Of course the threat is overblown. That's been quite clear for some time. The problem is, people seem to be voting for the best scaremongerer.

There is of course the alternative argument which I'm sure will be expressed here - a terrorist attack could kill many, and isn't one enough?

Fair point - though perhaps if we hadn't been such keen participants in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, we would be a much less likely target than the US.

It may sound callous, to simply leave the US to be attacked without rendering assistance, and it is. But however much they may claim they were forced into action on Iraq, it just wasn't so. Now they've had to admit that their war their has made the terrorist situation worse, and it's getting harder and harder to justify this war in the first place (and here I thought not finding WMD's was bad enough).

Quite frankly, on my list of fears, terrorism ranks somewhere just below bee sting, and somewhere just above aggressive telemarketers, placing it at about... 63rd.

Way below the prevalence of car accidents, or the drive to privatise government assets.

Considering the incredibly low odds of being caught up in a terrorist attack, particularly in Australia, I'm more concerned about the real threats of peak oil, water scarcity, over-population and global warming.

No other aspect of the bogus War on Terror better illustrates illicit profiteering than the so-called free enterprise "security industry". It should be called the "insecurity industry", to better illustrate the sheer Orwellian nature of it's methods.

9-11 was the starter's gun for the security lice to go forth and multiply. Vast fortunes have since been garnered in the US and Iraq. This is because some of the principal players were involved in the destruction of the WTC - and had lined themselves up for a share of the cake under the Homeland Security Act. The Homeland Security Act was conceived long , long before 9-11.

Like dishonest glaziers, they break windows by night and charge a fortune for shabby repairs by day.

There is no better illustration of this than the London tube bombings. On the very day, the chief security consultant, Peter Powers admitted that they were practising that very scenario, when it suddenly went "live".

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3770877779111334563&q=london+bombing

London Commissioner of Transport Bob Kiley was ex-CIA.

Coincidentally, ex-NY Mayor Giuliani was in London that day. He had started his own security company after 9-11.

* * *

Once these forces are unleashed, the flow of money and profit takes no account of friend or foe. There are only populations to be frightened - then fleeced.

TRTL,

You have hit the nail on the head, but I fear you have yet to make the conncection that myself and Chris Shaw have made, that the security threat is not merely exaggerated and exploited, it is manufactured covertly, (this does not apply to all terrorsit acts)so that it CAN be exploited.

Just look at the evidence surrounding 9/11, there is an extraordinary number of anomalies that suggest US govt. complicity in those attacks, its a tough line to swallow I know but once you've looked the events of that day closely and though about, I think you will wonder how you ever bought 'man in a cave' rubbish

O.K., people, so YOU know all this and I know all this and anyone who has ever heard of the "divide and conquer" ethos know this - but how does one convince the amorphous mass of the great Australian public whose views are shaped - yes, Orwellian-style - through commercial media?

I have long thought that it should be just as viable to be able to lodge complaints regarding the spread of panic by witless tv "personalities", as it is to register complaints regarding sexism or ageism or any other ism.

The day after the London bombings Alpha Male Koshie on a morning T.V. show described how, as soon as he had heard the news he telephoned one of his daughters not to catch the bus home that evening but to take a taxi - "Well, as a parent, y'know..." he tailed off sheepishly; thus gaining instant empathy from countless other parents who immediately began to feel it was part of their parental duty also to warn their offspring that deep in the heart of terror cells dark plans were being laid to annhiliate their little Rebecca or Matthew on the number 2 bus to whichever suburban outpost they inhabited.

People who never pick up a book or a newspaper live their lives to the background of such senseless droning from either t.v. or radio which, allied to the mushrooming of companies mentioned above, I think contributes to this risible public perception.

I also consider it far more scary that young Rebecca or Matthew is far more at risk from suicide than from terrorism, in a country that leads the world in suicide rates in the the under 30 age bracket. Perhaps if the poor kids didn't spend their lives embroiled in unnecessary stresses like the so-called terrorist threat they would not find life so frightening or hopeless that they considered it preferable to end rather than live it?

I don't know what the risk of terrorism is and I doubt many do. Maybe it's less because those whose job it is to work against it are successful, eg the recent plot to blow up airplanes. Maybe there is little terror threat or activity.

However there is another element that needs to be considered: regret. There is a fairly high 'risk' of getting caught if I speed in my car. But thre regret is low: I cop a fine. There is a fairly low risk if I speed in my car of having a crash but the regret is high: I might cop a death (mine or anothers).

The risk of global warming is very high: it will happen, the regret is low to me. It'll mostly happen outside my lifetime and future population will mosty like adapt to it anyway.

I think with terrorism we are lucky that terrorists, at least the international ones seem to like iconic events where the risk to the rest of us is low but have a high regret if we are in the building, train, plane or nightclub.

My fear of terrorists is a dozen people with lighters and cars, on a high fire risk day, at the bushy edges of one or more of our capital cities. Maybe the risk of that happening is very low but the regret will be tremendous and to possibly thousands of people.

I know it's human nature to downgrade events that haven't happened (especially to 'us') but to say such events won't happen is foolishness. Just ask the commuters in Spain.

Been saying it forever

PeterJH,
I don't think any of us are saying it won't or couldn't happen. Of course it could. But I think we are all objecting to the disproportionate measures that are taken against terrorism as compared with the on-going mortality or injury rate from existing social concerns.

The death toll from a bomb in a train in England or Spain IS horrific but so is the death toll from a train derailment on a Sydney or Indian commuter train. All of which events have happened. But by fixing our fear on some unknown terrorist threat instead of a derailment when we board a train we are not putting pressure on Government to raise and maintain ordinary railway safety standards.

The people who die in a muliple highway pile-up are just as dead as the same amount of people who die from a terrist bomb - yet instead of regarding the one as requiring instant new lawswe are being guided to focus all our empathy for the victims or relatives of the other.

On a personal level: how many people do you know who have either been in, or are related to a person who has been involved in a serious car accident? And how many people do you personally know who have been involved in or are related to someone who has been involved in a terrorist attack? So why are we not all up in arms against drunk driving laws or the state of our roads, or driving without a licence...or any of the many factors involving car accidents that could and should be addressed?

If one holds all life as valuable why privilege loss of life from one cause over another? More importantly, I think what most of us are also saying is that while Government is constantly braying over the steps it has taken on the war on terror, the focus is taken from areas where it is not taking acceptable measures such as road safety, suicide rates, highway maintenance, hospital care and all the other empiric contributing causes for unnaceptably high mortality rates.

There used to be Reds under every bed, now we have a terrorist threat.

The conservatives in Australia have always used fear campaigns as diversions and to win elections. Howard is just as adept at playing on voters' base emotions such as fear, greed, envy as any previous coalition government.

Conservative governments have never been afraid to trample over individual rights or shed blood (not theirs, yours) to stay in power.

What about the Fourth Estate? Well the Oz media is as complicit in the scaremongering as ever, have a look back at the media whipped up hatred against defenceless students during the days of Vietnam.

Fair go Romany. A bomb goes off in the London underground and you want info; who are you going to tune into? Will it be one of those DJs on FM without a surname – someone like Simmo on FM BANG who just happens to have the latest rap tune lined up ready to play? Or will it be an information outlet?

Just when are you and Chris going to launch that airline. You know the one…the planes are flown by pilots who are not endorsed to fly the aircraft type; there is no security check; you don’t have to bear any resemblance to the photo in your passport – you could in fact be a male traveling on a female’s passport; your aircraft are not subjected to any airworthiness inspections; and, other slip-shod practices and policies aimed at relieving the irrational fear of the public. Don’t stand near the boarding gates as I’m sure you’ll get knocked over in the rush.

Don't rely on Chris though because he'll be picked up by uncle Phil's secret police any day now. Or at least that is his hope.

Romany

I take your point and agree with it. Many times more people will die this year from smoking related diseases than from almost any other form of social activity, including all illicit drugs combined.

