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.