BD,

Why does it always have to become back to religion with you?? I understand that religion is important in your life, but the worlds problems cannot be solved by villifying other religions for whatever reason.

The war on terror is not some sort faith based ideological struggle! It is about politics, land, oil and power!

I'm not denying that religion does play a role but you just seem to place waaaay to much emphasis on it. I'll give you this link again in case you didn't get it on the other thread, I think you could benefit from watching it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&q

It is an excellent analysis of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.

I really think the only way to achieve peace is to forget about the side issues of race, religion and ethnicity and educate people on WHY we go to war.

Hey Waleed,
I notice the usual quota of redneck rubbish from elements trying to disrupt these blog sites. Is it intended to discourage discourse? What could be the motives?
In "Christendom", we have Catholicism, Orthodox variations and Protestant groupings. There must be hundreds of sects, ranging from the rational and useful, to utter ratbag fringe elements, likely eventuating and mediated through the sometimes murky lens of politics and history.
For example in Catholicism, there is disputation between the more grassroots "liberation' theology with its active campaign to attend to the needs of the poor and an older and more conservative/aristocratic authoritarian Catholicism, embedded in the class structure of Latin countries responsible, in effect, for maintaining social stasis as much as any expected function relating to pastoral work and educative theology.
Like wise, in Protestantism there are all manner of variations between species of rednecks, Hansonists and exclusivist fundamentalists( Exclusive Brethren, Pentcostals, Waco misanthrops ), through to pastoral organisations like the Sally Army and Vincent de Paul, through to liberal intellectual Anglicanism and Jesuitism.
One presumes that similar tendencies could be said to apply within "Islam" involvinghistorical evolution. For instance, we already know there is a historical theological split between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, rooted in deeper metaphysical and theological conflicts symbolised by and involving the succession to the Prophet's back in the seventh century. There are presumably ideas arising in different parts of the Islamic world history expressive of local or universalist aspirations involving mystical, rationalist, authoritarian, democratic or messianic tendencies forming an unnoticed parallel to Christianity.
In the West we have hard core American fundamentalists (Oklahoma, Jonestown, Bush neo conservatism, or Opus Dei. So, in Islam, Arabian Wahabis for example, have been identified as part of an extremist problem. Are there different factions within Wahabism itself?
I hope those better-versed in Islamic history, culture,politics and theology may add more to this thread for the benefit of those of us genuinely interested in understanding such tendencies

" I notice the usual quota of redneck rubbish from elements trying to disrupt these blog sites.What are the motives?"
Well funguy[ha!ha!] the reason might possibly be that this is Australia where freedom of speech still is the rule.The redneck rubbish are merely using their rights to put their opinions. If you have objection to that,please contact the monitors.

“As terrorism follows its natural course to failure, deep Muslim grievances remain and cannot be ignored”

What about the grievances of those who bear the brunt of the redneck fungus spawned in the redneck ‘petri dish’ of the Islamic or Middle-Eastern diaspora?

What about the amount of murders and violent bashings inflicted on “skipps” and “Aussy scum” by “Middle-Eastern” “Lions” whom, whilst maybe not practicing Muslims, nonetheless grow out of the xenophobic tendencies inculcated therein?

Do you find any link between such “Lions” and the xenophobic practice of “pure” Islamic women not sharing the same pool as “impure” Infidels? I do.

Wahleed, your comments show you want to legitimise the “Islamic problem” by interpreting it only in its socio-economic dimension (such as poverty, Marxism), but you will never get anywhere until you acknowledge and condemn the redneck-icity inherent in its cultural dimension, and somehow flood this out by emphasising your supposed tolerance of “criticism” (e.g. the trial of pastor Danny in Victoria!)

With true “slave morality” you react to all fair criticism in a defensive manner. It is people like you who make the issue an “ethnic” or “religious” one, the rest of us just have an issue with a sector of the population, as we would if they were Anglo “skin heads”.

What would you think if prominent Anglos or Christians got all defensive whenever you complained that skin head gangs racially bashed Australians of Middle-Eastern origin? Forget about the (paranoid) “looks” people give you!

This whole debate is upside down, made possible by leftwing extremist discourses shrouding all of the REAL RACISTS behind a barrier to criticism, making them appear and themselves believe that it is THEY who are the victims of racism, when in fact “multiculturalism” is nothing but a policy to appease the rednecks coming here.

To those who say that some of the comments are by “rednecks,” rather than patronisingly ingratiate yourselves to Wahleed, why don’t you justify your name calling, you know, give reasons in support of it?

Poor ol' Waleed!
As a Muslim he is honest enough to acknowledge that even Muslims sometimes are moved to violence when politics is running really bad.
Have we had a similar honest acknowledgement from the Bush family or Cheney, or other US politicians like Clinton and Albright about the over a million Iraqis killed arguably as result of Western policy, over the last twenty-odd years. As the US Current Affairs show "Frontline" amongst other sources demonstrated; because of the cynical machinations of US politicians complicit in the rise, installation, and maintainence of Saddam Hussein in power, the Iraqi public has had to pay a shocking price in life and limb over a generation.
When Albright was told that the sanctions policy had already cost half a million lives by back through the mid-nineties, she is said to have said, "better half a million Iraqis than one US citizen" in arguing against the changing of the sanctions regime. After all, how were unarmed Iraqis supposed to get rid of Saddam?. It didn't really worry HIM when they were dying like flies, so what did the US and its allies think they were achieving. Apart from keeping Saddam in power, that is!
Now, for one last time. What IS the redneck definition of "terrorism"?
Nothing like the Israeli brutalising of children, pregnant women and the elderly in the Lebanon, West Bank or Gaza, I suppose?

funguy,

The only argument that can be made against the overthrowing of Sadam and the ensuing war is that democracy is not something that can just be implemented overnight.

However, in making that argument one has already accepted that some societies might need a dictator to keep the barbarians in line, whom came out in full force after Sadam was no longer around to murder their families if they stepped out of line.

Indeed, this could be the only decent argument one could make against the implementation or imposition of democracy onto a society, for in principle democracy is as sound as the principle upon which rests our forum here. That is, insofar as you expect your argument here it to be read and replied to, you necessarily presuppose that that principle ought to be implemented universally. Otherwise your words would be meaningless.

The "West" had every right to support Sadam under such potentially unstable circumstances.

If your argument against the recent war is based on how the "West" ought to have left Sadam in power, and if the basis of this is as I've outlined - because some societies need a harsh dictator to force a bit of stability onto an otherwise factionally divided murderous bunch of people - then your are inconsistent to say the least