Beneath Hill 60 is the story of the diggers who tunneled under enemy lines to place explosives. About 10,000 Germans died in the resulting explosive on June 7, 1917. The war continued until 11 November, 1918 with many more killed on both sides. To me it is horrifying to think of a large number of men blown to bits even though they were the enemy.

Beneath Hill 60 to me is like a movie made by Al Qaeda telling of their destruction of the World Trade Center. The fact that one incident was in a formal war and the other wasn't makes little difference to me.

Dear David F,

Our history is full of all sorts of atrocities.
Men killing men for whatever reason.
The world has to be reminded of this history
so it can learn from the past - and not have it
repeated.

When will we ever learn? It seems that we're a
long way off yet. However if full-scale nuclear
war ever occurred, it would be, to put it mildly,
an event that would destroy the existing world
order and reshape whatever human history might be
left.

You don't want to take some time to explain WHY they're similar in your mind?.

StG I just can not see why you would want to know.
One of the strangest posts ever in my view.
One I find no reason to look at again, rubbish.

Dear StG,

They are similar in my mind because a lot of people were killed for no good reason in both cases. World War 1 was an atrocity which should have been prevented. The outcome of an armament race and the promotion of national glory resulted in WW1. I see the 'Anzac spirit' as the same sort of stupid nonsense.

9/11 also killed a lot of people for no good reason. It was the product of unreasoning religious fanaticism. Unreasoning religious fanaticism is also stupid nonsense.

The spirit of Muslims belonging to the umma (or Muslims united in the bonds of belief) to kill people they don't know because they are infidels to me is little different from the mateship bonding Australians to go out and kill people they don't know because their country is at war with the other people's country.

Sounds to me you're off your meds there David.

I'm no expert, but I believe the Germans had a woody for some sort of empire like what the Poms, Ruskies and Frogs had at the time. Twitter version of the story, I know, but about sums it up I think.

The 'ANZAC Spirit' is about remembering the sacrifice the average citizen made for each other. It's about the men, women, and children who died and suffered as a result of the horrors of war. I don't see 'ANZAC' as nationalism, but rather a moment to consider humanity.

When standing at the dawn service I think of the men my family lost, and also my Grandmother who went through absolute hell as a result. I think of the Holocaust, the death march, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the absolute inhumanity those people went through. I pray for the men and women in conflict right now and the risk they're in, I think about how grateful I am for not having to deal with threat of bombings as I go shopping. It's about the heroes that died saving you and me from the end of our civilisation as we know it.

It's not about a flag. It's a shame you can't see past some ignorance and some sort of twisted view of your home to appreciate what you're taking for granted right now.

It's easy to sit their in the comfort of your home pointing fingers and judging those that guaranteed your freedom, but what do you do to earn your place here?. I'm sure you have a medicare card and receive the benefits of a society such as this, what have you done to justify your use of it?.

I think you're being a little harsh on david f, StG. He's certainly right that thousands of people were killed for no objectively good reason on 9/11 and at Hill 60, but also dead wrong to reduce the 'Anzac spirit' to imperialistic militarism.

While Australian troops were certainly used as cannon fodder by the 'Mother Country' in WW1, their actions - psrticularly in the defeat at Gallipoli - are symbolically very powerful in the Australian psyche. Arguably, Gallipoli and Anzac are two of the most dominant symbols of Australian nationalism, which is celebrated in the national ritual of Anzac Day. Indeed, Anzac has been described as Australia's secular national religion.

Being an old peacenik, I've never participated in it much, but I have respectfully attended the odd Dawn Service and watched lots of marches - not to mention playing the ritual 2-up. Over the past few decades I've coincidentally lived in towns with strong military presences, including where I live now, which was important during WW2, so I guess over time (and given my former profession) I've come to appreciate its cultural centrality to Australian society.

It's easy to dismiss Anzac Day as a celebration of warmongering, but it has far more meaning to Australians than that. Perhaps david f could do a bit of reading on the subject - the 'Anzac Spirit' has been examined and dissected prolifically from every conceivable angle in historical and cultural analysis.

I think that david f's point about unnecessary slaughter of thousands of people is quite valid, but his facile analogy misses the essence of the 'Anzac Spirit'.

I denigrate nobody's bravery or sacrifice. Those who carried out 9/11 were brave men sacrificing their lives for something they found worthwhile. The same goes for those brave men who tunneled under Hill 60. I am making the judgment that neither should have happened. I am thinking in both cases of those who were killed.

There should have been a public outcry in the countries arming for WW1. Instead there was in many cases wild enthusiasm as they went to war. Muslim preachers and ideologues have encouraged Jihad. Many Muslims think of the 9/11 killers as heroes.

What are we doing to prevent another war? What are we doing about the arms trade, the population explosion which creates more people to fight over the same resources and all the other actions which make war more likely? I would like to see efforts to prevent new wars rather than commemorate the spirit of those who fought the past ones.

Agree with all of your comments CJ on this thread; albeit reluctantly after sending up my viewpoints and Individuals regarding National Service in which we both know what is occurring with a high percentage of 15-18 year olds around the country and with technology the way it is; the next generation following. Let us see how many of these kids are still around and functioning mentally well, without National Service or some type of program, in about ten years time.

Sorry I remain offended by the concept you put forward David.
WW1 was a wast in fact it was fought because of too much power in a Royal family that ruled both sides.
Silly almost willful murderers sent good men to die without regard.
that is what anzac cove is about.
But those dead men did not come near the hate filled monsters behind 9/11.
Germans shot and killed hundreds of unarmed women, children, and old men, they dug the same mine holes with the same intent.
You saw a story based on fact, not the true whole awful story.
This country has gained so very much from our loss.
We no longer bend our knee to one family, our leaders ,church and army are not from an class hardly capable of wiping its own nose.
But we lost the very best, if those brave people had been allowed to continue to have children and live we would have an even better country.
War is horrible, but laying down our sides weapons is slavery.

I'm with you, David. the fact that one lot of killings was "justified" by beng given the imprimatur of a State doesn't change the ethical situation one iota.

It seems that the basis for StG and Belly to disagree is that one was conducted within a battlefield under the "rules of war" while the other was a surprise attack on a civilian target in the absence of a formal declaration of war between two States, but in the presence of a known condition of hostility between the US and a large group of Stateless people. IOW, they are asserting the rights of a State to commit atrocities and to determine where and when atrocities may occur. I reject that. Does Fred the Worker really care whether he gets blown up in a hole in the gound or in a tower above it?

The trench warfare of the First World War was only ever going to end due to negotiation at the highest level. The fact that did not occur until the needless deaths of nearly 20 million people is not an endorsement of State authority, but a condemnation of a failure of States to protect their populace.

A State should be better able to take steps to prevent such atrocities and to be magnanimous toward those who choose to provoke it. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the biggest kid at school should have carte blanche to make all the other kids do as he says and to act atrociously in response to provocation.

Do Belly and StG believe that should be the case? I don't really think so.

I'm quite shocked by Belly's stated view, actually. Back when Unions actually stood for something, Unionists were very active in condemning warfare of any kind, even going to the trouble of refusing to load munitions and such. It seems that they now see themselves as part of the ruling elite, rather than as representatives of ordinary men who are likely to be sent to die in such atrocities.

Rightio, I sorta GET the 9/11/WW1 link, though it's like comparing the Hubble Telescope to the LHC. Yeah, they're both for science and universe but the application and story behind them isn't even on the same end of the science department. Moving on...

I think you're HORRENDOUSLY naive David. We war, that is what we do. We have done it from the dawn of man and will continue to do it till we become extinct. You and me personally can go to war, why do you think the courts are full to over flowing with law suits, why do you think we have jails filled to over flowing with people who declared war on someone else?. Right now, you've declared war on my ideas. You come to my house and assault my partner I WILL declare war on you. Governments and entities declaring war on each other is no different, it's just that the scale is different and the reasons change. Right now, we are at war with Islam, tomorrow it will be resources.

I bet at some stage in your life you've considered how to deal with conflict with another. Can I take him physically, do I have the funds to sue, and I capable of various physical necessities if the need arises?. We've all done it. That, my friend, is you preparing for war.

I agree with Belly on the last sentence too.

*it will be about resources...

Dear Belly,

I do not think of the perpetrators of 9/11 as hate filled murderers as differentiated from those on our side. I think of them as motivated by idealism and feeling that idealism was justified even though it resulted in the deaths of innocent people. I don't think of our bomber crews as hate filled murderers, but when they drop bombs on a city they kill babies and others who are just victims because they are on the wrong side. The other side may think of them as hate filled murderers, but we know they're not.

Actually Gallipoli had a genuine reasonable military objective. It was to open a way to supply Russia and keep it in the war without total reliance on the northern sea route which was subject to German submarines. Had it been competently carried out and successful there would have been no Lenin taking power, and the war would have been over earlier.

Yes, StG, I have had conflict in my life. I believe we can resolve conflicts without going to war. To equate all conflict with going to war is not reasonable. When I heard the news that the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan I felt a great surge of joy. A while later I realised that I had felt great joy at the news that a large number of people were killed. The war had caused me, li'l old good guy, me, to become hate-filled. That's one thing war does. It sets up your side as the good guys whose heroism at killing large numbers of the bad guys even though some of the bad guys are babies is justified.

President Obama has set as an objective the abolition of nuclear weapons. I doubt if he can do it, but he is trying. I think that effort is more worthwhile than the heroism of war. I would like to see more effort in that direction.

Davidf

>> I believe we can resolve conflicts without going to war. To equate all conflict with going to war is not reasonable. When I heard the news that the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan I felt a great surge of joy. A while later I realised that I had felt great joy at the news that a large number of people were killed. The war had caused me, li'l old good guy, me, to become hate-filled. That's one thing war does. It sets up your side as the good guys whose heroism at killing large numbers of the bad guys even though some of the bad guys are babies is justified. <<

I understand completely where you are coming from. At first glance, your opening post appeared to be a poor analogy - one atrocity was performed during a time of supposed 'peace', the other during formally declared war. Neither actions advance humans towards anything approaching civilisation, no matter how often we declare ourselves as such - doesn't make it true.

