Australian Politics Forum - Islam - the Left looks away.

Secret Wars

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3928
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #180 - Aug 14^th, 2017 at 12:59pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 5:34pm:

Secret Wars wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 3:22pm:

You got an issue with Frank or what he says, take it up with him. I am sure he can speak for himself. As was I speaking for myself.

Actually I don't mind Frank, and I too was speaking about you. I guess my question is what issue do you have with me that you don't have with all the feral bigoted diatribe that gets thrown around here. Read much of what moses says? He literally said that 100% of male muslims are mentally disabled psychopaths who are so stupid they squat to pee. And thats him on a good day. The fact that I, as a muslim male, take offense at that (well not really to be honest) is beside the point entirely. As you say, we are talking about what floats your boat, and I'm actually interested to know, but I'm little confused. Where, for example, was all your high and mighty lecturing about religious "cultists" when the resident christian fundamentalist boasted that he believes all muslims, every man woman and child are latent wannabe psychopathic killers - along with all his bible quotes to back him up? But I stress, I'm not complaining about them - I'm just curious to know what motivates you to waltz into these discussions every now and then, weed through all the offensive bigoted racism against muslims, and somehow find what the muslim says so objectionable? Yeah I get it, you don't like Islam (or presumably any religion, even though you never seem to say anything about any of the others) - but honestly where do you get off with your seeming delight at calling me "cultist" at every opportunity and sneering and jeering at my posts as if there aren't far more offensive posters on the opposite side?

Actually I've asked FD the same questions - since as the resident standard bearer of freedom, I have always found it strange that he never has anything to say about the daily calls to ban Islam, close mosques and take away every freedom from muslims you can think of. Yet if he hears a muslim or worse, a spineless apologist for Islam even hint at curbing freedom, then you'll get the full treatment: 30 page threads mocking you, another 50 threads banging on about this horrendous attack on freedom, and of course entry into the hall of shame - aka the wiki. FD is hypocritical about this, but at least he does kinda acknowledge it and gives some sort of defense - which is that he considers Islam a far worse threat to freedom than anything else. Would you be open enough to acknowledge this secret? That you will ignore or even pardon anti-muslim bigotry because you are "choosing your battles" as it were?

Quote:

If you and your wingman want to misrepresent my post or conflate it with someone else's posts expect to be called on it. You are free to respond or to ignore, you are even free to sneeringly call me a high and mighty warrior ( or is it only your sneering is allowable?), you are not however free to fictionalise what I stated and not have me respond by calling you on your bullshit. Or would you prefer taqiyya as a more culturally appropriate riposte to your lies and mendacity?

gosh secret - am I right in assuming you took that tongue-in-cheek response of mine to heart? But anyway it was not misrepresenting you - in fact my intention was to highlight exactly what you were "representing" (the threat extremist muslims) to make a point about how you are deciding not to "represent" the threat of anti-Islam bigotry - even when you literally land smack bang in the middle of ground zero of anti-Islam bigotry.

Quote:

As for the rest of your blubbering rubbish, within the forum rules I will waltz in where I like and comment as I like, you do not dictate to me that I should respond to the posts of others nor how I should respond to the posts of others.

You of course, in your own Islamic sandpit are free to ban me, though of course a better option from you and your sidekick would have been to simply not lie and misrepresent my post.

oh my - precious much secret?

Fear not though, I'm not the freedom-hating intolerant caricature you seem so desperate to paint me as. If you spend any time here at all you'll see I allow frank and moses hurl their insults at me on a daily basis. I think the last post I deleted was from one of the apologists.

Dear oh deary me, that diatribe is still a boo hooing why don't I address other posters. Feel free to have a got at other posters yourself, or get Karnal, I ain't your tame lap dog. I post as I like and about what I like and address who I like.

You are right in one respect though, I don't give equal weight to Christian God botherers and for a very simple reason. They ain't responsible for bollards on our streets or blowing up 88 Australians in Bali, that be cultists.

If you do not understand why cultists are on the nose that is more your problem than mine, maybe your blinkers are screwed on too tight? People look at Europe and they don't like what they see.

