# Grisly islamist attack in Britain...



## billc (May 22, 2013)

This was just breaking while I was at work...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/...headed-by-two-men-in-attack-on-london-street/



> Fred Oyat, who saw the incident from the window of his flat, tells Josie Ensor that two black or Middle Eastern men were wondering around the street, walking over the dead body on the floor:
> &#8220;The two men were shouting,&#8221; he says. &#8220;They had three knives including a machete and a meat cleaver as well as an old gun.
> &#8220;The white man was already dead on the floor, his fade covered in blood. He had a big neck wound and his neck was almost off.&#8221;
> &#8220;They seemed to be encouraging people to take photos and waited there until police arrived as if they wanted a fight.



The attackers wanted people to take photos of the victim.  The photos taken were within 20 feet of the attackers and they made no move to hide their identity.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 22, 2013)

I saw some footage of this I don't understand how nobody tried to stop them


----------



## granfire (May 22, 2013)

wielding a meat cleaver? Gurkhas are not everywhere. 

But I do find it rather ironic: perpetrating an attack in Britain, demanding the victim to leave us alone, leave our country....


----------



## ballen0351 (May 22, 2013)

granfire said:


> wielding a meat cleaver? Gurkhas are not everywhere.


Don't need to be a Gurkha to say damn thats messed up when he turns his back to stab the victim im going to start kicking him in the head as many times as i can and hope others help me.   We dont need to be police or military to take a stand.



> But I do find it rather ironic: perpetrating an attack in Britain, demanding the victim to leave us alone, leave our country....


You can't find logic in an event like this


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 22, 2013)

Responses I'm seeing on facebook.  Read in a bored monotone.

- Look, the evil nasty must be destroyed muslims are at it again. they are animals. kill them all.  
- If only they had guns someone could have shot them.
- Did I mention, muslims are animals, religion of peace my ***, kill them all.
- maybe they should make knives illegal
- muslims are bad.
- guns, muslims, blood, potage.
- animals kill soldier, get free healthcare after being shot by police. how is that fair. 


My condolences to the soldier killed, his friends and family.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 22, 2013)

This is the latest report from the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303

My guess why no one tried to help the poor fellow is that there was no time, *Ballen*.  The murderers ran him down with their car by all accounts.  I would guess people were stalled in that shocked 'window' of inactivity that most of us go into when unexpected and violent things happen.  By the time they came out of it, the chap was already dead and the 'please utterly destroy our county' nutters were posturing.


----------



## Takai (May 22, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You can't find logic in an event like this



And yet the media and "experts" will try. They seem unable to comprehend that senseless acts be definition make no sense!

Truly disheartening on so many levels.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 22, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> This is the latest report from the BBC:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22630303
> 
> My guess why no one tried to help the poor fellow is that there was no time, *Ballen*.  The murderers ran him down with their car by all accounts.  I would guess people were stalled in that shocked 'window' of inactivity that most of us go into when unexpected and violent things happen.  By the time they came out of it, the chap was already dead and the 'please utterly destroy our county' nutters were posturing.


Makes more sense.  The story I saw looked like the guys where just walking around talking to people then would go stab the victim get up go I get interviewed again by someone with a cell phone walk around again talk some more go stab him again ect ect.


----------



## K-man (May 22, 2013)

Hard to believe there are people like that in our communities and we don't even know until they do something like this.


----------



## billc (May 23, 2013)

From reports on the news it sounds like the police took 20 minutes to respond...is that true?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 23, 2013)

It's blowback. Expect more.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 23, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It's blowback. Expect more.



Its not blow back its nut jobs looking for an excuse to kill


----------



## Sukerkin (May 23, 2013)

Bill, according to this report from the BBC, officers were there in nine minutes and armed officers in fourteen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22644857


----------



## Sukerkin (May 23, 2013)

A word of praise, amidst the shock and understated anger, for the courage of the cub-scout leader, Ingrid Loyau-Kennett, who approached one of the murderers and tried to get him to give up his weapons.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/22/woolwich-first-person-account


----------



## K-man (May 23, 2013)

I just think it a shame that the police didn't shoot with greater accuracy.


----------



## David43515 (May 24, 2013)

Along with the machete and cleaver I'm seeing some reports that one of the men had "an old revolver". Have the police made any statements about that? I'm wondering just how hard it would be to get a pistol in the UK if you were planning a crime like this. I know it's not too tough in the US, but would a UK  thug have to be connected to some group, or would he just have to ask around?


----------



## Mauthos (May 24, 2013)

Yeah, the report was that one of them had a pistol, but it was stated in every report I have seen that it was a rusty pistol and when he fired on the Police it supposedly jammed, back fired and blew the man's thumb off.  But yes, I do agree that in the UK it can be more than difficult to get hold of any type of firearm.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Its not blow back its nut jobs looking for an excuse to kill



Um no. These are nut jobs looking for an excuse to kill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police

This recent incident is blowback from foreign policy. Sadly, there is no end in sight without changing the policy.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 24, 2013)

Not wishing to be contradictory of *Mauthos*'s words but, whilst it might be a trial to get a firearm legitimately in this country, as this article from the Guardian illustrates, it is still quite easy to get one if you don't care about the legal niceties.

To me that means, oddly enough, that given the poor quality of firearm they had, the religious extremists who committed a futile murder on the streets of London, probably don't move in 'criminal' circles.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> This recent incident is blowback from foreign policy. Sadly, there is no end in sight without changing the policy.



I do wish you wouldn't use that term so freely, *Maka*.  Everything any country does in it's interactions with other countries has consequences but, to me, at least, using a word like 'blowback' implies that anything that happens to we ordinary folk, as a consequence of our governments choices, is our own fault.  That is not an acceptable couching of the circumstances for me and gives a false legitimacy to the actions of terrorists.  For they are seeking to advance an agenda distinctly hostile to any that would be held by a more moderate and freer thinking person.


----------



## K-man (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Um no. These are nut jobs looking for an excuse to kill.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police
> 
> This recent incident is blowback from foreign policy. Sadly, there is no end in sight without changing the policy.


So we change the policy and it all goes away?  No, I don't think so.  :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Um no. These are nut jobs looking for an excuse to kill.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/02/birmingham-murder-racially-motivated-police
> 
> This recent incident is blowback from foreign policy. Sadly, there is no end in sight without changing the policy.


I disagree blowback would be an organized attack with a goal.  This was two killers that needed to find a reason to justify their homicidal behavior.  I think these two would have killed regardless of reason.  Just like the Boston bomber he was a killer and needed a reason to justify his mind.  His brother was dupped by his killer older brother to help him.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I do wish you wouldn't use that term so freely, *Maka*.  Everything any country does in it's interactions with other countries has consequences but, to me, at least, using a word like 'blowback' implies that anything that happens to we ordinary folk, as a consequence of our governments choices, is our own fault.  That is not an acceptable couching of the circumstances for me and gives a false legitimacy to the actions of terrorists.  For they are seeking to advance an agenda distinctly hostile to any that would be held by a more moderate and freer thinking person.



First of all, I think I would be very careful about using "our" when referring to government. It doesn't represent our interests and is distinctly separate from our will.  If blowback occurs, it is not "our" fault.

Also, noting that the government's actions are causing terrorism in no way legitimizes the actions of the criminals who hurt the innocent. Just as those who serve "us" (aka the government) are not washed clean of their crimes when they hurt the innocent. IMHO, calling it blowback is simply acknowledging the source of frustration and actually being honest about the cause.

It's as if a criminal gang started a fight in a different neighborhood and innocent were caught in the crossfire of retaliation.

If there is a religious element to this at all, which I don't believe because other people with religious belief when not set upon do not engage in mass international terrorism, it is completely incidental to the violence. In fact, I would urge great caution in accepting the notion that it is somehow the fault of "islam". This is government propaganda designed to lump and dehumanize, making it easier for the State to avoid responsibility and carry out it's self serving foreign policy. 

War has always been this way. It is no different now. One might as well write the names and dates on sticky notes and alternate them at random.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

K-man said:


> So we change the policy and it all goes away?  No, I don't think so.  :asian:



Historical examples exist where countries gave up imperial policies and "terrorism" stopped. It took a few years, but it always stopped in every case.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I disagree blowback would be an organized attack with a goal.  This was two killers that needed to find a reason to justify their homicidal behavior.  I think these two would have killed regardless of reason.  Just like the Boston bomber he was a killer and needed a reason to justify his mind.  His brother was dupped by his killer older brother to help him.



The Boston Bombing was an organized attack. 

This one, maybe not so much. Still, this does not make it simply murder. The ideation of revenge in government foreign action is all that is required to label something blowback.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> The Boston Bombing was an organized attack.


Bomber was a murderer they have him up to 3 murders prior to the bomb.  He's just a killer that needed to justify his desire to kill.  He would be a killer regardless of the "reason" 


> This one, maybe not so much. Still, this does not make it simply murder. The ideation of revenge in government foreign action is all that is required to label something blowback.



So when someone says Ozzy made them kill their dog is that blowback from heavy metal ?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Bomber was a murderer they have him up to 3 murders prior to the bomb.  He's just a killer that needed to justify his desire to kill.  He would be a killer regardless of the "reason"
> 
> 
> So when someone says Ozzy made them kill their dog is that blowback from heavy metal ?



Ozzy isn't commanding armies in other countries killing kith and kin.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Ozzy isn't commanding armies in other countries killing kith and kin.



Nor were the runners in Boston.  Point is I can make any excuse I want for my behavior doesn't make it true


----------



## Sukerkin (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Also, noting that the government's actions are causing terrorism in no way legitimizes the actions of the criminals who hurt the innocent.


 
Good to hear that - I raise it for emphasis only because that view is not often clear when your goodself expresses your views on governance.  I am sure it is not what you intend to come across (and it may be only me that 'sees' it) but the self-hatred (of country) tends to override any other content and the sense of 'fellow feeling' for individuals gets lost in the attempt to translate the broader message sometimes.  I'm not attempting to diminish your attempts with such an observation by the way, but rather am pointing out my reactions.  As I say, it might just be me .



Makalakumu said:


> Just as those who serve "us" (aka the government) are not washed clean of their crimes when they hurt the innocent.


 
I rather thought that there was legislation in place for true war crimes?  For actions resulting in unintended harm, doesn't the oath that members of the military swear absolve them of fault if they are obeying legitimate orders from a superior authority?




Makalakumu said:


> IMHO, calling it blowback is simply acknowledging the source of frustration and actually being honest about the cause.



I am of the opinion that that is allowing rather too much credence to the rhetoric of militarily inferior forces using irregulars for 'demonstration' attacks.  It's the poor souls caught in the middle of this ideological vice that deserve our sympathy, not the brain-washed and power-hungry followers of vile men who play the 'religion card' to justify their methods and goals.  These fellows are no different than the Red Brigade, the IRA or Baader-Meinhoff, they've just replaced Leninism with Islam in their Little Black Book of Excuses.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> I am of the opinion that that is allowing rather too much credence to the rhetoric of militarily inferior forces using irregulars for 'demonstration' attacks.  It's the poor souls caught in the middle of this ideological vice that deserve our sympathy, not the brain-washed and power-hungry followers of vile men who play the 'religion card' to justify their methods and goals.  These fellows are no different than the Red Brigade, the IRA or Baader-Meinhoff, they've just replaced Leninism with Islam in their Little Black Book of Excuses.



The innocent have always been crushed by the powerful and their servants.  It's been this way as long as there have been States, Kings, Warlords, Chiefs, etc.

We cannot excuse the people who master our society anymore than we can excuse the string pullers on the other side.  Make no mistake, I know there are people who benefit Western Imperialism in Islam.  They demonize us as much as our string pullers demonize them.  It's been this way for thousands of years and memes like Religion have always been the Masters tool.  

I tend to focus on the propaganda that surrounds the people around me because that's what I know best and it's something that people can immediately grapple with.  Of course, grappling with your own cultures assumptions is also a good way to get ostracized or worse.  This is the only way to dispel these illusions, however.  People within the societies need to point out that the Gods don't exist, that the Masters are lying, and that we are all humans.


----------



## K-man (May 24, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> First of all, I think I would be very careful about using "our" when referring to government. It doesn't represent our interests and is distinctly separate from our will.  If blowback occurs, it is not "our" fault.
> 
> *Maka*, it may come as a surprise but you are Ameican, Americans do vote and they elect the government they deserve. Whatever the government does represents the will of the people, or are you saying that your electoral system is a sham?
> 
> ...


We have a huge problem in the Middle East.  It will not disappear if we walk away and although the problem is exacerbated by American foreign policy, it is not the cause. The problem was around before the US even existed.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 24, 2013)

K-man said:


> _*Maka*, it may come as a surprise but you are Ameican, Americans do vote and they elect the government they deserve. Whatever the government does represents the will of the people, or are you saying that your electoral system is a sham?_



Between the limited debate of the two major parties, actual election fraud, outright removal of political opponents, and other forms of party skullduggery, America's elections are ineffectual in enacting real change.  Sham is a good word for it.  From the outside looking in, people in other countries should be very concerned about integrity of America's elections.  

These same problems exist in other countries as well to a certain extent.


