My dear oz-poll'ers. We are presented with a conundrum. Let's pretend we're running the Commonwealth. What do we do with those Australians who aid IS? Before I hear the chorus of "behead them!", let's remember that there's a freedom of political expression, with which the government is not legally allowed to interfere.

My personal solution would be criminalise travel to the affected areas of the middle east. The penalty? Forfeiture of citizenship. Then the effers can't come back, unless they pretend to be boat people. Not to mention that there would be no more qualms about our military shooting its fellow Australians.

Thoughts?

They most certainly are legally allowed to interfere if someone is found to be materially aiding a listed terrorist organization - which IS is.

The problem with the travel issue is firstly these kids who make the journey are so secretive about it that mostly their own family are unaware of their plans. So its almost impossible for the authorities to keep tabs on potential IS recruits. The second problem is Turkey. Its an open secret that Turkish authorities are turning a blind eye to IS smuggling people into Syria from Turkey, and its even less of a secret that Turkey is all but openly backing IS. So I think the first step to stopping IS recruitment on the international stage, is to apply far more pressure on Turkey - a member of NATO no less - to stop this little proxy game they are playing, and start clamping down on the smuggling.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 3:41pm:

The problem with the travel issue is firstly these kids who make the journey are so secretive about it that mostly their own family are unaware of their plans. So its almost impossible for the authorities to keep tabs on potential IS recruits

But, once they're recruited, the authorities eventually find out they're fighting for/marrying ISIS, right? So why not simply cut the umbilical at a distance. Serve them a writ stating that there's a case being tried to strip their citizenship, and to kindly return home and defend it or the trial will proceed in their absence. Service can be effected by social media -- there's recent case law confirming it. The buggers can stay in Syria and lose their citizenship, or come back to Aus and fight to keep it.


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 3:41pm:

So I think the first step to stopping IS recruitment on the international stage, is to apply far more pressure on Turkey

Gandalf, I've got a question about Islam for you. From the way you post, I assume you're an Australian-born who converted, is that correct? Do you think that Aussie converts are more vulnerable to radicalization than those who grow up Islamic?

Additionally, from a domestic perspective, couldn't we just keep a close eye on flights to Turkey and it's surrounds?

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 3:21pm:

My dear oz-poll'ers. We are presented with a conundrum. Let's pretend we're running the Commonwealth. What do we do with those Australians who aid IS? Before I hear the chorus of "behead them!", let's remember that there's a freedom of political expression, with which the government is not legally allowed to interfere. My personal solution would be criminalise travel to the affected areas of the middle east. The penalty? Forfeiture of citizenship. Then the effers can't come back, unless they pretend to be boat people. Not to mention that there would be no more qualms about our military shooting its fellow Australians. Thoughts?

As the Federal Government has discovered, citizenship is a much more nebulous concept than most people realise.  It barely rates a mention in our own Constitution and internationally it is important, so important than it is mentioned in nearly every international convention and treaty we are a member of, so simply destroying it for one of our citizens is a lot harder than most people realise, legally and morally.

I'd recommend that instead of getting rid of their citizenship we should allow them to keep it.  Prevent them from claiming Centrelink payments overseas (obviously) and when they return to Australia, put them on trial for "materially aiding a listed organisation" or something similar and if they are found guilty, lock them up for the required stretch.   Stop everybody getting their knickers in a twist and treat it as what it is, simply a criminal event in an individual's life.

It is nice to see some useful contribution to the forum for a change!

If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria.

If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho.

miketrees wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 4:41pm:

If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho.

Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 4:38pm:

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 3:21pm: My dear oz-poll'ers. We are presented with a conundrum. Let's pretend we're running the Commonwealth. What do we do with those Australians who aid IS? Before I hear the chorus of "behead them!", let's remember that there's a freedom of political expression, with which the government is not legally allowed to interfere. My personal solution would be criminalise travel to the affected areas of the middle east. The penalty? Forfeiture of citizenship. Then the effers can't come back, unless they pretend to be boat people. Not to mention that there would be no more qualms about our military shooting its fellow Australians. Thoughts? As the Federal Government has discovered, citizenship is a much more nebulous concept than most people realise.  It barely rates a mention in our own Constitution and internationally it is important, so important than it is mentioned in nearly every international convention and treaty we are a member of, so simply destroying it for one of our citizens is a lot harder than most people realise, legally and morally. I'd recommend that instead of getting rid of their citizenship we should allow them to keep it.  Prevent them from claiming Centrelink payments overseas (obviously) and when they return to Australia, put them on trial for "materially aiding a listed organisation" or something similar and if they are found guilty, lock them up for the required stretch.   Stop everybody getting their knickers in a twist and treat it as what it is, simply a criminal event in an individual's life. It is nice to see some useful contribution to the forum for a change!

simply a criminal event in an individual's life. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Let them rot in Syria. Why should the taxpayer fork out their jail bills and allow them  to spread their hate here.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 4:42pm:

miketrees wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:41pm: If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho. Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::)

They may be like you and Gandalf but they are definitely not like me.

Soren wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 5:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:42pm: miketrees wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:41pm: If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho. Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::) They may be like you and Gandalf but they are definitely not like me.

Appears you don't think you're as Australian as two other members, Soren.  What a shame, really 'cause I hoped you would.   ::)

two minutes hate wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

simply a criminal event in an individual's life. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Let them rot in Syria. Why should the taxpayer fork out their jail bills and allow them  to spread their hate here.

Unlike you, I take responsibility and believe my nation should as well, when one of it's nationals does something it thinks they shouldn't be, rather than just abandon them and reject them when it disagrees with what they are saying/doing...   ::)

Jail them. Stop them from going.

Although it would be convenient for them to travel to Syria and have a bomb dropped on their head from a great height, we cannot count on it. We cannot assume to be immune from what goes on over there. 9/11 demonstrated that, and IS has shown itself eager to export it's terrorism. Furthermore, Australia in particular has a moral obligation to stop these Muslims, as our Muslims are relatively over-represented compared to other western nations. The Iraqi and Syrian people do not want these criminals any more than we do (for the most part).

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 4:42pm:

miketrees wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:41pm: If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho. Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::)

Yeah .......... nahh


If you're leaving Australia to join a group that would kill, mutilate and torture Australian servicemen / women, Australian aid workers or any other Australian if you got your hands on them; I would refer to you as many things, just not my fellow Australian.  >:(

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/08/23/1227034/436433-8a2381c8-29c6-11e4-9127-4fc86beefa46.jpg

MOSLEMS - wanna-be murderers [Koran 9.111]




Yadda wrote on Feb 28^th, 2015 at 9:59pm:

The security services know of these people, and [by now!] they should know that simply BEING A MOSLEM and expressing support for ISIS, is tantamount to promoting sedition / treason against Australia.

Bring back capital punishment, and public hanging for treason ?

Locale for such public hangings; Martin Place ?





Deuteronomy 19:20
And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.





Yadda said.....

Quote:

In fact i wish to propose a new law, be brought into being, here in Australia. An i hope that every Australian will lobby their federal parliamentary representative, encouraging the Australian government/parliament enact this new law. And this new law could be titled; The Disrespect in Death, of all Criminals - Law. This law would require that EVERY PERSON in Australia, who was convicted of a criminal offence [within Australia], should [upon their death, in Australia]; 1/ be required to be buried within Australia [i.e. no after death 'emigration'], 2/ and to be required to be buried embracing the carcass of a dead pig, 3/ the cost of the carcass of the dead pig, to be borne by the estate/family of the dead criminal. If the estate/family of the dead criminal are too poor, and cannot afford the cost of the carcass of a dead pig, then the body of the dead convicted criminal will be embalmed using at least 10 litres of pigs blood - supplied 'by donation', by a fund subscribed to, by patriotic, law abiding Australians. n.b. Such a law, would have absolutely no effect upon any dead moslem person, if that dead moslem person was never convicted, of being involved in, or in planning a terrorist act, murder, inciting murder, promoting and encouraging sedition and/or treason, or, any other criminal act. The law would apply to EVERY PERSON in Australia, but would only apply to the deceased remains of all convicted criminals.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 6:05pm:

Jail them. Stop them from going.

A semi-sensible suggestion but of course, it assumes that travel out of Australia has become illegal, I think you'll find, FD.   ::)

The reality is that no one can really always know who's going overseas to Syria or Iraq for that matter, let alone anywhere else, 100% of the time.  The reality is that these people are being nefarious about their intentions and their destinations.  We must learn to cope with that, FD...   ::)

Noneofyourbusiness wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 6:26pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:42pm: miketrees wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:41pm: If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho. Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::) Yeah .......... nahh If you're leaving Australia to join a group that would kill, mutilate and torture Australian servicemen / women, Australian aid workers or any other Australian if you got your hands on them; I would refer to you as many things, just not my fellow Australian.  >:(

Hello, Matty/et al.   ::)

I imagine this must present a moral conundrum for you Brian. At what point do these terrorists become people of a different religion in a different country that you are not allowed to, or even able to criticise?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 3:41pm:

The second problem is Turkey. Its an open secret that Turkish authorities are turning a blind eye to IS smuggling people into Syria from Turkey, and its even less of a secret that Turkey is all but openly backing IS. So I think the first step to stopping IS recruitment on the international stage, is to apply far more pressure on Turkey - a member of NATO no less - to stop this little proxy game they are playing, and start clamping down on the smuggling.

Yes... Turkey - proving again that its NATO's problem child... A potential 'Judas' in its midst.

But, then again, Turkey's clear ambitions against and fears of their neighbours, (e.g. Assad, the Kurds), makes their involvement against IS exponentially more complicated than for others in the region.

No matter... IS will ultimately fail (I'd bet Turkey thinks so too) and I'm guessing Turkey's playing a waiting game in the expectation that the confusion following the IS collapse will deliver outcomes that favour Turkish ambitions.

One thing's for sure, though... the Kurds are going to come out the heroes at the end of this. That's something Turkey will not be able to diminish.

And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS.

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 3:21pm:

Forfeiture of citizenship. Thoughts?

Forfeiture of citizenship of a Western, secular, non-Muslim, non-Sharia, pro-gambling, pro-drinking, pro-gender-equality, homosexual-friendly, infidel society is every immigrant Muslim's worst nightmare.

The prospect of being exiled from a Western, secular, non-Muslim, non-Sharia, pro-gambling, pro-drinking, pro-gender-equality, homosexual-friendly, infidel society with its many Welfare Benefit attractions is a 'Worst Case Scenario' for most of the West's religiously hypocritical immigrant Muslims.

Forfeiture of citizenship and forced repatriation to country of ancestral origin should be mandatory for any Australian citizen who is found to be sympathising with the enemies of Western civilisation.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 7:24am:

And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS.

Correct.

And this in turn will see yet another stream of 'persecuted' Muslims entering Australia on the Refugees bandwagon.

miketrees wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 4:41pm:

If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria.

Wrong.

Let the attraction of ISIS act as a filter to rid our society of those who are the enemy of Western civilisation even at their young age.

The 'just kids' Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card is being hawked and peddled by ABC Lefties and the North Shore luvvies as an apologist ploy to see that these young adults are eventually given nothing more than a slap on the wrist and sent home to their parents.

For political reasons and moral vanity it's always a case of appeasement and concession where Muslims are concerned.

****************

The following is the sort of news that warms the cockles of my heart.

It also demonstrates just how many immigrants are proven to be Undesirables even to the degree that they are expelled from our shores.

It boggles the mind just how many more are lurking in our midst and are yet to be identified and given the Order of the Golden Boot.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e150/ruffdiamond/January%202013/deported_zps6zuwjime.png

.... In just three months ....

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 7:46am:

Forfeiture of citizenship and forced repatriation to country of ancestral origin should be mandatory for any Australian citizen who is found to be sympathising with the enemies of Western civilisation.

Why go to the expense? Simply end the citizenship, and leave them in whatever shithole they've flown off to fight in.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 5:46pm:

Unlike you, I take responsibility and believe my nation should as well, when one of it's nationals does something it thinks they shouldn't be, rather than just abandon them and reject them when it disagrees with what they are saying/doing...

Now now kiddies, let's be civil.

What do you all think about the good old crimes of sedition, treason, etc? We could always hit them with that.

There's quite a good review of the policy for and against a crime of sedition here.

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 3:52pm:

But, once they're recruited, the authorities eventually find out they're fighting for/marrying ISIS, right? So why not simply cut the umbilical at a distance. Serve them a writ stating that there's a case being tried to strip their citizenship, and to kindly return home and defend it or the trial will proceed in their absence. Service can be effected by social media -- there's recent case law confirming it. The buggers can stay in Syria and lose their citizenship, or come back to Aus and fight to keep it.

This seems a bit of a non-issue - given that even before this citizen-stripping law, there has already been a law making it a criminal offense to go overseas and fight for non-state actors (which also presumably includes those fighting IS with the kurds).



Quote:

Gandalf, I've got a question about Islam for you. From the way you post, I assume you're an Australian-born who converted, is that correct? Do you think that Aussie converts are more vulnerable to radicalization than those who grow up Islamic?

Yes I am. As for the second question, my feeling is no - my impression is that the radicals tend to be the ones who were already nominally muslim, but their islamic upbringing was minimal, and they didn't get much exposure to the islamic community. As they grew up and became more independent they weren't satisfied with their "minimalist" islamic exposure and craved for more. And I hasten to stress that *MOST* people who fall in this category go on to become devout members of the mainstream, peaceful islamic community. However there is a tiny handful who fall into the hands of the non-mainstream extremist preachers, who radicalise them.


Quote:

Additionally, from a domestic perspective, couldn't we just keep a close eye on flights to Turkey and it's surrounds?

Not really practical - Turkey is a massive tourist destination, in addition the Turkish/Turkish heritage community is one of our largest muslim populations - so there's obviously going to be a lot of family visits and so forth.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 6:05pm:

Jail them. Stop them from going.

That would require being able to identify them before they leave - which evidently not even their own families have been able to do in many cases.

I don't know why the government doesn't let them go. If they don't get killed they won't come back to face a hefty prison term. Plus soon they'll be blocked from coming back. Get rid of them!!!!

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 7:24am:

And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS.

Clearly Turkey wants IS to do enough damage to both the Kurds and Assad to eliminate them both as a threat to Turkey.

two minutes hate wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:17am:

I don't know why the government doesn't let them go. If they don't get killed they won't come back to face a hefty prison term. Plus soon they'll be blocked from coming back. Get rid of them!!!!

There is another possible risk that occurred to me. And its related to IS's known desire to carry out attacks within western countries - including Australia. Recruits from Australia could conceivably provide them with useful 'insider' information that could assist them in carrying out such an attack. Not really sure what sort of information that could be, but I think its possible.

