Islam is not peaceful, as they say, they say Islam is a religion of peace, IM SICK OF IT WHEN THEY SAY THAT because the reality i see is not true.

We dont get this problem from hindus, buddists, or even hari krishnas if they still exists, BUT THE MUSLIMS WE GET CERTAINLY GET SOME, 9/11, Bali, London bus bombing, spanish train blown apart, boston runners in a marathon blown apartm a british soildier beheaded in england,

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:43pm:


And you follow the religion that outshines both of them put together because the Quar'an supports terrorism. That's pretty sad.

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:


You must be a busy little muslim then that follows an evil book called the Quaran(pun intended) running around the internet calling on the last google 58,400,000 other people matty.

You better look up the odd 12,800 results that have something to with ozpolitic.com alone Einstein.

Should we now call you wally ?

Buddhist have done some terrible things. Hindus have done some terrible things. Christians have done some terrible things as well. In the last hundred years it is possible to find an example where someone somewhere has done something awful in the name of their religion. Not just an Indian killing someone because they are a nut, but an Indian doing it while publicly  claiming to do it for one of their Hindu gods. Yes, some people do terrible things in the name of their religion.

So what's the difference with Islam? Because while it is possible to find an example of someone somewhere doing something bad in the name of their religion in the last century, these days it is getting hard to find a country where a Muslim hasn't killed someone or blown something up. And why is that? Because while some people are nuts and twist their own religion to justify their evil, Islam actually requires its follows to do evil so as to spread and increase its control.

When you have a country like Australia that is majority Christian and has been for the last 226 years, while it is only 2% Muslim and has only be that many for the last 15 odd years, when it is only the Muslims who have killed in the name of their God the proof is there for anyone looking. Because it is so clear, it is also very obvious who is wilfully blind on this forum...

polite_gandalf wrote on Dec 18^th, 2014 at 10:43pm:



Oh I know religions arent without conflicts with counterparts,

BUT TELL ME RIGHT NOW HAVE ANY HINDUS AND BUDDISTS BEEN ATTACKING THE WESTERN WORLD RECENTY IN THE LAST MANY YEARS AND IN THE SAME SCALE AS THOSE RADICALS IN ISLAM ???

Yes or no, and no deflections please, like you always do ??

stryder wrote on Dec 20^th, 2014 at 7:45pm:


no hindus or Buddhists attack the west at all.

The Tamil Tigers invented the suicide vest. The Hare Krishnas stockpiled arms at one point and believed a prophecy they would take over America by force. The Kali cult known as Thugees robbed and killed travellers in 19th century India. They were a huge problem for the British.

Buddhists? I can’t think of any. Taking a human life is very bad karma for Buddhists. The same goes for Hindus, but they’re more flexible. There is a whole caste devoted to war, the Kshatrias, and they’re one down from Brahmins. Sikhs are also quite martial and don’t mind fighting for a cause. Sikhism is a crossover religion between Hinduism and Islam.

But no, I can’t think of anyone as brutal or as dogmatic or as stupid as the Arab Salafist schools. These ones take the cake. This thinking is enticing to fundamentalists. They have one thing the equally fundamentalist haters on sites like this lack - they’re prepared to die for their cause.

They’re dangerous, and they’re not going anywhere. If anything, they’ll multiply. The more shades of grey that get offered up in an increasingly pluralist, morally relative and globalised world, the more the kick back from those who want black and white. Respond in kind, and you give them what they’re after.

Karnal wrote on Dec 21^st, 2014 at 1:49am:



And so your response is relentless relativising (aka spineless apologetics) because that's a poke in the eye for the fanatics?

The properly pluralistic answer is Napier's to the Hindus wanting to persist with their little cultural custom of sati.  "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."


Accommodating Muslim and other cultural pathologies  - your pluralistic relativising - means that the cultures that do not believe in pluralism - wahabbism, salafism, for example - become dominant. The most intolerant cultures are not embracing tolerance and pluralism.  Allowing them in is mad. Letting them globalise themselves is mad. Tolerating intolerance is mad.