Define ISLAM.



Whenever those who are NOT moslems, are publicly critical of moslems, and/or are publicly critical the religion of the moslem;

The most popular proposition which is 'floated' by many moslems, on public forums [such as this one] is;

"We moslems are the ones best placed to understand what ISLAM is, and we moslems do clearly understand,        ....that ISLAM is a peaceful and tolerant religion.
....And we [moslems] shouldn't have to allow/permit the hate of racists to define what ISLAM is."

i.e.
we see moslems opposing the idea, that anyone who is NOT a moslem, should have any legitimate [and lawful!] right to try to define [for themselves] what ISLAM is.     !!!!



MY PROPOSITION;
It is the 'historic' 'personages' or main ICONS of ISLAM which define what ISLAM is.

And by examining those main ICONS of ISLAM, an outsider can best understand 1/ what ISLAM is, and 2/ what ISLAM promotes in the world of man [i.e. human society].

e.g.
1/ Allah, The words of,   ....define ISLAM.

2/ Mohammed. [the sunnah of Mohammed], The words of,   ....define ISLAM.

3/ Koran, The words/contents of the,   ....define ISLAM.

4/ ISLAMIC law, The words/contents of,   ....define ISLAM.




Yet, whenever we, who are NOT moslems, publicly confront moslems about the detrimental and damaging influence that these 'personages' or main ICONS of ISLAM 'apparently' have, upon the character and psyche of the moslem,
......and the influence that these 'personages' or main ICONS of ISLAM 'apparently' have, in inciting individual moslems to violence, in their practice of ISLAM,
.....we, who are NOT moslems, are 'shouted down', and told that we are mistaken.


But, WHAT IS REALLY APPARENT TO ME,         .....is that moslems are never, ever, able to explain in any clear and reasoned way, how our [my] perceptions, of an intolerant and violent ISLAM are wrong and mistaken.

Why is that ?

NOBODY KNOWS!



No peaceful/moderate moslem has ever been able to articulate to me, how, or from where, his version of ISLAM, derives its existential authority.

Why is that ?

NOBODY KNOWS!




.





polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 5^th, 2015 at 12:34pm:

Why is it so hard for you to accept that a muslim can value freedom as much as any non-muslim? Even as a muslim, the non-muslim west gives me far more freedom to practice the islamic faith than do almost any islamic country. I value that, and I don't believe its fair to call on me to leave simply on the basis of my personal beliefs - beliefs which you demonstrably grossly misunderstand. When a citizen of a nation demonstrates very clearly their loyalty and embrace the values that define that nation - you have no right to say that citizen is not welcome and should move to some oppressive hell-hole - for no other reason than you are offended by what you think are my personal beliefs.

Yadda wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

Define ISLAM.

It's the religion of peace.

Islam   ::)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9bEkGd1AVo

define islam?

islam a cult where the highest grade of devotee is one who slays and is slain in the cause of a satanic demon allah.

The unholy fiend allah was a pagan moon god in Arabia during pre-Islamic times.

muhammad claimed the pagan moon god allah was the true monotheistic god of Abraham.

muslims have raped, tortured and slaughtered millions of innocent people in their satanic quest to force all people to submit to this pagan mood god allah.

islam is a cult of people where the men sit down to urinate, because their prophet muhammad was deformed and had to squat to urinate, he played with his penis while peeing in order to stop pissing on himself.

islam is a cult where there are religious rules (sunnah) for laughing, putting on your clothes, taking off your clothes, stepping into a toilet, how to squat in a toilet, leaving a toilet, what hand to use, how to sleep, how to put on and take off your shoes, how to sit on the floor and eat, how to drink, how to awake, how to continuously pray to the moon god allah for every thing you do, how to pick your nose, how to dip flies in your drink because one wing is diseased and one has the cure, etc. etc..

After eating do not wipe your hands till you have licked it, or had it licked by somebody else.

Take three breaths while drinking.

Don't forget the ritual after intercourse: The prophet said, “allah puts an angel in charge of the uterus and the angel says, ‘O lord, (it is) semen! O lord, (it is now ) a clot! O lord, (it is now) a piece of flesh.’ And then, if allah wishes to complete its creation, the angel asks, ‘O lord, (will it be) a male or a female? A wretched (an evil doer) or a blessed (doer of good)? How much will his provisions be? What will his age be?’ So all that is written while the creature is still in the mother’s womb.”

Keep you head down when the imam's around: Isn’t he who raises his head before the Imam afraid that allah may transform his head into that of a donkey or his figure (face) into that of a donkey?”

Make sure the sun's not near satans head when you pray: When the (upper) edge of the sun appears (in the morning), don’t perform a prayer till the sun appears in full, and when the lower edge of the sun sets, don’t perform a prayer till it sets completely. And you should not seek to pray at sunrise or sunset for the sun rises between two sides of the head of the devil (or satan).”

Don't worry about dreams of muhammad: “Whoever has seen me in a dream, then no doubt, he has seen me, for satan cannot imitate my shape.

But then again if you do have a bad dream:  so if anyone of you has a bad dream of which he gets afraid, he should spit on his left side

Don't yawn satan will get you: “Yawning is from satan and if anyone of you yawns, he should check his yawning as much as possible, for if anyone of you (during the act of yawning) should say: ‘Ha’, satan will laugh at him.”

Keep reciting the qur'an because it's hard to memorize it: So you must keep on reciting the Qur’an because it escapes from the hearts of men faster than camel do.”

Oh and don't forget that stones used to talk to muhammad. allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: I recognise the stone in Mecca which used to pay me salutations before my advent as a Prophet and I recognise that even now.

Then we have the rules of cutting clitorises out of little girls, plus the practice called “bacha bazi” — literally “boy play”,

Couple the above stupidity carried out because muslims revere a thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer as the best example of all men, with the satanic desire to sell this life (suicide bombers etc.) for the rewards of a moon gods' brothel where houris with big breasts and little boys with eyes like pearls abound for the sexual pleasure of the deceased killer, you have one of the most evil cults ever spawned by mankind.

Its really quite simple

Islam is a cult.
Based on the lunatic rantings of Mohamed.
A self confessed mentally ill individual who heard voices in his head and spoke to the devil.
In any normal world he would have been rightly put away in the loony bin.
But in the eyes of the uneducated inbred mentally retarded Muslims, he is a prophet.

This individual, promoted and still promotes from the grave.
Murder
Rape
Pedophilia and suicide.

He was in life a sociopath, narcissist, pedophile with no understanding of humanity.
It is quite obvious that he was mentally ill on several levels as well as being a pervert.

He destroyed the people who helped him, so loyalty did not exist in this narcissists small mind.

Now we have a cult basing themselves on the so call teachings (rantings) of this mentally ill individual and calling themselves a religion.
In all ways this "Religion" fits better into a definition of a cult.
Its followers practice mind altering chanting enforced by brutality.
They consider themselves above every other person on the planet even though, through their own inbreeding, they have an average IQ of 83, which puts them very close to rettarddedd.

This cult brutally enforces their cult practices and punishes mortally any who leave.

This "Religion of peace" has never, in it entire existence, been at peace with anyone, even itself.
It is a cult of death, like a cancer, it insinuates itself into a place, acting meek and harmless.
Only to turn into the slavering beast it is when it gets enough numbers.

Every country that has welcomed this cancer into it has suffered.
It is and always will be of no worth.

THIS IS ISLAM

Mine is simpler than that. It is evil constructed around a framework of delusion, and a disease for which euthanasia is the only solution.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:46am:

Mine is simpler than that. It is evil constructed around a framework of delusion, and a disease for which euthanasia is the only solution.

Kill them.

Islam is what Mohammed said it was.

Islam is being like Mohammed.

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 11:46am:

Mine is simpler than that. It is evil constructed around a framework of delusion, and a disease for which euthanasia is the only solution.

What method would you use for the little kiddies, Bogie?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 3:04pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:46am: Mine is simpler than that. It is evil constructed around a framework of delusion, and a disease for which euthanasia is the only solution. What method would you use for the little kiddies, Bogie?

Probably the same as the Ottomans used when they captured infidel kiddies.

Frank wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 4:20pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2016 at 3:04pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:46am: Mine is simpler than that. It is evil constructed around a framework of delusion, and a disease for which euthanasia is the only solution. What method would you use for the little kiddies, Bogie? Probably the same as the Ottomans used when they captured infidel kiddies.

Out with it, boy: what's your preferred method of executing children?

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2016 at 4:23pm:

Frank wrote on Oct 23rd, 2016 at 4:20pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 23rd, 2016 at 3:04pm: bogarde73 wrote on Oct 21st, 2016 at 11:46am: Mine is simpler than that. It is evil constructed around a framework of delusion, and a disease for which euthanasia is the only solution. What method would you use for the little kiddies, Bogie? Probably the same as the Ottomans used when they captured infidel kiddies. Out with it, boy: what's your preferred method of executing children?

Oh, that's easy. Behead all those who insult the old boy.

No one has the right to not be offended, no?

Yadda wrote on Sep 11^th, 2016 at 8:57am:

Define ISLAM.

Islam is the single religion in the world that has nuffin' to do wiv Islam.

Deceivers

https://andelino.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/saudi-arabia-02.jpg

Inhumane

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0d/74/5b/0d745bb0f932ea15761f558c0d667759.jpg

Stinking liars

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lQAHCqlQm9o/Vkt_LHcwfCI/AAAAAAAARHI/0poO-HecMWc/s1600/refugees%2Bsuadi%2Barabia.jpg

unjust

http://static.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/saudi_arabia.jpeg

Donald Trump is accused of raping at least two children, and he has admitted to sexually assaulting women.

Does Sprint condone this behaviour?

selfish


The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

Two little children.

That's who Trump is accused of raping.

Does Sprint condone this behaviour?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 10:29pm:

selfish The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

In a word, "bullshit".


Quote:

There are 2 million to 3 million Syrians in the Gulf countries, many of whom arrived since the war began, but they are not considered refugees and they are not part of the UNHCR statistics. They are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. Even though, according to UNHCR officials, only in Saudi Arabia, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in September 2015. The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians. According to Saudi officials, the kingdom „was keen to not deal with them as refugees, or to put them in refugee camps, to preserve their dignity and safety, and gave them complete freedom of movement.” Saudi Arabia also says it has given Syrians access to work, free medical care and education. Over 100,000 Syrian students were being educated in Saudi schools. The United Arab Emirates also defended its response to the Syrian refugees crisis. According to a statement issued by the UAE government in September 2015, „the UAE has made it one of its foreign policy priorities to address this issue in a sustainable and humane fashion together with its regional and international partners”. The UAE government said it has provided residency permits to more than 100,000 Syrians who have entered the country since 2011, and that more than 242,000 Syrian nationals currently live in the country.

[url=http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/]Source[/url]

What other lies are you going to tell us?  Mmmm?   ::)

Islam is a collection of lies used to control ignorant, tribal, and superstitious people. Near poverty is its ideal situation. The minimally productive tribes from Morroco to the Philippines were naturally fertile populations for its domination, kept in line with promises of paradise.

In the West, its greatest ally is the modern fashion for Eastern exotica and non-verifiable mumbo-jumbo like spiritualism which can be accepted without any application of critical thinking. 

If Islam disappeared tomorrow, it would have to be reinvented, because history shows that humanity prefers stupidity over logic. 

And for holding this view, I will be called an Islamophobe.

issuevoter wrote on Nov 15^th, 2016 at 4:27pm:

And for holding this view, I will be called an Islamophobe.

Not true Issue. You are an Islamophobe because you hate and fear muslims - not Islam.

Greggy hates Islam at least as much as you do - but he is not called an Islamophobe - do you know why?

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 11:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 10:29pm: selfish The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees. In a word, "bullshit". Quote: There are 2 million to 3 million Syrians in the Gulf countries, many of whom arrived since the war began, but they are not considered refugees and they are not part of the UNHCR statistics. They are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. Even though, according to UNHCR officials, only in Saudi Arabia, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in September 2015. The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians. According to Saudi officials, the kingdom „was keen to not deal with them as refugees, or to put them in refugee camps, to preserve their dignity and safety, and gave them complete freedom of movement.” Saudi Arabia also says it has given Syrians access to work, free medical care and education. Over 100,000 Syrian students were being educated in Saudi schools. The United Arab Emirates also defended its response to the Syrian refugees crisis. According to a statement issued by the UAE government in September 2015, „the UAE has made it one of its foreign policy priorities to address this issue in a sustainable and humane fashion together with its regional and international partners”. The UAE government said it has provided residency permits to more than 100,000 Syrians who have entered the country since 2011, and that more than 242,000 Syrian nationals currently live in the country. [url=http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/]Source[/url] What other lies are you going to tell us?  Mmmm?   ::)

Yes, but fair's fair. Sprint's doing it for a good cause. Sprint, you see, blames Islam.

FD supports Sprint's cause. Porkies are an important tool in the campaign against the Muselman.

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 10:29pm: selfish The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees. In a word, "bullshit". Quote: There are 2 million to 3 million Syrians in the Gulf countries, many of whom arrived since the war began, but they are not considered refugees and they are not part of the UNHCR statistics. They are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. Even though, according to UNHCR officials, only in Saudi Arabia, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in September 2015. The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians. According to Saudi officials, the kingdom „was keen to not deal with them as refugees, or to put them in refugee camps, to preserve their dignity and safety, and gave them complete freedom of movement.” Saudi Arabia also says it has given Syrians access to work, free medical care and education. Over 100,000 Syrian students were being educated in Saudi schools. The United Arab Emirates also defended its response to the Syrian refugees crisis. According to a statement issued by the UAE government in September 2015, „the UAE has made it one of its foreign policy priorities to address this issue in a sustainable and humane fashion together with its regional and international partners”. The UAE government said it has provided residency permits to more than 100,000 Syrians who have entered the country since 2011, and that more than 242,000 Syrian nationals currently live in the country. [url=http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/]Source[/url] What other lies are you going to tell us?  Mmmm?   ::) Yes, but fair's fair. Sprint's doing it for a good cause. Sprint, you see, blames Islam. FD supports Sprint's cause. Porkies are an important tool in the campaign against the Muselman.

Ah, OK.  How do I know you're not telling a porkie?   ::)

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 11:51am:

issuevoter wrote on Nov 15th, 2016 at 4:27pm: And for holding this view, I will be called an Islamophobe. Not true Issue. You are an Islamophobe because you hate and fear muslims - not Islam.

And Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam??

Frank wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 9:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 11:51am: issuevoter wrote on Nov 15th, 2016 at 4:27pm: And for holding this view, I will be called an Islamophobe. Not true Issue. You are an Islamophobe because you hate and fear muslims - not Islam. And Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam??

Do Christians have anything to do with Christianity?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 9:08pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 11:51am: issuevoter wrote on Nov 15th, 2016 at 4:27pm: And for holding this view, I will be called an Islamophobe. Not true Issue. You are an Islamophobe because you hate and fear muslims - not Islam. And Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam?? Do Christians have anything to do with Christianity? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Only you could think yourself clever by asking such an idiotic question.

Of course Christians have everything to do with Christianity. A belief system is formed by the people who accept it and follow it and practice it.

Muslim have made Islam what it is today and Christians have made Christianity. How else could it be?i

Karnal wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 9:42pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 9:08pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 11:51am: issuevoter wrote on Nov 15th, 2016 at 4:27pm: And for holding this view, I will be called an Islamophobe. Not true Issue. You are an Islamophobe because you hate and fear muslims - not Islam. And Muslims have nuffin' to do wiv Islam?? Do Christians have anything to do with Christianity?

Christians are not perfect human beings.

Christians only have to want to be perfect human beings.

And act with a pure conscience.

Matthew 26:41
Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

Romans 7:19
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.




Whereas, moslems only have to hate and to kill infidels to achieve perfection as moslems.

Allah said so.



.




"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


"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


"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: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Koran 9.111


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 13^th, 2016 at 11:43pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 10:29pm: selfish The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees. In a word, "bullshit". Quote: There are 2 million to 3 million Syrians in the Gulf countries, many of whom arrived since the war began, but they are not considered refugees and they are not part of the UNHCR statistics. They are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. Even though, according to UNHCR officials, only in Saudi Arabia, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in September 2015. The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians. According to Saudi officials, the kingdom „was keen to not deal with them as refugees, or to put them in refugee camps, to preserve their dignity and safety, and gave them complete freedom of movement.” Saudi Arabia also says it has given Syrians access to work, free medical care and education. Over 100,000 Syrian students were being educated in Saudi schools. The United Arab Emirates also defended its response to the Syrian refugees crisis. According to a statement issued by the UAE government in September 2015, „the UAE has made it one of its foreign policy priorities to address this issue in a sustainable and humane fashion together with its regional and international partners”. The UAE government said it has provided residency permits to more than 100,000 Syrians who have entered the country since 2011, and that more than 242,000 Syrian nationals currently live in the country. [url=http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/]Source[/url] What other lies are you going to tell us?  Mmmm?   ::)

Your telling the lies or are ignorant of the truth. the article you put up is fictitious. Please check elsewhere and get back to us.

Many thanks.

"Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf States at the UNHCR, said Saudi Arabia has accepted 500,000 Syrian refugees, but called them “Arab brothers and sisters in distress.”Dec 4, 2015"

And not for permanent resettlement.

kemal wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 10:17am:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 10:29pm: selfish The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees. In a word, "bullshit". Quote: There are 2 million to 3 million Syrians in the Gulf countries, many of whom arrived since the war began, but they are not considered refugees and they are not part of the UNHCR statistics. They are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. Even though, according to UNHCR officials, only in Saudi Arabia, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in September 2015. The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians. According to Saudi officials, the kingdom „was keen to not deal with them as refugees, or to put them in refugee camps, to preserve their dignity and safety, and gave them complete freedom of movement.” Saudi Arabia also says it has given Syrians access to work, free medical care and education. Over 100,000 Syrian students were being educated in Saudi schools. The United Arab Emirates also defended its response to the Syrian refugees crisis. According to a statement issued by the UAE government in September 2015, „the UAE has made it one of its foreign policy priorities to address this issue in a sustainable and humane fashion together with its regional and international partners”. The UAE government said it has provided residency permits to more than 100,000 Syrians who have entered the country since 2011, and that more than 242,000 Syrian nationals currently live in the country. [url=http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/]Source[/url] What other lies are you going to tell us?  Mmmm?   ::) Your telling the lies or are ignorant of the truth. the article you put up is fictitious. Please check elsewhere and get back to us.

And why is the article "fictitious"? 


Quote:

Many thanks. "Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf States at the UNHCR, said Saudi Arabia has accepted 500,000 Syrian refugees, but called them “Arab brothers and sisters in distress.”Dec 4, 2015" And not for permanent resettlement.

Why should they?  They are refugees.  Perhaps they are following Australia's lead on accepting refugees?  Mmmm?   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 2:23pm:

Why should they?  They are refugees.  Perhaps they are following Australia's lead on accepting refugees?  Mmmm?   ::)

That's right, Brian, before Keating/Howard/Abbott the Arabs were the biggest permanent re-settlers of other Arab refugees, right?? They only changed to follow Australia's example because the idea of the ummah is really dependent on Australia's behaviour. And if Australia were to accept illegal boat arrivals and settled them permanently, the Gulf arabs and the Saudis will also start giving permanent settlement and citizenship to the Arabs.


Go on, roll your unfocused eyes and yawn. You must have been bullied at school and I can see why.

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 10:09pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: Why should they?  They are refugees.  Perhaps they are following Australia's lead on accepting refugees?  Mmmm?   ::) That's right, Brian, before Keating/Howard/Abbott the Arabs were the biggest permanent re-settlers of other Arab refugees, right?? They only changed to follow Australia's example because the idea of the ummah is really dependent on Australia's behaviour. And if Australia were to accept illegal boat arrivals and settled them permanently, the Gulf arabs and the Saudis will also start giving permanent settlement and citizenship to the Arabs.

Their ideas are their own, you appear to have missed the irony of you, an Australian, who champions the current government's policy on non-acceptance of refugees, lecturing another nation on not accepting refugees, Frank.   ::)   


Quote:

Go on, roll your unfocused eyes and yawn. You must have been bullied at school and I can see why.

Gee, you know my style...   ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 10:23pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: Why should they?  They are refugees.  Perhaps they are following Australia's lead on accepting refugees?  Mmmm?   ::) That's right, Brian, before Keating/Howard/Abbott the Arabs were the biggest permanent re-settlers of other Arab refugees, right?? They only changed to follow Australia's example because the idea of the ummah is really dependent on Australia's behaviour. And if Australia were to accept illegal boat arrivals and settled them permanently, the Gulf arabs and the Saudis will also start giving permanent settlement and citizenship to the Arabs. Their ideas are their own, you appear to have missed the irony of you, an Australian, who champions the current government's policy on non-acceptance of refugees, lecturing another nation on not accepting refugees, Frank.   ::)    Quote: Go on, roll your unfocused eyes and yawn. You must have been bullied at school and I can see why. Gee, you know my style...   ::)

Well, if their fellow Muslims are not good enough for them, we should follow their example. After all, THEY know Muslims better than even you do - and as we all know, that's saying something.


ANd we actually take more Muslims for permanent settlement than all the Gulf Arabs and Saudi put together.

It is a lot easier for a Muslim Arab refugee to become a Canadian or Australian subject of HRH Elizabeth II than to become a subject of King Muck of Araby or of any of the Gulf tinpot little potentates.  They can be guest workers (ie semi-slaves) but that's the limit of Muslim solidarity.

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:23pm: Frank wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:09pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 2:23pm: Why should they?  They are refugees.  Perhaps they are following Australia's lead on accepting refugees?  Mmmm?   ::) That's right, Brian, before Keating/Howard/Abbott the Arabs were the biggest permanent re-settlers of other Arab refugees, right?? They only changed to follow Australia's example because the idea of the ummah is really dependent on Australia's behaviour. And if Australia were to accept illegal boat arrivals and settled them permanently, the Gulf arabs and the Saudis will also start giving permanent settlement and citizenship to the Arabs. Their ideas are their own, you appear to have missed the irony of you, an Australian, who champions the current government's policy on non-acceptance of refugees, lecturing another nation on not accepting refugees, Frank.   ::)    Quote: Go on, roll your unfocused eyes and yawn. You must have been bullied at school and I can see why. Gee, you know my style...   ::) Well, if their fellow Muslims are not good enough for them, we should follow their example. After all, THEY know Muslims better than even you do - and as we all know, that's saying something. ANd we actually take more Muslims for permanent settlement than all the Gulf Arabs and Saudi put together. It is a lot easier for a Muslim Arab refugee to become a Canadian or Australian subject of HRH Elizabeth II than to become a subject of King Muck of Araby or of any of the Gulf tinpot little potentates.  They can be guest workers (ie semi-slaves) but that's the limit of Muslim solidarity.

*YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::)

Frank wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 10:35pm:

Well, if their fellow Muslims are not good enough for them, we should follow their example. After all, THEY know Muslims better than even you do - and as we all know, that's saying something.

That is a very good argument, Frank .



Logically, it would appear that moslems themselves, do not particularly like fellow moslems [who are strangers].

They certainly show a reluctance to allow other fellow moslems, to come to live with them [to be absorbed], in their lands and society.

Is it Muslim or Moslem?

When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,"Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam." No more. Now, almost everybody uses Muslim.

According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

For others, this spelling differentiation is merely a linguistic matter, with the two spellings a result of variation in transliteration methods. Both Moslem and Muslim are used as nouns. But some writers use Moslem when the word is employed as an adjective.

Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups. But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World--published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut--is still The Moslem World. -


source

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

*YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::)

Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship.

And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian.

moses wrote on Nov 18^th, 2016 at 4:39pm:

Is it Muslim or Moslem? When Baby Boomers were children it was Moslem. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992) noted,"Moslem is the form predominantly preferred in journalism and popular usage. Muslim is preferred by scholars and by English-speaking adherents of Islam." No more. Now, almost everybody uses Muslim. According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,"Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word." But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means"one who gives himself to God," and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means"one who is evil and unjust" when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z. For others, this spelling differentiation is merely a linguistic matter, with the two spellings a result of variation in transliteration methods. Both Moslem and Muslim are used as nouns. But some writers use Moslem when the word is employed as an adjective. Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups. But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP--the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World--published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut--is still The Moslem World. - source

A little more here moses.....

Muslim or Moslem?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1468499918/0#0

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17^th, 2016 at 2:23pm:

kemal wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:17am: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 11:43pm: Sprintcyclist wrote on Nov 13th, 2016 at 10:29pm: selfish The "six Gulf countries -- Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain -- have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees. In a word, "bullshit". Quote: There are 2 million to 3 million Syrians in the Gulf countries, many of whom arrived since the war began, but they are not considered refugees and they are not part of the UNHCR statistics. They are classified as “Arab brothers and sisters in distress” instead of refugees covered by UN treaties. Even though, according to UNHCR officials, only in Saudi Arabia, there were 500,000 Syrian refugees in September 2015. The government of Saudi Arabia has stated that, since the Syrian conflict began in 2011, it has hosted 2.5 million refugees and has given permanent residency to hundreds of thousands of Syrians. According to Saudi officials, the kingdom „was keen to not deal with them as refugees, or to put them in refugee camps, to preserve their dignity and safety, and gave them complete freedom of movement.” Saudi Arabia also says it has given Syrians access to work, free medical care and education. Over 100,000 Syrian students were being educated in Saudi schools. The United Arab Emirates also defended its response to the Syrian refugees crisis. According to a statement issued by the UAE government in September 2015, „the UAE has made it one of its foreign policy priorities to address this issue in a sustainable and humane fashion together with its regional and international partners”. The UAE government said it has provided residency permits to more than 100,000 Syrians who have entered the country since 2011, and that more than 242,000 Syrian nationals currently live in the country. [url=http://www.opensourceinvestigations.com/syria/gulf-states-response-to-syrian-refugee-crisis-a-myth-debunked/]Source[/url] What other lies are you going to tell us?  Mmmm?   ::) Your telling the lies or are ignorant of the truth. the article you put up is fictitious. Please check elsewhere and get back to us. And why is the article "fictitious"?  [quote] Many thanks. "Nabil Othman, acting regional representative to the Gulf States at the UNHCR, said Saudi Arabia has accepted 500,000 Syrian refugees, but called them “Arab brothers and sisters in distress.”Dec 4, 2015" And not for permanent resettlement.

Why should they?  They are refugees.  Perhaps they are following Australia's lead on accepting refugees?  Mmmm?   ::)
[/quote]

Saudi Arabia does not accept refugees Brian. Full stop. Plus exclamation mark!

As a Muslim you are allowed to park your arse in the pristine central cesspool of Islam,Saudi Arabia, but you are not allowed to live their as a permanent resident. Just like Indonesia.

Please keep up Brian as Islam is not very nice regarding tolerance.   

There you go, Brian. Not even irrefutable evidence convinces Matty and the old boy.

This is a new era. The Enlightenment is dead. Truth, reason, facts - irrelevant. We have entered the new Dark Ages.

O brave new world with such marvellous things in it, no?

Karnal wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2016 at 8:19pm:

There you go, Brian. Not even irrefutable evidence convinces Matty and the old boy. This is a new era. The Enlightenment is dead. Truth, reason, facts - irrelevant. We have entered the new Dark Ages. O brave new world with such marvellous things in it, no?

I believe that Matty and the old boy need to read a little more widely?  They might discover the reality, rather than their Islamophobic delusions?   Or would that be too difficult for them?  Of course it would!  We can't expect their delusions to be shaken, now can we?  Of course not!  Tsk, tsk, how silly of me to suggest such a thing.   Next they'll be claiming that Donald Trump won the popular vote in the recent US election!   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 24^th, 2016 at 5:22pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 22nd, 2016 at 8:19pm: There you go, Brian. Not even irrefutable evidence convinces Matty and the old boy. This is a new era. The Enlightenment is dead. Truth, reason, facts - irrelevant. We have entered the new Dark Ages. O brave new world with such marvellous things in it, no? I believe that Matty and the old boy need to read a little more widely?

Alas, Brian, that would require reading.

No, I think the best path of action is to make stuff up and call people who query it stupid and mendacious.

Sore End used to call this intelligence and integrity. I do wonder where he went. We all miss him here.

Matty never goes anywhere. He just makes up a new sock each week. Sore End, however, would never do something so cunning.

He's a Lacanian, you see.

Frank wrote on Nov 18^th, 2016 at 7:04pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian.

Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 18th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian. Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts.

They're not facts, dear boy, because they aren't true. The Gulf states and Saudis are not sigatories to the UNHCR, which is what you mean by "permanently settled": permanently settled by the UNHCR.

As Brain's article pointed out, the Gulf states have a number of permanently settled refugees. Would you care to correct your "facts", or would you prefer to stay, as the old boy used to say, stupid and mendacious?

Tsk tsk tsk.

::) ::) ::)

Karnal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Frank wrote on Nov 18th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian. Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts. They're not facts, dear boy, because they aren't true. The Gulf states and Saudis are not sigatories to the UNHCR, which is what you mean by "permanently settled": permanently settled by the UNHCR. As Brain's article pointed out, the Gulf states have a number of permanently settled refugees. Would you care to correct your "facts", or would you prefer to stay, as the old boy used to say, stupid and mendacious? Tsk tsk tsk. ::) ::) ::)

Are they getting Saudi passports?

No.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 6:15pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Frank wrote on Nov 18th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian. Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts. They're not facts, dear boy, because they aren't true. The Gulf states and Saudis are not sigatories to the UNHCR, which is what you mean by "permanently settled": permanently settled by the UNHCR. As Brain's article pointed out, the Gulf states have a number of permanently settled refugees. Would you care to correct your "facts", or would you prefer to stay, as the old boy used to say, stupid and mendacious? Tsk tsk tsk. ::) ::) ::) Are they getting Saudi passports? No.

Do refugees get Australian passports, old chap?

I'm curious. You should know the answer to this one.

Karnal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 6:35pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 6:15pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Frank wrote on Nov 18th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian. Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts. They're not facts, dear boy, because they aren't true. The Gulf states and Saudis are not sigatories to the UNHCR, which is what you mean by "permanently settled": permanently settled by the UNHCR. As Brain's article pointed out, the Gulf states have a number of permanently settled refugees. Would you care to correct your "facts", or would you prefer to stay, as the old boy used to say, stupid and mendacious? Tsk tsk tsk. ::) ::) ::) Are they getting Saudi passports? No. Do refugees get Australian passports, old chap? I'm curious. You should know the answer to this one.

When they are given PR they can get citizenship after 3 years. Then they can get a passport.

Not happening in Saudi or the Gulf states. It's easier for Muslim Arabs to become the subjects of EIIR in the UK, Canada, Australia or NZ than of the potentates of Saudi and the Gulf Arab sheikhdoms.

Frank wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 7:39pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 6:35pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 6:15pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 6:03pm: Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Frank wrote on Nov 18th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian. Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts. They're not facts, dear boy, because they aren't true. The Gulf states and Saudis are not sigatories to the UNHCR, which is what you mean by "permanently settled": permanently settled by the UNHCR. As Brain's article pointed out, the Gulf states have a number of permanently settled refugees. Would you care to correct your "facts", or would you prefer to stay, as the old boy used to say, stupid and mendacious? Tsk tsk tsk. ::) ::) ::) Are they getting Saudi passports? No. Do refugees get Australian passports, old chap? I'm curious. You should know the answer to this one. When they are given PR they can get citizenship after 3 years. Then they can get a passport.

Becoming citizens, did you say? I thought we were talking about permanent settlement.

I'm afraid you'll have to explain this one, old boy.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24^th, 2016 at 1:50pm:

Islam   ::)

That Brian is an opinion, NOT a definition! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) And if its your opinion its not worth a brass razoo!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) and just in case you missed it Mr Thicko ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Karnal wrote on Nov 26^th, 2016 at 6:03pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 26th, 2016 at 5:51pm: Frank wrote on Nov 18th, 2016 at 7:04pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 17th, 2016 at 10:46pm: *YAWN*. 2-3 million tops 12,000, Frank.    ::) Thank you for remaining an insufferable, uncomprehending fool.  Australia permanently resettles 12,000 more than the gulf Arabs and the Saudis. They only give them temporary residence. No option for permanence, no option for citizenship. And you know that full well but you are just one more lying dishonest little spineless, squishy apologist, a shill even for the House of Saud. You are a totally immoral man, Brian. Hey, Brian, you have forgotten to roll your eyes at these facts. They're not facts, dear boy, because they aren't true. The Gulf states and Saudis are not sigatories to the UNHCR, which is what you mean by "permanently settled": permanently settled by the UNHCR. As Brain's article pointed out, the Gulf states have a number of permanently settled refugees. Would you care to correct your "facts", or would you prefer to stay, as the old boy used to say, stupid and mendacious? Tsk tsk tsk. ::) ::) ::)

Crap as usual.

It is a country that settles people, not the UNHCR or anyone else.

Whether you are a signatory or not is irrelevant.  If you wanted to settle your bothers and sisters you would, you don't need the UN to give you permission. You'd settle them, you'd give them a pathway to citizenship.  This is not an option with the Gulf Arabs and the Saudis.




They are not even listed by the UN as resettlement countries:

https://reports.zoho.com/ZDBDataSheetView.cc?OBJID=885676000000641644&STANDALONE=true&privatelink=675d0a826cbe5d13b2fc053111d5cd69&INTERVAL=-1&REMTOOLBAR=false&INCLUDETITLE=true&INCLUDEDESC=true

kemal wrote on Nov 27^th, 2016 at 8:32pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 24th, 2016 at 1:50pm: Islam   ::) That Brian is an opinion, NOT a definition! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) And if its your opinion its not worth a brass razoo!!!! ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) and just in case you missed it Mr Thicko ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Thailand's not a resettlement country either, old boy. And yet, it's taken in refugees for years. The Chinese revolution, the Vietnam war, Pot Pot, Burma - it even turns a blind eye to Cambodian wetbacks.

Developed countries who need to top up their populations have formal processes. You know, as the Statue of Liberty says, give us your poor, your tired and your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Developing countries are the source of the world's labour. Developed countries are its destination. This is how the world works. Thailand turns a blind eye to cheap labour from Myanmar and Cambodia because it's now a manufacturing economy. It has jobs it needs to fill.

The Saudis have no such economy. They have a lot of space, but most of it's desert. And in spite of this, the Saudis do take in refugees. The Saudis do settle them. They might be complete bastards, but cities like Riyadh settle Muslims from all over the place.

Citizenship is an entirely different discussion, as every schoolboy knows. The Muslim world takes in the majority of Muslim refugees. Only a fraction make it to Europe or Australia, or even the UNHCR. Pakistan alone has millions. Turkey and Lebanon take in the bulk of the Syrians. And as Brain has shown, the Gulf states take in plenty themselves - far more than us.

You should be happy. This is what you've been calling for for years. If you weren't so mendacious, you'd acknowledge this. But then, you never did rule out the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman, now did you?

Amnesty International 3 February 2016


Syria's refugee crisis in numbers

Key facts:
1/.Gulf countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees.

2/.Other high income countries including Russia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea have also offered zero resettlement places.

moses wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 2:56pm:

Amnesty International 3 February 2016 Syria's refugee crisis in numbers Key facts: 1/.Gulf countries including Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain have offered zero resettlement places to Syrian refugees. 2/.Other high income countries including Russia, Japan, Singapore and South Korea have also offered zero resettlement places.

Through the UNHCR, you mean?


Quote:

Sources: UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), International Organization of Migration (IOM)

Karnal wrote on Nov 28^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

Thailand's not a resettlement country either, old boy. And yet, it's taken in refugees for years. The Chinese revolution, the Vietnam war, Pot Pot, Burma - it even turns a blind eye to Cambodian wetbacks. Developed countries who need to top up their populations have formal processes. You know, as the Statue of Liberty says, give us your poor, your tired and your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Developing countries are the source of the world's labour. Developed countries are its destination. This is how the world works. Thailand turns a blind eye to cheap labour from Myanmar and Cambodia because it's now a manufacturing economy. It has jobs it needs to fill. The Saudis have no such economy. They have a lot of space, but most of it's desert. And in spite of this, the Saudis do take in refugees. The Saudis do settle them. They might be complete bastards, but cities like Riyadh settle Muslims from all over the place. Citizenship is an entirely different discussion, as every schoolboy knows. The Muslim world takes in the majority of Muslim refugees. Only a fraction make it to Europe or Australia, or even the UNHCR. Pakistan alone has millions. Turkey and Lebanon take in the bulk of the Syrians. And as Brain has shown, the Gulf states take in plenty themselves - far more than us. You should be happy. This is what you've been calling for for years. If you weren't so mendacious, you'd acknowledge this. But then, you never did rule out the use of porkies in your campaign against the Muselman, now did you?

None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. Especially not why the developed world should accept undocumented illegal immigrants. Nor why the Arabs, especially the rich Arabs,  don't properly settle their fellow Muslims but instead take them in only to exploit them mercilessly and deny them any future permanence.

Should the West do exactly as the rich Arabs do you would be outraged - yet here you defend them on spurious grounds, muddying the waters as always.

Frank wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 5:34pm:

None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants.

How many times do you need to be told?

It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::)

Define Islam- Islam is a religion which controls every part of a followers existence 24/7. Total control over every waking minute. Not healthy Jan!!!

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Define Islam- Islam is a religion which controls every part of a followers existence 24/7. Total control over every waking minute. Not healthy Jan!!!

Strange. How come it doesn't control all those rapists, murderers, shonky tree-loppers and coke dealers you keeping frothing about?

Thoughts?

Islamisbad

Gordon wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 7:29pm:

Islamisbad

Try Lahore, dear. Check out Tripadvisor.

Islamabad's for your more experienced traveller.

Beards are not optional.

Karnal wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 7:41pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 7:29pm: Islamisbad Try a hore, dear. Check out Tripadvisor. Islamabad's for your more experienced traveller. Beards are not optional.

Thanks but I'm not a sex tourist.

Then wear a burqa.

You're not very adventurous, are you?

Karnal wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 8:09pm:

Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you?

Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too?

Gordon wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 8:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too?

Not at all. I caught the train.

I blame Islam, no?

Karnal wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 8:51pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no?

Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do?

Gordon wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do?

Do they?

Show us a picture.

Karnal wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? Do they? Show us a picture.

Google it. Sheeet.

Gordon wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 8:54pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do?

What a strange India you must have visited.   ::)

Toilets in Howrah Station - clean.
New Delhi Station: clean.
Mumbai Central: clean.
Trivandrum Central: not clean.
Chennai Egmore: clean.
Bangalore Central: clean.
Hyderabad Deccan: not clean.
Allahbad Junction: clean.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Karnal wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 8:07am:

Toilets in Howrah Station - clean. New Delhi Station: clean. Mumbai Central: clean. Trivandrum Central: not clean. Chennai Egmore: clean. Bangalore Central: clean. Hyderabad Deccan: not clean. Allahbad Junction: clean. Thank you for your cooperation.

Poop opp ee doop.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1168181

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 11:09pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? What a strange India you must have visited.   ::)

Oh you know, the one that's chock full of Indian people that shitt everywhere.

I won't embed this. Poop oop ee doop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JByKrwJ6E

Gordon wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 11:09pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? What a strange India you must have visited.   ::) Oh you know, the one that's chock full of Indian people that shitt everywhere. I won't embed this. Poop oop ee doop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JByKrwJ6E

Strange. I can't see any sheeting in this one, Gordon.

Do you do this in Canada?

Gordon wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:20pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 8:07am: Toilets in Howrah Station - clean. New Delhi Station: clean. Mumbai Central: clean. Trivandrum Central: not clean. Chennai Egmore: clean. Bangalore Central: clean. Hyderabad Deccan: not clean. Allahbad Junction: clean. Thank you for your cooperation. Poop opp ee doop. http://www.dawn.com/news/1168181

Good point, Gordon. This explains how Pakis have low IQs - like the Arabs who interbreed with subhuman negroid genes.


Quote:

“Open defecation is a major contributor to stunting and that's why we've got to do all we can to stop it,” she said. The problem can spread disease and lead to intestinal infections, which can contribute to stunting in young children, she said. Stunting means children don't grow as tall as they would otherwise, and it can also affect a child's brain development.

Karnal wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:32pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:22pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 11:09pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? What a strange India you must have visited.   ::) Oh you know, the one that's chock full of Indian people that shitt everywhere. I won't embed this. Poop oop ee doop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JByKrwJ6E Strange. I can't see any sheeting in this one, Gordon. Do you do this in Canada?

Have you really been to India?

Do Indian people really poo in streets?

Yes, they do. It is one hundred percent true. Some may insist that it happens only in rural places or slums but they are wrong. Even in mega cities like Mumbai or Bangalore people defecate in public places. Many blame it on the Government for not providing proper facilities (which is also true) but this is more of lack of civil sense. Even where Govt provides basic infrastructure people lack the responsibility to maintain cleanliness.  Most have do-the-business-and-get-out attitude with a complete disregard for public utilities. Be it bus stations, roads, toilets or parks. Men piss on roadsides. Parents make their children defecate on the streets instead of dragging them to toilets.

https://www.quora.com/Do-Indian-people-really-poo-in-streets

Karnal, I understand why it happens. If I could wave a magic want and provide India adequate sanitation, I would.

But you really want to pretend it doesn't happen? Really?????

I only caught one train in India, kalka to Delhi and at least 20 guys took a dump on the track in front of the station.

Do you like Indian beaches? Miam Miam????

http://9gag.com/tv/p/akeaP7/pooping-on-the-beach-in-india

Gordon wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:42pm:

Karnal wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:22pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 11:09pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? What a strange India you must have visited.   ::) Oh you know, the one that's chock full of Indian people that shitt everywhere. I won't embed this. Poop oop ee doop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JByKrwJ6E Strange. I can't see any sheeting in this one, Gordon. Do you do this in Canada? Have you really been to India? Do Indian people really poo in streets? Yes, they do. It is one hundred percent true. Some may insist that it happens only in rural places or slums but they are wrong. Even in mega cities like Mumbai or Bangalore people defecate in public places. Many blame it on the Government for not providing proper facilities (which is also true) but this is more of lack of civil sense. Even where Govt provides basic infrastructure people lack the responsibility to maintain cleanliness.  Most have do-the-business-and-get-out attitude with a complete disregard for public utilities. Be it bus stations, roads, toilets or parks. Men piss on roadsides. Parents make their children defecate on the streets instead of dragging them to toilets. https://www.quora.com/Do-Indian-people-really-poo-in-streets

True, but they don't do it on the station. You can't even use the train toilets at the station.

Fine: 2000 rupees.

Karnal wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:47pm:

Gordon wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:42pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:32pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 1:22pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 11:09pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? What a strange India you must have visited.   ::) Oh you know, the one that's chock full of Indian people that shitt everywhere. I won't embed this. Poop oop ee doop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JByKrwJ6E Strange. I can't see any sheeting in this one, Gordon. Do you do this in Canada? Have you really been to India? Do Indian people really poo in streets? Yes, they do. It is one hundred percent true. Some may insist that it happens only in rural places or slums but they are wrong. Even in mega cities like Mumbai or Bangalore people defecate in public places. Many blame it on the Government for not providing proper facilities (which is also true) but this is more of lack of civil sense. Even where Govt provides basic infrastructure people lack the responsibility to maintain cleanliness.  Most have do-the-business-and-get-out attitude with a complete disregard for public utilities. Be it bus stations, roads, toilets or parks. Men piss on roadsides. Parents make their children defecate on the streets instead of dragging them to toilets. https://www.quora.com/Do-Indian-people-really-poo-in-streets True, but they don't do it on the station. You can't even use the train toilets at the station. Fine: 2000 rupees.

Rules are made to be broken. Poop oop ee doop!!

Gordon wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 1:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 11:09pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:54pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:51pm: Gordon wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:13pm: Karnal wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 8:09pm: Then wear a burqa. You're not very adventurous, are you? Did your bus get a flat tire in Lahore too? Not at all. I caught the train. I blame Islam, no? Do Paki guys shittt all over the station like Indians do? What a strange India you must have visited.   ::) Oh you know, the one that's chock full of Indian people that shitt everywhere. I won't embed this. Poop oop ee doop https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8JByKrwJ6E

So, suddenly "poo on the station platform" becomes "poo on the tracks..."  My, how interesting how your story changes.

I know when I visited India, all the station platforms were clean and well swept.   The tracks?  Who cares?   Particularly as the pans of the loos on the train just open onto the tracks...   ::)

India has it's problems with toilets, however they don't just poo on the railway platforms.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::)

Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free. 

From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas.

Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally.


This is why detention is entirely legal. This is why West Papuan refugees - fleeing the brutal Islamic regime of Indonesia - are not detained.  They ARE fleeing the oppressive, brutal regime of Indonesia.i

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Define Islam- Islam is a religion which controls every part of a followers existence 24/7. Total control over every waking minute. Not healthy Jan!!!

Well, it certainly controls you and Gordy.

You two spend every waking moment being frightened of the big bad Muzzie.

That can't be healthy.

