September 08, 2003

JEWS TARGETED IN AUSTRALIA

We’ve read a great deal about the hardships faced by Muslim families in Australia since September 11: discrimination, accusations, and so on. John Lyons, for Nine’s Sunday show, examines the concerns of Jewish families, which arguably are far graver:

With the help of the Jewish community, Sunday had looked at the lives of some in the community since those planes flew into the World Trade Center and ushered in a new era of terrorism. We can reveal that the Jewish community in Australia is now regarded as a "category one" target — the highest possible security level.

The President of the NSW Jewish Community Council, Stephen Rothman, SC, told John Lyons they had been told by ASIO that attacks had been planned against Jewish targets in Australia: "Well the information that we have is such that activities have occurred in Australia which, properly analysed, can have no basis other than the operations of terrorist cells."

Odd, considering the wealth, power, and influence of these Jew-people, that we haven’t heard more about this.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 8, 2003 04:10 AM
Comments

Is this a joke? Hezbollah's television station is on Australian cable TV?

Posted by: Damian P. at September 8, 2003 at 08:50 AM

Damian, in Australia its called the ABC.

Posted by: Jonny at September 8, 2003 at 09:35 AM

With SBS as its Hamas brother.

Posted by: i at September 8, 2003 at 11:18 AM

The game is up and we've discovered how one particular religion has consistently incited its followers into intolerance and evil. Look at all the white supremacists and abortion-clinic terrorists who have used this religion and its "holy book" as a justification for their atrocities. The prevalence of paedophile Priests is obviously a direct result of Mark 10:13 "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them". Look back in history and we see brutal wars fought in the name of their God, we see repression and torture used against heretics, we see inquisitions, witch-burning, imperialism and slavery.

Yes, my friends, this apparent religion of "peace" is really just a front for a bunch of intolerant fanatics. Their tribal societies are primitive in their use of strange totems, peculiar rituals and bizarre self-mutilation. The tribespeople mindlessly worship mysterious elders and meaningless symbols. They feel the so-called "achievements" of complete strangers somehow reflect upon themselves simply because they reside on the same landmass, therefore they are like a mass entity - barely distinguishable from one another.

So how should we deal with these people? Well, here are some options:

a) The "lynch mob" method: Get together a bunch of your friends, set some torches aflame and head on down to the nearest place of worship. Burn it to the ground and tear apart the worshippers with your bare hands. Smear yourself with their blood and entrails, then marvel at how morally superior you are.

b) The "Israeli Government" method: Start building real-estate in the vicinity of the worshippers, block all their roads, bulldoze a few of their suburbs and tell the rest of them they can't come out of their houses until you say so. Use most of their drinking water to irrigate your lawns. Buy a fleet of helicopter gunships (or better still, get someone to buy them for you). Use these to make assassination attempts on local Church leaders (I suggest after mass on Sunday). If anyone else in the vicinity happens to get killed, who cares?

c) The "Fox News" method: Drop a few MOABs on Alabama.

d) The "Paul Wolfowitz" method: Invade Canada, then hope that everything else falls into place...

Pusher

PS: Responses accusing me of being an "anti-semite" must be accompanied by contextual evidence from what I have written, otherwise they will be disregarded as more politically correct debate-stifling elitism.

PPS: Do I get my own column in "The Bulletin" now?

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 11:23 AM

thepusher is living on an alternative plane of existence. He certainly is creative, it would make great fiction.

/sarcasm on
I think he forgot to mention the blood libel, the protocols of the elders of zion, and the fact that the Mossad was behind 9-11. These are all important things to consider, right ?

/sarcasm off

Seriously though, you can't just take one example of bad behaviour by a party and build a convincing case upon it where you expect the reader to believe that the party has wicked and evil intentions.

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 12:44 PM

Do I understand thepusher correctly: Some Christians have acted abominably in the past, therefore it's OK for islamofascist terrorists to blow up Israeli children and threaten Australian-born Jews.
Jeepers, those voices must be making a racket.

Posted by: slatts at September 8, 2003 at 01:30 PM

"Seriously though, you can't just take one example of bad behaviour by a party and build a convincing case upon it where you expect the reader to believe that the party has wicked and evil intentions."

