http://www.telisphere.com/~cearley/sean/camps/first.html

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller)

I disagree Sylvia. There needs to be a balance and at the moment I would say that the law and the media favours the wrong doer. It is interesting how, rather like accidents that are never the fault of those involved, terrorists are always said to be innocent and good and noone can ever understand how such nice people could be involved.
I try to think well of all people but I do wonder why we have a problem with terrorists when they are all apparently such nice, ordinary, decent people...just like Saddam and Milosevic and Hitler apparently.

As Sylvia Else says losses to date are not significant in the big picture but I feel the intent to create such suffering is inexcusable. The inclusion of nails and broken glass in these bombs and their use where people mass is enough for me. If they need to go to these lengths to push their agenda then their agenda must be ugly.

Communicate and SILLE,

I have no problem with throwing the book at terrorists. They are undoubtedly evil.

The problem relates to the treatment of people who might not be terrorists. The Government would have us believe that anyone who is accused of being a terrorist really is a terrorist, and should therefore be treated as a terrorist from the day of the accusation (or indeed, from the day of the start of the suspicion).

This is not to say that a suspected terrorist should be treated like anyone else until they are actually convicted, but how much threat can a person be once they're on notice that they're being watched? It's really rather far-fetched to suggest that someone like Dr Haneef, even if he really did have a malign intent against the Australian people, would be able to conduct a terrorist attack in between reporting to the police station each day, and despite being no doubt under surveillance.

We can afford to cut such people some slack, in order to minimise the traumatic effect that false accusations have.

Sylvia.

Sylvia they have not pulled the really big sting off yet.I can think of many ways that they could cripple Sydney with just a small amount of explosives and that does not include the nuclear factor.In fact I'm amazed that it has not happened in Europe or the US already.

The facist side of Islam has been around for centuries and they can afford to play the waiting game,while our attention span is only the length of a movie.It was to be all over in a blink after "Shock and awe" but we Westerners assume too much.It is not just a war of physical violence,it is a war of words and ideas.This war will go on for decades and the way forward is for Muslim communities in Western society to more integrated and accepting of other belief systems.

Hi Sylvia,
I can understand your question and in what context it was meant to be put across as.
Terrorism is a broadly used word, which in actual fact means " lets cause havoc in a way that will confuse everybody" just the same as the reaction you got when you posted this thread! It lead to pure confusion and came across as "How the hell can she ask a silly question like that"?
Terrorism is a nasty word the world over, the way one wages terrorism nowadays is both sickening and cowardly.
Ok,we have bombs going off in crowded places, arsonists doing their bit, but the one type of terrorist that crawls up my nose, is the one that prefers to use chemical warfare. You don't see it, don't smell it and definately do not hear it, you break out in ulcers, blisters, your lungs are on-fire and the next thing, you convulse and die, not a damn thing anyone can do about it, it's sick and so are the people who devise such decadent methods