Soren wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:


Ah, and there Soren I thought you acting on the basis of principle out of concern for the victims of Islamist Terrorism.  Obviously I was mistaken.   

wally1 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2015 at 8:00pm:




'Suppossed hijackers'. Good one drongo.

No,  you should not shoot up anything, my little Mohammedan hothead.  Life is not about opportunities for you to shoot something up. I know you are waging jihad but try the inner struggle type (if you have heard about it).  You know, control yourself and all that. 

|dev|null wrote on Jan 12^th, 2015 at 2:43pm:

I am acting on the principle of not tolerating any Islamic terrorists or sympathisers or enablers or excusers and hand-washers (yes, Muslim hand-washers included) in Australia - for starters.
And then not tolerating them anywhere else.

The time for your stupid PC nonsense is long gone HB/Brain.

After these Paris massacres of cartoonists - CARTOONISTS!!!!!! - Islam deserves absolutely NO special treatment. What is more, it is in the dock. If people do not respect Islam and Muslims - well, nobody needs to respect Scientology or Christian Democrats and I do not see how or why Islam merits special treatment.

After all, there are NO Scientologist or Christian Democrat mass murderers.

Islam deserves NO special treatment just because it is violent in the face of mockery. It is made ALL THE MORE ridiculous by its own inability to face mockery and criticism.

The time for gutless surrender to barbarian, Mohammed-inspired murderers is over.


" We have to acknowledge that today’s Islamists are driven by a political ideology, an ideology embedded in the foundational texts of Islam. We can no longer pretend that it is possible to divorce actions from the ideals that inspire them. This would be a departure for the West, which too often has responded to jihadist violence with appeasement. We appease the Muslim heads of government who lobby us to censor our press, our universities, our history books, our school curriculums. They appeal and we oblige. We appease leaders of Muslim organisations in our societies. They ask us not to link acts of violence to the religion of Islam because they tell us that theirs is a religion of peace, and we oblige.  What do we get in return? Kalashnikovs in the heart of Paris."

The gutless surrender must end.

Aussie wrote on Jan 13^th, 2015 at 10:23pm:



There is nothing special about Islam and Mohammed.  I don't give a hoot how dear they hold their beliefs - they are not sacred to me and they have ZERO claim to special treatment.

ZERO.  (other than  your cowardice, of course, you spineless, squishy little bender-over and taker-upper).

Now now, that’s a bit harsh. The old boy only ridicules the Muselman, bearded numpties, PBs, dirty little inverts, the tinted races, the yellow races, and their spineless appeasers. Remind me if I’ve left anybody out.

People who worship carpenters are okay. The old boy likes to pretend he stands with Charlie, but he only stands with the cartoons about the Muselman. The ones about priests, Jews, hommersexuals, etc, are offensive to decent people everywhere.

Karnal wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 7:20am:



Thank you, ijit, you miss the point as always.  You can disagree with Charlie as much s you like - verbally or in writing. Clash of IDEAS is ok and is to be encouraged. On that level, nobody has the right not to be offended,  You need to do your own turning away from what you do not like. Don't buy Charlie, don't listen to the Grens, ddon't go to catch the fire gatherings, don't read bolt. Easy.

But there is no room for violence, thereat of violence or lawfare to protect the honour of religion or a prophet or god.

Do you see the difference between using your words to disagree or using weapons or the courts to retalate and silence.

Soren wrote on Jan 14^th, 2015 at 10:47am:
let me ask the question, if that magazine was a legal pro Nambla publication printing nude pictures of kiddies would you feel the same way?