greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19^th, 2020 at 8:27pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 8:22pm: freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 5:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 3:30pm: moses wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 3:21pm: We know muslims don't give aid to non muslims it's haram  and they fund terrorist cells. I wonder what percentage of the halal income goes towards terrorism funding? Zero. Australia's peak Muslims body, which recieves funds from the halal scam, was caught siphoning off millions of dollars from the education of Muslim children. Gandalf reassured us that they probably spent on swimming pools, not terrorism, and to move along now, there is nothing to see here. The entire Muslim community was so reluctant to demand transparency and accountability that they almost caused a lot of Muslim schools to be shut down. Gandalf insists there is absolutely no reason to try to find out where the money actually went. So, still zero. What is zero? The percentage of the halal income that goes towards terrorism funding. Try to keep up.

Do you have proof, or any kind of evidence for this claim Greg?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 6:39am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 8:27pm: freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 8:25pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 8:22pm: freediver wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 5:17pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 3:30pm: moses wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 3:21pm: We know muslims don't give aid to non muslims it's haram  and they fund terrorist cells. I wonder what percentage of the halal income goes towards terrorism funding? Zero. Australia's peak Muslims body, which recieves funds from the halal scam, was caught siphoning off millions of dollars from the education of Muslim children. Gandalf reassured us that they probably spent on swimming pools, not terrorism, and to move along now, there is nothing to see here. The entire Muslim community was so reluctant to demand transparency and accountability that they almost caused a lot of Muslim schools to be shut down. Gandalf insists there is absolutely no reason to try to find out where the money actually went. So, still zero. What is zero? The percentage of the halal income that goes towards terrorism funding. Try to keep up. Do you have proof, or any kind of evidence for this claim Greg?

Do you have any proof that invisible purple unicorns aren't living in the bottom of your garden?

I'm curious.

No. Are you saying Islamic terrorism is like purple unicorns, or were you really just curious?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 19^th, 2020 at 3:30pm:

moses wrote on Apr 19th, 2020 at 3:21pm: We know muslims don't give aid to non muslims it's haram  and they fund terrorist cells. I wonder what percentage of the halal income goes towards terrorism funding? Zero.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 6:39am:

Do you have proof, or any kind of evidence for this claim Greg?

Whenever greggery say's anything on OzPol, he doesn't need to provide proof or evidences that what he has said is so [i.e. has any basis in truth].

What he has stated, is just so.

And it is just wrong for us to doubt anything that greggery says.



.



Psalms 5:3
My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.
4  For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee.
5  The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.
6  Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing: the LORD will abhor the bloody and deceitful man.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:22am:

No. Are you saying Islamic terrorism is like purple unicorns, or were you really just curious?

I'm saying the onus of proof is on you.

You (and your fellow conservatives) made the (incorrect) claim that Halal fees are funding terrorism so, it's up to you to provide the proof.

You should know how these things work by now.

Did we somehow trick you into saying that 0% of Halal fees go towards funding Islamic terrorism?

WWW search....
Halal fees and terrorism funding

------ >


Quote:

.....The Australian Crime Commission and AUSTRAC testified, at a Senate committee, that they have limited powers to track money once it goes offshore. .....At the time of the 2015 Senate inquiry into third-party certification of food a headline was bandied around in various newspapers that no “direct links” from halal certifiers to terrorism had been found.

https://endgenderapartheid.com/2017/06/04/halal-certification-fund-terrorism-maybe-maybe-not-take-risk/




WWW search....
site:http://www.jihadwatch.org/ "Halal" "terrorism" funding

------ >

Muslims in Australia give $35 million to fund jihad terror
Australia’s anti-money laundering agency says reports of suspected “terrorism-financing” tripled in the past year, with over A$50 million ($35.92 million) which could be used to support Islamist militants being investigated.
The financial intelligence agency, AUSTRAC, said in its annual report released this week that it had recorded a trebling of “suspicious matter reports” that could be linked to funding of militant groups. It recorded up to 367 reported cases in 2014-15 from 118 a year earlier.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/muslims-in-australia-give-35-million-to-fund-jihad-terror


Sworn Affidavit: What is Taught in Minnesota Mosques and Halal Markets
American citizens and businesses are leaving MN at a fast rate and being replaced by Somali Muslims who have no loyalty to either MN or America and have no intention of assimilating into our great country. In addition, based on my first hand research of 4 mosques in St. Cloud and Minneapolis and a half dozen halal markets, MN is a hotbed for Islamic sleeper terrorist cells.
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/09/sworn-affidavit-what-is-taught-in-minnesota-mosques-and-halal-markets



Its all lies i tells ya.

ISLAM is a religion of peace.

....ask any follower of ISLAM [....who is choosing not to tell the truth today].

"The funds raised from certification applications can be used for a variety of purposes beyond the payment of usual business expenses such as salaries, taxes and superannuation.

"This can include providing funds for a variety of charitable and community causes.

"The Committee noted, in a 2015 report on third party certification of food, that ‘evidence indicates that there is no direct link between Halal certification in Australia and terrorism funding’."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/HalalCert

Well, there you go.

@ Reply #7,

Nothing to see here !




.





Quote:

“Peace and love are at the center of our religion, as evidenced by scripture and history,...”

- Sheikh Abdullah Bin Bayyah
CITED... https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/02/uae-forum-promotes-dubious-islamic-peace




.




"ISLAM ES PAZ"


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

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 12:39pm:

"The funds raised from certification applications can be used for a variety of purposes beyond the payment of usual business expenses such as salaries, taxes and superannuation. "This can include providing funds for a variety of charitable and community causes. "The Committee noted, in a 2015 report on third party certification of food, that ‘evidence indicates that there is no direct link between Halal certification in Australia and terrorism funding’." https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/HalalCert Well, there you go.

So unicorns don't come in purple after all?

Now let's see:

Fact 1/. muslims are the worlds' greatest terrorist threat.

Fact 2/. The qur'an preaches human rights atrocities are to be committed by muslims against the non believer.

Fact 3/. muslims are the worlds' almost insurmountable refugee problem, due to their incessant blood letting.

Buuuut the muslims certainly use a huge amount of their income to fund their terrorism and religious blood letting, buuuut they would never use any halal money for these activities.

Yeah right.

1/. the sun will rise in the west tomorrow,

2/. pigs will fly overhead,

3/. the cow will jump over the moon.

For goodness sake just how sick and stupid are the lunatic leftards?

"The funds raised from certification applications can be used for a variety of purposes beyond the payment of usual business expenses such as salaries, taxes and superannuation.

"This can include providing funds for a variety of charitable and community causes.

"The Committee noted, in a 2015 report on third party certification of food, that ‘evidence indicates that there is no direct link between Halal certification in Australia and terrorism funding’."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/HalalCert

‘evidence indicates that there is no direct link between Halal certification in Australia and terrorism funding’."

Well spit three times and call me allah.

How convincing is that in our political correct climate?

No proof positive, no conclusively proves, no categorically stating it does not fund terrorism, merely a vague *evidence indicates*.

Big deal, all that conveys is that terrorism could very well be funded by furtive means.

Of course the muslims are not going to do it out in the open, they will sneak snivel and lie, like they always do in order to appease their moon god allah, as they wage jihad against the non believer, just as islam demands of them.

Perhaps they should check all the receipts in case any of them say "donations to a terrorist cause".

moses wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 4:44pm:

‘evidence indicates that there is no direct link between Halal certification in Australia and terrorism funding’." Well spit three times and call me allah. How convincing is that in our political correct climate? No proof positive, no conclusively proves, no categorically stating it does not fund terrorism, merely a vague *evidence indicates*. Big deal, all that conveys is that terrorism could very well be funded by furtive means. Of course the muslims are not going to do it out in the open, they will sneak snivel and lie, like they always do in order to appease their moon god allah, as they wage jihad against the non believer, just as islam demands of them.

No direct link. What that means is that they didnt look very hard.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 4:54pm:

Perhaps they should check all the receipts in case any of them say "donations to a terrorist cause".

Alternatively, people should stop making claims about things they know nothing about without any evidence to support those claims..

Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 6:37pm:

Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism?

I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it.

You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 4:54pm:

Perhaps they should check all the receipts in case any of them say "donations to a terrorist cause".

Apparently FD thinks this is actually making a point.

John Smith wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 6:40pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support.

So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism?

The correct answer is that unless evidence comes to light indicating otherwise, the default position is that there is no reason to say any halal money goes to terrorists.


We know Pecca meant this given that the first thing he said after was that the burden of proof is on anyone who insists it does go to terrorists. Yes, it was technically wrong of him to state as fact that zero percentage goes to terrorists, but really it is not that far off the truth. It is a silly semantic point that you have gleefully grabbed and are now milking it for all its worth. Still, you might have a better leg to stand on if not for the fact that it was you who started it all when you stated as fact that the illegally siphoned money from Islamic schools went to terrorists - based on nothing whatsoever.

Also, the completely wrong retort to that is to say something idiotic like "check the receipts, I'm sure they are in order [hahaha I'm so funny]".

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism?

I'm 100% correct.

Unless you have something that proves me wrong.

Wow. Gandalf is re-interpreting Pecca for us.

Oops, now Pecca is speaking for himself. Who is right about what Pecca really meant?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:29pm:

Oops, now Pecca is speaking for himself. Who is right about what Pecca really meant?

The percentage of things in the bottom of your garden that are invisible pink unicorns is zero.

The percentage of halal fees that go to terrorism is zero.

Can you prove me wrong on either point?

I'm curious.

So many Moslem run business have been busted not just funding terrorists via default connections down the line, but also exploiting the Australian Welfare system as a majority compared to other groups.
Even a Kebab shop was ripping off the young female employees (gotta train them to beg to their 'masters') that were also non-moslem. Gotta teach the Aussie girls their place.

Can you translate please Gandalf? You did such a good job job turning Muhammad's rape and pillage into liberation, maybe you can rescue some sense from linking Islamic terrorism to pink unicorns.

Jasin wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:33pm:

So many Moslem run business have been busted not just funding terrorists via default connections down the line, but also exploiting the Australian Welfare system as a majority compared to other groups. Even a Kebab shop was ripping off the young female employees (gotta train them to beg to their 'masters') that were also non-moslem. Gotta teach the Aussie girls their place.

