Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Preventing terrorism: Where do we begin?
Richard Tonkin is a longtime Webdiary contributor and volunteer. He specialises in the growing influence and success of US company Halliburton and other US defence companies in Australia, particularly in his home state, South Australia. Richard's last piece for Webdiary was The Man with the Dyed Beard Returns, and his blog is Richard Tonkin's snippets.
.....sometimes our methodology gets slammed, sometimes we get reprimanded for errors, faulty assumptions, inadequate literature review in our report, whatever. But we're doing the best we can - and usually, our best is pretty good. You want to know why your streets are free from perpetual motion machines and anti-gravity gangs? Because we have the power to do what it takes to stop crime. Forget about juries. We try, convict, and sentence on our own - From Jeff Lindsay's "Memoirs Of A Sci-Cop."
The Australian Federal Police and Federal government have badly botched a few terrorism deportations of late. If poor handling of the cases of Scott Parkin, Mahommed Haneef and David Hicks weren't enough, the APEC events in Sydney gave us a police force that could arrest suspects because of crimes they might commit in the future. Now AFP Mick Keelty wants greater police power to prevent crimes from happening. For reasons that may be obvious, I have a problem with this.
After witnessing the brutal tactics employed by police at APEC, I was doubly shocked to hear a familiar story being used to vilify protesters. NSW Police Minister David Campbell told the Sydney public (via ABC Radio) that one of the reasons police acted pre-emptively was intelligence that protesters were planning to roll marbles under the hooves of police horses. The same story was used (on the front page of the Australian, reportedly leaked by ASIO) to "explain" why it was necessary to confine and deport Halliburton activist Parkin. At this stage Newsweek hadn't uncovered the Pentagon File on the peanut butter sandwiches. The irony of reviving the "marbles and horses" story was that, because of the horse flu, there were no mounted policemen. Parkin's case is back before the courts now, in the wake of ASIO's disallowed appeal against the Federal Court's decision that the deportee should see the peanut butter drenched files that damned him.
The circumstances surrounding Haneef were different. There was a piece in the Australian last year in which a US counterterrorism expert forecast an ominous possibility. True, he gave it a likelihood of less than ten per cent at the time of mention. The notion was that on the weekend of APEC Al Qaeda could strike Australia by unleashing explosions simultaneously in three capital cities. It's not surprising, and in hindsight admirable, that the AFP detained somebody who, based on the circumstantial evidence available to them at that time, might well have been connected to an organised group employing the tactic of simultaneous explosions. The probability of the forecast being correct had suddenly become much greater. The trouble was that while Commission Keelty maintained that Haneef should be granted a presumption of innocence, this was not considered politically appropriate by the Federal Government. Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo has raised concerns this week that the visa appeal won't be heard until next year. Did anybody seriously expect it to happen before the election?
Having shown how brilliant they are at handling the counterterrorism powers they've already been given, have our authorities qualified themselves to receive more?
In the speech he gave in Adelaide on Monday night, AFP Commissioner Keelty had a fair bit to say on how much the world had changed since September 11 2001. He says that "Health, education and the economy remain important issues, but domestic security has been elevated to a level of importance we’ve never experienced before," adding that "our mindset has changed". He says that the AFP has "moved into new, global, law enforcement territory,"
Having stood in a public park and watched squadrons of police invade a gathering and arrest people to avert the possibility that they might commit a crime, I was particularly interested in what Mr Keelty had to say next. He explained that the Australian public expected terrorists to be caught before attacks occurred, and that legal problems would ensue. "In a prevention environment the courts will be dealing with larger numbers of inchoate crimes, or crimes that are prevented at a very embryonic stage of execution. Sentencing in this environment could become problematic, at least in the early stages." Keelty argues that through the new approach less people would be charged with "lesser" crimes because these crimes will have been prevented from occurring.
If the "marbles intelligence" was still current at the time of APEC, it would appear that one of the most publicly-active justifications of Parkin's deportation was a complete failure. And when Haneef gave a second chance to get the procedures right, another travesty arose. These are the sorts of situations Mr Keelty expects us not to read about in the future. Does that mean they won't be occurring, or just better concealed?
If APEC is an example of applying Keelty's proposed methodology, then we're about to become a society treated with benign contempt by an armed force sifting us for, and removing, potential evildoers from within our masses, smugly confident that any violations in civil liberties are justified in serving a greater good. This kind of sentiment was typified by the last NSW police commissioner when he explained that he had to worry about giving society the greatest civil liberty, "freedom from murder." All else, it seems, is trivial.
The bungling exhibited by the combined efforts of the government and its agencies, in what now can be perceived as prevention of Haneef and Parkin from carrying out future crimes, suggests that pre-emptive counterterrorism is failing miserably, and that its status quo is wide open to incompetency. And these people want us to have faith in them and give them more?
Accountability in applying counterterrorism powers is a major problem. If Keelty is lauded by federal ministers, then who is checking them? When you look at the ministerial support for the treatment of Parkin and Haneef, perhaps the concept of a Counterterrorism Ombudsman is one worth considering. The shady cloud of having allowed a government agency to provide material support (you know, the charge for which David Hicks, still the only Guantanemo convict, is locked in Yatala?) for Saddam Hussein before sending troops to capture him still looms over this government's head, and you can be certain that any political stuff-ups are going to be concealed as best as possible between now and the election. An apolitical ombudsman could have the power to eliminate such possibilities. Perhaps the idea is akin to shutting the door after the horse has bolted, but from Mr Keelty's ruminations this week, I can see that s/he could have a heavy workload in the near future. Perhaps it could be someone from ASIO? It would appear that the spooks are also unhappy with government/police power acquisition. Whether police and government would accept subservience to ASIO, though, is another thing altogether. After all, what would they know?
Looking at other end of counterterrorism gives us a fair idea of how far an idea can travel. Jack Hitt's Missile Defence piece in Rolling Stone sums up the global philosophy well.
[extract]
Working alongside Paul Wolfowitz, the future secretary of defense finally came up with the result that Republicans were looking for. The Rumsfeld Commission established a new standard of threat, asserting that any country with Scud technology would be able to easily convert to ICBM capability. Most important, they determined that the earlier intelligence efforts were flawed because they looked only at "likely" threats instead of "possible" threats -- such as North Korea and Iran and Venezuela.
This was a key conceptual shift, the difference between relying upon known facts to empirically project a likely scenario and relying upon the human imagination to conjure every possible danger. If the shift seems familiar, that's because it is the same one that occurred throughout the government after September 11th. All threats, big and small, were now on the table, and all were taken seriously. In foreign policy, this worldview became known as the War on Terror. In the realm of national defense, this idea became the missile defense shield.
If the perceived future possibility of terror attacks was enough to implement a global war to eliminate it, how long will it be before "terrorist friendly" words are forbidden? If the treatment of Parkin and his words is an indicator of a "possible threat" being dealt with badly, what measures are the Government and police prepared to take to correct their ineptitude? How long before authorities come to sites such as Webdiary and begin to censor our words, in the name of saving citizens from being murdered?
If local counterterrorism methods mirror the global approach of eliminating possibilities before they have a chance to occur, then our police and governments will be able to do whatever they please, whenever they feel like it.