Where I differ from you is this: we try to stop people from smoking; we try to stop train derailments by safety regulation; we try to stop deaths in motor vehicle crashes (that we mostly call accidents). Isn't it why flying is the safest form of travel because essentailly most of the bugs have been worked out? Shouldn't we also try to prevent terrorist events, even though they may be unlikely? Would you fly in a plane if you were told that only two of the three safety systems were working beacuse it was unlikely any would be needed? At this point I can hear keys being tapped to tell me that such an event would be a personal risk to which I'd say: and terrorism isn't?

Isn't that the paradox: that if we don't work against any unwanted event it will (perhaps) happen? We shouldn't be obsessed with terrorist threats but we shouldn't ignore them either.

I hate the way we treat others because of fears of terrorism. Hicks and others held without trial; cameras popping up everywhere; books banned; the fears (as the article mentioned) being fuelled by a growing industry. To this extent the terrorists have won.

I'll rest on this point: I remember back when the AIDS was still an unknown and unquantifable threat (could you get it from toilet seats? food in restaurants? etc) and to their credit the health authorities moved to change our personal practices and took lots of flack for it (ironically from those who would go overboard with anti-terrorist fears now). We could have just said its a problem for the gay community, as the US mostly did. Perhaps we over reacted but Australia now has one of the lowest incidents of AIDS in the world.

The heading of the article was "Is the terrorist threat overblown?" To which I'd offer perhaps: but whose to know?

While politicians do exploit the fear of terrorism I think Katherine (through her ignorance of terror activity in Australia) has provided a poorly balanced view. She could have mentioned actual activity:

Faheem Khalid Lodhi (also know as Abu Hamza. b. 1969/70, Pakistan). He is a Pakistani-Australian architect and the first convicted (June 2006) Australian terrorist.

Lodhi who was born in Pakistan immigrated to Australia in 1996 and obtained Australian citizenship. Based at Sydney Lodhi is an architect by profession.

Convicted by the New South Wales Supreme Court jury in June 2006 on three out of four counts of terrorism, Lodhi was on August 22 2006 sentenced to maximum 20 years prison time, with a 15 year no-parole time and minimum 15 years to be served.

The conviction is the first under a new set of stricter anti-terrorism laws enacted by the Australia Government in 2005. The three charges he is convicted on are:

1) Preparation for terrorist attack, by seeking information for the purpose of constructing explosive devices – carrying a maximum sentence of life in jail.

2) Seeking information and collecting maps of the Sydney electricity supply system and possessing 38 aerial photos of military installations in preparation for terrorist attacks – maximum sentence: 15 years jail.

3) Possessing terrorist manuals detailing how to manufacture poisons, detonators, explosives and incendiary devices - maximum sentence: 15 years jail.

Lodhi received 15 years on the first count and 10 years on the second and third, which are to be served concurrently.

His possible targets were the national electricity supply system, and three Sydney defense installations; the army base Victoria Barracks, Sydney naval base HMAS Penguin and army training area Holsworthy Barracks.

At the ruling Justice Anthony Whealy commented that Lodhi had “the intent of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause, namely violent jihad” and to “instil terror into members of the public so that they could never again feel free from the threat of bombing in Australia.”

Lodhi who is classified as a high security ‘AA’ prisoner will be eligible for parole in 2019.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

Carl you're right to point out so much of the threat is manufactured. It's what allows incumbent governments to remain in power.

But don't worry. Uncle Johnny will take care of us.

I thought the whole point of "terrorism" was to make people fearful, disproportional to the "real threat". (asymetrical warfare).

It seems that the "terrorists" are succeding.

All governments are damned if they do and damned if they don't, I feel safe though, I have a fridge magnet. :)

Sage & Peter JH

Those posts suggest that in the sense of resource management, taking precautions against terrorism is the same as safety measures on trains and such - we take the safety precautions, so why shouldn't we try to stop terrorism correct?

