That is the people you are supporting.

As far as I know, any of those actions is against any other belief system.
those things may have been done at some point in history, if so, they were not following their belief.

unlike muslims, where if they should wage a jihad, otherwise they are not following their belief.
is why it has always been done by muslims

you both support the use of media that encourages terrorism.
ergo, you both support terrorism

Find the  %age of religious terrorist acts NOT committed by muslims. I dare you.
It'ld be way under 2%.

ALL the terrorists come from the koran, and it is encouraged and demanded by that.

Of course muslims say that

what does their actions and the statements from the koran tell you ?

That is not a self fulfilling prophecy at all.  Why make excuses for murderers ??
Why support them ?

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 1:35pm:


exactly, it's what u call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Don't drive Muslims into dark
Dr Mirko Bagaric
July 10, 2007 12:00am

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,22043892-5001031,00.html

IN the wake of a Queensland doctor's arrest in connection with Britain's foiled car bomb terrorist attack, Queensland Senate candidate James Baker has called for "radical" Muslims to be incarcerated if there is a terrorist attack.

He couldn't be more wrong. The best way to tackle the terrorist threat is to embrace the Muslim community and work with it to weed out the small portion of aberrant individuals who present a risk to community safety.

The arguments used in support of terrorist profiling are two-pronged. The first relies on basic statistical analysis. While the overwhelming majority of Muslim males in Australia pose no threat to community safety, Muslim males, so the argument runs, are over-represented in proportion to their population size as potential perpetrators of terrorist acts.

All of the more than 20 people arrested on terror-related offences in Australia have been Muslim males (or Muslim converts). This is despite the fact that Muslims constitute a small minority, about 1.5 per cent, of the Australian community.

The second limb of the argument in favour of terrorist profiling is that it does not constitute discrimination.

Discrimination does not occur simply by treating people, even large groups, differently. It is perfectly legitimate to do this. That is why it is OK to lock up criminals, but not the whole population and why it is OK for bosses to pay salaries only to their employees, not the community at large.

Discrimination occurs where people are treated differently without there being a justification for the relevant difference. This is supposedly not the case in relation to terrorism profiling. The relevant difference is thought to lie in the disproportionate number of terrorist acts committed by Muslim males.

Supporters of wide-ranging terrorist profiling contend that the fact there is a relevant distinction between Muslims and other people so far as the commission of terrorist activities is concerned logically means that profiling Muslim males is not a matter of race; it is a matter of crime prevention. Their race or religion is only incidental to this process.

However, there is a fundamental point lost in this approach, which focuses solely on norms of discrimination and mathematics. Public policy, to be effective and intellectually sound, must factor in more than clinical theoretical analysis.

History shows it is foolhardy to ignore the emotive impact that decisions of social or strategic policy can have on the psyche of a society or a group within a society.

Feelings of suppression and second-class status would crystalise into the consciousness of the Muslim community if authorities adopted a wide-ranging policy of terrorism profiling. Moreover, to stigmatise and alienate groups within the community is not only morally repugnant but would increase the risk of a terrorist attack on Australian soil.

A sure-fire way to increase the chances that a person will commit a criminal offence is to limit their opportunities for social and economic well-being. Worldwide empirical research shows that people from marginalised and disadvantaged backgrounds commit a disproportionately high number of criminal offences. That's why the incarceration rate of indigenous people in Australia is 13 times that of the rest of the community.

Terrorism in the end is just another crime – albeit a very serious offence.

The fact that some of the people involved in the latest bombing in the UK are well educated is an aberration rather than a trend.

Yet terrorism law enforcement officials can't be seen to be spending as many resources on cells of grumpy blonde Gold Coast retirees as they do trying to infiltrate communities that have previously spawned terrorists.

The answer to the delicate security dilemma is to firstly recognise the healthy contribution that hundreds of thousands of Muslims have made to forging our rich, diverse and harmonious nation.

Secondly, it needs to be underlined that the members of the community that present a terrorist threat represent a very small number of aberrant fanatical people whose ideologies are beliefs have no foundation in the teachings of Islam and no similarity with the sentiments of the rest of the Muslim community.

Thirdly, the fact that Muslims want to live in a safe and prosperous society just as much as the rest of the community cannot be understated. The Muslim community is part of the counter-terrorism solution, not an element of the risk.

Australia's capacity to continue to curtail the terrorist threat will succeed or fail principally on the extent to which police and the rest of the community can deepen and widen the bonds with the Muslim community.

Dr Mirko Bagaric is a well known lawyer and author.