Why do all the mohammedans come to us? That's why:
Michael Laudahn eOpposition
http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x.jpg
That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also here,
assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists and
criminally insane media people.
Who agrees?
(From
http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3324921.ece )
--
Unter blinden ist der ein�ugige k�nig. >.)
Repatriate all exotic intruders: jews > Israel, mohammedans >
Mohammedanistan, negros > Africa, indians + gipsies > India, etc !
Then dismantle all surveillance technology !!
Politicians: I want my country back - this is an order by the sovereign !!!
Michael Laudahn eOpposition
From: Dan <dan4...@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:15:40 -0400
Local: Sat, Oct 17 2009 5:15 pm
Subject: Re: Why do all the mohammedans come to us? That's why:
Note: The author of this message requested that it not be archived. This
message will be removed from Groups in 6 days (Oct 24, 5:15 pm).
I met a guy from the British SAS 12 years ago. He was Scottish, and all
that.
The boy was on Goose Green broher. In '82
You have some sonund troops. He fucking good.
SAS he was. And nobody fucks with them.
******************
Where is this fucking jew all of a sudden coming from?
And what same old stupid tricks does he use to win 'allies', hopefully
against those perceived as enmies by his chronical mentally sick mind?
Go and see your Freud to take care of your real problems, you crooked
oriental nose. Here's no business to do for your kind.
regn.pickford
"Dan" <dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
> Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote
>> http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x.jpg
>>
>> That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
>> Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also
>> here,
>> assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists
>> and
>> criminally insane media people.
>>
>> Who agrees?
>>
>>
>
> smoke.
>
They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221011/Sex-victim-wins-6-year-battle-attacker-deported.html
look at the people you are supporting.
If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable cultures
to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly cause
in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
coward and they'll make you a slave.
Hunter
> "Dan" <dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
>> smoke.
>>
> They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
> as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.
Michael Laudahn eOpposition
alt.politics.immigration, nz.politics, alt.politics.usa.republican
From: Hunter <hunte...@iinet.net.au>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:10:03 +0800
Local: Sat, Oct 17 2009 9:10 pm
Subject: Re: Why do all the mohammedans come to us? That's why:
And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.
********************
Now we're back to cultural relativism again, right? Isn't this an
interesting kiddy game? It's called ring-a-ring-a-roses in english, if my
dictionary is right. You love playing it, don't you, you infantile leftist
and/or jew?
regn.pickford
"Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:b4ydnQV3wc5Ti0fX...@westnet.com.au...
You seem to be bothered about it. Nothing like an alterboy `scorned`
I suspect ...As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
assault.
and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
greater iauthority than the courts.
Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
prior to the attack. Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
in their culture.in their quest for world domination.
regn.pickford
> Hunter wrote
>>
>> And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
>> Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
>> to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
>> hypocrite.
>>
>>
>>
>
> wine into
> water.
>
> You just can't beat a gig like that.
what sort of sad cnnt would want a job like that?
B J Foster
> "Dan" <dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
>> Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote
>>> http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x.jpg
>>>
>>> That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
>>> Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also
>>> here,
>>> assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists
>>> and
>>> criminally insane media people.
>>>
>>> Who agrees?
>>>
>>>
>> Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
>> smoke.
>>
> They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
> as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221011/Sex-victim-wins-6-year-battle-attacker-deported.html
>
> look at the people you are supporting.
You are delusional.
The OP claimed that "the assholes" are 10%. You quote a single event, a
single sample of a criminal who is certainly not representative of
British Muslims & neither is he an immigrant.
The fallacy you are attempting here is obvious. Given that you are
attempting such an obvious fallacy, you're either a delusional idiot or
you think that everyone else is an idiot.
>
> If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
> would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable cultures
> to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly cause
> in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
> coward and they'll make you a slave.
>
You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them
that I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.
B J Foster
> Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc, can.politics, alt.politics.immigration
...
>
> Go and see your Freud to take care of your real problems, you crooked
> oriental nose. Here's no business to do for your kind.
>
Projection seems to be the order of the day.
(Mick-the-moron voices his inner cry for help)
regn.pickford
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbdno2$bpp$2...@bjf.motzarella.org...
> regn.pickford wrote:
>> "Dan" <dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
>>> Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote
>>>> http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x.jpg
>>>>
>>>> That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
>>>> Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also
>>>> here,
>>>> assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane
>>>> jurists and
>>>> criminally insane media people.
>>>>
>>>> Who agrees?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
>>> smoke.
>>>
>> They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
>> as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221011/Sex-victim-wins-6-year-battle-attacker-deported.html
>>
>> look at the people you are supporting.
>
> You are delusional.
>
> The OP claimed that "the assholes" are 10%. You quote a single event, a
> single sample of a criminal who is certainly not representative of British
> Muslims & neither is he an immigrant.
>
You are so fixated on defending your incomes you overlook the seriousness
of the Islamophile acknowledging 10% are these dangerous `assholes`
which people like you and this Dan fellow welcome into the country. Dan
cause
he's been suckered into thinking they're ordinary Joes and you cause it's
in your financial interests.
spit.
> The fallacy you are attempting here is obvious. Given that you are
> attempting such an obvious fallacy, you're either a delusional idiot or
> you think that everyone else is an idiot.
>
They rape and brutalise . They do not accept our Rule of Law.
their Imams tell them to live under our laws. At any time their Imams
can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
business associates _new_ laws.
You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have increased
to 20 or 30% of the population.
>>
>> If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
>> would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable
>> cultures
>> to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly
>> cause
>> in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
>> coward and they'll make you a slave.
>>
>
> You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
> associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
> ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them that
> I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.
Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
circle of trust. In Australi their number are still small enough to
encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
of moderate compliance.
I have done business with Muslims. Muslim money to reopen
a bush Abatoirs in NSW and I was exposed to their projections of their
domestic Muslim Markets and it was double the `official `Muslim
population.. The project died due to the Aussie dollar but has since
gone ahead in a different structure which I was not involved
(diffferent circles of associates - nothing personal against me).
I was exposed to the cultural corruption of Muslims
welfare rorting, law breaking and foreign Muslim goals toi
finance increased Muslim numbers in Australia.
As I well expect you to have been ...
B J Foster
Some rape and brutalise.
> They do not accept our Rule of Law.
Some do not accept our Rule of Law.
> their Imams tell them to live under our laws.
IOW, you're a delusional idiot.
> At any time their Imams
> can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
> business associates _new_ laws.
Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.
>
> You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
> you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have increased
> to 20 or 30% of the population.
This is the same with any group from any country when the rate of
immigration exceeds the rate of enculturation.
You speak of "rule of law". What *system* do you propose to use other
than RULE OF LAW to process migrants?
>
>>> If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
>>> would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable
>>> cultures
>>> to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly
>>> cause
>>> in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
>>> coward and they'll make you a slave.
>>>
>> You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
>> associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
>> ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them that
>> I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.
>
> Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
> push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
> circle of trust.
Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?
> In Australi their number are still small enough to
> encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
> of moderate compliance.
I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.
In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will
never appear on the skilled occupation list.
>
> I have done business with Muslims. Muslim money to reopen
> a bush Abatoirs in NSW and I was exposed to their projections of their
> domestic Muslim Markets and it was double the `official `Muslim
> population..
So what?
