clear the way apologetic weakwristed lefties, the free world has voted.


Quote:

...................Another shift this month came on national security and the War on Terror, an issue viewed as very important to 67% of voters. That’s a six-point jump from last month and puts the issue in fourth place on the list................ ................ The majority of voters (51%) say the president is not being aggressive enough in dealing with Iran's controversial nuclear program.............

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/importance_of_issues

more good news


Quote:

Last week the ABC 702 radio presenter Deborah Cameron referred to the "so-called terror trial in Parramatta". On Friday, after deliberating for over a month, a jury at the Supreme Court returned guilty verdicts against five men on terrorism charges. The jurors were unaware that four other men, charged following the same police investigation, had already pleaded guilty and had been sentenced. Clearly the jury was convinced, beyond reasonable doubt, that the five men acted in the preparation of a terrorist act. Certainly the evidence, albeit circumstantial, was overwhelming. There were numerous intercepted conversations and telephone buggings and some of the men had collected large quantities of weapons and ammunition, along with chemicals that could be used in constructing explosive devices. What was a "so-called terror trial" to an ABC presenter in Ultimo was the real thing to the men and women of the jury in Parramatta. In her initial report of the jury's decision on The World Today on Friday, Philippa McDonald, even after the guilty findings, was still referring to what had been "alleged" against the men. She editorialised the case was "hugely circumstantial" and maintained it "had to be said that, for a lot of the Crown case, the defence came back with something else". There is considerable evidence that members of what is best termed the civil liberties lobby - including some journalists, lawyers and academics - do not want to accept that a few men in Western societies want to engage in violent jihad. The evident cynicism is not confined to Australia but extends to Britain and the United States, where acts of violence by militant Islamists have occurred. Writing in The Australian in 2006, Phillip Adams identified with the cynics within the left and the Muslim world concerning the reported attempt to use liquid explosives to bring down seven airliners flying from Heathrow in Britain to the US and Canada. He went so far as to hint all this might have been a distraction to divert attention from the political difficulties of the then British Labour prime minister, Tony Blair. Antony Loewenstein, a high-profile critic of Israel, supported Adams in the Crikey newsletter. Loewenstein maintained the Heathrow incident might have been a political concoction. Once again, a jury found otherwise. Last month, three British Muslims were convicted of planning a series of suicide/homicide attacks against trans-Atlantic airlines. The case was documented in the first-class BBC Panorama documentary Terror in the Skies, shown here on Four Corners last month. The program showed the "suicide" videos recorded by the terrorists before the intended attacks were thwarted by British police and intelligence services. The evidence suggests the threat to Australia from local citizens and residents is less than in Britain or the US. Even so, it is real enough as several recent cases - before last week's verdict - attest. - On September 25, Justice Megan Latham sentenced Bilal Khazal to a non-parole period of nine years. Khazal had been found guilty by a jury of the offence of making a document connected with assistance in a terrorist act. The judge found the prisoner had not demonstrated any remorse or contrition. - On September 2, in the Victorian Supreme Court, Justice Bernard Bongiorno sentenced Shane Kent, who had pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organisation and making a document connected with preparation for a terrorist act, to a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The judge noted that Kent, a convert to Islam, was not contrite for his actions. Moreover, he did not accept that Kent had abandoned the cause of violent jihad. - On February 3, Bongiorno sentenced seven men who had been found guilty in Victoria of knowingly being members of a terrorist organisation. Some of this group were also convicted of other terrorism offences. In handing down his sentences, the judge commented about the unwillingness of the prisoners to renounce violent jihad. - Justice Anthony Whealy made a similar finding when sentencing Faheem Lodhi, in the NSW Supreme Court in 2006, to a non-parole period of 15 years for a terrorism- related offence. It is not as if those convicted of terrorism offences in Australia in recent years have come up against an unfair system - despite complaints reported in the media by some of their family members and supporters. In all the cases cited above, judges have gone out of their way to ensure a fair trial. And juries have exercised considerable caution, including reaching some "not guilty" findings. Also, Justices Bongiorno and Whealy expressed valid concerns about the extremely harsh conditions experienced by some prisoners. The fact is that guilty verdicts have been reached, and relatively tough sentences handed out, on account of evidence which led to convictions beyond reasonable doubt. ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and state police forces tend to receive criticism. However, the convictions in the terrorism-related cases in both NSW and Victoria demonstrate that Australia's intelligence and police services have done a first-rate job in protecting the liberties of all of us.

