Runner, thankfully I have absolutely no idea what you are on about...

' Runner, thankfully I have absolutely no idea what you are on about...'

not surprised at all Susie

'closing down the mosques and ridding our nation of the Muslim faith'

Just how do you go about that in practice? Easy to say, but what are you going to do go around asking people if they are muslim? Do you think one needs a mosque to believe in Allah.

Do you censor the internet, burn books or spy on people. Maybe bounty hunters could be paid to search for them.

Generally we think ourselves a 'free' society, which includes freedom of association (Except if you're a 'bikie' of course), and freedom of religion.

.....Generally we think ourselves a 'free' society, which includes freedom of association (Except if you're a 'bikie' of course), and freedom of religion.

Yes house, and more fool us.

Step one is to shut down the mosques. Then ban the likes of the burka (sorry not sure about the spelling) so least then terrorist cant use this to blend in.

This problem started decades ago so it wont be fixed overnight, but what will happen is that we will end up like the likes of France whereby we have a rather large population of Muslims.

Now while i have nothing against Muslims, the truth is they themselves cant stop the extremists feeding off their religion/faith, so the only option is to treat the cause, because all we are doing now is treating the symptoms and in consideration of the events in France, this is clearly not working, and to suggest screening a five year old is somewhat of a joke, as removing access to extremists here would be a far better option.

As for the net, one step at a time i say.

Im not against freedom, im against our safety being eroded which it is and it is also preventable because after all, our government is there to protect us.

Tony Lavis wrote..."you can see that anarchist groups, far-right groups, as well as muslims are highly represented in the statistics for terrorist attacks in Australia over the past decade or so."

I was interested in checking this data but somewhat underwhelmed. Sure it lists several instances of anarchist terrorism but a slightly closer look shows these 'acts of terror' involve setting fire to a car or two.

Clearly we've seen a process over the past few years whereby the word 'terrorism' gets massaged such that it ceases to mean what it used to mean. Then this massaged meaning can be used to create equivalency between things that aren't (or weren't) equivalent. Burning a car to protest wealth is not the same in any sense as putting a bullet in a passer-by to protest opposition to sharia. But they are given equivalence in these types of 'analysis' so that those of a certain bent can claim that mohomadan violence is on a par with that of other groups.

Was Breviks Christian? I'd say no but its arguable. The big difference between Breviks and Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad is two-fold. The later could find justification for his acts in his sacred texts, the former couldn't. The later was cheered by a subset of his religious brothers, the former not.

mhaze, I pointed out similar to Suze, as the word terrorism is being twisted, one can only assume in an attempt to numb it down.