> The project died due to the Aussie dollar but has since
> gone ahead in a different structure which I was not involved
> (diffferent circles of associates - nothing personal against me).
>
> I was exposed to the cultural corruption of Muslims
> welfare rorting, law breaking and foreign Muslim goals toi
> finance increased Muslim numbers in Australia.
If you were aware of law breaking, you should have reported it to the
police. What's the matter with you? Aren't you aware of your duty as a
citizen?
>
> As I well expect you to have been ...
>
I am aware that Saudi Arabia funds so-called 'education' etc.
At the end of the day if people want to believe that kids memorising a
book of fairy tales is more important than mathematics, good luck to them.
I've seen all of the same issues with Greeks and Italians. Ultimately we
keep the good attributes of these cultures and discarded the bad.
Cormac
Most migrants come to Ireland because of our very generous social
welfare.
Cormac.
Hunter
> "Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:b4ydnQV3wc5Ti0fX...@westnet.com.au...
>> regn.pickford wrote:
>>> "Dan" <dan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>> Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
>>>> smoke.
>>>>
>>> They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
>>> as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
>>
>> And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
>> Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got to
>> be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
>> hypocrite.
>>
>
> You seem to be bothered about it. Nothing like an alterboy `scorned`
> I suspect...
Haha nope, you're thinking of pretzl, closest I've been to a church is
walking past and having a laugh at the sea-gullibles as they wander in
chirping for bread. But if ya wanna cast stones you should try to be
consistant about it, otherwise you just look like a moron. I'm just
adding some consistancy to the one-sided myopic mud-slinging that's
going on, just as I do with moronic extremist Muslims that are much like
you moronic extremist Christians and their sidekicks on the other side
of the coin.
> As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
> assault.
Funny, seems that is more true of Christians in Oz, pretzl has been
totally unable to find a case of a member of the Muslim clergy in Oz
being prosecuted for being a pedophile, yet look what I find in relation
to his lot :
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,26150812-2682,00.html
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-160713219.html
http://www.theage.com.au/national/lambasting-for-pedophile-priest-20090610-c3nw.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26013223-5006784,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/convicted-priest-still-serving/2008/06/21/1214009167391.html
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/pedophile-priest-sorry/story-e6frf7kx-1111113008658
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/bccrime.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page179-pavlou.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page180-current-court-cases.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page136-pidoto.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page128-gannon.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page124-odonnell.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page101-carroll.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page117-ryan.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page118-pickering.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page129-john-day.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page127-wilson.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page113-denham.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page122-dowlan.html
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/page142-dyson.html
Fuck it, there's way too many pedophile priests to list them all
individually, find the full list here, well over 100 of them, seems
pretty normal for Christian priests to be sick fucks :
http://brokenrites.alphalink.com.au/nletter/index.html
> and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
> greater iauthority than the courts.
Haha bullshit. How do you work that one out?
> Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
> prior to the attack. Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
> in their culture.in their quest for world domination.
And I say fry the lot of them, smashing the likes of al queda and the
taliban into dust is the only sensible course of action, despite what
all the bleeding heart pussies are screaming. But all you do is show
that we've got the same sort of morons on the Aussie side of the fence
too, but just less willing, or too cowardly, to follow-through on their
insane hatred.
Hunter
> Newsgroups: uk.politics.misc, soc.culture.irish, aus.politics, can.politics,
> alt.politics.immigration, nz.politics, alt.politics.usa.republican
> From: Hunter <hunte...@iinet.net.au>
> Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 03:10:03 +0800
> Local: Sat, Oct 17 2009 9:10 pm
> Subject: Re: Why do all the mohammedans come to us? That's why:
>
>
>
> And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
> Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
> to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
> hypocrite.
>
> ********************
>
> Now we're back to cultural relativism again, right? Isn't this an
> interesting kiddy game? It's called ring-a-ring-a-roses in english, if my
> dictionary is right. You love playing it, don't you, you infantile leftist
> and/or jew?
All a bit too complicated for you is it? The point is trying to demonise
an entire religion over the actions of a rare few is moronic, infantile
and shows you to be a completely dishonest fuckwit. When dealing with
the incredibly stupid, if there is any intelligence there at all,
sometimes using an example closer to home for them to show them their
stupidity works. But that's assuming there is at least a hint of
intelligence. It appears you don't even have a hint, you supporter of
kiddy tampering priests (see it's easy to throw labels at people too,
and I'd hazard a guess mine are much closer to the truth than yours were).
Harry Heidelberg
About Muslims ...
> They rape and brutalise . .
In any group some may rape and brutalise
> ... They do not accept our Rule of Law.
In any group some do not accept the Rule of Law.
They are called criminals.
> their Imams tell them to live under our laws. At any time their Imams
> can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
> business associates _new_ laws.
One common criticism of Islam is that the texts cannot be changed.
(BTW the Bible says that about the biblical texts too, OT and NT)
Now your complaint is that they can.
So "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't" applies apparently.
The texts say that local Muslims are to live under local laws,
so the Imams cannot change that.
There would be no problem getting the local law changed though,
as long as it is done constitionally.
Isn't it good to live in a democracy?
Any restriction, freedom one advocates applies equally.
Even your opponents or "enemies" have the same rights as you do.
Harry
"It is in the shelter of each other that people live."
Irish Proverb
Harry Heidelberg
> .... As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
> assault.
To a greater degree than others?
Cite please.
> and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
> greater iauthority than the courts.
The Imams give advice based on the texts. The texts say that a Muslim must
follow the law of both God and of the country they are living in.
So although they (their Imams) give advice with greater authority they do
not "have" greater authority than the courts. eg The texts may say that a
man can have as many wives as he can support but if the law of the country
says that he can only have one the Imam would advise a limit of one only.
I have heard of cases where a Christian has said that he would break the
law of the country where it went against the law of God. He also said that
he would accept the consequences.
People's individual ethics are a result of their individual history.
The influence that an Imam has over a Muslim is no more and no less than
that of a minister, reverend or priest over one of his/her flock.
People have only as much power over one as one allows them.
The individual decides how he/she will act so the individual, not any
organisation they belong to, is responsible for those acts.
The actions of a individual organisation should be viewed similarly.
Some individuals in a faith will not make any decision without advice from
their religious counselor (those that eg Ned Flanders is based on)
while others pay no heed to their nominal faith at all.
We are all the same only in that we are all different
>
> Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
> prior to the attack. ...
The Koran says that drinking alcohol is wrong, that suicide is wrong and
that to make war on the innocent is wrong, so why are the acts of the
non-faithful supposedly Muslim perpetrators of "9/11" constantly used to
vilify all Muslims?
> ... Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
> in their culture.in their quest for world domination.
As you say `false colours', planned or not, is in operation
The perpetrators have been publicly identified of as Muslim rather than
terrorist, sectarian extremist, or anti American, or Al Quaida, or Al
Quaida influenced, or rabid twisted individuals with a Muslim background.
Those individuals had shared views but it was not typical of Islam any more
than the actions of any "Christian" group with shared views can be passed
off as typical of Christians. eg the KKK.
regn.pickford
"Harry Heidelberg" <Err...@chfile.dne> wrote in message
news:16w9k4mqbdhnx.5fdx2t3m6y84$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:38:33 GMT in aus.politics, regn.pickford posted:
>
>> .... As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
>> assault.
>
> To a greater degree than others?
>
> Cite please.
>
Self confessed, uncontollable sexual deviates. in countries _not_ muslim
of course.
