article: 'Why I've fallen out of love with Australia'

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:21 am

With Prime Minister John Howard predicted to win October's general election, Bill Condie analyses the climate of intolerance and racism which has soured his home country... (read me read me READ ME!!!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/sto ... 48,00.html
[spoiler]crash course: this is an ENGLISH article, Australia is not England, they are seperate places, pretty far away from eachother. John Howard is our current Prime Minister, his party actually won it's last re-election to power from this 'children overboard' scandal that was later proven to be nothing but lies. Paul Keating (the guy mentioned in relation to good asia relations) was our last prime minister before him. John Howard iirc has now been in power for longer than any other australian prime minister ever. [/spoiler]

it's true. i get this feeling now about australia.
i'm left wondering "hey what happened to all the multiculturalism that we prided ourself for here, why is howard so friendly with bush, and why arn't i hearing good news about australia - asia relations anymore? that was cool back then".
the article certainly strikes a cord with me.

what are your 'thoughts from afar' on this?

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:42 am

just reading some local discussion on it (registration required, but i'll post:). some thought provoking points:

...i have lived here for all 24 yrs of my life and have no urge to call another country home. The problem with the world today is we have become to politically correct. None of us have a sense of humour and that is what being an aussie is all about. I am part wog (mum is greek). We uised to dish out to everyone at high school, there would be wogs, nips, and skips. no one took offense. now you really can't say anything without offending someone.

this next guy is referring to some "gragh i hate that article, the writer, and his whole family!" posts, probably mostly made by children (this is not a slur, i'm serious about the age) whom missed the point to the article:

I think some people are missing the point of the article.

It's not Australia that's the subject here, it's the perception of Australia.

It has nothing to do with people "dissing" the best country in the world, which just happens to be the one we live in But rather the perception that other countries have on Australia in general.

I don't think Australia is a particularly racist country at all, but a lot of the rest of the world does.

I know that me, my friends and my peers are not racist people, the problem is the rest of the world often assumes we are (I use the term "rest of the world rather loosely here btw).

I don't like having to defend myself and say "no, we're not all like Pauline Hanson" which I never used to have to do.

104625 (the previous guy i quoted)- you brought up a good point, I think political correctness is a waste of time.
What it does is give STRENGTH to insults.
According to the world of political correctness the word "★■◆●" is a grave insult.
Now I don't mind being called a white person. I don't mind being called a guy or a bloke, I don't like gender neutral terms and I'm happy to call a spade a spade WITHOUT MALICE.
I have an Egyptian friend, I make terrorist and homosexual related jokes around him constantly, he insults me accordingly in tern and neither of us are ever even slightly offended - in fact we congratulate each other for more creative and amusing insults, as far as I'm concerned political correctness can suck my dick.

The problem here is that Australia is gaining a reputation as a maliciously racist or predjudiced country, so while when in the company of friends I'm happy to carry on with the "fag" and "★■◆●" and "wog" and "spic" comments without fear of being told off for it, I find that the perception from foreign people sees this as being outwardly racist or predjudiced which is reinforced by the already-in-place perception that we are a racist/predjudiced country.

Anyway, I've kind of wandered off on a tangent, hopefully people get what I'm saying

Remember, you might not be a racist jerk, but if people THINK you're a racist jerk their (mis)perception of you can be pretty hurtful, it's much nicer when people don't judge first. Something we're all guilty of sometimes as well.

Australia may well be racist, but as a rule we don't go around murdering our "non whities", nor do we bomb schools or blow ★■◆● up.

That is the truth, but when Australia is America's ally, and America is going around murdering non whities, bomb schools and blow ★■◆● up (and Australia follows them to these places), Australia has to shoulder part of the blame as well. That's what people outside of Australia may think.

i hope that gave you a better idea on what this is about. it seems to have a lot to do with australia/usa relations. thus why i post here.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:18 am

So Roid, you're blaming all this on america?

