I'm not much of a conspircist but I am firmly believe most of our leaders at present are intellectual cowards -
we are condemned to a life under terror becuase of the disprortional response to a couple of lucky terrorist actions no one is prepared to say we made a few errors in judgement (and that putting it kindly)

Western powers are currently stomping all over arab lands - based on lies and misinformation - Afgahistan is a running sore - anti western forces have an arms life line funded by opium and even though the Britsih and the Us has had an opportunity to stop the trade it flourishes - we will have terror of one sort or another for jusr as long as we want it

As a result western countries have spent squillions jumping at shadows - sure the bad guys have blown up a paltry few thousand - and that is sad - but worse has been done;

We will continue to "foil" half arsed plots to blow up planes trains and autombiles - and parade the hapless wannabe's and copy cats in fornt of the cameras - and be told time and time again "told you so" and how these severe and costly measures are needed to protect our way of "life" and our "values" - yawn!

We are not that importent that the terrorist give a tinkers cuss about our way of life - their interests lie in getting us to pull our noses out of theirs - may be we should try minding our own damn business for a while and things will settle down.

I think I'll post to this thread too -

This is a thorough description of Al Qaeda, if you have the patience to read it... it's worth your while.

http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=131

More can be found in Episode 1 of The Power of Nightmares (BBC), which was aired on SBS a few months ago:

Streaming:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1002626006461047517

The thing that amazes me is how earnestly our politicians trot out this Al Qaeda muck, even though they must be aware how tissue thin the myth is becoming.

The sad reality is that they are far more afraid of the creators of the myth than they ever could be of mysterious blokes with rags around their heads.

Welcome to "sovereign" Australia.

*

That 'power of nightmares' documentary is brilliant - it should be required viewing in schools.

We do have cause to fear terrorism, but not the huge reaction we have been getting.

You can break it down to the basic numbers - take a look at how many Australians have died in the last five years as a direct result of terrorism.

compare that to road deaths, or heart disease or skin cancer.

Now you can argue that without vigilance the toll can only rise - a valid point. But I would argue that the kneejerk reaction of taking the war to the middle east is only going to increase the likelihood of attack. I've said it before and I'll say it again - terrorism is a concept (and an ill-defined one at that), and you can't bomb a concept.

Then there is the issue of how real the threat actually is. There are terrorists out there, that can't be denied. But this idea of the overarching Al-Qaeda organisation that is some kind of monolithic enemy is absurd.
Instead we have a haphazard collection of cells working separately that are not the well organised machine we are being led to believe they are.

I'll leave you with a thought - what can signify victory in this 'war on terror.' What would justify it ending? Somehow I don't think Bin Laden's head on a pole would actually end anything.

Clearly there is no end in sight. So 'temporary' measures of war are not temporary at all. Each of these changes is permanent, because so is this war on terror.
So before you go allowing changes as a temporary pretext for protection, ask yourselves this - would you rather live in a world terrorised by haphazard cells of muslim militants, or a world where the state has the power to detain those who would criticise it? It can happen, it happened to the german democracy prior to WW2. Be vigilant about your rights.

When I heard of the arrests in the UK in August, my first reaction was of horror that people could plot to blow up innocent civilians, and the cunning nature of the weapons - liquid explosives for goodness sake.

Me second reaction was: hang on, remember this is the same police force that shot dead the innocent Brazilian man, that went in with extreme force on dozens of private houses on supposedly watertight intelligence, and found absolutely nothing.

Since then, I've been waiting for clarification of the evidence against those arrested in August in the UK.

I suspect it might well be like waiting for the Iraqi WMDs.

But the public will of course have forgotten about it by then, and the raising of the general fear level will have been achieved.

If Australia was a private company, a competent manager would be saying - where should we allocate our resources. Now lets see. About 2000 per year killed on the roads, and many thousands injured. About 3000 commit suicide, and many thousands more attempt it. Lets have a "War on Road Deaths" and a "War on Suicide". But of course this won't happen. Because instead of competent management we have dishonest, unscrupulous, unimaginative politicians who will do and say anything to retain power.

While our wonderful governments build this ridiculous terrorist threat, and set about creating new enemies, do they think they are hiding what most people know is the last big resource grab.
We (the west) all sit back and watch as our governments systematically divide the world, and to top it off, there is not even one person with a level head to vote for in Australia. Our country and the rest of the world is quickly deteriorating. Our children will inherit an environmental disaster with enemies they don’t even know or understand, when all we had to do was treat our neighbour with respect, at the end of the day the average world citizen just want’s to now they are safe, have clean water, food and most of all peace, where is our dialogue of civilisations, diversity is beautiful, we need new politicians that understand cultural differences are a good thing. There is evil on both sides, if we do not unite we will never have peace. (I understand many may not agree with me but I'm sad for my children and the generations that are not even here yet)

Good on you Warren.

Your thoughts reflect that of many thousands of thinking Australians.

Yes we do have cause to fear terrorism, even if that threat has been largely manufactured by our inhumane and cras foreign policies, not least the oil war embroglio in Iraq.

But terrorism is a miniscule threat to our safety and security, when compared with that posed by global climate change. Few Australians have yet to wake up to the immensity of this.

Al Gore's film - An Inconvenient Truth - is a real eye opener. Even for those already convinced by the now incontrovertable scientific evidence.

The politics of fear is not a recent phenomenon. It’s now a part of everyday life and a handy form of distraction and a great motivator.

Every day we are told to fear something new, whether it’s by tabloid “current affairs” programmes or our leaders.

When people are in fear, they will not only excuse any rights violation but demand it from those who are sworn to protect us.

It’s also the prime catalyst used by fascist states to motivate fervent nationalism and justify human rights abuses.

The timing of the recent plane bombing threat neatly drew attention away from Blair’s imminent domestic problems resulting from his previously bungled anti-terrorist wrongful arrests and put the world on a heightened state of alert/panic.

These links discuss the background and feasibility of that threat and are particularly interesting in the context of this topic.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Petras25.htm

By definition, the War on Terror is a war without end and one that cannot be won.

One day we will all wake up in a strange new world that we don't recognise anymore and wonder how we got there.

What ‘real evidence’ does Mr. Hardiker require? Where does he get the notion that official sources have a ‘vested interest in keeping the terrorist threat alive’? Terrorists themselves do enough to assure us that they alive and well, and that they are a continuous threat to us.

The war on terrorism is not ‘so-called’. It is real. Only a Rip Van Winkle would have missed it. The old bogey of curtailing civil rights has also been done to death. Terrorists, terrorist suspects and sympathisers are not entitled to civil rights when there is reason to believe that they intend to remove the basic rights of the majority to life and peace.

The ‘politics of fear’ is another beauty. Trying to tell us we are being made fearful by our own politicians, when the thing we should fear is unknown maniacs who would kill us just because we are not like them.

Pull the other one, Mr. Hardiker!

Sadly, most of the commentators here simply do not get it.

Unfortunately several of you have succumbed to all the conspiracy theories and left-wing diatribe that masquerades as "analysis."

Having lived in Manhattan near the World Trade Centre on 9/11, I have seen things I hope no Australian citizen, including all of you, ever have to see.

It is a good thing that people are cynical of governments, but let's not be cynical about what a failure to stop terrorism means.

Leigh - if you fear them, they win. What is the goal of the terrorist if not to inspire terror?
If we let them force significant change in our society, they have already won.

Do you seriously deny that the terrorist threat isn't a useful election platform? George W Bush has managed to carve out a niche as being America's protector, and tough on terrorism (how he managed to paint Kerry as the softie when Kerry was the only war vet of the pair astounds me).
And this is what saved him at the last election - his economic policies have caused the US debt to spiral and he is the most loathed president the US has had in the international community, and yet he still held on to power.

How exactly did he manage to do this, if not for the politics of fear suggested above? And you deny it's proved useful? What was Bush's core platform prior to September 11? anyone?

I like Amsdals risk analysis approach - it is sound - makes sense and is a damn sight cheaper than what we have done up to date:

With a booming economy just think how much mney we have pissed up against the wall to protect us form a highly unlikely event - even if it did happen what would be the cost - even measured in lives it would be paltry.

Even as early as yesterday Howard threw another few bits ok kindling on just to keep the fire goping - in his statement, values and learning english - he singled out Muslims -

an oversight? surely a few others from immiigrant groups groups fail to assimilste or fail to learn enough english - it is not nique to our Muslim brothers and sisters - but oh nooooo! JH decides to target those who follow Islam - it was a purposeful and considered act to keep the level of anxiety up - clearly it works in the case of Leigh and other nervous nellies.

Our response has been disproportionate from day one and is likely to remian so

TRTL and Sneaky,

I’m not fearful in the pants peeing tradition, nor am I a ‘nervous Nellie’. But I find it rather puzzling that you two are ‘fearful’ of your own elected government rather than of people whom you know are intent on destroying you and your way of life.

