link

This is the sort of thing that is slowly killing our Western democracy. Certain Muslims of the Islamic faith want only the most weak and compliant of Western politicians to have a voice and be left more or less alone for being politically correct eunuchs who understand that they are no longer practicing politics in a free democracy.

Anyone who shows the slightest inclination towards demonstrating Aquascoot's Alpha-male characteristics is soon off to the knacker's yard and the glue-vats.

The right to free speech also comes with the expectation to think before you speak. Failed to be practiced in this case.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 2:57pm:

The right to free speech also comes with the expectation to think before you speak. Failed to be practiced in this case.

Salmaan Taseer was shot in the back by his bodyguard for opposing the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, it's considered blasphemy to oppose blasphemy laws where Islam rules.

The leftist Islamic apologists like to silence all debate with Islam by hurling slurs like bigot/racist/Islamophobe to critics of Islam in a pathetic attempt to enforce Islamic blasphemy laws in non muslim lands on behalf of muslims.

Once again, Lord Herpes is given free rein to spray his Islamophobic graffiti all through the forum.

Dear o dear o dear.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 3:53pm:

Once again, Lord Herpes is given free rein to spray his Islamophobic graffiti all through the forum. Dear o dear o dear.

You'll be glad to know, gregg, that I'm gathering up my loins in preparation for starting to post exclusively from my own little franchise here on this board where I'm the moderator with the power to flush toilet-bowl floaters like you right down-and-around the bend and out of sight as you go slippin'-and-slidin' through the pipes towards the sewage Treatment Plant where some nasty folks will be waiting for you with pitch-forks because they know you're a recidivist FLOATER .....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3wdwRhpFs

What the hell has this got to do with Islam?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 5:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 3:53pm: Once again, Lord Herpes is given free rein to spray his Islamophobic graffiti all through the forum. Dear o dear o dear. You'll be glad to know, gregg, that ...

... I'm getting under your skin?

Yes.

I'm very glad.

The sooner you take your ignorant, bigoted trolling some place else, the better it will be for all of us.

Nobody likes you, Lord Herpes.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 5:35pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 3rd, 2016 at 3:53pm: Once again, Lord Herpes is given free rein to spray his Islamophobic graffiti all through the forum. Dear o dear o dear. You'll be glad to know, gregg, that I'm gathering up my loins in preparation for starting to post exclusively from my own little franchise here on this board where I'm the moderator with the power to flush toilet-bowl floaters like you right down-and-around the bend and out of sight as you go slippin'-and-slidin' through the pipes towards the sewage Treatment Plant where some nasty folks will be waiting for you with pitch-forks because they know you're a recidivist FLOATER ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3wdwRhpFs

Hurry up and do it herb..The seahunt would drive you to drink   ;) ;)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2016 at 5:38pm:

What the hell has this got to do with Islam?

Oh...probably as much as this does.

Link.

There will be no anti Israel stuff posted here Gandalf.  It's fine if it is an Islam bash.

And you share the stage with those GMods who are so biased that they have now stooped so low that they censor what displeases.  What will you do.......share the stage, or get off it?

I've been tracking this story, as it reeks of BS. The only testimony we have is from Farage himself - a struggling populist who recently lost his seat in parliament, and who is clearly in desperate need of a stunt like this.

And now its revealed that...


Quote:

Nigel Farage's claim his car wheels 'were sabotaged in an assassination attempt' in France are denied by prosecutors and the mechanic who checked his Volvo

Quote:

‘The French police looked at it and said that sometimes nuts on one wheel can come a bit loose – but not on all four… The mechanics were absolutely certain of [foul play] but I have decided to take no further action,’ Mr Farage told a Sunday newspaper. But according to French newspaper Liberation, both the prosecutor and mechanic deny making such remarks. Liberation reported that Philipe Marquis, owner of the garage, ‘had never seen anything like it [and that he] found it weird. Why didn’t he call the police then? Because he did not suspect it was a consequence of a sabotage… Instead, the mechanic suspected the nuts “had been wrongly screwed after another repair”.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3387318/Nigel-Farage-s-claim-car-wheels-sabotaged-assassination-attempt-France-denied-prosecutors-mechanic-checked-Volvo.htm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 2:35pm:

sometimes nuts on one wheel can come a bit loose

I've been saying that about Herb for years now.

The Daily Mail is not my news source of choice. Anyway, there is plenty of Islam damning information in the more respected media.

issuevoter wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

The Daily Mail is not my news source of choice. Anyway, there is plenty of Islam damning information in the more respected media.

And yet this story never had anything to do with Islam to start with - would you acknowledge that issue?

If there are so many damning true stories on Islam, why are there so many porky pies being spewed about Islam - day after day after day?

Is this a lie?

Free speech is under threat from Islam

Quite right FD - Herb didn't really mean that Farage's car was sabotaged because of his criticisms of Islam - he just wanted to make the entirely irrelevant point that "free speech is under threat from Islam".

Is that going to be the standard excuse for all exposed porkies about Islam? "Well I might have lied about what muslims did here, but its definitely true that Islam sux"

Would you agree that Islam is the greatest modern threat to freedom of speech?

No I think our governments who constantly use the Islamic bogeyman to distract from their efforts to relentlessly chip away at our freedoms are the biggest threat - closely followed by their useful idiots who have swallowed the whole 'muslims under the bed' meme - demanding that they be banned, killed and nuked - and regularly perpetuate porky pies that sustains this meme.

Or in other words - how its always been since democracy began - just replace "Islam" with "bogeyman of the day"

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/charlie-murphy.gif

White moslem convert refers to others as useful idiots.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 8:35pm:

No I think our governments who constantly use the Islamic bogeyman to distract from their efforts to relentlessly chip away at our freedoms are the biggest threat - closely followed by their useful idiots who have swallowed the whole 'muslims under the bed' meme - demanding that they be banned, killed and nuked - and regularly perpetuate porky pies that sustains this meme. Or in other words - how its always been since democracy began - just replace "Islam" with "bogeyman of the day"

What freedom of speech have we lost to the government?

Quote:

our governments who constantly use the Islamic bogeyman to distract from their efforts to relentlessly chip away at our freedoms are the biggest threat

Gee I've been had.

I really thought the anti islamic terror squads set up around the globe were there for a genuine reason.

I really thought that the figure of one in a thousand Australian muslims, who have conclusively been proven to support islamic terrorism, was something to be worried about.

I really thought the prevalence of Australian muslims who support child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation, was something to be worried about.

I really thought that an Australian muslim who was so deluded by his faith in allah and muhammad he decided to lay siege to a cafe, resulting in the death of an innocent woman, was something to be worried about.

I really thought the fact that Australian muslim kids who are so fanatically indoctrinated by the satanic tenets of islam, they go out and kill police clerks, plan terrorist attacks,  pack rape Australian girls (cats meat), etc. etc. etc. was something to be worried about.


Gee I look at the world today, I see muslims who claim to be the morally superior people on earth, what do I see?

An inhumane horde of death, destruction, squalor, illiteracy, poverty and 7th century backwardness.

But then again the muslims and their apologists will always tell us it's not their fault, it's everybody else's.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2016 at 9:39pm:

What freedom of speech have we lost to the government?

A lot more than we've lost to Islam - would you agree?

In any case, I said "freedoms", not "freedom of speech" - which is just one aspect of it.
I also said "attempts [to chip away at our freedoms]" - not that they have necessarily been successful in all attempts. But the constant threat is there - and the threat is from governments, not Islam or whatever other bogeyman is flavour of the month.

moses wrote on Jan 12^th, 2016 at 2:18pm:

Quote: our governments who constantly use the Islamic bogeyman to distract from their efforts to relentlessly chip away at our freedoms are the biggest threat Gee I've been had. I really thought the anti islamic terror squads set up around the globe were there for a genuine reason. I really thought that the figure of one in a thousand Australian muslims, who have conclusively been proven to support islamic terrorism, was something to be worried about. I really thought the prevalence of Australian muslims who support child marriage and Female Genital Mutilation, was something to be worried about. I really thought that an Australian muslim who was so deluded by his faith in allah and muhammad he decided to lay siege to a cafe, resulting in the death of an innocent woman, was something to be worried about. I really thought the fact that Australian muslim kids who are so fanatically indoctrinated by the satanic tenets of islam, they go out and kill police clerks, plan terrorist attacks,  pack rape Australian girls (cats meat), etc. etc. etc. was something to be worried about. Gee I look at the world today, I see muslims who claim to be the morally superior people on earth, what do I see? An inhumane horde of death, destruction, squalor, illiteracy, poverty and 7th century backwardness. But then again the muslims and their apologists will always tell us it's not their fault, it's everybody else's.

closely followed by their useful idiots who have swallowed the whole 'muslims under the bed' meme - demanding that they be banned, killed and nuked - and regularly perpetuate porky pies that sustains this meme.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

freediver wrote on Jan 11th, 2016 at 9:39pm: What freedom of speech have we lost to the government? A lot more than we've lost to Islam - would you agree? In any case, I said "freedoms", not "freedom of speech" - which is just one aspect of it. I also said "attempts [to chip away at our freedoms]" - not that they have necessarily been successful in all attempts. But the constant threat is there - and the threat is from governments, not Islam or whatever other bogeyman is flavour of the month.

Some time ago, neither of us could think of any examples of things you cannot legally say in Australia.

On the other hand, there are plenty of limitations being imposed by fear of Islam around the world, including Australia. That is why there is no Islam equivalent of Life of Brian, and why so many cartoonists, authors literally fear for their lives. It has already had a significant effect. So much so, that when NZ recently reintroduced blasphemy laws, it appeared to be associated with the recent troubles with Islamic fundamentalism.

Are you suggesting that this fear is unjustified or invented?

gandalf wrote:
Quote:

closely followed by their useful nice people who have swallowed the whole 'muslims under the bed' meme - demanding that they be banned, killed and nuked - and regularly perpetuate porky pies that sustains this meme.

As I see it the muslims will never admit to the truth (islamic doctrine is the cause of islamic atrocities).

They will be encouraged by their apologists to maintain this stance. (the apologists hate the west, Jews, America, Christians etc..)

So islamic atrocities will continue unabated.

The alliance of muslims and their apologists will go to extreme lengths to shut down any critical exposure of the evilness of islam.

However eventually, after much bloodshed right and truth will win the day, islam and it's apologists will lose the battle.

All of which could be avoided if only muslims and their apologists would tell the truth now.

When you see the death and destruction being plied against muslims by muslim and non muslim alike, you people are so fanatically stupid that you have totally lost the ability to look inwards for solutions.

SO it's the muslims choice to be as one with islam, allah, muhammad, and the qur'an. (which results in ongoing unspeakably inhumane atrocities in the muslim world)

But that's your choice gandalf, enjoy islam.

freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

Some time ago, neither of us could think of any examples of things you cannot legally say in Australia

Yes we did - holocaust denial is unlawful in Australia. I forget - what particular mental gymnastics did you concoct to pretend it isn't?


freediver wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 12:42pm:

Are you suggesting that this fear is unjustified or invented?

No less invented or unjustified than the fear that is causing many muslim women to not wear what they want. Do you consider hijabies and niqabies being assaulted, along with their enablers like Soren who insist that the victims are to blame for being "inconsiderate" - as attacks on freedom? You may as well say that any crime is an attack on freedom - the guy who burgled someone's house is attacking that person's freedom to not be burgled, the woman who got raped had her freedom to not be raped attacked. They are crimes - and on a completely different level to governments cynically rushing through legislation to deny us our rights, enforceable by the full force of the law. The former are by default not tolerated by society and perpetrators are ruthlessly hunted down and punished - the latter are legally sanctioned and cannot be rejected by society without a lot of political wrangling. I know which one I'm more wary of - but you and moses go ahead and blissfully continue to be part of the problem.

Quote:

but you and moses go ahead and blissfully continue to be part of the problem.

What proportion of blame can be laid squarely at the feet of islam and the behaviour of muslims?

moses wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 3:14pm:

What proportion of blame can be laid squarely at the feet of islam and the behaviour of muslims?

For crimes muslim commit? All of it, obviously.

Just as the blame for our government's attack on freedoms lies squarely at the government, and the people who enable them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 13^th, 2016 at 3:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 12:42pm: Some time ago, neither of us could think of any examples of things you cannot legally say in Australia Yes we did - holocaust denial is unlawful in Australia. I forget - what particular mental gymnastics did you concoct to pretend it isn't? freediver wrote on Jan 13th, 2016 at 12:42pm: Are you suggesting that this fear is unjustified or invented? No less invented or unjustified than the fear that is causing many muslim women to not wear what they want. Do you consider hijabies and niqabies being assaulted, along with their enablers like Soren who insist that the victims are to blame for being "inconsiderate" - as attacks on freedom? You may as well say that any crime is an attack on freedom - the guy who burgled someone's house is attacking that person's freedom to not be burgled, the woman who got raped had her freedom to not be raped attacked. They are crimes - and on a completely different level to governments cynically rushing through legislation to deny us our rights, enforceable by the full force of the law. The former are by default not tolerated by society and perpetrators are ruthlessly hunted down and punished - the latter are legally sanctioned and cannot be rejected by society without a lot of political wrangling. I know which one I'm more wary of - but you and moses go ahead and blissfully continue to be part of the problem.

Can I ask you a very simple and straightforward question, Gandy?

In what way do hijabis and niqabis stand for universal freedom, other than wanting to accentuate their own 'freedom' to parade in the public spaces of the secular, democratic West their insistence of being SEEN as inferior to men under sharia?

What other freedom do these women champion? What other freedoms do the hijab and the niqab signify?

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 5:20pm:

In what way do hijabis and niqabis stand for universal freedom

Thats literally as stupid as asking how someone with a baseball cap or a beard can stand for freedom.

I don't even know where to begin with such nonsense, and frankly its not worth my effort. Suffice to say, the belief that an assault on a woman is the woman's fault for what she wore is far more offensive and incompatible to our values and way of life than someone's choice to make themselves look different by what they wear.

gandalf wrote:

Quote:

For crimes muslim commit? All of it, obviously.

I'll take this as an honest answer (not one where you say *muslims* then fall back onto the old islamic deceit of *but that's not what islam teaches so they're not real muslims*)

If you're being honest, what should be done about the teachings of muhammad, the word of allah and the verses in the qur'an which justifies and urges the atrocities being committed in the name of islam and allah?

ban it - obviously.

That's the answer of those who are prepared to do absolutely nothing, out of fear they have to admit they got it all wrong in the first place, they are quiet happy to let the atrocities continue, rather than let truth be the adjudicator.


Honest exposure, ridicule, castigation of the cult's dogma  which results in the ritualistic rapes, torture, mass murder, child brides and other assorted 7th century islamic backwardness is my favoured option. 

The blood has started to flow around the globe it will continue, until muslims and their apologists are finally overwhelmed by truth and right.

   

Quote:

Yes we did - holocaust denial is unlawful in Australia. I forget - what particular mental gymnastics did you concoct to pretend it isn't?

You were not aware of it at the time. Neither was I.


Quote:

No less invented or unjustified than the fear that is causing many muslim women to not wear what they want.

What are they afraid off Gandalf? Are you saying that wearing a hijab is equally as risky as making and publishing new Muhammed cartoons?


Quote:

Do you consider hijabies and niqabies being assaulted, along with their enablers like Soren who insist that the victims are to blame for being "inconsiderate" - as attacks on freedom?

It depends what is being attacked. If people are being targetted because of what they wear, then yes. What is the death toll so far?


Quote:

You may as well say that any crime is an attack on freedom - the guy who burgled someone's house is attacking that person's freedom to not be burgled, the woman who got raped had her freedom to not be raped attacked.

The attacks on cartoonists, authors, film-makers etc are targetted and fairly effective attacks on freedom of speech. This is what makes Islam such a potent threat and one that must be consciously countered.


Quote:

I know which one I'm more wary of - but you and moses go ahead and blissfully continue to be part of the problem.

How am I part of this 'problem'? As I recall you took some convincing that holocaust denial laws are a bad thing. I suppose that was before you were a standard bearer for freedom of speech and could look down on the rest of us from your high horse.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:20pm: In what way do hijabis and niqabis stand for universal freedom Thats literally as stupid as asking how someone with a baseball cap or a beard can stand for freedom. I don't even know where to begin with such nonsense, and frankly its not worth my effort. Suffice to say, the belief that an assault on a woman is the woman's fault for what she wore is far more offensive and incompatible to our values and way of life than someone's choice to make themselves look different by what they wear.

