| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Down Under | ||
| ADF chief doubts Iraq link to terror risk | ||
| 2004-03-16 | ||
| The chief of the Australian Defence Force, Peter Cosgrove, says he does not agree with Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty on the likelihood of a terrorist attack in Australia. On the weekend, Mr Keelty said Australia was a greater terrorist target due to its support for the US-led invasion of Iraq. Which means that Al Qaeda’s new agenda is to punish those who liberated Iraq, even though there was supposed to be no link between AQ and Iraq. One has to ask why this is so. But General Cosgrove, speaking at the launch of a new defence command structure in Sydney, says while he generally agrees with Mr Keelty, this is one occasion when he will differ. "I consider that they’ve declared war on us, they’ve killed our sons and daughters and now they’re trying to divide us with words," General Cosgrove said. Couldn’t agree more "It seems to me they started this and we are in to the end. We are not going to be divided off from the few nations in the world that are taking a really strong stand." Right on General Cosgrove says he has seen the same intelligence as Mr Keelty. However, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) says Australia’s participation in the Iraq war may have made it a more attractive target for Al Qaeda. Why? They will attack on any excuse. What was their excuse in Bali? As Cosgrove says, they want to divide us with words. They only thing we should discuss with them is their preferred method of being killed. FBI assistant director John Pistole says he is not aware of any specific intelligence that indicates Australia is currently a target of Al Qaeda but he says Al Qaeda may take Australia’s relationship with the United States into consideration. May, may, may "That is one factor that Al Qaeda may take into consideration but I think that that is in a range of dozens of factors that may be considered, including the ability to conduct an attack," he told a meeting of Australia’s police commissioners in Sydney. The country’s police chiefs are meeting to discuss counter-terrorism and national security. "The fact that Australia is an ally of the United States and works closely with the United States means that Australia may be targeted, just like any other country that has worked with the United States, or is an ally," Mr Pistole added. Mr Pistole says that if the intention of the terrorist group responsible for last week’s Madrid bombings was to influence the result in Spain’s election, then the stakes have been raised. Or they may have just come up with an excuse AFTER the attack to try and justify their homicidal act. And the media has gone for it hook, line and sinker. "I would hate to give any terrorist group credit for influencing the election," he said. "If that was the intended outcome and that was what achieved, then that raises the stakes of the vulnerabilities and potentials that we must deal with." Or it could be that the terorists struck an unintended jackpot. New South Wales Premier Bob Carr has accused Prime Minister John Howard of being "cranky and prickly" in his reaction to Mr Keelty’s comments about a possible link between the war in Iraq and Australia’s level of terrorism risk. Mr Howard has rejected Mr Keelty’s view that Australia is at greater risk of a terrorist attack because it helped the US in Iraq. Mr Howard publicly rebuked the police chief by questioning his credentials as an authority on the issue. Mr Carr says Mr Howard’s reaction was "very intemperate". "We can have a civil debate about this but it struck me the Prime Minister was cranky and prickly with the way he responded," Mr Carr said.
So what’s the problem then. He says more evidence is needed to back up claims that Australia is at greater risk. "I’m an agnostic, I simply don’t know," Mr Carr said.
| ||
| Posted by:tipper |
| #25 their rage is a pre-packaged, plastic-like, commodity, sold by MTV, Hollywood and cynical reporters, like a plastic Jesus....with some sort of miracle properties. Damn... Yes! |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-16 5:54:21 PM |
| #24 Holey Moley, marine's who studied religion? Damn! What happened to the old corps? They'll be lettin in Irish next. Happy Holiday BTW. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-16 5:25:07 PM |
| #23 OP, when I took an eastern religions class in college we learned that the guiding principle of islam was "submission to god". As every word in the koran is supposed to be followed to the letter - there you go. No wonder they are as they are. Prior to 600 a.d. and the rise of islam, arab culture had developed many advances, they've been stuck ever since. From algebra to fatwa I say. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-16 2:28:01 PM |
| #22 Small people feel big when they rage against the man. People like Antiwar don't have any convictions, they just spew whatEVER latest fad makes them feel a part of the rage machine. I really don't even think they care that their rage is a pre-packaged, plastic-like, commodity, sold by MTV, Hollywood and cynical reporters, like a plastic Jesus....with some sort of miracle properties. Rage and cyniscism are the easist ways to turn up your nose, without having to turn up your sleeves. But the point I want to get to is this: before 911, we tolerated this behavior. But we can't afford to now. I don't think Antiwar is a bad person, she actually seems like she'd be a fun gal to be around. But I don't think we can afford to indulge her insecurities anymore. Our own safety is being put at risk in order to pretend that her personal insecurities and disappointments are more important than the civilzation of mankind. Sorry Antiwar... the Wonder Years are over. We are in a fight for civilization now. If you want to suck on your baby bottle, go ahead. But don't expect us to pat your head and say there-there, anymore. Mommy and Daddy are kinda busy right now. |
| Posted by: B 2004-3-16 1:58:26 PM |
