I don’t know whether John Laws got that phrase from George H. W. Bush’s acceptance speech at the 1988 GOP Convention, but it always begs the question of whether one person’s dream is another’s nightmare.
In a cab on the way to work this morning, the cabbie (as is their wont) had the John Laws programme on. Where barristers and “media commentators” lead, it seems, shock jocks follow. Laws called for the introduction of “terrorist profiling” in airports, remarking “you just pick out the ones who look like terrorists”. Challenged by a hostile caller (who memorably also described Laws’ attitude to his interviews with Howard as “like an old purring tomcat”), who claimed Laws was “demonising Muslims”, the response was to say (repeatedly) “I am tarring Muslims with the one brush”. Perhaps an unfortunate metaphor. Laws went on to clarify that “all terrorists are Muslims” and that terrorism was a problem “for them”, for which “they” had to “take responsibility”. Interspersed with all this were repeated ads for the new Toyota Camry. Presumably not sold to “them”…
Yeah! Damn Muslims. They should clean up their messes in Chechnya and Russia and Spain and Northern Ireland and…
Seriously, how can anybody with even an inkling of historical and international knowledge say something like “All terrorists are Muslims” with a straight face?
I’ve never had much respect for Mister Laws, but I think I just lost what little was left.
I don’t listen to Laws very often, finding him too overbearing for my comfort. However I do think it’s about time we forgot about all the political correctness that prevents us thinking about the true nature of Islam and Moslems. I don’t think you can really deal with these separately due to the solidarity that Moslems have for their religion. I agree with a lot of what Paul Sheehan wrote in this morning’s SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/paul-sheehan/ideals-become-casualties-of-war/2006/08/13/1155407666922.html
Many people (particularly those who call themselves small l liberals) are very careful to say that the majority of Moslems are peace-loving and only want to get on with their lives. Well they may be passive (ie they don’t actively engage in terrorist acts), but there is plenty of evidence that the vast majority have sympathies for Osama bin Laden, Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Jazeera, and the anti-Jewish prouncements of Hilali of Lakemba. If it comes to the crunch and Australia becomes involved in a hot war to defend our own country, I doubt very much that we can rely on the loyalty of our Moslem citizens.
He did qualify his claim at one point, saying “all terrorists are Muslims except Timothy McVeigh”, then returned to the original formulation.
Anyone else worried by this sort of sign that ethno-nationalism is on the rise?
Anyone got any firm data on if it is on the rise? It seems to me that it is but then it would.
Yet again, the problem for the Left is not terrorism but a Western reaction to terrorism.
Crude though it was, at least Laws proposed that something be done to stop terrorists. Which we never, ever hear from LP types or anyone on the Left — except in the form of utopian Palestinian state concepts.
Come on, leftists! A whole bunch of fundamentalist anti-liberation anti-feminist fellows want you dead. What are you going to do about it? Bitch about Toyota ads?
(By the way, if you think John Laws is a dangerous bigot, you should check out the opinions held by various Islamic leaders. But you never will, will you?)
Barry: Surface Analysis
The average muslim: Being cruelly poked from both sides.
Tim: Strawman
Laws: Still pretty damn powerful and counterproductive?
Who is John Laws?
From the above comments he seems to be some sort of radio talkback wallah.
I’ve checked my radio guide and he doesn’t seem to broadcast here in Melbourne.
That’s funny, One Nation didn’t poll very well here either. (Ah, yes. Remember the good old days when all NSW and Qld had to riot over was the “Asian Invasion”?)
Could there be a connection between the lack of popularity of this Laws chappie and that fellow they call the “Parrot”, and the absence of bigotry in “multicultural Melbourne” (as Pauline Hanson so flatteringly dubbed my city)?
Maybe I could ask my Muslim and Indochinese neighbours at our next street party. They may be able to provide some perspective on the causes of bigotry.
We’ll have to watch those resident Kiwis here as well, perfidious traitors who refused to join us in the war to defend ourselves the last time against Saddam’s WMD. Like their suspicious countrymen and women, they probably like watching Al Jazeera too, that wicked organisation hated by most despotic Middle East regimes for wilfully reporting the news in graphic detail, but soon to be on a satellite channel near you.
Yes, we’ll clearly need new “patriot” laws to bring all potential scumbag traitors into line, the “Everybody Shit Your Pants Cleaning Up the Wogs (Bad Neighbourhoods) Bill”
But beware that new axis of evil, doubly wilfully evil, set to do irreparable damage to Orstralia, worse than a million commies under the bed: Osama bin Kiwi.
Michael G, you are being far too kind.
Only a fool looks at the world in simple black and white terms, as the world should have taught them a long time ago that things are never quite so simple.
Only a fool vilifies one racial/religous group while simultaneously condoning the destruction of many of the countries from which these groups originally came. And expects no adverse reaction.
Only a fool stokes the fires of racial intolerance for their own petty ends.
In short, only a fool pretends to be opposed to terrorism while advocating policies that encourage it.
Actually Peter you make a vaild point. I am still pissed off with New Zealand.
We should not go too far though. There is room for nuance and I would not support lumbering surrender monkey wet as piss countries like New Zealand, Canada and France etc etc with the actual Axis Of Evil. We need another axis. The Axis Of The Pissweak. Does Canada still qualify? Maybe if the new sensible gets re-elected to prove the first time wasn’t a chad glitch or something we can move them out.
As to profiling terror suspects based on race it may work 99% of the time but is that good enough given a 1% error rate sees planes falling out of the sky? I think this idea that all terrorists are dark skinned muslims is really rather trite and represents a denial that the anglo-sphere does produce some utter turds who need shooting.
1930′s translation:
Speaking of Lawsian exaggeration, does Peter still think Bushitler will launch a nuclear strike on Iran before November?
Good thing you buggers aren’t running ASIO and ASIS. Are they supposed to be collecting intelligence on the Bhuddist and Assemblies of God splodeydopes, too??
That’s it, side with Islam against the Right.
Just don’t think about who will protect you from them once the Right is gone…
He said surrender monkey! Now where did that cheese go?
Adrian: Good cop, bad cop, y’know.
there is a very common link between all terrorists who wish to kill on an international scale.
