Two worthwhile articles on Islam in Australia

[Gunnaduit]

Just read a couple of worthwhile recent pieces on Islam in Australia. Though a warning if you are 'PC' - these are not written by apologists. But they aren't crazy-right either.

Geoffrey Luck on 13 September:
Muslims Are What Muslims Believe
"This is what makes it so difficult for the West to understand and combat Islamic terror: the cleverness with which religion has been intertwined with politics to justify and legitimise brutality. In the name of Allah, killing becomes holy killing and evil is His holy tool ..."
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/qed/2014/09/muslims-muslims-believe/

Lawrence Cross on 18 September:
A Deadly Mix of Tribalism and Religion
"This morning's news of massive anti-terror raids in Australian cities is a reminder that the threat of bombings and mayhem, shocking as they are, represent no more than symptoms of a religious tribalism's threaten to the fabric and functioning of the nation-state ..."
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/09/deadly-mix-tribalism-religion/

P.S. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is on the Quadrant website - some things I completely disagree with and other things I'm doubtful of at best. But the above articles I thought were good.

[Opelblues2]

thanks for the link, lately I have been reading a lot in regards to this world issue. and have found that when information I put up one the web it get removed fast.

[jhovel]

Listen guys. Let's not get sucked into the Islamist/anti-islamist debate. Terrorism has nothing to do with religion. Religion ist just a convenient excuse for otherwise inexcusable behavior.
The only pity is that Muslims are so frightened to condemn other Muslims for their transgressions against the religion. Most are just as horrified as everyone else.
Joe

[silentC]

Some of them are getting a bit fed up with it all though:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/notinmyname-young-muslims-speak-out-against-islamic-state/5761392

[Moti]

And here's something a little more balanced

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/23/jacqui-lambies-islam-slur-the-rhetoric-changes-but-the-bigots-stay-the-same

Also do a bit of research on Keith Windschuttle, the editor of Quadrant - he's not a disinterested commentator...

[FenceFurniture]

Quadrant seems to be overly anti-PC it would seem. Not quite sure what their agenda is, but it sure seems to reek of White Australia, the extreme right, and supra-conservative.

A selection of the topics on the front page:

On Islam (and related) (and all published since September 19th)
From Kitchen to Lakemba's Cauldron
The Jihadis next door
By the Will of Allah...and Centrelink
Islam a threat? Bet your freedom on it.
Deadly mix of tribalism and religion

Indigenous Australians:
Traditional Culture invented yesterday
Genuinely Stolen?
Recognise the Retreat


On Global Warming:
The Best the IPCC can do
Climate "Refugee" left high and dry
Big Govt, big waste, bigger fires
Mercury Rising, Mercury Falling
When the Teacher is a dunce
What if the planet is cooling?
Obama's man goes cool on warming


No, they won't be getting my $55 subscription fee. There may perhaps be better balanced and informed opinions available for free.

[Gunnaduit]

I don't necessarily agree with everything that is on the Quadrant website - some things I completely disagree with and other things I'm doubtful of at best. But the above articles I thought were good.

[WesP]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/man-shot-dead-two-counterterrorism-officers-stabbed-outside-endeavour-hills-police-station/story-fni0fee2-1227068293410

Is that still surprise for you folks?

[dazzler]

Hi wes. I think you will find a mental illness is behind what happened. Terrorists don't normally go to police stations and act like this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Burnsy]

Some of them are getting a bit fed up with it all though:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/notinmyname-young-muslims-speak-out-against-islamic-state/5761392

Thanks for this post, I spent an hour last night reading some of the ABC reports and watching the videos as I had no idea really what ISIS was and thought it about time I educated myself. I feel very sorry for the innocents caught up in all this, they have no option but to fall in line unfortunately.

[DonIncognito]

No, those articles are pathetic dross, and I'm honestly upset that I bothered to give them a click. I think I may have dropped a few IQ points because of them.

[DonIncognito]

The only pity is that Muslims are so frightened to condemn other Muslims for their transgressions against the religion. Most are just as horrified as everyone else.
Joe

No, either you chose not to read the articles, or you read biased, media that doesn't report on it.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-16/isis-jakarta/5675550

[BobL]

I'm still checking for those "Reds under the bed", and while my foilie seen to be keeping the aliens at bay now I need to worry about Jokers in black behind my back ! :oo:

Question. Why do they wear white imperialist jogger style footwear?

