June 07, 2004


Mark Latham believes Australia is a bigger terrorist target because of our involvement in the war against terror. Gareth Parker presents a counter argument, arising from the recent trial in Perth of terrorist Jack Roche:

According to evidence heard in court, Jack Roche began his terrorist conspiracy on February 15 2000.

That was 19 months before terrorists crashed four commercial airliners in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, 19 months before Australian Prime Minister John Howard invoked Article IV of the ANZUS treaty committing Australia to the war on terrorism, 32 months before 88 Australians were killed by terrorist bombs in Bali and 37 months before the Australian Government committed troops to the war in Iraq.

Gareth has a link to the Roche judgment. Go read.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 7, 2004 06:15 AM

Latham is a dolt. The Islamist fifth column in Australia's midst have begun to plot secretly already. They wage war on Aussies through gang rape; through the attacking of Christians and others by means of a law they thought would still voices against Islam; they seek to set aside the Judaeo-Christian foundation of Australia. They already blather on about the Islamic heritage of the Aborigines. Since their intent is to have Australia be part of the ummah, how soon before bombs go off as they try to "reclaim" Australia for Islam?

Posted by: Helen at June 7, 2004 at 07:49 AM

I guess strictly speaking Latham is right, Howards policies did make us a bigger target , fighting back always makes you more of a target initially, but sometimes the opposite can be true as well, Latham's bungled, on the hop, cut and run policy of bringing the troops home by Christmas has not only made us a bigger target, it's made us a top tier target, ripe for a Madrid style attack by terrorists hoping to influence our elections to get a government more suitable to their cause (something widely acknowledged amongst experts).

Looking at Tim's link to Latham's statement, I was surprised to see so much more in it than the media actually reported. The only points I had heard reported where the rubber stamp comment and the "never wanted troops there in the first place" comment.
It seems even the media is getting a bit edgy about some of the things he is saying.

Previously I was hoping Howard would be re-elected because like the majority of Australians, I believe he is doing an fine job, but its different now, with Latham we have a potential leader who is incredibly populist, reckless and totally out of his depth in international politics, which, in light of the current world situation, makes him possibly very dangerous to Australia's safety. Now I'm hoping for a Howard win because the alternative scares the crap out of me.

Posted by: Michael at June 7, 2004 at 10:11 AM

Churchill's London was a bigger Nazi target than Petain's Marseilles, too.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at June 7, 2004 at 10:33 AM

I would tend to back Mick Keilty on this.

Posted by: Homer Paxton at June 7, 2004 at 11:59 AM

Man, is that Latham part of the Methadone programm or what??? Mind you, all 5 points he made can been seen in Dick Morris's book on "How to Become President" You didn't think they were actually Lathams ideas did you???
Just like Tim said, none of the dates mentioned can substantiate Mark Latham's view. I do agree with Micheal holus bolus, if he gets elected we will be a prime target for a terrorist attack to scare us off like all Labor cowards. The terrorists will now know that if Latham becomes popular that a well placed bomb that can murder hundreds of civillians will do the job for the terrorists.
Latham you fucking flogger, you just painted a big target on the Australian flag for political gain...
Vote 1 Hon John Howard

Posted by: scott at June 7, 2004 at 01:33 PM

The point, Homer, is that we were a target already, something that Keilty and Denis Richardson have both emphasised. So what if contibuting to the effort in Iraq makes Islamofascists a bit more eager to strike at us? They are only limited by their lack of opportunity anyway, just as they were before Iraq.

And what is the aternative? Don't fight back??? If you are one of the "not in my name" crowd then just fuck off while the rest of us get on with it. There is only one permanent cure to the Islamofascist blight in the Middle East - a political and social revolution in the Arab world. Iraq is a good start. It has more chance of success with political and economic freedom than any other Arab state (the Kurds of Iraq were going pretty well already, thanks to the northern no-fly zone!).

As I have said from the beginning, looking back on the overthrow of the Baathist tyranny from the distnce of 5 years will show everyone but the most rabid lefty fools what a wise course of action this has been. And it is only right that Australia should do it's little share, as one of the wealthy nations of the free, developed world that will benefit from the defeat of the jihad junkies.


Posted by: TFK at June 7, 2004 at 01:43 PM

Well said, TFK.

The argument the left seems to be peddling is that of a raped woman who is told not to fight back or seek justice because, "It might get you into more trouble."

Posted by: Quentin George at June 7, 2004 at 02:53 PM

If you are fighting enemys that are being churned out of a giant machine the first thing you do is destroy the machine and then finish off the remaining enemys. Waiting for terrorists to gather strength and strike will ensure that Western Civilization is lost to the hoards of islamist terrorists, oh im sorry, millitant freedom fighters who don't really want to hurt us but are victims of brutal US/Israeli/Neoconservative imperialism.

Posted by: JBB at June 7, 2004 at 02:58 PM