Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Carringbush2010]

It clearly had nothing to do with his post specifically.

I was doing what he has done previously.
I've asked him why he was linking articles in replies to posts that didn't seem to have any connection. He didn't respond.

I did the same thing as he did, and you caught me!

Well spotted.

Two wrongs don't make a right mate, just makes you look emotional and therefore discredits you and your argument.

 

[CM86]

Two wrongs don't make a right mate, just makes you look emotional and therefore discredits you and your argument.

Well said.

In your own words, can you tell me what my argument was?

 

[Carringbush2010]

There is a difference between globalism in an economic sense and globalism from a cultural / societal sense.

That's why I said 'pre industrial age', from an economic / industrial sense.

Globalism in a cultural sense is harder to achieve, is it possible?, yes, the cultural difference has to accept the cultural difference.

Our society here is a good example that it works, while it has flaws because of it, overwhelmingly it works pretty good.

Unless you are willing to drastically lower your standard of living, how can you support globalism? It's a tough position to have obviously - no one wants anyone else to live in poverty, but we can't maintain our standard of living for every person on the planet.

Life is not fair, it's a competition, and the fairest societal model is the one we have, a liberal capitalist democracy.

It allows equal opportunity for all (that's the intent of its design at least), in saying that capitalism has been hijacked by profiteering aholes, and competition in a free market has been compromised because of it.

Now back to the thread topic, if you read post 3047, would you agree that immigration is not the problem?

 

[Carringbush2010]

Well said.

In your own words, can you tell me what my argument was?

Your argument is consistent, from where I sit, your argument is, islamic / muslim immigration is not the problem that some people portray it as.

 

[CM86]

Your argument is consistent, from where I sit, your argument is, islamic / muslim immigration is not the problem that some people portray it as.

OK, so you don't even know what my argument is.

But thank you for telling me I've discredited it because I was being too emotional.
I appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness.

 

[Carringbush2010]

OK, so you don't even know what my argument is.

But thank you for telling me I've discredited it because I was being too emotional.
I appreciate the thoroughness and thoughtfulness.

So what is your argument if it's not that?

 

[CM86]

So what is your argument if it's not that?

Not that it matters as I've discredited it and myself, right?

My argument is that Islam is being used as an excuse to be against immigration of a certain ethnicity of people, from certain countries of origin. Mostly black and brown people.

That ideology is not restricted by immigration, only people are.

That if we were serious about stopping certain ideologies etc, we would fix or introduce systems to reduce or remove the growth of harmful aspects of these ideologies.

That we need to find better ways to embrace and value immigrants so that they feel they are part of our society, and are able to come forward if they are in danger, without fear of rejection from 'us' and from their community.

That the aspects of Middle Eastern cultures that we claim we want to block from Australia, already exist in Australia.
And that when they are promoted in Australia, people will defend it with statements of 'free speech' etc.


That what it really comes down to, is a racist belief that certain 'races' are genetically inferior/incompatible with 'us'.
And that labeling it as racist is just a statement of what it is. But not a statement of the people believing it being bad, or that they shouldn't believe it.

That I want to find a way to combat this rapid rise in fear, hate and bigotry, that I've now accepted is part of our culture.

That people who are racist out of fear etc, aren't my enemy.
That my enemy are people who aren't scared, but are deliberately spreading misinformation to trick more people into being scared.
That's why I took issue with BunchOfNumbers. As he was just deliberately spreading fearmongering lies.

 

[demondavey]

I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what the article you posted said.

I’m not avoiding engagement with it. I’m clearly here posting

Just because you’re here posting doesn’t mean you’re adding any value or actually engaging with the topic.

Today I had two coffees and a slice of toast with marmalade.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Not that it matters as I've discredited it and myself, right?

My argument is that Islam is being used as an excuse to be against immigration of a certain ethnicity of people, from certain countries of origin. Mostly black and brown people.

That ideology is not restricted by immigration, only people are.

That if we were serious about stopping certain ideologies etc, we would fix or introduce systems to reduce or remove the growth of harmful aspects of these ideologies.

That we need to find better ways to embrace and value immigrants so that they feel they are part of our society, and are able to come forward if they are in danger, without fear of rejection from 'us' and from their community.

That the aspects of Middle Eastern cultures that we claim we want to block from Australia, already exist in Australia.
And that when they are promoted in Australia, people will defend it with statements of 'free speech' etc.


That what it really comes down to, is a racist belief that certain 'races' are genetically inferior/incompatible with 'us'.
And that labeling it as racist is just a statement of what it is. But not a statement of the people believing it being bad, or that they shouldn't believe it.

That I want to find a way to combat this rapid rise in fear, hate and bigotry, that I've now accepted is part of our culture.

That people who are racist out of fear etc, aren't my enemy.
That my enemy are people who aren't scared, but are deliberately spreading misinformation to trick more people into being scared.
That's why I took issue with BunchOfNumbers. As he was just deliberately spreading fearmongering lies.

So in short, your argument is that immigration is not the problem, like I said.

Thanks for clarifying.

That I want to find a way to combat this rapid rise in fear, hate and bigotry, that I've now accepted is part of our culture.

That people who are racist out of fear etc, aren't my enemy.
That my enemy are people who aren't scared, but are deliberately spreading misinformation to trick more people into being scared.

Just like everyone else that wants to combat, like the overwhelming majority of society.

Those who have genuine fear, even if unwarranted, like some on here, at least do not have ill intent.

If those with ill intent i:e openly racist and bigoted are likely minuscule in number, if not our society would look a lot different.

 

[CM86]

your argument is, islamic / muslim immigration is not the problem that some people portray it as.

your argument is that immigration is not the problem

You can't even keep that straight.

You can't just accept that there was no point in trying to call me out for attention.
I called someone out, meaningfully, by doing what they did.
You called me out, pointlessly, for it.

You didn't understand what I was doing. And when I explained it to you, you just had to keep digging in.
You just have to keep pretending it's all very meaningful and important to you.

 

[Carringbush2010]

You can't even keep that straight.

You can't just accept that there was no point in trying to call me out for attention.
I called someone out, meaningfully, by doing what they did.
You called me out, pointlessly, for it.

You didn't understand what I was doing. And when I explained it to you, you just had to keep digging in.
You just have to keep pretending it's all very meaningful and important to you.

Huh?

I don't even know what this means. I'm gonna cease our conversation here, clearly you've misinterpreted what I've said.

 

[CM86]

Huh?

I don't even know what this means. I'm gonna cease our conversation here, clearly you've misinterpreted what I've said.

Good idea! We should avoid misinterpreting others.

Something to reflect on.
Enjoy your day.

 

[sr36]

Just because you’re here posting doesn’t mean you’re adding any value or actually engaging with the topic.

Today I had two coffees and a slice of toast with marmalade.

There's no place here for you marmalade eatring poms - real Aussies eat vegemite.

 

[demondavey]

There's no place here for you marmalade eatring poms - real Aussies eat vegemite.

Vegemite…. Urghhhh. No, I’ll take marmalade any day. Far more pompous and superior.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Not that it matters as I've discredited it and myself, right?

My argument is that Islam is being used as an excuse to be against immigration of a certain ethnicity of people, from certain countries of origin. Mostly black and brown people.

That ideology is not restricted by immigration, only people are.

That if we were serious about stopping certain ideologies etc, we would fix or introduce systems to reduce or remove the growth of harmful aspects of these ideologies.

That we need to find better ways to embrace and value immigrants so that they feel they are part of our society, and are able to come forward if they are in danger, without fear of rejection from 'us' and from their community.

That the aspects of Middle Eastern cultures that we claim we want to block from Australia, already exist in Australia.
And that when they are promoted in Australia, people will defend it with statements of 'free speech' etc.


That what it really comes down to, is a racist belief that certain 'races' are genetically inferior/incompatible with 'us'.
And that labeling it as racist is just a statement of what it is. But not a statement of the people believing it being bad, or that they shouldn't believe it.

That I want to find a way to combat this rapid rise in fear, hate and bigotry, that I've now accepted is part of our culture.

That people who are racist out of fear etc, aren't my enemy.
That my enemy are people who aren't scared, but are deliberately spreading misinformation to trick more people into being scared.
That's why I took issue with BunchOfNumbers. As he was just deliberately spreading fearmongering lies.

This is an extreme series of logical leaps designed to feed your pre conceived notions.

You assume that ideology is not restricted by immigration. While it may not be 100% restricted by immigration it can be largely restricted. Instead, you would throw your hands up, ignoring the right solution because it is not perfect, and instead adopt a solution that is clearly impractical and likely impossible (as I have already discussed).

You would sacrifice the Australian way of life and the health and safety of Australian lives at the altar of your progressiveness.

 

[sr36]

But going back to the issue that raised all this, our law enforcement and our government bodies are too afraid of enforcing laws when our society is impeded in fear of being considered racist. That is why these grooming gangs persist in the UK. Because laws are not being enforced. It's why there is rampant crime in Democrat cities in the US because laws are not being enforced. Because our 'tolerant' bodies are tolerant of impediment on our value. They value their perception as a multicultural society greater than the safety and success of our society.

Except all the data in Australia actually suggests that they're much more likely to target "racially diverse" individuals. Some claims from Brits about British policing says nothing about the Australian police force.

 

[demondavey]

This is an extreme series of logical leaps designed to feed your pre conceived notions.

You assume that ideology is not restricted by immigration. While it may not be 100% restricted by immigration it can be largely restricted. Instead, you would throw your hands up, ignoring the right solution because it is not perfect, and instead adopt a solution that is clearly impractical and likely impossible (as I have already discussed).

You would sacrifice the Australian way of life and the health and safety of Australian lives at the altar of your progressiveness.

Australian way of life! What a goddam cliche.

What is that way of life exactly?

 

[CM86]

Evil.


How long until we see violent targeting of Phillips and Asian/Indian people?

How long will this hateful misinformation be spread for, before we see more riots like last year in the UK?

This doesn't only impact the UK, this fuels the anti-immigration fear and hate across Europe the US and here in Aus.

And there is almost no mainstream media combating this misinformation. No easily accessible way of understanding and disputing this.
How can it be combatted?

The elite are weaponising hate and fear for a group of people, for power.
But innocent people are going to be hurt and possibly killed.

And it will help to massively grow far right extremism in all the previously mentioned countries.




The inquiry was rejected in 2022, by Liz Truss's party. Long before Phillips also correctly denied another Government inquiry.
Another Government inquiry is a waste of time and resources.
It just slows down any actual impact and changes.

What needs to happen, is to fully fund and implement the recommendations made by previous inquiries, such as the 2022 IICSA.


https://www.iicsa.org.uk/
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Recommendations​

The Chair and Panel made recommendations to better protect children from sexual abuse. These recommendations came directly from their findings and were published as part of the conclusions in investigation reports, Interim Report and final Report.​

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/recommendations.html

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/recommenda...-organised-networks-investigation-report.html
Recommendations - Child sexual exploitation by organised networks investigation report


This is about protecting children.
Stop using it as a tool to attack victims.
The spread of misinformation creating fear, hate and division only leads to more victims, and less justice.

 

[CM86]

This is an extreme series of logical leaps designed to feed your pre conceived notions.

Let's run through the logical leaps, and push me to show the steps.
So either I can better understand that my position is incorrect, or I can show you the foundation and logical steps.

This is why it's important to be pushed and questioned on 'beliefs'.
I shouldn't have a 'belief' if I can't substantiate it or defend it.

So please address the extreme series of logical leaps you've identified in my summary post, and see if I can support any of them.

You assume that ideology is not restricted by immigration.

I don't assume that. This is a fact.

Even before the internet or telephones, ideology could be spread across borders without allowing for immigration.

You cannot block the movement of an ideology by targeting a specific demographic of people.
In fact, with some extremist ideologies they spread faster and further due to the fair or unfair targeting of specific demographics of people.
It's a tool for radicalisation.

The vast majority of radicalisation occurs online.

While it may not be 100% restricted by immigration it can be largely restricted.

Everything can be impacted by everything. I'd argue that restricting all immigration of a certain demographic of people would lead to a much faster growth of extremist ideology, than continuing with existing immigration policy.

