Monday, February 19, 2007

Raphael’s only friend …

Well, at least Raphael Israeli has one friend in Australia.

Rupert Murdoch’s star columnist Andrew Bolt has made not one, not two but three defences of Dr Israeli’s views calling for Australia to implement discriminatory immigration policies and to ensure Muslim migrants are marginalised.

It seems Bolt regards religious bigotry and prejudice as acceptable forms of discourse. Personally, I think this runs counter to his proclaimed Christian beliefs. It seems his Christian ethics and morals fall out the door when it comes to another group of people who believe in Christ.

Should Andrew’s views surprise anyone? Nowhere in his blog posts has he suggested that Israeli might be exaggerating. Nowhere is there recognition that perhaps not all Muslims are the same, that perhaps some Muslims are making positive ontributions to Australia. Bolt accepts the literal meaning of Israeli's words and endorses them.

Further, he does not refute or even comment on some of th most virulent comments posted by his supporters.

Since Andrew is speculating about the motives of 360,000 Muslim Aussies, I might ponder over the motivrs of 1 or 2 Dutch Aussies. I wonder: Is Andrew part of a long line of political activists of the far-Right Dutch variety?

(I'm sure he will accuse me of being a racist now.)

During the Second World War, the Dutch Right were active in assisting the Nazis. Hardly any German soldiers set foot on Dutch soil. Yet there were no shortage of Dutch Jews sent to the Nazis to die in concentration camps.

How did these Jews end up in death camps? Simple. Members of the Dutch Right, apparently Andrew Bolt’s ideological ancestors, ensured that German troops weren’t needed to implement the Final Solution.

Recent letters of Otto Frank (father of Anne) show that he desperately tried to get his family to the United States. Thanks to restrictive immigration policies (of the type Dr Israeli calls for and Bolt supports), Anne Frank and her siblings could not get to safety. They died in the death camps.

Of course, the far-Right in the Netherlands still hates Jews. Theo van Gogh was a notorious anti-Semite and a known Holocaust denier. That doesn’t stop Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen and others from defending him.

It also doesn’t stop Andrew from applying the same hatred to Muslims which his ideological ancestors applied to Jews.

Bigotry is bigotry. It doesn’t take bionic vision to see that so many allegedly conservative columnists in Australia are using rhetoric about Muslims that their European equivalents during the 1930’s and 40’s used about Jews. Holocausts and genocides don’t happen overnight.

What makes Andrew Bolt different is that he has the courage to come out and openly declare his hatred of Muslims. For that, he at least deserves some credit.

© Irfan Yusuf 2007

37 comments:

unaligned said...

Fair point given that Bolt also attempted to rehabilitate Pinochet recently. Guess some tyranny/bigotry is less equal than others ...

Anonymous said...

You stink of hypocrisies when you yourself were involved in an ugly Liberal Party faction with Lyenko Urbanchich. This man won a defamation action about his wartime activities when he was alive. Now he is dead, people can make up all sorts of stories about him. Where does this place you and Nick Korovin anyway?

Anonymous said...

One comment which immediately sprang to mind was 'No, Bolt isn't displaying hatred of muslims, he's displaying dislike of Islam'.

But (unlike displaying dislike of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, tree worship or any other religion) actually saying that he thinks Islam sucks would get people calling for his death. And possiblly some attempting to kill him.

Islam doesn't fit in this society.

Legal Eagle said...

I think Professor Israeli should remember the reciprocity principle: do unto others as you would have them do to you. Same goes for anti-Jewish Muslims out there.

Have written a post on the topic if you are interested.

Anonymous said...

You seem to know quite a lot about Al-Ahbash / Habaashies / AICP / ICPA.

Should you kindly be able to help on Wikipedia Al-Ahbash page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahbash) and its Talk-page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Ahbash) where they are hell-bent to sanatize themselves as NON-heretical for the past few year then it would be a huge favor to all Muslim youth and new reverts around the Globe.

Please, feel welcome to read this:

http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf

Anonymous said...

Can anyone name any public non-muslim figure who supports MORE muslims? No. Not one non-muslim wants more muslims in this country. Zip. Zero. Nada. Not one public figure has come out to say they want more muslims in this country. Normal everyday Australians don't want any more muslims either. Can you people understand that Australians have cottoned on to what muslims represent? The day has come when we woke up to you. Please leave you are not welcome and we don't want anymore of you to come here because we love Australia and we don't want it destroyed by muslims.

