I absolutely disagree with everything you say, but would lay down my life in order for you to say it! Quote unquote. [A well known early american Senator, whose name escapes me for the present.]
The article is, I believe, disingenuous in the extreme!
The fact that we are an Island state, and how very effective and patriotic police forces, who take this threat seriously' have been, even if looking a bit "keystone" at times; probably explains the lack of a successful terror attack!
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty!
As for rights?
I suspect we may have vastly more than Muslims unfortunate enough to be condemned to be living/"life" in Archie ("Democratic Indonesia")!
We ought not let down our guard for a minute, nor vacate the field, least these monsters are given free reign to expand their reign of terror/absolutist cult; which unimpeded, surely will one day find its way here, along with all the localized "collateral damage"!
That being still possible as failed or successful covert operations, utilizing homegrown/UK/USA militant miscreants; and, not necessarily the product of extreme Islam, just fundamental extremism/the IQ of a moron!
I don't understand why we don't yet have thermal imaging cameras at all entry points, given just how useful in preventing medieval miscreants from lying their way past our barriers, and possibly reenacting a 9/11 scenario inside our borders!?
Armed guards bearing long arms around public buildings/parliaments, are hardly going to prevent a aerial suicide attack!
But particularly given localized air traffic and the number of pollies who very regularly use it, in a two for the price of one outcome?
And only ministerial (extreme) arrogance prevents the an immediate and essential roll out of completely covert thermal imaging and CAFR at all entry and exit points!
Which in a nutshell, is impossible to cheat or beat, space age lie detection!
Which, given my druthers, would in the first instance be applied to the Author, to see whether he is merely a deluded fool or mendacious mischief making miscreant/mass murdering Isil apologist?
Rhrosty.

I think it was Voltaire who came up with that line Rhrosty.
And you're wrong about Jihadists being of low IQ, they're typically of higher than average intelligence, and they're mostly educated and well informed young people. ISIS is the equivalent of the international brigades during the Spanish civil war, it's full of self styled Islamic intellectuals, idealistic Islamist radicals,adventurers, war junkies and mercenaries.

Because we now (and always did) live in an indivisible quantum psycho-physical universe wherein everything is inter-connected and in which the Law of Karma IS Immutable sooner or later the chickens ALWAYS come host to roost. The time scale involved could be years, decades and even centuries.
Which is also to say that what is now being dramatized on to the world stage is the "playing out" of all kinds of individual and collective tribalistic Karmas, both recent and deeply historical.

It is only in recent times due to the widespread availability of weapons of mass destruction, whether conventional, chemical, biological and potentially nuclear that the victims of Western imperialism have found a means to effectively fight back, albeit on a limited scale.

Prior to that the "heathen savages" were kept under tight control and ferociously monstered if they got even a little a bit "uppity".

Richard Gott explains how this was done in the case of the British Empire in his book Britain's Empire. Of course the French and German's were just as ruthless too, as was King Leopold of Belgium in the case of the Congo. Leopold was of course one of the West's most "successful" mass murderers.

As does Nicolas Davies in his essay Western Imperialists Have Been Bombing Iraq For 100 Years, in the case of the Middle East and especially what is now called Iraq.

Because we always won the wars and thus considered ourselves to be superior we could never ever even conceive that such conquered and traumatized peoples could have a long collective historical memory of collective trauma and humiliation, and thus a subsequent collective desire for revenge.

Conversely we always pretend(ed) that our rulership was/is based on our presumed innately superior qualities, with our seemingly successful history being the proof of the pudding.

Richard's statement is incorrect when he states:

"After all, in reality, there has not been a single death caused by a terrorist attack on Australian soil in the past three decades at least."

Presumably the "three decades" ago refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Hilton_Hotel_bombing in 1978.

While not mass casualty or by bomb the following, on September 23, 2014, could be classed as a death caused by terrorist attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Endeavour_Hills_stabbings :

"Haider was carrying two knives and the Black Standard of the Islamic State."

Main events following this were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Australian_terror_raids on September 18, 2014.

The mental state of people do not preclude the definition of terrorism.

Just because the Government has decided not to call it a terrorist attack people have their own views.

CORRECTIONS made in CAPITALS below:

Richard's statement is incorrect when he states:

"After all, in reality, there has not been a single death caused by a terrorist attack on Australian soil in the past three decades at least."

Presumably the "three decades" ago refers to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Hilton_Hotel_bombing in 1978.

While not mass casualty or by bomb the following, on September 23, 2014, could be classed as a death caused by terrorist attack http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Endeavour_Hills_stabbings :

"Haider was carrying two knives and the Black Standard of the Islamic State."

Main events BEFORE this were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Australian_terror_raids on September 18, 2014.

The mental state of people do not preclude the definition of terrorism.

