Indeed how can so many young folk be turned into murdering mindless animals with no respect for life or the will of God, which for many of us becomes just a convenience when we want to end a life well before the duly appointed hour! Or as a convenience when the going gets to tough?

Taking a life still is taking a life, whether in murderous outrage or clinically clean and with a "helpful" needle?

Would it have been more acceptable if these folks had been gassed to death,leaving just dead bodies with no marks or obvious trauma, to show these were once living human being with hopes, dreams, families and love.
Look mum, no mess!
Rhrosty.

It's definitely Allah. Read the Koran, bud.

Rhosty, murderers = killers & vice versa. Has nobody noticed that these attacks keep happening on Friday night or Saturday morning after they have been revved up in the Mosque?

ttbn, too true.

Its amazing how many seemed shocked at how evil the human heart is. We slaughter thousands of unborn babies each year in the name of ?

ttbn is spot on.
To elaborate...the young are being told what's in the koran by their Imams. There is no room for 'interpretation' of the koran as some infidels assume or expect. The words of the koran, hadiths and of the clerics are letter perfect.

Anyone expecting a modern moderate interpretation of the koran to take root seriously needs a reality check.

And as for a so-called wholesale 'reformation' of the meanings in the koran....don't stay up waiting.

I'll throw out the challenge again name a passage in the Koran you don't believe has the equivalent in the Bible.

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people." Acts

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them". Romans

Try finding a quotation from the New Testament rather than the Jewish history in the Old Testament.

Cobber The Hound,
Irrelevant, European Christians decided to forgo armed sectarian conflict in favour of nationalism in the 17th century and secular liberalism is to blame for the current state of play in the middle east.
Christians don't control the USA, EU and NATO, secular, left leaning and liberal bureaucrats do, the countries where Christianity is still widely practiced, Poland, Hungary,Croatia etc are staying out of the madness altogether.
Observance of Christianity in Western Europe has shrunk to about 20% of the population, by contrast observance of Islam among those of immigrant background is growing steadily and sits at 40-50% among those groups.
The Bible is not relevant to any discussion of Islam and Jihadi violence simply because Muslims don't adhere to those scriptures and the Koran is no more comparable to Christian theology than the Bhagavad Gita or the Tibetan book of the dead.

Here's one from the New Testament, Outrider. Jesus cursing the Jews for not killing disobedient children:

"And [Jesus] continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Mark 7:9-10 NIV)

Speaking of Moses, he's mentioned more often in the New Testament than the Old.

Hi Jay of Melbourne,

You said: The Bible is not relevant to any discussion of Islam and Jihadi violence simply because Muslims don't adhere to those scriptures and the Koran is no more comparable to Christian theology than the Bhagavad Gita or the Tibetan book of the dead.

This is not true - Islam is related to Christianity and Judaism - they are Abrahamic religions - Judaism is the oldest, followed by Christianity and Islam.

Allah, God the father, and Yahweh are all one and the same. Muslims even consider Jesus to be an important prophet and the Messiah - but they do not believe he was divine. The Koran mentions Jesus several times.

Here are some inspirational verses from the New Testament - it would be great if more people, including Christians, followed them.

Luke 6:27-29
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you. If anyone hits you on one cheek, let him hit you on the other one too.

Matthew 5:43-44
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your friends, hate your enemies.' But now I tell you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Then there is the verse that Tony Abbott thinks is no longer relevant in our modern world - Jesus disagreed:

Mark 12:29-31
Jesus replied, "The most important one is this: 'Listen Israel! The Lord our God is the only Lord. Love the Lord your God with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength. The second most important commandment is this: "Love your neighbour as you love yourself." There is no other commandment more important that these two.

There is nothing more radical than being loving - especially in difficult times.

Love, Peacemaking and Truth-telling have all become radical acts in the modern world.

The God of Christianity is different to the God of Israel and of Islam.

It is the claimed nature of God in Christianity that sets it apart from the other two; and never the trice shall meet.

Rodney Crisp asks "how is it possible to brainwash so many young people to the extent that they willingly transform themselves into human bombs?

Quite easy, Rodney. The psychological term for it is "Operant Conditioning" (brain washing). Probably anyone can be conditioned into a "Manchurian Candidate", and the movie "A Clockwork Orange" parodied this fact. If your culture stresses continuously that the most wonderful thing that you can do is to sacrifice yourself to kill as many of your people's enemies as you can. Then you can bet that some young men will very willingly kill themselves to gain the social approval that they crave. If you give some young men a script to become a martyr, or a hero to their own people, many will grab it with both hands.

The idea that people who fight their people' enemies are heroes, plays a part in every nations recruiting drive for their armed forces. That is why remembrance days for those who have been killed fighting for their people is so important. One reason why the Chinese did so poorly on the battlefields against the Mongols, was the Chinese cultural conviction that all soldiers were just scum. Then they wondered why nobody wanted to fight for them.

Whether it is a Samurai dying for the emperor, or a berserker Viking dying with a sword in his hands, the idea is to make the candidate realise that what he is doing is acclaimed and admired by his people, and that he can get a reward in the afterlife. But people can be conditioned to eat other human beings, collect heads and scalps, and even march men, women and children into gas chambers.

Islam is a religion which stresses that those who fight for Islam are the finest Muslims there are. That is why Muslims can not criticise them. They have been conditioned all of their lives to admire Jihadis and Ghazis (those who kill an infidel) Nowhere have I ever heard of a so called "moderate" Muslim condemning a Jihadi or a Ghazi. To do so would be blasphemy.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« Islam is a religion which stresses that those who fight for Islam are the finest Muslims there are. That is why Muslims can not criticise them. They have been conditioned all of their lives to admire Jihadis and Ghazis (those who kill an infidel) Nowhere have I ever heard of a so called "moderate" Muslim condemning a Jihadi or a Ghazi. To do so would be blasphemy »

That has been my impression too, LEGO, at least up until these latest attacks in Paris on Friday 11 November.

