Emma wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:22pm:


???? Whatever gave you the idea I am religious? That has to be the biggest joke on this board.

You obviously don't read the posts of the people you reply to... Read post #54 on page 4 of the Topic, Falah: jews are 'parasites'. Feb. 2nd.

Please don't put me in with the likes of Yadda ... now there's a fanatical religious nut if ever there was one.

The ONLY reason I stand up for Muslims is because they are the ones being umercifully attacked by people who support (Australia's) enemies ... Zionists and our Zionist Government.

Don't go along with that statement? I can prove it to you if you like, or debate it if you prefer.

The only reason I replied to you as I did was because I got the idea from your earlier posts that you were anti government and I was making a joke.

Seems those who make jokes about others here, are the ones who can't take them when directed at themselves.

There was a minor kerfuffle a few weeks ago when the Daily Mail website overtook the New York Times to become the most popular news site in the world. Liberals can whine all they like, but that's a formidable achievement, especially considering it's not really a conventional news site at all, more a big online bin full of pictures of reality stars, with the occasional Stephen Glover column lobbed in to lighten the mood.

The print edition of the paper is edited by Paul Dacre, who is regularly praised by media types for knowing what his customers want, and then selling it to them. This is an extraordinary skill that puts him on the same rarefied level as, say, anyone who works in a shoe shop. Or a bike shop. Or any kind of shop. Or in any absolutely any kind of business whatsoever. Whatever you think about Dacre's politics, you can't deny he's got a job to do, and he does it. Like a peg. Or a ladle. Or even a knee. Dacre is perhaps Britain's foremost knee.

Curiously, the online version of the Mail has become a hit by doing the reverse of what Dacre is commended for doing. It succeeds by remorselessly delivering industrial quantities of precisely the opposite of what a traditional Mail reader would presumably want to read: frothy stories about carefree young women enjoying themselves. Kim Kardashian or Kelly Brook "pour their curves" into a selection of tight dresses and waddle before the lens and absolutely nobody on the planet gives a toss apart from Mail Online, which is doomed to host the images, and Mail Online's readers, who flock in their thousands to leave messages claiming to be not in the slightest bit interested in the story they're reading and commenting on.

Now Mail Online has gone one step further by running a story that not only insults its own readers, but cruelly invites them to underline the insult by making fools of themselves. In what has to be a deliberate act of "trolling", last Friday it carried a story headlined "Rightwingers are less intelligent than left wingers, says study". In terms of enraging your core readership, this is the equivalent of Nuts magazine suddenly claiming only gay men masturbate to Hollyoaks babes.

The Mail's report went on to detail the results of a study carried out by a group of Canadian academics, which appears to show some correlation between low childhood intelligence and rightwing politics. It also claimed that stupid people hold rightwing views in order to feel "safe". Other items they hold in order to feel safe include clubs, rocks and dustbin lids. But those are easy to let go of. Political beliefs get stuck to your hands. And the only way to remove them is to hold your brain under the hot tap and scrub vigorously for several decades.

As you might expect, many Mail Online readers didn't take kindly to a report that strived to paint them as simplistic, terrified dimwits. Many leapt from the tyres they were swinging in to furrow their brows and howl in anger. Others, tragically, began tapping rudimentary responses into the comments box. Which is where the tragi-fun really began.

"Stupidest study of them all," raged a reader called Beth. "So were the testers conservative for being so thick or were they left and using a non study to make themselves look better?" Hmmm. There's no easy answer to that. Because it doesn't make sense.

"I seem to remember 'academics' once upon a time stating that the world was flat and the Sun orbitted the Earth," scoffed Ted, who has presumably been keeping his personal brand of scepticism alive since the middle ages.

"Sounds like a BBC study, type of thing they would waste the Licence fee on, load of Cods wallop," claimed Terry from Leicester, thereby managing to ignore the findings while simultaneously attacking public service broadcasting for something it hadn't done. For his next trick, Terry will learn to whistle and poo at the same time.