Quote:

The fact is that guilty verdicts have been reached, and relatively tough sentences handed out, on account of evidence which led to convictions beyond reasonable doubt. ASIO, the Australian Federal Police and state police forces tend to receive criticism. However, the convictions in the terrorism-related cases in both NSW and Victoria demonstrate that Australia's intelligence and police services have done a first-rate job in protecting the liberties of all of us. The same can be said for our politicians. The present terrorism legislation is the product of agreement between the Coalition and Labor in Parliament. Most - if not all - of the convictions have been assisted by the much derided terrorism help-line set up by the Howard government. Among those providing evidence against terrorism have been Australian Muslims. Clearly, they are not convinced that terrorism deserves the "so-called" label.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/judges-and-juries-called-it-as-they-saw-it-20091019-h4xq.html

Quote:

GENEVA (AFP) – Switzerland on Sunday voted to ban new minarets from being built, with a clear majority of the population backing an initiative by far-right politicians. To the dismay of the Muslim minority here, some 57.5 percent of the population and 22 out of 26 cantons voted to ban the towers or turrets attached on mosques from where Muslims are called to prayer. Far-right politicians across Europe celebrated the results, while the Swiss government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture." The Swiss People's Party (SVP) -- Switzerland's biggest party -- had forced a referendum under Swiss regulations on the issue after collecting 100,000 signatures within 18 months from eligible voters. They said that the minarets -- of which Switzerland has four -- were not architectural features with religious characteristics, but symbolised a "political-religious claim to power, which challenges fundamental rights." Having won a double majority -- both in terms of cantons and absolute numbers -- from the 53 percent of the population who turned up to vote, the initiative will now be inscribed in the country's constitution. "The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted," said the government, which had firmly opposed the ban, in a statement. Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf said the result "reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies." "These concerns have to be taken seriously... However, the Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies," she stressed. She also sought to reassure the Muslim population, saying: "Today's popular decision is only directed against the construction of new minarets. "It is not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture. Of that, the Federal Council gives its assurance." But for the 400,000-strong Muslim community here, comprised mainly of ex-Yugoslav and Turkish migrants, the harm has been done. "The most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community," said Farhad Afshar, who heads the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland. The Conference of Swiss Bishops also criticised the result, saying that it "heightens the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures." Amnesty International said the minaret ban is a "violation of religious freedom, incompatible with the conventions signed by Switzerland." "The initiators (of the referendum) have unfortunately managed to exploit fears towards Islam and stirred up xenophobic sentiments, it's regrettable," said Daniel Bolomey, who heads the Swiss chapter of the rights group. In Morocco, a parliamentarian from the Justice and Development Islamist Party expressed surprise at the result. "I think that Muslims in Switzerland, and those who live in the European Union, have a lot of work to do in communication to show their real face of tolerance and cohabitation of Islam," said Saad Eddine Othmani. French far-right politician Marine Le Pen meanwhile welcomed the outcome. The "elites should stop denying the aspirations and fears of the European people, who, without opposing religious freedom, reject ostentatious signs that political-religious Muslim groups want to impose, often at the limit of provocation," said the vice-president of the French National Front party. Meanwhile, SVP Vice-President Yvan Perrin cheered the fact that his party had won the vote "without difficulty." He told Radio Suisse Romande that Swiss companies should not worry about suffering from a possible backlash from Muslim countries. "If our companies continue to make good quality products, they have nothing to worry about," he said. Noting that the Swiss had made their decision after months of debate on the issue, he said: "We won respectably."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091129/ts_afp/switzerlandreferendumislamreligion

Bad that far right parties interpret the referendum result as a battle cry... They will now have to be managed. But good that political Islam is being confronted.