Of course I do not deny that politicians find re-election on anti-terror a goer, TRTL. Would you prefer those who don’t? And who would they be in Australia? The alternative government, the ALP, doesn’t like terrorism either, and often criticises the government for not doing it ‘right’ or enough.

I have no doubt, from experience of your posts, that you are both sincere, and you both manage to present your views without the abuse some resort to. I simply do not understand how you can criticise your own and discount the deeds of the ‘other side’.

Leigh asks "What ‘real evidence’ does Mr. Hardiker require?"

This question is answered in the article: airline tickets, bombs, chemicals, witnesses, suspicious friends, neighbours, threats and confessions.

Leigh asks "Where does [Hardiker] get the notion that official sources have a ‘vested interest in keeping the terrorist threat alive’?"

This question is answered in the article: "As a direct result ... Home secretary Dr John Reed has ordered the draft of new anti-terror legislation."

I have not verified Mr Hardiker's article, but Leigh's questions were clearly addressed.

I find it disappointing when Hardiker asks us to "consider that the latest terror alert may have been but a diversionary tactic." I do not believe it is the case.

In fact, any conspiracy which exagerates the threat of terrorism is a minute danger in comparison to politicisation of the actual threats, for which Leigh rightly assures us are real.

As a result of events in 2001, the world was in a position to react strongly against terrorism and weapons proliferation. As a result of the Bush administration unilateral policy choices, the Western world is divided, its military and policing efforts discredited. Terrorist groups have thrived under these conditions in terms of recruitment, prominence, propoganda, determination and attainment of objectives.

To think, I initially thought Osama bin Laden had made a strategic blunder in targeting the World Trade Center.

Well let me tell you, with the introduction of a terrorism levy in my insurance renewals, you tell me who has a vested interest in a climate of fear.

Everyone gets a peice of this pie.

They cannot find Osama, and they wont either. They need a poster boy, even if he is dead already.

hmmm.... Interesting debate so far.

I have problems taking any of it seriously these days, my mind is clogged with questions about September 11, al qaeda, guilty? possibly, beyond reasonable doubt? definitely not.

The power of nightmares does give some excellent historical context. The cold war was a perfect reason/excuse for an arms race. After the collapse of the USSR, the US congress started demanding money for the staples, health, education etc. Then came Clinton, the great caretaker President, he will be all but forgotten in 50 years, spoke to the left, governed for the right. The generals hated him, but their time would come.

But after a blatantly rigged election the Generals became optimistic. They lobbied for more money, but what on earth did they need all that weaponry for? What threat could possibly justify nearly half a trillion dollars per annum expenditure?

And then came September the 11th

There is a propaganda afloat that the West[whiteys] is the cause of poverty, malnutritian, lack of education in all the third world countries and therefore it is only just that jihad be waged against those greedy, wicked nations.
Has anyone had a good,long stare at the leaders of those destitute countries?In Africa, the leaders are roly poly overweight men with numerous wives and obviously big appetites for the best living.
North Africa is amply supplied by rockets, guns and all such fashionable arsenal.
South American leaders, awash with gold braid and numerous decorations, also live very well.
They probably have very good Swiss bank accounts while their people go hungry.
Who else can they blame but the West where no one looks so hungry.So therefore the West must be the culprits. And the lefties back them up all the way.

If the political rhetoric was more reflective of the actual risk, rather than inflated to bursting point, it might be easier to know what we should be worried about. The attacks we've seen so far don't represent a threat to democracy, our way of life, civilisation as we know it or the future of lamington manufacture. Pretending they do just confuses the issue and the resultant damage to our society is the polarisation we see in these comments, not the loss of thongs and barbecues and other good old Aussie values.

Well.. going just on the media reports alone... and avoiding 'activist' blogs as soon as I see that they totally ignore crucial points raised in the media ...

1/ Suicide/ Martyrdom videos ? Maybe they had too much of an Islamic version of dungeons and dragons ? or..... ?

2/ Chemicals useful in bomb making.

err.. irrespective of the actual technical achievability of such a plot on a practical level. The above 2 points would be enough for me to throw them in the slammer and then throw away the key.

If you conspiracy theorists are going to have any credibility at all, at least deal with the WHOLE picture and stop ignoring anything which conflicts with your theory.

Do the governments benefit from a 'climate of fear' ? YES.. undoubtedly they do.
Are the public so stupid as to be continually hoodwinked by this ? NO.

Is there an element of 'resource interest' in all this ? well if world history of EVERY government there has ever been and ever will be is anything to go by.. sure.

And if any of you think it would be any different under whatever brand-X of government you would replace the current ones with...you definitely need therapy :)

If you are going to jump up and down and froth at the mouth..TELL US UR SOLUTION..... but please don't tell us its a human one :) sorry, the score board is wayyyyy too instructive for that lead balloon to fly.

I've long nailed my colors to the mast..and its national repentance and individual renewal in Christ.

I've sussed out the picture and am prepared to comment further.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5271998.stm
In a highly unusual development, Mr Clarke went into significant detail about the evidence so far uncovered by police inquiries. These included:

69 searches of houses, flats and business premises, vehicles and open spaces

COMMENT pretty meaningless in itself.

Searches had found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 computer media items such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs

COMMENT as above.

Police experts have removed 6,000 gigabytes of data from the seized computers

COMMENT as above.

Bomb making equipment, including chemicals and electrical components seized, police say

COMMENT WOOPS.... now that is not so trivial !

A number of video recordings recovered.

COMMENT WOOPS... assuming these are 'martydom' videos they are crucial.

ALL the blogs and conspiracy theorist comments I've seen have LEFT OUT the last 2 points... does this say something about 'bias' ? :)

Even if they turn out to be less significant than face value.. WHO KNOWS better at this point than the police ? Have any of you viewed the evidence ? Would it matter ? ha !

go figure

If you want to know all about what the UK police think the suspects in the recent mass arrests for terrorist offences actually did then follow the following link -

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/28/world/europe/28plot.html

If you live in the UK you might get the following message when you visit that page -

"On advice of legal counsel, this article is unavailable to readers of nytimes.com in Britain. This arises from the requirement in British law that prohibits publication of prejudicial information about the defendants prior to trial."

Who's kidding who?

Commonsense Strategy in the Middle East

Regarding the above problem the mind goes back to great figures of history. They are - Bismarck of the late 19th century, as well as Chancellor and Founder of modern Germany, and Charles Darwin, pretty well of the same period, and founder of the Theory of Evolution.

Darwin in his old age was very unhappy about his friend Herbert Spencer using Darwin’s survival of the fittest concept as an excuse not only to justify the most husteristic entrepreneuralism, but also the more heinous aspects of colonialism. Darwin’s scornful reply was - as humans have an inherited mental capacity that animals have not, humans by now through history should have developed enough wisdom and understanding to know that the the term Survival of the Fittest must only relate not to feelings of compassion, but only to animalistic physical endurance.

Further, an interesting example of possibly compassionate strategic decisionmaking was the outcome of Bismarck’s invasion of France in 1871-72, followed by his capture and part-burning of Paris. Such could doubtless be regarded as the right’s of the victor, especially as it was France who actually was the cause of the invasion. But Bismark shocked the world by getting the leaders of France together in Paris, and not so much forgiving but, as he left reminding them, that it was peace in Europe he was fighting for, and thus he would still keep Germany’s long range artillery primed accordingly.

Bismarck died not long after the beginning of the twentieth century, and is said by some historians, that WW1 would never have begun if he had been alive. Further, as WW2 is said to have begun owing to the way Germany was left destitute over the Treaty of Versailles, both World Wars may not have been fought had the right great figure of history been alive at the right time. Therefore it is understandable how since his invasion of France and a sort of mock foregiveness thereafter Bismark became regarded as the Father of Realpolitik.

Could do with great figures like Darwin and Bismarck around now?

I was just listening to the ABC news and they played what is reported to be a crucial piece of evidence in the prosecution of 13 men on terrorism charges.

The piece was an exchange between a humourless Islamic millitant and his cowering wife - not.

What I heard was a fun exchange between a couple with him having a dig at stereotypes of muslims being terrorists and not realising that their conversation was being taped.

Him telling her that he was going camping to do some terrorist training and her telling him "Don't be stupid, what are you going camping for?" and him responding that he was just going camping with some friends to read the Koran and kick back.

Security forces monitored the camping and found such a level of terrorist training that they decided the thing was a team building thing - eg the guys kicked back, read a bit of the Koran, told a few jokes and enjoyed camping in the Aussie bush.

I don't do the Koran thing but I've done similar with a bible in my christain days and I've certainly made jokes could be difficult. What about you BD, ever told a silly joke and been camping with some christain friends?

If thats the best that the authorities have got then the conspiracy folks might be onto something.

R0bert

Why are so few women weighing in on this nonsense? I reckon some of you like Leigh and David B are boy scouts sitting around the camp fire telling each other ghost stories.

Let's look at some stuff shall we?
1. Why would anyone believe a word the Pakistani intelligence services say when they are notoriously the most corrupt service on earth apart from the CIA and FBI, probably Mossad and the KGB? They sold David Hicks for 30 pieces of silver to the US.

2. Why would you need to take bomb making stuff onto a plane when all you need to do is get into the cockpit and nosedive the damn thing into the sea?

3. The chemical involved would have blown them all up before the plane took off if they didn't know how to do it so what is the point?

4. Yes RObert, they were camping, what a shocking crime in the land of camping. Wow I am so scared.

It's just more b...t like waiting for the wretched reds under the beds, the asian invasion, yellow peril and so on. Now it's the muslim terr'ists yet there has not been one attack here.

The odd thing is that the west just doesn't seem to understand that while we keep blowing their nations to bits they might tend to be a trifle cross with us.

While we continue to vilify and demonise people they will learn to hate us. Dropping 177,000 bombs, missiles, 5 ton bunker busters, phosphorous bombs, cluster bombs and other goodies on the people of Lebanon - now that is a terrorist attack only rivalled by the invasion of Iraq.

My brother has a long term friend of 50 years. His wife was killed in the latest Bali bombing. He has also been rendered blind in one eye. No terrorism eh?

Very interesting that The PM has been using fear for years about the danger of "terrorist" threats, why? we may ask, well my personal view is that it is a winner for him politically.
Australian males were always defined as heroes, courageous, the best fighters, hard working, decent and loyal to their country and family.
Not true today, they are true believers in business first before all else, led by a leader who puts business first, they are sheep.
Fear has become part of the male psyche, in their aspirations to get to the top in business, whether it is small business or big business, rural or urban. The stock exchange is a gambling den, which in itself creates fear and fear begets fear.
The PM used the fear factor, prior to the last election, using interest rates as the catalyst for winning.
The PM's propaganda, fear of "terrorists" works very well for him, as he includes the message, "threat to business".
In the ten years the PM has held power, there has been no "terrorist" attack in Australia, despite his staunch support of Bush, and his verbal attacks on Muslims.
Before the current PM there has never been a PM before, so blatant, or successful, in the use of fear as a political tool

Most posters are right in what they say, yet it doesn't alter the fact we're losing more freedoms with each supposed terrorist scare. Sure there've been attacks and there'll be more as long as religious, economic and energy control is number one priority for the elite of the world. The promoters of terrorism fear, are the same people who lied about Iraq, Afghanistan and all previous invasions by right wing monotheistic controlled governments

Many years ago, politics was run by real people who'd experienced the hardships of war and depression, so their direction was for the benefit of the people. Now they're bereft of life experiences, except school and church. They're lawyers, accountants, union buffoons, brain-dead bureaucrats and those buying office with money, or economic clout. They're incapable of giving direction, just sell our assets and create fear in the populace to shift blame for their total incompetence to others. It also allows them to implement their corporate and religious power agenda for their masters.

We could slow terror effects upon this country by distancing ourselves from the USA, religious bigotry and leaving both Iraq and Afghanistan. We should be taking care of our own area of the world and leaving the rest to those actually living there.

Any terrorist attack or proven intended one on this country, should be followed by the deportation of the families of those convicted, no matter their belief or citizenship status. I'm a pacifist, but believe we need deterrents that work, not fuzzy claims and restrictions, slowly returning us to the dark ages of religious control and subsequent war.

Remember when it comes to lies and false testimony, the followers of god are in a class of their own

Rob.....I actually saw the surveillance video of that camping trip,
not appropriate for me to comment on its value or significance here.

The magistrate Paul Smith is no dill, and the degree of pedantry
applied to every statement, is mind boggling. The degree of scrutiny of each piece of evidence by our OLO feature writer Greg Barns and company defending these alleged terrorists is also very thorough.

Given that most of us know just about zero about the evidence, apart from what the media reports, its probably better for us to await the outcome of the trial for to they have now been committed. A jury will be able to decide, just like me when I was there, if it has merit or not.

MOVIE TIME
I've just finished watching "Lord of War" starring Nicolaus Cage as the shifty evil arms dealer and Ethan Hawk as the "Elliot Ness" style incoruptable cop.
Most of the movie is about Nics adventures selling arms to 3rd world african dictators, being paid for in diamonds or Timber.
The final scene is where Ethan Hawke has finally arrested Nic and has enough evidence for 5 life sentences. Nic says casually,(after browsing the newspaper) that in a moment, a knock on the door will come, a high ranking man will congratulate Hawke on his efforts, and Nic will be allowed to go free.
REASON ? The US government was pleased to have a 'freelancer' supplying arms to 'sensitive' customers. Then the summary statement that while freelancers exist, the primary arms sellers are:
USA
UK
CHINA
RUSSIA
NTH KOREA

4 of them are on the 'security' counsel.
Strange how we mostly see USA and UK vilified in this forum ........

All nations are continually fighting for influence and resources. If they did not, others would succeed in their failure, and possibly obtain an unbeatable advantage. Humanly speaking that is.

SARAH 10

you may recall that in previous posts I've disagreed with you quite passionately.
You might be surprised to note that with the exception of your last 2 lines, I basically agree with all you said.

I long for a government of the people.. i.e. a centrist government.
I dream of an Australia where not everything is 'user pays'... where there is a nurse in the infant welfare centre available to help young mothers.. an assistance scheme for the elderly and less well off with their dental problems. (Labor had this and it helped my family)

I would rather my taxes were used to pay the administrative cost of another bloke getting a Burning off permit, instead of having to pay $50 for one in Melb.

When every form you have to fill out 'costs' it ingrains a sense of despair and hopelessness in people with limited means.

We have had a terrorist attack in Australia, and it was from Muslims too. 'Cronulla'. The fact that other more politically oriented planned attacks were thrawted is credit to those who caught it in time. Always remember, it could have been your dad or mum or brother or sister in the train or building where the explosives that HAD been gathered by some of these people, went off. Be thankful NO one was killed maimed or injured. I'd much rather take a pill to immunize me against Cancer than have half my jaw sculpted off to remove a growing tumor.

Cronulla was not muslims launching a terrorist attack, what mindless drivel is tha/ What the world saw was a bunch of yobbo white supremicists bashing people who were minding their own business, stoning ambulances, bashing students - they were wrapped on the flag of Australia and were utterly embarrassing.

Kalweb, I didn't say there was no terrorism. But what do you call terrorism? One or two bombs going off occassionally in some other country or the invasion and demolition of Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank by us?

Not one muslim nation invading or blowing up one other nation on earth so why the hell do we call them the terrorists? Are we to join the US in it's next venture - blowing up Iran?

How many of you heard or read what Seymour Hersh had to say about Lebanon being urged and planned with Cheney's and Bush's blessings? Is that not a terrorist attack?

I think it is yet the only thing we call a terrorist attack is a piddling little Katushya sometimes hitting something.

There are also now credible reports that the taking of the soldiers happened in Lebanon in the Shebaa farms region, just across the border at least - certainly the land mine that killed several soldiers was Israeli.

Haaretz is also reporting today that most in Israel from Olmert down now agree they could have stopped after 6 days and lost nothing.

Tell me who the hell are the terrorists because Bush, Blair, Howard and now Olmert and co scare me half to death.

Who is responsible for spreading the excrement - that excrement we can't resist sniffing? The excrement we feel compelled to repeat as though it were true -

Here's a clue:

http://www.richardneville.com.au/

I am old enough to remember the Melbourne Truth. The Truth had a column called Heartbalm, in which "confused" people supposedly revealed the details of their salacious peccadilloes. Of course we all knew that the "letters" were in fact invented by the staff, sitting at typewriters with their trousers down.

- nevertheless that didn't stop the Truth from becoming a popular newspaper, and many of the readers turned to the Heartbalm pages first.

But that was then and this is now. That was harmless and this is criminal.

The creatures who magnify this terrorist muck are criminals. Nothing new here. Julius Streicher, newspaper proprietor, was hanged at Neuremberg for something very similar:

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/ARTPROP.HTM

Churchill said, "History will be kind to us, for I intend to write it." But I have news for certain newspaper proprietors. It is we on the Internet who will have the final story this time!

You may quote me -

*

I will borrow this quote from Jonah Goldberg:

“Islam enjoys a large and influential ally among the non-Muslims: A new generation of “Useful Idiots,” the sort of people Lenin identified living in liberal democracies who furthered the work of communism.
This new generation of Useful Idiots also lives in liberal democracies, but serves the cause of Islam fascism—another virulent form of totalitarian ideology.
Useful Idiots are naïve, foolish, ignorant of facts, unrealistically idealistic, dreamers, willfully in denial or deceptive. They hail from the ranks of the chronically unhappy, the anarchists, the aspiring revolutionaries, the neurotics who are at war with life, the disaffected alienated from government, corporations, and just about any and all institutions of society.
The Useful Idiot can be a billionaire, a movie star, an academe of renown, a politician, or from any other segment of the population.
Arguably, the most dangerous variant of the Useful Idiot is the “Politically Correct.” He is the master practitioner of euphemism, hedging, doubletalk, and outright deception.”
The Question should be ; "When does Useful become Useless"?

