Sign In
Register
Help
Festering Andrew Bolt contagion exposed
Iain Lygo
Author of News Overboard; the Tabloid Media, Race Politics, and Islam
Right-wing Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt loves to dish it out but author Iain Lygo has been tracking his work and reveals plenty of flaws in this exclusive expose for Crikey.
When the Sydney Institute gets Andrew Bolt to speak about truth in journalism, their last tiny shred of credibility has surely evaporated into thin air.
Bolt’s column in the Herald Sun on Feb 13 (an extract from his Sydney Institute speech) represents everything that is wrong with the tabloid media in this country. His columns are not so much journalism, but merely an extension of the government’s PR department, that aims to secure the "redneck" vote; aka Howard’s battlers.
Bolt’s Febuary 13 column, titled "The Truth about Lies" claims there wasn’t a stolen generation or indigenous genocide in Tasmania. Bolt also denies global warming, species loss, and even claims that John Howard did not lie about asylum seekers throwing their children overboard.
Even the most one-eyed Liberal support would have to acknowledge that Howard and other ministers repeatedly lied to the Australian people on talk-back radio about the incident. The lie was compounded by the Australian Prime Minister two days before the 2001 election when he passed off a classified document from the Office of National Assessment that merely regurgitated his previous inaccurate press releases and subsequent press reports about the incident.
During the children overboard affair Bolt claimed "Only a fool could think Ruddock would make this up, given the incident was witnessed by dozens of sailors and officers." His conclusion, " Elsewhere in this paper you can see the photographs of the incident which I got from the Defence Department simply by asking for them. Proof positive" is a testament to his blinkered view.
While Bolt’s demonising of asylum seekers and defence of conservative politicians lacks any intellectual credibility, his willingness to label Australian Muslims "terrorists" without any evidence is truly disturbing.
While there may be terrorist cells in Australia, journalists need to be absolutely positive their sources are reliable. Reporting potential terrorist cells in Australia is a difficult task, and the decision to broadcast or publish any findings must be carefully considered. Journalists must consider whether their work will interfere with an ASIO or police investigation, prejudice a trial, or defame someone. Media law is difficult at the best of times, but there is also the ethical consideration that accusing someone of having terrorist links may result in some form of vigilantism or may result in an increase in hate crime. Journalists must know that those committing hate crimes are not that bright (remember all the Sikh who were vilified after September 11) and their words may encourage racial violence.
On September 8 2003, under the heading, "Our Islamic leaders must show spine" Bolt argued, "OUR Islamic leaders last week failed again to show the leadership we must demand from them in our fight against terrorism." The opening paragraph establishes the two sides in the fight against terrorism. The Islamic leaders are not part of the ‘we’ in ‘our’ fight against terrorism. They are instantly portrayed in the ‘them’ camp.
Bolt went on to write that, one of the clerics in question, Sheik Mohammed Omran, was a worry before the latest allegations because, "His Brunswick centre was found two years ago to be selling videos made by an extremist Islamic group that urged support for a jihad in Bosnia, and his web site still urges Muslims to "crush . . . the Jews and the crusaders"."
This was simply a rehash of The Herald Sun’s thoroughly discredited article published in November 2001. The Islamic Information and Support Centre Australia web site does not urge Muslims to "crush the Jews and crusaders" but it did have multiple links to other sites that may contain these words. The web site Bolt refers to provides Muslims a detailed database of Islamic institutions, from schools to mosques, to halal butchers across Australia. It provides prayer calendars, book reviews and other harmless services. At the time of writing the web site had closed all its links.
Bolt then speculates that moderate Sheik Fehmi Naji El Imam of Preston mosque would not discuss the Omran matter and had, "...lost his tongue. In fear?"
Fehmi’s other statements during his radio and television appearances clearly indicated he believed it was a police matter and he had not seen any evidence that the two accused were guilty. Bolt’s suggestion that Fehmi’s actions were taken because of fear was totally unfounded, and further suggested Fehmi was at risk if he spoke to the police. The more logical argument for Fehmi’s "silence" was that he (unlike Bolt) did not want to participate in a trial by media situation.
Bolt then goes on to argue that the friendship between Omran and an al-Qaeda suspect in Spain, "...is already enough for other Muslim leaders to distance themselves from Omran. Yet the Islamic Council of Victoria said merely that although Omran had extreme views, ‘we really shouldn’t be in a democratic society shunning people because of suspicions’." This again was another inaccuracy from Bolt. The Head of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Yasser Soliman clearly stated, "These suspicions need to be followed up and verified one way or another."
The next Islamic organisation Bolt lined up was the NSW Supreme Islamic Council whose reaction Bolt described as, "even more worrying". Bolt argued that the spokesperson for the NSW Islamic Council, Gabr Elgafi, "would not condemn another Australian Muslim linked to Dahdah, Islamic Youth Movement boss Bilal Khazal, even if he was a supporter of Osama bin Laden – which his web site confirms." Again Bolt cherry picks Gabr Elgafi’s words to suit his own agenda. Elgafi also states, on the interview that Bolt sites, "Well we don’t know what activity he has; we leave that to the authorities to act if there is any illegal activity" and, "...definitely we will condemn him if he supports terrorism" and, "it’s unfortunate they (the Islamic youth movement) are secretive; they should open up."
Bolt then concludes "It’s time more Muslim leaders realised that they owe it to the moderate Muslims they say they represent – and to the country they call home – to drive out the extremists who hide in their mosques. If they seem too scared or unwilling to do this, what must the rest of us conclude?"
Bolt’s conclusion simply ignores that moderate Islamic leaders who he had accused of silence, all welcomed an inquiry into the two men in question. These leaders also repeatedly argued the matter should be dealt with by the proper authorities, and called for more openness from some sections of Australia’s Islamic community.
In my opinion, Bolt’s columns represent ‘junk’ journalism. He cherry picks statements made by Islamic leaders, and then takes them out of context to support his conclusion. His final rhetorical question, "what must the rest of us conclude?" again divides the population into an ‘Australian us’ and a ‘Muslim them’. Bolt starts and concludes his editorial with a divisive play on words. There is a clear inference that the ‘them’ is letting Australia down.
Andrew Bolt again demonised Australia’s Islamic leaders and argued that there were terrorism supporters in Australia in an article published in The Herald Sun titled Terror’s Easy Ride. His October 23, 2003 article again relied on a series of half truths, insinuations, lies and omissions to portray Australia’s Muslim leaders as soft on terrorism.
In this column Bolt declares, "...we’ve seen a series of attacks by Muslims on churches and synagogues, particularly in Sydney" even though no Muslims have been charged with any of these attacks. The Herald Sun columnist also failed to mention the sustained campaign by Islamic leaders, especially Keysar Trad, condemning attacks on all religious institutions. Bolt portrays everything in black and white, and the Lebanese spokesperson is connected with terrorism because he, "...also worked for the pro-bin Laden Islamic Youth Movement". Again there was no mention of Trad’s extensive statements condemning terrorism in all its forms.
"Terror’s Easy Ride" declares, "Already we’ve seen Muslim schoolchildren here celebrate the September 11 terrorism against America, with even a Federation of Australian Muslim Students and Youth (FAMSY) spokesman admitting ‘extremism within our own ranks’ meant ‘some even gloated at the fact that America had been attacked’." While it is impossible to say no Australian Muslim schoolchildren celebrated the terror attacks, there was clearly no widespread demonstration of support for the September 11 atrocities by Australians. Bolt again is quick to omit extensive revenge attacks against Australian Muslims and the total condemnation of the attacks by Islamic leaders in this country.
Omitting important details to suit an agenda is standard practice from the far right media commentators. However, extremely selective or dubiously sourced quotes to support an agenda should not be tolerated by any media organisation. Internet search engines only find one document containing the quotes, "extremism within our own ranks" and, "some even gloated at the fact that America had been attacked". The document is Bolt’s "Terror’s Easy Ride."
When asked to identify the unnamed FAMSY spokesperson referred to in Terror’s Easy Ride, Bolt replied with an offensive e-mail.
The phrase, "extremism within our own ranks" was used during a lecture by Dr Zachariah Matthews at the UWS Milperra Campus on November 9 2001. When asked if Dr Zachariah Matthews was the source of these quotes, Bolt refused to answer the question.
Bolt again plays the race card declaring, "Already we’ve seen more than 118 recent kneecappings, murders, shootings, robberies and other assaults – two involving grenades – in a raging turf war between ethnic gangs in that Lakemba area, with one Muslim dying near the mosque and two more last week in a battle of 100 bullets."
Without denying there is a serious criminal gang problem in Sydney’s South West, by focussing on the religion of these criminals Bolt demonises all the Islamic communities in Australia.
The phrase, "with one Muslim dying (from gun violence) near the mosque" is a none-to-subtle hint that mosques and Muslims are inherently related to violent activity. Australia’s tabloid media now displays such ridiculous double standards for gang violence. Any journalist reporting the Chullora bikie gang shootout by writing, "eight Christian members of the Comenchero and Bandito bikie gangs members were killed in a shootout near a church..." would be instantly dismissed for stupidity. For Muslims (practicing or non-practicing) media standards are entirely different.
