Quote:

Derek Fenton, Koran-burning transit worker fired from his job after Ground Zero protest, re-hired A Koran-burning New Jersey Transit worker, fired for his protest near Ground Zero last Sept. 11, is getting his job back - along with an extra $25,000 for his troubles. [...] Earlier, the 11-year NJ Transit employee released a defiant statement. "Our government cannot pick and choose whose free speech rights are protected, based on whether or not they approve of the context of our statements or actions," Fenton said. http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/04/22/2011-04-22_derek_fenton_koranburning_transit_worker_fired_from_his_job_after_ground_zero_pr.html

Muslims and others who are driven by a desire to experience FREEDOM should think upon the chance of being offended when some person decides to burn their alleged holy book, the Qur'an.

It appears that some US officials, including State Governors, never studied the USA Constitution.

Do muslims have the right to protest? Yes. Do denizens of Western countries have the right to protest about islam and its totemism? Yes.

Perhaps Western governments fear that such stupid displays actually damage their interests in the Muslim world?

After all, if U.S citizens keep burning holy books, Saudi citizens are going to start asking their government why they flog all their oil off so cheap to the U.S... better to keep them docile and open handed no?

Personally I think it's great, as it will wake the Muslim masses up to the reality of the relationship their sold out leaders are engaged in.

Some some guy burning a Koran in New York will awaken the Muslim masses on the other side of the world to what their own government is doing?

It obviously already is. These kinds of open acts, are causing Muslims everywhere to reject their governments' alliances with the West, and to demand they step down from power. They might not be the sole motivating factor, but they're certainly part of it. Many Muslims, until recently have been deluded into thinking the West were their friends and well wishers... that is all changing of late, dramatically.

And for the better if you ask me.

Anyway I think this entire thread is moot, since it seems like the vast majority of growth within Australia's Muslim community, and probably America's too is going to be through means other than immigration. Conversion and higher birth rate will probably contribute far more in the long run to the growth of Muslims in Western countries than immigration will. Especially since the conversion rate seems to be snowballing, as more and more people embrace Islam, it raises the profile of the religion amongst their compatriots.

Abu, do you think this is a fair immigration policy?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/immigration.html

I think it's a naive immigration policy, as it assumes that the only people who have qualms with democracy are illegal immigrants trying to get in here. The fact is most of the asylum seekers trying to get in here have no problem with democracy, the vast majority of people who have a problem with it are probably born here.

Also it makes the assumption that you can effectively screen for such things. If someone really has a desire to sneak in here and destroy democracy from within (as your delusion would have it), then wouldn't they also have no qualms about lying to get in to do it?

The idea that immigration policies have any relevance to religious extremism is just childish at best.

Not to mention the fact that the idea religious extremism is a problem is also pretty way off. If you're referring to Muslims here (as it seems you are), then until you wake up and realise the problem is not religion, it's Western aggressions against the Muslim world, then you're not going to be able to accurately analyse the situation.

Yes, but what about the claims that these primative Muslim types want to get in and destroy the place because they are inherently backward and tinted? You must admit, they present a pretty sound argument.

FD wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 3:59pm:

Yes, but what about the claims that these primative Muslim types want to get in and destroy the place because they are inherently backward and tinted? You must admit, they present a pretty sound argument.

Thats what these original owners of this land said when the pale face invaded with guns, violence, disease and theft

http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg

Quote:

it assumes that the only people who have qualms with democracy are illegal immigrants trying to get in here.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with the 'queue jumper' debate. If they are illegals then they are already here illegally.


Quote:

If someone really has a desire to sneak in here and destroy democracy from within (as your delusion would have it), then wouldn't they also have no qualms about lying to get in to do it?

You tell me Abu. For many people, the opposition to democracy is part of a broader ideology that is also opposed to lying. As someone who opposes democracy, how would you handle this situation if you ever found yourself in it?


Quote:

The idea that immigration policies have any relevance to religious extremism is just childish at best.

One of the advantages of the proposed policy is that it is not about religion.

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 4:01pm:

FD wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 3:59pm: Yes, but what about the claims that these primative Muslim types want to get in and destroy the place because they are inherently backward and tinted? You must admit, they present a pretty sound argument. Thats what these original owners of this land said when the pale face invaded with guns, violence, disease and theft http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg

Not exactly. At first they made friends with the paleface. It wasn't until about 8 years later that things started turning sour.

FD wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 5:39pm:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 4:01pm: FD wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 3:59pm: Yes, but what about the claims that these primative Muslim types want to get in and destroy the place because they are inherently backward and tinted? You must admit, they present a pretty sound argument. Thats what these original owners of this land said when the pale face invaded with guns, violence, disease and theft http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg Not exactly. At first they made friends with the paleface. It wasn't until about 8 years later that things started turning sour.

You mean it was only until about 1780 that the poisoning of the water holes, random shootings, land dispossesion, child thefts, rapes etc  commenced.

