Just another horrible crime against the next generation that this morally reprehensible government has left to ferment (opens the door wide for a future police state; pity we don't have some sort of 'bill of rights' so that acts of pirate law-making like this couldn't be summarily dismissed). Tell me this isn't a slap in the face to everything that is decent and to almost any country's idea of human rights :

"ASIO also has important new powers, such as to have non-suspects detained for up to seven days to force them to reveal anything they know about terrorism. There is no right to silence, and failing to answer ASIO’s questions is punishable by up to five years in prison. It is a crime, for two years after someone has been held, to disclose “operational information” about the detention. The penalty for doing so is imprisonment for up to five years, even if the information is provided as part of a media story exposing problems with the regime."

hadz,

I dont think a bill of rights would do much to help relieve this appalling situation, they have one of those in the US and it certainly hasn't helped them

what is needed is education about our fundamental civil rights, but our high school curriculums barely touch on that.

we also need a vigilant media to help us keep tabs on overly powerful government, but the mainstream media has undoubtedly failed to do that.

perhaps online forums like this are our only hope.

George, it is easy to see why you’re the Anthony Mason Professor of the UNSW. Divest yourself of your ivory-towerism for a moment and think like a person trying to do harm to society. Those planning a terrorist act who are arrested for being in possession of a ‘thing’ may indeed be the member of the group responsible for sourcing the triggering device. Another member might have to provide the blueprint/s of the target/s. Our quarry is terrorists George. The shadowy milieu that affords them some protection must be met by laws that are equal to the challenge. You even come up with the quaint notion of inviting the canaille to debate the anti-terror laws. When we want to debate lenient sentences handed down by judges we are told that we don’t understand. Why trust us to debate anti-terror laws?

You say silence when questioned by authorities will be punished. I don’t remember members of the Legal Club spilling any Chivas Regal or slashing the club’s leather lounge chairs when Bruce Galea was tossed in the slammer for 27 months for refusing to open his gob during questioning by Commissioner Wood. The precedent has already been established.

George expresses concern that our draconian anti-terrorism laws don’t follow the minutiae of similar legislation of other Western nations. Other Western nations have the death penalty. George, would you be happy to follow that example?

And George admits to being in the ACT’s “Jon Stanhope Fan Club” because Jon has introduced a Human Rights Act which would somehow protect people from evil. Jon also gave his imprimatur to his environment adviser, Adrian Bruford, who decided to graffiti public and private property. Should we also have our own government-sponsored graffiti artist George?

George, many mistakes will be made along this road we’re on. Let’s all hope that the low number of those arrested so far is testament to the reasonableness of the legislation. And why don’t we see any wiccans amongst those arrested? Maybe that fact might help us focus our attention and energy and point it in the right direction.

Carl and Hadz

just a little minor point here.. under the Asio powers.. just exactly 'what' is it that you HAVE To respond to ?.... ok.. lets repeat it here...

EVERYTHING U KNOW ABOUT POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL TERRORIST PLOTS !

Now.. I might be forgiven for being a little suspicious here, (of you 2) but....why.. WHY would anyone wish that people should be able to HIDE such information ?

At the time of writing this, within the PAST WEEK alone, we have had

a) Chemical Weapon/attack plot foiled in the UK (Muslim radicals)

b) 3 times the explosive power of the Oklahoma City bombing plot foiled in Canada with 17 Muslim radicals arrested. (Canadian born)

We have had people in both Sydney and Melbourne arrested under suspicion of similar activities.

UK has already had its successful bombing campaign and one other foiled.

All I can say, better 'YOU' are the ones blown to bits by such people rather than me or my family, because guess what.. they will not actually check to see if YOU are not present in the Rialto or the subway or wherever when they choose to detonate their explosives.

Why do I say this ? well firstly to make you think, and secondly because you are clearly seeking to endanger the rest of us by going soft on terrorism/Islamic radicalism.

A war is going on,.. let me repeat A WAR and it will never be the kind which involved D-Day type invasions, it will be the type which diffuses a Nuclear/Biological weapon from the centre of Melbourne if they HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION and intelligence info to find it/them.

A lot of valid points:- if the aim is to have a law abiding rather than a law deriding community, even if such deriding is delayed (as in Germany post 1945 and the anti Nazi swing, the realisation of how duped the people were), but you ignore I think the following proposition.
These laws are designed for at least three purposes.
Firstly power to government, this one. A new scare campaign and the lack lustre performance of the opposition will ensure it’s re election.
Secondly to show the Government is acting to allay fears, boldly, fairly and with great speed. (Little time to analyse is an advantage). This, even though the fears have been partly created and by current actions maintained, of possible threats. You make this point but I think ignore some evidence. The terror threats, red orange yellow and blue whatever, designed to keep us disturbed, make infrequent headlines though I am sure the media reports what the government puts out for them. Perhaps they became so farcical as for there ulterior purpose to be obvious even, to the most ill-informed citizen. Though I must add the frequency of arrests and trial has replaced them as headline, but perhaps with lesser terror effects and more satisfaction because something is being done.
Thirdly to so frustrate those who care to analyse what is going on as to deter them from speaking. Sure they will receive the odd media piece, allowing the Gov to talk of free fearless frank and complete democratic debate. None the less their contribution is likely not only to lessen but increasingly being contrary to the main stream, derided. The Gov. has of course a big advantage with a slumbering opposition, who almost alone can command the media attention the Government has, much less exposure.
This approach is exemplified by the deceit offered in the opening round of the ‘debate ‘ on Nuclear energy.

Well said Untutored Mind.

Those colour coded threats amuse me. They will never go below an orange alert. Why? Because governments like to keep people in fear so that they look like “great protectors” and citizens will then be more likely to give up their rights for a bit of peace of mind.

Mr Boaz,

It has nothing to do with protecting anyone and more to do with taking advantage of a tragic event to take the rights from citizens – something that even Western governments have always dreamed of doing…and now they have an excuse.

Yes, your points ARE minor on the grand scale of things and I don’t believe it’s Carl or Hadz that need any thought provoking. They realise those threats are real, but they also also realise the scarier threat of an authoritarian government. Therefore I don’t think the opinions of people like Carl or Hadz are any more dangerous than the opinions of people like yourself, who are so willing to submit their rights and freedom (and consequently everyone else’s) for protection. Remember…

Those who are willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.

BOAZ_David, the hysterical fear of terorrist attack that you voice should not be an excuse for our society to give up the fundamental freedoms that make our nation a liberal democracy. It is true that we all face the risk of dying or being injured in a terrorist attack, but we should have some perspective in realising that most things in our life carry risk. Australians are far more likely to die in car accidents or from alcohol related deaths than at the hands of terrorists, yet we do not ban cars or alcohol. But we do seem willing to give up free speech due to the possibility that it may be used for the purposes of inciting terrorism, which to me seems a heavy price to pay.

One more point before some right-wing lunatic jumps all over me for my last post...

Let's assume not having the anti-terror/anti-freedom laws results in a terror attack killing hundreds, well...like I hear you conservatives say many times over...

Who ever said that freedom didn't come with a price?

I agree that the Howard Government is often reacting to situations they have little or no control upon.

Of course (they) wanted to be seen as an informed and a pro-active bunch doing the right thing for you and I.

But in the case of legislating against terrorism, what they failed (knowingly) to address is that no one can legislate against an ideology that is fuelled by a belief of righteousness and superiority: Islam.

Fearing the possible repercussion of attacking (legislating against) the source of terror - they went for the next target instead – the symptomatic jehadists.

As long as we are duped by gutless and incompetant politicians we will continue to put our future generations in great jeopardy of Islamic manipulation and control.

Con-Census 2006
You can refuse to take part in the upcoming Census.

Why?
The Australian Democrats and other sources have confirmed that the information to be gained in this year's Census may be utilised as a privacy-intrusive measure to build up information profiles about average Australians, like you and me.
Combine this with proposals of a National ID card, and the Howard Government's history of misuse of information (Children Overboard, Iraq invasion justification, AWB scandal etc. etc.) and you have good reason to refuse to hand over your personal information.

More importantly than the Census itself, many feel uneasy, frustrated and even helpless with our involvement in the illegal war in Iraq, our treatment of Asylum Seekers, the recent introduction of the new Anti-Terrorism and Sedition laws, and other post-9/11 related events at home and abroad… This brings us to this point in 2006, where we now believe that an act of Civil Disobedience is required to send a message to our Government.

Con-Census 2006 enables you and others to take positive non-violent action.

Find out more at: http://www.con-census.org.au/

Yeah thanks BS

Starting with some sensible words from Sage and Boaz this debate has declined to the usual "we live in 1984" "we scared of barely used laws" paranoia.

If a loved one was blown to bits on a Sydney train would you be saying "Oh well they could have been, smoking, drinking, driving or been hit by a meteorite"?

You'd more likely be saying why didn't some bl..dy politician or Agency predict this, head it off aand arrest the bombers BEFOREHAND not after.

Thank goodness duly ELECTED politicians make laws based on hard earned experience here and overseas rather than relying on UNELECTED academic worthies using 2 month old (25 March, OLO :) news clippings as a vehicle.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

The only amazing thing about the terror laws is that were not in place before Sept 2001.

All points taken on board...(Mr Man and others) but I am reflecting on the social situation in England prior to WWII while Hitler was massing his arms and men. There were many who 'poo poo-d' the idea that a megalomaniac such as him would ever be a serious threat to safe ol England. Enough said on that.

I speak from a similar perspective as Coach, and would like to develop that idea further.

Most would have caught up with the fact of the Islamist coup in Somalia today. I hope all of those who are against the view we are espousing, will look closely at a world wide trend, of increasing activity by Islamists to gain power in any country which is either nominally Muslim, or in places with a significant Muslim minority or majority. The world is indeed polarizing and solidifiying.

The biggest problem for us, is that as a nation we don't have any driving belief system which empowers us to deal with the core of the problem, and this leaves us with dealing only with symptoms, as Coach wisely said.

In some ways this is one of the best parts of our Western society, no one forces us to believe this or that. (except the secularists :)
We have freedom, and choice, but as Paul said to the Galatian Christians "Christ has called you to freedom, but don't use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh"

When Paul said/wrote that, it was in context of "Law" versus "Grace"
The circumcision party were adamant that gentile converts MUST be circumcises and follow the 'Law' of Moses. The problem was, that they neglected the condition of the heart. Following the Law in a state of heart rebellion is useless.

During the Cronulla events, even though wrongly motivated toward violent confrontation, one young Anglo bloke shared about what an incredible RUSH he experienced as he suddenly felt 'part of something big'.....

Don't we all long for this ? It's best to be part of something 'huge' like the Kingdom of God, where we have freedom, but also responsibility.

Why is it so difficult for posters other than BOAZ_David to realise that we are at war? When posters complain about the restrictions we all have to accept, they should first look at what happened during the last few wars in which we were involved, particularly those mentioned in the War Precautions Act, 1914. This included:

1. The internment of whole ethnic groups (for their own protection, as well as that of the community).

2. The internment of Australian-born sympathisers.

3. Severe controls on communicating overseas,

and many more.

The other thing about this conflict is that it is a war of extermination. Our enemy does not attempt to adhere to the Geneva Convention, which outlaws suicide bombing, among other things, and so our enemy is regarded by us as unlawful combatants under the Convention, whose only right is to be put up against a wall and shot. Outdated twentieth century concepts of universal human rights have gone the way of internationalism when it comes to a war of extermination.

The best guide to such a war for us is to look at what happened in New Guinea when we were fighting the Japanese. Australian prisoners were often tortured near Australian troops so that their cries would draw the Australians out into the line of fire. There were many other atrocities on both sides, and that is why there have never been any of the reunions similar to those with the Afrika Corps, who fought a very clean war with us.
The last thing to remember that we live in the space age, but we all have stone age brains. If the average Australian were asked to choose between the death of 50,000,000 people in the middle east, and three people in a suicide attack in his street, the choice would be obvious.

Boaz,

Me and you arn't all that different, I value my freedom and I recognise my responsibilities. While you may see your responsibilities as spiritual or religous (which I respect) I see mine as political, I beleive I have a social and Political responisbility to fear authoritarian government.

You see this so-called war as an issue to do with Islam, and that simply plays into the hands of the government. The wars in the Middle East, Africa or Asia that happen to involve Muslim populations are the same sorts of wars that have been fought for centuries, they are about resources, wealth, power and empire

No anti terrorist law has stopped an attack and they never will. The laws are about economic dictatorship and sociological control. Our entire lives are being controlled, as our privacy is stripped bare and used to control all our actions and lives.

Make as many laws as you like, but nothing will stop those wishing to create division and conflict in our societies, until they are removed. Again we have the religious bigots trying to force us into a good religion, bad religion debate, yet they continuously fail to accept that the evolved in the world, see all religion as the cause of the problem.

Our political leaders are religious economists, from every monotheistic faction. Their only desire is control of society, enslaving the populace to a life of working with little return or support. Once they privatise everything, politicians will have nothing to do except take our money. After all their entire support base is corporate and multinational donations, without that support, they wouldn't exist. So its logical as to where their allegiance lies. You can see that by how they lie about everything, give us nothing yet support religion and corporations with our money.

So you get what you vote for and you constantly vote for incompetent fools. You always grovel at their feet when they make promises, even though you know they are lying.

It reveals the depth of real logical and rational thought that permeates our society, when you vote for lawyers, economists, union leaders and not people who have real experience in life.

Terrorism can only be stopped when we change our society to reflect the desires of the majority and not the insidious agenda of imported minorities and divisive beliefs.

Well it might seem that the fear factor is alive and working well, rather like the attitude of a mob who is prepared to forego commonly held views in favour of the radical immediate solution. Kill, rather than search for a balanced view.
Okay applies both ways when people react to the strident biased call of politicians and leaders. Death is such a voyeuristic joy when it happens to others.
The big ogre has been found. Some people do not like what the West, America and the UK, in particular, have been doing. Reeducation necessary.
Using religion as a tool in this situation is quite common, see the similar Catholic view as enunciated by George Pell.

Blowback, the term used by the CIA is alive and well and quenching it will not be achieved by sending troops or death squads.
Addressing the problem (s), for they are a number, and seeking solution together with, what our politicians often call for, but hardly abide law and order, international, that is police, is and was the way to go.
But no the West in its arrogant purity its self righteous attitude or is it merely economics and the thrill of power, had to take the path of the crusade.
For those who want, I suspect the voyeur effect fouls democracy, read some history, define terrorism rather than the thrill which our Attorney general experienced during a Jenny Brocke debate, of flesh blown in all directions and look for dialogue, not pride. The purity of our prime minister and others, preclude talking with terrorists fearing contamination or is it a good political posture?

Crikey! Talk about beinng caught between a rock and a hard place.

On one hand you have the rightwing, anti foreign, anti Muslim men (and a women) who frequently dress up their prejucies in religious garbs.

On the other you have "heroes against the State conspiracy" which doesn't exist. This band are not so much Left (which implies large State influence) as Anarchist ("politics bad, State bad"). Given a choice I prefer you to the Rightwingers. At least you think you're defending the little guy.

Fortunately our security services usually have various views but a balanced result.

aka Spooky Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/05/australian-trial-of-muslim-terror.html

Carl - by trying to divorce Islamic wars from spiritual/ religious wars you are committing a serious perceptual miscalculation.

You see the argument with Islam is that there is no difference between State and Religion. A point that the likes of Alchemist persists in blurring by choosing to ignore the real “facts of life” by painting all religions as equally evil – thus turning his face away from reality.

Islam is a political system but also a religious tyrant which SOLE purpose of existence is the establishing the Ummah, an “earthly kingdom”, (as opposed to the Christian heavenly spiritual kingdom) that knows no boundaries, having their god Allah and their prophet as supreme authority upon humanity.

By failing to address this eminent threat you and others are dismissing the predicament we are all facing.

Do yourselves a favour and start investigating our warnings. Read and learn about the true motives of Islam before you commit to indifference or worse : consent.

It's always amusing to see the 'terrorism' word applied soley to Muslim (or any other religious) fanatics so readily and easily as we see here.

What George is asking is what other liberties and freedoms do we give up because of a treat against those very liberties and freedoms we seek to protect.

It is hard to believe that a single figure, holed up in a cave in Afghanistan or Pakistan is running an evil empire of suicide bombers ready to pounce at the first sign of weakness. The few images we have of this figure, often old and repeated show a person with no idea on how to fire an AK47 from a crouched position.

The ASIO Powers laws include one very very special feature, that as George stated, would have been unthinkable in the pre September 11 world. We have chipped away at the fundamental common law right of Habeas Corpus (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus). Our democratic system and legal system are so entwined that this becomes a very serious attack at the heart of our democracy.

Such a thing would have been unthinkable in the wake of the Port Arthur masacre or even the French Government sponsored terrorism which resulted in the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and the death of one person in Auckland Harbour. These new laws would now allow the AFP to detain suspects in such acts for questioning by ASIO.

The Quote MrMan was looking for was actually from the American Founding Father Benjamin Franklin [any society]"that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

Wow, reactionary right-wingers are getting started young nowadays.

The culture of fear and hate has begun and our current government can bear most of the responsiblity for it (along with similar regimes in other countries).

I don't know why I'm bothering to respond or try to defend others rights; if you're happy to be detained (imprisoned) without being accused of or suspected of a crime, then good luck to you. If you're happy to have your right to silence removed (and be imprisoned for not wanting to talk without a lawyer present), then good luck to you. If you're happy to have your right to speak to the media (or a public) watchdog removed and in fact, be outlawed, then good luck to you. If you're happy to have the executive branch of government be given the power to imprison you without the decision of the judicial branch (the courts), then good luck to you.

I retract my earlier comments about the "next generation" (as I can't speak for them...obviously), I am unhappy about these laws for MYSELF! I don't believe governments should have this type of power, no matter what the "world situation". A lot of you people would have fitted well into facist Germany as the rights of the people were progressively nulified and the state took over.

Oh, and btw, we are NOT in a "war" here. The "war on terror" was declared by the US President based on lies and misinformation, and was directed at a target of convenience rather than any real terrorist cell or organisation. Get your heads out of the government propaganda and start thinking for yourselves.

Two corny old cliches,or are they?
To be fore warned is to be fore armed.
Remember the boy who cried,"Wolf"
I'm favouring the corn.

Just as the dust was settling on the hysteria surrounding terrorism and Islamism this Guy guy goes and pours fuel on the fire.

The first to ignite in incandescent rage was Boaz David.

The DB of late is not the DB of old - he has cussed lately he has also posted with out religious references - a departure from his modus operandi - nevertheless he remains incensed and pre occupied by our terorrist foe.

I dont see it - if these lads are pre-occupied with fertilser it suggests they cant get hold of the good stuff - their masters failed to get the "plastique" through the post.

This integrated and sophisticated network of jihadist powder monkeys seem unable to blow much up. Most of them seem to get caught before than can do that - by virtue of the new laws? - unlikely; we'll never know as we will be spared the truth.

A good number of people have died at the hands of the terrorists - and more will die - but it is a small problem and we have responded in a way not commensurate to the threat - like too damn much.

Death is not a good thing - but if we look at the USA - and we all like to do that - over 500,000 Americans souls have been lost to AIDS - with 39,00 new cases reported last year or so - USA spend on this dillemma in the knowledge the epidemic will grow has been announced to grow to 2 BILLION!! And lets not get started on Africa.

Since 2001 when a few thousand persihed the USA has added (annually) 30 BILLION to its homeland defence spend - genuine over kill for a relatively small kill.

