Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20
Send Topic Print
first islamic enclave gone (Read 37245 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #210 - Jun 28th, 2016 at 11:54am
 
freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2016 at 6:12pm:
You, and presumably the broader community of non-hive-minded Muslims, are strangely apathetic about what the AFIC has been up to.


While you are strangely apathetic about using porkies. Tell me FD, why is it after 14 pages you still are too afraid to even deal with the fact that you told a particularly vile porky about this? Don't you think its strange to pretend it didn't happen - when it is so front and centre to this entire discussion? Isn't it true that this ridiculous witch hunt demanding that I do the police's job and uncover alleged criminal activity when there is not a shred of any evidence of it happening - just you trying to deal with your obvious cognitive dissonance over that porky?

And just so we don't forget what that porky is - here it is again...

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19th, 2014 at 6:53pm:
muslm 'donations' go to terrorists


freediver wrote on Jul 20th, 2014 at 8:16am:
So do government funds given to Muslim-run private schools in Australia.


I think its about time you either justify this, or specifically retract it, don't you think FD? So far its been 14 pages of deflection deflection deflection - which is rather telling in a discussion where you are attempting to take the moral high ground in relation to, of all things, the principle of accountability.
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #211 - Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:14pm
 
Do you think it is the police's job to find out what the AFIC did with all that money?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #212 - Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:17pm
 
make that 15 pages
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
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #213 - Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:35pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:14pm:
Do you think it is the police's job to find out what the AFIC did with all that money?


It went into inflated backdated rents and management fees, we've been over this. The only reason you are pushing this is because you are clinging on to the completely baseless terrorist/criminal activity angle. The only issue here is that it was acting for-profit, which is wrong, but thats what for-profit organisations do. The problem was not what they did with the money (unless there is evidence of criminal activity), its that they acted for-profit in the first place. The solution is not to go on wild goose chases to find out what we already know (that the money was inappropriately used) - its to ensure such profiteering doesn't happen again.
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #214 - Jun 28th, 2016 at 5:43pm
 
Quote:
Isn't it true that this ridiculous witch hunt demanding that I do the police's job


Do you think it is the police's job to find out what the AFIC did with all that money?

Quote:
It went into inflated backdated rents and management fees, we've been over this.


No we haven't. That is what the school did with it. They paid these fees to the AFIC. What did the AFIC do with them? Why did they demand thees inflated fees, unless the community they represent has some other goal which they consider to be more important than educating Muslim children?

Quote:
The only reason you are pushing this is because you are clinging on to the completely baseless terrorist/criminal activity angle.


I am pushing it because your attitude points towards an institutionalised culture of fraud and cover-up.

Quote:
The only issue here is that it was acting for-profit, which is wrong, but thats what for-profit organisations do.


For-profit organisations pay money out to the owners or shareholders. You have not demonstrated that this is what the AFIC did, or even that it is set up to do so.

Quote:
The problem was not what they did with the money (unless there is evidence of criminal activity)


If it happens again to Muslim schools such as yours because you failed to consider who was involved or what their motives were, then yes it is a problem.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #215 - Jun 29th, 2016 at 1:11pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 5:43pm:
They paid these fees to the AFIC. What did the AFIC do with them?


What does any for-profit organisation do with their profits?

Its not the issue FD, you're only pretending it is because you are desperately pushing the bigoted line that muslim=terrorist line - as seen by the fact that you continue to evade your bigoted porky about funds going to terrorists - 15 pages and counting.

A for-profit organisation making profits is not the issue and is expected. The issue is that they were for-profit in the first place.

freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 5:43pm:
For-profit organisations pay money out to the owners or shareholders. You have not demonstrated that this is what the AFIC did, or even that it is set up to do so.


translation: they are terrorist supporters by default, and its up to me to prove otherwise.

Tell me FD, would it make it any less immoral, do you think I'll have cause to be less outraged at AFIC if I could prove to you that they "legitimately" handed out their profits to their stakeholders? Oh wait, then we'd have to chase the money trail of the stakeholders wouldn't we! Goodness, who are these stakeholders FD? You'd just have even more questions wouldn't you? Come to think of it, your witch hunt could literally go on forever.
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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91854
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #216 - Jun 29th, 2016 at 1:50pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:14pm:
Do you think it is the police's job to find out what the AFIC did with all that money?


Questions questions.

Now if you asked the police, they would say they see it as their job to investigate crime.

Breaching a funding agreement is not a crime in itself. In this case, the police have found no evidence to date that a crime has taken place. This is not spineless apologism or heinous appeasement, it's the police's own take.

Australia, you see, has a thing called the rule of law - we don't charge organizations for terrorism if they breach a funding agreement. We simply cancel the funding - if we choose to. In many cases, we don't choose to. in the area I work in, funding agreements are breached all the time. Moving numbers around on paper is not just a regular occurrence, it's expected.

This is not spineless apologism either, it's the government contract managers' own take. You would hope Kings school accounts honestly for the millions of dollars a year it receives in government funds. You would hope Wesley Mission, or Mission Australia, or the Salvation Army account honestly for the millions of dollars a year they receive in disability, homelessness, foster care and employment services.

But the police wouldn't charge them for theft or fraud or terrorism if they didn't. The government would simply continue the contracts - as they do.

It is a jolly world, no?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #217 - Jun 29th, 2016 at 2:49pm
 
Mattyfisk wrote on Jun 29th, 2016 at 1:50pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:14pm:
Do you think it is the police's job to find out what the AFIC did with all that money?


Questions questions.

Now if you asked the police, they would say they see it as their job to investigate crime.

Breaching a funding agreement is not a crime in itself. In this case, the police have found no evidence to date that a crime has taken place. This is not spineless apologism or heinous appeasement, it's the police's own take.

Australia, you see, has a thing called the rule of law - we don't charge organizations for terrorism if they breach a funding agreement. We simply cancel the funding - if we choose to. In many cases, we don't choose to. in the area I work in, funding agreements are breached all the time. Moving numbers around on paper is not just a regular occurrence, it's expected.

This is not spineless apologism either, it's the government contract managers' own take. You would hope Kings school accounts honestly for the millions of dollars a year it receives in government funds. You would hope Wesley Mission, or Mission Australia, or the Salvation Army account honestly for the millions of dollars a year they receive in disability, homelessness, foster care and employment services.

But the police wouldn't charge them for theft or fraud or terrorism if they didn't. The government would simply continue the contracts - as they do.

It is a jolly world, no?


Note how FD has attempted to subtly evolve his argument. It started with stating as fact that the money went to terrorists, then it morphed into 'well its obvious a crime took place - (criminal) fraud at the very least'. To his credit, FD is clearly  ashamed with the first, as he has spent 15 pages dodging and weaving from it, but apparently is too haughty to openly retract it. The second he has demonstrably been proven wrong on (cf your post above and others) - and he has quietly abandoned that. So then it became 'well whats wrong with being concerned for the mere possibility of criminal activity?' - which segued almost seamlessly into his current crusade about 'you, muslim - why are you so keen to cover up possible crime??' - with the obvious connotations about stereotypical muslim 'hive-mind' behaviour.

Unfortunately for FD, he can't seem to understand how his stubborn refusal to disown the original bigoted lie that it was a fact that government funds were spent on terrorists - discredits this whole moral crusade against accountability and honesty. It also exposes his real agenda, which has utterly clouded his judgement and ability to understand common sense. He is basically demanding that I demand a for-profit organisation justify their misuse of money. Not sure how that works - as misused money is by its very definition unjustified - since its.. err.. misused  Tongue. Apparently the purpose of the exercise is to prove to myself that, lo and behold, it was immoral (with bonus points for uncovering terrorist plots), thereby make me a little bit more angry about AFIC than I already am - which in turn will apparently force them to be more accountable in handling muslim schools. And yet, common sense suggests that the problem of having a for-profit organisation making profits out of school funds - is, lo and behold, a problem because the organisation was for-profit - and that the solution is not to demand said organisation justify its profiteering, but to stop it from engaging in such profiteering in the future.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jun 29th, 2016 at 2:54pm by polite_gandalf »  

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
 
Mattyfisk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 91854
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #218 - Jun 29th, 2016 at 6:06pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 29th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
Unfortunately for FD, he can't seem to understand how his stubborn refusal to disown the original bigoted lie that it was a fact that government funds were spent on terrorists - discredits this whole moral crusade against accountability and honesty.


Ah.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #219 - Jun 29th, 2016 at 6:40pm
 
Gandalf do you think it would be in the Muslim community's own interest to find out what the AFIC is up to? Or cover it up?

Quote:
What does any for-profit organisation do with their profits?


As I just finished explaining, for-profit organisations pay money out to the owners or shareholders. You have not demonstrated that this is what the AFIC did, or even that it is set up to do so. If a for-profit organisation did something welse with the money, the owners and shareholders would rightly demand an explanation.

Quote:
Its not the issue FD,


It is. I think figuring out what the issue is is kind of critical to the issue, and your dedication to justifying ignorance is kind of disturbing.

Quote:
translation: they are terrorist supporters by default, and its up to me to prove otherwise.


Let's start with whether you think it is important to find out what they are up to.

Quote:
Tell me FD, would it make it any less immoral, do you think I'll have cause to be less outraged at AFIC if I could prove to you that they "legitimately" handed out their profits to their stakeholders?


I would expect you to be less outraged than if they gave the money to terrorists.

Quote:
Goodness, who are these stakeholders FD?


