polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 8:05pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2018 at 11:33am:



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

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 6:22pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2016 at 10:42am:


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.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2016 at 10:42am:


Maybe we should track down where the funds went:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 17^th, 2016 at 7:28pm:


I never said that:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 3:34pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2016 at 6:22pm:

Where the money went is not part of the problem:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 20^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 21^st, 2016 at 2:03pm:


Does it even matter if it went to terrorists?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2016 at 2:58pm:


But not if would involve exposing where the money went?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 6:37pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2016 at 8:08pm:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 24^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 26^th, 2016 at 9:11am:


Absence of evidence:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2016 at 1:33pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2016 at 1:33pm:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2016 at 11:54am:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 28^th, 2016 at 12:35pm:


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

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

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:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 8^th, 2016 at 9:10pm:


Are they for-profit or not?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 9:48am:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 8:42pm:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 1:43pm:


Not 'rampant':

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 13^th, 2013 at 11:41pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 9:15am:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 10:18am:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 14^th, 2013 at 10:18am:


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

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 10^th, 2014 at 9:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27^th, 2014 at 3:15pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2014 at 9:34am:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2016 at 7:20pm:



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

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2013 at 12:48pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 8^th, 2013 at 5:39pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 9^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:


polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 10^th, 2013 at 3:41pm:

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!

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?

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?

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:


Oh FD, it really is worth going over this again, just to highlight the sheer idiocy going on here. When you say that Bishop "explained" how Australian money ends up supporting terrorism, this is (apparently) what you are referring to..

Quote:


You didn't even say can or may "end up supporting terrorism" - which would have made all the difference. No, you state it as fact. You literally changed Bishop's phrase "there is an opportunity" to 'it definitely did happen'. Which of course is completely contradicted by Bishop saying " am confident that previous Australian funding to the PA through the World Bank has been used as intended".

Would you like to at least show some level of contrition and concede that you didn't actually mean that it actually happened, merely that it *COULD* have happened - even though thats what you said?

There is no contradiction. Suppose she gives $10 million to the PA, and they spend that $10 million exactly as intended, but their increased budget allows them to spend an extra $10 million on children's sized suicide vests, because they no longer have to spend their own funds on treating palestinian victims of suicide bombers (eg the ones queueing up at the checkpoint to get into Israel).

The funds still get spent exactly as intended, as she explains in the first sentence, but they also end up supporting terrorism, as explained in the second sentence. She does not contradict me any more than she contradicts herself. Obviously she is not going to openly admit her concerns that she has funded terrorism in the past, but she also did not say that there was some kind of sudden change in the situation.

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 12:09pm:


And you got all this from Julie Bishop specifically saying she didn't believe anything untoward was going on? I guess her 'wink wink, nudge nudge' that gave away the ruse is something you can only see with FD goggles on.

Geez no wonder you spent a month refusing to explain this.

Now lets get back to those shifty, unaccountable-to-the-truth muslims shall we?

I wonder what mosque they go to

Spotlight on western Sydney
Of the total 179 centres published online this morning, 55 are in western Sydney.
Bankstown and Lakemba were particular hotspots, with both suburbs having 10 centres on the list.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-06/dodgy-child-care-centres-named-and-shamed-...


The Lover And Birds William Allingham

I wonder what mosque they go to

and Ibraim Omar, aged 27 and 25, own the Lakemba family day care businesses with nearly 600 home providers of family day care on their books

Counter-terrorism police are investigating whether millions of dollars in childcare subsidies and rebates have been rorted and sent offshore, under the noses of federal and New South Wales education, welfare and health authorities.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-14/nsw-opposition-says-child-care-fraud-prove...

Unforgiven wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 3:02pm:


Then Y can exterminate the Judenrat when he's done with the Muselman.

Good-o.

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2018 at 6:02pm:


Do you mean the punctuation, FD? Apparently people say a lot in that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 9:10am:


Again Gandalf, that is not what she actually said. You invented the contradiction, but by your own logic she contradicted herself.

I criticised you for deleting the quotes immediately after I pointed them out to you, spending 8 pages deflecting, then complaining that you had to go back 8 pages to find the quotes.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 9:28am:


Exactly. G spent 8 days deflecting by asking you to provide the quote.

Cunning, no?

Google: taqiyya.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 10:07am:


Here is what I actually posted Gandalf. Would you mind highlighting the "definitely happened" bit?

Is English your second language?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 12:48pm:


Is English your second language Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2018 at 6:53pm:


Must be. I interpret "they withdraw" as a withdrawal "definitely" happening. Apparently not so.

Apparently it really means something between definitely did and definitely didn't. Are we going with they "sort of" withdraw? You seem unsure as you dodge the question.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 20^th, 2018 at 9:53am:


When?

Quote:


Perhaps it would be bleeding obvious if you quoted my first explanation Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 6:01pm:



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

G:
I interpret "they withdraw" as a withdrawal "definitely" happening.

FD:
When?

Quote:


That's the opposite of what I said, and of what Bishop said. Not sure how you can still get it so wrong even when you quote what I said. Perhaps you should quote the whole post with Bishop's words as well as mine.

Perhaps you should quote the whole post with Bishop's words as well as mine. No idea why you cannot read what is right in front of you.

I Bring up what Bishop said because you appear to be under the same delusion about her words.

freediver wrote on Sep 1^st, 2018 at 12:49am:


True FD - its all because I read what she actually said, rather than some absurd reading between the lines exercise that literally relies on what she didn't say - or as you put it "Obviously she is not going to openly admit her concerns"

And just reiterate what fantastic leaps of logic we are talking about - from this:

Quote:


we get:

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2018 at 6:13pm:


and even more absurdly:

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2018 at 12:25pm:


yeah I know - FD really did say "read your own quote"

fair point K - I mean we can hardly blame FD for so blatantly misrepresenting a quote to turn it into the exact opposite to what it says - if it leads to exposing a shifty muslim's taqqiya now can we?

I'm still getting over the sheer chutzpah of FD using two examples where he so brazenly fabricated the facts - to lecture me about how important it is to be accountable for your actions.

Mattyfisk wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 1:45pm:


FD to a tee.

Some very astute observations re. the threat to democracy K. I used to despair somewhat at your constant "use of porkies" hounding of FD, but I see now what its all about. Thanks for this insightful post. As to the fight against porkies, I fear we are losing - people seems far less concerned about facts any more, and I agree the consequence seems to be a rather alarming erosion of our democracy. It seems we no longer appeal to, and rely on, rationality any more - instead rationality and truth become secondary to what partisan position we are supporting. I first saw it with climate denial - the fact that rejection of climate science only ever comes from one side of politics - never the other. Even though any individual should be able to decide on the facts themselves - objectively. But no, climate denial has instead become this perverse badge of political identity; if you are "from" one particular side of politics, climate denial is part and parcel with that identity. Thats why it has little to do with actually understanding the facts and using rationality. Its insane.

And thats what is happening with politics today - facts and data are no longer things to be absorbed rationally and objectively, in order determine our political positions. No, they are merely tools to be fashioned to support and compliment an already decided position. If they can't be moulded to suit our views, they are simply ignored. Of course this has always been the case to some extent - "there are lies, damn lies and statistics" - is a very old piece of cynicism. Yet the use of out and out porkies, fabricated so brazenly on an industrial scale, is something not seen before. And as you say, it threatens our democracy, our very way of life. And it is downright frightening to think that there are powerful vested interests actively supporting - even industrialising - this attack on truth and rationality.

FD recently asked what is a greater threat to our democracy than Islam. I'd start at the increasingly thriving porky industry.

An example of why Muslims cannot be trusted with government funds:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2018 at 8:55am:

I caught you lying so... therefore muslims shouldn't be trusted with government funds.

Makes sense.

Shes making a 'distinction' now is she FD?

Funny, before you said it was nothing less than...

Quote:


Are you backpeddling from that claim now?

I guess she is making a distinction - between her acknowledgment that there is an "opportunity" for misuse of funds and her clear insistence that she believed it wasn't misused. I'm guessing thats not the distinction you had in mind though no? Sadly though, the distinction you seem to have in mind - which leads you to the absurd and baseless conclusion that "We put $10 million into the Palestinian Authority's bank account. They withdraw a 'different' $10 million to give to terrorists." - is based on nothing she actually said - only your utterly irrational reading between the lines.

Frank wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 10:22am:


Laughable. Of course by "let it die" - you mean they necessarily fell into disrepair due to the Israeli embargo that prevented the entry of essential supplies needed to maintain them. Much of the infrastructure that was viable was destroyed by the Israeli bombing and systematic bulldozing in 2009 - including the largest poultry factory, a bread making factory and a water treatment facility. Just this week Palestinian fishermen were once again (peacefully) protesting the outrageous blocking of fishing boats from going beyond 3 nautical miles off the coast. Fishing is one of the only revenue makers for the Gazan economy. Much of Gaza's productive agricultural land is destroyed by the imposition of a buffer zone inside the Gaza border. Israel maintains this buffer by spraying herbicides on it - which regularly blows beyond on to nearby farmland.

As for the greenhouses, they weren't demolished, they were looted. Which tends to happen when desperate people living in a crippling siege need essential supplies - like irrigation systems and all sorts of associated useful equipment.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 9:38am:


What distinction do you think I have in mind Gandalf?

Do you see any difference between what Bishop insists did not happen and what she suggests might happen?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 12:02pm:



Why delete the very point, gandalf??   The point was not just letting good things die but that effort is put into death and destruction INSTEAD of saving good things. They are not two separate, unrelated points, as you well perceive, but a single point illustrating the death cult nature of Palestinian politics.


Oh, sure, there's still work to be found in Gaza: They're big customers of construction materials, but they don't use them to build factories or schools or tourist hotels, only a network of state-of-the-art concrete tunnels under the border with Israel, so they can sneak in and kill Jews.


How many greenhouses could they have saved and new ones built for the cost of tunnels for Jew killing? 

The Palestinians are not a people, they are merely the puppets used by other Arabs to harass the jews. That is ALL they do. There is no nation building, no identity OTHER THAN martyrdom against Jews. They are being kept in a sacrificial state by all the other Arabs because of the Koranic hatred of the Jews. Should Israel disappear, there would STILL NOT ever be a Palestinian state. The real estate would be carved up between actual Arab states around it.   Palestinian statehood is laughable because there are no 'Palestinian people', just a bunch of unfortunate Arabs treated as fodder by their Arab 'brothers'.   And they all know it. We all know it.

freediver wrote on Sep 4^th, 2018 at 6:36pm:


Or even what she suggests might happen and what she insists did not happen. Indeed I do FD - you could say its the difference between what she thought was a risk, and what she thought actually happened - in reality. Quite different to insisting it actually happened - wouldn't you say?

So here you are finally admitting that Bishop insisted that it did not happen. Do you therefore see any issue with your previous statement that this was actually "Julie Bishop's explanation of how Australian government funds end up supporting terrorism"?

And please do us all a little favour and spend some time to think about your answer.

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:


You don't even know what your own point is FD. You've gone from Bishop giving an "explaination" of how our money goes to terrorists, to arguing that the proof is in what she didn't explain - as in this:

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 21^st, 2018 at 6:01pm:


Maybe stick with the last explanation, FD. Your first one said they spent the 10 million on suicide vests.

By the way, what was your last explanation?

freediver wrote on Sep 5^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:


this one?

Quote:


No FD, whats totally inconsistent is to say she gave an "explanation" that our money went to terrorists. Its also inconsistent with your own attempt to explain how its so - ie by pointing out what she didn't say.

hallelujah, after about 2 months and about 50 pages across 3 threads - FD finally inserts the necessary qualifier "could".

How hard was that FD?

See what a difference it makes?

Speaking of ducking and weaving FD - I asked you on two separate occassions throughout this sorry discussion if you actually meant "could" or "might" happen, you never answered.

Are you seriously saying that these 2 clear, unambiguous statements:

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

and

2. Julie Bishop's explanation of how Australian government funds end up supporting terrorism

- shouldn't be interpreted as something that definitely *IS* (present tense) happening in reality?

Why was it so hard for you just to insert the word "could" until now? And why didn't you respond when I gave you the opportunity to clarify if thats what you meant?

Are you now saying when you made the absurd claim a couple of years ago that government funds given to Malek Fahd school went to terrorists - you actually meant "could have"?

How are we supposed to differentiate between what you are stating as fact and what you think are mere possibilities when you refuse to insert the necessary qualifiers FD?

before or after you pretended that Bishop said they were - with our money?

thats not even remotely coherent FD.

You just quipped that you found out on google that the PA supports terrorists. You seem to think that this is somehow relevant to your claim that Bishop explained that our money goes to terrorists - in the quote where she explained no such thing. Perhaps you could enlighten us?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6^th, 2018 at 7:39pm:


Are you suggesting Bishop and her staff did not have access to Google?

Do you not think she referenced these in her quote?

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 6^th, 2018 at 7:39pm:


You could just quote what either of us actually said.

freediver wrote on Sep 6^th, 2018 at 10:09pm:


You mean again? Sure FD, I'm feeling generous...

what Bishop actually said:

Quote:


what you actually said (about this quote)

Quote:


Quote:


Personally, I wouldn't be highlighting 'what was actually said' if I were you FD, it just makes you look ridiculous. I'd be sticking to your previous 'you have to read between the lines' and 'well you have to look at what Bishop didn't say' angles.

Gandalf, when I said they withdraw a different $10 million to give to terrorists, did you interpret this as them withdrawing the $10 million we gave them?

Or when Bishop said the PA might use their "own funds" to fund terrorism, did you interpret that as Bishop saying they might use the funds we give them?

No idea why you are incapable of seeing the distinction, but I will keep telling you to post what we actually said, instead of your own version, every time you misrepresent it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 1^st, 2018 at 4:18pm:


Do you understand the distinction Bishop was making yet Gandalf?

Quote:


Only if you completely fail to understand the distinction we both made.

FD can you now confirm you meant all along that it was a mere possibility, not a fact - despite you stating it as fact that it happened, and for two months refusing to acknowledge that it merely *COULD* have happened - despite my repeated requests for you to clarify?

If so, do you now concede it was a bit rich of you to get all hot and bothered with your "evasive muslims" hysteria - given your continued refusal to clarify what was demonstrably misleading wording on your part?

Oh look, there's FD repeating completely irrelevant non-points and avoiding the issue - again.. and again

Earth to FD: repeating those two stupid inane points/questions over and over like a broken record do not, in any way shape or form address the issue of whether or not you misrepresented Bishop. ie you stated as fact that she "explained" that our money does go to terrorists - when we both know she said no such thing. This idiotic deflection about what "distinction" she was making and whether or not I understand it has nothing to do with this fundamental point

Get it yet??