For the very first time, the TV programmes in Paris have been full of reports of ordinary Muslims interviewed on the streets, bloggers, shop-keepers, students and others protesting and condemning these indiscriminate killings. One young blogger declared that it was the responsibility of Muslims themselves to settle this problem and make sure it never happens again.

Previous attacks were against specific targets such as the Jewish community, the police, the army, Charlie Hebdo (the satirical magazine), etc. This time it was anybody sitting on the café terraces on the streets, in restaurants and in the Bataclan concert hall where an American rock band was playing to a full house of 1 500 people. It was a mixed audience of mostly young people of all cultures, ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, nationalities, religions, etc.

Muslim protests following previous attacks came from all the usual official sources: religious leaders such as heads of mosques, etc. With these latest attacks, the 6 million Muslims of France have suddenly realized that the jihadists were out to kill anybody who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, including Sunni Muslims such as themselves.

Now they are all afraid, upset, angry, vigorously protesting and condemning the jihadists like everybody else.

.

Dear Banjo.

I have a book by the British police officer who was in charge of investigating who was responsible for the London tube bombings. He said that the one thing which puzzled the police, was that the local Muslim community must have known what was going down, and they did nothing. He said that the very act of mixing the "devil's brew" of phosphate and diesel fuel to make bombs, as well as handling other strong chemicals, turned the skin of the Muslim terrorists a to a much lighter shade. He said that the local Muslim must have noticed. He said that much success in fighting drug trafficking was the result of public tip offs to police, and that the police could not understand why the Muslim public did not tip off the police when it was obvious that the perps were making bombs.

Do you think that it might have been because the local Muslims approved of what they were doing?

Similarly, the father of one terrorist claimed that he did not know that his son was a terrorist. He claimed that he was "a good boy, who loved cricket." Within a month, that same Muslim man was praising his son's terrorist act to the media. My concluision, was that the Muslim father's initial response was that of a Muslim from some Muslim craphole country, who probably expected that the authorities were going to do what they would do in their own countries, and wipe out his family. When that did not happen, the father boasted of what his son did, probably because the local Muslims were slapping him on the back and praising the actions of his son.

What Muslims say and do when they are 2.2% of the population is different to what they say and do when they are 5% of the population. When they are 51% off the population, even in a small localised area, you had better find somewhere else to live.

runner, in the name of the same reason they import migrants, to replace us with migrants. Lucifer's disciples want to replace God's people with Satan's tribe.

Jonathon J Ariel, too true.

Cobber the hound, you made that up, but here goes. Judeo/Christian commandment "you shall not lie". Allah's commandment "you shall enter paradise & have 72 virgins if you lie for me"

"repeat the big lie, until it becomes the truth" Lenin

There are four Arabic words, which could lead to submission of the entire world to Islam, if non-Muslims do not fully understand their meaning and implications. Those words are takiyya, tawriya, kitman, and muruna.

Each of these words describes a different style of deception used by Muslims when discussing Islam or their activities as Muslims. Muhammad famously said, “War is deceit.” (Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 52, Number 268) The Quran boasts that Allah is the “master of all scheming” (Surah 13:42) and that he is “profound in his machinations” (Surah 8:30). Western civilizations are not accustomed to dealing with people, who have developed deception into an art form. Knowledge is power, and the best way to combat the Islamist agenda is to say, “We are wise to your shenanigans. Knock it off!”

http://www.islam-watch.org/home/139-louis-palme/1095-knowing-four-arabic-words-may-save-our-civilization-from-islamic-takeover.html

Outrider, correct, but i will humour the communist liar anyway.

Jay Of Melbourne, correct, but he is a brain washed communist, beyond hope.

AJ Philips, that sounds quite reasonable to me, every problem we have has been caused by younger people not listening to older people.

BJelly, i agree completely but muslims are not our neighbours, they are disciples of Lucifer & yet i don't advocate killing or even jailing them, just deporting them & keeping them at arms length.

Is Mise, also correct.

Lego, correct again.

Banjo Patterson, except for the problem that they are ALL lying, as i proved earlier in my reply to Cobber.

LEGO, touche.

//Try finding a quotation from the New Testament rather than the Jewish history in the Old Testament.//

Where do Acts and Romans appear in your Bible, Outrider? In all the ones I've seen, Acts and Romans are books in the NT.

Ha ha, I didn’t even notice that, Toni Lavis.

There’s been so much talk about what a you-beaut guy Jesus was that I was more keen to provide Outrider with something immoral from his mouth. It just goes to show what I’ve alluded to, in my discussions with ttbn, about how it’s just assumed that the New testament is all sunshine and lollipops and cannot consist of anything bad. Most Christians and atheist apologists for Christians haven’t read a word of the Bible, they just assume that the Old Testament can be chucked out and that the New Testament made it all better again.

Iamagreatparody,

If you think that killing disobedient children is a good thing, then either you need to tone your caricature of a rightwing Christian down a bit for the sake of realism, or you are an immoral person who probably shouldn't be walking the streets. If we killed children for being disobedient, then the human race would become extinct.

I hope you don't have kids of your own.

'must be put to death.' Also translated in many versions as 'let him die the death'.
I am not a Biblical scholar, just looking up the net. The sentence is Mark quoting Jesus quoting Moses.
Please find some more bloodthirsty quotes, I will be facinated. Gospels, not Paul's interpretations.

Well, you don't have to roll the clock back that far and we had all the Japs & Germans locked up.

Maybe Pauline will show some leadership on that one. .. Or, what about someone from the Shooters Party? Someone else perhaps?

(we may not have an official militia ey boys but we sure could put a fair few bolt action shooters on the streets quick smart if they were called upon.)

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« I have a book by the British police officer who was in charge of investigating who was responsible for the London tube bombings. He said that the one thing which puzzled the police, was that the local Muslim community must have known what was going down, and they did nothing … He said that much success in fighting drug trafficking was the result of public tip offs to police, and that the police could not understand why the Muslim public did not tip off the police when it was obvious that the perps were making bombs … Similarly, the father of one terrorist claimed that he did not know that his son was a terrorist … Within a month, that same Muslim man was praising his son's terrorist act to the media … probably because the local Muslims were slapping him on the back and praising the actions of his son »

The British police officer is making assumptions which I suspect are true but nowhere near the extent that he indicates, that “the local Muslim community must have known”.

The attacks killed 52 people and injured over 700. While I’m willing to believe there were a few accomplices and perhaps one or two others in on the secret, I doubt that the 4 jihadists took the risk of jeopardising an operation of that importance by allowing news of it to leak out to “the local Muslim community”.

The “perps” were probably just as aware as the police officer that “much success in fighting drug trafficking was the result of public tip offs to police” and made sure that only those who had some role to play in the project were informed - and no more than what was expected of them. In other words, they were only told what they needed to know.

The fact that the operation “succeeded” is a fair indication that not too many people got wind of it beforehand.

I suspect the police officer is making sweeping statements (generalisations) from one or two specific examples.

.

To Banjo.

The police officer made no social or political comments about Muslims. He was entirely unbiased. What he said was that he could not understand why the local Muslim community, who knew the perps, and who must have plainly seen the men on the streets, in the shops, and in the mosques, and knew that that they must have been making bombs, because their ever lightening complexions was giving the game away, did not contact the police.

What we have, is a religion who's leaders quite openly claim that it is their religious duty to make everyone in the world a Muslim. And their religious holy texts say that it is OK to use force and terrorism to do it. And when Muslims do exactly what their leaders and their Koran tells them to do, people like your good self perform the most bizarre mental gymnastics trying to absolve Muslims when they conform to their religious duty.

The Grand Mufti of Australia, who I presume is another one of these mythical "moderate" Muslims, refused to recognise the Parramatta terrorist murder as terrorism at all. He then went on to blame terrorism, on the victims of terrorism. The old wife beaters excuse. "I am sorry honey, but if you had not made me mad, I would not have beat the everylovin' shiit outa you. Please don't make me mad again." Or in the case of the Mufti, "Just become Muslims, and our boys won't shoot you, or blow you up."

He can't criticise Muslims for using force and terrorism to create the worldwide caliphate, because that is exactly what they are supposed to do.

Maybe if the Mufti had blond hair, and blue eyes, and shouted "Heil Hitler", you might figure out that the people who follow this ideology are not disposed to be nice to you, and that you sure picked the wrong crowd to defend

.

Dear LEGO,

.

« The police officer made no social or political comments about Muslims. He was entirely unbiased. What he said was that he could not understand why the local Muslim community, who knew the perps, and who must have plainly seen the men … and knew that that they must have been making bombs, because their ever lightening complexions was giving the game away, did not contact the police. »

Eyes relay images, LEGO, but we “see” with our brains. That’s the problem. We “see” what we know (understand) and what we want to “see” (prejudice). I wouldn’t have a clue how to make a bomb and, rightly or wrongly, imagine that most of the members of “the local Muslim community” wouldn’t either.

The only person I ever “saw” whose complexion grew lighter was Michael Jackson and that was on TV. It never occurred to me that he was making a bomb. I doubt that the police officer thought he was either.

The autopsy that was performed following Jackson’s death revealed that he had a skin disorder called vitiligo and used special creams to bleach the rest of his skin. Apparently some people use these creams even if they’re not suffering from vitligo. It has nothing to do with making bombs.

I suspect the police officer “sees” what he knows. He obviously knows about making bombs but he may not know anything about vitiligo and special creams to bleach skin.

As a general principle I have a strong aversion to injustice. Crime is an injustice and I consider that it should be punished proportionately, according to the nature and gravity of the crime and with discernment if it is a first offense. I am in favour of the death penalty for particularly atrocious crimes involving first degree murder.

Unless proven otherwise, I consider that each individual is responsible for his acts and omissions. I reject the notion of collective responsibility and am fiercely opposed to anybody being condemned - or even suspected - simply because he belongs to a particular ethnic group, class, religion, community, etc.

.

To Mr Patterson.

Your primary premise appears to be, that people of any particular group can not be condemned collectively as a group for the actions of individual members of that group. That is not an entirely valid concept. The concept that nobody can be judged by their group affiliations is a good general principle, but it can not be a moral absolute. Because it then becomes an overly idealistic concept which makes no concessions to plain common sense. Criminal behaviour is often a pre requisite to group membership. "Outlaw" motorcycle gangs require their members to engage in serious criminal behaviour in order to belong to the group, and they openly brag about that.

It is simply a common sense survival instinct to assign suspicion and deep mistrust to members of any group already notorious for serious criminal behaviour. Even one the USA's most respected leaders of the National Association of American Coloured People (NAACP), Jesse Jackson, quite famously said, that when walking around Washington at night, he "felt a lot safer when there was a white man walking behind me, than a black."

Assigning collective guilt is quite valid, where the cultural values which define group membership are definitely a factor in criminal behaviour. All Muslims share collective guilt for the very high incidence of rape of non Muslim women committed in western countries by Muslim males, because their group beliefs mandate extreme hostility to non Muslims, and validate the idea that women who get raped deserve it. Not only deserve it, they are the guilty party. Muslims can only absolve themselves of their group responsibility for this, by firmly, and publically, renouncing their sacred texts which tell them that women who do not conform to Muslim standards of behaviour deserve to be raped.

Racial profiling is also quite valid. Race specific crimes do exist. Serial killers are almost exclusively white males. Nobody knows why. Men who rape elderly women are almost exclusively black males. Nobody knows why. In this world today, almost every act of senseless terrorism is committed by Muslims. Everybody with a brain knows why.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« The concept that nobody can be judged by their group affiliations is a good general principle, but it cannot be a moral absolute. Because it then becomes an overly idealistic concept which makes no concessions to plain common sense. »
.

That’s true, LEGO, but common sense alone is not a sufficient legal basis for finding someone guilty of a crime, as was demonstrated in Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem in 1961. I watched a rather lengthy documentary on it on French TV a few months back.

He was indicted on 15 criminal charges, including crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people, and membership in a criminal organisation. The judges declared him not guilty of personally killing anyone and not guilty of overseeing and controlling the activities of the Einsatzgruppen (a special task force). He was deemed responsible for the dreadful conditions on board the deportation trains and for obtaining Jews to fill those trains. He was found guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against Poles, Slovenes and Gypsies. He was also found guilty of membership of three organisations that had been deemed criminal at the Nuremberg trials: the Gestapo, the SD, and the SS.

When considering the sentence, the judges concluded that Eichmann had not merely been following orders, but believed in the Nazi cause wholeheartedly and had been a key perpetrator of the genocide.

The trial lasted 56 days and the prosecution presented hundreds of documents and 112 witnesses. Many of them were Holocaust survivors.

Eichmann was sentenced to death and hanged on 1 June 1962 after successive appeals to the Israeli supreme court and President Ben-Gurion were rejected.

I consider that, unless proven otherwise, every individual possesses the faculty of free will and must assume responsibility for his acts and omissions. Simply belonging to a community does not automatically imply responsibility for the acts and omissions committed by the members of that community.

However, as demonstrated in the Eichmann trial, belonging to a criminal organisation may be deemed a criminal act.

.

To Mr Patterson

I was not talking specifically about crime. I was saying that it is common sense that individual people can be judged in the court of public opinion by their group affiliations. I presume that you have no intention of inviting any members of the Comanchero Bikie club to your next party?

What usually defines any group of people is their culture. That is, their concept of what is their generally agreed upon concepts of right and what is wrong, and their collective values, attitudes and behaviour which is based upon those values.

Nazis are a good example. Most people are hostile to Nazis because of what the Nazis did in the last world war. They despise them for their values and attitudes, which are considered extremely racist and dangerous to anyone who does not posses a white skin, blond hair and blue eyes. Most people do not say that most Nazis are good people, or that it is only a few "extremist" Nazis who give the "Moderate" Nazis a bad name. All Nazis are universally condemned by the public because they are Nazis. Your premise that people should not be judged by their group associations is not completely valid.

It is not illegal to be a Nazi in Australia, and the Nazi Party of Australia is not deemed to be a criminal organisation. In Germany, it is. We are not talking about judging Nazis in a court of law, just because they are Nazis. We are prejudging individual Nazis in the court of public opinion because of their group affiliations, based upon the known values and attitudes of committed Nazis, and their previous behaviour. Prejudging Nazis, because Nazism is considered to be an extremist organisation which bears watching, is already being done by Australia's security organisations

.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote :

« I was not talking specifically about crime. I was saying that it is common sense that individual people can be judged in the court of public opinion by their group affiliations … What usually defines any group of people is their culture. That is, their concept of what is their generally agreed upon concepts of right and what is wrong, and their collective values, attitudes and behaviour which is based upon those values »
.

Agreed. I have no problem agreeing wholeheartedly with you as long as you stay on the road of common sense, if, as you say, that is your intention, but occasionally you seem to skid off course and slip down the slippery slope of crime.

You wrote, for example (page 4 of this thread) :

« Assigning collective guilt is quite valid, where the cultural values which define group membership are definitely a factor in criminal behaviour. All Muslims share collective guilt for the very high incidence of rape of non Muslim women committed in western countries by Muslim males … Racial profiling is also quite valid. Race specific crimes do exist. Serial killers are almost exclusively white males. Nobody knows why. Men who rape elderly women are almost exclusively black males. Nobody knows why. In this world today, almost every act of senseless terrorism is committed by Muslims »

I am just as happy to talk with you about crime or common sense.

The problem is quite different if we are talking about a common sense judgement as to whether some people are socially acceptable or not, or if, from a legal point of view, they should be qualified as criminals or terrorists simply because they belong to a particular ethnic group, class, religion, or community.

I am never quite sure if you are arguing from a common sense or a legal point of view.

I also have difficulty addressing your sweeping statements about Muslims, whites, blacks, etc., as if each group were perfectly homogenous which it never is. Each group has multiple, often antagonist, sub-divisions.

.

To Banjo.

In your original post to me, you seem to have a problem with my collective condemnation of all Muslims. You have submitted evidence which suggests that "ordinary" Muslims in France are appalled by the Paris attacks, and that "one blogger" wrote that "Muslims themselves must settle this problem and make sure it never happens again."

If the massacre of Parisians in Paris is an affront to French Muslims, and the Jihadis are considered criminals by the "French" Muslims, where is the collective outrage from Muslims all over the world? Especially from the leaders of Islam, saying that the terrorists are not the voice of Islam? If the Ayatollah Khomeini can put a death fatwa on Salmon Rushdie for writing a book satirising Islam, and almost the entire Muslim population of Britain, (including the "moderate" Muslim leaders and notaries like Cat Stevens) can vow for the honour of murdering Rushdie, one would have thought that the idea of a bunch of loonies repeatedly murdering civilians in Paris in the name of Islam, would have the Imams, mullahs and ayatollahs issuing fatwa's for the murder of the terrorists all over the place?

In Sydney, there have been incidents where thousands of Muslims have had violent demonstrations about the French banning of the burqua in French schools. A demonstration about the patterns on Nike athletic shoes resembling (in Arabic) the word "Allah". And about a pathetic video posted on Youtube. But three incidents of mass murder in the name of Islam in Paris, and not a bloody peep out of any of them.

Islam is a religion who's leaders are concerned with world domination. What is much worse, is that Islam's God, prophet, and holy scriptures all sanctify the use of violence and terrorism to attain that goal. I would have thought you were concerned about that also. All Muslims share collective guilt for the violence and terrorism committed in their name unless they and their leaders completely and unreservedly disassociate themselves from the terrorists, and refute their own holy scriptures. But they cannot, because that would be against their religion.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

We’re certainly on the same wavelength there.

I could almost have written your last post myself, except for the last two sentences :

« All Muslims share collective guilt for the violence and terrorism committed in their name unless they and their leaders completely and unreservedly disassociate themselves from the terrorists, and refute their own holy scriptures. But they cannot, because that would be against their religion. »
.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims are not radical islamists and have nothing to do with terrorism. They and their leaders “completely and unreservedly disassociate themselves from the terrorists” by their acts, by the way they lead their lives, if not by their words. Some speak out but most prefer to keep a low profile, afraid of the backlash from the atrocities committed in the name of their religion.

There is no "collective guilt" for them to share. They have done no wrong. There is only the collective mistrust, suspicion and sometimes hate of which they are the innocent victims.

That is what the jihadists want. The only way they can hope to defeat democracy and Western civilisation is by turning its citizens against each other and creating chaos from within. That is clearly their strategy. It is important that we understand that and resist it. If we don’t we will fall into their trap and do exactly what they want us to do : help them implement their abominable strategy by destroying our democratic societies ourselves.

We have already begun to do just that by changing our laws in what were once the world’s most free and open democracies, turning back decades of struggle for the respect of fundamental human rights. As the storm blows up and the sea turns black we batten down the hatches, pull down the sails, turn into the wind and rope ourselves to the mast. We are far less free today than we were just a few months ago.

The jihadists have won the first round - with the help of some of our own citizens - and governments.

.

To Mr Patterson.

The overwhelming majority of Muslims may not be legally guilty of committing terrorist acts. But they share collective guilt by virtue of the fact that they are members of a religion which not only claims it's aim is world domination, it is a religion that validates violence and terrorism to attain that goal. If anyone belongs to any organisation which openly preaches violence and terrorism in order to grow larger, then they are complicit in the acts of violence and terrorism of that organisation, unless they completely disassociate themselves from the violence and terrorism advocating principles which define the groups aims.

In addition, it is imperative that the leaders of that religion renounce those holy instructions from their God that compel them to commit violence and terrorism to spread their religion. They must also renounce the sacred texts that say that those who commit violence and terrorism for Islam are the best Muslims of all. This the leaders of this fascist religion have refused to do. It is insufficient for ordinary members of this religion to just shrug and do nothing. It is their religion, and the onus is upon them to prevent their religion being a serious threat to the safety of non Muslim people who's country they share.

There would be no so called Islamophobia without Islamofacism. All Muslims must reform their religion or be regarded as a collective threat to anyone who is not a Muslim.

Your premise that the Jihadis want to drive a wedge between Muslims and non Muslims is true. That is not just a Jihadi hope, it is a religious duty under Islam, and it is going to happen anyway. We have stupidly imported people into our societies who values and beliefs are diametrically opposed to our own. It is a religion which demands total social alienation from non Muslims, and that Muslims should use violence and terrorism to turn others into Muslims. Their leaders refuse to renounce this barbarism because they support it. And then wonder why we have a problem with Islamic terrorism

.

Dear LEGO,

.

I have never studied nor even read the Qur’an though I see I have one here in my library (in French) which I have never opened. I have no idea if it is a valid version or not.

Your description of Islam corresponds pretty much to some of the articles I have read about it except that I have also read that, like the Hebrew and Christian bibles, the Qur’an is often contradictory, affirming exactly the opposite to what it stated previously. I can understand how this allows the moderates, the fundamentalists and the extremists to justify their diametrically opposed interpretations of Mohamed’s words.

According to the moderates, for example, the Qur’an preaches love and charity and righteous living. Apparently it recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in the Hebrew and Christian bibles. They explain that the common elements and resemblances are due to the common “divine source” of the three sacred works.

I don’t think any of the Muslims I know have ever read the Qur’an either. They don’t seem to know much about their religion but most of them respect the Ramadan, particularly the women. Apart from that, they appear to be as little concerned by religion as most of the Christians I know. They were all visibly shocked by the recent Paris attacks and are convinced it has nothing to do with religion.

The police investigations reveal that none of the Paris jihadists are known to have ever set foot in a mosque in their lives.

I grew up in the Queensland bush, was christened and confirmed and served as an altar boy for many years. I never read the bible and only learned about Christianity from what the priests taught me as a boy. They never said a word about all the violence and sexual deviance described in the bible. I discovered that much later when I studied religion more seriously and arrived at the conclusion that there is neither God nor supernatural.

Nevertheless, I understand that Islam has no equivalent so far as bellicosity is concerned.

.

To Banjo

Now you are using the concept of the "moderate Muslim."

Since you believe in the concept of the "moderate Muslim", and I don't, could you tell me what your "moderate Muslim" friends believe in?

Do those "moderate" Muslims believe that church and state are the same thing? Do they believe that Sharia Law should take precedence over secular law? Do they denounce western concepts of gender equality? Do they believe that Muslim apostates, pagans and homosexuals should be murdered? Do they think that a woman has no right to say who she should marry? Do they believe that western women who get raped by Muslims are "cat meat" sluts who deserve it? Do they believe that raped women should be punished for "allowing herself to be raped" and engaging in "fornication?" Do they believe that Muslim men may marry outside of their faith but that Muslim women may not marry outside of their faith? Do they believe that Islam should be spread through jihad? Do they believe that Islam must not be criticised and that those who do criticise it should be murdered?