There, could not improve on that at all- just about says everything we need to know.
Now; What was that question about the Media and Political Leadership; "Our Very masterful practitioners of euphemism"?

All-, Yeah it says a lot, but not EVERYTHING we need to know.

It fails to mention the other "Useful idiots" in society. The ones who blindly trust our current ultra-conservative governments and don't have nous to realise what their real agendas are; or those who do realise their real agenda but don't have the foresight to see where exactly it's leading or how fast we're getting there. Your brand of extremism is no better than communism - both lead to totalitarianism.

Most of the "Useful Idiots" your quote talks about realise the dangers of the the islamo-facists, only they're sharp enough to see the more subtle danger slowly infecting societies - the corporations. Why shout about an evil we can all see when there's a more silent evil that's just as bad?

This is why the US and UK get a grilling in this forum as BD pointed out...because most view them as the do-no-wrong hero's fighting the good fight. We already know how bad the others are.

BD, Your "cancer pill" analogy wasn't very good at all. A cancer pill wouldn't effect anyone else in a bad way. Whereas the so-called prevention methods we're seeing from our governments would by slowly chipping away at our freedoms until we have none left. Surely you have enough life experience and knowledge of history to see that's inevitable.

"All" makes some very valid points,however our Govts do beat up the concept of terrorism to their advantage.George Bush just recently talks about "Muslim Facism" when many on this forum have been referring to the extremists as facists for some months now.

The reality is that there is very little our Govts can to combat terrorism at home.There are thousands of ways to disable an economy if people have the will,knowledge and resources.

I think that John Howard has done the right thing in confronting the inerta that the Muslim communities diplay in not intergrating into the Australian culture.No one has said that they should stop believing in the Koran,however the Muslim population have to be more tolerant of mainstream Australia and accept that we have the right to our lifestyles and beliefs also.

The biggest philosphical differences between the West and Islam is that,the West have few absolute truths,are open minded and progressive,and Islam works in absolutes which often are not based on fact or logic.

Having a good grasp of English is the essential key to combating terrorism and anyone who hates the Western Culture so much,should not be here in the first place.

"The biggest philosphical differences between the West and Islam is that,the West have few absolute truths,are open minded and progressive,and Islam works in absolutes which often are not based on fact or logic."

...not like, um, economic rationalism? Or scientific study of "latent humans" (embryonic stem cells)? Or that might is right? Or that there will be a third coming? No, the west has no monopoly on rationalism. People are the same everywhere, we just like to think we're better.

The assumption that 'the West' and 'Islam' are mutally exclusive reveals more about your argument than the argument itself.

People fear terrorists because they threaten our 'values' and 'way of life'?! Sure, they probably disagree with how we live, but we too of them! I find it hard to believe that we are so important to these radicals that they spend years planning terrorist attacks to send the message 'cover up you women!' or something of the like.

No, terrorists attack because our governments attack them. I am sick and tired of the American governments (they have a history) sticking their noses in other countries' business for their own interests (oil anyone?). The Blair and Howard gov follow Bush around like a dog follows its master. Does anyone else smell that fear?

I think Michael Moore's films speak volumes on the question of fear and how governments operate 'in the interests of the nation'!

Sure, we should fear terrorism, but at the cost of the right to critcally examine how our governments run things? Yes terrorism has become a part of our lives, but forfeiting such things as human rights for terrorist suspects (all I ask for is EVIDENCE) is a dangerous path to take. To say western civilisation could take the path of Hitler's Germany or George Orwell's '1984' sounds extreme, but it is very possible.

This Jonah Goldberg guy is sooo persuasive (Posted by All-, Sunday, 3 September 2006 4:45:52 AM). Thanks for this enlightening quote.

It's an argument which can be summarised as follows:

If you disagree with me (or the government), then you are unknowingly a supporter of fascism, communism and terrorism and you deserve to be called names. If you are a successful or intellegent person, then you deserve to be called a name which is also a clever oxymoron.

Investigating Mr Goldberg further, I read a few of his articles and the quote is typical of his lightweight style. Just go on notching up insults in a baseless way, add a few prejorative quotes or rumours and wham! you've shown that "voting should be more difficult because things of value usually require a little work" or that "it’s time to cut the guy [GW Bush] some slack."

Be thankful we live in Australia where columnists generally backup their arguments, whatever their political leanings.

BTW: there is no record of the term being ever used by Lenin. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot)

Bennie people are not the same everywhere.In any given family genetics creates great diversity that can cope with environmental change.

There are enormous philosophical ,social and behavioural differences between the West and Islam.According to Islam,it is a one way street.We have already seen their attemps to introduce Sharia law into our Constitution.The weak Bracks Govt in Vict have introduced anti-religious vilification laws that stop people from publicly questioning the beliefs of others,even if they have no basis in fact.Logically,this means we can pass a law banning the theory of evolution.

I find it amazing that in the light of John Howards' comments that Muslims are crying foul and threatening us with more Cronulla like riots.Now I seem to recollect that the left wing media blamed those riots on the Anglo racists and the Muslims were merely reacting to our racism.Well,they can't have it both ways.

Now the Muslims tell us that their young people will again riot as in Cronulla if the Govt tells them to learn English and be more tolerant and understanding of our Western Culture.

No one is telling them that they should give up their religion,all we ask that they don't try to impose their laws and values on us.

No,our women don't have to cover up in public,nor should they be slaves to men.They don't have to put up with being spat at in public nor be called skippy sluts just because they dress differently.To treat women as property, diminishes the growth of both sexes.

The thing that the Muslim Culture fears most,is our progressiveness and openess to new ideas,that is why they live in insular communities and refuse to learn English.They fear that their belief systems will not stand the test of logic and analysis.Islam might go the way of the Christian Religions,with little political power and secular rationalism being order of the day.

Now you allude economic rationalism being an inherant Western evil.Economic rationalism has been more about the power of the Multi-nationals.They are only being rational to the point of their own advantage,hence they are not being truely rational.

I turned 59 the other day. That's over 21,500 days old. I owe every one of those days to the goodwill of countless other people, most of whom I can never know. They in their turn have relied upon me for their safekeeping. In all that time it never dawned upon me to question this simple precept.

Of course, I am lucky to have been born in a certain place at a certain time (half a world away) - but it is the only kind of life I have ever known.

The question is, is this tranquilty a natural circumstance of being human, or is it an aberration? Is it merely the herd instinct, or did evolution grant us something potentially more useful? Darwin himself pondered this when trying to account for the seeming overcapacity of the human brain.

Our brains are home to both fear and resistance in equal measure. From which shall we chose? Which is the more powerful urge? Which is the more powerful force?

If Howard and the sly-boys have their way, imagination and fear will deliver the power they seek. Shall we give it to them so cheaply - just for a legend? Just for a bit of old religious nonsense? Just for some ignorant cultural prejudice?

Here's a better legend:

'Appeared in the churchyard, against the high altar, a four foot marble cube, and set in it a steel anvil, and stuck in that a sword. Written in gold on the sword were the words "Whoso pulleth out this sword of this stone and anvil is rightwise king born of all England".'

We face the same challenge. All it takes is a bit of humilty - a bit of common human fellowship to pull that sword and become kings of our own fate.

And damn all tyrants to hell -

“BTW: there is no record of the term being ever used by Lenin”
Interesting? , but although I do not Gamble ; But I would lay odds on bet that if anyone seriously used WIki pedia as a stand alone reference can also sign his own cheques from the ATO. My point, Well if you look at Wikipedia now, He did !
So, that one can go through to the Keeper.
The common misuse of the political Ideology called ; “Fascism”, now that is a common intended abuse of such a term, the further away from the actual intended meaning of its philosophy is better for those who actually subscribe to its implication, and calling Islam Fascist is a bit like calling Osama Bin Laden a Jewish conspirator and a Mossad Agent. Undoubtedly a new libertarian tract.

Response to Arjay (3 Sept 2006 9:37:17 PM):

In order to be at all relevant in this thread, you need to have some basis for what you say.

The constitution can only be changed via a referendum. Vilification laws do not prevent people questioning religious belief. There is no law banning the theory of evolution. Dr Ameer Ali has not threatened further riots in Cronulla. Islamic law is not being imposed on Australians. Speaking English is not a religious matter.

The remainder of your post is an invalid claim of superiority over a particular religious group. Such claims are considered abhorrent in Australia. If you live here, please show some respect for Australian values.

Response to All-:
Given that you seem aware the words "Islam Fascist" was taken from your original Goldilocks quote, I don't understand why it's a "libertarian tract". Why be a critic of my Wikipedia link? It is what it is.

To Marilyn, Chris, Kenny,David and Carl

Could you folk kindly give your informed assessment of the following incidents in terms of ‘who did it’ and then comment on how your assessment differs or fits the CNN doco ‘In the footsteps of Bin Ladin’ and the various testimonies of people intimately involved in the events.

