There's a perspective problem here.

Arjay, do you not see the inherent contradiction in placing September 11th alongside Hiroshima/Nagasaki? The latter came at the end of a long and bitter war, waged between major powers with the acquiescence - positive support, even - of the various nations' populace. The former was an act by a renegade group of terrorists, accountable to no-one, responsible to and for no-one, acting unilaterally.

Using this kind of rhetoric puts you firmly alongside John Howard in the "scare 'em silly" stakes, one wonders what your motives are.

The reason we are a possible target is that our government (read: John Howard) made us complicit in the illegal invasion of Iraq by signing us up, willy nilly, with Lone Ranger Dubya and his sidekick Tonto Blair. This is a thought to bear very much in mind as you conjure up all the horrors - dirty bombs etc. - that might be visited upon us.

And the more we demonize a particular group, the more they will think that attack is the best form of defence, and around the vicious circle we go again.

Col Rouge. About your statement "Maybe if "Dee Dee" had ever been caught in an IRA bombing he might consider the issue a little more serious than suggesting the Prime Minister is using it as a publicity stunt to promote "fear" in the community". Being of an empirical sort of bent, I asked my partner (who actually was caught in an IRA bombing, some time ago) to comment. No joy for you there, I'm afraid. At least one terrorist bombing survivor is firmly convinced Howard is manipulating fear for political mileage.

anomie, " At least one terrorist bombing survivor is firmly convinced Howard is manipulating fear for political mileage. "

Then his or her practical experience differs from mine - having lived and commuted into London (Mayfair) for several years between 1977 and 1983, my personal experience of IRA atrocities and scares (personal exposures included Oxford St (multiple), the Tube (several) , Green Park, Hyde Park, Amersham and Birmingham) and the disruption they caused me and my family's life has left me an alternative view - your partners cynicism regarding the incumbent government and our Prime Minister is a cheap way out for drop-kicks who see conspiracy theories as the reason for their own failings and thus project such cynicism onto real achievers.

Johnny Rotten – whilst your abusive style is derogatory – I would remind you that – as you observe, he (John Howard) will be remembered.

Conversely, You will not – Your fate awaits you, assignment to the pit of ignominy as someone so bereft of talent and originality you been reduced to re-cycling a punk musoe’s name to even muster a pseudo presence – pitiful really pitiful – you sad example of abject failure

Oh, Col, Col. Sadly, I can't tell you in detail how wrong you are about my partner, as it would compromise anonymity (not mine). But I can tell you partner is employed at a high level by the Conservative side of politics. Able to distrust Howard with greater reason than most.

Gentlemen or ladies.

The debate is on whether our Priminster is reasoning his decisions without persuasions of another influence and vision and not in the National Interest.

Our Priminister points the Publics' attention in one direction of fear and then heads our army off in another direction as reasoning for this fear.

Then Media reports indicate their is an election in Afghanistan and the SAS are there to stabilise areas from insurgence, for this election to go on.

Now I hear and read three different stories here.

i understand john howard has had his son working for the re -election of george bush . there was plenty of "FEAR" in that campaign . it's worked well for howard too .
come the next election the libs and the nats will be issuing helmets
outside our local polling booth .