Refugees seeking asylum in Australia are fleeing persecution and oppression NOT poverty.

Genuine refugees may be both persecuted and poor because of persecution. Most illegal entrants unestablished as to their refugee status are economic opportunists. Australia takes about 12,000 established refugees each year, and those who come should be verified as their capacity to adapt culturally into Australian society. They should spend time in accomodation centres until they learn the language and culture if they cannot already speak or readily adapt to our culture.

The events in France are very instructive:

How did it start ?

1/ Two Muslim youths accidently die of electrocution while fleeing police.
2/ Now we have had 900 cars torched, riots each nite and social breakdown on a massive scale.

AMBON Indonesia.

How did it start ?

It is identified by a minor fight between 2 Muslim youths demanding money from a Christian public trasnport driver.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~asiactr/haq/200203/turner.pdf (for a scholarly overview/assessment)

See THIS for a 'rubber meets the road' birds eye view of what the Muslims did in response:

A yemen trained Arab cleric, urged 'Laskar Jihad' warriors from surrounding areas to wage a 'holy war' against Christians....

http://www.geocities.com/kariu67/agnessouhokasoya.htm
(warning: content might be hard to stomach for some)

For those who would like to know the Islamic justification for the photo of the baby, here it is:

Chapter 9: PERMISSIBILITY OF KILLING WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE NIGHT RAIDS, PROVIDED IT IS NOT DELIBERATE

Book 019, Number 4321:
It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: They are from them.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html

I still cannot work out, how 'night raids' are 'defensive' and as F.H. would say 'not transgressing the boundaries'.

These are 'selective facts', but they are still facts. They are not taken out of context, they refer 'exactly' to the events described.

No matter which side of the fence one sits on, (pro/contra) in regard to the Ambon or French outbreaks, the ONE undeniable lesson emerges.

LESSON: Different ethnic groups, and particularly Muslim groups in the context of Non Muslims, result in violence and death.

I tried a search on 'Christian atrocities in Ambon' and I welcome fellow posters to do the same exercise. There is very little.

Under a search "Muslim atrocities in Ambon" this is one of many which turned up.
http://www.rim.org/muslim/indonesia.htm

Philo wrote
"They should spend time in accomodation centres until they learn the language and culture if they cannot already speak or readily adapt to "our culture". "

Here we go again, proclaiming a national culture exists without ever explaining what this culture is.

You may well contend there is a national culture, you may well believe there is a national culture, but you don't say how this culture demonstrates how we think.

I don't think I'm being problematic in asking this question over again, so c'mon tell what what it is so I can see if we have shared commonalities (which is your overall objective is it not?)

Is it a bird, a plane..?

Until we see one successful experiment overseas of happy integration of muslims into a western country, I suggest we stop immigration immediately. Why not take advantage of the fact that we can learn from another's mistakes or success? Look at France, look at Holland, Indonesia, Italy, Germany, the UK.....I am not convinced that we are not heading in the same direction. I am happy to wait and watch someone else work it out first, than sacrifice my country, one of the few that is still living in peace and harmony. We have a relatively happy muslim community at the moment, and most Australians are happy to have them. Let's keep it that way with no further immigration.

Now Rainer I've appealled to you on many occasion to give arguments to the contrary,but you just retort with the same old subjective generalisations.

We should debate from the specific facts and concepts to the general,not just state generalities with no factual or logical back up.

Consider this story.A few weeks ago in our local paper a local Aboriginal girl was proclaimed as one of the highest achievers for their community getting a UAI of 94%.Upon looking at her picture I could see not a hint of Aboriginal origin in that photo.What defines and Aboriginal person?Surely the people who look Aboriginal should have media priority.

Not only have we taken their land,it seems that many with with a hint of genetic association now want to steal their identity as well, for economic and social advantage.

The traditional Aborigines must find this somewhat perverted.