For Soren and Abus sakes,
This is a copy of the letter I sent a while ago.




Quote:

8 May 2009 Ms Sharmon Stone MP Hon. Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship 426 Wyndham Street SHEPPARTON VIC 3632 Dear Ms Stone I write to query the application of Australia’s immigration laws.  Following a few emails to DIMIA (they have been very helpful to me) they have given me the following criteria from their website for prospective immigrants to Australia. “…..When applying for selected visas, all applicants aged 18 years and over are required to sign an Australian Values Statement. Before being granted a visa, applicants must confirm that they will respect Australian values and obey the laws of Australia. Australian values include: respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual equality of men and women freedom of religion commitment to the rule of law parliamentary democracy a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good equality of opportunity for individuals, regardless of their race, religion or ethnic background. Although these values may be expressed differently by different people, their meaning stays the same. The values may not be unique to Australia, but they have broad community agreement and underpin Australian society and culture………”  http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/07values.htm From my knowledge, it seems Islamists breach all of these criteria.   Under Islam (which is what Islamists want all over the world) there is no freedom of individuals. There is only complete submission to allah. There is complete inequality of men and women. This point is current in Islamic countries and highlighted in the Koran and hadiths. There is no freedom of religion under Islam.  Those who leave Islam are faced with death. That is demanded of in the Koran. The rule of law is immaterial; their law is the law of Islam. Islam is not democratic. Islamists do not have mutual respect or tolerance.  In Islamic countries, non-Muslims are termed dhimmis; other beliefs/homosexuality/criticism are not tolerated. For these reasons, I ask what the Minister of Immigration is doing about Islamists entering Australia. Could you bring this issue up in question time in Parliament on behalf of your fellow Australians please? Yours sincerely

I'll bet she hasn't stop laughing yet sprint, especially about this part-


Quote:

other beliefs/homosexuality/criticism are not tolerated.

That sounds like the good ol USA there sprint.ha ha ha  ;D

skippy - in islam any other belief or homos are not tolerated.

Ask abu, see what happens in saudi.
that is against Aussie laws.

Why did you use the term "Islamist" and not just Muslim?

grendel - indeed, the reasons apply to all muslims.
However, i thought islamics were more the issue.

At this stage

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:10am:

Why did you use the term "Islamist" and not just Muslim?

He probably doesn't want to tar all Muslims with the same brush ,like you do.

Well apart from the fact she's not likely to ever reply or address the issue.  She can fob it off due to the terminology used.

Hey skipeeee..  go flame someon who cares, you twirp.

I have Moslem friends...  

How about you?

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:16am:

Hey skipeeee..  go flame someon who cares, you twirp. I have Moslem friends...   How about you?

LIER

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:15am:

Well apart from the fact she's not likely to ever reply or address the issue.  She can fob it off due to the terminology used.

True. But 'Muslim' would be a more provocative term in the context of that letter than 'Islamism'.

I don't lie Skippy...  but you cant spell either.

DWMT Troll.

Actually the term was "Islamist" Hel...

Good letter!

Well said sprint.

Your points were expressed very succinctly.



If only we could encourage many, many, others to also write such letters.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:23am:

Actually the term was "Islamist" Hel...

Yes, but my point still stands.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:22am:

I don't lie Skippy...  but you cant spell either. DWMT Troll.

Thanks for the spelling lesson you little bigot you.
Pointing out you lies isn't trolling, its just pointing out your lies.

Whatsup Skipeeeeeeeeeeeeee...

No one to talk to at home.
Feel the need to abuse others and lie about them?
Well I'm not happy being your target.
Go away.
Find someone who will appreciate your invective and crap.

o where were we before boofeeeeeee butted in? oh right, yes you were right to call them Islamists rather than Muslims sprint, even tho I know you hate Islam at least you show respect for the vast majority of Muslims who are normal everyday people trying to do the best for their families just like the non extremist Christians and the very tolerant atheists.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:10am:

Why did you use the term "Islamist" and not just Muslim?

Grendel,

In reality there is little real distinction between those two terms.

ALL moslems, ARE ISLAMISTS.

The epitome of the 'normal' moslem, the moslem whose actions, all moslems are encouraged ot emulate, was Mohammed, ISLAM's founder.

And by definition, Mohammed [the pirate and murderer] was a 'normal', 'moderate', moslem.
....just like every other, 'moderate', moslem, setting of bombs, and 'righteously' murdering 'Kuffar'.



Dictionary,
epitome = = a person or thing that is a perfect example of a quality or type.




The Koran,

"Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah [Mohammed] a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah. "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/033.qmt.html#033.021

Actually Skipeeee  before you butted in Sprint and I were discussing the "Islamist" terminology...  then you decided to start another of your oh so boring flame wars Trolleeee...  more abuse and lies followed.

Why don't you just piss off and find a site where your type of debating skills are appreciated.

yes I get your point yadda... but I figure today's politicians would not see "Islamist" as an appropriate or formal category under which immigration operates.

Whereas...  they cannot unless they legislate discriminate against a religion ie Islam.
Also Muslim or Moslem is the contemporary accepted term for a follower of that faith.

Quote:

Why don't you just piss off and find a site where your type of debating skills are appreciated

NO

Quote:

Actually Skipeeee  before you butted in Sprint and I were discussing the "Islamist" terminology

WRONG AGAIN I think you'll find I actually commented on this topic before you, but we know you dont like truth to get in the way of facts.

yadda - hahahah, thanks .

Quote:

Good letter! Well said sprint. Your points were expressed very succinctly. If only we could encourage many, many, others to also write such letters.

The proposed original letter was changed quite a bit by suggestions of others here before I sent it off.
Their suggestions were VERY good.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 9:52am:

yes I get your point yadda... but I figure today's politicians would not see "Islamist" as an appropriate or formal category under which immigration operates. Whereas...  they cannot unless they legislate discriminate against a religion ie Islam. Also Muslim or Moslem is the contemporary accepted term for a follower of that faith.

Grendel,

Many people, many Australians included, still categorise ISLAM as a religion.

ISLAM is not a religion, except in name only.

ISLAM has demonstrated, and demonstrates every day, what it REALLY is,
.....and ISLAM is a death cult.

That is a fact.



Most recent exemplary evidence [but 100's more evidences available],

July 22, 2009
"Tamimi distinguishes good Muslims from their adversaries this way: 'We love death. They love life.'"
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/026987.php

Officially Islam is recognised and categorised as a religion...  globally...  you cannot get away from that fact.

yawn...  skipeeee.
You'll find what I said completely correct.
Now piss off like a good troll eh.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 10:13am:

Officially Islam is recognised and categorised as a religion...  globally...  you cannot get away from that fact.

'Officially', the Pope is a Catholic.




My point being....

Just because moslems insist that ISLAM is a tolerant, peaceful, religion, does not automatically make it so.

Shouldn't a supposedly, tolerant, peaceful, religion, have to meet certain criteria, to be deemed so?

LIKE FOR EXAMPLE,
......HAVING RELIGIOUS TEXTS, WHICH DO NOT ENDORSE, AND ENCOURAGE, THEIR FOLLOWERS TO MURDER THOSE WHO DO NOT SUBMIT THEIR 'RELIGION'?

I'm sure everyone here is aware of that argument I have read it ad nauseum.
I didn't need to because I am already aware of Islam and the Koran and the Haddiths etc.  I am also aware of Muslim behaviour globally.

Point being it is still regarded as a religion.
And it is.
Even if it is not one we'd follow.

The only way to minimise its impact on us here socially would be to ban it from further migration intakes. yet even that move would create other problems for us globally. unfortunately.

Also I think those Moslems already here would not appreciate the fact and of course we all know how they react when they are unhappy.

I said.....


