In reguard to the thread "muslim pioneers of Australia".

I hope that twerp doesn't think that just because we used sand monkeys and their camels about a hundred years ago for a specific purpose that it somehow gives muslims some sort of justification for them to be here or to bring in more of their scummy people.

If there were no camels on earth we would have found another way. That's what our people have always done. If something doesn't work you try something else.

We don't need non-whites, especially muslims, not now not ever.

That’s right, Taipan. No need for sand monkeys and their camels. We imported convicts.

You know, rum, sodomy and the lash.

White ingenuity, innit.

Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Karnal wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 12:31am:

That’s right, Taipan. No need for sand monkeys and their camels. We imported convicts. You know, rum, sodomy and the lash. White ingenuity, innit.

You didn't import anything edit

It was the English who exported a bunch of people some of whom were criminals and many of whom were not criminals, just people trying to survive under the tyranny of the English crown.

The beauty of it is that they began the wonderful history of Australia from 1788 and here we are today in a modern society where people around the world are dying to come to and we never needed non-whites for anything unless it was an easier option and if that option wasn't there we would have found a way. Unfortunately now we have to deal with enemies in our own backyard like you. But no biggie all enemies of the Australian people will be dealt with when the war comes.

|dev|null wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm not refuting it. I'm simply saying non-whites have no justification for their ongoing invasion or even being here in the first place. The government may have let them in but to facilitate the non-white invasion of our country and have the non-white parasites happy to take part in it is reprehensible not to mention criminal and there will be consequences.

Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915.

The Battle of Broken Hill ring any bells?

Are we to believe that 100 years later that those allegiances have changed?

We owe a debt to those early Muslims who helped in the formation of this country.

We owe none at all to those who wish to reform it.

Taipan wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 4:41pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 12:31am: That’s right, Taipan. No need for sand monkeys and their camels. We imported convicts. You know, rum, sodomy and the lash. White ingenuity, innit. You didn't import anything edit It was the English who exported a bunch of people some of whom were criminals and many of whom were not criminals, just people trying to survive under the tyranny of the English crown. The beauty of it is that they began the wonderful history of Australia from 1788 and here we are today in a modern society where people around the world are dying to come to and we never needed non-whites for anything unless it was an easier option and if that option wasn't there we would have found a way. Unfortunately now we have to deal with enemies in our own backyard like you. But no biggie all enemies of the Australian people will be dealt with when the war comes.

Enemies? But Taipan - I’m white! When the war comes, we’ll be in the same foxhole - you know, fighting off the boongs.

Of course, we’ll need someone to provide the sodomy - are you up for it?

I’ll give out the lash.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 4:54pm:

Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915.

The boongs established their credentials long before that. Still, they have no justification for being here in the first place.

Criminal. There will be consequences, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 6:26pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote Today at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. The boongs established their credentials long before that. Still, they have no justification for being here in the first place. Criminal. There will be consequences, you know.

I find it rather amusing that you took the bother to cherry-pick my post, rather than quote it in its entirety ( t'was not long, after all), before you chose a piece to comment upon.

Miss the bit about the debt we owe? Of course not.

I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal.

Now wouldn't THAT throw a spanner into the works of the indigenous victim-hood industry!  Miam miam!  8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. Now wouldn't THAT throw a spanner into the works of the indigenous victim-hood industry!  Miam miam!

Don't worry Lionel, your lot have already tried that one. You see there were three waves of Aboriginal migration - each successive one conquering the previous. So you see the "current" Aborigines are themselves conquerors and occupiers.

Surprised you haven't heard of that one before. You really should keep up with all the 'why we shouldn't feel guilty about causiing genocide' memes.

Taipan wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 4:44pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 10:59am: Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm not refuting it. I'm simply saying non-whites have no justification for their ongoing invasion or even being here in the first place. The government may have let them in but to facilitate the non-white invasion of our country and have the non-white parasites happy to take part in it is reprehensible not to mention criminal and there will be consequences.

The first Muslims to arrive in Australia predate European contact.

There were Muslims on the First Fleet when it sailed into Botany Bay.

Who are you to decide what history we celebrate in Australia?  We have a rich and multicultural one and as much as you wish to deny it, the history books say something different.   ::) ::)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 4:54pm:

Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915.

Some Muslims did, Lionel.  What about those who have fought for Australia in wars since then?  Are their sacrifice to be discarded so easily?   ::) ::) ::)


Quote:

The Battle of Broken Hill ring any bells? Are we to believe that 100 years later that those allegiances have changed?

Yes.


Quote:

We owe a debt to those early Muslims who helped in the formation of this country. We owe none at all to those who wish to reform it.

So, they are to be treated as second-class citizens (or even non-citizens) then?  Who are you to deny them their right to Freedom of Speech, Lionel?    ::) ::) ::)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 6:26pm: Lionel Edriess wrote Today at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. The boongs established their credentials long before that. Still, they have no justification for being here in the first place. Criminal. There will be consequences, you know. I find it rather amusing that you took the bother to cherry-pick my post, rather than quote it in its entirety ( t'was not long, after all), before you chose a piece to comment upon. Miss the bit about the debt we owe? Of course not. I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. Now wouldn't THAT throw a spanner into the works of the indigenous victim-hood industry!  Miam miam!  8-)

You really, really need to keep up with the latest (as in over 30 years old) Anthropological discoveries, Lionel.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. Some Muslims did, Lionel.  What about those who have fought for Australia in wars since then?

Name them.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 6:26pm: Lionel Edriess wrote Today at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. The boongs established their credentials long before that. Still, they have no justification for being here in the first place. Criminal. There will be consequences, you know. I find it rather amusing that you took the bother to cherry-pick my post, rather than quote it in its entirety ( t'was not long, after all), before you chose a piece to comment upon. Miss the bit about the debt we owe? Of course not. I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. Now wouldn't THAT throw a spanner into the works of the indigenous victim-hood industry!  Miam miam!  8-)

The debt we owe? To the Muselman?

Oh, Lionel, I’m going to have to put up with Taipan bitching about that comment in our foxhole for months. Possibly years. We’re planning a long war against these boongs.

Let’s just hope it doesn’t rain too much. And let’s hope Taipan doesn’t complain to the Gestapo.

I’ll be forced to name names, you know.

Karnal wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 9:30pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 6:42pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 6:26pm: Lionel Edriess wrote Today at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. The boongs established their credentials long before that. Still, they have no justification for being here in the first place. Criminal. There will be consequences, you know. I find it rather amusing that you took the bother to cherry-pick my post, rather than quote it in its entirety ( t'was not long, after all), before you chose a piece to comment upon. Miss the bit about the debt we owe? Of course not. I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. Now wouldn't THAT throw a spanner into the works of the indigenous victim-hood industry!  Miam miam!  8-) The debt we owe? To the Muselman? Oh, Lionel, I’m going to have to put up with Taipan bitching about that comment in our foxhole for months. Possibly years. We’re planning a long war against these boongs. Let’s just hope it doesn’t rain too much. And let’s hope Taipan doesn’t complain to the Gestapo. I’ll be forced to name names, you know.

The Burqa's on a bit tight still I see. Not happy Aisha  ;D

If I may say, I’m really grateful to Taipan for raising the issue of the impending war and its consequences. This is something the multicultural apologists want to keep quiet about.

If we all stand together as superior white persons, I’m sure we can stop the war once and for all.

Would that work, Taipan? Any chance we could just have a chat or play a game of cricket or something?

You could always just keep sitting online and make posts like a nice little
muslim girl who does what she is told  ;D.

T'would appear that a couple of historians have attempted to correct me on a previous statement of mine, to wit:

" ... I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. ... "

I have been reminded that there have been successive waves of Aboriginal settlement and resulting conquest.

Are we really to believe that the British claim of Terra Nullius is original?

While we may deem the Aboriginal as this continent's indigenous, is there anything to establish their claim as the land's first people?

What I am wishing for, gentlemen, is definitive proof that Aboriginal settlement has displaced/replaced an earlier people on this ancient continent - i.e. pre-dates. Then we may have an opportunity to paint their history as black as they paint ours.

As regards our debt to the 'Muselmen', perhaps I was wrong when I made mention of all those whose efforts led us to name a railway system after them. Perhaps they were not Muslim at all.

Perhaps I could be forgiven for assuming that those early Afghans were not predominantly Christian? Either way, back in those times, they certainly 'fitted in' to the local society.

8-)

Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::)

The Abo's never called Australia Australia.

Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock. No one knows if a race existed before abo's at all. It means diddly squat. Even if there was none it doesn't make them owners of anything. Just like being the owners of Ayers Rock is a crock.

The bottom line is displacing , annihilating through war or overrunning a country has been the norm in every country on the earth for centuries. Yet here we are still whining over aboriginals. Didn't K Dudd say he was sorry on behalf of how many generations of Labor and Greens supporters.   ;D .

For goodness sakes. They lost, we built Australia, they still live out in the bush, we still give handouts. What else is in the pipeline ?

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:22pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. Some Muslims did, Lionel.  What about those who have fought for Australia in wars since then?  Name them.