Political Islam, like political Christianity, is in direct opposition to secular democracy. It is a disease that must be eradicated.

yes, any religion has no place in the political arena

Any belief should be a voluntary personal choice

I gotta agree I think this is great news.

Why you might ask?

1) Minarets are not even a part of Islam. They are a superfluous decoration, some would even say an innovation.

2) Although they think they're targetting "Islamists" and opposing them, they're in fact pleasing them. The "Islamists" are most likely to be the most against minarets themselves, and would probably have no problem with this decision.

3) The "moderates" are probably the only ones who are really attached to the idea of minarets, and so they'd perceive this as an attack on Islam, and it will make them more fertile for recruitment to the more "Islamist" viewpoint.

Win-win situation if you ask me. The Euro-centrists think they've gained some ground against Islam, and in the meantime it strengthens the ranks of the Muslims, and gets rid of an unwanted innovation anyway  ;D

I doubt they'd be pleased, but.

They'll see it for what it is... A line in the sand against political Islam.

But if Muslims can live with it... well, all the better for everyone.

What the west has to watch now is the over-confidence of the far right.

Quote:

I doubt they'd be pleased, but.

The only views I've seen expressed by Muslims so far are "Minarets aren't a part of Islam anyway, so no skin off our collective noses". Also, in fact this would probably lead to more mosques being built, since Islamic groups aren't going to be wasting money on the decorations, and therefore can spend more on other Islamic centres.

The only worries expressed are that it's a "sign of things to come", ie. that this is a testing of the waters for harsher measures against Muslims. Personally I don't think it's the case, but then again, Jews in pre-WWII Europe didn't think that either about some of the measures that were undertaken back then.


Quote:

They'll see it for what it is... A line in the sand against political Islam.

A line in the sand against political Islam?? How so? It's a ban on something not even sanctioned by Islam. It is nothing but a symbolic measure, to appear as if they're addressing peoples xenophobic grievances. It's a joke really, it does nothing to political Islam whatsoever. In fact the most politically active Islamist groups usually don't even engage in building mosques. This statement really highlights how ignorant you are about this area helian. As I already stated, this is a win for Islamist groups, since it will push the "moderates" even closer to them, since they are the ones who busy themselves with building mosques and will now perceive the attack on Islam as beginning. Islamist groups usually set themselves up in temporary rented premises and usually do not concern themselves with building landmarks. The Swiss are not very smart if you ask me.


Quote:

What the west has to watch now is the over-confidence of the far right.

Well it is bound to embolden them. Along with other recent developments like appointing of said right-wing nuts to positions in the EU parliament.


Quote:

Political Islam, like political Christianity, is in direct opposition to secular democracy. It is a disease that must be eradicated.

If you truly believed in Democracy, then you'd have no problem with political Islam or political Christianity. So you don't actually believe in Democracy?

lol, you really are a character Abu, have you no shame, all this frivolous joking about at Islam's expense?


Quote:

If you truly believed in Democracy, then you'd have no problem with political Islam or political Christianity. So you don't actually believe in Democracy?

-Abu

lmao, Even Islam has problems with political Islam.
In fact, I cannot think of a single person, place or thing on the entire planet, that does not have problems with political Islam.
If you look up the definition of problem in the dictionary, it should read, "bloody political Islam".

how i wish all apologetics would see islams mindset
this is classic
Quote:

I gotta agree I think this is great news. Why you might ask? 1) Minarets are not even a part of Islam. They are a superfluous decoration, some would even say an innovation. 2) Although they think they're targetting "Islamists" and opposing them, they're in fact pleasing them. The "Islamists" are most likely to be the most against minarets themselves, and would probably have no problem with this decision. 3) The "moderates" are probably the only ones who are really attached to the idea of minarets, and so they'd perceive this as an attack on Islam, and it will make them more fertile for recruitment to the more "Islamist" viewpoint. Win-win situation if you ask me. The Euro-centrists think they've gained some ground against Islam, and in the meantime it strengthens the ranks of the Muslims, and gets rid of an unwanted innovation anyway

what abu is saying is : opposing muslims makes them crazier and more extreme.
so you should just ALL roll over and give up on democracy and a life.

abu - you represent your oppressive sexist arbitrary violent mindless unspiritual belief well.

Hard to argue against the point about them getting crazier sprint, if the logic in Abu's post is any indication.


Quote:

1) Minarets are not even a part of Islam. They are a superfluous decoration, some would even say an innovation. 2) Although they think they're targetting "Islamists" and opposing them, they're in fact pleasing them. The "Islamists" are most likely to be the most against minarets themselves, and would probably have no problem with this decision. 3) The "moderates" are probably the only ones who are really attached to the idea of minarets, and so they'd perceive this as an attack on Islam, and it will make them more fertile for recruitment to the more "Islamist" viewpoint.

So if I may paraphrase, to try and provide a little clarity;
Minarets are not part of Islam.
Hard line extremist Islamists, are against minarets.
Moderate muslims are pro Minarets(why this would be so if they are not part of Islam is another mystery we may have to wait for allah to explain)

So the moderate muslims, who like minarets, that are not Islamic, will be so outraged by restrictions placed on building minarets, that they will join with the people who do not like minarets at all, the Islamists.
They will then join forces to protest about this outrage???

But will they protest for or against minarets?
I am not at all sure they will know which way to jump, and perhaps it is the stress of all this indecision which leads them to wish to blow themselves up.
Maybe if they join the Islamists who do not like minarets, they could just blow up minarets, and leave the rest of us out of it. : )

mozza,

As usual you gotta play the goose, a part you're extremely adept at.

Nowhere did I state anyone is anti-Minaret. It's more a case of those who like them for their aesthetic purposes (normally the more moderate Muslims) who Switzerland has just decided to alienate, out of their immense wisdom. And then there's those who are indifferent, mostly Islamists, who the Swiss actually think they're targetting by this, and who some think will be halted by this so called "line in the sand".

Quite simply put, this is a token action, which merely alienates those Muslims the West claims are acceptable to them, whilst not bothering the supposed Muslims the West claims are the troublemakers.

Note: The terms "Moderate" and "Islamist" are used purely for your benefit. No such actual concrete divisions like this exist, but it seems to be the only way "Westerners" are able to comprehend Muslims.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 12:55pm:

Hard to argue against the point about them getting crazier sprint, if the logic in Abu's post is any indication. Quote: 1) Minarets are not even a part of Islam. They are a superfluous decoration, some would even say an innovation. 2) Although they think they're targetting "Islamists" and opposing them, they're in fact pleasing them. The "Islamists" are most likely to be the most against minarets themselves, and would probably have no problem with this decision. 3) The "moderates" are probably the only ones who are really attached to the idea of minarets, and so they'd perceive this as an attack on Islam, and it will make them more fertile for recruitment to the more "Islamist" viewpoint. So if I may paraphrase, to try and provide a little clarity; Minarets are not part of Islam. Hard line extremist Islamists, are against minarets. Moderate muslims are pro Minarets(why this would be so if they are not part of Islam is another mystery we may have to wait for allah to explain) So the moderate muslims, who like minarets, that are not Islamic, will be so outraged by restrictions placed on building minarets, that they will join with the people who do not like minarets at all, the Islamists. They will then join forces to protest about this outrage??? But will they protest for or against minarets? I am not at all sure they will know which way to jump, and perhaps it is the stress of all this indecision which leads them to wish to blow themselves up. Maybe if they join the Islamists who do not like minarets, they could just blow up minarets, and leave the rest of us out of it. : )

You've got it! You have mastered Mohammedan logic and rhetoric. Minarets, stoning - what's the difference?

'Mo Abu, are you for minarets or against them?'

