This topic could have been 'Theory of a Just War'. But plenty has been written about this, and I provide 2 links for the readers information and background, before seeking to tackle a specifically 'Christian' understanding of War.

http://www.kencollins.com/why-13.htm
The principles elucidated in the above link, are also echoed in this speech by Former President Jimmy Carter
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0309-02.htm

PLEASE read those prior to going through this post.

SCRIPTURAL BASIS.

Romans 13:1-5 refers in context to a contemporary pagan emperor, but it is clearly applied for all time to all emperors. (please read)
The phrase "all authority is instituted by God" implies clearly that it MAY have been established by revolution, assassination, coup or invasion.

A question arises, as to whether this teaching contradicts Jesus words to 'do not resist an evil person'. My present understanding is that this should be understood in terms of interpersonal relationships, within a community, and there is also the need to CULTURALLY understand the way Jesus spoke in the Sermon on the Mount.
He said "if your eye sins against you, GOUGE it out". That allows 2 sins. Clearly, his method of speaking, was not intended to be taken literally as WE from our cultural perspective would do.

PRINCIPLES.
1/ War is a legitimate tool of State as per the following:
2/ War is not to extend territory or guarantee resources.
3/ War is to defend justice and freedom.
4/ War is to deter evildoers.
5/ War is never to produce converts.

BOAZ_David,

I would like to comment.

I did not delve into the theory of ‘Just War’, in my 2005 epic sagas. I felt both that it was unnecessary, and after the fact. We might now say that it is -in any case- an oxymoron.

However, I have with me Kagan & Kagan ‘While America Sleeps’, 2000. From which I shall obligingly try to rationalise some points upon this thread.

To begin, an Eye for an Eye and all that, is perhaps cloak and dagger stuff. But the great game presents marvellous opportunities for intellectualism, much of which should not either be entertained nor ignored. A great challenge: to Man, and of God. And in that famous Revelation, Oh Mystery … Babylon … and (again) all that.

Kagan found rhythm to be important, indeed analogous to their historical correlation between War and Peace. They point to a catalogue of half measures which had/have landed the US in a predicament. As what befell Britain in the early decades of last century, so America stands at the brink today, by the power of 1, whereas earlier the threat was two-fold, in Kagans analogue. With one threat dealt with, there is but one pending, and one due, on or about 2011.

Cont:

Other states have learned from Gulf War 1 that: ‘They have not learned that America is willing to summon the force needed to defeat aggression, that the development of [WMD] and the means to deliver them will not be tolerated.’ In keeping with US historical precedent over the past hundred or more years ‘The message America has sent out to the aggressors and oppressors of the world has been that their depredations run only a limited risk’ (p428) in the larger scheme of things. Consequently, the US is faced with an economic quandary at the complex.

Interestingly, the analogue foresaw a communist resurgence of some sort at the turn of the century. Most of what Kagan presented has been turned around, but some elemental warning is still there. China was one. Things took place despite or in spite of what Clinton might have done, and regardless of what Carter might envisage: America the reserved, is a postulation. But Carter and Kagan are congruent.

Which brings me to conclude with Daniel 2:42-44.

Hi Gadget, I read the Daniel reference, yes, interesting.

Regarding my thread title, I think there is an oxymoron in the first part "Christian + State" is actually not a Biblical concept because it is suggestive of Theocracy. My intention is, a State which is predominantly Christian in cultural flavor, rather than a state where Christianity is the 'official' religion.

What I'm seeking to do, is grapple with the dilemna of such a state, in the light of military threat, and the scriptural position.

I certainly value any additional insights of an agreeable or disagreeable nature. It all adds to the mix :)
Cheers.

Is this a case for zero Muslim immigration ? Is this a declaration of war by Islam on Christianity ?

Is this illegal in Victoria under the RRT2001 ? (yes)

Here is an example of Mohammeds regard for Christians (by name)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/056.sbt.html

Volume 4, Book 56, Number 660:
Narrated 'Aisha and Ibn 'Abbas:

On his death-bed Allah's Apostle put a sheet over his-face and when he felt hot, he would remove it from his face. When in that state (of putting and removing the sheet) he said, "May Allah's Curse be on the Jews and the Christians for they build places of worship at the graves of their prophets." (By that) he intended to warn (the Muslim) from what they (i.e. Jews and Christians) had done.

Well there we have it, strait from the horses mouth "Christians and Jews are CURSED"

Now.. if I can be so delicate as to ask "Whos foot is the vilifiying shoe on" ? :)

http://www.econ.ntu.edu.tw/sem-paper/95_1/micro_950928.pdf

Development of a Just War Theory beyond Augustine's and Aquinas theory, click link below.

http://www.monksofadoration.org/justwar.html

""Those against war argue mainly from Sacred Scripture, especially the New Testament. The main claim made is that Jesus taught and lived a nonviolent position. St. Paul and the primitive Church continued this tradition. The Constantinian era compromised Christian thought by identifying the Church with the State. Nevertheless, examples of pacifist movements can be seen in later Church history. A different form of argument especially brought forward with St. Thomas More is the possibility of a just war in theory but impossible in reality. Others attack a Just War Theory as irrelevant in modern warfare. Still others claim the theory is useless in coming to conclusions""

DB,

In defining a military threat form another entity, lets say an atheist one, is it then necessary to even have a religious position, prior to action? This postulation is but one of perhaps many (though I’m sure not infinite) possibilities.

Intriguing, this geopolitical stuff. A strategist is faced with only a hand full of basic scenarios, which once an action is launched, can become so diversified as to leave the strategist befuddled.

I guess it is for this reason, some religious states and authorities prefer to side with their Gods, than to try to make do without. We might ask though, is an atheist equally defeatable as a religious entity might not be. Does epistemological pluralcy defeat a theocracy, or a lesser Secularist. A wise king would leave open his options, and not confine his kingdom to monocranististic theorism. As an example, a Darwinian state complete with un-executable humanistic equations.

For that, we could look to Solomon’s temple of wisdom, and skull of knowledge: Proverbs-24 might be of relevance.

It is –however- not my place to enter into nattering over Jacob an Esau; however I found this if it adds to betterment:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/promise_fulfillment_abrogation.htm

Boazy, by way of reciprocation for all those nice verses you exhort us to read, you might like to check these out:

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/withgod.html

I reckon that little ditty just about says it all about this topic :)

God's on our side, right?

A NATO report published in 1989 and edited by Sloan spoke minimally about E – W relations and recommendations. In the 70’s, political stability in the EastEuro block gave impudence to the Russians. Quote: ‘In response, the allies, with good reason, adopted a more sceptical approach to the East’s willingness to pursue cooperation on terms favourable to Western interests’. Diplomacy continued and sought politico-economical benefits suitable to both E & W. ‘In the 1990s, the allies should not make the mistake of overemphasising one aspect to the detriment of the other. NATO will have to ensure that its defence policies do not undermine security by stimulating responses by the East that only perpetuate the arms race. On the other hand, the allies must ensure that they are not anxious for improved [E –W] relations that they neglect the fundamental defence requirements’.

Kagan & Kagan found NATO a bit fractious, and Rumsfeld saw it as part of Old Europe. Remembering that K&K found the US to be mightily reserved, as did former President Carter, we can turn to Isiah 49:23 where it is said prudent are they that await reservedly. The results of zealotry are found in 49:4 – 26. And, like we see of Babylon: Daniel 11, particularly 3 + 4.

We see now, the better side of prudential speculation, I think. And, as is said, render unto Caesar, that which is Caesers. Wise advice I am sure, but hardly a call to arms these days. Yet it is, in some hemispheres. And the Grecian realm thing. So, the US is faced with the growth of the EU.

What might they do?

C.J. thanx for that Dylan link, I read it and feel it is most appropriate that you offer it for our consideration in this important matter.

I refer you to principle 2 in my list above.

Dylan rightly reflects the idea of 'manifest destiny' which was held by the European settlers, and highlights just how wrong it was.

The thing I'm seeking to open up here, is certainly not that God is on our side, but rather, how can WE be sure we are on HIS side ?
What 'is' God's side, in terms of his providential connection with the wider world. I don't think we would be far from the mark by following the words of Isaiah:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&version=31

C.J. please read the whole chapter mate... it should be close to your own heart when you see what it says, though the starting point is "Alienation from God" and then the social repercussions.

Verse 17
17 learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow.

QUESTION 1
If the principles I outline in the first post are enshrined in our constitution, can any one see the possibility for wrongful or unjust war ?

QUESTION 2 If we followed those principles, and were aware of a brutal genocide taking place in PNG, would we be "on Gods side" to intervene, based on full adherance to ALL the principles outlined ?

Hi David,

""The thing I'm seeking to open up here, is certainly not that God is on our side, but rather, how can WE be sure we are on HIS side ?""

Which God ? There appear to be many gods around the world. Are you asking if WE can be sure that we are on YOUR god's side ?

QUESTION 1
If the principles I outline in the first post are enshrined in our constitution, can any one see the possibility for wrongful or unjust war ?

Is killing of any sort 'just', or is it 'just' simply because it is sanctioned by the State/Constitution ?

QUESTION 2 If we followed those principles, and were aware of a brutal genocide taking place in PNG, would we be "on Gods side" to intervene, based on full adherance to ALL the principles outlined ?

I think we should be on the side of the 'correct thing to do', god wouldn't even come into that equation.

"I think we should be on the side of the 'correct thing to do', god wouldn't even come into that equation."

That is where I have the same problem as you do when you say "Which god".

In the Biblical Christian view, God does not invade countries to establish the Kingdom of God. This is not the case for Islam.
This one point is so crucial to 'get' that I am posting in just about everywhere save on my own forehead with a post it :)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/053.sbt.html#004.053.386

read that link.... and come to the part where it says:

"Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."

COMMENT there is nothing even remotely like this in the New Testament. This is the expression of outright religious war, which has as its goal the subjugation of people on 'RELIGIOUS' grounds.

So, I suggest we derive our understanding of "God" from the Old and New Testaments, where we see His social will for people to be about Justice. See this from Isaiah about 'religious worship' and 'social justice'

Isaiah 1:13
Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
I cannot bear your evil assemblies.

Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts
my soul hates.
They have become a burden to me;
I am weary of bearing them

COMMENT: why ? because of this.

Isaiah 1:17

"Your hands are full of blood;
learn to do right!
Seek justice,
encourage the oppressed. [a]
Defend the cause of the fatherless,
plead the case of the widow"

So, is not 'this' God, one worthy of our being on His side ?

Boaz, you missed:

Isaiah 1:20

"but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword. For the mouth of the LORD has spoken"

Isaiah 1:28

"But rebels and sinners will both be broken, and those who forsake the LORD will perish"

It also occurs to me that the words are so authoritatively written, how exactly was God communicating these thoughts so succinctly?

Maybe it was through the Old Testament equivalent of those folks today who roam the streets (and inhabit our hospitals) convinced that God is speaking to them?

If not, who exactly is He speaking to these days? Surely there must be some prophets around who have open communication with "the LORD". Given the disparity in world population between then and now, there must be dozens, even hundreds, of them out there?

Hi Pericles
a couple of points.

1/ "Or you will be devoured by the sword.. refers to the situation where enemies or the surrounding nations will attack Israel. (see Habakkuk 1:5-6)
They have been warned.. "Return to the Lord your God" yet...they persist, eventually, their sorry state will bring judgement. It brings judgement not just because they forsook the Lord, but because in that forsaking, they also turned their backs on justice.

2/ How...did God communicate these words to the Prophet ? See verse 1 please.

3/ Who is He speaking to these days ? Same as ever.."us". You, me and the bloke next door. To me he says "Come back" when I stray, to you he is saying "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" (Mat 11:28)

To the world he is saying "I am the Good Shepherd, who lays down his life for His sheep" "I am the true vine" "I am the light of the world" "Before Abraham was...I am"

You may be interested in what he said to this man, -note his name.

http://www.leaderu.com/wri/pages/iamsayin.html Scroll down to see the major headings.

Boaz, as I understand your observations, the punishment for "forsaking the Lord" is death by the sword. In which case, where does it differ from the strictures of other religious books that you so readily quote and condemn?

The source is interesting too...

>>How...did God communicate these words to the Prophet ? See verse 1 please<<

"The vision concerning Judah and Jerusalem that Isaiah son of Amoz saw during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah" Isaiah 1.1

As far as I can work out, that era spans some hundred plus years. So this wasn't a single communication, was it? In this context, what constitutes "a vision"?

