It seems there is a bit of a war going on at the moment between

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2366575.htm

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24374073-601,00.html

SOME of Australia's top thinkers on national security have opened a new front in the culture wars - over whether a postmodernist interpretation of terrorism is brainwashing our next generation of military leaders.

From what I gather.. "Critical Terrorism" Studies have been described by Dr Merv Bendle as pretty much "Showing how it is all our fault"

He then laments the appointment of Prof Ian Burke to Australia's military Academy

<At the centre of the intensely personal battle is the appointment as an associate professor at the Australian Defence Force Academy of Anthony Burke - who after claiming he was being misrepresented as "pro-terrorist", has demanded his chief critic be investigated for academic misconduct. Dr Burke, 42, complained to James Cook University over an article in Quadrant magazine by Merv Bendle, a senior lecturer in history and communications, which claimed university terrorism studies had been hijacked by a "neo-Marxist, postmodernist orthodoxy" among academics.>

So...it seems CJ and Pericles, Bugsy, Wobbles, and a few others are of that school.."Post modernist/(at least) and neo Marxist?" (in impact)

The term 'Neo Marxist' appears to be mean't to describe the assimilation of the old Cold War class warfare into the new Post Modern Religious dimension.

Dr Bendle said Dr Burke had presented national security in "post-modernist terms, not as a concrete state of affairs or balance of political forces".

No longer is it the oppressed proletariat..but the 'oppressed Muslims'.. so the connection and mutual support between Muslim groups and Socialists has an explanation now?

You're talking arrant nonsense again, Boaz.

This is nothing more than a petty spat between two up-themselves academics. The fact that it has been encouraged on the one hand by Quadrant magazine and the flames fanned by Rupert's rag, should have at least given you a slight clue.

Bendle says stuff like:

"If somebody has got a radical pacifist view of things, of national security and international relations and terrorism and so on, well what's the fit between that person and a position at the ADFA"

One can only assume that he believes that a rabid right-wing warmonger is considerably more qualified to hold the position.

Meanwhile, the hapless Burke waffles on "The quotes are accurate, but the characterisation is not," he insisted. The inference that he was pro-terrorist was an outrageous slur, Dr Burke said."

You need to clarify this bit, though, Boaz.

>>So...it seems CJ and Pericles, Bugsy, Wobbles, and a few others are of that school.."Post modernist/(at least) and neo Marxist?" (in impact)<<

I guess this might be construed as an insult, except for the fact that you haven't the faintest idea what it means.

So let's have some evidence, Boaz, to back up this rather obscure, and somewhat pathetic, generalization.

Polly waffles again.

There's "a bit of a war going on at the moment", he claims. The two sources he gives us for this staggering scoop collectively mention two academics on one side of a deeply personal attack and two others on the other side defending the victim.

As usual, the attackers get the lion's share of the media space. By the time the attacked get to reply, the media has lost interest in this non-story.

That didn't stop The Australian calling it a "barrage of complaints and counter-claims". One tame interview and one press release = a barrage when you got a newspaper to sell.

The ABC "Religion Show" gave carte blanche to a 57 year old Senior Lecturer (you have to be really mediocre to be still just a SL at that age especially when you're at a B-grade university) to mount a personal attack on another academic. The subject of the attack was given no right of reply by the ABC.

The attacker gave no credible evidence to support his attack but the ABC presenter allowed him to prattle on defaming his victim with unchecked name calling and cliches. Even went so far as to accuse the victim of "betrayal" and by implication of treason.

When the victim of this attack complained to the perpetrator's university, it suddenly became wrong to attack an academic: "It is a basic rule of academic etiquette for parties in an academic dispute to respect the right of free inquiry and free speech," he said. It's etiquette for the goose but not for the gander, apparently. You see why he appeals to the hypocritical streak in PolyCrap?

Polycarp gets himself into a frenzy and represents this mediocrity and his sole supporter as "SOME of Australia's top thinkers on national security"!

Can we please move on to the next scare please David?

I wonder if they went for the same job?

Dear fellow posters.. this is not a 'scare'... it's a raising of an issue.

The importance of which lies in the position outlined by Bendle.. 'about' Burke.. and the position Burke has been given in our ADFA.

IF... as Bendle says, Burke is 'as' he says.. then in the words of some other academics "it's eyebrow raising".....

So.. the tone and texture of information passed on to our budding Military officers is most crucial in forming their attitudes toward our enemies.

If they have nagging doubts that it all might be 'our fault' then it is highly unlikely that their motivation would be 100%

Bendle might be a bit 'extravagant' in his claim that this is Burke's position...but it still is a most important issue.

The fact that those who normally take a 'strange' stand themselves on the issue of terrorism and the ideas behind it, have thus far responded (and in 'damage control' mode at that) speaks volumes.

It's ironic that the Herald for the past week has featured BenBrickhead and some of the targets, among which is the MCG at Grand Final time..and now.. we have "finals fever" at that very venue.

I'm afraid that a rampaging right wing triumphalist would be as bad for our defense force academy as the other extreme. Sure.. we need to know our faults, but let's hope they are taught in a context which shows the other side's also, and makes careful note of the ideas which drive our 2 streams of history.

Your and others, post modernism Pericles is found in your continual reference to 'your interpretation of obscure documents' line.
Neo Marxist? In the sense that it is defined in Wikipedia (refer)
The criticism of critics of Islam would be one evidence.

Here I was thinking that I was taking a neutral position and looking at some things from both sides by refusing to ignore those things that simply don’t fit the “narrative” but it seems that I’ve been a Post-modernist/Neo-Marxist all along.
That explains a lot.

I’d better change my login to something more befitting.

I won’t however, name myself after a martyred Saint because true martyrs actually have to DO something, not just talk about it and I don’t have the time nor the personal commitment.

Despite some of the member states of the old USSR being Muslim, I thought the conflict between the Russians and Afghans (or Chechens)didn’t suggest a strong “connection and mutual support between Muslim groups and Socialists” – or are Marxists and Socialists different from each other after all?

For all my Post-Modernist/Neo Marxist comrades, this article on Yale research goes some way to explaining how the Conservative mind works.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/14/AR2008091402375_pf.html

“Offering reality-based rebuttals to conservative lies only makes conservatives cling to those lies even harder. In essence, schooling conservatives makes them more stupid.

The typical mantra of the left is that we don't need to sink to the right-wing level because we have the truth on our side. But if the other side is utterly immune to the truth -- and indeed, the truth only makes them dig deeper into their fantasy world in which the economy is fundamentally strong and the War in Iraq is a staggering success -- what's a leftie to do?”

Indeed.

'Pollywaffle'. Very good. I like it.

As you were.

Interesting, but unconvincing Boaz.

>>Your and others, post modernism Pericles is found in your continual reference to 'your interpretation of obscure documents' line.<<

Surely it is the act of "interpretation" that most people consider to be the major postmodernist sin? Deconstruction, and all that?

In which case I would respectfully point out that only one person here is doing the "interpretation of obscure documents", Boaz, and it sure ain't me.

So if it is indeed the interpretation part that leads to the crime of post-modernism, then yours must be the fault, not mine. If I am guilty of anything, it is that I am forced to point out your post-modernist bent with monotonous regularity.

>>Neo Marxist? In the sense that it is defined in Wikipedia (refer)
The criticism of critics of Islam would be one evidence.<<

Wikipedia says "This section does not cite any references or sources."

This means that even in the wild and wacky world of Wiki, the definition cannot be trusted.

Have a look at the entry on Marxism, which has no such caveat, and tell me which parts apply to me, in the "neo" sense.

But your idea that my "criticism of critics of Islam" is somehow evidence of neo-Marxism absolutely fascinates me, Boaz.

What is it about "critics of Islam" that keeps them immune from criticism themselves?

Is it perhaps because they are, by definition, right?