'Clearly'




http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/09/24/texts/

Quote:

As usual you gotta play the goose, a part you're extremely adept at.

lol, well clearly I do try to maintain a wee bit of humour about this subject, and you must admit, you did provide the opening, just begging for the bus to go through it.


If I were to be serious about the subject, I would be, as always, confused, and conflicted, because I can never see any way I could ever categorise any mass of people as being good, or bad, because of the accident of birth, which saw one religion, or another, foisted upon them without their consent.
I would also acknowledge the fact that Islam, and muslims, cause a grossly disproportionate degree of violence, and would ask why they, as a collective group, refuse to accept, or address that.
I really believe that our own propensity for good, and evil, is dramatically altered by our own experiences, and your point about driving moderates, into the arms of extremists, is a very valid one, and one which many here have agreed with you on.

I flat out reject all the silly notions of whole swathes of people being good or evil, becasuse of their religion, but I do recognise that Islam is a massive focal point for violent extremists, and while that continues, many will oversimplify that to mean Islam, and/or muslims are evil.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 11:41am:

Personally I don't think it's the case, but then again, Jews in pre-WWII Europe didn't think that either about some of the measures that were undertaken back then.

I don't believe it's the case either but it would be some black irony... Muslims in solidarity with Jews. ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 11:41am:

A line in the sand against political Islam?? How so? It's a ban on something not even sanctioned by Islam. It is nothing but a symbolic measure, to appear as if they're addressing peoples xenophobic grievances. It's a joke really, it does nothing to political Islam whatsoever. In fact the most politically active Islamist groups usually don't even engage in building mosques. This statement really highlights how ignorant you are about this area helian. As I already stated, this is a win for Islamist groups, since it will push the "moderates" even closer to them, since they are the ones who busy themselves with building mosques and will now perceive the attack on Islam as beginning. Islamist groups usually set themselves up in temporary rented premises and usually do not concern themselves with building landmarks. The Swiss are not very smart if you ask me.

It is a potent statement nonetheless... And if it does provokes an over-reaction from Muslims, then that will be fuel for a far right over-reaction.


abu_rashid wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 11:41am:

If you truly believed in Democracy, then you'd have no problem with political Islam or political Christianity. So you don't actually believe in Democracy?

If I truly believed in secular democracy, which I do, I would oppose both religious dictatorships and non-religious totalitarianism, which I do.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 1:14pm:

mozza, As usual you gotta play the goose, a part you're extremely adept at. Nowhere did I state anyone is anti-Minaret. It's more a case of those who like them for their aesthetic purposes (normally the more moderate Muslims) who Switzerland has just decided to alienate, out of their immense wisdom. And then there's those who are indifferent, mostly Islamists, who the Swiss actually think they're targetting by this, and who some think will be halted by this so called "line in the sand". Quite simply put, this is a token action, which merely alienates those Muslims the West claims are acceptable to them, whilst not bothering the supposed Muslims the West claims are the troublemakers. Note: The terms "Moderate" and "Islamist" are used purely for your benefit. No such actual concrete divisions like this exist, but it seems to be the only way "Westerners" are able to comprehend Muslims.

Clearly.

more mad muslim doublespeak ..........


Quote:

INDONESIA'S biggest Muslim group condemned today a Swiss vote to ban the construction of new minarets as a manifestation of religious hatred, but urged a restrained response. A majority of Swiss voters yesterday backed a far-right initiative to outlaw new minarets, the towers attached to mosques from which the call to prayer is announced. Maskuri Abdillah, the head of Nahdlatul Ulama which has 40 million members in the world's biggest Muslim-majority country, called on followers not to be provoked by the vote. "This is the hatred of Swiss people against Muslim communities. They don't want to see a Muslim presence in their country and this intense dislike has made them intolerant,'' he said. "It's very regrettable... obviously this is a narrow-minded way of thinking about Muslims.'' He said tolerance was the best answer to intolerance. "We call on Indonesian Muslims not to take revenge over the decision. We should show them tolerance and the freedom of religion,'' Abdillah said, adding that any protests should be peaceful. Nearly 90 per cent of Indonesia's 234 million people are Muslims and most practise a moderate form of the religion, although the country has suffered a spate of extremist attacks.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/vote-shows-hatred-of-muslims/story-fn3dxix6-1225805442625

pushy intolerant muslim runs. The swiss took a vote for themselves in their own country.
why do you have to ask for your mad followers to show a  "restrained response" and   not "be provoked" ? Why, what will they do ?
That's a vieled threat if i ever saw one.

switzerland is NOT a muslim country - it's got NOTHING to do with you.

it is one of the best countries in the world, musim ones are ALL in the lowest arena.

get out of switzerland, get out of england, europe, france  and aussie
noone there likes you.

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 30^th, 2009 at 1:14pm:

(normally the more moderate Muslims) who Switzerland has just decided to alienate, out of their immense wisdom..

You got it back to front, as usual, Comical Ali.

The Swiss voted againt the minarets primarily because the Mohamedans among them are an alien presence. The Muslims come alienated as an opening gambit. It's not for the Swiss to cuddle them. The onus is on the Muslims to eliminate their alien ways (but what's the chance of that?!), not on the Swiss to get used to them.

And because the establishement everywhere, including Switzerland, is relentlessly pushing the multiculturalist line - ie that the locals gotta get used to the alien ways of the Muslims - the locals have told them both to get nicked. "Practice your religion, Ali, but not in my ear, not in my face!!" That's the message. The establishement and the Mohamedans are peeved.

The juxtapostion of a faceless, menacing looking bint in a burqa with missile minarets gets an A+ in Semiology 101.

Quote:

..cause a grossly disproportionate degree of violence...

You gotta be havin' a lend of me 'ere mozza, right??? Muslims would need several millenia to catch up with the Christians, and even worse the atheists in the grossly disproportionate degree of violence category.

Can you show me for instance where all throughout the 1400 year existence of Islam, Muslims were responsible for killing as many as you atheists killed in the Killing Fields of Cambodia? Or during Stalin's purges? Or Mao's Cultural Revolution??? Please do mozza, this should be good... And that's only last century!

Now you've ceased acting the goose, and just come across as a complete fool.

Quote:

I don't believe it's the case either but it would be some black irony... Muslims in solidarity with Jews.

Not that ironic. In fact it was a Jew who first spoke about the similarities between contemporary European views of Muslims and views of Jews a century ago, which led to pogoroms and the like.

"In 1886 the French antisemite Edouard Drumont published 'La France Juive' (Jewish France), creating the false nightmarish image of a France dominated by Jews, and sowing the poisonous seeds which came to fruit when Vichy French officials collaborated in the mass murder of French Jewry. [...] Bat Ye'or follows in notorious footsteps indeed by creating the false nightmarish image of a Europe dominated by Arabs and Muslims." (Israeli peace activist Adam Keller, speaking on Bat Yeor's 'Eurabia' theory)


Quote:

It is a potent statement nonetheless...

Potent statement of bungled stupidity you mean? It achieves absolutely nothing, as I said, other than alienating the people who probably seek the most to co-operate with them.


Quote:

And if it does provokes an over-reaction from Muslims, then that will be fuel for a far right over-reaction.

I doubt it'll provoke an "over-reaction", as I said, it'll probably just quietly drive those who were more towards the moderate end of the scale, a little closer to the other end. Which is really counter-productive to what the West has been working to achieve so far (ie. the creation of a climate amongst Muslims that was envisioned in the Rand Report).


Quote:

I would oppose both religious dictatorships and non-religious totalitarianism, which I do.

But there is no Islamic religious dictatorship in Switzerland. And the claim they were working towards it, but now we've halted that, by stopping them building little towers next to their places of worship is just stupendous, to say the least..

FKWT abu - show me in the athiests "rule book" where it says athiests should rule the world, by whatever means?

idiot.

athiests are pretty much the most ethical people I have ever argued against.
taoists and buddhists are right up there too.


the sexist, violent dominating laws are from mohammad the child buggerer.

