It's probably an unworthy thought given that at least 5 people (presumably all Indonesian Muslims) have been killed, but I can't help wondering whether Abu Bakr Bashir is a closet member of the Liberal Party. National security and the War against Terror front and centre.
Update - The Sydney Morning Herald already has a web poll up asking readers to vote on which Australian political party they think will benefit most from the Jakarta terror attack. A bit crass I think. Tim's echo chamber might want to go over and give the editor a piece of their collective mind.
Then there's T2, whose latest post castigates Howard's "(and his minister's) ongoing willingness to exploit the very real threat of terror for personal political gain (most recent example being Phillip Ruddock dancing on the grave of dead Russian children)". I don't accept that that's a fair statement about Howard, as I made clear in the comment box to this post. Unfortunately most of the RWDBs don't bother to read past the first line. It makes intelligent discussion with them all but impossible.
Go fuck yourself you sonofabitch.
Yes, you are right it is an unworthy comment.Did you take one moment to consider the loss of human life or just jump straight into a point about political expediency?
Ken, can you please remove my link from your blogroll?
Thanks.
That's close to the most despicable comment I have ever seen posted on the net.
You are an arsehole, Parish.
Ken
I'm surprised and saddened. You are a disgrace.
Pathetic! You should be ashamed of yourself you shit head
Ken, you are disgusting lowlife!!!
You're a dickhead.
This isn't like you, Ken. I think you should just erase this thread and pretend it never occurred. We all have bad days.
It's rather in poor taste Ken. Respect for the dead and all that...
You need a holiday Ken.
Ken, if the libs attempt to trade off this attack, and make it into another Tampa:
(1) Your comment will be entirely vindicated;
(2) The dribbling reactionaries like TimBliar above will no doubt support that course of action, just as they have supported the absurd notion that anyone who didn't want to go to war against Iraq was appeasing terror.
Do any of these cocks stop to consider the loss of human life when they rant in support of waging war on miserable people in the develping world?
Did they think there was something dark about how Bush and Howard have done so well, and made no bones about deriving advantage, from the carnage at 11/9 and Bali?
Your unpalatable point will soon be repeated by any newspaper columnest worth their salt, because the unpleasant, foul truth is that there is a good chance it will play into the hands of one side, most probably the Libs.
Bliar is the least sensitive writer on the planet, who is he to talk? Bliar, piss off back under your rock, you dirty little scrote.
MartinP:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
KP:
I think that it was a comment in poor taste.
Hey Martin, that is really clever how you spell Blair as 'Bliar'. Did you have a hand in writing all those witty puns on Dubya's surname as well? They were a riot.
Whether the incident 'plays into the hands' of one side or the other (don't tell me - Downer rushing over there is an attempt to benefit from it?) is not the point. The point is that our embassy has been bombed, scores of innocents are injured, with some killed, and the only post Parish makes on it is one speculating if the head of JI is a closet member of the Liberal party. You wouldn't agree that it was inappropriate?
Yeah Factory- I was hyper-reacting at the sight of Tim Bliar attempting a moral stance.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and Ken certainly could have put the point more tactfully.
But tact is not a characteristic I've noted across the blogging world, and his underlying point, sadly, is probably right.
Further i see this as EXACTLY the same when so many ignorant fools like Bolt, Tony Parkinson et al fell into line and milked the horrible school siege and murders for their own political agendas.
Martin, I agree with you.
By the way, are you the Martin Pike who plays for the Brisbane Lions?
Ken,
I know you won't worry about the rent-a-loons condemning your poor taste. They're simply better at emoting than thinking, and righteous outrage is a very satisfying emotion.
You're just the first person to have said publicly what others (including the Rodent, I suspect) are thinking. Valid point, I thought.
As Martin Pike pointed out, let's see if our pollies live up to the standard set by the Retarded Right. Personally, I'm expecting the Rodent to attempt something statesmanlike, while that Clown Prince Downer uses all the nuance of a sledgehammer in fishnet stockings to accuse Labor of being gutless on security.
Gee that certainly pressed the RWDBs' buttons, didn't it? Obviously I wasn't intending to be taken literally. Equally obviously, Coalition spin doctors will be calculating the electoral consequences and the appropriate response by Howard. Statesmanlike and restrained, I think. The message sells itself. Any issue that brings national security to the fore is a plus for the Coalition, and that includes Beslan as well as this outrage in Jakarta. Spin doctors know that, and Howard's people will have been hoping on one level for some such opportunity, while deploring the event and the senseless slaughter as we all do. There's no point in denying those factors and reactions, and I'm not suggesting that there's even anything especially wrong with Howard's spin doctors making those sorts of calculations. Politics is an amoral business, that's the bottom line. We can rightly be outraged (as everyone was about Beslan) yet still have a critical appreciation of the immediate electoral consequences of such events. If you'd prefer simply to strke morally outraged poses and pretend that there isn't any domestic political relevance, then feel free to go somewhere else.
A discussion about the political impact could have waited until the dust had settled though. That is what has upset people.
I must admit that I resent being called a 'rent-a-loon' for holding old fashioned notions, but there you go.
this reminds me how many moderate muslims look at a terrorist attack and are concerned, but only from a PR standpoint.
A bit further down on Bliar's (actually, I stole this nic off the Spectator Attila, I'm sure you are familiar with it) site, you will notice him dishonestly milking the blood of the Beslan kids to feed his own anti-muslim campaign.
Remove his link, it is just a fan site anyway, anyone who gives him a consistent savaging gets banned (I KNOW from experience!).
Scott,
My comment was directed more at these specimens:
"Go fuck yourself you sonofabitch."
AND
"That's close to the most despicable comment I have ever seen posted on the net. You are an arsehole, Parish."
Ken obviously had thought about what he was saying, and it was a valid and interesting point. Get over it and move on.
So you didn't even think of it yourself Martin, and you have admitted a personal grudge after being banned? Really building up some credibility there pal.
Ken, if I may query a few points of your response:
"the appropriate response by Howard. Statesmanlike and restrained, I think."
What other response would you like to see? If your embassy is attacked, then you want to see the country's leader looking calm and in control (though i would hope for a hint of righteous anger as well) Howard wouldn't need a spin doctor to tell him that (neither would Latham for that matter)
"Howard's people will have been hoping on one level for some such opportunity, while deploring the event and the senseless slaughter as we all do. "
That is the bit that irks - the suggestion that there are Australians working for our government that were *hoping* for a terrorist attack on our citizens prior to the election. I know a lot of people have an abiding hatred for Howard, but I don't know how you could hold such a low opinion of people. Could you ever hope for such an event, even if it benefited your chosen political party? I would expect not, so to suggest that others could is wrong.
It will have a political effect, big events always do, but I dont think you can suggest that there are people that were hoping such an event would occur.
Don't get the relevance of the personal snipes Attila. Is that the name you were born with? Who cares if I stole the Spectator's nickname for Tony Blair? And a grudge? Of course I do, I dislike the little slug intensely, and that was clear in my posts hence he banned me- not the other way around.
You're a funny creature Attila, easily irked by red herrings.
As to the rest of your 'critique, this is the government that milked Tampa- shit, Ruddock was trying to milk Beslan just the other day! Should we have low expectations in terms of where they would stoop? Is Andrew Bolt a green???
Come on, Ken; the Indonesian rescue crews were still looking for body parts when you posted that initial comment. It's a pretty emotionally charged environment to start lobbing comments not intended to be taken literally about Abu Bakr Bashir belonging to the Liberal Party. I disagree with your timing and the tone.
Having said that, I want to apologise for what I wrote about you on Tim's site. It was rude, uncalled for, and I'm sorry.
Kind regards
Hanyu
And poor Hanyu is fending off comments on the other end of the spectrum, on Bliar's site, about how we should attack Indonesia with cruise missiles or invade.
