That doesn’t exclude every Nicaraguan with an aversion to Americanos, or every Estonian who detests all things Russian, if they still believe in live and let live.

I suggest you read some Tamil Tiger propaganda, including stuff written in English. You’ll then conclude that the Tigers are a viciously anti-Singhalese organisation. Should we exclude them also? Or are Singhalese people less worthy of being protected from racial vilification?

(And no, I am not Singhalese.)

Hezbollah is a viciously anti-semitic organisation so many of its members should be excluded from here on those grounds alone. Then again, there are also doctors who join Hezbollah to work in hospitals run by the organisation, so writing off all members gets a bit complex.

The Ba’ath Party is a sort of Arab fascist movement, some members of which might target the peace-loving Arabs who live here, trying to bring them under its control. But of course, like the German Nazis Party, there are many who joined Ba’ath just so they could get a government job.

I don’t know about the other organisations.

Most fighting forces, including the include their share of psychopaths and sadists. Investigators don’t just ask “what cause did you serve?” but also “what did you do for your cause?”. You also find such people in national armies. There are ex-KGB officers among us who probably did things that could give you nightmares, and I once met a former British soldier whose army mates said he was a specialist in field questioning, including torture. (He was a very nice, charming fellow.) You can’t include or exclude them all just because of their affiliations.

The idea that terrorism is the biggest security threat in our time is a pile of garbage. The whole point of terrorist methodologies, by definition you could say, is to arouse psychological response out of all proportion to the actual damage done. I realise that’s not much comfort to the thousands killed by terrorists, but they are outnumbered by victims of the world’s lethal muggings and rapes and of drunken gun-wielding berserkers.

A more important test of those with a history of violence and violent affiliations is whether they were motivated by hate or not. But it’s not much good asking them that question directly. They all say they do it for love.

There are Islamist freedom fighters, as opposed to Islamist terrorists, who similarly have only targeted their specific enemies. I think the use of the word “terrorist” for any Muslim person with a bomb is naive and fudges the meaning of the word “terrorist”.

To see whose fault that is, start with Yassir Arafat, who pioneered the art of prime time reality TV snuff movies with explosions.

But genuine Islamist terrorists appear to be pursuing a global agenda. I’m not sure if their target is the Western infidel countries as a lot of people assume. I find George Friedman’s argument quite compelling, that their real target is the Islamic lands wavering between Islamic purity and “moderacy” which means whoring for the trappings of Western decadence.

Either way, killing all over the world, especially wherever least expected, seems to be part of the Al Queda methodology. LTTE fighters are not on that sort of mission.

Anybody with a history of involvement in armed insurrection is not going to be our first choice for a model immigrant. However there are Tamils and Tamils, just as there are terrorists and terrorists.

Although there are serious allegations against the Sri Lankan government of violating the rights of Tamils, very serious allegations have also been laid against the LTTE of gross violations of human rights, including the forcible recruitment of children: http://documents.nytimes.com/u-s-state-department-report-on-sri-lanka#p=1

However, the most dangerous terrorists from our point of view are terrorists who define Western countries in general, and Australia in particular, as the enemy, because of our involvement in Iraq & Afghanistan.

On this basis Islamic terrorists are the greatest risk to us.

We need to keep them all out, of course (I mean terrorists). But this is no particular justification for declaring war on boat people. As many have pointed out most refugees arrive by plane, and so do most terrorists (excpet for those that are home-grown)! Nor will anything be gained by targeting Islamic people in general.

The authorities will need to continue screening for arrivals who have any kind of a history of involvement in armed conflict or hate groups, with a sub-set of those with a history of involvement in Islamic jihadi groups being the worst of the worst from our point of view.