Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Racial violence erupts again in Austrailia
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/12/051212142205.ve8131q3.html ^ | Dec 12, 2005 | Breibart.com

Posted on 12/12/2005 7:36:16 AM PST by television is just wrong

Racial violence has erupted for the second straight day in Sydney, with cars smashed and reports of shots fired just hours after Australian Prime Minister John Howard appealed for calm. Witnesses said "chaos" had broken out in a shopping centre at south Sydney's Cronulla beach late Monday, the scene of mob violence on Sunday, with vehicles damaged and police making arrests as gangs of men roamed the streets.

"People are standing around in shock, just watching," said a reporter for local radio station 2GB. "Every window in some cars has been smashed. Roads have been blocked (by police)."

One resident, who did not want to be named, told the Australian Associated Press that about 50 cars had swept into the area, disgorging men of Middle Eastern appearance who began trashing every car in sight with baseball bats.

Reporters said gunshots had been heard near a hotel in Cronulla, but police could not confirm reports that a person had been shot.

The hotel is located opposite North Cronulla beach, the scene of violent attacks Sunday by mobs of local whites targeting men of Middle Eastern appearance.

In the mainly Muslim suburb of Lakemba, about 500 young people blocked roads near the local mosque after evening prayers, believing an attack was imminent. They later dispersed, some hurling rocks at police.

More than 30 people were injured and 16 were arrested in some of the worst racial violence in Australian history as riots spread from Cronulla on Sunday afternoon to neighbouring suburbs overnight.

Howard earlier condemned the violence and called for ethnic tolerance.

"Attacking people on the basis of their race, their appearance, their ethnicity, is totally unacceptable and should be repudiated by all Australians irrespective of their own background and their politics," Howard said.

He dismissed any suggestion his government's recent warnings about the possibility of attacks by home-grown Islamic terrorists had fuelled the rampage.

"It is impossible to know how individuals react but everything this government's said about home-grown terrorism has been totally justified," he said, an apparent reference to the arrests last month of 18 Muslim men on terrorism charges.

New South Wales state Police Minister Carl Scully said white supremacists and neo-Nazis were among those involved in the attacks.

"There appears to be an element of white supremacists and they really have no place in mainstream Australian society, those sort of characters belong in 1930s Berlin," he said.

More than 5,000 people gathered at Cronulla beach Sunday after e-mail and mobile phone messages called on local residents to beat-up "Lebs and wogs" -- racial slurs for people of Lebanese and Middle Eastern origin.

The move followed assaults a week ago on two white volunteer lifeguards at the beach, which is a popular gathering place for Muslims from inner-city suburbs, and allegations that local women were being harassed.

One Muslim woman had her headscarf ripped off and was chased into a beach kiosk, local media reported. Six police officers were injured as they tried to quell the violence, and two ambulance officers were also hurt.

A local member of parliament for Howard's Liberal Party, Bruce Baird, said he believed the beach rioting was partly fuelled by the 2002 and 2005 Bali bombings by Islamic militants in which scores of Australians were killed.

The president of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, told AFP he disagreed with Baird's view that terrorism was the issue.

"This was just an ugly racist genie that was let out of the bottle and we have to put it back in the bottle," he said.

Australia's Muslim community is some 300,000-strong, out of the total population of 20 million.

Australian Arabic Council chairman Roland Jabbour said: "Arab Australians have had to cope with vilification, racism, abuse and fear of a racial backlash for a number of years, but these riots will take that fear to a new level."


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: austrailia; islamicterrorism; middleeast; multiculturalism; muslim; riots; sydney; sydneyriots
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last
To: Lady Heron

I know, they always stand there stunned that you mix all of these cultures/religions together and Nothing like this is supposed to happen...

There is a reason why we lived in separate nations separated by bodies of water.

Reality sucks sometimes, but Multiculturalism is a big FAILURE!!!


21 posted on 12/12/2005 8:06:19 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong

Just picked up the news at the top of the hour from 2UE Radio. Situation is supposed to be calm now, after a lot
of car windows got smashed. Most of the gang got away, though. Only a few arrests were made and people in the
area are worried about what the Muslims will do next.


22 posted on 12/12/2005 8:07:31 AM PST by Nextrush (Hell no, RINO's must go)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush

What the muslims should do next, is exit. Go home, (their own country) and join their other muslims and hate eachother, not us.


