I am gratified that OLO has the courage to publish Melanie Phillips.
She is the only fearless and articulate writer to expose in a reasoned way the sole characteristic of Islam and Islamists -evil.

"Londonistan" is one of the most frightening books I have read.

iudex

Most interesting!

<<Ramadan claims he has "no functional connection" with the Muslim Brotherhood. But he was trained at the Leicester Islamic Foundation in England, the controversial institution that propagates the doctrines of the key Islamist ideologues Maulana Maududi and Syed Qutb and which aims to promote "an Islamic social order in Great Britain".>>

"Functional"?.... what about 'Idealogical'?

Now..if the 'Rock Star of Islamic Modernization' is trained by the likes of Maududi, we should immediately pay very close attention.

I am often accused of 'highly selective methods' which suit my purpose.

Maududi, is the scholar who informs us that the Quran means (as if we cannot deduce this anyway from its plain obvious wording) in Surah 65:4 that Allah permits the marriage, sexual consumnation and divorce of pre-pubescent children.

Here (again for the skeptics) is what he says:

<<Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also pemssible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Qur'an has held as permissible.>>

So.. this is the academic/spiritual training background of Ramadan.

One hardly suspects that Syed Qutb (blood descendant of Mohammad) would hold a contrary view.

So..for those cynics and skeptics who feel it is unfair to make such allegations I have a simple message "Turn on the light in your brains, open your eyes, and read"

And then, if you fail to see dangers of the most pernicious kind in this kind of value system growing in our community, then one has to question seriously your rationality, good sense and judgement about pretty much everything.

The left's embrace of the tawdry little Jihadi Jew hater, Tariq Ramadan, is unspeakable.

SNIP

"...Sarkozy accused Ramadan of defending the stoning of adulterers, a punishment stipulated in the section of the Islamic penal code known as huddud. Ramadan replied that he favored "a moratorium" on such practices but REFUSED TO CONDEMN THE LAW OUTRIGHT."

(Emphasis added)

Question for Ramadan: Should adultery be a criminal offence at all?

SNIP

"...Ramadan posted an article on a Web site ..."Critique of the (New) Communalist Intellectuals." ...Ramadan's main argument was that "French Jewish intellectuals" — like Bernard-Henri Lévy, … and Pierre-André Taguieff (in fact not Jewish at all) — who used to be "considered universalist intellectuals" had become knee-jerk defenders of Israel ..."

"Ramadan's attack was unfair. The intellectuals he mentioned had all championed many causes other than Israel, including putting a stop to the mass murder of Muslims in Bosnia. And by compiling this blacklist of Jews and placing a philosopher whose name merely sounded Jewish among them, he opened himself to the charge of anti-Semitism."

See:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/04/europe/web.0204tariq.php?page=5

Ramadan has since done his best to explain away his refusal to condemn stoning outright.

Here is some of the reality of stoning.

SNIP

"... Article 102 [of Iran's penal code] explains that prior to the stoning, men must be buried up to their waists in a pit, and women up to their breasts, so their upper bodies are exposed but they cannot move. ... Article 104 explains that the stones must be large enough to inflict pain, but "not large enough to kill the person by one or two strikes." An excruciating death is the goal - most are reported to take around 20 minutes.

See:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/952501.html

See also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7aLxywU-88

Of course hanging in the public square for adultery is also barbaric.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTv6ZDRyqe8

Civilised discourse with the likes of Tariq Ramadan is not possible.

That being said Ramadan should not be censored. If Griffith University, in its wisdom, invites the tawdry Tariq Ramadan to be a speaker at its conferences that too is their right

It would be utter stupidity for people who have been bred and nourished with the rational principles of the foremost savvy civilization of mankind, i.e., Judeo-Greco-Roman civilization, to be cozened by the Shamanistic double-speak tricks of Ramadan, whose "sweet" tongue attempts to cover the bitterness of the poisonous pill of Islam that he aims to force into the mouths of all infidels of the West.

Those who stand on the shoulders of Maimonides, Aristotle, Cicero and on all the giants of the Renaissance, must not allow Ramadan, this avatar of the caves and the dark ages, to pass the gates of the Enlightened world.

http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

I'm on the side of freedom of speech too, stevenlmeyer.

>>The left's embrace of the tawdry little Jihadi Jew hater, Tariq Ramadan, is unspeakable.<<

The same privilege is afforded to that bastion of right-wing fear and loathing, Melanie Phillips, who has been spewing anti-Islamic bile for that exemplar of even-handedness, the Daily Mail, for seven years.

I suspect that Boaz channels Mel.

"Britain... is locked into such a spiral of decadence, self-loathing and sentimentality that is incapable of seeing that it is setting itself up for cultural immolation" (Londonistan)

Substitute Australia for Britain, and that could be Boaz speaking.

"the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far" (Daily Mail 10 April 2006)

She's into Intelligent Design, too.

"Global warming is a scam" (Daily Mail February 25 2002)

OK, so she does talk sense occasionally. Much like a week-old baby smiling, though, it's usually just wind.

"terrorism... is nothing less than a world war being waged in the name of religion - with terror its weapon of attack - whose aim is to emasculate the power and reach of western culture and replace it by the hegemony of Islam." (Daily Mail 11 July 2005)

Yep, Boaz has a soulmate.

"Phillips's paranoia is perhaps best captured by the front cover of Londonistan, which has a photo of a baby wearing a bobble hat with the words "I love al-Qaeda". Remember that incident? Some parent stuck the hat on their kid before going on a London demo against the publication of the Danish cartoons in February. It sums up Phillips's way of blowing minor incidents, or in this case mere silliness, into terrible exterminatory threats." New Statesman 12 June 2006

Boaz and YouTube? Bullseye.

Unfortunately, she comes across as a paranoid, overstimulated hysteric, who sees disaster in the way leaves move on a tree. I suggest that – much like her disciples here – she needs to understand that she is as much part of the problem as the noisiest, most fanatical imam.

Hi Pericles.

Actually I hardly knew who Melanie Philips was until a few months ago.

Still.. your reaction was quite predictable. Attacking the messenger by trying to pidgeon hole her as a right wing islamophobic loony does not give your case any credibility whatsover.. by the way.. what IS your 'case' ?

She said:

"Britain... is
-locked into a spiral of decadence,
-self-loathing and
-sentimentality

that is incapable of seeing that it is setting itself up for cultural immolation"

Now..your case COULD have been "No, I disagree with those descriptions of Britain, and here is some balanced evidence of why"...

In which case of course, your post would have contributed positively rather than wasting space about me channeling her that was rather quaint.

One thing I note, in her case and mine, we argue issues and point to evidence, our opponents point to 'us'.

Please note..I didn't start this thread.. so don't give me the incessant/ad nauseum thing please. I'm just contributing.

I posted a very serious allegation in my previous post. You could have also attacked that by reasonable means, such as "The Quran does not say that" (but u'd be wrong of course) so that leaves you with "The Quran DOES say/permit this", which confronts you with the problem of "What do I do now" ? aah..simple solution, forget the point raised and just attack BOAZ.

Well.. you have your way and I have mine. I prefer issues.

It would be hardly appropriate for me to just quote John 3:16 each time I post wouldn't it ?

Ramadan may well be a duplicitous Islamist toad, just as Melanie Phillips is a demonstrated Islamophobic hack. David Irving is a loathsome holocaust denier, just as John Howard is a pathetically poor loser. Stevenlmeyer is a supposedly secular Islamophobe, while Boazy is an extremist Christian Islamophobe.

I support the right of all of them to express their ideas. Surely it's better than having all the hateful frootloops underground? At least if they are allowed to give voice to their loathsome sentiments, the rest of us have some idea of what we're dealing with.

Pericles.
I am an agnostic. Therefore I would be a prime target of the Islamist threat.
You should read a lot more about Islam and not only from those that oppose them, but the words from their own mouths.
Read "The Islamist" by Ed Husain.
If that doesn't wake you up to reality, I don't know what would.
I don't have any religious agenda. I doubt that David BOAZ has a purely religious agenda, but it is possible.
With me, it is not possible as I am opposed to religion in all it's forms.
Islam based on a fundamentalist interpretation of the Koran is a dangerous religion, and its radical elements are scum.
You remind me of the people in England who refused to believe that the Nazis were dangerous until September 1939.
Funny thing is, the Islamists have got a lot in common with the Nazis, yet the "progressive" elements in our society are bending over backwards to try to accommodate them.

Ramadan was but a stone's throw from Sheik Hilali,yet we treated the the Sheik as a harmless fool to be tolerated and humoured for many a year.One of Paul Keating's proteges.

"At least if they are allowed to give voice to their loathsome sentiments, the rest of us have some idea of what we're dealing with."

That is true CJ Morgan, providing those like yourself who continually defend violent cults such as radical Islam, whilst castigating their own, do not succeed in gagging members of the public who are sufficiently courageous to express their concerns over those who wish to live in the West but despise our way of life.

History reveals that vigilance is essential when a sect continually threatens a league of nations whose beliefs differ to their own.

For some reason, I am reminded of the Japanese Aum Sinri Kyo "Supreme Truth" Sect accused of instigating the 1995 Tokyo subway gas attack.

Most posters here would be unaware that this wonderfully charitable nation allowed these lunatics into WA where they bought a remote sheep station - Banjawarn. That was before they gassed the Tokyo subway.

Locals witnessed many strange events during the sects stay at Banjawarn including the poisoning of sheep by methylphosphonic acid, the metabolite for sarin gas, massive fireballs and an earthquake:

http://www.aic.gov.au/policing/case_studies/afp.html

And geophysicist, Harry Mason gives a differing account:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_8.htm

At least a US Senate inquiry into the fireball event over WA took it seriously and other American scientists believe the fireball was a "Tesla shield" due to the sect's affiliation at the time with Russia. Australian officials claim they were meteorites (no craters found.) Who will ever know?

And no comments please on conspiracy theories. The event was published worldwide. I resided in relative proximity to Banjawarn at the time and my post is a simple reminder that we should never fall asleep at the wheel nor become sycophants to any cult or creed whose preachers continue to describe non-believers as dogs and infidels.

I'm not entirely sure, Boaz, how quoting the lady's comments back at her can be described as "attacking the messenger".

Melanie Phillips deals in the broadest of generalizations, which presents a problem similar to the one I face in your own posts. It is impossible to respond with specific "balanced evidence of why". You provided the perfect example:

>>She said: "Britain... is -locked into a spiral of decadence, self-loathing and -sentimentality that is incapable of seeing that it is setting itself up for cultural immolation"<<

That's her opinion, and that, it would appear, is that.

Given that sane and intelligent debate with her on specifics is impossible, one must provide the context in which she writes, to help people gauge the level of credence her "thoughts" should be given.

And there is plenty of that to go around.

"Sharia courts are dealing with Muslim criminals outside the criminal law; one reported case involved a gang of Somali youths who were allowed to go free after paying compensation to a teenager they had stabbed - with the police and courts apparently looking the other way" Daily Mail Feb 11 2008

The "police and courts" looked the other way because the matter was settled between the participants. Perfectly legal, standard procedure where the is no serious injury. Yet Mel presents it as evidence of the breakdown of law and order.

Insinuation and innuendo, presented as fact.

"Phillips repeats the rumours that Mohammad Sidique Khan, the 30-year-old teaching assistant turned ringleader, had "links to an al-Qaeda fixer". But according to the government report, "there is no reliable intelligence or corroborative information to support [these claims]". Moreover, there is "as yet no firm evidence to corroborate . . . the nature of al-Qaeda support, if there was any". New Statesman 12 June 2006

So choose: Government report or bigoted journalist?

>>One thing I note, in her case and mine, we argue issues and point to evidence, our opponents point to 'us'.<<

More Melanie-speak, Boaz.

But drawing wild conclusions from your own preconceptions and prejudices does not, and never will, constitute evidence.

dickkie: "providing those like yourself who continually defend violent cults such as radical Islam"

I don't suppose you'd like to provide just one example of where I have defended "violent cults such as radical Islam"?

It is a particularly annoying debating tactic to attribute statements to others that they didn't actually make, and one that seems particularly characteristic of the various extremists who peddle hatred in this forum.

Fortunately, it's very easy to deal with: put up or shut up.

Don't be unkind CJ; Melanie needs to write something occasionally so that she and her racist attack dogs can get yet another chance to vent their racist spleens.

Ginx
Racist? What are you talking about?
This is about religion, politics and culture.
Criticism of Islamism has absolutely nothing to do with race at all.
This is a typical reaction from the appeasers and facilitators of Islamism.
Whining about race is not appropriate in these circumstances.
What about THEIR racism towards Jews and the people they disparagingly call "Kuffirs"?
Are they not racist? The only racists I see are the Islamists, they are past masters at it, with a long history of 1400 years to prove it..

"and one that seems particularly characteristic of the various extremists who peddle hatred in this forum."

Ah there you go again CJ Morgan. So you've found another to victimise by your innuendo that it is now I, who in your expert opinion, is an "extremist(s) who peddles hatred in this forum."

"I don't suppose you'd like to provide just one example of where I have defended "violent cults such as radical Islam"? CJ Morgan

You just did CJ!

Your attacks on those who criticise Islam is evident right throughout your posts which are peppered with the following insults:

"Australian cult xenophobia," "blind bigotry," "typically xenophobic rant," "whining racists," "racist trolls" "whack a mozzie," "hate tinted glasses," etc etc.

And of course, in your "humble" opinion, Australia is riddled with Australians who hate their own indigenous people .

You are of course well aware that your victims are not criticising moderate Muslims but the fanatical religion to which Muslims adhere. But you're good at manipulating the facts CJ!

"Whacking Aussies," appears to be your favourite past-time. Perhaps we should all tip in and buy you a prayer mat?

I-don't-care-whether-RACISM-is-directed-AT-Jews-BY-Jews-AT-Islamists-BY-Islamists-AT-Worshipers-BY-Worshipers-AT-Buddhists-BY-Buddhists-AT-The Evangelistic Knitters Club-BY-The Evangelistic Knitters Club..........

Bankers!!

How you people love playing "Melanie Says"!!

CJ.. that was a most educational little blurb.

<<At least if they are allowed to give voice to their loathsome sentiments, the rest of us have some idea of what we're dealing with. >>

This, after describing others as:

1/ RAMADAN= 'is' “duplicitous Islamist toad,” (funny.. we agree, so why do we say the same thing and fight all the time ?)

2/ PHILLIPS= 'is' a “demonstrated Islamophobic hack.” (err..no, she is saying what YOU say-methinks you judged yourself there)

COMMENT I find it ..hmmm (trying to find words) 'difficult' to reconcile that you hold the same views as Phillips(though yours are more colorfully expressed than hers) , yet you then condemn her? * scratches head *

3/ David Irving 'is' a “loathsome holocaust denier”

4/ Howard 'is' a “pathetically poor loser.”

5/ Stevenlmeyer 'is' a supposedly secular “Islamophobe”, while

6/ Boazy 'is' an “extremist Christian Islamophobe.”

Yet, in all this, I find the strongest language against Ramadan being expressed by no less than CJ himself. “Duplicitious Islamist Toad” :)

Now..I, in my “Christian extremism” have avoided condemning the 'man'... and focus on the ideas which drive him. Why? Because he may come and go, but the ideas will remain, to animate some other 'toad'.

You say 'The REST of us'.... hmm :) sounds a bit like 'holier_than_thou' to me..but I could be wrong there 0_^

FROGGIE.. your powers of observation are good. No..I surely do NOT have a “purely religious agenda”
Often stated, seldom realized. I speak on 2 levels.

a) Citizen of Australia
b) Christian evangelist.

Sometimes I mix the two in a given post. The 2 are not incompatible. (at this point)

I find no reason not to speak out against ideas which I perceive as a threat to freedom, 'as' a citizen who happens to engage also in proclaiming the Gospel of Christ.

SUMMARY. It should be quite possible for a CJ Morgan, Arjay,Leigh, a Pericles, a Froggie, a Dickie and a BD etc to stand together against the ideas driving Ramadan and others, purely based on those ideas, and irrespective of 'other' interests in life.

Er, no Boazy. I didn't agree with Phillips - she is arguing against Ramadan being allowed to present his views publicly in Australia and Britain, while I'm arguing that he should be allowed to, so that we can judge for ourselves whether he's a duplicitous Islamist toad disguised as a moderate.

It's called freedom of speech, which is why I acknowledged the right of other people who hold odious views to express them. This by no means implies that I agree with those ideas.

Which is why dickie's little attack is so strange. She wrote that I "continually defend violent cults such as radical Islam", then subsequently points to my most recent post as evidence of this. How anybody can construe my arguments against those who peddle hatred in this forum as being any kind of defence of radical Islam, is beyond me.

As eleoquently expressed by someone else in another thread: "Dickheadophobia is not the same as Islamophilia". I confess to experiencing the former condition on occasions, but I'm on record here as stating that I find Islam an even more ridiculous and anachronistic variant of the God delusion than Christianity.

If that's a defence of radical Islam, then you can call me BOAZ_David!

Lastly, it's also a dishonest debating tactic to string a bunch of alleged "quotes" together out of context. Some of the "quotes" that dickie provides are from discussions about Aboriginal people rather than Muslims, others I don't recall writing at all, and none of them defend radical Islam.

And what does the fact that a significant proportion of Australians remain racist towards Aborigines have to do with a discussion about radical Islam anyway?

Melanie is insightful and articulate in presenting complex issues. I have found no one better in their research, detailed analysis and clear thinking.

Why should we be surprised that a secular humanist organization would have extremist visiting them. As I have stated many times those holding to the dogmas of secular humanism have more in common with the Muslim brotherhood than most. They both have a death culture and are dishonest in their dealings.

CJ... what I can't figure out, is why you attack me for attacking ideas...then defend 'freedom of speech'.

At least you seem to agree on the "odiousness" of those ideas I often attack.. and I think if ur honest, you would take the view that Jesus presented views which could never be described as in the slightest bit 'odious' ..though I concede that to a non believer the concept of a 'lake of fire' might seem a tad that way.

I have no argument with you ripping into such things, after all, you would be in good company, though their anti Christianity is probably more eleoquently expressed ie.. Thomas Payne and company.

The reason I attack the ideas and foundations of Islam, is as much because I'm a 'person' who is not Muslim, as it is because I'm Christian.

I don't see any threat to my freedom to disbelieve in Christianity from what I read in the Bible.. particularly the NT. The only threat is in the next life, not this one. But Islam by nature is different. That one.. is a threat in 'this' life.... hence my rather passionate 'Islamophobia' as you describe it.

Free Speech.. now.. you have been waving the flag rather vigorously in this thread. and you defend their right to promote those ideas, so.. (curious look) why do you attack me attacking them ? :)

Far better to share in the attack (on the ideas) and then, make your own attack on Christianity separately if you feel so inclined.
I relish such opportunities to interact and explain the Gospel in so doing.

Yep.. wierd man...wierd. "I attack ideas, you attack 'me', then you defend free speech" *wanders off bemused*

runner: "Why should we be surprised that a secular humanist organization would have extremist visiting them"

Which "secular humanist organization" would that be - St Anthony's College or Griffith University? Are you suggesting they "have a death culture and are dishonest in their dealings"?

More to the point, do you actually think before posting your idiotic fundy missives?

Boazy: "CJ... what I can't figure out, is why you attack me for attacking ideas...then defend 'freedom of speech'."

While it's noticeable that Boazy's toned down his ad hominems and his blatant rabble rousing lately, the quality of his logic hasn't improved a great deal. While I think that everybody should be free to express their ideas, that certainly doesn't imply that they or their ideas are immune from criticism. I agree that it's always preferable to "attack" ideas rather than people. However, I also think that people who consistently and repetitively express hateful or plain stupid ideas, in the face of rational criticism, shouldn't be surprised if they become personally identified with their discredited ideas.

Phillips' article is ultimately a plea to silence a prominent Muslim, whose sincerity she impugns at every opportunity. Do Boazy and other Phillips fans agree that people like Ramadan should not be allowed to present their ideas in public forums?

My dear CJ

You have got yourself into such a knot that alas, I neither have the time or the inclination to sort out all the ambiguities which pepper your statements. However perhaps you could clarify a couple of your "doublespeaks" for me:

1: 'As eleoquently expressed by someone else in another thread: "Dickheadophobia is not the same as Islamophilia"'.

Since it is rare for me to debate issues of an Islamic nature, I request you supply me with a link to the thread CJ or is the above claim another fallacy?

2: If you must stoop to calling me vulgar names such as Dick/head (profanity monitor!), may I advise that the particular name of "Dick/ head" is not appropriate. Perhaps "Muffhead" would be more fitting?

3. "others I don't recall writing at all"

Tsk tsk CJ. Do you also suffer amnesia or is the above yet another fallacious statement?

Actually Dickie, everything's CJ has said has made sense, and the only knots are the ones I can see you attributing to him.

You're implying that we can't criticise those who attack radical Islam, or we must support Islam, is that about right?

I've very little patience for radicalism in any form, be it Islam or Christianity. What I object to is this constant barrage that Islam in its entirety is evil, when there's a billion odd muslims out there just wanting to live their lives and be left alone.

What's more, I think it's people like boaz that are making the situation far worse. For all their supposed caveats that not all muslims are evil, but the religion islam is evil (not just fundamentalist islam, mind you), coupled with a constant ongoing barrage against them... well, I think he's stoking the fire.

Read this article to see why: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23337783-7583,00.html

I think it's also possible that deep down, he wants conflict to exist, so Christianity can triumph in the good old fashioned way.

There's no shortage of criticism of radical islam. It's valid.
It's just these sideshows, and those that make use of it for plain old bigotry that bother me.

Dickie, the 'dickheadophobia' comment is here. Though I don't know why you're insisting on the link, because it seems irrelevant, mentioned only for colour:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1555#29722

Technically I don't think he actually called you a d!ckhead. Plus, you haven't really addressed any rebuttals he's put to you to defend himself.

I for one, also find radical islam repugnant, though I find those who attempt to suppress free speech even more so. It's just that I find most critics of radical Islam aren't just critics of radical Islam, they also love to exaggerate, while also attacking moderate Islam and even anything that isn't also of a conservative bent.

This is basically what CJ's put forward, but from what I can see, you're attributing a false view to him, and making out that he has to support radical Islam, when no such logical connection exists.

The ease with which one can change his/her religion speakes volumes about the shallownwss of religions.Religious ideology is a virtual mind set and can never be considered real.As it is unreal it will not contribute to peaceful human coexistence.We see people practising the physical cuture of a religion like the dress code much more seriously than the tenets of religion.Religions divide people on irrational basis.Religious chauvinism and fanaticism have contributed to more human suffering than even the world wars, I presume.Let us all live as civilised human beings and not religious bigots and let us save our future generations from perpetual agony of living in alienated environments caused by virtual mind sets

Ah Melanie Phillips. Long on accusation, short on evidence. But she performs a valuable function for the conservatives; she generates fear and hate and helps entice some who succumb to her siren call onto the rocks of the system.

I am particularly worried about one religious fanatic with weapons of mass destruction. George W Bush has, according to an article in the Lancet in 2006, killed 650,000 innocent Iraqis.

A more conservative study says the figure is really "only" 150,000. Let me do the maths. That is about 50 September 11s over 3 years. In other words this religious fanatic has wreaked on the innocents in Iraq at least one September 11 every 3 weeks.

If the Lancet figures are correct, it is one September 11 he has unleashed on Iraqis every 5 days.

The melanie Phillips of the world fear monger to hide this very point - the biggest terrorists sit in Washington, and London and Canberra.

What Passy said!

Ezhil, you say, “The ease with which one can change his/her religion speaks volumes about the shallowness of religions.” I think it speaks of the shallowness of humans.

You seem to equate religious belief with religious bigotry. True, there are too many scary religious bigots around, but there are also many religious people who are not bigoted, so it doesn’t have to be that way. You might also have noticed some non-religious bigots on OLO and elsewhere. So, again, it seems that bigotry is a human problem, not a religious one. It’s just that the risk of bigotry increases with our level of arousal, and religion is something people tend to be passionate about. In recent times, atheism is espoused passionately and has given rise to a new breed of bigot. You will have to outlaw passion if you really want to rid the world of bigotry. You will find bigots everywhere.

Passy, I have come across as many US haters as Islam haters. The US haters fear-monger as well. There are two reasons why I’m less alarmed by George W than fundo Islam:

1) Bush isn’t going to kill me, while the fundo muslims will if they get a chance. Doesn’t mean he’s better than them, just less hazardous to me personally.

2) The US, I believe, is ambivalent about killing, and kills as few people as possible – especially non-combatants. Even if this is only because the US wishes to *appear* more ethical and life-loving because it’s so interested in its image, it still makes a difference. The fundo muslims are under no restraint of this kind, and seem to prefer to kill as many people as possible as visibly as possible.

Australia is such a little country. If push really came to shove, and we had to choose one tyranny over another – say, the US or China or Islam – which would you choose? If there was no other option, I mean.

TRTL, I’ve been trying for years now to be balanced about Islam, and it’s getting more difficult. Let me know if I exaggerate.

Pax,

What Ginx said!

TRTL: "This is basically what CJ's put forward, but from what I can see, you're attributing a false view to him, and making out that he has to support radical Islam, when no such logical connection exists"

Thanks TRTL - you've said pretty well what I would have in response to dickie's baseless claim that I defend radical Islam, and also for providing the link to the "dickheadophobia" post in response to her demand.

Perhaps dickie would now be so kind as to provide the URLs to these comments that she alleges that I have made in defence of radical Islam:

"Australian cult xenophobia," "blind bigotry," "typically xenophobic rant," "whining racists," "racist trolls" "whack a mozzie," "hate tinted glasses,"

OLO makes it very easy, dickie. You just locate the original comment from which the quote was taken, and underneath it is a row of icons. If you click on the one furthest to the right, this will copy the comment's URL to your clipboard. If you then paste this along with the "quote", then everybody will be able to verify the quote, its immediate context and the thread in which it was posted.

Given her predilection for cutting and pasting URLs in other threads, I'm sure that dickie can manage it in this one too. However, I can guarantee that no comment that I actually posted was in defence of radical Islam, nor any other religion or cult.

Perhaps dickie should stick to animal welfare and the environment, about which she seems to have some knowledge. On second thoughts, maybe she should leave environmental issues alone - unless she learns to debate more honestly.

The Islam religion has been a deception since day 1.

On day 1, Mohammad found the Islam religion by lying that he had met with an angel. He did that to benefit himself foremost.

Ask any Muslim, not a single one (including Tariq Ramadan) is able to provide the slightest evidence that Mohammad had actually met an angel.

Do you realise the significance of this ?? It means - the Islam religion is a hoax, a lie.

So the Islamic house of card starts tumbling down once you consistently question its foundation - there is nothing there !!

Tariq Ramadan is but a very skilful promotor of Mohammand's lies and deception. All his persuasive teachings are nothing but red herrings.

.

So much to work with.....

John (Passy) first.

<<she (Phillips) generates fear and hate and helps entice some who succumb to her siren call onto the rocks of the system.>>

Yet, John you also say:

<<The Left is quietly rebuilding its support among workers in the puppet countries, waiting for and helping to build the mass upsurges that could send Bush’s allies to the gallows and liberate Palestine.>>

-Quietly building
-Upsurge (? err you really mean revolution right?)
-Send Bush's allies.. to the Gallows.

If you MEAN 'Gallows of history'.. in this rather sensitive 'anti terrorism' climate it might be wise to 'SAY' so :)

I really struggle to find your newly discovered 'historical metaphore' in that ... the context is very clear. "Upsurge (Revolution)->Leaders to the Gallows"

I can't for the life of me see 'Liberation' being applicable to Israeilies who are already Liberated and have a democratic vote. How more to they need to be 'liberated' and from what? err..'capitalism'?

C.J. I don't have a problem with Ramadan being allowed to speak, I don't recall saying he can't. But what I would want is honest Journalists with huge testicles who can ask the really hard questions, and at the same time have the historical and theological ammunition to cope with the spin he would respond with.

I also want the legal freedom to stand outside such a meeting, with signs such as "Islam permits child abuse". "Islam is warlike" "Islam permits domestic violence" "Mohammad Tortured and Mutiliated Prisoners"
As long as THAT can take place without you opposing it, I'm happy. If you 'do' feel that such statements are wrong, then that would call for a rather detailed discussion, after which I feel confident you would be in agreement.
You see. it can all be argued powerfully from:

The Quran
The Hadith
The History/Biography of MOhammad
The contemporary beliefs and practices of Arab Muslim countries.
The very real reactions of real Muslims in Western countries

which..I think you will agree has to be persuasive.

Passy, Bushbasher and Ginx- three representatives of probably the most demonstrably FAILED religions of all time-Socialism.
You'd think they would have grown up by now, wouldn't you?
But no, they are stuck back in their nineteen seventies student activist paradigm, condemned forever to repeat the liturgy of their simplistic beliefs.
Anyway all that is off subject. The subject here is the religion of Islam, and the Islamists.
Just this morning is yet another example of Muslims causing trouble, this time in China. Funny isn't it? Islamists against Hindus. Islamists against Sikhs. Islamists against Buddhists. Islamists against Jews. Islamists against Christians.
Islamists against Secularists.
Can we see a pattern here, anyone?

Thanks Froggie.

I love your Islamists against everybody argument. A recent survey showed 93% of Muslims opposed taking life in the name of religion. (I may not have the exact opposition but it was along those lines.) At the beginning of the Iraq invasion a majority of Americans supported Bush.

And I note with interest you don't even attempt to rebut my figures about Bush imposing a September 11 on innocent Iraqis every 3 weeks. Has rationality deserted the Right?

But I'll play the game. How many countries in the 20 th and 21 st Centuries have islamists invaded? There were a few, I admit. Taking the definition of islamist to include baathists (a long stretch I admit) and secularists and including internecine invasions I think the figure could be counted on one's fingers.

How many countries has say the US invaded since 1900? Hmmm. I don't have the list in front of me, but I suspect the answer is in the hundreds. And the US is only one of the major imperialist or would be imperialist powers. World Wars One and Two saw the imperialist barons fight each other and invade each other's territories. And of course Russian imperialism invaded Eastern Europe after World War Two and imposed its dictatorial rule on those nations.

I wonder who the real enemy is. Islamist extremists or imperialism?

The Phillips' fear mongering (and the enthusiastic but pathetic echo it gets on this site) against Muslims (not just Islamists) is part of the process of tyeing Western workers to "their" imperialism and dieing in its name if needs be.

And by the way, socialism is not a failed religion. There is nothing religious about arguing for a democratisation of society to ensure production occurs to satisfy human need.

Such ideas cannot be labelled as failed. Socialism has never existed.

Guys, while you're on about hypothetical grand issues of ideological struggles, there are people suffering, right now, in this country, because some people find it easier to categorise people under a single banner, be it religion or otherwise.

Earlier I posted a link from an article in the Australian about what it's like for young muslims here - I thought I'd include a few excerpts to bring things back to the here and now.

---

"It seems like every time something happens overseas, whether it's an attack or a bombing, it's like you're blamed for it, we always have to defend it, you know, miles and miles away. What have Muslims in Australia got to do with foreign policy overseas?" asks Walid.

Wehbe is worried about where it will all end. "Well, they're going to have more issues naturally, and they're going to have more problems and our community is going to have more problems ... The division between us and ... you could say the other community, because that's how they've sort of placed us - us and them - there's going to be a greater barrier until we can work out things. So maybe we'll have more crime, because they feel lost, they don't know where to turn, maybe more killings, maybe. God knows."

Their sentiments are echoed in a landmark report from the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University based on a three-year-study with the Victoria Police, which warns that Australia's approach may be compounding the danger of terrorism.

The report, released just before the federal election, found: "The Australian Government's approach to the prevention of terrorism is at odds with the best available knowledge on the threat of terrorism and the way that threat is countered." It warns that "poorly calibrated counter-terrorism policing" that marginalises and alienates sections of society can exacerbate the risk.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23337783-7583,00.html

Sally Neighbour - 'Young and alienated in their own country'

Passy, you ask, “How many countries in the 20th and 21st Centuries have islamists invaded? There were a few, I admit.”

To make a worthwhile point, you need to ask, “How many countries could they have invaded if they wanted to, but decided against it?” You might get a larger number.

When comparing the US with fundo Islam, you need to take into consideration their ability to do harm. The US has a great deal more of this ability. To make a real comparison, you’d have to arm Islam with all the US’s nukes. Put another way: the US, allowing for all its misbehaviour and dubious agendas, could have done a lot more harm than it has, if it had the fundo Muslim mindset. Don’t you agree?

I know the US has done, and does, a lot of awful things. But, given its size, its power (eg the 150,000 nukes you mentioned yesterday), its pride and its tendency to be opinionated and think it’s right all the time, I’m actually surprised it hasn’t done a great deal more harm.

By contrast, if the fundo Muslims acquire some nukes (not 150,000 but just a few), just hold on to your hat.

Note, I’m talking about fundamentalists here, not Muslims generally. Mind you, as Froggie points out, there seem to be a lot of very destructively troublesome Muslims in a lot of countries. And, remember the global Islamic tantrum about those Danish cartoons? There seemed to be a lot of “ordinary” Muslims involved in that little display. Even if their wrath was whipped up by manipulative Arab-trained activists, it’s still a bit of a worry, isn’t it, that so many can be activated so easily?

Mind you, this may not make them “the real enemy” you speak of. For all my apprehension about Islam, I think they’re small bikkies compared with global warming. And also small bikkies compared with the pervasive abuse of power by the powerful at the expense of the powerless – not just in Western capitalist democracies, but everywhere.

Pax,

While Phillips's article did involve a lot of bleating about how supposedly untrustworthy even apparently moderate Muslims like Ramadan are, I thought its major point was her call for him to be prevented from speaking in Australia and Britain, as he was in the USA.

I meant to thank TRTL for the link to that disturbing and interesting article. Apparently it's the subject of tonight's 'Four Corners' - a 'must see' for those who like to spread fear and loathing of Muslims in Australia, I reckon.

"OLO makes it very easy, dickie. You just locate the original comment from which the quote was taken, and underneath it is a row of icons. If you click on the one furthest to the right, this will copy the comment's URL to your clipboard. If you then paste this along with the "quote", then everybody will be able to verify the quote, its immediate context and the thread in which it was posted." CJ Morgan

What arrogance CJ but not surprising when one reads of all the tantrums you throw as you goose-step through this forum trampling the many you contemptuously accuse as "xenophobes."

Rest assured, CJ, I do not dance to your arrogant tunes. I am not your whipping boy. Those quotes of yours which I placed here earlier are for all to see if they have the time to peruse your 1471 rants - gawd....that's over 81 per month!

You continue to malevolently attack anyone who raises issues denouncing specific Islamic cultures that are harsh and cruel. These posters are in your opinion, "Islamophobic clowns."

Ramadam is regarded as an extremist who has been banned from entering the US but you attack the author by calling her "a demonstrated Islamophobic hack." Therefore, you are defending "radical Islam" since you are unable to support your accusations with anything substantial.

Then you hypocritically crow that everyone is entitled to "Freedom of Speech."

Of course, in your "expert" opinion, speech is only free if it complies with the bleeding heart vomit you sanctimonously throw up on OLO!

"1471 rants .... over 81 per month!"

How productive is that, CJMorgan?

Especially someone who, has presented little or no new idea over so long, never fails to contemptuously accuse others "xenophobes", and behaves like a stooge at the best of time.

DICKIE... *WOW* :) I'm almost feeling sorry for poor CJ after that pounding.

I think I'm in love (err ur a girl right? if not I'm biting my keyboard:) tease.

Our next op..is at ISSNA in Coburg mate.

A couple of quotes from their web page... this is .. er.. hmm.. words fail me:

<<There are many historical cases where those who mocked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) were destroyed and finished off.>>

(Comment: yes..they were.. by HIM)

another:

Monthly BarbeQue

"The event will be segregated and we request that everyone please dress modestly."

COMMENT sounds like a great way to meet a wife....not.

They have on their web site a link to THIS:

http://www.iisna.com/articles/?sid=dawah&id=19

Mohammad in the Bible, by Ahmad Deedat.

The number of errors and assumptions in that effort boggle the mind.
But this is on public display in a web site that many naive people may visit. Does it surprise folks that a 'Christian' in a forum like this, give a different view of such doublespeak?

BOAZ, you are my hero. I love how you quote so many unrelated events to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is an enormous Islamist conspiracy ready to swamp our world with a form of religion even more dangerous than yours.

Whilst CJ sometimes puts things across differently than I would, all his points are valid, and the criticism's I've seen here can be dissected as fallacies.

The 1471 comment appears to merely be the number of comments, with the word 'rant' attached. Therefore, this criticism can be directed at anyone simply by going to their profile and pasting the number of comments.

By that logic, boaz comes under much heavier fire. It's not valid.

Dickie, CJ was asking you to go through those comments and provide some backing to your claims that he defends radical Islam.

The only instance where you rebut this, is where you say "malevolently attack anyone who raises issues denouncing specific Islamic cultures that are harsh and cruel."

There's a fair amount of emotive language there, but the keyword - specific - is important. It hints at drawing a number of links together, which appear to me to be purely causal.

Firstly, you'd have to prove that the comments he criticised are coming from people who have an agenda of simply critiquing radical Islam.

Otherwise, those who are criticising Islam in general often hide behind a veil of only criticising radical cultures, but still indicating that fringe movements are representative of the overall religion.

The most common fallacy I've seen employed in debates anywhere in OLO, is exaggeration. Pick the ugliest parts of the ideology in your sights, and attempt to draw the rest of it in there too.

Capitalists attack Stalin, not socialism, but pretend they're the same.
Christians attack Islamic extremists, not Islam, but pretend they're the same.
Same goes for criticism of Christianity. The crusades and Fred Nile are often trotted out.

In order to prove that CJ is defending radical Islam, you need to prove his criticism isn't directed at those employing this fallacy.

You've not done that. Instead, judging by the contemptuous language, you're attempting to monopolise some high ground, but seeing as your insults are looking as ugly as the others I've seen here I don't see how you can do that, especially given the lack of backing.

"I am gratified that OLO has the courage to publish Melanie Phillips."

Yes, iudex, you are right. You are far-Right. We all know the threats that OLO has received from Islamists across the world. We all know how the poor editors at OLO have had to go into hiding and are now operating underground because they are scared of nasty Islamists knocking on their doors in the middle of the night. Despite all these threats from nasty bearded fanatics, OLO have shown the courage to reproduce word-for-word an article that has already been published in a national newspaper.

That's true courage.

I love it when one doublespeak collides with another.
I especially liked the post about Islam being built on a lie about seeing an angel.

Of course Christianity isn't built on lies, is it? The resurrection. Pure fact. And, for some Christians, transubstantiation. Pure fact. I'll leave aside all the nonsense about miracles. They of course were pure fact too.

This is an attempt (much like Phillips' article) to tie us to the present world order. It might be a rotten life now, but you'll get pie in the sky when you die.

Or in Phillips' case, fear the other, they threaten you now. They don't of course, but it is an attempt to unite all of us with our exploiters.

Phillips' subterfuge is to say: look, you are better than them, even though you are alienated from yourself as a human being and are a mere object (with a price like any other object)in the production of profit. This helps one supposedly to accept the exploitation they are subject to.

Passy
Thanks for your response.
Iraq- the US is not blameless, true. However, is it really the US’s fault if the Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims hate each other, say that the other is not a true Muslim, and kill each other? How many of the deaths are the result of American fire, and how much from internecine violence?
Or that Iraq and Iran are bitter rivals, and that Saddam invaded Iran, during an eight year war, killing up to 1.4 million in the process.
Or that Chemical Ali killed at least 140,000 Kurds.
Is everything bad that happens in the world the fault of the US?
I don’t think it would be reasonable to assert that.
Can’t you admit the US also does a lot of good as well?
Socialism- have you ever thought WHY socialism has never existed?
My thoughts- it is against human nature, and by extension, nature itself. (Charles Darwin- evolution and all that)
People are kind, generous, loving, altruistic, mean, greedy, nasty and murderous, and have many other characteristics besides.
To impose socialism on the human race is to reduce everyone to the status of ants- no individuality permitted, and what is worse, no freedom either.
There will always be some who want more than others- socialism is never going to change that. Time to be realistic, I’m afraid.

Sometimes your shortsightedness is truly dramatic, Boaz.

You kindly provide a link to an Islamic website that makes the following statement on its front page:

"IISNA Core Principles:

1. Support the Muslim community by providing sound Islamic information/education;

2. Support the youth by educating them on core Islamic values and behaviours;

3. Supports policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion;

4. Opposes policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Muslims and others from participating fully in Australian civic life;

5. Believes the active practice of Islam strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation;

6. Condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state;

7. Advocate dialogue between faith communities;

8. Supports equal rights and responsibilities for men and women."

Apart from numbers 7. and 8., I suspect that Boaz would claim exactly the same for Christianity, would you not?

"Boaz Bible Group Core Principles:

1. Support the Christian community by providing sound Christian information/education;

2. Support the youth by educating them on core Christian values and behaviours;

3. Supports policies that promote civil rights, diversity and freedom of religion;

4. Opposes policies that limit civil rights, permit racial, ethnic or religious profiling, infringe on due process, or that prevent Christians and others from participating fully in Australian civic life;

5. Believes the active practice of Christianity strengthens the social and religious fabric of our nation;

6. Condemns all acts of violence against civilians by any individual, group or state;"

The last two would need some amendment

"7. Constantly denigrates other religions;

8. Supports the rights of women to cook and sew."

Uncanny.

TRTL

On which shaky foundation did you rest your conclusions?

“The 1471 comment appears to merely be the number of comments, with the word 'rant' attached. Therefore, this criticism can be directed at anyone simply by going to their profile and pasting the number of comments.”

A stupid assumption. I merely advised on the number of posts due to CJ Morgan’s idiotic expectation that I would now scroll through a total of 1471 posts to locate the quotes I'd quickly selected at random.

Therefore it is appropriate here to quote and request from the "articulate" Morgan: "put up or shut up."

‘The only instance where you rebut this, is where you say "malevolently attack ........"

Wrong! I am waiting to hear why Morgan called the author "a demonstrated Islamophobic hack." On which basis does he arrive at this conclusion and was the inflammatory remark in defence of Ramadan?

“Firstly, you'd have to prove that the comments he criticised are coming from people who have an agenda......"

Wrong! I don’t have to prove anything. It is Morgan who, by his hateful comments, is required to wriggle out of these abusive statements.

“In order to prove that CJ is defending radical Islam, you need to prove his criticism isn't directed at those employing this fallacy.”

Balderdash! He's the perpetrator, not I.

“You've not done that. Instead, judging by the contemptuous language, you're attempting to monopolise some high ground, but seeing as your insults are looking as ugly as the others I've seen here I don't see how you can do that, especially given the lack of backing.”

Ah…yes...now we have a high court beak and a moralist rolled in one!

My insults may be regarded by the more delicate, as "ugly." Please now provide a sensible reason why you omitted to include the following “contemptuous language” in your list of “ugly.”

"Australian cult xenophobia," "blind bigotry," "typically xenophobic rant," "whining racists," "racist trolls" "whack a mozzie," "hate tinted glasses,"

Now don't turn right and don't turn left - you'll get giddier! Just move forward and ponder on your hypocritical and pseudo-intellectual rubbish.

I don't suppose anybody watched "Four Corners" tonight? It was an absorbing account of how Australia might produce its own home-grown terrorists, from the fertile ground of alienation of Muslim Australian young people by a combination of belligerent government policy and bigoted Aussie xenophobia. One thing that was very apparent in the program was how young Australian Muslims have increasingly been demonised and alienated from the society in which they were born and raised in recent years.

