Now you are being silly, Boaz.

>>I find it intriguing that you see the media embellishment of a few stab wounds and the mention of torture as being somehow 'whack-a-mozzie' when the far bigger issue of the poor brothers having had their throats cut and killed as somehow....'not' ? Most curious indeed. So.. If I just mentioned "Fanatical Muslims cut the throats of Christians, brutally and cruelly murdering them" is not whack-a-mozzie, but adding "And they were tortured" is?<<

The commentary, I would like to remind you, was not my own, but the considered contribution of some Christians who actually live in Turkey.

It was they, not I, who pointed out that the (presumably deliberate) sensationalization of the gruesome story is counterproductive.

The fact remains that you did not check the facts. You chose the story because of the gory details, not in spite of them.

Let me remind you briefly of how it went.

>>"He had scores of knife cuts on his thighs, his testicles, his rectum and his back," Ugras said. "His fingers were sliced to the bone. It is obvious that these wounds had been inflicted to torture him," he said. The only thing I wonder about Pericles..is why you wonder about why I 'attack' any hint of Islamization.<<

As it turns out, you swallowed this hook line and sinker, and in doing so exhibited exactly the reaction that your Christian colleagues in Turkey warned against.

By standing on your soap box and regurgitating this pornographic detail, you cannot fail to incite fear and hatred, can you?

So don't point fingers at me, my friend, for making you aware of how you are being manipulated.

I do wish you would read Mosley's "My Life". So much would be come clear to you, as to the dangers that lie ahead for you if you continue to be led by the nose in this manner.

There can be only one outcome if your rabble-rousing succeeds in its objectives, Boaz, and it will inevitably involve weeping, wailing and - you can bet on it - the gnashing of teeth.

Wobbles

“They also armed the Vietnamese to fight the French but in that instance it was the Vietnamese who betrayed the Americans. Either way it never just goes away by itself.”

What? The Viet Minh were armed by China and the USSR. Initially the Americans were neutral in that conflict however after Mao’s victory in China, America threw all of its support behind the French and the two countries were bound by a Mutual Defense Pact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War

There is no evidence at all that the US trained or supported Bin Laden and his group. And as you point out, the falling out with bin laden came after the 1st gulf war anyway.

Your simplistic analogy suggests to me that you see the world with some kind of bizarre lenses of your own. You and your fellow soft lefters who see the US as more culpable than real imperialists like the USSR and China are suffering from an acute lack of perspective.

I have never argued that the Islamo-fascists are attacking us because they hate our freedom, although they do hate it. I firmly believe they are provoking the west because they hope that retaliation will bring their divided communities into the fundamentalist fold under the banner of the defenders of the faith. It is about a war for the hearts and minds of muslims and a return of the caliphate. Whether we retaliate or not its all upside to them. If we retaliate they point at their casualties and say look at what the infidel has done to us. If we turn the other cheek they will continue to provoke us until they get what they want which is Sharia law and rule of the mullahs. The only way we can win is to defeat them by fostering democracy in the middle east. Undoubtedly a task which will take at least a generation.

What do you think we should do? Should we return Iraq to the saddamites or more likely, if we just leave, to Iran’s puppets? Should we leave Afghanistan to the Taliban and let Afghanistan fall apart again?

PaulL

"The Viet Minh were armed by China and the USSR. Initially the Americans were neutral in that conflict however after Mao’s victory in China, America threw all of its support behind the French and the two countries were bound by a Mutual Defense Pact."

I was referring to the first few pre-China years of that war. America had a stockpile of weapons on Okinawa in preparation for a probable invasion of Japan. After the Japanese surrender, many of the weapons were arranged to be "sold" (for a dollar) to Ho Chi Minh to help him drive out the French.
This was a covert economic strategy on the understanding that Standard Oil could later carry out explorations of suspected off-shore oil and gas fields but Ho Chi Minh later reneged and aligned with the new Communist China, forcing America to assume a political stance against him - particularly after the French discovered what had been happening.

With hindsight it would have been a better political strategy to have given those weapons to the Chinese Nationalists instead.

I actually agree with you on many points but feel that the true situation is far more complex than the simplistic Hollywood-style script we are being fed. One thing I can't accept however is why the Muslims "hate freedom". People fight to gain benefits, not to lose them. Either they want something extra or want to restore something they lost. Who wants to die so their own children would have a worse life than their own?

Pericles, You’re calling B_D a “Christian jihadist”? If Islamic jihadists were only interested in passionate awareness-raising through communication (which is what I think B_D is into), I’d personally be very relaxed about Islam.

Without B_D, and without any other non-Muslim religious people sounding the alarm, I think we would still hear a lot about what Muslims are doing – say, in Europe, Africa and the Pacific. One group we’d hear it from is the new atheists: Dawkins et al are largely motivated by their alarm at Islamic jihad. They then talk more about Christianity, but I think that’s because they’re Westerners writing primarily for a Western readership. Even allowing for legitimate concerns about the apocalyptic Christian neo-conservatives (if I’ve got that right), the atheists remain concerned about Islam.

Anyhow, informed vigilance – and considerating accommodation requests on their merits – is probably the best we can do. Thanks for responding.

I would add “We should get as close to Australian Muslims as we can". Simply to use the better side of our shared humanity – good quality acquaintance, if possible – as a counterweight to the West-hating that some of them our doubtless exposed to.

Do you agree? CJ?

One problem with a lot of our posts on OLO is that so many of us adopt extreme positions. Or, are responded to as if we have. For instance, it would be extreme to say, “Islam is the only problem”. Or to say, “Islam is guaranteed safe”.

If A offers “Islam is a serious problem”, it is no answer for B to say, “Islam is not the only problem, look at the US (or the Christian neo-Cons)”. Or, if this is the answer, it should be acknowledged that Islam is a problem. Why could the reply not begin with “Yes, but …”? Then, we’d make progress.

Surely, we are beset with a number of problems and should keep an eye on them all. I’m so surprised at the difficulty in reaching agreement on such a point.

Pax,

goodthief: "Anyhow, informed vigilance – and considerating accommodation requests on their merits – is probably the best we can do. Thanks for responding.

I would add “We should get as close to Australian Muslims as we can". Simply to use the better side of our shared humanity – good quality acquaintance, if possible – as a counterweight to the West-hating that some of them our (sic) doubtless exposed to.

Do you agree? CJ?"

Not so sure about "informed vigilance" with respect to Muslims in particular - I'd apply that principle to all religious extremists, as well as e.g. white supremacists, neo-Nazis, radical socialists, gun nuts, etc etc.

I don't necessarily advocate "getting close to" people whose worldview is different to your own for its own sake, although in my experience that is usually a beneficial activity for all concerned. What I advocate is tolerance - which doesn't mean that you have to like or agree with the other point of view, rather that we all acknowledge other people's rights to have points of view and beliefs that differ from our own.

"Accommodating" those differing points of view and beliefs should be the baseline position, and should only be refused if such accommodation involves real inconvenience or other actual costs, as opposed to basic antipathy towards the beliefs and customs of others.

The Awakening?

Paull’s mentioning of Saddamites still being active in Iraq brings out his lack of knowledge about what is really happening in Iraq right now.

Paul Bremer had the chance to put the bulk of Saddam’s 300,000 frontline Sunni troops on the payroll, but instead let them become most of the so-called outside insurgents attacking the Americans and the Shias. Thus has come the official Bush Awakening.

Realise now why early last year the Washington Post published the news how, surprise, surprise, a US gunship swooped into another ruckus near Baghdad but instead of gunsighting on the usual Sunni insurgents, aimed on a crowd of Shias, the people the Americans had come into Iraq to rescue.

We thus now find that a crack mob of Iraqi militia under command of the Americans, is 80% Sunni.

Why the Washington Post is the only part of any world news service that can bring out the much needed facts, is hard to fathom?

Sadly it seems most ordinary folk want the Iraqi conflict to end even it does finish up with the Baghdad Green Zone forever under US official neo-colonialist control with Saddamite Sunnis well on the payroll.

Cheers - B