Good question Gandalf. Who are they? Did you get a share of the profits from defrauding your own children of their education funds?

Quote:
which segued almost seamlessly into his current crusade about 'you, muslim - why are you so keen to cover up possible crime??' - with the obvious connotations about stereotypical muslim 'hive-mind' behaviour.


Not only that, why are you reluctant to even acknowledge the importance of finding out what the AFIC was up to? Why do you refuse to discuss how understanding the motive or the number of people involved in past fraud might help you prevent it happening in the future? Does the deliberate ignorance of you and your fellow Muslims not simply guarantee the fraud will continue?

Quote:
He is basically demanding that I demand a for-profit organisation justify


You have not dmeonstrated that it is a for-profit organisation. Can I buy shares and profit from the deprivation of Muslim children? As far as I can tell, you invented the for-profit organisation line early on in order to conflate business with religious organisations to maintain the line that this is all perfectly normal. As I recall, you insisted the church must have covered up child sex abuse in order to maintain shareholder ROI.

Quote:
Apparently the purpose of the exercise is to prove to myself that, lo and behold, it was immoral (with bonus points for uncovering terrorist plots), thereby make me a little bit more angry about AFIC than I already am


If they actually were a for-profit organisation, why would you be angry with them?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #220 - Jun 30th, 2016 at 12:49pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 29th, 2016 at 6:40pm:
Gandalf do you think it would be in the Muslim community's own interest to find out what the AFIC is up to? Or cover it up?


Absolutely FD - finding out that AFIC was "up to" operating for-profit in relation to handling school funds was vitally important and certainly shouldn't be covered up.

FD in amongst the long list of BS you invented in this discussion, you once claimed that I had admitted that it was important to find out exactly what misused money had been misused on. Have you found that quote yet?
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #221 - Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:10pm
 
Why would I go looking for it when I can just ask you whether you think it is important? You are still here, aren't you? Do you think it is important Gandalf?

You keep using the "for-profit" argument, but you can not explain what you mean by it. Other than stealing from children, in what sense do you think they were operating on a "for profit" basis? As far as I can tell this is nothing more than an attempt by you to normalise fraud, even when it is to the detriment of your own children's education.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #222 - Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:33pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:10pm:
Why would I go looking for it when I can just ask you whether you think it is important? You are still here, aren't you? Do you think it is important Gandalf?


Grin Is that your way of saying you were wrong?

Its perfectly reasonable that I ask for the quote FD - you were very insistent that I said it. But I'll take your response as an admission of your mistake - and yes I accept your apology for yet again accusing me of saying something that I didn't.  Wink

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:10pm:
in what sense do you think they were operating on a "for profit" basis? As far as I can tell this is nothing more than an attempt by you to normalise fraud, even when it is to the detriment of your own children's education.


"for-profit" is what the government is accusing them of, not me. So maybe you better ask them why they are engaging in such a cover up eh?
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: 47043
At my desk.
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #223 - Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:54pm
 
Quote:
Is that your way of saying you were wrong?


No Gandalf. It is my way of saying I am not going to go looking for the quote when I can just ask you. It would only make sense for me to look for it if I thought you were taking a different position now, and even then, only if you denied changing your mind.

Do you think it is important to find out what the AFIC did with all that money?

Quote:
"for-profit" is what the government is accusing them of, not me


The government's disagreement is over whether they were entitled to take all the money, not what their motive was for doing so. You have argued that AFIC took the money because it is a for-profit organisation, and that is what such organisations do. The government did not say this. Only you.

One more time. In what sense is AFIC a for-profit organisation?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: first islamic enclave gone
Reply #224 - Jun 30th, 2016 at 7:56pm
 
freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:54pm:
No Gandalf. It is my way of saying I am not going to go looking for the quote when I can just ask you.


But FD, you only brought it up because you were making a song and dance about why I backpeddled - remember? Are you now conceding there was no such backpeddling?

freediver wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 6:54pm:
The government's disagreement is over whether they were entitled to take all the money, not what their motive was for doing so. You have argued that AFIC took the money because it is a for-profit organisation, and that is what such organisations do. The government did not say this. Only you.


disagreement over whether they were entitled to take all the money? LOL, they were given all of the money FD. And no one is saying anything about motive, you just made that up. Sorry FD, but you are ignorant of the basic facts of the case:

Quote:
The decision comes after a review into six school authorities affiliated with the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC), after concerns were raised about the group profiting from taxpayer funds distributed to the schools.

"We have very strong standards in place, which we expect of all schools in receipt of federal funding," Mr Birmingham said.

"Those standards require schools to operate on a not-for-profit basis, and to dedicate all funding received to the benefit, welfare and educational advancement of the students to ensure that they are independent in their operations


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-09/malek-fahd-islamic-school-funding-cut/7150...
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
 
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 15 16 17 ... 20
Send Topic Print