Still friends Daggett.

That this thread turned from a non partisan discussion of the real risk of terrorism into a partisan debate should tell us something. We've never had a rational public discussion about terrorism or what it means for Australia because there's such a heavy political investment in the issue.

Witness what's happening with Haneef right now - Liberals on the one hand having to defend their prosecution of the case, which gives Beattie the opportunity to be the brave Labor face insisting on transparency and justice.

Sure it's an election year and everybody's out to get whatever mileage they can out of anything - a cat stuck up a tree can become a hot political topic at the moment. But terrorism should never have become the partisan issue that it has. Who do you trust to protect you from terrorists? is a stupid question and should never have been asked or infered.

If it had never been used as a political plaything we could have made some reasonable plans to deal with it. Instead we have the supporters of one side living in irrational fear and supporters of the other side zoomed in on civil liberties. In all likelihood it's the disinterested folk in the middle who are closest to the truth, but rationality isn't a sexy vote winning thing.

Bazz, I did'nt realise that bex still existed, what do you mix with it to calm down ?
After you get back up after your downer you should take time to read the alleged copies of the affidavit and transcript published by the Courier Mail. http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2007/07/070721_haneef/haneef.pdf http://media01.couriermail.com.au/multimedia/2007/07/070721_haneef/affidavit.pdf
You will not realise that the Affidavit was not even used or read on to the record of the so called court of record.
None of the documents are SEALED with the SEAL OF THE MAGISTRATES COURT.
The Transcript is toilet paper, not certified as a true and correct copy of the original transcript or even certified as true and correct as required in accordance with the Recording of Evidence Act or Regulations.
The Affidavit identifies the individual Federal Police Officer as the Complainant, the alleged transcript indicates the CROWN is the complainant, who ever that is. Ramzi Jabbour v Mohamed HANEEF
The Application was not read onto the record of the court, nor was the Affidavit.
The affidavit contained material facts that were false, its alleged to have been sworn on oath.
The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules of the Qld Supreme Court require the Afidavit to be in the first person.
This was not the Queensland Magistrate's Court, a court of record implementing the rule of law, it was the individuals private Court, a person appointed as a Magistrate, Payne J, hearing the matter in dispute in a kangeroo court with the consent of both the parties and sitting in PERSONA DESIGNATAE JURISDICTION, because nobody objected.
Decisions from this fraudulent private court sitting in personae designata jurisdiction can not be appealed.
The hearing to disqualify Tony Morris SC as Royal Commissioner were conducted the same way and our Republican President Beattie stated publicly that the decision of the alleged Supreme Court could not be appealed. This is QUEENSLAND INC Pty Ltd Law, the Qld Legal System conducting legal proceedings, not the judicial system that should exist under the Australian Constitution.
If you do not comprehend any of this, its is no surprise.
Read Kable v The DPP NSW High Court of Australia.

SylviElse, You know what else fits a pattern. Your continuing refusal to discuss my counterpoints. Now I know you don't have any answers.

SilviElse,
I don't want to burst your bubble here, bow out with this thread, you are obviously not in the know about certain issues discussed in this thread, especially since your recent reply to Paul, it was unnecesary and clearly the guy was asking a simple innocent question.

SilviElse,
I don't want to burst your bubble here,but take some friendly advice and bow out with this thread, you are obviously not in the know about certain issues discussed here, especially since your recent reply to Paul, it was unnecesary and clearly the guy was asking a simple innocent question.

Arjay wrote: "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." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=830#14316)

It is hardly news that our cities have become extremely vulnerable, even without the risk of terrorist attack. Environmentalists have been warning about this for decades.

Consider the fact that all of Australia's capital cities are literally running out of water. The 'solutions' offered are desalination, water-recycling, mining of underground aquifers, building of large water pipes to transport water into capital cities from hundreds of kilometers away, community-destroying dams such as the projected Traveston dam (http://www.savethemaryriver.com) etc. As we come to rely on ever more complex technologies, for the provision of basic necessities like water, food and power, and basic services such as transport and health, our society's vulnerability increases.

For food, city-dwellers have become dependent upon complex transport and distribution networks which are dependent upon petroleum, a resource which is finite and the global demand for which is soon expected to exceed the rate of extraction. When this happens, we can expect the cost of our food to rise inexorably (as appears to beginning to happen now) that, is, if our food distribution network does not collapse outright. Does anyone living at the top of a high-rise think about how they they will grow food once the supermarket shelves become bare, and what they will eat - rats, cockroaches, possums whilst waiting for their first crop to grow on some patch of ground not covered over by concrete? I do, constantly.

Rather than give extra power to those who created this mess, I think we need to start to try to fix up our cities so that they are not so vulnerable whether from economic collapse, resource shortage or terrorist attack. A good start would be to 'ruralise' urban areas in order that as much food as possible can be grown on whatever land is still available (see David Holmgren "Retrofitting the suburbs for sustainability" at http://www.energybulletin.net/5104.html)

(tobecontinued)