Institute for Private Enterprise » Islam

Continued Concern on Islamic Threat

Des Moore — Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:56:09 +0000

Continued Concern on Islamic Threat

As expected, more information is emerging about the activity of radicalised Muslims and their relationship with the Hume Islamic Centre. The most worrying development reported today about the Bourke St terrorist, Shire Ali, is that he was on bail when the killing occurred and had a record of getting away with breaking previous bails. This information would have been available to the Victorian government and to senior police. In those circumstances Shire Ali should have been at least closely watched but there have been no reports that he was. More details will be available tomorrow but there is no doubt that this will become a major issue in the imminent Victorian election.

Earlier today, the Fairfax press reported that the Hume centre is where (now known) terrorists have said they have attended and presumably participated in endorsing the message conveyed by the leader (this denied by the head, Sheik Omran). Now the centre is seeking to increase the number of attendees at peak periods to up to 500. Shire Ali, who killed the owner of the coffee shop in Bourke St, apparently attended the centre, although Omran denies this too – “Shire Ali, he never came here — or once in a blue moon.” Omran, who is head of the fundamentalist Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah Association, also makes the unbelievable claim that no radicalizations have occurred at the centre.

The only body responsible for approving or denying approval to expand seems to be the local Hume Council and the major question for considering expansion seems to be whether there would be enough car parking available in the surrounding area (see Islamic Centre Seeks Expansion). One would have thought that the Federal government should also have a say and should also be informed about any radicalizations. It is possible that Australian Federal Police/ASIO have infiltrated the centre but there should be publicly available information about the centre (and any other similar ones), just as there is for normal clubs et al.

The Australian reported today that “Islamic State-aligned groups have released fresh propaganda based on Friday’s terror attack in Bourke Street, as new data showed a high incidence of violent radicalism among Australians denied their passports by security agencies. Islamic State-linked Sunni Shield Media Foundation this week released posters with images of the Bourke Street attack, including one showing attacker Hassan Khalif Shire Ali attempting to stab a police officer. Another poster contained a photo of the utility that Shire Ali set alight during his fatal jihadi mission. ‘Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks,’ the text on the poster read”.

OZ also reports that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton yesterday condemned the propaganda (“This demonstration shows their evil minds at work,” he said. “We will continue our efforts to counter propaganda and gather intelligence to defeat the scourge”). Bill Shorten also did so, urging “internet providers and social media companies to remove any objectionable material which encourages terrorism.” The Opposition Leader said “We all have an obligation to ensure it is not disseminated further and doesn’t reach vulnerable young people.”

What this so-called propaganda seems aimed to do is not only to excuse the terrorist but also attract Muslims to radicalise. The phrase “Australia, don’t think you are away from our attacks” used above might be subject to legal action against the person responsible for making the poster. It certainly calls for a response from the body responsible for our national security – the federal government.

The Australian has also published a considerable number of letters expressing concern at what has happened and at the apparent influence of Islam. My letter was also published, albeit in a heavily edited form, and is set out below.

It’s Chilling to See Would-Be Killers Laughing in Court

Letter Published in The Australian, 16 Nov 2018 (Square bracketed bits deleted by Ed)

“PM Morrison should be applauded for his sensible statements on [Australia’s sixth deadly] the Islamic terrorist attack which occurred in Melbourne, as should your editorial in asserting that “Islamist terrorism must be confronted, not denied” (14/11). But with a Muslim community having [, surveys suggest,] a [not in] significant proportion who support the beliefs of Muhammad in the Koran, the question is what action might be taken to limit deadly attacks.

[First, the government should publish a paper providing to Australians the extent of the beliefs of Muhammad, why they are still accepted by some today, the extent of the threat to national security, and what action is being take to minimise the threat. It should include the views of leaders of our Islamic community but should also make clear that the problem is not with ‘extremists’ as such but with interpreters of the religion itself who believe in the killing of infidels including fellow Muslims.]

The government should in cooperation with the states enhance our deficient police and intelligent analysts and take steps to access the encrypted exchanges now hidden from detection. This should include the deportation of those attempting or advocating extremist action and should require mosques and prayer centres to provide special police forces with access to what is said at meetings. [As is happening now in European countries, additional funding should not be held back].

And Australia should seek agreement with other Judaeo-Christian countries to pursue such action on an international basis”.

The developments outlined above, and the widespread increased concern, call for a statement by the Federal Government on what additional protective measures it is considering and that it plans to publish an educative information paper about Islam .

Iran & US Sanctions Policy, Climate in 2017

Des Moore — Sun, 14 Jan 2018 10:56:31 +0000

Iranian’s Judiciary Head Sanctioned

It appears that the protests in Iran have virtually ceased following deaths and many arrests by the Revolutionary Guard. However, according to a Reuters report Supreme Leader Khamenei still felt it necessary to make a public statement that “citizens had a right to air legitimate concerns, a rare concession by a leader who usually voices clear support for security crackdowns.These concerns must be addressed. We must listen, we must hear. We must provide answers within our means”, Mr Khamenei was quoted as saying, hinting that not only the government of Rouhani, but his own clerical leadership must also respond”. “I’m not saying that they must follow up. I am also responsible. All ofus must follow up” (see Khamenie Statement 10 Jan).

That this is a similar statement to that made earlier by the elected President Rouhani might mean some form of agreement at the top to moderate governance in Iran.

It is interesting that the head of Israeli’s Mossad, Yossi Cohen, saw it appropriate to respond to Khamenie’s remarks and his accusation that the disruption in Iran is partly caused by Israel. Cohen argues that it is mainly due to a failed economic policy and adds that he “would be happy to see a meaningful revolution”.

Needless to say, if a revolution succeeded in establishing some form of democracy and ridded the existing dominant role of Islamic extremism, it could have major welcome effects in the Middle East.

Following Khameni’s remarks, Trump has announced that the US would “certify” the nuclear deal made between Iran and the US/Six European countries under Obama (a regular certification is required so as to provide an opportunity for the US/Six to check that Iran has in fact stopped the development of nuclear weapons). However, Trump qualified his certification by saying he was giving Europe and the US “a last chance” to fix “terrible flaws” in the agreement. At the same time, the US announced new sanctions, including on Iran’s head of judiciary on the ground that he was responsible for the deaths and arrests of protesters. A separate report states that the new sanctions extend to 14 Iranian officials and companies and businessmen from Iran, China and Malaysia, freezing any assets they have in the U.S. and banning Americans from doing business with them.

