Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Aussies first terrorist (Read 6177 times)
Grendel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 28080
Gender: male
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #15 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 10:04am
 
I don't recall any Muslim Aboriginal settlements.
Nor Korans found in aboriginal camps.
Nor Aboriginals speaking arabic.
Nor...  well you get my drift.

Wasn't that a myth Hilali tried to spread?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gaybriel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1191
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #16 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 11:10am
 
mozzaok wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 7:46am:
Quote:
if they were smoking a joint they'd hardly 'gone islamic' as you put it (not to mention murdering innocent civilians).


I appreciate that you want to be fair to all people, and as individuals, no-one would argue that point, but some groups deserve disdain.

Would you be defensive of these men if their affiliation was to the KKK, and they shot black people?

Come on, be honest, you know you never would.

Well I agree that all people deserve the opportunity to be respected, until their actions cost them that right.

As for your statement about dope and killing, well it does show a decided lack of knowledge of what muslims do, it was more likely hashish, than marijuana they were smoking, and it has been a part of their culture for thousands of years, as has been, exacting violent retribution for any real or imagined sleight.

Islam sucks big time, it has far too much preaching of violence, bigotry and hatred, to be deserving of respect, and certainly not just because they call it a religion.

I think you will find that all the decent muslims you wish to defend, are decent, good people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.


when did I defend them?

will reply more this evening in case ppl think I'm ignoring their posts
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gaybriel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1191
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #17 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 11:13am
 
abu_rashid wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 9:55am:
Quote:
After fighting in four campaigns under Sultan Abdul Mohammed Rasheed, he returned to Australia about 1912


There was never any Sultan by this name, and in fact this name would be strictly forbidden in Islam, and anyone knowing the slightest bit of Arabic or anything about Islam would know this, as "Abdul Mohammed" means "worshipper of Mohammed". Sounds like an invention by the same people who use terms like "Mohammedan".

I've heard this story before, but I'm inclined to think it was a double murder that got covered up by inventing the train-shooting story. They most likely just murdered these two poor guys for being different (something that happened fairly regularly in Australia's history) and then invented the story to justify it. Wouldn't be the first time lies had been told to justify the murder of innocent Muslims.


I think you're reaching quite a bit on that one Abu- seriously.

Think back to that time- do you seriously think they would have had to invent a train massacre to justify the killing of a couple of afghanis anyway?

honestly- that really just is silly
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
abu_rashid
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #18 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 11:51am
 

Afghans  were not considered quite as low as Aboriginals, so yeh they would've had to have some kind of justification for it. They were linked to foreign entities, and therefore there's some kind of responsibility to explain why they were killed if it became a widely known event.

Aboriginals on the other hand were only affiliated with kangaroos and emus, so killing them was just like culling native fauna, there was nobody to ask questions or answer to.

Also thee claims they were smoking Marihuana add weight to the idea that it was probably quite a propagandist report. Reminds me of those typical orientalist myths like homosexuality being allowed in the "Turkish empire"...
Back to top
 
abu_rashid  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 40788
Gender: male
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #19 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 12:14pm
 

The site that came form is the "Australian dictionary of biography online edition."
published by The Australian University


Who cares if they were smoking pot ???
Why do you want to sidestep history ???
How do you know this abiout Aborigines?
What makes you think this of Afghans?
Was the "turkish empire" tolerant enough to allow homos ??

Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Gaybriel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1191
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #20 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 7:47pm
 
Quote:
Sounds like modern day islamics to me.
you'ld think it'ld change after 95 odd years
guess arabs are still the donkeys of men


I was referring more to this:

“In World War I his religious and nationalistic fervour increased as he became incensed by the conflict and by the many unemployed miners enlisting in the services

On the morning of 1 January 1915 the two men raised the Turkish flag on the ice-cream cart and…”

“A letter bearing the seal of the sultan, honouring his services to the Turkish Army, was found in his waist-belt.”

And in the link I provided
felt the Turkish Empire was under attack from Christian Western powers. One had been mulling over his humiliation for butchering sheep for the Moslem community, one was fanatical in his allegiance to the Turkish Empire. Together they came to the belief that they had a religious and patriotic obligation to take up arms on behalf of their faith and their homeland.”

so like I said- it wasn't merely religious- it was at least in part patriotism and politics.

if it were just religion, why did they not spaz out earlier and kill a whole bunch of people?

Quote:
I appreciate that you want to be fair to all people, and as individuals, no-one would argue that point, but some groups deserve disdain.