An expert on terrorism studies demonstrated graphically that, for an individual to become a terrorist, they must first have become sufficiently alienated from the wider society in order to seek identity within fringe groups of similarly disaffected people. From there, the progression to violence against the wider society is facilitated by shared sociopathic ideologies.

As well as candid interviews with some young Australian Muslims, the program depicted some particularly ugly non-Muslim Australians engaged in both verbal and physical violence against Muslims at the Cronulla riot and at a disgraceful racist and xenophobic rally against a proposed Muslim school at Camden.

Like other fair minded Australians, I'm increasingly concerned at the level of bigotry directed towards our Muslim minority because of both their religion and their ethnicities, largely because the only possible outcome of the open expressions of hatred that we have witnessed on such occasions, and that we see expressed in forums such as this, is communal violence - even terrorism.

I find it quite bizarre that because I make this observation, and argue - robustly at times against the most bigoted - against the promotion of hatred and intolerance against people simply because they follow the Islamic religion, that some try to label me as a supporter of radical Islam.

TRTL - thanks again. I'm not going to waste any more time on dickie. She is clearly being deliberately obtuse to the point of actual dishonesty.

Pericles - hilarious!

Passy: "Of course Christianity isn't built on lies, is it?"

I didn't doublespeak!! Feel free to attack Christianity the way I criticise Islam, if that pleases you.

I do NOT believe Christianity is intentionally or unintentionally built on lies the way Islam is.

One simple reason - Islam is based on words of just ONE man.

Do you believe Mohammad (a warrior, killer) telling people he met with Angel Gabriel on numerous occasions to receive words from Allah to preach Islam over 20 Years?? If you do, try asking about evidence of those claims.

There're convicted murderers quite capable of claiming innocence, with a completely convincing straight face too.

CJ Morgan,

If you're not an Islamophobe why did you watched it? I didn't!!

In fact whether you watched Four Corners Monday night would have made NO difference to whatever you wrote above. You're entirely predictable in you naivety and error of judgement.

Quote: <<"...for an individual to become a terrorist, they must first have become sufficiently alienated....the progression to violence....is facilitated by shared sociopathic ideologies.">>

This is only true in the case of followers of Islam, but NOT any other religion. Not Christians, Buddhists; not Hindus or Jews.

When Taliban lorded over Afghanistan, there was no social alienation in Afghanistan, no "ugly non-Muslim", no xenophobic rally, no "Islamophobes", no infidels. But nonetheless we found the worst extremists, fundamentalists right there.

Boo..boo...A bit of knowledge with a pea brain is very dangerous.

CJ Morgan, You haven't got a clue where the wind is blowing from and going to.

Your mindset is already that of a typical Islamist - It's ALWAYS the FAULT of NON-Muslims.

Does that entitle you to claim moral high ground and justifies your contempt towards those you regard as nasties??
So you can't wait to eradicate those enemies, me included.

You're not a radical Muslim, you say. But sometimes a "friend" causes more damages than an overt enemy - an insider, a betrayer, a double-agent, a traitor comes into my mind.

You really don't have to be radical Muslim -- Being your true-self is bad enough !!

.

Well I guess Muslims are going to feel "alienated" for some time to come. Also Aborigines.

See:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/03/09/1204998283744.html

"WHITE students are fleeing public schools, leaving behind those of Aboriginal and Middle Eastern origin, a secret report by high school principals reveals."

Julia Gillard delivered a "tut tut" but, according to the Herald:

"The NSW Minister for Education, John Della Bosca, and his federal counterpart, Julia Gillard, yesterday said they were committed to parental choice in education."

Gillard has no children but I wonder how many of her colleague's kids attend the local government school in their constituencies.

See also letters:

http://blogs.smh.com.au/newsblog/archives/your_say/017464.html#comments

"Absolutely race and safety are issues! White kids are being moved out of those schools because they don't want to be bullied or attacked. Why must the state feel the need to interfere when their obvious integration policies are failing? Let white kids go to white schools, and if segregation occurs naturally. So be it. The fault is with multiculturalism, not with whites moving their kids out of the region. If you force people to send kids to their local schools, we will see a resurgence of home schooling. Let sleeping dogs lie, and leave it alone."

And:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/10/2184653.htm

"A confidential survey conducted in 2006 by the council showed there had been an exodus of Anglo-European families from some public schools.

"Council president Jim McAlpine says the research, released in a Sydney newspaper today, shows the phenomenon is most marked in areas where there is a high percentage of families from an Aboriginal background."

Guess you can't stop people voting with their feet and / or wallets.

Nice riposte gz. I'm sure we can find some way of blaming the Taleban on George Bush or John Howard or, preferrably, both.

Passy, In your last post, you didn’t respond to what I wrote to you yesterday morning. Froggie has now raised similar issues. Are you going to respond?

Pax,

TRTL – please read “The Islamist” by Ed Husain…it might explain a few things for you.
"It seems like every time something happens overseas, whether it's an attack or a bombing, it's like you're blamed for it, we always have to defend it, you know, miles and miles away. What have Muslims in Australia got to do with foreign policy overseas?" asks Walid.
Unfortunately, as long as some Muslims (Islamists) don’t try to integrate themselves into the community, and go around with an attitude that disparages people of other faiths, or secular people, or people of homosexual inclination, or infidels who believe in no religion, "Kafirs" as they call them, then all Muslims will become marginalized. Add in the well publicised instances of Islamic extremism that are regularly in the news media, then it is little wonder that a certain idea of what Muslims ARE is taking hold.
Muslims do have a tendency to set themselves apart.
Probably unfair to a point, but that is human nature. Islamic countries are hardly fair to their religious or other minorities.
Also, I don’t like the implied threat in the rest of the article, that, if they are marginalized, then the rest of society will suffer “So maybe we'll have more crime, because they feel lost, they don't know where to turn, maybe more killings, maybe. God knows."
If they can’t obey the law here, then maybe they would be better off in an Islamic country.

Goodthief, Froggie,

You are of course both correct.

Most of the violence in Iraq in recent years has been consequence of attempted mutual genocide between different Muslim factions.

Since the end of the war Americans have displayed greater regard for Iraqi lives than have Iraqis.

THEY MISSED THE POINT..... 4 CORNERS.

Lucky I'm not one of the Journo's or I'd be asking questions like:

"Fahdi...don't you think that verses from the Quran like 'destroy' Christians and Jews contribute to the hostile attitude Aussies have toward Muslims" ?

"Fahdi.. don't you feel that verses like "FIGHT against those who do not believe in Allah and the last day" etc contribute to the alienation you speak of?"

"Fahdi..is is possible that the source of Alienation is SELF imposed?"

"Fahdi... don't you wonder why Aussies seem to get along so well with many of the other races and religions which come here, but re Muslims, its a stand out problem?"

"Fahdi, don't you think that Lebanese Muslims who glorify pack rape, make videos we all saw, claiming Australia is under new management.. i.e. Lebanese Muslim management.. has a bit to do with this alienation you speak of and complain about?"

FAHDI RAHMAN..WHERE ARE YOU?.. why not drop into OLO and answer some of these questions personally.

"Fahdi, you yourself stated during the Cronulla period that Muslim youths feel they are superior to Australians and they hate western values.... could this cultural/religious superiority problem be a factor" ?

But b4 you do, know this... we have very well informed people who can quickly dissolve the usual rebuffs "Oh you don't understand Islam" "Oh..you take things out of context" in the acid of history and truth.

I suppose program managers like to leave many questions un asked and thus unanswered to we think the next program might actually address them.....who knows?

Dear Melanie Phillips

On behalf of all fair minded Australians, I offer you an apology for a poster’s unprovoked and unwarranted attack on your character, where the poster contemptuously described you as "a demonstrated Islamophobic hack."

Since the poster is unwilling or unable to justify this attack, I cannot offer you any excuse for this deliberate affront.

Your article reminds me of the necessity for vigilance against the threat of terrorism. I believe that in regards to Islam, nowhere in this nation’s successful immigration history have so few received so much attention.

Now we have Australians pitted against Australians, a result of citizens struggling to correctly evaluate a rigid and unyielding belief system which is creating unprecedented conflict amongst the members of most Western nations and the sycophants continue to accuse the more outspoken of “racism” or "Islamophobia."

I am also reminded of all the other nationalities which have settled on our shores and of the wonderful contribution they have made to our nation, despite the initial hardships they also had to endure in adjusting to a culture which at times was unfriendly and alien.

The West has now grown dependant on the moderate Muslims, who tell us the Islamic agenda has been hijacked by a ‘tiny minority of extremists’ and that soon the huge (and often silent), moderate majority of Muslims will take charge and change things.

Therefore, it is our duty to respect moderate Muslims and treat them how we find them. I have already had that pleasure. However, we must not become sycophants to an ideology where many of our own bleeding hearts already view Islamic members as the maligned under-dogs in our society. This is not of our doing.

In the meantime, whilst we squabble among ourselves, the faceless infidelophobes rub their hands in glee, happy in the realization that their forward planning, in setting the cats among the pigeons, is reaping the rewards which they had anticipated – rewards which will contribute much to their insidious plots for global domination.

dickie, please...!

>>On behalf of all fair minded Australians<<

It is presumptuous of you to claim to speak on my behalf without consulting me.

>>...we must not become sycophants to an ideology where many of our own bleeding hearts already view Islamic members as the maligned under-dogs in our society<<

You are, of course, allowed to speak for yourself.

The charge of sycophancy simply won't stick, dickie. As CJ pointed out earlier, simply because fair-minded Australians oppose intolerance and bigotry, it does not imply that they support Islam. Or any other religion, for that matter.

It is simply that which it is: opposition to the fear-mongers amongst us, who would have us believe that every Muslim is a pack rapist and a child molester.

Boaz, ah Boaz. Once again, the past master of the "when did you stop beating your wife" school of interviewing.

>>"Fahdi...don't you think that verses from the Quran like 'destroy' Christians and Jews contribute to the hostile attitude Aussies have toward Muslims"?<<

Bearing in mind that the vast majority of those non-Muslims shown on the program are unlikely, to put it mildly, to even know what the Qur'an is, that question is known in the trade as "leading the witness". Their particular brand of anti-Islam feeling had nothing whatsoever to do with an understanding of the Gospels either, I'm afraid.

And as someone who gets terribly upset when a fellow-Melburnian chooses to support the Greek soccer team, this is just a little rich, Boaz.

>>"Fahdi... don't you wonder why Aussies seem to get along so well with many of the other races and religions which come here...<<

Now, where's my dictionary?

Hyp... hypo... hypocr... - ah yes, there it is.

Pericles,

You are mistaken.

Boaz's interview question is not of the "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" type at all !!

To be a WDYSBYW-type question, the interview question would have to be re-phrased, like this:

>>"Fahdi...don't you think that verses from the Quran like 'destroy' Christians and Jews contribute to the hostile attitude Muslims have toward Aussies"?<<

Your dictionary will not help you.

Has anyone ever pointed out, that BD is a much more intelligent and intellectual person than you've ever given him credit for. You cannot tell partly because your're obscured by a biased mind.

At least do yourself a favour -- Retract that "hypocr..." remark.

