It is getting hard to justify... (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Is terrorism really that much of a threat? I really don't feel that it's a significant threat in terms of the amount of people it kills - at least in the "western world" so to speak, maybe not in palistine or any of the real "hot spots". The success of terrorism is proportional to the amount of media attention it gets, to the level it is played up in accordance with the government's needs.

That's like saying "are murders really that bad?", of course terrorism is not a high killer, but it's not just deaths that you have to think about.

 

[hiphophooray123]

It only works with that analogy because your analogy is incredibly simplistic and stupid. A man with a gun to a womans head (you've been watching too many movies) is an immediate threat, and a danger to someones life. In this case, of course the authorities are justified to act. Possesion of 'chemicals and weapons' (I haven't heard much about 'weapons') is an entirely different thing. Did these suspects have their fingers on the trigger? No. The threat is not 'immediate' or 'imminent', despite the rhetoric, and we can't be completely sure that an attack would've occured if no action was taken by the authorities. We know so little about this, and yet people are so ready to jump to conclusions that fit within their racist outlooks. Let's wait for the evidence, and treat these suspects as innocent until proven guilty.

dude terrorists are UNPREDICTABLE, you dont expect it to happen and it does, of course we shouldn't fucking wait and take the risk.

 

[hiphophooray123]

Is terrorism really that much of a threat? I really don't feel that it's a significant threat in terms of the amount of people it kills - at least in the "western world" so to speak, maybe not in palistine or any of the real "hot spots". The success of terrorism is proportional to the amount of media attention it gets, to the level it is played up in accordance with the government's needs.

yeah,. tell that to the families of victims. I'm sure they will accept your idiotic reasoning. Government's play on it, yes, they sometimes use this media coverage to promote their interests, but that does not justify ANY attempt to downplay the effects of terrorism.

It KILLS people, relatively innocent ones too.

Somtimes people try to downplay bad events by using sayings like 'it was for the greater good,' which would mean that it's a sacrifice in order to save something which is seen as 'more important.' But what is terrorism saving? Their fucked up stubborn beliefs? Just because they don't know how to tolerate and accept that people see things differently to them they cast them as infidels and are determined to rid the world (i mean 'their world') of them. Society is pluralistic and they are too close-minded to accept that.

I don't see how ANYONE can support their stupid cause, and i don't see how ANYONE can downplay the effects of terrorism, be all like 'oh well at least only a few people died.' PEOPLE STILL DIED.

 

[Sepulchres]

Calling it a "conspiracy" is definitely going overboard but I bet the govenment has a hand in the _timing_ of these raids. They only passed the laws last week and the following week they raid and arrest 15 suspects? Life isnt that good. Also, this was obviously a major major media scheme to show Australians and give them a sense of security under Howard's term (= more votes next elections for security!!). It is not a coincidence all big media groups were present from the word go in the dawn raids. Showing off? Oh yes.

I'd love to hear about the evidence which they have gathered. So far I;ve got "equiptment capable of chemical weapons", "batteries" and "beards for disguising bombs". Thats about all.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Also, this was obviously a major major media scheme to show Australians and give them a sense of security under Howard's term (= more votes next elections for security!!). It is not a coincidence all big media groups were present from the word go in the dawn raids. Showing off? Oh yes.

Of course the media are going to be all over it. Anything this big on national security makes for great headlines and draws a lot of attention. But to insinuate any sort of collusion with the government for the purposes of putting Howard in a positive light is highly far-fetched.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Calling it a "conspiracy" is definitely going overboard but I bet the govenment has a hand in the _timing_ of these raids.

Why? The government had no problem what so ever in passing their terrorism laws, there was alot of media fuss about it but most polls have shown the Australian public strongly supports them.

They only passed the laws last week and the following week they raid and arrest 15 suspects? Life isnt that good. Also, this was obviously a major major media scheme to show Australians and give them a sense of security under Howard's term (= more votes next elections for security!!).

See my first comment.

It is not a coincidence all big media groups were present from the word go in the dawn raids. Showing off? Oh yes.

The media is always present when such things happen... there were 400 police officers involved.

I'd love to hear about the evidence which they have gathered. So far I;ve got "equiptment capable of chemical weapons", "batteries" and "beards for disguising bombs". Thats about all.

One of the people had an armed shoot-out with the police - Why do you think that happened?

 

[hiphophooray123]

One of the people had an armed shoot-out with the police - Why do you think that happened?

because he was being racisised derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

 

[Comrade nathan]

. Also, this was obviously a major major media scheme to show Australians and give them a sense of security under Howard's term

Exactly.

There is no need to call it a conspiracy or not, it doesn't matter if the government sat around planing how to trick the nation into believing they can be kept safe by means of terrorist laws, swat teams, helicopters or some form of colour coded security system that they use in the US.

The consequences of these raids wether intended or not (which doesn't matter) only benefits the government. I'll show the ways it benefits the government.

They first is silencing the minority Muslim population. By raising fears of an immediate terrorist threat coming from the Muslim population this causes Muslim to be silenced for fears of being suspected as a terrorist by the Anglo population. Now it is a lot hard for a Muslim to speak his or her mind on issues such as Palestine, the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

There are numerous times when prominent members of the Muslim community have spoken their mind on such issues on natational TV. I have noticed when they have the next question that comes next is "do you support Osama Bin Laden?" "Do you support terrorist acts?", or they just get accused of being terrorist sympathises.

However these views are legitimate and have no relation to supporting Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist group. These views are wide spread across Europe, South America and Asia. Making the majority of people who have these views are mostly non Muslim and non Arabs. So while this is ignored and focus is put on radical Muslims, it leads people to question the views of moderate Muslims as being terrorist views. Thus scaring Muslims to conform views to that of the neo-conservatives (Imperialists)

But why the Muslims? The Muslim population have concerns for the Middle East and may still have connections to what really goes on there. By creating a fear for Muslims to speak their minds and by creating fear in White peoples' minds that Muslims who have certain views are terrorist, you are then cutting a link to the Middle East. Then we have to get information from the newspapers and TV.

The majority of the Australian public, when it came to terrorism have bought the first solution. While originally may have been sceptically of this laws, it seems many have been swooped up in the hype.

Let's say that these people are terrorist. Let's say that helicopters, guns, swat teams, colour coded warning systems are in fact going to protect us most of the time. So let's we have a well fortified front line.

How safe can this be compared to attacking the root causes of terrorism, or understanding terrorism as an act that various ideologies use? There can be nothing safer then pulling your hand our of the hornets nest to stop the hornets from attacking.

The way to stop the root causes contradict with the foreign policies of the major imperialist powers. So it is actually all of you who support the US, UK and allies’ intervention of foreign countries who put us in most risk. You trade peace, security and stability with the wider world and people at home for imperialist gains in the 3rd world. You are to blame for supporting the reactions that come from wars in sovereign nations without genuine cause for concern.

To give the Australian population some security, that is why we have bogus terrorist laws, raids, helicopters and what not. To replace real security with false and quick security rather then a reformed foreign policy. To make people feel safe, rather then real safety that comes with non interventionist foreign policy.

So we see 3 positive things for the government.

1) The silencing of all Muslims
2) Thus removing a medium between the wide Australian community and the Middle East.
3) To make people feel safe, without having to reform foreign policy.

My arguement is not wheter this people are terrorist or not, but the impact that it creates by continuously building this hype and whether these actions are really the best and only thing we can do.

 

[hiphophooray123]

of course the consequences benefit the government, they are going to brag because the police were successful and they credit this to the terrorism laws, i don't know much about the laws because i haven't read up on them, but i think they allow for a warrant to be granted earlier in the investigation? Like it's easier for them to get an arrest warrant if they suspect someone of terrorism? If so, yeah it's good.

clarification needed

 

[fleepbasding]

dude terrorists are UNPREDICTABLE, you dont expect it to happen and it does, of course we shouldn't fucking wait and take the risk.

You've completely misunderstood my argument. I'm referring to evidence that proves they were planning a specific terrorist act, and whether it was indeed "imminent". I didn't mean a smouldering pile of rubble in the centre of Sydney. I didn't mean that the Australian public should wait for terrorist attacks to occur. I'm saying that we shouldn't be too hasty to pass judgement on the arrested suspects and that they should be given the same legal process as any Australian deserves. I'm saying that there is not yet enough evidence (known to the public) that a specific terrorist attack was either being planned, or that the group was -at the time of arrest- capable of carrying out an attack, or that such an attack was an immediate threat.

 

[Comrade nathan]

of course the consequences benefit the government, they are going to brag because the police were successful and they credit this to the terrorism laws, i don't know much about the laws because i haven't read up on them, but i think they allow for a warrant to be granted earlier in the investigation? Like it's easier for them to get an arrest warrant if they suspect someone of terrorism? If so, yeah it's good.

clarification needed

So your'e just guessing?

We can conclude what you say to be invalid then, and based on emotions.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The consequences of these raids wether intended or not (which doesn't matter) only benefits the government. I'll show the ways it benefits the government.

Does it matter if it benefits the government? Without showing that they somehow played a hand in orchestrating this media event it's hard to say their benefits are not justified.

They first is silencing the minority Muslim population. By raising fears of an immediate terrorist threat coming from the Muslim population this causes Muslim to be silenced for fears of being suspected as a terrorist by the Anglo population. Now it is a lot hard for a Muslim to speak his or her mind on issues such as Palestine, the Iraq and Afghanistan war.

