Talk:Terrorism in Australia

Prod removed
Per precedent of Islamic terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidYork71 (talk • contribs)


 * 1st, apologies for not informing u. to anyone else (like me:) inclined to re-prod, we're no longer allowed to even if the original author deletes the prod. (i think author once wasn't allowed to remove it)
 * i've removed the listing of the iraqi group as it's not about terrorist acts in aust.
 * what do you think about renaming to reflect the content of this article. ie the specific group of people charged. (at the moment there isn't any 'Islamic terrorism in Australia'? something about 'lucas height plan' or something similar?  &rArr; bsnowball 08:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

the original article included information about islamist terror groups banned in Australia, which has subsequently been removed(?!). So renaming would be a detriment and lose that scopeDavidYork71 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * my reasoning was just it's not about terrorism in oz, but about oz foreign affairs. the new tittle isn't much of a fix as it's still only a few ongoing investigations/trials & a hell of a lot of scaremongering. (this last being the angle i'm approaching this from:) so i thought these would be better dealt with as separate articles and/or mentioned in 'oz defence'/'law enforcement' where relevant. see what others think i guess. btw having finished the move, the cited precedent is actually re-directs to the correct term: 'Islamist terrorism', move again?  &rArr; bsnowball 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lead
An intro is missing from this article. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I improved this. cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Russell Street Bombing relevance
Was the Russell Street Bombing politically motivated? Andjam (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And is this the accepted definition of terrorism? cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The 1993 Bombay bombings were carried out by career criminals, like the Russell St. one, and had no particular political goal except as revenge for earlier riots against the Muslim population. The Russel St. bombing was done for either revenge on the police or to make the police feel fearful, thus it could be considered terrorism if the Bombay one is. --Mv dara dvm (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ASIO logo.jpg
Image:ASIO logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article title vs content
No sure which is wrong - the title or the content. What I mean, is that people like David Hicks did not commit any acts of terrorism in Australia, yet the article title defines itself that way.  Socrates2008 ( Talk )   12:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have attemted to write a lead to suit the article's title, and removed content that is not within its scope. cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is there is very little in the way of Islamist "terror" thats actually ever occured here. The major motors of terrorism in australia have tended to be neo-nazi type organizations, which seem to get almost no mention at all.

Suppression order?
Some content was deleted with the claim (since deleted) that there are suppression orders. The content deleted was uncited. Maybe the suppression order has been dropped, but I'm not certain. Any thoughts? Andjam (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this. If factual information from a reliable source is available, and it is appropriate to the subject of this article, it should be included. cygnis insignis 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research
An editor (see here) is trying to jam a murder investigation into this article under the guise of "terrorism" using all manner of twisted POV synthesis and original research. Unless a respected reliable source can be found describing this as "terrorism" can be found, it must be kept out as per policy. Prester John (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Terrorism is a highly subjective term, "one man's terrorist is another man's ...". The current articles on this subject are often redirects to less ambiguous titles: Terrorism in ..., The articles named like this are usually in nations with legislation that use the term. I had hoped to find Terrorism in Germany, and its absence is worth noting, because the term has a history that shows the degree of subjectivity in its definition. The legal use of the term in the Third Reich has been discussed in academic literature, almost all the sources I have read denounce their use of the term. If we had an article that listed individuals and groups deemed terrorists by that government or society, it would not present a legal determination or social construct as a 'fact', I expect it would explain the context of the subjective term. I placed the synthesis tag because the references are news articles that mention Australia/ns and terrorism, it needs a reliable source that discusses "Terrorism in Australia" to avoid being original research. If a number of groups and people have been identified as terrorists by a government department, this is what needs to be explained. However, this policy has itself been discussed by authors and journalists - that should be included too.  The scope of the article must first be established, any inclusion becomes questionable before this happens.  cygnis insignis 04:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite
I'm rewriting this article to a) reflect the title b) add content and c) try and address some of the issues for this topic. Contact me here or at my talk page should you have comments or questions.Akitora (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hicks and Habib don't belong in this article, as they don't fit the definition of terrorism as per the article's introduction or title. i.e. they didn't commit terrorism offences in Australia.  Also, the History section includes events that are not generally accepted to be acts of terror.    Socrates2008 ( Talk )   11:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Socrates. Cedars (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What about Peter James Knight
I think, under most definitions of terrorism, including those embodied in Australian legislation, Peter James Knight's killing of an abortion clinic guard would be considered terrorism, wouldn't it? He committed a crime of violence with a political aim. --Robert Merkel (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If a reference can be found stating that this was 'terrorism', then yes Jwoodger (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've just reverted this edit which removed this section. I was dithering over whether to revert the edit or to just question it here based on info in the Peter James Knight and Terrorism articles. However, after seeing the comment immediately above I did a guick google search and came up with, , , and other sources. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

