the government should...

that's the beginning and end of chatterati participation in oz politics. oz is not a democracy. you're either in parliament and a participant in politics, or you're not, and you're not.

what you are, is a subject. just as pollies have inherited the status and power of the winners at hastings, this chatteratum, and all of us, have inherited the status and power of the losers. "people cast down" encapsulated that very well.

democracy is the natural state of humanity, if you subscribe to the notion that all should have equal rights. politicians do not subscribe to this ideal. they believe that all should have equal rights, except politicians should be more equal.

politicians are despicable, but they are pursuing personal advantage in an openly visible way. for real hypocrisy, you can't go past the academics who like to pretend they live in a democracy without ever suggesting that the constitution be changed.

Anti-terrorist law must not be treated the same way as ordinary criminal law. Normal human rights must not be automatically assumed: we are not dealing with normal people. To talk about human rights and terrorists or suspected terrorists in the same breath is outrageous.

Does the Muslim community “feel fairly targeted by the counter-terrorism laws? Have there been any instances of ordinary Muslims being targeted? No. Even the few who were recently tried and found to have no case to answer were not ‘ordinary’ in the sense that authorities thought they needed investigating. Of the 300,000 Muslims living in Australia, the handful in question are the only ones who MIGHT feel victimised. Most Muslims have nothing at all to fear from anti-terror laws, and they could hardly object to the laws as they are the biggest victims of terrorism throughout the world. Saying that “…Muslim Australians felt unfairly targeted by the counter-terrorism laws” is not acceptable without evidence in a matter as serious as this.

Most Muslims in Australia can feel as disconnected from the laws as I do.

On ‘freedom of expression’ as raised by the ALRC, we must remember that a Christian minister in Victoria was hauled before the courts and found guilty purely by repeating something which can be found in the Koran by anyone!

As for independent reviewers of terrorism laws – phooey! No individual, appointed or elected is independent of thought: and this legislation has no precedents. Mr. Innes himself, for example, is a long-time professional public servant. He certainly wears his heart on his sleeve and tries to convince us of his ‘truth’ – something he should have no right to do, as a public servant.

No ‘solutions’ are needed because there is nothing to solve.

SOUND OF ONE HAND CLAPPING?

The author, Graeme Innes sadly appears to be writing in a vacuum - scrupulously avoiding the Government's purported review plan.

The Australian, September 26, 2008 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24403305-5001561,00.html stated:

"THE man favoured by the Rudd Government to be the nation's first independent watchdog of the counter-terrorism laws has expressed fresh concern about some of the powers available to the police and security agencies, saying the time is ripe for a review of the laws.

The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, [IGIS] Ian Carnell, said yesterday he was concerned some of the offences described in the terror laws were vaguely defined.

He said that for some offences, such as associating with or financing a terror group, the burden of proof was too heavy, with suspects required to demonstrate their innocence.

Mr Carnell said he expressed these concerns when he was a member of the 2006 Sheller inquiry into the terror laws.

However, he said, since then the police and security services had been given fresh powers, which had not been comprehensively reviewed..."

Graeme Innes would be aware of the IGIS proposal but leaves it out of this OLO article.

Perhaps Innes recognises that the IGIS office is already overworked and understaffed in its current roles, let alone taking on a new review role. The independence of the ten person IGIS office is also in question – it relies on secondments and is physically located within the AG’s Department in Canberra.

Innes campaign to establish an independent reviewer may have the inherent downside that any non-governmental figure may have little access to the real workings of counter-terror laws when they are being implemented on the street.

The Government’s cultural tendency on terrorism laws seems to be that judges and other independent entities may be a necessary evil to be blinkered and served up a court case AFTER a defendant has spent 2 to 3 years in maximum security.

With that tendency in mind good luck Graeme.

Some compromise may be necessary, addressing the Government’s intention, or perhaps distraction, over an IGIS review role.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

FIRSTLY....

<<An Independent Reviewer would provide depoliticised, integrated advice about how well counter-terrorism laws are working in practice - scrutiny of the kind that is not presently taking place.>>

There is NO SUCH animal as an 'independant' reviewer.

SECONDLY...

<<The Sheller Report made 20 recommendations aimed at clarifying the scope of offences relating to terrorist organisations and at responding to concerns that Muslim Australians felt unfairly targeted by the counter-terrorism laws.>>

WHY.. just ask yourself...WHY would the Muslim community be FEELING that "it" was unfairly targeted?

WHY "unfairly".....?

1/ Why them?

2/ Why unfairly?

THEM...because most terrorist incidents over the past decade which have effected the West have been perpetrated by Muslims.

UNFAIRLY? no..sorry,- given the answer to '1' it is not unfair at all.

It would be 'un' fair IF they did not have holy books which specifically name certain communities "Jews" and "Christians" and single them out for derision and destruction at worst, subjugation at best (9:30) but the fact is...they DO have these despicable and seditious revolutionary foundations at the heart of their holy books.
(9,30) the 9th surah of the Quran, which most self proclaimed tolerant people seem to know pretty much zero about, or are unwilling to find out.

When challenged to FIND OUT..they sidestep, and slide into their usual polemic about 'rabble rousing/hate mongering/fear and loathing' mantra rather than examine the implications of that surah for modern Muslim/Non Muslim relations.

CONCLUSION. It is neither UNfair, nor UNusual that people who claim adherence to a book which curses and calls for the destruction of non them in THIS world (rather than the next) are given a serious amount of attention by non them governments. (specially then the Prime Minister belongs to one of those cursed groups)
So..Graham Innes.. do some reading and then you might qualify for a re-vamped, properly constituted 'Sheller' committee.
Did that committee have any experts on Islam on it?

"we are not dealing with normal people". yep, mr right, you said it. nothing normal about trashing the concept of burden of proof. nothing normal about keeping demonstrably innocent people locked up for years. nothing normal about torturing people. or executing them without trial. nope, not even close to "normal". or to "civilized".

polycarp, remember our little discussion about christians and "christians"?

I have a question about the terrorism laws that the author or some other poster may be able to answer. I gather that the terrorism laws were enacted under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth, with the consent of all the states, to legislate on any subject. Does it therefore follow that the Commonwealth would be unable of itself to amend or repeal these laws, and would require the consent of all the states to do so? Now that we have one non-labor state, Western Australia, would this unanimous consent necessarily be forthcoming?

BUSHY... past conversations are not relevant to the points I make here.

They are 'makable' no matter what one's spiritual leanings are.

You came awful close to crucifying the messenger without looking at the message and refuting that.. sick..sick I tell you (Obligatory image of Derryn Hinch on one of his self righteous tirades :)

But seriously.. I don't need to have my faith questioned or my characterization of it when I touch on issues about which people disagree.

Disagree by all means..but on the ISSSSSue..and the EVVVVidence..not simply "your a bad Christian" kind of thing ... (optimistic look)

Poking around in the scap heap of adhominemism does not advance a debate.

What does advance one is:

Person A makes an assertion.
Person B shows how that assertion is incorrect or unreasonable on the basis of...... shock horror.. "evidence".

When person B simply says ur a rabble rouser or a this or a that.. it helps no one but their own ego.

The classic example related to this very topic of Islam/Muslims/Anti terrorism laws is a correct understanding of Surah 9 and subsequent oral traditions related to it.

I can show with absolute finality that the command of Mohammad in v 29 was used after his death in exactly the same way he used it during his life... to justify attacking, killing, invading non Muslims.
I can also show with equal finality that such invasions were not in self defense, but expansionist and inquisatorial.

Of course we get apologetic Muslims from minority social demographics in the West disputing this for obvious self preservation/interest reasons, but one only needs to refer to high ranking Clerics speaking to Muslims in places where they hold political power to see the truth.
Or..in my case to honest Saudi, Afghan and Omanese here in Australia.

The classic Muslim apologetic is:

-U don't understand the Quran
-You don't understand Arabic
-It was always self defense.
and if all else fails
"Your an idiot and an Islamophobe, a racist a bigot and a fundamentalist Christian"

Oh oh, here we go again. You just don't give up, do you Boaz?

>>I can show with absolute finality that the command of Mohammad in v 29 was used after his death in exactly the same way he used it during his life... to justify attacking, killing, invading non Muslims. I can also show with equal finality that such invasions were not in self defense, but expansionist and inquisatorial.<<

We can all play that game.

I can show you "with absolute finality" that the Crusades were conducted under the banner of Christianity. I can quote sources that describe "with absolute finality" - for them, literally - the fate of civilians in Jerusalem in 1099.

