So it's only lunes who want to join ISIS, or terrorize us at home?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/former-adelaide-doctor-tareq-kamleh-joins-terror-group-isis-releases-propaganda-video/story-fni6uo1m-1227321062787

Thousands of sane people are dedicated to violently imposing Islam upon the world, and not necessarily the unstable, lone-wolves that deniers have painted.

Here's a guy, who is obviously not a nutter, supporting ISIS' modus operandi and doing his bit to advance its cause.

It is disturbing to watch someone so obviously intelligent, emotionally balanced, and so fully franchised within our society calling for others to join in the quest for a world-wide caliphate.

It clarifies what we're up against, an ideology encompassing an intelligentsia and the feeble-minded alike, like the society we live in. We are constantly implored not to see this as a clash of societies, but that's clearly getting harder.

Islam has a strategy to take land by first sending in the thugs then followed by the intelligent scholars of the faith to give reason to the subjected converts.

A person can be highly intelligent, reasonable in most areas and still be a lune or nutter.

Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, believed in fairies and was hoaxed.

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

I think the messiah, God, the virgin birth, the afterlife and many other beliefs are nonsense, but many people who are more intelligent than I am believe in those things.

If one has an image of what is the ideal character [Messiah,God], one will follow that image. If Mohamed is your ideal Messiah, you will emulate his ideal no matter how intelligent.

david f by the way; Essene community practiced virgin birth as intercourse with a woman was considered to make one ceremonially unclean.

Josephus "Islam has a strategy to take land by first sending in the thugs then followed by the intelligent scholars of the faith to give reason to the subjected converts."

Yes indeed, that is a common MO of many religions and/or countries wanting to take over others.
Britain (mostly Christian at the time), sent it's criminals to Australia first as I recall, to take over the natives already inhabiting this land, and attempted to force them into the Christian religion.
I believe they did the same in Africa, America and India, to name a few.

This doctor has obviously been worked on by his Muslim brothers to go and join the 'fight' in the Middle East. He has now ruined what is left of his life, as he won't be able to return to Australia unless it is to go to prison.
I doubt he is insane, he is probably just another misguided fanatical religion follower...

Suse,

"Britain (mostly Christian at the time), sent it's criminals to Australia first as I recall, to take over the natives already inhabiting this land, and attempted to force them into the Christian religion.
I believe they did the same in Africa, America and India, to name a few...."

Ha! Ha! Ha!

There are, unfortunately, thugs everywhere who are opportunistically drawn to violence. Being intelligent, a doctor and a thug are not mutually exclusive - so was Dr. Mengele.

Tareq already proved to be of poor character, including his foolish drinking, womanising, crude pranks and hunting: we should not be surprised that one who likes the excitement of killing animals would also like the excitement of killing people.

This is not a clash of societies, nor religions (the article makes it clear that Tareq did not follow the laws of Islam), but a clash of the foolish and bored against those in their former life which could not offer them a positive sense of excitement.

Thank You for this discussion.

Kenan Malik in his recent article for the Guardian asks,

"Why is it that so man intelligent and resourceful young
people find an ideology that espouses mass beheadings,
slave labour and the denial of rights to women more
appealing than anything else that is on offer?"

He also asks,

"How do seemingly intelligent people get radicalised?
And how can we stop it from happening again?"

We're told that "A recent report by the International Centre
for the Study of Radicalisation suggests there are now
4,000 European fighters with Isis, a figure that had doubled
over the past year."

Malik asks, "What is it that draws thousands of young Europeans
to a brital, sadistic organisation such as Isis?

Religious beliefs? Not - according to Malik.
The issues are complex.

As you will see from the article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/01/what-draws-jihadis-to-isis-identity-alienation

I think he just wants to get his share of virgins, it does not matter that they don't want him as under IS rape is okay against infidels.

He is also wanting for the babies to reach the age of 6 then he can have a wife or some wives.

Is Mise "Ha ha ha!".

It is good to see you have an intelligent opinion on the subject Is Mise, but I am pleased I have amused you. :)

Cheers,
Suse.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you for the article. It ends with the unanswered question:

"Why is it that so many intelligent and resourceful young people find an ideology that espouses mass beheadings, slave labour and the denial of rights to women more appealing than anything else that is on offer?"

The answer is in the book "Lord of the Flies" by William Golding: those spoiled and bored kids just want to murder, rape and pillage and they happen to find an excuse for this in some version of Islam. Had this been unavailable, they would have looked for some other ideology that would allow them the same.

<<
"How do seemingly intelligent people get radicalised?
And how can we stop it from happening again?"
>>

They are not truly radicalised. Most do not even believe in Islam nor follow it - they just want to have fun.

You can't stop it completely because we have free choice, but I believe that the numbers could be reduced by raising children in a warm and stable family, where they can be heard but also have clear boundaries. What also helps is to teach them to concentrate and channel their energy into constructive projects.

Suse,

""Britain (mostly Christian at the time), sent it's criminals to Australia first as I recall, to take over the natives already inhabiting this land,"

Britain didn't try to take over this land, in fact the western half or so was French territory.
Even a cursory understanding of the purpose of the First Fleet and you would know that religion was way down the list.
If Britain wished as you say they intended, then why was the Mabo case a success for the indigenous people?

Any attempt to force them into the Christian religion came much later, it was 25 years after the landing before the Dividing Range was first (officially) crossed.