1/ Bombings US marine HQ in Beiruit
2/ Bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya
3/ Bombing of USS Cole in Aden
4/ 9/11 attacks
5/ Bali Bombings
6/ London Bus bombings.
7/ London plot to bomb Airliners.

Could you also explain how the ‘evil’ West is incorrect by attacking the AL Quaeda training camps in Afghanistan ?

a) Were they terror training camps or ‘freedom fighter’ training camps ?
b) Have considerable numbers of Muslims from Western countries attended these and learnt the skills of bomb making, weapons use and insurgency tactics ?

It would be enough to demonstrate your position by simply putting ‘CIA’ , AL Qaeda, Hezbollah or some similar notation for each major numerical point. By all means copy and past my list with your short assessment following.

ISLAM apart from MOHAMED its founder is little more than sometimes pious sometimes violent words in a book claiming to be from God. The critical issue is ‘Was Mohamed from God’... Gods final messenger.
Given that the likelihood of Gods final messenger arranging ‘hits’ on irritating poets and other unconscienable actions, I tend to conclude that on the balance of probabilities he was simply a skilful and ambitious manipulator of people, who believed his own delusions of self importance and ‘call’. Or.. he was simply a compliant tool of a very real Satan who masquerades as an angel of light. Perhaps he was both ?

Failure to understand how crucial is this fundamental point in dealing with the root causes of Islamic terrorism and the absence of firm convictions of our own about God, Christ, Faith, Life, Society and History,could in the end be our undoing.

I would value a few hours of ‘re-education’ opportunity with the Melbourne suspects

I see two rather interesting aspects of behaviour arising - the almost complete lack of fear from airline passengers who were caught up in the 'scam' in the UK, and the rise of anti-Islamic sentiments experessed on fora and by political leaders.

People are more frightened of interest rate rises and petrol prices - yet the hysteria and xenophobia on display indicates the depth of depravity our so-called political leaders are willing to stoop to creat the climate to bring in the real objective - to deconstruct and 'roll-back' (what a lovely word which belies what is really going on) freedom and human rights - the process of 'killing shoftly' is well under way

Dave, I am not trying to lure you over to the dark side. I am trying to leave a trail of cake crumbs so that you may stumble over things for yourself. If you will forgive my condescension, I think that's what Jesus was trying to do to some extent.

Here's a video of David Ray Griffin, renowned American theologian:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3538037502590699697

David's latest book:

http://www.wjkbooks.com/Details.asp?BookID=0664231179

Who or what is behind the "new fascism" is concealed behind our own religious and cultural biases, which we must all dispense with if we are to move on. Either we do it all together (ALL), or not at all. This has nothing to do with us all becoming mono-atheistic nor atheistic. It means having the humility to be deaf to the Rodent's dog-whistles for long enough to confront a certain problem that has dogged us for the last hundred years or so:

The corporate and economic necessity for war - there is our nemesis.

Truth seekers will be glad to know that Aaron Russo's long awaited documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism" is available - download from this direct link (somewhat illegally) - (733 mB avi file):

http://www.pumpitout.com/movie/Aaron_Russo_America_Freedom_To_Fascism.avi

It starts out as just another moan about income tax, but then the plot thickens as Russo discovers the moneymen behind the curtain.

See you after the show...

BD,

I have never flat out denied the existance of terrorism, Islamic terrorist traing camps or the like.

My main points have been that

a) The threat of terrorism in western nations has been massively exagerated. Statistically our chances of being killed by a terrorist are very low, and from a military point of view no islamic nation or peoples pose a significant threat to us, our military capabilities and economic supremacy don't allow them to.

b) There are far greater threats in this world than terrorism, including monoploy control of resources and global warming.

c) There are very basic quesitons about 9/11 that have not been answered. e.g, how did WTC7 collapse, where is the confiscated footage of the pentagon attack, where was the US airforce, etc etc.

That people think so naively is sickening.

It's not the Government that creates the fear of terrorism, it's Islamic leaders who praise Hezbollah, the murderous cowards who hide behind their own children when they launch missiles at Israeli civilians.

It is the rabid leftist set in the west that these people listen to, with the regular mention of the Chomsky's or the Pilger's in their firery sermons.

The fear is from the LEADER of Australia's Islamic community, Sheik Hilali, saying that 9/11 was "God's work", and how no Muslims have ever held protests to have this bigot removed, or all the other bigots, of which there are very many, for their racist comments.

Politics of fear? Let me see....anyone remember the leftist nutters who, after Howard introduced the anti-terrorism laws, said that journalists would be imprisoned for dissent?

These "shock jocks" use slogans, not logic, in their arguments, and use fear that the "ethnic other" is being victimised.

The left view all non-whites as victims, they're thinking is truly religious in nature, almost as dogmatic as the Islamists they align themselves with, despite being homosexuals, feminists, and those who believe in equality.

It's the Pilgers, the Chomsky's that promote fear, by ignoring context. The west armed Saddam Hussein they say, so what? Do you not realise the entire region is full of bigoted maniacs? Iran was worse than Iraq so you back Iran. Do you think of the world in such narrow terms?

The Politics of Fear.....it would be a comedy act if people weren't dying.

"the Muslim population have to be more tolerant of mainstream Australians and accept that we have the right to our lifestyles and beliefs also"
Doesn't that sound as if WE have migrated to live in THEIR country instead of the other way round?
The muslims are the newcomers, it is they who must fit in here, not us. We are the host country and it is OUR laws, OUR traditions and OUR lifestyles that are paramount.
It must be laid out that these are the rules for incoming migrants, and if those rules are unacceptable, migrants CANNOT stay.
That must be made very clear.

The 1 million Australians sucking off the tits of hundreds of other countries world wide will be pleased to know that they are so special they don't need to integrate but others have to integrate here.

Some 10,000 refugees who came from Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq were deliberately denied English classes and others are only allowed 6 months English training. How then are they supposed to learn?

How many Australians in Afghanistan speak Pashtu or Dari, how many in Iraq speak arabic? Come on know alls.

Haaretz is reporting some stuff today worth a read.
1. Gideon Levy reports in graphic detail the murders in Gaza.
2. Ze'ev Schiff reports that Hezbollah rocket launchers were buried in the mountains and therefore not homes.
3. Olmert is under criminal investigation for giving people jobs in a criminal fashion.

It's interesting that our values are so special yet it is we who blew up Afghanistan, Iraq and cheer lead when Israel bombed Lebanon back 20 years on the same old lies we used to blow up the former.

We are the terrorists to the 26 million Afghans, 27 million Iraqis and 6 million Lebanese and Palestinians.

Marilyn, your hatred towards the west for some reason has led you to make some comments I cannot believe that you really mean.

Even in the United States, those who opposed the invasion of Iraq supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Removing the Taliban was a fundamentally moral and just act and as a woman, you cannot have possibly supported a regime that treated women the way the Taliban treated women.

Perhaps instead of complaining about the west you can get involved in some organizations trying to make a difference in places like Afghanistan. If you want to offer some practical help, let me know, and I will pass on the names of a couple of organizations.

It's easy to rant Marilyn, but it is more constructive to help people.

Re- David Latimer 4/9/06.
David Latimer's invective lacks perspective and a true appreciation of our Western system of law and good goverance.

Quote from David,"The remainder of your post is an invalid claim of superiority over a particular religious group.Such claims are considered abhorrent in Australia.If you live here,please show respect for Aust values."

Well David,if you haven't noticed,Muslims want to subjugate women to the point of slavery.They have made representations to our Federal Govt to begin to introduce Sharia Law into Australia.Irfan Usef has written article on this forum espousing the virtues of Sharia Law and why we should accept parts of their laws to appease their demands.No other religious or immigrant group has made such demands on our Govt.No other religous group has caused such friction and angst in Australiam society since WW2.Why don't we have special prayer rooms for Buddhists or Hindus at our Universities as we do for Muslims?Those who threaten violence,get the attention of our weakness.Well,who is the odd man out?

There is a limit to tolerance,and many productive law abiding Australians have had enough of left wing weakness,that uses concepts of racism,and religious vilification to undermine the present status quo,which they[the left] have failed to defeat in the past.

I see no difference between the Muslim Facists, the Nazis nor the Communists.Muslims on average,don't believe in democracy,and so are our arch rivals.

I won't tolerate being told how to dress,what to believe or what god I should believe in.Go to many Muslim countries and this is exactly the cultural norm which many want to see introduced into Australia.

If court jesters like David Latimer think that appeasing the potential violence of Muslim Facists will buy them freedom,then people like my father and his brother who suffered in Changi Prison at the hands of the Japanese,were fools who fought for no reason.

Conservative politicians traditionally have made law and order an issue at election time, then do little after being elected. Now we have terrorism being pushed harder than what would appear warranted. We have more chance of being killed in a car accident than being harmed by terrorists in Australia.