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 7:46am:

Forfeiture of citizenship and forced repatriation to country of ancestral origin should be mandatory for any Australian citizen who is found to be sympathising with the enemies of Western civilisation.

Sensei, which country would the DIMIA send you to?  China or the UK?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 7:50am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:24am: And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS. Correct. And this in turn will see yet another stream of 'persecuted' Muslims entering Australia on the Refugees bandwagon.

Sensei, weren't you are refugee?  Why do you want to pull the drawbridge up, now that you're inside?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:17am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:24am: And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS. Clearly Turkey wants IS to do enough damage to both the Kurds and Assad to eliminate them both as a threat to Turkey.

The constitution of the Rojava cantons says Kurds will only fight in self defence.

Oh well that settles that then eh Baron  :D

You can literally twist any act of military aggression into an act of "self defense".

US new-cons were seriously calling the Iraq invasion self defense. In fact I'm sure you do too Baron.

FD will jump in any moment and make some brilliant quip mocking the idea that Muhammad acted in self defense.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:07am:

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 6:05pm: Jail them. Stop them from going. That would require being able to identify them before they leave - which evidently not even their own families have been able to do in many cases.

So put them in jail when they get back.

which is the current policy anyway...

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 12:21pm:

Oh well that settles that then eh Baron  :D You can literally twist any act of military aggression into an act of "self defense". US new-cons were seriously calling the Iraq invasion self defense. In fact I'm sure you do too Baron. FD will jump in any moment and make some brilliant quip mocking the idea that Muhammad acted in self defense.

I don't see any evidence of kurds starting this fight with devout muslims.

Not a single coalition soldier was killed in the Kurdish part of Iraq when Saddam was booted out, the Kurds were the only locals to fight with the coalition in removing Saddam.

Kurdish kids were waving home made USA flags and singing the star spangled banner when the Americans came to their part of Iraq.

Turkey helps the Islamic state,Turkey prevents Kurds from crossing their border to help Kurds in Kobane.

Turkey will not fight the Islamic state yet they are happy to attack and bomb the kurds.

You miss the point - as always Baron.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 12:37pm:

You miss the point - as always Baron.

What point was that Gandalf? ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 12:33pm:

which is the current policy anyway...

Not current practice, as far as I can tell. Hopefully they are just giving them enough rope.


Quote:

FD will jump in any moment and make some brilliant quip mocking the idea that Muhammad acted in self defense.

Do you think that Muhammed's military acts and pillaging were self defense?

Quote:

What point was that Gandalf?

that a meaningless piece of paper won't deter the Kurds from acting aggressively if it suits their strategic interests.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 12:40pm:

Do you think that Muhammed's military acts and pillaging were self defense?

GAFAWWWWWWW  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

me = totally pwn3d

|dev|null wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:45am:

Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:24am: And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS. Correct. And this in turn will see yet another stream of 'persecuted' Muslims entering Australia on the Refugees bandwagon. Sensei, weren't you are refugee?  Why do you want to pull the drawbridge up, now that you're inside?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

I think the correct term is "boat person". Or, in the lingo of the day, "10 pound pom". Sensei now weighs far more than that, of course.


two minutes hate wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:17am:

I don't know why the government doesn't let them go. If they don't get killed they won't come back to face a hefty prison term. Plus soon they'll be blocked from coming back. Get rid of them!!!!

The problem is, that as Australian citizens, they have a right to return to Australia. So they go off, become trained killers, and then (those still alive) they come back to Australia. They can then carry their atrocities out more effectively and more stealthily.

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 5:20pm:

|dev|null wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 11:45am: Lord Herbert wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:50am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:24am: And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS. Correct. And this in turn will see yet another stream of 'persecuted' Muslims entering Australia on the Refugees bandwagon. Sensei, weren't you are refugee?  Why do you want to pull the drawbridge up, now that you're inside?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D I think the correct term is "boat person". Or, in the lingo of the day, "10 pound pom". Sensei now weighs far more than that, of course.

He also costs far more than that!  Perhaps we should put him in a package and post him to the PRC?  I am sure he would be welcomed there!   :D :D ;D ;D :D :D


Quote:

two minutes hate wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 11:17am: I don't know why the government doesn't let them go. If they don't get killed they won't come back to face a hefty prison term. Plus soon they'll be blocked from coming back. Get rid of them!!!! The problem is, that as Australian citizens, they have a right to return to Australia. So they go off, become trained killers, and then (those still alive) they come back to Australia. They can then carry their atrocities out more effectively and more stealthily.

You are assuming that they will return and carry out what ever nefarious purpose you believe they have in mind.   What happens if they just come to have a nice roast cooked by their mum, instead?   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 5:26pm:

He also costs far more than that!  Perhaps we should put him in a package and post him to the PRC?  I am sure he would be welcomed there!

Maybe, but only as Stir Fry Surprise!


|dev|null wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 5:26pm:

You are assuming that they will return and carry out what ever nefarious purpose you believe they have in mind.   What happens if they just come to have a nice roast cooked by their mum, instead?

Well, that's too bad. They first have to pay for their part in the Bad Things (tm) they've done overseas before they can have any roast. The closest they can have is a roasting in Gitmo, and when they leave they can have an anal roasting 3 times a week from Bubba in Gaol. Then they can go home to momma's roast pork.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:17am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 7:24am: And that further resurgent sense of Kurdish identity and prowess that the defeat of IS will bring, Turkey fears more than IS. Clearly Turkey wants IS to do enough damage to both the Kurds and Assad to eliminate them both as a threat to Turkey.

The chances of IS damaging the Kurds' cause is virtually nil...

The enormity is gargantuan between what the Kurds have to gain by fighting for their homeland compared to the cause of the Islamist trash that oozes out of the west as cannon fodder for the Islamist garbage already in the ME.

And that the IS actions advance the cause of Israel has got to be the most laughably ironic outcome of this filthy mess.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2015 at 5:45pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 5:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:42pm: miketrees wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:41pm: If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho. Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::) They may be like you and Gandalf but they are definitely not like me. Appears you don't think you're as Australian as two other members, Soren.

No, I would not want to be like you (who would??).

Nor like Gandy, insofar as he is a devout Muslim.  I think Islam is completely incompatible with Western culture and values. Completely.

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 8:38pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 5:45pm: Soren wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 5:39pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:42pm: miketrees wrote on Mar 2nd, 2015 at 4:41pm: If they were just kids I would do anything to stop them going to Syria. If they are adults that should know better, I would encourage them to go, not keen on them coming back tho. Why not?  They are, afterall, Australians and as Australians they are as Australian as you, me, Soren, FD or Gandalf...  ::) They may be like you and Gandalf but they are definitely not like me. Appears you don't think you're as Australian as two other members, Soren.  No, I would not want to be like you (who would??). Nor like Gandy, insofar as he is a devout Muslim.  I think Islam is completely incompatible with Western culture and values. Completely.

I'm glad you represent a minority, Soren.  I really am.  Makes life just so much easier for the majority of us Australians...   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 12:40pm:

Quote: What point was that Gandalf? that a meaningless piece of paper won't deter the Kurds from acting aggressively if it suits their strategic interests.

LOL

gandalf,

Don't you mean......

'a meaningless piece of paper won't deter the Kurds moslems from acting aggressively if it suits their strategic interests.'



Google
hudaibiya treaty


Essentially, ISLAMIC doctrine urges 'the moslem' to make a peace treaty pursue a truce with an enemy, whenever moslems cannot defeat a stronger enemy.

AND, ISLAMIC doctrine urges moslems to wait, and to work gather their forces/strength,  ......and as soon as 'the moslem' perceives that he can defeat the infidel, he should re-engage in warfare/hostilities with his enemy.



e.g.

IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/_admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/

Soren wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 8:38pm:

I think Islam is completely incompatible with Western culture and values. Completely.

As is Soren.

The west doesn't "value" castigating and intimidating women for choosing a particular head dress. Soren does.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 5:16am:

Soren wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 8:38pm: I think Islam is completely incompatible with Western culture and values. Completely. As is Soren. The west doesn't "value" castigating and intimidating women for choosing a particular head dress. Soren does.

Are you agreeing with him?

An excellent letter to the editor yesterday:

“Islamophobia”. This label is all too frequently and reflexively applied by many Muslims and Western leftists as a cynical fulcrum of moral blackmail intended to deride and quash those who want to expose, or even discuss, the silence and apologia presented by Western Muslims in the face of Islamist terrorist atrocities, Muslim bigotry — particularly anti-Semitism — and the bellicose aspects of Islamic theology. Fortunately, not everyone is so effectively bullied into shutting up.
Consider the one-dimensional implication of the Islamophobia cliche — that critics of Islam are imbued with irrational fear whereas rational contempt or revulsion pertaining to endemic Jew hatred, honour killings and child brides, for example, are implicitly elided.


Just so.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 6:09am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 5:16am: Soren wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 8:38pm: I think Islam is completely incompatible with Western culture and values. Completely. As is Soren. The west doesn't "value" castigating and intimidating women for choosing a particular head dress. Soren does. Are you agreeing with him?

No - islam and muslims are compatible with western values - Soren and his ilk are not.

What about you FD? I know you just love to stand up for people's freedoms - do you think Soren's views on the hijab are against Australian values?

I support freedom of dress. I think the majority are with me. We should support these women by aggressively protecting that right, not denying it.

Of course you are in the majority. Soren and his values don't belong here.

Would you go so far as acknowledging that Soren's views represent a threat to our freedoms?

Sure. They have succeeded in France, Turkey etc.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 10:29am:

I support freedom of dress. I think the majority are with me. We should support these women by aggressively protecting that right, not denying it.

So, you're supporting their right to wear a Hijab if they so wish FD?  I am surprised at your stance, I would have thought the reverse!   :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 10:11am:

No - islam and muslims are compatible with western values - Soren and his ilk are not.

Yet there is not one single Muslim majority liberal, parliamentary democracy with the rule of law, secular legislature, judiciary and executive. No Muslim majority country's leader or aspiring leader has come out as an apostate.  Many of the doctrines of Islam are incompatible with basic Western values, such as human rights, representative government, secularism, religious neutrality of the state, etc.



A good, scholarly yet accessible summary:

Islam and Liberal Democracy
Is Islam by its very nature antithetical to the development of democratic institutions? A distinguished historian contemplates this difficult question, one whose answer is fraught with consequence for several troubled regions of the world
BERNARD LEWIS  MAY 11 2011, 9:17 am

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/


"For Islamic fundamentalists, democracy is obviously an irrelevance, and unlike the communist totalitarians, they rarely use or even misuse the word. They are, however, willing to demand and exploit the opportunities that a self-proclaimed democratic system by its own logic is bound to offer them. At the same time, they make no secret of their contempt for democratic political procedures and their intention to govern by Islamic rules if they gain power."

This is indisputable.



As is most if not all the rest of the article.

"Last words:Now that the Cold War has ended and the Middle East is no longer a battlefield for rival power blocs, the peoples of the Middle East will have the chance—if they can take it—to make their own decisions and find their own solutions. No one else will have the ability or even the desire to do it for them. Today—for the first time in centuries—the choice is their own."

We can see in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and all the rest that their inclination and appetite is for more Islam, not more freedom and enlightenment.

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 5:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 10:11am: No - islam and muslims are compatible with western values - Soren and his ilk are not. Yet there is not one single Muslim majority liberal, parliamentary democracy with the rule of law, secular legislature, judiciary and executive. No Muslim majority country's leader or aspiring leader has come out as an apostate.  Many of the doctrines of Islam are incompatible with basic Western values, such as human rights, representative government, secularism, religious neutrality of the state, etc. A good, scholarly yet accessible summary: Islam and Liberal Democracy Is Islam by its very nature antithetical to the development of democratic institutions? A distinguished historian contemplates this difficult question, one whose answer is fraught with consequence for several troubled regions of the world BERNARD LEWIS  MAY 11 2011, 9:17 am http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/

Soren's philosophy: there are no liberal democracies in the islamic world - therefore we must persecute people for their choice of head dress.

Keep raving mate - its actually quite amusing.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 5:29pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 10:11am: No - islam and muslims are compatible with western values - Soren and his ilk are not. Yet there is not one single Muslim majority liberal, parliamentary democracy with the rule of law, secular legislature, judiciary and executive. No Muslim majority country's leader or aspiring leader has come out as an apostate.  Many of the doctrines of Islam are incompatible with basic Western values, such as human rights, representative government, secularism, religious neutrality of the state, etc. A good, scholarly yet accessible summary: Islam and Liberal Democracy Is Islam by its very nature antithetical to the development of democratic institutions? A distinguished historian contemplates this difficult question, one whose answer is fraught with consequence for several troubled regions of the world BERNARD LEWIS  MAY 11 2011, 9:17 am http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1993/02/islam-and-liberal-democracy/308509/ Soren's philosophy: there are no liberal democracies in the islamic world - therefore we must persecute people for their choice of head dress. Keep raving mate - its actually quite amusing.

Opposing oppressive customs is 'persecution'  only in the eyes of people who want to perpetuate oppressive, alien customs.  In a free society expressing your disagreement is NOT labelled as 'persecution'. 
Only in emotionally vulnerable, inferior, honour-based cultures like Islam is criticism seen automatically as 'persecution'.

Anyway, moving on from the huff and hyperbole. Back on topic, everyone.

[quote author=gandalf link=1425273687/48#48 date=1425427880]No - islam and muslims are compatible with western values[quote]

Now gandalf, as I understand it there's no universally recognised authority who can say who is or isn't a muslim; or what islam does or does not stand for -- correct? It's like every other religion in that regard. My question is whether, in light of this, we should be talking about flavours of islam/muslims.

For example, you get shia and sunni, and whatever other categories there may be. And you get those who wish to kill the infidel and those who merely seek to proselytise (like other religions). Given this diversity of opinion, why not ask which varieties of islam/muslim are compatible with western values etc.

That way we avoid the endless cycle of Soren et al talking about the wicked wankers trying to compensate for small privy members by chopping off heads (gandalf also thinks they're scum, don't you gandy); and we avoid gandalf's repetitions that your garden-variety muslims are generally fine fellows (Soren also doesn't hate them, do you soren?). Hopefully we can avoid continually talking cross-purposes.

So, congregation, could it be really a question of convincing the muslim community to keep its eyes and ears open, and dob in those of the explosive persuasion?

Soren wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 10:38pm:

Opposing oppressive customs is 'persecution'  only in the eyes of people who want to perpetuate oppressive, alien customs.  In a free society expressing your disagreement is NOT labelled as 'persecution'.  Only in emotionally vulnerable, inferior, honour-based cultures like Islam is criticism seen automatically as 'persecution'.

now now Soren, lets not be tricky about this.

You would support imposing laws to at least limit, if not ban, Islamic clothing in Australia - yes?

Don't mince words Soren, you would support institutionalised persecution of women for their choice of clothing - say it isn't so.

Or are you in fact saying "I don't agree with the hijab, but I fully support the right of women to choose to wear one"? - no of course you're not.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2015 at 11:23am:

two minutes hate wrote on Mar 3rd, 2015 at 11:17am: I don't know why the government doesn't let them go. If they don't get killed they won't come back to face a hefty prison term. Plus soon they'll be blocked from coming back. Get rid of them!!!! There is another possible risk that occurred to me. And its related to IS's known desire to carry out attacks within western countries - including Australia. Recruits from Australia could conceivably provide them with useful 'insider' information that could assist them in carrying out such an attack. Not really sure what sort of information that could be, but I think its possible.

All possible... But I don't believe that would be an immediate goal of IS.

Its clear that IS immediate goals are to subdue Muslim countries in the ME. Their shying from attacking Israel appears to arise from their sense of eliminating the 'enemy within' (i.e. Muslim nations within the ME)...

The attacks outside the region, while no doubt supported by IS, are currently an incidental side act.

Their strategy is apparently based on the religious ideology of 'End Times' (as predicted with monotonous regularity by most, if not all, key religious figures ancient and modern) and to hasten its arrival by acts of chaos and violence - also regularly predicted to precede the 'End Times'.

Of course the notion is found in Judaism and Christianity.

The multiple Messiahs of the first century arose from the belief that the return of the true Messiah and the advent of the establishment of the 'Kingdom of god' on earth and would be preceded by chaos. In the first century it was the Roman Empire that was perceived to be the force of chaos preceding the arrival of the Messiah and the Kingdom of god. While it was a belief that inspired many Jewish zealots and self-declared would be Messiahs of the day, ultimately it led to the destruction of the temple and the end of Jewish life in Palestine.

Christianity's Paul adopted the early church's obsession with end times which, while clearly a more peaceful alternative to its Jewish parent ideology, was just as tenacious a belief.

In short, the ideology of 'End Times' is an extremely potent psychological force for many reasons, not least for the fact that it instills in some a fierce urgency of 'now' (which has the capacity to overwhelm the mind's capacity for reason) and also the fact that it offers (perverted) self-esteem to those who hasten 'end times' by succumbing to a base primal instinct - to inflict suffering and death on 'the other'.

Have you read the Islamic version of end times?


Quote:

Its clear that IS immediate goals are to subdue Muslim countries in the ME. Their shying from attacking Israel appears to arise from their sense of eliminating the 'enemy within' (i.e. Muslim nations within the ME)...

Their stated goal was to eliminate the hypocrits amongst them before moving onto Israel etc, which I take to mean individuals in IS, not countries in the ME. They want to build a proper Islamic country. I guess that way, when the time comes, it will make it easy for Israel to wipe them all out.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 7:37am:

Have you read the Islamic version of end times? Quote: Its clear that IS immediate goals are to subdue Muslim countries in the ME. Their shying from attacking Israel appears to arise from their sense of eliminating the 'enemy within' (i.e. Muslim nations within the ME)... Their stated goal was to eliminate the hypocrits amongst them before moving onto Israel etc, which I take to mean individuals in IS, not countries in the ME. They want to build a proper Islamic country. I guess that way, when the time comes, it will make it easy for Israel to wipe them all out.

I don't think IS differentiates between Muslim individuals or Muslim states - They are perceived equally as the first and greatest obstacle to 'End Times' and the establishment of a 'Kingdom of god / allah' on earth.

Ironic, in a way, that IS leaders have so much in common with their ancient Jewish counterparts - Eleazar ben Ya'ir (of Masada) and Simon bar Kokhba... Even the (admittedly defanged) figures in the New Testament of Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot (a Sicarii).

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 7:37am:

I guess that way, when the time comes, it will make it easy for Israel to wipe them all out.

Yes, IS will prove to be the greatest window of opportunity for Israel since 1967.

After all, in the Abrahamic traditions, the Jews invented 'End Times'! I guess, they know the drill better than any and what happens when you play out that ideology... A lesson not lost on the early Christians.

Looks like the shites are going to take care of it for them.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 9:31am:

Looks like the shites are going to take care of it for them.

Iran is the real winner in all this.

Added Poll

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2015 at 9:31am: Looks like the shites are going to take care of it for them. Iran is the real winner in all this.

I think Iran has found a new way to assure it's survival and in doing so, found a new "Satan" to fight against!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 2:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 5th, 2015 at 11:53am: freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2015 at 9:31am: Looks like the shites are going to take care of it for them. Iran is the real winner in all this. I think Iran has found a new way to assure it's survival and in doing so, found a new "Satan" to fight against!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

And a Muslim Satan at that! A bonus... No hilarious crosstalk from inter-demon misunderstandings!

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 5:20am:

Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 10:38pm: Opposing oppressive customs is 'persecution'  only in the eyes of people who want to perpetuate oppressive, alien customs.  In a free society expressing your disagreement is NOT labelled as 'persecution'.  Only in emotionally vulnerable, inferior, honour-based cultures like Islam is criticism seen automatically as 'persecution'. now now Soren, lets not be tricky about this. You would support imposing laws to at least limit, if not ban, Islamic clothing in Australia - yes?

No. I want to protect people's right to ridicule anachronistic, out of place and sinister cultural habits even if they are of tinted people's dearly held beliefs. Tintedness, NESBiness should not be made into a moral shield against criticism of their evidently inferior and stupid cultural beliefs and practices.

We do not tolerate idiocy from aryans, why should we tolerated it from the tanned peoples?  Being tinted should not offer a protection for acting, dressing, talking, behaving like a pillock. That's what I am in favour of.

Ridicule crazy and sinister customs and mindsets to the fringes if not out of existence, even if they are those of tinted non-English speaking peoples. Either we have universal values and rules that apply to all or we are going to be re-tribalised, fragmented, splintered (like Muslims and other thirdy worldy societies are)


I am in favour of colour blindness when it comes to ideas and values.

How to deal with Daesh?

We deal with it now, or this is our future.

Any moderates are welcome to join us, or suffer the consequences.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU1QPtOZQZU



It's only a matter of time!

And we've already run this scenario. We won last time!

If it ever comes to this, at least the music's cool!

And a big whistle to the warmists!    8-)

Soren wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 6:35pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 5th, 2015 at 5:20am: Soren wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 10:38pm: Opposing oppressive customs is 'persecution'  only in the eyes of people who want to perpetuate oppressive, alien customs.  In a free society expressing your disagreement is NOT labelled as 'persecution'.  Only in emotionally vulnerable, inferior, honour-based cultures like Islam is criticism seen automatically as 'persecution'. now now Soren, lets not be tricky about this. You would support imposing laws to at least limit, if not ban, Islamic clothing in Australia - yes? No. I want to protect people's right to ridicule anachronistic, out of place and sinister cultural habits even if they are of tinted people's dearly held beliefs. Tintedness, NESBiness should not be made into a moral shield against criticism of their evidently inferior and stupid cultural beliefs and practices. We do not tolerate idiocy from aryans, why should we tolerated it from the tanned peoples?  Being tinted should not offer a protection for acting, dressing, talking, behaving like a pillock. That's what I am in favour of. Ridicule crazy and sinister customs and mindsets to the fringes if not out of existence, even if they are those of tinted non-English speaking peoples. Either we have universal values and rules that apply to all or we are going to be re-tribalised, fragmented, splintered (like Muslims and other thirdy worldy societies are) I am in favour of colour blindness when it comes to ideas and values.

Just so we're clear - you will defend the right of muslim women to wear a hijab?

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 4^th, 2015 at 11:12pm:

Now gandalf, as I understand it there's no universally recognised authority who can say who is or isn't a muslim; or what islam does or does not stand for -- correct? It's like every other religion in that regard. My question is whether, in light of this, we should be talking about flavours of islam/muslims. For example, you get shia and sunni, and whatever other categories there may be. And you get those who wish to kill the infidel and those who merely seek to proselytise (like other religions). Given this diversity of opinion, why not ask which varieties of islam/muslim are compatible with western values etc.

Great question!

Its what I've been arguing relentlessly for over two year here - literally.

But its all fallen on deaf ears. Yadda will repeat that helpful phrase of his "a muslim is a follower of islam", and most of the rest here will constantly remind us that a muslim is necessarily a follower of the sinister prophet, who they will never tire of explaining was a serial pedophile, rapist, pillager - and all round villain.

So you see where that gets us - how can there possibly exist a genuine muslim who is not necessarily a pedophile, rapist and pillager follower? If any such muslims exist they are either mendacious or stupid.

Good question.

But we already know your answer FD. As Yadda tells us every 5 seconds "a muslim is a follower of Islam".

And the best part is you'll tirelessly go on for days and days teasing us by pretending you think there's a potential for muslims to 'tow the line' - if only they were genuine and sincere - only to reveal after all that - nah! muslims can't really be good, how can they? They follow Mr Evil Incarnate.

Did I lead you on Gandalf?

Lionel Edriess wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 7:09pm:

How to deal with Daesh? We deal with it now, or this is our future.

So, Muslims will be responsible for a large (very large) Asteroid impact, Lionel?   ::)  ::)

;D ;D yeah I was gonna say...

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 7^th, 2015 at 10:04am:

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 4th, 2015 at 11:12pm: Now gandalf, as I understand it there's no universally recognised authority who can say who is or isn't a muslim; or what islam does or does not stand for -- correct? It's like every other religion in that regard. My question is whether, in light of this, we should be talking about flavours of islam/muslims. For example, you get shia and sunni, and whatever other categories there may be. And you get those who wish to kill the infidel and those who merely seek to proselytise (like other religions). Given this diversity of opinion, why not ask which varieties of islam/muslim are compatible with western values etc. Great question! Its what I've been arguing relentlessly for over two year here - literally. But its all fallen on deaf ears. Yadda will repeat that helpful phrase of his "a muslim is a follower of islam", and most of the rest here will constantly remind us that a muslim is necessarily a follower of the sinister prophet, who they will never tire of explaining was a serial pedophile, rapist, pillager - and all round villain. So you see where that gets us - how can there possibly exist a genuine muslim who is not necessarily a pedophile, rapist and pillager follower? If any such muslims exist they are either mendacious or stupid.

So which western values does sharia uphold?  I can't think of any. Islam is contrary to Western ideas and values of 


primacy of the individual
freedom of speech
freedom of religion
equality before the law
rule of law
representative democracy
separation of powers in government
separation of secular state and religious authority
legal equality of men and women
freedom of enquiry
freedom of conscience
curiosity in science, history, art
creativity
innovation
self-determination




What Western values have I left out that Islam is compatible with?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 7^th, 2015 at 9:49am:

Just so we're clear - you will defend the right of muslim women to wear a hijab?

Nioqab
I would not allow it in public buildings and amenities - schools, universities, hospitals, government offices, public transport - where face is important. I would also allow private businesses to bar entry to people who cover their faces. Banks do this already.

In these places face matters and the interest of those who show their faces far outweighs the stupid and completely anachronistic and totally unjustified and unnecessary 'need' for face covering. There is no religious or any other reason for the niqab. It is simply a custom of another place, like footbinding, slavery, child labour, sh!tting on the streets, arranged marriages etc.


Hijab
You are not in a Muslim country. Don't rub your religion in other people's faces in the public space.
It's like facial tattoos - stupid but what can you do? When I see a bearded Muslim in his shorts and t shirt, followed by his wife in the big coat and the hijab I wish I could bollock him and make him go about in a big coat and hijab. You can't ban stupidity but I think it should be frowned upon. So I am in favour of openly frowning upon and ridiculing the hijab. It is not religious garb, its stupid garb. There is no reason for wearing it other than to demonstrate apartness on spurious, and if you scratch it, hostile grounds. That hostility and strutting of apartness should not be silently tolerated.

If the grand mufti can dress in a suit and tie, you have no reason to dress like a clown from the Middle East.i

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332810-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Soren wrote on Mar 7^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

Hijab You are not in a Muslim country. Don't rub your religion in other people's faces in the public space. It's like facial tattoos - stupid but what can you do? When I see a bearded Muslim in his shorts and t shirt, followed by his wife in the big coat and the hijab I wish I could bollock him and make him go about in a big coat and hijab. You can't ban stupidity but I think it should be frowned upon. So I am in favour of openly frowning upon and ridiculing the hijab. It is not religious garb, its stupid garb. There is no reason for wearing it other than to demonstrate apartness on spurious, and if you scratch it, hostile grounds. That hostility and strutting of apartness should not be silently tolerated. If the grand mufti can dress in a suit and tie, you have no reason to dress like a clown from the Middle East.i

You completely avoided the question S. You gave a straight answer vis-a-vis the niqqab, and I appreaciate that. But why do you continue to tapdance around the hijab?

You don't like the hijab - I get that. But do you accept our values and stand up for the right of women to wear whatever headdress they wish? It passes your security criteria (not covering the face) at least.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

Did I lead you on Gandalf?

Only for the last 3 years, FD. You had Abu before that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

Soren wrote on Mar 7th, 2015 at 6:29pm: Hijab You are not in a Muslim country. Don't rub your religion in other people's faces in the public space. It's like facial tattoos - stupid but what can you do? When I see a bearded Muslim in his shorts and t shirt, followed by his wife in the big coat and the hijab I wish I could bollock him and make him go about in a big coat and hijab. You can't ban stupidity but I think it should be frowned upon. So I am in favour of openly frowning upon and ridiculing the hijab. It is not religious garb, its stupid garb. There is no reason for wearing it other than to demonstrate apartness on spurious, and if you scratch it, hostile grounds. That hostility and strutting of apartness should not be silently tolerated. If the grand mufti can dress in a suit and tie, you have no reason to dress like a clown from the Middle East.i You completely avoided the question S. You gave a straight answer vis-a-vis the niqqab, and I appreaciate that. But why do you continue to tapdance around the hijab? You don't like the hijab - I get that. But do you accept our values and stand up for the right of women to wear whatever headdress they wish? It passes your security criteria (not covering the face) at least.

I wonder if Soren's mother was a Muslim?   :o

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

Soren wrote on Mar 7th, 2015 at 6:29pm: Hijab You are not in a Muslim country. Don't rub your religion in other people's faces in the public space. It's like facial tattoos - stupid but what can you do? When I see a bearded Muslim in his shorts and t shirt, followed by his wife in the big coat and the hijab I wish I could bollock him and make him go about in a big coat and hijab. You can't ban stupidity but I think it should be frowned upon. So I am in favour of openly frowning upon and ridiculing the hijab. It is not religious garb, its stupid garb. There is no reason for wearing it other than to demonstrate apartness on spurious, and if you scratch it, hostile grounds. That hostility and strutting of apartness should not be silently tolerated. If the grand mufti can dress in a suit and tie, you have no reason to dress like a clown from the Middle East.i You completely avoided the question S. You gave a straight answer vis-a-vis the niqqab, and I appreaciate that. But why do you continue to tapdance around the hijab? You don't like the hijab - I get that. But do you accept our values and stand up for the right of women to wear whatever headdress they wish?.

