KenGooner, I think the obvious question that needs to be asked, and probably highlights on what you have been saying, is why is it a second generation Englishman of Nigerian descent from a devout Christian family is attracted to Islam...where has society failed...and if not why not?

And not just Islam as a faith but to the more extreme and radical elements of Isam....there are clearly some major social and economic factors at play in English society and if we're honest...Australia is probably at risk of replicating similar societal problems.

I mean, how is it morally right to restrict speech? Surely we as a society are better than that.

Who's restricting free speech? And in what way? We're all still here talking about it. Bigots are still being bigots. Rational people are still being rational, devout loonies are still being devout loonies.

Edited by afromanGT: 25/5/2013 06:37:06 PM

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby

You're not having a discussion with islamic extremists, you're having a discussion about them.

These people can't say anything but "all muzzies are mental". They can't differentiate between these extremists and peaceful, respectful muslims. They lack the tools to have this discussion.

Public Order Act 1986 (UK) Part 3, s17-29

And when I raise the subject of Islamist terrorism I am accused of being "anti-Muslim" by people like yourself.

You are of course aware you can have this discussion without inciting racial hatred. "actions must be taken against these extremists" does not equate to inciting violence. The problem is, as I said, with the people who lack the mental faculties to differentiate.

Yeah, because you blatantly and foolishly lump all muslims in one boat.

Restricting people from free speech is creating the violence and it's dragging ordinary people alongside them. My point isn't anything to do with "action against extremists", my point is the case for free speech, and how restricting it is inciting the racial hatred which the Act strives to eliminate.

Id disagree with that. You just have to look at poltics to see how angsty peole get about class warfare. Thing is England umeployment rate is 7.7%. Australias is only 5.5% but when you factor in Britains population thats a lot more people. Of course its not the sole cause but I think it does have some say. But Id definitely say the idea of Australia not developing something like this is exceptionally naive. Just like anywhere in the world we have some very unstable individuals, some we dont even realise and have people who want a more extremist religious outlook placed upon Australia.

And freedom and speech should only be broken is to uphold the right of freedom of speech and religious freedom of others. If banning the type of religious extremism that calls for Sharia Law is implemented in order to allow others to have the freedom of speech to not follow Sharia Law then I think there is some sensical basis for this.

But Id definitely say the idea of Australia not developing something like this is exceptionally naive. Just like anywhere in the world we have some very unstable individuals, some we dont even realise and have people who want a more extremist religious outlook placed upon Australia.

Free speech is great in theory. Except when people don't have the fortitude to stick by their words when they turn sour. Not to mention all too many people lack the capacity to adequately convey their point.

Often the people who complain the most about their 'loss' of free speech are the kind of people it shouldn't have been afforded to to begin with.

Edited by afromanGT: 25/5/2013 07:00:20 PM

You are of course aware you can have this discussion without inciting racial hatred. "actions must be taken against these extremists" does not equate to inciting violence. The problem is, as I said, with the people who lack the mental faculties to differentiate.

Yeah, because you blatantly and foolishly lump all muslims in one boat.

I really dont want to be the guy that just calls you naive again but I do think theres a certain bit of naivety to that just saying 'oh Aussies are smarter than Brits therefore we dont have to worry. And I dont see at all how Palmer is related to this

That statement proves you're one of those people who lacks capacity to differentiate between discussion on Islamist terrorism and extremism and racism against ordinary Muslims. People like you are the problem not the solution.

We already have limits in place to restrict free speech on the basis of public order, why do we need to do it for mere insults?

It's not 'mere insults'. You can't go to jail for calling someone a fat cunt. It pertains specifically to racial implications and inspiring racial aggression.

A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

It is a defence for the accused to prove—
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c)that his conduct was reasonable.

I'm not saying that one is 'smarter' than the other. Are you saying that Germans are collectively stupid for electing Hitler? It's not down to that so much as the scenario people finding themselves in giving certain opinions perceived integrity.

I'm not the one quoted a few pages back saying "all muslims are bad".

