Joschka Fischer, former German foreign minister penned an analysis of Russia for today's Guardian newspaper. In my view his analysis is right on the money.

Fischer's column contains one startling, one might almost say jarring, statement:

"…the decisive strategic threat facing Russia…comes from the Islamic south…"

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/30/russia.eu

There is much more to Fischer's column than that statement. Fischer also points to the strategic challenge facing Russia from growing Chinese power.

Turning to the US, Fischer has this to say:

"…America's neo-conservatives have wasted a large part of their country's power and moral authority in an unnecessary war in Iraq, weakening the only global western power."

Absolutely!

Fischer points out that:

"China, India, Brazil, Russia, and the Persian Gulf today are the world economy's new growth centers and will soon be centers of power …In view of these realities, the threat of exclusion from the G8 doesn't really feel earth shattering to Russia."

Yep. And the fact that five of the "G7" do not understand this reality says it all about has-been powers. The two exceptions, who do understand that expulsion from the G8 is a meaningless gesture, are Japan and the US.

Fischer is equally unsparing about Europe:

"Europe's disunity and impotence underline this image of a West that has partially lost touch with geo-political realities. "

Precisely!

However the fact that Fischer, a 60's radical, a "DECISIVE strategic threat" emanating from Russia's ISLAMIC south

What is the nature of this threat? Militarily, Russia's "Islamic south" is picayune. It cannot be a military threat. So what is it?

What is the nature of the threat that Fischer perceives?

A threat that is so severe it is labelled "decisive. A threat that compares to the threat of having a new superpower on your borders.

Anybody got any ideas?

For a backgrounder on Fischer see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joschka_Fischer

An interesting perspective. Fischer's is altogether a very balanced and thoughtful article.

Which makes me wonder why, stevenlmeyer, you have chosen to emote over only two words from it - "decisive" and "Islamic".

>>However the fact that Fischer, a 60's radical, a "DECISIVE strategic threat" emanating from Russia's ISLAMIC south... What is the nature of the threat that Fischer perceives? A threat that is so severe it is labelled "decisive.<<

From where I stand, it would appear that you are indulging in some mozzie-bashing by proxy, a tactic that is characteristic of a Boaz thread.

First raise the imagined spectre of militant Islam... "a 'DECISIVE strategic threat' emanating from Russia's ISLAMIC south" (your emphases, by the way) then stand back to watch the rabble-rousers congregate.

Tell me I am wrong. Then tell me exactly what you did hope to achieve by selecting this single aspect from the entirety of the article.

But before you do, briefly revisit the piece in question.

The full sentence upon which you focus is:

"Neither the west nor Nato constitutes the decisive strategic threat facing Russia, which comes from the Islamic south and from the Far East, in particular the emerging superpower, China.""

Consider for a moment the motives behind your selection - and emphasis - from this sentence of "the Islamic south". Which, as I pointed out, in your hands suddenly becomes "Russia's ISLAMIC south".

You admit that:

>>Militarily, Russia's "Islamic south" is picayune. It cannot be a military threat. So what is it?<<

This is nothing more nor less than an invitation to the frothing-at-the-mouth brigade to indulge in a frenzied bout of fear and loathing.

Isn't it.

Have a great, if fearful, day.

Pericles,

I am resigned to the fact that you and those like you will dismiss any warning about the dangers of accommodating Islam as "mozzie-bashing." Your knee-jerk reaction indicates you are as much stuck in an intellectual rut as Boaz and I am no miracle worker who can bring sight to those who are wilfully blind.

I pointed to that there was much more to Fischer's article that the statement I quoted – including the fact that growing Chinese strength also posed a decisive strategic threat to Russia.

Nonetheless the statement I quoted is surprising coming from Fischer who, as the article makes clear, is a proponent of (Muslim) Turkey's accession to the EU.

Note also that Europe too has a Muslim south. Does North Africa pose a "decisive strategic threat" to Europe? If not then why does Russia's Islamic south pose a "decisive strategic threat" to that country?

These are Fischer's words and they are interesting precisely because they are NOT words I expected to see in anything he would write.

So just what is the nature of the threat Fischer discerns?

For the rest I agree that this is an exceptionally well balanced summary of the state of play as regards Russia. I also like Fischer's trenchant critique of the US and Europe. I can only hope that the next American Secretary of State (ASS?) display the type of political nous that Fischer seems to have in abundance. As he was sacked from his foreign minister's job perhaps the Americans can offer him the post.

I have to thank Steven, at least for alerting us to the excellent article from Joschka Fischer (who, for those who don't know, was arguably the most successful Green politician in history).

However, Pericles is correct: Steven's shameless distortion of Fischer's words and meaning by selective quotation is an indication of his usual purpose here. That is, to promore fear and loathing of Islam and Muslims.

Just another troll, I'm afraid - but at least Fischer's article is worth reading.

Would the term 'separatists' be more of an issue than 'Islam'?.

Let's see CJ Morgan,

You accuse me of misrepresentation.

I was careful to state that there was more to the article than Fischer's view that Russia's "Islamic south" (Fischer's words) posed a "decisive strategic threat" (again, Fischer's words). I also provided a link so that readers could peruse Fischer's article for themselves.

So I have misrepresented him how?

CJ Morgan, I think we both have a fair idea of who Joshcka Fischer is and where he stands on most issues. The article I linked is well-written and I agree with almost everything he says.

However, except for Fischer's reference to a "decisive strategic threat" to Russia emanating from the "Islamic south" there is nothing in the article that should cause us any SURPRISE. The words I highlighted are noteworthy simply because most people who have followed Fischer's career would not have expected him to write anything of the sort.

That was why I emphasised them.

I suggest you accuse me of misrepresentation SOLELY because you are uncomfortable with the fact that someone of Fischer's stature and position should express such a view.

