Islamic reaction to radical Muslims

[*Mahzala*]

... No, incitement would be "here is how to make a bomb, now go make one and bomb those enemies of the newspaper".

Publishing scientific knowledge would not constitute incitement. Incitement would require not just information, but encouragement.

If you don't want to agree, then I have no cure for you not understanding. These cases (in Australia) are the most famous for inciting offences ... they are recognised nationally and INTERnationally as such. How about I go by what you say and remind you of the world-known Cronulla Riots that happened in Melbourne, Australia? If you don't agree with this being a case of incitement, then, I am sorry to say, your 'unique' lens of seeing things is not satisfying and quite flawed.

[*Mahzala*]

Debatable.

When I say truth, I am not referring to the 'authenticity' of the religion. Islam emphasises it as one of the many morals in its ethics.

[imb706]

Wasn't that riot started by some drunks who attacked some arab dude?

[ozymandias]

If you don't want to agree, then I have no cure for you not understanding. These cases (in Australia) are the most famous for inciting offences ... they are recognised nationally and INTERnationally as such. How about I go by what you say and remind you of the world-known Cronulla Riots that happened in Melbourne, Australia? If you don't agree with this being a case of incitement, then, I am sorry to say, your 'unique' lens of seeing things is not satisfying and quite flawed.

Looks like the actual news sources support my claim:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/man-in-court-over-race-riot-texts/2006/01/27/1138319423216.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

"King faced Sutherland Local Court today charged with using a carriage service (the mobile phone system) to menace, harass or cause offence, as well as one count of printing or publishing writing which incited, urged or encouraged riot and affray."

I'm seeing evidence, here that the messages he sent were not "Hey, everyone, there is a neat party going on down at the beach" and a quick google search shows two actual messages sent -- if not from King -- I cannot find proof of the messages he sent explicitly in 2 minutes:

”This Sunday every ****ing Aussie in
the shire, get down to North Cronulla to help support Leb and wog
bashing day...Bring your mates down and let’s show them this is our
beach and they’re never welcome back”

“Just a reminder that Cronulla’s 1st wog
bashing day is still on this Sunday. Chinks bashing day is on the
27th and the Jews are booked for early January”

“Every ****ing aussie. Go to Cronulla Beach Sunday for some Leb and
wog bashing Aussie Pride ok”

Those are more than informative -- they are actually instigating violence -- EXACTLY as I stated.

[ozymandias]

When I say truth, I am not referring to the 'authenticity' of the religion. Islam emphasises it as one of the many morals in its ethics.

And I still say that that is debatable. to keep it in the context of this discussion, if that was one of the morals taught by Islam, then there would be no issues with blasphemy, as 'truth' (opposed to 'Truth') does not fear open and public discussion and investigation.

[imb706]

"Marcus Kapitza,[36] 28, was jailed for 12 months after pleading guilty to one charge of riot.[36] On the day of the riot Kapitza wore a singlet with the words “Mohammed was a camel-raping faggot.”[36] He was also involved in the attack at the train station shouting “**** off! **** off the Lebs.”[36] Brent Lohman,[37] 19, was also charged over the train station assault was sentenced to 11 months in jail.[37]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronulla_riots

[*Mahzala*]

Um, muslims bomb people all the time, oftentimes by blowing themselves up, that's what I mean. I've yet to hear of non muslim british terrorist, that is in recent times.

You already have. You're just turning a blind eye. Tell me which recent US occupation is justifiable? Tell me why the Crusades massacred millions of Muslims in their own homelands? Tell me about Al Andalus, was that not innocent lives lost? Tell me how you define terrorism for a start!

Well, the Saudis would disagree with you there. Islam means to submit, there's no dignity in that.

Being a Saudi Arabian does not mean you are right. I haven't mentioned the definition of Islam in my post, rather, I am referring to Islamic ethics. So, no, they will not disagree with me. What Islam means, I am well aware. And it is good to see you are too.

[ozymandias]

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/First_ch..._text_messages :

New South Wales Police allege that a 33 year-old Matraville man, who was arrested at 9:30PM Wednesday, forwarded "offensive and inciting" text messages following the violence at Cronulla. The man was taken to Maroubra Police Station where he was charged with using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence and a count of print, publish to incite or urge the commission of a crime. He was granted bail and is to appear in Waverley Local Court on 1 February 2006.
It is alleged that the messages were to incite people to turn out at Cronulla on December 18, 2005 for another round of violence.

[ozymandias]

I'm not finding a single article describing these text messages as anything other than encouraging people to engage in illegal activities, which completely confirms my interpretation and blows your interpretation out of the water.

Perhaps you will select an example of a case that does *not* support you opponent next time you debate. Might work out better for you...

[*Mahzala*]

I'm not finding a single article describing these text messages as anything other than encouraging people to engage in illegal activities, which completely confirms my interpretation and blows your interpretation out of the water.

Perhaps you will select an example of a case that does *not* support you opponent next time you debate. Might work out better for you...

Wikipedia'ing' isn't going to help you, so you might as well stop trying. To start with, you didn't witness these riots, or maybe, you haven't even heard of them, since your 'finding an article' to support your claims is still going or maybe just started. I am talking from memory, and mind you, it doesn't fail me. I am talking from a context you will not understand (yes, I mean it). I am talking Australian Law, media law and ethics - that, yes, I have studied - which are different to yours. I am not here to win you over. Clearly, you are. I am merely presenting my views, which I still stand by, no matter how you label them. Not understanding someone does not mean their logic is flawed. Not knowing of something does not mean it is a false claim.

You carry on watching this thread boom. It suits you.

[imb706]

You already have. You're just turning a blind eye. Tell me which recent US occupation is justifiable?

I'm as anti iraq and afghanistan war as anyone, but don't be silly. I'm talking terrorist. I'm talking 9/11, Madrid, Theo Van Gogh, you know, terrorism. British muslims unfortunately have a problem with some of their own trying to blow up Europe.

Tell me why the Crusades massacred millions of Muslims in their own homelands?

I said recent times. Didn't muslims kill people in the crusades as well?

Tell me about Al Andalus, was that not innocent lives lost?

I said British and I said recent. What the hell? The muslims were driven out of Iberia because of their oppressive and autocratic ways.

Tell me how you define terrorism for a start!

Purposely killing civilians.

Being a Saudi Arabian does not mean you are right.

Well, yeah, since Saudi views are usually wrong.

I am referring to Islamic ethics

They can't be very good ethics.

So, no, they will not disagree with me.

You just said Saudis don't follow Islamic law, and I'm very sure they'd disagree with you on that.

[ozymandias]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]

Wikipedia'ing' isn't going to help you, so you might as well stop trying. To start with, you didn't witness these riots, or maybe, you haven't even heard of them, since your 'finding an article' to support your claims is still going or maybe just started.

I vaguely recalled these issues, but I had to look to find details -- which are not confirming your claims.

I am talking from memory, and mind you, it doesn't fail me. I am talking from a context you will not understand (yes, I mean it). I am talking Australian Law, media law and ethics - that, yes, I have studied - which are different to yours. I am not here to win you over. Clearly, you are. I am merely presenting my views, which I still stand by, no matter how you label them. Not understanding someone does not mean their logic is flawed. Not knowing of something does not mean it is a false claim.

Why do all the articles reference text messages that support my claims, and not yours then? Every single text message in the news is inflammatory, and calling to action, not merely informing.

Please, if I am wrong find me something more reliable than your memory and your word to convince us.

Your claims mean nothing if you cannot find support for them. I can claim that I remember the issue and that my memory does not fail me and make up all sorts of wild claims just like you -- but I would not expect you to take me word for it.

You carry on watching this thread boom. It suits you.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean,.

[*Mahzala*]

Please, if I am wrong find me something more reliable than your memory and your word to convince us.

Your claims mean nothing if you cannot find support for them. I can claim that I remember the issue and that my memory does not fail me and make up all sorts of wild claims just like you -- but I would not expect you to take me word for it.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean,.

It is not only my memory Ozy. You seem to skip a lot in my posts. I said I was talking Australian law, media law and its ethics (from the sources I have studied). And they are not wild claims from my backside! Each and everything I have said is from a reliable, whether you like it or not. Find an Australian law/media law/ethics handbook, and you find the exact same thing. I, frankly, am not going to waste my time regurgetating books simply because you are not satisfied.

Forgive me for coming across like a harsh stone ... I leave it here (for now?). I have other commitments to attend to.

[*Mahzala*]

I'm as anti iraq and afghanistan war as anyone, but don't be silly. I'm talking terrorist. I'm talking 9/11, Madrid, Theo Van Gogh, you know, terrorism. British muslims unfortunately have a problem with some of their own trying to blow up Europe. I said recent times. Didn't muslims kill people in the crusades as well? I said British and I said recent. What the hell? The muslims were driven out of Iberia because of their oppressive and autocratic ways. Purposely killing civilians.Well, yeah, since Saudi views are usually wrong.They can't be very good ethics.You just said Saudis don't follow Islamic law, and I'm very sure they'd disagree with you on that.

I am not being silly. You say you define terrorism as purposely killing civilians, but you don't classify any of the Muslims that died as civilians. Oh well, according to misconceptions, they're terrorists, they should die, right? Rather, you are trying to justify the bloodshed, something you can't achieve. How do you define Muslim anyway? Terrorist=Muslim? Muslim=Terrorist? Arab=Muslim? Muslim=Arab? And what does timeliness have to do with it? Recent or not recent, they are innocent lives lost, full stop. Listen Jameson, terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly. Study history a tad more and it might clear your misconception that every terrorist is a Muslim.

[imb706]

, but you don't classify any of the Muslims that died as civilians.

I never said I wouldn't classify muslims as civilians.

. Oh well, according to misconceptions, they're terrorists, they should die, right?

I think if you can get someone in custody, they don't deserve death. Sure, if some guy was coming at you with a knife yelling "Allahu Akbar!" then yeah you can shoot him in the face, but we're not talking about that.

Rather, you are trying to justify the bloodshed, something you can't achieve.

Anyone can justify anything, who cares? That doesn't mean anything.

How do you define Muslim anyway? Terrorist=Muslim? Muslim=Terrorist? Arab=Muslim? Muslim=Arab?

No, just someone who follows the religion of Islam. A muhammaden.

And what does timeliness have to do with it?

I haven't a clue what you're getting at, since I asked for non muslim british terrorist in recent times, and you talked about something in Spain that happened hundreds of years ago.

terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly.

Well, almost.

Study history a tad more and it might clear your misconception that every terrorist is a Muslim.

No, but the character of Muhammad in that Qu'ran acted like a terrorist. Hence why some call him "the father of terrorism." But he didn't exist, so it's not a correct label.