I'm with Stephen Hawking - if aliens are anything like us I wouldn't want to meet them.

I agree with david f that it is unreasonable to equate all conflict with warfare - indeed, it's another facile analogy. To disagree with someone's ideas is not equivalent to "declaring war" on them, and any interpersonal conflict at the individual level is generally far better resolved via negotiation than through aggression.

David is also quite correct when he asks:

<< What are we doing to prevent another war? What are we doing about the arms trade, the population explosion which creates more people to fight over the same resources and all the other actions which make war more likely? >>

It seems that Australia hasn't learnt a great deal from the unnecessary sacrifice of far too many of our young people in fighting other people's wars. We still send our military off to far-flung places to risk their lives on behalf of our latter-day 'imperial' masters.

While I think that david f doesn't appreciate the wider meanings of Anzac to his adopted society, he is absolutely correct to question the stupidity of war. Incidentally, there's quite a good article that touches on these issue over at New Matilda: http://newmatilda.com/2010/04/26/our-national-day .

Didn't say it was better to fight it out...

Dear CJ Morgan,

I read the article you referred to. It contained:

"Once the venerable core of Anzac Day rituals, by the 1980s, the British had become "the bad guys", reduced to the stereotype of the pompous Pom — hedgehog-moustached officers who spoke in plummy accents and held nothing but contempt for uncouth Australians — the perfect antidote to the problem of Anzac’s Imperial past. In popular culture, Anzac Day was slowly being reinvented as an exclusively Australian odyssey."

That is what is wrong with Anzac Day. Exalting the nation almost invariably implies putting down those who are not part of the nation. Apparently to properly absorb the Anzac spirit it is necessary to put down the Poms. They are human. We are human. Every human on this earth is human.

When I became a citizen of Australia Michael Lavarch spoke at the citizenship ceremony. He said that Australia was the best country on earth. I chose to live in Australia, obey its laws, be part of the society which is not the same as the political nation and in other ways be a good citizen. That does not mean I must think Australia is the best nation on earth.

What does one mean when he says his nation is the 'best nation on earth'? Does it mean they have the lowest infant mortality, the highest level of education or superiority in some other defined manner. No! It means he feels in some way superior to others who happen to be citizens of some nation which has different political boundaries.

I like Australia. It is a great place to live. However, because I like Australia gives me no license to put myself above anybody else in any other country. I do not have the Anzac spirit.

Davidf

I love Australia, I was born here, however that accident of birth doesn't make me patriotically myopic any more than it makes me somehow superior to people who happened to be born in other nations. There are more equitable countries than Australia.

My father went to war for this nation, more out of youthful exuberance than patriotism. I know little of his experiences, what I do know is that he refused to have anything to do with the RSL and never marched on Anzac day. He also refused to have anything to do with guns; not even to go duck shooting with some of his mates. He ignored the jibes that he was happy to eat the ducks but not the shooting of them. I can remember him repeating to his duck-shooting friend that he would never ever own a gun.

War is conducted by old men in bomb shelters: it is about power not humanity.

I am not saying there are not times when self defence is absolutely necessary, but full scale destruction of men, women and children should never be necessary, not while we have the means of communication and the intelligence we possess. Yet such abilities are consistently ignored in favour of ideologies: abstract beliefs triumphing over innocent lives.

As for Anzac, I don't get it, my father who had every reason to attend, didn't get it, nor do many people; Australian or not. I'll leave the final words to Paul Keating:

"Paul Keating, launching Graham Freudenberg's Churchill and Australia said Australia didn't have to prove anything. It already had the highest standard of living in the world, along with female suffrage, pensions, exemplary health care, a literate working class, good writers, athletes, musicians, painters, cartoonists. What was there to prove? That we could perish bravely in war, that great game of drongos?

'I have never gone to Gallipoli,' Keating said, 'and I never will. Kokoda is more my speed. There we fought, and won, a long battle that made a difference to our nation's future. That saved us from something, as Gallipoli never did.'"

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2879215.htm

david f & others,

NO NO NO the 9/11 abonination was an insurance scam resulting in a $US 3T payout and triger a reason to go to war with Iraq for oil

the truth will in time come out, just think about Bld #7 on that same day and seek out the many fine doc's made about the subject

JMCC.The truth is coming out.http://www.ae911truth.org/
According to Dr Alan Zabrovsky many in the US Military now know and they are not happy at all.They are blaming Israel but it is more complicated than that.

Notice that there are confusing signals as to the relationship with Israel.Congress just signed a letter not to criticise Israel and have signed up for the sanctions on Iran.Israel want the US to invade Iran so I think Congress is opting for sanctions, the lesser of two evils to appease them.This could spark off WW3.

Obama and more particularily Admiral Mullen has been critical of Israel.Obama is not reacting as they had expected.So we now have the two camps in the USA.Congress and the legislators have have the power with reluctant military and Obama with new insights,on the horns of a dilemma.

Israel is pushing for war and they might just get up to their dirty tricks to make it happen.

