Thanks R0bert. It seems that Sancho doesn't realise that his (refreshingly frank) admission puts his arguments on exactly the same idiotic level as the fundy Islamophobes. Evidently, his personal unfortunate experiences with 'Muslims' in his suburb is sufficient in his mind to permit the telling of lies about Islam and Muslims in general.

I guess he also wouldn't be aware of the parallels that some of us have drawn here between the ethnic and religiously framed hate posts that threads such as this attract, and the kinds of literature and sentiments that we have seen before - like in Europe in the 1930s, or America in the 1950s.

It seems to me that in some ways Muslims are the new 'Jews', or the new 'Communists'. "Western" capitalist culture apparently seems to still find the need to create an Other to hate, and I fear that we are going to witness the escalation of hatred and warfare based on supposedly religious and/or ideological grounds - but actually structured in much the same way as good old racial conflict.

What's really scary is the way that so many lemmings are so easily led to hatred (which is of course why people like me bother to engage in these inane 'debates').

But that's the worst part, CJ: I wasn't led easily to hatred. I was a staunch supporter and defender of moderate Islam from the moment of 9/11, when all muslims suddenly became the bad guys. It has been interacting with muslims in my community and my workplace which has taught me that there is no such thing as moderate Islam. There are only muslims who are committed to violence, muslims who support violence monetarily, and muslims who support violence morally.

My ancestors in dark-ages Europe were no better, and I wouldn't want thousands of them shuttled to Australia and set up in high-rise public housing communities. Yet this is precisely what we're doing with our refugee program - taking people from backward, mediaeval societies and expecting them to behave like modern, civilised citizens when they arrive.

I disagree that muslims are the new Jews. Jews have been resented and persecuted because of their personal success, not because they waged continuing campaigns of violence or expressed a fervent desire to destroy a society which has welcomed them and improved their lives beyond measure. Not until the creation of Israel, anyway. Opposition to muslim immigration is based on self-preservation, not unfounded prejudice.

The mass importation of muslims is fundamentally different from every other wave of immigration Australia has accepted. The Chinese, Vietnamese, Greeks, Italians, and others have gratefully taken part in the wider community, worked hard, and tried to get along. That can only be said for the smallest minority of muslims, regardless of nationality.

Most importantly, this isn't some sort of xenophobic paranoia. London (Londonistan) and France are living models of what happens when you let the muslims loose on a civilised society. If muslims want to stay here, they should expect to live up to standards of behaviour and levels of scrutiny far higher than everyone else, because we've seen how they'll end up living if left to themselves.

Camo western legal systems are inherited from the Romans who based concepts such as lawyers , legal representation, testimony, the judiciary and prison and captital sentences on delegations sent to Athens very early in the republic. The Celts held versions of common law which they considered fair which influenced later Anglo law. Pagans held higher moral ideals especially in the north than Christianity the basis of paganism was respect for fellow people, including strangers even if they held different beliefs and respect for the earth.

In reality Christianity traditionally has remained outside the law.

Christians often avoid the fact that their idol , Jesus was tried by Pontious Pilate not by a court which would mean he would have committed a crime akin to the terrorist attack on the world trade centre to be tried by the Roman executive. Of course he didnt because Jesus before Pilate means the story of Jesus is fiction. Secondly Christian arsonists burnt down Rome which was the reason why the cult was outlawed. The Popes created out of the pagan office of pontif to justify the coronation of kings and emporers (many of whom were no more than crime syndicate bosses) spent most of Christian history fighing against the formation of states.

Even today some cults refuse to report priests who molest children.

The fact that ordely law exists in Australia is testamony to the freedom and protection the secular state can offer citizens rather than the inevitable persecution and tyranny that theological based states inflict onto populations. Case in point Saudi Arabia, Iran , Afghanistan , Pre-secular Britain, France , Germany and 17th and 18th century North American colonies.

Boaz, either you are pathetically gullible or deliberately provocative. You strenuously deny the latter, so...

>>The plot to blow up JFK airport.. BIGGER than 9/11 was placed on the front page of virtually every American newspaper (reportedly)..but that one. The NYT put it on page THIRTY SEVEN and the front page was some "Indians making bricks". That is beyond bias, its almost treacherous. Apparently they feel that 'terrorism' is a strong "Republican" issue so they avoid mentioning it.. "maybe it will just ... go away"?<<

You get your news from sources such as MSNBC, who are of course completely untainted with partiality:

"Federal authorities said a plot by a suspected Muslim terrorist cell to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, its fuel tanks and a jet fuel artery could have caused “unthinkable” devastation"

Unfortunately, it seems that we are not dealing here with "unthinkable devastation", but with a couple of fruitloops, without the faintest idea of how to blow up a balloon.

"...the plot was only in a preliminary phase and the conspirators had yet to lay out detailed plans or obtain financing or explosives... even if the group had managed to acquire the financing and explosives to enact the plot, it would have been unsuccessful, due to safety shut-off valves would almost assuredly have prevented an exploding airport fuel tank from igniting all or even part of the network... The sum of the group's planning for the alleged attack amounts to nothing more than visiting Google Maps and printing off photographs."

Some recipe for "unthinkable devastation", or in your words and event "BIGGER than 9/11".

Some "Muslim terrorist cell"

I think you will now agree, that the New York Times were pretty smart to put it on page 37.

You have this objectionable habit of grabbing any headline involving Muslims, and using it to support your apocalyptic paranoid fantasy about Islam.

Remember "The virginia Uni massacre.. done by a Muslim? 'Ismail X'"

When will you learn?

Pericles - Boazy won't learn, because he knows exactly what he's doing. As put so succinctly by Sancho, he too is "...happy to support (or make) any statement which increases suspicion or hostility toward muslims, regardless of veracity".

The major difference is that Sancho is candid about it, while Boazy still denies his mendacity despite being confronted with it regularly in this forum.

As disagreeable as you find my statements, I owe it to public debate to state my position honestly. Boaz's crusade of thinly-veiled religious propaganda is contemptible.