BIG LIE OF THE DAY - as reported in The Sydney Morning Herald article "Islam passes the democratic test … just" published April 16, 2008 (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/15/1208025189868.html). This is a direct quote from Samina Yasmeen, the Pakistan-born director of the University of Western Australia's Centre for Muslim States and Societies: "I would argue that Muslim majority states do show a lot of tolerance, not only of the Muslim community, but also of the non-Muslim community."

Um, exactly what would these Muslim majority states that show a lot of tolerance for their non-Muslim communities be? Surely she couldn't have any of the following in mind - Saudi Arabia? Iran? Pakistan, maybe?

Rache,

You posted a list of things, including drugs, which you insisted were banned, which absolutely were not. You now refer to shortages. Are you a liar or just too thick to get your fact right?

The information that I supplied came from the Lancet. Not a noted right wing journal.

I’ll say it again slowly for you. The northern regions were better off because the drugs and food and other things were handed out by the UN. Everyone got their fair share and there was enough to go around. Elsewhere Saddam was in charge and he ensured that aid was not distributed equitably.

So what we are saying, and it is borne out in the Lancet study, is that Saddam was responsible for the negative effects of the sanctions. There was enough foods medicines and materials to go around. Saddam just didn’t dispense it. He wanted the sanctions lifted and knew the best way to do so was to start starving people.

If Saddam had actually disarmed immediately and not interfered with the weapons inspectors then sanctions would have been lifted. But he never would co operate. What does that tell you.

>> “There are numerous undisputed references to the results of banning of chlorine”

There are also numerous undisputed claims that Saddam used chlorine to make chlorine gas, which he used to gas the Iranians. Not a nice way to die.

Halliday was castigated up and down the UN for his ridiculous use of the term ‘genocidal’ in referring to the sanctions regime. If he had applied it to Saddam it might have been warranted.

>> “Much of my information comes from things called “books” and documented independent eyewitness accounts. You may be shocked to know that all the world’s knowledge isn’t contained in cyberspace generally or even Wikipedia in particular.

The UN’s resolutions including the sanctions regime in Iraq are available online. Show me where soap and other such things were banned

Dear Ruby
Unimportant2u?=Vilification2me. None would wish to be identified with a God who 'commands' Rape.

-you are not 'getting' where I'm coming from. There is a very nasty chunk of legislation out there, which I abhor, and any person with a shred of care for this state (Vic) should also abhor because it is definitely 'abominable'... it is, (no surprise) the RRT2001 with amendments.

That law, is the one which allows each of us, to call to account those who represent our faith and religions with a view to inciting hatred, contempt, ridicule etc. While on the surface it might seem 'good' section 9 shows the utterly pernicious nature of it.
“Motive” is not relevant?
This law, was promoted primarily by 2 groups.

-Jewish_lobby
-Islamic_lobby

They saw this as a means of preventing 'anti_semitic/Islamophobic' public_speech, and it became manifest in what looked like a vexatious conspiracy between the ICV Vic and the EOC against 2 Christian pastors, who were put through a $500,000 pergatory.

I resolved long_ago, that this atrocious law must GO! (At_least_section9) which MUST be amended to read “Truth is always a defense, and motive is always to be taken fully into account along with all circumstances of the case”

My posts re Ruby should be seen in this light. The worst that can happen is she might be called for mediation, a one_on_one to discuss/resolve the matter. If she refused this, she could be in contempt, and that could be costly. (even_involving_ jail).. All this of course, presupposes that any complaint re_what she published, is taken up by the EOC.
I suspect, that the EOC is not the 'equal' opportunity commission, but the SELECTIVELY equal opportunity commission. Time_will_tell.

Goodthief. 'What_must_we_do'... Matthew 28:19-20_Luke 24:44-49 BUT. also. Acts 16:37!
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=16&version=31

Law_is_also_important.

Ruby, -Lot etc is a 'report' about events, not a command. That's key.
Lean the diff between 'command, report, permission, concession' it will surely help.

