Is Islam an inherently violent religion? Is it more violent than other religions?

A big fat yes from me.

Care for an explanation or are you happy with just an opinion?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Hindus-Muslims-protest-Valentines-Day/2007/02/14/1171405299462.html

It was hardly a Hallmark moment.

As a Valentine's Day card smoldered, more than 100 members of the Hindu extremist group Shiv Sena gathered in central New Delhi chanted "Death to Valentine's Day" and "People who celebrate Valentine's Day should be pelted with shoes!"

Across the country, stores stocked heart-shaped balloons and chocolates, restaurants offered Valentine's Day specials and young lovers found refuge from prying eyes in the parks.

It's a state of affairs that enrages Hindu and Muslim hard-liners, who on Wednesday vented just as they do every Valentine's Day - burning cards, holding rallies and even threatening to beat couples caught canoodling in public, a strict no-no for those who claim to defend traditional Indian values.

Goel and his indignant followers left soon after when about 60 riot police stopped them from advancing on nearby restaurants offering Valentine's Day specials.

Weather intervened to stop Hindu extremists in the northern city of Lucknow from carrying out their threats to beat couples found kissing, hugging or even holding hands in public. With torrential rains pouring down, young lovers stayed out of the parks where the usually seek privacy.

Does this not convince?

I think we would have to look at their point of veiw, before coming to a definate conclusion. 
Have they been complaining about our treatment towards them ?
Perhaps we did not hears these comlaints because, it was in our best intersts, not to know ?
How serious is their complaint over western treatment ?
Is it life endangering ?
How long has it gone on for ?
Would they be bashing each other , if Western goverement were not playing their fiddle ?
or indeed other countries were not provoking the situation all the time ?
When I answered these questions to myself, I came to the thought that we have been giving these guys a  rough time for a long a time. I dont advocate reactions but I think it helps people when they are listened to, or when they first air compliants.
love n peace

Quote:


Groovy man. 

Quote:


What do you mean?

I meant that it is inciting people to violence. Is that illegal?

Just had this emailed to me:

History of Muslim wars that might surprise a few:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/muslimwars/articles/yarmuk.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_conquest

Interesting and bizarre view on the crusade but does help explain the side
of an argument you might not agree with:
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

That context set, this current war adds up even less. But lets not forget
that George W Bush is a Fundamentalist Christian whose far right Christian
views are pushing through laws to make abortion illegal in the USA and
condemns Gay rights.

Bush and Fundamentalist Christians:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/cohen_24_4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity

Bush's abortion bill:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3232601.stm
Bush and Gays
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6086922.stm

As well as the money and oil theories for invading Iraq, doesn't this
further put in to question the motives for the man in charge of the 'free'
World, and declaring wars that our government follows on our behalf? The
people of this country never wanted Britain to go war and the people of this
country want our troops out of Iraq. If our government made a statement by
withdrawing troops from Iraq and Afghanistan the shape of the World would
most probably change, fuelling compassion for the countries invaded in the
wake of an admitted mistake.

I don't want to live in a country that's views are getting more hard line to
the right and our civil liberties are constantly being eroded in the UK all
with blanket banner of fighting terrorism. These laws are doing more to
divide society at home and feed the fuel for international disgust for the
war in Iraq, which, understandably is turning the Muslim community against
the West.

Make your presence and voice felt tomorrow and help keep the pressure on to
get our troops out. If we don't make a stand, will they think the war has
our  seal of approval?


Anti terror bill basics:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1708097.stm


Don't forget to watch The Conspiracy Files BBC2 9PM - a documentary looking
into the death of David Kelly, the government scientist and weapons
inspector who died in suspicious circumstances after the 'sexing up' scandal
concerning WMD and the reason to go to war with Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6213898.stm

Fascinating reading of David Kelly's timeline leading up to his death
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6380231.stm

And please forgive my poor spelling. Rushing around lots to do !

I wrote the emailed quote in reply 16, and want further that thought:

I think what has to be remembered here is that hard liners and fundamentalists (Puritans) tend to be intolerant and often violent. By their very nature, they only believe in their own point of view and in some cases (not just with Fundamentalist Muslims), they incite violence. Very few actually follow through, but of those who do, it's shocking. You have to look at the history of the Klu Klux Klan in the US or the National Front in the UK, to understand that this behaviour is common within the spectrum of many groups, fortunately the behaviour is usually hot-headed shouting and angry letters and graffitti, but in my opinion, anybody causing harm to others in any context is unacceptable. But the way we are fighting violence with War and aggression  is ridiculous, violence only breeds violence, bloodshed breeds bloodshed.  If we react to anger in an angry way, we are only fueling anger.