Yadda wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 10:22am:

Just because moslems insist that ISLAM is a tolerant, peaceful, religion, does not automatically make it so. Shouldn't a supposedly, tolerant, peaceful, religion, have to meet certain criteria, to be deemed so? LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, ......HAVING RELIGIOUS TEXTS, WHICH DO NOT ENDORSE, AND ENCOURAGE, THEIR FOLLOWERS TO MURDER THOSE WHO DO NOT SUBMIT THEIR 'RELIGION'?

For example....

The Hadith states....

"A man came to the Prophet and asked, "A man fights for war booty; another fights for fame and a third fights for showing off; which of them fights in Allah's Cause?" The Prophet said, "He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause." "
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.065


"He who fights that Allah's Word (i.e. Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause."

Fighting non-moslems is 'religiously' encouraged, to make ISLAM superior, over non-moslem systems of government.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 10:26am:

I'm sure everyone here is aware of that argument I have read it ad nauseum.

Quite so.

But please now, take the assumption onto Main Street, Australia, that ISLAM is a religion.

And ask typical Australians if they feel that, that is so [that ISLAM is a religion].

Not many would deny it.

And that, is the problem, so few people are willing to inform themselves about the issue of ISLAM, and what it intends, for their lives.




We should, we must, educate ourselves about ISLAM.

And not blithely accept what lying, treacherous, moslems, tell use, about ISLAM!

Well the atheists aren't going to care all religion is crap to them.

Most western "religious" people see their society as secular and belief a personal thing.

The only time people will lose their apathy is when an atrocity is committed by the Muslims.

But even then the government and the politicians will not act against a Muslims as a group.

grendel - from my experience athiests don't really care what "interests" nonathiests have.
Which is quite mature.

But they are concerned if they are forced to live under the laws of some ideology that they have no say in.
Any ideology.

I would too.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 11:05am:

Well the atheists aren't going to care all religion is crap to them. Most western "religious" people see their society as secular and belief a personal thing. The only time people will lose their apathy is when an atrocity is committed by the Muslims. But even then the government and the politicians will not act against a Muslims as a group.

True.

That, is the political world we all live in today.

Expediency rather than principle, has rule, over what our political leaders consider politically possible.




Dictionary,
expedient = = convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.

Quote:

grendel - from my experience athiests don't really care what "interests" nonathiests have. Which is quite mature.

Really?

2 points.

1/  That is in agreement with my point about apathy.

2/ If the atheists here are anything to go by their somewhat feral carrying on belies the "don't care" point.

Good luck sprint, maybe after they ban muslims, we could have a go at getting rid of christians, all that piety just makes me feel guilty for having too much fun. :)

If it feels good, it must be a sin,lol.

mozzaok wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 12:10pm:

Good luck sprint, maybe after they ban muslims, we could have a go at getting rid of christians, all that piety just makes me feel guilty for having too much fun. :) If it feels good, it must be a sin,lol.

Atheistic scambags have tried to get rid of Christians in USSR and miserably failed despite of killing tens of millions of innocent people.

thanks mozzaok :-)

Can I join you in the "toomuchfun" club ??

Mozz you have a weird view about Christians... and how they live, think,...  etc, etc, etc

Whose your template for the stereotype?  Father Mapple?  Nope he's too jolly for that...  some Quakers perhaps or the Amish.   :D

Oh those Christians  :D

Cult of the con man: corpse hidden in toilet

A US judge sentenced the leader of a religious sect [Alan Bushey] to two years in prison for hiding [Alvina Middlesworth] an elderly follower's rotting body on a toilet for weeks.

And his defence ???


Quote:

Bushey thought God would bring Middlesworth back to life. "A miracle like that is part of the Christian faith," [his lawyer] said. "He truly believed she would come back from the dead." "I should have called the coroner and leave the supernatural to God," Bushey said.

Yep... that and kept yer mitts off her social security cheques.

That your idea of the "standard" Christian Helian?   :D :D :D :D :D

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 1:02pm:

That your idea of the "standard" Christian Helian?   :D :D :D :D :D

Not at all, Grendel....


