Islam: Is it inherently Evil?

[SirRumpole]

"a lot"? how many? where? when?

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/10/06/paul-bongiorno-terror-laws-hurting-help/

 

[Calliope]

Just as I thought...nothing but p!ss & wind. Is leftist Paul Bongiorno's 3 month old garbage the best you can do?

 

[Julia]

http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/10/06/paul-bongiorno-terror-laws-hurting-help/

You cite an opinion piece from the notoriously Left journalist Paul Bongiorno who has long been an apologist for Islam in its entirety. It provides no justification for the claim that 'many' terrorist attacks have been thwarted by the Muslim community.

All it says even remotely to this effect is

Without Muslims helping agencies to infiltrate extremist cells and identify the radicals among them, the task of pre-empting attacks and defending the broader community would be so much harder. The 2005 arrests of men in Melbourne and Sydney under Operation Pendennis followed tip-offs from Melbourne’s Muslims.

That mentions just the one instance on Pendennis.

I simply don't understand why you - and for that matter the Prime Minister - are so averse to facing reality.

Someone suggested Mr Abbott's use of the term 'death cult' in regard to the Sydney siege, and its avoidance of the word 'terrorism', was because he was aware of disqualification of insurance claims by anyone affected by this event, given that payout in a case of terrorism is declined by most insurance companies.
I have no idea whether this is a valid suggestion or not.

 

[luutzu]

Just as I thought...nothing but p!ss & wind. Is leftist Paul Bongiorno's 3 month old garbage the best you can do?

Let say this is a war of civilisations, Islam against us. That since they started it, we now retaliate and stick it to all the Muslims we see. Do you think we're going to win? I mean, we will win militarily against them for sure... but at what costs?

Outrage and a need to smash something is understandable... but wars are not won by outrage and anger. Battles can be won that way, not war.

If we declare war on Islam, assuming that that is the honest and correct and justified thing to do, assuming... We would be doing what, according to former CIA analyst, bin Laden Unit leader Michael Sherer, is bin Laden's plan all along. That all his plans and actions are not designed to take on the US/West directly - he know he and his few guys can't do it; but to provoke us to take the war against Islam and all Muslims.

In war, probably best not to do what the enemy planned and prayed we'd do.

More importantly, as if that is not important enough... but doing so is wrong.

Wrong against our own law and values; wrong against reality.


If we see terrorist acts like this for what it is - an attack against us in a war we have been and are waging - then it is obvious this is not a war between religions, but between conflicting interests - our interests against their interests.

So in war, we do what we can to put them down; they do what they can to put us down.

We have the drones, the jets... so we master the air and the grounds; they have little or none of that... but they share a common religion with some of our citizens... and like any power would, they have and will use that to recruit among our people those most likely to fight for their cause.

Just as there were Britons who spied and work for Nazi Germany against their own people; just as some non-Russian Australians or Americans spied and work for Communist Russia during the cold war against their country... here too, some Australian Muslims may be recruited or are willing to fight for the enemy. And as we've seen in some of those videos by ISIS, those who turned may not be Arab Muslims... that's just how war is.


I don't believe what I said is for political correctness, or apologising for Muslims, or some idealism... it's just my understanding of the situation.

So we can call Islam and Muslims names, call for their exile, call for laws forbidding their rights to practice their religion and worship their God, ban their cultural practices or whatever... or we can try to see what this is how we're going to deal with it, who we're going to want to help us...

Maybe then we may start to win this thing... because seriously, when all it takes to put a country and economy on hold is a couple of guys with a couple guns, it's not a good sign.

 

[SirRumpole]

I simply don't understand why you - and for that matter the Prime Minister - are so averse to facing reality.

Typical attack dog response without a solution.

I've said many times that we have made a rod for our own backs by allowing large scale Muslim immigration. Now we have to do something about it.

We either get people onside who are able to give information about terrorists or we marginalise them and have blood on the streets in some sort of civil war with vigilantes on both sides throwing Molotov cocktails. Is that what you want ?

If you have another solution, then kindly suggest one because I haven't seen much in the way of alternative approaches from you or anyone else.

I put it to you that moderate Muslims who want to live in this country without harassment would be far more likely to turn informer than risk guilt by association and the subsequent heavy hand of the law on them. Are you really saying that every Muslim in this country is a supporter of terrorism ? If not then what do you mean by the statement I quoted above ?

 

[SirRumpole]

And if you don't believe Paul Bonjourno, perhaps you will believe former head of the AFP Mick Keelty

After the first terrorist attacks, Mr Keelty made two crucial decisions -- to improve relations between the police and the Islamic community as a matter of urgency and to forge close links with police from Asia on issues of transnational crime and terrorism.

Last night, he told The Australian he did feel vindicated by Lady Manningham-Buller's testimony.

"It's probably the strongest indication yet that the position I took not only at the time, but subsequent to that, to ensure that the Islamic community was properly engaged and not marginalised in Australia, was an important decision," Mr Keelty said.

He started by introducing Islamic awareness training in the AFP and put Islamic liaison teams in each state and territory.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...on-terror-upheld/story-e6frg6nf-1225895300565

 

[Calliope]

Poor old rumpy. You researched diligently through the night to try to find a rebuttal and the best you can come up is an outdated article on Keelty. Still no details on your nonsense assertion;

Are you aware that a lot of terrorist attacks have been thwarted by tipoffs from a radical Muslim's moderat family

Except to change the rhetoric to

I put it to you that moderate Muslims who want to live in this country without harassment would be far more likely to turn informer than risk guilt by association and and the subsequent heavy hand of the law on them

Could you give some details of these poor harrassed moderate muslims? Harassed by whom?

As for your question;

Are you really saying that every Muslim in this country is a supporter of terrorism ?

They are supporters of Islam, rumpy, which is a religion of terror.

Back to Google rumpy.

 

[SirRumpole]

They are supporters of Islam, rumpy, which is a religion of terror.

Well then, I suggest you dust off the old KKK headgear and go beat up a few towel heads to teach them a lesson.

 

[Calliope]

Your lack of sleep is affecting your brain, rumpy.

As Mark Twain said;

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

[Julia]

Typical attack dog response without a solution.

Not an attack: just pointing out that it's inaccurate to say "a lot of " attacks have been prevented when you only quoted one and that that was from an opinion piece by a journalist widely known for his hard Left and pro-muslim philosophy.

I'd pay about as much attention to Bongiorno as I would to Andrew Bolt.

We either get people onside who are able to give information about terrorists or we marginalise them and have blood on the streets in some sort of civil war with vigilantes on both sides throwing Molotov cocktails. Is that what you want ?

What I would want would have been never to have allowed them to flood into the country the way they did under Labor in the first place. Just a taxi service after they'd flown across several countries more suited to their religion and politics, paid people smugglers, junked their valid documentation and, if necessary, sabotaged the vessel on which they were travelling. "Nothing we can do about it", said Labor. "It's all about push factors".

If you have another solution, then kindly suggest one because I haven't seen much in the way of alternative approaches from you or anyone else.

I'm just a member of the public. I don't even know any muslims. None of them in any apparent way up here.
Not my responsibility to provide solutions and neither do I expect to be asked to do so because I've pointed out that your "lots of attacks" was just one and even that is according to a journalist whom I'd consider to be flaky.

I put it to you that moderate Muslims who want to live in this country without harassment would be far more likely to turn informer than risk guilt by association and the subsequent heavy hand of the law on them. Are you really saying that every Muslim in this country is a supporter of terrorism ? If not then what do you mean by the statement I quoted above ?

I have no idea whether they are or not. As I said, I don't know any. So I have no basis for an opinion.

 

[SirRumpole]

I have no idea whether they are or not. As I said, I don't know any. So I have no basis for an opinion.

So what is your idea of the "reality" that you suggest I and Tony Abbott face up to ?

Of course most of us would prefer that Muslim immigration didn't happen in the first place, but they weren't all refugees. Howard, Rudd and Gillard let a lot in via mainstream migration programs. This has to be cut back. So do welfare programs that favour large families. However every war has it's spies and informants and we should cultivate those, as well as use other intelligence gathering methods.

Saying "it never should have happened in the first place", while being a correct statement doesn't help us face the situation we have now.

What is your response to the statement from Mick Keelty ?

 

[Calliope]

What is your response to the statement from Mick Keelty ?

That was then.(July 2010)...this is now! In fact if you go further back you will turn up a guy who said we should "turn the other ckeek". Back to Google rumpy and more burning of the midnight oil..

 

[Julia]

Rumpole, the 'reality' is very clearly described by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her interview with "7.30" last night.

She says it more clearly and effectively than I ever could.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4160195.htm

 

[Julia]

What is your response to the statement from Mick Keelty ?

I don't have one. That was then, this is now. Mr Keelty is no longer in any relevant position afaik and neither is such an old statement of any real value at this stage.

It's really not obligatory on all of us to hold clear opinions on everything that happens or doesn't, Rumpole.
Especially if we're not in a position to offer a properly informed view.

I don't know, eg, how you're so certain 'ordinary' Muslims - while not acting in any untoward way themselves - do not consider punishment of those who insult their god or prophet or whatever they worship, to be just and in accordance with their holy book.

 

[SirRumpole]

I don't know, eg, how you're so certain 'ordinary' Muslims - while not acting in any untoward way themselves - do not consider punishment of those who insult their god or prophet or whatever they worship, to be just and in accordance with their holy book.

I just wonder if we are attributing a higher degree of devoutness than warranted to people of certain faiths just because they may profess to be of that faith. They may consider themselves Muslim (or Catholic, or CofE) because their parents were , and not because they have much belief in the Holy Words.

I've said before that religion is a social club to many people. Their friends and family go there, so do they. Deep in their hearts do they really believe the Scriptures or is it just a password to the "club".

Sure, some Muslims inwardly celebrate when "infidels" are punished, I think many Australians would also celebrate when revenge attacks against Muslims are carried out. Is there any real difference between the "tribes" ?. People who don't belong to the tribe are outed, and you don't need religion for that either, just watch a Collingwood football game.

 

[lindsayf]

I just wonder if we are attributing a higher degree of devoutness than warranted to people of certain faiths just because they may profess to be of that faith. They may consider themselves Muslim (or Catholic, or CofE) because their parents were , and not because they have much belief in the Holy Words.

I've said before that religion is a social club to many people. Their friends and family go there, so do they. Deep in their hearts do they really believe the Scriptures or is it just a password to the "club".

Sure, some Muslims inwardly celebrate when "infidels" are punished, I think many Australians would also celebrate when revenge attacks against Muslims are carried out. Is there any real difference between the "tribes" ?. People who don't belong to the tribe are outed, and you don't need religion for that either, just watch a Collingwood football game.

The analogy is too loose for me.
The tribes are the 'muslims' and the 'infidels' yes? And your point is that both tribes may celebrate to one degree or another, the perceived 'just' punishment of the other. On that basis you equate them. Then you give Collingwood football club as an example of a non religious 'tribe' that behaves aggressively towards other non religious tribes ie Carlton and this demonstrates therefore that we are all tribes and none can hold any moral superiority over the other. Is this what you are saying here?

I will grant the analogy when an group of Collingwood or Carlton players commit mass murder in the name of their club code of ethics, or out of offence created by a newspaper cartoonist. I will further grant the analogy when the majority of the remaining Club supporters are silent or passively ( or overtly) condone the murders.

In my opinion a tribe is not a tribe is not a tribe. Key differences are in the doctrine laid out in the magic books and the behaviours and rationales for those behaviours that can only be fully understood on that basis.

On a different level I do get what you are meaning here but the analogy is not a good one.

 

[SirRumpole]

On a different level I do get what you are meaning here but the analogy is not a good one.

Then consider hutu and tutsi in Rwanda. No religious differences there, they were just two tribes who didn't like each other.

About a million people died in that conflict.

Makes the religious wars look small by comparison.

http://worldnews.about.com/od/africa/f/tutsihutu.htm

 

[pixel]

In today's Weekend West, I find a very informative article that clarifies the different aspects of Islam. I could not find an electronic copy on The West's website, so I hope I can attach the scanned images.




(Click on the text and if the writing is still too small, use Ctrl + to increase the size.)

IMHO, it confirms my long-held conviction that all three Religions of the Book are comparable in the potential effects on their victims and followers.
Puritan forms of Islam, Christianity, Judaism are all carrying the seed of evil:

• intolerance,
• smug conviction of one's supremacy,
• hatred of infidels/ pagans/ gentiles,
• urge to proselytise with fire and sword.

I find it quite telling that the Taliban is murdering school children, that wide sections of US "Christians" insist on Creationism being taught instead of Science. (Not sure about Zionists, maybe someone can add their relevant insight.)
The better educated modern-day members of either faith are, the greater their enlightenment and tolerance of others they become. It is the acceptance of other belief systems and tolerance towards all humans, that makes us worthy of the title Homo Sapiens. Any congregation with an attitude short of such civilised behaviour leaves its members stuck in primeval tribalism, racism, and barely above the level of Stone-Age cavemen.

PS: I also agree with another opinion piece in today's issue: https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25950883/wa-islamic-leaders-must-do-more/

 

[SirRumpole]

Any congregation with an attitude short of such civilised behaviour leaves its members stuck in primeval tribalism, racism, and barely above the level of Stone-Age cavemen.

Indeed so.

What is going to be hardest to crack is the inherited religious dogma, passed down from fathers to sons and mothers to daughters, especially when the requirement to observe certain practises results in family discipline or isolationism when not observed by the children.

The only way out of this as I see it is to ban religious schools altogether and give children the benefits of a secular education hoping that will counteract the nonsense taught at home, but can anyone really see that suggestion getting through Parliament ? The religions have too much grip on politics for that to happen.

 

[pixel]

Indeed so.

What is going to be hardest to crack is the inherited religious dogma, passed down from fathers to sons and mothers to daughters, especially when the requirement to observe certain practises results in family discipline or isolationism when not observed by the children.

The only way out of this as I see it is to ban religious schools altogether and give children the benefits of a secular education hoping that will counteract the nonsense taught at home, but can anyone really see that suggestion getting through Parliament ? The religions have too much grip on politics for that to happen.

Sad, but true.

The last chance - if we ever had one - went with PM Bob Hawke, who had/ still has a clear understanding of the damage religious indoctrination can do to impressionable minds. Could he have secularised Australia on the wave of the America's Cup success in 1983? It's a moot point, too late now in any case.

Paul Keating may have been a similar free spirit, but he believed so much in his own importance that it didn't occur to him to take any other creed serious.

John Howard, Kevin Rudd, and now Tony Abbott are all part of the problem. Whether they really "believe" in the Christian Faith must be put in serious doubt; but a significant number of their voters won't know or care, as long as they're seen to attend Church on Christmas, kiss babies, and talk the talk.