This week a person held hostages in a café in Sydney and the result was that two good citizens died and others injured.

Similar acts have occurred in other countries thousands of time and has resulted in many thousands of dead and injured. There is one factor common to nearly all and that is the perpetrators act in the name of Islam.

It appears that an unknown percentage of Islamic persons act in an extreme way and it also appears that Islam itself is not prepared, or too scared, to isolate the extremists. By their silence they give the perpetrators protection.

Therefore we have to take some action to protect our citizrns.

The only laws liable to afford containment is to stop further muslim immigration, whether legal immigrants, illegal entrants or refugees.

With continued non-discriminatory immigration we are increasing the number of muslims in Aus and raising the risk level for a terrorist act. The beliefs and hatreds of the extremists is refreshed with every plane load of muslims that arrive.

We cannot continue to keep importing those who wish us harm.

Dear Banjo,

The latest event in Sydney was not an act of terrorism.
Nevertheless, your question is valid.

No country is more experienced with dealing with terrorism than Israel.

One thing that Israel does, is to allow those of its citizens who prove to be good to have and carry weapons. Numerous terror attacks were stopped by ordinary armed Israeli civilians (as well as soldiers on leave) who happened to be there.

Another is to destroy the houses of terrorists - it really works as a deterrent. Families of migrants (whether already in Australia or arriving together) should sign a form to the effect that if their relative is involved in terror then all their property can be confiscated and/or destroyed. If they don't sign then their relative cannot come. Many potential terrorists have reconsidered whether they can actually enjoy their 72 virgins in heaven while their families down below are homeless.

Dear Banjo,

Just posted this on another thread but is probably even more relevant here.

BTW congratulations on getting a topic up. Mine seem to escape off into the ether.

Dear Luciferase,

I certainly agree that ISIS would like to do us some damage. Leaving aside any judgement on whether we should have put half a billion dollars worth of assets into supporting the Yanks in this fight, the fact that we are so determined to drop bombs on these guys heads means that the likelihood of a response is pretty high, if they were ever able to manage it.

Australia could have forsworn direct military engagement and instead helped by arming other rebel groups, assisted the millions of displaced people, or provided logistical support. But our government has judged our ties with the US to be of a significance that direct bombing was the call. Certainly their prerogative as a ruling party in a democracy

Australians of course need to recognise that our actions have increased the risk of retaliation. Some think that risk is worth it even if purely on humanitarian grounds, and some do not but that is a different argument.

Islamic extremists, home grown or otherwise are not stabbing cops, beheading soldiers, nor laying siege to coffee shops in Brazil for instance.

What we should never do is accept the proposition that we are over there in order to keep Australia and Australians safer from the very limited capacity of ISIS to do us harm. It patently does not.

Having said that to call the brutish fool in Sydney a response by ISIS is inane. I have no doubt that Australia's continued offence against ISIS raises the risk of retaliation considerably and the authorities will have to be extra vigilant for many years to come. But in terms of a supposed ISIS blowback the false sheikh was little more that a fart, more an embarrassment to them than anything.

Hi everyone,

I agree the common factor is Islamic extremists.

We need to send a clear message to Muslims and religious extremists of Islam that this behavior won't be tolerated, but we should show compassion (and a warning) towards the general Muslim community at this point, their first real major offense here.

We shouldn't punish or impose restrictions against them atm, but use this as an opportunity to create a better system.
Make it clear that background checks will now have greater scrutiny towards those with radical views and backgrounds, who wish to enter the country.

Existing Australians with extremist religious views should be watched with greater scrutiny; not with intent to disrespect particular races or religions, but to protect the wider community.

Also because of the religious aspect of these extremists, lawmakers should work together with Islamic religious leaders (Such as those who genuinely renounced this tragedy) to develop ways of punishing lawbreakers with political or religious motivations in a manner acceptable to both Muslims and the wider community.

Banjo, I think this is a terrorist act and I disagree we should treat our problems the way Israel does.
IMO Israel deals with it's problems in a way that promotes further terrorism.

We should at this point engage in constructive dialogue that takes all sides view into account, to come to accepted understandings and make compromises within the justice system in regards to those who believe they should only be sentenced under Sharia Law.

Its better to do this now in the name of peace and unity rather than dealing with another unfortunate situation later where things might become worse.

We should treat this as an opportunity to make things better and to make further attacks less likely, rather than use it to divide people against each other more, further inflaming tensions between race and religion, and creating a situation which will lead to further attacks becoming more likely.

Also we need to look at our foreign policy and decide whether or not its it our best interests to support US foreign policy so blindly.

The fact that this guy was out on bail should be the least of our problems.
What really concerns me is that he was in possession of a gun license.
What sort of bureaucracy would allow this kind of person to have a gun license (America excluded)
Part of bail conditions for any person is to hand all guns back before release.
It is not rocket science.

Yuyutsu, what is your definition of terrorism? How can you say the Sydney siege was not a terrorist attack? The perpetrator may have been a nut case but in his mind he was acting as a Muslim terrorist and since he was Muslim and was creating terror in the minds of the hostages, he was committing a terrorist act. Don't make apologies for the Muslims, that's their responsibility and they are not doing enough.

Wikipedia defines terrorism this way: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants."

What part of the above definition does not apply to the Sydney siege?

As I've suggested in another thread, perhaps anyone (and possibly their immediate family) who commits serious crimes (any felony, from car theft to murder) and those who are preaching hate, advocating violence in the name of religion, or recruiting mercenaries should be denied all forms of welfare assistance for life if they have been convicted.