croatians
there is no mention of croatians at all in this article, which is surprising, since they are the 'original' terrorists in australia. they are mentioned in the Lionel Murphy wiki article, and the australian-croatian wiki article, so should be mentioned here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.2.34 (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Croatians are responsible for approx half the terrorist attacks on Australian soil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 03:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Killing of Turkish Diplomat
There is no mention of the shooting of the Turkish Consul General. As I recall this occured in Sydney, when a person on a motorbike rode up and shot the Consul General. The shooter was never caught.

I believe the 'Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide' claimed resposibility. Surely this fits the definition of terrorism? --220.101.28.25 (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought so, USAKpedia.org australiancrimes.com


 * Sarık Arıyak, consul general of Turkey, 17 December 1980, at Sydney, Australia,
 * Engin Sever, driver of the consul general, 17 December 1980, at Sydney, Australia,


 * December 17, 1980 Sydney Australian Turkish Media Group
 * Two terrorists assassinate Sarik Ariyak, the Turkish Consul General, and his bodyguard, Engin Sever. JCAG claims responsibility.


 * November 23, 1986 Melbourne Australian Turkish Media Group
 * At 2:15 a.m. a bomb explodes in front of the Turkish Consulate General. One dead -presumedly the perpetrator- and one Australian injured.


 * A bomb exploded on 23rd November 1986 beneath the Turkish Consulate-General in Melbourne killing one of the bombers. Another person was later convicted for his part in the crime. ASIO Website


 * In 1972, a bomb exploded at the Yugoslav General Trade and Tourist Agency in Sydney. Sixteen people were injured, two critically. ASIO Website Also in 1972 there was a second incursion by Australians of Croatian background into Yugoslavia.
 * --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Bali & Indonesia
I deleted the 2002 attack on a Bali night club, as well as the bomb outside the embassy in Jakarta. It was not in Australia. Just as the US events of September 11 are not included, even though Australians were killed in those events.-- Lester  03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically according to the definition provided by the article title you are correct. However, is there value in expanding the scope to include terrorism/attacks that are clearly on Australian interests? I wouldn't necessarily include September 11 in that definition, but certainly the Jakarta embassy bombing and almost certainly the 2002 attacks. Just a thought - what do others think? And, presumably this would involve an article name change, but IMO article names should be driven by (agreed) article scope, rather than agreed article scope being driven by article names. --Merbabu (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Merbabu. We are after useful defintions rather than legalistic ones.  And the Bali bombing was clearly directed at Australians, and killed a number of them.  So while there would be edge cases, I think Bali & Jakarta are clearlyin and 9/11 is out.


 * Further, note that the exact scope is something we as editors define. I had added "The following actual attacks either happened in Australian territory or involved a substantial number of Australian casualties.".  I think that this is a much more useful definition to someone that is interested in Australian Terrorism than one that legalistically looks at territory.  (Maybe the article could be renamed to "Australian Terroism".


 * In situations where there is debate about something being relevant, better to err on the side of too much info than too little. Readers will quickly skip over content that does not interest them, but missing conntent is hard to find.


