AnT ([info]ant8472) wrote,
@ 2005-11-08 09:59:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Terrorism in Australia
The terrorist raids last nights have both an obvious concern and a subtler concern akin to an opening of a can of worms. The obvious concern is that it is confirmation that we have terrorist cells in this country. Here in Sydney the raid was conducted in Lakemba, a heavy enclave for those of Middle Eastern origins. This confirmation makes the threat clear and present. The fact that we have such a large population of migrant middle Easterners means where there is one terror cell caught, they may be one that is not caught. This is the more subtle threat. With the legislation passed to make access to the homes of terror suspects easier, ASIO and The Federal Police wasted no time with their greater powers to swoop on the suspects. The subtler repercussion of this raid is that any other existing terrorist cells may be induced to expedite their plans.

Of course at this stage there is no evidence that those taken in through the raids are guilty of planning a terror attack. That is yet to be seen. If they are guilty, it will only be a matter of time before we learn about the ugliness of their plans and possibly, the location of their attacks.

Before 7/7 in London, and 11/9 in New York intelligence had made raids on terror suspects in the respective cities. It was only a few weeks after the raids in London that 7/7 occurred. I believe that the risk of a terror attack to Australia is inevitable based on the fact that it is the only country that participated in the coalition of the willing and one of the few with military involvement remaining in Iraq. On top of this, we have a heavy middle eastern population of which may come from fundamental muslim backgrounds. In addition, we have already seen terrorism in our regional neighbourhood in Indonesia where non-muslim tourists were primary targets on two occasions. Let's not forget the most recent proclamation after 7/7 by a mysterious anglo-saxon muslim "Today London and France, tomorrow Los Angeles and Melbourne are next"

I think we have taken the proper precautions to strengthen the invisible boundaries against terrorism but I think no level of preparedness can prepare us for the trauma and horror if and when it happens.

(Post a new comment)


[info]ms_pravda
2005-11-08 12:52 am UTC (link)
Quote: "I believe that the risk of a terror attack to Australia is inevitable based on the fact that it is the only country that participated in the coalition of the willing and one of the few with military involvement remaining in Iraq,"

This is precisely one of the reasons why I agrued so vehemently with you that we shouldn't be in Iraq and we should get the hell out. Sticking ones nose in other nation's affairs tends to have unpleasant ramifications. We should look after our own country and not get involved.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]cuzza
2005-11-08 01:24 am UTC (link)
Sticking ones nose in other nation's affairs tends to have unpleasant ramifications.

Just look at Vietnam. Great result the Americans had there. Gotta fight those damn comm... I mean TERRORISTS at every turn!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 01:34 am UTC (link)
It's also why I said that on balance we need to stay close to our natural alliances because we definitely have no real friends in south east asia, just delicate foreign relations that suit everyone but which have little love. This is one of the potential costs of our alliance with the coalition of the willing. Whilst I have said that I believe an attack is inevitable none has occurred so far. The Bali attacks would have happened even if we weren't involved in Iraq.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ms_pravda
2005-11-08 03:51 am UTC (link)
Lets look at the facts:

Total Americans killed via involvement in Iraq to date:

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 2047 1642
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03) (the list) 1910 1534
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03): 1580 1338
Since Handover (6/29/04): 1181 1009
Since Election (1/31/05): 609 534
American Wounded Official Estimated
Total Wounded: 15477 15000 - 48100

Australian Deaths: 2

New Zealand: ZERO (Because they are smart enough not to get involved)

Total numbers arrested in Australia on suspected terrorism charges to date: 16 (if you include the guy already arrested from Perth the other year in addition to the 15 in Syd/Melb this morning)

Total arrested in NZ on suspected terrorism charges: 0

Actual threats against Australia: 2 (the one last week the PM referred to in Parliament and the one several months ago listing Melbourne)

Threats against New Zealand to date: 0

Recent Bali attack - 19 people killed
Australians: 2
Japanese: 1
Indonesians:15
SIngapore: 1

New Zealand: ZERO

Earlier Bali Attack: Total dead - 202
Australians: 88
Indonesians:32
Britain: 23
US: 7
New Zealand: only 3

The remainder were from Denmark, Germany

I think the costs of being part of the coalition of the willing are already TOO HIGH, especially for the families who have already lost loved ones, and our risk of further terrorist attacks would be significantly reduced if we pulled out of Iraq and kept to our own business.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ms_pravda
2005-11-08 03:54 am UTC (link)
I should explain the American figures tally and why there are two figures next to each item - the left column represents officially confirmed deaths and the right column are still to be confirmed (eg. bodies still to be identified so aren't yet included in official count)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 04:07 am UTC (link)
I guess that's a fair opinion but not one I agree with. Having said that, the continued terrorist attacks and guerilla activity is a consequence that wasn't foreseen or calculated in the decision. Part of the gambvle definitelty failed. I doubt the Americans expected the casualties to be this high or for their involvement to have continued this long.

