There are now too many muslims in australia which will end up dangerous. The Tamils on the ship are not refugees The have lived in Indonesia for 5 years and had a place that is only 49 km away that would have been great for them and welcome them Tamil Naru

I do not normally comment on threads this early in their posting, if at all. However, in this case I feel it is different. I have approved this post because this discussion will be happening, whether it happens on reputable sites like ours, or not. In which case it is important that the discussion occur in the open. I also acknowledge that it could well be explosive.

I do not see a connection between the shooting in the US and the Tamils who are trying to come here. Only 6% of Tamils are Muslim so I am not sure how Glen is so sure these Tamils are Mulslims. And even if they were, it is an extremely long bow to draw to suggest that they represent a security threat if they are accepted as refugees.

I'm not sure that I even see a connection between Islam and the shooting in the US.

I think that Islam does have a problem with violence, but I don't think that this can be used to characterise individual Muslims, but happy for the debate to be had.

I wish I was in Tamil Naru too, if I could afford it. I suspect that there maybe too many atheists in Australia, although I have very little knowledge of Islam at my young age of only 41, having studied more Buddhist, Christian and Hindu elememts of human understanding of the higher echelons of the planet.

What do you suppose we should do with all these atheists, or as you suggest Muslims? Pen or sword?

glentryst

Welcome back? Polycarp?

And Hitler was a Christian and Shimisu is my dog So?

As for the Tamils are from Indonesia where are your sources show them and perhaps we have a conversation.

GY

Sorry I don't believe its a long bow more big brown stained paddle.

I was feeling a bit the same way until 12mths ago until I realised that the war on terror was a ruse for the US Corporate/Govt to invade oil rich Muslim Nations and take their oil.

We have demonised a lot of good Muslims and thus have created real terrorists that do hate us.I don't like any any facists whether they be corporate or religious.We reap what we sew.

Shows what happens when you bully someone who has guns.

Be ruthless to the unbelievers (Koran 48:29).
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day (Koran 9:29).
Infidels are your sworn enemies (Koran 4:101).
Kill the disbelievers wherever you find them (Koran 2:191).
Make war on the infidels who dwell around you (Koran 9:123, 66:9).
Never be a helper to the disbelievers (Koran 28:86).
Strike off the heads of infidels in battle (Koran 47:4).
Take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends (Koran 5:51, 60:13).
The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land (Koran 5:33).

There is no connection between Islam and violence.
Anybody who suggests there is will be beheaded.
Everybody go back to sleep.

just waiting for all the Islam apologist to find an original excuse for this guy. That wicked USA who gave him a half decent life is sure to be blamed. Have the ABC acknowledged that this man is a Muslim yet or does it not fit their blinkered dogmas? Whilst I agree with GrahamY that this event has nothing to do with the Tamil situation it is however completely in line with the Korans teachings.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26312324-421,00.html

Ah it won't be long now and we'll have Bronwyn, Fractelle and all
the other OLO females, all tented up with little windows to peer
out of :)

"The gunman was eventually shot by a female civilian officer, herself injured.

Hasan was hit four times and initial reports suggested he had been killed."

There is the good news, a woman dropped the s.o.b.

All of those unarmed people to protect and she put her body on the line to do it. Pity she wasn't on the scene a little earlier. Hope she makes a speedy and full recovery and next time she loads a better calibre and better bullets in lieu of the cheap rubbish she was issued with.

LOL runner

I of all people am hardly an apologist for Islam. But this is piffle. People sometimes go off the rails. Remember Columbine? Remember Martin Bryant and the Port Arthur massacre? Remember Cho Seung Hui who massacred 32 people on the campus of Virginia Tech two years ago?

One event, no matter how tragic, tells us about as much about Muslims as the Monash University shootings in 2002 tells us about Monash University students – which is not a lot.

Yabby,

Interesting link. And more to the point when it comes to discussing Islam's imperial ambitions and the reactions of the appeasers.

I read he had alcohol issues so may not be an act of terrorism. Practising muslim would not have an alcohol issue. If he is a terrorist then maybe the American people can come by boat to our shore and claim asylum.

The Tamils. The problem with them is that diaspora funds terrorism in Sri Lanka, in a big way. Most crime outside Sri Lanka has been extortion or raising funds for a proscribed terrorist organisation. So just as bad in my eye, why discriminate? If they support terror, they support terror.

It's already been reported that the man was a psychiatrist who was being taunted because of his background. It has also come out that he was effectively being forced to deploy to Iraq despite his attempting to not be deployed. He would have resented the taunting and, combined with his being forced to fight people of his own religion, may have found it too much to handle. That is potentially, if not in actuality, an explosive mix. He may have felt that his view was being run roughshod over and reacted more out of fear than anything else.

For everyone's sakes and FWIW, incidents such as these should make the US military look much more carefully at how they deal with people of very different cultural backgrounds. As has already been said on our media today, people should not be forced to fight who really do not want to. Better psychological testing is needed to identify those who are best suited to the task.

RobP,

Nobody is forced to join the US military and also you do not choose where and when you go. You know that before you join. Being taunted. I know all about that. I had to leave the situation, I did not stick around. If he had requested a release and that was denied maybe the US has some thinking to do. On face value at this stage just sounds like a cold blooded nutty murderer.

Robp

Yours is one spin that could be put on it.

Another could be that the US army's man management policies and procedures that could have eased this unsuitable recruit out of the service may well have been frustrated by possible allegations of discrimination or racism if any proactive action had been taken.

In a litigious environment, harassed management is sometimes compelled to bend rules and turn a blind eye to less than satisfactory performance from an employee rather than be subjected to the maelstrom of 'racism', 'sexism' or whatever victimhood accusations of an 'aggrieved' person.

Aside from that, it is a pity that some of the army's own guards were not carrying loaded firearms. It is a foolish policy that relies on contracted security guards and police to guard a military base.

Just talking about Australia, an ex-ADF friend of the family commented that when his company guarded an airport for a heads of government meeting, they were not issued with bullets and the breach blocks were also removed from their rifles. These were seasoned soldiers with overseas experience and it was during the heyday of a certain PM's fear campaign about terrorists. Maybe a few renditions of that tiresome dirge Advance Australia Fair would have been enough to hold a hardened terrorist at bay until the civvy cops arrived (and the cops then managed to call in the 'real' cops - the ones in the dark gear who can actually shoot a gun!).

This miserable bastard is obviously insane. No sane individual would start shooting innocent people indiscriminately anywhere - let alone on America's largest military base,

Stevenlmeyer's right again. What religion and ethnicity was Martin Bryant?

I agree with the general thrust of C J's concluding remark.

However I don't think that this perpetrator nor Bryant, nor (say) the Hilton Hotel bomber are/were insane and all exercised choice in committing their crimes. Bryant suffered from marginal IQ, the Hilton Hotel bomber was intelligent but very naive and idealistic, seemingly incapable of accepting the areas of 'grey' that are a natural part of life and this current perpetrator, well, he seems a different kettle of fish to the other two.

