Brown Study

Brown study

28 November 2015

9:00 AM

28 November 2015

9:00 AM

The way some political leaders and the media responded to the terrorist outrages in Paris was fascinating. First, I was struck by how many of them said they were ‘shocked’. What was shocking about it? If they meant they were surprised, they must be very slow on the uptake about the foothold that Islamic terrorists now have in their countries, mainly because they have indulged the terrorists and their camp followers for far too long. And it must have been blindingly obvious after Charlie Hebdo that it was only a matter of time before the terrorists struck again, just as it is only a matter of time before the next one. If, on the other hand, our courageous leaders and their media echoes meant they were horrified and appalled by the hideous atrocities that the terrorists perpetrated, they should not have been. This band of cut-throats is so besotted by their religious extremism that there is no depth of depravity to which they will not sink and this was well known before the Paris attacks. But perhaps by ‘shocked‘ our political elite simply meant they have been shocked into doing something about Islamic terrorism before their exasperated voters turn on them in protest at their countries being allowed to house so many Islamic ghettos. That would really be poetic justice.

But talking of being shocked, I was shocked to find myself agreeing with a French Socialist MP, not something I normally do. He was being interviewed on the BBC as part of its coverage of the atrocities and repeated M. Hollande’s rallying cry that France was now at war with Islamic State and that its response would be ‘merciless’. Well said. But right on cue, the BBC virus struck and the reporter put to him that all this talk of war and merciless responses was ‘provocative’ to Muslims and out of order. The MP came back with a very commendable Exocet missile: ‘Wake up; this is a war; the enemy declared war on us; we will give them what they deserve and it will be merciless!’ Oh, that our own leaders had the same laser-like precision with the English language.

With that in mind, I hope that European governments are getting ready for the next attack, which will certainly come sooner or later. I think it will not be in Rome or Brussels, as the terrorists want us to believe, but Granada. When the Moors were expelled from Spain in 1492, it was the last city to be liberated by Ferdinand and Isabella, and the most emotional loss to Islam, as it included the breathtakingly beautiful Alhambra Palace. The fall of Granada to the Christians really bit hard in the souks and mosques of the Muslim world, as was so eloquently expressed by the mother of the ex- Caliph, Muhammad XII, who observed her son bawling his head off at this tragedy as they rode their camels into the sunset, and offered him this gem of motherly support: ‘Do not weep like a woman for the loss of something you could not defend as a man’. Thanks mum. Anyway, the Muslim plan from that day has always been that Granada would be the first city in Europe to be retaken by Islam and, to that end, Osama bin Laden once made a speech about what he called ‘the Andalusian tragedy’. Islam is also becoming more Wahabi fundamentalist among Granada’s Muslims. I am not surprised. I was in Madrid on 9/11 and Granada the next day, and I well remember the graffiti that lauded the destruction of the World Trade Centre, a sure sign that Islamic terrorism is just beneath the surface.

But our first concern has to be with Australia. Here, with the best will in the world, I am genuinely confused. I read intently all of Mr Turnbull’s statements and those of his ministers who are clearly doing their best to follow and echo his profound analysis in which apparently, somewhere, Australia’s policy is to be found. I am getting three highly dubious messages. First, terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, an obvious fiction. Secondly, it is all our fault and we should embrace the Muslim community, which will prevent more terrorism; strange; it does not seem to have worked out that way, despite all the embracing we have already done. And how about it if they did some embracing of us. Thirdly, we will now bring in even larger numbers of refugees from known terrorist regions, as if we were turkeys pleading for more stuffing before Christmas. But don’t worry: there is no danger of potential terrorists slipping in, so we are told. I am not going to break the oath of secrecy and repeat anything I learned in government about security risks. But if you allow another 12,000 refugees from these areas, I can guarantee that at least one potential terrorist will slip through. You only need one.

Talking of words, I was disturbed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s response at his press conference to the revelation (as if anyone needed to be told) that the Loyal Deputy had sent her chief of staff to a meeting of the plotters the night before the coup, but had not immediately warned Tony Abbott of the plot. Mr Turnbull replied that ‘she has my 110 per cent confidence’. This is a nice thing to say, of course, about a deputy, even the current one, but my concern is that I do not want to see another prime minister up-ended by proceeding on a false premise. The question is not whether the Prime Minister has confidence in the Loyal Deputy, but whether she has confidence in him, and we now know that that quality is as flexible as the Melbourne weather. But I suppose we should give credit where it is due and acknowledge that Ms Bishop has at least given a whole new meaning to the expression ‘I‘m right behind you’.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments