American power, however, under the Reagan Administration propped up Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, supported Saudi Arabia with the sale of AWACs and sent in the US fleet in 1987 to prevent Iran threatening the oppressive regimes around the Persian Gulf and Iraq. Before we get too misty-eyed about selfless Americans (as opposed to those dictator-schmooching Europeans), it is worth realising that US administrations as well as other governments (democratic or otherwise) act in their own self-interest.

The so-called War on Terrorism is just another chapter in US administrations advancing their imperial interests. It is partly for oil, partly to crush opposition to the US in the Middle-East and partly a strategy aimed at marginalising Western European countries, Russia and the threat of China. US imperial advances certainly didn't begin in Bosnia in the early 1990s, as Softic asserts that Chomsky and Pilger said; they go back to America's foundation as an independent state.

Good article Osman, but two corrections:

- Devout muslims have so many definitions in Islam: those who live for charity, those who sponsor an orphan, those who sleep without hating or holding a grudge, etc. terrorists are not devout muslims but brainwashed individuals with too much hate and anger. Maybe they think they are muslims but they moved out of the faith when they started killing innocent people.

The terror ideology can only be won by muslims and the first steps to kill an ideology is to stop believing in it (when muslims know that these are terrorist and non-muslims stop calling them muslims).

- War in Iraq: only time can tell whether it was a good idea but why didn’t it start in Pakistan? The problem with the US foreign policy it is still thinking its fighting a traditional physical enemy while it transformed itself into an ideology. We need to evolve and fight it for what it is.

Osman:You sound fair dinkum - but - a moslem is allowed, encouraged to lie to what you call unbelievers.
Your koran encourages suicide bombers and the killing of unbelievers.
There is a woman now in strife in moslem malaysia because she has changed her name and now wishes to to be seen as a Christian.
Again your koran instructs devout moslems not to make friends of unbelievers.
In most moslem nations I would be jailed if I carried a Bible openly. If I went to or conducted a Christian Bible study or service.
I could not attempt, as it is illegal, to convert any moslem at all. Above all I could not build or erect a Christian place of worship.
Not all moslems are terrorists but most terrorists are moslem.
I do not hate moslems but I find that I just cannot trust or believe moslems. numbat

Why would the US want to make war on Pakistan? Unlike Iraq, Central American countries and most places the US takes on, it has nuclear capabilities and has had so since 1998. Moreover, it is a useful ally in the region. Unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq which outlived its usefulness in 1990.

Whether you regard Muslim fundamentalists who blow themselves up in order to kill others as genuine or non-genuine Muslims, one problem stands out: why they do it. You can harp on about them being cowards etc but they don't care. They're not going to know - they're dead. One researcher from US (can't remember his name) made point that suicide bombing tends to cease after an occupying power leaves the territory where the bombing occurs. In other words, there is an underlying cause of suicide terrorism and it does need to be addressed. Going on about "good" and "evil" doesn't serve a useful purpose in this context.

numbat - most terrorists are male, too. If I am to follow your logic, I assume you are distrustful of males? Wait, they're all people actually. Hang on...yep, definitely all human beings. You have no one left to trust, numbat! Damn.

How about just be distrustful of terrorists, instead of being distrustful of muslims? An easy way to avoid becoming bigotted, far more sensible, and you wouldn't have to distrust or fear 1,126,325,000 (83% Sunnis, 16% Shi'ites, 1% other) people on our planet.

Jeez, imagine if Islam WAS responsible for terrorists...that many terrorists around, we wouldn't last long would we? Good thing it ISN'T! :D

DavidJS: If most terrorists are moslem, and it is so as you well know. Then where is illogical to be wary of and not, unfortunately, be able to trust moslems?
If moslems are taught by their koran that it is permissable to lie to unbelievers. Even moslem governments follow the same koranic 'rule' where is it illogical not trust them?
If moslems are taught in the koran not to befriend unbelievers and that the life of an unbeliever is not worth the life of a moslem. Then where is it illogical to be wary of them?
Rather than hide my head in the sand I have read a lot about islam, it's aims and way of attaining those aims. Where is that illogical?
Don't forget even so-called moderate moslems read this same koran. Even moderate moslems are taught by their leaders from the koran every Friday in their mosques.
Even moderate moslems are beholding to the koran, they, as good moslems must and do believe it's teachings. If they don't then they can be punished as lapsed (there is another word that escapes me at present) believers. numbat

Osman Softic is a man who is willing to think beyond the accepted borders of his faith and apply some balance. He may not be perfect in his view of history but is willing to challence expected conclusions.

