Thanks Chris, You've shown that we need such morons on a Monday, just to give us a laugh and put us in a better mood for the week :)

Long may useful idiots open their mouths and prove themselves.

Joe

The 'religion' that is most responsible for wars of aggression has nothing to do with spirituality.

It's the stupid belief that having enough is never enough.

Great article. It well exposes the usual cliched responses from apologists on this forum...honk! honk! (goose cry) what about the IRA? ....honk! honk! what about abortion clinic bombings?

They cant be serious ...

The 'what about the Christians/Buddhists?' argument is just so stupid. Firstly, in case you haven't noticed, there's not a worldwide problem of Christians and Buddhists daily committing atrocities.

And even if there were, two wrongs don't make a right, derr. Persecutions by other religious people doesn't somehow excuse or defend rsecutions by Muslims. And persecutions by persons of other religions, don't disqualify those who condemn persecutions by Muslims, even if they did condemn only religious persecutions by Muslims, which they don't.

The 'why should all Muslims be blamed for the actions of a few terrorists' argument also misses the mark. The problem is how do non-terrorist Muslims morally deal with the fact that Mohammed was a mass murdering, raping, slaving, armed robber, who had sex with a 9 year old when he was aged 54?

Their dilemma is, if they condemn him, they reject their own religion (quite apart from putting themselves at risk of being killed by their co-religionists). But if they don't, they show by their adherence to their religion, defined by following Mohammed and the Koran, that they do not reject, and may believe in, behaviour which is extremely anti-social, abusive in the extreme, and completely unacceptable in modern civilised society - which obviously a significant minority of Muslims do think is okay.

The fact that, at any given time, non-terrorist Muslims are not committing atrocities, may be as good as it gets. But if they believe that God wants them to follow Mohammed's example and teachings, OF COURSE ordinary Australians are perfectly justified in asking what their beliefs are, and condemning and renouncing them, and none the less so for their beliefs being religious.

Craig

"It's the stupid belief that having enough is never enough."

In case you haven't noticed, you're describing the human condition, including your own, otherwise there'd be no need for you to have a computer would there? But perhaps, like the religious, you speak from a Gods-eye point of view?

Well, it's not that long ago that we Christians killed in the name of our God.

Yes we've come a long way since then, with pedophiles protected from natural justice /bulging at the seams church coffers, and so on.

As the Christian Leader reportedly said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Having said all that, it's hard to disagree with the general thrust of the article, and indeed, the necessity to isolate this "religion", until it moves out of the stone age and entirely unproven medieval beliefs, and into the 21st century.

Faith and certainty that something is true, doesn't ever make it so.

That being so, we need to isolate this (barking mad) belief system until it is dragged roaring and screaming; shooting, bombing, beheading, raping and killing, into the 21st century.

And I fear this conflict of ideas, because that's all they are and none can prove otherwise, will have destroyed two thirds of mankind, before that happens.

Not too bad a thing some may suggest, always providing it doesn't include their kith and kin.

If Islam were Ebola, and it's arguably even deadlier, we'd have no problem/compunction isolating it and allow it to devour itself!

Given Islam is seemingly at war with the world and not just incompatible, but hostile to all other belief systems, inclusive of their own more moderate parts!

We are left with little choice but to; send them back to where they came from!

We just don't need to entangle our lives, our belief systems and sense of decency and fair play, with people who routinely lie with impunity to infidels; or, who'd strap bombs to ten year old girls, (remain silent and therefore giving tacit consent) in order to enslave their own female population/prevent them getting a personally liberating education!
Rhrosty.

JKJ, an interesting comment, but well wide of the mark.

I have a laptop which cost me $600 plus a further couple of hundred for software. I choose not to pirate software, since it seems reasonable that those who take the trouble to produce it should be paid for their efforts (I suspect SPQR just heard a few more geese honking way up in the sky, above the clouds), although I do use shareware and freeware if it's decent, like Firefox or Chrome and contribute through donation to Mozilla and Wikipedia.

My laptop could be replaced for about $400 or less today.

I spend $120 a month on broadband access, which I include as part of the rent deal for my sub-tenants, since comms is now an essential service. I require internet access for my studies and personally use about 5% of the bandwidth available, while my tenants and my son use around 50-70% between them. We could settle for a cheaper and lower capacity plan, but the way the plans are structured a small saving has a very large effect on service and while I would be fine, others in the house would miss out.

Furthermore, I donate to Khan Academy, which provides free access to high quality internet based educational services. It's a fantastic initiative that has the potential to change the world. I'd love to see every child with the ability to draw on the knowledge they make available.

Do I aspire to having a bigger and better computer? Nope, the one I've got is great; reliable, does everything I need it to with some reserve so it will remain useful over time.

Greed isn't good, and it's greed at the heart of far more conflict than any religion, even those conflicts in which religion is used as a pretext.

So by pointing to what you consume, you establish that it's not more than enough? Very convenient, isn't it?

There are a couple of aspects that play significant parts in this regarding useful idiots

Those who support the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and that somehow Islamic terrorism is not related to the faith. As an indicator, I see that there are again violent protests about the insult to the prophet in cartoons. I've not seen any sign of serious protest by groups of muslims about the insult to their faith in the well documented actions of extremists.

The debate over who in the west best serves the cause of the extremists those who want to reduce unnecessary contributions to radicalisation or those determined to bring conflict to a head. I'm of the view that it is the latter who best serve the interest of the extremists, clearly some others have a different view.

R0bert

The Christophobes always go for the relativism arguement. Usually when someone knows that their own world view is as perverted as Islam they need to attack the Christian worldview even though muslim terrorist run amuck throughout the western world. Their hatred of Christ because He does not condone their lifestyles leads to all sorts of irrational conclusions. The fundies among the secularist know that they to are a death cult like Islam. Look at the thousands of babies they offer up in the name of feminism. They are unable to swallow truth because it might mean they have to look at themselves.

Exactly the kind of rubbish one would expect from someone who contributes to the Spectator.
I much prefer the description/assessment that humankind altogether is in that is given on sites such as Tomgram, Counterpunch and Consortium News.
The new essay on Consortium by Robert Parry titled The Neocons the Anti-Realists sums up the situation quite succinctly. As does his essay the Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.
In the Anti-Realist essay Robert Parry refers to a truth-telling book by James Risen titled Pay Any Price: Greed Power and Endless War.
The eight words in that title give a precise description of the situation created by the neo-psychotics, who were of course assisted in their project of never-ending-war by our own lying rodent.

"Well, it's not that long ago that we Christians killed in the name of our God."

Acting on injunctions in which part of scripture, Rhrosty? As opposed to the Koran and other Muslim holy texts that specifically urge the murder of Jews and other infidels. Muslims have plenty of authority for violence if of a mind to draw on them. And what do you mean by "not that long ago"? Last week? Last year? Last century?

No JKJ, by pointing to what I define as 'enough', I establish that I am capable of determining what that is within the context of computer resources that you mentioned.

I don't know whether that's convenient or not, it's simply pragmatic from my POV.

How do you define 'enough'?

R0bert, I suggest there is a need to distinguish between motive and pretext.

When I read all the articles and history and excuses and bigotry and beliefs and reactions and behaviour of those that embrace any religion at all, convinces me that with all this superstition and mythology, together with the power seeking that goes with it, adopting an attitude of atheism has been right all along.