This is a reasonable conclusion, though I tend to view it more in terms of scale. We have so many dollars and we can put so much in each measure.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything to prevent terrorism - sure, we keep the airline checks and we keep our eyes peeled for bombs.

The issue I have, is spending billions in wars that are theoretically supposed to protect us from terrorism. I'd say, if we're going to take anti terrorism measures, we should start at home. Or at least, shores closer to home. And we should be willing to consider that perhaps an approach at the end of the gun-barrel is going to piss more people off than it will subdue.

The other issue I have, is western governments shouting Boo! Terrorists! in the lead up to each election. Both sides are going to take basic precautions against terrorists, the reality of western politics these days demands them to. The political fallout in the event of an attack would be too extreme for them not to.

So if you're both going to deal with terrorism in whatever way, then fine. Be quiet.
I'd rather hear about what a proposed government plans to do differently than which one is tougher on terror. Sheesh.

We have had Islamics target us twice at Bali. So I believe we must be alert. Also alarmed if the government keeps allowing unsuitable migrants in who will not understand our ways.
We lived with the fear of invasion during WW2 ,but we never had the danger of Japanese as our neighbours.
If the government is dinkum about security, we should be pleased and make sure they keep it up. Don't kid yourself by thinking it could never happen to you.

The Guardian published a map of "terror" attacks on September 11 this year.

It shows that including the WTC attacks there have been a total of 4,319 people killed by "terr'ists" in 33 attacks all over the world.

Minus the WTC the total is 1429 in Tunisia, Karachi, Yemen, Bali, the Philipines, Mombassa, Riyadh, Morocco, Istanbul, Madrid, Bangladesh, London, Delhi and Amman with most in Karachi.

Constrast that to the "legitimate" war zones the west has created since that time - conservative numbers.

Iraq - 50,000, Afghanistan 17,500, Israel/Palestine - 4,234, Lebanon 1347, Somalia - 4,450, Philipines - 1158, Chechnya - 12,479, Turkey - 1474.

In other words more people were killed in Turkey alone since September 11, using that as an excuse, than in all the "terror" attacks in all the world since.

Of course the deluded US include the "terror" attacks by the resistance in Iraq in their numbers bringing it up to 19,000 according to the cheer squad in the media.

The cost of our war on terror is $2 trillion. And the so-called plane hijacking threat was a hoax according to a long investigation and the "ring Leaders" seem to be MI5 double agents. Fancy that.

There are plenty of historical examples of the usefulness of over-playing terrorism. Goering, looking to consolidate the Nazi’s power in 1933, said: “I know two sorts of men: those who are with us and those who are against us”; and referred to “communist terrorism”.

Ataturk claimed that the 1925 Turkish “Maintenance of Order Law” had “given to all government officials the task of preventing an incident before it happens” and was necessary to repress “those who create confusion in the innocent mind of the nation”. Independence Tribunals, which did not require proof, passing sentences on the basis of “considered opinion”, executed people who opposed Ataturk. One of Ataturk’s critics, Cavit was executed, even though one of Ataturk’s admirers later admitted that “Cavit was not a revolutionary terrorist…. He was patriotic and honest. His only defect was arrogance”.

Following the attempt on his life in 1800, Napoleon said that the actions of the “terrorists …gives us an opportunity for the action we propose to take. It is our duty to profit from the present feeling of indignation”. He then decreed a crack-down on dissent.

Stalin consolidated power in the 1930’s with many people being accused under article 58 of the criminal code concerning “terrorist acts aimed at representatives of the Soviet regime” and/or under the so-called Kirov law on “terrorist organizations and terrorist acts”. Former Politburo members Bukarin and Rykov were accused of being involved with “criminal terrorist” and “right terrorist” groups – and eventually executed. Ordinary workers were executed, without any evidence, for “intention to commit terrorist sabotage”.

Laws against “terrorism” are often introduced in haste, and under the cover of an event – which may be “terrorist” – but which is then hyped-up and distorted to create popular fear. As a famous Soviet miner wrote: “When the (“terrorist”) trials took place ………we immediately demanded that they be shot. Even the women in our settlement, who had never been interested in politics, clenched their fists when they heard what the papers said. The old folk and the young all demanded that the bandits be destroyed.”

mickijo

You really should get over your hatred of Islam and Indonesia.

Indonesia has the 4th largest population of any country at 222,781,000 but it has the 110th per capita GDP at $4,458 per year.

Ever think that poverty may be related to terror?

The country has extensive natural resources outside Java, including crude oil, natural gas, tin, copper, and gold. Indonesia is the world’s largest LNG producer, exporting about 20% of the world’s total volume in 2002. In 2005, the income from exports was $83.64 billion.

Indonesia is a diverse country not without its ethnic tensions, particularly between Indonesians of Chinese ethnicity and the pribumi peoples, who are considered natives of Indonesia, "Non-Pribumi" people are not always considered entirely Indonesian. The riots in Jakarta in 1997 and 1998 highlight this recurring tension. Ethnic relations are strained mostly due to a perception that the Chinese community is too rich relative to the Pribumis.

The Bali bombings were not attacks on "us" they were attacks against capitalist greed.

Can the threat be overrated?
Of course not! How else will the self intent, desirous of a place in the new history of Australia be assured of that place?
If such people really thought there was a threat, realising the our current and past actions act may be contributing , they would seek to find out what the grievance is.
But no apparently accepting the truncated reports even propaganda of the Americans, as revealed by the Rycroft memo to which if not party the government was knowledgeable, we went to war provoking later increased terrorist action. Even in Lebanon when the media as usual gave truncated incomplete biased reports the Prime Minister was quoted as dismissing the events as being of Hezbollahs making.
No, other agenda ruled for which terrorist threat ,which was and is real, is used to create conditions in which power is maintained.
At the price of 100,000 plus Iraqi lives we shelter under the American wing.
Truman refused the overthrow of Mossadegh, Eisenhower allowed the Dulles brothers to have their way,. Then as in Iraq hate, terrorism followed a consequence of meddling in other people affairs.
Something akin to a court of law like the UN may have been able to limit our creature Saddam to more reasonable behaviour.
Perhaps mindful of the many coups since from Guatemala on, the should know betters, as in 1953 decided otherwise.
This time even the possible but improbable Soviet threat was gone.

4,000 people die in the US So we spend a trillion dollars and kill tens of thousands in response.

1,000,000 die in Rwanda and we blame the UN. Hundreds of thousand threatened in the Sudan and we blame the UN.

Draw your own conclusions.

Interesting, Untutored Mind, that you mention the overthrow of Irans fledgliing democracy in 1953, and its western educated and anti communist Mossadegh . You can view the details of this at http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm . This film was released at the recent 911 scholars symposium a couple of months ago in L.A

The left in our communities are using Muslim Facism as a tool to overthrow the present democratic status quo.You do not measure the danger by the explosions.The bombs are just a ploy to get our attention.The real war is psychological.The Facists are playing a long term war of attrition.Our short term media driven memories need to be fed constantly to verify our fears.

The US got sucked into Iraq by the Facists.This ia exactly what they wanted.The US desperately needs another terror attack at home to maintain the momentum of this war,so the Facists will continue to goad them abroad.They know that the US public with their Hollywood attention spans do not have the stomach for protracted conflicts.
These facists have immigrated to every Western on the planet and they only have the play the waiting game of niggling social,economic and political unrest,whilst using our own democracies against us.

Just watch as the first European countries slowly undergo a slow metamorphisis to placate the violent Muslim Facists.The Bush administration are fools since they do not have long term strategies to combat their opponents.They have been watching too many of Arnold's movies.

The Facists know that they will win in the end,because we do not have the stomach for a fight.The politics of violence and confusion has worked form them for centuries.It is not good for prosperity but gives power to a few lunatics.

This article only bears witness to that reality by only measuring the threat as purely physical,rather than the slow destruction of our democracies from within.

An interesting article.

George W. recently said at a press conference that the "war on terror" was a war for "civilisation itself". This is precisely what the Hawks would have us believe.