Bolt’s then argues, "Every month brings new cause to worry. To mark last month’s anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the popular IslamicSydney website declared there was ‘ample justification to bomb Washington and New York’." Once again Bolt is guilty of a distortion that demonises Australian Muslims. This quote is cherry picked from an article by Waseem Shehzad. The full quote is, "If the US government feels justified in attacking another country because the alleged (not proved) mastermind of the September 2001 attacks lived there, others have ample justification to bomb Washington and New York because the apparently sane rulers of America have killed hundreds of thousands (or millions) around the world."
IslamicSydney clearly states, "Articles on this website represent the views of the authors, they do not necessarily represent the views of IslamicSydney.com." Bolt simply takes a tiny snippet of an article on a website and attributes it to publishers of that site. Imagine the media response if an Islamic leader took a quote from an Anti-Muslim letter to the editor and said, "The Herald Sun declared Muslims should remove their hijabs before entering banks."
When asked whether Bolt still stood by his statements regarding IslamicSydney.com the Herald Sun columnist replied with another insulting e-mail which did not answer the question.
In Terror’s Easy Ride, Bolt portrays Shiek Omran as a terrorist using guilt by association. He then goes on to say, "... the Islamic Council of Victoria defends Omran rather than denounce him as an embarrassment to its faith." Once again Bolt plays fast and loose with the truth. The ICV have made clear and unequivocal statements welcoming investigations into Omran’s activities. They have encouraged Omran’s group to be more open and inclusive, while declaring they would not denounce him without conclusive proof he was involved in or supported terrorism.
Bolt concludes his article by stating, "Again and again, we’re offered proof that too many of our Muslim leaders work in ways that threaten us. This must be exposed, not covered up. The longer this contagion is left to fester, the sicker we may all become." Proof that local Muslim leaders support terrorism in Australia is the one thing Bolt lacks. He resorts to his standard use of misinformation and omissions followed by a series of rhetorical questions. It is shoddy and dangerous journalism. To use his words, this type of journalism, "must be exposed, not covered up. The longer this contagion is left to fester, the sicker we may all become."
Iain Lygo is the Author of News Overboard; the Tabloid Media, Race Politics, and Islam. This article contains extracts from his book that is due out in March.
-------------------------------------------------------
Reader Feedback:
Hi Crikey,
Firstly thanks for the great work you do. I find it inspiring and uplifting.
Once I read Bolt's article ('The truth about lies') I had to respond to it. Most of the 'truth' he proclaims in the article is simply wrong, and if it is not wrong, then to make the claims he makes about them are manipulations of the truth and dangerous.
My letter to the Herald Sun responding to his article has not been printed as yet - hopefully it will be. I consider Bolt to be quite a light-weight journalist, and therefore a dangerous one. His articles manipulate the truth and promote the kind of phobia and fear that we are seeing more of in Australia at present.
I also wonder sometimes if Bolt is not being paid as a Government spokesperson. Some of his articles are simply statements about the Federal overnment's views on a particular issue at the time. One example is an article Bolt wrote late last year about David Kay and his WMD report (this is before Kay told the world that 'we were pretty much all wrong'). A few days after I read Bolt's article, I was looking at an article written by Alexander Downer on the DFAT website and found that much of what Bolt had written was exactly the same as what Downer had written, and with the same smug attitude.
Keep up your good work on exposing Bolt's lies and manipulations. Hopefully as a result, more people will see his writing for what it is.
Nils von Kalm
Lack of objectivity from right-wing journos
In respect of Iain Lygo's article on Andrew Bolt's journalism, it's about time that non-right wing (not necessarily left) journalists exposed the shoddy standards of the Bolts, Ackermans, Sheridans and Albrechtsens of Australian journalism.
As Lygo stated, these people are not much more than blind cheerleaders for the conservative governments of Australia and the US. The complete lack of objectivity is so obvious as to render the articles nothing more than propaganda to anyone that is intelligent and informed.
Add to that Albrechtsen's repeated errors of fact, allegations of purposeful distortions and misquotes, and it's an indictment on the national newspaper that they continue to publish her work. It's a huge problem that the majority of the Australian public get their news, and often their opinions, from the likes of Bolt and Ackerman, and the utter trash that masquerades as current affairs on commercial television.
Brett
Paddington NSW
Crikey has more than 5000 subscribers who get 6-8 sealed section email updates a week covering about 100 stories in a quick and punchy style. So why not get on board by subscribing for a measly $77 here and read our best stuff every day in your inbox. Go on, support independent media. We sure as hell need it in Australia.
Copyright © 1999 - 2004 Crikey Media Pty Ltd. All rights reserved
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot start a new topic
Add Reply
Festering Andrew Bolt contagion exposed
Back to top
MultiQuote
#2
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 28-November 02
Posted 17 February 2004 - 03:54 PM
Quote
Even the most one-eyed Liberal support would have to acknowledge that Howard and other ministers repeatedly lied to the Australian people on talk-back radio about the (children overboard) incident.
No, they wouldn't, because no, he didn't.
You can not reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.
#3
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 4,470
- Joined: 30-August 01
Posted 17 February 2004 - 04:31 PM
Truth Seeker
Islaam did not write this article. The comments you have quoted are those of the author of the piece Iain Lygo.
Regardless, the comment is correct. Reith, Howard, and Ruddock lied through their teeth on that issue.
Islaam did not write this article. The comments you have quoted are those of the author of the piece Iain Lygo.
Regardless, the comment is correct. Reith, Howard, and Ruddock lied through their teeth on that issue.
"If you are not part of the solution.......then you are part of the problem" anon
#4
- Group: Members
- Posts: 368
- Joined: 03-November 02
Posted 17 February 2004 - 08:41 PM
Quote
No, they wouldn't, because no, he didn't
:?: It may be painful for some but let's revisit the evidence once again.
Children Overboard Affair – Chronology
http://www.truthover...com/story8.html
Children Overboard Affair – A compilation of the relevant documents, reports and photos
http://www.truthoverboard.com/
Cartoons by Peter Nicholson, cartoonist for The Australian.
http://onemansweb.or...s/nicholson.htm
Transcript
21/02/2002
Clarke and Dawe
KERRY O'BRIEN: We did ask John Howard to join us tonight but he couldn't fit us into his schedule. John Clarke and Brian Dawe had better luck.
BRIAN DAWE AS THE INTERVIEWER, JOHN CLARKE AS PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD.
INTERVIEWER: Mr Howard, thanks for your time.
JOHN HOWARD, PRIME MINISTER: It's very good to be with you. Thank you for inviting me in.
INTERVIEWER: I wonder if I could ask you about the babies overboard business?
JOHN HOWARD: Yes. Certainly. The story that's coming out now or the story we told at the time?
INTERVIEWER: Well, the story that we're getting now.
JOHN HOWARD: This week's one?
INTERVIEWER: Yep.
JOHN HOWARD: The Monday one, the Tuesday one or the one that's broken subsequently?
INTERVIEWER: Well, today's one.
JOHN HOWARD: Today's one?
INTERVIEWER: Yep.
JOHN HOWARD: This morning's one or the one we're using now?
INTERVIEWER: What's the difference?
JOHN HOWARD: The point I'm making is I have no intention of discussing the period of our illustrious handling of this issue when Peter Reith was saying one thing and I was saying another.
INTERVIEWER: Neither am I. That's fine.
JOHN HOWARD: We changed that.
INTERVIEWER: Why did you do that?
JOHN HOWARD: Look, try not to interrupt. I'm trying to answer your question with honesty and integrity -
INTERVIEWER: Both of them?
JOHN HOWARD: Simultaneously, yes. And you're interrupting. That's not very helpful.
INTERVIEWER: OK, I'm sorry.
JOHN HOWARD: Neither have I any intention of discussing the period when Peter remembered that he was told that it wasn't true but he'd forgotten to tell me.
INTERVIEWER: Why would he have neglected to do that?
JOHN HOWARD: We've had this discussion. Don't interrupt. We've had this discussion. It's not very helpful at all.
INTERVIEWER: OK, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
JOHN HOWARD: Then of course we had the period when Peter thought he may have told me that the thing was completely untrue but he didn't tell me in English.
INTERVIEWER: Oh, that's right. I remember that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. How long did that version last?
JOHN HOWARD: It didn't last very long. It was almost subliminal.
INTERVIEWER: Wasn't one of your better ones, was it?
JOHN HOWARD: I didn't think it was one of our better ones. Then of course we stumbled on what I believe's an absolute cracker and that was we were all grossly misinformed by an incompetent public servant.
INTERVIEWER: Public servant. That's the current version, isn't it?
JOHN HOWARD: What's the time?
INTERVIEWER: 7:55.
JOHN HOWARD: Yep. I'll leave then. Still current, I don't think we've found any involvement that Peter Hollingworth may have with this issue as that.
INTERVIEWER: So what does he do now, Peter Reith?
JOHN HOWARD: Since he retired from parliament? Peter was lucky enough to secure employment negotiating Government defence contracts.