The "other religions" argument, thin as it is falls apart simply because most of the world's Christians live in Latin America, Africa and Asia and there's no aggression whatsoever from them.
In Europe the religious wars have been over for 400 years and the kinds of extremism we're seeing in Islam today were largely eradicated by the the Inquisitions 200 years before.
This is what Islamophiles think:
http://i2.wp.com/therightstuff.biz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/IMG_383789572475590.jpeg
This is the reality:
http://i2.wp.com/therightstuff.biz/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/violent.jpg
Yes Daffy Duck, that's right, 8 deaths caused by anti abortion protestors since Roe Vs Wade in 1973,half the number killed in the recent Paris attacks. For the record the rate of child abuse among clergy is no different to that of the general population and substantially less than the endemic and celebrated pederasty of Mid East and Central Asia.
You trust The Guardian and Newsweek right?
The hypocrisy of child abuse in many Muslim countries
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/apr/25/middle-east-child-abuse-pederasty
Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

Snake,
Atheism...sure, Atheism in the West basically boils down to Methodism without Christ and the Holy spirit, if you're a liberal atheist you're more or less a Christian.
And no violence from atheists, well even without going into the bloodbath of the 20th century there's still the ongoing violence of the Naxalites, the PKK, the ANC, Zanu PF, ETA, EZLN, KNLA the Real IRA and so forth.

Craig

>>The 'religion' that is most responsible for wars of aggression has nothing to do with spirituality.

>> It's the stupid belief that having enough is never enough.

> How do you define enough?

Shouldn't that be how do you define it? You're saying that the stupid belief that having enough is never enough is responsible for wars of aggression. I'm not the one saying it, you are.

So ... how do you work out what enough is?

My take on it is that what is responsible for wars of aggression is the belief that it's okay to use aggression against the person or property of others. What is 'enough' could never be defined but arbitrarily, because it goes to people's subjective evaluations. It reminds me of these eco-loons who want to go on eco-save holidays that 'reduce your carbon footprint'. If they want to reduce their carbon footprint, why don't they just not go on holidays in the first place? By what standard is it okay for human beings to consume anything? You're pretending to know so ... what's the answer?

Ashton raises Boko Haram in his article.

“Boko Haram killed more than 5,000 civilians between July 2009 and June 2014, including at least 2,000 in the first half of 2014”
Wikipedia

Let us assume for a moment that all those killed were Christians.

This is a truly horrific toll for which this particular group of Muslims should be held accountable.

Let us compare it to what happened in Bosnia. There Christians systematically murdered nearly 200,000 Muslim civilians including 8,000 men and boys in one notorious camp alone. Systematic rapes were also a feature of this genocide/ethnic cleansing where young Muslim girls were defiled and often killed. In terms of scale there is no contest.

If Ashton wants to hold all people of Muslim faith accountable for the atrocities of Boko Haram then why hasn't he called for the same measure to be directed at Christians for what occurred in Bosnia?

The reason is obvious, the blinkers on his so-called 'idiots' are also firmly on his own head.

A fair point I must admit STEELEREDUX, there was wholesale slaughter perpetrated against the Islamic people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, including unspeakable violations committed against women and young girls. Moreover it simply illustrates, if there's intrinsic evil in men's hearts, then these abominations will always eventuate, irrespective of what religion these people purport to observe ? Because it would appear that evil seems able of supplanting everything else, that might prove good within human kind ?

Hi SR,

I don't think the author indicated in any way that all Muslims were responsible for the atrocities in Nigeria, Niger, Cameroun, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, southern Thailand, France, or wherever. Straw man argument. But how far was he off the mark ?

As for you dreary recycling of the 'two wrongs make a right' argument, with respect, Bosnia yes, but you have forgotten Kosovo, where an entire population was driven over icy mountains - I still remember that bloke pushing his mother in a wheelbarrow - and I also remember, at the time, my 'Left' friends dithering about whether or not anybody should support the Kosovars - and all those refugees who Howard brought out straight away from the area - because after all, the US was supporting the Kosovars, and 'therefore' shouldn't we be supporting the Serb fascists ?

Jut as they dithered about supporting the East Timorese against the brutal Indonesian army - because the US seemed to be supporting the East Timorese, 'therefore' shouldn't the 'Left' be supporting the authoritarians - yet again ?

So, Steele Redux, where were you in 1999, when the Kosovars were forced to flee over winter mountains ? Where were you when the Indonesian army was rampaging through East Timor ?

Did you do 'the right thing' then and support the people, or did you suck up to the state terrorists, which is what they were ?

Joe

Steele,
No doubt the toll from the Boko Haram raids is greatly exaggerated, just like the Bosnian "Genocide', there were no "rape camps" or "concentration camps in Bosnia. You're talking about the Srebrenica massacres which, like most atrocity stories is a distortion of the truth by Western activist-journalists and politicians for political purposes:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-srebrenica-massacre-was-a-gigantic-political-fraud/5321388
Similarly the eyewitness accounts from Nigeria talking about running through the bush over a trail of dead bodies stretching for miles is implausible.
This video shows how a hoax is perpetuated, the makers of the documentary in question started with a a fraudulent conclusion based on hearsay and unreliable eyewitnesses and went to ridiculous extremes to make their research fit the narrative, including fabricating the discovery of a "mass grave":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47rbRNSGQUs

Oh dear, JKJ, a variant on the schoolyard favourite 'I know you are but what am I?' (you may prefer the term 'false onus').

My reasoning is clear, has been stated and has been supported. On the other hand, you have tried to play silly buggers, no doubt following the old wisdom of sticking with what you're good at.

Wars are almost never about abstract notions, they are almost always about territory, group power and control of resources. On the other hand, they are often justified with all sorts of gobbledegook.

If you prefer gobbledegook to reality, far be it from me to disabuse you.

Jay Of Melbourne

I'm not an expert on the groups that you mentioned, but as far as I know the ones you mention didn't create violence in the name of a religion, thus excusing their crimes as an act under sanction by some Deity. There is no exclusivity in connecting religion with violence. It just that religions often seem to absolve themselves of any guilt because it is "written" somewhere. I don't remember the IRA rationalising their actions in the name of Catholicism either, but historically they did together with most other religions you could mention.

@Steelerux

Who cries <<Whaaaa what about Bosnia>>

There have been thousands of similar or worse atrocities perpetuated by Muslims against non-Muslims, across the globe, and for centuries ..pity you dont want to know about!

Hot off the presses.
Prominent North Korean defector Shin Dong Hyuk recants.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/prominent-north-korean-defector-shin-dong-hyuk-recants-20150119-12t3te.html
People lie about atrocities and atrocious treatment at the hands of unpopular regimes all the time, it's more than likely that when someone is talking about massacres or mass rapes and incarceration then they're lying or "sexing up" their story.
Islam gets a bad rap, much of it undeserved but to equate it to Christianity, or to insinuate that the very real and ongoing wars and civil disturbances caused by Mohammedans has to bee seen in the light of some broad problems with religion generally is just nonsense.

The other issue is the fact that "Muslim" and "Christian" are just handy euphemisms for "Oriental" and "Occidental", "West Asian" and "European". The problem here is the dishonesty in talking about 21st century Europe as being Christian, there are supposedly about 800 million practising Christians in the world, only about 1/5 of them are Europeans, as I said before most Christians live in Asia and Latin America.
There is a problem with having West Asian people in European societies, it's a bad idea for so many reasons and it's going to result in violence not seen since our grandparents were young people but their religion is way down on the list of grievances.

The crusades killed 6 million Muslims. And that's according to history almost anyone can read.

I've no idea how many lives were sacrificed by the Spanish inquisition, save it was a bloody and murderous part of Christian history, as was the troubles that pitted protestants against Catholics, and even denied the latter the universal rights inherent in the Magna Carta; [like the right to bear arms,] until Disraeli's emancipation act, that then conferred those rights on all Brits.

Before then there were decades of persecution and made visible even today, by the priest holes still found in ancient dwellings; or Cromwell's war on the aristocrats.

And no, we Christians didn't need specific passages in our book to justify killings, torture and all manner of inherent evil.

Just a Pope who couldn't err; and in medieval times, often found at the head of an army, making war on the disbelievers/pagan hordes.

And while 300 years or more might seem a long time ago, when measured against the entire course of human history, it was just yesterday.

A useful read is a book called, the very well researched pillars of the earth, by Ken Folliet, which fairly accurately describes those times, and just what was allowed or created in the name of holy mother church; hardly a church at all; but more like a political system or prostitute, where personal power was paramount.

[And a useful place to "safely" park the literate sons of the rich and privileged, who missed out on inherited wealth!]

And in fair comparison, arguably describes much of modern day Islam, at war with the world and itself.

The Qoran asks that its devotees decide with the heart as well as the head, or if you will, the conscience; and what's missing in early Christian church history, and indeed, large swathes of so called modern day Islam.

And as before, according to the interpretations of so called men of God!

And as before, demanding absolute belief, even as their book was revised and rewritten until it bears little similarity, to the oldest known version.
Rhrosty.

Craig

Oh dear, instant descent into spiteful schoolyard personal abuse and false onus when I point out that you're talking gobbledegook.

"My reasoning is clear, has been stated and has been supported."

I've proved it wasn't and hasn't, and you know I have, which is why you're now trying to duck for cover into your schoolyard snivelling. All you did was imply that YOUR level of consumption was not more than enough, without specifying what level would be to make sense of your belief system.

There's no need for me to prove what I'm not asserting; no false onus on my part. You're the one saying that the stupid belief most responsible for wars of aggression is ... what? You don't even know what it is. All you've offered is: Whatever Craig Minn says is right, whatever he consumes is not too much, and anyone questioning will be first evaded, and then abused when he can't defend his stupid belief system.

Stop squirming and abusing and either answer the question, or admit you can't. How do you know, for all the people in the world you're presuming to talk for or down to, whether their consumption of any given resource is enough or more than enough?

A simple "I don't know and admit I was talking fatuous bullsh!t" will suffice.

‘morning Rhrosty,

Relativism goes only so far in trying to mitigate Islamic atrocities by comparing modern Islamic terror with ancient religious conflicts, Christianity seems to have become a regular target.

The 177 years of the Crusades were in response to Muslim Invaders, not the other way round. It’s only a bit of history so why not trash a few facts?

There are no accurate accounts of the death toll for the Crusades but mean calculations put the figure between 500,000 and 1.5m, an average of 5,650 a year. This number includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, civilians, disease and those who died during the journey.

Your 6 million Muslims figure? Nah.

The Spanish Inquisition conducted 150,000 hearings with approximately 5,000 given the death penalty.

If you insist on relativism, Stalin dispatched 50-60 million people in less than six years, an average of 1,923,076 a year and between 1973 and 2005 the estimated total of deaths due to abortion topped 46 million, an average of 1,437,500 a year.

Some seem so desperate to appease the 460,000 killed by Islamic terror since 2001, that any old urban myth will do to make a point?

Like Chris said, Islamic Terrorisms Useful Idiots.

Jay of Melbourne,

The media is extremely adept at exploiting our emotions.

More than a few years ago, the TV news in Australia showed pictures of a little boy and man allegedly his father, hiding behind a 44 gallon drum.

The voice said that they were sheltering from bullets fired by the Israeli soldiers.

The film cuts to black.

The voice says that the boy was killed by Israeli bullets.

Instantly people are hostile towards the Israeli military.

Cut to a story a few years later broken by Melanie Philips that the pictures and story about a Palestine boy being killed by Israeli soldiers were all false. It was all staged by a journalist.

Another story was about how the Israeli air force was targeting ambulances, they even had pictures of Ambulances with holes in their roofs. But the interior was strangely intact, which was explained when it was exposed that the Palestine where using the ambulances as launch pads for their missiles.

We get well and truly stitched up, by the morning shows, the current affair shows as well. Even 60 minutes and 4 corners do a good job on it.

Remember that 'useful idiots' are useful to both sides.

Those who dutifully parrot the 'violent Islam' paradigm, while ignoring all the other empirical evidence about what radicalises mostly young men to commit terrorist acts (like anger over wars and injustice, a sense of identity and purpose, wanting to be a hero and, most of all, simply being young and male), are being equally useful and equally idiotic.

SteeleRedux

'Let us compare it to what happened in Bosnia. There Christians systematically murdered nearly 200,000 Muslim civilians including 8,000 men and boys in one notorious camp alone. Systematic rapes were also a feature of this genocide/ethnic cleansing where young Muslim girls were defiled and often killed. In terms of scale there is no contest.'

I recommend you read some of the investigative journalism of Edward S Herman, Seymour Hersch (who broke the My Lai story) and Diana Johnstone, who have exposed much of the Western propaganda surrounding the Bosnia-Kosovo-Serb conflict. (For their efforts, these journalists have been demonised by those same Western propaganda sources as 'genocide deniers'.)

Certainly, these events and atrocities are partly true, but they occurred on both sides within the context of a Nato-campaign to break up the former Yugoslavia. There is a whole lot more to the Srebrenica story than the ridiculously one-sided Serb genocide myth we have been fed. Ditto, the mass rape stories. Even the term 'ethnic cleansing', which has been wrongfully attributed to the Serbs, was actually a Western media invention.

However, I do not wish to detract from your main argument - i.e. to give a recent example of Christians terrorising Muslims - which I DO agree with.

To author Chris Ashton

I lived through the Cold War when educated and supposedly intelligent people made every excuse for International Socialism (Communism) and pointedly ignored the fact that the entire Communist world was a giant prison camp where people were shot if they tried to escape. These people were truly "useful idiots", a term used by Lenin to describe young western bourgeoisie who supported Communism.

My perception as to why these people did that, is because some people have a compulsive need to think that they are superior to everybody else, and they think that the defining characteristic of an intelligent and moral person, is to always support their people's enemies and attack their people's friends.

An example of this would be Craig Minns exchange with JKJ on this topic (page 1&2) where he completely ignored JKJ's excellent reply and simply pointed out how morally superior he is. Minns really does think that he is morally superior to JKJ because he only has a cheap computer and donates to some charity. His implication is that he is oh, so fukking superior to those who attack Islam, and that is his entire argument.

The connection is clear. Those who attack Islam are moral inferiors and those who defend it are moral superiors.

Poor old Craig has never studied history, because if he had, he might have discovered that the great intellects like Voltaire attacked the Establishment of the time because of rational reasons. Voltaire did not just attack the Establishment because he thought it made him look smart. And the great minds of yesterday loved to stick pins in the inflated ego's of people claiming moral superiority, like Craig Minns.

By any application of reasoned logic, Islam is a violent religion that is dangerous to non Muslims, and unacceptable in secular societies, because it's own religious teachings tells it's followers that that committing violence towards non believers and fighting against a secular state, is what morally upright Muslim people do.

LEGO

‘the defining characteristic of an intelligent and moral person, is to always support their people's enemies and attack their people's friends.’

I beg to differ. The defining characteristic of a not overly intelligent or moral person is to always assume that critical analysis of their people’s friends must be construed as an ‘attack’, and that empathetic analysis of their people’s enemies must always be construed as ‘support’.

When it comes to ‘us and them’ thinking, it’s always safer, easier and more comfortable to stick with the ‘us’. If those who empathise with the ‘them’ had been listened to throughout history, a helluva lot of misery and destruction might have been avoided.

Craig

Hang in there, mate. There are plenty of OLO commenters, myself included, who appreciate the intelligence and moral maturity of your contributions.

Hi Killarney,

Your interesting point, about

"Those who dutifully parrot the 'violent Islam' paradigm, while ignoring all the other empirical evidence about what radicalises mostly young men to commit terrorist acts ..... "

seems to contain a slight contradiction: are you saying that 'violent Islam' is a myth ? Or are you saying that there are plenty of reasons for 'violent Islam' ?

I recall arguing with someone back in 2001 who claimed that al Qa'ida didn't exist, it was a figment of the western media - AND anyway the CIA set up al Qa'ida AND anyway , after all the evils of the West over the past thousand years, it was probably a good thing that al Qa'ida [which doesn't exist] blew up those towers, and anyway the Israelis did it.

Let's agree to call a spade a spade: currently, 'violent Islam' is carrying out many atrocities, there seems to be a new one every day. Why is another matter: the fact remains that there are 'violent Islamist' atrocities nearly every day.

Explaining something doesn't explain it away: it still occurs. How to combat it - what, you don't think it should be combatted ? - is going to be huge problem, including how to avoid the radicalisation of psychologically challenged youth. I think that that is vital, as you do (even if you also think it's all a Murdoch-inspired myth).

[TBC]

[continued]

Killarney,

I enjoyed your assertion of "a Nato-campaign to break up the former Yugoslavia". As I recall,

* the Slovenians struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

* Croatia struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

* Macedonia struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia.

* Muslim-majority Bosnia struggled to break away from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, and got invaded by what was left of Serb-dominated Yugoslavia. NATO intervened after three or four years of Serb atrocities.

Serb-dominated Yugoslavia imposed chauvinist and anti-Kosovar policies on Kosovo, from around 1987. Kosovars couldn't work at the universities, and were expelled from the bureaucracy, etc. Eventually the Kosovars were able to express a desire to break away from Serb-dominated Yugoslavia, the Serb army invaded, terrorised (any other word for it ?) the Kosovar population, driving them out of the capital and over the mountains, and - after more than ten years of brutality - NATO intervened on the side of the Kosovars. Russia threatened to intervene on the side of the fascists, but all bluff of course.

Kosovo, like Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia and part of Bosnia, is now an independent state, protected by NATO from further Serb provocations. Yes, a predominantly Muslim state in south-eastern Europe, like Bosnia and Albania. The people have chosen, let it always be so.

And I also recall that, when Serb troops and paramilitaries were going into 'battle', i.e. against women and children, they would be blessed by an Orthodox priest. I suppose that's as close as Christians have come to calling out "Allahu Akbar," which we have heard so often in the last few years.

And yet again, it shouldn't have to be pointed out that two wrongs, or a multitude of wrongs, don't ever make a right. Evil then in 'Yugoslavia', evil now in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Cameroun, Niger, etc.

Joe

Well said Joe. And underlines my own beliefs almost exactly.

And put more aptly by someone like a mythical Forrest Gump.
Who might have said, evil is what evil does.

And on the contested figures of six million Muslims killed in crusades, they not my figures anymore than those killed in the Nazi Holocaust, just what I've read and remembered.

Revisionist will always contest figures, even those that saw Stalin kill more Russians than those killed in WW11.

And to reiterate, Forrest might have commented, evil is what evil does.

We useful idiots need to stick together, as the virtual abuse and other stuff flies.

Usually to detract from the argument or general thread?

And as poorly as Muslims were treated in the former Yugoslavia, what they in their turn are perpetrating in the middle east is far worse, and entirely indefensible!

As Peaceful Muslims in former Yugoslavia found out the hard way, there are some people, whose own belief system and social mores, make them impossible to cohabitate with, in normal civilized peace.

And today that is true for ISIS, and indeed all those who sympathize with or make excuses for.

As you might have said, the justification is entirely invalid, given two wrongs never ever equate to a right!

Evil is what evil does!
Rhrosty.

'Violent Islam' - although of a Shi'ite variety - [maybe Islamism is an equal-opportunity fascism ?] has allegedly just murdered the prosecutor in the Argentinian case against Iranian involvement in the murder of 85 mainly Jewish people in a bombing back in 1994. The prosecutor, characterised as a 'dirty Jew' by Iranians in phone-taps, was found shot dead in his home last Wednesday.

On Kosovo:

I don't think that Kosovars can in any way be accused of complicity in what evil is being perpetrated in the Middle East, just because they are Muslim. They were, so it seemed back in the eighties, just trying to live their lives and get along, and still are. I've heard of Chechens and Bosnians joining IS, but not Kosovars.

But I live a sheltered life, so how would I know ?

Perhaps they represent a progressive form of Islam, in which one doesn't forget the atrocities committed against one's people, but one moves on, puts it all behind one. And pisses people off by referring to oneself as 'one'. Jesus, I'm channelling Sheldon Cooper.

Joe

JKJ, let's start again. I'm sorry for having taken a cheap shot.

To go back to the question of 'enough', in my recitation of my own thought processes around the topic of computing gear, which was prompted by your comment, I had hoped to leave it to the reader to generalise from that particular, which obviously didn't happen, so I'll be a bit clearer.

In determining 'enough', it seems to me that there is a fairly straightforward set of steps that can be followed. It's a set of steps that should be familiar to anybody doing any kind of planning.

1. What are my needs?
2. Are my needs met by my current resources?
3. If they are, is there enough overhead in those resources to cope with expected transient demands and likely growth in needs?
4. If they are not, what can be done to improve the situation?
5. Does the proposed improvement action lead to consequences that themselves need to be taken into account?
6. If it does, is there any other action that might be taken instead?

and so on.

The thing to note is that the course of action revolves around need, not want and requires rational consideration of consequences. For example, choosing a course of action that satisfies my needs at the expense of your ability to satisfy your needs is likely to lead to negative consequences. We have seen an example of that in this thread.

LEGO, I'll make the same offer to you as to JKJ, let's start again. I'm sorry I didn't take your contributions seriously enough to respond properly.

It's interesting that you suggest I am seeking to establish a moral superiority, because my own guiding principle is entirely pragmatic. Perhaps the simple fact is that what we might call 'morality' is simply an ethic based on a pragmatic recognition that we all do better if we look out for each others' interests?

That's certainly what falls out of game theory and in fact was what won Robert Aumann his Nobel 'Memorial' Prize in Economics in 2005.

Joe

‘... seems to contain a slight contradiction: are you saying that 'violent Islam' is a myth ? Or are you saying that there are plenty of reasons for 'violent Islam' ?’

I’m saying NEITHER. So it seems you’ve found a contradiction between two things I didn’t say.

And thank you for the LOOOONG dissertation on Evil Serbia For Dummies. So many new Hitlers to discover; so little time.

Oi tink Killarney is talkin' blarney, Loudy.

A group of people sharing an anger over wars and injustice, a sense of identity and purpose, and a want to be a heroes, try to recreate the Ottoman empire, and we should be sympathetic?

Jihad is eternal, it doesn't stop at enough, and an Ottoman empire is something we should accommodate rather than oppose? Was the Ottoman empire accomodating? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
No, it was not. It had to be opposed.

As for, ".....and, most of all, simply being young and male", most of all? How should this be respected, do you propose, Killarney, voluntary re-education camps? BTW, lots of females have joined the fray.

All we can do to accommodate Muslims is offer a place within western society as first class citizens. If we're failing at that, explain how we can do better. However, don't be so usefully idiotic as to say Islam has nothing to do with this.

Luciferese

'However, don't be so usefully idiotic as to say Islam has nothing to do with this.'

Only IF that was what I said ... which it wasn't.

'BTW, lots of females have joined the fray.'

Define 'lots'.

It's well documented that the overwhelming majority of terrorists (like about 99%) are young and male. If the converse existed - i.e. if the vast majority of terrorists were young and female - the gender factor would be central to all discussions of terrorism. However, we're so conditioned to accepting male terrorists as 'the norm', that masculinity is almost never given consideration as a contributing factor.

Trying to get this.

So, 'violent Islam' 'is' a part of it? It's just that those that focus on it alone are useful idiots?

Wouldn't that equally apply to those who reject the violent Islam 'paradigm' and focus only on young males, justice, identity etc. as 'the' causes?

How do you feel about a new Ottoman Empire/Caliphate? Should it be accommodated peacefully, perhaps by a consensual dissolving of ME borders to get it started? I'm at a loss to see how force is avoidable however it goes.

Re how many females, I'm not disagreeing about the proportion that go to Syria, but who knows the proportion when it comes to sympathy for the cause? Do you?

What positive discrimination should be afforded Australian Muslims to win more over to our peaceful citizenship offering? I'm not talking something radical, like Sharia enclaves, just things to bring them more into the mainstream, youth particularly.

Killarney, thanks for your kind words earlier, I enjoy reading your thoughts too. It's not always obvious that people are reading what we write here, especially since it's often the case that responses are driven by the desire for an argument rather than anything constructive.

On your comment about young males, it's a reality that this has always been the demographic which is sent to fight the community's battles and which often actively seeks out a chance to do so. The eagerness of our own country's young men to go off and fight at Gallipoli and the number who lied about their age in order to do so, both in WW1 and WW2 shows that this is not a Muslim phenomenon, but a human one.

So, since we're all humans, we should be able to understand what drives these young men in a more fundamental way than simply falling back on the silliness of the religious explanation. Once we understand what's driving them, we should be able to work out how to change the conditions that create those drives.

However, we have to accept that just as the current situation didn't just suddenly pop into existence overnight - the current young men who seek death and glory are following in the footsteps of a long line of similar young men - it is going to take a long time to create a new situation where such expectations are not normalised.

Short termism and expedience are the enemies of good policy, but it takes courage to face short term negative consequences while waiting for long term positive changes.

Craig,
It's not correct to say "all Muslims" and terrorism is a minor threat, it is however true that the Arab diaspora is basically just a constellation of tribes consisting of organised crime clans and street gangs
The Arab street gangs are the school for Jihadis, ISIL is the biggest gang of all and what's happening in Europe is that the returning fighters are now the big men on the block, they're idolised by the young kids coming up.
The Lebanese in Australia have no peers when it comes to organised crime, people like Carl Williams, the Perricks and the Morans were the last of the old school White crims, the symbiosis of radical Islam and organised crime goes back to Mohammed and his days raiding caravans.

Just wanted to clarify my questions to you, Killarney. They are in the context of your words, "If those who empathise with the ‘them’ had been listened to throughout history, a helluva lot of misery and destruction might have been avoided."

What is your pathway to avoiding misery and destruction as things stand?

Craig, Koombyah.

Dear o sung wu,

You wrote;

“it would appear that evil seems able of supplanting everything else, that might prove good within human kind”

Sometimes it might appear that way but thankfully we are at peace far more than we are at war. I am of the mind that what we deem good tends to win out in the end.

Dear Loudmouth,

I like most people was appalled at the slaughter wrought by the Christian snipers and mortar batteries on the residents of Kosovo. This is not to dismiss the actions of the KLA which more than deserving of the War Crimes indictments they attracted. The fact that Christians made up 70% of those who were indicted seems to me to be a pretty fair indication of who committed the most atrocities during the conflict.

Dear Killarney,

I'm aware of the doubts raised about the media's account of what was occurring in Bosnia during the war. JOM pointed to an article from Edward Herman, (whom I had already read in Manufacturing Consent), making claims like “And of course they had never proved that there were 7,000 or 8,000, even men and boys killed. The bodies in the graves added up to something like 2,500.”

But time and science tells a different story;

“By analyzing DNA profiles extracted from bone samples of exhumed mortal remains and matching them to the DNA profiles obtained from blood samples donated by relatives of the missing, the International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP) has so far revealed the identity of 6,598 persons missing from the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica.”

“In an effort to identify the victims ICMP has collected blood samples from 21,566 Srebrenica victims’ survivors. The number of reported missing for whom ICMP has blood samples as well as the matching rate between DNA profiles extracted from these bone and blood samples leads ICMP to support an estimate of around 8,100 individuals missing from the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995. This leads us to a conclusion that the bodies of approximately 1,500 persons still need to be found.”

Cont..

Cont..

“So far 5,564 cases of Srebrenica victims have been closed by local court-appointed pathologists.”
http://www.ic-mp.org/press-releases/613-srebrenica-victims-to-be-buried-at-a-memorial-ceremony-in-potocari613-srebrenickih-zrtava-bice-ukopane-u-memorijalnom-centru-potocari/#more-1397

Regarding the rigorous War Crimes Tribunals I find it hard to believe that those convicted would have been victims of unsubstantiated hype. That some of them were directly indicted and convicted for their involvement in the rape camps set up in Foca leaves little doubt in my mind that these camps did exist and that horrific sexual crimes were committed against women and girls.

Rapes of course occurred on the other side of the conflict and charges were laid, for instance Rasim Delic - chief of staff of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina was indicted “For his failure to prevent the Mujahadeen members of the Bosnian army from committing crimes against captured civilians and enemy combatants (murder, rape, torture)”. These were the Mujahadeen who were flown in by the US. But the evidence is substantial that rape was most often employed by the Christian side of the conflict.

The point I'm trying to make is that the nomenclature that is employed dictates how we view conflicts and terrorism. To use the term Christian Serbians raises the ire of some with claims that they 'can not be regarded as true Christians'. But Serbia is a highly Christianised nation whose Education Minister once directed that evolution no longer be taught in schools before being over-ruled by the President.

If Boko Haram was described as a North Nigerian separatist movement rather an Islamist terrorist organisation we would surely view it differently. Yet it is held up as evidence that Islam is an inherently violent religion. The kidnapping of 250 school girls for sexual slavery and as child soldiers is a sobering tragedy but they have a long way to go to get to the estimated 25,000 children abducted by the Christian Lord's Resistance Army headed by the infamous Kony in Ughanda whose “ father was a lay catechist of the Catholic Church and his mother was an Anglican." “Kony was an altar boy for church until 1976.”

Cont..

Cont..

“Kony insists that he and the Lord's Resistance Army are fighting for the Ten Commandments.” who "has found Bible justifications for killing witches, for killing [those who farm or eat] pigs because of the story of the Gadarene swine, and for killing [other] people because God did the same with Noah's flood and Sodom and Gomorrah." “

“Kony believes in the literal protection provided by a cross symbol and tells his child soldiers a cross on their chest drawn in oil will protect them from bullets.”

But the first person indicted, charged and ultimately convicted of crimes against humanity for the abduction of children for sex and child soldiers was of course Charles Taylor, the Liberian President who “had been a lay preacher in the Baptist tradition”. When the US finally moved against him one of his staunchest supporters Pat Robinson said “So we're undermining a Christian, Baptist president to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country. And how dare the president of the United States say to the duly elected president of another country, 'You've got to step down.' “

Finally much is made of Muslims killing other Muslims, once again as an indication of the violence of the faith. We seem to have forgotten the fact that arguably the most Christianised nation in Africa during the early 1990s was Rwanda.

“Reports indicate the percentage of Muslims in Rwanda has doubled or tripled since the genocide, due to Muslim protection of Tutsis, and to Hutus' wanting distance from the people who murdered.  Although the growth of Islam stabilized after a few years, it is still attracting some converts. Conversions to Evangelical Christianity also increased after the genocide, while attendance in Catholic churches has decreased. Observers believe this is due to the participation of some Catholic priests in the genocide.”
Wikipedia

Recognising that history and the struggle we all have with the religious fundamentalism in our various faiths might mean empathy rather than derision is the driver for change.

Thank you, thank you, Killarney, for confirming my premise.

Regardless of whether you think that those "useful idiots" (ABC luvvies) who live in the west, who support International Socialism, Islam, or extreme environmentalism, and always attack their own society, do so because they think it is an indicator of superior intelligence or morality. Or, they do it because they think that those who support their own people and their own successful civilisation are stupid and immoral, it is exactly the same concept.

What it boils down to is a compulsive psychological need to believe that they are morally and intellectually better than everybody else. This makes them difficult people to debate against, because their beliefs have no basis in fact, they only parrot the slogans of the peer group of "intelligentsia" to which they aspire to be a part of. They will therefore claim that black is somehow white because they have linked their self esteem to denying self evident reality. To admit at they are wrong, even when they quite clearly are wrong, would force them to admit that they are not the towering intellects and moral giants they imagine themselves to be.

SR,

Kony = Boko Haram ? So two wrongs make a right, yet again ? Can we move on from this stupid pissing contest ? Kony is evil, Boko Haram is evil: it's a tie, they both can piss higher than their heads, wow.

Face up to the fact that Boko Haram ['Western Education is Evil'] that it is an Islamist-terrorist movement ? its leaders have pledged themselves to the Islamist State. The terrorists in northern Nigeria have murdered upwards of 50,000 people and driven 1.5 million from their homes. It's a terrorist organisation, and happens also be Islamist. Suck it up.

Currently, there are such terrorist organisations spreading out from Algeria; Libya; Somalia; Yemen; Syria-Iraq; Chechnya; Afghanistan; Pakistan; southern Philippines; southern Thailand; and perhaps (we don't hear much about them) in Central Asia. As for Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Palestine, Sudan, Eritrea, we'll need to wait and see.

If you see a duck flying, it's just a duck. If you see hundreds flying together, it's a flock, a group, of ducks. You may say, no, it's just a huge, random aggregation of individual ducks who happen to be flying in the same direction . No, it's a flock.

Face it: there is a very widespread terrorist movement across the Muslim world, currently factionalised but for how much longer ? Perhaps 99 % of Muslims are not interested in supporting terrorism, but they are still there. You can't wish them away, SR.

Joe

Steele,
It's a pack of lies,there's never been any such thing as a "death camp" and there never will be and "rape as a weapon of war" is a myth.
The "Bosnian Genocide" is pure fiction and the rape camps are nothing but a Liberal sexual fantasy:
http://de-construct.net/e-zine/?p=167
Ditto Kosovo:
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/slies.htm

You're a bizarre creature Steele, you're Anti American/ Anti Western yet you swallow the U.S State department and British foreign Office propaganda, hook line and sinker.
NATO and the U.N serve the Atlantic powers, of course their evidence is fabricated, their findings biased and their courts illegitimate.
The Foca show trials prosecuted three men and called 16 witnesses, all gave testimony from behind a screen and employed voice scramblers, does that sound fair to you?

Jay, the great achievement of the Abassid and Seleucid Caliphates was to foster trade by instituting the world's first 'passport' system that placed an onus on those who lived within the caliphate to allow safe passage to those who were carrying a document certifying that they were officially recognised as citizens of the Caliphate.

The laws of the Caliphates were based on Quranic doctrine, but there were lots of non-Moslems who enjoyed protection.

As for a tradition of raiding others territory, that goes back a lot further than Mohammed. Have a look at the Old Testament for a lengthy list of tribal fights and fluid expedient allegiances. The main message in that book is that sticking together, following the rules, having a strong leader who is able to pick his fights wisely and being willing to sacrifice your own interest for the group's (tribe's) benefit is the best way to behave if you happen to be born in the Middle East. I suggest it's much more general than that and it's been the best way to behave for tribal humans since there were humans and as a result, it's a fundamental part of human psychology that is expressed in different ways according to the local cultural overlays.

Don't allow a focus on detail to obscure your view of the bigger picture, you're obviously smarter than that.

The non-PC on this thread are giving a very good account of themselves, perhaps more so than on any other of the many threads on this subject.

The PC brigade are being driven to ever more exotic versions of relativist rhetoric, with increasing volumes of “detail” to convince us of their superior intellect.

It’s rather like revisiting the novel by Jane Austen, “Sense and Sensibility” where the main characters strive to merge sense and sensibility. The PC brigade refuses to accept that sensibility relies on data to create true perception, instead they rely on rhetoric. Garbage in, garbage out.

When the fallacy of relativism fails to convince, they offer ever more of the same, seemingly in the hope that quantity will eventually replace quality. It seems that both sides of this vexatious debate will continue talking “past” each other, particularly since there is no known antidote to rhetoric.

There is a possible break to this nexus as the center ground imposes its “sense” (normal ability to think or reason soundly), rather than waste energy on the PC brigade ever achieving a philosophical resolution to their “sensibility” part of the equation, of which they have so enthusiastically taken ownership.

Having put their stake in the ground that Islamic terrorists have nothing to do with Islam, a position from which they can now never withdraw, the mood, perception and “sense” of the middle ground is slowly shifting away from the PC schizophrenia.

Every atrocity committed by these so called non-Islamic butchers will now be worn outright by the PC brigade, it will continue to erode the validity of their “chattering”.

There will be a tipping point for the PC brigade, quite when that might be I’m not sure but I am convinced it is inevitable.

The PC brigades’ focus on defending “sensibility” rather than accepting “sense”, contains the seeds of their own destruction. No surprise that they are defending so hard and offering more of what got them into trouble in the first place, rhetoric.

