Bomb for Brown

[Mark Stapleton]

Yesterday evening Australian time, I witnessed both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS TV - both public broadcasters - uncritically relay the latest official version of the latest British bomb atrocities/mysteries.

Both devoted considerable time to an analyis of how many Islamic extremists in Australia we should be concerned about.

The chain of 'reasoning' ran something like this.

- In Britain, MI5 currently keeps tabs on 3000 'Islamic extremists'

- in Australia, taking the lower size of the Moslim population into account, that amounts to a few hundreds.

- claims there are thousands of Islamic extremists in Australia who might be about the blow us (and themselves) up at any moment are exaggerated. It's mote like a few hundred.

The maths was reasonably accurate and fair minded - but that's all.

The rest of the analysis, of course, is assumption at best, downright lie at worst. The intended effect, I guess, would be to create even greater disaffection, anger and paranoia in the Islamic community, while generating even more anti-Islamic resentment, hostility and paranoia in the non-Muslim community.

Now, both SBS and the ABC ran this nonsense. I imagine something similar was running on the commercial channels.

Note the use of reverse psychology. The argument presented to the public by these spinners poses as liberalism. The storyline is: "Alarmists exaggerate when they say there are thousands of insane Muslims in Australia itching to kill us all... there are ONLY a few hundred".

In this way, the anti-Islamic extremists who have siezed control of our airwaves in a long, slow coup, pose as moderates.

Sneaky, unscrupulous and utterly evil.

Sid, I've been worried about SBS for some time now.

For non-Aussies, the SBS is one of two national television broadcasters and also broadcasts radio and online programmes in many languages. Established under the Special Broadcating Act, 1991, its role under its charter is to inform, educate and entertain and reflect Australia's multicultural society. The Act also states that the SBS will have programming and operational independence from the Government, although whether this precludes SBS from ideological independence from the Government is another issue entirely (especially since the Government pays most of the bills, limited advertising being permitted)

The current board of directors includes Christopher Pearson, founding editor of the Adelaide Review, right wing journalist and former advisor and confidante to Prime Minister John Howard:

http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1200

I have noticed a change in the tone and content of SBS docos and general news reporting which roughly dates back to Pearson's appointment in October 2003. Some excellent docos are still broadcast but many dubious ones, such as recent hatchet jobs on JFK and his 'loose' morals are also shown. Recent docos dealing with the Middle East seem to broadly reflect the US/ Israeli point of view. SBS news reporting in regard to real or suspected incidents of terrorism unfailingly lays the blame at the door of Muslim fundamentalism even before all the facts have been established. As such, I longer regard SBS as reliable or independent when it comes to issues such as this.

Interestingly, Pearson's term expires in October 2007. If he seeks another term, I've got no doubt Howard will grant it as it seems that Pearson has been quite effective in reminding the other Board members that it's the Government which holds the purse strings (so it's plainly in their interests to see things his way).

If Pearson doesn't seek re-appointment, I would recommend the Government appoint one David Oldfield to continue its slimy agenda. A former right wing MP in the NSW State Legislature, Oldfield was arguing on radio a few days ago that extremists in the Muslim world are not a small minority, but are, in fact, a reflection of mainstream Muslim sentiment and that the Islamic faith, being violent and hostile to western society, should be confronted with force at all times. The only thing he forgot to say in his feverish tirades was that they hate us for our freedom.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Mark Stapleton

[Paul Rigby]

You might prefer of course to engage in rational discussion.... here's hoping at least

Gosh, here's hoping I can ascend to such giddy heights of reason as...

You are not all ears you are all mouth and what pours forth from that orifice is neither instructive nor helpful.

You are a fool if you believe that the religious attacks on the UK, Australia and the USA have been inspired by anything other than misguided god heads hoping for a quick route to paradise and a large number of virgins.

And miss the fact that the London bombers were NOT suicide bombers. [Hint: they scarpered before anything exploded...]

Very impressive.

So who is the fool, and what exactly is it you teach?

Elementary logic? Rhetoric? Religio-racial stereotyping, perhaps?

