A liberal Minister sitting next to a Theologian on Q & A said "Islam is a religion of Peace". He informed her face to face that it was not. He explained why, remember a theologian!
The koran states a muslim is able to lie to any non-muslim.
What more do you need to know? All the "we love you" nonsense from muslims should be treated as nonsense.
Halt all muslim immigration, reduce Centrelink payments to muslims, ensure their organisations are taxed as they are muslim. This is what muslims do to non-muslims.
This problem will get worse and the people will eventually vote in someone who will fix the muslim problem and then you will have something to worry about.

Paul1405: Giving terrorists exactly what they want, a divided society, one which alienates millions of moderate Muslims, cannot be the answer.

"There are no moderate moslims, there are only moslims," President of Turkey.

The answer is to give in & become a moslim. Delima? which one? The moslim world is divided in to many Sects which all hate one another. That means the problem just won't go away, it would become worse.

The World would be run by ignorant mullars who only know the World through the koran & hadiths. What a wonderful World that would be. The Sun would start spinning around the Earth. the Earth would suddenly become Flat. Mad Jinns would be flying around causing sickness. Still there are advantages. Women would be locked away. They would have to get on their backs every time a man felt like it. They would have to keep their mouths shut (I like that). They would have to do what they are told, not the other way around. Men could beat their wives any time they felt the need for the slightest excuse. You could have slave girls to share with your neighbour & likewise & the wife couldn't object otherwise she'd get a beating. Little boys & animals would be available if a man felt the need for a bit of variety.

Hey! this gets better all the time.

ttbn,

Going by your track record, I don’t trust your recollection of what was said at all. But if what you say is accurate, then this Dr John Bruni is either not an expert in terrorism, or he’s lying. Terrorism experts understand that these people are usually of sound mind. Here’s an article from an expert on radicalisation that discusses this:

“The usefulness of these explanations [psychological traits], however, has been notoriously low. Terrorists have been found to be physically and mentally similar to other people who do not engage in violent activities. Thus, no matter how tempting psychological profiling could be with regard to potential terrorists, the success of such endeavours is dubious and the vast variety of individuals involved in organizations supporting and enacting terrorism is too wide to lead to any generalizable results.”

http://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/ipcj.2015.17.issue-1/ipcj-2015-0002/ipcj-2015-0002.pdf

"This morning radio audiences of Leon Byner were subjected to an 'expert', Dr. John Bruni, mouthing off about how the media should stop talking about terrorism and describe terrorists as 'disturbed individuals', 'lunatics'."

About like describing drug dealers as 'unlicensed pharmacists'.

Hi AJ,

Ooooo, another straw man: why do you assume that any extra response to terrorism other than "rational and well though-through responses" can only be a knee-jerk response ? Either your way or the highway ? Naughty !

It's an extremely complicated world, and maybe it always has been. 'We' may not trust Muslims, they may not trust 'us'. They may believe that we are filth, 'haram', we may believe they are all liars, i.e. practising 'tekkiah'. But we can still get on, we can still be friends:

I worked for four years at northern Adelaide's Sunday markets, selling packets of coffee and tea. 35,000 people come through the markets every Sunday, of enormous ethnic variety. Very many people come every week, and you get to know many of them, at last by sight: not only does a smile turneth away wrath, but it sells tea and coffee.

Many stop and chat, that took up most of the morning. One middle-aged lady, I think Iraqi, used to stop and browse and we'd yarn with our limited language abilities. After maybe a year, maybe two, I stuck my hand out and introduced myself. She drew back in horror and said "Haram !" so we carried on afterwards in the knowledge that touching filth was just one of those things to avoid. No probs. I liked her, and just assumed that she was practising tekkiah to the hilt.

We're probably both right. That's how it is: we CAN co-exist in a mutually assumed atmosphere of loathing and mistrust. We can like someone and still totally mistrust them. We can like someone and still think they are filth.

Yeah, I'm sure it can seem quite schizophrenic, but maybe that's how the world has always been. No biggie, we just keep moving forwards.

[Does this sound completely crazy to anybody else ?]

Joe

Um, Joe. The last supposed straw man wasn’t even a straw man. Remember?

<<… why do you assume that any extra response to terrorism other than "rational and well though-through responses" can only be a knee-jerk response ?>>

At what point do I assume this?

It looks to me like you need to read through the thread a little more carefully.

Whoops.