i'm not too worried about terrorism. statistically, the danger is less than lightning strike.

the 'anti-terror laws' worry me, oz has no protection from police-state laws of the sort that made life miserable in nazi germany and communist ussr.

what really worries me, is the people who don't stop to ask: "why do terrorists hate us so much?" dubya answered, "because we're so nice and the devil can't stand 'nice'".

americans used to say the native americans were 'red devils'. they attacked the whites out of simple evil. this explanation was more palatable than admitting that stealing their land and massacring those who resisted might have prompted violence.

the situation is pretty much the same now. the yanks have been doing murder retail and wholesale in the middle east since the 1950's, with a view to controlling other peoples land and oil. some of the people who live there are resolved that america and it's lackeys will pay for this clandestine invasion with some casualties and destruction 'on the other foot.'

it's unfortunate that innocent people suffer in a war, but it is a war, and one begun by the west, chiefly the usa.

Boazy: "it is an examination of how woefully wrong 'generous refugee' policy can be, and how dangerous it is"

What utter rubbish. It's an example of an isolated ratbag who was admitted as a refugee to Norway before the rise of Islamism. To use this guy as any kind of argument against a just and humane refugee policy in Australia is just another intellectually dishonest and morally bereft ploy by one of our most rabid xenophobes.

I have bo problem with Blair's sentiments, as related by Foxy. They are indeed just 'commonsense'. However, if this is extended to the kind of xenophobic wedge politics in which Howard has engaged since he became Coalition leader, then it becomes divisive hate politics. Remember Howard's anti-Asianism before the lunar right discovered Islam as its bogeyman of choice?

"My only tempting conclusion is that they have some kind of political, ethnic or religious motive"

You're projecting again, Boazy. Just because you perceive those who are ethnically, culturally or religiously different to you in those terms, doesn't mean those of us who believe in a fair go and a modicum of human compassion share your odious agendas.

Well Hi there CJ....

I see you are being very consistent again.... trying to portray me in your 'projected' way :)

"Odious" agenda.

My only 'agenda' really (aside from the Spiritual) when it comes to refugees and immigration, is that we accept people in a controlled manner.. (i.e. WE (the Government) in control, not some leftoid refugee industry mob or shyster lawyers or the UN.)

As long as we retain control, and we then offer places to people on our terms, with our best interests in mind.. all are welcome.

If you find this 'odious' then I have to re-suggest you have a religious, political or ethnic agenda or all of the above.
I don't think you do really, but it just 'quacks like a duck' you know.

You love to take something I say and then 'project' it into your own fantasy scenario where you imagine I fit some pre-determined structure (of your own invention) and then seek to show it by misrepresenting what I say.

The key words 'Generous' refugee policy were in fact the words which the Norwegians used. The did this AFTER this whacko Krekar was not only allowed in, but was shown to be questionable , but they ran headlong into denial rather than fess up.

You see.. any refugee policy which is generous in 'that' way is also suicidal, which suprise surprise..... is my point.