It's not 'mere insults'. You can't go to jail for calling someone a fat cunt. It pertains specifically to racial implications and inspiring racial aggression.

NEW DELHI — Hundreds of Maoist guerrillas ambushed a convoy of top state political leaders in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh on Saturday and killed at least 27 people, including three leaders of the nationally dominant Indian National Congress Party.

The attackers blocked the road by felling trees, forcing the convoy of vehicles to a halt, according to the Press Trust of India news agency. The guerrillas set off a land mine that blew up one of the stopped vehicles, and then they opened fire on those remaining. Officials estimated that 200 to 300 guerrillas were involved.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh condemned the attack “as a dastardly and anti-democratic act,” and the Congress Party president, Sonia Gandhi, said the ambush was “an attack on democratic values.”

“We are shocked, astounded and pained by the attack on our colleagues in Chhattisgarh,” Mrs. Gandhi said.

Rahul Gandhi, Mrs. Gandhi’s son and the Congress Party vice president, left for Chhattisgarh early Sunday, and the prime minister and Mrs. Gandhi were expected to follow him there later in the day.

Nand Kumar Patel, president of the state branch of the Congress Party, his newly married son, and Mahendra Karma, a senior member of the party, were all killed in the attack, said Mukesh Gupta, a top state police official.

The victims were headed to Jagdalpur from Sukma. The attack was in a heavily forested area between two valleys sometime between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., Mr. Gupta said.

Both party leaders had personal police bodyguards, many of whom died in the attack. Mr. Karma was even afforded a bulletproof vehicle, although he was not riding in the vehicle at the time, Mr. Gupta said. Similarly, Mr. Patel always had a heavy police presence around him.

Mr. Karma had long been a target of Maoist anger because of his association with Salwa Judum, a local militia he founded to combat the guerrillas but that was accused of atrocities against the local tribal population. Such tribal groups are among the most marginalized citizens in Indian society and constitute the backbone of the Maoist insurgency that has kindled across the eastern middle of the country.

The attack was one of the most audacious recent strikes by guerrillas. The number of attacks and the deaths associated with them surged in 2009 and 2010 but had waned in the past two years, with some hoping that the central government’s growing welfare outreach — including food and jobs programs — had cut support for the insurgents.

Indeed, India’s governing coalition touted last week the decline in Maoist attacks and deaths as one of its signature achievements.

The Maoists confiscated the weapons of the dead police officers and then fled, Mr. Gupta said. The wounded were taken to area hospitals. Troops have begun to comb the area for the guerrillas, Mr. Gupta said.

The prime minister called the Chhattisgarh chief minister Saturday night to ask whether he needed additional forces. As the two men are members of opposing parties, the state and national response to the attack is a delicate political dance. State leaders have gained considerable power in recent years at the expense of the central government. But security is one of the few areas in which the central government has become less deferential, promising to send in the army at the first sign of serious unrest or rioting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/world/asia/maoist-attack-kills-dozens-in-india.html?_r=0

Four rockets struck strongholds of the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon on Sunday, highlighting fears of sectarian tensions in the country that seem to mirror the strife in the Syrian civil war.

The first two struck a predominately Shiite Beirut suburb of Dahiye, Lebanon's state news agency reported.

One of the rockets injured five people, including three Syrians, the National News Agency reported. The number of casualties from the second one was not immediately known.

Two more rockets pounded a residential area in the northern city of al-Hermel, also a Shiite neighborhood, causing property damage, NNA reported.

Syrian rebels have shelled al-Hermel in the past, saying they are responding to military support of the Syrian regime by Hezbollah, which is a Shiite militia.

Authorities have not identified any suspects in Sunday's attacks.

Concerns that sectarian strife in Syria may trigger ethnic conflict within Lebanon's borders escalated Saturday, when Hezbollah declared it is going to war in Syria on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Lebanon's caretaker interior minister reflected the anxiety when he visited the site of Sunday's attack, which he called "an act of sabotage to create tensions."

"God willing, the events in Syria will not spill over into Lebanon, and we hope that we will have more men with more reason because we just went over 40 years of civil war," Marwan Charbel told NNA.

