The Pickering Post
Monday, 17th December 2018

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


WOULD ABBOTT ALSO ASK THIS MAN TO HELP FIGHT RADICAL ISLAM?

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

BLOG / FACEBOOK



Abu Hamza al-Masri, an imam at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, was convicted on 11 counts of terrorism and taking 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998. He left three Britons and an Australian dead.

He was also found guilty of advocating violent jihad in Afghanistan and conspiring to establish a jihad training camp in Oregon, U.S. He lost his hands and an eye experimenting with explosives.

He is just one of a procession of Islamic clerics Abbott wants to join his “Team Australia”. Is it naivete or stupidity that would drive a man to ask for Islamic inclusiveness in the fight against terrorism? It would have made more sense to ask Hitler to help with the holocaust.

To suggest the fight against terrorism has naught to do with Islam displays a madness beyond comprehension and a weakness the Islamic terrorist giggles at. Until Abbott accepts that the Islamic State, and every other terrorist organisation hell-bent on destroying the West, is borne of Islam, and only Islam, then Australia can look forward to suffering the atrocities this vile cult is determined to wreak on us.

Mowing weeds only makes them stronger. To prevent them overtaking your garden they need to be rooted out. And the root of Islamic terrorism lies deep in our protected mushrooming mosques housing the imams, mullahs and clerics who remain free to preach our destruction and further radicalise Islam’s youth.

Islamic inclusiveness has no role to play in this war.

Every evil organisation on earth has its most vociferous proponent at its head. Every religious cult has its most dedicated firebrand preacher at the vanguard. From the Flat Earth Society to the KKK, and every cult in between, the leaders are invariably the most dedicated nutters exhorting to less dedicated prospective nutters.

The worst of hundreds of all of the firebrand Islamic radicals in Australia was the Grand Mufti, Ibrahim Abu Mohammad, but our wise Labor Party decided to placate him rather than deport him. Islam’s Grand Mufti is entrusted with interpreting Sharia law yet our leaders are asking the serpent to excise its own tail.

Tony Abbott and ASIO’s David Irvine court the leaders of Islam begging their co-operation to deter radical Islam. WTF? The leaders ARE the radicals you galahs, are you seriously looking to reform them? 

Every organisation, including Christianity, is duty bound to enlist new members to gain strength with obligatory enticements. Christianity has its heaven, Islam its 72 virgins and both have their hell fires. I haven’t figured out yet what those female suicide bombers get 72 of.

If Abbott wants to combat radical Islam he should look at the internal structure of his own church.

Should he seriously have asked his bishops and priests to help quell the excesses of Christianity? Was it the priests and bishops themselves who opted to combat paedophilia? No, they were brought kicking and screaming before Royal Commissions by the rank and file. It was the foot soldiers who led the charge, the generals were quite happy to continue with their vile practices into the next millennium.

The worst of Islam can be found in the alcoves of protected mosques where groups of youths, instructed by mullahs, can be found each Friday planning the demise of their hosts.

Did these youths decide all by themselves to riot on our streets brandishing “Behead all non-believers” placards? Of course not! Youths aren’t born bad, their elders made them bad. And until our leaders understand the root cause of radical Islam, and deal with it from the top down, we are bound to fall prey to it.

It’s little wonder Abbott’s olive branch was pissed on. 



Comments

Hey Sheeple,
Anybody see the 2nd. part of United State of Secrets on SBS today?
Verrry Interestink.

Any time I read some item concerning Tony Abbott, Thomas Becket comes to mind... "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

http://syrianfreepress.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/origins-of-isis/

Seized ISIS Laptop In Syria Contains Plans For 'Bubonic Plague' Weapons - http://www.ibtimes.com/seized-isis-laptop-syria-contains-plans-bubonic-plague-weapons-1673638

CHURCHILL ON ISLAM:

Unbelievable, but the speech below was written in 1899...(check Wikipedia - The River War).


The attached short speech from Winston Churchill, was delivered by him in 1899 when he was a young soldier and journalist. It probably sets out the current views of many, but expresses in the wonderful Churchillian turn of phrase and use of the English language, of which he was a past master. Sir Winston Churchill was, without doubt, one of the greatest men of the late 19th and 20th centuries.


He was a brave young soldier, a brilliant journalist, an extraordinary politician and statesman, a great war leader and British Prime Minister, to whom the Western world must be forever in his debt. He was a prophet in his own time. He died on 24th January 1965, at the grand old age of 90 and, after a lifetime of service to his country, was accorded a State funeral.



HERE IS THE SPEECH: "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical

frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent

in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property

exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualist deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next

of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property,

either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a

great power among men.


Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those

who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and

proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa , raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that

Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern

Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome ...."



Sir Winston Churchill;

(Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Abu Hamza al-Masri have a look at him, he looks like he’s on ice and off his head, there is not much left of him he’s another one of these cowards that brainwash the innocent kids (because those are the only ones that listen to idiots like him) ASIO and the AFP have plenty of evidence and they know exactly who these traitors are who went to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS and god only knows what some of these cowardly sadists were doing and/or hoaxed into doing. These animals should never be let into Australia again as they will bludge and cause 100 times bigger troubles from when they left into that cowardly war zones of Iraq and Syria.

Why does everybody these days refer to the Hon Clive Palmer as: Mr Creosote???? That always confounds me??????

Davenport view!
It's all in the eyes, that's why sisters and brothers, cousins get married in Islamic Muslim nations.

Captain Hook, as he was known in Britain, received thousands of pounds in Benefits - because the British Government is generous to all islamic hate preachers. It took years and millions of taxpayers money before we could get rid of this evil bastard. Of couese we, in Britain, have had successful Governments with no backbone and a Queen who says nothing because we are tied in the Communist European Human Rights Act. There are several other preachers of hate who have taken his place.

Many of them are on disability pension and doing anything legal and illegal to make cash on the side.

"Tony Abbott and ASIO’s David Irvine court the leaders of Islam begging their co-operation to deter radical Islam. WTF? The leaders ARE the radicals you galahs, are you seriously looking to reform them?"

This whole fuck up reminds me of a scene in Mad Max 2 where the late Sid Heylen says something like "this Humungus fella seems like a reasonable sorta bloke". It is absolutely bizzare at the very least. I'm seriously starting to doubt the intentions of Rhodes Scholar Abbot. When Cecil Rhodes set up the scholarship he wasn't thinking of turning out moral leaders and I'd hoped that Abbot had somehow missed or disagreed with CR's intent.

Here is an Interesting email sent to sen. Hanson-Young

To: wlmailhtml:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: You and Islam
Like most normal people in the community, I have trouble in establishing just what planet it is you live on!
Your strident outpouring of crap on illegal immigrants is incredibly offensive to the vast majority of Australians, which is why you and your nutter mates Milne, Bandt, Brown, Rhiannon and co, attract only 8% of the national vote, and they are the extreme looney left in our community, to whom you obviously relate.
The majority of illegal immigrants come from Muslim countries from, which in case you haven't noticed, 99% of all terrorists emanate. Every muslim country in the Middle East is in total turmoil and, with notably few exceptions, are poor, violent, and have not been able to govern themselves for centuries. Their vile islamic religion with its jihad and fatwah spew forth hatred and terror across the world, and anybody who does not follow their crazy doctrine is considered an infidel and should be executed and Allah is obviously quite OK with that, yet you are in the forefront in assisting more of them to come here?
Muslim immigration into civilized western societies is a huge drain on the welfare systems of those countries, syphoning off much needed funds for our own disadvantaged people. The majority of muslims in western countries are unemployed and unemployable, they create unrest, squalor and dependence on welfare.
Muslims refuse to recognize the elected governments of democratic countries and have allegience only to their despicable Allah and their vile sharia law, yet they are all happy to live on the public tit in any western country they can infiltrate.
Last time I looked, the muslim community is the only ethnic group to have its own dedicated police task force (Sydney's middle east crime squad) to deal with the anti social criminality that is rife among all muslim ghettos in western countries.
And what about the subjugation of women who are treated as mere chattels by muslim men, with children being dragooned into forced marriages, in many instances with men they have never met... Are you OK with that?
You keep harping on about discrimination and on that subject we can agree with one point of difference: there is not enough of it. The regular executions and drive by shootings in Sydney's western suburbs, the drug dealing and organized crime that necessitated a special police task force, the draining our welfare system, are all due to muslim immigrants.
And there you are with your bleeding heart all over our television screens castigating Tony Abbott for protecting Australia's sovereignty and preventing the massive drain that unemployed muslims place on our scarce welfare resources that can certainly be used for much more deserving causes.
Get this through your dumb green skull! The vast majority of Australians do not want muslim immigration into this country, and if a referendum on this issue were held tomorrow, you and your scaly mates know damn well what the result would be.
So give us all a break and refrain from your pathetic outpouring in support of illegal immigrants, the vast majority of whom are muslim, we could give a rat's arse, and you and your nutter associates in the greens are a disgrace to this country!

