Pendlebury Wicks

Lack of evidence in terror raids allows us to fill in the blanks

With the AFP unable to find anything concrete in yesterday’s raids, we twist the narrative to fit our political station. However, this thinking sets a dangerous precedent.

 

 

Over the weekend, the booted feds kicked down the front doors of numerous locations across Sydney under the glare of television cameras and the raging ceaseless Inferno of internet discourse. What we know of the plot itself, is not much. The same words ‘alleged’ ‘homemade’ and ‘possible attack’ were sprinkled through numerous articles yesterday afternoon. The plan seemed to be simple: Build bomb, use bomb.

However, what we know is not as powerful as what we think we know, and yesterday’s actions are subject to the same conditions every other news piece where the government sponsored trigger men are involved. Whether they stopped the attack, or indeed how serious it could have possibly been, depends on who you are.

There’s an obvious pattern. To those on the left, the intrusion of the AFP was exactly that, a question of cock size, and cunning political stunt, where it couldn’t get anymore artificial, unless Malcolm Turnbull stranded some Millennials in Lithgow purely so he could rescue them himself. The primary discourse swirling around three pieces of evidence: a) The presence of television cameras b) The complete lack of charges and c) The words uttered by the alleged mother and husband of the alleged who boomed that she “…loved this country”, face obscured by the leopard print blanket that kept her anonymous, presumably to those who believe that evidence or no, she birthed, wed or indeed was a terrorist.

 

On the other side of the debate, one kicked door is far preferable to one bombed plane. The clomp of the AFP footsteps on Surry Hills and South West Sydney driveways merely echo the realities of modern day policing challenges. The world, like it or not, is subject to the unfeeling bloody hands of terrorist groups, or people who believe themselves to be terror groups. A lack of evidence, so far, is a boon, as in no attack, but it could have easily been worse, and it’s why the AFP periodically check. It’s childish to think we’re immune.

 

The irony is that both parties are arguing about nothing. The absence of a plot. I realise that that is an extremely lazy reduction of the problem, but it’s a strange duality to note when both sides use the same language for different definitions, to twist the rhetoric, and indeed lack of facts to suit their narrative.

In the absence of a tangible victim, that victim becomes our belief system. When conjecture and hearsay plants the smoking gun the police didn’t find, the actual details of the case are hard to figure. Therefore everyone is guilty, or everyone is innocent. But make no mistake, the landscape of police siren and kicked doors is here to stay, for good or ill. The challenge for us, is to react properly, to act on evidence given, not evidence perceived to have given.

Tritely put: Moving forward, we best check ourselves before we wreck ourselves.

 

 

Pendlebury Wicks

Pendlebury Wicks is a country boy with a penchant for movies and sport. After a few years working in health, he decided he'd rather work with today's youth and studied arts and education in rural NSW. His main interests are religion, health and lairy shirts.

Related posts

Top