 * So I've put it back. Tuntable (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Far right groups
This is a funny little article. "Islamist" terrorism has actually been only a small component of australias history of terrorism, but it actually forms almost the entire focus of the article, which really does paint a very unfair and biased picture of the muslim community which has by and large been somewhat well integrated and moderate in australia. I propose we need to fix this. The most prolific terrorist organisation in Australia that I am aware of was actually a Western Australian group called the "Australian Nationalist Movement", a Neo-Nazi organization that conducted a series of bombings in the 80s, along with a wave of bashings and a murder, and a small flap of bombings in 2004. A lesser but related group was an organization known as National Action, whom the ANM branched off from. There was a fair degree of violence associated with the group, although I think as far as it got was a shot gun attack on a chap named Eddie Funde, who was the representitive of the ANC (Nelson mandelas mob, not to be confused with the ANM!). To this we'd probably add a handfull of leser incidents (such as the recent shotgun attack on the mayland mosque by Combat 18), and that ought cover it. I think some attention needs to be paid to the abortion clinic attacks that happened in the, uh I think it was the 90s. I'll have a go at this, but I might need a more experienced wiki editor to clean it up. We should also be vigilant against existing claims in this article from crank sources like Daniel Pipes and the like. Duck Monster (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologists for Tyranny Groups
Suggested change for the sake of ‘truth’

“..identified as a threat to Australia, driven by a misguided interpretation of Islam.[2]” to “.. identified as a threat to Australia, driven by a true interpretation of Islam.[2] [3]”

^ BROWN SHIRTS & BLACK SKIRTS - IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? Fear as Darkness Seeps the Steps of History Creak 21/01/2012 http://citizensfirstasnau.blogspot.com/2012/01/brown-shirts-black-skirts-is-there.html

It beggars belief – What level of Terrorism from a societal group means they are a threat to the happiness and security of the rest of society? How many broken bodies and dreams do you want from the seventh century even to this very day?

The fact is Australians have been informed we are subject to ‘Permanent’ terror – what this means is that Australians are, that is Australians Intelligence services in a continual and continuing action to stop terrorist attacks by other Australian citizens and external citizens of Other countries from coordinating and carrying out Islamic terrorist attacks and counter-terrorists attacks, as occurred in Norway, within Australia’s borders.

To say Australia has not been subject internally to a terror attack has not been because of a want of trying by Islamists inside and outside Australia as we were told many more potential Islamic attacks have been thwarted than have been made public and we have also been told the potential for Islamic as well as counter attacks has increased.

I am reminded of other apologists for a foundation text of tyranny against Other:

“..I appreciate there are some people in this country who are still afraid of the spread of the Russian ideology but what they have to recollect is that if we are friendly with Russia and have an arrangement of cooperation with them any dangers they fear will be very much less. As a matter of fact the Soviet union have no idea and no wish to interfere with the internal affairs of any other country. I know that from the lips of Stalin himself.” Sir Stafford Cripps M. P. Ambassador to Russia 1940-42

The same argument despite the Foundation text against Other, despite the clear acts of Islamist terror and efforts to subvert the maximum relative independence of the individual – be friendly, cooperate, any dangers will be very much less, no wish to interfere with the internal affairs of the State (despite averted attacks on the State in Australia and continuing efforts to do so) and best of all we hear it not only from the lips of adherents but the existing political elite as well.

Gee I am convinced – Not – How can I or anyone else when every day I see the result of Islamic terror and efforts around the world to subvert Democracies?

".the Nazi have given something back to Germany which previous regimes failed to give; the great social reforms to the Third Reich are moulding the German people into the most unified race in Europe. And that great unified people are looking for peace and see friendship with Britain as a basis for peace not only for themselves but for everyone else." I SPEAK OF GERMANY Norman Hillison 1937

“..does paint a very unfair and biased picture of the muslim community which has by and large been somewhat well integrated and moderate in australia.” == Far right groups ==

The question I ask is by and large how many of the Nazi community in Germany were somewhat well integrated and moderate.

Why does Australia or anyone else have to put up with 'by and large'? The important question which has to be asked is why does 'by and large' exist at all? This is supposedly a peaceful doctrine from God surely God has not been so inept in choosing transcribers as to be unintelligible as to intent?

Also given the so called moderate Muslim and so called extremist Muslims are informed of their base ethics by exactly the same foundation text firstly how can a Muslim tell the difference and how can we who determine ourselves Democrats whose aim is to enable the maximum relative independence of individual citizens – what are these red lines which determine one or the other?

The fact unlike many Islamic communities elsewhere where there is a significantly greater proportion of Muslims in the States within which they reside it is not surprising based on societal research that we do not have atrocities everyday of the week. Research has found a critical mass of some 10 % of the resident population is required to support a significant societal schism. It is a simple matter of numbers. It is the same within such communities themselves as numbers of adherents grow the capacity of enforcement grows with it what had previously been seen as optional behaviour is no longer accepted; the resources from the State invariably rise as the community is seen as having greater political influence which reinforces and increases that political influence and enforcement – really a vicious circle as history continually proves and humanity continues to ignore.

What this statement ignores is not only what is increasingly occurring in Australia but what this ‘product’ Islam continues to deliver as horrendous outcomes against Other overseers and even in Australia not only against Other but the nature of women’s place in society. As the critical mass grows with any religion of certainty what happens? What happened to the ‘Greeks (pagans) when the Roman State signed over to Christian ideology – What happened to the Roman State for that matter? What happened in Iran, etc ............ You are really promising Australians, a product so consistent in delivery of terrible outcomes is not going deliver the same in Australia even though we are seeing the start of such acts and the promise of more to come on Australians soil? As ^ BROWN SHIRTS & BLACK SKIRTS - IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? shows Humanity needs to act now against this proven script of hate against Other if it wants to avoid ‘permanent terror’ being a benefit of having such a dogma within Australian society.

At the very least “..by a misguided interpretation of Islam” must be deleted if not for the sake of ‘truth’ for Islams many victims past, present, and future.

Regards, markjuliansmith, 09:04, 23 January 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markjuliansmith (talk • contribs)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Croatian Six
There have been a number of articles in the Fairfax newspapers in the last few days about the Croatian Six, and it is mentioned that they were the biggest terrorist bust in Australian history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sections need heading changes
The main article is "Terrorism in Australia", a fairly broad topic. Some of the sub-sections need more specific title changes. e.g.:

1. Acts of Terrorism in Australia - Sydney Hilton, Turkish Consulate 2. Acts of Terrorism Thwarted / Prevented in Australia - Sydney Five, Benbrika, Holsworthy, etc. 3. Acts of Terrorism Overseas Involving Australian Casualties and/or Fatalities - Bali Bombing, Australian Embassy in Jakarta

Regards, Airbiscuity (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Following up from that I don't think a counter-terrorism raid should be listed in the incidents section. Maybe a counter-terrorism section is needed since a terrorist incident is alleged rather than occurred. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

15 December 2014
Possible, possible terrorism incident occuring in Martin Place where hostages have been taken ≈ 9.45-9.50 AM in a Lindt cafe. People standing against the windows, holding up 'Islamic' flag's, though apparently not the ISIL flag. Trains through Martin Place station stopped, people evacuated or unable to leave buildings nearby. --220  of  Borg 23:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * See 2014 Sydney hostage crisis re above. --220  of  Borg 02:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Media are reporting that source who should know are not calling this event a terrorist attack, please dont include it here without substantive sources to verify, Gnangarra 08:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone placed it 2015, when its actually 2014. Can anyone revert/fix this, please? 24.41.226.211 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The siege should not be included in this list. None of the cited sources refer to it as a terrorist act.  Just because some people describe it as such doesn't mean it is. It should be removed. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed. Not all crimes committed by Muslims are automatically 'terrorism'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The Sydney Siege has to be at least mentioned somewhere in here. It fits the definition of Lone_wolf_(terrorism), which is terrorism. Tony Abbott and other Australian security agencies warned of wolf terrorist attacks before", so i don't see how this siege is different from what they warned about. Maybe a separate lone wolf section but surely it has to be mentioned. Rump1234 (talk) 09:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Lone wolf' in this sense is used in legal contexts in the US. Although the term may have been used once in an off-hand manner by the suppository of wisdom, the term does not automatically apply to events in Australia.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * it was a criminal act by person who had had an appeal rejected by the courts... Tony Abbott as PM has been shown to be an unreliable source in relation to this incident already and as he isnt an expert in the field either is his description of it doesnt carry any authoritative significance Gnangarra 09:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Tony Abbott isn't the only one who spoke of lone wolf terror,said "Particular worries are the so-called 'lone wolf' or 'stand-alone' groups who act independently and throw off few clues as to malicious intent.He added the Norway attacks proved lone wolf terrorists could also not be ruled out.". The US also has refereed to it as a lone wolf attack", although what the US calls it doesn't override everything else, i only use them as a example. Many Australian TV networks and newspapers have also referred to it as terror and spoke about the 'lone wolf'. Rump1234 (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Making any such claim about this incident requires very specific sources, and not merely a synthesis of more general 'concerns'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying make original claims or synthesize, sorry if it came off like that. I was just responding to the claim that tony abbott was the only one who spoke of lone wolf attacks. The US part was meant to be separate, as in someone is calling this specific incident a 'lone wolf attack'. The incident not being in the article at all just seems strange, even if mentioning that is a debated, lone wolf terror or just terror, incident in a small paragraph. Rump1234 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The incident should only be mentioned in this article if/when there are reliable sources describing it as terrorism. See also WP:LABEL.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * From the lede: Terrorism is defined as "an action or threat of action where the action causes certain defined forms of harm or interference and the action is done or the threat is made with the intention of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause". Seems to define what happened in Martin Place.  Jeffro77,  What WP:RS (beyond the four cited) do you require to certify that this incident was "terrorism"?   If the Martin Place incident was not 'terrorism' then most other events described on this page are not terrorism either.  Sam56mas (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of what you think seems to be the case, or what is printed in tabloid journalism, or what is stated offhand in generic terms by politicians. The perpetrator is not known to have had ties to any terrorist group, and experts in the field have not called the event 'terrorism'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But terrorist don't have to have actual links to groups, they can be individuals acting alone, their is no 100% definition of Terrorism. (Although the perpetrator did ask for an ISIL flag as a demand and several of the hostages in their videos and internet posts were forced by him to say it was an ISIL attack.) Rump1234 (talk) 06:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since there is "no 100% definition of terrorism", and it hasn't been explicitly indicated as terrorism by experts in the field, why are you so keen to say it is? WP:LABEL applies.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, I didn't expect there to be so much controversy over this. --220  of  Borg 04:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the police did consider it a terrorist attack. (124.181.219.215 (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC))

NPOV & Bias
I have tagged this article as being not neutral and bias as it only covers recent events with a focus primarily on those related to Islamic groups. It does this by having significant detail on those while having nothing more than list of other events and a token sentence masquerading as a whole section. Also it appears to have a scope beyond Terrorism in Australia with a similar focus. It doesnt carry any mentions of positive actions that have taken place in response to these events. Gnangarra 11:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. I've just removed material concerning terror attacks outside Australia, as they seem out of the article's scope (and several of the attacks were clearly not targeting Australians specifically; there could be a huge list of terrorist incidents worldwide in which Australians were affected) Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't see the need for the POV tag, maybe an incomplete tag if there are other incidents to add, or they require more info. I don't see any overly excessive focus on Islamic terror. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Because the introductory paragraph makes specific reference to "Radical Islam" (linking to a page on Islamic Terrorism) via a link to the DFAT site... where the page in question is "missing". Meanwhile, of the thirteen attacks that have been given details, just four aren't Islamic cases, with only one of those four dating later than 1986, and that was a singular case of an anti-abortionist attack. The other three do not provide much detail at all on motives. Of the nine that were Islam-related, seven make specific references to Islam. The section on terrorist organisations makes particular note of the number of Islamic organisations on the list (despite this not being an article on the list of organisations), the "Future Threats" section speaks extensively on Muslim threats, and so on. And that one specific case where a motive other than something related to Islam makes reference to an article by Clive Williams that lists off a heap of instances of terrorism... but none of the other ones are listed, except the ones that are Muslim. Oh, and one of the references are to a case where one muslim acted a bit strangely while here, then was arrested in France on suspicion of terrorist activities (nothing confirmed). In other words, the article is most definitely skewed in a way that appears to intentionally focus on Islamic Terrorism. That is bias. Aielyn (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

'Operation Appleby' Re direct
I have created a re-direct here from Operation Appleby after Oz police carried out more "counter terrorism" raids yesterday. It may deserve to be expanded into it's own article perhaps? If there is another page it should be directed to instead, please do so.