INTERVIEWER: (Laughs) Really?
JOHN HOWARD: (Laughs) I'm sorry. Just, sorry. Just ask me.
(Both parties doubled-over laughing desperately trying to compose themselves) INTERVIEWER: Sorry, that is very funny.
JOHN HOWARD: I'm sorry. I apologise.
INTERVIEWER: Can I do it again?
JOHN HOWARD: So what does Peter Reith do now? Since he retired from politics, Peter -- Just don't do that. (Interviewer fighting back laughter) Try not to do that.
INTERVIEWER: I'm sorry.
JOHN HOWARD: It took us four hours to get this right in the Cabinet room before we could even --
INTERVIEWER: OK. You look that way and I'll look that way.
JOHN HOWARD: Ask me again.
INTERVIEWER: So what does Peter Reith do now?
JOHN HOWARD: Peter Reith, at the moment, God that's funny that wiring over there, isn't it.
INTERVIEWER: Maybe we'll just move on. Ask you another question. Why do you think people would throw their own children into the sea?
INTERVIEWER: Why would anyone believe that parents would throw their children in the sea? That's too hard. Ask me the Peter Reith one again.
INTERVIEWER: OK, alright. So Prime Minister, what does Peter Reith do now?
JOHN HOWARD: Peter Reith has got a job selling Government defence contracts.
(Both parties erupt into laughter)
Source: http://abc.net.au/7.30/
#5
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 28-November 02
Posted 17 February 2004 - 10:54 PM
Again, no.
At the time he said it, John Howard had been informed that children had indeed been thrown overboard. Whilst this may not have been true, he did not "lie" with such intention.
At the time he said it, John Howard had been informed that children had indeed been thrown overboard. Whilst this may not have been true, he did not "lie" with such intention.
You can not reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.
#6
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 4,470
- Joined: 30-August 01
Posted 18 February 2004 - 01:44 AM
As a "seeker of truth" 
, surely you don't believe that line put out by the PM's office. I suppose next thing your going to convince me of is that the PM was duped once again by all those WMD reports about Iraq.
Oh sorry, it wasn't his fault, it was an "intelligence failure". Indeed it was.
Seems to be plenty of that going around in the last few years!
Ahmed
, surely you don't believe that line put out by the PM's office. I suppose next thing your going to convince me of is that the PM was duped once again by all those WMD reports about Iraq. Oh sorry, it wasn't his fault, it was an "intelligence failure". Indeed it was.
Seems to be plenty of that going around in the last few years!Ahmed
"If you are not part of the solution.......then you are part of the problem" anon
#7
- That which is known to God, why hide it from His creatures?!
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 14,505
- Joined: 20-January 04
Posted 18 February 2004 - 09:54 PM
In Defense of My Howardite Mate
Dear Truth Seeker, I do empathise with you here ...
I’m really shocked and disgusted by responses to your critical defense of the Howardean truth and his popular inclusive agendas
C’mon, U Howard Haters, Why are you people so unfairly
accusing our Honest ( I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything ) PM of dishonesty, fearmongering, scapegoating, hypocrisy, ( mis )information, wedge politics, Dog-whistle Politics, professional exploitation , and uncompassionate conservatism?!
Need I say more?
More ...
An humanitarian Campaign Launch which made every ( ungrateful ) Hansonite proud to be Australian ?!
Why U ppl don’t take the Bart Simpsons of Oz politics seriously? … I mean he never seems to lie, he just naughtily bends the truth … exploits the gallant efforts of his foot-soldiers and condones the ugliness of his ideological mates which makes him a worshiping hero to his ‘truth-manipulating' (oops ... seeking
) apologists .
(courtesy of cartoonist Peter Nicholson, The Australian)
BACKGROUND INFO:
MS Tampa
MV Tampa & the Pacific Solution
Debunker:
Face the Facts
Activism:
Refugee Australia National Directory
See if you can spot Honest John's answers from the 3 choices...
Those Truth seekers who're fair dinkum & concerned about the Howardean truth vs the Truth, they should check out the following books:
Don't Tell The Prime Minister
Dark Victory
Asylum Seekers: Australia's Response 2 Refugees
Borderline and More Here
in solidarity,
An alarmed Howar(Diet) Truth seeker
Dear Truth Seeker, I do empathise with you here ...
I’m really shocked and disgusted by responses to your critical defense of the Howardean truth and his popular inclusive agendas
C’mon, U Howard Haters, Why are you people so unfairly
accusing our Honest ( I didn't do it, no one saw me do it, there's no way you can prove anything ) PM of dishonesty, fearmongering, scapegoating, hypocrisy, ( mis )information, wedge politics, Dog-whistle Politics, professional exploitation , and uncompassionate conservatism?!
Need I say more?
More ...
An humanitarian Campaign Launch which made every ( ungrateful ) Hansonite proud to be Australian ?!
Why U ppl don’t take the Bart Simpsons of Oz politics seriously? … I mean he never seems to lie, he just naughtily bends the truth … exploits the gallant efforts of his foot-soldiers and condones the ugliness of his ideological mates which makes him a worshiping hero to his ‘truth-manipulating' (oops ... seeking
) apologists .(courtesy of cartoonist Peter Nicholson, The Australian)
BACKGROUND INFO:
MS Tampa
MV Tampa & the Pacific Solution
Debunker:
Face the Facts
Activism:
Refugee Australia National Directory
See if you can spot Honest John's answers from the 3 choices...
Those Truth seekers who're fair dinkum & concerned about the Howardean truth vs the Truth, they should check out the following books:
Don't Tell The Prime Minister
Dark Victory
Asylum Seekers: Australia's Response 2 Refugees
Borderline and More Here
in solidarity,
An alarmed Howar(Diet) Truth seeker
"So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if U are true in faith." (The Holy Qur'an - 3:139)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
#8
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 28-November 02
Posted 18 February 2004 - 10:14 PM
If you're going to continue accusing John Howard of lying about the children overboard incident, bring fourth your proof. If "so many" people knew that there were no children thrown overboard, Howard would not have been dumb enough to continually state publically that to his knowledge, it was true.
John Howard:
John Howard:
Quote
I don't want in this country people who are prepared, if those reports are true, to throw their own children overboard.
You can not reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.
#9
- That which is known to God, why hide it from His creatures?!
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 14,505
- Joined: 20-January 04
Posted 19 February 2004 - 12:58 AM
Quote
If you're going to continue accusing John Howard of lying about the children overboard incident, bring fourth your proof. If "so many" people knew that there were no children thrown overboard, Howard would not have been dumb enough to continually state publically that to his knowledge, it was true.
John Howard:
John Howard:
Quote
I don't want in this country people who are prepared, if those reports are true, to throw their own children overboard.
I'm sorry that you're unable to find the the real truth from those above links and studies. It's something that I can no longer help u out with
You're a truth seeker, but you don't seem to be great reader of the details.
You didn’t seem to read the chronology of the "children overboard” claims properly.
When the Government’s People Smuggling Taskforce so diligently notifies Howard & his cronies of this alleged “children overboard” incident, then how come those very same watchful taskforce miserably ‘fail’ to notify Howard of the No accident … confusing ? No!. It should not be, for those who honestly want to seek the real truth not the Canberran truth. :idea:
Doesn't make you wonder, how could a populist PM who gave us the ever-reliable fridge magnet and keeps exploiting Australians' darkest fears, was not even aware of all the facts (well kept secret from the voting public) surrounding his govt's "children overboard" lies? I mean how could you take some1 like him seriously when one senior member of his inner cabinet ministry (defense minister), his front bencher, Peter 'liar' Reith & his Department Secretary who were all well aware of the facts, yet 'failed' to tell Messrs Howard and Ruddock.
Given most of his inner circles including his senior frontbencher & Dept Secretary were well knew of the No-Accident; and if (according to his apologists) this Alert/Alarmed PM was really unaware of truth about those “children overboard” incident, then it certainly raises questions about the truthfulness of PM’s relentless (tough and uncompromising) rhetoric on national security and border protection post-Tampa and S11.
For a nation’s leader whose scare-mongering obsession with the security issues presented him another 'bitter-sweet' victory, then why was he not told (why wasn’t he interested to follow-up) about an issue which he and cronies so deceitfully exploited. (read the chronology again :
Answer: there’s an (khaki) election coming up on Nov 2001, so PM is no dumb to tell us otherwise.
This is a shameful example of tricky Howard who always made sure to appear tough, assertive and trustworthy on national security, while in practice kept the truth from his "battlers".
Anyway, I stay close to my fridge magnet and you plz don't stay away from your fav TRUTH manipulators (sorry … truth producers), cos I'm sure according to your trustworthy sources in the lodge (or in the Herald-Sun via the lodge), pigs may will ( do) fly in Canberra.
May the Almighty help you digest the real truth.
"So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if U are true in faith." (The Holy Qur'an - 3:139)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
#10
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 18,056
- Joined: 11-October 02
Posted 19 February 2004 - 08:09 AM
Quote
If "so many" people knew that there were no children thrown overboard, Howard would not have been dumb enough to continually state publically that to his knowledge, it was true.
Not dumb enough, but smart enough to know to keep his trap shut, just before an election.
Israel's strategy: "The beatings will continue until morale improves"
#11
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 633
- Joined: 28-November 02
Posted 19 February 2004 - 02:14 PM
Right, so in other words, you are speculating that he probably knew, and that's enough to cast the lying accusation.
Last time I checked, Muslims needed more than speculation to slander a person's name publically. Islamically speaking, of course.
Last time I checked, Muslims needed more than speculation to slander a person's name publically. Islamically speaking, of course.
You can not reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.
#12
- Group: Members
- Posts: 368
- Joined: 03-November 02
Posted 19 February 2004 - 09:04 PM
Is John Howard a truth seeker, liar or innocent mushroom?
26 October 2001 - Asked about the video of the incident Howard dodges: “I haven’t seen it, I’ve been told of it by Mr Reith. I’ve got a lot of things to see at the present time. I don’t know that there is a particular need at this stage to make it public”.
10 November 2001 - Federal Election.
13 February 2002 - Howard releases Bryant and Powell reports, revealing that children were never thrown overboard.
19 February - Press Conference – Howard reveals for the first time that Reith told him of doubts about the two photos on 7 November.
21 February - Reith admits to having been told children overboard claims were false on November 7....Howard calls Reith “a man of great decency and honour”.
"...Howard is furious over all the newspaper headlines calling him a liar. "People are playing fast and loose with my reputation," he complains. He and his ministers were not lying, he argues, because they were never informed that what they told voters was false. Labor believes that, with dozens of public servants knowing almost from the start of the four-week election campaign that children were not thrown overboard, it is inconceivable that the information was not passed on to ministers. But really, the answer to the "what did they know?" question is pretty obvious. Howard and co. knew enough to know they did not want to know. And that would have been clear to key bureaucrats. If ministers were kept in the dark, treated like mushrooms, it is because that is the way they wanted it. Knowing the truth would have created too many political difficulties in an election campaign.
The alternative explanation – that bureaucratic timidity and incompetence caused the prime minister, the defence minister and the immigration minister to be kept in ignorance on such an important matter – is almost too disturbing to contemplate. In any case, while the nickname for the Defence Department HQ at Russell Hill in Canberra may be "Fort Fumble", it is difficult to believe the organisation that put together the Interfet operation in East Timor is incapable of getting a simple message to its minister saying "You're wrong". Howard himself has provided the best evidence that bureaucrats who failed to alert him and his colleagues to the truth did the right thing in the government's eyes. There has not been a hint a disapproval in any of the PM's statements about the role of public servants in the affair. Asked about the failure of an officer in his own department to follow up a Defence warning about lack of evidence to support the "children overboard" allegation, for example, Howard told Neil Mitchell on 3AW: "I'm not going to make an adverse judgment about that....."
Source: The Bulletin
26 October 2001 - Asked about the video of the incident Howard dodges: “I haven’t seen it, I’ve been told of it by Mr Reith. I’ve got a lot of things to see at the present time. I don’t know that there is a particular need at this stage to make it public”.
10 November 2001 - Federal Election.
13 February 2002 - Howard releases Bryant and Powell reports, revealing that children were never thrown overboard.
19 February - Press Conference – Howard reveals for the first time that Reith told him of doubts about the two photos on 7 November.
21 February - Reith admits to having been told children overboard claims were false on November 7....Howard calls Reith “a man of great decency and honour”.
"...Howard is furious over all the newspaper headlines calling him a liar. "People are playing fast and loose with my reputation," he complains. He and his ministers were not lying, he argues, because they were never informed that what they told voters was false. Labor believes that, with dozens of public servants knowing almost from the start of the four-week election campaign that children were not thrown overboard, it is inconceivable that the information was not passed on to ministers. But really, the answer to the "what did they know?" question is pretty obvious. Howard and co. knew enough to know they did not want to know. And that would have been clear to key bureaucrats. If ministers were kept in the dark, treated like mushrooms, it is because that is the way they wanted it. Knowing the truth would have created too many political difficulties in an election campaign.
The alternative explanation – that bureaucratic timidity and incompetence caused the prime minister, the defence minister and the immigration minister to be kept in ignorance on such an important matter – is almost too disturbing to contemplate. In any case, while the nickname for the Defence Department HQ at Russell Hill in Canberra may be "Fort Fumble", it is difficult to believe the organisation that put together the Interfet operation in East Timor is incapable of getting a simple message to its minister saying "You're wrong". Howard himself has provided the best evidence that bureaucrats who failed to alert him and his colleagues to the truth did the right thing in the government's eyes. There has not been a hint a disapproval in any of the PM's statements about the role of public servants in the affair. Asked about the failure of an officer in his own department to follow up a Defence warning about lack of evidence to support the "children overboard" allegation, for example, Howard told Neil Mitchell on 3AW: "I'm not going to make an adverse judgment about that....."
