Racial violence erupts again in Austrailia

I know, they always stand there stunned that you mix all of these cultures/religions together and Nothing like this is supposed to happen...

There is a reason why we lived in separate nations separated by bodies of water.

Reality sucks sometimes, but Multiculturalism is a big FAILURE!!!

Just picked up the news at the top of the hour from 2UE Radio. Situation is supposed to be calm now, after a lot
of car windows got smashed. Most of the gang got away, though. Only a few arrests were made and people in the
area are worried about what the Muslims will do next.

What the muslims should do next, is exit. Go home, (their own country) and join their other muslims and hate eachother, not us.

I am glad there is finally someone standing up to the muslims...very glad. I hope they continue, and I hope it spreads. These muslims do not deserve modernism...they need to be pushed back to their third world sand boxes, and kept there.

Odd, isn't it, how muslims are praised for fighting for a Jew free "homeland" and the Aussies are pilleried as Supremacists for defending theirs.
These "rioters" are heros with the courage to stand up against the leftist establishment and islamic harassment. In Europe people are afraid to speak out. In fact, they can me arrested for doing so. But they know. They know there are places they can't go anymore. They know it's not safe for young girls in public places. They know these new imigrants reject the laws and culture of the country they consider themselves conquering. At some point even the French will tire of bending over. I predict it will happen suddenly.

Have you noticed that whenever this sort of thing happens lately, it's the cars that suffer the most? Tragic.

The Muzzies want "dissing" them to be costly to Australian society, without (yet) crossing the threshold that would trigger deadly force being used against them

Situation is supposed to be calm now, after a lot of car windows got smashed. Most of the gang got away, though. Only a few arrests were made and people in the area are worried about what the Muslims will do next.

It's called "Low Intensity Conflict". They pick a target, raid, and quickly return to sanctuary before any response arrives. It's a very Arab way of fighting

The Indians used that form of warfare as well, until we adopted the counter of denying any sanctuary, and destroying their villages

As to what I mean by "Low Intensity Conflict":

However, all agree that while LIC is theoretical possible in a modern industrial nation, it is a form of conflict most appropriate to the Third World. Furthermore, it can be stated that this concept can be applied only in cases where there is no direct confrontation between the superpowers, since such a confrontation, should armed conflict actually commence, could scarcely be stabilized at a LIC level. Although allied, friendly or client regimes of either side or one of the superpowers themselves may be involved, LIC theory does not allow for direct conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union in the Third World.
   Finally, LIC is a concept that is not of a purely military nature, even though it has been developed and propounded chiefly by the U.S. military. Instead it is an integrated political-economic-military approach, supplemented by psychological, social and diplomatic devices. Without much exaggeration it can be stated that LIC conceptually is primarily a political oriented and integrated policy approach containing military elements - and not first and foremost a military matter.
   William Olsen of the U.S. Army War College states: "In actual fact, the definition of LIC should not concentrate on the military level of conflict, but on its political character... The aim is not military conquest, but social control, for whose attainment military means can be employed as an element of the struggle... The use of military force must be measured by its social and political utility. Military means are a tactical element of a strategic program that emphasizes goals and means. Though important, the use of military might is limited, while the use of diplomatic and political means may be unlimited."(7)
   The U.S. Army's training manual FC 100-20, issued in May of 1986, defined low-intensity warfare (conflict) as follows: "LIC is a limited politico-military struggle to attain political, military, social, economic or psychological objectives. It is often of lengthy duration and extends from diplomatic, economic and psychological pressure to terrorism and insurgency. LIC is generally confined to a specific geographical area and is often characterized by limitations of armaments, tactics and level of force. LIC involves the actual or contemplated use of military means up to just below the threshold of battle between regular armed forces."(8)
   This definition reveals two important elements: First, is the general character of LIC, with the civilian aspects also being stressed (e.g. economic pressure). This is significant because some observers misinterpret LIC as exclusively a military technique. Second, it makes clear the upper limits of use of military force beyond which the concept no longer applies. The definition also makes clear that LIC is a term embracing many types of conflict. The literature attempts to distinguish among various categories. The main ones are:
1. Counterinsurgency, i.e. the combating of insurgency;
2. Contra operations (pro-insurgency), i.e. the organization of subversion and insurgency;
3. Counterterrorism, itself a collective term for diverse concepts and instruments, all of which are aimed at the offensive, military combating of "terrorism";
4. narrowly limited, "surgical" military operations using conventional forces. This category may be applied within any of the three tactical approaches above or independent of them;
5. other operations, e.g. rescue actions, participation in international peace-keeping forces or the like.
It needs to be pointed out here that not all LIC experts would subscribe to this categorization. For example, Professor Sam Sarkesian, a political scientist, explicitly does not interpret limited conventional operations and terrorism as LIC. However, in taking this position, he definitely stands on his own. On the other hand, Sarkesian gave expression to a broad consensus when he stated: "Revolution and counterrevolution are the main categories" of LIC.(9)

         U.S. RATIONALE FOR LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT
   It is interesting to note the official reasons given for the increased U.S. commitment to LIC operations. On the one hand, it is argued that the military and strategic situation between the United States and the Soviet Union, especially in Central Europe, is stable. It is contended that the Soviet Union cannot gain anything from a direct attack against the United States or its NATO allies and that it is therefor trying to make a "detour" via the Third World, where there are numerous conflicts to "exploit" with a view to isolating the leading capitalist states and hemming them in. Secretary of State George Schultz has described this as an "outflanking maneuver".(10)
   This argument has two interesting components: the first is the implicit (occasionally explicit) assumption that, in the fields of nuclear and conventional arms, the Soviet Union is not superior to NATO, but at most on a par, and it is for this reason that it turns to the Third World instead of attempting an eventual confrontation in Central Europe. Connected with this is the fact that the strategic situation in Central Europe is considered to be stable in the medium and long term and that, in the eyes of the United States, the main threat to Western interests today comes from the Third World. It should be noted that this line of argument has not been seriously regarded by either official security strategists or the peace movement in the Federal Republic of Germany
   "...The most likely threat to U.S. interests may stem from local or regional conflicts and internal instability of allies or clients of the United States. Morocco, the Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines and the Republic of Korea - up to a certain degree all allies of America or the West - are all vulnerable to internal unrest and/or external attack... Internal instability, possibly leading to a revolution, is a more probable scenario in many of these countries (than an external attack - J.H.)."(11)
At the same time U.S. military planers postulate that conflicts in Third World countries are linked to development failures. For instance, Secretary of the Army John O. Marsh stated: "Anyone who studies the regions where insurgency occurs cannot fail to notice what the situations have in common: immature governments, emerging economies, population explosions and social problems, which have something to do with insufficient food supplies, poor health service and a high rate of illiteracy. This insurgency often takes place in areas with rich deposits of natural resources of considerable interest to the West. Many of these governments are susceptible to infiltration, subversion and destabilization."(12)
   The alleged great importance of certain Third World regions for the capitalist countries and their simultaneous instability are thus, from this U.S. perspective, a central problem of Western foreign and security policy. Given the concurrent situation of a "nuclear cul-de-sac" between the superpowers (as an official U.S. Army document puts it), the confrontation between them is thus shifted to the Third World an "limited to low- or medium-intensity conflicts within Third World countries, as in Afghanistan and Vietnam, or to support for third parties against the other's clients" (13).
   LIC is thus a reaction to a perceived strategic stalemate between the superpowers, which makes direct confrontation between them seem too risky and impracticable, encouraging a shift of venue for possible conflicts to the Third World. Quite often the Soviet Union is blamed for these tendencies and accused of deliberately employing LIC strategies as forms of low-level warfare against the United States in order to prevent the latter from responding adequately or on a large scale.
   In the opinion of U.S. strategists, LIC is therefore neither harmless nor of little importance; instead, it is virtually a Soviet strategy for waging global war against the United States without the latter noticing. Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger expressed this viewpoint quite clearly at a conference he arranged on the subject of low-intensity conflict in early 1986: "Today's world is in a state of war. It is not a world war, although it is taking place throughout the world. It is not a war between fully mobilized armies, although it is not less destructive... Today one in every four countries in the world is at war. In practically every case, the face of these wars is hidden behind a mask. And in practically every case, the Soviet Union and those who do the work for it are hiding behind this mask." (14)

I would argue that, in the above, we can replace "Soviet Union" with Red China, which is the entity who would most benefit from a general conflict between the US and the Islamists