"Almost all Muslim nations are totalitarian",
If USA and allies so concerned about totalitarianism why did CIA help depose an elected leader in Iran and install the Shah in 1979?

I am not saying there is no risk with Islamic fundamentalism, just that the risk of terror is relatively low. We lose far more people to car crashes, work related injuries and domestic violence. We have not lost one life in the last 30 odd years to terror in Australia - and the last one may have been due to a botched ASIO plan - intended to frighten, but unfortunately 2 men died.

Indeed the purpose of terrorism is to scare us. We should not panic, we need to deal with the threat in a calm and measured way. We should not allow our leaders to use our fear as a pretext for removing freedoms that do not need to be lost.

I have confidence in our resilience - our strength as a people and nation. Muslim fundamentalists aren't boogey men, they are mortal people who can be investigated and charged under normal criminal laws, we don't need a security state on steroids to defeat them - it is like killing an ant with a hammer - complete overkill.

If you are frightened they will take over, you should be very concerned that we would be giving any totalitarian government the very tools that they need to control the population - mass snooping without a warrant, lack of press freedom, severe prison sentences for disclosure of SIOs,even ones that are in the national interest, no oversight - all that is needed is the ok from the minister in charge - what are we turning into? It certainly doesn't look like a democracy.

For the same reason why the USA did nothing about the Egyptian Army deposing the democratically elected government of Egypt that was militant Islam, and which had no intention of ever holding another election. For the same reason why the USA supported the Chilean middle classes who deposed the incredibly incompetent but democratically elected socialist government of Chile which "nationalised" (a euphemism for "steal") US owned industrial assets in Chile. The Iranian government "nationalised" the British and American oil refineries and oilfields in Iran. Theft is still theft, even when an incompetent socialist/Islamic government does it democratically. Hitler was democratically elected and wildly popular in Germany, but we still went to war with him.

Your premise, is, that Tony Abbot is some sort of secret totalitarian who wants to create a police state in Australia and is using Muslim terrorism as an excuse to implement repressive laws.

Do you know how silly you sound? Are you for real? Most people support Abbot's laws because they know that you are wrong. Terrorists are not criminals and they can not be combated with everyday criminal laws. You can't wait until a suicide bomber sets of a bomb in a bus, a train, or an airliner and then arrest him. Every western police force is asking it's government for increased powers to combat Muslim terrorism, and is getting them because western politicians know that the police are right. Muslim terrorists do not care if they die or get caught. The question that you refuse to consider is how we could have avoided this in the first place by simply keeping Muslims right out of our society?

But then you would have to question your commitment to the idea that everyone is equal, and that is too much to ask. Better for you to keep coming up with stupid conspiracy theories than focus on an unpleasant truth that you studiously avert your eyes from. It is just so interesting the degree to which ideologues can blot out everyday reality in order to keep the faith with their utopian ideology

Hitler was not elected. He was appointed interim chancellor in 1933. A week before fresh elections were to be held, the Reichstag building burnt down, and bans were placed on socialists and communists contesting the next election. Even then the Nazi party had to form a coalition - he promised not to abuse his powers,but then reneged and only then did he become Fuhrer.

Sure Chile under Pinochet re-privatised many companies that Allende had nationalised, but his rule also saw thousands of people killed, tortured or disappeared in order to ensure this "theft" could be reversed. He used terror to move wealth from Chile and its people, so it could return to US corporations and local elites. The poor and middle classes did not enjoy the Chile's economic miracle. His legacy continues today. Chile has the greatest wealth disparity of any OECD nation. It is wealthy but many people live in poverty.

I have not said Abbott is a secret totalitarian. But I would say he has an authoritarian style. For eg the militarisation of the asylum seeker issue and the operational secrecy. The resumption of Knights and Dames without cabinet consultation. The news today that he is increasing the tax on petrol without parliamentary approval, and after saying no new taxes.

I'm suggesting that Abbott and Brandis are leaving Australia as a Totalitarian turn-key state. One where our security forces have criminal immunity, almost no independent oversight, less press freedom to report wrongdoing by security forces, less freedom for ordinary citizens to talk about such issues, mass internet snooping of non-terror suspects. Plus the AFP will be able to impersonate people and search a suspect's home but does not need to inform suspects for up to 18 mths.

If you can't imagine what could go wrong with such powers I suggest you look up the cases of the Guildford four and Maguire seven to find out what can go wrong - innocent people, including children, were framed and imprisoned in Britain in the 1970s. The movie 'In the Name of the Father' is based on the Guildford 4.

Communists such as Allende were not in the habit of handing back power through elections once they had got there by any means. Every socialist totalitarian country in the world at the time was torturing and killing those who opposed its continued rule, the difference being that the capitalist totalitarian societies were generally much more successful economically than the socialist ones. and they slipped more easily into democracy when they became stable. Look at South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, The Philippines, and Chile, then compare them to North Korea, Cuba, and every socialist African country you can name. . You could say that Rhodesia was once a totalitarian state, but it was also the bread basket of Africa. Now it's a black run socialist nightmare and they are all starving to death.

You have not directly stated that Abbot is trying to turn Australia into a totalitarian state but you keep implying it. And it is total nonsense. All of the bad things you have stated about having a secret police force with wide ranging powers is perfectly true. What you failed to mention is that it was people like you with your insistence on importing groups of people into this country which are a direct threat to the peace and stability of our country which made it necessary.

I have heard about the "Guildford Four" but I will not watch the movie "In the name of the father" because I do not trust the entertainment media to tell the truth about anything. The Australian movie "Rabbit Proof Fence" was introduced to audiences as a "true story" and it presented the Australian people as Nazis who "stole" aboriginal children to commit "genocide" on them.

Ireland should be a part of Britain. It isn't, because religious and cultural differences can tear apart any society and cause serious social strife, terrorism, and civil war. Australia is an island of peace because we were once one nation, with one language and one primary culture. If Napoleon was alive today, he would probably be congratulating you multiculturalists for creating for him a "splendid new battlefield."

First of all, Allende was not a communist, he was a socialist.

He was a real hard ass - his government instigated programs such as free milk in schools and for nursing mothers, scholarships for the Indigenous population, fixed bread prices, eliminated income taxes for those on modest incomes, increased employment by boosting public works in housing and public transport, distributed free food to the needy, raised the minimum wage - I can see why he was voted out - oh that's right he wasn't. His government was toppled by a CIA backed coup de'tat which installed a military Junta.

The US was anti Allende, but supported a military dictator like Pinochet for nearly 20 years - that doesn't match up with their talk about supporting democracy, freedom and human rights - that's a bit strange.

Pinochet's social legacy includes:2,000 dead/disappeared
30,000 arrested, many tortured
200,000 went into political exile
100,000 (1% of Chile's population!) or so emigrated due to the economic crises that occurred after the Coup when the Milton Freidman's Chicago School boys implemented their free market ideology on Chile's economy - this was how successful that "miracle" was.

I'm pretty sure US corporations and Chilean elites didn't lose too much sleep over the thousands who were tortured, and killed so they could get rich from Chile's natural resources. Who really stole from whom? When a country is so wealthy in natural resources, but the people are so poor, it is a fair question. In 1988, under Pinochet, a whopping 48% lived below the poverty line.

To BJelly (singular name, are you implying something about yourself?)

A "socialist" is just a communist without a gun.

Of course communists/socialists/Marxists make themselves popular with the poor by claiming that they are going to give them lots of money. But socialism does not work. It does not work because (to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher) "sooner or later they run out of other people's money to spend." Allende was a communist who realised that he could win power through elections instead of the traditional communist method of armed force. He nationalised multinational companies, tried to nationalise privately owned trucks, and collectivised agriculture. The result was that the owner/ driver truckies went on strike, the economy became bankrupt, and the people started starving to death. The situation in Chile became catastrophic very quickly.

Of course the USA helped the sensible people of Chile to overthrow this socialist/ communist/ marxist incompetent. If Allende had just nationalised Chilean owned industries, and if the situation in Chile had not been so critical, the yanks would probably have done what they did with Whitlam, waited until the fool got hurled from office in the next election by his own angry people. If another election had ever eventuated, that is. Don't forget, communist governments were not in the habit of holding elections anyway, and Allende would probably have gone down the path to totalitarianism like every other communist before him.

I am sure that the US corporations did not lose any sleep over the Chilean communists (who wanted to steal their property) and who were tortured and murdered by the sensible people of Chile who were incensed by their stupidity. Anymore than I am losing any sleep over the deaths of ISIS fighters.

Perhaps those 48% of Catholic Chileans who lived below the poverty line could have ignored their priests, used contraceptives, and stopped breeding like flies? And I'll bet that those 100,000 Chileans who immigrated out of Chile all headed for the USA. If not, I'll bet they did not head to Cuba or any other socialist paradise.