NotAllRight said...

hey if you hate arabs then you're an anti semite. so why stop at the jews or arabs.

bolt is a disgrace and a laughing stock. he's their star reporter like hynch was channel seven's for a while.

Anonymous said...

Suggesting that Andrew Bolt has something to do with Dutch Nazis and Anne Frank is a bit rich. In the modern sense you are suggesting that muslims should be allowed into Australia and America so that they can flee Dutchmen and Jews and would otherwise be gassed in a new Holocaust. When the reality is that the only people doing the murdering are muslims murdering Dutch politicians, football fans and normal citizens. Why exactly should any muslim be allowed in the West when they have their pick of countries such as Saudi or Kuwait or Iran? Let alone all the other muslim shitholes such as Pakistan which is the country you should be infesting instead of innocent previously care-free Australia. Andrew Bolt is an Australian hero. You are a cur and a fat smelly blackhead.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 10:02, are you that pot-smoking mortgage broker who used to work for Australia's laziest MP?

wali said...

Anon @ 11:12 PM said: "Can anyone name any public non-muslim figure who supports MORE muslims?"

Can anyone name any public non-hindu figure who supports MORE hindus?

No. What does it prove? Nothing much. Only an idiot would suggest anything more than this.

wali said...

Anon @ 10:11 AM says:
"One comment which immediately sprang to mind was 'No, Bolt isn't displaying hatred of muslims, he's displaying dislike of Islam'.
But...actually saying that he thinks Islam sucks would get people calling for his death. And possiblly some attempting to kill him.
Islam doesn't fit in this society."


You are one confused bunny. Can't you see the contradiction in your own, few statements?

# You first say Bolt's hatred is for Muslim-people. But then say, no, his hatred is really for Islam in itself.
# Then you say Muslim-people are short-fused murderers (which is presumably grounds for hatred of Muslim-people).
# But then you conclude that Islam in itself (rather than Muslim-people) don't "fit".

Do you see how you can't make up your small, empty mind? You are such a joke. You make Islamophobes not only look like irrationally fearful children, but also make them look just plain dumb.

Anonymous said...

Hello Irfan Yusuf,

You seem to have been friends in the past with every Neo Nazi including people like Nick Korovin and David Clarke and every muslim ratbag like Keysar Trad. And now you pretend that muslims are the new jews who should be allowed to emigrate to Australia and the USA because if they aren't allowed to they will have the same fate as Anne Frank?

You really are very crazy. This whole muslim culture and the wacky views held by it's adherents are by Western standards the mark of mentally-ill headcases. That wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many muslims and they didn't have a proven track record of violence and terror.

You have an amazing gall that you with your own mental health problems then thinks that you have the right to demand muslim immigration of any sort. You say that completely unfit, unsuitable and undeserving muslims who will never assimilate into normal functional sane Australia should be imported because otherwise they will be persecuted like the jews were.

Apparently in your crazy world view the people doing the persecuting will be Dutch relatives of Andrew Bolt or friends of some Israeli Professor. Get some help or take your pills or get some sleep and stop thinking like a crazy muslim.

Or maybe you should start drinking. It seems that most of the great manic-depressives of history were alcoholics. Of course the ones that achieved famous useful things were mostly white and Christian and also had more brains that you. For some reason I can't think of any such historical figure who actually liked muslims.

At least this blog is more sane than the other blogs you used to have where you wrote through the eyes of a dead twin brother or the one where your grotesque 'romantic' advances were constantly rejected by a poor barmaid who finally got sick of your stalking and vanished. Or the one where you fantasised about blowing yourself up with a petrol tanker on the Harbour Bridge.

You'd be better off praying to Allah and asking why he made you crazy and sad rather than insisting that there is some parallel between Anne Frank and the average muslim.

Anonymous said...

It's so typically muslim that's it quite pathetic. Irfan Yusuf writing about the terrible plight of the muslims in Occupied Netherlands. If only they were allowed into America and Australia!. It's a new low level in the muslim death cult to begin making such comparisons. Unfortunately no-one is going to drag Irfan Yusuf away from his blog and to a death in a concentration camp. Your desire to be a new Anne Frank is not going to succeed. You'll have to think of some other way you can fantasise about dying and becoming famous in death. I can see how you fell in love with the idea of 'The Diary of Irfan Yusuf'. It's because you are nuts.

Anonymous said...