Surely no self respecting muslim would be seen dead in those things and seeing as most of them look like ending up that way that proves they aint the real deal.

[silentC]

I know you are being facetious, but you can't judge people by their footwear!

[Big Shed]

I know you are being facetious, but you can't judge people by their footwear!

Why not?

[silentC]

Why not? Well I'm sure plenty of people do judge others by their attire but it seems a narrow-minded point of view to me.

[Big Shed]

Why not? Well I'm sure plenty of people do judge others by their attire but it seems a narrow-minded point of view to me.

Yes, but that is "You shouldn't", doesn't mean that "You can't".

Yes, people judge other people on their attire all the time, not only when they wear white footwear, but also when they wear lycra for instance.:rolleyes:

[silentC]

No what it means is that it is not possible to judge a person by their attire. You might think you can but you are quite wrong if you do. I suppose it depends on whether you expect your judgement to be accurate or just bigoted.

Likewise you would be very unwise to draw conclusions about a person wearing cycling clothing, as some local drivers will discover soon after recently trying to intimidate a member of the highway patrol who happens to also be a cyclist.

What are you wearing today Big Shed?

[BobL]

Why not?

I agree, we already judge them by any manner of apparel and tools, and woe betide those with the wrong brands. First up against the wall for that lot.

[silentC]

So you are saying that any person who wears runners can't be a real Muslim? Or is it just a particular brand now you are saying? Can we have a list? I didn't realise there was a hidden code of religious footwear. I must get out more...

[silentC]

Here you go, these are mine. What religion am I? :p

326376

[FenceFurniture]

Here you go, these are mine. What religion am I? :p

326376Dunno, but....

I must get out more...is obviously quite true - they still look brand new.

[BobL]

So you are saying that any person who wears runners can't be a real Muslim? Or is it just a particular brand now you are saying? Can we have a list? I didn't realise there was a hidden code of religious footwear. I must get out more...

Now you are expecting a rational discussion and that's not consistent with stereotyping which I thought was the gist of this thread?

Talking about lists, I was thinking the other day of offensive apparel and here's a few I came up with in no particular order

Baseball caps on backwards
Hoodies that cover the face
Bum crack/shorts and pants
Pants with crotches around the knees
Tanks tops that are too small - actually unless you're in some sort of sport I think most tank tops are ridiculous
Pants or trousers that are too long so the back/bottoms of the pants drag in the dirt.
Longs socks with sandals.
Low rider pants that deliberately show undies
Loose shorts with no undies.

[Big Shed]

No what it means is that it is not possible to judge a person by their attire. You might think you can but you are quite wrong if you do. I suppose it depends on whether you expect your judgement to be accurate or just bigoted.

Likewise you would be very unwise to draw conclusions about a person wearing cycling clothing, as some local drivers will discover soon after recently trying to intimidate a member of the highway patrol who happens to also be a cyclist.

What are you wearing today Big Shed?

Yeah, been reading that thread, I think the wearing of lycra inhibits one's sense of humour, must be all that tightness in the crotch area, proven again here.:rolleyes:

I am wearing my tracky dacks today, what religion does that make me (other than a bogan:D)?

So, if I see a person attired in a police uniform would I be wrong to "judge" that to be a member of the police force?

Isn't the wearing of a certain attire used to indicate quite frequently what that person is, or stands for? If I see a person wearing a purple skull cap and a purple dress, would I be wrong to assume that it is a Cardinal?

Would love to "debate" this further with you but I know that this could turn it in the longest thread for a while.

[FenceFurniture]

Bum crack/shorts and pantsAt least these can be vaguely amusing.



Low rider pants that deliberately show undiesWhat about the lowriders where a pair of undies is the top of them (like, they're sewn together as one garment)?

[silentC]

Now you are expecting a rational discussion
On here? You must be joking!