I believe that we need to start some preventative thinking. Work out what our worst case scenario as a police state society might be, and eliminate the possibility. Under the new rules of the game, it's the only way to play.
We've had it drummed into our heads that if we change our lifestyles because of fear of terrorism then the terrorists will have won. Things aren't looking too good at the moment. We still, however, have much left to lose. In a situation with so much gravity, it's still a long way down for a society falling into becoming a martially-controlled community for the sake, so we're told, of its survival. The terrorists have much more to win, and in my opinion we're handing it to them on a platter decorated with thirty pieces of silver.
 |
 |
 |
| © 2006, Webdiary Pty Ltd |
| Disclaimer: | This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors. Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way, please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary. |
Computing Australian Terror
It appears that the possibility of simultaneous Australian APEC attacks was taken extremely seriously. Seriously enough, at least, to test-drive new counterrorsim software developed by CSIRO and Geosciences.
[extract from Malaysia Sun, 3/10]
I wonder how the boffins playing with this little video game reacted when Haneef appeared on the radar. Brown trousers? Or perhaps it was like winning Tattslotto?
Communism has killed
“Communism has killed more people than any other ideology in human history “
Mike Lyvers, I suggest you actually study history before making comments which are clearly dubious in the face of the terror, destruction and human slaughter carried out in the name of god since its inception. Monotheism is the biggest psychological and physical terrorist organisation the world has ever seen over the last 3500 years. Communism has survived less than a century and pales into insignificance compared to the debauched works of god.
Eliot, in the mind of a rational logical thinking person, control doesn't mean becoming a suppressive terrorising despot. The ideologies we currently have are all designed to suppress and enslave for the benefit of a few and to the detriment of everything, something which is currently in full view for all those evolved enough to care for the dying future. I believe your link proves it's irrelevant as to the ideology of arms suppliers, they all follow the same pattern. When you read the article, the USA is also supplying the new Iraq with as many weapons as they can buy, so nothing has changed. A wonderful display of supporting the growth of conflict and terrorism. The Chinese have been making the AK47 for a very long time, those serving in Sth east Asia from the 1950's are effected witnesses to contact with an AK47 and its equivalent the SKS .
these disruptive and stupid beliefs
Alga Kavanagh says:
He also says:
No disrespect, Alga, but can someone who wants to "control" people's "disruptive and stupid beliefs" justifiably call others "despots"?
Anyway, those here who were discussing in the missing Ak-47s the USA "supplied" to Iraq's police might find this interesting:
I guess since the Chinese actually make AK-47s, they would be cheaper and quicker.
Ideological cancer
“Question is, after the terror, will there be any world left to fix? “
That's the ultimate unanswerable question, Daniel. Having been on this planet for 62 years, travelled extensively, worked in and am experienced in many many vocations, I've seen the dramatic changes which have brought this ideological terror into full bloom. I have the hope that at least some of those sane enough and not trapped by ideology will be able to survive the psychological, environmental and physical terror confronting us all in the foreseeable future and will be able to help nature restore balance and finally instil some form of rational logic into any remaining humans.
Most of this race are of the opinion that either the terror won't affect them, or it's to far in the future to worry about. This may sound macabre, but I hope it happens very very soon. The longer it goes on, the less chance nature has of surviving the ideological humans who have mutated into a terminal cancer. Today, they're saying about one third of the population still aren't decided who they will vote for, but on election day they will, slavelike, vote for the terrorists, as we see worldwide.
Rational logic versus deluded illusion
Ian, I don't believe the state should protect us from these things. I believe we should have a political and social approach which will mitigate them. Prevention is always better than cure and there is no cure for our approach, just a fatal illness. If we class ourselves as an intelligent society then we should be smart enough to prevent or mitigate all you mention, and we can. The methods are available: it only takes the resolve which you won't get with a system orientated to economic growth and corporate control. We have a health system and a legal system which are orientated to profit and not outcome, so we have the degenerating situation we see around us. It won't change when you have pharmaceutical companies and the legal profession in control, as they are orientated to profit, not positive results. The only difference between the two vested interest controlled factions of lib/lab coalition is just packaging – the contents are the same. So you are right – time for a change, not back to the past, but into the future. In that, we have no choice: what is today is what decides our future, not dreams, hopes, ideologies or beliefs. We see the terror ahead, created by those currently in control, and that will be the result on all fronts.
Eliot, I don't support any side. All current ideologies and their followers are tarred with the same brush – deluded blindness. By what you write, you are a strong supporter of these despots who are destroying the planet’s life with their economic, social and cultural terror. So you can't criticise them for fear of being seen as hypocritical. I couldn't care who armed who. All I do is point out that none of them has any credibility whatsoever. If you lined all the ideologies of the world up, you would find a great deal of evidence of their inflicted terror. That's all the truth I need. I see no difference between any bomb: they all kill and destroy. Reality is what is, Eliot, not what we allude to. Rational logic shows our system has failed in every aspect there is and you’re welcome to go down with the ship.
Who Sees The Terror Ahead, Alga?
Alga, you and I may see the terror ahead but very few people do. We understand the importance of changing the status quo to prevent catastrophe but those who control us for their own ends will not allow it. And of course the sheeple are far too busy watching sport and soaps on television to care about what is happening to them or their world.
To survive, it's obvious that we humans have to get rid of capitalism, imperialism, militarism, theism, and nationalism. These five 'isms' are relentlessly destroying our world and destroying any chance of peace.
Question is, after the terror, will there be any world left to fix?
Daniel, you missed a few important things.
cast the first stone - my arse.
Alga Kavanagh says:
The truth is that all countries, regimes, and corporations dealing in arms trading and invasions are terrorist organisations, along with those who support them.
Oh, yes, I know. Therefore who are we to criticise this one or that?
Get real, Alga, the rhetoric of equivalence hides more than it reveals.
My bet is if Country A armed itself to defend against an aggressor or in order to provide plausible deterrence against future agressors, people would look at that somewhat differently than in Country B armed, funded and supported some dissident group in Country A that had this really neat plan for putting bombs on the sub-way or hijacking civilian airliners and killing everyone on board.
Or am I being picky?
this really neat plan...
Eliot: "...putting bombs on the subway..."
Eliot, I though bunker-busters went through the subway.
But, as you correctly more or less say, one person may indeed, be another's "terr'ist"!
Still Don't Get It Eliot
No-one could deny that the USSR-or now Russia, China-any number of countries attempts to manipulate situations, although I reckon you are going a tad too far with Chavez who received an overwhelming majority vote despite the right wing attempting to de-rail him, with help from the US.
And for no other reason because of Chavez's socialist policies which are actually raising the standard of living in Venezuela. That in itself is perceived as a very dangerous thing by the nutbags currently in control of the USA (who I regard as anti-capitalists and more akin to the great robber barons of the late 1890's to the 1920's which the US was so successful in nipping in the bud, until now).
And yes-even Australia interferes in other nations, apart from Iraq, with their ridiculous posturing in the South Pacific-alienating just about every country that is really important to us in the region and sending them into the arms of China. Yet another reason why the appalling Keelty must be gotten rid of-and it looks like the charming Commissioner Scippione in NSW looks set to emulate this dangerous and complete fool.
But all you are doing is pushing the same old line-others did terrible things so the fact we helped or sanctioned the slaughter of thousands of innocent Iraqis can be balanced against the ills of others.
And you wonder why someone wants to cut our throats ?
Tissue paper darts and the looming terror
Amazing, how entrenched ideologists of all persuasions continue to bash their heads against the double brick walls of reality, expecting them to collapse under their onslaught of head banging, denial, and tissue paper darts. The truth is that all countries, regimes, and corporations dealing in arms trading and invasions are terrorist organisations, along with those who support them. In the political arena, it is irrelevant as to left, right, moderate, radical: they all involve themselves in psychological terror. Even our security forces use terror to deny freedoms. If you really take a deep look at our society, you'll see it revolves around instilling fear and terror into the populace to maintain the vested control. The fear of not being able to cope, and of not being able to keep all aspects of our lives together against crime, economic and monetary changes, health, family – and the list could go on, evokes a subtle form of internal terror. There's also the terror involved when these things look like looming up. At this point in time, within the evolving population of the world, there's a growing terror as to what lies ahead, socially, economically, politically, and environmentally.
I believe we have not yet experienced true terror. Many have, when in the middle of a war or conflict. However, the terror that nature will impart to us, the consequences of the collapse of our economies and probably societies, will be a new form. Those able to step outside the square of enslaved ideology also see the worldwide terror felt by the world populations at the direction the controlling political ideologies are taking us.
How do you stop terror? Change the political system; allow the people to determine the direction, operation, economy and security of the nation. If we don't start now, it will be too late, if not already. To stop the growing terror, place lib/lab last and choose a good independent first. It won't be instant change, but it will start the ball rolling. If suddenly a lot of independents get elected and hold the balance of power, the lib/lab, and their hangers on, will suddenly realise the people mean business and may make changes, slowing things until the people really take control. Then the terror will begin to subside. But I won't hold my breath waiting to see some sanity arise from the smouldering terror ahead.
Alga, I could not agree more
Alga: “... The truth is that all countries, regimes, and corporations dealing in arms trading and invasions are terrorist organisations, along with those who support them. In the political arena, it is irrelevant as to left, right, moderate, radical… If you really take a deep look at our society, you'll see it revolves around instilling fear and terror into the populace to maintain the vested control. The fear of not being able to cope, and of not being able to keep all aspects of our lives together against crime, economic and monetary changes, health, family – and the list could go on, evokes a subtle form of internal terror… At this point in time, within the evolving population of the world, there's a growing terror as to what lies ahead, socially, economically, politically, and environmentally.”
Have I read this correctly? The state should protect you and me both from crime, rent rises, share market plunges, coughs, colds, colonitis, (I had orchitis once, and believe me, it’s no joke) rebellious teenagers – “and the list could go on” – earthquakes, heatwaves, blizzards, meteorite impacts, comets, supernova explosions… and I haven’t even had breakfast yet.
Well I agree wholeheartedly, the state should.
What I want to know is, where’s Howard when he’s needed on all of this? And for that matter, that useless dill Downer? Nowhere, that’s where.
Time for a change my friend. Time for a change.
The state should....
Ian MacDougall was saying that the state should protect us from rent rises, supernovas crime etc.
Well am not sure if that's what Alga was getting at, Ian. No one expects the government to protect us from comets, unless they are the sort of unreasonable dickheads living in the mortgage belt that I witnessed on Insight this week.
I think Alga was pointing out raisons d'etre as to human evolution based on some degree of cooperation. While its true that nowadays people have been taught by politicians to take things for granted and revile any sort of responsibility as a socialist intrusion on their "freedoms", it remain probable that we are "here" because the cooperative mode. For several million years now evolving Homo sapiens has/ve clubbed together, for mutual protection. For the benefit of nit pickers am not arguing as to when some sort of division between genetics and culture occurred – one has flowed from and into the other as the species’ intelligence has developed toward consciousness and sociocultural intelligence.
I therefore accept Alga's statement more or less intact, against the meaningless cavils of folk like Eliot.
What are you implying here, Paul?
Paul you said "For several million years now evolving Homo sapiens has/ve clubbed together, for mutual protection. "
They formed kin-based groups that waged war with other, more distantly related groups fighting over resources. So what? Doesn't sound to me like human nature is particularly harmonious. Bonobos do it much better.
"For the benefit of nit pickers am not arguing as to when some sort of division between genetics and culture occurred – one has flowed from and into the other as the species’ intelligence has developed toward consciousness and sociocultural intelligence."
Developed toward consciousness? Surely our ape-like ancestors were conscious. They saw colors, felt pain, became afraid or angry, etc. As does the brush turkey in my back yard. Sociocultural intelligence is something else, though.
ball-point ink
Michael Coleman asks
"How do you reconcile that information with this part of your post"
Firstly, a precursor chemical like Thiodiglycol is not the same as mustard gas, any more than Thiodiglycol is the same as ball-point ink, to which it is also a precursor chemical.
It is also a precursor chemical to dispersants, fibers, plasticizers, rubber accelerators, pesticides, dyes, and various other organic chemicals
And I'm pretty darned sure if there was so much as a jot of evidence the US company which exported the Thiodiglycol to Iraq ended up supplying Saddam's chemical weapons programme instead of some dye factory or pesticide plant, the revisionist historians wouldn't be pussy-footing around talking about "precursor chemicals", would they?
They'd be pointing to the actual evidence of chemical weapons.
And by contrast, we have actual evidence of a Dutch firm being involved in the actual manufacture of Saddam's chemical weapons.
And when was the last time you ever heard of anyone saying the Dutch "supported" Saddam?
Nitrate fertilizers can be turned easily into high explosives. Are we to believe every time some firm exported nitrate fertilisers to Iraq they were aiding Saddam's weapons programme?
Secondly, you'll notice from the same source that precursor chemicals which could have (or not have) been used for chemical weapons were supplied in far greater volumes by companies from Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons + 2,292 tons ), and West Germany (1,027 tons).
Yet we don't hear anyone going on about how Singapore supplied Saddam's chemical wepaons programme, do we?
When any of these simple facts are pointed out, as with the "American supplied" AK-47s, the revisionist response is typically either one or both of the following:
Overwhelmingly, Saddam's weapons came from the USSR, China, North Korea, France and his Middle Eastern allies.The only persons to benefit from re-writing the account of that simple fact are them.
The great double standard
"I grant you that there has been a mass of talk about the US assisting Saddam over the years but we are beyond that now."
Only when it's exposed as gross exaggeration and distortion. Otherwise, it's open slather, isn't it?
Then, almost unbelievably, Michael says this:
"You surely cannot deny that it has been US policy to meddle in the affairs of other countries either covertly or overtly to safeguard what the US perceived as its own interests."
- as if that's a uniquely American privelege.
Try this out, Michael:
"You surely cannot deny that it has been Hugo Chavez's policy to meddle in the affairs of other countries either covertly or overtly to safeguard what he perceived as Venezuelan interests."
