The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > London bombing exposes Iraq War as a blunder > Comments

London bombing exposes Iraq War as a blunder : Comments

By Gary Brown, published 18/7/2005

Gary Brown argues Australia, Britain and the US need to get out of Iraq and into Afghanistan.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
It is questionable as to whether the US actually wants democracy within the Middle East, as it has established military bases in places such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, and none of those countries have been known for much democracy, nor have they made moves towards such.

I would agree that the US, (and other ally countries), should have stayed in Afghanistan until the Taliban problems had been sorted out, the country's infrastructure re-established, and proper elections held. Or maybe that should have been handed over to the UN.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 18 July 2005 12:16:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A student of ancient Chinese master strategist, Sun Tsu, would recognise a very successful strategy at play in Iraq. It has shifted the primary theatre of war from the streets of New York where the costs were very high to the streets of a now deposed dictator where the costs, to the USA, are comparatively low.

The escalation of the Jihad on September 11 signified a willingness to take the battle to the western people themselves. But since then there has only been the Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London bombings. These incidents are not simptoms of failure but, rather, evidence of success.

Western casualties are now mostly military, as they should be in a war. The combined states have deployed their troops to a place where the majority of those people inclined towards suicide bombing can get to easily. They have responded to the provocation by arrived in droves. These imported fanatics continue to target the military where, despite the increased frequency of attacks, the casualties caused by each of their own deaths are only a very small fraction of that achieved by the 9/11 operatives.

Meanwhile Sadam's home grown fanatics have concentrated on attacking their replacement administration and their own civilians. This, of course, is no way to win hearts and minds and is a very clear indicator of their ultimate failure.

It is plain common, albeit cynical, sense to fight wars in places other than one's own country. It makes even more sense to fight them in places where those who are prepared to die for their cause do you the courtesy of gathering together in places like Falluja. You sure can't run an operation like that, inflicting that level of enemy casualties, in the suburbs of Boston or Birmingham.

The fact that we are all actually surprised by the London Bombings is powerful evidence that the Iraq deployment is working. And the fact that so many Iraqi's stood in long voting lines to brave the bombers shows that they regard the "killing two birds" strategy as worth it in the end.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 18 July 2005 12:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why would chemical weapons have been worse? In the Supreme Truth attacks after creating chemical weapons that were much more complex, costly and difficult to make only 12 people were killed compared to 54 in London. In addition the Tokyo attacks involved 6 simultaneous attacks.

Conventional explosives are very deadly and effective and are much easier to use. Excluding nuclear weapons, non-conventional weapons have a dismal record.

So called 'WMD' terrorism appears only to be a scare tactic that was used to create fear of WMD. Indeed was the term even used before the attempts to justify the invasion of Iraq? It appears to be a term used to conflate nuclear weapons, which are truly WMD, with chemical and biological weapons that are very difficult to use, store and create and whose historic use has been a failure in order to frighten Americans into an unwise invasion.

Perseus, why wasn't Afghanistan a sufficient place to take on terrorism?
Posted by sien, Monday, 18 July 2005 1:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I somewhat agree with Gary Brown's summation of the attack on Iraq as a waste of troops, money and time as regards the fight against terrorism - most of these advisers seem to have forgotten the real causes of the terrible outbreaks of terrorism over the last few years.

A theory much studied and written by political philosophers is causation - a short word like cause enlarged to the point that a particular social or political problem must have something done about it, a neccesity to find the root cause.

It is so interesting that some short simple letters in our
newspapers, as well as short commentaries in our online opinion forum have hit straight on the cause of the terrorist problems. Most of the letters and commentaries tell our rock-headed leaders to take a look back through history. In fact, one letter gets straight to the point, declaring that because both Blair and John Howard are former lawyers no wonder they are on the wrong track. But we are not so sure about George W Bush, except that the Bush families have been mixed up so much with oil and general wheeler-dealing.

Intrusion, interference and injustice by Western nations into the Middle East which has gone on since the end of WW1. Lawrence of Arabia, who was also an academic, would not have been surpised about what is happening in the world today. Putting it in rough bush language, us Westerners, especially since WW2, having been nothing short of a gang of arrogant graball bastards. We have flirted with rotten dictators like when needed to knock out Iran, then knocked out our former ally to again get a strategic toe-hold in the Middle-East aided by little Israel all ready to go with its arsenal of nuclear rockets at the ready.