"Our men followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as the temple of Solomon, and there there was such a slaughter that our men were up to their ankles in the enemy's blood... At last the pagans were overcome and our men seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit... Then the crusaders scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the sepulchre of our Saviour Jesus and there discharged their debt to Him"

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm

What does this prove, in 2008?

Yes, there are terrorists. Yes, they cite ancient texts to support their cause. That does justify them, or their cause. They do not represent an example of general human behaviour, or even of the behaviour of a religion in general.

Both the Catholic and Protestant terrorists of Northern Ireland firmly believed that their actions were justified by their faith. That did not make them freedom fighters, or a world movement for liberation, or a religious threat to the rest of civilization.

They were just terrorists.

Using these flimsy excuses as a basis for your whack-a-mozzie diatribes is offensive, particularly when your own religious allegiance is towards an outfit that conducts itself in precisely the same manner.

As usual - well said Pericles.

Surely the Haneef case is proof enough of how these terrorism laws can be used even in cases where there was no real evidence to support the claim that Haneef was in league with terrorists. Even ASIO had reported that the evidence did not support the claim that Haneef was a person of interest.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/29/2318193.htm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24097152-5005961,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/we-never-suspected-haneef-asio/2008/07/29/1217097241031.html

While the previous government may have seen this as a test of the legislation it achieved exactly the opposite of what they intended - a lack of regard for the human rights and freedoms we take for granted in this country.

We have more money invested in anti-terrorism measures since 9/11 - cooperation between agencies and the sharing of reliable information will do more to counter terrorism than tinkering with powers under legislation.

Better foreign relations and economic equity is the best prevention. Didn't Sun Tzu say the best strategy in war is to prevent it in the first place.

Well said, bushbasher, plantaganet, Pericles and pelican. Ever since the Howard government introduced their knee-jerk counter-terrorism laws as part of its sycophantic 'deputy sheriff' policy, many Australians have been very concerned about the Kafkaesque excesses of their application.

There certainly needs to be some effective means of reviewing the scope and function of these laws, which seem to have achieved very little to date beyond harrassing and imprisoning individuals who later turn out to be innocent.

Of course Porky approves of the so-called counter-terrorism laws, since they are applied unfairly to that section of the Australian population that he most loves to hate.

boaz, you can be so goddam obtuse it defies belief. you're like the guy in barton fink: you simply don't listen.

of course the previous thread was relevant: it was all about the question of who gets to do the grouping, who assigns the guilt by association and by what rules. the fact that you can (rightfully) demand care for christian grouping and simultaneously group others with such incredibly bad faith, it's jaw-droppingly stupid. and nasty.

but it is not that your anti-muslim bigotry is so stupid and so distasteful. it's that whilst doing it, you imagine the light of god is beaming down upon you. well i'm sorry, but your bad faith character assassination of a whole religious group is about as loathsomely unchristian as it gets. it's disgusting.

I reject the underlying justification of the anti-terrorism laws, that is, that there exists in the world today a terrorist network known as "Al Quaeda", with the ability and intent to break through the world's most formidable air defence system and successfully launch devastating attacks such as we witnessed on 11 September 2001.

That is what I unquestioningly accepted (even as I attended protest marches against the Iraq war) until about a year ago when serious doubts about the Official 9/11 U.S. Government Conspiracy Theory entered my head.

As long as I accepted the myth about "Al Qaeda" it was difficult for me to argue the case against the anti-terrorist legislation.

However, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the likelihood that the 19 September 11 terrorists were, in fact, patsies and that George Bush, Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and other highly placed U.S. Government officials were complicit in those attacks.

Just consider that Osama bin Laden himself is not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. Contrary to what I had been led to believe he never confessed to the crime and the FBI does not believe that it has sufficient evidence to charge him for that crime (although it does for many other crimes). If you don't believe me, check out his FBI wanted poster at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

If that is true, then the case for all the draconian anti-terrorist legislation simply does not exist.

I urge people to look into the question, starting from these sites http://www.911oz.com http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://911truth.org http://ae911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org

A discussion "9/11 Truth" was started at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0

(As the discussion was somewhat derailed at the beginning, I urge people to begin from the end and work their way back.)

There are also gaping holes in the official explanations of other terrorist attacks which have occurred since 11 September 2001 including the Madrid Bombings and the London Tube bombings.

All laws need to be scrutinised, but is that not the role of the judiciary in this tin pot 3 tiered system?

