Tim Blair

I don't see this as a black and white issue, Tim, I prefer to see the greys. For example, the colour of the smoke from the firing squad for the babi bombers is grey, the smoke from their funeral pyre is grey-black, the colour of their ash is grey after we mix it in the pig's gruel, after the funeral pyre, and my face will be greeny-grey the morning after their executions.

Lets try Bali bombers, though in hindsight and with a better spell check, I may have been right first time.

This may be how he deals with his grief, so be it. But I will take exception with any political party that tries to score points off this, it is, as you mentioned Tim, a ridiculous foreign policy statement. But I will take no exception with Brian, if he needs to believe this to deal with his grief, so be it.

Brian wants to blame every bugger except the murderous dingbats who, with malice 'aforethought planted explosive devices in confined areas they knew were heavily occupied and detonated them.
Foreign policy had fuck all to do with it- grief is one thing, but the point-scoring Deegan is going on with has political overtones to me; he is connected with the SA ALP, and to be using the death of a child for mileage is fairly odious.

You are a reasonable man, Glenn. Good Lord, even Tim Blair sounds reasonable on this one.

I'm much less so. Deegan has used countless opportunities over recent months to simply attack the Howard Government and has not been afraid to wander into truly loopy territory to do so. He shows no understanding of the nature and motivation of fundamentalist Islamist terrorism and, worse, no inclination to educate himself despite the murder of his son. I can remember him writing how he "forgave" the men who planted the bomb "in ignorance and fear". Ignorance and fear??? FFS, give me a break! This was a carefully planned operation aimed at causing maximum casualties in support of the warped goals of JI. Murdering infidels and creating an Islamist state in Indonesia are among the chief of these.

You might think that he is "dealing with his grief" in his own special way. I reckon he's an arsehole who has spent the last 9 months hiding behind the body of his dead son sniping at the Goverment every chance he gets. Then again, I'm not called "the fat ****" for nothing.

TFK

Curious isn't it, per following contrast:
Oakley has linked two blasts, one contra Scrini and a second against polpotian greens on DDT.The second is no less appalling than what Scrini proposes for people seeking capital investment including g.m. science. More so, since the control over DDT production has resulted in high rates of deaths of children in Africa, a rate of 500000/annum.

So, Deegan seems to believe a pack of murdering Islamo-fascists are justified in killing nasty westerners.No matter, however, the real savagery the greenies have imposed and would do even worse things given even more opportunity than they already enjoy courtesy of communard politicians.If there is a case for knocking of westerners and which one's, the greenies have made it and they should be the targets.

But unlike the murdering Islamo savages and the equally murderous greenies, one doesn't advocate the killing of greenies and would, if the same were doen to them, no less horrendous. This, despite the fact the greenies are pack of lying savage communists.

Deegan has some pretty basic excercises in reasoning to work through.

Curious isn't it, per following contrast:
Oakley has linked two blasts, one contra Scrini and a second against polpotian greens on DDT.The second is no less appalling than what Scrini proposes for people seeking capital investment including g.m. science. More so, since the control over DDT production has resulted in high rates of deaths of children in Africa, a rate of 500000/annum.

So, Deegan seems to believe a pack of murdering Islamo-fascists are justified in killing nasty westerners.No matter, however, the real savagery the greenies have imposed and would do even worse things given even more opportunity than they already enjoy courtesy of communard politicians.If there is a case for knocking of westerners and which one's, the greenies have made it and they should be the targets.

But unlike the murdering Islamo savages and the equally murderous greenies, one doesn't advocate the killing of greenies and would, if the same were done to them,find it no less horrendous than what was done to the victims in Bali. This, despite the fact the greenies are pack of lying savage communists.

Deegan has some pretty basic excercises in reasoning to work through.

I too sympathize with Mr Deegan's unimaginable loss. However, his repeated public espousal of far-left shibboleths since October last year is, in my respectful opinion, unseemly to say the least.

The Deegan view of terrorism flies in the face of the notions of individual responsibility that are central to our culture and society. Many consider it right and just that the Indonesian state weild the sword against these islamo-fascits - because what they have done was simply _wrong_ and deserving of condign punishment.

Similarly, Mr Deegan's previously expressed view that we should not have liberated Iraq because it "would make us a target for terrorism" is morally indefensible. For it to be elevated to national policy would ill-befit any self-respecting state. It is, as you state, time to give up when our foreign policy is held hostage to the fantasies of the Amrozis and Bin Ladens of the world.

If Australia followed Mr Deegan's foreign policy prescriptions, we would demean ourselves as a nation.

The domestic policy of Indonesia vis-a-vis the death penalty is simply not a foreign policy issue. There are no circumstances suggesting that it is in Australia's national interest to intervene. Mr Deegan's arguments are, with the greatest respect, feeble.

Views on the morality of the death penalty legitimately differ. But, if these people are convicted after a fair trial under Indonesian law, then it is the height of (dare I say it) "imperialist" arrogance for us to suggest that the law of the Republic of Indonesia should not take its course.

Roy and Bob, I agree totally. More on Deegan here.

While I agree with most of the sentiments expressed here, and I am ticked with the news media for giving him so much air time, I still cannot bring myself to directly attack Brian. I know he's made some asinine statements and some vitriolic attacks on the government, and it would seem that he is "hiding behind the body of his dead son", but I still feel that if he needs to believe that people aren't that evil, let him. It's like the people who can't believe Uday Hussein was as evil as he was; they're naive, but mostly harmless. The problem with Mr Deegan is that he's been given so much time to air his statements.

It is pretty simple, Mr Deegan is exploiting the publicity surrounding the death of his son to push a political agenda.

His son has my deepest sympathies. He doesn't.

Good strategy by the media to use someone like this guy to promote their viewpoint. Anyone who points out the fact that the poor guy just doesn't make any sense can easily be attacked as insensitive and disrespectful of the tragedy he experienced. That said, this guy just doesn't make any sense.

The core business of this article is commenting on whether the death penalty should be applied to the Bali bombers. Even here on this blog, there doesn't seem to have been a resistance to people's right to talk about this issue.

The Hun has led a predictable campaign for the death penalty for the bali bombers (as if their polls and opinion articles would in any way make a difference to that decision), so I don't see that there is any problem with the Oz publishing an article like this.

As for the political commentary, it seems to me that Howard has used references to this tragedy as a leit-motif for justification of the invasion of Iraq, the war on terror and the border protection initiative.

So if we are going to create this rule for one person, let's apply it across the board.

(and I am sorry, Tim, I know that wasn't a funny or witty comment).

Dan,

It's not a funny subject. Good note.

"if you’re going to structure foreign policy around the desires of a homicidal religious zealot, it’s time to give up."

_A_ homicidal religious zealot?
You are not trying to be economical
with numbers, are you Tim?

"if you’re going to structure foreign policy around the desires of a homicidal religious zealot, it’s time to give up"

Insert obligatory GW Bush reference here.

Didn't the Bali bombing happen before the Iraq War?

Are the Bali bombers psychic and can predict that the evil John Howard will attack Iraq in the future and kill innocent Iraqi children?

Well, it was pretty obvious that it WAS coming. On the other hand, they tend to be lagging indicators, your Islamofascists, so strictly speaking this was probably for the Battle of Lepanto.

And, `leit-motif' ?!! Ah, an opera,1st movement describes in prelude form an Olympian struggle inveigling their puppets man.

The second is set on the battlefields of Gulf War I, ending in haunting legato denoting a false dawn. The centrepiece, lifted straight from Wagner, twighlight of the gods, as Blix, (Seigfried), struggles to assert his humanness but fails.

The 3rd could have been wrung straight out of valhalla as communardo journos, BBC-ABC pick up Blix's mantle, fighting valiantly, show the west should curly up into a ball and let a new master-race emerge.

It all comes to a crashing end in the 4th.Much use of percussion for this is the hell the lefties feared.Forget legato, this is brute fortissimo , furious.. can the orchestra keep pace with the conductor hangs in the hair , encapsulating the violence wrought upon the communardo world.

Post-lude, Blix, Seigfried has discovered he is ahead of his time and retires to the still backwaters of Sweden.The dying note echo a well buried twat.

The leitmotif in the first is repeated in each movement, in variations which detonate by comic touch which reminds if it weren't for Olympus (U.S.A.) all would have been well. Hussein would have continued murdering his own people, supplying and training terrorists; terrorists, in spring time dance mode, would have continued to freely traipse around the world blowing up whomever they can like plucking a delicate rose and sniffing it.
I was very moved by this new opera by El -postModena Communardi . Such genius, but, is he burnt out?The intensity of the composition is suggestive of one grand fleeting fling, is one view. Another is ,they refuse to desist.Mores the pity, it was really a waste of money even to just buy the cd let alone attend a live performance.

http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/surfdomarchives/001342.php hmmm, interesting, isn't that just what Sophorist predicted?

I think Mr Deegan is mainly making a case against the death penalty, not prescribing foreign policy.

Some of the reactions on this thread are beyond disgusting.

This is a man in unimaginable grief. If he needs to grasp at straws for reasons for his loss, let him be. If he needs to do this in public, let him be.

None of you have the right to question his motives, let alone condemn them. HE LOST HIS SON.

Tim - I don't know what you think this posting achieves, if anything. It confirms you have some pretty sicko readers, but little else.

Without wishing to sound too much like a bossy schoolteacher: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Nemesis, you might feel differently if you knew of Deegan's history of media statements since November last year, you'd see this isn't an isolated occurrence. Again, (sorry to plug myself) I'd refer you here.

Well, you definitely failed Nemesis. Doesn't sound like Mr. Deegan is too shy about talking about his son to the media, so what's wrong with responding to him? He sounds just like any other woe-is-us we-had-it-coming yayhoo liberal.

Mr Deegan is quite clearly prescribing foreign policy, and I quote (again) "Surely, I'm not the only person to view this as an inevitable link in an unbroken chain in Australia's foreign affairs." He means to say that we should not have gotten involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. He has stated this in previous interviews. He used this stance against execution to take yet another swipe at the government. Stop trolling Nemesis

Sick and sicker. The man lost his KID, for chrissakes!

I know this'll grieve you all terribly, but I'm out of here. You'll all be able to nod sagely in wise agreement with each other's ludicrous opinions. One less dissenting voice to crush!

I'm worried that the disease you lot clearly have might be contagious.

Bye now. (No, stop, it's no use begging me to stay. My mind is made up. Stop it I say. Get over it!)

*wipes feet on way out*

Nemesis argues that the fact that a man is a grieving parent makes it somehow "wrong" to criticise his idiotic foreign policy prescriptions. If that's not a "ludicrous opinion", I don't know what is.

If the man wants to debate public policy, fine. However, I for one refuse to treat him as some sort of foreign policy Pope whose grief cloaks him with infallibility.

His arguments should be assessed on their merits, as should anyone else's, and the Australian media should not be afraid of exposing some of them as the utter bunk that they undoubtedly are.

Personally I've had enough of Deegan. He's using his son's death to push his political barrow. He hated Howard before Bali and to him this is another reason to justify his stance. He disgusts me and I'd be ashamed of him if he were my father.

Nemesis typed with his feet?

There are some people who have a personal experience that they believe gives them a new and particular insight into an issue that they feel they should share publicly, and that's fine.

I also think that anyone who has lost a son in circumstances this tragic should be accorded a lot of leeway in our acceptance of the way they react to that loss.

But given that he seems to hold exactly the opinions now as he did before the tragedy, it does not seem that Mr. Deegan is one of the first category. As to the second, there's clearly a point at which turning a personal tragedy into a soapbox from which to promote one's political views, whatever they may be, becomes unseemly. If Mr. Deegan is not yet at that point, he can't be very far off.

Mr Deegan is wrong, Islamofascist attacks are not a reaction to the Anglosphere's foreign policies. Terror attacks such as that in Bali are a manifestation of the imperialistic nature of Islam.

The only problem killing us poses for the Islamofascists is that they can't kill us as quickly as they would like.

I have sympathy for Deegan because the murder of his son essentially gave the lie to everything he believes in.

I am sure he simply cannot cope with that and is in highly emotive denial. The sad part is the willingness of others to use his statements for their own purposes (blaming 21st-century mass murder on the victims).

Everyone needs to find meaning in the death of a loved one. I completely disagree with what he's saying, but I can see where someone with his convictions would come up with this to grapple with it. Guess I agree with Glenn.

Tim, I agree with you. But I obviously sympathise with the poor guy - maybe this is how he deals with the unimaginable loss of his son. However, I lost six colleagues in the World Trade Center, and my reaction is rather different - let's go after the bastards, and let us make it clear that we have no quarrel whatsoever with the vast majority of Muslims, whose faith has been besmirched by OBL and his fellow nihilists.

The "we had it coming" line is moral sophistry. OBL and his like ultimately believe their justification for killing us is not for what we have done abroad, but for who we are: secular, free, tolerant, reason-based, and loving of the good things of this life, rather than merely the alleged one thereafter.

I have had enough of trying to "understand" these maniacs. What next, should we try to "understand" the f**king Nazis?

Well, if someone decides to try to make sense of the world and to get over the death of his son by blaming the government - well, if it helps him recover, that's great.

However, if you go out and start campaigning in the mass media, that makes it a somewhat different ball game. Is anyone seriously making the case that media exposure is a necessary part of the recovery process? If you decide to turn your dead child into political leverage, you shouldn't act surprised when people start talking back.

/Döbeln

PS.

Nemesis, the sulking-six-year-old routine is kinda old. And it isn't very dignified.

