Mmm, KTranter, I find it strange you single out Plantagenet. If you're going to attempt the censorious line, I'd suggest singling out more extreme examples. There's plenty around if you take the time to look.

Leigh! Aw man, it's great to see you back. The site's been missing the taste of your particular brand of bitter acid.
For the record, Pericles cited Boaz, because boaz appears to have been resurrected, Jesus-style.
Though, I suppose it's in a new form, so a far better analogy would be the decidedly more heathen process of reincarnation.
How ironic.

Parts of this article seemed a little weak, but other parts made very good points.

It's sad to admit, but occasionally terrorism does achieve the goals it sets out to achieve. People very quickly forget the origins of Israel (right or wrong aside, there were bombings by non-state players, which assisted in them being granted their demands).

Terrorism has become such a broad term that it can be used by any state player to define violence by a non-state player. So whether the movement has reasonable goals or not is irrelevant, provided they are using violence to obtain their goals. Countries appear to be exempt from such labels. Thus, a dictator can't be a terrorist, so you effectively get to escape this label once a coup is successful.

My point is, it isn't about morality, it's about leverage and regrettably violence can achieve political goals. The idea that violence can only possibly work for countries, doesn't hold much weight with me. In many places, the leaders of the countries are simply the terrorists who won.

The better material was in relation to the diversity within Islam, as Pericles points out.

Cont'd.

"Christian, Hindu, Muslim and all other extremists in India resort to terrorism. So it is important to understand the root causes of violence..."

It's pretty obvious what the root cause of violence is, then, isn't it? Irrational belief.

I am not an Islamophobe, but I am an unreasonophobe. I am scared of people who base their decisions on something other than evidence and logic, because I have no way of knowing what harmless and apparently trivial belief or action on my part is going to trigger a wave of hatred and violence on theirs. A reasonable person is open to negotiation, but a person who believes they have a direct hotline to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe is always unpredictable and should be treated with extreme caution. Or better still, taught to see reason.

I have pointed out here before that nobody who deliberately embraces any irrational belief has the moral right to criticise any other irrational belief; for that reason, attacks by believers on other believers will always be half-hearted and miss the point. In other words, Richard Dawkins could have explained to the Mumbai bombers why they were wrong; the Pope could not.

Polycarp, that was among your weakest posts I've seen. It's not the bloody 'ummah.' It's the polarisation and the modern day political considerations driving this thing. Many of those diverse niches within Islam are so far against the conservative scriptural stereotype you shout from the rooftops, your attempt of tying them in as well is just plain foolish.

As I see it, critics like mac do make a good point - the chief criticism I have of the many broad Islamic groups is that they are either not speaking loudly enough against the violent groups or regimes, or they haven't figured out a way to make their opposition heard.

And boaz, I know you're keen to jump in and shout "It's because of the scriptural stuff! The thousand year old rot!"

Bulldust. I far more credible explanation is the fact that the issue is so polarised, that to speak out against even the violent aspects of Islam is to align oneself with those who are simply bigoted against the religion in its entirety, such as David "Islam is Evil" boaz.

The other explanation is that within the billion Islamic people, there are indeed violent lunatics, who will target the moderates who are willing to speak out.

To deny the existence of these lunatic groups is a rare, but exquisitely stupid folly.
To pretend all or even most, muslims are driven, controlled, and united by these lunatic groups is a common, banal one.

So, as I see it, there's two groups at fault here. The influential Islamic groups who are too afraid to speak out against the fringe lunatics, for fear of being targetted or being associated with the yahoo Christian/conservative fringe, as well as that Christian/conservative yahoo fringe who is trying to group them all as one.

Ms. Güzeldeniz, what you call “islamophobia” and “abusive response” is called Freedom of Speech. The right to criticize Islam and Muslims – or anybody or anything else – is part of what we call “human rights”. You obviously need to go back to the basics and learn about Western civilization and Islam.

The root causes of violence, as you say, are many. One of the most significant is the hate and violence clearly commanded against non-Muslims in the Quran. This you and all Muslims ignore. You act as if this violence has nothing to do with Islam when the terrorists themselves opening say otherwise. Analyzing or, heaven forbid, criticizing the tenants of Islam is unthinkable for Muslims, so the violence continues, so they must blame others.

Of course the Muslim world is not homogenous, but they all accept the Quran and believe Mohammad to be a great man and moral example. They also discriminate and persecute non-Muslims everywhere they dominate.

The comments here about Muslims are not based upon “stereotypes of oppressive, violent and misogynistic Muslim men and oppressed subservient Muslim women” but rather on the doctrines found in the Quran which cause those violent actions done by Muslims. You act as if these doctrines have nothing to do with Islam when they are the core beliefs of an ideology that causes this violence.

In case you don’t know, the Quran has about a dozen nice verses, but also a couple of hundred that mandate hate and violence. Islam’s dear prophet, a man called “an example to follow” in the Quran, led dozens of raids against non-Muslims, fought aggressive wars of conquest, plundered villages and caravans, murdered opponents, tortured his enemies, declared all kind of sacred special privileges for himself, let his men rape captives, enslaved men women and children and even beat his own wife. These things were written in the hadith by his friends and followers (Muslims), not his enemies.

Instead of “hoping” that terrorist attacks won’t exacerbate Islamophobia, why don’t you “hope” that Muslims will stop killing and attacking others? Wouldn’t that resolve the “Islamophobia” problem

Yet again an author who is talking sense well done lady.

Religion isn’t the problem it's the individuals i.e. If I and a few mates become irrational and blow up hotel quoting Bible references is that an act of Christianity as a whole or just that of an individual or group? There are SO MANY factors that go into making the individual(s) become a terrorist. "If truth is the first casualty in war" then perspective/reason are the first casualties of terrorism.

The tragedy is that on both there are those (minorities) on both sides who WILL not or can’t think beyond the brutal simplistic. Absurdly simple solutions for complex issues. A bit like “Occam’s razor being applied by a lobotomized individual”. Keep in mind that the surgeon who invented the ‘frontal lobotomy procedure” was shot by one of his lobotomized patients.

I fear that those like in the old song (can’t hear because they’ve got) “beans in my ears” will not only not avoid the conflict they so fear but in fact invite it. In a situation like that NO-ONE WINS. Some intellectually ossified individuals on OLO are clear examples of that.

Perhaps the most insidious/hypocritical of these are those who shrilly invoke freedom of speech as though it some how transcends our responsibility to our neighbours and in some cases the precepts of their religion.

With every ‘right’ come a responsibility some of them should remember that.
Likewise public policy issues are NOT the place for private bigotry and rabble rousing…again we all lose. Their principal boil down to “I have the ‘right’ to create panic and social disharmony for personal reasons regardless of the consequences.” It is interesting to note that is these individuals whose reasoning is the most flawed and brittle. Consequently they are also the most ready to resort to bombast and abuse in its many forms when confronted by opposition.

Who amongst us can honestly say Australia/OLO for that matter needs more internecine/international conflict and that anyone benefits from it

Hmmm

Well I wonder what sort of phobia the following were exhibiting when they sounded off:

1. Moharthir Mohammed at the Opening address of the OIC in Kular Lumpur in 2004 where in a long anti semetic and anti western tirade he called Jews descendants of apes and monkeys--all to rapturous applause from the assembled morons.

2. Ahmadimejads of Iran and their exhortation that they were going to wipe Israel of the face of the map,or

3. Ekemelidin Ishanoglus,the CEO of the OIC, working hard in the UN to see that our freedoms of expression are curbed so that one cannot criticise Islam.

oh

and were do you put the 12000 instances of terrorism that have been perpetrated by Muslims against non muslims,

If there is Ismlamophobia there is good reason for it, and will always be so unless and until the muslims themselves bring the idiocies in their stupid book into the modern world.