Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:27pm:

And Egyptians, Babylonians, Africans, Asians, Chinese, American Indians.

You stupid bastard.

Karnal wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 10:59pm:



So Muslims are not Europeans - what the hell are they doing in Europe and in Western countries?
They have a completely alien ethics, why shouldn't we  keep them out? They still haven't abolished slavery.
Keep Islam out.

You accused them, several times, of conspiring to commit genocide. You lied. You made the whole thing up. And now you are trying to tapdance around it. Muhammad committed genocide. The Jews did not. They did not conspire to commit genocide. They were not a mindless collective. These are all just lies you tell yourself to make you feel better about adopting an evil religion.

Auggie wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:56pm:


Not at all, Augie. I was taught as a kid that the Bible is the "living" word of God, the absolute truth, and the essence of Christianity is to believe this.

You will find numerous pronouncements to back this up, from the Nicean creeds to various Catholic encyclicals to the works of Calvin and Luther.

I have no idea who's telling you Christians don't believe the Bible is the word of God. In some places, this would have you shunned or hunted down.

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2017 at 9:19pm:


FD you being disingenuous.

Did the Banu Qurayza not conspire with the 10 thousand strong army that was attempting to overrun Medina? At no time have you disputed this.

I speculate that that 10 thousand strong army would have committed genocide of the Medinans had they won, and I don't think its an unreasonable speculation to make. Thats really it FD. That is not lying or tapdancing.

Quote:


Yes, you see, Brian and I have a pact; we're actually good friends in real-life and we spend a couple of hours of day coordinating what arguments to post of OzPolitic. We have a map out in the War Room, and smoke a couple of cigars, thinking "how best can we piss off Frank and Grendel?"

I'm afraid you're outnumbered and trapped..

Aussie wrote on Jun 18^th, 2017 at 5:26pm:


I guess you firstly need to understand the difference between the two before you can answer that coherently.

Assimilationism was the 'bad ol days' of the White Australia Policy - and even a short period after its abolition. It basically dictated that other cultures weren't allowed. It was a failure - not least of all economically, as migrants (essentially our main source of labour for most of our history) tend not to be very productive when they are denied their cultural heritage. Not surprisingly it was actually the business-minded liberals (and their business lobyists) who pushed for change and gravitated their policies towards integration. Because it made good business sense to make your workers as productive as possible. So integration says that migrants can hold on to their culture, provided they "integrate" into our core values.

as an interesting side-note, its interesting to follow the liberal party's positions on immigration and multiculturalism. Especially now with the re-emergence of "race" and culture as a political issue - vis-a-vis One Nation. We often mistake the liberal party as anti-immigration and anti-multiculti, but in fact the opposite is true. And this is for two key reasons: firstly, the business/productivity motivation as mentioned above. In more recent years though another powerful motivation has emerged: the rise of powerful Asian business lobbyists who overwhelmingly support the liberal party. You might have noticed recently an internal brawl within the federal libs over whether or not to usurp ON policies to negate ON as a political force. Advocates for such a strategy were pretty much slapped down by the party, and in the aftermath we saw a number of signals from liberals in defense of multiculturalism and religious freedom. They understand only too well that any leeching of votes by ON pales in comparison to the backlash by their own migrant lobby if they were ever seen to be cozying up to ON or their platform.