| #21 Let's face it - bin Laden himself has said that anyone that doesn't follow his line is an enemy, and will be attacked. That not only includes anyone who is not a Muslim, but even those Muslims that don't follow his very strict, limited views of what a Muslim is supposed to be. Bin Laden's version if Islam is the most severe form of Wahabbism, but ALL of Islam is predicated on forcing the rest of the world into their worldview - I.E., the idiot in England saying that "Hatred of all other religions, cults, etc.", is REQUIRED of Muslims. My own personal readings of the Quran and Hadith support their assertions. Islam is incompatible with personal freedom, the right to choose between one way and another, and the exploration of alternatives in ANY FIELD. Islam is the final word, and nothing else is allowed. This is why the Arab world is still stuck in the 13th Century, except for what they can borrow or steal. This is the ultimate clash of civilizations, even moreso than the clash between capitalism and socialism. This is the clash between personal freedom and eternal serfdom. Either we win, or we will always be someone's slave. Even expressing a personal opinion not sanctioned by the Mullahs is reason enough for THEM to want us dead. Thank you, Australia, for understanding this, and for siding with personal freedom. We (those of us with at least an IQ above room temperature) will do our best to see that you picked the winning side. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2004-3-16 1:47:30 PM |
| #20 #18 = docob, not anonymous |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-3-16 11:54:44 AM |
| #19 Like I SAID WhatEVER. that si not good debate. antiwar just tired from prepare for locus attack. she usualy very good debater. |
| Posted by: muck4doo 2004-3-16 11:52:56 AM |
| #18 Run along now, antiwar. This is a forum for adults. |
| Posted by: Anonymous 2004-3-16 11:49:51 AM |
| #17 There just doesn't seem to be a real person behind the words.. There do not seem to be 2 brain cells between the Anti's ears. |
| Posted by: rsd 2004-3-16 11:28:11 AM |
| #16 Anti: "La,la,la,la...can't hear you!", "We are not sinking, we are not sinking". It's called denial. |
| Posted by: rsd 2004-3-16 11:25:19 AM |
| #15 Am I the only one here that's starting to feel that Antiwar fails the Turing test? There just doesn't seem to be a real person behind the words. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-3-16 11:21:34 AM |
| #14 "WhatEVER. This is known as being unable to support your own views." -BAR, this is also usually the response of a teen-ager who can't come up w/a quasi-adult coherent retort. I'm embarrased we share the same Irish heritage, we usually tend to be somewhat articulate. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-16 11:18:50 AM |
| #13 WhatEVER. This is known as being unable to support your own views. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-3-16 11:05:00 AM |
| #12 Jeeezz.... that was mean. But effective. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-16 10:47:35 AM |
| #11 JereseyMike: I should think that Antiwar's comment makes her position very clear. She is on the other side. -AR |
| Posted by: Analog Roam 2004-3-16 10:42:59 AM |
| #10 Like I SAID WhatEVER. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-3-16 10:26:36 AM |
| #9 You pride yourself in your immaturity, don't you, anti-war? Some kind of little malfunction switch in your brain causes you to believe that no one will notice that you are an aging, somewhat odd duck, if you just keep acting immature. Kind of like alcoholics think that they can cope with the world better when they are drunk. It's not true, but it helps them to justify their inability to let go of the bottle and grow. Here's a hint, you have a cheery disposition, people will actually like you better if you move beyond adolescence and act your age. I know it's hard to believe - but it's true. |
| Posted by: feeling mean 2004-3-16 10:11:00 AM |
| #8 Oh, that's f'ing beautiful, Anti. As long as it doesn't affect you directly, who gives a damn? And if someone points out evidence contrary to your beliefs, just dismiss them and run away. Lovely. |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-3-16 10:05:33 AM |
| #7 WhatEVER. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-3-16 9:44:04 AM |
| #6 Anti, people such as yourself who deny the danger these people represent, endanger us all. These mutts want me and everyone I know dead, and everything I hold dear destroyed. No negotiation, no reasoning, no bargaining, no treaties. It is my governments duty to me and my family to make sure those Islamofacist bastards lives are forfeit. Will knucklehead's like you ever understand this simple truth? |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2004-3-16 8:53:24 AM |
| #5 Anti--Turkey, who didn't support the war, has been attacked. Saudi Arabia, who didn't support us, has been attacked. Don't forget Bali, either. Draw your own conclusion. What does it take for people like you to realize that we're at war globally and appeasement is not an option? Should we give the Islamofascists tanks, planes, and uniforms so they're more recognizable to you? |
| Posted by: Dar 2004-3-16 8:33:33 AM |
| #4 Anti,an allie who turns tail and runs at the first attack isn't much of an allie. |
| Posted by: Raptor 2004-3-16 7:18:37 AM |
| #3 Spain allied with US in Iraq they get attacked. Draw your own conclusion. But as most of you will come to the wrong one I'll tell you Australia which by the way John Sheep is only spelled with one i. |
| Posted by: Antiwar 2004-3-16 6:08:49 AM |
| #2 Austrailia is surly one of the best Allys one could have in war and i just hope Howard stays in power to keep up the pressure on AQ. |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-3-16 5:03:28 AM |
| #1 "The fact that Australia is an ally of the United States and works closely with the United States means that Australia may be targeted, just like any other country that has worked with the United States, or is an ally," Mr Pistole added. This guy is a loose cannon who should not have been sent to Australia. What is wrong with this !@#$%? |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-3-16 1:42:35 AM |