Begin with admitting that the niqab and the hijab stand for no freedom of any kind.  These are not garments to express freedom but its very opposite. These women are not standing up for freedom, they are standing up for oppression and degradation in a word, Submission.  That is no stance for freedom in anyone's language, not even Arabic.


Begin there. Begin with the truth.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 10:06pm:

Begin with admitting that the niqab and the hijab stand for no freedom of any kind.

Fine, whatever, lets take that bigoted view for arguments sake...

Then we start justifying and apologising for people who assault them - right? You've had about 2 months to retract your bigoted statement that women who get bashed for wearing the niqab are the "inconsiderate" ones - and each time I raise it, you haughtily go on this "muslims are the only problem" trip. Its nearly as bad as FD and his howler about women who joined ISIS and got raped, beaten and murdered "deserved everything they get" - as if any woman "deserves" to be raped and murdered.

For crying out loud, there is a massive problem with a minority of muslims - I get that. I also get that the problem of reprisals against muslims pales in comparison. But why on earth does that justify apologising for people who assault women, and then concocting such a ludicrous "they hate freedom/they are inconsiderate" mantra as the default response to crimes against women? Just say muslims are the main problem - but assaults on women - even if they are being "inconsiderate" - is not ok. Is that so unreasonable?

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

It depends what is being attacked. If people are being targetted because of what they wear, then yes.

Wow, you actually had to qualify your view that women shouldn't be assaulted. Tell me, what "depends" on whether a woman should or shouldn't be assaulted in your view?


freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

The attacks on cartoonists, authors, film-makers etc are targetted and fairly effective attacks on freedom of speech. This is what makes Islam such a potent threat and one that must be consciously countered.

I reckon all criminal attacks on people's rights are a potent threat and should be consciously countered - don't you think? So what makes crimes against cartoonists and film makers a bigger threat to freedom than say crimes against people's property, or regular murder - both of which are a gazillion times more prevalent than muslim attacks against cartoons and films?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:28am:

Fine, whatever, lets take that bigoted view for arguments sake... Then we start justifying and apologising for people who assault them - right? You've had about 2 months to retract your bigoted statement that women who get bashed for wearing the niqab are the "inconsiderate" ones - and each time I raise it, you haughtily go on this "muslims are the only problem" trip. Its nearly as bad as FD and his howler about women who joined ISIS and got raped, beaten and murdered "deserved everything they get" - as if any woman "deserves" to be raped and murdered.

You need to understand, G, that the old boy has been railing on about difference before he'd even heard of the Muselman. For the old boy, the beards and burqas are the great crime, just as slinty eyes were the problem when the Asians were the enemy. Terrorism and security are just rhetoric. The real project is to alienate and exclude the tinted races. The less cunning knuckleheads here - Homo, Honky, Herbie, etc, openly acknowledge this.

I've come to believe the same applies to FD. His whole "sustainability" thing has turned into a subtle campaign to keep out the tinted races. What FD doesn't say is just as important as what he does say. The evasions, the unanswered questions, the trickiness. Where the old boy was always the old boy, FD has turned. This board has become a railing point for racists - old style neo-Nazis. Once, this sort of discourse was unthinkable. It was a given that racism was ridiculous. It went completely against the Western Enlightenment tradition. It went completely against modernity. We'd seen its conclusion in the Holocaust, and we saw how divisive, destructive and ultimately pointless it is.

But it's returned. Today, it's the sort of "freedom of speech" FD and the old boy defend. What bedazzles me is how far they'll go to defend it. Both defend the use of lies. When lies are exposed, they go quiet or defend the basic principle. When the old boy says to "begin with the truth", he is referring to a form of Orwellian doublethink. Platitudes such as truth, justice and freedom are all used to promote their opposites.

FD and the old boy have both called for an end to religious tolerance. The old boy thinks the very idea of tolerance is a joke, although he'll allude to liberal values in the defense of ripping them apart. Both call for the introduction of religious discrimination, although they're silent when it comes to fleshing out the details. You know, things like religious tests for people entering Australia or the process of constitutional reform. Both claim they support the rights of people to wear what they choose, but cheer on when other countries ban Muslim head coverings. Both defend the use of laws and bans to restrict people's liberties while they feign liberal values. They try to fudge this, but it's transparent to all who read the posts. The agenda is not about liberalism at all, but brute force. The only liberties being defended are the liberty to attack Muslims, verbally and even physically.

But make no mistake, Islam is only a target for an entire collection of people, those the old boy calls the tinted races. This is just old style racism, and FD and the old boy will defend racism each and every time it rears its head. One of the tricks is the old Mafia ruse: racism doesn't exist. This is all about "culture", or religion, or politics.

The other trick is to assert the importance of racism: discrimination is a virtue. All people are racist. Racism is a natural part of the human condition - why fight it? We have to be racist. White man's burden, innit.

The other trick is to play the victim. Calling racism is trying to silence people. It's a tactic to restrict free speech. This trick is hollow. Calling out racism is just calling out racism, it's not restricting free speech at all. But what this trick acknowledges is that racism is not desirable at all. FD and the old boy might be happy to defend racism and the right to be bigots, but they don't like being called racists. They see this as most unfair.

The old boy knows he's a racist, he just tries to cover it up. He understands the implicit hypocrisy of emigrating to another country and then seeking to exclude others based on their race, but he does not like to acknowledge this.

FD, on the other hand, has little awareness of racism, but that's understandable. FD has slowly abandoned the principles he learned at university. He's switched teams. He's joined the racists and been slowly converted to their agenda.

This agenda is not just about culture, or Western values, or identity politics; it's about reintroducing tribalism and racial division. The ultimate goal is a new form of Apartheid. There is no reason or sense in any of it, which is why you can never convince through logic. After all, how do you convince those who are happy to propagate lies while they tell you, straight-faced, to "begin with the truth"?

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:28am: Fine, whatever, lets take that bigoted view for arguments sake... Then we start justifying and apologising for people who assault them - right? You've had about 2 months to retract your bigoted statement that women who get bashed for wearing the niqab are the "inconsiderate" ones - and each time I raise it, you haughtily go on this "muslims are the only problem" trip. Its nearly as bad as FD and his howler about women who joined ISIS and got raped, beaten and murdered "deserved everything they get" - as if any woman "deserves" to be raped and murdered. You need to understand, G, that the old boy has been railing on about difference before he'd even heard of the Muselman. For the old boy, the beards and burqas are the great crime, just as slinty eyes were the problem when the Asians were the enemy. Terrorism and security are just rhetoric. The real project is to alienate and exclude the tinted races. The less cunning knuckleheads here - Homo, Honky, Herbie, etc, openly acknowledge this. I've come to believe the same applies to FD. His whole "sustainability" thing has turned into a subtle campaign to keep out the tinted races. What FD doesn't say is just as important as what he does say. The evasions, the unanswered questions, the trickiness. Where the old boy was always the old boy, FD has turned. This board has become a railing point for racists - old style neo-Nazis. Once, this sort of discourse was unthinkable. It was a given that racism was ridiculous. It went completely against the Western Enlightenment tradition. It went completely against modernity. We'd seen its conclusion in the Holocaust, and we saw how divisive, destructive and ultimately pointless it is. But it's returned. Today, it's the sort of "freedom of speech" FD and the old boy defend. What bedazzles me is how far they'll go to defend it. Both defend the use of lies. When lies are exposed, they go quiet or defend the basic principle. When the old boy says to "begin with the truth", he is referring to a form of Orwellian doublethink. Platitudes such as truth, justice and freedom are all used to promote their opposites. FD and the old boy have both called for an end to religious tolerance. The old boy thinks the very idea of tolerance is a joke, although he'll allude to liberal values in the defense of ripping them apart. Both call for the introduction of religious discrimination, although they're silent when it comes to fleshing out the details. You know, things like religious tests for people entering Australia or the process of constitutional reform. Both claim they support the rights of people to wear what they choose, but cheer on when other countries ban Muslim head coverings. Both defend the use of laws and bans to restrict people's liberties while they feign liberal values. They try to fudge this, but it's transparent to all who read the posts. The agenda is not about liberalism at all, but brute force. The only liberties being defended are the liberty to attack Muslims, verbally and even physically. But make no mistake, Islam is only a target for an entire collection of people, those the old boy calls the tinted races. This is just old style racism, and FD and the old boy will defend racism each and every time it rears its head. One of the tricks is the old Mafia ruse: racism doesn't exist. This is all about "culture", or religion, or politics. The other trick is to assert the importance of racism: discrimination is a virtue. All people are racist. Racism is a natural part of the human condition - why fight it? We have to be racist. White man's burden, innit. The other trick is to play the victim. Calling racism is trying to silence people. It's a tactic to restrict free speech. This trick is hollow. Calling out racism is just calling out racism, it's not restricting free speech at all. But what this trick acknowledges is that racism is not desirable at all. FD and the old boy might be happy to defend racism and the right to be bigots, but they don't like being called racists. They see this as most unfair. The old boy knows he's a racist, he just tries to cover it up. He understands the implicit hypocrisy of emigrating to another country and then seeking to exclude others based on their race, but he does not like to acknowledge this. FD, on the other hand, has little awareness of racism, but that's understandable. FD has slowly abandoned the principles he learned at university. He's switched teams. He's joined the racists and been slowly converted to their agenda. This agenda is not just about culture, or Western values, or identity politics; it's about reintroducing tribalism and racial division. The ultimate goal is a new form of Apartheid. There is no reason or sense in any of it, which is why you can never convince through logic. After all, how do you convince those who are happy to propagate lies while they tell you, straight-faced, to "begin with the truth"?

Oooooooorrrrrrr people observe the shitfight in Europe and think, you know, based on the balance of probabilities I don't see any real advantage in importing religion of peace cultists, who don't play well with each other let alone anyone else, and I can see a lot of downsides so therefore, my preference is for no religion of peace cultists.

As far as I can tell, Secret, the sh it fight is in the Middle East, not Europe. Europe had its own sh it fight 60 years ago and I can't remember hearing about any Arabs saying "we don't want them here".

The sh it fight in the Middle East is not all about religion. The civil war in Syria erupted when photos were published of children the Assad regime had tortured and killed. Many of the militias fighting are ethnic and political groups, as well as militias funded by foreign interests: the Saudis, Turks, Iranians, Yanks and French.

It is impossible to discriminate against a quarter of the world's population on the basis of their perceived religious belief. Any Muslim with a sinister intent can pretend to be a Christian. Meanwhile, the majority of Muslims are Muslims by name only. Not all Muslims are even religious, never mind affiliated with militant groups like ISIS.

Anyway, you know all this. We've said it many times. The purpose of my post was to show how such an agenda is implicitly racist. Sure, it might be sparked by security concerns, but its fuel is good old racism.

After all, you were arguing the we-don't-want-them-here case prior to any perceived European sh it fight, weren't you? 

Karnal can obviously see some upside and benefit to religion of peace cultists hopping onto boats and self selecting immigration to Europe. 

I can only predict that with more cultists, things are only going to get worse. 

Meanwhile apologist clowns and mitigators will look increasingly idiotic and irrelevant. 

Secret Wars wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

Karnal can obviously see some upside and benefit to religion of peace cultists hopping onto boats and self selecting immigration to Europe.

The upside is to the refugees themselves, Secret. Oh - and their new employers. In Germany, companies have been recruiting at refugee centres.

Good to see your predictions. Back in the 90s, Our Pauline predicted the Vietnamese would only get worse too. Instead, they largely got prosperous and now fill the top percentages of university entrance scores.

I don't doubt that pointing this out looks idiotic and irrelevant. People, you see, have an amazing ability to forget. The human capacity for willful ignorance never ceases to amaze me.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:28am: Fine, whatever, lets take that bigoted view for arguments sake... Then we start justifying and apologising for people who assault them - right? You've had about 2 months to retract your bigoted statement that women who get bashed for wearing the niqab are the "inconsiderate" ones - and each time I raise it, you haughtily go on this "muslims are the only problem" trip. Its nearly as bad as FD and his howler about women who joined ISIS and got raped, beaten and murdered "deserved everything they get" - as if any woman "deserves" to be raped and murdered. You need to understand, G, that the old boy has been railing on about difference before he'd even heard of the Muselman. For the old boy, the beards and burqas are the great crime, just as slinty eyes were the problem when the Asians were the enemy. Terrorism and security are just rhetoric. The real project is to alienate and exclude the tinted races. The less cunning knuckleheads here - Homo, Honky, Herbie, etc, openly acknowledge this. I've come to believe the same applies to FD. His whole "sustainability" thing has turned into a subtle campaign to keep out the tinted races. What FD doesn't say is just as important as what he does say. The evasions, the unanswered questions, the trickiness. Where the old boy was always the old boy, FD has turned. This board has become a railing point for racists - old style neo-Nazis. Once, this sort of discourse was unthinkable. It was a given that racism was ridiculous. It went completely against the Western Enlightenment tradition. It went completely against modernity. We'd seen its conclusion in the Holocaust, and we saw how divisive, destructive and ultimately pointless it is. But it's returned. Today, it's the sort of "freedom of speech" FD and the old boy defend. What bedazzles me is how far they'll go to defend it. Both defend the use of lies. When lies are exposed, they go quiet or defend the basic principle. When the old boy says to "begin with the truth", he is referring to a form of Orwellian doublethink. Platitudes such as truth, justice and freedom are all used to promote their opposites. FD and the old boy have both called for an end to religious tolerance. The old boy thinks the very idea of tolerance is a joke, although he'll allude to liberal values in the defense of ripping them apart. Both call for the introduction of religious discrimination, although they're silent when it comes to fleshing out the details. You know, things like religious tests for people entering Australia or the process of constitutional reform. Both claim they support the rights of people to wear what they choose, but cheer on when other countries ban Muslim head coverings. Both defend the use of laws and bans to restrict people's liberties while they feign liberal values. They try to fudge this, but it's transparent to all who read the posts. The agenda is not about liberalism at all, but brute force. The only liberties being defended are the liberty to attack Muslims, verbally and even physically. But make no mistake, Islam is only a target for an entire collection of people, those the old boy calls the tinted races. This is just old style racism, and FD and the old boy will defend racism each and every time it rears its head. One of the tricks is the old Mafia ruse: racism doesn't exist. This is all about "culture", or religion, or politics. The other trick is to assert the importance of racism: discrimination is a virtue. All people are racist. Racism is a natural part of the human condition - why fight it? We have to be racist. White man's burden, innit. The other trick is to play the victim. Calling racism is trying to silence people. It's a tactic to restrict free speech. This trick is hollow. Calling out racism is just calling out racism, it's not restricting free speech at all. But what this trick acknowledges is that racism is not desirable at all. FD and the old boy might be happy to defend racism and the right to be bigots, but they don't like being called racists. They see this as most unfair. The old boy knows he's a racist, he just tries to cover it up. He understands the implicit hypocrisy of emigrating to another country and then seeking to exclude others based on their race, but he does not like to acknowledge this. FD, on the other hand, has little awareness of racism, but that's understandable. FD has slowly abandoned the principles he learned at university. He's switched teams. He's joined the racists and been slowly converted to their agenda. This agenda is not just about culture, or Western values, or identity politics; it's about reintroducing tribalism and racial division. The ultimate goal is a new form of Apartheid. There is no reason or sense in any of it, which is why you can never convince through logic. After all, how do you convince those who are happy to propagate lies while they tell you, straight-faced, to "begin with the truth"?

Superb post, well said.

Here's an interesting old article which captures, I think, some of the themes we're discussing.

The use of the word negro is neither here nor there. There's no racism in it. But it does expose someone who's a little out of touch with the identity politics he's describing.

The choice between the edification of the marketplace and the edification of outmoded institutions like the church seems to capture the differing world views of posters like FD, on the one hand, and the old boy on the other.

In the end, of course, both are just ethical abstracts. Racism is still racism, no matter how you seek to exclude


Quote:

A narrowing church Eleanor Robertson The Liberals are a broad church, so they say, often when one of their members has been caught airing offensive or factually incorrect views in public. It’s a neat manoeuvre that forces their opponents onto different argumentative terrain, so the conversation becomes one about the merits of ideological diversity rather than whether the Honourable Member was correct when he said wind farms cause dropsy. But is the party a broad enough church for Eric Abetz’ belief that the racial slur “negro” is an acceptable way of referring to black people? Abetz is an avowed member of the conservative rump, and used the term during a tortured argument for why businesses engaging in discrimination against gay couples is not comparable to racist discrimination: That sort of analogy was completely debunked by Justice Clarence Thomas, the negro American on the supreme court of the United States dealing with this issue who dissented on the issue of marriage as well. And so trying to bring race into it has now been completely dropped. Here is a man grappling with the tangled threads of identity politics, trying to use its own arguments against it and succeeding only in tying his own hands together. He dimly grasps that lefties believe people who belong to marginalised populations have unique insight into the nature of their own oppression; therefore Clarence Thomas, by virtue of his blackness, must know what is and is not equivalent to racial discrimination. He doesn't sketch Thomas’ actual argument, because his intent is only to open anyone who disagrees with him to the accusation that they believe they know more about racism than a black man. A disingenuous strategy, but one that would have left him just enough wiggle room if he hadn't clumsily exposed his own ignorance by calling his black mouthpiece a negro. It’s hard to sound like you believe in deferring to black authority on racism while in the act of demonstrating that you’ve never done any such thing yourself, and it’s even harder to demand good faith engagement from your audience while making it clear you don’t believe your own arguments. Abetz is savvier than someone like Cory Bernardi, who expects his honest bigotry to be taken seriously. But sometimes the mask slips and we get a glimpse of the same stuff underneath: a simple belief that there exists a natural human hierarchy that must be maintained, by force if necessary. That is what's happening when political figures like Abetz opine that businesses should have ‘freedom’ to discriminate on the basis of sexuality: they are saying it's legitimate to use state violence to keep gay people in their place. This kind of hard-right traditionalism is looking increasingly out of place in the Liberal broad church, and seems set to die with the current generation. The difference between Abetz and Turnbull’s moral systems lies in the ultimate authority to which each defers: for Abetz and the other conservative rumpsters it’s usually God, or some kind of commonsense natural order. For small-l liberal Turnbull it’s the market, and ideologies of any kind that conflict with its operation are regarded with suspicion. Turnbull’s views are considered more modern because they don’t involve outmoded forms of prejudice, but it’s worth keeping in mind that crusty old conservatives like Abetz aren’t the only ones at risk of having their ethical commitments dismissed as impediments to the imperative of economic growth. Markets are not egalitarian institutions: they produce winners and losers just like systems based on codified racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. Sorting out who does well and who doesn’t is simply outsourced to a diffuse network of transactions rather than centrally fixed. The results of this process often mirror those of the same older forms of prejudice that we condemn when they are expressed intentionally by people like Abetz. But we have ultimate control over our social and economic institutions, which means we’ve chosen, and continue to choose, a system that gives us a ten-year life-expectancy gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Are phenomena like this somehow more acceptable because we've mostly agreed not to use the word “negro”? The broad church of the Liberal party may be narrowing in a way that seems satisfying when we get to pile on the remaining dinosaurs, but I wonder if we’ll still think it’s a positive development when our own deep commitments are considered similarly outdated. I guess we’ll have to let the market decide.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 1:06pm:

Back in the 90s, Our Pauline predicted the Vietnamese would only get worse too.

This is the thing about the racists - as you said the muslim is only the current representative target of the entire tinted target. If ever you need proof of this, look no further than what Pauline was railing against in the 90s - not a word about muslims. We were being "swamped by asians" - and of course by asians, we mean chinky chonks, not muslims. And yet the funny thing was that Lebanese bikey gangs at that time were running rampant with their drugs and gang rapes and drive-by shootings - probably worse than they are today. Yet somehow we didn't see them as the real problem - back then it was the Vietnamese triads and Chinese sweat shops. And the current preference to target muslims today didn't start with terrorism - it started, if you recall, with that nasty gang rape of a white girl in 2000, which snowballed into the whole bikie gangs and drive-by shootings moral panic. Then, like a perfect storm, 9/11 happened and the rest is history.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

This board has become a railing point for racists - old style neo-Nazis. Once, this sort of discourse was unthinkable. It was a given that racism was ridiculous.

So true. The change in tone in this forum from when it began to today is stark. In the early days people like Sprint were put in their place - not by counter-trolls, but with sound arguments - led by FD. Back then, the muslims on the board could have a civilized and constructive conversation about their religion - and most non-muslims were genuinely interested in learning, as opposed to constantly trying to corner and checkmate them.

Here's a good one on Andrew Bolt. This article also encapsulates the discussion we're having here.


Quote:

Bolted down Richard Cooke “How could I have failed so completely to convince so many people that I am actually fighting exactly what I’m accused of?” That’s the question Andrew Bolt asked his readers last year, after the Aboriginal academic Marcia Langton accused him of being a racist. She later apologised, but the episode rattled Bolt so badly he stayed out of the office for a day. He is, after all, a dedicated anti-racist. In the wake of the Paris attacks, Bolt has suggested a cut in the number of Muslim migrants, a call he has made a number of times before. He has also recommended not taking African immigrants for the same reasons: failure to integrate, propensity to criminality. This – let's be frank – is an unusual position for an anti-racism campaigner to take. It’s difficult to think of anyone else who describes themselves that way advocating racialised immigration quotas. But what makes it especially unique is how it sits against the rest of Bolt’s personal philosophy. Elsewhere, he deplores those who harp on the difference between colours and creeds. They, he says, promulgate the “new tribalism” and “new racism” that threaten to tear us apart. Colour-blindness is key. This is why constitutional recognition for Indigenous Australians is racist, for example, as is Adam Goodes talking about colonial dispossession. Because it puts them apart. Creates division. Strangely, this colour-blindness disappears when non-whites or Muslims commit crime. Then, for some reason, it becomes vitally important to talk about race, and restrict migration on the same basis. Bolt fulminates against judges who anonymise Muslim names in their judgements, or newspapers that fail to print racial descriptors of perpetrators. The old tribalism, the old racism, seem to be exempt from Bolt’s criticism. Perhaps it’s all about culture, a word Bolt prefers (partly because it is more “optimistic”, he says). It’s reasonable then to talk about the cultural element in Islamist terrorism, the same way it’s reasonable to talk about the role of tradition in the Catholic paedophilia scandal. That seems fair enough. Except Bolt described the latter conversation as a “great onslaught of hate” in the media, “a witch-hunt”, “a hate campaign against innocent Catholics”, an attempt to “destroy the sanctity of the confessional” and “tear down the structures of the church”. It’s difficult to see clearly through the colour-blindfold, but it’s almost like there’s one rule for one set of people, and another rule for others. I am not a fan of hunting through website comment sections, then smearing writers with their contents. “Nut hunting”, it’s called, a name that shows how easy it is, and how pointless. But the readers of Andrew Bolt’s blog express sentiments so pervasively vile that their sum is unignorable. Five minutes’ reading will be more than enough to get the flavour (remember, too, that it’s moderated –  the juicier turds have already been skimmed from this sewer). One example has really stuck with me. It’s a comment from a reader called Herb, a former colonial resident of Papua New Guinea. He’d often enjoyed watching colonial riot police at work in the 1960s: Driving back from the town to the airport I often came across and watched ‘the Police Boi Riot Squad’ at work… The Police Bois laid into anything over their shields with enormous ferocity, arcing their batons from near the ground … The ‘boinks’ were the police bois giving a massive clobber on the skulls like slamming two wooden blocks together … Herb was writing in at the time of the Manus Island riots. And, like so many of Bolt’s readers, longing for yesteryear. If the refugees fronted a Police Boi riot squad anywhere near as disciplined in earlier times, they would for sure clobber those thin middle eastern skulls … Perhaps the reason that it's stuck with me is that Bolt decided to publish it on his blog, in full. “Detainees met a PNG police force that hits back” was the headline. “Reader Herb gives background to the violent police response to the Manus detention centre riot,” was the introduction. Background. So how did Bolt's anti-racist readers respond to this image of a baton clobbering a “thin middle eastern skull”? (Why mention the thinness unless to imply breakage?) With outrage? A re-assertion of love for their fellow man? Like this: “Boink Boink Boink Boy thats a sound i would have liked to hear” “What a marvellous description of well organised well disciplined squad” “That’s how riot squads used to work in western countries too, until the touchy feelie brigade took over” “Thankyou PNG … Well done, well done.” I wonder how it would feel, to start an anti-racism campaign and find it polluted with these kinds of sentiments. There you are, just trying to provide some “background” to an event, and find this neutral communication violated by extreme sentiments like this. I wonder how it feels to look around and find virtually no people of other races in your camp, apart from a few eccentrics and turncoats. To hold a position on the Stolen Generations that requires breezily invalidating the testimony of thousands of people (but only for their benefit, of course).

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 2:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:27am: This board has become a railing point for racists - old style neo-Nazis. Once, this sort of discourse was unthinkable. It was a given that racism was ridiculous. So true. The change in tone in this forum from when it began to today is stark. In the early days people like Sprint were put in their place - not by counter-trolls, but with sound arguments - led by FD. Back then, the muslims on the board could have a civilized and constructive conversation about their religion - and most non-muslims were genuinely interested in learning, as opposed to constantly trying to corner and checkmate them.

I wonder if this is a phenomenon unique to this board, or if the same changes have happened outside. I see this board as a reflection of community attitudes, but I wonder if that's a mistake.

But then again, the last two years of Abbott were dazzling in their ignorance and hostility. To see people defending the policies, the backflips and the dumb attacks on Gillian Triggs, the ABC, the UNHCR, etc, was eye-opening. The lies, the slogans and the transparent propaganda were breathtaking too. How could they ever think they could get away with it?

FD himself is part of community standards, and look how far he's turned. Or did he?

Is racism something latent like the self-confessed racists assert? Was there always a racist in FD trying to get out? And like FD, could we say the same for ourselves?

Maybe we can. I believe I could turn for a good reason. The thing I can't understand, however, is the porkies, the evasion. Why pretend? Why not just say what you think?

FD used to say the same thing about Abu. His reason for starting the Wiki in the first place was to keep track of Abu's ridiculous ideas and hold him to them. Now, it's amazing how similar FD has become to Abu himself - not to the religious fundamentalism, of course, but the rigid dogma and the slippery evasion and slight of hand that goes along with it.

So yes, while I understand that changing your mind is always an option, I have to consider that changing your entire moral compass is possible too.

Quote:

Why pretend? Why not just say what you think?

This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course. 

You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia.

... wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Quote: Why pretend? Why not just say what you think? This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course.  You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia.

True, Honky, but you're one of the few people dumb enough to say what he really thinks.

FD isn't nearly as brave as you.

... wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

Quote: Why pretend? Why not just say what you think? This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course.  You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia.

The White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass said that she often believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.  There are many impossible things that we in the West are expected to believe – that Islam is a religion of peace; that multiculturalism works; that numbers don’t matter when it comes to mass migration; and that the identity of migrants doesn’t matter either.


What we should do instead : stop mass migration, protect ourselves from the civil war raging within Islam, absorb those who are already here, reconstruct, instead of deconstruct, our societies and last but not least, stop believing impossible things.

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 3:55pm:

... wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:15pm: Quote: Why pretend? Why not just say what you think? This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course.  You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia. The White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass said that she often believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.  There are many impossible things that we in the West are expected to believe – that Islam is a religion of peace; that multiculturalism works; that numbers don’t matter when it comes to mass migration; and that the identity of migrants doesn’t matter either. What we should do instead : stop mass migration, protect ourselves from the civil war raging within Islam, absorb those who are already here, reconstruct, instead of deconstruct, our societies and last but not least, stop believing impossible things.

Oh, we tried all that with Mr Abbott as our Roads and Infrastructure Prime Minister, old chap.

Turned out it wasn't possible.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 3:58pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:55pm: ... wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:15pm: Quote: Why pretend? Why not just say what you think? This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course.  You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia. The White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass said that she often believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.  There are many impossible things that we in the West are expected to believe – that Islam is a religion of peace; that multiculturalism works; that numbers don’t matter when it comes to mass migration; and that the identity of migrants doesn’t matter either. What we should do instead : stop mass migration, protect ourselves from the civil war raging within Islam, absorb those who are already here, reconstruct, instead of deconstruct, our societies and last but not least, stop believing impossible things. Oh, we tried all that with Mr Abbott as our Roads and Infrastructure Prime Minister, old chap. Turned out it wasn't possible.

Why is it not possible?  It will be done sooner or later.

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:02pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:55pm: ... wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:15pm: Quote: Why pretend? Why not just say what you think? This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course.  You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia. The White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass said that she often believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.  There are many impossible things that we in the West are expected to believe – that Islam is a religion of peace; that multiculturalism works; that numbers don’t matter when it comes to mass migration; and that the identity of migrants doesn’t matter either. What we should do instead : stop mass migration, protect ourselves from the civil war raging within Islam, absorb those who are already here, reconstruct, instead of deconstruct, our societies and last but not least, stop believing impossible things. Oh, we tried all that with Mr Abbott as our Roads and Infrastructure Prime Minister, old chap. Turned out it wasn't possible. Why is it not possible?

Why is it not possible? I have no doubt it may well be possible one day, old chap.

Why was it not possible? I'll start with this if you don't mind.

I think the answer to your amended question gets to the heart of things. Mr Abbott failed because of his porkies. He promised the electorate one thing, and then went straight in and did another.

He couldn't get a thing through the senate because he didn't have any mandate or popular support. He couldn't get many things through his cabinet because he hadn't consulted or thought things through. And he couldn't get anything past the public because he dumbed everything down in three-word slogans, avoiding all debate and clarification, and ultimately treating the electorate like fools.

But the reasons for Mr Abbott's removal may well provide hope for the future. It shows that we are, in some ways, a democracy. Power in Australia does not lie at the top. People, from lobbyists to business to MPs to voters themselves, expect to be consulted and included in discussion.

And this is why I think that your agenda will come later rather than sooner. People don't like porkies, and they're not as dumb as you think.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 2:34pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:27am: This board has become a railing point for racists - old style neo-Nazis. Once, this sort of discourse was unthinkable. It was a given that racism was ridiculous. So true. The change in tone in this forum from when it began to today is stark. In the early days people like Sprint were put in their place - not by counter-trolls, but with sound arguments - led by FD. Back then, the muslims on the board could have a civilized and constructive conversation about their religion - and most non-muslims were genuinely interested in learning, as opposed to constantly trying to corner and checkmate them.

Such utter bollocks.  Opposing an ideology is not racist. It wasn't racist to oppose Napoleon, Wilhelm II, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Ho, the Soviet, etc. Islam is an ideology and it is not racist to oppose it.  It is an indefensible and dishonest lie to veil Islam in the niqab of race. And you both continue this lie as a matter of determined policy.

Opposing western liberal democracy and enlightenment is not racists. Nor is the ideology, Islam that opposes it.  They both have universal claims going well past any parochial, tribal little race identity.

Grow up and grow a brain, the both of you.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02907/Jordan-Horner_2907951b.jpg

Submission to Stupid is not confined to brown people.i

You’re not racist, dear boy. The tinted races are not a race.

Your superiority over them is not racism either - you were just born that way. This is a scientifically proven fact. Correlation, not causation, innit.

To pretend anything else would be mendacity of the highest orfer - on stilts, I believe.

You’ve told us so many times. Not only do you think the Muselman should be kept out - the tinted should be excluded too.

Remember, they have also declared war against the West by being too stupid to consent to white man’s burden. If they can’t be interned, they need to be properly carpetbombed. Paki Bastards, post-colonial numpties, grinning sh!t-eaters, pederasts and sodomites, the lot.

You’re not racist, old boy. You’re objective.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 4:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 4:02pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:58pm: Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:55pm: ... wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 3:15pm: Quote: Why pretend? Why not just say what you think? This is the question we've been asking of leftards for years, rhetorically of course.  You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era, or an academic thought in year zero Cambodia. The White Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass said that she often believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.  There are many impossible things that we in the West are expected to believe – that Islam is a religion of peace; that multiculturalism works; that numbers don’t matter when it comes to mass migration; and that the identity of migrants doesn’t matter either. What we should do instead : stop mass migration, protect ourselves from the civil war raging within Islam, absorb those who are already here, reconstruct, instead of deconstruct, our societies and last but not least, stop believing impossible things. Oh, we tried all that with Mr Abbott as our Roads and Infrastructure Prime Minister, old chap. Turned out it wasn't possible. Why is it not possible?  Why is it not possible? I have no doubt it may well be possible one day, old chap. Why was it not possible? I'll start with this if you don't mind. I think the answer to your amended question gets to the heart of things. Mr Abbott failed because of his porkies. He promised the electorate one thing, and then went straight in and did another. He couldn't get a thing through the senate because he didn't have any mandate or popular support. He couldn't get many things through his cabinet because he hadn't consulted or thought things through. And he couldn't get anything past the public because he dumbed everything down in three-word slogans, avoiding all debate and clarification, and ultimately treating the electorate like fools. But the reasons for Mr Abbott's removal may well provide hope for the future. It shows that we are, in some ways, a democracy. Power in Australia does not lie at the top. People, from lobbyists to business to MPs to voters themselves, expect to be consulted and included in discussion. And this is why I think that your agenda will come later rather than sooner. People don't like porkies, and they're not as dumb as you think.