Would you be defensive of these men if their affiliation was to the KKK, and they shot black people?

Come on, be honest, you know you never would.


No I wouldn’t. Nor was I defensive of these men. I merely pointed out that religion was not the only factor in this. If it were wouldn’t they have launched from attack against the ‘kuffar’ without the war as a motivator?

Quote:
Well I agree that all people deserve the opportunity to be respected, until their actions cost them that right.


Show me where I said I respected them

Quote:
As for your statement about dope and killing, well it does show a decided lack of knowledge of what muslims do, it was more likely hashish, than marijuana they were smoking, and it has been a part of their culture for thousands of years, as has been, exacting violent retribution for any real or imagined sleight.


My point was that if they ‘went islamic’ as sprint put it- indicating some kind of reversion to a greater focus upon Islam, they would not be using drugs. If he meant gone Islamic in another sense then obviously I was interpreting it differently.

Quote:
Islam sucks big time, it has far too much preaching of violence, bigotry and hatred, to be deserving of respect, and certainly not just because they call it a religion.

I think you will find that all the decent muslims you wish to defend, are decent, good people, in spite of their religion, not because of it.


No that is not what I have found. Try again.

Quote:
Not really Grendel, I think she is confusing attacks on the teachings of Islam, with personal attacks against muslims, and it is most certainly not the same thing.


I do not confuse the two however I am aware that such sentiments towards Islam can in fact lead to those sentiments being manifested in interactions with muslims- often in a violent or abusive way. There are some who are able to disconnect their dislike of a religion from the people who follow it- but many are unable to. This does not mean I don’t think people should be critical of Islam- by all means do it. My problem is when people ‘get their hate on’ cause on the street that can turn into nastiness.

Quote:
I think of it as like somebody defending the behaviour of medieval inquisitionists, and saying that what they did was nothing to do with christianity, when clearly it was.
Of course there were other factors, but the extremism got it's base support, from pious religious people, who chose to interpret christianity, in that way, at that time.


When have I excused equivalent behaviours?

Quote:
We have seen christianity progress from that horror, we would like Islam to try and progress as well, but the ones who say it is perfect, and cannot be changed, lead us to conclude, it is a seemingly impossible task, as it stands.


People say it is perfect and cannot be changed because it is the word of God. I understand this perspective, however what I think should be changed is 1) interpretation of this word and who’s doing the interpreting and 2) people using Islam as a justification for cultural practices and political actions by essentially cherry picking what they want from the quran and ignoring everything else
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gaybriel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1191
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #21 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 7:48pm
 
Quote:
I disagree Grendel, to be an apologist, implies understanding, I don't think she has that yet.

I think she just is focusing on the fact that most people are good, and decent, irrespective of the doctrine they follow, and sees attacks against Islamic teachings, as attacks against muslims, simple as that. [quote]

That is incorrect but I appreciate the condescension.

[quote]Oh I'm sure she doesn't but she wouldn't agree to that.
Ignorance is moot.
Need I remind you I have Muslim friends?
That I haven't attacked a Muslim for being a Muslim, nor the religion.


I think it’s great that you can be critical of a religion but accepting of individuals you know who follow it. Many can’t make that distinction.

Quote:
Mind you questioning and dissent is seen by the Muslims here and gaybriel as attacking Islam and Muslims apparently.


No- I have no problem with question and dissent as I have said many times. I do have a problem with abuse and disrespect (in the way of common manners and consideration). Constraining such things does not inhibit criticism. It just makes it more constructive.

Quote:
Apologist...  A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution. At any level she steps in and provides excuses or does what the Muslims do makes a spurious argument or attack on the messenger.


You misconstrue my attempts to understand the complexity of certain issues as attempts to defend them. And then at other times I just disagree with you.

Quote:
Mind you some deserve to be seen as obsessive and biased.  But that doesn't excuse her actions, which so far show very little if any balance.


I could and will say the same of you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Gaybriel
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1191
Re: Aussies first terrorist
Reply #22 - Oct 30th, 2008 at 8:37pm
 
Grendel wrote on Oct 30th, 2008 at 10:04am:
I don't recall any Muslim Aboriginal settlements.
Nor Korans found in aboriginal camps.
Nor Aboriginals speaking arabic.
Nor...  well you get my drift.

Wasn't that a myth Hilali tried to spread?


http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/58316/Stephenson.pdf

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/58309/Ganter.pdf
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print