John Howard responds to the press:
PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don’t want to add to what the prime minister has said. It’s a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.
Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it’s given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.
And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia’s involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn’t have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan?
When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq — a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations — when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.
Now I don’t know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can’t put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I’ve cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.
PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)
Since Bush can’t run for President again, can we borrow Howard when Australia is done with him?
Laughter?
He is slightly more articulate than our guy.
What John Howard said has to be said over and over and over again until the ‘opinion forming’ thickos in the western media get it.
At the moment I feel western leaders are simply reacting to events instead of dictating them. And the ones who are firm, who do have a policy to combat Islamofascism, are being battered and undermined on a daily basis by their own electorate and intelligensia.
And as for the appeasers…well, the most eloquent comment is the following joke I received today from a friend:
‘AP and UPI reported that the French Government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from Run to Hide. The only two higher levels in France are Surrender and Collaborate.
The raise was precipitated by a recent fire which destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively disabling their military.’
Where is a Churchill when you need one?
Roger:
The way many try to frame the terrorism flowing mainly from our war in Iraq ignores the History of the last 40 years. As PM Howard points out it has been going on for years before Iraq and if we pulled out tommorrow it would continue.
Do the terrorists want us out of Iraq? Yes, of course. But that is not all they want. They want Israel destroyed. They want a Islamic Fascist form of government to rule over the entire Middle East. And they still have not forgotten the crusades. Yes, they still want Spain. They warned France that if it banned Muslim head coverings for school children in France they would be attacked. They want all Muslims in all countries to be under sharia law. And they are not going to bother with the Democratic process to get their wishes.They will kill any moderate Muslims in the middle east who oppose them. They will kill any non-Muslim that they feel has insulted their God. Van Gogh accomplished,Rushdie still on the books.
“Do what I want and I will leave.” bad translation from a Stephen King novel. The only problem with the fantasy that leaving Iraq will help is that they want everything. Those who are against fighting the terrorists in Iraq have to look at all the demands of the Islamo Fascists and decide if they are willing to submit to their desires. Because they will not stop until they get what they want or until they are destroyed. they don’t jsut want our troops out, they want our “cultural imperliasim” to stop to. What is that? It’s our ideas. thats why they want to kill Rushdie. They can ban his book if they want. But they want to stop him from expressing his mind too.And any other like minded personThey don’t recognize borders.they won’t stop until Israel is wiped off the map and the Jews are pushed into the sea. This isn’t my imagination. It is proclaimed every Friday all over the world. THEY MEAN WHAT THEY SAY. AND THEY ACT ON IT.
Kevin Peters
Have it translated into every language and rain leaflets over all the nations of the earth, so maybe they will get it.
Yeah, a swap for Howard or Blair would be great. If the Arnold Amendment passes, that sets up a fascinating GOP convention, though: Blair, Howard, or Schwartzenegger — Pick One!
One of the things I like best about PM Howard’s quote is also one of the more subtle elements. Please note that nowhere in his remarks does he refer to the “Iraq War”. He speaks of the policy in Iraq and operations in Iraq, but never uses the commonly heard phrase “Iraq War”. This is significant in that the phrase helps foster the impression that what we are doing in Iraq is somehow separate and apart from the larger GWOT. PM Howard, however, clearly sees and understands that out operations in Iraq are not a different War, but rather one campaign in the overall effort against Islamist violence and terror and very clearly and carefully expresses this in his choice of words.
I was in a client’s home and he had on the TV when Howard said this. We both cheered.
Why is this simple truth so hard for people to understand?
I was watching live as this exchange took place too. It was a true thing of beauty. A shrill and angry sounding reporter had just asked Blair if it wasn’t his policies that had put the people of London “in this position.”
Blair gave a fairly brief and defensive answer. Another reporter asked Howard if the bombings didn’t prove that that the war against terror was being “lost.”
Howard’s response, reproduced here by Roger, was delivered in a neutral almost casual manner. I was stunned.
On the spot he was producing something better than I’ve ever seen entire teams of Bush’s speechwriters come up with. I don’t blame those speechwriters, necessarily. Mostly I came away with a huge and instant admiration for Howard, someone I previously knew very little about.
Most critics forget that this war began about 1400 years ago;and we “infidels” have been treated to various “perversions” within Islam during this period. God forbid that we criticise that “great monotheistic religion” as we now are engaged with yet another “perversion.”
I wish I could have seen the whole thing live on tv – any video of this floating wound on the net? Of course Howard is right – why can’t the MSM take note of this?
Here ya go: Trey Jackson has the vid link to Howie (Windows Media Player version).
Okay. I’ll admit that, for those foreign jihadists captured in Iraq, the number one reason they give for fighting is the presence of American troops. And I’ll admit this, too: That the war in Iraq is indeed creating new terrorists and providing them with a training ground.