[FenceFurniture]

If I see person wearing a purple skull cap and a purple dress, would I be wrong to assume that it is a Cardinal?No need to be PC here BS - "person" - you can straight up and down say a man. Think it will be some time before bumps on the front of a cardinal are anything but man cans. (The Vicar of Dibley, when observed that she was a woman quipped "oh these are such a giveaway" :U)

[Big Shed]

No need to be PC here BS - "person" - you can straight up and down say a man. Think it will be some time before bumps on the front of a cardinal are anything but man cans. (The Vicar of Dibley, when observed that she was a woman quipped "oh these are such a giveaway" :U)

Not being PC FF, hedging my bets, with that mode of dress one can never be sure:D

[silentC]

I think the wearing of lycra inhibits one's sense of humour
You seem to be a bit hung up on lycra Big Shed. You've mentioned it a couple of times now. Is it some fetish you have?

[FenceFurniture]

On here? You must be joking!Silent, just because the two discussions debates....arguments on cyclists verses motorists were rather, shall we say, cyclic and neither side could be seen to give an inch, it doesn't mean to say that rational discussions don't appear on here.

One only had to be part of the thread on Gun Control after the Sandy Hook massacre to see that, and GC would seem to be just about the most emotive issue of them all. It was an excellent discussion with many people quite clearly on one side or the other, but with a great exchange of points of view.

[silentC]

Yeah I know. Have a look at my post count. They haven't all been on sharpening :) Or cycling...

I don't know, you make a little offhanded remark and the next thing you're embroiled in a tit-for-tat with some person who wasn't even the one your comments were directed at. They suggest that I am argumentative, and this is after they have made the most pedantic argument I have heard this week about the difference between "should not" and "can not". Then they start trying to deride you by making reference to your choice of sporting wear, as if they think I haven't heard it ALL before.

A sense of humour is mandatory or you would go bonkers...

[TermiMonster]

Hey,
I'd like it noted that I like tight tank tops....especially on women, of whatever religion.
(run and duck, etc.

[BobL]

At least these can be vaguely amusing.
Amusement factor fades rapidly when hairy brownish lint starts to show.


What about the lowriders where a pair of undies is the top of them (like, they're sewn together as one garment)?

:no::tdown2:

[FenceFurniture]

Amusement factor fades rapidly when hairy brownish lint starts to show. :no::tdown2::roflmao2:

[silentC]

So seeing as you've eliminated everything they currently wear from the list, what should the well-dressed young person-around-town be wearing, in your esteemed sartorial opinion?

Something like this perhaps:

326383

[BobL]

So seeing as you've eliminated everything they currently wear from the list, what should the well-dressed young person-around-town be wearing, in your esteemed sartorial opinion?

Something like this perhaps:

http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=326383&stc=1
Hey I remember having daks like that, and purple and black patent leather platform boots as well.
Would be battling to get them to fit on one leg these days.

Don't we have a shed dress code already?
I remember contributing "manky ugg boots with gaffer tape support"

Hey Termi monster - I suppose you like a wet T-shirt or too?
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Did you see the recent winner of the wet T-shirt comp?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
.,
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=326393&stc=1

[FenceFurniture]

Would be battling to get them to fit on one leg these days.Well I certainly hope you wouldn't have a problem with fitting in the ankles.

[TermiMonster]

Ahhhhh......yu gotta luv it:2tsup:

[silentC]

Hey I remember having daks like that ...
me too. Thank god they went out of style!

[FenceFurniture]

me too. Thank god they went out of style!Hmmmmm.

:think:

Daks like that (yep, I had 'em too) or red and yellow lycra (nope, never had it).....

:think:

That's a tough call, you know. :D

[silentC]

You do realise that's not me in that photo, don't you? :)

[FenceFurniture]

You do realise that's not me in that photo, don't you? :)Pfffft. You do realise that it IS me in my avatar don't you?

Edit: And that ain't black lycra buddy - that's a full-on home grown hair shirt.

[silentC]

You need to see someone about that scoliosis!

[Burnsy]

Now you are expecting a rational discussion and that's not consistent with stereotyping which I thought was the gist of this thread?

