Do you feel threatened by terrorists in Australia?

[Steve Axford]

I can't see anything reasonable or respectful about this debate. It's certainly not respectful of the wider Islamic community. At least Tony Abbot was bright enough to realise that he had to distance himself from any religious war that could be generated. ISIL is a particular group that happens to be linked to a particular Saudi sect of Sunni Islam. ISIL attracts disaffected youth from around the world and there is a fear that those people may cause trouble when/if they return to their countries of origin. To extend that to calls for general repression of Islam is not reasonable or respectful - in my opinion.

[Glenda]

No I don't feel threatened by terrorist attacks here. I'm a fatalist and whilst I don't knowingly put myself in danger, if someone chooses to plant a car bomb and I happen to be in the vicinity when it goes off, not much I can do to avoid it and I certainly don't want to waste my time worrying about it. To date Australia has been fairly insulated in regards to terrorist attacks on our home soil and I would love to see it remain that way. Realistically it probably won't. I agree with an earlier poster, the most dangerous thing Aussies do every day is get out on the roads as either a driver or pedestrian.

[MissionMan]

I can't see anything reasonable or respectful about this debate. It's certainly not respectful of the wider Islamic community. At least Tony Abbot was bright enough to realise that he had to distance himself from any religious war that could be generated. ISIL is a particular group that happens to be linked to a particular Saudi sect of Sunni Islam. ISIL attracts disaffected youth from around the world and there is a fear that those people may cause trouble when/if they return to their countries of origin. To extend that to calls for general repression of Islam is not reasonable or respectful - in my opinion.

I don't see where anyone has been disrespectful to the wider Muslim community.

The topics addressed to date have been targeted at:

A) extremists who are a risk to the community no matter what their religious allegiances are
B) Sharia law which is in contradiction to both our local laws and human rights charter (I.e. Sexist religious laws that hold no place in Australia)

In some respects, Christian versions of B are also being challenged by the average Australian because there is a rift between historical religious laws and equality, namely the lack of gay marriage laws.

No one is calling for a repression of Muslims, they are calling for a repression of the extremist views held by a minority saying they have no place in Australia.

As someone who moved to Australia, I am respectful of the laws in Australia and I can't understand why someone would want to move here, and then change the laws to be more like the country they left. I.e. If it was that great back in your old country, why did you leave? Clearly there was a reason why you moved, so perhaps it would be good for people to reflect on that.

On the issue of a disillusioned youth, again, as an outsider who moved to Australia, I have to say that Australians are very accommodating irrespective of your race, colour, creed or religious beliefs....but...they want you to fit in. You cannot come to Australia, close yourself off in a community, do your best to not fit in and try to create a mini-version of your home country, and then claim that you are not accepted. I don't care what country you go to, you will have issues if you do things this way. As an example, there are some foreigners who have been in Australia for 20 years and can't speak English because they have closed themselves off in communities of ex-pats. If you approach life this way, it will be to your detriment and you cannot blame Australia or any other country for that. Part of fitting in is understanding the people and culture of the country you are in. When I have traveled to foreign countries for work, that is the first thing I try to do. I learnt Arabic when I was in Saudi, Flemish in Belgium and I made friends. When you move to a country, you have two choices, you can move forward with your life in the new country or live in the past.

By the way, this is not just Muslims. This is any culture coming to Australia. As an example, In the tennis we saw fights between the Serbs and the Croats. Ironically these factions of people were youngsters who were born and bred in Australia and had never seen and violence between the cultures and yet their parents, living in the past had passed down a legacy of hatred to their children for people who had nothing to do with the atrocities of the past.

[bobt]

Personally I view religion as being a prime cause of global unrest, and greed comes a close second. Religion has always been about control, and humans en masse are essentially greedy and aggressive. The most dangerous substance on the planet is testosterone, without which most of the unrest would not occur. On the one hand humans have achieved amazing things, but on the other we are fundamentally flawed. What we see as "civilisation" is often just a veneer, covering a deeper and more destructive nature which emerges at the slightest opportunity.

We are currently in a dangerous phase where extremists of all flavours are emerging and threatening the progress we have made over the last few hundred years. When you factor in things like global warming and diseases like Ebola, it seems to me that the world is at a very dangerous point in its evolution. Many governments are corrupt, and most are bogged down in self-interest.

At the end of the day, our only refuge is in a very large block of chocolate ........

[Kym]

An interesting source of truth on the matter is Philip and Axelrod’s three-volume Encyclopedia of Wars, which chronicles some 1,763 wars that have been waged over the course of human history. Of those wars, the authors categorise 123 as being religious in nature, which is an astonishingly low 6.98% of all wars. However, when one subtracts out those waged in the name of Islam (66), the percentage is cut by more than half to 3.23%.


wars.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

[Steve Axford]

Point A) is what the thread is about and there has been no problem there.
Point B) however isn't part of the subject of this thread - at least it doesn't seem to be. I knew little about this issue until it came up here, but with a very small amount of reading it became a bit clearer. The calls by Jacqui Lambie for “I just say anyone who supports sharia law in Australia should not have the right to vote, should not be given government handouts and should probably pack up their bags and get out of here — that’s what I’m saying,” does seem to be quite inflammatory because there is no qualification that this probably does not include the majority of the Muslim community and any call for removal of rights just because someone asks (note: ask, not demand) for something we disagree with is also inflammatory. I believe that this view was supported here.
I remember exactly the same arguments being used against Italians, Vietnamese and people from the UK before we had the latest round against the Islamic community. I remember the troubles in Northern Ireland and how it was portrayed as a religious war. Of course it wasn't, and we now see it as an oppressed people trying to get a fair deal. Perhaps it is the same in the Middle East and we are just focussing on the religious side, which can blind us to the realities of what is really happening.

[Kym]

I can't see anything reasonable or respectful about this debate. It's certainly not respectful of the wider Islamic community.

Well I think you misreading the thread; in fact being provocative in your comments while others are being reasoned.
I commended Dr Jamal Rifi and his actions last weekend (BBQ etc) to put the majority view, even though his life was threatened by extremists.

We are dead set against the extremists / terrorists; also against any attempt to subvert the Aussie constitution and values via an alternate legal framework.
These are sensible things.

[MissionMan]

I can't see how speaking out against extremist views can be construed as being disrespectful to the wider community who apparently don't support these views. If they don't support them, or the implementation of Sharia Laws or parts of it which could be construed as sexist, why would they be bothered. I come from a Christian background and I have no issue with people speaking out against the church's views on gay marriage which I believe are completely misaligned with reality (not to mention have the bible verses that are used are completely out of context).

The biggest issue I have with the muslim community is the lack of tolerance for freedom of speech, one which they often use to their advantage when they marched against Zionism and Israel. Apparently we have to be respectful of the muslim community but if one of the muslim leaders comes out and says that when women get raped, it's their own fault we are not allowed to comment because it's anti muslim. Isn't it these exact people that will march against the US when the US government (which represents the views of the people but not necessarily all the people) make a decision to attack a particular country? We are judged by our leaders. Tony Abbott is a reflection of us because we (or the majority of us) voted him in. Lamb, despite the embarrassment that she is, was also voted in.

[Steve Axford]

The biggest issue I have with the muslim community is the lack of tolerance for freedom of speech, one which they often use to their advantage when they marched against Zionism and Israel. Apparently we have to be respectful of the muslim community but if one of the muslim leaders comes out and says that when women get raped, it's their own fault we are not allowed to comment because it's anti muslim. Isn't it these exact people that will march against the US when the US government (which represents the views of the people but not necessarily all the people) make a decision to attack a particular country?

I don't think that just because someone is elected it means that they are above the law. Hitler was elected too and almost everyone would agree that the war he started was wrong. I think that people have the right to protest when the US government, or any other, decides to start a war. We may or may not agree with them, but would you say they have no right?

[MissionMan]

I don't think that just because someone is elected it means that they are above the law. Hitler was elected too and almost everyone would agree that the war he started was wrong. I think that people have the right to protest when the US government, or any other, decides to start a war. We may or may not agree with them, but would you say they have no right?

I agree wholeheartedly. Protest at will.

What I disagree with is the double standards...

• If a western leader does something, then the west is bad
• If a muslim leader does something, then its not a reflection on muslims community as a whole and if we say something about it we are being anti-muslim

[Steve Axford]

Some Muslims are baddies. Some western people are baddies. Some people are baddies - and that's what we should be looking at. I doubt that they are bad because they are Muslim.

[ameerat42]

Be AFRAID! Be Very AFRAID!

"TERRORIST THREAD Alert!"

[ricktas]

Some irony:

* Extremists vow to attack the US and their allies, but use iPhones, iPads etc to post videos etc online.
* Short memories. People seem to believe these extremists are isolated and new threats. Yet Christian Crusades centuries ago, attacking muslims, have created generations of hatred, that is passed down from parents to children.
* This can all be solved by going to war
* If I go to a muslim country I expect to have to adhere their laws.
* If muslims come to our country they should adhere to ours (most muslims I have met, agree)

[Steve Axford]

I agree. If we hope to survive in a crowded world we will have to devise a way to live together. We don't seem to be very good at that.

[MissionMan]

I think the bigger risk to us is the potential for Nuclear war from the likes of North Korea or Russia. You'd hope they would be smart enough not to start something like that but there are plenty of politicians locally that point to intelligence not being an entrance requirement.

[ricktas]

I think the bigger risk to us is the potential for Nuclear war from the likes of North Korea or Russia. You'd hope they would be smart enough not to start something like that but there are plenty of politicians locally that point to intelligence not being an entrance requirement.

I believe we are more at risk from a pandemic, etc. Rats, mice, rabbits etc all reach a point where they are in plague like proportions and nature takes over and eliminates them. Humans at present are like rats, over breeding, over populating, consuming way more than the planet can sustain. We are also overdue for a flu-like pandemic. We have built up resistance to antibiotics within ourselves and within bacteria etc.

Sadly, probably the best thing that could happen for the planet itself, is something that eliminated about 50-80% of the human population. But even then, we could not live in peace with each other.

[MissionMan]

There are way bigger problems than plagues/pandemics.

Some people on Ausphotography think brands like Pentax/Canon/Olympus are better than Nikon. That in itself should be a red flag for the end of the world. Until everyone is using Nikon, the world will never be at peace.

Disclaimer - I was paid $0.05 by Nikon for that statement.

[Mary Anne]

You were overpaid MM that comment is only worth 2 cents.

[Kym]

You were overpaid MM that comment is only worth 2 cents.

Inflation

[MissionMan]

Inflation

Nope, Nikon Tax. You could have bought the same Sigma or Pentax comment for 2 cents but the build quality of the Nikon comment is much higher.