From: John Beckett 

"Phil Payne"  wrote in
message news::
> > I'm not suggesting any kind of pogrom, but I think an honest discussion of
> > the above should occur in society.
>
> I'm with that.  Continue.

Well, now it gets tricky. What if having 1 million muslims happily living
in a first-world country under current arrangements meant that there was a
5% chance per year of a small terrorist act, such as the London tube
bombing? Whereas (say), you would need 100 million of any other group
before there was a 5% chance per year of an Oklahoma City bombing.

*If* the above were true, what would be an appropriate response? I don't
know (although I do know that mass deportation, or Rumsfeld-style
"security measures" would be offensive, stupid and counter
productive).

I realise that the unstated premises in this question can be attacked in
several different ways. However, I also think the question could be
rephrased in a much lengthier form that avoided the standard PC objections.

The key issue concerns whether or not there actually is any tendency within
some branches of islamic teaching towards actions that many citizens of,
say, Australia would regard as totally unacceptable (such as an anger over
Palestine/Iraq etc, however justified, that led to terrorist acts). I
disregard Rev Paisley and similar because I believe that such people would
be extremely unlikely to lead to serious problems in an area outside their
"troubles", e.g. if 1000 Paisleys were in Australia.

It may be that in a large, complex, devil-take-the-hindmost society like in
the USA, that an occasional school shooting or Oklahoma City bombing is
inevitable. However, if you could identify a tendency that seemed likely to
produce such outcomes, you would be obliged to investigate counter
measures. Similarly, society may choose to investigate whether counter
measures targeted on specific religious groups are warranted.

"Counter measures" does not mean to call in Rumsfeld.

John

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5