Now now, old boy, you could at least try to assimilate. In this country we have things called manners.

You’re free, of course, to continue with your Kraut barking of orders, but you may find a slight reluctance on the part of your inferiors. Rather than your usual schnell schnell, you might like to try a "please" or a "thank you". You can even accompany these words with a kindly smile, performed by raising each side of your mouth in an upwardly direction.

Yes, I know that in your superior culture this is seen as grinning (and verboten), but we British are a more amiable race of people. Your Lutheran compulsion to offend as many people as possible is a quaint and charming expression of your cultural mores, but in our country this is seen as impolite. It is, as we say, not cricket.

If you want to join Taipan and myself in the upcoming war, please try to assimilate a little better. I don’t want to have to send the Gestapo over to ask any uncomfortable questions.

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 12:59am:

Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock.

Ah yes, but I think you’ll find Taipan is arguing that Australia does indeed have traditional owners, and those owners are we British.

If I was you, I’d be careful expressing views like the above. You don’t want to offend Taipan and be forced to join the ranks of the enemy.

Karnal wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock.  Ah yes, but I think you’ll find Taipan is arguing that Australia does indeed have traditional owners, and those owners are we British. If I was you, I’d be careful expressing views like the above. You don’t want to offend Taipan and be forced to join the ranks of the enemy.

The concept of ownership is British not abo.

If I were you I'd loosen the burqa so you can actually think.

Soren wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 8:56pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:22pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. Some Muslims did, Lionel.  What about those who have fought for Australia in wars since then?  Name them.

I only know of one personally.  However, as this Islamophobe article points out, there are 88 Muslims serving in the ADF at the present moment, Soren.  Is it's claim to be disbelieved?   ::) ::)

Then we should forget our "auxiliaries", the Muslim interpreters and helpers whom we have used in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Is their service to be denied as well?

Soren, your bigotry appears to know no bounds...   ::) ::)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 12:27am:

T'would appear that a couple of historians have attempted to correct me on a previous statement of mine, to wit: " ... I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. ... " I have been reminded that there have been successive waves of Aboriginal settlement and resulting conquest. Are we really to believe that the British claim of Terra Nullius is original? While we may deem the Aboriginal as this continent's indigenous, is there anything to establish their claim as the land's first people? What I am wishing for, gentlemen, is definitive proof that Aboriginal settlement has displaced/replaced an earlier people on this ancient continent - i.e. pre-dates. Then we may have an opportunity to paint their history as black as they paint ours. As regards our debt to the 'Muselmen', perhaps I was wrong when I made mention of all those whose efforts led us to name a railway system after them. Perhaps they were not Muslim at all. Perhaps I could be forgiven for assuming that those early Afghans were not predominantly Christian? Either way, back in those times, they certainly 'fitted in' to the local society. 8-)

Lionel, it might be an idea to not only brush up on the Anthropological discoveries over the last 30+ years but also to try and study a bit of jurisprudence as well.  You appear to have a profound misunderstanding of what Terra Nullius was...   ::)

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 12:59am:

Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock. No one knows if a race existed before abo's at all. It means diddly squat. Even if there was none it doesn't make them owners of anything. Just like being the owners of Ayers Rock is a crock. The bottom line is displacing , annihilating through war or overrunning a country has been the norm in every country on the earth for centuries. Yet here we are still whining over aboriginals. Didn't K Dudd say he was sorry on behalf of how many generations of Labor and Greens supporters.   ;D . For goodness sakes. They lost, we built Australia, they still live out in the bush, we still give handouts. What else is in the pipeline ?

Well, you do enjoy displaying your ignorance and racism, now don't you, Mahdi.  Your post is riddled with both and shows a profound misunderstanding of Australia's history and present day society.  I'd suggest you join Lionel back in the classroom...   ::)

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 3:41pm: Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock.  Ah yes, but I think you’ll find Taipan is arguing that Australia does indeed have traditional owners, and those owners are we British. If I was you, I’d be careful expressing views like the above. You don’t want to offend Taipan and be forced to join the ranks of the enemy. The concept of ownership is British not abo. If I were you I'd loosen the burqa so you can actually think.

Good point, Mahdi. We Europeans are the traditional owners because we invented contract law and called Australia "Australia".

That should make Taipan feel a bit better.

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 3:41pm: Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock.  Ah yes, but I think you’ll find Taipan is arguing that Australia does indeed have traditional owners, and those owners are we British. If I was you, I’d be careful expressing views like the above. You don’t want to offend Taipan and be forced to join the ranks of the enemy. The concept of ownership is British not abo.

Yet the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions have demonstrated otherwise.  Perhaps you need to stop displaying your racism so proudly and actually learn something about your adopted country's history?   ::)

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 3:53pm:

The concept of ownership is British not abo.

Interestingly the Americans used the exact same excuse to justify their stealing of native Indian land.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 4:10pm:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 3:53pm: Karnal wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 3:41pm: Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock.  Ah yes, but I think you’ll find Taipan is arguing that Australia does indeed have traditional owners, and those owners are we British. If I was you, I’d be careful expressing views like the above. You don’t want to offend Taipan and be forced to join the ranks of the enemy. The concept of ownership is British not abo. Yet the Mabo and Wik High Court decisions have demonstrated otherwise.  Perhaps you need to stop displaying your racism so proudly and actually learn something about your adopted country's history?   ::)

Yes, but what Taipan seems to be saying is that these High Court judges are the enemy and will face consequences in the upcoming war.

Who’s side are the white judges on, Taipan?

In the words of the old boy’s poetess, please explain.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock. No one knows if a race existed before abo's at all. It means diddly squat. Even if there was none it doesn't make them owners of anything. Just like being the owners of Ayers Rock is a crock. The bottom line is displacing , annihilating through war or overrunning a country has been the norm in every country on the earth for centuries. Yet here we are still whining over aboriginals. Didn't K Dudd say he was sorry on behalf of how many generations of Labor and Greens supporters.   ;D . For goodness sakes. They lost, we built Australia, they still live out in the bush, we still give handouts. What else is in the pipeline ? Well, you do enjoy displaying your ignorance and racism, now don't you, Mahdi.  Your post is riddled with both and shows a profound misunderstanding of Australia's history and present day society.  I'd suggest you join Lionel back in the classroom...   ::)

I am not racist nor ignorant. I' say you have a few issues you need to work out like understanding the meanings of ignorant and what a racist is.

I suggest you come back here when you grow up, a few adults are speaking.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about,  nor the capacity to understand posts you don't approve of. I would suggest controlling your angst and posting with maturity when you get some.

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 4:06pm:

... You appear to have a profound misunderstanding of what Terra Nullius was...

Back in the 'good old days'?      

Empty? No-one home?

These days?

These days even Australians have become ethnic, or so we're told. Though, still we obstinately remain a nation of mongrels. As such, we're protective of our yard.

Yet you find fault with such an attitude when it's the most natural in the world.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 4:06pm: ... You appear to have a profound misunderstanding of what Terra Nullius was...    Back in the 'good old days'?       Empty? No-one home?

Nope.  Try again.  It's all about ownership, Lionel.   ::)

Migration and invasion are different to claiming Terra Nullius


Quote:

These days? These days even Australians have become ethnic, or so we're told.

Australian has always been an ethnicity and a nationality (after 1901), Lionel.   ::)


Quote:

Though, still we obstinately remain a nation of mongrels. As such, we're protective of our yard. Yet you find fault with such an attitude when it's the most natural in the world.

I find no fault with that attitude, Lionel, within reason.  I've always been a nationalist but never to the point of chauvinism.  My problem has always been with the exclusion of people who are citizens from the nation on the basis of their religion/ethnicity/"race"/gender/sexuality/culture/etc./etc.  Once they swear allegiance they are Australians.

Remember, "I am, you are, we all are...?"    ::)

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock. No one knows if a race existed before abo's at all. It means diddly squat. Even if there was none it doesn't make them owners of anything. Just like being the owners of Ayers Rock is a crock. The bottom line is displacing , annihilating through war or overrunning a country has been the norm in every country on the earth for centuries. Yet here we are still whining over aboriginals. Didn't K Dudd say he was sorry on behalf of how many generations of Labor and Greens supporters.   ;D . For goodness sakes. They lost, we built Australia, they still live out in the bush, we still give handouts. What else is in the pipeline ? Well, you do enjoy displaying your ignorance and racism, now don't you, Mahdi.  Your post is riddled with both and shows a profound misunderstanding of Australia's history and present day society.  I'd suggest you join Lionel back in the classroom...   ::) I am not racist nor ignorant.

Really?  Then why can I count several ignorant racist assumptions in your post?   ::)


Quote:

I' say you have a few issues you need to work out like understanding the meanings of ignorant and what a racist is.

Nope.  I know the meanings of the words.  Do you?


Quote:

I suggest you come back here when you grow up, a few adults are speaking.

Yes, but it's a pity you aren't one of them.


Quote:

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about,  nor the capacity to understand posts you don't approve of. I would suggest controlling your angst and posting with maturity when you get some.

