Ok,

It's obvious that FD is not going to do anything to prevent Sprint from knowingly inciting hatred and intolerance in Islam and Muslims. So if it continues under the watchful eye of FD I will take the ozpolitic.com forums and FreeDiver to the Equal Opportunity Commission for being neglectful in preventing the incitement of religious hatred and intolerance. Enough is enough FD. I've explained several things many times and Sprint knows this. Either you do something about it and prevent him from continually posting the same garbage in an attempt to incite hatred of Islam and Muslims when he and you both know it's untrue or I'll go straight to the EEO.

If I get banned off of this forum for doing so this will also go down in my complaint.

I refer you to the following passages in the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of Victoria (2001)


Quote:

7 Racial vilification unlawful (1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct— (a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and (b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

I also refer you to the following extract:


Quote:

15 Prohibition of authorising or assisting vilification or victimisation A person must not request, instruct, induce, encourage, authorise or assist another person to contravene a provision of this Part.

It is not illegal to criticise someone's religion. There is nothing in those quotes to indicate otherwise. It is not against the rules of this forum to be stupid and ask the same stupid questions over and over again. Just ignore him if it bothers you. You don't need to convince sprint of anything, but you have amanaged to convince many others here, including myself, that sprint is wrong about a lot of issues and is a bit slow to take it on board.

Please cease your personal attacks on sprint - eg insulting him.

Your criticism of Arab tribalism is far closer to a violation of those laws than anything sprint said.

Fair go Malik. I think you've introduced an unfortunate path to this debate.

While I encourage and enjoy a good debate it often times get heated and emotional. People throw insults at each other and call each other names. That is unfortunate and should cease. But in the end, it is merely an exchange of ideas and opinion - you take the good with the bad. You take what you want from it and discard the rest. As you know one needs to develop a thick skin in the net (especially in chatrooms and forums).

We all appreciate yours and Abu's input but if you feel that the atmosphere in here it is not to your liking then it might be better if you attend another site where everyone is likeminded and agrees with the common topic of discussion. However, within those sites ideas and insights are not gained or generated (with everyone nodding their heads and speaking the same rhetoric). Sensibility must reign supreme within debates and politics. Turning your back and walking away I think is better than threatening the legality of contents thereby stifing opinion.

The legal expense is something i cannot afford.
I also won't subject freediver to this treatment either.

I'll leave.

take care all

will copy the posts from my spirituality forum I want soon.
Anyone else want to moderate it ?

Sprint, it's an empty threat. Don't worry. Stand up for free speech. Otherwise you will only encourage people to use threats like this to stifle free speech, because it works so well. I've had far more elaborate threats and demands made against me. It's always utter BS.

Malik,

You're were doing quite well up to that post. Freedom of speech works. In fact the way that you have responded to some of Sprint's comments have probably done your cause much more good.

The Act was never intended to stop criticism of a religion. For example, the Qur'an states (referring specifically to the Jews):

"2:96 And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do. "  

By following your religion, you are therefore guilty of religious vilification against the Jews.

The Bible is also guilty of religious intolerance in many places:

"Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. "

That is clearly inciting people to kill those of the Wiccan faith.

Sprint is motivated by his religion. As extreme as that might be, there is no precedent for litigation based on following one's religion.

Religions are quite handy to hide behind. You can say that Atheists are going to hell. You can call people pigs and monkeys. You can dehumanise them quite legally, because religions have a special privilege to do exactly that. They legitimise bigotry.

Although I agree it need not come to this, the fact is that sprint just seems to be posting stuff to incite hatred of Muslims and promoting the idea they should not be allowed into Australia.

You can't ignore this fact freediver, it's quite clearly happening, and I think you've been turning a blind eye to it (and even encouraging it), because you're glad to see people getting all heated up in lively debates.


Quote:

malik gives the wannabe terrorists tacit approcal. the other muslims gave them complete approval. take note all those that want terrorism far from our shores. Question is : How to keep muslim terrorists from Australia ?

In this statement, and others, sprint is quite clearly equating Muslims with terrorists, and urging people to make the connection between allowing Muslims into Australia and encouraging terrorism here. If you refuse to admit to the connection, that's up to you, but anyone with half a mustard seed of objectivity could see it a mile away.

Now I'm not asking that free speech be hindered, if it were, then there'd be no point even discussing anything here, but I do ask that you encourage sprint to act in a mature manner and to use logical arguments to get his [legal] points across, and to leave his prejudiced points at the forum door.

Isn't that what I'm already doing Abu?

I've only really seen you encourage him to continue with it.

And in fact you rebuked Malik and I for responding to that quote of sprint's in my above post..


Quote:

Malik and Abu, please stop deliberately misinterpretting everything Sprint says as an attack on you or an attack on Islam. It is getting very old and it keeps sidetracking otherwise interesting threads. You can't expect everyone to walk on eggshells just in case you take offense.

I've quite often offered a critical view of Sprint's posts on Islam, but something I very highly value about Australia is the freedom of speech we have here. If you disagree with a point of view, then debate it, and offer sound reason which opposes the point of view you disagree with. Trying to silence viewpoints through legal means is one sure way to make them heard on a much broader scale. Who would ever have heard of Salman Rushdie otherwise?   This didn't help Muslims, it only incited more Western paranoia about Islam.

I'll refer you to an example from the religion I'm familiar with - Mormonism. By killing Joseph Smith on June 27, 1844, the opponents of Mormonism virtually ensured the long term survival of Mormonism. When you attack, or try to censor, all you're doing is making martyrs who will live in cherished memory.

Although I've often disagreed with Sprint's analysis of Islam, any legal moves to censor his freedom of speech will turn me right back into his court.  

I encourage you to respond to what he actually says, but there is no point responding to what you imagine his intentions are.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:51pm:

I encourage you to respond to what he actually says, but there is no point responding to what you imagine his intentions are.

I'm not sure what his "intentions" are, FD. Maybe you can enlighten a slow mind. The intention seems to be: stop being critical of Islam, or you'll be in hot legal water.

If Sprint wants to start 100 threads criticising Islam on a free forum, that's his choice. If someone disagrees, then let them tackle each criticism, as many times as it takes. That's what forums are about. It's not the print media where PC editors engage in "sensitivity control", one reason I no longer submit anything to the print media, because they control free speech.  

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 2:14pm:

In this statement, and others, sprint is quite clearly equating Muslims with terrorists, and urging people to make the connection between allowing Muslims into Australia and encouraging terrorism here.

I found the original statement mildly offensive myself. That's why I countered by suggesting that we could empower Muslims to prevent terrorism.

You'll find a lot of ignorant statements on the net. I find that the best solution is to give the perpetrators enough rope.

Actually I'm not so sure that the verse I quoted from the Qur'an was totally legal in line with the Victorian Legislation quoted. It sounded to me as if it was inciting hatred of the Jews.

Similarly the passage from the Bible was inciting people to kill Wiccans.  

Maybe it's time to outlaw such clearly slanderous texts.

Maybe if Malik takes Sprintcyclist to court, I could offer a counter action against the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils for religious vilification.

Now that would open a can of worms.

muso wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 3:14pm:

Similarly the passage from the Bible was inciting people to kill Wiccans.   Maybe it's time to outlaw such clearly slanderous texts. Councils for religious vilification.

I'd say religions incite plenty of hatred against Gay people. Muslims are now pushing for polygamy in Australia, but they outright condemn homosexuality, actively opposing it.  

So, polygamy is a-ok, but being Gay is a crime?

Under Islamic law only men are allowed multiple partners. Women can only have one husband. The penalty for gay sex is either death by stoning or 100 lashes.

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 3:31pm:

Under Islamic law only men are allowed multiple partners. Women can only have one husband. The penalty for gay sex is either death by stoning or 100 lashes.

Here are a few of the penalties which I posted on my site, not comprehensive:


Quote:

Bangladesh: 10 years to life Brunei: 10 years (where the Sultan "entertains" numerous wives) Iran: Death penalty. Malaysia: 20 years. Pakistan: 2 years prison - Life Sudan: 5 years - death. Yemen: Flogging - death.

Quote:

I've quite often offered a critical view of Sprint's posts on Islam

There's a difference between a critical view and just purely inciting people to hatred and fear.

The former I have no problem with, and in fact enjoy a good debate about, but the latter just becomes annoying and quite worrying, especially when it's treated so casually.


Quote:

but something I very highly value about Australia is the freedom of speech we have here

As do I, and as noted, I certainly wouldn't want to infringe upon anyone's right to it, but on the same token, this guy has to slow down a bit and be a little more sensible about how posts.


Quote:

If you disagree with a point of view, then debate it, and offer sound reason which opposes the point of view you disagree with.

You can only really debate with someone who presents a semi-logical argument. Half of sprint's ramblings are barely even coherent, let alone logical. Either way, I'm not concerned with his arguing style or even his views, it's his attempt to incite hatred and fear against Muslims, like what I quoted from him above.


Quote:

Although I've often disagreed with Sprint's analysis of Islam, any legal moves to censor his freedom of speech will turn me right back into his court

You're missing the point, it's not his analysis of Islam that's the problem, it's how he chooses to vocalise it. I'm sure if the same kind of attitudes were expressed against Jews, he would've been banned long ago.

We have a member who posts criticism of Jews as well as some racist stuff. he is not banned. Sprint is mild. You can only criticise him by ascribing intentions behind what he say, not by what he actually says.

It's quite clear what he said, I didn't ascribe any intention to it.

He said all Muslims support the terrorists, so take note how we can keep terrorists out of our country.

That's as plain and clear as your denial.

Anyway I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, I mostly ignore him anyway, so do as you like, as that's what you seem intent on doing anyway.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm:

There's a difference between a critical view and just purely inciting people to hatred and fear. The former I have no problem with, and in fact enjoy a good debate about, but the latter just becomes annoying and quite worrying, especially when it's treated so casually.

