Hmmmm, is what LEGO says true or false?

Should the messenger be attacked or the message?

What LEGO says is almost always entirely the product of a one-sided view that doesn't have any balance and is therefore able to be readily ignored.

On rare occasions there is something worth responding to, but that's more due to accident than intent.

The messenger is the medium that transmits the message. Sometimes the medium is so full of noise that there is no way of retrieving a useful message.

LEGO is just such a messenger.

Hi LEGO,

So we both agree fundamentalist Islam is a problem, and I think we both agree that the Saudis have been instrumental in spreading Wahhabism around the globe.

Do you think that we should try to stop Saudi funding of Terror? If so how should we do this?

If we could stop the Saudis funding Islamic Terrorism it help solve much of the refugee crisis. Many refugees are fleeing the war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria etc.

Secret Pentagon Report Reveals US "Created" ISIS As A "Tool" To Overthrow Syria's President Assad
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-23/secret-pentagon-report-reveals-us-created-isis-tool-overthrow-syrias-president-assad

Saudis Largest Source of Terror Funds
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-saudis-largest-source-of-terror-funds/

Documents Back Saudi link to Extremists
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html

The discussion has veered way off topic. The article itself was about bad old Australia having the cheek to decide that we have had it with illegal immigrants.

Now, though, we have people carrying on about racism; whose 'team' someone is on; how many Muslims someone knows, and how nice those Muslims are; people who disagree with other posters saying they (others) are 'one sided'; we are not civilized because of our attitude to illegals; reference to 'anti-everyone-who-is different, and so on. All irrelevant and point-scoring twaddle to satisfy individual egos.

Argument is healthy in a democracy. It can only happen in a democracy. What has happened here is not healthy, and it leads to the exit. All we are doing is arguing among ourselves, and entertaining the writer of another anti-Australian diatribe by one of the usual suspects. I think we all need to be a little more discerning about what we read and what comments we make. We are all Australians, and while we do not need to adopt the attitude that we are always right, we should, at least, have enough self-respect to deny the sneering denigration of our country by extremists, like Alice Aslan, John Pilger and others. I, for one, willl be putting Ms. Aslan on my no-no list, with Pilger and the ex-diplomat, whose name I cannot bring to mind at the moment.

There is no shame in defending your country against people who have the ear of the general public (which you don't). Some of them are not even Australian, and Pilger hasn't lived here for years. It's not a matter of my country right or wrong. It's a matter of respect and what we can achieve by polite debate and not thinking that we alone know everything.

ttbn, emigration of any kind is driven by the perception of the emigrant that there is a better life to be had if they go from where they are to somewhere else. Australians emigrate too, but nobody suggests that an Australian seeking to make more money in some other part of the world should be prevented from doing so because they are an "economic migrant".

The simple fact is that the vast majority of people don't seek to migrate and when there is a large amount of movement from any part of the world it is always driven by conditions becoming sufficiently intolerable that it overcomes the resistance of people to movement from their familiar areas.

the only possible way to prevent immigration from constantly being raised as an issue for Australian politicians and rabble-rousers to make noise about is to ensure that conditions remain tolerable for most people wherever they happen to be at any time.

If we can manage that, then we won't have people willing to risk death by drowning to seek greener pastures. Instead, everyone will be "economic migrants" of the sort that every country in the world would like to attract.

Terribly sad for some of the more biggotted among us, but a win for everyone else.

No, we do not agree, BJelly.

Fundamentalist Islam is not the problem, Islam itself is the problem. You are trying to say that there are "fundamentalist" Muslims who are the problem, and "moderate" Muslims who are not.

Please define a "moderate" Muslim? Who are their leaders, and what do they stand for? If they do not believe that state and religion is inseparable, and that Koranic law over rides civil law, they are not Muslims.

Would you like me to do it for you? "Fundamentalist" Muslims take the Koran seriously and do exactly what it says, which is that Islam must dominate, it can be spread by violence, and they are willing to fight for their religion because they know that it makes them the highest grade of Muslim that will surely get eternal life.

"Moderate" Muslims believe exactly the same thing, they just don't want to be Jihadis and kill for Allah. But they can't criticise the ones who do because Allah has decreed that Jihadis who spill blood for Islam are the best Muslims there are. They prefer to just sit back and cheer on the Jihadis from their lounge rooms. They are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.

If most Muslims are "moderate", why is almost every Muslim country on planet Earth a medieval cesspit of violence, and the more Muslim it is, the worse it is