Australian Politics Forum - No more ‘anchor babies’

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 84927
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #90 - Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:19pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

it most certainly is. you will be denied access and sent back on a plane or thrown into detention, refugee or not.

I don't think you have any idea what 'illegal' and 'unlawful' mean. But do I take it you have finally accepted that the words mean the same thing? EXACTLY the same thing?

For the umpteenth time - what do people NOT understand about 'a claimant for refugee status has the right to be processed by the country from which he is claiming asylum, and the application for asylum is not illegal.'

Now - the ISSUE is what constitutes lawful processing............ and the fact of a government decreeing through regulation that a person who seeks asylum UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES will not ever be housed in the country from which he/she seeks asylum is one that needs to be tested in the proper courts for legality - free of charge since most asylum seekers are indigent.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74817
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #91 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 8:49am

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:04pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 9:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them

who made that claim?

you seem to not understand what you are reading longy ! ... no one made that claim and if thats what you think people are saying then I now fully understand why you struggle with the issue:D Cheesy

that's EXACTLY what alevine is implying. Being a refugee only grants someone the opportunity to apply for resettlement. it entitles them to nothing more and certainly not unlawful entry to a country without detention.

not it is not what he is implying

they are only detained until their identity has been confirmed and their status determined, if they are found to false they are shipped out, otherwise genuine refugees are granted asylum , the result of being granted asylum changes with the govt. of the day..... Cheesy

you have no idea. you think like a child.

it appears then that even a child can out think you Cheesy

you'd better go open another bottle longie , you don't want to be sober for to long, your brain will hurt

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #92 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:39pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:26pm:

I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact. It's also not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact.

learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.

PROVE IT. And I mean it. and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law? breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME.

The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? Grin

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #93 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:37pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 10:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 8:23pm:

what you seem pathologically unable to understand is that being a refugee does NOT grant you entry into any country that signed that convention. Firstly, it is a convention only ie not a legal document in the country and secondly, why do you think we have quotas on refugee settlement as does every other country? Surely (according to you) they can go wherever they want, whenever they want. In your make-believe world, being a refugee would be an enviable status. You can go anywhere, do anything and no one can stop you. EXCEPT THAT THEY DO, because you point is nonsense and rather obviously so.

fck me, you choose to continue to lose your dignity. Fair enough, it's yours to lose, dipstick.

To answer your garbage, you need to look at my Point 1), Point 2) and point 3) because simply repeating absolute NONSENSE does not give extra credibility to your utterly stupendous argument.

1. there actually is a refugee only exception made to entry: its called the refugee convention which explicitely says that it doesn't matter if the countries law was broken, that couldn't be used to deny the refugee status if they are genuine. THIS IS A FACT. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.

2. We have a quota FOR OUR VOLUNTARY PERMANENT SETTLEMENT PROGRAM. But NOT FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION VISAS WE HAND OUT. THIS IS A F.A.C.T. NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.

3. The convention is made law via our domestic MIGRATION ACT which EXPLICITLY SAYS IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO ENTER THIS COUNTRY BY BOAT. Not only that but it ALSO EXPLICITLY COMPLIES WITH NOT PUNISHING ANY REFUGEE FOR THEIR UNLAWFUL ENTRY. THIS IS A F.A.C.T No matter how many times you choose to ignore it.

You seem to have a problem with facts. Is this a religious thing, because it seems to happen too often with you jebus idiots. Grin

it says no such thing and never has. If it did, then 20 years of action to stop boat entreis would be illegal and yet no one has ever said so. Ever wonder why?

you are lying and I defy you to proved explicit proof of this claim. You wont of course.

The migration act says it is ILLEGAL to enter Australia by boat? Show me where.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:48pm by sir prince duke alevine »

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #94 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:41pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:38pm:

we might be onto something... I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail. It doesn't. it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:47pm by sir prince duke alevine »

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #95 - Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:42pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:46pm:

So of you have truly odd views on the legal status of refugees. Essentially they don't have a status at all. Some of you think they can wander up, uninvited to any country in the world and no one can stop them. Except of course in the real world, EVERY country stops them and detains them unless they arrived thru govt sponsored and approved visa. no visa, no entry. end of story. unable to return? detention. end of story.

in the countries who have signed the refugee convention of course asylum seekers can rock up, seek asylum, and if found to be genuine then receive protection visa as a genuine refugee.

That part is clearly incredibly obvious. You're just not smart enough to comprehend that this is a FACT.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26043
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #96 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:06am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74817
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #97 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 8:45am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

if you were to get of that yacht and make your way to the nearest person of authority (or try to) and claim asylum, nothing you have done is considered illegal.

Have they entered the country YES, legally.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #98 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 8:59am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it.

For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa. It is UNLAWFUL. And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA.

SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL?

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #99 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:44pm

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 11:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

it most certainly is. you will be denied access and sent back on a plane or thrown into detention, refugee or not.

I don't think you have any idea what 'illegal' and 'unlawful' mean. But do I take it you have finally accepted that the words mean the same thing? EXACTLY the same thing?

For the umpteenth time - what do people NOT understand about 'a claimant for refugee status has the right to be processed by the country from which he is claiming asylum, and the application for asylum is not illegal.'

