The contrast between Howard and Beazely on the London attacks (1 Viewer)

[loquasagacious]

Firstly I am aware of the thread dealing with the attacks and of its closure. I have reopened the issue for two reasons:
I believe that media hysteria having calmed and peoples short attention spans kicked in this thread will not be flooded by spam and vitriol from NS.
This thread is for the discussion of a more intriguing issue (that say waf's parentage) that is the differences between Howards and Beazely's reactions to the issue.

I'm sure everyone has seen clips and sound-bytes of the two press confereces the leaders gave (I listened to the on news radio lol). Here are links for those that hav'n't: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1453.html, http://www.alp.org.au/media/0705/pcloo080.php?tv=on.

And here are some excerpts:

Obviously every effort is being expended to capture Bin Laden. But we shouldn’t see the world terrorist network as exclusively Bin Laden.

Howard acknowledges the many-headed hydra that is terrorism, a big step up on particularly the american response to 9/11.

We are a society that respects the right of people and encourages people to exercise their freedoms to the full. And free societies always find striking that balance difficult. But that doesn’t absolve us of the obligation to defend the freedoms that make us different.

He recognises the difficulties of maintaining a balance between enjoying freedoms and protecting them rather than riding roughshod over them.

Now we don’t want to over-alarm people, but on the other hand, we have to be realistic. We are living in a different world from the one that we knew before the 11th of September. And that is the brutal reality. Some people still find it hard to accept that. Some people are even falling into suggesting that that is manufactured for all sorts of reasons. They couldn’t be further from the truth. We are living in a different world and we are part of that different world forever. And we have to understand that and respond to it.

He succinctly and eloquently addresses the extreme left argument that the war on terror is manufactured for domestic reasons or other concealed motives.

In the history of mankind there’s always been a group of people who are seduced by fanaticism. It’s never been any different. Islamic fundamentalism of the extreme variety is not the first recruiting agency for fanatics, the world has seen.

it’s a bit like generic war against crime, you never completely eliminate it but that is not a reason to give up the fight.

Howard acknowledges that the war on terror is not something that can be won in six weeks and will see the troops home for christmas.

I am sure that overwhelmingly, Australians of the Islamic faith would be as horrified at what’s occurred, as horrified as all of us are. Can I say again, there would have been British citizens of the Islamic faith on those trains and on that bus. London is a very multi-racial city and it has a very significant number of people who were born on the sub-continent or who are children of people who are born on the sub-continent of the Islamic faith and I can’t put it any more strongly than that. This is not an attack on Western Christians of Anglo-Celtic origin to the exclusion of all others. I am sure that when the causality lists are published you will see the names of many British citizens who are not Anglo-Celtic and are Islamic and this is a message to those who might be tempted to see generic evil in one section of the population - they’re wrong if they do. It’s a message and a reminder to people of all races and backgrounds that this kind of evil is the enemy of all of us. It’s as much the enemy of decent Islamic people, as it is the enemy of decent people of other religions or indeed of no religions at all.

In a huge leap up on many posters spamming the other thread Howard states that ethnicity does not constitute evil. That muslims are not all terrorists. That the world is not all black and white.

I mean I would like to be able to announce there won’t be any more terrorist attacks but we don’t live in that sort of world and there are going to be more terrorist attacks in the future and you can’t score it like a tennis match. You have to look at it from a very long perspective and just as it took a long period of time for other struggles to be won, the same will be the case with this.

The most eloquent reply ever to the charge that the coalition of the willing is loosing the war on terror?

In Howards press conferance we saw an intelligent appraisal of the threat, an aknowledgement that the world is not black and white and that the war on terror can not be simplified to a war on Osama bin Laden. This is a completely different - and better - tone than that employed when dealing with tampa for instance. We have seen the intellect and eloquence of John Howard, something I would like to see more of.

Moving on the Kim Beazely though:

These terrorists are sub-human filth who must be captured and eliminated

At this point the bomber beazely ripped off his shirt revealing his terminator like physiqie and promised to personally hunt down the terrorists and their families torture them and kill them slowly.

Beazely's conferance was an exercise in moral outrage and righteous indignation. There was scant sign of intelligence. What we saw was a a crazed extremist shocked into action. He was reactionary in the extreme. In short Beazely exhibited the characteristics for which such luminaries as anti-mathmite were derided for. His speech was that of a teenage male buffeted by tides of testosterone.

Maybe Beazely was trying to reach out to xenophobic australia and howard to the intelligensia? I personally have a far greater level of respect for Howard than I did and a reduced level of resoect for beazely.

 

[Arvin Sloane]

It’s hard to take anyone with an avatar of a naked Fett seriously.

 

[withoutaface]

Hahaha thats great.

 

[absolution*]

Beazley is a douche. Ive said it all along. Take that Moonlight.

 

[beccaxx]

did he really?? (beazley)

 

[absolution*]

shut up and get back to ns

 

[spell check]

howard just said stuff everyone arlready knows

what's so noble about that?

especially after he sent australian troops to the iraq invasion and lied to the australian parliament

 

[loquasagacious]

Yes Beazely really said that? Follow the link if you doubt....

Sloan looking beyond the shiny picture (which is incidently not naked) might help.....

 

[leetom]

*Chief Labor strategist sits in office all alone, opens mediaplayer once more to listen again to Howard's speech, and scratches head*

 

[loquasagacious]

The nobility is in the abrupt about face from previous positions. The nobility is in the difference between him and other world leaders (Blair no longer has to be the sensible one in the coalition). The nobility is in the contrast to Beazely. And finally the nobility is in the calm, reason and intellect exhibited in the face of the attacks. A stoicism that Beazely admires in his press conference (admires in the British that is) yet fails to exhibit.

And finally this is not stuff evrytbody knows. There are still widespread levels of ignorance and apathy in Australia. Someone who gets the coverage of John Howard saying these things goes a long way toward dispelling this ignorance.

 

[loquasagacious]

So anti-mathmite in your mind Howard siezed the oppurtunity to be weak and howrd to be strong?

And each to consolidate their hold? Is it thus a backfire if based solely on these two press conferences I would vote liberal?

Though that said Beazely certainly got alot more coverage with his made for sound-byte comment that howard with his thoughtful comments.

 

[berry580]

Firstly I am aware of the thread dealing with the attacks and of its closure. I have reopened the issue for two reasons:
I believe that media hysteria having calmed and peoples short attention spans kicked in this thread will not be flooded by spam and vitriol from NS.
This thread is for the discussion of a more intriguing issue (that say waf's parentage) that is the differences between Howards and Beazely's reactions to the issue.

I'm sure everyone has seen clips and sound-bytes of the two press confereces the leaders gave (I listened to the on news radio lol). Here are links for those that hav'n't: http://www.pm.gov.au/news/Interviews/Interview1453.html, http://www.alp.org.au/media/0705/pcloo080.php?tv=on.

And here are some excerpts:



Howard acknowledges the many-headed hydra that is terrorism, a big step up on particularly the american response to 9/11.



He recognises the difficulties of maintaining a balance between enjoying freedoms and protecting them rather than riding roughshod over them.



He succinctly and eloquently addresses the extreme left argument that the war on terror is manufactured for domestic reasons or other concealed motives.





Howard acknowledges that the war on terror is not something that can be won in six weeks and will see the troops home for christmas.



In a huge leap up on many posters spamming the other thread Howard states that ethnicity does not constitute evil. That muslims are not all terrorists. That the world is not all black and white.



The most eloquent reply ever to the charge that the coalition of the willing is loosing the war on terror?

In Howards press conferance we saw an intelligent appraisal of the threat, an aknowledgement that the world is not black and white and that the war on terror can not be simplified to a war on Osama bin Laden. This is a completely different - and better - tone than that employed when dealing with tampa for instance. We have seen the intellect and eloquence of John Howard, something I would like to see more of.

Moving on the Kim Beazely though:



At this point the bomber beazely ripped off his shirt revealing his terminator like physiqie and promised to personally hunt down the terrorists and their families torture them and kill them slowly.

Beazely's conferance was an exercise in moral outrage and righteous indignation. There was scant sign of intelligence. What we saw was a a crazed extremist shocked into action. He was reactionary in the extreme. In short Beazely exhibited the characteristics for which such luminaries as anti-mathmite were derided for. His speech was that of a teenage male buffeted by tides of testosterone.

Maybe Beazely was trying to reach out to xenophobic australia and howard to the intelligensia? I personally have a far greater level of respect for Howard than I did and a reduced level of resoect for beazely.

To put it short.

Howard is smart and Beazley is dumb from what is said by both. Is that what you want to say?

I don't like how you analzyed the quote from Beazley, however, I do agree that Howard is a superior politician compared to Beazley.

 

[leetom]

Howard acknowledges that the war on terror is not something that can be won...

from Howard's address-

'I conclude my opening remarks by saying again that this is a terrible gut-wrenching, horrific reminder of the kind of world we live in, of the kind of people we must confront and defeat, and of the need for this country to remain ever-vigilant and alert, whilst continuing to go about the life that we so greatly prize and value–an open, free, friendly life, which has always been a characteristic of this country and we must always ensure that it remains so, side by side with a determination to work with other freedom loving countries to confront and ultimately defeat the scourge of terrorism.'

 

[loquasagacious]

If recognising that all muslims are not terrorists makes me a terrorist supporter, then that I am. If recognising that there are causes for terrorism (beyond Satan) makes me a terrorist sympathiser, then that I am. If believing that bombing the entire middle-east (with the exception of Isreal) into the stone-age is morally reprehensible makes me a terrorist supporer then that I am. If believing that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is an insane counter-productive policy counts as treason then I am treasonous.

How ever as asqy has said, in a conventional normal, real, logical , rational way; I do not support terrorism.

So anti-mathmite evryone is a conservative on the inside scared to come out? What you have said is almost a direct lift from american rhetoric concerning the silent majority, the moral majority.

So beazely was justified and right but labor will drag us back to the bad old days?

Finally you are a xenophobe. What have immigrants ever done to you (except you know give birth to you)? Have they taken all the jobs? Are they ruining Australian culture? Honestly I'm curious.

 

[loquasagacious]

Leetom you should hang your head in shame for that out of context quote which chnaged the meaning completely. Here's what I said - with what you left out in bold:

Howard acknowledges that the war on terror is not something that can be won in six weeks and will see the troops home for christmas.

Though yes Howard did say that the war on terror could not be won:

(the war on terror is) a bit like generic war against crime, you never completely eliminate it but that is not a reason to give up the fight.

I'm sorry it appears that subtely is lost on you.

 

[loquasagacious]

suicide bombing into stuff shouldn’t be done, because it is never going to achieve anything.

What has war ever achieved?

What is more moral firing artillery and rockets at targets (be they civillian or military) from safety of blowing yourself up to achieve the same result? Which requires the more thought? Which requires the greater dedication?

They gave birth to me

Unless you believe that man evolved (or was created by God) in Australia then yes. Every single person in Australia is descended from migrant stock.

The only way i can really describe it, is you know how students at religious schools HATE religion? Like they turn out ANTI-GOD

So you're a xenophobe because your mother makes you eat Chinese and pizza on alternating sundays?

Does it worry you/incense you that both Howard and Beazely lauded the multi-culturalism of both Britain/London and Australia?

i don't *really* hate immigrants; like i dont death stare everyone that i walk in to.. Only oness that have a pole of what ever size up their arse and try to rebel against our society.

Has it occured that this is a way for particularly young males to form an identity. Much as you are doing through your xenophobism and jingoism. It is no less or more objectionable than you, for you to denigerate it is to be a hyopcrite.

 

[loquasagacious]

I bet it was one of those elitist left-wing private schools like Shore....

anti-mathmite has it occured that this plays even more into my comparisson between you and 'aznz' who h8 this country? They are reacting against percieved white hegemony, you are reactioning against percieved left hegemoney. Both do so to form an independent identity.

 

[Casmira]

after reading those quotes about john howard i respect them, but doesnt kim beazley have more quotes on terrorism or are we simply putting in selective quotes

i like the analogy of saying this war is like fighting generic crime however, its so true (but its more extreme)

 

[loquasagacious]

The quotes are both drawn from the resepective press-conferences, there are likley more however I don't have four years to dedicate to finding them and cataloguing them.

 

[zahid]

I don't hate this country. I love it more than anyone here. And yes, the hegemony thing is probably correct. But please don't compare me to who ever that person is, lol.

And why are we talking about me. Let's get back to talking about Beazely and Howard.

Ur a discusting person...I though withoutaface was bad....ur just...ARGH..SHUT UP!!!