Christopher, we could agree with your conception these days of our terror, as we might call it. But as an old retired farmer who was lucky enough to gain mature age admittance among a group of young un's doing a major in International Relations during the Cold War, with an American teacher, incidently, one point that was stressed, was the ability of astute but battling leaders to secure their positions by revving up some incident or scenario as Margaret Thatcher was able to do with the Falklands incident.

The Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul did accuse George W Bush of using the aftermath of 9/11, too much to build up the President's own popularity, when looking back at the build-up of hatred and terrorism since, Ralston Saul may prove in the end to have been spot on. Further, considering the increasingly doubtful success of the Iraq venture except possibly to help allay our oil problems, as far as making the Middle East Arabs happier, could be very doubtful.

Thus even our dscendants may have to live with an even more dangerous style of terrorism, built up in the first place by over-reacting and using the revenge factor, rather than using wisdom and understanding, or insight gained by looking back through history to learn from similar occurrences.

Terrorism is really a side issue compared to a range of more insidious problems. These include weather disasters, entrenched current inequality, funding of care for the future needy and decreasingly affordable energy and water. These problems will generate far more human misery yet advocates of needlessly draconian laws seem silent on the bigger picture. Perhaps they don't know how to prevent, only how to punish.

Bushbred, I agree that the occupation of Iraq was mainly about oil and that occupation has increased the chances of Islamic terrorism (if thats what you are saying).

This also means that the countries whose forces occupy Iraq are at greater risk of revenge bombing. Christopher's suggestion (that Spanish-Muslim "Moor" clashes and torture before and during the Spanish Inquisition was really behind the Madrid bombing) was a little farfetched - even if al-Quaida's propaganda arm suggested it.

Regarding Howard "revving up" the terrorist threat for any nasty ends. Its a pretty important subject to rev up given the risk of explosions larger than London's in Australia (eg Melbourne).

Here is an anecdote of my time in Multicultural London.
One day in 2002 I was in Wood Green. I was minding my own business when I happened upon a muslim stall and people shouting into a microphone about the various immoralites found in the society to which they or their parents had migrated. How very tolerant of them. Anyway I saw a lot of anti- israel stuff - So I asked one guy "why do you hate Israel?" He said "because they occupy Muslim land". I said Why don't you blow up Spain? It was muslim too once". He refused to accept this thinking saying "ah but those people rejected islam etc" I said no "the muslims were expelled to Morrocco". I forced his little Allahbot brain to accept the logic. He then agreed Jihad was necessary against Spain. I then said that I was Cornish and descended from the people forced out by the English courtesy of religious tithes and a famine to South Australia, and that he had invaded my land and I had the right to kill him. He said no he was invited in by the English (invaded 440AD) and that my problem was with them. I then said why don't you blame the English for letting the Jews into Palestine? All he could do was smile.

Remember this was May 2002. And it can't happen here Chris?

Part 1

Perhaps the first issue ought to be what is “TERRORISM” and what is a “TERRORIST”!

Isn’t TERRORISM something like where a person by fear abuse or other denial of freedom seeks to subject another person to his/her demands in an unlawful manner?

Isn’t a terrorist whom pursues to execute TERRORISM in that regard?

We have now a reference to the Kurt’s having been “FREEDOM FIGHTERS” during their murderous campaign while Saddam Hussein was in power. So, we have our vision blurred as to accept some form of terrorism being freedom fighting, while others doing the same are held to be terrorist.

We have that the coalition of the willing were “LIBERATING” people, when they commenced to bobs a restaurant and so killing its innocent workers, because they hoped to kill Saddam Hussein, a Head of State.

Again, to others this was a war crime, and terrorism upon another nation uncalled for.

We have that the Commonwealth of Australia now terrorize Australians by deporting them as Stateless because they happen to be born in a detention center with aliens as parents, regardless that constitutionally they are and remain native born Australians.

Isn’t that a form of terrorism?

We have that the Commonwealth of Australia detain/deport people, such as Vivian solon, with a total disregard of their constitutional and other rights! Is that not a form of terrorism?

Looks to me that the so called “terrorist” are doing a fine job without needing to get to the Commonwealth of Australia, as the moment they anywhere in the world take action we have the Commonwealth of Australia passing further (albeit unconstitutional) legislation!

We are more terrorized by our own government then many may seem to relies.
The moment you trade liberty for security you have neither! This, as your liberty is your security!

With MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL®, a special lifeline service since 1982, I had to deal with people contemplating suicide/murder even blowing up buildings. No, nothing to do with any religion or nationality, just due to despair caused within the Commonwealth of Australia

Part 2

We can regulate as much as we can and end up imprisoning every person in the Commonwealth of Australia and still end up being bombed to smithereens, because it is so easy to do it.
While everyone is concentrating on the terrorist being somehow someone with a banner across his/her body announcing “TERRORIST”, or so, we might find that we will end up having a so called “TERRORIST” home grown, and not having anything to do with religion or nationality but simply to do with someone wanting to cause maximum destruction as some kind of self gratifying pay back for what the person considers was an injustice to him/her.

THE MORE WE MEDDLE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES BUSINESS, WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, THE MORE LIKELY WE END UP TO ANSWER FOR THAT.

Call this terrorism or whatever you want, but it is simply that we went on an elaborate way to murder innocent people in Iraq, destroying their infrastructure, and while we seem to be self gratuitous that this kind of murder spree is all justified for “LIBERATING” people, we somehow cannot see the same when others may apply those same standards to LIBERATE us from what they may perceive (rightly or wrongly) as a terrorizing government.

Why is it that the death of people in the September 11 hand made disaster is less then the hand made disaster in Iraq where far more people were killed and more buildings and infrastructure was destroyed?

It is perhaps that our views are obscured by what we self righteous accept being permissible and what not?

The Commonwealth of Australia has constitutionally no powers to interfere with civil liberties and political liberties, yet somehow we as a nation allow this to happen.

Why then do we need terrorist if we ourself condone terrorism by our own government?

See also my 30 September 2003 published book;
INSPECTOR-RIKATI® on CITIZENSHIP
A book on CD about Australians unduly harmed.
ISBN 0-9580569-6-X

Lets not pretend to trade our civil liberties for freedom as we will loose the lot.