freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:44pm:

Islamism is not a private devotion and adhering to it is an act, not an accident.
The clothes, beards, manners, speech, values- all point to the degree of belief in the external, political force of Islamism. 
You can't tell apart a Christian or a Muslim for whom their religion is just that. But you can tell an islamist from a mile. They telegraph their political, public aims.

Soren wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 8:51am:


No argument?  What is "argument absurdium" then, Soren?   

freediver wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 6:44pm:


No, not all criticism of Islam is bigotry.  I suggest you acquaint yourself with the definition, FD.   It will allow you to understand the point being made when I utilise it.

Oh, and please remember:
freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2007 at 5:56pm:


Guess what bigotry does?  It alienates the entire Muslim community.   

BTW, keep up the thatching, you're getting very good at it.  Soon you'll be able to take it up professionally. 

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 12:41am:



of course......except for self preservation...which is a natural instinct and that goes for my family its human nature and we are born with it..

but to wantonly go out and kill.......for the hell of it.. I hope not.....

we can only live by the 10 commandments if everyone does... I think that was gods intention dont you?

trying to read his mind...

Karnal wrote on Sep 10^th, 2014 at 11:49pm:




most do not walk the streets though do they??>..

at least I havent seen the archbishop in all his finery down at Coles lately.

Soren wrote on Sep 11^th, 2014 at 8:45am:


Uncle didn’t enter WWII until he was attacked by the Japs. This was despite all of Central Europe being occupied, intelligence reports of the concentration camps and Jewish genocide, and a war on two fronts with two of Uncles allies.

And now, you want Uncle to invade Iraq and Syria to contain the threat of - what? A few hundred expat jihadis?

ISIS needs to be dealt with - I’m not sure how. But comparing the threat of radical Islam today with the global security threats we’ve seen only very recently in Western history is ludicrous. Hundreds of millions were killed in the wars of the 20th century - more if we include the clean-ups afterwards. All these wars were between the Western powers and Western offshoots like the USSR.

ISIS will never be capable of starting a war like WWII, a war that was over and done with in six years. At best, through its global networks, ISIS is capable of causing isolated incidents of terrorism and hostage-taking in the West.

The danger here is not the threat of ISIS to the West, but the Western powers being drawn into a protracted military intervention and occupation that would then spread throughout the region. In this sense, it’s not the threat of jihadist armies like ISIL, but the threat posed by ourselves - placing ourselves, yet again, as a target in the so-called global jihad

You didn’t hear this in 2003, so hear it now. This is not a military problem. We are not going to be invaded by ISIS. If we go in, we’ll never get out. And if we go in, we merely raise the risk of terrorism , kidnapping, etc, in retaliation.

The war drums are beating. Fox News and the Murdoch dailies are in overdrive. The Libs are all over it, and desperate to shift the emphasis from domestic politics to security. 

This time, the US president is not so keen, but as we can see so clearly with our own government, politicians respond to popular demand.  All the bleating on social media and sites like this has an effect, even if it’s just on the polls.

"Just" on the polls?

Going back into Iraq without a foolproof plan is the most stupid thing any "coalition" could do right now, but just look at how stupid and inept we’ve been in the last decade alone.

Going back for more is just begging to be rogered by the head-hackers. But then, you’ve always loved a jolly rogering, haven’t you, old dear.