"I believe they did the same in Africa, America and India, to name a few...."
The Dutch had long settled in Africa before Britain gained a foothold, and the Spaniards in North America.
The first successful British (English) settlement in North America was made by people escaping the persecution of the, nominally Protestant, Church of England and was in no way missionary; as for India there were Christians there long before Britain shewed any interest and the East India Company was a trading venture and not at all interested in religion, hence India remains predominantly Hindu.

the usual secularist have never had any idea about Christ except to totally misrepresent and distort Him and His teachings. Its no wonder they are totally clueless when it comes to Islam. Oh well it stops them from facing reality. I doubt very much their grandkids will thank them.

The doctor was a Muslim a follower (nominal or not)of Muhammad, and that sums it up.

Of COURSE it’s Islam. Of COURSE it’s a clash of societies. Well, almost. If it came down into a real clash with the Kafirs (non-believers, infidels, us) Islam would be reduced in short order to the same significance as the Charles Manson Family or David Koresh’s Branch Davidians of Waco fame.

So why is Islam still a credible threat? Simply because it still has massive unthinking support from the Kafir community against whom it wages jihad without end to impose the brutality and slavery it imposes where it can subdue opposition – as in its guises as Boko Haram, or the Taliban, or ISIS, or Al Shabab, or any of the nation states like Saudi Arabia and Iran in which it has managed to ban dissent.

The Kafir support comes in endless appeasement and apologetics and deflection and denial even though its message to the world in its holy books is as clear as Hitler’s in Mein Kampf. On these OLO threads and elsewhere the message of the Koran and the Hadiths and the declarations of countless imams and sheiks and ayatollahs and similar scoundrels, including activists like Hilaly and that creep who deflected Emma Alberici’s questions, who embarrass the sleepers because they won’t keep their mouths shut, are written and shouted and quoted and referenced in unmistakable clarity.

There will be no actual clash until the appeasement and apologetics is confronted and discredited using what the Enlightenment, hated by the Moslem cult, has given us – love of liberty, respect for evidence and the power of reason.

Thanks for the history lesson Is Mise, but you can't deny that Christian Missionaries from all so -called Western countries have involved themselves in the lives of native inhabitants of Australia, India, Africa and America in the past and now, in order to 'save' their souls?

Islamic countries seem to be trying to do the same thing now, albeit with a more violent method. I hope they don't succeed, as forcing your religious views on others never turns out well.

This doctor will face jail when (if) he returns home, even if all he does is treat the wounded ISIS soldiers. He is seriously in trouble even if he makes it out alive.
I doubt that all the other ISIS followers are all uneducated either however, so they are either misguided Muslims, or they are just violent criminals.

Dear Is Mise,

The first successful English settlement was in Virginia in 1607. They were all or almost all Church of England. The second successful English settlement was by the Pilgrims who landed in Massachusetts. They were not escaping persecution at all. They were living in the Netherlands where they were completely free to practice their religion. They came back to England and took ship to North America. They came not to escape persecution but to establish a theocracy. They burned 'witches', hanged Quakers and massacred Indians who they regarded as 'children of the devil'. They were an intolerant, nasty bunch whose descendants rewrote their history.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank You for reading the link that
I found interesting and wanted to share with
contributors to this discussion. I thought the
author raised some valid questions. However, you're right,
many hypotheses are offered but no definite
answers are given - only the suggestions of connections
with alienation and identity. Perhaps the issues are
too varied and complex. I am hoping that maybe more answers
will arise as a result of our discussion here.

Of course a loving family environment is important.
Yet we have no way of knowing - the family environments
of each and every one of the now young 4,000 European fighters with
Isis. A figure that has doubled over the past year,
according to Malik. Many of the parents of those
fighting were totally
surprised by the actions of their children.

I certainly don't have the answers, but I'll keep reading
what others have to say on this topic.

Malik is a good journalist and makes some acute observations, especially in his excoriation of the air heads’ fad of identity politics. But he uses complexity in much the same way that bomber crews use showers of aluminium filings to deflect ackack fire. His claim is that nothing bad is really Islam, and that decent societies owe Moslems a diversion from the temptation (to them) of evil.

Some of the thousands who went to the Middle East from decent countries to join ISIS to kill non-believers may well not have had loving homes. Others may not have been potty trained properly. Some may have been mentally ill. Or may have been petty criminals in Europe. Or have been deprived of proper schooling. Etc. etc.

But something in common with all of them: they are all Moslems. They are all enemies of liberty. They are all seeking to enslave people with a Moslem Caliphate. They are all traitors to their home countries in Europe and Britain. They are all Fifth Columnists. The same applies to those from Australia. That’s their deeds and their clear intentions, no matter what excuses appeasers, deflectors and deniers are scraping the bottom of the barrel to dig up for them.

Spend some time looking at the readers’ contributions to Malik’s article. Focus on letters that have attracted 8 or more plusses. They may well have been addressed direct to the appeasers and apologists to teach them something about the Enlightenment and our debt to it.

Suse,

I never denied that the British sent out missionaries to all the countries that you mention and some of them are still doing good work today, Mother Theresa's mob spring to mind, then there were the Medical Missionaries who did so much to improve health etc., etc.

But Britain didn't push religion, the major purpose of most of its colonization was trade or the protection of trade, one of the main reasons for the settlement at Botany Bay was timber for ships masts, which like a lot of their other assumptions was wrong.

However, Suse, why the instructions which are the legal basis for the Mabo decision, if the British Parliament intended to forcibly change the way of life of the native Australians and convert them to their view of Christianity?

david f,

Not all of them went to Holland and those that did, did so to escape persecution, it was no fun to be fined a substantial amount for refusing to attend the Church of England.

"The Separatists had long been controversial. Under the 1559 Act of Uniformity, it was illegal not to attend official Church of England services, with a fine of one shilling (£0.05; about £17 today) for each missed Sunday and holy day. The penalties for conducting unofficial services included imprisonment and larger fines. Under the policy of this time, Barrowe and Greenwood were executed for sedition in 1593."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrim_Fathers

Losing one's head on the block for one's beliefs is martyrdom and is also persecution.

I stand corrected on their colony being the first, Jamestowne beat them by some years.

Dear Is Mise,

You are right. Not all of them went to Holland. However, if all they wanted was religious freedom they could have all gone to Holland. The evidence of the behaviour of Massachusetts colony is that they did not go to North America for religious freedom. They went to set up a theocracy which would deny religious freedom to other people.

Massachusetts is the only English colony that killed 'witches'. The United States was founded with the idea of separation of church and state. Massachusetts was the last to get rid of its state church doing so in 1838 years after the 1789 ratification of the US Constitution. The religious liberty enjoyed in the US is primarily the heritage of the Virginia colony. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, both from Virginia, were those primarily responsible.

The first American to use the expression, separation of church and church, was the Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who was expelled from Massachusetts colony because of his 'heretical' opinions.

History has been rewritten. Massachusetts is pictured as having the first Thanksgiving dinner. Actually the first Thanksgiving dinner was held in Virginia before the Pilgrims landed.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 will direct you to my essay on the subject.

After watching 4 corners last night the way to defeat ISIS is to mount an army of women soldiers as to be killed by a woman means they go directly to hell instead of heaven with their 70 virgins.

Suzie, I ask who held the guns in the first settlement of Australia of the thugs you like to call them? Their crimes were stealing bread etc not murder.

Hi Suse,

Do you mean missionaries like Livingstone who helped to stop the thousand-years'-long Arab slave trade ? I suppose that might have deprived many people of their livelihoods, and plunged many towns into long-term depression.

Slightly off-topic, but as an atheist, I must defend the work of missionaries here in Australia. Of course they were fanatics, and thank Christ for that, otherwise Missions would never have been set up, and without Missions, God knows in what condition the Aboriginal population would have been. People survived at Missions, less so elsewhere. Missions schooled and fed their kids, for free, while they hunted or fished or worked.

At Pt McLeay here in SA, from Rev. Taplin's 600-page Journal, he certainly tried to convert people, preaching all day every Sunday (on top of his six-day working week), but he tended to people on their death-beds, regardless. He never mentioned once anything about beheading them for not converting. He lamented every death, regardless, as any decent person would have. In turn, he's buried up there with them now.

So where was any Left in those days ? In a sense, the missionaries WERE the only Left, the only ones caring about Aboriginal people. Yes, some unions were always welcoming, the AWU for example: one of their lifelong Aboriginal members, a gun shearer, is buried just along from Taplin.

BTT: In his latest book, Malik does go just a bit soft on Islam (although, thank goodness, he doesn't go on about the wonders of their architecture, the standard achievement of totalitarian regimes), but I would still highly recommend it as a history of the evolution of morality.

In the thirties, did anybody agonise over how and why anybody became a Nazi ? I don't think so. They happened. Islamo-fascists happen now. Surely the task is how to defeat them, bugger trying to understand why they go fascist, and hopefully over time, to engender some sort of widespread reform in Muslim thinking, some opening towards reason, free expression and respect for human rights, especially those of women and the 'Other': i.e., their morality.

Joe

david f,

All that you say is true but the reason that they did not all go to Holland was that the Dutch solution did not work, the group was becoming old and reaching the stage where it could not support itself.

They did go to America for religious freedom, freedom for themselves, just as the Church of England saw no hypocracy in not extending their own religious freedom to others so too the Colonists saw none in their own actions; burning witches was God's work and the separation of church and state was that of the devil in their eyes.

Dear Is Mise,

The religious freedom that is celebrated is freedom for everyone to believe what they will or will not.

That is not the meaning of the religious freedom that the Puritans sought. Their religious freedom extended only to their own religion and not to the beliefs of others. They did not like the kind of religious freedom they found in Holland. They also did not like the fact that their children were becoming Dutch.

In the US at this time states are passing what are called religious freedom restoration acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_SB_101 tells about the one in Indiana. It allows individuals or businesses to ignore antidiscrimination laws on the grounds of religion. This is the kind of religious freedom there was in Massachusetts.

Dear Loudmouth,

Like you I am an atheist. However, I also recognise the part that missionaries played in saving Aboriginal lives. Before Darwin published the prevailing view was that the different races of humans were of different species. If one killed an Aborigine it was not murder as they were not human. Missionaries believed that all races were descended from Adam and Eve, and therefore Aborigines were human and must be protected.

Robert Kenny's "The Lamb Enters the Dreaming" tells of the first Aboriginal convert to Christianity.

".... If one killed an Aborigine it was not murder as they were not human...."
Not in NSW, where Governor Arthur Phillip made it plain that the penalty for the unlawful killing of an Aboriginal was death and vice-versa.
Non-aboriginals were executed in NSW for the murder of aboriginal people.

I watched "Four Corners" last night
and learned a great deal about ISIS.

The following link explains more about
who are ISIS - which may be helpful:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-tens/who-isis-everything-you-need-3715789

Dear Is Mise,

Governor Arthur Phillip left in 1792 four years after the First Fleet. No doubt it would have been different if he had been able to see that his policies continued to be followed.

Hi David,

No, Darwin didn't: check out his "Descent of Man" where he praises inter-mixing - 'hybrid vigour', he called it. He said nothing about any hierarchy of races, but he did write about diminution by in-breeding, particularly in relation to Europe's royal families.

You're mixing him up with Spencer, and the gaggle of Social-Darwinists who twisted his theories one and two generations later. Darwin coined the term, 'struggle for survival', and applied it only to Nature; Spencer coined the term, 'survival of the fittest' and applied it to humanity. Big difference, but understandable :)

As for random killing of Aborigines, that didn't seem to happen here in SA, from the record. The last Aboriginal person executed for murder was hanged in 1862. The last white man executed for murder was hanged in 1964. 1862. 1964. The list of Aboriginal people executed is on my web-site: www.firstsources.info, second page.

In NSW, I understand that nine whites were hanged in 1839 for the murder of a group of Aborigines. Fair enough.

In SA, in the nineteenth century, if an interpreter couldn't be found for an Aboriginal man charged with murder (in a couple of cases, mass murder), then the Crown Solicitor's advice was to let him go. After al, Aboriginal people were British subjects and were entitled to the protections of the British law. Yes, I'm serious.

Please, no more top of the head stuff.

Can we also please stop trying to apologise for the Islamo-fascists by trying to point out how evil other people have been throughout human history ? It proves nothing. What is evil now, today ? How to oppose it ?

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

I haven't confused anything. Darwin recognised all humans as belonging to the same species. That has nothing to do with Spencer or survival of the fittest. Before Darwin the prevailing scientific view was that the various humans they divided into races were of different species.

david f,

You said, " Before Darwin published the prevailing view was that the different races of humans were of different species. If one killed an ...."

I can see where confusion with your above statement could arise, a comma after published would make a world of difference, its lack dose make for ambiguity.
I read it as you intended but....

Dear Is Mise,

For want of a comma the meaning was ambiguous. Point taken. Thank you.

Sorry, David, I didn't notice the 'before' Darwin. 'After' as well :)

Still, I'm not so sure - in the 'Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Aboriginal Tribes, (British Settlements.), 1834' [available on my website: www.firstsources.info] (is this man entirely shameless?!) all the references along those lines speak of 'humanity' and 'the human race'. Quite a fascinating document, 140 pages.

But yes, at time passed, between 1860 and 1930 in particular, different people were classified by a few eugenicists as being akin to different species. Of course, it was clear that inter-breeding was entirely possible, it was happening after all, and nobody ever seemed to deny that it was happening.

In Australia, a small worry later was whether or not inter-mixing could produce 'throw-backs', especially around the 1930s, when assimilation policies were being developed: in 1938-1939, Norman Tindale was contracted to visit almost every community in Australia to see if that had happened. I typed up his final paper once, but mislaid it. I think I also put it on a Macintosh floppy, but can't read it. Bloody technology.

Some of the British ministers in the 1830s and 1840s were insistent that Aboriginal people were to be recognised as British subjects. When the Citizenship Act was passed in 1948, yes 1948, Aboriginal people also became citizens, at least in theory.

Cheers,

Joe

'".... If one killed an Aborigine it was not murder as they were not human...."'

very much like the unborn babies today

Returning to the ISIS doctor, it is an interesting finding of psychologists that intelligent people are just as likely to be followers of cults as any other person.

The apparent reason they 'sign up' is because they believe that the cult will be a vehicle to bring what they want into being, their will, that they see the remainder of society (and authority) preventing. They believe they know best what others should have (and the cult may deliver deliver it for them).

By way of example, that would seem to have been the belief and motivation of the intelligent public servant Evan Pederick, who joined Ananda Marga and bombed the Hilton Hotel. Pederick was a leftist who believed HE knew what was best for society. The Ananda Marga provided his opportunity to further his plan for society.

For information, Pederick was no victim of society. He had an arrogant belief that he was right, others were wrong and it was going to be his way or else. It appears he had a comfy existence as a child and had a good, guaranteed future as a public servant.

I believe that is a common link between most activists who would break laws. It is very personal for them. They are serving their own personal interests, a drive to impose their own opinion on others, regardless. They like to see 'authority' back down to their power. There is a big personal buzz in that too. Sad types that they are and dangerous.

That is why so many are serial activists and can easily turn a blind eye to their own obvious lies and hypocrisy and those of the movement they follow.

It is a fraud for them to assert that they are serving a higher being, morality or good.

tbc..

continued..

The ISIS doctor is arrogant and self-serving, predictable. He is serving his own selfish, egocentric ends (whatever they are), just like the other murderous types he has joined.

Apologists who would have the public believe that these volunteers for ISIS do so because 'society' has treated them poorly are gullible (through their own baggage?) or have their own self-serving agenda. Either way they just muddy the waters and lack credibility.

Dear Loudmouth,

Different species can sometimes interbreed. The offspring of a horse and donkey is a mule which is generally sterile.

Lions and Tigers can also breed.

What defines a species is a contentious matter. However, lions and tigers along with horses and donkeys are distinct species.

I would not presume to make assumptions about
a stranger's behaviour or the reasons for it
without a full knowledge of the facts. And even
then -
any analising should be left to people
with appropriate qualifications and experience
in dealing with these complex issues.

What we are told is that Dr Tareq Kamleh is registered
as a doctor in WA and graduated from the University of
Adelaide in 2010. He's in his late 20s.

What on earth possessed him to appear on a propaganda
video in support of ISIS is clearly a question that needs
to be asked as it is unacceptable for any Australian to
advocate on behalf of a terrorist group.

Hi David,

It was well-known by the 1860s that what were called 'half-castes' could inter-marry or inter-mix and reproduce with each other quite happily. They certainly weren't sterile, like mules.

This caused a bit of trouble for some policy-makers who had defined a 'half-caste' as the child of an Aboriginal mother and a white father - so when 'half-castes' married 'half-castes', their children were not legally 'half-castes', and in the early twentieth century, they could and did apply for the full rights to vote, drink, etc., like other British subjects, and be recognised as beyond the restrictions of the various Aborigines Acts.

Of course, many children had non-Aboriginal AND non-white parentage, Afghan, Chinese, Malay, Maori, which further complicated the issue for policy-makers. I'm sure the people involved were usually blissfully unaware of the difficulties they had caused. Good on them :)

Joe

Perhaps the good doctor thinks the same of us, that we are the ones with the arrogant view of what is right. So, who is right, and why?

We know we are not necessarily fighting imbeciles, lunes, or the disaffected/disenfranchised within Oz, so what lies deeper?

I think the the chicken comes before the egg and 'identity' arises from being a part of a group of the same outlook and propensity to act. So the question is from what does the outlook spring?

There is a very wide view in the Muslim world that it has been dispossessed, going back to the demise of the Ottoman empire, which was built upon a religion.

Is it as simple as giving up territory lost by the Ottomans and past caliphates to ISIS and partners, even parts of western Europe, or will that not be sufficient?

In my endeavour to open up this question a little, I have asked posters NC/McAdam to identify the ME members of the UN that do not control/possess their own assets, which they claimed, but the request was studiously ignored.

Is Mise, Suse.
Nestorian Christians originally had communities and monasteries dotted along the silk road from Asia Minor to China but they were exterminated by Islamic Jihad. The British in India ended Islamic tyranny and freed the Indians from slavery under the Mughals, who were a Persian Muslim upper caste, repeat for Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, Nigeria etc..
There was never any question of missionaries using force in the New World as they were always outnumbered and surrounded by savages, people like Suse just ignore the accounts of what American Indians and Australian Aborigines were actually like, how habitually violent, unpredictable and wantonly destructive they were.

Dear Luciferase,

I've come across an interesting article which may
be of interest in "Psychology Today."

"As Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria
butcher thousands of "infidels" and carry off
their women and children into slavery, many in the
West are inclined to see this as a unique outcrop
of Islamic fundamentalism."

"Yet after over-running a Bosnian town on July 11 1995,
Bosnian Serbs - ostensibly Christian forces - cold-bloodedly
massacred 8,000 Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. Hutu genocide of
Tutsis in Rwanda, Khmir Rouge mass murders of Cambodian city-
dwellers, Nazi genocide of Jews, Gypsies and the
disabled - the list of savagery is as long as it is profoundly depressing."

The article goes on to ask -

"What are the origins of savagery if they cannot be
ascribed to a single religion or idealogy?"

The following link explains:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-winner-effect/201408/isis-savagery-explained

cont'd ...

Here is another website that explains things
further:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/confessions-techie/201502/the-psychological-antidote-isis-part-i

according to a former medical student it seems that doctor helped himself to many nurses before his conversion experience. From a fundie secularist with no moral base he has moved to an even more perverted immoral base. Not surprising really. He saw how bankrupt the west has become under secularism and unfortunately turned to a religion just as bankrupt.

Foxy,
Ah yes:
Srebrenica-Didn't happen/no evidence.
Rwanda-Happens every few years, typical sub 60 IQ negro behaviour.
Kampuchea-Socialism.
Holocaust-Socialism.

Religion played no part in any of the above but Islam (if you insist on describing it as a religion) is central to ISIS, they have explicitly stated that they are trying to bring about malhama and all that follows after that. The khalifah is a pre-requisite, think of it as socialism is to communism.
See Dabiq iss 3 page 5: The Islamic State before al-malhamah (The immigrants to the land of malahim)
http://media.clarionproject.org/files/09-2014/isis-isil-islamic-state-magazine-Issue-3-the-call-to-hijrah.pdf

Looking forward to Part II, Foxy, but things don't look too good, do they.

Dear Luciferase,

No they certainly do not.

Dear Foxy,

I'm not sure what you're getting at - that we can rank atrocities ? and that compared to X or Y, ISIS isn't so bad, really ? Surely you're not suggesting this ?

An atrocity is an atrocity. The breaking of Freddy Gray's back and driving him over bumpy roads is an atrocity (I hope those b@stards get life). Murdering hundreds of women and children in northern Nigeria is an atrocity. And of course the murder of 300,000 in Bergen-Belsen, or a million Armenians and Greeks in 1915-1923 were atrocities.

So is the murder of thousands of Iraqis, Yazidis, Shi'ites, Kurds and Christians in Iraq and Syria by ISIS. And the murder of Chadians, Nigeriens, and Nigerians by Boko Haram. And the murder of hundreds of innocents by al-Shabaab in Kenya and Uganda and Somalia. Of Coptic Christians in Libya. Of tourists in Tunisia. Of fisherman and oil workers and quarry workers. Christ, where does it stop with fascists ?

I don't CARE about their psychological state, any more than I would have cared about the psychological state of Nazis. Nothing excuses the brutality of either ISIS or the Nazis.

So how do we unite to fight fascism ? Or do we lay on our bellies and open our legs, like so many of the Left seem to want to do ? Surely fascism must be combatted and eventually defeated ? We have to take it seriously, and not play some stupid 'nyah-nyah' game on the basis that ISIS may not be so bad because it's anti-American. (Surely the Left is not that infantile ? Okay, yes, it probably is). It may take decades, but the destruction of Islamo-fascism is vital to the future of a world in which secularism, equal rights of men and women and the rule of law, is possible.

Joe

Loudmouth,
You're jumping to conclusions, the Police who arrested Freddie Gray were wearing body cameras and by all accounts the arrest was legal, Gray was placed in the van with several other negro male criminals and driven to the station where he was found to be injured and taken to hospital, he died a week later. The most likely scenario is that Gray was kicked, stomped or otherwise injured by rival drug dealers or rival gang members while in the van, it's not even a death in custody, it's just a death. Wait for the Police to be cleared of charges in this case.
The media treatment of legal police shootings of criminals in the U.S is not truthful or honest, the media treatment of the National Socialist regime in 1945 and beyond was not truthful or honest either so why do you assume that the media treatment of Islamic State is honest or truthful?