The Iranian foreign ministry responded by describing the sanction against the judiciary head as ” hostile action” and as having “crossed all red lines of conduct in the international community and is a violation of international law and will surely be answered by a serious reaction of the Islamic Republic.” It accused Trump of “continuing to take hostile measures against the Iranian people and repeating the threats that have failed many times” (see Iran Nuclear Deal Certified Again But Sanctions Imposed Against Judiciary Head).

As previously commented, the Turnbull government has expressed no sympathy for the Iranian protesters seeking the removal of the dictatorship run by extremist Islamists and has offered no support for the policy adopted by our US ally, let alone for the many Iranians who have left their country. Under Trump, the US has taken a close interest in developments Iran and it is in Australia’s interests to do so too.

Climate and Energy Policies

In my Commentary last Friday I drew attention to serious questions about the basis of Australia’s carbon reduction policies and to the misleading report on Australian climate in 2017 by the BOM, whose representative (but not head) included an unjustifiable prediction that “the odds [now] favour warmer-than-average temperatures more often than in the past”. I included Richard Morgan’s advertisement in the Herald Sun titled The Next Ice Age, which points out that “model failures demonstrate the underlying theory and assumptions used are not supported by the results”.

As to incidents in global climate in 2017, the CEO of London’s Global Warming Foundation, Benny Peiser, and respected climate analyst Matt Ridley, had an article published in the Wall St Journal pointing out that, while “the past year was filled with bad weather news”, “it has become routine for the media, politicians and activists to link “ such bad local news with climate change. However, they rightly say that “by looking at the world as a whole, and at long-term trends (climate) rather than at short-term events (weather), we can better test the claims that 2017 was an unusual weather year and that weather is getting more extreme as the world warms”. Their thesis is that “Bad Weather Is No Reason for Climate Alarm” and they say that although “on average the globe suffers some 325 catastrophic natural disasters a year, last year (through November) they were down to around 250 and “a third fewer people were killed by climate-related hazards” (see Peiser & Ridley Assess Climate in 2017).

Peiser &Ridley also quote other aspects relevant to an authoritative assessment of climate developments taking account of 2017 incidents:

While temperatures have risen since 1990 at between 0.121 and 0.198 degrees Celsius per decade, that is at a third to two-thirds of the rate projected by the IPCC.
Globally the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index—which measures the combined intensity and duration of these storms—is currently running 20% below its long-term average. In fact, the index for 2017 was less than half of normal cyclone activity for the Southern Hemisphere.
Although more than 9,000 wildfires burned some 1.4 million acres across California, the number of wildfires in California has actually been declining for 40 years. The global area burned by wildfires has also declined in recent decades.
As for drought, a comprehensive database published in 2014 in the journal Nature found that the proportion of the world suffering from abnormally low rainfall has slightly declined since the 1980s.
The number of major floods in natural rivers across Europe and North America has not increased in 80 years. Globally, too, floods have decreased in recent years.

Hence, while short-term weather fluctuations and extreme events rightly catch the headlines,P&R correctly say “they don’t capture the reality of the planet’s climate. Over the past several decades, the world has been getting slowly warmer, slightly wetter and less icy. It has also been no stormier, no more flood-prone and a touch less drought-prone. And sea level continues to creep slowly upward”. In short, 2017 provided no indication that we are threatened by dangerous warming.

Las Vegas & Widening of Police Assessments But No Gas Policy

Des Moore — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:53:35 +0000

Such details as are available for the Las Vegas killer (causing 59 deaths and 527 injuries) do not suggest he was directly influenced by ISIS, although that body claims responsibility (it obviously suits it to claim responsibility for deaths in the US). However, the killer (Paddock, white) may have been indirectly influenced by that body’s jihadist policy of killing those perceived to be opposed to Islam. For details of Paddock’s life, see Vegas Killer’s Background.

Coinciding with the US killings are two reports of terrorist action in France and Canada (2 deaths and 5 injured) and a report that “Last week Islamic State released a new recording, supposedly of leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi — whom the Russians believed dead — exhorting followers to strike at the West” (see IS Attacks in France & Canada). Australia is of course subject to a possible attack.

Interestingly, while last evening’s 6.30 TV news on SBS reported Las Vegas and these other two incidents, the 7.00 ABC TV news reported only on Las Vegas and failed to mention either the French or Canadian incidents or the report of a Baghdadi statement. Nor did it mention them on ABC Radio News this morning. But it did not forget to discuss the gun control issue in the US.

An important development here (presumably prompted by Las Vegas) is today’s report that the recently appointed (30 March) NSW Police Commissioner Fuller is claiming that his establishment of a “fixated persons unit” of 17 in the NSW police force has, in the last six months, resulted in 6 people having been charged and 32 investigated in regard to terrorist activity or threats (see NSW Policy on Combating Terrorism).It appears that (sensibly) this unit is responsible for preventing attacks by terrorists and by those who become obsessed with other extreme views about perceived threats from sources other than religious ones. This has led to the establishment of a close relationship between NSW police and health officials, including the Chief Psychiatrist. The latter is reported as saying that they only share health information when they are convinced there is potential for serious harm.

It may be that the 15 year old, charged last week with two counts of attempted murder for allegedly driving a car strait at individuals in Swanston St, is a fixated person. Contrary to initial reports, however, it is now being said that he does not have a mental health problem (see Melbourne Attacker Not Mentally Ill).

In his response, Turnbull has been fast off the mark in announcing that State and territory leaders will meet on Thursday for a special national security summit. “We must constantly improve our laws and our techniques to stay ahead of those who seek to do us harm” (see extracts Aus Meeting of PM & States on National Security). It is to be hoped that Turnbull will tell the meeting that, while Islamic Extremism is the most serious source of terrorism facing Australia, counter-terrorist policies should be extended to counter this not only through intelligence agencies but also through police action of the type adopted by the NSW establishment of a fixated persons unit.

Gas Policy Went Missing

Last week Turnbull said that the agreement on additional domestic gas supplies would be concluded today and would be legally binding. So far, however, there has been no indication of what has happened or will happen to this in the period ahead. Parliament resumes in two weeks time.

How Long Can Turnbull Last?

