As Obama announces sending some more troops to Iraq (another 300 plus helicopters and drones, but designated as being for the protection of Americans there), as Israel reports the three children kidnapped by terrorists have been found dead, and as Nigerian Islamists kidnap more girls and destroy more Christian churches, the Australian public is now being made increasingly aware through the media of the violence being used by extremist Islamic groups (see front page story in The Age below). The most extreme, ISIS (or ISIL), has declared parts of Iraq and Syria as a caliphate state applying sharia law and claiming that its authority applies world-wide. The Age journalist in Iraq quotes an American “expert” as claiming ISIS to be the “world’s wealthiest militant organisation with assets in the billions”.
Attorney General Brandis’s statement that ISIS will “seek to export terrorism”, and that “there are very serious implications for Australia”, is recognising the problems more than in the US. His department also denied any advance knowledge of the departure of two boys of Islamic origin to the Middle East and suggested parents should accept responsibility for their children (who presumably had their fares paid for).
However, apart from indications that action will be taken against Australian participants in the extremist activity in Iraq/Syria, little has been said by the Abbott government about whether other measures might be taken in Australia to reduce the risk of violent action here. Nor has there been any in the media: the focus in last night’s 7.30 program, for example, was largely on what the Islamists are threatening to apostates. It is surprising that our Christian churches have virtually nothing to say publicly about organisations which want to destroy Christianity.
Meantime, the latest Newspoll is about as bad for the Coalition as you could get. The main “saving grace” is that Palmer did not improve at all. Shorten did, however, and Turnbull decided it was time to let people know that he thought the budget was not effectively sold.
Re climate change, The Australian continues (in its editorial) its contradictory analysis. It supports a cap-and-trade system if others participate but in the same breath says this is unlikely to happen. So, why not publish the abundant material indicating the many problems with the “science” and abandon the whole exercise?