And referring me to a text that begins "[a]s we reflect on the whole witness of the inerrant and infallible Scriptures, regarding the Person of Jesus..." is hardly going to fill me with confidence that the author will deliver dispassionate and level-headed observations, now is it?

While I had previously given you some credit for your enthusiasm, misguided though I believed it to be, your forays into anti-Muslim rabble-rousing have led me to believe that you are not only wrong, but wrong-headed and potentially a danger to yourself and possibly to others.

Pericles
you and I both have the ability to see past the 'doctrinal' aspects of such things as you mentioned but the Bible reference I usually use is this one
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=29&chapter=1&version=31

I don't see any of the blurb you mentioned on that, and yes, such statements are always a worry. They are not really needed, truth stands by itself.

But back to the topic.

Your welcome to consider me a rabble rousing twit who is a danger to himself and those around him. You just call them as you see them.

I'd like to refer you to this article, which appears on the Daniel Pipes web site, but..the quotes are from the European court of human rights, in relation to Islam and Western states. There are some very sobering aspects.
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/70716

One part is this:

[according to the Convention and the case-law of the Turkish courts on constitutional law issues nothing obliged States to tolerate the existence of political parties that sought the destruction of democracy and the rule of law]

Which is basically my own position. except that my position is on steroids and is turbocharged.

Here is what
a) exists in Melbourne and Sydney
b) I am totally against on every level.

http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/71268

Please have a look at this web site I put together.
http://www.truetruth.wikispaces.com

I feel encouraged also by this post also to the Pipes site
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/70852

have a good weekend

Boaz: "Your welcome to consider me a rabble rousing twit who is a danger to himself and those around him. "

You are also a demonstrated liar who regularly posts fabrications and distortions in this forum: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=347#6180 .

Your lack of response to those charges indicates that you have no answer to them. Put up or shut up, Boazy.

Dear C.J. I have to 'put you to the verbal sword' first.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=347#6264
I resent being called a 'LIAR' at worst you may describe me as 'misinformed' but I don't resort to 'lies' to acheive my goals as I know it will rebound.

PERICLES I didn't answer one important thing. The 'putting to the sword' of rebels relates back to the curses and blessings of the Deuteronomy covenant outline. It relates to 'the nations around you'
It is not a legal thing where some Israelite policemans slices your head off for being a spiritual bad boy.

But.. refer the story of Elijah.. an exception.

GADGET
Very good point "Is it then neccessary to have a religious position prior to that war"

I think the best way to answer that, is to examine the history of the Muslim battles and see just how bigger role 'Fighting for Allah' played in their mental outlook.

I think that belief that we are 'on Gods side' (and its corollary. He being on ours) is an important motivating factor and if the right idea of a Just and Merciful God is held, then the outcome would be more just and with minimized human abuse when victory is gained.

The last words spoken to the American Troops just before they embarked on the Invasion of Iraq were these "We are not going in to take territory, we going to remove a Tyrant" This is perhaps a humanistic version of "God is on our side" ?

C.J. please contribute next time rather than just abusing.

To all posters....

please have a look at this very short video, to see what a large community of Muslims, which include 'some radicals' will do toward Christians simply going about their business.
Look especially at the hatred in the eyes of the bloke in white jumping up and down...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yiu26Mo_UBo

Egypt.. Muslims become Christians.. see the impact.

WMD Abusers
6 January 2007
http://www.middleeast.org/mereport/index.cgi
MER@MiddleEast.Org
News, Views, & Analysis Governments, Lobbies, & the
Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on IranUzi Mahnaimi

The Sunday Times of London - January 07, 2007

" ... ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb. ... "

It is in this environment that the child abusers howard et al choose to sell uranium to the gross Human Rights abusers in beijing, whose military are guilty of murder, rape & other vile crimes against humanity in not just Tibet, but against their own country folk who seek only, amongst other things, to pray in peace.

I move that the WMD abusers & holocaust weapon advocates in englund, america, australia and america be removed from power.
They are clearly unable to resolve their differences in a benevolent Spiritual manner, reminding me in fact of the politics of the schoolyard where the bully with the biggest stick rules the roost.

Having witnessed the condition of the Palestinians 1st hand it is my view that israel & its ugly supporters ought be sanctioned severely.
I personally do not condone killing period but thereafter, after years of being treated like animals, it is understandable to me that there has been a vehement backlash from quarters of the Islamic family.

...Adam...

“ ... I say it publicly: the invading troops in Iraq and those who sent them are not Christians and have nothing to do with Christianity. ... "

- Orthodox Church Spokesman Archimandrite Attallah Hanna, April 1, 2003

Boazy, to avoid having your mendacity pointed out, you could simply try being a bit more honest in what you post. For example, before you set out to defame people, you could check your sources and facts.

A more comprehensive response to Boazy's resentment at being caught out (again) may be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=347#6318.

C.J. your comments are truly 'bottom feeder' and barely deserve a response but.. 'being corrected' and being 'caught out' are 2 entirely different things.

Adam... I cannot disagree with you about the troops not being Christian. That's not exactly the issue for the topic.

I'm concerned though, that your vehemence and apparrent 'anti western' attitude does not leave you much to offer in its place ?

Is it not possible that your Muslim wife tends to influence your perspective a little ?

If one was to ask a US Marine what the fundamentals of thier job is they will tell you.

1/Unit
2/Corp
3/God
4/Country

To the looney left in this forum, dont kid yourselves, the war on terror is one of civilisations, good and bad, ying and yang, islam against everyone. And the Christians better win it and all other forms of Jihad lest yor childrens children suffer in the ways of the Sudanese. Inshallah

Dear Scotty... haven't seen you post here before, but welcome mate.

yes.. ur absolutely right in my view. We HAVE to win it. I recommend a peak at youtube searching on "muslim protests in london" and see what comes up.
Scotty, if ur passionate about this, why not email me jjjdrmot@yahoo.com.au and we can discuss a few things.

700 SUDANESE.

C.J. I've run out of posting opportunities for the Multicultural thread, but I've confirmed (with the Police) that the figure 700 was a) Correct and b) ALL Sudanese, and of at least 2 tribal groups.
They explained that there is one tribe mainly living on the other side of town, and one over the east, they goto functions together and that is where the tribalism erupts.
I don't have a huge problem with the hacking into each other 'tribally', thats their business, and we can educate them in time, but they will never be hacking into US, for religious reasons.
Tribalism dies when there is a common enemy.

I think you owe me an apology for your "rabble rousing and misrepresentations" :)

Forgive me Boazy, but I'll wait until you can substantiate your claim from reliable and independent sources that can be verified. I'm afraid a conversation that you claim to have had with "the police" really doesn't carry much weight.

A riot involving 700 Sudanese in Melbourne shouldn't be hard for you to provide independent corroboration.

C.J. ur missing the point here. I raised that issue NOT to point to 'those bad evil wicked black Sudanese' but to point to the issue of tribalism and flaws in multiculturalism which we should be aiming our policies at managing and overcoming.

So, while I am 100% confident of my source, its irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. I urge you to ring Dandenong police if you have doubts on that particular matter of fact.

You need to remember something, often in the turmoil of day to day life, we see one story here (TV) and another aspect there (Newspaper) and put it all together in our mind to make up the full picture.
You quote of BB's statement did nothing to diminish the impact of what he said about Pauline, a shuffling of words only-he said she was racist (made racist comments) and was bloodsucking.... and not only that, you yourself slandered her by suggesting she did her political activities to 'get money' and while I cannot speak for her personally, I assure you I would never want to go through what she did just to get a few bucks.

I'm glad at least that you rank Islam lower than Christianity, but if you simply make such mild comparison, you still have much to learn.

Regarding the topic... in regard to an Islamic enemy, one needs to comprehend the dimensions of the mindset. Psychologically, Mohammed pretty well 'sowed it up', by appealing to the primal lust of men, offering them 'minimum' 72 virgins as toys in paradise if they died fighting for Allah and opportunities to rape and pillage (war booty) if they survived.
So, live or die, their efforts are connected to "lust" and sexual gratification. Did you actually see that video link above on youtube of the ex Muslim in Egypt...and what happened to him ? I encourage you to do so, its quite illuminating.

TOPIC.....

Since my last post, I've perused the papers and this little gem cropped up

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/local-push-for-islamic-state/2007/01/08/1168104922239.html

AN ULTRA-radical Muslim group banned in many countries will promote support for an Islamic superstate in a seminar in Australia this month. (Hizb Ut Tahrir)

Hizb ut-Tahrir spokesman Wassim Doureihi said the purpose was to highlight the reality of political struggle in the Muslim world and the obligations of Muslims in Australia to raise these issues, and to raise awareness of the caliphate.

"The caliphate is a political reality. It's imminent. There is a burgeoning Islamic revival, and it's only a matter of time before the caliphate is a state," he said.

Asked if he wanted sharia in Australia, Mr Doureihi said yes, by 'peaceful' means. COMMENT (cough cough)

"Islam is universal. The caliphate would be a role model for the rest of the world."

Mr Doureihi said Hizb ut-Tahrir sought to win hearts and minds but denied that the group in Australia was shadowy or extremist, saying non-Muslims were welcome at the conference.

COMMENT
and you can guess who will probably attend....

No, Boaz. You are missing my point, which is that on your own record, anything you write here should be regarded as bulldust unless you can corroborate it. Frankly, I think your claim about a supposed riot involving 700 Sudanese youths last weekend is pure fantasy on your part. I say this based on your past record of telling lies and distorting the facts in order to further your odious agendas.

For a small sample of Boaz's mendacity and distortions of the truth in this forum, please check out http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=347#6318 .

Boaz: "You need to remember something, often in the turmoil of day to day life, we see one story here (TV) and another aspect there (Newspaper) and put it all together in our mind to make up the full picture."

A good example of how Boazy distorts reality in order to fit his deranged worldview is his recent misquote of Bob Brown with reference to Pauline Hanson, which he then uses as justification to shout out the most offensive lies about Senator Brown that one can imagine.

Full details of this may be found at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5153#67016 .

Boaz has been shown not only to be a liar in his comments in this forum, but also an unrepentant one. For this reason I think it is very wise to take anything he writes with a grain of salt unless it is independently verified.

I'm not missing your point C.J. but you are definitely missing mine.
You question the veracity of my contribution, and to accomodate you, I make indepenant enquiries myself, by phoning the police to confirm what I watched on TV, plus (more of the same story) I read in the papers. Dandenong police, here is their number, (03) 97677444
Now.. you are basically calling me a liar, and I really don't think that is justified.

You can call me occassionaly lacking in 100% accurate recollection, but not a liar.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hanson-attacks-diseased-immigrants/2006/12/07/1165081058437.html

"She really is a bloodsucker on Australia in terms of the way in which she divides the country and makes us look an uglier country right round the world.''(reported comment of Bob Brown)

Same article, further down.
"She is world famous for the racist comments that she makes and it does damage Australia."

Now..C.J. if you cannot get "Bloodsucking Racist" out of that then stand agast. My mistake was to put his key words and sentiments together "Bloodsucking" and "Racist" and saying he is calling her a 'bloodsucking racist' which is exactly what he is calling her.
Or.. is it just 'bloodsucker who MAKES racist comments' etc ?

Are you seriously trying to tell me Bob Brown has NEVER called Pauline Hanson a racist ?

I'll seek to learn from your wise counsel and avoid making his separately expressed sentiments about Hanson into one sentence as though it was a quote. I stand by the truth of what I said he said, except for that, and feel apart from concatenating, I was correct.
Do you deny this ?

Calling someone a 'bloodsucker' is as vile as it gets- so, I gave some back. its called 'mirror'.
He did not even say (as I did) "in my opinion".

I'll let your post stand...so others can see it (and ur colors)

The guvment of the child abuser howard has been condemned by the UN before the entire world as being rascist in international legal terms. ref the UN for further and better particulars.

Bob Brown for President!

...Adam...

Boaz, can you even lie straight in bed?

Your actual comment was:

"Bob Brown called her a 'bloodsucking racist' so..I will now use this forum to make my own assessment of Bob Brown

BOB BROWN IS A BLOODSUCKING RACIST AND A SEXUAL DEVIATE !

Note..I have not declared this as 'my opinion' I have stated it with the same force as HE did about her. "She is"...so.."He is".

He claims she makes Australia look like a nation of Racists to Asia.
But HE makes Australia look like a nation of sexual deviates."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=304#5308

Not only did you state specififically that this was *not* an opinion, you compounded your culpability by declaring that Bob Brown is a "sexual deviate". Senator Brown is neither a racist nor a sexual deviate - rather he is a gay man in a committed long term relationship, who has worked tirelessly for many years against the evils of racism. Homosexual relations between consenting adults are perfectly legal and acceptable in Australian society, but racial vilification is not.

Frankly, I don't know whether Bob Brown has ever called Pauline Hanson a racist or not, but it's inarguable that she is infamous for making racist comments that have been reported internationally.

So you still can't provide any actual evidence for your claim that 700 Sudanese youths rioted last weekend? Who'd believe a word that you write?

By the way, how are the preparations for your 'Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer' demo going?

[Point to C.J.] I corrected that on he other site. Normally I would state something as 'opinion' but I hope you noted the reasons for not doing it that time. The very thing you accuse me of, condemns your mentor and associate Mr Brown. So, why condemn me if you also condemn your political pal ? Doesn't make much sense to me.

But well done anyway.

Your work is done :) now.. come and apply that razor sharp acumen to making constructive criticism of the 'Caliphate'thread. I can see I will benefit greatly from any 'point of order' or accuracy you may wish to point out.

C.J. I don't know if you realize it, but all you are doing in this mini Jihad against me, is proving to all and sundry that you and the party you represent care little for exploring issues, but everything about condemning individuals. I have attacked Bob on a number of occasions. Only once to my (as you always point out) hazy recollection have I stated it other than my opinion, but.. you can sweat over some more hundreds of my posts if you like to score another point on that if you like.

I'm surprised that you are putting so much effort into this, it can only mean that you take me seriously enough to warrant the effort to discredit me. Thanx. I welcome correction, but I prefer it to be without abuse.
You simply want your cake an eat it too. You want Bob to be able to crucify Pauline Hanson, and call her scandalous names with the deliberate goal of destroying her political credibility, but woe betide anyone who gives it back..nooo no... that can not be. You know there is a name for that ?
But readers of your posts already know that matey. Happy reading.
Notice the pattern ?
Disagree='hate us'
Get some attention='Bloodsucker'
Speak truth, but not an exact quote='liar'
C.J. God forbid you are ever a judge :)

annnnnnd...now back to the TOPIC. (C.J. any further personal attack will be deleted, so don't bother, you have had a good run)

Can anyone see any of the original principles outlined in my first post to this thread, which appear to be problematic ?

If so, please indicate how ?

Thanx

Boaz: "..mentor and associate.."

Hardly. I've met him a couple of times, but as usual you're stretching the truth on the scantest of evidence. He impressed me as a man who shows the courage of his convictions by conducting his campaigns honestly and openly, unlike those who skulk under a cloak of anonymity in order to try and defame good people by dishonest means.

Rest assured that I'll be right on your case every time you try and discredit good people with manufactured or distorted evidence, despite your hollow threats. I haven't defamed anyone - just forced you to confront your own mendacity to a small degree.

Since when is Boazy a moderator of this forum anyway? Heaven forfend!

C.J. It was Brown who attacked Pauline...viciously and slanderously, you are just supporting him.

I don't consider people who stand up in Parliament and shout down a guest from a country we rely on for our very survival 'good'.I call it rude and shameful, and does 'incredible damage to our reputation overseas'...sound familiar ? But hey... I stood at Flinders street station with a sign :) and you probably think BB is fine, and me a whacko.. aaah..life goes on.

Participating in protests which cause serious damage to machinery and endanger lives again...is shameful.

Referring to our need for 'High Principles' while choosing the life he leads privately, is .. mind boggling.

I've been a Brown/Greeens Watcher for some time, and even if his personal life style was something I could accept, his political craftiness, sneakiness,misrepresentation and distortion of fact is not.

To be honest, I regard him (my opinion) as an extremely evil man who would damage this country in ways unimaginable. but thats just my view. You probably regard me in the same way. Thats ok.
At least I do have some abiding and foundation principles for my views which don't come from some obscure wiccan thing in the Black Forest of Germany afew centuries ago.... OK.. :) that was what Senator somebody or other said about him... when connecting the Greens to Nazism. So, in Parliament they also get quite colorful in their descriptions of each other. OLO is quite tame by comparison.

My threat ? just prod to contribute rather than waste thread time.
But I think when we start a thread, we can request posts be deleted if they are off topic.. I've been deleted a few times :)

I really DO want to explore the concept of war and the 'Christian' state... I don't want it to degenerate into a he said/you said slanging match about BB or Greens.

cheers