Quote:

You gotta be havin' a lend of me 'ere mozza, right??? Muslims would need several millenia to catch up with the Christians, and even worse the atheists in the grossly disproportionate degree of violence category.

Well Abu, naturally, for most of the millenia when they were an insignificant backwater religion, they did not have as large an impact as the dominant religions and cultures of the day, and certainly were not involved in as many big wars as the christians, so historically I agree that christians do have a very bloody history.

However, we are discussing the modern muslim, the muslim emboldened by the success in Iran of their extremist brothers, and in that context, we could say they are pretty bloody violent.

Now if we just look at the 15,000 or so terror attacks that Muslims have carried out since 9/11, we do get a picture of a less than peaceful, homogenous group of devout people, merely trying to go about their own business.

If we look to all the trouble spots around the globe, we do not have to look far to find a muslim support base for that violence.

What is also of great concern is the muslim's terror organisations move into major drug trafficking, with huge amounts of Heroin, Cocaine, Ecstasy, and Speed, being transported and protected by groups like Al Quaeda, for the twofold benefit of their cause, to get money for weapons, and to see the youth of western democracies given even greater access to addictive drugs.

Now if the west were the only ones to suffer, that would be bad enough, but when we see the young muslims along this nefarious drug trail, also falling prey to this massive trade, well then we must question the claims these extremists make, that they are righteous men, doing god's work.

I remain totally unapologetic for stating that muslims are at the centre of most violent conflicts in the world today, and while I accept it takes two to tango, very often the two involved, are muslim brothers, killing over which brand of Islam to believe, not just fighting against foreign powers like australia, who are trying to bring peace to their region, and aid them in getting to the point where they can provide their own security, for their own people, from such extremist muslims promoting, and spreading violence across the world, and amomgst themselves.

If muslims could clean up their act, the west would happily be out of there like a shot.

As well we have Abu's claim of driving moderates to extremism by the minaret decision, well even though I agree to some extent with that remark, I wold qualify it by saying that extremists, who declare moderates "apostate", are creating the fear of retribution in the muslim community for any who do not toe their extremist line, and I would contend that, that is a far greater influence on causing moderate muslims to remain silent about the gross misdeeds of the extremists, than the attitudes of sovereign nations trying to protect their own cultural identity.

I wonder if we did a count of Muslim deaths - even those who didn't die immediately from shrapnel or DU, would it equal or surpass those from the West who have been killed by Muslims?

These wars are political - it's all about oil, even the pipeline through Afghanistan is the major reason we are over there.

Yes there are terrorists, but we also have to include ourselves. Our weapons are more sophisticated so cause a lot more collateral damage. I'm not excusing all Muslims as many of them are barbaric, but those old western puppet masters are sitting back, plotting, planning and pulling strings for the sake of profit at the expense of human lives.

We should have left them alone, regardless of the wealth some of these Muslim nations contain and got on with our own business. If we had we wouldn't have to accept the deluge of refugees and immigrants that we complain so much about.

The trouble with leaving "them" alone, is when we have tried that, they have given us, Al Quaeda, and the Taliban.
Unfortunately, until they show a desire, and ability, to self regulate, then leaving them alone is not a safe option for the world to even consider.
It is akin to asking society (the west) to leave a violent delinquent youth(Islamists), with deadbeat parents(the great muslim ummah), to his own devices, and hope he does not get into too much mischief.

So either the deadbeat parents step up, and get their bad kid in line, or society does the best it can in the meantime.

mantra wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 7:17am:

We should have left them alone, regardless of the wealth some of these Muslim nations contain and got on with our own business. If we had we wouldn't have to accept the deluge of refugees and immigrants that we complain so much about.

