Sniggid, my safety depends upon the the goodwill of those around me. Expecting government to fulfil that impossibly detailed task is pie in the sky. It's our responsibility from birth.

All we have to do is take care of one-another. We don't have to re-invent the wheel. Such an arrangement has been in place for some time - it's called civilisation.

If our federal government was the outward expression of that simple collective principle, it would be doing the job it was created to do, which is to express our civility at the international level.

Unfortunately, "our" government is answering to someone else's tune at the moment, so we are getting all this psychopathic feedback.

Nevertheless, it's nothing that we can't sort out, with 'em or without 'em. Look around you in Online Opinion. Despite the extreme points of view expressed here, there is nothing that can't be argued over a snag at a barbecue - and so it is with most people the world over. We are the masters of what is terrifying and what is not.

All the very best - really.

Recent “free democratic civilised” legislations not much differ from well-condemned then commy exemplified exercises in justice.

Recent Australian anti-terro practice that is factually possible sentencing for intentions and crushed verdicts to jihad Jack are indescribable with my dictionary

Safety is indeed, realising there is more to life than life itself.

I am thankful we have critical thinkers who are prepared to sniff out instincts and probe us to explore this matter openly.

For me it is about "collective securities", as discussed by Gareth Evans during the recent World Summit. Collective Security is a concept that still needs to be shred apart and discussed by all citizens of the world, at community levels, for all sorts of reasons, not just in threatening times of terror and ongoing violence.

See http://www.miacat.com

I don't believe Mark;s essay had much to do with airport securities, terrorist threats, as with the role of future power(s). Powers trading on doubt, anxiety, fear; that could influence our perceptive freedom(s) while testing our level of individual and national confidence?

Today, we are being historically and philosophically delimited, as if it were the 1900’s repeated, where anaesthetising thought distortions acted out similarly, on lean fact, sacrificial evidence and a slice of emotive truth.

War and violence of any kind is not smart. It is reactive.

I agree with most comments here, especially;

"…. that there is a very real threat, but it is being exaggerated for political gain”.

For me, I believe it is something cultural, in the way we communicate, that needs our innovation and total change.