Too bad he didn't BLOW his freeking HEAD off!

Ah, Bruce you're so right...John Hatton was a typical, straight down the line country gentleman ( as opposed to Fraser - arrogant, devious squire -born to rule - he thought )...and Ted Mack,...a fine,honest man who became disillusioned with dirty politics...Australia and the world desperately needs men like them,....but there is not a statesman on the horizon.

Senator Marise Payne is the contact for this information. She's a bleeding heart so good luck getting past that.

I have asked that question from a fed member, the answer I get is the privacy act , that's why I ALWAYS give both barrels to the bald headed Dutchman I E centrelink boss , he,s quite happy to go on the box and congratulate the investigators in detecting false pretenders when there WHITE AND CHRISTIAN , but fuckall about ragheads on D S P while accumulating monies OUR taxpayers monies to give to the fkn barbarians in Syria.

mrb, I hope it's one of those rifles that can hit a can at 1200 metres !!

New York Times Sat 30 Aug.

Americans who have travelled to Syria to fight have little in common.
The conflict has attracted men and women, including some who were raised as Muslims and others who converted from Christianity,… and they have come from different parts of the United States.

One trend detected in recent months is that the American recruits are younger. They are now mostly in their late teens or early 20s, the officials said.

ISIS’ attraction to some is based on its reputation for brutality

And as a result of the increasing numbers of men, ISIS is now recruiting foreign women as jihadist wives.

The F.B.I.’s psychological analysts at Quantico,… armed with court-approved powers,.. are increasingly monitoring the activities of Americans who have expressed extremist views in jihadist chat rooms and on websites…. It is an effort to chart their radicalization,.. law enforcement officials said.

Why should the Australian government consult with moslem groups who may well be initiating and sponsoring radical moslems ?

Foreign Editor
Melbourne
https://plus.google.com/101372426793016687263
Australia could deploy up to 24 Super Hornet aircraft in any US-led military action againAustralia could deploy up to 24 Super Hornets in any US-led action against IS. Picture: Craig Barrett/ADF Source: Supplied < PrevNext >
••
THE Abbott government could deploy up to 24 Super Hornet aircraft in ground attack roles, two or three of five airborne early warning and control aircraft to co-ordinate allied aircraft and some contingent of the special forces on the ground, if it decides to make a military contribution in Iraq.

No decision has yet been made about whether Australian forces will participate in any military action the US may take in Iraq, or down the track in Syria. But Australian military leaders are in deep and continuous dialogue with their American counterparts about what Australia may do and can do. They are in the process of furnishing precise options for the Abbott government to consider if and when the Americans make a request for help.

Tony Abbott told parliament this week: “We have all seen atrocity after atrocity on our TV screens — beheadings, crucifixions, mass executions. This is as near to pure evil as we are ever likely to see. President Obama pointed out what is at risk in northern Iraq is potential genocide — a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale unparalleled in recent times.

“Now, to his great credit, President Obama has authorised air strikes against the murderous hordes of ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, now calling itself just the Islamic State). Those air strikes have lifted the siege of Mount Sinjar. They have apparently stopped the advance of ISIL forces into Kurdish areas.

“There are obviously discussions going on between the United States and its friends and allies about what more can be done to avert further disasters in this part of the world. I have to say that Australia has not been officially asked for military assistance.

“Should we be asked, we would want to look at any request in the light of achievable objectives, a clear role for Australian forces, a full risk assessment, and an overall humanitarian objective.”

During the week, the Prime Minister also issued a statement saying: “Australia is not considering putting combat forces on the ground (nor, for that matter, is the United States).”

However, this does not rule out the use of Australian special forces. By definition, special forces are not general ground combat forces. They have special roles, which may involve surveillance, intelligence gathering, recovery of personnel or sometimes targeted strikes on terrorist leaders.

Overall, the Abbott government is making a considered, complex, many-layered, whole of government response both to the strategic challenges of the desperate developments of the Middle East and the danger of terrorism emerging out of the renewed Middle East conflicts and the emergence of the Islamic State.

The many different parts of this response need to be separated out to be evaluated properly. There are both the big picture geo-strategic and geopolitical considerations. As part of this there is the potential Australian military involvement. There is also a set of international diplomatic tasks.