There are numerous times when prominent members of the Muslim community have spoken their mind on such issues on natational TV. I have noticed when they have the next question that comes next is "do you support Osama Bin Laden?" "Do you support terrorist acts?", or they just get accused of being terrorist sympathises.

The problem being that many of these people are terrorist sympathises and you also realise this. They see the west as being an imperial force on their lands, so they are taking the fight to the west in an attemp to stop them.

However these views are legitimate and have no relation to supporting Osama Bin Laden or any other terrorist group. These views are wide spread across Europe, South America and Asia. Making the majority of people who have these views are mostly non Muslim and non Arabs. So while this is ignored and focus is put on radical Muslims, it leads people to question the views of moderate Muslims as being terrorist views. Thus scaring Muslims to conform views to that of the neo-conservatives (Imperialists)

This is not true in the case of Asia, and even if it is a mainstream view this does not mean that the australian people will accept it. You are trying to claim that the government has made the Australian people negative towards this perspective, however you show no evidence for this and it appears just as likely that this is the perspective that australian citizens have come to on their own.

How safe can this be compared to attacking the root causes of terrorism, or understanding terrorism as an act that various ideologies use? There can be nothing safer then pulling your hand our of the hornets nest to stop the hornets from attacking.

The root causes of terrorism are not a simple thing to fix, and neither are they a desirable thing to fix. You view the terrorists as all people fighting imperialism, you do not seem to consider that many terrorists have expressed their own imperialist views.

To give the Australian population some security, that is why we have bogus terrorist laws, raids, helicopters and what not. To replace real security with false and quick security rather then a reformed foreign policy. To make people feel safe, rather then real safety that comes with non interventionist foreign policy.

You make it sound although people can be appeased so easily. Many in the middle east contest Isreal's right to exist and this is why they are quite angry at us, this has little to do with some form of exploitation of the 3rd world.

 

[hiphophooray123]

So your'e just guessing?

We can conclude what you say to be invalid then, and based on emotions.

don't generalise, i don't know the new laws completely, i'm not guessing on everything mr marx.

 

[Comrade nathan]

They see the west as being an imperial force on their lands

This view is not a veiw of a terrorist, and it is quite legitimate. Most of thoose who are anti war have this similar view, though do not use such language.

You have actualy proved my point, you have label people who view the West as a imperial force as terrorist. So thus do they have to suppory the invasion of Iraq, the US forces stationed in Suadi Arabia, the power the US and UK have over Kuwait etc to not be a terrorist?

This is not true in the case of Asia, and even if it is a mainstream view this does not mean that the australian people will accept it.

Most of Asia was against the invasion of Iraq.


There is a storm coming i will respond to the rest of you post later.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

This view is not a veiw of a terrorist, and it is quite legitimate. Most of thoose who are anti war have this similar view, though do not use such language.

You have actualy proved my point, you have label people who view the West as a imperial force as terrorist. So thus do they have to suppory the invasion of Iraq, the US forces stationed in Suadi Arabia, the power the US and UK have over Kuwait etc to not be a terrorist?

No I have pointed out that most terrorists consider imperialism as one of their reasons for taking out their actions. Therefore when someone is voicing such anti-imperialist views, you should investigate further to see if they have further terrorist views.

Someone who is anti-imperialism and see's that the terrorists have a point to their actions are of course sympathising with their views, however there will be different measures of such understanding. I will say, I can see how many in Iraq would be angry at the US, and I am sympathising with the terrorist view.

Most of Asia was against the invasion of Iraq.

That may be true, but I feel that most of Asia is anti-terrorist, having had to deal with such things for a much longer time than those in the west.

Asian governments have hard-line stances against terrorists, and their perspective seems to be much more in-line with Australia and the US than europe.

 

[Sepulchres]

Of course the media are going to be all over it. Anything this big on national security makes for great headlines and draws a lot of attention. But to insinuate any sort of collusion with the government for the purposes of putting Howard in a positive light is highly far-fetched.

How is that highly farfetched? I thought it was common knowledge that politicians would do anything to increase their reputation and ratings? Think about it.

-You have a lead of "supposed potential terrorists"
-You are to pass the anti-terror laws soon which are under some scrutiny - not unexpected.
-Would the raids be carried before of after considering these were quite non-urgent threats?

Why? The government had no problem what so ever in passing their terrorism laws, there was alot of media fuss about it but most polls have shown the Australian public strongly supports them.

Yea, they did have support but it was not unanimous. Guess what these raids did to the polls?!

The media is always present when such things happen... there were 400 police officers involved.

I thought you would have been capable of higher thinking. What if the 400 police officers were present as part of this media scheme?

 

[gO_Go_TeRoRisM]

fuck it lets go blow up sydney harbour bridge and teh opera house.... england can always send over more convicts

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yea, they did have support but it was not unanimous. Guess what these raids did to the polls?!

