Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98944

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2385 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:12pm

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:43pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

I know, old boy, but what if one were to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of, say, liking Danish?

What would you have to say about that?

In the words of the poetess, please explain?

FOrf, Paki.

No no, dear boy, that simply won't do. If you uphold the right to ban the tinted races in the name of Danish, what then the Muselman?

In the words of your prophetess, please explain?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2386 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:16pm

Karnal wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:43pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

I know, old boy, but what if one were to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of, say, liking Danish?

What would you have to say about that?

In the words of the poetess, please explain?

FOrf, Paki.

No no, dear boy, that simply won't do. If you uphold the right to ban the tinted races in the name of Danish, what then the Muselman?

In the words of your prophetess, please explain?

You have been told to FOrf, Paki. Which part is new ir unfamiliar, Paki?

You are a worthless and idiotic kibittzing interrupter, nothing more. FOrf.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98944

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2387 - Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:31pm

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:16pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:51pm:

Karnal wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:43pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

I know, old boy, but what if one were to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of, say, liking Danish?

What would you have to say about that?

In the words of the poetess, please explain?

FOrf, Paki.

No no, dear boy, that simply won't do. If you uphold the right to ban the tinted races in the name of Danish, what then the Muselman?

In the words of your prophetess, please explain?

You have been told to FOrf, Paki. Which part is new ir unfamiliar, Paki?

You are a worthless and idiotic kibittzing interrupter, nothing more. FOrf.

Sorry, dear boy, I will FOorf, but allow me to ask you a quick question first.

Apart from the Muselman, who else should be denied your marvellous Danish Freeeeedom?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2388 - Apr 13^th, 2018 at 12:54pm

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights.

Hillarious, wearing a hijab is now "undermining the fundamental freedoms of the west".

It absolutely is. Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why ate you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.

Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination?? Just present as you do for all the world to laugh at your complete absence of self-examinaton.
Mohammed never had any compunctions and he was a horny war lord, killing a n pillaging and raping his way across the landd. Why would you draw boundaries for yourselves????

Charming. Didn't I tell you not to digress into rant mode?

Lets stop at "It absolutely is", and try and expand on that.

Here I'll start you off...

"women wearing a piece of clothing on their head undermines the fundamental freedoms of the west because..."

over to you now Frank...

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2389 - Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:12pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 12:54pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights.

Hillarious, wearing a hijab is now "undermining the fundamental freedoms of the west".

It absolutely is. Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why ate you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.

Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination?? Just present as you do for all the world to laugh at your complete absence of self-examinaton.
Mohammed never had any compunctions and he was a horny war lord, killing a n pillaging and raping his way across the landd. Why would you draw boundaries for yourselves????

Charming. Didn't I tell you not to digress into rant mode?

Lets stop at "It absolutely is", and try and expand on that.

Here I'll start you off...

"women wearing a piece of clothing on their head undermines the fundamental freedoms of the west because..."

over to you now Frank...

Motivation and purpose. Acts signify things. Acts occur in context. Muslim women carrying on in Western countries as if they were still in Muslim countries is not a baffling, baseless and meaningless accident.

Ask yourself - why don't Muslim countries that demand their own women to cover up tolerate western women going about uncovered? Because they do not accept those women's freedom under Islam NOT to wear a piece of clothing on their head. Motivation and purpose.

And you have the stupidity and arrogance to pretend that you are oblivious to the utter lack of tolerance and the reason for that lack, by Muslims. This is why you Muslims are simply not honest. You demand that you will never give because it is contrary to your Islamic norms. Motivation and purpose.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2390 - Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:18pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 12:54pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights.

Hillarious, wearing a hijab is now "undermining the fundamental freedoms of the west".

It absolutely is. Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why ate you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.

Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination?? Just present as you do for all the world to laugh at your complete absence of self-examination.
Mohammed never had any compunctions and he was a horny war lord, killing a n pillaging and raping his way across the land. Why would you draw boundaries for yourselves????

Charming. Didn't I tell you not to digress into rant mode?

Lets stop at "It absolutely is", and try and expand on that.

Let's not. You owe us some answers.

Why don't you tell us about your manic obsessive thing about women's hair and display but not men's?

Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why are you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.

Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination??

over to you now Gandalf...

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98944

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2391 - Apr 14^th, 2018 at 12:35am

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 12:54pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 8:11pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 7:29pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2018 at 9:34am:

Frank wrote on Apr 9^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

Islam is a complete life, you can't isolate out "things that can directly be connected to sinister activities that threaten society". The project of Islam itself IS the sinister threat to Western society.

So given your sentiment that is encapsulated (immortalised?) in my signature, which you have subsequently reaffirmed as 'right and proper', are you saying its an acceptable price to curb the freedoms of non-muslims in order to ensure an effective banning of sinnister muslim uniforms?

And its ok to answer without inserting another irrelevant rant.

I think it is perfectly right to curb the right of Muslims to undermine the fundamental freedoms of the West in the name of Islam.

Absolutely. Islam is an alien, hostile creed. Islam has no universal human right to do away with universal human rights.

Hillarious, wearing a hijab is now "undermining the fundamental freedoms of the west".

It absolutely is. Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why ate you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.

Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination?? Just present as you do for all the world to laugh at your complete absence of self-examination.
Mohammed never had any compunctions and he was a horny war lord, killing a n pillaging and raping his way across the land. Why would you draw boundaries for yourselves????

Charming. Didn't I tell you not to digress into rant mode?

Lets stop at "It absolutely is", and try and expand on that.

