To Diver Dan.

There is nothing abstract about a religion which preaches to it's followers that they should spread it throughout the world using violence and terrorism. There is nothing abstract about a religion which teaches it's followers that women are minors, and the property of men. There is nothing abstract about Islam which teaches Muslims to kill and mutilate unbelievers, homosexuals, apostates, and anybody who criticises Islam. There is nothing abstract about a religion which teaches it's male members that women must behave in a certain way or men have a right to punish them. And also teaches them that if women do not follow Muslim cultural standards, then they deserve to be raped, and if they are raped it is all their fault.

And when the devotes of this evil religion immigrate to a western country and do exactly what their holy books tell them to do, people like yourself are surprised. Then you go into mental gymnastics trying to blame your own people for the problem.

Whatever differences exist among Muslims they must abide by certain core values or they are not Muslims. Those values are incompatible with a secular western state. Your analogy with poor Muslim kids is complete crap. I know one teacher who fled Sydney to teach in Bathurst just to get away from violent, abusive and out of control Muslim schoolboys who enjoyed driving her crazy. She told me that she loves teaching country (white) kids because they are so polite and "even laugh at my jokes."

We never had a serious race or religion problem in this country until we imported both of them.

Dear Lucifrase,

You wrote;

“Steele, you seem to be a self-righteous risk-taker with the lives of others.”

Grow up mate. Look it is pretty simple. Our alliance with the US which ties us to their conflicts around the world undoubtedly puts both military and civilian lives at risk. If you can't see that then you are being willfully ignorant.

Our government would make the argument that the risk is worth it. If you support the alliance in its current form then you too are being a “risk-taker with the lives of others”.

The difference between the two of us is that at least I am honest about it. Why don't you try the same?

Dear Shadow Minister,

You too seem to have your head in the sand or the truth doesn't fit the narrative you most feel comfortable with. France has been involved in bombing in both Iraq and Syria since Sept 2014. Opération Chammal has seen over 3,000 bombing missions and ISIS said directly that the Nov 2015 attacks in France were a direct result of the bombings. After the latest attacks the French President came out and said clearly the terror attacks in his country were because of France's attacks against ISIS.

If you want to sprout some nonsense about it just being ISIS seeking publicity then don't be surprised if you get called on it.

The US, France and the UK have been bombing away for around two years. Of the three the easiest target due to proximity is France. It makes perfect sense that it would see more terrorism than the other two. If the locations were reversed I'm sure it would be the US.

Dear Bazz,

Here is some history for you.

I remember the 911 attacks. I also remember that it was US troops stationed in Saudia Arabia which was a prime motivation for them. In less than 18 months after the attacks Rumsfield had removed the vast bulk of the troops who had been stationed there. The then Deputy secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said the continued presence of American troops put American lives in danger. He wasn't just talking about military lives but also civilians.

So in your knowledgeable opinion 911 happened because Muslims want to take over Europe or some such rubbish?

Steele, it is that they want to take Europe over, they believe it belongs to them.
You also forget that before 9/11 there was the bombing of the embassies
in east Africa. Also there was the attack on a US ship in Aden refuelling.
In any case the US troops were in Saudi Arabia with the governments permission
so it was moslems that did not like their governments decision so
they attack another government. In any case they were there defending
Saudi Arabia from Iraq, remember the Iraqi rockets ?

Sure fits with their intellectually
damaged genome.

As far as France is concerned it goes back 1236 years when they invaded France.
Don't bother to say OH that was all those years ago.
Well it is ISIS's big excuse for their attacks on Rome.
You have to get used to the fact that we are dealing with tribes that
have a damaged genome and it will take hundreds of years to overcome
the problem and the behavior traits it causes IF they change their marriage practises.

Hey Steele Redux,
It's not that I don't want Australia to be involved in killing ISIS.
It's more that I don't want Australia involved with the US and Syrian regime change.
If we take a part in messing with those countries for the sake of 'American Exceptionalism', 'American Imperialism', 'Liberal Interventionism' or any of that kind of BS to support the US and the petrodollar, then we do in a roundabout way have some moral obligation to help clean up the mess we make and take some of these displaced people.
So in this regard we should stay out of it, and not be a part of making any mess in the first place.

We don't currently have an invitation or a UN mandate to operate in Syria, so we should have no part of that.
If Assad asks, or if our military we're to offer Assad assistance then I have no problem wiping out ISIS in Syria.
Any matter concerning Assads leadership is a decision for the Syrian people.

- And yes it is an absolute crock, they don't hate us specifically because of our democracy and freedom, they hate us because we (the west) attack and kill them (and install pro-US puppet governments in their countries, looting their nations), but they can't go telling people the truth on national tv.

Some hardline Islamists do though hate some of our customs and see them as being wrong religiously.
If we give them enough rope to hang ourselves, I believe that some Muslims would try to impose these beliefs upon normal Australians.

I voted Hanson, but I didn't do so as a sheep at the beating drums of Islamophobia.
It was a somewhat carefully considered vote.

Of course, Steele, Australia's involvement against IS puts us in harm's way, but don't use that to deflect the simple point that our current level of Muslim immigration adds a further level to that risk.

Talk about honesty, can you at least be honest about that undeniable fact rather than squirming and deflecting from it? If you personally want to accept the increased risk that doesn't mean those who don't should shut their mouths to be pilloried by your stifling, supercilious ilk.