Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12
Send Topic Print
Muslims and government funds (Read 4771 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Muslims and government funds
Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:18pm
 
I am noticing a disturbing trend here - not just of the misuse of government funds by Muslims and Muslim organisations, but support from the broader Muslim community for this practice, and lack of understanding of why people might object to the misappropriate of these funds, institutionalised religious discrimination etc. Also, a strange sense of entitlement to misuse government funds, and misrepresentation of concepts like market forces. There is a culture of "minimalist compliance" with government demands regarding the use of public funds, and hostility to justice, truth and transparency that gets exposed every time fraud is uncovered (by non-Muslims).


This is in response to the government diverting foreign aid due to the risk it is funding Islamic terrorism, either directly or indirectly:

freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2018 at 12:25pm:
gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2018 at 12:52pm:
The thread title is wrong:

Quote:
Australia sends about $10 million in aid to Palestine territories. It will now direct its funds through the United Nations.


also, for good measure...

Quote:
Ms Bishop said she was confident no Australian funds had been used inappropriately.

"I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended," she said in a statement.

"However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA's operations, there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support."


good grief, FD wouldn't be using a deliberately misleading thread title with the sole purpose of causing outrage would he??


Read your own quote. We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists.

Muslim accounting.


Seems pretty straightforward right? Well, not if you remove the quotes by Julie Bishop. Then you can spend 8 pages demanding an explanation:

gandalf wrote on Jul 16th, 2018 at 1:39pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2018 at 12:25pm:
Read your own quote. We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists.

Muslim accounting.


Sorry FD, would you mind pointing out where in my quote it says they withdraw $10 million to give to the terrorists? I must have missed that. Its possible its in the same place as where the ABC prove that "muslims are lazy".


Which terrorists?

gandalf wrote on Jul 26th, 2018 at 1:46pm:
foreign aid to the PA is a bit like hush money to ensure they continue selling their people out to Israeli interests.


gandalf wrote on Jul 31st, 2018 at 1:43pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 27th, 2018 at 9:48pm:
gandalf wrote on Jul 27th, 2018 at 8:34am:
freediver wrote on Jul 26th, 2018 at 8:02pm:
gandalf wrote on Jul 17th, 2018 at 12:57pm:
The full quote is in the OP FD. I don't think its necessary to repost it to confirm what we already know - that nowhere does it say Australian aid was being handed over to terrorists - wouldn't you agree?

Its obviously another one of your "read between the lines/it means something other than what it says" BS, which requires special FD goggles to comprehend. The same goggles that enables you to conclude that an ABC article on low workforce participation rates "proves muslims are lazy".


You quoted the bit where it explains how the funds were getting to terrorists.


Ah that would be in the same quote where our foreign minister herself stated she was confident none had gone to terrorists. Clever huh?


I notice you no longer quote what she actually said. Why is that?


here you go FD:

Quote:
Ms Bishop said she was confident no Australian funds had been used inappropriately.

"I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended," she said in a statement.


wait let me guess, when she says "used as intended" - she means sent to terrorists?


gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2018 at 4:18pm:
Even for you, this is quite an elaborate way of avoiding the bleeding obvious - that there is no such quote of any politician "explaining how the money ends up funding terrorism".

Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #1 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:19pm
 
gandalf wrote on Aug 1st, 2018 at 8:05pm:
freediver wrote on Aug 1st, 2018 at 6:46pm:
Do you need me to do it for you Gandalf?


Oh yes I so do FD.

I need *YOU* to show me the exact quote of a politician "explaining how the money ends up funding terrorism". I'm really looking forward to this, please don't let me down ok?


gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 11:33am:
So cutting out the bullshit here - I've gone back over the thread, and this is what FD is talking about:

This is my first quote (and post) - reply#10:
Quote:
Australia sends about $10 million in aid to Palestine territories. It will now direct its funds through the United Nations.


Quote:
s Bishop said she was confident no Australian funds had been used inappropriately.

"I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended," she said in a statement.

"However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA's operations, there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support."


to which FD replied:
Quote:
Read your own quote. We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists.


Thats obviously absurd, no sane person could possibly interpret that from "reading my own quote". But wait it gets weird from here.