Let people have their opinion, and if they spill into violence, deal with that violence in the context of the Law. But if we don't engage and try to argue down a hard liners' point of view, chances are they end up shouting by themselves. But the more preemptive laws that are put into place to deal with potential violence of a few people, the more we all suffer. I went to a "Stop the War" protest in London this weekend, and found the Police taking photographs of 'known troublemakers as evidence in case there was any trouble'. I asked them if they will destroy the photos after the event if the peaceful protest went by without any trouble, and was told 'No, they are kept on file'. Meanwhile the UK Government is trying to push through a bill to make street photography illegal.

Is Islam inherently violent? or: Are humans inherently violent?

The moral values of Islam are the same as any major religion: Mercy, Compassion and Peace. These are the values that Muslims affirm in Prayer five times a day. There is a huge vacuum and confusion within Islam. Within the last hundred years, hard line Puritan Muslims have broken down the historic structure of Islam. There is no High Priest or "Head" of Islam. This is because historically Laws and trails were conducted by a panel of Intellectuals (including women), each of which had a specialism in a different area of Law. An issue would be debated and a decision made. Much of this fair and compassionate system has been thrown into disarray by Puritanical Muslims, but inherently I would suggest that Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people. The Hard liners, who declared Jihad on anybody who doesn't follow the Qu'ran to the letter (including Muslims), are inherently violent.

I highly reccomend reading 'The Great Theft: Wrestlimg Islam from the Extremists', written by Khaled Abou El Fadl, professor of Islamic law at UCLA and Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Why Bush has gone so wrong is a totally different issue!

Do you think I'm black because my name is Leon? 
No that's not me. What do you think of my comments?

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2007 at 9:26am:


i'm guessing that they were taken out of context. after re-reading some of them, i realised they aren't as bad as what donaldtrump made them out to be. let me explain:

"Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2"

the part that jumped out to me is the part that said "if they attack you, then kill them". to me, that's saying that if they attack you, then u can fight back, i.e. u can fight in cases of self-defence.

"If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91"

this quote starts off with if they do not offer u peace, then kill them. so if peace is on the table, then war is forbidden to them. that's not too bad. 

"Cut off the hands of thieves. It is an exemplary punishment from Allah. 5:38"

from the looks of it this punishment only applies to thieves. so don't do the crime, then u won't get the punishment. the only thing u can argue here is that the punishment is harsh, but that doesn't make the religion a violent one since that punishment only applies if one commits a crime.

i'm not sure about the other two quotes though, but if the ones above were twisted to make islam look evil and violent, then i'm guessing the other two quotes have been taken out of context as well. 

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Feb 27^th, 2007 at 3:07pm:


Actually, christians believe the Bible to be the true word of God as well.

Also, we acknowledge that some verses of the Bible are subject to interpretation, like the quote i provided earlier from Matthew 10:34. From my understanding, that's the same with every religious scripture which is why every major religion has so many different denominations since they disagree on the interpretation on particular verses.

Quote:


Yep. I think this is true.

Are you black?
I agree with the statement ''humans inherently violent''.
But some are more violent than others.
Me, im a peaceful man. BUT i will fight those who wish to destroy or civilisation when the time comes.
What about the term ''humane''. i think thats a poor choice of word to describe human niceness,
because us humans are the most violent animals on earth.

Guns don't kill people, Americans do 

Quote:


Funny. 

Hilaly has been rejected by his own people.

freediver wrote on Feb 28^th, 2007 at 4:23pm:



Hilaly was NOT rejected by his own people.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/opinion/story/0,22049,20670730-5001031,00.html

SHEIK Taj el-Dene Elhilaly's hate-filled world is slowly imploding as even his most fervent supporters realise the growing risks of associating with the extremist.

Labor, however, is ducking for cover. Former prime minister Paul Keating, the man who foisted the radical preacher upon the nation against the wishes of more moderate Muslims, yesterday told reporters to "nick off" rather than explain why he was adamant the Egyptian imam be granted Australian citizenship.

Heres one for you leon!

Quote:


And yet, he's still the mufti. 

Strange 'rejection,' freediver. 