Des Moore — Tue, 22 Aug 2017 03:46:45 +0000

Questionable Reactions to Newspoll

I headed my Commentary on Sunday “Are Our Politicians in the Real World? and suggested that some of the behaviour and events in Canberra and one or two other states in the last couple of weeks indicated that our political body is, like Alice in Wonderland, acting outside the real world. I added that “It would be surprising if tomorrow’s Newspoll does not show a further decline in the Coalition’s rating, which would again emphasise the need to replace Turnbull if the Coalition wants an election chance”.

That further decline has now happened, with the Coalition’s TPP down to 46/54 from 47/53 (a potential loss of 20 seats) and Turnbull’s Net Satisfaction Rate falling from minus 12 to minus 20 (the same as Shorten’s). Turnbull’s only “saving grace” was that he sustained a lead as preferred PM, albeit at a slightly reduced 10 points (43/33). According to Weekend Australian’s editorial, “this has been a terrible week for Malcolm Turnbull’s government. Tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm, it has been incapable of steering its own course”. Political editor, Crowe, judged that “Turnbull is now in a political trough that is deeper and longer than anything predecessors such as John Howard experienced” (see Crowe on Newspoll 21 Aug).

Relevant in interpreting developments is Chris Kenny’s article in Weekend Australian suggesting that there is a “widening chasm between journalists and the mainstream, the audiences they are supposed to serve” and that “this great divide has played out dramatically of late” ie writings by most journos reflect their view of the world and/or what they think it should be like, rather than what it really is. But any increased influence by the well-known leftist media also raises the question as to why leading politicians are currently unable (or unwilling?) to play an effective leadership role. Yet Turnbull’s enunciations are so close to those coming from the ABC/SBS and suggest he is a leader who will not reflect what the “real world” polling calls for (interestingly, yesterdays news on ABC’s breakfast program did not even mention the Newspoll result).

For example, the reported criticisms on yesterday’s ABC news of the wearing of the burka in Parliament by One Nation Leader were in similar vein to Turnbull’s. Both failed to link the wearing of the burka with the serious problem that exists with what is called “extremist Islam” but which extends beyond the extremist version. They also failed to acknowledge that the wearing of the burka in public is not permitted in some countries, particularly those with a higher proportion of Muslims. My Commentary predicted that the real world was likely to lift Hanson’s polling – which it did.

But what are the implications of Newspoll for Turnbull’s leadership of the Coalition?

The surprising thing is that there has so far been no suggestion that he should be replaced before Parliament resumes in two weeks time.

Even Andrew Bolt dodged the issue by suggesting yesterday that the Turnbull government’s “grip on power is now so shaky it may be too dangerous to sack him. Sack the Prime Minister and the Liberals risk losing power within months” (see Nobody to Replace Turnbull?). So, are we to continue with a government that is “shaky” (or worse)?Bolt did not explain how a government led by Turnbull would prevent a further reduction in policy credibility over the next 18 months before the election, let alone a probable further reduction in polling as it tried to campaign for re-election (perhaps the High Court will decide that so many MPs are “illegal” under Section 44 that Turnbull has no alternative but to then call an early election!).
No editorials in today’s main newspapers even discuss the question of survival or the implications for achieving reforms in policies. Will we continue to have a government “tossed around like a tinny in an ocean storm” and incapable of steering its own course”?
Notwithstanding his reference yesterday to Turnbull being in a worse political trough than Howard, political correspondent Crowe claims today that an analysis of surveys by Newspoll shows that Turnbull has sustained his position as preferred PM and that the government has tended to hold its support in regular Newspoll surveys. But he makes no reference to what counts in an election viz the TPP (see Crowe on Turnbull 22 Aug).
In today’s AFR journalist Aaron Patrick surveys the experience of the 8 MPs who played a lead role in voting Abbott out of his PM role and notes (cautiously) that “Given Turnbull narrowly avoided defeat at last year, a defeat at the next election might prompt some political historians to argue that the Group of Eight led the Liberal Party into a terrible mistake”. However he quotes Peter Hendy (one of the eight) as saying that he is after a seat in the Senate, is “happy with the decision I made” and that “by the time we get to the election they will have a very, very high chance of winning.” (see Patrick on Turnbull 22 Aug).

Perhaps the only sensible article today is Judith Sloan’s headed “Minister should be red-faced over green schemes” (see Sloan on Energy Policy).She points out that “ The reality is that the energy market is heading for complete disaster notwithstanding all the desperate tinkering by this government” and that “ the bottom line is that countries with higher penetrations of renewable energy have higher electricity prices. It is a perfect fit. And while we may worry about the impact on households, the more important consideration is the future of businesses and the jobs they provide. It all comes down to those dastardly “green schemes”.

But would the continuation of a government, led by someone who commissioned a report on how to further reduce CO2 emissions and increase usage of renewable, be likely to effect changes which would substantially reduce vote-losing electricity prices and allow a recovery in investment in coal-fired generators?

The Message from Barcelona & N Korea

Available here is an article by John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is Chairman of Gatestone Institute, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author of “Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad”. He provides an important analysis of the potential risks facing the US (and the western world generally) from recent events in N Korea and the increase in terrorist activity in (among others) Barcelona. The following extract from Bolton’s article suggests Australia and others are behind the real world in addressing potential (and actual) threats.

“North Korea is manifestly more than a Northeast Asia problem. Kim Jong Un would unhesitatingly sell any technology it possessed, including nuclear, to anyone with hard currency. Iran is one such potential customer. Terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, befriended by wealthy governments or individuals, could also be buyers. Accordingly, if the regime-change options fail, then a preemptive military strike to eliminate the North Korean and Iranian programs may well be the only way to avoid decades of nuclear blackmail by Pyongyang, Tehran and inevitably others, including the terrorist groups who might acquire weapons of mass destruction. Israel has twice before reached this conclusion, in 1981 against Iraq and in 2007 against Syria. It was not wrong to do so”.

Responding to Islamic Threat, Climate Change, Financing Budget Deficits

Des Moore — Thu, 08 Jun 2017 23:02:41 +0000

More Islamic Problems

I suggested yesterday that there has recently been a higher rate of violent activity from Islamic jihadists and that has been confirmed by reports today of an arrest of a man for supplying a weapon to the now dead Brighton jihadist and police questioning of others possibly involved. Today’s Australian has also published a range of material on jihadism, including the whole of its letters page on critiques of Islam and suggestions of what should be done about it.

With some “adjustments” by the Ed, my letter below is the lead letter and refers to a welcome statement by Turnbull in a radio interview that Islamist terrorism actually seeks to destroy from within the Islamic religion. If Turnbull sticks to that sourcing it would be a major improvement in assessing the real problem. As it happens, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (of which I was a board member) has an article in similar vein by senior analyst Anthony Bergin drawing attention to the Turnbull quote reiterated in my letter (see Bergin on Islam). Bergin also praises Turnbull government Assistant Minister for Multi-Cultural Affairs Seselja as being “absolutely right that too many public figures have been walking on eggshells and becoming hostage to political correctness in failing to state publicly the underlying cause and motivation of terrorism”. I have previously urged Bergin to use ASPI more as a means of drawing attention to the Islamic problem (ASPI was established with the agreement of both major political parties as “an independent, non-partisan think tank that produces expert and timely advice for Australia’s strategic and defence leaders”).

The difficulties faced in confronting the problem of how to deal with Islam is illustrated by the proposal by the Islamic Council of Victoria that “safe spaces”be established where young Muslims could make ”inflammatory”comments and criticize control orders against terror suspects (see Vic Islamic Council)! It has also indicated that it is withdrawing from a deradicalisation program because it refuses to work alongside Victorian police. Fortunately, Victorian Premier Andrews has immediately rejected the “safe spaces”proposal by saying the“there is no way to rail against the West. There is no safe way to rail against the values we hold dear”. But note that the Victorian government currently provides funds to the Council – for how much longer?

A similar question arises with regard to State funding of schools largely attended by Muslim children and where radicalisation appears to occur (see Funding Education of Muslim Students).

COAG should face the Islamist terror challenge (Lead Letter published in The Australian, 9 June 2017. Square brackets show bits deleted by Ed).

[When] Malcolm Turnbull [was interviewed yesterday he told 3AW that] says ““we are facing a global threat, this Islamist terrorism. It is a disease and it is corrupting, seeking to destroy from within the Islamic religion [and of course,] lashing out to destroy and undermine our way of life”. We also learn that Victoria alone has 3000 on a watch list. On the same day an [expert] Italian analyst wrote there are 66,000 official extremists in four major European countries and “a jihadist takeover of Europe is no longer unthinkable”.

One hopes that tomorrow’s meeting of Australia’s [political] leaders are [, as your editorial says,] “seized with the challenge of the moment” [which is in fact] – a serious challenge to the survival of Western values. But our leaders performance so far is abysmal.

[At a minimum,] COAG should conclude [that the Prime Minister should prioritise the construction of a major] with a statement identifying the characteristics of Islam that are unacceptable (such as sharia) and outlining the [major] measures to be taken to minimise the threat [which we and other Western countries] we face from Islam. These should include changes to human rights [which, as the British PM promises,] legislation that might otherwise hinder the control of Islamic extremists.

Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic

Climate Change

It is premature to comment on what has emerged on Climate Change Policy at COAG today. But I draw attention to the “Socrates” advertisement in today’s Australian by the Climate Study Group led by Richard Morgan (see Socrates). Not surprisingly, the wise old man convinces “Mr Smith” that CO2 is not the problem.

Note also that Tony Abbott has said that it is important that coal continues to provide an important source of energy in any arrangement. If some form of agreement emerges at COAG on reducing usage of coal but without having electricity price rises, that can only mean that governments will have to provide even more subsidies than the enormous ones already in government budgets. It would also be likely to add to opposition to Turnbull within the Coalition.

Financing Budget Deficits

Attached is an important article by Prof Tony Makin arguing that, when assessing government budgets, regard has to be paid not simply to the financing of any deficit from this year’s result but to the financing of deficits from results in previous years (see Makin on Financing Deficits). He points out that “Australia’s total budgetary financing need in recent years, inclusive of short-term debt falling due for repayment, has significantly exceeded actual budget deficits…. Whereas Australia’s budget deficit in 2017 on a calendar year basis was 2.4 per cent of gross domestic product, IMF estimates show the total government financing need, including maturing debt, was 3.2 per cent. A 3.6 per cent of GDP financing need is predicted for next year, almost three times higher than the budget deficit as a proportion of GDP”.

Makin argues that the additional financing from previous deficits in effect reduces the funding available for private investment and, over time, this will slow down economic growth. It would be interesting to know whether this analysis has been made available to the government and whether Credit Rating Agencies take account of it in determining credit ratings

Explanatory Statement Needed on Islam

Des Moore — Tue, 06 Jun 2017 22:03:37 +0000

Countering Islamic Terrorism Needs Major Explanatory Statement

The jihadism by the Somali who came to Australia as a refugee, followed by the discovery of two Australian deaths from the London stabbings and yet another Paris incident, confirm a higher rate of violent activity in recent months from Islamic jihadists, both individuals and groups, both here and in other Western countries. This is only part of the story. UK PM May told us, for instance, that 5 terrorist plans had been thwarted in the UK over the short period between the Manchester bombings and the London stabbings and other countries including Australia would doubtless have had similar experiences. And there are quite large numbers of people who are “on watch”. For instance, the 3AW interviewer of Turnbull today referred to a “watch list” of no less than 3,000 in Victoria alone (see Turnbull on 3AW). It is little wonder that some jihadists on such lists are missed!

But the increased activity has led to an increased realisation by our political leaders that they need to acknowledge publicly what many have thought for some considerable time viz that it is no longer acceptable to avoid referring to the influence of Islam. One might add “and not before time”. In his interview on 3AW today Turnbull ventured further down that influence road himself when he told the interviewer that “we are facing a global threat, this Islamist terrorism. It is a disease and it is corrupting, seeking to destroy from within the Islamic religion and of course, lashing out to destroy and undermine our way of life. We are heartbroken by these terrible crimes and this terrible loss”(see Turnbull on 3AW).

This is fine as far as it goes but there is an obvious need to go much further. To take just one reason. This is that we are, in one sense, fortunate that these jihadists have had only limited weaponry. Imagine for example if the three London stabbers had had sub-machine guns. The London police have been widely praised for taking only 8 minutes to reach the incident: but there would have been a lot more of lost lives in that 8 minutes if the stabbers had had such guns!

