Some time ago I published a thread titled "Censorship comes to America." It described how Random House had withdrawn "The Jewel of Medina," a fictionalised account of the life of Aisha and Muhmmad, because of fears "for the safety of the author, employees of Random House, booksellers and anyone else who would be involved in distribution and sale of the novel,…"

Towards the end I reported that another publisher had taken on the book.

That publisher's house has now been firebombed.

See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/sep/28/muhammad.book.attack

QUOTE:

FIREBOMB ATTACK ON BOOK PUBLISHER

Firm had bought rights to a controversial novel about the Prophet Muhammad's child bride

"The London home of the publisher of a controversial new novel that gives a fictionalised account of the Prophet Muhammad's relationship with his child bride, Aisha, was firebombed yesterday, hours after police had warned the man that he could be a target for fanatics."

Steven,
Thanks for posting that info. It will be interesting to see if those arrested are charged and what their motives were.

The "Guardian" seems to think there is a link to the decision to publish that book and I suppose that is not an unreasonable assumption but better to wait and see.

I hope this does not develope into another Salman Rushdie or Danish Cartoons episode.

Here is some more background from the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/world/europe/29jewel.html?hp

Some quotes

"…Three men were arrested on suspicion “of the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism,” the police said."

"A fourth suspect, a woman, was arrested Sunday on charges of “obstructing police” after the police searched four houses in and around London."

"Mr. Rynja, who is said to be under police protection, “has shown nothing but courage,” Sherry Jones, the author of “The Jewel of Medina,” said Sunday in a telephone interview from Spokane, Wash. She said she had corresponded via e-mail messages with Mr. Rynja since the incident. “I really can’t say what he’s going to do at this point,” she said, “but I haven’t heard any indication that he’s not going to publish.”"

Thank heavens for courageous independent publishers like Martin Rynja.

"Thank heavens for courageous independent publishers like Martin Rynja."

Here here! It makes my blood boil.

Glad to hear that Veronika.

I presume the bit which makes your blood boil is the fact that these offenders sought to censor freedom using terrorism.

It worked with Random house.. how much more will such tactics "work" with moderate mosques when their imams are threatened, killed, beheaded or their families harrased and threatened by radicals who want the 'tone' of the mosque to become more 'Islamic'....

I'd say with complete confidence 'game set match' to all the Bugsy's, CJs,Spikey's and Pericles's out there who share their 'critical' assessment of terrorism and it's nature, and don't see the wolf in the sheeps clothing nor in the "Islamic School" down the road.

It only takes a small number of determined people to influence a large number of ordinary folks. The Mafia system shows this, yet when it comes to a violent, agressive, seditious religion .. many people don't get it.

Each time I hear of something like this my motivation to engage in vigorous debate with 'the enemy' ramps up to "high".

Of course I rather doubt that the book Jewell will examine how she became Jealous of Mohammads 'string of women' offering themselves to him....or his 'sudden revelation' to justify it all... nah.. if the author does mention it, I'll bet she couches it in "But Allah came to the rescue" kind of lingo.

Criminals and real terrorists need to hunted down and subjected to the full force of the law for their actions. I applaud the publisher for his stand on the matter and certainly hope that he paid his insurance bill.

But to paint the whole religion as terrorist is analagous to saying that people who shoot doctors at abortion clinics shows Christians who do not support abortion as being terorists and that we should close down all the churches ans church-run schools as soon as possible. It's stupid.

Criminals and real terrorists exist in government departments of all western countries, often the militarised or police ones. I hope they are all included in your "hunting down" comment Bugsy, because currently their terrorism and criminality is sanctioned in their respective states and protected by the governments in them.

Unpleasant goings-on, to be sure.

But terrorism is like that.

I'm not sure that I want to read the book, myself. I genuinely enjoyed The Satanic Verses, but then I do consider Rushdie to be an outstanding writer.

I can't help but think this isn't quite in the same class.

The publisher describes his reaction to it as "I was completely bowled over by the novel and the moving love story it portrays". Its author says "Anyone who reads the book will see that it honours the Prophet and his favourite wife", while a US professor-lady says "You can't play with a sacred history and turn it into softcore pornography"

Sounds more like a Barbara Cartland bodice-ripper than anything aimed at my demographic.

Nevertheless, I'm delighted the publishers are standing up to the terrorist tactics. Even more delighted that Mr Plod, so often portrayed as passive and complacent in the face of religious hanky-panky, may have nabbed the nutters already.

>>I presume the bit which makes your blood boil is the fact that these offenders sought to censor freedom using terrorism.<<

Yep.

>>It only takes a small number of determined people to influence a large number of ordinary folks. The Mafia system shows this, yet when it comes to a violent, agressive, seditious religion .. many people don't get it.<<

I wouldn't call it influence, Boaz. I would say "instil fear into". That is what terrorists do. That's what the IRA did. But even they found that it was a pretty blunt instrument when it came to influencing people to their cause - with the possible temporary exception of some Boston bar-flys, who mistook terrorism for freedom-fighting.

Terrorism creates fear, but it doesn't promote your cause very efficiently. It will only impress the already-disaffected.

The quickest way to escalate this into an all-out religious war is to pretend that one already exists. Which is why I dislike your rabble-rousing, Boaz. It can only be counterproductive.

Pericles,

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the efficacy of terrorism. It seems to me that if you can scare a major publisher like Random House into dropping a book you are being very effective.

It now appears that the publisher, Martin Rynja, joins the ever growing list of people who require police protection because they have offended Muslim sensitivities. The list includes Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the Danish cartoonist, Kurt Westergard.

If the cost of offending Muslims is a life under permanent armed guard many people will choose silence.

Sometimes it appears that even governments can be terrorised into acting as censors. How else to explain the harassment of the Dutch cartoonist, Gregorius Nekschot?

See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581460304047109.html

From where I'm sitting terrorism seems to be quite successful

I agree, stevenlmeyer, if the intent is to terrorize, terrorism is very effective.

>>It seems to me that if you can scare a major publisher like Random House into dropping a book you are being very effective.<<

If, however, you are intending to extend your terrorism into areas that actually have an impact on targets other than individuals you dislike, it is a limited weapon.

While the IRA were active in the 1980s, individuals were definitely at risk. Political targets such as the Conservative Conference in Brighton, or shadow Northern Ireland secretary Airey Neave, as well as people sitting in pubs or eating in restaurants.

The fact remains that while this might have satisfied their desire to extend their religious wars into their perceived enemy's heartland, it ultimately did not convert anybody to their cause.

So it really depends whether the terrorists believe that knocking over individuals who upset them is constructive in terms of their overall objective.

What do you think?

Pericles,

You say >> “ .. depends whether the terrorists believe that knocking over individuals who upset them is constructive ...”

The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organisations. The videos of attacks on western targets are used to recruit new members and lift morale of their fighters.

Seems to me Osama bin Laden actively counted upon retaliation to encourage the mindset on Arab Street that the west was out to get them. Perhaps in this sense we played into his hands, although alternative courses of action were even less palatable.

Terrorism has worked wonders for the Taliban in their quest to retake Afghanistan. Those who oppose them are simply murdered until there is no one left to defy them.

It worked out very well during the Spanish Election, and the French were almost knocked out of the Afghan conflict by the casualties they took in one attack recently.

You seem to be under this mistaken belief that these Islamo-Facist organisations are interested in ruling by popular acclaim. They are not. These people are convinced of the righteousness of their cause and will fight to the end to see it implemented. They have the experience of the Middle East to show them that majority rules democracy is not necessary to rule a country, perhaps its not even desirable.

You say >> “The quickest way to escalate this into an all-out religious war is to pretend that one already exists”

Do you mean, when you say “all out religious war”, all muslims up in arms? Because those Islamo Facists already fighting are definitely engaged in an all out religious war.

I am not suggesting that the majority of Muslims are involved in this war, they are not. But lets stop pretending that it’s somehow our actions which are responsible for these Islamo-Facists or that we can somehow provoke them. They have an agenda which is outside our control and which needs to be eradicated ASAP.

Bending over and allowing this type of terrorism to succeed is tantamount to inviting the Islamo-Facists to continue

Fair enough as far as it goes, Paul.L, but you never quite get to the part that says how terrorism morphs into... what? Conquest? Rule? Subjugation?

>>The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organisations.<<

Given that 9/11 was seven years ago, this "massive impetus" has not been particularly evident. Our paranoia, on the other hand, has escalated beyond the terrorists wildest expectations.

>>Terrorism has worked wonders for the Taliban in their quest to retake Afghanistan.<<

I would personally suggest that guerrilla warfare would be a more accurate description.

This is an odd statement:

>>It worked out very well during the Spanish Election<<

What did it achieve, exactly? Nationwide domination? Increased influence over government policy? What?

>>the French were almost knocked out of the Afghan conflict by the casualties they took in one attack recently<<

As I said, I would regard this as more conventional fighting. It somehow doesn't compare with suicide bombing in a shopping centre.

>>These people are convinced of the righteousness of their cause and will fight to the end to see it implemented.<<

Now, that's the bit I don't understand. To see what implemented? How is the transition made between blowing up civilians in crowded bars, and some form of control over them?

>>They have the experience of the Middle East to show them that majority rules democracy is not necessary to rule a country, perhaps its not even desirable<<

OK, I'll bite. Where?

>>But lets stop pretending that it’s somehow our actions which are responsible for these Islamo-Facists or that we can somehow provoke them.<<

I'll buy that, so long as you recognize that by taking the whack-a-mozzie line, you are playing a perfect role in their recruitment propaganda. You make the ideal target - look, they despise us, these evil decadent westerners, join the jihad and become a martyr.

All that aside, I'd still like to hear how we are in greater danger than to be a potential victim of a random terrorist action.

But western actions in the middle east *are* responsible for terrorism. The west has corrupted and interfered with middle eastern sovereignty for decades...hell they even stole part of a coastal region and gave it to a foreign people...you can't beat that for interference. Installing and securing the interests of their dictators leaves the unarmed, poor people no choice but to resort to terrorism.

It's quite simple. Imagine our government was overthrown by France and a pro-France dictator was installed. Now imagine France gave a large part of the east coast of Australia to the disenfranchised New Zealand Maori population, who said it was theirs 5000 years ago. Now imagine...that generations of Australians would be oppressed by this dictator under a rigid system that had all kinds of capital punishments. I haven't described even half of what the west has achieved in the middle east.

This is a crude example of what the west (our democratic idealists/propagandists) did to various nations in the middle east. And it's easy to see how extremists (yes...created and funded by western nations) gain power.

All the crap we witness on our televisions and media is pure propaganda, when it comes down to it.

Hi Bugsy.

It seems you are unable to distinguish between the following:

1/ A peaceful faith, which asserts that the outcome of immersing one's self in it (i.e. in it's founder) is: (Galatians 5:22)
Love
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Faithfulness
Gentleness
Self control

Yet....where some people apparently claim this faith as theirs, yet go directly against all these listed attributes of the faith itself.

2/ An Agressive faith which states in most unambiguous language:

"Fight those who do not believe" etc "Until they are subjected"
and where people not only claim this faith, but actually put the above into practice, and do so by firebombing a publisher of a book.

Failure to know/see/observe/recognize this fundamental difference and the nuances involved is sad evidence of a bigoted outlook today.

Bigotry can manifest in many areas of life. It can be either religious or secular. The nature of bigotry is "I don't care about facts, my mind is made up".

It is the 'facts' of the matter which delineate between "true followers" and "untrue" followers of a faith.

The 'facts' are not those selected examples from history which show contrary behavior to the core beliefs, which are then projected back ON those core beliefs and claimed to represent them..no..that is misrepresentation and bigotry. Pericles is frequently guilty of this.

The facts are:
"What are the core beliefs of any particular faith"
"What behavior is likely when those established beliefs are followed"

A lecture on bigotry Boazy? How interesting coming from you.

Freedom of expression must never be allowed to become subordinate to the will of the religious of any faith or denomination be it muslim fire bombers or christian fundamentalists complaining outside different movie theatres because they don't feel a movie should be allowed.

The decent thing for anyone who dislikes anyone elses creative efforts is to ignore it.

The indecent thing to to try to burn it or ban it.

Pericles,

You say >> “Given that 9/11 was seven years ago, this "massive impetus" has not been particularly evident”

Are you kidding? See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2004
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2002

There’s seven years of terrorist incidents, the vast majority carried out by Islamist groups. The fact that we haven’t seen a lot of attacks here in the west is directly linked to

1) heightened security here
2) the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq

you say >> “ ... guerrilla warfare would be a more accurate description.

Would you include murdering the police chief or mayor as guerrilla warfare? How about killing local landowners who refuse to pay the tithe the Taliban expect? What about the killing of families who send their girls to school. Is that guerrilla warfare? Throwing acid into the face of women who aren’t wearing the “tent”?

you say >> What did (terrorism in Spain) achieve ... ?

The election of a gov’t which had policies regarding Iraq which were acceptable to the terrorists. They achieved control of gov’t policy.

I said >> “democracy is not necessary ...<< you said >> “ OK, I'll bite. Where?

Iraq. Saddam showed that you could successfully rule a country through fear for decades.

You say >> “by taking the whack-a-mozzie line, ”

Sorry what? Whack a mozzie. Where exactly did I attack Muslims as a whole? I’d really like you to show me, because blaming all muslims for Islamo-Facism is NOT what I’m about.

You say >> “Now, that's the bit I don't understand. How is the transition made between blowing up civilians in crowded bars, and some form of control over them?

The Taliban have years of experience in it. They are currently in defacto control of a significant portion of the country. You seem to be having trouble understanding how a dictatorship works. You don’t need the support of all the people, you merely need to inculcate in them the belief that resistance is not only futile, but will be extremely costly to them and their family.

Interesting response, Paul.L

>>You say >> “Given that 9/11 was seven years ago, this "massive impetus" has not been particularly evident” Are you kidding? See...<<

And you copied out some URLs from wikipedia.

Well done

If you believe that i) that list is exhaustive and ii) that the results have not been skewed since 2001 by the heightened awareness of the public, rather than the heightened activity of terrorists, then you clearly do not understand how wikipedia works.

Tell me, do you personally today feel under threat from terrorists more, or less, than in any of the previous seven years?

Further, if "we haven’t seen a lot of attacks here in the west", what does that tell you about the terrorists objectives. Does it not strike you as significant, for example, that we are less important a target than undefended bazaars in Turkey?

You have problems categorizing the Afghan hostilities as guerrilla warfare. Have quick look at this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/28/afghanistan.defence

and tell me, how many times is the word "terrorist" used in the article.

And please, if you have any Spanish friends, don't repeat this to them. They will not be at all impressed:

>>[What did (terrorism in Spain) achieve ...?] The election of a gov’t which had policies regarding Iraq which were acceptable to the terrorists. They achieved control of gov’t policy<<

Control over government policy? That is an utter nonsense. They achieved a knee-jerk reaction, that's all.

And what were you thinking with this little gem?

>>Saddam showed that you could successfully rule a country through fear for decades.<<

The question, let me remind you, was not "how do dictators work". It was "where do Islamo-Fascists have the experience of the Middle East to show them that majority rules democracy is not necessary to rule a country?"

I strongly suggest you do some homework on Saddam. For all his faults, he ran a secular state.

And please...

>>Where exactly did I attack Muslims as a whole?<<

That is simply disingenuous.

You are reduced to channelling Boaz, if you believe that attacking Islam is somehow different from attacking Muslims.

Pericles,

If you could please show me where in my post I attacked Muslims or Islam as a whole to back up your “whack a mozzie” claim. If you could also show me where I suggested that attacking Islam was different to attacking Muslims. You do seem to have an awful habit of making things up.

You say >> “If you believe that i) that list is exhaustive and ii) that the results have not been skewed”

I beg your pardon? If you are attempting to suggest that there has not been an upsurge in terrorist action by Islamist groups then you are off your rocker. I would like to see your evidence for that conclusion. I provided you with some basic statistics. If you have an issue with their veracity, provide your own.

You say >> “You have problems categorizing the Afghan hostilities as guerrilla warfare. Have quick look at this http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/28/afghanistan.defence”

I’m not sure what you think this proves? Just because the Guardian (a left wing rag if ever there was one) doesn’t mention terrorism in regards to the Taliban in one article, means NOTHING. How this one article proves your point that the Taliban do not commit acts of terrorism is beyond me.

The idea that the Taliban’s operations are singular in their methods is simplistic and naïve. Some of what they do could be considered guerilla warfare. But plenty of their operations are pure terrorism.

You say >> “And please, if you have any Spanish friends, don't repeat this to them. They will not be at all impressed:”

SO WHAT?? ??. The truth hurts and most people don’t like hearing it, big deal?

You say>> “Control over government policy? That is an utter nonsense. They achieved a knee-jerk reaction, that's all.”

The terrorists had a goal they were attempting to achieve. Their methods achieved that goal. Simple.

TBC

Cont,

You say >> “The question, … was "where do Islamo-Fascists have the experience of the Middle East to show them that majority rules democracy is not necessary to rule a country?"

It seems you have trouble with comprehension. The “experience” in the above sentence belongs to the Middle East, not to the Islamo-Facists. If I had said that the Islamo-Facists had experience IN the middle east to show them … then you would be justified in your reading.

However, I did NOT say the Islamo-Facists have the experience of other Islamo-Facist organizations in the Middle East, because that is NOT what I meant.

What I meant, and what can be gleaned from a literal reading of my statement is that the Islamo-Facists can draw from the experience of many regimes in the middle east of differing persuasions who have operated successfully without the majority support of the people. The experience of the Middle East has been overwhelmingly of dictatorships, monarchies and theocracy’s. The political outlook is irrelevant in a dictatorship run by fear and oppression.

You can see now why your confusion over my position on Saddam Hussein, the Baathist regime and their secular outlook, was inappropriate. I was never suggesting that Saddam was an Islamo-Facist. That is simply a logical consequence of your misreading of what I wrote.

you say >> "Tell me, do you personally today feel under threat from terrorists more, or less, than in any of the previous seven years?

I'm not sure how that is relevant to this discussion. But it seems to me that we are safer today, in part because we are more aware of the danger and our security apparatus are more sharply focussed, but more importantly, because we are fighting (in conjunction with most of the rest of the world) the Islamo-Facists wherever we find them, preferably on their own turf. This has been the real key to reducing their threat to us in the West.

A distasteful task, in anyone's language, Paul.L

>>Pericles, If you could please show me where in my post I attacked Muslims or Islam as a whole to back up your “whack a mozzie” claim.<<

Here's a quick sample from the last few months:

"Islam can and is seen as a way of life in which politics is indivisible. Those supporting Sharia for example see Islam in this way. Islamic head hackers are hard at work on just about every continent. From Sudan and Nigeria, Kenya and Tanzania, across the whole of the middle east, Britain, France, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, through Former soviet republics like Chechnya, South Ossetia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, In Asia, India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia and more recently in Canada, the US and Australia. The death lovers are everywhere and there not going to wait quietly for the demographic changes that will inevitably deliver them more political power. The insurgencies across the globe are, so they say, acting in the name of Islam. Nearly 40% of Muslims aged between 16 and 24 would rather live under sharia law. And nearly a third believed in decapitation for apostasy. Indeed the prevalence of fundamentalism among the west’s young Muslims clearly illustrates that poverty and oppression has an almost negligible role in radicalizing young people. The problem as many of us see it, is that our western way of life is under the concerted assault of islamification by stealth. There have also been calls for an introduction of sharia law and for Muslim holidays to become British national holidays. British flags are no longer flown in many places as muslims are offended by St Georges cross and its links to the crusaders . The larger the muslim population gets the more it wants to shape society in a manner acceptable to muslims. How can we in the west accept the danger that this poses to our way of life? What can we do? We have no influence on this situation beyond limiting muslim immigration”

Every word is your own.

All I did was to put some sentences together.

Dear Paul L (puts arm around Pauls shoulder in sympathy) .. you are beginning to see what I've been dealing with for a few years now from Pericles.

<Sorry what? Whack a mozzie. Where exactly did I attack Muslims as a whole?>

He answers later in his post thus:

<You are reduced to channelling Boaz, if you believe that attacking Islam is somehow different from attacking Muslims.>

And there you have it.. unfolded, laid out.. spread in complete nakedness before us all... Pericles inability to criticize ideas (except those he personally finds distasteful..such as 'does God exist' or.. "Are the bible documents reliable" oh.. then he is in rip roaring/getupandgo/take no prisoners/drag em down.. fix bayonets... attack.

So.. when someone legitimately points out that the Quran contains some detestable ideas such as fighting against non Muslims until they are subjected (9:29) and the outright cursing of Christians and Jews by name (9:30) then.... if we criticize these ideas, we are guilty of whack-a-mozzie rather than whack bad/evil ideas.

This is my cross and your load (choose your shape) that we are to be faced with. This irrationality of brother Pericles which defies reason.

You see.. I could accept it if it was just me The Christian in his sights but now you see it is also you the atheist (if I read your other position statements correctly)....

It worries Pericles terribly (it would seem) that both atheists and religionists see the same things. This upsets his mental orthodoxy that Islam is only bashed by Christians because it is a competing religion rather than by rational people because it contains evil ideas.

If we followed Pericles dictum about bashing Islam=bashing all Muslims, then we better forget any political comment or he will sik the hounds on us for Labor/Liberal/Green/FF/ bashing.

Pericles,

I see you couldn't do it. You couldn't show me where on this thread I whacked Islam or Mozzies. There's a reason for that. It's because I didn't. However, I won't be holding my breath for a retraction.

It seems you are unable to adress an argument at face value, and need to resort to ad hominem attacks to prop up your case.

Is that really the best you can do?

Boaz, you insist upon connecting unrelated concepts, and then saying "aha, gotcha", as if the connection were meaningful.

>>So.. when someone legitimately points out that the Quran contains some detestable ideas such as fighting against non Muslims until they are subjected (9:29) and the outright cursing of Christians and Jews by name (9:30) then.... if we criticize these ideas, we are guilty of whack-a-mozzie rather than whack bad/evil ideas.<<

The problem, Boaz, is not that you criticize the ideas.

It is quite clearly a necessary part of your personal approach to religion. To find as much fault as you can with other faiths, so that you can boast about your own.

This much is clear.

If you confined yourself to this level of criticism and self-congratulation, no-one - not even I - would have a problem with it. Instead, you insist that these verses guide the actions and intentions of every Muslim, and by extension, you regard them as objects of hatred and fear. Not satisfied with that, you trumpet your fear and loathing to the world, inciting others to share your views, and to act upon them.

That's the whack-a-mozzie bit, in case you are still in doubt.

I have mentioned this before, but it might bear repeating here so that I can copy-and-paste as required in future.

I am not anti-Christian, nor am I anti-religion. I am not pro-Muslim either, since I hold no religious beliefs at all. I understand that religion is important to some people, and I respect that - whatever their leanings may be.

What I object to, and will continue to object to, is the use of religion as a weapon.

To me, it is the flimsiest, and most reprehensible of excuses to fight. This objection is not limited to you, Boaz, but to anyone who decides that another's religious views are abhorrent, and makes it their business to incite others to share this abhorrence.

Standing on a soap-box, and telling the world that they should all share the fear, ensures that the process of religious confrontation never ends.

Is that your objective?

That's a bit rich, coming from you, Paul.L

>>It seems you are unable to adress an argument at face value, and need to resort to ad hominem attacks to prop up your case<<

A touch of transference going on here, I think, from the master of personal attacks himself.

And if you don't think that the extracts I provided are evidence, there are many more. The problem is, locating them is a bit like foraging a septic tank for a lost trinket - ultimately, the discomfort outweighs the value of the retrieval.

You have made sidestepping into an art form, I notice.

>>I provided you with some basic statistics. If you have an issue with their veracity, provide your own.<<

Your statistics may be true. I suggested they might not be complete. and questioned the use of Wikipedia as a reliable source. It is not up to me, I'm afraid, to complete your research, you can do that yourself if you will. I merely pointed out the wobbliness of your source.

You love to divert the argument, do you not?

>>How this one article proves your point that the Taliban do not commit acts of terrorism is beyond me<<

Nobody suggests that the Taliban does not commit acts of terrorism. I merely pointed out that the conflict as a whole is better characterized as guerrilla warfare. Do keep up.

In the context of the Madrid bombing,

>>The terrorists had a goal they were attempting to achieve. Their methods achieved that goal. Simple.<<

Your earlier statement, the one I questioned, was "They achieved control of gov’t policy."

You failed to mention what policy they controlled. Any thoughts?

I also did very much appreciate the significant contortions required to convince yourself that I had misunderstood your "Islamo-Fascists have the experience of the Middle East" comment.

>>The “experience” in the above sentence belongs to the Middle East, not to the Islamo-Facists.<<

The sentence in question?

>>They [Islamo-Fascists] have the experience of the Middle East<<

Subject, verb, object.

Subject: Islamo-Fascists

Verb: have

Object: the experience of the Middle East.

Priceless.

Pericles,

You say >> “ And if you don't think that the extracts I provided are evidence ...”

It’s totally beside the point and you know it. Nowhere on this thread did I say any of those things that you have retrieved. I wonder is that why you decided not to reference them?

In rebutting my arguments above you have resorted to instead attacking positions on other threads about other issues. If you find evidence of a whack-a-mozzie approach on this thread about this discussion, please show me. Otherwise if you want to talk about those other issues, go back to the appropriate thread and restart it.

You say >> “ Subject: Islamo-Fascists, Verb: have, Object: the experience of the Middle East.

That’s exactly what I said. If it makes it easier for you to comprehend then “experience” could be replaced with “knowledge, understanding, familiarity or example”.

No contortions required, just a literal reading of what I wrote. The key phrase is “the experience of the middle east”. The experience of the middle east is that dictators can rule successfully without the popular support of their people. This is a lesson few Middle Easterners will not have learned, which is part of what motivates the Islamo-Facists. They know they don’t need a parliamentary majority to implement their reforms.

You say >> “You failed to mention what policy ...”

The policy regarding intervention in Iraq, funnily enough.

You say >> “It is not up to me, I'm afraid, to complete your research blah-blah”

I’m the one who has provided evidence of the increased terror attacks since 911. You have not produced anything to counter that, except vague and unsubstantiated claims about the veracity of said evidence. Without actually discussing any of the actual evidence itself, by the way.

The Wikipedia data will suffice me, and I imagine most others, to show the basic trend, which is a significant increase of terrorist incidents since 9/11. If you want to dispute that, find some evidence. Otherwise its just hot air.

steven that is truly horrific. One has to admire the courage of those who still believe in freedom.

Regardless of religion, it is the action that should be denounced. Whether it be bombing buildings, genocide, shooting doctors at abortion clinics or sexual abuse of young girls via sanctioned religious/tribal marriages.

Beside the point? Nice wriggle.

>>It’s totally beside the point and you know it... Nowhere on this thread did I say any of those things that you have retrieved... In rebutting my arguments above you have resorted to instead attacking positions on other threads about other issues.<<

I made the assumption that i) you are the same person who uses this pseudonym on other threads and ii) you maintain the same views, as you move between them. I apologize unreservedly if this is not the case.

>>The experience of the middle east is that dictators can rule successfully without the popular support of their people.<<

So this is about dictators after all. There are many examples of those around the world, in Africa, in South America. But fair enough, I accept that you simply didn't make it clear the first time around.

>>The policy [influenced by the Madrid bombings was that] regarding intervention in Iraq, funnily enough.<<

A reasonable view, but a simplistic one. The Socialist government that replaced Aznar did indeed order the withdrawal of 1,100 troops from Iraq, but let's not ignore the will of the people.

92% of them, actually.

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2003/03/29/um/m-537495.htm

It was also somewhat inconsequential, as some of the more sober commentators understood.

http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/2004/0331europe_gordon.aspx

In hindsight, the major change that occurred was a hardening of Europe's anti-terrorism stance in general, which was hardly the bombers' key objective.

On the subject of "increased terror", you persist in missing the point.

>>You have not produced anything to counter that, except vague and unsubstantiated claims about the veracity of said evidence<<

I have no doubt that the events recorded by Wikipedia actually happened, so you can quit with the "veracity of said evidence" schtick. I merely pointed out that if you set yourself the task of recording terrorist statistics, you are likely to do so more assiduously post-9/11.

While this would appear to the casual observer to show that the incidence has increased, it could equally be that the recording of the events that has improved.

I've been blissfully computer-free for a couple of days, so I'm late on this thread, but my position is pretty much as Bugsy articulated early in the thread.

Looks like Steven's succeeded with this thread in bringing out some Islamophobic hysteria from some usual suspects - all praise to Pericles for his eternal patience in dealing with them.

Yes, it looks like some Muslim idiots threw a crude petrol bomb through the front door of the publisher's office, but weren't they caught almost immediately at the scene?

The publisher should go ahead and distribute the book, the criminals who participated in the attack should be tried and punished, and the Islamophobes should have a cup of tea, a Bex (or something) and a good lie down.

What is your definition of an Islamophobe JC? (Opps, sorry!) CJ

Pericles,

As a matter of fact i have modified my views a little since I wtote some of those things. They must be near on a year old.

you say >> "In hindsight, the major change that occurred was a hardening of Europe's anti-terrorism stance in general, which was hardly the bombers' key objective."

I wonder what evidence you have for this. What changed? Anti-Terror laws?

If you wish to contend that Islamo-Facist related terrorist incidents have not increased since 9/11 then provide some evidence. Otherwise it purely speculation on your behalf. Frankly the suggestion that wikipedia would focus on events after 9/11 and neglect to be as thorough before then, is unrealistic.

here are some other sources which contain evidence of the increase in Islamo-Facist terror activities.
http://209.232.239.37/gtd2/charts/total_casualties.gif
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0428/dailyUpdate.html

Horus,

CJ's definition of an Islamaphobe - anyone who doesn't agree with his loony-left worldview

CJ's definition of a wingnut - same as above.

CJ's definition of an hysteric - same as above

I'd like to bring some focus back to this thread.

The issue is CENSORSHIP through terrorism.

Set off bombs in the underground and on buses, kill 57 people, and even the doughtiest apologists for Islam have a hard time minimising the enormity of the act. They will confine themselves to finding "reasons" for the terrorists' behaviour.

But if you continue killing people at random, society will lose interest in your alleged "reasons." People will realise that yours is an unsavoury and violent belief system

But TARGETED terrorism can be much more effective. Terrorise writers and publishers who offend Muslim sensibilities and soon there will be little objective analysis of Islam. If the price of offending Muslim sensibilities is a life time for you and your family under police protection then most people will remain silent.

Even worse, sometimes you can get governments to do your dirty work for you. Hence Victoria's censorship law, the so-called "Racial and Religious Tolerance Act" of 2001. Note how the title conflates racism with antipathy towards a religious belief system.

So called "hate speech" laws are proliferating.

We also have the case I alluded to previously of the arrest of the Dutch cartoonist, Gregorius Nekschot.

That is why, CJ MORGAN'S knee jerk reactions notwithstanding, this is NOT a minor incident. The Jewel of Medina will be published. What of the books that won't even be written?

That's not quite where we started this conversation, now is it, Phil.L?

>>If you wish to contend that Islamo-Facist related terrorist incidents have not increased since 9/11 then provide some evidence<<

I was quibbling with your scaremongering tone:

>>The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organisations<<

As justification for the word "massive", you now produce some - slightly dated - statistics that haven't been put together by amateurs. Fair enough.

But the selection of the timeframe is everything, is it not?

http://tinyurl.com/3keldz

No-one, including myself, would deny that 9/11 created a few more fanatics who believe they can settle their scores with the infidel. What I do disagree with is the inflation of this into a "massive" world movement.

Where you see a global movement, I see small groups of nutters.

This thread's particular band of petrol-bombing idiots, whose movements were obviously known to police ahead of time, seem to be more the norm than the marauding packs of scimitar-wielding fanatics that you envisage.

Unfortunately it looks as though their actions against individuals might still have their desired effect, as the fate of this particular oeuvre de genie apparently hangs in the balance.

Equally sad for the publisher is the damage done to his home.

On 28th September, it was apparently worth £4million

http://tinyurl.com/3fcm5w

"under police guard last night after a fire-bomb attack on his £4million London home"

Next day, it was a million and a half cheaper.

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/3646

"the attack on the £2.5million London home of its UK publisher, Martin Rynja, at the weekend was 'a reprehensible act of violence'"

Terrorism sucks, eh?

Get off the grass Steven.

Here's a little exercise for you:
-go to Amazon.com
-type in "islam" in the search box
-have a peruse of the number of titles that can be percieved as critical of Islam

Do you think this censorship by terrorism is working?

If someone does not write a book because they are scared of Muslims, then the book they didn't write would probably not be a good one anyway.

<< What I do disagree with is the inflation of this into a "massive" world movement...Where you see a global movement, I see small groups of nutters. >>

Precisely. Ironically, Al Qaeda and the Bush administration have a mutually beneficial relationship. In order to justify the war on terror, we need a huge, threatening, co-ordinated enemy force to frighten the populace with - just like we had during the Cold War.

For that reason, every instance of Islamic terrorism after 9/11 had to be attributed to Al Qaeda, even when it was carried out by unrelated or rival groups. The result is that every pissy little band of jihadi wannabes can get attention just by renaming themselves. The US built the Al Qaeda brand in a way that would make Coca Cola jealous.

Any nuanced investigation reveals that the strung-out cells of militant Islam pose no appreciable threat, but the image of heathen Saracen hordes pouring out of the east to ravage our cities appeals to the strong apocalyptic strain in conservative thinking.

BUGSY

As of today the attempt to enforce censorship through terrorism has had very limited effects.

In fact the most notable successes have been indirect. Various governments have enacted so-called "hate speech" laws that seek to conflate criticism of Islam with racism.

The demonisation of critics of Islam with the label "Islamophobe" is more an "own goal" than succumbing to terrorism.

Nonetheless there is no question that critics of Islam are taking a risk. It's early days yet in the struggle to retain the right to free speech.

SANCHO

The Bush administration has done more to advance the cause of Al Qaeda than anything they could have managed on their own. However, Al Qaeda is a bit of a sideshow.

The real danger is not so much Muslim terrorism as the accommodation and appeasement of what is in essence a Fascist ideology disguised as a religion. And much of it seems to be financed by Saudi oil money.

The best way to fight Islamic Fascism is to use more energy-efficient cars and move to electric vehicles. That would cause the oil price to plummet and would effectively neutralise Saudi Arabia and Iran. Cutting off your enemy's financial balls is usually the best way of winning a conflict.

The Bush administration has resisted all efforts to move in this direction.

Hopefully Obama, if he is elected, will do better. I have no hope that McCain would.

This column in the Guardian – hardly a "Mozzie bashing" rage – sets the situation in context.

RESPECT FOR RELIGION NOW MAKES CENSORSHIP THE NORM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/30/pressandpublishing.religion

Quote:

"Respect for religion has now become acceptable grounds for censorship; even the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, has declared that free speech should respect religious sensibilities, while the UN human rights council passed a resolution earlier this year condemning defamation of religion and calling for governments to prohibit it. As the writer Kenan Malik has so astutely pointed out, "In the post-Rushdie world, speech has come to be seen not intrinsically as a good but inherently as a problem because it can offend as well as harm ..." Censorship, and self-censorship, Malik observes, have become the norm. What we have seen, over the past two decades, is an insidious new argument for curbing free speech become increasingly acceptable."

We fought a long bitter battle to roll back BLASPHEMY laws so that we could discuss the reality of religion without fear or hindrance.

Now we are to be subject to a new form of blasphemy laws under the banner of "respect.".

And so-called "liberals" are leading the way.

For shame CJ MORGAN. For shame.

Bugsy Re
“Get off the grass Steven…

Here's a little exercise for you:
-go to Amazon.com
-type in "islam" in the search box
-have a peruse of the number of titles that can be perceived as critical of Islam”

That’s only half the view.Assuming there was such a site, go to Amazon Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Iran and do a similar search, then tell us what you find

Now Pericles... this is a bit rich even for you..(though I do notice an identifiable pattern emerging similar to this)

"Instead, you insist that these verses guide the actions and intentions of every Muslim, and by extension, you regard them as objects of hatred and fear."

Now..the key word in that little outburst is 'every'. Then, following along from this error of fact, you extend it to projecting your own pet version of my position with:

"by extension, you regard them as objects of hate etc"

This completely ignores a number of factors.

1/ I have not claimed that the 'detestable' verses in the Quran guide EVERY Muslim. I have claimed that "Islam teaches" thus and so. I've specifically said on numerous occasions that most Muslims are nominal and that it's the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir and various aggressive elements withIN the Muslim community which are dangerous.

But that danger would not be so without the ideological/doctrinal foundation. (which is the exact reason I highlight it)

2/ I have not expressed or encouraged hatred of all Muslims, this is a figment of your fertile imagination. Your thinking goes:
a)Polycarp points out dangerous verses in the Quran
b)He hates all Muslims.

3/ You also ignore the reality of the mindset of the Christian in relation to unbelievers. Which is.. "For God so loved the world" (even Pericles)

Your confusion results most likely from the fact that I attack bad/evil ideas publically here.. and you translate this into personal hatred for people.. That dear Pericles is your on-going and repeated mistake. (or...perhaps a confession of yours?) This foggy thinking of yours results in an insulting attitude towards other non Muslims here, who you feel will suddenly be reaching for their torches as they rally the villagers for the next Mozzi Lynching.

On a personal level things are different. Your failure to detect this is a black mark on your otherwise reasonable credibility.

StevenLMeyer=BD in a Yamulka :)?

Aaaahhh dear Sancho :)

-Any nuanced investigation
-strung-out cells of militant Islam
-pose no appreciable threat.

Let's subject this to some facts.

"Nuanced"? err persumably here you mean looking in more detail than manking huge blanket statements. Ok.. let's do that.

I hereby focus on the 'Nuance' of the 'strung out cell' in Melbourne who have now been convicted of a plot to do more damage than all Australia has ever seen from any seditious group in it's whole history.
Even considering the armed revolt of Eureka...13 killed in the battle.
A large bomb at the MCG during a grandfinal would have been devastating.

Do we really need to mention 'no appreciable threat' ? err I rather appreciate that the outcome could have been disastrous.

Another trial of a 'strung out, non threatening cell' continues in Sydney.

Does it make a scrap of difference in the end, whether such a thing as Al Qaeda the brand, or strung out cells to the bombing? The issue is not the branding but the ideas which are there all the time waiting for someone to pick them up and run with them, and to drag in young dissillusioned vulnerable males by using a few video's of Muslim body parts and crying women and children in Iraq or Afghanistan.

A few strung out cells with a Quran and idealism under their belt can do a heck of a lot of intimidation of publishing houses.
Once these core ideas are identified, they can be combatted more effectively.

I suggest the remedy is in your hands, Boaz.

>>I have not claimed that the 'detestable' verses in the Quran guide EVERY Muslim. I have claimed that "Islam teaches" thus and so. I've specifically said on numerous occasions that most Muslims are nominal and that it's the likes of Hizb Ut Tahrir and various aggressive elements withIN the Muslim community which are dangerous.<<

It is true that occasionally, when hard-pressed, you tend to, at least nominally, back off your hardline position, and admit that hey, maybe not all of them are after the blood of non-believers, every waking hour.

But left to your own devices, it is not very long before you lapse into your standard mantra, which is along the lines:

"Islam teaches violence. Muslims must follow the teachings of Islam without question. Draw your own conclusions from those two facts."

Ocasionally, you and others will lecture Muslims along these lines:

"If it is only extremists who do this, why don't you condemn the Qur'an for leading them astray?"

Which is of course akin to telling Christians that they should renounce the Bible, because it contains all sorts of nasty stuff along with the friendly bits.

As it is, I sit on the sidelines, and point out to you where you cross what I believe is the line between justifying your own version of religion to yourself and others, and stirring your fellow-citizens into aggressive confrontation - as you did, for example, immediately after the Cronulla skirmishes.

If I am successful, after a while you will realize that this boundary is actually quite important. That words, when used carelessly, can give the impression that you are once again on a mozzie-bashing, fear-and-loathing, rabble-rousing crusade.

At that point - if you care at all, which is still not entirely clear - we might be able to settle into a more sober and productive assessment of how we can get along without forever wanting to wipe each other out.

Pericles,

I said >> “The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organizations”

I would say that doubling the TOTAL casualties of terrorist acts is direct evidence of a massive impetus to Islamo_Facist organizations. In fact, when you note that the non Islamist terror statistics have stayed pretty much stable, you can see that Islamist groups have increased their murder rate by more than 400% by 2004.

I recognize that this is older data, but it bears out what I was suggesting.

I accept that things have calmed down since 2004, as your reference suggest. The setbacks to their cause since then has taken some of the momentum out of the movement. This does not negate in the least the point I was making.

As the article suggests, Muslim populations in general have tired of the tactics of these groups, however the victories of the coalition in Iraq and the combined efforts of most responsible countries has played a full part in that. By making military and gov’t targets harder to hit, the Islamist groups have reverted to attacking innocents.

You say >> “No-one, including myself, would deny that 9/11 created a few more fanatics who believe they can settle their scores with the infidel. What I do disagree with is the inflation of this into a "massive" world movement.”

I never suggested that this was a massive movement. In fact I pointed out that these groups believe they can achieve their goals WITHOUT mass support. However, if you have a look at the countries in which attacks are taking place, it is clear this is a global movement with global reach. The 9/11 attacks weren’t carried out by “perol-bombing idiots”

You say “This thread's particular band seem to be more the norm than the marauding packs of scimitar-wielding fanatics that you envisage.”

Here you go again, I don’t envision scimitar wielding fanatics. Why do you insist on manufacturing straw men?

I guess perspective is everything, eh Paul.L?

>>I accept that things have calmed down since 2004, as your reference suggest<<

So if you take a slightly longer view than the first three years after 9/11, we get a less dramatic image, would you not agree?

>>Muslim populations in general have tired of the tactics of these groups<<

As indeed the Irish became disenchanted with IRA terrorism. They didn't change their religious allegiance, simply got fed up with being tarred with the terrorist brush.

It happens.

>>I never suggested that this was a massive movement.<<

Whoa there. It was you who used the term "massive" first, and I who objected to it.

>>The effect of 9/11 has been to give massive impetus to the Islamo-Facist organisations<<

But you now seem to agree that this "massive impetus" has died away somewhat. What is also becoming clear is that these Islamo-Fascist organizations are themselves becoming fragmented and incoherent. The antics of three idiots from Essex don't exactly fit with the "massive impetus" theory.

Incidentally, it is germane to point out, before we get too excited about book censorship, to note the following observation on the publisher's "prior".

"Gibson Square published OJ Simpson's If I Did It, his 'hypothetical' account of how he would have killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. The book had originally been bought by the U.S. publishing giant HarperCollins, which later dropped it in the face of mounting criticism."

http://tinyurl.com/43dqpz

So it's not just religion that causes books to be pulped.

Intriguingly, from the same article:

"When the UK publication of the book - which so far has only been published in Serbia - was announced Mr Rynja said: 'I immediately felt that it was imperative to publish it."

Serbia, eh? Now that is interesting...

Pericles, -As Paul L said "Please stop manufacturing straw men"

you are a bother arn't you.. straw men gallore.

Your last one "wipe each other out" .. aaah..there you go a----gain.

Who has spoken about wiping anyone out? I've spoken about tighter immigration policy, and various things like that. But wiping out Muslims? errr ur living in that famous Disney chanel P..you know..the one for kids.

"we might be able to settle into a more sober and productive assessment of how we can get along without forever wanting to wipe each other out."

Sure... we can do that. But it would take specific policy and deliberate steps.

1/ Identify potentially dangerous mindset at Immigration Visa application time. This can be done with some well designed questions.

2/ Identify potentially dangerous teaching at local Mosques. This can be done by intelligence gathering.

3/ Monitor potentially dangerous individuals. AAah yes..that's what the AFP DID..and now we have a number of convicted people.. all Muslims who did want to wipe many of us out in the name of their religion.

There are other measures. I would include the names of Mosques. I would not allow for example a mosque to be named "Bilal Bin RabaH" (Prahran) as the man in question was an absolute animal and inhuman sociopath. He also happened to be Mohammad's must trusted Muzzein/prayer announcer.

I would also ensure that history was clearly taught.... including the near collapse of Christendom under Islamic onslaughts. For balance we can do a critical assessment of the Crusades.. I see nothing to fear in that. After all, they were a reaction to Islamic military adventures and aggression.

So.. in order to create an atmosphere of 'Lets not wipe each other out' we need a very clear position statement on who we are, and what will happen to anyone trying to change that in the name of Islam.

Hizb would be banned.
ISSNA Coburg...banned.
Haldon St Prayer hall (Lakemba).. banned.

It's called imagery, Paul.L

>>Here you go again, I don’t envision scimitar wielding fanatics. Why do you insist on manufacturing straw men?<<

While you and Boaz may not use those exact terms, the image you intend to appear in the minds of your audience is just that.

Be afraid, you tell them.

Be very afraid.

Unfortunately, a couple of disaffected youths playing martyr doesn't have quite the firepower of a worldwide conspiracy.

So you concentrate on building the idea of a worldwide, Islam-led conspiracy that will kill us all in our beds for our apostasy.

A concept fully interchangeable with "marauding packs of scimitar-wielding fanatics", in its intent and effect.

Paul.L: << CJ's definition of an Islamaphobe - anyone who doesn't agree with his loony-left worldview

CJ's definition of a wingnut - same as above.

CJ's definition of an hysteric - same as above >>

Actually Paul, I use those terms as they are most commonly understood, i.e.

Islamophobia - "prejudice or discrimination against Islam or Muslims"

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

Wingnut - "a mildly derogatory American slang term for a person who holds strongly right-wing political beliefs"

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

Hysteric - someone who suffers "unmanageable fear or emotional excesses"

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

I hope this helps. Are you reminded of anyone you know?

Steven,
I was rather hopefull that more information would now be available regarding those arrested for the fire bombing and their motives.

Still it will come in time and I'll keep an eye out.

PERICLES says:

<<Unfortunately, a couple of disaffected youths playing martyr doesn't have quite the firepower of a worldwide conspiracy.>>

It took 2 people.. Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh to take out the Oklahoma government building.

A similar truckbomb could to incalculable damage to the MCG and take uncountable lives....

But all Perilous sees is a couple of dissaffected youths playing matyr?

Well.. that rather says it all... and leaves Pericles credibility in complete tatters in the dust.

Some people see facts as they are.. then there are others who have this 'minimalist' sydrome like Pericles and simply deny them.

More..they have a 'minimalist/maximumist' syndrome to describe this clinical condition fully.

a) Anything presented as dangerous which has an Islamic connection or basis is 'non existent'
b) The representations of this information are in reality a result of fear/loathing/hysteria/distortions/rabble rousing.

Pericles minimizes the threat and maximizes the mockery of the reporter.

I suppose we have to take Pericles word for it that he is an atheist rather than a closet Muslim. (or that no-one in his immediate family is Muslim)
But the evidence over time is most compelling to the contrary.

You are beginning to resort to personal insult as a primary modus operandi, Boaz, and it is not a good look at all. The only excuse for such rudeness would be a lack of confidence in your own position, which cannot possibly be the case.

>>It took 2 people.. Terry Nichols and Tim McVeigh to take out the Oklahoma government building. A similar truckbomb could to incalculable damage to the MCG and take uncountable lives... But all Perilous sees is a couple of dissaffected youths playing matyr?<<

Well... yes.

Of course a couple of disaffected youths can cause damage and take lives, that is not at issue. But they remain merely disaffected youths.

The evidence for their being part of a worldwide conspiracy is only in your head. We are dealing here with terrorists, in the same basket as IRA bombers, ETA activists, Tamil Tigers, FARC etc.etc.

>>Pericles credibility in complete tatters in the dust.<<

Fortunately, your opinion of me will not keep me awake at nights

>>...others who have this 'minimalist' sydrome like Pericles and simply deny them.<<

You say "deny". I say "keep in perspective".

>>Pericles minimizes the threat and maximizes the mockery of the reporter<<

I look at the motives of the reporter in order to provide context for the report. Isn't that what you do?

>>I suppose we have to take Pericles word for it that he is an atheist rather than a closet Muslim. (or that no-one in his immediate family is Muslim) But the evidence over time is most compelling to the contrary.<<

You really would like to believe that, wouldn't you, Boaz?

It would make your dislike of what I tell you so much easier to bear, if you could comfortably categorize me as "the enemy".

It is a part of your psychological make-up that you would do well to examine carefully some time, Boaz, this need of yours to define the world in terms of "if you're not with me, you're against me".

It's just a little unhealthy, and could do some damage over time.