|
November 4, 2005
The claim is that bombings in London in July had shown that home-grown terrorists had been overlooked in Australia. The claim is just a claim, as we have seen no evidence of home-grown terrorism in Australia. I would have thought that the threat from contagious diseases (eg., bird flu) represents a bigger threat than that posed by radicalized Australian Muslims living in Melbourne or Sydney.
Geoff Pryor
What we are being asked to do is to trust the spooks. They say there is a homegrown terrorist threat by Islamic extremists. These are the same spooks who gave us definite intelligence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq posed a significant threat to Australia, and that the only way to deal with this threat was to invade and occupy Iraq. The foundation of that senario was fiction.
Is Howard crying wolf? I'm with Pryor on this one. Howard did not tell the truth about Tampa, or children overboard, or Iraq. He has severely damaged his credibility. That is why his warnings of a terrorist threat from within are being treated with much scepticism. There is no need to go to the conpsiracy stuff: like Tony Blair and George Bush John Howard has become devalued coin.
I'm sorry. At this stage I'm interpreting it as a beat up to justify extending the powers of the national security state.
|
The shadow state is politically invaluable, there is no way for the citizenry to challenge it, or even to determine the truth. It becomes a political methodology where "security" concerns are used as an instrument to further party political and ideological agendas.