Not before time, if it's actually the case.

What are the values which support terrorist attacks and barbarity ? What do its adherents stand for, and on what do they rely for that authority ?

What are the values of those of us who oppose such barbarity ? On what authority do we rely ? Certainly, the principles of the Enlightenment, so painfully, slowly and imperfectly developed over many centuries - the principles of the rule of law, equality of all before the law, one person-one vote, the freedoms of speech and expression, and equal opportunity for all - imperfect yes, but a giant step forward compared with the backward principles that terrorists are aspiring to impose on the world.

So what do we stand for that the terrorists so violently oppose ?

Joe

It is simplistic to say that all this violence comes as a result of adherence to Islam. It is simplistic because it gives credence to religion as being a logical and reasonable argument for doing anything. Religion is never logical or reasonable.

People do religious things because they do not know how to deal with their feelings. When they are frightened they resort to religious behaviour. They open their holy books looking for verses that might comfort them. They say prayers, fondle their beads or recite mantras. When they are angry they do similar things and look for verses that remind them that God will ultimately smite their foes. How many times have we seen people who are not religious at all resort to praying when under extreme stress? It is what they do when they do not know what else to do.

In most cases there are things you can do when you feel fear and anger and religious behaviour is not logical at all in response. In fact it is never logical because either you can fix the problem yourself or you can not have any proof that a God exists. The only course then is to accept nature.

People who respond to reality with religious behaviour will feel threatened when such behaviour appears to be challenged by outsiders who do not use these same methods. The more dependent they are the more likely they are to become violent in order to protect these methods. This is what religious people who resort to violence are doing – they are fighting not to protect ideas or values but behaviours which they are emotionally dependent on. It is like the reaction you get if you try to confiscate the bottle of an alcoholic.

When such dependent people form groups to protect their neurotic behaviours then you get more widespread and organised violence but it is all about protecting the way they deal with reality. It is primitive and immature and is certainly not based on ideas and values and it is a waste of time to treat them as such.

Agreed,

Islam is the invention of an Arabian bandit leader and his followers, a violent Muslim is a devout Muslim and the jihad will continue until the entire planet is Islamic.

Yes, Western bombs from 20,000 feet are much more religeous.

Phanto, read the article! Your summation completely misses the point.

It doesn't matter if being religious is logical or not. The current wave of Islamic extremism spreading through the middle east, Africa and isolated incidents in western countries is a direct result of people who practice and believe the teaching of Muhammed. Muhammed's teaching is the foundation of Islam and Islam's followers are Muslim.

If logic could be brought into the negotiations with these people it would be easy to find a resolution. Logic is western thinking; these people are not trying to be logical. They are spreading the faith as directed by their Prophet.

I stumbled across a new term for ISIS that is being advocated by the French Foreign Minister, Daesh. He feels using ISIS somewhat legitimises the group as that is what they call themselves. I think this is stupid politically correct BS along the lines of replacing the term Global Warming (which is the crux of the argument) with climate change, a phenomena no one can deny. I hope we don't see our politicians take up this use but I have notice one regular contributor to OLO has started.

Mac why is the USA making sure that China is surrounded by weapons of mass destruction from Australia to Japan and elsewhere in the Chinese region, likewise with Russia?, it is not of Islam but Christianity to wipe these people off the planet if need be, dominance and control being the aim, if we take an individual like Tony Abbott a devout Catholic who prays to his make believe God that his non Christian beliefs of not helping mankind by turning boats back and war destruction etc makes a complete mockery of what he is believing in, with thoughts like these in his head he should burn in hell as per his Bible, after all I am a Christian he thinks, there is nothing Christian about what he is doing, the Islam Jihadists have the same thoughts in their head, let's kill and destroy people in the name of our beliefs in religion, no different to Abbott, religion is a curse upon all mankind, always has been and always will be

Chris. A well argued essay which highlights the current confusion of some cowardly political discourse. The use of moral or religious equivalence in explaining or excusing Islamic violence is the act of the 'usefull idiot'.

ConservativeHippie:

You should read the article more carefully and the author's bio if you need more convincing.

It is an apology for 'good' religion over bad religion. It is a Christian who wants to paint Islam as evil and his own religion as a good thing. It is not the violence and terrorism he is really concerned about but the threat that Islamic behaviours pose to Christain behaviours. All violence and terrorism is wrong no matter what causes it. We should be dealing with the problem not as a religious issue but as a human issue. The author should focus on the violence and not the religious rationalisations for that violence because that is what they are.

No religion should be allowed to justify their behaviour they should be forced to examine the deeper reasons for it and to see that one religious person is motivated by the same fears as the next.

Well and given what it could cost us; as Joe has said, not before time!
Rhrosty.

141 words non stop... only crazy people ramble on like that.

One big flaw in your thinking Ojnab, is the Jihadists are openly declaring war on the West and other Muslims in the name of God (Islam). The Jihadist believe they are fighting a religious war.

