JohnJ.. thanx for the constructive criticism. Please always remember that here, its not so much about personality as digging for truth.
Information can be interpreted in various ways, as I'm frequently reminded here. But straight out factual info, without 'adjectives' of a hateful nature is still legitimate.

Lets take a court of law. The facts must be presented, even though they might be very unpalatable to the accused. The info I presented on the Web sites is quite factual, and not really open to much interpretation. A curse is a curse of course :) But seriously, when one third of humanity follows a religion which curses the other 2 thirds, which in turn 'blesses' its enemies.. we need to look closely.

Mohammed cursed Christians and Jews on his death bed.. repeatedly, that is simply a descriptive and factual assessment of an Islamic source. I haven't added any 'colorful' adjectives like 'The evil, moronic child molesting Mohammed......cursed Christians and Jews."

I truly hope you see the difference.
Fact alone=information
Fact+ adjectives=Hate site.

CARL.. you need a hug ! :) thanx for the kind words.

Tonight, I had pleasant conversations with the Muslim lady in my gym, previously I had very warm convo's with my Iranian taxi driver Muslim friend... There is more to me than the information I provide. Don't join the 2 please.

SPENDO.. if you like a good corporate war book.. http://inthecompanyofgoodandevil.com/ its a bladi beaudy.. could not put it down.
I wish you would look at some links from time to time, they fill in the gaps.

CJ. update on the Sudanese riot :) 2night at my gym.. yep.. one of the participants. Now I even know what it was about. all over a girl.
One tribes bloke loved her.. she wanted a bloke from the other tribe, and then the men fought, and the others joined in. Now ur up to speed :)

Boazy: "CJ. update on the Sudanese riot :) 2night at my gym.. yep.. one of the participants. Now I even know what it was about. all over a girl.
One tribes bloke loved her.. she wanted a bloke from the other tribe, and then the men fought, and the others joined in. Now ur up to speed :) "

Oh... so that was the 'not 7... not 70... but 700' Sudanese who supposedly engaged in a riot in some benighted Melbourne suburb, thus demonstrating the 'failure' of multiculturalism, but about which you haven't been able to provide documented evidence?

Like I've said before, the 'mad mufti' isn't the only misguided religious nutter spreading divisive propaganda based on bulldust. Probably unfortunately, it's the Muslim nutters who get the most media these days - it'd undoubtedly be quite amusing to unmask an 'anonymous' Brethren nutter like Boaz and give him a spread like Hilali's had lately. However, Hilali's someone who is apparently influential and important - at least for the time being - while Boaz is a nobody who isn't even game enough to identify himself with his own ideas.

CJ Morgan.The trouble is that Sheik Hilali and people like Wassim Durhiri have a lot of supporters.There is a deafening din of silence when comment is requested from the Muslim Community.What are they afraid of?The Muslim Community are playing both sides of the political agenda.They are using the power of victim status and cultural ignorance to gain advantage and we are falling for it.

How is it we have the smallest religious sect in Australia having the greatest influence,with prayer rooms,halal foods and fear from our Govts offending them,in case they might become violent?They are playing on our weak kneed fears, because we don't know how to cope with their violent nature and chaos.It is all about power politics and we have yet to grasp the reality.

It is interesting that while crusader bleats on with his bleeding heart of an armchair anthropologist, yahoo7 currently has an opinion poll.

At the moment: Friday night, over 90% of those polling in yahoo7 believe that the Sheik Feiz Mohammed Amir's tapes should be taken out of distribution.

Taking them off distribution is not exactly freedom of speech, is it? As I mentioned before, such a notion does not exist in this country and it never has.

Ramble on as you may, it seems that only 10% of Australians agree with you. Far better to be responsible than to pay the price in warfare.

Thanks to all those kind folk who said nice things about my last post.

To all those who would like Sheikh Hilaly and Feiz Mohammed deported, it would be well to remember that Hilaly is an Australian citizen (for good or ill) and Mohammed was born in Sydney. Where would you deport Mohammed to? Tasmania?

Wre raises an interesting issue regarding the banning of David Irving. The difference between Irving and the merry Islamic clerics is of course that Irving is not an Australian resident. Thus he had to apply for a visa, which was refused. Australian governments have a glorious tradition of banning unpopular overseas speakers, often spinelessly caving in to pressure groups. I can only agree with Crusader that "punishing free speech abusers might win community approval but it does no justice to the privilege of free speech". Is speech in Australia free, or not?

BOAZ_David, I am pleased you took my comments in the spirit that I made them. I am not sure however that I can agree with your formula of "Fact+ adjectives=Hate site". My own view is that it is more like "Truth+ Half/Truth+ Misrepresentations+ Exaggerations+ Lies=Hate Site". Best of luck straining the truth from a soup like that. Best to start from a reliable source, using dubious material only when you have to.

Yasser Soliman and Waleed Aly should think very carefully before they launch into victim mode and compare the Catch the Fire ministers with Muslim jihadists. Together with a reality-challenged Green spokeswoman, they smeared the 2 Dannys as "far-Right" fundamentalists and "groups which have a history of toxic-hate speech."
Why do newspapers, or the radio, or television, permit this propagandistic use of epithets for which not the slightest evidence is presented? The word "far right" or "right-wing" should not be used, as it has been used, to blacken the name and reputation of anyone at all who happens to grimly perceive the menace of Islam. What made Pim Fortuyn, the bemused libertine, "right-wing," as he was routinely called, so stupidly, in the European, American and Australian press? What? There was nothing. Was Bertrand Russell "right-wing" because of how he saw Islam? Churchill -- was he "right-wing" or "far right-wing"? Spinoza? Hume? John Quincy Adams? Mark Twain? Are they all "right-wing" because they grasped the essence of Islam?
During the war that the Muslims, the "Palestinians" and the locals unleashed on the Christians of Lebanon, a phrase appeared all over the Western world. It was always and everywhere "the right-wing Christians." In what did their "right-wingness" consist? Were they for a certain economic policy normally associated with the "right-wing"? Were they supporters of, or supported by, Fascists and unreconstructed Nazis all over the world? No, the Fascists and the Nazis, including known war criminals, had always been on the side of Muslims.
Toxic hate speech!?
So, quoting violent, racist, supremacist passages in the Qur'an and Sunnah and being alarmed at these hateful texts in the privacy of their own church is hate speech? Why shouldn't we non-Muslims examine the very real threat we face from Islam? Are Christians rioting over cartoons, plotting to mass-murder non-Christians, demanding endless apologies, causing trouble in nearly every country on Earth, calling Jews apes and pigs, calling non-Christians unbelievers and filth, torching mosques and marching through non-Christian areas with signs that say "Christianity will dominate"? No, Muslims are.