in Austrailia. These are similar to the riots in France, but different in a couple notable ways.
As with the French riots, these appear to have been started by some muslims who attacked some non-muslims. However, as did not happen in France, the people of Austrailia, mostly drunk, fought back. As with most standard riots, this escalated with retaliation after retailiation.
It's notable that "arab youths" are getting in cars, driving to areas (not their own) and smashing things and fighting with police. All reports I can find about the responses to the muslims are attacks directly on the attackers -- or self-defense.
There are also rumors that the drunk Austrailians (and I certainly don't mean that in a bad way) are planning more coordinated responses and defenses to the attacks on their soil -- with text messages like "It's on again Sunday!"
Also very notable is the response from the Austrailian government -- various different people are supporting passing "tough new laws." I guess rioting and smashing cars and attacking police is not actually against the law in Austrialia already.
I can't say that's really unexpected from the country that has brought the world such fine table wines, including the sparkling wines, the most famous of which is "Perth Pink". This is a bottle with a message in, and the message is BEWARE!. This is not a wine for drinking -- this is a wine for laying down and avoiding.
Another good fighting wine is "Melbourne Old-and-Yellow", which is particularly heavy, and should be used only for hand-to-hand combat. Quite the reverse is true of "Chateau Chunder", which is an Appelachian controle, specially grown for those keen on regurgitation -- a fine wine which really opens up the sluices at both ends.
Real emetic fans will also go for a "Hobart Muddy", and a prize winning "Cuiver Reserve Chateau Bottled Nuit San Wogga Wogga", which has a bouquet like an aborigine's armpit.
1
You are aware that according to the AP the violence was started by a group of neo nazis who rallied white youths. The muslims have retaliated. http://www.boston.com/news/world/australia/articles/2005/12/14/australia_moves_to_curb_racial_unrest/.
Posted by: Brian at December 14, 2005 08:58 PM (qe/Un)
2
Actually, most of the reports I've read indicate that the rioting was started by some Lebanese Arabs.
And of course, the Boston Globe will call the white people confirmed neo-nazis, while the terrorists are "alleged people of Arab descent."
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 12:53 AM (uSCkp)
3
The Boston Globe controls the AP? news to me. How many muslims do you know Ogre? I am half Irish, half Lebanese, and I promise not to go starting any more car fires.
Posted by: Brian at December 15, 2005 01:21 AM (qe/Un)
4
I love the title of the post as well, "muslim riots." As though at any moment all billion muslims are prone to just act up. I like the bag on Boston too, very nice. I mean sure we are the most educated part of the nation......but then again we lean liberal, rendering our thoughts null and void.
Posted by: Brian at December 15, 2005 01:24 AM (qe/Un)
5
So are you convinced that the Globe and AP are unbiased? Or is it that since you admit you are academic liberals that your opinion is more valid than anyone else in the world?
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 10:17 AM (uSCkp)
6
I know that the Globe can be slanted from time to time but what your suggesting is that the AP created a story about some australian Neo Nazis and then it ran in every major publication in America. I feel like you want so bad for it to be another example of random muslim violence and I am simply going by the AP, who i trust. And Ogre, i read your blog every day, i think you make some good points. It doesnt matter to me where you are from or where you went to school, i just get tired of people saying that Boston doesnt matter because of the "academic liberal" stereotype.
Posted by: Brian at December 15, 2005 03:21 PM (qe/Un)
7
I never said that Boston didn't matter. Certainly Boston does have a very liberal slant to, well, nearly everything. No, perhaps not as liberal as San Francisco and the 9th circuit court, but they are very liberal.
And no, I don't like the liberal ideology. I honestly believe that liberals are destructive to America and freedom. Liberal ideas makes slaves of people and kill them. The current big-government liberals, including those from MA, are opponent of freedom.
For a more detailed look at how the media is attempted to downplay the involvemnt of Muslims, check out this post:
http://thewideawakes.org/archives/2005/12/13/bbc-colour-blindness-on-cronulla-beach/
(Even though that article is specific to the BBC, the AP stories report the same way).
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 03:30 PM (/k+l4)
8
no Boston matters but when the paper prints something that you disagree with it is lying and we cant be expected to know about the real world because were too busy raising taxes. You do know weve had 2 republican governers in a row right? Regardless of the opinions of another blog I am asking you do you believe that the AP fabricated the portion of the story about the neo nazis and if so why. I dont understand why the AP would be so concerned with this mysterious pro-muslim feeling you seem to think exists.
Posted by: Brian at December 15, 2005 04:32 PM (qe/Un)
9
The sequence is wrong there -- it's more that when the paper prints something that is a lie, I disagree with it!
I also stopped complaining about MA taxes -- ever since NC raised it's taxes even higher and beyond what MA pays!
And you can be liberal, very liberal, and still put the letter R after your name. So by saying you've got a Republican governor does not mean that the state is not liberal, especially Boston.
I also never said that the AP fabricated anything. They are very careful to not completely make up things. However, they clearly made a very biased report. Things like "youths of Lebanese descent" to describe one group, but "radical, drunk, violent neo-nazis" to describe the other group.
Why couldn't they describe the Arabs, who were breaking windows and smashing cars as "violent?" Why weren't those who fought the police, "Australian youths?"
Because they don't want to "offend" Muslims, but they don't care about offending anyone else.
Posted by: Ogre at December 15, 2005 04:42 PM (/k+l4)
10
Why would the AP care about offending muslims. That doesnt make any sense. Its not like they depend on a muslim reader base. Also, I doubt you would have complained if they had reversed the adjectives and it was a bunch of good christian white boys fighting with some rowdy terrorists. Wouldnt that have been the same bais? And besides that as long as the AP didnt fabricate anything than you must concede that it was a bunch of white guys who created this situation, rendering the title "muslim riots" incorrect.
Posted by: Brian at December 16, 2005 12:21 AM (qe/Un)
11
Why do they care about offending muslims? Because they like muslims more than they like Americans.
If they had reversed the adjectives I would still call it very questionable reporting, but perhaps more accurate.
And no, all the news sources I have found and that I have read repeatedly say that the initial fighting was done by "youths of lebanese descent."
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 12:39 AM (uSCkp)
12
How truthful are the media? Here's a bit of insight from
http://www.aim.org/press_release/4222_0_19_0_C/ :
Liberal journalist Danny Schechter, a participant in the conference, reports that Al-waleed, who is a member of the Saudi Royal Family and investor in the Fox News parent company News Corporation, gave an interview boasting that he had called Fox to complain about coverage of the "Muslim riots" in France. He said he "called as a viewer" and "convinced them to change" the coverage because "they were not Muslim riots but riots against poverty and inequality." And "they changed" the coverage, the Saudi reportedly said.
Another report on the comments, carried by the Dubai-based newspaper the Khaleej Times, says that Al-waleed personally called Rupert Murdoch to complain. The Saudi said, "After a short while, there was a change" in the coverage.
So, whoever has financial interest in the media controls the media. Orwell's 1984, anyone?
Posted by: Always On Watch at December 16, 2005 01:01 AM (6krEN)
Posted by: Always On Watch at December 16, 2005 01:06 AM (6krEN)
14
Brian?
(on a side note)
"And besides that as long as the AP didnt fabricate anything"
Why is nobody saying that regarding the U.S. paying to get pro-America stories in Iraqi newspapers?
Back on topic.
The "riots" were started during a rally in support of "two young life guards were bashed sensless by an angry mob of fearless mujahadeens who wished to show the “skips” who was in charge “round these parts”.
source.
This kind of violence is spreading, and people are getting fed up with the apparent proclivity "muslim youths" seem to have for violence.
As long as the MSM uses PCspeak to dismiss this violence on the parts of "youths of middle eastern appearance" and vilify any semblance of defense on the parts of white's as the actions of "neo nazi's" this violence will continue to spread.
The "muslim youths" in OZ are making a serious mistake. OZ is NOT france and the Aussie's will NOT stand by and let riots ravage their country and cower inside everynight, hoping that the "authorities" will calm things down.....the Aussies WILL head out into the streets and FIGHT.
There are few things worse than tangling with an angry Aussie....unless it is a drunk, angry aussie.
Posted by: kender at December 16, 2005 01:28 AM (MorAN)
15
"It's notable that "arab youths" are getting in cars, driving to areas (not their own) and smashing things and fighting with police."
At least they are smarter than the dinks in the U.S. that destroy their own areas when they riot.
Posted by: kender at December 16, 2005 01:31 AM (MorAN)
16
Wow. Awesome links, AOW, awesome, thank you!
Posted by: Ogre at December 16, 2005 02:24 AM (vp57A)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