At the same time, he emphasized that he does not know who is to blame for the attack.
Like Syria, Lebanon's population is divided into religious and ethnic factions, some bitterly at odds with each other.

Hezbollah is one of the largest and best armed factions. It draws most of its foreign support from Shiite-dominated Iran and from the al-Assad government in Syria, which the U.S. accuses of acting as a conduit for Tehran's weapons deliveries.

His fighters have participated unofficially in towns close to Lebanon's border alongside Syrian government troops in battles against al-Assad's opponents. On Saturday, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah promised al-Assad victory with Hezbollah's help.

Nasrallah also called for his opponents in Lebanon to fight against Hezbollah on Syrian soil, hoping to divert armed conflict away from Lebanon and into the active battle field next door.

"We are fighting in Syria, so let us fight there instead and deflect Lebanon from the conflict, the fighting, the confrontations and the bloodshed," he said.

Charbel acknowledged the dangerous potential in Lebanon's rising tensions.
"We are now living in an intolerable environment."
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/26/world/meast/lebanon-violence/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Wrong thread but thought i'd probably get a better answer here, would anyone be interested if i created a military thread with pictures and news?

Wrong thread but thought i'd probably get a better answer here, would anyone be interested if i created a military thread with pictures and news?

Yeh i'd look at it occasionally

I'm sure you'd get all the right-wing enthusiasts in there regularly stroking their militaristic members.

Where the fuck is TrueAnglo? Did he die of happiness after the Woolwich murder?

I'm sure you'd get all the right-wing enthusiasts in there regularly stroking their militaristic members.

Eh, in my opinion Islam is a religion that hasn't "got with the times" or "modernised" etc.

Probably more so that it hasn't gained the ability to just be more tolerant of people.

-PB

Paul Sheehan said that there are "more than 100 verses in the Koran that call Muslims to violence against the Unbelievers."

Relying on the dubious website Thereligionofpeace.com Sheehan concludes that "the Koran groans under the weight of its own contradictions, with entreaties to kindness co-existing with exhortations to merciless war."

It is questionable whether such an opinion is a result of a direct insight into Islam – or based merely on an old prejudice against Islam that goes back in time: that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant of others.

Critics of Islam frequently quote out of context the more aggressive passages of the Koran, arguing that these verses could easily inspire and endorse terrorism.

Advertisement They ignore the fact that the Jewish and Christian scriptures can be just as aggressive, if taken out from their historical context.

For example, the Old Testament says: “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves” (Numbers 31:17-18).

Many violent Jewish and Christian groups have used these biblical texts to justify their actions. Crusaders used them against Muslims and Jews. Nazis used them against Jews. Serbian Christians used them against Bosnian Muslims. Zionists are using them regularly against Palestinians. But non-religious people have done the same in the name of one ideology of another.

In 2011, Anders Breivik massacred 77 people in cold blood. Breivik allegedly hated Muslims and Islam and subscribed to a fundamentalist, right-wing Christian ideology.

Of course, little to no mention was made by the media about Breivik's "religious" association, or that he was "devout" of any sort.

The tragedy, and hypocrisy, of Western journalism (with some exceptions) is their hunger to associate such crimes with Islam.

The display of violence and the killing of innocent people are indicative of a radical, and indeed extremist, mindset that is fundamentally opposite to the unanimous teachings of Islam.

A more objective and scholarly reading of the causes of terrorism would inform us of a host of causal factors, including: radical ideology; empathy and association with radicals; socio-economic factors; personal experiences; criminal activity; racism and Islamophobia.

All of these factors play a role, in one way or another, in the process of extremism and terrorism. The matter is thus complex, and it is culpably simplistic to attribute it to a single cause.

Tragically, like the terrorists he criticises, Sheehan takes the Koran out of context.