Talking about lists, I was thinking the other day of offensive apparel and here's a few I came up with in no particular order

Baseball caps on backwards
Hoodies that cover the face
Bum crack/shorts and pants
Pants with crotches around the knees
Tanks tops that are too small - actually unless you're in some sort of sport I think most tank tops are ridiculous
Pants or trousers that are too long so the back/bottoms of the pants drag in the dirt.
Longs socks with sandals.
Low rider pants that deliberately show undies
Loose shorts with no undies.

Bob, you need to come spend a week with me to get desensitized:D I was only asking two boys with the low hung pants yesterday what they do in the morning when they can't find their "Tuesday" undies as both had them on in plain site.

[BobL]

Bob, you need to come spend a week with me to get desensitized:D I was only asking two boys with the low hung pants yesterday what they do in the morning when they can't find their "Tuesday" undies as both had them on in plain site.

The mens shed is currently at a local SHS so I am well sensitised. Actually from what I have seen, the kids there are pretty good with most wearing some form of uniform. Having dealt with youth most of my life I thought I'd give seniors a try but there's not a lot of difference when I stop to think about it. Funny, moody, interesting, but definitely a bit less "lookatme, lookatme" about them. I think dogs are good companions, well I like mine anyway, especially now they have stopped relieving themselves inside the house and the shed.

Time to go find my Grumpy old man T-shirt, it's comfy and just wearing it relieves me of being a grump.

[silentC]

I was at the golf club with my brother in law a few years ago. There was a young guy there who was wearing his jeans in the style of the time, which meant half way down his hips with the cuffs dragging on the ground. It just looked uncomfortable. Anyway, he'd had a few drinks and was getting a bit clever with some of the ladies, including my sister. So I whispered to my brother in law and we went over, stood either side of him and hoisted him up off the ground via his belt. He was a good sport about it and wore his pants 'grandpa' style for the rest of the night.

[Bushmiller]

I'm a big fan of digressions and more guilty of it than most, but we lost the Thread as we entered page two :rolleyes: .

So just getting back on topic for a couple of posts, before another three pages of fashion, I believe that the muslim community has to take a stand itself if it wants the rest of the world to believe it does not condone atrocities and fanaticism undertaken in the name of Islam.

Clearly this is going to be difficult for them for at least two reasons:

Firstly, it is the case of the silent majority, but it was Edmund Burke who said " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am becoming a little tired of muslims jumping up and down saying they are being persecuted because of their faith, but not condemning the actions of their extremist brothers.

This brings me to the second problem and it is that if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated :( .

However, history has shown that you cannot allow people to get away with murder, because they don't improve with the passing of time.

Regards
Paul

[FenceFurniture]

.... if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated :( .Oops, I think you just denounced them as nutters.

Orf with 'is 'ead then!

[WesP]

I'm a big fan of digressions and more guilty of it than most, but we lost the Thread as we entered page two :rolleyes: .

So just getting back on topic for a couple of posts, before another three pages of fashion, I believe that the muslim community has to take a stand itself if it wants the rest of the world to believe it does not condone atrocities and fanaticism undertaken in the name of Islam.

Clearly this is going to be difficult for them for at least two reasons:

Firstly, it is the case of the silent majority, but it was Edmund Burke who said " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am becoming a little tired of muslims jumping up and down saying they are being persecuted because of their faith, but not condemning the actions of their extremist brothers.

This brings me to the second problem and it is that if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated :( .

However, history has shown that you cannot allow people to get away with murder, because they don't improve with the passing of time.

Regards
Paul

Very well said Paul. Couldn't agree more. They are bloody nutters!

[Bushmiller]

Oops, I think you just denounced them as nutters.

Orf with 'is 'ead then!

Brett

I suppose it doesn't really matter what you denounce them as, providing you disassociate yourself with them. If you don't do that you tend to be judged by the company you keep even if it is very infrequent or in some instances non-existant.

History, to which I alluded, has had many such types. There was the French revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Third Reich, numerous instances in Africa (some still ongoing), Cambodia and of course the current Middle eastern question just to mention a few.

There was also Alice in Wonderland.

"Off with his Head."