Not all the respondents were stupid. Some were merely deluded. Someone calling themselves "Hillside" from Sydney claimed: "I have an IQ over 200, have six degrees and diplomas and am 'right-wing', as are others I know at this higher level of intelligence." His IQ score is particularly impressive considering the maximum possible score on Mensa's preferred IQ test is 161.

Whatever the numbers: intellectual dick-measuring isn't to everyone's tastes anyway. Simply by highlighting his own intelligence "Hillside" alienated several of his commentbox brethren.

"If there is one person I can not stand and that is a snob who thinks they are intelligent because if they were intelligent and educated they wouldn't be snobs," argued Liz from London. Once you've clambered over the broken grammar, deliberately placed at the start of the sentence like a rudimentary barricade of piled-up chairs, there's a tragic conundrum at work here. She claims intellectual snootiness is ugly, which it is, but unfortunately she says it in such a stupid way it's impossible for anyone smarter than a steak-and-ale pie not to look down on her. Thus, for Liz, the crushing cycle of snobbery continues.

On and on the comments went, turning a rather stark write-up of a daft-sounding study into a sublime piece of live online performance art. A chimps' tea party of the damned. The Mail has long been a master at trolling lefties; now it's mischievously turned on its own readers, and the results could only be funnier if the website came with free plastic lawn furniture for them to lob at the screen. You couldn't make it up.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/05/daily-mail-calls-rightwinger...




The always funny Charlie Brooker.   Talking about a british newspaper and website but could easily be applied to australia.

Jan wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 3:21am:


Sincerest apologies Jan.....its just the thought of another zealot on here was too much.

Seriously I read  the posts,  altho not long screeds of religious tracks, because , you are quite right,  nuts like Yadda annoy me.
Anti-govt.?  Yep I'd say that.

Afraid your humor is too subtle for me. I'm much more literal, consequently, I often don't GET jokes.  As for devilish Zionists..... they are our enemies you say? 
Why?  and why do you say we have a Zionist governmemt.

As I understand it,  'references' are provided as footnotes in support of the writer's premise.

So be a good fella Falah , and put it in your own words.

I'm not going to follow your headlines/links...  if you have  a personal view, I'm happy to read it.

Lets face it, there's nothing easier than what you tried (below)... but it doesn't cut it with me.

Emma wrote on Feb 7^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:


No Probs, apologies accepted 

I'm sorry to say this, but if you don't get subtle jokes, there wouldn't be much you do get in here, because a lot of the jokes in here are often said as if they are facts and said against the very people (like myself, Abu and Falah) who in fact are telling the truth.

The ones who are against the truth are pro Government and for a very good (to them) reason. They are PRO Globalisation and make jokes to suppress anything that links them to a zionist take-over.

I would suggest you bone up on Zionism, what it is, what it really means and what it has to do with our government post haste, because it's been with us since we were just a colony and has grown with this country and shaped our attitudes and our laws.

Zionism is behind every choice our government makes and globalism is the 'final solution'.

It's a very long story and unfortunately it encompasses the topic you seem to have a problem with, ie 'religion', and nothing can be proven without the facts to go along with any subject.

To study something in total to arrive at 'truth', it's necessary to read and understand all sides and from all people, even those you find distasteful and disagree with.

You asked why I say we have a Zionist Government? Well unfortunately some of the answers are in Falah's links, and they are the sort of facts I too would have to submit to explain.

I am desperately looking for an article I have lost (from my computer) from a uni newspaper, of a university profile (for votes for a position on a Uni campus) that Julia Gillard wrote herself, in it she admits to being a lesbian.

Now I have nothing against gays or lesbian, to each his own, as long as they don't interfer in my life, or impinge on my rights. BUT (a big but) She claims she has a 'straight' relationship with Tim Mathieson who has been outed by many past aquaintences. So how straight is Julia? How truthful is she?

To make matters worse Tim works for the founder of the Australia Israel  forum, and Julia supports the Israeli Chanber of Commerce, not to mention the "Zionist federation of Australia".