Not once in the last 100+ years has the USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany or China started a war on religious grounds or for the purpose of spreading Christianity to non-believers. The fighters may have been Christian and hoped god was on their side, but they were fighting for their countries, not for Christianity.

Although the western countries you fear so much and consider to be so evil are primarily Christian in belief and values, they are also essentially secular in nature. If you want to consider democracy and/or capitalism forms of religion then you might have a slight argument but the people in the armies under these systems wouldn't believe religion was the motivating factor for their call to duty.

There are no redeeming qualities in ISIS. Quit trying to make excuses for these ratbags.

Ojnab,

I agree with most of ConservativeHippy's comments, so I'm not going to repeat them, apart from emphasising that the motivation for Western policy is not the proselytisation of Christianity, but strategic and economic interests. You could argue that the manner in which Western governments have pursued their interests is morally repugnant, however that's a completely different issue.

Islam, unlike Christianity was propagated by violence from the beginning, so I think Ashton has a valid argument, there is no moral equivalence.

I'm not a Christian BTW.

Conservativehippie

You mention your dislike for the term ‘Da’esh” claiming:

1.That “one regular contributor to OLO has started ”using that term and

2.That the term, recently employed by the French Foreign Minister (and interestingly, employed late last year by the Abbott government, but now abandoned) is “political correctness BS”

First, may I say that I use that term and hope I am not alone amongst OLO contributors who does.

Second, the term is far, far from “political BS”.

The Anglosphere’s partners in the Arabian Gulf often use the term as does Egypt, which is no sympathiser of ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh.

The term is an acronym of ISIS’ full name:

ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish, Da'eesh, or Da’esh.

It is favoured by many hostile to those ethnically cleansing Syria and Iraq because it both denies the terror group legitimacy for a state or a proposed caliphate and because the group vehemently despises the term. As Associated Press claimed some time ago,the fighters threatened to cut out the tongue of anyone who publicly used the term Da’esh.

To boot, many Arabs like the term Da’esh because it sounds similar to an Arabic word that means to crush underfoot.

If you listen to the blessings given to troops by U.S. military chaplains they have an apologetic tone, a Padre might say.
"Lord Jesus we strive to follow your example and hold in our hearts compassion and tolerance of our fellow man but today is a day for war...".
The politicians have to apologise for Islam because they have a gun to their head, the Australian government has no effective jurisdiction over Muslims and if they lose the co-operation of the Imams then the Islamic "community", ceases to be a part of multicultural Australia.

So, aside from using a religious pretext, what are the values, the principles, that the terrorists are actually fighting for ? What principles should we be defending with every means we can against their barbarity ?

I suggest that above all, they have to include:

* equality before the law, i.e. the secular and democratically-decided and -enforced law of the State, of all, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious background, and sexual orientation; and

* all the freedoms of expression, up to and including the rights to offend idiotic beliefs.

* the opposition to practices which disfigure and cripple or restrict the rights of children and women in particular.

Surely we are beyond, as a civilisation, taking our every cue from some out-dated book (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.), and surely we can think for ourselves ? Otherwise, what the hell does it mean to be active and equal participants - questioning and arguing participants - in the modern world, as we are all entitled to be ?

Get stuck in :)

Joe

To oversimplify, it seems to me there are two dominant responses in the west to the challenge of Islamic radicalism. One is to say that it is an inevitable and inescapable product of Islam itself; the only solution lies in secularism. The other is to argue that it is a corruption of authentic Islam, that can and should be combatted within Islam: the solution to radical Islam is moderate Islam.

I don’t think comparing the failings of Islam and Christianity is intended to draw moral equivalence, by claiming we’re no better than them. Rather, it supports the second position. It shows that religious belief can be corrupted to appear to validate ideas and actions that are totally at odds with the religion’s values (the same can be said of political ideologies). And it demonstrates that these corruptions are not inevitable or permanent – Islam can denounce Islamic radicalism just as Christianity can denounces its past excesses. Indeed, most Islamic leaders already do exactly that

Hi Rhian,

If we must talk about Islamism, then how's this for an outrageous idea :

That ISIS-type Islamism, well any Islamism really, is actually a strict adherence to Islam. Ultimately there is no such thing as a moderate interpretation of Islam. Supposedly the word of Allah, as exemplified in the Koran, can never be changed, not a jot of it. The only way out is apostasy.

This is the dilemma for Muslims who want to pull back from the barbarity of ISIS: ISIS observes the Koran to the letter and they know it. They know too that such Islamism does not belong in the modern world.

It's a terrible situation for many Muslims when they have to confront what it means to adhere strictly to the Koran and as they search for alternatives to barbarity, and they deserve our full support as they try to sort out their dilemma.

Joe

Joe,
That's exactly the point, ISIS is wholly reactionary in it's politics but the politics is way down the list behind all the things they have to achieve in order to bring about the final war.
The Islamic State, or the Caliphate is real, it's now assuming all of the functions of a state in it's area of influence, the Caliphate so constituted is merely the jumping off point for a whole new series of events in the fulfillment of the prophecy.
If you've got the time I highly recommend keeping up to date with their online magazine "Dabiq", they are our sworn enemies of course but their reasons for doing what they do are sound from the point of view of a devout Muslim.
http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-propaganda-magazine-dabiq#
What's more ISIS have declared many western Imams apostates and once the ISIS supporters in Europe have the numbers they'll start whacking "moderates" and liberal Imams, then the politicians will have literally nobody to negotiate with and nobody to rein in the hotheads.

Loudmouth (Joe) the most sensible comment that I have read as yet on this essay. Truly, they are on the horns of a somewhat intractable dilemma.

Joe
I agree, but I think the problem you identify is common to all forms of fundamentalism: religious, political and other

And it's a rapidly moving situation: now that the reactionaries have captured Ramadi and butchered whoever they feel like there, and forced half a million people to flee in panic to Baghdad, what might be the impact on the Iraqi government ?

Is it approaching a tipping point, where the catastrophes become too much, where the fascists rapidly move towards Baghdad, amidst all the confusion, and the government pisses off to Iran ? When southern (i.e. south of Kurdistan) Iraq falls to the fascists ?

Obviously, if that happens, Iran will intervene, big-time. And, given the current hassles in Yemen, Saudi Arabia will then intervene obliquely, indirectly, implicitly, on the side of ISIS, and against Iran. Pakistan will launch a series of the usual street outrages, flags being burnt, women being stoned, buses burnt, etc., etc., and in its rag-tag way, get stuck into Iran from the east.

India is an ally of Iran's, so what might happen if one nuclear power gets stuck into another ? Each believing that the afterlife is quite attractive, all things considered: you get either a better life or 72 virgins: sweet, either way. So bring it on.

We live in a world of idiots. So hunker down, stock up on baked beans, pasta and tomato paste, and wait it out. I recommend a hundred casks of Sovereign Point and the complete works of Salman Rushdie, Arthur Upfield, Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Fernand Braudel, and Garrison Keilor.

Joe

Judea-Christian secular mechanisation is the tried and true effective Western way of war. Its safe and value free.

No-one questions the morals-politics or religion of a Reaper's Hellfire or an F/A-18s laser guided bomb. They may terrify people who are targets, or are near the target, but that doesn't count right? Such a question can be neatly excluded from this thread.

The oil in Iraq and a little bit in Syria is a nice secular, objective we can defend-depend on :)

Also those ungrateful Saudis (with alot of oil) need defending - while many of those Saudis fund and even provide much of the Sunni manpower for IS/ISIS/ISIL.

Conservative Hippie, there are no redeeming factors in Isis, there are no redeeming factors with the Japanese in WW11, what I try to point out is that this years hate maybe next years love, having lived through the end of WW11 the Japanese were a hated race by nearly all Australians, loved by most now, Isis is now hated like the Japanese in WW11, I do not agree with them at all, like the Japanese at that time.
Iran " Axis of Evil" had Julie Bishop sucking up recently to them for any benefit we may require, Saudi Arabia a friend of the USA today if required could change its tune at any time in the future,or be on both sides at the same time, we are never told the truth, only what they want us to know, this is a problem with the whole world now, blame this or blame that but it may not be the correct blame which only governments know, not us minions.

Ojnab, not a great example, the Japanese are civilised people for one thing, not sub human savages like Arabs so the Japs are a lot easier to like.
Japanese Imperialism only lasted from about 1937 until 1942 and the Japanese cities were bombed flat, showered with incendiaries and then finally two nuclear weapons were dropped. The Japanese leaders saw that the writing was on the wall and surrendered, they had to submit totally to allied demands, pay something like $60 billion(1951 dollars) in compensation and their country is still occupied by the U.S to this day.
The damage done to the world by Islam in 1400 years of relentless hostility is incalculable,I mean how do you make reparations for Tamerlane killing 5% of the world's population? Who pays reparations to the Indians for their 26 million dead or for the near extermination of the Armenians in the 7th century? How do you calculate the value of the damage done to Nineveh? What if they flatten Leptis Magna and Palmyra? What if they get into Petra or Giza?

Dear Jay,

<<The damage done to the world by Islam in 1400 years of relentless hostility is incalculable>>

That damage is indeed horrific, but what makes you believe that it was done by Islam rather than by blood-thirsty Arab tribes who, if there weren't Islam would find some other banner?

While the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, died in the year 632, according to Robert Spencer nobody heard about Islam or the Koran until the 790's. During that period the Arab tribes expanded from Medina and conquered many lands, but while there are many records of that by the conquered, none mentions "Islam", "Muslim", "Koran", "Muhammad", etc. That means that the Arabs did what they did before inventing the Koran, continue to do what they do, falsely in the name of Muhammad who rolls in his grave; and would continue to behave that way even if Islam was somehow forgotten.

I don't agree with the author that Islam itself is at the root of all the current radical terrorism in the world.

Religion, or beliefs in invisible gods, doesn't 'cause' violence, human beings do that, and no one group of humans can hold the moral high ground as far as violence goes.

We ALL have violence in our own past ancestral history, and many suffer violence-infested lives today. Greed, power and money are at the root of all violence

We need to denounce violence in whatever, and in whomever, form it takes.

I don't agree with the author that Islam itself is at the root of all the current radical terrorism in the world. - Suseonline

Islam preaches it is the one and only true religion for all mankind; all other religions are false. The word of Allah must be spread throughout the world to give everyone a chance, those that don't convert are infidels. Death to Infidels.

No other religion or religious group is committing terrorism and threatening world order. No other religious group is breeding like rabbits and intending to conquer the world one way or another.

What are you not getting Suse? If it were not for Islam the current situation would not exist.

Hi Suse,

"We need to denounce violence in whatever, and in whomever, form it takes."

Yes, we need to denounce ideologies which are predicated on violence, on death and destruction as presumed pathways to paradise. But of course, people also need to protect themselves from cults of death and destruction, in order to restore as much as possible their former, peaceful lives, and for that, it is quite proper for them to take up arms. What alternative could they have if they want to keep their heads on their shoulders ?

We come back to it: What values are we opposing ? What values do we support ? i.e. now, today, in 2015. Yes, we should uphold the values of tolerance provided those we tolerate are also tolerant. We need to strengthen unity and inclusiveness across the diversity of Australians, and we need to uphold the rule of law and equality for all, regardless of gender, etc. We need to strengthen a culture of life, of equality and of peace.

And we need the courage to condemn brutality, murder and destruction where it takes place, i.e. now, today, in 2015. We must oppose always a culture of death and destruction, of barbarism and brutality, no matter what book its adherents may resort to justify their vileness.

Joe

Joe if only the world was perfect, we looked after each other with compassion and love, what a perfect world, it ain't, we have people, men women and children starving in countries, we have religions that promote breeding just to keep themselves in power over their blind to see religious peasants, when visiting Nepal some years back it was more of concern of the people to place gold leaf on a temple than feed yourself, if you think like that owing to your religion then starve, do not cry poverty, we also have religious and slight of hand wars like the USA, stealth being its aim, we have people living in mansions and castles all having the same body attributes and functions as the poor, why do the poor worship these monied people, film-stars, singers, sport-stars, do they not realise they are keeping these people in la la land of the monied gentry.
Stated in this morning's paper, which is true, preachers on all sides justify barbarity as performing the will of "God", It's time we consigned religion to the anthropological dustbin, the Hateful Bible (Joshua 6-21), (numbers 31-37-18) as quoted, although not following directly, given the chance we will follow the likes of Isis and blow people to bits to control the world just like them.

phanto: Your quote: "It is simplistic because it gives credence to religion as being a logical and reasonable argument for doing anything. Religion is never logical or reasonable." is only partly true. To us, Islam is based on false premises but it is not illogical.

Islam is very well reasoned and sometimes perfectly logical. This is mainly why they are so dangerous. The Islamic scholars apply structured reasoning all the time to determine the proper way to act. This is why, for example, ISIS destroy ancient statues when they conquer new territory because according to Islam it is forbidden for anyone to try to much the creation of Allah hence logically as a consequence all statues must be destroyed. Here is a discussion on this subject: http://islamqa.info/en/7222, as you can see it has the form of a well constructed argument. It is not a collection ambiguous unconnected statements (like many people here often produce).

Here is another example which has even stricter logic (with a bit of work it may well qualify as a "valid" logic argument in the modern sense of mathematical logic if written out in logic symbols): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJv7s0eytMM (start 10:00 - he uses rational argument to prove the existence of god)

Also, in case you haven't noticed, quite a few of these radical Islamic terrorist are highly educated. eg: one of the 9/11 mob was an Engineer not an uneducated illiterate, another example closer to home is the Australian Doctor that just joined ISIS.

So the Islamic problem that we have is not they are stupid and don't make rational arguments (ie: start with premises then apply logic to derive conclusions). The problem is with the premises that they start arguing from. Their initial foundational beliefs are ridiculous to you and me. In other words, their perceived reality simply doesn't correspond with ours.

thinkabit is this the real reason for the problems in the Middle East or are there other reasons, such as oil wells, poverty and displacement of its citizens?, we must never look one way on the problems of the world, people and Governments always create problems for each other, believing in any religion for a start does not show that you are thinking with your head, the invisible God or Allah, where are they, only in your mind, if this stupidity is entrenched with killing then killing you will do, likewise another says, no contraception, breed like rabbits, so we do not use contraception, do not accept another persons blood and so on, stupidity is in all religions, but how on earth do you stop this nonsense, perhaps you can tell me?.
Having thought about the world as a whole it is purely based on lies, the bigger the lie the gullible will most certainly follow

Gawd there are some prats on this site.