A Muslim claiming that the disappearance of $9 million in government funds is not 'foul play', even by non-Muslim standards, and also that we should not try to figure out where the money ended up. This is a particularly disturbing example, because even when it is Muslim children who were being stolen from, Muslims still try to cover it up:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468233758

gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2016 at 6:22pm:
I don't think its important for me to find out what money we know was misused had been misused on exactly. Have I not been clear on that?


gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2016 at 8:41pm:
The problem was an organisation in charge of managing a school decided to run it for profit using government funds. A problem that can easily be rectified by ensuring that  the organisation is no longer allowed to run the school at a profit.

Its really that simple.


gandalf wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 1:43pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 1:04pm:
LOL. $9 million disappears into the black hole of Islam, and I am the only one calling it foul play?

So far yes.


gandalf wrote on Jun 17th, 2016 at 10:42am:
If the school is able to pay back all the money it owes, plus change the governance of the school to satisfy government compliance requirements - why shouldn't the school be allowed to stay open? Why should 2000 students have to suffer for the sins of a few corrupt administrators? Especially if all those responsible are given their marching orders?


It's just a "few corrupt administrators (including the head of the AFIC), not a more fundamental problem. Apparently "but what about the children" counts when considering closing a school, but not when getting to the bottom of why funds were siphoned off in the first place.

gandalf wrote on Jun 17th, 2016 at 10:42am:
If the school is able to pay back all the money it owes, plus change the governance of the school to satisfy government compliance requirements - why shouldn't the school be allowed to stay open? Why should 2000 students have to suffer for the sins of a few corrupt administrators? Especially if all those responsible are given their marching orders?


Maybe we should track down where the funds went:

gandalf wrote on Jun 17th, 2016 at 7:28pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 17th, 2016 at 7:10pm:
You left out definitely Gandalf. And the reference to these particular funds.

Should we ignore where the money ended up?  Don't you think that tracking down where the funds went would be the first step in turning around the culture that caused this? Or is your school afraid of what it might find out?


No we shouldn't ignore where the money ended up.


I never said that:

gandalf wrote on Jun 23rd, 2016 at 3:34pm:
And no, I don't imagine I ever said its "important" to find out how some money that had already been established as misused, had exactly been misused.


gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2016 at 6:22pm:
I don't think its important for me to find out what money we know was misused had been misused on exactly. Have I not been clear on that? I mean it is only a 16 page thread of me saying exactly that over and over - which was why I was surprised to see you assuring me I said the opposite. One might be forgiven for thinking you are not taking in a single thing I say.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #2 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:21pm
 
Expressing a desire to find out where the money went is too much of a burden for Muslims to carry:

gandalf wrote on Jun 18th, 2016 at 1:41pm:
Ah yes - as a member of the mindless collective err worldwide homogenous muslim community, I obviously must know the ins and outs of every corrupt muslim activity - and naturally its my personal responsibility to stop it. For I'm a - what do you always call me? - ah thats right a "typical muslim".


It's cowardly to dode the issue of where the money went:

gandalf wrote on Jun 18th, 2016 at 2:07pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2016 at 1:53pm:
Are you saying you do not expect to ever find out what happened to the money, but you are certain it did not go to terrorists

No its really excruciatingly simple FD - I'm saying that stating as fact that the money went to terrorists, based on nothing at all, is outrageous and bigoted, and I would like you to acknowledge this and be man enough to retract it. And continually dodging and weaving it is pathetic and cowardly.


Muslims have no way of knowing whether their children were deprived by fraud by AFIC or other Muslim organisations, because the AFIC had complete control over the money, but they can still say the school was no deprived of any way, and if there was rorting going on, the only logical conclusion is that the government was giving the school more money than it needed.

gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 10:22am:
freediver wrote on Jun 18th, 2016 at 2:26pm:
Do you still think it is important, even if the government did not demand it of your particular school? After all, the AFIC is still managing a lot of money through the halal rorts scam and various other Muslim initiatives. Perhaps this is an opportunity to show your skills at Islamic reform, rather than having your religious community dragged into the 21st century by government micromanagement.