23 posted on 12/12/2005 8:09:38 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong

I am glad there is finally someone standing up to the muslims...very glad. I hope they continue, and I hope it spreads. These muslims do not deserve modernism...they need to be pushed back to their third world sand boxes, and kept there.


24 posted on 12/12/2005 8:09:41 AM PST by sit-rep (If you acquire, hit it again to verify...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong

Odd, isn't it, how muslims are praised for fighting for a Jew free "homeland" and the Aussies are pilleried as Supremacists for defending theirs.
These "rioters" are heros with the courage to stand up against the leftist establishment and islamic harassment. In Europe people are afraid to speak out. In fact, they can me arrested for doing so. But they know. They know there are places they can't go anymore. They know it's not safe for young girls in public places. They know these new imigrants reject the laws and culture of the country they consider themselves conquering. At some point even the French will tire of bending over. I predict it will happen suddenly.


25 posted on 12/18/2005 1:24:33 PM PST by LibertyJane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwingintelligentsia
Have you noticed that whenever this sort of thing happens lately, it's the cars that suffer the most? Tragic.

The Muzzies want "dissing" them to be costly to Australian society, without (yet) crossing the threshold that would trigger deadly force being used against them

26 posted on 12/18/2005 2:54:53 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
Situation is supposed to be calm now, after a lot of car windows got smashed. Most of the gang got away, though. Only a few arrests were made and people in the area are worried about what the Muslims will do next.

It's called "Low Intensity Conflict". They pick a target, raid, and quickly return to sanctuary before any response arrives. It's a very Arab way of fighting

The Indians used that form of warfare as well, until we adopted the counter of denying any sanctuary, and destroying their villages

27 posted on 12/18/2005 2:59:19 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Nextrush
As to what I mean by "Low Intensity Conflict":
However, all agree that while LIC is theoretical possible in a modern industrial nation, it is a form of conflict most appropriate to the Third World. Furthermore, it can be stated that this concept can be applied only in cases where there is no direct confrontation between the superpowers, since such a confrontation, should armed conflict actually commence, could scarcely be stabilized at a LIC level. Although allied, friendly or client regimes of either side or one of the superpowers themselves may be involved, LIC theory does not allow for direct conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Third World.

   Finally, LIC is a concept that is not of a purely military nature, even though it has been developed and propounded chiefly by the U.S. military. Instead it is an integrated political-economic-military approach, supplemented by psychological, social and diplomatic devices. Without much exaggeration it can be stated that LIC conceptually is primarily a political oriented and integrated policy approach containing military elements - and not first and foremost a military matter.

   William Olsen of the U.S. Army War College states: "In actual fact, the definition of LIC should not concentrate on the military level of conflict, but on its political character... The aim is not military conquest, but social control, for whose attainment military means can be employed as an element of the struggle... The use of military force must be measured by its social and political utility. Military means are a tactical element of a strategic program that emphasizes goals and means. Though important, the use of military might is limited, while the use of diplomatic and political means may be unlimited."(7)

   The U.S. Army's training manual FC 100-20, issued in May of 1986, defined low-intensity warfare (conflict) as follows: "LIC is a limited politico-military struggle to attain political, military, social, economic or psychological objectives. It is often of lengthy duration and extends from diplomatic, economic and psychological pressure to terrorism and insurgency. LIC is generally confined to a specific geographical area and is often characterized by limitations of armaments, tactics and level of force.  LIC involves the actual or contemplated use of military means up to just below the threshold of battle between regular armed forces."(8)

   This definition reveals two important elements: First, is the general character of LIC, with the civilian aspects also being stressed (e.g. economic pressure). This is significant because some observers misinterpret LIC as exclusively a military technique. Second, it makes clear the upper limits of use of military force beyond which the concept no longer applies. The definition also makes clear that LIC is a term embracing many types of conflict. The literature attempts to distinguish among various categories. The main ones are:

1. Counterinsurgency, i.e. the combating of insurgency;
2. Contra operations  (pro-insurgency), i.e. the organization of subversion and insurgency;
3. Counterterrorism, itself a collective term for diverse concepts and instruments, all of which are aimed at the offensive, military combating of "terrorism";
4. narrowly limited, "surgical" military operations using conventional forces. This category may be applied within any of the three tactical approaches above or independent of them;
5. other operations, e.g. rescue actions, participation in international peace-keeping forces or the like.

It needs to be pointed out here that not all LIC experts would subscribe to this categorization. For example, Professor Sam Sarkesian, a political scientist, explicitly does not interpret limited conventional operations and terrorism as LIC. However, in taking this position, he definitely stands on his own. On the other hand, Sarkesian gave expression to a broad consensus when he stated: "Revolution and counterrevolution are the main categories" of LIC.(9)
 

         U.S. RATIONALE FOR LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT

   It is interesting to note the official reasons given for the increased U.S. commitment to LIC operations. On the one hand, it is argued that the military and strategic situation between the United States and the Soviet Union, especially in Central Europe, is stable. It is contended that the Soviet Union cannot gain anything from a direct attack against the United States or its NATO allies and that it is therefor trying to make a "detour" via the Third World, where there are numerous conflicts to "exploit" with a view to isolating the leading capitalist states and hemming them in. Secretary of State George Schultz has described this as an "outflanking maneuver".(10)

   This argument has two interesting components: the first is the implicit (occasionally explicit) assumption that, in the fields of nuclear and conventional arms, the Soviet Union is not superior to NATO, but at most on a par, and it is for this reason that it turns to the Third World instead of attempting an eventual confrontation in Central Europe. Connected with this is the fact that the strategic situation in Central Europe is considered to be stable in the medium and long term and that, in the eyes of the United States, the main threat to Western interests today comes from the Third World. It should be noted that this line of argument has not been seriously regarded by either official security strategists or the peace movement in the Federal Republic of Germany

   "...The most likely threat to U.S. interests may stem from local or regional conflicts and internal instability of allies or clients of the United States. Morocco, the Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea - up to a certain degree all allies of America or the West - are all vulnerable to internal unrest and/or external attack... Internal instability, possibly leading to a revolution, is a more probable scenario in many of these countries (than an external attack - J.H.)."(11)

At the same time U.S. military planers postulate that conflicts in Third World countries are linked to development failures. For instance, Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh stated: "Anyone who studies the regions where insurgency occurs cannot fail to notice what the situations have in common: immature governments, emerging economies, population explosions and social problems, which have something to do with insufficient food supplies, poor health service and a high rate of illiteracy. This insurgency often takes place in areas with rich deposits of natural resources of considerable interest to the West. Many of these governments are susceptible to infiltration, subversion and destabilization."(12)

   The alleged great importance of certain Third World regions for the capitalist countries and their simultaneous instability are thus, from this U.S. perspective, a central problem of Western foreign and security policy. Given the concurrent situation of a "nuclear cul-de-sac" between the superpowers (as an official U.S. Army document puts it), the confrontation between them is thus shifted to the Third World an "limited to low- or medium-intensity conflicts within Third World countries, as in Afghanistan and Vietnam, or to support for third parties against the other's clients" (13).

   LIC is thus a reaction to a perceived strategic stalemate between the superpowers, which makes direct confrontation between them seem too risky and impracticable, encouraging a shift of venue for possible conflicts to the Third World. Quite often the Soviet Union is blamed for these tendencies and accused of deliberately employing LIC strategies as forms of low-level warfare against the United States in order to prevent the latter from responding adequately or on a large scale.

   In the opinion of U.S. strategists, LIC is therefore neither harmless nor of little importance; instead, it is virtually a Soviet strategy for waging global war against the United States without the latter noticing. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger expressed this viewpoint quite clearly at a conference he arranged on the subject of low-intensity conflict in early 1986: "Today's world is in a state of war. It is not a world war, although it is taking place throughout the world. It is not a war between fully mobilized armies, although it is not less destructive... Today one in every four countries in the world is at war. In practically every case, the face of these wars is hidden behind a mask. And in practically every case, the Soviet Union and those who do the work for it are hiding behind this mask." (14)

 

        

I would argue that, in the above, we can replace "Soviet Union" with Red China, which is the entity who would most benefit from a general conflict between the US and the Islamists
28 posted on 12/18/2005 3:10:05 PM PST by SauronOfMordor (A planned society is most appealing to those with the hubris to think they will be the planners)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-28 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson