It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: Australia Foils Terror Plot, Makes 15 Arrests

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Can you not see it?

Prior to Islamofasicm our legal syatem really only played to 19th century crime, it was so overdue and still need's improving to deal with the dramas of the 21st century crime.

Religious violence and killings are new crimes that started in the 21st century? Wowzers, thats got to be the single biggest re-write of history i've ever seen.

Here's an explanation Playschool style:

terrorism is bad
terrorism is bad because it kills people
murder is bad
murder is bad because it kills people
murder is currently against the law
conspiracy to commit murder is currently against the law
you can charge terrorists with conspiracy to commit murder
new laws are not needed unless there is another government agenda

[edit on 8/11/05 by subz]




posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
i dont think anyone else has posted it but there has been annother round of raids and arrests in sydney. im looking for more info.

"AUSTRALIAN Federal Police say officers have raided another home in Sydney's south-west, as part of an ongoing counter-terrorism operation.
The AFP said they had raided a home at Revesby but would make no further comment."

News.com.au

[edit on 11-8-2005 by ausconspiracies]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
theres more than enough evidence to prove that terrorists want you dead for being westerners or/of judo/christian heritage than random killing. Can you not see it?

Prior to Islamofasicm our legal syatem really only played to 19th century crime, it was so overdue and still need's improving to deal with the dramas of the 21st century crime.


The law does not care if you commit mass murder by blowing up a bus because you are crazy, because you hate the government, or because you hate Christians. You will still go to prison for life, and you can still be locked up for life if you are caught before you had a chance to carry out the act. The only difference between "mass murder" and "terrorism" is the ideology and the motive behind it. Yet it sounds as if you are advocating for a complete overhaul and restructuring of the basic tenets of our system of justice and human rights because of one particular ideology. Do I have that right?

If you are afraid enough to feel that Australia's current laws are insufficient to provide protection for you "in the 21st century", then what exactly are you advocating for here? Do you propose racial profiling? Do you propose armbands with a crescent moon on them for Muslims? Should we segregate Muslims into separate regions? Should we institute the death penalty in Australia for terrorist acts? What about passports with your religion stamped on them, and a separate line at the airport for Muslims? Should we negate the need for a trial by court if the charge is terrorism? I'm interested to hear what you would like to see happen.

I like your Nic,

But to your questions,


Should i be wrong in assuming most muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are muslims? if im wrong say why please.

No im not proposing armbands for muslims, my g/granddaddys and granddaddys fought against this type of behaviour, im here defending your rhetoric.
One thing i do support that isnt popular yet is the death penalty for terrorists, do you dissagree with that? but in this answer put yourself in the shoes of an innocent having dinner in a bali restaurant instead of a civil libitarian.


Thanks for your time.

[edit on 2005-11-8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
What's important here is that Australian Police RARELY shoot at anyone, only if their life is threatened are they allowed to shoot. Last week's new 'anti-terror laws' changed all that.


Come on now. Firstly, let me state that I have all sorts of issues with the proposed terror laws. But that said, there have been any number of shootings by Police in Australia (particularly in Victoria) over recent years. Not always when has been a REAL threat to Police lives. A perceived threat is enough to justify shooting. The anti-terror laws just open this up a little more.


[edit on 8/11/2005 by Lady of the Lake]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
What's important here is that Australian Police RARELY shoot at anyone, only if their life is threatened are they allowed to shoot. Last week's new 'anti-terror laws' changed all that.


Come on now. Firstly, let me state that I have all sorts of issues with the proposed terror laws. But that said, there have been any number of shootings by Police in Australia (particularly in Victoria) over recent years. Not always when has been a REAL threat to Police lives. A perceived threat is enough to justify shooting. The anti-terror laws just open this up a little more.


[edit on 8/11/2005 by Lady of the Lake]



And there is a problem where exactly please??



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Well well, I'm watching the news at the moment. Turns out the muslim community provided alot of the evidence against the alleged terrorists and Islamic leaders here are condemning them


Kind of makes people who think this some type of geovernment conspiracy look very stupid. Can't say I didn't warn them
LOL.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImJaded

And I just saw a Senator (didn't catch her name, they just flash them U know lol) on the TV discounting PM John Coward's "predictions" and questioning all this also ... nice to see we're not all blindly believing the verbal diaheorrea spewing out of his mouth



Democrats Senator Lyn Allison was the one who has the wild conspiracy theories. She is a lightweight no more. Just the other day she was comparing living in Australia to living under the military junta in Burma - that about sums up her IQ.
Or maybe she's just pissed that only 200 people turned up to her anti-terror laws protest
Poor Lyn, she isn't getting any attention LOL.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I like your Nic,


Wait, is that a sarcastic jab? Let me know so I can know which way to go with the tone of this discussion.


Should i be wrong in assuming most muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are muslims? if im wrong say why please.

Yes, you're correct, but you're avoiding the question. Are you advocating for racial profiling or not? Assuming that most terrorists are Muslims, should we start instituting apartheid? Should Muslims have a different set of laws applied to them? Most criminals are in lower economic brackets, so should we also have different laws for the poor?


