September 10, 2004


Brian Deegan is wrong:

Brian Deegan, whose son Joshua died in the 2002 Bali bombings, today said the Jakarta embassy bombing showed Australia must negotiate with the terrorist organisation, Jemaah Islamiah.

Mr Deegan said [Foreign Minister] Mr Downer should meet with the leaders of JI while he was in Indonesia.

"He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, it's his portfolio. If we are at some kind of war, then we should negotiate," Mr Deegan said.

"He (Mr Downer) should speak to the head of JI and ask him: 'Why? What's the problem?'

We don’t need to ask. They’ve already told us what the problem is: we are dirty animals and insects that need to be wiped out, and regardless of whether we’re Australians, Americans, whatever, we are all white people.

You know, it might just be my reading of things, but these don’t sound like particularly promising opening points for negotiation. Deegan expanded on his views during an appearance this morning on ABC radio:

Mr Deegan believes the link between the bombing and Australia's foreign policy is clear.

"I don't think one can deny it, because we weren't a terrorist target before the Howard Government came into power," he said.

Oh, but agitation over East Timor - led by the Left, to their credit - began many years before Howard took office. And what do our friends on the opposite side of the negotiating table have to say about that?

"Australia has taken part in efforts to separate East Timor from Indonesia which was an international conspiracy by followers of the (Christian) Cross."

Speaking of negotiation, check out the SMH’s latest online poll:

Should Australia try to negotiate?

This replaces an earlier question ("Who will benefit more from the terror attack?") that was apparently ditched and is now safely tucked away beneath the results of an old Howard Dean poll. Nice try, SMH.

UPDATE. Deegan has lost the whining noodlehead vote.

Posted by Tim Blair at September 10, 2004 04:23 PM

According to that online poll, 31% of Herald readers think we should negotiate with terrorists.


Posted by: EvilPundit at September 10, 2004 at 04:28 PM

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something, we are fighting to eliminate you." - Hussein Massawi, former head of Hezbollah.

Islamo-Fascists can't make themselves any clearer can they?

Posted by: gaz at September 10, 2004 at 04:46 PM

"Anyone else want to negotiate?" Korben Dallas, the Fifth Element

That's how you negotiate with terrorists; with the biggest, nastiest-looking weapon you can find.

Posted by: Scarlet at September 10, 2004 at 04:47 PM

Okay Mr. Deegan. Why don't you show us just how it's done?

Posted by: Richard at September 10, 2004 at 04:54 PM

EvilPundit, that 31% would have a decimal point in the middle if the question were asked of a general audience.

Posted by: ilibcc at September 10, 2004 at 04:57 PM

They don't get it do they? One letter writer to the Australian said "give them what they want","think of the children".

See, to the average fool, they think these current problems are the result of foreign policy. The terrorists hate us and our way of life. For the left to think that others may, well, be ummmm, racist, is inconceivable. Only white people are racists

Posted by: nic at September 10, 2004 at 05:07 PM

Deegan's introduction to parley.
Hello Mr Osama my name is Brian your terrorists killed my son.Cup of tea?
I dont think so.

Posted by: Aussiecom at September 10, 2004 at 05:15 PM

Can you imagine the horror that we in Oz would express if an Australian of caucasian origin said: "Africans, Aborigines, Micronesians, there all black so they have to be killed."

There is no way that dickhead deegan and his dogooder mates would negotiate with such a person. So why do they want to negotiate with the racist- facist scum that want to kill Australians because we are white? I suggest it's because deegan and his mates are gutless, spoilt, little penised cretins with a moral compass that is permanently damaged.

Posted by: Toryhere at September 10, 2004 at 05:18 PM

Well, these guys (ORDINARY Indonesians) don't seem to keen to negotiate with terrorists:,4057,10721284%255E2,00.html

Perhaps Mr. Deegan could explain why we should choose to negotiate with of a buunch of extremists who DO NOT HAVE any kind of popular backing for their cause from their countrymen?

What about the views of the majority of Indiensia's citizens and its democratically elected leaders? Do they count for nothing to him?

Posted by: Richard at September 10, 2004 at 05:32 PM

Seriously, for the people who want to negotiate, my question is this.

What do you think you can bring to the table that nihlistic Islamo-fascists are interested in?

Osama: I wish to annhilate the Crusader states and inaugurate a world-wide Caliphate!

Lefty-Dingbat: How about you annhilate one state, and only conquer half the world?