Muslims in the West are a problem. That problem will have to be dealt with. Allowing more Muslim immigration is NOT the way to deal with it.


The choice is to Westernise Islam or Islamise the West. The latter will not happen without a massive bloodbath.

So the problem has to be dealt with, either by Westernising Islam (no chance) or keeping Islam out.

Islam is fundamentally and unalterably, and from  first principles, opposed to secular enlightenment values, whether political, moral or religious. Only non-practicing, non-pious Muslims fit into a society that is fundamentally opposed to all tenets of Islam.  At present we cannot tell apostates and laggards from the pious and earnest Muslims at the borders. Until we can we should stop all of them.
Until we know what to do with the ones already inside the borders, we should stop importing more.

This is not difficult at all.  And it has nuffin' to wiv Abbott.

We didn't continue with unrestricted German and Japanese immigration between 1933 and 1945. We didn't have unrestricted immigration for communist party members after 1945. How are devotees of Mohammed different?  Why are we letting in the sons of Allah now, after they have made their murderous opposition to our society clear as clear can be???i

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 6:21pm:

You’re not racist, dear boy. The tinted races are not a race. Your superiority over them is not racism either - you were just born that way. Correlation not causation, innit.

You did notice that the noob whose picture I posted is not tinted, no?

Or do you just repeat the same stupid crap, no matter what the counter-argument?
(yes, he does. ed.)

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 6:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 6:21pm: You’re not racist, dear boy. The tinted races are not a race. Your superiority over them is not racism either - you were just born that way. Correlation not causation, innit. You did notice that the noob whose picture I posted is not tinted, no? Or do you just repeat the same stupid crap, no matter what the counter-argument? (yes, he does. ed.)

No, dear boy, I didn’t notice that. I think it was the beard.

Bearded numpties need to go too.

That’s not racist, it’s a scientifically proven fact. Do you know what you are, old chap?

You’re a liberal. You’re here to defend our proud Enlightenment tradition.

Ban them.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

It was a given that racism was ridiculous. It went completely against the Western Enlightenment tradition. It went completely against modernity. We'd seen its conclusion in the Holocaust, and we saw how divisive, destructive and ultimately pointless it is.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat it, it is still utter bollocks, PB.

None of this is about race. You use 'race' becayse there is no readily employable word to convey the alienness and complete undesirability of some cultures.

Your constant banging on about race is really an evasion - a conscious, purposeful evasion of the agit-prop pseudo-intellectual - of cultural incomaptibility. 

Cultures, especially Christianity and its fruits - Enlightenment, universal human rights, equality before the law, etc - call everyone out of their tribes, races, clans. There is no race in Christianity or in secular Enlightenment.  But you carry on as if there was.

Opposition to Islam is not based on race.  It is completely dishonest - knowingly dishonest - of you and Gandy to have a daily wank-fest about how opposition to Islam is all nothing but racism. But since you have no ability to come up with a valid defence of Islam in the West, you resort to the 'racists' dishonesty.

Is the Archbishop of Nigeria racist for opposing Islam? 

Does Islam make you dishonest about this issue, or is it the guilt about the colour of your skins - both of you being white honkies.  Are you self-hating here, day in, day out?



Please explain.

Good point, old chap. You’re not racist. Christians and those who profess to support universal human rights can’t possibly be racists. Christianity and the Western Enlightenment tradition are not racist.

Utter bollocks, of course. I made this point in the post you quoted, so it must be.

Typical.

Quote:

Wow, you actually had to qualify your view that women shouldn't be assaulted. Tell me, what "depends" on whether a woman should or shouldn't be assaulted in your view?

No Gandalf, I had to qualify my view on whether it was an attack on freedom - strangely enough, with whether it was an attack on freedom.


Quote:

I reckon all criminal attacks on people's rights are a potent threat and should be consciously countered - don't you think?

Sure, but not everything is about freedom Gandalf. I know you only just became the standard bearer for freedom of speech, but you should try not to get carried away. You are allowed to oppose things for other reasons.


Quote:

So what makes crimes against cartoonists and film makers a bigger threat to freedom than say crimes against people's property, or regular murder - both of which are a gazillion times more prevalent than muslim attacks against cartoons and films?

People are not going to stop building houses because they get broken into occasionally. People will however stop drawing Muhammed cartoons and making books and films that mock Muhammed because of the targetted attacks on those that do. It is the targeting that is significant. If there are only 20 significant new works mocking Muhammed each year, and five deaths because of them, then the odds are not that good for someone considering joining that group of 20. Soon it will be down to 15, then 10, then 5, then nothing.


Quote:

Anyway, you know all this. We've said it many times. The purpose of my post was to show how such an agenda is implicitly racist. Sure, it might be sparked by security concerns, but its fuel is good old racism.

Not say, people who dislike being raped and sexually assaulted en masse in a country that is otherwise very liberal?


Quote:

Good to see your predictions. Back in the 90s, Our Pauline predicted the Vietnamese would only get worse too. Instead, they largely got prosperous and now fill the top percentages of university entrance scores.

Do you think the Muslims will follow suit? They have had 1400 years, including a so-called "golden age" where they ruled the western hemisphere. They have pretty much nothing to show for it. The modern oil rich Muslim countries have managed to buck the common trends associated with wealth seen everywhere else in the world and have devoted their excess energy to becoming even more socially backwards. We did not expect the Vietnamese to become less Vietnamese in order to contribute to our society, but Islam is not a race.


Quote:

You and I both know why - for the same reason a commie wouldn't say what he really thought in the McCarthy era

How about today Karnal?

Yes, FD, you showed us those statistics on the Muselman.raping and sexually assaulting us once.

Well, you provided a link to.an article on ratchets, but you made the point.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 12:28am:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 10:06pm: Begin with admitting that the niqab and the hijab stand for no freedom of any kind.  Fine, whatever, lets take that bigoted view for arguments sake... Then we start justifying and apologising for people who assault them - right? You've had about 2 months to retract your bigoted statement that women who get bashed for wearing the niqab are the "inconsiderate" ones - and each time I raise it, you haughtily go on this "muslims are the only problem" trip. Its nearly as bad as FD and his howler about women who joined ISIS and got raped, beaten and murdered "deserved everything they get" - as if any woman "deserves" to be raped and murdered. For crying out loud, there is a massive problem with a minority of muslims - I get that. I also get that the problem of reprisals against muslims pales in comparison. But why on earth does that justify apologising for people who assault women, and then concocting such a ludicrous "they hate freedom/they are inconsiderate" mantra as the default response to crimes against women? Just say muslims are the main problem - but assaults on women - even if they are being "inconsiderate" - is not ok. Is that so unreasonable?

Lemme put it this way.

If a feminist who is also a performing artist and street theatre performer went to Auburn and Lakemba with a film crew and made a day of protest by holding up a placard with a clever slogan about universal human dignity and went around ripping off niqabs and hijabs while carefully and scrupulously avoiding injuring the women themselves - I would donate money to such a ballsy suffragette. Wouldn't you?  She would be fined - but that's a small price for Westernising Islam.

What about ripping of the swastika arm bands of nazis on the street? A good thing. Or do you think that nazi arm-bands are inviolable?

There is no place for the niqab and the hijab and the burqa in the West. If the wearers get a bit humiliated or ridiculed - well, that the rough and tumble of of free exchange of ideas.  If they can parade their beliefs in the public square, those who oppose their ideas are equally allowed to express their views in the public sphere. As long as nothing but their egos are harmed, it's all part of free and fearless exchange of ideas in the public sphere, isn't it? There is nothing special about Muslim women going around in anachronistic garb claiming special privileges. Muslim men subject Wester women to much worse ordeal that the rare niqab removal.   Let the niqabis and hijabis reign in their men first.

Then we can talk about the rare and isolated instances of hijab-snatching.i

FD, on a side note, those Arab gulf states seem to support your Malthusian thesis on small populations and economic growth perfectly. Incredibly rich, low populations, social welfare, plenty of resources and no immigration to waste them.

Sounds like a better case study than China, don’t you think?

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 7:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 12:28am: Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 10:06pm: Begin with admitting that the niqab and the hijab stand for no freedom of any kind.  Fine, whatever, lets take that bigoted view for arguments sake... Then we start justifying and apologising for people who assault them - right? You've had about 2 months to retract your bigoted statement that women who get bashed for wearing the niqab are the "inconsiderate" ones - and each time I raise it, you haughtily go on this "muslims are the only problem" trip. Its nearly as bad as FD and his howler about women who joined ISIS and got raped, beaten and murdered "deserved everything they get" - as if any woman "deserves" to be raped and murdered. For crying out loud, there is a massive problem with a minority of muslims - I get that. I also get that the problem of reprisals against muslims pales in comparison. But why on earth does that justify apologising for people who assault women, and then concocting such a ludicrous "they hate freedom/they are inconsiderate" mantra as the default response to crimes against women? Just say muslims are the main problem - but assaults on women - even if they are being "inconsiderate" - is not ok. Is that so unreasonable? Lemme put it this way. If a feminist who is also a performing artist and street theatre performer went to Auburn and Lakemba with a film crew and made a day of protest by holding up a placard with a clever slogan about universal human dignity and went around ripping off niqabs and hijabs while carefully and scrupulously avoiding injuring the women themselves - I would donate money to such a ballsy suffragette. Wouldn't you?  She would be fined - but that's a small price for Westernising Islam. What about ripping of the swastika arm bands of nazis on the street? A good thing. Or do you think that nazi arm-bands are inviolable? There is no place for the niqab and the hijab and the burqa in the West. If the wearers get a bit humiliated or ridiculed - well, that the rough and tumble of of free exchange of ideas.  If they can parade their beliefs in the public square, those who oppose their ideas are equally allowed to express their views in the public sphere. As long as nothing but their egos are harmed, it's all part of free and fearless exchange of ideas in the public sphere, isn't it? There is nothing special about Muslim women going around in anachronistic garb claiming special privileges. Muslim men subject Wester women to much worse ordeal that the rare niqab removal.   Let the niqabis and hijabis reign in their men first. Then we can talk about the rare and isolated instances of hijab-snatching.

You see? You’re not racist. Backward tinted women’s egos aren’t a race.

Do you know what you are, dear boy?

You’re a pacifist. Blessed are the peacemakers, eh?

I blame Islam. Snatch them.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 5:20pm: In what way do hijabis and niqabis stand for universal freedom Thats literally as stupid as asking how someone with a baseball cap or a beard can stand for freedom.

I didn't expect THIS much stupidity and dishonesty from you, Gandy.

I am both surprised and not surprised. I am surprised as far as your individuality but not at all surprised at your Islamic propaganda.



The niqab is no different o a cap???   

How abjectly dishonest you can be to defend the indefensible! A swastika armband in no different to a red cross armband - they are both armbands!!!


Your project of Islamising the West is doomed to fail.  Not least because we can see through your endless little daily evasions and dishonesties and we correctly and instantly identify them with your Islamic project.

Oh, old boy, you are naughty. Who evaded the important question of what Orthodox Jewish ladies wear on their heads?

Not to worry. I did a little Google. The answer?

Wigs.

Yes, Jewish law requires the covering of ladies’ hair. Your modern follower of Leviticus likes to wear a nice bob, in Aztec copper, scarlett red, or platinum blonde.

Stylish.

Meanwhile, your backward tinted Muselwoman wears a ridiculous coloured scarf or a big black burqa to highlight her submission. How utterly, utterly pathetic.

Pointing this out isn’t racist, of course, Islam is not a race.  it’s speaking out in support of ladies everywhere.

Do you know what you are, dear boy?

You’re a feminist. You’re a champion of women’s rights.

Snatch them.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:01pm:

Oh, old boy, you are naughty. Who evaded the important question of what Orthodox Jewish ladies wear on their heads? Not to worry. I did a little Google. The answer? Wigs. Yes, Jewish law requires the covering of ladies’ hair. Your modern follower of Leviticus likes to wear a nice bob, in Aztec copper, scarlett red, or platinum blonde. Stylish. Meanwhile, your backward tinted Muselwoman wears a ridiculous coloured scarf or a big black burqa. How pathetic. Pointing this out isn’t racist, of course, it’s speaking out in support of ladies everywhere. Do you know what you are, dear boy? You’re a feminist.

Free speech is under threat from Islam ...  Stick to that, PB.

Jews - no violent jihad against Western Enlightenment values so they can have their wigs.

Sons and daughters of Mohammed - they want caliphate and global domination so they must be defied and resisted at all and every opportunity.

Jews and Mohammedans are not the same thing - even you will see that. Or perhaps you have plucked out your own eyes already.

Good point, dear boy. Free speech is under threat. I hadn’t considered that.

It’s the headscarves, isn’t it?

Good grief, if only they’d switch to wigs.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 7:17pm:

Backward tinted women’s egos aren’t a race. Do you know what you are, dear boy? You’re a pacifist. Blessed are the peacemakers, eh? I blame Islam. Snatch them.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2010/11/19/1225956/819771-burqa.jpg
Concealed lies ... Carnita Matthews leaving Campbelltown Courts House. Picture: Justin Lloyd Source: The Daily Telegraph

A MUSLIM mother ( :o  ;D  :D  :'( )was sentenced to six months behind bars after falsely claiming a highway patrol officer was racist and attempted to tear her burqa from her face. Carnita Matthews, 46, made a written complaint against the young officer, who fined her for failing to properly display her P-plates, in what a local magistrate described as a "deliberate and malicious and, to a degree, a ruthless crime".



Niqab has nuffin' to do wiv Islam.  Your (sic) racist if youse (sic) say otherwise.




(mebbe the inability/unwillingness to spell the infidel lingo is a cloo. But mebbe their just fik. Ockam's razor say they are just fik)

You’re right. That sort of thing would never happen if they wore wigs.

There’s nothing wrong with hairpieces, old boy. Our finest entertainers and sportsmen use them, you can’t even tell.

Sir Reggie has a good man in Cairo. Ask for his card.

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:

Good point, dear boy. Free speech is under threat. I hadn’t considered that. It’s the headscarves, isn’t it? Good grief, if only they’d switch to wigs.

I'm thinking you actually enjoy being a complete smacking moron. It's your refuge. You act the front bottom so when you are called one you can dismiss it.


You think it's nice and inclusive and shows solidarity with all the other hard-core smacking morons. To you, its vicarious. That's all you have, being a vicarious smacking front bottom. You think it's rebellion, it's being 20 years olds for ever - but you are just a stupid old moron who hasn't been able to digest the passage of time. After being a librarian in Vietnam War, your unhappiness with your inadequacy is palpable.
And don't think I don't feel for you. But you are still an unthinking, tendentious old moron who will sacrifice the present for an eternal principle  (that you know to be flawed) .  You are an old fuddy-duddy, stuck in in the 60s. 


You are a reactionary.

Ah yes, the good old eternal principle - like snatching headscarves off old ladies at the Auburn.shops, all for the feminist cause. Most Voltairean.

Could we pay some nice person to do it, dear boy? I don’t want to.put my job at risk. I have a mortgage and mouths to feed, you know.

Look, let’s just say we’ll do it and leave it at that. That should work.

It’s the principle that counts, shurely.

freediver wrote on Jan 14^th, 2016 at 6:58pm:

What is the death toll so far?

There's a cut-through question for you, Gandy: What is the death toll for ripping off niqabs and hijabs?

Zero.

So I invite you to to shove your insistence on equivalence up your arse (after all the necessary ritual ablutions and uttering of spells, of course. Keepin' it halal, innit?).

Karnal wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:05pm:

Ah yes, the good old eternal principle - like snatching headscarves off old ladies, all for the feminist cause. Most Voltairean. Could we pay some nice person to do it, dear boy? I don’t want to.put my job at risk. I have a mortgage and mouths to feed. Look, let’s just say we’ll do it and leave it at that. That should work. It’s the principle that counts, shurely.

Exactly - it's the princilpe. Do you have any, PB?  Of course you don't. 
Other that being a PB , no matter what the circumstances.

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:06pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 14th, 2016 at 6:58pm: What is the death toll so far? There's a cut-through question for you, Gandy: What is the death toll for ripping off niqabs and hijabs? Zero.

We don’t have to kill them too, do we?

Can’t we get the feminists to do it?

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:05pm: Ah yes, the good old eternal principle - like snatching headscarves off old ladies, all for the feminist cause. Most Voltairean. Could we pay some nice person to do it, dear boy? I don’t want to.put my job at risk. I have a mortgage and mouths to feed. Look, let’s just say we’ll do it and leave it at that. That should work. It’s the principle that counts, shurely. Exactly - it's the princilpe. Do you have any, PB?  Of course you don't.  Other that being a PB , no matter what the circumstances.

How did you come up.with Pakistani Bastards, old boy?

Shurely they’re not a race either, right?

freediver wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:

No Gandalf, I had to qualify my view on whether it was an attack on freedom - strangely enough, with whether it was an attack on freedom.

Can you explain to me a situation where an assault on a woman isn't an attack on her freedom?


Quote:

Sure, but not everything is about freedom Gandalf. I know you only just became the standard bearer for freedom of speech, but you should try not to get carried away. You are allowed to oppose things for other reasons.

In this context - I say rubbish. I man minding his own business who gets burgled is having his freedom attacked. A woman who gets raped and murdered has her freedom attacked. Their freedom to not be burgled or raped and murdered. Just like your beloved cartoonists having their freedom to not get murdered violated. But I take your point that the cartoon attacks are less random. But so are attacks against hijabis - and they shouldn't be apologised for just because the death toll is lower.

Soren wrote on Jan 15^th, 2016 at 10:06pm:

So I invite you to to shove your insistence on equivalence up your arse

How many times have I said they are not equivalent S? I've lost count.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:31am:

Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:06pm: So I invite you to to shove your insistence on equivalence up your arse How many times have I said they are not equivalent S? I've lost count.

150 gunned down in Paris by Muslims and what gets you hot under the collar? Hijabs and niqabs being ripped off of merely commented on in salty language.

You are not merely equivocating, you reflexively prioritise and exaggerate out of all proportion the slightest Muslim victimhood even when Muslims massacre infidels for Allah. You are the Muslim who frets in advance over the backlash following tomorrow's Islamic terror attack. To you, Muslim terrorism is a given, cannot be changed by Muslims because its not even their responsibility, so you want to talk endlessly about how the West doesn't like Muslims. You talk about race, discrimination, alienantion, socio-economic this and that - the one thing you don't face is Muslims' and Islam's role in Islamic terrorism. And you do not face it because that is precisely where you could do something about it.

But that would mean Muslims taking responsibility for themselves. And what would happen to your precious victimhood if you all did that??

Quote:

Can you explain to me a situation where an assault on a woman isn't an attack on her freedom?

That's what my last post was about - you know, the one where you thought I was explaining whether women should be assaulted or not.


Quote:

In this context - I say rubbish. I man minding his own business who gets burgled is having his freedom attacked. A woman who gets raped and murdered has her freedom attacked.

Do you see a significant difference between this and murdering a bunch of cartoonists for drawing Muhammed cartoons, other than it being "less random"?


Quote:

Just like your beloved cartoonists having their freedom to not get murdered violated.

Is it only the freedom of the cartoonists that was under attack?

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:31am: Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:06pm: So I invite you to to shove your insistence on equivalence up your arse How many times have I said they are not equivalent S? I've lost count. 150 gunned down in Paris by Muslims and what gets you hot under the collar? Hijabs and niqabs being ripped off of merely commented on in salty language. You are not merely equivocating, you reflexively prioritise and exaggerate out of all proportion the slightest Muslim victimhood even when Muslims massacre infidels for Allah. You are the Muslim who frets in advance over the backlash following tomorrow's Islamic terror attack. To you, Muslim terrorism is a given, cannot be changed by Muslims because its not even their responsibility, so you want to talk endlessly about how the West doesn't like Muslims. You talk about race, discrimination, alienantion, socio-economic this and that - the one thing you don't face is Muslims' and Islam's role in Islamic terrorism. And you do not face it because that is precisely where you could do something about it. But that would mean Muslims taking responsibility for themselves. And what would happen to your precious victimhood if you all did that??

Always absolutely never ever is not a race.

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 9:26am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:31am: Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:06pm: So I invite you to to shove your insistence on equivalence up your arse How many times have I said they are not equivalent S? I've lost count. 150 gunned down in Paris by Muslims and what gets you hot under the collar? Hijabs and niqabs being ripped off of merely commented on in salty language. You are not merely equivocating, you reflexively prioritise and exaggerate out of all proportion the slightest Muslim victimhood even when Muslims massacre infidels for Allah. You are the Muslim who frets in advance over the backlash following tomorrow's Islamic terror attack. To you, Muslim terrorism is a given, cannot be changed by Muslims because its not even their responsibility, so you want to talk endlessly about how the West doesn't like Muslims. You talk about race, discrimination, alienantion, socio-economic this and that - the one thing you don't face is Muslims' and Islam's role in Islamic terrorism. And you do not face it because that is precisely where you could do something about it. But that would mean Muslims taking responsibility for themselves. And what would happen to your precious victimhood if you all did that??

murders and terrorism by muslims are outrageous by default, they don't need any arguments, qualifications, equivocations etc. Everyone agrees, so we don't argue the toss over that - apart from your constant strawmans about me excusing them of course.

What we don't agree on though is how we should view assaults on certain women for what they wear. That you apologise for assaults on hijabis and niqabis is bad enough - but in the context of this discussion about what attitudes are and aren't compatible with our values - it is hypocrisy at its worst. That you can't see the blinding irony of you railing against how offensive a certain choice of dress by muslim women is to our values on the one hand, and brazenly apologising for physical assaults on women on the other - speaks volumes. Like I said - the difference between you and me is that one of us excuses certain attacks on women, while the other condemns all acts of violence against innocent people.

Excusing and condoning physical assaults on women minding their own business, and pretending it is the victims who are "inconsiderate" are the sick values of your ideal society - it is not the values of the society in which we live in. You, my friend, are the one that doesn't belong here. Of course you'll always be able to rely on FD to constantly tapdance around your bigotry and pretend there's nothing to see, but don't expect the rest of mainstream society to be so forgiving.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 9:32am:

That's what my last post was about - you know, the one where you thought I was explaining whether women should be assaulted or not.

But you didn't say FD. Again, can you explain to me a situation where an assault on a woman isn't an attack on her freedom?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 2:20pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 9:26am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:31am: Soren wrote on Jan 15th, 2016 at 10:06pm: So I invite you to to shove your insistence on equivalence up your arse How many times have I said they are not equivalent S? I've lost count. 150 gunned down in Paris by Muslims and what gets you hot under the collar? Hijabs and niqabs being ripped off of merely commented on in salty language. You are not merely equivocating, you reflexively prioritise and exaggerate out of all proportion the slightest Muslim victimhood even when Muslims massacre infidels for Allah. You are the Muslim who frets in advance over the backlash following tomorrow's Islamic terror attack. To you, Muslim terrorism is a given, cannot be changed by Muslims because its not even their responsibility, so you want to talk endlessly about how the West doesn't like Muslims. You talk about race, discrimination, alienantion, socio-economic this and that - the one thing you don't face is Muslims' and Islam's role in Islamic terrorism. And you do not face it because that is precisely where you could do something about it. But that would mean Muslims taking responsibility for themselves. And what would happen to your precious victimhood if you all did that?? murders and terrorism by muslims are outrageous by default, they don't need any arguments, qualifications, equivocations etc. Everyone agrees, so we don't argue the toss over that - apart from your constant strawmans about me excusing them of course. What we don't agree on though is how we should view assaults on certain women for what they wear. That you apologise for assaults on hijabis and niqabis is bad enough - but in the context of this discussion about what attitudes are and aren't compatible with our values - it is hypocrisy at its worst. That you can't see the blinding irony of you railing against how offensive a certain choice of dress by muslim women is to our values on the one hand, and brazenly apologising for physical assaults on women on the other - speaks volumes. Excusing and condoning physical assaults on women minding their own business, and pretending it is the victims who are "inconsiderate" are the sick values of your ideal society - it is not the values of the society in which we live in. You, my friend, are the one that doesn't belong here. Of course you'll always be able to rely on FD to constantly tapdance around your bigotry and pretend there's nothing to see, but don't expect the rest of mainstream society to be so forgiving.

As I said: you bang on about hijab and niqab removal after dismissing Muslim terrorism as a second order issue by comparison. But it's not.

You should be banging on about how you and your fellow Muslims are stopping your other fellow Muslims from committing outrages, day in day out, in the name of Islam. But you can barely bring yourself to say that Muslims are responsible for their ideology and the actions it motivates.

If Muslims were vissibly and actively countering their jihadis the burqas and hijabs and niqabs would not be seen as Islamic provoications.


What are the hijabis and niqabis doing about he jihadis? What are you doing about them?

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

If Muslims were vissibly and actively countering their jihadis the burqas and hijabs and niqabs would not be seen as Islamic provoications.

Oh, really?

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:21pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:09pm: If Muslims were vissibly and actively countering their jihadis the burqas and hijabs and niqabs would not be seen as Islamic provoications. Oh, really?

Yeah I call BS.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:09pm: If Muslims were vissibly and actively countering their jihadis the burqas and hijabs and niqabs would not be seen as Islamic provoications. Oh, really? Yeah I call BS.

What are the hijabis and niqabis doing about he jihadis? What are you doing about them?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 2:26pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 9:32am: That's what my last post was about - you know, the one where you thought I was explaining whether women should be assaulted or not. But you didn't say FD. Again, can you explain to me a situation where an assault on a woman isn't an attack on her freedom?

FD won't say. He'll spend weeks - months - nitpicking your posts (are you the flagwaver for wishy washy Western morals?) or banging on about the prevelance of Muslim underage marriage (one child bride). But he'll never defend the "freedoms" of the Muselman under the law or the constitution. 

Then, ask if he agrees with all the racist posts calling for bannings and killings and nukings, and he mysteriously disappears.

FD's not racist. He just stands up for the freedoms of decent white people everywhere.

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:09pm:

As I said: you bang on about hijab and niqab removal after dismissing Muslim terrorism as a second order issue by comparison. But it's not.

Don't tell fibs S - I am on record here as saying very explicitly that attacks against hijabi and niqabi women in the west pale to the crimes in the name of Islam. Tell me, if we all agree that Islamic crime is outrageous and should be stopped, what exactly am I supposed to "bang on" about? When there is disagreement about our views, thats when I tend to "bang on". And in this case, its that you excuse certain acts of violence against women (regardless of how insignificant it is compared to other violence), while I abhore and condemn *ALL* acts of violence against innocents. Also, our agreement over the abhorance of Islamic violence doesn't say anything about the differences we have in our values. You apologising for certain violence against women, on the other hand, defines a very clear difference between the values you hold and the values our society holds. That is worth "banging on about" IMO.

Just tell me this S - would you at least concede that your view that when a niqabi who gets assaulted for what she wears is the "inconsiderate" one, who's choice of dress is akin to wearing a swastika - is contrary to the values of the society in which you live in? Answer me honestly please.

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:25pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:21pm: Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:09pm: If Muslims were vissibly and actively countering their jihadis the burqas and hijabs and niqabs would not be seen as Islamic provoications. Oh, really? Yeah I call BS. What are the hijabis and niqabis doing about he jihadis? What are you doing about them?

Oh, old boy, G is more tolerant than you, a better communicator than you, more intelligent and honest and nice than you. He's definitely more "Australian" than you, and his attitudes are far more consistent with the Western liberal tradition than your Nazi-inspired bile.

So why would we import dear old boys like your good self when we can find tolerant, intelligent, honest and nice people like G?

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:38pm:

D won't say. He'll spend weeks - months - nitpicking your posts (are you the flagwaver for wishy washy Western morals?) or banging on about the prevelance of Muslim underage marriage (one child bride). But he'll never defend the "freedoms" of the Muselman under the law or the constitution.

Occasionally you can shame FD into acknowledging how incompatible Soren, sprint et al's values are to western liberalism - but it will be grudging at best, and carefully composed to ensure there is no finger pointing. You certainly won't see any 50+ page threads dedicated to the "spineless apologetics" for racism and bigotry that names and shames the bigots. He seems to have even given up his token meme about burqa bans being bad.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:42pm:

Tell me, if we all agree that Islamic crime is outrageous and should be stopped, what exactly am I supposed to "bang on" about?

What the old boy wants, along with Sprint and Herbie and Homo and all the rest, is a jolly hate fest where they can all come and out-do each other in their scorn for the tinted races. Any form of disagreement with this, even the most timid question, is seen as "white-anting". Herbie sees criticism or rebuke as a form of victimization, so unfair. The old boy actually sees it as censorship. I'm supposed to be a reactionary for censoring him and questioning his enlightened, progressive world view.

FD's different. He needs someone to disagree with. But both FD and the old boy will find disagreement wherever they can. Remember, the agenda here is racial conflict and division, Muslims or otherwise. Homo recently added Pacific Islanders. Honky and the old boy have always railed against the boongs. Herbie and Sprint are happy to hate pretty-much anyone.

And yes, anyone who questions any of this is a diabolical apeaser who should be added to the list too. They're the racists, the reactionaries. Bias recently accused me of being a warmonger for suggesting civilians should be able to flee war zones. The logic behind this was that I'm a despicable refugee-apologist, and refugees are created by wars. Ipso facto, I must support war.

This is what FD and the old boy mean when they refer to free speech.

Anything else is censorship.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:42pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:09pm: As I said: you bang on about hijab and niqab removal after dismissing Muslim terrorism as a second order issue by comparison. But it's not. Don't tell fibs S - I am on record here as saying very explicitly that attacks against hijabi and niqabi women in the west pale to the crimes in the name of Islam. Tell me, if we all agree that Islamic crime is outrageous and should be stopped, what exactly am I supposed to "bang on" about?

About what you and your fellow moderates are doing - not saying, doing - about Islamic terrorism.

That's what you should be banging on about without letup.

That's all that matters: what you, a Muslim, DOING about the jihadis.

The rest is diversionary wool over our eyes and your own.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 3:54pm:

He seems to have even given up his token meme about burqa bans being bad.

Alas, the ante has been upped by the Paris attacks. Now, any attack on Muslims can be justified with glee. Check out the old boy minimizing hate crimes on comparison to terrorist attacks.

This is what Longy meant when he said that what Australia needs is a terrorist attack on Australian soil to shut the id iots up. People like Longy actually want terrorism to justify the daily bile.

I'd say FD feels quite relieved to be liberated from his liberal yoke. It was all becoming a bit complicated. Much easier to just join the hate fest and ban them, kill them, casterate them. Check out how loathed Malcolm Turnbull and even ASIO are here for stating the bleeding obvious: abandoning Australian values like tolerance and fairness only plays into ISIS' hands. Hate speech and hate crimes only make things worse. 

For the knuckleheads here, of course, this is Freeeedom.

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 4:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:09pm: As I said: you bang on about hijab and niqab removal after dismissing Muslim terrorism as a second order issue by comparison. But it's not. Don't tell fibs S - I am on record here as saying very explicitly that attacks against hijabi and niqabi women in the west pale to the crimes in the name of Islam. Tell me, if we all agree that Islamic crime is outrageous and should be stopped, what exactly am I supposed to "bang on" about?  About what you and your fellow moderates are doing - not saying, doing - about Islamic terrorism. That's what you should be banging on about without letup. That's all that matters: what you, a Muslim, DOING about the jihadis. The rest is diversionary wool over our eyes and your own.

Whats interesting here is that this demand of yours arises as a response to the question of why you apologise for certain violence against women. Something like this:

Soren: when someone assaults a niqabi for what she wears - its the niqabi who is the inconsiderate one
Gandalf: thats an outrageous attitude that is not in line with our values, how can you justify such a statement?
Soren: why must you keep banging on about the insignificant attacks on muslim women, you should be banging on about killing and terror in the name of Islam

Thats where we are at now - your intolerant attitudes can never be identified or acknowledged as intolerance per se, instead they can be justified simply by incorporating them into an entirely irrelevant 'incompatibility of Islam' context. You and moses have so much in common - every time without fail - both of your respond the same way in regards to question about your own bigotry: 1 line dismissing the charge as either insignificant or irrelevant, followed by a lengthy paragraph or more diverting to your favourite topic - why its all the musselman's fault.

Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative - they are doing it every day, in all sorts of ways. It has been pointed out to you time and time again, but of course it makes no difference. Muslims can always and will always be framed as the incompatible, western-secular hating monsters whatever they do. You can 'bang on' with your "all they have to do..." bullshit, but we both know its bullshit. It is ever so easy to continually shift the goalposts, and we both know thats your game. Nothing will ever ever suffice short of Islam being mocked and trashed by everyone including muslims.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 4:36pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 3:09pm: As I said: you bang on about hijab and niqab removal after dismissing Muslim terrorism as a second order issue by comparison. But it's not. Don't tell fibs S - I am on record here as saying very explicitly that attacks against hijabi and niqabi women in the west pale to the crimes in the name of Islam. Tell me, if we all agree that Islamic crime is outrageous and should be stopped, what exactly am I supposed to "bang on" about?  About what you and your fellow moderates are doing - not saying, doing - about Islamic terrorism. That's what you should be banging on about without letup. That's all that matters: what you, a Muslim, DOING about the jihadis. The rest is diversionary wool over our eyes and your own. Whats interesting here is that this demand of yours arises as a response to the question of why you apologise for certain violence against women.

Nonsense.

We have been telling you for YEARS that Muslim terrorism is something Muslims must take responsibility. And for years you have resisted this idea and diverted attention away from this fundamental starting point at every opportunity.  You are doing this still, in this instance by dragging a 4th order issue - a very, VERY mild backlash against relentless Muslim terrorism and undermining of the West.
What you will not engage in is a lengthy discussion about Islam's role in Islamic terrorism.  You will do anything to maintain Muslim victimhood even as Muslims commit daily massacres in the name of Islam. You bang on a bout niqabs and hijabs when you should be stopping the jihadis.

For Muslims it's always about the backlash (mild to non-existent) in response to Muslim terrorism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative - they are doing it every day, in all sorts of ways. It has been pointed out to you time and time again, but of course it makes no difference. Muslims can always and will always be framed as the incompatible, western-secular hating monsters whatever they do. You can 'bang on' with your "all they have to do..." bullshit, but we both know its bullshit. It is ever so easy to continually shift the goalposts, and we both know thats your game. Nothing will ever ever suffice short of Islam being mocked and trashed by everyone including muslims.

Don't make me laugh - every time a terrorist goes and murders someone, his family - the people who know him best - come out and bleat about what a good boy he was a nd how he would never do such a thing.

I would deport the entire family of terrorists. If they are not dual citizens, I would confiscate all their property and intern them. I bet the jihad by Western Muslims would stop pronto.  It's nonsense that they do not realised what these guys are up to. It's evasive arse-covering.

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

We have been telling you for YEARS that Muslim terrorism is something Muslims must take responsibility. And for years you have resisted this idea and diverted attention away from this fundamental starting point at every opportunity.

Translation: every time its pointed out to you how muslims are taking responsibility and trying to tackle it, you shift the goalposts. Nothing will ever ever suffice in your book.


Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

What you will not engage in is a lengthy discussion about Islam's role in Islamic terrorism.

And there we have it - channeling moses and his tired old "only a complete rejection of Islam by muslims will suffice" meme. How constructive do you really think this is? Oh, thats right, you're not interested in constructive.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:42pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:35pm: We have been telling you for YEARS that Muslim terrorism is something Muslims must take responsibility. And for years you have resisted this idea and diverted attention away from this fundamental starting point at every opportunity. Translation: every time its pointed out to you how muslims are taking responsibility and trying to tackle it, you shift the goalposts. Nothing will ever ever suffice in your book. Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:35pm: What you will not engage in is a lengthy discussion about Islam's role in Islamic terrorism. And there we have it - channeling moses and his tired old "only a complete rejection of Islam by muslims will suffice" meme. How constructive do you really think this is? Oh, thats right, you're not interested in constructive.

Islam IS at the centre of Islamic terrorism, Gandy. It's not a 'meme'. It is the heart of the matter.

Stop waiving it away, damn it.  Not addressinbg the heart of the matter is evasive arse-coveriong and god knows you guys have been doing it for years. Nobody, not even you, believes that Islam is not the central issue when facing Islamic terrorism. but you will, 'heroically' do everything to pretend that it is nothing more than a 'meme'. 

As a Muslim you will not be discussing Islam's shortcomings with infide;ls becauyse that would be unIslamic. So you are left with the victimhood narratiove - blame everyone else for what Muslims do - or waive it away as irrelevant compared to how the infidels react to Muslim terrorism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative - they are doing it every day, in all sorts of ways. It has been pointed out to you time and time again, but of course it makes no difference.

I remember the Grand Mufti coming out to condemn the Paris attacks in the strongest possible terms as inexcusable and indefensible by Islam. He then went onto discuss terrorism, war and its causes. Amerikan involvement in the Middle East came into it. I believe oil came into it. The previous bombings in Turkey and Lebanon were mentioned, showing that Muslim countries are targets too. We're all affected by terrorism. We're all in it together. We all stand against it together as humans.

A stock standard unequivical condemnation of the Paris attacks with a bit of foreign policy background - nothing Malcolm Turnbull and other world leaders hadn't already said, or did later.

The headlines and columns in the Tele? Grand Mufti Plays the Muslim Victim Card. Grand Mufti blames Uncle for Paris Attacks. Grand Mufti Refuses to Blame Islam, etc, etc, etc.

As you can see, it's not just FD and the old boy, this is viral.

Quote:

murders and terrorism by muslims are outrageous by default, they don't need any arguments, qualifications, equivocations etc.

Yet you happily offer them up for some past atrocities by Muslims.


Quote:

Everyone agrees, so we don't argue the toss over that - apart from your constant strawmans about me excusing them of course.

So tell us again how Muhammed's warmongering was not aggressive and is somehow different from every other war in history.


Quote:

Like I said - the difference between you and me is that one of us excuses certain attacks on women, while the other condemns all acts of violence against innocent people.

Unless of course they are a large tribe of scheming Jews, right? That's different, isn't it Gandalf?


Quote:

Excusing and condoning physical assaults on women minding their own business, and pretending it is the victims who are "inconsiderate" are the sick values of your ideal society - it is not the values of the society in which we live in. You, my friend, are the one that doesn't belong here. Of course you'll always be able to rely on FD to constantly tapdance around your bigotry and pretend there's nothing to see, but don't expect the rest of mainstream society to be so forgiving.

I could never compete with you Gandalf.


Quote:

But you didn't say FD. Again, can you explain to me a situation where an assault on a woman isn't an attack on her freedom?

Is this another case of me saying things without actually saying them? Or are you criticising me for not saying them?


Quote:

In this context - I say rubbish. I man minding his own business who gets burgled is having his freedom attacked. A woman who gets raped and murdered has her freedom attacked.

Do you see a significant difference between this and murdering a bunch of cartoonists for drawing Muhammed cartoons, other than it being "less random"?


Quote:

Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative

Ah, that must be what Soren meant by DOING. Perhaps he should have pulled out the crayons.


Quote:

The headlines and columns in the Tele? Grand Mufti Plays the Muslim Victim Card. Grand Mufti blames Uncle for Paris Attacks. Grand Mufti Refuses to Blame Islam, etc, etc, etc.

Did the Mufti blame Islam?

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

Did the Mufti blame Islam?

I don't think so, FD. Nor did he denounce Muhammed as a paedophile warmonger, decry the moon god Allah as a Satanic entity or expose the so-called "religion of peace" as an evil death cult, enticing the souls of its followers to spend eternity in hell.

Talk about mendacious, eh?

Karnal wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:22pm: Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative - they are doing it every day, in all sorts of ways. It has been pointed out to you time and time again, but of course it makes no difference. I remember the Grand Mufti coming out to condemn the Paris attacks in the strongest possible terms as inexcusable and indefensible by Islam. He then went onto discuss terrorism, war and its causes. Amerikan involvement in the Middle East came into it. I believe oil came into it. The previous bombings in Turkey and Lebanon were mentioned, showing that Muslim countries are targets too. We're all affected by terrorism. We're all in it together. We all stand against it together as humans. A stock standard unequivical condemnation of the Paris attacks with a bit of foreign policy background - nothing Malcolm Turnbull and other world leaders hadn't already said, or did later. The headlines and columns in the Tele? Grand Mufti Plays the Muslim Victim Card. Grand Mufti blames Uncle for Paris Attacks. Grand Mufti Refuses to Blame Islam, etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it's not just FD and the old boy, this is viral.

So it makes sense to you and the Miffti and John Kerry and Turenbull et al that Muslims massacre Pariasian in theatres, restaurants, stadiums, magazine offices because of Amerikan foreign policy ???  You can see how it makes sense to them to do THAT in response to Amerika??


Really?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 5:42pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:35pm: We have been telling you for YEARS that Muslim terrorism is something Muslims must take responsibility. And for years you have resisted this idea and diverted attention away from this fundamental starting point at every opportunity. Translation: every time its pointed out to you how muslims are taking responsibility and trying to tackle it, you shift the goalposts.

How are they doing this??  List the efforts.

Soren wrote on Jan 17^th, 2016 at 11:10am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 6:06pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:22pm: Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative - they are doing it every day, in all sorts of ways. It has been pointed out to you time and time again, but of course it makes no difference. I remember the Grand Mufti coming out to condemn the Paris attacks in the strongest possible terms as inexcusable and indefensible by Islam. He then went onto discuss terrorism, war and its causes. Amerikan involvement in the Middle East came into it. I believe oil came into it. The previous bombings in Turkey and Lebanon were mentioned, showing that Muslim countries are targets too. We're all affected by terrorism. We're all in it together. We all stand against it together as humans. A stock standard unequivical condemnation of the Paris attacks with a bit of foreign policy background - nothing Malcolm Turnbull and other world leaders hadn't already said, or did later. The headlines and columns in the Tele? Grand Mufti Plays the Muslim Victim Card. Grand Mufti blames Uncle for Paris Attacks. Grand Mufti Refuses to Blame Islam, etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it's not just FD and the old boy, this is viral. So it makes sense to you and the Miffti and John Kerry and Turenbull et al that Muslims massacre Pariasian in theatres, restaurants, stadiums, magazine offices because of Amerikan foreign policy ???  You can see how it makes sense to them to do THAT in response to Amerika?? Really?

Show us where he said that, dear boy.

I seem to remember another old boy who was chomping at the bit to blow up Iraq because a Saudi and his friends attacked New York.

When it was pointed out how this would only make things worse, the poor old boy said the Iraqi people deserved it for being tinted. He repeated this point over a number of years, as failure after failure came to light.

It was their fault for being invaded and being tinted.

Not racist, of course..The old boy was only trying to help.

Karnal wrote on Jan 17^th, 2016 at 11:35am:

Soren wrote on Jan 17th, 2016 at 11:10am: Karnal wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 6:06pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:22pm: Don't insult my intelligence S by pretending you are interested in muslims countering the terrorist narrative - they are doing it every day, in all sorts of ways. It has been pointed out to you time and time again, but of course it makes no difference. I remember the Grand Mufti coming out to condemn the Paris attacks in the strongest possible terms as inexcusable and indefensible by Islam. He then went onto discuss terrorism, war and its causes. Amerikan involvement in the Middle East came into it. I believe oil came into it. The previous bombings in Turkey and Lebanon were mentioned, showing that Muslim countries are targets too. We're all affected by terrorism. We're all in it together. We all stand against it together as humans. A stock standard unequivical condemnation of the Paris attacks with a bit of foreign policy background - nothing Malcolm Turnbull and other world leaders hadn't already said, or did later. The headlines and columns in the Tele? Grand Mufti Plays the Muslim Victim Card. Grand Mufti blames Uncle for Paris Attacks. Grand Mufti Refuses to Blame Islam, etc, etc, etc. As you can see, it's not just FD and the old boy, this is viral. So it makes sense to you and the Miffti and John Kerry and Turenbull et al that Muslims massacre Pariasian in theatres, restaurants, stadiums, magazine offices because of Amerikan foreign policy ???  You can see how it makes sense to them to do THAT in response to Amerika?? Really? Show us where he said that, dear boy.

Highlighted.

Good show, old boy.

See how it’s done, FD. There’s no need to hide, you just have play cutsie.

freediver wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 7:10pm:

Is this another case of me saying things without actually saying them? Or are you criticising me for not saying them?

No, its me yet again asking you to clarify your cryptic statements.

I'm trying to understand what you meant when you said it depends if an assault on a woman was an attack on her freedom. I questioned this because I consider any physical attack on a woman an attack on her freedom.

So can you tell me a situation where a physical attack on a woman is not an attack on her freedom?

Soren wrote on Jan 16^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:42pm: Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:35pm: We have been telling you for YEARS that Muslim terrorism is something Muslims must take responsibility. And for years you have resisted this idea and diverted attention away from this fundamental starting point at every opportunity. Translation: every time its pointed out to you how muslims are taking responsibility and trying to tackle it, you shift the goalposts. Nothing will ever ever suffice in your book. Soren wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 5:35pm: What you will not engage in is a lengthy discussion about Islam's role in Islamic terrorism. And there we have it - channeling moses and his tired old "only a complete rejection of Islam by muslims will suffice" meme. How constructive do you really think this is? Oh, thats right, you're not interested in constructive. Islam IS at the centre of Islamic terrorism, Gandy. It's not a 'meme'. It is the heart of the matter. Stop waiving it away, damn it.  Not addressinbg the heart of the matter is evasive arse-coveriong and god knows you guys have been doing it for years. Nobody, not even you, believes that Islam is not the central issue when facing Islamic terrorism. but you will, 'heroically' do everything to pretend that it is nothing more than a 'meme'.  As a Muslim you will not be discussing Islam's shortcomings with infide;ls becauyse that would be unIslamic. So you are left with the victimhood narratiove - blame everyone else for what Muslims do - or waive it away as irrelevant compared to how the infidels react to Muslim terrorism.

I'm genuinely perplexed as to what you expect from us.

You're not moses, S - I'll give you credit for that at least. You're not an evangelical who genuinely believes muslims are followers of a cult  propagated by Satan himself, and simply cannot fathom why people would chose such a path instead of the righteous path of Jesus. We have Yadda and moses and previously Pete Waldo running that meme - and I'm guessing you consider them every bit as loopy as the Islamists.

And yet why do you run with the same meme? Why do you figuratively hold up the Quran and cry "this is the root of all evil!" like some sectarian religious nut - and at the same time insist that only a rejection of that book will suffice in redeeming the muslim? Thats what moses and Yadda mean by "addressing the heart of the matter" - and now it seems you too. You know what it is? Its a damned copout, it ensures that you'll be able to damn the muslims till kingdom come - knowing that you demand of them something that you obviously know they will never do.

You know what you are S - you are the master goal post shifter. Everything you say on this topic is specifically designed for infinite shifting of goal posts. You demand what muslims are saying against terrorism and you get a pile of comdemnations. You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities. Ask and ye shall receive. We've been through this malarky a dozen times before, and of course it never counts. Absolutely nothing ever counts - because as it turns out, the only thing that will suffice, what you call "addressing the heart of the matter" is muslims damning and then abandoning the core teachings of the Quran and ipso facto becoming non-muslim.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 1:32am:

You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.

Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis?

Quote:

Why do you figuratively hold up the Quran and cry "this is the root of all evil!"

The qur'an is acknowledged by muslims who perpetrate the most inhumane of depravities against their fellow man, as being the spiritual and physical guidance and justification for their perverted islamic degeneracies. (sounds like the root of all islamic evil to me)


Quote:

the same time insist that only a rejection of that book

Why not reject those bits which endorse and urge said islamic depravities. (oh that's right you can't, it's the final perfect immutable word of the satanic allah, you're stuck with it because of your own stupidity, far better to blame everybody else, let the atrocities prevail, just can't admit islam, allah, muhammad and the qur'an got it all wrong)


Quote:

"addressing the heart of the matter" is muslims damning and then abandoning the core teachings of the Quran and ipso facto becoming non-muslim.

Two choices:

1/.Condemn the root cause and stop the blood crazed carnage.

2/. Substantiate the root cause, thereby endorsing the islamic atrocities practiced in the name of islam. 

Soren wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 6:40am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis?

Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS?

Karnal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 3:00pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:40am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis? Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS?

Is that your laundry list?

What are Western Muslims doing about the jihadis among us?

Soren wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 4:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 3:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:40am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis? Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS? Is that your laundry list? What are Western Muslims doing about the jihadis among us?

Reporting them to the cops, apparently. Man Monis was reported many times by his local Iranian community, along with an imam at the Sunni mosque Monis frequented.

My laundry list hasn't changed, dear boy. Just make sure you leave the starch out of the shirt collars this time, okay?

Just scream Islamaphobia and shut down any debate.

GordyL wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 4:31pm:

Just scream Islamaphobia and shut down any debate.

That's censorship, Gordy. Liberals like the old boy won't stomach that.

Karnal wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 3:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:40am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis? Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS? Is that your laundry list? What are Western Muslims doing about the jihadis among us? Reporting them to the cops, apparently. Man Monis was reported many times by his local Iranian community, along with an imam at the Sunni mosque Monis frequented. My laundry list hasn't changed, dear boy. Just make sure you leave the starch out of the shirt collars this time, okay?

Apparently??  And Man Monis is the 'laundry list'?? The guy who had a list of convictions and another list of charges? He's the one the 'community' has been dobbing in??



All the others have been 'good boys who would never done such a thing', to their families and friends.

Soren wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 5:19pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 3:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:40am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis? Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS? Is that your laundry list? What are Western Muslims doing about the jihadis among us? Reporting them to the cops, apparently. Man Monis was reported many times by his local Iranian community, along with an imam at the Sunni mosque Monis frequented. My laundry list hasn't changed, dear boy. Just make sure you leave the starch out of the shirt collars this time, okay? Apparently??  And Man Monis is the 'laundry list'?? The guy who had a list of convictions and another list of charges? He's the one the 'community' has been dobbing in?? All the others have been 'good boys who would never done such a thing', to their families and friends.

Yes, I guess "all the others" weren't nutters who hung out their dirty laundry for all to see.

The jihadis who've been caught in Australia have all been internet plotters. Terrorism, or the views that lead to it, doesn't get discussed in public - particularly in schools or mosques. It's not popular. Extremism gives Muslims and immigrant families a bad look. The challenge for families and the community is to know the signs and what to do.

Your plan - to deport the entire families of terrorist suspects - would ensure the signs of terrorist plotting go unreported.

But that's what you want, no? Something tells me what you'd like to see is a terrorist attack on Australian soil to shut the id iots up. This will trigger the endless war you're so fond of.

Am I right?

Quote:

doesn't get discussed in public - particularly in schools or mosques.

Oh very good excuse there, we can be assured that the imams who preach their islamic hatred in the mosques, aren't really doing / discussing it?


Quote:

But that's what you want, no? Something tells me what you'd like to see is a terrorist attack on Australian soil to shut the idiots up.

But we've already had islamic terrorist attacks on our soil, the cafe, the muslim kids killing police clerks, planning terrorist attacks etc.

Then we have the full blown support for islamic terrorism given by one in a thousand Australian muslims.

Terrorism is already entrenched in the Australian muslim psyche, (courtesy of islam allah muhammad qur'an).

The solution lies in cleaning the filth and perversion out of said foursome.

This is bitterly opposed by muslims and their apologists, (it would effectively destroy islam).

The apologists and the muslims will let the atrocities run unabated, rather than simply admit islam has huge problem, of it's own making.

islam is the mirror image of the persona of a deformed, psychopath, thief, liar, pedophile, torturer and mass murderer.

muslims bow down to the ethos that the words of this  homicidal maniac are immutable, perfect and can never be changed.

until muslims and their apologists have the guts to be honest about islamic doctrine, muslim atrocities are here to stay. (or maybe the world will become so fed up with the evil alliance, it will simply turn on them with a vengeance)

The whole thing could be avoided if the malefic duo would only tell the truth.

Yes, dear, we can. Imams don’t preach extremist stuff in mosques in Australia, as every Muslim knows.

If you want the views of the knuckleheads, you have to go online.

Your own posts would be a good place to start, no?

Gee I'm really glad that Aussie mosques are never used to plan and assist islamic atrocities.

I'm flabbergasted by the below site:

Australia: Muslim teen murderer got his gun at mosque and his Islamic schoolyard prayer meeting being investigated

Which says in part:

The weapon used by Farhad Jabar was believed to be  handed to the jihadi at the Parramatta mosque.

The revelation comes amid reports last night police had obtained CCTV footage from the mosque showing Jabar meeting several men in the lead-up to the brutal streetside slaying.

Not only is there mosque involvement in the jihad execution of a police employee, but the killer’s school prayer group is under investigation.

Well well there you go, kids being recruited at mosques and schools to commit islamic atrocities.

What is the world coming to?

Oh well I'm sure the muslims and their apologists will tell us it's a really really really isolated incident.

I know let's sing the muzzies number one hit.

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif it's got nuffin to do wiv islam http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif 'cause islam's a religion of peace http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif it's only a tiny minority http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif it doesn't weally mean what it says http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif

http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif 'cause it's written in Arabic http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o113/ringerding/music1.gif

I know, Moses. Imams don’t preach extremism in Australian mosques, I’ve just told you that.

But those who go to pray can be complete and utter bastards, as we’re starting to understand. Fancy killing some random guy in cold blood -  what sort of thinking could possibly lead to that?

Of course his prayer group was under investigation.  You wouldn’t expect the police to turn a blind eye to a bunch of cold blooded killers, shurely?

The leader of that prayer group was arrested and denied bail, I believe.

Karnal wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 6:24pm:

I know, Moses. Imams don’t preach extremism in Australian mosques, I’ve just told you that. But those who go to pray can be complete and utter bastards, as we’re starting to understand. Fancy killing some random guy in cold blood -  what sort of thinking could possibly lead to that? Of course his prayer group was under investigation.  You wouldn’t expect the police to turn a blind eye to a bunch of cold blooded killers, shurely? The leader of that prayer group was arrested and denied bail, I believe.

Why don't you go away and hide/ hang your head in shame?

Karnal wrote on Jan 20^th, 2016 at 8:43am:

Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 5:19pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 3:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:40am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis? Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS? Is that your laundry list? What are Western Muslims doing about the jihadis among us? Reporting them to the cops, apparently. Man Monis was reported many times by his local Iranian community, along with an imam at the Sunni mosque Monis frequented. My laundry list hasn't changed, dear boy. Just make sure you leave the starch out of the shirt collars this time, okay? Apparently??  And Man Monis is the 'laundry list'?? The guy who had a list of convictions and another list of charges? He's the one the 'community' has been dobbing in?? All the others have been 'good boys who would never done such a thing', to their families and friends. Yes, I guess "all the others" weren't nutters who hung out their dirty laundry for all to see. The jihadis who've been caught in Australia have all been internet plotters. Terrorism, or the views that lead to it, doesn't get discussed in public - particularly in schools or mosques. It's not popular. Extremism gives Muslims and immigrant families a bad look. The challenge for families and the community is to know the signs and what to do. Your plan - to deport the entire families of terrorist suspects - would ensure the signs of terrorist plotting go unreported. But that's what you want, no? Something tells me what you'd like to see is a terrorist attack on Australian soil to shut the id iots up. This will trigger the endless war you're so fond of. Am I right?

You are wrong, as always.

The little runt who killed the police accountant - unreported by his nearest and dearest
The rest of the runts and 8unts who have gone to fight for ISIS - unreported by their nearest and dearest.


After the fact they all bleated what good boys these jihadis have been and how they would never have expected them to do something like this. With one or two cases i would say fair enough. But with over a hundred??? It's a smokescreen.

I would confiscate the properties of these people's families and deport the lot. That would teach the others to look and prevent and report IN TIME.

kemal wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 6:30pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 21st, 2016 at 6:24pm: I know, Moses. Imams don’t preach extremism in Australian mosques, I’ve just told you that. But those who go to pray can be complete and utter bastards, as we’re starting to understand. Fancy killing some random guy in cold blood -  what sort of thinking could possibly lead to that? Of course his prayer group was under investigation.  You wouldn’t expect the police to turn a blind eye to a bunch of cold blooded killers, shurely? The leader of that prayer group was arrested and denied bail, I believe. Why don't you go away and hide/ hang your head in shame?

I’m.not sure, Kemal, but thanks for the question.

Soren wrote on Jan 21^st, 2016 at 6:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 20th, 2016 at 8:43am: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 5:19pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:04pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 4:01pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 3:00pm: Soren wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 6:40am: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18th, 2016 at 1:32am: You demand to know what muslims are doing against terrorism - you get a laundry list of activities.  Really? Where is that list of Muslim activities against violent jihadis? Oh, old boy, you really are a bore. Who's fighting ISIS? Is that your laundry list? What are Western Muslims doing about the jihadis among us? Reporting them to the cops, apparently. Man Monis was reported many times by his local Iranian community, along with an imam at the Sunni mosque Monis frequented. My laundry list hasn't changed, dear boy. Just make sure you leave the starch out of the shirt collars this time, okay? Apparently??  And Man Monis is the 'laundry list'?? The guy who had a list of convictions and another list of charges? He's the one the 'community' has been dobbing in?? All the others have been 'good boys who would never done such a thing', to their families and friends. Yes, I guess "all the others" weren't nutters who hung out their dirty laundry for all to see. The jihadis who've been caught in Australia have all been internet plotters. Terrorism, or the views that lead to it, doesn't get discussed in public - particularly in schools or mosques. It's not popular. Extremism gives Muslims and immigrant families a bad look. The challenge for families and the community is to know the signs and what to do. Your plan - to deport the entire families of terrorist suspects - would ensure the signs of terrorist plotting go unreported. But that's what you want, no? Something tells me what you'd like to see is a terrorist attack on Australian soil to shut the id iots up. This will trigger the endless war you're so fond of. Am I right? You are wrong, as always. The little runt who killed the police accountant - unreported by his nearest and dearest The rest of the runts and 8unts who have gone to fight for ISIS - unreported by their nearest and dearest. After the fact they all bleated what good boys these jihadis have been and how they would never have expected them to do something like this. With one or two cases i would say fair enough. But with over a hundred??? It's a smokescreen. I would confiscate the properties of these people's families and deport the lot. That would teach the others to look and prevent and report IN TIME.

I know you would, old boy. Ban, deport, kill. It’s a bit of a theme.

They’d report then, no?

By the way, who do you report to when your kids buy a ticket to Turkey? All the articles I’ve read, the imams tell them to go to the police.

I wouldn’t. The Bali 9? They were caught because one of their dads took his worries about his son to a mate - in the police.

And yes, a few concerned parents took them up on it too - hence the story in the media.

And hence the intel on your hundred.missing persons.

Still, deporting them should work. What parent wouldn’t report their kids then?

Smart thinking, old boy.

karnal wrote:
Quote:

But those who go to pray can be complete and utter bastards, as we’re starting to understand. Fancy killing some random guy in cold blood -  what sort of thinking could possibly lead to that?

Oh that's an easy one to answer karnal.

What sort of thinking, you say?

Well the muslims themselves who commit the atrocities, tell us in no uncertain terms: they are obeying islam, allah, muhammad, and the qur'an.

Now it's also a fact that this degenerate foursome unequivocally tells us, that it urges and condones muslims committing unspeakably inhumane human rights atrocities against their fellow man.

So we know the sort of thinking, is the mentation produced by being a true muslim, devoutly following islam, allah, muhammad and qur'an.

moses wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 4:56pm:

Well the muslims themselves who commit the atrocities, tell us in no uncertain terms: they are obeying islam, allah, muhammad, and the qur'an.

And yet there are far more peaceful muslims rejecting violence who tell us in no uncertain terms that they are obeying Islam, Allah, Muhammad and the Quran. How do you explain that one?

moses wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 4:56pm:

karnal wrote: Quote: But those who go to pray can be complete and utter bastards, as we’re starting to understand. Fancy killing some random guy in cold blood -  what sort of thinking could possibly lead to that? Oh that's an easy one to answer karnal. What sort of thinking, you say? Well the muslims themselves who commit the atrocities, tell us in no uncertain terms: they are obeying islam, allah, muhammad, and the qur'an. Now it's also a fact that this degenerate foursome unequivocally tells us, that it urges and condones muslims committing unspeakably inhumane human rights atrocities against their fellow man..

And aainst their fellow Muslims, who make up the majority of victims - by far.

Who to believe - the Turks, Syrians and Persians currently fighting ISIS?

Or ISIS themselves?

gandalf wrote:
Quote:

And yet there are far more peaceful muslims rejecting violence who tell us in no uncertain terms that they are obeying Islam, Allah, Muhammad and the Quran. How do you explain that one?

How many of these so called peaceful muslims are genuine?

How many of these so called peaceful muslims are diligent fifth columnists?

I mean our security forces are continuously defeating terror plots, detaining terror suspects.

Words are cheap Gandy, we know that one in a thousand Australian muslims 100% support terrorism (right across the muslim spectrum girls boys kids teenagers mature women and men)

When islamic terrorism is the exception and not the rule, you may hold some weight Gandalf, untill then just empty words.

As for muslims killing other muslims?

Thar's just one of the many benefits of 1400 years of islamic satanism.

The deformed psychopath muhammad gave his blessing to muslims killing muslims:

qur'an 5.32: qur'an 5.33: qur'an 2.8: qur'an 2.10: qur'an 2.11: qur'an 2.12: qur'an 3.167: qur'an 4.88: qur'an 4.89: qur'an 4.138: qur'an 4.145: qur'an 9.68: qur'an 9.73: qur'an 9.101: qur'an 33.73: qur'an 48.6: qur'an 66.9:

moses wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 5:49pm:

When islamic terrorism is the exception and not the rule, you may hold some weight Gandalf, untill then just empty words.

But moses Islamic terrorism is the exception in Australia, that is just the most elementary and undisputable fact. You acknowledged this yourself (0.1% of Australian muslims support terrorism). All you can do is confect an argument to somehow marry this with your meme about how only the terrorists are the "real" muslims. So we get the usual, most muslims are either ignorant, weak or 5th columnists. But there is no getting round the fact that Islamic terrorism is the exception in Australia. So please do me a favour and stop the fibbing about how this fact "may hold some weight" in your eyes - it doesn't, it just gives you more ammunition to screech about 5th columnists etc.

moses wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 5:49pm:

we know that one in a thousand Australian muslims 100% support terrorism

Not a statistic I'd be boasting about if I were you - but anyway, where did this come from? Can you give me a link?

gandalf wrote:
Quote:

But moses Islamic terrorism is the exception in Australia, that is just the most elementary and undisputable fact. You acknowledged this yourself (0.1% of Australian muslims support terrorism). All you can do is confect an argument to somehow marry this with your meme about how only the terrorists are the "real" muslims. So we get the usual, most muslims are either ignorant, weak or 5th columnists. But there is no getting round the fact that Islamic terrorism is the exception in Australia. So please do me a favour and stop the fibbing about how this fact "may hold some weight" in your eyes - it doesn't, it just gives you more ammunition to screech about 5th columnists etc.

It has been posted on this site the number of muslims who are actually fighting for terror overseas, or have been arrested here before they got the chance to actually go and fight. This was ages ago the figure at that time was about 400 muslims out of a population of about 400,000 which gives us one in a thousand muslims are totally committed to terror.

Every muslim who want to support terror is a murderer at heart, there can be no islamic terror without deliberate murder.

The stats for homicide in Australia is about 1.3 per 100,000, given that homicide can be accidental, manslaughter etc. it would be safe to say that under normal circumstances 1 person in a 100,000 is capable of murder.

Now to be a muslim terrorist you have to be a murderer at heart (as I said before)

We know that one in a thousand of Aussie mussies is totally committed to islamic terror or absolutely prepared to be an islamic murderer.

muslims are 100 times greater than the national average of someone being prepared to be a murderer, that's the facts.

So murdering and terrorism is not the exception in the muslim community (it is exorbitantly high in islamic society), you are 100 times more likely to be a murdering homicidal threat to society than a normal non muslim Australian.

moses wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 6:53pm:

So murdering and terrorism is not the exception in the muslim community .

Ah, yes it is.

Your figures have just proven that.

Own goal, dear.

moses wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 6:53pm:

It has been posted on this site the number of muslims who are actually fighting for terror overseas, or have been arrested here before they got the chance to actually go and fight. This was ages ago the figure at that time was about 400 muslims out of a population of about 400,000 which gives us one in a thousand muslims are totally committed to terror.

Right, so thats your logic - 1 in 1000 muslims have gone to join ISIS or Al Nusra in Syria - therefore 1 in 1000 are "100% committed to terror". Though I'm not sure why you included the claim that this is "right across the muslim spectrum girls boys kids teenagers mature women and men" - given that the only people who have gone to Syria are young male and female adults. Could you explain that one?

The claim is absurd anyway - muslims are not motivated by terror and murder when they sign up for Syria, they are motivated by defending muslims against the oppression of the brutal Assad regime. Regardless of how flawed you think that rationale is - thats the reality of their thinking, and that is the reality of the propaganda that targets these young men and women.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 18^th, 2016 at 1:07am:

freediver wrote on Jan 16th, 2016 at 7:10pm: Is this another case of me saying things without actually saying them? Or are you criticising me for not saying them? No, its me yet again asking you to clarify your cryptic statements. I'm trying to understand what you meant when you said it depends if an assault on a woman was an attack on her freedom. I questioned this because I consider any physical attack on a woman an attack on her freedom. So can you tell me a situation where a physical attack on a woman is not an attack on her freedom?

If you can answer this question, you will see what I mean.

Do you see a significant difference in terms of freedom of speech between robbing a woman and killing cartoonists who mock Muhammed?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 7:21pm:

moses wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 6:53pm: It has been posted on this site the number of muslims who are actually fighting for terror overseas, or have been arrested here before they got the chance to actually go and fight. This was ages ago the figure at that time was about 400 muslims out of a population of about 400,000 which gives us one in a thousand muslims are totally committed to terror. Right, so thats your logic - 1 in 1000 muslims have gone to join ISIS or Al Nusra in Syria - therefore 1 in 1000 are "100% committed to terror". Though I'm not sure why you included the claim that this is "right across the muslim spectrum girls boys kids teenagers mature women and men" - given that the only people who have gone to Syria are young male and female adults. Could you explain that one? The claim is absurd anyway - muslims are not motivated by terror and murder when they sign up for Syria, they are motivated by defending muslims against the oppression of the brutal Assad regime. Regardless of how flawed you think that rationale is - thats the reality of their thinking, and that is the reality of the propaganda that targets these young men and women.

The point is that the bad bastards are motivated by Islam, nothing else.
NOTHING ELSE.

Get that into your head and we can perhaps then take the next step.  But you and the ummah resist the very essence of the problem because it requires you to abandon victimhood.  And nothing will prise you off the victimhood 'meme', to use your favorite code word for mindless, reflexive thinking.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 7:54pm:

Do you see a significant difference in terms of freedom of speech between robbing a woman and killing cartoonists who mock Muhammed?

Of course there is a difference, but they are both attacks on freedom - are they not?

Now I ask again, what situation can you think of where an assault on a woman is not an attack on her freedom? You don't need to ask a counter-question to answer that.

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 8:16pm:

The point is that the bad bastards are motivated by Islam, nothing else. NOTHING ELSE.

What tosh.

Even FD once argued that this was tosh. Murderers and terrorists are motivated by what they've always been motivated by - power, thrills, politics - since time immemorial. Islam or any other religion is just a means to an end.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 7:54pm: Do you see a significant difference in terms of freedom of speech between robbing a woman and killing cartoonists who mock Muhammed? Of course there is a difference, but they are both attacks on freedom - are they not? Now I ask again, what situation can you think of where an assault on a woman is not an attack on her freedom? You don't need to ask a counter-question to answer that.

I can see the point you are trying to make Gandalf, but I would not call it an attack on freedom, and I am not going to bother arguing the semantics of it with you.

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 8:16pm:

The point is that the bad bastards are motivated by Islam, nothing else. NOTHING ELSE.

Apologist.

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 9:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 7:54pm: Do you see a significant difference in terms of freedom of speech between robbing a woman and killing cartoonists who mock Muhammed? Of course there is a difference, but they are both attacks on freedom - are they not? Now I ask again, what situation can you think of where an assault on a woman is not an attack on her freedom? You don't need to ask a counter-question to answer that. I can see the point you are trying to make Gandalf, but I would not call it an attack on freedom,

Ah.

Karnal wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 11:30pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 9:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 8:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 7:54pm: Do you see a significant difference in terms of freedom of speech between robbing a woman and killing cartoonists who mock Muhammed? Of course there is a difference, but they are both attacks on freedom - are they not? Now I ask again, what situation can you think of where an assault on a woman is not an attack on her freedom? You don't need to ask a counter-question to answer that. I can see the point you are trying to make Gandalf, but I would not call it an attack on freedom, Ah.

Ah.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 7:21pm:

moses wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 6:53pm: It has been posted on this site the number of muslims who are actually fighting for terror overseas, or have been arrested here before they got the chance to actually go and fight. This was ages ago the figure at that time was about 400 muslims out of a population of about 400,000 which gives us one in a thousand muslims are totally committed to terror. Right, so thats your logic - 1 in 1000 muslims have gone to join ISIS or Al Nusra in Syria - therefore 1 in 1000 are "100% committed to terror". Though I'm not sure why you included the claim that this is "right across the muslim spectrum girls boys kids teenagers mature women and men" - given that the only people who have gone to Syria are young male and female adults. Could you explain that one? The claim is absurd anyway - muslims are not motivated by terror and murder when they sign up for Syria, they are motivated by defending muslims against the oppression of the brutal Assad regime. Regardless of how flawed you think that rationale is - thats the reality of their thinking, and that is the reality of the propaganda that targets these young men and women.

Google;
over 42 million muslims support Islamic State; 1.5 million in UK






Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 8:16pm:

The point is that the bad bastards are motivated by Islam, nothing else. NOTHING ELSE. Get that into your head and we can perhaps then take the next step. But you and the ummah resist the very essence of the problem because it requires you to abandon victimhood. And nothing will prise you off the victimhood 'meme', to use your favorite code word for mindless, reflexive thinking.

Quote:

Orwell insisted that language always be used "as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought," but he understood that not everyone shared his view. The "was radicalized" construction has become ubiquitous mostly by thoughtless repetition, but to those who deliberately obfuscate, this seemingly inoffensive passive construction provides a way to avoid what has increasingly become the un-nameable. Maajid Nawaz calls this "the Voldemort effect: the refusal to call Islamism by its proper name."

The 'Radicalization' Fraud

by A.J. Caschetta
January 21, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/5804/politics-radicalization

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 6:07pm:

But moses Islamic terrorism is the exception in Australia, that is just the most elementary and undisputable fact. You acknowledged this yourself (0.1% of Australian muslims support terrorism). All you can do is confect an argument to somehow marry this with your meme about how only the terrorists are the "real" muslims. So we get the usual, most muslims are either ignorant, weak or 5th columnists. But there is no getting round the fact that Islamic terrorism is the exception in Australia. So please do me a favour and stop the fibbing about how this fact "may hold some weight" in your eyes - it doesn't, it just gives you more ammunition to screech about 5th columnists etc.

Muslim Opinion Polls:
A Tiny Minority of Extremists?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx

Actually Y - if opinion polls showed muslims in the west rejecting ISIS that would prove your point too.

google: taqqiya innit

As I've always said, your argument is unfalsifiable. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:03am:

Actually Y - if opinion polls showed muslims in the west rejecting ISIS that would prove your point too. google: taqqiya innit As I've always said, your argument is unfalsifiable.

gandalf,

Because my argument(s) are not false.


As i have always stated......
ISLAM, does not teach 'the moslem', tolerance and respect, of those who are not moslems.

PROVABLE.


As i have always stated......
ISLAM [at its very heart!], is not a tolerant and peaceful faith.

PROVABLE.



"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 8:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 7:54pm: Do you see a significant difference in terms of freedom of speech between robbing a woman and killing cartoonists who mock Muhammed? Of course there is a difference, but they are both attacks on freedom - are they not? Now I ask again, what situation can you think of where an assault on a woman is not an attack on her freedom? You don't need to ask a counter-question to answer that.

gandalf,
What instance of ENCOURAGING assaults on non-moslems, BY ISLAM [and participated in, where there is an 'opportunity', by moslems],       .....is not an attack on the freedom(s) of non-moslems ?


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123





.



Natural Law....


Quote:

"16.  The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction; for by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred, and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion, because they are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as a beast of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.  17.  And hence it is that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life. For I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom- i.e.  make me a slave..." Of the State of War

- John Locke (1632-1704)

Yadda wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:30am:

gandalf, Because my argument(s) are not false.

Yadda you spend half your time here quoting muslims who support terrorism to prove that muslims support terrorism - and the other half quoting muslims condemning terrorism to prove that muslims are deceitful. Like I said, your argument is unfalsifiable - and therefore totally inane.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2016 at 8:41pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 22nd, 2016 at 8:16pm: The point is that the bad bastards are motivated by Islam, nothing else. NOTHING ELSE. What tosh. Even FD once argued that this was tosh. Murderers and terrorists are motivated by what they've always been motivated by - power, thrills, politics - since time immemorial. Islam or any other religion is just a means to an end.

Why is there a barbaric Islamic State then, but no barbaric Hindu State, Quaker State, Taoist State etc, accommodating the murderers of those religions? 

Why only a murderous, barbaric, avowedly and strictly Islamic Islamic State??  (that has nuffin' to do wiv Islam, of course)

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:03am:

Yadda wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: gandalf, Because my argument(s) are not false. Yadda you spend half your time here quoting muslims who support terrorism to prove that muslims support terrorism and the other half quoting muslims condemning terrorism to prove that muslims are deceitful. Like I said, your argument is unfalsifiable - and therefore totally inane.

LOL


gandalf,

Yeah, ISLAM has got nuffin to do wiv nuffin.

And the real moslems [the vast majority of moslems who reside in Australia], totally reject political extremism.

And why ?

Its because political extremism, has got nothing to do with real ISLAM, and the faith which real moslems follow.

/sarc off



.







IMAGE...
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/129.jpeg

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

How Circumstance Dictates Islamic Behavior January 18, 2012 Preach Peace When Weak, Wage War When Strong "...all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive."

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami - an ISLAMIC scholar and Egyptian Salafi leader
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/from-the-arab-world/how-circumstance-dictates-islamic-behavior/




.





ISLAM, is a faith,       ...which teaches peace, and the tolerance of others.

Just ask gandalf!!!

LOL


"....Lo! Allah is an enemy to those who reject Faith."
Koran 2.98


"....those who reject Allah have no protector."
Koran 47.008
v. 8-11


"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. "
Koran 9.29


"There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: "We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone"....."
Koran 60:4



.



"Fighting [against disbelievers] is prescribed for you, and [if] ye dislike it.....Allah knoweth, and ye know not."
Koran 2.216


"O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."
Koran 9.123


"Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain:...."
Koran 9.111

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 10:03am:

Yadda wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: gandalf, Because my argument(s) are not false. Yadda you spend half your time here quoting muslims who support terrorism to prove that muslims support terrorism - and the other half quoting muslims condemning terrorism to prove that muslims are deceitful. Like I said, your argument is unfalsifiable - and therefore totally inane.

When an Imam says to his congregation in English, in response to yet another Muslim terrorist attack, that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then says to his congregation in Arabic that only Muslims are innocent, does that count as deceit?

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 6:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 10:03am: Yadda wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:30am: gandalf, Because my argument(s) are not false. Yadda you spend half your time here quoting muslims who support terrorism to prove that muslims support terrorism - and the other half quoting muslims condemning terrorism to prove that muslims are deceitful. Like I said, your argument is unfalsifiable - and therefore totally inane. When an Imam says to his congregation in English, in response to yet another Muslim terrorist attack, that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then says to his congregation in Arabic that only Muslims are innocent, does that count as deceit?

FD, when a fellow poster says to ban them, kill them and nuke them and you carry on chasing G around for being a flagbearer, does this mean you concur with the banning, killing and nuking?

I've always wondered this.

Does anyone want to place a bet on the strategy FD uses to evade this one?

1. Difficulty understanding the question.
2. Keep asking more questions.
3. Complete silence.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 6:47pm:

When an Imam says to his congregation in English, in response to yet another Muslim terrorist attack, that it is wrong to kill innocent people, then says to his congregation in Arabic that only Muslims are innocent, does that count as deceit?

Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Of course not - it just proves their deceit even more. Do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful?

What do you think FD, is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:13pm:

What do you think FD, is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here?

Ee-gad, from everythiing I've read post-2007, FD thinks this view is part of the solution.

I'll bet you don't get a straight answer though.

Google: taqiyya.

Quote:

Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit?

Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf?

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:12pm:

Does anyone want to place a bet on the strategy FD uses to evade this one? 1. Difficulty understanding the question. 2. Keep asking more questions. 3. Complete silence.

As opposed to reducto ad absurdum and misdirection poorly disguised as satire?   8-)

Secret Wars wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:25pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:12pm: Does anyone want to place a bet on the strategy FD uses to evade this one? 1. Difficulty understanding the question. 2. Keep asking more questions. 3. Complete silence. As opposed to reducto ad absurdum and misdirection poorly disguised as satire?   8-)

Good point, we'll add that one to the list.

The odds are pretty low on satire though. I'd love to see FD add that to his list of evasion tactics.

freediver wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:23pm:

Quote: Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf?

ooh you got me there FD - yes it is.

What about you - do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful?

Is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:37pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:23pm: Quote: Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf? ooh you got me there FD - yes it is. What about you - do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful? Is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here?

One thing we've learned over the past 9 years - FD will use every trick in the book to "criticize" those who want to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere.

But he'll encourage every call to take away the freedoms of dirty tinted Muslims and their apologists everywhere.

Does he believe it? You bet.

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 7:44pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:23pm: Quote: Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf? ooh you got me there FD - yes it is. What about you - do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful? Is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here? One thing we've learned over the past 9 years - FD will use every trick in the book to "criticize" those who want to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere. But he'll encourage every call to take away the freedoms of dirty tinted Muslims and their apologists everywhere. Does he believe it? You bet.

White Europeans are democratic. Tinted Arab Muslims are not.

Could tinted Arab Muslims be democratic IF THEY WANTED TO BE??


Yes.


Spot the snag, ya stupid PB.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 8:21pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:23pm: Quote: Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf? ooh you got me there FD - yes it is. What about you - do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful? Is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here? One thing we've learned over the past 9 years - FD will use every trick in the book to "criticize" those who want to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere. But he'll encourage every call to take away the freedoms of dirty tinted Muslims and their apologists everywhere. Does he believe it? You bet. White Europeans are democratic. Tinted Arab Muslims are not. Could tinted Arab Muslims be democratic IF THEY WANTED TO BE?? Yes. Spot the snag, ya stupid PB.

Did anyone spot the snag?

That's right. The old boy says he's a white European.

Karnal wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 8:52pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 8:21pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:23pm: Quote: Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf? ooh you got me there FD - yes it is. What about you - do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful? Is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here? One thing we've learned over the past 9 years - FD will use every trick in the book to "criticize" those who want to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere. But he'll encourage every call to take away the freedoms of dirty tinted Muslims and their apologists everywhere. Does he believe it? You bet. White Europeans are democratic. Tinted Arab Muslims are not. Could tinted Arab Muslims be democratic IF THEY WANTED TO BE?? Yes. Spot the snag, ya stupid PB. Did anyone spot the snag? That's right. The old boy says he's a white European.

ya stupid PB is correct.

Acting (??) stupid is what you do, PB.

You are either smart, acting stupid or you are stupid naturally, without any acting.

Stupid either way.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:10pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 8:52pm: Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 8:21pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:44pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:37pm: freediver wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 7:23pm: Quote: Its deceit. But does it make any difference when muslims come out and denounce such deceit? Is it wrong to deceive the innocent Gandalf? ooh you got me there FD - yes it is. What about you - do you agree that in Yadda's book there is literally nothing a muslim can do that isn't sinister and/or deceitful? Is Yadda's views that every single muslim is a "wannabe homicidal maniac" (his actual words) is maybe part of the problem here? One thing we've learned over the past 9 years - FD will use every trick in the book to "criticize" those who want to take away the freedoms of decent white people everywhere. But he'll encourage every call to take away the freedoms of dirty tinted Muslims and their apologists everywhere. Does he believe it? You bet. White Europeans are democratic. Tinted Arab Muslims are not. Could tinted Arab Muslims be democratic IF THEY WANTED TO BE?? Yes. Spot the snag, ya stupid PB. Did anyone spot the snag? That's right. The old boy says he's a white European. ya stupid PB is correct. Acting (??) stupid is what you do, PB. You are either smart, acting stupid or you are stupid naturally, without any acting. Stupid either way.

And this is the old boy being democratic. Cold the old boy become a liberal IF HE WANTED TO BE?

Only against his will. 

It is a jolly world, no?

I am democratic, PB, you are stupid.



The long and the short of it.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:15pm:

I am democratic, PB,

Good for you. That was quick.

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:15pm:

I am democratic, PB, you are stupid. The long and the short of it.

Don't sell yourself too short, Sore End.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2016 at 9:17pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 23rd, 2016 at 9:15pm: I am democratic, PB, you are stupid. The long and the short of it. Don't sell yourself too short, Sore End.

Thanks, unflushable turd, I would have been surprised if you hadn't posted your usual inconsequential load of shite. Carry on, turdy, that's what you do.  Nobody can take away your essential turdiness from you.


Go on, demonstrate it.