 |
|
|
|
| More!? More!? |
|
 |
| A New Plan Needed | |
They weren't quite unbloodied before, but Russia, after a long period of
dormancy on Chechen issues, may have thought the war had moved to the West. No such luck for
some 700-odd Moscow theater-goers who found the show didn't go on when the
theater cast was upstaged by 40 Muslim terrorists who took them
hostage. Apparently they want Russia to agree to Chechen Independence - which
they declared in 1991. Traditionally prisoners are fed only on bread and water, but stories coming out
of the former Communist stronghold state that the hostages are only being fed
chocolate and water. Maybe this is a symbol of Western decadence, or
maybe that was all that was left in the Candy Bar after the rebels helped
themselves to the popcorn. They are also keeping the Western hostages - not just the Russian ones. This
is a pretty clear indication that they think their war is not only with Russia,
but also with the West. They have only released Georgians - which could
explain why the Russians have been talking about attacking Georgia. So far President Vladimir (hard-man) Putin hasn't done much
except to rehash his cold-war rhetoric by blaming 'foreign agents' for the
attack. The nationality of the foreign agents may have changed but his victim status apparently
hasn't. He saw that this worked for Bush after September-11 and
presumably hoped to emulate his success. Of course in America's case it was actually
true. Putin is not known for his compassion or sensitivity. After the Kursk disaster
which killed over 100 submariners, he didn't even interrupt his holiday. He
came to power on a ticket of security - particularly from Chechen rebels, and it
seems likely that he will choose to be the hard-man in this case. His problem
is that he can't let Chechnya secede or many others will follow. After the
collapse of the Russian Empire a decade ago, the battered ego of collectivist
Russia will not survive an implosion of Russia itself. Chechnya will stay
Russian, whether the Russian people want it to or not. One of the interesting thing is that many of the hostage-takers are
women. Rumors are that most of them are Chechen women who have been raped by Russian servicemen, and
that traditionally, Muslim women raped in war either die or become whores. So in this case
they expect to die. This may
make them hard for Russian authorities to negotiate with. The part about Russian servicemen committing rape is pretty believable -
their levels of corruption, ignorance and
lack of discipline surpass that of China's PLA. For Russian
Servicemen, telling transparent lies is a way to demonstrate their
dominance - at least the PLA have the decency to to try to argue their case
convincingly. Of course rape is an effective weapon of terror, but few rape victims
feel endeared to their rapists. It is not an effective mechanism for dissuading
populations from seceding from the rapists. The Russians seem to be reaping what they have sown.
|
|
 |
| Issue Finally Sunk | |
The carefully orchestrated 'Children Overboard' witch-hunt came to fruition
today. Instead of causing the big splash the Left hoped for, it pretty
much blew up in the face of the protagonists. The inquiry, dominated by the Left, was carefully designed to embarrass the
government and the Australian Defense Force but
was cut short when embarrassing facts around the events themselves began to
surface. Little things - like the fact that an asylum seeker had
threatened to throw a child overboard (that was on
the video), the fact that people had then sunk their own boat (effectively
throwing everyone overboard, children and all), and the fact that 18 days after
this, a child was actually thrown overboard (details here) though
from another boat. But the worst thing for the Left was the timing of the final report. Nine
days after nearly a hundred Australians were murdered by terrorists in Bali,
Australians couldn't really care whether a bunch Pakistani asylum-seekers
pretending to be from Afghanistan threw their
kids overboard or not. They were more concerned with their national
security. And frankly, the difference between a) throwing children overboard
and b) threatening to throw children overboard and then sinking the whole boat,
seemed a little bit moot. And further reports of foreigners drowning due to
overloading their foreign boat off the coast of a foreign land barely raised a
ripple. The Greens may be
keeping up the water-on-stone treatment on this issue for a while yet, but
Simon (I-can-protect-our-borders-too) Crean just wants to sink this one as soon
as possible. The more he stirs it up, the wetter he looks when he tries to play
the strong-man. He just has to keep Carmen (unsinkable) Lawrence out of site
until the next election. Good luck, Simon - you'll need it!
|
|
 |
| The Equalizer | |
The story so far .. A (Chinese) Asian Economics Student at Monash's Clayton Campus strode in
class, shot dead two of his Asian colleagues and wounded five other
people. Needless to say, John (only-I-can-have-guns) Howard and Bob
(lie-down-and-let-them-rape-you) Brown have been squealing in unison for gun
control - a unpleasant, but fortunately uncommon, occurrence. Rudi Redneck and
Larry Leftie meet in a bar ..