Let's not. You owe us some answers.

Why don't you tell us about your manic obsessive thing about women's hair and display but not men's?

Muslim men should equally cover their hair and shoulders, knees and ankles. Why don't they? If decency is so important, why are you mutts parading your hair? What is it about female hair that threatens to turn you mongs into uncontrollable rapists and violators and cat's meat botherers, in the immortal words of your 'best and brightest' imam, so you must put your women, for their own safety FROM YOU, into special attire???

You know the answer. Women are worth less, they are tempters and all the other medieval bollocks that you Muslim will never grow out of. To you it's always 732 AD.

Pathetic little ill-adjusted mummy's boys you are with all those beards and hair fetish. Why are you Muslim men so keen to display hair but sh!t yourselves at the sight of female hair?? Pathetic little wankers. You could do with some critical self-reflection but hey, once you have submitted and subjugated for Allah, what's the point of self-examination??

over to you now Gandalf...

Counter argument #2: bearded numpties.

He's on a roll. We'll get #3 next: the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Chin up, old boy.

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2392 - Apr 15^th, 2018 at 7:05pm

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

Motivation and purpose. Acts signify things. Acts occur in context. Muslim women carrying on in Western countries as if they were still in Muslim countries is not a baffling, baseless and meaningless accident.

A head dress Frank - we are literally talking about a piece of head dress. You really can't see how absurd it sounds to insist that a piece of head covering undermines "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Gee whiz Frank, just imagine what a field day FD would have over this - if he wasn't so mealy mouthed and hypocritical. He could spin this out for literally years.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52839
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2393 - Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 7:05pm:

Frank wrote on Apr 13^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:

Motivation and purpose. Acts signify things. Acts occur in context. Muslim women carrying on in Western countries as if they were still in Muslim countries is not a baffling, baseless and meaningless accident.

A head dress Frank - we are literally talking about a piece of head dress. You really can't see how absurd it sounds to insist that a piece of head covering undermines "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Gee whiz Frank, just imagine what a field day FD would have over this - if he wasn't so mealy mouthed and hypocritical. He could spin this out for literally years.

The KKK hood is a head dress. An SS helmet. You wouldn't waive them through because you know their motivation and purpose. What is the motivation and purpose of the niqab? Nuffin to do wiv culture, belief, politics, ummah, Mohammed, Islam? It's an expression of thank god I am free, independent and comfortable... Sure.

Just an accidental kerchief, long coat in the middle of summer, stinking BO, self-effacement - while the bearded mutts are strutting in shorts and Lonsdale t-shorts. Sure. No ideology, no cultural expression, to demonstration of opposition to infidel laxity in the infidel's country. Of course. All accidental and meaningless.

You Muslims are so accustomed to lying about everything, you simply do not pause to check if you are ludicrous or ridiculous any more. The lying works with the Bwians and the karnals and the progs so you press on.i

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51285 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2394 - Apr 15^th, 2018 at 10:09pm Sorry to interrupt. Here is another one - Aussie defending the ISIS rape camps: Aussie wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 8:41pm: Madams and brothels have been chasing and with armies since time immemorial! He also said we should kill Muslim women.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Brian Ross Gold Member Offline Representative of me Posts: 44684	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2395 - Apr 15^th, 2018 at 11:02pm Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm: An SS helmet. Which is an "SS Helmet", Soren? This one? Or this one? Or this one? Looks to me like you'll have a long time differentiating between the modern US and Australian Army helmets and a real SS one, Soren. Is it the decal that gives it away or the shape?
Back to top	It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2396 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 11:18am

Frank wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:

The KKK hood is a head dress. An SS helmet. You wouldn't waive them through because you know their motivation and purpose.

The giveaway is that SS helmets and KKK hoods are worn exclusively by murderers and people who actively call for murder. Furthermore, they are worn specifically for the purpose of murdering and advocating murder.

Sure, go ahead and make the case that little Fatima or Khadeja who have never even considered hurting anyone in their entire lives, are murder advocates, exactly equivalent to an SS soldier or clansman on a jolly 'terrorise the black person' outing. I'm sure you will give a go. You could even attempt an FDesque argument that someone walking around in a KKK hood is just a fun-loving person who has no intention in the world of hurting or intimidating anyone - the thought couldn't be further from their mind. And there is no difference whatsoever between them and a woman in a hijab. But if you manage to do it with a straight face, you'll obviously have to avoid asking yourself this simple question: what would you find more confronting and/or threatening - a little woman walking down the street in a hijab, or someone walking down the street in a KKK hood or SS helmet? Which one would you consider more of a threat to the "fundamental freedoms of the west"?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51285 At my desk.	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2397 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:02pm Tough titties. Off with their heads!
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Karnal Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 98944	Re: spineless apologetics Reply #2398 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:30pm freediver wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:02pm: Tough titties. Off with their heads! The mindless collective of treacherous Orthodox Jews have to cover their hair too, FD. Do you think they should be banned as well?
Back to top	IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2399 - Apr 16^th, 2018 at 12:37pm

More accurately - tough titties off with their freedoms. For wearing a piece of head dress. This is the argument FD, the argument that you curiously have nothing to say about. Despite previous grand gestures about how people being silent about attacks on freedom being complicit in it.

Perhaps if I turned it around and started talking about cartoonists mocking the prophet and how they threaten the "fundamental freedoms of the west", and how banning them is "absolutely right and proper". That might jolt you out of your "nothing to see here folks" witness protection act - and keep you busy for the next couple of months - yes?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged