Andrew Bolt's Blog,22/11/15; When Abbott and Bolt totally disagree Bolt buries it; Global Terror is great for Murdoch's business; There is no multicultural threat only a terrorist one; Dutton needed for our insecurity he makes us laugh; Bolt fights for riskless Capitalism; Bolt real extremists UPF and RA overlooked 1000's of them are here; Guns are the answer; Charge and shoot Syrians;
" We really are a civilisation in decline, ceding authority to the intolerant and their authoritarian allies in government."
So now Andrew Bolt is not declaring he's talking about Tony Abbott who is an the ally of Bolt's "intolerant " Green yet Bolt isn't calling Abbott out why? His a mate openly told him he was wrong on the Bolt Report. Abbott made it clear he believes that Section 18C is necessary to protect us from I guess the likes of Andrew Bolt.
"the Catholic Church had produced and distributed a booklet which
“does immeasurable harm to the wellbeing of same-sex couples and their
families across Tasmania”
Tasmanian law prohibits offensive and insulting speech not only on
race and ethnicity, but on 20 different areas from sexuality to religion
belief to political affiliation.
What is being dealt with is the fact that the Catholic church didn't just express an opinion they actually published and printed that opinion. Now it's been declared they have a case to answer. So all Bolt is arguing that the law hasn't even the right to ask the question. That is against his free speech argument isn't it? Anyway why has he protected Tony Abbott who is for these anti- vilification laws and against hate promoters like Bolt and he's attacking a Green? Obviously it's not political
" Should a man with this record of dud assurances be a media pundit on Islam and a lecturer at Monash University’s Global Terrorism Research Centre?"
There is every reason we need to listen to Monash and Waleed Aly before Andrew Bolt and it's very simple.
Andrew Bolt's arguments are so weak because 1) they don't analyse the facts as the present themselves in reality. Monash gathers and studies those facts 2) Bolt's explanations are driven by his anti- Islam and anti -multicutural agenda within which everything is explained rather than analysed. Any complexity in explanation is reduced and simplified. Andrew Bolt's explanations simply become ideological and fascist generalizations as are the explanations of ISIS neither are in touch with reality and merely become the propaganda of mirror opposites without any enlightenment.
Bolt is desperate to connect all terrorist activities committed by Muslims as having a global and unified anti-Western reason for their being which is not only unstudied but in fact insane. For ISIS and Bolt every Muslim political insurrection is connected to the one single Islamic anti-western cause which is simply propaganda.
The events in Camaroon, Mali, Syria , Iraq, Philipines, Paris and New York maybe carried out by Muslims but Muslims like Christians are more that 50% of the worlds population and are geographically located in various nation states with their own political and social histories. The terrorist activities being exercised today or yesterday all have the own particular social, political and peculiar set of characteristics and are rarely united as Andrew Bolt makes out. He merely squeezes these very disparate and complex events into singular reasons and sweeping generalizations for no more than the pursuit of his extremist, conservative, political and disconnected agenda. So yes there is a very logical reason to listen to those employed at Monash and not to just listen to those employed by Rupert Murdoch who has a corrupt influence throughout the Anglo-sphere. Global terrorism is great for the Murdoch business model and a conservative perspective on it is even greater for business. Globally, terrorism is on the rise – but little of it occurs in Western countries
"No. Averaged over the past 15 years, only 4.4 per cent of attacks and 2.6 per cent of deaths were in Western countries.
There is a far greater threat of death and injury in the West conducted by White Christian terrorists than Muslims. However it's something Bolt simply ignores.
Columbine Massacre was committed by White Male Protestants
Aurora Theatre massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
Sandy Hook Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
Tucson Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
Roseburg Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
Charleston Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
Oak Creek Sikh Temple Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
San Ysidro McDonalds Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
UT Austin Tower Massacre was committed by a White Male Protestant
Sunni Muslim girl is fighting for you Andrew Bolt But at the end of the day you'd turn your back on her
The message why is there such easy access to to weapons who makes them and why are they that easy to come by? The war in Lebanon lasted 25 years and was a profit pit for arms dealers. Terrorists were simply taken for granted.
" They said Salah Abdeslam was caught between European authorities hunting him and
so-called Islamic State members who were "watching him" and were unhappy
that he had not detonated his suicide belt."
Sorry Andrew Bolt neither the Belgians nor the French are calling this a "multicultural " threat. Unlike you the EU is making a distinction between between immigration and refugees and homegrown political terrorism. Your anti-immigration stance and attempts to relate it to terrorist activity are not holding any weight other than with the ultra -racists of the EU who found Anders Brevik a martyr for their racist cause. The Belgian authorities are chasing a terrorist for crimes committed who happens to be a Muslim. They are not a border force dealing with any threat as seen and described by you.
The News Corp crew working for Rupert Murdoch are a pack of hounds aren't they. Murdoch, we all know, fell out with Turnbull years ago and has always tried to bring him undone ever since. However to say Peter Dutton is an essential part of any part of a National Security Committee beggars belief given even he knew it was he that broke the camel's back, that he was the last straw that resulted in Abbott's undoing. Replay the look on Scott Morrison's face in the boomgate video. Peter Dutton couldn't be stopped. The man has a track record. Wow a whole "Troika Of Liberals" support him. Those 3 conservatives who are against Turnbull obviously. No self interest there of course.
What on earth has Dutton to do with this new beat up about the fact that the USA intelligence is so bad it had no clue what Australia was doing when it was clearly doing it in public and the media months before. By the way is Australia informed of every move the USA make. I don't think so. This is definitely a media beat up that really needed to be dealt with among the Americans themselves. Dutton would surely have improved the situation wouldn't he?
Given Bolt sees national defence purely through the prism of troops uniforms and guns and force. Is it any surprise he's arguing for yet another Vietnam.
“We faced the very complex and time and money-consuming task of
obtaining many onerous government regulations, approvals, permits, and
licences — more than 4000 of them — and that’s not counting even more
required for the construction phase,” Rinehart said.
Not one of these regulations prevented Gina forging ahead and paying others to get the job of rubber stamping done.
She then had to build her own train line stretching more than 300km from
mine to port — as well as secure all the financing required for the
entire mega-project.
Gina saw this also as worthwhile money spinner. Afterall isn't the nature of business a "risk"? Riskless business is after all an oxymoron. Bolt seems to want to ingratiate himself with Australia's rich.
As it stands, Roy Hill has secured a world record $10 billion debt finance deal, aided by 11 different banks.
Well banks and investors also showed studied confidence. Is Bolt suggesting the Australian government was a hindrance in insuring the Nations rights were safeguarded. If Gina were a Muslim would Bolt be supporting her as much?
" I suspect that the number of extremists, as opposed to “real extremists” is indeed in the thousands.Hizb ut Tahrir alone had 800 people turn up to its last conference." Andrew Bolt also supports Abbott fact that we are at war as we saw in Paris." So are we to allow ISIL fighters to live on unmolested and wreak havoc upon the
helpless? Let’s not forget that the law of war prohibits only
“excessive” civilian casualties in relation to the military advantage
anticipated; it doesn’t require “zero” civilian losses."So Bolt sees nothing wrong with a war at home and even collateral damage is acceptable here as it is in Syria. Both he and ISIS agree there is no room for tolerance. The gray zone needs to be confronted even by mockery.
So will we begin to hear the voice of Bolt advocating the internment of Australian Muslims or them having wearing of arm bands to publicly identify who they are. After all it's kinder, more humane, more tolerant than just rounding them up and shooting them. Cultural assimilation camps is another alternative for those deemed un- Australian.
ISIL fighters to live on unmolested and wreak havoc upon the
helpless? Let’s not forget that the law of war prohibits only
“excessive” civilian casualties in relation to the military advantage
anticipated; it doesn’t require “zero” civilian losses.
As far as Bolt is concerned peace can only be achieved with the barrel of a gun. Bolt's philosophy is certainly certainly NRA they claim guns are needed for peace that's why Donald Trump said if Parisians were allowed to carry guns the massacre would never have happened to the extent it did. More than 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents, or by police intervention. 31,537 people die from gun violence: ✓ 11,583 people are murdered.
Bolt advocates guns are good for humanity that extends to wars and the rule of law at the end of a gun only as long as Bolt his kind have that right. Vietnam did not find peace at the end of a gun. There is no peace in Nth Korea but there is the law of the gun.
What Bolt wants more of to gain respect
Andrew Bolt in his eagerness to kill people and escalate the war in the Middle East takes the Republican armchair critics approach to Obama. Not only has Bolt moved to Putin and Russia's position that Assad is ok but he's double crossing the majority of Syrians trying to free themselves from the Shackles of his regime. Syrians the coalition once promised to help like the Kurds are now to be forgotten. Death mayhem the escalation of a war means little or nothing to Bolt as long as it's your sons that are sent to do the fighting and not his. Any action that strengthens conservative politics domestically or internationally suits Bolt.
Bolt would like us to believe Obama is the same executive decision maker as were Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld when they lied and created this mess in 2003 against the advice of all their military advisers. Against those who told them there were no WMDs in Iraq, Hussein had no expansion plans for Iraq and there was no reason to invade that country. Unlike those GOP criminals in 2003 Obama is taking the advice of his generals and military men who see the Middle East in more complex terms than Bolt's simplistic and politically Conservative terms. Bolt simply resorts to sweeping generalizations whereas Obama believes in reasoned analysis before action and real US intelligence. Bolt and conservatives like him simply turn US intelligence into an oxymoron a joke. Everything is short term and filtered through the lens of politics and the 2016 election little else matters.
" military officers, diplomats and analysts agree there is no easy formula for victory…"
" The US had hoped to expel Islamic State without laying waste to the economic infrastructure of Syria and Iraq…"
Respect of the Syrian people is factored in after the war is over.
Bolt on the other hand goes with the John Wayne approach the one that took us to Vietnam and the peace that the barrel of a gun failed to bring.
"Let’s not forget that the law of war prohibits only “excessive”
civilian casualties in relation to the military advantage anticipated;
it doesn’t require “zero” civilian losses." We can argue about "excessive" later it's purely a legal term yet to be defined so let's go in shooting from the hip.
It goes to show the degree of difference with which Bolt sees the threat of a single lone wolf attack here not as a crime by a nutter or a misguided youth. It's real illegitimate terror it different to the legitimate terror and "collateral damage" we are allowed to do to hand out to Syrian civilians when sending in troops to gun down ISIS in a crowd. As far as Bolt is concerned he places no value on Middle Eastern families, mothers, fathers and children.
Get rid of Assad and Syria will rid itself of ISIL
No comments:
Post a Comment