But is there any need to resort to legal threats over this? Lots of people on the Net are annoying. Are we now going to try to curtail this last bastion of free speech? I disagree with lots of things I see on forums, but I'd never attempt to silence them through legal threats.



abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm:

As do I, and as noted, I certainly wouldn't want to infringe upon anyone's right to it, but on the same token, this guy has to slow down a bit and be a little more sensible about how posts.

Why? That's in effect muzzling his right to free expression. "You can criticise me, but you can only go so far, or I'll hang you."


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm:

You can only really debate with someone who presents a semi-logical argument. Half of sprint's ramblings are barely even coherent, let alone logical. Either way, I'm not concerned with his arguing style or even his views, it's his attempt to incite hatred and fear against Muslims, like what I quoted from him above.

If they are "barely even coherent", why do you take them so seriously?



abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 3:52pm:

You're missing the point, it's not his analysis of Islam that's the problem, it's how he chooses to vocalise it. I'm sure if the same kind of attitudes were expressed against Jews, he would've been banned long ago.

Christianity is possibly the most derided religion in Australia at the moment. Do Sprint and his fellow Christians resort to legal threats? This is a religion that has been satirised and mocked to kingdom come, the butt of endless jokes and satire. Where have legal threats been enforced to stop this? Apart from the wussy print media who try to curtail it. I will stand corrected if you can inform me of this.

I'm sorry but any threat of legal action over posts on a forum, especially of the type offered here, is not only a display of abject moral cowardice, but also brings into question the personal integrity of the person offering the threat to sue.

It's quite clear what he said, I didn't ascribe any intention to it.

You and malik seem to interpret it differently to everyone else and you both ascribe intentions and views that he does not actually express.

abu and malik you need to harden up.

No one has to agree with Islam, no one has to like Islam, and no one has to support Islam.

In Australia, people are free to feel how they want.

Just as you are free to be Muslim and want an Islamic state in Australia.

Stop being a pair of sooks and grow a pair.

It's just the internet.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:38am:

Ok, It's obvious that FD is not going to do anything to prevent Sprint from knowingly inciting hatred and intolerance in Islam and Muslims. So if it continues under the watchful eye of FD I will take the ozpolitic.com forums and FreeDiver to the Equal Opportunity Commission for being neglectful in preventing the incitement of religious hatred and intolerance. Enough is enough FD. I've explained several things many times and Sprint knows this. Either you do something about it and prevent him from continually posting the same garbage in an attempt to incite hatred of Islam and Muslims when he and you both know it's untrue or I'll go straight to the EEO. If I get banned off of this forum for doing so this will also go down in my complaint. I refer you to the following passages in the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of Victoria (2001) Quote: 7 Racial vilification unlawful (1) A person must not, on the ground of the race of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct— (a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and (b) may occur in or outside Victoria. I also refer you to the following extract: [quote]15 Prohibition of authorising or assisting vilification or victimisation A person must not request, instruct, induce, encourage, authorise or assist another person to contravene a provision of this Part.

[/quote]


What a surprise, I don't think.
I have said before, how totally hypocritical I have found Islamic cheerleaders, and here we see it again.
Islam, chooses to be either;
1: A Religion
2:  Culture, or
3: A Race, all at, or for, it's own convenience.

We have to laugh at these guys who claim to be aussies, but cite every Islamic country overseas, as, "OUR LAND".

Not unlike a marriage of convenience, we are seeing a proliferation of Aussie's of convenience, both require a fundamental lack of principles to indulge.

As I have said over and over, if you want Islam to be respected, then work to clean up it's act, instead of justifying every Islamic act of violence as just retaliation against an oppressor.

If you think that you can spread an image of a peaceful and tolerant religion/culture/race(which is it at the moment?) by trying to punish people who are unimpressed with it, by using a system you would never allow in an Islamic country, then try your luck, you would require a degree of madness we have not ascribed to in Oz, yet.

I deride all religions, frankly I consider them to be preposterously naive, and when I described the evangelical and pentecostals as the crazies of the christian world, did sprint go crying he would take me to court?
No, he had a laugh about it.

It is a pity you guys are too small, morally, ethically, or intellectually, to do the same.

If you think this will stop derision of your religious beliefs, think again, these actions only validate the reasons that many hold against Islam.

easel wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 4:39pm:

abu and malik you need to harden up.

In fairness to Abu, it was Malik who brought up the Vilification Act

I must say that I found the post by mozzaok, above, rather refreshing.

I should add here, as a footnote, that, as I've said before, I work for a Muslim boss. I associate with many Muslims daily, and I find them to be very likable people. My boss is a practising Muslim, but has never once tried to convert me, and he's a man I enormously respect for his integrity and honesty, which I believe is largely inculcated by his religious beliefs.

I think there are some awful stereotypes of Muslims, as if they're from planet Pluto, and I don't agree with this. But when some start talking "fatwa" language, and trying to impose Islamic laws or values on Australian society, or trying to censor traditional free speech, I feel kind of ill.

Ray_A wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 5:18pm:

I should add here, as a footnote, that, as I've said before, I work for a Muslim boss. I associate with many Muslims daily, and I find them to be very likable people. My boss is a practising Muslim, but has never once tried to convert me, and he's a man I enormously respect for his integrity and honesty, which I believe is largely inculcated by his religious beliefs. I think there are some awful stereotypes of Muslims, as if they're from planet Pluto, and I don't agree with this. But when some start talking "fatwa" language, and trying to impose Islamic laws or values on Australian society, or trying to censor traditional free speech, I feel kind of ill.

Agreed. I too have worked with, lived with Muslims during my tenure in Malaysia and Indonesia. Most Muslims that I've interacted with and their culture are friendlier and more accomodating than some "enlightened" Western countries.

Ray,


Quote:

But is there any need to resort to legal threats over this?

Nope, and I didn't. You got the wrong guy.


Quote:

Why? That's in effect muzzling his right to free expression. "You can criticise me, but you can only go so far, or I'll hang you."

Most proponents of free speech still agree there are limits. and one of those limits is when people start peddling prejudiced hatemongering. I don't know if I'd classify sprint quite that harshly, but some of his comments leave you wondering.


Quote:

If they are "barely even coherent", why do you take them so seriously?

I generally don't. But it's hard not to when he's directly asking people to associate all Muslims with terrorism and then asks them to take note about how to keep terrorism out of Australia.

easel,


Quote:

abu and malik you need to harden up

I merely said the guy has to lighten up a bit. Don't think I really need to "harden up". And shouldn't that be "toughen up"?


Quote:

No one has to agree with Islam, no one has to like Islam, and no one has to support Islam

Nobody's asking you to...


Quote:

In Australia, people are free to feel how they want.

Agreed, feeling and inciting are two different kettles of fish though.

freediver,


Quote:

We have a member who posts criticism of Jews as well as some racist stuff. he is not banned.

If he's posting racist stuff, then really he should be banned, that kind of behaviour is not to be tolerated in Australian society..

As for criticisms, even though half the posters in this thread so far have confused the issue with criticising Islam, that's not what it's about, Malik never complained about sprint criticising Islam, and the fact Malik has been here so long is testament to the fact it's got nothing to do with criticisms of Islam. It's about inciting hatred and fear, and scapegoating Muslims.

When such a practise becomes commonplace and is considered "normal" by the masses, then a society is part of the way towards what Germany became in the 1930's and 40's.

abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 8:09pm:

Nope, and I didn't. You got the wrong guy.

I'm quite certain I didn't directly accuse you of this, Abu. I was generally pointing this out about Malik, who did make the threat.  


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 8:09pm:

Most proponents of free speech still agree there are limits. and one of those limits is when people start peddling prejudiced hatemongering. I don't know if I'd classify sprint quite that harshly, but some of his comments leave you wondering.

That has been obvious to me, that Sprint has no love lost for Muslims, but I have Christian friends who are exactly the same, and I'm bombarded by anti-Muslim emails from them which I always delete, because it bores the living hell out of me. Their anti obsession with Islam has always amazed me. I can only put this down to some kind of jealousy, or religious fervour which makes Islam feel threatening to them. Maybe it's a kind of "my God can beat up your God" mentality. Or perhaps they feel that the denial of Christ as the Son of God (not just a prophet) is some kind of sacrilege. But I really don't give a flying fig about this. These kind of petty religious squabbles are the furthest thing from my mind. I weigh Islam and Christianity on the merits I see, not on some kind of Biblical or Koranic literalism. And I have criticised both, almost always for a too fundamentalist approach to life and religion.


abu_rashid wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 8:09pm:

I generally don't. But it's hard not to when he's directly asking people to associate all Muslims with terrorism and then asks them to take note about how to keep terrorism out of Australia.

I would hope that Sprint doesn't equate ALL Muslims with terrorism, and I've never interpreted his posts this way. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but will stand corrected if I'm wrong. From my experience, from the Muslims I know, most of them think terrorists are scum.

Bedtime for me now, Good night.  

freediver wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 12:42pm:

Sprint, it's an empty threat. Don't worry. Stand up for free speech. Otherwise you will only encourage people to use threats like this to stifle free speech, because it works so well. I've had far more elaborate threats and demands made against me. It's always utter BS.

I understand that many here are quite astounded by this and see it as an attack on free speech, but what about the right of people to come to the forums and not be under attack because of their beliefs from someone who is so full of hate and tries to make the world hate them? Surely free speech is important, but is that free speech supposed to infringe on other's rights to feel safe? I don't think so at all.

I can assure you FD, it's not an empty threat. I had never wanted to do this in the first place because I believed that perhaps you, being a moderator would moderate the forums and prevent such a gross incitement of hate continue. I've reported many posts as being insulting and offensive and you haven't done a thing about it so it's obvious that you are not going to stop him by simple requests.