Just because the Government has decided not to call it a terrorist attack DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T SO. PEOPLE have their own views.

Hi everyone,
Rhrosty Quote>I absolutely disagree with everything you say, but would lay down my life in order for you to say it!< Nicely said.
I have to say however that I do agree with the author.
There's too much use of the word 'terrorist' thrown around lately.
The first thing that comes to mind is the Palestinian issue.
How can these people be labelled 'terrorists' when they are simply defending their own country and a right to self determination whilst under endless occupation and discrimination?
Sure many of them think Israel doesn't have a right to exist at all, but in some ways it's a valid argument. (Not that I'm taking a stand either way.) The Palestinians weren't responsible for the Holocaust.
I have to say that if the Chinese for example or any other nation decided to try to occupy this country by force I would fight back against them. (And if it went on for 60 odd years I want want them wiped off the face of the planet too.)
It would be the right thing to do to defend my country if foreign troops invaded us. But I don't agree with the way Australia supports US and western imperialism who claim a need to start wars in their 'national interest' when they themselves have not been attacked. No foreign army has set foot on theirs or our soil, and I don't believe its right to fight a war unless you are being directly attacked.

That said, when I watch and hear things like people thrown of buildings, beheaded, crucified, set alight, raped, imprisoned and tortured for no reason at all, it becomes a little more complicated. Because what did the US and Israel (who we support) do, either blatantly or covertly to provoke them all?

Its our support of Israel and the US (particularly their foreign policy) which makes us a target.

What a pile.

When 4 "Lebs", Muslim thugs, leapt out of a car in the peaceful Sydney suburb of Alawa one afternoon about 5.00 PM, & attacked my son as he walked home from the train, shouting "get the Whity" it was terrorism.

Now Alawa was a peaceful suburb, until these Muslims took over a couple of near by suburbs, & started the softening up process around there.

I don't know just what some of you call terrorism, but I would say being attacked by 4 Muslims, just because you are a white Australian, & having your skull fractured in 4 places by their boots, comes bloody close in my world.

It would have been worse if a couple of passing cars had not stopped, & the people come to his support.

There are becoming too many no go areas for real Ozzies, in our cities, as these friendly Muslims become much less so, as soon as their numbers grow, & they are emboldened.

Keep up the mealy mouthed rubbish if you like, personally I will take the necessary action to prevent it happening around here.

"Peace in our time" should be a warning to all who lack the guts to do what is necessary, before it is too late.

In Canada the kids get to do pretend beheadings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7D9m2tnLEU#t=12

Oh well I suppose reporting it is a distraction from the budget.

runner

I do not want to trivialise the import of the youtube you provide - at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7D9m2tnLEU#t=12 directly clickable at http://youtu.be/J7D9m2tnLEU

However I need to report that the blonde newsreader is soooooooooooo cute :)

The only statement that Richard Jackson got right in his whole article, is that those people who question or oppose government policies relating to terrorism are considered "disloyal, traitorous, and weak." Although why this opinion should worry people like Richard Jackson is a mystery? The trendy left usually revel in their disloyalty and treasonous attitudes to their own people's welfare as a kind of identity badge denoting membership of their psuedo intellectual caste.

People like Richard can be relied upon to reflexively take the opposing view to mainstream opinions on any topic whatsoever. Anything that the Establishment, the bogans and the bourgeoisie agree on, the left "liberals" will oppose on principle. From the 1920's, countless numbers of these educated and supposedly intelligent people had had claimed that the Soviet Union was "the workers paradise" and that the future of Australia lay in the "democratic socialisation of Australian industry"

In the 50's they were "the angry young men" who wanted to save Africa from white colonialism. The subsequent disintegration of Africa into fourth world, barbarism makes one wonder why colonialism had such a bad name? The left "liberals" open support for multiculturalism is now starting to look rather jaded with parts of Sydney becoming violent, bullet swept, no-go areas for ordinary Australians.

Now the trendies want to put their foot in it over terrorism. Richard's argument is that since there have been no deaths in Australia involving terrorism, what's the big deal? The big deal is that there are presently 18 terrorists rotting in Australian jails who were foiled from their intent to commit mass murder on Australians by our police, using new police powers that were introduced a decade ago, which people like Richard opposed at he time as unnecessary. But our efficient police who have successfully protected us previously are saying that the problem is growing and that they need more powers, and I believe them.

