Yes maybe so? but adding an element of religious endorsement allows outrageous extraordinary cruelty/excess to be included or justified!

Even so, remove the alleged/claimed religious cover and those that engage in their mindless excesses, are just common Godless thugs, satan serving rapist's, baby murdering thugs, for whom no mindless excess is too much!

That said, and having opened death's door and had a peek, can testify, that which awaits each and every one of these moribund miscreants, is far more terrifying than anything they witnessed, engaged in or perpetrated on others!

So as you sow, so also shall you reap!
Do unto others as you would be done unto! Quote unquote.
Alan B.

yes it is true that secularism has so much in common with Islam. For a long period of time, Christ teachings influenced the West which made us the envy of the world. Now that every other ideology and ism including atheism/feminism has been embraced the West has become a lot more dangerous especially if you live in your mothers womb.

Thank you, Kendall,

Politicians like terrorism (in moderation) because it has the potential to build patriotism and unite the nation behind them, which in turn gives them more power. Senseless and non-ideological crimes, however, like the latest Melbourne attack, do not yield any such benefits for them. While they may shed tears and strongly denounce terrorism in public, they rub their hands with glee in the privacy of their homes when it occurs.

Kendall, if you look at the definition of terrorism you will see that the State is a terrorist organisation, only it exempts itself from the definition.

"the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."
(Some definitions say "unofficial" instead of unlawful.)

So if you use violence and intimidation against people, especially civilians, in the pursuite of political aims, but you control the legislature and exempt yourself from the definition, then it's not terrorism, supposedly.

In reality, in ethics, in fact, in history, The State is a terrorist organisation. And ISIS is just an incipient State.

If ISIS successfully claims and exercises a legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making, backed by force and threats, over its subject territory, it will be a State in the true and ordinary sense of the term.

If it continues to extort money from its subject population, that will be called "taxation" and "fiscal policy". Its threats against its subject population will be called "legislation". It will be entitled to a seat the United Nations, just like all the other established legal terrorist organisations. And the leftards will assume it has all the same magical powers to cure the sick, fine-tune the weather, and create wealth out of nothing by printing special squiggles on paper. What is that but religious belief in a superbeing?

I don't know why you concentrate on the illegal terrorist organisations. A little convenient, isn't it? It is obvious that the legal and official ones are far bigger, far more criminal, and have done exponentially more damage, than the illegal or unofficial ones. Look at the USA, the UK, Russia and China for examples.

“The State” by Franz Oppenheimer
http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-content/pdfs/Oppenheimer%20(Franz)%20-%20The%20State%20Its%20History%20and%20Development%20Viewed%20Sociologically.pdf

“Anatomy of the State” by Murray Rothbard
https://mises.org/sites/default/files/Anatomy%20of%20the%20State_3.pdf

Runner needs to read and understand Phil Zuckerman's book, Society without God. Extract from introduction to; Society Without God by Phil Zuckerman who wrote;

First of all, I argue that society without God is not only possible, but can be quite civil and pleasant. This admittedly polemical aspect of my book is aimed primarily at countering the claims of certain outspoken, conservative Christians who regularly argue that a society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, full of evil, and teeming with depravity. Well, it isn't.

Denmark and Sweden are remarkably strong, safe, healthy, moral, and prosperous societies. In fact, a good case could be made that they are among the "best" countries in the world, at least according to standard sociological measures.

In an age of growing religious fundamentalism and strengthening ties between religion and politics-in the United States as well in as many other countries-this is important information. It is crucial for people to know that it is actually quite possible for a society to lose its religious beliefs and still be well-functioning, successful, and fully capable of constructing and obeying sound laws and establishing and following rational systems of morality and ethics

Another silly "Islam is just another religion, move on, nothing to see" article.

Obviously Ms Galbraith has little knowledge of Islam. If the Quran and hadith teach hate and violence, and they do, why is it not proper top assume the potential for violence of Muslims is greater than that of most other religions or ideologies? Perhaps Ms. Galbraith should watch the news. Would she believe simple, obvious facts? I doubt it! What she is trying to say is that Islamic violence is no big deal because there is non-islamic violence, too.

An analysis of her twitter account indicates that her basic position is "if we don't say anything bad about Islam and Muslims then all will be well." Pretty stupid!

'Runner needs to read and understand Phil Zuckerman's book, Society without God.'

come on Foyle you can't really think that because some godless author shuts his eyes to the obvious that God is going to disappear. To deny that creation requires a Creator or design requires a Designer is plain dumb, dishonest and unscientific. By all means ignore Him (He has allowed that choice for now) but don't insult a persons intelligence by denying Him.

Remember, remember! The 5th of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot.

1605.

I think its probably fair to say human beings have been doing sneaky and snidely things to one another more than just a couple hundred years.

The 'Bourke St Bastard' (similar to the 'Bastille Bastard' and 'Berlin Bastard' varieties) might not have been associated with a terrorist organisation, but that doesn't mean he didn't have anything to do with Islam.
He identified himself as "Greek Islamic Kurdish ANGEL OF CULT".
http://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/crime/rampaging-melbourne-drivers-troubling-facebook-posts-revealed/news-story/9f31c53361bee9ce2ab4982a496a9c5d

In regards to banning guns and depriving the right to defend oneself, should we now realistically consider banning all cars as they are proven to be just as dangerous as guns in the wrong hands when can be used as a weapon?

I do fear Islamic Extremism, and I'm not scared to say it.
I fear innocent Australians will end up as victims of its adherents violent ideology.
Let me ask you a more relevant question.
"Does Islam Hate Us"?

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

The issue here is not what kills us but what terrorises us. If we go into the city we do not stop to think about the possibility that some unstable person will mow down innocent shoppers. We know it could happen but the odds a very slim. We could be run over by a tram or be killed by a falling scaffold. Lots of things could happen to us but we take that risk. If we did not live with a certain element of risk we would never leave our bed each day.

If the risk rises then we might think twice before we go into the city. Our freedom is somewhat curtailed by the increase in risk. If we go where there are a lot of Muslims then the risk is greater because more Muslims mean more terrorists. It is a simple mathematical statistic that most terrorists in western societies have links to Islam. We may have to think more than twice before we go where lots of Muslims go. This curtails our freedom.

The more Muslims we have in society the more the probability that terrorists will appear. The more our freedom will be curtailed. No one can deny such basic statistics. Even Muslims cannot deny it.

Terrorism does not aim to kill but to terrorise – to curtail the freedom of people to go about their lives.

All the claims about Islam being a religion of peace mean nothing in the face of statistics which show the overwhelming link between terrorists and Islam. Australians want their freedom. Everyone wants freedom and not to have to live with more risk than is necessary. This has nothing to do with Islamophobia, racism or xenophobia and everything to do with basic risk management.

kactuz,

The headline for this topic clearly is: " Violence without religion is just as terrifying"..... so it is not:

"Another silly "Islam is just another religion, move on, nothing to see" article."

So please read the opinion piece first.

Firstly, you ignore the fact that the Australian Government allows military forces to simply move into another country (often without that governments permission), seeing the Australian military force undertake action which leads to lack of clear thought and no movement towards positive aims and objectives, for people today and for future generations.

Such actions by the Australian military lead to the killing of innocent men, women and children, who are having the practice of high levels of violence forced upon them, which is undertaken by many and is only made worse by military action and the violence that comes from that.

Just because a person puts a piece of paper in a cardboard box on election day, and a government is elected and has simplistic endorsement from an opposition leader does not justify violence. I thought Australia by now would be smarter than that.

That is why, I will always vote in the Senate, to ensure constant review of parliamentary action and so this house of parliament remains a powerful check on the government of the day. That is why, I will never vote either Labor and Liberal as political parties so these 'groups of people' can never have full control of Australia, a privilege that I believe they have no right to.

Yes, Nathan, armies kill and cause pain and suffering.....
Australian soldiers, Yankees, Brits, Russians, Syrians, Turks, etc, some more than others; Weddings are bombed, innocents are killed. It is horrible.

There is a difference. When Western countries and armies make mistakes, or do evil, there is freedom to protest, to speak out. With luck, people will be punished.

Under Islam. no criticism is allowed. If it is done for Islam, it is good. Have you ever seen a Muslim condemn Mohammed's attacks on innocent people? Do they denounce the murders, rapes, plunder and enslavement of men women and children by him and his warriors? No. Have you ever found a Muslim that will condemn the hate and violence in the Quran? The answer is no. NO!

The rights we enjoy derive not from a piece of paper or ballot, but from a mentality. That mentality allows freedom of speech and the notion of equality among individuals before the law.

It is these common notions that make our freedoms possible, not political parties or laws

//If the Quran and hadith teach hate and violence, and they do, why is it not proper top assume the potential for violence of Muslims is greater than that of most other religions or ideologies?//

Because other religions teach hate and violence, and nobody ever assumes their potential for violence to be greater than that of more peaceful religions which teach love and pacifism.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we are to condemn Muslims for having a Good Book that contains exhortations to violence, then we must equally condemn others for having a Good Book that contains exhortations to violence.

If we don't, we're applying double standards, being hypocrites. And who wants to be a hypocrite? It's not a good way to win friends or influence people.

//He identified himself as "Greek Islamic Kurdish ANGEL OF CULT".//

Sorry, AC, but that's not how language works. When a 'sentence' is just a disjointed connection of English vocabulary with no regards for grammar, syntax or meaning, then nothing meaningful can be read from such a 'sentence'. Language is more than words.

It is just the disjointed ramblings of a highly disordered pattern of thinking. You can attempt to find meaning in the ramblings of the mentally ill, but it's like a Rorscharch test or looking for shapes in the clouds: the patterns are essentially meaningless, and your brain imposes meaning where there is none.

Hey Toni,
I'm sorry, I understand your love and respect for literacy but I have to disagree, language is simply a tool in the art of communication.
One does not need to have regard for grammar or syntax to impart meaning and communicate.

Hey how r u wat r u up to later?
I m at home on da pc n m going down to da shops soon.
Mite pop in.

(example of txt communications in the days where you had to push 3 munbers on a keypad just to get one letter of the alphabet, and used frequently until we got smartphones with full alphabet and spell check)

Regards “I am actually Greek Islamic Kurdish ANGEL OF CULT”
Firstly if someone identifies as Islam, I'm prepared to take their word for it.
And whilst the sentence does read like gibberish to you and me it does make more sense if you understand what the 'ANGEL OF CULT' refers to.

"Yazdânism, or the Cult of Angels, is a proposed pre-Islamic, native religion of the Kurds. The term was introduced by Kurdish scholar Mehrdad Izady to represent what he considers the "original" religion of the Kurds as the primary inhabitants of the Zagros Mountains, until their increasing Islamization in the course of the 10th century."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazd%C3%A2nism

I also still question all this 'not a terrorist attack' business.
What does it matter to the victims if the police found a link to terrorist organisations or not?
Are the Bastille and Berlin truck attack considered terrorist attacks?

Witness says driver was screaming "Allah Ackbar" during the attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syF0IOhXmx8

- Funny little bloke, kind of reminds me of the 'barking dog man'
I wish the video was longer so that I could be certain it was filmed on that day and not potentially related to any other event.