Paul is right, there is no justification for taking it out on the innocent, that puts us on the same footing as the terrorists, but as I aid previously, morally worse for we have no justification.

"The random attack, by a presumed Christian, on Muslims is, in fact, worse morally than random attacks by Muslims, for the Muslims can find some justification in the recorded word of Allah as handed down by Muhammad."

What unbelievable rubbish! what an unbelievable twisted way of looking at it. Muslims have justification because some twisted pedophile prophet told them so? really?

The justification in killing muslims is revenge and sick and damn tired of the misery they've put every country that has taken them in through.
That is the justification! I don't condone any killing though I often understand the reasons,but to insinuate we don't have any justification for retaliation is just insane because we certainly do! Our justification is worth a whole truckload of fantasy rubbish. ours is real!

'"The random attack, by a presumed Christian; 'Oh yes Moonshine how desperate the regressives are to try and find some minute bit of evidence to support their ever failing narrative.

Moonshine, there are 1.6 billion Muslims in the World, do you believe because of acts of terror being perpetrated by some Muslims, undeniable fact, that every Muslim is fair game for revenge?
If you do I can only say, get that god of yours to help you.

<<The justification in killing muslims is revenge and sick and damn tired of the misery they've put every country that has taken them in through.
That is the justification! I don't condone any killing though I often understand the reasons, but to insinuate we don't have any justification for retaliation is just insane because we certainly do!>>

You can't not condone revenge killing, then on the other hand legitimize it by claim its justified. Is it justified or not

Whatever governments do, it needs to be done quickly, whilst the Islamic populations in Western countries remains small.
The only thing I can think of is to ensure all Muslims totally understand that they are living in a majority Christian country and that they will never effect the changes they are trying to achieve. That they will not get special treatment, that they cannot set up suburbs as enclaves, that Sharia Law will never be accepted etc. Eventually some may decide they would prefer to live in a Muslim country. And definitely we have to stop migration from Muslim countries.
Several things can be done to help this. Ban the burqa, stop allowing segregation at public places like swimming pools, get the judiciary to stop taking culture into consideration when sentencing criminals. Publically funded school should not be allowed to segregate boys and girls. Stop providing welfare for large numbers of children whose fathers are on long term welfare, or single mothers (second wives). This should apply to everyone anyway. Tax payers shouldn't be expected to raise someone else's children beyond one or two.
The majority of Muslims live in public housing. It's possible to split up enclaves by rehousing people so they are more spread out amongst the general community. For those areas where problems continue, increase the police presence to ensure non Muslims are safe and the message is clear. No intimidation of non Muslims!
Of course, all these measures would require governments with balls and selective deafness to calls of discrimination etc.
can't see it happening.

Well, as problematic as Big Nana’s suggestions are, at least she’s offered some. That rarely seems to happen on the Muslim-bashing threads around here. On another thread, moonshine suggested hatred and anger as a solution, but wouldn’t expand on that.

Most of us seem to agree that running Muslims over in a van isn’t the best idea, so how about we discuss solutions instead of the usual complaining that goes on around here?

I’ll go first.

The way I see it, we have three options:

1. A Muslim ban.
2. A Muslim and mass deportation.
3. Extermination.

The first option is problematic because Muslims are already here, and so stigmatising them and telling them that their kind are no longer welcome here is a good way to radicalise them. Then there’s the problem of screening every prospective migrant reliably to make sure they’re not a Muslim.

The second option would have all the problems of the first, only there would be less Muslims left to become radicalised since we would have shipped quite a few of them out. But then there’s the expense of rounding them all up and making sure they go. We probably couldn’t deport those with children born here, either.

The third option, which was hinted at by ttbn earlier today (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19108#340117), would resolve most of the above issues. However, we’d inevitably face crippling economic sanctions and military action (That gosh-darned UN is such an undemocratic inconvenience, isn’t it?!). Then there’s the issue that the ‘First they came ...’ poem raises, too.

Of course, there is another option, but I don’t think anyone here would be interested in it.