Not the most compelling of sources, Arjay, at first glance

>>According to Dr Alan Zabrovsky many in the US Military now know and they are not happy at all.They are blaming Israel...<<

Alan Sabrovsky (note the spelling for the next time you refer to him) presents as a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite.

Here's an interview where he outlines his position.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_911zion_02.htm

"...a large majority of American Jews give their allegiance to a foreign country... their allegiance is to a foreign country, they are traitors"

At least he's honest about where he stands.

But more to the point, how does he inform us that the US Military "knows" that Israel was behind 9/11?

"I have had long conversations over the past two weeks with contacts at the Army War College, at the Headquarters Marine Corps, and I have made it absolutely clear in both cases that it is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this sound as though Sabrovsky is "making it absolutely clear", and not vice versa?

Let's dig a little further.

"I've had some long discussions with people up there, and there's some really, really unhappy people."

Interviewer: "What are they saying"

"Astonishment. The first thing, Mark, is astonishment. They didn't know. They truly didn't know. And these are not unintelligent people. They really didn't know. And the next statement is rage. Real rage"

Don't know about you Arjay, but on the "evidence" presented, I'd say this guy has an agenda, that he's pushing like crazy.

But somehow I don't think the agenda is to find the truth, but to stir up animosity against Israel in any way he can.

Do you have any particular reason to believe what he is saying?

Apart from the fact that you would like it to be true, of course.

But let's leave the last word for Sabrovsky.

"...I'll tell you - I have a dream, as Martin Luther King, Jr. once said, and my dream is that the 5th and 6th US fleets take Israel and cream it. And that's the end of it."

Nice.

Pericles,as far as Zabrovsky goes,I've already voiced my displeasure at his comments on that site.He could be attempting to discredit and derail the peace/truth movements.The Truth movements are staying well clear of his comments.So there could be another agenda.However others are confirming that basically what he says about the military awareness is correct.This is a double edged sword.I am in no way backing his sentiments.There is too much hate out there.

There would have been only a small number of people involved in planning 911.You cannot blame a particular group entitrely.Many would have come along for the ride since they would benefit financially.Tarpley calls it atrophism,the way a plant reacts to light or a symbiotic relationship that happens almost unconsciously.

My main concern is stopping a war with Iran.What is the hurry with imposing sanctions when Israel has 200 nukes and Iran has yet to get one? Even Admiral Mullen says that Iran is no threat to America.Israel could decimate Iran if it wished.

Study carefully the words of Admiral Mullen and General Patraeus, of what is said and not said.

The Peace Movement needs to get off it's backside and create awareness.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for your post. It reminded me of a fourth form ANZAC day assembly at school. A friend of mine who was a Yugoslavian immigrant was complaining to those within earshot about having to stand in the cold and listen to the speeches. “This is absolute rubbish” he said' “Anyway what is the big deal you lot lost”. Even then, in my fickle youth I was able to say in reply that it wasn't a celebration but a commemoration. I'm not sure it lessened his perplexity nor will it do much for yours but it did set me thinking more deeply about the ritual.

Your perspective on 9/11 and Hill 60 is of course a valid one, particularly from a journeyman. One might even say it is a godly one. How would he weigh 10,000 violent deaths against 3,000? One suspects he might put as much stead in the anguish of the mother of a young, conscripted, German soldier as that of a Twin Towers victim's family.

Your beef it seems is with tribalism, the kind that leads to war and feelings of superiority. However tribalism like most things has its positives too and one of those is a shared history. It is part of what makes us human and if it is to be regarded as a foible by yourself so be it but I am happy to claim a measure of it.

Cont...

Cont...

For this ANZAC day we did an eight hour round trip to a little town north of Portland to visit an avenue of honour commemorating three of my wife's ancestors who had served in Europe in WW1. Two remain buried there. For those who have visited Hotspur will know how small the town is, in fact we drove through it and out the other side before realising that that was all there was. The avenue has lost many of its trees although there had been some replanting. The names had all disappeared from beneath the trees however a commemorative plaque has been recently placed at the end of the avenue listing all the names.

http://www.ballaratgenealogy.org.au/hotspur/avenue.htm

Of the 40 names of those who served, fifteen did not return. On our drive down we passed through many towns with the memorial flags at half mast and flowers of relatives at their bases. It is reasonable to assume this kind of loss was experienced in many of these communities and that in lieu of any graves these shrines of marble and bronze or the avenues of honour mark a place where the relatives of those lost could gather to remember their lost ones.

That this has been burned indelibly into the Australian psyche should not be a surprise nor unfortunately should its appropriation by some, especially politicians, to enhance the heroism while distancing the loss.

However that appropriation should not diminish ANZAC day, nor should the way successive generations have wanted to clothe it differently. Underneath it is a decent, heartfelt day when the thoughts of the living turn towards those lost well before their time.

The tribalism expressed on this day in each of these little towns is something I see as a positive and one I think we would be poorer without.

Pericles,You seem to finally realising the gravity of the situation.It took me months to come to terms with this betrayal.
It is no longer in the realm of theory.This is the reality.

An elite of lunatic power brokers have been caught out,of which many are obsessive compulsive lunatics of power.They have played this to the end game of no return.Either they win,or nobody wins.

