Discussion Adrift !

The article being discussed by the Forum quotes the Prime Ministers's security statement promising to clamp down on those "who incite religious or racial hatred" and those who participate in "blatantly spreading discord and division".

The author also points out the fallacy of the en vogue trend to associate everything Islamic with everything anti-western and thereby everything un-Australian. He warns that this recurring theme is starting to promote hate, disenfranchising people and sowing the seeds of discord in society, which is not good for Australian society and for its democracy.

A brief look at the prevalent environment is necessary to make sense of the points being raised in the discussion.

Australia compared with other countries is an island...of peace and tranquility, yet being part of the global village is effected by the chaos in the world. The world is an arena of competing national interests with ever raging quest for resources and increased influence. The stronger nations are engaged in the pursuits of economic, territorial, or geopolitical advantages, but they mask these dictates of real politick behind more palatable phrases of pursuit of peace or destruction of WMD and war on terror etc. The current turmoil in the Middle East is rooted in the West's desire to control the resources of the region; invasion of Egypt by Israel, Britain and France in 1956 over nationalization of Suez Canal and removal from power the elected prime minister Mosaddegh in a coup on 19 August 1953, by the CIA and MI6, and later
installation of Shah of Iran, are two glaring examples. The mass scale terrorism was introduced for destruction of main rival of the Western World; The Soviet Union. Mujahideen were created by the West and were pumped up to defend their faith Islam with the world behind them. Brzezinski who was US National Security Advisor at the time, addressed the Afghan Mujahideen as soldiers of God and said " your cause is right and God is on your side". http://youtu.be/uhFleLinwEM. "People we are fighting today, we funded" (US Secretary of State http://youtu.be/LNB4jtFrg1E.)

Continued..

Continues:-
Then the greed for the oil of the region triggered the occupation of Iraq and the world was told it was to destroy the WMD...... Iraq never had any. Iraq or its regime at the time had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was a secular nation; having nothing to do with Islam or Islamism.
Then Libyan government was toppled with the assistance of Western recruited mercenaries, who spilled over to Syria, where the "opposition" has been actively supported by the West. IS is armed with US weapons and was raised by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as divulged by the US Vice President, who later retracted his statement. Finally the role and interest of Israel is a major factor in the Middle Eastern environment. It is viewed as illegal occupier of Arab land and has caged the Arab population, subjecting it to genocide , and in the words of Jimmy Carter, apartheid

Public opinion maters. Therefore a proper propaganda strategy has to be in tandem with every geopolitical initiative. Remember, both Eisenhower and Nixon had decided, on two separate occasions, to nuke North Korea but both failed to do so, because of one reason; insufficient public support at home. The public opinion has to be prepared first, and facts are twisted and concocted, if necessary.

Richard Perle’s strategy of “de-contextualization is one such effort of misleading the public opinion. ” Perle, a leading neoconservative militarist (and a prominent advisor of the Likud party of Israel), coined the term “de-contextualization” as a way to explain both the desperate acts of terrorism in general and the violent tactics of the Palestinian resistance to occupation in particular. He argued that in order to blunt the widespread global criticism of the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, their resistance to occupation must be de-contextualized; that is, we must stop trying to understand the territorial, geopolitical and historical reasons that some groups turn to terrorism for. Instead, he suggested, the reasons for the violent reactions of such groups must be sought in the arenas of culture and/or religion—in the Islamic way of thinking.

Continued...

Continues:-

De-contextualization strategy has been part of a well-orchestrated effort to divert attention from the root causes of terrorism.
Samuel P Huntington expanded the same argument to coin his theory of “the clash of civilizations,” implying that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with modernization and Western values.( the argument reverberated on this Forum too) He argued that international conflicts erupt not because of imperialistic pursuits of economic, territorial, or geopolitical advantages but because of non-Western civilizations’ reactions to Western power and values.

It is this environment in which this Forum is discussing the article. To recapitulate, the environment is:-

. Stronger nations are engaged in the pursuits of economic, territorial, or geopolitical advantages

. The aggressing nations do not confess that they are engaged in these pursuits but coin palatable phrases, to mask the real aim.