Jay,

Do you think that the videos released by ISIS are fakes?
Are the postings on Facebook etc., fakes?

Jay said to Suseonline: people like Suse just ignore the accounts of what American Indians and Australian Aborigines were actually like, how habitually violent, unpredictable and wantonly destructive they were.

Both the American Indians and Aborigines were fighting to defend their nations/lands from being taken by invaders. Are you saying the whites who conquered these people were not habitually violent, unpredictable and wantonly destructive? Ever read anything about General Custer?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth), and Is Mise,

I am just looking for some answers to these complex issues.

And, talking about these issues does not equal condoning
or supporting them.

There's also another question that shouold be
asked - what is the best way to stop Isis?

Taken from another link - we're told that -
Western boots on the ground haven't worked in Iraq
or Afghanistan and sending them back into the region
not only, (according to the experts) won't succeed -
it will give Isis even more opportunities to take
prisoners and of course valuable equipment. The website points out -
"dealing with evil can only be stopped in the
neighbourhood by its neighbours."

I watched "Four Corners" on Monday evening which showed
what the Kurdish fighters were achieving in the region.

One suggestion for the West - which made sense to me,
was to arm the Kurds with
everything they need. The weapons they are currently
using are old and out of date.

Jay Of Melbourne,

It is alleged that Freddie Grey's fate was linked to neck and spinal surgery he had as a result of a car accident one week prior. Apparently, he was negotiating for a large on payment insurance settlement, so the paper trail should be available.

That being so, one wonders about his own contribution to his demise through his risky behaviour. The police arresting police would not have been aware of his surgery.

The lesson to be taken away from this incident and its shocking lawless aftermath is that the Australian government should pay heed and be very careful to assess and manage the risks inherent in its own large scale immigration and multicultural policy.

The Australian public is NOT confident that federal governments present and past have given due regard to what the public wants, which is a reduction in immigration and preference to migrants with suitable needed skills who can and will integrate well.

Conservative Hippie,

".... the accounts of what American Indians and Australian Aborigines were actually like, how habitually violent, unpredictable and wantonly destructive they were.'

Which is true and happened before the contact with Europeans,
there are accounts from First Fleet members of aboriginal women appearing in the settlement with their hair matted with blood from the beatings that they had received from their men.
The American Indians had a pre-contact history of savage warfare, the torture and murder of prisoners; they didn't suddenly change because they were fighting Europeans.
Our own Torres Strait Islanders murdered strangers as a matter of course and regarded Mainlanders as animals to be killed and if taken alive were used in ritual sacrifice.

Then there was cannibalism which was going well in Australia pre-contact, it was not something learned from Europeans.

A prominent long-term appeaser has just come to his senses and published a deep apology to all those around the world who have been warning about Islam for years:

Appeaser repents
http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2015/04/mike-dobbins-gives-public-apology-to.html

"Good" and "bad" appeasement are analysed at the following URL:
http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2015/01/18/good-appeasement-and-bad-appeasement/

Both are links to some common-sense wisdom it would be worth persistent appeasers studying (Betcha they won't engage with either to show them wrong).

I admit I do not know much about pre-European Aboriginal culture. I also admit that some Indian tribes were renowned for their violence against other tribes. However there were many Indian nations on the American continent and not all were savagely violent.

Some of the plains Indians had inter-tribal agreements that when they went to war it was almost our equivalent of sport. The opposing sides would ride into battle on horse back with the aim of slapping the back of their opponents heads; if contacted, you were out. Somehow they had a way of determining the winning side, without serious injury and then were able to negotiate the settlement or grievance. When these same Indians first encountered American cavalry they were easy targets for pistols and swords. They had no idea the cavalry was going to kill them, though I believe they caught on very fast.

Look at the way a handful of Spanish were able to easily conquer the highly civilized yet extremely violent Aztecs through deceit, violence and accidental germ warfare. During the 1800's many of the American Indians were wiped out with purposeful germ warfare by distributing small pox laden blankets.

Mankind has been violent from the beginning. Our whole Western way of life is founded on the success of the very brutal Roman Empire. Saying the American Indians and Aboriginals were violent before the whites arrived isn't justification for the excessive genocide they both suffered at the hands of the whites.

ConservativeHippie, "Saying the American Indians and Aboriginals were violent before the whites arrived isn't justification for the excessive genocide they both suffered at the hands of the whites"

Black armband is the dominant narrative in Australia. Aboriginal genocide, stolen children etc., are 'facts' promoted by the taxpayer-funded ($1,3 billion pa) 'fact-checking' ABC and 'facts' taught from Kindy on. What about that 'Rabbit Proof Fence! It did exist, didn't it? Maybe not.


Where is the compelling evidence for it though, not unreliable anecdotes, or speculation from historians fuelled by government grants?

Dear CH,

Have you read the book, "Bury My Heart
At Wounded Knee," by Dee Brown?
I think that you might find it interesting -
if you haven't read it.
Your local library should be able to get hold
of a copy for you (published in 1970). It's a frank
and heartbreaking account of the Indian history of
the American West.

BTW: My husband and I worked and lived in the US
for ten years (our children
we born there). A colleague recommended the book to me
while I was working at USC (University of Southern
California) in Los Angeles.

Also, have you read any books by Australian
historian Henry Reynolds? I especially enjoyed his -
"Why Weren't We Told?" which is a personal search by
Reynolds for the truth about our history. It's a fine
and engaging memoir - and I think it is crucial reading
on a very important debate in Australia in the
twenty-first century.

Conservative Hippie,
Europeans are good at war, they typically get about a hundred to one kill ratio in battle, the usual reason the Indians were attacked was in retaliation for attacks on defenceless settlers. As for the diseases we've been over this so many times, tuberculosis, syphilis, herpes, the common cold, malaria etc all existed in North America before european contact and the myth of the blankets has no basis in fact, small pox is spread via contact with infected people, through bodily fluids, sneezing etc. If the myth was that Typhus or Bubonic plague had bee spread via trade in cloth goods then It'd be worth investigating but the small pox 'germ warfare" story is a lie, plus the settlers at that time had no knowledge of how viruses and other pathogens worked, they used to hang people as witches for supposedly causing outbreaks didn't they?
There's no evidence that epidemics had a higher mortality rate among new worlders than in old worlders and the Indians were no more or less susceptible to the diseases than Europeans.

IS Mise,
I've never seen a video of ISIS soldiers raping women or parading female slaves for the cameras, I've seen pictures and film of them executing enemy soldiers, thieves,rapists, defectors etc. The stories of mass rape, slavery and so forth are hearsay at this point, on balance of probability there's bound to be some truth to them, we're dealing with Islam after all.

Re Freddie Gray, Baltimore etc, this documentary by liberal film maker Nick Broomfield gives an insight into the world of the American Negro and gives us an idea of what Police have to face on the streets of majority Black suburbs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ql8_c1laJQ
These people will protect and even assist a violent rapist and serial killer for 30 years as he picks off their friends, drug buddies etc then defend him in public when by a fluke he's caught, it's only in one on one conversations that the truth of the matter comes out.

Dee Brown's book is interesting and generally fair comment to motivate students to look more closely at the 'history' of airline newsagent paperbacks and cowboy movies.

However it is a false comparison, rhetorical trickery, a fallacy, to claim that a parallel existed with indigenous treatment in Australia.

Fox,
Are you aware at all of the posts by Joe (Loudmouth) and his site, www.firstsources.info ? See here,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17273&page=0#305023

He has been transcribing government records from the time. You might learn from him as many others including myself have done

Conservative Hippie,

"The opposing sides would ride into battle on horse back with the aim of slapping the back of their opponents heads; if contacted, you were out"

That's post-contact, the American Indians didn't have any horses till well after the Spaniards brought them in.
The stories about the Indians thinking that the cavalry would just play a game are just stories and big ones at that.
Such fairy stories are demeaning to the Indian and underrate their intelligence.

love the way many judge history ignoring the fact that our people now are far more corrupt and immoral than those they are judging.

OTB,
I've read "Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee" by Dee Brown cover to cover maybe three times, I don't think he mentions Indian massacres of Whites at all, or if he does it's in passing. The Wounded Knee incident was a battle which broke out in an Indian village after federal troops were fired upon and in which non combatants were killed, the battle of the Little Bighorn was a massacre, Custer was outnumbered four to one and his men were butchered and mutilated after being over run.
Dee Brown's work is biased toward the White Liberal narrative and it ignores the violence of the plains tribes toward settlers and the other tribes whose territories abutted theirs.

Is Jay of Melbourne the self appointed authority on selected atrocities? I know he is a holocaust denier and now he gives us this idiotic statement - "There's no evidence that epidemics had a higher mortality rate among new worlders than in old worlders and the Indians were no more or less susceptible to the diseases than European." Millions of previously healthy people dying within a few years of first contact isn't enough evidence... what do you want?

So in other words the fact that within a couple of years of first contact in the most of the Aztecs, Incas, and other unknown tribes had virtually died off had nothing to do with exposure to newly introduced diseases. Most of the California Indians were killed off by small pox before the settlers arrived. Another coincidence that the Indians had nothing to do with receiving a widespread distribution of blankets before the die off started.

Foxy - I had read Wounded Knee; its disturbing and beautiful.

I'm dropping off this topic after this post; history is written by the winners and its seems many here are not open minded enough to entertain the possibility the survivor's historical account of the events has any validity. There's really no point to continue the discussion which is way off topic anyway (my fault for mentioning it in the first place).

IS Mise, the liberal narrative robs brown skinned people of all agency, it can't work if Indians and Aborigines are accorded the normal intellectual attributes and motivations of a fully realised person.
I've read extensively on the subject and it's clear that the plains Indian ruling castes didn't give a damn about their subjects, that the "braves" were a corrupt elite who were only out to get what they could for themselves and that their actions in large part precipitated the crackdown on Indians after the war between the states.
The U.S didn't steal Indian land they bought it and the chiefs embezzled and mismanaged their way into racial and societal ruin, see the "Trail Of Tears", SOME Indians were relocated after 1830, ie the ones who'd been sold out by their brethren who stayed on their ancestral lands in comfort.

Dear CH,

I've also decided to leave this discussion.

It is now possible to explore the past - by
means of archival records,
large numbers of books, articles, and many, many,
primary sources.

Today we can know a great deal about the history
of Indigenous-Settler relations world-wide.
But as historians
have pointed out - knowing brings burdens
which can be shirked by those living in ignorance.

Thank You for having raised the issues.
And, I look forward to
further discussions with you in the future.

Take care.

Dearest Foxy,

I'll have to come back to your comments about Aboriginal history :)

I missed Four Corners but 60 Minutes had an inspiring program on the Kurdish Women's Militia, the YPJ - how could it not be inspiring ? - and my faith in the Left, in humanity, was restored ! Not necessarily the pusillanimous 'Left' here but most certainly in those wonderful women fighting for us all in Kurdistan. They all know that would happen, what does happen, if one of them is captured, but they keep going. Just amazing ! We can certainly learn from them and maybe, one day, we will have to.