And be prepared, when they finally get a spectacular through they will be even more on the nose.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49082
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #181 - Aug 14^th, 2017 at 9:47pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 11:06am:

Frank wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 8:29pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:27pm:

Lastone wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 8:55am:

Frank wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 6:56pm:

The Lefty looneys were poo-pooing the wall Israel had to build to defend itself against Muslim terror.
And then came the anti-Muslim barriers all over the West:

Now you see here I have to disagree with you. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinian is one of competing Nationalisms. The Palestinians contend that the Jewish homeland was built on Palestinian Land.To mislabel the situation in Israel and the "Occupied Territories" as "Muslim Terror" shows a total lack of understanding of the situation.

Firstly, international Law states that a people denied the right to self determination are considered to be acting in self-defence should they take up arms. The denial of the right to self determination is considered to be the act of aggression. Also under international Law people under Military occupation from a foreign power are entitled to resist that occupation.

You will note that during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, groups and individuals that resisted the occupation were called insurgents, not terrorist. I will agree with you that driving a truck into a crowded street in London or Paris is and act of terrorism, but driving a truck into a military check point in the Palestinian occupied territories is a legitimate form of resistance under international Law.

Now some propagandist would label it as an act of terrorism because it suits their political agenda.However to label the Palestine Israel conflict as Muslim terrorism would be like suggesting the American Revolution was simply a puritan revolt.

Thanks for an insightful post, Lapstone. The ultimate point is that Israel's wall is built on illegally occupied land. Israel has ignored UN resolutions for years. It's in breech of international law.

Frank will hiss and froth and carry on like an old bag lady, but this is the law. Yes, it's complicated, but until Israel is ready to sit down and negotiate its illegal territories, they will face resistance.

Hitting back at your illegal attackers (1967) and defending yourself against them (wall) is not "illegal", it is the only sane thing. If the arabs hadnt atttacked israel in 67 the West bank would be still occupied by jordan - or might have become palestine by now. But for the muslims the very existence of israel is unbearable ( not the non-existence of palastine.)

While moot, you make a worthy point. Israel may well face resistance if it moved back to its original borders, but it will always face resistance if it doesn't. Israel occupies illegal territory.

This is an existential problem for Israel, as every Israeli schoolboy knows.

Israel is an actual country, recognised by the UN. 'Palestine' isn't.

Palestine is recognised by the UN as an "actual country" - with non-observer status.

Quote:

As of 14 September 2015, 136 (70.5%) of the 193 member states of the United Nations and two non-member states have recognized the State of Palestine. Many of the countries that do not recognize the State of Palestine nevertheless recognize the PLO as the "representative of the Palestinian people". On 29 November 2012, the UN General Assembly passed a motion changing Palestine's "entity" status to "non-member observer state" by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_of_Palestin...

So what is the difference betwee an actual country like Israel and what they call the Pallos?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #182 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:34am

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 16^th, 2017 at 6:44pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 10:07pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 9:57pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 9:44pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 9:25pm:

Frank wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 9:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 7:06pm:

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Soren, they aren't "anti-Muslim" barriers. Muslims are still allowed to walk back and forth, through them. They are anti-Extremist barriers. There is a difference in the minds of intelligent people between Muslims and Islamists. Your Islamophobia blinds you to it, though, doesn't it? Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

You just can't tell them apart, Muslims and Muslims. There is no reliable way to tell them apart UNTIL they kill you. Up to that point they are all 'vast majority Muslims'. But what binds the active and passive ones is Islam.

And that massive elephant - Islam - is what you all are soooo bloody keen to ignore. Which makes you idiots and mongs. You must address Islam. It is the root of all evil Islamic deeds.

Islamists do not strike out of no where, Soren. Islamists take a long road to the point where they are willing to commit violence. More often than not, it is other Muslims, alarmed at the violent and aggressive turn their friends/relatives have taken that report them, as the revelations after Manchest and London showed. Unfortunately, all too often their reports are ignored by the authorities. Perhaps instead of blaming the majority of Muslims you need to look closer to home, the authorities who think that no one represents a threat? Or is that too hard a concept for you to grasp?