Attention Rapists, thieves, terrorists, drug-dealers, islam-breeders, dole-bludgers, crazy Sheiks and fat black Paki turds. All muslim trespassers are required to leave Australia and never come back. Until 1945 there were never more than 1000 muslims in Australia at any time. 1000 of you could stay but now we are altogether sick of you so you will all have to go.

wali said...

Where do these mentally disturbed anons come from? Do insane asylums have internet access now?

Iain Hall said...

http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/disappointed-irfan/

Anonymous said...

Iain hall, just look at the Ku Klux Klan website and they claim they are not racist, but just trying to "trigger robust debate" on the nature of American society. Standard disclaimer by extremist ideologues to make potential followers feel comfortable.

If you think that Andrew Bolt is a moderate with regard to Muslims, then you are either extremely shallow or are blind. if you think that defending Bolt to Muslims is going to get anywhere, you ill unfortunately find that any Muslim is going to listen to you. Just as no Jew would ever take David Duke seriously even though he uses moderate language nowadays.

I can see that you are going to become very anti-Muslim yourself (you currently seem to be on the fence)when you find out that there are no "reasonable" Muslims who see the sense in Bolt's attacks.

With regard to Muslims being defensive and considering themselves "beyond criticism", look at the bloody world around you! The War on Terror might not make any disruption to your little world, but it is certainly destroying the lives of a considerable proportion of the Muslim world. Perhaps you can't understand because you have never been in the situation where you and your people have been threatened with being labelled "terrorists". If you don't think there are any threats, then look at half the posts to Irfan's site calling for Muslim expulsion or ethnic cleansing.

You might think it is a joke, something not to be taken to heart, but that's probably because it's not aimed at you.

Good day to you sir.

Iain Hall said...

As requested in a comment at my blog I repost this comment, my third attempt to mskr this point here.

Irfan

I am most disappointed that you have failed to publish my comment pointing out your error in claiming that Andrew Bolt is a Christian who hates Muslims.


Andrew Bolt has, on many occasions claimed to be an agnostic and he has repeatedly defended the right of Muslims to make a life for themselves here in Australia and to practice their faith openly. However there is nothing about Islam that makes any aspect of its dogma beyond criticism. You clearly see any criticism of Islam as being proof of hatred of Muslims, which does not follow at all.

Iain Hall said...

I find it rather sad that so many people who comment here are unwilling to put their names to what they say. none the less I will respond to Anon of 1.24am

Iain hall, just look at the Ku Klux Klan website and they claim they are not racist, but just trying to "trigger robust debate" on the nature of American society. Standard disclaimer by extremist ideologues to make potential followers feel comfortable.
And your implication is what ?... That Andrew Bolt is as bad as The KKK? This sir is what we call an ad homonym attack and not the most skillful one either.

If you think that Andrew Bolt is a moderate with regard to Muslims, then you are either extremely shallow or are blind. if you think that defending Bolt to Muslims is going to get anywhere, you ill unfortunately find that any Muslim is going to listen to you. Just as no Jew would ever take David Duke seriously even though he uses moderate language nowadays.
Hmmm another version of your first sentence I think, Frankly I don't care wether you or any other Muslim wants to listen to me but I made my initial comment here because Irfan made some rather fundamental mistakes in his criticism of Andrew Bolt,namely Andrew is NOT a Christian, as Ifran claims and I find no evidence that Andrew actually HATES Muslims either. What can be said is that Andrew is willing to criticize the Jihadists and aspects of the faith but why should any religious belief be beyond criticism?

I can see that you are going to become very anti-Muslim yourself (you currently seem to be on the fence)when you find out that there are no "reasonable" Muslims who see the sense in Bolt's attacks.
I am quite capable of discerning the difference between the majority of well meaning followers of the prophet Mohammad (pbuh) and the small minority of nutters who seek to impose their version of the Islamic faith upon the entire world. Sadly people such as your self seem determined to believe that any one who is concerned about the later must hate the former.

With regard to Muslims being defensive and considering themselves "beyond criticism", look at the bloody world around you! The War on Terror might not make any disruption to your little world, but it is certainly destroying the lives of a considerable proportion of the Muslim world. Perhaps you can't understand because you have never been in the situation where you and your people have been threatened with being labeled "terrorists". If you don't think there are any threats, then look at half the posts to Irfan's site calling for Muslim expulsion or ethnic cleansing.