Osman
a friendly tone to you article.

A problem in your area is the history. Imagine if here in Australia, the population of white people was around 20% of the aboriginal, and the whites who were here, were only 'here' due to violent aggression.(which they/we are). If you were an aboriginal,every day, you would see reminders of the invasion, of the brutality against the Aboriginals which were in the area now occupied by whites.

The same is the case in Bosnia. Every muslim is a reminder of the oppression and invasion of the Ottomans. It reminds the Serbs that were it not for the battle of Vienna in 1689, Muslims would have overtaken alllll the area. So a serb asks the question "What has changed" ? When Bosnia declared independance, it immediately put a Serb segment of the population as a minority. Do you think those Serbs have forgotten the actions of the Ottomans ? Hardly. I suspect that every Serb family would be able to give chapter and verse, date and place where Churches were destroyed or Serbian ancestors were killed or ill treated by the Ottomans. So, Muslims in that area would be regarded as Collaborators, Quislings, traitors and invaders.

So much for history. The actions of the Serbs, as you rightly point out in the wider context of the world stage, are simply 'man against man' just as in Northern Ireland.

But the Islamic terrorists are definitely muslim, and what they are doing is in the name of Islam, and it is in fact in keeping with the behavior of Mohammed and his teachings on the defence of Islam.
So, while it is correct to refer to the brutality of the Serbs as 'UN-Christian' is it not correct to refer to the Islamists actions as UN-Islamic.

I urge that you look to Christ, turn away from Islam, and embrace the only one who can save you. Jesus Christ, Son of God, God manifest in the flesh and begin to experience Grace as you never dreamed.

Good piece Osman unfortunate you were always going the get the GB crowd to tell you everything non Christian is evil. Numbat read your bible a little more read what it actually say's not what you think it says and then compare it to the Quran. Let's start with your isolation of "(show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret" She that is to be examined 60:1 the very same thing can be found in your book to "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:" John 2:10

As for Philo and DB comments what's the point.....you can led a horse to water...

BD,

I started doubting your story being a Christian missionary but rather someone trying to put people off Christianity.
“Non-believers” are free to keep their own beliefs in Islam. The verse you refer to talk about “those who fight you”.

Islam has defined rules of respecting other religions and non-believers as long as they are good to you and not fighting/waging war against you. This is a whole lot better than I can say about your teachings. For you it’s your religion, forcing the Son of God theory or nothing. Do you need to re-read your history?

Peace,

F.H. please be careful how you read my posts, my reference to it not being 'un-islamic' to fight against enemies, is exactly the point you make. Those fighting with the bombs etc, are doing it in 'defence' of Islam, as they see it. I'm not out of order to make this claim that it is in harmony with Mohameds behavior, as u well know. But lets not re-visit ground already covered.

The problem comes F.H. when 'anyone' can be defined as an enemy, however remote or removed from an immediate situation they might be.

When you say "self defence" is ok, I observe the actions of the so called martyrs. I'll grant you one point, they are bombing truly innocent people, and to that extent they are not 'Islamic' the problem is, the definition of 'Innocent' is a very elastic one in Islam, perhaps a 'voter' for a regime which invades Iraq can be considered 'enemy' ? Its all in their minds.

History is crucial, and cannot be ignored. Ask any Aboriginal here.
Please don't seek to stifle my references to history. Understanding the past assists us in understanding the present. We cannot isolate the connection between past and present.

I am responding to an article by a Bosnian, so my refs to that history are quite valid. Perhaps the author does not see it like this, but he can be made aware of it.

History helps us understand why things happen, it doesn't justify evil, and it doesn't save us before God, only Christ and forgiveness can bring us unblemished to the Father.
He, is our peace, and he can be your peace also.
blessings

Numbat asserts that most terrorists are moslem (sic). First of all, Muslim is now the usual spelling. Capitalised like Christian or Jew.

Secondly, there is no evidence most terrorists are in fact Muslim. Robert Pape from the University of Chicago found in his research on suicide bombers that the Tamil Tigers, whose ideology was a form of Marxism, accounted for 75 of 186 suicide terrorist attacks from 1980 to 2001. And they are the world leaders in suicide bombing to that point. There have since been many terrorist actions. Iraq today is a prime example. Many have been the work of Saddam Hussein loyalists rather than committed Muslims. Protestant terrorists have been at work lately in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, terrorists atrocities are often hard to keep up with. Information gets outdated quickly.

However, in sheer death toll, state terrorists dwarf everybody else's efforts. Just look at Iraq. Saddam Hussein and his state apparatus has killed far more than Al-Qaeda can possibly manage. Or Russia - Putin's armed forces can do much more damage in Chechnya than Chechen rebels can do in Moscow. Some state terrorists happen to be Muslim. Most are not.

Finally, most Muslims are not terrorists and take their religious teachings with big grains of salt. Just as Christians do. I haven't never been threatened by Muslims in my 40 years on this planet. Governments, including this one, are another matter. They frighten me way more than Al-Qaeda cells.

BD,

Your comment is still far from the truth:

The definition of the enemy is not elastic in Islam: an enemy is defined by someone armed and driving you out of your land/home. And you only fight until you property is restored. It is a clear cut statement “fight those who fight you and do not transgress” Salahudin didn’t follow the French/ Crusades into Europe after he chased them out. Further more he treated his fellow Christian and Jewish friends with the same love and courtesy (his prime minister was a Christian and his doctor/physician was a Jew). The pre-emption is only used in your beliefs not mine. Your history is full of it.

The elastic definition can only exist in a terrorist mind and that ‘probably explained why most of their victims are Muslims. You forget that these groups started by blowing up other Muslims like myself since early last century. Its not about religion to them but its about control.

Hitler made an elastic definition and so were the serbs who killed and raped in the name of your religion (including blessing by high priest filmed on TV). Look at some of the neo-con websites in the US and what they are openly calling for. There are nuts everywhere outside the nutshop!.

Yes there seem to be many interpretations of the Koran; Yes there seem to be a plethora of Islamist terrorists - but that loses sight of the fact that we are witnessing mans inhumanity to man; it may be today fought under the banner of some distorted concept of Islam but we ouight to see beyond that. Violence has been committed in the name of lots of gods - but at the monent it is Allah press tema that are getting all the work.

In the days of the reformation there was wide spread slaughter of christian by christian; the catholics after resting power from the moors slaughtered and exiles jews and muslims from Spain after the mulsims over saw a growth in the aesthetic, the economy and religious tolerance.

It is a waste of time to pick bits out of context from the religious texts and expect to base a real arguement on them - I mean if your wife is old and barren the bible seems to endorse you shagging your sister in law or one of your slaves - slaves indeed!

Verses at twenty paces is a recipe for disaster we simply have to talk to each other; dispense with preconceptions and see where we end up;

Kenny: Jh.2:10 was to warn Christians about Judaisers who were apparently trying to get them back to Judaism.
The koran tells its followers not to be friendly with unbelievers. Some quotes even say it's OK to slay unbelievers - to be-head them actually.
AGAIN! I do not hate moslems. but I do not like at all their religion its aims and conduct. At the risk of appearing dogmatic I see them as arrant death loving, misogynist pagans. numbat

Numbat,

Read my posting above. Muslims are not allowed to fight anyone except
within defending themselves and hence the reference you refer to.
Muslims should treat unbelivers "who do not wage war" against them is a good manner.

"I don't hate [Muslims]. I just see them as death-loving, misogynist pagans." Is it just me or is this quote a tad insensitive towards people of the Islamic faith? I also feel it may be contradictory if I'm not mistaken. Not so much a case of "love the sinner, hate the sin" but more "love the sinner, hate the sin...nah, stuff it, hate the sinner as well."

Of course, Muslims can adequately defend themselves against such ludicrous rubbish. A more serious issue is that Islamic extremists will use these types of anti-Muslim diatribes in their recruitment campaigns. Way to go!

"American power, however, under the Reagan Administration propped up Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, supported Saudi Arabia ... bla bla bla.

If I hear this one more time, I'm going to scream. Listen, all of you, Reagan did not "prop up Saddam", except to play one side agaisnt the other. Reagan was not Saddam's friend, OK

Have you all ever heard of Iran-Contra? Duhhhhhhhhhh. This is where the Reagan Administration supplied arms to IRAN in exchange for Iran giving weapons to the Contras. This almost got RR impeached.

Reagan played both sides, which was the best way to handle an impossible situation (A plague on both your houses...). He did not want either side to win. A somewhat imoral attitude, but probably in the US best interests.

If you want anti-semetism, look at modern liberals and Muslims of any shape and form.

Conservative Christians and Moderate Muslims share many social norms, but they cannot work together, because Muslims refuse to allow full freedoms to Christians where they domninate. They may not be enemies, but they sure aint friends.

Liberal Christians, on the other hand, love Islam and cannot be too nice to it. The NCC-USA (National Council of Churches) even defends Mohammud's actions and has a link to a book promoting Islam on its site's main page. The NCC obviously never read the Hadiths either, otherwise they would be better informed about the life of Islam's great prophet.

As I read these arguments above, they all sound familiar...

Ciao.. Adios.. Uma boa noite a todos

Juan, aka kactuz

Gee fancy that Numbat....
not being a Christian or a Muslim they look to mean the same thing to me I guess it's down to what you want it to say :)

kactuz same old same old feeling about your post too. Why is it that Christians post here as if the meaning of various passages in the Bible are not in dispute? Even though their holy book has been dissected thousands of way's. Splintering their faith into hundreds if not thousands of sects, many of which hate each other to the point of fighting wars with each other. Let alone how a non Christian’s would understand the various bit and pieces.(maybe in the same way they would the Quran). Get a grip on reality here both the Bible and the Quran can be used to defend and condemn all manner of behavior. To believe otherwise simply demonstrates your successfully indoctrination.

I believe that it is a good thing for the bible is as open to interpretation as the Kuran. No-ones' interests are served by failing to critically, and openly, evaluate the ideologies to which people adhere. I don't understand the OT references to war and genocide, however, most theologians agree that Jesus' pacifist teachings overruled the OT teachings. Unfortunately, terrorists will not listen, as they will look for any justification for their hatred and acts of aggression.

From what I have read, Islam is similar in that it combines benevolent teaching with admonitions to go out and conquer. As Softic commented, there is a disparity of beliefs about "jihad". Where Muslims are in the minority, they do seem to live peaceably with their non-muslim neighbours, yet in countries where they are in power, they have a very poor human rights record, particularly against women and people of other faiths. The other things which cause distrust of muslims are, although the Bible has been re-translated hundreds of times, it still maintains the standard chapter/verse delineations. It is difficult to get a laymans understanding of the Koran, as hadiths are also required for full understanding, and particular verses can differ in location between translations, and between editions of a translation. Furthermore, there have been several occasions where Imans have come and preached hatred in Australian mosques. This does nothing to extinguish non-muslim's feelings of disquiet with this religion. Surely, if Muslims are serious about being accepted in this country they should restrict their choice of visiting Iman's to countries which do not subscribe to hard-line Islamic beliefs and to make it clear that extremist teachings will result in their expulsion by the mosque.

I abhor violence and vilifying people for any reason, and I have nothing against Muslims but, in light of the very visible inconsistencies in the way their faith is lived out to the world, can understand that some may harbour suspicions about this religion and what embracing it may mean to Australia.

Well, kactuz is going to scream. Bring it on. You see it was the Reagan Administration's initiative to re-establish diplomatic ties with Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld was sent over in 1983 to seal the deal. The main reason was due to the threat of Islamic fundamentalist Iran. And yes, I am aware of the Iran-Contra scandal. It underlines the immorality of the Reagan Administration and some of the cronies from that administration who now like to pose as friends of Muslims - especially since Saddam Hussein's fall in 2003.

