Islam is not peaceful, as they say, they say Islam is a religion of peace, IM SICK OF IT WHEN THEY SAY THAT because the reality i see is not true.

We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists, or even hari krishnas if they still exists, BUT THE MUSLIMS WE GET CERTAINLY GET SOME, 9/11, Bali, London bus bombing, spanish train blown apart, boston runners in a marathon blown apartm a british soildier beheaded in england,

stryder wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists

Hindu terrorism has a long and bloody history in India, and budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:43pm:

stryder wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 7:29pm: We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists Hindu terrorism has a long and bloody history in India, and budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades.

And you follow the religion that outshines both of them put together because the Quar'an supports terrorism. That's pretty sad.

I like it how you spell it "Quaran" Matty - it helps me keep track of all your socks.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

I like it how you spell it "Quaran" Matty - it helps me keep track of all your socks.

You must be a busy little muslim then that follows an evil book called the Quaran(pun intended) running around the internet calling on the last google 58,400,000 other people matty.

You better look up the odd 12,800 results that have something to with ozpolitic.com alone Einstein.

Should we now call you wally ?

stryder wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Islam is not peaceful, as they say, they say Islam is a religion of peace, IM SICK OF IT WHEN THEY SAY THAT because the reality i see is not true. We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists, or even hari krishnas if they still exists, BUT THE MUSLIMS WE GET CERTAINLY GET SOME, 9/11, Bali, London bus bombing, spanish train blown apart, boston runners in a marathon blown apartm a british soildier beheaded in england,

What pisses me off is they breed like rabbits and force their kids into the bloody ideology which in turn threatens them if they leave it. It is basic math they will eventually turn this great nation into yet another DUMP and then turn on each other.

Buddhist have done some terrible things. Hindus have done some terrible things. Christians have done some terrible things as well. In the last hundred years it is possible to find an example where someone somewhere has done something awful in the name of their religion. Not just an Indian killing someone because they are a nut, but an Indian doing it while publicly  claiming to do it for one of their Hindu gods. Yes, some people do terrible things in the name of their religion.

So what's the difference with Islam? Because while it is possible to find an example of someone somewhere doing something bad in the name of their religion in the last century, these days it is getting hard to find a country where a Muslim hasn't killed someone or blown something up. And why is that? Because while some people are nuts and twist their own religion to justify their evil, Islam actually requires its follows to do evil so as to spread and increase its control.

When you have a country like Australia that is majority Christian and has been for the last 226 years, while it is only 2% Muslim and has only be that many for the last 15 odd years, when it is only the Muslims who have killed in the name of their God the proof is there for anyone looking. Because it is so clear, it is also very obvious who is wilfully blind on this forum...

So what's the difference with Islam? 

The quantity and the Quar'an supports it. That's the difference. It's hard to believe I know when one is apologizing or trying to water it down to understand this.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:43pm:

stryder wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 7:29pm: We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists Hindu terrorism has a long and bloody history in India, and budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades.

Oh I know religions arent without conflicts with counterparts,

BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW HAVE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BEEN ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD RECENTY IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ???

Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ??

jackmountain wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 11:16pm:

So what's the difference with Islam?  The quantity and the Quar'an supports it. That's the difference. It's hard to believe I know when one is apologizing or trying to water it down to understand this.

Jackmountain, we both know how the left love to kick christianity with its wrongs and yet give Islam a free pass on its wrongs, AND IM GLAD THAT WE GET TO SEE THIS LEVEL OF COWARDICE AND BIZARRE SUPPORT FROM THE LEFTIES.

stryder wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 10:43pm: stryder wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 7:29pm: We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists Hindu terrorism has a long and bloody history in India, and budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades. Oh I know religions arent without conflicts with counterparts, BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW ARE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ??? Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ??

no hindus or Buddhists attack the west at all.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

stryder wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 7:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 10:43pm: stryder wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 7:29pm: We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists Hindu terrorism has a long and bloody history in India, and budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades. Oh I know religions arent without conflicts with counterparts, BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW ARE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ??? Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ?? no hindus or Buddhists attack the west at all.

I dont believe gandalf the radical muslim apologist will state that fact at all,  ;D

but will see.

The Tamil Tigers invented the suicide vest. The Hare Krishnas stockpiled arms at one point and believed a prophecy they would take over America by force. The Kali cult known as Thugees robbed and killed travellers in 19th century India. They were a huge problem for the British.

Buddhists? I can’t think of any. Taking a human life is very bad karma for Buddhists. The same goes for Hindus, but they’re more flexible. There is a whole caste devoted to war, the Kshatrias, and they’re one down from Brahmins. Sikhs are also quite martial and don’t mind fighting for a cause. Sikhism is a crossover religion between Hinduism and Islam.

But no, I can’t think of anyone as brutal or as dogmatic or as stupid as the Arab Salafist schools. These ones take the cake. This thinking is enticing to fundamentalists. They have one thing the equally fundamentalist haters on sites like this lack - they’re prepared to die for their cause.

They’re dangerous, and they’re not going anywhere. If anything, they’ll multiply. The more shades of grey that get offered up in an increasingly pluralist, morally relative and globalised world, the more the kick back from those who want black and white. Respond in kind, and you give them what they’re after.

stryder wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW HAVE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BEEN ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD RECENTY IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ??? Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ??

