Tony Abbott: All that is required for a terrorist attack is a "knife, iPhone and a victim", fears th - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TestECull;46027854]Congrats, you've let them win.[/QUOTE] How?

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46030392]How?[/QUOTE] See my massive post two posts up.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46030272]It's not because they've done something about it, it's because they're touting it over the hills and far away as a serious threat (which is totally unnecessary, let us know how close we were to an attack after the threat has subsided, not while there is still a possibility. We have terrorist hotlines for suspicious activity, we have intelligence services and police for preventative measures, telling us that we're under threat right now is purely for political benefit). Shouting about how threatened we are right now by the risk of an attack from extremist groups makes people... huh, well, terrified. "Terrorist" implies they cause terror, now the government is helping out by scaring people. They said it themselves, go about your life as if nothing is different. Except it is different now that they've gone and made these terror announcements. If they hadn't people would still go about their life as if nothing was different because for all they know nothing is; that's better than having to force yourself to because you know there is a threat. To be clear: the raids I am not critisizing, for now I assume they were conducted with due cause and were effective. I am critisizing the government's language in response to the raids. Don't tell us how scary it all is, how it's a big threat right now, instead let us know you've got it under control. Even better implore that those disenchanted with the Australian people, Australian military actions or the Australian government recognise that it's about the wellbeing of everyone. We're not your enemies, we are your friends. Tell the Australian people at large that not all of these people are psychos, they're are a few who are brainwashing and warping peoples minds. Tell them to stop helping the terrorists, tell them to start to be welcoming and friendly to people who appear contrary or different to "Australian values" Fear mongering isn't necessarily the terrorists winning, but it's lending them a hand. It gives them more fuel for the fire.[/QUOTE] I dont see people in Australia running for the hills after the annoucements. People might be a little uneasy, but thats not what the goals of the attacks where.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;46030414]I dont see people in Australia running for the hills after the annoucements. People might be a little uneasy, but thats not what the goals of the attacks where.[/QUOTE] Well certainly innocent muslims are terrified, hence the protests they've had. And people can be irrational, I can't be certain that there aren't some people who are changing their behaviour out of fear for their safety. It then acts as fodder for the people brainwashing the people who then go on to comit terrorist acts because they can show videos of really strong language from politicians.

I think it would be fascinating to figure out whether or not more terrorists attacks would have been completed had the PATRIOT Act and other measures elsewhere not been enacted. It wouldn't be a justification of those types of laws, but it would be extremely interesting to know.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46031144]I think it would be fascinating to figure out whether or not more terrorists attacks would have been completed had the PATRIOT Act and other measures elsewhere not been enacted. It wouldn't be a justification of those types of laws, but it would be extremely interesting to know.[/QUOTE] Another question would be... "What was the cost/benefits of the patriot act, and who profited/lost out because of it?"

Well done not causing a panic Mr. Important Guy.

Who the hell would attack Australia?

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46031596]Who the hell would attack Australia?[/QUOTE] them fukin asians and wogs [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] vote one nation

[QUOTE=Explosions;46029300]How is pledging to disrupt further attacks "letting them win"? Is the real solution to purposely not act on intelligence and let there be a real attack?[/QUOTE] Their goal is to instill fear. They've clearly done exactly that. This is [i]exactly[/i] what the terrorists want. They got it in America a decade ago and now a different group is getting it in Austrailia of all places. The best course of action is to, publically anyway, ignore their very existence. Also, to [b]not[/b] erode civilian's freedoms in the name of 'anti-terrorism'. That tells them you're not afraid, it denies them the victory they're attempting to achieve.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;46029320]Yeah why do people always go "oh the terrorists have won now" when the government cracks down on terrorism? Should the government just let them blow up as many buses as they want? Like seriously what is the logic of letting terrorists actually act out their plans?[/QUOTE] Spending additional effort and granting law enforcement extra powers for the sole purpose of stopping terrorism is a waste of time and resources - the benefit gained from the very few crimes prevented (that would not have otherwise been prevented by normal police function) is absolutely negligible in comparison to the benefit if the time and resources were invested on something actually productive. Just as an example, imagine if even a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the US on counter terrorism post-2001 had instead gone into education, or to NASA, or to infrastructure. I suspect the benefits from that investment, particularly in the long term, would outweigh the risk of serial bus exploders. Basic criminal law and standard law enforcement procedures should already be preventing terrorism as part of their normal function. You don' t need to form a special team to stop people blowing up buses when "blowing up buses" is very much a crime that will get you arrested by the police. Police receive reports of suspicious or criminal behavior from society at large and react appropriately, with specialized units like SWAT teams in reserve for special situations. Unfortunately, no amount of extended legal powers or increases in budget will make the public at large become more accurate and keen in their reporting, and without a clear criminal target to react against, a war on terrorism inevitably becomes a losing war on the concept of terrorism. Law enforcement simply does not and cannot have the manpower or the resources necessary to find hypothetical terrorists before they commit the terrorist act. There is far too much space to cover and far too many people to observe - when working with hypothetical future criminals, you need to observe the actions of a large proportion of the population to be effective, since there is no way of ruling out suspects with reasonable confidence short of actually observing the them. Police (in most countries relevant to the discussion) are also legally barred from accessing a suspect's private property and information without proper cause, so they don't have access the primary (likely) source of incriminating evidence, that is, without establishing suspicion based entirely on a suspect's public actions and doing the due (process). Note that a suspect acting suspicious enough to deserve further investigation would probably suck hard enough at being inconspicuous so as to get caught/reported/investigated without any special police effort, yet if the suspect is competent enough to not act suspicious in public, there is literally no way to prove criminal intent. The point is law enforcement works best when reacting to the needs of the public, which in return act as the real eyes and ears for uncovering terrorists and criminals; attempting to take independent action for which it was not designed for and not supposed to be legally capable of serves to turn citizen into a synonym for suspect, it turns terrorists into charlie and turns your own country into poor man's PG-13 Vietnam. It blurs the lines between military action and law enforcement reaction, and you end up with people wondering why the police needs an MRAP to drive around a suburb. Cops aren't equipped for proactively searching or identifying criminals before they commit crime by design and for good reason, and unless society has a really major paradigm shift completely eliminating privacy, its not going to change. Elevating their power and throwing more money around doesn't help because until you hit the critical threshold where reasonable cause for suspicion is "breathing," there is very little return on investment in terms of stopping terrorism/crime. People who act suspicious enough to standout and get investigated would have gotten investigated regardless of all the special dedicated effort, yet the people who are competent enough to not act suspicious in public are protected by the law. It comes down to two options, either you don't worry be happy and focus on development or you datamine the shit out of the entire population and secrets are practically impossible. Everything in between the two extremes is very ineffective relative to cost, while also providing a shitty policestate atmosphere so everyone can feel shitty about both lack of privacy and terrorism at the same time. The US actually tried the latter and has been pretty successful even in the face of public backlash - there's a real way of stopping terrorism, it just comes at the expense of any right to privacy, huge resource investment, and a really powerful government that is absolutely not accountable to its self or its own rules. Obviously the case in the OP is a mild form of this, the police was informed, and they had a clear suspect, clear location and even a clear timeframe to act in. Abbott's remarks just seem ridiculous though; "anyone anywhere is a potential terrorist, but you should feel safe because the police will protect you from harm if they're around. as a show of strength we're going to use 800 people in a major operation to apprehend 15 suspects because they were the only ones we could find." I'm almost wondering if its reverse psychology to frighten the public into reporting suspicious things more often. [editline]20th September 2014[/editline] wow this post is long I hope it answers your question

Lol if all thats needed for a terrorist attack is a knife, an iphone and a victim, why the fuck dont they devote more money to cleaning up the gang problems in the large cities? Lord knows more people get stabbed, mugged and beaten in a CBD on any given weekend by street gangs than the fabled terrorist network just lying in wait in Australia apparently.