Any stats there on the deaths by genocide by Saddam before the war and the deaths that would have occurred if Saddam wasn't overthrown?

It's sometimes difficult to weight up everything. While those stats carry merit, there can be no stats on the alternative decisions.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mystik_spiral
2005-11-08 10:13 pm UTC (link)
Why are you mentioning New Zealand with your argument? A person could also use one of the South American countries in your argument. They're not involved either in the Iraq war yet they are still being blown up by terrorists all the time.

Also i think your data is misleading. Your only going on what is your perception of them. They could have had numerous threats against them for being Australias 7th state that have just not been made public. This could also be said about Australia too in that respect.

Seriously though, you might as well have mentioned Norway or Denmark or even Japan and so on.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Hmm, interesting point to Pravda's statistical representation of her perceptions. Worthy of consideration. I wish I could elaborate but work prevents me so.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]aztex
2005-11-08 02:27 am UTC (link)
It's all well and good to say that Australia shouldn't fight other people's battles but what happens when Australia is in trouble and we don't have the man power to fight back? Should we all just be sentenced to death because every country has to use their own man power as no one else will help in fear of the fact that there might be retaliation towards the countries of those that join the battle?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jadeisms
2005-11-08 08:32 am UTC (link)
I don't believe I am going to comment on this. Partially... actualy never mind my partially.

The point is I am with you both ms_pravda and aztex.

But there wasn't a call to war in this case to be in Iraq. I believe we are clearly uninvited guests and are trying to stick to a juristriction (spelling sorry) that is not in the slightest in our best interests. This whole "war on terror" to me is just political. John Howard brown nosing.

Sorry this isn't coming out as nearly as it was in my head so I give up.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]cuzza
2005-11-08 12:54 am UTC (link)
One thing you have to remember in relation to Bali, is that while the rest of Indonesia is predominantly Muslim, the people of Bali are mostly Hindu (with most Muslims there being people from other parts of Indonesia trying to cash in) and also they live quite well in comparison off the tourist dollar. The aim of the terror in Bali is not only to harm westerners, but to also destroy the Balinese culture. Remove the tourists, the trade dies and the people of Bali are poor and starving. It's much easier to assimilate a culture when they have no hope.

I find it pretty selfish of western culture to think Bali is all about the terrorists attacking us.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 02:16 am UTC (link)
Make no mistake, the terrorism in Bali, directly or indirectly is in a major way about attacking western values and the presence of those values in the tourist precincts. Ie, Non-Muslim activities like drinking alcohol, partying, and so forth. Jhmail Islamaih made it very clear at the time of the 12/10/02 attacks that they were attacking westerners.

There is no doubt that attacking westerners wasn't the sole reason but to consider it selfish to think of this primary motivation is incorrect. What does Bali have that 100 other Indonesian towns don't have? And why is Bali different to every other Indonesian town? Think about it. It's Westerners and without them, Bali wouldn't be a tourist resort thriving with culture and nightlife. The fact that Jmail Islamiah is connected with Al Queda, a primary anti-western and non-muslim terrorist group furthers the point even more.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]cuzza
2005-11-08 02:32 am UTC (link)
Have you been to Bali? Talked to the people, walked the streets, sat at a table in a restaurant that has since become a blackened husk? Once you have, you can tell me what is 'incorrect'. Until then, you go read your newspaper. They say all sorts of wonderful things in there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 03:09 am UTC (link)
I haven't been there. The Indonesians I work with give me their perspectives and often talk about the people, the cultures, the religion. Actually, the two I work with are muslim interesingly.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ms_pravda
2005-11-08 05:48 am UTC (link)
Ben is right - whilst there are no doubt international reasons at play in why Bali is a traget (eg. get back at Australians for their involvment in Iraq which is preceived as being an attack on Islam) - there are also domestic political reasons: Bali is predominantly anamist in religion, not muslim. It also has a unique culture, whereas the dominant culture in Indonesia is 'Javanese,' - which is predominantly Muslim. There is already a history in Indonesia of attacking or marginalising cultures that fail to conform to Jakarta's desires eg. West Papua, East Timor (pre-dom Catholic) Arceh - I think there is an element of this in the Bali bombing. Destroy the economic base of Bali, and it forces them to be (a) more dependent upon Java and (b) more compliant.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 06:00 am UTC (link)
This is worthwhile information but it is irrelevant in the context for which I raised it. No one is disagreeing that there are other motivations behind the attacks in Bali. Perhaps we differ slightly in our perception of the role of the recent occupations and attacks by the west in muslim countries.

Lets not forget, to the best of my knowledge, terrorist attacks of this magnitude did not take place in Indonesia prior to Al Queda's involvement or before Sep 11 and the attack and occupation in Iraq.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mystik_spiral
2005-11-08 10:15 pm UTC (link)
There have been many Terrorist attacks in Indonesia for decades in one form or another.

World events in the last 5 years have not increased that to any degree.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-08 10:41 pm UTC (link)
Haven't the attacks escalated in recent years though? Was the 12/10 Bali attack to the biggest? I don't know the answers so I am not contending this.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]mephistopheles
2005-11-08 05:16 am UTC (link)
greetings and salutations.

that is all. for now. :)


misty

(Reply to this)


[info]cat_eating_dawg
2005-11-08 09:53 am UTC (link)
Sucinct and concise as always Antonio.

(Reply to this)


[info]cat_eating_dawg
2005-11-09 04:03 am UTC (link)
Maybe thats why Corby was bringing drugs in, to share with the terrorists and make them, like, chill OUT man!

(Reply to this)


[info]ex_atatat284
2005-11-09 02:06 pm UTC (link)
I knew you'd post about this so I came online to read what you had to say. While I have no direct comment on your opinion (I have no opinion on this issue) I do have concerns over the likelihood of a Sydney bombing.

As an Englishman who grew up through the IRA campaigns in the UK and a London resident during the 90s who was present in London during a couple of bomb attacks I am pretty used to living with terrorism.

I have to say, though, that what scares me about a Sydney attack is that Sydney is so damned small compared to London.

I lived in the south east of London, just a few ticks from London Bridge and both of the bombings I was present for ocurred in Putney and Ealing, both a fair distance away. Putney and Ealing were weekend haunts for me, not weekday ones. In terms of risk to me it would have been like being in Circular Quay when a bomb went off in Parramatta: no risk at all.

Even the 7/7 coordinated bombings wouldn't have put me at risk based on where I would have been if I hadn't moved to Australia and if I'd kept the same job. In fact if you were to take all of the IRA bombings in London from the past 30 years and detonate them all over every day for the years I lived and worked in London I wouldn't have been directly affected by any of them.

My point? My point is that the chance of a bombing in London is remote, the chance of being in the wrong place when a bomb went off is even more remote.

That alone makes living with terrorism easier.

I don't think this logic applies in Sydney. A co-ordinated explosion of, say, 3 to 5 bombs in Sydney at peak hour on the rail system would pretty much guarantee that you or I would probably be in one of those location.

Game over.

I strongly disagree with those who think that our part in invading Iraq makes us a target. Being a free society that subscribes to western values makes us a target.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-09 10:11 pm UTC (link)
I agree with what you've said. We all go through the same rail system and work within the same hectare of land. Town Hall is an almost unavoidable pass through for train commuters. I get off at Town Hall. It would be one of the most likely targets for a coordinated train attack and it would happen most likely at peak hour. That means an almost guaranteed proximity to such an attack whether that mean being a victim of the bombing, or being a few carriages away from the carnage or following it closely behind. If lucky, it might mean getting through before it occurs or it occurring on another train in a disturbing proximity.

Just last week there was a hoax bomb scare in town hall and I had to find an alternate route home.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ant8472
2005-11-09 10:21 pm UTC (link)
By the way, I wanted to speak to you about the possibility of New years eve plans. I have been talking to my sister about the possibility of going into town to see the fireworks. I live within walking distance of the train station and the trains run regularly to my area taking about 30 mins. You could crash out in the second room at my place if you wish to come along and have trouble travelling back home in the early hours.

I will call you on the weekend.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…