No, but you didn't specify that only western targets count in the post I was responding to.

Also, I can't think of any hindu or budhist countries the west has invaded, occupied or killed hundreds of civilians with drone attacks.

Karnal wrote on Dec 21^st, 2014 at 1:49am:

The Tamil Tigers invented the suicide vest. The Hare Krishnas stockpiled arms at one point and believed a prophecy they would take over America by force. The Kali cult known as Thugees robbed and killed travellers in 19th century India. They were a huge problem for the British. Buddhists? I can’t think of any. Taking a human life is very bad karma for Buddhists. The same goes for Hindus, but they’re more flexible. There is a whole caste devoted to war, the Kshatrias, and they’re one down from Brahmins. Sikhs are also quite martial and don’t mind fighting for a cause. Sikhism is a crossover religion between Hinduism and Islam. But no, I can’t think of anyone as brutal or as dogmatic or as stupid as the Arab Salafist schools. These ones take the cake. This thinking is enticing to fundamentalists. They have one thing the equally fundamentalist haters on sites like this lack - they’re prepared to die for their cause. They’re dangerous, and they’re not going anywhere. If anything, they’ll multiply. The more shades of grey that get offered up in an increasingly pluralist, morally relative and globalised world, the more the kick back from those who want black and white. Respond in kind, and you give them what they’re after.

And so your response is relentless relativising (aka spineless apologetics) because that's a poke in the eye for the fanatics?

The properly pluralistic answer is Napier's to the Hindus wanting to persist with their little cultural custom of sati.  "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."


Accommodating Muslim and other cultural pathologies  - your pluralistic relativising - means that the cultures that do not believe in pluralism - wahabbism, salafism, for example - become dominant. The most intolerant cultures are not embracing tolerance and pluralism.  Allowing them in is mad. Letting them globalise themselves is mad. Tolerating intolerance is mad.

Soren who is doing the equivalent of condoning sati?

I have no idea how this little tangent relates to what K said.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:43pm:

budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades.

You mean after decades of trouble with illegal immigrant muslims the Buddhists fought back and were branded terrorists by muslims?

A long list of crimes done by muslims against the Buddhists in Myanmar, the muslims are showing their ingrained victim mentality in claiming the Buddhists are terrorists when in fact this trouble started with muslims terrorising Buddhists.

Muslims start sh1t, when people fight back muslims claim they are the victims.

themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/the-innocent-and-persecuted-rohingya-muslims-in-Burma-a-history-of-rape-genocide-and-grisly-murders-of-Buddhists-by-illegal-Bangladeshi-muslims

That link highlights over 15 years of crimes against Buddhists by muslims, no muslim will condemn these crimes they will call the Buddhists terrorists for fighting back.

Figured you for a spineless apologist for terrorists Baron - glad you haven't disappointed me.

Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 10:57am:

your pluralistic relativising - means that the cultures that do not believe in pluralism - wahabbism, salafism, for example - become dominant.

There goes the Enlightenment.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 12:27pm:

illegal immigrant muslims

Illegal? Tell me Baron, what do you mean by illegal? The Rohingya have lived there for hundreds of years - they are only "illegal" because successive Budhist regimes have stubbornly refused to grant any rights or citizenship to their own residents.


Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 12:27pm:

the Buddhists fought back

What a joke - we have a privileged majority systematically depriving a minority of their rights and periodically massacring them - and you call that fighting back.


Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Muslims start sh1t, when people fight back muslims claim they are the victims.

Always absolutely never ever?

Baron, I do believe you are literally incapable of acknowledging a single injustice meted out to (non-ahmadiya) muslims. Am I right?

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 10:39am:

stryder wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 7:45pm: BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW HAVE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BEEN ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD RECENTY IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ??? Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ?? No, but you didn't specify that only western targets count in the post I was responding to. Also, I can't think of any hindu or budhist countries the west has invaded, occupied or killed hundreds of civilians with drone attacks.

That's why they slaughtered 100's of little school kids....

The apologies never end.

Soren wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 10:57am:

Karnal wrote on Dec 21st, 2014 at 1:49am: The Tamil Tigers invented the suicide vest. The Hare Krishnas stockpiled arms at one point and believed a prophecy they would take over America by force. The Kali cult known as Thugees robbed and killed travellers in 19th century India. They were a huge problem for the British. Buddhists? I can’t think of any. Taking a human life is very bad karma for Buddhists. The same goes for Hindus, but they’re more flexible. There is a whole caste devoted to war, the Kshatrias, and they’re one down from Brahmins. Sikhs are also quite martial and don’t mind fighting for a cause. Sikhism is a crossover religion between Hinduism and Islam. But no, I can’t think of anyone as brutal or as dogmatic or as stupid as the Arab Salafist schools. These ones take the cake. This thinking is enticing to fundamentalists. They have one thing the equally fundamentalist haters on sites like this lack - they’re prepared to die for their cause. They’re dangerous, and they’re not going anywhere. If anything, they’ll multiply. The more shades of grey that get offered up in an increasingly pluralist, morally relative and globalised world, the more the kick back from those who want black and white. Respond in kind, and you give them what they’re after. And so your response is relentless relativising (aka spineless apologetics) because that's a poke in the eye for the fanatics? The properly pluralistic answer is Napier's to the Hindus wanting to persist with their little cultural custom of sati.  "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." Accommodating Muslim and other cultural pathologies  - your pluralistic relativising - means that the cultures that do not believe in pluralism - wahabbism, salafism, for example - become dominant. The most intolerant cultures are not embracing tolerance and pluralism.  Allowing them in is mad. Letting them globalise themselves is mad. Tolerating intolerance is mad.

So, Soren, you'd prefer a homogenised world?  Where everybody is a pale imitation of the sanitised Western culture you glorify so much?

Suttee was a terrible custom but it was India's.  You don't think it was wrong for the British to destroy Indian culture when they invaded and conquered the sub-continent?

Would it have been better for the Indians to have come to the decision to end this cultural practice themselves?

And that is the reality of what you preach.  You have no tolerance for diversity, even when it is practised within the law of the land as it is in Australia by the overwhelming majority of migrants.   When one considers that even the British were immigrants and refused to assimilate to the customs of the Indigenes, it's rather ironic don't you to have their descendants (and their fellow travellers like yourself) declare that all new migrants must conform to their ideas on behaviour?   ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 12:27pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18th, 2014 at 10:43pm: budhist terrorists are responsible for several massacres of rohingya muslims the last few decades. You mean after decades of trouble with illegal immigrant muslims the Buddhists fought back and were branded terrorists by muslims?

Even if they were illegal immigrants (which the overwhelming majority were not, having lived in Burma for generations), surely the Rohingyas deserved the right to their lives, Baron?  Are you effectively making excuses for the Buddhists who committed murder? 

Then we have the many crimes committed by Buddhist Sinhalese against Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka.  You going to excuse them and make excuses?    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 2:51pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 23rd, 2014 at 10:57am: Karnal wrote on Dec 21st, 2014 at 1:49am: The Tamil Tigers invented the suicide vest. The Hare Krishnas stockpiled arms at one point and believed a prophecy they would take over America by force. The Kali cult known as Thugees robbed and killed travellers in 19th century India. They were a huge problem for the British. Buddhists? I can’t think of any. Taking a human life is very bad karma for Buddhists. The same goes for Hindus, but they’re more flexible. There is a whole caste devoted to war, the Kshatrias, and they’re one down from Brahmins. Sikhs are also quite martial and don’t mind fighting for a cause. Sikhism is a crossover religion between Hinduism and Islam. But no, I can’t think of anyone as brutal or as dogmatic or as stupid as the Arab Salafist schools. These ones take the cake. This thinking is enticing to fundamentalists. They have one thing the equally fundamentalist haters on sites like this lack - they’re prepared to die for their cause. They’re dangerous, and they’re not going anywhere. If anything, they’ll multiply. The more shades of grey that get offered up in an increasingly pluralist, morally relative and globalised world, the more the kick back from those who want black and white. Respond in kind, and you give them what they’re after. And so your response is relentless relativising (aka spineless apologetics) because that's a poke in the eye for the fanatics? The properly pluralistic answer is Napier's to the Hindus wanting to persist with their little cultural custom of sati.  "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." Accommodating Muslim and other cultural pathologies  - your pluralistic relativising - means that the cultures that do not believe in pluralism - wahabbism, salafism, for example - become dominant. The most intolerant cultures are not embracing tolerance and pluralism.  Allowing them in is mad. Letting them globalise themselves is mad. Tolerating intolerance is mad. So, Soren, you'd prefer a homogenised world?  Where everybody is a pale imitation of the sanitised Western culture you glorify so much? Suttee was a terrible custom but it was India's.  You don't think it was wrong for the British to destroy Indian culture when they invaded and conquered the sub-continent? Would it have been better for the Indians to have come to the decision to end this cultural practice themselves? And that is the reality of what you preach.  You have no tolerance for diversity, even when it is practised within the law of the land as it is in Australia by the overwhelming majority of migrants.   When one considers that even the British were immigrants and refused to assimilate to the customs of the Indigenes, it's rather ironic don't you to have their descendants (and their fellow travellers like yourself) declare that all new migrants must conform to their ideas on behaviour?   ::)

Because the Brits didn't migrate here to blow through one stick and throw another. These new migrants come here to enjoy western life but at the same time are hell bent on diluting it with their sand culture.

The Brits didn't come here because of the abos. Asians, wogs, and dune c00ns have only come here because of the Brits. If the Brits didn't build an advanced civilised nation none of these immigrants would have come here. Since the Brits who came here developed an Australian culture unique in it's own, that's the default one of this nation. If you don't like it but would prefer to pray to Allah then just stay where you are.

I like a world where if - IF - I want to see various cultural pathologies like niqab, sharia, turbans, pajamas as day wear, Shia/sunni animosity;  or hear people yakking in Arabic or Chinese on the street, with Arabic and Chinese and Vietnamese street signs - I would travel to those countries and see them in their own natural cultural environment, where these customs belong.  Not down the street in any major Western city, where they don't.

WIth all this globalised multicultural 'one world' wheeze, every place is homogenised, multiculturalised.
Each country's uniqueness - its culture, customs, habits - are lost to a relentless, relativised multiculturalism. I do not want a world where it's a cure little Chinese girl who serves you in Sydney, Rome and London and where niqabs and hijabs are common place in Melbourne, Berlin and Toronto.