Larry Leftie: One thing this incident proves is the need to ban guns.
Rudi Redneck: Rubbish it demonstrates the need to ban Asians.
LL: But Asians didn't cause this - guns did.
RR: An Asian did cause this.
LL: But if there were no guns this incident couldn't have happened.
RR: If there were no Asians this incident couldn't have happened.
LL: But you can't judge all Asians on the actions of a few.
RR: You can't judge all gun owners on the actions of a few.
LL: Even if you did ban Asians, gun deaths would still occur.
RR: Even if you banned guns, crimes would still occur.
LL: But guns are inherently evil.
RR: Why?
LL: Because they kill people.
RR: An Asian killed people on this occasion - does that make Asians inherently evil?
LL: Of course not - very few Asians kill people.
RR: Very few guns kill people.
LL: You don't agree with me, therefore you are evil!
RR: Leftie Loser!
LL: Redneck! Sound familiar? If there are justifications for gun control, the tragedy
in Monash is not one of them.
|
|
 |
| Innocence or Redemption? | |
While people all over the civilized world condemn the actions of Islamic extremists, some of
those same people are defending Islam. John Howard has stated that there is
nothing inherently violent
or extremist about the Islamic religion. Some would consider
this a contradictory view, others think this is common sense. Is there anything
inherently violent or evil about Islam, and if so can Islam be redeemed? Islamic proponents are very fond of reminding us about atrocities committed
by Christians
(particularly against Muslims), and about the progressiveness of Islam with
(for example) the rights of women. We are reminded about the Christian
Crusades, and told that Islamic women had rights to own land centuries before
women in Christian countries. However we don't see many Christians waging holy wars against Muslims in
the modern age. And there is something slightly sickening about being lectured
to about rights of women by organizations who are intent on stoning them to
death for choosing who to have sex with. But this begs the question 'what is Islam?', and even 'what is religion?'. Is it the
teachings of the prophet? The writings in recognized scriptures? Or is it the
actions of the followers? The Islamic prophet, Mohamed, was a nasty individual who felt that he had
the right to force others to worship his god, and to kill those who
disagreed. The Christian prophet, Jesus Christ, was a confused individual who
was nailed to tree for insisting on his right to free speech. This is not to
say that all Christians are good people - they are not. Atrocities have been
committed in the name of all religions. But in the long run, followers in
search of guidance will ask the question 'what would the prophet have done in
this situation?' Judging the religion on the actions of the followers gives an equally
disturbing picture. We see women being stoned to death for choosing who to have
sex with; ancient statues blown up because they offend Allah; fatwas against
writers who ridicule Islam; and women forced to wear clothes deemed
'appropriately modest' by the religious leaders. While protestations abound that Muslims in first world countries are
the moderate ones, the question remains: is the difference between moderation
and fundamentalism any more than just a matter of degree? And being told that
all Muslims in Australia
are the good ones, and that all the bad ones are in other
countries is less than reassuring - particularly in an environment where so
called 'anti discrimination laws' are used to shutdown open discussion, and
where Australian residency and citizenship are regarded as a right to foreigners. Every individual is free to make up their own mind about what they believe,
but decisions about how to contain the terrorist threat must be
made collectively. Hopefully people will be free to discuss the threat openly. The stakes may be very high.
|
|
 |
| Popular as Ever | |
Saddam (No-WMDs) Hussien has ordered the release of all prisoners in Iraq, to celebrate the apparent
100% support for him in the recent election. It was an odd election by Western standards - there were of course no other
candidates, and armed authorities read and checked each vote before it was
placed in the ballot box. However it was a roaring success for the incumbent
dictator, and was an
even better showing than his last effort in 1995, in which he only got 99.96%
percent of the vote. This begs the question 'what happened to the other 0.04%?' But the release of prisoners gives us a clue. The thought of the government realeasing
convicted muggers and rapists
as a thank-you to the public may seem odd to most Australians, where the favor
to the people occurs when criminals are put into prison,
not getting out of it. One wonders what Saddam would do to punish the Iraqi people.
|
|
 |
| Biting the hand that feeds him | |
The Greens appear to have won the Cunningham by-election, ending the
52 year stranglehold by the ALP. By-elections are usually a barometer for the popularity of the government.