They all believe in the Wahhibist style of Islam.
This is actually incorrect.
Whilst Wahhabism is certainly bad news for we infidel, it is by no means the exclusive source of Islamic fascism or the terrorism it creates.
There are all manner of flavors, Salafism (as practiced by Al-Qaeda) and Wahabbism which are generally opposed to each other as are Sunni, Shiite just to name the more well known groups. All of these have demonstrated Islamist inspired violence and Pan-Islamic desires. The absolutely common thread is of course Islam.
Depends CL, on whether Shitler sees the Israeli defeat as a victory. As Seymour Hersh (today) relates:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact
Now, in keeping with his delusions, Shitler may probably ignore the failure of the IAF to achieve its objectives. If he doesn’t ignore the failure, Iran is probably safer from a US attack. As I stated before, the emotive reactions of the Shitlers tends to dominate their decision making.
The only thing that profiling achieves is to distract attention away from other potential sources od danger.
They profile on the basis of race. Fine, instead I will recruit a couple of young fools, especially blonde haired blue eyed fools and preferably female, prepared to risk a goal sentence by carrying drugs for money.
Instead of drugs, load ‘em up with explosive and send them on the way. Bonuses – another infidel blown up, get to keep the fanatics prepared to do anything for the cause AND it doesn’t cost much because you promise to pay on delivery.
Answers to the questions:
Who started the war?
What is the Iranian connection?
Hersch from the Guardian report, but the full quotation is from the New Yorker:
Is the Right thinking of going somewhere?
Or is there the remotest danger that the Right may be persuaded to relinquish its quaint little ideas?
No. That can’t happen.
The Right must be going somewhere. But where?
Aha! Could it be that anagallis 1 is talking RAPTURE?
************
I’m trying to imagine Right Wing heaven.
Would St Peter send candidates to Walhalla for offshore processing? Would heaven have a white picket fence?
Or would these righteous Rightists be allowed to become cosmic winged hippies as a reward for a lifetime of anality in this earthly Vale of Tears?
Hey Katz, are you saying you only support Islam against the Right with the expectation that we’ll always be here to protect you?
And ‘quaint little ideas’ – like not bending over backwards to protect the terrorists who would like to kill you?
Au contraire anagallis. I feel much safer with you out there, wherever that may be.
First they came for the Rightists, but I did not protest because I was a Rightist ….etc
god that was a stupid comment, angallis
Perhaps the Right intends to stop involving us in wars in the Middle East? Dare I suggest there might be some connection between Australian foreign policy and the risk of terrorism here?
Tim Blair – blissfully unaware that the policies of the Right (sic) are the best galvanising force terrorists have ever had. Hint – it’s not incumbent upon leftys to propose solutions to fix problems your ideology has created.
My brother-in-law is a Jordanian Muslim, and I take great offence to ignoramuses who spout shit based on their own prejudice.
Also Tim, when hate spewing Mullahs actually have a national audience of millions, like Laws, then your comment may hold water, but until then it’s just tired old right wing hubris.
“Yeah! Damn Muslims. They should clean up their messes in Chechnya and Russia and Spain and Northern Ireland and…”
Well, the Chechnyan terrorists ARE Muslims, and ETA and the IRA aren’t exactly cranking out the deaths any more.
From a practical policing point of view, profiling often makes a lot of sense. It is a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of recent (and so presumably current) terrorists are Muslim, and look it.
In this case though it really can’t help much in practical terms, because the consequences of letting a white terrorist through unmolested are prohibitive, the general social cost of singling out an already alienated racial group is too, and there’s a likelihood of “creating more terrorists”. The only solution is to step up security across the board.
No, it’s not about them coming for the Left simply because they’re next in line. Terrorists don’t hate us for Iraq or Afghanistan (they might hate us more because of it, but that’s a different matter), they hate our way of life and for who we are.
The Right and militant Islam are enemies because – surprise – we believe the complete opposite of each other. It seems pretty obvious that the Right and the Left have more in common than the Left do with Islam (at least in Australia) and so it simply makes sense to fight a common foe.
If you on the left had your way, we would not only give up the fight in Iraq but Afghanistan too. Which would probably make sense to you, because it would make us less of a target. But where do you draw the line? Stopping our support of Israel might reduce us as a target a little more, so would ending our alliances with the US and the UK. Then so would giving up our freedoms of speech and faith. Where should we draw the line? HOw much is the Left willing to give up for a little safety?
The Right knows that the way to overcome the enemy is not be giving up aspects of the war to make us less of a target, but by fighting; fighting terror in Baghdad streets and the Hindu Kush, as well as in our own streets and cities.
And let’s not forget that the terrorists are trying to kill those of you on the Left just as surely as they are trying to kill us on the Right.
And Alex, poor didums, hope you weren’t too offended. I mean, after 9/11, the Bali Bombings, Madrid, and 7/7, our top priority really should be thinking about how Muslims feel, and making sure we don’t offend them.
Who says we don’t profile already? (Hint: we do, in lots of different areas and industries.) And which of you really do know what profiling involves?
Laws is a tool. But anyone who ignores the Islamofascist mindset amongst some Muslims is a bigger tool. Islamofascism doesn’t need an audience of milliions. We already know what a single suicide bomber can do.
Correct!
What is it about the potty training endured by RWDBs that makes them immune to this eminent good sense?
Instead RWDBs go careening around like Yosemite Sam. Weren’t they allowed to watch Bugs Bunny? Didn’t they ever find out how Bugs turned Sam’s biggest guns against him?
How many lives have been taken by the disciples of John Laws? Hmmm?
I’m with you Katz. Leftists are against singling out all Muslims because a demented minority are murderous.
Leftists are against giving away our civil liberties and allowing the formation of an untrammelled police state because of the Big Bad Terrorists, which is something the Right appears to be all too willing to give away because of their fears, anagallis1.
We do want more security to thwart terrorism. We just want it to be open and accountable, not a dirty secret that oppresses all citizens in the name of protecting us.
Analgesic, a non exhaustive reply.
Yair, anyone who eats MacDonalds deserves to die…. stupid f***s
Yair, spineless wimps, teh Left hasn’t the armchair balls like me and heaps of cannon fodder like my mate George has.