Craig by your reply you are also one of them, opinions are opinions, yours being as ridiculous as any one else

Thinkabit:

How can you have a logical argument based on a false premise? If it has a false premise then it is illogical. You can't just skip bits of the process. The premise of religious people cannot be proven and until it can then they have no argument. If they are not truly arguing then what else can they be doing but rationalising?

Craig Minns is absolutely correct (possibly for the first time in his life) there are a lot of "prats" on this thread. That includes himself, and all of the other self loathing, western hating, apologists for Islam.

Susieoncrack claims that you can't blame Islam or religion for violence. Violence is all the fault of "humans." Gee, you could have some fun with that logic. The Nazis did not gas the Jews, "humans" did it. What about Onjab's little fantasy about the USA wanting to destroy China? Nup, Onjab. It is not the USA, it is "humans" who want to destroy China. Humans are all equally guilty of violence. Mother Theresa is as bad as Ghengis Ghan. The Quakers are just as bad as ISIS. Susie's mindset is indicative of just how creative people can be when they are determined to not understand a simple truth.

Phanto claims it is "simplistic" to link Islam to violence. You are right there, Phanto. It is very simple to make the connection that there is a link between Islam and somebody cutting off an aid workers head while screaming "Allah Akbar". But if you are absolutely determined not to make a screamingly obvious connection, then no amount of reasoned logic can ever permeate through your overly thick skull.

Onjab first tries a red herring. He moans about the USA surrounding China with bases. The yanks and Tony Abbot are Christians who Onjab has convinced himself want to wipe out China, therefore we are as bad as ISIS. Then he tries moral equivalence. ISIS uses violence to get what they want and so do Christians. That is the moral equivalence. That is like saying that the local policeman is just as bad as Ivan Milat because they both use violence. Although, that is probably exactly what Onjab believes. Then he says that ISIS must be OK, because well gee, everybody hated Imperial Japan but now we all drive Toyotas and Subaru's so give it time and we will all love ISIS.

Brilliant logic.

The prosecution rests...

Lego perhaps in fifty years time we will have the Isis electric car, the Allah electric car etc, all this business of beheadings will have stopped by then, remember the cruelty of the Japanese means nothing now, why did my cousin die then so you could drive around in your lovely Japanese Toyota car, I am sure he would give you hugs & kisses just for buying one now if he was to pop back.
No wonder the world is in such a mess when people on OLO cannot agree on anything.
Have a lovely day Legp

Sorry, Onjab, I should have been more explicit, i.e.

"We come back to it: What values are we opposing ? What values do we support ? .....

" .... we need the courage to condemn brutality, murder and destruction where it takes place, i.e. now, today, in 2015. We must oppose always a culture of death and destruction, of barbarism and brutality, no matter what book its adherents may resort to justify their vileness."

I certainly don't expect that the cares of the world will lessen in my lifetime, that's not the issue, Onbaj: in fact, something like the obverse. i.e. that we are currently faced with a very powerful and vile set of forces, which is exploiting the grievances and difficulties which have arisen in the last couple of centuries between one very powerful (but, in my view, backward) ideology/religion and another imperfect but dynamic one.

And I suspect it is that dynamism which is pissing off so many in the socially-stagnant parts of the world, fearful of being left behind.

In other words, the current struggle is a very big deal, from which sweetness and light are not guaranteed outcomes. In fact, neither is success for 'our' side.

Between them, these ideologies - 'ours' and 'theirs' - can claim a combined four billion or more people, so we are not witnessing some temporary perturbation, in a remote part of the world.

This is a fight to the death, Onbaj, between two fundamentally different sets of values. So what are yours ? What do you stand for ? What slogan would you call out if you were in front of a firing squad ? I firmly believe that you too have values, strictures and parables that you would be vitally concerned to pass on to your grandchildren, isn't that so ?

So, how do those values differ from those of the butchers and rapists adhering to the unnamed religion ? What 'values' do you find utterly repugnant, and relevant to the current situation ?

No fudging now :)

Joe

Joe thank you for your post, it does make sense, I personally do not like religion at all, so the antics of Isis to control the world through their ideologies is definately wrong at the same time I do not like the USA Government and there moving by stealth to also control the world, antagonism to me is no better than religion, the next war hopefully will get rid of all of us, we do not know how to live in peace and do not deserve to be here at all, poverty abounds in the world, disadvantaged people fleeing by boat, nobody wants them, no jobs for anyone any where, we all have a right to this world, it does not belong to anyone, only man made countries separate us all with their control through religion or wealth.
Joe like yourself I will never see a world where all are accepted, it is too late, but perhaps if wars do not destroy us then peace for all surely will eventuate somewhere in the future when people learn to accept and help each other instead of always wanting to kill each other for their own personal gain, to control all by some means

Obnaj,

What is striking about the current situation in the unnamed part of the world in question is the utter powerlessness of the Yanks. The current situation to our north-west has nothing tov do with the Yanks. They can do nothing about it They are not a player, strange as it way seem to those of us who take for granted that the Yanks are all-powerful, all-masterful, even if all-evil. No, they don't have a chook in this fight, much as they would like too. It's just far too complicated for them, as it is for every other outsider.

