I asked this question in a different thread, but didn't get any traction.

Perhaps it was in the wrong discussion, or I phrased it wrong. Its a shame because I think its a genuinely useful thing to discuss - just as a general principle.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war.

There is no doubt that many people who profess to stand up for modern western principles of human rights also believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were justified - and that the two beliefs are not incompatible.

I am interested in people's thoughts in terms of the general principle - namely can you  support the deliberate mass slaughter of innocents (some might call it 'atrocities') and still profess to stand up for modern western principles of human rights? This is not an issue of whether you think they are "right" or "wrong" - but whether you accept that someone can be sincere in the belief in the two, and sincere in the belief that the two are compatible.

Time, space.....context is everything Gandalf.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 11:11am:

Time, space.....context is everything Gandalf.

Ok then, let me put it this way: if someone came up to you and said they believed the deliberate mass slaughter of 10s of thousands of innocent women and children at Hiroshima (they probably wouldn't phrase it that way, but it is what it is) was justified (for whatever reason) - *AND* that they also believed in western notions of human rights - would you accept their sincerity?

your question covers both camps

the libs support atrocities, the left support human rights

:D :D

I wouldn't say I believe they were justified, but I am open to the pragmatic argument that it was the best option available.

Shouldn't we have definitions, of those terms ?

'Atrocities', and 'human rights' ?


Because, what is to one group of men, an awful atrocity,           is to another group of men, a lawful action, in merely seeking to protect the status quo [of their own group].



.



SCENARIO;
If someone [anyone!] tried to murder me, would i kill ['murder'] him, especially to prevent him from killing me ?

Yes, i would kill him.

And i would be justified [imo].




BELOW;
We have two examples of lawful justifications for 'murder'.

Which example of reasoning for a 'just killing' of another, would you support ?

Neither ?




.




ISLAMIC LAW....

"Ibn 'Umar related that the Messenger of Allah, upon whom be peace, said, "I have been ordered to kill the people until they testify that there is no god except Allah, and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer and pay the zakah. If they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me save by the rights of Islam. Their reckoning will be with Allah." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim.) "
fiqhussunnah/fus1_06





.




Natural Law....


Quote:

"16.  The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.  17.  And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e.  make me a slave..." Of the State of War

John Locke (1632-1704)




.




Men will always be in conflict,         because every man holds [recognises] different 'justifications' for the murder of another person, to be valid [for his particular conscience].

e.g.

By moslem law [Sharia] and cultural tenets, every infidel [who rejects ISLAM] is committing a serious crime [which is worthy of death].

But by Western notions of justice and truth,      it is ISLAM and those who follow its teachings, and who seek to spread it, who are guilty of the intent to commit serious crimes,    against their fellow man [because he rejects ISLAM].


The moslem notion of right and wrong;
ISLAM and ISLAMIC law is correct, and all Western [manmade] laws are corrupt.


The Western citizens notion [perhaps] of right and wrong;
All men ought to be treated equally under/before the laws of the land [and those who break our laws need to be censured and punished].


Result;
There will always be conflict, between differing groups of men, because they have each chosen to follow/embrace a differing philosophy [concerning what the laws of men ought to be, and what those laws ought to require].


Is it an atrocity, to destroy those [a society of men and women, and children] who are seeking your destruction ?

It depends on objectives and intentions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about showing off to the Soviets, not the Japanese. I doubt everybody in the US forces knew this plan at the time, so there were clearly competing objectives.

More recently, the invasion of Iraq was about oil security and establishing a US foothold in the Middle East. It had nothing to do with Freeeeeedom and democracy. I'd say everybody knew this at the fighting, if not the operational, level. If you've ever read Jarhead (about the first Gulf War), the Marines knew what a crock it all was. 19 year old Soldiers aren't as dumb as everyone thinks they are.

D Day was about liberating Western Europe. Sure, there was some urgency as the Soviets were coming in from the east, but the intentions were sincere. This was a just invasion, as was the allied campaign in the Pacific.

If you want a basis for ethics, the Kantian one is still good. Look at the intention of the action. Discover the motives. I doubt this approach will ever go out of style, given it was also articulated by the Buddha, Jesus, and if I'm not mistaken, Muhammed.

It depends on objectives and intentions. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were about showing off to the Soviets By Ms Knowledge.


You obviously weren't  one of the people  getting ready to storm Japanese beaches.

Quote:

It had nothing to do with Freeeeeedom and democracy.

Did they not intend to set up a democracy?

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 12:47pm:

I wouldn't say I believe they were justified, but I am open to the pragmatic argument that it was the best option available.

At that time, it was indeed the best option available under the circumstances.

I can see why it got no traction.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 5:40pm:

Quote: It had nothing to do with Freeeeeedom and democracy. Did they not intend to set up a democracy?

Actually no.

If you look at the way the Bremer regime started off, it becomes very clear that the original intention was to set up a sham of a democracy and parachute their exiled stooges in to run the government. It was only after the shiites came out on the streets in their hundreds of thousands that the Americans finally started to reconsider their original plan.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 11:05am:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war.

Dear Jesus, you've got it wrong right from the very start.

It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people.

Same with Dresden.

Killing any number of civilians would not have had any bearing on persuading these military dictatorships to surrender unconditionally.Tojo's mob couldn't give a rat's arse about civilian casualties.

If the allies could have personally escorted the citizens away from the drop-zones, they would have.

Please stop inventing fanciful scenarios, gandalf.

Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil.


link

link

Quote:

If you look at the way the Bremer regime started off

Do you need to look at it a special way Gandalf? Is this like my skills at saying things without actually saying them?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil.

You do realise that Hideki Tojo had been dismissed as Prime Minister of Japan on July 22, 1944, don't you, Herbie?   ::)

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 5:40pm:

Quote: It had nothing to do with Freeeeeedom and democracy. Did they not intend to set up a democracy?

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 11:05am: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war. Dear Jesus, you've got it wrong right from the very start. It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people. Same with Dresden. Killing any number of civilians would not have had any bearing on persuading these military dictatorships to surrender unconditionally.Tojo's mob couldn't give a rat's arse about civilian casualties. If the allies could have personally escorted the citizens away from the drop-zones, they would have. Please stop inventing fanciful scenarios, gandalf. Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil. link link

The cities, was it? They originally wanted to blow up Fukuoka.

Enola Gay ran out of fuel, so they settled on Nagasaki.

Whoops.

freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

Quote: If you look at the way the Bremer regime started off Do you need to look at it a special way Gandalf? Is this like my skills at saying things without actually saying them?

I
Karnal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 9:26pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 6:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 11:05am: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war. Dear Jesus, you've got it wrong right from the very start. It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people. Same with Dresden. Killing any number of civilians would not have had any bearing on persuading these military dictatorships to surrender unconditionally.Tojo's mob couldn't give a rat's arse about civilian casualties. If the allies could have personally escorted the citizens away from the drop-zones, they would have. Please stop inventing fanciful scenarios, gandalf. Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil. link link The cities, was it? They originally wanted to blow up Fukuoka. Enola Gay ran out of fuel, so they settled on Nagasaki. Whoops.

I thought the primary target was concealed by cloud.  There should be no doubt that cities were deliberately targeted and that there was a list of target cities. 

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 6:44pm:

It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people.

;D ;D

Quote of the year.

The Japanese didn't want to surrender. It took 2 bombs and they still weren't going to surrender. These are the figures from the  last 2 islands the Americans attacked (Okinawa and Iwo Jima)-

Okinawa-The Americans paid a large price for Okinawa: 12,000 Allied dead and another 38,000 wounded.  But the Japanese lost more than 100,000 men.150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide with many casualties.

Iwo Jima-  Almost 7000 Americans were killed; another 18,000 were wounded. But the Japanese casualties were horrific.  Only 200 of the 21,000 soldiers deployed survived to be taken prisoner.

Now if the allies invaded mainland Japan imagine the casualties. Imagine if the war dragged on and Russia got involved. Consider the continuation of the aerial bombing campaign over japan and  the further casualties?? MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE!!!!! You demented leftards need to pull your heads out of your assholes and think this through!

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 8:56am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 6:44pm: It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people. ;D ;D Quote of the year.

I can smell the fear, gandalf ... which means I've got you on the run. Just wait 'til Maria gets back from her latté-and-lamingtons at her local North Shore shopping mall. She'll have you for supper on this subject. She's appeared out of the blue as your worst nightmare. You can run but you can't hide from her sharp claws, gandalf.    

Meeanwhile ... Ever heard of 'collateral damage'?

Since Time Immemorial collateral damage has been an integral part of war.

It was only in the Iraq war that we first witnessed ground troops being under orders from Washington to cherry-pick their targets with house-to-house fighting so as to minimise 'collateral damage' and its subsequent political fallout.

Hence 3000 US soldiers lost their lives in very quick succession which otherwise would not have happened if they had been allowed to take out targets from a distance, using cannon and mortar fire as was the case in Vietnam and WWII.

double plus good wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

The Japanese didn't want to surrender.

Correct.

The Nipponese military brass wanted Japan to go down fighting, no matter what.

Civilians, towns, cities ... all were to be sacrificed in the interest of preserving the Bushido code of honour that the Japanese prized so highly.

gandalf doesn't understand these subtle nuances of an ancient culture any more than he understands or admits to the subtle nuances of Islamic doctrine that allows for, and sanctions, the barbarities committed by ISIS and others.   

It was just one solitary person who saved Japan from total annihilation ... the Divine Emperor Hirohito (pbuh).

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 9:29pm:

I Karnal wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:26pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 6:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 11:05am: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war. Dear Jesus, you've got it wrong right from the very start. It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people. Same with Dresden. Killing any number of civilians would not have had any bearing on persuading these military dictatorships to surrender unconditionally.Tojo's mob couldn't give a rat's arse about civilian casualties. If the allies could have personally escorted the citizens away from the drop-zones, they would have. Please stop inventing fanciful scenarios, gandalf. Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil. link link The cities, was it? They originally wanted to blow up Fukuoka. Enola Gay ran out of fuel, so they settled on Nagasaki. Whoops. I thought the primary target was concealed by cloud.  There should be no doubt that cities were deliberately targeted and that there was a list of target cities.

They hit the wrong city. Nagasaki did not have heavy industry. All it had was lots of people. There was no military rationale to take it out whatsoever.

Karnal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:29pm: I Karnal wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:26pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 6:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 11:05am: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war. Dear Jesus, you've got it wrong right from the very start. It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people. Same with Dresden. Killing any number of civilians would not have had any bearing on persuading these military dictatorships to surrender unconditionally.Tojo's mob couldn't give a rat's arse about civilian casualties. If the allies could have personally escorted the citizens away from the drop-zones, they would have. Please stop inventing fanciful scenarios, gandalf. Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil. link link The cities, was it? They originally wanted to blow up Fukuoka. Enola Gay ran out of fuel, so they settled on Nagasaki. Whoops. I thought the primary target was concealed by cloud.  There should be no doubt that cities were deliberately targeted and that there was a list of target cities.  They hit the wrong city. Nagasaki did not have heavy industry. All it had was lots of people. There was no military rationale to take it out whatsoever.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

NEXT!!!!

double plus good wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 9:18am:

The Japanese didn't want to surrender. It took 2 bombs and they still weren't going to surrender.

True. There was no reason for them to surrender to the US, who had not even set foot on Japanese soil.

However, they did surrender. Why?

Russia announced they would join the war against Japan. Two days later, the Japanese surrendered. The last thing they wanted was an invasion from the north with the newly victorious Soviets.

If the "allies" had been united rather than scrapping over Europe, there would have been no reason to destroy two Japanese cities.

The reason the US did, however, was all about Europe and the new Cold War against the USSR.

double plus good wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:32pm: Secret Wars wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:29pm: I Karnal wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 9:26pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 6:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14th, 2015 at 11:05am: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are relevant episodes here: tens of thousands of innocent men women and children were deliberately targeted and killed in order to bring about the end to a war. Dear Jesus, you've got it wrong right from the very start. It was the cities that were targetted for total destruction - not the people. Same with Dresden. Killing any number of civilians would not have had any bearing on persuading these military dictatorships to surrender unconditionally.Tojo's mob couldn't give a rat's arse about civilian casualties. If the allies could have personally escorted the citizens away from the drop-zones, they would have. Please stop inventing fanciful scenarios, gandalf. Tojo had already announced that the Japanese people would fight to the last soldier and civilian if the allies made landfall on Japanese soil. link link The cities, was it? They originally wanted to blow up Fukuoka. Enola Gay ran out of fuel, so they settled on Nagasaki. Whoops. I thought the primary target was concealed by cloud.  There should be no doubt that cities were deliberately targeted and that there was a list of target cities.  They hit the wrong city. Nagasaki did not have heavy industry. All it had was lots of people. There was no military rationale to take it out whatsoever. The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. NEXT!!!!

Not at the time. Next.

Another reason they hit Nagasaki rather than the intended target Fukuoka was the Jap fighters on Enola Gay’s tail.

Imagine: that blast could well have taken place in the air.

Karnal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

They hit the wrong city. Nagasaki did not have heavy industry. All it had was lots of people. There was no military rationale to take it out whatsoever.

;D ;D

Quote of next year.

Own goal, Bucko.

Hirohito got 'the message'

Nagasaki worked a treat.

With the help of The Bomb - he cut the war short.

For Karnal Knowledge- wikipedia.

Modern history[edit]
With the Meiji Restoration, Japan opened its doors once again to foreign trade and diplomatic relations. Nagasaki became a free port in 1859 and modernization began in earnest in 1868. Nagasaki was officially proclaimed a city on April 1, 1889. With Christianity legalized and the Kakure Kirishitan coming out of hiding, Nagasaki regained its earlier role as a center for Roman Catholicism in Japan.[citation needed]

During the Meiji period, Nagasaki became a center of heavy industry. Its main industry was ship-building, with the dockyards under control of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries becoming one of the prime contractors for the Imperial Japanese Navy, and with Nagasaki harbor used as an anchorage under the control of nearby Sasebo Naval District. During World War II, at the time of the nuclear attack on August 9, 1945, Nagasaki was an important industrial city, containing both plants of the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, the Akunoura Engine Works, Mitsubishi Arms Plant, Mitsubishi Electric Shipyards, Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works, Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works, several other small factories, and most of the ports storage and trans-shipment facilities, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry. These connections with the Japanese war effort made Nagasaki a major target for bombing by the Allies during the war.

NEXT!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

double plus good wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

For Karnal Knowledge- wikipedia. NEXT!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Look, let's help karnal, gandalf and the others stop tap-dancing around what they really mean to say on this issue.

To wit: Right or wrong - screw the Capitalist Yanks and their Imperial British allies.

See?

Your keyboard won't blow up, guys. Try it yourselves.

Here ... "bugger the Capitalist Yankee pigs and their Imperialist British allies!"

Go on, have a go.