About 50.
You know what i saw today, a little arab boy of about 5 yrs old screaming out ''bugger off aussies, i hate you aussies,i love allah''. while his father and another were up on the porch laughing and praising him.

It's propaganda freediver. It's pretty obvious.

Note the last sentence, where he speaks to the media in support of the ban on speaking to the media.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Lakembas-Muslim-clerics-gagged/2007/03/09/1173166904939.html

Five of Australia's most powerful Islamic clerics, including Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, have been banned from talking to the media by Muslim leaders.

The Lebanese Muslim Association (LMA) has gagged the imams from Lakemba Mosque in Sydney's south-west to stop them delivering "anti-Australian" messages, The Australian newspaper reports.

The ban, which especially applies to commentary in the Arabic media, is a bid to stop the "immeasurable damage" the clerics have caused to the community.

The letter threatened the imams with losing their positions as spiritual leaders at Australia's largest mosque should they speak to the media.

LMA president Tom Zreika said the ban was a bid to end the perceived "un-Australian viewpoints given by some clerics" and contradictions between comments made to English- and Arabic-speaking news outlets.

"One of the big issues is the double-speak by the various imams," Mr Zreika told the paper.

The gagging order follows the uproar caused by comments by Sheik Alhilali last year comparing women to "uncovered meat".

The mufti then compounded the controversy by later disparaging Australia's convict heritage.

Mr Zreika said he wanted the imams to stay out of politics and concentrate on their spiritual responsibilities.

Sheik Shadi told the paper he supported the LMA's ban as it was in the best interests of the Muslim and wider community.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2007 at 10:50am:


well if that quote is in the Quran, then i'm guessing some muslims ignore it.

but still, that does kind of prove that Islam as a religion is a peaceful one, all u can really argue is that some muslims are violent.

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2007 at 11:32am:


i'll agree that statements from holy scriptures, regardless of the religion, need to be taken within their historical context.

I think Europe just has more experience of where that sort of thing leads. America may have to re-learn that lesson, and the middle east is re-learning it the very hard way.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/rioter-should-spend-year-in-jail-court/2007/03/12/1173548096871.html

Prosecutors are seeking a one-year jail sentence for a Sydney teenager who repeatedly punched a man in the head on a train during the Cronulla riot.

Brent David Lohman, 19, of Caringbah in Sydney's south, was among a group of about 12 people who attacked Ali Hashimi on a train at Cronulla railway station on December 11, 2005.

Lohman, who was draped in an Australian flag at the time of the attack, was one of hundreds of people to converge on the station looking for people of Middle Eastern appearance.

How do you feel about the actions of those rioters AN?

Quote:


i guessing because Aussie Nationalist thinks the actions of those rioters were okay, but he can't justify it so he prefers to say "No Comment"

I justify those attacks by saying that people of Middle Eastern appearance should have been smart enough not to show up in that area in the first place.

There was media advertissment all week that there was going to be a protest... and still ... people of Middle Eastern appearance still had the nerve to show up anyway. To me, they were asking for it.

I can't justify the follow-up attacks though... attacking a separate suburb... for no good reason. Smashing eighty cars, causing serious property damage, stabbing a man in the back, hitting an old lady over the head with a baseball bat.

Cronulla was DEFENSIVE... whereas the Middle Eastern revenge attacks were OFFENSIVE (In two ways).

That's how it can be justified.

That doesn't make any sense DT. They were both offensive. It is not acceptable for people to be expected to stay out of an area because of their appearance.

Even by your own description they were both offensive. This isn't trench warfare.

Holding a protest doesn't give the right to inflict violence. If what you are saying is true, that the Muslims should have stayed away, then this is more than just a protest, it's more in line with right wing rallies akin to the KKK or the Nazi party. Just because you are protesting against or for an issue isn't a cause to take up arms, it's a protest.

To suggest that people or policy that the protest is about should "stay away" defies this as an act of protest in the first place. If that's the case, then surely what you are suggesting is that it was an organised race riot.

The point is, we do live side by side with people from all races and religions and there is always going to spectrum of viewpoints as to how your neighbours live, whatever their colour or background. That goes both ways. But when problems arise like the lifeguard bashing, that needs to be dealt with  extremely carefully. To justify bashing "them" back only puts you in the same bracket as the Muslims you are protesting against.

We live in a democratic society governed by laws. Bashing whether you consider it to be defencive or offensive is still wrong and thankfully still illegal. If the riots didn't happen then there would be far less sympathy for those responsible for the original attacks on the beach. As it happens, the World now sees the latent racism that exists in Australia. A racism that treats Aboriginals so appallingly, that is terrified of being invaded by Asia but Australia is a country - like America - that is built on immigrants. It seems very harsh for one immigrant descendant to say the other is wrong for being there when the only people who deserve to be there were treated like dogs and are now living in camps with very few benefits.

The difference now, is that with increasing public right wing actions, the rest of the World is starting to understand that hypocrisy. if you truly are a nationalist, then embrace the multicultural society that you live in and learn and teach others how to do the same.

Spend a good few hours writing up that 'essay' Leon?  

Quote:


Is there a written RULE or something I wasn't aware of, Leon?


Quote:


Give me a break!  
That's politically correct filth, Leon.


Quote:


Middle Eastern gangs for decades were attacking people of Australian appearance and hastling locals. Australians therefore attacked anyone of Middle Eastern appearance... If you'd like to call it 'race protests' go ahead, I'm certainly not calling it that.


Quote:


Did the protest work? You betcha it did. It did not fail, it succeeded. For years they were 'trying to let the police handle the situation' but it failed. So SCREW your form of protests, Leon.


Quote:


No sh1t?


Quote:


And if the protests DIDN'T happen... the Lebanese gangs would be still harrassing locals wouldn't they? We'd continue to tolerate them for another generation until maybe (Emphasis on maybe) their kids won't be so bad.

And on the contrary, the Cronulla protests also worked because it EXPOSED the extent of the Muslim problem when dozens of Lebanese and Middle Eastern morons carried out the 'revenge attacks' the following two nights. It built up people's awareness just how bad the Middle Eastern problem is in Sydney.


Quote:


Who cares? They're obviously misinformed and we know better.

Just let me point out though... that it was reported across the world that 'Australians are racist' when they left out a 'little' detail in their reporting...

THE LIFEGUARDS WHO WERE BASHED

. Can you believe, that this story was reported across the world without actually reporting that it was the Muslim gangs who actually sparked this protest??


Quote:


Aboriginals are RACIALLY abused??? LMAO  

Have you even ever MET an Aboriginal, or seen racist attacks on Aboriginals, Leon? I highly doubt it with that politically correct drivel of yours.


Quote:


Whatever. The Aboriginals were conquered fair and square, and Europeans established Australia as a European country. End of story. Survival of the fittest. Darwns Evolution Theory. It was inevitable that the Aboriginal culture would die. If it wasn't carried out by Europeans, another country would have eventually done the same.


Quote:


Ridiculous.

Leon wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 7:57pm:


Very well said.

Quote:

Yes trump there is, its the law of the country, written very clearly and people paid the legal price for acting in the way they did. You can't expect a Muslim minority to obey our laws whilst claiming it is fair for white 'nationalists' to disobey them in special cases... namely bashing ethnic minorities. You will only breed animosity and create a problem that never existed.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 10:57pm:


Only $700K? Like the article says, over $600K of that will go toward Slater & Gordon's legal fees, so its hardly a reward or even meaningful compensation since it won't work out to much per person.

Also, I found this to be the most disturbing:

'Police Association secretary Paul Mullett was disgusted with the deal yesterday. He called for "an end point of legislative reform" to make it illegal to protest.'

Make protest illegal? Is that the view and mentality shared by those in the force?

Aint it the truth

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 13^th, 2007 at 5:33pm:


donaldtrump, those Lebs were stupid for showing up to Cronulla at that time, but going there isn't illegal and they definately did not go there bashing up Australian protestors (i'm not talking about the lifesavers, i mean Lebs that were there on the day of the Cronulla riots).

If they did, then bashing them would have been a defensive act. but as we all know, the Australian protestors bashed up any Leb that they saw, which is an offensive act.  

Quote:


i agree, the follow-up attacks were not justifable either.  

Quote:


both attacks were offensive and cannot be justified at all.

Quote:


I think this view has some merit Gav (On the smaller scale), but you also have to look it on the larger, political scale too. There are two ways of looking at this.

I think you can see this as offensive because they targeted people who... (supposedly) weren't there to stir trouble.

And you can also see it as defensive... as people who showed up on the day went with the intention of defending their hometown against Islamic thugs.

