I think there was a claim posted here a while back that the Australian government cut back immigration from Muslim countries or from Muslims. Does anyone have more details on this?

No I have not heard anything to that effect but I thought that this was interesting while I was searching.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1853198.htm

I did hear about debate on the intake of Sudanese immigrants due to their high resistance to intergrating and high levels of crime. Must admit that I was actually surprised by the mention of this as a parlimentary topic as most of the gutless wonders run a mile if the is the wiff of an accusation of racial, religious or cultural discrimination.

There should be no more Islamic immigration unless they are:

Tartars;

Turks,

Ahmidayas.

Everyone else, we have enough - taking into account the high birth rate of muslims. It would not be fun to become a minority in your own country with Islamic overlords, and even with the numbers in Europe leads to a huge upsurge in violence, riots and other crime.

Tolerance should not amount to a suicide pact.

I'd be happy to take their women, they're usually much less of a threat and they assimilate better.

Amadd wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 7:24pm:

I'd be happy to take their women, they're usually much less of a threat and they assimilate better.

And they'd be happy to take yours, listen to what this guy says about war booty:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_kyNIevsIs

it should be muslim immigration btw- not islamic

locutius wrote on Jan 6^th, 2009 at 12:33pm:

No I have not heard anything to that effect but I thought that this was interesting while I was searching. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1853198.htm I did hear about debate on the intake of Sudanese immigrants due to their high resistance to intergrating and high levels of crime. Must admit that I was actually surprised by the mention of this as a parlimentary topic as most of the gutless wonders run a mile if the is the wiff of an accusation of racial, religious or cultural discrimination.

You do realise that the majority of these Sudanese immigrants are Christians...don't you.

Does this change your views? Probably not, blacks are only marginally above muslims in the pecking order...huh locutius?

I find it hilarious that the 2 Muslims zealots here are the ones who continually speak in colours and about races...  closet racists perhaps.

Grendel wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 8:09pm:

I find it hilarious that the 2 Muslims zealots here are the ones who continually speak in colours and about races...  closet racists perhaps.

lol...just a quick reading of your posts, and anyone can see who the racists are.

Really?
Well I don't speak in colours Lester.
And i don't make racist comments because I'm not a racist and don't believe i racism.

So now you go off and find just one quote eh....

Grendel wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 8:15pm:

Really? Well I don't speak in colours Lester. And i don't make racist comments because I'm not a racist and don't believe i racism. So now you go off and find just one quote eh....

Speak in colours? lol....you really have no idea what racism is do you.

Like I said...your posts are there for all to read. Others can judge who between us is the racist...

I'm not going to waste my time reading your posts searching for a quote...it was painful enough reading them the first time.

I know exactly what racism is lester...  it's the belief that a person is superior or inferior to another based on his race alone.

Now come on...  put up or shut up...  oh wait...  you're incapable of both those...

Sorry to interrupt the argument guys.


Quote:

And they'd be happy to take yours, listen to what this guy says about war booty:

:o I was shocked!
That guy with the placard spelled "annihilate" properly.



...carry on.

Amadd,


Quote:

I'd be happy to take their women, they're usually much less of a threat and they assimilate better

Actually, isn't the fact most Muslim women refuse to wear Australian clothes, and are such a 'visibile' example of Muslims not integrating, one of the most often repeated concerns about Islam in Australia?

Nice attempt though to hurt our sensibilities and pride.

Also you do realise that Australian women convert to Islam in much larger numbers than men? :)

Quote:

painful enough reading them the first time.

Grendel, You read Lestat's posts???

I always knew you had a good sense of humour.

But seriously, you don't really read what he says do you, at best a skim of the first sentence, just in case he actually says something that makes sense.
I know it has never happened so far, but we live in hope.

Ummm...  that's not my quote Mozz...  better stop skimming eh?  ;D

Haha, I should have wiped the sleep from my eyes, it seems I was doing a little projecting, oops, my apologies.

Quote:

Actually, isn't the fact most Muslim women refuse to wear Australian clothes, and are such a 'visibile' example of Muslims not integrating, one of the most often repeated concerns about Islam in Australia?

I think it's pretty far down the list, and for different reasons.

Lestat wrote on Jan 7^th, 2009 at 7:50pm:

locutius wrote on Jan 6th, 2009 at 12:33pm: No I have not heard anything to that effect but I thought that this was interesting while I was searching. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2007/1853198.htm I did hear about debate on the intake of Sudanese immigrants due to their high resistance to intergrating and high levels of crime. Must admit that I was actually surprised by the mention of this as a parlimentary topic as most of the gutless wonders run a mile if the is the wiff of an accusation of racial, religious or cultural discrimination. You do realise that the majority of these Sudanese immigrants are Christians...don't you. Does this change your views? Probably not, blacks are only marginally above muslims in the pecking order...huh locutius?

What's the matter Lestat, can't find anything of substance to attack so you add your own flavour of stupid inuendo and then attack that? How bizzarre.

What pecking order are you talking about Lestat? You mean one like the Muslim pecking order that discriminates between believers, non-believers (who read the old book), and non-believers that have no god. That's a pecking order that is part of your accepted dogma. Remember, your prejudices are part of a perfect message ordained by god and apologists.

See, I don't care about their skin colour or their religion. I don't care about my own skin colour or religion.

It's just latent racism locutius.. he can't help himself.  ::)
Does it all the time.
Abu too.

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:02am:

What's the matter Lestat, can't find anything of substance to attack so you add your own flavour of stupid inuendo and then attack that? How bizzarre.

Just asked you a question Locutuis....last time I checked that was still allowed.

Instead of getting so defensive how bout you answer the question?


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:02am:

What pecking order are you talking about Lestat? You mean one like the Muslim pecking order that discriminates between believers, non-believers (who read the old book), and non-believers that have no god. That's a pecking order that is part of your accepted dogma. Remember, your prejudices are part of a perfect message ordained by god and apologists.

Yeah and? Your point?

As if you don't discriminate according to people beliefs. You have done so a number of times...attacking muslims for beliefs that you don't agree with.

Yet here you are...now attacking muslims for doing the very same thing you have done.

Unlike you though I don't attempt to justify the deaths of innocent civlians according to what race or religon they are.

If the non-muslim is killed by a muslim...I won't blame the deaths on non-muslims. You should try it sometime.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:02am:

See, I don't care about their skin colour or their religion. I don't care about my own skin colour or religion.

The fact that you blame the deaths of innocent muslims on other muslims, despite the fact that it was non-muslims who actually did the killing...shows that you do care about religon.

Your only lieing to yourself locuitus...so lets cut the crap shall we.

ROTFLMAO

Thanks for the heads up Lestat...  next time I address a muslim I'll have to remember I'm somewhere in the pecking order.

I don't have one personally, I address everyone as an equal.

I don't look at someone and think hmmm Muslim put them there.  Or hmmm  Catholic put them there.  Or African put them there.  Or Australian put them there.  Or female put them there.

Strange way to look at life if you ask me.

Oh and apart from you and Abu  who have been addressing this on some religious racist level most of us have been addressing it on a behaviour level.

We go to great length in the west to stamp out the sort of discrimination based on sex, religion etc that Islam makes part of it's doctrine.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:15am:

We go to great length in the west to stamp out the sort of discrimination based on sex, religion etc that Islam makes part of it's doctrine.

lol...ironic..given that your site has an abudance of both.

Do you live in a glass house lestat?

Just curious the ignorance bit is already obvious.

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 9:02am: What's the matter Lestat, can't find anything of substance to attack so you add your own flavour of stupid inuendo and then attack that? How bizzarre. Just asked you a question Locutuis....last time I checked that was still allowed. Instead of getting so defensive how bout you answer the question?

I did answer the question. I don't care about skin colour because I don't believe or care about racial purity. I don't care about religion because I don't belong to a supersticious cult.

I don't even care that you do, as long as your beliefs are not a threat to my freedom or quality of life. Which quite frankly I think they are in the same way that the Christian church was a threat to freedom and free thinking hundreds of years ago. Fortunately Islam is not the power it once was, and can hopefully be kept politically weak (preferably with out violence) in the same way that all religions should be politically kept down. They are dangerous. Just that some are more dangerous than others.

You think it is a lie. Show it to be a lie. I'll wait.

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 9:02am: What pecking order are you talking about Lestat? You mean one like the Muslim pecking order that discriminates between believers, non-believers (who read the old book), and non-believers that have no god. That's a pecking order that is part of your accepted dogma. Remember, your prejudices are part of a perfect message ordained by god and apologists. Yeah and? Your point? As if you don't discriminate according to people beliefs. You have done so a number of times...attacking muslims for beliefs that you don't agree with. Yet here you are...now attacking muslims for doing the very same thing you have done. Unlike you though I don't attempt to justify the deaths of innocent civlians according to what race or religon they are. If the non-muslim is killed by a muslim...I won't blame the deaths on non-muslims. You should try it sometime.

What do you mean "My point"? Can you explain to me your confusion.

Of course I discriminate when it comes to beliefs. That's on record many times here. Unlike you with your dogmatic arbitrary discriminations, my discrimations are rational and proportional. For instance I discriminate against pedophiles and people that glory in their own ignorance. The pedophile I would happily dob into police while I simply avoid the company of the satisfied idiot.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 9:02am: See, I don't care about their skin colour or their religion. I don't care about my own skin colour or religion. The fact that you blame the deaths of innocent muslims on other muslims, despite the fact that it was non-muslims who actually did the killing...shows that you do care about religon.

????????????????????  :-?


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:06am:

Your only lieing to yourself locuitus...so lets cut the crap shall we.

In what way?

You think it is a lie. Show it to be a lie. I'll wait.

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

I did answer the question. I don't care about skin colour because I don't believe or care about racial purity. I don't care about religion because I don't belong to a supersticious cult.

Sorry...I must of missed all those posts attacking Christians for the actions of a few Sudanese who just so happen to be also Christians.

My apologies....I forgot, you only believe that muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few.

i guess I was confused.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

I don't even care that you do, as long as your beliefs are not a threat to my freedom or quality of life. Which quite frankly I think they are in the same way that the Christian church was a threat to freedom and free thinking hundreds of years ago. Fortunately Islam is not the power it once was, and can hopefully be kept politically weak (preferably with out violence) in the same way that all religions should be politically kept down. They are dangerous. Just that some are more dangerous than others.

How are they dangerous? How are my beliefs a threat to your freedom or quality of life.

When you say 'hopefully Islam can be politically weak'...how do you suggest this occurs.

Do you find it acceptable that in order to keep 'Islam politically weak'...muslims in muslim lands are oppressed and persecuted....kept in check by despotic dictators backed by the west.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

You think it is a lie. Show it to be a lie. I'll wait.

I already have. You blame arabs the deaths of innocent civilians, despite the fact that those who actually did the killing were non-muslims.

I have no doubt that if it was non-muslims being killed....you would not think this way.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:02am:

What do you mean "My point"? Can you explain to me your confusion. Of course I discriminate when it comes to beliefs. That's on record many times here. Unlike you with your dogmatic arbitrary discriminations, my discrimations are rational and proportional. For instance I discriminate against pedophiles and people that glory in their own ignorance. The pedophile I would happily dob into police while I simply avoid the company of the satisfied idiot.

My confusion is that it appears that with your statement you are attacking muslims for the very same thing that you do.

You say that your discrimiations are 'rational and proportional'....ofcourse you would say that...after all, they're yours aren't they.

They must be rational.

You say that you discriminate against those 'people that glory in their ignorance'. Thats interesting...because as a muslim..I believe that you, in your state of disbelief....are 'glorying in your ignorance'. Just like you...yet for some apparent reason your discrimination is rational, whereas mine is a 'dogmatic arbitary discrimination'.

You believe I am ignorant..I believe you are ignorant, yet your discrimination is justified, whereas mine is not. And to take your double standards and hypocricy even further, you just attacked muslims for discriminationg against others based on belief...yet you have admitted here that you do likewise, albeit with an attempt to justify this discrimination.

And how bout you cut out the generalisations for starters. Are you implying that somehow I wouldn't dob in a peadaphile?

Why do you insist on repeating the same lies time and time again that have been discredited time and time again.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:02am:

????????????????????  :-?

Your post blaming Hamas for the deaths of innocent civilians, despite the fact that it was actually Israel that killed them???



locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:02am:

In what way? You think it is a lie. Show it to be a lie. I'll wait.

See above.


[/quote]

Quote:

How are they dangerous? How are my beliefs a threat to your freedom or quality of life.

Because the settled doctrines of Islam require that all muslims strive through jihad to overthrow infidel governments, beliefs and religions to install allah's government, and christians, jews live as dhimmis under Islamic overlords. Or die if they resist.

That's kind of a dead ender for us infidels. Sorry, I'm not going to respect your beliefs thay say Allah wants me to live under Islamic rule. Pardon me if that offends you, but I'd like to live under secular democracy and not have any jihads, whether stealth jihads or fighting jihads.

Quote:

How are they dangerous? How are my beliefs a threat to your freedom or quality of life.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values


Quote:

I already have. You blame arabs the deaths of innocent civilians, despite the fact that those who actually did the killing were non-muslims.

Muslims seem more than keen to blow each other up.


Quote:

You say that you discriminate against those 'people that glory in their ignorance'. Thats interesting...because as a muslim..I believe that you, in your state of disbelief....are 'glorying in your ignorance'. Just like you...yet for some apparent reason your discrimination is rational, whereas mine is a 'dogmatic arbitary discrimination'.

I doubt he bel9ieves that you should be unable to testify against him in a court of law.

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:39am: I did answer the question. I don't care about skin colour because I don't believe or care about racial purity. I don't care about religion because I don't belong to a supersticious cult. Sorry...I must of missed all those posts attacking Christians for the actions of a few Sudanese who just so happen to be also Christians. My apologies....I forgot, you only believe that muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few. i guess I was confused.

Oh you mean like I singled out HAMAS instead of blaming all Muslims. Was that confusing. Funny that my original post didn't even mention skin colour or religion. You did. You thought it would make a difference and had a little tanty when it didn't.

Yep, your confused.

Calanen wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:26pm:

Because the settled doctrines of Islam require that all muslims strive through jihad to overthrow infidel governments, beliefs and religions to install allah's government, and christians, jews live as dhimmis under Islamic overlords. Or die if they resist.

No they don't. You quite clearly have no idea.


Calanen wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:26pm:

That's kind of a dead ender for us infidels. Sorry, I'm not going to respect your beliefs thay say Allah wants me to live under Islamic rule. Pardon me if that offends you, but I'd like to live under secular democracy and not have any jihads, whether stealth jihads or fighting jihads.

lol...I'll ask you once again. What makes you think I want or need your respect.

I don't respect you....so why would care whether you respect my beliefs or not. I don't.

Trust me...you have much more to fear after you die then you have whilst your alive......

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:37pm:

Lestat wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 12:19pm: locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:39am: I did answer the question. I don't care about skin colour because I don't believe or care about racial purity. I don't care about religion because I don't belong to a supersticious cult. Sorry...I must of missed all those posts attacking Christians for the actions of a few Sudanese who just so happen to be also Christians. My apologies....I forgot, you only believe that muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few. i guess I was confused. Oh you mean like I singled out HAMAS instead of blaming all Muslims. Was that confusing. Funny that my original post didn't even mention skin colour or religion. You did. You thought it would make a difference and had a little tanty when it didn't. Yep, your confused.

How bout actually blaming those who did the killing? The IDF?

Nah...can't have that can we...much rather blame those evil muslims.

There you go Locuitus...your lies exposed...rather easily I might add.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:29pm:

Quote: How are they dangerous? How are my beliefs a threat to your freedom or quality of life. http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values [quote]I already have. You blame arabs the deaths of innocent civilians, despite the fact that those who actually did the killing were non-muslims.

Muslims seem more than keen to blow each other up.


Quote:

You say that you discriminate against those 'people that glory in their ignorance'. Thats interesting...because as a muslim..I believe that you, in your state of disbelief....are 'glorying in your ignorance'. Just like you...yet for some apparent reason your discrimination is rational, whereas mine is a 'dogmatic arbitary discrimination'.

I doubt he bel9ieves that you should be unable to testify against him in a court of law.[/quote]

lol...you still insisting on that pathetic wiki Freediver.

Why don't you try posting it on Bigfooty again...oops, thats right, you were ridiculed by all and sundry.

oops..didn't quite work out as you had planned huh.