There should be a blue and white ribbon run right around this entire continent

Australia is one big crime scene

The ignorance of some people regarding the history of Australia is incredible.  ::)

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 9:15pm:

FD wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 5:39pm: Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 4:01pm: FD wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 3:59pm: Yes, but what about the claims that these primative Muslim types want to get in and destroy the place because they are inherently backward and tinted? You must admit, they present a pretty sound argument. Thats what these original owners of this land said when the pale face invaded with guns, violence, disease and theft http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg Not exactly. At first they made friends with the paleface. It wasn't until about 8 years later that things started turning sour. You mean it was only until about 1780 that the poisoning of the water holes, random shootings, land dispossesion, child thefts, rapes etc  commenced. There should be a blue and white ribbon run right around this entire continent Australia is one big crime scene

You need to understand something of which you're talking before you talk about it. You raise an important point, but discussing it in terms of "invasion" and "the entire continent" disguises what really happened.

You also objectify Aboriginals by portraying them as chained, subdued masses. Many resisted as warriors, but equally importantly, many came into white settlement and contributed to it.

If Australia is one big crime scene, Aboriginals are equally on trial for being, in many cases, complicit. If it's one big crime scene, EVERYBODY's on trial, and this is the problem with your argument.

All the things you mention happened. How this is aknowledged and accounted for as history is important - the stories need to be told. But to essentialise this as the entire Australian story, I think, covers other truths which are equally important.

FD wrote on Apr 24^th, 2011 at 11:14am:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 9:15pm: FD wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 5:39pm: [quote author=Foolosophy link=1303512206/0#8 date=1303538518][quote author=Karnal link=1303512206/0#7 date=1303538344]Yes, but what about the claims that these primative Muslim types want to get in and destroy the place because they are inherently backward and tinted? You must admit, they present a pretty sound argument. You need to understand something of which you're talking before you talk about it. You raise an important point, but discussing it in terms of "invasion" and "the entire continent" disguises what really happened. You also objectify Aboriginals by portraying them as chained, subdued masses. Many resisted as warriors, but equally importantly, many came into white settlement and contributed to it. If Australia is one big crime scene, Aboriginals are equally on trial for being, in many cases, complicit. If it's one big crime scene, EVERYBODY's on trial, and this is the problem with your argument. All the things you mention happened. How this is aknowledged and accounted for as history is important - the stories need to be told. But to essentialise this as the entire Australian story, I think, covers other truths which are equally important.

This is NOT the only photo I have of early Aboriginal-Paleface interaction, but it is one photo that encapsulates the White washing of this continent's violent and immoral History. It is also one of many photos that the main stream media avoids showing the Australian public.

So I will have to post it again

http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg

Does that photo contain images of the deceased? Did you include a warning for aboriginal and torres straight islanders?

Are you mocking the customs and traditions of the first Australians fd?

Quite insensitive don't you think? Especially since you are squatting on their land to add insult to injury.

I would have thought that tricking them into looking at photos of their deceased elders would be mockery.

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 5:11pm:

Quote: it assumes that the only people who have qualms with democracy are illegal immigrants trying to get in here. No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with the 'queue jumper' debate. If they are illegals then they are already here illegally. [quote]If someone really has a desire to sneak in here and destroy democracy from within (as your delusion would have it), then wouldn't they also have no qualms about lying to get in to do it?

You tell me Abu. For many people, the opposition to democracy is part of a broader ideology that is also opposed to lying. As someone who opposes democracy, how would you handle this situation if you ever found yourself in it?


Quote:

The idea that immigration policies have any relevance to religious extremism is just childish at best.

One of the advantages of the proposed policy is that it is not about religion.[/quote]

You see Abu, in an immigration interview you cannot simply avoid the question and hope someone changes the subject for you. They will sit there in silence waiting for an answer from you. If it doesn't come, pack your bags because you're going back home.

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Thats what these original owners of this land said when the pale face invaded with guns, violence, disease and theft

Quote:

Keelhauling was a type of naval punishment in the 17th and 18th century. Although officially only the Dutch Navy practiced it, under the name of kielhalen. Keelhauling is a brutal form of corporal punishment which involves dragging the offender underwater from one side of a ship to the other. In a period when the word of the ship captain was law, keelhauling was only one in a variety of unpleasant punishment tactics which could easily kill a sailor. Keelhauling first appeared in 1560, when a Dutch ordinance outlined the practice and the offenses for which it could be used. Other maritime powers including Britain adopted the practice as well, although it began to be phased out in the 1700s. The Dutch Navy did not ban keelhauling until 1853, when a more humane era of sailing frowned on the practice http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-keelhauling.htm

salad in wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 9:45am:

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 23rd, 2011 at 4:01pm: Thats what these original owners of this land said when the pale face invaded with guns, violence, disease and theft Quote: Keelhauling was a type of naval punishment in the 17th and 18th century. Although officially only the Dutch Navy practiced it, under the name of kielhalen. Keelhauling is a brutal form of corporal punishment which involves dragging the offender underwater from one side of a ship to the other. In a period when the word of the ship captain was law, keelhauling was only one in a variety of unpleasant punishment tactics which could easily kill a sailor. Keelhauling first appeared in 1560, when a Dutch ordinance outlined the practice and the offenses for which it could be used. Other maritime powers including Britain adopted the practice as well, although it began to be phased out in the 1700s. The Dutch Navy did not ban keelhauling until 1853, when a more humane era of sailing frowned on the practice http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-keelhauling.htm

What are you saying - they keelhauled Aboriginals?

