Australia Ready To Strike Abroad

Australia's prime minister has said he is ready to launch pre-emptive action against terrorists in neighbouring Asian countries. John Howard's remarks caused outrage among governments in the region.

He told Australian television that international law was no longer adequate to confront the threats to national security.

Mr Howard's comments come as Australia beefs up its security measures, following a terrorist attack in Bali in October which claimed up to 90 Australian lives.

Asked whether he would be prepared to act if he knew terrorists were planning to attack Australia, Mr Howard said: "Yes, I think any Australian prime minister would."

Australia has one of the most powerful military machines in the Asia-Pacific region, including a modern air force and highly regarded special forces, says the BBC's Phil Mercer in Sydney.

Mr Howard said he would have no hesitation in using these resources in neighbouring countries to eliminate suspected terrorist targets.

The Australian leader also wants the United Nations charter to be amended to allow member countries to strike first if they believe an attack is imminent.

Marti Natalegawa, Indonesia spokesman He said the existing document was drawn up when conflicts were defined in terms of one nation attacking another nation - and was now out-of-date.

"What you're getting is non-state terrorism which is just as devastating and potentially even more so."

In the past few weeks, the Australian government has issued a number of warnings that an attack on Australian soil is likely in the coming months.

The country's sense of security was shattered on 12 October, when powerful bomb blasts blamed on suspected Islamic extremists tore through beach bars on Indonesia's resort island of Bali.

Up to 90 of the 185 people killed were Australian, and the attack has been dubbed Australia's September 11.

Since then the country has been on a high state of alert, boosting security overseas and warning of further attacks.

Last week Australia closed its mission in the Philippines, citing a specific and credible terror threat.

Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Marti Natalegawa said Australia did not have the right to launch military strikes in other countries. "States cannot flout international law and norms willy-nilly," he said.

Thai Government spokesman Ratthakit Manathat said: "Nobody does anything like this. Each country has its own sovereignty that must be protected."

And Philippine National Security Adviser Roilo Golez said Mr Howard's comments were "not wise", and did not "follow ... the doctrine of peacekeeping and sovereignty."

"Do you have any more info on that?"

It was an immigration issue that the New York Supreme Court ruled on. Idiots at the time thought that "religion" in the Constitution meant any animal sacrificer that wanted to practice in the USA. NYSSC said "No!" "Religion" in the official documents in the USA means "Christianity," and all others including "..followers of imposters such as Mahommet....are to be harassed."

An old lawyer showed me that in 1973. The ruling was in 1892 or 1893. You could find it in their procedings if you want.

You seem to have only made my points for me (minus the sarcasm- my "strategy" would be to immediately stop all Muslim immigration, beef up tthe military, and arm and train a very large militia -along the Swiss model, perhaps).

I am unaware of any of this being done, or even contemplated. The end of the "cold war" caused all of us to let down our guard, and now we are going to pay for it.

And, while Australia is in fact very remote from Europe and the U.S., it is really quite close to the southern (Muslim) Philippines and Indonesia.

Hell, WE have the best Coast Guard in the world, and we can't keep thousands of Cubans and Haitians from floating to our shores in rickety boats, inner tubes, and bathtubs. (Not to mention interdicting drug smugglers- who could just as easily be smuggling weapons).

'Yeah...well you allowed yourselves to be DISARMED by a bunch of globalist whackos to advance the New World Order'

Anyone who was disarmed deserved to be.It was voluntary.The government doesnt dictate my right to self defence whether it be with my fists,a knife or a beretta.I dont need a law for them to approve of it either.Im free no matter laws they try and impose.Maybe its my 'convict ancestory' speaking:P.

'And what kind are they? Shotguns suitable for hunting 'Roo? '

The only guns that are illegal here are semi-auto rifles.Ofcourse 'illegal' doesnt mean people dont possess them.

"The only guns that are illegal here are semi-auto rifles.Ofcourse 'illegal' doesnt mean people dont possess them."

Great....just the type most suitable for resisting any official sort of tyranny. And what do you think will happen to anybody caught with such a firearm? The gov't will wish to make an example of them, of course. So when it's illegal and you keep it...can you actually USE it and expect to stay out of jail? Or even stay alive?

"Im free no matter laws they try and impose."

Good for you. The right attitude. But the laws shouldn't BE there in the first place and the pols who enacted them were ELECTED by your fellow Aussies! And they're STILL in office! What happens to your guns next? Without the free and open access to guns your other "rights" are merely illusory. But of course, it doesn't matter whether there is access...the population has to be willing to actually use them to maintain freedom. Yours won't. THAT'S convict ancestry.

However...I'm not too terribly SURE that my own population would do this either.....at least currently. But with at least 150 million more guns in the hands of citizens...I'm pretty sure nobody in the other camp really wants to find out anytime soon.

The recent elections here point to the fact that gun ownership is still on the minds of many of our citizens and that the democrats are finding this out the hard way.

I think they may well wait until the liberals in our educational system can do some further brainwashing of the kids. Thats their secret here. Wait until the "old guard" dies off and use the kids to advance the agenda through a process of "dumbing down" and selective revisionism of history.

I know...I'm a teacher of history, government and psychology/sociology. I have been watching this trend for 15 years in the schools and fighting the only way I can....class by class. Sometimes it works and they learn to actually think for themselves and sometimes the conditioning is just too strong.

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.