It didn't fail to reflect the gravity of the situation. It failed to accurately communicate who was responsible, who the intended victims were and where the blame for the attempted terrorist attack lay. In other words you didn't accidentally downplay the seriousness of it, you deliberately misrepresented what happened to conceal the truth from the public.
Muslim aviation enthusiasts boarded flights Tuesday morning for what could've been normal day trips to Washington D.C., Virginia and New York in the abnormally warm September weather.
But in less than a few hours, their lives would drastically change as their planes crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the ground in rural Pennsylvania. Here's what we know so far.
Their rules of war:
- Islamist terrorists and their backers can do whatever they want.
- any response to them from the west is illegitimate and against international law.
This is actually probably the best response a European can give and he hits something very important.
The failure of international liberalism is that it asymmetrically imposes the constraints of international law upon the democratic but does not impose any consequences upon the dictator who see no constraints. Over time, what we have witnessed, is the creep of undemocratic because there is no consequence to ignoring or even exploiting the international system.
Military historian here: this is a widespread but erroneous assumption, propagated by people who don’t understand war.
Wars are won by winning them, in most cases by bringing about the military defeat of the enemy.
And, by the way, if you think that Iran was going to give up its millenarian fantasies because of a deal with Oman, you don’t understand jihad and shouldn’t be the chair of the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
According to the self-proclaimed experts who get quoted at times like this, the corpus of international law can be reduced to one simple rule: "Terrorists and communists are always allowed to strike democracies, but democracies are never allowed to strike back."
The uncomfortable truth is that Israel codes as a "white" or "white-adjacent" country, so they have higher moral expectations than Iran, which codes as "brown and poor." European lefties hate Israel as a projection of white guilt. They don't feel the same about Iran.
The Bondi massacre was preceded by two years of governmental failure to deal with unAustralian Jew hatred and complacency towards Islamic extremism. Now the moral failure of the Labor government has been compounded by the political failure of the Coalition. When a palpably inadequate government faces an opposition seemingly in deep crisis our country is in trouble. Good very rarely comes from laws that are revised on the run, and passed in haste with who knows what unintended consequences.
One of the most bizarre things about Hamas is that it states explicitly that it's an Islamist movement aiming to replace Israel with an Islamist state, and the Western left insists that it's just a "resistance" movement dedicated to the Palestinian cause fighting "occupation."
Let's talk about how this legislation gives religious speakers privilege over non-religious Australians.
Islamic hate preachers will be able to say anything they like because their particular religious texts are 'protected' - irrespective of whether they contain hateful rhetoric or incitement to violence. (Which they do.)
But your political speech, as an Australian citizen, is not protected in any way because it doesn't have a recognised religious text.
It's insane.
The erasure of Zoroastrianism and the co-option of Persian culture and intellectual achievements under Islamic conquest is one of the most important untold stories in history.
To Australian Palestine Protesters,
Let’s be really precise.
This country is not a collection of avatars for overseas conflicts. It is a civic space.
Citizenship comes before ideology.
Being Jewish in Australia does not assign responsibility for Gaza. Being Iranian does not assign responsibility for Tehran. Being English does not assign responsibility for empire. Being Italian does not assign responsibility for history. Being Indigenous carries no burden of apology and requires none from others.
Identity does not function as evidence.
Political disagreement is normal. Protest is lawful. Voting habits are private. None of these confer moral liability on neighbours.
Australia works on a simple rule. Individuals answer for their own conduct. Groups do not inherit guilt. People are neighbours first, symbols last.
Once that rule erodes, society shifts from coexistence to faction. At that point, argument gives way to intimidation. Speech becomes a weapon. Public space becomes hostile.
Targeting Australians for conflicts elsewhere achieves nothing beyond friction at home. It generates resentment without leverage and noise without outcome. It converts protest into social damage.
That path leads nowhere useful.
Justice requires clarity. Community requires restraint. Peace depends on both.
That line matters.
Keep going and you’ll burn down our entire society
"Meanwhile half the Festival board has quit as the whole thing implodes, the big-name writers stampeding out to protest the cancellation of an individual who has made cancelling “Zionists” her mission statement, and wants to cancel an entire country."
Iran just before Islamic fanatics took over the country and began stoning women to death, lynching homosexuals, funding global terrorism and aligning the country with Russia and every other repressive shit hole on the planet.