Unlike Malek Fahd, my school was never accused of diverting government funds to non-school purposes. The concern was only about transparency, and that as a consequence mismanagement could not be ruled out. But as I've said before, until now the school itself had no say because it was entirely controlled by AFIC - who owned the premises and obtained legal rights to exclusive control over the finances. But what I can tell you is that the school wasn't deprived in any way in terms of financial needs - which logically suggests only one of two things: 1. there was no financial mismanagement going on or 2. the government was paying far more than the school needed - thus allowing AFIC to pocket some excess.


gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:36pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:29pm:
Gandalf how do you know your school "wasn't deprived in any way in terms of financial needs" while being 'managed' by the AFIC?

The school is and has always been well resourced, teachers are comparatively well paid etc. No one has ever complained.

But you're right, I don't know, and can't know for sure that it shouldn't have received more.


Muslims not wanting to get to the bottom of what AFIC did with school funding, and insisting funds were not diverted despite having no way of knowing this, is not inconsistent with them being motivated to get the best possible education for their children:

gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:53pm:
I feel motivated to ensure my children are getting the best possible education - which they are. Inconceivable I know for a member of the hive mind (aka 'typical muslim') who is singularly dedicated to protecting corrupt muslims... but there you go.


"Under new management" is all it takes to root out a culture of corruption:

gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 6:26pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 5:58pm:
So you are ensuring your children are getting the best possible education by not checking whether your school was mismanaged by AFIC?


No, I'm ensuring it by helping create a new administration that is removing AFIC from the financial management of the school.


Absence of evidence, even in the context of refusing to look for evidence, becomes evidence of absence:

gandalf wrote on Jun 19th, 2016 at 6:48pm:
There is no evidence that they withheld money from the school. The only issue was over transparency which we've fixed.


Interesting fallacy:

gandalf wrote on Jun 20th, 2016 at 10:58am:
FD's first reply was the single line "So do government funds given to Muslim-run private schools in Australia." I've been pressing him on this ever since he wrote it over a year ago - why he said it and how can he justify such a baseless accusation. Not once has he given a straight answer, but you'll see from the linked thread that he came up with the most unbelievably dumb justifications, including demands that I produce the receipts for him (you konw, the old 'prove it isn't so' fallacy).

Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #3 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:21pm
 
Where the money went is not part of the problem:

gandalf wrote on Jun 20th, 2016 at 3:32pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 20th, 2016 at 2:55pm:
Do you think it is important to find out where the money went Gandalf?


And why FD? Is it not enough to be satisfied it never went towards anything good? Do you think it makes me just that little bit less outraged at the fact of misuse than I should be? Do you think it doesn't make me motivated to want to stop it in the future? Get real. The problem here is not where misused money went, the problem is misuse itself.


gandalf wrote on Jun 21st, 2016 at 2:03pm:
And why FD - do you think it will make me a little bit more outraged?

Given that I already think its wrong and that the important issue here is stopping it from happening in the future - please explain to me why it should interest me? Or is this just another pathetic attempt to segue into the terrorism funding meme?

naturally, if only I'd do a bit of digging I'd quickly see the truth - that it all went to terrorists

If someone steals your wallet full of cash, are you interested in what the robber did with the money? Of course not.


Does it even matter if it went to terrorists?

gandalf wrote on Jun 22nd, 2016 at 2:58pm:
hmmm, fraud, criminality, funds going to terrorists...

Tell me FD, do you think actual facts matter in this discussion?


But not if would involve exposing where the money went?

gandalf wrote on Jun 23rd, 2016 at 6:37pm:
Does AFIC outrage me? Sure it does, and I'd like nothing better than to see them all thrown out.


gandalf wrote on Jun 23rd, 2016 at 8:08pm:
freediver wrote on Jun 23rd, 2016 at 6:57pm:
How about 'someone who should at least care what the AFIC was getting up to'?

I do. Now see if you can understand the subtle difference between that and what you've been insisting I should care about.


If you cloak yourself in ignorance of where this money ends up, how do you ensure it does not happen again?

gandalf wrote on Jun 24th, 2016 at 12:23pm:
Establishing whether or not they misused the funds is important. what specifically those funds were misused on, once established that they were misused, is not (except for law enforcement in the case where criminal activity is involved).
The only important thing for interested parties to do at that point is to ensure they can't do it again.


If you cloak yourself in ignorance of who "them" is, how do you ensure it does not happen again?

gandalf wrote on Jun 26th, 2016 at 9:11am:
freediver wrote on Jun 24th, 2016 at 6:51pm:
Again, how do you do this while remaining willfully ignorant of what was done and why


By getting them as far away as possible from the school funds - obviously.


Absence of evidence:

gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2016 at 1:33pm:
No one is covering up fraud or terrorist funding because there is no evidence of fraud or terrorist funding going on.


gandalf wrote on Jun 27th, 2016 at 1:33pm:
Even your diluted variation you are spouting now - that 'the possibility of terrorism shouldn't be ignored' isn't much better - given there is no reason to suspect AFIC has anything to do with terrorism, except by way of the "mindless collective/ hive mind" argument ("they're muslims so...")


Caring about why Muslims defraud their own children is the job of police, not the Muslim community:

gandalf wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 11:54am:
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?


gandalf wrote on Jun 28th, 2016 at 12:35pm:
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.


Who are these stakeholders - the same Muslim community they stole from?

gandalf wrote on Jun 29th, 2016 at 1:11pm:
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
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #4 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:22pm
 
The "for profit" organisation Gandalf keeps refering to is the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils" - the peak Australian Muslim body, which is apparently of no interest to the Australian muslim community, and it is entirely up to the police to look into what they did, but only after they become aware of criminal activity, which somehow happens despite the Muslim community deliberately turning a blind eye.

gandalf wrote on Jun 29th, 2016 at 2:49pm:
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.


gandalf wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 12:49pm:
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?


AFIC did not "take" the money, they were "given" it, but distancing the school from AFIC is all that is needed to fix the problem:

gandalf wrote on Jun 30th, 2016 at 7:56pm:
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:


Ah, they did get to the bottom of it after all:

gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 9:26pm:
Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 9:13pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 9:11pm:
Should Muslims be asking what AFIC did with all the money Gandalf?


I think everyone should be asking WTF the AFIC did with this money


I agree Baron - which is what we did. Turns out they used the money to run the school at a profit through 'administrative' and 'management' fees.


gandalf wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 12:41pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 11:58am:
Gandalf do you think it is reasonable for people to be suspicious when Muslims insist they can prevent fraud from happening again without bothering to find out who was involved previously or what motivated them?

Absolutely FD. Know you of such an occurrence? I must admit I can't recall one.


The problem is profit-seeking and capitalism - therefor there is no need to look at what they did with the money:

gandalf wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 8:02pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 6:42pm:
Sure. Your example from your school for example. The closest you have come to identifying the motive is repeating "profit" a few dozen times


FD, where you fail, and its one trully spectacular fail, is that in this capitalist, materialist world, you can't comprehend how "profit" is motivation in and of itself.

Why does a bank want profit? Why does McDonalds want profit? Why does any for-profit organisation want to profit? For anyone else the answer 'profits for profits sake' is the valid answer, but for muslims, there is automatic suspicion because of your bigoted insistence that it must by default go to terrorists. That is the answer you are looking for and your line of inquiry is so obviously your way of reaching this answer. Its so transparently your mechanism for dealing with your obvious cognitive dissonance over such bigotry as baselessly stating as fact muslim education funds went to terrorists, and its pathetic.

The simple fact of this matter is we know what the problem is and we know what the motivation was. The solution is not to wonder why on earth a profit-gaining entity that exists in this capitalistic world would possibly want to seek profits, its to stop them being for-profit in the first place. And thats exactly where the focus has been.


Apparently expecting AFIC to run for profit is not reasonable cause to suspect they acted for profit in a particular case of one school:

gandalf wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 9:04pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 7th, 2016 at 8:19pm:
I am suspicious of you because you stated for a fact that AFIC did not defraud your school


Nice try to turn your little bigotry on its head. Let me try and explain it for you FD: stating as fact that some sinister and criminal activity is not happening because there is no evidence and no reasonable cause to suspect otherwise - is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.

My insistence that the expected behaviour of organised religious organisations is to run at a profit, is based on the clear evidence that organised religious organisations run for profit. Absurd, I know.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #5 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:24pm
 
Even when there is no way of knowing if AFIC siphoned off money, and there is an expectation they would do so in the pursuit of profit, there is nor eason to beleive theya cted as expeced:

gandalf wrote on Jul 8th, 2016 at 9:10pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 8th, 2016 at 8:07pm:
You did not merely argue that AFIC did not act criminally. Rather, you argued that AFIC did not deprive your own children of education funds


As I've pointed out several times before, you are conflating two separate episodes (cue your hilarious "ah yes, it is difficult to keep up with them all" reposte). In Malek Fahd's case, the non-compliance is over an actual amount of money that the government has claimed to pinpoint that wasn't used on education. In the case of the Canberra Islamic School, the only issue was over transparency, and no one has accused them of any actual misuse of government funds. So in my case, not only is there no evidence (or suggestion) of money being misused for criminality, there isn't even any evidence (or suggestion) of misuse of money full stop.

Ah, so apparently you have to be publicly listed and sell shares to fit the definition of "for-profit". Thanks FD, learn something new every day.


Are they for-profit or not?

gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 9:48am:
freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 7:17am:
You said that AFIC itself was a for-profit organisation


I don't think so.

The only relevant issue here is that they were deemed to be operating 'for-profit' in relation to their management of Malek Fahd's school funds. Thats not from me, thats from the government, so take it up with them if you have a problem with that description.


gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 8:42pm:
Ah shifting the goalposts - is that like responding to my assertion that I never a) insisted it is expected for AFIC to behave unethically and b) that muslims should not be asking what the money was spent on - by quoting something completely unrelated?

Or maybe thats just your way of conceding I never said those things.


Just an accident. Gandalf suggested in some other thread the money might have ended up funding a swimming pool.

gandalf wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 1:43pm:
In short, its not really difficult to see that this could easily have been an accidental administration error.


Not 'rampant':

gandalf wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 11:07pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 10:47pm:
Five Islamic schools have had their funds frozen as a result of rampant fraud.

Again, you are just making this up. Nowhere has anyone said this is because of "rampant fraud".


gandalf wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 11:41pm:
freediver wrote on Dec 13th, 2013 at 11:20pm:
It was $9 million Gandalf. Five different schools have been implicated. Do you need to see an official report with a big red rubber stamp on the front saying "rampant"?

Its pretty clear that the alleged mismanagement of the other 5 schools is completely unrelated to the story about the $9 million being transferred to AFIC from Malek Fahd.


gandalf wrote on Dec 14th, 2013 at 9:15am:
freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2013 at 12:01am:
Note that the article does not state, as you claim, that there were merely unresolved questions over the legitimacy of the $9 million dollars in 'fees'. Instead, they have been ordered to pay it back to the government.


No you misunderstood me. The fact that the money was wrongly transferred is not in doubt, and never was - that is why they were made to pay it back.  But that is entirely different to saying it was a deliberate rort. No one - not the auditors, neither state or federal government and certainly not The Australian - is saying it was a delberate rort. Thats entirely your spin.

freediver wrote on Dec 14th, 2013 at 12:01am:
They do not get to keep the money and figure out some other accounting tricks to deprive Muslim children of education funds.


You still haven't provided any sort of evidence that AFIC - as the landholder and administrator of the school - were not entitled to the rental and administration fees. Its likely they will still get the money from the school, just not from funds allocated by the state.


Oops, OK so it was criminal fraud, but that is just one Muslim school, right?

gandalf wrote on Dec 14th, 2013 at 10:18am:
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the Malek Fahd school in Sydney. I suppose one instance of criminal fraud at a school in WA makes islamic schools all over Australia guilty of the same right?


Having to give the money back to the government is not evidence they were not "entitled" to it:

gandalf wrote on Dec 14th, 2013 at 10:18am:
No, that is not clear at all. As I said, there is nothing to indicate that landholder and administrator of the school (AFIC) was not entitled to those fees.


UK Muslim aprents interfering in school affairs not even remotely relevant:

gandalf wrote on Apr 10th, 2014 at 9:40pm:
FD, can you just explain to me how this UK teacher article is even remotely relevant to a thread about rorts in an islamic school in Australia?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #6 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:25pm
 
A Muslim arguing that foriegn governments interfereing in our economy to establish local monopolies with the express purpose of pushing up prices is actually an example of how free market forces are supposed to work:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1393493672

gandalf wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 4:09pm:
FD should be applauding this episode as a great example of how capitalism can work:

- MUI attempt to extract exorbitant fees from abattoirs to export to Indonesia
- Nearly all the abattoirs respond by boycotting MUI
- Queensland exporters are exploring other options - ie alternative markets that MUI won't benefit from
- MUI will either be out of business in Australia, or will be forced to offer more reasonable fees.

Textbook example of how capitalism is supposed to work.
- MUI shoots themselves in the foot by losing virtually all the Queensland market


gandalf wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 10:06pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 9:08pm:
OK, so explain how this is a textbook example of how capitalism is supposed to work?


Simply that Party A enters into a trade agreement with Party B, who gets too greedy and thinks the agreement gives them carte blanche to extort as much as they want from Party A. Party A simply walks away from the agreement since it is not a mutually profitable agreement, and in a competitive market, seeks out a more reasonable trading partner. Party B loses out because until they back down and offer more reasonable terms, they end up out of business.

The point being that, in accordance to classical free market theory, the market will create its own equilibrium - that there is no room for exploiters, and only mutually beneficial trade agreements will work.


gandalf wrote on Sep 4th, 2013 at 11:34am:
Anyway, no point bitching Soren - in the end the market will sort it out. I mean its not as if its a great conspiracy to ensure that all meat will one day be all halal.


gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 8:43am:
FD your concern is only valid if we are talking about legislating for compulsory halal - which we are not.
If there is demand for halal meat such that it becomes the only source of meat, then thats the way the market works. It won't be as a result of anyone forcing anything on anyone.


gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 8:08pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:06am:
It is not a "textbook example of how capitalism is supposed to work" when businesses are forced out of a market (the one market they are in) by government intervention


Actually its the MUI that is being forced out of business - or at least forced to compromise. The Queensland abbatoirs who are boycotting are demonstrating their bargaining power, and either the MUI will relent and offer more reasonable terms, or the Australian producers will find a better deal elsewhere. Or in other words, exploiters will be punished - exactly as per classic free market theory


gandalf wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 10:39pm:
freediver wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 9:45pm:
I am looking for you to stop pretending that this is an example of how capitalism is supposed to work. That's just dumb.


If what I suspect has happened, happened - that MUI was forced by their consumers' bargaining power to cave in and agree to more reasonable terms, then it is a textbook example of how capitalism is supposed to work.


gandalf wrote on Feb 26th, 2014 at 7:31am:
freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2014 at 10:11pm:
These stickers are being sold by one nation candidates. I think you can still buy them online. No government is forcing anyone to buy them (or giving businesses the "option" of paying tens of thousands of dollars for them or be barred from the market).

Actually, being "barred" from a market is not anti-capitalist - it is consistent with the free-market principle that a trader can trade with whomever they damn well please - with whatever conditions they please.


Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #7 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:27pm
 
gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 3:15pm:
FD's certainly got a bee in his bonnet about this one.

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2014 at 1:06pm:
The "traders" cannot trade with whomever they damn well please, under whatever conditions they please, because foreign governments prevent it


No, because in this case "foreign governments" (if the MUI can even be considered government - which I'm not even sure about) is simply just another trader. Its so much simpler than you're making it out to be - you can even forget about the the meat product, since all we're talking about here is the selling and buying of halal certificates - which consists of:

1. Indonesian MUI selling halal certificates
2. Australian abattoir's buying halal certificates

Thats all this is about, and its completely irrelevant if one of the traders is partly or wholly a "foreign government".

And yes, the MUI can sell their product (the certificates) on whatever terms it damn well pleases. If its an unreasonable price, the buyer can simply choose not to buy it (which they did) - and the MUI is the loser. The buyers will simply turn to another seller of halal certificate (obviously MUI controlled suppliers are not the only ones - Australia sells frozen meat to many other muslim countries besides Indonesia), or, if the MUI wants to get back into the Australian halal-certificate-selling market, they will have to offer a more competitive price. Thats how capitalism works FD.


gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2014 at 9:34am:
Its really that simple. Confusing the issue with irrelevant details like monopolies and foreign governments is nothing but red herrings to the central point I was making.


gandalf wrote on Jul 10th, 2016 at 7:20pm:
FD loves to bring the MUI scandal up every once in a while and dishonestly passes it off as a normal part of the halal industry. He even mentions it as "Islamic economics" in his wiki. Hilarious.