Osama: No deal.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 10, 2004 at 05:32 PM

How many times do we have to tell these dingbats.

Terrorists were planning to hit Australia during THE OLYMPIC GAMES!

That was far before the Iraq War, long before Afghanistan, and before the demonic Bushitler was "stole" the election.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 10, 2004 at 05:42 PM

Brian Deegan, a man whose total lack of spine eclipses even that of Neville Chamberlain.

If Hitler had murdered Nevilles son, he would not be calling for negotiations after the event.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at September 10, 2004 at 05:47 PM

Whilst I am very sorry for Deegan, who did, after all, have his son killed, I think that he has missed the point.

Once you start negotiations with these people, you encourage everyone else who has a grudge to start killing other people's sons (or daughters) until you negotiate with them, too.

Either way, people are going to get killed. Whilst I fervently hope that it never happens to my family or to me, I think that by not negotiating, and going all out to wipe them and their suporters off the face of the planet, you will actually reduce the possibility that somebody elses child will be a victim of the Islamist scum.

Posted by: Andrew at September 10, 2004 at 05:50 PM

Here's what the monsters who perpetrated the attack want:

The terrorists demanded the release from jail of Abu Bakir Bashir, the Indonesian 'cleric' believed to be the 'spiritual' leader of Jemaah Islamiah.

How are we supposed to meet them halfway on this? Let him out for day release?

Posted by: Quentin George at September 10, 2004 at 05:57 PM

Brian Deegan, a man whose total lack of spine eclipses even that of Neville Chamberlain.

If Hitler had murdered Nevilles son, he would not be calling for negotiations after the event.

Chamberlain, to his credit, never tried to appease AFTER the war had started.

Posted by: Quentin George at September 10, 2004 at 06:01 PM

What motivates people to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that we CAN negotiate with this current crop of world ruler wannabes?

Haven't those who cry 'negotiate' heard/read that the goal driving the terrorists is to usher in a new world wide caliphate? Anyone who isn't worthy to take part in this caliphate, because of wrong religious beliefs, will either be killed or enslaved. This goal is not something the terrorists have hidden from us. It's been stated openly. They've also stated that we have NOTHING they want. We don't have anything to negotiate with.

Perhaps the 'negotiators' view all peoples from their own cultural perspective, where everything is negotiable? They may be so narrow in their thinking that they can't conceive of peoples having goals that are non-negotiable.

Perhaps people who continue to believe we can negotiate with these terrorists are just afraid to admit that we have no alternative but to fight? As long as they hold onto the fantasy of being able to negotiate, they don't have to face the fact that we've had a war declared on ALL of us that will be won, or lost, by force of arms.
(The ALL includes Muslims who don't practice their religion in the way approved by the Islamists. An example would be the Afghan Muslims who were brutalized by the Taliban.)

Posted by: Chris Josephson at September 10, 2004 at 06:04 PM

If I can find a stupid comment from a RWDB, or a comment from a christian saying that they wanted to destroy islam -- should I take that as the last word on the matter?

If all of our enemies were exactly the same, then it would be appropriate to deal with them all the same. But if they are different...

Something to think about maybe

Posted by: John Humphreys at September 10, 2004 at 06:06 PM

John, these comments that you want to ignore are from the LEADERSHIP of their organisations.

Not a comment from a single mad individual, but a policy statement from the top.

10 out of 10 for effort. fail.

Posted by: Harry Tuttle at September 10, 2004 at 06:11 PM

In case Deegan hasn't noticed, terrorists groups such as JI don't have an organisation with which one can "negotiate". They are loose cell networks operating with minimal control structure. Who is Deegan suggesting we negotiate with? Bashir? Or the nameless field op who is assembling the next car bomb? What a fuckwit.

Posted by: Willmott Fribbish at September 10, 2004 at 06:26 PM


I think you will find the letter writer in The Australian was being sarcastic. Well I bloody well hope so anyway!!

Posted by: Dog at September 10, 2004 at 06:26 PM

Poor Mr Deegan, and I do feel sorry for the man as losing a child has to be the worst thing ever...But the man by his own admission had never been outside Oz untill the bombing and I feel he simply has no idea how the Third/outside World operates. They aint all happy, carpet weaving, gap toothed simpletons Mr Deegan.