It would be so much easier for every one of them to migrate and sit in cafes and prattle about gay marriage and paleo diets, but they have more important battles to fight. They're holding the line against Islamo-fascism, in a very long war. I hope with all my heart that they win it, and that Kurdistan will one day be a free, independent country of thirty million proud people, building a secular society based on equality for all and the rule of law.

Love always,

Joe

Jay Of Melbourne,

The movie of the book should have come out before the paperback edition. To set the tone as more idealistic and motivational than historically correct. I accept your criticisms as likely having validity though.

Jay,

"Little Bighorn was a massacre, Custer was outnumbered four to one and his men were butchered and mutilated after being over run."

It wasn't a massacre because the fight was between two groups of armed fighters, that the US soldiers were out numbered didn't make it a massacre.
Had that idiot Custer brought his Gatling guns with him, and if he had not split his force then the battle would probably have gone his way and if the service carbines of his troops had been well designed the firepower of the troops would have been more sustained and more Indians would have died.
The dead soldiers were mutilated, their stomachs were cut open to release their spirits, a kindness that the Indians did to brave foes, likewise their scalps were taken as worthy trophies.

George Armstrong Custer was not mutilated because the Indians didn't want to do him any favours and he was not scalped because his hair was not considered a worthy trophy nor was coup counted upon his body.

The Indians held him in utter contempt.

runner,

"love the way many judge history ignoring the fact that our people now are far more corrupt and immoral than those they are judging."

Care to back that up with examples?

From my own family history, I can drag up the conditions of my peasant ancestors in Dorset, England.

The people were so poor that they usually only had one set of clothing and both men and women would work naked in the fields and run and hide when a stranger appeared on the roads.
My ancestral village, Stourpaine, was such a pit of misery that it featured in the London Illustrated News in 1846 an an example of the degradation to which the peasants of Dorset were reduced.

In fact when famine hit Ireland, those Irish who were fortunate enough to be able to get to England would not go into Dorset as the conditions were worse there than those they had left.

Had people in general in those times been better than those of today then there might have been a bit less suffering in Dorset and adjoining counties.

Conservative Hippie,
According to Martin and Goodman in The Western Journal Of Medicine (issue 176 2002) the mortality rate for the 17th century epidemics in California and New Mexico was as high as 25%, the mortality rate for smallpox generally is about 30%. With the exception of some nomadic tribes Pre Columbian Amerindian health was in general very poor and had gone into serious decline in the 1000 years before contact with Europe so the arrival of admittedly lethal diseases from other parts of the world was a disaster for people with weak immune systems and chronic health problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/29/science/don-t-blame-columbus-for-all-the-indians-ills.html?pagewanted=2
The story about the infected blankets has been propagated by Ward Churchill and other left wing activists, serious historians give it no creedence and Churchill is can we say, a disgraced academic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
The introduction of smallpox to the plains tribes such as the Mandan and Blackfoot was a tragic accident and the men in charge of Fort Clark and the riverboats on the Missouri tried their best to arrest the epidemic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1837_Great_Plains_smallpox_epidemic
There was no "genocide", there has never been and never will be any such thing as a genocide and there's no such thing as a "White Mans' disease". Syphilis came to Europe from the Americas via returing sailors, is syphils an Amerindian disease? Smallpox originated in Africa and was introduced to europe by Invading Arab armies, so why is it a "White man's disease"?

Jo
Great post Jo it makes more sense than many of the others do. I also think that the Kurds are inspirational. As for the Australian doctor who has joined Isis he is best described as a foolish victim of a host of fallacies. As a Danish cartoon depicted there can’t be enough virgins left to supply the demand.

Perhaps the good doctor in his defence could quot the Hippocratic Oath.

Hi SILLER,

Yes, I suppose lechers like this bloke are hoping that Allah will be merciful and give him his allotted seventy two renewables.

I've never understood that, if it's men who have the urges and cravings and needs yada yada, then why is it women who have to hide themselves ? Why is total male domination always assumed, like it's unchangeable, and it's women who have to work around it ? Why not devise some religious rule where the blokes get either snipped, or put on some sort of sedative ? Why should women suffer for the afflictions of men ?

On the other hand, why don't men in Muslim societies make the effort to control themselves ? It seems to work more or less okay in Western societies ? Yes, it might require that women are recognised as equals, that they can walk the streets in relative safety like in Western countries [ex-feminists, get stuck in].

Hopefully individual Muslims will read some of the Koran and realise that most of the stuff they have been fed by self-styled imams etc. is complete rubbish. But that's up to them to find out, if they dare.

Joe

Loudmouth is absolutely right, but I think his last paragraph should not be aimed just at Moslems. Since our governments have imported and are nurturing a Fifth Column, it is those whom Islam intends to enslave (i.e. us) who should read and take on board the prescriptions in its holy books and bring pressure to bear on governments to revise drastically their policies of appeasement, especially in the context of immigration and multiculturalism. It's the dhimmis among the Kafirs who most need educating. A reading of Mein Kampf would have generated a more realistic attitude and government policy in the 1930s without Mr Churchill having to run himself ragged talking alone to deaf ears.

Hi Jules,

Yes, you're right: everybody should read the Koran, or at least dip into it at random. This is a good place to start:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/

For balance, readers should dip into the bible as well, and maybe compare the two on similar themes - for example, charity towards 'others', i.e. non-believers; the status and role of women; the place of love and forgiveness, and alternatively, killing and vengeance.

Joe