Call It For What It Is
The terrorist who launched the suspected biological attack on the Indonesian embassy has turned Schapelle Corby's problem into Australia's problem.
Good on Peter Hartcher. Eventually, someone used the T word, and about time.
It was irritating to see Howard and Downer avoid calling this outrage what it is ... a terrorist act.
For a government that's pointed to the threat of terrorism for their own political ends, it's surprising that they were so reticent to use the lable in this instance.
5 Comments
Leave a comment
Post a comment
Note! This site runs a spam filter which, among other things, looks out for certain words which it uses to guess whether the post is junk. For this reason, avoid using words related to gambling, ie, poker, roulette, casino etc, or names of certain sexual performance enhancing drugs. Posts that contain these words are automatically junked.
It may also moderate comments that contain more than two URLs, including your web page URL.
If you get a message that your comment has been moderated, and it hasn't materialised within a day or so, please email me so I can retrieve it.
Banner Designed By:
An 'apparent' terrorist act Tony. Proof still outstanding. Hate to defend His Darkness and his Dopey Foreign Minister, but I can see why they would be shy of the 't' word short of full proof.
Bahasa-speaking Aussies with ready access to anthrax - hmm. I wonder who they could be.
- I do not support any kind of terrorist act, neither do most Australians. Therefore, I would ask the Indonesians to follow the same advice Australians were given after the Bali bombing - ie, that the majority of Indonesians do not support JI (except the crowds of bin Laden supporters we saw cheering at the attack, of course), so Australians should not judge Indonesians. In fact, Australians accepted this, and returned to take their holidays in Bali.
Now Australians are entitled to ask for the same courtesy from Indonesians - ie, that only a small minority of Australians support the fools who sent the powder. Although comparing an action that resulted in hundreds of deaths with a bit of powder sent through the mail is a stretch, I would ask Indonesians to accept the same premise that Australians were asked to accept after Bali.
And we are still waiting for an apology from Indonesia for the five Australian journalists murdered by Indonesian troops in Balibo. The mother of victim Malcolm Rennie made this plea:
"I would appreciate... an apology for the cover-up and the shameful conditions at the time, and then let the thing rest."
No apology was offered and it never will be offered. Yet Australians should grovel and apologise to Indonesia? I dont think so.
Chris ... apparent act? An envelope containing a 'biological substance' was delivered to the Indonesian embassy. The staff had to go through de-contamination. The act was designed to terrorise. It makes no difference if the substance ends up being harmless.
The only way it couldn't be an act of terrorism is if someone at the embassy itself had something to do with it. That may be possible but what's the motive?
Dee .... the powder wasn't anthrax. Indications are it's harmless. But it doen't alter the motive of the attack.
The government calling the act for what it is doesn't lessen the general Australian population's abhorrence of it.
It was a shocking thing that happened to those journalists all those years ago, but it's not really relevant to this issue. I think we should be careful that this doesn't descend into a 'tit for tat' argument.
Tony, I wouldn't wish to argue that it wasn't a terrorist act, deliberate or effectively. My point is that I can still understand that, if I was part of the government (of the day, whatever colour), it is not a term that I would embrace eagerly with respect to my countrymen and women.
I can see your point, Chris, but the pollies wouldn't be so reticent to point the finger at someone else's countrymen and women if it, say, happened to an Australian foreign mission. (And rightly so, too.)