When you read the paranoid posts that appear here it is no wonder that
the government has been re elected each time when the opposition is
so obviously unbalanced.

This thread has become ridiculous.

Fair enough ruawake.

Thanks for that Bazz.

No need for anyone to be bothered reading all those other paranoid posts now, is there?

Sylvia Else;

Massively interesting take on it all. You're right, of course. I reckon there's only two reasons that these laws are created for the lack of incidents. 1. It all fits political agenda's. I believe the government/intelligence were/are concerned with the lack of availability to what they need to 'do their job'. 2. Terrorism is winning. They have succeeded in taking away many of our civil liberties that should be guaranteed in our society. Where does it end?...

I just thought of another option. The government are REKNOWNED for reaction, as opposed to proaction. That habit of the government is being played by all sides. Actions to prevent something is taken after the incident everytime. They are always behind the game.

Thanks for voicing logic.

Hey Dagget. Can we get back to the real issues instead of avoiding it as you guys have so far managed to do. Let me do you the courtesy of responding to your argument first. We’ll see if you have the courage to reciprocate.

I would like to see who, where and when the Pentagon said that terrorism is not as great a risk as Global Warming. IF someone, among the thousands of pentagon staff, suggested that Global Warming was more important than terrorism it is my bet that this is the only time you will ever use the Pentagon to back up your argument. I think that you are cherry picking. I don’t believe for a second that the Pentagon is more worried about Global Warming, and it’s not what they are paid for.

I do think more resources should be put towards managing the risks that global warming entails.

Again, if terrorism is to be judged upon the numbers of people affected, which is what you and Sylvia Else are suggesting, then the issue of anti terror legislation is also irrelevant since far fewer people have been affected by it. And the scope of their suffering pales into insignificance when put beside the victims of terror.

The importance of both issues is their potential to affect very large numbers of people. You are worried about the potential of these laws to curtail the rights of individuals. I say to you that there is a more important right that also has to be addressed, that is to go about your business without being killed dead.

As for the danger of Terrorism, I really don’t think it is for you to decide what level of risk is represented by terrorists. I recommend to you, that you talk to the victims of the Bali bombings to see whether the danger is real or not. I am sure you would have said it was ridiculous to suggest that terrorist were infiltrating pilot training schools in order to highjack planes and fly them into the WTC, Pentagon etc.

Daggett, I generally lean leftish but that doesn't mean I support high immigration.

The resources and sustainability arguments you make are familiar, but my argument is social.

Personally I don't have a problem with migrants and find cosmopolitan far more interesting than the monocultural suburbs of my youth, but many people are clearly unhappy it. When immigration was kept at a reasonable level people had time to get used to the new faces and the new faces had time to settle in before the next batch arrived. Now it's relentless and a lot of people are afraid of being overrun. That can't be good for social cohesion.

It's doubly irresponsible for a government to set immigration rates so high, then use the dog whistle as a political strategy. Combine that with the withdrawal of various social services for migrants and infrastructure neglect and we have a mess on our hands.

Haneef strikes me as one more example of what happens when people with foreign faces are used for political purposes.