Today's "anti-terrorist" raids

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Does anyone ever stop to think WHY these people hate the Western countries?

Perhaps it has something to do with our collective domination of other countries, stealing their resources and pushing Christianity where it is not welcome.

Just stop and think for a moment about how much of government policy is basically aimed at pushing "Christian" values. Hardly tolerant of a diverse culture now is it? And we wonder why others hate us.

By the way, I have nothing against Christians but Christian fundamentalism, like any fundamentalism, is arrogant in the extreme and yet that's exactly what the Australian, US and UK governments are pushing. How often do we hear about "family values" which is usually just a means of pushing a Christian viewpoint in disguise.

Since when did government properly have a role in such matters as religion anyway? Isn't it for each individual to decide? Meanwhile we wonder why other religious fundamentalists hate us. Not hard to work it out...

Get away from religion, get away from oil and get out of foreign countries (even if it hurts our beloved economy) and in all probabilty we wouldn't have had terrorists in the first place. Now we're stuck with a problem of our own making. We stamped all over a wasp nest and no we're being chased down the street by a swarm of angry wasps. Hardly surprising.

Ever stopped to think how many developed countries DON'T have problems with terrorists? Ever wonder why they're targeting Australia and not New Zealand? Think about it...

Those are our Christian values you are trashing here mate!

We have rights in this country like the immigrants do. We have a secular christian culture; anything wrong with that? No, just like immigrants we have our own values and religion. Government and religion are not connected, but our politicians have values based on what they were brought up on. If you hate Australians so much feel free to leave and go to a handout nation. But guess what, you won't find one out there because it is all here - freedom, welfare, work, the ASX. Yes it's all here for you to enjoy though trashing it is the theme of the times.

Snake

 

[ghotib]

... a secular christian culture...

I don't understand that. What's "secular christian"?

Thanks,

Ghoti

 

[Smurf1976]

Those are our Christian values you are trashing here mate!

We have rights in this country like the immigrants do. We have a secular christian culture; anything wrong with that? No, just like immigrants we have our own values and religion. Government and religion are not connected, but our politicians have values based on what they were brought up on. If you hate Australians so much feel free to leave and go to a handout nation. But guess what, you won't find one out there because it is all here - freedom, welfare, work, the ASX. Yes it's all here for you to enjoy though trashing it is the theme of the times.

Snake

Until very recently Australia was NOT based on fundamentalist Christian (or any other religious) values but rather the concept of decency and a fair go for all. Religion played a part but not religious fundamentalism.

It is our political "leaders" and not the majority of ordinary Australians who are leading us down this dangerous path of intolerance.

A casual walk around any city, suburb or town on a Sunday morning will reveal that the overwhelming majority are NOT particularly religious. They may well have an underlying faith but they are moderate in their adherence to that faith. That's fine and we can all live happily together regardless of race, gender, skin colour, age, sexual orientation, marital status, size, shape, religion and so on. We did in the recent past without too many problems.

A very small minority are intolerant towards those who choose not to believe in their religion or other beliefs and they are a problem. But since when did throwing petrol around help put fires out? We have a problem with people who are intolerant of us and use this as an excuse to blow us up. So we respond by spreading intolerance thus fuelling the fire. Just like stamping on a wasp nest.

But why stamp on a wasp nest? Isn't it more sensible to just leave them alone and deal with the one or two wasps which might cause you a problem rather than stamping on the nest and having the whole lot out to get you?

If some other culture wanted to blow Australia off the map then they've had decades to do it. Why is it only now that we have this problem with terrorists? SOMETHING must have changed in order to cause this situation. Surely the mature, sensible response is to look objectively at the problem and ask ourselves as a nation what, if anything, we have done, or not done, which has lead to this situation.

We have, after all, sent an awful lot of money to those nations where most of the terrorists are alleged to come from. The Western world is sending far more to those nations now than it did prior to September 11. Surely this must have some impact?

There are a lot of very complex issues involved here. The whole idea that we run around and catch each and every individual terrorist before they do something crazy sounds very much like trying to fight a major bushfire with a watering can in my opinion. The smarter way to put bushfires out is to contain them and just wait until they run out of fuel. It's a lot easier and a lot more effective.

 

[doctorj]

doctorj,
A little immature don't you think. Where's your intelligence man? IR reforms, you've got to be joking!

OK, I'll bite. Just because you and I disagree, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I hope we can continue this without turning it into name calling

It's clear the politicians are doing what they do best and using it to score political points. You only need to look to the child overboard thing for an example of something being made into something for political gain. It's within the realm of possibility that it is happening again.

Ofcourse it may not be, but it is worth chucking out there.

They were under surveilance for a long time and the new laws have helped put them away where they belong for the time being. It's that simple.

I didn't believe it was that simple. My understanding was that they actually were charged under the old laws. My point was that politicians were beating the drum and publically giving each other a big pat on the back for being saviours of Australian lives when infact the old laws were sufficient for this case. See my point about politicising, above.