Good on you Hanyu, your ability to apologise puts you a civilised cut above most denizens of the bogosphere...
And Dave Ricardo- apart from being bald and having the same name, I'm nothing like my namesake the crunching Lions player. I'm yet another lawyer, waiting to be tossed to the bottom of the ocean...
You don't see the relevance of personal snipes Martin - but i am a 'funny creature' and Blair is a 'scrote' and a 'little slug'? You might not see their relevance, but you are a big fan of their use apparently.
Your 'retort' also missed my point. I wasn't referring to people using the event for political gain (as you are suggesting was done with Tampa and Beslan), i was referring to people suggesting that advisors to Howard would be *hoping* that such an event would occur. Hoping for such a thing is a much more wicked act than making mileage out of a tragedy once it has occured (which I agree is also immoral)
Nooo Attila my friendly hun, I'm not decrying insults. What i said was:
'Don't get the relevance of THE personal snipes Attila'... THose personal snipes, not personal sniping generally. You were using them as part of your argument, as if they won rhetorical points for you, which obviously they didn't. Anyway, tis lost in semantics, but that IS what I was getting at.
You ARE a funny creature, but I don't intend being more insulting. Bliar is a nasty piece of work, so that's another matter entirely.
Sadly I do suspect that Howard's advisers have prayed every day for another Tampa. But I see and understand the distinction you draw...
I must admit I thought when I heard the news "smart move, JI- you've just re-elected John Howard". The attack was diabolical, but is also tactically beyond stupid. If they're hoping for a Spainish-style turnaround, they don't know Australians very well.
My thought also, PB. Almost certainly a misreading of Australian politics by opportunistic terrorists.
Ken, can you please remove my link from your blogroll?
And my link too please?
Being aware on one level that some such event may happen, planning for it, and even contemplating that it may be politically advantageous if it occurs, are not the same thing as praying or hoping for it. I wouldn't accuse either Howard or his advisers of doing the latter in the full sense, but they'd be fools if they hadn't done the former. Like most Australian bloggers, one of my current focuses is the forthcoming federal election, and I'm looking at everything partly through the prism of its electoral impact, just like Howard and Latham's advisers are doing. Unless you're a very limited person, it isn't too difficult to simultaneously deplore such an event and calculate what its political consequences may be and what you should do given the immediate reality of an election campaign.
Presumably the outrage of the RWDBs springs from assuming that my comments were intended to convey some moral condemnation of Howard as someone who would insincerely and cynically capitalise on a terrorist outrage. In fact I accept his sincerity, but also accept that he (or at least his advisers) will necessarily be factoring in political consequences and responses.
As someone who hopes Labor wins, my own immediate response includes a consciousness of the fact that such an event is likely to favour Howard, alongside horror and anger at the event itself.
Lastly, I can't help wondering whether this is mostly just a vindictive payback by Mr Blair for my recent suggestions that his fascistic comment box banning policies merited condemnation (as they do). Note that I won't be banning any of Tim's acolytes from this comment box (in the absence of defamation), despite some extreme and silly comments. Contrast that with Tim's own policies, which would certainly have resulted in several bannings by now had the comments been made on his blog.
PS I also won't be removing any hyperlinks to other blogs. The Troppo blogroll aims to be as comprehensive as possible. If you don't want to link this blog from yours, feel free not to do so. It's a free country.
It's a tangential issue, Ken, but the site is his. Whatever you think of his comments policy, "fascism" is hardly the word to apply. Let's stop diluting political words by overgenerous application to things we don't like.
Dear Ken, I agree with the trueRWDB. You are a decent fellow but this post was unworthy of you. You don't want to stoop to Bob Ellis's level. You are better than that. We all have bad days. At moments like these we should close ranks and be Australian citizens together. United in our sympathy for decent Indonesians and antipathy to these wicked terrorists. Instead of digging yourself in further just admit that it was an silly thing to say. Apologise to all and sundry and Issue an immediate retraction. There's a good chap.
As I've only joined you as a regular recently Ken, I didn't realise you had done a spiel on Bliar's policies on banning dissenting voices. Obviously he does it quite frequently, and I'm not just a one-off. What a coward- and no Attila, that's not an insult, just an objective description!
Martin Pike
Only one was "on the other end of the spectrum" (bongoman) the other two (Michael, Nemesis) like you and Ken were trying to use this tragedy to score points.
"I can't help wondering whether this is mostly just a vindictive payback by Mr Blair"
How do you come to that conclusion Ken? Did he send people over hear.
Payback, Ken? Hardly. It might be payback if I removed your link from my site, but I've never linked to you anyway. Call it foresight.
I don't know why you link to me at all, actually. You hate my writing, think I'm a hopeless wannabe, and go on and on and ON about the banned commenters. (One weird post of yours used this to compare me unfavourably with Professor Bunyip -- who doesn't allow ANY comments.)
Anyway, again I make the polite request: please remove me from your links. And then go to the Shame Closet and think about what you've done, little man.
Mr. Parrish, when even Jack Strocchi tells you that your post was unworthy of you, maybe you had better rethink your position.
Oh well, off to ban more trolls and people who wear funny shoes!
Tim's Acolyte.
By the way, Tim Blair didn't send anyone over here; a commenter linked to this post with the phrase "first stupid comment spotted." Out of curiosity, I looked. There's about one-and-a-half minutes I'll never get back. Oh well.
Little man? Didn't realise you were physically imposing Bliar, why then are you such a coward?
Keep his link, but put it under miscelaneous uneducated turds.
Have a great weekend kids!
Sir, are you hoping for a Spanish style reaction amongst your countrymen? Maybe a if you dont look the terrorists in the eyes, they won't notice you type apoplexy?
Oh, c'mon, Ken was only saying what a lot of people were thinking. Sheesh.
I got a chill when it occured to me that Howard could use the bombing of the embassy for political gain. The unfortunate thing is that he won't need to do so overtly. In his press conference on it, he directly criticised the Labor Party for not being available immediately to comment; fear-mongers on the right will also make us of this event without Howard needing to do so himself.
Is this a record on the "fucktard geiger counter"?
The post may be a little unnecessarily provocative (But I know that there would be plenty of people in this country having similar thoughts to Ken, if only privately, and of both political affiliation - as noone knows how this is going to pan-out in the following weeks).
For this should we send in the thought police out for people who would have such throughts or those who might be under suspicion of harboring such thoughts. Which reminds me where are all those brave defenders of political correctness they seem rather silent. Funny, how they never come out to defend the blocking of discource when it inconveniences their own political world-view.
For fucks sake. Both Latham and Howard managed to tell the disrespectful media that now is no time for petty politics. They are both bigger men than you.
I'm going to return to my RWDB roots and crush dissent on this issue. Comments are closed- go to sleep, think about it and come back in the morning.
Thanks Scott. I've opened up the comments again for now, however (having just got home from a recce of the motor auctions prepearatory to buying a new one next month).
The comment thread has bene mostly unproductive, but not completely so. And even if it continues as mindless abuse, it helps to get it off people's chests. It might help more however if some of Tim's mates bothered to read my earlier comments, because you're arguing against sentiments I neither expressed nor intended. As Mark Bahnisch just said to me in a private email:
What some people appear unable to understand is that humans can have two thoughts simultaneously - at the same time I was deeply saddened by what had occurred. But I see no reason why, as citizens of a democratic nation involved in an election, we cannot continue to debate what impact events have on our political process. Nor do I think this is in any way disrespectful to the victims. Surely the beauty of a democratic society lies in the strength of its freedom of speech and the integrity of its public sphere.
Precisely, and that's why I don't censor comment box debate, and have a low opinion of Tim Blair because he does.