The Right has sacrificed free speech with the Anti-Terra Nullius laws, how much is teh Left prepared to sacrifice?
Teh left is stupid, any fool knows that the Shia dominated government with such people as Muqtada al-Sadr, a real democrat, must be supported. We must join him to fight “teh terrorists”—those who are against al-Sadr must be with the “terrists.”
You dills on teh Left are going to get us all killed by not agreeing to let us kill all the Ragheads wot we don’t like, or kill accidentally on purpose.
Peter “Rapture Ready” Kemp says:
“The Right has sacrificed free speech…”
Is that so Kempie? The torrent of manure that emanates from your vocal chords doesn’t seem to have been abated by any prohibition on free speech. Aren’t you being a tad hysterical?
The only place in Australia where citizens are currently being hauled before the courts for an anti-free speech inquisition is Victoria, pursuant to the draconian Racial and Religious Vilification Act.
George W would surely be a disciple had he heard of him. Maybe little Johnny has told him about Big John during one of their cosy fireside chats.
The worry with anagallis1 is, how many more are there?
Ha! Peter made those Ring Wing dummies sound stupid by imitating them and then changing the spelling like they couldn’t spell. That’s gold, Kempie!
Anagallis1
I think you are trying to take the piss. If not,it is way past your bedtime.
John Laws is a Dhinger man
there is no escaping it he is a ‘part of the problem’ not the solution.
He has a cool collection of cars but (i know some cars are not climate friendley).
A salient question to ask MR LAWS would be ‘How do you feel about your cars contibuting to climate change and have you considered buying a hybrib, ie Prius’?
The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was first made official American policy by Bill Clinton.
Just another reminder, folks: according to LP analyst and John Laws critic, Peter Kemp, George Intercontinental Bushistic Missile will nuke Iran in or around November.
Now he’s grouchy that Israel took action against the agents of an exterminationist regime in Tehran.
And they talk about the Uglies of the NSW Libs. Peter’s on-side with the Adelaide Institute.
you are missing the wood for the trees if you start putting ETA etc into the same group as AQ.
AQ is engaged in international terrorism.
They are Wahabbists pure and simple. not hard to find or detect if you are doing your job particularly if half of them go to a madrassas in Pakistan!
How’s this for free speech Steve Munn–
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
By George, you folks are a bunch of nancies. For the record, terrorism started decades before George Bush. It’s just that they ratched it up beyond a place that the West could tolerate on 9/11. This has to be fixed. It is incumbent upon the Left to come with ideas to fix it. If you don’t, then don’t. But then you don’t deserve to govern. Say seated at the children’s table and allow the grown ups handle it.
Maybe you should confine your discussions to topics that have no problems that could offend you. Say, flower arrangements?
Yep, the GWOT will be won one smart-arsed blog comment at a time.
Actually I’m over the moon that thanks to Israel’s FUBAR attempts, the US administration may possibly be dissuaded from nuking Iran, ie if Israel couldn’t successfully bomb Hezbollah bunkers (because they didn’t know where they are) Iranian bunkers are likewise hidden and indestructible.
Like all Culverin Lads, the Bushovics have long barrels in a sixteenth century “cannonical” sense, but are in fact, small bores.
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/source/is3/is3c.htm
A conservative opinion on how to fight terrorism,lets keep bombing the Muslim innocent women and children being back to the stone age, and I guess if we drop enough ordinance we must get some of them.I mean shit the U.S. is a hyper power they have millions of fucking bombs.And of course we have the added value of the more country’s we fuck up, the few Muslims that are left that don’t hate our guts, will love us too. Just like they did when we invaded Iraq.
Seriosly folks,we are losing this war,we are are doing exactly what people like Bin Laden expected we are not just debating the outcome of the war on terror we are in most cases starting to take sides.To deny this is to walk around with your own head shoved up your arse.And while all of this is happening the west is slowly bankrupting itself,just as Bin Laden promised.Terrorism is a policing problem, destroying country’s to stop it is a fantasy.
Peter backs the extermination of Israel.
Nice blog.
“Also Tim, when hate spewing Mullahs actually have a national audience of millions, like Laws, then your comment may hold water, but until then it’s just tired old right wing hubris.”
Well, they do. Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah ….. the list goes on. International audiences, what’s more.
And well said, anagallis1.
‘Living the dream’ or ‘living in a dream’ (at LP)
Actually, to be precise Lawsie says “keeping the dream alive’ and his simple folksie theme is
That dream does not include militant islam
Actually #2, it was Martin Luther King who had a dream… a dream today!
A plan? You want a plan to deal with terrorism? Here you go.
Chaucerian Lad: Oh Womb, Oh Belly, Oh Stinking “Wog”, Fullfilled of Dung and Extermination !!!
(Apologies to the “Pardoner”)
Nice switch, Rob. We’re talking about Australia here, well at least I was.
Yes, the world is much safer now, thanks.
My dream for my own children and grandchildren is a world without any militant religion at all. Persecuting all Muslims with blanket suspicion and searches is likely to create more resentful and militant Muslims, not fewer, and that’s why I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Terrorism is a crime, and halting terrorists is a policing problem, which when treated as such in the UK led to the latest arrests. I’m glad that a danger has been averted (assuming that the arrests were justified, which by past record they may or may not be).
The best way to isolate the jihadists amongst the Islamic population is to reach out to the moderates and secular Muslims and show them we are willing to be their respectful and even friendly neighbours. Most Muslims who came to Australia came here to get away from the religious extremists – it’s sheer stupidity as well as unethical to demonise them so thoroughly that they feel impelled to turn to the extremists after all.
All that glass-chewing reminded me of reading your blog, Tim L.
You’re an embarrassment to your LP colleagues, Peter.
Final reminder: according to Peter – who is a critic of John Laws the exaggerator – George Bush WILL launch a nuclear strike on Iran in or around November.
(Apologies to the “Miller”)
Do you have any evidence to support your claim that most Muslims came to Australia to get away from religious extremists? I would have thought that most of the Muslim migrants would have come here for economic opportunity (eg from Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia) and some to get away from the troubled state of their home countries (eg Iraq, Lebanon) where religious extremism of their Governments was not the cause of their wanting to leave.