The uncontestable truth is that nearly all of the acts of terror that we hear about every day are done in the name a of Allah, and I am saddened that the majority of the followers of the Islamic faith have to carry the burden of this death and destruction caused the small minority of religious zealots who perpetrate these atrocities. However I will not buy into the justification of this evil because Muslims of the world are oppressed Meme. What we have here is the classic Chicken and egg paradigm; Unlike so many previous groups of migrants many Muslims have not tended to assimilate very well into the western societies that have been willing to accept them instead the have been happy to remain "the other" and as long as they do this is no surprise that they should be considered with suspicion.

You might think it is a joke, something not to be taken to heart, but that's probably because it's not aimed at you.

Perhaps the most pernicious aspect of Multiculturalism is the idea that any set of cultural values is considered of equal value to any other. Well I don't think that there is any validity in such a claim. Australia is the best place in the world to live and in the same way that any one who comes here is expected to up hold its laws then I expect anyone who comes here to likewise uphold its values.
When you migrate to another country you have to be prepared to make the effort to become part of the society you find there, as a migrant myself I have had to learn the ways of this country and accommodate its values. If you can't do that there seems to me to be only one answer and that is to return to your country of origin.


Good day to you sir.

I have a suspicion that the author of this comment is actually the same person who writes this blog but it is actually of no concern to me either way.
As I said in the beginning of this comment It is very sad when people will not own the words that they write.I write and post in my own name perhaps you should try it sometime.
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/irfan-redux/

Irfan said...

Iain, I deny writing this anonymous post. What evidence do you have that I wrote and posted it?

Anonymous said...

We need about 2000 shipping containers. Fill them with muslims. Tow them out to sea. Give them a Koran and a fish hook and a bottle of coca cola (they can drink it and then use it to collect their urine) and see if any of them can get to New Zealand. Leave some hungry pigs on the beaches just in case any of them float back. That would be an effective warning to the jews.

Iain Hall said...

Irfan,
I said that I had "a suspicion", but I am willing to accept your denial at face value so I recant my suggestion that you are the author of the comment in question.

May I suggest that you consider encouraging your anonymous posters (of which there are many) to at least use a screen name that allows we ,your humble readers, to tell them apart?

I am still waiting for you to respond to what I have said about Andrew Bolt's faith position (which I am sure he will confirm should you ask him) because It seems to me that if you are so wrong about that a great deal of the rest of your thesis here then collapses as well.

Anonymous said...

"What can be said is that Andrew is willing to criticize the Jihadists and aspects of the faith but why should any religious belief be beyond criticism?" - Iain.

Ok Iain, that's all very well, but the reality is that Bolt regularly condemns the Muslim community for being "silent" in condemning terrorism. Which is tantamount to saying that the entire community supports terrorism = fifth column. This is done quite maliciously, but always worded very cleverly, on Bolt's part. Statements are regularly put out by the major Islamic bodies condemning extremism.

"The uncontestable truth is that nearly all of the acts of terror that we hear about every day are done in the name a of Allah... small minority of religious zealots who perpetrate these atrocities"

Well, 600,000 dead Iraqi men, women and children, millions fleeing the country, and Iain holds Muslims 100 percent responsible for the violence. I often find it astounding that people go on about those "evil, violent Arabs killing each other in Iraq" and seem to forget the large Anglo-Saxon factor involved in the blood-letting in that country. Remember 'shock and awe'? Was that a Sunni or a Shia thing?

What can I say Iain, if you take not an ounce of responsibility for the violence in the middle east as the citizen of a country involved in the invasion, occupation and rape of Iraq, then I'm afraid what you say just comes across as colonial self-righteousness, and is in no way going to lead to any constructive discussion.

Anonymous said...

"The uncontestable truth is that nearly all of the acts of terror that we hear about every day are done in the name a of Allah, and I am saddened that the majority of the followers of the Islamic faith have to carry the burden of this death and destruction..." -- Iain

600,000 dead Iraqi men, women and children, millions displaced, and Iain carries not a shred of responsibility for what is going on in that country as a citizen of a country which participated in the invasion and occupation.

"If you can't do that there seems to me to be only one answer and that is to return to your country of origin."

I was just stating my point of view, and you jump to the conclusion that I perhaps "can't fit in" and suggest that perhaps I should leave my country? This is no way to conduct a discussion.

Anonymous said...

No, we Muslims locked up in psychiatric facilities have no access to the internets. We have our family to do the talking, much like Mr Hicks.

