Pericles, it's fine to advocate a society where everybody can live as they please (without harming others), but for this to work, *everybody* must agree to live by those terms.

Muslims have repeatedly "articulated a stance or position" opposing the principle of liberalism, which our society is based on.

Can a "tolerant" society tolerate people who won't tolerate toleration?

Muslims will *take advantage* of our tolerance wherever they're a minority.
But wherever they're the majority, there's no talk of "tolerance".

"Mainstream" Muslims even reject some believers with *Islamic* heritage! (Ahmadis, Ismaili, Sufis, Baha'is)

They barely tolerate Christians and Jews, because they're People of The Book.
What about the rest of us?

Anything that isn't the Islamic-approved way is "the wrong way".

"My people" (heretics, apostates, sinners, deviants, individualists) have had a hard enough time historically with Christians torturing and executing us.
Thankfully they've stopped doing that.

But Muslims haven't.

I don't want to see the gains made in modern societies like Australia lost, through immigration of large numbers of people who think it's still okay to torture and execute "my people".

There's no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim, just variances of extremism, from latent to homicidal.

Enough of "my people" have died at the hands of "believers".
I say: "Not again. Not now. Not here."

I'm not even willing to *risk* the potential for this, by "tolerating" people who would NEVER tolerate me (or even let me live).

I repeat: For "tolerance" to work, *everybody* must agree to be tolerant.
Muslims never will.

Let's be honest, the Muslims are: They call our non-Muslim world "The House Of War" because they're at war (spiritually) with us!

War, not Tolerance.
That's what *they* preach!
Let's just accept that fact and stop being naive.

To fight a bully, you can't just lie down and take it.
You must respond the only way they understand: fight back.
First line of defence: our borders.
Second: our laws.

I proudly accept Australia as "The House Of War".
Eternally sinful. Eternally wrong.
And I am a Warrior.

A Warrior of the Wrong Way.

Boaz, it doesn't matter how many times you protest, your defence of your blinkered fear and loathing of Islam does not impress me.

>>When understanding the Christian position, one must recognize that it is based on the New Testament understanding of the Old... you fail to understand that 'Islam' is based on the most recent supposed revelations on any matter, and this includes Christians and Jews<<

Give me one good reason why I should believe that your interpretation of someone else's religion is accurate, while theirs is not? Would you, using the same logic, accept that my interpretation of the historic bloodthirstiness of your own religion is superior to your own?

If the past is any guide, you most certainly would not. So why on earth would you think that the world should accept your version, as a card-carrying enemy, of Islam?

>>Now..your failure to understand this very basic concept is the source of your confused position on me<<

Right back atcha. Your failure to comprehend that I consider irrelevant your opinions of what one should believe about Islam, a religion that you are bitterly opposed to, is the source of your inability to understand a word I say.

I would however go further, and suggest that each time you deploy these arguments, they get just a little weaker, from being exposed to the light of day.

Just a thought.

Fascinating. It doesn't take much to 'out' a couple of so obvious multi (sorry for using that word) identities, but it takes someone with a brain about the size of a pimple on the back of a bee's knee to get it wrong.

I have been away to very far off shores, I doubt I would even have got a signal on my LT. But no,-I'm still posting as Bugsy cos' Jasper,- the font of all knowledge says so. Sheesh!

Still....., the OLO twerps are still being handled with style. Not difficult really.

Some interesting perspectives, Shockadelic.

>>Can a "tolerant" society tolerate people who won't tolerate toleration?<<

By definition, they can. If they did not, they would not be a tolerant society.

There are those who point out that you can't build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia, and use this as an argument that Muslims shouldn't be allowed to build a mosque here.

So the question is, would you like us to be more, or less, like Saudi Arabia?

And the corollary to that is, if you do want us to be more intolerant, what should be our baseline? Christianity, perhaps? If so, which version?

>>Mainstream" Muslims even reject some believers with *Islamic* heritage! (Ahmadis, Ismaili, Sufis, Baha'is)<<

For many, many years, the Catholics and Protestants of Northern Ireland murdered each other. I think that was a hint that they were fairly intolerant. But perhaps we should look for another religion to be our marker of intolerance, one that is even more intolerant than Christianity?

>>There's no such thing as a "moderate" Muslim, just variances of extremism, from latent to homicidal<<

A fascinating concept. That the best you can get is a "latent extremist". This certainly explains the naked fear you express as:

>>Enough of "my people" have died at the hands of "believers". I say: "Not again. Not now. Not here."<<

But back to the tolerance/intolerance equation:

>>War, not Tolerance. That's what *they* preach! Let's just accept that fact and stop being naive.<<

Again, it's not a matter of naivety, just whether you want to be the same as you see them to be, or different.

It sure must be tough being you, living with all that fear.

Hooray for Pericles!

I do react with a snort when people try to make the claim that the only muslims are extremists.

So, a billion of the world's people are extremists. What's that, about a seventh is extreme then?

But hang on - extremists come in many forms, not just muslims... so there must be many many more extremists who don't call themselves muslims as well. So it's got to be more than a seventh. At what fraction does it stop being extreme?

So, the question arises, if you're stretching the label 'extremist' to include millions and millions of people who haven't committed acts of violence and show no urge of committing violence, then you're going to have one hell of a lot of extremists.

In fact, many of them are less extreme than others. Heck, lets call the less violent ones less extreme extremists.

Moderate extremists if you will. I mean, you've got to be able to categorise right? Clearly, not every one of these billion odd muslims can be equally as extreme.

I mean, how can a card carrying, gun toting, bomb-strapped extremist get the due fear he craves if he's being compared to the peaceable Ahmed, who runs the 7-11 down the street? It's just not fair.

So, now that we've recategorised some extremists and extreme and some as moderate, hows about the extremists who deplore violence? There are plenty who do that, you know. How's about the two iraqi police who threw themselves on a suicide bomber to save other lives? What do we call those muslims?

Hmm... I guess we need our admirable extremists too. Right. So... we've divided our extremists into the extreme extremists and the rest. Extreme-lite I guess.

Sound like a joke? That's because it is. Keep it coming shockadelic, it's a most amusing tirade.