Posted by: Dog at September 10, 2004 at 06:32 PM

I'm all in favour of negotiations, so long as they're done in the following model:

"Ah, hello. Sit down, make yourselves comfortable. I assure you the chair is not made of pig leather. Ah good, now let's begin. The chair you are sitting on is wired to a bomb. The moment you attempt to get off it, it will explode, killing everyone in the room. We have SAS snipers on standby in order to pick off any potential survivors. Now we have outlined the conditions, the negotiation will begin."

Posted by: Korgmeister at September 10, 2004 at 06:33 PM

I'm with you Dog - I thought it was sarcasm.

Had to be.

Posted by: Razor at September 10, 2004 at 06:48 PM

Hey, as long as Arafat lives and there isn't an active, visible threat to use force on sponsors of terrorism like Iran, Syria, and Sudan, the terrorists won't believe we have the heart to actually win. And, frankly, with people like Messers Deegan and Humphreys around, I don't believe it, either.

So maybe we should be good dhimmis and surrender. At least it should stop the destruction of perfectly good architecture. I'll save the copies of Ms. and Out at the libraries so the Comittees on the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue know who to stone.

Posted by: Warmongering Lunatic at September 10, 2004 at 07:05 PM

Why else would they be bombing the outside of an embassy but to bomb down the gate so they can come in and talk?

Come to think of it, Mr Deegan, what's stopping you from making your own negotiations with terrorists? Non-official Israelis did this at Geneva and got taken somewhat seriously by the international community, so why don't you give it a go?

/sarcasm ... I hope

Soo, how many people are surprised at Mr Deegan saying this? Anyone?

Posted by: Andjam at September 10, 2004 at 07:26 PM

Deegan and the idiotic Astralian left seriously need to read Bat Ye'ors "Islam amd Dhimmitued".
It seems there is a serious lack of education in the Australian press on Islamic matters.

Posted by: lucien at September 10, 2004 at 08:07 PM

Andjam,I think Deegan is a barking moonbat who had the deep misfortune of losing his son.It's probably to much to ask of him to lose his belief structure however nutty it is.What would he have left?

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 10, 2004 at 08:08 PM

In other news: 60% of Participants in SMH Poll Not Barking Mad.

Subhead: SMH Somehow Manages to Lose 2% of Voters in 3-Way Poll.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at September 10, 2004 at 08:25 PM

I have liked the way that our political leaders have managed this crisis by being non partisan,considerate of the Indonesian victims and particularly telling the victims families Australia will not forget their families and also our police forces working together.I see a bright future between our two countries and an increasingly isolated and marginalized and hopefully imprisoned J.I.

Posted by: gubbaboy at September 10, 2004 at 08:31 PM

I was always of the view that magistrates are appointed on the basis of a modicon of intellectual integrity. Hopefully, Deegan is an exeption to this rule. Fuck me, this bloke's son was murdered by these JI pricks! And now he wants to negotiate with the barstards? It begs the question of how many criminals walked when this clown was at the bench?

Posted by: Zuffle at September 10, 2004 at 08:37 PM

You don't negotiate with terrorists. The answer is retaliation. Australia is on the right side against militant Islam. Don't take the same middle-of-the-road position as Sweden did during the WWII. We can't be neutral in this war!

Best Premises,

Martin Lindeskog - American in spirit.
Gothenburg, Sweden.

Posted by: Martin Lindeskog at September 10, 2004 at 08:43 PM

"If I can find a stupid comment from a RWDB, or a comment from a christian saying that they wanted to destroy islam -- should I take that as the last word on the matter?"

IF the comment were being acted upon by as many Christians as there are Islamists' acting to wipe Christians out, I should think you'd take it seriously. You should at least wonder if the beliefs behind the one 'stupid comment' were not more widely held than one 'stupid comment' leads you to believe. Perhaps you only found ONE comment, but if a bunch of people, worldwide, are acting on what was said you should wonder what you have overlooked.

If a Christian were to make such a comment, Christians would be up in arms (figuratively) against the person making the comment. To be sure, there HAVE been comments like that but I DO NOT SEE Christians rising up and acting on the comments. On the contrary, I have seen all such comments denounced openly and loudly.

For the Islamists, it's not just ONE COMMENT from ONE Mullah that's being obeyed. It's MANY COMMENTS from MANY Mullahs. As someone else pointed out, it's the LEADERS who are making the comments. It's not one lone nut that nobody listens to.

"If all of our enemies were exactly the same, then it would be appropriate to deal with them all the same. But if they are different..."

I see they have the SAME goals, and adhere to the same branch/sect of Islam. They have the SAME SET OF BELIEFS. They may call themselves by different names, according to the particular branch or cell they belong to in each country, but the different names are just like different branches from ONE TREE.