Am I the only blogger who doesn't care about who-bans-who in their comments box? Noone is under any obligation to provide anyone else with a forum on their own blogspace. You want a say in something, get your own webspace.
Tex
I don't care either, except when Tim's RWDB mates come and slag me for daring to suggest that he doesn't deserve to be treated as the godfather of blogging when he pursues such an intolerant, ungenerous linking and banning policy. He's free to do what he likes, and I'm free to think he's an intolerant, narrow-minded jerk.
BTW I haven't forgotten the salty plums. With a bit of luck I'll have time this Saturday.
What a vile piece of shit you are! go check yourself into a home for moral cripples.
True enough, Tex.
There's no reason why Tim can't restrict his comments section to praise and adulation. And there's no reason why the rest of us can't point and laugh at the sad bastard, from the safety of our own (or others-who-aren't-Blair) webspace.
The system works well, eh?
Look I haven't been here before,I saw the link (as apparently a lot of others on Tims site did)you seem to lack a sense of humanity and appropriateness.You also seem to be self absorbed and concerned with slights on your intellegence by being banned by Tim.I am aware that blogging is a bit of cut and thrust but you seem to lack any humanity.I will take your advice and never come back.You make my stomach feel sick and my skin crawl.
Thanks, Ken, for posting my comment sent via email. Jack Strocchi has a somewhat higher toned rant over at Road to Surfdom, effectively calling for everyone to say nothing in the interests of "national unity". In reply to him I pointed out that one of the proudest moments in US history was when they held a national election in 1944 during WW2. In Australia, we also changed the government through Menzies losing the confidence of the House. The strength of democracy is demonstrated precisely by its ability to uphold freedom of speech and debate during times of tragedy.
It's a testament to your tolerance and your respect for freedom of speech that you don't censor the inappropriate and vulgar abuse posted here tonight by some. I don't know that throwing around abusive terms does anything to honour the memory of those who died and respect the suffering of their families and loved ones and those who are injured.
I'd further add the comment that it's ironic and sad that those who bemoan "political correctness" are the first to try to close down another's right to state his or her views through abuse.
gubbaboy (if that is your real pseudonym), I don't think Ken's been banned by Timbo. In fact, I'm not certain he's ever even left a comment!
He just thinks Tim/Andrea is childish. Objectively pro-immaturity, I suppose you might say.
There's a lot of outrage here. The problem is that I can't tell whether it is real or feigned. Some people are just looking for a reason to be outraged, so they can can abuse someone without their conscience giving them a kick. Today, Ken is that person to be abused. I would have thought the terrorists would have been a better target - but they don't leave email addresses around. Ken has a blog. Ken is available. Let's leave shit there instead.
I just feel sad about the atrocity. I also feel sad for the people of Indonesia - a country that is going to have a tough time surviving as a whole. There are poorer countries in the region, and I live in one (VN), but I think most have some sort of cohesiveness that can hold them together.
Mark
I have posted at Blair's place on odd occasions in the past (very odd), but not for the last 6 months or so. And you're correct that I've never been banned by him. But it's a fair bet I would be if I bothered to comment there in future (which I won't). And certainly lots of moderate, sensible people (e.g. Gianna) have been banned. I'll stick to the more sane, moderate, less vindictive RWDBs.
"I can't help wondering whether Abu Bakr Bashir is a closet member of the Liberal Party"
Did you mean to suggest that the Liberal party was complicit in the bombing? Are you the first of the LWDBs?
On the other hand, if what you wanted to do was suggest that this particular act of terrorism would make the Liberal party more attractive to voters, you could have done it without being so offensive to Liberal party members and conservative voters.
meanwhile over at the informed lefty sites like troppo comrade chris shiela this kind of stuff gets posted in a comparison between the political reaction to terrorism prior to the Spanish election:
"Spain is a European country which for most of its recent history was governed by social-democratic policies. They are also much more urbanized in population while the Australian electorate, especially in the regions, is intrinsically conservative."
Wow !!! As a regional orstralian i apologise for my role in this attrocity !! I acknowledge the intrinsic supremacy of all europeans!! I acknowledge the supremacy of 'social democratic' nations which have been ruled by fascists / communists / dictatorships for large parts of the last century!!!! I also acknowledge that a more regionally based society such as most of Europe is really more urbanised despite this being untrue as long as it fits my argument !!!
Take a break on the RWDB site bashing, Ken, and get back to the reality of what bullshit blogging everywhere has become including (maybe especially) yours. Had been wondering who would hit the taste free button first was surprising it was you !!!
Thersites, I saw that too and then realised it was cs's favourite Nostrodamus (and hence ignored it) who has all but predicted that the Coalition will pick up the seats of Batman, Fowler, Wills and Watson at the next election.
I don't think Chris can be held liable for Nostro who has become comic relief for many with his daring policy launch in the comments section. This included advocating a range of zany policies including criminalising homosexual and abolishing about 30 universities. I'm just surprised he didn't go the full hog and install chastity belts for all heathen women-folk (this would go down well with some Tasmanian Libs in the Eric Abetz faction).
Mr thersites, you do realise that the guy you're quoting as an example of leftist noodleheadedness, nostradamas, is himself a self-proclaimed Howard lover. Moron.
I think it would suit a lot of groups like JI and AQ if generalised suspicion were intensified unto a world-splitting belligerence. I think they want secular, moderate and compromising governments in the Muslem world out of the way, and they're relying on injudicious western overkill and rhetoric to help their cause. I also think a perpetual war-footing suits certain (but by no means all) elements of western elites and typically suits encumbent governments. I also think some versions of Christianity are as fixed on the idea of bringing on a 'Day Of Reckoning' as some versions of Islam. And I'll conclude by saying the terrorists are as unlikely as most unFoxed westerners to think the Spanish voted in their lefties out of fear. People who are not fools do get indignant when governments take them for fools and risk reversion to pointless civil war, and that's what the Spanish electorate was thinking when it stalked to the polls. I therefore doubt the idea behind this murderous episode is calculated to do anything but promote warlike sentiments and those who utter them.
The quote stands in the context in which it was posted in the thread which is NOT pro Howard but cynical and ignorant. I dont waste my life endlessly tracking blog threads like you Graham (please see comments on th bullshit to which blogging has descended) however my comment was meant genuinely with critical good humour unlike yours. Fuckwit.
Jeez. You go away for a few hours and the place looks like a riot zone. Ken, your timing is shit but I defend to the death your right to be very occasionally fucked on timing. I don't however disagree with your fundamental point: politicians of all stripes will have been weighing today's events in Jakarta in the electoral scales. That doesn't detract from the gutwrenching savagery of the explosive moment. It's just one of the inevitable outflows from these events in the age in which we live.
I didn't notice any of Tim's little helpers running over to Chris Sheil's place to excoriate their mate Nostradamus for his late afternoon jig of glee at the prospect of Jakarta-induced poll movement for the PM. Moral outrage is a many-splendoured - and highly selective - thing, it seems.
For those of you who don't know him, Ken Parish is the quintessential decent bloke. He could do with being a little less brutally frank and self-reflective from time to time but I think he's one of the blogosphere's best. And nothing he's posted here has changed my view one bit.
I can feel another post on civility coming on! Or perhaps the Dear Leader could extrapolate from his recent remarks to cover the phenomenon of "blog rage".
Rob - I think you're on the money with your comment.
Geoff, I think I speak for all RWDBs when I say that none of us can actually bear to read Sheils' blog.
Back Pages is one of those things like Scat Porn. I mean, I know it's out there, and I know some people take some kind of perverted pleasure in looking at it, but I'll do my best to avoid it, and quickly look away if I happen to accidentally come across it.
In other words, I wouldn't expect any RWDB's to be commenting on anything that goes on in Sheils' comments any time soon.
Can I take that as a firm promise Yobbo?
