polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:


Shurely shome mishtake, G. The old boy's not just saying we should blame the Muselman for his terrorism. He's saying we should ban the Chows and the Gollywogs as well.

Let's face it, the old boy's case for banning the Muselman sunk when he spinelessly yeah-but-no-butted white supremacists like Tarrant.

The old boy is conceding here that it's not about Islam or terrorism at all. As the old boy says, even the Chows are tinted. The thing that gets up the old boy's nose about the Muselman isn't just that he has to share the street with them. It's that they have the gall to talk back.

So given the old boy's propensity for calling you a devious liar, what do we have here then?

The old boy pretends it's all about security, but at the heart of it, there's the old boy's stool. They're tinted.

To die for.

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 7:40pm:


You assess which immigrants are a threat to our security and ban accordingly - case by case. I believe its possible to do - but its a question for the intelligence and security people. I don't know their methods, but what I do know they've been pretty successful so far. I also know that your way is the way that the intelligence and security people specifically warn against and believe it will actually put us more at risk. There is also the concept of acceptable risk. This is actually the best option Frank, and its been working ok so far. What is undoubtedly the worst solution - practically, security-wise, not to mention morally, is making blanket bans on the basis of religion.

Its the way its always been, and the only way to keep doing it.

A smart man like you should understand the practical impossibility of keeping out over 20% of the population that is mixed into all societies all over the world. You also should understand the absurdity of it when the overwhelming majority are demonstrably no threat.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 9:18pm:

Keep muslims in muslims countries.
It makes absolutely no sense to import enemies of Western civilisation.

Muslim countries are not letting in Jews, Catholics, Hindus.
Why should the West import its avowed enemies who then proceed to kill and maim for Allah?

Islam brings nothing positive to the West. It brings endless violence, fractiousness and division. It is an entirely negative influence. Keep it out.
Keep Muslims in Muslim countries. They only bring ruin to the West. Thay is their purpose of being in the West - to ruin it.

Frank wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 10:10pm:


Did you just say we should ban fractiousness and division? An entirely negative influence?

Gee, a smart man like you should understand who the most fractious, divisive and negative presence in our discussion is.

We grew here, dear boy. You?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 7:22pm:


That's the answer to the question you asked Gandalf. Anning's support is reactionary. If there is nothing to react to, he is harmless. If things keep blowing up, someone far worse than Anning will rise.

Do you think white people are a greater modern threat to freedom and democracy than Islam?

Brian Ross wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 2:09pm:


Are you doing the no more questions thing because you know you are incapable of supporting your argument?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 7:28pm:


So the only acceptable option is one that does not actually exist?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 7:52am:


See the problem is FD, when you talk about "freedom and democracy" you are only thinking about decent white non-muslims.

You are singularly incapable of understanding that muslims in Australia already see their freedom being threatened. Its threatened when they are abused and assaulted on on a daily basis for the high crime of wearing a hijab. Its threatened when pigs heads are routinely hurled into mosques, or attacked with arson or vandalism. It might seem like harmless pranking to you, but to actual muslims, it feels like a direct assault on their freedom to worship. And then you get Tarrant, followed immediately by Anning literally saying that was the muslim's fault. Not to mention the 2 posters (at least) here who were actually celebrating the attack, which I think you quietly ignored and pretended didn't happen. But thats nothing unusual really, its the logical conclusion to a fairly incessent campaign that has reached sections of the mainstream media to enact actual laws to ban muslims from exercising their freedom. And when the school my children attend mandates regular drills to prepare the children for Tarrant-style attacks (and actually started even before Tarrant), something that I assume would never happen at a non-Islamic school - then you see how anxious and threatened muslims actually feel.

And this is not 'playing the victim', the concern is real, and there is good justification for that concern.

So to answer your question - in Australia, I think whites pose a far greater threat to muslim's freedom and democracy than Islam - and that should concern anyone worried about threats to freedom and democracy society wide. Also, the threat of "Islam" in Australia is about as insignificant as you can get.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 7:52am:


It does exist, because we are doing it now.

Didn't you notice we are not banning muslims yet?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 9:02am:

If muslims in Australia didnt harbour their jihadis they would be left alone. A hijab - any funny costume - does not in itself attract hostility. It is Islamic jihad that makes muslims hatred, not anything else.