Anonymous said...

Iain Hall is an amatuer compared to Irfan Yusuf. Both Iain and Andrew Bolt can go and get fucked. (perhaps fuck each other :D)

Numan said...

Yes, you are right Iain, Andrew Bolt does refer to himself as an agnostic. But that is not the point. He is definitely involved in this manufactured "religious war". He will "defend" Christianity against Islam. See Bolt (22/9/2003):

"Here we come to the nub of why I defend Christianity: If people must believe in some religion, which one would I rather it be?"

Irfan said...

Keep it clean, Anon @ 12:22!!

Iain Hall said...

To Anon 8.12 & 84.3
The death toll of civilians in Iraq quoted from the faulty Lancet numbers? And just who have been the killers there, the suicide bombers? The killers of women and children? They have been Muslims almost without exception.

Apart from the Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka if we hear of a bombing anywhere in the world it is an odds on bet that the person wearing the explosives belt will be claiming to act in the name of Allah.

Numan
I am an atheist and I will defend the Christian values ahead of Islam because as an unbeliever (in either faith) I look at the behavior of devout followers of both and see that the followers of the latter are more likely to manifest their faith by bringing death and destruction to unbelievers. Followers of Islam are in denial if they think that the zealots who commit the atrocities in the name of Allah are in any way justified in doing so. Evil is evil even when it is done for some “just cause”.
You see I long ago decided that when a group or cause use immoral methods, like suicide bombing of civilian targets, their cause is immediately and irrevocably invalidated. And I invite you to demonstrate what this is not so.

numan said...

"And just who have been the killers there, the suicide bombers? The killers of women and children? They have been Muslims almost without exception."

Yes there are appalling atrocities carried out by militias (many, by the way, of which are tied to the American-controlled Interior Ministry) and suicide bombers. However, to suggest that the occupation army has not made even SOME contribution to the death toll is just so callous and untruthful that I don't know how we can even continue discussing it. What do you know of Islamic values other than what you have seen on television?

"Followers of Islam are in denial if they think that the zealots who commit the atrocities in the name of Allah are in any way justified in doing so."

Show me one major Muslim organisation in Australia which supports the internecine war going on in Iraq now. There is not one. It is all very well to tell others to get their houses in order. But this has no credibility when you cannot even see the atrocities committed in YOUR name. Why don't you denounce the invasion and occupation of Iraq? Why don't you denounce the torture in Abu Ghraib? How can you on the one hand see no problem with pre-emptive war, but at the same time wash your hands of your role in the greatest disaster for Iraq since the Mongol invasion? Telling us about the superiority of atheism does nothing to reassure me that you understand what is going on. It does not erase the fact that it is your people who are just another tribe in Iraq involved in the bloodshed. Are they not carrying guns too, for goodness sake?

I suspect that you do not wish to put yourself down to the level of Muslims. Because this would shatter the picture you have built up of your superiority. You cannot even admit that the occupation army in Iraq has anything to do with the violence going on there. In fact, there are not even many pro-war people left who are holding onto that position anymore. What I find so appalling about people like you is that it is people like you who denounce Muslims for their refusal to denounce terror, but ignore their own complicity in these atrocities (and those in the future).

When BOTH sides can admit their roles, only then will we begin to resolve these problems.

numan said...

"You see I long ago decided that when a group or cause use immoral methods, like suicide bombing of civilian targets, their cause is immediately and irrevocably invalidated."

So bombing of civilian targets by laser-guided missiles is fine then. You've got a pretty twisted system by which you judge moral validity.

numan said...

...How about roadside bombs? Where do they fit in on the scale of moral methods of warfare, compared with say cluster bombs?

Anonymous said...

One of the things that made America great was mass-production. It is an outrage that the Americans are not using the cheapest methods to kill the maximum amount of muslims. How do they expect to win a war against guerrillas without concentration camps for the whole population, rigorous curfews, reprisal and collective punishment massacres, hostage taking and vast amounts of organised terror and wholescale torture? That's exactly what every muslim country has always resorted to at the first sign of armed opposition. Not just Saddams Iraq but ALL of them. America should be using muslim tactics against muslims. Let the Bodies Hit the Floor.

iain Hall said...

Numan
I am talking about the activities at a global level and you are obsessing
only about Iraq.
Now I will put this simply so you can understand ;o)
However, to suggest that the occupation army has not made even SOME
contribution to the death toll is just so callous and untruthful that I
don't know how we can even continue discussing it.