One? Read it again Jono.
Please define "a party". Does "a party" mean an individual, a race or a religion?
In case you missed it, I'm just trying to get you to define exactly WHO you feel the enemy is.

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 01:40 PM

"Do I understand thepusher correctly: Some Christians have acted abominably in the past, therefore it's OK for islamofascist terrorists to blow up Israeli children and threaten Australian-born Jews."

I'm just wondering where the definition of "evil" starts and stops. For example, is a student studying under a Wahabi Cleric "evil"? Are they a "terrorist" if they haven't killed anyone yet, or is terrorism equivalent to "thoughtcrime"?

Basically, seeing as we are taking the "shock & awe" approach to fighting terrorism, I'm trying to work out what exactly this justifies in your eyes. Can we kill people who MIGHT become terrorists? Can we kill people who, through pure accident of birth, live NEAR terrorists? Can we kill people who read the same books as terrorists?

Basically, if your logic to fighting the war on terror is to "kill terrorists", how do we know they're a "terrorist" until they've done some terrorising (in which case it is too late)?

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 01:49 PM

We'll ask you the same after terrorists have killed someone you know. (If they kill you, well, I guess we won't be able to ask you anything.)

Posted by: Andrea Harris at September 8, 2003 at 01:52 PM

Hey Andrea...are you there Andrea...is anyone in there???

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 01:59 PM

What's with this "pusher". Is this some trolls are us crap, or what?

Posted by: Homer Robinson at September 8, 2003 at 02:31 PM

Censorship! Political correctness! Hypocrisy!

Andrea Harris just pulled this comment of mine from her blog!

My comment was actually satire that branded Christianity with the same labels and generalisations you guys always make about Islam. I made reference to the policies of the Israeli Government, which is in no way a reflection on all Jews. In the same way that mentioning al-Qaeda cannot be used as a reflection on all Muslims...or can it?

Selective logic! Doublethink! Thought police!

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 02:44 PM

The name "thepusher" is most appropriate. He/she/it pushes half-truths and total bullshit. Is your day job pushing crack as your name suggests?

Posted by: Bushy at September 8, 2003 at 02:50 PM

What the hell are you talking about thepusher ?
What enemy ?

I made a completely rational and logical point - its pretty stupid for you to try to defend your argument where you attack an entire religion over their actions over the past few centuries.

As for your other piece of nonsense:
"Basically, if your logic to fighting the war on terror is to "kill terrorists", how do we know they're a "terrorist" until they've done some terrorising (in which case it is too late)?"

That argument only holds up in the case of a single terrorist who is not part of any organisation - e.g Timothy McVeigh.

As for the guys who did the Bali bombings or 9-11 - they got their funding, support and planning from other people. Those other people should be killed if they cannot be apprehended.

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 03:03 PM

"My comment was actually satire that branded Christianity with the same labels and generalisations you guys always make about Islam. I made reference to the policies of the Israeli Government, which is in no way a reflection on all Jews. In the same way that mentioning al-Qaeda cannot be used as a reflection on all
Muslims...or can it?"


If thats your attempt at satire, its very weak satire thepusher. You may find this hard to believe but most sane people don't buy into your words as given truths.

A) Not one person here has tried to apply the logic where all muslims can be viewed as terrorists because of the actions of Al-Qaeda

B) Your description of Israeli government policy is deluded and spun out of all proportion. Only a person who objects to Israels right to exist, and doesn't care for the truth, would use such arguments.


Posted by: JOno at September 8, 2003 at 03:09 PM

"I made a completely rational and logical point - its pretty stupid for you to try to defend your argument where you attack an entire religion over their actions over the past few centuries."

You guys just don't GET satire do you. Maybe my post would have made more sense in the context of one of your Muslim-bashing sessions (which I thought this was gonna inevitably turn into). Obviously I must have distracted you...

But I won't go away yet, I'll re-state these questions:

Does the hardline "war on terror" justify:

1.Killing people who are STUDENTS of extremist literature (eg: Wahabi teachings), but may not ever ACT on those teachings (ie: become terrorists).

2.Killing people who, through pure accident of birth, live NEAR terrorists (as in the West Bank and Gaza)?

And...

3.In Iraq, how many civilians would have to die in the process of liberation before it was no longer "worth it"? What if we freed their country but there was only half the pre-war population left to enjoy it (say, if Saddam had used WMD)? Just wondering if you could put a number on it for me?

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 03:23 PM

Pusher,

If you tried to be more subtle your posts would not be greeted with such ennui. The problem is that you seem to think that htere is a king-hit argument that will somehow leave us all speechless. However, your tone is abrasive and your prose style wooden. Thus you alienate your readers who mostly, from the evidence of the comments here, think that you are merly a ranter.

There may be some sense in your arguments, but you aren't going to convince anyone by coming on like gangbusters, particularly as you seem always to be arguing on a tangent, whatever the topic of discussion.

Take a deep breath, write more calmly, and then we will be able to take you a little bit more seriously, or humorously.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 8, 2003 at 03:23 PM

"There may be some sense in your arguments, but you aren't going to convince anyone by coming on like gangbusters, particularly as you seem always to be arguing on a tangent, whatever the topic of discussion."

I like to put a slightly different spin on things. I guess what I find with this particular blog is that whenever I read un-trolled subject threads, the posts are always limited to soundbite smartarsedry (see first 3 posts before mine). Then as soon as I start putting my two cents in, people whinge like I'm interrupting some formal debate or something. My conclusion is that you're kind of like a bunch of primary school kids who only behave when one of us trolls is here to watch over you.

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 03:48 PM

thepusher

So far you have posted the same comment on three different sites just to piss people off then you tried to pass it of a satire but just ended up being a jerk. Take that advice from Toryhere unless you really are a jerk. This mite be difficult for you to understand but 'free speech' does not mean others have to provide a forum so go start your own blog but I can guess you'll last as long as other sanctimonious pimps such as nemesis. .

Posted by: Gary at September 8, 2003 at 03:53 PM

"This mite be difficult for you to understand but 'free speech' does not mean others have to provide a forum"

So you prefer the North Korean model of free speech, the one where no-one disagrees with you.

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 03:58 PM

Thats it thepusher - I simply don't get your brand of *satire* because I find that the language you use, and the facts you take for granted, seem like total bullshit to me.

Firstly, you used the phrase "one of your Muslim-bashing sessions". Secondly, you address all of us with "You guys..."

So you begin your argument, not with a calm or logical approach which is hard to dispute, but with sweeping generalisations and taking things out of proportion.

You started by talking about my "muslim bashing sessions".. what the bloody hell are you talking about !?!?

Also, why don't you try using UNBIASED and OBJECTIVE language. Its not a "hard-line" war on terror and you wont convince rational people that it is.

As for your questions:

1) Students of extremist literature arent killed on that basis alone.

2) No. Civilians who live in the disputed territories are not targetted. Like it or not, the IDF takes more precautions to avoid collateral damage than any other standing army in the world.

3) I cant determine an exact number, and in fact, no government in the world uses that foolish approach. Did the Americans during WW2 decide that they've reached their quota of dead Germans, so its time to head home ?

However it would be foolish to have believed and accepted the inflated estimates of 500,000+ dead Iraqis plus millions of refugees from the UN and other political groups.

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 04:08 PM

All thepusher is saying is that when it comes to evil, there isn't much difference between any of the three monotheistic religions coming out of the Middle East: they are just mirror images of each other. I fully agree. The sooner we rid the world of all of them, the better off humanity will be.

Posted by: Max at September 8, 2003 at 04:09 PM

thepusher - I have questions for you seeing as you are so concerned with counting every life lost.

1) Do governments have a duty to protect their population and provide security or should they leave it up to the cosmic forces of karma ?

2) If you could stop a suicide bomber, by targetting him in a civilian area where collateral damage is possible - would you target him with a fair chance of one or two civilians killed, or would you prefer the much higher odds of dozens of casualties resulting from the bomber carrying out his mission?

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 04:21 PM

Max - "there isn't much difference between any of the three monotheistic religions coming out of the Middle East: they are just mirror images of each other. I fully agree. The sooner we rid the world of all of them, the better off humanity will be. "

Thats a bad case of intellectual laziness. You can't distinguish between the modern practice of Christianity and Judaism in the western world, and between Islam which after centuries of being a modernizing and civilizing force, has gone backwards to its fundamentalist origins of the prophet Muhammed and violent jihad against all infidels.