Forgive my ignorance, Yobbo, but what's Scat Porn? Literally, not metaphorically?
For what it's worth, as a new customer of Foxtel Digital, I have access to that nifty interactive election stuff. At the moment, their poll question is:
How will the Jakarta bomb chance your vote?
No change: 51%
Change to Coalition: 25%
Change to Labor: 23%
Change to other: 0%
If John Howard, who said "This country wikll never have its position ... dictated by terrorism" is right, such a result is a good sign. A far better sign than the idiocy that has emerged -- from both sides -- here.
"The quote stands in the context in which it was posted in the thread which is NOT pro Howard but cynical and ignorant. I dont waste my life endlessly tracking blog threads like you Graham (please see comments on th bullshit to which blogging has descended) however my comment was meant genuinely with critical good humour unlike yours. Fuckwit."
Personal attack! Personal attack! Ah-oo-gah!
Amazing. And all driven by differing views with the one aim.. to create a better world.
I've my views, and those at BP and elsewhere will know them well. That others have differing views, and feel as strongly, is acknowledged.
Thank goodness we can express them.
I've learned something from this. My views have not changed, from all this, nor should I expect others', yet my empathy for the passion of our shared intention has. It was strong before. It's now stronger. Between us we'll all get there. We all need each other.
Let's be clear. Whoever wins the election this year in this country, if we want to live in a better place - we'll all need each other. It's big enough to handle all of our views, and more besides, if we allow it. That's the thing. It's about us, not Howard or Latham.
Life is too short. In the meantime, by all means, let's keep on pushing those wheelbarrows up the political hill of our own invention.
Ken, you're right, it is an unworthy thought. Especially since Latham and Howard are acting together on this one.
In fact, I'd go beyond unworthy, it was embarressing, and my bet's that you'll think so too in future. The "it's probably an unworthy thought but.." at the front saved it from being lunacy, so all is not lost.
If I'd dropped a clanger like this, I'd post a follow-up, either clarifying what was meant or just plain saying "I had a momentary lapse of reason" a la Pink Floyd. But that's me, not you.
Mark: If you don't know now, believe when I tell you that you're one of the lucky ones.
P.S. Don't get any ideas about googling for it either.
"I don't censor comment box debate, and have a low opinion of Tim Blair because he does."
Please, Ken. You had a low opinion of me prior to me even having comments. Stop using this comment nonsense as some kind of holy freedom-of-speech thing. Anybody who wants to say anything about me is welcome to run their own site, and pay for their own bandwidth.
Lots of sites allow no comments at all. You'd have an even lower opinion of them, yes?
Kinda funny -- given all this banning talk -- that I'm asking here to be removed from your site, and you won't do it.
>>"I can't help wondering whether Abu Bakr Bashir is a closet member of the Liberal Party"
>
>Did you mean to suggest that the Liberal party was complicit in the bombing? Are you the first of the LWDBs?
I always suspect that like Amercians, that Right Wing Ding Bats never understand irony, or humour for that matter. Now I know.
By the way, Ken, if you want to sort this out via email, please send a note. Otherwise just continue being you.
who will be the first to broach a sensitive subject?
first thing i thought of when i initially heard about the Jakarta bomb blast (after considering what it would feel like to be lying on the ground with my pants full of shit and piss, ears ringing, my disembodied limbs mixed up with other folks limbs...)was... oh shit.. how will this effect the election?
and then i saw the second report....
"No Australians killed!"
thank f*ck! nobody important, just Indos.
Ken,
nice work. f*ck these scared little conservatives and their desire to stifle debate.
ps and f*ck JI!
Lots of sites allow no comments at all. You'd have an even lower opinion of them, yes?
No, Tim. The problem with your banning policy is that it's not stated publicly on your site. People may assume from your comments that really everyone agrees with you. And then if they don't, will waste time responding to what pretends to be a commenting section but is really just a "praise and adulation" section.
At least it's obvious with non-commenting sites that no comments will be allowed. Yours pretends that free commenting is permitted which it isn't - which is much worse.
Anyway, do what you like. The rest of us will feel free to point out from our sites how pathetic your banning policy is. And not link to you. (Where we're happy to link to other RWDBs with whom we also do not agree, but who are at least honest with their blogs.)
And object if anyone ever describes yours as a good example of a political blog.
ps Tim, Ken wants his blogroll to be a comprehensive list of blogging sites. Even the crap ones like yours.
I'd rather be more selective with mine, so I only link to RWDBs who actually have interesting things to say and who, in proper blogging tradition, like to engage in debate in their comments sections. So I don't link to mindless drivel like spleenville.
Meanwhile, Ken, you probably should follow another commenter's advice and make a new category for halfwit bloggers just to encompass Tim and Andrea.
Tim
I don't think there's any need to sort anything out by email. It's best discussed in public, where you and your followers started this juveile attack.
Let's start with the proposition that I had a low opinion of you separately from comment box banning. That just isn't true. It's certainly true that I wouldn't read your blog for subtle, nuanced analysis of any issue, but those aren't the only styles and approaches that I find interesting or entertaining. A pithy, often sarcastic, strongly opinionated take on events is also a useful perspective, and a nice contrast to more utrgid, worthy approaches (like mine, for instance). You might have noticed that at one stage I had a "blog bile award" feature, highlighting entertainingly abusive posts by bloggers - not as a mark of disapproval, but because (in small doses) I find those sorts of post funny. You might also have noticed that I fairly frequently link approvingly to Professor Bunyip, so it certainly isn't that I'm totally hostile to a righ wing viewpoint. In fact most regular readers (and my own self-assessment) would put me very slightly to the right of a notional political centre line.
It's certainly true that I disagree with you quite often, but I disagree with the lefties quite often too. And I'm not usually especially interested in your US-focused posts, which is about all you've been writing about lately. The bottom line? It IS your comment box banning activities that have gotten on my goat. But for those I'd be relaxed, comfortable and accepting of your place as a justifiably honoured member of the Australian blogging community, and could go back to reading your blog without feeling like I was visiting SS Headquarters for political pygmies.
Finally (but one), your argument about blogs that have no comment facilities at all just doesn't wash. I have no problem with bloggers who just want to express their own opinions, and don't feel like engaging in continuous political debate with readers. What I have a serious problem with (in terms of respecting the person concerned) is a blogger who DOES want to engage in continuous political debate with his readers, but only the ones who are suitably admiring and flattering of his ego and express the same opinions as him so he doesn't have to think too hard.
Nevertheless, I DO accept that a blog can sometimes have a problem with trolls who visit and make the discussion unpleasant for everyone by engaging in ad hominem abuse. If they keep doing it they certainly should be banned. But your (relatively) recent record involves banning people who couldn't reasonably be regarded as trolls, but who express opinions (sometimes sarcastically) that differ from your own. Martin Pike, Gianna and Darp Hau are examples. All of them comment here from time to time, and i just don't accept that they're troublemakers who merit banning.
To readers generally
Various commenters whose opinions I respect have suggested that this post was poorly timed. I guess it must have been, or it wouldn't have elicited this sort of response. But I actually think it's slightly more subtle than that.
First, I failed to preface my remarks by a ritual display of horror, sorrow, anger and sympathy for families of the victims. Numerous other bloggers (and mainstream media) have published similar speculations about the likely political effect of the bombing, without atracting any opprobrium at all. Arthur Chrenkoff is an example, but he prefaced his political analysis with a ritual expression of horror etc. I was in a hurry, and I(wrongly) assumed that readers would be well aware that I felt that way (like everyone else), not least because I'd posted at length to that effect only a couple of days previously about the Beslan outrage. What I hadn't realised was that when you get linked from the Blair blog (even only from his comment box), you're getting readers who don't usually read your material at all and therefore aren't aware that you posted a prolonged condemnation and analysis of terrorism only a couple of days before. So it seems I'll have to post a "shock/horror/sympathy" preface every time I write anything at all about terrorism, just in case some RWDB with a very short attention span should stumble across it and leap to the conclusion that I'm a heartless leftie who doesn't give a shit about the victims or their families.
