MRAA (ie MRAV) bashing

The chemicals are now identified by the NSW Police as the same used in the
London Bombings.

Boxer

 

You grew up, you could see for yourself, the propaganda wore off.

Gary

 

Where I live I had the choice of Philip Ruddock or a mob of weirdos....

(at least some of the weirdos looked like they were still alive, unlike
our local member, Phil, who seems to have died about four years ago, by
the looks of 'im.)

regards,
CrazyCam

 

He has an OAM too... for services to motorcycling.

Gary

 

Lets go a little into the future for a moment if we may... I recently
read that a motorcycle lobby group (who shall remain nameless for the
moment) are considering protesting the Commonwealth Games (possibly in
such a way as to bring unchecked individuals into disagreement with the
powers that be around the Commonwealth Games venue).

Under the laws existing up until a very short while ago that was
legal... is it still so? Are these motorcyclists now at risk of being
carted away as a potential risk?

Or perhaps a little further away... what about the protests around the
WTO? Are those people at risk of being considered as potential
terrorist threats? Is throwing things at people a terrorist act?

The point is that no one knows how the new laws will be used... and what
for.

Which to me at least is somewhat worrying...


G-S

 

Anakickinanutz.

Postman Pat

 

You know what those chemicals are, don't you?

Acetone, Hydrogen Peroxide, and a strong acid such as Sulphuric acid.

Nail polish remover, hair bleach, and battery acid...

big (still skeptical...)

 

The chemicals are now identified by the NSW Police as the same used in the
London Bombings.[/QUOTE]

Snerk! (again)

;-)

big

 

Phil is getting a bit long in the tooth, wouldn't be surprised if he gave it
away before the next election. The immigration job took its toll on him, I
think he has aged 10 years in the last 3.

Boxer

 

Should any lobby group be allowed to disrupt the Games for their own selfish
political purposes?

Boxer

 

A few Lib backbenchers making some effort (against what is substantial
pressure) to try and do the right thing vs

a (anecdotely) slightly greater number of Labor backbenchers (mostly
hamstrung by the factions) trying to do the right thing.

Yah... not much choice eh.

I used to vote democrat, but they rolled over on the GST and shot
themselves in the foot and subsequently bled to death (what's left is
just the death throws).

The Greens (mostly) have good intentions, but they are hampered by
strong distrust of business and unrealistic short term expectations.

What is needed instead is an inclusive, cooperative approach...

oh did I mention I've got this flying pig for sale (available when the
above happens


G-S

 

'Shame the drovers dog wasnt running that time.

Al

 

<devils advocate hat>

Should some sporting event be allowed to interfere with the normal
democratic processes of the country?

big

 

And obviously from the flavour this thread has taken on, he must also be a
terrorist. Is the MRAA also a terrorist organisation?

I chose not to join the MRA(NSW in this case) because everyone used to say
that "you had to, you weren't a real motorcyclist if you didnt join".
Blackmail is a good enough reason for me not to want to join.

Al

 

I have. I used to have a shooters licence and a number of guns. I
cancelled the licence and sold the guns because I was no longer using them.

I don't think people are arguing that police should not shoot to kill,
they are arguing that police shouldn't shoot to kill when there isn't a
clear and immediate danger to themselves or surrounding civilians.

To use the example of the guy with the backpack in London... he didn't
present a clear and immediate danger, yet he was shot.

That simply isn't good enough in a democratic society, and the new
'shoot to kill' powers go further than existing powers and could lead to
similar deaths in Australia.


G-S

 

Your right, Fundamental Muslims have a perfectly good reason to have a 44
gallon drum of nail polish remover in their homes, we all know how hard it
is to get off.

Boxer

 

Regulations that say the Police may not shoot that suspect without
_proof_ that he is in fact a suicide bomber and is carrying a bomb.

Belief should not be enough. If it comes to the risk of us being 'blown
up' by a suicide bomber or the risk of a Police Officer making a mistake
(like they did in London) then I'd choose the risk of being blown up.

Why? You may ask. Well firstly it preserves certain important rights in
our society and secondly the risk of 1 is probably higher than 2 (at
least where I live). But it's the first reason that is important to me.

If we choose to try and protect our society in a way that erodes the
rights of the members of our society then we are destroying it from
within and the terrorists will win by default.


G-S

 

Plus 240 hours of phone taps discussing, among other things, a bomb
attack on a railway station and how to get chemicals to make such a bomb
given that some materials have been restricted for years...I'm sure
there's a perfectly innocent explanation.

 

As in the old chinese curse yes...

It is only one threat, another one (and one that is more important to
me) is the threat to personal freedoms and liberty that is becoming all
consuming.

It may or it may not hit. It seems to me that giving up freedoms it has
taken hundreds of years to gain for a short term risk that may not even
eventuate is a poor trade.

I don't trust the government to be anything other than a machine to re
elect the party. And yes most of the time most of the agencies use the
laws responsibly, but does that mean we should encourage them to use
them irresponsibly as these laws do?

Fair enough.

He does what he believes is good for his view of what the country should
_be_, that isn't quite the same thing.

I agree... Democracy works best with a strong oposition.

Indeed...


G-S

 

Yeah, maybe, but like I said, _I've_ got a litre or so of it, how much
did they have?

And will we ever find out?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1500524.htm

"The head of the Australian Federal Police (AFP), Mick Keelty, says
police want the details of allegations against people arrested during
counter-terrorism raids this morning suppressed because of the ongoing
nature of the investigations."

Its things like this that concern me, when precisley are the AFT
planning on being held accountable to the society they're allegedly
"protecting" for the ways they're using to do it?

I've also just read this:

http://blogs.smh.com.au/thecontrarian/archives/2005/11/terror_raids_it.ht
ml

which says:

"Last week's amendments were basically designed to assist police with
operational matters. They have been allowed to act on what we must
assume was high-grade intelligence that suggested a terror strike in the
planning, without needing to know the exact target and timing."

I'm not so sure I'm prepared to "assume" that, but I am very happy to
read further on:

"Note two other, very important aspects of this case. The police used
search warrants approved in the traditional manner -- by a judicial
officer -- and the suspects will be charged immediately. They are not
being held in long-term detention without charge and Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock has said the suspects will have the presumption of
innocence."

and I agree wholeheartedly with the closing couple of paras:

'It is hard to see how the proposed new laws -- with their "control
orders", "sedition" clauses designed to silence dissent, and long-term
detention without charge -- would have assisted authorities in today's
welcome operation.

It is hard to see how laws designed to suppress the free speech of
ordinary citizens and restrict the ability of the media to report on
terrorism issues would have aided today's operation. And it is hard to
see how the effective suspension of habeas corpus -- the rule of law
requiring someone to be presented in court before detention -- would
have made a difference to the raids.

The amendments that parliament passed last week were, on the face of it,
designed to protect Australian democracy from terrorist attack. The laws
awaiting passage would alter the very character of the democracy.'

Remind me again what these new laws are for, Boxer???

cynical-big