They have emulated Hitler who took Germany to the brink,and now will not release their grip on power without devastation.

So we have a corrupted US Congress with it's Corporate shills, screwing the US public into poverty in the name of stimulus packages/bailouts,while they rape the real productivity of the USA via Fed Res loans and interest.

I try to be positive,but this will not end well.

Dear csteele,

Thank you for your post. When we were in separate tribes, tribalism served us well. We fought other tribes, and those tribes that survived became stronger. Shared ritual created common bonds. A shared belief also provided a common bond. Religio is the Latin for 'to bind'.

However, we are no longer living in tribal conditions. The powers that be push us into war for their own ends, economic or whatever. The religion that bound us is a divisive force because we are crowded together with people of different beliefs. The nation state is a false tribe as was the British Empire.

I feel the tug of tribalism - of attachment to religion, to a nation state to a culture. The culture and religion of my youth is precious to me even though I no longer believe in the religion and am in a foreign country. I am aware of the positive values of tribalism. However, in our time in the world as it is I think the negative aspects of tribalism far outweigh the positive aspects.

We will be poorer without tribalism in certain areas, but we will also be richer in creating bonds that extend over tribal barriers. I hope that the nation state which has a shared narrative we can glory in will be transformed to nothing more than a convenient administrative district. That will be a great step in getting rid of the madness of war.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for your response.

You are of course correct, the nation state has to figure predominately in any reflection on the madness of war. Often only it has the capability to mobilise millions to the battle against another, to drive its industry in arming its forces, to carry the press and therefore public opinion to the cause, but this is not always the case. An example is your own country whose civil war was so tragic and brutal.

But I would argue that the nation state also provides some means of contagion. That there were ultimately such constraints on Hitler for example is something many would be thankful for. They can also bring disparate groups together, sometimes successfully like Canada, other times not, as seen with Yugoslavia.

I think there have been great strides toward the diminution of some historical tribal hostilities over the last couple of hundred years. Class tribalism springs to mind. What where once fiercely delineated boundaries have been spirited away in many countries. Some people with justification point to WW1 and its great cost as a pivotal moment in the erosion of class barriers.

Cont...

Cont...

I would claim equity fought through social justice reforms had a greater part to play. The same inequalities, perceived or otherwise, between nations are a huge driver of conflict. Just as revolutions were employed to, often violently, correct class inequities within states, war attempts the same between them.

To rail against those inequities as I know you do, would have to be far more productive than railing against tribalism.

You made the point “A shared belief also provided a common bond.” but with the the ANZAC day commemoration, especially in smaller towns, it has always seemed to me more about a shared grief. To see all the flags at half mast on Sunday was not to see a statement of triumphalism but one of reflection, acknowledgement and loss.

As you have in the past corrected some of my misapprehensions of aspects of the Jewish faith (I know I will never truly understand your often delightful tribe) in that same spirit may I invite you to attend a couple of Dawn Services, ideally both big and small, before passing final judgement on this country's annual ritual.

Dear csteele,

The dawn services are not unique. They have their analogues elsewhere in the world. In Israel they have services to remember the Holocaust, to remember those heroes who fell in the War of Independence and the other wars that Israel has been in. In the United States they have had Memorial day services to remember the dead in the various wars the US has been in.

Along with a shared grief comes a resolve. It is a resolve to follow in the footsteps of the fallen- to be as heroic as they have been. The dawn services are not unique.

There is a tremendous spirit of shared resolve in the US and in Israel. It makes for a dedicated and effective military.

I see dead bodies. I see dead bodies on both sides. We commemorate our fallen. However, many of the fallen were doing their best to slaughter people wearing different uniforms. The people wearing different uniforms have people in their country commemorating them. Their services don't commemorate those on our side who their side slaughtered. Our services don't commemorate those on their side who our side slaughtered.

I am not just passing judgment on Australia's annual ritual. I am passing judgment on all such rituals and grieving for their dead in all countries.

Until we fully realise that in any conflict there are humans on all sides and those dead deserve remembrance as well as our heroes the bloodbaths will continue.

Dear davidf,

You have raised an interesting question, how do newly arrived immigrants approach the rituals of their adopted nations? Do they engage with them in order to understand their importance to those who are native born or are they doing a service in offering us a de-constructed view of the myths we use to define ourselves?

The second question is how should the native born approach new arrivals and their judgements. Do we insist on at least some respect if understanding is not forthcoming? For instance it is obviously impossible for new arrivals to be asked to experience the visceral feelings about a day like ANZAC Day found in third, fourth and fifth generation Australians.

Does this mean they can never become true Australians? Of course not. But there are lessons from our approach to history that inform others about what we like about ourselves and what is important to us. Some of these are not evident at first glance and are often not uniform through different generations.

You said;

“There is a tremendous spirit of shared resolve in the US and in Israel. It makes for a dedicated and effective military.”

I can understand in those countries how there might be the need to drive a “shared resolve” but I feel none of that when I participate in an ANZAC Day ceremony and I'm not sure that many of my fellow Australians would either, even given the way some of our politicians have hyped it.

Do you feel that your experiences with the military cultures of both might have coloured your approach to our day?