Did they start it all ? No, I don't think so, it's a struggle that's been brewing for certainly a century, basically between two civilizations, two world-outlooks, two (at least) ideologies, which are quite incompatible with each other, root and branch.

So what do we do about it, if anything ? Surely, clarify what we stand for, you and me and everybody: what are the values and aspirations that we base our stance on ?

Surely equality and freedom of expression ? Surely the importance of rational and evidence-based discussion ? Surely the impartial rule of law ? I'm not saying that those have been attained anywhere, just that they are the aims and aspirations of the Enlightenment, however imperfect and unfinished they may be.

Soon we may have to make choices: dogma or discussion, equality or obedience, progress or stagnation. This is a vital struggle over such values.

Joe

Apparently ISIS
did not realise that ISIS is the name
of an Egyptian Godess.
ISIS is therefore the name
of a very powerful
female.

The joke would appear to be on ISIS
For choosing this name

Islam equals hatred and violence, and it will never change because, to Muslims, Muhammed was the last prophet and the 'perfect' man - a perfect model for all true Muslims to follow. Only the idiot Left and Australian politicians don 't seem to know the truth about Islam.

Dear Ttbn,

The prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not an idiot - he was a saint and all the violent and obscene stories about him in the Koran and Hadith were fabricated over a century later by evil blood-thirsty Arab politicians. The one's who are most confused about him are the Muslims - had they only knew anything about the real Muhammad, the man of peace!

Onjab, you don't like the Americans.

If the US Constitution declared that Americans should "fight the non Americans that are near to you, lay ambushes for them, strike terror onto their hearts." And if the US Constitution declared that Americans should "slay the non Americans wherever you find them." And that non Americans were "the vilest of all creatures." You would not have any problem explaining how American violence is justified by their own culture and ideology.

But when Muslims are mentioned, a different standard applies. The indisputable fact that terrorism and murderous hostility to non Muslims is fully justified by Islam's religious teachings is something you are strangely unable to focus on. Instead we get these laughable proposals that ISIS is OK because the Japanese were once our enemies and now they are our friends.

The entire Muslim world is stuck in a time warp. It can never advance economically or socially like the Asians did because their stupid religion forbids it. The Muslims were once very prosperous when they sat in the middle the trade routes between India, South East Asia, China, Africa and Europe and monopolised them, but those days changed forever the minute Vasco de Gama sailed around the cape of Good Hope.

The fact that they have become so poor and backward completely confounds them. But unlike the Asians who realised that adopting western ways was the way to prosperity, the stupid Muslims thought that the reason why they are so miserably poor is because they are not religious enough. Allah has forsaken them because they have adopted a few western things like music and female education. THAT is why they are going backwards into the future. They think that the way forward is to do exactly what Mohammad commanded, and what he did himself. Jihad. Kill everyone who is not a Muslim, enslave them, take their property, terrorise them, make their women sex slaves.

If you think that ISIS is going to start manufacturing Ipods, motor cars, computer tablets, or satellites, you must be insane.

Yuyutsu tell us Muhammad is a saint. Where's the proof?

May 22, 2014 - "The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, principal leader of the Church of England, issued a statement Monday that was without precedent in Church history. The Archbishop announced that the Anglican Church’s general synod has voted to recognize the Prophet Muhammad as a saint. Saint Prophet Muhammad shall be honoured on his birthday, according to the Islamic calendar. Although this move is seen by many as an attempt at reconciliation with Islam, many Muslims are outraged. Some Muslims claim the Anglicans are attempting to marginalize the great Prophet Muhammad and distort his message.

Sadly efforts by the Church of England to be more inclusive have, inevitably, come under attack by those on the extreme and radical right. Some extremists and reactionary Christians claim that Muhammad is not and cannot be a Christian saint. Some claim that declaring the sainthood of Muhammad is even a form of apostasy or blasphemy."

con't

con't

So even when the Anglican Church declares Muhammad a saint, that's not good enough for the Muslims. Declaring Muhammad a saint was offensive.

So, then on the same day we get this, the height of political correctness gone mad - "The Anglican Archbishop, in a speech earlier today, observed that “Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. Muhammad is now the most common name for new born male babies in England. If the Church of England hopes to remain relevant, we must find a way to reconcile our Anglican Christian beliefs with those of Islam. Great strides have already been made. We now have Sharia courts in the UK to assist Muslims, as advocated by my predecessor. In time, the Holy Qur’an ought to be placed alongside the Bible as a book of spiritual wisdom in our churches. We must make absolutely clear that Anglicanism in no way claims to be superior to Islam. We seek common ground with Islam, recognizing that Islam is the future of Britain.”

"Islam is the future of Britain", even though only 4.5% of the population is Muslim; if the Arch Bishop isn't going to stand up for Christianity then his prediction is probably right? Let's hope if the Christians are just going to roll over, that the secularist majority aren't so willing to sell out the country.

If the logic of any mythology or religion is that what is written, cannot ever be changed, not a word, since it is the exact copy of the One Book in the possession of their god, then its adherents are stuck with a fairly dire choice:

* the easy one, just keep their heads down, and stick with the Book;

* the far harder choice, to question bits of it, and ultimately much of it and abandon the religion - and risk losing their heads altogether.

One or the other, there may be no middle way for such believers. A billion and a half people have made, are making, and/or will have to make that choice.

It would be very painful, necessarily involving life-changing decisions, the abandonment of an entire way of seeing the world and adopting another, incredibly traumatic. I wish them well with all my heart.

Joe

Lego what is life like to be so serious, get a life and enjoy a take off occasionally, you may feel better, or take a laxettei instead, a good clean out may make life more bearable for you.

Hi Obbaj,

I think LEGO is on the button - why do simple-minded people try to make silly jokes about very serious issues ? What is going on in the Middle East isn't just a sort of lark, a few hot-heads sticking it up the system. ISIS now controls more territory - in Syria ! - than the Syrian regime. It controls the entire Euphrates in Iraq above Baghdad. It imposes a reign of terror directly on many millions of people, and has caused more than ten million people in Syria and Iraq to be displaced.

Hundreds of thousands are currently fleeing from Ramadi towards Baghdad. Expect the fifth column of ISIS in Baghdad to launch a wave of bombings, in market-places, mosques, pre-schools, old people's homes if they can find them, anyone will do when vile ends justify any means.

If ISIS advances into Baghdad, what will Iran do ? If Iran gets stuck in boots and all, what will the Saudis do ? Turkey ? Soon enough, Pakistan on the other side of Iran ?

Also expect waves of Iraqi refugees to be getting on boats, alongside Rohingya refugees, all genuinely refugees by any definition. I know Australia is a big country, we can take millions, although it might knock our budget deficits out of the park for a while.

And what country is missing from all of this ? Why, I do believe it's the Yanks. After all, in a multi-sided war, which side do you pick, without upsetting many other 'sides' ? Even if you choose to oppose whatever the obviously worst side is, that's not how other 'sides' see it.

Of course, the Yanks will have to get involved, and pretty quickly, if they are to save Baghdad, and to act as a buffer between Iran and the Saudis, between Shia and Sunni. If they don't, and if they can't hold ISIS back, then we certainly will be looking at a catastrophe, and for decades to come, the outcome of which is not given.

A catastrophe from which we will not be immune.

Joe

Just playing the troll, Onjab?

OK, I won't respond to your posts again. I can't be bothered with trolls.

CORRECTION - Muhammad may not be a saint after all.

This morning, upon reading Yuyutsu say Muhammad was a saint, I asked Google and was lead to the information I posted. I have to admit I was hasty and cut and pasted a couple paragraphs from the long article. This evening I re-read the article and now have cause to believe its totally fabricated. There is no other Google link to any main stream media coverage of the Anglican Church granting Muhammad sainthood.

Here is a link to the article that I think duped me - https://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/church-of-england-declares-the-prophet-muhammad-a-saint/comment-page-1/#comment-29392

My apologises for not being thorough

Hi Lardmouth, the situation in the Middle East is a power struggle between groups of people who happen to be Muslim. The same sorts of power struggles have been happening in that region for thousands of years - well before there were Muslims.

Never mind the facts though, eh?

Hi Craig,

Is it me or do you always come across as smug and fatuous, in your Olympian pronouncements ?

We'll see, won't we ? I hope that events turn in such a way that I need to apologise to you, but so far it doesn't look that way.

And if they do unfold as I suggest, I suppose we'll never hear from you again. You'll have far more important things to do.

Joe

Hi Loadmash,
I'm sure you can't be the only one who feels that way, there are many other nitwits on this site.

Hi Craig,

Before you go off to school, is there any chance that you may attend to the issues raised on this thread ? Juvenile bubbles can be fun but if you are not up to discussing these serious matters, then I suggest you wait until you are older. In the meantime, sit back and try to learn something.

No, you won't: you try to come back with yet another half-witted comment. Prove me wrong.

Joe

Hi Lobemush, no half-witted comments, I've realised I can't possibly compete on that basis in this company.

QED.

We would be aware of how serious the current situation is in the Middle East, with multiple sides oriented towards religious schisms, different religions, ethnicities, languages, histories.

ISIS now controls more territory than the governments of either Syria or Iraq. They have stormed a number of cities, military bases, airports, arms depots, police posts, etc., and are very well-armed. They captured a hundred tanks in Ramadi, and 1400 Humvees in Mosul alone.

Imagine the Mafia in the US with hundreds of tanks and thousands of Humvees and caches of weapons at that sort of level. Would we (or more particularly the Yanks) write that off as 'nothing to worry about', a flea-bite ? I don't think so.

So, any forces opposed to ISIS (obviously leaving out the pseudo-Left here and elsewhere) has to contend with both the complexity and magnitude of the growing conflict, quality and quantity.

Should ISIS be simply ignored, as so much of the idiot commentariat flippantly suggest ? Or (imagining for a moment that you and I are Syrians or Iraqis) should we regard it as an imminent threat to life, let alone property ?

Is it possible that ISIS can storm Baghdad, after the usual rain of bombings on bus queues and markets ? If so, then how about Damascus soon fter, they're pretty mobile after all ?

If so, will Iran step out of it all ? Hardly likely. Will they launch their regular military forces against ISIS ? Effectively, will they attempt to supplant the governments in Syria and Iraq ?

If so, what will the Saudis do ? All of the Gulf states have large populations of Shi'ite Muslims, they always have had. The Saudis are actually very few, and have never been to war (so my faulty memory suggests). Could they withstand an Iranian assault, coupled with uprisings ?

If they faulter, will Pakistan attack Iran from behind ? They can beat women to death, so they should have no trouble attacking Iran from behind while it's busy with the Saudis.

And then there's India ......

Hi Longmarch, you seem to think you've proven something. That's nice.

ISIS is simply filling the power vacuum created by the stupid Western rush to attack Iraq. This too shall pass and then some other group will do the same thing and so it will go, around and around and around.

At least it gives silly old buggers something to pass the time being worried about, I s'pose. Every cloud...

Can anyone explain why the retreating Iraqi army didn't drive the tanks out of town, shooting back at the enemy on their way? Alternatively why didn't blow the tanks up or at least boobie trap them? It is a pretty common practice for a retreating army to destroy the weapons so they will not be used against them? I realise they were in a hurry to get out, but those tanks are fast, and safe to be inside if people are shooting at you. What's with these idiots?

//.... the Northern Ireland conflict, despite the remarkable peace that has been achieved (can anyone imagine such a peace in, say, Iraq?//

Yes. I can imagine such a peace in Iraq, because I not so old that I can't remember a time when micks and proddies were merrily bombing the crap out of each other over their various grievances. They've given it a rest. It's not the first time that two opposing sides in a protracted conflict have achieved peace and made it last. I really hope it won't be the last. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist. Maybe Presbyterians are just pessimists.

//Or anywhere in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia Muslims.//

Yes. Because I've heard about the Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq and Syria, but nothing at all about the Sunni-Shia conflict in Cyprus, Bahrain, Turkey, or Oman to name a few a middle eastern countries in which I can find no evidence of recent religious uprisings. I suggest the author double his reading list, and include an atlas as well as the New Testament of the Bible.

//That would be the Crusades for which the Roman Catholic Church has said its mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa on multiple occasions. Ditto the Inquisition.//

Not in the Catholic Church I belong to (the Roman one): I am unsure of their official position on the Crusades but they still have the Inquistion, just under a different name. It was established in 1542 by Pope Gregory XV as the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition'; in 1908 Pope Pius X changed its name to the 'Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office'. Since 1985 it has been known as the 'Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith'. It's still the same organisation, just under a new name. They probably don't torture heretics these days but the Church has never abolished the Inquisition, much less renounced it.

//Who does it help? What would the theological or the pastoral rationale?//

It serves to remind us that a religious text that can be - and for most part is (these days) - interpreted peacefully as message of love and tolerance and good will can also be - and has been - interpreted as an exhortation to put unbelievers to fire and the sword by the wrong sort of person. It demonstrates that the problem is not with the book, but with how it is read.

//While the Koran encourages – and indeed commands - violence against unbelievers (at least in certain circumstances), Christianity does not.//

Ah, right. You'd be reading one of these abbreviated Bibles then. The ones that are missing the first 50 books and start at the Gospel of Matthew. Must be a Presbyterian thing. You're missing out: Leviticus is rubbish, but Jonah is a great read. There are unabbreviated versions on the web: you should check out Deuteronomy 13:6-16 and 17:2-5. Then tell me the Bible doesn't command violence against unbelievers.

Last week i attended lectures and the question was asked of the visiting Shaykh from Jordon what his thoughts were about ISIS. His reply was that they are a Satanic movement.

My own naive recipe for peace and sensible discourse is to think about the children...before speaking and acting is to think of the children and whether our words and deeds are improving things for their future.

You'll notice those who succumb to ISIS propaganda are ignorant of Islam and the Shariah, and certainly the traditions. How could it be otherwise?

There are a lot of atheist on this forum who claim to adhere to reason. Let them use a bit of reason and recognise that that if ISIS were Islam there would not be the people of other religions living in Iraq and Syria for ISIS to massacre (indeed they proclaim any Muslims who disagrees with them as apostate) or the monuments (includes those of traditional Islam) to demolish.

Elementary dear Watson!

Anyway...carry on...

oh..try to think of the children occasionally and their future, and what your words/deeds mean for them.

LOL

It used to be dating services that found goods pickings on these forums. Now its something called "Goodgame Empire". I wonder if features a Crusade or two?

Allah ybarek lak, Grateful!