All we say with any certainty is that there is no way we can entirely remove risk from our lives (eg by bans) and isolated calamities will happen despite the best risk management strategies and best efforts of all. I believe it is the rarity of such events that should advise us that there aren't mad people everywhere waiting to wreak havoc if they get a chance (C J didn't say that or infer it might be the case).

What will happen now of course is that the media will continue to sensationalise this story to sell advertising, while the usual social commentators will make hay out of it for secondary gain. The politicians will feel obliged to enact some new law that does nothing except cost money and unnecessarily restrict normal, law-abiding people from going about their normal business.

Blaming religion be it -
Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, Protestantism,
Hinduism, or Buddhism, for the actions of
some of their followers is simply wrong.

Fundamentalists exist in all walks of life.

As far as the shooting in Texas is concerned -
I also read that the man was severely
harrassed by his fellow soldiers because of
his middle-eastern appearance. We read about
the consequences of bullying all the time -
who knows what kind of bullying trigged this
guy's meltdown. What happened is a tragedy -
but fear-mongering and blaming all Muslims -
does not honour the memory of those who died.

Further fear-mongering regarding the
Tamil boat people - reminds me of the "yellow
peril," fear that existed several decades
ago. It appears that some people simply need
to spread hatred and fear. This confirms the
fact that, "nothing in the world is more
dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

I would like to know why this topic couldn't have been parked for a couple of days?

There are still victims dying of their wounds. It just seems to me a little early to let the agenda merchants off their leashes.

Perhaps there might be an excuse for carthartic reasons if this was an American forum but it isn't.

Showing a little respect shouldn't be that difficult.

Thank you GY I would have thought no one would wish to comment on that first post.
But thanks for the freedom.
And for highlighting, some have ideas that mirror this thread's.
Who bullied who? on what evidence?
How do we know he is Muslim? his name does not tell us anything.
Arjay truly you need a reality check.
Murder, gutless murder of unarmed people is always evil.
Lies are weapons in the hands of both sides in the east and middle east.
And consider the unbalanced comments of most who posted so far and see evidence, see why we can not live in peace.
Lies bigotry, are currency for many.
Balance truth understanding seem only to come in the rear mirror for far too many, after time has shown the truth.
Post what you wish when you wish, but please hold yourself accountable for what you say.

Belly wrote:

How do we know he [Hasan] is Muslim?

The fact that he reportedly shouted "Allahu Akhbar" could be a bit of a giveaway.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/06/fort-hood-shooting-suspect-alive

I repeat what I wrote in my first post on this thread. Tragic as this event is, it is isolated. By itself it tells us little about Muslims. As every one here knows, I am the very last person who could be called an apologist for Islam.

Note that Jason Rodriguez is not a Muslim.

See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602294.html

Belly, sometimes people just go off the rails.

OK Nothing to do with being a muslim, so hope when he recovers he does not blame non-muslims.

unbelievable that the left could be such denialist. When Sharia law starts to affect their kids they might finally wake up to themselves. How quickly they are to swallow the fantasy of man made gw and so slow to see the results of what they call tolerance (which of course leads to the intolerable).

StevenMeyer you are right
'By itself it tells us little about Muslims'

The fact is that it is not in itself. Look at Bali, London, Madrid, France, Spain, Sydney and you might get some idea of the ideology that drives these followere of Mohamed.

Dear runner,

The history of mankind tells a more
accurate story than the one you
present by picking only on one
particular group of fundamentalists.

The first weapons were rocks, clubs,
spears, and swords, wielded or thrown by
human beings. Gradually, ways were found to
strike further, more accurately, and with
greater force - with slings, catapults,
bows and arrows, crossbows. The invention
of gunpowder and similar explosives led to
musket, the rifle, the cannon, the grenade,
the bomb. These weapons were mounted on land
vehicles, ships, and eventually aircraft.

Today missiles can travel thousands of miles
from one continent to another and deliver their
warheads with an accuracy that can be measured
in feet and seconds.

One effect of innovations in military technology
is to make the killing of human beings - even
mass killing, impersonal. A few centuries ago,
war meant soldiers physically attacking one another.
Today, a handful of people can obliterate a city
of millions, thousands of miles away by deciding
to push a button.

over the past quarter century, global spending
for military purposes has consumed an estimated
$14 trillion (that is, $14,000,000,000,000).
This represents a colossal diversion of funds from
socially useful goals: for example, a single
hour's worth of these expenditures would suffice to
save through immunization, the 120,000 children around
the world who die each day from preventable diseases.

Before you condemn what fundamentalists of other faiths
do or don't do - look at the history of mankind and
see that none of us is really innocent in this "blame
game."

Zbigniew Brzezinski,"What we need is a truely masssive and widely perceived direct external threat." This is a quote from his 1998 book "The Grand Chessboard"

Enter, Some of Bin Laden,becauae we were not allowed to view the entire story. No one is wanted for the 911 attacks,no one has been charged and even the CIA say they don't have enough evidence to convict Bin Laden.However we are told that it is Al Queda are the callous geniuses behind all that is evil on the planet.

We are not waging war on external terrorists.It is our Govts who are using our fears of terrorism to steal our liberties.Our Govts are waging war on us.

Yes Arjay, we have a sort of fascist creep. Nobody notices all the little changes over the years.

With terrorism. Goes both ways. If the government jump all over this as Bush may well have done then it strikes fear into the nation. However if it is terrorism but the new found "liberalism" tries to make out it is no,t it will create fear, division and play into hands of extremists of both sides also. Truth and justice has a lot of merit. Treat the criminal as they should be treated and people gain some sense of security from that process. If found to have religous motivation then the US army will need to investigate why a terrorist was not detected. No real need to politicise it either way.

OK runner, you gleefully condemn Islam (not just the individual murderers) when Muslims murder.

Now, when you reply to this, let's see you equally condemn Christianity (not just the individual murderers) when Christians murder.

Here's some Christian murders ....... thus affording you a perfect chance to condemn Christianity, and thus show your impartiality, maturity and ability to tell the truth:

(1) The Karantina massacre of around 1,500 people committed by Christian militia in Lebanon in 1976

(2) The San Ysidro massacre where a Christian, J Huberty, murdered 22 people and injured 19 others in 1984

(3) Christians Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, in 1995 murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City. They were both members of the Christian Patriot Movement, and believed in Christian patriotism.

(4) James Kopp, a Christian, murdered Dr Barnett Slepian in 1998. He was a member of The Lambs Of Christ and a member of The Army Of God.

Do you want me to go on, and on, and on and on runner? I can list THOUSANDS of examples of Christians who butchered and murdered, from the beginning of Christianity up to the present day.

Now, just as you do with Islam ............ let's hear you blame the "religion" (Christianity) for these crimes (and NOT just the perpetrators of the crimes)........

Just like you attempt to do with Islam.

I eagerly await your condemnation of Christianity.

Only when we all submit to the will of Allah shall Dar al-Harb become part of Dar al-Islam.
Until then, martyrs such as Nidal Malik Hasan must sacrifice themselves to pave the way for the peace of Islam.
Only then shall peace reign over the entire earth, insha'Allah.

We can only hope Graham (or someone) is moderating this thread full time.

I am not qualified in the legalities but haven't some of the comments "incited hatred". Can some legal-eagle explain in layman's terms what the criminal code means by inciting hatred?

If there has been a breach, who is responsible, what are the consequences?

Maybe the moderator has already suspended those that step over the mark, only s/he and the perpetrator would know. Or has the moderator let some slip through?

As to the original comment, I thought I was going to read something about the shooting in the US - was something snipped?

Anyway, I think it was a tad premature to allow it (it's not a race). There will be much more to say in the coming days and weeks, even on such a reputable site as OLO.

The topic of this thread was a "LOADED" statement, designed to pull peoples' chains. That's obvious.

Should any posts here be banned or the topic deleted? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Topics like this bring out the bigots, the misinformed and the barrow pushers . . . . . . and even those unfortunates have as much right as you or I to openly express an opinion. In fact it's good that they are here, it tells us what "some" people in our society actually believe, and having it all out in the open is MUCH better than secrecy.

I hereby nominate Q&A as chief hate-detector and censor of everything that he/she thinks might offend someone.
We need more Q&A's to make the world a safer and nicer place.

Q&A, I suspect HermanYutic is probably one of the fundamentalist Christians on this site, or one of the anti Muslim types who post here regularly, posting under an assumed identity, in order to throw dirt against the Islamic faith. It's pretty obvious that's the case. But that's the price of freedom.

TZ

I agree, nothing wrong in expressing an opinion. But, how does the law stand on inciting hatred?

Graham does delete posts that go too far, and he does suspend the perpetrators.

Herman

Your cynicism and condescension is noted, thanks.

Q&A if you have a problem with a particular post then you should draw it to my attention by clicking on the cross underneath it.

Thanks Graham. Maybe you can explain to us the legalities about inciting hatred.

I can only assume you are moderating this thread closely. It would appear that as moderator, you don't think anybody has incited hatred.

Or, are you expecting one of us to click the cross before you take action?

I don't think that anyone has breached any law, no. But I am open to argument if you are prepared to point to particular examples. That argument should take place off the site via a direct email to me. If there is a problem with a particular post it should not be perpetuated via an online argument.

Think you are being a little fragile QaA.
While some posts are strange none in my view deserve deletion.
One attempt to get anti Muslim stuff started is feeble.
Thread starter gave thread a name then did not address it in that post, idle rubbish actually.
Well runner offended me, but he/she always gets on the Christian high horse ,back wards usually.

Ok Graham, thanks.

Belly, yeah ... bruised and abused lately.
Think I'll just watch for a while.
I hope to see more lucid discussion in another
thread or article - gotta be better than this one..

Runner

--I do not need you to demonstrate to me that much of contemporary terrorism has an Islamic origin.

--I have ZERO patience with apologists for and appeasers of contemporary Islam. It is the appeasers and the apologists, not Islam itself, who are the danger. You know the sort of people – those who accuse you of "racism" or "inciting hatred" or "prejudice" when you write candidly about Islam.

But this PARTICULAR incident appears to have nothing to do with any of that. It appears to be the actions of an unhinged individual who went off the rails.

Q&A

What is your definition of "incitement to hatred".

If you consider a candid expression of opinion about Islam, or any other belief system, to be "incitement to hatred" then please:

--Tell us what belief systems are to be excused from criticism, analysis, attack, satire and scorn; and

--Why those belief systems are to be granted immunity

As it happens Q&A:

I loathe Islam. I also detest most other religious belief systems but even if I didn't I would consider it completely acceptable to single out a particular religion for attack. Why shouldn't I if I thought that belief system was especially loathsome?

I have explained in other posts WHY I have such a strong antipathy to Islam.

If I have succeeded in persuading others that Islam is indeed despicable does that mean I have broken the law?

If so, why?

Is it only Islam that is to be protected in this way or does it this protection apply to all belief systems? What about Christianity or Nazism

I think this is another one of those dreadfull incidents where a person goes mad and kills others. Like Port Arthur or a while back someone drove a vehicle deliberately into a crowd.

Having said that, it does seem that Islam has more extremists and violence than other religions. I wish they could do something about that, but Islam does not appear to have any international ruling structure that can set standards and decide on various matters.

Take Iraq for example, They were only united for a few hours when the statue of Saddam came down. I was not long before the Sunnis and Shia were blowing each other up and have been ever since.

I wish they would find a way to reduce the number of extremist.

In relation to the Tamils, I am not concerned greatly about them importing terrorism here, although some Tigers and some supporters will undoubtably use any means to get out of Sri Lanka. Whether they continue their activities outside Sri Lanka is another thing.

I was somewhat concerned about several acts of violence in western Sydney last April, involving Sri Lankans. One of these incidents involved pouring acid over someone in a home invasion. However there has not been anything more reported, so hopefully it will not continue.

We can well do without importing violence between ethnic groups. Hope they leave their old hatreds behind.

In respect of the Ft Hood incident, we mustn’t forget who the real victims are.
After all, the targets were trained professionals who were soon to leave for Iraq and Afghanistan with the goal of killing Muslims.
Small wonder that the good doctor got upset.
We need to focus on all the good, peace-loving Muslims who are now even more likely to experience Islamophobia from hate-filled,
bigoted conservatives and Christians.
All the Western governments need to band together to stop this from happening.
We need to enact laws to criminalise Islamophobia.
We need to appoint more Muslims to key security positions in our military and intelligence services.
We need to open our borders to all our brothers and sisters, whatever their faith, but especially to those followers of the religion of peace.
Only by showing how much we trust them can we hope to earn their trust.

TZ52HX

'OK runner, you gleefully condemn Islam (not just the individual murderers) when Muslims murder.

Now, when you reply to this, let's see you equally condemn Christianity (not just the individual murderers) when Christians murder.

TZ52HX you obviously know little about the teachings of Jesus compared with the life and teachings of Mohamed.

Maybe you should do some homework before mouthing off.

May the bullet that reportedly paralysed the perpetrator paralyse the insidious side of all men's religions.

Whistler I truly fail to understand you.
Like runner you in habit a world that seems not to exist.
Steven, well I would do well not to say this but I too am not unaware of the worst in Islam.
For that part of it I feel no different than you, about every religion too.
But every one of them, no exceptions, has good mixed with the evil.
This murderer was Muslim, but had only just started to attend his place of worship.
He was evil gutless and maybe insane too, maybe brain washed as well.
I am not looking to his religion for retribution.
But America and the west must tell us, is it worth while?
Can we change that part of the world?
Are deaths of young men worth the hatred?
Yes I understand the training grounds for terrorism side but if the west treated life with as little regard as some Islamists we could bomb rather than support the criminal corruption governing these lands.
Humanity always runs last when nations compete in the name of self interest.

The first post of this thread is deeply disturbing on so many levels.

Using the author's twisted logic the Tamils are mostly Hindu which according to the Muslim extremists are almost as bad. We would thus be importing allies not potential enemies.

Secondly the man that did the shooting was experiencing harassment due to his religion, and was to be deployed against his will to an area where he would be outcast both from the people in the area and his supposed colleagues, and completely alone.

The problems we are having is because the Muslims are feeling outcast and second class citizens, and the solution is integration not further isolation.

Runner, the worst atrocities in recorded history were done in the name of Christianity.

Belly asks:

"Can we change that part of the world?"

The answer:

NO!

And even if we could it would not be worth the cost in lives and money.

When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan we should withdraw IMMEDIATELY. Let the various Iraqi / Afghan groups get on with the business of killing each other; or not; as THEY choose.

A withdrawal would be a catastrophe for Afghan women but that is NOT our problem and we should not let it become our problem.

Not that women in Afghanistan have it easy even now. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/14/afghanistan-womens-rights-rape

The argument that we can somehow fight terrorism by occupying Iraq and Afghanistan at great cost to Australian / American / UK lives is pure drivel. Nor can we "win" there.

In fact what would victory look like? The only way to "win" in Afghanistan is to do to that country what the Romans did to Carthage. However Carthage posed a threat to Rome. Afghanistan does not pose that sort of threat to us. Al Qaeda may have been based in Afghanistan but the actual plotting of 9 / 11 took place in Germany. The Bali bombers originated in Indonesia. London's 7 /7 bombers were all UK born. Parts of Pakistan seem to be "Muslim terrorist farms".

Shadow Minister

I wish I shared your optimism about the possibility of integrating Muslims

Shadow Minister,

Most of the support for the LTTE has come from the Tamil Diaspora. I read Canadian diaspora alone funded 200 million per year to the terrorist cause. I do not see them automatically as allies. Terrorists are terrorists and they target civilians to fight their wars. I read that some Tamils in Sri Lanka were very angry to keep the war going as it was not them suffering. There is no justification to support terrorism, ever.

To isolate one example of a violent act by a Muslim as being a warning bell for immigration is a bit thin.

If we were to use this person's logic we would not allow any Christians, or Irish, or German - in fact any group that has a violent past. There are Christians committing indecent acts against others all the time - even Bush invaded Iraq apparently on the word of his God, nutter Christians in the mid-west are still taking on child brides and getting away with pedophilia.

I am not having a go at Christians, as most Christians are decent living people, just making the obvious point that one cannot discriminate against a whole group of people on the basis of one violent act. Particularly when there appears to be other issues in this case.

It really is stating the bleedin' obvious but apparently not so obvious for some.

Religion is mindset, a personal choice and if people do not want to tolerate it fair enough. Whatever religion. Same as One Nation Political Party. The whole nation has worn the most racist country on the planet tag since 10% of the population voted for her and debates have been skewed ever since. Academic types have been running around saying I am ashamed to be Australian, despite very little racism here they slander the whole country.

Obviously what one group does may offend another so does everything needs to be kept indoors? The christian grandmother expressing her religous beliefs in England in opposition to homosexuality was almost arrested for a hate crime. Yet whose right is greater, homosexuals who want to take to the sreets with their feather boa or a christian lady who does not want "sin" paraded around town? At the end of the day any public showing of your group becomes impossible. Everything becomes offensive. Broad based censorship.

The support for terrorism itself on this thread is the most disturbing, that is not a mindset..that is a crime. Tamils do not use terrorism against us so they are our allies? I do not follow. The guy in Fort Hood is a martyr? Sorry. Those thoughts should be offensive to any human. Not wanting a religous or political mindset to flourish should not be censored. If all the bible belt anti-abortionist creationists from the US started to arrive en masse I would hope I could speak out against that tide.

Belly in the world i inhabit the problem is patriarchy not religion.
the more men dominate with whatever instruments of power the more violence.
true of religion, law and governance of all persuasions with all races and ethnicities.
the solution is to empower women, preferably with a legislature rather than a bullet.
you may find equal rights a strange concept but its eminently achievable.

Stephen, in response to your questions/comments (Saturday, 7 November 2009 3:52:06 PM)

I was hoping some ‘legal type’ would offer their qualified opinion on some of the questions I had asked (haven't some of the comments "incited hatred"? Can some legal-eagle explain in layman's terms what the criminal code means by inciting hatred? If there has been a breach, who is responsible, what are the consequences?)

It appears my hopes were in vain. Sure, Graham said he doesn’t “think” anyone has breached any law, but neither he nor anyone else has been able to answer.

Since I maxed out my post limits, I took the opportunity to cyber visit the Anti-Discrimination Board and the relevant legislation.

From what I understand, to be covered by the Act’s vilification provisions, “there must be a public act which incites hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or persons because of their race, colour, descent, nationality, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin, homosexuality, or HIV/AIDS or transgender status.”

Therefore, remarks made on a site like OLO can be brought before a Tribunal.

However, to make a complaint of vilification under the Act, a person must be a member of the group that they think has been vilified. The Anti-Discrimination Board also accepts vilification complaints on an individual’s behalf from representative organisations that have a genuine interest in the matters in the complaint.

Now, this is the crux; the Act requires vilification to be relatively serious before it is unlawful. Merely conveying hatred or expressing serious contempt or severe ridicule (as we have seen here) is not necessarily unlawful unless there is also incitement involved (I don't think it has).

If an act involves both an expression of hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule and a threat of physical harm to persons or their property, or incitement to others to threaten physical harm, it may constitute “serious vilification” under the Act.

If the Tribunal refers such matters to the Attorney General, they will then be considered by the Director of Public Prosecutions and may be prosecuted as an offence.

I tend to agree with StevenMeyer on this one, this seems to be more
a case of a one off, a troubled individual. That does not negate
from the fact that Islam itself is a violent religion, for too many
interpretations suggest that it is. The reality is that wherever
Islam seems to go, violence commonly follows in most cases.

The good news to me, is that perhaps with the greatly improved
communication and information of the internet, people are starting
to question the benefits of religion in general, as they become
more informed.

BBC TV this weekend is running another of its global debates, which
are always interesting. They are repeated a few times, for those
interested. This weekend the Question is "Is the Catholic Church
a force for good?" Christopher Hitchins and Stephan Fry argue
for the negative. At the end of the debate, only roughly 10% of
the 2000 audience think that it is. That is quite astounding and
certainly shows to me, that the world is changing for the better.

All religions will have alot more explaining to do in the future,
people won't just accept their nonsense at face value anymore,
as they did in the past, when they were less informed.

Religion must be the worst offender of all times. How can you say variants of muslim aren't bad. I say all religions should be banned.
I don't know how the world can possably live with radical religion.
The day of reconing must come, before these extremists get atomic weapons.
Some religions can not bring themselves to integrate, it's not in their colture.
If we need to immigrate people from radical countries, it should be the importation of the young not the elders.

Saw every word yabby some of it twice.
A good debate and one I think we need to have about every religion.
The results in my view would be about the same too

This debate is certainly a very loaded subject!
I don't see how we can judge this Army Officer who killed all his colleagues until we have all the facts. Whether the US Army will let the general public have all the facts is another matter.

In the current 'war' against mainly Muslim perpetrated terrorism, wouldn't a tragic incident like this one help the US cause a little?

I have no doubt that this Psychiatrist was unstable himself when he committed this horrible crime. Whether his religion, army bullying, imminent deployment to Afghanistan, or a mixture of all these were to blame, we may never find out.

I don't think that blame or name calling between religious groups will help in this case or any other acts of violence.

I agree with Whistler, why not let more women run the Governments and religious groups around the world? Surely they couldn't do any worse than the men have done!

It occurs to me that we almost never hear about women going berserk with guns and massacring innocent victims in public places - it's always some man. Clearly, the problem is with men.

Indeed, the thread topic should have been "the muslim that shot everyone at the texas army base is a man"!

:P

"I agree with Whistler, why not let more women run the Governments and religious groups around the world? Surely they couldn't do any worse than the men have done!"
Posted by suzeonline,

Dear Suze,

wasn't there that infamous candidate from Alaska in the last (some of the) USA elections? Women and men have equal opportunity to run for government and religions have differing means of respect for different genders. That is part of the foundations of many religion, and why there is that same old cliche about separation of church and state and everyone who isn't chucked off the electoral list gets to vote.

The nepotism that I read earlier in another thread advocating the support of enraged murderers of people using angry words, by their families, might explain one of the limitations of maternal instinct, on top of the absenteeism from the job due to further family loyalty before all else.

I'd suspect that the alternatives would probably be even more catastrophic than they have become already, because of that sort of myopic attitude, and once again Whistler comes in with another off-topic post of the same standard as the last one I remember.

Back on-topic, isn't shooting people what they teach in the army? That's the idea. The purpose of the army is to shoot people. Why should there be some sort of attack on any particular religion, when shooting people is precisely what the army trains people to do?

CJMorgan, lol!
However, do you realize what you just said?

The religious fundamentalists out there will be raging onto this site for yet another bitter discussion on all the evil, Godless women who have 'millions' of abortions!

When that happens, I am sooo out of here! :)

Maybe you are right Seano. Maternal instinct may come into play if more women were in places of authority, however, we will never truly know unless we give it a go, right?

You surely can't be saying women have equal opportunity within many religious groups? Which ones? Certainly the huge Catholic and Islamic religions don't have any women in the higher offices.

Again I say, surely we could create more peace in the world than the men have done so far?

I believe that we have been 'giving it a go' for the past century, and whatever good or bad we have to deal with together as two genders of the same species, we've all (those of us permitted) cast our votes in the governments that we've elected and must share the consequences.

Incidentally, the one person ever who tried to stab me in my sleep was my ex-wife, suffering mentally from loss of our first child, and PND after our second child was born. I awoke to the shadow she cast running down hallway to bedroom and fended her off. I refrained from having her charged with attempted murder next morning because I knew her word had more power under Australian law than mine would have, and also was loyal to mother of my son. Justifable nepotism?

Last Anglican priest I did community service for was Anna Killigrew, if I remember her name properly after ten years. I was allowed to play the church piano at lunch break, and believe she would have made a very good Australian PM. I hope to explain that I believe in gender equality, but individuals have different strengths and weaknesses. Even today, many things men are generally better at than women, and the same value foir many things women are better than men.

When Australian men are allowed the same 'affirmative-action' given to women, I'll be the first to lobby for women's rights, but it's news after 30 years of it.

For more peace in the world than we have now, we need to return to where men and women look out for each other, and end gender wars. Else we just go on making enemies of each other, but in saying that, I hope you and I can remain colleagues on this forum, and let opinions from both sides be heard without malice.

(Some of the off-topic rhetoric here is a little malicious)

CJ Morgan forgets the estimated 50 million children killed by their mothers in America alone since Roe v Wade.
But in terms of sheer numbers he is correct.
The 50 million killed by their mothers pales into relative insignificance compared to the estimated 270 million killed by men in the name of Allah.
Arguably, however, killing your own flesh and blood is more heinous than killing strangers so maybe we should employ a weighting factor in an attempt to compare the horror of it all.
This would of course be complicated by the fact that we do not know how many of the 270 million killed by the religion of peace were intrafamily honour killings.
Should we apply the same weighting factor to Islamic fathers who kill their daughters who have shamed the family as we do to mothers who kill their children in utero?
This is further complicated by the fact that under Islam a woman's life is worth less than a man's.
Futhermore, under shariah law an infidel's life is worth less than a Muslim's so that we would have to separate internecine killings and apply a different weighting factor.

Out of here, suzeonline.

Wheighing factors, Can't you come up with more specific conclusions.
Some religions are not meant to exist, they are out of hand.
Wouldn't it be better if everyone come under the bone banner.
You may say there are a lot of different riligions in the world.
Most are tollerant, to each other.
There is a fly in the pie, and i see no other resolution than, strong measures to combat it.
Not even hard line communists have come up with these tactics, and to be supported by various govt; of the same faith is very intolerable.

Hey Seano, I sure do want to remain colleagues with as many people on this site as I can, including you!
I must admit I do find it hard at times to express myself with tongue in cheek on these pages- which I was actually trying to do about more women in Government and religious authority.

As is it, I have no problems communicating with the male gender as a whole, and do really enjoy male company.
What I don't like are women haters and anti-feminist men, who dislike all women because of the actions of a few. I'm not keen on man haters either, for the same reasons.

I too believe it is better to work together to solve this terrorism problem the world has, and if that means asking the women in some male-dominated religions and societies to stand up for themselves, then I make no apologies for my beliefs.

Dear Q&A,

An interesting topic.

I am a complete layperson so the following is idle musing.

There are three elements to the initial post. The first is the title, it was factual, so taken on its own I'm assuming there would be no issue.

The second is the statement “There are now too many muslims in australia which will end up dangerous.”. Once again by itself the statement is more an opinion but combined with the title is where the problem starts.

If the writer is saying, and I think he is, his proof of Australia potentially becoming more dangerous are the actions of what may turn out to be a psychotic individual, the shooter in Texas, then he must be able to show that Muslims are more predisposed to psychotic episodes. If not, and remembering I'm no expert, then I think it may well be actionable under racial vilification laws.

His third and fourth statements about the Tamil refugees are the clincher. Again by themselves valid opinion for one to hold but in combination with the previous statement and title the inferences are, I feel, quite problematic.

The argument seems to goes; the gunman in Texas was a Muslim, therefore greater Muslim numbers will make Australia more dangerous, therefore the Tamil refugees, who, the writer claims are not really refugees, should be taken elsewhere, not Australia.

But the simple fact is that Tamils are Christian or Hindu not Muslim and I would have thought linking them to the Texas shooter was actionable but I'm certainly not sure.

From the Australian Human Rights Commission site;

it is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:
(a) the act is reasonably likely in all the circumstances to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or group of people, and
(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or some or all of the people in the group.

Cont...

Cont...

There are three essential components of this unlawful conduct:
1) The act must be done in public;
2) It must be reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate the people against whom it is directed; and
3) It must be done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the group against whom it is directed.

I think all are met in this instance.

However under exemptions comes “Also excepted are academic and scientific works and debates or comments on matters of public interest.” but this is only if the person can be shown to have “acted reasonably and in good faith”.

You are correct about “Only an 'aggrieved person' may lodge a complaint” but that person may be any Tamil member currently living in Australia.

There have not been a lot of internet related cases in Australia but in Jones v Tobin Tobin's Holocaust denial website Federal Court Justice Branson stated she was "satisfied that it is more probable than not that the material would engender in Jewish Australians a sense of being treated contemptuously, disrespectfully and offensively".

The other avenue an aggrieved individual might take is civil or criminal defamation usually at a state level.

From the EFA website;

“Civil liability arises from publications likely to harm a person's reputation and penalties are monetary.”

“Criminal liability arises from publications that affect the community, such as those that have a tendency to endanger the public peace, and penalties in most jurisdictions include imprisonment. Generally, proceedings for criminal defamation are commenced by law enforcement authorities. (In most jurisdictions, a private prosecution concerning criminal defamation requires the prior consent of, for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General, or a court order.) “

I feel if the second contention about the Tamils were in a separate paragraph then it might be argued that a separate non-linked statement was being made. As that was not the case here that argument might be harder to sustain.

All idle speculation of course.

My last comment was, of course, tongue in cheek. However, it seems that suzeonline's response was spot-on.

Dear oh dear...

My real point was that all these nutters who go on shooting rampages seem to be men, so why single out this one's religion as the root cause? Indeed, I think that Muslims would only constitute a small minority of the perpetrators of this kind of crime.

Religion may itself be a factor in the twisted motivations for such acts, but there are obviously other triggers that send these guys over the edge.

and of course the shootings had nothing to do with Islam. The fact that he attended the same mosque as Bin Laden means well drr

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html

The Islamic apologist are looking more silly and ignorant as the days go on. The best they can do is try and lump every person's religion except their own in the same boat. It seems that the only reason this guy was allowed to get to this stage was because other soldiers were afraid of being accused of racism (what a familiar tale created by the leftist lunies who live on another planet). Unfortunately just like Mr Rudd's immigration debacle innocent lives are being lost due to this pc madness.

Dear Suze,

without going back to read again, but from memory, all I can say is that the tongue-in-cheek had me fooled, and I didn't quite get it, eh?

Still, I agree completely with your good sense in how peace can only be achieved in this world when our grandparents and grandchildren can all work together and make sense of this mess we have been left with and leave to them as a legacy, and that includes politics and religion and treatment of different genders and economics and even the price of eggs and the hormones fed to battery chickens before they get barbecued, but all told, we don't have the chance of a potted aspidistra in hell if we can't work together as the most essential team in the perseverance of human life on this miserable little planet.

I will try to remember in future if I disagree with some of your opinions that first of all we are on the same team, we're mates, and maybe sometimes I'm a little slow in getting gist of the humour.

Thanks for your reply Suze. Goodnight and sweet dreams to all.

CJ Morgan,
“I think that Muslims would only constitute a small minority of the perpetrators of this kind of crime.”
Do you mean the kind of crime where someone screams Allahu Akbar as they’re flying jetliners into buildings, beheading hostages on the internet, shooting unarmed infidel soldiers, blowing themselves up in crowded markets, etc?
I would have thought that Muslims would be responsible for a large majority of this kind of crime.
I’ll have to start burying my head in the sand more.

Seano the perpetrator was paralysed reportedly by a woman's bullet
a defining moment of the whole sorry episode.
women and men have equal opportunity to be elected to men's legislatures
where everybody remains under male supervision.
HermanYutic, thank you for reminding everybody men do terrible things.
CJ Morgan thank you for having the courage to acknowledge responsibility.

I see this topic has brought out the handful of loonies that seem to inhabit this site. This time they don't seem to have the intellectual capacity to differentiate between the millions of worshipers worldwide who lead peaceful lives and the loony terrorists and the mentally disturbed who practice violence in God's name ......... just like the Christian fundamentalists used to regularly do in days gone by ( and occasionally do today ... see my prevoius list).

My point is, the VAST majority of Christians and Muslims around the world live peacefully.

But of course the loonies here are happy to grab at any chance to misrepresent an entire religion ...... just look at the rubbish runner writes on this topic. Interesting to note he was 100% incapable of addressing my challenge to him. It seems to me, runner is everything Jesus Christ was NOT.

"Seano the perpetrator was paralysed reportedly by a woman's bullet
a defining moment of the whole sorry episode.
women and men have equal opportunity to be elected to men's legislatures
where everybody remains under male supervision."
Posted by whistler, Monday, 9 November 2009 12:07:09 AM

Whistler, there is no such thing as woman's bullet, nor a man's bullet. Bullets are bullets, and guns are guns - so easy to use that even sheilas can pull a trigger. I don't suppose the fact that the madman was a trained psycho has the sensational value his faith and gender can provoke.

As for your off-topic comment in the second sentence, firstly you're dreaming and secondly why don't you start a new thread on this bee in your bonnet about division of women and men into two separate societies?

As I mentioned the first time I read your similar post, I would be very pleased to know that all the taxation I have paid over the last 25 years would not have to pay for the health care, student/research funding, government salaries, pensions and child allowances of women, because I'd guess that has constituted around 80c in every dollar of tax I've paid, so I'm interested in finding out more about your "womens' government" idea, but just not in this thread. It's having a tough enough time as it is with all the fundamentalist athiests jumping on the jihad bandwagon.

At the very start of this thread you could see if you wanted to we would never get a worthwhile out come.
Its author never wanted one.
It is meaning less writing on a wall , just an attempt to put blame on Muslims for an act of murder.
But for some it seems blame America is their call.
I find some who say others are blind to be living in glass houses.
And wonder why we must constantly flog one another from different sides of the racial/religious wall.
Surely it is clear? every religion divides men?
And while great good comes from every one of them so too does great harm?
Like walking over very thin ice, I look for words that will offend less but in truth I find no reason to defend any religion.
And think of the great wonderful world we could have without any of them.
Catholics are an easy target, crimes against children just one of many, but unlike Muslims I can not remember one threatening to kill me.
Am I evil? is it wrong to ask why we must bend to another culture?
Is it so dreadful to truly believe we would be so much better without any man made Gods?
And do not over look this threads author who hooked us all, did not know this folk are not Muslims.
And that he/she never came back

Dear runner,

You commented on the teachings of Jesus vs. those of Mohammed. Anglican Bishop Spong has cited Biblical justification for hatred of non-Christians, women, Jews and homosexuals along with general intolerance. By exposing those texts he is trying to get Christianity to confront its past and rid itself of those evil trends. Some Christians find him unsettling and call him a heretic. Jesus commented on looking at the mote in your neighbour's eye while ignoring the beam in your own. Spong has looked at the beam in Christianity's eye.

From his website on the terrible texts:

http://www.johnshelbyspong.com/bishopspongon_theTerribleTexts.aspx

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:
"No one comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6); This text has helped to create a world where adherents of one religion feel compelled to kill adherents of another. A veritable renaissance of religious terror now confronts us and is making against us the claims we have long made against religious traditions different from our own.

The first person executed for heresy after Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire was Priscillian. The Christian Jew hatred promoted for centuries made the Holocaust possible. The Christian murders are a result of Christian teaching.

The US shooting? I see it as another excuse to bring in Marshal Law a bit closer.It is most likely a cia job to force a split between groups.
The Tamil affair? Send single men home.Give families temporary visa's with a restricted job for two years to prove themselves.
Both issues are a distraction for the bigger picture, which is Copenhagen, and I hope it doesn't get signed by our PM, even though a minister has already (pre)signed.

Yep csteele, your post is lucid, thanks for your idle musing.

It looks like glentryst (new to OLO?) has not only spooked the chief editor/moderator with his headline and a couple of short, sharp, swift (and as yet unsubstantiated) statements but also spooked everybody else.

There is no doubt that the 'discussion' would have happened anyway, I am just surprised (well, maybe not) that no effort was made to get glentryst to explain/expand his post a little more before it was published.

Seano, a court of law would consign ownership of the bullet which reportedly paralysed the perpetrator to
the woman who propelled it.
at law, it was neither her supervisor's bullet, the governor's bullet, Obama's bullet or the manufacturer's bullet,
it was a woman's bullet.

previously you wrote, "Women and men have equal opportunity to run for government", to which i added
the qualification 'to be elected to men's legislatures where everybody remains under male supervision'.
it's not off topic to suggest the nub of the problem posed by this thread is patriarchy not religion.
to claim otherwise if you are male is an abrogation of reponsibility.
i repeat, the solution is to empower women, preferably with a legislature rather than a bullet,
and empowerment begins at home.

an equal rights republic has already been discussed at length on this site as you will see if you review
my posts or follow the 'view discussion' links on this site: http://2mf.net .
your taxes have been collected and distributed according to the deliberations of men's legislatures to which
women are admitted under male supervision.
blame men if you have a problem with how your money has been spent.

whistler, you say:

<< it's not off topic to suggest the nub of the problem posed by this thread is patriarchy not religion. >> WHAT?

<< to claim otherwise if you are male is an abrogation of responsibility. >> Excuse me?

<< i repeat, the solution is to empower women, preferably with a legislature rather than a bullet, and empowerment begins at home. >> Say again?

Actually, the topic is (was?):

"the guy that shot everyone at the Texas army base is a Muslim."

Sub-topics?

"There are now too many muslims in australia which will end up dangerous."

"The Tamils on the ship are not refugees, they have lived in Indonesia for 5 years and had a place that is only 49 km" yada-yada

and something about "Naru".

Honestly, you may have some genuine gripes and I can empathise with some of them, really. However, I think you are drawing too long a bow to suggest the "nub of the problem posed by this thread is patriarchy not religion."

Hey, start a new discussion thread, it's got to be better than this one :)

well what a weird world we live in. Much of the left press seems more concerned now for the murderer than the murderers families. They just can't accept that in the human heart is murder as shown by so easy we kill the unborn. He must have been teased, he must have been bullied, he must have been discriminated against, he must actually be the victim. Those evil white and black soldiers are to blame. How sick that our secular god deniers can't simply see that this man did evil because he his prophet was also evil. Talk about not getting it.

The "unborn" runner, what has that got to do with the price of apples in Madagascar?

Ok everybody - if you want to know the real culprit ... climate change! I'm out here!!

Runner <"How sick that our secular god deniers can't simply see that this man did evil because he his prophet was also evil. Talk about not getting it."

No Runner, you are the one who doesn't get it. Any of the Gods or prophets from any number of religions could also be said to be evil because of what their followers have done.

We only have to look at the relatively recent bombings in Northern Ireland and England, as the Catholics and Protestants fought with each other.

The Christian God apparently is just as able to allow miscarriages (natural abortions) to happen to their female followers, as the women who suffer them in any other faith. Religion can be very evil indeed.

There is a lot more information here about this guy.

To make a proper judgment you need all the facts, i doubt we will ever know all the facts...I think the army is probably to blame for not recognizing that this guy was becoming a risk, to himself and others. He wanted to get out of the army. Doesn't seem like the guy was a radical terrorist, but he was definitely affected by his religious beliefs and how that conflicted with his job in the military and the war on terror....and his upcoming deployment to Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/us/09reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

"i repeat, the solution is to empower women, preferably with a legislature rather than a bullet,
and empowerment begins at home.

an equal rights republic has already been discussed at length on this site "
Posted by whistler, Monday, 9 November 2009 4:57:46 PM

Thanks for the clarification, Whistler. I'm just glad that female supervision has finally come to the decision to empower me to return peacefully to my new 'home' at last and I won't have to be here to suffer the next republic referendum, nor the outcomes that I'd have to agree will be quite a surety now that most of us Australians with long memories are either dead or gone abroad.

I hope that soon these patriarchal supervisors will come to their senses and legalise guns for women so that you can put your bullets to good use.

Thanks for your encouragement and happy shooting.

Q&A,
Where are you when we need you?
If Seano's talk of happy shooting and putting bullets to good use isn't hate speech and inciting to violence then I don't know what is.
But before we jump to any conclusions we need to ask a few questions:
Was there a politically incorrect motive involved?
Apparently not.
Do the proposed victims belong to a protected class based on ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation?
That does not appear to be the case.
Sorry to bother you Q&A.
Go for it Whistler!

but surely the issue is was he a blind black gay muslim in a wheelchair with a jewsih stepfather

I'm a bit more concerned that the shooter is a psychiatrist.

oi

Dear Pynchme,

I think one reason a person becomes a psychiatrist is to try to understand their own demons. It's a trade that attracts the troubled minds.

It's fascinating how we infuse those we demonise with an apparent intention that tells us zip about the actual dynamic, but serves to expose out intellectual limitations.

In another realm of make-it-up-as-we-go - that of lobbying for 'alternative medicine' [dangerous expensive and buoyed by junk science] - the cause of this shooting, and the Orlando shooting was in little doubt less than 36 hours after both: 'psychotropic drugs'. And the "natural med" blogs lit up as one - a heartbeat behind the racist/supremacist ones.

It's the fact he's a psychiatrist, not a Muslim, that sustains this horrid invention. "It's well known doctors self medicate and facing the stress of deployment surely he was self-medicating". The Orlando shooter had a history of psychiatric problems, hence [ignoring his mental health is poor] the drugs given him must have caused his behaviour. The slight hitch is no-one knows if either chap took sugar in their coffee much less their med regime.

Thus the tragedy serves the peddlers of myth and verisimilitude. Which raises Christianity and the new shiny Christian toy of blaming everything that isn't Christian for all that is "bad".

Prosecution of the prophets doctrine is what Aussie tax payers fund as lesson format in Australian faith schools. Christians have equally foul distortions of reality, and are busy at the coal face welding this to "justified outrage" - as if at the last they can bluff the planet into feeling silly. Yet Jesus is the chap who gave eternal torment to our species [hell].

The prophet built upon this notion, fooling followers into believing that to die in his service, was an escape from torment/entry to paradise. Jesus is revered by Muslims and Jihadists. Jesus is the seat of all horror. Jesus gave us the pinnacle of martyrdom. Jesus helped shape Islam - there is no debate here.

It is a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim. Al Qaeda deceives Jihadists who indiscriminately kill Muslims. It is eternal hell - not paradise that awaits.

Perhaps this is what the Major feared. And who gave us "hell"? Jesus Christ.

It would seem the war in Iraq, as with all wars has unintended consequences.

From Wikipedia

"In interviews before his execution, documented in American Terrorist, McVeigh stated he decapitated an Iraqi soldier with cannon fire on his first day in the war and celebrated. But he said he later was shocked to be ordered to execute surrendering prisoners and to see carnage on the road leaving Kuwait City after U.S. troops routed the Iraqi army. In interviews following the Oklahoma City bombing, McVeigh said he began harbouring anti-government feelings during the Gulf War."

Perhaps these occurrences should force us pause us to a little longer at this time of year and remember the domestic toll that should be added to the balance sheet of any conflict.

The leaders we should admire are the ones that do their utmost to prevent the cost of war being inflicted on theirs and other nations.

csteele,

The leaders we should admire are the ones who recognise an implacable enemy
and do their utmost to crush them before they crush us.

"I think one reason a person becomes a psychiatrist is to try to understand their own demons. It's a trade that attracts the troubled minds."
Posted by david f

Best wisdom I've read today. The trouble is, they are seeking the opportunity to understand their own demons using other human lives as subjects, rather than their own. I was a damned fool to change from a law degree to a psycho degree under the misguided intention of stopping the crime before it happened. I should have stuck with the law degree, in hindsight. I hope that I can say enough with that without causing further reactive excuses from the formally quali=fied mentally unstable.

Just to say, that is a very wise post and I wish I had known before I ever enrolled in psycho school without the necessary cognitive prerequisites, what it led to, which was akin to using others for one's own mental fears and 'disorders', as they like to call them.

csteele wrote: The leaders we should admire are the ones that do their utmost to prevent the cost of war being inflicted on theirs and other nations.

Those are the ones I admire. We may never even know when they have prevented war. I know that Dulles and others tried to get Eisenhower to get more involved in Vietnam. He was wise enough not to do so. Kennedy and Johnson were not as wise.

Dear davidf,

Republican Eisenhower for me was the one who started the rot in American foreign affairs with Operation Ajax. Democrat Truman had refused to help the British overthrow Iran's democratically elected government of Moussadeq but within months of Eisenhower assuming office he had given the green light.

Moussadeq had wanted to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian oil company because the profits where being split 85-15 Britain's way, added to which the the poms were withholding accounts of the company.

This was the first major operation of the CIA to overthrow a foreign government and sent the behaviour of US down an interventionist path they are still committed to.

The result was decades under a dictator with a vicious secret police force and decades more under a less than savoury revolutionary government which Iranians saw as the only option to the Shah.

Add that to the US supplying of their pit-bull Saddam Hussein to conduct one of the late 20th century's nastiest wars against Iran and it is no wonder they are still so pissed off with the US.

So I'm afraid I'm going to take Truman over your man any day.

Dear csteele,

My man happens to be Truman who I voted for in 1948. I voted for Eisenhower's opponent, Adlai Stevenson, in 1952 and 1956. Both presidents had their flaws and good points. My appreciation of Eisenhower’s keeping the US from getting more involved in Vietnam does not constitute an endorsement of CIA actions in Iran.

Truman ushered in the Cold War with loyalty oaths and witch hunts.

The CIA coup did not send the behaviour of US down an interventionist path. They were already on that path. Truman supported the Coup of 21 April 1967 by the Greek Colonels. Just weeks before the scheduled elections, a group of right-wing army officers led by Brigadier Stylianos Pattakos and Colonels George Papadopoulos and Nikolaos Makarezos and backed by a shadowy Revolutionary Council, seized power in a coup d'etat following the Prometheus plan which was a Nato plan prepared for the event of serious internal disorders. Their official justification for the coup was that a "communist conspiracy" had infiltrated the bureaucracy, the academia, the press, and even the military, to such an extent that drastic action was needed to protect the country from a takeover.

I opposed Truman’s Cold War actions. In the election of 1948 there were four main parties. There were the racist Dixiecrats, Truman Democrats, the Progressive Party which was for peace and an end to the Cold War and the Republicans who were pushing for the US to get into a war in Asia by supporting Chiang Kai-Shek against the Communists. I supported the Progressive Party, but it became increasingly clear that they were dominated by Stalinists. Rather than being for peace they wanted nothing in the way of the ambitions of Stalin.

The Dixiecrats and Progressive Party had both split off from the Democrats. I could no longer support the Progressives. Truman was the best alternative. He was opposed to racism and, in spite of the loyalty oaths, was opposing McCarthyism. He was the least bad alternative and still looks so in hindsight.

Dear davidf,

I had understood the Truman Doctrine and its policy of containment but I had never imagined he supported the actual 67 coup. Was this something he said publically at the time?

I suppose it was still a few years before his death. I know his memoirs were very popular and perhaps there is some reference there.

Dear csteele,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Doctrine contains the following:

“The military junta of Greece, though criticized worldwide for its human rights record, was supported by the American government during its seven year rule. This caused anti-American sentiment in Greece. Some forty years after the harsh oppressions under military rule, U.S. President Bill Clinton issued an apology, largely unreported by the Western media, for the United States' past support of the totalitarian government.”

I remember the period well. I was involved with a beautiful Greek lady who, along with her family, supported the junta. The last time I saw her we sipped champagne on a polar bear skin in front of a roaring fire at her country estate. When I looked at her birds would flutter in the back of my eyeballs. However, I thought of the junta and never saw her again.