I've counted approx. 150 Jewish/Zionist organizations in Australia. Everything from womens issues, Addiction care, to Funerals, and everything in between ... Their organizations are listed under the entire Alphabet.

There's a list and their purpose here: http://www.jewishaustralia.com/community.htm#national

I suggest you take a glance at this list Starting with the NATIONAL ORGANISATIONS.

Our Indigenous Australians don't have this much 'care' and support. So why are the zionists so prominent??????

Oh Yeah they even have a Lesbian group: JLGV - Jewish Lesbian Group of Victoria: email jlgvic@hotmail.com

And I would be prepared to put money on the fact that there are a few members here that are members of one or two of these zionist organizations and that's the reason they are so viral in their attacks on Abu and Falah and any of their supporters.

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 8:26am:


For many Jews Israel is about tribal nationalism and getting free land.

The US $3 billion annual aid for Israel has a lot to with religion.

Nearly 1/3 of American voters are fundy evangelicals.

For Evangelicals, Supporting Israel Is ‘God’s Foreign Policy’

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/14/washington/14israel.html?pagewanted=all

On the Road to Armageddon

While only 36 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible is God's Word and should be taken literally, 59 percent say they believe that events predicted in the Book of Revelation will come to pass. Almost one out of four Americans believes that 9/11 was predicted in the Bible, and nearly one in five believes that he or she will live long enough to see the end of the world. Even more significant for this study, over one-third of those Americans who support Israel report that they do so because they believe the Bible teaches that the Jews must possess their own country in the Holy Land before Jesus can return...

...During the early 1980s the Israeli Ministry of Tourism recruited evangelical religious leaders for free "familiarization" tours. In time, hundreds of evangelical pastors got free trips to the Holy Land. The purpose of such promotional tours was to enable people of even limited influence to experience Israel for themselves and be shown how they might bring their own tour group to Israel. The Ministry of Tourism was interested in more than tourist dollars: here was a way of building a solid corps of non-Jewish supporters for Israel in the United States by bringing large numbers of evangelicals to hear and see Israel's story for themselves. The strategy caught on.

Getting American evangelicals to travel to Israel was only half of the Israeli strategy. The other half was to create a politically-engaged, pro-Israel force among conservative American Christians in the United States. Shortly after the Six-Day War, elements within the Israeli government saw the potential power of the evangelical subculture and began to mobilize it as a base of support that could influence American foreign policy. The Israeli government sent Yona Malachy of its Department of Religious Affairs to the United States to study American fundamentalism and its potential as an ally of Israel. Malachy was warmly received by fundamentalists and was able to influence some of them to issue strong pro-Israeli manifestos. By the mid-1980s, there was a discernible shift in the Israeli political strategy. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Jewish state's major lobbying group in Washington, D.C., started re-aligning itself with the American political right-wing, including Christian conservatives. Israel's timing was perfect. It began working seriously with American dispensationalists at the precise moment that American fundamentalists and evangelicals were discovering their political voice.

American dispensationalists liked the attention and were willing to organize their constituents to support Israel in a variety of ways. One of the first groups of this kind was the National Leadership Conference for Israel, founded by Pentecostal preacher David Lewis. It supports Israel by scheduling conferences, organizing letter-writing campaigns, placing advertisements in newspapers and putting on large public rallies. Another group is Christians for Israel, whose main purpose is to help Jews from the former Soviet Union immigrate to Israel. Its "exodus" program claims to assist 1,200 Jews per month.

Probably the largest pro-Israel organization of its kind is the National Unity Coalition for Israel, which was founded by a Jewish woman who learned how to get dispensationalist support. NUCI opposes "the establishment of a Palestinian state within the borders of Israel." The organization distributes an array of newsletters and "chutzpah action alerts" to keep its members informed and involved and claims that it can mount a "virtual March on the White House" at a moment's notice if necessary.