I like a world where no country is called 'bigoted' by the likes of you simply because they want to preserve their own customs and cultural milieu. I don't want a word where Paris is an Arab city and London a Pakistani/West AFrican city. I want to see French people in Paris and English people in London.  OR AT LEAST PEOPLE WHO ACT, SPEAK AND BEHAVE LIKE THEY ARE FRENCH OR ENGLISH.
Muslims blocking entire Parisian streets to pray??? Muslims rioting in  - Sydney?? The English make up  less than half of London's population?   How the bloody hell are these good things? They are bizarre things.


Not all cultures are equal, Brain. Some are far better than others. And Western culture is better than any other. If you don't believe me - or you want to say I am bigoted - just look at the migration patters of Third World people in the world. So many millions of people from backward countries can't all be bigoted, can they, Brain?i

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 10:39am:

stryder wrote on Dec 20th, 2014 at 7:45pm: BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW HAVE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BEEN ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD RECENTY IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ??? Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ?? No, but you didn't specify that only western targets count in the post I was responding to. Also, I can't think of any hindu or budhist countries the west has invaded, occupied or killed hundreds of civilians with drone attacks.

Well i guess it tells you something about these people doesnt it ???

The majority of the global terrorist activity ISNT COMING FROM THOSE BUDDIST OR HINDU NATIONS, that warrant the attention that those nations or areas with prominent radical muslims running around and threatening the west that DO ???

I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care.

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart.

If you are a Rhoningya muslim living in Burma your world is likely being ripped apart by Budhists.

What about you Rock - is your world being ripped apart by muslims?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care.

Heard there was some buddhists monks ripping off and stealing donation from australians, anyone hear this?

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 9:07am:

I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care.

http://i.imgur.com/HXmJEpV.jpg

wally1 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 11:01am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 9:07am: I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care. http://i.imgur.com/HXmJEpV.jpg

Never heard of any buddhist planning to blow up Lucas heights so they can kill thousands of Australians through radiation poisoning. A bunch of muslims had it planned though. Don't go playing the victim Gandalf. It doesn't wash.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2014 at 2:51pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 23rd, 2014 at 10:57am: Karnal wrote on Dec 21st, 2014 at 1:49am: The Tamil Tigers invented the suicide vest. The Hare Krishnas stockpiled arms at one point and believed a prophecy they would take over America by force. The Kali cult known as Thugees robbed and killed travellers in 19th century India. They were a huge problem for the British. Buddhists? I can’t think of any. Taking a human life is very bad karma for Buddhists. The same goes for Hindus, but they’re more flexible. There is a whole caste devoted to war, the Kshatrias, and they’re one down from Brahmins. Sikhs are also quite martial and don’t mind fighting for a cause. Sikhism is a crossover religion between Hinduism and Islam. But no, I can’t think of anyone as brutal or as dogmatic or as stupid as the Arab Salafist schools. These ones take the cake. This thinking is enticing to fundamentalists. They have one thing the equally fundamentalist haters on sites like this lack - they’re prepared to die for their cause. They’re dangerous, and they’re not going anywhere. If anything, they’ll multiply. The more shades of grey that get offered up in an increasingly pluralist, morally relative and globalised world, the more the kick back from those who want black and white. Respond in kind, and you give them what they’re after. And so your response is relentless relativising (aka spineless apologetics) because that's a poke in the eye for the fanatics? The properly pluralistic answer is Napier's to the Hindus wanting to persist with their little cultural custom of sati.  "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs." Accommodating Muslim and other cultural pathologies  - your pluralistic relativising - means that the cultures that do not believe in pluralism - wahabbism, salafism, for example - become dominant. The most intolerant cultures are not embracing tolerance and pluralism.  Allowing them in is mad. Letting them globalise themselves is mad. Tolerating intolerance is mad. So, Soren, you'd prefer a homogenised world?  Where everybody is a pale imitation of the sanitised Western culture you glorify so much? Suttee was a terrible custom but it was India's.  You don't think it was wrong for the British to destroy Indian culture when they invaded and conquered the sub-continent? Would it have been better for the Indians to have come to the decision to end this cultural practice themselves? And that is the reality of what you preach.  You have no tolerance for diversity, even when it is practised within the law of the land as it is in Australia by the overwhelming majority of migrants.   When one considers that even the British were immigrants and refused to assimilate to the customs of the Indigenes, it's rather ironic don't you to have their descendants (and their fellow travellers like yourself) declare that all new migrants must conform to their ideas on behaviour?   ::)

Lovely, Brian condones women being burnt alive in the name of diversity.   ::)

Brian will apologise and excuse anything so long as the magic word culture is mentioned. 

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

wally1 wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 11:01am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 9:07am: I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care. http://i.imgur.com/HXmJEpV.jpg Never heard of any buddhist planning to blow up Lucas heights so they can kill thousands of Australians through radiation poisoning. A bunch of muslims had it planned though. Don't go playing the victim Gandalf. It doesn't wash.

Not sure what your smoking but I'm not gandalf.

wally1 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 11:01am:

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 9:07am: I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care. http://i.imgur.com/HXmJEpV.jpg

;D ;D ;D ;D, Do buddists contribute to the majority of GLOBAL TERRORIST ACTIVITY worldwide ?? Are certain  members of Buddism attacking the western nations, Oh wally ???

Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 12:19pm:

wally1 wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 11:01am: Rocketanski wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 9:07am: I don't see Hindus or Buddhists ripping the world apart. Islam and it's followers want to be boss of the world. They want everybody to be a muslim. The other religions don't care. http://i.imgur.com/HXmJEpV.jpg Never heard of any buddhist planning to blow up Lucas heights so they can kill thousands of Australians through radiation poisoning. A bunch of muslims had it planned though. .

A bunch of Muslims were stopped in the area and questioned by police. The.police told them it’s a secure area and sent them home.

That’s planning to blow up Lucas Heights? 

Over 100 Australian muslims are actively supporting pro islamic terrorist activities.

Over 65 Australian muslims are actively operating as islamic terrorists overseas.

At least 1 Australian muslim has his son of very early years holding up a severed human head

At least 2 Australian muslim women have gone overseas to marry islamic terrorists.

1 Australian muslim recently completed his duty of islamic jihad in Australia, taking hostages, declaring the shahada, then murdering two innocent people, one of them a mother of small innocent children.

2 more Australian muslims were arrested just a few days ago on terror charges.

Australia is on an increased islamic terrorist alert.

171 Australian muslims participating in or supporting islamic terrorism.

2% of our population produced 171 proven islamic terrorists.

100% of the population on these figures (if islam was just another normal society) should have produced 8,550 terrorists.

We have produced nil, therefore Australian muslims are 8,550 times more likely to be a terrorist than any other part of our society.

Muslims must be kept under the strictest of surveillance. 

Moses, how many Australians - non-Muslims - have been prosecuted as mercenaries in the last 15 years?

How many non-Muslim Australians have fought in Israel's various wars?

How many non-Muslim Australians fought in say, the Spanish Civil War?

Is it the principle or the numbers which concern you?    ::)

What concerns me is the present day.

Right here, right now, Australian muslims are supporting and committing  the most heinous crimes against humanity, directly as their qur'an tells them to.

In fact present day figures show Australian muslims are 8,550 times more likely to be a terrorist as their religion prescribes,than any other section of our society.

moses wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

What concerns me is the present day. Right here, right now, Australian muslims are supporting and committing  the most heinous crimes against humanity, directly as their qur'an tells them to. In fact present day figures show Australian muslims are 8,550 times more likely to be a terrorist as their religion prescribes,than any other section of our society.

Like what kind of heinous crimes?

Dropping drones on civilians?

Riding around tanks bombing people?

Dropping bombs on innocent people?

moses wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:

Over 100 Australian muslims are actively supporting pro islamic terrorist activities. Over 65 Australian muslims are actively operating as islamic terrorists overseas. At least 1 Australian muslim has his son of very early years holding up a severed human head At least 2 Australian muslim women have gone overseas to marry islamic terrorists. 1 Australian muslim recently completed his duty of islamic jihad in Australia, taking hostages, declaring the shahada, then murdering two innocent people, one of them a mother of small innocent children. 2 more Australian muslims were arrested just a few days ago on terror charges. Australia is on an increased islamic terrorist alert. 171 Australian muslims participating in or supporting islamic terrorism. 2% of our population produced 171 proven islamic terrorists. 100% of the population on these figures (if islam was just another normal society) should have produced 8,550 terrorists. We have produced nil, therefore Australian muslims are 8,550 times more likely to be a terrorist than any other part of our society. Muslims must be kept under the strictest of surveillance.

Sydney Hilton bombing


On 13 February 1978, a bomb exploded outside the Hilton Hotel in Sydney, which was hosting the first Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting. Two garbage collectors and a police officer were killed and eleven others were injured. As a result of the bombing, ASIO's powers and budget were greatly expanded. It was also a motivation for the formation of the Australian Federal Police.

Turkish consulate bombing

On 23 November 1986, a car bomb exploded in a carpark beneath the Turkish Consulate in South Yarra, Victoria, killing the bomber who failed to correctly set up the explosive device. Levon Demirian, a Sydney resident with links to the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, was charged over the attack and served 10 years

Alleged would-be mercenary faces Brisbane court

A disability pensioner accused of training overseas to be a mercenary in the Indonesian province of West Papua has been refused bail in a Brisbane court.

Gerard Michael Little, 45, from Melbourne, was arrested after the Australian Federal Police conducted six searches yesterday at properties in Melbourne and Toowoomba.

Commonwealth prosecutor Justin Williams told the Brisbane Magistrates Court that Williams was intercepted by police after clearing customs at Brisbane airport last night.

The court heard Little was preparing to board a flight to Papua New Guinea, from where it is alleged he intended to "island hop" to West Papua to join an insurgency against Indonesian rule.

moses wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

What concerns me is the present day.

Never took you for an Existentialism, Moses, particularly when one considers you seem to hold a 2 millennia old set of religious teachings as the epitome of moral learning.   ::) 


Quote:

Right here, right now, Australian muslims are supporting and committing  the most heinous crimes against humanity, directly as their qur'an tells them to.

Some are, without a doubt but as I keep pointing out to you, Moses, the overwhelming majority are not.   Why do you not accept that?   Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of Muslims don't support these heinous criminals?

Yet, you expect us to accept that the majority of Christians don't support Joseph Kony or follow the teachings of Rev. Fred Phelps?

