The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > If only MPs were smarter on terror > Comments

If only MPs were smarter on terror : Comments

By Waleed Aly, published 25/7/2007

The Haneef case highlights the difficulties democracies have in responding to terrorism.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All
1. Why do so many of ou assume that the only choices are the laws we have, and accepting terrorism? It is not a view held by the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Security and Intelligence, nor by the Australian Law Reform Commission. Neither the UK nor even the USA ignore rights to the extent that our Government does.

2. If the police really still believe that every thing is in order in the Haneef case except for the extraordinary invention of role of the SIM card, then there is someting gravely wrong with their investigations, and we should be afraid that their next mistakes will lead to a real terrorist not being investigated.
Posted by ozbib, Thursday, 26 July 2007 9:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the laws in Australia are letting yet another "suspect" roam our streets, what chance do we have when it comes to win the war on terror - go attack yet another country perhaps?

Unless our government find the guts to admit that the direct connection to world terrorism is ISLAM itself, all our efforts are but expensive and futile.

We are fighting the wrong war, with the wrong tools.

All the military successes (dismentelling a few training camps) mean nothing against the real enemy of civilisation : the ideologies of Islam. It (war) reinforces Islam's resolve to "correct" the West of our foolishness... bringing us to the right path under "Allah".

We are allowing the terrorist mentality to prosper in our Mosques, and islamic schools - then we act surprised when it manifests itself in acts of terrorism.

The real war should be directed against the destructive forces within Islam. We must continue to expose their evil teachings to the world - and especially to the followers of Islam.
Posted by coach, Friday, 27 July 2007 8:39:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
punter57,
Now you're just being plain "silly" war and fire have nothing in common except for the fact that people start them. We understand that our troops are trained for warfare and they see it as their duty, and we appreciate having them in their role.

What we don't appreciate is an ultra right wing government putting them in harms way in a political war, another Vietnam, a war that cannot be won. My Dad was a brilliant man, I can't speak for yours. The reality is that Iraq so wanted democracy that they have taken the opportunity to have a civil war with our troops increasing vunerable.

Patriotism is one thing foolish ideology another, much like war and fire really.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 27 July 2007 11:10:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Haneef case is a political witch hunt, a frame up in any sense of the word. This case contains the whole devious ideology of the so called "war on terror." A week after a judge dismissed the case on the flimsiest evidence, now the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has admitted "serious mistakes" and dispensed the "terrorist" case against Mohamed Haneef. Some 500 police and legal eagles were assigned and tasked with a brief to obtain or juice up any evidence that could sustain a “terrorist” charge.
As well, the doctor’s lawyers, spilled the beans by publicly releasing the transcript of a police interview, which showed that the prosecution had misled the court by making serious false allegations against Haneef. To boost Howards plummeting electoral fortunes and justify somehow Howards "war on terror" Howard wanted an innocent man jailed for well over a decade under highest detention security, in effect, throwing away his life and career. It is not that the politicians are dumb on terror but it is their right wing political agenda underway. Terrorist scares are repeatedly whipped up to justify trampling over basic legal and democratic rights. Hicks too was just such a case in point. It took Howard and scores of legal eagles 5years after the fact to cook up some charge that would hold up.
Posted by johncee1945, Saturday, 28 July 2007 6:13:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Punter57,
Sorry about the delay but the direct SMH original link to my reference seems to have disappeared - like this one(a copy of the original)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/011031smhbinladenkidneys

However there a still a couple of references to the same topic here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

and here
http://9-11congress.netfirms.com/Vidal.html

which has a reference here -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4264545,00.html
(which seems interesting compared to the first link)

Also at -
"India Reacts," (June 26) reports that India, Iran, and Russia were talking with American officials, (Powell) about "plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime."

As of October, 2001, the U.S. administration began admitting that they’re not after Bin Laden, so much as they want to get rid of the Taliban; then they’re suddenly willing to include Taliban "moderates", (who were previously only worthy of "no negotiations") in a new, [U.S. controlled] Afghani coalition, (Washington Times, October 9, 2001)

BD,
As for the history of the Gospels, there were originally between 25 and 30 variations. Eventually all but 4 were dropped as they did not fit the intended story, including those of St Barnabas and Peter, Mark and Thomas which all cast a different light on modern teachings.
The authorship of at least John and Luke was decided by Bishop Irenaeus, not by evidence
As for John, some of the stories (eg The famous John 7:53-8:11) appear to have been mysteriously inserted into the text from the earliest versions. Likewise,"the term "Son of God" was originally "Son of Man".
Overall, it is more a political document than a historical one and has been used as such ever since.
Where's your evidence to the contrary?
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 30 July 2007 11:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOBBLES
1/ I'll refer you to higher authority on the gospels.

http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

But HEY... you only responded to my PS... NOT to my main contention, which is very important in terms of this debate.

HOW MANY "Afghans" were invovled in the Bali Bombing ?

You did report that it was "retalliation for the Australians in Afghanistan"

Was it retalliation by 'Afghans' ? or...who? this is a most important issue.
cheers
BD
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 3 August 2007 11:30:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy