Australia jumps on the 'terrorist' bandwagon.

The Australian government launched its re-election campaing this week.Unsurprisingly,it has copied the Republican party's shameless use of 'national security' as a marketing tool for its policies.

Australia has terror worries for election[or so say Abbott and Costello]
8/30/2004, 10:20 p.m. ET
By ROD McGUIRK
The Associated Press

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Prime Minister John Howard's government warned that Australia could become a terrorist target during a six-week election campaign that began Monday, with the war on terror and the nation's troop deployment in Iraq already taking center stage.

Treasurer Peter Costello said Australia should be alert for attacks in the lead up to the Oct. 9 election since Islamic militants detonated bombs in Madrid that killed 191 people in March. Several days later voters elected Spain's Socialists, who opposed the war and occupation of Iraq. Many said the conservative government's support for the war made Spain a target for al-Qaida.

"In Spain during an election there was a terrorist incident, so we have to be careful in Australia," he told Melbourne radio station 3AW on Monday — the first full day of campaigning.

The Madrid bombings were believed aimed at influencing the Spanish vote days later. Socialists won the election and made good on their pledge to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq.

Costello warned terrorists that they could not sway Australian voters with such an attack.

"Any terrorists should understand this point, if they think some kind of attack on Australians is going to change Australian policy, they're wrong, dead wrong," he said, adding later that he was not referring to any specific information of a threat.

Howard's government is one of the staunchest supporters of the U.S.-led war on terror and sent 2,000 troops to join U.S. and British forces in the invasion of Iraq. It still has more than 800 military personnel in and around the country.

Labor has pledged to withdraw most of the troops by Christmas, setting up a choice similar to that faced by Spanish voters earlier this year.

President Bush has called Labor's policy as "dangerous" while the government says the opposition's stance is playing into terrorists' hands. Howard payed down the impact of Iraq on his re-election prospects, while

Labor Leader Mark Latham reiterated his party's commitment to the withdrawal of troops.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Unsurprisingly,the Australian public are not buying this scaremongering nonsense.Labor is ahead in the polls.

Nothing shameless about it. Its only shameless to the haters.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Taranaki..Tell that to the French who didn't support the war and still are being held hostage because of a school dress code.

Terrorist need to be wiped out and no country should bend to any demands.

Terrorist need to be wiped out and no country should bend to any demands.

I AGREE! 100% - :2cents:

Man i wish i'd seen this last week... i so could have predicted that bombing on the Australian Embassy....

Every time Howard announces an election there is conveniently a mojor event about a month out that will swing voters away from all the issues they have had for the past three years and get them to vote for him... last time it was the Tampa... Australians had been saying for years they didn't want boat people just walking into the country... he was prepared to act...conveniently a month before the election (not before) and everyone was willing to neglect what a lying scumbag he has been...

i said after the last election that something would happen and it has...

conveniently the bombing in indonesia (again...and Australians can no doubt understand why) is right before an election, it shows a direct threat but with minimum impact.. and because it occurred outside our borders, Howard can say he has made Australia "secure".... had it occurred inside Australia it would have shown Australia was now a definate target and that the government was to blame... Now far be it for me to suggest that Howard or the government had anything to do with this event... but it's convenient isn't it?

DGB454

you mean demands like... hand over your leader and your oil or we'll blow the crap out of you?

yeah i can see what you mean!!!

incidentally... the secularism in france is designed to treat all people equally.. sound familiar? showing no preference to one religion over another in an effort to nullify religious differences... i think theres some stuff like that in the U.S. constitution... though it may have been forgotten? perhaps as a legacy of france helping to free the U.S. from England....

DGB454

you mean demands like... hand over your leader and your oil or we'll blow the crap out of you?

yeah i can see what you mean!!!

incidentally... the secularism in france is designed to treat all people equally.. sound familiar? showing no preference to one religion over another in an effort to nullify religious differences... i think theres some stuff like that in the U.S. constitution... though it may have been forgotten? perhaps as a legacy of france helping to free the U.S. from England....

Exactly what part is that? You mean that part that says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Are you one of the many people who don't even know what the constitution actually says? Nothing there about nullifying any part of religion. It only means that the government cannot prevent you from following your religion or establish its own.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

equal rights are not about the right to do anything you want... france treats all religions equally

i'm proud to be one of the billions who don't live under the US constitution... frankly these days i'd be ashamed to be one of the millions who have to call themselves Americans.

equal rights are not about the right to do anything you want... france treats all religions equally

i'm proud to be one of the billions who don't live under the US constitution... frankly these days i'd be ashamed to be one of the millions who have to call themselves Americans.

My pride lies in the fact that you are not an AMERICAN! Just thank an American you are not speaking German right now.

My pride lies in the fact that you are not an AMERICAN! Just thank an American you are not speaking German right now.


Why? If Japan hadn't dicked Pearl Harbor, it's quite possible that America would have just sat back and watched.

Really, Flatrater? Because I always taught that it was the Russians who did most of of the walking over the Germans, when they got lucky off a tactical blunder by Hitler in Babarossa (A Russian Winter :eek: ).....