K-man said:


> _All governments are between a rock and a hard place. As citizens of the world it is hard to stand back and ignore tyranny and terrorism. Look at Syria. The West is reluctant to become involved in another Middle Eastern war, innocent people are dying and calling out for help and now radical Islamists fro Iran are filling the breach. When Syria is in the hands of Islamist extremists who benefits?_



When history books are written about this era, people are going to see this period as a great unwinding of empires from the 19th century.  WWI did in the great European powers and WWI didn't end until 1945.  After that, America picked up the reigns of the fallen empires and now it is suffering from the same problems that plagued other imperial powers.  These problems that we are facing now originate from the imperial times before WWI.  A lot of the countries in the region were drawn on the map at that time as various European powers divided up the spoils of the region.  And they have always used Western sponsored strongmen to hold the region together.  All of these dictators from Hussein to Musharaf to Assad have some kind of western backing.  They get their money and weapons from somewhere.  

All of this does not serve people like you and I.  We are placated with propaganda in regards to these places so the powerful can manipulate.



K-man said:


> _&#8203;Sorry *Maka*, get real. Religion is behind many of the problems in the world one way or another. If you don't think the problems in the Middle East and the resultant terrorist activity are driven by radical Islam we must be watching different news services. (And, it is not the problem of Islam, it is the problem of *radical* Islam._



Radical Islam is a tool.  It's an excuse.  As we have discussed before, people are radicalized by violence against them.  When the violence stops and they become wealthy, they can no longer afford radicalism.  This is only part of the story though.

Another thing that propagates radicalism in the region are governments themselves.  The West uses radical forces as pawns to attack other groups they don't like any more.  Radicals in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Saudi, Libya and a myriad of other countries have been used in this fashion.  

There is a long and sordid history of using these groups like this and watching them get out of control.



K-man said:


> We have a huge problem in the Middle East.  It will not disappear if we walk away and although the problem is exacerbated by American foreign policy, it is not the cause. The problem was around before the US even existed.



True, but there were also times in history where Islam wasn't nearly as radical as it is now.  There was a time when the Middle East was the center for science and learning for the entire world.  I remain firm in my assertion that these current problems relate to imperialism.  If the west changes it's policy, these cultures will change as well.


----------



## K-man (May 25, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> True, but there were also times in history where Islam wasn't nearly as radical as it is now.  There was a time when the Middle East was the center for science and learning for the entire world.  I remain firm in my assertion that these current problems relate to imperialism.  If the west changes it's policy, these cultures will change as well.


As I have said. Islam is not the problem. It is when the extremists take control that the scenario changes. But the Middle East was the cradle of civilisation *before* the Muslim conquest which was only 600 years ago. As for your assertion that the situation will change with a shift in Western policy, dream on. Regardless of Western policy, there will be problems caused by radical Islam for centuries to come.  :asian:


----------



## ballen0351 (May 25, 2013)

Even if all this is our faults which I don't agree with but forbthr sake of argument say your right.  At what point do we say screw it.  We started it they pushed back now the gloves come off and we just wipe them all out regardless.  The story of the kid getting bullied knocking out the bully doesn't happen in real life.  The big kid wins most of the time. When does a nation say screw PC screw being fair and wipe them out?  So nobody's left to cause blow back?  Or is there no time where that happens?  Say they pull a Beslan style attack killing hundreds or thousands of kids here do we then say enough or do we just say oh well blow back were sorry?


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2013)

:nods:  It is a scary thing to contemplate, *Ballen*.  It would be foolish to think that it couldn't happen - even here, where we are boxed in at every turn when it comes to expressing ire against anyone not 'White and English', the rumbling can be felt in the bottom of the pot.  People are angry and they feel powerless; that is such a dangerous combination.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 25, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> :nods:  It is a scary thing to contemplate, *Ballen*.  It would be foolish to think that it couldn't happen - even here, where we are boxed in at every turn when it comes to expressing ire against anyone not 'White and English', the rumbling can be felt in the bottom of the pot.  People are angry and they feel powerless; that is such a dangerous combination.



I was reading comments on Facebook that got me thinking about this.  I belong to a few Marine Corps Facebook pages that are extremely not politically correct and some of the posts where stating that very notion of let's just kill them all or time for a new crusade ect.  To be fair most of the people posting have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan so their perspective is bias as they have seen more death and violence then most.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Even if all this is our faults which I don't agree with but forbthr sake of argument say your right.  At what point do we say screw it.  We started it they pushed back now the gloves come off and we just wipe them all out regardless.  The story of the kid getting bullied knocking out the bully doesn't happen in real life.  The big kid wins most of the time. When does a nation say screw PC screw being fair and wipe them out?  So nobody's left to cause blow back?  Or is there no time where that happens?  Say they pull a Beslan style attack killing hundreds or thousands of kids here do we then say enough or do we just say oh well blow back were sorry?



That is historically what usually happens when the thralls sting the Empire too much.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2013)

To my knowledge it has only ever happened once in widely known recorded history, *Maka*.  That was Carthage.  What others are you thinking of?  I suppose there is Ghenghis Khan but he only did it to particular cities rather than entire nations or civilisations.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> To my knowledge it has only ever happened once in widely known recorded history, *Maka*.  That was Carthage.  What others are you thinking of?  I suppose there is Ghenghis Khan but he only did it to particular cities rather than entire nations or civilisations.



Wiping people off the maps, pogroms, brutal oppression/suppression, those things are quite common.  Rome had terrible problems with terrorists in it's outlying territories.  They sent punishment armies to those regions to steal, rape, murder, and enslave as many people as they could find.  Entire cities, villages, and ethnic groups were decimated.  In recent times, Germany did this to Russia during WWII.  No one really knows how many civilians died, but from the sources that are available from the Eastern Front tell us that the Germans were brutal beyond imagination.  Thousands of villages were erased.  Hundreds of small to medium cities were put to the torch.  Dozens of large cities were completely razed to the ground.  Leningrad was starved for 2.5 years to the point where the civilians at each other.  If the Germans got a sniff of resistance in any of their newly occupied territory, they encircled a large geographic area and literally murdered everyone in it.  In Russia, there are fields of bones as far as the eye can see from WWII.  Scholars estimate that 40 million civilians or more died in Russia from the conquest.  

So, this does happen all of the time, even in modern times.  Anyone who resists the Empire is usually put to the sword.

The exception, IMO, is Britain and the US.  Britain has had it's share of people it's wiped out in it's various colonies, but it seemed like that imperial power would rather rule through proxies and have others do it's dirty work.  The US picked up the same system after WWII, neatly stepping into the power vacuum hen Britain gave up the Empire.  In some ways, the British Empire never went anywhere.  Think of all the prominent American politicians who are inducted into Knightly orders and pledge to serve the Queen. President Reagan, President Bush, and many key placed underlings belong to these Orders.  Even if it all is just ceremonial, does it really matter if the empire is being maintained by US power?  

The "special" relationship between Britain and the US is fascinating.  The impression the world gets is that Britain follows the US, but what if, in the level of power above national governments, it's the other way around?  There is a reason why the financial center for the entire world is located in the City of London, for example.

Anyway, I'm just musing now.  The point here is that Empires have always engaged in mass murder, especially when the conquered people resist in any way.  This doesn't stop the resistance, even Ghengis Khan, who razed entire cities to the ground, engaged in mass rapes and murders of millions, and would literally build mountains of skulls, could not quench the human spirit for vengeance.  Famously, Ghengis would murder any child higher than a wagon wheel because he knew that this child would be young enough to forget what happened to his family and would not seek vengeance.  

This is how I know there is no hope to solve this problem with violence.  There is no proxy ruler big enough, mean enough, or brutal enough to ever squash these people into submission.  The best, cheapest, and most peaceful thing the government could do is walk away.  Let the people develop their own economies, cultures, and social institutions.  The extremism will disappear exactly as it has in the West.  

Of course, for this to happen, the people in the West will have to understand just how far divorced the State has become from their interests.  The Empire does not benefit us at all.  Not like Rome.  We don't get slaves or gold shipped home to serve the cities.  We get propaganda and we get to fight and die and we get to pay with our unborn childrens wealth.  Every time I see stories like the one above, this big picture is plastered on it.  Most people have red propaganda glasses strapped on by the State, so they can't see the bloody pattern.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 25, 2013)

You keep saying the state doesn't represent our interest but there are millions of people that love Obama and everything he's done so I do think the govt is an accurate representation of the people.  Obama is one of the most loved and hated people I've ever seen.  I literally see shrines to him in peoples homes.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You keep saying the state doesn't represent our interest but there are millions of people that love Obama and everything he's done so I do think the govt is an accurate representation of the people.  Obama is one of the most loved and hated people I've ever seen.  I literally see shrines to him in peoples homes.



15,000 hours of force indoctrination does wonders for the State.


----------



## K-man (May 25, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Even if all this is our faults which I don't agree with but forbthr sake of argument say your right.  At what point do we say screw it.  We started it they pushed back now the gloves come off and we just wipe them all out regardless.  The story of the kid getting bullied knocking out the bully doesn't happen in real life.  The big kid wins most of the time. When does a nation say screw PC screw being fair and wipe them out?  So nobody's left to cause blow back?  Or is there no time where that happens?  Say they pull a Beslan style attack killing hundreds or thousands of kids here do we then say enough or do we just say oh well blow back were sorry?


Let's be honest. Not only is it not going to happen, it can't happen.   Which country are you going to knock out first? Iran? Yemin? Chechnya? Maybe Pakestan? Terrorists have come from Libya and Morroco. Do you destroy them too? There are some real nasty people in Indonesia. Are you going to wipe out another few hundred million there?

After you have cleansed the world you then have to turn on yourself. There are many examples of home grown terrorists in the UK and the US. We even have some firebrands in Australia. Are you going to destroy us too? What you are proposing puts Hitler and Ghengis Khan to shame. The genocide you are countenancing makes Idi Amin and Pol Pot look like Sunday School teachers. Let's face it, that option isn't even on the table, such is the nature of terrorism.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 25, 2013)

K-man said:


> Let's be honest. Not only is it not going to happen, it can't happen.   Which country are you going to knock out first? Iran? Yemin? Chechnya? Maybe Pakestan? Terrorists have come from Libya and Morroco. Do you destroy them too? There are some real nasty people in Indonesia. Are you going to wipe out another few hundred million there?
> 
> After you have cleansed the world you then have to turn on yourself. There are many examples of home grown terrorists in the UK and the US. We even have some firebrands in Australia. Are you going to destroy us too? What you are proposing puts Hitler and Ghengis Khan to shame. The genocide you are countenancing makes Idi Amin and Pol Pot look like Sunday School teachers. Let's face it, that option isn't even on the table, such is the nature of terrorism.  :asian:



What is the solution then?


----------



## ballen0351 (May 25, 2013)

K-man said:


> Let's be honest. Not only is it not going to happen, it can't happen.   Which country are you going to knock out first? Iran? Yemin? Chechnya? Maybe Pakestan? Terrorists have come from Libya and Morroco. Do you destroy them too? There are some real nasty people in Indonesia. Are you going to wipe out another few hundred million there?
> 
> After you have cleansed the world you then have to turn on yourself. There are many examples of home grown terrorists in the UK and the US. We even have some firebrands in Australia. Are you going to destroy us too? What you are proposing puts Hitler and Ghengis Khan to shame. The genocide you are countenancing makes Idi Amin and Pol Pot look like Sunday School teachers. Let's face it, that option isn't even on the table, such is the nature of terrorism.  :asian:



I'm not proposing anything.  I'm asking the question.  What happens when people have enough?  The Beslan shooting killed over 300 kids.  If that were to happen in the US or UK or In your neck of the woods or something even bigger say a planned multi school attack killing 1000s of kids.  Its there a breaking point where revenge becomes more important then doing what's right.


----------



## ballen0351 (May 25, 2013)

I also wouldn't be so quick to say it can't happen.  People can be talked into very evil things when they believe they are right


----------



## Sukerkin (May 25, 2013)

{deletes post he was typing }.


----------



## billc (May 25, 2013)

We lost 3000 people in one attack and even in the fighting in Iraq and Afganistan we held to doing as little harm to civillians as possible.  The fear of "retaliation," against muslims here in the states never happened (please don't tell me about the extremely isolated incidents...if 3000 people had been killed in a terrorist attack in a muslim country the blood would be running in the streets, look at what happened over the cartoons of mohammed.) so not all cultures are the same...I have yet to here about mass retaliations against muslims in Britain after this attack.

The western democracies are far advanced from the past...


----------



## billc (May 25, 2013)

It just happened in France...

http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...cked-by-Bearded-North-African-Wearing-a-Jihab



> [h=2]A French Soldier (in uniform) was attacked in Paris while conducting his "anti-terrorist" duties. The soldier's throat was stabbed by knife-wielding man described by police as "bearded, of North African origin and wearing a light coloured jihab&#8217; under a jacket."[/h]


----------



## arnisador (May 25, 2013)

billc said:


> We lost 3000 people in one attack and even in the fighting in Iraq and Afganistan we held to doing as little harm to civillians as possible.



How well has that worked out? What are the Fox News numbers on civilian casualties there? Maybe 3 in Iraq, 7 in Afghanistan?


----------



## ballen0351 (May 25, 2013)

arnisador said:


> How well has that worked out? What are the Fox News numbers on civilian casualties there? Maybe 3 in Iraq, 7 in Afghanistan?



Still much much lower then the alternative.  The military goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.  We could have easily carpet bombed the entire country into dust killing millions


----------



## K-man (May 25, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> What is the solution then?


There is no simple solution. Taking religion out of politics would be a good start. Passing laws that make incitement a more serious or even capital offence may start to reduce the problem. At present we have preachers inciting violence and nobody is prepared to stop them. Oh! That's right .. that would be a restriction of "freedom of speech"!  We have people that play the racist card every time someone complains about behaviour that is not part of our culture.  Well I couldn't give a toss. If people want to behave like they did in Baghdad, then go back to bloody Baghdad. If you are home grown and you think that the way people behave in Yemen is cool then shift to Yemen. We are too politically correct for our own good. :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> I'm not proposing anything.  I'm asking the question.  What happens when people have enough?  The Beslan shooting killed over 300 kids.  If that were to happen in the US or UK or In your neck of the woods or something even bigger say a planned multi school attack killing 1000s of kids.  Its there a breaking point where revenge becomes more important then doing what's right.


Well, I think I answered the question.
You talk about Beslan but the West was pretty quick to condemn the Russians for trying to do something about it in Chechnya. You don't need to wipe out an entire population. You need to wipe out the extremist leaders, and that is the same be they Christian or Islamic. And, no revenge doesn't become more important than what is right. I would argue that that happened once before at Nagasaki.  :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

billc said:


> We lost 3000 people in one attack and even in the fighting in Iraq and Afganistan we held to doing as little harm to civillians as possible.  The fear of "retaliation," against muslims here in the states never happened (please don't tell me about the extremely isolated incidents...if 3000 people had been killed in a terrorist attack in a muslim country the blood would be running in the streets, look at what happened over the cartoons of mohammed.) so not all cultures are the same...I have yet to here about mass retaliations against muslims in Britain after this attack.
> 
> The western democracies are far advanced from the past...


Yes, a small group of terrorists killed 3000 people in that attack. They were innocent people killed by an act of terrorism. In Iran there were none responsible for that act and in Afghanistan there may have been a hundred or so. The death toll there is probably over half a million innocent people. We just call it 'collateral damage' because we are doing as little harm to civilians as possible! What crap!

The cartoons of Mohammed were in poor taste perhaps but not deserving of such disruption. OK, take the bull by the horns and deport the trouble makers, or lock them up and throw away the key. Atrocious behaviour by one minority group oes not mean the majority of normal peaceful citizens have to do the same.

The western democracies are far advanced from the past..   &#8203;Care to elaborate?


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Wiping people off the maps, pogroms, brutal oppression/suppression, those things are quite common.  Rome had terrible problems with terrorists in it's outlying territories.  They sent punishment armies to those regions to steal, rape, murder, and enslave as many people as they could find.  Entire cities, villages, and ethnic groups were decimated.  In recent times, Germany did this to Russia during WWII.  No one really knows how many civilians died, but from the sources that are available from the Eastern Front tell us that the Germans were brutal beyond imagination.  Thousands of villages were erased.  Hundreds of small to medium cities were put to the torch.  Dozens of large cities were completely razed to the ground.  Leningrad was starved for 2.5 years to the point where the civilians at each other.  If the Germans got a sniff of resistance in any of their newly occupied territory, they encircled a large geographic area and literally murdered everyone in it.  In Russia, there are fields of bones as far as the eye can see from WWII.  Scholars estimate that 40 million civilians or more died in Russia from the conquest.
> 
> Does this mean you are suggesting that because Hitler did it it is OK for the US to do it?
> 
> ...


Well if it is the State at fault I would suggest then it is the fault of the people. If you say the people can't do anything about it then I would say somewhere your Constitution is letting you down badly. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 26, 2013)

We may never be able to agree on what to do about the problem of terrorism, but perhaps it would help if we redefine what happened.  Was this attack actually terrorism?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback



> Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a video showing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) and British politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".
> That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": _sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do_.
> But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."



If the target is other soldiers, is this attack actually terrorism?


----------



## K-man (May 26, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> We may never be able to agree on what to do about the problem of terrorism, but perhaps it would help if we redefine what happened.  Was this attack actually terrorism?
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-terrorism-blowback
> 
> If the target is other soldiers, is this attack actually terrorism?


Well let's look to the UN definition.



> The definition of terrorism was discussed by several delegates, including the representative of Syria, who spoke for the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), stressing the distinction between terrorism and the exercise of the &#8220;legitimate right of peoples to resist foreign occupation&#8221; as stated in the United Nations Charter and General Assembly resolution 46/51.  He said the OIC supported a comprehensive strategy which addressed the root causes of terrorism and would continue to consider the latest proposal of the draft convention.  However, a high-level conference was needed to formulate an agreed definition of terrorism and develop an international joint organized response to terrorism in &#8220;all its forms and manifestations&#8221;.
> 
> 
> Echoing the need for clarification in the draft convention of the definition of terrorism, the delegate of Lebanon said terrorist acts were not in keeping with the tenets of Islam.  Terrorist acts did not spare Muslims, he said, noting those who had died in the events of September 11th, as well as in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
> ...


Mmm. Not a lot of clarity there.

How about a dictionary definition?



> ter·ror·ism  [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
> noun
> 1.
> the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
> ...



Now that helps a bit. This attack certainly falls in to the area of 1. It is linked to 2. and has shades of 3.


Just for fun, let's look at a local definition ... that is the FBI.



> Definitions
> 
> 
> There is no single, universally accepted, definition of terrorism. Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as &#8220;the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives&#8221; (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85).
> ...



It definitely fits in here.     :asian:


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 27, 2013)

So let me get this straight, if we pull out of the Middle East completely, and let radical Islamists have free reign, we'll appease them and violence will cease. Oh, then we'll have to appease the right wing militants in British society by deporting the radical muslims in British society. Then they'll be some other faction complaining that their rights are being infringed. Then, whet about the abortion clinic bombers who want to put a complete end to abortion, do we appease them too? The list goes on and on. 
We should all know by history, that appeasement is never the answer.


----------



## billc (May 27, 2013)

Actually, you only have to appease the violent extremists who hate the West.  The rest deserve getting stomped on.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 27, 2013)

yorkshirelad said:


> So let me get this straight, if we pull out of the Middle East completely, and let radical Islamists have free reign, we'll appease them and violence will cease. Oh, then we'll have to appease the right wing militants in British society by deporting the radical muslims in British society. Then they'll be some other faction complaining that their rights are being infringed. Then, whet about the abortion clinic bombers who want to put a complete end to abortion, do we appease them too? The list goes on and on.
> We should all know by history, that appeasement is never the answer.



There is a big difference between appeasement and incitement.


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 27, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> There is a big difference between appeasement and incitement.



We incite them by being who we are. We incite them by having freedom of expression, speech, and religion. Britain has one of the largest populations of muslims in Europe. Extreme right wingers are being incited  by the fact that Britain is being over run by muslims. how do we deal with them?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 27, 2013)

yorkshirelad said:


> We incite them by being who we are. We incite them by having freedom of expression, speech, and religion. Britain has one of the largest populations of muslims in Europe. Extreme right wingers are being incited  by the fact that Britain is being over run by muslims. how do we deal with them?



So, when these killers do their deeds and claim it is in response to the wars in the middle east, they really mean, "We hate you because you're free."?


----------



## yorkshirelad (May 28, 2013)

Not quite! They hate us because we are a philosophically Judeo-Christian people. They hate us because on the whole we are tolerant towards those who would be beheaded or stoned in Islamic nations. They hate us because we are not, on the whole, followers of Islam.
Oh, and you didn't answer my question, how do we appease  the opposing hateful bastards, you know, the ones who want the guys who beheaded one of Britains finest dead?


----------



## billc (May 28, 2013)

The islamist supremacists want the whole world ruled by sharia...not just the middle east.  So they can complain about the problems in the middle east today and want the west to get out...but then they will follow us home...


----------



## K-man (May 28, 2013)

billc said:


> The islamist supremacists want the whole world ruled by sharia...not just the middle east.  So they can complain about the problems in the middle east today and want the west to get out...but then they will follow us home...


Bill, we have had our differences of opinion over the years but on this one we are marching side by side.  :s151:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2013)

billc said:


> The islamist supremacists want the whole world ruled by sharia...not just the middle east.  So they can complain about the problems in the middle east today and want the west to get out...but then they will follow us home...



I seriously doubt that Islam is going to catch any toehold in the West. The trend has been toward atheism for decades.


----------



## Carol (May 28, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I seriously doubt that Islam is going to catch any toehold in the West. The trend has been toward atheism for decades.



Not for the migrant population.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

Carol said:


> Not for the migrant population.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_the_European_Union_by_Muslim_population



It's less of an issue than people think. Besides, wouldn't cultural mixing with the West be the biggest influence in actually moderating Islam?


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> It's less of an issue than people think. Besides, wouldn't cultural mixing with the West be the biggest influence in actually moderating Islam?


It is a huge issue. Every other wave of immigrants has integrated into society within one or two generations. The exceptions, Orthodox Jews and Muslims. They will not allow their children to go out with potential partners outside the faith unless those people convert to their faith. In the case of the Muslims there are numerous examples of beatings and even killings when a daughter defies this ban. At present they represent a growing section of the population and are demanding more and more rights, including Sharia Law, in our society. We have more and more militant voices preaching in the mosques and I would consider it the number one problem in Australia at present. Most of the illegal immigrants seeking asylum in Australia are Muslim.



> This, regardless of how you feel about the majority of Muslims in the world, should scare you to know end: a number of people equal to one-third of the population of the United States of America believes that Islam should be the preeminent religion in the world, dominant over all other religions and that the oppressive and brutal Sharia law should reign supreme, even over the Constitution of the United States, on our shores.
> I have been pointing these facts out for years, warning of a fundamentalist Islamist invasion of the European Continent and of &#8220;creeping Sharia&#8221; in the United States, only to be called a &#8220;hate-monger,&#8221; &#8220;a bigot&#8221; and &#8220;a racist&#8221;...and those are the printable descriptions. Today, as we watch events around the world with regard to the advance of Islam, I stand vindicated in my assessment, yet I take no solace in being correct.
> A recent poll by Le Monde, the dominant newspaper in France, as reported by The London Daily Mail, revealed that &#8220;Islam is considered a &#8216;threat&#8217; by millions of French and Germans to their national identity.&#8221; It ran the results under &#8220;a headline which brands efforts to get different religious communities to live side by side as a &#8216;failure.&#8217;&#8221;
> According to the poll, 68 percent of the French and 75 percent of Germans believe Muslims are &#8220;not well integrated into society.&#8221; German chancellor Angela Merkel went as far as to say that the notion of &#8220;multiculturalism&#8221; in German society &#8211; given the issue of non-assimilation by foreigners &#8211; had &#8220;utterly failed.&#8221; Germany has one of the largest Muslim immigrant populations in Europe at 4.3 million. The Muslim immigrant population in France is 7 million and the British come in at 2.4 million. Experts say that almost 85% of the population growth in Europe, as a whole, was due to Muslim immigration and that the Muslim population alone will double by 2020.
> ...



Britain has an even bigger problem.



> Britain to have more Muslims than Kuwait by 2030
> The Muslim population in the UK will almost double to 5.5million within 20 years, it has been claimed.
> Immigration and high birth rates will mean nearly one in ten Britons will be Muslim by 2030, according to a worldwide study about the spread of Islam.
> And the forecasts mean Britain will have more Muslims than Kuwait.
> ...



It is hard to find any statistics for Hawaii. The best I can do is find reference to one mosque. So it appears you may be right. In Hawaii you don't have an issue. Unfortunately the rest of us do. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

Hawaii is so small and our major industries are government and tourism. There isn't much reason for Muslim people to want to move here. The people who I do see and interact with seem fine. Several mothers at my school wear headscarves  and traditional muslim clothing and they raise really smart and well behaved children.

That said, this idea of creeping Sharia law seems like the same idea as the creeping Red threat. It seems like the same Cold War propaganda, but the focus has merely shifted. There were actual Communists, but they were not the threat they were made out to be. Perhaps it's the same with Muslims?

Governments are great at stirring up hatred of the "other" when soldiers are in the field.


----------



## billc (May 29, 2013)

This article looks at the integration problem...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/riots_and_liberals.html



> It's  natural for people in the immigrant ghettoes to mistrust the majority  culture around them and for the native population to fear the  immigrants.





> [But]  relatively generous welfare benefits enable those in the ethnic ghetto  to stay there, stay unemployed, and seethe. Without government  subsidies, they would have to overcome the prejudice against them and  integrate into the mainstream working culture. Work, in this sense, is  anti-terrorist medicine.​



​


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

billc said:


> This article looks at the integration problem...
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/05/riots_and_liberals.html
> 
> ...




This sounds like one more problem in the long litany of problems with welfare and not something that is actually a "Muslim" problem. Government removed the incentive to integrate. Perhaps there is nothing special about Islam that makes it more difficult?


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> .
> That said, this idea of creeping Sharia law seems like the same idea as the creeping Red threat. It seems like the same Cold War propaganda, but the focus has merely shifted. There were actual Communists, but they were not the threat they were made out to be. Perhaps it's the same with Muslims?
> 
> Governments are great at stirring up hatred of the "other" when soldiers are in the field.


I think that this post shows a lack of understanding of the problems inherent in the Islamic religion and the radical elements within.  The change we are facing is from a secular society where we are ruled by elected representatives to a religious society where the rules are made and enforced by the Imams, some of whom are radical. I think there is a huge difference between Communism and Islam. 

As a child growing up in the 50s, Communism was a very real fear. Our troops were just back from Korea where the Communist forces were using human wave tactics and the prospect of waves of Chinese invading Australia was a real fear. Remember, we had already had the Japanese down as far as New Guinea and bombing Darwin only 10 years earlier. The fear as Khrushchev was sending his missiles to Cuba was the worst time for me and really, when Kennedy forced them to turn the boats, that was the end of the Communist threat as far as we were concerned. Of course the Cold War simmered <sic> for the next 30 years but never with the intensity we felt at that time. But Communism was an ideology. Basically wherever it exists it was achieved by armed conflict. There are a couple of exceptions to that.  

But to me the threat of radical Islam is far more insidious. 23% of the world's population is Muslim and very few of those live in First World countries. Most Muslims live in poor countries with little prospect of bettering themselves. They move to places like Europe and Australia to what they consider a much better life, then they try to change wherever they are to the same state they had back home. Nominally, there are more Christians, but how many 'Christians' are actually practising Christians? We wouldn't consider allowing the Christian Church to make and impose our laws, yet we have a growing percentage of our community Hell bent on imposing their's. 

As I said, you don't have a problem in Hawaii ... yet!  After they f*** the rest of the world you can bet they will discover Hawaii.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

K-man said:


> I think that this post shows a lack of understanding of the problems inherent in the Islamic religion and the radical elements within.  The change we are facing is from a secular society where we are ruled by elected representatives to a religious society where the rules are made and enforced by the Imams, some of whom are radical. I think there is a huge difference between Communism and Islam.
> 
> As a child growing up in the 50s, Communism was a very real fear. Our troops were just back from Korea where the Communist forces were using human wave tactics and the prospect of waves of Chinese invading Australia was a real fear. Remember, we had already had the Japanese down as far as New Guinea and bombing Darwin only 10 years earlier. The fear as Khrushchev was sending his missiles to Cuba was the worst time for me and really, when Kennedy forced them to turn the boats, that was the end of the Communist threat as far as we were concerned. Of course the Cold War simmered <sic> for the next 30 years but never with the intensity we felt at that time. But Communism was an ideology. Basically wherever it exists it was achieved by armed conflict. There are a couple of exceptions to that.
> 
> ...



I think there is little to no chance of a "wave" of immigrants actually enshrining Sharia Law in a Western country.  The idea completely preposterous, especially when you consider that religiosity has been declining in Western countries for decades.  The bottom line is that secular governments are here to stay.  People in the West like it, despite even the complaints from some of the more extreme Christian groups.  

If Muslim people have problems integrating, I think it probably has everything to do with the Welfare State, as BillC pointed out.  It's not an issue with Islam at all, in fact if you look at other non-Muslim immigrant groups, in places where heaped on benefits take away the incentive to integrate through work, there are always huge issues with integration.

Of course all of this is just a huge boon to governments engaged in Imperial foreign policy.  The government creates an environment where immigrants groups have trouble integrating and then it turns around and demonizes them...so citizens will vote to kill kith and kin overseas.  I doubt it's some big conspiracy either, it's just an unhappy accident where one predatory wing of the government can take advantage of another.  

Personally, I think the lesson citizens could learn from all of this is that if you want to stop the "problem" of the "growing" influence of Islam in Western countries, stop listening to the corporate war propagandists in the media, take away the welfare benefits, and give immigrants real incentive to integrate.  The cultural mixing opportunities could actually be tremendous.  For example, I would love to discuss the notion that, "there are no gods, but Allah."  

After a dose of reason and science, perhaps we could stop with, "there are no gods."


----------



## billc (May 29, 2013)

The big government types don't understand radical islam, so their idea to keep people dependent on government hand outs is going to blow up in their faces...


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

billc said:


> The big government types don't understand radical islam, so their idea to keep people dependent on government hand outs is going to blow up in their faces...



I don't know if it's a matter of not understanding radical Islam.  I think it's more of a lack of understanding about the negative effects of entitlement programs.  All immigrants that get handouts have a hard time integrating.  The same could be said of Native people, but that's a far sadder story.  

You are right though, big government is ultimately the problem.  Big government gives the handouts that take away the incentives to integrate and big government uses the problems this creates to justify big government foreign policy.


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I don't know if it's a matter of not understanding radical Islam.  I think it's more of a lack of understanding about the negative effects of entitlement programs.  All immigrants that get handouts have a hard time integrating.  The same could be said of Native people, but that's a far sadder story.
> 
> You are right though, big government is ultimately the problem.  Big government gives the handouts that take away the incentives to integrate and big government uses the problems this creates to justify big government foreign policy.


Sorry *Maka*. With regard to Australia, what you have said is a load of bollocks. We don't have a problem with people from any culture physically integrating into our cities. We are amongst the most cosmopolitan countries on Earth. We don't have the situation described in *Bill*'s link and I doubt Britain and Europe do either. If The US does then it is a second problem that you have on top of the first. 

There is nothing in anything you have written that indicates you understand anything about the Islamic religion. Perhaps if you researched that instead of just blaming the government we might be able to have a more sensible discussion.  :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think there is little to no chance of a "wave" of immigrants actually enshrining Sharia Law in a Western country.  The idea completely preposterous, especially when you consider that religiosity has been declining in Western countries for decades.  The bottom line is that secular governments are here to stay.  People in the West like it, despite even the complaints from some of the more extreme Christian groups.
> 
> I don't disagree.  What it does mean though is that there will be massive disruption within our communities. We already are getting calls for Islamic areas which would have their own Sharia law.
> 
> ...


As to the existence of God.   I think that the actions of lots of people in the name of God goes a long way towards disproving the existence of God. :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

K-man said:


> We don't have a problem with people from any culture physically integrating into our cities.



Then why is there so much concern regarding Muslims?  It would seem to me that Australia does have a problem integrating certain populations of Muslims.  

Rather than blaming the radicals, is there something your country could do better?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

K-man said:


> _You seem to want to blame the government for every problem. The problems you seem to have with government are peculiar to the US. For the rest of us it has nothing to do with government._



I disagree, I think you'll find that some problems caused by government are universal.



K-man said:


> _Once again, you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding of the Islamic community. A significant proportion _*DO NOT WANT TO INTEGRATE!*



What reason do they have to integrate?  What incentives?  People respond to incentives and if wrong incentives are sent to a community, they aren't going to integrate.  Have you considered the possibility that somehow this minority population is actually being *enabled *by government to behave in this way?


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I disagree, I think you'll find that some problems caused by government are universal.



Please, feel free to point out a few. Beheadings, inflammatory oratory, victimisation of children? They are my concerns.



Makalakumu said:


> Then why is there so much concern regarding Muslims?  It would seem to me that Australia does have a problem integrating certain populations of Muslims.
> 
> Rather than blaming the radicals, is there something your country could do better?



Maybe. Seeing you obviously know more about Australia's problem than I do, feel free to enlighten me.  :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

K-man said:


> Seeing you obviously know more about Australia's problem than I do, feel free to enlighten me.  :asian:



That's not really fair, but I'll bite.  I would say Australia, and other countries, probably should not let people into their country who aren't a good fit with the population.  If people don't want to follow the house rules, see them to the door.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 29, 2013)

Isn't that what most of us have been saying all along, *Maka*?  A country is essentially our 'house' writ large.  Why would we invite people in who don't like us and want to change the decor and move the furniture around to suit them?

The bigger mystery is why they want to come in the first place?  Is it purely economic or do they think they can get away with more in a 'silly', tolerant, Western country than they can in their own?  All they have to do is cry "Racism!" or "Religious intolerance" and they reckon they can pretty much do what they wish?  Maybe they have forgotten about Henry VIII?  As a nation we are quite willing to live and let live (with some rubbing around the sharp edges) but play us for fools too many times and things can get serious pretty fast (as happened for the Catholic church when they plotted treason with the Spanish).

We've (the ordinary people) had enough of 'it' - the general feeling of "play by our rules or go away" is growing apace and we are in real danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater when such incidents happen as the one this thread is about.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Isn't that what most of us have been saying all along, *Maka*?  A country is essentially our 'house' writ large.  Why would we invite people in who don't like us and want to change the decor and move the furniture around to suit them?
> 
> The bigger mystery is why they want to come in the first place?  Is it purely economic or do they think they can get away with more in a 'silly', tolerant, Western country than they can in their own?  All they have to do is cry "Racism!" or "Religious intolerance" and they reckon they can pretty much do what they wish?  Maybe they have forgotten about Henry VIII?  As a nation we are quite willing to live and let live (with some rubbing around the sharp edges) but play us for fools too many times and things can get serious pretty fast (as happened for the Catholic church when they plotted treason with the Spanish).
> 
> We've (the ordinary people) had enough of 'it' - the general feeling of "play by our rules or go away" is growing apace and we are in real danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater when such incidents happen as the one this thread is about.



We've been talking about a variety of issues surrounding this topic, but perhaps this is something upon which we have found some common ground.  

I have some experience with immigration and I find it interesting how strictly people from civilized countries are regulated so strictly.  Meanwhile traumatized people from war zones, with very little education, and cultures very different from the surrounding are allowed to enter and live.  It's more than the PC elements running amok, IMHO.

It seems like a great way to introduce people to the "other" in order to justify foreign policy decisions.


----------



## jezr74 (May 29, 2013)

I believe most of Australia's illegal immigrants are British and Americans or are you just referring to asylum seekers?

I think you'll find a lot of Muslims are not practicing Muslims the same as some Christians and Catholics. (and non practicing atheists)

via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> That's not really fair, but I'll bite.  I would say Australia, and other countries, probably should not let people into their country who aren't a good fit with the population.  If people don't want to follow the house rules, see them to the door.


OK, I will apologise for being blunt but we have a problem that is unique. (Obviously Australia is not alone with the problem but each country has differing issues.) Unfortunately 'house rules' don't apply under international law. The issue we have is that we would be quite happy to take our share of genuine refugees who want to come to Australia and contribute to our society and our economy. Enter the 'people smugglers'. For between ten and fifteen thousand dollars they will put you on a leaking boat in Indonesia and either land it on or sink it near Australia territory. 

How did these people get to Indonesia? Mostly by plane. They arrive with papers and a passport which conveniently disappear before they leave on the boat.  When they arrive we have no way of telling if they are genuine refugees or not. You can't send them back to Indonesia because they are not Indonesian and you can't send them home because you don't know where home is.  You can't send them back to the country they call home because that country won't accept them without proof of identity.  Now we have tens of thousands of people in makeshift camps waiting to be processed. 

You can call these people queue jumpers but in reality, in the camps in the Middle East the chance of being in a queue is minimal. In some way you can say that some of the issues were created by US foreign policy but in reality that has nothing to do with the people from Iraq, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh or Sudan. Even if we weren't destroying everything in sight in Afghanistan the are enough internal problems to ensure tens of thousands of refugees.

Now we have a new problem which is caused by Government. A number of these people are being released into the community on temporary protection visas. The catch 22 is that they are not allowed to work. They get a very small subsistence payment and left in limbo. There is little evidence that these people are causing more than superficial problems in the community but in my opinion it is a volcano waiting to erupt. Fortunately I think we will have a change of Government in a few months and that hopefully will get some better policies. :asian:


----------



## K-man (May 29, 2013)

jezr74 said:


> I believe most of Australia's illegal immigrants are British and Americans or are you just referring to asylum seekers?
> 
> I think you'll find a lot of Muslims are not practicing Muslims the same as some Christians and Catholics. (and non practicing atheists)
> 
> via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


As you would be aware tourist is a major industry here so the risk of people overstaying visas is quite high.  And, yes, the number of illegal immigrants flying in is greater than boat arrivals, at present.  But the main difference is that they need documentation to get into the country and it is not as difficult to ship them off home when they are detected. The fact that they are in the country illegally is a small security risk but it is not a financial liability as they are not relying on the Government to provide welfare. So yes, it is asylum seekers in the main, particularly those arriving by boat, that are causing the major part of the problem.

As too non practising or practising, it is largely irrelevant. As long as people want to live in Australia under Australian law I don't care what religion they follow. I'm not sure how you can have a non practising atheist. If you don't believe in the existence of God, what is there to practise?   :asian:


----------



## jezr74 (May 29, 2013)

K-man said:


> I'm not sure how you can have a non practising atheist. If you don't believe in the existence of God, what is there to practise?   :asian:



Just didn't want them to feel left out

via Nexus 7 w/Tapatalk - please ignore predictive text spelling errors


----------