Your allowing of him to incite hatred against Islam is breaking the law as is he with making those comments. If you don't stop his wilfull incitement of hatred against Islam and you know it's not just free speech, it's him trying to incite hate against Islam and Muslims and that is evident by the fact that he continues to bring up the same garbage over and over again when it's been explained to him before, it's also the way he vocalizes it.

I must remind you that the forums themselves are evidence to such acts and that the law states directly:


Quote:

8 Religious vilification unlawful (1) A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons. Note Engage in conduct includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), conduct— (a) may be constituted by a single occasion or by a number of occasions over a period of time; and (b) may occur in or outside Victoria.

The fact remains that you allow it to happen on your forum without trying to stop it. You know very well what he is trying to do and you allow it to happen, in doing so you are accepting the behaviour and preventing this forum from being a place where people of all races and religions can come and enjoy the forums without fear from vilification and people like Sprints demonizing of Islam.

You mentioned that another person has been insulting Jews and you don't prevent it from happening. That too is against the law. You have a duty of care and you are bound by these laws just as anyone else is.

So you either prevent this incitement and vilification from happening and make sure Sprint doesn't continue or I will not hesitate to take this the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

I love being on these forums because I can clarify misconceptions about Islam as well as speak about other issues relevant to Australia. I'm sick of having to deal with Sprints obvious attempts to try and create hatred against Islam and Muslims and you can be very sure that if it continues I will take it further.

These forums should be a place of dialogue, not a place to sew the seeds of hatred. So either do something about it or I will.

bugger you and your stupid religion, it is one of the more absurd of the bunch, and in the realm of religiousity that is saying something.
Hey I think I invented a word!

Stop pretending you do not get off on playing the martyr.
I would love fifty bucks for every time you call yourselves oppressed.
The funny thing is you are right, you just have not identified that you are doing it to yourself.

Ray_A wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 8:38pm:

Maybe it's a kind of "my God can beat up your God" mentality.

LOL.

I'm sure your "my God" and "your God" are one and the same.

;)

Hey Malik, I had an idea.
Wanna buy some stones?
Go on, you know you want to.


Hate or Derision?

Easy for an average aussie to spot, I do not need to hate your views to find them ridiculous, unworthy of respect, and deserving of derision, yet you and Malik label me as racist, who classes muslims as subhuman, which goes on to the list of things you haven't got right.
It is preposterous that you cannot tell the difference between derision and hate, or possibly more accurately, that you choose to take offence, in some perverse attempt to legitimise your self ascribed oppression.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:48pm:

Hey Malik, I had an idea. Wanna buy some stones? Go on, you know you want to.

And that is in reference to?



Anyway, here's something pulled off the forum rules when registering:



Quote:

You agree, through your use of this YaBB forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or you have consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also inappropriate to this YaBB forum. Note that it is impossible for us to confirm the validity of posts on this YaBB forum. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages and are not responsible for their content. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The messages express the views of the author, not necessarily the views of this YaBB forum. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator of this forum immediately. We have the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. This policy applies to member profile information as well. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless this forum, and any related websites to this forum. We at this YaBB forum also reserve the right to reveal your identity (or any information we have about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any information posted by you. You have the ability, as you register, to choose your username. We advise that you keep the name appropriate. With this user account you are about to register, you agree to never give your password to another member, for your protection and for validity reasons. You also agree to NEVER use another member's account to post messages or browse this forum.After you register and log into this YaBB forum, you can fill out a detailed profile. It is your responsibility to present clean and accurate information. Any information we deem inaccurate or vulgar will be removed. Please note that with each post, your IP address is recorded, in the event that you need to be banned from this YaBB forum or your ISP contacted. This will only happen in the event of a major violation of this agreement.

Interesting. Don't you agree?

Al-Gharib wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 10:01pm:

Anyway, here's something pulled off the forum rules when registering: Quote: You agree, through your use of this YaBB forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of ANY law. Interesting. Don't you agree?

I guess he forgot to mention 'we will hold you responsible for these unless you insult or incite hate against Muslims or Islam or Jews'

He should probably update it to reflect his true attitude.

Either way, it proves FD is being a hypocrite because I've reported several posts so far and nothing has been done about them.

It is easy Al, you know exactly what I mean, but I will elucidate anyway.
I mean that we have seen Malik tell us over and over of how muslims justify acts of barbarity, like burying people up to their necks, and then throwing stones at their heads until they are dead.
We have him professing his desire to see australia become an Islamic country, and see us live under sharia law, the law which seems to be as willing to throw around death sentences for any real or imagined sleight against Islam.
It means that you are over sensitive, and reactionary, and should drag your primitive belief system into the modern world.

If you wish to see an end to Islam being criticised stop pretending that some ancient text is a literal instruction manual from god.
If you believe that is true, I suggest you start praying for an update, because the lack of clarity in the original, where interpretation is as varied and many, as the devotees choose it to be, does your credibility no good whatsoever.

Here is a tip for free, try and stop any deranged muslim cleric, with a bee in his bonnet, calling for the deaths of cartoonists, or teachers with teddy bears, and you may have less people thinking your beliefs are out of date.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 10:15pm:

Here is a tip for free, try and stop any deranged muslim cleric, with a bee in his bonnet, calling for the deaths of cartoonists, or teachers with teddy bears, and you may have less people thinking your beliefs are out of date.

Stop supporting the Saudi's government and we'll be able to do that and more.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 10:15pm:

It is easy Al, you know exactly what I mean, but I will elucidate anyway. I mean that we have seen Malik tell us over and over of how muslims justify acts of barbarity, like burying people up to their necks, and then throwing stones at their heads until they are dead. We have him professing his desire to see australia become an Islamic country, and see us live under sharia law, the law which seems to be as willing to throw around death sentences for any real or imagined sleight against Islam. It means that you are over sensitive, and reactionary, and should drag your primitive belief system into the modern world. If you wish to see an end to Islam being criticised stop pretending that some ancient text is a literal instruction manual from god. If you believe that is truew, I suggest you start praying for an update, because the lack of clarity in the original, where interpretation is as varied and many, as the devotees choose it to be, does your credibility no good whatsoever. Here is a tip for free, try and stop any deranged muslim cleric, with a bee in his bonnet, calling for the deaths of cartoonists, or teachers with teddy bears, and you may have less people thinking your beliefs are out of date.

Interesting. I've never heard of the burying people up to their necks part before. It's also intriguing that you've quoted the "stone throwing" bit. Particularly when this was a ruling in the law of Moses...


Quote:

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? [John 8:4-5]

Just out of curiosity, do you know the entirety of the ruling behind stoning? By this I mean to say, do you know what the strict preconditions are before a person can be stoned?

Just wondering...

Hi Al-Gharib.

The timing of your entrance into this forum site is impeccable or perhaps coincidental.

;)

I'm curious, is it not so that they bury them in the sand (up to their neck), cover their heads with a sack or bag and then stone them? I'm pretty sure that I've seen such scenes on youtube.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 10:50pm:

Hi Al-Gharib. The timing of your entrance into this forum site is impeccable or perhaps coincidental. ;)

Obiwan never told you... did he?

doh. Remind me to hire another publicist.



Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 10:50pm:

I'm curious, is it not so that they bury them in the sand (up to their neck), cover their heads with a sack or bag and then stone them? I'm pretty sure that I've seen such scenes on youtube.

A fair amount of what we see on TV or on the web isn't necessarily true. A rule I personally like to follow is, verify the information from it's source before you believe in it. Otherwise, what then is the purpose of intellect? Don't you agree?

Al-Gharib wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 11:08pm:

A fair amount of what we see on TV or on the web isn't necessarily true. A rule I personally like to follow is, verify the information from it's source before you believe in it. Otherwise, what then is the purpose of intellect? Don't you agree?

Sure, I fully agree and I try not to cite unverified sources (and if I do, I disclose that fact).

Can you therefore please confirm that such incidents shown on this link is false, doctored, didn't happen etc.

I believe this was from a doco called "Fitna" by a Dutch right wing parliamentarian. The actual footage I believe was from Saudi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URxqP8A6FJ0

From my understanding the death by stoning is done by burying men up to their chests and women up to their necks and stoning them to death.

But to get to that punishment there must be four witnesses to the adultery, which is highly unlikely unless they bare witness against themselves 4 times. And confession by torture is not acceptable either.

So you concur that burying to their necks and stoned really does happen. I ask because al-Gharib seems to imply that it does not.

So Malik, are you actively campaigning within Islam to see an end brought to these barbaric death penalties?
Do you have a problem with the sharia law?

And to Al, you may find that quoting that moses mentioned it may not help your argument if you are attempting to portray Islam as anything but anachronistic.
I believe the romans used to throw christians to the lions, but I do not recall seeing any of that in modern rome. Maybe you should take some well intentioned advice and drag your beliefs, and the standards that go with them, into the twenty first century.
Things have progressed in the rest of the world over the last 1400 odd years.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 11:48pm:

So Malik, are you actively campaigning within Islam to see an end brought to these barbaric death penalties? Do you have a problem with the sharia law?

It's not shariah I have a problem with at all. I believe that Shariah law is God's law and it would be foolish of you to expect me to denounce it, but the problem seems to be that you think that any nation which claims to be adhering to Shariah law is actually doing so. That simply isn't the case just as if I had claimed to be a Doctor without actually fulfilling the criteria on doing so.

In regards to the Teacher with the bear, it was completely unislamic to even arrest her for what she did if they think that she required the death penalty then they obviously don't understand Islam.

In regards to the cartoonist, he was not a part of an Islamic State and wasn't bound by it's laws. There are better diplomatic ways to deal with that issue instead of calling for his death.