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 8:02 am

[spoiler]hmmm... ok predictable woodchip, i think i see what you're getting at here. how about you dont crap in this thread. and i'll choose one (heh) of your current threads to not crap in. deal?

because this issue is more complicated than yet another:

personA: "american is causing diplomatic conundrums"
personB: "why do you hate american so much?" <-- THREAD INSTANTLY GOES TO HELL

thread.

pls stay on topic, at least a little, before trying to derail it into another usa/antiusa thread.[/spoiler]

this thread is about australia woodchip. so try to enjoy the momentary seachange, get a breath of fresh hair, coz this thread is not about theusa. it's about things beyond the usa shores. it's about... other countrys.
we've talked enough about the world's perception of theusa, so while this perceptual topic is intrinsingly tied to the topic of theUSA, it's not about the usa.

i wish to discuss a changing perception of Australia by the rest of the world. this is something we hold close to our hearts. if you wish to broaden the topic out to other interesting related topics, such as how other countrys perceptions have changed of other countrys, then that's cool.

fine, yes, part of a possible change in international perception of Australia would be as a result of it's newfound strength of ties with usa, and all that that involves.
but there's more to it than that.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:18 am

If he's supporting bush, I can see why you'd be upset. If you think that's annoying, just imagine having bush as your president. Now there is intolerance.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:43 am

[spoiler]!@# garg, fsk, psth... come on guys.
be careful with the usa political slagging[/spoiler]

yes Howard is supporting Bush, but Howard has been in power since 1996. it's not that things instantly changed back when his party was elected, but australians are noticing more and more intolerence comming across in our policys. the issue of assylum seekers is a typical one.
but also our participation in the latest wars by usa, i can't imagine this does much for public image at all.

since our participation in usa's wars, we have now becomming targets by proxy for radical extremests from our VERY close neighbours in asia above. thus the Bali bombings, and the recent Jarkarta embasy bombing, among others. We australians are worried that we are being seen more and more as being just the same as America, and therefore TERRORIST TARGETS!

this of course does not sit well. we aussies are nice folk, we travel a lot, we're very multicultural, accepting and curious of other cultures.
it um.. kinda sucks when we are getting blown up, just coz terrorists hate america.

basically, we didn't sign up for this.
we are NOT like america.
we have never been aggressors (have we?).
but now with terrorists having trouble telling us politically apart from americans because of our involvement in the 'war on some terror' and increasingly more intollerent policys at home. we wonder what the world at large is thinking of us.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:03 am

Vote your PM out of power, or you did.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:42 am

roid wrote:basically, we didn't sign up for this.
we are NOT like america.

Australia signed up for it when New York was attacked, declaring war upon western values. Australians are not like Americans tis true, but not really the point, Austalians bled exctly the same in Bali as the Yanks (and others) did on 9/11. It's a war Roid, people get killed. If you give up because it's getting messy your going to lose.

The thousands that were slaughtered in Gallipoli we're not like the Yanks either but they we're both fighting a common war, i don't see the difference.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:10 pm

i take acception to that. we do not bleed the same at all. yes the WTC collapses had us all in shock. yes, relative to our population, bali was our 911. but ask an australian: bali was nothing.

no australians were calling for turning bali into a glass factory after the bomb went off. in fact we are still at good relations with bali and indonesia, it's still a favourite holiday destination.

it was horrible to loose the people we did, but we were understanding and relatively quite unreactionary about it.
i'd still holiday in bali, it doesn't worry me, i'd venture most australians would agree. it's just the rent you pay for being such physically close neighbours with Indonesia, the world's biggest muslim population.

doesn't bother me.
we still love our neighbours.

the bali bombing didn't put questions of Australia's soverenty on people's lips. it was more a question of "why the hell should we be getting our ass kicked because of our allys' diplomatic arrogence".
we didn't point the finger at Indonesia, i'm not sure we ever did, we understand the region. what's on the minds of australians is "why are we being targetted?"

don't speal me this "western values" rhetoric soundbite ★■◆●, we're smarter than that. we are being targeted because thanks to our helping out in theusa's 'war on some terror' we have politically alligned ourselves with the USA in the eyes of many.

[spoiler]i'm not sure of this rhetoric you are saying about "australia signed up for this when NY was attacked".
since when does that have anything to do with australia?
i don't see it as a war on western values, never have. and we all laughed at our leaders when they tried to sell us that line. the government gave us anti-terror fridge magnets

, the butt of many-a-joke.
WTC, and what this 'war on some terror' is about... is better discussed in other threads.[/spoiler]

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 12:14 pm

Quote:
Quote:
Australia may well be racist, but as a rule we don't go around murdering our "non whities", nor do we bomb schools or blow **** up.

That is the truth, but when Australia is America's ally, and America is going around murdering non whities, bomb schools and blow **** up (and Australia follows them to these places), Australia has to shoulder part of the blame as well. That's what people outside of Australia may think.