You’ve made the claim, however, so please provide the evidence you have to support it.
“Peter, what the fuck are you doing on a mainstream leftist blog?
Your harebrained evil empire type rants sound very Socialist Alliance to me. Wouldn’t you be much happier with the comrades over here – [link].
The funny thing about Extreme Left nuts like you is that you dudes almost always have a mid-life crisis then swing over to the Neocon side you purportedly despise and take out a subscription to Quadrant.
But anyway, if you are serious and sane (please provide medical certificate) I’m willing to bet you $100 at 10 to 1 odds that George W Bush doesn’t nuke Iran during the course of his presidency. Are we on, champ?”
Apologies to Steve Munn.
Pollytickedoff:
Saint:
Both right.
Professionally-conducted, impartial Profiling itself (no, that’s not an oxymoron) is – or should be – merely one of a whole range of methods, implements, techniques, laws, etc. that can be used to frustrate, hinder and catch terrrorists, along with photography, covert surveillance, reliable informers, observant members of the public, language training, exchanging information among government departments, etc., etc.,.
The trouble starts when overenthusiastic loonies and rank-amateurs start thinking that it is some sort of a magic wand, just wave it in the air and all terrrorists will be revealed in a flash. And, God help us!, they also think an ID card will stop terrrorists stepping out their front doors.
What with their getting ready for the coming religious war and all, it’s a real compliment to LP that these RWDBs have taken time out oftheir busy schedules to give us a progress report about their preparations to save our ungrateful hides.
So guys, have you decided yet who’s going to get to be Colonel Klink and who’s going to be Sergeant Schultz at the Mark Steyn Internment Facility and Raghead Deprogramming Center?
And how was basic training at the Tim Blair Boot Camp?
Australia can never have enough of you: The Few. The Brave. The Completely Unhinged.
CL, why anyone would take you or your rantings seriously I cannot imagine.
Like most of your keyboard commando bretheren, you are sound and fury signifying nothing.
With apologies to you know who…
Graham, yes, profiling when done properly is a useful tool. The ‘profiling’ I was referring to was the type that John Laws seems to think should be used in airports of simply picking on the ones who ‘look like’ terrorists, and I don’t think is he suggesting that it be done by quailfied and experienced profilers.
There’s not only deprogramming Katz, there’s a little surgical procedure for the really stubborn ones, you know for those who “flew over the cuckoos nest” once too often, it’s called the Ironic Cranial Jihad (Islamophobic Hemispherical Separation.)
As my breth-er-en know only too well: nothing compares to the sound and fury of Peter’s imminent NUCLEAR WAR!
Coming soon…
CL – Why are you here? I’ve never read a meaningful contribution from you.
PS – Bill Clinton is no lefty.
I do believe that there was3 to 4 plane loads worth of innocent people killed in Leanon in the last few weeks. Not counting the mass destruction, caused by tanks, planes and droms, used by Israel with the sanction of the US and the COW.
Profiling at airports is actually very successful. The Israelis have been doing it for years.
Here’s one who knows:
Why am I here, Alex?
That’s such a big question.
oopps that should be Lebanon, of course.
Pollytickedoff:
Laws, Jones, etc. and their production staff probably haven’t got a clue. They’re in the radio entertainment business, for Pete’s sake! Their job is to bring listeners to advertisers and to promote certain political and commercial lines. There might be a tenuous connection with effective policing and counter-terrrorism in there somewhere but it’s not too obvious just yet.[L-O-L]
Only anecdotal, I’m afraid, from Muslims I’ve spoken to and articles I’ve read. I made no claim about governments, by the way. Most of the people I’m speaking of were concerned about a rise in extremist Shar’ia supporters in their communities, not their governments, although they were certainly concerned that one day their governments would be taken over by the Shar’iaists.
There were other countries they could have gone to that promised greater economic benefits, but they came here because we aren’t a particularly religious country, and they hoped it would stay that way. Sad, eh?
I’m glad at least you had no arguments to raise against my points that persecution is likely to increase rather than decrease the recruiting rate to Islamic militancy, and that terrorism is essentially a policing problem.
No tigtog, Muslim terrorism (ie 99% of the world’s current terrorism) is primarily a Muslim community problem. They must fix it.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/lordstevens.shtml
Oy, that’s my link, barry
But I do think Lord Stevens has the genesis of the basis of a very good point: Islam, heal thyself.
rog, my profound apologies for getting John Laws’ slogan wrong. I will have to study his volumes of poetry carefully as an appropriate penance.
The root cause of the West’s hatred toward Muslims is that they keep trying to kill us.
I’m an angry young man, can someone please do something to appease me before I blow myself up on the next plane to Tehran?
Part of the problem is the widespread ignorance of Islam in the West. We could learn a lot by studying Dan’s comment above.
Alex – Thanks for the example of the fallacy Burden of Solution . I needed another example to post.
Oops, very sorry Rob. I didn’t read every comment on this thread before I jumped in!
John Laws aside, I have no doubt that the various Islamic terror groups, from Hizbullah to Al Qaeda, are driven by a largely identical ideology and are part of a broader radical movement.
This movement (recently dubbed Islamofascism in the press); like any other, is not monolithic, and comprises various groups with different institutional frameworks. But it is nonetheless a movement with several aims and values shared by its leaders and followers.
Assuming Islamic terrorists’ primary motivations include Israel, US foreign policy, dissatisfaction with incumbent Arab governments or any other preoccupation of western elites is just as ridiculous as dismissing Islamists as depraved or insane.
You can take away the attributed grievances, but all terrorists really need is their paramount cause.
Is that the method used for that everso highly successful profiling of Charles de Menezes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Or was he merely guilty of criminal swathiness?
Mine too! disarm the Salvation Army, outlaw all hymn singin’ an bible bashin’ an tub thumpin’….ban all bangin’ on the ol’ drum…
..back to the USSR
Mark on 14 August 2006 at 4:52 pm
You may dare but you would be foolish to do so. By analogy to that, I wonder what mark would make of the claim that he was responsible for New Right terrrorists bombing the Treasury to prevent re-nationalisation of Telstra?