[Sid Walker]

Meanwhile, back to the war front...

I see my choice of satellite TV stations are now all chattering identical piffle about doctors in Queensland.

Apparently there has been an outbreak of the terror virus over here, as well. The WoT is getting close to home!

Heavens, how terribly overworked our spooks must be! My heart goes out to them.

Astonishingly, when these vile shysters fall ill, they still get free treatment in public hospitals from overworked doctors and nurses, just like the rest of us.

Truly, the miracle of forgiveness reigns supreme.

[Guest]

You might prefer of course to engage in rational discussion.... here's hoping at least

Gosh, here's hoping I can ascend to such giddy heights of reason as...

You are not all ears you are all mouth and what pours forth from that orifice is neither instructive nor helpful.

You are a fool if you believe that the religious attacks on the UK, Australia and the USA have been inspired by anything other than misguided god heads hoping for a quick route to paradise and a large number of virgins.

And miss the fact that the London bombers were NOT suicide bombers. [Hint: they scarpered before anything exploded...]

Very impressive.

So who is the fool, and what exactly is it you teach?

Elementary logic? Rhetoric? Religio-racial stereotyping, perhaps?

Here then is a picture of someone parking their car at Glasgow airport?

Maybe we can summon up enough speculative and critical thought to conclude that the similar devices found in London were also intended to have targets. Or maybe its just more fun to blame the spooks.

Your facile attempts at abuse make you look weak and foolish Mr Rigby.

[Guest David Guyatt]

You'll forgive my puzzlement, David, particularly as it was Andy Walker who intruded in the thread with a curious tirade about god heads with virgins on their mind - that's suicide bombers, I take it - when, as is perfectly clear, the London bombers were NOT suicide bombers. Correct me if I have any of that wrong?

Great piece on yesterday's Whatreallyhappened page (July 1):

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Was London Bomb Plot Heralded On Web?

Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital's tourist-rich theater district, a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying: "Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed."

CBS News found the posting, which went on for nearly 300 words, on the "al Hesbah" chat room.

Posted Jul 1, 2007 10:22 AM PST

Category: COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS

Only problem is that the "al Hasbah" chat room is REGISTERED WITH A DOMAIN REGISTRATION COMPANY IN SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, one that hides the identity of the original registrar. (Link here: http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=http%...%2F&tld=com )

Does anyone besides me find it strange that after tracking back various "terrorist" (nudge nudge wink wink) websites to places like Texas and Virginia, all of a sudden Domains by Proxy starts up to provide "terrorist" websites with anonymity, and despite the hue and cry against anyone who supports terror and the USAPATRIOT act, Domains By Proxy isn't investigated, harassed, raided, or for that matter even mentioned in the media as an obvious facilitator of the "terrorist" websites?

I confess - I find it strange.

It must be childs play for the authorities to track back to the person/s who set up this site. Also, with the NSA's massive UKUSA wide Echelon system eavesdropping on all electronic messages in real time, it is hard not to consider that the authorities would have had advanced warning of this event, based on the foregoing website message alone. In which case why wasn't preventative action taken and the warning level elevated before the attacks, rather than waiting till they were over to do so?

David

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Amateur night at the Palladium.

"Crude but viable device" - Petrol and gas cannisters would give a quite spectacular display of fire, but wouldn't do any substantial blast damage (reminds me of Kelly's heroes) as can be seen from the pictures at Glasgow.

Andy, we actually have 4 brands of religio/politico branding in NI. Loyalist/Republican = extreme Prod/Fenian. Nationalist/Unionist = Bog standard Fenian/Prod. I do not believe that the religious factor was a factor in Nationalism/Republicanism throughout the 20th Century.

[Guest]

I do not believe that the religious factor was a factor in Nationalism/Republicanism throughout the 20th Century.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree.

However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban.

As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread.

[Sid Walker]

You'll forgive my puzzlement, David, particularly as it was Andy Walker who intruded in the thread with a curious tirade about god heads with virgins on their mind - that's suicide bombers, I take it - when, as is perfectly clear, the London bombers were NOT suicide bombers. Correct me if I have any of that wrong?