There is normally a small 'protest' swing against the government because
people know they won't actually change the decision, and this is sometimes
reversed if the incumbent government are lucky enough to find a small and
winnable war to fight. However in this case, the Liberals didn't even put up a candidate.
The ALP's Sharon (I-love-affirmative-action) Bird lost to
a Michael (green behind the ears) Organ. Part of this is union payback to Simon (union-basher) Crean for his 50-50 union
push. Unions supported an independent candidate, who in turn gave preferences
to the Greens. The ALP is, as expected, adrift in the political mire after Simon sank his
teeth into the unions in the federal ALP conference. The ALP had no chance of
winning the next election if they remained the lap-dog of the unions, but that
would be a whole lot better than just drifting around bickering among
themselves about border control and welfare policy. Simon, Simon, just because you got new teeth didn't mean you had to
bite the hand that was feeding you.
|
|
 |
| Angrier than this? | |
Muslim Extremists are
angry people. they don't like to see people making their own choices. They
don't like to see people happy. They don't like to see people more affluent than they are. They
don't like other pointing out their ignorance, corruption and
incompetence. They don't like to see people have fun. Actually they don't seem
to like very much - except controlling other people. The War on Terror is a little like the War on Drugs - it can never
be won. The Left is right that you will never have enough bullets to kill an
idea (genocide notwithstanding). But they are also wrong in thinking that there
will ever be a level of submission which satisfies megalomania. You cannot
appease fundamentalist Islam. Fundamentalist Islam will not stop until it
controls every aspect of your lives. How do you deal with an enemy you can't defeat, and can't make peace with?
You can either wage continual war with them, or contain them. Containment is
the best strategy - you don't let them cross your borders, and you ensure they
don't develop the technology to hurt you from outside them. Keeping fundamentalist Islam poor is easy - poverty is a natural by-product
of a repressive society, and just as their thirst for repression is unbounded,
so is their capacity to generate poverty. Further, Islam itself is
fundamentally a religion of poverty - poor people choose Islam, and Islam keeps
them poor. Modern wars are about technological and
industrial capacity, hence a frontal assault on a united West will never be an
option for them. However an abundance of scarce natural resources (yes, it's about oil), mixed with capitalism, incompetence
and corruption generates
surpluses which can be used to generate Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMDs), which make fundamentalist Islam much harder to contain. Eventually oil market will contract, either through shortages in supply (it
runs out) or shortages in demand (a substitute is used), and the Islamic
economies will contract to Taliban-Afghan levels. But this is
still decades away. In the meantime, the West has allowed fundamentalist Islam within their
borders - as proven by the WTC attacks, so total
containment is no longer possible. Hence the West's priority in stopping
fundamentalist Islam gain control of WMDs. It's going to be a long messy war, mate.
|
|
|
| Because it
will give a clear message to despots who support anti-western terrorism that
this will reduce, not increase, their chances of staying in power. | It will set a precedent for invading other countries,
making it will be harder to criticize (or deter) other invaders in the
future. |
Which is a more important precedent to set? Fundamental human rights abuses are
abuses regardless of whether they are ordered from across a political boundary
or not. | It will give
a clear message to the fundamentalist Islamic world about attacking Western
nations. | It will increase Islamic hatred of
Australia, already apparently at an all-time high, and make us a
target. |
Don't assume we are dealing with civilized people. All these people understand
is power and force. Clearly the West has the upper hand here because Islam governance
makes nations weak (yet another reason they hate the West). Fanatics
cannot be reasoned with or placated - only cowered. | Because it
will kill lots of Arabs. Don't laugh - for many people this is a plus, and this
is just a list of the arguments, and in a democracy this has to be
considered. | Because it will kill lots
of people (including Arabs). |
How many people will die is hard to tell - it depends on how long it takes
for Saddam's regime to fold. However it might be sensible to recall the
doomsayer's estimates of 'millions of deaths' before the '91 war before
being fooled again. Bear in mind that Iraqis are suffering and dying now
because of Saddam's abuses and because of Western sanctions. | It will
restore sovereignty of
Iraq to the Iraqi people. Iraq could become the first Arabic democracy in the Middle East. Iraq was
quite a civilized country right into the '70s, and has the potential to be as
good a democracy as Turkey. | It will be
perceived by many as taking sovereignty away from Iraq - particularly with the
Islamic mindset which regards democracy as evil. |
A successful, democratic and 'moderate' Iraq will both damage and discredit
the fundamentalist Islamic mindset. If the US is in and then out within 18
months, there will quite clearly be a long term benefit. | Because the
US are going in, and strengthening the alliance is a good thing. Particularly if
there is going to be a future war with Islam. | Because we should be seen as making our own decisions and not
blindly following the US. |
The feel good factor from pseudo-patriots running around saying 'look at us,
we are independent' is about as sensible as the red-necks regarding
Arab deaths as a plus. It's irrational and short-sighted. | It will bring
down the price of oil. | It will cost
money. |
Which of these is greater is anyone's guess. | We can send
all the Iraqi asylum
seekers who came here illegally (and were given Temporary Protection Visas)
home. | The war, like all wars, will generate
more refugees. |
In fact, what generates refugees is despotism. The point of this war is to remove it. | It will install a
democracy in the heart of the Middle East, and the push for democracy may
spread to other Middle Eastern states. | It will cause
regional instability. |
Revolution is a good
thing if it results in long-term democracy. | It will
enable the sanctions against Iraq to be lifted, and the suffering which this
causes can end. | The sanctions could be lifted
anyway. |
The problem with lifting sanctions is that much of the Iraqi economic
surplus will be used for weapons building. Regime change will solve both problems. | Because it
will lower the chances of WMDs falling
into the hands of Islamic terrorists. | If
there are WMDs they will be used in the war. |
If they are used in the war, they will (probably) be used in Iraq against
soldiers who are equipped to combat it. Surely this is a preferable location
to an Australian city?
|
|
 |
| No Trick Questions! | |
Measure you IQ with just five easy questions!
- If the Bali bombers had been able to perpetrate that act in Australia
would they have done so?
a) Yes
b) No
- If the Bali bombers were able to use a nuclear or WMD weapon
instead of a conventional explosive, would they have chosen to do so?
a) Yes
b) No
- Considering your answers to 1 and 2, if the Bali bombers were able to use
a nuclear or WMD weapon in
Australia would they do so?
a) Yes
b) No
- Where are these kinds of people most likely to get such weapons?
a) 7-eleven
b) McDonalds
c) Iraq
- What is the most effective way of preventing such an acquisition?
a) Letting thugs rape you and your family
b) Ordering extra fries
c) Regime change in Iraq
Score: If you circled the answers on your computer screen, you fail. Apply
white-out immediately.
|
|
 |
| It's Easy Being Green | |
As is fitting after a sudden military attack, people are
quickly taking positions in the aftermath of the Bali Bombing. Bob (let's-lie-down-and-let-them-rape-us) Brown has predictably blamed John
Howard. He has said that more such attacks (including attacks on our soil) are
likely if Australia backs
the US in the coming Iraqi
war. His solution solution seems to be to placate fundamentalist Islam by opening the borders to
them. Apparently it hasn't occurred to him that reducing the number of
fundamentalist Muslims in Australia reduces the risk. Or maybe he thinks it is
already too late, and that the only way to keep ourselves safe now is to try
and placate those who are already here. If that is the case it would at least
be nice to have him admit his part in it.
|
|
|
>> Please Sir, I want some more
|
|
| Feedback/Forum |
|
- ANON -- Anonymous Coward 2011-12-02
|
|