:D

Regards
Paul

[Gunnaduit]

Bushmiller, I think your point that you'll get your head whacked if you say anything about this issue is a real one. I'm pretty uncompfortable with the 'cognitive dissonance' I see between the daily reports of Islamic war across the world, and the demand in Australia that we treat anyone so concerned as 'Islamophobic'. Imagine if back in 1939 the Orwellian newspeak of 'Facistophobic' had been invented. Fascism was an ideology of peace too ... once all the non-fascists had been dispensed with. Absolutely no doubt 'most muslims' are very unlikely to be violent. Most women, most old people, most kids, most disabled people, most of the religiously uncommitted ... but that doesn't prove there is no problem. No matter what war is fought, 'most people' are not combatants. It's fit young men who do the fighting, and old blokes who feed them the motivational ideology. In this case, 'the Left' seem very keen on shutting down the whole debate, but mainly through ad-hominem attacks, ridicule, appeals to victimhood, and the aforesaid newspeak. I haven't read an actual philosphical argument from the Left that upholds Islam as a pluralist, liberating, value system. That's not surprising, beacuse the Left philosphically is against any form of supremacism. I keep wondering what happened, that 'the Left' have decided to attack anyone concerned about Islamic extremism, and pushed it into being a 'Right wing' concern. I really can't see it. Last year, before the federal elections, there was a quiz on the ABC website where you answered a large number of questions about where you stood on various issues. I found out that I was left of the Greens. I guess that was because I believe in sustainable development, social diversity and a welfare safety net - so I am apparently 100 country miles away from being "Right Wing". On top of that, I've never identified as being 'Right wing'. And yet, I am deeply uncomfortable with all the Left ridicule of anyone thinking there is a real problem with Islam. At some point, it seems to me that Muslims are going to have to draw a line under the 700-year old edicts to subjugate and kill all non-muslims. Because until that happens, the potential for supremacism and homicide lies at the heart of Islam. If they can't draw that line, then their version of Mein Kampf lives on in the hearts and minds of just enough of the Muslim community to always pose a threat to everyone else. Sorry, lefties, but that's how I see it. Righto, I'll just lay my head on the block and you can chop me off - maybe move that I be excommunicated from Woodwork Forums? Or simply label me as Islamophobic? I worry about where our value systems have gone to. But before you attack me, please just read all of the above carefully.

[DonIncognito]

I believe that the muslim community has to take a stand itself if it wants the rest of the world to believe it does not condone atrocities and fanaticism undertaken in the name of Islam.
This attitude right here is part of the problem, for several reasons. (1) most of the muslim community does this. You either choose to ignore this or you read media that doesn't report it. Either way it's your fault, not the fault of the muslim community, though to treat such a diverse range of people as some monolithic block is fairly stupid as well. (2) Why is this standard applied to the muslim community, and not to others? Why don't people yell and scream about the Catholic community denouncing the acts of kiddy fiddlers? Because of hypocritical double standards.



Clearly this is going to be difficult for them for at least two reasons:

Firstly, it is the case of the silent majority, but it was Edmund Burke who said " The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." I am becoming a little tired of muslims jumping up and down saying they are being persecuted because of their faith, but not condemning the actions of their extremist brothers.
When your argument can be completely disproved by one junkee link, you need a better argument.
http://junkee.com/heres-a-quick-recap-of-all-the-times-australia-treated-muslims-like-complete-garbage-this-week/42244

They are being persecuted because of their faith.



This brings me to the second problem and it is that if you stick your head in the air and denounce these nutters, you make yourself a target and there is every likelihood that your head and body could become separated :( .

However, history has shown that you cannot allow people to get away with murder, because they don't improve with the passing of time.

Regards
Paul

Why not? We ignore this all the time. Whats the death count in Syria now? What did we do during the whole Rwanda genocide? As a nation we pick and choose what issues to get involved with all the time, and it usually involves the death of a westerner before we bother to lift a plane and bomb some civilians.

[DonIncognito]

. In this case, 'the Left' seem very keen on shutting down the whole debate, but mainly through ad-hominem attacks, ridicule, appeals to victimhood, and the aforesaid newspeak.
Thats just complete rubbish. One thing I have found is that certain people love to accuse the other side of the very faults they themselves hold in spades. You will notice this bunch of cretins that call themselves the government do this a lot.