There are no Christian or Jewish theocracies in existence. These religions have been separated from the state, so they don't cause hell on peoples lives.

Its hard to say the same for Jordanians, Syrians, Saudis, Iranians, Nigerians, Moroccans, Egyptians, Indonesians and Pakistanis.

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 04:30 PM

What was I saying about Muslim-bashing? Anyway, I actually had a serious debate about this with another reader/blogger called Mark. Basically, my take on the whole thing is more based on psychology and human-nature ("hearts & minds") I think that Wolfowitz & co's ideas are fundamentally sound, but we've got the priorities wrong and we need to think seriously about how we go about MARKETING our ideas for reform to the Arab world - as in the PR campaign against terror, not just the war. And I personally think that a Palestinian state is the key (not to solve EVERYTHING, but a possible attitude changer).

Our debate is here

Posted by: thepusher at September 8, 2003 at 04:45 PM

Jono

It's sophistry to talk about "modern" Christian practice, as though we shouldn't take account of all the horrors and crimes perpetrated in the name of Jesus Christ. How many millions of people were tortured, murdered and enslaved for Christianity over the 2,000 years of it's existence? We can only judge a religion by its total record: Chritianity's is unspeakable.

The fact is when it comes to fanaticism, intlolerance and prosletyzation by the sword, the Christian church has no equal.

Posted by: Max at September 8, 2003 at 05:02 PM

Religions are just the excuses for madmen to wreak havoc. No statue in no church ever caused a man to go out and pillage who didn't already want to do so.

Or more pertinently, caused a man to exhort others to do so.

I don't buy it.

Eliminate religion from the face of the earth. Fine. I don't mind.

Just don't expect humans to behave any differently.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 8, 2003 at 05:38 PM

Max you remind me of those Egyptians who wanted to sue the Jews for all the gold they stole when they broke the bonds of slavery and wandered the desert for 40 years.

You simply can't keep a grudge. It leads to the kind of nonsense where all Christians discriminate against all Jews because they are Christ-killers.

If you were to apply your logic to the fullest extent, you would wipe out all humanity because mankind has an appaling record of violence, war, crime, hatred etc over many centuries.

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 05:42 PM

Jono, what I am saying is before the West criticises Moslems for fanatacism and intolerance, they should consider their own record. It's just that having inched our way to a slightly higher standard of behaviour in the post-Christan era, we have forgotten our own track record. The Moslems (and the Jews) have yet to throw off the shackles of religion. In time they will and will then become more civilised.

Posted by: Max at September 8, 2003 at 05:56 PM

Max, why should it matter about Christianity's past when criticising fundamentalism ?

It is fundamentalism itself that should be attacked.

I don't know how you can compare the 13 million Jews who are mostly scattered across the planet (and half of them are concentrated in a small democracy called Israel) with the 1 billion muslims who live under oppressive regimes.

Just what part of the Jewish religion do they need to throw off ?

Posted by: Jono at September 8, 2003 at 06:21 PM

It's tribalism that keeps people hating each other enough to want to kill them.

The west has had its fair share. There are few places more soaked with blood than Culloden, Scotland.

Never-ending hatreds live on in Ireland, where recently, the body of a woman was unearthed, an IRA victim killed for giving aid to a wounded British soldier.

Conflicts such as these are waged under the banner of religion but are essential tribal battles for control.

Fundamentalism is one tool used to keep sections of tribes under control. You can lose the religious aspect but you won't lose the desire for control and domination of a tribe.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 8, 2003 at 06:41 PM

"Look at all the white supremacists and abortion-clinic terrorists who have used this religion and its "holy book" as a justification for their atrocities."

So just how many people have abortion clinic bombers murdered? Is it even close to 3000 in one single day?

"The prevalence of paedophile Priests is obviously a direct result of Mark 10:13 "People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them"."

Jesus took a six year old bride and raped her at the age of nine? News to me.

"Look back in history and we see brutal wars fought in the name of their God, we see repression and torture used against heretics, we see inquisitions, witch-burning, imperialism and slavery."

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam still takes pride in practising and celebrating these things today, while Christians regard them as abhorrent.

"Yes, my friends, this apparent religion of "peace" is really just a front for a bunch of intolerant fanatics."

You got that right.

"Their tribal societies are primitive in their use of strange totems, peculiar rituals and bizarre self-mutilation. The tribespeople mindlessly worship mysterious elders and meaningless symbols. They feel the so-called "achievements" of complete strangers somehow reflect upon themselves simply because they reside on the same landmass, therefore they are like a mass entity - barely distinguishable from one another."

If only this was all that we had to worry about from muslimes, I wouldn't want their mosques razed.

"So how should we deal with these people? Well, here are some options:

a) The "lynch mob" method: Get together a bunch of your friends, set some torches aflame and head on down to the nearest place of worship. Burn it to the ground and tear apart the worshippers with your bare hands. Smear yourself with their blood and entrails, then marvel at how morally superior you are."

What do you think we are? Muslimes or something?Nah, just keep them out of the country and expel the ones who already here. Much more humane. After all, they've already got 58 countries to oppress, let them take their pick.

"b) The "Israeli Government" method: Start building real-estate in the vicinity of the worshippers, block all their roads, bulldoze a few of their suburbs and tell the rest of them they can't come out of their houses until you say so. Use most of their drinking water to irrigate your lawns. Buy a fleet of helicopter gunships (or better still, get someone to buy them for you). Use these to make assassination attempts on local Church leaders (I suggest after mass on Sunday). If anyone else in the vicinity happens to get killed, who cares?"

And pretend that the paleosimians are not openly genocidal in their intentions towards the Israelis? Pretend that a terrorist nationality manufactured by arab tyrants to deprive Jews of their historic homeland has legitimacy? What for? To what end? Do church leaders preach and finance terrorism and genocide?

That's the biggest problem that the moral equivalence brigade have when trying to excuse islamic totalitarianism - there is no moral equivalence between totalitarian death cults and democracies.

Posted by: Clem Snide at September 8, 2003 at 09:16 PM

I think Clem has touched on an important point.

"The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam still takes pride in practising and celebrating these things today, while Christians regard them as abhorrent."

Western society stopped tolerating the darkage bullshit practises of Christianity long ago. Why should we continue to tolerate it from other religions - seemingly ones that still take pride in being as backwards are possible even today.

Posted by: Murdoch Software Engineer Std at September 9, 2003 at 02:05 AM

So much intellectual capital wasted on our non-sequituring troll, Mr. Pusher.

Here is the sequence of events:

-Right-wing death beast points out column enumerating concerns among the Australian Jewish community over terrorism originating from "Islamist extremists", thus differentiating the suspected malfactors from mainstream Islamists (or whatever term is deemed most politically correct).

-Troll defecates post satirizing Christian extremists and possible means of dealing with them, with the intent of discrediting the concerns expressed in the column. Meanwhile, troll does not directly address the issues raised in the column.

-Posters rise to the bait, thus reinforcing troller's basic instinct to derail witty, rancorous, sometimes sarcastic and silly but topical discussion.

People, I'm ashamed!...Or was the intent to keep the troller posting until the sun rose? If so, my apologies to all.

Posted by: Tongue Boy at September 9, 2003 at 03:28 AM

Does the hardline "war on terror" justify:

1.Killing people who are STUDENTS of extremist literature (eg: Wahabi teachings), but may not ever ACT on those teachings (ie: become terrorists). non-sequitur

2.Killing people who, through pure accident of birth, live NEAR terrorists (as in the West Bank and Gaza)? non-sequitur

And...

3.In Iraq, how many civilians would have to die in the process of liberation before it was no longer "worth it"? non-sequitur What if we freed their country but there was only half the pre-war population left to enjoy it (say, if Saddam had used WMD)? What if Poland were freed but there was only about 4 out of 5 of the pre-war population left to enjoy it? Oh, wait, that really happened. Better get Hitler back to the Chancellory and quick! So, your point is...? Just wondering if you could put a number on it for me? yawn, this was fun but intellectually unstimulating.

Dammit, I ignored my own troll-ignoring advice. Temptation...just...too...much...

Posted by: Tongue Boy at September 9, 2003 at 03:47 AM

Pusher said

'whenever I read un-trolled subject threads, the posts are always limited to soundbite smartarsedry'

Pusher, there are no limits to soundbite smartarsedry.

Posted by: pooh at September 9, 2003 at 11:45 AM