I digress here to refer to a function I attended here in Melbourne to launch a laudable book by Prof Steve Kates on Trump’s election campaign. The launch had been advertised so anyone who saw the advertisement would have known that prominent journalist Andrew Bolt was the principal launcher and that, judging by his columns, he was likely to praise Trump for exposing issues which had been pushed aside by other leaders. Whatever, when Bolt on his own got to the door of the restaurant at which the launch occurred, he was physically attacked by two men who had a third taking photos. Bolt responded physically and succeeded in driving his attackers away (see Bolt Response to Attack). I don’t know who the attackers were but if they had been of the same origin as the London stabbers, Bolt would likely have experienced serious injury instead of the sore knuckles he has (and one might add a sore leg from kicking one of the attackers where it hurts!). That we have such threats to a prominent journalist is a worrying sign of the times.

To take the matter one step further, I mention that when I was on the board of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute I attended a conference it held in 2008 and heard the address by Robert Galluchi, who had had long experience with the US State Department on nuclear issues. He told the audience

“We have no defence against a nuclear weapon delivered by a terrorist group, because we could be sure that it will be delivered in an unconventional way. After we get finished worrying about all the containers, we can then start worrying about all the trucks, and then we can worry about the marinas and then we will rapidly conclude that we really cannot defend, as a strategist would say, by denial, or by preventing a nuclear weapon from being introduced into the United States, which leaves us only with deterrence. Deterrence, of course, creates the problem of knowing exactly who your attacker is, having an attacker who had some level of unacceptable damage, and anybody who presents to you the proposition that they value your death more than their life is not a really good candidate for deterrence”.

Gallucci pointed outthen that there is an increasing risk of a terrorist group obtaining and using a nuclear weapon without being detected, not necessarily one with the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb but one sufficient to kill 250,000 people. Nine years later that possibility would be considerably increased.

Having regard to that, and now that jihadism has “caught on” to an increased extent, there seems to be an urgent need for political leadership to adopt more protective measures (more police, bollards, de-radicalisation programs, parole management, etc) which should help limit deaths. But the numbers of potential jihadists are so large that such tightenings of counter-terrorist policies need to go much further. Today’s news report that PM May has said that, if human rights legislation need to be amended, her government will do just that, assuming they are re-elected. There are many such possibilities and I have received some sensible suggestions from a recipient of my Commentaries, which I can’t explore here tonight.

A major difficulty here in Australia is that, while our PM has improved his references to Islam as being the source of the problem, he seems unable to contemplate the kind of changes which May (and my “subscriber”) are talking about. The most important thing to do right now is for a leading Coalition member to move to take over the leadership by making a public statement that Australia must urgently address the need for major measures to minimise the threat which we and other Western countries face from Islam.

Today’s The Australian has two articles which rightly argue for our leaders to “tell the truth”, one by Greg Sheridan who says that “Overall there are far too many commentators and analysts in this country who shy away from speaking directly about terrorism” (see Sheridan on Need to Address Threat from Islam) and one by Chris Kenny headed It’s Time to Tell the Truth on Radicalised Refugees. Both are saying that our leaders are not up to scratch and that the issue should be given priority. If it were the Coalitions polling would likely improve.

ASIO & Fed Police Still Miss Sources of Terrorism

Des Moore — Thu, 01 Jun 2017 01:12:11 +0000

After I read on Tuesday evening that ASIO Head Lewis had said there is “absolutely no evidence” to suggest a link between the refugee intake and terrorism, I decided early yesterday morning to send a letter to The Australian expressing concern about this assertion and Lewis’s other reported assertion that he doesn’t “buy the notion the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion”. That letter has been published as the lead letter in today’s Australian, together with a number of others letters in similar vein (see below)

However, after I sent the letter to The Australian early on Wednesday morning, both the heads of ASIO and Federal Police (Colvin) sought to clarify publicly what they regard as the main sources of terrorism.

Lewis told ABC radio that the refugee program was not the source of terrorism in Australia. ‘The source is radical Sunni Islam,” he said. Asked about Man Haron Monis, who came to Australia on a business visa before successfully applying for asylum, as well as the case of Abdul Numan Haider and Farhad Jabar whose families came as refugees, Mr Lewis said: “In all of those cases they were not terrorists because they were refugees they were terrorists because of this warped violent extremist interpretation of Sunni Islam.”
Colvin told the National Press Club that the majority of persons of interest police deal with in terror investigations are first and second generation Australians. Regarding possible links between refugees and terrorism, he said he said “I absolutely concur” with what Lewis said and we can’t draw “direct cause and effect” between migration and terrorism. “What I can tell you, the majority of person of interests that come across my officers’ desks, are first and second generation Australians. These are people who are born, educated and raised in Australia. Yes, they may be from migrant families but that’s an extremely broad brush to paint in our landscape if that’s the lens we’re looking through. I think we have to be careful to draw absolutes in this discussion.” He said the main problem was “by and large” a radical interpretation of Sunni Islam.

Despite such “clarifications”, today’s editorial in The Australian’s rightly takes Lewis and relevant Ministers to task (see Australian on Lewis and note the comment that “This represents a timidity that is hard to fathom”), as does Andrew Bolt again (see Bolt on Lewis). Greg Sheridan also has an excellent short piece in The Australian pointing out that the Turnbull government “seems too often incapable of managing the politics of security” (see Sheridan on Security Policy).

Of course, some of us also have to experience the views expressed (or not) in Fairfax Press and on the ABC & SBS. Amazingly, I cannot find any reference in The Age to the comments by Lewis/Colvin and, despite the fact that it was ABC radio which interviewed Lewis, this morning’s ABC news also “forgot” (sic) to mention either of them ( a matter of the left hand not knowing what the other left hand was doing, perhaps!). The timidity occurs despite warnings of copy cat acts similar to Manchester and continuing terrorist acts, such as the death of an Australian girl in a Bangkok bombing, the death of Christian Coptics in Egypt and the extremists in Southern Philippines.

The reality is that, while refugees are not the source of terrorism, they are a major source both here and in overseas western countries because many are Muslims. Moreover, it is not only the refugees themselves who are a possible cause for concern: it is also the children they bring with them and/or who they bear after they arrive and the changes in laws or behaviour they make or seek once here. The attached article by a Pakistani journalist living in Germany (see Muslim Refugees) illustrates what can happen once a country accumulates a group of Muslims. Here is an extract from his piece:

“Newcomers soon start demanding privileges. They ask for gender segregation at work and in educational institutions; they ask for faith schools (madrasas), and demand an end to any criticism of their extremist practices such as female genital mutilation (FGM), forced marriages, child marriages and inciting hatred for other religions. They call any criticism “Islamophobia”. They seek to establish a parallel justice system such as sharia courts. They are also unlikely, on different pretexts, to support any anti-terror or anti-extremism programs. They seem to focus only on criticizing the policies of West.

