The stronger terror assessment scenario painted by ASIO  seems rather odd. Irvine chose to speculate publicly about the threat alert needing to be raised to the second-highest level, ostensibly however before giving any formal advice to the government.

Based on ongoing assessments, either a threat is likely to occur or it is not. If so, why the delay in advising the government? If not, why prematurely raise a “worst-case” scenario? Citizens remain stuck in terror limbo.

All the National Security precautions  in the US didn’t stop 9/11 or the Boston marathon. Any incidents that have been interrupted in the US were by accident and an alert public. Australia has just experienced a near miss not at the hands of terrorists but at the hands of the AFP creating a dangerous moment during a drill at an airport. How would Abbott have explained that away?

Further, this drip-feed of vague warnings is being packaged by policymakers with a hyper-legislative insistence on introducing another round of “tough” terror laws. While some measures appear justifiable – such as up-to-date powers to suspend passports – many others do not. Some proposals remain decidedly inconsistent with past recommendations by watchdogs like the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. We seem to be stuck on a rinse-and-repeat cycle to keep terrorising ourselves. The more immediate hazard is pointless overreaction and political exploitation of public fears. The build-up of these kind of tensions have had a track-record of leading into knee-jerk and totally counter-productive policy initiatives – like the unnecessary Iraq invasion of 2003. That had no clear national security benefit and contributed to much of this latest mess.

This type of “alert and alarm” scenario tends to lead in a couple of directions: it either creates wider public paranoia or greater public scepticism. Neither is particularly helpful for an effective, sustainable and clear-eyed counter-terrorism strategy.

In short, IS is a nasty piece of work, but it is not a global game-changer The instinct to “do something” and heroic calls to strong vigilant action might be good politics. However, such heavy-handedness is a careless and unhealthy national security stratagem. The good news is that the threat of foreign fighters is both manageable and marginal.Another bottom line is that these Australian foreign fighters do not represent the wider Islamic community – IS is keen to kill all Muslims who they deem to be “infidels”. (This makes many calls for “community” solutions by the overwhelming moderate Muslim majority in Australia overly simplistic and stupid. This is not a clash of civilisations as Andrew Bolt would have us believe. Australian citizens still have more chance of being killed by bee stings or car crashes than by a rare, albeit conceivable, home-grown terrorist attack.

Interestingly, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger recently warned that traditional state-based threats remain a much more serious and long-term security headache.

” I consider Iran a bigger problem than ISIS. ISIS is a group of adventurers with a very aggressive ideology. But they have to conquer more and more territory before they can became a strategic, permanent reality.”

We are being scammed by Abbott who has quid pro quo arrangement with ASIO the AFP and security forces who will gain extra funding. Abbott get’s press to attack  his negative standing in the polls.

We are being scammed at the expense of the Australian Muslim community and the increased possibility of further radicalization.