The second mistake I made was to make the post too short and cryptic. I suspect that the real problem was that a lot of the Blair visitors didn't understand what the post was trying to say, and didn't take the time to figure it out. They just assumed the worst and went into abuse mode. I naively thought that a reader who wasn't sure would ask themselves "Could he REALLY be saying Abu Bakr Bashir is a member of the Liberal Party?" "Nah". "Is he suggesting Bashir and John Howard have some sort of conspiratorial understanding with each other then?" "Nah". "Then what does he mean? Maybe that this is an event that is likely to advantage the Coalition electorally, which is an outcome you wouldn't expect Bashir to favour, suggesting that Jemaah Islamiyah lacks understanding of the Australian political system and psyche." Note that these are thoughts that have now been expressed widely across the blogosphere and media without attracting any criticism at all. It's essentially what Arthur Chrenkoff said, for instance. The only difference is that I expressed those thoughts very succinctly and a bit cryptically, did so within an hour or so of the news first breaking, and did so without prefacing the thought with a ritual expression of horror and grief. Sily me.
Frankly disgusted by the likes of Ken Parish and Martin Pike.
I thought of myself as a moderate, but when I see people like you relishing deaths caused by terrorism as an opportunity to vent your hatred against those who disagree with you, I realise that I must be a right winger.
I am pleased that I am not alone, but remain concerned how many of you lack any moral compass.
>>"I can't help wondering whether Abu Bakr Bashir is a closet member of the Liberal Party"
>
>Did you mean to suggest that the Liberal party was complicit in the bombing? Are you the first of the LWDBs?
I always suspect that like Amercians, that Right Wing Ding Bats never understand irony, or humour for that matter. Now I know.
Posted by Some Dude at September 10, 2004 04:40 AM [permalink]
The above is neither witty nor ironic Some Dude, only dumbed down illiterate types,could confuse the above with sparkling wit.
and then i saw the second report....
"No Australians killed!"
thank f*ck! nobody important, just Indos.
Ken,
nice work. f*ck these scared little conservatives and their desire to stifle debate.
No, Ken, it is the other way, all the callous remarks one has read have been put by leftoids. One of the latest and a shining ecample, is that ofdeep red communist Bob Brown, he desires the Oz govt. send fluffy koala bears with the name of each child killed by the scum in Baslen to their grieiving families. That is insensitive, callous and the words of a scumbag.
The response of most not leftoid is quite the opposite to what you say Ken, including to the latest horror in Jakarta. No Aussies killed -correction the child newly given Oz citizenship, some Indonesians adults. And this RWDB, for one, Ken, finds your remark the words of a rotter. AQnd, bye the bye, Howard has expressed sympathy to the Indonesians.
Go bury your tongues, Some Dude and Ken, where they belong, in a toilet bowl full of sewerage.
Andrew's comment above is a minor classic. It's perfectly clear that the Blairite halfwits are just visiting to vent their spleens for what they wrongly imagine I said, and that they're too lazy or stupid to read the comment thread and discover that they're wrong. Andrew could not have said what he did if he'd even bothered to read my long comment immediately above, because it's totally inconsistent with it. I'm obviouly attempting to have a rational discussion with halfwits, which may suggest that I'm a few bricks short the load myself. So I'll just ignore them, because they're off on a planet of their own and impervious to any form of logic or reason (NB this refers to Blair's followers, not Blair himself). I'll leave the comment thread open for a little longer though, because I think the whole sequence of events is interesting and worth reflecting on by those who prefer engaging their brains before opening their mouths.
Mark, scat porn, I think, is scatalogical porn.
If you want to look at pictures people shitting on each, and enjoying it, you could find some on the web, no doubt. Or, six of one, half a dozen of the other, you could go the RWDB sites, and read the RWDBs tell each other how wonderful they are.
Apologies Ken: it is Some dude and , Nick Paul who can explore the depths of sewerage.
My goodness! I can't remember the last time I saw such an effluence of confected outrage and demented moral posturing.
Ken was doing nothing more than stating the blleding obvious.
Seriously, was there a single person amongst us who on hearing the news did not immediately wonder how it would affect the election?
I can understand a view that from time to time, good taste dictates that, at certain times, we don't verbalise things even though we all know them to be true, but I'm not even sure how this fits into that category. But the worst Ken could possibly be accused of is a lapse of taste of that order.
I'm very grateful that Ken is not the sort of fellow to let the false piety of opportunistic thugs intimidate him out of calling a spade a spade.
Terrorists are not mindless. There are reasons why they do things and it is best explored through a political prism.
They chose the Australian Embassy very deliberately. Of all the possible Western targets and of all the possible Australian they chose the embassy.
From a PR point of view it is the most acceptable target for an attack. Even some of the Russian school terrorists questioned their leader as to why they were attacking a school. The school terrorists shot themselves in the foot from a PR point of view. JI has done a fair bit better, but as usual the number of Indonesians affected is far more than the western infidels - just like the Bali bombing.
I am sure that their particular philosophy can conveniently justify the deaths of the civilians. To whit, they don't care about the civilian deaths only the image of the shattered gates of the official representation of Australia.
The timing is a no brainer. JI want an over-reaction from the Australian media and particularly Australian politicians. The one most likely to over-react the way they want is Howard. Any over-reaction serves JI's marketing department. One of the plum lines from JI's marketing department is that Howard is a neo-imperialist because he ordered the troops into Timor (of course, it wouldn't have mattered who actually was PM at that time; they would have sent the troops in). Australia supported him ergo Australia is trying to take over Indonesia. JI want Howard re-elected because it keeps him in the position they want him. They can reel out their litany of anti-Australian/Western complaints and tied Howard to everyone of them. "After all, they will say, "Howard supported pre-emptive strikes and wouldn't rule out Australia doing them in this region."
It's exactly the same reason why AlQuaeda want Bush re-elected.
This attack was designed by JI to be part of the Australian Election.
Heh, it would have been interesting if Ken had suggested that JI was a member of the Labour party and launched their attack to take Howard's tax breaks for over 55s off the front page.
d_,
Am I right in my assumption that you do not see the ironic humour in Ken's original comment? I'm not sure if Ken intended it as such but I certainly found humour in the statement without assuming that Ken was making light of other people's suffering.
As to how you tied my post to nick paul's post one is a bit beyond me. Can you explain the connection?
Ken, at least you know now never to blog in a hurry. I thought about posting a brief link to the news story when it happened but I could not think of an appropriate comment. I'm not the greatest wordsmith going around in times of tragedy. So I didn't post.
Some Dude
Yes of course it was intended ironically and without in any sense making light of people's suffering (as I've now been forced to explain at length). Your comment about Americans and RWDBs not understanding irony, however, is too narrow. Irony is almost universally misunderstood in the blogosphere, by readers of all ideological orientations. I'm not sure why that should be the case, but it certainly is, and I'd be interested in readers' thoughts.
Irony is usually expressed with a verbal tone of voice that is easy to pick up. To understand the subtleties of irony in a writer's style, you need to be familiar with that particular writer.
That's true, Scott. It's very hard to pick up an intended tone in electronic text without the experience of it playing itself out; often we need quite a few situations to get that picture. Seems we've got a good one for the bag here.
Someone once said that the advent of email removed the 'politeness factor' from communication. I wonder if the above responses would have occurred had the writers sat down to write a letter on paper. We tend more to embrace the recipient's sensitivities in handwriting, where here in electronic text we represent more the predisposition of ourselves when we write, and we bring to others' work that same predisposition. Consequently, a lot of the intended messages and values are lost in a side eddie of chasing our own thoughts around.
