Talk:Anti-terror amendments to be rushed through Australian parliament because of new 'potential threats'

Use of quotes in title

The use of quotes is appropriate, because no actual threat has been detailed to the public. --CitizenBruce 12:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont see anything in the http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Naming_conventions or http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Neutral_point_of_view but ima a bit tired but this is a minor grammatical argument so i believe this should be published while it is debated on at least maybe with a "cleanup" tag.So I support CitizenBruce re-publishing this article with a cleanup tag in relation to the title--Whywhywhy 13:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I used the quotes in the title because we have no evidence of any threats, potential or otherwise, beyond a statement by the Prime Minister. It would be POV to use the Prime Ministers words in the title without quotes. - Borofkin 22:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Can't Aussies see through this charade?

The Aussie govern. must have been in trouble on this fascist legislation to have turned to U.S. style "ram it through" fear mongering; in fact, I'd be surprised if this threat did not originate in the pentagon or CIA. Of course, the Aussie people likely haven't seen enough of it to recognize it yet..releasing "wmd" type of faulty/created intel with advantageous political timing. But why not think ? Why on earth would a terrorist group be choosing this point in time to do something that would cause a target country to pass this legislation and (supposedly) become safer from their future attacks? This is not the most obvious example of this kind of stunt though. The most obvious was the day the Czech Republic President went to see Cheney and Cheney was asking him to send troops to Iraq. Right in the middle of the meeting they were interupted by word that there was a bomb threat to one of the Czech airlines planes and it had to be diverted. That was the only time such a bomb threat was ever made on a Czech airplane...timing is everything,after all, BUT the Czechs didn't fall for it; they seem to be pretty good at seeing through bullshit. Neutralizer 13:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

We are seeing through it. From what I can tell, just about everyone is pretty skeptical of the timing. But big Kim is going to let it pass through. This is the same dumbass that let Howard get away with the Tampa incident during the 2001 election. It seems he's quick to relent on supposed security issues. And you'd be right about the US influence. Johnny is well known for sucking up to the US, being especially close to Bush. Unfortunately he's also using similar fear tactics (not only this incident). His government gained seats in the last election (2004) and they recently gained control of the senate as well as the house of reps. Which is why the coalition government is now passing this draconian "anti-terror" law, as well as some major industrial-relations "reform" legislation. Being right-wing, they don't like unions of course. And I'm sick of them mentioning "the economy" when explaining why the IR reforms are good for everybody. The never mention "the people". Geez I'm pissed off about all this. Imroy 15:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What does it matter if we do see through it? People are far too interested in their mortguages and what brand of big-screen TV they're going to buy. - Borofkin 22:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Publish now

Talk page's consensus is for publishing (including me). Neutralizer 13:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Bomb scare at Circular Quay

A colleague just had a phone call from his wife.

Apparently there is a bomb scare at circular quay, which is being evacuated.

Regards, BenAveling 06:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've started this article: Bomb scare at Sydney's Circular Quay - you should try to find out as much as you can and add it. No other news agencies at the moment are reporting this. - Borofkin 06:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)