Couldnt have put it better myself.......

[Alexander Rowe]

"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."

[George Brims]

A lot of sense there from John Howard. In fact I think he really should stop speaking in public and just let us stick to reading what he thinks, as we have here. When you listen to the man it doesn't seem to matter what he's saying, you just get this awful feeling he's trying to sell you a really dodgy second-hand car.

Facetious comments aside though, I do take issue with some of what he's saying. "People" aren't saying we shouldn't be in Afghanistan, or Australia shouldn't be in E Timor. But there are many muslims around the world who would never consider becoming terrorists who are nevertheless bothered by what they see as the non-Muslim countries interfering where they don't belong. The terrorists are the ones who take that feeling and turn it into hate. It's beyond unfortunate and well into the realm of tragic that there are those who have figured out how to use selective teaching of some bits of Islam to recruit and drive young people into these awful acts of murder.

The trouble is now the toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's not going back in any time soon. We've been drifting into this confrontation between the Western countries and the extreme side of Islam for decades. How many decades will it take for us to drift back out? A lot of the trouble for the US goes back to Jimmy Carter's administration deciding to put pressure on the USSR by backing muslim dissidents in their southern republics, thus leading the USSR to invade Afghanistan. Somehow out of all that we get the Taliban running the country and providing a haven for Al Qaeda. Quite how I don't really know. Another screwup by the same administration and the ones preceding it was backing the Shah of Iran against a popular uprising. That one is a prime example of how supporting despicable despots instead of letting the people have their way (you know, "bringing democracy") always backfires *and* leads to a more radical new government in the end. (You think if the UK had sent the army into Rhodesia to unseat Ian Smith that little creep Mugabe would be running Zimbabwe now?)

Essentially my problem with what Howard has to say (sorry I took so long to get to the point here) is that it's no good just repeating the GW Bush mantra that they attack us because they hate our freedom or our way of life. That plays to Dubya's constituency but avoids the real problem, which is convincing the broad mass of muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere that the Western countries aren't interfering solely out of self-interest (read: we just want the oil) and really are trying to do the right thing. Once we have the majority convinced the extremists will lose support. Needless to say, this is all much easier said than done. In fact I haven't a clue how we could pull it off.

[fred]

The trouble is now the toothpaste is out of the tube, and it's not going back in any time soon. We've been drifting into this confrontation between the Western countries and the extreme side of Islam for decades. How many decades will it take for us to drift back out? A lot of the trouble for the US goes back to Jimmy Carter's administration deciding to put pressure on the USSR by backing muslim dissidents in their southern republics, thus leading the USSR to invade Afghanistan. Somehow out of all that we get the Taliban running the country and providing a haven for Al Qaeda. Quite how I don't really know.

It's all here if anyone cares enough to read it.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

Particularly relevant to the events in Britain at the moment is this part:



1984-1994: US Supports Militant Textbooks for Afghanistan
The US, through USAID and the University of Nebraska, spends millions of dollars developing and printing textbooks for Afghan schoolchildren. The textbooks are filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. For instance, children are taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles, and land mines. Lacking any alternative, millions of these textbooks are used long after 1994; the Taliban are still using them in 2001. In 2002, the US will start producing less violent versions of the same books, which President Bush says will have “respect for human dignity, instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry.” (He will fail to mention who created those earlier books).