The amount of damage that has been done to the countries who allowed it to happen's trade with the Middle East has really hurt them. The boycott worked quite well.

It does only seem to verify the widely held belief, that Islam, is out of control.
The fact is that all these acts, which you say are un-islamic, are all perpetrated by muslims.
I posted just yesterday about the cleric demanding female circumcision, yet you say it is against Islam, and in fact carries???
You guessed it, the DEATH penalty.
It does seem to illustrate that any wackjob, can justify whatever he wants, by quoting one text or another from the koran.
All this is what we see of your religion, and you not only expect, but demand, respect.
I repeat, get your own house in order, and then run that respect thing by us again.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 11:27pm:

Can you therefore please confirm that such incidents shown on this link is false, doctored, didn't happen etc. I believe this was from a doco called "Fitna" by a Dutch right wing parliamentarian. The actual footage I believe was from Saudi. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URxqP8A6FJ0

I heard Ayatollah Khomeini somewhere in there. That shows it's from Iran and not Saudi. The fact that all those recorded in the video were not wearing traditional Saudi garments also verifies that.


I've never heard of burying people in sand before. As far as I'm aware, it's baseless.


Also, just have a quick read of the following:


Quote:

The scholars have listed the ways of establishing proof of zina, and there are four ways: 1-    Testimony of witnesses 2-    Admission by the parties concerned 3-    Pregnancy of a woman who has no husband or master 4-    If the husband engages in li’aan and the wife refuses to take part in li’aan With regard to witnesses to zina, they should be four people whose testimony is acceptable, and they should state that they have seen the zina in clear terms, i.e., they should have seen the man’s penis in the woman’s vagina.  If some of them only testify that they saw them naked, or they describe certain positions or movements, that is not sufficient to proof that zina took place. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Sharh al-Mumti’ (6/157): They should describe zina in clear terms, such as saying: “I saw his penis in her vagina”. There is no alternative to that. If they say: “We saw him on top of her and they were naked”, that is not acceptable. Even if they say “We saw him doing with her what a man does with his wife,” that is not sufficient as testimony. They must say “We bear witness that his penis was in her vagina.” And this is very difficult, as the man said who was testified against at the time of ‘Umar: “If you were among the (four) thighs you would never be able to give this testimony.” Hence Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that at his time no case of zina was proven by means of testimony from the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the time of Ibn Taymiyah. If no case was proven from that time until the other, then we do not know of any case that was proven by testimony up till our own times, because it is very difficult. End quote. This strictness with regard to testimony about zina serves only to achieve the purpose aimed at by sharee’ah, which is to conceal people and not spread immorality, and to make societies avoid accusations against people’s honour and aspersions on their lineages. Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Jaami’ li Ahkaam al-Qur’aan (5/83): Allaah has stated that testimony in a case of zina must be given by four people, so as to make it hard for those who are testifying to such a thing, and to conceal people. End quote. Shaykh ‘Abd al-Rahmaan al-Sa’di said in his Tafseer (1/563): “Why did they not produce four witnesses?” [al-Noor 24:13], i.e., why did the accusers not bring witnesses to the things they accused them of? “four witnesses” i.e., of good character. “Since they (the slanderers) have not produced witnesses! Then with Allaah they are the liars” – even if they are certain about that in themselves, they are liars in Allaah’s judgement, because Allaah has forbidden them to speak of that without four witnesses. Hence Allaah says: “Then with Allaah they are the liars”, and He did not say “Then they are the liars”. All of this points to the grave sanctity of the Muslim’s honour, so it is not permissible to make accusations against it without establishing testimony. End quote.

Al-Gharib wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 12:08am:

The scholars have listed the ways of establishing proof of zina, and there are four ways: 1-    Testimony of witnesses 2-    Admission by the parties concerned 3-    Pregnancy of a woman who has no husband or master 4-    If the husband engages in li’aan and the wife refuses to take part in li’aan

Thanks. I'm guessing that zina is adultry. Can you please translate li’aan for me. I think it means sex.


Al-Gharib wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 12:08am:

I've never heard of burying people in sand before. As far as I'm aware, it's baseless.

Well, it's clearly shown on the YouTube link. The condemned are clearly half buried when stoned. The footage clearly shows them actually being buried. You've confirm that it was Khomeni's voice and that it was most likely from Iran. Therefore, how can they still be baseless? Do you think that footage was doctored?

mozzaok wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 12:05am:

The fact is that all these acts, which you say are un-islamic, are all perpetrated by muslims.

And many acts that were un-christian were committed by christians, just as many acts that were un-jewish were committed by jews, and similarly many acts that were against humanity were committed by athiests.



mozzaok wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 12:05am:

I posted just yesterday about the cleric demanding female circumcision, yet you say it is against Islam, and in fact carries??? You guessed it, the DEATH penalty. It does seem to illustrate that any wackjob, can justify whatever he wants, by quoting one text or another from the koran. All this is what we see of your religion, and you not only expect, but demand, respect. I repeat, get your own house in order, and then run that respect thing by us again.

Colonel Sanders (the KFC guy/Mr. Madula Oblangata) can get up tomorrow and claim that anyone who doesnt eat KFC is not a Christian. Or that anyone who doesn't buy a zinger burger is sinning. Does that mean he's right?

Anyone can get up and say anything.

The problem here is, just because someone says something, does not mean they are experts in the field of religion. It could just as well be a hillbilly in the middle of nowhere trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. If you really want to learn about a religion, you'd go to the real scholars of the religion. Not some random tom dick and harry off the road.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 12:26am:

Well, it's clearly shown on the YouTube link. The condemned are clearly half buried when stoned. The footage clearly shows them actually being buried. You've confirm that it was Khomeni's voice and that it was most likely from Iran. Therefore, how can they still be baseless? Do you think that footage was doctored?

I meant baseless on the topic of burying in sand. I've never heard of that before. In regards to the footage, I never said it was doctored.

Quote:

Thanks. I'm guessing that zina is adultry. Can you please translate li’aan for me. I think it means sex.

It means to invoke the curse of God.

Basically if one partner in marriage was accused of adultery, and they refused to invoke the curse of God upon themselves in the case they were lying, then their guilt would be assumed.

Anyway this thread is getting quite off topic. I suggest if people want to discuss capital punishment under Islam, then make a thread about it and discuss it there.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 9:25pm:

I can assure you FD, it's not an empty threat. I had never wanted to do this in the first place because I believed that perhaps you, being a moderator would moderate the forums and prevent such a gross incitement of hate continue. I've reported many posts as being insulting and offensive and you haven't done a thing about it so it's obvious that you are not going to stop him by simple requests.

I suggest you don't go down this pathway, Malik, because all it's going to do is further sour the majority of Australians against Islam. If this forum is sued, penalised, or shut down, it will make national headlines. Far better would be to continue the trend of Muslims coming to post here and debate the points. This alone has already had a significant balancing effect, in my opinion, and I for one welcome that balancing effect. That's how you counter what you feel is hatred, real or not, and incitement to hatred. Censorhip isn't going to work, it will only create more prejudice against Islam.

Ray_A wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 5:56am:

I suggest you don't go down this pathway, Malik, because all it's going to do is further sour the majority of Australians against Islam. If this forum is sued, penalised, or shut down, it will make national headlines. Far better would be to continue the trend of Muslims coming to post here and debate the points. This alone has already had a significant balancing effect, in my opinion, and I for one welcome that balancing effect. That's how you counter what you feel is hatred, real or not, and incitement to hatred. Censorhip isn't going to work, it will only create more prejudice against Islam.

Then FD should start being tougher around here and stop letting incitement of hatred against Muslims and from what he says, from Jews happen. It's inappropriate and no proper dialogue can occur while this continues.

Why should we have to be put through that when all we want to do is contribute?

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 8:42am:

Then FD should start being tougher around here and stop letting incitement of hatred against Muslims and from what he says, from Jews happen. It's inappropriate and no proper dialogue can occur while this continues. Why should we have to be put through that when all we want to do is contribute?

Malik, I speak for myself. Sprint's posts haven't incited me to hate Muslims. In fact, I ignore most of Sprint's posts on Islam, with the exception of when I first came here, and I took exception to some of his ideas (he can verify that) about Muslims, which I felt were stereotyped. I'm sure I have some of my own, still, and hopefully you and others will clear those up.

I've made similar arguments about Mormons (although I'm an ex-Mormon), that the slander and vilification of Mormons on the Internet could lead to actual violence against them in the future. For saying this I was ridiculed to kingdom come. No Islamic society would tolerate this, but it is tolerated in Australia and America. They (Mormons) are lambasted and ridiculed, both as a Church and personally, in ways that would make anyone shudder (I can provide the Internet evidence if you want). However, all I could do is add my voice of concern, because it's a free country, and in America the 1st Amendment protects free speech. Outside of personal defamation, you can say anything you want about any religion in America. In Oz we have tighter laws, but general criticism of religion still continues, and is tolerated. Witness some media criticism of the Pope's recent visit, and the enactment of some radical laws at gatherings, which received criticism from the legal fraternity.

I think you're inflating the impact that Sprint's posts may have, and I think you underestimate the intelligence of many readers, who can make up their own minds without having to take what Sprint says as Gospel. I don't. But I believe he's entitled to speak his mind, whether he's right or wrong. And you are entitled to rebut what he says. Fair minded people will make intelligent judgements about all of this. But when someone is censored, or threatened - out the window goes free speech, and in comes anger at being denied free speech, and the opportunity to say what you really feel. What do you think created the Pauline Hanson phenomenon? What do you think sparked the French Revolution? And the result of the latter was not more religion, but a total abandonment of it in France, because people were denied basic freedoms.

You see it starts with open hatred towards a particular group of people. When enough of these people who incite hatred get together they will take it much further, the genocide in Bosnia, the genocide in Germany and the genocide in Rwanda are all testemony to that.