Matt you say that Marilyn Sheppard might like to join a community group to help the less fortunate. To be honest, it would be a scary world if people shut up and conformed to median views as Matt's attitude seems to imply. Our neo con friends would like such a world where people conform. Our fathers, grand fathers, and great grand fathers fought for the freedoms we now enjoy which are being taken away by Mr.Ruddock and Co.

The noses of Federal politicians have increased in the last decade, they appear to want to please their sponsers and abuse their constituents. For example, the pure cynicism of using tax payers money to promote policies which are not in the interests of numerous tax payers, is astounding ("Work Choices"). Keeping people living in fear is their way of keeping us controlled

Matt if you look very, very carefully you might notice that I have been working for free to improve the lives of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq and Iran that we incarcerated for up to 5 years while we were also stealing from the Iraqis to give the money to Saddam and bombing their countries to bits.

If you look very carefully you might notice that it was me who discovered that DIMA had been locking up Australians, deporting people with false documents and tormenting innocent children in Woomera.

In fact I have been working with the likes of Frank Brennan, the Woomera lawyers and all sorts of other people.

Why the hell should I do anymore, and why should I just shut up?

I have advocated for the past 4 years for Australia to get real in Afghanistan now and send 5,000 soldiers and billions in rebuilding money - they refuse and Afghanistan is a disaster today.

I want out of Iraq but billions in rebuilding sent. Our government led the cheersquad for Israel to blow up Lebanon based on lies and distortions.

Tell me just what they hell there is to like about any of that?

Arjay has posted a lot of nonsense about Australian and Victorian law (3 Sept 2006 9:37:17 PM) and instead of retracting it, goes further down the same path by adding even more nonsense (4 Sept 2006 9:03:25 PM).

The Sex Discrimination Act (1984) says that Australia must provide for the "elimination of all forms of discrimination against women", however Arjay says Muslims "want to subjugate women to the point of slavery."

Should we believe Arjay or is he/she bigoted? Are Muslim Australians undermining our fundamental values or is Arjay making false accusations against a religious group and thus not a law-abiding person under the Racial Discrimination Act (1975)?

Arjay's evidence is "that Muslims have made representations to the Government to introduce Sharia Law." By virtue of our constitution, Australians are free to chat with their local MP, join a political party and/or stand for election. It does not matter their religion. Any person can discuss the merits or otherwise of Sharia Law.

But have such representations about Sharia to the government been made? Give Peter Costello's speech (http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/speeches/2006/004.asp) if this had happened it would have been mentioned. Instead Mr Costello quoted from an ABC interview. So the answer is probably “no”.

On the other points Arjay is absolutely wrong. The Sex Discrimation Act has an exception for priests. Universities have facilities for all religious groups, including Christian, Jewish, Buddist and Hindi. What nonsense to suggest otherwise. If Arjay is being told how to dress, perhaps chat with the friend or the family member concerned. And its not surprising or worrying that Muslims believe in God.

It’s taken a few words to once again, show the fictional, substandard quality of Arjay’s post -- even to the point of blaming Muslims for his/her bad dress sense.

But seriously, it is a great shame that some people want to attack honest, decent and law abiding Australian Muslims, which of course is itself an act dishonest, indecent and an affront to Australia law and values. (although terrorists may approve.)

David Latimer

Your post contra Arjay is like a wolf in sheeps clothing.
On the surface it looks ok, but it has a fatal flaw.
Your espousing of 'Australian values' to pound Arjay is also your undoing.
Look at this video and realize that THIS is what "many Muslims" mean to any country they come to. There are people like this among every population of them. The worry is, the bigger the population, the more of these types there are, and they are not talking about namby pamby 'representations to Government, they are screaming death murder and revolution -against US..and they mean it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8E4rMJVHyeg (its a safe link)

I had an interesting conversation with my Muslim friend in the gym last night. What he said is illustrative of 'popular understanding' of Mohamed in parts of Iran. He related how Ayesha, favorite wife of mohammed busted him humping one of the servant girls and she became indignant..(it was 'her turn' I believe). SUDDENLY.....'revelation time'.....

NOTE.. the following constitutes an 'artistic work' by me, an imaginary dialogue.(similar to Sasha Cohen in 'Da gospel according to Ali G', which, according to the letter from the EOC to me, is quite ok)

Allah speaking: "MOHAMED ! Dude... listen up.... ALL women are lawful for you"

Mohamed "WOAH, Allah, are u SERIOUS" ? (naughty glint in Mohameds eye)

Allah "Of course I am dude.. if I was not, you would experience serious congitive dissonance.. I mean the mother of all headaches as you contemplate that what you are doing is evil, and contrary to what your telling all your followers, and we can't have that ....can we"?

Mohamed "But Allah... what about all my followers? How would things be if they ALL did what I'm doing"?

Allah: "Dude.. no problemo... I'll just add a rider that while you can hump whoever you like whenever you like, your followers can only have a max of 4 wives, but they can all have sex with their slave girls anytime, so.. problem solved"

Boaz... interpreting religious scripture is a dangerous practice.

I'll probably get hammered for this, but hey, here's my interpretation of the book of job:

Devil: hey god, check that guy out. Damn he's loyal to you.

God: yep. he's a good sort.

Devil: but, you know it's only cause he's got loads of possessions right?

God: Nope. He likes me cause I'm tops.

Devil: Nah, it's cause he's got it made. I Betcha he wouldn't like you if you destroyed his family and possessions.

God: we'll see about that. Die family! Possessions begone! Suffer!There. See. He still worships me. I am tops after all.

Devil: yep. (hidden guffaw) you sure showed me. Well done god, you're so much smarter than I am.

No doubt you'll be able to come up with a more palatable interpretation which is a bit less blasphemous.
My point is, there's plenty of questionable things in the bible too, and if you found my interpretation disrespectful, I'm sure plenty of muslims would feel the same way about yours.

TURNright.....

*BOAZ reaches for the torch and calls the villagers....* :)

Not at all...

Its good to have a cynical review of such a book. Probably one of the most difficult to come to grips with in the Bible.

I recommend the Wikipedia treatment for what seems to me to be a reasonably balanced presentation of the various views.

There seems little connection with contemporary history, apart from a reference to the land of UZ.

If it is a 'poem' in prose style, then it should be viewed as such.
It has also been described as a long 'parable', the technical nature of which would mean that it has a 'central point' rather than every detail having specific significance. (such as some Jesus told.. (example "Lazarus and the Rich man..calling to each other between heaven and hell)
There is indeed an important message, perhaps found in the words of Job at the end.

2 "I know that you can do all things;
no plan of yours can be thwarted. "

There is also the blessing of Job at the end.. showing that suffering is not always the end of the story.

All I would say on Job would be conjecture :) But I hold that it is rightfully part of the Canon, and is to be valued as such.

One point to note. His state of blessing at the end, does not mention any more than one wife. Same at the beginning.

Contrast this with the Islamic view ..which views prosperity in terms of sexual fulfillment with many women.....Specially for mohamed.. 'unlimited wives & unlimited slave girls. (read Sura 33:37 to 50 VERY closely.

I believe the Bible promotes the view of fulfilling love with one woman, rather than pleasurable sex with many.

Response to David Boaz:

It’s clear from your 5 Sep 2006 8:20am post, that you require assurance understanding my espousing of Australian values is worthwhile and contributes, in a small way, to the fight against terrorism and other discredited ideologies.

But enough about me. This is what you wrote:

“Your espousing of 'Australian values' to pound Arjay is also your undoing.”

Not in any sense true.

Unless I am misrepresenting them (very doubtful), it’s disappointing to hear this lack of faith in Australian values, perhaps because of other beliefs, perhaps they are secular or perhaps because you do not think they help fight terrorism.

Your video link, which I could not access, I assume is a protest or riot against the US or the West. These could be people supportive of extreme Islamic fundamentalism.

Out of frame and not protesting are millions of Muslims; worldwide hundred of millions; some in Australia. You assume Australian values do not have a universal quality and that the religious freedom we strive to offer each Australian is insufficient. If so, then you agree with the propaganda of Islamic terrorist groups who say that the Western world insults and subjugates Muslims.

I don't.

Australia has passed laws, such as the Racial Discrimination Act to condemn racism and religious intolerance in all its forms. Being racist or grossly intolerant is not an option for an Australian citizen, because we have the rule of law. We're free to discuss if this is a good or bad law, however the law itself remains effective and binding.

It is without doubt that tolerance and diversity are integral to the values law-abiding Australians hold -- just as we are bound not to give any support whatsoever to terrorist action.

Some comments in this forum suggest we should treat all Muslims as though they are personally responsible for or supportive of terrorism. This is not only silly, it is defiant of Australian law and values – the guarantor of our freedom, security and prosperity; the expression of our democratic will. Through our values lies the ultimate defeat of terrorism.

95% of suicide bombings or terrorist acts are carried out by non-muslims. Yet they get the blame.

Tamil Tigers account for 50%.

The 5% muslim are mostly the work of Hamas.

Why do we need our Govt. keeping us on edge? To keep them in power.

I can imagine the conversation "George, could you get OBL to mention Australia? Sure Johnny "man of steel" I'll get the CIA on to it".

Each time I see Phillip Ruddock I squirm. No conscience, no morals, no ethics.

"Is there a vested interest in keeping the terrorist threat alive and at the forefront of the West’s collective conscience?"

...gee... ya think?

There's a real threat, we have already seen it.

The vested interests have, er, vested interest in milking the fear factor for everything they can get. Emotion is a much stronger motivator than logic. The most powerful motivational emotion is fear. It helps people do all sorts of dumb stuff. Its also very useful to get people to do (or at least put up with) dumb stuff.

Any fool who is in power knows that the quickest way to steer a person is with fear. Its a strange thing. On a primal level, its linked to survival instinct. Its not hard to understand why the frightened gazelle is running from the hungry lioness.

l used to buy into conspiracy theories, tho now they strike me more as a cacophony of useful coincidences rather than deliberate planning. Powerful interests, like politicians, are first and foremost, at heart... OPPORTUNISTS.

They relish something like physical threat to our well being as it gives them endless supply of fuel to run their motors. They will always exaggerate the thing. Sometimes they actually invent a fear (thru misrepresentation and exaggeration).

They always put themselves foward as the champions of our protection, but only if you vote for them (a useful coincidence?).

Of course, no politician worth its salt would ever pass up even the slightest potentially lucrative bit of dross to drive fear in order to EXPAND POWER. The point of politics is power (and control). The point of power is, power itself.

Fear is a great way for them to get all their crap over the line via the back door... their favourite entrance.

While that is true Trade215, i.e the power mongers like Bush and the like,do use our fears to elevate their power,we should not fall into the trap of embracing his enemies who want to subjugate us with ignorance.George Bush is a fool who mishandled the whole Middle East Saga,but that does not mean we have throw the baby out with the bath water.

The oil must flow,but not at the cost of us being toady boys to Muslim Facism.The Middle East has earnt trillions in petro dollars,but little has filtered down to the masses in terms of education and improvement in real living standards.This is the main reason why they are besieged with religious fundamentalism that appeals to the oppressed.Give people the power of their enterprise which is only reflected in money,and the concept of god ,will come a poor second.

Our two biggest enemies in the world today are unfetted multi-national power,which Bush to an extent represents,and Muslim Facism.These two forces are not mutually exclusive,they have a lot in common.

It’s all a "Catch 22" though isn't it? It’s very easy for powerful people to manufacture 'terror threats' and create opposing sides. If events are not proceeding as governments want - they can easily create a threat - real or imagined. Western governments are indeed behaving more and more like agitators.

Eventually though the governments can sit back glibly as we go through a spate of real terrorism - there is always gullibility and herd mentality on all sides - someone eventually will do it for real - and then the government can say "we told you so" and slap down hard with all the draconian legislation they have been teasing us with for the last few years - just waiting for the 'right' opportunity to ensure public backing.

Gathering the collective consciousness to one’s own ends is a drawn out affair - it even took Hitler several years strategising and agitating before he could unleash the full force of fascism and its associated propaganda. But what is currently a scattergun approach now could eventually become a barrage. Western leaders believe they have to be seen to be ‘winning’ (the western competitive spirit is overly developed). This mindset therefore excludes them from using peaceful, bridge-building language. Until all the 'puppets' are in place, genuine discussion could result in western populations hearing things our leaders would rather we didn’t.

The irony of course, is that the number of people who can guess what might be said, is far bigger than any leader would like to admit to – hence their continuing self-delusional diatribes supported by and in concert with their complicit media barons. The 'rich' are on one side (still very few) and the rest of the world on the other. The 'rich' are ruthless - just look at the weapons they come up with and how they twist the truth. Ordinary folk would generally never entertain such things.

Time to unplug everyone and throw away the TV sets.

Mid East oil resources are so massively important to western civilisation, that l fear the only way to grab something that big is to spill blood and destroy stuff. Thats what, ahem... civilised animals (human beings) do. Thankfully not all of us.

l dont like it either.

Interesting Guardian on-line article today...

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1864656,00.html

thanks for the link kevin, interesting indeed

but how long until the Australian media wakes up and starts to report the biggest story of our lifetimes? are they going to wait until washington is ablaze?

Yes, it is interesting to that some people prefer to pretend 9/11 is a CIA plot. Or that 9/11 was an Iraqi plot.

Someone told me that "the jews were warned to stay out of the WTC". Then someone else said "the arabs were warned to not to go to work that day." Ridiculous. Both arabs and jews were killed in the WTC collapse.

Not only is the CIA plot idea completely unbelievable, it does not make any sense. If the CIA was willing to kill 3000 people, because it was dramatic, it would make more sense to target 10 people in 10 smaller roadside bomb attacks. If the CIA could pull off such a stunt, a plot so that WMD's were found in Iraq would be a piece of cake.

David Latimer,

Indeed there are many claims about 9/11 that are ridiculous. Many conspiracy theorists have some sort of racist agenda beneath their 'research', don't listen to them.

For a more reasoned approach to the issue check out www.911truth.org

In the interests of balance you can look at www.9111myths.com too- (these guys refute claims of the sceptics). Both of these websites have links to peer reviewed research; you can make up your own mind.

I however am basically swayed, I don’t claim to know all the details about how and exactly who pulled it off. I’m not a structural engineer but the collapse of WTC7 baffles me. I have heard the official explanation, a fire that burned for 7 hours caused a 47 story building to collapse in under 7 seconds, it just doesn’t sit with me. And what about the Pentagon? The FBI has admitted that they confiscated footage of the attack from a hotel and service station, if so, where is it? If they don’t anything to hide why not shut us up once and for all? If they can give me an ADEQUATE explanation of these events I will shut up tomorrow.

I know that it’s an extraordinary conspiracy, something Ollie Stone could never have dreamed of. However I have an even more extraordinary conspiracy for you, 19 arabs successfully hijack 4 planes under the direction from a guy in a cave. They pick a day that the US military is playing multiple war games leaving the East Coast of the US basically unguarded. With military precision they strike two major towers in NYC, then a full 45 mins after the first attack they fly into Washington DC and hit the Pentagon, in what should be the some of the most secure airspace in the world. And some people believe this garbage?

I suppose David what is 3,000 lives when you believe you are about to gain the whole world. What a focal point to tell the whole world that you are now the world's only super power and we are going to do things our way - and you'd better listen up or be very afraid.

The biggest joke of course is that America is not the only super power. Any nation with an atomic bomb can claim the same - surely?

Anyway - whats so "super" about wanting to dominate the whole world - people and resources?

this is what is really going on....

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_thom_har_060905_thom_hartmann_3b_democ.htm

Response to Carl and Kevin:

I'm terribly sorry, but you have misread me. I am not even remotely interested in reading about any 9/11 conspiracy. It makes me wonder what I could possibly say to shake you out of this waking coma.

Carl: You are not a structural engineer. I suggest you contemplate the significance of that.

marilyn,
i am inclined to agree with you. The west has stuffed up big time over Iraq.How many billions of dollars will be spent and how many hundreds of thousands of lives will be lost before Americans say enough ?
For Australia ,having john howard in America on 9/11 was an absolute disaster .Swept up by the fear and paranoia of the day ,it was almost as though he became an American in charge of another country - us ,with ramifications for our future from that moment .
It is important we do not alienate the moderate Muslims in Australia ,we must engage with them as friends and they must do the same .

My point David is that both terrorists and governments seek to make ordinary people afraid. To my mind the Spanish people got it right when they came out on to the steets in their millions and said "no to terrorism and no to war" after the Madrid bombings.

I suppose to most of us - there just isn't any difference. Both involve bombs - both involve people killing people - its just one side seems to have bigger ones [bombs] than the other - so what. Neither side is displaying the 'better' human qualities. We can't seem to stop either of them doing it but we can stop ourselves being afraid and living our lives differently just because one bully or the other says so. Ordinary people are way way way in the majority on this one.

remember when those uni students tried to reveal the ease that fertilizer and chlorine could be purchased, (enough to cause a shocking act of terror) they tried to get a response from the federal government for a very long time. when, in desperation the students threatened to broadcast footage of how easy this was and how they didn't even need to produce i.d., only then, when the governments posture on "war on terror" was threatened, did the government respond, incompetance, indifference, corruption? got to to be one of those. ps be alert, not alarmed.

David,

I can assure you I have contemplated the significance of me not being a structural engineer. This is the reason why the rationale for my beliefs does not rest on this event alone. There is a large amount of circumstantial and solid evidence contributing to my beliefs. I directed you to two different sources, both with a completly different interpretation of the same events, and asked you to make up your own mind before rubbishing others.

Unfortunately you are so closed minded you won't even contemplate the fact that there could be SOME holes in the official story that we have been force fed for five years.

Are you afraid of what you might find out David?

Do you believe everything that you are told so long as it fits in with your understanding of the world?