(actively resists extrinsic and pejorative as a memory fragment about ld mountbatton's leg floats thru consciousness)

howard and his loathsome mates made an art form out of creating tin pot tribunals and other unqualified mechanisms to make inital findings of fact in a great range of areas, from asylum seeker's to otherwise.

To witness on the global stage some of the great attrocities committed thru out history with more than a passing role from laws which deprive a person of their liberty and subject them to to all manner of ill treatment may giv som of u pause to re-consider.

Access to the law must become a Right of all people and the same goes for medicine. And for that, lawyers and doctors must i.m.o. be stringently regulated. And for that, the majority must come to the conclusion that it is in the majorities best interests to vote for other than the blue & red of the current political landscape.

...Adam...

I recall this line of reasoning from *bOAZy* from a long time ago now it seems.

Hmmm .. to me when u strip away the language, the culture, the religion, the sex and the politics, what u get down to at times is certain individuals who are only ever happy when they are getting their own way and who are invariably dogmatic to the extent that they will insist that black is white and white is black if it appears to suit their purpose.

U r little different to me *bOAZy* than the construct that u decry.

But pls, so as that u may not understand, I do not suggest that yr rants are entirely devoid of worth and thus in an area where my own knowledge is lacking, I ask u, do pls tell us what u know of the:

*Satanic Verses*

Dagget re
“I reject … that there exists in the world today a terrorist network known as ‘Al Quaeda’ …evidence (points) to the likelihood that the 19 September 11 terrorists were, in fact, patsies and that George Bush, Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice...”

Interesting thesis!

How about Jemaah Islamiyah & The Bali Bombers, how do they fit into the 9/11 conspiracy?

*smile*...

Pericles says:

<<"I can show you "with absolute finality" that the Crusades were conducted under the banner of Christianity.">>

and who (if they know history) would argue with that? I sure wont.
What I DO argue with.. is the foundation on which those crusades were done. Jesus said "As the Father sent me.. SO I send you".

HANDS UP all those who can point to Jesus gathering an army around himself?
STAND UP all those who can point to Jesus ever ordering the killing of anyone?
DO SOMERSAULTS all those who can show that Jesus encouraged his disciples to defend him physically with their lives?

CJ says UNfairly applied .. recent trial outcomes speak against you.

HANDS UP all those who wanted to be at the MCG during the grand final when a truck bomb (or some similar means) blew them up?

The evidence I'm afraid is against what CJ says.

BUSHY says "You just don't listen" ... no brudder.. it is you who does not.

Again.. the evidence is not on your side here. (surah 9.... please try to understand what this means in terms of EXXXXXXXample)

It is not 'bigotry' to point to evidence.. it is bigotry to see evidence in front of you and then go into blatant denial.

-Doctrine
-Example
-History
-Contemporary expression of all the above

is... to put it mildly.. a very compelling wallll of evidence to deny, and such denial is absolute bigotry of the most 'final' kind.

The people arrested under our anti terrorism laws were those who took all those things to heart, and applied them to 'now'....in our back yard.

DAGGET the underlying justification of the ATLs would be surah 9..it's enough.

DREAMY:)

<<they will insist that black is white and white is black if it appears to suit their purpose.>>

Yes..it continues to amaze me also.. refer the above :)

Some see "Fight them who don't believe" and translate to "love them" :) but I read 'fight and see 'FIGHT'. (basic english)

hilarious. boaz disowns the crusades at the very same time that he's trying to start a new one.

boaz, you're not supplying evidence. you're supplying bias and bigotry and special pleading and propaganda and cherry picking and guilt by association, all wrapped in a decidedly unchristian ill-will. you're the very model for the danger of masturbatory god-on-my-side religious "thought".

Hi plerdsus

While Innes' perfectly good article has been dummed-down by the usual religious obscurantists who are comically over-represented in OLO - you ask a good question:.

"...the terrorism laws were enacted under section 51(xxxviii) of the Constitution, which empowers the Commonwealth, with the consent of all the states, to legislate on any subject. Does it therefore follow that the Commonwealth would be unable of itself to amend or repeal these laws, and would require the consent of all the states to do so? Now that we have one non-labor state, Western Australia, would this unanimous consent necessarily be forthcoming?"

The long answer would be an interpretation, after a careful reading, of this: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/BD/2002-03/03bd089.htm .