Of course, we can thank America that we're not speaking JApanese right now, because the British were useless at protecting the Asia-Pacific region.

I'm also glad the Commies never got hold of any more of the world than they did...... But the point is, I'm tired of the US misconception that they were the only country that could stop Hitler and Mussolini (Well, even I could stop Mussolini). They were the only ones able to stop Stalin and Tojo, I will happily admit, but not Hitler.

Really, Flatrater? Because I always taught that it was the Russians who did most of of the walking over the Germans, when they got lucky off a tactical blunder by Hitler in Babarossa (A Russian Winter :eek: ).....

Of course, we can thank America that we're not speaking JApanese right now, because the British were useless at protecting the Asia-Pacific region.

Sounds like you have alot of hatred for the Germans, British, Russians, Japanese and Americans.


But the point is, I'm tired of the US misconception that they were the only country that could stop Hitler and Mussolini (Well, even I could stop Mussolini). They were the only ones able to stop Stalin and Tojo, I will happily admit, but not Hitler.

How is it a misconception? I never said we were the only country that could stop Hilter but we were the only country that did. Its simple Hilter was winning until he took on the Russians this spread Hilter's army too thin. But Hilter could of won until the Americans came with a sizeable army. Its the size of the American army that allowed us to defeaat Hilter. So yes it is the Americans who can take credit for the win. It sure as hell wasn't the French.

Rather tedious when people who weren't there and did nothing try to claim some kind of credibility because they happen to have been born in the same country as those that were.Perhaps you should be a bit more grateful that they were there, instead of riding on the back of their sacrifices.

Rather tedious when people who weren't there and did nothing try to claim some kind of credibility because they happen to have been born in the same country as those that were.Perhaps you should be a bit more grateful that they were there, instead of riding on the back of their sacrifices.


Well Naki I am not American born, that blows your post out of the water.

Rather tedious when people who aren't American and did nothing about Iraq, George Bush and the republicans claim some kind of credibility because they happen to have been born in the another country as those that are American. Perhaps you should be a bit more grateful that America took care of Saddam, instead of riding on the back of their sacrifices and trashing them the whole way!

Sounds like you have alot of hatred for the Germans, British, Russians, Japanese and Americans.




How is it a misconception? I never said we were the only country that could stop Hilter but we were the only country that did. Its simple Hilter was winning until he took on the Russians this spread Hilter's army too thin. But Hilter could of won until the Americans came with a sizeable army. Its the size of the American army that allowed us to defeaat Hilter. So yes it is the Americans who can take credit for the win. It sure as hell wasn't the French.
You need to learn to read, or at least comprehend simple English properly.


I have no hatred for Germans (Except for the fact they are so serious all the time), nor Russians, Americans, Japanese or anyone else and I never implied it by any means. I will happily admit that I openly hate Communism.

i don't hate communism... it'll just never work!

yeah... why'd everything got to be about america anyway? what's the title of this thread anyway?

because the majority of people on the forum are americans, and the majority of them believe there are two countries...America and the world, us and them, etc.

ahhhhh yeah now i get it.... how silly of me... and everyone else lives in caves and are barely civilised right?

Perhaps you should be a bit more grateful that America took care of Saddam, instead of riding on the back of their sacrifices and trashing them the whole way!

I very much doubt that it would have made one iota of difference to Iraq's impact on the world had Bush decided to do the right thing and go after the perpetrators of the WTC attack instead.It has not been proven that Iraq had any current stockpiles of WMD,or the capability to manufacture them,or any intention of using them.The whole scenario is bullshit.Iraq was a country being held under control by crippling sanvctions,and the manner in which America ploughed through to Bagdhad emphasised just how poorly equipped and badly organised the Iraqi forces were.Saddam was in no condition to pose athreat to anyone,least of all America.

Meanwhile,every time there is an explosion anywhere in the world,the US press leap too link it to Al Quaeda.Either they are helping to perpetuate the big lie,or Bush has failed miserably in his efforts to damage the organisation alleged to be responsible for the WTC bombings.Iraq was just a sideshow that Bush had planned long beforE Sept 11.Saddam would have had no bearing on the rest of the world had he been left alone.Sure,the Iraqis would have continued to suffer,but they'd have been no worse off than they are under armed and trigger-happy occupation.

Hey Naki did you see that howard got like 33% in the election debate? mostly due to his ass lcking stance on iraq aparently.
the bomb at the embassy in jakarta will probably sway things his way a little, but it still remains to be seen if there is a proper terrorist attack in the coming weeks, similar to Madrid.

The way I see it, the attacks in Madrid were a test. They get more and more creative in their attacks every single time and the intelligence agencies get more and more blinded and stepped on. I'm afraid no matter who is in office, an attack will happen again.