The reason I brought up the issue is that Softic appears to make the mistake that Western European governments are immoral schemers as opposed to the supposed high-mindedness of US administrations. The history of Western European and US foreign policy shows support for Middle-Eastern dictators at the expense of their subject peoples. But it seems US foreign policy has an unpredictable past.

I get along fine with my Muslim neighbour. We talk at least weekly and I often wave to him as I pass the local mosque on the main drag. However, I have only ever seen his wife once and have never spoken to her (nor has my wife & children.)

Would I take arms against him? Would I need to take arms against him? Here are two distinct questions. But, the more important questions are: why am I able to peacefully co-exist with him?, and, is this on the basis of equity?

Our nation, with principles derived from a European/British Christian culture, allows/impels us to value religious freedom as a more or less first principle. The same backgroung also encouraged us to work hard and support a single (married?) spouse to ensure that society gets the benefits of stable family life.

Now, due to our expansion of 'freedom' we see de facto = real and have situations where Muslims (not my neighbour) have multiple de factos with the government supporting numerous 'single mothers.' This support is not racially or religiously based, but, will, in the longer term, ensure that those faiths/cultures/individuals gain a demographic upper hand.

Yes, Christians are not at war per se, but the actions of some men (and inaction of others) will see the racial/cultural/faith diversity of our nation changed, and when it is, will minority Christians be given a right to freedom of religion? More interestingly, what will become of the faithless secularists?

F.H. if your understanding of 'protect your property only' is valid, then you condemn your own prophet for making pre-emptive raids mate.
You can't have your cake and munch it also :)
U know, and I know, that he sent raiding parties to obtain food (theft) and punish people (murdering Sa'ad) and various other things.

The Quran came via Mohamed, and if he can't get it right, why would one believe him any more than Joseph Smith the polygamous mormon founder ?

If the founder of Islam and his 'companions' all went against the Quran, (Your presentation of it at least) we could be forgiven for being cynical about "all" Muslims who make such claims as you.

I don't want to revisit oft repeated references, u know enuf of them I'm sure.

But KENNY... you and your 'splinter groups'... when you face the Almighty mate, He will not be asking 'Now Kenny, were you a good Methodist" ? or.."A good Baptist" ? none.. he will ask you "When BOAZ and others informed you that you should turn from all sin, and accept Christ as your Savior and Lord, did u ?" That....is the crucial question.

God knows that the various traditions have historical backgrounds, and the differences are quite minor and certainly not anything to cause problems over.

You should look more closely at the co-operation and love which does exist between the various evangelical denominations.
There is no greater adventure in life, than to live the Christ filled, Spirit enabled, Fellowship strengthened life. You might say...."Its heaven on earth".

"when you face the Almighty ...", says BOAZ.

What a load of childish nonsense. The one you call "the Almighty" is a character from a book. Quite a good book, as it happens, but a book nonetheless. There is no more likelihood of meeting him than there is of meeting Hamlet or Harry Potter.

David, yes, true - But the reason was to hold Iran in check, not because RR and Saddam were bossom buddies. After the first year of the Iran-Iraque war, it became clear that Saddam had bitten off more than he could chew. Reagan played both sides, and as I said, that was probably the best thing for a politician to do, and the decade long stalemate that followed maybe served US interests (and the world). The fact that hundreds of thousands died (particularly young Iranians sent on suicide charges) because it was in the "interests" of Saddam, the Ayatollahs, RR and other governments in the region shows the sorry state of mankind and how imoral they all were.

On the other hand, there is the concept of 'greater evil'. Would it had been better not to aid Saddam? or Stalin in WW2? What if Iran had conquered Iraque and then taken over other Gulf Countries (Including Arabia, a country who rulers I despise so much I refuse to use their name!). Or what if Saddam had won? I really don't know.

I hate to tell you this, but governments are by nature immoral enterprises - they favor people and groups, take monies from one group and give to another, selectively make and enforce laws, promote their 'pet' projects irrespective of the general good and so on. The primary mission of all governments is to ensure that they continue - and they do what it takes to that end. That phrase about "providing for general wellfare" is way down on the list. The older I get, the more I believe that good people cannot be part of government, or at least be honest and remain be part of government - they will either quit or get kicked out.

