• “selfish manipulation of the public mood by the media; and
• selfish manipulation of the public mood by the government.
Eh? What?

In expanding the first claim, the author points to ‘negative reporting’ by the media following 9-11, as though the Islamic barbarism of 9-11 wasn’t fairly negative! How would Holden report ‘positively’ on such a thing, and on any subsequent material available in the wake of such an atrocity? He also throws in the Haneef case. He must be the only person in Australia who thinks that the media didn’t give the Government a hard time over Haneef. They almost succeeded in making him look like a saint!

His mention of non-Islamic turmoil being ignored indicates that the media is concentrating on what affects Australia (a nice change), and the Islamic threat which lurks constantly in our region – not Africa.

Holden also voices concern about the “hundreds of thousands of UNQUESTIONING minds” being affected by material heard on radio. Now there’s a man who really knows how to alienate!

At the end of his first “explanation”, he goes right off Muslims and talks about “smearing”: ‘a race’, ‘nationality’, ‘social class’. He doesn’t have the nous to distinguish between these things and what he claims to be on about – RELIGION.

His second attempt at explanation starts of with the tired old sneer about fridge magnets, and again puts us all down by suggesting that we can be whipped into mass paranoia by a mere politician. He then meanders back to done-to-death events of 5 or 6 years ago, and advises that not a single person has been killed in Australia by terrorists since 9-11.

Perhaps this good fortune is the result of an alert media and security-conscious government, Mr. Holden?

Peter Holden and those of his kind will only ever wake up to themselves (maybe) when terrorism does hit Australia

Former National Party senator John Stone posed the question last year:

"... while I am open to correction, I believe the evidence is incontrovertible that Islamic and Western cultures are today, within any single polity, incompatible. Certainly, I know of no example that can be cited to the contrary."

I'm still waiting for an answer. So why is Australia boldly going where no democracy has gone before? Trying to assimilate Islam is mission impossible. A very strange time for Australia to develop a superiority complex:

http://australiatomorrow.blogspot.com/2007/07/3-uss-australia.html

The real "dangerous game" is the slow creep of Islamification that is happening all over Europe with Muslims outbreeding secular folk. Brian Holden is happy to give away Australia slowly, without resistance. Mr Holden is happy to submit future children of secular Aussies to the "will of Allah".

The fact is Muslims choose to differentiate themselves visually, behaviourally and conceptually. I don't blame Muslims, that is their identity. But as Melanie Phillips says: "if there is no longer an overarching culture, there is nothing into which minorities can integrate".

This divide is doomed from the start. The "evidence is incontrovertible". Irreconcilable differences. Too little, too late. Too far gone. Time to put a stop to this dangerous game.

I would disagree to the extent that I think there is real evidence that type casing Muslims or Islam as the enemy has been as active as using fear. In fact it is fear of the other of difference.
Most terrorism has as its basis a desire for freedom from foreigners territory or perceived wrong. Terrorism is old and Islamic Fascist terrorism just the latest. The fact that at present the majority of Muslim’s have not risen to make a Caliphate might suggest such is separate from say the purported aims of Al Qaeda, and that Islam or rather Waahabi sect is being used as excuse for terror. Rather as Boat People have been used.

Fear as Herman Goering has pointed out is a useful tool, indeed a Russian has written of The Politics of Power: Truman and Bush www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=13430&sectionID=11
The truth of his observation can be found by searching the records.

Reading Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars to-gether with his references leads one to think that in large measure the extent of current terrorism is our own fault. Further reading might help to put terrorist activity in context of probability of being hurt and how often historically terrorist activity has occurred and how small the damage has been.
G W Bush’s outline of foreign policy in his national security statement to congress in September 2002 is more scary than Osama

It is merely the Howard Government's way of dividing people by any means the politics of fear. More and more Australians are beginning to wake up to this tactic and turn against Howard for using the tactic.

Australia as a nation has always produced better outcomes when we have been united rather than split. Playing the race card can potentially be explosive, as we saw at Cronulla beach. It's time to stop the divisions and throw Howard out.

Certainly Howard uses this issue, Islam and the fear of terrorism, as vehicles to promote fear. It's his only weapon. Laughingly I heard Joe Hockey accuse Labor of using fear in their campaign. Oh dear, can't take their own tactics. Labor's campaign is on IR, not people and religion as Howard's is.

I have to agree though that history shows that Islam and the West do not mix. If we abolish religion we have a chance but with the ever increasing number of Muslims here we are certainly creating the climate for battles between religious believers.

If we want to stop this the answer is simple. Just ban immigration for anyone who follows Islam. Sounds like bigotry etc but think about it. Why do we spend so much time protecting ourselves against these supposed terrorists when there is a simple approach. Don't let any Islamic follower into Australia.

Those that are here should adapt to our country and become Australians. Not Lebanese Australians, Iraqui Australians or any other ethnic mix than Australians.

Get rid of this constant protection of countries and "cultures" our immigrants have run from but seem hell bent on re creating.

After you jump up and down and accuse me of racism have a think about it. Why do these immigrants cling so desperately to their former country when they couldn't live there? Why do they want to change Australia into another Lebanon or Palestine? Why? Or any Vietnamese city. Greeks are still much the same despite decades of living here. They call themselves Greek Australians. If so, live in Greece etc. I note here that Italians are not of this ilk and many other countries people now settled here are not either. So it can be done.

RobbyH, you obviously don't know Italians very well. You only have to walk down Lygon Street in Carlton to think that you are still in Italy.

On another subject, banning immigration does not work either. Japan is the most xenophobic country in the world but it still managed to produce home grown terrorists. There are other screwy religions out there besides Wahhabi Muslims.

David

What became of those heady days when multiculturalism was supposed to “enrichen the tapestry of the Australian way of life?” It seems we are now at the interface where fact and government propaganda collide. Our parents scouted the idea that bringing muslims into the country would lead to ever-lasting peace. They along with others knew that it was an inimicitious policy.

The experts tell us to avoid disenfranchising young muslim males. Are these the same experts that identified an angry muslim as being denied access to opportunity; dirt poor; uneducated; in-bred and a host of other pathologies. The exploding muslim doctors dispelled that myth. And what happened to that old trope ‘Islam is a religion of peace?’ That message has been dinned into our heads for many years. How ‘bout we start dinning it into muslims too.

I don’t believe that the media has promoted a negative image of Islam. Muslims are doing a fine job of that themselves and they don’t need any assistance from the media. I do agree that the media’s reporting of the Haneef matter became quite rococo but even his legal representative used the media to plead his client’s case. We don’t hear any complaints from muslims when a puff piece is presented showing a relaxed mufti in his kitchen helping his family prepare the evening meal. What is happening is that Islam is being scrutinised by media which are free of the smothering peremptoriness that stifles debate in other countries.

The author mentions the vituperators (presumably English speaking) who ring talk-back radio stations with vile opinions. I’ll bet there are plenty of vituperators ringing Arabic radio but we can’t understand what they are saying because some idiots think our society will cohere if we have about 30 different languages.

I can see fractures in our society that may never be repaired

UntutoredMind said “I think there is real evidence that type casing Muslims … as the enemy has been as active as using fear.”
Don’t you think the current fear of Muslims might be fear of death by suicide bomber? Islam will get a lot better press in Australia when we see community groups coming out against people like Sheik Hillali rather than defending him. Until then, it is hard to shake the feeling that Muslims basically agree with the obscene things he says.

UntutoredMind said “to put terrorist activity in context of probability of being hurt …and how small the damage has been.”
If the amount of damage done is the relevant measure of something’s importance, then anti terror laws and the treatment of Dr Haneef are irrelevant. The amount of suffering caused by anti terror laws is very small, only a handful of people have been affected. So why are you so upset?

UntutoredMind said” that in large measure the extent of current terrorism is our own fault”
That’s obscene apologism. What exactly was it that you think those 3000 people who died on 9/11 did to AlQaeda and other Muslims? What about the hundreds of people who were killed in Bali?

Shinga said “Playing the race card can potentially be explosive …”
We’re not playing a race card. This is about RELIGOUS fundamentalism and I don’t care if they are black, white or brindle. We have no place in Australia for migrants who are religious fundamentalists. Those Australians who are in that class should be encouraged to leave as well.

VK3AUU said “ Japan is the most xenophobic country in the world but it still managed to produce home grown terrorists. “
How many of them are killing thousands of people a year? Once the Aum Shinrikyo group were caught there has been no problems from them since. It was an act of group insanity. AlQaeda’s terrorist acts however, are part of a calculated strategy to radicalise all Islamic people and overthrow non fundamentalist gov’ts in the Muslim world. Its about global conquest. A crusade in reverse

But they have to provide cover for the oil grab somehow. Demonising whole populations of ordinary people is a tried and tested method of imperialism and resource *capturing*.

Oh Mr Holden, you are so nice. You have obviously never lived amongst muslims or understand islam. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

fellas, lets keep it in perspective, on numbers alone old whitey christian outscores the others in terrorist killings, at this stage in history led by good ol' US of A, and as for assimilating, sections of the brits in australia (in my 53 years experience) aren't doing a particularly good job are they?

Notice how often our own views and self interests color our posts? and just sometimes we all get it wrong?
The thread is rubbish, Medea? remember the hate after those cartoons?
We can not turn our backs on the hate and primitive undereducated ideas of SOME, far too many in fact who would kill us .
From within the Muslim community the answer will come to both cultures problems .
It will not come from sweeping the issues under a carpet or convicting the Medea for doing as we ask .

sorry, guys, islam is not the problem. stupidity, ignorance, parochialism, and exploitation of the fear of strangers: that's the problem.

australia's only real worry? step over to a mirror.

The only dangerous game being played is pretending that Islam is peaceful. This is the 1930s all over again. For 10 years Churchill spoke out against the Nazis but the BBC wouldnt broadcast his speaches. They said that his words would antagonize the Nazis. Well, we known how well appeasement worked up to 1-Sept-1939.

Chamberlain would be proud of Mr. Holden. He blames everybody but Muslims for Muslims' problems. Mr Holden, have you read the hadith? You you known about the evil deeds done by Mohammad? Do you care? Remember, Muslims love the man and consider him a moral example. That should tell you all you need to know

Understand that the massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena. Prior to the 1960s when immigrants came from Muslim countries, it was mostly Christians escaping the evils and discrimination they suffered under Islam and Sharia. Now Muslim come and they bring their hate, intolerance with them.

In case you haven't followed current events, it is not the West attacking Muslim citizens, it is Muslim citizens attacking the countries in which they live, in the name of Islam.

Worse yet, there is nothing we can do. Dialogue wont change anything. Islam teaches alienation and hate. You will notice other immigrant communities don't have this problem. Ask why. Think. What can it be?

Muslims will be Muslims and will do what their dear prophet did: murder, plunder, torture, rape, beat their wives and wait til the time is right to attack and subdue the infidels. That is the story in the hadith (Islamic traditions). That is how Mohammad conquered Arabia. Remember, Muslims always say "Praise be unto him" after this man's name. Muslim immigration is just a slow jihad. Even after the Iraq war is over nothing will change, Muslims will find another excuse to hate and attack - and people like Mr Holden will blame it on us and call for more dialogue.

Things are going to get worse, and be sure that Muslims will start it. They cannot be honest about Islam or their dear leader.

Kactuz

All I can say is Australia does not need immigrants. I'm sick of being subjected to all the propaganda about multiculturalism. Every time I turn on the ABC there is more MC propaganda ( no informed unbiased debate). Most people from other countries are simply more primitive than Australians. Look around the world, the only places people want to migrant to are the white anglo countries. Are there any advanced countries from non white cultures?, the only exception I think is Japan. Why is this? I believe it is concerned with the evolution of man. Man is still evolving. Over thousands of years different cultures have been responsible for building different countries and civilisations. Now most migrants are trying to get into advanced western countries, but still want to bring their primitive backward cultures with them. And the ABC and the rest of the media heavily promote how these primitive cultures are somehow meant to advance and enrich my country.
Whoever it was that suggested Greek and Italians have assimilated is clearly mistaken. Only a few months ago there were thousands of Greeks in the streets waving their flags. Clearly many of them must have been born here. I think this was concerned with a soccer match. Why are these people born in Australia waving a foreign flag. GO home, get out of my country.
Why can't people grow up, except difference, and people live in the countries where they belong, if its broken fix it, don't just bludge of someone else's country. I feel 99% confident in believing that unless this happens there will be big trouble in the next 20 years.

>>If you keep smearing a race, nationality or social class the members will come together and collectively strike back as one.>>

There is no such thing as a "race" of Muslims.

There is no Muslim "nationality."

Muslims do not form a "social class."

Islam is a system of beliefs.

I would like posters here to give me ONE REASON why Islam should be immune from analysis, critique, satire, expressions of contempt, denigration or scorn.

Remember that any reason you give must apply equally to capitalism, Christianity, Fascism, Marxism, Nazism, Scientology and socialism to name but a few.

If you want to say "You should not talk that way about Muslims" you also have to be prepared to say "You should not talk that way about Americans, capitalists, Christians, Communists, imperialists, Jews, Nazis, Sikhs, toffs, socialists, Zionists or proponents of intelligent design."

No adult in Australia is compelled to be a Muslim anymore than they are compelled to be a supporter of the Liberal Party. If an adult in Australia CHOOSES to be a Muslim he or she must expect to be judged in the same manner, and according to the SAME RULES, as somebody who CHOOSES to adhere to the tenets of any other ideology or religion.

Islam is NOT a "no go" area any more than any other ideology or religion.

Do some people use an attack on Islam as a cover for their racism?

Yes.

Do some people attack Israel as a cover for their anti-Semitism?

Yes.

Does that mean Israel should be immune from criticism?

Are critics, satirists and pundits generally under any compunction to be "fair?"

The answer is that they are not.

Demos,

what a great contribution to the argument, Well thought through and backed up by evidence. Please allow me to reply in kind. Australia’s only real worry is people like you who insist on pretending that terrorists do not pose any threat to us.

You and your ilk have created ghettoes in our major cities, where many migrants never have to learn English or understand Australian values. You allowed these people to bring their home country here and the problems that we are having at the moment are a direct consequence. Multiculturalism, like self determination for the Aborigines, is a monumental failure of policy of the left.

When these deranged psychopaths finally let off a dirty bomb or a biological weapon somewhere, you’ll no doubt finally wake up. I hope you won’t still be pretending that we have more to fear from anti terror laws. You and your fellow soft lefties concern for poor Dr Haneef and David Hicks dwarfs any concern you have shown for the victims of terror. This is typical of the soft left, concern for the perpetrator instead of the victim. This fits in nicely with your theory that we in the West deserve the terrorist atrocities we suffer

Justoneperson

Lets keep in perspective that we are talking about this century, wrongs done in past centuries are not relevant. If you are calling the coalition invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorism, then you are just another sorry apologists for the Islamic Fundamentalists. Terrorism is about achieving your aims through creating enough fear in the minds of your enemies that they capitulate. The islamo fascists do this by killing as many people as they can. Don’t be under any misapprehension; the amount of killing they have done has been limited by their capabilities. If they had a nuclear weapon they would set it off tomorrow.

As for the British, they at least accept the equality of the sexes and they also don’t make death threats when their religious icons are teased. In fact, in what way do they hold different values to us?

A most peculiar point of view which seems to be that by doing nothing to identify and curb militant islamists in our own country we, in some way, add to our security. Is the writer on the planet? We have an ever expanding world-wide Islamist jihad in place as I write, with corresponding atrocities almost every hour. Whether this state of affairs is arguably justified is irrelevent - it is the fact that is of concern. This dreadful business has taken on a life of its own and draws sustenance from followers of the (alleged) written word of allah. Whether all muslims are jihadists is also irrelevent - enough of them are to fully justify the application of the most Draconian laws available. Haneef fully deserved to be jailed and eventually thrown out of the country - guilt by association in the current climate of mindless and random violence is good enough for me. Ask the victims (and the families of the dead) of the London bombings. Perhaps the young lady who lost both legs would have a comment to make. One also wonders , if the situation was reversed and a suspected christian bomber was picked up in Pakistan, how the matter would be handled over there. I suspect that Haneef had the better deal of the two. We should let no more Muslims into the country, and keep a very tight rein on those already here. Our own egalitarianism will very likely be our downfall. To hell with bleeding hearts, Paddington coffee lounge lefties, and Sunday morning christians - the well-being of my family, my kind, and myself is uppermost in my mind.

I have a little experience of the Moslem community in Australia.

The Moslem people that I knew used different logical processes - they thought differently - which made effective communication difficult. I had the impression that the different thought patterns of my Moslem friends were influenced by the different language, different values and "manners", their stronger oral tradition and by their traditional loyalty to tribal groups rather than to a country or a political party.
I think we need to put some effort into understanding this different way of thinking.

For our own protection.

Brian

The Muslim community in Australia are not a threat.

Many of the ex-pat Iraqi's living in Australia prior to the US invasion, were, infact, supportive of this measure, having been victims of their leader's oppressive regime.

I believe it's the 'group-think' of narrow minded Australians that need to be addressed, as some of the comments on this thread indicate.

Liz,
Like I said ...
"Manners" are different in different cultures. Some Moslem cultures do not value what we would see as "the facts". They value telling you what will make you happy. If you want to hear that there is not problem, that is what they will tell you. It is just a question of good manners.
Is there a problem in Australia?
I would like to make you happy and tell you that there is no potential problem in Australia.
But I can't do that.

Maybe I have a problem with my manners.
But the truth is that there is the potential.

Paul.L, yes the coaltion INVASION of Iraq, how many civilians killed by coalition force Paul and how am i an "apologist for islamic fundamentalism" i'm not arguing the defence of any manifestation of islamic fundamentalism you tool i'm saying we the 'good guys' are terrorising civilian populations on a scale far greater than what the 'terrorists' are!! not just iraq and the OCCUPIED territories Paul.L >> try vietnam bolivia brazil cambodia indonesia CHILE guatemala el salvador NICARAGUA (off the top of my head) for starters Paul.L, try leaving home and start thinking for yourself >>> seems the National Front is well represented in this thread!

Justoneperson, you are pathetic. If you can’t see the difference between the unfortunate civilian deaths in combat in Iraq, and what the islamo fascists are doing, you just don’t want to. Civilian deaths in Iraq are in the main, caused by the warring sects themselves. The civilian deaths which can be attributed to the coalition can mostly be laid at the feet of the brave fighters of AlQaeda who hide behind women and children, while they set their bombs. By your rationale, the allies during ww2 were also terrorists, since very large numbers of French civilians died during the reoccupation of Europe. If you can’t see a difference between the terrorists deliberate policy to target civilians, and the allies attempts to avoid civilian casualties, you are soft in the head.

If we were terrorising these people like you say, they would have all run for the hills. Just look at what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo, when a western army really did use terror as a weapon. Every man, woman and child that could move, packed their belongings and fled. This is clearly not what is happening in Iraq.

As for the occupied territories, the Israelis would be doing exactly the same things whether they had American support or not.

Americas intervention in almost all the countries you mentioned occurred during the COLD WAR, some as long ago as 40 years ago. Sure the right wing Gov’t weren’t very nice in many of these places. But just think about Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, the Shining Path, Robert Mugabe and the other communist backed regimes in Africa, the Indonesian Polri and TNI in East Timor and Aceh etc. The Vietcong massacred 5000 people in one day in the city of Hue in 1968. The Russians crushed protests with tanks, The Chinese did the same. You want to blame someone else for all that?

Mate I’ve left home, I just don’t see the world through your soft-left, rose-coloured glasses. Regurgitating the west hating garbage that is printed in so many far left rags doesn’t make you educated mate

Is the media promoting a anti-Islamic profile or a anti-Islamist profile and does one wish to further articulate the respective differences?
The everyday good and faithful Muslim in truth are of no potential threat to any society other than changing the locus of that social dynamic.
Islam has done no thing. Islamist on the other hand are using and corrupting Islam to foment a climate of social and political hostility in hopes of achieving power. Not for the good of religion but, rather for racial and or cultural dominance. And where they have no hope of power, to destroy infrastructure and the use of other acts of terrorism such as kidnappings and setting bombs to torment that society and gain newsworthy mention as a force to be reckoned with.
It is not we who are playing a dangerous game. We will continue to be. They on the other hand have limited time and scope as eventually those countries easily accessed and influenced by the radicalisation of Islam are made to see a larger global picture. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia Herzegovina, Lebanon, etc. are more instances of social policing than warfare.
It's not a war against Islam. It's a global police effort to stop the sick and twisted from destroying, influencing or dominating. It's a move to protect the innocent and if all possible allow them to democratically choose their leadership.

Aqvarivs wrote:

>>The everyday good and faithful Muslim in truth are of no potential threat to any society...>>

You know this how?

It may be a correct assessment of the situation with regard to Islam.

Or it may not be.

But how do you know?

Can you provide EVIDENCE to support your claim?

DEMOS got a mirror mate? just step in front of it for me will you mate?
You are now looking at the author of the strangest post I ever saw in OLO.

'Glasgow Airport Terror Suspect Kafeel Dies
Mushtak Parker, Arab News

LONDON, 4 August 2007 — The Scottish Procurator Fiscal yesterday ordered a postmortem to be carried out on the body of Dr. Kafeel Ahmed, one of the two terror suspects involved in the terror attack at Glasgow Airport on June 30.....

Because of the severity of his burns he was later transferred to the specialist burns unit at Glasgow Royal Infirmary, where doctors treating him warned that he was unlikely to survive his injuries. He spent 33 days in the unit’s intensive care ward.

Eyewitness reports suggest that the terror suspect doused himself with petrol and set himself alight. He had been detained under police guard at the hospital since the incident, in which his alleged accomplice Bilal Talal Samad Abdullah, 27, an Iraqi doctor, has subsequently been charged with conspiracy to cause explosions, and sent for trial at the Old Bailey....'

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=99274&d=4&m=8&y=2007

I don't think that we can blame the British media for causing the pyschological problems of Dr. Kafeel. Only mad people douse themselves in petrol.

So, what made Dr. Kafeel mad? Answer - conservative Islam with its literalistic interpretations of the Koran.

It is high time that the Islamic communities recognise that their religion has a problem and causes major psychological damage to some of its believers.

The media is not to blame for the likes of Dr. Kafeel. But it is high time that Islamic communities start to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions and actively purge their faith of fundamentalism

stevenlmeyer, by the same knowledge and evidence that I say the everyday good and faithful Jew in truth are of no potential threat to any society. Or say the everyday good and faithful Christian in truth are of no potential threat to any society. Or can say the everyday good and faithful Buddhist in truth are of no potential threat to any society, etc. Though you will find representatives from all these faiths in prison, it is not intellectually sufficient to paint the religions criminal. That there are Islamist killing innocents for notoriety it is not intellectually sufficient to paint the religion of Islam as criminal.

The truth of good and faithful precludes ill will and faithlessness. No person of good will, a being of faith, becomes a living bomb designed to explode in the presents of the innocent. Such actions are counter intuitive and argumentative to such a mature personal philosophy. Which is probably why you don't see too many 35 year old suicide bombers living in truth with their faith. Too many questions with really bad answers. It just doesn't sell as it does to the young innocent desperately accepting of the marching song and wanting in return acceptance from his or her elders.

The longing to belonging and the heroic figure.

That is why at the core issue terrorism must be thwarted. It is the demagogues corruption of innocent youth to kill other equally innocent human beings. The whole ideology of terrorism is built upon corruption. The use of the innocent to kill innocence. Strictly evil.
And has nothing to do with religion. Islam or otherwise

'....And has nothing to do with religion. Islam or otherwise'

This statement is a gross exaggeration and a complete load of rubbish.

Aqvarivs, your 'God Delusion' is running even deeper than I initially thought.

In fact, I think that the Bible and Koran should come with a warning sticker like a pack of cigarettes.

That is, 'WARNING: This book may cause psychological damage if taken literally.'

As a drop-out oldie with Honor's in International Relations, Brian, I'm right with you.

Also with that mixed Iraqi team winning the soccer cup, I'm coming to the conclusion there is some sort of Divine Power out there trying to prove to us that it doesn't take bayonets and projectiles to bring on democracy.

Sort of fitting in with the camraderie of the mixed Iraqi soccer team, is a report in last week's Guardian about an Iraqi force calling itself the 1920 Iraqi Revolutionary Brigades, identifying itself with the 50,000 Iraqis mustard gassed by the British for revolting in 1920. T E Lawrence on the edge of a nervous breakdown broke with his friend Winston Churchill over it, who as War Minister gave the order for the murderous gassing.

Though giving the Americans a hell of a hurry-up, the force is still pledged against suicide bombing and though not much in love with either Al Qaida or Iran, or Saudi-Arabia, has organised itself into a formidable force all by itself.

But shock, not horror, is the fact that it is a mixed mob like that truly wonderful soccer team, with would you believe a Kurd as its military leader.

As a very liberal liberal part boozy former bush Christian, am starting to believe in wonderful powers coming into save us again like my mother taught me if I just prayed to Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild.

As could believe that some sort of spiritual miracle is now happening in Iraq getting Sunnis, Iraqi Shias and Kurds together, not only to work together in sport and in an anti-American fighting force, but in a future Iraqi democracy.

Might ask all interested Christians and Islamics to wish them well.

Just read the nonse that even so called moderates like Irfan Usef write.In one breath he says Hirsi Ali is courageous person and in another she is an evil hypocryte who is only acting in her own self interest.Irfan frequently uses equivocation to justify the words and acts of the likes of Sheik Hilaly by pointing to Christian fundies.We either laugh at our fundies or ignore them and they are not prominate leaders in our community.

I measure Islam by it's silence when their extreme facists commit violent acts.All too often there is much silent approval and lies about Sept 11 and the Holocaust being a Jewish plot or a lie.

PaulL, No i can't see the difference between civilian deaths whatever the means, "sorry i didn't mean to kill your children" doesn't cut with me PaulL. How insignificant are the civilian deaths by coalition forces, US mercenaries and US special operation forces PaulL?. Then that Al Qaeda reference PaulL, that terrorist group (only in 'SH controlled' Iraq since the coaltion invasion) not sure where you're getting your info but my sources indicate that the atrocities committed by 'insurgents' have mainly been by iraqi nationals based on religous allegiance. Certainly the allies were guilty of terrorist atrocities, try the targeted civilian bombing of Japanese and German cities (the fire-bombing of Dresden and the atomic bombs Hiroshima/Nagasaki the most infamous). I must be "soft in the head" a civilian death no matter the excuse is inexcusable. As for civilians fleeing, try googling 'iraq civilian fled'.
The terrorism committed/supported by the zionist Israeli govt (grossly financed by the usa) is included. Why are the actions committed by the zionists any different/less atrocious than those of the UN/US claimed terrorist groups Hizb Allah or 'Hamas'.
The partial list of USA govt interventions was included to reinforce the argument that we, western whitey, isn't and haven't been innocent of atrocities/terrorism. No argument from me re. your partial list, i never claimed it was all us just we are also guilty
So no i have never wanted to or have "blame(d) someone else for all that?"
I apologise for the "you tool" and the 'left home' statements of my last post. I too am guilty of emotional exuberance, as for my opinions i read as widely as i'm able and avoid the western mega-media as much as possible for obvious reasons. I suggest you may have a one-eyed perception of reality yourself and just because i and many other readers/groups are 'left' of you and similar thinking groups doesn't make me/us left-wing from your position most positions would be 'left'. Regurgitating the neo-con hegomistic claptrap wont' get you a doctorate either. MarkC

Bushbred,

I see you have taken to waving your credentials around like a willy, Bravo.

Your attempt to portray the 1920 revolutionary brigade as a dominant force in Iraq is ridiculous. I think you’ll also find that they have been working with the Americans in their fight against AlQaeda. http://www.kuna.net.kw/home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=1007727

The Guardian is the most biased left wing news paper in large circulation. It makes the BBC look like NAZIS. Using the Guardian as a source is like using Fox News as a source.

What value is there in pointing out the mustard gassing of Iraqis 100 years ago? Does that justify the acts of the Islamo-Fascists now? Are we to be judged on the acts of our great grandfathers? History has a role in understanding the conflict, but it doesn’t excuse anything.

If the Iraqis end up with a Democracy it will be thanks to the US because Saddam, Uday and Qusay, would have seen to it that Iraq was a brutal dictatorship for many decades to come.

Justoneperson,

It seems you think that war is terrorism. Dead is dead is it? So the driver of a car who accidentally runs over someone is as morally repugnant as a child rapists/murderer?

The atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whilst regrettable, saved the lives of millions of Japanese as well as US and allied soldiers. It ended a war that had cost close to 50 million lives.

As for googling 'iraq civilian fled', this just proves my point. Sectarian violence in Iraq is what people are fleeing. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/02/africa/web.0402civilians.php. The various Sunni and Shiite death squads are attempting to ethnically cleanse their areas. Al Qaeda are working with Sunni groups and are responsible for some of the worst acts of sectarian violence of the war.

By the way, my background is the humanities, so I am well versed in the leftist critiques of the west. I believed them myself when I was young and naïve. I've researched both sides of this debate and have come around to my current point of view after moving from university into the real world.

Justoneperson. So what if YOU can't see the difference between accidental casualties and deliberate ones! The Iraq war is not a theatre for you to display YOUR intellectual vanity; nor is it "all about you".

The Iraqi people have shown by their actions that they DO see the difference. This is indicated by the fact that barely 10-15% of the insurgents fighting/being killed in Iraq are locals. You might like to compare this figure to any other "foreign invasion/resistance" conflict. After that, could you explain why the Iraqis are not enraged by the murderous Invaders?

Should you come up with a reasonable explanation (which doesn't revolve around YOU being so much smarter than the Iraqis) I will give it serious thought. Cheers.

I am relieved to see ,in these posts, that people are now awake to the dangers that Australia and Australians could be facing. Tribalism has taken the part that was expected of Multiculture ,just as many of us predicted it would.
We were howled down and called a multitude of names for being politically incorrect.
Tribally based ghettoes have sprung up in our cities, shop signs are not printed in English and there are places where the Aussie does not go. Particularly the Australian girls, who have been classed as 'cat's meat' by a muslim leader.
For a while it seemed as if all the fuzzy wuzzy lovers of Multiculture were holding the ball,but the public are waking to the travesty of what MC has become. Better late than never.

Get real, Paull, you are just another one who still believes that the Americans are on the right track. It has become so very wrong as shown by the percentage of American people now against the Bush regime.

We have friends in America, where our youngest son graduated.
Where the Bush regime has made the mistake, however, is that it has never woken up to the fact, that such a powerful nation these days should not be acting like the Roman Empire, or even the British Empire.

Much more humility and Grace is needed, with wisdom and understanding as proven by Nelson Mandela in South Africa.

Things are changing, Paull, as truly shown by the joining together of the very Iraqis we thought were going to cause a Civil War if the Americans pulled out.

It is so interesting that what has brought it on has been the way the American military has acted during the occupation. As I mentioned earlier, too much the Roman way.

Finally, you elitist cultist corpo's could be very surprised how peaceful democracy could happen if the Yanks did the right thing. But with Cheney pulling the strings, you might still witness ten more years of occupation.

Very lowly cheers - B

The author Arundhati Roy make a good point in saying that "our economy thrives on insecurity, on fear, on threats, on protecting what you have - your washing machine, your dishwasher...- from the invasion of killer tomatoes or evil women in saris or whatever other kind of alien. It's such a sad, lonely, terrible price to pay for creature comforts..."

If this is the case, then the media is only playing it's part.

Not only are they trying to simply make us buy stuff, but they keep our lives off-balance by maintaining us in a constant state of concern.

Not a single day goes by where we aren't reminded of, or told about something new that we should fear.

It's almost as if they don't want to give us time to stop and think about what's really happening in the world.

We are personally controlled by our emotions and can be controlled by others in exactly the same way.

According to many reports, and going by many of the statements seen in these pages alone, we should have been at constant war with the Islamic world for the last 1400 years, not just sporadically over the last decade or so.

They in turn are probably getting fed the same messages over there.

For those of us who went through the Cold War period, it's strangely familiar.

I tend to agree with Mr Holden -

I still wonder where were all these experts on Islam in November 2000 before 9/11 - there is no shortage of them now -

If Islam is a threat now it was also in 2000 and before but you never heard too much about it then - the so called "incompatibilty" between us and them was not evident then it seems.

I still fail to see what all the fuss is about -

One moment the govt is said to have us tittering with fear; the next an avalanche of postings pour in to tell us that On-line Forum readers are NOT afraid. Meanwhile the airports are packed; the streets are bustling; shopping malls and all manner of public places are thronged with the masses; just as unafraid as the posters to this Forum. Strange, huh? Jeez..Aussies sure know how to hide their terror.

Are you ninnies deluded or what? If you own a car or a house and take out an insurance policy you are not "living in fear"!! If your doctor advises a more balanced diet, a bit of exercise and less alcohol for the sake of your health; this is not "fear-mongering". All these things are simply telling you that you should be alert to potential dangers but not alarmed. Where have we heard that before? And to what wailing and teeth-gnashing from neurotics over-reactors?

Why don't you all just get a grip? Hysteria may be fun (I sometimes enjoy a little of it at the football, myself) but you shouldn't let it take over your life...assuming you've got one. Cheers

Bushbred

You said “ It has become so very wrong as shown by the percentage of American people now against the Bush regime.”

Sorry. Did you just argue that the merits of an idea can be measured by its supporters? Or lack of?

Any comparison between the US and Ancient Rome or even the British Empire is spurious. Roman conquest often involved executing all the men and selling the women and children into slavery. Roman Emperors conquered as much of the world as they were physically able, all for the greater glory of themselves and Rome. The general understanding of siege warfare during Roman times was that besieged towns which did not surrender immediately would forfeit the lives of ALL its citizens, once the walls were breached.

The British followed along similar lines to the Romans. Conquest was about enriching the state and spreading the glory of his/her majesty. The British behaved appallingly in India and many other places. But of all the imperialists of the last 400 years, the British are probably the most benign. The Spanish and the Portugese, with their Roman Catholic absolutism, were perpetrators of the most barbarous obscenities all in the name of Christ and monetary gain.

Since the end of the cold war the US has been involved in a number of wars, which have been fought to protect the rights of others, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo are a few examples. The US is committed to defend Taiwan against aggression by the Chinese. It is committed to defend South Korea against aggression from the North Koreans. These countries are not part of the US empire in any meaningful sense.

You said “Things are changing”

Based upon what Bush Bred, I’ve already given you evidence that the 1920’s brigade are an aberration amongst the insurgents in Iraq. Membership is negligible and they have actually assisted the Americans in their fight against Al Qaeda groups in Iraq.

Iraq will definitely fracture into civil war if the Americans leave before the Iraqi gov’t has the ability to deal with the insurgents by itsel

Poor TR can't pull himself off his knees in worship of Dawkins.

Here's something to think about. While on the surface it would appear Islam is being used to foment public unrest and terror attacks, any in depth study shows that religion is not the prime tool in developing adherents in expanding or maintaining terrorism. Psychology is. There is not a religion of terrorism, rather there is a psychology of terrorism.
People are not being manipulated by the use of religion. They are being manipulated by the use of psychology with in their religion. Most terrorism is perpetuated against Muslims by Muslims. Most terrorist activity takes place in Islamic countries by Muslims. Ah! It must be about religion. No. It's about politics. It's just very hard to separate religion from politics when it comes to those who are religious leaders[?] fighting for political dominance. Same thing is going on around the world in various non Islamic nations. Religious leaders fighting for political dominance with in their communities.
As I have stated before. It is not the religion of Islam that is at the core of these attacks. It's the politics of Islam. And those who advocate Islamic rules for society and their psychological tactics in hopes of gaining that rule. Islamic rule is authoritarian not democratic. Islamic rule is imposed. Unfortunately it is written into the religious text that amend the Koran. And these text used exclusively to abrogate the teachings in the Koran.
Politics and psychology is being used to manipulate a religious people living in poor economic climes and subjugated by their authoritarian leadership and brainwashed into believing that the 'west' or democracy is a conspiracy to undermine their culture and religious practices.
Terrorism is power politics not religion.

Aqvarivs

Its all very well for you to use your scalpel to separate politics from religion in Islam. The problem is, that this is not a distinction that the Koran and hadith allow for. Its no good pretending that the hadith aren’t legitimate, the number of Muslims who follow the hadith is testament to their authority. Hadith tells Muslims how to pray, how to dress, in fact they tell Muslims how to behave in almost every situation. And the hadith and the Koran leave no room for secular life at all.

I agree that it depends upon how Islam is practiced. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people who would never kill innocent civilians . However, those wahabists/salafists, are not practicing a version of Islam without basis in the Koran. They quote real passages from the Koran with which to justify their actions. Their’s is not an absurd cult, like scientology, it has real roots in the Koran and hadith. This is why their communities don’t immediately denounce them. They are seen in their communities as practicing a strict/literal interpretation of Islam and as such are often respected.

Politics, as I was taught to understand it, is about Power, who has it, who doesn’t and how is it used. Religion has always been about power, no matter what the flavour.

The difference between non Islamic religious figures pushing for political power is they can’t point to evidence of the word of god, which supports their claim. Islamists can.

I think you are on the right track when you talk about psychology, although I still think that it is subordinated to religious fervour. A large number of suicide bombers aren’t poor or subjugated. I think that disillusionment with modern life, combined with the promises of paradise and the ability to help loved ones from above, as well as the cash payments to martyrs families, has a role to play in suicide bombers decisions. But without the religious base, which promises life in paradise after death, I don’t believe that we would see anywhere like the number of suicide bombers.

Paul.L, It's all open to interpretation. The Koran and the Hadiths. That is why there are several schools of interpretation.
1)Jabria :-who believes that every thing is predetermined.
2)Kadaria :-who believes that humans can decide good and bad for themselves.
3)Mutakallamin :-dogmatists
4)Hukuma :-philosophical approach
5)Sufi :-devotion and good conduct.

There are many other smaller denominations of Islam with their own version and each feel they are the/is the true Islam and others are misinterpreting it and in support they quote from Koran and from other sources. Christians do the same thing, as do Jews respective of their Holy Books and interpretations of their laws.

I make a distinction between religion and politics and the rule of law. I feel that that distinction is a more honest approach to dealing with Islamic fundamentalism. I support the Muslim freedom to practice their religion while keeping to the rule of law and democratic practices separate from religious control or influence. I would be offering the same approach if it were Christianity, Buddhism or Judaism working to dominate the legal and political realities of the world. Whether this be in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon or Sweden, the U.K. or Australia.

While some Muslims as some Australians, are self-satisfied to see any 'western' government suffer with the emergencies brought about by terrorism, they are of no account. When nations compromise the legitimacy of their democracy and rule of law to give favour to quell the terrorist. That is of account. Vilifying Islam is not the answer. Myopic close minded anti-religious ranting serves no purpose and sidelines the real issue at stake. Democracy and democratic values slowly eroded through cultural marxism. Liberal westerners who don't have the will to fight for their right to exist as a cultural entity.

As an oldie who has spent his retirement learning then teaching the Philosophy of History right back from Ancient Greece to our present problematic days, was shocked to have a seemingly intelligent member of our OLO group discount the importance of historical knowledge as regards the Iraqi problem.

The argument from a member is that the Islamo-Fascistic reasoning that the Muslims are now afflicted with has little to do with their history.

The case in point is an interesting mixed Muslim group in Baghdad with a Kurdish leader, who though they want the Americans out, are against suicide bombing and attacking civilians. However, because they have named their force after the 1920’s Iraqi revolutionaries, the force that was mustard gassed from the air by the British, it seems from members of our group, that we should refrain from mentioning it, because apparently what is happening now in Iraq, has nothing to do with the British aerial bombing which indeed pretty well wiped out the 1920s Iraqi force, an already broken up TE Lawrence, disgusted with his friend Winston Churchill, who as War Minister had given the order.

We can understand the American Bush government and possibly also the former Blair government discouraging the learning of ME history since WW1, owing to such shameful tactics from both UK and US interests. But as a qualified historian, it makes one disgusted also with the Howard government which has already mentioned that if it again gains power, it will reduce the importance of our academic Humanities, in which not only our white Australian history is recorded since the First Landing, but which also includes the 40,000 year anthropological history of our Aborigines.

Finally, also feel at a loss to understand the feelings of many of our OLO contributors concerning the above, wondering if they are mostly still young enough to be part of the rising corporate culture, thus able to pooh pooh the importance of, which even as Churchill declared during WW2, that any of his top commanders who did not have a full knowledge of Western history, would be demoted.

There are extremists in all circles - including those we may consider to be our own. They are easily recognised by their "tone", "style", "language" and above all, their "intention". People in any circle demonising and advocating killing other human beings need to be denounced. This is one world and all human beings are virtually exactly the same, everywhere - capable of intelligence, love and friendship.

The West is guilty of killing and inflicting suffering on many more people than the people who live in the Middle East. It is why the rhetoric of blame is so strong in some of those whom we might consider to be of our own circle.

Will we become the Nazis of the 21st Century? I don't know, but I'm not convinced we won't.

Those who project fear are the people we most need to 'restrain'.

Paul.L, a more apt analogy would be if "a driver of a car who drives up and down another person's driveway, blindfolded, fully knowing there are kids playing in the driveway" >> yep i think they are as morally repugnant as your child murderer.
The targeted civilian bombing, no matter its objective, is still a terrorist act, acceptable? I think not, we differ.
Paul.L which groups/squads are the USA financing at the moment Sunni or Shia? I get confused following the covert doings.
Al Qaeda, only active since the occupation (in SH contolled Iraq), led mainly by foreigners (Saudi nationals?), are having a enrolment bonanza >> congratulations Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith & co, so much for right-wing think tanks >> should all be held accountable for the loss of life, SH got what he deserved why not the neo-cons & like.
I note you state the Guardian is 'far' left, what's your take on the Lancet Journal?
Why do you think the US coalition invaded?
Why not take a centrist position rather than out there with the rednecks, you worry me Paul.L
Punter57, WTF are you on about, back on the medication and get back to me ..... "all about me"? you f**kwit, how's that for displaying my "intellectual vanity"
Insurgents 10-15% Iraqi, where's that reference, the White House!
Foreign led Al Qaeda yes, driving wedges further between the sects, ah the US and Al Qaeda in cahoots together again.
What % of Iraqis want the coalition out mate?, Cheers

Aqvarivs

You think there is a difference between a follower of Islam and Islamist? Very strange, both go to the same mosques, both follow the Quran, both love and respect Mohammad, both say the shahadah. They both bow down to the big black rock together in the hajj, side by side - and you tell me they aren't the same? (Note: Doesn't that seem strange. Muslims reject idols and are proud of it, but I can show you a thousand puictures of them bowing down to an old black rock!)

A, You say Islamists are corrupting Islam. How do you know? The verses the Islamists use about attacking and fighting infidels seem pretty clear to me. Do you think the Quran is corrupted, then? Maybe Allah doesn't know how to write, or maybe the Quran isn't simple or clear, as it says it is. Maybe it is full of contraductions and lacks logic. Is that it?

You say: "The everyday good and faithful Muslim in truth are of no potential threat to any society other than changing the locus of that social dynamic." Other than? Exactly - the 'social dynamic' they want to change is nothing less than concepts like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, democracy, equality nd human rights. These may seem small things to you, but they are the bedrocks of Western civilization. You will remember how Muslims react to any message they don't like (cartoons). You may be aware of how Muslims treat women and minority religions in societies where they dominate.
Or don't these mean anything to you?

The only difference between the these 2 types of Muslims is that the radical Muslims (Islamists) preach vioence and kill, while the moderates make excuses and blame others.

Kactuz

Bushbred, you could not possibly be referring to me. My comment was that history might explain, but it does not excuse. My direct quote was “History has a role in understanding the conflict, but it doesn’t excuse anything.”

Your attempt to exaggerate the importance of the 1920 Brigades, whose membership is very small, baffles me. It is typical of the tabloid press to seize on a minor event and pretend it is representative of a greater reality. I’m surprised you have gone down that path. You seem to be saying that the current terrorists are motivated by Britain’s gassing of Iraqi revolutionaries. Surely they’re have been much more significant events in Iraq’s history, that have shaped the national psyche. Eg. The bloody seven year war with Iran, which involved chemical weapons. The gassing and oppression of the kurds. The invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent first Gulf War. Saddams' oppression.

If you were truly looking at history without bias, you would judge the gassing of Iraqi revolutionaries in 1920 based upon accepted norms at the time. Not against established standards now. At the time, gas was considered a weapon, pretty much like any other. It was the Germans who started the whole gassing business by using it against the British on the battlefield in WW1 (5 years earlier). Gas killed and maimed many more British than it did Iraqis. But Chemical warfare was not proscribed by the Geneva convention until 1925. In any case, the vast majority of the 9000 casualties of the Arab revolt were caused by conventional bombs. I can’t find any sources that suggest 50,000 people were gassed.

As for the ‘rising corporate culture’, let me say, I studied politics, sociology and history at a Victorian university, where Marxist/far leftist critiques were presented as reality. There was no mention of the fact that there were other, contrary, views on the material presented. Anyone who disagreed was a dupe of the ruling classes and of their instrument, the tabloid media.

Kevin,

By your standards we are already Nazis and that includes you.

kactuz, like many others you blame the written word for the actions of man. How people choose to act and interpret the Holy books of the worlds religions is a personal choice. People choose, they are not compelled by books, television, comics, videos, or billboards to criminal acts. Nasty people always find a way to be nasty. If your worried about democracy and the rule of law fortify that democracy by exercising the law with out exception. Become an active participant of that democracy and don't wait for someone else to manage your principles of governing. Become an activist for the principles of democracy and law and not an activist against some persons religion. We have laws that say you can think whatever you want but, you can't act any way you want. Never mind laws against thinking. Exercise the laws against bad actions with out exception. Put people in jail for breaking the law not for breaking with their religion or any definition of it.

Aqvarivs, please engage your brain and read the following;

‘Those who maintain religions, and take steps to make them more attractive, must be held similarly responsible for the harms produced by some of those who they attract and provide with a cloak of respectability. Defenders of religion are quick to point out that terrorists typically have political, not religious agendas, which may well be true in many or most cases, or even in all cases, but that is not the end of it. The political agendas of violent fanatics often lead them to adopt a religious guise, and to exploit the organisational infrastructure and tradition of unquestioning loyalty of whichever religion is handy. And it is true that these fanatics are rarely if ever inspired by, or guided by, the deepest and best tenets in those religions. SO WHAT? Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorism is still Islam’s responsibility, and abortion-clinic bombing is still Christianity’s responsibility, and the murderous activities of Hindu extremists are still Hinduism’s responsibility.

As Sam Harris argues in his brave book ‘The End of Faith’ (2004), there is a cruel Catch-22 in the worthy efforts of the moderates and ecumenicists in all religions: by their good works they provide protective coloration for their fanatical co-religionists, who quietly condemn their open-mindedness and willingness to change while reaping the benefits of the good public relations they thereby obtain.’

Daniel Dennett, ‘Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenonomen’ p 299

The key word here is RESPONSIBILITY. At present the leaders of the monotheistic faiths (especially Islam) have a distinct lack of it.

Also;

There is no reason why non-religious people should have to put up with the fanaticism of religious fundamentalists in the 21st century. This is because modern science and 'source criticism' applied by modern historians have demolished the claims of both the Bible and the Koran.

So, while God may exist, heaven, hell, angels and miracles most definitely do not exist. At least, not in the literalistic sense.

Or to put it succinctly - religious moderates are nice but wrong, and religious fundamentalists are both evil and wrong. Either way, religious moderates and fundamentalists are both wrong and should not be exempt from sceptical scrutiny.

Justoneperson

Al Qaeda and other insurgents care so little about the people that they are prepared to fight whilst hiding behind them. A better analogy would be, someone is shooting at you whilst hiding behind a child, do you save your own life and risk the child’s by shooting back? Or do you just die?

If only the world really was as black and white as you see it. Do you think soldiers join the army so they can go out and kill women and children? I don’t. Unless you have ever been in that situation you have no way of knowing how you would react. I think it is therefore highly unfair for you to criticise.

Coalition forces take a host of measures to prevent killing or wounding of civilians.

On D Day, thousands of French civilians died when the allies stormed the beaches. Is that morally repugnant?

Al Qaeda are only active in Sunni areas (SH and the Sunnis ran the country) because the Shiites won’t accept them. Other Iraqi nationalists groups are now fighting alongside the coalition against Al Qaeda.

There are large numbers of foreigners in the anti coalition militias in Iraq. Iranian agents are working with Shia groups like Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians are crossing the borders to fight with Al Qaeda.

Iraqis are much more interested in peace and prosperity, than they are in whether America remains in Iraq in the short term. Unfortunately for them, there are many groups who are committed to destroying both these wishes. The countries surrounding Iraq have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak. Iran is fighting for influence in Iraq by supporting the Shia groups . Turkey wants to make sure the Kurds don’t get too strong and is funding their opponents. Syria and Saudi send money and fighters to Sunni areas to combat the Shia and Kurds.

Things seem to be cooling off in Iraq, with killings significantly down. Reconstruction is also starting to gain some momentum. The coalition can still be a force for good in Iraq.

Al Qaeda and other insurgents care so little about the people that they are prepared to fight whilst hiding behind them. A better analogy would be, someone is shooting at you whilst hiding behind a child, do you save your own life and risk the child’s by shooting back? Or do you just die?

If only the world really was as black and white as you see it. Do you think soldiers join the army so they can go out and kill women and children? I don’t. Unless you have ever been in that situation you have no way of knowing how you would react. I think it is therefore highly unfair for you to criticise.

Coalition forces take a host of measures to prevent killing or wounding of civilians.

On D Day, thousands of French civilians died when the allies stormed the beaches. Is that morally repugnant?

Al Qaeda are only active in Sunni areas (SH and the Sunnis ran the country) because the Shiites won’t accept them. Other Iraqi nationalists groups are now fighting alongside the coalition against Al Qaeda.

There are large numbers of foreigners in the anti coalition militias in Iraq. Iranian agents are working with Shia groups like Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians are crossing the borders to fight with Al Qaeda.

Iraqis are much more interested in peace and prosperity, than they are in whether America remains in Iraq in the short term. Unfortunately for them, there are many groups who are committed to destroying both these wishes. The countries surrounding Iraq have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak. Iran is fighting for influence in Iraq by supporting the Shia groups . Turkey wants to make sure the Kurds don’t get too strong and is funding their opponents. Syria and Saudi send money and fighters to Sunni areas to combat the Shia and Kurds.

Things seem to be cooling off in Iraq, with killings significantly down. Reconstruction is also starting to gain some momentum. The coalition can still be a force for good in Iraq.

Paul.L Sorry about that last post,i hit a wrong button.
I am not defending the actions of Al Qaeda and like groups, what I have been attempting to atrocities aren’t all one sided.
I thought the analogy we were drawing was comparing “accidental” collateral civilian actions with “suicide bombings”.
Funny, I was about to accuse you of “seeing the world in black and white”
I suspect there would be an insane few in the services but this is not what this argument is about. And I am not criticising the ‘cannon fodder’, stop assuming what I am thinking you’re so wrong, it’s the politicians / lobby groups / think tanks promoting these actions that I direct my criticism.
I’m sure the majority of the forces on the ground do take considerable measures to limit civilian deaths, again I’m not criticising them!
The D Day French civilians death, repugnant, I’d ask the relatives of those civilians.
Thanks for the history lesson, yes I was aware SH a Sunni (minority) of the Baathist party ruled most of Iraq, ruthlessly.
They’re ‘nationalist groups’ when they’re on ‘our’ side and terrorist insurgents when they’re ‘against’ the coalition occupation, ah that’s how it is.
I repeat, what a mess, a ‘hotbed’ of terrorism nurseries the coalition invasion/occupation has created!
Your quote “Iraqis are much more interested in peace and prosperity”, well Paul.L then why the @*^% did we impose the sanctions and then invade them? We must be reading different info sources because the chances of same with the occupation doesn’t seem too good.
Iraq as a nation is dead, unless another ruthless dictator gets control of the military. Kurds always a problem (with Turkey). A civil war is occurring (with like supporting like), with the Jihad? groups taking advantage of the chaos, is that fair comment Paul.L.
From what I read I don’t share your enthusiasm, history will tell, all the best, Mark C.
While waiting for the 24 hr to pass so I could post my correct reply, I went googling, first one http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070801/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_070801091932
What was that about ‘things cooling off”

TR, let me see if I have this straight. It's not the political agenda that matters. It's that they hide among religion to give weight to their barbarity therefore all people of faith are responsible for that person or groups barbarity. Before I continue any further with this ridiculous assumption I would like to know if this is a social constant for all occasions or just when talking about religion. You see, if I'm to be responsible for your personal decisions and your actions I want to meet the sob who's responsible for mine. I've been carrying his weight for fifty years and I'm looking for some back pay.

Justoneperson

The insurgents who aren’t fighting with Al Qaeda for a greater Islamic state, but are merely fighting for control of Iraq are mostly labelled nationalist groups. In my opinion anyone who deliberately targets civilians for death is a terrorist. Insurgents who use the civilian population as a shield are almost as bad. Fighting should be done in uniform.

I called the 1920’s brigades ‘nationalist groups’ because they are against targeting of civilians and suicide bombings. I don’t think you can be a nationalist if you are trying to kill the civilians of your country.

You said” then why the @*^% did we impose the sanctions and then invade them?”

The people didn’t control Iraqi policy, Saddam did. Anyone who disagreed with him met a most unpleasant fate.

I think you are right. A small civil war is occurring, with the backing of neighbouring countries who are all taking advantage in order to extend their influence in the region. Most have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak and divided.

However a full blown civil war, like in Bosnia Herzegovina, would be catastrophic. It could very easily pull in many Middle Eastern countries, thus becoming a very dangerous conflict indeed.

Are you prepared to be held responsible if leaving Iraq prematurely has the result that 100 times more people die in a full blown civil war. Would you stand up and be counted if this policy directly led to the region descending into a major international conflict?

I agree that things aren’t great in Iraq, but I think we should be sure that there is no possibility that we can help the Iraqis achieve their aims, before we pick up our bat and head home. Especially considering how much blood, sweat and tears we have invested together. To leave them in an even worse state from our leaving, would be unconscionable.

It leaves me cold to think of the number of people who want us to lose in Iraq, just so that they can be proved right about the flawed decision to go in the first place

Are ‘nationalist groups’ fighting the coalition?why?
Then there is the ‘civil war’ shia killing sunni / sunni shia.
AlQaeda and covert ‘western forces’ killing whom?
(Weren’t suicide bombings practised by one or more of those Zionist terrorist groups Haganah, Irgun and/or SternGang in the 50’s)
Then you agree the WW2 bombings of Japanese/German cities were acts of terrorism.
“Fighting should be done in uniform” >>Paul.L where are you going with this one?Something doesn’t sound right here.
Regarding sanctions, why did we punish the Iraqi citizens?
USA wants a stable Iraq for its armed forces, move them from Saudi, to control its oil (original name forthe invasion ‘Operation Iraqi Liberation’ OIL)
”..a full blown civil war...It could...pull in many Middle Eastern countries, thus becoming a very dangerous conflict indeed” >>don’t you think it’s a very dangerous conflict now.
”..leaving Iraq prematurely has the result that 100 times more people die in a full blown civil war. Would you stand up and be counted if this policy directly led to the region descending into a major international conflict?” >>what crystal ball you using, methinks the coalition have kickstarted a civil war, maybe you were looking in the wrong side of the ball, maybe it’s 100 times more people will die if we don’t get out now.
” .. we can help the Iraqis achieve their aims” >>whose aims (neo-cons for one) ..
“ .. considering how much blood, sweat and tears we have invested together” >>what a waste, Cheney and the neo-cons have a lot of blood on their hands (Blair and Howard who must have known about the deceit also).
“unconscionable” >>had to look that one up
”It leaves me cold to think of the number of people who want us to lose in Iraq, just so that they can be proved right about the flawed decision to go in the first place” >> very careful Paul.L, firstly what is a loss exactly in Iraq as I think it is a loss right now, how many dead civilians, how many dead coalition troops “cannon fodder”, and what exactly are you implying?

Justoneperson

I agree Iraq is a limited civil war. But it is a minor skirmish when compared to Rwanda, 500,000 people killed in 100 days, the majority by machete. Or Bosnia, 200,000 killed in 3 years of fighting, 10,000 in two weeks in Srebrenica. A full blown civil war in Iraq would be worse than either. Almost all Iraqis are armed with modern weapons. If the coalition left tomorrow Iraq WOULD descend into total civil war.. Neighbouring countries would become involved, thus widening the war and sending the region into major conflict. That would be truly disastrous.

A loss, exactly, in Iraq would be the coalition leaving before
1. an adequate level of services was restored (functioning administration)
2. a stable security environment was achieved ( functioning police )
3. it was able to defend itself from its enemies,( functioning defence)

The implication is that many people don’t care that leaving hastily might cause 100 times the casualties that leaving when the job is done, might incur. They are more concerned with the original decision to go to Iraq .

Up until the guerilla wars post ww2, any combatant caught out of uniform was shot as a spy/saboteur

No Jewish groups were involved in suicide bombing as far as I know. However Irgun was involved in the bombing of the King David Hotel, which housed the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the CID. Nearly 100 people were killed.

No the acts of area bombing in ww2 weren’t terrorism. The accuracy of allied bombing was such that point targets were never an option. It was area bombing or no bombing. Area bombing TODAY would be a terrorist act.

Sanctions were the only solution the UN could come up with. They were designed to force Saddam to allow inspectors back. Only the assembling of an army in Kuwait actually worked though . Unsurprisingly Saddam managed to subvert the sanctions process, passing the cost on to his citizens.

OIL? – Are you suggesting that was a Freudian slip? I thought you were smarter than that.

'TR, let me see if I have this straight. It's not the political agenda that matters. It's that they hide among religion to give weight to their barbarity therefore all people of faith are responsible for that person or groups barbarity.'

That's right aqvarivs. Islamic liberals and Western apologists are way too silent on the matter of Islamic radicalism. I would call them gutless wonders. Here is a classic case in point;

'How radical preachers turned a young man into a suicide bomber'

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/student/news/article640346.ece

It is high time that Islam, and monotheism generally, are called to account and made to justify their existence.

Paul.L is there any facts/educated opinions(as non-partisan as you can get) to say if the coaltion leaves now (I mean a planned withdrawal not everyone tomorrow but starting to be actioned now) the situation would escalate any more than if they stayed on? I’d love someone to give me some references. I can only guess on what I’ve read it will be truly disastrous either way and won’t the ‘breeding ground’ for non-uniformed terrorists escalate if the coalition remains?
There doesn’t appear to be supporting evidence for 1. (functioning administration),
2. ( functioning police), 3.( functioning defence) likely to occur, again I’d love references to facts/educated opinions(as non-partisan as you can get) if you’ve got them.
The coalition movers & shakers should be held responsible for the original decision, if the us intelligence services were given ‘orders’ to find supporting evidence to fit the neo-cons hegemonists agenda
Who are these cold-blooded people who don’t give a damn about the future of the people of the Iraqi regions. I too will certainly support you in criticising same.
The underground groups WW2 should be denounced? Sorry not sure of what you’re saying here.
Please correct me if this list is wrong (or any part thereof) apart from the King David Hotel, what about
Sharafat,Feb.7,1951.
DeirYassin,April10,1948.
Falameh,April2,1951.
Naseruddine,April14,1948.
Quibya,Oct14,1953.
Carmel,April20,1948.
Nahalin,March,28,1954.
Al-Qabu,May1,1948.
Gaza,Feb.28,1955.
BeitKiras,May3,1948.
KhanYunis,May31,1955.
Beitkhoury,May5,1948.
KhanYunisAgain,Aug.31,1955
Az-Zaytoun,May6,1948.
Tiberia,Dec.11,1955.
WadiAraba,May13,1950.
As-Sabha,Nov.2,1955.
GazaAgain,April5,1956.
Houssan,Sept.25,1956.
Rafa,Aug.16,1956.
Qalqilyah,Oct.10,1956.
Ar-Rahwa, Sept.12,1956.
Kahr Kassem,Oct.29,1956.
Gharandal,Sept.13,1956.
GazaStrip,Nov.1956.
GazaStrip,Nov.1956.
Yes/I’m/aware/a/list/of/terrorist/events/perpetrated/on/the/Jewish/peoples/could/just/as/easily/be/made
Again/I’m/saying/it/isn’t/all/one/way,/the/way/western/mega/media/portray/it
Paul.L definitely disagree with you on ww2 targeted allied bombing of civilians, this one we will never agree on obviously.
Again correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the ‘west’ aware of the sanctions effects?
I/never/meant/to/imply/I/thought/it/was/a/Freudian/slip/just/an/embarrassing/gaffe/which/was/quickly/altered (it took ~two weeks before they changed it to OIF, didn’t it?)
Me smart, IQ of 127 (well in the middle of the bell curve methinks), just enough to make me question when something doesn’t add up

Paull, I was hoping to forget about you and your kind. You are certainly no true historian who are taught to regard the knowledge of history and philosophy as vital to international relations.

Would guess you are not that old, either - meaning you are not one of the pre-WW2 brigade who survived the Great Depression.

Your poor conception of history is also shown by the way you regard the mustard gas slaughter of 50,000 Iraqis in 1920, as simply just Old Pap.

Indeed, you seem to regard the older Iraqis as uneducated when even under the tyrant, Saddam, there where educational facilities of very high standards.

That is why what is left of the older Iraqis, especially the Sunnis, certainly did not come down in the last shower, Paull. That is why they have called some of their revolutionary groups the 1920's Brigade for the obvious reason that they want all Westerners out, especially the Yanks and the Brits. Remember that bin Laden is a also a Sunni who became a tyrant mainly because of Western intrusion into Saudi Arabia - and even as Mubarek of Egypt, though even now an American puppet, ejaculated to a Western reporter when asked what was the real trouble in the Middle East?

Simply Western intrusion and injustice - was the curt reply.

Still say you have a lot to learn, matey, only wish I didn't have to put up with your kind. Reminds me too much of muddle-brained Georgie Boy Bush.

Cheers - BB - WA

Bushbred, you are clearly intolerant of anyone who does not hold your worldview. Your personal attacks remind me that most soft-left rhetoric relies on emotion and not evidence. It is supreme arrogance on your behalf to pretend you have all the answers. Your guesses aren’t worth the brain space they take up. I know that plenty of people to the right of me wish they didn’t have to share the world with people who hold your views either. However I don’t share that feeling. You clearly should have manners on your list of things to learn

I am debating your historical points on their merits. Its up to you to show me evidence that I am wrong. But don’t quote me the guardian opinion pages as evidence. However, if you only have time to preach to the choir I can fully understand. That’s fairly typical of the soft-left.

Your attempt to paint the current 1920’s brigade as anything other than a minor blip on the radar screen of the current Iraq war is an attempt to obfuscate. They are a VERY SMALL group. Their only relevance is symbolic. The numbers of Iraqis belonging to sectarian groups massively dwarfs the 1920’s brigade membership.

Your favorite piece of leftist garbage “ The guardian” has only 9000 Iraqis killed in 1920. http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html. Only a very small proportion of these people were killed by mustard gas. If you have evidence for slaughter of 50,000 Iraqis by mustard gas show me. I honestly have found no mention of it anywhere. I am willing to admit I might be wrong. Which is, I suspect, something you are not willing to countenance.

Your attempt to blame the west for Bin Laden is crude and unworthy. Are American bases in Saudi a good enough reason to kill innocent civillians? Why doesn’t bin laden take on the Saudis for this? Whatever the cause of bin Laden despotism, this cannot excuse his acts.

Get a life, Paull. You are simply on the wrong track, as George W' and his gang have already proven to be. Admittedly the 50,000 Iraqis I mentioned slaughtered in 1920, was only about a force being mustard gassed. Could bet many more than the 9000 or so killed, would have died a slow death, however.

Paull, it has been mentioned recently, how persons from the bush think more deeply than city people. The blame in the city rat-race, being on electronic means of communication which can cause people to decide too quickly, rather than spend many many hours contemplating on a single strategic topic.

That is the way the your world has become, Paull, similar to the way you regard comments about the shameful actions of Western colonial brigandry simply as fleeting elements of the past.

Certainly that also typifies the mindset of the Bush regime, the massive multiple of war potential behind them confusing their mentalities to the extent they have become even more inhuman with comments like - shock and awe for their enemies - than the terrorists they revile so much.

Israel is caught in the same trap now with its ultra-sohisticated nuclear hardware, in some ways one feeling sorry for them that they have become almost as right-wing as the Nazis who were so inhumanly cruel to them.

As I mentioned, Paull, Iraqis did not come down in the last shower, indeed, they have a history scads more historically intellectual than we have.

The socialist, as bushy here, conveniently forget the fact that Nazi's were socialist and unionist, and hide that fact behind the label 'right-wing', rather than acknowledge German national socialism. (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) National Socialist German Workers' Party. A rename of the old DAP, (German Workers Party). Hitler's wanted to rename the (NSDAP) the Social Revolutionary Party.
It's ironic that folks like bushy always want to foster the label nazi on people like G.W.Bush who's political thinking is diametrically opposed to any socialist. Ol' bushy holding up socialism as a glorious future waiting for Australians. And people wonder why the string has unraveled and money and masses of it is the only insurance of individual freedom tomorrow. The rest will be managed by the state as the state sees fit. Imagine, just like 1940's Germany. The rich living in decadence and the rest scrounging for the dropped bits.

Bushbred, I simply cannot believe after your have castigated me, numerous times, as not being a true historian you have the gall to ‘bet’ on what you think might have happened in 1920’s Iraq. All the sources I have explored suggest a maximum of 10,000 casualties for the whole uprising. Mustard Gas, was responsible for very few of these deaths ie 1%. I still cannot find a source which backs up your claim that a group of 50,000 Iraqis was gassed in 1920.

Go right ahead and apply the standards of today’s society to an act which took place nearly 100 years ago if you wish. We both know that using gas in battle in the 1920’s was not considered reprehensible, as it would be today.

In any case, I am sure you don’t believe that we should punish the Muslims for their acts of bastardry from 100 years ago.

I am also from the bush, bushbred I live in NQ, have for most of my life. In any case, your city/country divide is a fallacy. There are just as many ill-informed and reactionary people in the bush as there are in the city. My state kept Joh in power for 25years.

If you knew anything about military tactics you would know that the battles with the least casualties are invariably those in which one side is vastly more capable than the other. Hence shock and awe was an attempt to win quickly and with as few casualties as possible on both sides. The bloodiest wars are fought between enemies of comparable strength.

I was never suggesting that the gassing of the Iraqis was a noble act. I just cannot see how a VERY small group who commemorate the arab uprising has any significance when the VAST majority of insurgents fight for sectarian groups.

Your capacity for self deceit is boundless. To compare Israel to the Nazis is an act of bigotry. 6 million Jews dead in the gas chambers. And people like you would have been supporting the British ban on refugees fleeing to Israel.

Sorry for interupting but this thread from our own 'Muslim Village' website here in Sydney has to be seen to be believed! Check it out;

http://forums.muslimvillage.net/index.php?showtopic=35876

I really can't believe that this sort of sicko religo-mindset still exists in the 21st century, and in Australia of all places. What IS IT with the Muslim brain?

Is it me, or are the responses/posts to the photo of the dead man completely weird, bazaar and inappropriate.

If Islam is not a fruitloop 'Mohammad Cult' I'll eat my hat.

I think it's probably equivalent to our belief of 's/he died doing what s/he loved best'.

Obviously dying while praying in a mosque is something perceived as holy.

If the fellow was praying to his god for the benefit and understanding of his society it was most probably a great way to leave this life. If he was praying to his God for vengeance then it was probably an unhappy miserable passing with a head full of negative thoughts. Personally I think it's disrespectful to post such a picture here or on that web site. anywhere. We seem to have lost all sense of decency and decorum. It's no different than dragging a dead body through the streets. I feel for that mans family, and those Muslims who posted such a picture should be ashamed of themselves. Death should not be treated as a spectator sport.

Well said Aqvarivs.

The right and proper response to such a scene would be sadness and condolences to the family or not showing the photo in the first place.

However, what we have from the members of Muslim Village is a serious of macabre posts that are bordering on the insane.

The question for Australian society is this - should we allow the 'Mohammedian Cult' to go unchallenged. Are we doing enough to prevent such an inhumane ideology?

We don't know what the bloke was praying for.

It was most likely disrespectful to his family, as Aquarvius has stated. AND there was no 'dead body [dragged] through the streets'. So that analogy was not relevant

This is NOT the voice of the 'Muslim Village'.

It's poor taste, like the poor taste you often read on this web site.

So let's no be drama queens and attempt to make an issue out of rants from adolescent boys.

Paull, it is still disressing to me as a historian and social scientist that you seem to think so little of the value of history, especially history taught in universities.

Also the value of true democracy. We might guess the problem with Israel is that in a democratic sense a people's vote throughout the Middle East would have her thrown out. And it is a sad fact that she not only needs America behind her, but also her own nuclear arsenal.