I agree to a certain extent with your above point Gav, so you should at least take the time to agree with my point to a certain extent.



Quote:


In my opinion, the actual principle of the Cronulla protest staged by Australians can be justified. The way they carried out the protest can't be justified.

And there is NO justification... at all... for the Middle Eastern guys for what they did the following two nights.

How's that?


Quote:


There was actually no courtcase, zoso, it was supposed to be a secret exchange between the Bracks Government and the organisers of the protest.


Quote:


Not only did they beat people up, attacking police officers, freediver, they seriously damaged public property.


Quote:


No.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 14^th, 2007 at 6:42pm:

Fair enough, I wasn't aware but my point is unchanged, the law is the law and you can't bash people up randomly under the law. This is only damning to the police position as they were obviously REALLY in the wrong.

Damage to public property and violence against the police is of course as unforgivable as police violence against the protesters. Two wrongs don't make anything right.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 14^th, 2007 at 7:45pm:


Everyone has the right to protest. It's part of our democratic freedom. Nobody is suggesting that the protesting was wrong, but breaking the law is wrong. When a protest turns violent it's usually for one of two reasons: Firstly the authorities attack the protesters (the protest in Zimbabwe last week being the most recent example) or the feelings about that issue are so strong that people lose control of their normal values and start lashing out. And from the 'Nationalists' (and I do understand the meaning of the word) here on this blog, emotions are running very high.

I want to go back to the wider issue of propaganda. Propaganda has played a major in every war since Hitler invaded Poland. He even had German feature films made for his by the best film makers of their time - famously: Leni Riefenstahl. To help rally the population behind a political action, waring governments have become outwardly racist towards each other to incite hatred and therefore justification for attacking the 'enemy'.

During the cold war it was the Communists and in modern times it has fallen to the feet of the Muslims to be our enemy. The clever thing with propaganda, when both sides use it, you can use the other parties material for your own gains. DT has been doing this very successfully with the picture at the bottom of his posts, which goes to show that the propaganda against Muslims is working. Here in England we are only starting to get over the racism towards Germans, more than fifty years after WW2 . That's how it works. You have make the 'enemy' a single evil generic body - Germans, Communists, Muslims, in order to justify your military actions. Which is why the riots in Cronulla seem so acceptable to so many, it's just a mini version of what we are told is happening in Iraq. And if the might of the West is doing this in Iraq, it's seemingly justifiable to do so at home too.

Most people you meet stand up for what they believe in, and that's what is happening here. But here's the funny thing, we all tend to believe in the same thing: and end to violence and living in a peaceful society. The few who don't tend to be politicians trying to make a name for themselves to gain more power; or huge multinational corporations looking to do the same. Us, the people on the street don't generally give a damn if we invade Iraq for their oil fields, in fact we'd prefer cleaner energy. And the majority of us don't realise that Saddam Hussein was armed by Britain and America, fuelling his dictatorship. Something that America has done for years: Franklin D Roosevelt was confronted with the multiple cruelties of his ally, the Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza, he replied: "He may be a sonofabitch, but he's our sonofabitch." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1486339,00.html

You might argue that September 11th changed all that, but the situation started with America in the first place:
"6 months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter paid Afghan Warlords $500 million to help set up the Mujaheddin, a terrorist organisation. The American people were completely unaware that their government, along with the British secret service: MI6, had begun training and funding Islamic extremists including Osama Bin Laden. Out of this came the Taliban, Al'Qaeda and September the 11th"
John Pilger (Australian) from his documentary: Breaking the Silence: The Truth and Lies in the war on Terror.
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=1

The reason we went to war in Iraq was because of the weapons of mass destruction threat and the fear that Hussein was connected with Al'Qaeda. Andrew Wilkie, former head of the Australian Intelligence Agency resigned in the run up to the war because he knew this was not true. He of course, proved to be correct.

We have to ask ourselves why are we in this situation in the first place, why is there so much anger against Muslims? We need to listen to the news in a far more objectional way and do our own research to find the real truth and then look to those root causes to fix these problems. We need to stop fighting with each other, but fight the cause of the problem in the first place. And I guarantee, the cause is not the second largest religion in the World, it is the power hungry, money hungry individuals who run the World. The Politicians; the multi billion dollar corporations making huge profits from the war and the heads of news corporations who choose not to stand up to government propaganda (or indeed those who help to make it, Mr Murdoch)

Wise words Leon.

As well as those sources he presented, everyone should check out this BBC documentary series that was on SBS a short while ago:

Power of Nightmares
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=7318483000475351598
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=2839463332690200955
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4729189253956590972&q=power+of+nightm...

Extremely good documentary.

Good call zoso. More web viewing:

Here is the doc by John Pilger I referenced earlier
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-29761977781347669&q=Breaking+the+Silence%3A+The+Truth+and+Lies+in+the+war+on+Terror

Zoso Quote:


Gavin Quote:


*Clap clap clap*

Nice way to twist an argument, you two.


'Unjustifiable violent riot.'

'Black day for Australia.'


"Gee.. let's forget about the violent Lebanese thugs that triggered the protests... let's forget that since the protests, Lebanese have stopped causing trouble in Cronulla... let's forget that it overall raised awareness of the true nature of multiculturalism in Australia... why? -Because it looked bad on TV and made Australians look bad in the eyes of people who probably forgot about it in one day..."    ...Yeah... GREAT!


Quote:


I'd like you to back up this argument of yours FOR ONCE with a shred of evidence.

I was on a beach in small a town called Swakopmund in Namibia, Africa when I was told about the riots from a market trader. Trust me, the rest of the World felt this was a sad day for Australia. After going to Aus a few weeks later many many Australians I met were distugusted by the riots, including those from beach towns in Sydney. I then travelled to India and it was being talked about there, and then back home in London two months later, people we still talking about it. But the discussions were never about the Lebanese, they were always about the white Australian rioters. Yes this was a black day for Australia.

Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Goodwin said innocent people had been targeted.
"The behaviour that's been seen down here at Cronulla today is nothing short of disgusting and disgraceful," he said. "It's certainly not the Australian way."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4519818.stm

Is that enough of a shred of evidence?

And don't forget my point about propaganda:
"The Cronulla riots erupted after a week-long campaign of incitement by the corporate media, in particular the Murdoch-owned Daily Telegraph, 2GB and 2UE. The trigger for the race riot was a minor incident: an alleged altercation between two off-duty Cronulla lifeguards and some Middle Eastern youths."
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/653/7630

The riots were an explosive outcome of the social tensions produced by the prolonged attack on working class living standards under the Howard government and its Labor predecessor, coupled with the climate of nationalism, racism and militarism cultivated at a state and federal level since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Federal and state politicians and sections of the mass media have repeatedly labeled Muslims and immigrants, especially of Middle Eastern background, as “potential terrorists”.

Last year, radio shock-jocks such as Alan Jones, who enjoys very close relationships with both Prime Minister John Howard and the New South Wales state Labor government, provided the crucial stimulus for the riots. A weeklong radio talkback campaign was launched to “reclaim our beaches” from “Lebanese gangs” and defend the so-called “Australian way of life,” accompanied by similarly incendiary headlines in Rupert Murdoch’s Daily Telegraph.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/12/134596.php


But remember the propaganda is fuelled on BOTH sides the only way to counter act and solve this issue is to look deeply in to why this started in the first place.

Watch Zoso's documentary if you haven't already. It will blow you away, followed by at least the last 5 - 10 minutes of the link I posted earlier and maybe what we are talking about will all click in to place.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 15^th, 2007 at 11:36pm:

I think my comment was quite measured and fair? Do you disagree that violent riots should not be regarded as protests? Because that seems to be your attitude toward other violent riots?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 15^th, 2007 at 11:36pm:

Since this sort of thing seems to be isolated to small pockets of Sydney, not Melbourne, not Brisbane, not Adelaide and not Perth, I think it would be fair to say that this is a result of poor policing rather than the 'true nature of multiculturalism'. Melbourne and Adelaide are far more multicultural places than Sydney, if your argument held any water then we would be seeing the same racial tensions in those places. And yet we do not?

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 15^th, 2007 at 11:36pm:

My use of the words 'I think' tend to imply it is an opinion I hold, I see no reason to seek out evidence to support my opinion. My opinion is that it was a black day for Australia, my opinion is that a great majority of this country agrees with me. I may be wrong but we don't take meaningful polls on such things and so no solid evidence ever will exist to support my opinion or yours.

Face it Trump, you are applying one set of values to one protest (the 700k payout example) and a completely different set of values to another protest (cronulla). You have no consistency in your positions, other than a deep seated hatred and fear of other cultures - hippies and muslims alike.

I want you to prove that the large bulk of the AVERAGE JOE-BLOW on the street supports multiculturalism and immigration. Put your moneywhere your mouth is you nitwit!!! 

While it isn't conclusive proof, it is fairly obvious from a number of indicators, such as offical government policy, that the majority of Australians support multiculturalism. Thus the onus should fall on you to prove that this isn't the case. We have provided a lot of evidence to support our view. You have provided none.

Quote:


OH GIVE ME A GODDAMN BREAK!!!  

EXCUSES EXCUSES EXCUSES.

You can't expect other people to come up with heaps of evidence to back up what is obvious when you can't provide any evidence to back up your counterclaim, which flies in the face of available evidence.

Quote:


Quote:


Right...

Quote:



Quote:



Quote:



Quote:



Would you like more?

news polls are hardly a reflection of the total population.

remember Australia's population is over 20 million, the polls u listed only included between 20 to 50 thousand voters.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 5:21pm:


Exactly, that's the clearest indicator we have and it's not reliable since it may not reflect the entire population's opinion.

The only way to know for sure would be to take a nation-wide poll.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 5:10pm:

And like I said the only 'statistical' bodies gathering this sort of information are barely worth a glimpse, not to be trusted at all. I said if you find anything meaningful ie, more than some random poll on a website.

A Current Affair?? PLEASE Trump  you insult the intelligence of both of us? Do you not crow on about media bias? and then you pick all your data from some of the most bias media sources we have... good one mate, good one 

freediver wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 5:27pm:

Spot on.

Quote:


And would you consider the rest of their 'so-called evidence' credible?

And I hardly think it's only 'conservatives' who voted in the 'ninemsn polls.'

And of course A Current Affair lacks credibility...I didn't say it was credible... but it certainly shows that a large amount of people dislike multiculturalism. It's not like only neo-nazis watch A Current Affair... average joe's watch A Current Affair.

I just don't think freediver's and Zoso's comments about a majority of Australian people 'embrace multiculturalism' is justified. When I ask for some evidence... most of their material is purely emotive and nothing factual.
To me, this is a weak argument. I can provide hundreds of articles equivalent to that of freediver and zoso preaching about how Australian's are 'opposed to Multiculturalism.' But I don't... because it proves nothing. I can also back up my argument that Australians NEVER embraced multiculturalism by simply stating that there was never a referendum nor vote to introduce this policy. If there was... I'd wouldn't be making this argument.
All I'm trying to prove is that most Australians don't support multiculturalism, and all freediver and zoso have given me is comments from 'Government officials' and 'media personalities.' This... as far as I'm concerned... means nothing.


Quote:


And does freediver and zoso make any attempts to absorb my evidence? No. So is it any wonder I get aggressive?


Quote:


I think you're right. But I don't consider myself that extreme, Leon. 50 years ago it would have been considered 'extreme' to introduce multiculturalism in Australia. 'Extremism' is different to a lot of people.


Quote:


That's true.


Quote:


I think you're just assuming we're uneducated hillbillies.

ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Mar 17^th, 2007 at 12:16am:

DT I don't assume that at all, but when I get comments like this:

Quote:

It makes me want to sit up and impart some knowledge.

But then Pommy is a racist term in itself especially when it used in the 'Dickhead' context.
I'll quote myself:

Leon wrote on Mar 16^th, 2007 at 9:05pm:


I do apologise for putting the two of you in the same bracket, I guess I just proved my own point that when you tarnish entire social or political  groups with the same brush it creates unease. As in every camp, there is a spectrum of beliefs and modes of action and as is obvious here, different modes of expressing your beliefs.

As for multiculturalism, Australia was founded on multiculturalism. Like America, you live in a country that was created. Created by shipping people from abroad to build the country you now enjoy. The ethics for that invasion is for another debate, but the reason there was no vote or referendum is because it is the very basis of the existence of Australia. And like the UK who invited immigrants to help make the country stronger, once foreign people are allowed to live in 'your' country you cannot kick them out.

I totally sympathise with people standing up for their rights, and by all means protest; and sometimes riots do gain results (poll tax riots in London in 1990) But they get results if you protest the Government or institution that creates the situation in the first place. Fighting each other and calling each other names is so far away from fighting the cause that you believe in. There are so many wrong and incendiary policies that need changing. As I'm sure you understand DT, education is the key as well as an open mind.