I haven't read an actual philosphical argument from the Left that upholds Islam as a pluralist, liberating, value system. That's not surprising, beacuse the Left philosphically is against any form of supremacism.

This just doesn't make sense. Do you proof read or is it more stream of consciousness stuff?


I keep wondering what happened, that 'the Left' have decided to attack anyone concerned about Islamic extremism, and pushed it into being a 'Right wing' concern. I really can't see it. There are none so blind as those who will not see.


Last year, before the federal elections, there was a quiz on the ABC website where you answered a large number of questions about where you stood on various issues. I found out that I was left of the Greens. I guess that was because I believe in sustainable development, social diversity and a welfare safety net - so I am apparently 100 country miles away from being "Right Wing".
Well, on some issues. Clearly on this one you are pushing a barrow that is certainly not leftist.



On top of that, I've never identified as being 'Right wing'. And yet, I am deeply uncomfortable with all the Left ridicule of anyone thinking there is a real problem with Islam.

There is no problem with Islam, I'm identifying you as right wing on this issue.


At some point, it seems to me that Muslims are going to have to draw a line under the 700-year old edicts to subjugate and kill all non-muslims. You have read leviticus, yeah? If not, I thoroughly recommend it, it's quite an eye opener. Now explain why you apply this standard to Muslims and not Christians.



Because until that happens, the potential for supremacism and homicide lies at the heart of Islam. If they can't draw that line, then their version of Mein Kampf lives on in the hearts and minds of just enough of the Muslim community to always pose a threat to everyone else.
This is why you are so completely wrong and biased on this issue. The exact same thing can be said of Christians.



Sorry, lefties, but that's how I see it. Righto, I'll just lay my head on the block and you can chop me off - maybe move that I be excommunicated from Woodwork Forums? Or simply label me as Islamophobic?

You are clearly biased against the religion of Islam, and I doubt you will change your mind no matter what argument is put forward. You clearly think that people will think you are islamophobic, so maybe you should stop spouting bollocks that makes people think that.



I worry about where our value systems have gone to. But before you attack me, please just read all of the above carefully.
I read it all and its largely rubbish based on bollocks with a large heap of crap on top. Where do you think our value system has gone?

[Gunnaduit]

Thanks Incognito. I guess you gave it your best shot. Quite emotional (well, angry, anyway), so your heart's in the right place I suppose. But again, lacking in substance. The defence side in this debate is going to have to do better than personal attack, colourful adjectives, value assertions and red herring arguments. While intimidating, it's not convincing. This is what I mean.

[FenceFurniture]

The exact same thing can be said of Christians.Indeed. Just watching Kingdom of Heaven atm, which is a thoroughly engaging film (Ridley Scott). Now Ridley is not necessarily always historically accurate, and I get that this is just a movie, but a couple of things struck me, especially in the context of the current debate.

At one point someone suggests that they can live in peace with the Muslims in Jerusalem, as they have been, a some dickhead yells out "BLASPHEMY!", and then another yells "Assemble the Army" because "God wills it". What a load of crap. How do they know God wills it? Oh right, because he just said so.

I said to my partner that this was exactly the same small minded extremism that some people accuse the Muslims in general of. The problem is that the Muslim extremists are currently guilty of it - kill the infidels, simply because they don't believe in my particular version of God.

But Christians have been guilty of just the same thing - anyone remember the Spanish Inquisition? The corrupted and exterminated civilisations of South America?

How much has the spread of Christianity done for our Indigenous population, where the were taken from their families in the name of the bloody Church?

Make no mistake: wherever you find white colonialism you'll find their brand of religion right alongside, claiming to know the only true God.

Well I think it's about time God showed himself/itself/herself and declared who is right and who is wrong, and sorted out the mess that its so-called existence has created.

[FenceFurniture]

Gunna, I note that you have said you don't necessarily agree with everything posted on the Quadrant site, but the question has to be asked: what lead you you to reading anything from such an extreme right wing site in the first place? Furthermore, the fact that you don't necessarily agree with everything posted indicates that you must have spent a fair amount of time on there.

