Rita Panahi: As vehicles are increasingly used as weapons, we can’t ignore terror threat is real
IT is intent, not affiliation, that determines whether an act of violence is terrorism — a violent nutter with a motive is as much a terrorist as one who is perfectly sane, writes Rita Panahi.
Rita Panahi
Don't miss out on the headlines from Rita Panahi. Followed categories will be added to My News.
WE expect politicians to lie to us or be preoccupied with pushing a particular narrative but those charged with keeping us safe must stick to facts, no matter how inconvenient, or risk losing the trust of the public.
NEIGHBOUR TELLS OF ACCUSED RAMPAGER’S STRANGE BEHAVIOUR
MUM SAYS SON SAEED NOORI RUINED BY DRUGS
HERO FIRST RESPONDERS TELL OF FLINDERS ST ‘WAR ZONE’
Authorities appear eager to dismiss or downplay terrorism before they’ve had a chance to properly investigate a crime and determine the motivations, if any, of the offender.
For reasons of political expediency, mental illness and drug addiction are deemed more palatable explanations for violence perpetrated against innocent civilians.
But jihadism and mental illness are not mutually exclusive.
The embrace of violent ideology is a sign of mental instability.
Indeed, anyone who thinks slaughtering innocent people is a great way to advance a political or religious cause is mentally unsound.
Most of the soldiers of Islamic State are mentally unstable monsters who commit unspeakable acts of violence in the name of their religion.
Those who rationalise sadistic brutality and believe that beheading unbelievers or raping Yazidi prisoners brings them closer to paradise in the next life are as deranged as they are dangerous.
It is intent, not affiliation that determines whether an act of violence is terrorism.
A violent nutter with a motive is as much a terrorist as one who is perfectly sane.
Australia’s most infamous jihadist, Khaled Sharrouf, who joined the caliphate in 2013, was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic back in 2005.
Lindt Cafe siege terrorist Man Haron Monis was said to be suffering from mental illness and had consulted a number of mental health professionals in the decade before he took 18 people hostage one Monday morning.
Whether a violent offender has a drug habit or mental illness does not necessarily mean they acted without motive.
The definition of terrorism is the use of violence, particularly against civilians, in the pursuit of a political agenda.
Cars, vans and trucks have increasingly been used as weapons by Islamist terrorists in the West in places like Nice, London, Berlin, Barcelona and New York
It is not known links to terrorist groups or a history of being radicalised that defines who is a terrorist; it is the motivation behind the crime.
At this stage, we do not know if the alleged Flinders St attacker, Saeed Noori, had a motive.
It is simply too soon for authorities to conclude whether it was an act of terror and Noori’s guilt or innocence will be determined by a court of law.
What shocked many was Victoria Police’s eagerness to downplay the terror angle mere hours after the attack and before they had interviewed the suspect.
A similar thing occurred in the hours after the Brighton siege in June, where Victoria Police seemed determined to minimise the Islamist terror angle despite the offender’s known links to terrorists and extremists.
Back then, Chief Commissioner Graham Ashton said that Islamic State claiming the attack was “the sort of thing they jump up and say a lot”. Actually, they don’t but that’s a column for another day.
On the evening of the Flinders St attack, the alleged offender’s “mental health and drug use” was highlighted as was the lack of “evidence or intelligence to indicate a connection with terrorism”.
It was clear police command was pushing an account of a mentally disturbed ice fiend without any connection to terrorist groups.
Senior journalists were quick to take to social media and report the alleged “deliberate” act was not terrorism. However, by the next morning that line was abandoned.
Acting Chief Commissioner Shane Patton told Victorians that Noori, an Afghan refugee who came to Australia in 2004, had “attributed his actions to perceived mistreatment of Muslims” as well as speaking about dreams and voices.
A few hours later Minister for Home Affairs Peter Dutton said Islamic State-inspiration should not be ruled out and counter-terrorism officers would work with Victoria Police to investigate.
“We are certainly not ruling out a terrorist link and we certainly aren’t drawing any conclusions at this stage … we need to be realistic about the threats that we face,” Dutton said.
On Saturday 32-year-old Noori appeared in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court charged with 18 counts of attempted murder.
As well as telling police about his concerns about the treatment of Muslims, Patton also revealed that Noori had spoken about Allah and Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO).
We must be certain that authorities are always transparent and not engaging in political spin.
Earlier this year ASIO boss Duncan Lewis told a Senate committee hearing: “I have absolutely no evidence to suggest there is a connection between refugees and terrorism.”
This seemed a rather bizarre statement given that we know the terrorists behind the Lindt cafe siege, Endeavour Hills police attack, Parramatta shooting and the Brighton siege were all beneficiaries of Australia’s refugee program.
No good can come from lying to the Australian people.
Counter-terrorism authorities, like politicians and the media, make the mistake of underestimating the populace who are smart and sophisticated enough to digest the truth without being unduly alarmed or set off in fits of Islamophobic rage.
Rita Panahi is a Herald Sun columnist
Human cost of pandemic goes much further than virus
Whether you are pro or anti-lockdown the grim, unintended consequences of the fixation on coronavirus are undeniable, as other diseases — including cancer and heart disease — go unchecked, and despair from joblessness, poverty and financial stress rises, writes Rita Panahi.
Will buck really stop with Dan after disastrous decisions?
While Daniel Andrews repeats the “we’re all in this together” mantra, the reality is only the private sector is making huge financial sacrifices as he refuses to face up to scrutiny over the hotel quarantine fiasco and contact tracing chaos, writes Rita Panahi.