Great piece on yesterday's Whatreallyhappened page (July 1):

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Was London Bomb Plot Heralded On Web?

Hours before London explosives technicians dismantled a large car bomb in the heart of the British capital's tourist-rich theater district, a message appeared on one of the most widely used jihadist Internet forums, saying: "Today I say: Rejoice, by Allah, London shall be bombed."

CBS News found the posting, which went on for nearly 300 words, on the "al Hesbah" chat room.

Posted Jul 1, 2007 10:22 AM PST

Category: COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS

Only problem is that the "al Hasbah" chat room is REGISTERED WITH A DOMAIN REGISTRATION COMPANY IN SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA, one that hides the identity of the original registrar. (Link here: http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=http%...%2F&tld=com )

Does anyone besides me find it strange that after tracking back various "terrorist" (nudge nudge wink wink) websites to places like Texas and Virginia, all of a sudden Domains by Proxy starts up to provide "terrorist" websites with anonymity, and despite the hue and cry against anyone who supports terror and the USAPATRIOT act, Domains By Proxy isn't investigated, harassed, raided, or for that matter even mentioned in the media as an obvious facilitator of the "terrorist" websites?

I confess - I find it strange.

It must be childs play for the authorities to track back to the person/s who set up this site. Also, with the NSA's massive UKUSA wide Echelon system eavesdropping on all electronic messages in real time, it is hard not to consider that the authorities would have had advanced warning of this event, based on the foregoing website message alone. In which case why wasn't preventative action taken and the warning level elevated before the attacks, rather than waiting till they were over to do so?

David

I agree gentlemen. Thirded!

These must be regarded as stories for the credulous.

I recall after 9-11 for a while the term "terrorist chatter" came into vogue. We were asked to believe that our spooks were able to monitor terrorists chatting on the web - but never catch them in the act. The results of chatter observation was reflected in the colour-coding of the terror alert.

It was around this time I began to realise that most of not all of the information we are fed by "terrorist experts" is pure invention.

I used to be very cagey about treating each new terrorist alarm with great caution, expecting at some point to be caught wrong-footed if I sneered at every new official account.

However, after what now seems like an endless succession of bogus terror, I really don't care much any more.

Perhaps every now and again one of these atrocities or plots will be the handiwork of bona fide Islamic extremists, acting without prompting and without the influence of agent provocateurs. The west is insulting Muslims so much, so often, that it would be amazing if there was no comeback at all.

The amazing thing seems to be that there is so little. Consequently, the spooks feed our diet of terror, almost entirely through their own efforts. One big false flag parade...

Andy - and others - may well dispute this claim.

My challenge to them is to prove that I am wrong. And here's the rub.

The nixing of judicial due process for 'terrorism' cases in recent years means that it is, in reality, quite impossible to prove a skeptic wrong. We don't have fair trials any longer for 'terror suspects'. We clearly have utterly biased media reporting. None of these incidents become the subject of open, accountable inquiries. 'National security' is used to justify a level of secrecy that necessarily prevents outsiders from making an informed judgment about what is really happening.

This poses a very serious threat to our civilization.

I fear we are squandering a fine inheritance that was grounded in the rational and essentially egalitarian principles of the Enlightenment. We've allowed devious, unaccountable sectional interests to eat away at our basic freedoms and erode the integrity of our democratic system.

Once we had a reasonable vehicle for achieving common goals. It needed improvement, for sure. But largely speaking, it worked. Instead of taking care of it, or obtaining a genuine upgrade, we've allowed the old car body to deteriorate. It's now consumed by rust and can't be trusted any longer.

One kick and the whole chassis could easily fracture.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[John Simkin]

It must be childs play for the authorities to track back to the person/s who set up this site. Also, with the NSA's massive UKUSA wide Echelon system eavesdropping on all electronic messages in real time, it is hard not to consider that the authorities would have had advanced warning of this event, based on the foregoing website message alone. In which case why wasn't preventative action taken and the warning level elevated before the attacks, rather than waiting till they were over to do so?

