Comments on: Lock ‘em up http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:44:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: CB http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264359 CB Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:14:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264359 Looking forward to the day when flunkies like dreamboat get that knock on the door at 2am from the hired goons.<br/><br/>Geez, I'd just love to be there. The look on his face would be priceless. Looking forward to the day when flunkies like dreamboat get that knock on the door at 2am from the hired goons.

Geez, I’d just love to be there. The look on his face would be priceless.

]]> By: Pete's Blog http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264257 Pete's Blog Tue, 29 Nov 2005 03:56:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264257 Oh be not unkind to Shab AL - even if he disagrees with one of your more "anti-State" generalisations.<br/><br/>I can assume we can agree there is an increased terrorist threat of Howard's own making (occupation of Iran and Afghanistan)?<br/><br/>Security laws in countries the world over are constantly being reworded or reinterpreted to meet changing threats.<br/><br/>Its fairly easy to take a conservative line on security laws and agencies saying "nothing's changed so laws don't need to change" but 9/11 and the humungous over-reaction have prompted some Muslims to try to fight back within Australia.<br/><br/>Whether or not their cause is justified is irrelevant to the danger they pose to other Australians.<br/><br/>The laws being proposed will be placed in a far less strict and monitored environment that that already existing in the US and UK. <br/><br/>But then we haven’t had the “benefit” of their experience of overly archaic and ineffective security laws failing to stop a successful terrorist attack by Muslims. Oh be not unkind to Shab AL - even if he disagrees with one of your more “anti-State” generalisations.

I can assume we can agree there is an increased terrorist threat of Howard’s own making (occupation of Iran and Afghanistan)?

Security laws in countries the world over are constantly being reworded or reinterpreted to meet changing threats.

Its fairly easy to take a conservative line on security laws and agencies saying “nothing’s changed so laws don’t need to change” but 9/11 and the humungous over-reaction have prompted some Muslims to try to fight back within Australia.

Whether or not their cause is justified is irrelevant to the danger they pose to other Australians.

The laws being proposed will be placed in a far less strict and monitored environment that that already existing in the US and UK.

But then we haven’t had the “benefit” of their experience of overly archaic and ineffective security laws failing to stop a successful terrorist attack by Muslims.

]]> By: Antony Loewenstein http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264255 Antony Loewenstein Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:40:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264255 Shab, your experience of life and the world truly astounds me. Knowledge about every issue, defender of Western values, supporter of wars in faraway places and all from the comfort of your middle class existence.<br/>Teach me, grasshopper. Must be tiring always defending the powerful and torturers. Shab, your experience of life and the world truly astounds me. Knowledge about every issue, defender of Western values, supporter of wars in faraway places and all from the comfort of your middle class existence.
Teach me, grasshopper. Must be tiring always defending the powerful and torturers.

]]> By: Shabadoo http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264253 Shabadoo Tue, 29 Nov 2005 02:33:00 +0000 http://antonyloewenstein.com/blog/2005/11/29/lock-em-up/#comment-264253 Presumably "foreign affairs" is a codeword for your reductionist, socially deterministic worldview which says that Western slights of the past 100 years are enough to explain 1,400 years of Muslim antagonism to the "other"?<br/><br/>These laws are no threat. Make you a bet: $100 to your favourite charity or mine that in a year's time, after publishing your seditious little book, you haven't been thrown in a gulag by the Joward Junta.<br/><br/>I can't wait to plant a tree in Israel in your name. Presumably “foreign affairs” is a codeword for your reductionist, socially deterministic worldview which says that Western slights of the past 100 years are enough to explain 1,400 years of Muslim antagonism to the “other”?

These laws are no threat. Make you a bet: $100 to your favourite charity or mine that in a year’s time, after publishing your seditious little book, you haven’t been thrown in a gulag by the Joward Junta.

I can’t wait to plant a tree in Israel in your name.

]]>