Or how about this:
"You surely cannot deny that it has been President Putin's policy to meddle in the affairs of other countries either covertly or overtly to safeguard what he perceived as Russian interests."
Name me one country in the world where the government doesn't meddle in the affairs of other countries to further its own interests.
I Don't Get Your Point Eliot
I grant you that there has been a mass of talk about the US assisting Saddam over the years but we are beyond that now. You surely cannot deny that it has been US policy to meddle in the affairs of other countries either covertly or overtly to safeguard what the US perceived as its own interests. Maybe you agree with that policy.
That involved supporting Saddam to a certain point, it meant actively supporting the overthrow of Allende in Chile (and thousands of 'leftists' were rounded up and slaughtered in a football stadium on orders of the odious Pinochet). Invading Panama when Noriega deluded himself into thinking he was running the place, telling that dreadful Marcos couple to flee the Philippines when Reagan told them they no longer had his support. On and on it goes – they have attempted to mould South America and many Asian countries in their own image. Both Democrats and Republicans. Now it's the Middle East because oil is the most important commodity on the planet – next to water (which will probably cause future wars)
It's pointless now to push the point on who supplied which gun that killed which person. It's about the manipulations behind the scenes and the innocents who are needlessly slaughtered.
There is a very good book by Peter W.Galbraith: End Of Iraq. Galbraith was a former US Ambassador who visited Iraq for 20 years and was actively involved with anti-Saddam forces but witnessed their continued abandonment by the US government in favour of Saddam when it suited. He was actually for the Iraq invasion until he heard of the disastrous plans of how it would be done.
I think this piece on the new US Baghdad embassy – "It's big. Big enough to accommodate 80 football fields." with 20 buildings (the Beijing embassy has eight) and solid thick walls and described as a "city within a city”, completely self supporting for 1000 people, shopping arcades, theatres etc – demonstrates the US is there to stay in Iraq no matter what happens.
The quickest answer to how we prevent terrorism is to stop creating terrorists in the first place.
USA supported Pol Pot's genocide with cheap plastic bags
It's all besides the point really-where these weapons come from-the UK, Russia or the USA. It's what is done with them that counts.
That's funny, because it seems to matter a great deal who supplied Iraq the weapons until it's pointed out that the USA had virtually no role whatsoever in doing so.
And then, it become "nit picking" and "beside the point" and "who the hell cares". And talking of what was done with them...
Here's another fine example of how the self-serving revisionist drum-beat over Saddam's weapons works, this from the Wickpedia link on Halabja.
First this:
"According Iraq's report to the UN, the know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained from firms in such countries as: the United States, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and China."
See? The USA leads the list.
But the actual list:
"By far, the largest suppliers of precursors for chemical weapons production were in Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics (now part of EPC Industrie) sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. The Kim Al-Khaleej firm, located in Singapore and affiliated to United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin, and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq."
So, where's the USA now?
"Leaked portions of Iraq's "Full, Final and Complete" dislosure of the sources for its weapons programs lists many American companies which provided the chemical precursors to Iraq's weapons program [3][4]. These include thiodiglycol, a substance needed to manufacture deadly mustard gas, which made its way to Iraq via Alcolac International, Inc., a Maryland company, since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc., and Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum and now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and energy company.[3]"
What sort of deadly compound is "thiodiglycol" I wonder?
It is used as a solvent for dyeing textiles and inks in some ballpoint pens. In chemical synthesis, it is used as a building block for protection products, dispersants, fibers, plasticizers, rubber accelerators, pesticides, dyes, and various other organic chemicals. In the manufacture of polymers, it is used as a chain transfer agent. As an antioxidant, it is used as an additive in lubricants. So, it's not a chemical weapon as such?
Well, it is a weapon in the sense that the plastic bags Pol Pot used to suffocate and blindfold his victims before shooting them were also weapons.
And who knows where Pol Pot got those bags? Perhaps the USA?
In some revisionist accounts of the Anfal, Saddam's left friends in the west are so keen to help him out they even deny that he even did it.
Take Glen Rangwala, one of Tony Blair's fiercest critics over the war. Rangwala claims the attack on Halabja followed the occupation of the city by Iranian and pro-Iranian forces, leading to the conclusion that the gassing was an attack on these forces by the Iraqis. The Kurds just got in the way. Over and over and over again in all sorts of places all over Northern Iraq. How clumsy of them. And remember the slagging off Regan and Rummy got back in the 1980s for suggesting the same thing?
And this is the guy who called Tony Blair a liar!
Thiodiglycerol
How do you reconcile that information with this part of your post:
Just curious.The true nature of Terrorism
Thank you Paul, I understand what you mean now and you could class me as having the same philosophical approach as Epicurus, according the times. It has always amazed me why the superstitious of the human race dismiss the real understandings of reality, expressed by so many whose minds are open enough to see the current reality during history, preferring to cling to delusional and clearly terrorising fallacies. I doubt Jenny sees it the same way, but I may be wrong. Why anyone would prefer to cling to a failed primitive ideological past, when the future holds such aware inspiring adventures and realisations, is beyond me. But that's the nature of terrorism: deceive, instil fear, promote lies, then psychologically and physically violently conquer - monotheism in its true viewable expression.
Dropping bombs is no way to end terrorism
The attack on Syria by Israeli aircraft is going to increase the likelihood of terrorist attacks. It about time the bully boy tactics of the US and Israel in the Middle East was ended. Sanctions should be brought against countries that continue to use the notion of pre-emptive strikes. The war on terror will never end if both sides choose violence as their main method of communication.
Good posts from Michael
Good posts from Michael and Alga, methinks Elliot is nit picking but is right in suggesting that the French, Israelis, Chinese and so on also have had huge armaments industries and much money is to be made through offshore licensing to bust sanctions, treaties and so forth.
Don't forget much of the simpler weaponry is easily producible if you have the plans and the plant.
I recall, the AK 47 was designed to be able to use 7.62 ammo from NATO infantry weapons, as a sort of one-up. This was because the NATO weapon couldn't use AK 47 ammunition for some reason.
Neat idea, though.
epicurus
Alga sorry, If I call someone an Epicurean I mean in the sense that they have no longer rely on false illusions, can live in the real and the now. That's just my reading of the original Epicurus himself, who wasn't a glutton but someone who seemed in tune with reality.
Psychological and physical terrorist organisation
Paul, I am not an epicurean in any sense of the word and certainly don't think we should make the best of things as they are. Yes god is just an idea, a failed one in respect of what is offered by the myth, compared to the outcomes. Religious heroes, a mythical physical christ, all fall within the category of fantasy and hope. If anyone really wants to start a thread on the veracity of monotheism, its real origins and verifiable facts, I'm happy to oblige. Monotheism is a psychological and physical terrorist organisation, verified by current and past history. I'm not an atheist and have my own view of the future, what it means for us and the unfolding magnificence of our dimensional universe and the myriad of known and unknown dimensions involved with it. It is the expression of god through it's followers which exhibits their gods veracity, the rest is just blind denial, by those who can't take responsibility for their own existence and to weak to have a mind of their own. We all talk to walls, it's just a matter as to whether you believe they talk back to you or not. I don't believe they do, unlike the religious.
