Irfan,

No. You have accused Manny Waks of libel. You are the one who has to provide the evidence that he has libelled Muslims in general. I don't have to do anything. I asked you, "Isn't it a fact that MOST terrorists are Muslims". I didn't answer my own question in the affirmative. I don't know the answer.

As usual, you are determined not to answer any questions. But, you expect me to give you a definition of what "Muslim" means to me.

Same old Irfan.

Irfan,

"a definition of terrorism that is universally accepted", this seems rather disingenuous,what are the odds of that occurring? I'm not inclined to let you play Socrates. We all know the cliche 'that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter', after all some of the founders of Israel used terrorism to achieve their aims until they were able to use conventional methods, then the Palestinians became the terrorists. Am I right in inferring that you regard some acts of 'terrorism'(since you require a definition) as legitimate resistance to Western imperialism? If so please provide examples, so we can set the parameters. If someone states that his/her religion is Islam that's good enough for me, I don't require a definition. Those vermin who murdered Australians in Bali were Moslems, they said so, proudly.

I deny that there are any human rights activists anywhere in the world.

There are ONLY POLITICAL ACTIVISTS with private agendas of their own and are usually funded by vested interests.

They'll have a red-hot go at Israelli actions in Gaza and American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan but are conveniently silent on the DR of Congo,Sudan and places where their interests do not lie.

socratease

To reach that conclusion, socratease, you'd need to insulate yourself from all the media, where human rights abuses are decried daily - in any nation.

What you're either avoiding or unaware of is that our government and media aren't trying to whitewash the events in Congo or Sudan, or scream in our faces that the Congolese and Sudanese are above criticism because of an unspoken belief that god promised the world to them in an ancient book of folk stories.

The moment our leaders and media begin treating other nations with the one-sided propaganda donated to Israel and the US (when it's Repulican-run), decent Australians will hook into that, too.

Irfan

Keep talking to us, we get to see what Islam does to the mind.

The United Nations is guilty of BUT.

Certainly the UN defined "racial discrimination" as relating to “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.

No problems so far... however then the United Nations for political expediency came out with all its' own BUTs.

These BUTs are where the core definition does NOT apply, where exemptions are granted, and governments and organisations and individuals all around the world proceeds to redefine their racism so as it does is exempted, so does not conflict with the original and widely supported definition.

Solution is simple dump all the exemptions.

Racism was once again be defined as actions where exists “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin”.

This approach does not deny persons once victims of racist actions rightful compensation for past wrongful actions.

This approach does confine such compensation to actual compensation, not activities perpetuating racsim and racist actions.

.