Pericles: << There were only a hundred people there. Not seven hundred. >>

It seems that Boazy's reverted completely to his former self, in all but name. We've now had Islamophobia, MIUAUG, gratuitous bible-bashing, homophobia, 'Father Knows Best' - and now he's telling blatant porkies again in an effort to whip up the fear and loathing.

How about this one from yet another thread that he appears to have started and deserted when he doesn't get the intended reaction:

"..we are in Afghanistan because of it being used as a haven for terrorist training camps which were used against us on our own soil."

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2092#44433

We're still waiting for Boazy to fill us in on this terrorist act on Australian soil that was perepetrated by "suicidal bombers" trained in Afghanistan.

Or maybe he won't - given that it appears to be a complete fabrication.

Steven,Polycarp

Is the threat from Sthn Russia any more of a threat than the Jews were seen by the Russian during the pogroms of C19th or by the Nazis +1932?

My point is if you want to see a threat lo and behold! a threat.Only this time you are the zealots.

It seems to me both of you are displaying the very same irrational religious based prejudices for your own ends.

Fischer’s comments were on wider perspective than the "(Muslim) hordes are heeere". (yet another of your stalking horses?)

He was referring to the political instability in the area and the possible dire consequences (of The Russian bear on the rampage again). Now that's a REAL CONCERN.

I am reminded of the old song "smoke gets in your eyes" in a biblical context especially for you both (from your own personal burning bush epiphany).

The tragedy is that neither you nor Polycarp are converting anyone…such a waste of effort and brainpower that could be used for addressing real issues.

Pericles says:

"It is understandable that the police chief put the whole event into its proper context of a minor disturbance, and decided that given there was no damage done, the right to free speech should be supported."

which is as irrational as it gets.....

Who is the Pontif? Just the head of the Roman Catholic Church which supposedly has a membership of 1.5 billion... and some very loud people shout that he should go to hell....and this is a 'minor disturbance'?

With all the history between Catholics and Protestants in UK.. such a thing is a 'minor disturbance'? I'm looking at the tattered ruins of your credibility laying on the floor.

Err no Pericles what it is is HATE SPEECH..and it was perpetrated by a significant number of people who should be hit witht he full force of the laws that the Government specially enacted for that very purpose.

I can imagine the outcry from you and CJ if I gathered even 50 people and went to Lakemba Mosque shouting "Mohammad goto hell"
You both would be frothing so loud about 'Islamophobia' that the foam from your mouths would clog the sewers.

You response is entirely predictable.. "pedantically look at details which can be used to denegrate someone.. to minimize the impact of what is clearly to any rational mind an outrageous example of illegal hate speech of monumental proportions"

Al Mujahiroon have gathered many fantatics on various occasions.. it matters not a scrap whether they had a 100 here or 700 there.. the numbers are real and whether it's 100 yelling 'Pope goto hell' Or. 700 yelling "Bomb bomb UK' the fact remains that seditious, hate filled, violence advocating hate speech...which is a crime.. was passed over for 'politically correct' reasons so as not to disturb the community. (it would seem)

UPDATE...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2638956/Tarique-Ghaffur-blames-Sir-Ian-Blair-in-Scotland-Yard-racism-claim.html

Sir Ian Blair..is now being SUED by Tarique Ghaffur the most senior MET policeman of Asian, muslim background for.. wait for it:

"The Assistant Commissioner went public with allegations that he had been the victim of racial, religious and age discrimination by Sir Ian."

Well that's no surprise. "religious victimization" in other words.. the old 'ploy'....

Well Sir Ian.. play with fire and u might get burnt! The only thing to use on a fire is an extinguisher.......if you don't put out the spot fires.. they might re-ignite later and burn your house (of cards) down.....

A-gain..we see the problem of having Muslims in high places.. in secular government structures. They simply don't see things in a secular way.. but a 'religious' way.

Putting Ghaffur, a Muslim in charge of 2012 Olympic security ? has to be probably the most brain damaged action any person with more brains than a chimp could ever do. "Muslim"= Loyalty to Allah and the Ummah first and foremost..... it's a simple fact.
Britain being the 'crusading' enemy of Islam... well.. go figure.
Of course.. if they want Ghaffur to be high up in the Police.. they could always put him on video denouncing mass murder of Jews by Mohammad, sexual abuse of children, assassination of political opponents...and a rather long list of sins... and at least that way they will ensure his 'future' in the job.. as being probably terminal.
Short but not sweet..something like this:

http://prodos.thinkertothinker.com/wp-content/photos/theo_van_gogh_murdered_by_religion_of_peace.jpg

The Mosque? Fact sheet?

"Much of the funding has come from individual
donations by local Muslims, with large amounts raised
each year during the time of Ramadan."

errr...yep so reasonable.... 18,000,000 pounds worth from around 3000 people max. duh.

OOO shucks Islam again. Well it is written in the history books, and at the conclusions of WW 1 that the Islamic world had free run on the eastern bloc nations, and I suppose to use a Karl Marx terminology “SLARVS”; Ataturk dispersed the new imperialist mole mayhem under the watchful eye of both the American and British Navy, as they murdered raped an pillaged all the way up to the Continent.
It perhaps could be construed as an act of good will by the Western Governments of the time not to save anyone but should they reach their ships; Murder them; and they did.
So I cannot figure out if this is just a malicious act in hatred of the SLARVS or if it was a condition of surrender by the Turkish leaders.

You cannot blame the imperialism of Islam; after all, they had a warrant issued by our civilized governments to launch any mayhem they wished.
I suppose it is a price for Secularism hay.

I guess if you lash out at random often enough eventually, by sheer chance, you'll make a genuine point.

I think BOAZY's last post makes one.

Picture the following scenario. The year is 1940. The place is London. It is discovered that a senior officer in MI5 sympathises with the Nazi point of view.

When questioned on the matter he replies as follows:

"Whatever my political views, my loyalty to my country is absolute. I would never betray it to the Germans. You can trust me to track down every German spy in Britain."

Perhaps.

But if you were the head of MI5 would you take that chance?

Sometimes conflicting loyalties get the better of us. Exhibit A is Jonathan Pollard, a Jewish-American intelligence analyst who spied for Israel.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Pollard is, in my view rightly, serving a life sentence for espionage.

I pose the following question:

Should we put people who may be vulnerable to conflicting loyalties, to EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL even, in such sensitive positions?

I do not have any easy answers.

In this case Tarique Ghaffur is probably a safe choice. I think he understands that a successful Muslim terrorist attack on the Olympics is not in the best interests of the Islamic cause so there would be no conflicting loyalties.

As to the merits of Ghaffur's legal case, I prefer to wait until I see the evidence before commenting.