![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
catsidheOK, Piers Akerman is up there with Bolt as a frothing lunatic, in my books.
Anyone who can, with a straight face, propose the same xenophobic wingnuttery as Peter Faris and claim that it will somehow make us safer has lost the right to be called a rational human being.
Let me spell it out for those not brave enough to read the foaming tripe that passes for 'argument', or for those who have, but think that there is logic in it.
Hell, it's only a short step from that to forcing all Muslims to wear a standard identifying tag. Might I suggest a yellow crescent?
Let's dissect this crap, shall we? I'll use tongs, so as not to get any on me:
The IRA bombings were perpertrated by Catholics. Where were the condemnations from JPII? Why weren't all Roman Catholics pre-emptively interned? Oh, it was only Irish Catholics? Well, that's still a lot of dangerous people who it is unnecessarily dangerous to have loose. Now replace 'Catholic' with Muslim, and 'Irish' with Pakistani, Afghani, Moroccan, whatever. Actually, if you look at the facts, the problem is largely with Wahabbi Islam, and that, while it has been infecting Afghanistan and Pakistan, is a home-grown creation of Saudi Arabia. And the bombs are dropping on the Saudi heads when...?
The argument that 'Muslims dunnit, therefore all Muslims are suspect' is a glorification of the argument
These people are claiming that this is Terrorism, you just can't expect criminal procedures to work!
Bullshit. Anti-terrorist procedures wouldn't have worked, because these guys simply weren't on the radar. It is the Criminal Investigation which is tracing down those who didn't blow theselves up. Those who supplied the plastique, and the training, and the money, and the theology, for example. Akerman and Faris, and others in places where you would think they should know better, are of the opinion that All Muslims Are Guilty, until they convince us otherwise. One would think that any fool could see where this leads, but these are not your ordinary fools, it seems. They are unconcerned for little things like Civil Rights, or indeed Human Rights, because it isn't them who is at risk of being chucked in jail.
First They Came For TheJews Muslims...
Another thing which is really getting up my nose is the claim that "Muslims aren't condemning this atrocity". Again, this is one I'm hearing from all sides, and again, it is arrant and egregious bullshit. Muslim groups saying, "yes, this is horrible, yes we condemn this unconditionally, yes, we want to see these monsters out of our midst as much, or more, than you do," is not news, or at least, not newsworthy. Therefore, there is a list in the penultimate paragraph of a list of groups of organisations which have condemned these actions. The equivalent of that is, instead of saying "The Pope, Cardinal Pell, the Anglican Archbishops of York and Canterbury, the Primates of Athens, Sydney, Melbourne and Moscow, the Patriarchs of the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, and several unaffiliated Baptist and Evangelical Pastors...", you get "A group of Christian leaders today...". You kind of don't get the same gravitas.
What is newsworthy is the exception to the general Muslim horror: the idiot who thinks that bin Ladin was framed, the fundamentalist who hasn't done quite enough to get arrested yet, the ignorant 19-year-old fuckwit who reckons that "Yeah, I'm a jihadi, mate. I Stand Firm With My Brothers In The Middle East," who, if he were to actually meet his brother jihadis, would have a lifetime measured in minutes. So as a direct result of this bias, the Muslim reaction looks half-hearted and restrained. In reality, most Muslims in Western countries are more horrified when things like this happen: they have much more to lose. They are also victims. They could be personally targetted by the fundies who think that they aren't Muslim enough, and they know that they will have to suffer the increased pressure of knee-jerk governments and spy agencies, and the random violence of 'vigilantes' who have read, and listened to, and think they understand the vitriolic rantings of people like Akerman and Faris.
Beatty and his Australian ID card is also full of shit. In the same breath he
Moreover, it wouldn't work, even in theory.
All a central, all-encompasing ID system would do is keep tracks on the general population. And that could never be abused, could it? To, for example, round up all the Muslims for internment? Or the Jews, for that matter? Or the Pagans?
Fuck that.