Infact, the suggestion that they were using the new terror legislation to distract the Australian public was not originally my own. In an interview with an ABC owned radio station, a federal member (or senator, it escapes me, but I know he was an independant) said that he believed the purpose was to distract people from the IR reform. He still voted in favour of the bill because he didn't want to be the one branded as having supported terrorism.

While you cry for your civil liberties, mind you if you are law abiding you'll have them, they plan the domination of the western world with their revolution of religious hatred.

Rights exist for those that are law abiding, those that are alleged to have commited crimes and those that have actually broken them. It should take more than being simply being accused of a crime to lose the expectation of a fair trial, proper representation, freedom of the press etc. Remember, law enforcement agencies sometimes get it wrong. They may or may not have in this specific case, but that's irrelevant.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security
deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I don't understand that. What's "secular christian"?

Thanks,

Ghoti

Ghoti,

Secular in that the government is not guided by religion. Christian in that is what the majority have as natural values that have been passed down through the generations.

Snake

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

OK, I'll bite. Just because you and I disagree, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I hope we can continue this without turning it into name calling

It's clear the politicians are doing what they do best and using it to score political points. You only need to look to the child overboard thing for an example of something being made into something for political gain. It's within the realm of possibility that it is happening again.

Ofcourse it may not be, but it is worth chucking out there.


I didn't believe it was that simple. My understanding was that they actually were charged under the old laws. My point was that politicians were beating the drum and publically giving each other a big pat on the back for being saviours of Australian lives when infact the old laws were sufficient for this case. See my point about politicising, above.

Infact, the suggestion that they were using the new terror legislation to distract the Australian public was not originally my own. In an interview with an ABC owned radio station, a federal member (or senator, it escapes me, but I know he was an independant) said that he believed the purpose was to distract people from the IR reform. He still voted in favour of the bill because he didn't want to be the one branded as having supported terrorism.


Rights exist for those that are law abiding, those that are alleged to have commited crimes and those that have actually broken them. It should take more than being simply being accused of a crime to lose the expectation of a fair trial, proper representation, freedom of the press etc. Remember, law enforcement agencies sometimes get it wrong. They may or may not have in this specific case, but that's irrelevant.

"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security
deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin

Mr Doctor,

You have written an impressive post and restrained yourself from calling me a racist. Things are looking up.

After Sept 11 everyone was blaming the government for not doing anything.
No matter what anyone does there are those just waiting to criticise.

Snake

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Until very recently Australia was NOT based on fundamentalist Christian (or any other religious) values but rather the concept of decency and a fair go for all. Religion played a part but not religious fundamentalism.

:newbie:

 

[Buster]

At least in this case the raids seem to have been conducted under the current laws which means we (the public) at least have some of the information as to what is going on. This allows open opinions and discussion and considered assessment.

Unfortunately in the future with limited reporting allowed and closed courtrooms, the only info we will get will be the spin the politicians want us to hear.

Remember "children overboard", "WMD" ?

Rod.

G'Day Rod,

I don't doubt for a second that politicians spin information, but they are not alone on that front.. I do remember the 'children overboard' and there were definately children in the water..

I share the view of some here that we need to act before an incident occurs, and if the recent events are found to be an over reaction, all will be revealed.. As far as not being able to wander the streets without having an ID, or as some here have referred a police state, I think I'd prefer that than not being able to wander the streets due to the thugs, gangs and hoodlums that are becoming more of a problem..

As far as the new laws are concerned, we are going to have to suck it and see..

Cheers,

Buster

 

[doctorj]

After Sept 11 everyone was blaming the government for not doing anything. No matter what anyone does there are those just waiting to criticise.

You'll note there are probably different groups of people that criticised the govt following 9/11 and now. I guess its the old right v. left thing - something I certainly don't hope to win within the scope of this forum, but theres no prizes for guessing where I appear on the ledger.

Besides, I firmly believe criticism through reasoned arguement is not only healthy but productive. You've now referred to people participating in this thread as unintelligent and a newbie. How about dealing with the substance of their arguement?

 

[Bloveld]

You'll note there are probably different groups of people that criticised the govt following 9/11 and now. I guess its the old right v. left thing - something I certainly don't hope to win within the scope of this forum, but theres no prizes for guessing where I appear on the ledger.

Besides, I firmly believe criticism through reasoned arguement is not only healthy but productive. You've now referred to people participating in this thread as unintelligent and a newbie. How about dealing with the substance of their arguement?

He's just showing us a christian value, treat everyone like dirt.

 

[Joe Blow]

I am urging everyone to please avoid making this discussion personal. As doctorj suggested, respond only to people's arguments rather than making personal jibes which contribute nothing to the discussion.

I realize this is an emotive topic but that doesn't mean that it has to degenerate into mud slinging.

Now please carry on.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

You'll note there are probably different groups of people that criticised the govt following 9/11 and now. I guess its the old right v. left thing - something I certainly don't hope to win within the scope of this forum, but theres no prizes for guessing where I appear on the ledger.