Short (non-lawyer) answer is: Given the highly sensitive political nature of the terrorism laws the Commonwealth would need (at least informal but substantial) agreement from each State and Territory to substantially amend/repeal the laws. Amendment (a few changes) is more likely than repealing them (rolling them back).

If the amendments were deemed small and highly technical (such as changes to the Interception Act) then no State/Territory agreement might be sought.

With the possibility that non-Labor WA could criticise Rudd as being soft on security/terrorism, Rudd may continue to pursue his current security direction which is:

Blow $Billions on security particularly the AFP AND don't change the Laws because it’s too politically dangerous to do otherwise.

Once security laws/budgets are in place there is a ratchet effect - no copper/spook/bureacrat/polly is going to risk lowering the guard/budget just in case (or just before) any bomb goes off.

Peter Coates
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Polycarp,

As you should well know by now I am not 'Politically Correct'. I actually share some of your concerns about Islamic fundamentalism and high immigration.

Nevertheless, Muslims, other than the occasional handfuls of deluded patsies, such as the 19 we are told performed the hijackings of 11 September 2001, are guilty of very few of the terrorist acts that have been attributed to them in recent years.

'False flag' terrorist attacks, which appear to have originated from within Western Intelligence agencies and the military in recent years, include, apart from the September 11 atrocity:

* The Madrid Bombings of 11 March 2004

* The London Tube bombings of 7 July 2007 (http://julyseventh.co.uk/)

* Sectarian mass murder in Iraq (see "September 2005 "British 'Undercover Soldiers' Caught driving Booby Trapped Car" at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050920&articleId=972 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#49436)

In 2002 the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P2OG http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1028-11.htm) was set up by the U.S. Government to, among other things to:

... launch secret operations aimed at "stimulating reactions" among terrorists
and states possessing weapons of mass destruction--that is, for instance,
prodding terrorist cells into action and exposing themselves to "quick-response"
attacks by U.S. forces.

In other words, it was the stated policy of the P2OG (stupid acronym, why not just 'PPOG'?) to provoke Islamic terror cells into murdering innocent people as part of an ostensible tactic to destroy them.

Much of the phenomena of Islamic Fundamentalism was known to have been fomented directly by the U.S. itself, beginning from in 1978 when the Carter administration funded Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden himself to destabilise the modernising Government of Noor Mohammed Taraki.

The gullible and foolish left believe the myth that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda turned on the U.S. even though he was treated in a U.S. hospital in Dubai and met a CIA operative in July 2001 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html)

All,

Please excuse the intrusion.

[Dear Poly. You have left unanswered two key questions from the suicide the thread. One did Jesus have fore knowledge and therefore it was "death by cop"? ... Very much against the Jewish faith, which honours the body as God's creation. The second, does not Hosea 6:6 state that God requires mery/love (trans.) not sacifice? Please return. Sells skipped too]

OH come now *bOAZy* No need to be shy is there?

*The Satanic Verses*

Argueabley they demonstrate that the Prophet

(May peace b his portion)

was human and fallible like the rest of us. As the great attrocities perpetrated by various popes demonstrate that they also are human and very fallible, and that's being polite.

But, why is it with ease u disavow some of "their" deeds such as the crusades as being not the work of real "Christians" but do not say the same in terms of Islam?

Is it not these political creatures in some of the churches, mosques and synagogues who insist that they are God's chosen representatives, infallible and directed by Holy Spirit who are the problem?

These people refuse to be questioned and refuse to change and consequently are perpetually ill prepared to adapt to the ever evolving circumstances round about us.

Dogmatic and obstinate. Thus, it is very likely that it is only a matter of time before another catholic "priest" abuses a child, i.m.h.o. Better that they roger each other I reckon and in that they have my full support. ;-)

Where is the counter terrorism of children surveillance report on the internal justifications/rationalisations of the inner circle of the clergy that it may be submitted for public and peer review visa vi their cover ups and dismissive attitudes?

Come on, James Sinnamon. So "The Madrid Bombings of 11 March 2004" and "The London Tube bombings of 7 July 2007" were " 'False flag' terrorist attacks, which appear to have originated from within Western Intelligence agencies and the military"?

This on top of the "9/11 Truth" bulldust.

It's not only Pete's "usual religious obscurantists who are comically over-represented in OLO" who hilariously dumb down the discussion about our draconian 'counter-terrorist' laws.

Get help, James. You seem to be seriously unhinged.

Porky - Benbrika & co could have been investigated, apprehended and convicted under existing conspiracy and sedition laws. However, Thompson and Haneef - who were both found to be not guilty of any crimes - couldn't have been. What does that say to you about the legislation?

Hi Dreamy
sorry I didnt respond earlier.. post limit thingy.

<<But, why is it with ease u disavow some of "their" deeds such as the crusades as being not the work of real "Christians" but do not say the same in terms of Islam?>>

I think you are touching on an important point which explains a lot of the dramatic divergence between myself and a few others on this issue.

This is very basic to understanding my position.. i.e. I regard our(the) Lord Himself, by example and word, to be the dividing line.. reference point.. deciding vote.. for anything claiming to be Christian.

I take the same approach to Islam and Mohammad. It's when I apply the standard of Christ to Islam, that people see me as some kind of 'whack-a-mozzie' bloke. But the key point is that when we simply compare founder with founder, their words and deeds.. we find on the one hand in Christ....
-No violence
-No murder of enemies
-No army
-No gang of thugs
-No forced conversions

In Christ, in the record we have....we find 2 things

1/ Peaceful proclaimation of the Kingdom of God... "the Gospel"
2/ Peaceful life full of compassion and love. (except towards the religious hypocrites/leaders, but his condemnation of them was limited to verbal)

and on the other hand Mohammad...did all of the above list of - points.

The Satanic verses DO indeed show him to be fallible... a normal human..and this has been my contention from day one. In fact it explains all the black marks on his character as per the list.

THAT is the whole point :) He was from human origins.. the Lord Jesus was from Divine. Hence the difference in approach. Earthy=violent, murder,jealousy,conflict, war, empire. Heavenly=Self control, love, compassion, no political agenda.

You can read the Gospels and then some Islamic history (just the Quran surah 9 is enough) to see which one is which.

Of course, Christopher would say that the claims of the 9/11 Truth Movement are 'bulldust', because George W Bush and the Australian corporate newsmedia have told him that they are.

And all Chris ever needs to know about the London Tube Bombings, the Madrid Bombings, the foiled British car-bombing attack of 18 September 2005 in Basra, P2OG, etc is to be found in the pages of Rupert Murdoch's Australian.

CJ is quite correct not to even to even consider contrary evidence about such preposterous allegations.

Far better and far more productive for CJ to instead spend his time telling anyone who thinks differently from himself that they are 'fruitloops', 'wingnuts', 'freak shows', 'nutbags', and 'looney tunes' (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0).

CJ Morgan wrote, "Get help, James. You seem to be seriously unhinged."

Very compassionate of you CJ to keep on telling people like myself who display such obvious symptoms of mental illness by espousing views contrary to your own that I am a 'fruit loop'.

They tell me that this is habit that you have formed.

I have been told that you once attacked someone with a bi-polar condition as 'mentally ill'.

James, you haven't presented the slightest shred of evidence for your preposterous allegations that "The Madrid Bombings of 11 March 2004" and "The London Tube bombings of 7 July 2007" were " 'False flag' terrorist attacks, which appear to have originated from within Western Intelligence agencies and the military".

My apologies to others for the inevitable URL-storm to come.

And James, I make no secret here of my identity - and unlike you, I only use one at OLO. I infer from your comment that you're in communication with other mentally ill people. Did you meet in a support group or something?

If so, I commend you for seeking assistance for your problems.

Boaz,

In your comment above, you criticised Islam for allowing a country or a nation to defend iteself against aggression with the term "No army".

So according to you, if Indonesia occupies an Australian territory tomorrow, you will be marching against the ADF and maybe asking for the Gold coast to be giftwrapped and given to the Chinese!

If this is what you are saying, then your belief system does not make anysense. If this is not what you are saying, hypocrisy is the only word that comes to mind.

Peace,

Hi FH...mate..your comment comes clearly from your understanding of your faith... which is quite legitimate, but it also underlines the point I'm always trying to make.

You see Islam as a 'State'...and I see knowing Christ as being of the heart...not a State.

Even if you personally don't describe Islam as a 'State in waiting' or that it emerged even from Mohammad's day AS.. a State.. (which I doubt you would do) you would probably admit that based on the history of it unfolding and the foundation documents.. that it's all about a theocracy.. no?

The difference in how we understand our roles re defense should be explored.

I have no objection to not only Australia defending itself from Indonesia or whoever, but also of my own participation in that defense...as I've already had military experience and enlistment.

But there should never be a 'Christian' State. A State might include a large majority of Christians.. and even be called upon to defend itself..but not in the name of Christ himself.. no..in the name if peace and security in general. (Romans 13)

Your usual approach is to see all things done by Mohammad as 'defensive' but this is unsustainable in the light of history AND the clear command to fight unbelievers in 9:29. The fact that I know how 9:29 was used by Omar in his invasion of Persia should convince you that I know my stuff :) I've had this conversation with Kaysar Trad b4..and he simply re-invents the invasion of Persia as a defensive act.

History again does not sustain this re-invention. The various other invasions and expansions.. were clearly motivated by the desire to spread Islam.
As soon as you 'are' a state... you must respond to your surroundings 'as' a state..which means taking territory as well as defending it.

It is unavoidable that Muslim states will seek to take over bordering states. Only a power balance or alliance (like ANZUS) will stop it. Just as Omar invented reasons why the Persians should be invaded, so did Kaysar.

Boaz,

"You see Islam as a 'State'..."

No I don't Boaz, Islam is a faith like any other should be in the heart. Please see your answer below which contradicts your attack above:

1. "you must respond to your surroundings 'as' a state..which means taking territory as well as defending it"
2. "I have no objection to not only Australia defending itself from Indonesia or whoever, but also of my own participation in that defense"

So, hypocrisy it is.

" ... The Satanic verses DO indeed show him to be fallible... a normal human..and this has been my contention from day one. ... "

For me, I am more concerned with people, not old books little understood and possibly misinterpreted, misrepresented and re written over and over and that goes for the lot of them. U don't seriously believe that the book defines the people do u, or even that most adherants even know the entire contents of the book?

I'd like to c how tolerant 40,000,000 future Australians would be relative to the 40,000,000 Muslims here if held down at subsistence level.

So, to generalise and classify huge swathes of humanity by the words and deeds of "politicians" somehow doesn't seem to ring of Everlasting Luv UnConditional in the 1st instance. No?

(It's the trouble with too much time spent looking at 2 dimensional screens and prolonged isolation perhaps.)

It appears to me to be a red neck trait to pick out a line of txt and associate it with an opposing red necked violent minority and then say "U c ... rotten from the start" Is there anything U consider 2 b of value that has been contributed by?
(and they say this like in Song)
MMoHammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmed

The modern language/cultural barriers in and of them self are insurmountable to many, let alone the differing consciousness of those who preceded us.

Politicians as a whole are all self interested and in even in this country there is no law prohibiting them knowingly propagating untruths in the public domain and otherwise.

Perhaps it is more of a problem of lack of education and then some visa vi *El GoddO* concepts and blind faith acceptance coupled with penalties for having a scientific/enquiring mind.

Christopher wrote, "James, you haven't presented the slightest shred of evidence ...".

Like I also haven't "presented the slightest shred of evidence" that the US Government itself is implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0, eh, Christopher?

Somehow, I think, from your conduct in that discussion, you wouldn't be capable of seeing the evidence even if you fell over it.

So, CJ, if I try to present the evidence here, do you intend to look at it and discuss it this time, or will you just proceed to tell everybody that I must be a nutbag/wingnut/moobat/etc because I "spruke(sic) crackpot conspiracy theories"?

Anyway, Christopher, in case you hadn't noticed, it's a little bit difficult to present the necessary evidence when we are constrained by the brain-dead lowest-common-denominator limits of OLO, but, then again, perhaps you wouldn't understand what it is like to try to present a complex argument, would you, Christopher?

When some of us have tried from time-time-time to discretely make use of second accounts in order to do that, even when they have left nobody in any doubt as to who the originator of the post was, a number of small-minded "goody two shoes" pedants have seized upon that to personally attack those presenting the arguments, as you would well know, Christopher.

Christopher wrote, "I infer from your comment that you're in communication with other mentally ill people."

So, tell me, Christopher, who among the Queensland Greens don't you consider "mentally ill"?

James, your condition seems to be deteriorating. Indeed, you're raving.

I'd ask you to offer some opinion about the need to scrutinise our draconian counter-terrorism laws, but you don't seem to be very rational at the moment.

Get help.

Christopher wrote, "James, your condition seems to be deteriorating. Indeed, you're raving."

I thought what I wrote looked like plain lucid English(1) . Does anyone else out there think I am raving?