You'll find it cathartic. Better than acupuncture.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

double plus good wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:50pm: For Karnal Knowledge- wikipedia. NEXT!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Look, let's help karnal, gandalf and the others stop tap-dancing around what they really mean to say on this issue. To wit: Right or wrong - screw the Capitalist Yanks and their Imperial British allies. See? Your keyboard won't blow up, guys. Try it yourselves. Here ... "bugger the Capitalist Yankee pigs and their Imperialist British allies!" Go on, have a go.

I can't handle reading their misguided rubbish Herbert. The more these people perpetuate this rubbish the more it becomes fact and that bugs me.. It's funny how they don't mention the 20 million Chinese the Japanese murdered and the millions of other Asians murdered.  F ark Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

double plus good wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:50pm: For Karnal Knowledge- wikipedia. NEXT!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Look, let's help karnal, gandalf and the others stop tap-dancing around what they really mean to say on this issue. To wit: Right or wrong - screw the Capitalist Yanks and their Imperial British allies. See? Your keyboard won't blow up, guys. Try it yourselves. Here ... "bugger the Capitalist Yankee pigs and their Imperialist British allies!" Go on, have a go. You'll find it cathartic. Better than acupuncture.

I believe Gandalf was seeking a moral equivalence for Muhammed murdering 800 innocent Jews in one day. He has a long list of excuses, including that there was an ongoing war and an imminent threat. There wasn't of course, but he cycles through his excuses as rapidly as possible in the hope no-one notices.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:

double plus good wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:18am: The Japanese didn't want to surrender. Correct. The Nipponese military brass wanted Japan to go down fighting, no matter what. Civilians, towns, cities ... all were to be sacrificed in the interest of preserving the Bushido code of honour that the Japanese prized so highly. gandalf doesn't understand these subtle nuances of an ancient culture any more than he understands or admits to the subtle nuances of Islamic doctrine that allows for, and sanctions, the barbarities committed by ISIS and others.    It was just one solitary person who saved Japan from total annihilation ... the Divine Emperor Hirohito (pbuh).

Hang on, I thought Japan did surrender. Maybe I missed something here.

Bushido was not ancient, any more than Mussolini’s fascism or Hitler’s Nazism was ancient. Bushido was invented in the 1920s. Its references to Samurai culture were misleading. Samurais fought for warlords, not an emperor, which was only established in Japan in 1868. The fascist symbolism of Bushido Japan - military/imperial rule, the emperor as god, etc - was totally new. Japan had had more experience with parliamentary rule under the Meiji constitution than it ever had with Bushido militarism during Tojo’s time.

Japan reformed using a Western political Model in the late 19th century. It has the oldest parliamentary government in Asia. It was one of the earliest countries in the world to industrialize.

Japan’s trajectory towards military expansion is part of this modernisation, not some ancient, stubborn form of tribalism. Germany did the same in Europe, and Britain and the US had been doing the same in South Asia and the Americas for more than a century. The Soviets did just that when the war was over.

Militarism is a process of economic development. It has nothing to do with culture, ancient or otherwise. The next land and sea grab will be China’s.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:32pm: They hit the wrong city. Nagasaki did not have heavy industry. All it had was lots of people. There was no military rationale to take it out whatsoever. ;D ;D Quote of next year. Own goal, Bucko. Hirohito got 'the message' Nagasaki worked a treat.

This is just Amerikan self- justification. Hirohito got the message from the Soviets, who had just declared war. The whitewashing of the Russian contribution to the war effort - and their military/economic ascendency after the war - is Cold War propaganda.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:59pm:

double plus good wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:50pm: For Karnal Knowledge- wikipedia. NEXT!!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Look, let's help karnal, gandalf and the others stop tap-dancing around what they really mean to say on this issue. To wit: Right or wrong - screw the Capitalist Yanks and their Imperial British allies. See? Your keyboard won't blow up, guys. Try it yourselves. Here ... "bugger the Capitalist Yankee pigs and their Imperialist British allies!" Go on, have a go. You'll find it cathartic. Better than acupuncture.

If only history was this easy. It’s tempting, I admit, but such black and white viewpoints only get in the way.

The capitalist Yankee pigs defended Australia during the war - at a time when you Imperialists were long gone. After the war, the capitalist pigs kept Australia as a spy arm, and in return, left us largely to our own devices - unlike much of the Pacific and South East Asia.

With a few exceptions, we don’t have a lot to hate Uncle for, unlike Indochine and most of Latin America and the Middle East. In the geopolitical game, Australia has positioned itself smartly. We never flirted with the USSR like Indonesia, and as such we never suffered the inevitable payback (mass killings, CIA-backed torture cells and a one-party state). Uncle has been.nice.

But make no mistake, Uncle’s days are numbered. Australia needs to play the game under the new rules. It just needs to learn what those rules are.

The more you try to rationalise - the deeper the hole you dig for yourself.

With her razor-sharp intellect and her Take No Prisoners combat zone philosophy you and gandalf are in for a rough ride over the next few days, courtesy of newcomer 'Maria'.

You two might think of taking time off from here by going on a surfing holiday to Lennox Head in northern NSW ..... I hear the weather's nice up there this time of year.

8-)

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 1:48pm:

The more you try to rationalise - the deeper the hole you dig for yourself. With her razor-sharp intellect and her Take No Prisoners combat zone philosophy you and gandalf are in for a rough ride over the next few days, courtesy of newcomer 'Maria'. You two might think of taking time off from here by going on a surfing holiday to Lennox Head in northern NSW ..... I hear the weather's nice up there this time of year. 8-)

But I’m on Maria’s side, Herbie. I love him!

Her!

Sorry for the attempt to rationalize though. You’re right. This is unfair.

Karnal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

But I’m on Maria’s side, Herbie. I love him! Her! Sorry for the attempt to rationalize though. You’re right. This is unfair.

If I bombed your house it wouldn't be YOU I was targeting for extermination. I would drop millions of leaflets onto your property a full three days before releasing The Final Solution.

Ultimately though I would have to bomb your house in order to save it.

(source: Vietnam, circa 1969)  :P

Karnal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 1:50pm:

But I’m on Maria’s side, Herbie. I love him! Her!

There's only one person I ever read on internet forums who could write incisively like her --- a guy by the name of 'The Fourth Estate' - lived in Indianapolis, was a freelance print media columnist.

Karnal wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

double plus good wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:18am: The Japanese didn't want to surrender. It took 2 bombs and they still weren't going to surrender. The reason the US did, however, was all about Europe and the new Cold War against the USSR.

All about?  Does that mean only about?

With a little flexibility of thought (you mention black and white over the page) you might understand there was more than one reason, not just all about Europe and a warning against Russia. 

To shorten the war and save American lives, to force the political imperative for an unconditional surrender and to test the weapon.  I would guess that the desire to save American lives and to signal Stalin would have equal weighting. 

It was not at all clear and obvious to the US that the Japanese were poised to surrender (especially with the Emperors head on a block) but preparing for a suicidal defence using all resources and mobilising the entire population to defend or die for the home islands. 

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 3:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 12:42pm: double plus good wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 9:18am: The Japanese didn't want to surrender. It took 2 bombs and they still weren't going to surrender. The reason the US did, however, was all about Europe and the new Cold War against the USSR. All about?  Does that mean only about? With a little flexibility of thought (you mention black and white over the page) you might understand there was more than one reason, not just all about Europe and a warning against Russia.  To shorten the war and save American lives, to force the political imperative for an unconditional surrender and to test the weapon.  I would guess that the desire to save American lives and to signal Stalin would have equal weighting.  It was not at all clear and obvious to the US that the Japanese were poised to surrender (especially with the Emperors head on a block) but preparing for a suicidal defence using all resources and mobilising the entire population to defend or die for the home islands.

You're right. It wasn't "all about".

Modern states are conflicted beasts. There are always a host of competing motives. After the war, the US spent millions in a competition over who would take control of the A bomb: the Navy or the Air Force.

The Air Force won for two reasons: scientific and PR. On the scientific front, navy personel were exposed to high levels of radiation. The sea around Bikini Atol was off limits for years.

On the PR front, the air bomb looked more impressive: the distinctive mushroom cloud we've come to know and love. This alone was a compelling reason to hand the bomb over to the air force, before it was later administered by the Atomic Energy Commission. The US navy and air force were engaged in a systematic propaganda war for many years.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

I believe Gandalf was seeking a moral equivalence for Muhammed murdering 800 innocent Jews in one day. He has a long list of excuses, including that there was an ongoing war and an imminent threat. There wasn't of course, but he cycles through his excuses as rapidly as possible in the hope no-one notices.

Ah. The penny's finally dropped. Yes, I see what you mean. He's been looking hither and thither for even the most diaphanous and threadbare excuse to exonerate Muhammad's guilt for his slaughtering of 800 innocent souls - The old looters' excuse of ... "But everybody else was doing it ... ".

O shallow nave! O wicked reprobate! Is there any hope for gandalf's soul? Methinks the prognosis leans towards Eternal Damnation in Hell!

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:04pm: I believe Gandalf was seeking a moral equivalence for Muhammed murdering 800 innocent Jews in one day. He has a long list of excuses, including that there was an ongoing war and an imminent threat. There wasn't of course, but he cycles through his excuses as rapidly as possible in the hope no-one notices. Ah. The penny's finally dropped. Yes, I see what you mean. He's been looking hither and thither for even the most diaphanous and threadbare excuse to exonerate Muhammad's guilt for his slaughtering of 800 innocent souls - The old looters' excuse of ... "But everybody else was doing it ... ".

Anyway, back to Islam...

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:04pm: I believe Gandalf was seeking a moral equivalence for Muhammed murdering 800 innocent Jews in one day. He has a long list of excuses, including that there was an ongoing war and an imminent threat. There wasn't of course, but he cycles through his excuses as rapidly as possible in the hope no-one notices. Ah. The penny's finally dropped. Yes, I see what you mean. He's been looking hither and thither for even the most diaphanous and threadbare excuse to exonerate Muhammad's guilt for his slaughtering of 800 innocent souls - The old looters' excuse of ... "But everybody else was doing it ... ". O shallow nave! O wicked reprobate! Is there any hope for gandalf's soul? Methinks the prognosis leans towards Eternal Damnation in Hell!

Ironic that you put it that way. Muhammed was robbing people, and I have seen Muslims use the excuse that others were doing it, though to be fair I don't recall Gandalf trotting that one out. 'Just stealing it back' is the more popular excuse.

Gandalf brought this topic up in about half a dozen other threads recently, mostly in the context of Muhammed murdering those Jews. Did you not notice? He seemed to think I was afraid to discuss it, so he hijacked several threads with the topic.

Anyway, Karnal is right. We should let him have a thread about it now that he went to the trouble of starting a dedicated one. If you want to talk about the Jew slaughtering incidents, this is a good thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/60#60

But, FD, that's one of your evasion threads. You've stopped posting there.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Gandalf brought this topic up in about half a dozen other threads recently, mostly in the context of Muhammed murdering those Jews. Did you not notice?

Yes, I have noticed gandalf's increasingly paranoid hysteria over this issue that has driven him almost feral with desperation to convince those in the peanut galleries that Mohammed's lapse into genocidal violence was a righteous and just cause.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:

He seemed to think I was afraid to discuss it, so he hijacked several threads with the topic.

Correct.

Frankly I see an unhealthy masochistic impulse here that has seen gandalf purposefully engineering a 'Ground Hog Day' on the painful defeats he has experienced so many times at your hands on this very same subject.

He effected what some might believe to have been a series of Home Invasions of different threads in order to expose himself for yet more pain and humiliation over Mohammad's somewhat unsaintly behaviour towards those poor unfortunate 800 Jews.


freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Anyway, Karnal is right. We should let him have a thread about it now that he went to the trouble of starting a dedicated one. If you want to talk about the Jew slaughtering incidents, this is a good thread:

Frankly I think this particular moral gadfly will forever torment gandalf's more honest and secular self despite his protestations on Mohammad's behalf.

It's a cross he'll just have to bear as a blind follower of Islam and its legions of apologist rationalisers.

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2015 at 7:18pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 6:18pm: freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2015 at 1:04pm: I believe Gandalf was seeking a moral equivalence for Muhammed murdering 800 innocent Jews in one day. He has a long list of excuses, including that there was an ongoing war and an imminent threat. There wasn't of course, but he cycles through his excuses as rapidly as possible in the hope no-one notices. Ah. The penny's finally dropped. Yes, I see what you mean. He's been looking hither and thither for even the most diaphanous and threadbare excuse to exonerate Muhammad's guilt for his slaughtering of 800 innocent souls - The old looters' excuse of ... "But everybody else was doing it ... ". O shallow nave! O wicked reprobate! Is there any hope for gandalf's soul? Methinks the prognosis leans towards Eternal Damnation in Hell! Ironic that you put it that way. Muhammed was robbing people, and I have seen Muslims use the excuse that others were doing it, though to be fair I don't recall Gandalf trotting that one out. 'Just stealing it back' is the more popular excuse. Gandalf brought this topic up in about half a dozen other threads recently, mostly in the context of Muhammed murdering those Jews. Did you not notice? He seemed to think I was afraid to discuss it, so he hijacked several threads with the topic. Anyway, Karnal is right. We should let him have a thread about it now that he went to the trouble of starting a dedicated one. If you want to talk about the Jew slaughtering incidents, this is a good thread: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1438922302/60#60

You were afraid to discuss it FD - why else were you so determined to avoid answering a simple yes/no question?

Whats most interesting was you refusal to answer it on the basis that any comparison was invalid - as nothing could possibly be worse than executing a group of men for violating a treaty - not even deliberately slaughtering 10s of thousands of innocent men women and children.

So presumably your final answer to my original question was you can be an apologist for every conceivable massacre/atrocity in history except the execution of a few hundred traitors. Cause thats just totally beyond the pale  :D

There I go again, saying things without actually saying them.

What I find interesting is that you derailed about half a dozen threads demanding I discuss this with you. But when I responded in a thread where you weren't changing the topic, you ignored me. Now that it is about Muhammed again, you are back into it.

Why gandalf keeps poking the dying embers of this Lost Cause is anyone's guess. It's a morally embarrassing itch that no amount of scratching will ever relieve.

No one who orders the killing of 800 souls can possibly have the sort of pristine moral purity of heart that would have him chosen by The Supreme Divine Almighty Being as the prophet through which to channel His Plan for Humankind.

It's time to throw in the towel on this one, gandalf. Cut your losses and move on.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

Now that it is about Muhammed again, you are back into it.

Precisely.

gandalf's all over the forum site with this monomaniacal obsession like a boarding house Christmas pudding.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

There I go again, saying things without actually saying them. What I find interesting is that you derailed about half a dozen threads demanding I discuss this with you. But when I responded in a thread where you weren't changing the topic, you ignored me. Now that it is about Muhammed again, you are back into it.