As for the barriers, they are intended to stop Extremists from using vehicles to kill people. They are not intended to stop individuals. I suppose, you'd just like to declare that no Muslims are allowed to drive anywhere, now wouldn't you?

Your Islamophobia is sickening, Soren. Seek help. Roll Eyes

Extremists are not individuals, eh? You are stupider than I though and that is saying something!!!!

ISLAM. Brian. It is about Islam. ISLAM rots their minds and makes them do evil thins.

For some Muslims, without a doubt, Soren. The overwhelming majority though are peaceful, moderate and well assimilated to Western society. When you realise that, you may be able to discuss Islamism extremism sensibly but until that time your just spouting the same tired old Islamophobia. You're wasting my time and everybody else's as well. Roll Eyes

Quote:

You have not decoupled their evil deeds from Islam. Calling me an Islamophobe is calling me sane under the circumstances. Who the bloody hell would want to accommodate and tolerate a creed that gives rise to so much evil in the name of Islam? Apart from you, that is.

But then you are stupider than anyone could imagine. You have a degree in Stupid Studies.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/128170/2467911-yawn_20smiley.jpg

Oh, dearie, dearie, me. Soren why do you always resort to ad hominem debate when you're losing the argument? All that does is confirm that you've lost the argument. You keep attacking me personally, rather than addressing the points I am making. It's boring and foolish. Tsk, tsk.

Soooo - have you decoupled Islam and Muslims?

Nope. However, I recognise there are different types of Muslims. You claim all Muslims are the same, their beliefs are identical, they are all Terrorists. In reality, they are a mixed lot, just like Christians/Hindus/Jews/etc. Most are good, some are bad. You make no effort to differentiate. To you, they are all just "Muslims". Tsk, tsk. Roll Eyes

I'd say most people recognise there are different Muslims. We have reformists, secularists, progressive, conservative and Islamists, to name a few. Unfortunately we know the biggest group in the Muslim world is conservative, and it's increasing. And we know that conservative Islam, based on the state of the Muslim world, is not liberal.

Now, a small portion of the Muslim world are Islamists. They are dangerous because their extremism includes running over people with trucks. And beheading people. And etc and etc.

So, the issue has always been how do you differentiate during migration between Islamists, who I hope you agree we don't want anywhere near our society, and reformists, or secularists, who are themselves under threat in the Muslim world? How many Islamists are you willing to accept into society and how erroneous can our migration system be allowed to be? The problem of course is 1 error can equate to thousands of lives dead. Because ... you know... mohammed got insulted Sad

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

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away
Reply #183 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 10:51am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:34am:

So, the issue has always been how do you differentiate during migration between Islamists, who I hope you agree we don't want anywhere near our society, and reformists, or secularists, who are themselves under threat in the Muslim world? How many Islamists are you willing to accept into society and how erroneous can our migration system be allowed to be? The problem of course is 1 error can equate to thousands of lives dead. Because ... you know... mohammed got insulted

It sounds like you are trying to say something alevine. And it sounds suspiciously like an argument for some sort of blanket ban on muslim immigrants. Is that the only solution if 1 error is too much of a risk? Or do you think it would be better for everyone to move beyond simplistic talk of blanket bans, and talk about how we can better screen out threats on a case by case basis?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49734
At my desk.

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #184 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 11:41am

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 14^th, 2017 at 10:59am:

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 8:15pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

Let see a demonstration of this. Gandalf, what does this passage from the Koran mean?

[quote author=freediver link=1469837313/0#0 date=1469837313]
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then

kill the Mushrikun

(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

it a command for muslims to kill the mushrikun wherever one finds them. Or is this a trick question?

It seemed to be a difficult question all the other times I asked you. Would you like to give your interpretation of all the other details in the passage?

No FD, you have never asked me that question before. Fancy that eh?

The real question though should be around the context of that command. In case you hadn't noticed, I have argued at length that there is a context which I won't repeat here. You on the other hand want to insist there is no context and that it should be taken in complete isolation. So what you really want me to say is that this command is a blanket command to kill non-muslims for being non-muslim (even though it makes no mention of this justification), no ifs, no buts, just wholesale slaughter for all places, for all time. Why you are so desperate to get me to "admit" that my religion must necessarily be one of everlasting intolerance and slaughter, rather than accept my personal interpretation that Islam is a religion of tolerance and peace - which one would think would be a good thing and something that is desperately needed with so much intolerance and violence in the name of Islam - is beyond me. But we've been over this territory ad-infinitum as you know.

Try again Gandalf. I am asking you what you think it says. You have misrepresented this passage many times recently. Now is your chance to demonstrate what Karnal was complimenting you for.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #185 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 1:18pm

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Now is your chance to demonstrate what Karnal was complimenting you for.

Clearly Karnal's observation went over your head.

I gave you the clearest answer possible about what the verse says, so I have no idea why you are asking me again. Presumably because I went on and committed the high crime of attempting to put that meaning in context. So what you really mean by giving a straight, clear answer about what it says and means is nothing other than a simplistic, one line meme that blames Islam. I make no apologies for going to the effort of giving a more nuanced, contextualised answer.

That, I believe, was what karnal was complimenting me for.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away
Reply #186 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:22pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 10:51am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:34am:

So, the issue has always been how do you differentiate during migration between Islamists, who I hope you agree we don't want anywhere near our society, and reformists, or secularists, who are themselves under threat in the Muslim world? How many Islamists are you willing to accept into society and how erroneous can our migration system be allowed to be? The problem of course is 1 error can equate to thousands of lives dead. Because ... you know... mohammed got insulted

It sounds like you are trying to say something alevine. And it sounds suspiciously like an argument for some sort of blanket ban on muslim immigrants. Is that the only solution if 1 error is too much of a risk? Or do you think it would be better for everyone to move beyond simplistic talk of blanket bans, and talk about how we can better screen out threats on a case by case basis?

trust you to once again argue the strawman, gandalf. I never said blanket ban, and I don't support a blanket ban. I would accept every secularist or reformist muslim into the western world with open arms. But my problem is with leftist apologists who tell us there is absolutely no problem with muslim migration and any idea of having an effective vetting system is just plain racist so let's not do it. How we can better screen out threats? Simple - recognise there are problems in the muslim world and stop getting all upset when the screening process tries to cater for the problems. And stop with this idea that it's all okay because you know, once upon a time we had big vietnamese and greek and chinese migrations and they all turned out to be fine. There is a difference.

And just out of curiosity, do you believe 1 error is 1 error too much? Or are you okay with having people mowed down by a truck for being 'infidels'?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:29pm 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

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 35669
Gender: female

Re: Islam - the Left looks away
Reply #187 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:40pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 10:51am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:34am:

So, the issue has always been how do you differentiate during migration between Islamists, who I hope you agree we don't want anywhere near our society, and reformists, or secularists, who are themselves under threat in the Muslim world? How many Islamists are you willing to accept into society and how erroneous can our migration system be allowed to be? The problem of course is 1 error can equate to thousands of lives dead. Because ... you know... mohammed got insulted

It sounds like you are trying to say something alevine. And it sounds suspiciously like an argument for some sort of blanket ban on muslim immigrants. Is that the only solution if 1 error is too much of a risk? Or do you think it would be better for everyone to move beyond simplistic talk of blanket bans, and talk about how we can better screen out threats on a case by case basis?

trust you to once again argue the strawman, gandalf. I never said blanket ban, and I don't support a blanket ban. I would accept every secularist or reformist muslim into the western world with open arms. But my problem is with leftist apologists who tell us there is absolutely no problem with muslim migration and any idea of having an effective vetting system is just plain racist so let's not do it. How we can better screen out threats? Simple - recognise there are problems in the muslim world and stop getting all upset when the screening process tries to cater for the problems. And stop with this idea that it's all okay because you know, once upon a time we had big vietnamese and greek and chinese migrations and they all turned out to be fine. There is a difference.

And just out of curiosity, do you believe 1 error is 1 error too much? Or are you okay with having people mowed down by a truck for being 'infidels'?

Alevine, i honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

Is it that we have a significant number of Muslims not living here peacefully?

Or is it that Muslim invented and hold the monopoly on terrorism?

Which thing that you're wrong about are you hinging your argument on?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 49082
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #188 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:14pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:

Hitting back at your illegal attackers (1967) and defending yourself against them (wall) is not "illegal", it is the only sane thing. If the arabs hadnt atttacked israel in 67 the West bank would be still occupied by jordan - or might have become palestine by now. But for the muslims the very existence of israel is unbearable ( not the non-existence of palastine.)

While moot, you make a worthy point. Israel may well face resistance if it moved back to its original borders, but it will always face resistance if it doesn't. Israel occupies illegal territory.

This is an existential problem for Israel, as every Israeli schoolboy knows.

It is a clash of existential questions.

Why is the existential threat to a member of the UN a moot point??
Israel does not occupy illegal territory - except if Jordan was occupying illegal territory before 1967. Israel is occupying exactly what Jordan was occupying. It evacuated the territory that Egypt was occupying (Gaza) and got rocketed for it.

The existential problem for Israel is that the Arabs overran the Eastern Roman Empire and they have the doctrine of exterminating the Jews.

If the Eastern Roman Empire has been conquered by anyone other than Muslims there would be simply no Middle Eastern problem. But because the Koran says that here will be no peace until the Muslims murder all the jews, we have a Middle Eastern problem. It is entirely about the fkken Koran and the people who believe in it.
Any other people whose identity is not so invested in Jew killing would have said long ago that the Jews are welcome to that sliver land.

Not so for the Muslims for whom it is an existential question. Who are you going to back? The Jewish existential claim or the Muslim existential claim?

Considering the vastness of the 'Muslim' lands and nonexistence of Jewish lands outside Israel, I am with the Jews.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Justsayno

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 250
On The Planet Earth
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #189 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:32pm

Frank wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 7:14pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:58pm:

Frank wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:

Hitting back at your illegal attackers (1967) and defending yourself against them (wall) is not "illegal", it is the only sane thing. If the arabs hadnt atttacked israel in 67 the West bank would be still occupied by jordan - or might have become palestine by now. But for the muslims the very existence of israel is unbearable ( not the non-existence of palastine.)

While moot, you make a worthy point. Israel may well face resistance if it moved back to its original borders, but it will always face resistance if it doesn't. Israel occupies illegal territory.

This is an existential problem for Israel, as every Israeli schoolboy knows.

It is a clash of existential questions.

Why is the existential threat to a member of the UN a moot point??
Israel does not occupy illegal territory - except if Jordan was occupying illegal territory before 1967. Israel is occupying exactly what Jordan was occupying. It evacuated the territory that Egypt was occupying (Gaza) and got rocketed for it.

The existential problem for Israel is that the Arabs overran the Eastern Roman Empire and they have the doctrine of exterminating the Jews.

If the Eastern Roman Empire has been conquered by anyone other than Muslims there would be simply no Middle Eastern problem. But because the Koran says that here will be no peace until the Muslims murder all the jews, we have a Middle Eastern problem. It is entirely about the fkken Koran and the people who believe in it.
Any other people whose identity is not so invested in Jew killing would have said long ago that the Jews are welcome to that sliver land.

Not so for the Muslims for whom it is an existential question. Who are you going to back? The Jewish existential claim or the Muslim existential claim?

Considering the vastness of the 'Muslim' lands and nonexistence of Jewish lands outside Israel, I am with the Jews.

Well said!

Back to top

Justsayno Go home and have talk to your fictitious autistic son, looser.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away
Reply #190 - Aug 15^th, 2017 at 9:09pm

mothra wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:40pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 6:22pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 10:51am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 3:34am:

So, the issue has always been how do you differentiate during migration between Islamists, who I hope you agree we don't want anywhere near our society, and reformists, or secularists, who are themselves under threat in the Muslim world? How many Islamists are you willing to accept into society and how erroneous can our migration system be allowed to be? The problem of course is 1 error can equate to thousands of lives dead. Because ... you know... mohammed got insulted

It sounds like you are trying to say something alevine. And it sounds suspiciously like an argument for some sort of blanket ban on muslim immigrants. Is that the only solution if 1 error is too much of a risk? Or do you think it would be better for everyone to move beyond simplistic talk of blanket bans, and talk about how we can better screen out threats on a case by case basis?

trust you to once again argue the strawman, gandalf. I never said blanket ban, and I don't support a blanket ban. I would accept every secularist or reformist muslim into the western world with open arms. But my problem is with leftist apologists who tell us there is absolutely no problem with muslim migration and any idea of having an effective vetting system is just plain racist so let's not do it. How we can better screen out threats? Simple - recognise there are problems in the muslim world and stop getting all upset when the screening process tries to cater for the problems. And stop with this idea that it's all okay because you know, once upon a time we had big vietnamese and greek and chinese migrations and they all turned out to be fine. There is a difference.

And just out of curiosity, do you believe 1 error is 1 error too much? Or are you okay with having people mowed down by a truck for being 'infidels'?

Alevine, i honestly don't know what you're trying to say here.

Is it that we have a significant number of Muslims not living here peacefully?

Or is it that Muslim invented and hold the monopoly on terrorism?

Which thing that you're wrong about are you hinging your argument on?

Thanks for again demonstrating the exact ignorance I'm asking about. How can one possibly say there isn't a significant problem if we have had to see changes to our law multiple number of times over the past decade because of the threats posed to our communities by Islamists? Not to mention the amount of additional new agencies being setup to tackle the problem. I ask again, mothra, if we are to see a continuation of Muslim migration, which I want (despite Gandalfs strawman arguments), then how do we do this and ensure no Islamists migrate? and, of slightly less importance, because it isn't life threatening, how do we minimise the growth in conservative Islamic belief in Australia if we continue conservative Muslim intake? I know pretending there isn't a problem, as you have just demonstrated, isn't going to help anyone.

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

bogarde73 Gold Member Offline Anti-Global & Contra Mundum Posts: 18443 Gender:	Re: Islam - the Left looks away. Reply #191 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 7:47am Alevine, rational argument has never been known to work with brick walls. The Left got into bed with Islam a long time ago and has been busy breeding a generation of true believers ever since.
Back to top	Know the enemies of a civil society by their public behaviour, by their fraudulent claim to be liberal-progressive, by their propensity to lie and, above all, by their attachment to authoritarianism. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #192 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:12pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

I ask again, mothra, if we are to see a continuation of Muslim migration, which I want (despite Gandalfs strawman arguments), then how do we do this and ensure no Islamists migrate?

Quite simply you can't, and its absurd to think that you could - even with an attempted blanket ban on all muslim immigration. Clearly though this is the wrong question to ask. You might as well ask how do we ensure no triad members migrate amongst all the Chinese immigrants. The question should be around acceptable risk, which should be framed around a rational assessment of the actual threat posed by terrorism in Australia - and by any objective measurement it is infinitesimal.

Which is why this whole argument about muslim immigration is silly and completely irrational. The immigration debate shouldn't be focused on the broad concept of terrorism and where terrorists are likely to come from - it should be about assessing individual risk on a case by case basis. only after that will you understand how obsessing about how to weed out the terrorists from the muslims misses the point.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #193 - Aug 16^th, 2017 at 10:32pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

I ask again, mothra, if we are to see a continuation of Muslim migration, which I want (despite Gandalfs strawman arguments), then how do we do this and ensure no Islamists migrate?

Quite simply you can't, and its absurd to think that you could - even with an attempted blanket ban on all muslim immigration. Clearly though this is the wrong question to ask. You might as well ask how do we ensure no triad members migrate amongst all the Chinese immigrants. The question should be around acceptable risk, which should be framed around a rational assessment of the actual threat posed by terrorism in Australia - and by any objective measurement it is infinitesimal.

Which is why this whole argument about muslim immigration is silly and completely irrational. The immigration debate shouldn't be focused on the broad concept of terrorism and where terrorists are likely to come from - it should be about assessing individual risk on a case by case basis. only after that will you understand how obsessing about how to weed out the terrorists from the muslims misses the point.

Wow, the delusion you have is simply amazing, gandalf. The immigration debate isn't focused purely on 'terrorism' but rather on how to ensure that immigration doesn't expose the society to threats, and, whether your delusion allows you to agree or not, it is a fairly well established fact that today, with any Muslim migration comes the threat of jihadism and islamism. Like I said, I won't even bother concentrating on conservative islam because that in itself is a much broader topic on the threats posed by muslim migration to western society, so let's just stick to the easily defined ones that result in actual life threat. Let me ask you, gandalf, if our immigration officers were concerned about chinese triad gang members entering Australia, do you think it is wise for them to go about assessing whether a retiree from Finland poses the risk of being a chinese triad gang member? No, because they know what they are after. I agree that each case should be looked at individually - I never said I disagreed with this point. But each case should also be looked at based on where the individual comes from, and with that what potential risk needs to be assessed for. And that is why when it comes to muslim population, one of the risks to look at is whether the individual may very well be a jihadist or islamist. Because you know, last I checked, mormon individuals were not the ones going around seeking jihad. But I guess your 'individual case by case' would deem them to be of the same risk of being jihadists as a family coming from Syria? Do you recognise your irrationality yet, gandalf?

On a side note, the threat isn't infinitesimal. It only takes to see what our police and protection agencies are concerned about to know that it isn't infinitesimal. Again, simply delusional, gandalf.

On another side note, a blanket ban, as much as I hate to admit it, does indeed minimise Islamic terrorism. You only need to look at Japan.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 16^th, 2017 at 10:49pm 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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49734
At my desk.

Re: Islam - the Left looks away.
Reply #194 - Aug 17^th, 2017 at 10:41am

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 1:18pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 11:41am:

Now is your chance to demonstrate what Karnal was complimenting you for.

Clearly Karnal's observation went over your head.

I gave you the clearest answer possible about what the verse says, so I have no idea why you are asking me again. Presumably because I went on and committed the high crime of attempting to put that meaning in context. So what you really mean by giving a straight, clear answer about what it says and means is nothing other than a simplistic, one line meme that blames Islam. I make no apologies for going to the effort of giving a more nuanced, contextualised answer.

That, I believe, was what karnal was complimenting me for.

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 5:39pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 13^th, 2017 at 3:30pm:

Let see a demonstration of this. Gandalf, what does this passage from the Koran mean?

[quote author=freediver link=1469837313/0#0 date=1469837313]
4. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).

5. Then when the Sacred Months (the Ist, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then

kill the Mushrikun

(see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

it a command for muslims to kill the mushrikun wherever one finds them. Or is this a trick question?

Simplistic, one line memes that blame Islam eh? Now wonder Karnal was so congratulatory.

Rather than leaping directly to the excuses part, would you like to give your interpretation of all the other details in the passage? Let's start with what it actually says before building the context....

polite_gandalf wrote on Aug 16^th, 2017 at 8:12pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2017 at 9:09pm:

I ask again, mothra, if we are to see a continuation of Muslim migration, which I want (despite Gandalfs strawman arguments), then how do we do this and ensure no Islamists migrate?

Quite simply you can't, and its absurd to think that you could - even with an attempted blanket ban on all muslim immigration. Clearly though this is the wrong question to ask. You might as well ask how do we ensure no triad members migrate amongst all the Chinese immigrants. The question should be around acceptable risk, which should be framed around a rational assessment of the actual threat posed by terrorism in Australia - and by any objective measurement it is infinitesimal.

Islam is the greatest modern threat to freedom and democracy. It is only because of the enourmous resources we are already throwing at this threat, and the significant number of Muslim terrorists in our jails and under close watch, that we have not already seen mass murder in the name of Islam on our soil.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Aug 17^th, 2017 at 11:03am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged