robfromdublin

That is a joke of a post. He DID NOT justify terrorism. ONLY YOU think that people on this thread are making excuses for these murderers. It's like you're going out of your way to make people more afraid, and to sow more division where there is none. I'm done with this rubbish.

OK fine, fair enough. I made a mistake characterising your comments as only affecting Muslims. You only meant extremists generally. It's a fair cop and I apologise. I am not advocating being 'soft'. I am advocating an approach that results in fewer attacks and fewer extremists. You are advocating an approach that, time and again, has been shown to result in more extremists, more attacks, more terrorism and worse outcomes. Being 'hard' is a populist approach that does not work. Being 'hard' is what led to the Iraqi army being decimated and basically turning into ISIS. Being 'hard' turned the IRA from a pocket of extremists to an organisation with widespread support in a particular section of the population. Hey, if someone is clearly an extremist then lock them up. I'm all for Abu Hamza rotting in prison. But don't risk the safety of all by locking someone up without a trial. There must be due process. The public must know why someone has been locked up and must be satisfied that it is in the public interest.

By foreign lands, I presume you don't mean people going to Spain on holidays? I presume you mean countries that are known to be terrorist hotbeds? Because they already do much of that, as today's arrest at Stansted has shown. Also, from a strategic point of view, if you lock someone up simply for being on a watch list then you compromise your intelligence gathering. And intelligence gathering is key to combating terrorism, as most people realise. A simplistic approach like 'lock the bastards up' might play well in the tabloids, but it isn't going to lead to great outcomes. What we rarely hear about are the early interventions that prevent an attack before it is even conceived or can be implemented. The arrest of a man or teenager in the early stages of radicalisation, for example. This is what stops attacks like these becoming more frequent. By simply locking these people up you might lose the opportunity to trace the source of radicalisation propaganda. I'm all for police intervention if someone is planning an attack, or extolling extremist views. An intervention with Man Monis should have been conducted 4 days before he carried out his attack. But I think you need to have a balance, and not kowtow to those who would be happy with seeing any young Muslim male thrown in prison.

Do you learn nothing from history? Internment doesn't work and makes things less safe for the rest of us by fostering terrorism. http://alphahistory.com/northernireland/internment/ "Faulkner’s use of internment was intended to extract IRA leaders, organisers and active volunteers from the general population – not just to curtail attacks on security forces but to prevent a groundswell of support for the IRA that might lead to a full scale civil war. But internment had little impact on the IRA, in fact most historians now consider it one of the most disastrous policy decisions during the entire Troubles." "While internment was intended to curtail paramilitary violence, its real effect was to alienate and outrage Northern Ireland’s Catholics. Support for and membership of the IRA increased markedly after Operation Demetrius and contributed to a rapid increase in violence in late 1971 and 1972."

After reading the reactions in this thread, this is how I feel (expand to read fully). A British soldier's response to being blown up by an Islamic extremist.

Fear and hate for other groups is what the terrorists want to spread. By encouraging or allowing that we are letting them win. I'm all for scrutinising the reasons for this and addressing them, but suggesting that Islam or the Koran is the reason is simplistic and ignores all evidence.

I can't believe that I have to argue that the majority of people are against the murder of innocents. The majority of Christians are against it, the majority of Muslims are against it, the majority of British people are against it, the majority of Syrians are against it. It's a sad day when we turn against our fellow man because some nutjob with an axe to grind has the same religion. I bet you he turns out to be male, should we view all men with suspicion? I bet you he turns out to be between 20 and 40 years old, should we view that generation with suspicion? I bet you he turns out to be from a poor background, should we view poor people with suspicion? I bet you he turns out to be Muslim, should we view Muslims with suspicion?

Of course there are thousands of Muslims who speak out about this. You only have to take the trouble to google it for 5 seconds. https://www.facebook.com/Muslims-Against-ISIS-1444672609121662/

Actually I was comparing the response to two different terrorist organisations, which is entirely different. I don't expect that you know or care about the subtleties, given you have completely misrepresented Sadiq Khan's quote as did Donald Trump's son when he first raised it. Here is the quote in full: I’m not going to speculate as to how the police in New York should react. What I do know is part and parcel of living in a great global city is you gotta be prepared for these things, you gotta be vigilant, you gotta support the police doing an incredibly hard job, you gotta support the security services. And I think speculating, when you don’t know the facts, is unwise.

When Irish republicans were blowing up Manchester, it was a minority. Nobody blamed catholicism or the Irish people generally. Blaming terrorist attacks on Islam or the followers of Islam is just plain idiotic. And I am not an 'apologist' for saying so.

Timezone on that tweet was the US apparently, so it actually was posted AFTER the attacks, not before. Still sick.

That was a controlled explosion and it turned out to be a pile of clothes, not a bomb. If this does turn out to be an attack, then it's very concerning. There have been a few lone nut jobs with cars/trucks/knives but making a bomb is a level of sophistication which suggests an organisation, not a loner.

Manchester police have confirmed fatalities. Sounds truly awful. There has been NO confirmation of a bomb, however. Seems likely given the size of the explosion but it has not been confirmed yet. Also there has been mention of gunshots being heard but no confirmation of that either.

Well I think you should rule out staying with them for 3 years. If you are thinking this now, you probably won't last that long. I'm not sure what the rules are for bridging visas from 457 so I can't advise there. If your bridging visa ties you to your employer then I'd look at either getting the sponsorship from the employer, ditching them, then paying it back OR move with the 457 and go the partner visa route then. Is there a substantial cost difference between the two visas? Have you asked immigration if the new rules for 457s will affect you with a new employer? Also, might I suggest that you don't use your real name and put your photo on a forum discussing such sensitive issues? You never know who might be on here and I'm sure you don't want anything to get back to your current employer.

I don't think TPQ did that research. She often pastes interesting articles from elsewhere without attribution. Even though she has clearly advocated that immigration hurts Australia in her post, I would imagine that the owner of this website is most likely pro-immigration! Is that fair TPQ? Not hvaing a go, just making it clearer. Interesting research but I think the conclusions are very flawed. The graphs compare the family of skilled migrants against the general population to reach the author's conclusion that immigration hurts Oz. What they should have done is compare the family of primary breadwinners in the general population against the family of skilled migrants. This would make the assumption that the visa applicant is the primary breadwinner (usually a fair assumption), but would be a much fairer comparison than comparing secondary applicants against the general population. Consider this, which is based on my thinking of averages and won't apply to everyone I know: migrants are usually young(ish) therefore, migrants with secondary applicants usually have young kids (or are about to) families with young kids often have one parent working part-time or not at all care-giving parents would therefore have lower incomes to make a reasonable comparison, they should compare secondary applicants to their equivalent demographic in the general population