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’.