Besides, I firmly believe criticism through reasoned arguement is not only healthy but productive. You've now referred to people participating in this thread as unintelligent and a newbie. How about dealing with the substance of their arguement?

Newbie was referring to "its new to me".
If it means anything else then please enlighten me.
Just for the record I didn't say anyone was unintelligent.

Please have a nice evening.
Snake

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

He's just showing us a christian value, treat everyone like dirt.

May the lord bless you son. I forgive your sins.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

G'Day Rod,

I don't doubt for a second that politicians spin information, but they are not alone on that front.. I do remember the 'children overboard' and there were definately children in the water..

I share the view of some here that we need to act before an incident occurs, and if the recent events are found to be an over reaction, all will be revealed.. As far as not being able to wander the streets without having an ID, or as some here have referred a police state, I think I'd prefer that than not being able to wander the streets due to the thugs, gangs and hoodlums that are becoming more of a problem..

As far as the new laws are concerned, we are going to have to suck it and see..

Cheers,

Buster

Buster,

I agree. I would feel far better walking around at night in a police state than what we have now in the suburbs.

Snake

 

[wayneL]

Well the poms won't have a bar of it.

Blair defeated over terror laws

Tony Blair has suffered his first defeat after MPs rejected his plan to allow police to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.

MPs rejected the plans by a bigger than expected margin of 322 votes to 291, before later backing a 28 day limit..........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm

 

[RodC]

I share the view of some here that we need to act before an incident occurs, and if the recent events are found to be an over reaction, all will be revealed.. As far as not being able to wander the streets without having an ID, or as some here have referred a police state, I think I'd prefer that than not being able to wander the streets due to the thugs, gangs and hoodlums that are becoming more of a problem..

As far as the new laws are concerned, we are going to have to suck it and see..

Cheers,

Buster

Buster,

I agree we should act before an incidence occurs. But the electorate needs to know what is going on.

The existing laws allow this, will the new ones?
This opinion piece from The Age sums it up quite well.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/proof-new-law-not-needed/2005/11/09/1131407697997.html

How can authorities be held accountable if no-one knows what they are doing? Or we only get the view they want us to get?



Rod.

 

[RodC]

Buster,

I agree. I would feel far better walking around at night in a police state than what we have now in the suburbs.

Snake

If you're still allowed to walk around!

 

[Aussiejeff]

Buster,

I agree. I would feel far better walking around at night in a police state than what we have now in the suburbs.

Snake

Unfortunately for you Mr Snake, if the police mistakenly identify you on a dark night as a possible terrorist suspect, under the rules of a police state (and especially so under the proposed changes) your chances of crying "innocent" and being released before you are harmed (either physically or mentally) would be SEVERELY limited - maybe even non-existent. For example, didn't the London anti-terror police recently gun down an innocent citizen through mistaken identity? Or was I only dreaming.....

Seems he didn't even get the chance to say "WTF!!!" before he was snuffed out. That's not the sort or "rights" I would like to see embedded permanently in our society.

Have a nice day....

AJ

 

[Milk Man]

Well the poms won't have a bar of it.

The bill seemed pretty reasonable to me, unless theres more that the article doesn't mention. If it were used with discretion then it would be excellent. If it were abused, which it probably would, what's 90 days? If theres a good chance it could prevent 100 deaths then I have no problem whatsoever.

Does anyone know if our terrorist laws have anything along these lines?

 

[Smurf1976]

I think we're failing to see the big picture here...

No sane person wants a terrorist attack of any kind in Australia. I think we can all agree on that.

BUT

Cutting your leg off because you broke your ankle is a rather drastic cure which doesn't really solve anything. It makes far more sense to fix your ankle instead. In my opinion we need to take the same fundamental approach to terrorism. Fix the problem rather than making it worse.

If you objectively consider the actual events in Australia and overseas during the past 5 years then I seriously doubt that anyone could argue that genuine progress has been made. What we've been doing is much like spending a week patching holes in the roof only to see the whole thing blow off as soon as it starts to rain.

Are we REALLY going to be able to catch each and every individual terrorist before they have time to blow something up? We can't even catch drug dealers or burglars with any consistency. We can't even catch every person who dosen't validate train tickets and yet that is a relatively simple matter to police with the added incentive of money.

Unless we get to the point of curfews in every city and suburb in the country and generally living in a police state then I very much doubt we are going to be able to catch every terrorist. Even then it will be extraordinarily difficult. But do you seriously want to be literally a prisoner in your own home allowed out only to work and then only when the government says? I doubt it but can anyone put a case which says that's not where were heading?

The changes already are immense and appear to be speeding up. Just compare Australia in 2000 with Australia in 2005. I doubt very much that anyone feels safer on the terrorism front in 2005 than they did in 2000. How many people had even though about terrorists attacking Australia in 2000? I doubt there would be too many.

Meanwhile, Australia seems set to lose economically in a big way if reports of those with big money seeking residence in New Zealand to escape the terrorism threat are correct. A classic case of Australia winning the battle but losing the war.