"i hope that gave you a better idea on what this is about. it seems to have a lot to do with australia/usa relations. thus why i post here." Roid

Roid, aren't you saying it is americas fault...or did I miss something in the above verbage. Don't think by being "nice" that you will be saved from terrorism. Just ask the two french journalists held captive in Iraq.

As for murdering non whites, I wonder if any of your abo's have had a chance to respond to your quoted authors? Australia is a nice country and at times I have thought to move their (not a chance now with your draconian gun laws) but just remember this...don't play the french in forgetting what happened in WW2. The rising sun was very close to setting on the shore of australia, but didn't because those same murdering americans set up camp in your country and kept the japanese invasion at bay...to the tune of tens of thousands of american lives. I guess that is ancient history now and no longer has any relevance.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:00 pm

Roid, it dosn't matter if it was in Bali or Blackpool (uk). Australia was attacked in a foriegn country by a terrorist group because you of what you represent, and because you are a part of an alliance against that terrorist group. If you want to quit the alliance in what i consider to be a world war then i'm sorry but Australians will have a black mark against them in my book. You asked for an opinion.

roid · Post by **roid** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 1:10 pm

you'll have to forgive the colourful language of those posters, the context was in an australian forum. i would have worded it differently. it was purely quoted, as i said, to give a better idea of what i'm talking about. don't pick it apart, take it's main message.

Iraq is a warzone, and the center of media attention.
the french were considered targets because of Frances new intollerent laws on in-school headscarves, which you'd have to agree was a low blow against Islamic children.

issues to do with Aboriginal Australians are another thing that our current government has been blatently MIShandling. further building a worrying image of growing intolerence.

Roid, aren't you saying it is americas fault...or did I miss something in the above verbage. Don't think by being "nice" that you will be saved from terrorism. Just ask the two french journalists held captive in Iraq.

being diplomatic HAS saved australia from the brunt of muslim-extremist terrorism up until now.

france's policy of banning the muslim headdress in schools is NOT 'nice'. the demand behind the kidnapping was for france to stop the intollerent headscarf ban, and be nice again.

our local policys regarding muslims are no-where near france's recent rather offcolour attempt. but some of our policys concerning other issues (eg: assylum seekers, aboriginal affairs) are quite offcolour, and frankly embarassing.

that coupled with our seemingly ever eager ties with usa, may be painting a changed picture of australia to the world. one that we are not ready for.
we're not ready to be a terrorist target 'by proxy to the usa'. i'm not too sure if we are willing either.

bush would tell me to 'Strengthen My Resolve' or 'not falter in my resolve' or something right? heh.

frankly usa is a diplomatic relations disaster, happening before our eyes. to survive as the 51st usa state, how would australia have to change? we'd have to get a whole lot more agressive and domineering. i don't think i want us to change that way.

Flabby Chick wrote:Roid, it dosn't matter if it was in Bali or Blackpool (uk). Australia was attacked in a foriegn country by a terrorist group because you of what you represent, and because you are a part of an alliance against that terrorist group. If you want to quit the alliance in what i consider to be a world war then i'm sorry but Australians will have a black mark against them in my book. You asked for an opinion.

we were attacked because we represented usa.

we never wanted to sign up for it in the first place flabby. didn't your news stations cover our local immense protests against australian participation in this war (and the last one)? they wern't staged.
we think that this war is a farse.

our leaders don't give a ★■◆●, they are more interested in ever strengthening diplomatic and ecconomic ties with america at all costs. these wars and our 'current government's eagerness to follow the usa anywhere' is a HUGE issue in our upcomming elections.

america at large, and how our government handles america (or fails to), are some of the main issues for this upcomming australian federal election.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:21 pm

roid...

It sounds to me that Australians are upset that terrorists are paying you guys any attention because you feel you haven't done anything wrong as a country. As a country you're upset that by being associated with America, Australia has now become a target for terrorist activities.

The truth of the matter is, they really could care less who you guys are allied with. Sure, they will state its because of the fact that Australia takes part in actions with the US but when it comes right down to it, since you're not a mostly muslim nation, the terrorists would have come blowing up your doors sooner or later. The "rest of the world" hardly consists of people who sympathize with muslim extremists and their views.

I'm just one person, but Australia or New Zealand would be great places to live other then the US if I were to decide to move out of this country. I think very highly of both countries and I still consider Australia and it's population to be one of the kindest and most easy going of any of the countries on this planet.

So...my point is basically that anyone with any common sense knows better and all those other people in the world bitching about this and that and the other trying to paint your country in a bad light don't add up to a hill of beans in the scheme of things because they'd be bitching about something else if they weren't bitching about you guys or the US, or whatever.

Australia is a target simply for not being the middle east. Don't ever believe otherwise.

btw, PC or no PC, you still wouldn't go up to a complete stranger and call him a '★■◆●' or whatever because that would be an insult in that setting. Even with your friends sometimes that stuff may wear thin on their nerves and they never say anything about it.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:36 pm

If the majority of your people don't want to be aligned with the USA, then why is PM Howard expected to win election in October? Massive protests do suggest that a large segment of the population would rather quit this war, but it is obviously not a majority or else Howard would be voted out, no?

Is the other side wrong? Is there really no threat? If every other country dropped out of the alliance, including the USA, do you believe that radical Islam would ceace working toward its goals? I agree that war sucks, but to believe that it isn't necessary at this point in time is a bit naive IMHO.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 2:44 pm

"but it is obviously not a majority or else Howard would be voted out, no? "

Unfortunately not a good assumption. In the USA a majority of americans now think the Iraq war was wrong, but a majority of americans still support bush.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 3:52 pm

Now, I'm no political analyst, but I will assume that's because national security is the most important topic to a majority of voters. 50.1% of Americans don't like our Iraq policy. Do they think going into Iraq was wrong because war itself is wrong (as protesters on both continents most assuredly do)? Or, do they disapprove because they believe that Iraq diverted attention away from neighboring Afghanistan, thus weakening our ability to find bin Laden? Kerry has run a horrid campaign and even if Iraq is a mistake, it isn't a big enough mistake to replace the President. Some may see that, though we shouldn't have done it, the damage is done. We're in there and we're not coming out for a long time. However, there is a vast amount of good that could ultimately come from this if Iraq can form a stable government.

Likewise, I believe it is a fairly strong possibility that the same political situation exists in Australia, regardless of how large the protest.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:21 pm

Roid, there may be another reason muslum terrorii attacked your citizens...and that was the muslum boat people and how they were handled by your country. Please correct me if I am in error.

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:12 pm

Simply remove "AUSTRALIAN'S" from practically every paragraph in this thread and replace it with "JOHN HOWARD." John Howard has always pushed his policies without regard for the Majority of backing by Australians. ie. GST/War on terror in wich the majority of australian's opposed, yet those policies still came into effect.

The world views Australia through howards actions. At the core of the matter, Howard does not represent Australia, especially in issues such as terrorism.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 11:37 pm

So you are saying that you reckon that the majority of Aussies want to remain nutral when it comes to opposing terrorism?

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:36 am

Exactly

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:31 am

Okey doky. The old Keith Richards attitude to life huh!

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:46 am

As opposed to the "Kill them before they kill us" attitude. I wonder which policy attracts more terrorism

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:00 am

XeonJr wrote:As opposed to the "Kill them before they kill us" attitude. I wonder which policy attracts more terrorism

We tried the alternate method for quite awhile. What it got us was:

The USS Cole
Kobar Towers
Kenyan Embassy
9/11

Does this answer your question?

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:19 am

Rubbish.. U.S is known globally for "attempting" to dictate/push its policies onto foreign countries.

Topic back on track please..

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:37 am

XeonJr wrote:Rubbish.. U.S is known globally for "attempting" to dictate/push its policies onto foreign countries.

Topic back on track please..

Nice try. Foreign policy is one thing, pre-emption or non-preemption is another. Russia, China and even Cuba are "Known" globally to push their policies. All nation states attempt to influence their neighbors in one form or another. Australia is no different in this regard. The Aussies side with America as it is more benificial than aligning with say ... France.

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:40 am

Incorrect.. John Howard sides with America.. Australian's do not!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 6:51 am

Just a quick google:

On the other hand, conservative Australians share a view that not only Australian security but prosperity, too, is guaranteed by support for American values, and its military, diplomatic and business initiatives.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/america/australia.html

Australians love American movies and music, he said. They largely see America as arrogant, but still think it's a force for good in the world.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/ ... click=true

So Xeon, where do you get your info?

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:47 am

You're really that naive you have to google for arguement support? I am forgetting American's are very much kept in the dark when it comes to foreign politics. (feel free to debate this) but you only need step outside of the U.S and spend a short time in another country to realize what I am saying is accurate

Look, you can debate this back and fourth all you like..

