My Photo

My Online Status


Support Bastards Inc.

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 09/2003

Site Meter

« Really? | Main | Gaza is gooone! »


Cameron Riley

Islam doesnt pose a threat. In nation where muslims have the vote, they choose secular liberal governments over theocracy. People are the same the world over, despite religious beliefs. They demand good government first.

I was working in DC in 2001. Two mates of mine were in the Pentagon. I worked with them both. One was in the office next to mine, the other was down the hall. Both survived, as they were both fortunately working in the next sector round from the one where the plane hit.

The company I work for also lost a building when the WTC collapsed. In the aftermath of Sept 11th I had to wash my hands after washing mail as the local mail centre got infected with anthrax.

With all that, there is no clash of civilisations. There are some extremists who got massively lucky once. The lack of attacks since has been because of their lack of organisation and capability, not because of government actions to stop it.

Afghanistan was justified, but Iraq was a diversion, which has since become a massive mess. The Bush Administration is permanently saddled by incompetence and ineffectualness. Nothign changed after Sept 11th except governments seeking to establish a permanent "National Security State". It would be ironic, except it is so damaging, that it is placing closer to the failed states of Saudi Arabia and Iran which are the breeding grounds of extremism.


So how should an Australian view the faith when the majority of it's proponents here in Australia refuse to acknowledge it's culpability? OBL is a hero to a vast majority of Australian youths who profess to be Muslims. Iraq was about non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions. That's it. Nothing else.

Cameron Riley

An Australian shouldnt care what faith other Australians are, or how they choose to pursue, or display their faith as long as it does not impinge of the rights of others.

Revisionism on Iraq. It has been many things, but never the truth. It may have been accepted if the Bush Administration decided to tell the truth, but instead the spun and it went from WMD, to Liberation, to Rape Rooms, to Regime Change and on and on. My opinion is that it was about establishing a new West Germany in the Middle East. A means to maintain hegemony in a turbulent area with important resources.

It has not been going well, as disruptive technology is much cheaper in 2005, than it was in 1945. It didnt help that Bush, Rumsfield, Bremer et al have maintained such a consistent, and high level of incompetency.


I was in a different situation to you Cameron, I was in Riyadh on September 11. My first thoughts on that day, apart from getting my girlfriend out of the building where I was living, was that henceforth all those who profess to be enemies of the United States should be taken at their word. On that day, in the company I kept, I didn't feel alone in this opinion. Saddam fell into that category and appropriate measures to deny his professed intent were taken (in my humble opinion).


Typical leftist scum.

Refuse to acknowledge islam is the enemy (after all, islam is their number one ally in their mission to kill Jews) and then fall over themselves to fellate commies of the past.

Of course. How silly of me. West Germany was all about resources and maintaining the Allied Empire - not about preventing a philosophy that killed over 100 million people from spreading all over the rest of Europe.


Cameron Riley

Tiberius, heh, that is a cut and paste rant if I ever saw one.

Islam isnt the enemy, anyone who believes that is using lazy stereotypes. Look at Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia. All democratic nations who have large majorities that identify themselves as muslim. When they vote, they choose secular liberal government over theocracy.

Your comments on "leftist scum" and "communism" are ad-hominems.


Bangladesh, Indonesia are hot-beds of political extremism and religious fanaticism. It's not so much that they hate democracry as they hate anyone who is not Muslim. Take a look at Aceh. And surely you aren't holding up Bangladesh as a paragon of virtue for secular democracies?

Cameron Riley

CB, Have a look at their voting. In Indonesia the PPP (islamic party) got 8% of the vote in parliament, and 3% in the Presidential elections. Saudi Arabia and Iran are a problem as the people dont get to vote, or convey their demands, as a consequence the state establishes and sponsors a religious monoculture - which begets extremism. Saudi Arabia and Iran are failed states. They are also the two biggest problems in terms of organised extremism.

The Indonesia madrassa have had limited effect, most are non-violent, but Indonesia is becoming a secular liberal democracy, and is flushing out the left over rot of the Suharto dictatorship. It has punished terror in its courts with good police work. Quite an achievement as Indonesia didnt even have a police force until recently. Under Suharto the military provided civil control (oppression).

Bangladesh is progressing as well. Once the people get to vote, and participate in government, they marginalise the extremists. Saudi Arabia needs open elections badly. Iran needs open elections too, ones where the theocrats can't kick moderates off the ballot. The Persians have been pushing for a secular liberal government for ages, but the theocrats have thwarted them to this point.


So far your argument is predicated on the understanding that secular governments WHEN elected are chosen in lieu of theocracies. That's an enormous WHEN/IF factor there Cameron. The reason Muslim societies routinely refuse to hold fair and open elections as it directly subverts the rule of God for the rule of Man. Implicitly NOT ALLOWED under the Koran.

The comments to this entry are closed.