Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has expended a lot of time and energy
trying to raise Melbourne’s profile on the international stage, but
this morning Victoria’s capital got a healthy dose of unwanted
notoriety when a US-member of al Qaeda released a video threatening Melbourne and Los Angeles as their next terror target.

The threat is being taken seriously and Mr Bracks this morning urged Melburnians to remain calm.
There’s no word yet on what Bracks’s Californian counterpart, the
Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger, is telling his citizens, but it’s a
fair bet it’ll be more defiant than Bracks’s measured reassuring words.

According to The Age,
Bracks said the State Government was taking the threat seriously but he
would not order a security upgrade around the city, nor ask for the
state’s terrorist threat level to be lifted.

“This sort of threat is designed to spread fear in
countries around the world,” Mr Bracks said. “I urge all Victorians to
treat this in the manner in which it should be treated … to go about
our business.”

Mr Bracks said police and ASIO had yet to receive
a copy of the 11-minute video, and as such were unable to determine if
it is genuine.

“We are on medium alert and there’s no potential change to that medium alert, which has been designated by ASIO.”

It’s
all pretty scary stuff, and we’re loathe to make light of it, but the
naming of Melbourne alongside Los Angeles also raises some interesting
questions. How were the two cities chosen? What will Sydneysiders make
of the fact they’ve been snubbed in favour of the southern capital? And
will there be any PR opportunities for Premier Bracks to rub shoulders
with Arnie: a tough talking security summit perhaps? That’s enough to
make Morris Iemma really gnash his teeth.

And on the question of
how these two far-flung targets were chosen, a close examination of the
terrorist’s speech might reveal some method in this madness.
“Yesterday, London and Madrid. Tomorrow, Los Angeles and Melbourne,
Allah willing. At this time, don’t count on us demonstrating restraint
or compassion,” says the terrorist.

Could Los Angeles and
Melbourne have been plucked out of the air as the obvious alliterative
counterparts to London and Madrid? And if so, does that mean the threat
to bomb Melbourne is less thought out – and less specific – than it at
first appears? Could it be that the terrorist was in fact trying to
sketch out the breadth of potential locations in an elegant manner, and
Melbourne, as a faraway city starting with M, sprang to mind?

Perhaps
it’s time to give a proper hearing to the small group of historians
who’ve advocated a return to Melbourne’s original name: Bearbrass.