Absolutely not. They must wear those little Lutheran doilies or hats like the Flying Nun.

If they don’t, they are simply rubbing our faces in their apartness.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 8^th, 2015 at 8:23am:

But why do you continue to tapdance around the hijab? You don't like the hijab - I get that. But do you accept our values and stand up for the right of women to wear whatever headdress they wish? It passes your security criteria (not covering the face) at least.

I don't have a problem with the hijab. Yes, it looks silly, but so does pink & green hair. If women can spray their hair pink & green (as did one young lass at the local servo) , then they can also cover it in cardboard-fabric.


Soren wrote on Mar 7^th, 2015 at 6:29pm:

If the grand mufti can dress in a suit and tie, you have no reason to dress like a clown from the Middle East.i

That's just taqqiya, Soren. Don't be fooled - he obviously isn't a true muslim.

Although it does raise a good point -- why would people insist on dressing like clowns if they don't need to? Well, duh. It's obviously for the attention. You know, the I'm-holier-than-you thing.


Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

I wonder if Soren's mother was a Muslim?   Shocked

I wonder if brian's mother was an emoticon-wielding idiot?

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 8th, 2015 at 12:08pm: I wonder if Soren's mother was a Muslim?   Shocked I wonder if brian's mother was an emoticon-wielding idiot?

My god!  That'd explain so much!  Brian!  We will have to be quick and take her emoticons away from her!  Quick, to the Batmobile!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 12:45pm:

Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy

Detention, Hot Breath. One smiley per sentence. No  ::) allowed.

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 2:55pm:

|dev|null wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 12:45pm: Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Grin Cheesy Detention, Hot Breath. One smiley per sentence. No  ::) allowed.

Who said I've ever left detention?   ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D :D :D

Only 5 votes in the Poll, and 3 of those are in the Silly category. I am the one vote, so far, for Islam getting the most out of the Caliphate. I am sure it can be argued any way you wish but there are some reasons to assume Islam takes the cake.

First of all Islam is not a country or a race and it does not exist within territorial boarders. In some ways it is an invisible empire much like the Ku Klux Klan in its heyday, and its members are spread across many countries. Although they hold nationalities their allegiance is to Islam, not the country they live in. This is the first reason Muslims cannot be trusted. Islam declared war on the West more than twenty years ago, at least for this era, but they have always been spitting chips over something.

The Assad and Iraq governments merely pay lip service the Islam so the Caliphate pleases Islam from the point of view that IS in the Levant or Syria shows the true face of Islam to its believers. People who are violently opposed to everything except the teachings of the Koran. Art, music and history are to be blotted out by the words of the Prophet. It is also a culture of misogyny. Women defer to men who control their every move. Seeing women cower in fear is popular throughout Islam so there is another plus for IS.

But the spilling of blood is their favourite pass-time and by appearing to hold territory they are very likely to goad Western nations into sending troops in to that territory where IS can get a chance to torture some of them to death, and I am not talking about any kindergarten games like water-boarding.

The grand turbaned muftis and poobahs of Islam are fully aware that any military action in the Middle East will be divisive in Western society. While the lack of it shows the West to be impotent, a win-win situation for IS and Islam in general. It also provides Islam with the opportunity to watch real canings, stoning and beheadings on TV. So they can get their rocks off after prayers.

But the Western fixation on IS as the enemy is also greatly to the benefit of Islam as it sends its members as immigrants into Western countries. As long as there is predominance of humanist influenced wishful thinking in the West, IS like Al Qaeda can be used as a smoke screen for Islam’s true intension and the average westerner will be reassured that Muslims are just like us. Hands down, Islam gains the most.

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 12:39pm:

I don't have a problem with the hijab. Yes, it looks silly, but so does pink & green hair. If women can spray their hair pink & green (as did one young lass at the local servo) , then they can also cover it in cardboard-fabric.

But the real question here is do you also stand up for Soren believing he has the right to harass and intimidate women who wear the hijab?

And do you support FD's position that non-muslims must have the right to harass and intimidate hijab wearing muslims, and this right must be defended to the death?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

But the real question here is do you also stand up for Soren believing he has the right to harass and intimidate women who wear the hijab? And do you support FD's position that non-muslims must have the right to harass and intimidate hijab wearing muslims, and this right must be defended to the death?

Can you cite where they said that I must have missed it

nah - I think I'll wait for them to deny it - then all three of us can put to rest about 2 years worth of arguing and all sit around the camp fire and sing koombaya

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 12:39pm: I don't have a problem with the hijab. Yes, it looks silly, but so does pink & green hair. If women can spray their hair pink & green (as did one young lass at the local servo) , then they can also cover it in cardboard-fabric. But the real question here is do you also stand up for Soren believing he has the right to harass and intimidate women who wear the hijab? And do you support FD's position that non-muslims must have the right to harass and intimidate hijab wearing muslims, and this right must be defended to the death?

To tell someone what you think of them is not harassment and intimidation. It is telling them what you think.

Do you want suppress my right to express what I think? You should be defending that right to the death, Gandy, even if you disagree - especially if you disagree.

Soren wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

To tell someone what you think of them is not harassment and intimidation.

To a work colleague, or your brother over a beer - no its not.

A hate-filled man venting their hatred of muslims to a female muslim who is a complete stranger - yeah it is.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

nah - I think I'll wait for them to deny it - then all three of us can put to rest about 2 years worth of arguing and all sit around the camp fire and sing koombaya

I did not say that Gandalf. There would be a lot less arguing if you would stop making it all up.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 5:38pm:

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 12:39pm: I don't have a problem with the hijab. Yes, it looks silly, but so does pink & green hair. If women can spray their hair pink & green (as did one young lass at the local servo) , then they can also cover it in cardboard-fabric. But the real question here is do you also stand up for Soren believing he has the right to harass and intimidate women who wear the hijab? And do you support FD's position that non-muslims must have the right to harass and intimidate hijab wearing muslims, and this right must be defended to the death?

Well, gandalf, we need to look at the situation as a whole. Islam is a small part of Australia(ns) -- not the other way round.

Is there a right to harass and intimidate muslims? No. Assuming, for present purposes, a meaningful definition of "harass" and "intimidate". If we take your example of a hate-filled man spewing vitriol at a hijab-ed woman as an example of this, of course not.

Of course, if there is no such right, then you must also concede that muslims haven't a right to harass or intimidate non-muslims. Of course, this definition of "harass" and "intimidate" must exactly correspond to that for non-muslims. Using your example, a hate-filled muslim cannot spew his vitriol at a woman with her ankles showing.

After all, let's deal with people on the basis that they're equal before the law. Instead of making things about muslims vs non-muslims, let's make it about people treating each other reasonably.


polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 7:33pm:

nah - I think I'll wait for them to deny it - then all three of us can put to rest about 2 years worth of arguing and all sit around the camp fire and sing koombaya

How kind of you. Putting words in my mouth and waiting for me to deny them. And you complain when FD does the same to you.

freediver wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 8:36am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 7:33pm: nah - I think I'll wait for them to deny it - then all three of us can put to rest about 2 years worth of arguing and all sit around the camp fire and sing koombaya I did not say that Gandalf. There would be a lot less arguing if you would stop making it all up.

Righto FD - so you are now saying you wouldn't defend to the death someone's right to mock someone for what they wear?

FD on how to protect against racial discrimination:


Quote:

Freedom of speech is the best defense. Silencing people who say objectionable things inevitably fails, and draws attention to what they have to say. You draw the line when it become instigation of violence or a direct threat to our freedom - the standard legal caveat that freedom of speech does not permit you to yell fire in a crowded theatre (unless of course there is a fire).

causing emotional distress by (non-violently) harassing vulnerable women doesn't fall under "instigation of violence or a direct threat to our freedom" does it FD?

MumboJumbo wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 11:09am:

Well, gandalf, we need to look at the situation as a whole. Islam is a small part of Australia(ns) -- not the other way round. Is there a right to harass and intimidate muslims? No. Assuming, for present purposes, a meaningful definition of "harass" and "intimidate". If we take your example of a hate-filled man spewing vitriol at a hijab-ed woman as an example of this, of course not. Of course, if there is no such right, then you must also concede that muslims haven't a right to harass or intimidate non-muslims. Of course, this definition of "harass" and "intimidate" must exactly correspond to that for non-muslims. Using your example, a hate-filled muslim cannot spew his vitriol at a woman with her ankles showing. After all, let's deal with people on the basis that they're equal before the law. Instead of making things about muslims vs non-muslims, let's make it about people treating each other reasonably.

LOL what?? You just wasted 3 paragraphs on a gigantic strawman.

Quote:

causing emotional distress by (non-violently) harassing vulnerable women doesn't fall under "instigation of violence or a direct threat to our freedom" does it FD?

Neither does defamation Gandalf. I didn't realise you were after a thesis.

not a thesis, its quite simple - would you defend Soren's right to non-violently harass and mock a muslim woman for wearing the hijab - as long as there was no threat of violence?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9^th, 2015 at 7:50pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 7:41pm: To tell someone what you think of them is not harassment and intimidation. To a work colleague, or your brother over a beer - no its not. A hate-filled man venting their hatred of muslims to a female muslim who is a complete stranger - yeah it is.

Well, not as much a harassment and intimidation as shooting up a newspaper in Paris staffed by complete strangers or declaring a fatwah on complete strangers because they drew cartoons, wrote books, made a vid.


When Muslims STOP killing complete strangers for what they say and write among themselves in secular Western countries, then you can get indignant, Gandy.  You reign in your murderous co-religionists and I'll reign in my mild-manner tut-tutting.

Until then its a lucky clash of ideas as far as I am concerned and NOBODY gets hurt because of what I think.

Soren wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 5:43pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 7:50pm: Soren wrote on Mar 9th, 2015 at 7:41pm: To tell someone what you think of them is not harassment and intimidation. To a work colleague, or your brother over a beer - no its not. A hate-filled man venting their hatred of muslims to a female muslim who is a complete stranger - yeah it is. Well, not as much a harassment and intimidation as shooting up a newspaper in Paris staffed by complete strangers or declaring a fatwah on complete strangers because they drew cartoons, wrote books, made a vid. When Muslims STOP killing complete strangers for what they say and write among themselves in secular Western countries, then you can get indignant, Gandy.  You reign in your murderous co-religionists and I'll reign in my mild-manner tut-tutting. Until then its a lucky clash of ideas as far as I am concerned and NOBODY gets hurt because of what I think.

Why demand that only Muslims stop killing complete strangers Soren?  Plenty of non-Muslims do that, the world over!   ;D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

not a thesis, its quite simple - would you defend Soren's right to non-violently harass and mock a muslim woman for wearing the hijab - as long as there was no threat of violence?

I'm not a big fan of harassment, though it is hardly a precise term (so don't get carried away again reading whatever you want into it). Thanks for asking my opinion rather than giving it to me.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 10^th, 2015 at 11:58am:

causing emotional distress by (non-violently) harassing vulnerable women doesn't fall under "instigation of violence or a direct threat to our freedom" does it FD?

Hang on a minute!!

Isn't the hijab empowering women? Why is a hijabi all of a sudden 'vulnerable"? If it's the hijab, mebbe take it off.

Like you'd take off your yarmulke in Mecca or Lakemba, no?

You demand the freedom to be backward and anachronistic. Fine. But it is still backward and anachronistic.  You can't demand the right to shut up about it.

Certainly not until there are no more Muslims insulting and harassing and intimidating non-Muslims who are complete strangers to them.  Your belief is no more precious and respectable than mine. Not as long as we live in a non-Muslim country (which you and other Muslims work on changing).

Soren you don't think a woman might feel vulnerable if a big burly boofhead she has never seen before marches up to her and starts verbaling her about how offensive he finds her and that she is not welcome here?

I wonder how many boof-heads can dance on the head of a pin?   :D :D ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

Nothing personifies the Islamic Perversion more than this...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/6290414-4x3-940x705.jpg

I'd say that personifies the ISIS perversion!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

|dev|null wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:05pm:

I'd say that personifies the ISIS perversion!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Yes... Insofar as ISIS is Islamism, it is an Islamic perversion.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:17pm:

|dev|null wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:05pm: I'd say that personifies the ISIS perversion!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Yes... Insofar as ISIS is Islamism, it is an Islamic perversion.

A perversion of Islam?  Yep, sure is!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11^th, 2015 at 11:31am:

Soren you don't think a woman might feel vulnerable if a big burly boofhead she has never seen before marches up to her and starts verbaling her about how offensive he finds her and that she is not welcome here?

What's the difference between a niqabi/hijabi and a person who has a tattoo on her forehead saying" Press me, I am a tit"?

I can't think of any. They are saying the same thing in a culturally 'diverse' way: 'I don't really belong here, get me the hell outa here'.

|dev|null wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:20pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:17pm: |dev|null wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:05pm: I'd say that personifies the ISIS perversion!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D Yes... Insofar as ISIS is Islamism, it is an Islamic perversion. A perversion of Islam?  Yep, sure is!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

Tell us who represents non-perverse Islam?  Go on, tell us.


It seems that all you guys are perverse as far as some other Muslim crazy is concerned. 

Like all things evil... The perversion is the same... The desire to provoke, by shock and disgust, the good into committing evil as great or greater.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:44pm:

What's the difference between a niqabi/hijabi and a person who has a tattoo on her forehead saying" Press me, I am a tit"? I can't think of any.

Nothing else to say really.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2015 at 10:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 11th, 2015 at 11:31am: Soren you don't think a woman might feel vulnerable if a big burly boofhead she has never seen before marches up to her and starts verbaling her about how offensive he finds her and that she is not welcome here? What's the difference between a niqabi/hijabi and a person who has a tattoo on her forehead saying" Press me, I am a tit"? I can't think of any. They are saying the same thing in a culturally 'diverse' way: 'I don't really belong here, get me the hell outa here'.

Quite so. You've been saying the same thing yourself over the years, no?

There's a ship sailing back to the old country next month, dear boy. What do they say?

Love it or leave it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:44pm: What's the difference between a niqabi/hijabi and a person who has a tattoo on her forehead saying" Press me, I am a tit"? I can't think of any. Nothing else to say really.

Sums up Soren beautifully!   ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D ;D :D

I wonder if Soren was offended by the 'love it or leave' t-shirt.

I wonder too if Soren appreciates the supreme irony of him thinking he is the epitome of our civilization/culture, when in fact his values are completely alien to the Australian (and indeed all of western) culture. I'm not sure where in the world his narrow, intolerant, mono-cultural values would fit, but it definitely aint here. Maybe we should ship him off to some desert island along with Anders Brievik - they can build their racist utopia there.

Meanwhile well over 400 Australian muslims have shown their complete allegiance to islamic terrorism as islam instructs them to.

This approximately equates to 1 in a 1000 Australian muslims will obey allah, muhammad, islam, the qur'an and hadi'th, in order to perform the most inhumane and perverted atrocities against their fellow man.

One in a thousand means that in Australia's population of 23 million, muslims are 23,000 times more likely to commit a religious atrocity of unspeakable barbarity against their fellow man than the rest of us.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

I wonder if Soren was offended by the 'love it or leave' t-shirt. I wonder too if Soren appreciates the supreme irony of him thinking he is the epitome of our civilization/culture, when in fact his values are completely alien to the Australian (and indeed all of western) culture. I'm not sure where in the world his narrow, intolerant, mono-cultural values would fit, but it definitely aint here. Maybe we should ship him off to some desert island along with Anders Brievik - they can build their racist utopia there.

I can't think of any benefit of multiculturalism - nobody else can - beyond the tired old nonsense about different ways of cooking.

There are no Indian or Chinese or Arabic values that have been adopted by Western countries and certainly none that enhanced them.

The reality is that Western culture, because of its strong emphasis on the individual, is always going to be far, far more diverse and vibrant and interesting than all the other tribal, clannish cultures where the individual is submitted to the will of a group and where group membership counts for much more.
Look at art, literature, architecture, theatre, music, fashion, science - any form of human endeavour and you will see that the West has been inventive, creative and vibrant in all of them without needing any Arab, Chinese, Indian, African multicultural improvement. Migrants who leave behind their non-Western cultural and mental habits do well in the West - their individuality is unleashed - while the stuck-in-the mud tribal people don't.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:32am:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2015 at 10:44pm: What's the difference between a niqabi/hijabi and a person who has a tattoo on her forehead saying" Press me, I am a tit"? I can't think of any. Nothing else to say really.

Mustn't be judgemental, mustn't be disrespectful.
http://www.news.com.au/video/id-wwcXV4czppgcarrpBFbjOLxClSjmr4br/22-year-old-Jay-Nixon-is-covered-in-ink

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 2:57pm: I wonder if Soren was offended by the 'love it or leave' t-shirt. I wonder too if Soren appreciates the supreme irony of him thinking he is the epitome of our civilization/culture, when in fact his values are completely alien to the Australian (and indeed all of western) culture. I'm not sure where in the world his narrow, intolerant, mono-cultural values would fit, but it definitely aint here. Maybe we should ship him off to some desert island along with Anders Brievik - they can build their racist utopia there. I can't think of any benefit of multiculturalism - nobody else can - beyond the tired old nonsense about different ways of cooking.

Yoga.

So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga?
"You insensitive monocultural; bastards"

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:23pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 2:57pm: I wonder if Soren was offended by the 'love it or leave' t-shirt. I wonder too if Soren appreciates the supreme irony of him thinking he is the epitome of our civilization/culture, when in fact his values are completely alien to the Australian (and indeed all of western) culture. I'm not sure where in the world his narrow, intolerant, mono-cultural values would fit, but it definitely aint here. Maybe we should ship him off to some desert island along with Anders Brievik - they can build their racist utopia there. I can't think of any benefit of multiculturalism - nobody else can - beyond the tired old nonsense about different ways of cooking. There are no Indian or Chinese or Arabic values that have been adopted by Western countries and certainly none that enhanced them. The reality is that Western culture, because of its strong emphasis on the individual, is always going to be far, far more diverse and vibrant and interesting than all the other tribal, clannish cultures where the individual is submitted to the will of a group and where group membership counts for much more. Look at art, literature, architecture, theatre, music, fashion, science - any form of human endeavour and you will see that the West has been inventive, creative and vibrant in all of them without needing any Arab, Chinese, Indian, African multicultural improvement. Migrants who leave behind their non-Western cultural and mental habits do well in the West - their individuality is unleashed - while the stuck-in-the mud tribal people don't.

Yes, old boy, but you like Danish, no?

As every schoolboy knows.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:23pm:

The reality is that Western culture, because of its strong emphasis on the individual, is always going to be far, far more diverse and vibrant and interesting than all the other tribal, clannish cultures where the individual is submitted to the will of a group and where group membership counts for much more. Look at art, literature, architecture, theatre, music, fashion, science - any form of human endeavour and you will see that the West has been inventive, creative and vibrant in all of them without needing any Arab, Chinese, Indian, African multicultural improvement. Migrants who leave behind their non-Western cultural and mental habits do well in the West - their individuality is unleashed - while the stuck-in-the mud tribal people don't.

Hilarious coming from one of the most fiercely tribalist, anti-individualist person I've come across.

If the west's greatness is a credit to its individualism and diversity - then it sure as hell isn't thanks to the likes of you.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards"

I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:10pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:23pm: The reality is that Western culture, because of its strong emphasis on the individual, is always going to be far, far more diverse and vibrant and interesting than all the other tribal, clannish cultures where the individual is submitted to the will of a group and where group membership counts for much more. Look at art, literature, architecture, theatre, music, fashion, science - any form of human endeavour and you will see that the West has been inventive, creative and vibrant in all of them without needing any Arab, Chinese, Indian, African multicultural improvement. Migrants who leave behind their non-Western cultural and mental habits do well in the West - their individuality is unleashed - while the stuck-in-the mud tribal people don't. Hilarious coming from one of the most fiercely tribalist, anti-individualist person I've come across. If the west's greatness is a credit to its individualism and diversity - then it sure as hell isn't thanks to the likes of you.

Which tribe have I been championing?

Gandy, it is not enough for you to be  like Hot Breath or Brain and simply imitate and twist things around.

You mus demonstrate that you can reason in a non-western way, in an Islamic way.  Being like some loser Green or Green Left no-hoper is not doing you any good. We have idiots aleady. If all Islam's contribution is to be one more bunch of fringe f Vckwits then your (ie Islam's) credibility is not going to recover. Making common cause with idiots is not your path, pal. Or it shouldn't be.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::)

Thank you, devious little Goebbels.

So waht do we say to the multiculties who have resisted the charms and wisdom of their felloow multiculties, such as yogis?


What happens when the sensitivities of the Indians and the Arabs and the Chinese and the Africans do not clash with white's ever-accommodating tolerance but with each other's deep-rooted intolerance of strangers. There is not a lot of tolerance of Blacks and Muslims in China, nor much tolerance of animist Africans among Muslims.

The rivers of multicultural blood Enoch Powell predicted are flowing in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, China, India, Pakistan, Kenya, Yemen, Somalia, Chechnya, Labia, Nigeria, Sudan - as well as beginning to trickle in Canada, Australia,  France, England, Norway, Denmark, Germany,

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) Thank you, devious little Goebbels.

How is quoting your words with some added comment ascribing your comment to yourself, a "Goebbels' like" attitude, Soren?   ::)

You really are getting desperate, aren't you?  Drawing on your Nazi death cult's leaders all the time!   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:39pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::)

So what Chinese, Arabic and Indisn cultural practices have you taken up, Brain, that improved your Western life and made you think, than god for this influence, my life is now better for being a little more more Chinese/Arab/African?

Nothing.


All you have is a sense of toleration of what is obviously inferior. And yoiu certainly did not learn toleration from the Chinese, Arabs or Indians. You learned it from your European heritage.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) So what Chinese, Arabic and Indisn cultural practices have you taken up, Brain, that improved your Western life and made you think, than god for this influence, my life is now better for being a little more more Chinese/Arab/African? Nothing.

Wrong.


Quote:

All you have is a sense of toleration of what is obviously inferior. And yoiu certainly did not learn toleration from the Chinese, Arabs or Indians. You learned it from your European heritage.

Wrong, again.

Soren, why do you enjoy acting like this all the time?

You know absolutely zero about my life, yet you keep trying to tell me you know all about it.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:26pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:17pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) Thank you, devious little Goebbels. How is quoting your words with some added comment ascribing your comment to yourself, a "Goebbels' like" attitude, Soren?   ::)

It is a stupid and lazy, mindless, unoriginal slant and slander.

That's how.

But being thick like you are, you will not understand. I wonder actually, whether you understand anything. You certainly show no sign of comprehending anything. You always carry on as if nothing has been said.

I think you simply do not understand that it is possible NOT to be like you. You just cannot process that bit of info.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) So what Chinese, Arabic and Indisn cultural practices have you taken up, Brain, that improved your Western life and made you think, than god for this influence, my life is now better for being a little more more Chinese/Arab/African? Nothing. Wrong. Quote: All you have is a sense of toleration of what is obviously inferior. And yoiu certainly did not learn toleration from the Chinese, Arabs or Indians. You learned it from your European heritage. Wrong, again. Soren, why do you enjoy acting like this all the time? You know absolutely zero about my life, yet you keep trying to tell me you know all about it.   ::)

You actually have to explain why something is 'wrong', Brain. Simply calling out  - 'Wrong' - is for bedwetting old ninnies.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:14pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:54pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) So what Chinese, Arabic and Indisn cultural practices have you taken up, Brain, that improved your Western life and made you think, than god for this influence, my life is now better for being a little more more Chinese/Arab/African? Nothing. Wrong. Quote: All you have is a sense of toleration of what is obviously inferior. And yoiu certainly did not learn toleration from the Chinese, Arabs or Indians. You learned it from your European heritage. Wrong, again. Soren, why do you enjoy acting like this all the time? You know absolutely zero about my life, yet you keep trying to tell me you know all about it.   ::) You actually have to explain why something is 'wrong', Brain. Simply calling out  - 'Wrong' - is for bedwetting old ninnies.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332810-yawn_20smiley.jpg

I think that means you are wrong Soren.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 7:02pm:

Which tribe have I been championing?

K calls it Lutheran or sometimes Danish poo makers.

At first I thought it was just meaningless babble - some 'in-house' joke between the two of you. But it is clear that there is something to it - it refers to some mythical idealistic western European/judeo monocultural christian race that you identify with, but which doesn't exist anymore - if it ever existed. Certainly the culture that defines our current western civilization is completely alien to you - diverse, tolerant and universalist. One of the most interesting give-aways is how you constantly draw moral comparisons between the acceptance of diversty in the west, and the intolerance and oppression of the non-western world - *NOT* as some celebration of how desirable the west is, but to lament at how limp-wristed we have become and in fact to express your desire at becoming like just the oppressive non-west.

You are a particular breed - you, Herb, misty, Anders Brievik - despise our own civilization and constantly harking back to the "glory days" of intolerance and racial purity - that never really existed in the way you imagine. And it does amuse me watching the likes of FD spinelessly apologising for you - given that your views couldn't be more polar opposite (apart from the whole islamphobic thing). But at least your hatred for islam has some rational basis and consistency, whereas FD is completely and utterly hypocritical to his neo-liberal credentials.

Quote:

judeo monocultural christian race

;D

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:09am:

Quote: judeo monocultural christian race ;D

I know its hilarious.

Its the fantasy Soren et al live in though. Why don't you ask him about it FD? Ask him about how well our pluralist/tolerant values gel with his own.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:09am: Quote: judeo monocultural christian race ;D I know its hilarious. Its the fantasy Soren et al live in though. Why don't you ask him about it FD? Ask him about how well our pluralist/tolerant values gel with his own.

Hunter S Thompson defined two types of communities in the American South: plainsmen and hill-dwellers. Those on the plains were farmers. They spoke in flat monotones and were quite hierarchical, but democratic in their social structures, churches, chambers of commerce, organizations like Rotary, etc.

The hill-dwellers were driven by fracturous feuds. Friendly and gregarious among themselves, they were hostile to outsiders and quick to anger. Violence was the usual solution to their conflicts. As hill dwellers, they used those hills to escape the law. The law, for hill-dwellers, was an abstract idea.

The old boy’s values are those of the hill-dweller, but they have an ancestral memory that harks back to the frontiers of the Roman Empire, a trope the old boy is quick to invoke.The old boy’s siege mentality comes straight from the old country, as if bottled and sent over in a parcel by Mormor. All the old boy’s references quotes and examples of hostility are European. They carry the baggage of two thousand years of warring tribes. They’re trapped in the mindset of war. They are totally alien to the descendants of those settlers who escaped from the old world to start anew.

Stll, that’s multiculturalism. Innit.

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

They carry the baggage of two thousand years of warring tribes and nations.

Combined with an imaginary judeo monocultural christian race?

hang them

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

The hill-dwellers were driven by fracturous feuds. Friendly and gregarious among themselves, they were hostile to outsiders and quick to anger. Violence was the usual solution to their conflicts.

Epitomizes western cultures.

Keeping European western nations from tearing themselves apart is a 24/7 job...

I'm wondering what the European map would look like if Germany ever recovered from its collective guilt!!

James Baker (US Secretary of State) scoffed at the suggestion by Poland (on the eve of German reunification) to establish the Oder-Neisse line as the border in perpetuity.

Europe (western and eastern) has been and always will be primarily driven by fractious feuds.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 12:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:56am: The hill-dwellers were driven by fracturous feuds. Friendly and gregarious among themselves, they were hostile to outsiders and quick to anger. Violence was the usual solution to their conflicts. Epitomizes western cultures.

It does, but in Europe, mountains provided security. Some of the strongest principalities were those locked in by mountains: the Swiss, the Northern Italian city states, the Austrian empire.

Today, they’re the most progressive regions in Europe. Those states with a history of constant sieges are far more reactionary. Look at the Balkans, where cities changed hands constantly. Look.at the fringes of the old Russian empire, where the Tartars and Cossacks and Tzarists are at it again.

This is the DNA of the old boy, a war that never ends, always, absolutely, never ever.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 7:15am:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:02pm: Which tribe have I been championing? K calls it Lutheran or sometimes Danish poo makers. At first I thought it was just meaningless babble - some 'in-house' joke between the two of you. But it is clear that there is something to it - it refers to some mythical idealistic western European/judeo monocultural christian race that you identify with, but which doesn't exist anymore - if it ever existed. Certainly the culture that defines our current western civilization is completely alien to you - diverse, tolerant and universalist. One of the most interesting give-aways is how you constantly draw moral comparisons between the acceptance of diversty in the west, and the intolerance and oppression of the non-western world - *NOT* as some celebration of how desirable the west is, but to lament at how limp-wristed we have become and in fact to express your desire at becoming like just the oppressive non-west. You are a particular breed - you, Herb, misty, Anders Brievik - despise our own civilization and constantly harking back to the "glory days" of intolerance and racial purity - that never really existed in the way you imagine. And it does amuse me watching the likes of FD spinelessly apologising for you - given that your views couldn't be more polar opposite (apart from the whole islamphobic thing). But at least your hatred for islam has some rational basis and consistency, whereas FD is completely and utterly hypocritical to his neo-liberal credentials.

More Islam is less freedom. SO diversifying Western civilisation by adding Islam is a degradation, not an improvement.

You can harp on about tolerance, Brevik, multiculturalism and the rest, but it is all calculated to obscure and cover up this simple, straightforward and indisputable fact. You bang on about stuff that has no bearing on the fact at the heart of the matter. You talk puffery and cliches when your task is to demonstrate how Islam or African, Hindu or Vietnamese cultures are an improvement on Western civilisation.  You cannot do this so you let off hot air about tolerance.
As Islamic, African, Indian, and other Asian cultures have nothing to offer the West by way of improvement, you cannot demonstrate any benefits of diversity and multiculturalism. So you simply resort to demanding that dog poo be added to vanilla ice cream because diversity and tolerance demand it. You want tolerance and diversity for their own sake without ever being able to demonstrate their actual value as improvers of the West.


You want Islam to spread because you believe it is the best of all possible ways. You do not want it diluted with pagan animism or Buddhist idolatry or Christina polytheism or Jewish whatever it is you hate about the Jews.

But if a Westerner like me defends his own culture which is demonstrably superior, you get all hot for diversity.

Diversity for me but not for thee, eh, Gandy??

The old boy’s cheese is the best in the world - far better than that other foreign muck.

The old boy’s culture is superior to the rest. Why? Because the old boy likes Danish.

Miam miam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 2:57pm:

I wonder if Soren was offended by the 'love it or leave' t-shirt. I wonder too if Soren appreciates the supreme irony of him thinking he is the epitome of our civilization/culture, when in fact his values are completely alien to the Australian (and indeed all of western) culture. I'm not sure where in the world his narrow, intolerant, mono-cultural values would fit, but it definitely aint here. Maybe we should ship him off to some desert island along with Anders Brievik - they can build their racist utopia there.

Empty words.

Western civilisation is not mono-cultural at all. The countries that represent Western civilisation have quite a range and variety of cultures. But they also have certain common traits due to their shared history, especially intellectual history.

This is nothing remarkable, Muslim countries al;so have an over-arching common civilisation thread even as they have a variety of local cultures. Same with East Asians and Africans etc.

The point is that the civilisational values and achievements and cornerstones of the West are much better than those of Islamic, African or Asian cultures. 
Muslims, Africans, Asians do not want to be merely tolerated, put up with until they grow out of their inferior habits. They want to be treated as if their civilisation was al least as good as the West's, as if they had nothing to shed and grow out of. But this is plainly untrue.

Quote:

It does, but in Europe, mountains provided security.

They (and the coastline) are also what provided the disunity to hide from. China for example unified much earlier in history because of the natural centralisation of it's prime agricultural real estate.


Quote:

Today, they’re the most progressive regions in Europe.

Switzerland maybe, but northern Italy and the old Austrian empire? The French revolution is largely responsible for the current progressive nature of continental western Europe.

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 12:15pm: Karnal wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 9:56am: The hill-dwellers were driven by fracturous feuds. Friendly and gregarious among themselves, they were hostile to outsiders and quick to anger. Violence was the usual solution to their conflicts. Epitomizes western cultures. It does, but in Europe, mountains provided security. Some of the strongest principalities were those locked in by mountains: the Swiss, the Northern Italian city states, the Austrian empire. Today, they’re the most progressive regions in Europe. Those states with a history of constant sieges are far more reactionary. Look at the Balkans, where cities changed hands constantly. Look.at the fringes of the old Russian empire, where the Tartars and Cossacks and Tzarists are at it again.

Switzerland?? Women's suffrage granted federally as late as 1971!! Granted by the last canton - 1990!!

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:38am: freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 8:09am: Quote: judeo monocultural christian race ;D I know its hilarious. Its the fantasy Soren et al live in though. Why don't you ask him about it FD? Ask him about how well our pluralist/tolerant values gel with his own. Hunter S Thompson defined two types of communities in the American South: plainsmen and hill-dwellers. Those on the plains were farmers. They spoke in flat monotones and were quite hierarchical, but democratic in their social structures, churches, chambers of commerce, organizations like Rotary, etc. The hill-dwellers were driven by fracturous feuds. Friendly and gregarious among themselves, they were hostile to outsiders and quick to anger. Violence was the usual solution to their conflicts. As hill dwellers, they used those hills to escape the law. The law, for hill-dwellers, was an abstract idea. The old boy’s values are those of the hill-dweller, but they have an ancestral memory that harks back to the frontiers of the Roman Empire, a trope the old boy is quick to invoke.The old boy’s siege mentality comes straight from the old country, as if bottled and sent over in a parcel by Mormor. All the old boy’s references quotes and examples of hostility are European. They carry the baggage of two thousand years of warring tribes. They’re trapped in the mindset of war. They are totally alien to the descendants of those settlers who escaped from the old world to start anew. Stll, that’s multiculturalism. Innit.

What utter bollocks.

http://www.mappery.com/maps/European-Union-Member-States-Map.jpg

freediver wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

Quote: It does, but in Europe, mountains provided security. They (and the coastline) are also what provided the disunity to hide from. China for example unified much earlier in history because of the natural centralisation of it's prime agricultural real estate. [quote]Today, they’re the most progressive regions in Europe.

Switzerland maybe, but northern Italy and the old Austrian empire? The French revolution is largely responsible for the current progressive nature of continental western Europe.

[/quote]

The Hapsburgs imported the Enlightenment to Prussia long before Napoleon, FD.

Interesting point, North. I had no idea. Switzerland, however, is probably the most democratic country in the world. Those cantons have real constitutional power, and the people in those cantons can propose and vote for their own laws.

G is right,  old boy. The old world you long for does not exist anymore. One can never go home, eh?

Always, absolutely, never ever.

Karnal wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 2:33pm:

Switzerland, however, is probably the most democratic country in the world. Those cantons have real constitutional power, and the people in those cantons can propose and vote for their own laws.

And so they said YES to banning further Islamification of their country in 2009. No more minarets.

How's that for democratic cultural confidence?



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/24/article-0-0758293F000005DC-893_468x286.jpg

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:23pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:14pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:54pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) So what Chinese, Arabic and Indisn cultural practices have you taken up, Brain, that improved your Western life and made you think, than god for this influence, my life is now better for being a little more more Chinese/Arab/African? Nothing. Wrong. Quote: All you have is a sense of toleration of what is obviously inferior. And yoiu certainly did not learn toleration from the Chinese, Arabs or Indians. You learned it from your European heritage. Wrong, again. Soren, why do you enjoy acting like this all the time? You know absolutely zero about my life, yet you keep trying to tell me you know all about it.   ::) You actually have to explain why something is 'wrong', Brain. Simply calling out  - 'Wrong' - is for bedwetting old ninnies. http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332810-yawn_20smiley.jpg

That shoulda been this:

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332810-yawn_20smiley.jpg
::) ::) ::)

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 4:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 2:33pm: Switzerland, however, is probably the most democratic country in the world. Those cantons have real constitutional power, and the people in those cantons can propose and vote for their own laws. And so they said YES to banning further Islamification of their country in 2009. No more minarets. How's that for democratic cultural confidence? http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/11/24/article-0-0758293F000005DC-893_468x286.jpg

Oh, I’m sure if Jaquie Lambie got her way, you’d be praising the cultural confidence of your fine adopted nation.

Alas, dear boy, if it’s cultural confidence you want, you’ll have to settle for Prince Philip being knighted.

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 5:17pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 9:23pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 8:14pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:54pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 7:35pm: Brian Ross wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 6:39pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2015 at 5:53pm: So what do we say to the Africans and Chinese and Arabs who have not taken up yoga? "You insensitive monocultural; bastards" I rather think that describes your attitudes, Soren.   ::) So what Chinese, Arabic and Indisn cultural practices have you taken up, Brain, that improved your Western life and made you think, than god for this influence, my life is now better for being a little more more Chinese/Arab/African? Nothing. Wrong. Quote: All you have is a sense of toleration of what is obviously inferior. And yoiu certainly did not learn toleration from the Chinese, Arabs or Indians. You learned it from your European heritage. Wrong, again. Soren, why do you enjoy acting like this all the time? You know absolutely zero about my life, yet you keep trying to tell me you know all about it.   ::) You actually have to explain why something is 'wrong', Brain. Simply calling out  - 'Wrong' - is for bedwetting old ninnies. http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332810-yawn_20smiley.jpg That shoulda been this: http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/122743/2332810-yawn_20smiley.jpg ::) ::) ::)

Finally getting the hang of it, Soren?    ::)

Soren wrote on Mar 14^th, 2015 at 1:05pm:

More Islam is less freedom. SO diversifying Western civilisation by adding Islam is a degradation, not an improvement.

Its not about "adding" Islam, its about having a values system that not only tolerates, but embraces the idea that people have a right to express themselves how they wish - provided it doesn't affect the rights of anyone else.


Quote:

You can harp on about tolerance, Brevik, multiculturalism and the rest, but it is all calculated to obscure and cover up this simple, straightforward and indisputable fact. You bang on about stuff that has no bearing on the fact at the heart of the matter. You talk puffery and cliches when your task is to demonstrate how Islam or African, Hindu or Vietnamese cultures are an improvement on Western civilisation.  You cannot do this so you let off hot air about tolerance.

You couldn't be missing the point further. What is this "task" of mine? - it means nothing to me. Its not an either/or thing - its about capitalising the best aspects of western civilization to embrace people's rights to freedom of expression. You want to know what the heart of the matter here is for you? Its that you are pining for a regression in our civilization - to suddenly say the decades of western evolution that has made us the most progressive civilization in the world should be wound back. You fall over yourself citing western values to simultaneously argue why you think the west is great and why you despise it.


Quote:

As Islamic, African, Indian, and other Asian cultures have nothing to offer the West by way of improvement, you cannot demonstrate any benefits of diversity and multiculturalism. So you simply resort to demanding that dog poo be added to vanilla ice cream because diversity and tolerance demand it. You want tolerance and diversity for their own sake without ever being able to demonstrate their actual value as improvers of the West.

Again, the "value" is the mere principle of embracing the idea that people have a right to express themselves as they wish. What is the alternative? You tell me Soren, because I don't see much difference between your hot air and Sprint's "ban them" mantra. You provide more articulate language, but ultimately they both become dead-ends at the practical level.

Yes there is "dog poo" being added to the mix, but we don't suddenly start policing the thoughts you find offensive any more than we police your thoughts that women who choose a particular type of head dress should have abuse hurled at them for it - dog poo that is offensive to the great majority of Australians. The dog poo is endemic Soren - it always has been. Adding islamic beliefs to the mix doesn't make any difference.

Quote:

Its not about "adding" Islam, its about having a values system that not only tolerates, but embraces the idea that people have a right to express themselves how they wish - provided it doesn't affect the rights of anyone else.

Like say, slaughtering cartoonists in an effort to make everyone afraid to mock Muhammed?


Quote:

Adding islamic beliefs to the mix doesn't make any difference.

Except for the whole "slaughtering cartoonists" thing, right?

Thats pathetic FD - even for you.

Carry on spinelessly apologising for folks here who advocating "banning" people for what they wear.

I was agreeing with you Gandalf. Slaughtering people for expressing their views on Islam the wrong way affects the rights of others, doesn't it?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

Soren wrote on Mar 14th, 2015 at 1:05pm: More Islam is less freedom. SO diversifying Western civilisation by adding Islam is a degradation, not an improvement. Its not about "adding" Islam, its about having a values system that not only tolerates, but embraces the idea that people have a right to express themselves how they wish - provided it doesn't affect the rights of anyone else.

But it does affect the rights of others.  More Islam =  less freedom. I don't see why free people should embrace others who are manifestly stand for less freedom. Why respect a belief system that is completely against freedom?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:53am:

Thats pathetic FD - even for you. Carry on spinelessly apologising for folks here who advocating "banning" people for what they wear.

Well, those two Muslims 'banned' the Charlie Hebdo journalists in the Jihadi way, good and proper.

But you want us to embrace them, tolerate them, allow them to express themselves up to the minute they start shooting.
After that, we should take responsibility for upsetting them so much.

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 1:29pm:

But it does affect the rights of others.  More Islam =  less freedom. I don't see why free people should embrace others who are manifestly stand for less freedom. Why respect a belief system that is completely against freedom?

Whose saying you must embrace islamic beliefs Soren? Whose even saying you must respect them? No one. Just like I completely despise and wholly don't embrace your primitive views. The "embracing" part is that you can have those beliefs freely.


Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 1:31pm:

But you want us to embrace them, tolerate them, allow them to express themselves up to the minute they start shooting.

Why don't you stop tiptoeing around the issue for once Soren - you've hinted pretty heavily that you don't want Islam to be included into the cultural mix of the west, but nothing on how that might be achieved in practice. We've been tooing and throwing with this for too long - I point out that you can't police thoughts, you simply counter that Islamic thoughts are of no benefit to the west. That doesn't help. Why don't you address the issue Soren - tell us what we should do about peaceful muslims who have yet to start shooting. Is this just a subtler expression of sprint's "ban them" mantra? Tell us how we *DON'T* "embrace them, tolerate them, allow them to express themselves up to the minute they start shooting" - not including the standard police procedures for investigating and preventing suspected criminal behaviour.

freediver wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

I was agreeing with you Gandalf. Slaughtering people for expressing their views on Islam the wrong way affects the rights of others, doesn't it?

What do you think FD - do you agree with Soren that people who advocate for personal freedoms must demonstrate what benefits Islam has to offer the west?

I'm anticipating another hilarious "hey look over there" spineless apology

They are free to tiptoe around the issue all day Gandalf.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 5:56pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 15th, 2015 at 1:29pm: But it does affect the rights of others.  More Islam =  less freedom. I don't see why free people should embrace others who are manifestly stand for less freedom. Why respect a belief system that is completely against freedom? Whose saying you must embrace islamic beliefs Soren? Whose even saying you must respect them? No one. Just like I completely despise and wholly don't embrace your primitive views. The "embracing" part is that you can have those beliefs freely. Soren wrote on Mar 15th, 2015 at 1:31pm: But you want us to embrace them, tolerate them, allow them to express themselves up to the minute they start shooting. Why don't you stop tiptoeing around the issue for once Soren - you've hinted pretty heavily that you don't want Islam to be included into the cultural mix of the west, but nothing on how that might be achieved in practice. We've been tooing and throwing with this for too long - I point out that you can't police thoughts, you simply counter that Islamic thoughts are of no benefit to the west. That doesn't help. Why don't you address the issue Soren - tell us what we should do about peaceful muslims who have yet to start shooting. Is this just a subtler expression of sprint's "ban them" mantra? Tell us how we *DON'T* "embrace them, tolerate them, allow them to express themselves up to the minute they start shooting" - not including the standard police procedures for investigating and preventing suspected criminal behaviour.