Dear csteele,

I don't know what a true Australian is and am not sure I want to be one. I really don't care about Australian myths and ceremonies. I am living here, obeying the laws and participating in the society. That should be enough.

I have been interested in Australian history and have read about the 15 or so military involvements of the Australia military. Australians have killed possibly 20,000 Aborigines in the early days. The massacres have continued until the twentieth century. The most recent one was in 1928 when a WW1 veteran shot 32 Aborigines at Coniston in the Northern Territory after a white dingo trapper and station owner were attacked by Aborigines.

The Australian military helped fight the Maoris in New Zealand. It helped the British imperialists in the Sudan and the Boer War. Right now Australians are helping the Americans in Iraq which was no danger to either the US or Australia. Bush lied the US into war, and Howard went along with it. Obama and Rudd have not withdrawn their forces, and the slaughter continues.

Australia supports the Aidex trade fairs which peddle arms to its neighbours. Australia has trained the Kopassus Division of the Indonesian Army which has committed many atrocities. Australia has supplied aircraft parts to the generals who brutalise Myanmar.

I have consulted to former Senator Woodley in writing legislation which would put effective controls in place on the export of weapons and the training of foreign military so that neither would result in human rights violations.

I can do nothing about Australia's bloody past, but I am concerned with making Australia's future less bloody.

Don't bother me about Anzac Day.

Dear davidf,

With respect I think that your demand “Don't bother me about Anzac Day” is a little rich especially after you have bothered me with your views on just that subject, prompting my initial post.

You also wrote;

“I don't know what a true Australian is and am not sure I want to be one. I really don't care about Australian myths and ceremonies. I am living here, obeying the laws and participating in the society. That should be enough.”

As I have explained I don't think it is fair to expect you to care about Australian myths and ceremonies because they are part of a shared history that you have little connection to, but there is a difference between not caring and denigrating.

I was lucky enough to sit next to Senator John Woodley at a dinner with a number of other Democrat senators in Werribee of all places when he was part of the dairy deregulation inquiry. Incidently he also served in the ADF.

John gave the impression of being a very gracious person, a trait that can sometimes, on occasion, go missing in others.

Dear csteele,

Please excuse my rudeness to you.

Yes, I denigrate Anzac Day because I see it making young people regard past wars as glorious episodes and preparing them for participating in future wars. There is regret and grief at those who have died for Australia. There is little grief for those the Australians fought who also died for their country. Their lives were just as precious as Australian lives.

Senator Woodley is a fine man and much more gracious than I am.

Dear csteele,

Last night I watched a TV program on Kokoda. Japanese died for emperor and country. Australians died for king and country. Both fought on the soil of a land that was not their own. It was a savage battle since the Japanese regarded it as a disgrace to be taken prisoner and killed Australian prisoners. The Australians and Americans retaliated in kind. All three parties now visit shrines to the dead and remember their sacrifices.

Lt. Col. Cullen wanted to make a flanking attack on a Japanese position and take them from the rear. His superiors overruled him and demanded a frontal assault. After two weeks of frontal assaults with great loss of Australian life the higher-ups agreed to Cullen's plan, and the position was taken. Toward the end of the campaign the Japanese were holed up in three villages on the coast. The allies had control of the air and the sea so the Japanese could expect neither reinforcements or supplies. They could have been starved out, but again the high command ordered a frontal assault. Many again lost their lives unnecessarily.

Some of the generals thought that a low casualty rate was evidence of a lack of fighting spirit.

Kokoda along with Anzac is memorable in Australian history. They were both bloody stupid episodes where the soldiers on both sides were just pawns.

I would like to see a world where the prospective fodder on all sides will say, "Hell, no, we won't go." Anzac Day and similar ceremonies makes it more likely that they will go.

Dear davidf,

Consider it excused.

On a different thread I commented.

“I have respect for our law enforcement and armed service personnel. They have sacrificed a portion of their autonomy for the service to their community or country. To put it crudely they have been prepared to shelve part of their natural morality to effectively do their job. Rather than deny this or find a moral justification for an immoral act perhaps we should recognise the sacrifice being made, often on our behalf.”

“We need to realise we have a responsibility as the citizenry to temper the actions of our armed forces.”

I acknowledge the stance you are taking attempts to do just that.

Dear csteele,

I also have great respect for both the men and women in the Australian armed forces and the bureaucracy of the ministry. I met some of them when I was doing research for Senator Woodley. Every one of them I met was primarily concerned with the welfare and defense of Australia.

Unfortunately they were often overruled by the politician who headed the ministry. Kim Beazley pushed the Pacific Patrol Boat Project. The boats were used in the blockade of Bougainville condemned by the UN and their upkeep exceeded the military budget of the island nations. Australian Shipbuilding Industries which produced the patrol boats is in Beazley's electoral district and probably provided the margin of 300 votes by which he won one election.

Bob Hawke sold Mirage jets to Pakistan for $26,000,000 jeopardising an annual trade with India of $960,000,000.

Those in command of the forces and bureaucracy have not approved of these and other follies but have been overruled by the politicians.

David f

I know you have been asked before: If you are not writing a book of your extraordinary life - are you at least keeping a journal?

You remain one of the most informed and interesting contributors to OLO.

Regards

People,
we are drifting from the base story

I still think 9/11 was in inside job and the obsessed Muslims could not beleave thair luck to rub USA's nose in it and claiming the 'gig' thus playing into Bush's & Charney's hands and all that has happened

How evil this is from both sides.

JMCC wrote: "People,we are drifting from the base story"

Dear JMCC,

I started this string and your attempt to divert the string into a conspiracy theory about 9/11 is a drift from the base story.

Dear Severin,

Flattery is wonderful, and I greatly appreciate it. I don't think I have led an extraordinary life. My father lived in an anarchist commune in northern Manchuria, and my son has lived with the Xikrin, a tribal people, in rainforest Brazil. There is nothing in my life comparable to that. If you google the Smithsonian and William Fisher you will find a bit about him.

Autobiography is generally an attempt at self-aggrandisement and cannot be an objective appraisal of one's life. I recently read "Tolstoy" by Troyat. It's a great book and I believe much better than an autobiography would have been. I am writing a family history which will include parts of my life. It is intended only for my descendents and will gloss over matters which can hurt any living person. It will include a bit about my father's adventures.

My name is David Fisher, and you can find articles I have written for olo in the list of authors.

david f,

Would you care to respond to my question put to the forum discussion "Why we Fight" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3 ?:

"So, what makes you so sure that Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings ... ?

"Could you please cite any documentary evidence that has led you to this conviction?"

Interestingly, no-one else on that forum, has.

Daggett,

look in BigPond Movies and type 9/11 in the search section to find DVD's on this subject

Dear Daggett,

You wrote: "Would you care to respond to my question put to the forum discussion "Why we Fight" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3 ?:

"So, what makes you so sure that Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings ... ?"

Please cite where I claimed that "Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings"

I never beat my wife either.

david f asked, "Please cite where I claimed that 'Islamist extremists. operating out of Afghanistan, were the principle perpetrators of 9/11, the London Tube bombings, the Bali bombings and the Madrid bombings'".

If that's not what you meant to imply when you referred to "Al Qaeda telling of their destruction of the World Trade Center", then please tell us what you did mean to imply.

Dear Daggett,

I mean to imply nothing more than what I said. I will cater no more to your paranoia.

david f wrote, "I mean to imply nothing more than what I said."

Well, it looks to me like you did. Didn't you also write:

"9/11 also killed a lot of people for no good reason. It was the product of unreasoning religious fanaticism. Unreasoning religious fanaticism is also stupid nonsense.

"The spirit of Muslims belonging to the umma (or Muslims united in the bonds of belief) to kill people they don't know because they are infidels to me is little different from the mateship bonding Australians to go out and kill people they don't know because their country is at war with the other people's country."

?

The fact remains that, whether or not that was your primary purpose, what you wrote reinforces the official account of 9/11, for which, as I have shown on the forum "Why do we fight" at:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=4

... and elsewhere, none of its proponents have been willing to provide evidence.

---

In fact, david f is right to draw parallels between the operation to blow up Hill 60 and the project to destroy the three World Trade Center buildings.

However, the people who performed the latter are not the people that david f implied they were.

As anyone who looks at the image of the 'collapse' of the North Tower at:

http://cms.ae911truth.org/images/stories/explo2.jpg http://ae911truth.org

... with open eyes will be able to see, the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly destroyed with high explosives just as the German trenches at Hill 60 were destroyed with high explosives in 1917, as attested to on the day by live news reporters and in documentary statements from 118 members of the Fire Department of New York (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_5_118Witnesses_WorldTradeCenter.pdf).

Both projects would have been highly technical, although I would regard the motivations of those involved in the two to have been different.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Information on those likely to have perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 can be found in the four part article "Demolition Access To The WTC Towers" by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, listed below. Kevin Ryan lost his job at Underwriter Laboratories for publicly insisting that executives in that Corporation and in the United States Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) not lie about tests' findings as to the resistance against fire of Twin Towers' structural steel. The articles are:

"Good Riddance to the Big Lie: Kevin Ryan's 'Demolition Access ...' Lights the Shadows", an introduction by Don Paul at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_DonPaul.html

"Part One - Tenants" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

"Part Two - Security" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html

"Part Three - Carlyle, Kissinger, SAIC and Halliburton: A 9/11 Convergence" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html

"Part Four - Cleanup" at http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

The second part of the above article cites the Twin Towers design engineer:

"In a 1993 interview, [John] Skilling said that, in the event of an airliner crash into one of the towers, 'the building structure would still be there.' [36] One of Reiss' own staff members, Frank A. DeMartini, the Manager of WTC Construction, was videotaped explaining how the towers could have withstood multiple impacts from aircraft. [37]"

So the official explanation that each of the towers collapsed from the impact of a jet airliner and subsequent fires does not stand up.

---

david f wrote, "I will cater no more to your paranoia."

Suit yourself.

However, by my definition, paranoia is the state of mind that accepts imposts on our freedoms such as what Sydney residents endured during the September 2007 APEC summit, the security of which cost Australian taxpayers UA$167 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEC_Australia_2007#Criticism_and_public_response) to 'protect' us from a mythical global conspiracy of Islamist extremists.

---

FOOTNOTES

36. Eric Nalder, Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, February 27, 1993, http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19930227&slug=1687698

37. Jim Hoffman, Towers' Design Parameters, 911Research.wtc7.net, http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

It's ok daggett, I'll do the corrections for you.

Correction #1

>>The fact remains that, whether or not that was your primary purpose, what you wrote reinforces the official account of 9/11<<

Should read...

"The fact remains that, whether or not that was your primary purpose, what you wrote reflects the official account of 9/11"

There, that's better.

>>the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly destroyed with high explosives just as the German trenches at Hill 60 were destroyed with high explosives in 1917<<

Hmmm. You were a bit further off the rails here. Let's try...

"the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly not destroyed with high explosives. Simply compare them to the way the German trenches at Hill 60 were destroyed with high explosives in 1917"

Ah, that's more like it.

You see? A little more care, and you too could write sense.

>>Information on those likely to have perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 can be found in the four part article "Demolition Access To The WTC Towers" by 9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan<<

Just a judicious tweak here and there, and we get...

"Wild speculation on those he thinks likely to have perpetrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre in 2001 can be found in the four part article "Demolition Access To The WTC Towers" by 9/11 conspiracy nerd Kevin Ryan"

Getting there, getting there.

You forgot the essential annotation to this one, though.

>>In a 1993 interview, [John] Skilling said that, in the event of an airliner crash into one of the towers, 'the building structure would still be there'.<<

You omitted to add "Shows how wrong some people can be, eh?"

Oh, and a quick brush-up on definitions wouldn't go astray either, daggett.

>>paranoia is the state of mind that accepts imposts on our freedoms such as what Sydney residents endured during the September 2007 APEC summit<<

No, not really. Paranoia might be behind the instigation of the draconian actions, but isn't a realistic description of the state of mind of one who accepts those measures.

Pericles,

I think my last post made perfect sense the way it was, thank you very much.

In regard to your claim that "the North Tower (and the South Tower) were clearly not destroyed with high explosives", I don't believe that you have responded to my point on the forum discussion "Why do we fight" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10348&page=3

Here it is again:

If we accept that this:

http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is_single1105/is300248.jpg

... is an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives, then why isn't this:

http://cms.ae911truth.org/images/stories/explo2.jpg

... even more so an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives?

JMCC,

The only movie I could find on BigPond Movies was Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911".

That was quite a good movie, but it did not directly challenge the 9/11 myth.

"9/11 Press for Truth" about the four 9/11 widows, known as "The Jersey Girls", who forced President George W Bush to hold the 9/11 Commission, has to be one of the best documentaries ever.

The way it showed how supposedly professional full-time paid journalists failed to connect the dots and how it had to be left to unpaid activists to do that work is applicable to a large range of other issues, besides 9/11, that the media also fails to report on adequately.

Daggett

the DVD's available from Bigpond are:

Loose Change
9/11 Misteries - Demolition
The Secret History of 9/11
9/11 The Filmakers Commenorative DVD Edition
National Geographic - Inside 9/11

Hmmm. Very persuasive, daggett. No wonder I didn't go near it back then when you posted it first.

How does it go again? You first.

>>If we accept that this:

http://images.inmagine.com/img/imagesource/is_single1105/is300248.jpg

... is an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives, then why isn't this:

http://cms.ae911truth.org/images/stories/explo2.jpg

... even more so an image of a building being destroyed with high explosives?<<

Refuting such a spellbinding argument is always a challenge, but I'll try.

Here goes.

If we accept this...

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/pictures-of-butterflies/pictures-of-butterflies-3.jpg

...as a picture of a butterfly my mum found in her back garden last Tuesday, then why isn't this...

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/pictures-of-butterflies/pictures-of-butterflies-1.jpg

...even more so an image of a butterfly that my mum found in her back garden last Tuesday?

The reason is, of course, that despite all appearances to the contrary, this one was caught in the rainforests of Brazil, transported on the back of a donkey to the Peruvian port of Callao, shipped on a tramp steamer to Shanghai, thence overland to Moscow, where it was brutally put to death before being pinned on the Kremlin wall.

I've always admired your logic, daggett.

Simply awesome.

Pericles:
I tried your link (http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/pictures-of-butterflies/pictures-of-butterflies-1.jpg) and got this:
"Error 403 - Forbidden
You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges."
What is your Mum, or that butterfly, trying to hide?

I started this thread to contrast attitudes towards 9/11 and Hill 60. Unfortunately the discussion has degenerated into an argument over a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11. Is there anyone who would care to make a case that the diggers didn't actually blow up Hill 60? Was it really a plot by the Australian government or the King of Italy?

Sorry to hear that Parser.

>>"Error 403 - Forbidden
You tried to access a document for which you don't have privileges."<<

It is a pretty sad state of affairs when you have insufficient privileges to look at a picture of a butterfly. Your firewall should be re-named the "blazing inferno" wall.

I just tried the link again and it worked for me. Perhaps it was the snout that I bunged the screws.