The greatest risk of terrorism in Australia appears to come from lax-selected and/or un-settled home-grown ethnics. And who grew those ethnics into potetial mass-murderers of their fellow citizens and traitors to their state: why the multiculturalists thats who!
That means mark’s push. The Wets insane and iniquitous cultural policies are much more culpable for the rise of home-grown terrorism than the Hawks insane and iniquitous martial policies. They should be hammered by realists of all parties until they fess up their culpability.
The policy of the Australian government towards sectarians of all creeds and colours should be disengagement. We should not invade their lands. Nor should we invite them into our lands.
If they are here and continue to misbehave we should gently deport them with a sizeable compo. We should continue to watch the quiet ones, using whatever means are efficacious. Including ethnic profiling.
Finally, we should completely dismantle the bogus and vicious apparatus of multiculturalism. This machinery was only ever created to line the pockets of people who could not get a real job.
It only serves to divide the community and weaken the nation. Get rid of it all, now. And tell the bludgers and con-artists who man it to get a real job.
PS Islamofascism is a nonsense term – an oxymoron. Militant Islamists are a cultural problem because SW Asian tribes cannot make good nation states. This is the opposite of fascism.
Arabic fascists probably did everyone a good turn by keeping Islamic fundamentalists in check. This is similar to the way the Mob reduces crime in its own neighbourhood. Mr Big (eg Hussein) wacks all the Mr Littles (Zarqawi, Bin Laden, Nidal etc).
Its OK to profile shock jocks and misquote them but its not OK to profile muslims as terrorists
You really have an eye for the big questions, don’t you, rog? So Laws’ slogan was misremembered – not the substance of what he had to say. What’s your point?
‘ethnics’ like Jack Roche, David Hicks and ‘Jihad’ Jack Thomas? Or Don Stewart-Whyte in the UK?
As usual, Strocchi is grafting his own hobbyhorse onto the more complex issue of who are the next bunch of nutbags willing to blow people up for the ‘Clash of Civilisations’ and why they’ll do it.
As far as profiling for terrorists goes, where do I begin?
For a start, you can’t just tell someone is a muslim by looking at them. Lumping in ‘people of middle eastern appearance’ means wasting resources by hassling Greeks, Sicilians, Assyrians, Armenians, Arab Christians and the odd Brazillian or two; while at the same time skipping over people like a mate of mine who was raised muslim (OOOOH SCAREY) but being Bosnian has pale skin and blond hair and so wouldn’t pass on the London Met’s sophisicated Swarthometeric instruments – to say nothing of zealous Anglo converts, of which we have the aforementioned examples.
So, some geniuses have suggested getting people to carry ID cards with ‘Muslim’ written on them. To which I would say: “Jah, das is ein gut idea, herr Keyboarden Kommando-oberfuhrer!”. For one, how, and who assesses ‘Muslimness’? Do people who have Islamic backgrounds like my friend above get a free pass? Will they have to eat a bacon sandwich and crap in the general direction of Mecca to prove non-Muslimness? Those who entertain this fantasy should keep in mind that the 9/11 hijackers went out and partied hard for just that reason, to provide a cover.
People who support mass profiling Muslims usually do so out of a knee jerk reaction. They support the stereotype of wild-eyed, turbanned fanatics hunched behind them on the train with suspicious smoke pouring out of their boots. When the idea is exposed to basic pragmatism and examples, support for it vanishes. Think about it. The heavily robed, full-bearded geezers with skullcaps and turbans are the last guys who are gonna bomb you, becuase they look so suspicious. Real terrorists use that suspicion and irrationality against us by appearing normal and safe by comparison.
Profiling only makes it easier for them by diverting resources away from likely cases to checking every Muslim, and by adding to the atmosphere of distrust and fear that drives people to these acts in the first place.
Depends on the intelligence, I guess. If the intel says the highest risk to aircraft from terrorists in YMOMEA travelling alone or in small groups, then pick ‘em out for special attention, I’d say. Hard to gainsay that logic.
And you don’t reckon they’d be a step ahead, Rob? You don’t reckon that there mightn’t be terrorists who don’t present with a “middle eastern appearance” – or even not that old? Or even women (see suicide bombers…)
I see Leinad has made much the same point in more detail.
“The policy of the Australian government towards sectarians of all creeds and colours should be disengagement. We should not invade their lands. Nor should we invite them into our lands”.
My God stroker, my Grandmother would be turning in her grave she was from the Shankhill road Belfast.The only thing she hated worse than Catholics was Brits.In your world she should have no doubt been deported.Strocchi Umm must be a fine Anglo Saxon name? or possibly Gelati with a yeast infection?
Stroker aint you the one?Of all your right wingnuttery rantings,the truth at last, a red neck no less,a dyed in the wool racist.Brother did I have your cards marked correct you can’t hide it can you ?.
But wait! there’s more.
” SW Asian tribes cannot make good nation states. This is the opposite of fascism”
The one thing Ive noticed about the stroker is, he dont preface nothing with “In my opinion” or, “I believe” Oh no, it’s straight to the,this is a fact and any other opinion is left wing shite.You make bullshit a science.
Kempie sez:
“80.1 Treason (1) A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:…
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared;”
Well yes, like every sensible nation we make it illegal for citizens to actively assist the enemy in times of war. If you find that objectionable I’m afraid I couldn’t care less.
Seems a bit of a no-brainer, Kim. The police should zero in on whatever demographic their intelligence tells them are the most likely suspects.
I realise that this thread has been influenced by the link from Tim Blair, and thus by commenters who don’t normally visit LP, but could people please try to keep comments reasonably close to the topics of profiling and/or Laws? Thanks to those who have. It’s not intended to provide yet another opportunity for endless left/right namecalling, discussions of Iran or clashes of civilisations, or whatever. Please also refrain from abusing other commenters, and I’d particularly ask people not to distort or invent other names for people – for instance C.L.’s moniker.
..and that means you too Kim, stop misquoting Lawsie…
A distinction needs to be made between profiling as done by intelligence/law enforcement, and profiling ad hoc as done by security forces.
In intelligence/law enforcement, profiling involves building up a detailed assessment of the most likely suspects, checking off a host of points regarding whether they present an actual risk or not. Sensible and efficient use of resources.
