Funny how the race card played so frequently by the likes of Fellow blubbering Human. Well educated whites often have to perform menial jobs because they can't get "the" job. Not a race specific issue.

But when the influential and powerful in our society decide to mix people from different continents together, expect some kind of pecking order. This is what gives the racial egalitarian crew reason to live...since 'whites' are more likely to thrive in a European based society.

Don't let common sense get in the way of Marxist ambitions.

LIAR (F.H.)
MISREPRESENTER (F.H.)
RABBLE ROUSER (Pericles)
MORON (by implication IAN)

Well, I thought I'd actually list them. (feel free to list the 'names' I've called you all.)

I welcome such feedback, as always.

My challenge.

1/ F.H.
-show me a 'lie' ?
-show me a 'misrepresentation'

Your suggestion I'm lying ? is quite serious. I'll await your specific 'lie' before responding to it.

But, to your 'you answered sura 23.5-6 in the bogeyman thread' is not correct. You gave 'spin' in that thread and some allusions to 'its nice to free a slave' but I counter this head on, by pointing out that Sharia law explains it as currently applicable. Now who am I to believe ? You with your secular job, or an Imam who is an expert on Sharia ?
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10896

What you failed to recognize is the CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER of the Sura's when you quoted Sura2.. 23 is subsequent to it. 90 is subsequent to 23 but does in no way extinguish the practice or validity of 23:5-6 if it did, it would NOT be a part of Sharia law.

PERICLES.
Unlike you to be shabby with history. The Irish were giving the English 'some' because of long historical roots mainly going back to Cromwell and the massacres he carried out. Of course the Irish are not to blame, its the English of the day. but at the same time, 'that' struggle can be seen in historical context. You cannot goto the Bible and show how "The world must be conquered and become Catholic". Islam is a different kettle of Middle Eastern Carp.

IAN.. I'm sure you can do much better than wasted posts like that one.
Why not try for example to engage on the actual point you are critical of, and argue against it with facts.

Please have a read of the link I provided Ian... it will bring you up to speed.

Pericles,
Your definition of terrorists doesn't identify motive but may assume they're merely deranged criminals. Check out whose been the bommers, and you will find well educated middle class people involved. They're not terrorising merely to be terrorists, they have an intelligent agenda.

If they are IRA Catholics or Muslim fundamentalists you'll find it's religious convictions and with clear concience they will kill others. It's based in their view of who is their enemy, and how they should treat their enemy. Stop denying they have no intelligent religious based motive when they clearly identify it's their religion that commands them. Wether it is IRA who kill Protestants or Islamists who kill their polytheists and Western Christian infidel as the enemy. Stop pretending they have no motive except be criminal.

It's clear that there are some Muslims who do not interpret the Qur'an literally and are good citizens. But to understand the fundamentalist interpretation of shari'ah and its judgments as the basis of their motivation must be understood and exposed. This is what B_D is doing by bringing to attention the basis of their belief.

It's the belief system that is the basis of how they identify who is their enemy, if they did not have this belief based in Islam but bommed for some other reason they still would have a basis for their terrorist action. They happen to believe the Qur'an gives them this clear command, to fail to carry this out is denying their faith.

Think again about what you have said, [quote]"It was terrorism that was the enemy, Boaz, not the Irish, or the various shades of christianity in whose name the atrocities were perpetrated. And today, it is still terrorism we are fighting, Boaz, not Muslims....
to attribute every atrocity to the teachings of their religion, and to see only bad in a place where there is also much good, puts you firmly in the category of rabble-rouser."

I see you have no trouble identifying a group of Irish Catholic Christians, but you pretend Middle Eastern fundamentalist Muslims cannot be identified.

B_D
Interesting!
http://www.islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=10896

In "Jihads" (wars) women were taken as prisoners by Muslim warriors, and distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers. Each soldier was entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen". Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah,.. but it is not necessary for him to delve to find the wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy
Quraan: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge". Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.

The LEGAL possession over a slave woman gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. ... A free woman cannot be 'possessed', bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a 'marriage ceremony' in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her.

Rainer,just argue the points presented and stop screaming racist along with Realist,Mahatma and Kartiya.Can you or anyone else define what it takes to be classified to be Aboriginal?Is it special way of thinking,genetics or the allure of sit down money?

I think it is disgusting that the Anglo Aborigines have stolen the agenda along with the top administration jobs while the those closer to the true genetic culture sniff petrol and languish in social poverty.Billions have been spent on solving the problems and they get worse because people like yourself continue to seduce followers with the notions of the victim mentality and the evil white oppressors.

We cannot change the past,the Romans along with the Vikings invaded raped an plundered England, and England in turn invaded Australia.It has been happening since homo sapiens killed off all the neanderthals.You cannot just hide behind the umbrella of past attrocities as an excuse for not having a go.Believe or not,welfare or sit down money is the greatest enemy of the Aboriginal Culture.

Arjay, If you met me in person you'd find it very difficult to say what you've just said for a range of reasons. One that would have an immediate impact on you would be how forgiving I am. I truly feel sorry that you don't know any better, but that's not my fault.
I wish I could help you but I also think its your responsibility to become better informed, better educated, and thus less racist.
Racism is not my problem, its a white problem.