And as for the Palmer Report, so Rat-bastard Johnny says that Vanstone wasn't responsible for the endemic failures of her department. Neither, I suppose, was Ruddock. And neither was the head beaurocrat of the department, or his two deputies, or ... well, someone was responsible, and as the two more reasonable journos on Insiders (oh, look: one is from The Age. What a shock.) pointed out: the grunts were doing what they were doing because 1) they thought they were supposed to, partially at least because 2) no-one had taught them differently. That goes all the way to the top. If Vanstone is not responsible over the wholesale failures of her department, does it not follow logically that she was either ignorant of them, in which case she is incompetant, aware of them and unable to do anything about them, in which case she is impotent, or aware and able to do something about them, but unwilling to, in which case she is actively malevolant. In none of these cases has she demonstrated that she is fit to hold a seat in the cabinet, let alone a portfolio of her very own. That goes doubled, redoubled and squared for Ruddock.
And back to Akerman. He tried to claim that because Palmer had not in so many words called explicitely for a Coronial Inquiry, that he didn't think one was necessary. He then tried to shout down the others when they pointed out that his Terms of Reference didn't allow him to make such a call. If he had done so, then the Rat-bastard could dismiss the whole thing as o'erweening bias, but his findings are such that they implicitely set up the conditions where a Coronial Inquiry is a reasonable next step.
Anyone who can, with a straight face, propose the same xenophobic wingnuttery as Peter Faris and claim that it will somehow make us safer has lost the right to be called a rational human being.
Let me spell it out for those not brave enough to read the foaming tripe that passes for 'argument', or for those who have, but think that there is logic in it.
- Suicide bombings are perpetrated by Muslims.
Corollary: All Muslims are (somehow) responsible for suicide bombings. - Muslims have not sufficiently reacted against this, (see below for my counterargument to this)
therefore: - The only response is to
- Stop all immigration by Muslims, and likely, restrict all movement by Muslims,
- To
warninform Muslim communities that if they don't start handing over bodies toot sweet, that unfortunately, there may be a regrettable backlash by reasonable, but frustrated members of the community against the Muslims, as a community and as individuals.
Hell, it's only a short step from that to forcing all Muslims to wear a standard identifying tag. Might I suggest a yellow crescent?
Let's dissect this crap, shall we? I'll use tongs, so as not to get any on me:
The IRA bombings were perpertrated by Catholics. Where were the condemnations from JPII? Why weren't all Roman Catholics pre-emptively interned? Oh, it was only Irish Catholics? Well, that's still a lot of dangerous people who it is unnecessarily dangerous to have loose. Now replace 'Catholic' with Muslim, and 'Irish' with Pakistani, Afghani, Moroccan, whatever. Actually, if you look at the facts, the problem is largely with Wahabbi Islam, and that, while it has been infecting Afghanistan and Pakistan, is a home-grown creation of Saudi Arabia. And the bombs are dropping on the Saudi heads when...?
The argument that 'Muslims dunnit, therefore all Muslims are suspect' is a glorification of the argument
"Archimedes was Greek,Looks OK to you? Well, here is a version which shows up the flaw:
Archimedes was mortal,
therefore all Greeks are mortal."
"Archimedes was Greek,It's got general and specific mixed up. SOME Muslims did this, therefore SOME Muslims are dangerous. Which Muslims? Faris and Akerman don't care. Lock 'em all up, torture them if necessary, until they give some names. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Archimedes is dead,
therefore all Greeks are dead."
These people are claiming that this is Terrorism, you just can't expect criminal procedures to work!
Bullshit. Anti-terrorist procedures wouldn't have worked, because these guys simply weren't on the radar. It is the Criminal Investigation which is tracing down those who didn't blow theselves up. Those who supplied the plastique, and the training, and the money, and the theology, for example. Akerman and Faris, and others in places where you would think they should know better, are of the opinion that All Muslims Are Guilty, until they convince us otherwise. One would think that any fool could see where this leads, but these are not your ordinary fools, it seems. They are unconcerned for little things like Civil Rights, or indeed Human Rights, because it isn't them who is at risk of being chucked in jail.
First They Came For The
Another thing which is really getting up my nose is the claim that "Muslims aren't condemning this atrocity". Again, this is one I'm hearing from all sides, and again, it is arrant and egregious bullshit. Muslim groups saying, "yes, this is horrible, yes we condemn this unconditionally, yes, we want to see these monsters out of our midst as much, or more, than you do," is not news, or at least, not newsworthy. Therefore, there is a list in the penultimate paragraph of a list of groups of organisations which have condemned these actions. The equivalent of that is, instead of saying "The Pope, Cardinal Pell, the Anglican Archbishops of York and Canterbury, the Primates of Athens, Sydney, Melbourne and Moscow, the Patriarchs of the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches, and several unaffiliated Baptist and Evangelical Pastors...", you get "A group of Christian leaders today...". You kind of don't get the same gravitas.
What is newsworthy is the exception to the general Muslim horror: the idiot who thinks that bin Ladin was framed, the fundamentalist who hasn't done quite enough to get arrested yet, the ignorant 19-year-old fuckwit who reckons that "Yeah, I'm a jihadi, mate. I Stand Firm With My Brothers In The Middle East," who, if he were to actually meet his brother jihadis, would have a lifetime measured in minutes. So as a direct result of this bias, the Muslim reaction looks half-hearted and restrained. In reality, most Muslims in Western countries are more horrified when things like this happen: they have much more to lose. They are also victims. They could be personally targetted by the fundies who think that they aren't Muslim enough, and they know that they will have to suffer the increased pressure of knee-jerk governments and spy agencies, and the random violence of 'vigilantes' who have read, and listened to, and think they understand the vitriolic rantings of people like Akerman and Faris.
Beatty and his Australian ID card is also full of shit. In the same breath he
- condemned the need for more than one piece of ID to identify yourself, and
- worried about Identity Theft.
Moreover, it wouldn't work, even in theory.
- Criminals use fake or stolen IDs, and
- The London bombers used their own IDs -- they didn't care if anyone knew who they were or not.
All a central, all-encompasing ID system would do is keep tracks on the general population. And that could never be abused, could it? To, for example, round up all the Muslims for internment? Or the Jews, for that matter? Or the Pagans?
Fuck that.
And as for the Palmer Report, so Rat-bastard Johnny says that Vanstone wasn't responsible for the endemic failures of her department. Neither, I suppose, was Ruddock. And neither was the head beaurocrat of the department, or his two deputies, or ... well, someone was responsible, and as the two more reasonable journos on Insiders (oh, look: one is from The Age. What a shock.) pointed out: the grunts were doing what they were doing because 1) they thought they were supposed to, partially at least because 2) no-one had taught them differently. That goes all the way to the top. If Vanstone is not responsible over the wholesale failures of her department, does it not follow logically that she was either ignorant of them, in which case she is incompetant, aware of them and unable to do anything about them, in which case she is impotent, or aware and able to do something about them, but unwilling to, in which case she is actively malevolant. In none of these cases has she demonstrated that she is fit to hold a seat in the cabinet, let alone a portfolio of her very own. That goes doubled, redoubled and squared for Ruddock.
And back to Akerman. He tried to claim that because Palmer had not in so many words called explicitely for a Coronial Inquiry, that he didn't think one was necessary. He then tried to shout down the others when they pointed out that his Terms of Reference didn't allow him to make such a call. If he had done so, then the Rat-bastard could dismiss the whole thing as o'erweening bias, but his findings are such that they implicitely set up the conditions where a Coronial Inquiry is a reasonable next step.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-17 12:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-17 04:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-17 05:54 am (UTC)I'll rage vicariously through you.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-17 09:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-17 06:30 pm (UTC)You seem to have said exactly what I wanted to say about a number of things. Some of it in almost exactly the same words. So I won't. I'm going to be presumptive and just point here as well.
Fantastic stuff.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-17 09:19 pm (UTC)