Indonesia. I think that says it all - I've certainly explained why it should to you before. It's the only Muslim country I know particularly well and they are very much anti-terrorism.

Actually if we are to believe your premise that there are no innocent civilians in war, then RW is right. Their silence is their endorsement of the violent muslims.

Indonesia. I think that says it all - I've certainly explained why it should to you before. It's the only Muslim country I know particularly well and they are very much anti-terrorism.

---Cacto

Yes, you have explained it, but as you say....."it's not a premise I agree with". Silence gives assent.

The residents of German cities and towns not far from the death camps were purposely paraded before the the stacked, emaciated bodies of inmates and forcibly given tours of the facilities. They said "we didn't know". Right.
Okay, maybe you didn't see the endless trains with locked, filthy cattlecars full of thousands upon thousands of Jews and other prisoners going in full and coming out empty. Maybe the wind was always blowing the other way, so you didn't smell the burning flesh in the ovens or have ashes falling on your rooftops.
It was doubtable then, though (including for my great uncle Arthur, whose Rainbow Division, the Fighting 42nd, liberated Dachau) and still is today. They knew; but they said, and did, nothing.

With the worldwide media, however, it's impossible not to know of the violence of the Mideastern Muslims.
If the Indonesian Muslims are so scandalized by the perversion of their faith, then where are they? Where are the outraged demonstrations against the Muslim false prophets who call for violence against the West? Where are the outraged volunteers, marching in lockstep and pouring into Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel (who, let's not forget, has been facing the violence of Muslim martyrs for nearly 60 years) to help us in the West stand against the perverted Muslim incursion and violence?

"If you're not with me, you're against me." It was true 2,000 years ago, and it's true now.

First of all massed protest aren't so common in non-Western countries. They just don't do it in Indonesia. It's generally only the heavily westernised (students in the main) or the highly paid who protest. Dissent tends to be spread through rumour or, when it's all too much, considerable violence.

---Cacto

Then I guess fellow Muslims killing completely innocent people in the name of their selfsame god just isn't "all too much" to warrant mass protest. How intriguing.

As for marching in lockstep into Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel, who's going to pay for it? Most of the Muslim world is in the 3rd world; who's going to bankroll them for a holy war? Only the terrorists have the money and inclination to recruit from the poor and dispossessed or the rich and angry.

---Cacto

You mean to tell me there's no one in the Muslim world, no obscenely oil-rich Sheik, no nation anywhere, that could say "We agree with you. This has to stop. Here....if you want to take your stand, We'll help you"?
No; you're right. There isn't, and that's because they all, to varying degrees, feel the same way as the zealots. Every last one of them.

On reflection I think the Western governments and Israel might not want them there anyway.

---Cacto

I don't know enough to say yea or nay here, but the more guns pointing in their direction the better, in my book. And I'd be willing to bet that having other Muslims on our side would be welcomed, at least for the PR benefits.

It was the Catholic Church that survived, and they survived precisely because they made their enemies their allies.

--Cacto

They were willing to do so. Islamic terrorists are not.

But History proves you wrong. They suffer, but are not exterminated. You seem to have an either or mentalitiy, and yet history shows a third course. one still open to the muslims.

Give me some examples. I can't think of a conflict where a vacillating course of action has ever seen swift victory.

To: All There are only two canonically-sanctioned approaches for the good Muslim in regard to the Infidel world. He must, when he sees no cause for open Jihad, regard the Infidel as a 'Dhimmi' - one subjected to a legal second-class relationship, required to pay taxes Muslims do not pay, requirements of dress which Muslims should not observe, and the stigma of forced inequality. Or, the good Muslim must be prepared to kill all those who stand in the way of Jihad which is, properly understood, the world-wide imposition of Islam and Shariah law, and of political obligation to a Muslim Caliph. But since such a state of affairs ought to pertain throughout the world and does not, and since the conversion or killing of all Infidels except those willng to accept Dhimmi status is an existential equivalent to the Christian 'Great Commission', then all Muslims everywhere ought to see Jihad as a binding religious obligation. Good Muslims cannot be moderate Muslims in the sense of being moderate in their response to the Infidel world. Moderate Islam isn't an anomaly. It's an outright lie.