You responded once - not by answering yes or no to my yes/no question, but by deflecting by saying the comparison is invalid, because executing a few hundred men for treason could not possibly be comparable to deliberately mass slaughtering 10s of thousands of innocent men, women and children. To which I wholeheartedly agree - one is infinitely worse. But it doesn't mean you can't answer the question.

But feel free to have another go - do you think its possible for someone to believe the mass slaughter of 10s of thousands of innocent women and children was justified - and at the same time have a sincere belief in the western principles of human rights? (hint - its another 'yes/no' question).

If Gandalf is doing this to try and absolve muhammad it's a load of buncombe

On the one hand we have, multiple atrocities committed by the emissary of a satanic demon allah (muhammad), while inhumanely asserting the divine authority of allah (in the cruelest manner possible) over his captives.

On the other hand we have a world war, one side of which (Japan), committed  unspeakably inhumane atrocities against civilians and defence personal alike.

The allies ended the world war by using an atomic bomb.

There is no comparison one is the act of a blood crazed psychopathic thief, liar, pedphile, terrorist, torturer and mass murderer. He had absolutely no right to commit the deeds he did, just as his followers today 2015, have no right emulating him with their evil degeneracy.

The other was an act of a world war. The bombings were an impersonal action to bring about the end of global hostilities


10 of the many atrocities which Japanese committed during the war.

Laha Airfield Massacre February 1942. Alexandra Hospital Massacre February 14–15, 1942. Palawan Massacre December 14, 1944. Japanese Occupation Of Nauru August 1942–September 1945. Akikaze Executions March 18, 1943. Indian Ocean Raid Massacre March 18, 1944. Sook Ching Massacre February–March 1942. I-8 March 26 and July 2, 1944. The Death Railway June 1942–October 1943. The Massacre Of Manila
February–March 1945.

So for a yes and no answer for two totally different concepts, there are two different answers (one for each concept).

Yes: for the allies in ww2.

No: for  muhammad and his devotees.

you're kinda missing the point moses - as is most of the contributors here. The question is not about your own justifications for this or that atrocity, the question is is it possible for someone to claim any given atrocity is justified - while at the same time being a standard bearer for western liberal human rights. Or to put it another way - can you accept the sincerity of someone who claims that their support for a given atrocity is not incompatible with their belief in modern ideas of human rights.

It depends on what you are trying to justify Gandalf.

It all depends on the circumstances, I believe yadda covered it pretty well a couple of posts back.

There has to be consideration of the (why, when, where and how) it happened.

There is no across-the-board answer.

Every concept has its own answer. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 2:45pm:

you're kinda missing the point moses - as is most of the contributors here. The question is not about your own justifications for this or that atrocity, the question is is it possible for someone to claim any given atrocity is justified - while at the same time being a standard bearer for western liberal human rights. Or to put it another way - can you accept the sincerity of someone who claims that their support for a given atrocity is not incompatible with their belief in modern ideas of human rights.

You mean, is it possible to be lefty and accept that, say, Hiroshima was better than the alternative?
Because it is the Green Left Socialist Alliance that is the biggest and loudest "standard bearer for western liberal human rights".

moses wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 3:01pm:

It all depends on the circumstances, I believe yadda covered it pretty well a couple of posts back. There has to be consideration of the (why, when, where and how) it happened. There is no across-the-board answer. Every concept has its own answer.

It is not about an "across the board answer" - again you are looking at it from your own point of view. The whole point here is to not look at it from your point of view. Its not even about agreeing with or even understanding someone elses point of view - but to accept that someone can be sincere and fundamentally 'moral' despite holding views you cannot understand and find repugnant.

Example: my personal view is that Hiroshima was a callous and outrageous act of mass murder that should be classified as a war crime. BUT if someone comes up to me and says "I think it was morally justified, and I also stand up for western liberal values..." - I'm not going to say they are a liar or hypocrite. Rather I will accept their word that they are genuinely sincere about this position of theirs.

I direct this particularly at you moses, because time and time again you have singularly refused to accept that such sincerity can exist - instead taking it as an indisputable fact that anyone who ascribes to the Islamic faith must necessarily also be opposed to peace and western liberal values.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 2:45pm:

you're kinda missing the point moses - as is most of the contributors here. The question is not about your own justifications for this or that atrocity, the question is is it possible for someone to claim any given atrocity is justified - while at the same time being a standard bearer for western liberal human rights. Or to put it another way - can you accept the sincerity of someone who claims that their support for a given atrocity is not incompatible with their belief in modern ideas of human rights.

Perhaps the question swings on your definition of 'atrocity'. Some call the bombing of Hiroshima an atrocity while others claim it saved a million lives. Does that change it from being an atrocity and simply a distasteful but ultimately life-saving event? Or does it remain an atrocity regardless albeit with a laudable outcome.

I would say however that a religion that calls for the deaths of millions and tries its best to acheive it does not qualify to be considered moral. Islam has never had the right to be called peace-loving or non-violent. Christianity might have had the Crusades, but they did move on while Islam remains largely committed to the concept of murder, destruction and ironically, the rape of women.

Soren wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 2:45pm: you're kinda missing the point moses - as is most of the contributors here. The question is not about your own justifications for this or that atrocity, the question is is it possible for someone to claim any given atrocity is justified - while at the same time being a standard bearer for western liberal human rights. Or to put it another way - can you accept the sincerity of someone who claims that their support for a given atrocity is not incompatible with their belief in modern ideas of human rights. You mean, is it possible to be lefty and accept that, say, Hiroshima was better than the alternative? Because it is the Green Left Socialist Alliance that is the biggest and loudest "standard bearer for western liberal human rights".

No the biggest and loudest "standard bearer for western liberal human rights" are the FDs of the world - who prance around waxing lyrical over faux threats to our freedoms, while at the same time being useful idiots for western imperialism (dressing it up as 'spreading freedom and democracy') - and who in the process spinelessly apologise for atrocities like Hiroshima and Iraq. cf FD's post in this thread mocking the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy.

And yet, I don't begrudge him these fairy tale beliefs of his. I'm sure he genuinely believes that indiscriminately slaughtering millions and destroying entire societies is a positive step in the spreading of freeeeedom.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 3:46pm:

moses wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 3:01pm: It all depends on the circumstances, I believe yadda covered it pretty well a couple of posts back. There has to be consideration of the (why, when, where and how) it happened. There is no across-the-board answer. Every concept has its own answer.  It is not about an "across the board answer" - again you are looking at it from your own point of view. The whole point here is to not look at it from your point of view. Its not even about agreeing with or even understanding someone elses point of view - but to accept that someone can be sincere and fundamentally 'moral' despite holding views you cannot understand and find repugnant. Example: my personal view is that Hiroshima was a callous and outrageous act of mass murder that should be classified as a war crime. BUT if someone comes up to me and says "I think it was morally justified, and I also stand up for western liberal values..." - I'm not going to say they are a liar or hypocrite. Rather I will accept their word that they are genuinely sincere about this position of theirs. I direct this particularly at you moses, because time and time again you have singularly refused to accept that such sincerity can exist - instead taking it as an indisputable fact that anyone who ascribes to the Islamic faith must necessarily also be opposed to peace and western liberal values.

Do you support ISIS?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 3:07pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 2:45pm: you're kinda missing the point moses - as is most of the contributors here. The question is not about your own justifications for this or that atrocity, the question is is it possible for someone to claim any given atrocity is justified - while at the same time being a standard bearer for western liberal human rights. Or to put it another way - can you accept the sincerity of someone who claims that their support for a given atrocity is not incompatible with their belief in modern ideas of human rights. You mean, is it possible to be lefty and accept that, say, Hiroshima was better than the alternative? Because it is the Green Left Socialist Alliance that is the biggest and loudest "standard bearer for western liberal human rights". No the biggest and loudest "standard bearer for western liberal human rights" are the FDs of the world - who prance around waxing lyrical over faux threats to our freedoms, while at the same time being useful idiots for western imperialism (dressing it up as 'spreading freedom and democracy') - and who in the process spinelessly apologise for atrocities like Hiroshima and Iraq. cf FD's post in this thread mocking the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy. And yet, I don't begrudge him these fairy tale beliefs of his. I'm sure he genuinely believes that indiscriminately slaughtering millions and destroying entire societies is a positive step in the spreading of freeeeedom.

Slaughtering millions?  That's an interesting viewpoint. Complete garbage of course, but one thing I have noticed on here is the tendency to exaggerate and lie.

I support Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were unpleasant and disturbing events but they were the conclusion of a war that the allies did not start and which cost 56 million lives. The toll from the nukes barely made a ripple, but they were the last ripple and that is their justification.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 3:57pm:

Perhaps the question swings on your definition of 'atrocity'.

No it doesn't really. In fact if one person thinks Hiroshima was an atrocity but another person doesn't, then thats precisely the condition you want for my scenario: will the first person accept the sincerity of the second who says it was morally justified?

Or, since you brought it up - you believe that Islam is a religion of hate, murder, rape etc - but do you have it in you to accept the sincerity of a muslim who claims to be a standard bearer for (according to you the seemingly contradictory) modern liberal values?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:06pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 3:57pm: Perhaps the question swings on your definition of 'atrocity'. No it doesn't really. In fact if one person thinks Hiroshima was an atrocity but another person doesn't, then thats precisely the condition you want for my scenario: will the first person accept the sincerity of the second who says it was morally justified? Or, since you brought it up - you believe that Islam is a religion of hate, murder, rape etc - but do you have it in you to accept the sincerity of a muslim who claims to be a standard bearer for (according to you the seemingly contradictory) modern liberal values?

Islam worldwide is currently  the face of terrorism and the face of modern day sex slavery and that is before we move on to the utter brutality and arbitary violence that Islamic countries serve up daily. I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree?

As for your initial question, 'atrocity' does differ in the view of many people. WW2 veterans would consider Hiroshima in largely praise-worthy term while a teenager living in wealthy safety might say otherwise. The difference in views doesnt necessarily make either right.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

Slaughtering millions?

Yes millions. King Leopold's little jaunt in The Congo killed some 10 million people alone.

As a seasoned spineless apologist for western imperialism, FD had an interesting defense of the annihilation of Central and South American societies by the Spanish - which was to say oh well, at least they didn't introduce any new forms of suffering that these societies hadn't already suffered from previously.

But again, I don't begrudge the sincerity of FD having these fantastic views.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:14pm:

I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree?

And what about muslims who do act?

Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions.

Yadda calls it taqqiya.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:20pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:05pm: Slaughtering millions? Yes millions. King Leopold's little jaunt in The Congo killed some 10 million people alone. As a seasoned spineless apologist for western imperialism, FD had an interesting defense of the annihilation of Central and South American societies by the Spanish - which was to say oh well, at least they didn't introduce any new forms of suffering that these societies hadn't already suffered from previously. But again, I don't begrudge the sincerity of FD having these fantastic views.

A fair bit of Leaping Nunnery  there, Gandy. Iraq in the 21st century, Hiroshima, Belgian Congo in the 19th century, Latin Amrica in the 16th - all in the name post-WWII human rights conventions.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:22pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:14pm: I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree? And what about muslims who do act? Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions. Yadda calls it taqqiya.

And they do what exactly? Hold protest marches opposing ISIS and Islamic terrorism? Yes, they make a few nice statements and while that is appreciated, every terrorist murder erases it entirely. And it has taken a real long time for any of them to offer up a rather watered-down apology.

It is very very little. Better than nothing, but not much.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

And they do what exactly? Hold protest marches opposing ISIS and Islamic terrorism?

Actually, no. They hold protest marches in Sydney in a lather of high dudgeon when Far Rightwing Islamist extremists get tossed out of their presidency in Egypt.

"But nooooo ... it was the abuse of democracy that the crowd in Sydney bedecked in their biblical attire were complaining about!" wails gandalf.

"Yeah ... riiiiight" replies his vast audience of Non-Believers.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 6:03pm: And they do what exactly? Hold protest marches opposing ISIS and Islamic terrorism? Actually, no. They hold protest marches in Sydney in a lather of high dudgeon when Far Rightwing Islamist extremists get tossed out of their presidency in Egypt. "But nooooo ... it was the abuse of democracy that the crowd in Sydney bedecked in their biblical attire were complaining about!" wails gandalf. "Yeah ... riiiiight" replies his vast audience of Non-Believers.

I saw photos of them protesting AGAINST democracy. Hard to take them seriously after that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:22pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:14pm: I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree? And what about muslims who do act? Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions. Yadda calls it taqqiya.

I call it practically invisible.  Of course I now expect you to trot out some examples, and I am prepared to accept they exist. 

But they certainly are not as big, as spontaneous, as organised and as immediately active as the rush to offence. 

Problem belonging to the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are peaceful but seemingly compliant and complacent about the minority of alaakbaing head lopping idiots which make them all seem silently complicit, or at best indifferent.

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:19pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:22pm: mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:14pm: I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree? And what about muslims who do act? Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions. Yadda calls it taqqiya. I call it practically invisible.  Of course I now expect you to trot out some examples, and I am prepared to accept they exist.  But they certainly are not as big, as spontaneous, as organised and as immediately active as the rush to offence.  Problem belonging to the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are peaceful but seemingly compliant and complacent about the minority of alaakbaing head lopping idiots which make them all seem silently complicit, or at best indifferent.

You are right. The problem is not that there are peace-loving muslims, but rather that they need to be coaxed out of their foxholes to offer a weak, latter-day rejection of violence. It is usually weak, highly qualified and rare. And it is nothing more than words. When I see muslim communities reporting their own to the police for terrorist activities and acitvely opposing violence then perhaps we can believe it.

The powerful word you used was 'complicit'. Silence makes you complicit in crimes. We have no problem fairly assigning blame to people who know crimes against children are taking place, but is this any different?

As a Sydney professor recently said ~ It's not easy for so-called 'Moderate' Muslims to condemn ISIS given the fact that a great deal of what they stand for is right there in the same 'holy book' from which the 'Moderates' take their own religious authority.

   

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:56pm:

As a Sydney professor recently said ~ It's not easy for so-called 'Moderate' Muslims to condemn ISIS given the fact that a great deal of what they stand for is right there in the same 'holy book' from which the 'Moderates' take their own religious authority.

That's a convenient and totally inaccurate claim. The Koran does not support the rape and murder of women and especially children. Even when it supports killing it does not support butchery and barbarity. To condemn ISIS is exceedingly easy. The failure to do so is the question that needs some answers.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

That's a convenient and totally inaccurate claim. The Koran does not support the rape and murder of women and especially children. Even when it supports killing it does not support butchery and barbarity. To condemn ISIS is exceedingly easy. The failure to do so is the question that needs some answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXBgqa-xQwY

Quote:

No the biggest and loudest "standard bearer for western liberal human rights" are the FDs of the world - who prance around waxing lyrical over faux threats to our freedoms

What are some of these 'faux threats' I wax about?


Quote:

while at the same time being useful idiots for western imperialism (dressing it up as 'spreading freedom and democracy')

So it is not actually spreading democracy?


Quote:

FD's post in this thread mocking the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy.