Keep it up, Richard. The more that trendies like you voice opinions that are contrary to self evident reality, the more intelligent young people will be drawn away from the loony left worldview

Great article. Now perhaps Mr Jackson should get in touch with his favorite Muslims and kindly ask them to remove the Quranic verses that promote hate, slander, discrimination and violence against non-Muslims, explaining that such rhetoric is counterproductive. Also don’t forget to have them remove references to the “terror” that Allah promises to unbelievers. While at it, maybe he could get the Imams to remove the “I am made victorious with terror” quote by Mohammed in the hadith – some silly infidels might get the wrong idea. And if calling the other names like “animal” is bad when done by infidels, I expect a report from him on the soon to be deleted verses in the Quran describing non-Muslims as ‘lower than animals’.

But this causes a problem? What then should we call people that shoot women in the head, capture and rape girls, kill and behead men for inane reasons if not ‘evil terrorist’? What about people that bomb parades, buses and trains, what do we call them? What does our political science teacher suggest? Strict disciplinarians? Misunderstood tyrants? Future friends?

It is funny that the person suggesting that honest, frank talk causes “inherent restrictions on free democratic debate” proposes sweeping restrictions on debate. Go figure.

Contrary to what Mr. Roberts thinks, the fact is that ignoring the facts about people that promote hate and violence never works (and I am talking all Muslims because they all accept the Quran and hadith). The elites in Western countries (Government, media, academia, clergy) have been nice to Muslims for decades, to no avail. Imams and Muslim leaders consider us gutless cowards, for the most part, easily intimidated. Anybody who thinks that Muslims can live in peace, in numbers, with non-Muslims, hasn’t read the quran, hadith or even watched the 6pm news. Most resistance that Mr. Jackson talks about comes from the average Joe, from concerned men and women and a few courageous writers. These he would silence.

What Mr. Jackson is proposing in a policy not different from official policy in Rotherham, and that worked so well, didn’t it.

Excellent post, Kactuz.

The best part of being on OLO for me, is reading the sensible and logical responses from like other minded people that examined perspectives I had never contemplated before.

Rather than Professor of Peace Studies, Mr Jackson would be better described as an Apologist for Islamic Terror. He is active in many organizations dedicated to discredit the absurd idea that terror may be driven by religion (www.radicalisationresearch.org and others). He informs us that a “growing number of studies have concluded that there is no causal link between Islam and terrorism”. No casual link? Bad choice of words.

The fact that so many terrorists explicitly state that what they do, they do because of Islam, is lost on Mr. Jackson. He says: “from a scholarly perspective (that would be Mr. Jackson, of course) it can be demonstrated that many of the core assumptions and assertions of the ‘Islamic terrorism’ literature lack an empirical basis and draw dubious conclusions based on popular media and official sources rather than ethnographic field research or in-depth knowledge of specific societies”. Of course he is right…. How many of us have walked among the dead or mutilated bodies in Karachi, Baghdad, Madrid, London, or NYC? How many of Islam’s critics have stood in front of a row of decapitated heads in Syria? How are we to know if this is terror – after all we are not experts like Mr. Jackson?

Our good professor is not just an illustrious professor, but a writer, too. His novel “Confessions of a terrorist” aims to “break taboo by giving terrorists a voice”. Yes, he speaks for terrorists!

When not bringing peace on earth to the less enlightened, Mr. Jackson is working on behalf of the downtrodden. He has signed a public letter, along with many Imams and Islamic organizations, called “Inquiry into the Muslim Brotherhood in the UK”, condemning any investigation of that organization. Yeah, the Brotherhood’s charter advocates conquest, Islamic domination and Sharia, and it has a history of violence, but to Mr. Jackson they are innocent victims. His name is also on another letter (about Moazzam Begg) that protests investigations into Muslim charities that funnel money to terrorists. How unfair is that? Terrorists are people, too. They need money to eat, pay rent and buy explosives.

Dear Kactuz,

I mostly agree, but you wrote a paragraph ending with "Bad choice of words", which also contained "He is active in many organizations dedicated to discredit the absurd idea that terror may be driven by religion".

Terror is not and cannot be driven by religion: this idea is indeed absurd - however, terror can and is driven by the Islamic creed. One bad choice of a word can make the whole difference in the world, so please make your attacks sharp, use "creed" instead of "religion", then you get it right and not bluntly attack innocent people too.

Thank you.

Could you please explain the difference between a "creed" and a "religion", Yuyutsu?

I get the impression that you are so determined to live forever in the afterlife that you are covering all the bases by defending every religion (or creed).

Dear LEGO,

Religion is the internal/personal process, methods or path by which one comes closer to God. Creed is the summary of a belief-system (or dogma), or the group of people and their organisations who believe in that summary.

The Muslim creed ('shahada') for example is that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger.

Religion is universal and doesn't require an adherence to a creed.
Some creeds support religion to varying degrees, others once used to but no longer.

The term "the Muslim religion" is thus inaccurate and actually refers to a mix of people with varying degrees of religiosity along with varying degrees of adherence to the Muslim creed.

I only defend religion and have no interest in defending creeds.