Ken, I think that irony (and sometimes sarcasm) is poorly understood when it is written. Unless it's a book or from a context that is identified that way, it's too easy to take writing "seriously". Look at the difficulties people started getting into when email became widespread in work situations and we all realised that it couldn't communicate tone well.
I think you're right to trust that anyone who reads your site reasonably regularly knows that you're not a heartless beast. Crikey called the effects of the attack a "crass but relevant question".
It's right to ask why this has happened, and what it might mean.
Ken,
My reply to someone's post was a play on a common joke in Australia.
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/internetworkers/2001-August/003663.html
You are right in observing that it is narrow, as most jokes in this way tend to be but I must also observe that if people didn't take these comments as seriously (or personally) as they seem to then a a lot less head's would be popping in apparent rage.
"side eddie"... also, some of us upon visiting have previous and totally unrelated discussions surreptitiously insert an influence. Go the Wallabies!
"eddy", of course.
Ken you were once respected for your objectivity but no longer. You wouldn't have hid behind artistic licence and nuance before and it would not have been an excuse you except from others. You one your own blog bile award.
Jeremy When has this ever been stated "Yours(Tim.B) pretends that free commenting is permitted which it isn't" except in your prepubescent self entitled mind. And you know jack shit about what "blogging tradition" is.
Lastly, I can't help wondering whether this is mostly just a vindictive payback by Mr Blair for my recent suggestions that his fascistic comment box banning policies merited condemnation (as they do). Note that I won't be banning any of Tim's acolytes from this comment box (in the absence of defamation), despite some extreme and silly comments. Contrast that with Tim's own policies, which would certainly have resulted in several bannings by now had the comments been made on his blog.
Maybe you don't ban commenters, but you certainly delete comments you don't like.
I've had two comments on unrelated threads, both far less offensive than any on this thread, deleted in the last two weeks.
It seems a little hypocritical of you to wax wroth about Tim's comment policies when you are censorious of comments on your own site.
OK. Feel free to keep discussing the place of irony in blogging, but I'm also interested in exploring Harry's comment above.
It's an interesting hypothesis that JI was actually trying to intervene in the Australian election process to get Howard re-elected "because it keeps him in the position they want him. They can reel out their litany of anti-Australian/Western complaints and tied Howard to everyone of them." But somehow I doubt it. If they're aiming to play to an Indonesian audience (and I think they are, but in a slightly different way - see below), then a Labor government would serve just as well as Howard. Mahathir in Malaysia made local political capital throughout his career by demonising Australian governments of both political persuasions as white imperialist lackeys. The majority of the Indonesian audience to which JI is playing is no more discriminating, and unlikely to respond very differently to using whatever Australian government happens to be in power as a scapegoat/cypher.
Nor do I think JI were trying to provoke a Spanish-style panic response of withdrawing our troops from Iraq. Apart from the fact that I doubt they have Iraq as a primary focus, the place whre they detonated the bomb militates against that explanation. The planners would have known that they were unlikely to score many (if any) Australian victims, and that the victims would mostly be fellow Indonesian Muslims. They would therefore have known that this terrorist event would lack the sort of impetus that led to the Spanish election result and troop withdrawal.
Nor do I really think this event was designed to influence the forthcoming Indonesian Presidential runoff election. Given that they would have known that their victims would mostly if not entirely be Indonesians, the effect on any candidate perceived to be sympathetic to JI would be unlikely to be positive. And in any event, as far as I know neither Megawati nor Yudiyono IS perceived by Indonesians as sympathetic to JI. It's possible that JI prefer Yudiyono to Megawati (for whatever reason e.g. he's a bloke), however, and thought that a major bombing in the capital shortly before the election might convey the message to voters that Megawata was incapable of maintaining order and therefore should be replaced.
But I suspect that this would at most be a subsidiary motive. I suspect that the main motive was to strike a powerful symbolic blow (symbolism of Embassy gates hanging off, windows shattered etc) against the evil white imperialist Americans via their local deputy sheriff, as an aid to continuing recruitment to JI of angry, disaffected youg Muslims. For these people the symbol of lashing out powerfully at the white oppressor, the contrast to the supine passivity of the existing Indonesian government, the "purity" and "courage" of Jihadic struggle and sacrifice (you can't make an omelette without breaking a few halal eggs) aiming at the establishment by violent revolution of a greater islamic empire in S-E Asia, might well be very powerful and effective recruiting messages.
That's what I think it's about, not an arcane attempt to influence either the Australian or Indonesian elections. But I'm certainly interested in others' thoughts.
Jesus christ!
You guys are analysing irony when others are defending views perceived to be over-analysed by those who write with their jerking knees about people suffering overseas!
That is simply inhuman.
Ken, you are un-American.
Ken -- I think it is obvious from your post that you're an anti-semite. Shame. SHAME! Obviously, you and all your left-wing palls enjoy eating babbies. Now, let's just invade somewhere (anywhere will do) and kill us some towel-heads. Yeeha!
On a serious note -- I don't see why so many RWDBs are being so bloody precious about this. Do they have a fatwa against thinking? Why must every discussion be premised with a bunch of obvious PC crap? Good on you Ken.
Evil Pundit
I'm glad you visited. I've just noticed that that deletion of your comments is occurring. It seems to be because one of the URL segments in my MT Blacklist coincides with part of your email address or blog URL. I've been getting attacked by spammers continuously for the last 24 hours, and therefore being forced to continually resort to MT Blacklist. Your comments have been inadvertently deleted along the way. I just noticed on my last despamming sweep, because a comment of yours was at the top of the list of identified spam comments. It seems to be a string with several "t"'s in it, so I'll go in and delete that string from my MT Blacklist so you don't get deleted in future. I apologise most humbly. Your contributions to Troppo are highly valued, and I certainly would never delete them knowingly.
Thank you for the explanation, Ken.
I apologise for saying that you were hypocritical.
The head of police (don't know his exact rank) whom I heard interviewed on PM last night said much the same thing.
He said that the JI leaders wouldn't even know that there was an election on in Australia.
I simply refuse to believe that is true, so I have treated what else he said a bit sceptically (quite possibly too sceptically) thinking it's tinged with the same sort of dismissive spin thrown Bin Laden's way saying he's just a disaffected Arab. The JI leaders are canny guys and they simply must have finely tuned political radars to be in the position they are now. JI acts on the world stage, not to the extent that Al Quaeda does, so I'm thinking that targetting an embassy adds some international swagger, so to speak.
I guess, my whole premise falls down if the response of the Australian media bears no influence on what is reported in the Indonesian media. If that's the case then the bombing is an internal recruitment campaign and the timing co-incedence.
If anyone's interested, check out this Krugman piece on the effect that fear or a 'war state of mind' can have in an election campaign:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07krugman.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fPaul%20Krugman%20
(Might be a copy and paste job).
You can also have a look at my post on the issue at our Psephite blog, if you are interested:
http://psephite.blogspot.com/
But I just wanted to say, kudos to Ken for keeping his comment roll open in such a hostile environment.
Thanks c_s_h. I wanted to keep the comment box open if possible, because quite a few of the readers who responded in a hostile fashion at first are ones whose contributions I value and wouldn't want to alienate. I was hoping that keeping the comment box open and gritting my teeth would allow the air to be cleared. I think that's succeeded, and that we're starting to get back to some more serious,interesting discussion of what yesterday's attack may mean, both in Australian election terms and in Indonesia.
BTW Your comment has made me aware of the existence of your blog and I'll link it (along with several others I've also just discovered) as soon as I get a chance. It seems to be a group log with quite a few contributors, and generally moderately left-leaning. Would you object to that characterisation? And what is the associative factor between all your contributing authors?
Dave, thanks for that elucidation, I think!