The bad guys continue to rain terror intermittantly onto our unsuspecting heads for less than 100K per event - see the Age 27/08/2004 - yet we so over value our lives (well some of them any way) we spend gozillions protecting ourselves from bugger all - Doesnt really make sense to me - never really has

Interesting debate. Without going too much into the semantics of the issue, I think it is important to note that the main question here is: what will these laws do to prevent terrorism in Australi? The answer is, of course, very little. What will they cost? Well, if you value a persons liberty, right to a fair trial, presumption of innocence etc etc etc then a great deal.

I think I'll stick with the old Jean Jaqueas Rousseau, who famously said "I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery". After all, these are the fundamental rights democracy was built on we are talking about

Mr Boaz,

Points taken.

I knew that if there was anyone on The Right who had the intelligence to see my point it would be you.

BrokenSword,

Yes, isn’t it sad when we have to resort to civil disobedience in order to fight our own government’s extremism. Oops, I could be done for sedition now.

The Alchemist,

You hit the nail on the head!

Plantagenet,

Conspiracy that doesn’t exist?

Probably doesn’t now but the problem with trusting governments the way people like you do is that you’re setting a dangerous precedence for them to take it further and further…and they will! To deny that is dangerously ignorant.

I think it’s cute that you trust the governments enough to be certain that the concerns of The Left are purely conspiratorial; without having any proof at all…and mounting proof for the contrary. But your gut instincts aren’t enough to comfort me sorry.

We’re lucky it hasn’t gone too far in Australia yet but I suggest you take a look into the silencing the Bush Administration is doing of the American public and see what’s in store for us.

Plerdsus,

Everyone knows we’re at war. To state the obvious is only demonstrating that you miss the point entirely. And besides, I don’t particularly care about a phoney war designed only to make the richest 1% even richer than they already are…other than the fact that it’s killing and maiming soldiers and innocent civilians of course.

We live in different times now. Gone are the days where wars were fought for freedom and security (i.e. WWI & WWII).

jkenno,

"I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery"

That’s the exact point I’m trying to make but some will never get it. It seems there are some here that would prefer to be safe and secure slaves than free men in danger.

I personally would rather die young as a free man than live the rest of my life in an oppressive country.

BTW - Thanks Narcissist for the original transcript of my "quote".

I think that's the fundamental point here, no matter how loud the Conservatives cry.

Imagine how disgusted the wise men who founded the United States would be if they saw what conservatives thought today. They’d hardly call them conservatives. They’d more likely shake their heads in shame and think: “Gee, that didn’t last long did it? And who does this G W Bush moron think he is anyway?”

They must be turning in their graves.

Mr Man
"I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery"
Sounds good!
But there's one variable.
Not everyone lives with/is exposed to, the same amount of danger/risk.
Someone safely cloistered on a University campus or the like, is likely to be less endangered than someone working at the airport or Central Railway station, and such a person MAY opt for a little less liberty in exchange for a little more security.

Carl -again... I accept your view as valuable. I do sympathize, and to be honest, share many of your concerns about intrusive government.. (don’t get me started :) but on this issue, I don’t have too many worries because election time gives me the opportunity to change things.

Hadz.. there is more ‘War” going on than most people realize.

Lets examine a few things. War is between ‘enemies’ and usually a result of one party embarking on a course of action which is quite likely to utterly destroy the other.

VARIOUS TYPES of ENEMY.

MILITARY. Nazi Germany and Alexander the Great, Napoleon etc. British toward Indigenous Australia

ECONOMIC. Genghis Khans military escapades by and large began over economic/trade issues.
There is an ugly but probably fairly true rumor that the USA actually went into Iraq because Sadaam Hussein was planning to sell Oil in Euros rather than US dollars. The story goes that this would so disrupt the US economy, that it was tantamount to a declaration of War.

It is one thing to be a sovereign state and make independent decisions concerning ones own self interest. But if those decisions destroy the economy of another state needlessly, then you had better watch out if they have some firepower. Most business runs on these lines from what I can see. It’s dog eat dog. This issue raises interesting questions of ethics in relation to international relations. Is it ‘do for’ others as you would have them do for you or..’do TO’ others......what they are already doing to you.

CULTURAL. It is just as much a declaration of war when one group ‘invades’ another surrupticiously by migrating and then using the existing legal and political freedoms to seek changes in the law which specifically benefit them, and diminish the rest.
The conflict with Islam is particularly noteworthy in this regard.
Claiming there is no ‘Australian’ culture and promoting ‘MultiCulturalism’ on those grounds is an outright declaration of cultural genocide on 70% of the inhabitants.

RACIALandRELIGIOUS_TOLERANCE_ACT 2001 in Victoria is one battle ground in that war..

“You see the argument with Islam is that there is no difference between State and Religion.”

Coach, the argument with Christianity, is theres no difference between the state and religion. Whats the difference between one who wears a rag on their head and one who wears a noose around their neck (collar and tie). Both represent repressive regimes, intent on full control. Name the Australian politicians that don't believe in god.

Hadz, we are at war in Australia, we're threatened with suppression of freedoms, unilateral control over our lives by christian politicians. Subversive control by other god factions through economic and social suppression and politically correct manipulation.

The only winners when you reduce freedoms, are the elite and religion. We are heading back to the days before the WW1, when there was little freedom, and the populace was enslaved in industrial and rural servitude. Again it was the churches who supported and provided the workhouses and labour camp orphanages that reduced people to slaves of the elite believers in god.

Sadly those able to see the insidious aims of religion and pushed a secular lifestyle upon the churches, have now passed away. Now we're in the control of those who've known nothing but being provided for. So they don't realise nor care, about what its like to be suppressed and forced into economic servitude, or mortal combat to support a fictitious violent beliefs grab for total power.

Personally, I think the whole threat of militant Islam is completely unnecessary. I'm no fan of Islam (as I'm no fan of any organised religion), but why do we let these clowns have such importance in the world? Let's get right off the whole oil trip as soon as we can and just let the Muslim world and ideology generally crawl back under the rock from whence it came or go back to what it used to do -- squabbling amongst itself. I don't know how true this is, but I've heard that minus oil, the entire GDP of the middle east is less than the turnover of the Nokia phone company. So, who would take any of these tools seriously if we didn't need oil? It's not like they've contributed anything significant to the world for centuries so it's not like anyone would miss their contributions to the world forum.

Likewise, as someone else pointed out, the number of deaths from terrorism in the west is miniscule when compared to the amount of money poured into anti-terrorism. If we're really out to save lives, why don't we actually put all that money into areas that would bear significant results (eg. cancer research, programmes to reduce obesity, safer cars/roads, etc.)? The War on Terror is such a waste of our resources.

As to the whole ideology of all this, I can't help but notice a great irony. Supposedly, we in the west are supposed to be trying to set an irresistible example, rather than demand or threat, to the world as to why our way is the best way, yet we betray what supposedly sets us apart from the others: our very core of classical liberal beliefs. That's why even people such as Francis Fukuyama, perhaps the arch-granddaddy of the right wing, have departed this neo-con. nonsense. When that starts to happen you really do have to wonder if any of the current crop of politicians have lost the plot (if indeed they ever had it). As mentioned by others, the American Founding Fathers must be rolling in their graves.

The Alchemist,

Somehow I knew you were going to retort with your favourite “no difference between all religions” this is why I urge you and others (yeah cry wolf again…) to SEE the difference that Islam will make once they have power and control over your freedom and life (YES) here in oz.

shorbe,

The war is not just at the petrol pump – even if this is starting to hurt every time we fill up our tanks – I so wish it were only a matter of economics…

The war on humanity was declared by Islam since its genesis. It is everybody’s business to be aware of that. It is not just for the religious as you may suggest.

Oil or no oil, putting aside terrorism and our cultural differences, Islam is here to stay, to propagate, and to take over at the appropriate time. Like it or not. Mark my words or prove me wrong.

Remember the thief strikes when the owner is asleep…

coach: If you really believe that, then the only logical solution is an outright and all out war on Islam involving genocide because otherwise you're only ever going to be applying a Band-aid. Even if we were able to pull that off, I think it would completely shatter our own societies (economically, socially and morally) and possibly leave us open to be picked off by a third force.

What I'm saying though is that Islam (and an Islamic world order) is a joke. Who really wants to live under a world view spawned in the Dark Ages? There are some, to be sure (hopefully one day though, such religious inclinations will be treated as the psychiatric problems that they are), but in the main, most people in the world actually want to embrace modernity and civilisation if only because it would provide them with such a better standard of living.

As such, what we need to do to help that along is twofold. Firstly, we need to set a good example in our own countries, not become (if only in small measure) what we supposedly dislike. Secondly, we need to stop messing around in other countries, and a large part of that involves weening ourselves off oil. It's counter-productive to our own aims.

I'm not saying that the world will automatically and immediately embrace our own world view (after all, it took us half a millenium -- and we're still sorting it out), but that if we get on with our lives pretty well whilst leaving others alone there will be a fairly clear choice for people and these religious muppets as leaders will disappear up their own backsides as they largely have in most of the civilised world since there won't be this fallback, unifying claim of the west as some "Great Satan".

Thanks Horus.

You’ve made an interesting point (although I think everyone else has steered right off-course now). But one could argue that if they don’t like the danger then they can change careers – something that isn’t as unrealistic as it sounds considering most people these days have a complete career change at least once though-out their lifetimes (I’ve already done it once and I’m considering it again).

I fail to see how making individuals feel safer is worth endangering the freedoms of many generations to come by setting the precedence for future governments to strip them from their rights – even if it is just in the distant future.

But we don’t know if the Anti-terror laws even will make a difference and unfortunately, we may never know. In fact, there is one particular part of the anti-terror legislation that is actually completely counter-productive – the sedition laws. The reason I say this is because, by silencing the public from speaking-out or inciting violence against the government, we actually push those who we SHOULD fear further underground. And this is one of the reasons why I believe that the laws are about limiting our freedoms rather than protecting us. My question to the government is: How can silencing millions of law-abiding citizens make us safer?

BOAZ_David,

I note with interest that you’ve said: “on this issue, I don’t have too many worries because election time gives me the opportunity to change things”.

The difference in this case is that I’m not sure that even the Labor party would reverse these laws. Why? Think of it this way: If Labor makes an election promise to undo the laws and then there’s a terror attack - whether or not the laws would have prevented it – EVERYONE would blame Labor for the attack and some would even accuse them of having blood on their hands.
Sure, people would probably do that if the current government didn’t introduce the laws in the first place, but at least they could rest in the comfort that they never abused our freedoms to begin with.

As did the Bird Flu, the destruction of civilisation by terrorism too shall pass.

I agree Narcissist. I just wonder how long that will take though.

It was only decades ago that Western governments around the world were trying to scare everyone into thinking that the Communists would soon rule the world. So much so that we drafted our own youth into one of the most pointless wars in history - Vietnam.

Then there was the big self-destructing boogy-man, The USSR. A cold war was then developed by the exaggerated claims of a select few in a neoconservative think-tank in order to frighten the American public.

Actually, (believe it or not) many of those who belonged to that think-tank are actually the same culprits who are responsible for the WMD claims resulting in our current mess in Iraq. Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove to name a few.

This 'behind-the-scenes' bunch of neconservatives are actually the major reason I laugh so hard at the dopes on The Right who puff their chest with pride and proclaim that WE ARE AT WAR! Little do they know that virtually everything they believe (in this respect) is based on lies, manipulation and gross exaggeration. They haven't even the brains to look past our mainstream media at the 95% of the story that they're missing. Interesting stuff actually.

I guess they don't look past what they're initially told because what they hear at first suits their ideology and preferred view of the world.

It makes me wonder though, what will be the world's next boogy-man be? I'm think I'm young enough now to be around long enough to find out. I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

shorbe,

>> …the only logical solution is an outright and all out war on Islam involving genocide because otherwise you're only ever going to be applying a Band-aid.<<

We have been at war with Islam since the seventh century. Unlike Communism, Nazism, and most other “great satans”, Islam will not disappear or collapse simply because (we) don’t sympathise with it. It will take a lot of education to increase the awareness of the real danger Islam is posing to our world.

Genocide is not the right way to deal with Islam – this will only be a band-aid solution – the war is an ideological one. Islam believes it has discovered the divine truth and solution for our world and is compelled to spread it and apply Allah’s ruling on the rest of us.

I strongly believe that the Muslims are themselves the victims of this false belief. They are mostly satisfied to follow their leaders and be spoon-fed the lies about the evil west. Ironically the bulk of Muslims has no intention to embrace modernity and view “us” as decadent and evil.

So the change has to come from within Islam itself – they must face their own deceit, discover and embrace the truth and renounce the lies, before we can see a shift to peace and normality.

But until then I wouldn’t underestimate the potential damage Islam can bring upon modern civilization if we stand back and look the other way

"I wouldn’t underestimate the potential damage Islam can bring upon modern civilization if we stand back and look the other way"

Probably akin to the damage that Christianity did to 1000s of indigenous populations when it: "believe[d] it ha[d] discovered the divine truth and solution for our world and [felt] compelled to spread it and apply [God's] ruling on the rest of us."

All religious expansionism and intollerance is dangerous (which is why the "relgious right wing" is dangerous IMHO), now that "Christian" countries are on the other end of the stick we don't like it. (I was a Christian but gave it up years ago when I saw how hypocritical it was. The case in point being a good example.) Christianity hasn't needed force of arms to spread its thinking for years now, but when it had to...IT DID!

The west has been interfering in the Middle East for too long, and it is most certainly in reaction to this that "leaders" from there are encouraging retaliation. If we STOPPED interfering, relations would almost certainly improve! Truly Democratic nations have nothing to fear from any sort of "infiltration" of ideas, as TRUE democracy won't allow laws or governments to be adopted that are not in the interests of the people as a whole...OH HANG ON...that's exactly what just happened...Australia is NO LONGER a TRUE democracy, ok...now we are in danger.

Dear Hadz
I think you made the right move believe it or not..giving up on what was clearly a nominal or cultural Christianity, and opting for something else I presume.

Can I encourage you to re-visit not the 'Christian religion' as you knew it... but Jesus the Messiah Himself. Forget the ugly manifestations and corrupt examples which you have allowed to sway you to (in Pauls words) a 'different gospel' (perhaps the secular one ?) and discover for the first time what it means to know Christ as your own Lord, Savior and Friend.

There is one person who can make a bigggg difference to how Christianity is perceived in the world..and its you. By grappling with the life in Christ as He himself showed by his teaching and parables and death for your and my sin, and His glorious resurrection, confirming our unfading hope of glory, giving us peace of heart, mind and spirit, you can join us who know Him, and be a part of the Way, and share in the only solution to the condition of man available.

Please spend some time in The Word mate... Let me conclude this post with Pauls prayer for the Ephesian Christians..please read it for your edification and consider it my own prayer for you.

[I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the fullness of God.
Now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us, to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.] Ephesians 3.16-21

Actually, BoazDavid, it wasn't a nominal Christianity. I have in the past, accepted Jesus as my saviour (not that I felt any real difference in the long run, more a temporary euphoria), attended Church regularly (as well as numerous study groups), and was about as deeply into my "faith" as you probably are.

I also started to read the Bible, to try to build my faith, unfortunately (some would say, but not me) that was where it broke down. The Bible can be argued so many different ways, nothing is concrete, a lot of main doctrines have direct contradictions in other parts of the Bible (like the faith/works dichotomy) and it is just generally unreliable. To base a faith around it is ludicrous, therefore I've settled into a VERY pleasing agnosticism, where I don't judge other peoples' beliefs and hope they won't judge mine, as there's so little REAL evidence to back those beliefs up with.

The problems come when "the faithful" try to force these unsubstantiated beliefs down other peoples' throats; whether it's the Middle Ages Christian way (which compares, some have said, to the modern Islamic way), or the modern Christian way through door-knocking, forums (wink), or TV evangelism. The later being far more palatable and commendable by western standards, of course.

Dear Hadz
faith and works are not a dichotomy, they are the 2 sides to the same coin.
Clearly, if u say you have faith, but it is not demonstrated in works then the faith is suspect, but that doesn't change the fundamental truth of 'faith' in Christ being the saving issue. 'Repent' (turn away) and 'believe' -they go together mate.

I've certainly found challenging things in scripture, but definitely not what you describe, these 'contradictions'.... though the harshest most challenging words are probably in Hebrews.. I won't say which ones.

I wonder what you make of Pauls conversion ? Lukes writings ?

I hope and pray that you manage to overcome your agnosticism, -always remember one thing, its between you and the Lord, and if you have genuine struggles, then bring them to Him, and patiently wait His word to your heart.
Cheers

'afternoon to you all...
I came across this thread purely by chance.
I found BOAZ's comments interesting. To this uneducated misanthropic 'dullard', I do believe that a state of war does exist, between 'the west' and certain elements of the islamic community. I also believe that these radicals will ultimately win this war. My reasoning is as follows - They (the radicals) are not bound by ANY law, morality, human convention, or by any other means that may seek to regulate or curtail their violent activities. We,(the west) on the other hand, are substantially bound by all manner of regulatory processes. Including, those folk who hold the sincere view that an olive branch and the preservation of civil rights are far more important, then to wage a really EFFECTIVE response, to the evil crimes of these terrorists groups. The difficulty is, the military, the police, and the intelligence agencies MUST conduct their business with one arm behind their back (and it must be SEEN, to be behind the back!), for fear that they may inadvertently irritate or breach, a law, or regulation of some type. Or worse, impinge on the sensitivity and earn the wrath of some civil or auditory group, such as the media, civil libertarians, or the ombudsman, et al. Make no mistake, they'll win...absolutely! We must take the 'gloves off'. Enact the necessary tough legislation, and do ALL those things that are necessary, in order to defeat this evil. Put simply...Australia and its people, either have the will, or they don't! The latter will ensure the TOTAL extirpation of our culture and way of life, as we know it. We must meet this evil with BOTH hands.

Dear Sung Wu

I'd be tempted to agree with you about the radicals actually winning but for a few points.

1/ A huge hinderance to effective terrorism management is the concept of 'human rights' as outlined in the UN Convention. Increasingly I see Western governments realizing that the charter was composed in fantsyland and is unworkable in the real world of 9/11s and the such like. So, I feel there will be increasing departure from this as time goes by and as terrorists ramp up the anty.

2/ We humans, even those of the warm fuzzy bleeding heart West, do have a remarkable sense of survival. I believe that if things became truly tenuous, layer after layer of our 'civilness' would be peeled off, as stronger and more brtual measures are required to deal with this threat.

To see a classic example of just how this transformation takes place, have a read of Josephus account of the destruction of Jerusalem and see how the factions degraded themselves into inhumanity.

http://members.aol.com/FlJosephus2/warChronology6Factions.htm

In this scenario, we represent the Romans (big government-the State) and the terrorists are the Idumeans,Zealots and others.

The greatest danger we face is not that from 'without' but from 'within'. Those who would use higher fertility, the law, political intrigue to persue their goals.

Just ONE political seat can change the course of a countries history.
If a close election, one deliberately targeted seat can mean deals of all description. Migrants are very politically savvy. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that trading off 'looser immigration policy' for 'political support in a key seat' is something most parties are willing to do for the sake of winning. But it's low profile of course.
Looser immigration policy, translates to more migrants, perhaps of a particular ethnicity or religion, which translates to greater political clout depending on where they settle, which translates to even looser immig policy which translates to a bloodless coup.
Now before you ask me 'did you take your medication' :) I only say this because I have "lived" it in an Asian country.