An Islamist terrorist murders people in the heart of Sydney. So what does the Australian Left do?
They call Murdoch a terrorist because his papers reported this. These people are beyond a joke.
There is something sinister going on here.
My reply on site follows.
I saw a headline this morning that has had me spend the day with a laptop open trying to write — trying to understand — what it is that we must take from the nightmare that Australians shared this week.
I’ll get to that headline in a while. I’m on the bus now, heading towards Martin Place, the bobble heads to my left and right who I usually watch flick angry birds and scroll through news feeds are today holding flowers, riding with me, chatting.
I want to start a conversation. I want to start a conversation, about conversation. I hear the dialogue of the terrorist regurgitated all around. The terrorist I speak of however is not quite dead.
When Rupert Murdoch tweets that one man’s madness ought be a ‘wake up call’ for Sydney, the real wake up call is the grand irony with which a web of fear is spun for profit, by generating a different type of violence: a social violence, a violence imposed upon our very zeitgeist by those who control the means by which we get our information.
The real wake up call compels the thinking Australian to question the way in which political agendas will shape the Australian zeitgeist post Sydney Siege.
Many of us understand that he-who-should-not-be-named carried out a terrorist plot in accordance with a personally bastardised version of religious extremism, and are subsequently able to disregard it as demonstrative not of a coordinated international terrorist agenda, but rather one man’s madness.
The violent rhetoric of the mass media challenges this measure. Murdoch wants to turn this into a conversation about Islam.
What a disgusting piece of pig ignorance is on display here. My reply.
You're obsession with newspapers that you do not agree with is all that needs to be known about you.
To call Murdoch and his papers "terrorists" is actually obscene. What is it with the Left and Murdoch?
Is it because Murdoch's flagship paper the Australian is the only paper in Australia with a pro-Israel editorial policy (even though John Lyons is one of the most viciously anti-Israel commentators in Australia) and this offends your antisemitc core values?
Is that it?
I happen to think that Fairfax and the ABC are bloody disgraceful with a hideous and dangerous bias. But I don't obsess about it.
I do my little bit to expose them at every opportunity as the creepy gang of losers they are. Then I move on. And read the Australian which I do every day.
Not you guys. There is something profoundly unhealthy about you.
Posted Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 11:27
Posted Sunday, December 21, 2014 - 11:27
One of the reasons I come here apart from to do my absolute best to get as far up the nose of the gutless losers that hang out here is that occasionally there is a gem among the comments that sums it all up in a few words.
And so it is here.
Dear writer:The title of your article is insulting to the victims of this tragedy. The only terrorist in this story is the killer.At least you call him terrorist. This is good, as some journalists went further and said that he is not a terrorist because he did was not connected to any terrorist organisation.But you refuse to acknowledge the obvious: that this was an act of Islamic terrorism. You say:The little voice in the head of the man whose name I refuse to remember might have been a Jew, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a purple dishcloth called NathanNo that is not true. You are missing the point. This was an act of Islamic terrorism not because the perpetrator was a Muslim, but because he did this in the name of Islam. This fact was underlined by a comment of his lawyer, who said that "His ideology is just so strong and so powerful that it clouds his vision for common sense and objectiveness". This can be said of many Islamists. It is not accidental that he was previously on ASIO watch list. He was clearly an Islamic extremist even before the siege, and there is no point denying it. What to do about it is another matter entirely. But the debate is useful and has nothing to do with terrorism.
Thank you. BorisG
Many will not understand that last sentence and it is not how I would have expressed it but that is because I hold that Political Islam is a terrorist ideology in precisely the same way that National Socialism was a terrorist philosophy.
I too have forgotten the name of this individual and how he came to be where he was on the day is only of incidental interest to me. To dismiss this man as some lone lunatic in a random act of criminality is a delusion that we can no longer afford. The real question is how many other "lone wolves" are out there.
Snap out of it!
This is a struggle against a determined, resourceful and utterly implacable enemy. It is the same enemy that murdered Australian tourists in Bali. Likely it is retaliation for Afghanistan. Murdering children in their school in Pakistan one day. Murdering innocent people in a chocolate shop in Sydney the next.
It is as straight forward as that.
That the ideologues behind the Sydney murders did not even know the suicide killer who chose himself is what makes this war so dangerous. This is a global war and this "lone wolf" strategy that the enemy has deployed must be met head on.
There once was a time when the Left could be counted on to stand up to fascism. If not actually physically fight it, then at least recognise it for what it is and take every opportunity to argue it down.
Not any more. That takes too much courage I guess. The modern Left is nothing if not gutless.
Get it into your heads. This is not a war against Muslims. It is a war against a fascist ideology that has attached itself to a religion. It is hardly the first time in history this has happened. Muslims should be in the vanguard of this war. After all they are in the vanguard of the victims.
Death cult incidentally is exactly the right phrase to describe this evil crime against the intellect..
But I would say that. I believe I first used the term ten years ago.