A real one would have chopped her up and eaten her :D :D :D :D :D

Oh I thought that was Cannibalism are you getting confused with Catholicism perhaps.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 1:06pm:

Oh I thought that was Cannibalism are you getting confused with Catholicism perhaps.

Not at all Grendel...

The defence would be "I was acting literally on communion rites... Maybe I should have bought me a side of lamb and left communion with wafers".

Atheists in atheist states like USSR engaged in cannibalism on many occasions.

Why do you think I mentioned Catholicism Helian...  not all Christians are Catholic you know.
You do know...  right?

tallowood wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 1:24pm:

Atheists in atheist states like USSR engaged in cannibalism on many occasions.

You should know a lot about cannibalism tallow, the Christians have practised it for two thousand years.
Every sip of blood (wine)at communion and every bit of flesh(wafer)represents eating Christ.Yummy.

wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 1:40pm:

tallowood wrote on Jul 23rd, 2009 at 1:24pm: Atheists in atheist states like USSR engaged in cannibalism on many occasions. You should know a lot about cannibalism tallow, the Christians have practised it for two thousand years. Every sip of blood (wine)at communion and every bit of flesh(wafer)represents eating Christ.Yummy.

It is good to know that you believe in existence of Christ but there is a lot of difference between eating real human flesh as atheists did and symbolic partaking of pastry and wine.

tallowood wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 1:58pm:

wrote on Jul 23rd, 2009 at 1:40pm: tallowood wrote on Jul 23rd, 2009 at 1:24pm: Atheists in atheist states like USSR engaged in cannibalism on many occasions. You should know a lot about cannibalism tallow, the Christians have practised it for two thousand years. Every sip of blood (wine)at communion and every bit of flesh(wafer)represents eating Christ.Yummy. It is good to know that you believe in existence of Christ but there is a lot of difference between eating real human flesh as atheists did and symbolic partaking of pastry and wine.

Actually there are about 350 thousand sites on Christian cannibalism, would you like a link?
Interesting enough if you google atheist cannibalism you only get 116 thousand sites, those bloody Christians even beat the atheists at cannibalism.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 1:31pm:

Why do you think I mentioned Catholicism Helian...  not all Christians are Catholic you know. You do know...  right?

(Oops... that's right... humour's not your strong suit)

Well that'd be the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, Mennonites, Presbyterians, the Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, Methodists, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Latter Day Saints (even)... to name a few.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 2:56pm:

(Oops... that's right... humour's not your strong suit)

helian,


I for one, do not like your 'sense' of humour [....used for diversion / avoidance of culpability].


"Multiculti death of Australian National Identity"
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1244629294/18#18

Nice flame helian water off my back...

I have a fine sense of humour actually.  I'd say it's a lot healthier than yours even.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 4:38pm:

Nice flame helian water off my back... I have a fine sense of humour actually.  I'd say it's a lot healthier than yours even.

You've got no humour... and you're as uppity as a bitch.

I've got a great sense of humour...  you wouldn't have a clue not even knowing me.

I choose not to insult and flame you or comment on you personally.
pity you cant be as civil.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 4:55pm:

I've got a great sense of humour...  you wouldn't have a clue not even knowing me. I choose not to insult and flame you or comment on you personally. pity you cant be as civil.

Did you really think I was commenting on the commonality of or implying parallels with cannibalism to the Eucharist in Christian services when I quipped that "a real Christian would have chopped her up and eaten her"? Did you really think I intended to imply that Christians make a habit of chopping up and eating old women?

In had no idea what you were on about really...  but I decided to go with a play on Cannibalism and Catholicism.  It's the only one that made any sort of sense.

All of which has no relevance to the topic something you seem to be becoming known for.

Grendel wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2009 at 5:27pm:

In had no idea what you were on about really...  but I decided to go with a play on Cannibalism and Catholicism.  It's the only one that made any sort of sense. All of which has no relevance to the topic something you seem to be becoming known for.

Yairs, of course... You're an excellent driver