If your concern is to stop the growth of extremist ideology in Australia, implement systems within Australia to do it.
There's nothing terrorist groups love more, than being able to point at what you're promoting and telling people "see, they do hate you. That's why you need us".

The vast majority of radicalisation is ONLINE, not in immigration.

Instead, you would throw your hands up, ignoring the right solution because it is not perfect, and instead adopt a solution that is clearly impractical and likely impossible (as I have already discussed).

You would sacrifice the Australian way of life and the health and safety of Australian lives at the altar of your progressiveness.

This is untrue.

I'm against banning immigration of certain ethnicities for many reasons, but in this case it's because I believe it will grow the ideology especially the extremist end, in Australia, much more than any ban on immigration would reduce or slow it.

As in banning immigration will have the opposite impact on the ideology in Australia, as to why you claim to want it to exist.

What you're doing is helping to grow anti-Middle Eastern ideology. And it seeds the radicalisation.


I'll now provide some links to statements and PDF reports that support my position on this, including some quotes.
Because I want to show you that my position isn't ideological. But that it comes from educating myself on these issues.
This is why I can defend and substantiate my position on these issues.


https://www.afp.gov.au/news-centre/...w-enforcement-agencies-release-joint-authored
December 2024
Five-Eyes security and law enforcement agencies release joint authored analysis of youth radicalisation
This is a joint media release between ASIO and the AFP

“Around twenty per cent of ASIO’s priority counter-terrorism cases involve young people. In every one of the terrorist attacks, disruptions and suspected terrorist incidents in Australia this year, the alleged perpetrator was a young person.”​

​

“Since 1 January 2020, the AFP alongside its JCTT partners, has investigated and conducted operational activity against 35 individuals aged 17 years or younger, with the youngest aged 12 years old, and 57 per cent have been charged with either Commonwealth or state-based offences,’’ Commissioner Kershaw said.​

​

“Within the JCTT youth caseload, we are witnessing the same extremist propaganda videos across multiple unrelated investigations, and this suggests that links exist in the online environment across platforms such as Discord, Telegram and TikTok.”​

“A priority for the AFP is to limit the accessibility of violent extremist material and promote education and awareness for those in protective roles, including parents, educators and health care providers, to maximise prevention and early intervention options,’’ Commissioner Kershaw said.​

​

​

This is talking about implementing and fixing existing systems to oppose ideologies.


https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/index_en?wt-search=yes
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/RAN-online-radicalisation_en.pdf

The combination of the events of 9/11 in the US, which pushed terrorism to the top of the global security agenda, and the prodigious rise of the Internet in the early 2000s, meant that online jihadist radicalisation became a political priority. Often, this was framed as young individuals who were part of a disaffected Muslim diaspora who accessed the Internet to join extremist communities that offered them acceptance (Post, McGinnis, and Moody 2014). The radical preacher Anwar al-Awlaki was often posited as a propagandist who could motivate Western audiences:​

​

For a generation of Western Muslim youth looking for easy answers to complex questions (often via the Internet), Awlaki helped find a way for the global jihad movement to appeal to many who may otherwise have been beyond its ideological reach (Meleagrou-Hitchens 2020, 168)​

​

In the early 2010s, the prime security threat turned towards IS. As noted above, over 50,000 individuals travelled to join the group, with IS plotting and inspiring hundreds of attacks. Moreover, the group maintained a strong presence on social media; there were judged to be at least 46,000 IS-supporting accounts on Twitter (Berger and Morgan 2015) and thousands of foreign terrorist fighters beamed their lives in real time back to friends and family around the world (Klausen 2015),​

--

COVID-19 RELATED ONLINE RADICALISATION​

As outlined in Section 1, policymakers have expressed grave concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing lockdowns may have created the ‘perfect storm’ of radicalisation, with millions of people spending countless hours in front of computer screens unsupervised, which may add to a range of grievances and stressors that people were experiencing. It should be underscored that two years into the pandemic is far too soon to make firm judgements about the long-term effects, however, we have started to see studies that can give some indication.​

AIC Understanding and preventing internet facilitated radicalisation PDF

The internet has emerged as a central contributor to radicalisation and violent extremist activity (Winter et al. 2020).Facilitating calls for violence in the name of political, religious orother ideologies, the internet serves as a virtual gathering space for like-minded individuals across the globe to discuss, shape and promote violent extremist ideologies, including recruiting people into groups or communities centred on these ideologies. As violent extremism becomes more salient across the internet, the risk that individuals will be radicalised online, recruited into violent extremist groups and inspired or directed by those online to carry out real-world violence also increases.​

​

Consequently, the internet has become a key arena in the struggle against violent extremism. National and international counterterrorism and countering violent extremism policies have increasingly reflected the critical role now played by the internet in radicalisation, emphasising the importance of measures targeting online domains (Australian Government​

https://www.livingsafetogether.gov....extremism-and-radicalisation-in-australia.PDF

Reactive group radicalisation is a process where a group has an extreme reaction to a real or perceived​

danger posed by another group. Consequently, the second group reacts and there is a mutual escalation​

towards violence involving both groups.​

An example of this can be found in the relationship between radical anti-Islamic movements and radical​

pro-Sharia groups in the UK. The English Defence League (EDL), a right-wing movement protesting​

against what they see as the ‘Islamification’ of England, was formed after an incident in 2009 where a​

group known as al-Muhajiroun publicly protested against soldiers returning from duty in Iraq. Over time​

demonstrations held by al-Muhajiroun (and other groups holding similar beliefs) became a focal point in​

the EDL’s narrative. The EDL began to act aggressively and even violently towards groups they felt​

threatened their national identity.​

​

Conflict escalated to a point where, in 2012, six men were found to have plotted a lethal attack on an EDL​

rally. Fortunately the operation was interrupted. Tensions boiled over again in 2013 when EDL members​

clashed with riot police in London following the killing of a British soldier in Woolwich. A statement on the​

EDL website noted ‘we are at war’ and there was an increase in racially motivated criminal damages and​

assaults in response to the incident.​

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Let's run through the logical leaps, and push me to show the steps.
So either I can better understand that my position is incorrect, or I can show you the foundation and logical steps.

This is why it's important to be pushed and questioned on 'beliefs'.
I shouldn't have a 'belief' if I can't substantiate it or defend it.

So please address the extreme series of logical leaps you've identified in my summary post, and see if I can support any of them.


I don't assume that. This is a fact.

Even before the internet or telephones, ideology could be spread across borders without allowing for immigration.

You cannot block the movement of an ideology by targeting a specific demographic of people.
In fact, with some extremist ideologies they spread faster and further due to the fair or unfair targeting of specific demographics of people.
It's a tool for radicalisation.

The vast majority of radicalisation occurs online.



Everything can be impacted by everything. I'd argue that restricting all immigration of a certain demographic of people would lead to a much faster growth of extremist ideology, than continuing with existing immigration policy.

If your concern is to stop the growth of extremist ideology in Australia, implement systems within Australia to do it.
There's nothing terrorist groups love more, than being able to point at what you're promoting and telling people "see, they do hate you. That's why you need us".

The vast majority of radicalisation is ONLINE, not in immigration.


This is untrue.

I'm against banning immigration of certain ethnicities for many reasons, but in this case it's because I believe it will grow the ideology especially the extremist end, in Australia, much more than any ban on immigration would reduce or slow it.

As in banning immigration will have the opposite impact on the ideology in Australia, as to why you claim to want it to exist.

What you're doing is helping to grow anti-Middle Eastern ideology. And it seeds the radicalisation.

1. You ignore that Islam itself is radical, you are talking about 'radicalisation' as if it is only the extreme fringes of Islam that are inconsistent with Australian values, it is not, it is Islam itself. While there are Muslims and individuals who 'appear' to follow Islam that are not necessarily inconsistent with Australian values, anyone who does actually follow Islam is inconsistent with Australian values.

2. Again, you are talking about 'extremist' ideology rising if you block immigration. The ratio of 'extremists' to individuals is extremely small. Any minor rise in 'extremism' in Australia by Islamic individuals already in the country would be counterweighed by the immediate, and easy reduction in Islamic migration from the source. I would of course support greater policing targeting radicalization of religious groups and note that with less Islamic migration, these radical individuals would have less power (less like minded individuals to persuade in Australia) and easier to identify.