You don't see any contradiction in your reasoning there?  Any at all?   ::)


Quote:

In fact present day figures show Australian muslims are 8,550 times more likely to be a terrorist as their religion prescribes,than any other section of our society.

Interesting claim.  Care to share your maths with us?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 7:55pm:

Moses, how many Australians - non-Muslims - have been prosecuted as mercenaries in the last 15 years? How many non-Muslim Australians have fought in Israel's various wars? How many non-Muslim Australians fought in say, the Spanish Civil War? Is it the principle or the numbers which concern you?    ::)

;D


The IDF doesn't use mercenaries. It is a regular, national army. And it is not only Israel that has both national service and dual citizenship. Korea is an example.

The Spanish Civil was was well more than 15 years ago, duncie.

ISIL is not recognised as a state except by other terrorist organisations, and it takes all sorts of thugs and low-life as long as they are prepared to act Islamically.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 27^th, 2014 at 10:02pm:

Some are, without a doubt but as I keep pointing out to you, Moses, the overwhelming majority are not.   Why do you not accept that?   Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of Muslims don't support these heinous criminals?

I would like you to explain to us - you seem to have your finger on the pulse of mainstream Muslims - what do they believe in? In particular, which Islamic teaching do they reject from the ones that motivate ISIL? And on what basis are they selective about what Islamic doctrine to accepot and what to rejecvt? What is the prionciple that guides them in this choosing?

To clarify, I am not asking you about the lapsed and non-practicing Muslims. I am asking you about the faithful, practicing, devout Muslims who know their Koran and hadith, dress the part and take Islam seriously.

Please explain, Brain. You seem to know so much about them.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:39am:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 7:55pm: Moses, how many Australians - non-Muslims - have been prosecuted as mercenaries in the last 15 years? How many non-Muslim Australians have fought in Israel's various wars? How many non-Muslim Australians fought in say, the Spanish Civil War? Is it the principle or the numbers which concern you?    ::) ;D The IDF doesn't use mercenaries. It is a regular, national army. And it is not only Israel that has both national service and dual citizenship. Korea is an example.

I didn't claim it was a mercenary force or that it used mercenaries, Soren.

As usual, your antipathy towards me makes you grab the wrong end of the stick.

I purposefully placed the two statements in separate paragraphs so that even you could see they were separate in intent.   ::)


Quote:

The Spanish Civil was was well more than 15 years ago, duncie.

Again, the wrong end of the stick.  When did I claim it was more recent than 15 years.  Again, two separate paragraphs to indicate separate intent.  Australians fought in the Civil War, on both sides.  True/False?   ::)


Quote:

ISIL is not recognised as a state except by other terrorist organisations, and it takes all sorts of thugs and low-life as long as they are prepared to act Islamically.

Yep, sure do.  Who, here, has claimed otherwise, Soren?   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 1:53pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 11:39am: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 27th, 2014 at 7:55pm: Moses, how many Australians - non-Muslims - have been prosecuted as mercenaries in the last 15 years? How many non-Muslim Australians have fought in Israel's various wars? How many non-Muslim Australians fought in say, the Spanish Civil War? Is it the principle or the numbers which concern you?    ::) ;D The IDF doesn't use mercenaries. It is a regular, national army. And it is not only Israel that has both national service and dual citizenship. Korea is an example. I didn't claim it was a mercenary force or that it used mercenaries, Soren. As usual, your antipathy towards me makes you grab the wrong end of the stick. I purposefully placed the two statements in separate paragraphs so that even you could see they were separate in intent.   ::) Quote: The Spanish Civil was was well more than 15 years ago, duncie. Again, the wrong end of the stick.  When did I claim it was more recent than 15 years.  Again, two separate paragraphs to indicate separate intent.  Australians fought in the Civil War, on both sides.  True/False?   ::) [quote] ISIL is not recognised as a state except by other terrorist organisations, and it takes all sorts of thugs and low-life as long as they are prepared to act Islamically.

Yep, sure do.  Who, here, has claimed otherwise, Soren?   ::) ::)
[/quote]


moses made a coherent list of statements which hung together by a common thread.

In response, you made 4 statements which were not only unrelated to what moses said but to each other.

Brain is the word.

Brian Ross


Quote:

moses wrote:[quote]Right here, right now, Australian muslims are supporting and committing  the most heinous crimes against humanity, directly as their qur'an tells them to.

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

Some are, without a doubt but as I keep pointing out to you, Moses, the overwhelming majority are not.   Why do you not accept that?   Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the majority of Muslims don't support these heinous criminals? Yet, you expect us to accept that the majority of Christians don't support Joseph Kony or follow the teachings of Rev. Fred Phelps? You don't see any contradiction in your reasoning there?  Any at all?

[/quote]

No contradiction at all, islamic doctrine is the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism.

All muslims who regard the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed, accept the  engendered terrorism.

As for your other examples what doctrine are they following?

You keep referring to Christianity, yet you are not up to the task of showing which Christian doctrine they are supposed to be following. Why is that?

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

Interesting claim.  Care to share your maths with us?

I reiterate:

Reply #35 - Yesterday at 7:45pm   

Over 100 Australian muslims are actively supporting pro islamic terrorist activities.

Over 65 Australian muslims are actively operating as islamic terrorists overseas.

At least 1 Australian muslim has his son of very early years holding up a severed human head

At least 2 Australian muslim women have gone overseas to marry islamic terrorists.

1 Australian muslim recently completed his duty of islamic jihad in Australia, taking hostages, declaring the shahada, then murdering two innocent people, one of them a mother of small innocent children.

2 more Australian muslims were arrested just a few days ago on terror charges.

Australia is on an increased islamic terrorist alert.

171 Australian muslims participating in or supporting islamic terrorism.

2% of our population produced 171 proven islamic terrorists.

100% of the population on these figures (if islam was just another normal society) should have produced 8,550 terrorists.

We have produced nil, therefore Australian muslims are 8,550 times more likely to be a terrorist than any other part of our society.

Muslims must be kept under the strictest of surveillance

Several key assumptions there, Moses.

1. You're assuming the figure of 171 is 100% accurate.   It isn't.  Even the Australian authorities admit it is an "estimate".
2. You're assuming that support for IS is uniform.  That is simplistic at best, naive at worst.
3. What of the Muslims who don't accept "the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed"?
4. If Islam's teachings are, "the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism,"  Why is terrorism only a relatively recent development in the history of Islam?

As always, your bigotry shines through the lack of reasoning in your arguments, Moses.   Which Madrassah did you graduate from?  You are obviously a Takfiri convert.   ::)

Brian Ross wrote:
Quote:

1. You're assuming the figure of 171 is 100% accurate.   It isn't.  Even the Australian authorities admit it is an "estimate".

Untill another **estimate** is announced by the authorities, I'll accept the standing one. 



Quote:

2. You're assuming that support for IS is uniform.  That is simplistic at best, naive at worst.

Admission that the foundation of islamic terror is infallible, perfect and can never be changed, is uniform support


Quote:

3. What of the Muslims who don't accept "the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed"?

Where are the muslims who decry the doctrine of islam which underpins islamic terrorism, as wrong and not relevant to the 21st century?


Quote:

4. If Islam's teachings are, "the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism,"  Why is terrorism only a relatively recent development in the history of Islam?

Been part and parcel of islam since day one

Quran (8:12) - [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."

Quran (3:151) - We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.


Bukhari (4.52.220):

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand."

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 6:10pm:

Several key assumptions there, Moses. 1. You're assuming the figure of 171 is 100% accurate.   It isn't.  Even the Australian authorities admit it is an "estimate". 2. You're assuming that support for IS is uniform.  That is simplistic at best, naive at worst. 3. What of the Muslims who don't accept "the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed"? 4. If Islam's teachings are, "the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism,"  Why is terrorism only a relatively recent development in the history of Islam? As always, your bigotry shines through the lack of reasoning in your arguments, Moses.   Which Madrassah did you graduate from?  You are obviously a Takfiri convert.   ::)

So Islamic terrorism has now been disproved by your stupid, bigoted, ignorant questions, Brain?  It has all gone away? No.

1. There are more Muslim terrorists that any other kind.
2. Some support it wholeheartedly, some only in their aims but not all their methods.
3. Where are they?
4. It is not a recent development. It has been part of schismatic Islam since 632. That civil war has nor changed in 1400 years. Islam is timeless. To the ISIL boys and all the other bearded monsters, history is NOW, indistinguishable from past centuries. The Koran is eternal, its commands to kill and subjugate are eternal. That's al that matters.

Your stupid, ignorant bigotry will not cover up the facts, Brain. No matter how stupid or how bigoted or how ignorant you are or how often you repeat your stupid, ignorant bigotry.

Soren wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Several key assumptions there, Moses. 1. You're assuming the figure of 171 is 100% accurate.   It isn't.  Even the Australian authorities admit it is an "estimate". 2. You're assuming that support for IS is uniform.  That is simplistic at best, naive at worst. 3. What of the Muslims who don't accept "the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed"? 4. If Islam's teachings are, "the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism,"  Why is terrorism only a relatively recent development in the history of Islam? As always, your bigotry shines through the lack of reasoning in your arguments, Moses.   Which Madrassah did you graduate from?  You are obviously a Takfiri convert.   ::) So Islamic terrorism has now been disproved by your stupid, bigoted, ignorant questions, Brain?  It has all gone away? No. 1. There are more Muslim terrorists that any other kind. 2. Some support it wholeheartedly, some only in their aims but not all their methods. 3. Where are they? 4. It is not a recent development. It has been part of schismatic Islam since 632. That civil war has nor changed in 1400 years. Islam is timeless. To the ISIL boys and all the other bearded monsters, history is NOW, indistinguishable from past centuries. The Koran is eternal, its commands to kill and subjugate are eternal. That's al that matters. Your stupid, ignorant bigotry will not cover up the facts, Brain. No matter how stupid or how bigoted or how ignorant you are or how often you repeat your stupid, ignorant bigotry.

Still resorting to that ad hominem, Soren?

I feel sorry that you are so lost for words that you can't address what is said and instead resort automatically to express your personal antipathy for me at every turn.  Shooting the messenger will not end the message, you realise?   All it shows is your inability to argue against it.   In internet terms, it means you've lost the debate, Soren, even before you've started it.

Hopefully you'll soon be able to get your blood pressure under control.  I fear you may suffer a coronary the way your temper is going.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:11pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Several key assumptions there, Moses. 1. You're assuming the figure of 171 is 100% accurate.   It isn't.  Even the Australian authorities admit it is an "estimate". 2. You're assuming that support for IS is uniform.  That is simplistic at best, naive at worst. 3. What of the Muslims who don't accept "the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed"? 4. If Islam's teachings are, "the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism,"  Why is terrorism only a relatively recent development in the history of Islam? As always, your bigotry shines through the lack of reasoning in your arguments, Moses.   Which Madrassah did you graduate from?  You are obviously a Takfiri convert.   ::) So Islamic terrorism has now been disproved by your stupid, bigoted, ignorant questions, Brain?  It has all gone away? No. 1. There are more Muslim terrorists that any other kind. 2. Some support it wholeheartedly, some only in their aims but not all their methods. 3. Where are they? 4. It is not a recent development. It has been part of schismatic Islam since 632. That civil war has nor changed in 1400 years. Islam is timeless. To the ISIL boys and all the other bearded monsters, history is NOW, indistinguishable from past centuries. The Koran is eternal, its commands to kill and subjugate are eternal. That's al that matters. Your stupid, ignorant bigotry will not cover up the facts, Brain. No matter how stupid or how bigoted or how ignorant you are or how often you repeat your stupid, ignorant bigotry. Still resorting to that ad hominem, Soren? I feel sorry that you are so lost for words that you can't address what is said and instead resort automatically to express your personal antipathy for me at every turn.  Shooting the messenger will not end the message, you realise?   All it shows is your inability to argue against it.   In internet terms, it means you've lost the debate, Soren, even before you've started it. Hopefully you'll soon be able to get your blood pressure under control.  I fear you may suffer a coronary the way your temper is going.    ::)

Thank you, No Idea Brain.

I am laughing at you, Brain, 'in internet terms' (what a pompoust, stupid git you are). You have no message, Brain. All you have is random excuses and a storehouse of unrelated 'oh yeah? what abouts'. You have no argument. All you have is mish-mash of apologetics for the inexcusable. Islam suit your intellectual horizons.

When you wish to address the message, Soren, I'll be still here.   I'll leave you to your childish name calling in the meantime.   ::)

Good news!!!

Australians going to fight with extremist groups in the Middle East are dying as fast as they are arriving, meaning that the total number of fighters has remained stable at about 70, security agency ASIO has revealed.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 11:11pm:

Soren wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 11:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Dec 28th, 2014 at 6:10pm: Several key assumptions there, Moses. 1. You're assuming the figure of 171 is 100% accurate.   It isn't.  Even the Australian authorities admit it is an "estimate". 2. You're assuming that support for IS is uniform.  That is simplistic at best, naive at worst. 3. What of the Muslims who don't accept "the islamic teachings of terror inducement, as being infallible, perfect and never to be changed"? 4. If Islam's teachings are, "the root cause, the unchallengeable foundation of islamic terrorism,"  Why is terrorism only a relatively recent development in the history of Islam? As always, your bigotry shines through the lack of reasoning in your arguments, Moses.   Which Madrassah did you graduate from?  You are obviously a Takfiri convert.   ::) So Islamic terrorism has now been disproved by your stupid, bigoted, ignorant questions, Brain?  It has all gone away? No. 1. There are more Muslim terrorists that any other kind. 2. Some support it wholeheartedly, some only in their aims but not all their methods. 3. Where are they? 4. It is not a recent development. It has been part of schismatic Islam since 632. That civil war has nor changed in 1400 years. Islam is timeless. To the ISIL boys and all the other bearded monsters, history is NOW, indistinguishable from past centuries. The Koran is eternal, its commands to kill and subjugate are eternal. That's al that matters. Your stupid, ignorant bigotry will not cover up the facts, Brain. No matter how stupid or how bigoted or how ignorant you are or how often you repeat your stupid, ignorant bigotry. I feel sorry that you are so lost for words that you can't address what is said and instead resort automatically to express your personal antipathy for me at every turn.

I addressed all four of your unrelated 'points', Brain.

islams not a religion, it is a cult

Can you explain the difference sprint?

Compare and contrast them.

Quote:

'WE HAVE AVENGED THE PROPHET': 12 dead in terror attack AT LEAST 12 people have been killed and 11 injured when gunmen armed with pump-action Kalashnikovs and a rocket-launcher opened fire at a French newspaper.    Two masked gunmen stormed Charlie Hebdo’s Paris headquarters about 11.30am on Wednesday (9:30pm AEDT Wednesday) local time shouting “we have avenged the Prophet” and “Allahu Akbar” (Allah is the greatest) as they fired. French media reports the gunmen went straight to the second floor, the location of the editorial department, and asked people who they were before shooting. Terrified staff scattered, with some seeking refuge on the roof. The gunmen, described by police as “commandos”, then fled in a getaway car, where a third man was waiting. They are still on the loose and a massive manhunt is underway, as French President Francois Hollande described the bloodbath as an “undoubtedly terrorist act.” SATIRICAL MAGAZINE: The history of Charlie Hebdo JE SUIS CHARLIE: Solidarity for journos after massacre

12 people killed over a cartoon ???

AND THEY WANT US TO BELIEVE ISLAM IS A RELIGION OF PEACE !

This attack didnt come from christians, buddists, hindus or even jews, THIS CAME FROM THE SO CALLED RELIGION OF PEACE.