Take for example this partial quote cited by Sheehan, “And slay them wherever ye find them …” Sheehan fails to state that this is part of five-long verses (2:190-195), which must be read together. When read in context the legal implication derived stipulates that fighting is permitted only under certain strict circumstances. Additionally, the same verses prohibit transgression of limits, and it does not promote killing of innocent people but allows self-defence. It further goes on to state “if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” Clearly, when the whole context is examined the verses do not promote killing of innocent people.

The same is true for all other verses (mis)quoted by Sheehan.

A fuller reading of the verses mentioned by Sheehan show that much restraint and care is emphasised. For example the Koran says: “… therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God has opened no way for you (to war against them)” (4:89-91). And, “Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God does not love transgressors” (2:190).

Those who read the Koran should keep at a minimum the following principles in mind: The reasons for revelation or the historical context of a particular verse; familiarity with the science of abrogation; examination of the verses that deal with the same subject; a cursory knowledge of prophet Muhammad's life; and the way these verses are applied.

I dare to say that Sheehan lacks this level of scholarly knowledge, and that a simple reliance on a dubious website is problematic, to say the least.

When these texts are not read in their proper textual and historical contexts they are manipulated and distorted – by Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

When examined objectively, one will not fail to realise that the Koran and the teachings of the prophet Muhammad strictly condemn terrorism and the killing of innocent people, Muslim or not.

Sheehan conveniently fails to mention these verses and prophetic traditions, for example:

"… take not life, which God has made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus does He command you, that you may learn wisdom" (Koran 6:151)

"… that if anyone killed a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land" (5:32)

Or the Hadith that states "Whoever kills a mu'ahid [non-combatant, innocent non-Muslims] will not smell the scent of paradise …" (Bukhari).

A contextual reading of the Koran or Hadith leads to one conclusion only: there is no justification for the killing of innocent people, whether in Baghdad or Boston. Full stop!

The ends do not justify the means in Islamic ethics!

Therefore, associating murder or the killing of innocent people and bystanders to "Islam" is not only abhorrent, but goes against the clear text of Islam.

A contextual reading of Islamic texts prohibits targeting innocent people such as women, children, religious people and others even during times of war. Disbelief, in and of itself, is not an excuse to kill anyone.

The koranic verses, which seem violent, were revealed at a time when the non-Muslims of Mecca attacked Muslims on a regular basis. They are to be interpreted within a legal and historical context, and not in isolation.

No competent and credible Muslim scholar would take the verses mentioned by Sheehan as permitting terrorism and the killing of innocent people. To the contrary!

Associate Professor Mohamad Abdalla is founding director of the Griffith Islamic Research Unit (GIRU).



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/killing-of-innocent-people-has-no-place-in--islam-20130527-2n70h.html#ixzz2UY0w7nCz

A York mosque dealt with a potentially volatile situation after reports that it was going to be the focus of a demonstration organised by a far-right street protest movement - by inviting those taking part in the protest in for tea and biscuits.

Around half a dozen people arrived for the protest, promoted online by supporters of the EDL. A St George's flag was nailed to the wooden fence in front of the mosque.

However, after members of the group accepted an invitation into the mosque, tensions were rapidly defused over tea and plates of custard creams, followed by an impromptu game of football

Leanne Staven, who had come for the protest, said that she had not come to the mosque to cause trouble but because "We need a voice". "I think white British who have any concerns feel we can't speak freely," she said.

"Change has been coming for a long time and in light of what happened to that soldier in Woolwich there have to be restrictions on people learning extremist behaviour and it has to stop."

Mohammed el-Gomati, a lecturer at the University of York, said: "There is the possibility of having dialogue. Even the EDL who were having a shouting match started talking and we found out that we share and are prepared to agree that violent extremism is wrong.

"We have to start there. Who knows, perhaps the EDL will invite us to an event and the Muslim community will be generous in accepting that invitation?"

Ismail Miah, president of York mosque, added: "Under the banner of Islam there are very different politics: democratic politics, the far right, left, central, all over. You can't target a whole community for what one or two people have done.

"What they've done in London is for their own reasons but there's no reasoning behind it from an Islamic point of view."

Wrong thread but thought i'd probably get a better answer here, would anyone be interested if i created a military thread with pictures and news?