The Forum > General Discussion > Islamic Jihad - Violent unacceptable but non-violent OK?
Islamic Jihad - Violent unacceptable but non-violent OK?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- ...
- 13
- 14
- 15
-
- All
Posted by Horus, Saturday, 7 August 2010 11:20:59 PM
| |
Dear Proxy,
I take heart at the fact that the vast majority of Australians don't seem to take a hostile view of Muslims. At all levels of Australian society, there is a remarkable level of tolerance, if not acceptance. Australia's legal framework provides for added safeguards. I do not believe the assumptions that you're making are accurate. I believe that Islam in Australia is being shaped by the prevailing values, norms and practices of Australian society. New generations of Australian-born Muslims will grow up to be, like all the rest of the generations who came before them, valuable members of the Australian community. What you wish to believe is entirely up to you. Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 7 August 2010 11:33:18 PM
| |
Foxy,
I'm not making assumptions, I'm stating facts. You refuse to address these facts, merely stating your beliefs. Posted by Proxy, Saturday, 7 August 2010 11:53:38 PM
| |
Dear Horus,
Perhaps the following website may put things into a better perspective for you. The author is Nicholas Kristof. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/books/review/Kristof-t.html Posted by Foxy, Saturday, 7 August 2010 11:54:25 PM
| |
The only Jihad they have to bother with is their own.
*first* they revise their religion to one recognising biological evolution and the likely consequences for their theology (a remote and uninvolved deity, at best), and *then* it might be worth considering their theological literature after a century or so. Rusty Posted by Rusty Catheter, Sunday, 8 August 2010 1:00:12 AM
| |
Precious Foxy :)
"I have already cited for you the source of my information, Professor Abdullah Saeed, and his book, "Islam in Australia." He is a recognised expert on the subject. I don't pretend to be." Which struck me as a tad like asking Joseph Goebells a similar question about his particular 'mindset' :) Don't you think it is highly unlikely that a man representing the faitn under scrutiny, will allow himself to vilification from his own, by saying anything which could be construed as undermining that faiths objectives ? Just a thought. My approach is to look at 'hate sites' and then evaluate the things they say for logical or evidential inconsistencies which lack substance or evidence. I do the same for my own faith... "skeptics bible"..."Misquoting Jesus" etc.. I don't limit that approach to the other mobs alone. It's not really that hard to recognize 'unsubstantiated vilification' from reasoned, evidence based argument. PERICLES.. you definitely are in need of a verbal smack....and a stern look and a heavy frown. You did exactly what Proxy said.. truly. You neglected the sources, and simply re-constructed the whole argument in terms of your own biases.. baddddd Pericles.. bad bad! BENQ still yapping from the sidelines about 'hate and fear' ? :) see you on '8-28' at the Lincoln Memorial with Beck,Palin and others. (ps.. those lines "hate and fear" have been copyrighted by CJ and Pericles..please stop using their lines) Back to "Killer Cheekbones" :) yes.. your last link did give some perspective "She has managed to outrage more people — in some cases to the point that they want to assassinate her — in more languages in more countries on more continents than almost any writer in the world today." Assasinate? hmmm I wonder which 'people' those would be ? 0_^ Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Sunday, 8 August 2010 7:50:13 AM
|
“only to leave for the United States after an uproar over lies she had told to obtain asylum.”
And not only did he suggest she lied –he saw it as grievous fault.
That sort of thing just doesn’t happen , asylum seekers lying–NO!
And to even suggest it, is to vilify the asylum seeker!
Luckily I had studied well an earlier link you’d given us -- So I was immunized against such slander:
http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources06.html
I remembered it said:
“People arrive by boat not because what we offer is attractive, but because what pushes them to flee is inexorable… It is accepted under our migration laws that an unauthorised arrival who then claims asylum has a right to do so and to have his or her claims heard and, if found to be a refugee, to find safe haven here. Criminalising the act through derogatory language and innuendo and not through testing its legality in a court of law is grossly improper”
And I sought its guidance again when the lifting the veil guy started implying Ayaan was attention seeking
That’s the same old slanderous charge the Australian Immigration Ministry had thrown at asylum seekers—totally baseless!
All I can say in conclusion Foxy is, you’re luck Severin's been kept busy keeping a keen eye the KKK, George Pell & Tony Abbot.
When she sees how you’ve contributed to the vilification of refugee Ayaan --it will be “not happy, Jan!”
I bet if Ayaan had landed on our north west coast in one of those “ small open boats” you wouldn’t be finding fault