You forgot to provide the Facebook link    ;D

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:29pm:

Oops, now Pecca is speaking for himself. Who is right about what Pecca really meant?

key words "Unless you have something that proves me wrong."

That is perfectly in line with my interpretation that his point is only a slight (if crude) variation of innocent until proven guilty, or the burden of proof is on those who claim it does go to terrorists.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:29pm:

Oops, now Pecca is speaking for himself. Who is right about what Pecca really meant?

What percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:34pm:

Can you translate please Gandalf?

Gladly. As Pecca himself has explained, his position is default and correct until proven otherwise. Its a bit like how our legal system works with the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', which is also in line with our broader culture you might loosely term as "giving a fair go".

See its actually quite easy to understand if you are not ignoring the forest for the trees and engaging in mindless, petty semantic nitpicks. I must say too that translating Pecca is a damned site easier than trying to understand your translation of your own claims - like for example your contortions that "all muslims support genocide" reallly means "maybe they don't", while simultaneously insisting it remains a true and correct statement.

Quote:

Gladly. As Pecca himself has explained, his position is default and correct until proven otherwise. Its a bit like how our legal system works with the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', which is also in line with our broader culture you might loosely term as "giving a fair go".

So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Only critics of Islam are expected to be able to back up what they say. So people like Pecca can sprout whatever BS they like, and you will be a good Muslim and leap to their defence.

And these are the same Muslims that the more optimistic among us expect to root out the bad apples from within. Is this why you insist we should not try to track down what the FOIC did with all that money they stole from their own children Gandalf?

FD: what percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

I'm curious.

The essence of FD logic surrounding making claims about muslims:

- baselessly claim that muslims are guilty of something - perfectly ok

- baselessly claim that muslims are innocent of something - outrageous and stupid.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:07pm:

FD: what percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism? I'm curious.

Answer: a lot less than Halal fees.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:07pm: FD: what percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism? I'm curious. Answer: a lot less than Halal fees.

FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:05pm:

So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise.

No no FD, in the interests of FD-correctness, people who attack muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Otherwise, why is the statement "all muslims support genocide" true and correct without having a clue as to what all muslims actually think? Why did you think it was a-ok to state with not a shred of evidence that siphoned school funding went to terrorists and think it was legitimate to use the defence "check the receipts"?

Tell me, did you pause for even a micro-second when you chose to trip up greg about making unsubstantiated claims about muslims? I'd be fascinated to know if there was even a hint of cognitive dissonance in your head at that time.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:07pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:07pm: FD: what percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism? I'm curious. Answer: a lot less than Halal fees.

Don't worry FD, no one will ask you to back that claim up, or suggest that it was a stupid thing to say because there is no shred of evidence for it. I'm sure it was just one of those claims of fact that you expect everyone to understand wasn't really a claim of fact.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:10pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:07pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:07pm: FD: what percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism? I'm curious. Answer: a lot less than Halal fees. FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

Was the question too hard?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:13pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:05pm: So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise. No no FD, in the interests of FD-correctness, people who attack muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Otherwise, why is the statement "all muslims support genocide" true and correct without having a clue as to what all muslims actually think? Why did you think it was a-ok to state with not a shred of evidence that siphoned school funding went to terrorists and think it was legitimate to use the defence "check the receipts"? Tell me, did you pause for even a micro-second when you chose to trip up greg about making unsubstantiated claims about muslims? I'd be fascinated to know if there was even a hint of cognitive dissonance in your head at that time.

I backed that up. All you provided when you leaped to defend Greg's idiocy is excuses.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:13pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:05pm: So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise. No no FD, in the interests of FD-correctness, people who attack muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Otherwise, why is the statement "all muslims support genocide" true and correct without having a clue as to what all muslims actually think? Why did you think it was a-ok to state with not a shred of evidence that siphoned school funding went to terrorists and think it was legitimate to use the defence "check the receipts"? Tell me, did you pause for even a micro-second when you chose to trip up greg about making unsubstantiated claims about muslims? I'd be fascinated to know if there was even a hint of cognitive dissonance in your head at that time. I backed that up. All you provided when you leaped to defend Greg's idiocy is excuses.

FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:18pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:13pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:05pm: So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise. No no FD, in the interests of FD-correctness, people who attack muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Otherwise, why is the statement "all muslims support genocide" true and correct without having a clue as to what all muslims actually think? Why did you think it was a-ok to state with not a shred of evidence that siphoned school funding went to terrorists and think it was legitimate to use the defence "check the receipts"? Tell me, did you pause for even a micro-second when you chose to trip up greg about making unsubstantiated claims about muslims? I'd be fascinated to know if there was even a hint of cognitive dissonance in your head at that time. I backed that up. All you provided when you leaped to defend Greg's idiocy is excuses.

You backed up the claim that siphoned school funding went to terrorists? Funny, the police must have missed that. I don't recall any charges being laid, nor for that matter any related terror investigation. If all else fails, FD resorts to blatant lies.

Also, traditionally you're not obliged to back up a claim that someone is innocent of something - when the evidence of their guilt is non-existent.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:20pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:18pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:13pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:05pm: So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise. No no FD, in the interests of FD-correctness, people who attack muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Otherwise, why is the statement "all muslims support genocide" true and correct without having a clue as to what all muslims actually think? Why did you think it was a-ok to state with not a shred of evidence that siphoned school funding went to terrorists and think it was legitimate to use the defence "check the receipts"? Tell me, did you pause for even a micro-second when you chose to trip up greg about making unsubstantiated claims about muslims? I'd be fascinated to know if there was even a hint of cognitive dissonance in your head at that time. I backed that up. All you provided when you leaped to defend Greg's idiocy is excuses. FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding anti-Islam activism? I dare you to say 'zero'

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 8:31pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:18pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:13pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 8:05pm: So in the interests of political correctness, people who defend Muslims are correct until proven otherwise. No no FD, in the interests of FD-correctness, people who attack muslims are correct until proven otherwise. Otherwise, why is the statement "all muslims support genocide" true and correct without having a clue as to what all muslims actually think? Why did you think it was a-ok to state with not a shred of evidence that siphoned school funding went to terrorists and think it was legitimate to use the defence "check the receipts"? Tell me, did you pause for even a micro-second when you chose to trip up greg about making unsubstantiated claims about muslims? I'd be fascinated to know if there was even a hint of cognitive dissonance in your head at that time. I backed that up. All you provided when you leaped to defend Greg's idiocy is excuses. FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism? FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding anti-Islam activism? I dare you to say 'zero'

It depends on how you define anti Islam. As you so often lament, most terrorist attacks are targeted at fellow Muslims rather than the kafir.

And before you ask, I don't have the stats. I doubt terrorists give receipts.

FD: what percentage of halal fees are used for funding right-wing terrorism?

Bit of advice for you here FD, never argue with an idiot, they will wear you down with experience.

“And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Revelation 20:4)

Revelation 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or  the number of his name.

I'd like to be as sure of winning the lotto as I am when I say islam fits the description of the satanic beast 666. muslims love beheadings as their chosen way to inflict death on the people allah hates.

The mark of the beast so people can buy and sell is halal certification.

The big question is, how did the *Ancient Scribes of Ye Olde* times know that this type of satanic behaviour was destined to take place?

1400 odd years of islamic inbreeding, satanic worship and hatred of non believers, has set the stage for the beast 666 to go on a rampage.

Oh well time will tell it all. 
     

rhino wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 11:37pm:

Bit of advice for you here FD, never argue with an idiot, they will wear you down with experience.

he knows ................... that's why he doesn't argue with you

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 7:10pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism?

Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption.

What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism?

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 4:20pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism?

Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption?

rhino wrote on Apr 20^th, 2020 at 11:37pm:

Bit of advice for you here FD, never argue with an idiot, they will wear you down with experience.

What percentage is acceptable, in your view?

freediver wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 4:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption?

because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago.

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 8:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago.

I have no idea what percentage is being used to fund terrorist groups, its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for. Money doesnt disappear, it can usually be traced unless its cash. The fact that this halal money cannot allegedly be traced would lead a reasonable person to the assumption that either the government isnt looking too hard for political purposes or someone has tried very hard to cover the tracks. Some of the idiots here appear to believe that a lack of evidence is evidence, you wont convince them otherwise because they have an agenda for whatever reason to mitigate Islamic terrorism. 

rhino wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 8:43pm:

its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for.

there are a million scenarios to account for money that's not accounted for .Terrorism is no more likely than pretending that the money was used at brothels.

the fact remains, no one has shown any evidence money gained by halal certification is used for terrorism despite FD frantically searching for such evidence for years.

rhino wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 8:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago. I have no idea what percentage is being used to fund terrorist groups, its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for. Money doesnt disappear, it can usually be traced unless its cash. The fact that this halal money cannot allegedly be traced would lead a reasonable person to the assumption that either the government isnt looking too hard for political purposes or someone has tried very hard to cover the tracks. Some of the idiots here appear to believe that a lack of evidence is evidence, you wont convince them otherwise because they have an agenda for whatever reason to mitigate Islamic terrorism.

I have no idea what percentage of Liberal Party membership fees are being used to fund right-wing terrorist groups, its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going there because it cannot be accounted for.

Anyone got a copy of this book? Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World Paperback – 31 Mar. 2006
Buy Used
£274.20

A bit rich for me for a book. Must be a collectors item.
Don't read the reviews of people that have read it  ;)

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 9:43am:

rhino wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:43pm: its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for. there are a million scenarios to account for money that's not accounted for .Terrorism is no more likely than pretending that the money was used at brothels. the fact remains, no one has shown any evidence money gained by halal certification is used for terrorism despite FD frantically searching for such evidence for years.

whoosh! What was that flying over your head John? You missed it.

The new owners of the Oxford Tavern were Moslem.
A percentage of the money was sent back to the M-East to fund terrorism.
The Oxford Tavern has since been shut down.

rhino wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 10:28am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2020 at 9:43am: rhino wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:43pm: its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for. there are a million scenarios to account for money that's not accounted for .Terrorism is no more likely than pretending that the money was used at brothels. the fact remains, no one has shown any evidence money gained by halal certification is used for terrorism despite FD frantically searching for such evidence for years. whoosh! What was that flying over your head John? You missed it.

keep trying dopey

I never try John, I do. Trying is for losers like you.

rhino wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 1:54pm:

I never try John, I do. Trying is for losers like you.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 12:51pm:

keep trying dopey

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 8:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago.