As for the rest of your post...stop deliberately being stupid for once huh.

Quote:

Why don't you try posting it on Bigfooty again...oops, thats right, you were ridiculed by all and sundry.

I just had a look at the thread I posted there about this. I suggest you do the same, before you make yourself look any sillier.

Also, you might want to consider responding to what I actually posted, rather than resorting to childish ad hominems.

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:39am: I don't even care that you do, as long as your beliefs are not a threat to my freedom or quality of life. Which quite frankly I think they are in the same way that the Christian church was a threat to freedom and free thinking hundreds of years ago. Fortunately Islam is not the power it once was, and can hopefully be kept politically weak (preferably with out violence) in the same way that all religions should be politically kept down. They are dangerous. Just that some are more dangerous than others. How are they dangerous? How are my beliefs a threat to your freedom or quality of life.

That's been discussed many times before.....Muslim Ettiquite, blind obedience, Jihad etc etc. Go back and kick off any number of old topics if you want, I'd be more than happy to continue the debate as many of them were left hanging without responses from the Muslims or apologists on this forum. I'll amke an effort in the next week or two to re-ignite a few.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

When you say 'hopefully Islam can be politically weak'...how do you suggest this occurs.

Not sure, maybe the same way it happened for Christianity. It and the society surrounding it grew up. Or at least Christianity was forced to grow up a little. I'm sure there are a great many in the Christian church that would love to see the re-emergance of Church as State. That's where vigilance comes in.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:19pm:

Do you find it acceptable that in order to keep 'Islam politically weak'...muslims in muslim lands are oppressed and persecuted....kept in check by despotic dictators backed by the west.

No it's not acceptable. Why don't they rise up? Is it because you have one group of Muslims (with external aid) exploiting another group of Muslims and the different groups think their version of the perfect message is correct.

Shouldn't a perfect message be unmistakable, and have a single non-contradictory meaning that is self evident???

Anyway, in the mean time maybe out of neccesity we need to help liberate those Muslims from depots, allow them to choose their own despots (one group or another is going to think new leaders are despots) and keep "Muslims in Muslim lands". You could even go there to live.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:57pm:

I just had a look at the thread I posted there about this. I suggest you do the same, before you make yourself look any sillier.

[/quote]

I already did...or would you like me to post a link here so that all can see how silly you looked.

Might explain why you don't post there anymore huh....lol, and even after your pathetic attempt at attracting new posters, you still have only the same handful of regurlar red necks here. tst tsk tsk...keep trying freediver.


freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:57pm:

Also, you might want to consider responding to what I actually posted, rather than resorting to childish ad hominems.

why would I bother...it has been shown to you a number of times that your wiki is full of lies and half truths...yet you pathetically accuse us of 'deflections'.

Even on BF...your link was ridiculed by all, except for the resident red necks which exist on all sites.

When you post something worthy of a response perhaps I'll think about it...however, if this is your example of how 'my' beliefs are a threat to your freedoms...then needless to say, you are really scraping at the bottom of the barrel.

Tell me Freediver...why do you keep insisting that I am your enemy? Do you really want to pick a fight..or are you just being a keyboard warrior?

For someone claiming to be tolerant...you seem to be intent on spreading rather intolerant beliefs which will do nothing but create disharmony amongst Australians.

And in a time when there is already enough tension in socieity...we don't need your type fueling the flames.

Its time you take a good hard look at yourself..before its to late!

Quote:

I already did...or would you like me to post a link here so that all can see how silly you looked.

You must be on a different planet Les.


Quote:

Even on BF...your link was ridiculed by all, except for the resident red necks which exist on all sites.

I see. You are changing your story already. Next you'll be saying that the majority of them are rednecks.


Quote:

For someone claiming to be tolerant...you seem to be intent on spreading rather intolerant beliefs which will do nothing but create disharmony amongst Australians.

Argumentum ad consequantium is a logical fallacy. I merely seek the truth about Islam. If that makes people hostile, then so be it. It is better than encouraging self delusion about the conflicts between Islam and the west.


Quote:

And in a time when there is already enough tension in socieity...we don't need your type fueling the flames.

Self censorship is the worst form.

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 12:40pm:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 12:37pm: Lestat wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 12:19pm: locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:39am: I did answer the question. I don't care about skin colour because I don't believe or care about racial purity. I don't care about religion because I don't belong to a supersticious cult. Sorry...I must of missed all those posts attacking Christians for the actions of a few Sudanese who just so happen to be also Christians. My apologies....I forgot, you only believe that muslims should be held responsible for the actions of a few. i guess I was confused. Oh you mean like I singled out HAMAS instead of blaming all Muslims. Was that confusing. Funny that my original post didn't even mention skin colour or religion. You did. You thought it would make a difference and had a little tanty when it didn't. Yep, your confused. How bout actually blaming those who did the killing? The IDF? Nah...can't have that can we...much rather blame those evil muslims. There you go Locuitus...your lies exposed...rather easily I might add.

Earth to Lestat,

I'm not denying that the IDF have killed people, I'm just denying your fanciful bigotted take on the issue.

WHEN....A....DEFENDER.....KILLS.....AN....ATTACKER.....IT.....IS....CALLED..........JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE.

Maybe what needs to happen is that when Billy Joe Muhammed looks out the back alley and sees some guys setting up a mortar they should get the neibourhood together and shoot the bastards. And keep doing it. Then Isreal should issue an order that that block or neihbourhood should not be targeted.

My lies exposed??? Where ??? That's not actually possible, if I haven't lied.

It is within the palestinian's sphere of influence to reign in the loonies without the colateral damage. It is not possible for the Israelis to do this. They are put in the situation where they have no choice. The palestinians need to grow out of their petulant childish view of the world. It is growing old very quickly. You cannot play the victim while lobbing rockets over the border randomly.

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

That's been discussed many times before.....Muslim Ettiquite, blind obedience, Jihad etc etc. Go back and kick off any number of old topics if you want, I'd be more than happy to continue the debate as many of them were left hanging without responses from the Muslims or apologists on this forum. I'll amke an effort in the next week or two to re-ignite a few.

You mean those threads were numerous Islamophobes attack our beliefs (including you), choose to take your information from well known anti-Islamic sites....and when we highlight the errors, you accuse us of being liars?

Those threads?

For example Locuitus...you once took information from a rather well known anti-Islamic site stating that as muslims, we cannot take non-muslims as friends.

Without any investigation...any evidence...not even an opinion from a muslim you took this to be fact.

When I highlighted to you that this was in fact incorrect (and Abu has denied this very point numerous times, yet the same lie gets repeated again and again by the ussual suspects)...you did not accept my version.

Even after I explained to you that most of my friends are non-muslims....no, even this was not good enough for you. This tells me that quite clearly you already have pre-concieved idea's.

You are not interested in discussion...it is attacking you want to do, attacking beliefs which you don't agree with.

I'll ask again...what beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life.

Am I your enemy Locuitus....and more importantly...do you want me to be?


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Not sure, maybe the same way it happened for Christianity. It and the society surrounding it grew up. Or at least Christianity was forced to grow up a little. I'm sure there are a great many in the Christian church that would love to see the re-emergance of Church as State. That's where vigilance comes in.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that during the height of Christian power, Christian civiliations were at their lowest point.

With Islam it is in fact the opposite. It is more Islam that muslim countries need...not less.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

No it's not acceptable. Why don't they rise up? Is it because you have one group of Muslims (with external aid) exploiting another group of Muslims and the different groups think their version of the perfect message is correct.

No...its because the west is ensuring that muslim populations remain oppressed by backing dictators militarily and economically...to ensure that political Islam does not rise up.

Thats just it....the people are oppressed for that very reason....to 'keep Islam politically weak'...as you say.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Shouldn't a perfect message be unmistakable, and have a single non-contradictory meaning that is self evident???

The message is unmistakable, and it does have a non-contradictory meaning that is self-evident.

Unfortunately their are people who go against the message, and do so knowing very well what they are doing, in exchange for power and control.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:39am:

Anyway, in the mean time maybe out of neccesity we need to help liberate those Muslims from depots, allow them to choose their own despots (one group or another is going to think new leaders are despots) and keep "Muslims in Muslim lands". You could even go there to live.

The US give Egypt 4.5 billion dollars a year in military aid....this is in turn used to oppress the Egyptians and keep them poor, and to ensure that the muslim brotherhood are kept under check. Recently they won many seats in municipal elections....in response the govt through most of there members in jail.

How bout stop supporting the dictators...just as a start. however, of course this means that political Islam in these countries will no longer be weak...and you have already stated that you don't want this.

Thats all most muslims want...an Islamic state in muslim lands. This nonsense about turning Australia into a caliphate is just nonsense. I have never ever heard a muslim state this or anything even remotely along those lines.

The only time I have heard this is from anti-islamophobes and war mongerers wanting to spread fear and distrust.

And given that I am born here...and have lived here all my life...then just curious...why would you want me to leave.

Weren't you just saying that you have nothing against any religon, yet here you are....wanting me to leave, for no other reason other then the fact that I am muslim.

As I said....your lies are rather easily exposed...you have exposed them yourself.

For what its worth...yes, if a muslim state was created, I would seriously consider leaving.

So thats one less muslim family you have to contend with...happy?

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:29pm:

Earth to Lestat, I'm not denying that the IDF have killed people, I'm just denying your fanciful bigotted take on the issue. WHEN....A....DEFENDER.....KILLS.....AN....ATTACKER.....IT.....IS....CALLED..........JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. Maybe what needs to happen is that when Billy Joe Muhammed looks out the back alley and sees some guys setting up a mortar they should get the neibourhood together and shoot the bastards. And keep doing it. Then Isreal should issue an order that that block or neihbourhood should not be targeted. My lies exposed??? Where ??? That's not actually possible, if I haven't lied.

Would you like me to post your quote Locuitus.

You stated that Hamas were 100% to blame for all the civilian casualties in Palestine.

100% to blame? Are you denying you made this statement.

This would indicate that you absolve Israel of all responsibility....and hold Hamas (who just so happen to be muslims...surprise surprise) COMPLETELY responsible.....

Despite the fact that it is in fact Israel, and not Hamas that are doing the actual killing.

And you have the gall to accuse me of fanciful bigotry. Unbelievable.

Just who is the defender, and who is the agressor Locuitus? I think your confused......

Quote:

I'll ask again...what beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life.

Why keep asking if you openly refuse to address the response maturely?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values


Quote:

No...its because the west is ensuring that muslim populations remain oppressed by backing dictators militarily and economically...to ensure that political Islam does not rise up.

;D Like in Iraq and Afghanistan?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:33pm:

It is within the palestinian's sphere of influence to reign in the loonies without the colateral damage. It is not possible for the Israelis to do this. They are put in the situation where they have no choice. The palestinians need to grow out of their petulant childish view of the world. It is growing old very quickly. You cannot play the victim while lobbing rockets over the border randomly.

Justifying the murder of innocent civilians Freediver..why am I not surprised.

Next time muslims kill non-muslims in an attack...remember this post...cause rather ironically....they almost word for word use the same arguments you do.

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 1:33pm: It is within the palestinian's sphere of influence to reign in the loonies without the colateral damage. It is not possible for the Israelis to do this. They are put in the situation where they have no choice. The palestinians need to grow out of their petulant childish view of the world. It is growing old very quickly. You cannot play the victim while lobbing rockets over the border randomly. Justifying the murder of innocent civilians Freediver..why am I not surprised. Next time muslims kill non-muslims in an attack...remember this post...cause rather ironically....they almost word for word use the same arguments you do.

;D ;D ;D

Were the Americans lobbing missiles at Afhganistan from the top of the WTC?

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:49pm:

Quote: I'll ask again...what beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life. Why keep asking if you openly refuse to address the response maturely? http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values [quote]No...its because the west is ensuring that muslim populations remain oppressed by backing dictators militarily and economically...to ensure that political Islam does not rise up.

;D Like in Iraq and Afghanistan? [/quote]

What would you like me to address FD? Which lies of yours would you like exposed once again....go on, pick one.

Iraq and Afghanistan...gee, aint life in those countries just great at the moment.

Yes...western occupation has done wonders for the average citizen their.

I'm glad that you find their suffering humorous.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:50pm:

Lestat wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 1:49pm: freediver wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 1:33pm: It is within the palestinian's sphere of influence to reign in the loonies without the colateral damage. It is not possible for the Israelis to do this. They are put in the situation where they have no choice. The palestinians need to grow out of their petulant childish view of the world. It is growing old very quickly. You cannot play the victim while lobbing rockets over the border randomly. Justifying the murder of innocent civilians Freediver..why am I not surprised. Next time muslims kill non-muslims in an attack...remember this post...cause rather ironically....they almost word for word use the same arguments you do. ;D ;D ;D Were the Americans lobbing missiles at Afhganistan from the top of the WTC?

The WTC housed many military offices including CIA offices. So using your logic......the WTC is a military target, and the US is 100% to blame for the attack, as they placed military targets amongst civilian areas.

It is within the the US peoples sphere of influence to reign in their military without the colateral damage. It is not possible for the muslims to do this. They are put in the situation where they have no choice. The US need to grow out of their petulant childish view of the world. It is growing old very quickly. You cannot play the victim while lobbing missiles onto numerous muslim countries randomly.

mod: personal attack

You cite the glory of Islam states as being at their peak, when Islam is strongest, well seeing the state is the religion, that is pretty self evident.

The thing is, when they were the strongest, they became that way through violence, and imperialist war mongering, and the rest of us are not too keen on that idea.

You see, Islam is not content to just be left to it's own devices, to freely practice it's faith, no, it has the obligation, as part of it's core tenets, to impose itself upon the whole world, and as usual, the modus operandi is violence, which again, we are not too keen on.

So unless you can see a way for Islam to content itself with not being the world religion, and world government, then you are always going to face a majority who say that they do not want Islam to rise in power or prominence, because we cannot trust them not to use that power to try and take even more power, until they satisfy their goals.

Quote:

What would you like me to address FD? Which lies of yours would you like exposed once again....go on, pick one.

There are no lies. How about instead of chanting 'lies! lies!' you actually point them out? Other Muslims here for example ahve pointed out some mistakes, which I corrected. They even edited the wiki directly. Here, I'll direct you to the appropriate thread:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1218709393


Quote:

Iraq and Afghanistan...gee, aint life in those countries just great at the moment. Yes...western occupation has done wonders for the average citizen their.

Interesting, change the topic when your obvious error is pointed out. Are you admitting you were wrong about the 'evil west' keeping the Muslims down with dictators? Isn't it Islam itself that demands dictatorship, whereas the west is 'imposing' democracy on the Iraqis and Afghanis?


Quote:

So using your logic......the WTC is a military target

Not my logic.

Just how many mod: personal attack share your beliefs in the Muslim community in our country Lestat?

Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 11:39am: That's been discussed many times before.....Muslim Ettiquite, blind obedience, Jihad etc etc. Go back and kick off any number of old topics if you want, I'd be more than happy to continue the debate as many of them were left hanging without responses from the Muslims or apologists on this forum. I'll amke an effort in the next week or two to re-ignite a few. You mean those threads were numerous Islamophobes attack our beliefs (including you), choose to take your information from well known anti-Islamic sites....and when we highlight the errors, you accuse us of being liars? Those threads?

Yes they are the ones. The ones that you ran away from without answering the questions. Without providing the links to other sources that I asked for more than once. They weren't well known anti-Islamic sites to me. I've waiting for your return. And you have returned in all your mouth froathing bad mannered glory. HUZZAH!!!


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

For example Locuitus...you once took information from a rather well known anti-Islamic site stating that as muslims, we cannot take non-muslims as friends.

No, no, no. I did not say that nor did the link. The link stated that a Mulim may be friendly to a non-believer but not have a deep friendship. There is a difference.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

Without any investigation...any evidence...not even an opinion from a muslim you took this to be fact.

I asked a question. You took offence. Did you investigate what was asked. Maybe there are things about your religion you do not know. maybe it is true but you don't know or don't want to know, because if true it offends your sense of justice or fairness. But the demands of monotheism contradict justice and fairness often in my opinion regardless of the three books you ascribe to.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

When I highlighted to you that this was in fact incorrect (and Abu has denied this very point numerous times, yet the same lie gets repeated again and again by the ussual suspects)...you did not accept my version.

