Response to Mr P P:
The link was provided by bigmal on Monday, 20 February 2006 7:54:55 AM and I had a scan through the first page.

Response to bigmal:
There are plenty of reviews of that book which testify to its bias. If kalweb genuinely wants to know about ethnic cleansing then wikipedia provides a neutral overview

David, I agree with the use of a source which looks at the whole topic rather than just focussing on one "groups" involvement. That tends to put things in a better perspective.

Kay (kalweb) is in my view a very genuine person. From my interactions with her I think that she is very genuine in her efforts to treat issues fairly and to understand the issues. Not the type to use loaded questions, rather someone who genuinely wants to understand.

Cheers
R0bert

bigmal and David Latimer

Thank your for your references. I have started reading.

RObert - hi mate - thanks for your support.

Cheers all
Kay

A few people have pointed out the misuse of the term 'racist' in my article.

I would just to clear up why I used the word racist to describe Danna Vale's comment.

To me, 'racist' is a very strong term. And while I acknowledge the diversity of races that practice Islam, I think those who are against Islam treat it more as a race than a religion.

Why? Because they attribute racial stereotypes to a religious belief. Mrs Vale used the stereotype of Muslims a) having large families and b) having large families to overpopulate a region. Other stereoptypes are Muslim people being dark-skinned, Arabic, controlling submissive women, uncontrollably violent etc ...

These characteristics are not usually denoted to people of a religious belief.

The understanding of a religion is being stopped by the attribution of racial characteristics.

If a politician, or a journalist for that matter, keeps the stereotyping going than you can't call them a 'bigot', 'racially intolerant' or 'prejudiced'. These words don't capture the kind of strategy the stereotyping is trying to achieve, i.e. subvert a comprehensive ideology into a set of 'racial' characteristics.

So, I would call them a 'racist'. And even though my use of the word was not strictly correct, I was trying to point to the strategy Mrs Vale is using.

the false religion of islam which was created to replace Jesus Christ's Way, it is demonic and cruel ,you never see Muslim comedians,smiling happy people, or anyone giving anything except raging fist shaking mad men ,whether it be inventions,science,filmstars, sports ,humanitarians ,etc. This religion was birthed hunderds of years after Christianity..As Jesus Christ said, "Iam the WAY,the TRUTH and the LIfe ,no one can come to the Father except through ME".He is the Son of God it can't be changed and that is it.

I have the February 2006 issue of Voice of the Martyr's Magazine here go to www.persecution.com.au I have this VOM magazine for many years you can see the tortuerd bodies of Christians who are electrocuted,tortured ,burnt,imprisoned,beaten,starved ,slavery,acid thrown in eyes ,parents killing their own kids all for becoming Christians.
In nations like Mauritania,Maldives,Algeria,Libya,Egypt,Indonesia ,Sudan (where the Muslims rape women ,then kill them after 20 muslims have done them over, Saudi Arabia (kill and cut off arms )Iraq,Iran,Pakistan,Malaysia ,Turkey,Nigeria,Ethiopia,Afghanistan,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan,Uzbekistan,Phillipines,(just shot 6 Christians last week) Lebanon,Gaza strip,Nepal,all have the same spirit so where is the love,compassion and care with Islam?
Kids ,and girls are raped and macheted to death in Indonesia alone 8,000 Christians kiled and maimed in 9 years .
Go also to www. open doors .com.au.

OPEN your blinded eyes and be honest .Islam is evil & uncaring and will lie to get their own religion accepted or legislated for Australia. Danna Vale Congratulations .

David Latimer:

You seem to be backing away from your claims a bit with the “I just skimmed through the first page” routine. No wonder. After reading the article by someone named Rebecca that you refer to, the following inconsistencies in your post seem worthy of mention.

"DW responds sarcastically and sadly in defence the mobsters. "

Perhaps the tone of the article is sarcastic, but to suggest that it is in defence of the mobsters is false, nowhere in the article is this born out. You are incorrect.

"In DW’s view, the mobsters and radicals are in the right,"

Again this is either a lack of comprehension or pure fabrication on your behalf. This point is made nowhere in the article. You should really make the effort to rectify the errors you have made.

“because it serves their bias.”

Whose bias is that then? The Islamic fanatics or jihadwatch? You are unclear on this point.

I detect a distinct bias in your approach however. Perhaps you would care to invent some extra supporting reasoning to back up your position?

"DW seems to enjoy fuelling religious acrimony, despite the consequences."

Much better if they just played nice and kept quiet eh?

“Don’t fall into this web.”

What?