Frank wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::) Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free.  From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas. Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally. This is why detention is entirely legal. This is why West Papuan refugees - fleeing the brutal Islamic regime of Indonesia - are not detained.  They ARE fleeing the oppressive, brutal regime of Indonesia.

Incorrect.

Every word of it, is incorrect.

Seeking asylum isn't illegal, no matter what country they leave from.

And, asylum seekers are detained for health, security, and identification checks - not for any illegal activity.

It seems you know less about this subject than Sir Booby knows about the female body.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:50pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Define Islam- Islam is a religion which controls every part of a followers existence 24/7. Total control over every waking minute. Not healthy Jan!!! Well, it certainly controls you and Gordy. You two spend every waking moment being frightened of the big bad Muzzie. That can't be healthy.

I'm healthy enough to have a wine wanker holiday in Napa, you? BTW when are we going to race around Centenial Park?

Frank wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::) Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free.

Depends upon where they come from for that to happen.  No longer works for Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis, Frank.    ::)


Quote:

From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas.

They don't need exit visas to leave Indonesia.

They are seeking Asylum in Australia - they don't need passports or visas to do that.


Quote:

Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally.

According to whom?  You?   ::)


Quote:

This is why detention is entirely legal. This is why West Papuan refugees - fleeing the brutal Islamic regime of Indonesia - are not detained.  They ARE fleeing the oppressive, brutal regime of Indonesia.

The Asylum Seekers are fleeing the brutal regimes of their home nations, no matter where they are coming from.    ::)

Gordon wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 7:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:50pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:59pm: Define Islam- Islam is a religion which controls every part of a followers existence 24/7. Total control over every waking minute. Not healthy Jan!!! Well, it certainly controls you and Gordy. You two spend every waking moment being frightened of the big bad Muzzie. That can't be healthy. I'm healthy enough to have a wine wanker holiday in Napa, you? BTW when are we going to race around Centenial Park?

Homo's healthy enough to have a wine wanker holiday down the oval.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

The Asylum Seekers are fleeing the brutal regimes of their home nations,

Proof that they are fleeing "brutal regimes" please Brian.

Plus the history of WHY they are "fleeing".

Thanks in advance Brian.

kemal wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 7:29pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 7:30pm: The Asylum Seekers are fleeing the brutal regimes of their home nations, Proof that they are fleeing "brutal regimes" please Brian. Plus the history of WHY they are "fleeing". Thanks in advance Brian.

Now now, Matty, Homo won't even enter the leafy white enclaves. Visiting Potts Point is so traumatic for him, he simply can't bring himself to do it.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 7:30pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:44pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::) Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free.  Depends upon where they come from for that to happen.  No longer works for Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis, Frank.    ::) Quote: From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas. They don't need exit visas to leave Indonesia. They are seeking Asylum in Australia - they don't need passports or visas to do that. [quote] Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally.

According to whom?  You?   ::)


Quote:

This is why detention is entirely legal. This is why West Papuan refugees - fleeing the brutal Islamic regime of Indonesia - are not detained.  They ARE fleeing the oppressive, brutal regime of Indonesia.

The Asylum Seekers are fleeing the brutal regimes of their home nations, no matter where they are coming from.    ::)
[/quote]

"You have gone out of your ways to make yourselves unwelcome."  That's the message - there is no unfunded discrimination, there is no racism, there is no bigotry - you have gone out of your ways to make yourselves unwelcome.


They prove themselves no better than the people they flee - because they are fleeing societies they themselves have made.  They should be fighting for their own countries to be better, not come here and demand the stupid, backward primitivism they are 'fleeing' to be accommodated as respectable. They are fleeing hellholes only to demand that Western countries be turned into just the kind of hellholes they are fleeing.
Because it's their 'human right'.i

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 9:22pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 7:30pm: Frank wrote on Nov 30th, 2016 at 6:44pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::) Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free.  Depends upon where they come from for that to happen.  No longer works for Iranians, Iraqis, Afghans and Pakistanis, Frank.    ::) Quote: From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas. They don't need exit visas to leave Indonesia. They are seeking Asylum in Australia - they don't need passports or visas to do that. [quote] Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally. According to whom?  You?   ::) [quote] This is why detention is entirely legal. This is why West Papuan refugees - fleeing the brutal Islamic regime of Indonesia - are not detained.  They ARE fleeing the oppressive, brutal regime of Indonesia.

The Asylum Seekers are fleeing the brutal regimes of their home nations, no matter where they are coming from.    ::)
[/quote]

"You have gone out of your ways to make yourselves unwelcome."  That's the message - there is no unfunded discrimination, there is no racism, there is no bigotry - you have gone out of your ways to make yourselves unwelcome.


They prove themselves no better than the people they flee - because they are fleeing societies they themselves have made.  They should be fighting for their own countries to be better, not come here and demand the stupid, backward primitivism they are 'fleeing' to be accommodated as respectable. They are fleeing hellholes only to demand that Western countries be turned into just the kind of hellholes they are fleeing.
Because it's their 'human right'.


[/quote]

Which hellhole did you flee, dear boy?

I'm curious.

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::)

Very well - nor is it illegal to send them to Manus and Nauru and barring them from ever entering Australia.


They are legal, we are legal - as long as they never set foot here, we are all happy and legal.

That's all that matters.

But, old boy, you set foot here. We're all curious.

Where did you come from?

Frank wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 9:41pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::) Very well - nor is it illegal to send them to Manus and Nauru and barring them from ever entering Australia.

Actually, it is, according to International Law under the UN Convention on Refugees and other agreements that the Australian Federal Government has signed.   ::)


Quote:

They are legal, we are legal - as long as they never set foot here, we are all happy and legal. That's all that matters.

Only if you believe Australia should be on a level with the DPRK and other scofflaw nations.   ::)

Frank wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:44pm:

[ Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free.  From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas. Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally.

correct on all points.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 30^th, 2016 at 6:53pm:

[ And, asylum seekers are detained for health, security, and identification checks - not for any illegal activity.

Incorrect, they are able to be detained because they have entered illegally, if they didnt enter illegally then there would be no legal power to detain them. the key word which you fail to understand is "detain".  ;)

Frank?

Oh. You've gone.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 1^st, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 1st, 2016 at 9:41pm: Brian Ross wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:57pm: Frank wrote on Nov 29th, 2016 at 5:34pm: None of this explains why anyone should accept illegal immigrants. How many times do you need to be told? It is NOT "illegal" to seek Asylum upon crossing a nation's borders.  An Asylum Seeker is not an "illegal immigrant" until their request for Asylum has been refused.   ::) Very well - nor is it illegal to send them to Manus and Nauru and barring them from ever entering Australia. Actually, it is, according to International Law under the UN Convention on Refugees and other agreements that the Australian Federal Government has signed.   ::) Quote: They are legal, we are legal - as long as they never set foot here, we are all happy and legal. That's all that matters. Only if you believe Australia should be on a level with the DPRK and other scofflaw nations.   ::)

It is all lies and nonsense - and that is why there is no international legal action against Australia: it is not illegal to maintain border controls against illegal intruders.

No country is obliged to treat SECONDARY movement illegal intruders as if they were fleeing directly the country of persecution.  Just uttering the word 'asylum' is not sufficient to override the words of the refugee convention.


It is all lies - and that is why there is no international legal action against Australia.


Let them seek asylum in Indonesia and Malaysia where they are let in visa free. 

From there they exit illegally and they try to enter Australia illegally, without passports or visas.

Unless they are fleeing Malaysia or Indonesia, they ARE illegals - leaving Indoneisa/malaysia illegally and trying to enter Australia illegally.

Sorry, Frank, you didn't say where you're from.

Karnal wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 10:01am:

Sorry, Frank, you didn't say where you're from.

I'm from here.


And we also know where you are from.

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 8:24am:

It is all lies and nonsense...

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Frank, your denials are boring and of course wrong.  It is illegal to detain Asylum Seekers according to the 1951 Convention on Refugees.   Silly man.    ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 2:08pm:

Frank wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:24am: It is all lies and nonsense... http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg Frank, your denials are boring and of course wrong.  It is illegal to detain Asylum Seekers according to the 1951 Convention on Refugees.   Silly man.    ::) ::)

Thats not correct Brian. You just made that up. this isnt your forum where all 4 posters are going to overlook patent nonsense. Not only is it not illegal to detain them , it is required by law to detain them under the immigration act.

rhino wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 2:11pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 2:08pm: Frank wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 8:24am: It is all lies and nonsense... http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg Frank, your denials are boring and of course wrong.  It is illegal to detain Asylum Seekers according to the 1951 Convention on Refugees.   Silly man.    ::) ::) Thats not correct Brian. You just made that up. this isnt your forum where all 4 posters are going to overlook patent nonsense. Not only is it not illegal to detain them , it is required by law to detain them under the immigration act.

Quote:

Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or crim- inal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum.

[url=http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf]Source[/url]


Quote:

How Australia Violates Human Rights The following paragraphs about the 1951 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Refugees are from the website of the UN High Commisioner for Refugees:     Liberty is a fundamental human right, like asylum. As a general rule, detention of asylum-seekers is not acceptable. It is particularly undesirable when those detained include the very vulnerable — children, single women, and people with special medical or psychological needs, such as torture victims. They are not criminals; they have already suffered great hardship and jailing them is wrong.     The 1951 Convention specifically bars countries from punishing people who have arrived directly from a country of persecution (or from another country where protection could not be assured), provided that they present themselves speedily to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry. Monitoring (through reporting obligations or guarantor requirements) is often a perfectly viable alternative to imprisoning asylum-seekers.     Detention is only acceptable if it is brief, absolutely necessary, and instituted after other options have been implemented. Acceptable purposes include to verify identity; to determine the elements on which the claim for asylum is based; the protection of public order; or, if necessary, in cases where refugees have destroyed documents or used fraudulent ones. Detained asylum-seekers should always be informed of their rights – including the right to challenge their imprisonment. All asylum-seekers must maintain the possibility of contacting the local UNHCR office, other agencies, and a lawyer. The Australian government policy violates the above convention in the following ways:     It is applied without discrimination to all unauthorised refugees including, children, single women and torture victims.     It is neither brief or necessary. Detention of refugees can last for weeks months or even years while their application makes its way through the bureaucracy. Australia is the only country in the developed world to imprison refugees. In other countries they are generally released into the community while their application is being processed.     Refugees in detention centres are not informed of their rights to the UNHCR, refugee support groups or legal representatives. In fact the Government has gone to extraordinary lengths to isolate them from such groups.

[url=http://refugeeaction.org/information/how-australia-violates-human-rights/]Source
[/url]

Do I need to go on, really?   ::) ::)

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 1:08pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 3rd, 2016 at 10:01am: Sorry, Frank, you didn't say where you're from. I'm from here. And we also know where you are from.

I say, you have gone native. You're even speaking Pidgeon English.

Good show.

There seems to be a complete disregard for the history of Islam, and the various forms it has taken throughout history.

Religion is an extremely complex matter.

Auggie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

There seems to be a complete disregard for the history of Islam, and the various forms it has taken throughout history. Religion is an extremely complex matter.

No, religion is not complex. You are mistaking variants and subdivisions for complexity. The Abrahamics and several other religions are essentially the same. They preach a view of reality which is a heirarchy of perception involving esoteric or secret knowledge that is only revealed if you believe it. The idea that one person can know more about reality than another allows the building power structures within the religion and ultimately, the tribe or country.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2016 at 2:20pm:

[ Do I need to go on, really?   ::) ::)

Up to you, nothing you have posted thus far negates the fact that immigration law requires the automatic detention of all who enter australia without a valid visa. The only thing which will save you here Brian is if you can find some part of the australian legislation which permits asylum seekers to be exempt. heres a clue for you, you wont.  ;)

issuevoter wrote on Dec 4^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

Auggie wrote on Dec 4th, 2016 at 9:34pm: There seems to be a complete disregard for the history of Islam, and the various forms it has taken throughout history. Religion is an extremely complex matter. No, religion is not complex. You are mistaking variants and subdivisions for complexity. The Abrahamics and several other religions are essentially the same. They preach a view of reality which is a heirarchy of perception involving esoteric or secret knowledge that is only revealed if you believe it. The idea that one person can know more about reality than another allows the building power structures within the religion and ultimately, the tribe or country.

I agree with what you say. No one is infallible.

Islam has taken on different forms throughout its history. Take Iran, for example. When Shah Ismail I took power in 1501 and established the Safavid Dynasty in Persia and brought Shia Islam to Iran, he didn't take on the name 'Caliph' he called himself 'Shah' after whom? After the Achaemenids (i.e. Cyrus and Darius), a non-Islamic Empire. In spite of being an Islamic state, Iran has always governed itself as a centralized and Imperial administration, because it had the history of such institutions through the Achaemenids, and the Sasanians.

If you look at the historical context of the Quran, it was established in the context of a tribal society, and so many of the tenets in the Quran are rules prescribed in the case of tribal societies. If Islam had been established in the Iranian plateau, it would've taken a significantly form from what we see today.

Whilst Iran is a pariah state and does have a very belligerent foreign policy, it is actually a highly civilized country. There's a reason why Daesh didn't originate in Iran, and why much of ideology of Daesh didn't develop in Iran, and that's because of Iran's history as a centralized and imperial nation-state (and its independence) where people respected the authority of the state over religion. We still see this to a certain extent today (despite the Islamic Revolution). Iran is officially a Theocracy but it isn't governed in the same manner as Saudi Arabia which is more tribal; Iran has the administration of a imperial power.

Auggie wrote on Dec 4^th, 2016 at 10:16pm:

Whilst Iran is a pariah state and does have a very belligerent foreign policy, it is actually a highly civilized country. There's a reason why Daesh didn't originate in Iran, and why much of ideology of Daesh didn't develop in Iran, and that's because of Iran's history as a centralized and imperial nation-state (and its independence) where people respected the authority of the state over religion. We still see this to a certain extent today (despite the Islamic Revolution). Iran is officially a Theocracy but it isn't governed in the same manner as Saudi Arabia which is more tribal; Iran has the administration of a imperial power.

Where ISIS holds sway, 'the State' punishes anyone who offends the strictures of ISLAM [as interpreted by ISIS].

In Iran, 'the State' punishes anyone who offends the strictures of [Shia] ISLAM.

In Saudi Arabia, 'the State' punishes anyone who offends the strictures of [Sunni] ISLAM.





Daesh [ISIS]

Islamic Republic of Iran

The Saudis of Saudi Arabia


No matter their 'apparent' separate interests, all three are 'power entities' in the world today, who compete in the world, for influence over the 'moslem street'.

And a moslem is a follower of ISLAM.       < -------- dictionary definition.


The moslem pays his dues to the group of his choice.

But it is all ISLAM.

And there ain't no 'moderate' ISLAM.

The Shia moslem will murder someone who offends 'his' religion, just as readily as a Sunni moslem, or a follower of ISIS.



But regarding moslems, and their character/psyche [as it relates to the influence that ISLAM has upon 'the moslem'],            of one thing in particular, we can be ABSOLUTELY certain;

ISLAM tells moslems that they must hate people who are not moslems, and to fight and to kill them [...whenever moslems are given that 'opportunity'].



.




"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


"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


"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: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Koran 9.111


"....take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends....
......he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them."
Koran 5.51