Brilliant garbage, Grateful !

Is this the sort of 'argument' that they teach in the madrassas ?

You assert: "Not providing context means that people will place events in a context that they are most familiar: their own. This means events are taken out of context. You cannot remove context and motivation if the purpose is to understand."

So are you saying that evil acts are okay depending on the 'context' and the 'motivation' ? An act is not evil of itself, it just depends on the 'context' or 'motivation' ?

So you are suggesting (perhaps not here on OLO, but behind the closed doors of your Masjid) that what 'appears' to be a totally evil act, may be quite okay if the 'context' or 'motivation' are right ?

That nothing is ever 'totally' evil, it depends ?

Is that sort of stuff sanctioned by the Koran ?

Then this:

"Genuine asylum seekers arriving by boat" ?! Genuine asylum seekers would go through the proper processes and wait their turn, wouldn't they ? They wouldn't want to displace other 'genuine' refugees from the annual quota who have done all the rights things ?

Can you see the oxymoron of "genuine asylum seekers" and "arriving by boat" ?

Mind you, that's a good ploy - you'll now get the morons rushing to side with you who aren't worried about displacing genuine refugees from the annual quota. Of course, the irony is that so many refugees, genuine and otherwise, have fled from the turds of Islamist terrorism.

Devilishly cunning !

Joe

The one weapon that Islam has which can bring it victory over liberty is APPEASEMENT. We see it every day. Here is a small scale example. I presented a comment to the Guardian that Angela Merkel, although an excellent statesperson, had an unfortunate thought bubble when she invited a horde into Germany from the Middle East including a large number of unaccompanied men of fighting and raping age. Not only was the comment kerzonked, I was immediately listed for special pre-"moderation" of all comments. This not withstanding the large number of Moslem terrorist atrocity including in Germany and the mass groping and raping of German women in Cologne, to say nothing of what these Moslem hordes have done elsewhere in Europe and in Britain. (All my other comments on a wide variety of issues have been published untouched). But the Guardian is notorious for its sensitivity to any opposition to the march of Islam. The ABC here in Australia isn't all that much different. And why did the reporting of the Cronulla riots present the events as a brawl between Moslems and hooligans yet omit its origin in harassment of female beachgoers whose attire offended the Moslem cult?

Joe
There is such a thing as choosing the least of two evils.

The refugees that Abbott refused to accept from Burma were forced at gun point to boards boats by the Burmese army. Their options were get on a boat or die. Joe you are truly ignorant!

Now Abbott, as our wise leader, said "Nope". There're not coming here. The refusal to offer refuge was clearly an evil yet he saw a greater evil: allowing drug traffickers to profit as well as as missing the opportunity to look tough ( Was this before or after he performed like a true snow flake in his meeting with Putin after all the talk of about shirt fronting?).

Another evil is chemical weapons. Does anyone disagree? The Syrian government and ISIS have been condemned for the use of chemical weapons. It's been front page with world leaders united in their condemnation. So clearly its an evil.

Yet the U.S. has deployed white phosphorous against civilian populations in Iraq and Syra...the same civilians that have been resisting ISIS..and where are the headlines? Where is the condemnation from world leaders. Nothing in the local press about the video footage of white phosphorous being dropped on Raqqa in the last 24 hours...although you'll find repots in Washington Post and N.Y. Times .

So you see here is an evil and unless a case can be put for there being a even greater evil then the US as the source of this evil and other leaders and media being complicit through their silence should be condemned.

Perhaps this can be a test for Joe and kactuz. Are you prepared to condemn these war crimes? If not are you prepared to offer a justification for not having Trump and his generals face trial for war crimes?

You might also want to consider the WP used by Israel against a hospital in Gaza or depleted uranium used by the US in Iraq . Would either of you noble souls like to comment? Arent you concerned that noone has faced trial for these war crimes? If not, why not?

Grateful,

Yes, of course. The Burmese nationalist are cruelly and illegally oppressing the Rohingya minority group, who happen to be Muslim, and happen to have lived in that area for at least seven hundred years. I wasn't aware that Abbott had refused to take any of them, and I think that is very wrong if it's true.

Yes, it's most certainly wrong for any side in the brutal Syrian war to use chemical weapons, including phosphorus bombs. That would breach all manner of international agreements, as well as the Geneva Convention.

If Trump or his generals have committed such war crimes, I'm quite happy for them to be tried and shot.

Joe

Thank you Joe.
Kactus?

Thankyou Joe.
Kactuz?