All people who follow Islam are not Fundamentalist Muslim terrorists. It's the Fundamentalist Muslims who want to kill all of us, including other Muslims, and usher in the new caliphate. It's not all Muslims. However, I believe Muslims who don't agree with what's being done by their fellow Muslims need to speak very LOUD and denounce these people.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at September 10, 2004 at 09:21 PM

People like Brian Deegan have some sort of inbuilt barrier in accepting that true evil or blind hatred actually exists.

Here's a typical daydream of Mr Deegan.
At the end of the Nick Berg beheading footage a United Nations diplomat knocks on the door, enters and sits down with the blood-thirsty animals and convinces them they have somehow developed the wrong impression about the western world. After being asked nicely they all relinguish their weapons and declare that we can all be friends now that they understand. After the diplomat gets a promise that they will all be good from now on he leaves them to start afresh with forgiveness and minutes later the worlds media is inundated with official reports that nobody will ever die again as a result of terrorism.

To pacifists and those not prepared to deal with the terrorism reality this sadly is not fanciful rubbish.

Posted by: Intellectual Gladiator at September 10, 2004 at 10:35 PM

"we weren't a terrorist target before the Howard Government came into power," (Mr Deegan) said

We weren't many things 8 years ago which we are today, and vice versa. Up to 1996 I recall many activist protests and widespread graffiti urging "Free East Timor!" Under Howard they got it.

So what do you do now? Appease the intolerance, cross your fingers, coo peaceably and look the other way while it emboldens itself on your acquiescence? Or figure you're a civilised human being who has to at least stand up to fascist animals who are violently opposed to your way of life?

If you've got a practical solution not already canvassed I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: Romeo at September 10, 2004 at 11:09 PM

Well the allies found a very good way of convincing another bunch of death-loving nutters to stop it... Might it be time for a repeat performance?

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at September 10, 2004 at 11:28 PM

Hey I cant wait for talks to begin.Then some people will relise what a bunch crazys these islamic nuts are.

Posted by: Le clerc at September 10, 2004 at 11:33 PM

What an asshole.

Makes me want to buy another beer for your rugby player friends who lost people at Bali -- which will by a damned sight have more impact on the terorrism situation than negotiation.

Posted by: Andrew at September 10, 2004 at 11:49 PM

Brian Deegan should have expressed his gratitude to the freedom fighter who killed his son. I had a mystical vision when his son died. If it was my son, I would have done the same. This senseless blaming of the militants is a symbol of the horror and futility of this filthy war.

Posted by: Robert Fisk at September 10, 2004 at 11:59 PM

Perhaps Mr Deegan could send his brother Phillip, who he says was conscripted to fight in Vietnam, to negotiate with JI.
After all, a man who has seen combat when the cowardly Foreign Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, and Minister for Defence were all dodging their national service obligation would be an admirable and credible spokesman.

What's that you say? .... no record?... not on the list of Vietnam veterans? Phillip Deegan?

Forget I spoke.

Posted by: PQ at September 11, 2004 at 12:39 AM

"But Mr Deegan said the Bali blasts were directly linked to Iraq and called on the government to rethink its foreign policies."

"By that time (when the Bali blasts occurred), Australia had made it abundantly clear, through Mr Howard, that Australia was part of the coalition of the willing,"

Bali bombing occured in October 2002
Iraq war started in March 2003

Can anyone explain how the Bali blasts were directly linked?

Posted by: Andrew at September 11, 2004 at 10:36 AM

Well Brian i think you should be the one to go up there and commence discussions with JI, lay the groundwork for Pixie Rudd. But please do us all a big favour, take Bob brown with you.

Posted by: john clark at September 11, 2004 at 01:42 PM

A second order reason not to negotiate with JI: it will elevate their legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary Indonesians, cloaking their heinous misdeeds in an undeserved dignity. The radicals are on the back foot here. No media speculation this time that it was Mossad or the CIA. Banners all around town condemning terrorists. It's no time to take our boots off their throats.

Posted by: Batavia Bob at September 11, 2004 at 06:32 PM

I would appreciate it if people did not describe Islamic Terrorists as "animals"

Not even the most ravenining of wild predators behaves as abomininably as they do. As such, referring to the perpetrators of such wanton acts of destruction as animals is an insult to animals everywhere.

Posted by: Korgmeister at September 12, 2004 at 02:34 AM