What a pile.

When 4 "Lebs", Muslim thugs, leapt out of a car in the peaceful Sydney suburb of Alawa one afternoon about 5.00 PM, & attacked my son as he walked home from the train, shouting "get the Whity" it was terrorism.

Now Alawa was a peaceful suburb, until these Muslims took over a couple of near by suburbs, & started the softening up process around there.

I don't know just what some of you call terrorism, but I would say being attacked by 4 Muslims, just because you are a white Australian, & having your skull fractured in 4 places by their boots, comes bloody close in my world.

It would have been worse if a couple of passing cars had not stopped, & the people come to his support.

There are becoming too many no go areas for real Ozzies, in our cities, as these friendly Muslims become much less so, as soon as their numbers grow, & they are emboldened.

Keep up the mealy mouthed rubbish if you like, personally I will take the necessary action to prevent it happening around here.

"Peace in our time" should be a warning to all who lack the guts to do what is necessary, before it is too late.

In Canada the kids get to do pretend beheadings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7D9m2tnLEU#t=12

Oh well I suppose reporting it is a distraction from the budget.

runner

I do not want to trivialise the import of the youtube you provide - at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7D9m2tnLEU#t=12 directly clickable at http://youtu.be/J7D9m2tnLEU

However I need to report that the blonde newsreader is soooooooooooo cute :)

The only statement that Richard Jackson got right in his whole article, is that those people who question or oppose government policies relating to terrorism are considered "disloyal, traitorous, and weak." Although why this opinion should worry people like Richard Jackson is a mystery? The trendy left usually revel in their disloyalty and treasonous attitudes to their own people's welfare as a kind of identity badge denoting membership of their psuedo intellectual caste.

People like Richard can be relied upon to reflexively take the opposing view to mainstream opinions on any topic whatsoever. Anything that the Establishment, the bogans and the bourgeoisie agree on, the left "liberals" will oppose on principle. From the 1920's, countless numbers of these educated and supposedly intelligent people had had claimed that the Soviet Union was "the workers paradise" and that the future of Australia lay in the "democratic socialisation of Australian industry"

In the 50's they were "the angry young men" who wanted to save Africa from white colonialism. The subsequent disintegration of Africa into fourth world, barbarism makes one wonder why colonialism had such a bad name? The left "liberals" open support for multiculturalism is now starting to look rather jaded with parts of Sydney becoming violent, bullet swept, no-go areas for ordinary Australians.

Now the trendies want to put their foot in it over terrorism. Richard's argument is that since there have been no deaths in Australia involving terrorism, what's the big deal? The big deal is that there are presently 18 terrorists rotting in Australian jails who were foiled from their intent to commit mass murder on Australians by our police, using new police powers that were introduced a decade ago, which people like Richard opposed at he time as unnecessary. But our efficient police who have successfully protected us previously are saying that the problem is growing and that they need more powers, and I believe them.

Keep it up, Richard. The more that trendies like you voice opinions that are contrary to self evident reality, the more intelligent young people will be drawn away from the loony left worldview

Great article. Now perhaps Mr Jackson should get in touch with his favorite Muslims and kindly ask them to remove the Quranic verses that promote hate, slander, discrimination and violence against non-Muslims, explaining that such rhetoric is counterproductive. Also don’t forget to have them remove references to the “terror” that Allah promises to unbelievers. While at it, maybe he could get the Imams to remove the “I am made victorious with terror” quote by Mohammed in the hadith – some silly infidels might get the wrong idea. And if calling the other names like “animal” is bad when done by infidels, I expect a report from him on the soon to be deleted verses in the Quran describing non-Muslims as ‘lower than animals’.

But this causes a problem? What then should we call people that shoot women in the head, capture and rape girls, kill and behead men for inane reasons if not ‘evil terrorist’? What about people that bomb parades, buses and trains, what do we call them? What does our political science teacher suggest? Strict disciplinarians? Misunderstood tyrants? Future friends?

It is funny that the person suggesting that honest, frank talk causes “inherent restrictions on free democratic debate” proposes sweeping restrictions on debate. Go figure.

Contrary to what Mr. Roberts thinks, the fact is that ignoring the facts about people that promote hate and violence never works (and I am talking all Muslims because they all accept the Quran and hadith). The elites in Western countries (Government, media, academia, clergy) have been nice to Muslims for decades, to no avail. Imams and Muslim leaders consider us gutless cowards, for the most part, easily intimidated. Anybody who thinks that Muslims can live in peace, in numbers, with non-Muslims, hasn’t read the quran, hadith or even watched the 6pm news. Most resistance that Mr. Jackson talks about comes from the average Joe, from concerned men and women and a few courageous writers. These he would silence.

What Mr. Jackson is proposing in a policy not different from official policy in Rotherham, and that worked so well, didn’t it.

Excellent post, Kactuz.

The best part of being on OLO for me, is reading the sensible and logical responses from like other minded people that examined perspectives I had never contemplated before.