James, you haven't presented the slightest shred of evidence for your preposterous allegations that "The Madrid Bombings of 11 March 2004" and "The London Tube bombings of 7 July 2007" were " 'False flag' terrorist attacks, which appear to have originated from within Western Intelligence agencies and the military".

My apologies to others for the inevitable URL-storm to come.

And James, I make no secret here of my identity - and unlike you, I only use one at OLO. I infer from your comment that you're in communication with other mentally ill people. Did you meet in a support group or something?

If so, I commend you for seeking assistance for your problems.

Boaz,

In your comment above, you criticised Islam for allowing a country or a nation to defend iteself against aggression with the term "No army".

So according to you, if Indonesia occupies an Australian territory tomorrow, you will be marching against the ADF and maybe asking for the Gold coast to be giftwrapped and given to the Chinese!

If this is what you are saying, then your belief system does not make anysense. If this is not what you are saying, hypocrisy is the only word that comes to mind.

Peace,

Hi FH...mate..your comment comes clearly from your understanding of your faith... which is quite legitimate, but it also underlines the point I'm always trying to make.

You see Islam as a 'State'...and I see knowing Christ as being of the heart...not a State.

Even if you personally don't describe Islam as a 'State in waiting' or that it emerged even from Mohammad's day AS.. a State.. (which I doubt you would do) you would probably admit that based on the history of it unfolding and the foundation documents.. that it's all about a theocracy.. no?

The difference in how we understand our roles re defense should be explored.

I have no objection to not only Australia defending itself from Indonesia or whoever, but also of my own participation in that defense...as I've already had military experience and enlistment.

But there should never be a 'Christian' State. A State might include a large majority of Christians.. and even be called upon to defend itself..but not in the name of Christ himself.. no..in the name if peace and security in general. (Romans 13)

Your usual approach is to see all things done by Mohammad as 'defensive' but this is unsustainable in the light of history AND the clear command to fight unbelievers in 9:29. The fact that I know how 9:29 was used by Omar in his invasion of Persia should convince you that I know my stuff :) I've had this conversation with Kaysar Trad b4..and he simply re-invents the invasion of Persia as a defensive act.

History again does not sustain this re-invention. The various other invasions and expansions.. were clearly motivated by the desire to spread Islam.
As soon as you 'are' a state... you must respond to your surroundings 'as' a state..which means taking territory as well as defending it.

It is unavoidable that Muslim states will seek to take over bordering states. Only a power balance or alliance (like ANZUS) will stop it. Just as Omar invented reasons why the Persians should be invaded, so did Kaysar.

Boaz,

"You see Islam as a 'State'..."

No I don't Boaz, Islam is a faith like any other should be in the heart. Please see your answer below which contradicts your attack above:

1. "you must respond to your surroundings 'as' a state..which means taking territory as well as defending it"
2. "I have no objection to not only Australia defending itself from Indonesia or whoever, but also of my own participation in that defense"

So, hypocrisy it is.

" ... The Satanic verses DO indeed show him to be fallible... a normal human..and this has been my contention from day one. ... "

For me, I am more concerned with people, not old books little understood and possibly misinterpreted, misrepresented and re written over and over and that goes for the lot of them. U don't seriously believe that the book defines the people do u, or even that most adherants even know the entire contents of the book?

I'd like to c how tolerant 40,000,000 future Australians would be relative to the 40,000,000 Muslims here if held down at subsistence level.

So, to generalise and classify huge swathes of humanity by the words and deeds of "politicians" somehow doesn't seem to ring of Everlasting Luv UnConditional in the 1st instance. No?

(It's the trouble with too much time spent looking at 2 dimensional screens and prolonged isolation perhaps.)

It appears to me to be a red neck trait to pick out a line of txt and associate it with an opposing red necked violent minority and then say "U c ... rotten from the start" Is there anything U consider 2 b of value that has been contributed by?
(and they say this like in Song)
MMoHammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmed

The modern language/cultural barriers in and of them self are insurmountable to many, let alone the differing consciousness of those who preceded us.

Politicians as a whole are all self interested and in even in this country there is no law prohibiting them knowingly propagating untruths in the public domain and otherwise.

Perhaps it is more of a problem of lack of education and then some visa vi *El GoddO* concepts and blind faith acceptance coupled with penalties for having a scientific/enquiring mind.

Christopher wrote, "James, you haven't presented the slightest shred of evidence ...".

Like I also haven't "presented the slightest shred of evidence" that the US Government itself is implicated in the 9/11 terrorist attacks at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0, eh, Christopher?

Somehow, I think, from your conduct in that discussion, you wouldn't be capable of seeing the evidence even if you fell over it.

So, CJ, if I try to present the evidence here, do you intend to look at it and discuss it this time, or will you just proceed to tell everybody that I must be a nutbag/wingnut/moobat/etc because I "spruke(sic) crackpot conspiracy theories"?

Anyway, Christopher, in case you hadn't noticed, it's a little bit difficult to present the necessary evidence when we are constrained by the brain-dead lowest-common-denominator limits of OLO, but, then again, perhaps you wouldn't understand what it is like to try to present a complex argument, would you, Christopher?

When some of us have tried from time-time-time to discretely make use of second accounts in order to do that, even when they have left nobody in any doubt as to who the originator of the post was, a number of small-minded "goody two shoes" pedants have seized upon that to personally attack those presenting the arguments, as you would well know, Christopher.

Christopher wrote, "I infer from your comment that you're in communication with other mentally ill people."

So, tell me, Christopher, who among the Queensland Greens don't you consider "mentally ill"?