>> and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
>> greater iauthority than the courts.
>
> The Imams give advice based on the texts. The texts say that a Muslim must
> follow the law of both God and of the country they are living in.
> So although they (their Imams) give advice with greater authority they do
> not "have" greater authority than the courts. eg The texts may say that a
> man can have as many wives as he can support but if the law of the country
> says that he can only have one the Imam would advise a limit of one only.
> I have heard of cases where a Christian has said that he would break the
> law of the country where it went against the law of God. He also said that
> he would accept the consequences.
>
The Imam lays down the law, your average male arsesniffer is a hypnotised
zombie high risk sex fiend. They are cats and womens flexh is _meat_
and they are proud of it.
The texts also say there are circumstances that different rules apply-
- like when they are embarking on world domination as they have
been since Mohammed had his nine year old jailbait missus smoking his
`cigar`
polygamy is a way Mulsims can quickly breed up while taking advantage
of our generous welfare and baby bonus to help finance (along with Muslim
oil money
from muslim oil cartells) So it is not discouraged as you claim
> People's individual ethics are a result of their individual history.
Muslins ethics are a result of what is droned into them sniffing other
peoples farts in a Mosque
> The influence that an Imam has over a Muslim is no more and no less than
> that of a minister, reverend or priest over one of his/her flock.
> People have only as much power over one as one allows them.
> The individual decides how he/she will act so the individual, not any
> organisation they belong to, is responsible for those acts.
> The actions of a individual organisation should be viewed similarly.
>
Getting together in a group and sniffing arses regularly is very important
to their religious demands. The Imam has more influence than you make out.
There are excuses they can use like being on a pilgrimage but it is very
important to them as you very likely know.
> Some individuals in a faith will not make any decision without advice from
> their religious counselor (those that eg Ned Flanders is based on)
> while others pay no heed to their nominal faith at all.
> We are all the same only in that we are all different
yet differences are incompatablities and it's a good thing not to
mix incompatable people because that creates social conflict.
Christians and Muslim for example.
>>
>> Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
>> prior to the attack. ...
>
> The Koran says that drinking alcohol is wrong, that suicide is wrong and
> that to make war on the innocent is wrong, so why are the acts of the
> non-faithful supposedly Muslim perpetrators of "9/11" constantly used to
> vilify all Muslims?
>
It demonstrates what happens when incompatable cultures are
expected to live together
>> ... Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
>> in their culture.in their quest for world domination.
>
> As you say `false colours', planned or not, is in operation
> The perpetrators have been publicly identified of as Muslim rather than
> terrorist, sectarian extremist, or anti American, or Al Quaida, or Al
> Quaida influenced, or rabid twisted individuals with a Muslim background.
>
> Those individuals had shared views but it was not typical of Islam any
> more
> than the actions of any "Christian" group with shared views can be passed
> off as typical of Christians. eg the KKK.
>
depends on your perspective IMO Muslims are like grasshoppers -
one here or there is not a problem but allow these incompatable
people to grow in numbers and they start exciting themselves into
such a state they become locusts.
Muslims in Australia censored at 1.7% were according to Islamic
sources I had in 2003 over 5% at that time. I suspect Mulsims
start turning into Locusts (no fence sitters) at about 10% which
is what the Imigration Separtment has certainly been working towards.
We've had changes to correction facilities to accomodate Muslim
criminals and now we have the rounds of the next stage starting
up
http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2938&Itemid=5
[quote stt]
Monday, 19 October 2009
A SENIOR Melbourne Muslim is proposing a sharia court to handle
disputes in the Muslim community, suggesting it might eventually form
part of the state's legal structure.
Islamic Council of Victoria board member Hyder Gulam was due to meet
a senior bureaucrat in the Premier's Department on Thursday to discuss
the idea, but the meeting was postponed to this week.
[quote fin ]
I wonder if some of the islamophiles will wake up to their Quisling
like support for multiculturalism and the dangers such as Islam it
welcomes into this country.
I've known many people who fought and were shot at by the Japs
while defending Australia and the third generation intent on giving it away
while the struggle is still is in living memory.
cornholio
> regn.pickford wrote:
> > "Dan" <dan4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Christians don't "rape and
brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
nominally Christian nation I can think of.
I'd like to see proof of your allegation.
cornholio
>
> > That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
> > Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also here,
> > assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists and
> > criminally insane media people.
>
> > Who agrees?
>
>
Where are these "moderate muslimes" fucktard?
They certainly don't reside in any majority muslime fuck
country because ALL muslime fuck countries persecute
people of other faiths WITHOUT exception Abdul.
> They doh't play good ice hockey, but their soccer is OK.
>
> They are find people. The ones who you wouldn't mind having your back.
>
> 98,000 Amerian soldiers are Muslim.
>
Any proof for the above fact Abdul?
Why don't we talk about the muslime fucks who:
i. bombed the USS Cole
ii. fired missiles into the USS Stark
iii. blew up nearly 300 US Marines in Beirut
iv. blew up US embassies in Africa
v. committed 9-11, 7-7 and the Madrid train bombings.
vi. shot up US Army recruiters
vii. practice legalized slavery of kufirs in Mauritania
> Probably more than who are Gay.
cornholio
> regn.pickford wrote:
> >news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
> >> Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote
>
> >>> That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
> >>> Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also
> >>> here,
> >>> assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists
> >>> and
> >>> criminally insane media people.
>
> >>> Who agrees?
>
> >> Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
> >> smoke.
>
> > They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
> > as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
>
>
> > look at the people you are supporting.
>
> You are delusional.
>
> The OP claimed that "the assholes" are 10%. You quote a single event, a
> single sample of a criminal who is certainly not representative of
> British Muslims & neither is he an immigrant.
>
> The fallacy you are attempting here is obvious. Given that you are
> attempting such an obvious fallacy, you're either a delusional idiot or
> you think that everyone else is an idiot.
>
>
>
> > If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
> > would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable cultures
> > to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly cause
> > in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
> > coward and they'll make you a slave.
>
> You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
> associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
> ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them
> that I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.
Gee I'm glad for you. What have your muslime fuck buddies done lately
to
stop the regular persecution and murder of people of other faiths
being
practiced in EVERY muslime pig fuck country on earth lately?
Ditto for the persecution of women practiced in most muslime fuck
countries.
Hunter
I'm using his rules of evidence as I said, which are that if one member
of a group, legally or illegal, performs an action then all members of
that group are responsible for it. I explained that in the post you
replied to, really can't see how you missed it.
But to elaborate, because a bunch of crazy Muslim loons rape and
brutalise women he is accusing them all of it, so I'm pointing out to
him that because a bunch of crazy Christian priests in Australia have
been guilty of raping and brutalising young boys that if he were not a
hypocrite he would also need to accuse all Christians of that. Both
ideas are equally as ridiculous as each other. Very simple.
regn.pickford
"cornholio" <andx...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38274b14-2d8d-4329...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
regn.pickford
"B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> They do not accept our Rule of Law.
>
> Some do not accept our Rule of Law.
>
>> their Imams tell them to live under our laws.
>
> IOW, you're a delusional idiot.
>
That label belongs to people who do not see
the influences Moslem religious leaders have '
over Moslem `drones.`
>> At any time their Imams
>> can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
>> business associates _new_ laws.
>
> Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.