Now - the ISSUE is what constitutes lawful processing............ and the fact of a government decreeing through regulation that a person who seeks asylum UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES will not ever be housed in the country from which he/she seeks asylum is one that needs to be tested in the proper courts for legality - free of charge since most asylum seekers are indigent.

and for the UMPTEENTH TIME... what is so difficult to understand that arriving in ANY COUNTRY without permission (ie visa) is ILLEGAL, regardless of reason. as successful asylum application may make the illegal act not acted upon but it does not change the fact that the first act was ILLEGAL.

serious... it isn't that hard to follow.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #100 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:45pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:26pm:

I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact. It's also not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact.

learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.

PROVE IT. And I mean it. and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law? breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME.

The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? Grin

did you just say that the refugee convention DOESNT say that it is legal for a refugee to enter any country???? isn't that precisely what I have been saying?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #101 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:47pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:38pm:

we might be onto something... I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail. It doesn't. it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal

did you even read it? it stated that they are the same thing. the SLIGHT semantic difference has zero effect in law.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #102 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:49pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 6:06am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 11:48am:

Quote:

Correct. It's not illegal to arrive by boat, provided you have a passport and visa, however. You can't expect to rock up without them and be allowed to roam free just because you say you're a refugee!

It's also not illegal to arrive without a passport or visa.
The refugee convention allows for detainment for identification purposes. But as soon as that is done, yes, it is expected that asylum seekers have their claims processed qucikly, and if determined to be refugees then they get protection visas and are more than able to roam the streets, get a job, etc. etc.

It seems you are still quite clueless on the actual domestic laws, and conventions we've signed. Repeating stupidity doesn't eventually make you any smarter.

You can sail your yacht into Sydney Harbour from abroad without a passport. However, Customs and Immigration Officers will arrest you if you try to get off it without a valid passport and visa. It is illegal to enter Australia without a valid passport and visa. You can't even board a flight in Indonesia bound for Australia without a passport and visa - you won't even make it to Customs because the airline staff won't give you a boarding pass at check-in. How much longer will you insist on your idiotic view that you don't need a passport to come here???

omg are you trying to steal the misinformed award from longie? Relax, you guys can share it.

For the last time. It is NOT illegal to enter this country without a visa. It is UNLAWFUL. And if you're an asylum seeker who is found to have a legitimate refugee claim then IT DOESn"T EVEN MATTER because you END UP WITH A VISA.

SO... AGAIN...and HOPEFULLY FOR THE LAST TIME.... HOW CAN A REFUGEE BE ILLEGAL?

that is silly. the words have IDENTICAL MEANING in law. IDENTICAL. no visa, no entry. it is really that simple.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #103 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:59pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Animal Mutha wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2014 at 6:26pm:

I'm glad you aren't in charge. It's reassuring that your silly opinions don't go any further than this left run crappy forum.

opinions? What you've quoted is not my opinion. It's not debatable whether the refugee convention says to ignore the method of entry. It's a fact that it does. It's not debatable whether we must process each claim for asylum we receive. The refugee convention makes it so. It's a fact. It's also not debatable that laws that are broken can be done in either an illegal way, or an unlawful way. That too, is a fact.

learn the difference between opinions and facts, jockey.

PROVE IT. And I mean it. and btw do you know the difference between a convention and law? breaking the former is a 'tut-tut' and the latter is a CRIME.

The refugee convention doesn't explicitly say to ignore the "legality" of the entry by a refugee? Are you seriously THIS STUPID? Grin

did you just say that the refugee convention DOESNT say that it is legal for a refugee to enter any country???? isn't that precisely what I have been saying?

The refugee convention places no determination on whether a method of entry is legal or not. All it does is say that IN THE EVENT OF ILLEGAL ENTRY THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER. In our case it isn't illegal, it's unlawful. And still doesn't matter.

So...if you were trying to talk about the refugee convention specifying the legalities of travelling then I'd suggest you need to brush up on conventions vs domestic law yourself, dippy Grin

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: No more ‘anchor babies’
Reply #104 - Oct 6^th, 2014 at 1:02pm

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 6^th, 2014 at 12:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Oct 5^th, 2014 at 11:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 7:38pm:

we might be onto something... I think you think that 'illegal' means going to jail. It doesn't. it simply means 'against the law' and so yes, as trivial as it sounds jaywalking where prohibited IS illegal ie against the law.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/business-career/legal/unlawful-versus-illegal

did you even read it? it stated that they are the same thing. the SLIGHT semantic difference has zero effect in law.

you've read "unlawful and illegal can get you into trouble" as zero effect in law? Are you seriously THIS dam DUMB!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! I recognise most jebus worshippers have little ability to assess information, but the fact that unlawful acts can still get you into trouble is hardly the same as saying "zero effect in law." There is a reason that the different terms are used at different times. And as has been said time and time again, something unlawful is NOT illegal. It's UNLAWFUL.

So, you can say that asylum seekers arriving without a visa are acting unlawfully. But not ILLEGALLY. And, who cares in the end because they have every right to arrive unlawfully in this country and still seek asylum. Why? Because we are signatories to the refugee convention, which explicitely says so

And if they are proven to have a genuine claim then they are given refugee status. At which point there is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT. Hence, you CAN'T HAVE AN ILLEGAL REFUGEE. Hence, you've been an idiot for 3 pages. Grin

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged