Mick Keelty for drawing a connection between Iraq and the Spanish bombings?

      As Jonah Goldberg writes in the article Andrea posted at #68, “when terrorists strike at the heart of London, the pro-war crowd says this has nothing to do with Iraq”.

      What twaddle.  It must be convenient to sit on the fence with your eyes closed and hands over your ears.

      I just don’t uncritically accept the distortion and spin both sides of politics put out.  It’s the particularly partisan folks who have their eyes closed and ears covered.

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 07/22 at 08:52 AM • #


    1. Who really gives a flying fuck if it’s because of Iraq, the Crusades, the failure of the Ottoman Empire (what a pack of poofs) or mind control beams from Pluto penetrating the cheap tinfoil lining of their third-world fez’s? Fact is, they’re trying to kill us primarily because of who and what we are, and will continue to do so until we kill them.
      End of story.

      Posted by Habib on 07/22 at 08:56 AM • #


    1. Here we go:

      Muslims fear “shoot to kill” policy

      The Muslim Council of Britain said Muslims were concerned there was a “shoot to kill” policy in operation.

      A spokesman said Muslims he had spoken to this morning were “jumpy and nervous”.

      Inayat Bunglawala said: “I have just had one phone call saying ‘What if I was carrying a rucksack?’.

      Which just goes to show that the police can suck up to Muslim community leaders all they like, but they cannot be relied upon to be supportive even during a security crisis like this.

      Posted by rexie on 07/22 at 09:29 AM • #


    1. Lionel, when you apply that statement to the right in general, you should be ready for someone to disagree. 

      But let’s look at it from a different perspective……the terrorists claim that they kill innocent people because the US is in Iraq.  All right, if they say so.  I suppose they have a right to an opinion.

      So what was the excuse for the terrorists before Iraq?  Or have you forgotten 9/11?  Bali?  Khobor Towers?  And so on?  Perhaps we could go back to OBL 1996 fatwa, hmmmm?

      Or do you only mean only the (mostly dead) London terrorists of 7/7?  If so, please be more specific in your generalizations.

      Besides which, the title of the article Andrea link to is “It’s about Iraq – so what?” That sez it all.

      Of course, Jonah does say this:

      This is all a prime example of how politics can distort a serious argument. After all, it is obvious that the attacks in London were a result of Iraq, and in a more straightforward debate this would be an inconvenient fact for the opponents of the invasion.

      I happen to be one member of the right that knows Iraq is a reason for the latest attacks…..and I really don’t care that it is, or if the politicians have their knickers in a twist.  They clearly are related… any fool can see.

      Habib says it right in #82.  So don’t be proclaiming that everyone is stupid about this…..’cuz that would include you.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 07/22 at 09:32 AM • #


    1. Do leftists seriously think we wouldn’t be being attacked if we had let Saddam continue to own the Iraqi people?

      Posted by Rob Read on 07/22 at 09:39 AM • #


    1. If the Micahel Moore’s of the world didn’t have Iraq to focus upon they would be telling us all about how our illegal and immoral invasion of Afghanistan caused these recent London attacks

      Haven’t the jihadi’s includedafghanistan in their list of complaints anyway?

      In other news – the brave men and women of London transport have spoken through their leader –

      New problem for London: Scared tube drivers
      If they refuse to work, system could shut down, union official warns

      Updated: 9:12 a.m. ET July 22, 2005
      Hundreds of London Underground drivers could refuse to work if there are more attacks on the rail network, a union official warned on Friday.

      Bobby Law, spokesman for the Rail, Maritime and Transport union told Sky news: “We have had drivers that had been refusing to work yesterday because they had concerns about their own safety.

      “Hundreds yesterday were saying they were going to refuse work should a situation arise like it did yesterday.”

      Law added: “Should any incidents happen on the underground system, the whole system should be shut down.”

      He said the union had written to all its members telling them they had every right to refuse to work if they felt their safety was jeopardized.

      Law’s remarks came after police shot dead a man at a south London underground station on Friday as they hunted for bombers who struck London’s transport network on Thursday.

      The attacks at Thursday lunchtime caused chaos but killed no one, in an apparently failed bid to repeat suicide bombings, which killed dozens of people two weeks earlier.

      “They (staff) are down there 24 hours a day, seven days a week and are at more risk than anybody, I would think. It’s not a handful,” Law said.

      “We’ve been inundated with calls from our members saying they are now extremely concerned about their own safety.”

      Law said union representatives would be meeting London mayor Ken Livingstone on Friday to discuss security.

      Our major demand to him is going to be that more staff are used on the underground… We will be talking about more training for our staff with regards to dealing with security incidents.”

      Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters
      Ok – so they are afraid ( understandable ) and their union is making more staff ( more Union Members ) the major demand???

      Why doesn’t the Union demand some serious policing – some racial profiling and targtetted searches?

      Posted by Pogue Mahone on 07/22 at 09:39 AM • #


    1. Isn’t bongiorno a regular guest contributor on late night comatosed and isn’t he second best friends with sweet Phannie Adams.

      Posted by crash on 07/22 at 09:41 AM • #


    1. Even Howard couldn’t say it but we can: the problem is NOT terrorist bombers. Appalling and wicked as they are, they cannot alter the fundamental structure of our society – if anything, they tend to unite and arouse us. The real problem is the communities of perhaps perfectly peaceful Mohommetans who simply wish to settle in our countries but have no concept of democracy, progress, sexual equality, science or technology or any feeling for or identification with Western civilization. We have a praxis for handling terrorism. We seem to have none for handling demography.

      Posted by Susan Norton on 07/22 at 09:46 AM • #


    1. o/t
      Anty reporter wide eyed gasps “the Warren st bomb was really close to the abc office in London”…
      Not in Your Backyard eh abc??????

      Posted by crash on 07/22 at 09:48 AM • #


    1. Yes, the point is that these attacks in London are a result of Iraq, but without Iraq, we’d simply have different attacks, blamed on something else. For some reason, the Left is summarily unable to understand that inaction can have consequences as well. Instead, lefty logic always goes: If A led to B, just don’t do A and you won’t have to deal with B or indeed anything else that looks like B. Totally at odds with both reality and actual logic. Somebody really needs to make a PSA to explain the concept of Boolean implication sometime.

      Anyway, as David A said in #79, there’s always one more excuse available, and that will only change when there is either the worldwide Caliphate, or the terrorists (more specifally, the mindset that leads to Islamist terrorism) have been exterminated.

      Posted by PW on 07/22 at 09:55 AM • #


    1. Well done Rexie, (#83)
      I wasn’t holding my breath waiting for the first “muslim spokesman” to start bleating about about being targeted by police, fear of walking the street etc etc, but I knew it wouldn’t take long.
      Boilerplate stuff.Would be a nice change if these “muslim spokesmen” started condemning the splodeydopes and supporting the police for a change.
      Never going to happen, they are on the other side.

      Posted by Pedro the Ignorant on 07/22 at 10:30 AM • #


    1. #69 Ros:  where are you finding the information on the Spanish public’s embarassment?  I have wondered how they could help but feel ashamed, ashamed over their actions following 3/11 and their withdrawal from Iraq.  Sheesh, talk about appeasment and total lack of stones.  Aznar was the best thing that happened to that country.  Interesting that Australia, the UK and America sent the terrorists quite the opposite message.  Tells us something about the culture, huh?

      Posted by Kathy from Austin on 07/22 at 10:33 AM • #


    1. >Yes, the point is that these attacks in London are a result of Iraq, but without Iraq, we’d simply have different attacks, blamed on something else.

      Exactly.  I agree that these attacks are because of Iraq, and to say that Iraq has NOTHING to do with the attacks is ostrich like.

      But without Iraq, we would be hearing about Afghanistan.

      And the ever popular Palestine.

      And the scarve laws in France.

      And US support of the Saudi Royals.

      And Bali.

      And Andalusia.

      And the Crusades.

      And, and, and . . .

      Posted by Room 237 on 07/22 at 10:45 AM • #


    1. Pedro

      I’m increasingly disposed to see the main problem here as being “moderate” islam.  The community, for all its ritual condemnations, seems far too ready to regard these hopeless fantasists as good muslim boys, and the attempts of government and security services to protect us from their murderous intentions as an attack on the wider islamic community.

      Posted by rexie on 07/22 at 10:51 AM • #



      Well once we get the moderate Muslims onside, that only leaves 88% of the UK Islamics.

      Posted by Rob Read on 07/22 at 11:03 AM • #


    1. Yes, Pedro, I suspect you’re right. If the moderates were prepared to cooperate with the police and intel, I don’t think terrorists would stay in business for very long. Maybe some moderates are quietly cooperating. But not enough.

      So, how to get them onside? Anyone have any suggestions?

      I have one: the West could give Israel an ultimatum to get out of the West Bank completely. Of course, it wouldn’t make any difference to the al-Qaeda leadership, but a lot of moderates would take notice, I think.

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 07/22 at 11:09 AM • #


    1. Sorry, I meant to say “Yes, Rexie, you’re right …”

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 07/22 at 11:12 AM • #


    1. paco:

      I once found a webpage, “The rules of cricket for baseball fans”.  Obviously c is not quite like b, but it gave you at least a running headstart in grounding a new thing in a known paradigm.

      Well I can’t quite find it now, but searching at google turns up a few likely looking sites with a similar theme.

      Susan Norton: The real problem is the communities of perhaps perfectly peaceful Mohommetans who simply wish to settle in our countries but have no concept of democracy, progress, sexual equality, science or technology or any feeling for or identification with Western civilization.

      Yeah, let’s throw gratitude and respect in there for good measure.  Promisingly, by their recent words, the Brit muslims seem to have woken up to the idea that the jihad-jerks have to actively be squelched, but only time will tell.

      It appears to me that 7/7 acheived an unintended blowback– the Brit muslims must now choose sides.  Ignoring the crazed looking recent neighbor from Pakistan today, then objecting that Islam is a religion of peace tomorrow is no longer an acceptable dance.

      At least they will be having the “debate” which is long overdue.

      Posted by zeppenwolf on 07/22 at 11:59 AM • #


    1. #68 Andrea
      Hey, Jonah Goldberg stole my point (see comment #40).#43 Davo
      Whether or not it’s a declarable war in the same sense that WWII was, it’s still a war with an enemy that will fight back.  That they fight back is not an argument against the war.

      Posted by Jim on 07/22 at 01:43 PM • #


    1. Lionel suggested: “I have one: the West could give Israel an ultimatum to get out of the West Bank completely. Of course, it wouldn’t make any difference to the al-Qaeda leadership, but a lot of moderates would take notice, I think.”

      You need to step back here and understand that the goal of Hamas et al is not a “liberated” West Bank – but rather a “liberated” Palistine

      In thier view – the Jews can have a state starting at the waters edge and going West as far as they like

      We need to stop suggesting solutions that make sense to us – and start accepting that the enemy has different goals

      You and I might think it a good solution for the WB and Palistine – but they ( the ones in charge, the ones with the guns ) do not

      If Israel pulls back simply to allow the 23rd arab dictatorship dedicated to its destruction to get its own UN seat this is not progress

      What the West should do is issue the following ultamatum to the arab’s

      “Accept Israel’s right to exist – cease propaganda and hate – crack down on terrorists blowing up jews like Syria did to the city of Hama – and PROVE you will crack down on all the terrorists groups – and then – and only then – will there be a Palistine”

      Were this done – Palistine would quickly become the richest arab nation ever

      Posted by Pogue Mahone on 07/22 at 01:54 PM • #


    1. Why doesn’t the Union demand some serious policing – some racial profiling and targtetted searches?

      Oh Pogue, how can you suggest the lefty trade unions and Red Ken would do such a thing…

      …It, it just makes too much sense!

      — Nora

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 07/22 at 05:31 PM • #


    1. #39 “Australia will fill up with Brits emigrating from Blairistan”

      It’s already started – met a guy at a party last year who had migrated to Australia to flee religious persecution in his homeland.

      He was a white Christian Pom.

      — Nick

      Posted by The Thin Man Returns on 07/22 at 05:35 PM • #


    1. #90 & #93

      I have trouble agreeing that these specific latest attacks are definitely the result of Iraq. I know your main point is that attacks would continue regardless and that, if not Iraq, something else but, given the profile of the suspected bombers, I don’t think anyone can say any more than Iraq is a possible contributing factor – one of a long list of grievances.

      The most common characteristic postulated about the four bombers was a sense of alienation and attendant susceptibility to radical Islamic teachings. I don’t think Iraq or Afghanistan as specific events had much affect on their perceived alienation, they probably provided added ammunition to clerics wishing to influence them to explode themselves.

      The one useful thing to come out of the London bombings has been the general recognition that the motivations of suicide bombers is much more complex than simple revenge for immediately precedent actions.

      I think we have to acknowledge that, within any given terrorist action, the motivations and goals of each member could differ widely as would the motivations and goals of the leadership, the organisers and the ones who carry out the attack.

      Overall though I agree that for credibilities sake, the role of Iraq shouldn’t be totally dismissed.

      Posted by Francis H on 07/22 at 06:18 PM • #


    1. Lionel: a lot of moderates would take notice, I think.

      Yep, they would take notice.  They would take notice that terrorism gets terrorists what they want.  That all they have to do is keep throwing tantrums like ill-bred spoiled children long enough and the adults will give in.  Hamas is already crowing about their ‘mighty martyr lions’ ‘driving the Zionist infidel invaders’ out of Gaza (just as Hezbollah did upon Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon). 

      Don’t get me wrong—I’m not some Yeretz Israel nut (I’m not even Jewish).  Israel has made plenty of mistakes in handling the West Bank/Gaza situation, not the least of them being letting the settlers run loose.  But it’s a matter for the Israelis and the Palestinians to resolve between themselves, whenever the Pals manage to get their act together and not one moment before.  We are not going to dictate the foreign policy of the only democratic country (excepting now Iraq) in that area in vague hopes of cajoling some spineless proto-bigots into behaving like civilized adults.

      Posted by Achillea on 07/22 at 06:42 PM • #


    1. The Guardian have just sacked their “sassy” Islamofascist.

      Posted by Quentin George on 07/22 at 06:50 PM • #


    1. With you Pogue on the pointlesness of requiring Israel to tear itself apart for a momentary feeling of safety of the west. Don’t agree unfortunately about the potential of Palestine however, just too corrupt. There will always be a democratic educated successful Israel next to them to impinge on their honour and anger them. One report re Pakistani s in the UK wasn’t pointing at there sense of inferiority, rather their sense of being the dominant superior culture in Pakistan and then confronted with a society where they weren’t seen as or treated as such.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 07:09 PM • #


    1. Rexie quoted – I trust that the man killed wasn’t just a sassy Asian fare-dodger.

      IIRC the plain clothes policemen that terminated the suspect are a special anti terrorist squad and are obviously allowed to carry arms. Uniformed police in the UK do not normally carry weapons.

      These squads would most likely be limited in numbers and therefore it would be most unusual they just happened to be standing around near a tube station as a security precaution. My guess is they were probably tailing the guy and perhaps he realised what was happening and bolted for the train.

      There’s a lesson to be learnt in all this….Don’t be running late for your train if you are wearing a ruck sack. Don’t jump the turnstile and make sure your Ipod earphone wires are not dangling from the rucksack or from under your unseasonably thick jacket.

      Posted by Spag-oz on 07/22 at 07:11 PM • #



      [Leftist]Because, you know, Egypt supported the invasion of Iraq. Wait, you mean to tell me it didn’t? Well I don’t like my head exploding so it must be Bliar and the Chimperor’s fault. Somehow![/Leftist]

      Posted by Chaos on 07/22 at 08:05 PM • #


    1. Mandrake,

      Very simply, nobody can deny that if Israel is going to leave the Gaza Strip and part of the West Bank, that was because of the intifada, because of the armed struggle, because of the big sacrifices of Hamas for this goal. It was not because of negotiations, or the goodwill of Israel, or the Americans or Europeans.
      ~ Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas ~

      The march of resistance will continue until the Islamic flag is raised, not only over the minarets of Jerusalem, but over the whole universe.
      ~ Mahmoud Zahar, Hamas ~

      Posted by guinsPen on 07/22 at 08:13 PM • #


    1. p.s. And Then They Came After Us

      Posted by guinsPen on 07/22 at 08:26 PM • #


    1. Pakistani ‘Rail enthusiast’ declares koran ‘abuse’ as reason for murder spree. I know I get pretty mad when I lend people books and they bookmark by folding the pages.

      Posted by Deo Vindice on 07/22 at 08:33 PM • #


    1. blogstrop says:

      Terminated with 5 extreme prejudices.

      Unfortunately I have no doubt he, or others like him, “vill be back”!


      Posted by JPB on 07/22 at 08:34 PM • #


    1. Kathy, sorry didn’t repond re the Spanish.
      Heard a Spanish commentator being interviewed by the BBC after the London bombs. She was making much of the stoic, we won’t give in to killers approach of the British and how much better it was than the Spanish response. Additionally the Spanish are now still at EACH others throats she argued because of their response to the bombing.
      Also Barcepundit I think who referred on to another Spanish site. They both referred to the publication of the material found on the bombers computer speaking of the requirement of an early claim for the bombing in Madrid to influence the election. And to the embarressment of the Spanish it worked. It was there I think I read of the low level sort of shamefacedness that the Spanish are now feeling. Thinking on how the Socialist guy could have said instead, can’t keep that election promise of leaving in the face of murder and intimidation. Bit fuzzy but I think I have got the gist of things right.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 08:35 PM • #


    1. David A (#79) says:

      What is sad is some relatively decent people buying the excusses for political gain.

      I think “relatively” is the imperative term here.

      It is certainly open to discussion as to what is their “decency” relative to…


      Posted by JPB on 07/22 at 08:37 PM • #


    1. Jim
      of c ourse it’s a declarable war. Only no western politician wants to declare it.
      When the Germans bombed London it was an act of war and recognised as so.
      Because Islam has not officially declared war, when bombs go off. it is the action of a few deranged individuals who act against the principles of the religion of peace.
      Every time, we swallow that hook line and sinker.
      Pakistan under mushareff seems to be the only major islamic nation pursuing these “deranged individuals”.
      For all that they get a kick in the guts from Tony Blair who himself has done nought to combat terror on the streets of London and indeed encouraged it through his insane policies.
      And now for the fisrt time the security forces have been allowed to do something under a “shoot to kill policy”.
      what have they done?
      they shot a man FIVE times whilst he was on the ground in dubious circumstances.
      NO wonder the lefties are going mad about protection of civil rights.
      And what will that do to the cause of enabling the fight against islamic terror on the streets?
      In the meantime more Euro Egypt holiday lovers have been blown apart in a major attack .
      Yes it is high time to declare war on a truthfully identified enemy.

      Posted by davo on 07/22 at 09:12 PM • #


    1. #113 Ros,

      Thanks so much. I was wondering where the avg Spanish Jose was.  I recall an editorial in the Wall Street Journal by PM Aznar after Howard and Bush were re-elected entitled (I believe) “Hope has Prevailed.” Long after the election I saved it because it was so eloquent and I sensed a real sadness by Aznar for his country, having been intimidated by terrorists into changing their vote from what would have been a conservative victory.  I simply can’t imagine how a country could turn tail and run from the “right” thing to do and still get up every morning and look in the mirror.  Here in the states, I also believe fervently that we are exorcising the ghosts of Vietnam with this war.  We simply must overcome the defeatist crap that sapped our spirit.  Unfortunately, the Democrats (and their allies in the MSM) would like very much for us to be in the malaise of the early 70’s so that they can continue to justify their existence.  Bad for America (and by extension, Austraila and UK) = good for the libs.  Sad, damn sad.

      Posted by Kathy from Austin on 07/22 at 09:31 PM • #


    1. Wait:  was “Hope has Prevailed” from Lord of the Rings?  HA!  Perhaps it is so.

      Posted by Kathy from Austin on 07/22 at 09:32 PM • #


    1. any religion based on the exploits of a duplicitous, murderous, paedophile prophet, and which finds it necessary to have a doctrinal view on the purity or otherwise of using hair gel, is plainly monstrously silly & will inevitably breed irrational idiots

      head tilters who say bombers are motivated by alienation, injustice, palestine, blah blah blah, are as deluded as the terrorists

      the islamofascists hate us & they want to kill us. sympathise with them? pish

      Posted by KK on 07/22 at 09:41 PM • #


    1. We argue about the role of Iraq in the killings and search for understanding of these men who choose to kill us. We take on board responsibility for what they are doing to us, and others. Admittedly there are many of the commentariat who declare us through our choice of leaders responsible, but I agree with those who sheet it back home to the source. It is not the West that is responsible for psychopathic killers such as Zaqarwi. This criminal thug from Jordan found his ambition to become one of the greatest mass slaughterers of the 21st century in a Jordanian Goal surrounded by Muslims and imprisoned by Muslims. For Osama it started with family construction company and Muslim squabbles.
      Prince Hassan of Jordan was reported here as saying that there was civil war in Iraq. What he said of that civil war that it was the civil war that had been coming in the Middle East and that nobody had been able to find the sense? to stop. That is there is a MIDDLE EAST civil war being fought IN Iraq, because of the invasion. Not a civil war in Iraq because of the invasion. The tensions between Shia, Sunnis, Kurds, Arabs, Persians and Azerbijans, etc. (possibility of outbreak of hostilities between Azerbijan and Iran). Considering that the huge sums for the “Insurgents” is coming from Saudi while Sadr is funded by Iran this would seem to be a theory with merit.
      It may be that with the break-up of the Ottoman Empire followed by the colonisation of the Middle East the inherent and close to exploding tensions in the Middle East were suppressed and now it is on. And the disintegration of the USSR perhaps? Whatever I don’t think we are responsible just as Attaturk is not even though he is on Osama’s evil person list. But we are used by these monsters in their striving for the abolition of modernity and the ideology of Islam dominating the world.Sadly some of our own can’t wait to congratulate them in a sense Islam already does.

      But always it is our fault by our choice of leaders, by our choices on how to defend ourselves, by our inability to offer the subservience and honour to the Muslims from whom we have stolen their rightful greatness and rule of the world. These hateful young men don’t deserve to be fêted, they deserve like all bullies to be blasted.

      We are poorly served by our so called public intellectuals, they are limited and myopic and hold us in contempt, we should stop listening to them.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 09:46 PM • #


    1. We have allowed Islam to dominate and dictate to our world. How do we turn it around? And by that I am not interested in never arrest anyone or call them names. That is why they dominate and dictate.

      Posted by Ros on 07/22 at 09:50 PM • #


    1. Lionel: So, how to get them onside? Anyone have any suggestions?

      Since I regularly castigate leftistas for complaining about other people’s plans without offering any of their own, I’ll follow up my previous post with this:

      1) Start giving the moderates more face time and air time than the extremists.  If anybody’s going to share a mike with Bush, Blair, or Howard, it’s the moderate.  Invite the moderates to the mover-and-shaker get-togethers and leave the Islamists out in the cold (slamming the door in their faces as pointedly and publically as possible).  Whose calls get put through?  The moderate’s.  Whose get routed to the Undersecretary’s assistant’s assistant’s assistant?  The guy preaching jihad.  Make it plain by praising and supporting those who do that true courage, honor, and strength lies in standing up to bullies, not being one.

      2) Side by side with rewarding good behavior is punishing bad.  Failing to do so encourages others—especially young men looking to see just how much they can get away with—to follow the bad example.  How many have heard (or tried to use) the justification ‘But X’s parents let him do Y?’ It’s very difficult for a moderate to say something is unacceptable when it’s not being treated that way.  ‘Religion’ and ‘culture’ are not alibis.  Our countries all have laws prohibiting violent behavior, from threats and vandalism to outright assault and murder.  Enforce them.  Enforce them assiduously.  If a violator’s a citizen, arrest, prosecute, and lock him up.  If he’s on sufferance (visa, not-yet-naturalized, asylum, etc.) boot him out. 

      There are those who will argue that they’re not just hiding, that there are no Muslim moderates.  I happen to think there are, but let’s find out.  If we offer to support those who ally with us while we smite those who oppose us, even if nobody takes us up on our offer, hey, at least we’re getting some long-overdue smiting done.

      Posted by Achillea on 07/22 at 10:00 PM • #


    1. Achillea
      ..There are those who will argue that they’re not just hiding, that there are no Muslim moderates
      Unfortunately we have seen in the past how so many of these moderates stand and silently cheer on the side lines like watchers of the tour de France every time an outrage is committed.
      Many Koranic experts will tell you that every action taken by Jihadists is sanctioned by the Koran and indeed it is the duty of Muslims to commit such actions.
      It seems to me that if this is true, then it is THE TRUE MODERATES who are apostates of Islam.
      So if we are going to keep handing out millions to appease Islamic terrorism, then should not some of that money be spent on helping those true moderates sjake of the coils of their demonic religion.

      Posted by davo on 07/22 at 10:26 PM • #


    1. guinsPen, post #109,
      It’s time for Israel to resume targeted killing. It’s been their most successful policy to date. I don’t know why they ever stopped.

      Posted by Brian on 07/22 at 10:46 PM • #


    1. Latest is the commartyr plugged by plod was not the unexplodey from Thursday, but had been tailed from a house in Stockwell under surveillance, and was believed to be bodypacking. If these idiots are operating out of Stockwell, they may have made a major error- it’s right next to Brixton, and the Yardies are not only better tooled up than the ‘Met, they police their turf with vigilance and violence.

      Posted by Habib on 07/23 at 12:21 AM • #


    1. Just for the record, Mr. Howard, Mssrs. Blair, the correct term for a spade these days is “shovel-American…”

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 07/23 at 12:26 AM • #


    1. People of middle eastern or asian origin,wearing unseasonably warm clothes,who are so keen to escape capture that they will vault over barriers are still safe.Add the ingredient of being followed from a house suspected of being the home of some bombers and the cumulatory effect is to be declared dangerous. Be warned travelers.

      Posted by crash on 07/23 at 12:47 AM • #


    1. Least popular hobby for Brit Pakistanis at this point would be train spotting. I blame the war in Iraq for this!

      Posted by Deo Vindice on 07/23 at 01:40 AM • #


    1. I see Egypt is paying the price for its membership in the Coalition.

      oh, wait …

      Posted by Achillea on 07/23 at 01:45 AM • #


    1. it’s obviously retaliation for the brutal interrogation of australian jihadist Habib.

      Posted by davo on 07/23 at 02:10 AM • #


    1. I suggested that the West should, very publicly, pressure Israel to get out of the West Bank. Various people then started quoting Hamas, etc., at me. But you missed my point.

      Of course Hamas is a despicable organisation that will keep trying to kill Israelis. But what matters much more is the attitude of the ordinary Arab, the ordinary Muslim, at home or abroad.

      So many of them think (irrationally but sincerely) that the West has been kicking them in the teeth for years. There is a genuine sense of grievance and injustice there that somehow must be addressed. Or things will just get worse.

      So why not start with redressing something that they actually deserve anyway – a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. (Of course, they’ll probably screw it up, but at least it’d be one less source of resentment).

      Posted by Lionel Mandrake on 07/23 at 02:59 AM • #


    1. Because Jordan really stole more from them than Israel did. The two state solution on any set of borders post-Jordan is not viable except as a political exercise in futility.
      You are right – they will screw it up. Only the Israelis could have made Israel work. The “Palestinians” should disband.

      Posted by blogstrop on 07/23 at 03:34 AM • #


    1. So many of them think (irrationally but sincerely) that the West has been kicking them in the teeth for years. There is a genuine sense of grievance and injustice there that somehow must be addressed. Or things will just get worse.

      If their belief that the West has been kicking them in the teeth is “irrational”, how can there be a ”…genuine sense of grievance and injustice…”?  This contradiction boggles the mind, Mandrake.  Even if one doesn’t take it literally.

      The Palis brought most of their problems upon themselves a couple generations ago, and they’ve done nothing to address their own role in their demise.  Some Middle Eastern nations have actively forbidden Palestinians from entering their borders (e.g., Kuwait did so until recently).  So I find it hard to view the Palis as victims when even their “fellow Arabs” don’t treat them as such.

      As for:

      So why not start with redressing something that they actually deserve anyway – a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. (Of course, they’ll probably screw it up, but at least it’d be one less source of resentment).

      I’d agree with this…..if the major power player with the Palestinians wasn’t Hamas, who has vowed the destruction of Israel.  A “one state” solution, not “two states” is, I believe, how the late, unlamented Arrafat looked at it.  Giving an enemy like Hamas an advantage is tantamount to suicide, and Israel isn’t that stupid, Mandrake.  Nor do I expect them to be, just to appease well meaning fools.

      I concede that the Israeli settlers are idiots as well, but at least Israel is actively trying to live up to their end of the Camp David Accords, or the “Road Map to Peace”…..unlike the PA or Hamas.

      But I wholeheartedly concur that the Palis will screw it up.  They’ve done nothing else but screw things up since Day One of this stupid intifada of theirs.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 07/23 at 04:44 AM • #


    1. From VDH:
      Perhaps the jihadist killing was not over the West Bank or U.S. hegemony after all, but rather symptoms of a global pathology of young male Islamic radicals blaming all others for their own self-inflicted miseries, convinced that attacks on the infidel would win political concessions, restore pride, and prove to Israelis, Europeans, Americans — and about everybody else on the globe — that Middle Eastern warriors were full of confidence and pride after all.Meanwhile an odd thing happened. It turns out that the jihadists were cowards and bullies, and thus selective in their targets of hatred. A billion Chinese were left alone by radical Islam — even though the Chinese were secularists and mostly godless, as well as ruthless to their own Uighur Muslim minorities. Had bin Laden issued a fatwa against Beijing and slammed an airliner into a skyscraper in Shanghai, there is no telling what a nuclear China might have done.

      India too got mostly a pass, other than the occasional murdering by Pakistani zealots. Yet India makes no effort to apologize to Muslims. When extremists occasionally riot and kill, they usually cease quickly before the response of a much more unpredictable angry populace.

      What can we learn from all this?

      Jihadists hardly target particular countries for their “unfair” foreign policies, since nations on five continents suffer jihadist attacks and thus all apparently must embrace an unfair foreign policy of some sort.

      Typical after the London bombing is the ubiquitous Muslim spokesman who when asked to condemn terrorism, starts out by deploring such killing, assuring that it has nothing to do with Islam, yet then ending by inserting the infamous “but” — as he closes with references about the West Bank, Israel, and all sorts of mitigating factors. Almost no secular Middle Easterners or religious officials write or state flatly, “Islamic terrorism is murder, pure and simple evil. End of story, no ifs or buts about it.”

      Posted by blogstrop on 07/23 at 06:23 AM • #


    1. Actually I had a good time, especially the ice-cream.

      Posted by Habib on 07/23 at 06:36 AM • #


    1. Blogstrop you need to use quote marks or block quote (see the “quote” formatting button above) when you quote someone.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 07/23 at 09:40 AM • #


    1. Lionel, you used the word ‘ultimatum.’ That’s rather more serious than just ‘pressure.’ Though I will admit it has no meaning to the left, for whom mere words—no matter how mendacious—substitute for action.

      And we got your point just fine.  Please try to ‘get’ ours, or at least pretend to make an effort to do so.

      Other than that, JeffS has said what I would’ve said, only more and better.

      Posted by Achillea on 07/23 at 10:10 AM • #


    1. re: #130

      Mandrake: Of course Hamas …will keep trying to kill Israelis. But what matters much more is the [irrational but sincere] attitude of the ordinary Arab…

      Ripper: Mandrake.

      M: Yes, Jack?

      R: Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

      M: Well, no I… I can’t say I have, Jack.

      R: Vodka. That’s what they drink, isn’t it? Never water?

      M: Well I… I believe that’s what they drink, Jack. Yes.

      R: On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.

      M: Oh, ah, yes. I don’t quite… see what you’re getting at, Jack.

      R: Water. That’s what I’m getting at. Water. Mandrake, water is the source of all life. Seven tenths of this earth’s surface is water. Why, you realize that seventy percent of you is water.

      ~ Kubrick, Southern & George (mostly) ~

      Posted by guinsPen on 07/23 at 10:30 AM • #


    1. Blogstrap — The Palis tried to take back Jordan.  The Jordanians kicked their ass.  That was where the Palis generally got the reputation of being the worst neighbors in the Middle East.  Ask the Kuwaitis about their Palestinians during the Iraqi invasion.

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 07/23 at 12:48 PM • #



You must register and log in to comment.

Use buttons for formatting. See the Pmcode Guide for proper tag placement.


Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments? Note: to turn off this option by default, go into your profile (the “your account�? link below) and go to email settings. Deselect the box next to “Enable email notifications by default when you post messages.”

Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the “pending” list and you won’t be able to log in. All accounts that are “pending” for more than one week will be deleted.