With true honesty, explain this all to our schoolkids as Socrates was wont to do - because he knew that the little-uns often surprisingly come up with the most honest questions and answers.

Regards - George C - Bushbred
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 18 July 2005 2:12:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It was a Strategy blunder when our Government put our troops on their land in their streets.

Past experience in warfare between the west and east proved that a situation of warfare in the streets and cities of Arab countries would not be in our soldiers best interest.

Our troops are currently under continual attack from insurgence and the war is taking place in the streets and cities of Arab countries.

Arab countries over history and current have been in continual war and confrontation between themselves. And the west has just got sucked into their game of hatred and loathing.
Posted by suebdoo2, Monday, 18 July 2005 4:15:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus, you lost me as soon as you mentioned Sun Tzu.

Chapter Six of my version says, quite categorically, "Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease; the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued. Therefore those skilled in warfare move the enemy, and are not moved by the enemy."

I can find any number of other, similar exhortations from the Master that completely contradict your view that the invasion represented "a very successful strategy at play in Iraq"

The streets of New York were never the battlefield, as you suggest.

"...September 11 signified a willingness to take the battle to the western people themselves. But since then there has only been the Bali, Jakarta, Madrid and London bombings."

I utterly fail to see the connection between this and the fighting in Iraq. The total number of people involved in the above atrocities can be as few as a hundred - are you suggesting that they couldn't find another hundred from somewhere, because they were all tied up in Falluja? Have you not read anything about the likely genesis of these attacks, none of which originated from anywhere close to Iraq?

I'm sorry, I cannot find a single credible point in your contribution.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 18 July 2005 4:34:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred - what a lot of old pap! The old "west=evil" chestnut is so over done as to be a cliche. If the cause of terrorism is western interference, where are the fanatical Hindus who should be blowing us all up here in the west? I don't see too many Aboriginal people sacrificing themselves in the name of the Rainbow Serpent on the 379 bus. And those oppressed Buddhist terrorists from exploited Asian nations are certainly conspicuous by their absence.

It's not about poverty, or oppression, or western interference. It's about ideology. It's about the worldwide caliphate, the talibanisation of the entire world. No doubt you correctly revile Hitler and the Nazis; what's the difference between them and these new fascists? If it's the wests fault, how do you explain the home grown British suicide bombers?

I don't really give two hoots about the cause of terrorism. Even if western interference was the cause (which it isn't), does that give them the right to kill innocent people? Why don't you stop running around putting the blame on the societies of the world where acceptance and tolerance are the norm and start putting the blame where it belongs - on religious fascists who want to pull the world back to the seventh century.
Posted by bozzie, Monday, 18 July 2005 4:42:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bozzie, I think you need to read and study a bit more, the old pap you mention goes back to the time of the Greeks. You talk about fascism which is just another term for elitism, which both America and Britain and Australia are at presently practicing. These Muslims are not out to change the world by conquest - unlike the Americans with the Brits and Aussies tagging along behind. These angry Moslems are the way they are because they are being oppressed and put down by so many of us as low life.

Fascists do not deliberately blow themselves to bits like the Muslims. You sound as if you do not believe the Muslims in the Middle East are fighting against oppression. Once again I say that you should study a bit more, mate, as well as think a bit more. Otherwise it is you who are the elitist, really tied to the old 19th century Darwinian socialist school, which helped to spawn the idea of Nazism, as well as the superior ideas of many modern Americans. So I must say you are well out, mate, in calling our modern Muslims fascists. Certainly the Muslims need to learn from the West, Bozzie, but only so much, for if you think deeply some of their beliefs could in the long run, be superior to yours or mine.

Bushbred - WA
Posted by bushbred, Monday, 18 July 2005 7:22:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Gary

Thanks for a great article. I will address my thoughts about it later.

What is more pressing is that I remember you as a student at Newcastle Uni around 1970ish. I was the admin secretary for the SRC. For about 12 months you almost drove me nuts with your myriad campaigns! Even so, I always knew that you would reach great academic heights - good on you. My, you do look so different from that short haired, clean shaven young man!