Perhaps Joint Counter Terrorism Team or JCTT (AFP, NSW Police, ASIO & NSW Crime Commission joint team)  needs a page too, or a redirect here?220  of  Borg 04:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Scare mongering?
This edit gives a fairly strong impression that fighters returning from Syria are likely to carry out terrorist attacks in Australia. That view should be balanced with the fact that they are just as likely to be disillusioned by their experiences and pose no threat.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

relevant online source and topic

 * http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-25/fact-file3b-five-facts-about-terrorism-in-australia/6226086 satusuro 02:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed the Sydney Siege link
While it was a fairly big text, anyone interested in looking at it can look at the main article. It has been established that it was not a terrorist attack. While it was debated at the time whether it was or was not and while some people definitely treated it as a terrorist attack at the time, we now know definitively that it was not, so it does not belong here. If in the future we wish to create a page for "list of things once thought to be terrorist attacks but later proven not to be" then it can go there. Of note, at the time that it went on, the Port Arthur massacre was considered to be a terrorist attack, but it is not listed here, so nor should the Sydney siege be. Mister Sneeze A Lot (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that the Sydney Siege section has now been re-inserted...
 * See a current discussion at . Wittylama 12:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)


 * One reason that Port Arthur isn't here IIRC is that there was never the slightest whiff of terrorism about it, the perpetrator was obviously just a 'nut job'. Mind you, if it happened now post 9/11 etc, a terrorist attack would likely be the first thought. 220  of  Borg 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Shooting at NSW Police Headquarters in Parramatta
Might have an addition to this page, though only occurred in last 2 hours or less.

Early ABC report says "The ABC understands that the incident is not terror related."
 * Two people reportedly shot dead outside police headquarters in Parramatta ABC, 2 September 2015

One civilian Police employee reported dead, shooter shot dead too. 220  of  Borg 08:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See 2015 Parramatta police shootings which is less than 3 hours old. 220  of  Borg 07:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * or 2015 Parramatta shooting which is a bit older at 5 hours. 220  of  Borg 07:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Raids in December 2015
Sydney counter-terrorism raids: 15yo one of two charged as part of Operation Appleby ABC News, 12 December 2015. 220  of  Borg 05:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Terrorism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090106015944/http://www.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24669683-661,00.html to http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24669683-661,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   07:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Flinders Street terror attacks.
I'm looking for information on the Flinders Street terror attacks, three in as many months. I managed to get screenshots of their facebook pages before they were memory holed, all were Islamic extremists even the kid who walked free without charge as he was a 'minor' with 'autism' and it was 'nothing to do with terrorism.' I have footage from all three attacks before (and after) the media censored them to remove shouts of 'allahu ackbar' etc. but this is top level censorship and doesn't really show the institutional and systemic suppression of information by people who think they're 'fighting racists' by hiding terrorism that makes up the majority of the censorship and straight up disappearance of information in the information age.

It appears as far as Wikipedia goes they've memory holed the entire thing if it's shown up at all. I'm currently a student studying global terrorism and have noticed the lengths gone to in the suppression of terrorist attacks in western nations and the diversion of interest into said attacks towards non-issues so this is right up my alley for the paper I'm writing. I was wondering if there's ever been any attempt at discussing, posting information on, or documenting the Flinders Street attacks here and why they were removed and specifically if the people who removed it have shown a habit of removing information pertaining to terrorism, or pushing a specific political viewpoint? If anyone can answer any of those questions they'd be greatly appreciated. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)