This incitement of hatred can cause people to do stupid things.

5000 Australians on the beach of Cronulla demonstrated quite clearly that even a person with illogical views can move the masses into action when they are ignorant enough about the facts and if FD allows these people to continue doing it on this forum then he is giving them a place to sew their seeds of hatred.

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 9:32am:

You see it starts with open hatred towards a particular group of people. When enough of these people who incite hatred get together they will take it much further, the genocide in Bosnia, the genocide in Germany and the genocide in Rwanda are all testemony to that. This incitement of hatred can cause people to do stupid things. 5000 Australians on the beach of Cronulla demonstrated quite clearly that even a person with illogical views can move the masses into action when they are ignorant enough about the facts and if FD allows these people to continue doing it on this forum then he is giving them a place to sew their seeds of hatred.

Yes, that's because they are rallied together.

At the moment this is just 1 or 2 anonymous internet bloggers in an anonymous forum. Take legal action and it will become public, the media (being the media) will report what and how they want (and from past trends you know which side they are going to take), it will galvanise people, those who are already prejudiced could rally together Cronulla style or at least have a concerted voice against Islam, those who are secular, neutral or undecided will more than likely side in favour of free speech and Muslims and Islam will be further tainted.

Think about it - who is Sprint "inciting"? There a few members in here. One assumes that they are intelligent and rational adults. Whatever Sprint has said is nothing new and generally taken with a grain of salt, laughed off or reputed. Legal action will make this public and suddenly a nation will hear about his "incitements". This will be the rallying call for those who are already prejudiced and others will turn away from your cause (remember, I mentioned that elsewhere in response to Abu).

This is the wrong path. There will be only one winner - YOU.
You will feel happy about yourself for punishing Sprint for his opinions and "exposing" him as a "bigot".
Sprint will be publically labelled as a "racist".
FD will be labelled as a sympathiser to racists ideals or at least a bad moderator.
We will all lose a good forum.
And worst, Muslims will once again be seen as the oppressors of freedom.

You are living in a Western world. This tactic may work in Iran or Dubai or Saudi or even (I lament) Indonesia but it will not work here. Legally, you could be in the right (I don't know, I'm not an expert) but you won't be winning the hearts and minds of the wider and general populace.

Furthermore, I don't believe that the racist element (or outright hatred) is prevalent in Australia.  

Malik Shakur wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2008 at 9:32am:

5000 Australians on the beach of Cronulla demonstrated quite clearly that even a person with illogical views can move the masses into action when they are ignorant enough about the facts and if FD allows these people to continue doing it on this forum then he is giving them a place to sew their seeds of hatred.

This is true, and we've discussed before that Cronulla isn't Australia, nor is it how most Australians think. I have met "dinky-di" Aussies who moved out of Cronulla not only because of the racism against Muslims, but European "wogs".

I'm also aware of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment among some where I live, but I can't say it's anywhere near "epidemic", and most people want a peaceful society where we can all tolerate different beliefs and traditions. I think the real fear many Australians have, whether grounded in fact of fiction, is that any religion will try to influence government to impose laws the majority don't want. I think the attitude is "live and let live", but don't tell me how to live. That is what they fear, and how some Islamic countries are governed brings them no solace. That's the last thing they want here.

Perhaps, I'm only suggesting, that Muslims can quell these fears, but doing things like trying to legalise polygamy isn't going to help, because regardless of the hypocrisy, most Australians believe this is basically a Christian society, built upon basic Christian ideals. The idea of this being overturned by Islam doesn't sleep well with them. It is a secular state founded on Judeo-Christian ideals, which includes the freedom to be critical of Christianity, not easily won, since last century into this one, blasphemy was a crime. No one wants to go back to those days, and rightly or wrongly, many perceive that this could happen when considering how other Islamic countries are run.  

I'm only suggesting some of the roots of prejudice. Racism is something Aborigines still experience, and that's not because of religion.  So talking about religion and racism isn't always the same thing.

As for criticisms, even though half the posters in this thread so far have confused the issue with criticising Islam, that's not what it's about, Malik never complained about sprint criticising Islam, and the fact Malik has been here so long is testament to the fact it's got nothing to do with criticisms of Islam. It's about inciting hatred and fear, and scapegoating Muslims.

That doesn't make sense Abu. Malik has complained about criticisms of Muhammed. He even went so far as to say that freedom of speech does not cover criticism of Muhammed.

I would hope that Sprint doesn't equate ALL Muslims with terrorism, and I've never interpreted his posts this way. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am, but will stand corrected if I'm wrong. From my experience, from the Muslims I know, most of them think terrorists are scum.

He recently said that not all muslims are terrorists.

but what about the right of people to come to the forums and not be under attack because of their beliefs

There is no such right. What people believe is and should be fair game for criticism.

but is that free speech supposed to infringe on other's rights to feel safe?

How is anything on this forum infringing on your right to feel safe?

I can assure you FD, it's not an empty threat.

Didn't you just say in the other thread that you won't bother with this silly legal threat?

Your allowing of him to incite hatred against Islam is breaking the law as is he with making those comments.

No it isn't. Don't be silly.

You know very well what he is trying to do and you allow it to happen

Crap. You keep attributing intentions and beliefs to Sprint that he has not said. You are making things up.

You mentioned that another person has been insulting Jews and you don't prevent it from happening.

I said he isn't banned. I did not say I don't prevent it from happening. It's more the racist stuff against blacks that bothers me, but I also deleted some recent death threats to jews.

So you either prevent this incitement and vilification from happening and make sure Sprint doesn't continue or I will not hesitate to take this the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

;D

I'm sick of having to deal with Sprints obvious attempts to try and create hatred against Islam and Muslims and you can be very sure that if it continues I will take it further.

Like I said, just ignore him. Everyone else does. It's not my fault if you take the bait every single time. If you want to continues using internet forums that aren't heavily censored, you will have to learn how to deal with trolls. I suggest you put up a wiki page to counter his repetitive errors. that way you just have to post a link. Wouldn't that make more sense than issuing empty threats?

Easy for an average aussie to spot, I do not need to hate your views to find them ridiculous, unworthy of respect, and deserving of derision, yet you and Malik label me as racist, who classes muslims as subhuman, which goes on to the list of things you haven't got right.

Funny you mention that mozz. Malik made the same claims against me and a few other members.

Al-Gharib, welcome to OzPolitic. The forum rules are here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/forum-rules.html

They are a better reflection of what is allowed here than the default rules that came with the forum software. Note that I am still inviting feedback on rules.

Just out of curiosity, do you know the entirety of the ruling behind stoning? By this I mean to say, do you know what the strict preconditions are before a person can be stoned?

Malik has pointed them out on several occasions. It doesn't make stoning any less barbaric.

Anyway this thread is getting quite off topic. I suggest if people want to discuss capital punishment under Islam, then make a thread about it and discuss it there.

I already have Abu. A number of my questions remain unanswered.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1215058243/107#107

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2008 at 12:39pm:

The legal expense is something i cannot afford. I also won't subject freediver to this treatment either. I'll leave. take care all will copy the posts from my spirituality forum I want soon. Anyone else want to moderate it ?

(From another thread)

Yeah, righto Sprint. Thread after thread of Muslims defending themselves because of your endless trolling and baiting them and now you're outta here.

I wonder what other outcome you thought you'd achieve... (What? Mass conversions of Muslims due to your 'superior' reasoning, perhaps?).

Attacking belief systems, obliquely claiming all Muslims are terrorists, superficial  interpretations of the Koran, raising the Israel/Palestine issue without consideration of the extraordinary complexities and contradictions... don't ever travel, Sprint... these issues require intelligent sensitivity if you want rational debate. All you did was force people to defend extreme positions in retaliation for your arrogance.

Despite popular myth, the spirit of free speech is not just about verbalising whatever unprocessed poo drops into your head, most often it requires moderation in recognition of sensitivities (as the replacement of the word sh!t with poo demonstrates). All freedoms require responsibility when exercised.

I suggest you spend some time getting over this Islam obsession of yours. Learn that you can't abuse people out of their culture or beliefs nor, when it comes to faith, can you reason them out of it either.

Helian do you agree that sprint should not be allowed to say those things?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:46am:

Helian do you agree that sprint should not be allowed to say those things?

I stopped reading most of Sprint's posts a while back because I realised he was not after intelligent debate (which in the case of interfaith dialogue, or dialogue regarding the relationship between secular and religious beliefs, requires sensitivity). He was more about baiting Muslims to get a knee jerk reaction from them. Quite frankly, the whole thing was getting boring.

As to whether he should be allowed to say what he has written (at least as much as I've read), I can only say I would not take it further. However, firstly I am not a lawyer so I don't know if there is even a case to answer and secondly I am not a Muslim (nor am I religious), so I am not in a position to empathise with those who are and were offended.

I do know that most people expect that they will be treated as equals and that their legitimate personal beliefs are respected (if not agreed with).

Honestly, FD, do you believe Sprint is after honest dialogue with Muslims? He is hostile towards Islam... What is the point of his dialogue  with Muslims? His mind is made up. What is there to discuss?

However, firstly I am not a lawyer so I don't know if there is even a case to answer

I wasn't asking whether it is allowed. I'm asking whether you think it should be allowed.

and secondly I am not a Muslim (nor am I religious), so I am not in a position to empathise with those who are and were offended

Why is that relevant? Should it be up to Muslims to decide what aspects of Islam you are allowed to criticise?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:18pm:

However, firstly I am not a lawyer so I don't know if there is even a case to answer I wasn't asking whether it is allowed. I'm asking whether you think it should be allowed. I've given you my opinion. There's no need to play at indignation. and secondly I am not a Muslim (nor am I religious), so I am not in a position to empathise with those who are and were offended Why is that relevant? Should it be up to Muslims to decide what aspects of Islam you are allowed to criticise? It's up to Muslims to know what's offensive. Obviously you accept that we are not always free to say what we like, hence a prohibition at this site on words like sh!t and front bottom.

I've given you my opinion. There's no need to play at indignation.

Not exactly. I'm just trying to clarify. It's a bit ambiguous whether you are merely criticising sprint for being insensitive and ignoring the main issue or supporting Malik's attack on free speech. You seem to be avoiding clarifying this issue. It's one thing to accuse someone of not being nice. It's another to support censorship. Which is it?

It's up to Muslims to know what's offensive. Obviously you accept that we are not always free to say what we like

I didn't ask whether Muslims should decide what offends them. I asked whether it should be up to them to decide whether you are allowed to offend them.

hence a prohibition at this site on words like sh!t and front bottom.

If it is prohibited, why can you get away with saying them? What does this have to do with law?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 1:57pm:

hence a prohibition at this site on words like sh!t and front bottom.[/i] If it is prohibited, why can you get away with saying them? What does this have to do with law?

I think helian is trying to draw a metaphoric parallel and is not directly comparing this to the law.

Why IS there a prohibition on this site to swear words FD? Are you that easily offended by such words or are you trying to protect the sensitivity of your forum patrons? Either way you agree that some people will get offended and therefore you restrict the right to say them on here. If that is not the case and irrelevant then why don't you remove the restrictions. Its the same with Sprint. There is a limit somewhere and if he hasn't the sensibility to see where that limit is then there is a problem for him.

Why IS there a prohibition on this site to swear words FD?

Because the people who complain about it are unable to follow simple isntructions and post in the relevant thread on feedback.

So, you're saying that people have complained about swear words and so you banned them.

???

You've lost me. And how and what does this have this got to do with posting swear words in the relevant thread?

So, you're saying that people have complained about swear words and so you banned them.

No.

It is no surprise to me that freedom of speech requires responsibility when exercising that right in order to respect the spirit of free speech, hence the rules as set here in the feedback thread.

I thought the point of forums like this one is to encourage healthy debate and I don't see how continually baiting people encourages healthy debate.  

If your mind is set on a matter of faith, then debate is pointless (by what criteria would you allow the tenets of your faith to be refuted?).

I don't believe Sprint is honest in debating the merits of Islam. He is apparently a committed Christian and clearly hates Islam. OK, he made his point long ago. All he is doing now is using this forum as a way of trolling for a Muslim audience to express that hate.

Why not a debate on 'Islam and secularism in Australia - how we can live together'? After all Islam is a fact in Australian society. Its not going to diminish and neither for that matter is secularism. So how do we find common ground? Why don't we search for the commonalities that bind us as a nation instead of focusing on the things that drive us apart?

I don't see how continually baiting people encourages healthy debate

You can encourage some very healthy debate by doing that. It's continually taking baits you shouldn't that causes the problems.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 3:11pm:

I don't see how continually baiting people encourages healthy debate You can encourage some very healthy debate by doing that. It's continually taking baits you shouldn't that causes the problems.

I meant it in the context of 'to needle, torment, or persecute, especially with malicious remarks'.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 2:55pm:

So, you're saying that people have complained about swear words and so you banned them. No.

That helps....
So what are you saying then?

Do I have to keep prodding you to elaborate? You're just like Abu and his one liner throw away answers.

Acid, check the feedback board if you are interested. There is a thread there devoted to it. I'm not interested in having the same discussion about it every week in a different thread.

Helian, if you can't handle that sort of thing maturely, you shouldn't use internet forums. Or at least not ones that encourage dialogue between different perspectives. The only way to foster open debate on forums like these is to expect people to handle it maturely, not try to protect them from immaturity. I'm not a baby sitter.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:10pm:

Helian, if you can't handle that sort of thing maturely, you shouldn't use internet forums. Or at least not ones that encourage dialogue between different perspectives. The only way to foster open debate on forums like these is to expect people to handle it maturely, not try to protect them from immaturity. I'm not a baby sitter.

What the hell are you on about?

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 5:10pm:

Acid, check the feedback board if you are interested. There is a thread there devoted to it. I'm not interested in having the same discussion about it every week in a different thread.

Mate, it's your smacking site. You know your way around this place with your eyes closed. If you want to enlighten me then enlighten me by pointing me the way (at least with a link). And I can tell you a simple "no" gives nothing away (perhaps intensionally). You don't have a case to act all indignant about it when you are the one causing the confusion. I haven't got time to trawl through every single page of every single topic heading and sub-topic heading on the off chance that I may stumble onto something. You'll be lucky if I read anything beyond the first page, let along go to the feedback site (which I think I have to on 2 occasions).


Quote:

It's up to Muslims to know what's offensive. Obviously you accept that we are not always free to say what we like, hence a prohibition at this site on words like sh!t and front bottom.

Besides, the discussion was not about swear words anyway, but was used as an example (by helian) of the main discussion of freedom of speech and how far the limits of vitriol can go. If there are no limits because we have to trust on the sensibilities of the agressor and the sensitivities of victim which you appear to be a proponent of. Therefore, I asked if that is the case why then is there a restriction of swear words if you're all for free speech.

Sprint breached Malik's sensitivity limit but you're saying that it's not Sprints fault. Fine, then. By that standard therefore its not my fault if I were to say bugger. However, by restricting my words you are in essence saying that it is. I want to understand were you set the limit wwith regards to religious vilification within this forum.

Helian, I was responding to this comment:

I meant it in the context of 'to needle, torment, or persecute, especially with malicious remarks'.

Acid:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1206170281

Sprint breached Malik's sensitivity limit but you're saying that it's not Sprints fault.

I'm saying he did nothing illegal and that I'm not going to try to step in, beyond what I have already done.

I want to understand were you set the limit wwith regards to religious vilification within this forum.

I haven't set any limits. Unlike race, religion is fair game for criticism because it is a conscious choice. I did delete a signature calling for death to Jews, but that was because it was a death threat, not because of the type of group being targetted.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:25pm:

Helian, I was responding to this comment: I meant it in the context of 'to needle, torment, or persecute, especially with malicious remarks'.

And that was in response to the context you used for my use of the verb to bait which I don't believe leads to healthy dialogue.

(Your earlier comment) You can encourage some very healthy debate by doing that. It's continually taking baits you shouldn't that causes the problems.

Yes. Those sorts of things are very common on internet forums. But if people start taking the bait all the time, it clogs the forum with BS. People need to learn some self control. Malik said many times that he knew it was a bad idea to respond to sprint, but he still did so. Meanwhile, plenty of genuine questions about Islam, like in the Islam and Australian values thread, went unanswered. You can't expect moderators to start judging which questions are real and which are annoying and then intervening, but you can expect people to judge for themselves and ignore the pointless ones. What is pointless to one person may be interesting to another.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:25pm:

Sprint breached Malik's sensitivity limit but you're saying that it's not Sprints fault. I'm saying he did nothing illegal and that I'm not going to try to step in, beyond what I have already done.

Sprint's actions are illegal.


freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:25pm:

I want to understand were you set the limit wwith regards to religious vilification within this forum. I haven't set any limits. Unlike race, religion is fair game for criticism because it is a conscious choice. I did delete a signature calling for death to Jews, but that was because it was a death threat, not because of the type of group being targetted.

Religion is not fair game, it's part of a person's identity and who they are. It's a part of their soul and for someone who is a true believer in their faith it's something which is more dear to them than their own skin.

In addition to that you are bound by Victorian law to prevent it and if you do let it continue then you're subject to the consequences of doing so.

Communism or crapping on the footpath could be part of someone's identity. I'm still going to criticise it no matter how dear it is to them. Taboos are a barrier to effective communication and progress.

But to go to the extent that Sprint did of persecuting, inciting hatred and vilifying it is going too far.

You got sick of it, that's all. Instead of just showing some maturity and ignoring him you chose to try to silence him. There was nothing unusual about the extent of Sprint's criticisms. Mozz for example goes further. There was nothing unusual about the frequency, especially given the context of ongoing debate. He didn't persecute anyone. He criticised you and he criticised Islam. Your accusations are an insult to people who are genuinely persecuted for their beliefs.

Pull up FD, I think you may be violating my human rights to take the piss. ;)

And Yes, FD is right, I openly deride all religions on principle, but only in the context of a free and open forum.
I don't hang around outside places of worship and tell people they are on the wrong path, that would be rude, I hope that you will be able to see the difference Malik.

When people come to sites like this it is to share a frank and fearless exchange of views, and if you cannot handle hearing differing views then perhaps you should choose something you find less challenging.
Personally I hope you can get over it, and just accept that we all are different, and we will sometimes disagree, but that is not of itself, a bad thing.

freediver wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 6:48pm:

Yes. Those sorts of things are very common on internet forums. But if people start taking the bait all the time, it clogs the forum with BS. People need to learn some self control. Malik said many times that he knew it was a bad idea to respond to sprint, but he still did so. Meanwhile, plenty of genuine questions about Islam, like in the Islam and Australian values thread, went unanswered. You can't expect moderators to start judging which questions are real and which are annoying and then intervening, but you can expect people to judge for themselves and ignore the pointless ones. What is pointless to one person may be interesting to another.

You expect much from the respondent and so little from the instigator. Isn't it as much a responsibility of the poster  to be mature as the respondent?  (perhaps more given he is he one transmitting inflammatory statements designed to evoke emotion over reason).

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 7:58pm:

And Yes, FD is right, I openly deride all religions on principle, but only in the context of a free and open forum. I don't hang around outside places of worship and tell people they are on the wrong path, that would be rude, I hope that you will be able to see the difference Malik. When people come to sites like this it is to share a frank and fearless exchange of views, and if you cannot handle hearing differing views then perhaps you should choose something you find less challenging. Personally I hope you can get over it, and just accept that we all are different, and we will sometimes disagree, but that is not of itself, a bad thing.

Are you sure you're talking about being frank and fearless Mozz by using the anonymity of forums to pour out excessive vituperation? To stand outside a Mosque or Church and say the same things would take courage... you would be identifying yourself in a way from which you are spared here.

I have found people to be much more hateful when they know they can hide behind an ethereal shield than they are in the flesh, much like what Martin Luther King discovered regarding the morality of a crowd when compared to that of the individual.

Yes Helian, I am.
Debating religious ridiculousness holds no moral problem for me, but I do not take the debate to people who do not wish to engage in it.
Unless you are implying that religious people are even more hypocritical than they pretend, and would wish to silence differing opinions with violence.
In which case no, I would not go up to a mob of fanatical Islamists and tell them their beliefs are wrong and their moral values are non existent, because they would have displayed an inability to comprehend, as well as an ugly and violent nature I would not wish to be attacked by.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:01pm:

Yes Helian, I am. Debating religious ridiculousness holds no moral problem for me, but I do not take the debate to people who do not wish to engage in it.

Then why would you not stand outside a Mosque and say the same things? Why would it be rude there and not rude here? If people don’t wish to engage in debate on the street, they can walk away, can’t they? Do you assume that religious people who contribute to forums should expect to be treated with contempt here but not on the street?

If you believe that religious belief is ridiculous, then so it is for you. You cannot argue. ridicule or abuse people out of their faith, so debate in that context is pointless, there is no criteria for refutation, you either believe it as it is or you don’t.

Isn’t it better to debate where to from that point with a mutual acceptance of each other’s position on faith?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 9:16pm:

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24th, 2008 at 9:01pm: Yes Helian, I am. Debating religious ridiculousness holds no moral problem for me, but I do not take the debate to people who do not wish to engage in it. Then why would you not stand outside a Mosque and say the same things? Why would it be rude there and not rude here? If people don’t wish to engage in debate on the street, they can walk away, can’t they? Do you assume that religious people who contribute to forums should expect to be treated with contempt here but not on the street? If you believe that religious belief is ridiculous, then so it is for you. You cannot argue. ridicule or abuse people out of their faith, so debate in that context is pointless, there is no criteria for refutation, you either believe it as it is or you don’t. Isn’t it better to debate where to from that point with a mutual acceptance of each other’s position on faith?

Bravo Helian, Bravo..

That was very well said  :)

Bravo my arse, it was Helians usual limp wristed, and  effete pretence of fairness, which is in fact an absence of the courage to hold opinions outside the bounds of her perceived notions of political correctness.

To suggest I go to places of worship to start debate about religion is ludicrous, and even Helian would appreciate that if she were not bent over backwards trying to appear all wise, and all fair, when in fact she just looks bent over backwards.

The fact is that Islam is a major issue, that is debated all over the world, and all over the web.
What people like Helian do not appreciate is that just because some right wing loonies go too far in their condemnation of Islam, does not mean that Islam should be left free from condemnation, when it does the wrong thing.

She was noticeably absent in all the posts about women's rights, female genital mutilation, etc. all areas where Islams record is appalling, but has the gall to believe because she absents herself from the debate that this puts her in a position of moral superiority, because only a redneck would criticise Islam.

Malik, you seriously need to stop justifying everything in Islam as right, it is not, and the stance you take just makes you look bereft of objectivity in all opinions regarding Islam.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 24^th, 2008 at 10:03pm:

Bravo my arse, it was Helians usual limp wristed, and effete pretence of fairness, which is in fact an absence of the courage to hold opinions outside the bounds of her perceived notions of political correctness. To suggest I go to places of worship to start debate about religion is ludicrous, and even Helian would appreciate that if she were not bent over backwards trying to appear all wise, and all fair, when in fact she just looks bent over backwards. The fact is that Islam is a major issue, that is debated all over the world, and all over the web. What people like Helian do not appreciate is that just because some right wing loonies go too far in their condemnation of Islam, does not mean that Islam should be left free from condemnation, when it does the wrong thing. She was noticeably absent in all the posts about women's rights, female genital mutilation, etc. all areas where Islams record is appalling, but has the gall to believe because she absents herself from the debate that this puts her in a position of moral superiority, because only a redneck would criticise Islam. Malik, you seriously need to stop justifying everything in Islam as right, it is not, and the stance you take just makes you look bereft of objectivity in all opinions regarding Islam.

Settle the hell down, Mozz. You were the one you raised the issue of not standing outside a Mosque because it would be rude, not because it would be ludicrous. Of course I wouldn’t expect you to do it. However, as you brought it up, why it would be necessarily rude outside a Mosque but not here?

Islam per se does not do the wrong thing, Mozz. I believe that the practise of Islam (or the invocation of Islam) to justify terrorism and murder is reprehensible and deserving of condemnation. However I don’t believe that badgering people about the "evils" of their belief system leads to understanding and respect for another’s perspective and that is what interests me more than just an endless diatribe of the "evils" of Islam. I believe the latter simply drives people to the extreme edges of their beliefs. (Ever watched Jane Elliot’s “Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes Exercise”?

Limp wristed you reckon? Look at all the threads on Islam, Muslims etc. How about a certain poster here and his morbid fear of Muslims? Did you live through the Cold War? Weren’t those times far more threatening on an exponential scale than the possibility of Islamic attacks in Australia? We’ve had more explosive acts of violence done by non-Muslim Australians to Australians over the years than anything from Islamists. Yet on and on we go about the threat of Islamic terrorists in Australia as if there’s a bomb going off every hour on every street corner (should we all just not leave our homes, would we all be safe then?).  

Why doesn't a certain poster put as much energy into discussing those things that bind us as Australians and not the things that drive us apart.

"A certain poster", could be you Helian, if that gets your interest, and you can start an interesting thread which will engage the debate, then feel free to do so.

Isn't it as much a responsibility of the poster  to be mature as the respondent?

Sure, but sprint was not the one complaining about it, Malik was.IF you want to discuss maturely, don't blame other people if you get sucked into petty BS. It's your own fault.

Do you assume that religious people who contribute to forums should expect to be treated with contempt here but not on the street?

That's the nature of internet forums. There is value in being able to address taboos online that you could not adequately address in person. In fact, without the internet, views like Sprint's would come to dominate because they would go largely unchallenged, because they would never be put to Muslims in such a confronting and detailed manner. He wouldn't stop telling people, he would just do it in a way that did not give Muslims the ability to correct his misinformation. In fact, I expect that is exactly what he will do if Malik keeps up this BS about sueing people.

There are some people who say the same sort of things in person. Yes it's rude, but they should get the same protection udner freedom of speech.

Malik, you seriously need to stop justifying everything in Islam as right, it is not, and the stance you take just makes you look bereft of objectivity in all opinions regarding Islam.

Duh, why should a religious person view their religion 'objectively'? If they did, it wouldn't be a religion.

Of course I wouldn’t expect you to do it. However, as you brought it up, why it would be necessarily rude outside a Mosque but not here?

I don't think anyone would say it's not rude, but so what? You don't have to be polite.

Yet on and on we go about the threat of Islamic terrorists in Australia as if there’s a bomb going off every hour on every street corner (should we all just not leave our homes, would we all be safe then?).

Because he sees Islam as the bigger threat. Only loonies still rant about communism. Like it or not, Islamic extremism is a serious threat. Just because it makes you uncomfortable is not a valid reason to avoid discussing the issue.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 12:08pm:

Yet on and on we go about the threat of Islamic terrorists in Australia as if there’s a bomb going off every hour on every street corner (should we all just not leave our homes, would we all be safe then?). Because he sees Islam as the bigger threat. Only loonies still rant about communism. Like it or not, Islamic extremism is a serious threat. Just because it makes you uncomfortable is not a valid reason to avoid discussing the issue.

How direct a threat do you believe Islamic terrorism to be in Australia?

Well, Australians were targetted at Bali and 9/11 demonstrates they will attack on 'western' soil. We are part of the coalition of the willing and Osama et al keep making threats against us. We have home grown Islamic terrorists, some of whom are currently before the courts.

You figure it out.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 1:26pm:

Well, Australians were targetted at Bali and 9/11 demonstrates they will attack on 'western' soil. We are part of the coalition of the willing and Osama et al keep making threats against us. We have home grown Islamic terrorists, some of whom are currently before the courts. You figure it out.

Australians were not targeted in Bali or on 9/11.

So far its got the smell of the old Yellow Peril and "Reds under the bed" fear campaigns.

It's this kind of fear campaign that caused the miscarriage of justice that Dr Haneef had to endure.

It's this kind of general fear that politicians can so easily use to curb civil liberties and arrogate more power to the centre.

Why don't you figure it out.

Are you honestly trying to argue that we are not at risk of attack? That's pretty naive.

How many Australians were killed in Bali?

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 1:32pm:

Are you honestly trying to argue that we are not at risk of attack? That's pretty naive. How many Australians were killed in Bali?

I'm arguing that while we're running around with our hands in the air like a bunch of Dr Smiths yelling "Calamity... There coming through the walls" we're a target alright. A target for our own politicians. There is plenty of political cache in drumming up this kind of fear reaction as the Howard government has proved.

I'm arguing that while we're running around with our hands in the air like a bunch of Dr Smiths yelling "Calamity... There coming through the walls"

Who is doing that?

Quote:

Religion is not fair game, it's part of a person's identity and who they are. It's a part of their soul and for someone who is a true believer in their faith it's something which is more dear to them than their own skin. In addition to that you are bound by Victorian law to prevent it and if you do let it continue then you're subject to the consequences of doing so.   Back to top

Religion and politics are fair game on internet forums Malik.  Do you know how much tormenting Christians get on these forums - a great deal more to what you perceive has been dished out to Muslims.  Your indignation is fine, but if the moderator isn't prepared to change the rules for you - the only option open is to go to another forum where your ideology will be embraced.  Forums are all about arguing/debate and I've been where you are, so I feel some sympathy - although I would never threaten legal action.

There is no Federal Law for Religious Vilification - and you can thank the previous government for that, but as far as the Victorian Law goes you would have to prove that sprintcyclist is inciting hatred against you or other Muslims which is threatening, or inciting others to threaten physical harm towards you or other Muslims or their property.

If you genuinely felt threatened, you would not be wasting time here arguing with such a terrifying person - you would have gone immediately to the Victorian State Police.  To date out of the handful of complaints received, only 2 have been referred to the Equal Opportunities Commision - the rest have been declined.

To date out of the handful of complaints received, only 2 have been referred to the Equal Opportunities Commision - the rest have been declined.

Could you give us some more info on the please mantra?

Religious Vilification laws in Victoria - Background to the law and cases

This also includes religious vilification on the internet.

http://www.saltshakers.org.au/pdf/020273_LATEST_NEWS.pdf

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 1:32pm:

Are you honestly trying to argue that we are not at risk of attack? That's pretty naive. How many Australians were killed in Bali?

I think the only two nations at serious risk of attack are Americans and Israelis. The rest of us are at risk only insofar as we are collateral damage if overseas in the wrong place at the wrong time (and either mistaken for Americans or standing too close to them). The Bali bombers thought they were targeting Americans.

I think the only two nations at serious risk of attack are Americans and Israelis.

So the British are safe then?

The Bali bombers thought they were targeting Americans.

What makes you think that? Surely the people of Bali would at least know the difference.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 2:22pm:

I think the only two nations at serious risk of attack are Americans and Israelis. So the British are safe then? The Bali bombers thought they were targeting Americans. What makes you think that? Surely the people of Bali would at least know the difference.

Are we British?

Amrozi and Samudra both said that they had killed Americans, as that was who they were targeting. Not that they were devastated to hear they'd killed Australians. But the point is that if they'd had the choice of killing 88 Americans or 88 Australians, there would have been no choice.

Are we British?

No, but the British are not Americans. Nor are they Israelis.

Do you think the Melbourne terrorists were going to target Americans instead of Australians?

I don't get your logic regarding Bali. You seem to be saying we are not at risk because the 88 dead were not preferred targets. Does it make it hurt any less if they would have preferred to kill Americans? Does it somehow reduce the risk of further Australian casualties? Do we somehow care less about American casualties?

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:22pm:

Are we British? No, but the British are not Americans. Nor are they Israelis. Do you think the Melbourne terrorists were going to target Americans instead of Australians? I don't get your logic regarding Bali. You seem to be saying we are not at risk because the 88 dead were not preferred targets. Does it make it hurt any less if they would have preferred to kill Americans? Does it somehow reduce the risk of further Australian casualties? Do we somehow care less about American casualties?

I'm pretty sure that Terrorists don't hold Australian's high on their targets for terrorism.

We're really quite insignificant to them actually. Nothing to blow one's self up over  you could say. ;D

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 3:22pm:

Are we British? I don't get your logic regarding Bali. You seem to be saying we are not at risk because the 88 dead were not preferred targets. Does it make it hurt any less if they would have preferred to kill Americans? Does it somehow reduce the risk of further Australian casualties? Do we somehow care less about American casualties?

You said Australians were targeted in Bali and 9/11, I'm saying we weren't and I believe we're not targeted by Islamist extremists now. That doesn't mean we don't care about American casualties or that it is less painful when we are mistaken for Americans.

I believe that Australia is strong enough a society to overcome unnecessary mistrust of the foreigner despite our initial instincts of wariness. Respect is the foundation for trust and I believe we should take every opportunity to build that trust and these forums are an excellent way to start.

But I think in order to show good faith, we have to be prepared to accept that not all Muslims want to murder us and that there exists in Australian society a majority of Muslims who want to live in peace alongside secularists and Christians and Hindus and whoever. We also have to be aware of the effect we may have on Muslims in these forums every time we label them or imply they are congenital terrorists. Reciprocally Muslims must accept that sometimes things might be said here that are offensive. If we are prepared to ensure we are not gratuitously offensive and they are prepared to accept that causing offense is not the point any given statement, then I can't see why honest, respectful and constructive debate won't result.

I believe we're not targeted by Islamist extremists now

But you maintain this by ignoring the evidence we are targetted, like Osama calling for terrorists to target Australia, Australia being part of the coalition of the willing, and Australia having home grown terrorists similar to London.

The fact that we have not been hit yet is not evidence that we are not targets. It would be naive to think we are somehow different to the Brits and Yanks, or that terrorists have not noticed us yet, or that our home grown terrorists are not going to target Australia.

freediver wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 6:49pm:

I believe we're not targeted by Islamist extremists now But you maintain this by ignoring the evidence we are targetted, like Osama calling for terrorists to target Australia, Australia being part of the coalition of the willing, and Australia having home grown terrorists similar to London. The fact that we have not been hit yet is not evidence that we are not targets. It would be naive to think we are somehow different to the Brits and Yanks, or that terrorists have not noticed us yet, or that our home grown terrorists are not going to target Australia.

It may be perversely flattering for some to imagine that we're up there with the big boys at the high table suffering their same slings and arrows, but we're not. Yes we've been 'mentioned in dispatches' from time to time but the focus of Islamists is on the US. Israel is a close number 2. Maybe the UK is a number 3 but, I believe it's a distant third probably on par with anywhere in Europe. I believe Australia is way down the queue.

Yes it could happen here but I reckon you've got more chance of being hit by a meteor than killed in a terrorist attack within Australia.

The world's been living with terrorism for a long time, (remember the 70's with PLO terrorists hijacking planes and the atrocities committed?), we've lived through scare campaigns before (like 'reds under the bed')  Why should we be be so timorous now?

I'm not suggesting we be complacent, I'm suggesting we take the opportunity to reach out to Muslim Australians and prove to them they are as respected and valued members of Australian society as every other ethnic, religious or cultural group. That is a better way of safeguarding ourselves from attack by misguided individuals who feel disenfranchised and alienated from Australian society than by vilifying all Muslims by labeling them wannabe terrorists.

You are ignoring the key element, which differentiates many muslims, from our other migrants, they do not like, or respect our culture, or our system of government.
They look on it as some sort of trial to be endured, until they can achieve their fantasy concept of the ideal Islamic state.
I already recounted the story of the people who lived in Iran at the time of the revolution, their former friends and neighbours turned on them, like snakes in the grass, when the Islamic revolution came, all non-muslims were regarded as the enemy, and they had to flee for their lives, abandoning everything, and even then it was a very close run thing.

That would not happen if they were working in greece or italy, so to just say that people are choosing to pick on Islam, for no reason, is not true.
Islam has caused it's own bad PR, and it is up to them to do a better job than they have in recent times, if they want to be accepted as genuine aussies, not just time passers, waiting for their glorious revolution.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 12:41am:

Yes it could happen here but I reckon you've got more chance of being hit by a meteor than killed in a terrorist attack within Australia.

LOL. Actually, I have the odds - my brother-in-law is a bookie.

Getting hit by a meteor is approx 1:190,000,000,000,000.

I think you'll be more accurate saying "getting hit by a train" which is around 1:1,950,000,000.

pedantic mode /-off

;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 1:10am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 26th, 2008 at 12:41am: Yes it could happen here but I reckon you've got more chance of being hit by a meteor than killed in a terrorist attack within Australia. LOL. Actually, I have the odds - my brother-in-law is a bookie. Getting hit by a meteor is approx 1:190,000,000,000,000. I think you'll be more accurate saying "getting hit by a train" which is around 1:1,950,000,000. pedantic mode /-off ;)

Aw, Ok then... how bout getting eaten by a shark... what's the odds on that one?

Statistically, getting attacked by a shark is 1:300,000 or nil if you never go into the water.

;)

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 1:24am:

Statistically, getting attacked by a shark is 1:300,000 or nil if you never go into the water. ;)

That's more like the odds I was looking for. Thanks!

;D ;D ;D ;D

No probs.

Gosh  Helian, the fact is that we have the same risk of home grown terrorists as many other western countries, we do however put significant resources into nullifying that threat, and that may just help your odds scenario out.
I would rather we could direct our money elsewhere, but while we have this threat hanging over us we can't.
Islam needs fundamental change, away from fundamentalism, before we could ever contemplate not being wary of it, for acts of violence it unfortunately has the runs on the board, so to speak.

We can hope that with a clean out of the evangelical neo-cons in the US, then Islam may calm down, but I won't hold my breath.

Acid Monkey wrote on Jul 26^th, 2008 at 1:24am:

Statistically, getting attacked by a shark is 1:300,000 or nil if you never go into the water. ;)

That's gold..

So if our chances are as small as being hit by a train, if we simply left the Middle East alone without invading it or attacking it, our chances would be much closer to nil I'd imagine.

We are more likely to be a terrorist target than before we attacked Iraq (contrary to what  the Howard Govt said) and the AFP has admitted that, but at the end of the day I hardly doubt terrorists from overseas would waste their time in actually coming here and committing terrorist acts.

We're at a much greater risk of being attacked by Australian Citizens engaging in terrorism. I think that can be fixed too personally by not only the steps that the Rudd government has taken so far, but in addition to that by not partaking on a possible war with Iran. If we did partake in such a war I'm quite sure we'd be much higher on the list.  

I guess that's the argument helian is trying to make to FD.

We are more likely to be a terrorist target than before we attacked Iraq

But what about Afghanistan?

We're at a much greater risk of being attacked by Australian Citizens engaging in terrorism.

Like the ones on trial in Melbourne?