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 18 July 2005 8:07:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think a company (about 100-150 men) of Australian SAS has a lot to offer in Afghanistan, with a population of 26 million and a suface area of 660,000 square km. This works out at about one man per 66,000 sq km or one per 260,000 people which seems good odds. Imagine the Roman Army holding down the Roman Empire with one cohort.
Nevertheless, this is a symbolic jesture which I am sure will capture the hearts and souls of Americans and Afghans alike especially when one considers the mountainous terrain and that only about12% of the whole country is arable. How many Russians were deployed there..(send me the answer in a stamped self-addressed envelope).
As for Iraq, it drives a geographic wedge (cuneiform) through the heart of the Middle East leaving Syria and all nuts on the port side and Iran and all its nut on the starboard.
Now if Islamic women who like walking behind their man (as opposed to that song, Stand by your man) all stood up to their patriarchal overlords (as in fundamentalist Judaism and Christianity), they would be liberated from patriarchy and the world would be a better place. One of the advantages of patriarchy is that it keeps women in their place and keeps up the birthrate...see the Catholic Church.

Now I think my woman should walk around with a bag over her head lest she get ideas. After all I am the boss. Now let's get back to Iraq and the real issues which are the liberation of half the population....females...i.e. women and girls...
How about spreading democracy in the USA...could be novel.Now shut up, woman, I told you not to interrupt....you spare rib of Adam.
Posted by Odysseus, Monday, 18 July 2005 9:56:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whilst media commentators consistently look to government policy in order to find the causes and solutions to the terrorist threat, it is interesting to note that the technique is only effective in "attention grabbing" because of the 'glorification' of these acts through the excessive Western media attention that results.

The Howard government's policy on Iraq has only resulted in benefits for the Prime Minister and similarly for the nation. The decision to go to war did not cost the Liberlas the election, it cost no Australian military lives (yet) nor has it caused a terrorist attack on Australian soil, and, to top it all off, Australia recieved a free trade agreement with the U.S. making us the only nation in the world with a free trade agreement with the U.S. and one pending with China.

The policy of the government on Iraq has, far from being a "strategic blunder", only benefited the Prime Minister and the nation.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the government is returning troops to Afghanistan, as well as fulfilling its strategic obligation to Iraq. Why do the U.S., Britain and Australia have to remove their troop commitment from Iraq, in order to fulfill their commitment to Afghanistan? We can, and are doing, both, with only positive results for Australia.
Posted by Count Butterworth, Monday, 18 July 2005 11:22:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred – glad to see that you acknowledge your twaddle is as old as the hills. As for your claim that fascism is just another word for elitism – double pap! Fascism is a form of government that is generally cemented in a central dictator. It uses fear and terror to suppress opposition and enacts severe social and economic controls. It’s also usually accompanied by fierce nationalism and racism. Even our top shelf elites, such as Phillip Adams, Robert Manne etc, can hardly be described as fascists.

You then imply that because fascism and elitism are the same it’s us who are the fascists! Apart from this being stupid, it’s quite despicable. You also say that fascists don’t blow themselves up. But this is obviously wrong because these suicide bombers who blow themselves up are clearly fascists. You’re also quite correct when you assume I don’t believe that Arabs are fighting against western oppression. They are the oppressors; they are fighting to oppress us and the rest of the Muslim world. They are fighting for ideology, and any religion that allows these dangerous and warped ideas to flourish to the extent that they control nations and are killing thousands of innocents, is a flawed religion.

So what parts of extremist Islam should we learn from bushbred? Sharia law? Subjugation of women? Religious education? Hatred of other religions? What is the difference between these fascists and say the Ku Klux Klan? Not much from where I stand but it seems you are prepared to tolerate from Islam what you would not tolerate from Christianity. In other words, you’re a hypocrite.

You never answered my questions about the fascist Hindus or the suicide bombing Buddhists. Why not?

And as for your claim that I need to study more (very elitist if I may say so), we could all do with a little bit more study old bean. Especially you it seems. Your superior ejumacayshon certainly hasn’t improved your reasoning processes.
Posted by bozzie, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 11:09:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pericles, I do regret your apparent retention deficit but am bound to respectfully suggest that your problem does not negate my argument. Your breathtaking claim that "the streets of New York were never the battlefield" appears oblivious to the fact that two attacks were made on the World Trade Centre, one on 9/11, the other a few years earlier, by truck bomb. If it was not a battlefield then what was it? A pork chop? A bucket of prawns?

Your quote from Sun Tsu was more relevant to Rommel at ElAlamein, Napoleon and Hitler at Moscow, or the Japanese at Kokoda but hardly relevant to a battle that was well supplied by air and mostly over in a week. The problems of the on-going occupation are not based on issues of logistics or the capacity to fight after a long journey to battle.

It is one thing to find some literal quotes, it is another altogether to find a web site where one can download sufficient common sense to understand what you are quoting
Posted by Perseus, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 12:06:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perseus, sarcasm doesn't hide the transparency of your argument.

>>Your quote from Sun Tsu was more relevant to Rommel at ElAlamein, Napoleon and Hitler at Moscow, or the Japanese at Kokoda<<

It may have slipped your memory, but it was you who introduced Sun Tzu... "[a] student of ancient Chinese master strategist, Sun Tsu, would recognise a very successful strategy at play in Iraq", but signally failed to describe how the student could achieve this. I merely selected an (almost random) quote that showed you to be careless in your references. Negligent even. Grandstanding some recently-acquired knowledge, perhaps. At any rate, enough to show that Sun Tzu is totally irrelevant to the war in Iraq.

As for the statement that the US "has shifted the primary theatre of war from the streets of New York", you are once again guilty of over-egging the pudding. A couple of terrorist attacks on a major city can hardly be defined as a "theatre of war". It is simply a terrorist target. Like Madrid. Like Bali. The US then *created* a theatre of war in a distant country to draw attention away from its complete inability to i) understand the nature of the enemy and ii) formulate a logical and sensible plan to counter them.

Sun Tzu had a few words to say about that too.

"When doing battle, seek a quick victory.
A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.
If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.
When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.
Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue."

>>The fact that we are all actually surprised by the London Bombings is powerful evidence that the Iraq deployment is working<<

But working for the terrorists, Perseus, for the terrorists.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 4:33:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gary Brown; according to “Kay”, your not a bad bloke; so I’ll spare you a bit. Having progressed myself through the psychosis of the Vietnam war and the blind ideological drive of the bloody Americans, the sad sicophantia of its allies, including Australia, with virtually no ideology to cling to but Bob Menzies and Ned Kelly , you make me sick with your #$*%.
Climb out of your little foxhole of over education and privilege, knock down the barrier of the suburban paling fence , and get real.

This is a WRONG war. So far it has not murdered three million peasants as did its sister war in Vietnam, but it will, I’ll bet. What difference if the slaughter continues in Iraq or Afghanistan? Its wrong.

What Gary do you say on the doctrine of Sharansky. The doctrine so closely followed by the mad president, george w bush. ( his admission)? Of the deliberate policy of destabilisation in the Arab states (Middle East) sic. Of the justified hate of the Arabs towards the west?

Get a haircut, get a real job. After all, that’s how it used to be, according to Kay.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 5:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbred, the argument that bozzie needs to “read and study a bit more” is upsetting and desperate, especially coming from someone who talks about fascism as if it is alive and well in Australia.

As for bozzie, he gets a pat on the back from me:

“Why don't you stop running around putting the blame on the societies of the world where acceptance and tolerance are the norm and start putting the blame where it belongs…”
Posted by wrighta, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 6:29:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been saving this up, and I think the time has come. The United States' leading expert on suicide terrorism, Professor Robert Pape, from the University of Chicago, contends the phenomenon has far more to do with occupation than fundamentalism. He argues " The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack. " Here's the fun bit, which should forestall all the usual ranters - the article is in the American Conservative. http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html  Enjoy.
Posted by anomie, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 6:41:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
May I suggest, without condoning terrorism in any way, that the US et al should sit back & show a little diplomatic respect? It is entirely clear to the Nations of the Middle East what the US wants. They know they are being invaded for economic reasons. The US wishes to have as many western nations involved for obvious reasons & attempts to appease critics through the mass media.
The US needs to change its attitude before there will be any meaningful result in the ‘war on terrorism’. There needs to be dialogue clarifying to the middle east that this is not a religious argument. (assuming this is the case).
The solutions are so simple yet so difficult
Posted by Swilkie, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 7:40:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Diva Dan

Sorry, my (emotive) post to Gary Brown has mislead you. I should have expressed myself better. I should have said something like: Thanks for a well written and interesting article ... rather than "great" which suggests that I agree with Gary.

I do not support our troups returning but I do not have sufficient knowledge or related understandings of the current scenario to present a balanced argument. I would like our troops to be here with us in the event of a terrorist attack. I am extremely concerned about what is happening in Australia as we speak. For example, how many "sleepers" visit On-Line Opinion as regular posters? Sounds paranoid eh? And the "terrorist" books being sold in a Lidcombe Muslim bookshop.

With your Viet Vet background you must be experiencing (and re-experiencing) a rotten time. I have nursed many WW1, WW11, and Vietnam Vets in a range of psychiatric/mental health settings. My heart goes out to you. I understand related psychoses, suicidal behaviours, post traumatic stress disorder, protracted drug and alcohol use, protracted clinical depression, relationship breakdown, and children who have become the victims of their "victim" war parent.

Take care
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 8:01:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just a bit of nit picking .... my understanding was that when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they just about wiped out opium production , that it is our friends, the Northern Alliance warlords, who are responsible for this particular enterprise.
I have some sympathy for the Taliban altho not their former guests. Who would you rather have rule over you - a bunch of fundamentalists, living by some medieval set of laws, or a bunch of murderous thugs, living by the law that might is right.
Posted by silvergrass, Tuesday, 19 July 2005 9:52:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Sien's question, "why wasn't Afghanistan a sufficient place to take on terrorism?" I suspect this is where the idea first came to deploy as bait and attract hidden enemies. The Agfgan deployment got the Taliban out of power quickly but many had slipped the net and were a potential danger. There was no evidence of any willingness to return to continue the battle. The threat remained and Iraq provided the next best option as it was closer to other centres of militancy. There was obviously many resons behind the Iraq invasion.

Pericles appears intent on using Sun Tsu like some sort of drop down menu without regard for context. Two things were clearly established after 9/11. 1) that this was an entirely new kind of warfare, and 2) that this war will take a long time to win.

The workers of Manhattan or the commuters of London and Madrid may not share the view that they were not in a theatre of war but, "simply a terrorist target". Smells like sophistry to me.

Point 2), that this will be a long war is a simple assessment of the situation. All the actual battles that have been fought by the coalition have been quick, decisive, within capability and entirely consistent with Pericles' quote from Sun Tsu. But the distinction between the tactical need for quick decisive actions and the broader strategic demands of a long campaign appears lost.

As for understanding the nature of the enemy, a strategy that draws out a host of hidden and probable enemies into an open context where they can be dealt with decisively sure beats sitting back waiting for the next hit.

What would you do in the circumstances, Pericles, look up Sun Tsu, declare the prospect of a long campaign to be ultra vires and give up? A student of Sun Tsu would understand the principles of out thinking the enemy while recognising that certain prescriptions are applicable to certain situations. There is probably a quote to that effect but someone 'borrowed' my copy.
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 11:19:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kay……….

True what you say in your last paragraph……… fortunately that does not apply to myself…………………. but consider;
What I implied in my comment above, to our friend Gary Brown was simply , how many times in a lifetime do we hear argued , most loudly by academics, who do, I believe, live life in a foxhole protected by the surrounding “buzz” of the status-quo argument.
It is the same academics and their verbigerations, that engaged us in a protracted war in Vietnam, and were ultimately proved wrong. They appear to me to be sadly dislocated.

Kay…sometimes wars are necessary , this one is not. Argue all you like
Posted by diver dan, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 12:59:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The London bombings did not expose the iraq war as being a blunder, Mr Brown, they exposed Multiculturalism as a blunder.

The fruit cakes who blew themselves up were not Iraqi "freedom fighters", they were second and third generation "Britons".