So what counts for reasonable to you is entirely based on your own ignorance?

And you also think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Does it really boil down to something that stupid? Or are you hiding your wisdom from us?

John Smith wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 8:17pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism.

So the only things that exist are what you can see.

Frank wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 8:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. So the only things that exist are what you can see.

He can't use his other senses when in the dark either.

Frank wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 8:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. So the only things that exist are what you can see.

Not in your case

rhino wrote on Apr 21^st, 2020 at 8:43pm:

I have no idea what percentage is being used to fund terrorist groups, its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for. Money doesnt disappear, it can usually be traced unless its cash. The fact that this halal money cannot allegedly be traced would lead a reasonable person to the assumption that either the government isnt looking too hard for political purposes or someone has tried very hard to cover the tracks. Some of the idiots here appear to believe that a lack of evidence is evidence,

Note how Rhino dedicates a small paragraph to arguing why lack of evidence regarding where halal money goes is evience that it goes to terrorists - right before he blurts out "Some of the idiots here appear to believe that a lack of evidence is evidence".

But I gave up long ago being shocked by the facepalming irony on this forum.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 6:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago. So what counts for reasonable to you is entirely based on your own ignorance? And you also think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Does it really boil down to something that stupid? Or are you hiding your wisdom from us?

Apparently FD still doesn't comprehend the logic everyone else learned in primary school, that when you assume someone's innocence because there is no evidence to the contrary, you don't actually seek or require 'evidence of absence'.

absence of evidence simply equals innoncence.

freediver wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2020 at 6:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago. So what counts for reasonable to you is entirely based on your own ignorance? And you also think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Does it really boil down to something that stupid? Or are you hiding your wisdom from us?

are you vying for an idiot of the year award?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 12:25pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:43pm: I have no idea what percentage is being used to fund terrorist groups, its a reasonable assumption to say that at least some of the money is going  there because it cannot be accounted for. Money doesnt disappear, it can usually be traced unless its cash. The fact that this halal money cannot allegedly be traced would lead a reasonable person to the assumption that either the government isnt looking too hard for political purposes or someone has tried very hard to cover the tracks. Some of the idiots here appear to believe that a lack of evidence is evidence, Note how Rhino dedicates a small paragraph to arguing why lack of evidence regarding where halal money goes is evience that it goes to terrorists - right before he blurts out "Some of the idiots here appear to believe that a lack of evidence is evidence". But I gave up long ago being shocked by the facepalming irony on this forum.

English not your first language? I didnt say it was "evidence", I said it was a reasonable assumption that some of it was going to these causes.  What other reason can you think of as to why Muslim groups in Australia would hide the money trail?

rhino wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 4:52pm:

What other reason can you think of as to why Muslim groups in Australia would hide the money trail?

they're stealing it?
new pools?
renovations?
pay their kids tuition fees?

i can write a long list if you want but I'm not sure it'll help you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 12:34pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2020 at 6:19pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago. So what counts for reasonable to you is entirely based on your own ignorance? And you also think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Does it really boil down to something that stupid? Or are you hiding your wisdom from us? Apparently FD still doesn't comprehend the logic everyone else learned in primary school, that when you assume someone's innocence because there is no evidence to the contrary, you don't actually seek or require 'evidence of absence'. absence of evidence simply equals innoncence.

Gandalf no-one is arguing about whether these Muslims have been convicted.

Why do you insist on reinforcing the stereotype of the dishonest Muslim?

John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 5:09pm:

rhino wrote on Apr 23rd, 2020 at 4:52pm: What other reason can you think of as to why Muslim groups in Australia would hide the money trail? they're stealing it? new pools? renovations? pay their kids tuition fees? i can write a long list if you want but I'm not sure it'll help you.

As soon as you can show me how someone can actually steal their own money John then I might consider the first on your list. I highly doubt people would go to the  trouble of hiding the trail of legitimately obtained money to spend on renovations or school fees. You might in your own mind think you are helping Gandalf out here but I suspect he also is cringing at the abject dribbling stupidity of your comments.

John Smith wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 9:26am:

Frank wrote on Apr 22nd, 2020 at 8:04pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. So the only things that exist are what you can see. Not in your case

Your 4 year old great-grandson could do better than that, Benito.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 12:34pm:

Apparently FD still doesn't comprehend the logic everyone else learned in primary school, that when you assume someone's innocence because there is no evidence to the contrary, you don't actually seek or require 'evidence of absence'. absence of evidence simply equals innoncence.

Muslims fund Muslim terrorism.  Where do they get the money from?  How does Islam define what is exempt from funding the victory of Islam?  It doesn't because nothing is exempt.

Muslims fund Islamic jihad (Muslim terrorism) every which way they can. Nothing is excluded from supporting and funding jihad. Nothing. Not halal certification, not any 'charity' or charity.
The honest word of Muslim was squandered centuries ago.

Just repeating my self here:



Quote:

Now let's see: Fact 1/. muslims are the worlds' greatest terrorist threat. Fact 2/. The qur'an preaches human rights atrocities are to be committed by muslims against the non believer. Fact 3/. muslims are the worlds' almost insurmountable refugee problem, due to their incessant blood letting. Buuuut the muslims certainly use a huge amount of their income to fund their terrorism and religious blood letting, buuuut they would never use any halal money for these activities. Yeah right. 1/. the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, 2/. pigs will fly overhead, 3/.the cow will jump over the moon. For goodness sake just how sick and stupid are the  *moderates* and lunatic leftards?

freediver wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 6:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 23rd, 2020 at 12:34pm: freediver wrote on Apr 22nd, 2020 at 6:19pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. And knowing how much you wish it so, if there were any evidence, you would have posted it years ago. So what counts for reasonable to you is entirely based on your own ignorance? And you also think that absence of evidence is evidence of absence? Does it really boil down to something that stupid? Or are you hiding your wisdom from us? Apparently FD still doesn't comprehend the logic everyone else learned in primary school, that when you assume someone's innocence because there is no evidence to the contrary, you don't actually seek or require 'evidence of absence'. absence of evidence simply equals innoncence. Gandalf no-one is arguing about whether these Muslims have been convicted. Why do you insist on reinforcing the stereotype of the dishonest Muslim?

muslims being convicted was the furthest thing from my mind when I wrote that FD. Congratulations on once again missing the point.

Why are you so confused about this simple concept that unlike claiming someone's guilt, claiming someone's innocence doesn't actually require evidence (when no evidence of their guilt exists)?

Gandalf, the concept of innocence until proven guilty is not a compulsion to tell lies about whether something happened up until you have proof otherwise. Did it not occur to you that sprouting this nonsense merely reinforces the stereotype of the dishonest Muslim?

rhino wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 4:52pm:

English not your first language? I didnt say it was "evidence", I said it was a reasonable assumption that some of it was going to these causes.  What other reason can you think of as to why Muslim groups in Australia would hide the money trail?

One of us is certainly having difficulty with English. How do you expect we get to your "reasonable assumption" if not for the evidence you cite Rhino hmmm?

If we understand evidence by its formal definition:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Then thats exactly what you did, provided an (alleged) "body of facts"/information to support what you call a "reasonable assumption". Specifically, "The fact that this halal money cannot allegedly be traced...[means its reasonable that it goes to terrorists]"

Also just FYI, the money trail is not "hidden", they are just not obliged to disclose it - given none of the halal certifiers are public companies.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 12:17pm:

Gandalf, the concept of innocence until proven guilty is not a compulsion to tell lies about whether something happened up until you have proof otherwise. Did it not occur to you that sprouting this nonsense merely reinforces the stereotype of the dishonest Muslim?

You are ranting complete nonsense.

Innocent until proven guilty means just that. It is something that you are clearly confused about - otherwise you wouldn't be ranting such nonsense about how assuming someone's innocence in the absense of any evidence is "sprouting nonsense" and "lying". Why is that?

Why do you feel its ok to "sprout nonsense" about the bad behaviour of muslims (aka make baseless accusations), but feign such outrage when someone dares suggest the simple truth that muslims are assumed innocent of what people like you accuse them of - in the absence of any evidence?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 12:17pm:

a compulsion to tell lies about whether something happened up until you have proof otherwise.

Funny, describes you to a tee FD

Ever had authentic Jewish food?

Now that is really terrorism to the taste buds.

rhino wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 6:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2020 at 5:09pm: rhino wrote on Apr 23rd, 2020 at 4:52pm: What other reason can you think of as to why Muslim groups in Australia would hide the money trail? they're stealing it? new pools? renovations? pay their kids tuition fees? i can write a long list if you want but I'm not sure it'll help you. As soon as you can show me how someone can actually steal their own money John then I might consider the first on your list. I highly doubt people would go to the  trouble of hiding the trail of legitimately obtained money to spend on renovations or school fees. You might in your own mind think you are helping Gandalf out here but I suspect he also is cringing at the abject dribbling stupidity of your comments.

their own money? So people that pay halal fee's get to keep their money?  ;D ;D

It's not their money dopey, it's money others paid for in fees to certify their product as halal

Frank wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2020 at 6:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 23rd, 2020 at 9:26am: Frank wrote on Apr 22nd, 2020 at 8:04pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 8:17pm: freediver wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:39pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 21st, 2020 at 4:20pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 7:10pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:40pm: freediver wrote on Apr 20th, 2020 at 6:37pm: Do you think Pecca knows a lot about the percentage of Halal fees going towards terrorism? I don't think Greg has seen any evidence of it. You on the other hand I am sure know even less than him. You're the one making claims you can't support. So what do you make of Pecca telling everyone what percentage of halal fees go to terrorism? Given the evidence you've supplied to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption. What do you think of the claim that halal fee's are used to fund terrorism? Why do you think it is a reasonable assumption? because I've seen nothing to suggest that it is being used to fund terrorism. So the only things that exist are what you can see. Not in your case Your 4 year old great-grandson could do better than that, Benito.

and yet you probably think that was a great retort?  ;D ;D ;D

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 12:33pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 12:17pm: Gandalf, the concept of innocence until proven guilty is not a compulsion to tell lies about whether something happened up until you have proof otherwise. Did it not occur to you that sprouting this nonsense merely reinforces the stereotype of the dishonest Muslim? You are ranting complete nonsense. Innocent until proven guilty means just that. It is something that you are clearly confused about - otherwise you wouldn't be ranting such nonsense about how assuming someone's innocence in the absense of any evidence is "sprouting nonsense" and "lying". Why is that? Why do you feel its ok to "sprout nonsense" about the bad behaviour of muslims (aka make baseless accusations), but feign such outrage when someone dares suggest the simple truth that muslims are assumed innocent of what people like you accuse them of - in the absence of any evidence?

Earth to Gandalf, we are not talking about someone's innocence. We are talking about Greg's claim that 0% of halal fees are used to fund terrorism. You are doing the dishonest Muslim tapdance by pretending that concepts such as innocence remove any onus of evidence from people making such claims.

It is like when your fellow Muslims insist that the absence of rape convictions in Muslim countries is proof that rapes don't happen, rather than evidence of Islamic justice facilitating rape. Your logic would compel Muslims and their apologists to deliberately lie about rape, and thus further facilitate rape of women in Muslim countries. Which low and behold is exactly what happens - Muslims and their apologists telling convenient lies about terrorism, rape etc in the name of Islam. Helping to cover up and facilitate terrorism and rape at every opportunity, like good little turd polishers.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 2:54pm:

You are doing the dishonest Muslim tapdance

as opposed to the dishonest jewish tapdance?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 2:54pm:

Earth to Gandalf, we are not talking about someone's innocence. We are talking about Greg's claim that 0% of halal fees are used to fund terrorism.

They are  exactly the same FD. Not sending any money to terrorists means they are  innocent of the serious crime of sending money to terrorists. You do realise that the thing you are getting so hot and bothered by relates to the committing of a very serious crime right? Perhaps you don't quite understand that the thing that seems to cause you so much outrage is the idea that someone can assert that a group of muslims has not actually engaged in a very serious criminal offense - with zero evidence, zero conviction, zero charges, and so far as anyone knows, zero criminal investigation.



freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 2:54pm:

It is like when your fellow Muslims insist that the absence of rape convictions in Muslim countries is proof that rapes don't happen, rather than evidence of Islamic justice facilitating rape. Your logic would compel Muslims and their apologists to deliberately lie about rape, and thus further facilitate rape of women in Muslim countries. Which low and behold is exactly what happens - Muslims and their apologists telling convenient lies about terrorism, rape etc in the name of Islam. Helping to cover up and facilitate terrorism and rape at every opportunity, like good little turd polishers.

So apparently you would argue that actual evidence of rape is somehow not necessary for proving instances of rampant rape? Again, it is Islam, therefore guilty by default. And this just proves your screwed up mindset. You don't even bother with evidence and objective analysis. Instead you just roll out the same old tired sinister muslim narrative and use it to justify pretty much any accusation against them. Evidence of rape? No need - just look at Islamic law. Evidence of halal money going to terrorists? No need - what else would sinister muslims do with it? Evidence of school girls systematically being shot for attending school? No need - what are you a taliban supporter?? And so on and so on.

By way of an analogy to demonstrate how absurd FD's attitude here is...

you take an ordinary person off the street who you know not a thing about. Point him/her out to a third person and ask them what percentage of their income they think that person sends to child pornography rings who routinely rape children (or insert whatever vile criminal outfit you like).

The third person answers "zero"

You then proceed to have a hissy fit and demand evidence for such a claim, show outrage that such a claim could even be made, and spit invective at the person for "spouting nonsense" and "lying".

Take away the red herring that is Islam, and that is exactly what FD is doing here.

Grand Mufti of Libya: Suicide bombings are “allowed by Sharia law” APR 23, 2020

“Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties, for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.” (Qur’an 9:111)

“If detonating oneself while carrying out a fedaai operation rattles the enemy and brings upon it a crushing defeat, then it is allowed by shari’a law.

If a person is certain that this act will cause great harm to the enemy, then it is allowed by shari’a law

Yes in islam, suicide bombing will definitely get you into paradise.

But under no circumstances can halal fees used to fund suicide bombing and other sundry muslim acts of terrorism

Yeah right:

1/. The sun will come up in the west tomorrow.

2/. Pigs will fly.

3/. The cows are going to jump over the next full moon.

How bloody stupid are the lying *moderates* and their boot licking lunatic leftard supporters?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 4:18pm:

By way of an analogy to demonstrate how absurd FD's attitude here is... you take an ordinary person off the street who you know not a thing about. Point him/her out to a third person and ask them what percentage of their income they think that person sends to child pornography rings who routinely rape children (or insert whatever vile criminal outfit you like). The third person answers "zero" You then proceed to have a hissy fit and demand evidence for such a claim, show outrage that such a claim could even be made, and spit invective at the person for "spouting nonsense" and "lying". Take away the red herring that is Islam, and that is exactly what FD is doing here.

he's getting worse as he gets older ;)

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 4:05pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 2:54pm: Earth to Gandalf, we are not talking about someone's innocence. We are talking about Greg's claim that 0% of halal fees are used to fund terrorism. They are  exactly the same FD.

So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty? And reflexively pander to it when other people make it up?

Do you see how this sort of thing could lead to people concluding that Muslims are untrustworthy?

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 5:53pm:

So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty?

Saying 0% of halal funds go to terrorists because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise is the very definition of innocent until proven guilty FD.

It would be interesting to see if you displayed the same level of ridiculous outrage about "making up crap" if someone dared to assert something like your local spear fishing club sent zero percent of their funds to child pornography rings or some such. Would you fly into the same hissy fit and accuse them of lies etc?

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 6:45pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 5:53pm: So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty? Saying 0% of halal funds go to terrorists because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise is the very definition of innocent until proven guilty FD. It would be interesting to see if you displayed the same level of ridiculous outrage about "making up crap" if someone dared to assert something like your local spear fishing club sent zero percent of their funds to child pornography rings or some such. Would you fly into the same hissy fit and accuse them of lies etc?

You are simply not trusted, as Muslims.  Same for the Chinese.  You are not trusted.

You may not have been proven to be guilty about a particular issue but you have been found to be lying and dissembled so many other times that your word is worthless. You, like the Chinese Commies, are proven enemies of Western democracies. You are not constitutional democrats in hijabs and pajamas - you are jihadis for Islam, agit-prop cadres for the CCP

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 6:45pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 5:53pm: So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty? Saying 0% of halal funds go to terrorists because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise is the very definition of innocent until proven guilty FD.

No it's not Gandalf. It's a Muslim, trying to change the definition to suit their deception, in the name of Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 4:18pm:

By way of an analogy to demonstrate how absurd FD's attitude here is... you take an ordinary person off the street who you know not a thing about. Point him/her out to a third person and ask them what percentage of their income they think that person sends to child pornography rings who routinely rape children (or insert whatever vile criminal outfit you like). The third person answers "zero" You then proceed to have a hissy fit and demand evidence for such a claim, show outrage that such a claim could even be made, and spit invective at the person for "spouting nonsense" and "lying". Take away the red herring that is Islam, and that is exactly what FD is doing here.

Islam is a red herring? So we have no reason to suspect terrorist sympathies from Islamists in this country? Better contact ASIO and the AFP and tell them they are on the wrong track, its not Islamists supporting ISIS. Muslims arent responsible for Islamic terrorist attacks. Let them know.

freediver wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 9:08pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 6:45pm: freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 5:53pm: So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty? Saying 0% of halal funds go to terrorists because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise is the very definition of innocent until proven guilty FD. No it's not Gandalf. It's a Muslim, trying to change the definition to suit their deception, in the name of Islam.

What percentage of halal funds going to terrorists would you say fits the description of being innocent of the crime of sending halal funds to terrorists FD?

Take your time.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 10:41am:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 9:08pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 6:45pm: freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 5:53pm: So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty? Saying 0% of halal funds go to terrorists because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise is the very definition of innocent until proven guilty FD. No it's not Gandalf. It's a Muslim, trying to change the definition to suit their deception, in the name of Islam. What percentage of halal funds going to terrorists would you say fits the description of being innocent of the crime of sending halal funds to terrorists FD? Take your time.

Your question does not even make sense Gandalf. You are deliberately conflating the presumption of innocence with actual innocence. As usual, you are being a dissembling Muslim.

What do you hope to achieve with this? Do you think you can trick people into believing all Muslims are innocent? They'd have to convert to Islam to believe that Gandalf. The presumption of innocence is not the same thing as the BS you are fed by your Imam.

rhino wrote on Apr 24^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

Islam is a red herring? So we have no reason to suspect terrorist sympathies from Islamists in this country? Better contact ASIO and the AFP and tell them they are on the wrong track, its not Islamists supporting ISIS. Muslims arent responsible for Islamic terrorist attacks. Let them know.

Neither ASIO or the AFP are investigating halal certifiers - as far as anyone here knows, so what exactly is your piont? Why are you suddenly ranting about Islamists and muslim terrorists when the question is over organisations who provide halal certificates?

Is it simply a case of lumping all muslims into the same basket and saying 'guilty by association' and to hell with any actual evidence?

FD do you believe these halal certifiers have the right to a presumption of innocence in the accusation that they send money to terrorists?

what percentage of funds are halal certifiers presumed to be sending to terrorists if they are givem the presumption of innocence? If you can answer this, perhaps you can then explain to me what meaningful difference the answer to this is to stating "zero percentage of halal fees go to terrorists"

Would you say also that in the same spirit of the right to a presumption of innocence, it was wrong of you to accuse the Australian Federation of Islamic Council of sending money to terrorists without a shred of evidence?


Try if you can to answer without resorting to personal attacks.

You would have to live with the fairy's at the bottom of the garden, or perhaps under a railway bridge with the trolls, to try and tell normal people that halal fees are  not used to fund terrorism.

muslims spend untold billions on terrorism, civil wars, slaughtering innocent unbelievers, etc. etc.

Buuutt there is no possible way muslims will use halal funds for their psychopathic blood lust.

All other sources of money are used to fund their blood letting, buuut halal fees are most definitely excluded.

O.K. now remember people don't be frightened, because tomorrow, the sun will rise in the west, pigs will fly overhead, the cow will jump over the moon and your dish will run away with the spoon.

Just how bloody stupid are *moderates* and loony leftards who try and tell us halal fees would not be used to fund terrorism.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 11:05am:

FD do you believe these halal certifiers have the right to a presumption of innocence in the accusation that they send money to terrorists?

Of course. But you lie when you say that making up statistics is the "very definition" of the presumption of innocence. It might help you to understand what is going on here if you discard your delusion of infallibility.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25^th, 2020 at 10:41am:

freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 9:08pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 6:45pm: freediver wrote on Apr 24th, 2020 at 5:53pm: So we are compelled to make up crap like 0% of halal funds go to terrorists in order to comply with your moronic version of innocent until proven guilty? Saying 0% of halal funds go to terrorists because there is no evidence suggesting otherwise is the very definition of innocent until proven guilty FD. No it's not Gandalf. It's a Muslim, trying to change the definition to suit their deception, in the name of Islam. What percentage of halal funds going to terrorists would you say fits the description of being innocent of the crime of sending halal funds to terrorists FD? Take your time.

Where do the funds for Islamic terrorism come from?

Wweelll everywhere except halal funding, which is 100% excluded from terrorism funding.

I know I know, the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, pigs are going to fly, cows will jump over the moon and the dish will run away with the spoon.

freediver wrote on Apr 26^th, 2020 at 8:47am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 25th, 2020 at 11:05am: FD do you believe these halal certifiers have the right to a presumption of innocence in the accusation that they send money to terrorists? Of course.

which would involve "presuming" they send what percentage of their funds to terrorists FD? Again, take your time.


Quote:

But you lie when you say that making up statistics is the "very definition" of the presumption of innocence. It might help you to understand what is going on here if you discard your delusion of infallibility.

Saying that certifiers send zero percent of their funds to terrorists in the absense of any evidence suggesting otherwise, is not making up statistics. Presuming halal certifiers are innocent of sending any of their funds to terrorists (aka "zero percent" of halal funds) - is the very definition of presumption of innocence.

Saying that 100% of muslims support genocide on the other hand...

I guess your next trick will be to claim that "all muslims" supporting genocide is somehow not a statistic that you made up.

Quote:

which would involve "presuming" they send what percentage of their funds to terrorists FD? Again, take your time.

You lie when you argue that the presumption of innocence requires or implies any kind of assumptions about crime statistics.


Quote:

Saying that certifiers send zero percent of their funds to terrorists in the absense of any evidence suggesting otherwise, is not making up statistics.

It is the very definition of making up statistics Gandalf. You and Greg are lying.

The Muslim and the apologist, telling lies to facilitate the funding of Islamic terrorism.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 9:11am:

ou lie when you argue that the presumption of innocence requires or implies any kind of assumptions about crime statistics.

No its what I genuinely believe. That is by definition not a lie.

Assuming someone is innocent of the crime of sending money to terrorists absolutely implies an assumption about crime statistics - namely assuming that exactly 0% of their money went to terrorists. Its simply unfathomable that you cna't comprehend this basic point.

Why do you even bother replying - since you just repeat the same discredited crap without bothering to even listen to what I say in response? What percentage of terrorist funding would halal certifiers be presumed to be sending to terrorists if they are given the assumption of innocence? Oops better not answer that one - cause it will actually refute your broken record crap about making up statistics.


freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2020 at 9:11am:

It is the very definition of making up statistics Gandalf. You and Greg are lying.

What crap. If I assumed it to be anything other than 0% without a shred of evidence, then that is actually the very definition of making up statistics. What percentage of your spear-fishing club's funds do you think go towards child pornography rings? I dare you to say 'zero', and I'll throw that 'making up stats' bullshit right back at you. Maybe then you'll see what rubbish it actually is.

Another open-shut definition of making up statistics is to say all muslims support genocide - without having the slightest idea of what all muslims think.

Now let's see, people since the dawn of time have when doing things they know is not really an accepted activity, gone out of their way to hide their actions.

Buuuuttt halal fees would never be used in this way, if any halal fees were made available to the islamic terrorism brigade, the receipts would definitely be truthful and honest and state openly they were used for funding terrorism.

I know I know, The troll under the railway bridge sings this one

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

Quote:

No its what I genuinely believe. That is by definition not a lie.

So you are substituting the conventional presumption of innocence with your own reality and pretending it is the same thing?

If you assume all Muslims are innocent, does that mean you think there is never any need to investigate Muslims for using Halal fees to fund terrorism?

Is this belief a religious requirement? Does your religion compel you to lie?


Quote:

What crap. If I assumed it to be anything other than 0% without a shred of evidence, then that is actually the very definition of making up statistics.

You are deluded Gandalf. Why does choosing 0% instead of any other number make a difference to whether you are making up statistics?

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 10:23am:

If you assume all Muslims are innocent, does that mean you think there is never any need to investigate Muslims for using Halal fees to fund terrorism? Is this belief a religious requirement? Does your religion compel you to lie?

As usual you make this personal, as if everything I say has to come back to my faith. Even when (especially when) it has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

What I say is literally no different to me asserting that in the absense of any evidence, 0% of FD's spear-fishing club revenues goes to child pornography rings. No different whatsoever. And unless you are a hypocrite, you would have to insist that such an assertion is just as dishonest/stupid/delusional as what I'm saying about halal money.



freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 10:23am:

You are deluded Gandalf.

Thanks FD. Thats a step up from being a liar.


freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 10:23am:

Why does choosing 0% instead of any other number make a difference to whether you are making up statistics?

Because anything other than 0% means they are guilty of the crime of sending money to terrorists. Obviously.  Only in your warped mind is guessing that someone invests "zero" percent of their money in illegal activities is somehow every bit as dishonest as guessing its 15.86% of their money - in the absense of any evidence. You are literally asking me how is it different if I assume they are guilty instead of assuming they are innocent. But thats you, for you.

What if we went through every possible source of terrorism funding from Australian Muslims. Would you be willing to assert through that logic that not a single Australian Muslim funds terrorism?


Quote:

Because anything other than 0% means they are guilty of the crime of sending money to terrorists. Obviously.

What is obvious? You are still making up statistics. Argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy Gandalf.

FD, why is it that you ignore my spear-fishing analogy every time I bring it up?

Is it because you realise the analogy blows your entire 'argument' out of the water?

At least answer this simple question - if I asserted that 0% of your spear-fishing club's revenues goes to child pornography rings, would you carry on like a pork chop shrieking about 'making up statistics' and all the other hysterics?


freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2020 at 6:32pm:

Argumentum ad consequentiam

Suggest you look up what a term actually means before showing off your reportoire of latin phrases.

I'll give you a hint, argumentum ad consequentiam pretty much sums up the last 10 years of your posts here. A good example is "All muslims support genocide - because it fits my world view". In this instance its something like "how dare you assume muslims are innocent of a particular crime - that would go against my prejudiced attitudes against muslims".

polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

.....anything other than 0% means they [the moslem] are guilty of the crime of sending money to terrorists. Obviously. ......You are literally asking me how is it different if I assume they are guilty instead of assuming they are innocent.

An innocent follower of ISLAM ?

Now that is an interesting and intriguing concept !!

/sarc off





Quote:

"Because anything other than 0% means they are guilty of the crime of sending money to terrorists. Obviously."

Because he is a [willing] follower of ISLAM,
that means that the moslem [logically] is 100% guilty of being a party to the crime,
of supporting ISLAM in its religious cause, to enslave or to kill all disbelievers.



.



THE CRIMINAL COMPACT [by our laws] AMONG MOSLEMS



CRIMINAL INTENT, IN THE MOSLEM HEART
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1252898491/0#0

Quote:

Every moslem in Australia [and indeed, every moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems. ISLAM is a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against non-moslems ['unbelievers']. .....Basically, fundamentally, all ISLAMIC doctrine translates as enmity, and encourages [criminal] violence, towards ALL non-moslems.

[Koran 60:4]



.



THE DICTATE OF ISLAM,      ...IS CONFLICT AND VIOLENCE AGAINST EVERY DISBELIEVER [whenever the moslem is strong enough],
AS PER,        DIRECTED, BY ISLAM'S INERRANT AND IMMUTABLE 'HOLY' TEXT....


"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:...."
Koran 9.111


"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves....."
Koran 48.29


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



.



Yadda said.....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1570367530/2#2

Quote:

MY ARGUMENT; 1/ Every moslem is a follower of ISLAM. 2/ And ISLAM is a philosophy which mandates that its followers must fight and kill people, who reject ISLAM, and the primacy of ISLAMIC law. And, a new attack is going to occur whenever      any individual moslem [living among us, in Australia] decides that 'now' is a good moment for him to prove his devotion to ISLAM and to Allah.

.




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda QUESTION; What about the innocent moslems ? IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems. How so [logically] ? QUESTION; How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

.



Moslem = = a follower of ISLAM.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1536141258/46#46

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1534830555/0#0

Quote:

FD, why is it that you ignore my spear-fishing analogy every time I bring it up?

Do you think 2 logical fallacies is better than 1?

You lied. You made up statistics. And you apparently think it is rational to justify those statistics because you can't cope with them being wrong. And you are are attempting to pretend that your motivation for telling these lies is something other than Islam.

The Forum's Biggest Rivalry is at it again.
FreeDiver and Gmod_Gandalf.  ;D

freediver wrote on May 16^th, 2020 at 10:23am:

You are deluded Gandalf. Why does choosing 0% instead of any other number make a difference to whether you are making up statistics?

That's right, G. Why don't you at least say 1 or 2% of funds go to the terrorists? Can't you at least concede that?

Why does it have to be 0%?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 28^th, 2020 at 7:00pm:

At least answer this simple question - if I asserted that 0% of your spear-fishing club's revenues goes to child pornography rings, would you carry on like a pork chop shrieking about 'making up statistics' and all the other hysterics?

No, you have to say that, statistically speaking, anything between 0 and 100% of FD's spearfishing club's revenue goes to child pornography rings. That would be the correct figure, statistically speaking.

Mind you, they have to save a bit for administration, insurance, various fees and taxes, depreciation, wear and tear, that sort of thing. After tax, of course, for which I'm sure they're exempt.

So it could be anything up to about 80%.

FD's club spends up to 80% of its funds on child sex exploitation, can you believe it? It's an undeniable fact.

Ee-gad, what are the authorities doing about this?

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2020 at 8:30pm:

Quote: FD, why is it that you ignore my spear-fishing analogy every time I bring it up? Do you think 2 logical fallacies is better than 1? You lied. You made up statistics. And you apparently think it is rational to justify those statistics because you can't cope with them being wrong. And you are are attempting to pretend that your motivation for telling these lies is something other than Islam.

He's got you there, G. The only reason you're saying 0% is you're a Muslim. Your religion blinds you to the facts. Anything up to a hundred percent of your money funds terrorism.

The rest of us can see this all too clearly. We're not members of a retarded subspecies who's members worship a satanic moon god, squat down to pee and play with their dicks afterwards, you see.

We haven't swallowed the Kool Aid.

muslims are the worlds' greatest global terrorism threat.

Who funds the terrorists?

Well, muslims actually.

Bbuuuuutttt having said that, halal fees most definitely are never used to fund the muslim terrorists.

I know I know, The troll under the railway bridge sings this one

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

moses wrote on May 29^th, 2020 at 2:47pm:

muslims are the worlds' greatest global terrorism threat. Who funds the terrorists? Well, muslims actually. Bbuuuuutttt having said that, halal fees most definitely are never used to fund the muslim terrorists. I know I know, The troll under the railway bridge sings this one https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

That's a good song, Moses. What do you think the correct figure is?

G's being rather cagey about this.

No idea at all, but it is the depths of stupidity to say no halal fees would be used to fund islamic terrorism.

moses wrote on May 29^th, 2020 at 2:56pm:

No idea at all, but it is the depths of stupidity to say no halal fees would be used to fund islamic terrorism.

Right, so how much is FD's mob chipping in to the child porn crowd?

Would totally depend on whether any of said divers were actually into child porn.

I have no idea at all if there are any, I would venture to say that most likely there are none, as I've found that on the whole sportsman are really good people, just as academics are also.

Now with muslim terrorism, every body knows that terrorism is a core teaching of islam, it is part and parcel of the islamic package.

So given the widespread support for terrorism among the muslims, once again I'd venture to say that some halal fees are used to support terrorism.

How much is anybodies guess.

moses wrote on May 29^th, 2020 at 3:41pm:

Would totally depend on whether any of said divers were actually into child porn. I have no idea at all if there are any, I would venture to say that most likely there are none, as I've found that on the whole sportsman are really good people, just as academics are also. Now with muslim terrorism, every body knows that terrorism is a core teaching of islam, it is part and parcel of the islamic package. So given the widespread support for terrorism among the muslims, once again I'd venture to say that some halal fees are used to support terrorism. How much is anybodies guess.

He's getting all convoluted now, FD. Let's see, we have some tapdancing, backpedaling, contorting, a nice bit of spineless apologetics. I think most of our beloved cliches are covered in this post, don't you?

But Moses didn't say 0%, so unlike G, he's at least got his maths right.

G's a Muslim, so what do you expect? I never did meet one who could count.

Abu, Falah, G, and that other one - we know four, right?

My maths have never been my strong point either, but I'm an apologist - half a point higher on the inferior culture scale.

Not quite tanned, but at least we're not tinted.

karnal why the inferiority complex about *tinted* in a massive amount of your posts?

moses wrote on Jun 1^st, 2020 at 6:26pm:

karnal why the inferiority complex about *tinted* in a massive amount of your posts?

Though we know K would deny it,       .....his constant proclivity to wishing to divide peoples into the *tinted* and the non-*tinted* camps,
just goes to prove what a racist K is.

Why else, the persistent differentiation he makes in many of his posts, between this human being, and another human being,
based upon their differing skin colour ???

You are a naughty man, K.

Don't you know that even though my skin colour is different from yourself, in the eyes of God, i'm still your brother ?



.



Acts 10:34
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35  But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.


Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

freediver wrote on May 28^th, 2020 at 8:30pm:

Do you think 2 logical fallacies is better than 1?

zero logical fallacies are better than one FD, But lets focus on the question at hand shall we? Are you going to be consistent and insist that saying that child-pornography rings get zero percentage of your spear-fishing club's funds is equally as outrageous as saying that terrorists get zero percentage of halal certifier's funds - when there is no evidence to say otherwise? Because there is literally no difference between the two. None. ziltch.


Quote:

You lied. You made up statistics.

well the post before I was delusional, so best you stick to one story because it can't be both.

In any case, thats fine - just so long as you insist with the same vigour that insisting that zero percent of your spear fishing club's funds go to child pornography rings is also lying and "making up statistics". Or, even that zero percentage of ozpolitics ad revenues are sent to far-right terrorists. That has to be an outrageous lie and "making up statistics" also.

Though alas, somehow I can't quite invisage you shrieking around like a pork chop about those "lies" as you do with a muslim or muslim-apologist daring to say the same about halal fees. Can you?

Quote:

Are you going to be consistent and insist that saying that child-pornography rings get zero percentage of your spear-fishing club's funds is equally as outrageous as saying that terrorists get zero percentage of halal certifier's funds - when there is no evidence to say otherwise?

There is plenty of evidence of terrorism funding.


Quote:

Because there is literally no difference between the two. None. ziltch.

Sure there is. In addition to all the evidence of terrorism funding, there is also a massively different sample size.


Quote:

well the post before I was delusional, so best you stick to one story because it can't be both

Another logical fallacy. It is entirely possible to be delusional and to make stuff up.

Karnal wrote on May 29^th, 2020 at 2:46pm:

freediver wrote on May 28th, 2020 at 8:30pm: Quote: FD, why is it that you ignore my spear-fishing analogy every time I bring it up? Do you think 2 logical fallacies is better than 1? You lied. You made up statistics. And you apparently think it is rational to justify those statistics because you can't cope with them being wrong. And you are are attempting to pretend that your motivation for telling these lies is something other than Islam. He's got you there, G. The only reason you're saying 0% is you're a Muslim. Your religion blinds you to the facts. Anything up to a hundred percent of your money funds terrorism. The rest of us can see this all too clearly. We're not members of a retarded subspecies who's members worship a satanic moon god, squat down to pee and play with their dicks afterwards, you see. We haven't swallowed the Kool Aid.

How's this for kool Aid:

In the absense of any evidence that indicates otherwise, I'm going to insist that precisely zero percent of FD's ozpolitic ad revenue is sent to far-right terrorists.

There, instant lie and "making up statistics", and only something a deluded and/or lying muslim would say. Say it isn't so FD.

FD I think see your problem. You are confusing/deliberately conflating the tiny number of individuals who are in the Australian halal certifying industry with "muslims en-masse".

Am I right in saying your "evidence" that halal certifiers engage in this illegal funding is to equate any and every Australian muslim terrorist-funding suspect with the halal certifiers - on no other basis except the most tenuous religious association?

Or perhaps you might surprise me and refer me to some actual evidence implicating halal certifiers in this illegal activity? Hopefully something other than a glib quip like "I'm sure the receipts are all in order".


freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 6:03pm:

Another logical fallacy. It is entirely possible to be delusional and to make stuff up.

Not about the same lie though.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 6:23pm:

FD I think see your problem. You are confusing/deliberately conflating the tiny number of individuals who are in the Australian halal certifying industry with "muslims en-masse".

What do you think the AFIC did with all that stolen loot? So far your only comment has been to reassure us there is no need to think about where the money ended up.

Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad.

Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does.

Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion.i

Frank wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 9:25pm:

Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad. Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does. Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion.

Interesting.

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 9:33pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm: Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad. Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does. Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion. Interesting. How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

Are you saying Trump is as bad as AFIC?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 6:09pm:

Karnal wrote on May 29th, 2020 at 2:46pm: freediver wrote on May 28th, 2020 at 8:30pm: Quote: FD, why is it that you ignore my spear-fishing analogy every time I bring it up? Do you think 2 logical fallacies is better than 1? You lied. You made up statistics. And you apparently think it is rational to justify those statistics because you can't cope with them being wrong. And you are are attempting to pretend that your motivation for telling these lies is something other than Islam. He's got you there, G. The only reason you're saying 0% is you're a Muslim. Your religion blinds you to the facts. Anything up to a hundred percent of your money funds terrorism. The rest of us can see this all too clearly. We're not members of a retarded subspecies who's members worship a satanic moon god, squat down to pee and play with their dicks afterwards, you see. We haven't swallowed the Kool Aid. How's this for kool Aid: In the absense of any evidence that indicates otherwise, I'm going to insist that precisely zero percent of FD's ozpolitic ad revenue is sent to far-right terrorists. There, instant lie and "making up statistics", and only something a deluded and/or lying muslim would say. Say it isn't so FD.

FD, can you tell us the truth? How much of your ad revenue goes to decent white people everywhere?

Don't lie. We'll need a percentage, please.

Quote:

In the absense of any evidence that indicates otherwise, I'm going to insist that precisely zero percent of FD's ozpolitic ad revenue is sent to far-right terrorists.

The other ‘imminent’ terror attacks Australia narrowly escaped
THE police foiling of an alleged plot to blow up a plane in a suspected terror attack is not the first time Australia has come this close to being struck on home soil. July 31, 2017  10:06am

AUSTRALIA would have experienced 15 terror attacks including public beheadings on home soil over the past three years if most plots in their advanced stages hadn’t been foiled, according to police.

The terror attacks police were unable to prevent include the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney in which manager Tori Johnson and mother-of-three Katrina Dawson lost their lives; the killing of police accountant Curtis Cheng by 15-year-old schoolboy Farhad Khalil Mohammed Jabar in Parramatta and the non-fatal stabbing of Wayne Greenhalgh in Minto last year. In Victoria, Numan Haider, 18, attacked two police officers with a knife outside the Endeavour Hills police station before being shot dead in September 2014.

Among the alleged “imminent” terror plots foiled by police in the last two years were advanced plans to kidnap members of the public in Sydney and Brisbane then behead them on camera and release the footage; detonate bombs at a Mother’s Day running event; stab and shoot police and members of the public at Anzac Day ceremonies; and target government buildings including the Garden Island Navy base and Parramatta Court House.

This is a couple of years old, but the overwhelming fact is that it seems to be the muslims who are the greatest threat we face.

So in light of this fact and the obvious lack of far right terrorism, one could say that on the law of probability there are zero % funds going to right wing terrorism.

Also one could say that on the law of probability, because of the staggering amount of muslim terrorist kills / beheadings and near misses in Australia, muslims must spend a large proportion of their money on terrorism.

freediver wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 6:36pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 6:23pm: FD I think see your problem. You are confusing/deliberately conflating the tiny number of individuals who are in the Australian halal certifying industry with "muslims en-masse". What do you think the AFIC did with all that stolen loot? So far your only comment has been to reassure us there is no need to think about where the money ended up.

No, my only comment so far has been 'I don't know' and 'I know of no evidence that it went to terrorists, and neither do you'. That will continue to be my only comment until such time as the evidence situation changes.

Is this what passes as "evidence" in FD universe? Asking stupid rhetorical questions?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 6:36pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 6:23pm: FD I think see your problem. You are confusing/deliberately conflating the tiny number of individuals who are in the Australian halal certifying industry with "muslims en-masse". What do you think the AFIC did with all that stolen loot? So far your only comment has been to reassure us there is no need to think about where the money ended up. Is this whats called "evidence" in FD universe? Asking stupid rhetorical questions?

I never said it was a large number of people. It is a small number of people who are known for siphoning off funds from their own children's education fund, backed by a large number of Muslims such as yourself frantically telling everyone not to look at where the money ended up.

Move along people, nothing to see here.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Which is a rather apt description of what you are doing here.

"FD, where is the evidence?"
FD: "move along people, nothing to see here"

Couldn't have described it better myself.

Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:10pm:

I never said it was a large number of people.

How about instead of deflecting with red-herrings that no one even mentioned, we focus on what you did actually say: namely that there is "plenty" of evidence that halal certifiers send money to terrorists.

Where is the evidence FD? Is your final answer really "where do you think the money went"?

Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:20pm:

Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up.

That is not evidence FD.

"the evidence that AFIC sends money to terrorists is....

gandalf doesn't want to speculate on where it went"

Have you ever heard anything so absurd?

My time away has clearly made you even more incoherent than you already were.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:33pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:20pm: Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up. That is not evidence FD. "the evidence that AFIC sends money to terrorists is.... gandalf doesn't want to speculate on where it went" Have you ever heard anything so absurd? My time away has clearly made you even more incoherent than you already were.

You did not merely refuse to speculate. You argued we should not try to find out where the money went and that there is no need to find out.

;D ;D ;D

he gets worse with old age

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:38pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:33pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:20pm: Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up. That is not evidence FD. "the evidence that AFIC sends money to terrorists is.... gandalf doesn't want to speculate on where it went" Have you ever heard anything so absurd? My time away has clearly made you even more incoherent than you already were. You did not merely refuse to speculate. You argued we should not try to find out where the money went and that there is no need to find out.

Again, are you seriously claiming this as some kind of "evidence"?

In what universe can this possibly make sense?

"evidence halal certifiers send money to terrorists is....
some random nobody on the internet is acting all slippery about his opinion on the matter"

say it to yourself out loud FD, you might get a sense of how mind-numbingly stupid it is.

And by the way, the discussion you refer to had nothing to do with halal fees, it was about state government funding of schools.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:55pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:38pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:33pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:20pm: Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up. That is not evidence FD. "the evidence that AFIC sends money to terrorists is.... gandalf doesn't want to speculate on where it went" Have you ever heard anything so absurd? My time away has clearly made you even more incoherent than you already were. You did not merely refuse to speculate. You argued we should not try to find out where the money went and that there is no need to find out. Again, are you seriously claiming this as some kind of "evidence"? In what universe can this possibly make sense? "evidence halal certifiers send money to terrorists is.... some random nobody on the internet is acting all slippery about his opinion on the matter" say it to yourself out loud FD, you might get a sense of how mind-numbingly stupid it is. And by the way, the discussion you refer to had nothing to do with halal fees, it was about state government funding of schools.

Not just you Gandalf. The entire Muslim community. This dragged on for years, and almost resulted in the closure of schools, they were so committed to being dodgy. I am yet to see a single Muslim demand the AFIC chase up what actually happened with the funds. They all parrot the same nonsense as you.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2020 at 9:33pm:

Frank wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm: Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad. Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does. Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion. Interesting. How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business

So Muslims are not funding jihad, shitehead??


Stop sucking up Bwian's idiocy through his pizzle, Turd. You are letting down your Slovenian side.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 6:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 6:36pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 6:23pm: FD I think see your problem. You are confusing/deliberately conflating the tiny number of individuals who are in the Australian halal certifying industry with "muslims en-masse". What do you think the AFIC did with all that stolen loot? So far your only comment has been to reassure us there is no need to think about where the money ended up. No, my only comment so far has been 'I don't know' and 'I know of no evidence that it went to terrorists, and neither do you'. That will continue to be my only comment until such time as the evidence situation changes. Is this what passes as "evidence" in FD universe? Asking stupid rhetorical questions?

Sometimes a question is just a question.

Frank wrote on Jun 5^th, 2020 at 6:55pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:33pm: Frank wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm: Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad. Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does. Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion. Interesting. How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business So Muslims are not funding jihad, shitehead??

Only an unnamed percentage, dear boy. How many of your Ikea sales go towards the Anders Breivik Freedom fund?

Don't you dare say zero.

muslims are the greatest global terror threat on earth.

Sure they cut clits out of little girls, rape little girls with forced child marriage, have sex with infants because muhammad showed by divine example that it was O.K., kill 1000s of innocent people with suicide bombers, behead innocent people because they are Christians or unbelievers in their eyes, the list is endless.

But for goodness sake just because muslims fund all these human rights atrocities, this does not mean that halal fees are used.

Why can't you islamophobes get it through head that the one thing allah does not want muslims to do, is use halal fees for terrorism.

Yeah got that, here's the song the troll under the railway bridge sings every morning at dawn (allah be praised).

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

Such a wonderful comforting thing that we can trust muslims and their lunatic leftard apologists ---------NOT!!

Jews rule America
Moslems rule Australia

...its their promised lands.

Karnal wrote on Jun 6^th, 2020 at 1:30am:

Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2020 at 6:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:33pm: Frank wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm: Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad. Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does. Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion. Interesting. How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business So Muslims are not funding jihad, shitehead?? Only an unnamed percentage, dear boy. How many of your Ikea sales go towards the Anders Breivik Freedom fund? Don't you dare say zero.

So now you are accusing IKEA to be funding murderers?
Can I send your post to their lawyers, arse bandit?  You are only second to gweggy turd in evilness, paki.

freediver wrote on Jun 4^th, 2020 at 7:20pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:55pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:38pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:33pm: freediver wrote on Jun 4th, 2020 at 6:20pm: Your own behaviour right here is evidence. If someone stole a million dollars from the AUF, and someone else told me not to ask where it went, I would assume something was up. You expect us to take you seriously when you assume the opposite. You are literally supporting the cover-up. That is not evidence FD. "the evidence that AFIC sends money to terrorists is.... gandalf doesn't want to speculate on where it went" Have you ever heard anything so absurd? My time away has clearly made you even more incoherent than you already were. You did not merely refuse to speculate. You argued we should not try to find out where the money went and that there is no need to find out. Again, are you seriously claiming this as some kind of "evidence"? In what universe can this possibly make sense? "evidence halal certifiers send money to terrorists is.... some random nobody on the internet is acting all slippery about his opinion on the matter" say it to yourself out loud FD, you might get a sense of how mind-numbingly stupid it is. And by the way, the discussion you refer to had nothing to do with halal fees, it was about state government funding of schools. Not just you Gandalf. The entire Muslim community. This dragged on for years, and almost resulted in the closure of schools, they were so committed to being dodgy. I am yet to see a single Muslim demand the AFIC chase up what actually happened with the funds. They all parrot the same nonsense as you.

So final answer, what you first touted as "plenty" of evidence that halal certifiers send money to terrorists, turns out to be you throwing a hissy fit because you didn't hear of a single muslim demand that AFIC chase up what happened with  government school funding that was deemed to be misused.

I doubt even the ideological dogmatism that you have so obviously submerged yourself in could prevent you realising how utterly childish and stupid such an attempt at an argument is.

Still, its probably a slight improvement on your previous "I'm sure the receipts are in order" argument.

You do this every single time Gandalf. You take one piece of evidence, try to misrepresent it as the entirety of the evidence, then complain that it is only one bit of evidence.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2020 at 10:02am:

You take one piece of evidence, try to misrepresent it as the entirety of the evidence, then complain that it is only one bit of evidence.

And this is the bullshit routine you do every time FD - offer some variation of "gandalf gave the game away with his evasiveness" as your sole piece of evidence, and then pretend you actually had more than that.

We could go through every post you have made since your "there is plenty of evidence" post to see how exactly you have justified such a claim - if you really wanted to. Of course its possible that you do have some real evidence that you haven't revealed yet, but it would be strange that when given the opportunity to state it, you decide instead to lead with the face-palmingly stupid "well Gandalf sure acted evasive about it!"

I am just pointing out a logical fallacy you continually make Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2020 at 10:02am:

You do this every single time Gandalf. You take one piece of evidence, try to misrepresent it as the entirety of the evidence, then complain that it is only one bit of evidence.

They teach that in Muslim Argument Skool.

Frank wrote on Jun 6^th, 2020 at 6:48pm:

Karnal wrote on Jun 6th, 2020 at 1:30am: Frank wrote on Jun 5th, 2020 at 6:55pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:33pm: Frank wrote on Jun 3rd, 2020 at 9:25pm: Muslims fund jihad.   Muslims get money from 'halal certification'.  Jihadists do not do ethical book-keeping. 'Halal certification'  - and all other 'Islamic charities' - funnel money to jihad. Jihad IS Islam's way of asserting itself. Halal certification is ONE way Islam funds its asserting itself through jihad. Halal certification IS jihad.  All Muslims are jihadists.  The shadow education minister in the NSW labor party is called jihad.  Jihad is what Islam does. Resisting their jihad - they call that 'Islamophobia'. You either go along with Islamic jihad - or you are a fearful hater, an 'Islamophobe.  They - Muslims, Bwians, Pakis, Greens, SJWs etc -  think you, non-Muslims, are stupid enough to be cowered by that assertion. Interesting. How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business So Muslims are not funding jihad, shitehead?? Only an unnamed percentage, dear boy. How many of your Ikea sales go towards the Anders Breivik Freedom fund? Don't you dare say zero. So now you are accusing IKEA to be funding murderers? Can I send your post to their lawyers, arse bandit?  You are only second to gweggy turd in evilness, paki.

We've nearly finished the survey, FD. Here's the old boy's thoughts.

So far, the maths aren't looking good. G should be able to fill you in.

The old boy's still trying to come to terms with it. It's not easy.

He suffers from a gaseous anal fissure, you see, most painful.

Otherwise, he's really quite nice.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 7^th, 2020 at 1:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 7th, 2020 at 10:02am: You take one piece of evidence, try to misrepresent it as the entirety of the evidence, then complain that it is only one bit of evidence. And this is the bullshit routine you do every time FD - offer some variation of "gandalf gave the game away with his evasiveness" as your sole piece of evidence, and then pretend you actually had more than that. We could go through every post you have made since your "there is plenty of evidence" post to see how exactly you have justified such a claim - if you really wanted to. Of course its possible that you do have some real evidence that you haven't revealed yet, but it would be strange that when given the opportunity to state it, you decide instead to lead with the face-palmingly stupid "well Gandalf sure acted evasive about it!"

You're right, G. FD may still have the evidence.

I guess we'll never know.

I believe I know!

Given that terrorism is a sacred duty in islam, the fact that muslim terrorists are our greatest global terrorism threat, the fact that muslims don't tell us how much money they spend on this sacred duty, I'd like to be as sure of winning the lotto as I am that a portion of halah fees are used to fund islamic terrorism.

I mean come on, who in their right mind would accept that terrorism is funded by muslims, but there is no way that muslims use any halal fees for terrorism?

Or is the muzzie troll singing the truth?

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2020 at 2:29pm:

I am just pointing out a logical fallacy you continually make Gandalf.

translation: I'm just tapdancing to avoid providing any sort of evidence for my libelous smear against halal certifiers - or (heaven forbid), being man enough to retract it.

How do you think your smear would hold up in court FD?

"But it true your honour! Of course those filthy halal certifiers send money to terrorists - because gandalf on the internet didn't want to talk about it!!"

Quote:

translation: I'm just tapdancing to avoid providing any sort of evidence for my libelous smear against halal certifiers - or (heaven forbid), being man enough to retract it.

What smear? That you lied by making up statistics and tried to pretend it was rational to lie?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2020 at 6:59pm:

What smear?

That AFIC sends money to terrorists, and that there is "plenty of evidence" for it. But please do keep playing the "me no speaka da English" game, it suits you.

Tell me FD, would you be willing to utter this libelous smear outside the coward's-safety of an anonymous internet user? How do you think it would hold up in court when the people you smear sue you?

You can only get sued for things you actually say Gandalf.

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2020 at 7:24pm:

You can only get sued for things you actually say Gandalf.

So how did Abu keep ending up in the Wiki? You only put him there when he gave up answering your questions. The Wiki became a long list of things Abu didn't say, just lots of long FD questions - PROOF of Abu's devious, two-faced trechery.

Do you, Abu, want to kill gays who do it Mardi Gras-style?

...

I knew it! And do you, Abu, want to shoot 8 year old girls in the back of the head for going to school? Come on, don't go all shy...

...

You see? Typical Muslim. And do you, Abu, want to tax our Vegemite and send the proceeds to al Qaida to blow us all up? Speak up, man...

...

Aha! Yes, yes and yes. Aren't you all glad I started the Wiki? Abu?

...

Abu says yes. He's just, er, having a bit of a rest, aren't you, dear?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2020 at 7:24pm:

You can only get sued for things you actually say Gandalf.

You said in 2016 that AFIC sends money to terrorists FD, I remember it like it was yesterday. Your defence of this libelous smear at the time was "I'm sure the receipts are in order". This latest round of hysterics from you is just the latest incarnation of this same smear.

In any case, stating that there is "plenty of evidence" that halal certifiers send money to terrorists, as you did in this thread, is a bad enough smear. Especially when it turns out this "evidence" amounts to saying 'Gandalf and muslims are acting "dodgy" about it'. 

Well spit three times to the left and call me allah.

allah has revealed by divine revelation that muslims are to fund terrorism, it is a sacred duty of muslims, particularly those terrorists who die while performing jihad, they are guaranteed entry into the paradise where hour'is with big breasts run wild and little boys are scattered like pearls around the joint.

But by all that allah holds sacred, halal fees are strictly forbidden to be used in the sacred duty of allah (terrorism).

All together now:

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

Andtrollsliveundertherailwaybridge

justdownfromthefairies

at-the-bottomofthe-garden.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2020 at 1:36pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2020 at 7:24pm: You can only get sued for things you actually say Gandalf. You said in 2016 that AFIC sends money to terrorists FD, I remember it like it was yesterday. Your defence of this libelous smear at the time was "I'm sure the receipts are in order". This latest round of hysterics from you is just the latest incarnation of this same smear. In any case, stating that there is "plenty of evidence" that halal certifiers send money to terrorists, as you did in this thread, is a bad enough smear. Especially when it turns out this "evidence" amounts to saying 'Gandalf and muslims are acting "dodgy" about it'.

Would you like me to bump that thread, so we can go back to discussing your irrational attempts to justify making up statistics?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2020 at 7:24pm:

You can only get sued for things you actually say Gandalf.

That's right, Gandalf.

What sound does a jellyfish who no speaka da English make?

black lives matter, black lives matter, black lives matter gluggle gluggle gluggle?

moses wrote on Jun 12^th, 2020 at 4:37pm:

black lives matter, black lives matter, black lives matter gluggle gluggle gluggle?

Moses just answered your question, FD.

A first, no?

Lawsuit alleges that Qatar Charity funded jihad terror attacks that killed Americans and Israelis Jun 12, 2020

In Islam, zakat — the alms required of every Muslim — can and should be given to further the jihad. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that there are so many jihad-linked charities.

Qatar secretly provided funding for several terror attacks that killed Americans and Israelis,

Qatar allegedly skirted U.S. sanctions on Hamas and PIJ by enlisting several of its charitable organizations in a scheme to funnel funds to the terror groups. As with many other terror financing cases, it was critical this money be provided in U.S. dollars.

Now settle down people, we all know that muzzies fund terrorism by whatever means possible.

But while ever muzzies have sex with kids and cut little girls clits off, they will never use any halal fees to provide funding for terrorism.

I can hear the troll under the railway bridge singing his heart out.

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifpigs will fly tomorrow https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcows will jump over the moon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifdishe will run away with spoon https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifthe sun will rise in the west https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gifcos allah knows best. https://i.imgur.com/kyL5uyx.gif

FD? Moses just mentioned Qatar.

You?

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2020 at 5:45pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11th, 2020 at 1:36pm: freediver wrote on Jun 9th, 2020 at 7:24pm: You can only get sued for things you actually say Gandalf. You said in 2016 that AFIC sends money to terrorists FD, I remember it like it was yesterday. Your defence of this libelous smear at the time was "I'm sure the receipts are in order". This latest round of hysterics from you is just the latest incarnation of this same smear. In any case, stating that there is "plenty of evidence" that halal certifiers send money to terrorists, as you did in this thread, is a bad enough smear. Especially when it turns out this "evidence" amounts to saying 'Gandalf and muslims are acting "dodgy" about it'.  Would you like me to bump that thread, so we can go back to discussing your irrational attempts to justify making up statistics?

Yes, its worth revisiting how we got here FD.

First you say declaring that 0% of halal fees are forwarded on to terrorists is "making up statistics", :"stupid", "lying" - etc etc

I then ask if you would carry on with similar hysterics if someone dared suggest that zero percent of your spear fishing club's money went towards child pornography rings, or that zero percent of ozpolitic's ad revenues went towards far-right terrorists.

After about the 4th time of running away from the question, you eventually retorted that they are not comparable because, in your words, "there is plenty of evidence" that halal certifiers send money to terrorists (presumably as opposed to your spear-fishing club or ozpolitic revenues)

So I then asked the obvious question - what is this evidence? You then revealed that the only thing you had was 'gandalf and muslims acting dodgy' about the whole issue.

We then moved on to me asking you how you think such libelous smears like accusing AFIC of sending money to terrorists (as you did in 2016 re school funding, the topic of which you voluntarily raised, even though it was irrelevant to this issue of halal fees) - as well as assuring us that there was "plenty of evidence" that halal money went to terrorists would hold up in court if you ever uttered them outside the coward's-safety of an anonymous internet user.

And thats the point that we arrived at now - where you once again ignore the pertinent question that you yourself brought us too with your ill-considered "arguments" - and pretend its anyone else but you who's been deflecting.

Or in other words, yet another FD masterclass in obfuscation, arse-covering and tapdancing.

freediver wrote on Jun 11^th, 2020 at 5:45pm:

Would you like me to bump that thread, so we can go back to discussing your irrational attempts to justify making up statistics?

Sure FD, and maybe this time you can actually explain how saying someone should be assumed to be sending 0% of their money to criminal activities - in the absense of any evidence to the contrary - is so "irrational" and "making up statistics".

You might also reflect on the "rationality" of blurting out  that there is "plenty of evidence" that particular individuals send money to criminal activities with no other explanation than "well muslims act all dodgy about it".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 15^th, 2020 at 2:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 11th, 2020 at 5:45pm: Would you like me to bump that thread, so we can go back to discussing your irrational attempts to justify making up statistics? Sure FD, and maybe this time you can actually explain how saying someone should be assumed to be sending 0% of their money to criminal activities - in the absense of any evidence to the contrary - is so "irrational" and "making up statistics". You might also reflect on the "rationality" of blurting out  that there is "plenty of evidence" that particular individuals send money to criminal activities with no other explanation than "well muslims act all dodgy about it".

Jolly good. Once FD does that, we can all blame Islam and call it a day.

Off you go, FD.