DS:

As a Magistrate, regularly kicking out confessions because they weren't proven to be voluntary, presumably Deegan also believes the evidence obtained by the Indonesian Police in their marathon interogation sessions with the suspects should be rejected by the court. I haven't heard his stance on this but would be interested to do so. You just know he subscribes to the view it is better 10 guilty terrorists be let off than one innocent man be found guilty.

i'm with you jonathan p; i lost several dear friends there as well.

nem, as others have said, it he should be, and is, allowed to grieve howsoever he wants to in private, but when a person moves into a public sphere than anything they say can and should be held up to scrutiny.

Gareth,
Thank you for the link re Brian Deegan's political views, extremely enlightening.
I had heard some of his rather odd pronouncements about the Bali bombing, and put it down to the grief of a bereaved father attempting to come to grips with one of life's cruellest duties, that of burying a son.
Much of my sympathy has evaporated on reading through your linked piece.
I will refrain from posting what I believe about this man out of respect for his son and the other victims.

You should read the comments over on Dunlop's site. Newbie Nemesis ran over there to cry, "those of the right" are accused of being "simple people with simple views" (have we even established that we are all "of the right" here? Does disagreement with the way this Deegan fellow is handling his loss mean an automatic label of "right-wing simpleton"?) -- Yobbo, Glenn, and some others are attempting to get through thick lefty skulls, Dunlop continues to whine that we are being mean to the bereaved pa by daring to disagree with his political statements even though just about everyone here has said something to the effect of "we are sorry for Mr. Deegan's loss." It's quite a party.

One can have sympathy for his loss and still disagree with his position. And when he repeatedly presents his views publicly, how is it wrong to publicly refute them?

I wonder how the parents and loved ones of the other victims feel to hear Mr. Deegan say, in effect, "We brought this on ourselves."

I'm going to have to say this, as much as it grieves me, but anyone who uses his own son's death to score political points is a true lefty. My father once told me that true lefties actually have very small hearts, they don't really care about individuals: the cause is all. He summed this up with the saying that all lefties were wife beaters in spirit if not in fact.
What lefties seem to forget is that no-one has to murder anyone, there is always a choice not to be eveil. The islamofacists have decided to be evil of their own free-will. Accordingly, the answer is simple, we have to wipe them out. There is no moral ambiguity, no need for "sophisticated" arguments form the Maureen Dowds of this world. Until we show these morrally bankrupt terrorists that there is no point in making the wrong choices they will continue to make them.

The Official Rules of Victimology say that only someone who had directly suffered loss in some tragedy are permitted to voice opinions about why it happened and what should be done about it.

I ran afoul of this one recently myself. A leftist blogger castigated me for expressing my anger and outrage about the 9/11 attack, claiming that I had no right to speak about it unless I could prove that I lost a friend or family member in the attack. Unless I could do so, I wasn't officially a Victim, and thus was not actually permitted to express any opinions about the subject, or so I was informed.

This is one of the many peculiar notions that many on the left have gotten, somewhere, somehow, out of some orifice. From their point of view, the father of a man killed in Bali actually does have more right to speak and his word should be given much more credence than, say, someone named Tim Blair who (I presume, perhaps wrongly) didn't actually lose anyone there.

That idea is, needless to say, total crap. But you'll find it getting tossed around occasionally. It appears to have surfaced here.

Cashed-up Blairistas may go here to donate to the 'Free Beers for Brian Deegan' fund.

(Oy, the cyber-anarchy of the comments box, Blair. Reckless fool!)

Steven,

I don't understand that mentality either. Of course, don't let it stop you from expressing yourself (I'm a big fan of your blog). Here's a suggested response: everyone living in the modern, civilized world lost something on 9/11. I lost a friend, but also lost a great deal of my innocence and sense of security. Australians lost a lot when the Bali bombing happened as well. I'll hazard a guess and say that Tim lost a little bit of what he holds dear that day. We are not victims, though. Victimhood is a state of mind. I'd like Mr. Deegan to explain to a group of those "victims" of Australian foreign affairs who have not chosen to bomb and maim exactly why they are victims and their horrific acts, should they choose to do them, would be excused.

Steven Den Beste points up an irony in the leftie's attmept to silence Beste .... in doing that the Leftie is effectively claiming they,by contrast, can comment on 9/11, even though they did not lose in the attack.The censorship contains that bit of Orwellian hypocrisy muttered
by the lefty fucktard.

Hmm. I seem to remember a whole lot of outrage from the right when whining liberals complained about being silenced in post 9/11 America. Fair enough, because it was a load of crap.
But how exactly is Brian Deegan stopping anyone else's view from being heard? And for that matter, what was this attempt to 'silence' Den Beste? Posting something on a blog!
Bunch of babies.