John Howard, UberMensch

The video. H/t to Traffic Non-Santa.

A quickie transcript:

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: Could I start by saying the prime minister and I were having a discussion when we heard about it. My first reaction was to get some more information. And I really don't want to add to what the prime minister has said. It's a matter for the police and a matter for the British authorities to talk in detail about what has happened here.

Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

Thanks to K-Lo at The Corner.

The left hates the term "appeasement." But the definition of appeasement is giving in to the demands of your enemy in order to placate him.

And the left is urging just that -- mollifying the Islamofascist enemy -- which I'm getting around to calling worse than even the Nazis -- in the hope that doing so will make them less angry with us.

When will they get it?

The Islamofascists do not need fresh provocations for their mass murders. They have 1400 years of greivances they want payback for.

And, by the way, the ideology is expansionist, imperialist, and colonialist-- they want to control all territory they once held, and they want to controll all territory which Muslims have, through immigration, "colonized." They believe it against the demands of Allah for any Muslim to subjugate himself to any authority except a strict Islamic one.

Do you really think they just want Israel and Iraq?

What about the disputed areas of Kashmir? What about Muslim-heavy areas of the Balkans? What about East Timor? What about non-Muslim parts of Lebanon? What about Africa?

What about the scores of smoldering little civil wars going on all over the world, the majority of which involve Muslims fighting non-Muslims?

Why does the left insist on believing that actual diagnosable psychopaths -- and I am NOT using that term hyperbolically; Islamofascists are true psychopathic murderers -- are somehow "reasonable" and if we just give them a little they'll be satisfied with that?

Does a shark stop eating after its third fish?

You can appease to your heart's content, ladies. But they want Spain back too.

So please write out a list of all the territory of the world you are willing to cede to viciously medieval thugocratic rule in the interests of buying "peace" from people who have told you, out of their own mouths and with no equivocation, they simply want to eradicate you and there's nothing you can give them that will change their minds.

Worse Than Neville Chamberlain? Hitler at least promised peace if he was appeased.

Smart people knew he was lying. But at least he claimed he would live in peace with the world if his demands are met.

So, Neville Chamberlain was a naive sap of a punk-assed chump bitch, but at least he had, on paper, a "peace" agreement.

Note to the left: Osama bin Ladin, Al Zarqawi, and the rest of the Islamofascist killers aren't even offering you an armistice. Quite the opposite. They have said, multiple times, that they intend to kill you or subjugate you and you cannot buy their peace simply by giving into their demands.

They're not even trying to lie to you. They are telling you upfront: The world will be under Islamofascist rule or there will be murders until that point.

On that score, they're more honest than Hitler.

But that makes those on the left worse than Chamberlain.

At least the left has found one sort of imperialism, and one sort of viciously anti-modern religious lunacy, it really can get behind. I guess that shows a certain amount of open-mindedness.

posted by Ace at 05:39 PM

| Access Comments