>
It only takes a motivated government and a motivated electorate
we almost did something akin to restricting religions when we had the
referendum on banning the Communist Party
As it is we would only need to recognise Islam is fundamentally a
terrorist cult organisation actively pursueing a goal of world domination
rather than a religion.
>>
>> You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
>> you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have
>> increased
>> to 20 or 30% of the population.
>
> This is the same with any group from any country when the rate of
> immigration exceeds the rate of enculturation.
>
So you actually accept a policy of increasing the market share of Muslims
will result in social friction?
please explain why you support their numbers being increased?
> You speak of "rule of law". What *system* do you propose to use other than
> RULE OF LAW to process migrants?
>
Our rule of law as we accept it, has authority `of numbers' over them until
they
assimilate our culture. Incompatable cultures can not assimilate
they can only convert. They accept that "when in Rome ..."
they will lose `tilting at windmills' and so `play the game` breed up
in our welfare system protected by short sighted P.C. and
multiculti drones.
>>
>>>> If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
>>>> would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable
>>>> cultures
>>>> to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly
>>>> cause
>>>> in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
>>>> coward and they'll make you a slave.
>>>>
>>> You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
>>> associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
>>> ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them
>>> that I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.
>>
>> Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
>> push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
>> circle of trust.
>
> Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
> inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?
>
nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.
If a repeat pedophile moves next door to you, will you want them to fnn[
off becuase you're afraid of them? Will you be suspicious of them cause
you're quaking in your slippers?
wake up and smell the coffee.
the people who will claim not to be suspicious or refrain from
vilifying the creature are the ones with confidence or inadequacy issues
and (personally) fearfull..
>
>> In Australi their number are still small enough to
>> encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
>> of moderate compliance.
>
> I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
> they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.
>
> In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will never
> appear on the skilled occupation list.
>
You lot change your mind when your time is upon you.
>>
>> I have done business with Muslims. Muslim money to reopen
>> a bush Abatoirs in NSW and I was exposed to their projections of their
>> domestic Muslim Markets and it was double the `official `Muslim
>> population..
>
> So what?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
sort by % of population and see where reporting of nation's social conflict
between
Christian and Islamic incompatabilities start.
Starts kicking in at 5% - 10%
i.e. we are in or on the cusp of the trouble zone
from the moiuths of Muslims
http://islam.iinet.net.au/channel/islamwa.html
[quote stt]
Muslims are estimated to be over 300,000. Govt. census 1996 shows
12,583 Muslims in W.A. However conservative Muslim estimate
put the number over 15,000 counting the fact that some do not for
various reasons declare their religion on Govt. forms
[quote fin]
in 2003 I was exposed to Muslim estimates on Victorian and NSW
numbers that put their population closer to 5% then the reported 1.7%
with enough Muslims being brought in currently by immigrant
to replace the population of Tamania in 5 odd years.
(100k per year).
>
>> The project died due to the Aussie dollar but has since
>> gone ahead in a different structure which I was not involved
>> (diffferent circles of associates - nothing personal against me).
>>
>> I was exposed to the cultural corruption of Muslims
>> welfare rorting, law breaking and foreign Muslim goals toi
>> finance increased Muslim numbers in Australia.
>
> If you were aware of law breaking, you should have reported it to the
> police. What's the matter with you? Aren't you aware of your duty as a
> citizen?
>
Like you I was probably influenced by their exceptional curtesy, honours
and respect shown as a guest. I was also intent on learning about them so
adopted
a kind of `when in Rome' approach.
>>
>> As I well expect you to have been ...
>>
>
> I am aware that Saudi Arabia funds so-called 'education' etc.
>
> At the end of the day if people want to believe that kids memorising a
> book of fairy tales is more important than mathematics, good luck to them.
>
and these madrassa -ised drones are likely to seek permanent residency
in _this_ country yet yo ulull yourself into thinking it isn't _your_
problem ....
> I've seen all of the same issues with Greeks and Italians. Ultimately we
> keep the good attributes of these cultures and discarded the bad.
These successfull immigrants were subject to White Australian Policy.
and as such show the advantages of accepting _compatable_ cultures
as immigrants.
BTW I know a few Italians but I don;t know their stance on Islam
I _do_ know a whole bunch of Greeks and they absolutely LOATH
Islam and can't understand why Australia lets ANY Moslems in at all..
from a Muslim discussion forum regarding no Mosques permitted in Athens
[quote stt]
Yes, I've heard about it, although I have never visited it. However, it
doesn't run as a mosque. Greeks are quite resistant to letting an official
mosque in any place other than "Turk/Pomac" areas in in North Western
Greece where Islam is practised since the Ottoman empire. Things are
changing though and lots of Arab and Pakistani immigrants are living in
Greece now so there is more pressure. There are unofficial musallahs
all over
[quote fin]
here you see both the intent on world domination and using immigration
/refugee-ism to accomplish it.
SaPeIsMa
> cornholio wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 12:10 pm, Hunter <hunte...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> regn.pickford wrote:
>>>> "Dan" <dan4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.25439baeb...@news.x-privat.org...
>>>>> Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
>>>>> smoke.
>>>> They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
>>>> as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
>>> And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
>>> Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
>>> to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
>>> hypocrite.
>>
>> Christians don't "rape and
>> brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
>> nominally Christian nation I can think of.
>>
>> I'd like to see proof of your allegation.
>
>
> I'm using his rules of evidence as I said, which are that if one member of
> a group, legally or illegal, performs an action then all members of that
> group are responsible for it. I explained that in the post you replied to,
> really can't see how you missed it.
>
Whose "rules of evidence" are those ?
Why should I be responsible for any and all actions of an group that I may
or may not belong to depending on how you define a "group"
If I'm white, am I automatically guilty by association for slavery ?
Is this still true even though I'm a first generation immigrant ?
This is total nonsense.
An attempt to manipulate people by declaring them guilty of this or that
sin, just because they exist.
TOTAL BULLSHIT>
> But to elaborate, because a bunch of crazy Muslim loons rape and brutalise
> women he is accusing them all of it, so I'm pointing out to him that
> because a bunch of crazy Christian priests in Australia have been guilty
> of raping and brutalising young boys that if he were not a hypocrite he
> would also need to accuse all Christians of that. Both ideas are equally
> as ridiculous as each other. Very simple.
>
The only "flaws" of your stupid argument are as follow
In one group, the practice is proscribed
In the other, it is condonned
Can you see the difference ?
Hunter
Did you miss the part, in the post which you just replied to, in black
and white, in simple English, that said both ideas are as ridiculous as
each other? Don't get all menstrual purely because you can't read what's
right there in front of you.
> If I'm white, am I automatically guilty by association for slavery ?
> Is this still true even though I'm a first generation immigrant ?
> This is total nonsense.
> An attempt to manipulate people by declaring them guilty of this or that
> sin, just because they exist.
> TOTAL BULLSHIT>
I agree with you completely. Thank you, you've just done exactly what
I've done, pointed out to pretzl's little fan club that everything they
are saying is TOTAL BULLSHIT, based on that exact argument that you've
presented. Nice to know you agree. They wont like you much for it
though, they've been avoiding responding like that this entire time
because they know it would totally invalidate the crap they're spouting.
