I am not attempting to demonise muslims helian, just accepting the fact that trying to be understanding, will not diminish the threat.
Trying to ignore it, or downplay it will not work either.
It needs to be addressed.

Any culture that seeks to separate itself from the mainstream, whilst declaring an open contempt for the values and customs of the mainstream, should not be left to fester until we see attacks from within, like we see in Europe.
I wish this were not the case, but I fear that it is.
Until Islam gets it's own house in order, we have a right to be suspicious, and wary, and that is just self preservation, through common sense.

I should also add that we in the west need to adjust our behaviour in regards to supporting the likes of Bush, and the whole NeoCon movement, whose views and actions are just as damaging as those of extreme Islam, in fact they are very much like the other side of the same coin.
It is a dangerous world, but just wishing it weren't, will not make it so.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 11:16am:


Hi Mozz.

You are wise and moderate in your assessment. I don't believe that I have placated the Musliams at all. There are many aspects of Islam (or more correctly Muslims) that angers me and am uneasy about eg: the attempted banning and abuse of Ahmaddiya and it followers in Indonesia, Al-Qaeda and terrorists justifying their campaign with quotes from the Quran, Saudi and their virtue and vice police, Malaysia and their Bumi Putra policy etc. I take issues at them where appropriate and within context.

Be fair. Of course! That goes without saying. However, be fair for whom? False generalisation and assumptions often leads to unfounded hate and retribution eg: Camden and Lindsay. Where is the fairness there?

mozzaok wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 11:16am:


Seventeen years of my working life was spent abroad. I have lived and worked in Malaysia for 10 years, and Indonesia (the "hotbed of extremism" to our north) for 4 years. I've travelled regularly, lived and worked in Saudi, and Dubai for 3 years and Jordan for 6 months.

I have not kept myself in the hotel as most foreigners tend to do. I've spoken with, and lived as a guest with Muslims, tasted their food, heard their stories and experienced their culture. They are normal people with normal lives. They are friendlier than most Westerners that I've encountered in my travels to Europe.

I think it's unfair that such broad brush stroked vitriol are directed at them on the account of extremists. By the same token, the same can be said about Western (read: Christian) society as well. I know of normal Christian friends and people who are whipped up into a frenzy of anger, distrust and outright hate without evidence by the media and commentators re: Sharpelle Corby, Bondi riots, Haneef, Tampa, Siev X etc.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2008 at 11:16am:


I am aware of the Saudi money and Wahhabis growing influence believe me that I am not ignorant of that fact. I've made my opinions of Wahhabism quite clear. I don't dispute what you say. However, If we are going to compare apples then HillSong and the Exclusive Brethens are also very highly infuential in our society ESPECIALLY as lobby groups to our govt. The previous govt was too susceptible to their influence. The are several concurrent threads going on (as you know) about religious schools, the chaplaincy program, Intelligent Design etc. If we are to stop private money (from the Saudis) then the same should be so for Christian schools. My opinions are known on those threads.

I've enjoyed many discussions with Sprint and continue to do so (and I hope that the feeling is mutual). I believe that he genuinely believe his posts and I respect his opinions (as he has a right to them). However, I question his method and reasoning in achieving them. Furthermore, I am "miffed" that he chose to denigrate wholesale the entire Muslims race instead of targeting the real areas of concern (such as extremism, the rise of radical Islam and hate clerics).

So sprint, someone finally posted your source, but it wasn't you because you thought it better to hide where you got it from.

Did this 'Christian' site just make the accusations up? Remember, there are not a lot of written records from that far back. If they don't say where it is from, then the onyl reasonable conclusion is that they did make it up. Though shalt not lie.

We must at some point stop putting our rights, and our societies norms aside, to placate muslims, and just step up and take ownership of our society, and deny them the right to diminish it.

No-one is suggesting we do that. But you cannot put a muslim's right's aside without putting your own right's aside. You cannot protect your own rights by denying others theirs. You merely make yourself just as unworthy as the enemy you blame it all on.

Who gives a poo about our 'norms'?

I should also add that we in the west need to adjust our behaviour in regards to supporting the likes of Bush, and the whole NeoCon movement, whose views and actions are just as damaging as those of extreme Islam, in fact they are very much like the other side of the same coin.

I don't see any difference between you and Bush. I see you as a more extreme version of him and the neocons.

Are there any relevant domestic policies on which you are more 'mainstream' than Bush?

That is a real question. I suspect the only difference is that Bush is taking away the rights of Muslims in order to further his Christian ideology, which is wrong (to you), but you are doing it to further your atheist ideology, which of course is right. I don't think you caught on in the other thread, but you are not on the 'right' side of the road and 'they' are not on the 'wrong' side of the road. You are merely on the 'other' side of the road.

You criticise Bush because you can see how bad his ideas are when they are actually implemented. If anyone were foolish enough to implement your ideas, you would quickly change your mind on them as well.

So I think it is fair to ask why you see yourself as less extreme than Bush. It would be interesting to see if you can come up with something better than 'atheists are right, and the ends justifies the means.'

Bush may have his issues, but he would never stoop to such a blatant attack on the basic rights of US citizens.

and merely denying responsibility for them because you may claim it as god's will

I am not denying responsiblity nor claiming it's God's will. People who talk about God's will are often trying to take away people's rights, jsut like you are. Your actions also have consequences that you seem blind to and are far worse than the consequences of human rights.

Stop hiding behind freedom of religion as a catch all to allow anyone to do anything, that is not what it is about.

Strawman, I never said that's what it's about.

Religion has shown it's track record here

Which you seem intent to follow under the guise of your own 'alternative' ideology.

People can believe what they like, until their beliefs impinge on my right, and societies right, to live a free and peaceful life.

That is almost exactly my view, except you have not yet grasped that scoeiteis don't have rights, individuals do. When people talk about group rights they are always trying to take away individual rights without justification. You would take away other people's rights well before they infringed on your own. You would take them away merely because of your imagination running wild on you, dreaming up all sorts of ways in which people 'might' harm you if they are allowed their own rights.

Nice ducking and weaving on the Bush question, by the way. You make him look like a pacifist.

If someone claims that allowing other people to keep rights infringes on their own, the claim should be put to two tests - the reality test and the hypocrisy test. That is, is the infringement on their own rights real, or imagined? Are they making up rights, like freedom from hearing about ideas they don't like? Are they applying higher standards to another group of people than they would accept for themselves?

Mozz's ideas fail both these tests.

Which brings us back to his 'holier than thou' attitude towards George Bush, who would never dream of the sort of erosion of basic rights proposed by Mozz. Are there any relevant domestic policies on which Mozz could be considered more mainstream than Bush, or is he a typical extremist?