The 3000 deaths on September 11, the 202 killed in Bali, the 56 people killed in London and the 191 people killed in Madrid are all terrible tragedies. However, they in no way imperiled civilisation itself. While I would be quick to regect any notion that these attacks weren't horrible, did not bring any of the target countries to their knees.

Terrorism can only destroy "civilisation" (and by civilisation, I think Dubya was refering to Western Civilisation) if we in the west let out lives be ruled by the fear of it. The respect for civil liberties is one of the greatest strengths of western civilisation.

We must stop looking over our shoulders in fear and start looking forward. We must find practical ways to defeat terrorism, by reducing poverty, mediating and solving long held grudges and disputes, and by leading by example, rather than entering into morally reprehensable wars.

I'm terrified that terrorism is being used as an excuse by politicians to white ant our democratic rights, which, of course, is exactly what the terrorists want.

As I have said before these arent terrorist attacks they are territorial attacks.

. Its over control of a land or country. Its tribal warfare. The American involvement is a side issue.

• Territorial dogfight between Israelies and Arabs in the MIDDLE EAST.
• Territorial fight over control of IRAQ by the Sunnis and the Shiites
• Territorial fight over control of AFGHANISTAN by the Taliban from Pakistan
• Territorial demands for separatist state by the muslim CHECHYNIANS in Russia
• Territorial massacre of one tribe by the other in RWANDA (because they feared the build up of numbers of the other tribe.
• Territorial massacre of the muslims in BOSNIA by the white Serbians
• Territorial massacre of the part Portugese EAST TIMORESE by the Inodensian militia
• Attacks by the Muslims Jindaweed tribe against the Sudanese in SUDAN
• Territorial massacre between two tribes in SOMALIA
• Territorial attacks on the Chinese areas, that drove the Chinese out of the SOLOMONS.
• IRA ( Irish Catholic tribe) wages bloody terrorist (territorial) attacks against the British Protestant Tribe for control of IRELAND
• Territorial massacre of one millions Muslims for control of TURKEY by the Turks
• Territorial massacre of 6millions Jews by the Germans to keep control of GERMANY.
• Territorial attack on AUSTRALIA by the Japanese.
• Territorial disposession of The AMERICAN Indians by the white settlers.
• Territorial dispossession of the ABORIGINES by the white settlers
• Ganghis Khan took every country he could take with his armies
• The Romans took every territory they could, that’s why they like the British were so wealthy.
Judging by history I’d say our chances of a terrorist(territorial) attack is bound to happen if not now then a decade or so down the track.

Carl and Chris

someone here has alertly pointed out something I was not aware of.

September 11 1683 was the date when Islamic Ottoman armies were finally STOPPED at the gates of Vienna.

September 11 2001 was the date when "Islamic Armies of Al Qaeda" started to push back the other way.

Only a Muslim would see the symbolism of this to the point of chossing such a date I believe. One well versed in Islamic history.

I'm looking at starting my own martial arts self defense school :)
But it will be free. Unless I have to charge to simply eat.

I see the of a terrorist attack, as a distinct possibility, BUT... there is a much bigger danger. Any such attack emboldens young dissillusioned Muslim males, and makes them think they CAN change things by being involved in such violence and mayhem, when you add to this volatile ingredient, exposure to propoganda videos of attacks on Allied forces in Iraq, and graphic depictions of 'Muslim martyrs, including women and children, and rant on about the 'inhumane oppression of Muslims in Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq and Afghanistan, we then have a much more explosive social situation.

It could lead to many little or big 'Cronulla's' a polarization of our society, and utlimately a breakdown of our stability.

BD,

I take your point about the violent propaganda videos, they are indeed disturbing.

Otttoman forces had been forced to retreat from Austria a number of times, around a hundred years before that I believe (sorry I don’t have my history books on me at the moment, but I have studied that period before), there were many significant battles between the Ottomans and the Habsburgs, in Malta, North Africa, Greece, the struggle for supremacy in the Mediterranean went on for decades, you could probably pick any of the 365 dates and there is bound to have been some sort of significant gain or setback for the Islamic cause during this period.

However, if you are into strange coincidences, why is it that you bring this one to our attention, but not others, such as:

Three months before 9/11 NORAD regulations were changed so that authorisation of shooting down hijacked aircraft rests only with the defence secretary, VP or Pres. Previously Commanders could authorise such actions.

Multiple anti-Terrorism drills being conducted on 9/11 left the East Coast of the US unguarded and FAA officials confused as to whether or not the reports they heard of hijacked aircraft were real or simulated.

The US response to 9/11 fits in almost exactly with Cheney’s, Rummy’s and Wolfowitz plan for the Middle East as spelled out in the Project for the New American Century’s document, ‘rebuilding Americas Defenses’

You know that I could go on and on BD, I suggest for a clearer picture you set aside your anti-Islamic prejudices before weighing up this evidence though. Good luck with your martial arts class, it’s a great way to keep fit

While I'm quite prepared to believe a wide variety of allegations against President Bush, and my opinion of him is pretty damn low, I still can't bring myself to believe there was US complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

There are a few basic reasons - the first and foremost being that it isn't really necessary for the US to create their own attacks. The islamic world has been pushed into that quite sufficiently over the past few centuries. Why force it when you wait, these events will come to you?

Secondly - no motive on practical terms.
No motive! I can hear the indignation now. Yes, on the bare surface of it, there are plenty of reasons why an atmosphere of terror has helped the bush campaign. They wouldn't still be in power without it - fair enough.

But on a practical level - Bush has money, he has power. In his day to day life, there is no real reason for him to extend this power. Now you can argue that he's a megalomaniac, intent on increasing his power, but I guess it comes back to a personal belief of mine that nobody is out for power simply for power's sake. They may do it for how power makes them feel, or power allows them to pursue another agenda.
I think Bush is at the stage where additional power won't really make him feel much different, and while he may have expansionist christian beliefs, I think he'd have to compromise those in order to participate in even a tacit approval of the 9/11 attacks.

Yeah, he's compromised them before in terms of war profiteering and so forth, but to be honest, I can't see him doing that. I'm sure there's plenty of suggestive evidence out there that indicates he may have been involved, but hey... there's plenty for the Kennedy assassination too, and that was decades ago.

Does anyone on the right cheer squad ever question anything beyond their own certainty?

Many are completely certain that Israel is a beacon of decency and humanity, a nation that would not legalise torture or home demolition - it was all the fault of the arabs who weren't in control of the land anyway. Except that when someone puts the facts together as Norman Finkelstein did last year in Beyond Chutzpah it is clear that Israel has never once wanted a moment of peace - they just want every arab on the face of the earth to be expunged. Every time Palestine agrees to peace they invade and slaughter more of them and then whine that the Palestinians are violent.

Israel is the only "democracy" where the defence forces can do whatever they like when they want to no matter who gets killed or hurt.

Everything the Israelis say about the Palestinians is the reverse of the reality.

Ditto the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq that is peddled as righteous by the Bushies.

TurnRightThenLeft,
raised some points I'll address Firstly, Bush is as much a christian as he is a cowboy(all hat, no cattle), or a conservative for that matter. He comes from a family of blue blood carpetbaggers.And the clash of civilisations (they hate our freedoms bull type of thing) being promoted is just as phony . They hate our freedom so much Bush has decided to join Al Queda and evicerate the constitution, endorse torture and warrantless wire tapping(which they've been doing for years, now its just admissable in court), and end Habeus Corpus, etc, You said ' no motive on practical terms' regarding the chimp in charge being complicit in the 911 attacks. The chimp is a figurehead. Sure, he sh!t himself when asked to front the 911 whitewash, and only agreed to answer questions if Cheney held his hand and it was in secret and no notes were to be taken. He emerged with Cheney from his 'grilling' stating that he actually enjoyed it. But Bush can't even go for a pee without asking permission.
In the late 90's there was a think tank called The Project for a New American Century. And they produced a paper called Rebuilding Americas Defences. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm. In it they called for US hegemony in the middle east. But it would be a slow process absent some Pearl Harbour type event. Among the authors of this strategy for US hegemony were the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz,Rumsfeld, Perle.
So there's your motive. Zbigniew Brezinski wrote in his book ,Grand Chessboard, that democracy at home was a detriment to empire abroad. So there is a clue to a police state agenda.
Are there terrorists? Of course there are. They've been around even before future Israeli PM Begin's terrorist group Irgun blew up the King David Hotel 60 years ago which killed nearly a hundred people. Netanyahu (sp?)recently gave a speech at a celebration of the 60th anniversary of the attack stating that 'We must not confuse terrorists with freedom fighters'.We live in a terrorist wonderland of fundamentalists, patsies, false flag operations, and state terrorism.