Bridges for Peace is an educational and charitable organization that is driven by its view of Bible prophecy. In addition to sponsoring a variety of tours and educational opportunities, the organization operates the largest food bank in Israel. Christian Friends of Israeli Communities pairs up individual evangelical congregations in America with Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

Dispensationalists are also strong supporters of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, which was founded and is still run by an Orthodox Jewish rabbi named Yechiel Eckstein. The IFCJ sponsors a number of humanitarian projects to help Jews from the former Soviet Union to immigrate to Israel, provides support for Jews in Russia who are destitute and cannot leave, and aids the poor and needy in Jerusalem.

If dispensationalists have been Israel's best friends for the last 30 years, what has such friendship produced? One result has been the emergence of a strong and apparently unwavering supporter for Israel in the United States. The many pro-Israel organizations created by dispensationalists have undoubtedly made a difference. In a political world in which popular pressure counts, Israel is in a stronger position today because of the willingness of American premillennialists to throw their political clout around. The willingness of Christian conservatives to stand up for Israel has helped U.S./Israeli relations stay strong.

There is a downside to the dispensationalist/Israeli friendship. In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society. They do so because such political and religious elements seem to conform to dispensationalist beliefs about what is coming next for Israel. By lending their support-both financial and spiritual-to such groups, dispensationalists are helping the future they envision come to pass.

Throughout their history, dispensationalists have predicted that before the final events of the End Times can take place, the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem. According to their scenario, half way through the Great Tribulation, Antichrist will enter the restored Temple and declare himself to be God. To outsiders, such predictions always seemed farfetched. But in the Six-Day War Israel gained control of the entire city of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount. Suddenly all things seemed possible, at least to some people.

Anticipating a Third Temple was nothing new for the dispensationalists. For over a century they had been predicting that once Jews re-gathered in the Holy Land they would eventually build a new Temple on the site of the previous two. Not all dispensationalists agreed on all the details, but in general they saw a rebuilt Temple as indispensable to the completion of God's prophetic program. Of course, there were many practical impediments to the realization of these hopes, not the least of which was the existence of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque on the site of the future Temple. How could the Temple be built, when the Temple Mount was already "occupied" by Muslim sacred sites? The answer to this question varied.

Dispensationalists could not even agree on where the new Temple would be built. There were three theories about place, based on elaborate archeological study and speculation. According to Asher Kaufman, a professor of physics at Hebrew University, the original two Temples were located on Temple Mount to the north of the Dome of the Rock. He published his findings in the Biblical Archaeological Review in 1983; but his arguments convinced few other archeologists. Kaufman did attract the attention of some leading dispensationalists, however. David Lewis, Hal Lindsey, Chuck Smith, and Chuck Missler pondered the theory with some eagerness.

A Tel Aviv architect named Tuvia Sagiv championed another theory that located past and future Temples between the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque...Sagiv hoped that his findings would deter radicals who believed that in order to rebuild the Temple they must destroy the Dome of the Rock, which he feared would lead to World War III.

The third theory placed the ancient and future Temple site directly under the Dome of the Rock. Most Israeli archeologists favored this view. The most advanced work in support of the theory for a "central location" was done by Leen Ritmeyer, a Dutch-born Christian archeologist who came to Israel shortly after the Six- Day War. Most dispensationalists agreed with Ritmeyer's location for the Temple.

A few of the Bible teachers speculated about how the problem of the Dome's presence might be solved., In 1982 Louis Goldberg of Moody Bible Institute stated that in some future Arab-Israeli war, a surface to surface missile fired from Jordan or Syria might go off course and destroy the Muslim site. Dispensationalist fiction writers also gave it a try: in Salem Kirban's novel "666," the Antichrist vaporized the mosque with his ruby laser ring; and in Charles Colson's "Kingdoms in Conflict," American prophecy believers financed a plot by Israeli radicals to blow up the Dome...

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/End-Times/On-The-Road-To-Armageddon.aspx

Jan wrote on Feb 8^th, 2012 at 11:05am: