Every time we remove rights that thousands made the ultimate sacrifice to protect, the terrorist wins!

And only made possible by the monumental egos of control freaks who think the answer lies in ever more control and loss of civil rights!

Take brain dead gun control as an example. Outlaw guns and only outlaws or terrorists will have guns! Any calbre or action they want!

Prohibition is only available if the laws prohibiting anything, drugs, guns, prostitution, abortion etc, are actually enforceable!

We have and could deploy space age covert lie detection technology at our porous borders, but because of monumental egos? Simply chose not to?

We could return the right to bear arms to the law abiding citizenry to coerce their enthusiastic cooperation, but for the control freaks who think all we need is ever tougher laws and loss of freedom and former rights.

Down to me. if You would cross a border, apply for a driver's licence, a medicare card, or a bank account etc, without first answering a few pertinent inquisitorial if innocent questions, regarding intent and use, length of stay, current residential address, occupation and purpose etc. And all under the nose of covertly deployed space age lie detection technology, which would also incorporate an automatic red flag and some method of immobilizing a suspect?

Simply put, with this type of space age technology deployed, we could have removed the right of Port Arthur mass murder Bryant, to buy guns, ammunition or any other weapon; and or, released a gentle kind and compassionate Dr Haneef in just a few short minutes!

The fact we did neither, testament to sheer incompetence?

Simply put, we don't need protection from our own law abiding citizenry, but rather, empower them to protect themselves!

And thus win their wholehearted cooperation in a war that we must win and by first winning the hearts and minds of those we would have fight it for us!
Alan B.

The article espouses nice thoughts about educating immigrants, which would bear some fruit.

However, this is now a war on Europe, not a civil matter. The overnight Church attack in France was carried out, amongst others, by one under surveillance who had also previously been incarcerated. It is time for the internment of proven sympathizers and potential perpetrators of violent jihad, as occurred in the world wars to citizens of our war time enemies, until the end of hostilities.

The "rule of law" plays directly into the hands of jihadists. We fight by Queensbury rules while jihadists carry on their murderous business under our noses.

Furthermore, under the current circumstances, I believe the Muslim community might grudgingly accept the limitation of Muslim migration, at least to a proportion that they already represent in the community, if it is portrayed as a statistical safeguard. Hell, most of them are just as scared as the rest of us.

Of course, none of this will hit home until a major carnage event here on home soil. We're paralyzed until then.

So, Pablo, I guess what you are saying is that the West must embrace Islam to stop the killings. Is that right?

Pigs FA.

This article seems to be stating that we need much 'diversity'

Do we really?

Australia has 10 free trade agreements, and out of that we currently have a trade deficit.

We do not profit from all those free trade agreements, and instead we make an overall loss.

So why should Australia profit from having so many different cultures and ideologies in Australia?

And why do we need so much immigration?

We have a federal government debt, and astronomical household debt, and a fast depleting natural resource base.

So why should more immigration improve that situation?

Please explain.

This problem has only really come about because of accessibility and content of the internet. If that factor is taken into account, we should all be asking ourselves, what content on the internet is tolerable to the rest of us in western democracies?

Don't forget the "Dark net" is accessible to those who are determined enough to find it.

Or, another way of looking at it, would be to instigate an internet system whereby it's impossible to communicate without absolute positive identification of the sender. Perhaps a system based on DNA?, after all its the ONLY unique identifier for everyone.

Are we going to have freedom of speech over the internet no matter what that content is? or not? we can't have it both ways.

Bottom line in my opinion is that this violent rubbish will continue to influence and manipulate gullible individuals to carry out horrendous acts of mass murder as long as users of the internet or any other form of digital communication can take place under the banner of anonymity

The problem with articles like this is they talk about what we shouldn't do but never provide a viable solution.

It's all well and good to not want to kill, but it's pathetic not to kill to defend yourself.

I think in the end you can either make excuses for terrorist or you can blame them. Lone mad men is one thing but these groups are being funded and supported by large number of people and most likely governments.