You did not provide me with a version (link), you provided me with an opinion. I asked at least twice for a version.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

Even after I explained to you that most of my friends are non-muslims....no, even this was not good enough for you. This tells me that quite clearly you already have pre-concieved idea's.

I had no pre-concieved idea. Just a question. So you have non-muslims that are your friends. Maybe you are just friendly to them. Maybe they are your friends but you don't know that you are doing the wrong thing with that claim. Or maybe you are not a good Muslim because you prefer to keep them as friends regardless. I don't know.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

You are not interested in discussion...it is attacking you want to do, attacking beliefs which you don't agree with.

Questions are not attacks. Questions build understanding.

And of course I do attack beliefs that I don't agree with. What else should I be doing. Embrace them?


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

I'll ask again...what beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life.

Then lets get back to those past topics, refresh them. I mentioned some already.


Lestat wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 1:40pm:

Am I your enemy Locuitus....and more importantly...do you want me to be?

I don't know......and no. But we may not have a choice.

I watched an interesting film, called "Shoot On Sight", a British film about, muslims and their interaction with western society, from the perspective of a muslim police chief, investigating a "suspected" terrorist being shot dead.

It portrayed the normal muslims, as lost, frustrated by their being cast as terrorists, when they would never dream of it, and do they resent the westerners for their prejudices, or the extremists who drive the western perception.

It is an interesting, and valid point, and from the defence of all aspects of Islaism we see here, one our posting muslims have obviously not considered deeply.

Quote:

and do they resent the westerners for their prejudices, or the extremists who drive the western perception

Did you mean to say they do resent, or they don't?

Was it based on the case that got all the media attention, where the guy was shot in a train station?

Yes it was FD.
And yes and no, it is an individual thing after all.

mozzaok,


Quote:

and do they resent the westerners for their prejudices, or the extremists who drive the western perception. It is an interesting, and valid point, and from the defence of all aspects of Islaism we see here, one our posting muslims have obviously not considered deeply.

This is like asking did persecuted Jews in Nazi Europe resent the Nazis who oppressed and persecuted them or the Rothschilds and other big Jewish banking families who actually fulfilled the image of the propaganda....

The one who persecuted and oppresses is to blame for the persecution and oppression, not the victim, not the colleagues or co-religionists of the victim who happen to fit the image of the propaganda spewed out by the oppressor and persecutor.

This seems to be the common theme of the anti-Islamic camp, that you, the victims, are to blame for all our aggression, militantism, persecution and bombing of your civilians, and if you're not to blame then your silence about your co-religionists is to blame. Or your government (Hamas and Saddam Hussein are two examples of this), elected or otherwise are to blame.

NO, you are to blame for what you do.

Yours is the mindset of collective punishment, and this is an unjust and evil mindset.

A lot of it is more about responsiblity or onus than blame. We don't blame innocent Muslims for the actions of terrorists, but we damn well expect them to help put a stop to it, not refuse to get involved until a bunch of silly demands are met. And if the terrorists aren't stopped, they are going to get mowed down when we come after the terrorists, blame or no blame.

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 9:57pm:

A lot of it is more about responsiblity or onus than blame. We don't blame innocent Muslims for the actions of terrorists, but we damn well expect them to help put a stop to it, not refuse to get involved until a bunch of silly demands are met. And if the terrorists aren't stopped, they are going to get mowed down when we come after the terrorists, blame or no blame.

in all seriousness- what is it that you want muslims to do in order to achieve this. I mean like practical steps.

Well stop making excuses for terrorists would be a good start.
They should be ostracised, not feted as heroes.

Yes practical steps would be to quote a distinct line between extremists and "moderates".
If you fail to do this, you will all be thrown into the same basket (case).

The way things are atm, I for one would be in agreeance to eradicate the lot of you.
Sorry, that's just the way I feel about your inclinations.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:36pm:

Well stop making excuses for terrorists would be a good start. They should be ostracised, not feted as heroes.

ok- so let's go to 9/11. dealing with terrorists, right? I have not met one muslim who has said that they approve of the actions taken.

but this seems not to be enough. people seem to expect ordinary mums and dads to be able to get on TV and condemn whatever is ahppening in the world. this just isn't reality

I suggest that many muslims do condemn terrorists, but you just don't hear them

Amadd wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 10:47pm:

Yes practical steps would be to quote a distinct line between extremists and "moderates". If you fail to do this, you will all be thrown into the same basket (case).

so each muslim you meet should have a dictionary definition ready as to what is an extremist and moderate muslim and where they fall? would they need charts?

I know I'm being facetitous- but this all seems very imprecise to me. what is it exacty muslims should do? every person they meet they say "btw I condemn terrorism, am not an extremist. I am a moderate and the definition of this is etc etc"?


Quote:

The way things are atm, I for one would be in agreeance to eradicate the lot of you. Sorry, that's just the way I feel about your inclinations.

I'm not muslim

Quote:

I suggest that many muslims do condemn terrorists, but you just don't hear them

Hello?
No we don't hear them. They have a voice, but it cannot be heard!

Condemn it already. All I ever hear is support.
So commit to the nation in which you live or move elsewhere.
If it's against Islam to commit to this nation then you are the enemy of the rest of us and you will be held accountable.
Islamic laws do not count here. Adhere to our laws or go elswhere.

Amadd wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:02pm:

Quote: I suggest that many muslims do condemn terrorists, but you just don't hear them Hello? No we don't hear them. They have a voice, but it cannot be heard! Condemn it already. All I ever hear is support. So commit to the nation in which you live or move elsewhere. If it's against Islam to commit to this nation then you are the enemy of the rest of us and you will be held accountable. Islamic laws do not count here. Adhere to our laws or go elswhere.

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13742&hl=condemn+mumbai

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=42926&hl=condemn+mumbai

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=59&hl=condemn+mumbai

"National Mourning Day

The heinous and criminal act against innocent members of our country colleagues holidaying in Bali is a crime against humanity and peace loving Australia and Australians, Muslims included.

Today, is the National Mourning day for those victims, I wish to invite all my Muslim brothers and sisters who share my love to Australia and Australians to express our deepest feelings of sympathy and extend our condolences to the families and friends of the victims.

May Allah bless Australia. "

Lakemba Mosque Bali Mourning & Prayer Service

His eminence the Mufty of Australia Sh. Taj Aldin Alhilali has called on all Muslims to join the Lakemba congregation for prayers for victims of the Bali tragedy at the Lakemba mosque on Sunday 20 October. The prayer service will be joined by the Honourable Philip Ruddock, Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.

“We share the pain and grief, our sincere prayers go to the victims, we ask God to grant comfort to the grieving families and to all Australians to help get through these difficult times.” Said His eminence Mufty Alhilali.

“Bali highlights to us the dangerous times facing our world. Our heart-felt condolences to the families who lost loved ones. A week on, we pray for love, compassion and patience through these trying times.” Said Mr. Keysar Trad, spokesperson for the Lebanese Moslem Association.

“We repeat our call to the Indonesian government; end the speculation, identify those responsible and bring them to justice.” Said Mr. Trad.

“More than ever, today, we must rally together as one society in the face of a tragedy that befalls each and every one of us.” Said Mr. Trad.

Detail of the “Day of Mourning” prayer service

Time: 11:30 AM
Date: Sunday 20 October 2002
Address: Imam Ali Bin Abi Taleb Mosque
65-67 Wangee Rd. Lakemba, NSW
Media Contact: Keysar Trad -                0410 33 69 22        
==========================================

National Day Of Mourning: Rockdale Town Hall
Prayers for victims of the Bali tragedy
2:00pm, Sunday 20 October, 2002
Al-Zahra Muslim Association is joined by many other Muslim Associations to commemorate this sad event.
===========================================

National Day of Mourning For The Victims Of The Bali Bomb Attack - Auburn Gallipoli Mosque

Auburn Gallipoli Mosque Grieves For Their Fellow Australians
Australia’s Turkish community will put on the lights this evening (Sunday 20 Oct 2002) at Auburn Gallipoli Mosque in a night prayer in memory of the victims of the Bali bomb attack.

On Sunday, the National Day of Mourning for the victims of the Bali bomb attack, Western Sydney’s great mosque will bring Muslim Australians together to hold a special prayer service for those fellow Australians who lost their lives in the horrific attack in Bali.

Whilst the whole of Australia is still in shock and many of the families are searching for the remains of their relatives, the Muslim community has expressed its deepest sympathies and made announcements at its mosques to raise money for the victims and to donate blood. This mindless attack is an assault on all humanity and the Muslim community condemns this act of violence and calls on the Indonesian and Australian security services to swiftly bring those responsible to justice. On Sunday the Hon. Minister for Immigration Mr Phillip Ruddock will attend the special service which will include a special prayer on the holy night of Berat.

We invite the general public to freely participate. Proceedings will commence at 6.00pm on Sunday 20th October 2002 at 15-19 North Parade Auburn.

RSVP: Saturday 19th Oct 2002
Contact: KS Seyit                0412 318 045         or                02 93196733        
=============================================

Preston Mosque (Victoria) will have an open day and is inviting people of all faiths to visit and mourn.
Sunday, 20 October, 2002
Preston Mosque
90 Cramer Street
Preston, Victoria - 3075
              (03) 6470 2424        
==================================

The Canberra Islamic Centre in Monash will hold a peace ceremoney from 7.30pm, Sunday 20 October, 2002
http://www.islamiccenters.com/ViewInfor.asp?ID=978
====================================

The Indonesian Embassy is hosting an interfaith service from 11am to noon, Sunday 20 October, 2002
http://www.kbri-canberra.org.au/bali/inter...r_021020pic.htm

Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV):
VICTORIAN MUSLIMS CONDEMN BALI TERROR ATTACKS
13 October 2002

Australian Muslims are outraged, shocked and saddened by the attacks in Bali.

Irrespective of who the perpetrators turn out to be, Australian Muslims condemn the attacks and disassociate themselves totally from those who committed them.

These attacks against innocent people represent a crime against God and humanity

We declare our sympathy for all the innocent people killed and injured in the attacks, including Indonesians and people of many other nationalities. But our feelings of anger and loss are further magnified by the knowledge that so many of the victims are fellow Australians.

We express our deepest condolences to the victims, their families and their friends and we pray to God to comfort the hearts of all those affected.

We pray also that the perpetrators will soon be caught, brought to justice and punished with the full force of the law.
Contact: Mr Peter Barnett on                03 93264147        
http://www.icv.org.au/Bali_ICV.htm

http://muslimvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=47735&hl=mumbai+attacks

http://www.saudiembassy.net/2004News/Press/PressDetail.asp?cIndex=217

http://www.freemuslims.org/

http://www.islamfortoday.com/terrorism.htm

"Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam.  Speaking at the conference in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, Sheikh Tantawi said extremist Islamic groups had appropriated Islam and its notion of jihad, or holy struggle, for their own ends.
BBC News, 11 July, 2003"

http://www.m-a-t.org/

http://www.islamagainstterrorism.com/

http://indianmuslims.in/indian-muslims-against-terrorism/

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/03/massive-muslim-protest-in-bahrain.html

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2005/07/iraqis-protest-against-terror.html

Well I stand corrected Gaybriel.
I never hear much of it. And because Islam is such a devoted (I think brainwashing) religion, it's important that all people in Australia hear it.
With enough muslim people entering Australia, democracy would be democratically voted out IMO.

Amadd wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:22pm:

Well I stand corrected Gaybriel. I never hear much of it. And because Islam is such a devoted (I think brainwashing) religion, it's important that all people in Australia hear it. With enough muslim people entering Australia, democracy would be democratically voted out IMO.

I think the problem is that such news doesn't sell. this isn't a conspiracy story, it's just a recognition that media is out to make money. and no one is interested in hearing stories about how everyone wants to get along. sensationalism sells and in times of crisis the media often gets caught up in that sensationalism and can be irresponsible in their portrayal of situations.

I think it is a shame that we don't hear about massive demonstrations in muslim countries, issuing of fatwas etc etc- all against terrorism.because it does create the impression that muslims are just kicking it, sitting back and don't really care either way.

and I think this is why so many muslims can get frustrated when they're accused of not doing anything to help or to show their opinion- because they are, people just don't know about it

anyway- I hope the links are useful

Quote:

anyway- I hope the links are useful

Yes the links are useful thanks.
It shouldn't need to be a pre-requisite for (varying degrees of) moderate muslims to express their distaste for the actions of anybody, but I think it's an unfortunately bestowed responsibility to do so in these times.

Amadd wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 11:50pm:

Quote: anyway- I hope the links are useful Yes the links are useful thanks. It shouldn't need to be a pre-requisite for (varying degrees of) moderate muslims to express their distaste for the actions of anybody, but I think it's an unfortunately bestowed responsibility to do so in these times.

yes I think you're right. at the moment on muslim village (another forum I go on)- a jewish person has joined the forum and has had to answer for a lot of israel's actions. I think this is desperately unfair- alas it does happen.

I think it is unfortunate and I understand why people become frustrated with it- it must be exhausting having to do it all the time.

at the same time, coming out and saying what you do and don't support is of great help to both muslims and non-muslims alike- because hopefully it helps clear up the picture a bit

Amadd,


Quote:

I never hear much of it

Did you ever bother to look for it?

Gaybriel is a non-Muslim Aussie like yourself, so was I once upon a time, and we were both able to find out about these facts. I guess it depends upon the intentions of the individual.


Quote:

I for one would be in agreeance to eradicate the lot of you.

I guess this explains a lot about your intentions doesn't it. I'm sorry, but people with your kind of views don't belong in Australia. Your views are contrary to everything Australian society stands for.

You wouldn't be the first atheist to express his desire to eradicate entire races/creeds/groups/cultures of people though. The atheists of the Soviet Union and China for instance were experts at it. Deporting people all over the place to their deaths or lifetimes of slave labour.

Thankyou for your replies Gaybriel, it is nice to see that some prominent Islamic scholars have the guts to say the right thing.

The Sunni leader is a good example of a prominent muslim attempting to spread a more benign message than most of his contemporaries.

As to the rest of them, I do not know how worthy they are, as the problem of just saying what they want westerners to believe, and what they really teach, is often very different.

The art of deceiving one's enemies, a pretty well established practice, in Islam, is always going to make us question the veracity of these types of statements.

I appreciate the catch 22 they are in, but it is a problem of their own making.

To be considered reliable, we would expect to see a consistency of thought, and practice, that at least one from your list, sheik alhilali, certainly does not enjoy, he does not have a reputation for his moderate views.

These terrorist supporters are not obscure, or rare, they hold positions of prominence in many Islamic institutions, and then there is the obvious problems with Islamic schools, where radicalism is not only explored, but promoted, unchallenged, by way too many.

We see similiar things with extremist christian grioups, but the difference is that when they are identified, they are condemned, and ostracised from the broader christian community, not tolerated or feted by it, and we need Islam to do the same.

Quote:

people seem to expect ordinary mums and dads to be able to get on TV and condemn whatever is ahppening in the world.

That isn't a very practical step. For every Muslim terrorist, there are hundreds of terrorist sympathisers funding, and for each of those there are many Muslims who know what is going and and turn a blind eye. Abu fopr example says he wouldn't expect Muslims to lift a finger to stop terrorists, especially if there is any kind of personal risk involved. This doesn't even make sense if you ignore issues of justice and only consider self interest. Self interest woud lead you to stop the terrorists so they don't bring outside forces crashing down on you. So there must be something else.

mozzaok wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 7:31am:

Thankyou for your replies Gaybriel, it is nice to see that some prominent Islamic scholars have the guts to say the right thing. The Sunni leader is a good example of a prominent muslim attempting to spread a more benign message than most of his contemporaries. As to the rest of them, I do not know how worthy they are, as the problem of just saying what they want westerners to believe, and what they really teach, is often very different.

you see this is the problem for many muslims today. even when they fulfill what others require of them. they are not believed. they are told that they're just lying and acting differently behind closed doors.


Quote:

The art of deceiving one's enemies, a pretty well established practice, in Islam, is always going to make us question the veracity of these types of statements. I appreciate the catch 22 they are in, but it is a problem of their own making.

is it though? is it a problem made by ordinary muslims who are just going about their business?


Quote:

To be considered reliable, we would expect to see a consistency of thought, and practice, that at least one from your list, sheik alhilali, certainly does not enjoy, he does not have a reputation for his moderate views.

in terms of consistency sheikh alhilali has never (to my knowledge) condone terrorism. so in terms of that particular area he has been very consistent.


