This issue came up in the Islamic etiquette thread, as well as a few others:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1224025663

Abu, and I suspect many other Muslims, reject the idea of reigning in their own extremists as the first step to peace, and instead insist that they should be given free reign until the various demands of the Muslim community are met. This seems to involve putting all the blame for a conflict on to someone else and rejecting responsbility for your own actions and your own contribution to the problem. It supposes that murdering innocent people for example is wrong and should be stopped, unless of course you are pissed off about something that is happening somewhere else. Only your own suffering matters, and only the contribution of the enemy to that suffering may be recognised. It rejects for example, the possibility of the people of Afghanistan being responsible for bringing the current war upon themselves by supporting a local terrorist organisation that had openly declared war on a superpower and was steadily ramping up it's attacks on that superpower. It rejects both basic moral values and self interest, placing them second to revenge or some other political goal. It is a hypocritical double standard that demands a standard of behaviour from your enemy that you are not prepared to apply to your friends.

This approach obviously rules out peace from the beginning, as no peace process can work while one side still supports violent extremists. It makes war a foregone conclusion. Perhaps that is what they want. It is an insidious belief that creates misery for all and which must be countered.

It would be incredibly naive to assume that the terrorism would end because you reward it by giving in to the demands of extremists, or to assume that there is some fixed set of demands, short of world domination, that violent extremists will settle for. It is naive to assume that people who are unable to reign in extremists at the moment will suddenly develop the courage to reign them in as they become more successful. Yet this is what many believe, and what they expect us to believe.

In this context, the 'battle for the hearts and minds' must be seen as more than a struggle to get people to take our side in a conflict. It must be seen as a struggle to get people to reject terrorism as a means to an end. It must be a struggle to get people to hold onto their core values, even when they feel they have been wronged, to stop equating the path to victory with a race to the bottom of the barrel of moral standards, and to take greater responsibility for those things that they can influence. We must make people realise that the world no longer tolerates unrestrained violence and that it will be stopped. We must make them realise that it is their choice to either stop it themselves, or force someone else to do it for them, and that there is no other option.

rotflmao

The fact you cling to that desperate claim shows how self deluded you are.

I doubt anyone here actually is joyful about and celebrating the deaths of innocent children.

As for MURDER...  yeah well we all know missiles are the prime choice of weapons for Murderers.  They are so precise after all, and used all the ime in non-warzones.

Grendel wrote on Oct 25^th, 2008 at 1:47am:
Really..perhaps you should learn to read Grendel.

This from Dill.

"Thats great news!  A few less mohammedans in the world polluting the air with their foul breaths. "

And from Donald Trump

"Uh, so I guess the US military hides in the world trade center buildings, hey? Nice.

In regards to your reply to Phil, I guess I'm just another maggot devoid of any humanity then. I don't feel sorry for them one little bit.

There are good points and bad points to this situation.
Good news: a few more potential terrorists off the Earth.
Bad news: Easily replaceable because Muslims pop em out like rabbits. This will most likely create more terrorists. Further, this will inevitably result in more parasitical immigrants coming to Australia.

Overall, the bad points outweigh the good points. So in this regard, I agree with Abu, it's terrible news. As far as feeling sorry for them, meh. They were asking for it by sheltering terrorists. "

rotflmao indeed.

So I was right Abu? You do think there is no responsibility on the Muslim community to reign in terrorists - that only comes after you get whatever you want. I kind of expected you to back track a bit.

What if you knew that one Muslim was going to blow up a building with westerners in it, and another Muslim was trying to stop them and asked you to rat them out. What would you do? Would you tell him about the plight of the palestinians and hope he forgot about the whole building explosion thing?

Quote:


Until you can at least condemn and 'rein in' the ones who were joyous at the murder of civilian students in a school, you have no right to be asking such questions.

Why don't I have a right to ask questions?

I don't think either of them broke any rules. I'm not going to ban someone just because they're not a very nice person.

I don't think it would satisfy Abu or put him on the spot. Yes it is convenient for him to have something on this forum to deflect to, but it's not like he needs that. He deflects to anything, no matter how remote the connection.

Nor do I understand what this has to do with responsibility for extremists.

Is it just me, or are the 'diversionary tactics' getting more and more absurd?