Anyhow Christopher, you wouldn't just say that my "condition seems to be deteriorating" unless you really thought so, now would you?

You wouldn't just say that just because you're not winning the argument?

Then Christopher wrote, "I'd ask you to offer some opinion about the need to scrutinise our draconian counter-terrorism laws, ..."

On no! What have I done?

Christopher continued, "... but you don't seem to be very rational at the moment."

But when have you ever considered me rational?

---

1. Except that I should have written 'time-to-time' instead of 'time-time-time'. My apologies.

James Sinnamon: << ...you're not winning the argument? >>

What argument? All you've presented thus far is a grab-bag of crackpot conspiracy theories and personal attacks on me. No argument at all about the subject matter of the article and thread.

Get help.

Christopher wrote, "Get help."

Have you ever sought help, yourself, Christopher?

I think a good start would be to take remedial lessons in reading comprehension so that you can recognise evidence when you see it, and understand simple questions, such as:

"... who among the Queensland Greens don't you consider 'mentally ill'?"

I asked that because you obviously believe that many members of the Queensland Greens are "mentally ill".

It is said that people who accuse everyone else of being mentally unbalanced are often mentally unbalanced themselves, and from what I have heard that view of you appears to be widespread amongst Queensland Greens.

Christopher wrote, "All you've presented thus far is ... personal attacks on me."

Yeah, right, Chistopher.

Now who was it who wrote, "Get help, James. You seem to be seriously unhinged."?

Where did I ever personally attack you on this forum before you wrote that?

Get help, James.

How can you be so sure that it is me, and a few others, besides, who need help, Christopher, and not you?

You see, if we all go to get help as you insist we do, and it were to turn out that it was really you who needed help all along, a lot of time and money will have been spent for no good purpose.

I don't know about your friends, James, but on the basis of what you've been posting on OLO lately there's little doubt that you need professional help.

Get some.

How unpredictable, Christopher.

---

The following is from an interview of film maker Aaron Russo by Alex Jones. Aaron Russo made "Trading Places" and "The Rose". He died in August 2007 of cancer,

He tells of how lawyer Nicholas Rockefeller confided in him, 11 months before the September 11 attacks an 'event' was gong to lead to the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and andless war on terror.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=LZjKKUEHTKk

AR: (Nicholas Rockefeller) told me, 11 months before 9/11 ever happened, that there was going to be an event - he never told me what the event was going to be, but there was going to be an event and out of that event we were going to invade Afghanistan, to run pipelines from the Caspian Sea, we were going to invade Iraq, you know to take over the oil fields to establish a base in the Middle East and make it all part of the New World Order, and we go after Chavez in Venezuela, and, sure enough, later then, 9/11 happened and I remember how he was telling me how we would see soldiers looking in caves for people in Afghanistan and Pakistan and all these places and there was going to be this war on terror of which there was no real enemy, and the whole thing was a giant hoax, you know, but it's a way for the government to take over the American people.

AJ: He told you it was going to be a hoax?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

AR: Oh yeah, Oh yeah, there's no question. He says, "this war on terror ..." - and he's just laughing. Who are we fighting? I mean why do you think 9/11 happened and then nothing has happened since then? Do you think that our security is so great here that these people who pulled off 9/11, who were able to - can't knock down another plane? Come on! It's ridiculous! 9/11 was done by people in our own government and our own banking system to perpetuate the fear of the American People and to subordinate in themselves anything that the government wants them to do - that's what is about and to create this endless war on terror. And that was the first lie. And the next lie was to go into Iraq - you know to get Saddam Hussein out with his weapons of mass destruction. That was the next lie.

AJ: Now, specifically, this was a little over 6 years ago - 11 months before 9/11 ...

AR: Right. An endless war on terror without any real enemy - so you can never define a winner.

AJ: And did he say it was going to be perfect, because you can't define an enemy and it just goes on.

AR: Yeah, because you just can't define a winner. There's no (inaudible) to beat, so they can go on and on forever and they can do whatever they want, they scare the hell out of the American public. Look, this who war on terror is a fraud. It's a farce. It's very difficult to say it out loud, because people are intimidated against saying it, because, if you say it, they want to make you into a nutcase. But the truth has to be - the truth has to come out. That's why I'm doing this interview. The fact of the matter happens to be that the whole war on terror is a fraud. It's a farce.