Quote:

These terrorist supporters are not obscure, or rare, they hold positions of prominence in many Islamic institutions, and then there is the obvious problems with Islamic schools, where radicalism is not only explored, but promoted, unchallenged, by way too many.

can you provide examples of who these people are?


Quote:

We see similiar things with extremist christian grioups, but the difference is that when they are identified, they are condemned, and ostracised from the broader christian community, not tolerated or feted by it, and we need Islam to do the same.

but here we see the same thing as shown in the links provided. I would suggest that holding demonstrations, saying 'not in the name of our religion', issuing fatwas that condemn terrorism and terrorists, holding days of prayer etc for the victims of terrorism- actually fulfills the things you require above.

but again- these things aren't seen as 'consistent' because we don't hear about them.

obviously - yes there are terrorist sympathisers. I suggest they are in the minority however. you may disagree with that of course- but my question is this. is it ordinary muslims that you want to be coming out condemning these things, or is your desire for the terrorists to have no sympathisers?

if your desire is th latter- whilst I agree and think that would be great- it's not realistic. The most diabolical of rulers, of terror groups throughout the ages have had their supporters. that in and of itself cannot be prevented.

so yes I think it's a good idea for the muslims who do not suport terrorism to come out and let those who do, know that they do not agree. but again, I put it to you that this is happening a lot more than we hear about as seen in just a few of the links I provided above (there's more out there).

but ultimately- you're saying these demonstrations, fatwas, prayer meetings etc- are useless and have no meaning because you think they're all lies.

so again I ask- what is it that muslims can do to 1) help stop terrorism and 2) prove they do not support terrorism?

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 10:09am:

Quote: people seem to expect ordinary mums and dads to be able to get on TV and condemn whatever is ahppening in the world. That isn't a very practical step.

I agree


Quote:

For every Muslim terrorist, there are hundreds of terrorist sympathisers funding, and for each of those there are many Muslims who know what is going and and turn a blind eye.

examples?


Quote:

Abu fopr example says he wouldn't expect Muslims to lift a finger to stop terrorists, especially if there is any kind of personal risk involved.

well I certainly don't think it is the responsibility of citizens to get into the trenches- that's not a practical suggestion either


Quote:

This doesn't even make sense if you ignore issues of justice and only consider self interest. Self interest woud lead you to stop the terrorists so they don't bring outside forces crashing down on you. So there must be something else.

I'm not sure who we're talking about here. are you talking about muslims living in countries with active terrorist cells? or are you just talking about muslims everywhere?

and again- how should these muslims stop the terrorist? Again- practical steps

Quote:

examples?

You want me to list all the people who associate with a terrorist?


Quote:

and again- how should these muslims stop the terrorist? Again- practical steps

If there is a suitable legal system in place, dob them in.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 1:52pm:

Quote: examples? You want me to list all the people who associate with a terrorist?

just some facts instead of speculation would be nice.


Quote:

and again- how should these muslims stop the terrorist? Again- practical steps

If there is a suitable legal system in place, dob them in. [/quote]

ok but if you're talking about places in the middle east here you yourself have suggested that you don't know who does and doesn't support the terrorists - how do you know you could trust the police?

I mean speaking within the hypothetical I believe you see as reality btw- not as I see it

in theory I agree - if you know of people planning or carrying out illegal activity- dob them in

I would also suggest however that terrorists are not known for their transparency. so how your average citizen could have knowledge of terrorist cells or activities is beyond me

you didn't answer my other questions btw

Quote:

just some facts instead of speculation would be nice.

Unfortunately speculation is about all we can do about terrorist networks. It's not like they publish detals about themselves.


Quote:

ok but if you're talking about places in the middle east here you yourself have suggested that you don't know who does and doesn't support the terrorists - how do you know you could trust the police?

If you don't trust the police, make an anonymous tipoff, or find a cop you do trust.


Quote:

I would also suggest however that terrorists are not known for their transparency. so how your average citizen could have knowledge of terrorist cells or activities is beyond me

People don't one day wake up and discover they have changed from an average citizen to a member of a terrorist group. They need to recruit and spread their message just like everyone else. For every successful recruit, there would be a dozen failed efforts where the person realises what they are getting themselves into and turns away. Those people would discuss it with others. People talk. Then there's all the training, etc. They simply couldn't function if they couldn't rely on fellow Muslims to turn a blind eye. Someone always figures it out.

freediver wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 2:06pm:

Quote: just some facts instead of speculation would be nice. Unfortunately speculation is about all we can do about terrorist networks. It's not like they publish detals about themselves. [quote]ok but if you're talking about places in the middle east here you yourself have suggested that you don't know who does and doesn't support the terrorists - how do you know you could trust the police?

If you don't trust the police, make an anonymous tipoff, or find a cop you do trust.


Quote:

I would also suggest however that terrorists are not known for their transparency. so how your average citizen could have knowledge of terrorist cells or activities is beyond me

People don't one day wake up and discover they have changed from an average citizen to a member of a terrorist group. They need to recruit and spread their message just like everyone else. For every successful recruit, there would be a dozen failed efforts where the person realises what they are getting themselves into and turns away. Those people would discuss it with others. People talk. Then there's all the training, etc. They simply couldn't function if they couldn't rely on fellow Muslims to turn a blind eye. Someone always figures it out. [/quote]

so you want terrorists to turn themselves in?

as you suggested terrorists don't self-advertise. I would suggest to you that it's not a matter of them going to thelocal market and trying to recruit people. they'd have to be a lot more careful about who they approach- and if anyone were to find out any definitive info about them and their activities, I'm pretty sure they'd be taken out before they could tell anyone, or at least live under the threat of it if they did try to tell anyone

it's not as clear cut as you make it

back to your original comment- what you're saying is that all we hear is muslims denouncing terrorism, you can't provide examples of what I've asked of you. but it's still not good enough

Quote:

and again- how should these muslims stop the terrorist? Again- practical steps

How about informing and tipping off? Or not sending money through Islamic charities to terrorists.

HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU COULD TRUST THE POLICE....?

Riiiiiight theres got to be a lot of terrorist sympathisers and plotters in the police force.

I wasn't talking about the Australian police force if you read my post properly

So which police force do you think has terrorist sympathies?

Grendel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 7:43pm:

So which police force do you think has terrorist sympathies?

sigh read my post

I said I was indulging what appears to be freedivers perception of countries in the middle east- not what I actually believe to be true

So you are saying in places like Gaza that the police support terrorism and so "good" people don't trust them to do the right thing and are worried about putting their own lives at risk.

Gaybriel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 2:47pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 9th, 2009 at 2:06pm: Quote: just some facts instead of speculation would be nice. Unfortunately speculation is about all we can do about terrorist networks. It's not like they publish detals about themselves. [quote]ok but if you're talking about places in the middle east here you yourself have suggested that you don't know who does and doesn't support the terrorists - how do you know you could trust the police? If you don't trust the police, make an anonymous tipoff, or find a cop you do trust. [quote]I would also suggest however that terrorists are not known for their transparency. so how your average citizen could have knowledge of terrorist cells or activities is beyond me

People don't one day wake up and discover they have changed from an average citizen to a member of a terrorist group. They need to recruit and spread their message just like everyone else. For every successful recruit, there would be a dozen failed efforts where the person realises what they are getting themselves into and turns away. Those people would discuss it with others. People talk. Then there's all the training, etc. They simply couldn't function if they couldn't rely on fellow Muslims to turn a blind eye. Someone always figures it out. [/quote]

so you want terrorists to turn themselves in?

as you suggested terrorists don't self-advertise. I would suggest to you that it's not a matter of them going to thelocal market and trying to recruit people. they'd have to be a lot more careful about who they approach- and if anyone were to find out any definitive info about them and their activities, I'm pretty sure they'd be taken out before they could tell anyone, or at least live under the threat of it if they did try to tell anyone

it's not as clear cut as you make it

back to your original comment- what you're saying is that all we hear is muslims denouncing terrorism, you can't provide examples of what I've asked of you. but it's still not good enough[/quote]

They could find a way if they wanted to. You are proferring squirming excuses.

If Arabs/Muslims are incapable to determine what happens in their midst then they should not be treated as if they were equal to societies that can. You are either responsible and have rights, or you are not and don't. Act like minors, be treated like minors. Like the Palestinians - bloody spoiled brats. They could not bring themselves to act responsibly. It's easier to play damned cowboys and indians for ever than to have a go at building a viable society. They have never even tried but they want their own country. More like they want a military base in their corner of the playground to conduct 'operations' from.  Infantile fantasists.

It hurts me more to say these things than it hurts you...i

That's all she ever does...  well that's what good apologists do.

Quote:

So which police force do you think has terrorist sympathies?

Pakistani would be my bet. Also many of the Afghani police and Iraqi police cannot be trusted either.

Doesn't say much for Islam or the state of that part of the world then does it.

Wrong. It says more that there are people who have gained positions of power who are against occupation by forces deemed hostile and contradictory to their preferred way of life.

Going back to WW2 now, French resistance, were they horrible people for resisting occupying forces? What about East Timorese resistance networks who fought against Indonesian occupation?

Not sure who you are talking to...  but...

The Gaza strip wasn't occupied.

Yet Hamas have sent tens thousand+ missiles into civilian israel for the past 8 years.

Quote:

Did you ever bother to look for it? Gaybriel is a non-Muslim Aussie like yourself, so was I once upon a time, and we were both able to find out about these facts. I guess it depends upon the intentions of the individual.

Yes I've bothered to look and I mostly see attitudes such as yours. You put your belief in a foreign law above Australian law.
It's not like I've never heard a muslim denounce terrorism, but many of those who do are not considered true muslims by the [mod: inappropriate comment]
I've never seen you denounce terrorist acts, I've only seen you spread your apologist views and try to give reason to acts that can never have reason.

I think it would be a pretty common view to most Australians that we don't want people with these types of attitudes being brought into our country. It's nothing to do with religion, non-religion, race, etc.,  it's just a common democratic view.

Question :

If a Muslim eats or drinks with a Christian or any kaafir, is that considered to be haraam?

Answer :

Praise be to Allaah.

Eating with a kaafir is not haraam if it is necessary to do so, or if that serves some shar’i interest.
But they should not be taken as friends, so you should not eat with them for no shar’i reason or for no shar’i purpose. You should not sit and chat with them and laugh with them. But if there is a reason to do so, such as eating with a guest, or to invite them to Islam or to guide them to the truth, or for some other shar’i reason, then it is OK.
The fact that the food of the People of the Book is halaal for us does not mean that we have to take them as friends and companions. It does not mean that we should eat and drink with them for no reason and for no purpose.
And Allaah is the source of strength.

Quote:

I've never seen you denounce terrorist acts

That's right, I flat out refuse to condemn acts committed by Muslims. And I'm under absolutely no obligation to either, neither by Australian law, nor by moral principles. Why should I rush to condemn something I didn't do, didn't have any control over etc. Am I somehow guilty by association for it, and therefore must seperate myself from it? what a load of crap. I don't see you  condemning any of the violent excesses of the West against Muslims, in fact you've stated you think Muslims should be eradicated....


Quote:

it's just a common democratic view.

There's nothing in democracy that says people can't have difference of opinoin, and even believe in other government systems.

If anything is anti-Democratic here, it is your wish for Muslims to be eradicated.

oh dear...  lost the plot...

Funny we are supposed to condemn things we don't do yet he is under NO obligation to.  ROTFLMAO

Muslim madness... is there no end to it?

Calanen wrote on Jan 9^th, 2009 at 10:54pm:

Quote: So which police force do you think has terrorist sympathies? Pakistani would be my bet. Also many of the Afghani police and Iraqi police cannot be trusted either.

Given that the Afghani and Iraqi police are targets of terrorist attacks and are working for the new government, I find that hard to believe. Pakistan would be in a similar situation.


Quote:

nor by moral principles. Why should I rush to condemn something I didn't do, didn't have any control over etc. Am I somehow guilty by association for it

We don't condemn it because we feel guilty, we condemn it because it is wrong and evil. You on the other hand have said it is both justified and necessary on the other thread.

What moral principle says you should not speak out against evil?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 8:38am:

We don't condemn it because we feel guilty, we condemn it because it is wrong and evil. You on the other hand have said it is both justified and necessary on the other thread.

But you don't condemn it...you pathetically attempt to justify it. Look no further then the hundreds of woman and children in Gaza killed by Israeli terrorists.

You don't condemn these murders...on the contrary, you attempt to justify them by blaming the victims.

Perhaps you should try to practise what you preach for once in your life.


freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 8:38am:

What moral principle says you should not speak out against evil?

Really...this is a question you should be asking yourself.

The attacks are not justified. The palestinians should stop lobbing rockets from the top of residential buildings, causing their destruction. Surely they would have figured it out by now.

freediver,


Quote:

You on the other hand have said it is both justified and necessary on the other thread

Actually I never said those things at all. Don't let yourself get tripped up by facts though. You rarely recount what I say accurately anyway. You've shown this time and time again.


Quote:

What moral principle says you should not speak out against evil?

There are evils going in all over this world, I don't see you speaking out against all of them. In fact as Lestat noted above, you actually try to justify and belittle some of them, such as the murder of Palestinian civilians.

I consider the actions of the Zionists to be some of the greatest evils happening today, yet you think they're quite justified and legitimate actions. This is a difference of opinion. But your viewpoint is much closer to support for evil than mine is, as I've never stated I think killing civilians is justified, you have.

Western civilians killed:
Freediver: The people who did this are evil, there's no justification, everyone should unconditionally condemn them and is morally obligated to do so.

Palestinian civilians killed:
Freediver: Stop lobbing rockets from civilian-occupied buildings (an accusation merely propagated by the killers of the civilians themselves).

See the difference? Or are your blinkers permanently sewn onto your temples?

Do you give the killers of Western civilians excuses and justifications as much weight as you give to the killers of Palestinian civilians justifications?

The hamas rockets for the past two years - who were they meant to hit?

Civilians. They were meant for civilians. Only.

No israeli fire is meant for civilians. None.

That's the difference.

If that were the case, then the Zionists are pretty bad shots....

Cos they've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the years...

But I don't think even you're gullible enough to believe that one of the most technologically advanced militaries on earth is that capable of having so many bad shots...

The fact is they know most of the time their fire is going to hit civilians, they simply don't care, apart from the fact it might lose them some international support, hence the highly paid spin doctors they now hire. Not just that, but for the past 60 years, they've consistently been hitting civilians, bulldozing their homes, mass deporting them to other countries, commandeering their homes, sometimes just to watch sporting matches etc. This is all well documented, by their own former members.

Only those who choose to remain blind, do so. Quite ironic considering all your rhetoric about free thinking, logic, rational thought etc.

Instead of just continuing with attaching blame, do you have any constructive ideas for a peaceful resolution to this conflict Abu?

For the sake of reality, exclude the option of Islam eradicating jews from the planet, or Israel.

So, the two state option, mentioned by Grendel, where Israel gets gaza, and palestine gets the west bank, how do you think palestinians would react to that proposal?

Do you know of any other two state alternatives?

Quote:

Actually I never said those things at all. Don't let yourself get tripped up by facts though.

Right. What you actually said was:


Quote:

If a decent Shari'ah implementing state existed that had prevented oil sales to the enemies fighting against Islam, then there'd be no need for 'terrorist groups',

Quote:

Perhaps need was not the best choice of words. What I mean is they'd have no justification

Quote:

Freediver: Stop lobbing rockets from civilian-occupied buildings (an accusation merely propagated by the killers of the civilians themselves).

Here we see more shameless propaganda from the Associated Press purporting to show Hamas firing rockets while positioned among civilians. Only those who blindly back Israel could see apartment buildings in that picture.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/jswill/hamas.jpg

mozzaok wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 9:43am:

Instead of just continuing with attaching blame, do you have any constructive ideas for a peaceful resolution to this conflict Abu? For the sake of reality, exclude the option of Islam eradicating jews from the planet, or Israel.