>> But to elaborate, because a bunch of crazy Muslim loons rape and
>> brutalise women he is accusing them all of it, so I'm pointing out to
>> him that because a bunch of crazy Christian priests in Australia have
>> been guilty of raping and brutalising young boys that if he were not a
>> hypocrite he would also need to accuse all Christians of that. Both
>> ideas are equally as ridiculous as each other. Very simple.
>>
>
> The only "flaws" of your stupid argument are as follow
> In one group, the practice is proscribed
> In the other, it is condonned
> Can you see the difference ?
Sigh... Can you see the lack of difference and the double standards when
all sorts of attrocities are proscribed in Christianity as well, but
aren't held against Christians because they obviously aren't practiced
in this day and age? Lets look at things "proscribed" in Christianity
shall we.. Do you follow these?
Also try and find anywhere in Islam where it proscribes what he claimed,
"the brutalisation and rape of women", I don't think you'll find it,
which makes your comment incredibly stupid...
(and while you're at it you might want to check age of consent in
Islamic countries compared to European countries, I was pretty stunned
to find it's our own Western ancestors that like 'em much younger in
this day and age):
Matthew 10:34
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not
come to bring peace, but a sword."
Matthew 19:29
"And every one who hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, shall
receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."
Matthew 10:35-36
"For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against
her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -- a man's
enemies will be the members of his own household."
Corinthians 6:14-15
"Believers must not commune with unbelievers. What fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness, light with darkness, believers with
infidels?"
Deuteronomy 13:6-9 "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter,
or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you,
saying: Let us go and worship other gods (gods that neither you nor your
fathers have known, gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far,
from one end of the land to the other, or gods of other religions), do
not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or
shield him. You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the
first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people."
Deuteronomy 17:3-5 "And he should go and worship other gods and bow down
to them or to the sun or the moon or all the army of the heavens,
.....and you must stone such one with stones and such one must die."
At the end of the day I don't like religion at all, any religion, I
reckon it's the greatest cause of hate and suffering on this planet. But
what truly makes me sick is extremist hate-filled fundies from one
religion trying to pretend they have the high ground and spitting bile
and hatred at other religions. The other thing that truly makes me sick
is people that blame all of one group for the actions of a few within
the group. Combine the two and we get a real fucktard, and the only way
it seems to beat sense into their fucktard heads is to play devil's
advocate and throw a reversal of the argument right back at them. Sadly
with some of the brainless knobs in these news-groups, who could
probably do with a straightjacket, even this does not work.
Hunter
Yep, he proved my point quite nicely! 8]
Hunter
> "B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> regn.pickford wrote:
>>> They rape and brutalise .
>> Some rape and brutalise.
>>
> and it is lawfull in their cutural law
No it's not, any more than it is in yours.
>>> They do not accept our Rule of Law.
>> Some do not accept our Rule of Law.
>>
>>> their Imams tell them to live under our laws.
>> IOW, you're a delusional idiot.
>
> That label belongs to people who do not see
> the influences Moslem religious leaders have '
> over Moslem `drones.`
Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults
have lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.
>>> At any time their Imams
>>> can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
>>> business associates _new_ laws.
>> Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.
>>
> It only takes a motivated government and a motivated electorate
> we almost did something akin to restricting religions when we had the
> referendum on banning the Communist Party
>
> As it is we would only need to recognise Islam is fundamentally a
> terrorist cult organisation actively pursueing a goal of world domination
> rather than a religion.
How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't
vote yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be
unfair on all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all
the good Muslims out there.
>>> You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
>>> you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have
>>> increased
>>> to 20 or 30% of the population.
>> This is the same with any group from any country when the rate of
>> immigration exceeds the rate of enculturation.
>
> So you actually accept a policy of increasing the market share of Muslims
> will result in social friction?
>
> please explain why you support their numbers being increased?
>
>
>> You speak of "rule of law". What *system* do you propose to use other than
>> RULE OF LAW to process migrants?
>>
>
> Our rule of law as we accept it, has authority `of numbers' over them until
> they
> assimilate our culture. Incompatable cultures can not assimilate
> they can only convert. They accept that "when in Rome ..."
> they will lose `tilting at windmills' and so `play the game` breed up
> in our welfare system protected by short sighted P.C. and
> multiculti drones.
Easy way to fix this which I'd be extremely in favour of is a 5 year
"review period" on immigrants after tentative approval for permanent
residency or citizenship. It'd cost money but I think it'd be well worth
it for Australia. Set up a body that after 5 years goes over their lives
for the past 5 years with a fine-tooth comb, if they are not found to
have joined society as a whole, and adopted the Australian ethos
(something you've never done) of accepting everyone and getting along
with everyone, if they've decided to hide in little enclaves and shun
Australians, then send them home. And that should apply to all
immigrants regardless of race/religion.
>>> Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
>>> push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
>>> circle of trust.
>> Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
>> inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?
>
> nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.
Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he
hit one of your raw nerves square on the head.
> If a repeat pedophile moves next door to you, will you want them to fnn[
> off becuase you're afraid of them? Will you be suspicious of them cause
> you're quaking in your slippers?
>
> wake up and smell the coffee.
When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?
> the people who will claim not to be suspicious or refrain from
> vilifying the creature are the ones with confidence or inadequacy issues
> and (personally) fearfull..
Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting"
country, I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train
stations after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests,
all healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.
>>> In Australi their number are still small enough to
>>> encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
>>> of moderate compliance.
>> I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
>> they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.
>>
>> In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will never
>> appear on the skilled occupation list.
>>
> You lot change your mind when your time is upon you.
Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?
regn.pickford
> regn.pickford wrote:
>> "B J Foster" <bjfo...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:hbe8gn$luh$1...@bjf.motzarella.org...
>>> regn.pickford wrote:
>>>> They rape and brutalise .
>>> Some rape and brutalise.
>>>
>> and it is lawfull in their cutural law
>
>
> No it's not, any more than it is in yours.
>
preaching world conquest and domination.
The Christian Church is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.
>
>>>> They do not accept our Rule of Law.
>>> Some do not accept our Rule of Law.
>>>
>>>> their Imams tell them to live under our laws.
>>> IOW, you're a delusional idiot.
>>
>> That label belongs to people who do not see
>> the influences Moslem religious leaders have '
>> over Moslem `drones.`
>
>
> Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
> like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults have
> lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.
>
Islamic Kuwait received diddly squat support from non Christian countries
compared to Christian Countries.
>>>> At any time their Imams
>>>> can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
>>>> business associates _new_ laws.
>>> Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.
>>>
>> It only takes a motivated government and a motivated electorate
>> we almost did something akin to restricting religions when we had the
>> referendum on banning the Communist Party
>>
>> As it is we would only need to recognise Islam is fundamentally a
>> terrorist cult organisation actively pursueing a goal of world domination
>> rather than a religion.
>
>
> How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
> better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
> kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't vote
> yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be unfair on
> all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all the good
> Muslims out there.
>
Christianity is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.
As the Church has weakened we have seen a collapse in morality.
Wirthout Christianity, `morality` has no `reference` pointgand ceases
to hold anything other than a nominal value open to invariable
interpretation
i.e. without Christianity, nothing is sinfull (from a Christian perspective)
In such a society for example, this society _you_ wish upon us, it could be
argued
that if a child suffered no actully harm from being sexually interferred
with, the act
could not be deemed a transgression.
Murder would again become an act where compensation payments to allow the
wealthy a 007 style license to kill (as long as they pick up the tab).
You see, you need a God to make Murder a sin..
You may be hoping the Islamic God would make murder a sin, but
theirs is the old angry God of violence, rertribution and compensation
murder may still be a sin but there is less authority for the plebs to do
much about it.
let them stay here for 5 years, they have kids who have only known
life in Australia, speak English, Australian schools, education
egalitarianism,
so on and so forth .. the end result is people not suited anymore to going
back
and dealing with their pig ignorant neighbours full of suspician about them
because of thei westernised outlook and craving for hot baths, foxtel and
toilet paper.
They should go back pretty much as they left to reduce the inevitable
cultural shock.
Your method would ensure the greatest cultural shocks.
but besides that, we have a Christian obligation to help these people in
distress
in times of trouble but there is no obligation to make themAustralian
residents.
If there is a car accident out the front of my house I will help as possible
but the obligation is on them to help themselves as well and this does not
infer any `right`
of helping themselves to my or our limitted resources ...it means not being
an unecessary
burden i.e. going back to their homes (nations) when the crisis has passed
why you should think `bad luck` entitles them to a share of your national
wealth is beyond me.
>>>> Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
>>>> push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
>>>> circle of trust.
>>> Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
>>> inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?
>>
>> nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.
>
>
> Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he hit
> one of your raw nerves square on the head.
>
It isn't a raw nerve but a tired response to a tiresome claim. He may as
well say
"abra cadabra" and think he has trounced me. It's a mantra it's supposed to
to ward
off different perspectives that are not comfortable to consider. i.e.
personal cowardice..
>
>> If a repeat pedophile moves next door to you, will you want them to fnn[
>> off becuase you're afraid of them? Will you be suspicious of them cause
>> you're quaking in your slippers?
>>
>> wake up and smell the coffee.
>
>
> When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?
>
you tell me.
if you accept `no man is without sin` then it really isn't surprising to see
Christian ministers
commiting sin.
In Islam they don't consider selling an underage girl into a sexual
relationship as sin
or rape within marriage, rape.
>
>> the people who will claim not to be suspicious or refrain from
>> vilifying the creature are the ones with confidence or inadequacy issues
>> and (personally) fearfull..
>
>
> Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
> Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting" country,
> I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train stations
> after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests, all
> healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
> pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
> what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
> will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
> quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
> the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.
>
In that case you'll agree BJF's claim that such vilification and suspion
stems
from fear and feeling of inadequacy is -
nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.
>
>>>> In Australi their number are still small enough to
>>>> encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
>>>> of moderate compliance.
>>> I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
>>> they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.
>>>
>>> In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will
>>> never appear on the skilled occupation list.
>>>
>> You lot change your mind when your time is upon you.
>
>
> Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?
I have watched people go through the experience of death..
When faced with nothing the hope/realisation that there is something can be
very comforting
Hunter
> "Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:Coqdna9hvuzgfULX...@westnet.com.au...
>>
> Christianity has the Lamb. Islam has the pedophile war monger
> preaching world conquest and domination.
Noted that you totally evaded your incorrect statement that I corrected.
Christianity has the evil child that murders people , a god that
preaches betrayal of the family unit and murder/death/destruction, and
pedophiles that run the clergy in this country as seen hundreds of times
in recent years in the courts if you want to look at things in the way
that you're doing.
> The Christian Church is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.
And pedophilia it seems from the number of Christian clergy (hundreds)
ending up in the courts for molesting children.
>> Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
>> like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults have
>> lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.
>
> Islamic Kuwait received diddly squat support from non Christian countries
> compared to Christian Countries.
And again, duly noted your complete evasion over the fact that the
particular relgion has no bearing over whether or not a religious leader
has immense sway over the sheeple that follow that religion, it's common
to all religions. Instead you seem to be jumping around like a yoyo.
And even when you evade your inaccuracy, you just replace it with more
dishonesty. The second highest contributor of the 34 nations that joined
the coalition was Saudi Arabia, and of the top 10 contributors (which
did not include Australia) 7 were Islamic nations. Care to try something
a tad more honest next time?
>> How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
>> better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
>> kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't vote
>> yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be unfair on
>> all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all the good
>> Muslims out there.
>
> Christianity is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.
It also seems fundamental and nearly exclusive when it comes to
religious leaders molesting children.
> As the Church has weakened we have seen a collapse in morality.
> Wirthout Christianity, `morality` has no `reference` pointgand ceases
> to hold anything other than a nominal value open to invariable
> interpretation
>
> i.e. without Christianity, nothing is sinfull (from a Christian perspective)
>
> In such a society for example, this society _you_ wish upon us, it could be
> argued
> that if a child suffered no actully harm from being sexually interferred
> with, the act
> could not be deemed a transgression.
Firstly it is the leaders of the Christian church itself that seem to be
more prolific than any other "trade" when it comes to molesting
children, so it would be entirely erroneous and dishonest for anyone to
claim the proliferation of Christianity prevents children from being
sexually interfered with, actually the facts seem to say the absolute
opposite.
> Murder would again become an act where compensation payments to allow the
> wealthy a 007 style license to kill (as long as they pick up the tab).
>
> You see, you need a God to make Murder a sin..
> You may be hoping the Islamic God would make murder a sin, but
> theirs is the old angry God of violence, rertribution and compensation
> murder may still be a sin but there is less authority for the plebs to do
> much about it.
The reality of the situation is that religion (regardless of religion,
any religion including Christianity) seems to go hand in hand with
greater levels of immorality. In first world wealthy countries, the less
"religious" a country is in most cases, the less this stuff happens.
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Here you will find all sorts of interesting information such as "In
general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate
with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD
infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous
democracies (Figures 1-9)."
It seems that in societies where we are truly free to believe or
dis-believe as we see fit (such as Australia) the rate of belief is
slowly dropping, and it appears from the study linked above the more
these beliefs are dropped the happier and healthier a society becomes.
To compare two edges of the spectrum to each other lets look at Japan
and the US. The US is ridden with crime, poverty and hatred. It is one
of the most religious of those countries where people are allowed to
choose their beliefs. Japan on the other hand is one of the least
religious of these countries and has the least of these problems.
>> Easy way to fix this which I'd be extremely in favour of is a 5 year
>> "review period" on immigrants after tentative approval for permanent
>> residency or citizenship. It'd cost money but I think it'd be well worth
>> it for Australia. Set up a body that after 5 years goes over their lives
>> for the past 5 years with a fine-tooth comb, if they are not found to have
>> joined society as a whole, and adopted the Australian ethos (something
>> you've never done) of accepting everyone and getting along with everyone,
>> if they've decided to hide in little enclaves and shun Australians, then
>> send them home. And that should apply to all immigrants regardless of
>> race/religion.
>
> let them stay here for 5 years, they have kids who have only known
> life in Australia, speak English, Australian schools, education
> egalitarianism,
> so on and so forth .. the end result is people not suited anymore to going
> back
> and dealing with their pig ignorant neighbours full of suspician about them
> because of thei westernised outlook and craving for hot baths, foxtel and
> toilet paper.
>
> They should go back pretty much as they left to reduce the inevitable
> cultural shock.
> Your method would ensure the greatest cultural shocks.
No, my method would only see those that refused to become part of
Australia sent back, and those are the types who've never adopted our
culture in the first place so are very unlikely to face any culture
shock if sent home, more like an economic shock, and bad luck.