The headlines were enough for me to be completely disinterested. The opinions expressed on there do not seem to come from a balanced and fair mind(s). More like whipping up hatred.

Is the name "Quadrant" a vague reference to the four cornered Swaztika?

[Gunnaduit]

FF, I think the difference in my viewpoint from yours would be that I'm interested in the cogency of an argument, not it's supposed 'tribal' affiliation. So basically I don't care if it the argument is supposed to be from the 'left' or the 'right'. You'll notice that I said I did a quiz that categorised me as hard left, but I never said I identified that way. I try not to get into tribal loyalties, ever since uni days (in with the Socialists) I saw how that just leads you to agree with things that on reflection, you don't agree with (all looks a bit silly now, defending Stalinism back at the family table). Having learned my lesson from that and other political-tribe misadventures, all I look for is a substantive argument that uses reason well to convince. Sort of like how your teacher, Mr His-Knibs, used to mark your essays - on its internal merits (that's unless Mr His-Knibs was pushing a partisan line himself). It's a stance that comes from the historical period of the Enlightenment - it goes hand in hand with science. So far, in this debate, the only source of argument on this particular issue that fits those debative criteria seems to come from the 'right'. But as I say, I'll leave the 'left' and 'right' business for others - it sure must save time reading! (Op! That's from the Right - trash it! Op! That's from the left! Burn it!, etc.) But my understanding from the intellectual left is that such tribalism is a problem in itself - but I'll blame postmodernism for destroying the Enlightenment, and that is why the left has become deranged on this issue. Just as much as postmodernism has destroyed the 'right's' ability to assess the science of climate change, preferring on that issue to see scientists as just another political tribe. But look, just link me to a argument from the 'left' that fulfils the criteria of good argument (the emotive name-slinging stuff just bores me - I've read it all before - that's where I started out on this issue, reading that stuff and realising it was intellectually empty), and, unlike our friend's earlier presumption, I might be convinced. It really depends on the merits of the argument. Just give me a good argument. Let's not get to Godwin's Law too soon (you know, 'reductio ad Hitlerium') - actually, I just noticed the swastika thing - maybe we're already there.

[DonIncognito]

Thanks Incognito. I guess you gave it your best shot. Quite emotional (well, angry, anyway), so your heart's in the right place I suppose. But again, lacking in substance. The defence side in this debate is going to have to do better than personal attack, colourful adjectives, value assertions and red herring arguments. While intimidating, it's not convincing. This is what I mean.
Pathetic.

[FenceFurniture]

FF, I think the difference in my viewpoint from yours would be that I'm interested in the cogency of an argument,Yes, it's fair enough to want to be informed of what the other side is saying - a bit hard to argue for or against otherwise.

However, in the case of Quadrant I don't really believe that I need to waste precious time reading what I know will be predictable. For example, I am in no doubt whatsoever as to where they would stand on gun control. Some things are just bleeding obvious.

[FenceFurniture]

Friday's headlines:

Open immigration and the damage done

The Islamic State and "religion of peace"

For Muslims, more Pillars of Peace.



Talk about predictable......

[underfoot]

...feeling the need to wade in ....having spent time in the middle east in my youth..(Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Afghanistan and Israel)...

[DonIncognito]

http://m.theage.com.au/comment/muslims-are-speaking-out-but-no-one-is-listening-20140930-10nktr.html

An actual worthwhile article on Islam.

[Gunnaduit]

I tried to find material on why the Left finds it so important to defend right-wing Islamism against any form of criticism. Of course, the "Right" has no trouble explaining that with relish. But it is more difficult to find Leftist perspectives on that question. Here's two that appear to be from the Left, which I thought went some way to explaining the difficulty that the Left has in critiquing Islamist ideology.

The first is from an Australian human rights website, the second is from an American feminist blog.

http://rightnow.org.au/writing-cat/opinion/why-the-left-has-trouble-talking-about-islam/

http://www.meredithtax.org/taxonomyblog/muslim-right-and-anglo-american-left-love-dare-not-speak-its-name

Even though both the Left and Islamist fundamentalism are critiqued by these authors, you'd need to actually read them before presuming off-hand that they must be islamophobic racist nazis.