I have made no such suggestion mate.
What do you know of Islamic values other than what you have seen on
television?

Like many atheists I have had a very long standing interest in the religious
beliefs of others and I can assure you that I have not based my
understanding of Islam upon what I have seen on television.
Show me one major Muslim organization in Australia which supports the
internecine war going on in Iraq now. There is not one.

I am not talking about organisations but individuals who cite all kinds of
excuses and justifications for suicide bombing in Iraq or anywhere else for
that matter.
But this has no credibility when you cannot even see the atrocities
committed in YOUR name. Why don't you denounce the invasion and occupation
of Iraq? Why don't you denounce the torture in Abu Ghraib? How can you on
the one hand see no problem with pre-emptive war, but at the same time wash
your hands of your role in the greatest disaster for Iraq since the Mongol
invasion? Telling us about the superiority of atheism does nothing to
reassure me that you understand what is going on. It does not erase the fact
that it is your people who are just another tribe in Iraq involved in the
bloodshed. Are they not carrying guns too, for goodness sake?

Firstly I make no claim that my atheism is in any way superior to any other
persons personal religious belief system. It is just a part of the way that
I understand the universe.
Secondly I have no trouble denouncing torture and mistreatment of prisoners
by anyone but lets be brutally honest here the humiliation of a small number
of prisoners by a few rogue guards (who have been punished by their
superiors for their misdeeds) are pretty small beans when compared to the
ongoing bloodshed done in the name of Allah by Sunni and Shia nutters.
Finally what sort of blood shed would there be if coalition forces were to
leave tomorrow?
I suspect that you do not wish to put yourself down to the level of
Muslims.Because this would shatter the picture you have built up of your
superiority.

Numan I am a humble man who does not feel superior to anyone but I suspect
that it suits your own prejudices to claim otherwise.

You cannot even admit that the occupation army in Iraq has anything to
do with the violence going on there.

What do you base this claim on? I am a pragmatist who believes that the
reasons for beginning the war in the first place are less important than what
is happening now and finding a way to end the killing,which has for such a
long time been more about the centuries old schism within Islam between
Shia and Sunni rather than resisting any occupation.

What I find so appalling about people like you is that it is people
like you who denounce Muslims for their refusal to denounce terror, but
ignore their own complicity in these atrocities (and those in the
future).

What have I been saying about Muslins finding reasons and excuses to justify
the atrocities committed by other Muslims? Your sentence here is a perfect
example of the mindset that is the problem here.

When BOTH sides can admit their roles, only then will we begin to resolve
these problems.

No when Followers of the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) cease to believe that they
have a right to spread their faith by the sword or the bomb then unbelievers
may just come to see the virtues that the faith may well have. Until then you can hardly be surprised that we the unbelievers don't accept claims that Islam is the religion of peace.

So bombing of civilian targets by laser-guided missiles is fine then. You've got a pretty twisted system by which you judge moral validity.
No the Deliberate bombing of CIVILIAN targets can NEVER be justified. But then it is likewise immoral and ileagal under all rules of war to site military infrastructure within civilian area's as well ,funnily enough that is precisely what the likes of Hezbollah tend to do as a matter of policy...

numan said...

"I am talking about the activities at a global level and you are obsessing only about Iraq."

No, you are making vague generalizations without any specific examples. If I mention specific conflicts, such as Iraq, then we have something to discuss. If you want to talk about Muslims “killing each other”, then obviously we are talking about Iraq. Where else could we be talking about? The reason why I am focusing on Iraq is because this is obviously the centre of conflict in the Middle East at the moment. Obviously if you are going to be making statements about Sunnis and Shias killing each other, you are talking about Iraq. You cannot just throw in statements about Sunnis and Shias killing each other and then cry foul if I start talking about Iraq.

"I have made no such suggestion mate."
Yes you did very clearly state: “And just who have been the killers there, the suicide bombers? The killers of women and children? They have been Muslims almost without exception."
My understanding of “without exception” is that it is only Muslims “without exception” who are doing the killing in Iraq. If this is not what you meant, then be less sloppy in your wording. I am only going by what you said.

"Firstly I make no claim that my atheism is in any way superior to any other
persons personal religious belief system."

Firstly, you have to be more honest with others about how you view Islam. You may say that you are criticizing the behaviour of zealots and those who are violent in the name of Islam, but when you specifically said that “I am an atheist and I will defend the Christian values ahead of Islam… Followers of Islam are in denial if they think that the zealots who commit the atrocities in the name of Allah are in any way justified in doing so. Evil is evil even when it is done for some “just cause”.” you are talking about “Islam” in general. You are criticising the core values of Islam, which are the beliefs of all Muslims, and not the acts of a few fanatics. That is fine to have such an opinion, but at least be honest about the fact.

”humiliation of a small number of prisoners by a few rogue guards (who have been punished by their superiors for their misdeeds) are pretty small beans when compared to the ongoing bloodshed done in the name of Allah by Sunni and Shia nutters.”
Some of these “nutters” committing these atrocities are from the coalition-controlled Iraqi interior ministry. Remember what happened in central America during the 1980s?

"Finally what sort of blood shed would there be if coalition forces were to leave tomorrow?"
How do you know what sort of bloodshed there would be? Could it be much worse than it is now? What sort of bloodshed was there before the occupation? Definitely not as much as there is now.

"I am a pragmatist who believes that the reasons for beginning the war in the first place are less important than what is happening now and finding a way to end the killing, which has for such a long time been more about the centuries old schism within Islam between Shia and Sunni rather than resisting any occupation."

That’s all very nice for you to ignore the original reasons for the war, and especially convenient considering that most commentators now blame the current violence upon the botched administration of the occupation in the earliest days. Sunni and Shia have lived alongside in each in Iraq for centuries. There has NEVER in the history of Iraq been any civil war between these two sects of Islam. I suggest that it suits your prejudices to make this claim. This is a typical Fox News style excuse, and once again you are selectively choosing to ignore some facts in favour of your own prejudices.

"What have I been saying about Muslins finding reasons and excuses to justify
the atrocities committed by other Muslims? Your sentence here is a perfect
example of the mindset that is the problem here."

I have never in any of my posts justified suicide bombing and killing of civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn this. What excuses have I provided to justify this? It is you, in fact, who have not necessarily justified the occupation of Iraq, but have chosen to believe that the role of the occupation is “less important than what is happening now”, which is a kind of justification for one side’s violence against another don’t you think?


"No when Followers of the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) cease to believe that they
have a right to spread their faith by the sword or the bomb then unbelievers
may just come to see the virtues that the faith may well have. Until then you can hardly be surprised that we the unbelievers don't accept claims that Islam is the religion of peace."

This is just a very big red herring. Where in the world are Muslims spreading their faith by the sword right now? Most of your post has been devoted to arguing Muslims like to kill Muslims, so how does this fit in? You are basically saying that Muslims just like to "kill" full stop! To bring in this ridiculous piece of prejudice has no place in this discussion. Are you talking about Iraq or somewhere else? It is in fact we here in the western countries who are justifying the spread of our ideology—democracy—by the sword. Have we not shown that in the current war, and are rattling our sabers now over Iran. Have you ever heard of the term “regime change”? In what other way can this be understood other than spreading ideology by the sword, bringing our ideology to people’s who need democracy?

"No the Deliberate bombing of CIVILIAN targets can NEVER be justified. But then it is likewise immoral and ileagal under all rules of war to site military infrastructure within civilian area's as well ,funnily enough that is precisely what the likes of Hezbollah tend to do as a matter of policy..."

So we are talking about the Lebanon war now are we? Targeting civilians? Did you see what was left of Beirut after the Lebanon war? The civilian infrastructure of lebanon was reduced to rubble by shellfire and air raids. Many many women and children were killed in that war. The entire area of south Beirut (in no way a military target) was leveled from bombing. Who invaded whom anyway? It is really amazing to see your mindset. I feel that you have got much of your information from Fox News or some other source. Do you know anything of the history of Hezbollah?

I am afraid that most of your argument just does not hold up. It is filled with selective use of facts, and is a mish-mash of generalizations and prejudices. I suspect that you do not want me to focus on any particular conflicts such as Iraq, because your arguments fall flat if you get past anything other than general buzzwords such as “suicide bombers”, Muslim “nutjobs” and “sunni-shia”.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the deliberate bombing of civilian targets can NEVER be justified. Muslims bombing non-muslims is a crime against humanity. The only justification to bomb anything is if it contains muslims or suspected muslims.

jr said...

Anon @ 11:04 sounds like he still hasn't stopped smoking pot and using coke like he used to when he worked for a certain Western Suburbs MP ...