Now, don't get me wrong, I disagree with the war in Iraq. I liked old Saddam. It has been estimated that he was responsible for the deaths of well over one million Muslims, [deleted for inciting violence and poster banned from forum for one month].
Posted by redneck, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 6:29:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
redneck, you are an unwelcome arrival at these posts. there is a great spread of opinions expressed on this site, many of which i do not agree with, but which i respect and even admire (in some cases) for their reasoned, principaled and often well researched contributions which, importantly, further the discusion and i hope contribute to a greater understanding of the people that make up this society of ours.

your posts do none of these. while Graham has previously defended you right to an opinion and i guess i support that, your recent posts on this topic and others are disgusting. calling Reason your 'enemy' and hopeing for his death, and now displaying your support for saddam and your implication that the only good muslim is a dead one, i would suggest count as flamming.

redneck, while you criticise the tolerance and openness of our society, you would do well to remember that it is you who is tolerated as well. you may well find that we greeny, bleeding heart, lefty, chardonnay sipping intelectuals are not as soft as you think.

sorry about this Graham but i couldnt let that last post slide.
Posted by its not easy being, Friday, 22 July 2005 12:32:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hullo “It’s not easy being” [deleted for flaming]. Thank you for agreeing that you support the rights of rednecks to an opinion. Although, those rights are shrinking in this “free’ country. Victoria and West Oz have enacted not only Racial Vilification Laws, they have extended it to religions too. Now comes the news that Queensland wants to extend it again to include “sexuality”. Guess I might as well have my say before I get summonsed to appear before some PC Inquisitor to explain my heretical convictions.

And if you think I can not match it with you, sunshine, well, try me on for size. After all, you should be able to beat the pants off me. I am only a redneck. I know I am a redneck because my bass boat cost me more than my trailer home.

I also know I am being less than polite. But it is about time somebody gave you evangelical Brahmin caste finger waggers a reality check, and us rednecks prefer to talk plainly.

Muslims believe that anyone who has sex outside of marriage should be stoned to death. I have had sex outside of marriage. I therefore perceive these people as hostile and dangerous. I do not see why I should be “tolerant” to people who are hostile and dangerous. The fact that you take the opposite view, I find incredible.

Oh, I hope you mind if I refer to you in future as just "Easy", your present name is too much of a mouthfull.
Posted by redneck, Friday, 22 July 2005 6:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How does redneck get back in after two days of a one-month ban?
I wonder if we ignore him will he go away?
Posted by Tracy, Saturday, 23 July 2005 10:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
:S
Time is relative... Perhaps to redneck and Online Opinion, one month has already passed...
Posted by wrighta, Monday, 25 July 2005 1:22:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Redneck was officially suspended on Saturday, July 23.

The annotation on the post of Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:29:24 PM was simply to indicate which post contravened the forum rules, and to explain to other posters the action that was being taken. The user was able to continue posting until the moderator intervened and enforced a suspension on Saturday.

Redneck's ban will be lifted on Tuesday, August 23.

Regards,

Lachlan
Software Engineer, On Line Opinion
Posted by Lachlan, Monday, 25 July 2005 11:49:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Bozzie,

Just found out you are at us again this time calling our political philosophy, ‘twaddle’, simliar to the ‘old pap’ you called it the time before. I am saying 'us' because political philosophy happens to be an elective at the School of Humanities..

The word democracy, of course, originated from the Greeks as well as theocracy, and also autocracy. For example, when studying Roman history, we discover how a democracy can turn autocratic sometimes without any bloodshed. Such has happened these days n the USA with full control of both Houses and Senate as has also happened today under the Howard government.

The result is possible overconfidence and arrogance in the leader, so-called peoples' governments becoming fascistic more so in wartime or in an emergency as with terrorist problems. It is then the job of political philosophers to look for trouble in the future. Right at present even on our Online studies , there have been suggestions of the current Bush establishment acting too much like the disgraced Nixon regime during the Vietnam War. Added to lies about WMD and the unlawful attack on Iraq and more enquiries like the one on Carl Rove, could have political scientists pushing for an enquiry and possible future impeachment for the President and the sacking of the present White House, with possible trouble as well for both the Blair and Howard governments.

However, for philosophers to tell of such things happening during the Roman Empire and calling it old pap or twaddle, Bozzie, well they wouldn’t get far as university lecturers.

PS - You spoke about indigenuos and former conqered groups not acting like Islamic terrorists, but I must say that we were over in Sri-Lanka when the Tamil Tigers were ready for rebellion, and as Keith Suter has pointed out, they still hold the record for the most suicidal attacks
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 2 August 2005 12:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy