Here we have it folks, an open and shut case.

Khaja himself had said he was motivated not by watching YouTube videos but "straight from the verses of Quran".


The facial expression of a would-be terrorist talking about killing as many innocent people as he could was "like he was planning a picnic", according to a Sydney judge.

Tamim Khaja, 20, who has pleaded guilty to doing an act in preparation for, or planning a terrorist act, had been to scope out potential target buildings in Sydney including the Parramatta District Court precinct and Timor Army Barracks.

At his sentencing hearing in the Supreme Court at Parramatta on Friday, Justice Desmond Fagan referred to surveillance footage of Khaja speaking with two undercover police officers.

"He is filmed talking to people he thought were of the same ideology as he directs them to Timor Barracks at Dundas, and his facial expression when talking about killing as many innocent people as he could was very much like he was planning a picnic," the judge said.

Justice Fagan described the then-teenager's face as expressionless - as it was when he spoke about having a large enough car to drive into people.

"He does seem in a state of a possessed religious fanaticism, devoid of empathy or humanity," the judge said.

He also stressed that the Muslim religion was not on trial but, as sentencing judge, he had to try and identify the source of Khaja's "depraved belief".

Khaja himself had said he was motivated not by watching YouTube videos but "straight from the verses of Quran".

At his sentence hearing on Friday, the prosecutor tendered an agreed statement of facts.

It includes numerous comments he made on an encrypted messaging application and during meetings with the two undercover officers.

In May 2016, he met the pair at Parramatta and they drove to the Pirtek Stadium car park in that suburb.

"For an attack like this is taken in Australia akhi (brother), it would weaken the Australian government so much," Khaja said.

"So that's why I am saying when I say maximum fire, I mean to take down as many of them down as I can, and at the end when I see that there's too many I will take myself with them as well."

He later said police officers were the best targets but it needn't be them.

"Honestly my heart is leaning towards the court."

Later Khaja said he would keep in mind that "it's happening for the sake of Allah" if anyone comes in his way.

"So I'm not going to stop firing. I'm not going to stop firing wallahi (I swear to Allah).

"If there's like a two-month-old baby, or someone holding a baby, I'm just trying to think if that's true, I wouldn't buckle in that situation akhi.

"No, I wouldn't buckle.

"There's no turning back akhi."

The hearing is continuing.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/terrorist-talk-was-like-planning-a-picnic-judge-20180216-h0w8ba.html

I wonder what mosque they went to?

https://image.ibb.co/du48o7/1518764541826.jpg
https://image.ibb.co/hc4man/aa.jpg

Another Australian terrorist, just for Brian.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2018 at 7:42pm:

Another Australian terrorist, just for Brian.

If I'm not mistaken that photo was taken from Watsons Bay.  Pricks.

Oh dear

Australia has been "under attack" from a group of Muslim men wanting "to kill as many unbelievers as they can" for about 15 years, a Supreme Court judge has said.

Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad".

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-16/australia-under-attack-by-a-group-of-muslim-men,-judge/9453516

Fkkn muslims and their ideology.
He won't be the last.


Good on the judge too. Speak up and be heard.

Gordon wrote on Feb 16^th, 2018 at 8:29pm:

Oh dear Australia has been "under attack" from a group of Muslim men wanting "to kill as many unbelievers as they can" for about 15 years, a Supreme Court judge has said. Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad". http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-16/australia-under-attack-by-a-group-of-muslim-men,-judge/9453516

What a croc

Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad".

He said he was not making generalisations about Islamic beliefs and that his courtroom was "not a forum for the rights and wrongs of the Islam or Christian religions".

Firstly there is people with no religion and many other religions.

The crimes were religiously motivated and beyond that the judge should say zip ! The religion in question was Islam .... these are facts, not interested in a judges opinion just their interpretation of the facts WRT the law !

Crimes abusing religious dogma of any kind should get double the sentence. In their minds the crimes were justified by defending Islam (or their interpretation) which in law means your showing no remorse ! Hence you need to get at least the maximum.

Quote:

He also stressed that the Muslim religion was not on trial but, as sentencing judge, he had to try and identify the source of Khaja's "depraved belief".

Of course this CULT is on trial.
It is a brutal, barbaric, primitive, evil CULT the roots of which are in a self confessed paedophile, retarded nutcase sociopath.

This CULT must be eradicated

Valkie wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 6:33am:

Quote:    He also stressed that the Muslim religion was not on trial but, as sentencing judge, he had to try and identify the source of Khaja's "depraved belief".       Of course this CULT is on trial. It is a brutal, barbaric, primitive, evil CULT the roots of which are in a self confessed paedophile, retarded nutcase sociopath. This CULT must be eradicated

Yes - it's a war on terrorism.

They should be put against a wall and shot.

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 6:19am:

Gordon wrote on Feb 16th, 2018 at 8:29pm: Oh dear Australia has been "under attack" from a group of Muslim men wanting "to kill as many unbelievers as they can" for about 15 years, a Supreme Court judge has said. Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad". http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-16/australia-under-attack-by-a-group-of-muslim-men,-judge/9453516 What a croc Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad". He said he was not making generalisations about Islamic beliefs and that his courtroom was "not a forum for the rights and wrongs of the Islam or Christian religions". Firstly there is people with no religion and many other religions. The crimes were religiously motivated and beyond that the judge should say zip ! The religion in question was Islam .... these are facts, not interested in a judges opinion just their interpretation of the facts WRT the law ! Crimes abusing religious dogma of any kind should get double the sentence. In their minds the crimes were justified by defending Islam (or their interpretation) which in law means your showing no remorse ! Hence you need to get at least the maximum.

Why did the judge refer to those verses at all?

Look at the eyes on this guy - he's a stoner for sure.... one way or another....

Lock the Gates!

Inb4 bwian "tsk tsk dearie me, he's just misunderstood"  ::)

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 7:47am:

Look at the eyes on this guy - he's a stoner for sure.... one way or another.... Lock the Gates!

And throw away the key...... 8-)

The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception.

Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it.

Australia has been "under attack" from a group of Muslim men wanting "to kill as many unbelievers as they can" for about 15 years, a Supreme Court judge has said.

Gordon wrote on Feb 16^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 16th, 2018 at 7:42pm: Another Australian terrorist, just for Brian. If I'm not mistaken that photo was taken from Watsons Bay.  Pricks.

Looks like you've got a few over there.

How do we know they're not you-know-whos?

issuevoter wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 9:29am:

The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it.

Well - who explained it to him so that he got it wrong?  Someone did - and that someone should be arrested, charged, tried, and if convicted, given twenty years.

In a sense, there is a need to get away from religion in this kind of situation - after all - many a Cat'lic priest in Ulster (where my ancestors once sat the throne at Tara) spoke against the IRA and killing etc.... although that was a different story, with centuries of history to back it as opposed to some idiot like this being given sanctuary here so he can live in peace while developing murderous plans.  Even if it was his parents given sanctuary, the same applies, and he is even more of an idiot.

Back in 'the old country' he'd likely have been found out and shot or hung with a scant trial, and certainly would be open to the predatory actions of other tribes, police and so forth there - here he gets a free ride, so assumes he is safe to lead a life of crime.

What stupid and narrow thinking, and clearly not our kind of person at all.

Black chopper out to sea and the long drop to the ocean below... (copyright - my first episode of A Bodyguard of Lies is about 'radicalised' and 'activist' Muslims vanishing.....)

freediver wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 7:23am:

RightSaidFred wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 6:19am: Gordon wrote on Feb 16th, 2018 at 8:29pm: Oh dear Australia has been "under attack" from a group of Muslim men wanting "to kill as many unbelievers as they can" for about 15 years, a Supreme Court judge has said. Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad". http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-16/australia-under-attack-by-a-group-of-muslim-men,-judge/9453516 What a croc Sitting at Sydney West Trial Courts at Parramatta, Justice Fagan referred to verses in the Koran which he said described the duty of "a Muslim to wage Jihad". He said he was not making generalisations about Islamic beliefs and that his courtroom was "not a forum for the rights and wrongs of the Islam or Christian religions". Firstly there is people with no religion and many other religions. The crimes were religiously motivated and beyond that the judge should say zip ! The religion in question was Islam .... these are facts, not interested in a judges opinion just their interpretation of the facts WRT the law ! Crimes abusing religious dogma of any kind should get double the sentence. In their minds the crimes were justified by defending Islam (or their interpretation) which in law means your showing no remorse ! Hence you need to get at least the maximum. Why did the judge refer to those verses at all?

I assume these guys might have god delusions but this one is just being ignorant. As a judge you need to set aside your personal views.

The CULT of death

Bobby. wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 6:49am:

Valkie wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 6:33am: Quote:    He also stressed that the Muslim religion was not on trial but, as sentencing judge, he had to try and identify the source of Khaja's "depraved belief".       Of course this CULT is on trial. It is a brutal, barbaric, primitive, evil CULT the roots of which are in a self confessed paedophile, retarded nutcase sociopath. This CULT must be eradicated Yes - it's a war on terrorism. They should be put against a wall and shot.

Behead them and behead them high!

issuevoter wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 9:29am:

The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it.

Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question.

Would you prefer muslims
a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam?
b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

You can't  fathom???

Well, fathom this: you are simply not trusted, as a Muslim. Not you, not any other Muslim. You have zero credit in the trust department. You send girls, children, mentally retarded on suicide missions. You are sly, duplicitous, completely untrustworthy. 


Fathom that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

gandalf,

The problem with the moslem, is.....

The moslem is always telling us, that he is always preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of ISLAM,       .....until the day, that he isn't !


i.e.
ISLAM will always be a peaceful faith.......     ........until the day when, it isn't !



example....

Quote:

By Robert Spencer on Feb 18, 2018 06:48 pm Netherlands: Sermon calling for jihad and martyrdom preached in at least one Turkish mosque Yes, in a few years, the people who attend this mosque will be loyal, productive members of Dutch society. Won’t they? The Netherlands, and Europe is general, is teetering on the edge of the abyss. Here is the Turkish text of the sermon, and here is an English translation: “Jihad preaching in Hoorn,” by Silvan......

Google



.




Quote:

"Peace summarises everything in Islam, because it means submitting your will to God, so you acquire peace through it," he said. "When I'm following its [i.e. ISLAM's] teachings, I know that my own actions are in line     with what my creator wants, and hence I am at peace with myself, [with] my community and the rest of the world."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-19/darwins-muslim-community-tackles-discrimination-at-meeting/6025586?section=nt




IMAGE....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5814780-3x2-700x467.jpg


Quote:

"Mr Yunus has been encouraging peaceful community bridging since starting his post as Darwin's Islamic leader in 2014."

- ABC news report - 2015-01-19



QUOTE;
"Peace summarises everything in Islam..."
- Mr Yunus



.




"ISLAM ES PAZ"


IMAGE.....
http://www.infranken.de/storage/image/5/6/5/3/2673565_cms2image-fixedwidth-900x0_1pCjLB_n1lRiw.jpg


Everyone knows that true ISLAM, is a religion of peace.

/sarc off



.



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

Sheikh Yassir al-Burhami



Quote:

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

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



.




Quote:

Live in peace till strong enough to wage jihad, says UK Deoband scholar to Muslims London, Sept.8 [2007] A Deobandi scholar believes Muslims should preach peace till they are strong enough to undertake a jihad, or a holy war. Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani was quoted by the BBC as saying that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle. A former Sharia judge in Pakistan's Supreme Court, 64-year-old Usmani, is...a regular visitor to Britain. Polite and softly spoken.... He agreed that it was wrong to suggest that the entire non-Muslim world was intent on destroying Islam, but justifies an aggressive military jihad as a means of establishing global Islamic supremacy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2409833.ece



.



And watch what       normal moslems        [in Norway] are saying,         while they talk about      practicing their religion,     in Europe.


-------- >


What Normal Muslims Think - And Europe Fails to Understand            3 min
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK8bfeLXSw


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK8bfeLXSw

ORIGINAL LINK REMOVED ?
TRY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kD7SfPvI_xw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOGIXPrEaqw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WzM3pyJZIY

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

I would prefer muslims to stay away from the west and practice their religion in a muslim country. Yeah...that sounds like a great idea.
That way...when they get the "interpretation" wrong they get it wrong in a country that has islamic value at heart and understands, or should i say, keeps quiet and...doesnt really care.
Australia doesn't need islam. It has no positive effect on us at all. 

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 11:40am:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Well - who explained it to him so that he got it wrong?  Someone did - and that someone should be arrested, charged, tried, and if convicted, given twenty years. In a sense, there is a need to get away from religion in this kind of situation - after all - many a Cat'lic priest in Ulster (where my ancestors once sat the throne at Tara) spoke against the IRA and killing etc.... although that was a different story, with centuries of history to back it as opposed to some idiot like this being given sanctuary here so he can live in peace while developing murderous plans.  Even if it was his parents given sanctuary, the same applies, and he is even more of an idiot. Back in 'the old country' he'd likely have been found out and shot or hung with a scant trial, and certainly would be open to the predatory actions of other tribes, police and so forth there - here he gets a free ride, so assumes he is safe to lead a life of crime. What stupid and narrow thinking, and clearly not our kind of person at all. Black chopper out to sea and the long drop to the ocean below... (copyright - my first episode of A Bodyguard of Lies is about 'radicalised' and 'activist' Muslims vanishing.....)

There is more than one whinging minority in the business of making it up as they go along.

Sad thing there are so many dopey bleeding hearts out there & in here going along with it.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

You error is in placing 'preaching and practicing' in the one choice, and then allowing only a vote on one or the other of extremes...

A fair choice would have included:-

c) preaching a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam but not practicing it?

d)  running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels, but practicing a theoretically peaceful, tolerant version of Islam?

We old guys can always smell 'spin' when someone tries to force feed it to us... don't piss down my back and tell me it's a warm tropical rain...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHl5-zDyE0U

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 6:59pm:

issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

False dichotomy.

Captain Caveman wrote on Feb 16^th, 2018 at 8:32pm:

Fkkn muslims and their ideology. He won't be the last. Good on the judge too. Speak up and be heard.

I most definitely believe a hard line approach is necessary, however guilty by association in this case does not apply. Otherwise we will say all those who are Catholic molest children, all fathers commit acts of domestic violence.  Blanket statements are absurd for systems of this size.

I don't agree with some of the teachings of Islam, however I also don't agree with Christian doctrine. However I respect anyone who interprets and perceives it in a just and right way, because they have the right to do so.

This Topic was moved here from General Board by Setanta.

I would prefer muslims to stay away from the west and practice their religion in a muslim country. Yeah...that sounds like a great idea.
That way...when they get the "interpretation" wrong they get it wrong in a country that has islamic value at heart and understands, or should i say, keeps quiet and...doesnt really care.
Australia doesn't need islam. It has no positive effect on us at all.  [/quote]



I am unsure if you understand what is occurring in their "Muslim Country".
Wars, terror and constant pain and death. You may state its not our problem, however when we along with the United States induced intense warfare on these countries which became the catalyst to the asylum seeker pandemic. One we must attempt to solve. They have no viable option other than flee and escape, they are no different to all other humans. They will fight to survive and keep their families safe.

In relation to practising their religion. The Constitution contains an express right relating to practising your religion. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights UDHR contains this right. It is their basic right too, you remove these rights it ruins the system that is in place and additionally equality and equity.

To be honest with you Australia doesn't need a-lot of things....
1. Christianity but we are not ridding all Christians
2. Domestic Violence but we are not ridding all males
3. Drink Drivers but we are not removing all those who drive.

gandalf wrote:Reply #20 - Yesterday at 6:59pm

Quote:

Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels?

Why all the oblique answers gandi?

You've already admitted islam causes the problem, with your "oh but we construe it differently".

If islam can be misconstrued, that does not absolve the doctrine, it's an admission that islam is the problem.

You go to any lengths to get away from the only real solution to your trouble e.g.: an exhaustive review of the evil in the qur'an which causes and motivates islamic terrorism.

We all know why you are afraid of this. By muslims" own foolishness in declaring the qur'an to be infallible and unchangeable, you've locked yourself into the eternal cycle of islamic degeneracy.

One question and the whole show collapses.

So we have a situation where muslims and their apologists bend over backwards to avoid the one real answer.

You both prefer the incessant depravity to simply reviewing the evil in the qur'an.

Frank wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? You can't  fathom??? Well, fathom this: you are simply not trusted, as a Muslim. Not you, not any other Muslim. You have zero credit in the trust department. You send girls, children, mentally retarded on suicide missions. You are sly, duplicitous, completely untrustworthy.  Fathom that.

Wow how about that Frank - I personally strap bombs to retarded kids and make them blow themselves up. You got me.

Shouldn't you like, report me to the police or something?

freediver wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy.

Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature.

For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies.

Gandalf,

Do you agree that there is a difference between Islam and Islamism?

Islamism being the ideology of imposing Islam on a society.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 7:15pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? You can't  fathom??? Well, fathom this: you are simply not trusted, as a Muslim. Not you, not any other Muslim. You have zero credit in the trust department. You send girls, children, mentally retarded on suicide missions. You are sly, duplicitous, completely untrustworthy.  Fathom that. Wow how about that Frank - I personally strap bombs to retarded kids and make them blow themselves up. You got me. Shouldn't you like, report me to the police or something?

Oh, you'll keep. You wait until the old boy sees you on the street.

You'd better have your kaftan firmly secured, I can tell you that much.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2018 at 3:38pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 7:15pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? You can't  fathom??? Well, fathom this: you are simply not trusted, as a Muslim. Not you, not any other Muslim. You have zero credit in the trust department. You send girls, children, mentally retarded on suicide missions. You are sly, duplicitous, completely untrustworthy.  Fathom that. Wow how about that Frank - I personally strap bombs to retarded kids and make them blow themselves up. You got me. Shouldn't you like, report me to the police or something?

Sorry, pal, I should have realised that you have assimilated to the lebbo way of speaking English and think 'youse'. You Muslims - youse Muslims. Geddit??

You are just like a KKK member who hasn't personally lynched anyone. But you remain a member despite the lynchings. Or members of the Communist Party after the various Soviet invasions of people who didn't want communism any more.  You are not handing in your membership card.

So 'you' - sorry, 'youse' - is correct.

He's assimilating alright. Every day in every way, the old boy keeps getting better and better.

Why do we take in people from the shithole countries when we have the old boy?

University of Balogney, innit.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2018 at 3:40pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies.

It's got nothing to do with that.

So why was my question a false dichotomy?

I am sure there are plenty of other options he would prefer to the two you presented. You are basically trying to guilt trip people into accepting your delusions about Islam without question by insisting the only alternative is Islamic terrorism, and that such terrorism would be their fault for being honest about Islam.

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 12:06pm:

I am sure there are plenty of other options he would prefer to the two you presented. You are basically trying to guilt trip people into accepting your delusions about Islam without question by insisting the only alternative is Islamic terrorism, and that such terrorism would be their fault for being honest about Islam.

It is not a false dichotomy FD, as I never said it was an exhaustive list of options. I'm asking what of the two scenarios would he (or you) prefer.

Would you like to have a go at answering the question? Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question.

Quote:

Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question.

The world will only be a better place when muslims have the honesty to thoroughly investigate those parts of the qur'an which facilitate the preaching and practicing of violence and intolerance.

muslims are the worlds' top 25 listed terrorist organizations, because of these teachings.

moses wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:24pm:

Quote: Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question. violence and intolerance.

That's what we thought, Moses. Thanks.

The world will only be a better place when Christians have the honesty to thoroughly investigate those parts of the Bible  which facilitate the preaching and practicing of violence and intolerance.   ::) ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:27pm:

The world will only be a better place when Christians have the honesty to thoroughly investigate those parts of the Bible  which facilitate the preaching and practicing of violence and intolerance.   ::) ::)

old rubbish in books only a problem when people are acting on it's contents Brian.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 12:25pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 12:06pm: I am sure there are plenty of other options he would prefer to the two you presented. You are basically trying to guilt trip people into accepting your delusions about Islam without question by insisting the only alternative is Islamic terrorism, and that such terrorism would be their fault for being honest about Islam. It is not a false dichotomy FD, as I never said it was an exhaustive list of options. I'm asking what of the two scenarios would he (or you) prefer. Would you like to have a go at answering the question? Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question.

I find both disturbing - just as I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it. I honestly cannot pick which is worse.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20^th, 2018 at 3:40pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies.

Liar.

Because islam is conducive to preaching violence and intolerance right here, right now, we have:

Australian National Security Listed terrorist organisations

Currently, 25 organisations are listed as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. They are:

•Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Listed 14 November 2002, re-listed 5 November 2004, 3 November 2006, 1 November 2008, 29 October 2010, 12 July 2013 and 28 June 2016

•Al-Murabitun
Listed 5 November 2014, re-listed 2 November 2017

•Al-Qa'ida (AQ)
Listed 21 October 2002, re-listed 1 September 2004, 26 August 2006, 9 August 2008, 22 July 2010, 12 July 2013 and 28 June 2016

•Al-Qa'ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)
Listed 26 November 2010, re-listed 26 November 2013 and 26 November 2016.

•Al-Qa’ida in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS)
Listed 28 November 2016

•Al-Qa’ida in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)
Listed 14 November 2002, re-listed 5 November 2004, 3 November 2006, 9 August 2008, 22 July 2010, 12 July 2013 and 28 June 2016

•Al-Shabaab
Listed 22 August 2009, re-listed 18 August 2012 and 11 August 2015

•Ansar al-Islam
Formerly known as Ansar al-Sunna—Listed 27 March 2003, re-listed 27 March 2005, 24 March 2007, 14 March 2009, 9 March 2012 and 3 March 2015

•Boko Haram
Listed 26 June 2014 and re-listed 27 June 2017.

•Hamas' Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades
Listed 9 November 2003, re-listed 5 June 2005, 7 October 2005, 8 September 2007, 8 September 2009, 18 August 2012 and 11 August 2015

•Hizballah's External Security Organisation (ESO)
Listed 5 June 2003, re-listed 5 June 2005, 25 May 2007, 16 May 2009, 12 May 2012 and 2 May 2015

•Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Listed 11 April 2003, re-listed 11 April 2005, 31 March 2007, 14 March 2009, 10 March 2012 and 3 March 2015

•Islamic State
Formerly listed as Al-Qa’ida in Iraq—2 March 2005, re-listed 17 Feb 2007, 1 Nov 2008, 29 Oct 2010, 12 July 2013. Formerly listed as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant on 14 Dec 2013. Listed 11 July 2014 as Islamic State and re-listed 1 July 2017.

•Islamic State East Asia
Listed 8 September 2017

•Islamic State in Libya (IS-Libya)
Listed 28 November 2016

•Islamic State Khorasan Province
2 November 2017

•Islamic State Sinai Province (IS-Sinai)
Listed 28 November 2016.

•Jabhat al-Nusra
Listed 29 June 2013, re-listed 28 June 2016 and amended on 4 November 2016 to include alias Jabhat Fatah al-Sham.

•Jaish-e-Mohammed
Listed 11 April 2003, re-listed 11 April 2005, 31 March 2007, 14 March 2009, 10 March 2012 and 3 March 2015

•Jamiat ul-Ansar (JuA)
Formerly known as Harakat Ul-Mujahideen—Listed 14 November 2002, re-listed 5 November 2004, 3 November 2006, 1 November 2008, 29 October 2010, 12 July 2013 and 28 June 2016

•Jemaah Islamiyah (JI)
Listed 27 October 2002, re-listed 1 September 2004, 26 August 2006, 9 August 2008, 22 July 2010, 12 July 2013 and 28 June 2016

•Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
Listed 17 December 2005, re-listed 28 September 2007, 8 September 2009, 18 August 2012 and 11 August 2015

•Lashkar-e Jhangvi
Listed 11 April 2003, re-listed 11 April 2005, 31 March 2007, 14 March 2009, 10 March 2012 and 3 March 2015

•Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
Listed 9 November 2003, re-listed 5 June 2005, 7 October 2005, 8 September 2007, 8 September 2009, 18 August 2012 and 11 August 2015

•Palestinian Islamic Jihad
Listed 3 May 2004, re-listed 5 June 2005, 7 October 2005, 8 September 2007, 8 September 2009, 18 August 2012 and 11 August 2015

Sick leftards support these terrorists with their unremitting lies and excuses.

Frank wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 8:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20th, 2018 at 3:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies. Liar.

Such a cheery old chap, isn't he.

So glad we imported him.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2018 at 2:14pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 8:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20th, 2018 at 3:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies. Liar. Such a cheery old chap, isn't he. So glad we imported him.

Well, he is a liar as are you and bwian the halfwit.

You are all on some agitprop binge.

Frank wrote on Feb 24^th, 2018 at 8:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:14pm: Frank wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 8:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20th, 2018 at 3:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies. Liar. Such a cheery old chap, isn't he. So glad we imported him. Well, he is a liar as are you and bwian the halfwit. You are all on some agitprop binge.

And you're offended.

I mean this in the nicest possible way, dear boy.

Karnal wrote on Feb 24^th, 2018 at 11:12pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 8:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:14pm: Frank wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 8:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20th, 2018 at 3:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies. Liar. Such a cheery old chap, isn't he. So glad we imported him. Well, he is a liar as are you and bwian the halfwit. You are all on some agitprop binge. And you're offended.

I give you 10 rupee, Paki arse-sniffer, if you can prove that.

Calling out your lies and identifying your motives is not a sign of being offended by youl bilge. Disgusted, sure. Not offended.

But even if someone is offended, that's  perfectly OK, as long as they do not demand the right not to be offended. You pretend to be an incomprehending fool like Bwian, but you are only fools. You understand very well your own lies and distortions. You actually enjoy nothing more than deliberately misrepresenting what others say.

A lot like Cathy  Newman  interviewing Jordan  Petersen  on BBC4. She is like you, bwian, gweggy and the rest of you idiots. That clip has gone viral precisely because there are fools and arse-sniffers like you lot everywhere. You are a very well recognised type.



https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54

Frank wrote on Feb 25^th, 2018 at 11:17am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 11:12pm: Frank wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 8:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 24th, 2018 at 2:14pm: Frank wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 8:45pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 20th, 2018 at 3:40pm: freediver wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 8:22pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 19th, 2018 at 6:59pm: issuevoter wrote on Feb 17th, 2018 at 9:29am: The response is always the same. His interpretation of the Koran was wrong. SBS is now touting a show about Muzlims where one of the faithful says its the individual that defines the religion, not the religion that defines the individual. So now we have a situation where these people think they can make it up as the they go along, and avoid association with the atrocities in the public perception. Just how one remains a Muzlim without the Koran is anyone's guess, but if you were conned into believing that rubbish to begin with, you are going to look for self-esteem anyway you can get it. Once again we see this bizarre mindset that I simply cannot fathom. Rather than once again attempting to painstakingly plot out my argument, lets try with a simple question. Would you prefer muslims a) preaching and practicing a peaceful, tolerant version of Islam? b) running around calling for infidels to be slaughtered, and actually slaughtering infidels? False dichotomy. Only if you assume all muslims are sinister by nature. For as Frank pointed out - I personally blow up kiddies. Liar. Such a cheery old chap, isn't he. So glad we imported him. Well, he is a liar as are you and bwian the halfwit. You are all on some agitprop binge. And you're offended. I give you 10 rupee, Paki arse-sniffer, if you can prove that. Calling out your lies and identifying your motives is not a sign of being offended by youl bilge. Disgusted, sure. Not offended. But even if someone is offended, that's  perfectly OK, as long as they do not demand the right not to be offended. You pretend to be an incomprehending fool like Bwian, but you are only fools. You understand very well your own lies and distortions. You actually enjoy nothing more than deliberately misrepresenting what others say. A lot like Cathy  Newman  interviewing Jordan  Petersen  on BBC4. She is like you, bwian, gweggy and the rest of you idiots. That clip has gone viral precisely because there are fools and arse-sniffers like you lot everywhere. You are a very well recognised type. https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54

Sorry to offend, dear boy.

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 8:17pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 12:06pm: I am sure there are plenty of other options he would prefer to the two you presented. You are basically trying to guilt trip people into accepting your delusions about Islam without question by insisting the only alternative is Islamic terrorism, and that such terrorism would be their fault for being honest about Islam. It is not a false dichotomy FD, as I never said it was an exhaustive list of options. I'm asking what of the two scenarios would he (or you) prefer. Would you like to have a go at answering the question? Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question. I find both disturbing - just as I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it. I honestly cannot pick which is worse.

Right, there we have it - a muslim preaching love and peace and tolerance is disturbing to FD. Glad we got that sorted.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 9:48am:

freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 8:17pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 12:25pm: freediver wrote on Feb 23rd, 2018 at 12:06pm: I am sure there are plenty of other options he would prefer to the two you presented. You are basically trying to guilt trip people into accepting your delusions about Islam without question by insisting the only alternative is Islamic terrorism, and that such terrorism would be their fault for being honest about Islam. It is not a false dichotomy FD, as I never said it was an exhaustive list of options. I'm asking what of the two scenarios would he (or you) prefer. Would you like to have a go at answering the question? Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question. I find both disturbing - just as I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it. I honestly cannot pick which is worse. Right, there we have it - a muslim preaching love and peace and tolerance is disturbing to FD. Glad we got that sorted.

You seem to be having increasing difficulty read what is right there in front of you Gandalf. Try again.

I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it.

Sorry FD, lets check shall we...

Q:

Quote:

Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question.

FD answers:

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 12:28pm:

I find both disturbing

Was there a hidden meaning there that I missed FD? Did you notice how the statement you are pretending is the answer (I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it) came after "just as I find..." - meaning "in addition" - ie you may well find my lies and Abu's honest about the Quran disturbing - but it doesn't negate your "disturbance" about muslims preaching love and peace and tolerance?

Nevermind FD, I'll give you another chance to clear the record:

Do you find it "disturbing" for a muslim "to be preaching love and peace and tolerance "?

Brian Ross wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2018 at 4:27pm:

The world will only be a better place when Christians have the honesty to thoroughly investigate those parts of the Bible  which facilitate the preaching and practicing of violence and intolerance.   ::) ::)

That examination has been going on since at least the time of Abelard, and in earnest since the Reformation.  It is still going on and will never stop. There is no  "closing of the gate of ijtihad" as happened in the 16th century (when the Christian Reformation took off), you silly, ignorant, lying  fool.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 12:41pm:

Nevermind FD, I'll give you another chance to clear the record: Do you find it "disturbing" for a muslim "to be preaching love and peace and tolerance "?

Ahmadis?

Frank wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 4:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:41pm: Nevermind FD, I'll give you another chance to clear the record: Do you find it "disturbing" for a muslim "to be preaching love and peace and tolerance "? Ahmadis?

Kurds?

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 12:39pm:

Sorry FD, lets check shall we... Q: Quote: Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question. FD answers: freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:28pm: I find both disturbing Was there a hidden meaning there that I missed FD? Did you notice how the statement you are pretending is the answer (I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it) came after "just as I find..." - meaning "in addition" - ie you may well find my lies and Abu's honest about the Quran disturbing - but it doesn't negate your "disturbance" about muslims preaching love and peace and tolerance?

No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden. You just have to read what I actually posted.

Would it be fair to say that as a Muslim, fighting is ordained for you, even though you detest it?

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:39pm: Sorry FD, lets check shall we... Q: Quote: Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question. FD answers: freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:28pm: I find both disturbing Was there a hidden meaning there that I missed FD? Did you notice how the statement you are pretending is the answer (I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it) came after "just as I find..." - meaning "in addition" - ie you may well find my lies and Abu's honest about the Quran disturbing - but it doesn't negate your "disturbance" about muslims preaching love and peace and tolerance? No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden.

Gandalf said that? Oh, FD, that's terrible. Here we have 800 Jews genocided by Moh as collective punishment for being Jews, no individuality whatsoever, so unfair.

And Gandalf makes out that this is what happens when you break a treaty? It's just some ancient war and nothing to worry about?

If you don't mind me saying, FD, that's wacist. It's clear evidence of the Muselman killing decent white people everywhere.

I see your point. Muslims need to stop preaching love and peace and tolerance immediately.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 12:37pm:

No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until...

Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing".

Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 1:46pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until... Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.

I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 1:46pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until... Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise.

They are not guilty, they are just Muslims until proven otherwise. And Islamic doctrine is not big on universal love.

Is the 'kill them if they don't submit' out but if they are Jews or Christians make them pay extra - all that is out or is that still part of love?  Is that stuff in the Koran now - what's the word? - abrogated? When did that happen? When was it announced? Who had the authority to re-write the koran?

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 1:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until... Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf.

Would you mind saying it again?

Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 10:22pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 8:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 1:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden. You just have to read what I actually posted. Would it be fair to say that as a Muslim, fighting is ordained for you, even though you detest it? Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf. Would you mind saying it again?

If your stupid Muslim mate didn't delete half the posts to be edgily 'smart' (ie completely stupid) you would be able to see what was said.

There, have a look, it's highlighted.

Bloody idiots.

Frank wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 10:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 10:22pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 8:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 1:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden. You just have to read what I actually posted. Would it be fair to say that as a Muslim, fighting is ordained for you, even though you detest it? Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf. Would you mind saying it again? If your stupid Muslim mate didn't delete half the posts to be edgily 'smart' (ie completely stupid) you would be able to see what was said. There, have a look, it's highlighted. Bloody idiots.

Thanks, dear boy. One replied at 12.37.

Would you like to have a stab? Remember, no one has the right to not be offended.

It's simply unacceptable.

As Big Ol' so excellently put it - what are you dribbling about, arse clown?

One can only repeat the query.

Why, old boy, one is referring to this:


Frank wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 10:53pm:

There, have a look, it's highlighted.

One replied with this:


Karnal wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 12:58pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:39pm: Sorry FD, lets check shall we... Q: Quote: Is it better for muslims to be preaching love and peace and tolerance - or violence and intolerance? Its not a trick question. FD answers: freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2018 at 12:28pm: I find both disturbing Was there a hidden meaning there that I missed FD? Did you notice how the statement you are pretending is the answer (I find your lies about the Quran just as disturbing as Abu's honesty about it) came after "just as I find..." - meaning "in addition" - ie you may well find my lies and Abu's honest about the Quran disturbing - but it doesn't negate your "disturbance" about muslims preaching love and peace and tolerance? No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden. Gandalf said that? Oh, FD, that's terrible. Here we have 800 Jews genocided by Moh as collective punishment for being Jews, no individuality whatsoever, so unfair. And Gandalf makes out that this is what happens when you break a treaty? It's just some ancient war and nothing to worry about? If you don't mind me saying, FD, that's wacist. It's clear evidence of the Muselman killing decent white people everywhere. I see your point. Muslims need to stop preaching love and peace and tolerance immediately.

Bloody idiot, no?

No one has the right to not be offended - except you.

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2018 at 8:40pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 1:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until... Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf.

Of course you were FD. You said you found muslims promoting peace and tolerance "disturbing" when you really meant it wasn't - unless they say some other stuff.

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:57am:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 8:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 1:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden. You just have to read what I actually posted. Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf. Of course you were FD. You said you found muslims promoting peace and tolerance "disturbing" when you really meant it wasn't - unless they say some other stuff.

Why do you delete the substance of a post (highlighted)  and then argue with the little bit you left in as if that was the argument? Are you gweggy and Bwian and Paki? 

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28th, 2018 at 8:57am: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 8:40pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 1:46pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2018 at 12:37pm: No Gandalf. Confusing perhaps, but it does not get disturbing until they start saying things like "tough titties, off with their heads". The meaning was not hidden. You just have to read what I actually posted. Well thats something at least. Though I'm not sure why your first response to the idea of muslims promoting peace and tolerance is that its "disturbing" - when you really meant that its not disturbing until they say some other stuff. And I note that you still can't bring yourself to acknowledge that its a good thing - merely "confusing". Its almost as if muslims are assumed to be guilty until proven otherwise. I was perfectly clear about what I meant the very first time Gandalf. Of course you were FD. You said you found muslims promoting peace and tolerance "disturbing" when you really meant it wasn't - unless they say some other stuff. Why do you delete the substance of a post (highlighted)  and then argue with the little bit you left in as if that was the argument? Are you gweggy and Bwian and Paki?

I am but a humble Paki, dear boy. You don't know what you're asking.

You're offended. You do have this right, no?

And we wouldn't have it any other way.