BUSHY... past conversations are not relevant to the points I make here.

They are 'makable' no matter what one's spiritual leanings are.

You came awful close to crucifying the messenger without looking at the message and refuting that.. sick..sick I tell you (Obligatory image of Derryn Hinch on one of his self righteous tirades :)

But seriously.. I don't need to have my faith questioned or my characterization of it when I touch on issues about which people disagree.

Disagree by all means..but on the ISSSSSue..and the EVVVVidence..not simply "your a bad Christian" kind of thing ... (optimistic look)

Poking around in the scap heap of adhominemism does not advance a debate.

What does advance one is:

Person A makes an assertion.
Person B shows how that assertion is incorrect or unreasonable on the basis of...... shock horror.. "evidence".

When person B simply says ur a rabble rouser or a this or a that.. it helps no one but their own ego.

The classic example related to this very topic of Islam/Muslims/Anti terrorism laws is a correct understanding of Surah 9 and subsequent oral traditions related to it.

I can show with absolute finality that the command of Mohammad in v 29 was used after his death in exactly the same way he used it during his life... to justify attacking, killing, invading non Muslims.
I can also show with equal finality that such invasions were not in self defense, but expansionist and inquisatorial.

Of course we get apologetic Muslims from minority social demographics in the West disputing this for obvious self preservation/interest reasons, but one only needs to refer to high ranking Clerics speaking to Muslims in places where they hold political power to see the truth.
Or..in my case to honest Saudi, Afghan and Omanese here in Australia.

The classic Muslim apologetic is:

-U don't understand the Quran
-You don't understand Arabic
-It was always self defense.
and if all else fails
"Your an idiot and an Islamophobe, a racist a bigot and a fundamentalist Christian"

Oh oh, here we go again. You just don't give up, do you Boaz?

>>I can show with absolute finality that the command of Mohammad in v 29 was used after his death in exactly the same way he used it during his life... to justify attacking, killing, invading non Muslims. I can also show with equal finality that such invasions were not in self defense, but expansionist and inquisatorial.<<

We can all play that game.

I can show you "with absolute finality" that the Crusades were conducted under the banner of Christianity. I can quote sources that describe "with absolute finality" - for them, literally - the fate of civilians in Jerusalem in 1099.

"Our men followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as the temple of Solomon, and there there was such a slaughter that our men were up to their ankles in the enemy's blood... At last the pagans were overcome and our men seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit... Then the crusaders scattered throughout the city, seizing gold and silver, horses and mules, and houses full of all sorts of goods. Afterwards our men went rejoicing and weeping for joy to adore the sepulchre of our Saviour Jesus and there discharged their debt to Him"

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm

What does this prove, in 2008?

Yes, there are terrorists. Yes, they cite ancient texts to support their cause. That does justify them, or their cause. They do not represent an example of general human behaviour, or even of the behaviour of a religion in general.

Both the Catholic and Protestant terrorists of Northern Ireland firmly believed that their actions were justified by their faith. That did not make them freedom fighters, or a world movement for liberation, or a religious threat to the rest of civilization.

They were just terrorists.

Using these flimsy excuses as a basis for your whack-a-mozzie diatribes is offensive, particularly when your own religious allegiance is towards an outfit that conducts itself in precisely the same manner.

As usual - well said Pericles.

Surely the Haneef case is proof enough of how these terrorism laws can be used even in cases where there was no real evidence to support the claim that Haneef was in league with terrorists. Even ASIO had reported that the evidence did not support the claim that Haneef was a person of interest.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/29/2318193.htm

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24097152-5005961,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/we-never-suspected-haneef-asio/2008/07/29/1217097241031.html

While the previous government may have seen this as a test of the legislation it achieved exactly the opposite of what they intended - a lack of regard for the human rights and freedoms we take for granted in this country.

We have more money invested in anti-terrorism measures since 9/11 - cooperation between agencies and the sharing of reliable information will do more to counter terrorism than tinkering with powers under legislation.

Better foreign relations and economic equity is the best prevention. Didn't Sun Tzu say the best strategy in war is to prevent it in the first place.

Well said, bushbasher, plantaganet, Pericles and pelican. Ever since the Howard government introduced their knee-jerk counter-terrorism laws as part of its sycophantic 'deputy sheriff' policy, many Australians have been very concerned about the Kafkaesque excesses of their application.

There certainly needs to be some effective means of reviewing the scope and function of these laws, which seem to have achieved very little to date beyond harrassing and imprisoning individuals who later turn out to be innocent.

Of course Porky approves of the so-called counter-terrorism laws, since they are applied unfairly to that section of the Australian population that he most loves to hate.

boaz, you can be so goddam obtuse it defies belief. you're like the guy in barton fink: you simply don't listen.

of course the previous thread was relevant: it was all about the question of who gets to do the grouping, who assigns the guilt by association and by what rules. the fact that you can (rightfully) demand care for christian grouping and simultaneously group others with such incredibly bad faith, it's jaw-droppingly stupid. and nasty.

but it is not that your anti-muslim bigotry is so stupid and so distasteful. it's that whilst doing it, you imagine the light of god is beaming down upon you. well i'm sorry, but your bad faith character assassination of a whole religious group is about as loathsomely unchristian as it gets. it's disgusting.

I reject the underlying justification of the anti-terrorism laws, that is, that there exists in the world today a terrorist network known as "Al Quaeda", with the ability and intent to break through the world's most formidable air defence system and successfully launch devastating attacks such as we witnessed on 11 September 2001.

That is what I unquestioningly accepted (even as I attended protest marches against the Iraq war) until about a year ago when serious doubts about the Official 9/11 U.S. Government Conspiracy Theory entered my head.

As long as I accepted the myth about "Al Qaeda" it was difficult for me to argue the case against the anti-terrorist legislation.

However, there are mountains of evidence pointing to the likelihood that the 19 September 11 terrorists were, in fact, patsies and that George Bush, Dick Cheney Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and other highly placed U.S. Government officials were complicit in those attacks.

Just consider that Osama bin Laden himself is not wanted by the FBI for the 9/11 attacks. Contrary to what I had been led to believe he never confessed to the crime and the FBI does not believe that it has sufficient evidence to charge him for that crime (although it does for many other crimes). If you don't believe me, check out his FBI wanted poster at http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

If that is true, then the case for all the draconian anti-terrorist legislation simply does not exist.

I urge people to look into the question, starting from these sites http://www.911oz.com http://patriotsquestion911.com/ http://911truth.org http://ae911truth.org http://pilotsfor911truth.org

A discussion "9/11 Truth" was started at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0

(As the discussion was somewhat derailed at the beginning, I urge people to begin from the end and work their way back.)

There are also gaping holes in the official explanations of other terrorist attacks which have occurred since 11 September 2001 including the Madrid Bombings and the London Tube bombings.