Security profiling, done ad hoc a la Laws, appears based on who “looks suspicious”, which is a different thing entirely, pretty bloody odious, and also inefficient and stupid when the bad guys can just deliberately circumvent our preconceptions.
Apart from three men (respectively Anglo, West Indian and Anglo-Iranian by ethnicity) all the suspects arrested were of Pakistani descent. Seeing as before 1948 all Pakistanis were Indians, and that Muslims from all over India left for the new Pakistan, I challenge anyone to tell just by looking whether the quiet guy in Western clothing is Indian or Pakistani, let alone whether he is Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian or Buddhist.
Then there’s all the SE Asians – good luck telling who’s Muslim at a glance there, too. What Laws is advocating is persecuting anyone “flying while brown”, which still would have let Don Stewart-White on to the plane.
Another profiler..http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=5994
Link?
(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared;â?
Not a fine enough distinction. There would have been complaints from a whole raft of Catholic countries if the IRA was routinely referred to as Catholic terrorists without further distinctions. The Irish alone were pretty upset any time they just got called Irish terrorists without qualification.
Bush could have said jihadist fascists, or al Qaeda fascists, or Shariat fascists, or any number of descriptors which would have been both more accurate and had the diplomatic benefit of not tainting an entire diverse religious group with the actions of fanatic outliers.
The IRA was not fighting a religious war on the west
No, Just against the Proddies in Northern Ireland, and their British defenders.
The grievances of the NI Catholic underclass were pretty central, rog.
Where does the line between a nationalist uprising and a religious war lie?
I see that everyones raked Angallis’s coments (and the usefuleness of this thread) over the hottest coals but, here’s something that might have slipped by. Is this point generally conceded these days?
The next step is to try and hammer that pesky distinction between militant and ordinary muslims. Or maybe to follow a Fiskian line and argue that those that ‘hate’ us do so because of many Afghanistans and many Iraq’s stretching back many years. And maybe even to start supporting more agressively (and tactically) the goals of the majority moderate muslims in Australia. OK, JWH and all the rest are pissing in the pond, but as Mr Wronwright says
I dont quite see why, unless this is a tacit acknowledgment that the ‘right’ has had their turn and royally fucked up. But I think its a very worthwhile challenge. Sadly Tim L’s link didnt work for me, but there must be positive, saleaable policies out there that don’t simply boil down to, “Don’t do dumb things, Idjut.”
What should be done in Afghanistan, for example? Is it simply a question of more resources? Or of removing the conflicts of strategic interest? In the case of profiling, we can agree that there is no point in a public declaration that we are getting ‘tougher.’ But can we agree that ‘radical’ clerics should be prevented from entering Australia, if they have a record of ‘hatespeech’? I know it’s a bit useless to try and take a sample from a blog, but it seems to me the pendulum has actually swung too far back towards ‘The Pre-emptive West are our greatest threat.’ The point is, neither Bush nor Ahmadinejad can exist without the other. Effectively, the last 5 years has been the two pumping steroids and adreneline directly into the everbloating bodies of each other (I’m taking Uncles B & A as examples of a much wider phenom.) I think the ‘left’ needs to get more agressive on this one because I’m pretty sure Rog is wrong:
To all intents and purposes that dream does not include Islam.
Back on the original subject, profiling won’t work.
Under Muslims = terrorists profile, Muhammed Ali fails the test, as does the entire Pakistani cricket team.
On the other hand, David Hicks passes. So would Yassir Arafat, who was a Christian. So would the Sikhs who blew up the Air India plane over the Atlantic in 1985, killing all 300-odd passengers. So would the white son of the Tory official arrested last week for his part in the latest plot.
More careful profiling already goes at airports, of course. Try looking nervous and agitated as you are waiting for your luggage to come out at Customs. I guarantee you will be made to open it by customs officers. Try looking nervous and agitated in the departure lounge before you get on a flight. I guarantee you will be quietly led to a room nearby and given a thorough search.
Profling by racial characteristics or religion is just a lazy broad brush way of trying to be seen to be doing something while avoiding the hard work of detecting who really is deangerous.
Spiros – Yasser Arafat was a Christian? Wikipedia has him joining the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1950s and having a real name of Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, which would not seem to indicate Christian parentage.
Bismarck, thanks for the correction. I read once that he was a Christian, but that was evidently wrong. But the are plenty of Christians in the PLO, which, apart from Hamas, is secular.
George Bush was sharing a story with a class of young children in school when he was informed of 9/11. When he gathered his senses he declared war on terror. Even then people were asking how we would know when we had won. I said at the time that heâd know it was over when he could sit down and share a story with young children in Tehran and Baghdad. Who can doubt that he is further from the end now than he was then?
A year later Johan Galtung and Dietrich Fischer suggested that To end terrorism, end state terrorism pointing out that there is little difference to the victims in âterrorism (carried out be men and women without uniform) and state terrorism (carried out by men and women in uniform)â?. They point out that both forms of terrorism use violence for political ends, harm people not directly involved in struggle and are designed to spread panic/terror to bring about capitulation etc. Lebanon provides a classic case.
To break this cycle of violence strong states need to reach out to the moderates and deal with their legitimate political aspirations. The aim is to dry up the sea of sympathy in which terrorists swim.
Now before those on the right roll around on the floor laughing at the naivety of this approach, Galtung does recognise that there are hard cases on the other side that will have to be dealt with harshly. His approach, though, would be miles away from that of the Israelis who decided that an elected Hamas politician would be better off dead, so they assassinated him along with his wife and 7 children in his bed. They call it a âtargeted killingâ? which is somehow meant to make it legitimate.
In 2001, after 9/11 and before Afghanistan, Galtung recommended a combination of police action (10% of effort), using courts and due process, and the remainder on a total reorientation of foreign policy with a major effort to change the nature of the âstructural violenceâ? wrought by western economic and geostrategic policies.
To spell this out in more detail is beyond the scope of this comment but tigtog expressed it very simply when she said that countering terrorism is a âpolicing problemâ? and that:
I couldnât agree more.
Almost inevitably profiling will be part of policing, but with a bit of skill and sensitivity, please. What John Laws is up to seems to me stereotyping, denigrating, verging on hate-mongering, which is likely to postpone the day when Bush can sit down with a bunch of kids in Tehran or Baghdad.
But to pick up on Michael Gâs comment, Galtung and Fischer said back in 2002 that the US had already lost in Afghanistan, because of their false motivation and by limiting their action to a military one. Iâm afraid it is all considerably harder now than it was back in September-October 2001.
there is only one organisation that parades terror as a way of jihad against the West and that is AQ. Their membership is highly selective.
Almost all other groups target either Governments or countries within the country.
Thus in Australia we don’t have to worry about ETA, Tamils, Hezbollah, sikhs etc
Phill on 15 August 2006 at 12:05 am
A history of sectarian hatred in your family. Why I not surprised that her issue favours jihad pampering policies? My Irish granny was of the same ilk, although she confined her unruliness to sneering whenever a British monarch appeared on the screen. Marrying a Scots Presbyterian and ruling the roost was her way of getting even, I suppose.
The other rather banal social scientific point is that it is easier for Christian Caucasians to integrate into a Christian Caucasian society. This is mainly through the mechanism of exogamy. Non-Christians and non-Caucasians face a higher bar on seamless integration, although the high-IQ NE Asians seem to be vaulting it with ease.
Simply thumbing ones nose at authority is not enough to warrant police action. OTOH, if your Irish granny was a probable risk of being, or harbouring, a mass-murdering terrorist then of course she should have been refused entry or deported back to the old country. But why the devil did she come to a place like Australia where British and Catholics were thick on the ground? Was she as dopey as you are or did she just enjoy a little argy-bargy?
I am starting to believe that the Wets don’t like diversity, they want adversity for their ideological foes. One of which appears to be the Australian nation state. If only we could transport all the sectarians and their fellow-travellers to some far-away place where they could only bother themselves.
You are a liar. I specified “sectarians of all creeds and colours” to prohibit a racial or credal bias in any terrorist-deterring regulation. You lie and you know you lie. No wonder Howard keeps winning elections on a Trust Me platform. Compared to his critics he is as pure as driven snow on the honesty question.
I am not “anti-Muslim” or “anti-Arab”. Most of these folk are nice enough, I suppose. Islam probably makes SW Asians better than they otherwise would be. Imagine how bad Afghanistan would be if they believed in voodoo or some such nonsense.
As I have repeatedly said, the Clash of Civilizations is a clash within, not between, Islamia and Christendom. It is a clash between moderate secularists and militant sectarians crossing both jurisdictions. I would prefer a moderate Muslim (say a Turkish nationalist) to a sectarian Christian (say a bomb chucking Ulsterman) any day.
Ethnic profiling is simply using available statistical knowledge to good effect. Statistical probability is simply scientific pre-judice. Only God knows what is in each mans heart before the fact and He ain’t tellin’ anyone.
I dont doubt that Larva Prodders would be guilty of ethnic profiling “rednecks” and “cracker boys” if they wandered into some places I have been in the Deep South. In fact Phill did it to me just now. Although, characteristicly, he was untruthful.
And you turn science into bullsh*t. I am stating the bleeding obvious, that almost all law-enforcement officers, moralists and competent social scientists have been aware of for decades. Only a complete dill could fail to notice that importing cultural misfits would cause more trouble than its worth. Stop refinforcing ethnic stereotypes, you thick-witted, feinian oaf.
Leinad on 14 August 2006 at 11:19 pm
Leinad would be as bad a policeman as he is a pundit, since he would be mostly be barking up the wrong tree. Ethnic profiling merely recognises the bleeding obvious: some folk are more likely to behave in one way than another. Most terrorist threats to our nation are Islamic. Although most Islamics are not terrorist threats. Sailer elaborates on the dog-bites-man story.
Notice a pattern?
Leinad says:
No. That is why we have these things called “documents”. Which contain references and records of a persons history. Ethnic profiling would obviously concentrate on document searches, easier to do in real time these days, with mammoth networked data bases.
Leinad then seems to tumble to the notion that the authorities have access to the written word.
That is a Godwin’s law violation. Automatic loss of the debate.
Leinad says:
I am starting to believe that you are as stupid as you seem, no mean feat. You would be surprised and embarassed to know that GW Bush, your poster-boy for political evil, is a fellow opponent of ethnic profiling. Sailer has the mail on the seamy underside of the Wets ideological pedigree:
Although Bush lost Michigan anyway, he began implementing this policy at airports in early 2001, a move which may have contributed to 9/11, although nobody seems interested in this question other than me.
And yes, the political correctness in US immigration did somewhat ease the way for Islamic terrorists to go about their lethal business unmolested by the authorities.
Leinad says:
Profiling only makes it easier for them by diverting resources away from likely cases to checking every Muslim, and by adding to the atmosphere of distrust and fear that drives people to these acts in the first place.
Thats not what the authorities are now saying. HM government has finally realised that political correctness is a lethal folly. The Times reports on moves to introduce sophisticated forms of ethnic profiling, that would aid the authorities by ruling out most true negatives from their searches. (No doubt the few false positives would howl blue murder but equity must occasionally give way to security.)
The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background.
The DfT has been considering passenger profiling for a year but, until last week, the disadvantages were thought to outweigh the advantages. A senior aviation industry source said: âThe DfT is ultra-sensitive about this and wonât say anything publicly because of political concerns about being accused of racial stereotyping.â?
To sum up, the Wets want to create cultural problems by encouraging multicultural ethnic identity politics eg Londonistan,. And then they want to prevent the solution to harmful byproducts of these policies by political correct policing eg Cronulla. Way to go to ruin the nation.
Translation from Strocchese: I am quoting from a bunch of gasbag pundits off the internet who agree with my views and passing them off as higher authorities
I’ve just hooked Jack out of the moderation trap and Leinad you’ve been in the spaminator three times in the last few minutes. Don’t know what you’re doing, mate.
It should learn that you’re Ok if we keep fishing you out, but if this conversation stutters it might be because I’ve gone for a cuppa!
Cheers Brian. The only clue I can offer is that I’m using a different IP than normal, if that helps.
