Spot asked a good question here:
Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 11
th, 2012 at 6:27am:
freediver wrote on Aug 10
th, 2012 at 6:59pm:
I am not 'being a dick' spot. I am trying to explain some incredibly simple concepts to you. For some reason, despite explaining them 100 times, you are still oblivious to them. The most obvious one is the difference between what someone wants and what they are capable of achieving. Either you are incapable of understanding the difference, or for some reason you are deliberately lying about what Abu wants. He wants the death penalty for apostasy. He wants Shariah law for Australia. He wants to destroy democracy. He wants to deny people basic freedom and human rights. But for some reason all he has to do is point out that he is incapable of achieving these changes and you jump up and down like a lapdog telling everyone that he does not even want it. Why is it so hard for you to understand? Or do you not want to understand?
You are explaining that I should hate abu because you do.
Who cares what he wants? Lots of ppl want lots of things. Yadda wants all palestinians to be killed "pushed into the sea" yet this is acceptable to you? Lots of ppl want lots of things.
If they cant do it and they know they cant do it how is it a problem? That is *if* its even true. Because of your track record I dont take your word for anything.
Also - the sum total of "democracy" in australia is voting. Thats it. Just so you realise you are using yank propaganda slogans.
SOB
The context, so that Spot doesn't accuse me of misrepresenting by leaving it out:
Abu has been busy lately trying to pass off his impotence as benign intent. He has used his inability to overthrow the Australian government as a reason why we should not discuss what he actually wants to do and should only discuss his inability to do it. Spot caught onto this and started insisting that Abu said he did not want the things he was unable to achieve (eg Shariah law imposed on everyone), but now he seems to be catching on to the difference.
So onto the question of what is wrong with it - eg what is wrong with wanting to destroy democracy, take away people's freedom and human rights, stone them to death for thought crimes etc, in the context of being unable to achieve it.
The answer boils down to this: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are 100 different ways to answer this question, but they are just different ways of saying this same thing.
Some examples:
Politics is highly non-linear. It tends to follow a pattern of long periods of mind numbing stagnation interrupted by short periods of 'interesting times'. Democracy has partly corrected this, but only partly. What this means is that although we appear to live in a stable country that is free of revolution, war etc, it would be naive to assume that this will always be the case, even within our lifetime.
Attitudes like spot's, where we should refrain from criticising extremists on the grounds that they are extremists will help to bring about the 'interesting times'. Suppose Australia were to get invaded one day. It is extremists like Abu and their recruits who would support the invaders in the hope that the outcome is more like what they want.
Another simple explanation is that openly criticising these people makes it harder for them to recruit more extremists. This principle is deeply ingrained in our communal psyche when it comes to most religious and political extremists, but for some reason it has been turned on it's head for Muslims. I suspect this is down to the skill with which they play the victim card and switch between their political and relgious hats.
Another reason is that not criticising these people validates their views and makes it more likely that they will turn to violence to achieve their goals. Such violence may be politically impotent and counter productive, but it is violent nonetheless. It is much simpler to counter extremism with worlds now than to wait until we have to counter it more forcefully.
Another good example is that not criticisng them makes it a whole lot easier for them to fool people. Abu and spot are a great example. Without open and frank criticism of them both, spot would have come away thinking he had had an honest discussion with Abu and that Abu had told him he did not want Shariah law, did not want to destroy freedom and democracy, did not want to stone apostates to death etc. The truth itself is the first victim, and it can only go downhill from there.
Saying we should not criticise extremists is just as stupid as saying we should refrain from criticising politicians. Their impotence is balanced by their extremism. To attempt to equate the threats they pose (as spot does with religions) is childish, but they are both threats that need to be countered in a civilised society.
When it comes to Islam specifically, the threat of violence is already genuine. We have had Bali, which counter to spots insistence, did target Australians. We have had plenty of home grown violent jihadis recently, many of whom ended up in jail. If spot had had his way, the police would have turned away on the grounds that the threat does not even exist until after they have blown themselves up on a bus.
Australia is currently in two long wars against Islamic extremism. We are attempting to establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. Being a democracy, our foreign policy is dependent on public opinion. If the public is fooled into thinking that people like Abu, and the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan he often claims to speak on behalf of, want democracy, we may end up supporting the very people who want to destroy democracy and replace it with a very real Shariah hell. Abu frequently attempts to pass of the extremists as being both benign and respresenting the will of the majority in these places. There are very clear and very real outcomes from letting such lies go unchallenged.