According to a report in today's Guardian the al-Hesbah internet forum where they have welcomed the attempted bombings in London and Glasgow are registered with a domain-registration company in Scottsdale, Arizona. It seems that "Domains by Proxy" are not investigated, harassed or raided by the US authorities. Very strange.

[Sid Walker]

I do not believe that the religious factor was a factor in Nationalism/Republicanism throughout the 20th Century.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree.

However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban.

As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread.

I for one am quite willing to discuss this topic with you Andy, although I agree it should be on a separate thread.

Richard Dawkins' forum, as one might expect, has many members with views such as yours. There's plenty of discussion about his book, The God Delusion, here.

I put one condition on my participation, however.

If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion.

By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible.

Let's look at the Talmud too.

Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations.

If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit.

[Sid Walker]

Yesterday evening Australian time, I witnessed both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS TV - both public broadcasters - uncritically relay the latest official version of the latest British bomb atrocities/mysteries.

Both devoted considerable time to an analyis of how many Islamic extremists in Australia we should be concerned about.

The chain of 'reasoning' ran something like this.

- In Britain, MI5 currently keeps tabs on 3000 'Islamic extremists'

- in Australia, taking the lower size of the Moslim population into account, that amounts to a few hundreds.

- claims there are thousands of Islamic extremists in Australia who might be about the blow us (and themselves) up at any moment are exaggerated. It's mote like a few hundred.

The maths was reasonably accurate and fair minded - but that's all.

The rest of the analysis, of course, is assumption at best, downright lie at worst. The intended effect, I guess, would be to create even greater disaffection, anger and paranoia in the Islamic community, while generating even more anti-Islamic resentment, hostility and paranoia in the non-Muslim community.

Now, both SBS and the ABC ran this nonsense. I imagine something similar was running on the commercial channels.

Note the use of reverse psychology. The argument presented to the public by these spinners poses as liberalism. The storyline is: "Alarmists exaggerate when they say there are thousands of insane Muslims in Australia itching to kill us all... there are ONLY a few hundred".

In this way, the anti-Islamic extremists who have seized control of our airwaves in a long, slow coup, pose as moderates.

Sneaky, unscrupulous and utterly evil.

Sid, I've been worried about SBS for some time now.

For non-Aussies, the SBS is one of two national television broadcasters and also broadcasts radio and online programmes in many languages. Established under the Special Broadcating Act, 1991, its role under its charter is to inform, educate and entertain and reflect Australia's multicultural society. The Act also states that the SBS will have programming and operational independence from the Government, although whether this precludes SBS from ideological independence from the Government is another issue entirely (especially since the Government pays most of the bills, limited advertising being permitted)

The current board of directors includes Christopher Pearson, founding editor of the Adelaide Review, right wing journalist and former advisor and confidante to Prime Minister John Howard:

http://www20.sbs.com.au/sbscorporate/index.php?id=1200

I have noticed a change in the tone and content of SBS docos and general news reporting which roughly dates back to Pearson's appointment in October 2003. Some excellent docos are still broadcast but many dubious ones, such as recent hatchet jobs on JFK and his 'loose' morals are also shown. Recent docos dealing with the Middle East seem to broadly reflect the US/ Israeli point of view. SBS news reporting in regard to real or suspected incidents of terrorism unfailingly lays the blame at the door of Muslim fundamentalism even before all the facts have been established. As such, I longer regard SBS as reliable or independent when it comes to issues such as this.

Interestingly, Pearson's term expires in October 2007. If he seeks another term, I've got no doubt Howard will grant it as it seems that Pearson has been quite effective in reminding the other Board members that it's the Government which holds the purse strings (so it's plainly in their interests to see things his way).

If Pearson doesn't seek re-appointment, I would recommend the Government appoint one David Oldfield to continue its slimy agenda. A former right wing MP in the NSW State Legislature, Oldfield was arguing on radio a few days ago that extremists in the Muslim world are not a small minority, but are, in fact, a reflection of mainstream Muslim sentiment and that the Islamic faith, being violent and hostile to western society, should be confronted with force at all times. The only thing he forgot to say in his feverish tirades was that they hate us for our freedom.

Both the SBS and ABC are utterly corrupted institutions, IMO.

I'm not saying all journalists who work therein are part of the scam. But there's a culture of conformism and avoidance of hot button topics. Several good journalists such as Geraldine Doogue and Terry Lane survived by piping down. Both got their knuckles wrapped by the Zionist lobby. Both got the message and made an accommodation with power.

If either the ABC or SBS provide a forum for rational debate about 9-11 - to give but one example - it will be because the BBC does it first. Indeed, they'll probably play a BBC tape (as occurred with the Beeb's limited hangout documentary The Power of Nightmares)

Australians have been robbed of a free media to a more extreme extent than perhaps any other 'western democracy'. It's sad. The SBS and ABC provide an illusion of public interest and freedom from vested interests. But when push comes to shove, an illusion is all it is. Great gardening programs. Cookery and sport are well covered. A good sprinkling of cultural programs, movies and other entertainment.

When it comes to religion, spookery and global politics, however, Australia's public broadcasters are occupied territory. Strict monitoring and checkpoints everywhere you look.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[John Simkin]

If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion.

By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible.

Let's look at the Talmud too.

Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations.

If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit.

It might be worth joining in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5165

[Sid Walker]

If religion - and the nexus between religion and politics - is to be discussed, let it be a full and open discussion.

By all means let's cast a critical eye over the Koran and the Bible.

Let's look at the Talmud too.

Similarly, let's review religious extremism in ALL its manifestations.

If we are to discuss the complex relationship between religious affiliation and political/economic power, let's do it holistically and in full, without bars or restrictions that betoken bias, whether explicit or implicit.

It might be worth joining in this thread:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5165

I think I'll steer clear of that one, John. Interesting, but rather too much sex for me.

Not that I'm a prude. Just that I hold the rather simple view that Church and State should stay out of people's bedrooms, and enter only in the event of loud screams (with exemptions to even this rule for registered masochists).

I'm more interested in the nexus between religion and politico-economic power, a topic which is much less discussed. It is, IMO, much more important.

Edited July 3, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest Gary Loughran]

I do not believe that the religious factor was a factor in Nationalism/Republicanism throughout the 20th Century.

Clearly not the only factor I'd agree.

However the point I was trying to make is that there is no such thing as moderate religion. Religious faith requires the believer to suspend rational thought and is therefore in itself an open invitation to the sort of fundamentalism which allows the believer to bully, kill and maim with impunity. This is just as true of the Born Again nutters who appear to have such an influence over the Bush administration as it is of the Taliban.

As it is clear that no one else is even remotely interested in discussing this point and given that the very suggestion that religion may be a dangerous problem seems to lead to the relatively thoughtful descending into a disturbing and offensive rage (maybe I touched a nerve), and the less informed hurling the racist label in my direction, I shall from now on detach myself from this thread.

I agree with you on the dangers of religion.

However, I would say and I'm unsure of your viewpoint on this, that religious extremism is exploited and manipulated by agencies such as CIA/MI6 etc. to produce heightened tension, provide excuses for reduction of civil liberties, increase defence spending, provide pretexts for war etc.

IMO, the 'international terrorist' is a creation. Its' a relatively new phenomenon and relatively few exist. The theatres of war of popular terrorist (some would say freedom fighters) were usually clearly delimited, see ETA, IRA, PLO (for the most part). That seems to have changed with these new 'international' terrorist groups. Why?

[Sid Walker]

I would say and I'm unsure of your viewpoint on this, that religious extremism is exploited and manipulated by agencies such as CIA/MI6 etc. to produce heightened tension, provide excuses for reduction of civil liberties, increase defence spending, provide pretexts for war etc.

IMO, the 'international terrorist' is a creation. Its' a relatively new phenomenon and relatively few exist. The theatres of war of popular terrorist (some would say freedom fighters) were usually clearly delimited, see ETA, IRA, PLO (for the most part). That seems to have changed with these new 'international' terrorist groups. Why?

Spot on, in my opinion Gary. Well said!