Reminds me of an analysis of an article by a "moderate" moslem in Australia:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003996.html

Reminds me of an analysis of an article by a "moderate" moslem in Australia

Do you disagree with Waleed's argument? Which school do you feel a 'moderate' Muslim belongs to? I would think you can't consider it as anything but a political label. I went back to it, and, more or less at random, found these points:

Engagement with Muslims then, becomes nothing more than an exercise in crude taxonomy. Upon entering public contemplation, every Muslim must immediately be reduced to a one-dimensional fiction. The moderate is good (or at least benign), the fundamentalist is nasty, and there is little, if anything, in between. There are tolerable Muslims and intolerable Muslims. But no Muslim can be complex, which is to say, human.

Does that seem unreasonable to you? He's arguing against the stereotyping of Islam into two types - fundie and moderate. To consider the same approach applied to Christians it would be akin to saying there are fundamentalist Christians and moderates; in such a world where do you put Catholics or Anglicans? Doctrinally they're fairly fundie, but politically they're moderate. I don't think he's being that hard-core.

He also says:

None of this excuses the barbarism that exists in some Muslim societies. But it does indicate that too often we have not been serious in attempting to explain it, preferring instead to use news selectively to perpetuate and bolster our cliched narrative.

As much as I adore cliches and not being serious about things, he has a point. When was the last time you saw a news report that examined the political, social and theological differences between Islam in the West and Islam in barbaric states like Iran? More often I just see reports on Islamif terror.

This is true.....but when was the last time Christians, as a group, took any significant violent action against anyone in the name of their god? Five centuries, maybe? Ten? It's a different world now.

There were the purges in Bosnia a few years back and the religious violence in Ambon (which continues to this day).

There were the purges in Bosnia a few years back and the religious violence in Ambon (which continues to this day).

Christian Serbs should be applauded for trying to liberate European land from the legacy of infidel Turkish Moslem imperialism.

I see. You're quoted material is sourced from an entirely different cleric to the one I was quoting. I hope it's wise to assume you made an error in name recognition rather than thinking you believe all Muslims are actually the same.

I guess I wasn't making myself clear. The Australian Moslem complains that Moslems are forced into one-dimensional roles. I agree...because ther is only one dimension that actually matters to the West: whether they are hostile to the West or not. Why should any Westerner care about anything else in anything more than in an esoteric manner? It's similar to the nonsense we have been force-fed by apologists about the "true meaning of jihad." Jihad is an internal struggle, they say. Yeah, it is sometimes. But that's only relevant to the individual Moslem himself. For any non-Moslem, the only relevant meaning is a Holy War. Whether a Moslem eats falafel or steak is unimportant. Whether he sees terrorism against America as justifiable IS important to me. My weblink to the Canadian sheikh was an example of a relevant attitude that is held by Moslems in Western countries. THe sheikh, who was known to be an advocate of Sharia law in Canada, was criticized by fellow Moslems for informing the authorities about the terrorist plot in that country. THAT is relevant. And that's a big problem. Why should people who think like that even be allowed to reside among us? Would you feel deprived by not having masses of unassimables who harbor hostility towards your nation and your people and your coreligionists?

I really hope you're not telling other people something that is so patently false. I know, for example, that most of the poor Muslims in Indonesia have a clear sense of Islamic sects and which one they feel most closely mirrors their views. I know because a friend of mine went around to the villages and asked hundreds throughout Eastern Java in the course of his thesis. One sect of Indonesian Islam actually wash the entire mosque after a non-member of their sect worships there; they don't identify at all with greater Islam apart from in the most grudging way. Others welcome anyone to their mosque, including non-Muslims. That's merely the most obvious difference that even the lowliest Muslim would know.

If you can verify that Indonesia is representative of the Moslem world as a whole, then I'll eat my words. I was in Miser Egypt in '79 for six weeks along with a brother in arms, and taken around by a Coptic acquaintance of my friend. This was after Sadat went to Israel and caused a firestorm in Egypt. From what I was told and from what i had seen, Islamic piety was not widespread. Alcohol could be found, even among Moslems. I doubt it's exactly the same now, and if customs and piety can change in one place over time, why not in the same time at different locales?

It's entirely possible. Why don't you give it a shot and find out? There's plenty of great Islamic clerics who accept foreign students; I could probably help you find one if you're willing to move overseas.

Entirely possible...? There is no serious inquiry into the fundamentals of Islam and their assimibility with Western culture. Islam as it is practiced and offered in the Koran is incompatible with Western Civilization. That's why there were riots in Paris and in Denmark, and even your own country of Australia. That's why Theo Van Gogh was murdered in the streets. But in Europe, in places like Sweden, it would be a hate crime to even discuss such a topic.