I disagree.   ::)

Troll much Brian or only on weekends ?

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 12:59am: Ah yes yea old Afghan cameleers rolled out for islam.   ::) The Abo's never called Australia Australia. Countries have been fought over and won for centuries upon centuries, if we are going to harp on about traditional owners what a crock. No one knows if a race existed before abo's at all. It means diddly squat. Even if there was none it doesn't make them owners of anything. Just like being the owners of Ayers Rock is a crock. The bottom line is displacing , annihilating through war or overrunning a country has been the norm in every country on the earth for centuries. Yet here we are still whining over aboriginals. Didn't K Dudd say he was sorry on behalf of how many generations of Labor and Greens supporters.   ;D . For goodness sakes. They lost, we built Australia, they still live out in the bush, we still give handouts. What else is in the pipeline ? Well, you do enjoy displaying your ignorance and racism, now don't you, Mahdi.  Your post is riddled with both and shows a profound misunderstanding of Australia's history and present day society.  I'd suggest you join Lionel back in the classroom...   ::) I am not racist nor ignorant.

That’s right. Some of your best friends are ignorant.

Not that there’s anything wrong with it.

You shouldn't lecture me on 'ownership', Brian.

My own Scots/Irish heritage only entitles me to my claim to be an Australian. The same as any other individual born in this country.

Yet my heritage pre-dates both Britain and the United Kingdom.

What chance have I of a claim to land-rights in the lands of my ancestors?

Where's my Mabo decision?

Anyway, I'm having a BBQ in my backyard. An Australian institution, yes?

Surely I'm entitled to choose the guest list?

My friends, indeed all those who 'fit in', of 'like minds', will be invited.

Is this not the way of the world all over?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

Anyway, I'm having a BBQ in my backyard. An Australian institution, yes? Surely I'm entitled to choose the guest list? My friends, indeed all those who 'fit in', of 'like minds', will be invited. Is this not the way of the world all over?

Not if they’re the enemy. If they’re on the wrong side there will be consequences.

Gatecrashers, of course, will be dealt with in the universal fashion.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

You shouldn't lecture me on 'ownership', Brian.

I wasn't.  I was trying to educate you on the issue of Terra Nullius as against your claim that the indigenes had dispossessed their predecessors using such a concept.   ::)


Quote:

My own Scots/Irish heritage only entitles me to my claim to be an Australian. The same as any other individual born in this country. Yet my heritage pre-dates both Britain and the United Kingdom. What chance have I of a claim to land-rights in the lands of my ancestors? Where's my Mabo decision?

Take it up with the UK government, Lionel.  You're still not understanding the difference between a claim of Terra Nullius and one of conquest...   ::)


Quote:

Anyway, I'm having a BBQ in my backyard. An Australian institution, yes? Surely I'm entitled to choose the guest list? My friends, indeed all those who 'fit in', of 'like minds', will be invited. Is this not the way of the world all over?

I assume then, I won't be getting an invite, Lionel.  There is of course considerable difference between a private party, on private land and a nation which invites immigration and makes allowance for it in it's laws.

Tell me, Lionel, if someone was to say, turn up at your backgate during your BBQ and ask to be admitted because my life was in danger, would you refuse me entry?

What about if it was a woman wearing a Burqa or a man wearing a Bernoose?

Going to refuse them entry?  Even if their life was in danger? 

What happened to the Australian tradition of hospitality?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 4:04pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 8:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:22pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. Some Muslims did, Lionel.  What about those who have fought for Australia in wars since then?  Name them. I only know of one personally.  However, as this Islamophobe article points out, there are 88 Muslims serving in the ADF at the present moment, Soren.  Is it's claim to be disbelieved?   ::) ::) Then we should forget our "auxiliaries", the Muslim interpreters and helpers whom we have used in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Is their service to be denied as well? Soren, your bigotry appears to know no bounds...   ::) ::)

What exactly is Islamophobic about an article that says that Muslims enlist in foreign religious wars as jihadist (many of them stout bludgahadeens while in Australia)?

Nowadays plain speaking is instantly labelled as a phobia by the sandalista PC mongers like you.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

You shouldn't lecture me on 'ownership', Brian. My own Scots/Irish heritage only entitles me to my claim to be an Australian. The same as any other individual born in this country. Yet my heritage pre-dates both Britain and the United Kingdom. What chance have I of a claim to land-rights in the lands of my ancestors? Where's my Mabo decision? Anyway, I'm having a BBQ in my backyard. An Australian institution, yes? Surely I'm entitled to choose the guest list? My friends, indeed all those who 'fit in', of 'like minds', will be invited. Is this not the way of the world all over?

A society is a lot wider in it's attitudes, views, interests than your backyard Barbie invitation list.

So, I suppose you've never invited any crazy relatives to your backyard Barbies?   You know, the Aunt who babbles in the corner about "In our day..." or the Cousin who tries to grope your wife?  Every family has similar members or have you abandoned them the way you want to bar anybody else who is different to you?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:41pm:

A society is a lot wider in it's attitudes, views, interests than your backyard Barbie invitation list.  ...

Sometimes it just gets too hard!

Now it's two who have replied to my post and taken my reference to a 'backyard BBQ' as a literal portrayal of some event in my personal life.

Neither of you considered that my use of such a phrase was a metaphoric reference to the generally accepted view of average Australian cultural mores.

Now, bearing that in mind, what is wrong with this statement:


Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

...  Anyway, I'm having a BBQ in my backyard. An Australian institution, yes? Surely I'm entitled to choose the guest list? My friends, indeed all those who 'fit in', of 'like minds', will be invited. Is this not the way of the world all over?

It ill behooves you to be so blithely critical.

May I suggest a few lessons in critical analysis?  8-)

   

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 6:42pm: I'm still hopeful that one of these days there'll be evidence found of a prior occupation of this continent that pre-dates the Aboriginal. Now wouldn't THAT throw a spanner into the works of the indigenous victim-hood industry!  Miam miam! Don't worry Lionel, your lot have already tried that one. You see there were three waves of Aboriginal migration - each successive one conquering the previous. So you see the "current" Aborigines are themselves conquerors and occupiers. Surprised you haven't heard of that one before. You really should keep up with all the 'why we shouldn't feel guilty about causiing genocide' memes.

Well done Gandy. 5 Bonus points.

There were three major waves of migration of quite different ancient people who came to the Australian continent from southeast Asia. More than 40,000 years ago, when sea levels were much lower and Australia, New Guinea and Tasmania comprised one landmass, called Sahul, the first to arrive were a slightly-built people of pygmoid stature with dark skin and very frizzy hair. They were Negritos (named after the Spanish “little negro”), and they provided the initial population for the whole of this Greater Australia. About 20,000 years ago, a second type of people arrived from Asia. These newcomers, called Murrayians, were comparatively lightly skinned, wavy-haired, stocky in build, with a lot of body hair. They drove the Negritos before them until the latter retreated to the highlands of New Guinea, the rainforests of North Queensland and to then ice-capped Tasmania. The Murrayians became the dominant population on the east coast of Australia, and the open grasslands and parklands of the south and west of the continent. Then, about 15,000 years ago, a third wave of hunter-gatherers arrived. They were comparatively tall, straight-haired and dark skinned, with very little body hair. Named Carpentarians, they colonised northern and central Australia.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/history-wars/2002/06/the-extinction-of-the-australian-pygmies/

So who, or which, gets to eat the Mabo cake?

Or are they all happily 'integrated' into today's 'Aboriginal'? One big happy tribe?

One supposes that only one 'species' survives today.

And they did it all themselves.

Just as mongrel as us 'Whites', eh?

Soren wrote on Jul 1^st, 2014 at 8:47am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 4:04pm: Soren wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 8:56pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:22pm: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:54pm: Muslims established their credentials and their allegiances in this country as early as 1915. Some Muslims did, Lionel.  What about those who have fought for Australia in wars since then?  Name them. I only know of one personally.  However, as this Islamophobe article points out, there are 88 Muslims serving in the ADF at the present moment, Soren.  Is it's claim to be disbelieved?   ::) ::) Then we should forget our "auxiliaries", the Muslim interpreters and helpers whom we have used in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Is their service to be denied as well? Soren, your bigotry appears to know no bounds...   ::) ::) What exactly is Islamophobic about an article that says that Muslims enlist in foreign religious wars as jihadist (many of them stout bludgahadeens while in Australia)?

Which article?


Quote:

Nowadays plain speaking is instantly labelled as a phobia by the sandalista PC mongers like you.

No, constantly posting your fear of something which doesn't exist except in your mind, Soren is usually labelled a phobia.  Your fear of Muslims is exactly like that.  HB posted a list of the risks of being killed in a Terrorist attack.  Not unsurprisingly, it's extraordinarily low.    ::)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 7:13pm:

So who, or which, gets to eat the Mabo cake?