Can you quote the post you refer to Gandalf? Or is this another case of me saying something without actually saying it? As I recall, I was waiting for you to back up some of the claims you were making.


Quote:

Or, since you brought it up - you believe that Islam is a religion of hate, murder, rape etc - but do you have it in you to accept the sincerity of a muslim who claims to be a standard bearer for (according to you the seemingly contradictory) modern liberal values?

Would these be the "wishy washy western liberal morals" you think we are using to attack Islam?

Gandalf, do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?


Quote:

That's a convenient and totally inaccurate claim. The Koran does not support the rape and murder of women and especially children.

You might be right about murder, but it is kind of hard to have sex slavery and wife beating without rape, no matter how you dress it up. Under Shariah law, where sex is permitted, there is no punishment for rape, and where sex is not permitted, the punishment for rape and consensual sex is almost identical.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 4:22pm:

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:14pm: I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree? And what about muslims who do act? Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions.

Yeah maria!                  :P

Here [details below] are Aussie moslems who can be seen marching down Main Street, Australia, everyday, PURPORTEDLY, demonstrating their solidarity,        with Australian values.

But look closely [at the details of example, and the IMAGES, below], and those Aussie moslems are ACTUALLY marching down Main Street, Australia, in solidarity with the values of murderous ISLAMISTS, aka the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt [one of whose tenets is to legalise Female Genital Mutilation in Egypt, on religious grounds].




http://cache.newzulu.com.au/en/photos/local/2014-01-25/4925/sydney-s-egyptian-community-stages/all_fullscreen/45087-img_3351.jpg


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1412304156/2#2

Quote:

Hijabed women       proudly waving an Australian flag http://cache.newzulu.com.au/en/photos/local/2014-01-25/4925/sydney-s-egyptian-community-stages/all_fullscreen/45087-img_3351.jpg A crowd of moslems in Sydney, advocating for the Muslim Brotherhood political group of Egypt; What is scandalous, is that moslems should hold up an Australian flag, as though to suggest that Australia and Australians would ever support the political aspirations of ISLAMISTS in Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood political group.

http://cache.newzulu.com.au/en/photos/local/2014-01-25/4925/sydney-s-egyptian-community-stages/all_fullscreen/45078-img_3290.jpg


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1390857768/30#30

Quote:

Children in Sydney, advocating for the Muslim Brotherhood political group of Egypt; In Egypt, these two young girls would be screaming a new song, a different song, if they were being held down, naked below the waist, with their legs held apart, and female genital mutilation was being performed upon them.

gandalf wrote Reply #56 - Yesterday at 3:46pm:

Quote:

It is not about an "across the board answer" - again you are looking at it from your own point of view. The whole point here is to not look at it from your point of view. Its not even about agreeing with or even understanding someone elses point of view - but to accept that someone can be sincere and fundamentally 'moral' despite holding views you cannot understand and find repugnant. Example: my personal view is that Hiroshima was a callous and outrageous act of mass murder that should be classified as a war crime. BUT if someone comes up to me and says "I think it was morally justified, and I also stand up for western liberal values..." - I'm not going to say they are a liar or hypocrite. Rather I will accept their word that they are genuinely sincere about this position of theirs. I direct this particularly at you moses, because time and time again you have singularly refused to accept that such sincerity can exist - instead taking it as an indisputable fact that anyone who ascribes to the Islamic faith must necessarily also be opposed to peace and western liberal values

I still say that any muslim who accepts the commands of allah, the teachings of muhammad, the verses in the qur'an (which unequivocally urge islamic atrocities), as infallible, perfect and never to be changed, support the terrorism and depravities engendered.

The only way to stop the world wide homicidal muslim insanity, is to clean up the doctrine.

Get rid of allah's and muhammad's blood lust gandalf, before the world gets totally sick of islam and cleans up your cult for you.

The 'moderates' keep referring to the abrogated parts of the Koran while hoping their audience knows nothing about what those peaceful earlier writings were replaced with.

They've fooled Maria big time. She thought there's nothing in the Koran that justifies a lot of what ISIS has been doing.

Watch this short video of a very brave Muslim Egyptian berating the Muslim clerics for not owning up to the fact that most of what ISIS has been doing can be justified by passages in the Koran.


link

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:22pm: mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:14pm: I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree? And what about muslims who do act? Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions. Yadda calls it taqqiya. And they do what exactly? Hold protest marches opposing ISIS and Islamic terrorism? Yes, they make a few nice statements and while that is appreciated, every terrorist murder erases it entirely. And it has taken a real long time for any of them to offer up a rather watered-down apology. It is very very little. Better than nothing, but not much.

Are protests the be-all and end-all in expressing your opposition to extremism? I'm not really sure what that would achieve.

No, I was thinking more practical and useful things like engaging with your community - de-radicalisation programs, school engagements, youth events, community events, peace BBQs etc etc. This stuff is happening every day, and its muslims who are taking the initiative. You don't hear about them because lets face it, if it doesn't bleed it doesn't lead. But it is happening I guarantee it - devout peaceful muslims putting their beliefs into action to create a better world.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 9:27pm:

Would these be the "wishy washy western liberal morals" you think we are using to attack Islam?

No - not those fake ones you use. I mean the real ones - before they were corrupted by cynical imperialists and their useless idiots.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 7:59pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 7:56pm: As a Sydney professor recently said ~ It's not easy for so-called 'Moderate' Muslims to condemn ISIS given the fact that a great deal of what they stand for is right there in the same 'holy book' from which the 'Moderates' take their own religious authority.     That's a convenient and totally inaccurate claim. The Koran does not support the rape and murder of women and especially children. Even when it supports killing it does not support butchery and barbarity.

You're new here, Maria, but we call this spineless apologetics. You're not allowed to say this. It goes against our Freeeeedom.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 9:27pm:

What are some of these 'faux threats' I wax about?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 9:27pm:

You might be right about murder, but it is kind of hard to have sex slavery and wife beating without rape, no matter how you dress it up. Under Shariah law, where sex is permitted, there is no punishment for rape, and where sex is not permitted, the punishment for rape and consensual sex is almost identical.

Karnal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 2:59pm:

You're new here, Maria, but we call this spineless apologetics.

Precisely.

Please desist in future, Mary.

Not just a newcomer, but a younger generation newcomer whose naivety on the subject of Islam, Muslims, terrorism etc is alarmingly bereft of anything other than politically correct platitudes and apologist mantras learnt from our socialist media.

PS. Why 'younger generationer'?

My older generation would never commit the sin of writing the sentence ...

'And it has taken a real long time for any of them to offer up a rather watered-down apology.'

Do you have any idea how that horribly incorrect piece of grammar 'real' grates on the nerves of people of my generation, Mary?

I had to run for the smelling salts in the medicine cabinet in the bathroom, but didn't quite make it, and so found myself heaving noisily into the toilet bowl.

Please rewrite that sentence correctly before doing anything else here, Mary.

Thank you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 2:38pm:

No, I was thinking more practical and useful things like engaging with your community - de-radicalisation programs, school engagements, youth events, community events, peace BBQs etc etc. This stuff is happening every day, and its muslims who are taking the initiative.

Dear Jesus.

It's just a glaring demonstration of how it is that Muslims should never have been considered for immigration to Australia.

Here's gandalf actually boasting about how one 'heroic' section of the Muslim community is engaged in frantic activity to persuade their Australian born youths not to commit mass-murder and beheadings upon the Australian public.

And he can't see the horrible irony of him boasting about this.

Dear Jesus indeed.

mariacostel wrote on Aug 17^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:22pm: mariacostel wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 4:14pm: I largely care nothing for people who claim Islam is a religion of peace in the face of such undeniable atrocities. Ultimately, words are meaningless in the face of actions. Would you not agree? And what about muslims who do act? Because I can promise you there are a lot of peace-loving muslims who do act on their convictions. Yadda calls it taqqiya. And they do what exactly? Hold protest marches opposing ISIS and Islamic terrorism?

No, that's the lazy Lefty idea of effective action - a noisy demo and then back to welfare  or smug middle class comforts.

Muslims should be seen to be actively eliminating terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in their midst. They should not just talk but act effectively. After all, they say it has nuffin' to do wiv Islam - so they should be seen to be effectively safeguarding Islam against such people. They know who the ISIS sympathisers are better than anyone.


You would not accept Catholic communities sheltering murderers of Protestants because Protestant murdering motivated by Catholicism is not a Catholic issue but a societal problem that Muslims, atheists, Buddhists and Hindus should equally take responsibility for.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 2:45pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 9:27pm: Would these be the "wishy washy western liberal morals" you think we are using to attack Islam? No - not those fake ones you use. I mean the real ones - before they were corrupted by cynical imperialists and their useless idiots.

Fake wishy washy western liberal morals? Can you be more specific Gandalf? Is this like the "faux threats" I wax?

Do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?


Quote:

FD's post in this thread mocking the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy.

Are you conceding you made this up Gandalf? What was I "dressing up as spreading freedom and democracy"?

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

Are you conceding you made this up Gandalf? What was I "dressing up as spreading freedom and democracy"?

No FD - I have no doubt whatsoever that you would listen to the argument that the US had no intention of establishing genuine democracy in Iraq with a completely open mind  :P /tongue-in-cheek

Soren wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

No, that's the lazy Lefty idea of effective action - a noisy demo and then back to welfare  or smug middle class comforts.

Soren - who previously measured the level of sincerity of muslims to combat terrorism by the number of street protests against terrorism.


Soren wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

Muslims should be seen to be actively eliminating terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in their midst. They should not just talk but act effectively.

Like what Soren? Violence? So we're no different to ISIS?

Or do you mean community engagement - like I just mentioned?

You're vague words are just weasel words S.

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2015 at 2:45pm: freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2015 at 9:27pm: Would these be the "wishy washy western liberal morals" you think we are using to attack Islam? No - not those fake ones you use. I mean the real ones - before they were corrupted by cynical imperialists and their useless idiots. Fake wishy washy western liberal morals? Can you be more specific Gandalf? Is this like the "faux threats" I wax? Do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

Do you?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 7:39pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Are you conceding you made this up Gandalf? What was I "dressing up as spreading freedom and democracy"? No FD - I have no doubt whatsoever that you would listen to the argument that the US had no intention of establishing genuine democracy in Iraq with a completely open mind  :P /tongue-in-cheek

Can you quote the post where I "mocked the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy"?

Can you be more specific on these fake wishy washy western liberal morals? Is this like the "faux threats" I wax? Do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18th, 2015 at 7:39pm: freediver wrote on Aug 18th, 2015 at 7:29pm: Are you conceding you made this up Gandalf? What was I "dressing up as spreading freedom and democracy"? No FD - I have no doubt whatsoever that you would listen to the argument that the US had no intention of establishing genuine democracy in Iraq with a completely open mind  :P /tongue-in-cheek Can you quote the post where I "mocked the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy"? Can you be more specific on these fake wishy washy western liberal morals? Is this like the "faux threats" I wax? Do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

Do you?

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Can you quote the post where I "mocked the idea that the US could possibly have any designs on Iraq that wasn't related to flowering Iraq with their gifts of freedom and democracy"?

thats how I interpreted your reply to my claim on Iraq.

But happy to stand corrected - we can easily sort this out: do you accept the possibility that initially the US had no intention of setting up any sort of genuine democracy in Iraq?

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 9:42pm:

Can you be more specific on these fake wishy washy western liberal morals?

It should be self-explanatory.

Its when you state muslims represent the greatest threat to our freedom - while ignoring the elephant in the room - namely our government systematically chipping away at our basic freedoms, and even spinelessly apologising for it.

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?


Quote:

thats how I interpreted your reply to my claim on Iraq.

Which one? Can you quote it?


Quote:

Its when you state muslims represent the greatest threat to our freedom - while ignoring the elephant in the room - namely our government systematically chipping away at our basic freedoms, and even spinelessly apologising for it.

This is using fake wishy washy western liberal morals to cynically attack Islam? Did I invent freedom to mock Islam?

Islam has been far more effective in undermining our freedom. It's not like we have an election to decide whether we should be afraid to make a Muhammed video. Much of the world still lives under the oppressive yoke of Islam. Even the 'good' examples of Muslim countries you put forward have some very worrying trends.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 18^th, 2015 at 7:44pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 18th, 2015 at 6:53pm: No, that's the lazy Lefty idea of effective action - a noisy demo and then back to welfare  or smug middle class comforts. Soren - who previously measured the level of sincerity of muslims to combat terrorism by the number of street protests against terrorism. Soren wrote on Aug 18th, 2015 at 6:53pm: Muslims should be seen to be actively eliminating terrorists and terrorist sympathisers in their midst. They should not just talk but act effectively. Like what Soren? Violence? So we're no different to ISIS? Or do you mean community engagement - like I just mentioned? You're vague words are just weasel words S.

Jeez, you are hot for violence.  It's a noisy demo, violence or - er... that's it, eh?

How about political action? Financial pressure? Engaging in open discussion, flushing out the demagogues and the radicals  - rather than closing ranks against the kuffar, pretending to be all victims?

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Which one? Can you quote it?

You only responded to that claim once in this thread. See if you can find it. Again, if its not a cynical dismissal of the argument, then I'm happy to stand corrected.


freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Islam has been far more effective in undermining our freedom. It's not like we have an election to decide whether we should be afraid to make a Muhammed video. Much of the world still lives under the oppressive yoke of Islam. Even the 'good' examples of Muslim countries you put forward have some very worrying trends.

I'm not talking about the oppression in Islamic countries. That is a common deflection. The issue I'm interested here is what is undermining freedoms here in the west. You think its people feeling intimidated to mock Muhammad, whereas I think its our "unity ticket" parliament rubber stamping dangerous laws to undermine some pretty basic rights.

A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended. You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims. Thats because stunts like these insist on making the two terms "freedom" and "be offensive" as completely synonymous. I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion. You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it: humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response. But what can you do? Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression. So by all means offend away and stand up for your right to be offensive - and I will be the first to condemn any violent reactions to it. But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate.

Perhaps all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a one-way discourse. Freeeedom lovers like you I mean - saying that the right to insult per se is the be-all and end-all of freedom, and that people who object to that must be ruthlessly attacked. Some understanding of the hurt people are feeling and why its so destructive wouldn't go astray, and it can be perfectly consistent with standing up for true freedom: I condemn those people who react violently to those Muhammad cartoons - but I also condemn those who deliberately set out to offend and look for a reaction. Believe it or not, you actually can condemn someone while at the same time accept their right to be offensive. You seem to take the view that condemning someone for a certain expression is a bit too close to comfort to calling for banning such expressions. It is not. And you also seem to take the view that a few violent incidents automatically makes any peaceful reaction by muslims as cynical and illegitimate. Thus you will go to all sorts of ridiculous contortions to dismiss a muslim protest against a brazen attack on freedom and democracy - as somehow a front for anti-freedom. As well as mock muslims who protest against actual proposed censorship. These are the incidents that you should be praising if you were consistent with your professed values. Instead you will always find a way to turn muslim activity into sinister activity.

No doubt you will have a lot to say in reply, but I do ask that you depart from your usual style of slicing up my post sentence by sentence and responding to each with 30 meaningless one line quips. Try and make a meaningful response that I can make sense of.

Soren wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

How about political action? Financial pressure? Engaging in open discussion, flushing out the demagogues and the radicals

You mean all the stuff thats already happening? Do some research about all the muslim initiatives in the UK - you might be surprised. And its happening all over the west, muslims doing what they can to counter radicalism - as an expression of faith:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/12/03/how-muslim-communities-are-trying-prevent-radicalisation

How about stop being such a doubting Tom and actually start giving credit where credits due hmmm?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

Soren wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:34am: How about political action? Financial pressure? Engaging in open discussion, flushing out the demagogues and the radicals You mean all the stuff thats already happening? Do some research about all the muslim initiatives in the UK - you might be surprised.

Dear Jesus give us strength.

'Muslim initiatives' - my arse!

Do you know what these really are?

The 'Muslim community' saw an opportunity to milk the dopey British government for millions under the guise of 'helping fight radicalism from within'.

When millions in government grants became available under the Homeland Security programs to counter the radicalisation of Britain's own born-and-bred Muslim youth - a thousand little Muslim agencies and committees popped up overnight like mushrooms in a damp forest to tap into this sudden bonanza being offered.

It has now become a profittable industry which capitalises on the naive idiots who run Britain's internal security programs.

Just look at how piss-weak the British government has been in dealing with the Muslim hordes the other side of the Channel. Utterly pathetic. British politicians are a push-over for opportunist Muslims who want to tap into British funding for the de-radicalisation rackets.

It has its parallel with our Aboriginal Victimhood Industry. Millions in grants every year ... with nothing ever to show for it ... and a few Abos growing rich on the side.


Where it's Muslims involved - always look for ulterior motives, deceitful practices, and hand-on-heart assurances that you can trust them.

Lord Herbert wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:55pm:

It has now become a profittable industry ...

What do you have against profitable industry, Herbie?

Would you rather see everyone on welfare?

Dear O dear O dear ... and Christ wept for His people ...

link

"Government funding ... "



link

If only Google didn't make it so goddamned easy to winkle out these vermin that are working so hard to trash Western society from within their ubiquitous 'Muslim Communities and their Leaders'.

link

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

freediver wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 8:08am: Which one? Can you quote it? You only responded to that claim once in this thread. See if you can find it. Again, if its not a cynical dismissal of the argument, then I'm happy to stand corrected. freediver wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 8:08am: Islam has been far more effective in undermining our freedom. It's not like we have an election to decide whether we should be afraid to make a Muhammed video. Much of the world still lives under the oppressive yoke of Islam. Even the 'good' examples of Muslim countries you put forward have some very worrying trends. I'm not talking about the oppression in Islamic countries. That is a common deflection. The issue I'm interested here is what is undermining freedoms here in the west. You think its people feeling intimidated to mock Muhammad, whereas I think its our "unity ticket" parliament rubber stamping dangerous laws to undermine some pretty basic rights. A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended. You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims. Thats because stunts like these insist on making the two terms "freedom" and "be offensive" as completely synonymous. I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion. You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it: humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response. But what can you do? Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression. So by all means offend away and stand up for your right to be offensive - and I will be the first to condemn any violent reactions to it. But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate. Perhaps all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a one-way discourse. Freeeedom lovers like you I mean - saying that the right to insult per se is the be-all and end-all of freedom, and that people who object to that must be ruthlessly attacked. Some understanding of the hurt people are feeling and why its so destructive wouldn't go astray, and it can be perfectly consistent with standing up for true freedom: I condemn those people who react violently to those Muhammad cartoons - but I also condemn those who deliberately set out to offend and look for a reaction. Believe it or not, you actually can condemn someone while at the same time accept their right to be offensive. You seem to take the view that condemning someone for a certain expression is a bit too close to comfort to calling for banning such expressions. It is not. And you also seem to take the view that a few violent incidents automatically makes any peaceful reaction by muslims as cynical and illegitimate. Thus you will go to all sorts of ridiculous contortions to dismiss a muslim protest against a brazen attack on freedom and democracy - as somehow a front for anti-freedom. As well as mock muslims who protest against actual proposed censorship. These are the incidents that you should be praising if you were consistent with your professed values. Instead you will always find a way to turn muslim activity into sinister activity. No doubt you will have a lot to say in reply, but I do ask that you depart from your usual style of slicing up my post sentence by sentence and responding to each with 30 meaningless one line quips. Try and make a meaningful response that I can make sense of.

FD doesn't want to talk about this stuff, G. He'll reply with a whole lot of questions designed to trip you up.

If I was you, I'd reply with an ah.

Otherwise, you can use the tried and true FD favourite and not reply at all.

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

I'm not talking about the oppression in Islamic countries. That is a common deflection. The issue I'm interested here is what is undermining freedoms here in the west.

Of course. When talking about the greatest threats to freedom and democracy, it is important to bound the discussion so as to exclude the greatest threats to freedom and democracy. Anything else is deflection.


Quote:

You think its people feeling intimidated to mock Muhammad, whereas I think its our "unity ticket" parliament rubber stamping dangerous laws to undermine some pretty basic rights.

Perhaps you should be more specific Gandalf. I recall trying to convince you that holocaust denial laws are a bad idea. Is this an example of me ignoring the threat from our government?


Quote:

A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended.

Please enlighten us as to the Islamic definition of freedom Gandalf.


Quote:

You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims.

This may have something to do with the fact that Muhammed was a Muslim. In any case, you are free to have a competition to draw Muhammed in a positive light. It is not anyone else's fault you refuse to.


Quote:

I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion.

So you are not anti-freedom, you just want to tell people what it really means?


Quote:

You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it:

Expecting Muslims to tolerate freedom of speech is absurd? How should we handle this intractible conflict between Islam and freedom Gandalf? Why are Muslims so different from any other group that it is absurd to expect them to be tolerant?


Quote:

humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response

So it is not the emotional response that the government needs to control, but the intention of the person eliciting the emotional response?


Quote:

But what can you do?

Here's a tip - figure out what freedom of speech really means. Get fellow Muslims to appreciate it.


Quote:

Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression.

Because we mock Islam?


Quote:

But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate.

How 'useful' do you think it would be to respond to threats from head hacking Muslims by self censoring?


Quote:

Perhaps all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a one-way discourse.

Which direction is it Gandalf?


Quote:

Freeeedom lovers like you I mean - saying that the right to insult per se is the be-all and end-all of freedom

It is the be-all and end-all of freedom of speech. The right to say something you might not like.


Quote:

and that people who object to that must be ruthlessly attacked

They must be stopped.


Quote:

Some understanding of the hurt people are feeling and why its so destructive wouldn't go astray, and it can be perfectly consistent with standing up for true freedom: I condemn those people who react violently to those Muhammad cartoons - but I also condemn those who deliberately set out to offend and look for a reaction. Believe it or not, you actually can condemn someone while at the same time accept their right to be offensive.

That's why I let Muslims post here Gandalf. I'm open-minded like that.


Quote:

You seem to take the view that condemning someone for a certain expression is a bit too close to comfort to calling for banning such expressions.

This is good Gandalf. You are making an important distinction. If Muslims could limit themselves to expressing their rage in a non-violent, non-legalistic manner, we would all be on the path to freedom. Though you leave me wondering why you keep mocking the interpretation of freedom as "no-one has the right not to be offended" and suggesting there is some viable alternative.


Quote:

And you also seem to take the view that a few violent incidents automatically makes any peaceful reaction by muslims as cynical and illegitimate.

Useless is perhaps a better term. Anything short of a clear and unqualified expression of support for freedom of speech puts them in the same camp as the head hackers, in the same way that groups like the IRA had a political arm.


Quote:

Thus you will go to all sorts of ridiculous contortions to dismiss a muslim protest against a brazen attack on freedom and democracy - as somehow a front for anti-freedom.

Are you talking about the Egypt thing?

Quote:

As well as mock muslims who protest against actual proposed censorship. These are the incidents that you should be praising if you were consistent with your professed values.

Again, you need to be more specific Gandalf. I have no idea what you are on about.


Quote:

No doubt you will have a lot to say in reply, but I do ask that you depart from your usual style of slicing up my post sentence by sentence

Perhaps you should have stuck this at the start of your post. I am not going to write this out again in a suitable vague, waffly manner for you, or have a platitude writing competition.

FD stop posting replies from different threads - I've warned you enough about that. I don't care if you think its more suitable here - its a nightmare for trying to track conversations. I'll be moving your post back to the original thread.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

Perhaps you should have stuck this at the start of your post. I am not going to write this out again in a suitable vague, waffly manner for you, or have a platitude writing competition

Well I hope you remember next time. I think I mentioned it before. Annie Anthrax  boycotts those replies and I'll do the same.

Sorry for your wasted effort that no one is going to read.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:02pm:

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values? polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 11:01am: I'm not talking about the oppression in Islamic countries. That is a common deflection. The issue I'm interested here is what is undermining freedoms here in the west. Of course. When talking about the greatest threats to freedom and democracy, it is important to bound the discussion so as to exclude the greatest threats to freedom and democracy. Anything else is deflection. Quote: You think its people feeling intimidated to mock Muhammad, whereas I think its our "unity ticket" parliament rubber stamping dangerous laws to undermine some pretty basic rights. Perhaps you should be more specific Gandalf. I recall trying to convince you that holocaust denial laws are a bad idea. Is this an example of me ignoring the threat from our government? [quote]A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended.

Please enlighten us as to the Islamic definition of freedom Gandalf.


Quote:

You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims.

This may have something to do with the fact that Muhammed was a Muslim. In any case, you are free to have a competition to draw Muhammed in a positive light. It is not anyone else's fault you refuse to.


Quote:

I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion.

So you are not anti-freedom, you just want to tell people what it really means?


Quote:

You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it:

Expecting Muslims to tolerate freedom of speech is absurd? How should we handle this intractible conflict between Islam and freedom Gandalf? Why are Muslims so different from any other group that it is absurd to expect them to be tolerant?


Quote:

humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response

So it is not the emotional response that the government needs to control, but the intention of the person eliciting the emotional response?


Quote:

But what can you do?

Here's a tip - figure out what freedom of speech really means. Get fellow Muslims to appreciate it.


Quote:

Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression.

Because we mock Islam?


Quote:

But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate.

How 'useful' do you think it would be to respond to threats from head hacking Muslims by self censoring?


Quote:

Perhaps all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a one-way discourse.

Which direction is it Gandalf?


Quote:

Freeeedom lovers like you I mean - saying that the right to insult per se is the be-all and end-all of freedom

It is the be-all and end-all of freedom of speech. The right to say something you might not like.


Quote:

and that people who object to that must be ruthlessly attacked

They must be stopped.


Quote:

Some understanding of the hurt people are feeling and why its so destructive wouldn't go astray, and it can be perfectly consistent with standing up for true freedom: I condemn those people who react violently to those Muhammad cartoons - but I also condemn those who deliberately set out to offend and look for a reaction. Believe it or not, you actually can condemn someone while at the same time accept their right to be offensive.

That's why I let Muslims post here Gandalf. I'm open-minded like that.


Quote:

You seem to take the view that condemning someone for a certain expression is a bit too close to comfort to calling for banning such expressions.

This is good Gandalf. You are making an important distinction. If Muslims could limit themselves to expressing their rage in a non-violent, non-legalistic manner, we would all be on the path to freedom. Though you leave me wondering why you keep mocking the interpretation of freedom as "no-one has the right not to be offended" and suggesting there is some viable alternative.


Quote:

And you also seem to take the view that a few violent incidents automatically makes any peaceful reaction by muslims as cynical and illegitimate.

Useless is perhaps a better term. Anything short of a clear and unqualified expression of support for freedom of speech puts them in the same camp as the head hackers, in the same way that groups like the IRA had a political arm.


Quote:

Thus you will go to all sorts of ridiculous contortions to dismiss a muslim protest against a brazen attack on freedom and democracy - as somehow a front for anti-freedom.

Are you talking about the Egypt thing?[/quote]

Here you go, G. This should keep you busy.

Ah.

K it is indeed a liberating experience to ignore an FD "reply".

Here is the thread where Gandalf thought a discussion of Islam and freedom of speech is inappropriate, most likely because he made the same claims there already, and they have all been debunked there already, and he doesn't like to make it too obvious.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1217813944/874#874


Quote:

FD stop posting replies from different threads - I've warned you enough about that. I don't care if you think its more suitable here - its a nightmare for trying to track conversations.

That's why I included a link in the first quote Gandalf. Obviously a discussion about freedom of speech is more appropriate in the freedom of speech thread. You dedicated your entire post to it.


Quote:

Well I hope you remember next time. I think I mentioned it before. Annie Anthrax  boycotts those replies and I'll do the same.

Yes we can't have you sticking to the topic and backing up your claims can we? Just throw out endless BS accusations and expect people to ignore it. I'm sure you'll have much more fun talking to Yadda if this is too taxing for you.

Anyway, if you did not actually want to discuss the claims you made, perhaps you should not have changed the topic. Let's get back to what you were trying to avoid before that tangent.

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

Why don't you quote my post if you are not ashamed of your hysterical 'interpretation' of it? I can not see any posts of mine that are even remotely similar to what you described.

In what way is arguing in favour of freedom of speech where our government curtails it 'ignoring the elephant in the room'?

Is freedom of speech one of those "fake wishy washy western liberal morals" you accuse me of cynically using to smear Islam?

What other "faux threats" do you accuse me of waxing?

Do we imagine that people are too scared to make Muhammed videos?

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Gandalf do you claim to be a standard bearer for modern liberal values?

I thought if I ignored you long enough you'd figure out the bleeding obvious for yourself. Apparently I was wrong. So to spell out the self-explanatory - yes, I do.


freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

Why don't you quote my post if you are not ashamed of your hysterical 'interpretation' of it? I can not see any posts of mine that are even remotely similar to what you described.

Again FD, there is one, just one post of yours in this thread that was responding to my claims about the Bremer regime. And once again, if you are able to find this sole post of yours, you are more than welcome to clarify that I was wrong to interpret it as a deeply skeptical response to the idea that the American invaders - before the shiite protestors forced change - had no intentions of establishing a genuine democracy in Iraq. I can't believe you wouldn't treat such a claim with the greatest of disdain - would you? Or are you open to the idea? We can clear this up very easily FD - why don't you want to clarify this?


freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 6:03pm:

s freedom of speech one of those "fake washy western liberal morals" you accuse me of cynically using to smear Islam?

Great work FD - good to see you paying full attention to my lengthy response to all those matters.

Maybe if you didn't spend so much time dissecting my argument into isolated sentences you might get the overall gist.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 1:04pm:

Perhaps you should have stuck this at the start of your post.

I think I've just discovered your problem FD. You start replying even before you've finished reading what your replying to.

No wonder your posts are always full of questions that are answered in the very next sentence  :P

Now now, G. You gave FD an answer. That’s naughty.

I’ve asked FD the same question twice. He refuses to answer. Watch this:

FD, do you consider yourself to be the flagbearer for modern liberal values?

Quote:

I thought if I ignored you long enough you'd figure out the bleeding obvious for yourself. Apparently I was wrong. So to spell out the self-explanatory - yes, I do.

Great. We have an answer to your question. You can support atrocities and claim to be a standard bearer for western liberal morals. You can even be religiously devoted to defending their virtue. Now, are you sincere? How long have you been a standard bearer for? The same time you changed your mind on holocaust denial laws?


Quote:

Again FD, there is one, just one post of yours in this thread that was responding to my claims about the Bremer regime.

Great. You won't have any trouble backing up your hysterical rant then.


Quote:

Maybe if you didn't spend so much time dissecting my argument into isolated sentences you might get the overall gist.

Right. You are now a standard bearer for the wishy washy western liberal morals that people cynically use to smear Islam. Freedom of speech is a fake value. Promoting freedom of speech above holocaust denial laws is ignoring the elephant in the room. And we are just imagining that people are afraid to make Muhammed videos. All perfectly consistent for a Muslim. Move along people, nothing to see here.


Quote:

You start replying even before you've finished reading what your replying to.

I'm hardly going to read it twice am I?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

Soren wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 10:34am: How about political action? Financial pressure? Engaging in open discussion, flushing out the demagogues and the radicals You mean all the stuff thats already happening? Do some research about all the muslim initiatives in the UK

UK??

When UK Muslims behave BADLY, you tell us that they have nuffin to do wiv nuffin' in Australia. But now you are all suddenly UK Muslims in Lakemba and and Auburn and wherever the hell Muslims formed a ghetto in Melbourne.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 11:01am:

freediver wrote on Aug 19th, 2015 at 8:08am: Islam has been far more effective in undermining our freedom. It's not like we have an election to decide whether we should be afraid to make a Muhammed video. Much of the world still lives under the oppressive yoke of Islam. Even the 'good' examples of Muslim countries you put forward have some very worrying trends. .....A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended. You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims. Thats because stunts like these insist on making the two terms "freedom" and "be offensive" as completely synonymous. I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion. You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it: humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response. But what can you do? Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression. So by all means offend away and stand up for your right to be offensive - and I will be the first to condemn any violent reactions to it. But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."
- George Orwell


IN THE WORLD TODAY;
We have a [political] circumstance where more and more people in many western nations [i.e. the native people of western nations] are coming to the view that ISLAM is an offensive and dangerous philosophy.

Moslems [living in western nations] would of course be offended, at the people of western nations who publicly express such a view.



So we firstly have the circumstance where, many of those who are are not moslems, are offended by the real threat which ISLAM poses, to their society and to their person.

And secondly we have moslems [living in western nations] who are offended [by those who are are not moslems] [because those who are are not moslems, want the right to express that they are offended by what ISLAM is, and by the 'world view' that ISLAM teaches and wants to spread].


PROPOSITION;
Those two opposing groups of people cannot live in peace together.

Why so ?

You tell me ?


QUESTION;
Is it because many persons [who are are not moslems], are being unreasonable, in their open and public criticism of ISLAM ?

Or, is it because ISLAM is a violent and dangerous criminal [judged by our laws] philosophy ?




IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

"Behead those who insult ISLAM"
Islamic Protest - IN AUSTRALIA - on the streets of Sydney from Hyde Park to George Streets, September 15, 2012.



.



"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4



.



Dictionary;
malice aforethought = = the intention to kill or harm, held to distinguish unlawful killing from murder.


CRIMINAL INTENT, IN THE MOSLEM HEART
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1252898491/0#0

Quote:

Every moslem in Australia [and indeed, every moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems. ISLAM is a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against non-moslems ['disbelievers']. .....Basically, fundamentally, all ISLAMIC doctrine translates as enmity, and encourages [criminal] violence, towards ALL non-moslems.

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:03pm:

Quote: I thought if I ignored you long enough you'd figure out the bleeding obvious for yourself. Apparently I was wrong. So to spell out the self-explanatory - yes, I do. Great. We have an answer to your question. You can support atrocities and claim to be a standard bearer for western liberal morals. You can even be religiously devoted to defending their virtue. Now, are you sincere? How long have you been a standard bearer for? The same time you changed your mind on holocaust denial laws? [quote]Again FD, there is one, just one post of yours in this thread that was responding to my claims about the Bremer regime.

Great. You won't have any trouble backing up your hysterical rant then.


Quote:

Maybe if you didn't spend so much time dissecting my argument into isolated sentences you might get the overall gist.

Right. You are now a standard bearer for the wishy washy western liberal morals that people cynically use to smear Islam. Freedom of speech is a fake value. Promoting freedom of speech above holocaust denial laws is ignoring the elephant in the room. And we are just imagining that people are afraid to make Muhammed videos. All perfectly consistent for a Muslim. Move along people, nothing to see here.


Quote:

You start replying even before you've finished reading what your replying to.

I'm hardly going to read it twice am I?[/quote]

FD, do you consider yourself to be the standard bearer for modern liberal values?

Yadda wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 12:40am:

QUESTION; Is it because many persons [who are are not moslems], are being unreasonable, in their open and public criticism of ISLAM ? Or, is it because ISLAM is a violent and dangerous criminal [judged by our laws] philosophy ?

gandalf,

Why shouldn't every single person who is a native of a western nation [and who is not a moslem], HAVE THE RIGHT to be offended by ISLAM, and be offended by what ISLAM is ?



gandalf,

Are you going to tell us, that those who are not moslems should not HAVE THE RIGHT to be offended by ISLAM, and not HAVE THE RIGHT to be offended by what ISLAM is ?

Or, is it just that you feel that those persons who are are not moslems, should not be permitted to publicly express their 'being offended', by what ISLAM is ?



But seriously, there are some people, who are not moslems, who are really, really offensive, in how they publicly express themselves.

And i am sure that you would agree with that statement.

Right, gandalf ?




IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

"Behead those who insult ISLAM"
Islamic Protest - IN AUSTRALIA - on the streets of Sydney from Hyde Park to George Streets, September 15, 2012.





IMAGE.....
http://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/freedom-of-expression-go-to-hell.jpg

"Freedom of expression GO TO HELL!"

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:03pm:

Great. You won't have any trouble backing up your hysterical rant then.

Am I wrong? That was my interpretation. If I was wrong in my interpretation just say so FD - we can clear this up easily. Why is it so hard? I really don't understand.  :-?

freediver wrote on Aug 19^th, 2015 at 10:03pm:

Great. We have an answer to your question. You can support atrocities and claim to be a standard bearer for western liberal morals.

Not really. Its not a matter of what you think about yourself, but if you accept the sincerity of others.

Do you accept my sincerity? Do you accept that I can believe Muhammad's actions were justified while at the same time I can believe I am a standard bearer for western liberal morals? I know at least 2 people here who flatly reject such a notion. Maybe 3. Soren seems a bit conflicted.

I think its an important issue to discuss if we are interested in constructive dialogue. If we start from the premise that your opponent is a liar and interested only in deceiving - then we are always doomed to failure.

Quote:

Am I wrong? That was my interpretation. If I was wrong in my interpretation just say so FD - we can clear this up easily. Why is it so hard? I really don't understand.

Tell me Gandalf, did you go back and locate the post in question and check it was the only one so that your instructions for finding it are valid? Why not just quote it? I have not said so because I have no idea what you are on about and am not going to try to figure it out. The fact that you are unwilling to quote it alongside your hysterical take on it says enough for me. You made the claim. You back it up. That's how it works.


Quote:

Not really. Its not a matter of what you think about yourself, but if you accept the sincerity of others. Do you accept my sincerity?

This is an interesting question. When your fellow Muslims state quite clearly that they stand in opposition to freedom and democracy, you respond by calling their sincerity into question. You appear to be motivated by Islam to do this - you are definding your fellow Muslims from those who would cynically use fake wishy washy western liberal values to smear Islam. I am sure they would return the favour on you, again in the name of Islam. Now you question my sincerity in supporting freedom and democracy in the name of Islam - throwing out terms like fake morals and faux threats, in the same thread you clame to be the standard bearer for them.

I can appreciate the human capacity for inconsistency and self delusion, but you make it hard to take you seriously. Perhaps it might help if you could distinguish between the "faux threats" and the real ones, and distinguinguish between the "fake morals", the cynical wishy washy values, and the real ones, it might be a little easier. As far as I can tell you refer to the same thing. You mock freedom and democracy when Islam and your fellow Muslims stand in opposition to them. You invent some kind of alternative then talk it out of existence. Then you claim to be the standard bearer for these things. To top it off, you demand I refrain from specific responses to try to figure out what you are on about. We must ignore the details and inconsistencies and appreciate your gist.

Sincerely yours,

Freediver

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

When your fellow Muslims state quite clearly that they stand in opposition to freedom and democracy, you respond by calling their sincerity into question.

What???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUoiy22Q_lw


freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Now you question my sincerity in supporting freedom and democracy in the name of Islam - throwing out terms like fake morals and faux threats, in the same thread you clame to be the standard bearer for them

No you misunderstand me. As I already said, I have no doubt you believe in these fake morals and faux threats. But to me they are still fake and faux. I am not questioning your sincerity FD.


freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Perhaps it might help if you could distinguish between the "faux threats" and the real ones, and distinguinguish between the "fake morals", the cynical wishy washy values, and the real ones, it might be a little easier.

I really did cover it all in my lengthy post yesterday. "faux threats" are extremely low level threats that are artificially built up as cynical exercises in opportunism - usually to create divisions for political purposes. The threat of Islamic terrorism in Australia is one such threat. Boats are another. They are being exagerated beyond all recognition by a flailing government desperately in search of the 'dog whistle' vote.

"Fake morals" are exercises in double standards - again for cynical purposes. Its things like American leaders lecturing everyone about human rights and justice and freedom etc etc - while at the same time giving a wink and a nod to yet another Israeli massacre of Palestinians, or terrorizing Pakistani children with drones. Its rewriting the entire narrative of brutal western imperial history - into one of the noble spreading of democracy and freedom. You can put this in the same category as 'cynical wishy washy liberal values'.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

Tell me Gandalf, did you go back and locate the post in question and check it was the only one so that your instructions for finding it are valid? Why not just quote it?

Fine you win  ::)


freediver wrote on Aug 14^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

Quote: If you look at the way the Bremer regime started off Do you need to look at it a special way Gandalf? Is this like my skills at saying things without actually saying them?

Was this not a way of expressing your scepticism towards my claim that the Bremer regime had no interest in setting up democracy in Iraq? If not, then great.

gandalf wrote Reply #95 - Yesterday at 11:01am


Quote:

The issue I'm interested here is what is undermining freedoms here in the west. You think its people feeling intimidated to mock Muhammad, whereas I think its our "unity ticket" parliament rubber stamping dangerous laws to undermine some pretty basic rights. A big part of the problem, which Karnal has touched on before in detail, is the modern distortion of our idea of freedom. Nowadays "freedom" seems to be all about who can be the most offensive and to witch-hunt those who inevitably complain about being offended. You will never see a 'draw Muhammad' competition that includes entrants that are not offensive caricatures of muslims. Thats because stunts like these insist on making the two terms "freedom" and "be offensive" as completely synonymous. I take what you no doubt see as a quaint view that true freedom of speech should be something that is responsible and constructive to public discussion. You will no doubt counter that offending muslims and teaching muslims to accept offense is just what is needed for healthy public discourse. But this is absurd if you think about it: humans are emotional creatures, and you are never going to be constructive if you deliberately set out to create an emotional response. But what can you do? Obviously the solution is not censorship or taking away people's rights to be offensive - the only point I can make here is that we have distorted the idea of what it means to have freedom of expression. So by all means offend away and stand up for your right to be offensive - and I will be the first to condemn any violent reactions to it. But don't pretend that such a discourse will do any good in terms of bringing about social harmony and healthy debate. Perhaps all this wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a one-way discourse. Freeeedom lovers like you I mean - saying that the right to insult per se is the be-all and end-all of freedom, and that people who object to that must be ruthlessly attacked. Some understanding of the hurt people are feeling and why its so destructive wouldn't go astray, and it can be perfectly consistent with standing up for true freedom: I condemn those people who react violently to those Muhammad cartoons - but I also condemn those who deliberately set out to offend and look for a reaction. Believe it or not, you actually can condemn someone while at the same time accept their right to be offensive. You seem to take the view that condemning someone for a certain expression is a bit too close to comfort to calling for banning such expressions. It is not. And you also seem to take the view that a few violent incidents automatically makes any peaceful reaction by muslims as cynical and illegitimate. Thus you will go to all sorts of ridiculous contortions to dismiss a muslim protest against a brazen attack on freedom and democracy - as somehow a front for anti-freedom. As well as mock muslims who protest against actual proposed censorship. These are the incidents that you should be praising if you were consistent with your professed values. Instead you will always find a way to turn muslim activity into sinister activity. No doubt you will have a lot to say in reply, but I do ask that you depart from your usual style of slicing up my post sentence by sentence and responding to each with 30 meaningless one line quips. Try and make a meaningful response that I can make sense of.

You seem to be labouring under the banner of self pity gandalf.

Do you understand the offence felt by people who are the intended victims of the intentionally degenerate odiousness of the qur'an?

Do you understand the offence, felt by people, who see the death and destruction inflicted on innocent human beings, by jihadists who follow the perversion in the qur'an to the letter, in order to claim their rightful place as the highest grade of muslim there is?

Do you understand the offence felt by people who hear the deliberate lies of the muslims, as they fallaciously carp on about: islam's a religion of peace, it's got nothing to do with islam, it's been misinterpreted, muhammad was the best of all examples, allah is the same god as Y.H.W.H. etc. etc. etc.?

Time to stop your muslims are the victims deceit, accept responsibility for the decadence in your cult gandalf.

moses wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 3:54pm:

Time to stop your muslims are the victims deceit

And yet the victims of Islamic terrorism are overwhelmingly muslim - agreed?

Saying that muslims are victims in this is just a simple statement of fact.

Always running away from the fact that islam is deliberately offensive to an infinite number of people around the globe gandalf.

The world is changing rapidly, if you don't accept responsibility for islamic depravity and clean up your doctrine, the day will come when the world will turn on you. It's slowly taking shape gandalf. Your future is in your hands.

Moses, you see, has become an Old Testament life coach.

Quote:

What???

Malaysia, if you don't mind me being specific. Let me know when this gets too detailed for you and I'll go back to waving my arms in the air.