That is why the Jews as Israelis have lost much of the love and respect they had when they first began to recover from the inhuman tactics of the Nazis. Thus historians and social scientists do worry that certain Jews might regard the Arabs the same way, as if they might be better to have genocide practised on them.

Personally as a sportsman I like to follow sporting rules, Paull, and don't regard any nation much superior to any other. Have also played much sport with Aboriginals, who have so much proven their own personal dignities by means of sport.

It is also wonderful that the Iraqi soccer team won the Asian Cup, especially as they say they are a mixed team of Sunnis, Shias and even Kurds. I only pray that it is so, Paull.

When I'd gained my Post-Grad with Honor's in the General Social Sciences, it was suggested because I was doing it to further my learning owing to only a limited education cut off early in the Great Depression, it was suggested that I go my own way, and not be faithful to any group or party.

I only hope I finish my life that way, Paull.

Regards - BB

BB,
I fail to see how anything I have said could be interpreted in a way that suggests I have little respect for history. This goes doubly for any alleged disparagement of university taught history.

True democracy in your sense means a one world gov’t with no borders. The idea is not a practical one. Should we let the Indonesians decide whether we Anglo saxon/celts have a right to govern ourselves in the middle of Asia?

Israel doesn’t need American support to defend itself militarily, but they are glad for it, like most other democracies across the world, including South Korea and Taiwan. It is sad that Israel needs a nuclear arsenal to defend itself, but that says more about the potential threat of its neighbours, than anything else. To have endured at least three major wars with countries which surround it, Israel is right to be cautious about its security. Especially given some of the bloodcurdling rhetoric which comes from its numerous enemies. Whatever Ahmedijhad said, it is clear he seeks an end to the Jewish state. And he is certainly not alone.

If, as you say, the Jews have lost the love and respect they had after ww2, (which I doubt was ever the case) it is because fighting for your survival can be a very ugly business indeed. Few countries in the world have found themselves in such a situation where they are surrounded and outnumbered by enemies who hate them and untiringly work for their demise. Israel has lived on a knife edge for nearly 60 years now and things don’t look all that bright for their future.

The very problem I have with the cultural relativism that you display “(I) don't regard any nation much superior to any other ” is that you are happy to chop and choose when you apply it. You condemn British gassing of the Arab revolt 100 years ago using the cultural standards of today. Yet you have nothing to say about totalitarianism, and the very real lack of freedom in countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea etc

Still pay you to do a course in the global necessity of power balances in the nuclear age, Paull. As well as the necessity not to force the issue on a neighbour.

It is alright to say that Israel works independently of America. Fact is that without America Israel would probably have had to finds it's future not in the Middle East, but most likely among the former British Commonwealth of Nations, as I mentioned previously.

Personally, as a woolgrower as well as a grainfarmer, have had a lot to do with Australian Jews, and believe as progessive individuals they have been a benefit to us as citizens.

But because they are more like we are, certain Britishers were dead right at the time not to agree for them to return to Israel.

Both us and the Jews have to live with the fact that Muslims are different to us. And it is believed we can still live in the same world as they do, without forcing some sort of democracy on them.

Finally, right since the West has profitted from using Socratic Reasoning to tone down fundamental religous faith, we have fallen out with Islam which has been forced to retreat back into its own faith-filled fundamentalism.

However, the belief from many social scientists is for us Westerners to let them find out for themselves, which they surely will, as long as we leave them alone.

As an Iranian woman Judge declared. These Americans and Britishers, they so often talk about converting us to democracy as they tried with the Shah. But we will eventually find our own democracy, thank you very much.

The lady is so right as proven with Singapore, Malyasia and Vietnam, they were able learn from us - but without having change forced upon them.

The Brits should have learned a lesson shown by Gandhi in India - even as Nelson Mandela has mentioned - it is such a pity.

Regards - BB

'It's poor taste, like the poor taste you often read on this web site.'

No liz. Those Muslim Village comments are far worse than mere 'poor taste'. They glorify death.

I used to wonder about the warped mindset of Islamic suicide bombers. Now I understand the origins of their motivation - 'The Mohammedan Cult'

The sad fact, TR, is that the poorly armed Muslims have become forced to glorify death, owing to the suicide bombing they are prepared to use as a last resort to battle against heavily armed imperialist countries like America and Britain.

Just as the Japanese were forced to rely on Kamikase bombing when they were on their last legs.

Remember also how the Christians gladly gave their lives against the Romans.

Remember also the tale about those who live in glass houses, need to put themselves in the other's shoes.

There is much about such in the Sermon on the Mount, TR, really not so much to do about right or wrong, but very much so about the reason why, which surprisingly has not so much to do with Christian faith, but more in touch with Socratic Reasoning.

None of us in our right minds would like to become like Muslims, TR, but it does pay to use our noggins a bit better.

Bushbred

What happened to Ghandi? Partition of India/Pakistan with millions of deaths through ethnic warfare. He did India a real service didn’t he? Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Always has and always will. That’s why our police are armed. Passive resistance will only ever work on enlightened peoples.

Its bigotry to suggest that the Israelis don’t have a right to live in the Middle East.

I think it is extremely naïve to suggest that the Iranians should have nuclear weapons in order to balance Israels. Israel has invaded no country, that hadn’t first attacked Israel. They have never used their nuclear weapons and in my opinion have them only to deter arab/muslim countries from continuing to invade Israel. I have zero confidence that Iran won't pass nuclear technology onto Hezbollah. From there it is only a matter of time before a bomb turns up in downtown Tel Aviv.

Are you suggesting that Clinton and the UN were right to stand by and watch in Rwanda, because they’ll eventually become democratic.? Should we ignore flagrant human rights abuses because the perpetrators are muslims?

The very idea that bringing democracy to a country is wrong, shows your lack of sympathy with real people and your support of non democratic regimes.

The Japanese kamikaze weren’t killing civilians as their primary method of warfare.

The following quote needs to be addressed. (from the article)

"Since 9-11, not a single person has been killed or injured by a terrorist on our soil"

Amen.. but look more closely.

11 men on trial in Sydney for allegedly gathering explosives etc...

13 Men on trial in Melbourne for the same alleged crime..

Neither group will stand up for the magistrate, thus showing utter contempt for our legal system.

Having BEEN to the comittal hearing in Melbourne, and seeing these people, and talking with the brother of one, I have a fairly close up perspective on this.

Let me just say, that if proven guilty of the charges, it is NOT that nothing was planned, but that the AFP did a fantastic job of monitoring and surveiling these groups and acted BEFORE the bombs went off.
So, to say 'No one has been killed....etc' in Australia is entirely shallow and silly and worse..it is misleading.

Sheesh... and I thought discrimination and racism was a thing of the past, not by reading through this thread it 'aint.

BOAZ_David,
South Africa is similar in this instance, propaganda, false media reporting to overseas viewers (some of the crimes not even mentioned to overseas media for fear of scaring off any potential investors)It's running rampant, government controls and covers-up everything.

You people out there do not hear it all and guess who benefits?

hi Paul.L, your post "... Israel has invaded no country, that hadn’t first attacked Israel. They have never used their nuclear weapons..."
Surely the same should be said for Iran, they too haven't attacked any country that hadn't first attacked them. What evidence is there to suggest that they would use nukes if they did ever get the capacity, surely this is a biased opinion.
Again " ... and in my opinion have them only to deter arab/muslim countries from continuing to invade Israel.... ", why shouldn't Iran 'have them to deter zionist/neo-con administrations from invading them, there's surely been enough threats from both!
And for "I have zero confidence that Iran won't pass nuclear technology onto Hezbollah....", Why would Iran pass it on (if and when they get it) more so than the zionists/neocons, they all support many non-government terrorist groups.
mark c

MarkC

The same cannot be said for Iran. Iran’s is one of the major sources of funds and weapons for terror groups worldwide. Pasdaran, otherwise known as the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, supports Hezbollah operations in Lebanon, Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Palestine and the Islamic Jihad in Egypt, Turkey, Chechnya and Caucasia. They are believed to use Hezbollah to counterfeit United States dollars and euros, and disrupt the finances of western nations by impairing international trade and tourism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_Iran

The threats to Iranian sovereignty are linked to their continuing efforts to gain Nuclear Weapons and their support of terror groups in Iraq. Iran could guarantee its security by desisting in both these operations.

Finally you merely need to listen to the words of the Iranians and their proxies.

" .. If the world-devourers wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.” Ayatollah Khomeini,

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"no doubt the new wave [of attacks] in Palestine will soon wipe off this disgraceful blot from the face of the Islamic world."

And more recently

"God willing, the eradication of Israel would soon be realized through the continued wisdom of the Palestinian nation," http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Iranian_president_calls_Israel_%E2%80%98disgraceful_blot%E2%80%99

” Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement.” This is the Iranian media English translation.

Nasrallah,

“If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.

“If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

Paul.L, had a web search and found a few including ".. two statements he attributes to Hizbullah’s secretary-general, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah (Letters, 7 September). Goodheart uses the inflammatory quotations to accuse Nasrallah of being ‘an anti-semite with fantasies of genocide’. If I am unfamiliar with the statements, it is because they are in all likelihood fabrications. The first (‘If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide’) was circulated widely on neo-con websites, which give as its original source an article by Badih Chayban in Beirut’s English-language Daily Star on 23 October 2002. It seems that Chayban left the Star three years ago and moved to Washington. The Star’s managing editor writes of Chayban’s article on Nasrallah, that ‘I have faith in neither the accuracy of the translation [from Arabic to English] nor the agenda of the translator [Chayban].’ The editor-in-chief and publisher of the Star, Jamil Mrowe, adds that Chayban was ‘a reporter and briefly local desk sub and certainly did not interview Nasrallah or anyone else.’ The account of Nasrallah’s speech in the Lebanese daily As Safir for the same day makes no reference to any anti-semitic comments. Goodheart’s second quotation – ‘They [the Jews] are a cancer which is liable to spread at any moment’ – comes from the Israeli government’s website at http://tinyurl.com/99hyz. For the record, a Hizbullah spokeswoman, Wafa Hoteit, denies that Nasrallah made either statement."
http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/is-nasrallah-an-anti-semite/