Mork, I agree - as I said in my email to Ken last night, what RWDBs don't seem to understand is that people can have two thoughts at the same time. When I came home from work last night and heard about the terrorist attack, I thought - that's terrible and felt sad for those killed or injured and simultaneously wondered how it would play in the election. The ABC news opener expressed much the same stuff, except sequentially as you have to do when you are communicating as opposed to thinking. We have an election going on - I see no problem with discussing how it might be affected and also thinking that this is a terrible event indeed.
Ken, I'd be inclined to agree with you that JI are not factoring the Australian election into their calculations.
So outrage at someone getting outraged about your outrage to their reponse to your post about an outrage. Yes, these are modern times.
In other developments, a bomb killed and maimed lots of Indonesians yesterday.
However this yobbo comment did briefly brighten things up for me.
"...none of us can actually bear to read Sheils' blog."
So Yobbo, all your comments at BP were made without reading the posts or threads? That explains a lot.
Ken, I was shocked when I first read your post. I thought it pretty tasteless to be cracking all ironic while human flesh was still smouldering on the ground. Also, it was bloody well insulting to Liberal Party members and supporters so you can't blame them for attacking you. And given Lacker Latham's gung-ho response, aren't you a little selective in your smart-arsedness? All up, your comments were juvenile and uncharacteristic. Still, we all make mistakes. All it takes is an apology.
Slatts
Sadly you are another commenter who hasn't bothered to take the time to resd the comment thread, otherwise you could not have made this comment. I would have expected more. Please take the time to do so, especially this one.
Ken, I read the thread through last night and got a comprehensive overview of comment. Seeing that the comment you just referred me to began with the latest chapter in your blue with Blair, I probably wouldn't have waded on to your latest explanation. Despite your Houdini impersonation I stand by my earlier criticism. I think you should apologise.
Never would I have thought that Ken Parish of all people create such an impact with a comment. Me perhaps but Ken?
I echo Geoff Honnor's comments.
If people didn't understand what Ken was saying to start with then for petes sake call on some history.Ken's history to be precise.
I can't believe what some people are calling Ken
Hamlet ccome to mind. Me thinks they protest too much
Slatts
I've made my position perfectly clear. The apology (if any) is due from the moronic RWDB thugs who clicked into abuse mode without bothering to work out what I was talking about. I don't expect it, however, because most of them don't have either the decency or intelligence to realise they were being dickheads. I assumed you would be different, but obviously I was mistaken.
BTW To the other dickhead(s) among Blair's tiny-brained coterie (though I'm sure he himself neither knows nor approves) who is currently spamming this blog almost continuously. Please go away and harrass someone else. It's certainly irritating having to utilise MT Blacklist every hour or so to delete a horde of spam posts, but that's all it is. However, it does provide an extreme example of the sort of thuggish, intolerant, anti-free speech mentality that sadly characterises Blair and most of his admirers. It's contemptible.
Hi Ken. Not that you need it but just a note of support from this RWDB in the face of the flames from my fellow travellers. For the record my views on this align with Scott's. It was the wrong time but we've all been there.
My views on public outrage remain the same as they did during the cancer thread - it's a bad look.
And Yobbo re Chris Shiel's site, it is my current affairs site of preference and think you have been too harsh. As a RWDB, I prefer to read opposing positions well expressed because they stimulate me and the right wingers who take the bait make very good cases. I worry about some of them though if Howard gets back, those dudes have a very high emotional investment in seeing he doesn't.
Its a bastard thing to happen, but it looks to me like the libs, simply because they are the incumbents here, are in a position to benefit from this by default.
Its pretty obvious that eyebrows jack thought he was going to have a great issue with the FTA to wedge the alp and have latham follow his lead and agree to it. To everyones surprise didnt happen and latham scored big time. Then the kiddies overboard issue forced little johny to call an election before he took stick in parliment for again being a "lying rodent". His only defence being some supposed phone records that the libs have refused to table but will happily quote ad-infinitum. Now, people have died and simply by being who they are and the libs are likely to benefit electorally.
Like it or not this bombing has to be a factor in the election campaign. Like it or not its a major event that is going to put the focus on security and how the two parties will handle it going into the future.
Has anyone thought that maybe, "continuous war" (particularly in Iraq) is as good for the terrorists as it is for the Neo-Con types in politics. It provides a theme they can rally every murdering idiot they can recruit around and also produces a steady stream of damaged, people who may have lost family or children to the conflict and have thrown away reason and values in a search for revenge?? Maybe the best thing is to pull out of Iraq and not be manuvered into staying by the terrorists??
Has anyone thought that maybe, "continuous war" (particularly in Iraq) is as good for the terrorists as it is for the Neo-Con types in politics.
I think that's obvious, at least as far as Al Qaeda goes. They want to create a "clash of civilzations" between the West and Islam. In that respect, the actions of the Bush Administration have been better than they could possibly have hoped for after 9/11.
I'm not sure I agree that the answer is withdrawal from Iraq, though. Having started the fight, it is clearly better for us that we win it than lose it, because defeating America adds even more to the propaganda victory.
But in that respect, we are now where we were in Vietnam, having to calculate what cost is worth paying to avoid being seen to lose.
There is no upside there ... only a question of what will damage us least.
Mark Bahnisch implies that I use this political crisis to call for the suspension of elections and the infringement of free-speech: Jack Strocchi has a somewhat higher toned rant over at Road to Surfdom, effectively calling for everyone to say nothing in the interests of "national unity". In reply to him I pointed out that one of the proudest moments in US history was when they held a national election in 1944 That is a blatant misrepresentation of what I said. I called for non-partisan treatment of the atrocity, civility between cyber-correspondents, sacrifices for security, vigilance to protect liberty and solidarity as Australians in the face of the enemy.If we want to avoid the worst we will have to take more precautions. This means sacrificing some of our hard-won liberty and hard-earned property in order to strengthen our defences. We must bear in mind Jefferson's warning against the claims of terrorists and tyrants alike: Eternal VIGILANCE is the price of liberty... resist the urge to use this tragedy as yet nother bit of grist to feed into the, endlessly grinding, Howard-hatred mills. This is not quite "the end of freedom as we know it". PS: I know my comments are long, but I am scrupulous about quoting people to prevent this kind of routine distortion.
Hi Ken,
I would agree with your astute synopsis of our Blog. I might perhaps replace 'moderate' with 'moderate to rabid' ;)
As for what draws us together, we are just a group of mutual friends. Geographical distance prevents us from having a yarn down at the pub, so we thought having a blog would be a good substitute.
Thanks for the link-back.
Keep up the good work.
For those who insist that Ken should apologise -- exactly what should his apology say? "I'm sorry for discussing the consequences of a terrible act quickly" or "I'm sorry that I stated the obvious when some people don't like the obvious"?
There are some very sensitive petals out there. One wonders how they cope with everyday life if they call fall to pieces so easily.
"So Yobbo, all your comments at BP were made without reading the posts or threads? That explains a lot."
As far as I can remember, I've only ever left 2 comments there, both on the same post by Harry. Since that particular post was not written by Sheil himself, I thought I'd check it out.
That was exhausting! And I loved it! The blog playground. Good guys... bad guys....mostly guys....
And all because Parish expresses two thoughts that inform each other on different levels. One on an emotional level and one for analysis. Isn't that the way sentient human beings think?
That is what makes mind games interesting and mind games is partly what the blog forum is about.
.....mmmm games - until we get the weapons to electronically zap each other off our seats.
And then it will be war.
Bad taste?
Nuh.... it's been a few days now.
Which brings me to the notion of timing and original thinking (or stumbling as the case may be).
Mundane ideas peddled and repeated make so much of public life dull. Who would have thought that dullness is so ingrained that so many bloggers felt a need to react so predictably and so strongly to this post?
I would have thought you lot were more sophisticated. And some of you are.
So congratulations Parish. Here in this thread lies a fairly comprehensive display of who sez what and how. All in one thread! Neat. That was probably not entirely your intention.... but on one level?
Jack, I apologise if you think I distorted your comments. That wasn't what I was aiming to do. It did seem to me that the logical implication of your remarks was to close off discussion - I accept that was not your intention. I'd echo the call for civil discussion. My comments about the US election and the fall of the Menzies government were not meant to suggest that you were calling for the "suspension of elections" etc - more just a broader point I wanted to make about the absolute necessity of preserving democratic values. I may have been influenced by what you said at Catallaxy regarding the necessity of giving up liberties - before you clarified what you meant by this (though I still disagree with you on that one). I shouldn't have used the word "rant" and I apologise for that also - I think the temper of some of the discussion made me a little more heated than I ought to have been.
Yeesh. What a lot of argument over nothing.
Just for the record, I have the same problem with Evil Pundit's comments. There's a particular string in the spam blacklist that filters him out. I'm not sure why, because I can't find the string in his comments.
It starts with "it", has a dot in the middle, and ends with "tt". I have to manually delete it from my list every time I update my blacklist.
The RWDBs offended at Ken's mentioning politics in the same breath as the bombing might like to direct some of their Righteous Anger (TM) towards Mr Andrew Bolt:
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,10719195%255E25717,00.html
Thanks for the link, Jeremy. I've no idea what you find offensive about Bolt's article. Everything he says is perfectly true. Perhaps you could "educate" us RWDBs with specifics?
Well, the buisness report noted a drop in the $AUS because of the bombing sans any preface of "shock/horror/sympathy". Being fairly new to the blog, I don't know exactly how electorally-centric its perspective is and the buisness report didn't say "Bashir must wanto help ease our trade defecit", but if this is what calls for indignant moral outrage in the "blogosphere", people here a pretty far removed from reality. The same reality in which 11 people were killed- perhaps that's the lesson for both sides.
OK Jeremy, I've just visited your blog and you've explained why you see Bolt's piece as objectionable. Fair enough I suppose, but I think you've missed his point. On my reading of his comment he's claiming the Jakarta bombing was directed at the Australian election. I don't think he's right there, but we are all just opining one way or the other on this. But he's right to say that if that was one of their aims, we would be playing into their hands by changing our vote accordingly. I would hope even you would agree with this. As a Labor supporter I don't think you would support any call to vote Labor a la Spain, and as a Liberal supporter I don't expect Labor voters will change sides out of "fear". Australian voters have more spine than that.
You sick bastard.
I don't actually reckon the terrorists were motivated by a desire to influence the Australian election results at all, as I argued in this comment above.
But my provocatively cryptic post was nevertheless attempting (with decidedly mixed success) to provoke discussion about two aspects of Thursday's Jakarta terrorist atrocity:
(1) What were the terrorists' motives?
(2) What effect is the event likely to have on the current Australian election, and how will/should the parties respond tactically?
Both are legitimate and important questions in my view, and I'm still at a loss to understand how or why so many RWDBs (including usually sensible ones) managed to fly off into an apoplectic rage. I think there are still numerous aspects of those two questions to be explored, so I'll leave this comment thread open for a while longer. But may I humbly request that we leave the left versus right point-scoring and "Ken's a Kunt" moral outrage (faux or otherwise) to one side now. That's one area where there really is nothing useful still to be said.
the Empathy hurts.
"Apologies Ken: it is Some dude and , Nick Paul who can explore the depths of sewerage.
Posted by d at September 10, 2004 09:40 AM [permalink]"
if it due to my "No Australians Killed!" angle.... i was merely pointing out this headline to provide context.
if Indo crew read these headlines.. how d'ya reckon they'd perceive us?
(be honest)
exactly.
see you in the sewer where we can both grieve for the lil'aussie citizen who lost her mum.
Wading through this thread of over 120 posts sure does make one appreciate living in a democracy. A plethora of contrasting opinions from both ends of the political divide, and everywhere in between. Fantastic. For what it's worth, I agree with John Humphreys - I don't see what Ken ought to apologise for?
By the way, ninemsn's Sunday site is currently running an online poll on this matter. Asking the question:
"Do you think the Australian embassy bombing will increase the Coalition's chances of being re-elected?"
Click through to the Sunday site to vote.
http://www.sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday
Women where are you? I still don't understand why its a man thing? Shed light please!!!!!
Clearly I'm a little behind the times, coming to this comment thread so late, but - I just wanted to add my support of Ken's initial post. It would not have occurred to me to suppose this was his only concern on hearing of the bombing.
And, I had the same thoughts
"(1) What were the terrorists' motives?
"(2) What effect is the event likely to have on the current Australian election, and how will/should the parties respond tactically?"
(most particularly number two)
virtually simultaneously with horror and sorrow over another attack.
I've been interested to read the thoughts about those questions in this comment thread.
PS Ken I have combined my personal/political blogs into one, could you amend your link whenever you are doing that sort of house keeping please? Ta.
PPS And BTW, no, I don't think Jen and I are related, but you never know. My paternal grandfather didn't keep very good track of his extended family.
A number of people seem to be under the impression the Spanish people caved in to fear and voted for the then-Opposition because they thought it'd "appease" (I hesitate to use the word, because I'm not sure anyone with a claim to at least a little intelligence is allowed to use it yet) the terrorists. Uh, no. They voted in the Opposition because they weren't particularly impressed by the incumbents; an understandable POV, I'm sure y'all will agree. The whole "troops out" thing was already one of their platforms, so the Madrid bombing didn't affect that either. But it's nice to propagate that myth about The Cowardly Spaniards, isn't it? Makes us feel all superior.
A recurring theme amongst those who believe the Cowardly Spaniard theorum is that terrorist attacks against targets like the US, Spain and Australia are made to try to intimidate us into voting in lefty governments. But we must Stand Strong, and Remember That A Vote For Latham Will Let the Terrorists Win.
You all came 'round here and piled on the abuse because of a pithy little comment about the Liberal Party's chances being improved at the next election. Then you proved him right. Bravo, dickheads!
You win Ken.
Bolt nakedly exploited the issue, and the Howard took it up very aggressively in the debate. He didn't overly emphasise Jakarta, but rather kept on about terror, cutting and running, and generally being extremely overt (and tasteless) about it.
Thank god the worm turned on him. People aren't buying the crap any longer, they know Al Q had nothing to do with the Baathists, so the Iraq lie is running out of steam.
You can sleep easily, you've been vindicated as the right have lived up to all our worst expectations...
What the hell are you doing here Pikey? Shouldn't you be prepping for the big game against the Cats?
Speaking of which, what are we doing talking about bloody politics at all, after a weekend when Geelong beat Essendon in the AFL, and North Queensland of all teams beat the Bulldogs in the ARL? There's a fix in somewhere, I reckon. Someone should call in the stewards and take a swab. I wonder if the Bulldogs had a few bob on with Centrebet. Dunno about the Bombers though, because I didn't see the game. What happened? Maybe Son of God got some speed from his old man.
Ironically im bald and ugly too! I like me namesake, but I'm a st kilda man with geelong and freo holding follow-up preferred status, so I can't back him vs the Cats.
These finals are looking fantastic, as 2 underdog teams full of youngsters (saints and cats) break through, and C*NTINGWOOD and ESSINGDONT have DROPPED OUT...
Spent friday night at the 'G, eating four n twenties, drinking carlton, wrapped in a plastic poncho, watching the man mullet Gerig beating some Sydney stuffing out onto the pitch... truly a thing of beauty!
Mate, the Bulldogs dropped out. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth!
(Pity about the Raiders, though; why oh why did we have to face Easts?)