Just a few facts from the Immigration update. It's good to argue on the basis of factual data:


Quote:

Australia’s net permanent addition was 129 017, an increase of 7.7 per cent over the previous year. On a regional basis, Europe (20.7 per cent) was the largest contributor followed by Oceania (16.2 per cent), Southern Asia (16.0 per cent) and Northeast Asia (15.1 per cent). The United Kingdom (15.0 per cent) was the single largest birthplace group followed by New Zealand (13.4 per cent), India (11.0 per cent), China (excl. SARs & Taiwan) (10.3 per cent) South Africa (3.8 per cent) and the Philippines (3.6 per cent). There were 158 292 permanent additions under the Migration (non-Humanitarian) Program with the Skill Stream accounting for 107 469, an additional 50 680 under the Family Stream and 143 under Special Eligibility. There were a further 11 729 permanent additions under the Humanitarian Program. Compared with the 2006-07 financial year, permanent additions under the Migration Program increased by 7.1 per cent. Permanent additions under the Humanitarian Program decreased by 17.2 per cent.

Those figures will show a continued decrease in humanitarian program uptakes in 2008-9 based on current policies. The priority has been shifted to Skill Stream. We still have an enormous shortfall in some skills, such as nursing (we need an extra 40,000), doctors (about 2000 all up) teachers (estimated around 30,000) and engineers (28000).

They estimate that we need an increase in nursing graduates of 120% to remedy that shortfall. A friend who is a newly graduated nurse told me that from a class of 36 nursing students, only 6 passed this year. She was one of the lucky ones.

And while we're arguing using factual data...

Of the 13.4% who are from New Zealand - the second highest immigrant group, none were chosen necessarily for required skills, probably none were checked for a criminal history (those who were refused, if any, on the basis of not being of good character, would have been the most serious of criminals or those previously deported from Australia) and none are necessarily required to find work (so long as they can stick out the waiting period before being eligible for the dole)...

Puts the fear of Middle Eastern and Oriental asylum seekers into a bit of perspective.

mozza,


Quote:

The trouble with leaving "them" alone, is when we have tried that, they have given us, Al Quaeda, and the Taliban.

When exactly was "leaving them alone" supposedly trialled?? The Western nations have not ceased their meddling in the Muslim world since the end of the colonial period.

Here's an interesting quote from an ex-President of the U.S regarding the West's "leaving" the Muslim world alone:

"There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people." The National Security Council discussed that question and said, "Yes, and the reason is, there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct."

Can you guess which President? Hint, he wasn't a post-9/11 president...

The circular argument that the West has to interfere in the Middle East because of 9/11 is just ludicrous. The meddling predates that event by decades, and some honest analysts of the situation have quite openly stated that those decades of meddling, bombing, coups, support of brutal regimes, arming the Zionist occupation to the teeth etc. were probably what led to 9/11 and other aggressions from the Muslim world. Wake up mozza...

Quote:

Of the 13.4% who are from New Zealand... none were checked for a criminal history... none are necessarily required to find work (so long as they can stick out the waiting period before being eligible for the dole)... Puts the fear of Middle Eastern and Oriental asylum seekers into a bit of perspective.

Are you saying we should rightfully direct our anti-immigrant hatred at sprint instead of the afghans and iraqis?  ;D

abu_rashid wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 12:40pm:

Quote: Of the 13.4% who are from New Zealand... none were checked for a criminal history... none are necessarily required to find work (so long as they can stick out the waiting period before being eligible for the dole)... Puts the fear of Middle Eastern and Oriental asylum seekers into a bit of perspective. Are you saying we should rightfully direct our anti-immigrant hatred at sprint instead of the afghans and iraqis?  ;D

Well, I guess being the naturally decent people we Australians are and given our inclinations of overwrought largesse towards trans-Tasman plane-people... I guess we will take his word for it that he's skilled, of good character and has a job...

After all plane-people don't lie...

Do they?  

;)

Quote:

These wars are political - it's all about oil, even the pipeline through Afghanistan is the major reason we are over there.

One little correction mantra, that's the reason the U.S is over there. The other coalition partners negotiated their share of the war booty, Australia did not. It seems as if Howard took us there purely so he could hang off Bush's coat-tails, and was too scared to even raise the issue of a share in the booty, lest Bush give him the flick and he would've missed out on all those photoshoots.