 

[faible]

1. You ignore that Islam itself is radical, you are talking about 'radicalisation' as if it is only the extreme fringes of Islam that are inconsistent with Australian values, it is not, it is Islam itself. While there are Muslims and individuals who 'appear' to follow Islam that are not necessarily inconsistent with Australian values, anyone who does actually follow Islam is inconsistent with Australian values.

2. Again, you are talking about 'extremist' ideology rising if you block immigration. The ratio of 'extremists' to individuals is extremely small. Any minor rise in 'extremism' in Australia by Islamic individuals already in the country would be counterweighed by the immediate, and easy reduction in Islamic migration from the source. I would of course support greater policing targeting radicalization of religious groups and note that with less Islamic migration, these radical individuals would have less power (less like minded individuals to persuade in Australia) and easier to identify.

Plenty of proper Catholic fundy views wouldn't be compatible with 'Australian values' (whatever they are) either.

Religion is a stupid reason to justify discrimination.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

View attachment 2198941

Evil.


How long until we see violent targeting of Phillips and Asian/Indian people?

How long will this hateful misinformation be spread for, before we see more riots like last year in the UK?

This doesn't only impact the UK, this fuels the anti-immigration fear and hate across Europe the US and here in Aus.

And there is almost no mainstream media combating this misinformation. No easily accessible way of understanding and disputing this.
How can it be combatted?

The elite are weaponising hate and fear for a group of people, for power.
But innocent people are going to be hurt and possibly killed.

And it will help to massively grow far right extremism in all the previously mentioned countries.




The inquiry was rejected in 2022, by Liz Truss's party. Long before Phillips also correctly denied another Government inquiry.
Another Government inquiry is a waste of time and resources.
It just slows down any actual impact and changes.

What needs to happen, is to fully fund and implement the recommendations made by previous inquiries, such as the 2022 IICSA.


https://www.iicsa.org.uk/
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Recommendations​

The Chair and Panel made recommendations to better protect children from sexual abuse. These recommendations came directly from their findings and were published as part of the conclusions in investigation reports, Interim Report and final Report.​

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/recommendations.html

https://www.iicsa.org.uk/recommenda...-organised-networks-investigation-report.html
Recommendations - Child sexual exploitation by organised networks investigation report


This is about protecting children.
Stop using it as a tool to attack victims.
The spread of misinformation creating fear, hate and division only leads to more victims, and less justice.

I think the more evil thing is allowing rape gangs to proliferate in your country. While I think Liz Truss' party is equally to blame and there has clearly been political footballing of the issue, with neither party standing up enough, the issue remains that the UK political system has failed its country and Jess Phillips should immediately resign. Starmer too.

 

[Gough]

I think the more evil thing is allowing rape gangs to proliferate in your country. While I think Liz Truss' party is equally to blame and there has clearly been political footballing of the issue, with neither party standing up enough, the issue remains that the UK political system has failed its country and Jess Phillips should immediately resign. Starmer too.

Thank you Elon Musk. Ffs do you cultists ever have an original thought?

 

[faible]

Thank you Elon Musk. Ffs do you cultists ever have an original thought?

They 'do their own research' but all seem to come to the exact same views as their favourite social media posters.

Almost like they're not doing much of their own research at all.

 

[CM86]

1. You ignore that Islam itself is radical, you are talking about 'radicalisation' as if it is only the extreme fringes of Islam that are inconsistent with Australian values, it is not, it is Islam itself. While there are Muslims and individuals who 'appear' to follow Islam that are not necessarily inconsistent with Australian values, anyone who does actually follow Islam is inconsistent with Australian values.

2. Again, you are talking about 'extremist' ideology rising if you block immigration. The ratio of 'extremists' to individuals is extremely small. Any minor rise in 'extremism' in Australia by Islamic individuals already in the country would be counterweighed by the immediate, and easy reduction in Islamic migration from the source. I would of course support greater policing targeting radicalization of religious groups and note that with less Islamic migration, these radical individuals would have less power (less like minded individuals to persuade in Australia) and easier to identify.

No. You're wrong.