Dickie, I rather suspected your somewhat indignant rants would then come my way. Very well.

For starters, you still haven't provided context for CJ's quotes.

Using the same logic, I can say you believe Australians are "idiotic pseudo intellectuals."

Clearly, you also believe Australians are "sanctimonious" and "arrogant."

Of course, you'd be able to assert this is a stupid conclusion, taken out of context. You'd quite rightly ask that people provide the link to prove the context in which it was spoken.

That's the charge that's being levelled against you, but you won't lift a finger to disprove it.

And make no mistake, if you're making accusations it's up to you to justify them, especially when pressed.

Believe it or not, reasonable people in this country like to use an 'innocent until proven guilty' ethos, but as is clearly evidenced in your post, you do not.

If you like, I can provide a link.

Dickie - CJ has proven that yes, Melanie Phillips is indeed a xenophobic hack.

Xenophobic: "Xenophobia is a fear and contempt of foreigners. It comes from the Greek words (xenos), meaning "foreigner," "stranger," and (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self"

Hack: "A term journalists use to describe themselves and their work. Hacks churn out stories daily informing the world or at least a newspaper's readers what has been going on."

Now read these direct comments from her here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jun/16/media.politicsphilosophyandsociety

". British nationhood is being disembowelled by "mass immigration, multiculturalism and the onslaught mounted by secular nihilists against the country's Judeo-Christian values"

She may be right about Tariq Ramadan, but perusing her other writings, it's clear she is indeed, a xenophobic hack.

You never addressed my main contention either, in regard to the exaggeration fallacy.

While on definitions:

By high court beak, I'm assuming you mean extensive knowledge of the law.

As for moralist: "a philosopher who specializes in morals and moral problems."

Cheers. Seeing as you've given no competent reason to believe otherwise, I'm gonna take that literally.

Given the amount of twaddle being posted on this thread by the Islamophobic contingent, I thougth I'd go back to the actual article that prompted this outpouring of paranoia. Some may recall that Melanie Phillips' article sought to discredit the visit to Australia by Professor Tariq Ramadan, a prominent moderate Muslim scholar.

A cursory sniff around reveals that Phillips is a Jewish Zionist, who is lately a well known far right tabloid press journalist. Besides her Islamophobia, she is known for denying the validity of evolution and for being a vociferous global warming sceptic, as well as opposing the recognition of same sex relations [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Phillips ]. In other words, an Islamophobic, homophobic, creationist hack.

On the other hand, Prof Ramadan is a visiting fellow at Oxford University who advocates the reinterpretation of Islamic texts, opposes terrorism and violence, and is an advisor to the UK and EU governments, who has been nominated as one Time magazine's "100 Great Innovators" of our time [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan ].

Who has the better credentials? Given that Ramadan has been, delivered his paper and gone, and there hasn't been any noticeable upsurge in Islamist activity in Brisbane, I think we might conclude that Phillips' paranoid article was just a tad exaggerated. In fact, as an avowedly moderate Muslim theologian who advocates the integration of Muslims into Western societies, isn't he exactly the sort of person to whom we should be looking for answers to the apparent problems some Australians have in this area?

gz: "Boo..boo...A bit of knowledge with a pea brain is very dangerous."

You said it.

stevenlmeyer seems to relish the development of a school system where 'coloured' school kids are segregated from wealthy 'white' kids. Perhaps it reminds him of home.

Boazy: "Lucky I'm not one of the Journo's"

I agree. Ratbags like Phillips are bad enough, but I suppose at least she can write English.

Lastly, thanks Pericles. I wasn't going to respond to dickie's nonsense, but you've covered anything I would have said anyway.

Fascinating how this article's brought them out from under their rocks, eh?

Dear Good thief,
Thank you for your comments on religious bigotry.Let us all accept the truth that religions were made by men in different regions according to the demands of their times. Therefore there cannot be any holiness about them.They are all nothing but some concepts to lead man to righteous ways.
Let us be passionate about fellow human beings and not about virtual things.If we strive to create a conducive social environment, the importance for religions will disappear.Because man is desperate with his fellow men he goes in search of some solace elsewhere.
If the religious beliefs cannot stop war and hunger then why we need them? As you rightly say, religions are not at fault but it is only man who makes mistakes in the practice of the tenets of religions. Then why we need so many religions? There can be only one religion, a religion of HUMANISM.It is not the religion which has made some people good.They are good because of their nature and they happen to practice a religion because of their birth.

Froggie

Sorry I haven't responded beforehand. I am busy at work and have this evening been organising a talk by South African activist and Marxist Trevor Ngwane. Trevor will be in Canberra next week at a special meeting of Socialist Alternative to speak on "Apartheid's gone, but the struggle continues." Then he is in Melbourne to speak over easter (along with a US Iraqi war veteran against the war, a Hong Kong Labour activist and an Italian socialist plus heaps more) at Marxism 2008. See http://www.sa.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1451&Itemid=137

What is it you wanted me to respond to?

If it is the idea that most of the deaths in Iraq are due to Muslims killing each other, then I have two comments. These internecine battles only erupted after the US encouraged them. Second the Lancet study shows that 80% of the deaths of innocents in Iraq are due to the US war machine. (I think that is the figure, at least from memory.)

Hello Ezhil, I suppose you know I’m not buying all of that, but I would accept humanism as a superficial solution. In fact, on a neighbouring thread, I’m recommending it.

I don’t say “superficial” out of disrespect. btw, what I mean by “humanism” is the belief that ALL human beings are of a very high status and value – and equally so. This being a basis for insisting that they be treated with equal respect.

I know our reasons for attributing this value to humans will differ, but we can still agree on the value.

Religion. I know one’s birth setting is important, but that’s not all there is to it. I’d rejected Christianity before I took it up again. The fashion at that time was to be an atheist or to “go East”, and I found myself doing the least fashionable thing available. Nor do I regard espousing a religion as essentially a matter of “need”, though non-believers often say it is. In fact, I would find life far simpler without believing in God, as I would prefer to be my own authority, to be sovereign. But, while you might regard all of this as nonsense, it needn’t stop us agreeing about some ground rules, and I’m happy for humanism (so long as its rationale is unexplained) as being the basis for a common ethos that everyone could subscribe to.

Passy, You’re starting to sound a tad biased. However, I don’t know you at all well, so perhaps it’s not just the start. Even if the internecine deaths in Iraq occurred post-invasion, they still occurred, didn’t they? You write as though you believe that, if the US suddenly evaporated, the world would be at peace – that, at the very least, there’d be no strife within Islam or between Islam and the rest of the world. Do you believe this? I can’t speak for Froggie, of course, but I think we just want you to admit that the US is not the only problem. Must I wait for Froggie to ask, before you grace me with a reply?

Pax,

Hi Passy
Actually, it was Goodthief who asked for your response to my and his/her post.
You didn't really respond to what I said in my post.
With what you did respond to I have a comment:
Why would the US want to get the Sunni's and Shias killing each other and killing US troops as well. Divide and rule principle? But all this trouble would interfere with the extraction of Iraqi oil, which is what some people say was the reason for the US invasion in the first place.
Surely the US would want as peaceful a place as it could get?
The Lancet study has no real evidence for its statistics and it's study has been totally discredited for this reason.
I've already given you some very good reasons why socialism (and Marxism) will never work. No response from you to those comments.

Froggie and Goodthief

My apologies for mixing you up. Work and activism are taking up my time, energy and concentration.

Froggie, you say the Lancet study has been discredited. George W certainly said as much. But as Mandy Rice Davies said: He would say that, wouldn't he?

The methodology appears fairly rigorous,and those undertaking the study are hardly raving lefties like me. The Lancet is apolitical, and intellectually rigorous. Most of the criticisms of Lancet came from supporters of the war who wanted to hide the war crimes Bush et al have committed.

Interestingly the pro-war mob had no diffuclty with the same methodlogy by the same people in other countries when it suited their own political ends.

But even possibly pro war analysts assert the figure to be 150,000.

And refresh my memory about your criticisms of extending democracy into the workplace and undertaking production to satisfy human need not profit(ie your criticisms of socialism)?

I'll try to reply when my 24 hour limit is up.

And thanks to Phillips for stimulating a debate about the war crimes of Bush et al, the number of innocents they have killed, what socialism is and showing us clearly the extent of the Islamophobia that substitutes for thought in right wing circles.

I do hope that an intelligent right winger eventually writes an article for OLO. I suspect it will be a long time coming.

I sense something enigmatic about CJ Morgan. The way he hops out from nowhere, (when barely confident of striking a "prey"), with very little on him, (like nothing much to say apart from one-liner jibes), then disappears back in the dark.
When he writes long paragraphs, it's pretty much regurgitation of predictable cliche...with self-righteousness and full of insulting stereotyping...void of new ideas.
Yet such a person tries to pass off as a champion moderates... Ummm... How many seriously perceive CJ as a "bridge" between "good" and "bad" ?? I wonder...
Will someone point me to a "significant" post of his?? Honestly I'm not at all motivated to search his posts.

Back to some analysis...

1)... CJMorgan: <<"...Phillips is a Jewish Zionist....Islamophobic, homophobic, creationist hack">>

Frankly, I think you stoop very low with abusive stereotyping, to try influencing the readership.

Fair-minded people assess the MERIT of a writing, but not prejudiced by the status of an writer, which you obviously do.
I had no prior knowledge of M.Phillips. I find her assessment that Tariq Ramadan is a dangerous deceiver has logical merits.

2)... CJMorgan: <<"Who has the better credentials?">>

This is naive and patronising rhetoric. It is the substance and truth that matter, not "credentials".

3)... CJMorgan: <<"...there hasn't been any noticeable upsurge in Islamist activity in Brisbane...">>

Ummm....a deceptive strawman, quite unsophisticated though.
How do you tell there has been NO upsurge in Islamist activity that is UNnoticeable ?? Is this less important ??

4)... CJMorgan: <<"...integration of Muslims into Western societies">>

Let me turn this around and offer you an opportunity to show off what little intellect there is:--
Based on what you know about Tariq Ramadan's movement, tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how exactly Western freedom and democracy can practically and successfully fits in an Islamic Society like Saudi Arabia.

May I anticipate a magnificent argument ?? Good luck for trying !!

LOL CJ

What on Earth did I write that led you to conclude that I "relish" the "development of a school system where 'coloured' school kids are segregated from wealthy 'white' kids?"

I'm simply reporting the facts. If you don't like them go talk to the parents who are fleeing the state system. Our kids went to government schools.

A "cursory sniff" reveals that Ramadan is an "Arab Muslim" who is lately a well known Islamist darling of Left wing (pseudo)academe. That's the same crowd who, in previous generations, swooned over Stalin.

I think "Arab Muslims" have as much right to be heard as "Jewish Zionists" so I would not bar him from entering Australia to give a speech.

But, to put that in perspective, I also opposed barring David Irving, the "Caucasian holocaust denier" from entering Australia to give a talk. Free speech applies even to toe rags such as he.

Muslims do seem to be suffering quite a bit of rejection these days. That walking cliché, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, was prompted to pen the following essay at the behest, so she says, of one of her many Jewish "best friends."

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-powells-rivers-of-blood-are-back-again-793666.html

Quotes:

"...Our public service broadcaster [BBC] is surely inciting racial hatred when it privileges whiteness and seats Nick Griffin of the BNP* at the high table of Newsnight?"

"It is our fault too. Muslim politics have savagely wounded the anti-racist** alliance. Inter-ethnic culture wars leave us no energy to confront the bigger problems together as we once did. The bombers in London blew up our hopes as well as the nation's optimism."

*Is the BBC supposed to bar Griffin?

**I.e racist alliance that "privileges" brown-ness.

If this report in the Daily Mail is correct Muslims may be about to suffer even greater rejection in Britain:

"MI5 TARGETS FOUR MET POLICE OFFICERS 'WORKING AS AL QAEDA SPIES'

"MI5 chiefs reportedly believe the suspected moles have been planted as sleepers - agents under deep cover - to keep Al Qaeda informed of anti-terror raids planned by London's Metropolitan Police."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=528813&in_page_id=1770

Even paranoids have real enemies. Shades of Jonathan Pollard?

"Passy, Bushbasher and Ginx- three representatives of probably the most demonstrably FAILED religions of all time-Socialism.
You'd think they would have grown up by now, wouldn't you?
But no, they are stuck back in their nineteen seventies student activist paradigm, condemned forever to repeat the liturgy of their simplistic beliefs."(Quote:FROGGIE)

Ahhh! Little squat slimy green thing...

What a splendiferous job the Conservative thugs have done eh?

You self-serving greedy intolerant little bastards!!
What have you nasty little creatures brought to this world in your pursuance of more wealth for the wealthy, more poverty for the poor.
More xenophobia, more hatred of those who do not aspire to your false gods; your false sense of all that is right, and any who oppose that are less than you, are not 'grown-up',- stuck in the past etc., ebloodytc!!

You are loathsome little tic's on the skin of mankind, and you have placed this and many other countries, in greater danger than ever before in your brown-nosing adulation of the gutless cowards who are responsible for countless innocent deaths, many of whom were their own countrymen.

You are the human slime who have inured the current global atmosphere.
You are the human slime who support and even boast about this shameful period in our history.

And you are the utterly odious and repugnant nest of intolerant vipers who have the brass-necked temerity to judge the failings of others!.!.!.!.!

I am sick to bloody death of every last one of you, and leave it to my colleagues in reason and compassion to take you on.

I will only judge you as you judge me. I have not the patience to counter your incessant diatribes and preaching of all that is intolerant and hateful.

Some twot on another thread made the startling statement about the Iraqi invasion being a positive thing! (NOT verbatim).

Let me offer up my first AND last link:-

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq5_vG3cYGM

Is this spliced and diced? YES.
Is it lying? NO.

Aren't you proud?

"gutless cowards" "human slime" "repugnant nest of intolerant vipers" etc. etc.

Dear me Ginx. You are one angry man (or woman?)Them's strong words but I'm not criticising you. It's just that your "contemptous language" (TRTL's description - not mine) is leading me to believe that I in comparison, could in fact be a dual reincarnation of Mother Theresa and Gandhi!

>>On behalf of all fair minded Australians<<

“It is presumptuous of you to claim to speak on my behalf without consulting me.” (Pericles)

Oh yes, now we have the pious Windbag Pericles. Learn one thing Windbag. I did not speak on your behalf and it is preposterous of you to believe that I would actually include you in my list of fair minded Australians. Perhaps you would be wise to reflect on your bloated ego and check for gas leaks.

‘”It is simply that which it is: opposition to the fear-mongers amongst us, who would have us believe that every Muslim is a pack rapist and a child molester.”

Such emotive language Windbag - such hyperbole and spoken like a real girlie! Pray tell, who are these “fear-mongers” you speak of? Those liars who believe every Muslim is a pack rapist and a child molester? How many are there? And why hasn’t the Discrimination Act been enforced and these hateful people prosecuted?

Do be a good little war-monger and provide us with links to substantiate these alarming claims so that we fair minded Australians can voice our objections to these monsters. Or are they simply a figment of your maniacal imagination and a ploy to incite the infidelophobes?

I anxioulsy await your evidence about the "simply that which it is?"

And all these hysterics directed at a poster who has never criticised the Islamic religion but merely accessed this thread to advise the need for vigilance against terrorism and a precautionary approach to those who speak with forked tongues!

What a tosser you are Windbag! Why don't you try keeping both hands on the key-board for a change?

“Dickie, I rather suspected your somewhat indignant rants would then come my way."

Take you hand off it TRTL? It was your rants which came my way. Get it?.

So where's' your response TRTL. You know: the "whining racists" "racist trolls" etc? Perhaps it’s taking a while to cook one up similar to the “xenophobic hack” one?

"Dickie - CJ has proven that yes, Melanie Phillips is indeed a xenophobic hack." (TRTL)

And how would that be TRTL? Because of Jackie Ashley's condescending petty piffle? Ashley went after her predecessor, Phillips, because she reports for a rival paper.

Your posts remain selective at best, certainly dishonest - fallacious and worse, so infinitely tedious that even my leg fell asleep!

Jackie Ashley - Guardian:

“It does come down to values. Just as I loathe the idea of separate Muslim schools in Britain, or forced marriages, or female genital mutilation, so I cannot swallow the notion of a rising Islamic world that despises western and liberal values. To be a liberal does not mean shrugging your shoulders at those who loathe you and hoping that somehow everyone will get on.”

Stephen Pritchard
Sunday June 11, 2006
The Observer:

"Owing to an editing error last week, we failed to make clear that a letter from Chris Doyle, carried in response to our publication of an extract from Melanie Phillips's new book Londonistan, was written in his capacity as director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab British Understanding.

"That extract may have given the impression that Ms Phillips's book connects all British Muslims to a campaign of violence, whereas she stresses that the vast majority are peaceful and law-abiding. She also draws a distinction between Islam, which should be respected, and Islamism, which, she believes, is the use of that religion for violent ends."

Touche Melanie Phillips!

The war-mongers on this thread will continue to manipulate truth. These are the religious police flourishing banners warning: "PERLICE NOTISE- FREA SPEACH PROHIBATED" written by the cockeyed and poisonous Pericles, motor-mouth Morgan and TRTL who's so giddy turning left and right he speaks in jabbawanky!

Ginx

I can understand your frustration. However this site represents the reality of the range of opinion in Australia today, from the fascist to the revolutionary. Reactionaries and die hard conservatives may be over represented but they don't have any other outlets for their views (other than page after page of most newspapers in Australia).

I just think we patiently explain,patiently explain and patiently explain our views. In times of a seeming peace between the classes (e.g. record low levels of strikes, puppy dogs for union leaders and so on) most won't change their views simply by reading our posts. Some may, but they will be a tiny minority.

But when the next upsurge in class struggle occurs, all sorts of economic and political questions will arise. And those doing the questioning and moving rapidly to the left may well be many of those (or some of them at least) you are currently berating.

To quote from an old dead German, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class. They use racism, sexism and homophobia and hatred or fear of "the other" to reinforce their system. The grind of daily life and the inherent alienation of capitalism make all of us receptive to their ideas. Our daily lives - making profit for a small group - reinforces our feelings of helplessness. We can clutch at the straws of something like Islamophobia because it identifies with a group and seemingly empowers us (against them, of course.) But in major struggles the filth of ages is swept aside.

Until then let us continue to patiently explain.

Froggie and goodthief, sorry, I think it is time to move on to other articles and fresher discussions. I am sure our paths will cross again and you can ask me the same questions you think I may not have answered here.
.

Dickie, dear me. Your indignant flailing is hitting more and more other posters.

If you can, try to keep your ire directed toward the posts here. As for turn-right left childishness, I can assure you, you ain't the first and it really doesn't strike me as all that clever.

Hokay now. Let me see - did you manage to read the definition of xenophobic, or hack? Still not addressing it yet?

Riddle me this - does Melanie Phillips express a fear of foreigners?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Secondly, is she a journalist? The 'hack' perjorative term is evidently going to be disputed depending on whether people believe her or not, but given her consistently fringe conservative views on pretty much everything, it's pretty safe to say her commentary is far from 'balanced.'

Provided any links? Not yet? Oh well, maybe you'll get there someday. Until then, hold onto that 'guilty until proven innocent' view of the world. I suppose it is an easier way to ignore evidence.

At least, we're in agreement that Islam in its entirety isn't necessarily the problem, it's the fringe movements.

The thing is, the people you're defending tend to use radicals as a smokescreen to attack the religion in its entirety. As I've already explained for you, this is quite a common tactic.

Still not something you've really addressed. As for me being selective, you jump between perjorative terms so quickly it's impossible to address them all.

Your entire argument is criticising him for criticising those who attack Islamic movements.

My contention was that these people use radicalism as a smokescreen. Again, you haven't disproven or responded to this.

The funny thing is, it appears you largely agree with CJ, it's the fact he's used emotive insulting language. The rest of your posts are just insults in a desperate attempt to defend yourself.

I see. I'll file that alongside:

"Windbag" "tosser" "girlie" "bloated ego" and "sanctimonious."

Passy

I’m not criticising Socialism, it’s a fine ideal. But it will never happen.

Have you ever wondered why, as you say, it has “never been tried”?

Unfortunately, it doesn’t take account of human nature, so it will never work.

I don’t know how it could be tried, without taking people’s freedom away.

You obviously don’t read other people’s posts and think about what they have to say, because you are such a committed Marxist, that you have closed your mind to anything else.

It’s really a waste of time discussing this with you, it is a “dialogue of the deaf”.

Your latest post directed at Dickie is bizarre. You state that “the ruling class’ “use racism, sexism and homophobia and hatred or fear of "the other" to reinforce their system.”

You don’t believe that the Islamists are actually guilty of those things?

You’d better read “The Islamist” by Ed Husain as well.

Ginx. I’m really sorry that you took such umbrage to my post.

You have not read much of what I wrote, either. Or if you did, it didn’t get through to you.

“What have you nasty little creatures brought to this world in your pursuance of more wealth for the wealthy, more poverty for the poor.”

The poorest people in the West, in the hated capitalist system, are richer than most in the Third World.

There is nothing stopping you from doing well in the capitalist system. You are probably already a shareholder through your superannuation. There is nothing stopping you from creating a business and making yourself wealthy, if you wanted to. You could even buy shares on your own account, or get wealthy through property, if you can’t think of anything else to do.

Of course if you prefer to whine, feel sorry for yourself and rail against “the system” on behalf of others who also expect it all on a plate, it is your choice. But you won’t get very far in life with that attitude.

I.....can't....believe it..... I CAN'T... ITS TOOOO MUCH :)

GINX.. you are increddddible seriously.. there is so much I wanted to comment on, but then.. I read yours! Honestly.. I have tears on my cheeks now (from chuckling)..and a kind of lump in my solar plexis at your totally amazing outburst there:)

Ok.. team..check it out:

GINX 1.1 "And you are the utterly odious and repugnant nest of intolerant vipers who have the brass-necked temerity to judge the failings of others"

GINX 1.2 "I have not the patience to counter your incessant diatribes and preaching of all that is intolerant and hateful."

Golllllleeeee Ginxy :) I don't see ANYthing remotely resembling the 'hate' of which you speak, but more.. who can be more 'intolerant' or HATEful than she who calls people an odious nest of vipers? along with the other 5000 adjectives you used in your mini series sermon from your pulpit 6 miles above contradiction there ...

I mean.. that's so hilarious I reckon you should copyright it- might be a few bucks there for ya.

But I think I see the 'sin_bin' looming close to you rear end mate:

*CHOMP*

PS..that link was good. Shows sinful man at his worst.

JOHN PASSEY.. you now blame the Sunni Shia conflict on the AMERICANS? I think I'm going to send the invoice for re-constructive surgery to you (for my now broken jaw which hit the desk when I read that)

Mate.. being a good Marxist, you should at least have a clue or 2 about history... and know that the Sunni Shia thing started wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy back around 635 with the dispute over succession to Mohammad.

But..no.. Passey now has enlightened us all.. "IT'S THE AMERICANS"
"Yep..its them that dun it... them I tell ya"

"Golly John.. ummm.. mate.. (quiet word on the side) ..pssst if you want to be taken seriously here.. don't say such transparently silly and rediculous things"

That dispute was only less public during Sadaams day due to oppression. You know it..I know it.. we all know it.. so why try to fool us with your cheap propaganda?

Dear BOAZ_David

Thanks for pointing out all my intellectual inadequacies.

Just one little point to no doubt further convince you of those inadequacies. But maybe, just maybe, your inability to grasp what I am saying stems from your own intellectual greatness. For mere mortals like me and others on this site, let me simplify.

The Americans have used the Shia/Sunni differences deliberately to foster murderous division among Iraqis in Iraq. This prevents these two versions of Islam uniting against their common enemy - the invaders.


That unity could also have been not only against something but for something - for freedom and democracy.

It is why the invaders have quashed democratic movements in Iraq and imposed their own puppet regime. It is why one of the first acts of the US was to round up trade union and leftist leaders and brand them terrorists.

And to Froggie, human nature is not immutable. It changes from society to society, depending ultimately on the nature of the economic system that people live in.

Socialism appears to me the next step forward for humanity, away from a world of war and mass murder, from world of incredible poverty for one sixth of the population and desperate poverty for another sixth, to a world of peace where all are well ed and housed and clothed and have adequate life expectancy. And a world where all can participate in all decisions affecting them and the rest of society.

Oh and Froggie, when you next post can you make it a little louder? I am as you say a little hard of hearing.

Just signing out of this thread, which has now departed almost unrecognisably from the forgettable article that ostensibly inspired it.

Those who are actually fair minded know who they are. I will always advocate free speech rather than the suppression of even hateful ideas.

I do not support radical Islam - or any other version of the God delusion. But I will defend the right of anybody to believe whatever they want and to articulate their beliefs, as long as that doesn't infringe the rights of others.

Quite simple really.

The following article again reminds me of the need for vigilance in Australia, despite those who prefer to wear their rose tinted glasses and who will of course, hasten to accuse me of being an Islamophobe.

Should these allegations be true, one must wonder how unregistered teachers slipped past our Education Department and how were Australian taxpayers' funds utilised in Pakistan?

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23368991-2761,00.html

Passy

If you think human nature can be changed radically any time soon, please read a book by Robert Winston called "Human Instinct". Robert Winston is Professor of Fertility studies at Imperial College, University of London.

There is a scientific basis to what I said before, Passy.

Socialism is a fine ideal, but it's never going to happen.

As C J Morgan said, this article about the dangers of Islamism has drifted off topic, all because you wanted to rant about Socialism.
How selfish is that?

Incidentally C J, I agree with you that free speech should not be banned, even for people like Tariq Ramadan.

Our Islamist friends wouldn't agree with us of course, and that is the very point I have been trying to make, albeit not very well.

How tolerant should we be of those who are totally intolerant?

CJ Morgan,

What a cowardly, shameless cop-out of a HYPOCRITE that you are !!

You are completely unable to get yourself to advocate freedom and democracy in an Islamic Society, (such as Saudi Arabia).

Yet you (most unashamedly) have the cheek to still maintain you will "always advocate free speech rather than the suppression of even hateful ideas."

Has anyone suppressed your freedom of speech other than your own total incapacity to defend free speech where it matters ??

CJ Morgan,

Whether you support radical Islam or not is immaterial. Being your TRUE-SELF is BAD ENOUGH.

You are always FREE to leave as much as you are FREE to speak. Don't even pretend this is not the case.

So leave as quickest as you can, but LEAVE WITH YOUR TAIL BETWEEN YOUR LEGS !!

What a low life of a hypocrite...

Yeah, I'm such a hypocritical lowlife that I'd even defend the right of Islamophobic idiots like gz, dickie et al to have their say. That doesn't mean I'm required to play their silly games though - that only encourages them.

I daresay we'll encounter each other again soon enough in this forum - but please try and stay on topic next time.

CJ Morgan,

You are completely deluded -- No one here ever needed your help to defend his/her right.
Not if you cannot even defend freedom where and when it matters.

Just in case you have not noticed, actually our discussions are mostly on topic, because YOU are in fact a "Master of Islamist doublespeak" yourself.

"The following article again reminds me of the need for vigilance in Australia, despite those who prefer to wear their rose tinted glasses and who will of course, hasten to accuse me of being an Islamophobe."

I refuse to label you an Islamaphobe. In fact, you're a complete moron. Do you know that Tariq Ramadan said in his Brisbane talk that he was against Muslims sending their kids of such schools?

He may be right or wrong on that score. But this case in Perth is just one school. Why don't you talk about the Exclusive Brethren schools that stop kids from learning computers? Or what about all the Catholic priests who touched little boys in Catholic schools? I guess you regard pedophilia as a healthy Christian practice.

"A "cursory sniff" reveals that Ramadan is an "Arab Muslim" who is lately a well known Islamist darling of Left wing (pseudo)academe. That's the same crowd who, in previous generations, swooned over Stalin."

Ramadan's grandfather was the founder of the Moslem Brotherhood, an anti-Leftist political movement that opposed Leftist Egyptian strongman Gamal Abdel Nasser. The MB were supported and funded by the US and its allies (e.g. Saudi Arabia).

A branch of MB in the occupied territories, known as HAMAS, was supported by Israel during the 1970's and early 1980's. It created a parallel welfare network that rivalled the secular and leftist PLO.

Far-Right d#ckheads like StevenMeyer will always blame the monolithic left. But the Right have had just as much (if not greater) role in creating this Islamist bogeyman.

Gotta say it!

You're my kind of BOZO!!

"I guess you regard pedophilia as a healthy Christian practice."

Hey DOZO DAGWOOD

Are you off the whacky weed yet?

What a drongo!

When you've emerged from La La Land, please note the following:

1. This thread is about Islamist Doublespeak.

2. It is not about the Exclusive Brethren or the Catholic Church

3. I am an atheist therefore I do not favour any religion, nor do I normally engage in religious debate

4. What relevance is there between Ramadan's Brisbane lecture and a Muslim college which was shut down in December due to allegations of fraud?

5. Should the allegations be proved correct, then there's been a double dose of Islamist Doublespeak occurring at that college and all in the name of Allah (peace be upon him.)

6. Seemingly you approve of the $350 thousand of taxpayers money allegedly secreted to Pakistan. I don't!

7. The arrest of that pillar of European Islam, Tariq Ramadan, in Paris's Roissy Airport on March 12, 2007, for "offensive misconduct" --including some insulting epithets hurled forcefully by Ramadan, saw the Western media close ranks by failing to report on the incident of Ramadan breaching security and calling staff members a "bitch" and "arseholes," which resulted in an overnight stay in the lock-up.

However, media reports constantly alert the public to improper practices in other religions and so they should.

Therefore, why are the sycophants objecting to the reporting of misdemeanors, fraud, torture and documented murder within the Australian Islamic community? If moderates, also the majority in other religions, have to wear the flack, why so touchy about Islam?

On second thoughts, don't answer that Dozo.......you're such a dropkick!

For dickie and stevenlmeyer:

http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=5104

"Adass principal flees Australia in disgrace:

THE principal of the Adass Israel Girls School in Elsternwick has returned to Israel amid allegations of improper behaviour towards students."

Yes, we do have to be vigilant about these religious nutters and their schools :)

Here are more links in the mainstream media

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23373236-661,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/principal-molested-girls/2008/03/13/1205126111228.html

I find it disturbing that members of the Adass community may have helped the principle escape before she could be questioned by the police. I hope the police investigate thoroughly the circumstances surrounding her sudden departure. Anybody who aided and abetted the principle avoid questioning by the police should be brought to justice.

Yes, you ALWAYS have to keep an eye on religious nutters. I am glad we agree on that.

But you know what I find interesting CJ?

You read the Australian Jewish News.

Why?

Even I don't bother. It is rather less interesting than amendments to drainage regulations. Until you posted the link I was not even aware the AJN was carrying the story. It never crossed my mind to check.

So why do you read it CJ?

Do you also read the local Greek, Turkish, Lebanese, Serbian, whatever media? Or do you focus on the Jewish media.

On the assumption that you are genuinely interested in Australian ethnic media here is a link to Daleelaustralia. I discovered it with a Google search 2 minutes ago.

http://www.daleelaustralia.com/news/lebanon_news.php

And if you want to keep tabs on the Turkish community my Google search threw up the following link.

http://www.turkishnewsweekly.com/index.htm

Enjoy.

"Yes, we do have to be vigilant about these religious nutters and their schools :)

Ah......praise the Lord....Allelujah, CJ's finally got the message!

Now concentrate on the Doublespeak CJ. Remember you advised on March 13 that you were:

"Just signing out of this thread,"

Tsk tsk!

DICKIE...I'm hereby appointing you as my 'pit bull attack poster' :)

Kidding of course.. but ur an atheist ? awwwww...

JOHN PASSEY.. John.. did not intend to insult you there old son.. just pointing out something that seemed to fill in the picture abit re Sunni Shia.

My take on the issue is that there can only really be one of them in charge. Either one.. does't make much difference, as whoever it is will oppress the other for historical/theological reasons.

In some ways, your desired approach makes more practical sense, of people from both sides adopting socialism as a means of overcoming the theological tension. Such a view though is long on Romance, short on workability. It also relies on oppression of the religious element.

I don't see the Americans have exploited the divisions at all, because it does not help their cause....unles you consider some cause other than bringing democracy and creating a friendly government and guaranteeing oil supplies. If anything, the Yanks are 'enduring' the sectarian fighting...but they would prefer to see a workable government of national unity.

SOCIALISM has never worked and it has actually been 'tried'.. please take a moment to look at 2 passages from the Good book.

1/ "Socialism in action"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=2&version=31

See especially verses 44 and following.

2/ "Socialism Derailed"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=6&version=31

Read the first verse, and then, compare/contrast it with the previous.

Right there, you find 'human nature' at work.

Ramadan will continue to give his 'sugar coated spin' and we will continue to attack his deception. Please don't anyone call us 'intolerant' for doing that.