And that anyone who doesn't go along with them is somehow not only automatically wrong, but wrong in a neo-Marxist manner?

You have frequently been found wanting in the logic department, Boaz, but this is your finest non sequitur yet.

However, the real depth of your "issue" is well described by you.

>>IF... as Bendle says, Burke is 'as' he says.. then in the words of some other academics "it's eyebrow raising"<<

Eyebrow raising.

"To appear or feel skeptical, surprised, mildly scandalized".

You can imagine the scene. A bunch of academics (what would be the collective noun, I wonder?) all sitting around, raising a mildly scandalized eyebrow, before returning to the crossword.

A micro-storm in a tiny teacup.

Polycrap claims he's not indulging in another of his routine scare campaigns. He's "raising an issue".

And it's an important issue, he says because an obscure academic (named Bendle) says so and another academic (named Burke) has been given a position at "our ADFA".

<<IF... as Bendle says, Burke is 'as' he says.. then in the words of some other academics "it's eyebrow raising".....>>

No need for the capital IF Davo. Nor the pluralisation of "other academics" - only one other academic has raised his eyebrows. But let the facts not get in the way of a good scare.

Now, what's the scare - er I mean issue?

It seems to be something like "... the tone and texture of information passed on to our budding Military officers is most crucial in forming their attitudes toward our enemies." In other words, one academic in "our ADFA" may have views on terrorism that do not agree with another academic (well two other academics).

And the prognostication? For our future military officers "...it is highly unlikely that their motivation would be 100%."

Takes me back to Melbourne University when Manning Clark taught history from a Marxist position (in about the 1950-60s as I recall). Look at the havoc he created - all those little communists running around Melbourne creating mayhem and undermining civil society.

But WAIT! These reds have been holding their fire. "...The targets, among which is the MCG at Grand Final time..and now.. we have "finals fever" at that very venue." My GOD David, you've got it.

Have you passed this on to ASIO? Have they liaised with Bushy?

Pericles,

I think you'll find that the collective noun for academics is "a Faculty".

And the head of the Faculty is usually called a "Fachead".

According to Terry Flew, Professor of
Media and Communication in the Creative
Industries Faculty at the Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, and
I quote:

"The extent to which The
Australian has established itself as an
amplification point for any criticism of
academics that is made in Quadrant. We have
had a recent instance of this in relation to
the historian Stuart Macintyre, and now another
with Tony Burke.

The resulting influence this gives to a small
number of writers associated with Quadrant, such
as Bendle, editor Keith Windschuttle, and
educationalist Kevin Donnelly.

How this dovetails into the campaign of the
Young Liberals, which is supported by Donnelly
and Windschuttle, to "out" alleged leftists
in Australian universities.

Whether a new McCarthyism is too strong a word for
this is a moot point. What is apparent is that
The Australian has taken on a extraordinarily partisan
position in relation to scholarly disagreements, and
is looking like a sounding-board for Quadrant and
the Young Liberals.

Bendle, Donnelly and Windschuttle have received a lot
of space in its opinion pages, in what looks like
an archestrated campaign to use the paper to politically
shape university teaching in directions that would be at
odds with assumption about academic freedom."

I think what Foxy presents here is very plausible and important. Our mainstream news media have been corrupted by their urgent need for entertainment of the public...they care a lot less about accuracy or matters of great significance than playing childish games with reality and actual people's lives.

There is no meaningful contribution in labelling another academic "pro-terrorist" or simplifying his research into phrases that are easily and readily dramatised by corrupt media such as The Australian. To me this reduces the credibility of Bendle, though I think his goal was not one of credibility, but a simple attack on Burke for holding an researched opinion that he 'didn't like or approve of' as the source of Foxy's post indicates. People must be attentive and wary of these abuses...I've sometimes thought of what voices *are not* presented in our mainstream news media, but 'should be'

Yep...I think Foxy does have a point. I've never believed the media to be other than a means of generating advertizing revenue and promoting particular political causes.

But the thing is... this works both ways. I would hardly be balanced to regard this as a phenomenon of the 'Right' interests alone..... as I see it.. both sides are represented well by the Fairfax/Newscorp divide.

But back to Burke.... here is something he is reported to have said:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/9/hijacking-terrorism-studies/page:3

"Burke denies any ultimate legitimacy to sovereign nation-states, and denies that they have any right to preserve their security, defend themselves from attack, police their borders, or pursue their national interests, when these might impinge upon “the Other”."

Source "Bendle" :)

Well.. that would surely equip our senior military officers wouldn't it? "National Borders are illegitimate"

If that doesn't freak people out.. try this: Burke (according to Bendle)

Overall, Australian national values and our way of life are merely “vast ideological abstractions”, and claims about “fundamental freedoms” just reveal a “narcissistic performance of self in which ‘Australia’ is represented as pure and good”, and as falsely superior to “the religion of Islam”.

errr... yeah.

I wonder of Burke has heard of "We are us.. they are them"... and it's not about 'superior' but.. simply 'difference'.

Porky's understanding of postmodernism and Neo-Marxism is right up there with his understanding of more traditional areas of academic study like history and anthropology.

I first knew Merv Bendle when he was employed as a sociology lecturer, before he jumped on the 'culture wars' bandwagon, called himself a historian and started publishing the neconservative twaddle which has lately given him his 15 minutes of notoriety. Unfortunately, his conversion to wingnut shill hasn't improved the quality of his output.

Those who suggest that this is just an academic storm in a teacup are mostly correct - except that I think that Foxy's correct about the current unholy alliance between the NeoCon Monthly (i.e. Quadrant) and the Murdoch rags actually works to bring such unseemly spats to the attention of a public that, like Porky, doesn't really have a clue about what the boffins are arguing about.

"Postmodernism" was already on the nose in the humanities and social sciences when I left academia nearly a decade ago, so it's quite amusing to observe the self-righteous indignation about its influence that seems to obsess second-rate academics like Bendle and the editorial staff of The Australian.

Polly filler

Here we go! Here we go! Polly logic. You confirm that Bendle said that Burke said something by quoting Bendle saying that Burke said what Bendle said Burke said.

And at the same time you confirm again your double standards: "I've never believed the media to be other than a means of generating advertizing revenue and promoting particular political causes." But didn't you quote the media in your initial post on this thread?

Why don't you quote directly from Burke himself? I know it's difficult in the case of the ABC's Religion Report or QuadRANT neither of which gave Burke no right of reply but gave Bendle total freedom to say what he liked about Burke.

All that to one side. What's the fear? That the alleged opinions of one academic (out of many teaching our future military leaders ) will have such an impact on them that our nation's security will be imperilled.

Should we sack all alleged 'left-wing' academics from our universities? Or only those teach in sensitive areas like law, medicine, commerce, science, social sciences, philosophy and foreign languages?

After all, we know that all university students are incapable of assessing for themselves the quality of ideas that are introduced to them. They are just empty vessels just waiting to filled up with all manner of weird ideas.

"I first knew Merv Bendle when he was employed as a sociology lecturer"

You mean Bendle used to be a postmodern Marxist too?

I don't generally hold with litigious solutions, but Burke should sue Bendle. One of these days somebody who's been as seriously misrepresented as Burke is being in this case will take it to the courts. Quadrant would be a much thinner publication as a result, but that's no bad thing

Foxy

A most excellent and informative post, which has spared me from much backtracking into the details behind Polly's latest scare.

Thank you

Actually.... the point of the thread was not so much to say "Bendle Good"/ "Burke bad"

But to ask the question "Critical Terrorism studies"..what is it?

Perhaps more focus on this, rather than the personalities involved would be more edifying for us all.

If it is as Bendle says...then it is indeed a cause for concern.

If it is not...then what is it?

This is not a 'let me now show who I KNOW' stage for the likes of CJ or.. 'How Postmodernism is on the nose" (Spikey)

nope... none of those.. it's WHAT IS... "critical terrrorism study"

Bendle makes some fairly chunky claims..and they are based on quotes of Burke.. So.. it might come back to whether he has rightly interpreted Burke?

Here is a pearl of Burke wisdom (source http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news301.html)

[His book, which is being launched as part of Adelaide University's Nation/States conference, shows how Australia's obsession with security is the dark thread running through its history -- an obsession in which 'our' security always depends on the insecurity and suffering of another.

The issues covered in the book include boat people, asylum seekers, East Timor, White Australia, Vietnam and the "War against Aborigines", and deals with current issues such as the Tampa crisis and Australia's policy on refugees.

Dr Burke argues that "security has dominated and distorted Australia's foreign policy and national life, from Cook's first voyage to the Asian crisis". Against this corrosive tradition, he advocates a generous and non-coercive form of responsibility for a global existence.]

Key words "None coercive/Global existence" and thus.. he proves Bendle absolutely correct about him.

The idea of 'non coercive' in a diverse world of political and religious ideas is ludicrous. I noble goal yes..but practically absurd.

"Non Coercive" - Darfor, Uganda(LRA), Rwanda..... and so it goes on.

If this is the tripe our defense force graduates will be fed, God help Australia..because our military won't be able.

Please note.. I've focused on the actual topic.."what is it"

Those involved in the field of terrorism or counter-terrorism (intelligence, academic and policy) cannot ignore the impact of our international relations and international economic policies on terrorism. No country operates in a vacuum and less so with globalisation.

There are two facets to counter-terrorism 1) Fighting terrorism directly through intelligence and law enforcement agencies which rely on 'information' and 2) Prevention. Prevention encompasses inclusion of disenfranchised groups domestically - reducing the frequency of home-grown terrorism or grooming and prevention from a wider perspective - understanding the root causes of terrorism and casting a critical eye over Western economic and international policies and their impact (both positive and negative).

For those with their own agendas, like Polycarp, to imply attention to these factors is to be sympathetic to acts of terrorism or terrorists is more dangerous in a free and democratic society than he realises. If this is the case Polly better call for the arrest of many public servants and strategists in the Australian Government who are working on these very issues.

There are none so blind as the bigoted.

Now let me present to you Dr BOAZ as detached scholar extraordinaire.

<<Actually.... the point of the thread was not so much to say "Bendle Good"/ "Burke bad" But to ask the question "Critical Terrorism studies"..what is it?>>

He makes a promising start:
<<If it is as Bendle says...then it is indeed a cause for concern. If it is not...then what is it?...Bendle makes some fairly chunky claims..and they are based on quotes of Burke.. So.. it might come back to whether he has rightly interpreted Burke?>>

So now on to the argument that will prove the point once and for all. Dr BOAZ offers (drumroll please):

<<Here is a pearl of Burke wisdom (source http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news301.html)>> Tantalising.

We rush to the link with bated breath... An ancient Adelaide University media notice (half a page) about a conference at which Burke's book was to be launched - in 2001.

Dr BOAZ then selects a few words from this ancient parchment and paraphrases the very thin synopsis of the book.

On this altogether overpowering basis, Dr BOAZ is somehow able to contrive this astonishing conclusion:
<<Key words "None coercive/Global existence" and thus.. he proves Bendle absolutely correct about him.>>

Bendle "absolutely correct" about Burke on the basis of an old half-page book notice? Hand the man an extra Ph D at once. He's a genius.

He doesn't even need to read the book to know it's tripe because Bendle says so. Looks like Bendle good/Burke bad to me Dr BOAZ.

And so our genius marches on to his stunning and inexorable conclusion: <<If this is the tripe our defense force graduates will be fed, God help Australia..because our military won't be able. Please note.. I've focused on the actual topic.."what is it">>

Please note all OLO readers: you have all been fully informed on the question, "Critical Terrorism studies..what is it?"

Excuse me Polly, could you run that all past me again please. I think I missed something.

Attention Post modernist/ neo-Marksists. (polycarp knows the words but not the meaning)
I protest I absolutely protest.
I used to like Polywaffles they were tasty...You've spoilt a fond childhood memory.

Polly= Many
Carp = smelly feral fish or constant whinging without valid purpose.
Sounds about right to me.

Who amongst us are swayed to the point of intellectual paralysis by a lecturer once our brains mature? Only those whose minds are inclined to be afflicted with "forward looking traditionalists" (satirist from Matilda).

What an insult to our military officers and their training. >100% motivation (?)> To do what? They are there to a job not some unholy jihad (that’s terrorism).

General Sun Tzu in “the art of war” maintains that a good soldier is one who avoids a war as there are never any winners.

Even a two string Chinese Violin is capable of more than one song.

That's a good point, eAnt.

What would be the fate of our defence forces if they were taught by that wooly-woofter wussy left-wing appeaser, Sun Tzu?

They would have to listen to stuff like:

"If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing; and if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him"

Run away, run away! Monty Python would be proud.

"He who wishes to fight must first count the cost"

That's pretty motivational, isn't it, having to check with the accountants first.

"To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

So, it's true! Appeasement all the way. Jaw jaw is better than war war and all that.

"You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."

That's pretty butch. Only fight when there's no-one to fight back.

And he's at it again:

"So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak."

What an example he is to us all, to be sure.

But we may be doing the old boy an injustice, and the inclusion in ADFA's curriculum of Critical Terrorism Studies à la Burke is all part of the genius that is Sun Tzu...

"Pretend inferiority and encourage [the enemy's] arrogance"

Dear Pelican

I think you are missing something there.. about where I'm coming from.

When I started reading your post it sounded like you are on the same page as I, but then you went into a bit of a rant.

Still.. there are good points to your post.

Specially the:

2) Prevention. Prevention encompasses inclusion of disenfranchised groups domestically.

bit.

Now.. while it sounds good on the surface, it does not seem to recognize a very important issue.

Firstly, you may need to define

-'inclusion'
-'disenfranchised'

a bit more.

What do you mean by Inclusion? If they hold values which are diametrically opposed to ours, is this possible?
If their 'disenfranchised' state is based on their support for those fighting states with whom we have a military alliance... are we to dissolve that alliance to make them happy?

If they are supporting the enemies of our allies, because they wish to take over interests controlled by our allies, (for example, Israeli land, destroying US property, killing Australian troops in Afghanistan) how can anything but utter contempt for them be justified?

I'm sorry but in some cases (and this is where Burkes analysis falls down) it simply is not possible to resolve such differences of view.
IF those differences are supported by stubbornly held theological positions (see the article "Ramadan") then it is more problematical is it not?

The assumption which appears to be behind the 'Critical' Terrorism studies is a kind of universal one world (socialist) government.....
a utopia where no one can fight anyone because they are all one.
This completely ignores race, tribe, religion and history and very dangerously so!

There's little point in trying to rescue yourself from an untenable position, Boaz. Remember the old adage: when you are at the bottom of a deep hole... stop digging.

>>Now.. while it sounds good on the surface, it does not seem to recognize a very important issue. Firstly, you may need to define -'inclusion'-'disenfranchised' a bit more.<<

The first aspect of note on this little piece of petty nitpicking is that you didn't even have the courtesy to quote Pelican's sentence in full. Which reads:

"reducing the frequency of home-grown terrorism or grooming and prevention from a wider perspective - understanding the root causes of terrorism and casting a critical eye over Western economic and international policies and their impact (both positive and negative)"

Quite obviously, the common-or-garden definitions that you find in any respectable dictionary work with this additional information.

Sun Tzu had it pretty well sussed.

"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril"

Loved this bit of logic, too.

>>If they are supporting the enemies of our allies...(for example... killing Australian troops in Afghanistan) how can anything but utter contempt for them be justified?<<

Do you perhaps recall that only recently, you were wittering on that the British somehow had no right to send soldiers to Belfast.

Whereas Northern Ireland had consistently voted to be ruled from Westminster, I have yet to see a similar franchise out of Kabul in relation to Australian troops.

But then again, your logic is constantly at the disposal of your zealotry, is it not.

Sun Tzu again:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

David I understand what you are asking about inclusion and disenfranchisement. I did not mean to rant at you - sometimes you have that effect on me. :)

It is true that for a small minority, inclusion will be difficult where values might be strongly in contrast to the accepted norms in a democratic and open society. It takes time for both new and older Australians to reconcile new cultures and belief systems.

The difference perhaps in where you and I are coming from is that you appear to label anything Islamic as incapable of inclusion in a secular Western democracy. Whereas I believe most Muslims are happy to live side by side to others who might hold different values.

Inclusion becomes more difficult when, particularly youth, feel disenfranchised from the mainstream. If they feel discriminated against and unable to access the same opportunities as other young Australians whether it be education or work, the feelings of disconnectedness might provide ripe ground for those with spurious motives. The statistics for unemployment amongst younger Muslims is higher than other demographics.

It is important, I believe, to ensure that Muslims and Muslim communities feel included in the Australian community in the same way that other immigrants have integrated well over the last 40 years.

Dear Pleccy.. I'll try to respond to both you and Perilous in one post.
(don't worry about ranting :) I'm used to it)

"The difference perhaps in where you and I are coming from is that you appear to label anything Islamic as incapable of inclusion in a secular Western democracy."

If only it was this simple. This is a very complex issue with many dimensions and the fact that I occasionaly address only one dimension can give the impression that that is how I see the whole picture.

I have issues with the Islamic faith itself, as I've said from time to time :) and regard it as a total abomination. But this is where saying such could give the very impression you mentioned. "All things Islamic= bad"

I know it's possible to pick and choose.. select the noble values which obviously do exist within Islam..and try to accomodate those, and include the people who cherish them, such as Fellow Human to use an example.

To be honest.. 'that' kind of Muslim is neither here nor there to me. I mean.. I simply don't worry about them directly. So.. in that sense I don't adopt a position that 'all things' Islamic are bad.

Most of what I say is aimed at the other mob.. those who are represented by the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir..and organized Islam, which includes any educational insitution, such as the proposed Camden Islamic school or the King Khalid School in Melbourne.

I examine
-'who is behind them' (ideologically and funding wise)
-'What "Islamic" position do they promote? (Wahabism/Salafism/Sufism/Ahmadiya etc)

For me, it is enough that they teach "The Quran is the dictated word of Allah"..because the next stop on that tram route is Pericles "obscure and old verses" which directly condemn me by name (by faith)

Obligatory reading Surah 9:30 and 19:88-91 Such verses are only 'obscure' to Pericles, but not to the Muslim from Saudi Arabia who read them to my face with great contemporary passion.

This seems to be missed by most of my critics :)

Polycarp, your posts more often than not make broad and blanket statements about Islam as a whole. In truth many passages of the Bible could be construed in the same way if someone were to adopt the same self-fulfilling approach.

There is no doubt that there are radical elements of Islam in the same way that there are radical elements in Christianity. George Bush invaded Iraq and he was a Christian and even used his Christianity and 'relationship' with God in his war rhetoric. Most of the Islamic world viewed the invasion of Iraq as radical and extremist but it does not mean that most Christians are potential terrorists. We know they are not. Lets apply the same reasoning to Islam.

Look at the closed sects in the Bible Belts of the US. The behaviours of some Christian sects and the inhumanity (not to mention criminal behaviour) they display to their fellow man does not create the same rage in you unless it is within an Islamic context eg. child brides.

It is easy to see through rose-coloured glasses when defending our own positions (we all do it). All I am suggesting is some perspective and self-awareness before casting a negative or suspicious eye over an entire race of people.