Contrary to popular belief, I did not start with a conclusion and work backwards, I once rubbished the conspiracy theorists too. Sorry David, but I believe on this issue at least, you are the one in the waking coma.

Am I right or wrong, but to those who argue that the US has bombed Afghanistan to bits was it not the Afghanis themselves who did the ground work in removing the hated Taliban and did they not rejoice in the streets when the Taliban was finally removed from office?

And did most of the Iraqis not celebrate when the evil Saddam was deposed?

I know that things did not turn out very well but aren't the Shiites and the Sunnis causing much of the present killing (of each other) in Iraq at the moment?

And why has Lebanon gone from a Christian to a Muslim majority in recent years?

And TV documentaries have shown that the Taliban were killing women (wearing Burkas) in a public sports ground for adultery and Iran using children as human mine detectors in their war not with the bad old US but with Iraq.

With all the best will in the world it does seem safer to live in Australia or the US or Europe than in almost any Muslim country and that is no doubt why so many Muslims have come here and are enriching our lives.

Unfortunately these wonderful people don't seem to be able to achieve much in the lands of their birth. And don't blame the US for all of their troubles at home Japan and South Korea did OK.

I do not find much to disagree about with logic's post. To the hiddeous practice of children clearing landmines, we can add far larger numbers of children killed or maimed by landmines when a war has long finished. According to one UNICEF report, at least 3000 children are killed each year by this "battlespace shaping" weapon. (http://www.unicef.org/media/media_32034.html, quote from http://ccsweb.pica.army.mil/1networked/spider.htm)

According to the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (http://www.icbl.org), as of May 2005 the countries which continued to manufacture or develop landmines where Burma, China, Cuba, India, Iran, North Korea, South Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam.

Rather than join with the rest of the developed world, the US administration approach is to develop mines which are either networked or have a limited lifespan. Thankfully, the US congress blocked production (http://www.banminesusa.org/news/883_spyder.htm).

But meanwhile, the US President not signing the Landmine Ban gives other regimes the perfect excuse to continue manufacturing persistent mines. Sadly, this means that children will continue to be killed by landmines well into the future.

Oops ... it's that ... "President Bush’s new policy looks forward with vision, breaks new humanitarian ground and makes the U.S. the first major military power to address the key issue of why landmines present a humanitarian problem." (US Landmine FAQ, http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/fs/30050.htm)

Average of 1 child every 3 hours killed.

..and here is really good food for thought...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1867405,00.html

Just one simple question for David Latimer.Which country would you like to have the balance of power in the world today,China,Iran or the USA?

We all agree that the US has a lot of faults,but have they on average over the last 60yrs done more good than evil,and if not,who would have done a better job?

Demonising the US whilst elevating the status of the enemies of democracy,is just pandering to leftist anarchy.The short sighted left see Muslim Facism as the tool to defeat their arch rivals, ie. capitalism;yet the left are content to unleash a philosophy akin to that of the Third Reich which they profess to abhor.

Whilst the US deserves criticism,there comes a time when we all must decide where our true allegiances lie.

When push comes to shove,whose side are you on?

The reason for objecting so strongly Arjay is because listening to the rhetoric of 'Western' leaders - it sounds like we are on a steep, slippery slope to reflecting the cultures you admonish. What Bush does in America ("Leader of the Free World") is likely to be reflected some time soon in other ‘Western’ countries - even if their populations do not agree. Everyone, it seems, must sing from America’s hymn sheet.

Increasingly, many Western governments seem to behave no more differently than the puppet governments we talk about that the US has established over the last 50 years or so in the 'Middle East or South America". Here we should take extra heed – cos we already know, America also undermines and destroys such governments when they step out of line or to support them no longer fits America’s strategic interests.

Bush is already attacking academia at home and his bizarre mix of religion and politics is starting to make America sound and look increasingly like a theocracy... these things are best nipped in the bud. Critics of Bush are not therefore necessarily defending other ideologies - we can criticise both - but I suppose we believe our greatest field of influence is within our own cultures. We are looking to see how we can change ourselves/behaviours in order to relate better to the rest of the world rather than expecting 'the other' to do all the work. Examining ones own actions in a relationship in conflict is the first rule of conflict resolution.

To Bush’s “Christians” out there – this is the equivalent of looking at the log in ones own eye.

We cannot for one minute believe what Marilyn Shepherd posts as she broad brushes her evidence and attributes all violence to white Australians. The spitting on women at Cronulla that motivated the riot and in shopping centres for instance is an assult on Australian citizens done by none other than Muslim men.

Arjay asks: "When push comes to shove,whose side are you on?"

I'm on the side of the children who are at risk of being killed or injured by landmines.

Whose side is Arjay on?

Dear David,you cannot answer a question with a question.
I'll put it another way to suit your sensitive psyche.Should our humanity buckle to the forces of despotism in order to save children from landmines?Would these children be happier under the likes of Saddham or Mugabe?

Millions of people suffered during ww2.Do you think the suffering was worth the feedom you have now to disagree with the likes of John Howard,or should we have less landmines and less freedoms?

It is never that simple and there comes a time when we all have to choose a course of action.

• Kevin Ryan ..."Have you ever-found-yourself caught between several hundred million people and their most cherished lies? After writing a letter to a government scientist, pleading with him to clarify-a-report of his work, I found myself in just that situation. The letter was circulated on the internet and for a brief-time I became a reluctant celebrity. Of course I stand behind what I wrote, although it was originally intended as a personal-message, not an open-letter. Since many have asked for clarification, here is my message to all"!

"To me, the report in question represents a decision-point, not just for the US, but for humanity as-a-whole. We're at a point where we must decide if we will live consciously, or literally give-up our entire reality for a thin veneer-of-lies. In the US these lies include cheap propaganda that passes for journalism, police-state-measures that promise security, and mountains of debt that paint-a-picture of wealth. Additionally we've adopted many implicit self-deceptions, like the idea that we'll always enjoy a limitless share of the world's resources, no matter where these are located or who might disagree".

"All people lie to themselves, it's one of the most important things we've yet to accept about our own nature. We lie to ourselves to justify our-past-actions, to protect our self-image, and to promote ourselves relative to others. This lying is at the root of many of our problems (eg nationalism/racism). Until we see this, and strive to understand if not-control it, the resulting problems will continue unchecked and the outcome will be certain".

"Any organism or society that makes self-deception its modus-operandi will make many bad, and ultimately fatal, decisions. The day will come when we're collectively fooling ourselves in such-a-way that we essentially trade everything we've for what's behind our fantasy curtain. It appears that day is near, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a key-part of our current self-deception. More importantly, this story may be our last chance to see just how critical our situation is so that we can all stop, and begin working together to solve the real problems we face"!

Kevin Ryan ..."These problems, for US and world as a whole, amount to growing storm-of-factors including environmental changes, resource depletion, and growth in resource usage. Undoubtedly secret Energy-Taskforce report (May 2001) would verify this, and help us to understand that our government is responding to some of these threats with a carefully laid-out-plan. This plan assumes that people cannot rise above their own natural, ego-based self-deception, and therefore few-of-us will survive the coming storm".

"In essence, they're betting against us. Anyone who honestly looks at the evidence has difficulty finding anything in the official-story of 9/11 that is believable. It's not just one or two strange twists or holes in the story, the whole thing is bogus from start to end. In my previous job I was in a position to question one part, the collapse of three tall buildings due to fire. But this isn't really a chemistry or engineering problem, and may be best approached initially through statistics".

"The three WTC buildings in question weren't all designed the same way and weren't all hit by airplanes. The only thing they seemed to have in common, relatively small and manageable fires, as indicated by the work of firefighters right up to the moment of collapse. From the government's report we know that only a small percentage of the supporting columns in each of the first two buildings were severed, and that the jet fuel burned off in just a few minutes. To follow the latest 'leading hypothesis', what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell-off in just the right-places, even far from the point of impact"?

"Without much test-data, let's say it's one in-a-thousand. And what are the odds that furnishings converged somehow to supply highly directed forced-oxygen-fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in-a-thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften-in-unison, and give-way perfectly, so that the highly dubious 'progressive global collapse' theory could be born?

Personal decision... http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=557&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

UQ Wire...Underwriter speaks-out on WTC Study... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00177.htm
UQ Wire...9/11 Whistleblower Kevin Ryan fired... http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00239.htm

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link and thus a building is ony as strong as it's weakest floor.The difference between a chain and a building is at that the top floors don't matter.The building that was hit lowest in the attack went down first,since the middle and lower links in a building are under the greatest stress from the weight of the floors above.The conspiricies theories don't cut it.Controlled implosion takes hundreds of strategically placed explosives installed by hundreds of core drilled holes.Did no one notice their installation?

Steel was the primary material of structure in the Twin Towers.Steel has good tensile strenght{or strength due to stretching] but is not good under compression.When one floor was compromised the compression forces were too great and thus they came down like dominoes or a collapsing back of cards.It was not the CIA or the FBI.

Could it be the very people who have boasted about their accomplishments?