The fact is, the MUI scandal was a once off in 2013, and the $27 thousand fee was a single and unverified claim cited by the Murdoch Press. What ensued is exactly what should happen in a competitive market: the affected abbottoirs boycotted the certifiers who were charging exorbident fees, and now the Indonesian government has stepped in and dismantled the MUI, and has set up a new body that has stopped the rorts. The Indonesian government's intervention was undoubtedly at least in part a response to the boycott.



A Muslim claiming that Muslim-only jobs in the slaughter industry is not a form of discrimination, because it means more jobs thanks to discrimination.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378852212

gandalf wrote on Sep 3rd, 2013 at 12:48pm:
My understanding (which could be wrong) is that the important thing is that the bismilah is uttered during slaughter - not who makes the cut. So it could conceivably be done by two people - one non-muslim slaughterer and one muslim uttering the bismilah. But you know you could always look it up yourself if you are that interested.


gandalf wrote on Sep 6th, 2013 at 2:43pm:
Are you aware of any meat-industry personnel being discriminated against as a result of this? I can't see why - current standard non-halal slaughter consists of an automated bolt going through the heads of cattle and sheep, and an automated saw to cut the throats of chickens. My guess would be that you would need more personnel, not less as the level of automation is reduced for halal slaughter. Longer term, the halal industry will contribute more to the economy through exports, especially if the live-export trade is eventually abolished.


gandalf wrote on Sep 8th, 2013 at 5:39pm:
You say I miss the point, but I was the one who dealt with the point about employment directly - pointing out that you have yet to provide any evidence that the halal industry necessarily needs to cut out  (and discriminate against) non-muslim workers, as well as suggesting that the halal industry will likely require more non-muslim workers, not less.


gandalf wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 10:23pm:
Also, I have learned since making that comment that the slaughterer does in fact need to be a practicing muslim - trained by a certified islamic organisation in halal slaughter. But on the other hand, this person is replacing no one - since he wouldn't be used in a non-halal slaughterhouse.


gandalf wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 10:23pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 9th, 2013 at 9:56pm:
It was you who suggested that halal slaughter involves religious discrimination in the workplace.


I did? Please quote me the relevant comment. I'm not aware that I did. My point has been that any mandatory religious-only employee is someone who a non-halal slaughterhouse would not employ anyway. So no discrimination necessary.


gandalf wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 3:41pm:
freediver wrote on Sep 10th, 2013 at 1:08pm:
This is obviously religious discrimination in the workplace.


No non-muslim abbattoir worker is being told that their role, or the role they wish to fill can only be filled by a muslim.

It is not discrimination.
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17103
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #8 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:29pm
 
FD, you mean to tell me after all that deflection, you've finally revealed that when you said:

Quote:
We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists.


This is what you were referring to?...

Quote:
"However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA's operations, there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support."


And you actually have the gall to spam us a 3 page quote-bomb thread complaining about muslim aversion to transparency and truth?

Are you seriously that clueless?

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
 
gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17103
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #9 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:33pm
 
oh, and I just noticed FD moved on after that to the discussion in which he threw out the utterly baseless accusation that government school funds go to terrorists. Without feeling the need to produce one shred of evidence.

And he's talking here about muslim unaccountability.

Wow you certainly have some spunk FD, I'll give you that!
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: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #10 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:33pm
 
gandalf wrote on Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:29pm:
FD, you mean to tell me after all that deflection, you've finally revealed that when you said:

Quote:
We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists.


This is what you were referring to?...



Let's ask Gandalf:

gandalf wrote on Aug 3rd, 2018 at 11:33am:
So cutting out the bullshit here - I've gone back over the thread, and this is what FD is talking about:

This is my first quote (and post) - reply#10:
Quote:
Australia sends about $10 million in aid to Palestine territories. It will now direct its funds through the United Nations.


Quote:
s Bishop said she was confident no Australian funds had been used inappropriately.

"I am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended," she said in a statement.

"However, I am concerned that in providing funds for this aspect of the PA's operations, there is an opportunity for it to use its own budget to [fund] activities that Australia would never support."


to which FD replied:
Quote:
Read your own quote. We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists.


Thats obviously absurd, no sane person could possibly interpret that from "reading my own quote". But wait it gets weird from here.


How many times can you make the same "discovery"? I only spent 8 pages telling you the same thing - it was in your own quotes, and you had to delete them to get yourself confused....

Can we cut out the bullshit and admit you know exactly what I am referring to?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17103
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #11 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:37pm
 
Not willing to answer eh?

Don't blame you, it really is *THAT* stupid.

But hey, lets talk more about muslim evasiveness and how dishonest they are 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
 
gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17103
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #12 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:42pm
 
freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:33pm:
Can we cut out the bullshit and admit you know exactly what I am referring to?


I *THINK* you are saying that stating as fact that the Palestinians withdrew $10 million of Australian aid and handing it to terrorists - is exactly the same as Julie Bishop pointing out that there was an *OPPORTUNITY* for that to happen - but she nevertheless believed that it never did.

But I'm not 100% sure - as I said, it really is *THAT* bloody stupid, even by your mindbogglingly stupid standards. I literally cannot quite believe you are actually saying that. And here you are, *STILL* unable to actually come out straight and say it directly. Clearly part of you understands how utterly ridiculous it is.
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: 42606
I like fish
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #13 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 6:13pm
 
Just in case you did not pick up on it, the opening posts cover:

* your inability to understand Julie Bishop's explanation of how Australian government funds end up supporting terrorism
* you peculiar strategy of deleting her quotes from the discussion immediately after I pointed out that you had posted the explanation yourself, then pretending you had no idea what is going on
* your claim that the real problem was foreign aid to Palestine actually funding Israeli terrorists

* you argument that foriegn governments interfereing in our economy to establish local monopolies with the express purpose of gouging customers is actually an example of how free market forces are supposed to work
* your insistence that the MUI is not an agent of the Indonesian government, despite their ability to ban imports of Australian beef that have the wrong brand of halal sticker on them
* your argument that banning Australian beef does not actually make the halal sticker "compulsory"
* your argument that banning certian products in the name of religion is not anti-capitalist
* that the role of foreign governments is just a red herring

* your claim that Muslim-only jobs in abattoirs is not a form of discrimination

* your insistence that it does not matter what the AFIC did with the millions of dollars it siphoned off from the education of Muslim children, or what motivated them to do it, and that finding out what is going on is not necessary to prevent it happening again
* your insistence that it is entirely the police's responsibility to look into it, and that doing the bare legal minimum in response to explicit instructions from the government is sufficient to root out corruption in Muslim organisations
* your insistence that your peak religious representative body acting out it's profit motive is all that is necessary to explain what happened, and is entirely expected
* your insistence that it is not a fundamental (ie, cultural) problem, despite not knowing what the problem is
* your insistence that no funds were diverted from your own children's school, despite having no way of knowing, and also insisting you would actually expect AFIC to profiteer from your children
* your insistence that if any funds were diverted, the only logcial conclusion is that the government was giving too much money to your childrens' school
* your double speak about whether you yourself are interested in where the money went
* your insistence that "lack of transparency" means the only possible problem was not getting the paperwork in order
* that lack of evidence of fraud or terrorist funding means there is no fraud or terrorist funding
* that the AFIC stole the money "legitimately"
* that AFIC were "given" the money, despite also claiming that your school had no control over the money because AFIC were running things
* that as well as expecting AFIC to profiteer from Muslim children, you also expect the disappearance of $9 million was just an accident

Do you expect that your own behaviour here reassures people that taxpayer funds can be safely handed to Muslim organisations?
Back to top
 

It's God's job to forgive terrorists; it's our job to arrange the meeting.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Karnal
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 59272
Gender: female
Re: Muslims and government funds
Reply #14 - Aug 15th, 2018 at 11:36pm
 
gandalf wrote on Aug 15th, 2018 at 3:33pm:
oh, and I just noticed FD moved on after that to the discussion in which he threw out the utterly baseless accusation that government school funds go to terrorists. Without feeling the need to produce one shred of evidence.

And he's talking here about muslim unaccountability.

Wow you certainly have some spunk FD, I'll give you that!


Good to see you're letting him do quite bombs again, G.

Freeeeedom, innit.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12
Send Topic Print