There's the snag. Reality be damned if it means accepting israel's right to exist. They can't be both devout Mohamedan and accept Israel. The'll sooner have a ham sandwich. Even the joos will have a ham sandwich before the Mohamedans accept Israel.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 9:32am:

If that were the case, then the Zionists are pretty bad shots.... Cos they've killed hundreds of thousands of civilians over the years... But I don't think even you're gullible enough to believe that one of the most technologically advanced militaries on earth is that capable of having so many bad shots... The fact is they know most of the time their fire is going to hit civilians, they simply don't care, apart from the fact it might lose them some international support, hence the highly paid spin doctors they now hire. Not just that, but for the past 60 years, they've consistently been hitting civilians, bulldozing their homes, mass deporting them to other countries, commandeering their homes, sometimes just to watch sporting matches etc. This is all well documented, by their own former members. Only those who choose to remain blind, do so. Quite ironic considering all your rhetoric about free thinking, logic, rational thought etc.

Either they are bad shots or the jihadis are lurking among the civilians, firing and hiding.
Every hamas rocket was meant to kill civilians.  The IDF is firing at identified hamas positions or places from which they are fired at.
And if the IDF are bad shots - you would need to be an absolute moron to provoke them. Yet that's what Hamcontrol them or as is doing. So they are either monsters or morons. And the palestinianss want them in power. What does that say about them?

The should give Gaza to Egypt, the West bank to Jordan on the understanding that they control the Palestinians or face the consequences. The palestinians are not fit to govern themselves.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 4:18am:

Quote: I've never seen you denounce terrorist acts That's right, I flat out refuse to condemn acts committed by Muslims.

Is this another joke? Like the "blindly following" fabrication that got spoken of yesterday? Can you verify if that is a serious statement please.


abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 4:18am:

And I'm under absolutely no obligation to either, neither by Australian law, nor by moral principles. Why should I rush to condemn something I didn't do, didn't have any control over etc.

But you have condemned many things since I have joined this forum. You even now condemn Israel's actions. There are Western soldier's actions that you have condemned, and we with you. In fact in one of those posted topics YOU where trying very hard to use the guilt by association argument.

How do you suppose you are guilty by association? You're only guilty of "flat out refuse to condemn acts committed by Muslims".


abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 4:18am:

Am I somehow guilty by association for it, and therefore must seperate myself from it? what a load of crap. I don't see you  condemning any of the violent excesses of the West against Muslims, in fact you've stated you think Muslims should be eradicated....

You can at least separate yourself intelligently by admitting that terrorists are launching rockets from centres of civilian populations and that the acceptable retailitory practice is to return fire at the terrorists that have chosen their launch site. No one here denies that civilians have been killed.

Your position seems to be that the Israelis not strike back, and we are supposed to agree with you.  ::)


BTW, I missed where FD stated that Muslims should be eradicated. Can you please provide a link.

Quote:

Is this another joke? Like the "blindly following" fabrication that got spoken of yesterday? Can you verify if that is a serious statement please.

Did you provide a quote from me stating I have an imam?


Quote:

But you have condemned many things since I have joined this forum

Yeh, and?

Is there some kind of unwritten rule I'm not aware of, that if you condemn something, you must condemn everything else? Please elaborate.


Quote:

You're only guilty of "flat out refuse to condemn acts committed by Muslims".

I could only bee guilty of it, if there were some requirement upon me to condemn them. So if you can point me in the direction of which law or code demands that I must condemn them, then we have ourselves a discussion.


Quote:

You can at least separate yourself intelligently by admitting that terrorists are launching rockets from centres of civilian populations

What evidence do you have that they are doing this? Apart from IDF reports. Sorry, but I'm suree you can see why they couldn't be considered a credible source for such claims.

Besides, all of Gaza is a warzone now, fighting from any location is quite normal procedure for any military force Even the IDF have been using houses for cover... Sorry, I forgot, this rule only applies to Palestinians, my mistake.

Let me ask, if your city were beseiged by a foreign force, would you drive carefully all the way to the city limits, and launch your attack from an open field? I don't think so, anyone who claims such drivel is obviously deluded or a gullible parrot of the Zionist media.

Quote:

TW, I missed where FD stated that Muslims should be eradicated. Can you please provide a link.

Did I say he did?

Again, please quote me.

mozzaok,


Quote:

Instead of just continuing with attaching blame, do you have any constructive ideas for a peaceful resolution to this conflict Abu? For the sake of reality, exclude the option of Islam eradicating jews from the planet, or Israel.

The only real solution is the removal of the foreign entity which mass immigrated and stole the homes of the locals about 60-70 years ago. It's really that simple.

What would be your solution if a foreign entity had done it to Australia? Or does do it in future? Perhaps you can give possible scenarios on how Australians could resolve the dispute, from their refugee camps.

Accept Western Australia, and give them the rest of the country right?


Quote:

So, the two state option, mentioned by Grendel, where Israel gets gaza, and palestine gets the west bank

Are you for real mozza? Do you even know what you're talking about? You are aware Gaza and the West Bank are just two fenced in refugee camps that the Jews have left the Palestinians in after taking about 80% of the country? But that's not good enough for you, they need to take a further 10%???

This statement indicates you're about as ignorant of the situation as Grendel. You probably don't even know where Gaza and West Bank are on the map. Even the Jews were not stupid  enough to offer such a 'solution'.  ;D


Quote:

how do you think palestinians would react to that proposal?

How about you contact one and ask him. Good luck :)

Might pay to look at a map first.

Btw, the West Bank is only about 25% for Palestinians, the rest of it is covered in settlements and settler-only roads..


Quote:

Do you know of any other two state alternatives?

Never heard of one which suggests giving up Gaza... Perhaps diplomats and politicians know something you and Grendel don't?  ;D

freediver,


Quote:

Right. What you actually said was:

Still nowhere did I say I believe myself there is a need or a justification for it. The way it is worded, it is clear THEY'D have no claim of a justification or a need for their existence.


Quote:

Here we see more shameless propaganda from the Associated Press purporting to show Hamas firing rockets while positioned among civilians. Only those who blindly back Israel could see apartment buildings in that picture.

How do you know it's not being fired from a military installation? Or even from a vacant lot?

I'm curious, what do you consider a valid location for firing a rocket from?

Either way, even if they did, do you believe it justifies firing on civilian buildings? Do you believe that  it makes the civilians around them legitimate targets or 'collateral damage' so to speak? I don't think any international law even comes close to approving of such things. Funny how all of a sudden the conventions of warfare are meaningless...

Jewish citizens don't raise their children to be fodder for a figment of the imagination, Islamic animals do.

Islam must be eradicated from our country or all we have ever fought for in Australia will become meaningless.
Islam is not a religion, it's a dictatorship.

Quote:

Islam is not a religion, it's a dictatorship.

I think more accurately, it is not JUST a religion, it is:

- a religion;
- a political system;
- a legal system;

- a system defining private norms and standards of behaviour;

- also, what passes for morality, but is effectively immorality, is that if the Koran or Hadith says do it, then do it, if it says dont do it, dont do it. But if it says you can do it, it doesnt matter if its unfair, immoral, etc. There is no morality or sense of fairplay in Islam save as for the Koran or the Hadith. The Hadith says you can marry a 9 year old, so you can marry a 9 year old. There is no debate.

But more importantly than all of this - it is not just a political system that is offered as an option - it is offered as the ONLY option backed by the threat of the most unimaginable violence.

Quote:

Let me ask, if your city were beseiged by a foreign force, would you drive carefully all the way to the city limits, and launch your attack from an open field? I don't think so, anyone who claims such drivel is obviously deluded or a gullible parrot of the Zionist media.

In WWII many generals were faced with that dilemma. Some ended up fighting in cities and as a result there were a lot of civilian casualties. They did not blame the enemy for this. They blamed themselves. If you are too weak to take on the military directly, this does not justify the cowardly option of hiding behind women and children.


Quote:

Either way, even if they did, do you believe it justifies firing on civilian buildings?

It justifies self defence. It is absurd to suggest someone can hide behind women and children to launch a military attack and expect the foreign nation to sit on it's hands, unable to respond. To suggest otherwise implies that the lives of the palestinians are somehow worth more than those of the Israelis.


Quote:

Do you believe that  it makes the civilians around them legitimate targets or 'collateral damage' so to speak?

No, it makes the people launching rockets legitimate targets. It makes the civilians collateral damage. It makes the idiots firing the rockets from apartment buildings ultimately responsible for their death.


Quote:

I don't think any international law even comes close to approving of such things.

This is just getting stupid Abu. You can't launch rockets at Israel and complain that their response is illegal. It is a petulant, childish victim mentality. It is a complete refusal to take responsibility for your own actions.


Quote:

Funny how all of a sudden the conventions of warfare are meaningless...

What convention forbids a country from taking out people who are launching rockets?

Abu, you are seriously deluded if you think that firing rockets from civilian centres somehow gives the palestinians the moral high ground, as if the Israelis should just let them do it.

Quote:

Funny how all of a sudden the conventions of warfare are meaningless...

Hamas and the rules of warfare? Surely you jest. They execute prisoners, fire rockets into civilian areas in Israel, use ambulances to transport weapons, use hospitals and mosques to store weapons,

In fact, which part of the 'Conventions of Warfare' do Hamas adher too? Any?

Firing rockets into civilian areas, is a war crime. Civilian areas and neighbourhoods are deliberately targetted by Hamas. Deliberately.

Quote:

I think more accurately, it is not JUST a religion, it is: - a religion; - a political system; - a legal system;

Yes I agree. And combined it equals dictatorship IMO.
The only element of Islam which we allow is the religious aspect. In fact this is a constitutional right - correct me if I'm wrong there Calanen, I know you will  ;D
With time, we'll see other aspects of the doctrine creeping into our society. We already see it with the cries to ban certain aspects of our society which are offensive to Islam. These cries are far louder than any denounciation of terrorist acts.


Quote:

Do you believe that  it makes the civilians around them legitimate targets or 'collateral damage' so to speak?

If Israel's actions are so indiscriminate, they wouldn't be going in there risking their troops, they'd simply blow away a square km from every rocket launch point.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Quote: Is this another joke? Like the "blindly following" fabrication that got spoken of yesterday? Can you verify if that is a serious statement please. Did you provide a quote from me stating I have an imam?

Yes



Quote:

abu_rashid wrote on Oct 17th, 2008, 11:43am: soren, I read it from my Imam who I blindly follow  :)

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1216537027/246#246

Quote:

In fact this is a constitutional right - correct me if I'm wrong there Calanen, I know you will

It absolutely is, one of the few rights we have in our constitution. Actually I think it is the *only* right we have expressly in our constitution. All the others are implied.

But like any right, it has limits. Freedom of speech is not the right to yell 'Fire' in a crowded theatre, or 'I have a bomb' in an airport terminal. So too is the right to practice religion freely - the constitutional right to religion is not meant to be a suicide pact for the West.

What the right means - is - worship whoever you damn well please. But it does not mean, that everyone else has to be subjected to what you believe is right or wrong, with the threat of violence through non-compliance.

The needs of the state also outweight religious freedom. The main case is one where either Jehovahs Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists (always get those two mixed up) refused to be conscripted during the War, *even* when Australia was being invaded (New Guinea was part of AUstralia then) and they were offered non-combat roles. The High Court and the Privy Council said, the need for the state to exist as it was threatened, trumped religious freedom.

I see Islam as a serious threat to the Western democratic state - that also trumps any claim to 'religious freedom'.

So you think Islam should be banned?

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2009 at 4:23pm:

So you think Islam should be banned?

No, Islamic immigration eliminated or vastly reduced.

And 'zero tolerance' for any protests, calls for special treatment, claims of discrimination, and creeping sharia. Strike Hard.

freediver,


Quote:

Some ended up fighting in cities and as a result there were a lot of civilian casualties. They did not blame the enemy for this. They blamed themselves.

Who blamed themselves for their own civilians being killed by the enemy in urban warfare???


Quote:

If you are too weak to take on the military directly, this does not justify the cowardly option of hiding behind women and children.

Hamas do NOT hide behind women and children, please stop repeating the same old propaganda line that the Zionist media has incited you to parrot. Repetition does not necessarily strengthen an argument.


Quote:

It justifies self defence.

The idea that the Zionists are engaging in self-defence is quite indefensible. They broke the cease fire with targetted  attacks on Gaza, Hamas merely RESPONDED as any decennt government should by firing back with the best weaponry they have at their disposal. Just because their hardware isn't as effective doesn't make their action any less justified.

It's quite ironic that people uses these pathetic arguments of "Israel was just defending itself as any nation would", when in actual fact that's what Hamas is doing, against the Zionist aggression which has never ceased at any time in the past 60 years. Please get some history on the conflict. Your memory only goes back as far as Fox news invites it to.


Quote:

It is absurd to suggest someone can hide behind women and children to launch...

Again, repetition doesn't make it so.


Quote:

expect the foreign nation to sit on it's hands, unable to respond. To suggest otherwise implies that the lives of the palestinians are somehow worth more than those of the Israelis.

I can't believe your blatant arrogance. 800 Palestinians have died, mostly civilians, about 20 Israelis have supposedly died, mostly soldiers... yet Hamas is supposed to sit on it's hands, and not defend it's civilians, whilst the Zionists can do as they like... It's quite obvious there's a disparity between the 'value' of citizens lives in someones argument here... in the order of 800 to 20.


Quote:

No, it makes the people launching rockets legitimate targets.

But very few Hamas fighters have been hit, and most are probably not even rocket launchers anyway. So the excuse they're actually hitting those who launch the rockets has worn pretty thin.


Quote:

It makes the civilians collateral damage.

That's a really ugly term for really ugly people like Albright, you do yourself and your argument no justice by employing it.

Such use of this term is what has fuelled the ideology of most 'terrorist' groups, as it dehumanised Muslim civilian casualties and therefore provided the basis for legitimising non-Muslims civilian targets in the eyes of those groups.


Quote:

It makes the idiots firing the rockets from apartment buildings ultimately responsible for their death.

It does no such thing. You are effectively giving a license to Israel to do whatever she wants, because it can all be justified by this same twisted reasoning. ex IDF soldiers have admitted that  they report everything as self defence and collateral damage and human shields, even when it clearly isn't. You are just a gullible fool for giving them that license to always claim this. Perhaps in some cases, they might have been telling the truth, but nothing is 100%, as their claims appear to be.


Quote:

This is just getting stupid Abu. You can't launch rockets at Israel and complain that their response is illegal.

Is it allowed by international law and conventions of war to attack densely populated civilian areas, just because the enemy is amongst them? Please answer, instead of throwing off.


Quote:

What convention forbids a country from taking out people who are launching rockets?

But they're taking out mostly civilians, not fighters.

Anyway, it's obviously fruitless arguing with you, after all, you believe the murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians was completely justified in WWII, so it's no surprise you support the same kind of inhumanity today. Leopards don't change their spots.

When someone believes nuking entire civilian populations is ok, then bombing a thousand or so civlians into oblivion isn't so bad...

Calanen,


Quote:

They execute prisoners

Ohh, and Israel don't do that right? Let me remind you that Israel is the ONLY country in thee world where torture is legal.


Quote:

fire rockets into civilian areas in Israel

Israel fires far more rockets into Palestinian areas, they just concoct better stories to justify it. Don't you think if Hamas had better access to the Western media, and Israel didn't, you'd be hearing a different story?


Quote:

use ambulances to transport weapons

Since Israel often have no qualms about striking ambulances anyway, there wouldn't be that much of a strategic advvantage to doing this. But just think about it, if Israel was in the same  desperate circumstances as the Palestinians, don't you think they'd be doing such things?


Quote:

use hospitals and mosques to store weapons

As above.

Also, don't forget, if you happened to bomb a mosque, would you just admit it? Or would you concoct a story that weapons were being hidden there or militants were fighting from inside? Really, if you have any capacity for independant thought, you'd be questioning such things.

Quote:

Hamas do NOT hide behind women and children, please stop repeating the same old propaganda line that the Zionist media has incited you to parrot. Repetition does not necessarily strengthen an argument.

LOLZERS

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4531/hamasciviliansov0.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2620/hamascowardsym8.jpg

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=971_1230895360

http://www.youtube.com/v/67muGMWwS24

Hamas gunmen roughly using kids as human shields. Good one fellas!

soren,

That's quite obviously sarcasm. Please don't be so facetious.

Calanen,


Quote:

And 'zero tolerance' for any protests

So the recent protests against the invasion of Gaza should've been banned in your opinion? Of course the pro-Zionist one was ok, where racist banners were being displayed and a Palestinian supporter who attended was threatened with violence?


Quote:

calls for special treatment

We hear a lot about this from the anti-Islamists, but I've never seen an actual case of Muslims 'calling for special treatment'. Can you give an example of this?


Quote:

claims of discrimination

There's 2 points here.

1) Are you suggesting discrimination against Muslims never occurs, so all 'claims' are false?

2) Should Muslims have to waive their right to prevent discrimination against them?


Quote:

creeping sharia

I guess by this you mean Muslims trying to implement laws they'd like through the parliamentary process? Didn't you agree before that this is well within democratic means and therefore not out of step with Australian way of life?

In summary what all your comments effectively do is try to cancel out Australia's egalitarian values, make second class citizens of anyone of the Muslim faith, make Muslims more susceptible to abuse and take away their democratic rights. None of which are in line with the Australian way of life, and all of which sound more like totalitarianism.

http://www.youtube.com/v/g0wJXf2nt4Y

Hamas admits they use human shields.

As to your other stuff Abu, you can try to use our democracy to destroy our democracy. And say it is unfair that people like me wont let you.

But I won't let you.  You think Hamas is tough in the defence of Gaza. Wait till you see the Australian community wake up.

And I'm cranking up the alarm clock right now. Wait until my book comes out. It will be a cracker.

Quote:

Who blamed themselves for their own civilians being killed by the enemy in urban warfare???

I saw an interview with a German general about the end of WWII. The allies were rolling in and he was aware of the risks associated with fighting in an urban environment. For some reason (forget the details) they ended up taking them on in a large town anyway. He regretted the civilian casualties that lost and took personal responsibility for it. This is the opposite of what the Palestinains do.


Quote:

Hamas do NOT hide behind women and children, please stop repeating the same old propaganda line that the Zionist media has incited you to parrot. Repetition does not necessarily strengthen an argument.

But they do hide behind women and children. Their actions are cowardly and dispicable. They knowingly and deliberately draw Israeli fire into heavily populated areas. Then they try to blame others for their own stupidity.


Quote:

I can't believe your blatant arrogance. 800 Palestinians have died, mostly civilians,

Being perpetual losers does not give you the moral high ground. It just makes you stupid.


Quote:

It does no such thing. You are effectively giving a license to Israel to do whatever she wants, because it can all be justified by this same twisted reasoning.

Abu, defending yourself against people launching rockets is not twisted logic. The palestinians have no-one to blame but themselves if they draw Israeli fire into heavily populated areas. The location of battle is the Palestinian's choice, not the Israelis. The Israeli's would prefer to take them on in a field, but the palestinians wouldn't prefer that because they wouldn't get to hide behind women and children then paly the victim to their biased Muslim neighbours. They would get slaughtered. They cannot face the reality of honourable warfare so they they choose to hide behind women and children.


Quote:

Is it allowed by international law and conventions of war to attack densely populated civilian areas, just because the enemy is amongst them?

If the enemy is launching missiles from there, I doubt there would be any law against it. Otherwise you effectively legalise and encourage hiding behind women and children while shooting. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp.


Quote:

But they're taking out mostly civilians, not fighters.

Again, that is the Palestinian's fault. They choose the heavily populated areas, not the Israelis.


Quote:

Don't you think if Hamas had better access to the Western media, and Israel didn't, you'd be hearing a different story?

They do have access to Western media and we do here different stories. But what they don't get is that playing the victim after drawing Israeli fire into urban areas just makes you look stupid and petulant. Claiming that Israel has no right to exist makes it hard for anyone to feel sorry for you.


Quote:

Since Israel often have no qualms about striking ambulances anyway

That's pretty twisted logic - use ambulances for military activities, then when Israel figures it out you claim they would have shot Ambulances anyway. Who is falling for the propagana now?

Abu for some reason you failed to comment on this also:


freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 9:47am:

Here we see more shameless propaganda from the Associated Press purporting to show Hamas firing rockets while positioned among civilians. Only those who blindly back Israel could see apartment buildings in that picture.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/jswill/hamas.jpg

Don't assume that access to western media automatically implies access to western sympathy. We don't ahve the same blinkers that say everything a Muslim does must be defended, and Dhimmis cannot be trusted because they are liars.

You've gotta be kidding Calanen? They were pathetic!

The first picture is of Palestinians resisting the Israelis and an armed fighter happens to be one of them, if  civilians are attacking the army themselves, then having an armed fighter amongst them means nothing. It is not a fighting hiding behind civilians. It is brave and courageous civilians rushing to protect their homes from the invading oppressor.

As for the second one, it's hard to tell what's happened. Looks like the civilians were taking cover from the coward Zionist around the corner, and the armed fighter is coming to their aid. Do you suggest he runs out around the civilians so the Israeli can shoot him? Yeh great strategy. But it's his fault the civilians are in danger... right?

As for the video, that's a joke. It doesn't show anything of the kind. All it shows is two cases of people running and taking young kids with them. Most likely they were snatching them out of danger as tear gas or something had been fired into the area.

Really pathetic..

All you can bring is out of context pictures and empty claims. Not a single piece of  evidence Hamas uses civilians shields, yet the evidence that tthe IDF uses human shields is abundant. Even Israelis themselves have documented and admitted it extensively.


Quote:

After seizing control of the buildings, the soldiers held six residents, two of them minors, on the staircases of the two buildings, at the entrance to rooms in which the soldiers positioned themselves, for some twelve hours. During this time, there were intense exchanges of gunfire between the soldiers and armed Palestinians. The soldiers also demanded that one of the occupants walk in front of them during a search of all the apartments in one of the buildings, after which they released her.

Israeli Human Rights groups documents IDF use of human shields.


Quote:

Before searching a house, we go to a neighbor, take him out of his house and tell him to call the person we want. If it works, great. If not, we blow down the door or hammer it open. The neighbor goes in first. If somebody is planning something, he is the one who gets it. Our instructions are to send him in and get everybody out - put the women and children in one room, handcuff the men and take them into another room. We take their ID cards and then go through the whole house with the neighbor to find the person we are looking for and take him.

Complete documentation of IDF use of human shields (doc format)


Quote:

Israel's Supreme Court on Thursday banned the military's practice of using Palestinian civilians as "human shields" in arrest raids, saying it violates international law.

Israeli court eventually bans use of human shields


Quote:

Despite repeated promises by the Israel Defense Forces not to make use of Palestinian civilians as ‘human shields’ during its activity in the territories, troops operating in Nablus were filmed ordering two Palestinian youths to stand in front of their vehicle to protect it from stones thrown by locals.

Video

I started a new topic on the use of human shields:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231666518

Quote:

Abu for some reason you failed to comment on this also:

I did comment on it. I said how do you know the site it's being launched from is not a military installation, or even Hamas headquarters? What in that picture makes you believe it's a residential apartment block?

Also, in case you haven't noticed, the Gaza strip is a very tiny piece of land, and is one of the most densely populated places on earth. The Israelis have pushed them into this fenced off refugee camp, the Palestinians didn't just choose to go there, so claiming they choose where to fire from is just ridiculous. What you're effectively saying is they shouldn't be allowed to fire and defend themselves, period. And this is your view anyway, Palestinians have no right to self defence, they're just supposed to sit on their hands and be slaughtered and expelled from their homes....

Quote:

The first picture is of Palestinians resisting the Israelis and an armed fighter happens to be one of them, if  civilians are attacking the army themselves, then having an armed fighter amongst them means nothing. It is not a fighting hiding behind civilians. It is brave and courageous civilians rushing to protect their homes from the invading oppressor.

No, the kid seems to be standing in front of the rocket firer, with his legs apart so the guy can fire the rocket through them. This is called the Mogadishu Sniper position, because of the penchant for skinnies in the Moge to use women and children to fire from behind.

So while this guy sets up and fires, there is a kid in the line of fire for any snipers looking to take him out.


Quote:

As for the second one, it's hard to tell what's happened. Looks like the civilians were taking cover from the coward Zionist around the corner, and the armed fighter is coming to their aid. Do you suggest he runs out around the civilians so the Israeli can shoot him? Yeh great strategy. But it's his fault the civilians are in danger... right?

No, perhaps putting the kids behind him might be a good idea.


Quote:

As for the video, that's a joke. It doesn't show anything of the kind. All it shows is two cases of people running and taking young kids with them. Most likely they were snatching them out of danger as tear gas or something had been fired into the area.

Look at the reluctance of the kid to move - the Hamas guys are taking him against his will. Why is that? The kid doesnt want to be out of the line of fire?

The fourth video, where a Hamas guy says 'We excel at being human shields etc' that is made up too?

Quote:

What you're effectively saying is they shouldn't be allowed to fire and defend themselves, period.

They are not firing in self defence. The firing quite obviously causes the deaths of palestinians. They are firing despite the obvious consequences.

Quote:

No, the kid seems to be standing in front of the rocket firer, with his legs apart so the guy can fire the rocket through them

That's a possibility, although we don't know the angle of the picture accurately eenough to tell. The kid could also just be having a light hearted joke and be 'leap-frogging' over the barrel of the gun (Even Palestinians like to have a little fun every now and then, contrary to your view of them as savage barbaians).


Quote:

No, perhaps putting the kids behind him might be a good idea.

The picture captures a nano-second (or less) of what actually happened. How do we know he didn't just arrive and then proceeded to get them out of the line of fire? We don't, but it's quite obvious you are intent on assuming the worst... so there's really no point in even bothering to argue with you. Your initial assumption is ALWAYS evil Muslims....


Quote:

Look at the reluctance of the kid to move - the Hamas guys are taking him against his will. Why is that?

Palestinian kids are brave, we all know that. One just has to see them flinging rocks at armed storm troopers or armoured tanks, to know this. So maybe he didn't wanna be held back from his enemy... Who knows? We don't.

Also, I'm interested how you know the guy taking him is from Hamas?


Quote:

The kid doesnt want to be out of the line of fire?

You assume a lot. It's about a 1.5 second clip, yet you seem to know the intentions of all involved.. How perceptive you are.


Quote:

The fourth video, where a Hamas guy says 'We excel at being human shields etc' that is made up too?

I didn't see that. Even if he did, he said "we" not "they" so that just disproves your point. Hamas see themselves as the shields, not the non-Hamas civilians. Either way, every single person in Gaza is a human shield and potentially collateral damage, this says more about the lack of morality of the Zionists and about the densely populated nature of the strip than it does about the bravery and courage of Hamas.

But if it helps you soothe your conscience, and convinces you your enemy are lesser than you, go ahead, imho though they're all quite obviously very ambigious scenes.

Palestinian kids are brave...  really...  braver than who?

Israeli soldiers.

Anyway on the issue of human shields, it's very simple. There's absolutely no evidence Hamas deliberately use human shields, other than they happen to be in the same tiny little densely populated area as the civilians, that's the choosing of Israel, not of Hamas. Also freedivers claim that they 'draw' Israeli fire is as ridiculous as claiming the IDF 'draw' suicide bombers onto buses.

I'm sure if Hamas could have the wide open spaces the IDF have, they'd gladly build military facilities in them, especially if the US were going to give them some really sophisticated missiles systems free of charge. Having better resources and better access to the media doesn't put you in the right, and likewise lack of them doesn't make you wrong. Except in the minds of the fickle.

And as we saw with the UN school incident, Israel immediately did their usual trick of claiming militants were firing from inside, but the UN proved that no militants were inside. So their propagandous lies were undone... how many times they are not undone though is your dilemma... how many times have you just parroted absolute garbage, believing it to be the truth, with no evidence whatsoever, except IDF claims (against their enemy, no less).

Are ther bunkers under gaza's main hospital?

Quote:

Also freedivers claim that they 'draw' Israeli fire is as ridiculous as claiming the IDF 'draw' suicide bombers onto buses.

No it is not rediculous, because the IDF response is often immediate. They are literally drawing fire onto civilian areas.


Quote:

I'm sure if Hamas could have the wide open spaces the IDF have, they'd gladly build military facilities in them

;D Abu, time to face facts - Hamas is getting it's arse kicked. It could not survive any kind of military engagement without women and children to hide behind. They are not brave enough for that. They will only fight while they can get some political mileage from dead palestinian children. If their propaganda stopped working on people like you, they would stop sacrificing their own children for a few photo ops.


Quote:

Having better resources and better access to the media doesn't put you in the right, and likewise lack of them doesn't make you wrong.

Strawman. I didn't say they were wrong because they are losers, they are wrong because they hide behind women and children.

Gee I didn't know there wasn't any open land in Gaza...  I guess it's just one big city eh..   ::)

Ok this is obviously going nowhere... You've made up your minds, the IDF reports are true, end of story.

Do any of you admit the IDF sometimes tells tales? Like the UN school they hit? Or is the UN just too pro-Palestinian, and therefore are lying to protect them and slander Israel?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 11^th, 2009 at 9:32pm:

Quote: No, the kid seems to be standing in front of the rocket firer, with his legs apart so the guy can fire the rocket through them [quote]That's a possibility, although we don't know the angle of the picture accurately eenough to tell. The kid could also just be having a light hearted joke and be 'leap-frogging' over the barrel of the gun (Even Palestinians like to have a little fun every now and then, contrary to your view of them as savage barbaians).

He seems to be stationary. And he couldnt be leapfrogging onto the top of the Hamas guy.


Quote:

No, perhaps putting the kids behind him might be a good idea.

Quote:

The picture captures a nano-second (or less) of what actually happened. How do we know he didn't just arrive and then proceeded to get them out of the line of fire?

Because they dont do that.


Quote:

Look at the reluctance of the kid to move - the Hamas guys are taking him against his will. Why is that?

Quote:

Palestinian kids are brave, we all know that. One just has to see them flinging rocks at armed storm troopers or armoured tanks, to know this. So maybe he didn't wanna be held back from his enemy... Who knows? We don't.

Yes he was bravely wanting to keep resisting, when his Hamas operative would not let him.


Quote:

The kid doesnt want to be out of the line of fire?

You assume a lot. It's about a 1.5 second clip, yet you seem to know the intentions of all involved.. How perceptive you are. I


Quote:

The fourth video, where a Hamas guy says 'We excel at being human shields etc' that is made up too?

Quote:

I didn't see that. Even if he did, he said "we" not "they" so that just disproves your point. Hamas see themselves as the shields, not the non-Hamas civilians. Either way, every single person in Gaza is a human shield and potentially collateral damage, this says more about the lack of morality of the Zionists and about the densely populated nature of the strip than it does about the bravery and courage of Hamas.

It's right above - here is the transcript:

Hamas MP Fathi Hammad: We Used Women and Children as Human Shields  

Following are excerpts from a speech delivered by Hamas MP Fathi Hammad, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on February 29, 2008.

Fathi Hammad: [The enemies of Allah] do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its [methods] of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: "We desire death like you desire life."

I can't believe that lunatic got elected. I can't believe Abu is still denying the use of human shields.

Quote:

And as we saw with the UN school incident, Israel immediately did their usual trick of claiming militants were firing from inside, but the UN proved that no militants were inside.

The UN didnt prove anything. Some of their 'officials' just said the UN school had nothing to do with Hamas blah blah. Which they said, when the School Headmaster turned out to be HAMAS' chief rocket engineer.

And putting to one side that the IDF dug up two known Hamas members in the rubble of the building, whose names they released.

Calanen... umm no try again.

The headmaster who was supposedly a rocket engineer is a completely different case. I'm talking about the UN school bombed in Jabaliyah (from memory) about a week ago, which the UN confirmed they searched every single person who sought refuge inside, and not a single one of them had any weapons on them. After this, Israel declined to comment (after having previously claimed they were firing on militants who were fighting from the school), and we've heard  nothing from them since.... Sounds like you're more eager to invent propaganada for them than they even are?

Oh, so you're not talking about the school that was run by the Hamas rocket engineer and used by militants? Did the Israelis bomb the wrong one?

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 10:25am:

Oh, so you're not talking about the school that was run by the Hamas rocket engineer and used by militants? Did the Israelis bomb the wrong one?

The school was not run by a Hamas rocket engineer.

You see, you seem to take whatever the IDF spokesman, or Israeli government say as gospel. All your propaganda and information has it roots their. No verification by independant sources, no evidence provided to back up the lies.

Whereas, as Abu has already stated, the UN (an independent organisation) has no reason to lie, and the UN director of Gaza already stated clearly that it was certain that no militants were hiding in the school. None...they checked.

In addition to this, it has been reported that the Israeli's in fact advised civilians to hide in the school, and then proceeded to bomb it.

In addition, the UN had clearly marked the school, and had sent the co-ordinates to the IDF. Given that the IDF and UN are in constant communication...if we are to believe these lies that Hamas were using the school, then why wouldn't the IDF inform the UN before the bombing?

Once again...your zionist lies are rather easily exposed.

Lestat I think we are talking about two different schools here, not two different versions of what went on at one school.

Quote:

Given that the IDF and UN are in constant communication...if we are to believe these lies that Hamas were using the school, then why wouldn't the IDF inform the UN before the bombing?

Because that would be the same as informing Hamas before the bombing?

They dug two militants out of the rubble. They've been seen on tape firing from that school before. The headmaster of the school was a rocket engineer. They brag about using children as human shields, and when that is pointed out, the women and children become 'volunteer patriots' - how can a child, rationally and informedly consent to volunteering to be a human shield in a war?

They booby trapped another school and a zoo.

For most people thats enough. But for others, they are never convinced whatever happens.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 12:53pm:

Lestat I think we are talking about two different schools here, not two different versions of what went on at one school.

It was the one and same school freediver, though you can correct me if you like. the UN run school.

Calanen wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 1:10pm:

Quote: Given that the IDF and UN are in constant communication...if we are to believe these lies that Hamas were using the school, then why wouldn't the IDF inform the UN before the bombing? Because that would be the same as informing Hamas before the bombing? They dug two militants out of the rubble. They've been seen on tape firing from that school before. The headmaster of the school was a rocket engineer. They brag about using children as human shields, and when that is pointed out, the women and children become 'volunteer patriots' - how can a child, rationally and informedly consent to volunteering to be a human shield in a war? They booby trapped another school and a zoo. For most people thats enough. But for others, they are never convinced whatever happens.

Care to provide a source. In the other thread I provided a source to an article in the AGE where the UN categorically stated that there were NO Hamas militants using the school, and that after searching through all the rubble they found no evidence or Hamas militants in the school.

Now you are saying that the Age is wrong, the UN director is lieing, and that twho militants were in fact found in the rubble.

Could you provide a source, and do you have any evidence, besides the words of an Israeli PR spokesman?

This should be good....

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Quote: Is this another joke? Like the "blindly following" fabrication that got spoken of yesterday? Can you verify if that is a serious statement please. Did you provide a quote from me stating I have an imam?

No, Soren did probably within minutes of your request for the quote. Gaybriel assumed that you were joking. I am not aware of you responding.


abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Quote: But you have condemned many things since I have joined this forum Yeh, and? Is there some kind of unwritten rule I'm not aware of, that if you condemn something, you must condemn everything else? Please elaborate.

Unwritten rules are elusive. Maybe consistancy is a good starting point. When you openly plead a special case because you share a fellowship of belief that excludes any negative comment, does not mean I have to accept it either. I have right of debate to say that is a crock if you are trying to establish an integrity to your commentry.


abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Quote: You're only guilty of "flat out refuse to condemn acts committed by Muslims". I could only bee guilty of it, if there were some requirement upon me to condemn them. So if you can point me in the direction of which law or code demands that I must condemn them, then we have ourselves a discussion.

You can say what you like. It is up to us a witnesses whether you should or can be taken seriously. You have enough codes and laws to worry about that by your own admission limit what you can and will say.


abu_rashid wrote on Jan 10^th, 2009 at 10:39pm:

Quote: You can at least separate yourself intelligently by admitting that terrorists are launching rockets from centres of civilian populations What evidence do you have that they are doing this? Apart from IDF reports. Sorry, but I'm suree you can see why they couldn't be considered a credible source for such claims. Besides, all of Gaza is a warzone now, fighting from any location is quite normal procedure for any military force Even the IDF have been using houses for cover... Sorry, I forgot, this rule only applies to Palestinians, my mistake.

You see on the one hand you don't want to admit it. It just simply goes against the grain. Then in the next paragraph you try to justify it. What is it?

You who CAN'T/WON'T say anything bad about other Muslims are making comments about credibility.

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

Yes they are the ones. The ones that you ran away from without answering the questions.

My apologies...I guess I realised that my time is better spent with my family, then a bunch of red neck bigots who will attack my religon and way of life with every opportunity they can.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

Without providing the links to other sources that I asked for more than once.

Those 'other sources' have been provided a number of times. You just aren't looking, and only see what you want to.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

They weren't well known anti-Islamic sites to me.

C'mon mate...who you are kidding. Anyone with half a brain would know that jihadwatch is a well known anti-Islamic site...and if you didn't know, then a 2 minute read of the content would more then confirm it.

I suspect you are being deliberately facetious...no one could possibly be that dumb or naive.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

I've waiting for your return. And you have returned in all your mouth froathing bad mannered glory. HUZZAH!!!

As I said above, I'd rather spend my time with my kids, then try to convince some babbling fool that wants to spread hate, lies and fear.

lol..bad manners? You serious?

Generalisations, accusations, and insults are also bad manners aren't they locuitus.

Perhaps you should look at your own behavoiur before b(tching abou tothers.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

No, no, no. I did not say that nor did the link. The link stated that a Mulim may be friendly to a non-believer but not have a deep friendship. There is a difference.

Either way..it is a complete load of crap, and we have shown it to be. Abu provided a link recently which explained quite clearly the Islamic POV...but ofcourse you chose to ignore this, cause as I said ealier...it doesn't fit into your already pre-concieved idea's.




locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

I asked a question. You took offence. Did you investigate what was asked. Maybe there are things about your religion you do not know. maybe it is true but you don't know or don't want to know, because if true it offends your sense of justice or fairness. But the demands of monotheism contradict justice and fairness often in my opinion regardless of the three books you ascribe to.

You posted a link making a claim, and then asked what was clearly a loaded question.

I didn't need to 'investigate' what was asked, cause as I said, the fact that you chose to post a well known anti-Islamic link with your question, speaks volumes.

It clearly implies that you are not interested in asking a sincere question, but was using the link to attack our beliefs, and what you 'think' is our position on non-muslim friends.

And even now...you say 'maybe its true and I don't know'. Are you serious?

Have you thought that maybe...its is far more likely that it is you that is wrong...about a great number of things I might add.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

You did not provide me with a version (link), you provided me with an opinion. I asked at least twice for a version.

Why would I need too.

You stated that muslims cannot take non-muslims for friends, and you posted a link which has been known to be incorrect, and is very much an anti-Islamic site.

I told you that most of my best friends are non-muslims...hence straight away...I am the proof, that these claims are nothing but nonsence. Now why would I lie? What motive could I possibly have?

Do you seriously believe some of this crap you come up with..cause really, its a worry if you do.

Besides, links have been provided on this very topic, their is one right now at the top of this page..however, like I said, you weren't looking for answers...cause if you were, you wouldn't of posted a clearly anti-Islamic link.

People who are sincerely asking questions don't often post their own answers.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

I had no pre-concieved idea. Just a question. So you have non-muslims that are your friends. Maybe you are just friendly to them. Maybe they are your friends but you don't know that you are doing the wrong thing with that claim. Or maybe you are not a good Muslim because you prefer to keep them as friends regardless. I don't know.

This is precisely my point. When I tell you that most of my best firends are non-muslim...here you are with numerous questions...doubting my claim. Its almost like your default position is to doubt what I am saying.

Yet where were all these questions when you first visited Jihadwatch, and decided to post that nonsense in the first place?

No..no questions then were there, of course not. You took what was said to be fact, yet here we are now, when I tell you that my best friends are non-muslims..all of a sudden here you are with all these questions.

Why is that do you think?

probably a good thing you don't tell your best-friend what you think and they don't know what you write here

Quote:

I didn't need to 'investigate' what was asked, cause as I said, the fact that you chose to post a well known anti-Islamic link with your question, speaks volumes.

Argumentum ad hominem. Just because it's on Jihadwatch does not mean it is wrong.

locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

Questions are not attacks. Questions build understanding.

They are attacks when you provide what you believe to be the answer. And as I said above, where were your questions when you did a google search and stumbled across the first anti-Islamic site you could find. Why didn't your 'questions' at least direct you to one Islamic source for your information?

It seems that you are very selective with when you ask questions...and more importantly..why.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

And of course I do attack beliefs that I don't agree with. What else should I be doing. Embrace them?

Thats fine...but please, don't then turn around and attack others for doing likewise. It does nothing but make you look a hypocrite.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

Then lets get back to those past topics, refresh them. I mentioned some already.

What topics? I asked a simple question...you seem to think that I am such a huge threat to you and your way of like...I would of thought that their would be heaps of things you could list of the top of your head.

I'll ask again...

What beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life.

Really...you should stop making silly generalisations and remember that at the end of the day, we are all human beings. Yes..even muslims...believe it or not.


locutius wrote on Jan 8^th, 2009 at 2:33pm:

I don't know......and no. But we may not have a choice.

This is a cop out. You always have a choice. And before you make it, just remember, every choice has its consequences.

Grendel wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:19pm:

probably a good thing you don't tell your best-friend what you think and they don't know what you write here

At least I have friends Grendel. What a pathetic lonely life you must lead.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:20pm:

Quote: I didn't need to 'investigate' what was asked, cause as I said, the fact that you chose to post a well known anti-Islamic link with your question, speaks volumes. Argumentum ad hominem. Just because it's on Jihadwatch does not mean it is wrong.

lol...ad hominem hey. Whatever .....

No, its wrong because there are many muslims that have non-muslim friends, and muslims here on this site have told you this a number of times, yet you still insist on parrotting the same old lies.

Cause your a bigot.

Quote:

They are attacks when you provide what you believe to be the answer.

No they aren't. That is a coomon tool to aid communication. It encourages the person answering the question to directly address any misunderstanding on the part of the person posing the question. It prevents miscommunication through ambiguity.


Quote:

I'll ask again... What beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life.

How about isntead of repeatedly asking the question, you respond to our answers. There are plenty of examples here. Let's start with rejecting democracy and personal freedom and the imposition of dictatoprship eh?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/wiki/index.php?title=Islam_and_Australian_values


Quote:

lol...ad hominem hey. Whatever .....

Hmmm, wasn;t that the same response you used for other 'too difficult' issues?

Lestat wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:24pm:

... At least I have friends Grendel. What a pathetic lonely life you must lead.

Of course you do, that's why you keep coming here. :)

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:27pm:

No they aren't. That is a coomon tool to aid communication. It encourages the person answering the question to directly address any misunderstanding on the part of the person posing the question. It prevents miscommunication through ambiguity.

Really....would that be like....

Tell me Freediver..why do you continously ask stupid questions even though you have been given the answers numerous times?

Maybe its because you already have pre-conceived idea's and refuse to accept, or even acknowledge the answers given.


As you say...just preventing miscommunication.


freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:27pm:

How about isntead of repeatedly asking the question, you respond to our answers. There are plenty of examples here. Let's start with rejecting democracy and personal freedom and the imposition of dictatoprship eh?

Why can't you answer a simple question. I've asked it a number of times now.

Why do you expect me to answer your questions when you are unwilling to answer mine.

If you would like to know why we refuse to answer any of your silly questions FD, look no further then this thread here.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1231375322


freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:27pm:

Hmmm, wasn;t that the same response you used for other 'too difficult' issues?

Actually..it is the response that you use for the 'too difficult' issues. It is well known, terms like this, oh, and your other favorites...'false dihictomy'..and 'strawman'.

Meaningless terms that you without fail pull out when you refuse to address an issue. I see not much has changed.

tallowood wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:29pm:

Lestat wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 8:24pm: ... At least I have friends Grendel. What a pathetic lonely life you must lead. Of course you do, that's why you keep coming here. :)

Your here far more then me sunshine...so what does that say about you? :)

Lestat wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 9:09pm:

tallowood wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 8:29pm: Lestat wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 8:24pm: ... At least I have friends Grendel. What a pathetic lonely life you must lead. Of course you do, that's why you keep coming here. :) Your here far more then me sunshine...so what does that say about you? :)

That you think that I am your friend  ;) ;) ;)

tallowood wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 9:19pm:

Lestat wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 9:09pm: tallowood wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 8:29pm: Lestat wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 8:24pm: ... At least I have friends Grendel. What a pathetic lonely life you must lead. Of course you do, that's why you keep coming here. :) Your here far more then me sunshine...so what does that say about you? :) That you think that I am your friend  ;) ;) ;)

But not my 'real friend'...cause apparently muslims can't have non-musims as 'real friends'.

Just ask Locuitus.

Calanen,

As I've stated several times before, you're either an outright liar, prostituting your soul to defend this crap, or you're just gullible and don't have the capacity to know any better, either way your credibility in this debate is shot.


Quote:

The headmaster of the school was a rocket engineer.

This case, as I mentioned has NOTHING at all to do with the current conflict in Gaza. It is old news, from about 8 months ago, that you either deliberately or inadvertadly dredged  up to support your failing arguments.

EXCLUSIVE-Gaza headmaster was Islamic Jihad "rocket-maker" (Mon May 5, 2008 9:08am EDT)

Note: In May of last year it  *was* exclusive, today it's just old news that you've falsely used to bolster your argument. I really should be a little more diligent, and investigate all your trumped up claims. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them turn out like this.

Freediver,

You should really be a little more diligent too and not just jump on the bandwagon. Or you risk losing credibility along with this guy.

Now I will ask again, the U.N school that was bombed by Israel on Jan 9th. 2009 in Jabaliyah refugee camp, and Israel reported militants fired from inside there, a claim the UN disproved, and Israel later admitted was perhaps a 'mistake'. This makes it quite clear that Israel instantly claims everything was a case of human shields, militants inside etc. yet sometimes they get exposed as lies. How about all the other times nobody's there to expose it? After all, who here believes anything whatsoever that Hamas says?

Israeli massacre at UN school exposed
No militants in bombed Gaza school: UN
Israeli shelling kills dozens at UN school in Gaza

Lestat wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 8:22pm:

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: Questions are not attacks. Questions build understanding. They are attacks when you provide what you believe to be the answer. And as I said above, where were your questions when you did a google search and stumbled across the first anti-Islamic site you could find. Why didn't your 'questions' at least direct you to one Islamic source for your information? It seems that you are very selective with when you ask questions...and more importantly..why. locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: And of course I do attack beliefs that I don't agree with. What else should I be doing. Embrace them? Thats fine...but please, don't then turn around and attack others for doing likewise. It does nothing but make you look a hypocrite. locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: Then lets get back to those past topics, refresh them. I mentioned some already. What topics? I asked a simple question...you seem to think that I am such a huge threat to you and your way of like...I would of thought that their would be heaps of things you could list of the top of your head. I'll ask again... What beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life. Really...you should stop making silly generalisations and remember that at the end of the day, we are all human beings. Yes..even muslims...believe it or not. locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: I don't know......and no. But we may not have a choice. This is a cop out. You always have a choice. And before you make it, just remember, every choice has its consequences.

I should have realized that this was all just a little too sophisticated for you Lestat.

Thanks for saying .................... nothing.

It seems bigot, bigot, bigot scares away most of your critics.

locutius wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 10:34pm:

Lestat wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 8:22pm: locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: Questions are not attacks. Questions build understanding. They are attacks when you provide what you believe to be the answer. And as I said above, where were your questions when you did a google search and stumbled across the first anti-Islamic site you could find. Why didn't your 'questions' at least direct you to one Islamic source for your information? It seems that you are very selective with when you ask questions...and more importantly..why. locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: And of course I do attack beliefs that I don't agree with. What else should I be doing. Embrace them? Thats fine...but please, don't then turn around and attack others for doing likewise. It does nothing but make you look a hypocrite. locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: Then lets get back to those past topics, refresh them. I mentioned some already. What topics? I asked a simple question...you seem to think that I am such a huge threat to you and your way of like...I would of thought that their would be heaps of things you could list of the top of your head. I'll ask again... What beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life. Really...you should stop making silly generalisations and remember that at the end of the day, we are all human beings. Yes..even muslims...believe it or not. locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009 at 2:33pm: I don't know......and no. But we may not have a choice. This is a cop out. You always have a choice. And before you make it, just remember, every choice has its consequences. I should have realized that this was all just a little too sophisticated for you Lestat. Thanks for saying .................... nothing. It seems bigot, bigot, bigot scares away most of your critics.

Actually, my post was made up of a little more then that Locuitus (actually, I have looked but for some reason I cannot even find the word 'bigot' in any of my post that you quoted), but then again, I'm not really surprised by your response...or lack of.

Obviously I've asked questions that you don't want to answer. Thats ok..I suspect I already know what those answers are. :)

No, Lestat. You said nothing more. Unless along with your antidotal "evidence" it is backed up with perfect understanding of your religion in it's entirety. Is that what you are saying?

You added no new substance to the your claims, that I had already addressed.

You use the word bigot a lot. maybe it works for you with the general public. Luckily it does not frighten too many away on this forum.

Quote:

You use the word bigot a lot. maybe it works for you with the general public.

Wouldn't frighten me. Its just one of the weapons that jihadis have in their arsenal to silence critics. What is incredibly stupid, is that our own Fifth Columnists gave it to them.

The Socialist Alliance has been handing out pamphlets at the Lakemba Mosque encouraging people to demonstrate against Israel re the Gaza conflict. They have also formed the Defence of Gaza Action Committee or some such. Interestingly, I've been watching discussions of muslims about this, who were asking whether they should trust the kuffar over this, because, they would want a 'muslim solution' rather than a humanitarian one. 'For now' seemed to be the response.

I wonder what a 'muslim solution' would mean? Beheadings?

locutius wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 11:02pm:

No, Lestat. You said nothing more. Unless along with your antidotal "evidence" it is backed up with perfect understanding of your religion in it's entirety. Is that what you are saying?

Well..yes, that is what I am saying. When it comes to my religon...I know more then you, that is a fact, and I have a very clear understanding (lets say perfect) on the laws regarding 'friendship' with non-muslims.

But thats ok..I understand that you find jihadWatch much more to your liking. No questioning its claims...but subservient acceptance of what you suspected all along.


locutius wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 11:02pm:

You added no new substance to the your claims, that I had already addressed.

Whats there to add Locuitus. I have told a you a number of times now, most of my best friends are non-muslims. Yet you seem to question my claims.

The Islamic POV regarding friendship with non-muslims has been explained to you a number of times now...and ironically, you say I have added no substance, then the fact is my post had far more substance then you link to an anti-Islamic site which made a claim without providing any evidence or anything whatsoever to back up that claim.

I'll ask again...where were your questions when  you first read, and then provided a link to Jihad watch?

Why don't you want to answer the question. Maybe because you can't.


locutius wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 11:02pm:

You use the word bigot a lot. maybe it works for you with the general public. Luckily it does not frighten too many away on this forum.

Why do you insist on lies to some how discredit me. As I said...not once did I call you a bigot in the my post you quoted. Here it is for you again.....

"Lestat wrote on Yesterday at 8:22pm:
locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009, 2:33pm:
Questions are not attacks. Questions build understanding.

They are attacks when you provide what you believe to be the answer. And as I said above, where were your questions when you did a google search and stumbled across the first anti-Islamic site you could find. Why didn't your 'questions' at least direct you to one Islamic source for your information?

It seems that you are very selective with when you ask questions...and more importantly..why.

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009, 2:33pm:
And of course I do attack beliefs that I don't agree with. What else should I be doing. Embrace them?

Thats fine...but please, don't then turn around and attack others for doing likewise. It does nothing but make you look a hypocrite.

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009, 2:33pm:
Then lets get back to those past topics, refresh them. I mentioned some already.

What topics? I asked a simple question...you seem to think that I am such a huge threat to you and your way of like...I would of thought that their would be heaps of things you could list of the top of your head.

I'll ask again...

What beliefs DO I have that are a threat to you freedom and quality of life.

Really...you should stop making silly generalisations and remember that at the end of the day, we are all human beings. Yes..even muslims...believe it or not.

locutius wrote on Jan 8th, 2009, 2:33pm:
I don't know......and no. But we may not have a choice.

This is a cop out. You always have a choice. And before you make it, just remember, every choice has its consequences. "



Its interesting...that twice now you have crapped on about how I've called you a bigot, and interestingly you have quoted my post where the word does not appear once. When I challenged you on this you once again flatly refused to answer.

Yet here you are again making the same lie. Why do you lie Locuitus...this is not a western characteristic, as I know many westerners who do not lie.

Perhaps it is a symptom of Islamophobes..it would appear they all have this in common.

Calanen wrote on Jan 13^th, 2009 at 11:10pm:

Quote: You use the word bigot a lot. maybe it works for you with the general public. Wouldn't frighten me. Its just one of the weapons that jihadis have in their arsenal to silence critics. What is incredibly stupid, is that our own Fifth Columnists gave it to them. The Socialist Alliance has been handing out pamphlets at the Lakemba Mosque encouraging people to demonstrate against Israel re the Gaza conflict. They have also formed the Defence of Gaza Action Committee or some such. Interestingly, I've been watching discussions of muslims about this, who were asking whether they should trust the kuffar over this, because, they would want a 'muslim solution' rather than a humanitarian one. 'For now' seemed to be the response. I wonder what a 'muslim solution' would mean? Beheadings?

Yes...your a brave internet here you are. Hiding behind your keyboard. You must be really proud.

Whereas...out in the real world I have no doubt you are nothing but a coward...your barely raises a whimper.

I've seen your type before...internet nerds that seem to have only have a dose of courage when their words and lies have no consequences.

I bet in person you would be extremely nice to me...yet behind my back .... would be completely different.

This is how your type work. I've dealt with scum like you before.

Lestat wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 6:58am:

Calanen wrote on Jan 13th, 2009 at 11:10pm: Quote: You use the word bigot a lot. maybe it works for you with the general public. Wouldn't frighten me. Its just one of the weapons that jihadis have in their arsenal to silence critics. What is incredibly stupid, is that our own Fifth Columnists gave it to them. The Socialist Alliance has been handing out pamphlets at the Lakemba Mosque encouraging people to demonstrate against Israel re the Gaza conflict. They have also formed the Defence of Gaza Action Committee or some such. Interestingly, I've been watching discussions of muslims about this, who were asking whether they should trust the kuffar over this, because, they would want a 'muslim solution' rather than a humanitarian one. 'For now' seemed to be the response. I wonder what a 'muslim solution' would mean? Beheadings? [quote]Yes...your a brave internet here you are. Hiding behind your keyboard. You must be really proud.

Now now, you might hurt my internetz feelings....


Quote:

Whereas...out in the real world I have no doubt you are nothing but a coward...your barely raises a whimper.

Well - let's say you are 100% right. Does it matter? Or that you are wrong, does it matter? And certainly, your opinion of me doesnt change my circumstances. I don't need your validation for my ego.


Quote:

I've seen your type before...internet nerds that seem to have only have a dose of courage when their words and lies have no consequences.

Now, I imagine this is designed to get some sort of reaction. But, what reaction would be appropriate? Have a pointless debate about who is more courageous? Bit on the kindergarten side. It's more of your 'Im the King of the Castle' rhetoric. Very lowbrow.


Quote:

I bet in person you would be extremely nice to me...yet behind my back .... would be completely different.

Who knows. Seems like you have a bit of an internet forum board therapeutic diagnosis thing going on. Hope it works out for you.


Quote:

This is how your type work. I've dealt with scum like you before.

Now now, temper temper. Sticks and stones etc etc...

Quote:

Actually..it is the response that you use for the 'too difficult' issues. It is well known, terms like this, oh, and your other favorites...'false dihictomy'..and 'strawman'. Meaningless terms that you without fail pull out when you refuse to address an issue. I see not much has changed.

Sorry, I forgot to include the link. If you don't know what they mean lestat, check here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#false%20dichotomy


Quote:

This case, as I mentioned has NOTHING at all to do with the current conflict in Gaza. It is old news, from about 8 months ago, that you either deliberately or inadvertadly dredged  up to support your failing arguments.

Are you changing your mind about whether it is relevant in response to the facts about the school?


Quote:

Now I will ask again, the U.N school that was bombed by Israel on Jan 9th. 2009 in Jabaliyah refugee camp

So it is two different schools, contrary to what Lestat posted?


Quote:

I've been watching discussions of muslims about this, who were asking whether they should trust the kuffar over this, because, they would want a 'muslim solution' rather than a humanitarian one. 'For now' seemed to be the response. I wonder what a 'muslim solution' would mean? Beheadings?

Well according to Abu Israel has no right to exist. Perhaps if the Jews welcomed the Muslim overloards with open arms, they could live there as second class citizens and experience another 'golden age'.


Quote:

Well..yes, that is what I am saying. When it comes to my religon...I know more then you, that is a fact, and I have a very clear understanding (lets say perfect) on the laws regarding 'friendship' with non-muslims.

Abu seemed highly critical of your understanding of Islamic rules in the other thread. Given your reticence to actually discuss it, beyond saying you've already explained it and won't go into any more detail, I can hardly be confident that you know what you are talking about. You spend more time trying to justify not explaining Islam than actually explaining it.


Quote:

Now, I imagine this is designed to get some sort of reaction. But, what reaction would be appropriate? Have a pointless debate about who is more courageous? Bit on the kindergarten side. It's more of your 'Im the King of the Castle' rhetoric. Very lowbrow.

At least Lestat has stopped making up putrid accusations against people's family members.

find it hilarious that the 2 Muslims zealots here are the ones who continually speak in colours and about races...  closet racists perhaps.

Does it mean if you dont like some part of someone elses culture, your automatically a racist

Quote:

Well..yes, that is what I am saying. When it comes to my religon...I know more then you, that is a fact, and I have a very clear understanding (lets say perfect) on the laws regarding 'friendship' with non-muslims.

I may have missed the comment Lestat. What do the "laws" say about friendships with non-muslims?

It probably says you cant be friends with the infidel but you can move to their country, buy a Tarago or a Land Cruiser, have 5 or 6 kids, clogg up Centrelink, drool over the woman then try eventually demand an Islamic state within a state, with plans to out populate the locals, it goes something like that.

I think you are allowed to talk to them in a friendly manner in order to convert them or if you have some kind of business dealings with them. Other than that, you are not allowed to be actual friends. In practice, I would expect that the potential to convert friends to Islam basically rules all friendships in, but the frienship itself has no inherent value and from the Muslim's perspective, he has wasted his time by being your friend if you don't convert. In Islam, everything is judged by whether it furthers Islam. There is no inherent good, or judging a tree by it's fruit, other than the furthering of Islam. Likewise, anything that furthers Islam cannot be bad.

Lol, yes they're pretty much the understandings I have of lslamic "LAW", but I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth - the "expert".

I will refer you to the Common misconceptions.. thread, which has a very clear article that explains the misconception about friendship with non-Muslims. It's quite clearly a mistranslation that's caused this misconception to be propagated.

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 8:49pm:

I will refer you to the Common misconceptions.. thread, which has a very clear article that explains the misconception about friendship with non-Muslims. It's quite clearly a mistranslation that's caused this misconception to be propagated.

Reading the Koran or musulman attempts of explaining what they want infidels to think about their beliefs is like looking at an Escher drawing during a major psychochemical intervention - an utter, helpless and hopeless disorientation, desolate discombobulation and a  suffocating fear of oozing, creeping insanity.
[mod: respect for religious texts please]

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 8:49pm:

I will refer you to the Common misconceptions.. thread, which has a very clear article that explains the misconception about friendship with non-Muslims. It's quite clearly a mistranslation that's caused this misconception to be propagated.

I tried reading it. It is not exactly clear. It seems to focus on Koranic quotes that you claim do not refer to friendship, while avoiding the actual issue of friendship. It seems to be pure diversion from the issue. If you pose a question about Islam's take on friendship, why don't you simply respond by explaining Islam's take on friendship, rather than going into great detail about why certain quotes are not relevant?

freediver....

The claims that Islam prohibits friendships with non-Muslims is based on the mistranslation of the word "awliya". So quite obviously exposing how that translation is grossly incorrect, would dispel the myth... Wouldn't that go without saying?

What I'd like someone to do is to show me any sentence in the Arabic language which translates as "I'm going out to play with my awliya" or "I'm going to go to the cinema with my awliya" etc. Obviously since most here don't speak Arabic, you're going to be hard pressed to come up with such things. But I guarantee you, it simply doesn't mean friends. Arabic is a very rich language, and there's many many words to describe friendship, none of them are even remotely related to awliya.

If you'd like to see what Google translate does with such sentences, just paste this sentence:

أحب أن ألعب مع الأولياء

It means "I love to play with awliya". I guarantee you it won't translate it as friends, because it's simply not the meaning.

Here's a great idea. Why don't you just say what the 'rule' actually is?

freediver,

There's no rule. Muslims are free to be friends with anyone they like. However, it should be with pious people. Just as an example, A Muslim man may marry a Jewish or Christian wife. Do you think his wife is not his friend? What kind of ridiculous nonsense are you pushing here?

When the basis of a claim is shown to be false, so too is the claim. The ONLY basis for the claim Islam prohibits friendships with non-Muslims, is the verses relating to awliya. My suggestion to you freediver, is that you at least familiarise yourself with your own side of the argument, because you don't even seem to know what the 'evidences' are in support of claim Islam prohibits such friedships.

I'm asuming that many muslims read the quran in english. Why isn't Allah's word translated correctly?

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:35pm:

freediver.... The claims that Islam prohibits friendships with non-Muslims is based on the mistranslation of the word "awliya". So quite obviously exposing how that translation is grossly incorrect, would dispel the myth... Wouldn't that go without saying? What I'd like someone to do is to show me any sentence in the Arabic language which translates as "I'm going out to play with my awliya" or "I'm going to go to the cinema with my awliya" etc. Obviously since most here don't speak Arabic, you're going to be hard pressed to come up with such things. But I guarantee you, it simply doesn't mean friends. Arabic is a very rich language, and there's many many words to describe friendship, none of them are even remotely related to awliya. If you'd like to see what Google translate does with such sentences, just paste this sentence: أحب أن ألعب مع الأولياء It means "I love to play with awliya". I guarantee you it won't translate it as friends, because it's simply not the meaning.

Tired old furphy, I'm afraid, Arabic. You don't have to be a non-muslim not to understand arabic. Hundreds of millions of muslims don't, either.  
If a doctrine cannot be rendered clearly then it is not worth following. Yet PLENTY of muslims of every hue and tongue believe that they cannot be true friends with kaffirs like, say, 98.5% of your compatriots. These people are not deciphering old Arabic most contemporary Arabs don't undertsand themseles. No, these people have taken, are taking, instructions in islamic doctrine on a daily or at least weekly basis. They must have read this bit of advice somewhere:


098.006
YUSUFALI: Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
PICKTHAL: Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.
SHAKIR: Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men.




Can Muslims be friends with the worst possible creatures? Shurely shome mishtake.

Well if this is some sort of mistranslation, then it's a real doozy.
Considering that Australia is basically a less than zealous Christian country, why the hell would the majority of Australians want somebody coming here who refuses to ever consider Australians as their friends?
I'd be stamping their application with the letters "FO".

abu_rashid wrote on Jan 14^th, 2009 at 10:42pm:

... A Muslim man may marry a Jewish or Christian wife. ...

Can a Muslim woman marry a Jewish or Christian or Atheist etc husband?

Amadd,


Quote:

I'm asuming that many muslims read the quran in english. Why isn't Allah's word translated correctly?

Probably about 1-2% of Muslims are native English speakers. Either way, that's irrelevant, the original text is there, in it's original language, for anyone who needs, to reference.

And in some English translations they use more correct wording anyway, such as this one:


Quote:

O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors; they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Unfortunately it still uses the word friends in addition to the more correct meaning of protectors. In fact the word means guardian. And in a political (and Islamic legal context) means a governor of a province in an Islamic Caliphate, or a guardian for a girl who is going to get married. In no case does it refer to someone with whom you you have a friendship (whch is sadaaqah in Arabic).

soren,


Quote:

If a doctrine cannot be rendered clearly then it is not worth following.

Nobody has stated it can't be rendered clearly though, just saying most English translations were inaccurate. What you're suggesting is that if someone mistranslated a term in a text, therefore the text becomes worthless, what a load of codswallop. But I must say, on par with your typical arguments.

As for the ayah you quoted, notice how it says "from among", indicating that some portion, NOT THE WHOLE. Didn't that part occur to you? In too much of a hurry to slander Islam, you forgot to actually read what you were quoting?

tallowood,


Quote:

Can a Muslim woman marry a Jewish or Christian or Atheist etc husband?

Why ask when you clearly know the answer? Of course they cannot, hence my statement "a Muslim man...". Otherwise I'd just say Muslims can marry Christians and Jews, wouldn't I?