Huh - yup john howard tony blair and george bush should all be tried for war crimes.

SOB

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 9:11am:


What? No - read what i said.

SOB

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2012 at 7:30pm:


How do you know this, Freediver? Are we supposed to assume that they're dangerous just in case they are?

Abu and Falah are extremist Muslims with a few loopy ideas - without proof; no more, no less. Yes, like anyone else from an extremist mindset, they're careful about what they choose to disclose.

Back in the 1970s, a host of cults had similar apocalyptic ideas. Jim Jones chose suicide. The Moonies prophecised a world war and the elevation of Reverend Moon as the leader of a one-world government. Before he ascended to the spiritual sky, the Hare Krishnas had similar beliefs about their own leader, Prabubada. Unknown to many, both groups amassed weapons they intended to use in their struggles.

In Australia, the Hindu/yoga group, Ananda Marga were at the top of Asio's watch-list. If you remember, the NSW Special Branch blamed them for the Hilton bombing and arrested 3 members for terrorism. All 3 were later aquitted and released for a bombing that all evidence points to the guilt of the police themselves.

Soren is wrong. Islam has not always been the enemy of the West. In the last days of the cold war, it was Maoists, Trotskyists, anarchists and other assorted agnostics from the left. Islam has only come to centre stage since 9/11.

Islam is a mainstream religion. It's not unified or centrally organised. It contains cults, splinter groups, terrorist cells, along with the benign organisation of religious practice and religious law. It's not monocultural: it accommodates hundreds of ethnic groups. About a quarter of the world's population is Muslim, and you won't hear a peep from the majority of them.

Yes, there is no clear division of church and state in Islam. Likewise, there is no separation of powers in places like Afghanistan. If you think we're there to be nice and bring them our fine political traditions, think again. We're there to secure a politically unstable region in the interests of our geopolitical ally and their friends in the fossil fuel business. Our mission, of course, has failed.

We have good political traditions. They're not perfect, but they're better than warlords and tribal law. In the state Afghanistan is in, building a functioning democracy - with all its institutions, powers, values and economic imperatives - is impossible. And everybody knows.

I doubt very much that Abu and Falah want to import the Taliban to Australia. To me, they don't seem too clear in their beliefs or stated objectives. I've read a few of your examples and quotes, and it looks as if you're reading way too much into them. Abu and Falah are largely critics. Like the rest of us, they don't have any solutions either.

Hinted references to the impending caliphate, the brilliance of shariah law, a return to some enlightened age and imagined system of justice - which, as you've pointed out, was never just at all.

Never will be either.

Still, I'm open to the possibility that Abu and Falah are sinister agents of global chaos and destruction. Without proof though, I'll continue to see them as garden-variety fundamentalists.

As an agnostic, I don't have a hardened view of the evils of religion. I think there should be a range of options open to people who seek meaning in their lives, and I don't think this should be subject to the tyranny of popular opinion and the idols of the marketplace.

I agree: people who advocate hatred, violence and division should be shouted down. The thing is though, we have to be very careful that we don't do this ourselves. It's why we have a legal system. It's why we have empirical systems of measurement based on evidence. And it's why we have a rule of law.

This - and only this - is what separates us from superstition and tribal law.

Karnal wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 1:31pm:



I didn't mean history as the last 5 minutes (ie the Clinton and Pop Bush era), the age of sax and cigars and cool shades. Apart from that brief decade or two, Islam has been the enemy of the West from the 7th to the 20th century.

Or put it another way - Islam has never, ever, ever been pro-Christian, or pro-secular or pro-liberal democracy or pro-free love or pro-multiculturalism or pro-anything that the West has been for since the 7th century.

Insofar as Islam has had a voice, it has always stood against the West: spread of islam across the Eastern Roman Empire, sustained attack on the Western Roman Empire, the spread of the Ottomans on land (to Vienna) and sea (the menace of the Barbary (!) pirates operating out of Muslim territory).

Abu and Falah and all the other Hiz ul Tahrir and Taliban and Al Qaida cheer squad are in that Muslim mould and tradition because there is no other Muslim tradition.

Even when there was a bet going as to who is the strong/weak horse, the Russians or the West. Even then, most of them were instinctively betting on the Russians.

The Heartless Felon wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:


What do you mean? Pederick was released too, and his evidence discounted by the court of appeal.

freediver wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 12:45pm:


a common experience... SOB makes little sense most of the time.

Quote:


Because Falah told me. I posted a link for Soren.

Quote:


Proof of what? That there are enough of the 'extremists' around to keep the middle east in the dark ages?

Quote:


I see. He should have said an enemy of the west. Unless you count the Nazis as the west, in which case they once were a willing ally.

Quote:


Only because I don't listen to the majority. And like I said, a minority can cause more than enough trouble, especially if the majority feels compelled by their beliefs to let them cause problems.

Quote:


Falah said they were the only true Islamic government on earth.

Quote:


Trust me, I have asked plenty of times for clarification. It is their refusal to clarify that I read most into.

Quote:


Yes they do. Shariah law for everyone. You really should ask them what they think instead of telling them what they think.

Quote:


I think you have to go back a bit further than that. And remember, the Christian societies did not have a superpower imposing freedom and democracy on them, the were busy creating such systems. Without external influence, the Muslim societies would not be that different to Muhammed's time. The extremists would be running the show.

Quote:


I don't claim any special knowledge on this. Much of the bible reads like a poorly written history book to me, especially the old testament. I think it would be impossible to get the statutes from the bible that you get from Islam.

Quote:


Islam is also a historically introduction there. THe further you get from Mecca, the more diluted it gets.

Quote:


Why do you think we are criticising Abu and Falah for rejecting freedom and democracy? You are the one claiming we should ignore an organised attempt to subvert it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jul 11^th, 2012 at 2:13pm:


You may well have read them both, but you clearly had no idea what you were reading.

They were not written in the same era, and they were not written in the same place. In fact, they both use very different Literacy forms and therefore read nothing like each other.

How can anyone be so critical of something they know so little about? Actually, that question answers itself.