Dear Bazz,

It may be hard to tie down a statement. However, when you ascribe to someone or some group you also should supply evidence that the one you say made the statement actually did. Otherwise you are putting words in their mouth. I would not say that somebody said something if I didn’t have any knowledge that they said it.

You also wrote: "Still I would have thought there are more important things to argue about than the origin of phrases."

Then why are you arguing about it? I think truth is quite important.

After Israel bombed the reactor there was no evidence that Hussein was working on nuclear weapons. Bush lied about Hussein getting yellow cake from Nigeria, lied about a connection of Hussein with Al Qaeda and lied about Hussein having weapons of mass destruction. Blair lied about Hussein having super weapons that would go into action 45 minutes after an invasion. Howard lied about no Australian troops being involved before the war when SAS forces were in Iraq two months before the war. The three criminals lied their countries into war.

You also wrote: "These things are never totally clear but you must always take them at their word."

I see no more reason to take Saddam Hussein at his word than I see to believe Shorten or Turnbull. In the world I live in politicians and heads of government lie shamelessly.

david f, "The White Australia policy is dead"

That is your introduced irrelevancy.

Again, Government needs to explain to the electorate why it allows the diversity tail to rule the immigration policy dog. -Continually giving preference to migrants (and smuggled economic migrants where Labor and the Greens are concerned) from high risk countries with traditions, cultures and political systems that are known to be incompatible with Australia's.

Yet where migrants are concerned it is a buyer's market.

Loudmouth wrote: "Have you lost all sense of decency, Mr. f ?"

Please curb your hysteria and insults. Speak to the point with a logical and coherent response. If a sign of losing decency is disagreement with you, then you are not worth arguing with.

David f, It was you that started arguing about phrases.

When someone like Saddam Hussein said Iraq was building nuclear weapons
would you take the gamble that it was a bluff ?
Especially when it was not a bluff.
It was known that Iraq had bought a single centrifuge from Germany.
A prototype ?
With something like that there is no gamble.

Hi AJ, where have you been? I was worried about you.

Jesus Christ was a pacifist. His most famous quotes clearly indicate his pacifist convictions.

Love thy enemies

If a man strikes thee, turn the other cheek.

Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.

Turn your swords into ploughshares.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Your first two "Jesus" quotes can easily be discerned as a poetic way of saying that he has come to cause trouble. Your last is not a quote from Jesus at all, and it deals with the End of Days and Armageddon. The only one that can reasonably be considered to support your wrongful assertion is the third quote. Christian theologians claim is this was simply Jesus instructing his disciples at the Last Supper to arm themselves with a couple of swords ('two will be enough"), in order for Jesus to fulfil his destiny as an arrested and soon to be executed leader of a band of brigands.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/luke_22_36.htm

Anyway, the question I would like to put to you, is why do you, as a supposed intelligent person and a card carrying "social progressive", defend a "religion" like Islam which quite plainly wishes to create a world wide caliphate, and who's holy scriptures advocate the use of violence and terrorism to attain that goal? Don't you consider your position somewhat bizarre?

Everything which Islam advocates is the diametric opposite of what a socialist believes, yet you defend Islam, tooth and nail. It appears that you and people like Suzie are as passionate about your own humanitarian ideology as any religious True Believer. You can Save The World if everybody is treated exactly equally (except of course, white people, Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen, because they are beyond the pale.)

So like an educated clergyman from the 19th Century who knows that Darwin is correct, you oppose what you know is right, and support what you know is wrong, because you think that ideology is more important than reality.

To Susieonline.

Christians can be just as violent as everybody else, but if they are as violent as everybody else, then they are behaving in contradiction to their religious teachings.

Muslims can be just as violent as everybody else, because their religion praises and rewards them for being violent on behalf of their God. Being violent on Allah's behalf does not contradict their religion.

Which societies today are clearly the more peaceful, Susie? Muslim or Christian ones? Why do you think that would be?

Think real hard. You can do it Suzie. Clear your mind of your your multicultural prejudices, turn on your critical analysis circuit, collate all data dispassionately, and use objective thinking.