And why wouldn't they? What would have disabused them of these notions? Have any Islamic leaders in Australia met with them and tried to convince them that they had gotten Islam terribly, terribly wrong? If so, how did they try to do this, and why were they unsuccessful? If not, why not, and what are the implications of that fact?
"Five men convicted of terror-related offences won't renounce jihad," by Norrie Ross in the Herald Sun, November 18 (thanks to JE):
FIVE of seven men convicted of being part of a home-grown Melbourne terror cell have refused to renounce their violent jihadi views.As the Supreme Court today commenced pre-sentence plea hearings for the convicted men, prosecutor Nick Robinson SC said their failure to renounce terrorist views was disturbing.
Mr Robinson said Ezzit Raad, Fadl Sayadi, Aimen Joud, Abdullah Merhi and Ahmed Raad had all placed material before the court where they actively refused to renounce the terrorist philosophy behind their crimes.
In their submission to the pre-sentence hearing they rejected the verdicts of the jury, he said, and there was no evidence they did not “continue to adhere to the philosophy of violent jihad”.
In September the men, along with two others, were convicted of a number of terrorist offences.
The trial heard the potential targets of the group were the MCG on Grand Final Day, Melbourne’s rail network and the Crown casino during Grand Prix week....
In one conversation Ezzit Raad was recorded to have said it was a pity more people had not died in the 2005 London terrorist bombings.
He was found guilty of intentionally making funds available to a terrorist organisation, knowing that it was a terrorist organisation.
He was also convicted of being a member of a terrorist organisation, knowing that it was a terrorist organisation.
The other convicted men were:
Abdul Nacer Benbrika, 48, of Dallas
Also known as Abu Bakr, the Algerian-born Muslim cleric arrived in Australia in 1989. He married in 1992 and has seven children. He was said to be the spiritual leader of the group and they called him “Sheik”. He was found:
A cleric? Didn't he realize he was twisting and hijacking the peaceful tenets of Islam?
Did anybody watch CNN lately?
That interview with the Bali bombers in jail before their execution with a very young reporter who accused Mukhlas of having 'twisted' his religion, to which the latter replied " you're stupid. You know nothing! You're kuffar!"
It is infuriating that there are so many people out there hanging on to and perpetuating the myth that these terrorists are somehow getting their religion wrong.
The same reporter also interviewed a women, a muslim, who received 60% burns in the Bali bombing, but survived. She, in defense of Islam or for lack of knowledge, claimed the Bali bombers were "not Muslims", that they are misinterpreting their religion and that was what this reporter wanted to hear. And that is what CNN beams into your living room. No wonder our people are still ignorant of the facts.
Now how do we cure it?
yer'mami, this is extremely interesting. Do you have a link to this interview?
...there is no cure for stupid...the reporter is no different than the majority of those reporters who take every opportunity to try and paint the picture that Islam is a peaceful religion...just think of the possible consequences or Muslim backlash if the reporters actually started broadcasting the truth...I suspect the Muslims would riot and declare that the Muslims terrorists do not represent Islam and that those terrorists are just "misunderstanders" of the religion...I also suspect there would be those non Muslims who would vehemently protest that the reporters are lying and just trying to stir up violence...
there is no cure for stupid..
I am tired. I have had visitors, and we have talked about Islam. i try to tell people about the truth and they smile benignly at me (at best).
Last night a friend from interstate stayed the night. She ended up reading the Koran in bed, after our conversation. In the morning she could not stop telling me how horrible it is.
It is hard work though. One by one people have to be told. Despite all the news, time and again we hear it form Muslims themselves, but Australians refuse to believe the reality of Islam.
We have mountains to move. These people (the clerics and their nasty minions) can't even be bothered to lie, so we (our press, our leaders) in the West lie for them.
Herbrand, here it is.
It would be better on youtube, perhaps somebody else can put it up there?
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bali-bombers-speak-to-cnn/2704134446/?icid=VIDURVNWS02
an old Aussie is also interviewed, sez they are giving 'thousands of good Muslims a bad name"...