Marilyn have you ever considered that there are grey areas where there are wrongs perpetrated by both sides of the debate.

Just answer one simple question.Who will secure the world's oil supplies better than the USA? You rant about injustice but do not address the calamity that will befall the entire planet if Europe,China, Japan,India,USA and Australia are denied energy that provides our basic necessities such as food and transport?You see the USA in many ways are doing the dirty work of many nations who take the high moral ground just like you.

Start looking at the mosaic of the entire blossom,instead of being the selective petal plucker of facts to massage your vision of how reality should operate.Just pulling at the heart strings of injustice,does not solve our problems.

Sorry for the last abbreviated post. Only 350 words permitted.No more than 2 posts per article in any given 24 hour period.
Which makes this site more a place for short opinions than a place for a discussion.
Just want to add, God bless America and its constitution and Bill of rights. Because the puppet Bush won't.
Toss.

Thanks Toss, word

TurnRightTurnleft

Sorry to harp, but I’m not going to give up on you yet.

Indeed, you have underestimated the motive. The US is the most powerful nation on earth, but that won’t last forever without one thing, oil. China understates its military expenditure significantly; both they and Russia are better located for access to the remaining oil reserves. Forget terror, the cold war is still well alive, a permanent military presence on China’s Western Border and around the Caspian sea is fundamental to pax Americana. For an excellent analysis watch this

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q=

To hear it straight from the horses mouth check out, http://www.newamericancentury.org

Ok, so there’s of plenty evidence to suggest motive but who would ever think of doing such a thing? Well, Lyman Lemnitzer , Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Kennedy considered it. And its not conspiracy rubbish, it is documented fact, declassified at the Washington archives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

On the subject of Bush, many in the 9/11 truth movement believe he may be totally in the dark, he is a moron remember. But I suggest you look at some of Cheney and Rumsfelds older foreign policy speeches, they are nuts, but I think they truly believe in their cause.

Now, if you wish to join the 9/11 religion you must recite the holy verse, a verse that after you get sucked in, you will know off by heart.

“The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catalysing and cataclysmic event, like a New Pearl Harbour” –PNAC

Maybe Muslim countries are suffering overpopulation from not having a birth control system . That allied to the fact that they have huge unemployment problems would lead to a great deal of unrest that only they can fix. Poverty and overpopulation go hand in hand.
The Americans should stop electing rich men's sons as Presidents.A leader should know more about how the world gets on. George Bush jnr hasn't got a clue.
What a strange world .

Well for starters your analysis treats terrorism as if it were a natural phenomenon, without human agency, like lightning strikes.

I cannot think of any war that has been ended or won by lunatics treating the killing as if it were a natural phenomenon....... Can you Kath?

Just pretend its like lightning strikes and it will go away?

The other thing is that you are looking at how many attacks we are getting and taking the statistics WITHOUT REGARDS FOR OUR CURRENT COUNTER-TERRORISM EFFORTS.

So whilst you are not a libertarian in any other area you want us to take a libertarian approach to war. And pretty much only try to chase the terrorists after the fact.

Or at least it looks like it. Which means of course that you want Australians dead. And I figure you don't take the public transport too often.