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.