Explained it to you many times before, Lionel.  Do you really need it explained to you again?   Anybody who can prove an enduring cultural and historical relationship to the land they are claiming Native Title on, which predates white settlement can claim it.   ::)

So, if you can find some pre-Aboriginal Australians from the gracile groups which predated the arrival of those we now call the Indigenes, and they can prove their enduring cultural historical and cultural ties to the land, they can put in a NT claim which would have some hope of success.


Quote:

Or are they all happily 'integrated' into today's 'Aboriginal'? One big happy tribe? One supposes that only one 'species' survives today. And they did it all themselves. Just as mongrel as us 'Whites', eh?

Funnily enough, Australian Indigenes are actually more "pure" than most "Whites", Lionel, in that their genes are drawn primarily from a group which was pretty well isolated for over 50,000 years, that is until ~200 years ago...   ::)

Good show, old chap. Pygmoids, negritos, hideous backward species, each and every one.

Marvellous cultural memes, innit. Correlation not causation, eh?

At least the little bastards weren’t Muselmen.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 7:53pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 3rd, 2014 at 7:13pm: So who, or which, gets to eat the Mabo cake? Explained it to you many times before, Lionel.  Do you really need it explained to you again?   Anybody who can prove an enduring cultural and historical relationship to the land they are claiming Native Title on, which predates white settlement can claim it.   ::

Yes, but where’s Lionel’s Mabo claim? Surely Lionel should have access to his species’ real estate.

In the words of the old boy’s favourite poetess, please explain.

|dev|null wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 5:41pm:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 28th, 2014 at 7:37pm: You shouldn't lecture me on 'ownership', Brian. My own Scots/Irish heritage only entitles me to my claim to be an Australian. The same as any other individual born in this country. Yet my heritage pre-dates both Britain and the United Kingdom. What chance have I of a claim to land-rights in the lands of my ancestors? Where's my Mabo decision? Anyway, I'm having a BBQ in my backyard. An Australian institution, yes? Surely I'm entitled to choose the guest list? My friends, indeed all those who 'fit in', of 'like minds', will be invited. Is this not the way of the world all over? A society is a lot wider in it's attitudes, views, interests than your backyard Barbie invitation list. So, I suppose you've never invited any crazy relatives to your backyard Barbies?   You know, the Aunt who babbles in the corner about "In our day..." or the Cousin who tries to grope your wife?  Every family has similar members or have you abandoned them the way you want to bar anybody else who is different to you?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Wow!

Now I've got a tag-team. A triumvirate of fans!

"Tis too much for me, having previously endured such sniping and erudite censorship in another life.

Best I withdraw battered, but not answered, before I become further enmeshed and embittered.

In such encounters, a debate is an oxymoron.

I yield, gentlemen! I have not the dedication.

Intransigence is never bested.

But point was never proven.

"Runaway!  Runaway!  Runaway!"  Lionel, this is a distressing habit you've developed...   ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

"Runaway!  Runaway!  Runaway!"  Lionel, this is a distressing habit you've developed...

Nothing new, Brian, as you very well know. It's a trait of mine you continually exploit.

It's merely a knee-jerk reaction to already recognised tactics. I do not wish to engage in ever-diminishing vortexes of obfuscation.

If you ever deign to address some of my posts in their entirety, rather than nit-pick snippets and therefore detract from the subject under discussion, then I shall give your commentary the credit that it deserves.

As previously mentioned, I hold little truck with obfuscation.

My only intention is to make a point, not to win an argument, therefore some of my statements may seem contentious. Indeed, some of them are so designed. If you feel the need to pick up a hook, there is no necessity on my part to play the game. The hit alone was worth the bait.

I made a comment earlier about the debt this country owed to the Afghan tinkers, linesmen and cameleers that helped in the formation of this country. I still believe that. You yourself might do well to revise some of your own scholarly research.

'Tis a pity that that early contribution of theirs has now degenerated into feral pests and locally established jihadist universities. And become a point of contention.

What was once is no longer - much like our own Australian society.

And if you are inclined to scoff at the idea of an 'Australian' society, you might well ask where else in the world you would find such a 'bogan' society that we are all so keen to (seemingly) eschew. Maybe the Okies in the States? The 'other' rednecks?

Certainly not having a BBQ at your place, eh!

Or does your view of multiculturalism welcome even the debris of the societies since displaced by the well-meaning sycophants of Utopian idealism?

:D

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Taipan wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 10:59am: Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm not refuting it. I'm simply saying non-whites have no justification for their ongoing invasion or even being here in the first place. The government may have let them in but to facilitate the non-white invasion of our country and have the non-white parasites happy to take part in it is reprehensible not to mention criminal and there will be consequences. The first Muslims to arrive in Australia predate European contact. There were Muslims on the First Fleet when it sailed into Botany Bay. Who are you to decide what history we celebrate in Australia?  We have a rich and multicultural one and as much as you wish to deny it, the history books say something different.   ::) ::)

Would you kind enough to post a link Brian?

Brian is right.
First contact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia

as for the First Fleet there may have been Muslims among the convicts, certainly there were Muslims in the Colony by 1800 according to some genealogists.

Sir Eoin O Fada wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 4:24pm:

Brian is right. First contact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Australia as for the First Fleet there may have been Muslims among the convicts, certainly there were Muslims in the Colony by 1800 according to some genealogists.

Where's your evidence that there were muslims amongst the first fleeters??

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 4^th, 2014 at 10:08pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 4th, 2014 at 8:53pm: "Runaway!  Runaway!  Runaway!"  Lionel, this is a distressing habit you've developed...  Nothing new, Brian, as you very well know. It's a trait of mine you continually exploit.

No, Lionel you cannot blame me for your unwillingness to actually argue your proclamations.  Call me sceptical but it smacks to of an unwillingness to be allow yourself to challenged.


Quote:

It's merely a knee-jerk reaction to already recognised tactics. I do not wish to engage in ever-diminishing vortexes of obfuscation.

I never obfuscate, Lionel.  I always attempt to engage my opponents in a Socratic Dialogue to discover if they really understand their position on the topic under discussion.  An excellent example is that of terra nullius.  It was obvious you didn't even understand the concept and its application.   ::)

Now you duck out again.   ::)


Quote:

If you ever deign to address some of my posts in their entirety, rather than nit-pick snippets and therefore detract from the subject under discussion, then I shall give your commentary the credit that it deserves.

Unless one picks at the nits, you end up with lice, Lionel.   ;D

If you start from a misconception, then you'll end up talking gibberish.


Quote:

As previously mentioned, I hold little truck with obfuscation.

You hold little truck with being challenged, I'd suggest.  Rather than defend your position you'll runaway.   ::)

Adamant wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 11:01am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:20pm: Taipan wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 10:59am: Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm not refuting it. I'm simply saying non-whites have no justification for their ongoing invasion or even being here in the first place. The government may have let them in but to facilitate the non-white invasion of our country and have the non-white parasites happy to take part in it is reprehensible not to mention criminal and there will be consequences. The first Muslims to arrive in Australia predate European contact. There were Muslims on the First Fleet when it sailed into Botany Bay. Who are you to decide what history we celebrate in Australia?  We have a rich and multicultural one and as much as you wish to deny it, the history books say something different.   ::) ::) Would you kind enough to post a link Brian?

How about a book?  Flannery, T., The Birth of Sydney, 2000.

That is, if you remember books?  There were Muslims in the crew of the First Fleet.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 6:09pm:

Adamant wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:01am: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:20pm: Taipan wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 10:59am: Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm not refuting it. I'm simply saying non-whites have no justification for their ongoing invasion or even being here in the first place. The government may have let them in but to facilitate the non-white invasion of our country and have the non-white parasites happy to take part in it is reprehensible not to mention criminal and there will be consequences. The first Muslims to arrive in Australia predate European contact. There were Muslims on the First Fleet when it sailed into Botany Bay. Who are you to decide what history we celebrate in Australia?  We have a rich and multicultural one and as much as you wish to deny it, the history books say something different.   ::) ::) Would you kind enough to post a link Brian? How about a book?  Flannery, T., The Birth of Sydney, 2000. That is, if you remember books?  There were Muslims in the crew of the First Fleet.

Says who. Evidence!!!

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 7:06pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 6:09pm: Adamant wrote on Jul 5th, 2014 at 11:01am: Brian Ross wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 7:20pm: Taipan wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 4:44pm: |dev|null wrote on Jun 27th, 2014 at 10:59am: Taipan stop trying to refute the history of your own nation.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I'm not refuting it. I'm simply saying non-whites have no justification for their ongoing invasion or even being here in the first place. The government may have let them in but to facilitate the non-white invasion of our country and have the non-white parasites happy to take part in it is reprehensible not to mention criminal and there will be consequences. The first Muslims to arrive in Australia predate European contact. There were Muslims on the First Fleet when it sailed into Botany Bay. Who are you to decide what history we celebrate in Australia?  We have a rich and multicultural one and as much as you wish to deny it, the history books say something different.   ::) ::) Would you kind enough to post a link Brian? How about a book?  Flannery, T., The Birth of Sydney, 2000. That is, if you remember books?  There were Muslims in the crew of the First Fleet. Says who. Evidence!!!

