"The funds raised from certification applications can be used for a variety of purposes beyond the payment of usual business expenses such as salaries, taxes and superannuation.

"This can include providing funds for a variety of charitable and community causes.

"The Committee noted, in a 2015 report on third party certification of food, that ‘evidence indicates that there is no direct link between Halal certification in Australia and terrorism funding’."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_...

Well, there you go.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2020 at 5:17pm:


Bullshit FD.

I said the money was probably used to line their own corrupt pockets.

What would be gobsmacking here, but isn't because its you, is that this whole conversation started when you stated as fact that the money went to terrorists. And now you are pulling out the "where's your evidence" card. Hillarious. Not.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2020 at 8:41pm:


See when someone makes an usubstantiated claim such as zero halal income goes towards terrorists - FD demands evidence before ridiculing the claim as "stupid".

However making unsubstantiated claims such as siphoned-off Islamic school funding goes to terrorists is perfectly ok. Just like the claim "all muslims support terrorists". Apparently those are totally different situations.

Perhaps FD could explain the difference. Or not.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4)

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or  the number of his name.

I'd like to be as sure of winning the lotto as I am when I say islam fits the description of the satanic beast 666. muslims love beheadings as their chosen way to inflict death on the people allah hates.

The mark of the beast so people can buy and sell is halal certification.

The big question is, how did the *Ancient Scribes of Ye Olde* times know that this type of satanic behaviour was destined to take place?

1400 odd years of islamic inbreeding, satanic worship and hatred of non believers, has set the stage for the beast 666 to go on a rampage.

Oh well time will tell it all.

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 4:45pm:


Yes FD, I agree Greg doesn't need to back up his claim. We don't expect people to prove someone's innocence, which is what you are demanding of Greg. Its a well known logical fallacy. Thats what we call proving a negative and it makes no sense. If you say someone is innocent of something, thats actually the default position we take in the absence of evidence suggesting otherwise. That is our culture and it is the premise of our legal system. This is what Greg meant, as he elucidated after. Unfortunately Greg put it in a way that is arguably semantically incorrect - emphasising the fact of their innocence, rather than emphasising that innocence should be assumed (in the absense of evidence). Like I said, it is a pedantic semantic point that you have unsurprisingly latched on to with glee.

You, on the other hand, casually make stupid claims about muslims based on nothing all the time. Baselessly accusing people of bad behaviour is completely different to Greg's little semantic faux pas, and unlike Greg, flies completely in the face of our custom of innocent until proven guilty.

In short, when someone says as fact someone is innocent, only pedants like you would demand proof since it is so close to the truth (that innocence should be assumed by default). Whereas when you make your routine stupid slurs about muslims, they are claims that any objective and reasonable human would insist requires evidence, and without it is offensive and idiotic.

Gnads wrote on May 21^st, 2020 at 6:54pm:


How is it fraud?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 11:55am:


Yes, but no one's queried why FD's raised the issue of school funding in a topic about dietary certification.

Do you want to ask? FD's too shy to speak to anybody else.

He seems to have warmed to you though, G.