Quote:

I really did cover it all in my lengthy post yesterday. "faux threats" are extremely low level threats that are artificially built up as cynical exercises in opportunism - usually to create divisions for political purposes.

Are people free to make Muhammed videos?


Quote:

The threat of Islamic terrorism in Australia is one such threat. Boats are another. They are being exagerated beyond all recognition by a flailing government desperately in search of the 'dog whistle' vote.

How many Australians are in jail on terrorism charges?


Quote:

"Fake morals" are exercises in double standards - again for cynical purposes. Its things like American leaders lecturing everyone

You accused me of both of these things Gandalf. Are you backpedaling?


Quote:

Was this not a way of expressing your scepticism towards my claim that the Bremer regime had no interest in setting up democracy in Iraq? If not, then great.

See, that is far less hysterical. It's amazing how much perspective simply quoting me can bring to your interpretation isn't it? Yes I am skeptical of this claim. I would like to see you follow through on it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 4:24pm:

moses wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 3:54pm: Time to stop your muslims are the victims deceit And yet the victims of Islamic terrorism are overwhelmingly muslim - agreed? Saying that muslims are victims in this is just a simple statement of fact.

That is the duplicitous and deceitful game which 'the moslem' always plays.

i.e.
In his conflict in the earth, 'the moslem' always plays, one of two roles.

'The moslem' is either playing the "Allah Akbar" victor [AND in reality, a cruel and ruthless oppressor!],
OR,
'the moslem' is playing the 'innocent' victim [because in his conflict with others he is proven to be weaker than his enemy AND has no chance of prevailing].



gandalf,

You say; "....the victims of Islamic terrorism are overwhelmingly muslim - agreed?"

Yes it is true.

e.g.
When moslem group (A) and moslem group (B) are in conflict with each other, and when moslem group (A) is stronger that moslem group (B),    then moslem group (B) will claim they are the innocent victims of wrongful violence!

BUT CONVERSELY [and perversely] !     ....When moslem group (A) and moslem group (B) are in conflict with each other, and when moslem group (B) is stronger that moslem group (A),    then moslem group (A) will claim they are the innocent victims of wrongful violence!




Moslems are not sincere people.

Moslems are duplicitous, deceitful, and violent and ruthless people.

When moslems are stronger than their enemies, MOSLEMS WILL COMMIT 'RIGHTEOUS' ATROCITIES AGAINST THEIR WEAKER ENEMY.

And when moslems are weaker than their [sometimes moslem] enemies, THE WEAKER MOSLEM CAMP WILL ALWAYS CLAIM THAT THEY ARE THE INNOCENT VICTIMS, OF OTHERS VIOLENCE AND ATROCITIES.



ISLAM, is what the moslem psyche deserves!


God damn, the filthy, stinking, deceitful, vicious, murderous, ruthless,       .....moslem.



Psalms 7:15
He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.


Psalms 9:16
The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah.

FD, do you see yourself as the standard bearer of modern liberal values?

You haven’t said.

Karnal wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:13pm:

FD, do you see yourself as the standard bearer of modern liberal values? You haven’t said.

karnal,

What is meaning of the word; 'pragmatic' ?


my dictionary is broken.      ;)

Yadda wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:52pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 9:13pm: FD, do you see yourself as the standard bearer of modern liberal values? You haven’t said. karnal, What is meaning of the word; 'pragmatic' ? my dictionary is broken.      ;)

I give up, Y. Not a follower of Islam, is it?

Can’t be. That one’s taken.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

Malaysia

Rubbish.


freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

How many Australians are in jail on terrorism charges

20 something I think - in other words bugger all. Certainly not enough to justify the hysteria. We should be more concerned about the 100 or so women who die every year from domestic violence. I'll eagerly await the next 20-flag press address by the PM railing against the "death cult" of Australian husbands right?  :P

gandalf wrote:


Quote:

20 something I think - in other words bugger all. Certainly not enough to justify the hysteria. We should be more concerned about the 100 or so women who die every year from domestic violence. I'll eagerly await the next 20-flag press address by the PM railing against the "death cult" of Australian husbands right?

List of Australian muslims obeying the filth in the qur'an

April 16, 2015 5:03pm


FOREIGN FIGHTERS BY STATE:

NSW: 37

WA: 1

VIC: 14

QLD: 6

NT: 1

ACT: 1

TOTAL: 61 (1 unknown)



AUSSIE JIHADIS

1) Mostafa Mahamed Farag (Abu Sulayman al-Muhajir) (NSW) 30

2) Khaled Sharrouf (Abu Zarqawi al Australi) (NSW) 33

3) Mohamed Elomar (Abu Hafs al Australi) (NSW) 30

4) Tara Nettleton (Umm Zarqawi) (NSW)

5) Abdullah Elmir (Abu Zubayr Al Muhajir) (NSW) 17

6) Yusuf Yusuf (Abu Affan Alsomalee) (VIC)

7) Zehra Duman ( Umm Abdullatif) (VIC)

8) Mounir Raad (VIC) 21


9) Neil Prakash (Abu Khalid al Cambodi) (VIC) 23

10) Abraham Succarieh (QLD) 29

11) Muhammed Sheglabo (WA) 23

12) Hodan Abby (NSW) 18

13) Hafsa Mohamed (NSW) 20

14-17) The El Baf brothers - Taha, 17, Hamza, 23, Omar, 28, Bilal, 25. (NSW)


AUSSIE DEAD CULT

18) Amira Karroum (Amira Ali) (NSW) 22

19) Tyler Casey (Yusuf Ali) (NSW) 22

20) Sharky Jama (Abu Tawba Alsomalee) (VIC)

21) Caner Temel (NSW) 22

22) Abdul Salam Mahmoud (Abu Hamza al-Sudani and Yassin Ali) (NSW) age unknown

23) Jake Bilardi (Abu Abdullah al Australi) (VIC) 18

24) Mohammad Ali Baryalei (Abu Omar) (NSW) 33

25) Suhan Rahman (Abu Jihadi al Australi) (VIC) 23

26) Mahmoud Abdullatif (VIC) 23

27) Zakarayah Raad (Abu Yayha ash Shami) (NSW) 22

28) Adam Dahman (VIC) 18

29) Roger Abbas (VIC) 23

30) Yusuf Toprakkaya (VIC) 30

31) Sammy Salma (VIC) 22

32) Mustapha al-Majzoub (NSW) 30

33) Ahmad Moussali (NSW) age unknown

34) Ahmed Succarieh (Abu Asma al Australi) (QLD)

35) Zia Abdul Haq (Abu Yusseph) (QLD) 33

36) Ahmad Mohamad Al-Ghaz’zaoui (NSW) unknown age


AUSSIE KIDS IN SYRIA

37-41) Five Sharrouf children (two daughters, three sons) (NSW)


Islamic State: Gang of five would-be terrorists stopped at Sydney Airport August 20, 2015 5:20pm

Islamic State: Seven more Australians stopped from joining Middle East terrorist groups Updated Thu at 11:04am

Moses, if people travel to Syria to fight and have every intention of dying in Syria - what does that say about the threat they pose to Australia?

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 3:45pm:

Moses, if people travel to Syria to fight and have every intention of dying in Syria - what does that say about the threat they pose to Australia?

You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam - why do you believe them when they say this?

Soren wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 5:43pm:

You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam

100% wrong.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 6:01pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 5:43pm: You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam 100% wrong.

Oh, so you accept that they act in the name of Islam??


That's what I have been saying for years - and thought you insisted that Islam and Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'.


I can feel a really twisted yeah-but-no-but coming on......

Soren wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 6:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:01pm: Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 5:43pm: You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam 100% wrong. Oh, so you accept that they act in the name of Islam?? That's what I have been saying for years - and thought you insisted that Islam and Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'. I can feel a really twisted yeah-but-no-but coming on......

Oh, I know. We’ve heard yours on the Old Testament.

Soren wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 6:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:01pm: Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 5:43pm: You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam 100% wrong. Oh, so you accept that they act in the name of Islam?? That's what I have been saying for years - and thought you insisted that Islam and Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'. I can feel a really twisted yeah-but-no-but coming on......

Oh, I know. We’ve heard yours on the Old Testament.

Gandalf are you backpedaling on your "faux threats" and "fake morals" accusations? Did you mistake me for these unidentified 'western leaders' who practice some kind of collective hypocrisy?

Are you going to back up your claim about democracy in Iraq, or is that getting too specific for you? Are we to simply move on from your hysterical over-reaction to my post?


Quote:

Rubbish.

How would you describe your efforts to interpret what they really meant? How can you demand we appreciate your sincerity when your first response to both Muslims and non-Muslims who disagree with you is an accusation of insincerity, followed up by a hopelessly inconsistent claim to the moral high ground?


Quote:

20 something I think - in other words bugger all. Certainly not enough to justify the hysteria.

What hysteria? Most people aren't even aware there are so many. Plus we have 100 or so raping and pillaging their way across the middle east. On top of that, it is the pointy end of a broad anti freedom movement that employs the full gamut of methods, is pushed by major mainstream Muslim organisations (in addition to terrorists) and has broad support among the world's Muslims for the agenda they are pushing.


Quote:

We should be more concerned about the 100 or so women who die every year from domestic violence.

Nice try at deflection. Have you not noticed the anti-DV movement that is heavily government funded?

FD I'm not backpeddling anything, and I'm not going over old 50 page threads to prove once again I said what I said. And finally I'm not going over what I've already done to death on Bremer's regime in Iraq.


freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 7:03pm:

Most people aren't even aware there are so many.

Nonsense. After all the hysteria with those police raid extravaganzas - which the media just happened to get a tip off about as they were happening - the average joe blow probably thinks our prisons are chock full of terrorists. Then ASIO inexplicably ramps up this absurd "terrorism alert" thing from "scared" to "panic" or something like that. Completely meaningless of course.

Its just blatantly and shamelessly confected by an irresponsible government that must keep proving their national security credentials - as well as take the heat off their embarrassment of a budgetary policy. And that is why someone like yourself who claims to stand up for freedom should be all over this - and see it for what it is - an actual threat to our freedoms. It should be dealt with without the fuss and without making it political - like DV is treated.

Quote:

FD I'm not backpeddling anything, and I'm not going over old 50 page threads to prove once again I said what I said.

We haven't even gotten to the proof yet. We are still trying to figure out what you meant. You accused me, and 'clarified' with some vague waffle about western leaders. You don't think I am the PM do you?

What are these "faux threats" and "fake morals" you accuse me of, while claiming to be the standard bearer for at the same time as complaining we doubt your sincerity?

;D behold the FD reply.

You are a joke.

Gandalf were you being sincere when you accused me of fake morals?

FD, were you being sincere when you accused G of supporting Mardi Gras terrorism to put to death the hommers (both the giver and the taker)?

gandalf wrote


Quote:

Reply #134 - Yesterday at 3:45pm: Moses, if people travel to Syria to fight and have every intention of dying in Syria - what does that say about the threat they pose to Australia? & Reply #141 - Yesterday at 9:07pm Nonsense. After all the hysteria with those police raid extravaganzas - which the media just happened to get a tip off about as they were happening - the average joe blow probably thinks our prisons are chock full of terrorists. Then ASIO inexplicably ramps up this absurd "terrorism alert" thing from "scared" to "panic" or something like that. Completely meaningless of course. Its just blatantly and shamelessly confected by an irresponsible government that must keep proving their national security credentials - as well as take the heat off their embarrassment of a budgetary policy. And that is why someone like yourself who claims to stand up for freedom should be all over this - and see it for what it is - an actual threat to our freedoms. It should be dealt with without the fuss and without making it political - like DV is treated.

If only there was a smidgen of logic in your above scenarios.

muslims in Syria (and other muslim countries) are calling for muslims around the globe to commit islamic atrocities in their western safe havens.

Our anti terror units have preempted and defeated many muslims before they have been able to carry out their acts of terror.

I believe that it's about 400 Australian muslims have been stopped from going overseas to commit islamic atrocities.

I haven't got the figures on hand, as to how many Australian muslims have been detained, jailed or waiting for trial on terrorism charges.

However they do exist in the plural, which means islamic atrocities are the norm for muslims, most definitely not a totally uncommon precept occasionally carried out by some singular muslim nutcase.

The facts are that muslims present a threat in real time, in Australia and other western nations.

muslim on muslim violence is ever present, has been since the inception of islam.

Soren wrote on Aug 21^st, 2015 at 6:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:01pm: Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 5:43pm: You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam 100% wrong. Oh, so you accept that they act in the name of Islam?? That's what I have been saying for years - and thought you insisted that Islam and Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'. I can feel a really twisted yeah-but-no-but coming on......

Soren I accept that they believe they are acting the name of Islam - that's the point. I can therefore trust them at their word that they intend to fight and die in Syria. So I again I ask the question - what threat does such a person pose to Australia?

freediver wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 10:53am:

Gandalf were you being sincere when you accused me of fake morals?

You apologise for, and indulge in the sorts of fake morals I mentioned. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being behaving like this in a cynical way - and that you sincerely believe that these morals are not fake (unlike the people who create them).

You are misguided rather than deceitful.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 5:30pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 10:53am: Gandalf were you being sincere when you accused me of fake morals? You apologise for, and indulge in the sorts of fake morals I mentioned. I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being behaving like this in a cynical way - and that you sincerely believe that these morals are not fake (unlike the people who create them). You are misguided rather than deceitful.

Do you think FD truly believes Iraq is the next South Korea, G?

Shurely shome mishtake.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 5:18pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:01pm: Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 5:43pm: You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam 100% wrong. Oh, so you accept that they act in the name of Islam?? That's what I have been saying for years - and thought you insisted that Islam and Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'. I can feel a really twisted yeah-but-no-but coming on...... Soren I accept that they believe they are acting the name of Islam - that's the point. I can therefore trust them at their word that they intend to fight and die in Syria. So I again I ask the question - what threat does such a person pose to Australia?

Well, unless they win or they are all killed, none. But they are not going to win and they will not all be killed.

Pick up the thread from there Gandy. Are the scales going to fall from their eyes when ISIS is beaten? No. Are they going to jump off a cliff? No.

They are going to continue the fight elsewhere - in countries that let them in after they are scattered.

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:05pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 5:18pm: Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 6:01pm: Soren wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 5:43pm: You don't believe them when they say they act in the name of Islam 100% wrong. Oh, so you accept that they act in the name of Islam?? That's what I have been saying for years - and thought you insisted that Islam and Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'. I can feel a really twisted yeah-but-no-but coming on...... Soren I accept that they believe they are acting the name of Islam - that's the point. I can therefore trust them at their word that they intend to fight and die in Syria. So I again I ask the question - what threat does such a person pose to Australia? Well, unless they win or they are all killed, none. But they are not going to win and they will not all be killed. Pick up the thread from there Gandy. Are the scales going to fall from their eyes when ISIS is beaten?

ISIS won't be beaten, OB. In most cases, the scales will fall from their eyes when they see what ISIS have done.

Civilization is not such a thin veneer. Air conditioning, cars and shopping malls are things that stick in the psyche, as is a critical education. Believe it or not, Australians are quite good at spotting bullsh!t.

The kids who go off to fight should be over it in no time. The ones who don't get blown up come around in the end. The life of a Spartan might look good on paper, but in practice, it's a drag.

Your favourite poster-boy Zachy Mallah is one such kid who came back from Syria and spread the news. David Hicks is one who came back from Guantanamo Bay. Death is easy. Life in ISIS-land is not so easy. If you're a zealot, you'd see hypocrisy everywhere. ISIS is not what it's cranked up to be.

Death cults never are.

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 8:21pm:

ISIS won't be beaten, OB. In most cases, the scales will fall from their eyes when they see what ISIS have done. Civilization is not such a thin veneer. Air conditioning, cars and shopping malls are things that stick in the psyche, as is a critical education. Believe it or not, Australians are quite good at spotting bullsh!t. The kids who go off to fight should be over it in no time. The ones who don't get blown up come around in the end. The life of a Spartan might look good on paper, but in practice, it's a drag. Your favourite poster-boy Zachy Mallah is one such kid who came back from Syria and spread the news. David Hicks is one who came back from Guantanamo Bay. Death is easy. Life in ISIS-land is not so easy. If you're a zealot, you'd see hypocrisy everywhere. ISIS is not what it's cranked up to be. Death cults never are.

You make the massive and by now expected blunder that you always make, PB - you think you are the measure of all things and others think like you.

You are nothing but a a supremely self-conceited and self-deluding  PB. 

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 9:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 8:21pm: ISIS won't be beaten, OB. In most cases, the scales will fall from their eyes when they see what ISIS have done. Civilization is not such a thin veneer. Air conditioning, cars and shopping malls are things that stick in the psyche, as is a critical education. Believe it or not, Australians are quite good at spotting bullsh!t. The kids who go off to fight should be over it in no time. The ones who don't get blown up come around in the end. The life of a Spartan might look good on paper, but in practice, it's a drag. Your favourite poster-boy Zachy Mallah is one such kid who came back from Syria and spread the news. David Hicks is one who came back from Guantanamo Bay. Death is easy. Life in ISIS-land is not so easy. If you're a zealot, you'd see hypocrisy everywhere. ISIS is not what it's cranked up to be. Death cults never are. You make the massive and by now expected blunder that you always make, PB - you think you are the measure of all things and others think like you. You are nothing but a a supremely self-conceited and self-deluding  PB.

Thanks, old chap. Do you have an opinion on the matter, or shall we leave it at that?

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 9:14pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:08pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 8:21pm: ISIS won't be beaten, OB. In most cases, the scales will fall from their eyes when they see what ISIS have done. Civilization is not such a thin veneer. Air conditioning, cars and shopping malls are things that stick in the psyche, as is a critical education. Believe it or not, Australians are quite good at spotting bullsh!t. The kids who go off to fight should be over it in no time. The ones who don't get blown up come around in the end. The life of a Spartan might look good on paper, but in practice, it's a drag. Your favourite poster-boy Zachy Mallah is one such kid who came back from Syria and spread the news. David Hicks is one who came back from Guantanamo Bay. Death is easy. Life in ISIS-land is not so easy. If you're a zealot, you'd see hypocrisy everywhere. ISIS is not what it's cranked up to be. Death cults never are. You make the massive and by now expected blunder that you always make, PB - you think you are the measure of all things and others think like you. You are nothing but a a supremely self-conceited and self-deluding  PB.  Thanks, old chap. Do you have an opinion on the matter, or shall we leave it at that?

I gave you my view already, PB - they do not think like you.  Get over yourself.

They are not beheading the 82 year old director of antiquities in Palmyra because they think like you.


Don't be SOOOO bugger self-conceited and smug for once.

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 9:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:14pm: Soren wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:08pm: Karnal wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 8:21pm: ISIS won't be beaten, OB. In most cases, the scales will fall from their eyes when they see what ISIS have done. Civilization is not such a thin veneer. Air conditioning, cars and shopping malls are things that stick in the psyche, as is a critical education. Believe it or not, Australians are quite good at spotting bullsh!t. The kids who go off to fight should be over it in no time. The ones who don't get blown up come around in the end. The life of a Spartan might look good on paper, but in practice, it's a drag. Your favourite poster-boy Zachy Mallah is one such kid who came back from Syria and spread the news. David Hicks is one who came back from Guantanamo Bay. Death is easy. Life in ISIS-land is not so easy. If you're a zealot, you'd see hypocrisy everywhere. ISIS is not what it's cranked up to be. Death cults never are. You make the massive and by now expected blunder that you always make, PB - you think you are the measure of all things and others think like you. You are nothing but a a supremely self-conceited and self-deluding  PB.  Thanks, old chap. Do you have an opinion on the matter, or shall we leave it at that? I gave you my view already, PB

Ah.

Karnal wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 9:28pm:

Soren wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: I gave you my view already, PB - they do not think like you.  Get over yourself. They are not beheading the 82 year old director of antiquities in Palmyra because they think like you. Don't be SOOOO bugger self-conceited and smug for once. Ah.

Glad to see the penny drop.

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 9:47pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:28pm: Soren wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:26pm: I gave you my view already, PB - they do not think like you.  Get over yourself. They are not beheading the 82 year old director of antiquities in Palmyra because they think like you. Don't be SOOOO bugger self-conceited and smug for once. Ah. Glad to see the penny drop.

O brave new world with such marvellous things in't.


Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 9:08pm:

You are nothing but a a supremely self-conceited and self-deluding  PB.

Gandalf can you elaborate on this vision of yourself as the standard bearer for modern western liberal morals? Is there any particular reason why you use the term morals rather than values?


Quote:

Soren I accept that they believe they are acting the name of Islam - that's the point. I can therefore trust them at their word that they intend to fight and die in Syria.

With the exception of suicide bombers, they do not go to war with the intention of dying Gandalf. They go to war with the intention of winning. Saying you are prepared to face death is not the same as promising you will die.


Quote:

So I again I ask the question - what threat does such a person pose to Australia?

The risk is that they will break their 'promise' to die and return to Australia, or they will have some kind of success and further destabilise the region. There is also the risk that they will inspire more home grown terrorism, like the Sydney siege.


Quote:

You apologise for, and indulge in the sorts of fake morals I mentioned.

So you say, but when I ask you to be more specific, you waffle about western leaders being collectively hypocritical.


Quote:

I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being behaving like this in a cynical way

Let's start with you saying what these fake morals are that you accuse me of. If you want to backpedal, you will have to go all the way Gandalf. Last time you did this you said you would take it back, but then you slithered off instead.


Quote:

You are misguided rather than deceitful.

How so?

FD, can you elaborate on your vision of yourself as the standard bearer of modern liberal values such as Freeeedom, military intervention, Iraq as the next South Korea, etc, etc, etc?

I asked you first, remember.

freediver wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2015 at 12:49pm:

So you say, but when I ask you to be more specific, you waffle about western leaders being collectively hypocritical.

I take it you genuinely believe America invaded Iraq with every intention of flowering the Iraqi people with democracy and freedom.

Is that specific enough for you?

As far as I know they intended to set up democracy. After all, that is what they did. How is that a fake moral? It sounds like a question of fact to me.

Democracy means that the Iraqi people get to choose what this means in terms of freedom. You cannot expect to control that outcome.

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 7:07am:

As far as I know

Thats certainly part of your problem. For a reasonably intelligent person you are shockingly ignorant of most of these subject matters. And this seems at least in part to be willful - in fact you seem to revel in not taking the time to research and understand topics you love to rail about. Instead you just pose incriminating questions to other people in order to tease out the "right" information for ingenious gotcha moments. 

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 7:07am:

As far as I know they intended to set up democracy. After all, that is what they did. How is that a fake moral? It sounds like a question of fact to me. Democracy means that the Iraqi people get to choose what this means in terms of freedom. You cannot expect to control that outcome.

As an addendum to the above, I remember at the time feeling great admiration for the bravery of the Iraqi people who were coming in from their villages and the outlying areas, trekking for hours to get to the nearest towns in order to queue up for yet more hours so that they could vote in this their first democratic election.

The Far Right theocracy advocates and the Sunnis were vowing to bomb these pro-democracy voters at the polling booths. It took a lot of raw courage to stand there risking their lives to support the US initiative in replacing generational tyranny with a representative democracy.

8 million of them made the pilgrimage to the polling booths ...

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 7:07am:

As far as I know they intended to set up democracy. After all, that is what they did. How is that a fake moral? It sounds like a question of fact to me. Democracy means that the Iraqi people get to choose what this means in terms of freedom. You cannot expect to control that outcome.

The US prevented a huge part of the Iraqi population from participating in and running for office. The Ba’ath party was the only political organisation in Iraq at the time they invaded.

The reason they held off on elections for so long is they could not predict the outcome. Their handpicked presidential candidates were not electable, so they went with Plan B: anarchy.

Turned out rather well, wouldn’t you say?

Soren wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2015 at 7:05pm:

Well, unless they win or they are all killed, none. But they are not going to win and they will not all be killed. Pick up the thread from there Gandy. Are the scales going to fall from their eyes when ISIS is beaten? No. Are they going to jump off a cliff? No. They are going to continue the fight elsewhere - in countries that let them in after they are scattered.

They are not going to win, but neither will they be defeated. Jihadists will be fighting for their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq for the foreseeable future. There will be no shortage of fighting for them to do there.

And they have already proven their intentions by opting to go and fight for the caliphate on the other side of the world - and *NOT* stay at home and become a sleeper terrorist cell. That is their dream, and that is where they will stay until they are killed. And contrary to what FD repeats every day, they are not motivated to go raping and pillaging - ISIS recruitment lures them in using good old fashioned "fight the oppressors" propaganda. Look at their videos for yourself - they are about the evil Syrian and western forces slaughtering innocents in the Islamic State - come and defend them! So they go - and the first thing they do is burn their western passports.

Yet they continually call on muslims in their safe, civilized, western havens to kill non muslims.

muslims are the present day, real time, threat to 21st century civilization 

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 24^th, 2015 at 11:06am:

Soren wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 7:05pm: Well, unless they win or they are all killed, none. But they are not going to win and they will not all be killed. Pick up the thread from there Gandy. Are the scales going to fall from their eyes when ISIS is beaten? No. Are they going to jump off a cliff? No. They are going to continue the fight elsewhere - in countries that let them in after they are scattered. They are not going to win, but neither will they be defeated. Jihadists will be fighting for their Islamic state in Syria and Iraq for the foreseeable future. There will be no shortage of fighting for them to do there. And they have already proven their intentions by opting to go and fight for the caliphate on the other side of the world - and *NOT* stay at home and become a sleeper terrorist cell. That is their dream, and that is where they will stay until they are killed. And contrary to what FD repeats every day, they are not motivated to go raping and pillaging - ISIS recruitment lures them in using good old fashioned "fight the oppressors" propaganda. Look at their videos for yourself - they are about the evil Syrian and western forces slaughtering innocents in the Islamic State - come and defend them! So they go - and the first thing they do is burn their western passports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeTeqbUobp0

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2015 at 8:22pm:

I take it you genuinely believe America invaded Iraq with every intention of flowering the Iraqi people with democracy and freedom.

There were no combat deaths for about 2 weeks after the Saddam statues were torn down.

When Abu Musab al Zarqawi the founder of the Islamic state started bombing the red cross and the UN the place started turning to poo.

The Kurds embraced the democracy brought to the region, no coalition soldiers were killed in Kurdish parts of Iraq, the Kurds greeted the USA by waving home made USA flags and singing the star spangled banner.

The sunni vs shia sectarian strife did not happen in the Kurdish parts of Iraq

Soren wrote on Aug 25^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeTeqbUobp0

#ISIS child trained to behead Teddy bear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeTeqbUobp0


Yeah, but that is obviously a filthy stinking infidel Teddy bear.

So it deserves to, DIE TEDDY DIE!




--------- >

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.


ISLAM = =    ---------- >

"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216






.


Just remember, all of you infidels!!!!!     ....there are no innocent infidel Teddy bears!!!!





Spokesmen for ISLAM will tell anyone who will listen;

THAT IT IS WRONG, AND THAT IT IS TOTALLY AGAINST ISLAMIC LAW,      TO KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.



Please watch this YT...
A UK moslem community leader, speaking in the wake of the London 7/7 bombing;


Quote:

YT KILLING OF NON-MUSLIMS IS LEGITIMATE "...when we say innocent people, we mean moslems." "....[not accepting ISLAM] is a crime against God." "...If you are a non-moslem, then you are guilty of not believing in God." "...as a moslem....i must have hatred towards everything which is non-ISLAM." "...[moslems] allegiance is always with the moslems, so i will never condemn a moslem for what he does." "...Britain has always been Dar al Harb [the Land of War]" "...no, i could never condemn a moslem brother, i would never condemn a moslem brother. I will always stand with my moslem brother....whether he is an oppresser or the oppressed."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maHSOB2RFm4




.




The example of an 'Aussie' moslem community leader,


http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2007/01/18/va1237230244821/Sheik-Feiz-Chris-Pavlich-5363339.jpg


Quote:

Use children as troops, says cleric January 18, 2007 SYDNEY'S most influential radical Muslim cleric has been caught on film calling Jews pigs and urging children to die for Allah. Firebrand Sheik Feiz Mohammed, head of the Global Islamic Youth Centre in Liverpool [Australia], delivered the hateful rants on a collection of DVDs called the Death Series being sold in Australia and overseas. .........Sheik Feiz says in the video. "We want to have children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this: There is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy warrior). Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love of martyrdom." An Australian citizen born in Sydney who has spent the past year living in Lebanon, Sheik Feiz was exposed this week in a British documentary Undercover Mosque. ......"The peak, the pinnacle, the crest, the highest point, the pivot, the summit of Islam is jihad," he declares in the film, before denouncing "kaffirs" (non-Muslims). "Kaffir is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief, filth, a sign of dirt." ......Sheik Feiz - who just two weeks ago said he felt like an "alien" in his own country - leads about 4000 followers through his Global Islamic Youth Centre in Sydney's southwest. He also accused Australian authorities of being over-zealous in their approach to clerics like him.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21074839-2,00.html
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/014863.php


Google;
jihad is the pinnacle of islam




.



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/25/article-0-1FF53F8400000578-353_634x351.jpg

'Aussie' EX-moslem, Mohamed Elomar, in Syria/Iraq.



Quote:

'Whosoever dies without participating in an expedition (jihad) nor having the intention to do so, dies on a branch of hypocrisy,'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632768/Brisbane-woman-charged-supporting-terrorism-whilst-Australian-husband-fights-Syria-member-brutal-militant-group.html
   - Australian EX-moslem, Mohamed Elomar, quoting ISLAMIC scripture



Google;
"Allah's Messenger said" "Whosoever dies without participating"