It is now the responsibility of Western governments to curb this growing turbulence of religious fundamentalism. Western governments need to require “hardline” Muslims to follow the laws of the land. Extremists need to be stopped from driving civilization to a collision course before the freedoms, for which so many have worked so hard and sacrificed so much are — through indifference or political opportunism — completely abolished.

Terror attacks and other offshoots of Islamic extremism have created an atmosphere of mistrust between Europe’s natives and thousands of those who entered European countries to seek shelter.The situation is turning the Europeans against their own governments and against those advocating help for the war-torn migrants who have been arriving.Europeans are turning hostile towards the idea of freedom and peaceful coexistence; they have apparently been seeing newcomers as seeking exceptions to the rules and culture of West.

In an unprecedented shift in policy after public fury about security, the German government decided to shut down the mosque where the terrorist who rammed a truck into a shopping market in Berlin, Anis Amri, was radicalized before he committed the crime.The mosque and Islamic center at Fussilet 33 in Berlin had apparently also been radicalizing a number of other youths by convincing them to commit terror attacks in Europe and to join the terror group Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The authorities had the mosque under surveillance for a time but did not make a move before 12 innocent civilians were butchered by Amri on December 19, 2016, while leaving around 50 others injured. The police and counter terror authorities also conducted raids in 60 different German cities and searched around 190 mosques to target kingpins of another group called “The True Religion”.

Note the situation got so out of hand that even the German government decided to closed down a major mosque out of the 190 which apparently exist there. It is this kind of country we could become unless our vetting of all immigrants is greatly improved and unless their children are required to attend education based on western culture.

Finally, neither Lewis nor Colvin seem to be aware of the potential terrorist threat from Shia Muslims as well as Sunnis – or at least they fail to mention it. Iran is the main source of Shias and Trump attacked the belligerency of that country when he spoke in Saudi Arabia viz “From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms and trains terrorist, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos the region. For decades, Iran has fuelled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”. The Hezbollah group established by Iran now controls the south of Lebanon and has stocked the area with more than 100,000 missiles which could be used to attack Israel.

Let us hope that our two heads of security are at least aware of Iran as a source of terrorism.

Polling on the Budget, Terrorists Sources Not Recognised, Nor are Climate Changes

Des Moore — Tue, 30 May 2017 01:52:12 +0000

Polling Does Not Support Budget

Turnbull’s further shift to the left (where is the middle now?) didn’t get any substantive support from the latest Newspoll, with the TPP percentages (47/53) unchanged. Some say that there was no budget “bounce” but the fact that it didn’t rise one bit sends a bad message on both the budget and Turnbull’s leadership even though his satisfaction ratio rose very slightly (so did Shorten’s). One commentator said that “the trend is set and it favours Shorten”.

What could the Coalition do now to even get to equal with Labor? The failure of Turnbull to make use (politically) of the Manchester bombing seems to confirm that he is not up to the leadership role. He had a marvellous opportunity to state that Islam is the source of terrorist activity, as Trump did in Saudi Arabia, and to say that the government will develop an assessment of extremist Islam with a view to disqualifying people from receiving citizenship and tightening policy against the preaching and advocacy of behaviour inconsistent with western values. The discussion paper issued recently under the names of Turnbull and Dutton and titled “Strengthening Australian Citizenship” provides a starting point for a policy on measures to protect democracy from terrorism. We also have counter-terrorism legislation which provides a basis for prosecuting foreign fighters returning to Australia. Yet we find that Attorney General Brandis is refusing to say how many such extremists have been prosecuted under that legislation, although the government has introduced a new offence for visiting a declared terrorist zone (article by Sharri Markson today not digitalised). It is timely to expand counter-terrorist policy.

Recognition of the Source of Terrorism Needed

Never before has there been such an important need for our political leader to make a statement on the source of almost all terrorist activity, Islam. As mentioned in yesterday’s Commentary we have the outrageous assertion by our head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, that there is no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism. Andrew Bolt says today that “if the ASIO chief truly doesn’t know of any links between refugees and terrorism, then he must be sacked, instantly, for being asleep at the wheel” (see Bolt on Lewis). But Lewis has also asserted that “I don’t buy the notion the issue of Islamic extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion.” To coin a phrase, in some way this is an even worse statement for the Head of ASIO to make. This situation requires a statement by Turnbull explaining that Lewis’s remarks do not reflect government policy and that he has asked Lewis to stand down.

The need is enhanced by a submission made by the non-government Public Health Association to the Inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Tradeinto The status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. The PHAA says in its submission that the committee should include a recommendation that disavows the notion there is any inherent link between Islam and terror and that any politician who refers divisively … to any religious or ethnic group for the purpose of political gain should be disavowed (see Doctors Say No Link). The PHAA submission was co-signed by its president and former politician Michael Moore, Curtin University professor of international health Jaya Duntas, and David Legge, a scholar emeritus in public health at La Trobe University. With almost 2000 members, the association’s aim is to enhance population health results based on prevention, the social determinants of health and equity principles. To date, almost 200 submissions have been made to an Inquiry which is seemingly fruitless and will only serve to cause divisiveness.

Another development relevant to increasing terrorism (although not directly in Australia) and to “big government”, is this article on Islamic Influence Under Macron, the new French President. This article is by Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris who is the author of 27 books on France and Europe. Milliere claims that:

Macron’s victory was not decisive, that more than half of those who chose him were apparently voting against Marine Le Pen, and that Macron won by default because he was the last man standing;
He is not a centrist, was discreetly supported by most of the Socialist Party’s leaders and by the outgoing Socialist President, François Hollande, and all of Macron’s team-members were socialists or leftists;
Macron’s entire program is socialist, proposals for additional public expenditures abound, “climate change” is defined as “the key issue for the future of the world”;
Macron is the pure product of what analysts described as the “French nomenklatura” — an arrogant élite, composed of senior officials, political power-holders and the businessmen working in close collaboration;
His aim is to consolidate the power of those who placed him where he is; their goal is to create a large, single, center-left, technocratic political party that will crush the old political parties;
Another goal is to entrust ever more power to the technocratic unaccountable, untransparent and undemocratic institutions of the European Union: it is a goal Emmanuel Macron never stopped emphasizing;
Macron says the demographic deficit requires more immigration, to encourage mobility between the two shores of the Mediterranean, and to offer asylum to all those who seek its protection;
With almost all refugees arriving in France being Muslims, Macron wants Islam to have more room in France, a new structure will make it possible to relaunch the work sites of the Muslim religion in France;
The French branch of the Muslim Brotherhood congratulated Macron on his victory, publishing an official communiqué saying the new President of the Republic will allow the reconciliation of France with itself;
Macron’s prime minister, Edouard Philippe, has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and favoured their installation in the city of which he is the mayor, Le Havre;
Richard Ferrand, a Socialist MP, now Minister for the Cohesion of Territories, has been financially contributing to the anti-Israel BDS movement and to “pro-Palestinian” organizations for years;
Gerard Collomb, the Socialist Mayor of Lyon, and now Interior Minister, financed the French Institute of Muslim Civilization that will open its doors in December 2017;
Macron said he was “dismayed” over the Manchester Arena terror attack, adding that he was “filled with dread”, but did not express the necessity of confronting the danger. The French have every reason to be nervous.

Whether these objectives will be achieved remains to be seen, but they send a warning note of what can happen when a large body of Muslims accumulate in a country (France has the largest proportion of Muslims of any European country).

Climate Change Policy

Developments since the G7 meeting in Sicily suggest that, although our left media have claimed that Trump was “isolated” there on climate policy, a better interpretation is that the other 6 have been put on the defensive, with Merkel reportedly “angry” about Trump refusing to endorse the Paris Agreement and stating publicly that with Brexit and Clexit Europe is now on its own. As such, it will need to stop being angry and adopt some better policies.

The body in the US which has adopted a sceptical view for many years (The Science and Environmental Policy Project or SEPP) points out in its latest newsletter that “Those advocating the Paris Agreement have never offered physical evidence that CO2 emissions are the primary cause of global warming / climate change. They just assumed it. So did the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and other political bodies such as the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), with a budget of about $2.5 billion per year”. One might add here that Australia’s supposedly scientific bodies also provided little substantive argument in support of the dangerous warming thesis and that Australian political leaders swallowed the hook.

If Trump now arranges for the EPA under his newly appointed leader Scott Pruitt to publish a meaningful document on what SEPP describes as the “physical evidence”, it will expose how these assumptions were foolishly accepted by politicians and scientists, including those in Australia. SEPP also refers to the latest economic forecasts by the OECD for G7 countries as being for Canada (2.34%), France (1.59%), Germany (1.74%), Italy (1.03%), Japan (0.83%), the United Kingdom (0.96%) and the United States (3.00%). It argues that, from this, one can conclude that there is no other country on the list whose economic policies are desirable for the US to imitate and concludes that “Mr. Trump has a powerful economic reason to abandon the Paris Agreement and no scientific justification for staying in the agreement”. Of course, the differences in growth rates cannot all be attributed to climate change policy differences. But Europe has been more global warmish than elsewhere and SEPP points out that “the economies of countries such as the UK, Germany, and Italy are stagnating in part due to government policies that did not appropriately account for the increases in electricity costs that occur in shifting from reliable fossil fuel generation to unreliable solar and wind generation. Germany is compounding its problem by shifting from reliable nuclear generation and is being forced to expand power plants burning brown coal, which produces more CO2 than black coal (a higher thermal content)”. Here too Australia is on the same economically wasteful track.

Turnbull Omits Islam; Trump to Announce Climate Change Policy

Des Moore — Sun, 28 May 2017 12:57:33 +0000

Terrorism and Islamic Connections

In Friday’s Commentary I highlighted the editorial in The Australian saying “that Islamist terror cannot be bought off; it wants nothing less than a totalitarian caliphate for the planet. Jihad denialism, which wilfully obscures the wellsprings of Islamist violence, has limited appeal in Australia although its supporters include progressive elites with their media megaphones”. I also drew attention to the failure of Turnbull to make any reference to the likely source of the terrorist bombing in Manchester being Islamic and that he seemed “largely to be missing” from various references by other ministers to sources and the need for policy changes.

Since then it has become abundantly clear that belief in extremist Islam was the source but Turnbull has still made no Islamic reference. In her article in today’s Herald Sun, headed Time for truth on Islam, Peta Credlin rightly says “Right now in this country, we’re having two conversations; one where we use the word “Islam” and one where we don’t. Last week in parliament, the PM condemned the terrorist attack in Manchester and, while replete with words of solidarity, his multiple speeches all failed to mention the religion in whose name the killings had occurred”. Credlin confirmed that she had been unable to find any Islamic reference on Turnbull’s web site.

Andrew Bolt also referred yesterday to the incredible reply by the head of ASIO, Duncan Lewis, to a question at the Senate Estimates hearing by Pauline Hanson on whether refugees are a source of terrorism. His answer was “I have absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism”. Needless to say, Bolt has given numerous examples of terrorist activity by refugees (see attached Bolt on Lewis). He asks whether “our ASIO boss is blind to the facts – and to a clear and present danger?” and notes that Lewis has been quoted by a leading Fairfax reporter, Mark Kenny, as “confirming” (sic) that Hanson was wrong to imply any connection.

It will be recalled that, shortly after Turnbull became PM, he quoted Lewis as an authority and that he (Turnbull) had been advised then by Lewis that there is no religious connection. I drew attention then (in December 2015) to comments by Lewis reported in the Herald Sun “warning against being too critical of the Muslim religion as that may impact negatively on ASIO’s access to information. Astonishingly, Lewis states that he doesn’t ‘buy the notion the issue of extremism is in some way fostered or sponsored or supported by the Muslim religion’. This is an extremely worrying comment by Australia’s top counter-terrorist (possibly prompted by Turnbull) and suggests he needs a refresher course on the religion by someone like Durie” (Rev Mark Durie is of course a real expert on Islam who has written on Islamic beliefs). Lewis subsequently went quiet but has now awoken.

It is sometimes said “once bitten twice shy”. But Lewis is clearly not shy of making errors which a head of ASIO should not make. He should be replaced ASAP. The question also arises as to why Turnbull has not made a meaningful statement on what is an important policy issue for Australia. He should do so –also ASAP.

Trump’s Overseas Visit

Trump is on his way home after the meeting of G7 (no Russia) and forcing the other 6 to accept a watered down communiqué (such meetings usually produce 10 pagers full of good intentions!). Possibly the most important reason for the “short” version is that Trump refused to say whether the US accepted the Paris Agreement on climate change. It appears that he said he would make a decision next week (see attached Trump on Climate Change).

This attached report says that “While the declaration included remarkable language highlighting that the U.S. stood apart, the other G7 members expressed some relief that Trump had not outright rejected the accord and said they remained hopeful he would come around ‘The United States of America is in the process of reviewing its policies on climate change and on the Paris Agreement and thus is not in a position to join the consensus on these topics’ the leaders wrote. ‘Understanding this process, the Heads of State and of Government of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom and the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission reaffirm their strong commitment to swiftly implement the Paris Agreement, as previously stated at the Ise-Shima Summit’.”

It also refers to Trump’s claim that a major topic at the Summit was terrorism and that he had succeeded in persuading some to step up their defence contributions under the NATO agreement. Some of such claims are made for home consumption and gaffes have been made, but the attached analysis by Greg Sheridan in the Weekend Australian provides an excellent summary with a balanced conclusion viz “The question is this: will Trump’s wildly dysfunctional style and the frenzy of his political enemies overwhelm the good things his administration is trying to do, in a foreign policy that is much more conventional, both for good and for bad, than we ever expected?” (see attached Sheridan on Trump O’Seas Visit).

In my view, the most remarkable conclusion that emerges from Trump’s oversea visit is that, despite the extensive criticism of his political amateurism and “not suited to be President” by “experts” and political opponents, Trump has shown that he can handle not only the leaders of other countries but the important policy issues which are discussed. I can think of quite a few other leaders who, even with political backgrounds, never really made it. Of course, that may still happen to Trump.

It has become clearer and clearer that the questioning in Washington and in left-wing media of his attitudes and relationships is designed by political opponents (and the left wing media) to push his polling lower and create the possibility of an impeachment. It is also apparent that his predecessor established or maintained sections in the bureaucracy designed to make it more difficult for Trump to make substantive changes in policy or even to prevent them altogether.

I have previously mentioned the use by Obama of executive powers to determine environmental policy without involving Congress. My “spy” in Washington has now drawn my attention not only to the establishment within the EPA (ie not a political appointment and not therefore readily dismissible on a change of government) of a Scientific Integrity group but that this group remains operative within the EPA and is busy arranging inter alia a “conference” in June of like-minded scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists. I recommend that you read the full text of the attached article just published in the Wall St Journal (see attached Trump & Scientific Integrity).

The Source of Terrorism Today

Des Moore — Fri, 26 May 2017 07:30:19 +0000

Miracles do happen! Even so I was surprised to open today’s Age and find they had published my letter arguing for action to expose and attack extremist Islam. It was also the lead letter. The Australian also published a letter by me in similar vein, along with other “strong action” type letters (see both my letters below) and an excellent editorial which identifies in no uncertain way “that Islamist terror cannot be bought off; it wants nothing less than a totalitarian caliphate for the planet. Jihad denialism, which wilfully obscures the wellsprings of Islamist violence, has limited appeal in Australia although its supporters include progressive elites with their media megaphones” (see Editorial on Terrorist Risk).

A question which arises is how exactly did PM Turnbull react. His immediate statement acknowledged that it was an act of terrorism but made no reference to the likely source being Islamic (see attached Turnbull on Manchester). He also said that the government is developing a plan on how to deal with threats to mass gatherings, but made no change in the “probable” threat level even though a possible network was involved in the bombing. He does seem to have been involved actively , however, in using question time to tackle Shorten, who he described as “captain of fantasy” (see Turnbull in Q Time).

Meantime, ASIO head Lewis told a Senate estimates hearing “This is not the end, it’s not the beginning of the end, it’s more like the end of the beginning. We don’t see this finishing any time soon.” Immigration Minister Dutton has been active on 2GB radio (Hadley interviews him once a week instead of Morrison). He said that Australians who went overseas to fight with ASIS deserve to be killed, that the ABC’s decision to axe the program by Yassmin Abdel-Magied was a “good start” (adding that there is “one down, many to go”) and describing the behavior of Tony Jones (who runs Q&A) as “a disgrace”. Justice Minister Keenan said those who returned from overseas would be prosecuted for their crimes and Brandis foreshadowed legislation allowing the Australian Defence Force to be called out to assist in terrorist events. Former PM Howard also joined in with a warning that “attacks were likely to happen again”.

Such developments in Coalition policy and attitudes are promising. But Turnbull seems largely to be missing. As leader he needs to make a statement confirming that the source of the problem is the extremist version of Islam and saying that Australian policy is now aiming to pass legislation allowing action to be taken against those who indicate support for the extremist version either by what they say or what they are detected as planning. He should indicate that if necessary a constitutional change will be sought. In short, as stated by Trump in Saudi Arabia, Australian policy would be based on driving “out the terrorists and extremists” wherever this is feasible.

An approach along these lines is warranted by the Coroner’s report on the Lindt Café incident, and the inadequate response since then in NSW in particular, as well as the latest reports on the Manchester bombings. The latter indicate inter alia that:

The entire family of the terrorist may have been involved, in one way or another, in links to a terrorist group or groups and may have had connections with the Paris and Brussels attacks. Of particular interest is that the terrorist’s mother is apparently a nuclear scientist (see Terrorist’s Family Involved);
There were extremist teachings by a brother at a local mosque;
The bomb was particularly sophisticated and its construction was likely helped by an “expert” (sic);
The terrorist was partly motivated by revenge for the killing of children in Syria/Iraq and a belief that UK and US forces were involved;
There are claims that warnings had been made well before the bombing to police and intelligence agencies that the man who became a terrorist was a danger.

This and other reports not only indicate the extent to which the North (in particular) of England has been penetrated by extremist Muslims but how difficult it must be for police and intelligence agencies to keep track of what suspects are doing. Incidents in Australia have suggested the same problem exists here. But my conclusion is that there now needs to be action that will threaten to impinge on human rights, and as such be subject to strong protests, that will require a strong political leader. Human rights must be protected but they must also be more subject to intrusions to ensure our democratic society prevails.

One last word. This report of the failed attempt to stop action by extremists in southern Philippines indicates that Christians were being beheaded. Yet we continue to have very little response by our Christian churches.