Jenny, if millions and millions agreed with me, we wouldn't have the problems in the world we have now. I'm fully open to debate on the subject, as long as it revolves around verifiable, chronological, archaeological and recorded history. The destruction waged by non monotheists is mostly related to other forms of ideological control, and there have been many throughout time, just as debauched as monotheism. Typically those without verifiable fact, accuse others of not being able to see the forest for the trees. But you are wrong in my case, I see just as much mayhem created by other ideologists as by monotheists, I provide no support nor acceptance for any of them. We all live in denial in some respect, otherwise we would quickly accept and overcome the things that disrupt our lives and create pain for us and others. Considering current terrorism the world over is mainly being conducted by those believing in god, as they strive to forcibly take control, I don't see any positive outcomes, or good works emanating from the word of god or the actions of it's followers. Other than making things worse for other cultures of the world. The worst form of terrorism on this planet currently, is the one being waged by humanity upon the planet that give us life. I don't see god stopping them, nor whispering in the ears of believers, telling them to stop destroying his creation.
If you can't judge an ideology or belief, by the actions and history of those who represent those beliefs, then how do you judge it, faith against reality? Surely relying on documents proven to be plagiarised and having no verifiable veracity of their origins or content, as in the bibles, is not the sign of reason. I don't have to prove my point as to the terrorism of monotheism, a read of revelations, koran, old testament, the history of Judaism, christianity and islam, is enough verifiable proof, showing the depth of terror, slaughter and debauchery of the mythical god of war yahweh. All monotheists are doing, is putting that evidence into practise, by emulating the perceived acts of their mythical lord and master. The problem with most who follow the terror trail of yahweh is they have never studied it's fact, just relying upon what's programmed into them, and books so changed from the original works, as to bear no relevance to truth.
A Rat's Arse?
Richard claimed the other day that Australians don't give a rat's arse. That why they don't protest, he said.
Well, I don't give a rat's arse about who makes the rifles except to say that America sells 63% of the world's arms. Britain is next with 12%.
And I don't give a rat's arse about god either. What other people believe is up to them just as long as they don't bring their fantasies into my paddock or threaten the existence of my world (which is as much mine as theirs).
And I don't give a rat's arse about who killed millions of people in the past, whether they were religious nuts or atheists. The past is gone.
But I do give a rat's arse about what is happening in the world now and thinking about how to change it to make the world a better place in the future.
Pulling America and Israel's military teeth would be a good start! Lessening the power of institutionalized religion would be another.
No Evidence Whatsoever Eliot
Just as you wouldn't have any evidence that they are not manufactured in the USA-given it's history of double dealing and meddling abroad.
It's all besides the point really-where these weapons come from-the UK, Russia or the USA. It's what is done with them that counts.
Whoever armed Saddam doesn't excuse the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens who have died as a direct result of the Iraq invasion by us or the US / UK.
I believe the story now filtering out that Saddam would have departed Iraq for one billion dollars is most likely true-given that he was certainly murderous, possibly mad but surely realistic enough to know he could never defeat the US.
I personally believe, as others surely do, that Iraq is now exactly the way the USA wants it to be. In a state of permanent chaos. Divide and rule and all that crap. The only problem the US has is in managing the PR of this war. Certainly I doubt those who rule don't give the slightest toss about the number of GI's killed or mained ( let alone Iraqis) and the more weaponry needed-the greater profits for someone.
I was pretty shocked to read this piece by Ray McGovern, the former CIA specialist who wrote this :folks like the well heeled man who asked me querulously before a large audience, "Don't you agree that several GIs killed each week is a small price to pay for the oil we need?" . Or Robert Fisk, who on speaking tours in the mid-West of the US regularly gets teary eyed women approaching him with fear on their faces basically saying "they're coming to get us !"-whoever they are.
My wife having just returned from 4 weeks in New York reports almost the same. Although NY is a cosmopolitan and basically Democrat city , the things that struck her where-from flea markets to uptown cocktail parties-(a) just about everyone is suspicious of the events around 9/11 and believe the US government either had knowledge of the plot or were either actively involved. And (b) they are all convinced-the Muslim world is out to get them.
In fact she found it difficult to bring up this aspect for fear of a severe tongue lashing . To dispute that in the tiniest way is just not done.
Eliot, who the hell cares?
While you rabbit on and on and on trying to prove that the US didn't arm Saddam you seem to be blissfully unaware that it was the US who backed and armed Iraq during it's 8 year war of aggression against Iran.
Rummy went to see Saddam in 1983 to prop him up, James Baker went after the Halabja gassings to assure Saddam that the US and Iraq were great allies and with this sort of hypocrisy it does not matter a single jot if Russia also supplied weapons along with France and Britain.
What matters a jot is that the US got so damn self-righteous and blew the country to bits when everyone else said no.
Kapeesh?
Oh, so suddenly it's sterile? Just watch...
The argument about who manufactured what weapons is sterile beyond belief.
Well, then you might wonder why the Left goes on trying to re-write the history of who really supplied Saddam's weapons, then?
Take the link Alga provided to the 'Saddam Hussein: Made in the USA' revisionist account. This comes up:
The clear implication is that somehow Bell 214ST helicopters were used in the Halabja gassings. Isn't it?
The 'ST' in the name Bell 214ST stands for 'super transport'.
They are civil aircraft, not military.
And the gassings at Halabja and elsewhere as part of the Anfal genocide were carried out using modified MIG-23 fighter bombers, in fact. No serious account of the Anfal disputes that, notwithstanding anything the LA Times might have reported based on who knows what source.
They're Russian aircraft. No more American than the AK-47s which the USA are supposed to have 'provided' Iraq's security services (as opposed to 'manufactured' or 'exported' to Iraq).
I suggest that the revisionist account of the Bell helicopters and how the USA 'armed' Saddam are deliberate attempts to shift the focus of reponsibility for the Halabja and other genocidal attacks by Saddam's forces away from Socialist regimes (the USSR, North Korea, China, etc) to the USA.
This is precisely how the lie is spread.
This is not Alga's fault, by any measure. He's just repeating what he has been told by others with a revisionist agenda.
with us or agin us, it is all about profit, power, games maime
Eliot, just like other neocon necromancers, preserves the memory of the Reagan /Rumsfeld/Abrams/Negroponte era of war as if it is some religious fest. There seems to be the echo of the cold war stained upon their every writing. Sure, Soviets were there, fighting the West/Bilderberg Alliance using proxy wars and economic blocs with the MIC and arms traffickers the gainers everytime. Both sides were at war and played to win and that means using every trick SunTzu and Machiavelli and other trainers in the dark arts have. The population must believe that they are in the right, the media must be manipulated to that effect and both sides did it. At the same time, the analysis by the decision makers must not be contaminated by spin and that is where one must look for a more factual account of events.
That is why history is constantly being rewritten, even WW2 history, for many, many decades after the events, long after all are dead that were involved there will still be state secrets that the people must not know.