TS out

i think it probably depends on a little more than that.... what country are you talking about?

i mean nothing (practically) will stop the attacks on America and it's interests. Other countries that are less directly involved may make themselves less of a target by stopping their involvement. America has gone into so many other countries and flagrently flaunted their "might" as it were for the last 50 years, in doing so it has pissed off a lot of people and made a lot of enemies who i don't see becoming appeased by anything that america can do in the near future...
lets not forget that most countries in the world opposed the U.S going into Iraq, and out of the few that were willing to go, many of the citizens (the vast majority in some countries) opposed their governments, vehimently. As some of those countries approach elections these governments try to shift the issue onto other areas like the economy (fair call) and many voters will be willing to support a government that may lie to them and take them into wars they oppose, because they aren't really at risk or affected. These voters will swing violently if they are suddenly put at risk, if the war that they opposed has suddenly come home and worse still if people they know are affected directly (perhaps killed).

These countries do not have the ability to force others to leave them alone by military might, they have to resort to making the countries WANT to leave them alone. The war goes on.

I was referring to the USA. What happened in Spain, to me was a test. They are planning something big and I fear that their hatred towards the US is so great that any new methods will be applied soon to us. I am also referring to the fact that the attacks on 911 were with Bush in office. Even if Gore would have won, I believe it would have happened as well. The security intelligence community was not at its upmost and it ended up costing many lives. I just hope they are more aware this time around. But there are too many ways to attack such cities as NY, with its mass transit system, non check points etc. and I fear that it will happen again.

TS out

yeah i don't think it would have made a diff who was in when 911 happenned... as i said the U.S has made a lot of orphans... i mean enemies.

With Australia's election coming up in a few weeks it will be interesting to see whether there is an attck there to sway the election. because if countries like spain and australia (spain more so) have made themselves a target recently, and by assosciation, therefore if they change their actions they reduce their risk. going back, it takes a long time to undo a long period of behavior, and a relatively short time to undo a short period of similar behavior...

attacking Australia now could result in a change of government that did not follow the U.S into foreign countries on crusades for oil and other minerals...

This said, I completely support Australia going into East Timor, there was like 30 years worth of protests and stuff to get it to happen... the people had asked for intervention long ago... unfortunately i can't support the motive, they only bothered when they found a huge gas field and got it planned on how to use it...

i didn't mean spain is more of a target i meant they've made themselves one more recently...
these days they are probably relatively safe! as a result of leaving Iraq.

i DON'T THINK sPAIN WAS A "TEST" THOUGH.

IT SEEMED TO ME TO BE A CALCULATED ATTACK TO DESTABILISE THE "COALITION OF THE WILLING" AND MAKE OTHER COUNTRIES AWARE THAT THEY WOULD PUT THEMSELVES AT REAL RISK FOR SUCKING UP TO THE STATES. THE US IS THE TARGET AND OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AVOID BECOMING ONE. THE US IS STUCK WITH IT.

The following Public Service Announcement brought to you by twospirits.
First off, can you please refrain from posting your replies one after the other. Just use the edit link to edit your post and add additional comment. :smile:


Now, getting back on topic.
Personally I do not think the terrorist really care about disrupting an election no matter where its being held at. They just want to strike fear by causing harm/dealth and damage regardless of the days importance.

On a side note: Even if all the countries involved were to suddenly get away from the situation of helping the US and the US left Iraq and minded its own business. i would honestly say that the terrorist will still attack. Their hatred is too great.

TS out

Thanks for the tip! didn't realise i could...

anyway, Nobody does something without a reason, you just have to work out what that reason is.

as i said i dont think anything will stop attacks on the U.S. however preventing them might be as easy as withdrawing from other countries and concentrating on looking after your (generalised not personal) own country.

regardless, the attack on madrid changed the course of an election and the policies within that country, as well as making other countries feel vulnerable and possibly reluctant to help the U.S. I think it's important at this point to draw the distinction between the war on terror and the war on Iraq. Iraq was not and did not attack America, and the secular government provided by saddam, did not lend itself to religious war or islamic extremism. Therefore it is possible to support the "war on terror" and still have outright opposition to the occupation of Iraq. Causing other countries to back away from the U.S. and U.S. interests affects more than just diplomatic relations, the American economy can be hit, thereby affecting the "american way of life" as other countries try to diplomatically distance themselves, and the people start looking for alternate products/culture. Attacks like that in Madrid are not testing for America, they are squarely at America, and Americas global image.

Surprise, surprise. Howard is trying to scare the Australian public into another term in office. Not in this fucking life time for this little black duck. He has done enough to ruin our country.

Yeah I'm Not Sure If I Want To Vote Or Not... It Clearly Doesn't Matter When He Got In Last Time With A Minority. What Sort Of Democracy Has A Person Running It Who Didn't Get Half The Votes? I Can Think Of A Couple

looks like another of America's allies will get a better government. One that realises that its armed forces are better deployed defending home citizens than defending trade links with the US.

John Howard,like George Bush has damaged the economy,social fabric, and security of his country.It doesn't matter how much he runs around predicting doom and disaster if he doesn't get re-elected,Australians are smart enough to see that bad things are far more likely to happen if he does.

:1: Naki. 100%. Well said.

i hope Naki is right... i had more faith in Australia in the last election too! but Howard still got in with less votes.

besides what can we expect from our country when it's still under the monarchy when 78% wanted a publically elected head of state!