Hello all, and what to do depends on your appreciation of the problem.
One thing is for certain, however. Because no two religions can agree on very much, none of them can be trusted with political power, as oppression for out-groups and dissenters will inevitably result.
Most religions have passed through to the point where they do not have political power - although it was a bloody struggle to get them there.
The exception is Islam. Islam was a political system from the outset, so its transition to a non-political system will be the most difficult. Islam is well established in many countries as a political system. Islam is used by many 'liberation' groups, such as Hammas, so the west's left will have difficulty seeing past this to realise Islam's threat.
Wasn't it the Renaissance's great contribution to humanity that people were to live without the fear of their religion's hold over their lives? Has cultural relativism eliminated this truth? Why can people not see that all religions' rule by fear has to be eliminated?
All I knew about a few years ago about Islam was the name Mohammad, that their was a book called the Koran and a place called Mecca (and a lot of bad stories I tried to ignore).
So a few years ago I started reading about Islam, and I've never come across such a load of violent rubbish in my life.
What I think needs to be done is to expose Islam for what it is - expose what is in there. So the project is to take all the violence, anti-semitism and mysoginy out of the Koran, which would leave Muslims with a book they could be proud of. The stuff taken out should be published separately, so that people in the west won't take years to see what is in Islam.
I imagine that very few Muslims will appreciate this at first. But it might just take off. And it might just force Muslims to see what is in their holy book, and decide that taking it out might be a good idea.

BD: Absolutely. The Great Commission. And I’m loving Acts 16:37!! Hear, hear! I hope others can see that “warrior” needs to be understood in the context of the NT, lest we be accused of being Zionists in the pejorative sense.

Ruby, to help you unravel the above, and since you’re on the KJV, try Romans 8:

35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

36 As it is written:

“For your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter”.

37 Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.

38 For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come,

39 nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Ruby, you write as if your atheism puts you above all charges of bias, or confers unique powers of insightful and balanced analysis. In effect, it does nothing but blinker you to the truth and justify an obstinate aversion to the facts.

But there are commonalities. From a Muslim point of view, we are infidel. Our status all the worse for being women, born Muslim, and yet to ‘revert’. In a Muslim-majority country, under sharia law, it is death or punitive taxes and persecution for me. Take a look at some of the Open Doors literature:

http://www.opendoors.org.au/

For a growing audience, the content of Wilders' film has been accessible for some time and I suspect this is the reason for a fairly subdued reaction in Europe.

I have spent a good portion of 2007-08 working (unpaid) with Muslim women seeking asylum in Australia. One has a death-penalty awaiting her on return to her native country (for adultery), another faces death for apostasy. Cases like this are being heard in Australian Refugee Tribunal courts everyday.

My view of this was formed when mainstream Islam didn't react to "those cartoons" when major Egyptian newspapers published them. The riots occurred months later. It was obvious mainstream Islam didn't care, so what were the riots about?

I later realised I had seen that sort of behaviour in a different context. Right now we are seeing it with the Tibetan demonstrations. The riots were an exercise in politics, designed to give a politician oxygen. Here in Australia we saw the same thing when a politician vilified some potential visitors in order to win an election. He dehumanised them by claiming they threw their children overboard, and later treated them in a manner I had not seen in Australia before. As a political manoeuvre it was a wild success. In this context creating enough fervour over some has-been cartoons to get some of your supporters killed must rank as a home run. Fitna is an example of the same thing, but Wilders falling popularity means Fitna is a failure. He could learn something from his Islamic counterparts.

The extreme parts of Islam look to be functioning like we did a few hundred years ago, when Kings appointed themselves head of the church and the pope used the Spanish inquisition to throttle his opponents. In other words, when there was no separation of church and state. Todays political imams are still functioning like it was the old days, when people who criticised the political process were heretics who could be stoned to death, when power was accrued by clever orators making connections to the powerful or to the masses, as opposed to being elected and then staying in power only if you did good things. In other words without any of the checks and balances we have today in Western politics.

Given the non-reaction to the cartoons, I'd say mainstream Islam has moved on. Even in Iran modern politics is replacing the old ways. My prediction is the extreme imams will die off with the current generation, and so will any reason we have to blame Islam for politically driven atrocities.