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?

No. Why would you ask such a silly question? What point are you trying to make?

So you equate feeding internet trolls with trying to stop fellow Muslims from deliberately blowing up innocent civilians? I think it's a bit of a strech to use that to justify the Muslim community harbouring terrorists.

As the forum owner, should you not take responsibility for extreme statements in this forum?

If they break the rules, yes. But I am not going to set rule based standards for being 'nice'.

Why are there no rules against statements as extreme as cheering the deaths of children?

Because no-one has suggested any until now. If you can come up with something sensible, please bring it up on the feedback board. It kind of diminishes the validity of your complaint in other peoples eyes if you merely use it as part of a diversionary rhetorical tactic.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Oct 26^th, 2008 at 12:43pm:


So I can't expect 'others' to contribute to this forum or it's rules because I won't do so myself?

Are any of you interested in compiling a list of demands that would have to be met before you would consider it reasonable for Muslims to reign in Islamic terrorists?

I am leading. You just don't like the direction.

I have made it quite clear, in the rules and elsewhere, that it is better to ignore trolls than respond with personal criticism. It is not reasonable to expect people to 'take on' every silly statement that trolls post online. Expecting people to do so would undermine the functionality of online forums. It is however reasonable to expect people to take on those that deliberately kill innocent civilians or do real harm. I find it quite disturbing that you seem unable to distinguish the two issues. Is this just a silly diversionary tactic, or do you really equate the two issues?

grendel - yes, the posts have gone off topic again

The topic is responsibility far Muslim extremists. I thought people would figure out the Muslim bit from the fact that I posted it in the Islam board and brought up the responsibility that Muslims feel for Muslim extremists. Obviously I can't stop Muslims bringing up other extremists to justify their own position, but it is an extremly weak argument for a double standard.

Perhaps Muslims think that the actions of terrorists are no different to the actions of a legitimate army. But this doesn't sit well with the other claims that Muslims don't support terrorism. Maybe it's time to bring this back to basics.

Do Muslims support Islamic terrorism?

Quote:


Since you failed to conclusively show that Muslims have a bad position on this, Muslims are not bringing it up to justify anything.

I don't support murdering civilians, I find it grossly detestable, and that's why I can't fathom how you could allow people to openly celebrate it on your forum, whilst from the other side of your mouth demanding Muslims 'rein in their extremists' or accusing us of supporting terrorism, it's just laughable.

If a Muslim came into this Islamic forum, and said they're jubilant that civilians had been murdered, they'd be banned, simple. Yet here you are calling into question the resolve of Muslims to oppose such despicable positions, when you yourself are quite happy to leave it to flourish and fester under your own watch....

I would say that most muslims dont believe the best way to go about their agenda is killing "innocent" people. but on the same note most muslims imo would find it hard to condemn people who are fighting the "right" enemy just not in the most desirable way.

Yes that's the problem pender. They fail to stop the evil.

Since you failed to conclusively show that Muslims have a bad position on this, Muslims are not bringing it up to justify anything

Well I think your position is pretty bad. Obviously you don't.

I don't support murdering civilians, I find it grossly detestable, and that's why I can't fathom how you could allow people to openly celebrate it on your forum

It wasn't murder. It was accidental. I allow it because I believe in freedom of speech. You say you don't support it, but you also say you don't oppose it, and you don't expect other Muslims to lift a finger to oppose it. Does this make you indifferent? Does it make you a hypocrit, given that you also claim that 'opposition of the heart' only is pretty pissweak, and that opposition with the hand must come first.

whilst from the other side of your mouth demanding Muslims 'rein in their extremists' or accusing us of supporting terrorism, it's just laughable.

The moment he is suspected of doing or plotting real harm, he would be reigned in. We draw a clear line in the sand, and we enforce it. We don't draw an ambiguous line and turn a blind eye when 'our fellows' step over it.

If a Muslim came into this Islamic forum, and said they're jubilant that civilians had been murdered, they'd be banned, simple.

No they wouldn't. In fact it would be refreshing to find a Muslim who was honest about his feelings.

Yet here you are calling into question the resolve of Muslims to oppose such despicable positions

Calling it into question? Have you changed your mind now? Before you openly admitted there was no such resolve - only lip service. In fact you appear to place for more importance on what people say than what they do.

YOu are a liar FD...you don't believe in free speech.

So you claim to know what I believe better than I do?

You hide behind freedom of speech to allow for the abuse and insult of muslims

I am not hiding anything. I am openly admitting what my values are and what the rules are. I am not deflecting questions about the rules with complaints about the unrelated behaviour of total strangers.

yet when I abuse others in response...you play the free speech card.

I think you got yourself a bit mixed up there. If you are complaining about the rules, I have made them very clear. you seem to confuse your rejection of the rules with a double standard in how they are enforced.

This deflection game is getting more and more absurd. Basically I can't get a straight answer from Muslims about terrorism because they insist on whinging about people being mean instead.

Perhaps you would like to compile a list of demands that would have to be met before you would consider it reasonable to expect Muslims to reign in extremists? Maybe if the whole world stopped saying they don't like Islam the Muslims would stop killing people?

Quote:


pttt...  dummyspit.
taking his bat and ball home it would seem.

nothing childish in that.   

I think I've figured it out - Abu thinks that reigning in of Muslim terrorists should be the last step in the peace process because when he says peace, he means Islam conquering the world and achieving that special 'Islamic peace'. Until then the terrorists are useful, but once Islam has conquered the world you need to reign them in because terrorism is wrong.

Quote:


Depends what you mean by terrorists. In all our discussions so far we've failed to agree on what terrorism actually is, and who's a terrorist. Many terrorists, in my opinion are actually employed by states..

F/D - of course Abu can change meanings to suit himself. he has done it before.
he can also delete posts arbitrarily, support public stonings, move threads that don't suit him, deflect questions, support terrorists, ask rhetorical ones, threaten other posters and refuse to answer.


see, he's a superior deceiving arrogant muslim.
Changing meanings is EASY for him.

Oops,  afghanistan and pakistan are responsible for allowing the taliban extremists to flourish.

Now they have murdered Bhutto (is that terrorism?) and are moving into towns in Pakistan.

Emotionally charged indeed. Very few of those people bandying the word around do so in a rational and unemotional manner. It's always just used to invalidate the claims, legitimacy and aspirations of the barbaric other. The term itself, actually seems to be a very effective tool of 'information warfare'.