But…
What societies created the imbalanced atmosphere where the US occupation of Iraq is not put into the perspective of a general war against terrorism, as well as the perspective of the moral obligation to stand against facist, murderous goverments like Saddam Hussein’s? What societies not only foster the illusion that the removal of a genocidal tyrant like Saddam is bad, and not only ignore positive aspects of opportunities for freedom and dignity that have been created for the Iraqi people, but also bend minds to the outrageous immoral answer that killing the very people that are supposedly the most “oppressed” by the Americans and British is the answer to the “problem” of the American and British (and Polish, et. al) presence? And, how long have those societies had to entrench those opinions in people’s minds? That last is actually the money question. How long have those societies been poisoning their members into believing that violent jihad is a moral, proper choice in their dealings with the west? It’s only been a few years since Iraq. Do some people honestly believe that Iraq all by itself, and in the few short years since the invasion really drove people to such acts of violence? Or are they ignoring the effect of years of indoctrination (I use that term deliberately) that sick societies and those who apologize for them subscribe to?
My point is this: Iraq may be the foremost tangible reason for jihadists to fight in Iraq, and for unbalanced minds to bomb London, but take Iraq away and you still have the sick societal attitudes that manufacture extremists and bombers. Hell, take Israel away, and you still have a sick society preaching twisted values and creating terrorists. The Iraq war may be the reason-du-jour, but it’s not the engine of anger. To steal a term favored by apologists: It’s not the “root cause”. Many honest souls are against the invasion — a large number of religious groups come to mind, like the Quakers — but it takes serious conditioning on the part of the portion of society extremists live in to make the leap from indignation to bombing innocents.
So to summarize my point: Yes, Iraq is the reason those terrorists bombed London. But it’s far from being the cause that those terrorists were manufactured in the first place. That manufacturing happened long before Iraq was invaded. These terrorists that bombed London just happened to roll off the assembly line last week.
Of course, if you were watching KTLA in Los Angeles, you never heard Howard’s great response because the minute the word “terrorism” crossed his lips the video feed was cut off. Was that the Beeb in London or good old lefty Tribune here in the States, I wonder?
I suppose one problem I have with saying it is about Iraq has to do with the fact that the foreign invasion in Iraq that everyone wants to ignore is the one by foreign terrorists from all over the world [including Europe] who have gone to Iraq to kill not only Americans but Iraqis. In fact most suicde bobmers are foreigners and most victims are Iraqis. I don’t see any flag burning and moral outrage over that.
But then again yesterday Ken Livingstone was making excuses for Palestinian suicide bombers. That man is a moron. a real honest to God moron. It is amazing how the left never lets a little thing like minding their own damn business interfere with their antiSemitic rhetoric.
They are always ready to lecture other people about that sort of thing.
Brandon,
It would really help me out a lot if you would just link my site and not hotlink videos from the site. My bandwidth fees are outrageous as it is. -Or- if you prefer watching them and not visiting the site, maybe a small donation would help out with the bandwidth beast.
Thanks much,
Trey Jackson
ElMondo: “That manufacturing happened long before Iraq was invaded. These terrorists that bombed London just happened to roll off the assembly line last week.”
That is an excellent way of putting it. I shall save that, if you don’t mind.
To use an analogy I used on another site earlier (not this one I hope):
Saying that the bombing(s) in London were a “result” of our actions in Iraq makes as much sense as saying that the Battle of the Bulge was a result of our action on D-Day. The specific location of the Battle of the Bulge might have been a consequence of events that D-Day set in motion but the fact that it took place at all was not. There was a wider war going on and the Germans were trying to win it and there was going to be a battle one way or the other.
So it is with circumstances today. The wider battle is under way and Al Qaeda and their sympathizers have made it quite clear, through word and deed, that they are going to try to win it. Where they choose to strike might be determined by the specific circumstances of the moment but the fact that they choose to strike at all will not. That decision was made years ago. Running away from the fight in Iraq won’t make the world a safer place, just as abstaining from the D-Day invasion was not going to make the world a safer place. The world wasn’t safe then and won’t be safe now until the threat itself is defeated.
“Of course, if you were watching KTLA in Los Angeles, you never heard Howard’s great response because the minute the word “terrorism” crossed his lips the video feed was cut off.”
That’s because, as I’ve been saying for the last two years, they are a member of the TSM (Terrorist Supporting Media). To call them the MSM is a complete misnomer, as they are no longer even “Mainstream”, since their candidate lost the last presidential election.
We need to call the media what they have become and what they are: TSM – Terrorist Supporting Media. There….that wasn’t so hard was it? Once we assign the correct name to them, then their actions are incredibly easy to understand, and even predict.
I’d love it if someone more eloquent than I were to give this Pilger guy a good seeing to(as they say in Blighty):
http://www.newstatesman.com/nscoverstory.htm
They want a Islamic Fascist form of government to rule over the entire Middle East. And they still have not pen forgotten the crusades. Yes, they still want Spain. They warned France that if it banned Muslim head coverings for school children in France they would be attacked. They want all Muslims in all countries to be under sharia law.