I get the impression that CNN is deliberately looking for moonbats, or puts moonbats on the case, because that's where most of their business comes from, and they don't want to rock the boat:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9d8_1224863656
http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bali-bombers-speak-to-cnn/2704134446/?icid=VIDURVNWS02
The interviewer's name is Dan Rivers.
Asked what goes through his mind he sees the devastation wrought by the bombs, Amrozi replies "What do I think? Thank God."
He says he has "no regrets whatsoever".
"My message for Australians; don't you come to places like that ever again. I'm sure that my colleagues will bomb it again," he says through an interpreter.
Rivers puts to Samudra that he has twisted the words of the Koran to justify the bloodshed.
"Where does it say in the Koran that you have the right to kill innocent people? You are twisting your religion completely," Rivers asks.
"I know better than you because I am Muslim and you are kaffir (infidel). You kaffir know nothing," Samudra replies, waving his hand at the reporter.
"The verse, blood by blood, soul by soul. Your country - US, UK, Australia alliance - already killing my people," he says.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24569956-38196,00.html
sheik yer'mami
Thanks for the au link.
Now it is not surprsing that the reporter is clueless about islam. What is surprising is that so many of the commentators are.
Thank your the links sheik, this is really a huge point on the issue.
PG,
I just had a long email discourse over Islam with an old friend. He wrote that he found my views "disturbing" and "[as intolerant as those you are against]".
It was an interesting experience. I realized a definitive pattern in his thought process...
He believed that "violence begets violence"...and yet insisted he wasn't a pacifist.
He is opposed to "tolerating intolerance", but also opposed any restriction on the practice of religion.
He acknowledged the problems in "that part of the world", but was entirely uninterested in the pursuit of radical solutions.
His mindset reminded me a bit of CAIR's generic denunciation of terrorism while refusing to specify Hamas and Hezbollah. It was an artful performance, one worthy of a milk-toast liberal.
Corni,
I remember a time when you sounded (almost) like that...
FIVE of seven men convicted of being part of a home-grown Melbourne terror cell have refused to renounce their violent jihadi views.
Isn't this good? Why should anyone believe them if they DID renounce jihadism? That they refuse even to say what we want to hear, as opposed to what they believe, should be seen as a good thing.
Here is a suggestion: let them serve their sentences and then force them into exile. Fly them to Saudi Arabia and kick them off the plane before taking off again. Let the ummah decide how to handle them from then on.
From bove: Why should anyone believe them if they DID renounce jihadism?
That's right, and why even demand that they do so?
Simply because you can't believe a word of anything they say.
They are really being asked to renounce Islam.
It's a little late for that...
PMK: Here is a suggestion: let them serve their sentences and then force them into exile. Fly them to Saudi Arabia and kick them off the plane before taking off again.
Should we kick them off before we land or after?
Timing is everything...
A cleric? Didn't he realize he was twisting and hijacking the peaceful tenets of Islam?
It seems to me that twisting and hijacking have been two of the prime tenets of Islam since the very beginning, with old Mo himself.
Should we kick them off before we land or after?
duh_swami,
After. "Kick them out" may have been overdoing it. Let's say we let them down the stairs and onto the tarmac. If the host country won't move the stairs to the door of the plane, only then are they kicked out. We'd still be showing them more compassion than they did an old man in a wheel chair.
Their are narrow minds,or shallow thinkers out there that are easily influenced, easily lead or mislead, I have seen them,I know them, perhaps you do to? ----
They will follow chicken little in a heart beat if he can provoke concerns, or rewards,they are easy pray for con man,and scammers.They appear intelligent,well educated,and have successfull jobs; such as teaching, yes you know them,Some of them might buy that bridge that you wouldn't,they can be easily convinced and manipulated that 9-11 was an inside job, they will believe Lee Harvey Oswald was set up in a conspiracy,they are easily brainwashed to cults, they will dress a certan way and commit suicide to get a ride on a passing commit if a cult leader tells them to.
The big question is; what is it in their personality that makes them so vulnerable,and such easy pray to the wrong kind influence peddlers that walk, or have walked this planet?
Do you know?
Mackie,
They want to be loved and they want to belong.
Living in freedom is hard. Taking responsibility for your own life is difficult. Islam gives them the only answer they need: any failure or shortcoming on their part is always someone else's fault. For those who are not religious, organized rebellion makes them part of something. The street gang is a family. Its members have a sense of identity. The cult leader makes everyone feel important. It's what people need.
"We have mountains to move. These people (the clerics and their nasty minions) can't even be bothered to lie, so we (our press, our leaders) in the West lie for them."
From PG above
So true, these ignorant, and naieve (dhimmis')among us will do the bidding for them,for they are so easily influenced by the masters of taquiya, and kitman who easily practice the art of victimhood among those of us who have succumbed to the dangerous perversion of multiculturalism of which there are examples being demonstrated everyday,it is our achilles tendon. We bend over for them at every turn until eventually we will fall flat on are face as we are seeing so obviously in Britain everyday.
PMK:
Well said, and we both know these people,but we wouldn't want to hang out with them unless we knew we could influence them in the right direction.
Back in the early 70's I worked on debriefing some people from a dangerous cult and you are espousing some of their characteristics quite clearly.
Anymore thoughts on what characteristics create this easily influenced personality?
Cornelius,
I recently had a lengthy email exchange with a friend of mine about jihad, and it sounds like we have the same friend!
It was all "you are intolerant" and "persecution of one religion will only cause more radicals" and "violence begats violence."
The message ain't getting thru!
In their submission to the pre-sentence hearing they rejected the verdicts of the jury, he said, and there was no evidence they did not “continue to adhere to the philosophy of violent jihad”.
.................................
Please note: their rejection of the verdicts of the jury, clearly, is not because they are claiming to be innocent of these acts of jihad. They reject the verdicts because they do not recognize the authority of an Infidel democracy, or such institutions as Kuffr courts and juries.
They only recognize Shari'ah. And, of course, if a court were truly "Islamic" (unlike, say, the courts in Indonesia which convicted the Bali bombers), then it wouldn't stop at merely failing to convict Jihadists--it would laud their actions.
Great, case closed (bang the gavel) and sentence them to a nice western prison where they can spend their time influencing convicted felons for which islam seems to have such a special attraction. In our current mindset here in the west it seems that we continually lose ground even when our system works as designed.
Pity they have had so many kids here though. The wives and kids will cost the taxpayers a fortune and they will still grow up hating us.
On what basis, I wonder, are so many Islamic "clerics" coming here? I heard some time ago that Muslim "clerics" were given special visas in the US due to an old and cherished policy of providing a religious haven for dissident Christian European clergy. I wonder if we have a similarly generous, and abused, policy here in Australia. But then, I know Christian clergy from countries which persecute Christians who are not allowed to even VISIT Australia.
Cornelius: (If you are still here). I rang up my Sudanese Sufi friend today. We had a big argument (of course) but he did not know, he said, of the nasty bits of the Koran I quoted to him. "Do you think I read the Koran every day?" he said. He told me he "used to be a Rastafarian". He implied in his words he would not mind leaving Islam. I know the Sudanese Muslims are fairly soft, and are tired of the constraints on their lifestyle. I said to him though that I would not be happy to help him leave the Sudan unless I had a pretty firm idea of his eagerness to leave his religion.
I am not sure if I can trust him. I know it is hard for him to speak. I know the Sudanese are tired of Sharia and war and everything. Maybe I shopuld give him a go, and just bring him here on a visitor visa. This is not an easy decision for me - help him or not? (His family was very good to me over there).
PG
I'm afraid I'd advise you to harden your heart and say no. The risk is just too great.
Here in Australia at present we have quite enough Mohammedans.
The refugees/ asylum-seekers we should be prioritising are the bona fide non-Muslim refugees from Jihad and Sharia: Sudanese Christians and animists, Pakistani and Bangladeshi Christians and Hindus, Egyptian Coptic Christians. Indeed, right now it should be the Assyrian Christians, immediately under threat of full scale jihad genocide, that we should be boosting right to the top of our refugee/ immigration queue - on the understanding that anyone who pretends to be one of them, but ain't, will be pitched right back to Mesopotamia the second that any such imposture is detected.