No im not proposing armbands for muslims, my g/granddaddys and granddaddys fought against this type of behaviour, im here defending your rhetoric.

Can you reword that? You lost me with the grammar when you got to the bit about defending rhetoric.


One thing i do support that isnt popular yet is the death penalty for terrorists, do you dissagree with that? but in this answer put yourself in the shoes of an innocent having dinner in a bali restaurant instead of a civil libitarian.

Yes, I do disagree with that. I don't think that the death penalty is effective in preventing crime at all. Just look at countries that have the death penalty and look at their crime rates. And if we're talking extremist Islamic nutters, somehow I think the death penalty would be about as effective-a-deterrent as farting to kill a fly.

You still haven't outlined how you think the Australian system of justice should be changed in order to circumvent terrorist acts. You keep saying that we're in a new age and seeing an all-new manifestation of crime and that the current laws are insufficient to protect you, so how do you propose the laws be changed? Institute the death penalty? That's it?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:36 AM
link   
The government has just moved some raids forward to publically justify pushing through legislation that was not needed. It was a PR stunt.

Now Australian police have the right to search and arrest people without evidence.. and enter people's homes without warrents.
That part of the legislation was meant to be reserved for immediate threats yet we aren't even on a hightened terror alert.. why? Because there was no immediate threat.. they hadn't even chosen a target yet. If they've cracked a terror cell.. good on them.. but insisting they needed these laws to do it is a complete farce.


[edit on 8-11-2005 by riley]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace



Should i be wrong in assuming most muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are muslims? if im wrong say why please.

Yes, you're correct, but you're avoiding the question. Are you advocating for racial profiling or not? Assuming that most terrorists are Muslims, should we start instituting apartheid? Should Muslims have a different set of laws applied to them? Most criminals are in lower economic brackets, so should we also have different laws for the poor?


Hmm I wasn't aware that Muslim people were a race
I advocate religious profiling definately. I would be looking for terrorists here at the moment, at a Catholic bible study

Understand what I'm saying



One thing i do support that isnt popular yet is the death penalty for terrorists, do you dissagree with that? but in this answer put yourself in the shoes of an innocent having dinner in a bali restaurant instead of a civil libitarian.

Yes, I do disagree with that. I don't think that the death penalty is effective in preventing crime at all. Just look at countries that have the death penalty and look at their crime rates.


Are you suggesting the death penalty makes crime rise ?
Anyway if someone kills people here in the name of terrorism, I don't want to pay for his incarceration for the rest of his life. What is it these days about $60 000 a year for a maximum security inmate. I want my taxes to go to a more worthy cause, like fixing the roads




[edit on 8-11-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
I like your Nic,


Wait, is that a sarcastic jab? Let me know so I can know which way to go with the tone of this discussion.


Should i be wrong in assuming most muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are muslims? if im wrong say why please.

Yes, you're correct, but you're avoiding the question. Are you advocating for racial profiling or not? Assuming that most terrorists are Muslims, should we start instituting apartheid? Should Muslims have a different set of laws applied to them? Most criminals are in lower economic brackets, so should we also have different laws for the poor?

Hello knock knock, do we both speak Australian? do you even think for one moment that in the age of terorism that maybe we should go check out Abos greeks italians kiwis brits christians hindus ? or should we start with muslims you left wing crazee sob?

So yes im advocating "Religous" profiling , at the end of the day i dont give a flying f what religion you are.ps. welcome to australia.

People like you always learn the hard way ...


The problem with Australia is that people like you would rather die tan be accused of "Racism".


No im not proposing armbands for muslims, my g/granddaddys and granddaddys fought against this type of behaviour, im here defending your rhetoric.

Can you reword that? You lost me with the grammar when you got to the bit about defending rhetoric.

You tell me son you brought up armbands.


One thing i do support that isnt popular yet is the death penalty for terrorists, do you dissagree with that? but in this answer put yourself in the shoes of an innocent having dinner in a bali restaurant instead of a civil libitarian.

Yes, I do disagree with that. I don't think that the death penalty is effective in preventing crime at all. Just look at countries that have the death penalty and look at their crime rates. And if we're talking extremist Islamic nutters, somehow I think the death penalty would be about as effective-a-deterrent as farting to kill a fly.

But instead we give a terrorist 20yrs then he gets to finish his jog??? wake up the west is weak in criminal sentances.

You still haven't outlined how you think the Australian system of justice should be changed in order to circumvent terrorist acts. You keep saying that we're in a new age and seeing an all-new manifestation of crime and that the current laws are insufficient to protect you, so how do you propose the laws be changed? Institute the death penalty? That's it?


Sir, the Australian Justice system has been changed massively to accomodate terorism, and it will be even further.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm I wasn't aware that Muslim people were a race
I advocate religious profiling definately. I would be looking for terrorists here at the moment, at a Catholic bible study

Understand what I'm saying

You have a point. In Australia there have been attacks on women's clinics.. one had explosives on him while keeping everyone hostage. There have also been many American clinics bombings as well. Why have these not been considered in the same class of moslem terrorism? These have actually happened in Australia and are motivated by religious fundamentalism.. are they going to arrest christians as well? Are they going to stop them blowing up hospitals?



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Hmm I wasn't aware that Muslim people were a race
I advocate religious profiling definately. I would be looking for terrorists here at the moment, at a Catholic bible study

Understand what I'm saying

Sorry, my mistake. But following on with the reasoning being pursued by you guys/gals: "Should i be wrong in assuming most [muslims] are [Arabs and Asians]?" Understand what I'm saying?


So you advocate religious profiling, then what? You guys are still not outlining where you think the current laws are insufficient to protect you, what new laws should be instituted to prevent terror attacks, and also, once the racial and religious profiling is instituted, what will be the next step. How will that information be displayed? On passports, ID cards, what? How will that information be utilised? How will those profiled be treated? Extra searches for Muslims when they enter train stations? Sporting venues? Tougher or different laws for Muslims?


Are you suggesting the death penalty makes crime rise?

No, I'm suggesting that the two are only loosely related, if they are related at all. Look at the crime rate in the US.


Anyway if someone kills people here in the name of terrorism, I don't want to pay for his incarceration for the rest of his life. What is it these days about $60 000 a year for a maximum security inmate. I want my taxes to go to a more worthy cause, like fixing the roads

So it is no longer a security issue, it is an economic one. You want the death penalty instituted to protect your wallet, not your kids.


[edit on 2005-11-8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
Can you not see it?

Prior to Islamofasicm our legal syatem really only played to 19th century crime, it was so overdue and still need's improving to deal with the dramas of the 21st century crime.

Religious violence and killings are new crimes that started in the 21st century? Wowzers, thats got to be the single biggest re-write of history i've ever seen.

Here's an explanation Playschool style:

terrorism is bad
terrorism is bad because it kills people
murder is bad
murder is bad because it kills people
murder is currently against the law
conspiracy to commit murder is currently against the law
you can charge terrorists with conspiracy to commit murder
new laws are not needed unless there is another government agenda

[edit on 8/11/05 by subz]


Hey there Lefty.


Australia is only in the last few years accomodating 21st century crime, did you not know that already?


BTW are you an ISLAMOFACIST? please be honest i dont mind if you are,
love from your neighbour.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Just out on the news wires.

Australia police say Muslim cleric led attack plot


CANBERRA (Reuters) - An Australian Muslim cleric who said Osama bin Laden was a "great man" has been named by police as the spiritual leader of a group of 16 men charged on Tuesday with planning a terrorist attack in Australia.

Abdul Nacer Benbrika, also known as Abu Bakr, has long been monitored by Australian authorities and grabbed headlines in August after he praised bin Laden, blamed for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Well gee, all those personal attacks, insults and ranting, but when it comes down to the line, the only method of preventing terror attacks you can come up with is: Execute 'em.

Well done, "son".


[edit on 2005-11-8 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
Can we stop with the snipes, and stay on topic.

Thanks.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Well gee, all those personal attacks, insults and ranting, but when it comes down to the line, the only method of preventing terror attacks you can come up with is: Execute 'em.
Well done, "son".



Well execution only takes care of the problem after the fact, it won't stop the crime from happening although I believe that is what they should get.
The only wasy the attacks can be prevented is a strenghthening of ASIO, ASIS and our domestic law enforcement services.

I am glad to hear that Muslim leaders aided in the collection of information on these 2 groups. I feel that Australia would be one of the hardest places for these extremists to go unnoticed



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
The only wasy the attacks can be prevented is a strenghthening of ASIO, ASIS and our domestic law enforcement services.


Finally the penny drops. I completely agree. This is what I've been saying all along since this whole fiasco began; beef up ASIO, add more manpower to the AFP, more funding, more technology, whatever. This is what's called prevention. Heck, if they're recruiting I'll even apply for a job.
But start knee-jerking, infringing on basic rights, and turning Oz into a guilty-until-proven-innocent system and you're on a slippery slope to a complete sheethole.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NumberCruncher
IMJADED


Seen as you are such an expert can you please define for us the difference between "Holy War" and "Jihad"


If it isnt to personal , how do you define yourself in one word in this world?


thanks for your time Imjaded.


I don't doubt there may be a more in-depth definition of the two but here is how I break it down ...
"Holy War" and any mention to initiating it means to threaten the religion world wide and of course begin an actual war of sorts, against those threatening the religion itself.
"Jihad" means "to sacrifice" if U will, it can be and usually is something one sacrifices every day ie: the time to go to work and earn money for your family. It does not instantly mean "I plan to sacrifice lives"

It is hard to translate some words into their meanings from one language to another which I'm sure U understand and I see that this is where the confusion begins, I only wish people took more time to understand what they both mean before throwing them around as they can be very different, just pertains to how U intend the context when said or written.

Not sure why U need me to sum myself up in one word but I will say that I can't be defined in one word

I am an educated young Australian who just likes to keep an open mind is all, I think that may answer your question


Now, enough with the personal attacks and let's stick to the subject at hand. Surely we can have this discussion without resorting to belittling one another or race or religion



new topics




 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join