Source: The Bulletin
#13
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 18,056
- Joined: 11-October 02
Posted 19 February 2004 - 09:38 PM
So he was either a liar or incompentent - take your pick.
Israel's strategy: "The beatings will continue until morale improves"
#14
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 4,470
- Joined: 30-August 01
Posted 19 February 2004 - 10:17 PM
No Sam there is option three - he is both :wink:
"If you are not part of the solution.......then you are part of the problem" anon
#15
- That which is known to God, why hide it from His creatures?!
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 14,505
- Joined: 20-January 04
Posted 23 July 2007 - 04:58 PM
"So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if U are true in faith." (The Holy Qur'an - 3:139)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
#16
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 188
- Joined: 25-June 07
Posted 23 July 2007 - 05:31 PM
Why do you keep digging up ancient threads mate?
#17
- That which is known to God, why hide it from His creatures?!
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 14,505
- Joined: 20-January 04
Posted 23 July 2007 - 05:58 PM
"Ancient"? 
What do u have against "ancient" threads, mate?
I can understand, you are still a newbie!
B)
What do u have against "ancient" threads, mate?
I can understand, you are still a newbie!
B)
"So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if U are true in faith." (The Holy Qur'an - 3:139)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
#18
- .
- Group: Members
- Posts: 919
- Joined: 21-June 05
Posted 23 July 2007 - 09:25 PM
freeman, on Jul 23 2007, 05:31 PM, said:
Why do you keep digging up ancient threads mate?
I concur !
#19
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 188
- Joined: 25-June 07
Posted 23 July 2007 - 09:40 PM
Well you ARE digging up threads from three years ago. I used to post back then, under a different account. I forgot what it was called, but still it's a long time ago.
#20
- That which is known to God, why hide it from His creatures?!
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 14,505
- Joined: 20-January 04
Posted 23 July 2007 - 10:29 PM
Philip, on Jul 23 2007, 09:25 PM, said:
freeman, on Jul 23 2007, 05:31 PM, said:
Why do you keep digging up ancient threads mate?
I concur !
Well ... thank youfreeman, on Jul 23 2007, 09:40 PM, said:
Well you ARE digging up threads from three years ago. I used to post back then, under a different account. I forgot what it was called, but still it's a long time ago.
Well, your point being ..., seriously? Anway folks, As I won't be changing as long as I am around here, so I'd suggest (as I've always done) that you please need to update your Board Display Settings and Manage Your Ignored Users
You are welcome.
"So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if U are true in faith." (The Holy Qur'an - 3:139)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
#21
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,763
- Joined: 17-January 06
Posted 23 July 2007 - 11:08 PM
freeman, on Jul 23 2007, 10:40 PM, said:
Well you ARE digging up threads from three years ago. I used to post back then, under a different account. I forgot what it was called, but still it's a long time ago.
So what if it is a long time ago?
If anything MV makes the threads an archive or a catalogue of relevant issues- you can see whats currently happening and also read the history of it.
What is it about the old threads that worry you?
#22
- Group: Banned
- Posts: 188
- Joined: 25-June 07
Posted 24 July 2007 - 02:24 AM
What makes you think I am worried?
#23
- No, not a terrorist! Just a Muslim
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,383
- Joined: 22-January 07
Posted 24 July 2007 - 07:18 AM
Mowlana Vector, on Jul 23 2007, 10:29 PM, said:
Anway folks, As I won't be changing as long as I am around here, so I'd suggest (as I've always done) that you please need to update your Board Display Settings and Manage Your Ignored Users
You are welcome.
ha ha ha!
www.afghanvoice.com
#24
- That which is known to God, why hide it from His creatures?!
- Group: Brothers
- Posts: 14,505
- Joined: 20-January 04
Posted 27 July 2007 - 11:37 PM
tr3x, on Jul 23 2007, 11:08 PM, said:
If anything MV makes the threads an archive or a catalogue of relevant issues- you can see whats currently happening and also read the history of it.
...
...
Thank U, Bro
"So lose not heart, nor fall into despair: for you must gain mastery if U are true in faith." (The Holy Qur'an - 3:139)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
"Sufficient is death as a counsel." (Saydinah Umar RA)
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot start a new topic
- Add Reply