But he did express that view and he used very strong language.

You and Pericles have both evaded the question.

What is nature of the "decisive strategic threat" that, according to Fischer, Russia's "Islamic south" poses?

StG

Fischer, a man who chooses his words carefully, used "Islamic." Furthermore, most of the "Islamic south," is already separate from Russia. Khazakstan, Uzbekistan, etc are already independent countries.

I cannot see how, say, Chechnya, can pose a "decisive strategic threat.

European observers have faulted Georgia in this month's Caucasus conflict, saying it made elaborate plans to seize South Ossetia, according to the German news magazine Der Spiegel on Saturday.
OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia.
The onslaught had begun before Russian armoured vehicles entered a southbound tunnel under the Caucasus Mountains to South Ossetia.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1427854.php/Spiegel_OSCE_observers_fault_Georgians_in_conflict

Dear Steven,

I've read the Guardian article you made reference to.

It was a balanced analysis with recommendations
of what should be done to curb Russia's inherant
expansionist potential.

Russia under Putin appears to protect Russian "interests"
in Russian inhabited areas. Be it Eastern Ukraine,
pockets of Georgia, Belorus, and possibly the Baltic
States. No less different than US appears to protect
democratic interests in its sphere of influence.
After all the US has set the example in Iraq, Iran,
Vietnam, Korea. Russia appears to exercise its apparent
right in a similar manner.

As far as the "Islamic" threat to Russia is concerned.
Until concrete evidence is presented there appears no
other threat than some Islamic Republics of the former
Soviet Union seeking their independence by whatever
means possible.

Does nobody see China moving to secure its own interests in the face of peak oil with the tacit agreement of its tacit long-term ally right across this region?

Not the Army of Second Sons, but the Army of Only Sons.

Some questions.

What has been a demographic consequence of the one child policy of China?

Could one be an imbalance between the sexes in the progeny of a nation of over 1000 million people?

What is the size of the male 20 year old cohort of China's population these days?

What is the size of the female 20 year old cohort?

What is the size of any imbalance?

Historically what tends to happen when such imbalances occur?

But what would provoke the Middle Kingdom to so most uncharacteristic an expansionist military adventure?

A nuclear armed incipient Islamic super-state throwing its weight around in a way threatening of the continuity of oil supplies upon which the Middle Kingdom sees itself having become to be dependent, by any chance?

A mozzie bull in a china shop?

So sorry. Not acceptable.

Joschka Fischer seems to be saying to the EU "be ready to forcefully confront a soon to be isolated and threatened Russian bear in order that it accept the wisdom of co-operation with its major customer".

Dear Steven,

You aroused my curiousity on the subject of
Russia and Islam. And so I trawled
the web and came across the book by
Gordon M. Hahn, "Russia's Islamic Threat."
Yale University Press, 2007.
It was awarded the "Most outstanding Academic
work" for 2007 by Choice Magazine.

Reading a review of it confirmed the point
that you made in your opening post, and I quote:

"Hahn examines several little known ethnic
republics in Russia. Connecting the dots to
reveal an expanding Islamist network that
represents much more than a nuisance to
Russian power..."

It sounds like a very interesting book, one
worth persuing.

I'm going to try to get hold of a copy.

Thank you for that Foxy. I shall buy a copy of the book myself.

Perhaps there is some substance to Fischer's claim that the "Islamic south" poses a "decisive strategic threat" to Russia after all.

The 'decisive' nature of any 'Islamic' threat.. if anything, would be as follows:

1/ Turkey manages to join the EU.
2/ The EU has implmented a number of meausures to protect Islam from criticism.
3/ Nato is manouvering to 'outflank' Russia by seeking former Soviet bloc nations to join it.
4/ If Turkey did join the EU, the influence of an increasingly "Islamist" nation in cahoots with a 'spineless' EU/Nato could indeed represent a threat to Russia.

As to the 'decisiveness' ? I'm not sure what it mean't by that. Deciding what? I don't think anyone would be foolish enough to try to attack Russia....so.. I'm also a bit puzzled about what would be desisive here?

Perhaps this?
Russia:
-Population 140,000,000
-Russian 80% various others make the rest.
-Religion:
a)Russian Orthodox 15-20%
b)Muslim 10-15%
c)"Christians" ? 2%

Yes..its quite a long string to pull.. So I'll pull it no further.

They are the facts and some potentialities.

Not enough information is available to me at this point to say any more.

Not convincing, stevenlmeyer.

>>I am resigned to the fact that you and those like you will dismiss any warning about the dangers of accommodating Islam as "mozzie-bashing."<<

In this sentence, you confirm that your intention was indeed to issue a "warning about the dangers of accommodating Islam"

Yet you seem to want butter on both sides of your anti-Islamic bread.

>>The words I highlighted are noteworthy simply because most people who have followed Fischer's career would not have expected him to write anything of the sort.<<

Face it, stevenlmeyer, your intention was crystal clear, and it was certainly not simply to draw attention to a "surprising" statement from Herr Fischer.

>>Your knee-jerk reaction indicates you are as much stuck in an intellectual rut as Boaz and I...<<

(I trust you will forgive the mischievous editing of the above, it was too good to resist.)

It may be an "intellectual rut" to you, but to me it is a carefully-weighed position that takes into account the realities of Islamic terrorism, the realities of human nature, and the realities of anti-Islamic sentiment from people with a vested interest in their own religion being "right".

The majority of your - and Boaz's - "evidence" is in your mind. You both take every opportunity to seize upon isolated incidents from which to draw the broadest and most pessimistic scenario possible, of religious warfare.

This may seem to you reasonable, and that you are only being a responsible citizen in bringing this to our attention.

But if you were ever to give it the slightest thought, you would see that to someone not steeped in anti-Islamic fear and loathing, it is nothing more than whack-a-mozzie rabble-rousing.

I don't expect you to understand this, of course, and I fully expect you both to continue trawling the world for the next gobbet of news that confirms your worst fears.

But don't expect me to refrain from pointing out that this, too, is clearly also a form of "knee-jerk" reaction.

Only in your case, it is aggressive, where mine is defensive.

Steven, the author does not define the nature of the strategic threat from Islam or from China for that matter. Are these threats territorial or resource squabbles or philosophical? Or just more dick swinging?

Do we have to accept the premise that Russia is currently lost to further democratisation and co-operative international relations? Do we have to accept the premise that the Russian bear knows only one way- that might is right? And that Europe must engage as much of the old eastern bloc within Nato as possible?

Seems to me there are bigger questions posed by the author than the one you have highlighted.

Those against western values & ideals must be having one belly ache after another from laughing at the west.
I suppose all they have to do is wait only a little longer until western stupidity is compulsory and that's it.

It is becoming increasingly *perilous* to read Pericles posts... I find the entertainment 2nd only to Frazier...and viewing that almost sends me into a terminal fit of laughter at times. Oh that Pericles mentality was actually funny! But it's not.

"The majority of your - and Boaz's - "evidence" is in your mind."

errr..'no'... it is in the Quran.. just like when Hitler wrote mein kampf, and later had the power to 'do' something about what he had written..and his speeches took on a more specific tone about destroying the Jewish people in Europe.. we have the Quran and it's genocidal foundations.. supported by such extreme statements in the hadith "The last hour will not come unless the Muslims kill the Jews" .. traditions which figured highly in Sheikh Feiz DVD series.. and where he STILL is the contact point on the Global Islamic Youth Centre's web site
http://www.giyc.com.au/html/
"Ask the Sheikh"... so.. he might be in Lebanon..but his presense is very real here.

"Give your children up for Jihad" (Sheikh Feiz)
"Kill the Jews so the last hour will come" (Prophet Mohammad)

(I'd call THAT 'fear and loathing' Pericles)

now.. even my 1 yr old grandaughter can work that out... 'BAD'....

I seriously think it is a mental condition yet to be named which can fail to see the potential consequences of not 'outing' this growing mentality.

If "Mohammad" says it.. show me the Muslim moderate or whatever who will stand outside Lakemba Mosque and publically declare "This is genocidal and evil".. in fact PERICLES can do that.. if he has the wherewithall down there and test his theories :)

C'monnnn Pericles.. test your theory in the real world mate...
"Mohammad was evil for calling Muslims to Kill Jews" Lakemba Mosque next friday ..around mid-day.

I recently stood in front of a few hundred Muslims making my views known.. I'm still in one piece.(so you can scratch 'fear' from your 2 worders)

I'm genuinely pleased that you find my contributions here amusing, Boaz. Life would indeed be grim if we couldn't chuckle, eh?

My joy at being on the receiving end of your insults is somewhat tempered by your insistence on grasping the wrong end of the logic stick, brandishing it above your head as if you were an extra in Braveheart, and then completely missing your intended target with it.

>>[the evidence] it is in the Quran.. just like when Hitler wrote mein kampf<<

What you achieve with this sentence is simply to clarify for us the source of your fear.

While it is certainly true that there are fanatics out there who cleave to the most aggressive possible interpretation of the tiny number of verses that support their terrorism, there are vast numbers of peaceful, ordinary people who have no such ambitions.

You yourself make this very point, albeit without comprehending its significance.

>>I recently stood in front of a few hundred Muslims making my views known.. I'm still in one piece.(so you can scratch 'fear' from your 2 worders<<

Two aspects of this strike me immediately.

One is that you give the lie to your own perception that people who follow this particular set of religious rules are naturally aggressive, and search out people like you to eradicate. It is obvious that your audience was not guided by those verses that you crack on about, Interminably.

But further, it shows a misunderstanding of "fear" in this context.

I am not talking about physical fear. There are enough stories around that describe the physical bravery of overly-religious people, ranging from Androcles to suicide bombers.

I'm talking about the fear that your belief system will crumble in the face of another belief system. One that has its own power, based upon a similar belief in the same deity as yours, and is fuelled by the same puritanism and misogyny that drove your own version for many centuries.

That is the fear that I refer to.

And it also underpins the loathing that you - quite naturally - wish us to share.

As an afterthought, Boaz, it might be appropriate to comment on another aspect of this last post of yours.

>>show me the Muslim moderate or whatever who will stand outside Lakemba Mosque and publically declare "This is genocidal and evil".. in fact PERICLES can do that.. if he has the wherewithall down there and test his theories :) C'monnnn Pericles.. test your theory in the real world mate... "Mohammad was evil for calling Muslims to Kill Jews" Lakemba Mosque next friday ..around mid-day.<<

This - I guess it is some form of personal challenge - again demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of the position of a non-combatant in this religious war of yours.

I am as little persuaded by the contents of the Qur'an as I am by the contents of the Bible. So what on earth would persuade me to support an interpretation of one over the other?

You may be convinced that your battle against Islam is being waged on my behalf as well, but to me this is nothing more than self-deception on your part.

I would suggest that if you were to poll Australian Muslims with the question "Do you believe Al-Qaeda's terrorism is a valid representation of your personal views as a Muslim?", you would get an answer predominantly in the negative.

And from my point of view, the argument is all about terrorism, not about which religion is "better".

So you can waffle on all that you want about how this verse in the Bible is more peaceful than that verse in the Qur'an. To me it is meaningless.

It might of course be more persuasive - not to me, as I said before, but to those of a religious bent - if you weren't so selective in your use and application of quotations from the two books.

But that's another story, isn't it?

Warring and meddling in Afghanistan and other areas of the Middle East is the only reason terrorism exists. We should withdraw and leave them in peace before we become a target of, for example, these people's relatives or newer generations:

It's completely understandable they will be seeking justice in response to the murderous acts inflicted upon them by the day.

-=-==-=-=
Strike 'killed 60 young Afghans'
A boy stands next to the rubble of his house, following the US air strike in western Afghanistan
The UN says up to eight houses were totally destroyed

There is convincing evidence that 60 children and 30 adults were killed in a US air strike in western Afghanistan last Friday, the United Nations says.

........The US originally said its planes had killed 30 militants in the attack in the province of Herat...........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7582170.stm
-=-=-=-=-=

-=-=-=
U.S. soldiers say they executed Iraqis on riverbank: report

Three U.S. soldiers killed four handcuffed and blindfolded Iraqi prisoners with pistol shots on the bank of a Baghdad canal last year
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2742059920080827
-=-=-=

Don't be surprised if our loved ones die because you or our government supports this and sweeps it under the carpet like it never happened. Did Rudd condemn this and warn about the alliance? Not at all. He ignored it. The USA tried to cover it up like it never happened. These people remember and these people care.

Pericles......

Your

"I would suggest that if you were to poll Australian Muslims with the question "Do you believe Al-Qaeda's terrorism is a valid representation of your personal views as a Muslim?", you would get an answer predominantly in the negative."

..is very well chosen.. because it results in the obvious support for a position you have adopted.
Unfortunately..that burst is a verrrry strawry man.... he is full of it.

I pose an alternative question "How do you feel about, and what might you do about, someone who loudly insults Mohammad, calling him this that the other thing name in public... even at a mosque"

Lets choose a real world example... "Mohammad go to HELL" there..that's a nice one.. in fact it is the equivalent of the one where the Muslims said just that about the Pope..where? aah..at Westminister cathedrel.

You see.. you can determine the outcome very much by the nature of the question.

Yours is chosen to HIDE the true violent nature of Islam.. appealing to the 'lets sing Kumbaya together' family bloke... and mine is chosen to show how the same person with the appropriate stimulus would act in terms of his religion.

You see.. insulting Mohammad is indeed a capital offense.
I could not imagine surviving that even in Moderate Malaysia.. it would bring on an 'amok' condition from "peaceloving family minded muslims".

The difference between you and I, is that I refer to the 'foundation' and you.. to the thin layer of the current paint job.

Your straw man is equivalent to Ahmad Deedat saying "Please show me where Jesus says "I am God...Worship me"...when he knows Jesus never said that. You and he should form a club :) Both of you try to determine the outcome by the nature of the question.

Your line of reasoning fascinates me, Boaz.

>>[your question] .is very well chosen.. because it results in the obvious support for a position you have adopted.<<

Well of course it does, Boaz, that's the whole point of asking the question in the first place.

The objective is to ascertain whether support for Al-Qaeda is based upon religion, or terrorism.

Naturally, if you consider that the question itself is loaded, feel free to re-phrase it in a more neutral fashion.

But it seems pretty straightforward to me.

>>I pose an alternative question "How do you feel about, and what might you do about, someone who loudly insults Mohammad, calling him this that the other thing name in public... even at a mosque"<<

Pose away. Be sure to let me know the result.

>>Lets choose a real world example... "Mohammad go to HELL" there..that's a nice one.. in fact it is the equivalent of the one where the Muslims said just that about the Pope..where? aah..at Westminister cathedrel.<<

Boaz, you're doing it again.

To you, it wasn't a bunch of rabble-rousers who "said just that", it was "the Muslims".

The point I keep trying to get across to you is that there is a difference.

>>You see.. insulting Mohammad is indeed a capital offense.<<

It's also pretty rude. But I don't need to point out to you that blasphemy against Christianity also used to carry with it the death penalty.

Let us be crystal clear about this, Boaz.

I don't give a tuppenny cuss whether you go out on the streets and insult any and every religion that isn't your own. Similarly, it doesn't matter a jot, whit or tittle to me whether someone invites your own religious leader, however noisily, to spend his afterlife in Hades.

It does concern me if the laws of the land are broken. But a squawking match between two religious factions interests me not at all.

It's just another version of the spat between those two religions, Carlton and Collingwood.

Except that the insults aren't nearly as inventive as you'd get at the G.

Boazycrap: << I recently stood in front of a few hundred Muslims making my views known.. I'm still in one piece.(so you can scratch 'fear' from your 2 worders) >>

Despite the inherent logical flaw to which Pericles has drawn our attention, I for one am in awe at Boazy's courage in the face of certain death. Which didn't happen for some reason.

I have a vision of a robed Boazy, staff in hand, making his stand on that bridge at Moria, bellowing

"YOU SHALL NOT PASS"

The man is truly a rock (or something like that).

However, he is curiously reluctant to tidy up some less heroic dealings here at OLO:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2077&page=6

I’m tipping the main threat from the ‘Islamic south’ will be to the West ( ie non-Russian Europe & the Americas).

Win or lose the secessionist movements will have little real impact on Russia. And in fighting such movements, Russia is unlikely to be constrained by many of the UN conventions others would face.

The main threat will come from mass immigration.
Extending Fischers definition of the south a little.
Many of the regions players are dependent on oil revenue (via production or guest worker income) and many are already bursting with excess population.

When oil peaks, revenue starts to contract, how do they maintain home and hearth.Adjustment to any new economy will not be easy for societies constrained by archaic tribal & religious mores.