Look at our own cabinet records, not all released even after 30 years! Presently GWBush has used presidential decree to prevent the full release of the documents from the time we are talking of. Reading how Reagan has been revered by the MIC and the present regime one can only wonder what they hold about his regime and the Bush regime that followed.
All the same there are enough facts already available to know that the US not only supported the Iraq regime during the Iraq/Iran war, and that the Israelis supplied both with arms too, but the investigation as to what the events were was blocked by the US in the UN.
Yes, that's right Eliot, not by the Soviets, not by the evil communists boohiss, but by the wonderful West, champions of freedom. And there is plenty of evidence that the West, champions of Freedom, did indeed supply Saddam with weaponry, battlefield reports and troop movements, and the US even shot down an Iranian passenger liner killing all nearly 300 on board. Why were they shooting down passenger liners?
Do we need to go into the source of chemical and bio weaponry? It seems some are still even now in denial that the West, champions of freedom, did indeed supply such and keep supplying such even after the October investigations of Halabja.
Funny Eliot should be so protective of US and the West's involvement and support of this, and so callous to the suffering of the Kurds, must their losses be again a tool for propaganda for the west, Champions of Freedom, mega funders of the MIC, even now? Eliot should look up Chris Parsons’ discussions of the Kurdish suffering earlier; he first opened my eyes to it all so well.
And further, it seemed Congress was not so Gunho as the Reagan and Bush administrations/Pentagon warmachine cahmpions of Freedom/MIC:
The DIA warcollege report that I initially linked was lacking, as C Parsons pointed out at the time, as in allowing forensic evidence of cyanide like death, as well as mustard gas, it failed to acknowledge the reports that the Saddam regime actually had VX and Sarin gas already, as a naval colleague pointed out to me later. One wonders where they got such, surely not from the West, Champions of freedom and massive funders now of the MIC? Also the Peshmerga forces there were allied against Iran at the time. Eyewitnesses apparently described the aircraft tail markings were visible and identified. More details perhaps will become available when more details are released.
And just to clear the air about the weaponry.
Here.
SO, conventional forces from Soviets and French and non-conventional from the West, Champions of Freedom. Delightful. Glad we got that sorted out.
And it was a bit like the AWB enquiry when it was found. Company in New York, bought from Baltimore, shipped to Antwerp then hence to M. E.
If MiGs or French mirages were used then so what? Conventional weaponry. If poison gas were used and bio weaponry then who supplied this? Who stopped UN investigations and Congress investigations? Who continued to give battlefield support after the attack and gassing?
Gee Eliot, surely not the West, Champions of Freedom, massivemassive MIC funders? And through New York, how cute.
And surely not more Western countries involved in altering scuds? Yep, NATO suppliers no less. :
Nice weapon. Recently perfected at huge levels by USA and Russia.
And the money trail? Surely not using Western system of credit, Champion of the Free and Capitalism Rules? Try BNL.
Weaponry sure pays. Looks like the Western Capitalist System, Champion of the Freedoms and MIC, cashed in, and that was even when the sanctions were on. Sweeeet.
Oh and those Eastern bloc weapons. How did they get to Iraq? Surely not by Western Based Arms dealers???? Try Miami based for size. Try with STATE Dep help and Richard Nixon himself involved. Love that Capitalist system, makes profits from the lefty idealists eh?
Guess what, the same guys who armed the Christian militias in Lebanon-ring any bells- happily armed Saddam. No, Eliot we are not talking Leftist Soviets, we are talking pure Capitalists, MIC sharks, with State Department cognizance it appears.... :
Wow, Eliot, "attack helicopters", US made.
What is even more hilarious about eh military deals is that Richard Nixon was even involved, himself with Agnew, Brennan et al dealing with the sweet .
Lucky Nixon wasn't lined up along the wall with his personally regarding dictator. Leftwing? Nope, pure Capitalism and Fascism.
And it gets better, even just before the invasion we have Nuclear enabling technology approved by State department:
And the politics, the decision making, the players who made the decisions, are really quite familiar names in current war play, Particularly Mr Armitage, And here is a bit from a ctici of the time::.
Add to this the real reason for the Iran/contra scandal, the election of Reagan and profit, we realise that "Rightwing" politics are not pretty either. Amazingly the same Contra faces are showing up now, ugly as ever in making the war case against Iran as for the Iraq invasion lies. That is the shame of not holding people to account, but instead giving pardons. How big a traitor does one have to be to not get a pardon?
This is not about right and Leftwing politics, good vs evil, this is money and power. Capitalists were there arming and supplying Saddam. Eliot should leave the propaganda shills and do some real reading. War is all about money and destruction and how to profit from it. No matter whether one is Champion of Freedom western or Soviet leftwing. In fact on examining the available evidence so far the Western supplies seem to be far more Warcriminal -like than the Soviet, but each have their evils. It is not a competition; it is just profits from maiming.
Until we get out of our heads any notion of honourable behaviour during war, any notion that there are rules, any notion that it is "clean", "surgical", and not forget "collateral damage" means murdering and maiming.
Women, little children and their families, forget any notion that illegal weaponry and inhumane weaponry will be held back, forget there will not be torture at horrendous levels ......until we forget.
Annihilate these lies about war. Only then can we really understand the realities and the horror that is inflicted upon fellow humans in every conflict we enter, support, pay for, allow.
Whether it is the Soviets or the West, Champions of the Free, each has done everything above. The CoW, UK/Australian/Netherlands/Spanish/ mishmash stooge countries all involved in the illegal invasion of Iraq have all been a part of every one of those horrors being inflicted upon the soldiers of both sides and the families in Iraq, targeting of civilians, use of inhumane weaponry, destruction of civilian essential services, torture, raping murders, . Do poisoning, and then ethnic cleansing and selling off of public assets and pillaging. Are they all Soviets? Nope, pure blood Captialist nations, Champions of Freedoms and cosignators of Geneva and other Humane treaties.
Move on Eliot, or you will be stuck with Betrayus . War is a racket, a capitalist racket, General Smedley was right and that was back in WW1.
Cheers.
Trying to sanitise the evils of the power games that used war and fed the MIC during the Reagan and Bush eras and nowClinton/ Bush2 era is just spin that protects such actions from that dank past and the spaen that flowed from it.Well Alga, is that so?
Well Alga, is that so.? Millions upon millions would disagree with you. But I doubt you are open to any debate on the issue. So I will leave you to it. I have found that many of those who have no faith in God have this rather biased view of history. It is the non believers that I find to be typically in denial. They cannot see that so much death and destruction to millions upon milions of people have been wrought by regimes practising atheism, and deny the good that so many with faith bring to the world every day of the year.
But we've been there, said all that. As I said, I will leave you to it. You are not likely to change your views. I at least can acknowledge that believers in God and or Gods have committed mayhem at times, but you cannot acknowledge the alternative, can you? Oh well, so be it.
The cherries are sure red, aren't they?
Alga Kavanagh, hi! Apology accepted.
Now, with regards the claim that the USA "armed" Saddam and Afghanistan, that clearly suggests that most, much of, or a significant component of, Saddam's and Afhganistan's weapons came from the USA, wouldn't you agree?
For example, the link you provided to an 'article' that states that Saddam was 'made' by the USA. It clearly implies, by selective trawling and cherry-picking the record, that the USA 'armed' Saddam. It even manages to find a few US helicopters in Iraq. But to do so it just completely ignores that close to 97 per cent at least of Saddam's weapons came from the USSR and Russia, China, North Korea, Egypt, France, Holland, etc, etc.
In other words, it completely ignore that Saddam's tartical airforce was overwhlemingly built around Soviet airframes, that his mobile artillery and tanks were Russian, that the SCUD missile, for example, was developed in the USSR and supplied to Iraq by them, and that his navy was Chinese built.
So, it's a transparent distortion.
Why do you think the political Left in particular, is so keen to propogate the oft-repeated lie, and it is a lie, that the USA 'armed' Saddam and Afghanistan? As opposed to states like the USSR, China, North Korea, and the like?
Kaboom
The argument about who manufactured what weapons is sterile beyond belief.
The vast majority of small arms at large inside Iraq came from Iraqi military armories which were opened to the general population in April 2003 shortly after the Coalition of the Killing invaded.
Some munitions were salted away for use by Iraqi military forces in irregular warfare, and a lot of explosive material is in this category. AK47s, ammunition and the like were released into the general population for use in insurgency and/or gangsterism on a purely ad hoc basis.
Anyone who believes that Iran is required to assist Iraqis with designing and building IEDs is a gibbering idiot. Building a bomb is not hard, even if “shaping” a charge can be tricky. The rudimentary elements are straightforward and well known. Iraq used to be a very well-educated and technically literate society.
I remember first reading a “how to” about bomb-making in a little thing called the Devil’s Cookbook, based on a field manual from the US Army and brought into Australia by returning Vietnam Vets. The book I read was part of an art installation at Griffith University.
If you’d like people to stop making bombs and blowing things up, you’d better work out how to give them something to live for and hope for that doesn’t require bomb-making. Of course the whole strategy of the Coalition of the Killing is that blowing (bad) people up makes the world a better place. Reap what you sow, fellas.
Is the USA stupid enough to spread the war into Iran and Syria?
Adventures in Fantasy Land
As I was saying, Alga and Michael:
"Much of the equipment provided to Iraqi troops, including the AK-47s, originates from countries in the former Soviet bloc."
- and yes, that does explain how those fantasies get spread around.
Double oop's
Eliot, I apologise, I got the manufacturers wrong and relied on my memory.
I am well aware of where AK47's come from and its equivalent the SKS, which I had personal experience with in Sth E. Asia, in the mid 60's. As for arming Saddam and Afghanistan:
“As mentioned above, there are over 10 million small arms floating around in Afghanistan; it is likely that many are in the hands of the Taliban and their supporters. Most of these small arms have been on the market since the time of the Soviet invasion in 1978, and ironically, many were supplied by the United States government in a time when defending against the spread of Soviet influence was a top national security issue.”
Jenny, monotheists typically are in denial and think people are as gullible as they are, only relying upon selective rose coloured glasses evidence. They always forget the terrorism, carnage, genocide, cultural destruction, violent conversion and suppression, carried out by monotheists during the 3500 years since the inception of god. The numbers gods followers, in his name, have terrorised and destroyed during that time, runs in the high hundreds of millions. The work they currently do worldwide, which they proudly, but incorrectly class as charity and good deeds, is only egocentric band aid repair, resulting from the damage their monotheistic predecessors created when they went out into the world and converted via the gun, the indigenous of the world.
The verifiable terrorism and carnage inflicted upon the cultures of the world, lies squarely at the feet of the followers of god, who are in the main, the inventors of every known terror, debauchery, torture and suppression inflicted upon humanity.
Missing weapons.
Alga and Michael, the US has supplied AK-47s to Iraq, and a lot of them went missing. I think this story was covered on another thread some time ago.
Here we go. How it happens...
Michael de Angelos hello
I have no idea who manufactures them - most likely China but it could be any country. Who knows what the US actually does?
Well, that answers my earlier question to Alga.
Anyway, Michael, do you have the slightest evidence whatsoever that any AK-47s of any stripe or type whatsoever, let alone 300,000 of them, have ever been manufactured by anyone in the USA or any of its allies or partner states at any time whatsoever at all anywhere ever?
A Beginning
To protect Australia from those intending to do us harm (are there any?) I'd first sack the top echelon of ASIO and give Keelty and his advisers the boot from the AFP. Both lots have shown they are capable of lying to protect their political masters or themselves, and to be incompetent.
Until there is an enquiry into the exact circumstances in which John Howard lied to Parliament and the Australian people about the reasons for taking this country into an illegal war, including lying about Australian SAS troops already being in Iraq, we can have no confidence in ASIO. Either they or he lied deliberately or ASIO simply accepted the information given them by an ally. Either way, the whole lot should be put out to pasture as hopefully the PM soon will be.
The AFP have shown themselves to be hopelessly unprepared to deal with any subject that differs from the norm, as the Haneef affair shows, and vindictive to boot when rumbled. The Bali Nine fiasco – the head of the jail where they are held being busted for drug dealing (what a joke, actually being caught. He must have crossed someone badly) and the fact the Bali bombers get their sentences reduced demonstrate the AFP are way out of their depth when meddling abroad. They're a dangerous bunch.
I see the AFP are really pushing the "predator" scare hard ball, now importing FBI agents to warn parents that every kid using the Internet is contacted by a stranger. What they don't say of course, as every survey has shown, that the "stranger” is another kid, yapping away to each other about whatever kids do. But the “stranger danger”, although certainly real, has been elevated beyond all criminal activity a thousand times more than its place in the hierarchy of crime. A favourite Fascist tactic – identify a heinous criminal group and enact harsh laws to deal with them, ie, as the AFP just demanded and got, a license to permanently monitor Australian citizens without a warrant. And saving kids? Yeah, tell it to those Aboriginal kids or the displaced Iraqi children etc.
Eliot Ramsey: the AK47 is the most ripped off weapon in the world due to its reliable design. It's well known that US soldiers in Vietnam were happy to ditch their own weapons and use those captured from the Vietcong. I have no idea who manufactures them – most likely China but it could be any country. Who knows what the US actually does? It's pretty easy to stamp "Made in Tehran/ Russia/ Our Latest Enemy" on any weapon so Fox News can ramble on Pravda-like with their latest talking points as directed from the Bush regime.
A look at the facts for Alga
Alga Kavanagh says:
"If you really looked at the facts, you find the weaponry used in Iraq and Afghanistan derives from either Russia and the USA. I'm not sure of the figures, but I believe it's well over a 100,000 USA made AK47's which have gone missing in Iraq."
The AK-47 is off Russian design and build. They are not manufactured in the USA. Though the Chavez junta in Venezuela is to set up a factory to manufacture and distribute AK-47s in Latin America.
Virtually none of Iraq's and Afghanistan's weapons came from the USA, and the vast bulk of it came from the former USSR.
In dollar value, Russia was responsible for 57% of all weapon sales to Iraq between 1973 and 1990, for example. What Russia didn't supply came from China, France, North Korea, Egypt and other states.