History is different to politics. You don't just pick a side and argue it. You need to review facts and put them into context.

Our past is made up of great cruelties and injustices, but it wasn't all like that. Arthur and the officers of the first fleet went to great lengths to establish a fair society in New South Wales, and Aboriginals took to life in the colony early on. Early Sydney was a town with blacks and whites living alongside each other.

The notion of Aboriginals as a disposessed race destined to die out is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a cause that was championed by the later proponents of eugenics. After all, we only sought to interbreed them with whites for their own good.

Now we have policies like the "intervention," a policy that can't be seen as simply good or evil as it's championed by many Aboriginal women themselves.

History is complicated. Arguing crude absolutes and platitudes is merely self-indulgent, and rarely does anyone any good.

Quote:

History is different to politics. You don't just pick a side and argue it.

I would hope that would be true of both.

FD wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 1:50pm:

What are you saying - they keelhauled Aboriginals?

No, not at all. I was trying to demonstate that a photo of a coffle of presumably obedient and submissive aborigines in a thread about mulims contemplating immigration is as irrelevant as the subject of heelhauling in the same thread.

salad in wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

FD wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 1:50pm: What are you saying - they keelhauled Aboriginals? No, not at all. I was trying to demonstate that a photo of a coffle of presumably obedient and submissive aborigines in a thread about mulims contemplating immigration is as irrelevant as the subject of heelhauling in the same thread.

Aha! Excellent keelhauling, my fiend.

salad in wrote on Apr 25^th, 2011 at 7:09pm:

FD wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 1:50pm: What are you saying - they keelhauled Aboriginals? No, not at all. I was trying to demonstate that a photo of a coffle of presumably obedient and submissive aborigines in a thread about mulims contemplating immigration is as irrelevant as the subject of heelhauling in the same thread.

were the Jews in WW2 concentration camps OBEDIENT and SUBMISSIVE?

http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AuschwitzWorkers.jpg
http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 2:01pm:

salad in wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 7:09pm: FD wrote on Apr 25th, 2011 at 1:50pm: What are you saying - they keelhauled Aboriginals? No, not at all. I was trying to demonstate that a photo of a coffle of presumably obedient and submissive aborigines in a thread about mulims contemplating immigration is as irrelevant as the subject of heelhauling in the same thread. were the Jews in WW2 concentration camps OBEDIENT and SUBMISSIVE? http://civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AuschwitzWorkers.jpg http://www.khanfactor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/aboriginals_1906.jpg

I'm not certain, dear boy. These ones, however, look a little well fed.

FD wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

Aha! Excellent keelhauling, my fiend.

Sorry for the typos; my wife makes me wear the burqa even when I take a shower. Sometimes it's hard to see out of that black tent with the mesh piece concealing my eyes.

Please tell me you are male because if my wife finds me corresponding with a female without a chaperon she will beat me (lightly of course).

Foolosophy wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 2:01pm:

were the Jews in WW2 concentration camps OBEDIENT and SUBMISSIVE?

You were kicking the jews in another thread. Now you're here to defend them. Make up your mind.

And what about serfs?

The daily life of a serf was hard. The Medieval serfs did not receive their land as a free gift; for the use of it they owed certain duties to their master. These took chiefly the form of personal services. Medieval Serfs had to labor on the lord's domain for two or three days each week, and at specially busy seasons, such as ploughing and harvesting, Serfs had to do do extra work. The daily life of a serf was dictated by the requirements of the lord of the manor. At least half his time was usually demanded by the lord. Serfs also had to make certain payments, either in money or more often in grain, honey, eggs, or other produce. When Serfs ground the wheat he was obliged to use the lord's mill, and pay the customary charge. In theory the lord could tax his serfs as heavily and make them work as hard as he pleased, but the fear of losing his tenants doubtless in most cases prevented him from imposing too great burdens on the daily life of the serf.

salad in wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 4:11pm:

FD wrote on Apr 27th, 2011 at 10:18am: Aha! Excellent keelhauling, my fiend. Sorry for the typos; my wife makes me wear the burqa even when I take a shower. Sometimes it's hard to see out of that black tent with the mesh piece concealing my eyes. Please tell me you are male because if my wife finds me corresponding with a female without a chaperon she will beat me (lightly of course).

I never knew that a rubber doll could make anyone where anything. Oh well, each to there own.