ASIO devoting more resources to growing threat of extreme right-wing domestic terror

Am I discussing this with ASIO or you??? I asked you who you consider them to be??? It matters not if you want to answer the question or not. Others may decide to answer it…

No, Marxism and communism is a much greater altruistic system that needs everybody to work for one purpose and that is the best of the people. It also cannot tolerate corruption and is a rigid and closed system. Dealing with others must be done through same basic system which is not what the rest of the world is about

Advancement is done through people giving all to the society or trading.
Basically, it is considered, the only way Marxism or communism will succeed is if the rest of the world has a 55% or greater similar system (arguably). In true Marxist style, the system is failing due to its isolation of which it is necessary to operate.

Ideally, it is a fantastic system, actually better than communism and if the world was far more willing to strive for the group and not self, would work well. BUT as I say “Ideally” real world is self-interest, corruption and hatred.

Rather a simplistic view, but we could talk about the systems for months and still be no closer to understanding.

 

jeez garry.... did you really just say that... do you know how corrupt the Soviet Union was and China is? No wonder we're in so much *****....it's comments like this ^^^^

Our government is grovelling to Biden, the bootlicking is non stop and they are bending particularly low....truth is they have no choice...we're done...cooked economically....which means we're sucking on the swap line teat and sacrificing at the eurodollar altar. Also means it is irrelevant which stage of ideological subversion we are in... we're in whatever stage Biden says we are.

Cool... suppose that means I can get on with my life and leave the rest of you to destabilise your country and indoctrinate your countrymen

 

Prove it!

 

A new Leninist era have begun, the US dictatorship is pushing a worldwide purge of right wing conservatives and this "right wing extremist" announcement by ASIO is but the beginning.

If you are a conservative who have been speaking out - beware
If you have knowledge not in line with the regime - beware
If you are a right winger - beware - they will set you up and paint you as an extremist

To all of you innocent people about to get run over by the regime, their bankers & wall street hedge funds, Godspeed

 

What a load of hooey!

 

and you cannot correlate what has been said to what has been happening??? Or are you just looking to pick a fight??? either way, this part of your comment supports the statement made.

LOL, Australia cannot go it alone. It is a Mino swimming in an ocean of sharks who want what Australia has. Like it or not Australia is desirable for what it has. Who should they align themselves with??? China??? Maybe Germany???.

Well it is YOU who is complaining, perhaps you could come up with alternatives that steer the nation away from the direction you consider it to be heading???


It is easy to simply throw stones but harder to fix the glass.

 

No, if you didn't like Australia I think you would constantly whine about it, constantly promote mind numbingly stupid conspiracy theories with zero evidence, constantly attack state and federal governments of all stripes, show a clear dislike for our racially mixed society and generally indicate that you have no respect for our society or institutions.

In other words, pretty much your entire posting history. It is painfully obvious that you don't like it here. You make it clear pretty much every time you post in the 'Australia' section.

 

Nope, I got it right the first time. Look at how many threads you drag South Africa into - practically every one. Everything is South Africa.....or your warped view of it.

As for 'racist, racist, racist', maybe stop trying to pretend right wing extremists exist, stop defending apartheid & the dictatorship that kept it in place & stop attacking Africans and maybe people won't draw the obvious inference.

 

OK, a slightly edited version of the above post, as I suspect the mods may not like the choice of words (wish the edit function was operational for a bit longer than 15 minutes).

No, if you didn't like Australia I think you would constantly complain about it, constantly promote utterly absurd conspiracy theories with zero evidence, constantly attack state and federal governments of all stripes for equally absurd reasons, show a clear dislike for our racially mixed society and generally indicate that you have no respect for our society or institutions.

In other words, pretty much your entire posting history. It is painfully obvious that you don't like it here. You make it clear pretty much every time you post in the 'Australia' section.

 

I'm struggling to think of any potentially violent Left Wing Political Groups in Australia and by 'Left Wing' I mean the classical definition. They all faded away with the end of the original Cold War in the West and China's opening up in the 'East'. The only violent hard core left wingers I can think of were active in Greece until a decade or so ago and even then it was a aging half dozen diehards.

Now there are radical and violent groups present in African for instance that wear the cloak of radical Marxism, that's true. But that's all it is, a cloak. Their actions mirror in every way other extremist right wing or fanatical religious group on that continent. And as such they are no more a 'threat' and therefore worthy of no more concern than all of those other groups.

What you do have (at least here in Australia) are dozens of left wing activist groups with revolving door memberships and leadership structures (and I use the word 'structure' advisedly) whose aim is to protest and disrupt. But to date none of them have demonstrated the willingness, determination, planning and most importantly the discipline needed for a deliberate long term campaign of violence against proclaimed targets.

This is possibly because they have bought into the idea of collectivist action by 'the group'. Whereas the extreme right wingers tend to form and hold a strong sense of personal responsibility and individual call to action. And that is much, much more dangerous. Believe me, until recently I had access to some of the briefings and intelligence alerts.

So sorry SW. I think you've misidentified the threat and have drifted off into conspiracy land here - at least a bit.

 

An extraordinarily charitable assessment.

The only violent groups that could be considered left wing are the 'black bloc' anarchist groups who often turn up at demonstrations and attempt to provoke police. There might also be a tiny number on the fringes of the environmental movement. In both cases I'm struggling to think of anything that might be considered 'terrorism'. It would be a very small number of very isolated incidents at worst.

During the Cold War ASIO & the various state Special Branches surveilled & infiltrated any & every left wing group imaginable. By 1970, when Australia was 10 million, ASIO alone had opened 500,000 files, overwhelmingly on left wing groups & individuals. Right wing Croatian & Yugoslav groups, on the other hand, conducted the largest sustained terrorist campaign in Australian history (excluding the systematic killing of the indigenous population, of course). This went on for years unhindered by ASIO's vast apparatus until Whitlam came to power & compelled a few folk to take the bombings, arsons etc. seriously.

More recently right wing groups have a history of violence, from small scale physical violence up to arson & murder. Then there is the Australian who committed the Christchurch Massacre. To fail to carefully monitor such groups would be a serious dereliction of responsibity. To argue that such groups do not pose a threat or are some sort of government invention is delusional.

 

Not to be derisive... to the point here is at what level do ASIO start being concerned???


Australia has had several violent protest and threats from both sides of the spectrum. When should extremism be considered serious threat??? (not actually the act) That is to say, at what point do we consider the extremist element to influence people into action??? Talking up threat??? Perhaps preaching threat??? OR some other level???

We have to consider such so we can stop overreach by government or public service. While most don’t see it, the government and its agencies often get away with such action. Such as the terrorism laws to hold without charge or representation indefinitely which has had more innocent people held than real terrorists. People who did not have better friends than most could well have vanished under government hospitality. IMHO


Anyway, while the premise of the OP is somewhat reaching, it does raise other points.

 

Lucky we don't have any of those violent right wingers in Australia:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...nnel-nine-security-guard-20210303-p577c3.html

 

The law at the Federal Level is quite clear on the issue. Protesting is fine. Calling for violent action against the State or its citizens is not, the same for entering into a conspiracy with that intention or taking steps in furtherance of violent acts. All persons subject to detention orders (issued by the courts BTW) have their cases subject to legal review and the number of persons affected by either Detention or Control Orders (which can be used to limit the activities of named individuals post conviction upon release into the community) at any one time in this country is tiny. Furthermore the orders are a matter of court record and have to be renewed at regular intervals anyway. When up for renewal the State has to argue and present evidence as to why a control order should be continued and present evidence, the subject of the order being able to challenge that evidence. Finally over time the orders end to be wound back/become allowing the person concerned more and more 'freedoms' e.g accessing a computer as over time they prove they have separated from violent movements.

So, sorry to deflate your 'Police State' balloon but State and Federal law enforcement in this country have neither the resources, the legal authority or for that matter any real interest in attempting to organize mass detentions and arrests.

 

I am not sure you get the issue I am pointing at here. Sure, AFP has clear guide lines of what the laws state, but the intention is another thing. I think the point here is look at what happened just recently in the US with Trump. Sure he did not create the conspiracy or state turning to violence but throughout the election campaign and after losing the election he incited some of his followers to march on congress.

Clearly, Trump shows the laws are not so definitive as he could not be charged, if this was what happened in Australia.

Oh, you’re really swinging for the sky.


I am pointing out the terrorism laws introduced to hold without charge or representation suspect terrorists. Discussing control orders and convictions are not even in discussions and while the State has to request renewals of orders this can be issued on the flimsiest of evidence. As in three of the cases, which occurred not long after the introduction of such laws (where all were found to be innocent of ANY suspicion), it was demonstrated just how easily for this to happen.


SO, your final point here is irrelevant. No orders are being made to be wound back, not prevention of access to computers is an issue. Having innocent people detained in prison because somebody thinks they are a terrorist or just makes the claim they are a terrorist IS the issue.

That is interesting to say, “law enforcement” has no intention… The fact of the matter is that Law enforcement is the TOOL for creating police states.


I find this part of your comment the most interesting of the entire post, notwithstanding the deliberate misleading of the points. YOUR actually posting this in a thread strictly pointing to the results of overreach of government, agencies and law to say ‘you’re wrong’ without an announce of evidence to support.

So if you want to address the points raised feel free, but otherwise I will treat this as the attempt to find fault in others rather than real debate that you are trying to pretend.

 

Now I',m confused? Trump was America not Australia. We have different legal systems, different constitutional frameworks for civil rights rights. The Prime Minister of Australia is not the equivalent of the President of the United States and does not have the same powers. So how about deciding where exactly you think it is you live and then apply the principals relevant to that jurisdiction. Don't conflate two entirely separate systems.

How about you go away and study the relevant legislation before pontificating about what you imagine that legislation entitles authorities to do. For a start all persons arrested on terrorist charges are entitled to legal representation albeit from a list of lawyers with the appropriate security clearances. And control orders are wound back (i.e made less onerous in later iterations.

Your just wrong. This is because you have no technical knowledge of the legislation concerned and no practical experience in dealing with CT related arrests. Prior to retiring I did. My technical knowledge is now a couple of years out of date but that's because I know longer work in the area. However that still makes it better than yours. So when I tell you that in the past I have had to interact personally with some of the people your whose rights your so concerned about I am telling you the truth. As I am when I say you should believe me when I tell you their concern for your 'rights' is infinitely less than your apparent concern for theirs. I have also had to assist with issues relating to control orders and give evidence in court with regards to CT related prosecutions.

As for the people who are allegedly marching Australia forward towards a Police State? They are stressed out, overworked underpaid and took oaths to requiring them to respect the Constitution of the country they serve. They are also just as much in favor oaths of maintaining the freedoms you enjoy as you are. This is because (surprise, surprise,) they enjoy them to.

 

Yeah, Yeah, clearly don’t understand the comment or the reference, not my issue.

Nah, I am not really interested here. The point was made and you decided to attack the poster. Not my issue again.

Yeah, yeah, again your experience far exceeds mine and we should believe you because you tell us so… Want a second opinion??? We can ask you tomorrow.

Again, the final part of your comment becomes the most interesting. Since the point was the issue of overreach I am sure I don’t have to wonder where your level is. You keep telling the world that it is when a police state is made.


Got a question for you, since all you want to do is attack everybody… Are there no corrupt police officers??? Or there no corrupt public servants??? Are there no corrupt elected officials??? No??? because you say so??? Or is it because.

Your attempts to attack me are rather dreary, since you’re not really interested in discussing what is stated, rather more interested in attacking posters, I will simply reply in kind. IF and I say IF, you ever decide to discuss topics let me know, but until then I will hold you in the same contempt you have for others.

 

Firstly, here's what you posted earlier and what I responded to;

'I am pointing out the terrorism laws introduced to hold without charge or representation suspect terrorists. Discussing control orders and convictions are not even in discussions and while the State has to request renewals of orders this can be issued on the flimsiest of evidence. As in three of the cases, which occurred not long after the introduction of such laws (where all were found to be innocent of ANY suspicion), it was demonstrated just how easily for this to happen.

Firstly, you are clearly making specific statements about the conduct of the Australian Government and its Agencies in the CT sphere and the laws governing that conduct. And this is off the back of previous incorrect statements about the access to lawyers and indefinite detention without trial etc.

In my response I in turn referenced my personal experience working in the area concerned. Your statements on the other had are those of someone with no personal experience or direct knowledge whatsoever of that field, in particular as to what the relevant legislation allows and doesn't allow Police and other Government Agencies to do. You don't have to take my word for it? Fine, there's a simple solution.

Prove I'm wrong by referencing those parts of Australia's CT legislation that let government agencies do all the things you claim they are currently doing. Go on do it. The legislation is on-line and easily accessible, if you cant find it I send you a link. It shouldn't take you long at all to prove how wrong I am because it will be there in black and white. If you want more proof reference the legal decisions supporting what you say I can send you links for that as well. The balls in your court.

Secondly, as for corruption in the civil service and police forces? Yes it exists (to a degree) but so what? What does that have to do with the issues in question? It would only be relevant if you were to assume a cabal of corrupt federal and state officials had decided for some reason to enter into a conspiracy designed to illegally detain innocent people and then frame them for crimes they didn't commit. Have you got any evidence this is actually a 'thing'? Because I don't. To the best of my knowledge no accusations of conduct approaching anything like this have ever been made by an Australian terrorist suspect in recent years. Oh, BTW on this topic I do 'say so' because again I have experience in anti-corruption investigations including those involving Police Officers. (Annoying isn't it when someone who has actually worked in an field of expertise your discussing pops up to contradict you .)

Thirdly, the mere fact I or anyone else on this forum disagrees with you should not automatically be labelled as a personal attack. And to accuse someone of 'playing the man not the ball' just because they disagree with you is IMO somewhat disingenuous. In fact it may have escaped your notice but on other threads we have actually been in agreement. And no, that doesn't make us 'best buds' either. So I respectfully suggest you try not to take everything so personally, if only because accusations that a different opinion is a 'personal attack' can easily be morph into someones standard method of avoiding difficult questions or even (God forbid) admitting they may be wrong.

Cheers

 

Yeah, yeah you are the consummate expert because you tell us so, we must believe you because, you say so…

Now before complaining that your being misrepresented, YOU started to attack comment I made to another, who will clearly understand what was stated. YOU began with personal attack and expect me to respond as if your clever and NOW you want to portray yourself as the victim by pretending that you only wanted to discuss the response made to such dribble…

True, just because you disagree with me does not Automatically mean you are making a personal attack… HOWEVER…

This clearly is, which is the first post you made here. NOT the victimisation you are pretending at all. I Pointed out in my response that the comment you made was clearly an attempt to find fault, NOT attempt to discuss issues.

As for corruption… Apparently you’re flip flopping now. BUT since that means in YOUR comment as being in police state, I guess you can justify the fish out of water stance you making.

Now, The post you wanted to attack, you remain completely void of addressing one single point made. BUT you are the victim here I am sure.


OK, now let me burst your little bubble, I thought you were no longer going to respond to me because I am ‘rude’. It appears now you want to chase me around the forum and stand victorious. Like making comments about how so many other people tell me how I am at fault. Shame that most of those posters are the same poster. Time to change personas because this one is not successful at whatever you want it to be…

 

Show me one post where I used the word 'expert' let alone the the word 'consummate'. Go on just one single post.

Wow so a comment about 'deflating your balloon' is all it takes for you to deem it personal attack. My aren't you 'precious'. (And yes, just once that was one.)

QUOTE="garry17, post: 1072495214, member: 52693"]As for corruption… Apparently you’re flip flopping now. BUT since that means in YOUR comment as being in police state, I guess you can justify the fish out of water stance you making.

Now, The post you wanted to attack, you remain completely void of addressing one single point made. BUT you are the victim here I am sure.[/QUOTE]

Your the one who raised raised corruption as an issue. I just asked for an example applicable to the the CT field. You haven't provided one. Nor have I claimed victim-hood at any point - if so show me where. Instead I have merely asked you to back up your comments with evidence. Something you have so far failed to do. Not once, on any single point.

No, I won't be 'chasing' you anywhere. Why would I bother? As a rule I only post on threads I am interested in. And this thread was one of those simply because I do have some (limited) experience in the field concerned, as opposed, interestingly enough to you apparently. And I'm sorry, but the fact you think I might want to 'chase you' anywhere says far more about than it does about me.

As for your last comment re: 'about how so many other people tell me how I am at fault'. Point to where I did so.

And after you've done that perhaps you might consider addressing my request that you produce one single piece of factual evidence supporting your contentions on this thread.

So if I may politely suggest. Perhaps you should go away, calm down and then come back and address the issues I raised - not imagined slurs.

 

Oh ho hum

LOL, don’t like the facts??? Want to try rewrite it??? Nah, the intent was there and it stands out so well…

What a load of BS, I have commented on YOUR posts how many times??? How many times have you started with me??? Again, you injected yourself into my comment to another with the clear distinct purpose of Finding fault not discussion how many times???

I am just chuffed that I can get under somebodies skin so much that they want to try beat me down. That lifts the ego, BUT, it has never been my intention. I don’t consider myself to be that powerful but apparently I am.

Oh how soon we forget, Well again I don’t consider you worth chasing around to show your deliberate misleading.

Umm, now since YOU decided to attack MY comment to another with your claims of being the consummate expert because you tell us so, it is YOUR job to show evidence of your stance.
However, I will leave you with one small tidbit…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_state
It seems you don’t even know what a ‘police state’ is Yet you want to attack me with it…

 

I assume that is an admission that I never used the work 'expert'. Thank you.

As far as I can recall we've disagreed on perhaps two different threads and agreed in one other. If you think that means I'm 'injecting' myself (whatever that means) into threads you are visiting for the sole purpose of stalking you I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Like everyone else here I comment in multiple threads as I see fit. I literary have zero interest in chasing you around the forum, honestly why would I? For this reason when I agree with you it's because I actually do agree with you. And when I disagree with you it's simply because I disagree, no more, no less.

Sorry, but since I never actually claimed to be an 'expert' but instead stated that I had some experience in the fields I described getting under my skin is not an issue. Franky? I've interviewed hardened criminals who would do a better job of getting 'under my skin' than you could ever do. Nor do I consider you more or less 'powerful' than any other person I've disagreed with on this forum (and there have been as many of those as there are posters I've agreed with). Finally if I may? Based on our exchanges so far you do seem to have a habit of taking any challenge to one of your posts as a personal insult. Perhaps you should reflect on why that is so.

If you want to question my 'consummate expertise' (you words not mine) send me a private message and I'll provide more details - provided you first guarantee not to post my response publicly. FYI this is for the same reasons I'd respect the privacy of any private details you gave me about your private life. For the rest?

One - I've referred you the legislation that allegedly (your words) allows Polcie to detain citizens indefinitely without access to legal representation and asked you to show me exactly what section allows this to happen. You haven't done this. I can only take this failure as an admission that there are no such sections and that therefore your comments on the subject are without merit or substance.

2) From your own link to Wikipedia ' police state ....a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century it has "taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of civil authorities.'

Setting aside the emotional and derogatory nature of you claim - which BTW is pretty much in line with all you other responses in this thread so far, all you have to do is prove we're living in one. And remember - you made the claim not me, so pony up, present the facts proving Australia is a modern Police State. Oh sorry, I forgot, every time I ask you for the 'facts' supporting your contentions you go into 'attack mode' sprouting accusations and insults rather than addressing the issues.

Contact me off line if you want to continue.

 

You can assume whatever you want, however, that was to highlight what adults with a modicum of education understand. Since it appears you don’t understand the comment, I am guessing you have a conundrum on your hands…

Oh dear, SO you are responding to my posts made to others with your own style is simply not TRUE??? I am just flabbergasted… but whatever rocks your boat…

‘Consummate expert’ Actually are not my words. ‘ because you tell us’ IS. Stop trying to sound smart and start thinking about what is being said.

Honestly, I once spoke to the smartest man in the world. I know this because he told me he was. So in educated terms (something you don’t appear to be aware of)OR I once spoke to the consummate expert in EVERYTHING… DO you get the picture yet???


Don’t you realise, how ironically funny it is that you try to suggest your height of intelligence and you don’t understand one of the most basic sarcastic comments made to such people???

What NOW your trying to find closest ground to try justify your attempt at insult…

You see, from that tidbit I gave you showing you do not understand what a police state is, it Is clear Australia, in the strictest definition IS a police state…


BUT since that was never my point, only the fact you showed your completely irrelevant attempts is all I am interested in demonstrating.

No I don’t have to prove Australia is living in a police state that was your claim of me. IT was never my claim.

I am not emotional… well,may be I am laughing a lot… As for derogatory nature… I am just returning serve. IF you don’t like it, don’t start with it. Mind you, I pretty much have decided not to always wait for insult.

Why in god’s name would I want to talk to somebody who continues to deliberately make ad hominem attacks. Building logical fallacies in attempt to show… I do believe, how intelligent you are… I could be wrong.

However, I do believe, IF you spent less effort in trying to sound intelligent and more time just considering the argument, it would work far better for you. You do sound intelligent, you just don’t show it.[/QUOTE]

 

Followed shortly after by ...

Forgetting for the moment I offered to continue this discussion off line and provide relevant details concerning my experience (not expertise) in the fields concerned. I think the above basically sums you up in total.

I literally have no words.

 

We know... IT has been Abundantly clear from the very first comment you made you have no words...