The result is likely to be a major outpouring of a lot of disgruntled people, and the favoured destination will be the sunnier climes of Europe & the USA

Some historians posit that it was hunger that sparked the first big expansion of the Arab tribes outside of the Arab Peninsula. An expansion which bestowed on the much of the ME & Southern Europe ( though the latter, mercifully, only for a short time) the refinements of Sharia– perhaps we’ll have repeat.

PERrrrricles.. I welcome the chance to put you straight here and bent wayyy out of whack you surely are.

"The objective is to ascertain whether support for Al-Qaeda is based upon religion, or terrorism."

If, that is indeed 'the question' then the only place one can legitimately look is to the Quran and hadith, because it is on those documents that "Islam" is based..surely you agree with this?

You must by now know the verses.. perhaps event their contexts?
9:29 written at a time of power both economic and military.
The letters (aah.. the LETTERS..have you seen or looked at these?)
to the various Emperors and kings? "Embrace Islam and you will be safe"
Put THAT together with 'Fight those who do not believe in Islam" etc and you have a persuasive case for "terrorism is Islamic".
But lets not rely just on that verse in isolation from it's context, historical background, and plain meaning.. let's see IF it was used to justify real world invasions.. and.. OH SHOCK HORROR ..it was.
I've shown you this before, the Officer Al Mughira when speaking on behalf of Omar and the Muslims when invading Persia.... used that very verse to explain "why" they were doing so.

You already know the "last hour won't come unless the Muslim kill the Jews"

So..I don't know why it is even a 'question' which should be asked, rather than a statement which should be made.

So..when you see a 'bunch of rabble rousers'... I see faithful Quranic Muslims. The only issue thereafter to resolve is "Who is closer to the historic and doctrinal truth..they or their 'moderate' brethren?" Well.. no need for me to dwell on that.. you have a brain, we just have to get it working correctly.

CJ.. you do have a fertile imagination:) Sounds like a good screenplay.

Dear CJ... the problem with your understanding about 'certain death' is that while such might indeed ensue if one simply went out to insult peoples religion and prophet if that act was done where the legal system supported it, .. it doesn't generally apply when you approach people with the 'For God so loved' motive.

I can see no benefit whatsoever from deliberately offending people for 'offense's sake...just to annoy them. Passionate discussion, debate, and interchange aimed at reaching truth is quite different.

Even so, Paul experienced considerable physical violence and harm even with such motivation.. so it can depend a fair bit on the mentality of the audience.

I Pauls case "the Jews" as he refers to them, were after his blood simply because he taught, with complete sincerity, that the Messiah was Jesus. It was not the manner in which he delivered this news, but the fact of it that irritated them.

He spoke in synagogue, meeting halls,market place and from house to house. I do the same.

Horus is probably closest to being on the money in the topic.

Migration...always has consequences.(political,economic, social, and religious) The nature of those consequences depends on whether it is managed well, and for the benefit of the host country.

insult peoples religion
Polycarp,
I don't think that thinkers could be bothered with insulting religion. The reality is that religion is insulting to thinkers.

I'm sure I have mentioned this before on a number of occasions, Boaz.

One more time, then.

>>If, that is indeed 'the question' then the only place one can legitimately look is to the Quran and hadith, because it is on those documents that "Islam" is based..surely you agree with this?<<

No, Boaz, I most emphatically do not agree.

And the reason is because it is only the fanatic - Christian or Muslim - who believes that their guiding documents are meant to be taken word-for-word literally.

You know this, because you are the grandmaster of selectivity when it comes to Bible interpretation - this is literal, you say, this is "clearly" metaphorical.

My question was designed to allow individuals to draw a line under their own participation, and to show the difference between obedience to a religious doctrine and terrorist activity.

>>So..I don't know why it is even a 'question' which should be asked, rather than a statement which should be made.<<

That is only because you are adamant that there is no difference between a Muslim and a terrorist. This - as I'm sure you will deliberately not understand - is extremely insulting to your fellow human beings.

>>So..when you see a 'bunch of rabble rousers'... I see faithful Quranic Muslims<<

Fair enough. But exactly how many do you see?

>>"Who is closer to the historic and doctrinal truth..they or their 'moderate' brethren?"<<

Given that the "historic and doctrinal truth" of your own religion has morphed over the centuries, you should not really be surprised that ordinary Muslims understand that theirs has changed too.

So the level of "closeness" does not apply.

I am sure you would not consider it unusual for one second that the vast majority of Jews do not follow the rules laid down for them in Mosaic law - specifically, I guess, in Vayikra. Why should you then call into question a similarly civilized approach by Muslims to their guiding principles?

The only possible reason is that you wish to portray their religion in the poorest possible light, in case it challenges your own.

Pericles....

the issue is not 'how many' I see.. but the fact that the law, which phohibits 'hate speech' and incitement to violence can be so ignored by the Authorities when it is so flagrantly flouted.
That....is one source of my 'outrage' or 'fear and loathing' as you so quaintly put it.

What I "fear"... is that those in authority, duly elected by us, and those who were appointed by them... will be too fearful of applying the law even as it stands.. and we have the Chief constable Sir Ian Blair saying "No substantive offenses were committed"....of the Muslim demo at Westminster.

Well..I distinctly heard the words "Bomb bomb UK" and I rather think that a VERY substantive offense had been committed!

So.. one must ask "If a group of people can get away with such things".....will they not be emboldened? Reports estimate up to 700 of these people.. not exactly a tiny number.

Have a chew on this.. TWENTY TWO THOUSAND objections to a Mosque....
then the government

-Holds an Enquiry at the cost of P100,000 to the local council..
-Decides to overturn the objections.
http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/article.php3?id_article=2958
http://www.euro-islam.info/spip/IMG/_article_PDF/article_2958.pdf

Sound familiar?

Would it surprise you if people became rather 'radicalized' when their government ceases to listen to them?
Would it surprise you if a Cromwell arose from among them?

You see... its piecemeal.. bit by bit.. like a cancer on the neck.. but I don't expect you to see this, perhaps you've never seen a person with it?

What I "loathe" with righteous indignation.. is the 'thieves and merchants' in the Temple, in cahoots with the "secular PC Pharisees"
turning the country into a den of robbers against the clearly expressed will of the people.

Herilous..(as in heretic :)

you need to have a look at this demographic oultine of Dudley where the Mosque was built.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seat-profiles/dudleynorth

Notice..

POPULATION 78,681

White 90.4%
Christian 76.8%
Muslim 3%

3% OF 78,681 People= 2360 people.
yet... yet.. they can fund an 18MILLION pound mosque?

If you don't see some rather 'black' hands at work in Black Country..then my dear Pericles.. you are perilously close to the edge of an abyss of intellectual dishonesty of very deep proportions.

Now.. of course 'outside' help can be forthcoming.. and might be seen to be legitimate...depending of course on where it comes from, but there is also the 'steamrolling' of community wishes.. now.. you can call the 22,000 who actually wrote a pack of racists or Islamophobes, but then..I doubt you would admit in public to such blatant racism against your own people....would u ?

I've had some youtube message contact with a chap from Southall... he described how it changed as follows:

QUOTE:
southall used to be a largly populated white english area but when they allowed the first set of indians into the country they told there family to come over then there family told there mates to come and so on it became a chain reaction.

i am irish sicillian and most of the people in southall that are white are irish in the 80's southall had a large population of skinheads that where about i know this as most of my family where skinheads from the 60's 70's and 80's.
UNQUOTE:

So... the Dudley mosque.. and chain reaction?

You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel here, Boaz.

You stated - "So..when you see a 'bunch of rabble rousers'... I see faithful Quranic Muslims", to which I asked "Fair enough. But exactly how many do you see?"

Your response?

>>Reports estimate up to 700 of these people.. not exactly a tiny number.<<

When I see the words "reports" and "estimate" and "up to" strung together like this, my cynic-buds start to salivate.

So I thought I'd just take a look at the incident you are chuntering on about.

Is this the one, Boaz?

http://tinyurl.com/6n5ts3

It took place two years ago. The fact that this is the most recent incident of its type you could come up with tells us a lot about the frequency of such occurrences, does it not?

There were only a hundred people there. Not seven hundred.

"About 100 Muslim demonstrators took part in the protest. Slogans on display included 'Pope go to hell' and 'May Allah Curse The Pope'"

It is understandable that the police chief put the whole event into its proper context of a minor disturbance, and decided that given there was no damage done, the right to free speech should be supported.

As for your conniptions over the Dudley Mosque... what exactly are you trying to say?

>>3% OF 78,681 People= 2360 people. yet... yet.. they can fund an 18MILLION pound mosque?<<

The Muslim community is obviously very generous when it comes to building a place of worship. Oh, and, by the way, a community centre for the town.

Take a look for yourself.

http://www.dudley.ac.uk/temp/mosque_factsheet.pdf

I realize that it is not a YouTube video with lots of people shouting, but give it a try.

>>If you don't see some rather 'black' hands at work in Black Country..then my dear Pericles.. you are perilously close to the edge of an abyss of intellectual dishonesty of very deep proportions.<<

You know, Boaz, there's an old saying. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You are the living proof that to a Christian evangelist, everything looks like an Islamic conspiracy.

Pericles: << There were only a hundred people there. Not seven hundred. >>

It seems that Boazy's reverted completely to his former self, in all but name. We've now had Islamophobia, MIUAUG, gratuitous bible-bashing, homophobia, 'Father Knows Best' - and now he's telling blatant porkies again in an effort to whip up the fear and loathing.

How about this one from yet another thread that he appears to have started and deserted when he doesn't get the intended reaction:

"..we are in Afghanistan because of it being used as a haven for terrorist training camps which were used against us on our own soil."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2092#44433

We're still waiting for Boazy to fill us in on this terrorist act on Australian soil that was perepetrated by "suicidal bombers" trained in Afghanistan.

Or maybe he won't - given that it appears to be a complete fabrication.

Steven,Polycarp

Is the threat from Sthn Russia any more of a threat than the Jews were seen by the Russian during the pogroms of C19th or by the Nazis +1932?

My point is if you want to see a threat lo and behold! a threat.Only this time you are the zealots.

It seems to me both of you are displaying the very same irrational religious based prejudices for your own ends.

Fischer’s comments were on wider perspective than the "(Muslim) hordes are heeere". (yet another of your stalking horses?)

He was referring to the political instability in the area and the possible dire consequences (of The Russian bear on the rampage again). Now that's a REAL CONCERN.

I am reminded of the old song "smoke gets in your eyes" in a biblical context especially for you both (from your own personal burning bush epiphany).

The tragedy is that neither you nor Polycarp are converting anyone…such a waste of effort and brainpower that could be used for addressing real issues.

Pericles says:

"It is understandable that the police chief put the whole event into its proper context of a minor disturbance, and decided that given there was no damage done, the right to free speech should be supported."

which is as irrational as it gets.....

Who is the Pontif? Just the head of the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly has a membership of 1.5 billion... and some very loud people shout that he should go to hell....and this is a 'minor disturbance'?

With all the history between Catholics and Protestants in UK.. such a thing is a 'minor disturbance'? I'm looking at the tattered ruins of your credibility laying on the floor.

Err no Pericles what it is is HATE SPEECH..and it was perpetrated by a significant number of people who should be hit witht he full force of the laws that the Government specially enacted for that very purpose.

I can imagine the outcry from you and CJ if I gathered even 50 people and went to Lakemba Mosque shouting "Mohammad goto hell"
You both would be frothing so loud about 'Islamophobia' that the foam from your mouths would clog the sewers.

You response is entirely predictable.. "pedantically look at details which can be used to denegrate someone.. to minimize the impact of what is clearly to any rational mind an outrageous example of illegal hate speech of monumental proportions"

Al Mujahiroon have gathered many fantatics on various occasions.. it matters not a scrap whether they had a 100 here or 700 there.. the numbers are real and whether it's 100 yelling 'Pope goto hell' Or. 700 yelling "Bomb bomb UK' the fact remains that seditious, hate filled, violence advocating hate speech...which is a crime.. was passed over for 'politically correct' reasons so as not to disturb the community. (it would seem)

UPDATE...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2638956/Tarique-Ghaffur-blames-Sir-Ian-Blair-in-Scotland-Yard-racism-claim.html

Sir Ian Blair..is now being SUED by Tarique Ghaffur the most senior MET policeman of Asian, muslim background for.. wait for it:

"The Assistant Commissioner went public with allegations that he had been the victim of racial, religious and age discrimination by Sir Ian."

Well that's no surprise. "religious victimization" in other words.. the old 'ploy'....

Well Sir Ian.. play with fire and u might get burnt! The only thing to use on a fire is an extinguisher.......if you don't put out the spot fires.. they might re-ignite later and burn your house (of cards) down.....

A-gain..we see the problem of having Muslims in high places.. in secular government structures. They simply don't see things in a secular way.. but a 'religious' way.

Putting Ghaffur, a Muslim in charge of 2012 Olympic security ? has to be probably the most brain damaged action any person with more brains than a chimp could ever do. "Muslim"= Loyalty to Allah and the Ummah first and foremost..... it's a simple fact.
Britain being the 'crusading' enemy of Islam... well.. go figure.
Of course.. if they want Ghaffur to be high up in the Police.. they could always put him on video denouncing mass murder of Jews by Mohammad, sexual abuse of children, assassination of political opponents...and a rather long list of sins... and at least that way they will ensure his 'future' in the job.. as being probably terminal.
Short but not sweet..something like this:

http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/wp-content/photos/theo_van_gogh_murdered_by_religion_of_peace.jpg

The Mosque? Fact sheet?

"Much of the funding has come from individual
donations by local Muslims, with large amounts raised
each year during the time of Ramadan."

errr...yep so reasonable.... 18,000,000 pounds worth from around 3000 people max. duh.

OOO shucks Islam again. Well it is written in the history books, and at the conclusions of WW 1 that the Islamic world had free run on the eastern bloc nations, and I suppose to use a Karl Marx terminology “SLARVS”; Ataturk dispersed the new imperialist mole mayhem under the watchful eye of both the American and British Navy, as they murdered raped an pillaged all the way up to the Continent.
It perhaps could be construed as an act of good will by the Western Governments of the time not to save anyone but should they reach their ships; Murder them; and they did.
So I cannot figure out if this is just a malicious act in hatred of the SLARVS or if it was a condition of surrender by the Turkish leaders.

You cannot blame the imperialism of Islam; after all, they had a warrant issued by our civilized governments to launch any mayhem they wished.
I suppose it is a price for Secularism hay.

I guess if you lash out at random often enough eventually, by sheer chance, you'll make a genuine point.

I think BOAZY's last post makes one.

Picture the following scenario. The year is 1940. The place is London. It is discovered that a senior officer in MI5 sympathises with the Nazi point of view.

When questioned on the matter he replies as follows:

"Whatever my political views, my loyalty to my country is absolute. I would never betray it to the Germans. You can trust me to track down every German spy in Britain."

Perhaps.

But if you were the head of MI5 would you take that chance?

Sometimes conflicting loyalties get the better of us. Exhibit A is Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who spied for Israel.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Pollard is, in my view rightly, serving a life sentence for espionage.

I pose the following question:

Should we put people who may be vulnerable to conflicting loyalties, to EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL even, in such sensitive positions?

I do not have any easy answers.

In this case Tarique Ghaffur is probably a safe choice. I think he understands that a successful Muslim terrorist attack on the Olympics is not in the best interests of the Islamic cause so there would be no conflicting loyalties.

As to the merits of Ghaffur's legal case, I prefer to wait until I see the evidence before commenting.

Look, Boaz, it doesn't matter how much you bluster, facts are facts.

You said 700. There were 100. You exaggerated, as you always do.

And you cannot pretend that 100 people in a demonstration actually constitutes a threat to anything, especially when they were so well managed by the police.

Would you prefer that all demonstrations are banned? Where would you draw the line - any political group? any religious group? a fascist rally? an anti-fascist rally?

http://www.uaf.org.uk/

Or perhaps all religious gatherings? Plenty of opportunities for "hate speech" there, I would think.

But... but... but...

Were you not, only recently, a passionate advocate of free speech?

I seem to recall that you were a supporter of your friends who called Muslims "demons", claimed that the Koran promoted violence and killing, that Muslims derived money from drugs and intended to take over Australia and declare it an Islamic nation.

http://www.acl.org.au/national/browse.stw?article_id=12515

It seems to me that free speech won that one - how come you are suddenly extremely upset when it is supported overseas?

Could it be that your inconsistency is the result of your resolute stance against anything Islamic?

Surely not.

>>I can imagine the outcry from you and CJ if I gathered even 50 people and went to Lakemba Mosque shouting "Mohammad goto hell"<<

Can't speak for CJ of course, but it wouldn't disturb me in the slightest.

Hey, go the whole hog. Take 100 people.

Back to reality.

>>some very loud people shout that he should go to hell....and this is a 'minor disturbance'?<<

Yes.

>>I'm looking at the tattered ruins of your credibility laying on the floor.<<

And I'm looking at the parting shot of someone who knows he has no real argument.

Quite amusing to see Porkycarp accusing Pericles of being irrational and having little credibility.

I recall it wasn't very long ago that Boazy claimed that he wouldn't rest until the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act is repealed. His apparent change of heart seems a tad hypocritical, to say the least.

<< I can imagine the outcry from you and CJ if I gathered even 50 people and went to Lakemba Mosque shouting "Mohammad goto hell" >>

Like Pericles, I'd say go for it if you're game. But we all know you're not.

I see you've sidestepped the questions about your claimed terrorist act on Australian soil that was supposedly perpetrated by "suicidal bombers" trained in Afghanistan. So I guess we conclude that you just made that one up, in much the same way that 100 demonstrators become 700 in your peculiar notion of truth.

But we knew that too, didn't we?

Dear Pericles.. the reason I've not addressed the issue of the numbers, is that you, along with certain un-named persons (like CJ :) enjoy using any such correction as evidence of "total" lack of credibility.

You also reject completely the idea that a person might have been confusing the numbers at 2 demonstrations.. in the 'fog of debate'.

The reasons I have little respect for such 'witch hunts' is because that is what they are.. they are not interested in the essential issue, which is..that a 'large' group of people held up signs which were absolutely illegal. "incitement to violence" and in the UK, one might even argue blasphemy.. (I said argue) to condemn the Pontif with verbage like "curse the pope" in a country which defines it's existence by reference to a king who specifically departed from the Catholic Church..established his own, and fought numerous battles against Catholics..and added to this, by your own testimony the 'troubles' of Norther Ireland is RELIGIOUS in nature.. and considering that if you held up such signs in the 'bogside' of Ulster your life expectancy would probably be milliseconds if that.....

It defies all measure of rationality to say that "it was well managed and no harm was done" kind of thing...that dear Pericles is utter and absolute rubbish and you jolly well know better. Shame on you for asserting 'credibility' issues on the back of irrationality.

IF... you had pointed to the numerical issue 'innocently' and without malice aforethought.. I might have addressed it. But you didn't... you are guilty of witch hunting.

"ISLAM WILL CONQUER ROME" is an outright call for or at least celebration of the violent attack on Catholics and is definiltely incitement to hatred.

Now for some further information about that demonstration.

First....'The Law'.

Schedule 1, section 1 (3) of the act prohibits any statement which:

"(a) glorifies the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences; and (b) is a statement from which those members of the public could reasonably be expected to infer that what is being glorified is being glorified as conduct that should be emulated by them in existing circumstances."

<<The Metropolitan Police are only now deciding to investigate the protest, following complaints from the public.

"Detectives from the MPS are reviewing material gathered at yesterday's demonstration outside Westminster Cathedral and subsequent complaints made to police," a spokesperson said.

Tarique Ghaffur, himself a Muslim, is in charge of Public Order
Policing.

He said: "We have a long history of facilitating lawful demonstration and are keen to continue dialogue with any group wishing to protest.

However, what we will not allow is for people to attend demonstrations and break the law.

Currently officers are looking at what took place yesterday, and also other publicly made statements, with a view to ascertain if any criminal offences have been committed. We will always proportionately police all protest but equally will take decisive action where crime is committed.">>

COMMENT
Welllll well well.. we have Tariq Ghaffur again cropping up...
where clear breaches of the law have taken place.. should we be surprised that the "Muslim" man in charge of 'public order' sees nothing wrong with calling for the death of the pope?

Makes me want to 'Guffaw'

Polynocchio: << 'fog of debate' >>

While that's a good description of your general approach, it doesn't get you off the hook. This isn't the first time you've been caught out using highly inflated figures to bolster a hateful rant, rather it was standard operating procedure for you when you were BOAZ_David, which you've continued since adopting your new moniker.

Now what about your claim of a terrorist attack on Australian soil by Afghan-trained "suicidal bombers"?

What I don't understand is why, if it was a genuine mistake, you don't simply acknowledge it, apologise and move on to your next rant. By telling outright lies and repeatedly exaggerating, you make it very easy to negate your credibility.

"Witch hunt" There's a very evocative term, Boaz.

>>The reasons I have little respect for such 'witch hunts' is because that is what they are.. they are not interested in the essential issue, which is..that a 'large' group of people held up signs which were absolutely illegal. "incitement to violence"<<

I was about to say "ah, but you are mistaken."

Then I decided to change it to "Boaz, you lie through your back teeth."

You should be aware by now that there is no such thing as "the fog of debate" where you are concerned. And while you may like to categorize this as some form of vindictiveness, it is in fact simply a reaction to your perpetual whack-a-mozzie antics.

Think about it.

A hundred people in central London is not many at all. It can barely be called a crowd.

There are queues at bus stops with more people than that.

Multiplying by a factor of seven in order to justify a position, is what gets you into trouble.

Adding 50%, or even doubling the number, you could possibly get away with. Unless of course you are asked to estimate your wife's weight, in which case you would certainly learn about the dangers of overestimation, quick sharp.

>>if you held up such signs in the 'bogside' of Ulster your life expectancy would probably be milliseconds<<

Possibly. Less likely these days though. But if you held up a placard that insulted Muhammad in downtown Riyadh, it probably would.

However - and this is important, so listen very carefully... if you went to a Rangers/Celtic match, and listened closely to the gentle banter of the crowd, you would hear much worse slogans than "Pope, go to hell".

What the...? I hear you cry. And this match takes place at least four times a year? And there isn't a line of paddy-wagons outside Celtic Park or Ibrox carting away the hate-speechers? For shame.

It's called "keeping things in proportion", Boaz.

Which I suspect is a concept totally alien to you.

You persistently exaggerate, simply in order to foment hatred. You always have.