Umm....... ...... ... Just admit you're wrong please?

I thought you would have been capable of higher thinking. What if the 400 police officers were present as part of this media scheme?

Yes... and the Libs, Labor, the AFP, ASIO, the NSW and QLD police were behind this to affect the opinion polls on the anti-terror laws slightly.

 

[Comrade nathan]

You are trying to claim that the government has made the Australian people negative towards this perspective, however you show no evidence for this and it appears just as likely that this is the perspective that australian citizens have come to on their own.

The combination of the media presenting a good story rather then consistency. Government propoganda, and the Government criticising the ABC and SBS channels for bias when they ran a different perspective on the war.

It is quite obvious the Australian population are a emotional bunch, many times they have had opinions based on different party propoganda.

The root causes of terrorism are not a simple thing to fix, and neither are they a desirable thing to fix.

Which no Western Government has addressed.

You view the terrorists as all people fighting imperialism, you do not seem to consider that many terrorists have expressed their own imperialist views.

I view most groups which have existed long before the Western public took notice, as having grown out of imperialism. I am quite aware they have imperialist intentions, creating republics over the real borders of nations and some even whitewashing the Ottaman empire.

Many in the middle east contest Isreal's right to exist and this is why they are quite angry at us, this has little to do with some form of exploitation of the 3rd world.

Israel is a perfect example where the west has explioted these people. It was the British imperialist who originaly sold out the Arab people. Orginally after Arab liberation from the Turks, they were meant to have their own nation state. The UK sold land to Zionist living in the US. Then up to 1948 they had created a nation which use to not exist.

The reaction to Israel and its base support of the US and UK is direct link of first world expliotation and imperialism.

It's naive to think that Arabs just hate Israel for no reason, or thatr Israel exist as a peacefull nation.

No I have pointed out that most terrorists consider imperialism as one of their reasons for taking out their actions. Therefore when someone is voicing such anti-imperialist views, you should investigate further to see if they have further terrorist views.

Then you assume that way over half of the world is terrorist. Which assume terrorism is an ideology. Terrorism is an act to gain a goal. A terrorist is one who wishes to use civilian deaths as a way of achieving a goal.

An anti-imperialist is one who is against nations intervening in another sovereign nation for their own good. This category covers many people who do not participate, support or sympathise with terrorism.

Someone who is anti-imperialism and see's that the terrorists have a point to their actions are of course sympathising with their views, however there will be different measures of such understanding

Depends what you mean and people mean by sympathising with their views. I may sympathise with their view that they are oppressed, explioted and prosectud, but i may not sympathise with their views that terrorism is a ethical and good tactical way of fighting imperialism.

I can also view their ideas of imperialism to be completly false and conclude they have no understanding.

Saying someone sympathises with terrorist often implies you are similair to them, when all you are doing is accept and trying to udnerstand the factors that create terrorism.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I view most groups which have existed long before the Western public took notice, as having grown out of imperialism. I am quite aware they have imperialist intentions, creating republics over the real borders of nations and some even whitewashing the Ottaman empire.

How have you determined these 'real borders' ?

Israel is a perfect example where the west has explioted these people. It was the British imperialist who originaly sold out the Arab people. Orginally after Arab liberation from the Turks, they were meant to have their own nation state. The UK sold land to Zionist living in the US. Then up to 1948 they had created a nation which use to not exist.

The reaction to Israel and its base support of the US and UK is direct link of first world expliotation and imperialism.

It's naive to think that Arabs just hate Israel for no reason, or thatr Israel exist as a peacefull nation.

What about east timor? JI is not mad at Australia for exploiting east timor after the war, but rather for interfering to make east timor an independant nation.

I don't want to begin an isreal debate and I was not assuming they hate them for 'no reason'.

Then you assume that way over half of the world is terrorist. Which assume terrorism is an ideology. Terrorism is an act to gain a goal. A terrorist is one who wishes to use civilian deaths as a way of achieving a goal.

An anti-imperialist is one who is against nations intervening in another sovereign nation for their own good. This category covers many people who do not participate, support or sympathise with terrorism.

I don't assume they are terrorists, I assume they sympathise with terrorists views - which is true.

I clearly stated.

Therefore when someone is voicing such anti-imperialist views, you should investigate further to see if they have further terrorist views

Anti-Imperialism is strong amungst these terrorists, so once someone has voiced such opinions they should be open to further scrutiny, which is what you're criticising the media for doing. It is fair enough to ask someone if they support Osama bin ladin etc because if they do then they have more and more views in common with the terrorists.

Saying someone sympathises with terrorist often implies you are similair to them, when all you are doing is accept and trying to udnerstand the factors that create terrorism.

Well there is a similarity in perspective, in that they understand and often agree with some of the perspective of the terrorists. So they are terrorist sympathisers.