The core of the matter is the author in Roid's first post is voicing his oppionion, an oppinion held by the vast majority of Australian's about the state of this country. Unfortunately voting out John Howard is easier said then done. In Australia their is no set governing term. Elections are generally called only when their is significant opposition to the governing body. Majority of seats are always held by our Labour party. Their are 2 smaller parties, The National and Liberal, which pool their votes during elections.

Eg. 49% of Australia can vote for Labour at an election. 20% for the National and 31% for the liberal. Majority of Australian's are obviously backing the Labour party. However National/Liberal pool their votes bringing a total of 51% and come into power. Hence how John Howard came into power and how he managed to push his GST policies through parliment.

On the issue of terrorism most Australian's believe we should never have stuck our noses into iraq. The fact that we are their is due to our shithouse political systems. Unfortunately a 3 party split is our blessing and curse.

That help you out any woodchip?

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:02 am

XeonJr wrote:As opposed to the "Kill them before they kill us" attitude. I wonder which policy attracts more terrorism

I'm sorry for breaking Drakona's three line rule but
I would have thought "kill them before they kill us" was a quite a sensible idea.

Pebkac · Post by **Pebkac** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 10:22 am

So, XJr, are you saying that, though the vast majority disagree with/don't support Howard, he's still going to be re-elected as PM? I just wanna make sure I'm clear on this. Afterall, I'm just a silly American so I can't be expected to fully understand this mysterious place that you call Australia.

roid · Post by **roid** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 12:05 pm

woodchip wrote:Roid, there may be another reason muslum terrorii attacked your citizens...and that was the muslum boat people and how they were handled by your country. Please correct me if I am in error.

correct, this is another problem associated with quasi-foriegn policy and our current leaders, i HAVE been mentioning it throughout: "assylum seekers".

woodchip wrote:Just a quick google:

On the other hand, conservative Australians share a view that not only Australian security but prosperity, too, is guaranteed by support for American values, and its military, diplomatic and business initiatives.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/america/australia.html

Australians love American movies and music, he said. They largely see America as arrogant, but still think it's a force for good in the world.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/ ... click=true

So Xeon, where do you get your info?

australia getting involved in usa's wars, is proving to be a step BACKWARDS for australian security.

good for prosperity? perhaps, but only if you equate australia being the 51st usa state, as being the 'peak' of prosperity.
is it good for good for independant prosperity? (ie: prosperity, on our own terms) no.

we 'love' american movies and music, kinda like how you guys 'love' macdonalds. they are simply shoved in our faces at every streetcorner: media mono-saturation.
we consume them because they dominate the media.
this is not a good thing.

cultural issues.

(btw, if you want to use that survey, i suggest you dig up the old dbb thread about it. i also have a feeling that post-iraq, people would answer differntly on the "is america a force of good in the world? yes/no" question.)

Flabby Chick wrote:
XeonJr wrote:As opposed to the "Kill them before they kill us" attitude. I wonder which policy attracts more terrorism

I'm sorry for breaking Drakona's three line rule but
I would have thought "kill them before they kill us" was a quite a sensible idea.

because if you don't quickly get them ALL (idealogical genocide?), you are in trouble, the retaliation will be nontraditional grey-war tactics such as guerrilla warfare and terrorism that will then wear your down till the end of time. like a disease, once contracted, cannot be cured with courses of traditional medicine.

XeonJr · Post by **XeonJr** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 4:36 pm

Labour, Liberal and the National are 3 distinct parties boasting 3 seperate agendas. Combining votes can be "the blessing" because it nullifies the Lead Labour has in the polls. It ensures politics are kept competetive. On the flipside it is very much like russian roulette when voting.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:51 pm

roid wrote:australia getting involved in usa's wars, is proving to be a step BACKWARDS for australian security.

They're not the USA's wars. They're radical Islam's wars against Western culture. The US just happens to be the most convenient target.

If Australia had a bigger military and more cultural influence than the US, it would've been Sydney or Canberra instead of New York. It's your war, whether you like it or not -- because it's your non-Sharia-law culture that's under attack. Staying back will make you less of a target, but only by making us more of a target.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:52 pm

"because if you don't quickly get them ALL (idealogical genocide?), you are in trouble, the retaliation will be nontraditional grey-war tactics such as guerrilla warfare and terrorism that will then wear your down till the end of time. like a disease, once contracted, cannot be cured with courses of traditional medicine." Roid

We'll never get them all in one fell swoop. Perhaps if Clinton had done more 9/11 would not have happened. Something has to be done and throwing words at the terrorist only eggs them on.
If someone has a better idea on how Bush should have handled the 9/11 problem, I'd like to hear it (though that may be better stated in a new thread).

bash · Post by **bash** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:55 pm

Strange drift to this thread. First, it's about racism/intolerance in Australia and it has since devolved to everyone's favorite scapegoat: America. I really don't see what link Australia's 900 or so non-combat troops in Iraq has to do with the rise of anglo-centric nationalism in Australia. I could understand more if Australian troops were suffering combat casualties (they are not, AFAIK) but Australia's limited investment will likely end up paying high returns when the smoke clears. Howard made a gamble, you could say, in the economc interest of Australia and so far there hasn't been much of a price to pay for it but Australia is likely to be at the front of the line when the rebuilding contracts are being handed out and is establishing itself as a nation that won't roll over when attacked. Seems rather win-win to this foreigner.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:27 pm

Austrailia is the close neighbour of Indonesia the largest muslim population in the world.Bali is a Hindu (I beleve, along with Buddhist) nation surrounded by the musilim population of Indonesia.
Alcohol, mixed bathing on public beaches, immodest attire, many behavours that are an offence to the morals of the muslim Indonesian are commonplace in Bali. As a matter of fact that is it's greatest appeal both to Austrailians and to those Indonesians that want to escape from the restrictions of Sharia law for a holiday. It is in fact, to the muslim of Indonesia a cesspool of sin and evil that corrupts their young. And filled with drunken, carousing infidels from foregn parts (Austrailia chiefly) creating the problem by supporting the tourist industry.
A bomb was used against non-combatants. Inoccents really to strike against a percieved threat to the morals of Islam deep in the heart of Indonesia a devoutly muslim country in most other areas.
I'm not sure that this had anything to do with Australia and the U.S. It was an attack on forgen infidels behaving immoraly in the midst of muslim territory.
NO I am NOT trying to justify this murderous crime just seperate it from attacks against the U.S. I think it is largely an Australian issue. Well not entirely but to a large extent.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:37 pm

"Perhaps if Clinton had done more 9/11 would not have happened" - Woodchip

lol, what about the memo bush got "Bin Laden determined to attack US with passenger plane"
?

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 7:45 pm

Birdseye wrote:"Perhaps if Clinton had done more 9/11 would not have happened" - Woodchip

lol, what about the memo bush got "Bin Laden determined to attack US with passenger plane"
?

I suppose this mysterious memo also had a date, time & place?

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 5:56 am

bash wrote:Strange drift to this thread. First, it's about racism/intolerance in Australia and it has since devolved to everyone's favorite scapegoat: America.

drift? you imply that the discussion in this thread got off to a good start.
if this thread ever devolved into "scapegoat america", it was as a result of the first answer/post that the thread got. from the lovely woodchip, attempting to derail the discussion before it ever started with the "why do you hate america so much?" oh so predictable 1 liner soundbite. the usa "patriots'" favourite and most used tool.
i am not happy about this.

Australia's limited investment will likely end up paying high returns when the smoke clears. Howard made a gamble, you could say, in the economc interest of Australia and so far there hasn't been much of a price to pay for it but Australia is likely to be at the front of the line when the rebuilding contracts are being handed out...

this is not how the war was advertised to the population.
If it's just about money: then your moral answer should be from looking out your window at all of the "no blood for oil/$" protestors marching around.
interestingly they think it's about money too, difference being that they DON'T approve.

...and [perceptually: australia] is establishing itself as a nation that won't roll over when attacked. Seems rather win-win to this foreigner.

while to us this seems proud, arrogent and aggressive. in the past we have been happy to just write this off as an 'international cultural personality clash' and have a laugh about it. this has always been our policy when dealing with extremists.

look, i'm sure it's cool and fun for you guys to antagonise from afar, but we live here, nextdoor to indonesia.
if you extremists want to play your extremist games. don't do it on our doorstep, and don't involve us.
our neighbours are restless and ★■◆●ing dangerous, we have been on good terms with them in the past and we'd like to keep it that way. we don't want to make any country into glass thx.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 6:47 am

Hey Roid, maybe you aussies should have stayed away from East Timor. I suspect there are a certain number of Indonesians that didn't like that.