Replies

These are the words of Prime Minister Howard about the terrorist attacks which happened before the war in Iraq:

Australian Prime Minister John Howard, speaking at a press conference in London after last week's failed bombings:

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber.

I don't think it is that difficult to understand the mind of a suicide bomber. Just keep in mind that his religion teaches him to hate infidels (even innocents) and tells him that by his martyrdom he is buying a ticket to paradise.

Just as the cornerstone of real Christianity is "love." The cornerstone of real Islam is "hate."

The suicide bombers believe they are doing something good...they believe they are doing the will of Allah. They just haven't realized that their Allah is probably Satan.

I adore Mr. Howard. Recall that just before 9/11, one of the two primary international stories was the boatload of refugees -- or so-called asylum-seekers - off Australia demanding to enter (from Afghanistan and other Muslim nations). The other was the kindergarten girls being harrassed in Northern Ireland for taking the wrong road to school. (The local story here in the US was Chandra Levy.)

By not letting the boatload of Muslims into the country, despite a lot of protestors and calls of "racism," Mr. Howard led Australia to dodge a great big bullet and possibly, a coordinated 9/11 attack on their soil. He is the best. And a great ally, too.

Your sharing the words of the Australian Prime Minister was enlightening, heartening and solid.

In a political email group I debate, rant and share news with, a fellow emailer posted another great set of words from the great Sir Winston Churchill regarding the Muslim dangers...I found it astounding, visionary and dead on.

It was posted in an email dated 7/23/05, and is magnificent, imo!:

" LGF reader Allon emailed to point out that the London Times article we noted earlier today neuters the full force of Sir Winston’s message; political correctness strikes again. Here’s what Churchill really wrote in its entirety, after the horrific battle to wrest control of Sudan from the jihadis of the 19th century:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. [ This next sentence NAILS IT! ] The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)."