If people want to play this game of 'we don't know everything about the massacre therefore we know nothing' then go for it. But I'm not playing.

We know more than enough about the Islamist adherents from past experience to know a lot about why this happened and how its going to play out. We know that they despise Jews based upon the horrendous texts in the Quran. We know that they hate western culture and intend to overthrow it. We know that they love death more than we love life. We know that they seek death as a martyr as a path to eternal paradise.

And we know we imported them. Not all Muhammadians are so affect. Not even a majority or even a large minority. But a small minority are so affected and are irredeemable. And we imported. We also that even if those we imported aren't so affected, a percentage of their offspring will be.

We also know that the political class will do their best to paper over the cracks. John Howard is right to say that the emphasis on changing the gun laws is a diversion from the need to forcefully address the radicals within the Islamic community.

"“We’ll do anything to keep Australians safe”

“So you’ll monitor mosques for radicalism?”

“No, too far”

“You’ll restrict immigration?”

“No, too far”

“You’ll take more rights from law-abiding Australians?”

“Yes, perfect.”

The Muhammadian community is integral to the ALP's election strategy. They will be protected. The safety of other Australians, particularly those the Muhammadians view as enemies, will run a distant second.

Nigel Farage, the like of whom we need here along with a Trump, has opined that, of all the Western countries, Australia has been the most encouraging of radical Islam and Bondi for the last two years since October 7. The least not being the maniacal recognition of non-state Palestine. The catalogue of events that have preceded Bondi are worse than in any other Western country.

One section of one group has been allowed to do as it pleases.

Extremism has flourished under Albanese.

Imam's are allowed to spout Jew-hatred as they please.

Demonstrators on our streets have been allowed to call for ‘intifada’ without consequences.

Albanese, Burke, Wong must go.

Another Cronulla riot coming up, I’ll be there. That’s action

mhaze,

Again, no one is arguing "we don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing." That’s a strawman.

The position I’ve stated is much narrower: that knowing some things does not license asserting everything, especially when the assertions move from specific actors to entire populations and their descendants.

You are no longer talking about this attack, or even about radical Islamism in a defined sense. You are making claims about:

- what Muslims as a class believe
- what their children will become
- which citizens deserve fewer rights
- and which political party is allegedly protecting them as a voting bloc

Those are not inferences from "past experience". They are predictions of collective guilt.

Saying "not all, not most" does not neutralise the argument when the policy implications are explicitly collective: surveillance of mosques, immigration restriction based on religion, and pre-emptive suspicion of future generations. That is punishment and suspicion by category, not by conduct.

If the concern is radicalism, then the unit of analysis must be radicalism: defined behaviours, networks, financing, recruitment pathways, and demonstrable incitement to violence. That work already exists, and it does not require declaring an entire religion hostile, nor asserting that its adherents "love death" or inevitably hate the West.

Invoking religious texts as explanatory shortcuts doesn’t help here either. Texts do not act. People do. Every major religion contains passages that can be read violently - liberal democracies function by policing actions, not scripture.

The irony is that you accuse others of diversion while performing one yourself. Gun policy, immigration settings, intelligence operations, and counter-radicalisation are not mutually exclusive choices. Framing them as such is rhetorical, not analytical.

Finally, once you assert that people were "imported", that their children will be dangerous, and that political protection explains state failure, you have left evidence-based security discussion and entered civilisational blame politics.

That may be the argument you want to make. But it should be owned honestly, not presented as the unavoidable conclusion of "what we already know".

"That is punishment and suspicion by category, not by conduct."

Well done. You finally got it. That's exactly what it means.

"If the concern is radicalism, then the unit of analysis must be radicalism: defined behaviours, networks, financing, recruitment pathways, and demonstrable incitement to violence. "

And that analysis is done by targeting radical mosques and Muhammadians groups to early identify the dangerous radicals. If mother's play groups were nurturing murders then I'd advocate the same thing. The way to find and stop radicals is to look for them where they exist and if that means suspending certain democratic freedoms, so be it.

"That work already exists"

And we saw how well it works last Sunday.

"asserting that its adherents "love death""

Well that's not my assertion. Its an Islamic slogan. If you're that ill-informed why are you so strident in your views?

"Finally, once you assert that people were "imported", that their children will be dangerous,'

But they were imported. And their kids have become radicalised and dangerous. If you want to just ignore facts because they're inconvenient to your views well you've got little of use to say.

New research is throwing light on why Islamophobia exists...
http://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/2001036570451669247

It seems that the government has put out adverts against extremism with a Swastika but the St Kilda event seems to be a direct result of the Pro-Palestinian so called Anti-Racism protests. Anti-Racism is the problem.

Presumably the government is blaming Traditionalist's (on the right) for the incident when it was the Marxist's / Woke/ Labor Party policies (so called leftist's) that caused this. Even the Jewish community has been pointing at the recent Labor party recognition of Palestine. Of course anglos need to be the dominant culture within Australia otherwise there will be those that think that their culture can dominate Australia as it becomes weaker.

But the problem isn't just in politics- Universities, Main Stream Media, and other institutions have become dominated by loosely leftist ideologies encompassing Marxism, Wokeism, and the Labor movement, and even large companies that support multiculturalism at the expense of stability. Many of who attended and supported the Pro-Palestinian movement and rallies, as well as the Aboriginal movement (who are cutting down Anglo history and culture), mass migration, and other movements that want to destroy our traditions.

Loosely the left is the most responsible for the growing incidents within Australia.

But rather than take responsibility for their policies over 50 years they choose to play politics and blame it on their ideological enemies, the Neo-Nazi's.

The Neo-Nazi's had nothing to do with the St Kilda incident, the more they try to shoe horn Neo-Nazi's into everything, the more they look like idiots.

If anything the Neo-Nazi's warned us, and we ignored them.

Guns don't kill people, people do. Some people shouldn't be in Australia. We need to manage our diversity not encourage it. Diversity is being used as a weapon in the workplace, schools, institutions and breeds the results we've recently seen.

Tyranny is often preceded by disarmament.

Good fences make good neighbours.

The complicit government is proposing 1. gun laws and 2. protest restrictions, both authoritarian measures of control because they are unable to admit to the failure of their multiculturalism delusion.