Actually I believed the main one did have something happen (Ford), I just didn’t agree that it was Kavanaugh as she claimed. The other two were easily disproved.
The main difference to this is one was over 30 years ago with very questionable evidence being supplied, this one was 2 years ago with witnesses and fairly concrete.
I still believed Ford had a right to make a claim however and I also think she should have gone to civil court to prove it. She didn’t want to make any claim in reality and it was sort of forced on her due to politics.
The definition of terrorism covers actions causing or risking serious harm, for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
While most of the recent acts may have been by Muslims, it is debatable whether they are seeking to advance a religious cause.
I think that’s why the religious Muslim community takes issue with the Morrison references to acts being driven by Muslim religious extremism.
And don’t forget the Queensland Indian doctor wrongfully convicted, or the Sri Lankan student who was set up.
I’ve been asking myself this question.
It’s not something I particularly want to discuss, as I fear it will get bogged down in semantics and…deeply held thoughts that I don’t want to argue with.
I guess we’ll find out more in due course.
I didn’t say she was gold digging like you. I also didn’t abuse a young player for daring to smile after a game and then come on a forum to boast about it.
In no way was I hypocritical. Ford deserved far more than political grandstanding from both sides. She was a pa.wn of the Democrats and abused by the Republicans. Her lawyer should have been fired for not taking it to court instead of letting her get further used and abused.
You are the one who who is attacking the reporter, not me.
Is the action of James “Dimitrious” Gargasoulas who believed he was “the second coming of Christ” an act of terrorism? Was it deemed as such at the time?
Geez, what’s your problem? The only one point scoring is you! If you don’t believe me have a look at your “I need to have the last word” replies to so many comments in this thread.
Even I make mistakes and admit to them, with regards to Franga.
But you are just perfect, with an excuse for everything. And I didn’t attack the ABC journo, I attacked all ABC journos, at least I am consistent, unlike you.
The Victorian police were initially reluctant to label the latest Bourke Street act as one of terrorism, despite alluding to family connections. May have been because he was not on the Federal priority watch list. Dutton may be a bit uncomfortable about that. Now be’s expecting the Muslim community to do the job for him.
But once it gets officially declared as a terrorist act, the Feds come in over the top and can use extraordinary powers under the Terrorism Act.
I’d like to know Dutton and Morrison’s definition of Islamic extremism. I’d put Saudi practices in that category, including what they are exporting to Indian Ocean countries.
I don’t know why we make the semantic distinction between a crazy person who wants to kill for a crazy religious reason (terrorist) and a crazy person who wants to kill for other crazy person reasons. Both of them are mentally ill. It’s only the shade of the mental illness that’s different.
A man who believes that he needs to kill Western people because his God wants him to is mentally ill.
A man who believes that he needs to kill Jews because they are secretly running the world is mentally ill.
A man who believes he needs to kill women because a bunch of girls rejected him is mentally ill.
All those issues (religious dogma, delusions, social isolation) are different, but the common denominator in those who actually act on those issues is mental illness.