Perhaps their intellectualized version of “Sense and Sensibility” should be re-titled just for them

Gullible and Gullibility

Chris Ashton is, in my view, right to point out Islam is a basis for all these terrorist attacks and right to point out attacks on abortion clinics or Buddhist bombings are both red-herrings & tu quoque fallacies.

But a key issue is also the religious doctrine of an afterlife and rewards therein.

Spindoc,
The centre, where I stand simply rejects the magical world views of the left and the right.
It's all boils down to beliefs vs evidence, beliefs aren't facts and facts can't exist without evidence, no evidence means no facts.

The Progressives have been humiliated by the results of multiculturalism, the Conservatives fare no better and it's only PC censorship and repression of their views which has limited the amount of manure clinging to them at present, given the chance they would have made just as big a mess.

Here's some interesting articles Spindoc:
Liberal Hegemony by Michael Parish
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2015/01/liberal-hegemony.html
The Coming Annihilation of European Progressivism
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/01/11/the-coming-annihilation-of-european-progressivism/
http://therightstuff.biz/2015/01/11/the-coming-annihilation-of-european-progressivism/

What people like Steele will never admit is that multiculturalism works against progress at every level, mass immigration to the West of violent,low IQ people from Asia and Africa has stunted progress in our countries and has now tipped them into decline.
Social cohesion no longer exists here and you can't have progress without people who are at a minimum willing to work together.

Dear Loudmouth;

You wrote;

“Kony is evil, Boko Haram is evil: it's a tie”

But then the rest of your post only makes repeated references to 'Islamic terrorism'.

I think it would be a huge step forward if you were prepared to acknowledge that “The Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), also known as the Lord's Resistance Movement, is a militant movement which is "Christianist," extremist Christian” and that “It is listed as a terrorist group by the United States.” (Wikepedia) thus making it a Christianist Terrorist Organisation.

The Lord's Resistance Army has also kidnapped large groups of school girls, killed tens of thousands and displaced well over a million people, all in numbers far out weighing those of Boko Haram.

The proposition on this thread which you seem to support is that the terrorism displayed by the likes of Boko Haram can be attributed to Islam thus Islam is the 'most violent' of the major religions.

My point is that you have not yet made that case but you are welcome to furnish us with more evidence if you have it.

‘morning SPQR,

Your comments thoughtful and appreciated. As far as the “Centre” is concerned I was very careful to speak only of PC vs. Non-PC, it is therefore up to the reader to determine where they sit in this continuum on social, political or religious grounds.

The links in relation to the annihilation of progressivism in Europe are entirely predictable and well deserved, mostly because it is progressivism that has steered policy in a manner that has become “causal” in relation to EU woes.

In the end few care what happens to progressives because the damage is already done, they will be historical ideological failures. There is no recovery for Europe or Scandinavia, it’s too late. It is only the consequences of progressives that will survive and not the progressives themselves.

It’s interesting that the EU was multi-cultural before unification. Every member nation had their own “culture”. Yet, through the auspices of both the UN and the EU, the progressives have imposed mono-culture on a group of nations that were collectively multi-cultural, how cool is that?

Progressivism will fail because it is inherently cowardly. It refuses to stand up for the sovereign rights of any “individual” or nation. All these sovereign nations are wrong to stand for their “own” cultural values and by doing so they are bigots, racists, suffer islamophobia, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-human rights, anti-humanitarian and anti-refugee.

Their inaction has created and appeased the aggressive culture of Islam to occupy the space progressives have created.

It takes courage and a backbone to stand for your own values in spite of the vilification and abuse meted out by progressives. The progressives stand for NO action and NO values except their own rhetoric. They curl up in the “fearful” corner, sucking their collective thumbs in the fetal position supporting all forms of non action. They are the planets’ manifestation of “jelly backs”.

Even “Aristotle's Rhetoric” had them nailed over 2,000 years ago;

Ethos (I am important and would I lie?), Pathos (this will really do you good) and Logos (here's a few "facts" to impress you). Is that progressives or what?

Sorry SPQR, that should have been posted to Jay of Melbourne. Hope it works for you anyway.

Craig, your Muslim, right?

So, you're more or less justifying ISIS and co practices, yes?

Craig, you say, "The laws of the Caliphates were based on Quranic doctrine, but there were lots of non-Moslems who enjoyed protection."

"Enjoying protection" sounds like fun. Here is a scholarly article (only 15 pages), quite dispassionate and understated, that elucidates the "millet system" of the Ottoman empire, and the supposed "justice" enjoyed by its non-believing subjects.

http://www.academia.edu/2362427/How_Just_was_the_Ottoman_Millet_System

You don't have to be a scholar to read the violence towards non-Muslims between the lines. There are other tomes that speak of the cruelty and savagery of the Empire, but this one sets out the options for non-believers rather than what happened to them if they chose poorly. It also explains why Islam will not kill all the un-believers, only those that won't bow to it. Who would be taxed and do the dirty work if it did kill every infidel? Only Muslims were first class citizens.

A caliphate would divide the world into religious groupings, millets, rather than nations as we have today. Which millet would you like to be a part of, as a non-Muslim, Craig? Atheism would not be an option. Maybe you'd convert to improve your lifestyle, and your children would then serve as Allah's warriors.

Isn't it fascinating that some people accuse anyone who defends the general Muslim population as justifying the barbarity of ISIS of Boko Haram.

That would be akin to accusing defenders and promoters of Christianity (merely because they're Christians) of justifying the practices of Kony and The Lord's Resistance Army or the Ku Klux Klan.

Luciferase

‘What is your pathway to avoiding misery and destruction as things stand?’

Strewth! How am I supposed to know?

I guess I’ll just repeat what I’ve said many times already. Stop destabilising, sanctioning and bombing Muslim countries. Not only would Muslims living in the West be less likely to get caught up in exile politics and resentments, but they would be far less likely to flee to the West in the first place

SteeleRedux

‘If Boko Haram was described as a North Nigerian separatist movement rather an Islamist terrorist organisation we would surely view it differently. Yet it is held up as evidence that Islam is an inherently violent religion.’

Yes, this is true, as were the other examples you gave. Liberation and separatist struggles are inherently violent with copious acts of terrorism involved, as are any attempts by embattled governments to deal with the crises caused by these struggles. If either side happens to be Muslim, then the violence is more likely to be attributed to Islam, regardless of context.

As for Serb/Kosovo/Bosnia, this was one conflict in which the West took the side of the Muslims against the Christians. For Western political purposes, the need to dismantle Yugoslavia trumped the need to demonise Islam.

‘Regarding the rigorous War Crimes Tribunals I find it hard to believe that those convicted would have been victims of unsubstantiated hype.’

Yes … well. I could write at least twenty OLO posts on that subject alone. There is a great deal I could write about how the Serbs have been unfairly tarred with the genocide brush, and how all that DNA testing business reeks of all kinds of conspiracies and cover ups, but I’ll refrain as it’s getting too far off topic

‘morning Poirot,

A fine point indeed. All you have to do now is show the difference in scale between the death and destruction of savagery inflicted by Kony and the deaths by Islamic terrorists since 2001.

Islam is running a tab on about 460,000 deaths over this period, so where is Kony on this scale? Or is there a progressive “weighting factor” that says the deaths by “this” crowd are weighted greater than “this other” crowd?

If you are going to defend the “general Muslim Population”, then first you have to establish a “difference” between general and radical, then you have to show that one is part of Islam and the other not.

I know you have an answer for this and I’m eager to hear it :)

‘morning Killarney,

What is the difference between what you are proposing and the cowardice of capitulation. I was going to suggest surrender but apparently the progressives “white flag” factory is short on stock? :)

spindoc,

"A fine point indeed. All you have to do now is show the difference in scale between the death and destruction of savagery inflicted by Kony and the deaths by Islamic terrorists since 2001."

Okay...do we get to include Christians like this one?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

I believe quite a few people were killed in that rampage....

No Constance, I'm not Muslim, nor do I subscribe to any of the religious doctrines.

I'm simply a person.

Luciferase, the Ottoman Empire was just that - an Empire and like all empires there were lots of atrocities carried out in the name of the empire's preferred religious doctrine(s).

The old Holy Roman Empire was a bundle of laughs and the British Empire wasn't a great place to be an avowed "heathen" either.

The Islamic Caliphates were the instigators of enormous cultural advances that arose very soon after Mohammed's era in the same area. The Ottoman Empire arose many centuries later in Turkey and had almost nothing in common with the Caliphates.

If you'd like to improve your knowledge of history, there are several good options, including some great courses offered through Open Universities Australia that have very few prerequisites for entry, so you might well be eligible.

Craig,

Khan? technology that you use. I think your lying, otherwise you've been brainwashed by leftist gits.

Luciferase,

re Craig Minns comment: <<If you'd like to improve your knowledge of history, there are several good options, including some great courses offered through Open Universities Australia >>

If that is where Craig got his woefully inadequate background i would give them a miss :-P

Whereas SPQR learned everything he knows from the right-wing remedial class on OLO : )

Craig,

Dealing with your flaccid points, by paragraph:

Atrocities occurred in both the early caliphates, and the OE, under Islamic doctrine. The subject of my post was what choices non-believers have under the doctrine. The paper I cited, on Page 1 states, "Islam and caliphate political tradition become the base on which Ottoman empire built its society."

Regarding a pissing contest about cultural advancement under the early caliphates c.f. the OE, enjoy yourself till your bladder empties. It's irrelevant to my post. On your assertion, "The Ottoman Empire ...... had almost nothing in common with the Caliphates." You've got hours of enjoyment right there if you can find someone interested enough to take you on. Perhaps you should open a new thread.

The highlight of your post was the final paragraph. Well done on thinking that one up

THIS IS A WARNING TO ALL INFIDELS (NON BELIEVERS) ISSUED BY AN EX MUSLIM WHO KNOWS ABOUT THESE THINGS) IGNORE IT AT YOUR OWN PERIL!

"I was born and raised as Muslim. My whole family is still Muslim. I know every genetic code of Muslim. I know Islamic brain. I live and breath with them. I am an insider. I left Islam when I understood that Islam is a sick and evil religion. The following are the Islamic message to the West.

ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION, nor is it a cult. In it's fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious (only the beard), legal, political, economic, social, and military components.

To the infidels of the West:

The Constitution for the new Islamic Republics of EuroArabia and AmerIslamia is under construction.

We will fight the infidel to death.

- Meanwhile American laws will protect us.
- Democrats and Leftist will support us.
- N.G.O.s will legitimize us.
- C.A.I.R. will incubate us.
- The A.C.L.U. will empower us.
- Western Universities will educate us.
- Mosques will shelter us
- O.P.E.C. will finance us
- Hollywood will love us.
- Kofi Annan and most of the United Nations will cover our asses.

Our children will immigrate from Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Indonesia and even from India to the US and to the other Western countries. They will go to the West for education in full scholarship. America is paying and will continue to pay for our children’s educations and their upbringing in state funded Islamic schools.

We will use your welfare system. Our children will also send money home while they are preparing for Jihad.

We will take the advantage of American kindness, gullibility, and compassion. When time comes, we will stab them in the back. We will say one thing on the camera and teach another thing to our children at home. We will give subliminal messages to our children to uphold Islam at any cost.

Cont....

..Cont

Our children in America will always care more about Islamic Country’s interest than US interest.

We will teach our children Islamic supremacy from the very childhood. We will teach them not to compromise with Infidel. Once we do that from the very early age our children won’t hesitate to be martyr. We will take over the Europe first and then US will be the next. We already have a solid ground in the UK, Holland, Sweden, Spain, Italy, Germany, and now in the US.

Our children will marry Caucasian in Europe and in America. We will mixed with intricate fabric of the Western society but still will remember to Jihad when time comes. Who are we?

We are the “sleeper cells”.

We will raise our children to be loyal to Islam and Mohammad only. Everything else is secondary.

At the time of the real fight we will hold our own children as our armour. When American or Israeli troops shoot at us the world will be watching. Imagine,… Imagine the news in the world “Death of Muslim babies by infidels”.

We know CNN, ABC, CBS are broadcasting live. Al-Jazeera will pour gasoline on the fire. The news will spread like wildfire. “Americans killed 6 babies, 10 babies”. “Jews killed two women”,
Keep your Nukes in your curio cabinets. Keep your aircraft carrier or high-tech weaponry in the showcase. You can't use them against us because of your own higher moral standard. We will take the advantage of your higher moral standard and use it against you. We won’t hesitate to use our children as suicide bomber against you.

Visualize the news flash all over the world, …Moslem mother is sobbing, ….crying. ….Her babies are killed by Jews and Americans, the whole world is watching live. Hundreds of millions of Muslims all around the world are boiling. They will march through Europe. We will use our women to produce more babies who will in turn be used as armor/shield. Our babies are the gift from Allah for Jihad.

Cont...

..Cont

West manufactures their tanks in the factory. We will manufacture our military force by natural means, by producing more babies. That is the way it is cheaper.

You infidels at this site cannot defeat us. We are 1.2 billion. We will double again. Do you have enough bullets to kill us?

On the camera:

- We will always say, “Islam is the religion of Peace.”
- We will say, “Jihad is actually inner Jihad.”
- Moderate Muslim will say there is no link between Islam and Terrorism and the
West will believe it because the West is so gullible.
- Moderate Muslim all over the world will incubate Jihadist by their talk by defending Islam.
- Using Western Legal system we will assert our Sharia Laws, slowly but surely.
- We will increase in number. We will double again.

You will be impressed when you meet a moderate Muslim personally. As your next-door neighbour, coworker, student, teacher, engineer, professionals you may even like us. You will find us well mannered, polite, humble that will make you say, “wow, Muslims are good and peaceful people”, But, we will stab you in your back when you are sleeping as we did on 911.

There will be more 911 in Europe and in America. We will say, “We do not support terrorism but America got what it deserved.”

Muslims, CAIR, ISNA, MPAC and other international Islamic Organization will unite. We will partner with Leftist, ACLU, with Koffi Annan, and the UN, and if we have to then even with France. Fasten your seatbelt. The war of civilizations has just begun.

We will recite Quran and say Allah-Hu-Akbar before beheading infidels, as we have been doing it. We will video tape those and send it to all infidels to watch. They will surrender - ISLAM means surrender.

We will use your own values of kindness against you.

You are destined to loose! Chilling…..
Sent in by a fellow Patriot."

...

Yes indeed Constance, and all that yelling only goes to show that there are sadly demented people in every religion.