Tim Flannery, in the book cited just above the claim.  It is obvious you don't understand what books are, do you?   ::)

Thats the same bloke who said we'd never again see significant rainfal in this country.
;D ;D ;D

hermoine wrote on Jul 5^th, 2014 at 10:43pm:

Thats the same bloke who said we'd never again see significant rainfal in this country. ;D ;D ;D

As the book quotes from diaries and newspaper articles of the day, I rather think meteorological predications of the author have no relevance really to the topic, don't you?   ::) ::)

It just illuminates the fact that Flannery's another leftist puppet that thinks it knows more than it does. Treat EVERYTHING he says with suspicion.

Easy. The reference to the primary source should be in.the back of Flannery’s book. Quote that, and Hermoine will do the decent thing and apologise for getting her facts wrong again.

Flannery blurts out inflammatory slogans for publicity. I don't rate anything that so-called academic/historian says/prints, regardless of how much the luvvies worship him.

hermoine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:

Flannery blurts out inflammatory slogans for publicity. I don't rate anything that so-called academic/historian says/prints, regardless of how much the luvvies worship him.

Checking his reference to First Fleet records is easy to do, dear. If he’s made them up, you can have a chuckle.

If they’re found to be accurate (and why would he lie?),  you’ll need to do the decent thing and suck Brain’s slug.

They’re your rules, dear.

Why would he lie? Let me see. Oh, yeah, why would anyone buy his crap-manifesto if it didn't have a few 'sensational' claims in it, like muslims were on the first fleet. Pleeeeaaassseee. :o

hermoine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 8:07am:

It just illuminates the fact that Flannery's another leftist puppet that thinks it knows more than it does. Treat EVERYTHING he says with suspicion.

Yet again, I will point out, he quotes from primary sources.  Are you denying those primary sources?  If someone wrote in 1789 there were Muslims on the First Fleet, you don't think they should be believed?   ::)

If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes!
;D ;D ;D

hermoine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 1:31pm:

If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D

I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto".

It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces. 

Who cares about the battle of trafalgar? There were no muslims on the first fleet, the first fleet manifest (ok manifest) states it in black and white. Then again do-gooders dont care about facts.

Kindly check the reference, BR. It would seem poor Hermoine expects them to lie about Mohammedans in the manifest.

If you douches really believe that there were mussos on the first fleet then put it up. You won't because it's a known fact that there weren't any  Mussos don't start up civilisations, they turn them to crap and finish them.

I wouldn't believe a thing you say regarding Australian history Karnal going by your track record. The First Fleet got their water from waterholes the aborigines led them to. ;D ;D ;D ;D That's primary school history. See you wogs know bugger all about Australians.

Bump

hermoine wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 1:47pm:

Who cares about the battle of trafalgar? There were no muslims on the first fleet, the first fleet manifest (ok manifest) states it in black and white. Then again do-gooders dont care about facts.

The Battle of Trafalgar frieze is important because it disproves the belief that the Royal Navy was lily white (where you also aware that there were quite a few French and other Europeans serving in Nelson's fleet at the battle?).

I have provided my reference.  Up to you disprove it.   ::)

Ive found something, 'denier'. Wikipedia, first fleet names. Now shut the f.u.c.k up genius.

Me too. I’ve been through the names of each ship in the First Fleet. I couldn’t find any Mohammeds or Alis.

Which one’s the Muselman, BR? I think I found a Jew, but the rest sound like Christians.

Thoughts?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6^th, 2014 at 1:44pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.

Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip.
Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim.

Soren wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 10:02am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:44pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.  Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip. Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim.

That's a relief.  I've often wondered about their religions.  I mean, it must have been hell on those ships, having to stop to pray five times a day.  I'm amazed they made it half way around the world in the time they did!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

This any help?

Quote:

In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney.

[https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202124839AAtKBAs]

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

No, constantly posting your fear of something which doesn't exist except in your mind, Soren is usually labelled a phobia.

Islam doesn't exist??   When did that happen?


This just in:
http://pamelageller.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Screen-Shot-2014-07-02-at-3.17.24-PM.png
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/54830

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

This any help? Quote: In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney.

No Mohammedans on the First Fleet, then (other than Arthur Phillip, of course).

Brain will be pouting.

Gosh, this historical research is proving exciting.


Quote:

British companies were making good use of the plentiful supply of labour all over the vast British Empire. Shipping companies frequently employed Muslims known as lascars, from India and Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka). At times they immigrated to the new colony as free men. Reference is made to them in the 1796 Norfolk Island Victualling Book,  a the record of all those receiving government food assistance.  A number of seemingly Muslim names appear in these books including Mahomet Cassem who is on the "General Muster of Free Men, Women and Children off and on Stores in His Majesty’s Settlement of Hobart Town 2 October 1818".  Sua Sultan is recorded as possessing 28 acres of pasture and two acres of wheat. Convicts arriving in the new colony also included Muslims, commonly referred to at that time as Mohamadens. Many of the names have been lost, forgotten or mistranslated, however reference can be found to Zimran Wriam, an Indian Muslim convict who arrived on the Third Fleet in 1791. There were also at least eight convicts who arrived in Australia after 1813 who may have been Muslim. Five came from Oman, one from Bussarah (Iraq), one from Mauritius and one from South Africa.

[http://www.islamicpopulation.com/Oceania/Australia/Muslims%20in%20Australia%20A%20Historical%20Perspective.htm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFrgGZCKDmU

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 10:52am:

Gosh, this historical research is proving exciting. Quote: British companies were making good use of the plentiful supply of labour all over the vast British Empire. Shipping companies frequently employed Muslims known as lascars, from India and Ceylon (now known as Sri Lanka). At times they immigrated to the new colony as free men. Reference is made to them in the 1796 Norfolk Island Victualling Book,  a the record of all those receiving government food assistance.  A number of seemingly Muslim names appear in these books including Mahomet Cassem who is on the "General Muster of Free Men, Women and Children off and on Stores in His Majesty’s Settlement of Hobart Town 2 October 1818".  Sua Sultan is recorded as possessing 28 acres of pasture and two acres of wheat. Convicts arriving in the new colony also included Muslims, commonly referred to at that time as Mohamadens. Many of the names have been lost, forgotten or mistranslated, however reference can be found to Zimran Wriam, an Indian Muslim convict who arrived on the Third Fleet in 1791. There were also at least eight convicts who arrived in Australia after 1813 who may have been Muslim. Five came from Oman, one from Bussarah (Iraq), one from Mauritius and one from South Africa. [http://www.islamicpopulation.com/Oceania/Australia/Muslims%20in%20Australia%20A%20Historical%20Perspective.htm] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFrgGZCKDmU

SO Aborigines were horribly monocultural but thank god for Captain Cook and Arthur Phillip, multiculturalism could finally start with their arrival.

Another blessing - thank you, Poms!!!

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:44pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.  Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip. Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim. That's a relief.  I've often wondered about their religions.  I mean, it must have been hell on those ships, having to stop to pray five times a day.  I'm amazed they made it half way around the world in the time they did!   ;D ;D ;D ;D This any help? Quote: In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney. [https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202124839AAtKBAs]

I found this too, Hot Breasts. The old boy is right - it’s not the First Fleet. I wonder if Flannery’s book describes early Muslim settlers, and not First Fleeters.

It certainly debunks poor Hermoine’s comment about Muslims not settling and "building" Australia. We know they did - the old Afghani camel drivers are a perennial source of hyperbole on this board, on both sides of the debate.

You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change.

Karnal wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:21am: Soren wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:44pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.  Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip. Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim. That's a relief.  I've often wondered about their religions.  I mean, it must have been hell on those ships, having to stop to pray five times a day.  I'm amazed they made it half way around the world in the time they did!   ;D ;D ;D ;D This any help? Quote: In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney. [https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202124839AAtKBAs] I found this too, Hot Breasts. The old boy is right - it’s not the First Fleet. I wonder if Flannery’s book describes early Muslim settlers, and not First Fleeters. It certainly debunks poor Hermoine’s comment about Muslims not settling and "building" Australia. We know they did - the old Afghani camel drivers are a perennial source of hyperbole on this board, on both sides of the debate. You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change.

Abel Tasman's real name was Abdul Al Tasmani ben Muhammad ibn Saud Al Kaliffah.


Everyone knows that.

Karnal wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:21am: Soren wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:44pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.  Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip. Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim. That's a relief.  I've often wondered about their religions.  I mean, it must have been hell on those ships, having to stop to pray five times a day.  I'm amazed they made it half way around the world in the time they did!   ;D ;D ;D ;D This any help? Quote: In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney. [https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202124839AAtKBAs] I found this too, Hot Breasts. The old boy is right - it’s not the First Fleet. I wonder if Flannery’s book describes early Muslim settlers, and not First Fleeters. It certainly debunks poor Hermoine’s comment about Muslims not settling and "building" Australia. We know they did - the old Afghani camel drivers are a perennial source of hyperbole on this board, on both sides of the debate. You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change.

Afghani camel jockies ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You know who built Australia- the British. Get over it. The people that opened up the interior were British explorers. Everything else came afterwards.

hermoine wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 12:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:58am: |dev|null wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:21am: Soren wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:44pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.  Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip. Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim. That's a relief.  I've often wondered about their religions.  I mean, it must have been hell on those ships, having to stop to pray five times a day.  I'm amazed they made it half way around the world in the time they did!   ;D ;D ;D ;D This any help? Quote: In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney. [https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202124839AAtKBAs] I found this too, Hot Breasts. The old boy is right - it’s not the First Fleet. I wonder if Flannery’s book describes early Muslim settlers, and not First Fleeters. It certainly debunks poor Hermoine’s comment about Muslims not settling and "building" Australia. We know they did - the old Afghani camel drivers are a perennial source of hyperbole on this board, on both sides of the debate. You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change. Afghani camel jockies ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You know who built Australia- the British. Get over it. The people that opened up the interior were British explorers. Everything else came afterwards.

Oh, I think you'll find we Irish and Scots did a bit too, dear.

Karnal wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 1:08pm:

hermoine wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 12:22pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:58am: |dev|null wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:21am: Soren wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 10:02am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:44pm: hermoine wrote on Jul 6th, 2014 at 1:31pm: If you look at the first fleet manifesto you'll find a lot of Mahmouds and Mustaphas among all the Edwards and Annes! ;D ;D ;D I think the word you're looking for, Hermoine is "manifest", not "manifesto". It is also the wrong word, as a "manifest" refers to goods carried by a ship, not the personnel.   The actual words you're after are "ship's roll" and yes, there were not insignificant numbers of ship crew who were Laskers (from modern day Pakistan), Malays and other Muslim regions.  This was not uncommon on the ships of the day, including those of the Royal Navy.  If you look at the Nelson Column memorial in Trafalgar Square in London, you'll discover a frieze carved into it's base depicting scenes from the Battle of Trafalgar, amongst the seamen depicted there are Negro and Asian faces.  Nelson  himself was a Muslim, as every schoolboy knows. As were Cook and Arthur Phillip. Nothing of real significance has ever been done by non-Muslims. Everyone is a born Muslim. That's a relief.  I've often wondered about their religions.  I mean, it must have been hell on those ships, having to stop to pray five times a day.  I'm amazed they made it half way around the world in the time they did!   ;D ;D ;D ;D This any help? Quote: In 1788, the First Fleet sailed into Australian waters. Ali Williams, a Member of the Fellowship of the First Fleeters, when investigating his own family history, found that according to Government records, the Musters of 1802, 1811, 1822, and the Census of 1828, had listed a number of Mohammedans, the term used for Muslims at the time. Thus, the first Muslims settled in NSW only 13 years after the colony was formed. He found that a person by the name of Rhamut, aged 23, came free on the ship "Favourite" in 1801. He was later listed as a land-owner residing at Evan, near the Nepean River in NSW. Satim, aged 25, and Marnie, aged 23, both came free on the "Louisa" in 1828 and were employed by John Maughan as servants, residing at George Street, Sydney. [https://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110202124839AAtKBAs] I found this too, Hot Breasts. The old boy is right - it’s not the First Fleet. I wonder if Flannery’s book describes early Muslim settlers, and not First Fleeters. It certainly debunks poor Hermoine’s comment about Muslims not settling and "building" Australia. We know they did - the old Afghani camel drivers are a perennial source of hyperbole on this board, on both sides of the debate. You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change. Afghani camel jockies ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D You know who built Australia- the British. Get over it. The people that opened up the interior were British explorers. Everything else came afterwards. Oh, I think you'll find we Irish and Scots did a bit too, dear.

Except for Northern Ireland they are and were British. You know the Afghan's didn't pioneer anything. They were employed to do various roles by the British Government. E.g supplying districts with goods or working camel trains for expeditions. Under the British. :) :)

Strike that Northern Ireland is British . Ireland isn't now. Back then it was all Britain.

Karnal wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change.

Makes quite a change compared to the tripe usually posted by the Xenophobes and Bigots!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 1:26pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:58am: You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change. Makes quite a change compared to the tripe usually posted by the Xenophobes and Bigots!   ;D ;D ;D ;D

Only four laffing boys?

Soren wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 1:59pm:

|dev|null wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 1:26pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 7th, 2014 at 11:58am: You’re right - this historical research is proving exciting. It’s good to discuss actual facts here for a change. Makes quite a change compared to the tripe usually posted by the Xenophobes and Bigots!   ;D ;D ;D ;D Only four laffing boys?

I'm flexible, I use a variable number of smilies.   ;D :D :D ;D :D

When will Islam ever unite people so spontaneously?

Never, because it is first and always coercive. Not only there are no jokes in Islam, there is no joy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRXEqvfRXII#t=455

Or my all time favourite, in Antwerp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQLCZOG202k

Islamically inconveivable joy of life.

Totally agree.

A random act of culture:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXh7JR9oKVE



And, God forbid,  Christmas theme.

With the False Prophet now making his move it is probably  the most important time in the history of mankind for both Christianity and the West to embrace. We have to face this evil with resolve.

brumbie wrote on Jul 7^th, 2014 at 9:40pm:

With the False Prophet now making his move it is probably  the most important time in the history of mankind for both Christianity and the West to embrace. We have to face this evil with resolve.

Actually,it isn't the west anymore is it?
The whole world has had enough.Every single person like me who is quite happy with a multicultural world without Muslims has to vote on the fkcin right because the sad leftards want to go so far to the left that people like me,that are union men and generally happy with anything that isn't anything to do with multculturalism with the inclusion of predators, are now regarded as right wing fascists by our own Labor Party.....It's obvious where the extremism is coming from. 

Muslims in Britain take part in flashmob style ‘Big Iftar’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVftlqDZJ6A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d2anvcFj94

What a shame some people refuse to see things like this.  Perhaps the real problem is they don't or more likely won't look?  A simple search found those three links in five seconds.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life.

Soren wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life.

That’s right, old boy. We’d never see the Lutherans doing that.

Stool soup? Anyone?

Soren wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life.

Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::)

To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted.

I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him.

Is that right, Soren?

Aaaaah! The public face of 'peaceful' Islam.

Smiling, downtrodden slaves of the patriarchy handing out largesse to the forgotten debris of Western debauchery.

Great PR!

The smile of the jihadist as he holds out the sweet in one hand while concealing the scimitar of Sharia behind his back.

'It's only the radicals that commit all those atrocities. '

Shame there's so many of them. And they're so avid to recruit.

What?  Shirley, you jest!   ;D

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:50pm:

Aaaaah! The public face of 'peaceful' Islam. Smiling, downtrodden slaves of the patriarchy handing out largesse to the forgotten debris of Western debauchery. Great PR! The smile of the jihadist as he holds out the sweet in one hand while concealing the scimitar of Sharia behind his back. 'It's only the radicals that commit all those atrocities. ' Shame there's so many of them. And they're so avid to recruit. What?  Shirley, you jest!   ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA

Did Kevin forget to say sawry to the Muslim Pioneers as well ?  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted. I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him. Is that right, Soren?

The old boy’s a Freudian. You know, where there was ego, there shall id be.

The old boy believes in unconsciousness - preferably during sex.

It certainly makes him more compliant, let me tell you.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::)

Just cant stop being a troll can you brian? Yet you claim you are not a bigot! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Karnal wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 10:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted. I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him. Is that right, Soren? The old boy’s a Freudian. You know, where there was ego, there shall id be. The old boy believes in unconsciousness - preferably during sex. It certainly makes him more compliant, let me tell you.

He would have to be if he was doing you.  ;D

Karnal wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 10:22pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted. I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him. Is that right, Soren? The old boy’s a Freudian. You know, where there was ego, there shall id be. The old boy believes in unconsciousness - preferably during sex. It certainly makes him more compliant, let me tell you.

That explains a lot and  there I was, I just thought he was a w.a.n.k.e.r.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 12:23am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 10:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted. I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him. Is that right, Soren? The old boy’s a Freudian. You know, where there was ego, there shall id be. The old boy believes in unconsciousness - preferably during sex. It certainly makes him more compliant, let me tell you. He would have to be if he was doing you.  ;D

Saucy.

And that's 5  ;D, thank you.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 10:24am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 10:22pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:25pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted. I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him. Is that right, Soren? The old boy’s a Freudian. You know, where there was ego, there shall id be. The old boy believes in unconsciousness - preferably during sex. It certainly makes him more compliant, let me tell you. That explains a lot and  there I was, I just thought he was a w.a.n.k.e.r.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Calling a person a.w.a.n.k.e.r is only allowed if you are a muslim!

Sharia has been imposed on all other stinking kufre.

So spake God ;D ;D ;D ; ;D ;D ;D ;D

Adamant wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 11:14pm:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) Just cant stop being a troll can you brian? Yet you claim you are not a bigot! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think Hot Breath will be after you for copyright infringement, Adamant.   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jul 8^th, 2014 at 8:25pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 8:20pm: Soren wrote on Jul 8th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Holding up daft religious propaganda or running a soup kitchen is the new approved Islamic flash mob, a spontaneous expression of the joy of life. Just can't give Muslims a break, can you, Soren?  Nope.  And you claim you're not bigoted.   ::) ::) To be fair, I don't think Soren has ever claimed that he's not bigoted. I believe he is quite proud of his irrational fear of anything different to him. Is that right, Soren?

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.   ;D ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 8:42pm:

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.

I think that's as likely as you ever admitting your own intolerance toward opposing opinions and basing your arguments on established science.

8-)

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 9^th, 2014 at 9:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 8:42pm: The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.  I think that's as likely as you ever admitting your own intolerance toward opposing opinions and basing your arguments on established science. 8-)

Oh, I've always admitted I have little tolerance for racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred and so on, based as it is invariably on pseudoscience and bigotry, Lionel.  Do you believe such should be accepted and tolerated?   ::)

I  wonder how the apoligists would react if it were one of their kids killed in one of the 23,000 deadly Jihadist attacks in the last 15 years?

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 4:37am:

I  wonder how the apoligists would react if it were one of their kids killed in one of the 23,000 deadly Jihadist attacks in the last 15 years?

As there are no "apoligists" here, I think your question is misdirected.  Perhaps you should ask why would the bigots simply find their views reinforced if a Muslim child was killed by a Western soldier?   ;D :D :D ;D :D ;D

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 4:37am:

I  wonder how the apoligists would react if it were one of their kids killed in one of the 23,000 deadly Jihadist attacks in the last 15 years?

That’s a very good question, dear. Thanks for that.

Would you practice forgiveness, or sign up to fight the jihad?

A compelling dillema, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 12:07am:

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 9:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 8:42pm: The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.  I think that's as likely as you ever admitting your own intolerance toward opposing opinions and basing your arguments on established science. 8-) Oh, I've always admitted I have little tolerance for racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred and so on, based as it is invariably on pseudoscience and bigotry, Lionel.  Do you believe such should be accepted and tolerated?   ::)

You simply label opposing opinions as "racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred" to save yourself from needing to think, let alone to make a coherent point, Brain.
Your only argument, ever, is "it's not everty single Muslim who is bad therefore Islam cannot be the reason for the bad Muslims.'

But I think the bad Muslims are motivated precisely by Islam, not least because they say so themselves, loud and clear. I take them at their word and deeds.  Islam is self-evidently an intolerant creed, both inward and outward. Pointing this out - or hearing it from Muslims - is not "racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred".

You can look at any country's security plans, defence against ISLAMIC terrorism is central to all their plans. It is evidently a GOOD THING to be intolerant against Islamic terrorism, jihad, caliphate-preaching and agitation for  return to the 7th century Arab standards of life.


I have nothing against anyone or any hue who has been born Muslim and is against the Islamic teachings that have been fuelling violence, oppression, superstition and completely baseless superiority complex since Islam burst out of Araby 1400 years ago.
I have nothing against Germans who renounced Nazism, Russians who renounced Stalinism and Communism,  or any [your nationality here] who renounce [your distasteful supremacist ideology here].

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 12:07am: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 9:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 8:42pm: The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.  I think that's as likely as you ever admitting your own intolerance toward opposing opinions and basing your arguments on established science. 8-) Oh, I've always admitted I have little tolerance for racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred and so on, based as it is invariably on pseudoscience and bigotry, Lionel.  Do you believe such should be accepted and tolerated?   ::) You simply label opposing opinions as "racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred" to save yourself from needing to think, let alone to make a coherent point, Brain. Your only argument, ever, is "it's not everty single Muslim who is bad therefore Islam cannot be the reason for the bad Muslims.' But I think the bad Muslims are motivated precisely by Islam, not least because they say so themselves, loud and clear. I take them at their word and deeds.

I say, dear boy, are there any Muslims you know who own up to racism, bigotry and intolerance?

Would you care to own up to this yourself?

In the words of your dear poetess, please explain.

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

I have nothing against Germans who renounced Nazism, Russians who renounced Stalinism and Communism,  or any [your nationality here] who renounce [your distasteful supremacist ideology here].

Yes, old chap, but we still haven't heard you renounce your unique school of Freudianism.

Where there was ego, there shall carpet bombing be, no?

Where there was id, there shall correllation not causation be, yes?

Marvellous stuff. 

Karnal wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 12:26pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:38am: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 12:07am: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 9:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 8:42pm: The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.  I think that's as likely as you ever admitting your own intolerance toward opposing opinions and basing your arguments on established science. 8-) Oh, I've always admitted I have little tolerance for racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred and so on, based as it is invariably on pseudoscience and bigotry, Lionel.  Do you believe such should be accepted and tolerated?   ::) You simply label opposing opinions as "racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred" to save yourself from needing to think, let alone to make a coherent point, Brain. Your only argument, ever, is "it's not everty single Muslim who is bad therefore Islam cannot be the reason for the bad Muslims.' But I think the bad Muslims are motivated precisely by Islam, not least because they say so themselves, loud and clear. I take them at their word and deeds.  I say, dear boy, are there any Muslims you know who own up to racism, bigotry and intolerance? Would you care to own up to this yourself? In the words of your dear poetess, please explain.

I will be nice for once to you. I will explain that the muslim belief system makes them perfect  in the eyes of the ummah, (muslim family/nation) they can do no wrong against the kafir  (you the filth that does not believe). They will not tell you this until Australian muslims reach about 15% of the general population. When they achieve over 50% they will start to kill all who do not believe in the filth they call allah. 

Please grow up! Look at Nigeria. Look at what we will become unless we say NO.

Mate Karnal is that boy at school who comes out with sarcasm and wit that only he can understand when asked to indulge in reality by his peers.
His main objective on this board is to run around after Soren like a little puppy and offer a sarcastic and irrelevant answer to any of his posts.
There are undoubtedly paid or non paid extremists on this board who are here to cause distraction.Shame really because when Karnal puts his mind to it he can come up with a good dialogue that very nearly offers an opinion.
Either that or he just copies and pastes,sadly we will never know because he quickly reverts to banal wit soon afterwards. :(

brumbie wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:07pm:

Mate Karnal is that boy at school who comes out with sarcasm and wit that only he can understand when asked to indulge in reality by his peers. His main objective on this board is to run around after Soren like a little puppy and offer a sarcastic and irrelevant answer to any of his posts. There are undoubtedly paid or non paid extremists on this board who are here to cause distraction.Shame really because when Karnal puts his mind to it he can come up with a good dialogue that very nearly offers an opinion. Either that or he just copies and pastes,sadly we will never know because he quickly reverts to banal wit soon afterwards. :(

Karnal's weapon of choice is humour. He uses it well.

MOTR wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

Karnal's weapon of choice is humour. He uses it well.

Perhaps it needs sharpening;he could try the blarney stone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blarney_Stone

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:38am:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 12:07am: Lionel Edriess wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 9:26pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 9th, 2014 at 8:42pm: The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem and if Soren admits he's a bigot, there may be hope for him afterall.  I think that's as likely as you ever admitting your own intolerance toward opposing opinions and basing your arguments on established science. 8-) Oh, I've always admitted I have little tolerance for racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred and so on, based as it is invariably on pseudoscience and bigotry, Lionel.  Do you believe such should be accepted and tolerated?   ::) You simply label opposing opinions as "racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred" to save yourself from needing to think, let alone to make a coherent point, Brain.

Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web.


Quote:

Your only argument, ever, is "it's not everty single Muslim who is bad therefore Islam cannot be the reason for the bad Muslims.'

No, that is not my only argument and for you to attempt to claim it is merely demonstrates how poorly you've understand the numerous different points I've made, Soren.   ::)


Quote:

But I think the bad Muslims are motivated precisely by Islam, not least because they say so themselves, loud and clear. I take them at their word and deeds.  Islam is self-evidently an intolerant creed, both inward and outward. Pointing this out - or hearing it from Muslims - is not "racism, bigotry, intolerance, discrimination, hatred".

How interesting, yet when ever the point is made that Christian Terrorists who commit atrocities are motivated by their religion, you, amongst others, attempt to claim they aren't.  Appears to be something wrong with your logic.

The reality is that Terrorists are invariably motivated by their own, private interpretations of what ever tract they are drawing inspiration from, Soren, whether it's Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or anything else.  That Muslim Terrorists are having a hard time convincing their co-religionists to support them in their madness seems to have passed you by or you're deliberately ignoring it, preferring instead to display your usual bigotry towards all Muslims and all matters Islamic.   ::)


Quote:

You can look at any country's security plans, defence against ISLAMIC terrorism is central to all their plans.

Bet you I can name several nations where that isn't true, Soren.  Care to take me up on that bet?   ;D


Quote:

It is evidently a GOOD THING to be intolerant against Islamic terrorism, jihad, caliphate-preaching and agitation for  return to the 7th century Arab standards of life.

Couldn't agree more but the problem is, you're not just intolerant against Islamic Terrorism, Soren, you're intolerant against EVERYTHING Islamic and ALL Muslims.   ::)


Quote:

I have nothing against anyone or any hue who has been born Muslim and is against the Islamic teachings that have been fuelling violence, oppression, superstition and completely baseless superiority complex since Islam burst out of Araby 1400 years ago.

I am amazed, utterly amazed.  How many posts, Soren and you've finally admitted that your blanket attacks on everything Islamic and all Muslims has been wrong?   :o :o

If it's true, that is.   ::)

Lets see if your reform lasts, shall we?  It appears you've been cured of and have renounced bigotry.   Perhaps.

Karnal, if I were muslim I would sign up for the jihad so I could take advantage of the 69 circumcised,  underage girls like Ayisha. What I wouldn't do is p.i.s.s off to an infidel country like Australia,,abandon my brethren, guzzle down big macs and insult said country's history and heritage

hermoine wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

Karnal, if I were muslim I would sign up for the jihad so I could take advantage of the 69 circumcised,  underage girls like Ayisha. What I wouldn't do is p.i.s.s off to an infidel country like Australia,,abandon my brethren, guzzle down big macs and insult said country's history and heritage

Well, you obviously do not understand the bludgerhadeen, Hermie.

PB will explain. away.  He always does. It's all Marxist, Saidist, Fvckauldian sociology, don't you know.

PB, do your stuff, there's a good thirdy-worldy social theorist.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web.

;D ;D ;D
I have just carefully fallen off the chair, Brain.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

How interesting, yet when ever the point is made that Christian Terrorists who commit atrocities are motivated by their religion, you, amongst others, attempt to claim they aren't.  Appears to be something wrong with your logic.

Example please, Brain, or be forever known as one who is speaking through your arse when squeezed.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

Couldn't agree more but the problem is, you're not just intolerant against Islamic Terrorism, Soren, you're intolerant against EVERYTHING Islamic and ALL Muslims.   ::)

I really like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie. Really, really like them. They are Muslims.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

I am amazed, utterly amazed.  How many posts, Soren and you've finally admitted that your blanket attacks on everything Islamic and all Muslims has been wrong?   :o :o If it's true, that is.   ::) Lets see if your reform lasts, shall we?  It appears you've been cured of and have renounced bigotry.   Perhaps.

You are pretending to be amazed because you are an idiot who is pretending to be unable to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology.

You are not helped by Islam not making the distinction but actually making a very strong and undissolvable bond between private religious devotion and public political jihadi activism. Islam is always political,never merely devotional. The personal devotion of the hijab, for example, is political, as Carol Hanisch would have put it.

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

I am amazed, utterly amazed.  How many posts, Soren and you've finally admitted that your blanket attacks on everything Islamic and all Muslims has been wrong?   :o :o If it's true, that is.   ::) Lets see if your reform lasts, shall we?  It appears you've been cured of and have renounced bigotry.   Perhaps.

What sad little pensioner you are, Brain, imagining that you somehow occupy the high ground from which to judge, objectively in your mind, whether some views are acceptable or not.

Your delusion and lack of awareness is 'amazing'.

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 10:23pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web. ;D ;D ;D I have just carefully fallen off the chair, Brain.

The wacky-backy does that I understand, Soren.   ;D

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 10:33pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Couldn't agree more but the problem is, you're not just intolerant against Islamic Terrorism, Soren, you're intolerant against EVERYTHING Islamic and ALL Muslims.   ::) I really like Ayan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq, Salman Rushdie. Really, really like them. They are Muslims.

Yes but when you spray your words of hatred against all Muslims you mean them as well, you realise?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:34pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web. ;D ;D ;D I have just carefully fallen off the chair, Brain. The wacky-backy does that I understand, Soren.   ;D

Are you a semi-retired menswear salesman, by any chance, Brain?

I am getting a very strong indication of it.

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 10:40pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: I am amazed, utterly amazed.  How many posts, Soren and you've finally admitted that your blanket attacks on everything Islamic and all Muslims has been wrong?   :o :o If it's true, that is.   ::) Lets see if your reform lasts, shall we?  It appears you've been cured of and have renounced bigotry.   Perhaps. You are pretending to be amazed because you are an idiot who is pretending to be unable to distinguish between Islam as a religion and Islam as a political ideology.

Yet I utilise the word often which was coined for political Islam, Soren so I rather think I can differentiate between the two.  You, however, OTOH never do.  Do you know what that word is?   ::)


Quote:

You are not helped by Islam not making the distinction but actually making a very strong and undissolvable bond between private religious devotion and public political jihadi activism. Islam is always political,never merely devotional. The personal devotion of the hijab, for example, is political, as Carol Hanisch would have put it.

Well, actually it is, Soren.  Just because you teachers at the Madrassa which you attended deliberately blurred the two is not my fault.   ::)

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 10:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: I am amazed, utterly amazed.  How many posts, Soren and you've finally admitted that your blanket attacks on everything Islamic and all Muslims has been wrong?   :o :o If it's true, that is.   ::) Lets see if your reform lasts, shall we?  It appears you've been cured of and have renounced bigotry.   Perhaps. What sad little pensioner you are, Brain, imagining that you somehow occupy the high ground from which to judge, objectively in your mind, whether some views are acceptable or not. Your delusion and lack of awareness is 'amazing'.

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f2/Redwood39/Yawn.gif

Resorting to ad hominem again, Soren?  You do realise what that means, don't you?   ;D

Soren wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:37pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:34pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web. ;D ;D ;D I have just carefully fallen off the chair, Brain. The wacky-backy does that I understand, Soren.   ;D Are you a semi-retired menswear salesman, by any chance, Brain? I am getting a very strong indication of it.

Really?  And what experience have you had of "semi-retired menswear salesmen", Soren, which allows you to detect it so readily?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:43pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:34pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web. ;D ;D ;D I have just carefully fallen off the chair, Brain. The wacky-backy does that I understand, Soren.   ;D Are you a semi-retired menswear salesman, by any chance, Brain? I am getting a very strong indication of it. Really?  And what experience have you had of "semi-retired menswear salesmen", Soren, which allows you to detect it so readily?   ::)

He drops into Ruben F Scarf each week to get his inside leg taken.

They like to humour him, but it’s wearing a bit thin - particularly now that the staff are all Indian boys.

The old boy’s Kraut bluster is lost on them, but they give him his rub and tug and carry on as if he’s just a normal customer.

The semi-retired menswear salesman line is the old boy’s idea of a come-on.

Old boy this old boy that, no humor same boring posts Kamel.
Obviously you think you still have humor.

Change it up a bit you are getting boring for a troll.

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jul 13^th, 2014 at 8:51pm:

Old boy this old boy that, no humor same boring posts Kamel. Obviously you think you still have humor. Change it up a bit you are getting boring for a troll.

So, claims the noisiest troll of all.   Perhaps I should turn Troll Hunter?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Jul 14^th, 2014 at 11:04am:

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi wrote on Jul 13th, 2014 at 8:51pm: Old boy this old boy that, no humor same boring posts Kamel. Obviously you think you still have humor. Change it up a bit you are getting boring for a troll. So, claims the noisiest troll of all.   Perhaps I should turn Troll Hunter?    ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Grand Duke Imam Mahdi's new here. He forgets we've had the same discussions and heard the same replies for years.

Can you believe it? He actually thinks he's saying something new.

It's strange though - he says exactly the same thing as that other new poster, Mattywisk. I like it when they have conversations with each other.

As Satre said, hell is other people.

For some reason, Mahdi and Matty seem to get on quite well. Is Satre wrong, or... ?

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10^th, 2014 at 11:43pm:

Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:37pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 11:34pm: Soren wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 10:23pm: Brian Ross wrote on Jul 10th, 2014 at 7:48pm: Actually, no I don't, Soren.  I usually carefully draw my opponent's argument out and demonstrate to them how they are being "racist/bigoted/discriminatory/hating/etc."  and that is what annoys you because you know you're been trapped in your own web. ;D ;D ;D I have just carefully fallen off the chair, Brain. The wacky-backy does that I understand, Soren.   ;D Are you a semi-retired menswear salesman, by any chance, Brain? I am getting a very strong indication of it. Really?  And what experience have you had of "semi-retired menswear salesmen", Soren, which allows you to detect it so readily?   ::)

My exchanges with karnal over the years.  He is a retired gentlemen's outfitter from La Whore.

Now now, don’t let him distract you with professional dispersions on my good name.

If you must know, I purchased this suit on a trip to Delhi in 1975. The toupe was a gift from an old friend in the hair business, peace be upon him. You wouldn’t know if I didn’t mention it.

Now now, don’t let him distract you with professional dispersions on my good name.

If you must know, I purchased this suit on a trip to Delhi in 1975. The toupe was a gift from an old friend in the hair business, peace be upon him. You wouldn’t know if I didn’t mention it.

be wary of Karnal's knowledge.

Be wary of all knowledge, friend. As the prophets say, knowledge is like a fire. It can burn your shoelace, insh'allah, or it can light your way to Gud.