I am getting old, and very cynical.

David, it is enough to drive one to drink.... almost...

John Kactu

John, I'm in general agreement with you there. Although I will say that we should hold democratic governments to greater account and expect more of them than dictatorships. And I don't just mean the US (some people the US believe they are often unfairly targeted). I also mean our own government and the governments of Western Europe.

Softic says: "These intellectuals [Chomsky, Pilger et al] would want us to believe the war in Iraq is the continuation of that 'neo-imperial' strategy."

But policymakers behind Project for an American Century and some of Bush's cabinet (the so-called Vulcans) are quite open about such a strategy. And this is partly why I object to Softic's inference that those in charge in the US are idealists compared with European cynics.

"More interestingly, what will become of the faithless secularists?"
Well almost everyone with a open mind becomes Agnostic or Atheist. So our numbers will grow in all areas while as the big three go the way of the pagan religions. You just have to look at the only branch of Christian that is growing, hillsong and the like and what brand of mumbo jumbo they peddle. Once again DB demonstrates his precarious grip on reality. The Pope thought that Luther fellow was smashing.

Reality Check,

You raised a good point and here are some thoughts:

Will a change in demography, in the long term, change a democracy based government from secular to theological? I don’t think it will. The reason why is taking Australian Muslims for instance: immigrants and aussies who chose Islam, over the years they developed a balanced system where their religious beliefs and democratic values are not in conflict. They have their own views on out of marriage children and gay marriage but they don’t go out and force it on others.

Now compare that to a Muslim, Christian or even a Jew living in some parts of the middle east / Africa. The practice of religion is a lot more literal. Homosexuals are likely to beaten by a Christian, Muslim or a jew.

My point is Islam in the West is likely to have a lot less literalism than that of the East. Just like precendents in Christianity and Judaism: west Europe Christianity is vastly different in literalism and so is Judaism.

BD,

There are four emotional steps a person needs to go through to accept a reality: denial, anger, depression and acceptance. As far as Islam is concerned, you are still at step one. See you when you get to step 4.

Glad you are enjoying your beliefs and not trying to force them on others..(or are you?) :)

All the best

Fellow Human

your confidence in Western Culture is based on...

Islamists becoming entrapped by secularism / materialism?
Islamists accepting Westminster traditions and freedoms?
The west reclaiming its cultural foundations or becoming so liberal that no one cares if it is lost?

You note "but they don’t go out and force it on others."

I think this is the big 'if' based on a 'not yet.'

The success of your optimism is based on the concept of 'moderate Islam' being developed and its ability to resist radical elements that will purge Islam of such moderate "apostates."

Here's hoping, but, after those apostates are sorted, people of the book are 'generously' catered for (dimmitude) who is next in the line of fire for 'conversion'?

F.H. and I'll meet you in Damascus :) 'Post enlightenment'

Of one thing you never need to comtemplate... that is me and the '4 stages'
Anyway... moving on. "Forcing" ? not at all, 'raising questions', bringing questions of eternity to bear on people's consiousness, is the work of an evangelist. What folk do with that, is entirely up to them, as Grace is given.
"I stand at the door knocking, to him who opens, I will come in" said our Lord.

The idea of a Priest blessing a murder squad for today is quite foreign to scripture, to Christ and the whole New Testament. Probably more in keeping with some specific battles and judgements during the early years of Israel, but certainly not a 'doctrine' or teaching of Scripture for Christians. I could accept a Minister praying for protection on armed forces going to meet an actively invading enemy, but thats as far as it goes for me.

On your point regarding Muslims in democratic western nations.
Unfortunately the track record speaks otherwise. The tendency is to attempt to shift, alter, change laws which are contrary to the teachings of Islam, which is 'Sharia by stealth' nothing less. The obvious targets would be:
-Time off during work hours for prayer
-Food issues
-Friday off for prayers
-Clothing in the workplace (more re women than men)
-Burial customs
-Financial transactions involving interest, e.g. housing loans.
-Call to Prayer from Mosques.

For most of the above, there are living examples of inroads made by Islamic lobby groups and they have this predictable way of 'rationalizing' them. e.g. "Call to prayer is no different from church bells"

So, while the author is correct "Christians are not our enemies" and that "Its about 'man' against 'man'" .. this is indeed true, on both counts. While we are not 'your' enemies, are you ours ? :)(on a social/cultural level)
blessings
keep on trekkin.

"Sharia by stealth"... "Hinduism by stealth"...

I'm so relieved that we have the vigilant Christian gatekeepers to ensure that our society is untainted by wicked heathens!

And now we're going to have new you-beaut 'anti-terrorism' laws to protect us against some other mythical bogey men! Can I pension off my fridge magnet now?

Will it be possible to deploy these new laws against, say, the 'Pro-Life terrorists' who attacked some peaceful 'Pro-Choice' demonstrators in Melbourne last weekend? Nah... methinks the new laws will only be deployed against the nasty Muslims.

I'm so glad we live in such a free-thinking and open society.

M-Duck,

if either the pro-death or pro-life groups set up training camps (or send members OS to them) or operate cells that threaten to KILL innocent by-standers, then these new laws will apply.

Frankly, I don't think Right to Life is under surveillance (or should be) but if you know different, then get that fridge magnet & RING NOW!

Heh, pro-death. What a term.

When I was a very young child, I saw some pro-life activists holding a banner that says 'Don't Kill Babies' or something along those lines. I timidly ask my mother 'why would we want to kill babies?', and she was placed in a very difficult position of explaining to a young child why pro-life activists are ignorant moronic bastards.

She was so angry at them for scaring me that she was in tears, and I don't blame her. Accusing those who are pro-choice of murder is so low, so evil, so STUPID.

'What I say to people who are pro-life is: If you're so pro-life, then you should adopt a child who already IS alive and hungry, cold, alone and in desperate need of the love, care and support that only a proper home and parenting can provide. And people say: 'Well why don't you do that?' and I tell them it's because I hate kids and couldn't care less.'
- Bill Hicks

...sorry, what was this thread about?

Reality,

Agree with the “if” and “not yet” risk but it can be mitigated with a combination of:
a) Western governments to embrace Moderate Islam
b) Muslims communities fast track modernisation
Right now little is happening.

BD,

Your comments confirm your prejudice:
- Prayer time off: (5 minutes break twice a day) wow, how much does a smoker waste in productivity? Or because it is labelled ‘prayer time’?

-“Food issues”: we don’t eat pig meat or drink. How is that a ‘threat’ to you or any of your business?

-“Friday off for prayers” Midday for 30 minutes we mostly do it during lunch breaks.

- Clothing in workplace: this is a topic I often avoided but I can’t understand why what a person wears or not wear is someone else business? Prejudice? Ignorance? or a mix of both? Some of Gucci, Armani new fashion design features a head scarf! Lets ban Gucci ‘clothing range. Seeing women with minimum clothing became an obsession for some sick men.

-Burial customs: Muslims need to be buried right after death and wrapped in clothes. Why ‘boxing’ or ‘freezing’ my body is your business?

-Financial transactions: we can’t transact in interest. Most modern financial systems accommodate that. Few financial organisations in Australia have existing financial products targeting the Muslim community. I thought Jewish don’t transact in interest (but amongst themselves only). Are you not OK with that as well?
- Call to prayers from mosques: This is not a ‘must have’ most new special watches and calendars have a built in prayer reminder.

I know media would like us to believe otherwise but I have seen a lot more of you than in the Muslims camp. Throughout history Muslims embraced Christians and Jewish people and let them practice their own faith. I agree the freedom may have varied from time to time. But your history has no precedents of co-existing with others or accepting others. Only secularism saved the rest of the world from your ‘loving hands’.

Dear Spendocrat,

your early intuition about life could have been reinforced rather than being 'difficult or a source of anger' for your mother, but, was her point of view merely that of a an "ignorant moronic bastard."

Accusing those who are pro-life of having a defective view of murder is so low, so evil, so STUPID.

People who are pro-life often adopt a child who already IS alive and hungry, cold, alone and in desperate need of the love, care etc.

"sorry, what was this thread about?"

It was about war between man and man - and abortion is, by definition woman against man/woman, so we are way off the topic..