It should be perfectly OK to ridicule Muslims and their backward, anachronistic beliefs and behaviour. If you can take the mickey out of pious Christians, then openly criticising Muslim beliefs and views as backward, anachronistic and out of place should be also OK.

But that is hate speech. They will sue you if you laugh while someone reads the Koran. They will kill you if you mock Mohammed in a Parisian magazine - and then call you the Islamophobe of the year, murdered though you are.

Islam has garnered extra 'respect' Christians do not enjoy simply because of the fear of its murderous followers. This is outrageous.  Muslims deserve less respect because they do not reign in their murderous co-religionists who intimidate through murder and the threat of murder.

We must all, all, laugh at them and make them feel ridiculous and ashamed of their barbarity. They can't kill us all.

Soren wrote on Mar 15^th, 2015 at 9:17pm:

It should be perfectly OK to ridicule Muslims and their backward, anachronistic beliefs and behaviour. If you can take the mickey out of pious Christians, then openly criticising Muslim beliefs and views as backward, anachronistic and out of place should be also OK. But that is hate speech. They will sue you if you laugh while someone reads the Koran. They will kill you if you mock Mohammed in a Parisian magazine - and then call you the Islamophobe of the year, murdered though you are. Islam has garnered extra 'respect' Christians do not enjoy simply because of the fear of its murderous followers. This is outrageous.  Muslims deserve less respect because they do not reign in their murderous co-religionists who intimidate through murder and the threat of murder. We must all, all, laugh at them and make them feel ridiculous and ashamed of their barbarity. They can't kill us all.

What you say here is perfectly reasonable - but you are conflating two separate issues - deliberately methinks.

I've been trying to get answers from you regarding the issues of rights of muslims - but all you do is deflect and steer the conversation into an issue of the rights of muslim critics only. And yet it was you who started this discussion as one of how Islam in the west is not welcome and should not be tolerated. What do you mean by this at a practical level Soren? Given this is the premise of the current discussion, it is not an answer to simply rattle on about the right to criticise Islam and how intolerable it is that some muslims have made people scared to speak openly and freely - a separate issue which no one here is disputing. No, the real question here is how far would you go in your quest to remove Islam from western culture - given that there are a whole swathe of issues you need to address from a rights point of view - such as: do you start policing thoughts? Do you start instituting laws against islamic dress? Or if you embrace the idea that people have freedom of expression, you are then left in the paradoxical position of defending people's right to (for example) dress islamically, while simultaneously calling for all Islamic influences to be removed from society.

From my point of view it looks like you are tiptoeing around the issue of rights because you don't want to appear anti-freedom. I find this quite strange because most people who have these sorts of anti-cultural plurality beliefs are unapologetically anti freedom - often proudly fascist, and would happily dismantle democracy in order to retain (or more accurately 'revert to') cultural purity in the west. So I was fully expecting you to take this sort of direction with our discussions - as Yadda and Sprint do. But you seem to be going to great pains to avoid taking a position on this. Thus we have this interesting tapdancing act of lofty grandstanding about the need to exclude Islam (and other non-European cultures) from the west, but stone silence with regards to ideas on how to actually do this.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 1:34pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 15th, 2015 at 9:17pm: It should be perfectly OK to ridicule Muslims and their backward, anachronistic beliefs and behaviour. If you can take the mickey out of pious Christians, then openly criticising Muslim beliefs and views as backward, anachronistic and out of place should be also OK. But that is hate speech. They will sue you if you laugh while someone reads the Koran. They will kill you if you mock Mohammed in a Parisian magazine - and then call you the Islamophobe of the year, murdered though you are. Islam has garnered extra 'respect' Christians do not enjoy simply because of the fear of its murderous followers. This is outrageous.  Muslims deserve less respect because they do not reign in their murderous co-religionists who intimidate through murder and the threat of murder. We must all, all, laugh at them and make them feel ridiculous and ashamed of their barbarity. They can't kill us all. What you say here is perfectly reasonable - but you are conflating two separate issues - deliberately methinks. I've been trying to get answers from you regarding the issues of rights of muslims - but all you do is deflect and steer the conversation into an issue of the rights of muslim critics only. And yet it was you who started this discussion as one of how Islam in the west is not welcome and should not be tolerated. What do you mean by this at a practical level Soren? Given this is the premise of the current discussion, it is not an answer to simply rattle on about the right to criticise Islam and how intolerable it is that some muslims have made people scared to speak openly and freely - a separate issue which no one here is disputing. No, the real question here is how far would you go in your quest to remove Islam from western culture - given that there are a whole swathe of issues you need to address from a rights point of view - such as: do you start policing thoughts? Do you start instituting laws against islamic dress? Or if you embrace the idea that people have freedom of expression, you are then left in the paradoxical position of defending people's right to (for example) dress islamically, while simultaneously calling for all Islamic influences to be removed from society. From my point of view it looks like you are tiptoeing around the issue of rights because you don't want to appear anti-freedom. I find this quite strange because most people who have these sorts of anti-cultural plurality beliefs are unapologetically anti freedom - often proudly fascist, and would happily dismantle democracy in order to retain (or more accurately 'revert to') cultural purity in the west. So I was fully expecting you to take this sort of direction with our discussions - as Yadda and Sprint do. But you seem to be going to great pains to avoid taking a position on this. Thus we have this interesting tapdancing act of lofty grandstanding about the need to exclude Islam (and other non-European cultures) from the west, but stone silence with regards to ideas on how to actually do this.

How do you limit Scientology, for example?

Not by allowing it to get away with ridiculously large claims for itself.  Same with Islam.  Since the Rushdie fatwah, Islam has been allowed to get away the fantastically untrue claim that it is a religion of peace.  It isn't.
SO my first practical step is to call a spade a spade and not make ludicrous claims like GWB, Abbott, Cameron and all the rest are making.  Once you properly name what you are dealing with you can take it from there.

Subjected to robust criticism and ridicule, it will either wither out of shame or topple with apoplexy like so many Rage Boys.

If Christianity was worth taking out of secular public life, how much more does Islam and all its influences deserve to be removed from it?

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 2:39pm:

Subjected to robust criticism and ridicule, it will either wither out of shame or topple with apoplexy like so many Rage Boys.

You are talking about the encroachment of an intrusive political ideology into the public sphere. Again with the conflation: you associate "islam" only with the overt campaign by political ideologues to enforce their views onto the political and social spheres. This is actually a favourite theme of yours: to you, a man sporting a long beard and the "pyjama" islamic garb, or a woman in a hijab is in fact a form of political campaigning by political activists. Because you can't distinguish political Islam with the personal and spiritual beliefs of individual muslims - all outward expressions of Islam must necessarily be an aggressive political campaign to erode western culture and enforce the sharia.

And so they must be dealt with in kind - politics is a dirty business, and opponents don't hold back. Moreover we feel little sympathy for those attacked - they made the choice to go into politics, and if they don't have the stomach for the criticism, then they shouldn't be in it. And so it is with you and muslims - women in hijabs are not innocents trying to mind their own business - no they are ruthless political campaigners who deserve the full treatment. Thats why you talk only of mocking and harassing these people - with no talk whatsoever about their right to live their lives in peace without harassment. No siree - they chose to shove islam in our face - so they deserve everything they get.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 3:53pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 16th, 2015 at 2:39pm: Subjected to robust criticism and ridicule, it will either wither out of shame or topple with apoplexy like so many Rage Boys. You are talking about the encroachment of an intrusive political ideology into the public sphere. Again with the conflation: you associate "islam" only with the overt campaign by political ideologues to enforce their views onto the political and social spheres. This is actually a favourite theme of yours: to you, a man sporting a long beard and the "pyjama" islamic garb, or a woman in a hijab is in fact a form of political campaigning by political activists. Because you can't distinguish political Islam with the personal and spiritual beliefs of individual muslims - all outward expressions of Islam must necessarily be an aggressive political campaign to erode western culture and enforce the sharia. And so they must be dealt with in kind - politics is a dirty business, and opponents don't hold back. Moreover we feel little sympathy for those attacked - they made the choice to go into politics, and if they don't have the stomach for the criticism, then they shouldn't be in it. And so it is with you and muslims - women in hijabs are not innocents trying to mind their own business - no they are ruthless political campaigners who deserve the full treatment. Thats why you talk only of mocking and harassing these people - with no talk whatsoever about their right to live their lives in peace without harassment. No siree - they chose to shove islam in our face - so they deserve everything they get.

But it is true - Islam IS a political ideology. Sharia, ummah, caliphate - these are not spiritual exercises but concrete political goals.

You can be a Nazi university professor who joined up because they pressed you to join on pain of losing your job and so you did and turned up to work in your civvies and have a membership card to show for it all.  Or you can be an eager brown shirt or a volunteer Waffen SS who goes on parade 24/7 and never bloody shuts about how great Nazism is.

The hijab, the niqab, the pajamas, beard and all the paraphernalia simply demonstrate to all that you are a member of a tribe, not of society = that your Islam is political, not private, not personal. You publicly identify with a creed that ultimately wants to dominate all societies and is prepared to do that by violence. This is important. Islam IS a violent creed and it has spread by violence, not persuasion and it is prepared to proselytise violently to this day.  That violence is not peculiar to Islam is neither here nor there - that Islam is ALSO violent does not make it a religion of peace.


The hashids, the sikhs, Buddhist monks also wear their peculiar, anachronistic gear - but they have no world-wide political program to put their flag on the White House, on Buck House, on top of the Australian Parliament's flagpole. 

Quote:

Given this is the premise of the current discussion, it is not an answer to simply rattle on about the right to criticise Islam and how intolerable it is that some muslims have made people scared to speak openly and freely - a separate issue which no one here is disputing.

I think you'll find that several are. You have a bit of a fan club here.


Quote:

Thus we have this interesting tapdancing act of lofty grandstanding about the need to exclude Islam (and other non-European cultures) from the west, but stone silence with regards to ideas on how to actually do this.

I think our handling of Nazis and Communists provides a decent model.


Quote:

You are talking about the encroachment of an intrusive political ideology into the public sphere. Again with the conflation: you associate "islam" only with the overt campaign by political ideologues to enforce their views onto the political and social spheres.

Like what Muhammed did?


Quote:

This is actually a favourite theme of yours

Linking Islam to Muhammed?

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 9:04pm:

I think our handling of Nazis and Communists provides a decent model.

Good point FD - we banned both of them.

Cmon Gandalf, tell us..how should we be dealing with ISIS Aussies?

NB. I've not read any posts in here.

Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 5:25pm:

But it is true - Islam IS a political ideology.

Rubbish - not for me its not.


Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 5:25pm:

The hijab, the niqab, the pajamas, beard and all the paraphernalia simply demonstrate to all that you are a member of a tribe, not of society

Actually, its your exclusionary views which demonstrate to all that *YOU* are a member of a tribe - a tribe that does not belong here. Think about that.


Soren wrote on Mar 16^th, 2015 at 5:25pm:

The hashids, the sikhs, Buddhist monks also wear their peculiar, anachronistic gear - but they have no world-wide political program

Don't be cute Soren - you object to these "foreign" clothing in our culture as well.

And a woman who chooses to wear a particular item of clothing is not someone who necessarily has a world-wide political program. This is nothing but hysterics.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 8:27am:

This is nothing but hysterics.

Miam miam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 6:38am:

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2015 at 9:04pm: I think our handling of Nazis and Communists provides a decent model. Good point FD - we banned both of them.

We did far more than that to the Nazis, and the communists too in a less direct manner.


Quote:

Actually, its your exclusionary views which demonstrate to all that *YOU* are a member of a tribe - a tribe that does not belong here. Think about that.

Are there any Muslim tribes that don't belong here?

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17th, 2015 at 6:38am: freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2015 at 9:04pm: I think our handling of Nazis and Communists provides a decent model. Good point FD - we banned both of them. We did far more than that to the Nazis, and the communists too in a less direct manner.

We tried banning the Commies, FD. No luck there - it was against the Constitution.

Should we try banning the Muselman?

That could work.

Karnal wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

Should we try banning the Muselman? That could work.

I too am wondering where FD is going with this.

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 1:12pm:

Are there any Muslim tribes that don't belong here?

Many people don't belong here FD - including some muslims. You for example...

It seems to me you agree with Soren on a lot of the principles here Gandalf. You just differ on the details of who doesn't belong, though you both agree that as a minimum some Muslims don't.

My point is that this is not entirely new. We have dealt with local and global threats from Nazism and communism before, and come out the other side stronger for it. We are not hamstrung by the philosophical quandary of whether to tolerate intolerance.

Well our society tolerates you and Soren - extremists who are completely at odds with our values. From Soren's point of view that is an indication of weakness. From my point of view its the opposite.

There's one key difference.

Quote:

Well our society tolerates you and Soren - extremists who are completely at odds with our values.

In what way am I such an extremist?

freediver wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 9:46pm:

Quote: Well our society tolerates you and Soren - extremists who are completely at odds with our values. In what way am I such an extremist?

Don’t ask G, FD. Ask the 2007 FD.

He’ll know for sure.

Karnal wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 10:00pm:

Don’t ask G, FD. Ask the 2007 FD.

Couldn't have put it any better myself.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 17^th, 2015 at 9:07pm:

Well our society tolerates you and Soren - extremists who are completely at odds with our values. From Soren's point of view that is an indication of weakness. From my point of view its the opposite. There's one key difference.

Oh look - more empty, meaningless rhetoric from a Muslim.

both you and Soren have attitudes about muslims that are not in line with mainstream Australian views and values - would you agree?

eg Soren thinks all muslims are conducting political campaigns to try and enforce the sharia - through every religious expression they make - including what they wear. While you make idiotic arguments like saying inappropriate use of state funds by an islamic school definitely means funding terrorism, and that all muslims attitudes towards jews must necessarily be shaped by what Muhammad did to a group of jews 1400 years ago.

This is what we call prejudicial hysterics - or what FD 2007 would have called "tarring all muslims with the same brush". They are at odds with Australian values, which rejects the idea that a group of people must be prejudged by one interpretation of a religious doctrine - an interpretation that is rejected by most muslims themselves. Australian values believes in giving people a fair go, that people must be judged on their demonstrated actions and behaviours, not by the beliefs imposed on them by prejudiced outsiders who haven't even read any of the doctrines that form their beliefs.

And the fact that your and Soren's views are at odds with Australian values, yet at the same time Australians will nevertheless embrace your right  to have such views - is, in Soren's world, a sign of weakness. Whereas to me, it is one of the keys to our strength.

Quote:

both you and Soren have attitudes about muslims that are not in line with mainstream Australian views and values - would you agree?

No. Hence the question. And seeing as you have started backpedaling already, here is what you said Gandalf:


Quote:

Well our society tolerates you and Soren - extremists who are completely at odds with our values.

What backpeddling FD? Both you and Soren are extremists in our society who are completely at odds with our values - I stand by that.

Ask FD 2007 - he'll back me up.

How so?

The moderate moslem who lives in Australia, is the moslem who is prepared to tell the Australian public, that ISLAM is a peaceful and tolerant faith.

The moslem in Australia speaks those words to Australians [i.e. to the Australian public], not because he [the 'moderate moslem'] thinks that what he is saying is necessarily true,
.....BUT THE MOSLEM SPEAKS IT, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MOSLEM KNOWS THAT THAT IS WHAT THE AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN WANTS TO BELIEVE, ABOUT ALL PEOPLE WHO LIVE [OR WANT TO LIVE] AMONGST HIM/HER IN AUSTRALIA.





.





Quote:

"Peace summarises everything in Islam, because it means submitting your will to God, so you acquire peace through it," he said. "When I'm following its [i.e. ISLAM's] teachings, I know that my own actions are in line     with what my creator wants, and hence I am at peace with myself, my community and the rest of the world."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-19/darwins-muslim-community-tackles-discrimination-at-meeting/6025586?section=nt



EXAMPLE - of moslems promoting ISLAM 'peace' in Australia.....

------------- >

IMAGE....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5814780-3x2-700x467.jpg

"Mr Yunus has been encouraging peaceful community bridging since starting his post as Darwin's Islamic leader in 2014."

Mr Yunus is a moslem.

Mr Yunus is a follower of ISLAM.





.





IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/_admin/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/





.




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1424590530/17#17

Quote:

The heart of ISLAM is the Koran  [and heart of the Koran, is the ideas and ideals it contains]. SO WHAT DOES THE KORAN SAY ABOUT MOSLEMS LIVING IN PEACE WITH DISBELIEVERS ? ; ---------- >

Muslims are the blunt tools of 'israel' or 'zionism' if you prefer

Two claws of the same crab, pincer tactics

.


Quote:

JEWS AT THE STEERING WHEEL Jews at the helm of ostensibly non-Jewish organizations (New listing at JTR, ever-growing. This list could go on for miles. It is only a sampling.)]

Work your way through the lists until your eyes drop out

http://www.churchofthesonsofyhvh.org/jews_at_the_steering_wheel.html


http://www.holywar.org/S61.htm


http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com.au/2008/10/jews-at-steering-wheel.html



Quote:

Jewish Control of Major Associations & 'Movements

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-jewishsupremacyassociationsmovements-white-house-other.html



You'll laugh in surprise

You'll scratch your head

Your blood pressure will hit the top of the graph

You'll ask yourself why you didn't know this years ago




Then find the Muslim

find the muslims


You won't.  You can't


ergo:  Muslims are the blunt tools of the 'zionists' and 'israel'


face it

.
.

Quote:

Seven Jewish Americans Control Most US Media

http://rense.com/general44/sevenjewishamericans.htm



Quote:

HOW JEWS CONTROL THE AMERICAN MEDIA

http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=194




Quote:

Jews DO control the media The Times of Israel, July 1, 2012

http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/jewishp/media/jews_do_control_media.htm



Quote:

Jewish Controlled Press

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-controlledpress-folder.html




Quote:

Finnish Official: Jews Control Money, Impede US Neutrality

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/162738#.VQoln5u4ZLM


simple Google search, page one


Where are the muslim controlled media ?


Muslims are the blunt tools of Zionism, Israel


Muslims are blunt tools

like brainless children, doing as they're told

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2015 at 7:58am:

How so?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 18^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

eg Soren thinks all muslims are conducting political campaigns to try and enforce the sharia - through every religious expression they make - including what they wear. While you make idiotic arguments like saying inappropriate use of state funds by an islamic school definitely means funding terrorism, and that all muslims attitudes towards jews must necessarily be shaped by what Muhammad did to a group of jews 1400 years ago. This is what we call prejudicial hysterics - or what FD 2007 would have called "tarring all muslims with the same brush". They are at odds with Australian values, which rejects the idea that a group of people must be prejudged by one interpretation of a religious doctrine - an interpretation that is rejected by most muslims themselves. Australian values believes in giving people a fair go, that people must be judged on their demonstrated actions and behaviours, not by the beliefs imposed on them by prejudiced outsiders who haven't even read any of the doctrines that form their beliefs.

.
.

Last year in the mainstream media, it was reported that a bunch of fundamentalist jews had been kicked out of a tiny hamlet in South America

half a dozen photos were included within the report

What was of additional interest were the Comments accompanying the report

People were shocked

They said they had 'no idea'  jews looked so much like fundamentalist muslims

The women in the photos, and small girls, toddlers, were shrouded head to knee in black cloaking garments

' They look just like muslims' said many Commenters


and of course there were dozens, quite literally, of comments remarking that jews seem to get themselves kicked out wherever they go, back to the mists of time


So there's that


Then we have Ben Gurion's spoken comments as recorded during his lifetime AND his memoirs

Ben Gurion for those not familiar with him, was the first Prime Minister of the newly created Israel

Ben Gurion said and wrote in his memoirs that the Palestinians (arabs) ' .. are the true descendants of the region's original jews'

he went on to explain

What Ben Gurion wanted to be understood is that there was NO 'exile' of the Jews.  Countless historians have confirmed this and there are several recent books which state this categorically.  So forget the 'exile' and listen to Ben Gurions, Zionist and first prime minister of Israel

The original jews from the region (Palestine, etc) took off into Turkey and beyond.  Those original jews had never been that big of a deal in 'the region' in the first place (consult history again for confirmation)

so they took off, seeking converts, seeking opportunities

and they (small in number) and their converts (big in number, who now comprise 95% approx. of all those claiming to be 'jewish' today, ended up in the bowels of what used to be the USSR, then through Europe where they remain to this day


Those jews from the Palestine regions who elected or were prevented by whatever reasons for following the tribes in their odyssey, remained in 'the region' (around Palestine)

Somewhere during the next several hundred years, those 'original jews in the Palestine region' created a new religion

maybe it's because the jewish Messiah had failed consistently to appear -- to the point those scattered tribes invented a new religion

which came to be known as Islam


You don't even need to know the history to work it out for yourself, based on the many, many similarities between Judaism and islam

Today, the jews pretend hostility toward Islam and muslims

but the jews know damn well that their ancestors converted from Judaism to the new Islamic beliefs

Ben Gurion and the Zionists who rampaged into the newly created Israel knew it very well, to the point Ben Gurion thought nothing of including the information in his memoirs which he left for posterity


Judaism and Islam are parent and child, with islam always in the position of child

It's no secret -- except maybe to dumb Westerners

Well, time the West woke up


Look at what's staring you in the face.  It's right there

There's no 'judaism' and a separate 'Islam'

they are one and the same.  Same root.  Same mentality.  Same, same, same.  Only the names have changed, like the song says


Judaism OWNS Islam

Israeli/Zionist honchos get together with the lesser muslim honchos

and together, they chortle about destroying the rest

..

During your investigation of the birth of Islam out of disillusionment with a failed Messiah on the part of those jews who remained and wandered through 'the region' (Ben Gurion's term for Palestine and surrounds)

you will eventually strike upon this

and it should grab your attention if you're a quarter awake



Quote:

Did the British Invent Wahhabism?

 



Quote:

According to many intelligence analysts, terrorism is controlled and financed by London and Saudi Arabia all over the world. What is the special relationship that exists between the British Empire and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Is it true that the British invented a form of Islam that is known as Wahhabism and are using it to subvert true Islam? Was there really a British spy named Hempher who was the secret agent who set the whole thing in motion? Here are the 'confessions' of Mr Hempher...

Quote:

Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East [part 1]

http://originaldialogue.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/did-british-invent-wahhabism.html


and in the left hand sidebar, you will find the remaining Parts (plus other items of interest)

.
.

Quote:

Extreme Wahhabism is the Brainchild of British Intelligence Agency [quote]British government is responsible for creating Wahhabism and its agenda given to Ibn Abdul-Wahhab through their agent Hempher, and is now being carried out by extreme Wahhabis—ISIS

Quote:

Confessions of a British Spy narrates the actions of a covert British agent, Hempher, sent to Turkey, the then khilafat (Head of the Ottoman Empire) of Muslims in 1710, who worked to find ways and means to cause dissention, riots and dismantling of the khilafat in Istanbul, Turkey. At the beginning of his account, Hempher states he went to Istanbul, embraced Islam, learned Holy Quran and pretended to be a very pious Muslim. During this time, Hempher became fully aware of the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. When dispatched to Basra, Iraq by British Intelligence, Hempher is told (P. 20), "Your duty this time is to diagnose these controversies well and to report to the ministry. The more successful you are in aggravating the differences among Muslims, the greater will be your service to England. We, the English people, have to make mischief and arouse schism in all our colonies in order that we may live in welfare and luxury. Only by means of such instigations will we be able to demolish the Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, how could a nation with a small population bring another nation with a greater population under its sway? Look for the mouth of the chasm with all your might, and get in as soon as you find it. You should know that the Ottoman and Iranian Empires have reached the nadir of their lives. Therefore, your first duty is to instigate the people against the administration! History has shown that 'The source of all sorts of revolutions is public rebellions.' When the unity of Muslims is broken and the common sympathy among them is impaired, their forces will be dissolved and thus we shall easily destroy them." Therefore, with these objectives, Hempher goes from Istanbul to Basra. While staying in Basra he joined a carpenter's shop where he worked for a living and as a cover

Read in full here:

http://www.iqou-moa.org/sheikhgilani/desk/670-isis-british-brainchild

History disagrees with you. History shows pretty clearly that jews were remarkably resistant to the lure of Islam, and overwhelmingly kept their own religion and ways - even when they lived under Islamic rule. Which is understandable when you consider that under Islamic law jews (and Christians) were accorded a special status which was rather generous in terms of independence and freedom of worship. Jewish culture flourished under Islam, and when the jews were expelled from Spain by the Christians, they not surprisingly sought refuge in the Islamic lands.

.
.

More of the same here:



Quote:

Globalists created Wahhabi Terrorism to Destroy Islam and Justify a Global State

http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalists-created-wahhabi-terrorism-to-destroy-islam-and-justify-a-global-state/2757

.
.

The above are lucrative theories now filling books and claimed to have originated in Germany


However, years before the latest slant (the Brit MI5 caper)
another tale, similar but different, appeared online -- was taken down -- appeared again.  Most recently, it's been legitimised by non other than Wikipedia, although Wiki qualifies it by adding, 'conspiracy theory' just to be safe, lol


The original and (I suspect) the more accurate version of how Wahhabism came to dominate Islam, concerns a Brit boy-sailor from Bristol who slept with various influential, rich muslim males and climbed the ladder swiftly as result

He learned the language and eventual spoke it like a native.  He married an Indian woman, had several children.  The black-sheep of the litter became the Ayotollah Khomeini, known as The Father of the Islamic Revolution

He was trained in the USSR, hated Iran, and was the paedophile who authored the Ayotollah Khomeini's Little Green Book -- the book which instructs muslim men that if they must rape animals and months-old infants, then rules apply.  Rule re: the raping of an animal = slaughter the animal as swiftly as possible after ejaculation and sell the meat to another village, not your own.  And if while raping a months-old infant, you happen to disembowel or rupture it or snap its tiny hips, then you must support that infant financially/food-wise.  You may marry it too, but you need not make it your main wife

that's the mentality of black-sheep, half British Ayotollah Khomeini, Father of the Islamic Revolution, who transformed a progressive, modern, sophisticated nation into a dung-filled, shroud-filled backwater

Was the esteemed Ayotollah Khomeini working for the British when he functioned as an 'arabic' translator during those early oil deals which stood to reap unimaginable fortunes courtesy of the advent of the motor-car?

or was he a psycho who turned native and produced a psycho offspring who in turn resulted in old muslim hags slicing the lips off muslim women because they'd dared to wear lipstick?

Wikipedia has this to say:



Quote:

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi himself asserted that, "If you lift up Khomeini's beard, you will find MADE IN ENGLAND written under his chin," in the later days of his reign as monarch.[13] This statement by Pahlavi was an adaptation of another saying, "If you lift a mullah's beard, you will find 'Made in Britain' stamped on his chin."[14] 1978 Ettela'at article[edit] On 7 January 1978,[15] the state news agency Ettela'at also published an article accusing Khomeini of being a British agent and a "mad Indian poet."[16] According to the article These days thoughts turn once again to the colonialism of the black and the red, that is to say, to old and new colonialism. Black referring to feudal forces and red to communist ones. The two groups allegedly had formed an alliance to sabotage the monarchy's modernization project. The article went on to say that when this alliance went looking for a clerical mouthpiece two decades ago to dupe the devout. Ruhollah Khomeini was an appropriate agent for this purpose. It was said that he had spent time in India and was in contact there with institutions of English colonialism, and this is how he become known by the name `Seyyed Hindi` The article further suggested that Khomeini's opposition to the shah was prompted and paid for by British oil interests.[17] Supporters of the Khomeini, outraged by the article, organized violent demonstrations in response, which eventually snowballed into the Iranian Revolution and led to the flight of the Shah about a year later

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British%E2%80%93Ruhollah_Khomeini_conspiracy_theory


When the Ayotollah Khomeini died, the world watched the spectacle as his supporters fought tooth and nail for a piece of his shroud.  They wanted a relic of the monster.  It resulted in Ayotollah Khomeini's corpse bouncing off the float and onto the ground -- where his supporters continued fighting tooth and claw for a bit of him

his shroud continued unravelling -- yards of it trailing along

Some were of the opinion he'd earned his undignified send-off

Most muslims bridle in rage if its suggested Ayotollah Khomeini was in fact a 'cuckoo' -- was sired by a Brit from Bristol


The supporters of Kemal Attaturk bridle too when it's suggested he was a jew (Google it.  Again you'll find 'conspiracy theories' involving British intelligence agents and Freemasons.  But you have to put it into perspective; all major powers had colonial interests in those days - original James Bond scripts )


Quote:

A Spanish Jew by ancestry, an orthodox Moslem by birth and breeding, trained in a German war college ... are said to be a few outstanding characteristics in the personality of the new "Man on Horseback" who has appeared in the Near East. He is a real dictator, the correspondents testify, a man of the type which is at once the hope and fear of nations torn to pieces by unsuccessful wars ... Turkey largely through the will of Mustafa Kemal Pasha. There was the pasha himself, ... rather sad eyes that spoke eloquently of his Spanish-Jewish ancestry - for (Mustafa) Kemal, like Enver Pasha, tho an orthodox Moslem, is descended from those Spanish-Jewish families that, given by Christianity the tolerant choice between death, conversion and exile, found asylum and happiness in the Sultan's domains...

https://archive.org/details/BritishAg