> but besides that, we have a Christian obligation to help these people in
> distress
> in times of trouble but there is no obligation to make themAustralian
> residents.
I agree completely, they should not be allowed to stay here forever
because of refugee status, they should have to apply like anyone else
from any other country or be sent home when the problems are over.
> If there is a car accident out the front of my house I will help as possible
> but the obligation is on them to help themselves as well and this does not
> infer any `right`
> of helping themselves to my or our limitted resources ...it means not being
> an unecessary
> burden i.e. going back to their homes (nations) when the crisis has passed
>
> why you should think `bad luck` entitles them to a share of your national
> wealth is beyond me.
I don't, as I've said to you many times, they should have to apply like
anyone else. But since that is never likely to happen in this
politically correct society full of sheeple with the wool pulled over
their eyes we should at the very least be performing reviews to ensure
these people are at least making an attempt to fit into Australia and if
not send them home. Personally I don't think they should be allowed to
stay purely due to refugee status at all, it should always be considered
temporary, unless they apply to get in in the meantime under the same
rules and guidelines as any other immigrant has to deal with.
>> Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he hit
>> one of your raw nerves square on the head.
>
> It isn't a raw nerve but a tired response to a tiresome claim. He may as
> well say
> "abra cadabra" and think he has trounced me. It's a mantra it's supposed to
> to ward
> off different perspectives that are not comfortable to consider. i.e.
> personal cowardice..
No different than the irrational claims you were making, which could
equally be applied to all Christians based on the actions of the loons
like the Brethren if we were to do things your way.
>> When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?
>
> you tell me.
>
> if you accept `no man is without sin` then it really isn't surprising to see
> Christian ministers
> commiting sin.
Yes, but you wouldn't expect to see a massive over-representation as we
do seem to see unless something was very wrong.
> In Islam they don't consider selling an underage girl into a sexual
> relationship as sin
> or rape within marriage, rape.
Actually they do, in fact many Islamic countries have a much higher age
of consent and much more severe penalties for breaking those laws than
most "Western" countries do. Whilst pockets of culture still allow this
crap to happen it is being wiped out, just as it is with some
Aboriginals right here in Australia who still seem to consider it to be
perfectly ok culturally despite 200 years of Christian indoctrination
(or perhaps not despite at all), and there are even pockets of
Christians in the same regions of the Middle East and elsewhere that
also still think it is ok culturally. It ain't a religion thing, it's a
regional culture thing, and slowly but surely it's being eliminated, the
wealthier and more educated a country, or region within a country, becomes.
>> Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
>> Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting" country,
>> I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train stations
>> after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests, all
>> healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
>> pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
>> what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
>> will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
>> quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
>> the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.
>>
>
> In that case you'll agree BJF's claim that such vilification and suspion
> stems
> from fear and feeling of inadequacy is -
>
> nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.
I don't vilify anyone based on race/religion/anything else, but I will
be more likely to be wary based on those and a number of other factors,
which is perfectly rational when faced with very obvious statistical
chances every day. Same as I'd be more wary of a Christian priest
looking after children than I would be with most anyone else looking
after them. Also I have no problems with airports or immigration being
more wary of people coming from the Middle East or other places involved
with terrorism, it doesn't mean we tar and brush everyone from that area
though any more than we'd tar and brush all Christians.
Some things are just more likely to happen with certain groupings in
certain areas, and it has nothing at all to do with that group as a
whole, it is to do with sub-cultures or pockets of sub-cultures in a
localised environment.
But to answer your question I don't agree with what he said in general,
but I also do not agree with what you said to prompt that response in
the first place. Rash and inaccurate generalisations generally lead to
generalised responses, and in some cases with some people his response
would probably have been accurate, but can't be used as an overall
blanket definition for all who don't seem to get it, as many don't get
it for a lot of different reasons.
>> Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?
>
> I have watched people go through the experience of death..
> When faced with nothing the hope/realisation that there is something can be
> very comforting
Agreed, nice little safety blanket for some. And that is one of the good
things about religion (any religion).
regn.pickford
> regn.pickford wrote:
>> "Hunter" <hunt...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:Coqdna9hvuzgfULX...@westnet.com.au...
>>> No it's not, any more than it is in yours.
>>>
>> Christianity has the Lamb. Islam has the pedophile war monger
>> preaching world conquest and domination.
>
>
> Noted that you totally evaded your incorrect statement that I corrected.
> Christianity has the evil child that murders people , a god that preaches
> betrayal of the family unit and murder/death/destruction, and pedophiles
> that run the clergy in this country as seen hundreds of times in recent
> years in the courts if you want to look at things in the way that you're
> doing.
>
>
>> The Christian Church is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.
>
>
> And pedophilia it seems from the number of Christian clergy (hundreds)
> ending up in the courts for molesting children.
>
Not Pedophilia, as it is a sin. Some Clerics may be sinners but they don't
give it their blessing, they don't say it's God's good works, they don't
marry pedophiles to kids and they admit they have sinned when caught.
>
>>> Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
>>> like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults
>>> have lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.
>>
>> Islamic Kuwait received diddly squat support from non Christian countries
>> compared to Christian Countries.
>
>
> And again, duly noted your complete evasion over the fact that the
> particular relgion has no bearing over whether or not a religious leader
> has immense sway over the sheeple that follow that religion, it's common
> to all religions. Instead you seem to be jumping around like a yoyo.
>
> And even when you evade your inaccuracy, you just replace it with more
> dishonesty. The second highest contributor of the 34 nations that joined
> the coalition was Saudi Arabia, and of the top 10 contributors (which did
> not include Australia) 7 were Islamic nations. Care to try something a tad
> more honest next time?
>
If you recall, Saudi Arabia was next nation in Hinsanes field of fire.
Self protection explaina their contribution.
[quote stt]
US troops represented 73% of the coalition's 956,600 troops in Iraq.
Many of the coalition forces were reluctant to join. Some felt that the
war was an internal Arab affair, or did not want to increase US influence
in the Middle East. In the end, many nations were persuaded by Iraq's
belligerence towards other Arab states, offers of economic aid or debt
forgiveness, and threats to withhold aid
[quote fin]
The yanks needed Arabs to join the coalition yo lend it credibility.
27% of the coalitition troops were non United States and you say Arabic
states
were 7 of the larger players in this.
It would be interesting to see the real number as a proportion of
populations,
GDP, cost of transporting them there and the nations reason (volunteer,
bribe or coerced)
>
>>> How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
>>> better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
>>> kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't
>>> vote yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be
>>> unfair on all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all
>>> the good Muslims out there.
>>
>> Christianity is fundamental to our social mores and Taboos.
>
>
> It also seems fundamental and nearly exclusive when it comes to religious
> leaders molesting children.
>
like Mohammed. All Islam is about what was good for Mohammed is good for
the halfwit retard 15 yr old with a `strap on` suicide belt, or the
deliberately
raped girl child handed a suicide vest as an opportunity to erase the shame
on her family.
>
>> As the Church has weakened we have seen a collapse in morality.
>> Wirthout Christianity, `morality` has no `reference` pointgand ceases
>> to hold anything other than a nominal value open to invariable
>> interpretation
>>
>> i.e. without Christianity, nothing is sinfull (from a Christian
>> perspective)
>>
>> In such a society for example, this society _you_ wish upon us, it could
>> be argued
>> that if a child suffered no actully harm from being sexually interferred
>> with, the act
>> could not be deemed a transgression.
>
>
> Firstly it is the leaders of the Christian church itself that seem to be
> more prolific than any other "trade" when it comes to molesting children,
> so it would be entirely erroneous and dishonest for anyone to claim the
> proliferation of Christianity prevents children from being sexually
> interfered with, actually the facts seem to say the absolute opposite.
>
It is a sin, they acknowledge it is sinfull. Unlike Islam which approves
of it and marries children to pedophiles
A very dry read.A collection of opinions. At best (for you) it indicates
there are _other_ reasons for crime and homicide than `whether someone
accepts Jesus as their Saviour`
No news to anyone - Homicide rates in Australia peaked 1920's troughed
early 1940's peaked 1980 and have been declining since with an average
over the 20th century of about 1.8 per 100 k of population.
No obvious causual affect from the influence of the church or gun laws. but
social disorder and international conflict rings alarm bells.
Regardless through it all murder and killing has been a sin and you can't
have sin without a higher authority than an individual's self interst.
i.e. no god = no sin.
Your approach is an ideal and has merit. But to stop this refugee invasion
by see and air the only effective way is to make it plain 1)you got no
chance at all
and 2) we won't pay you , yo uhave to sing for your supper.
This approach will stop them risking their lives.
It's not ideal or fair to all, but it's effective and would save lives
of boatpeople.
>
>> but besides that, we have a Christian obligation to help these people in
>> distress
>> in times of trouble but there is no obligation to make themAustralian
>> residents.
>
>
> I agree completely, they should not be allowed to stay here forever
> because of refugee status, they should have to apply like anyone else from
> any other country or be sent home when the problems are over.
>
I have no ssue with them applying for permanent immigration from
another country and being processed under the guidelines.
Ideally AFAIC these guidelines would need to be reconstructed in a form
similiar
to the very effective and successfull White Australia Policy.
>
>> If there is a car accident out the front of my house I will help as
>> possible
>> but the obligation is on them to help themselves as well and this does
>> not infer any `right`
>> of helping themselves to my or our limitted resources ...it means not
>> being an unecessary
>> burden i.e. going back to their homes (nations) when the crisis has
>> passed
>>
>> why you should think `bad luck` entitles them to a share of your
>> national
>> wealth is beyond me.
>
>
> I don't, as I've said to you many times, they should have to apply like
> anyone else. But since that is never likely to happen in this politically
> correct society full of sheeple with the wool pulled over their eyes we
> should at the very least be performing reviews to ensure these people are
> at least making an attempt to fit into Australia and if not send them
> home. Personally I don't think they should be allowed to stay purely due
> to refugee status at all, it should always be considered temporary, unless
> they apply to get in in the meantime under the same rules and guidelines
> as any other immigrant has to deal with.
>
but if that means living on welfare and applying from within Australia
then why should they ever go back to third world poverty and
living conditions?
welfare sit down money is very addictive and punishes those who make the
effort to wean themselves from it, via loss of money, benefits, allowances
etc
compared to low `kick off` wages of low skilled workers.
>>> Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he
>>> hit one of your raw nerves square on the head.
>>
>> It isn't a raw nerve but a tired response to a tiresome claim. He may as
>> well say
>> "abra cadabra" and think he has trounced me. It's a mantra it's supposed
>> to to ward
>> off different perspectives that are not comfortable to consider. i.e.
>> personal cowardice..
>
>
> No different than the irrational claims you were making, which could
> equally be applied to all Christians based on the actions of the loons
> like the Brethren if we were to do things your way.
>
too much snipped.
>>> When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?
>>
>> you tell me.
>>
>> if you accept `no man is without sin` then it really isn't surprising to
>> see Christian ministers
>> commiting sin.
>
>
> Yes, but you wouldn't expect to see a massive over-representation as we do
> seem to see unless something was very wrong.
I'm pretty sure they all knew it was a sin. Why so many priests make the
headlines probably has more to do with compensation claims and their
perceived higher
level of trust aportioned to the role..
>> In Islam they don't consider selling an underage girl into a sexual
>> relationship as sin
>> or rape within marriage, rape.
>
>
> Actually they do, in fact many Islamic countries have a much higher age of
> consent and much more severe penalties for breaking those laws than most
> "Western" countries do. Whilst pockets of culture still allow this crap to
> happen it is being wiped out, just as it is with some Aboriginals right
> here in Australia who still seem to consider it to be perfectly ok
> culturally despite 200 years of Christian indoctrination (or perhaps not
> despite at all), and there are even pockets of Christians in the same
> regions of the Middle East and elsewhere that also still think it is ok
> culturally. It ain't a religion thing, it's a regional culture thing, and
> slowly but surely it's being eliminated, the wealthier and more educated a
> country, or region within a country, becomes.
>
It goes along with what I've said many times which is Islam may progress
at some time in the future (100's of years) to a position where they can
live
alongside Christians, but that time will be a while coming..
and it was ok in many cultures of our neighbours and still is.
Here it is Taboo and cultures that accept it are incompatable.
We should avois importing incompatable cultures.
>
>>> Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
>>> Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting"
>>> country, I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train
>>> stations after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests,
>>> all healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
>>> pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
>>> what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
>>> will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
>>> quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
>>> the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.
>>>
>>
>> In that case you'll agree BJF's claim that such vilification and suspion
>> stems
>> from fear and feeling of inadequacy is -
>>
>> nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.
>
>
> I don't vilify anyone based on race/religion/anything else, but I will be
> more likely to be wary based on those and a number of other factors, which
> is perfectly rational when faced with very obvious statistical chances
> every day. Same as I'd be more wary of a Christian priest looking after
> children than I would be with most anyone else looking after them. Also I
> have no problems with airports or immigration being more wary of people
> coming from the Middle East or other places involved with terrorism, it
> doesn't mean we tar and brush everyone from that area though any more than
> we'd tar and brush all Christians.
>
vilifiction is a word like torture which is IMO misused a lot
I don't approve of calls for violence while negotiation is still
realistically
viable. So I don't approve of the sort of vilification that acts as fuel for
violence.
OTOH aggressively explaining to baby factory, raghead that wearing a
tent in a shopping centre is an eye ache and personally offensive to me
and my country as an act of peer censure to assist the stupid cow in
assimilating this Australian Culture carries a moral impetus. As is
explaining
similiar objections to it's shepherd, {the bearded freak in the death
shroud)
that women are free in this country. So assimilate or fnck off.
.
I don't have the same concerns about Christian priests asa you do..
> Some things are just more likely to happen with certain groupings in
> certain areas, and it has nothing at all to do with that group as a whole,
> it is to do with sub-cultures or pockets of sub-cultures in a localised
> environment.
>
> But to answer your question I don't agree with what he said in general,
> but I also do not agree with what you said to prompt that response in the
> first place. Rash and inaccurate generalisations generally lead to
> generalised responses, and in some cases with some people his response
> would probably have been accurate, but can't be used as an overall blanket
> definition for all who don't seem to get it, as many don't get it for a
> lot of different reasons.
>
works for me.
>>> Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?
>>
>> I have watched people go through the experience of death..
>> When faced with nothing the hope/realisation that there is something can
>> be
>> very comforting
>
>
> Agreed, nice little safety blanket for some. And that is one of the good
> things about religion (any religion).
>
life is energy. Energy cannot be made or destroyed. It can only be changed.