. Blatant lies are told to deceive the public opinion at home and abroad. And gullible of the world are ready to believe in the lies like the Iraqi WMD. People at home enraged by the 9/11 are made to acquiesce massacre of 1.5 million even though the victims had nothing to do with 9/11

. Propaganda or disinformation strategy is in tandem with every strategic initiative.

. Top intellectuals assist in twisting the facts and providing propaganda themes.

. Definitions are changed to project any one as friend or foe, at will. Afghans fighting the Soviet occupation were "Soldiers of God with the World Behind Them" and same Afghans were terrorist when fighting the US/NATO occupation. And the gullible believed.

. Military Coup d'état in Egypt is the "Way to Democracy"and the gullible believe.

. Qaddafi was a despot and had to be removed....others in the region are not despots and the gullible believe.

. A vast majority swallows as truth, what ever lies are rammed down their throat by the main stream media. Some zealots get so worked up that they kill Sikhs as Muslims. This class is so full with their ignorance that they feel no need to have their facts straight, first hand. They are the lot that spreads hate.


Continued...

Continues:-

. Some people make effort to find facts to discern truth, in order to make their own judgement. They are a minority yet provide hope for the sanity to prevail. Lesley Hazleton is one such person who devoted three weeks to study Quran first hand and actually ended up spending three months in doing so and then came out to tell others how false were the allegations on this book. http://youtu.be/3Y2Or0LlO6g

Australia is relatively an island of peace and tranquility. Should its peace and tranquility be preserved or should the fire of hatred kindled by falsehood elsewhere be imported in to burn it. That is the question before the Forum.

What is relevant to the topic is that is it good for Australia to incite religious or racial hatred and to blatantly spread discord and division?
And is promotion of hate, disenfranchising people and sowing the seeds of discord, good for Australian society and for its democracy?

These are two questions. Please take a position on these points under discussion. Squeers, has taken a position in his/her post of Wednesday, 25 February 2015 3:41:01 PM "The idea that we're, "a people of community, of equal rights and believers in a fair go" is patent nonsense perpetuated by colloquial history and pc propaganda. We're actually a nation of mean-spirited ethnocentrists and racists, by and large."

That is an opinion, I do not agree with, but respect the person for honesty.
The honesty, some others who have posted hate, have not shown. They have gone.....we hate Islam and Muslims because...... "Because", here is irrelevant. Every one has a "because" the killers of Sikhs, taking them as Muslims had their " because". Those who fired at their temple in California, unable to differentiate it from a Masjid, had a "because" and the hater who took the lives of three bright young students, the other day, had his " because". No "because" can justify hatred.

Please keep the justifications to yourself, these are totally irrelevant to the discussion. State with honesty that you are for or against hatred.

.


Concluded.

Luciferace,

Your post of 3 March

The right context will avoid confusion.

ONE: In the current discussion, you use the word ‘crime’ on my behalf even though I responded to you with “Without calling their actions ‘crimes’ one can question the validity of..” for US policies prior to 9/11;

TWO: The word ‘crime’ does apply to the killing of about one Million civilians in the war unleashed in Afghanistan and Iraq. You think it was not a crime, it is your outlook and in contrast with the ongoing effort in UK Parliament and by some in the public to try Toni Blare for that crime.

THREE: Now you bring in the previous thread! The main contention, to remind you, was your insistence of forcing your ‘secular’ democracy on other countries where I maintained that the choice of running their governments is the prerogative of each nation.

FOUR: Also on the previous thread, I pointed to the universal right of every country to have control of their resources to which you responded with your famous observation ‘you have fully bared your teeth’, but then retracted in part, but you have not still answered my question as to what made you think that I had bared my teeth – apparently you jumped to my perceived support for the so-called Islamic state, which was a huge error of judgement.

FIVE: Now your <<please state which ME nations have no control over their assets>> seems to have to do with the item FOUR above. Please see that to take this further, I will have put the description in its right context which will require for me to reproduce your comments in response to my contention – luckily every word is recorded and can be readily quoted from the previous posts. Please let me know if you want me to do that.

From your perspective then, McAdam, you would support Islamicists' retaliating against the West, in self-defense?