March 18, 2004
LATHAM ANNOUNCES ANTI-TREE POLICY
Another reason to vote Labor:
The Opposition Leader, Mark Latham, has backed continued clear-felling of Tasmania's old growth forests, angering environmentalists who hoped that a federal Labor government would intervene to end such bitterly disputed logging.
If he wants my vote, John Howard will have to top this with a pledge to carve up even more stupid trees. Over to you, John! Miranda Devine reports on another potential election issue:
Posted by Tim Blair at March 18, 2004 03:06 AMHoward-haters think they're on a winner, salivating at the prospect of the same electoral backlash hitting the Federal Government as toppled the conservative Spanish government of Jose Maria Aznar, drawing parallels between the eight-year reigns and American sympathies of both prime ministers. "Early election, please," they say.
Score one for Islamic terrorists and their odd bedfellows, the left-liberal "progressives" in the West.
"Score one for Islamic terrorists and their odd bedfellows, the left-liberal "progressives" in the West."
"Odd" bedfellows? Since when? They are like two peas in a pod.....
Huh. Not being familiar with Australian writers, I'm guessing that this is not the "Miranda Devine" who trolls this comments section. Good piece.
Posted by: Matt in Denver at March 18, 2004 at 05:21 AM
Nah, "Miranda Divide" is supposed to be a witty parody.
Note, I said "supposed to be".
Re logging in Tasmania, the facts are these:
Tasmania is 6.8 million hectares in area - 3 million hectares are already in reserves that can never be touched.
Nearly half the bloody State! And they want more? Screw em.
Posted by: Pig Head Sucker at March 18, 2004 at 07:05 AMYeah I agree that leftis and Islamists have alot in common under their filthy idological rags.
Power is their only real god, under their fine promises they share a common fantasy, the whole world kneeling at their feet.
Posted by: Amos at March 18, 2004 at 08:19 AMMiranda Devine appears to be commentating from an alternative universe where things are back to front from our universe:
Islamic terrorists and their odd bedfellows, the left-liberal "progressives" in the West.
In our universe the following events occurred, and are detailed hereunder. (Anyone who disputes these statements is ignorant, idiotic or a liar):
Reagan was on the side of the Islamacists during the eighties, in Afghanistan (mujhadheen v USSR).
Plutocratic sections of the US ruling class (eg GH Bush's Carlyle Group and Kissinger Associates to make money out of Ibn Saudi oil.
Militaristic sections of the US security apparat supported Islamic sections of Pakistan state..
Powell gave $43 mill. to the Taliban in 2001 to repatriate their opium.
These are the people that personelled, funded and armed terrorism.
Funny sort of "left-liberal progressives" who suport Islamacism.
Whilst on the other side of the political coin:
The Soviet Union attempted to crush Islamic revolution in Afghanistan in 80s.
Albright withdrew US diplomatic recognition from the Taliban in 1998.
Berger warned Bush that terrorism was the number one threat to security (not rogue state WMD missiles).
Clinton bombed terrorist installations in Afghanistan.
These are the people who delegitimised, defunded and attacked terrorist assets.
Funny sort of "right-conservative reactionaries" oppose Islamacism.
The Right has made a colossal strategic blunder in attacking Iraq (which may be a moral good)
It must now start thinking clearly about security: the enemy are the terrorists and their funders/armers/recruiters not "liberal-left progressives" per se.
Jack, you're the ignorant liar. Powell did not give $43 million to the Taliban; that lie has been debunked many times.
The Soviet Union did not invade Afghanistan to crush an Islamic revolution. They invaded Afghanistan to crush a revolt by a Communist government (that had recently overthrown the government, a king who had just previously kicked out his brother) that wanted to have policy set independently from the USSR. The USSR did not like independent minded Communists.
The US gave aid to many groups who fought the Communists. Some were Islamicists; many were not. Iran and Pakistan each cultivated the loyalties of particular groups during the war, sending aid to only them in exchange for fealty. The US did no such thing, forming no close alliance but instead sending aid to any group. After the Soviets pulled out, the US refused to strongly back any group, including various secular and liberal minded (or socialist minded) groups, preferring to instead avoid charges of colonialism by letting the Afghanis determine their own future.
Unfortunately, the expected civil war broke out among all the groups in Afghanistan. The Taliban, which were the Pakistan-backed group, eventually became the winner thanks to Pakistan's support and the aid of some wealthy patrons like Bin Laden.
Jack Strocchi's simplification of the very complicated Afghan war is very ignorant. He appears to be far too simplistic to understand a war where there are many sides, constantly shifting.
Posted by: John Thacker at March 18, 2004 at 11:23 AMJohn, is that .......... nuance?
Don't you know that nuance leads to appeasement!
Posted by: Mork at March 18, 2004 at 11:28 AMJack Strocchi, you've been comprehensively dacked. Jeez, that's a little one.
Posted by: slatts at March 18, 2004 at 11:33 AMMork, John's post is a statement of facts. Simple facts covering (as he put it) a very complicated subject. But those facts are better than the dreck posted by Jack -- they address the ignorance factor, and correct the glaring errors.
That's not "nuance". That's "reality". Welcome to it.
Just getting back to Latham and the trees for a moment, he (Latham) has been invited by Greens Senator Bob Brown to go down to the woods today.
He could be in for a big surprise.
Posted by: ilibcc at March 18, 2004 at 12:45 PMFor every greenie that ever there was
Will gather there, because
Today's the day the greenies have their picnic.
Powell did not give $43 million to the Taliban; that lie has been debunked many times.
Good show John. :) And just to make sure there's no wriggle room for Jack The Intellectual Giant Killer:
So Jack, are you still going to shore up your posts with more of that "anyone who disagrees is an idiot" facade now that you've been debunked?
Posted by: Sortelli at March 18, 2004 at 01:47 PM"So Jack, are you still going to shore up your posts with more of that "anyone who disagrees is an idiot" facade now that you've been debunked?"
Probably not, Sortelli. I suspect he is either busy repairing his tinfoil cap, or getting a resupply of his medication that keeps all those voices from talking to him, and not letting him sleep.
Posted by: JeffS at March 18, 2004 at 03:37 PMWe haven't seen the last of Jack, I can already see him working on his next post full of obvious facts that lead up to a ridiculous conclusion, such as...
1) George H W Bush was the 41st president
2) George W Bush is the 43rd president,
and therefore
3) Haliburton wants to invade Mars for the oil
...and that he will rip the face off of anyone foolish enough to argue these points.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 18, 2004 at 04:06 PMIf we counteroffered Jack to send Osama to Mars to protect the oil, do you think he might calm down long enough for his meds to take effect?
Posted by: JeffS at March 18, 2004 at 04:10 PM1) The US wants to go to Mars
2) The US has already been to Afghanistan
3) Afghanistan looks like Mars
therefore
4) If Osama goes to Mars it will be because of the right-wing conspiracy
and it will be a strategic failure, but a slight moral victory given that Osama will be removed from the Earth.
Posted by: Sortelli at March 18, 2004 at 04:29 PM