Three of those names are not the birth names that their passports would show. Don, Brian and Oliver might have managed to get past hypothetical ethnic profiling quite happily, don’t you think, except for the fact that properly warranted surveillance found out their associations with the plotters before they ever bought an airline ticket?
Brian B on 15 August 2006 at 3:31 pm
It should learn that you’re Ok if we keep fishing you out, but if this conversation stutters it might be because I’ve gone for a cuppa!
Thankyou Brian. Best you shuffle off stage slipper-shod and cuppa-held. It might get pretty bloody here any time soon.
Jack, you escaped this time, but Leinad got caught again. It happened to me about a week ago, but it likes me again now, so there’s hope!
Maybe countering terrorism is a âpolicing problemâ? but when terrorists overrun states you need military – police exist only to prosecute the law not defend the state.
Of course, rog, but I’m trying to think of examples. Are Hizbollah or Hamas overrunning Israel?
“A fenian oaf, and a lier”Oh Stroker you are so cutting I have been mortally wounded,mortified no less, you are such a wag I don’t know where to start first.Does this mean Im off your Christmas card list forever?As they say in the classics “me thinks you protesteth to much stroker”
Of course what really irritates you to the core, is some of the people on this blog are on to you, and you don’t like it.You try to disguise your true feelings with long winded diatribes, under the guise of being an intellectual.You should be so lucky.The fact that my pet galah can talk makes him eminently smarter than you.If you have had a university education I suggest you ask for a refund of you fees.
I am not going to reply to your bollicks with the exception of this.”Stop reinforcing ethnic stereotypes” Now I gotta tell ya Stroke I thought I was truly dreamin when I read that last little line.I thunk to myself shit the Strokes had a nervous breakdown,he’s gotta be pissed or somthin then it came to me.Jesus H Christ the Stroker talks to himself.
You are playing the dumb insolent BB, Hamas and Hezbollah have attacked Israel and caused deaths and Israel must be allowed to defend itself.
There is no country called Hamas or Hezbollah, these organisations lie outside all law and their actions cannot be defended within the law. They are militia, no better than mafia or triad or any other criminal group and should be treated as such.
Phill on 15 August 2006 at 6:20 pm
Dont give up your day job for mind-reading.
Actually, I am onto the people on this blog like you who profess humanitarianism but who pursue inhumane ideas and actions. Reactionary policies, such as multiculturalism, that promote sectarian, racist sexist bahaviour. This is the 800 lb gorilla that squats on the liberal-left living room. And, lucky Phil, I chose you as a convenient whipping boy, because you are such an easy target.
My true feelings are that I am happy for ethnic people being ethnic in their own lands if thats what turns them on. But I dont like them being too ethnic in our lands, especially if it results in the oppression of women.
Southern Hemispheric ethnics have quite aways to go before their cultures evolve towards the post-Enlightenment Open Society ethics. We should not encourage them to languish in pre-modern barbarism when they land on our shores. Wets pay lip-service to liberalism, but they act like its grave-diggers.
Or perhaps Phil would like some of the Northern Hemisperic cultures to go back to the old ways of the motherland eg dig peat from the bog, get blind roaring drunk on rot-gut, go home to flog the wife and then get a free-pass from the local witch-doctor? I mean if we want other cultures to retain their ethnic traditions why don’t we do the same for our own?
Exactly how do I reinforce the ethnic stereotype of Celtic-Italic people? I did not even know there was one.
I thinks some of the galah has rubbed off on you. You are certainly letting the glorious tradition of Hibernian yarning down with your puerile drivel. Cripes you are dumb, thick as two planks and probably drunk by the look of your illiterate spelling.
With respect, rog, I asked whether Hamas and Hizbollah were overrunning Israel, not attacking it.
But given the language of your response, I’ve got other things to do with my time.
Ermmm… contradiction alert!
He he!
Back to Laws: aren’t there any racial vilification laws that’d do him for this?
Au contraire Stroker, it is you who are easy to get.I have needled you and it sticks out like dog balls.Now if you are to fence with me Stroker 1.Take note,your spelling is likewise appalling , but I unlike you, use my spelling for effect, you trawl through dictionary’s and plagiarize other peoples work, to give the tosh you serve up as intelligent commentary, some sort of creditability.And besides the first sign someone is being rattled,oh your such a poor speller paleeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaassssee.
“I am happy with people being ethnic in their own lands”From that statement I must assume you are an Aboriginal.
“How do I reinforce the ethnic stereotype of Celtic-Italian people”Stroker you really are as dumb as a bag of hammers,if you had a brain you would be dangerous.Who the fuck is talking about Celts/Italians?Jesus H Christ give me strength, are you on drugs?didn’t yer daddy play with ya when you was a kid?Even a simpleton like you uses examples.It is you that is on trial here you are the fucking redneck deal with it..You have written a thousand words slagging off Muslims,but you aint no redneck your an intellectual.You should write comedy sketches you are as funny as a penis full of pus.
Now Stroker as for letting down the tartan brotherhood with puerile drivel,”Cripes”an intellectual like you Stroker and tha’t's it” Cripes”Ive got a hot flash for you Stroker,You aint even close to rattling me you aint in the ball park.And please don’t try and pass yourself off as some sort of wit and raconteur,your attempt at insulting me is as nearly as piss weak as your arguement on the topic.Your insults are old stuff,but that’s o/k you wouldn’t have an original idea in your head.
Tigtog [at 7:41am]
Well put!
Despite my hint, no one noticed that blatant error in Dan’s first comment.
Far from being generally opposed, Salafism and Wahabbism are identical. (In Islam, calling yourself âSalafiâ? is roughly equivalent to a new Christian church calling itself âthe church with all the real Christiansâ?. That the Wahabbis, as everyone else refers to them, call themselves âSalafisâ? is a sign of just how arrogant, self-righteous and narrow they are.) Furthermore, the Wahabbis are not opposed to the Sunnis, they are Sunnis. They have energetically spread themselves throughout the mosques and madrassas of the Sunni world, to the extent that most Sunni national* communities are dominated by Wahabbis.
*Loosely speaking – fundamentalist Islam theology rejects the concept of nations.
Those who read the Dan’s comment without noticing this have revealed a depth of ignorance which strongly suggests that nothing they say or write about world politics has any value.
Cheers