the means we are using now are not working.

By what standard? Most forms of crime are on the rise. Should we create a police state? We could easily put ten times as much effort into fighting terrorism if it became necessary. At the moment it is an economic tradeoff. We aren't putting more effort in because it isn't such a big problem. If you think it is, ask for more money. We could have an undercover agent in every mosque in the country. It would be better than standing out thousands of dollars to people who aren't even pruchasing a new home.

So you think the over-reaction should come first, before the rational reaction?

It appears to me sprint that you see Islam as the problem, not terrorism. Terrorism is just another excuse you are using to abolish freedom of religion.

I've met a couple of atheists lately who cannot seem to be at peace with anyone that doesn't believe exactly the same. Their goal is to convert and to have the world ruled by atheists. The try to bend science and everything else to fit in with their beliefs. They used very unethical methods to try to control what I say, enough to have me genuinely worried what they would do. When it didn't stop me, they resorted to censorship. The thing is, atheism is a belief, not absence of belief, which is agnosticism.

The few quotes from the Koran I have seen here do have me genuinely iterested in that angle, but I'm obviously not convinced the religion is a danger. The battle between religions is in the past. The future is the battle between ideologies. That is, fascim vs freedom, democracy and human rights. Obviously, if we loose personal freedoms like freedom of religion, then it could all go downhill and end in another crusade. But loss of freedom would be the cause of, not the solution to our problems.

To confuse the battle against fascism with a battle against Islam denies the reality of the situation and prevents any real victory. For example, I have seen plausible arguments made here that Islam is inherently antidemocratic. Yet the experience of Iraq, turkey, pakistan, Indonesia and other predominantly Muslim countries contradicts these. Each of those countries could vote out it's democracy any time it wanted, just like QLD voted away it's upper house. Whatever the Koran might say, the people themselves want a say in their future. They want democracy. The struggle for freedom in the middle east is no different from the struggle for freedom anywhere else in the world. At times it seems hopeless, but there are always people prepared to lay down their life for it.

We can either choose to scare the residents of the middle east into supporting a known dictator because they fear the unknown represented by western democracy, or we can support their struggle for freedom. The two courses of action may appear on the surface to be identical. A lot of it comes down to what we say, and more importantly what we really mean. If we fight against Islam, Islam will fight against us - a fight to a very nasty death. If we fight for freedom, Muslims will fight alongside us. We are all humans first, Christians, Muslims and Atheists second.

You cannot fight a religion sprint. What you have to remember is that in the end you are fighting people. Some Muslims are against freedom. Some are for it. So, fight alongside those who strive for freedom. If you make it about Islam, they will all be against you, because you will be fighting against freedom. You would be no different from the extremist Muslims who would ban Christianitiy of they could. You would lose. You remind me of the church in the middle ages, when they thought the best way to keep people in the faith was to behead those who lost their faith. If Islam is as bad as you make out, then all you have to do to defeat it is to give the people the freedom to choose for themselves.

iraq now has democracy, muslims there are still murdering muslims

Christians murder Christians all the time. The point is, Muslims (not islam) were given a vote. They voted for democracy. I think it was you who claimed that Islam is inherently antidemocratic.

only one country has ever got out from under islam law

There was a time in history when only one country had broken free from Christian dictatorship. Soon it will be two. BTW, Iraq was an old fashioned dictatorship, not a theocracy.

All other beliefs can live in peace with one another, except one.

Wrong. In all beliefs, you get some people who can, and some who can't. It's no different with Islam.

That's what is says in their book, what hilali says, what mohammad did.  

Well, millions of other Muslims think differently to them. If you give them freedom of choice, they will choose freedom. If you take away their freedom of religion, they will try to kill you. I wouldn't blame them.

Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

---

Japan votes to return to US-led 'war on terror'

http://news.smh.com.au/japan-votes-to-return-to-usled-war-on-terror/20080112-1ljf.html

Japan voted Friday to return to the US-led "war on terror" after a two-month gap as the government took the drastic step of overriding a rejection in parliament for the first time in the modern era.

Embattled Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to win praise from Western nations for restarting the mission, but analysts said he risked a domestic backlash by ramming the controversial legislation through parliament.

The opposition, which won control of one house of parliament last year, in November forced an end to the naval mission, under which Japan provided fuel in the Indian Ocean to coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.

The opposition-led upper house voted down legislation to restart the mission on Friday, the last day it had to take action on the bill.

But the move meant the bill returned to the lower house, where Fukuda's coalition still enjoys an overwhelming majority. The more powerful chamber immediately voted largely along party lines, 340-133, to approve the bill.

The disputed mission, which was a factor in the resignation of Fukuda's predecessor, is likely to resume as early as next month.

---

from an email:

I know nothing of the politics of the Downsize DC organization, but their "I am not afraid" campaign is something I can certainly get behind.  I think we should all send a letter like this to our elected officials, whatever country we're in:  "I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid."

Refuse to be terrorized, and you deny the terrorists their most potent weapon -- your fear.