Then there are purely domestic measures, ranging from greater funding for domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies, new anti-terror laws, a new group of ?80 Border Security officers for airports, and a series of measures to engage and reassure the Muslim community and related measures to target young Muslim men regarded as being at risk of ­radicalisation.

It is a formidable range of disparate but co-ordinated measures. They have not been implemented, co-ordinated or explained perfectly, but the net judgment is that this is an impressive mobilisation of resources across the capacity of the Australian government. It is a mobilisation undertaken to meet what the Abbott government believes are serious challenges to Australia’s national interests.

The most controversial element of the government’s response is likely to be the military component. However, Abbott has moved systematically and fairly comprehensively to include the Australian people in his thinking on this and he seems to have brought public opinion with him. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten is being sensibly bipartisan on such a critical issue.

The Abbott government is fully supportive of the direction of the Obama administration’s evolving policy response to the emergence of the Islamic State.

Abbott has taken to saying that the Middle East is a “witches’ brew of complexity and danger”. That is certainly true and that judgment underlies a wholly sympathetic Canberra response to Washington’s efforts to grapple with the unfolding strategic drama in Iraq and Syria.

The US has now mounted more than 100 air strikes against Islamic State targets. These strikes have achieved a series of positive outcomes. They have prevented the slaughter of large numbers of innocent human beings. They have also stopped the Islamic State’s advances on ­several fronts, limited its room for manoeuvre and begun to destroy the mystique of battle field invincibility which the Islamic State’s string of victories had built up.

But the group is still making gains in some parts of Iraq and in Syria. A great deal of the weaponry it captured from the Iraqi army has made its way into Syria.

Obama’s policy is continuing to evolve in a more forward leaning way. The President appears to believe, surely correctly, that a military response is necessary but not sufficient. On September 10, Iraq gets a new prime minister. This will be regarded as a more legitimate government than that run by the discredited Nouri al-Maliki.

A more broadly based Iraqi government is necessary to peel off what might be described as the Islamic State’s softer, or less committed, layers of support. These are basically the Sunni tribes who once fought against al-Qa’ida and the Baathist elements, especially the former military elements of Saddam Hussein’s regime, which once ran a secular regime (albeit a very repressive one) and opposed Islamist, jihadist extremism.

No one should think that Obama has yet made a firm decision, but after September 10, US policy is likely to move beyond its present two fairly restrictive settings — namely to use air strikes only to avoid humanitarian disaster or protect US personnel.

US policy appears to be moving towards a realisation that a campaign to destroy what Obama calls “the cancer” of the Islamic State will take months, perhaps many months. This will involve both the military destruction of the Islamic State and political, financial and security incentives to all Sunni ­elements not wholly committed to the Islamic State. Those not positively committed to the Islamic State are surely the vast majority of Iraqi Sunnis.

The Abbott government understands that any Australian response has to nestle within the US response. Nonetheless, Abbott has taken a position of political, strategic and even to some extent military leadership in this matter. He has spoken more clearly, earlier and more forcefully than other Western leaders. At his meeting with Obama in the White House in June, Abbott assured the President that if the US needed to get more militarily involved in Iraq it would do so with Australian help.

The Abbott government believes that US success is important not only in itself but because US credibility is a massive factor in Australian security. The nature of Iraq and Syria, and the terrain and location, dictate the broad outlines of a potential Australian contribution. Way back in 1998, the Clinton administration asked for Australian support for what it planned as a military operation against Saddam Hussein.

In the end, Washington decided not to go ahead with the action. But John Howard, prime minister at the time, was shocked to discover that he could not deploy the F111s, then Australia’s leading combat jets, because they did not have adequate electronic warfare and self-defence capacities and would have been vulnerable even to Iraqi air defences. This led Howard to offer, instead, the Australian SAS to act as the force to rescue any downed ­allied pilots in Iraq. This was not in the event necessary because that particular operation was not proceeded with by Clinton.

But the realisation of Australia’s limitations at the time, plus the searing experience of having an inadequate military to cover contingencies if things had got difficult in East Timor, led Howard to embark on a decade of serious rebuilding of Australian defence capability. At the heart of that re-building has been hi-tech interoperability with the Americans. The kind of equipment we buy to be interoperable with the Americans also gives us a formidable independent capability.