Because if they don't believe in these things, they are not Muslims at all.

If the world was full of "moderate Muslims", then most Muslim nations would be "moderate." They are not. 55% of the population of Egypt voted to install a fundamentalist government that would have been something akin to ISIS or the Taliban. And Egypt has long been considered in the Muslim world to be one of the more liberal Muslim societies.

The fundamental problem with Islam is that it is a religion started by a warlord to justify wars of expansion, and to make his warriors invincible in battle by removing their fear of death. As a vehicle for Arab imperialism, it has much to recommend it. It is a religion which is perfect for nomadic Bedouins, and perfect for conquerors, but as a religion which justifies war and terrorism for it's expansion, it is a dangerous and criminal religion and it should be treated as such.

Rodney said;
so many fine, healthy, intelligent young

It was an historical catholic priest that said;
Give him to me at aged 7 and we will have him forever.
However I would challenge the word intelligent,
With 1500 years or more of marrying cousins moslems have a genetic
birth defect rate at least of 13% greater than other populations.
I have read that some believe that the realistic figure is 30% of all
births. That seems rather high to me but both NSW Health Dept and
the Midlands Health Service in the UK state that the figure is high
with UK special schools and care establishments populations confirming
the overloading with moslem children.
I have not seen similar overcrowding reported here.
It would be good to get the statistics but it would be politically incorrect.

.

Dear LEGO,

.

All those questions you ask appear to be characteristic of radical Muslims rather than moderate Muslims. It is important to avoid lumping them together. They are very different and a clear distinction should be made between the two.

I understand that Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world and that there are currently about 1.3 billion Muslims worldwide. The overwhelming majority are moderate. It’s very easy to become a Muslim. It only takes a few minutes. You just have to recite the Shahada (testimony of faith). You can do it in your home.

Most people are simply born into the religion. They are not ideologues.

The few Muslims I happen to know are moderate as I explained in my previous post. One of them was ambassador of Iran to UNESCO in 1979 when the revolution broke out and Ayatollah Khomeini ousted the Shah and created the Islamic Republic of Iran. My colleague has been living and working in Paris ever since.

I have done a lot of international travelling professionally and had dealings with many Muslims. Some of them have invited me to their homes and I met their wives and children. None of these business associates or their families have ever shown any signs of interest in religion though they are all Muslims. As I wrote in my previous post, they appear to be as little concerned by religion as most of the Christians I know.

It is in the Middle East region that, in my experience, the influence of a radical form of Islam is most perceptible. That covers 17 countries (including Israel) and a total population of about 205 million (in 210). The population growth rate is one of the highest in the world.

Here are some of the better-know moderate Muslims :

Chandra Muzaffar in Malaysia, Tarik Ramadan in Europe, Maulana Waheeduddin Khan and Asghar Ali Engineer in India, Khalid Abul Fadl and Louay Safi in the US, Karim Soroush and Muhammad Khatami in Iran.

Here is a presentation of moderate Islam and its beliefs :

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/intro.htm

.

.

Dear Baz,

.

You wrote :

« Rodney said;
so many fine, healthy, intelligent young

It was an historical catholic priest that said;
Give him to me at aged 7 and we will have him forever.
However I would challenge the word intelligent,
With 1500 years or more of marrying cousins moslems have a genetic
birth defect rate at least of 13% greater than other populations.
I have read that some believe that the realistic figure is 30% of all
Births »
.

That may be so, Baz, but allow me to point out that those statistics you indicate relate to the descendants of a long line of Moslems going back several generations.

However, the (complete) phrase you are commenting on, “Yet I cannot imagine anything more powerful than to persuade so many fine, healthy, intelligent young people to kill and wound as many innocent people as possible before blowing themselves up or deliberately exposing themselves to a hail of police bullets.”, was not referring to Muslims in general but to jihadists in particular.

Not all jihadists were born of Muslim parents. Many of them are converts to Islam and were born of non-Muslim parents. In fact many of them are very recent converts and were brainwashed specifically to become human bombs.

According to the French Ministry of Internal Affairs, 67% of French jihadists in Syria are from middle class families, 17% are from upper class families and 16% are from lower class families.

.

Banjo said;
but allow me to point out that those statistics you indicate relate to
the descendants of a long line of Moslems going back several
generations.

Yes, I see the point you are making re converts.
Just what proportion are converts, not all that many I think.

Re the "moderate moslems" they are irrelevant they do not reduce the
problem nor do they increase it, except they normally do not provide
information about other moslems.

.

Dear Baz,

.

You wrote :

« Just what proportion are converts, not all that many I think »
.

I’m afraid I have no statistics on that. I understand the jihadists target vulnerable young people on the internet and through other contacts. Vulnerable young people are generally those who have a problem at home or at school or both. They are not necessarily Muslims but often children from migrant families who have difficulty integrating into society.

I already indicated in my previous post the only reliable statistics I have and, as you can see, 84% are surprisingly from middle and upper class families and only 16% from lower class families.
.

You also wrote :

« Re the "moderate moslems" they are irrelevant they do not reduce the problem nor do they increase it, except they normally do not provide information about other moslems »
.

Unfortunately, I have no information on that either but according to the French authorities, some of the “repentant” jihadists cooperate by alerting them that somebody they know has just converted to Islam and is being brainwashed into becoming a jihadist.

.

The author states - Ms Bouzar insists on the importance of the role of the parents in the effort to un-indoctrinate their children. She esteems that the parents have to do 60% of the work.

Parent’s role in bringing up children to show respect, compassion, morals and caring to all cultures should be 100%.

Children don’t know the word “racism” when they start school, children just want to play with one another and make friends, no matter what race, colour or religion their classmates/friends are.

These same children grow up, now able to read, exposed to all media outlets and are influenced by information/idealogies obtained from the “world wide web”.

Some of these same children – now teenagers – start changing and/or become radicalised into a life of extreme hate of any Western Culture, and look to ISIS as the supreme “one” to follow – to the death, and in the name of their Allah.

So what happened to these “lost” children of Australia - our next generation – in turning their collective backs on
Western Culture and civilisation, in order to support an idealism which is abhorrent to normal “human beings”.

Was it lack of family support? Were they bullied at school or at home – and felt isolated? Did they go to Mosques and were preached “hatred” to all Western Cultures by Imams? – who knows.

Statistics state the average age for youths being radicalised being 18 to 26 years.

What is not assisting us (Government and Australians who welcome all immigrants, religions and cultures who wish to live in peace) in un-radicalising these youths –

Hizb ut-Tahrir – who states – “Sydney Muslims should shun government counter terrorism programs and disrupt police investigations. The Sydney based organisation claimed the federal government was forcing them to become “Aussie Muslims”. The government targets the Muslim community under the guise of counter terrorism policy, seeking to mould the community in the way it wants – a way unacceptable to Muslims” he said. Quote Daily Telegraph 3/11/2015.

In the name of “what” religion/idealogies does he preach to the “faithful?”

Continued …

Australians support our Government, agencies and Police personnel in counter terrorism programs/activities in order to keep all Australians safe from terrorism attacks.

Aussies ask the obvious question – why is this “so called” Islamic organisation not shut down. What further message/evidence does the Government want/need, in order to act.

Australian Government has currently spent $47M to agencies in assisting to un-radicalise muslim youth.

What doesn’t help is the following words – Daily Telegraph 2/12/2015 – I quote

“Muslim youth who have been charged with terrorism offences or targeted in recent counter-terrorism raids are merely teenagers being teenagers, a university lecturer has told an Islam Conference. Psychcentral NSW’s Hanan Dover said the young men, arrested in the counter-terrorism raids following the shooting death of NSW Police employee Curtis Cheng and previous raids across Sydney and Melbourne, were targeted because of their natural teenage way of “acting out” and that their normal “teenage speak” was being criminalised”. What the?

So, in essence, she is basically saying that the shooting of Mr Curtis Cheng by a 15 year old was “teenager speak" acting out - outrageous and disprectful (on all levels) comment.

Government - and we as taxpayers - give $47M to organisations such as this…..shameful.

Time for Australia to wake up, am over the adage of "political correctness, when we are speaking of Australians in protecting our culture and way of life

.

Dear SAINTS,

.

You wrote :

« Aussies ask the obvious question – why is this “so called” Islamic organisation not shut down. What further message/evidence does the Government want/need, in order to act »
.

Good question, SAINTS. The French government has just shut down 3 mosques in France and dissolved "three pseudo-cultural associations" that were operating one of them in a suburb of Paris, under the “State of Emergency” laws in force following the recent Paris terrorist attacks :

http://www.thelocal.fr/20151202/france-forces-closure-of-three-radical-mosques

Not surprisingly, there has been some “collateral damage” during some of these police raids :

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/3/state_of_emergency_in_france_2

Aljazeera reports as follows :

"According to official figures and our discussions with the interior ministry, between 100 and 160 more mosques will be closed because they are run illegally without proper licenses, they preach hatred, or use takfiri speech," he said :

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/france-100-mosques-close-151202142023319.html

.

Hi Banjo

Yes, I had read those URL’s – very interesting reading.

One doesn’t need to be the sharpest tool in the shed to wonder if any young Aussie kids are being brainwashed/radicalised in mosques here.

One only has to read any daily newspaper, and/or your local newspaper to follow news.

It’s time the Grand Mufti of Australia sent a strong message to all Imams condemning all acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islamic religion.

The Grand Mufti should also call a meeting/conference of all Imams across Australia ensuring his Imams are preaching in all mosques - the religion of Islam is a religion of peace.

If he can’t, won’t, not interested in calling a meeting of all Imams thus ensuring his followers are being instructed with the correct message of Islam, he should step down.

There are several Imams who have spoken out condemning all acts of terrorism. They say terrorism is not the message of the Koran.

Time for one of these Imams to move up to Grand Mufti status.

.

Dear SAINTS,

.

Ypu wrote :

« It’s time the Grand Mufti of Australia sent a strong message to all Imams condemning all acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islamic religion »
.

I understand that one of the problems with the Islamic church is its lack of hierarchical organisation. Whoever the Grand Mufti happens to be, as things stand today, he may not necessarily have the authority to enforce any such “strong message”.

This has been a problem in France with its 6 million Muslim population. The government has been putting a lot of pressure on the various Muslim organisations, mosques and their leaders to make the church autocephalous and exercise effective control over its members.

The government has already expelled a large number of radical imams from the country, closed down mosques and dissolved their organisations.

It’s still work in progress but, from what I can gather, on the whole, the Muslim community seems to approve the government’s action. Moderate Muslims and their families have been suffering as much, if not more, from the Muslim extremists as Catholics, Jews or any other non-Muslims.

I don’t know if the Islamic church in Australia is autocephalous or not or if the Grand Mufti has any real control over the local clergy or not, but it is up to the Australian government to make it clear to the church leaders and their organisations that it is in their best interests to control what happens within their organisation and to report any sign of extremist or radical language or behaviour to the police immediately.

Lives can be saved now. There is no time to lose. Now is the time to act.

.

Hi Banjo

You said -

"I understand that one of the problems with the Islamic church is its lack of hierarchical organisation. Whoever the Grand Mufti happens to be, as things stand today, he may not necessarily have the authority to enforce any such “strong message”.

The Grand Mufti of Australia (I have read/ heard) is “alleged” to be a person with much knowledge of the Letters (lessons) of the Koran. If he does not represent all Imams preaching in Mosques in Australia, and their language/message – who does?

It is obvious not all Imams are on the same page – if some are free to preach, extremist or radical views on Aussie youth to hate westerners and our way of life.

If there is a lack of hierarchial organisation – who is the responsible (party) that delegates an Imam to a particular mosque whereby they can “preach” to their faithful – extremist and/or radical views (or hatred) to the "faithful"?

Who is responsible for vetting such Imams interpretation of the Koran – prior to such person being in charge of Mosque?

Or does this mean that any person can come from overseas purporting to be an Imam – no checks or balances required – assigned to a Mosque then preach radical and/or extremist messages to “the faithful"?

Man Monis also came into Australia purporting to be an Iman, photos show him with the Grand Mufti, we now know he wasn’t an Imam. I don't need to say more.

Continued -

You said –

I don’t know if the Islamic church in Australia is autocephalous or not or if the Grand Mufti has any real control over the local clergy or not, but it is up to the Australian government to make it clear to the church leaders and their organisations that it is in their best interests to control what happens within their organisation and to report any sign of extremist or radical language or behaviour to the police immediately.

I totally agree.

You said – Lives can be saved now. There is no time to lose. Now is the time to act.

I totally agree, and all Aussies must "stand up" and unite in the following message to those who chose to harm innocent people - Aussies condem any act of terrorism on our culture, way of life, police personnel and/or any other Agency acting on all levels to keep "Australia" safe. Australia provides all immigrants a welcoming "safe haven" upon arrival on our shores. We offer a better way of life, education, jobs and prosperity to all. Many immigrants to Australia (over many generations) have taken up the challenge and prospered. So what changed the dynamics and why? - we all know the what, and the why.

The “scumbag” who stabbed three people in London Tube station today yelled out (or words to the effect of) I am doing this in the name of Syria.

Someone in the crowd yelled out – “You’re no Muslim bruv”.

First time I’ve heard a positive message against a terrorist "scumbag’s” actions on innocent people.

.

Dear SAINTS,

.

You wrote :

« The “scumbag” who stabbed three people in London Tube station today yelled out (or words to the effect of) I am doing this in the name of Syria »
.

According to witness’s accounts it seems the stabber had lost his mind. We’ll have to wait for more details but judging from the way it’s shaping up at the moment, it looks like he is just a feeble minded person acting under the influence of the ambient psychosis.

Obviously, that’s not much comfort to the victims.

.

Hi Banjo

you wrote - According to witness’s accounts it seems the stabber had lost his mind. We’ll have to wait for more details but judging from the way it’s shaping up at the moment, it looks like he is just a feeble minded person acting under the influence of the ambient psychosis".

There's just no excuse for anyone wanting to kill/take out innocent victims. I have other words to describe "acting under the influence of the ambient psychosis" - but will remain polite. I guess you get my drift though.

Latest I've heard he will be charged with murder. Hope they throw the proverbial book at him.

.

Dear SAINTS,

.

You wrote :

« There's just no excuse for anyone wanting to kill/take out innocent victims. I have other words to describe "acting under the influence of the ambient psychosis" - but will remain polite. I guess you get my drift though.»
.

Judging from similar cases in the past, my guess is the stabber, “presumed innocent”, will be examined by a team of psychiatrists, declared irresponsible and placed in a psychiatric institution for a year or so before being released back into society.

Nobody wants to pay increased taxes to keep the insane locked-up any longer. Most of them are wandering about in the streets these days.

.

.

Here is an interesting development :

http://www.arabianindustry.com/markets/news/2015/dec/15/saudi-arabia-announces-coalition-to-fight-terrorism-5237206/#.VnA7IzbSmUk

.

Thanks for the update.

Had read this and bout time, they joined together in fighting terrorism.

The west should not have to be involved. It's their fight, their religion. Same issues which go back for over a thousand years.

Might save some youths here from becoming radicalised. If they fighting one another.

.

Dear SAINTS,

.

Here is another case of a feeble-minded person apparently acting under the influence of the ambient psychosis :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3359003/Teacher-French-kindergarten-stabbed-neck-hooded-man-shouting-allegiance-ISIS.html

.

Thanks Banjo

Hadn't seen that one.

How "sick" is that - and a trusted teacher!

Hope they lock him up for a long time, and his licence to teach children revoked forever.

.

Dear Saints,

.

You might be interested to learn that a number of Australian scholars participated in the 15th Annual International Conference on Islamic Studies on the theme “Harmony in Diversity: Promoting Moderation and Preventing Conflicts in Socio-Religious Life” which was held in Manado, Indonesia in September 2015. There were reportedly 1,000 participants from 20 countries.

One of them was Prof. Dr. Kevin Dunn, Dean of the School of Social Science and Psychology and Professor in Human Geography and Urban Studies at Western Sydney University. Here is a brief interview he gave at the conference (AICIS 2015) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Qkjby2CS4

Another participant was Prof. Riaz Hassan; Director of the International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding at the University of South Australia and Visiting Research Professor, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore.

Here is a link to Prof. Hassan’s paper :

http://www.unisa.edu.au/Documents/EASS/MnM/working-papers/Riaz%20Hassan%20Power%20and%20Piety%20Religion,%20State%20and%20Society%20in%20Muslim%20Countries%202015%20paper.pdf

.

I am slogging my way through Ibn Warraq's book "Why I am not a Moslem".
It seems the apologists of the 17th, 18th & 19th centuries as
described in his book are still in full flight.

In the early 20th century those apologists were active in support of Adolf Hitler and the communists.
It seems to be a failing of western academic thought, for it is largely
from those classes these repetitive discourses originate.

So we should not be surprised when we see them in full flight in
support of Islamists in Australian politics.