Wobbles.

You compare statements by the, as you call them “American Taliban” (government, president etc), to that of what Islam says.

Some statements do have similar meanings and sentiments, given.

But this is where you go wrong........
I will demonstrate.. Note- we are discussing the west ‘this article’, and I will refer to the west..

Now you compare America’s leaders (president & parliament) statements about Islam (Muslims etc..), to that of what Islam says about the west.

But your problem is this...

Madrid, London, 9-11 are examples of why Islam’s comments ABOUT the WEST, IN the WEST (i.e. "shake halali's statement) is BAD for the WEST.
Fact (Islam’s comments, i.e. sheik hilahi’s “women are like...) are bad for our western society’s.

Now you show me example’s of how president bush’s statements are bad for western people in the west. And the only way that those comments could be bad for western people, in the west (excluding outside attacks) is if multi-culturalism (allowing islam in etc) leads to fighting.(fails)

if that "western statement" is bad for westeners living in the west, and that those statements can lead to internall attack, means that the allowing in of islam(muslims) was a catastophic mistake.

Islam (Muslims) cannot fit in to our western (australian) ways (culture, society etc).
They are not fitting in right now as I speak!(fact)
My definition of fitting in, is not like yours which is “I see one walk into a shop and buy an apple and thus they are fitting in”.
Right now they are not part of Australia.

They are a tribe, definition “a family or community, linked by social, religious, or blood ties. Having a common culture and dialect, and a recognized leader (I.e. MUFTI)

That completely answers how well Muslims are fitting in. Admit it, that definition means we have tribes in Australia (therefore not multi-cultural and can presume possible future hardships could lead to mass fighting in Sydney and elsewhere) Because tribes fight.

Muslim immigration needs to be stopped, because you’re only allowing an anti western tribe to grow in your very own western city.

John Stone and his dear friend Maxwell Newton, another advocate of wise and strong views, from their old student days at the Perth Modern School, were the best and the brightest that Australia ever produced. Yet in this thread, there is an inundation, of the half-baked educated and D performers in their schooling, of ill-considered opinion and ad hominem attacks of John Stone for his serious, wise, and strong views about where the real threat to Australia, and indeed, to Western civilization, lies.

All the above pitiful traducers of the man, who among all Australians would deserve to have the mantle of leadership on his shoulders, should be reminded, that it's only by the GRACE of the internet that they able to ventilate their INANITIES. Otherwise, they would not be able to pen even a letter to a provincial newspaper. And their literary qualities and critique would have the "FLASH" of the toilet.

For more on the Islamist threat See:http://power-politics1.blogspot.com

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1162378443007&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

For those who have doubt about Stones premise, have a read of this.

I would rather suffer a slight rise in temperature, (which by the way I could avoid by moving 100kms south), than see a further rise in the level of unreason, and the Muzzoes eroding our freedoms/standards even on jot further.

They are salami slicing us back to the 15th century with every twist and lie.

Keep at it John Stone, you are one of the few who is awake and doing their homework.

Themistocles, on what basis do you ascertain the education or intelligence of the posters criticising stone? it seems hypocritical to make accusations of ad hominen attacks when you yourself have passed judgement on the contributors based entirely on their criticism of the article, which you obviously feel compelled to defend.

it is illuminating that those critical of the article for the most part address the content and quality on the ideas presented, while the support (with the possible exception of boaz) consists primarily of congratulatory remarks containing no real analysis. this would suggest their reading of the article only went as far as to confirm their, and your particular prejudices, and once confirmed avoided any critical analysis.

perhaps you would care to explain why this is a wise and well considered article? I know of course that you agree with it, but that's not what im asking.

personally I have avoided commenting on this article because frankly it is undeserving of any serious discussion, the first thought on completing it was 'infantile', although some passages did make me laugh (darkly admittedly), particularly the comment about Costello's ability to make judgements on the science, which made me wonder about stone's ability to do the same...

(cntd)

the reason i have little respect for this article? setting aside my distaste for the irrational prejudices displayed within the real concern is that stone's suggestions are so lacking in reason or reality to be taken seriously. I find it astounding that someone involved in politics for the length of time that stone has been could seriously advocate that any government should ignore any problem of the magnitude of climate change (which even our current one can no longer do). or suggest that any problem can be addressed in isolation.

stone is not even proposing 'prioritising', which would be a reasonable suggestion even if I disagree.

global warming is of course a larger problem for Australia, albeit longer term and less direct than the threat (real or otherwise) of terrorism. bigmal's inane suggestion that the scope of the problem is related only to thermal comfort and perhaps rainfall ignores the global nature of politics and the economy. Australia can ill afford to be isolated on this issue, the countries that deal with it first are going to be the ones who prosper most in the long run.

it also ignores the effect that climate change in other areas could have on Australia, not in the wether, but in the geopolitical situation. it doesn't take much imagination to consider the effects of prolonged drought on the massively populated and nuclear armed India, china and Pakistan. a worst case scenario perhaps but pressure on resources has always been a catalyst for conflict.

im not suggesting that radical Islamism should be ignored, just that the dismissal of global warming is irrational at best.

"the reason I have little respect for this article? setting aside my distaste for the irrational prejudices displayed within the real concern is that stone's suggestions are so lacking in reason or reality to be taken seriously."

Completely agree, its not easy being. What surprises me is that the author sees no similarity in his rants to those that he is supposed to be defending us from. If this scenario comes about, it will be due just as much to such paranoia as it would anything else. Unfortunately, there are extremists in ALL circles and they should be denounced at every turn. I post on several blogs around the world and wherever you go the Islamaphobes tend to be the same people denying climate change. Strange coincidence?