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.