>> The Islam of today is much more aggressive, militant and plain bloody-minded ...

your claims of reasonableness notwithstanding, this is a nasty, ludicrous generalization.

>> But that will not happen if foolish people make excuses for its lunacies

who has excused which lunacies? all i, and i believe others, are doing is objecting to the tarring of a huge collection of people with the lunacies of a few.

also, you should learn to distinguish lunacy from murderous lunacy.
many religious people believe ludicrous things without subscribing in any way to koranic or biblical barbarism.

>> You frequently accuse posters of quoting from koran out of context.
>> That implies you are familiar enough with Islamic thinking to be able to make a judgement. Are you?

as if one needs to be an expert to critique yutic's blatantly cherry-picking sleaze.

>> Bushbasher describes Muslims as "underdogs".

i was quite obviously referring to muslims in australia. honestly, if you guys can't read, don't write.

>> It is ok to bag christianity, why different?

see previous comment.

>> Are they so mentally retarded or childish they need your protection?

nope.

>> I am sure they can talk for themselves and are very well educated.
>> Why not allow them to speak for themselves.

why not level a halfway sane accusation?

>> CJ Grogan preaches tolerance but doesn't practise it.

ah, the "tolerance" charge. an oldie but a goodie!

you guys are allowed to say what you want. others are allowed to be revolted by it.

True to form, now according to TheMissus I'm a "little Hitler" - all because I argue for tolerance and point out hatred.

I have the distinct impression that TheMissus doesn't really know much about history - or anything much else for that matter. The banning of minarets by the Swiss is far, far closer to the early populist racism of the German Nazis than anything I think or say.

<< It is the people going around telling people they cannot hold an opinion that cause the most problems in the world..and refugees >>

Who's told anyone they can't hold or express an opinion, no matter how odious it is? And what do the poor old refugees have to do with the topic? Bizarre.

As I've said several times, as far as I'm concerned both you and the hateful Herman are free to express whatever vile, ignorant and hateful opinions you like. Just as I'm free to call you on them when you do so.

That's what tolerance and free speech is all about. It seems to me that you haters want to be free to vilify anybody, but get all sensitive when what you do is pointed out to you.

And you call me a hypocrite? Look it up in the dictionary.

No surprises that the failed-suicide bomber of the flight from Amsterdam to Detroit is a Muslim going for a “religious” (Islamic) seminar in the USA.

“The suspect was identified as Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, 23, who according to federal documents is an engineering student at University College of London.

He was flying from Nigeria to the United States for a religious seminar, according to his entry visa, which was issued June 16, 2008 and was good until June 12, 2010.” (abc News)
http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/explosives-northwest-airlines-plane-amsterdam-detroit/story?id=9423871

An enlightening speech of Geert Wilders as he warned the US about letting Islamists into the US

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOCcx5V9RI&feature=related Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdX1qpCtlh8&NR=1 Part 2

Philip Tang,
Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab either misinterpreted the many Koranic injunctions to kill the unbelievers or he took them out of context.
This obviously makes him an Islamophobe.
Or perhaps he was understandably so upset about the Swiss ban on minarets that he took the only reasonable option left open to him.
I think we can therefore safely blame this one on the Swiss.
Anyway, as CJ Grogan would point out, your commenting on his actions is far more hateful than his actions.
Or who knows,as Pericles would point out, maybe Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab googled some of your previous hateful postings and this was enough to send him over the edge.
I think all us haters can take the blame for this one.

Bushbasher
“i was quite obviously referring to muslims in australia. “

How are they underdogs? The only time an issue becomes a hot topic it is always due to the political correct trying to suppress criminal or anti-social behaviour as being culturally motivated. So it is often more a reaction to this attempt at suppression than toward Muslims themselves. Bad behaviour or civil unrest needs to be debated openly.

The Swiss now acknowledge the reason for the ban on minaret was due to a lack of will on behalf of government to allow public debate thinking it would increase tensions. Add this to their weakness on the Libyan affair and Swiss probably feared their government more than their Muslim neighbours. Appeasement is not a mark of strength. They now realise that avoiding the debate was actually the catalyst for increasing tensions. People have a right to a say in regard to individual freedoms and social norms. Many women feared their rights were being undermined for the benefit of another. Women’s rights are always the canary in the coalmine when it comes to increasingly religious or non-religious totalitarian regimes.

Also relevant in response to C J Morgan’s response regarding Hitler. How Switzerland or even Australia can be compared to how Jews were treated is beyond bizarre. Plus of course anti-Semitism is on the rise in Europe in tandem with increasing presence of Islam so a bit odd to compare to say the least. It is more the appeasement of Hitler that allowed oppressive totalitarian to rise that is far more applicable.

It is better to openly debate aspects of any belief system that are offensive or undermine basic human rights. After all we are not against democracy, individual freedom, rights of beliefs, women’s rights, gay rights, blasphemy laws et al. Islam is. If you support Islam without debate on interpretation or cultural imperialistic aspects of this religion then you are opposed to human rights. Simple.

cont.

Being against Hitler did not mean one should be against the German people. It is ignorant to suggest this. Haneef was an example of religious persecution and I was very vocal in my objection to his treatment. There is such a huge difference here. His rights as an individual were denied. However our system was supportive of him in spite of the government of the day. So to say we persecute Muslims in Australia is emotionally charged, fear based politics as bad and evil as Howards.

I am not a hypocrite C J. I will oppose those that support such extreme right wing totalitarian religious sects and you can prove nowhere this religion is based on leftwing ideology. I only stand for basic human rights for all and the only way to achieve this is to speak out against bigotry. Someone should have spoken out against Hitler much earlier so you can shove that useless analogy where the sun does not shine.

If we are to accept Muslim immigration (a capitalist construct btw) and be vilified for debating aspects that are not acceptable to mainstream views then people will reject the whole. I wish to avoid that. Put out little fires and avoid the firestorm.

My experience of the social unrest when I was living in Sydney shocked and horrified me. Women were secondary to ethnic sensibilities and the women raped not once, but twice. Hosed down in between sexual attacks and then raped again by the Islam Useful Idiots. Women, the canaries in the coalmine. The reporter who eventually did break the story branded racist by the usual sheeple. This suppression only led to increase tensions and eventual race incited riots. How much proof do people need. There are few problems here, let people vent, have their say and society moves on. Add the political baggage of PC it stirs even more unrest. Your choice and your error imo as it incites tensions.

Underdog is irrelevant. If you believe in human rights there is only one way. There is only a right or wrong, size does not matter