Alga, just for interest's sake, who told you that the USA armed Iraq and Afghanistan and that AK-47s were American?
I'm fascinated by how that sort of thing gets put about.
The real terrorists.
Haneef is just another pawn for the lib/labs to push to the slaughter in their vain attempt to attain some credibility. If you really looked at the facts, you find the weaponry used in Iraq and Afghanistan derives from either Russia and the USA. I'm not sure of the figures, but I believe it's well over a 100,000 USA made AK47's which have gone missing in Iraq.
Richard, I agree. There are more things than just religion involved in our current predicament, monotheism deludes its followers with a verifiable false superiority complex. However, the deeper you look, the more monotheism raises its ugly head world wide.The philosophy of monotheism is, speak nice words, but use debauched actions, as god will forgive you for any crime or failing if you repent at your final end. This allows them to conduct their lives in hypocritical egocentricity, irrelevant as to the outcome for others and the planet. Terrorism is lies, deceit, fear, suppression by threats, actions and slander. This scenario eminently describes monotheism, our current political system and the veracity of the lib/lab monotheistic driven coalition.
Kevin Andrews is a clown
Bomb data
Haneef on 4 Corners tonight
4 Corners
Eureka!
L Ferguson, you're a genius! That's what Osama's been missing in his battle for hearts and minds ... a nicely pressed Gloweave. So if we send Osama the appropriate apparel, would we be providing material support for terrorism?
Commendations to Peter Russo for his wishes that Kevin Andrews would stop peddling mistruths. For a lawyer to sail such potentially defamatory waters on national television shows bravery and conviction in his beliefs.
Haneef was, I thought, trying a bit too hard. Wouldn't you, in the same situation? If not already?
Trevor Kerr, yep, the evidence speaks for itself, obviously the insurgents must be getting the goods from Tehran. I still can't get over the fact that a bloke who sold these nasties reactor parts wants to punish them for putting them together. Clever Dick.
Fuse is lit
Consider this, from About Left of Boom: The Fight Against Roadside Bombs:
All those dead and maimed, from just about every county in the US. More than half can be blamed on Tehran. Play the cards right, and the public response to the next hundred may be overwhelming. Maybe the tipping point has been passed.
4 cornballs
L Ferguson again pops up with an asinine contrib. Ha, ha. Bright funny little fellow!
Now to matters more substantial. I think Dr Haneef came off better than fed police and fed prosecutor (esp regards sim card actual location - very suspicious indeed), or that insufferable clown of an immigration minister, whose face has reached the stage of engendering such an antagonism that a man has to feel grateful nothing heavier than a matchbox sits next to the telly when it shows up on the screen.
Is it the Ninth Commandment that says:
" Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" ?
Responses
I'm not a fan of Friedman either, Trevor, but I liked this piece (to which the link worked fine without registering). Perhaps the man has woken up.
This point in particular sums up my sentiments: "It is not that I thought we had new enemies that day and now I don’t. Yes, in the wake of 9/11, we need new precautions, new barriers. But we also need our old habits and sense of openness." Same applies here. Friedman's words are sensible, and I hope taken notice of (in this case).
Alga, thank you for your balanced and thoughtful response. I'll give what you've said plenty of thought, though I still think at this stage that there are other factors at play besides monotheism.
Daniel, I think as many people who were going to march did so. Most people don't give a damn. The cousin-in-law in whose house I stayed in had a President Bush mask hanging on the wall, and yet he and his family left the city for the long weekend. Most people don't give a rat's arse. For those who do though, we were ultimately faced with a situation where we were given no choice but to enter an area from which we would be later dispersed by police. Our right to assembly was revoked when the line of police slow-marched into the park. No doubt this also was classified as preventing acts of terrorism. I'm sure the Chinese delegation at the Sheraton were impressed with the crowd control techniques. Such techniques should not be allowed to be employed in a democracy by a nation's police forces against its own citizens.
Lib/lab + god = Terror
Richard, I agree ridding the country of religion in the short term is far fetched, but preventing religious ideologies from introducing conflict and fragmentation of our society is an easy exercise. In this country, christianity is slowly dying, yet the fools in power continue to import, via immigration and refugees, religious ideological nut cases who are creating growing problems for us. Nothing will change as long as this country continues voting in the lib/lab ideological, social and religious terrorists who are creating these suppressive regimes country wide. Voting in the greens will just open the flood gates even more. Believing voting labor will change things and stop this trend to suppressing the people is ridiculous in the extreme when you look at the directions of labor parties on a state level. But I do accept the vast majority of people are totally programmed and indoctrinated to do nothing but submit like sheep going to the slaughter, through fear of change.
Until we stop bringing these ideological nut cases into Australia and start to deport all religious ideologists when they try to force their debauched beliefs onto us, things will only continue down the tube to finally anarchy, division and, as we can all see unless we are brain dead, chaos and religious terrorism. I doubt you could provide much evidence for any act of terror, conflict, social barbarity or suppression that's not carried out worldwide by other than the religious, by monotheists of all persuasions. When you discuss terrorism you are discussing god in all its primitive violent mythological glory.
Our earlier immigrants did create social problems; however, those problems were mainly short term as most have integrated and embraced our society, as they were not religious or followed a religious culture which assimilated easily. Now, immigration is from countries whose internal conflicts are all religious and they bring their cultural insanities with them, demanding we accept their ways of life and change ours to suit them. When visiting Aus last year, I went through Balaclava in Melbourne, where I spent part of my childhood, to see what it was now like. I was shocked at the discrimination and ignorance afforded me when trying to buy things in this now jewish ghetto. It made me realise how far from reality these primitive minds dwell. These are basically acts of terror against Australians who don't fit within their religious definition of acceptance, and you find them within all monotheistic ghettos. In every country under the control of monotheism you'll find some form of terror against neighbours, other countries, and any who are not of their religious faction. A supposed belief system promoting love, caring and compassion, but expressing itself through violence, suppression and debauched practices surely lacks credibility or veracity. If you had an evolved individualist mind, you would see god and other religions for what they are: failed, primitive, violent and verifiable terror orientated and applied.
Keep it alive
Australia may evolve into the last bastion of 9/11ism, the last place on earth to fly the banner "when everything changed". The rat Thomas Friedman has deserted the 9/11 camp. See his article in New York Times. (free registration required; the NYT has recently opened up its key sections).
If Howard keeps delaying the election date, he may see a wider separation of general attitudes in the US from those of our political elite. That can only be a good thing for Howard and Downer, to go down fighting for 9/11. Maybe we could commission the monument now, before it's too late. Something after the style of the Iwo Jima Memorial in Washington.
I mean, we haven't got a hope of fighting terrorism unless we sustain a potent talisman and continually anoint 9/11 champions. Come on, John!
Religion and Terrorism
Well, it depends what you mean by religion.
The horrendous mass murders of last century were conducted by officially atheist regimes (Russian and China).
Does Marxism count as a religion? In that case does Economic Fundamentalism (the IMF's policies that have led to increased poverty and so preventable deaths)?
Also, those who are strongly against religion seem to tend to the totalitarian. Be careful what you hate, you may become it.