But is there any actual evidence of that? What about an interpretation where the police didn't yet know the whereabouts of these fellows or where there may have been accomplices as yet unknown? What thread would be opened here if Howard had delayed speaking until the arrests were made and there were a successful attack in the meantime? "Civilians Killed as Howard Waits in Vain to Proclaim Success"?
Self Serving Australian Prime Minister Tips Off Terrorists
- Thread starter a_unique_person
- Start date
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
It's not that simple. Dubya has already called Australia the US "Sherrif" of the South East Asian area of the world. Good going, George. Our lickspittle 'Man of Steel" PM is quite happy to accept the title. I don't believe the attacks are warrented, but I believe that by taking on the self appointed task of looking after this part of the world on behalf of the US, some people are going to take offense.
The passing of the Terrorist bills into law were all that were necessary to allow the police to operate, and thus make arrests, etc. All Howard needed to do was to "move on" to other issues and just keep his yap shut. Instead, we heard the jingle of spurs, the strapping of leather, the crunching of boots in the dirt, and "I'ma callin' yer out, Mohammed!" in the midday sun (cue "Fistful of Dollars" music), as Howard flagged police action in advance.
I'm betting the police operations folks could have cheerfully strangled the little git...
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
If I get you what you are saying is cells of islamic fundamentalists in your midst with explosives is simply the natural response by "some people" - AKA the Sydney and Melbourne Islamic terror network - to Australia being the US Sheriff in the South East. Ok.
So what you should do is give America the finger, walk away, and be extorted by the people "taking offense". That'll learn'em.
I agree. When we are reduced to making sure that we don't offend some of the worst people the world has to offer, then we are truly lost.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
You're making things up again.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Huh?? Where is this coming from??
Who was talking about offending people? We were talking about a self-serving pollie who can't keep his big mouth shut about pending covert police operations. It's a bit like a pollie leaking the names of covert CIA operatives, y'know? And in this case, it's our PM, who should friggin' well know better than that but doesn't!
The separate subject of Howard's kowtowing to Bush has indeed encouraged terrorist activity in our region and internally, rather than quelling it. Neither of them seem to understand plain logic - if you want to get rid of a wasp's next without getting hurt, you don't go round beating it with a stick first.
From AUP's post (emphasis mine): "...some people are going to take offense."Huh?? Where is this coming from??
Who was talking about offending people? We were talking about a self-serving pollie who can't keep his big mouth shut about pending covert police operations. It's a bit like a pollie leaking the names of covert CIA operatives, y'know? And in this case, it's our PM, who should friggin' well know better than that but doesn't!
The separate subject of Howard's kowtowing to Bush has indeed encouraged terrorist activity in our region and internally, rather than quelling it. Neither of them seem to understand plain logic - if you want to get rid of a wasp's next without getting hurt, you don't go round beating it with a stick first.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Ah, I see. Different way of saying things. When AUP said "...some people might take offense" I read it that he was using understated sarcasm. As in "Bush Jr is one of the greatest presidents of our time". We learn sarcastic from the cradle here.
Here's the original line:
Here's how I read it: "I don't believe the attacks are warranted, but I believe that by taking on the self-appointed task of looking after this part of the world on behalf of the US, he makes us a terrorist target where we never used to be one."
At least, that's how I read it - he may correct me, of course.
Last edited:
Yes, that's right. The arrested bombers have said as much in their public statements. They were targetting US and US ally civilians in Bali.
Kevin_Lowe
Unregistered
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2003
- Messages
- 12,221
I kind of agree with you, but I admit I am surprised. Not everyone would have the courage to speak up against the US government that way.
I don't often post in Politics, mostly because there's little point. It's all ego's competing in a game of 'who can abuse one another's use of language the most'. But I guess this quote just provided a nugget of evidence for how much some folks squint to try to blur what they are reading.
'What did Australia do to deserve to have innocent people blown up...'
This is a rewording of Zep's comment, 'The separate subject of Howard's kowtowing to Bush has indeed encouraged terrorist activity in our region ...'
So, according to zenith-nadir, encouraging activity equates those affected deserved the activity. Ludicrous!
The word games are the most childish part of this sub-forum. There are some absolutely amazing discussions that go on here, however unfortunately many degenerate because some people are more interested in scoring points than really trying to understand an issue.
That is all.
Athon
Again, what's the evidence for that? The opinion piece has now gone to registration, but my recollection is that our bad guys here had stepped up their activity, even acquiring the ingredients for explosives.
Try to imagine the following conversation:
Howard: So, what's up with those terrorist groups.
Anti-terror guy: Oh, they've stepped up their activity. We think they're maybe getting ready to do something so we're gonna pick them up.
Howard: Good job! When will you be ready to arrest them?
Anti-terror guy: Probably this weekend, maybe middle of next week.
Howard: OK, and they won't be ready to strike before then, even with the stuff they've acquired?
Anti-terror guy: ::looks at floor, shuffles feet:: Uh, dunno. Hope not.
Howard: Look, we're getting you the amendment to the law tomorrow. Is someone gonna get blown to bits between then and when you can arrest these guys or not?
Anti-terror guy: No. I mean yes. I mean, well, probably not. But last week they didn't have explosives and this week they do.
Now in this scenario, you're Howard. Do you warn people or not?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
If that scenario happens, I'll let you know.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The scenario is indeed imaginary! Howard doesn't deign to talk to the little people who have to do the dirty work at ground level (even though he's a notorious short-arse himself!
). He's only got his eye on his own political star, no-one else's.You are right - it has indeed long been known that "terror cells" were building in Australia. However they were being watched anyway, regardless of the recent bills. The thing is, we already have sufficient national security legislation to deal with such people more than adequately. It's not like the police, etc, were stymied in doing surveillance and making arrests for potential terrorist activities. And by all accounts they were well on top of the situation.
This new law by the PM was just "Look at me! I'm TOUGH ON TERROR! Like JOHN WAYNE! heh heh". It really hasn't added much serious change at all to the existing laws, as far as I can tell. It was just the timing and publicity that went with it's introduction that was atrocious - the incident that AUP noted above was hardly singular. And I would venture to suggest that much of the terrorist material that the police previously had under surveillance has now vanished...and the targets of surveillance are now even angrier than before! This is NOT a good outcome.
*chuckle* You do misunderstand politicians, don't you!
There's MANY levels in the Hall of Chinese Whispers between ASIO/police and L'il Johnny's ear, so plenty of people to point the fickle finger of BLAME at. The hoary old line "acting on the advice of..." simply means that someone else's backside at a lower level has picked to be kicked if it all goes pear-shaped. And it does not at all mean that he is FOLLOWING their advice, merely that he HAS it, and is acting subsequently.
And I'm not your son, OK?