The Super Hornets, as Defence Minister David Johnston pointed out on Lateline, are the same planes as fly off US aircraft carriers. But if the Australian Super Hornets go to Iraq they won’t be flying off aircraft carriers. They are not equipped with the landing gear that makes that possible. Instead they would almost certainly ­operate from the Al Minhad base in the United Arab Emirates.

The way the Islamic State operates makes it vulnerable to air power. It would be possible to degrade if not destroy it from the air. Two months ago this would have been extremely straightforward as it was operating as a conventional army travelling in formations and speaking on radios and mobile phones. More recently, it has worked hard to integrate itself into urban areas and thereby raise the risk of civilian casualties to any force which attacks it.

However, when the Islamic State advances, it still does so in largely conventional military formations, which are extremely vulnerable to air attack. More importantly, the extraordinary technical advances of the last decade mean that allied targeting is now vastly more precise. Islamic State personnel would also be vulnerable to strikes by drones.

All such efforts would not solve the underlying problems of Iraq and Syria, but would greatly diminish the Islamic State.

As any operation unfolds Australian planes might move to bases in Iraq itself. The Super Hornets would be well equipped for any ground attack role. The AWACs act as a magnificent force multiplier by integrating vast amounts of data and directing allied planes precisely to targets. Australia could well deploy two or more AWACs on a continuous, rotational basis. This would be useful to the Americans and all allies involved and would also give the Australian AWACs priceless operational experience.

The SAS will do anything asked of them. There will certainly be an allied special forces capability to rescue any pilots or air crew who go down for any reason in insecure locations. The Australian SAS has a long history of operating in the Middle East. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the SAS were among the first allied forces in and they captured the giant Al-Asad air base, which housed at the time 57 Soviet MIG aircraft.

Jeffrey Grey, in his authoritative A Military History of Australia, argues that Australia has had a greater military impact in the Middle East than in any other part of the world, from taking Beersheba from the Ottoman Empire in World War I to the Rats of ­Tobruk in World War II.

If there is action in Iraq, this will be at the invitation of the Iraqi government. As such it will not need any UN resolution. However, Syria would be more complicated. Senior US officials and military figures have said they do not believe it will be possible to defeat the Islamic State entirely on the Iraqi side of the border.

Taking military action in Syria would be more complicated politically and legally. The US would not want to be seen acting to defend the regime of Bashar al-Assad, not least because it would not want to alienate the majority Sunni population of Syria. Therefore it would not want to act even on an invitation from Damascus. Washington might decide that the suite of resolutions on the Islamic State already passed by the UN Security Council offers sufficient legal justification. Alternatively, it might want one more UNSC resolution. This could be complicated, not only by Russia but by China. Another option would be for the US to operate on the basis of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

One crucial political factor will be mobilising a group of at least four to six Middle East allies to join in the US-led effort. The actions of the Islamic State have been so extreme as to outrage all shades of decent human opinion around the world, and this would make it easier to get consensus for action. However, Obama, and Abbott too, may be making a mistake by pitching the justification for action purely in humanitarian terms. This is by far the easiest sell, but there is an equally urgent strategic dynamic at work.

Abbott is giving serious consideration to attending the UN Security Council meeting late next month at which Obama will make a major presentation to the world on his response to the Islamic State.

The range of Abbott government measures to the difficulties arising from the Islamic State’s emergence is broad and the most important are the domestic measures — such as much better control of the movement of people on the national security watch list through airports. But the government is also invested in the US-led allied response to this crisis. It wants Obama to act and to succeed, and he will do whatever it reasonably can to produce that outcome.

The U.K does not know how many British moslems are with ISIS ( estimates up to 2,000 ) or how many returned.

No nation can establish how many of its moslems have gone /returned from ISIS.

Prime Minister David Cameron announced Frid 29 August,..U.K. Security Danger Level has been raised from substantial to high due to ISIS islamists returning.

Cameron will announce new restrictions on islamists leaving / re-entering U.K. and he is NOT seeking permission from UK moslems to do it.

Why is Abbott wasting time seeking agreement from moslem groups to introduce tighter security laws ?

We wouldn’t need to sacrifice more of our privacy if we didn’t have moslems in the country or if they were not joining ISIS and becoming world famous terrorists,...committing atrocities..

Have we asked permission from Australian Buddhists,..Mormons,..Catholics etc ?

What’s so special about moslems ?

Their violence,.. lack of respect for Australian law and human mores’….did I forget something – oh yes – their violence !