Lexi: From your last couple of posts I can see that your definition of a fair-minded debate differs greatly from mine.

May I be enlightened as to your definition of a fair debate. Would it be one where all the nastiness of the subject in question is not to be mentioned? I look forward to learning about your definition.

Lexi's "definition of a fair-minded debate" is to bombard people with links that are often meaningless or are easily contradicted after closer examination, and most importantly to ignore questions that are shall I say too hot to handle.

I have on occasion proved her links actually proved the people in the story were not genuine refugees but economic refugees, my reply s were met with total silence.

Dear Lexi,

I have to say that, in my view, Jayb's last few posts have been quite reasonable. Islamist fundamentalism is clearly on the rise around the Muslim world, and the maxim, that 'a Muslim and an Infidel will never meet in Paradise', should ring in our ears.

Yes, as Jayb pointed out, there are nut-case Christian fundamentalists, but I haven't heard even the worst of them talk about putting non-believers to the sword, as George Bernard Shaw said of Islam eighty years ago: 'a religion of intolerance', I think he called it. Perhaps Christians do, but maybe I don't mix in the right circles.

But, I think we are all mixing up three different groups here;:

* genuine refugees (fleeing for political reasons),

* economic refugees ('fleeing' for economic reasons), and

* jihadis/fundamentalists (who are least likely to come by boat, and more likely to have done everything exactly by the book).

Certainly, genuine 'political' refugees should be given preference, particularly if they have applied in the proper way and waited their turn to know.

But ironically, from a cold, economic point of view, economic immigrants are likely to be far more motivated to work like like buggery, to scrimp and save, to contribute to the economy as soon and as much as possible, to get ahead and bring other family members out to do the same. Political refugees would probably rather stay in, or go back to, a stable and peaceful homeland and in that sense are always going to be 'conditional' immigrants, with Australia as a sort of second-best option. Their children may see things differently.

As well, from my limited knowledge and point of view, it appears that Muslim 'political' refugees are precisely those who are not particularly Islamist - who have been, if anything, driven out of their countries by Islamists for their lack of fervour, or the right fervour. And Iranians, for example, may, after all, not be Muslim at all but Christian or Bahai'i. Iraqi refugees may be Kurds, not particularly Islamist, but not majority-Arab either.

Just suggesting :)

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

President Obama when talking about the debate on abortion
in his country asked for a debate with, "Open hearts,
open minds and fair-minded words." That's the kind of debate
that I would like to see on this thread. Muslims came to
this country before Christians did - and have lived here
peacefully for over 200 years. Today they make up a very
small percentage of the population. Professor Abdullah
Saeed has written a book, "Muslims in Australia," which
dispels many of the myths surrounding the religion.

My objection in this thread was to the sweeping statements
and generalisations that were being made in connecting
to an entire group of people. However, as I stated earlier -
I do not wish to continue in a debate where unreasonable
generalisations seem to dominate. And that is my choice
not to do. I do not like being accused of supporting
"terrorists," and indulge in mud-slinging contests.
Besides, I don't see why anyone should be concerned with
my leaving a particular discussion - when there are enough
kindred-spirits more than willing to take my place.
I'm sure that I shan't be a loss to anyone.

Philip S.,

Stop spouting your nonsense about our previous discussions.
You were not met by silence. I answered your questions
several times. You simply did not like the answers you
were given or you did not understand them.
That was your problem not mine.

Lexi: "Open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words." That's the kind of debate that I would like to see on this thread.

I do have an "Open heart & Mind." I am willing to listen to any argument you are willing to put forward, backed up by "appropriate" links which I, at least, explore. All I have done here is put forward my case using the evidence as given by moderate & extremist Muslims. (Iftikhar, Abu Imam & Chaoudry.) Are you saying that this is an unfair tactic?

Lexi: Muslims came to this country before Christians did - and have lived here peacefully for over 200 years.

Yes. The Moccasins on fishing expeditions, but they did not settle or mix with the local Aborigines. I do believe there was one who came as a prisoner on the first fleet. Afghans were imported along with their camels to survey the country as they were more accurate than the British Surveyors. Most northern town in Qld were surveyed by them. Notably Ayr & Giru, all the Streets were given Arab names. I have an original survey map of Ayr. There was an incident in WW1 where 4 Afghans declared War on a train near Wagga Wagga. They lost.

Lexi: I do not like being accused of supporting "terrorists,"

& when did I, personally, accuse you of supporting terrorists? "No one can make you feel anything. How you feel is your own responsibility." To quote many Women’s Liberation books.

Lexi: I'm sure that I shan't be a loss to anyone.

You are wrong. You are one person who supports Asylum seekers who does at times present some sort of reply in moderation. (Is that the word I'm looking for?) Unlike others who continually attack with a deflection when they can't face the facts as presented by the very people they support.

Just exactly what is your definition of an, "Open hearts, open minds and fair-minded words." debate. I asked before but you didn't reply to that question.

Joe: I commented back about 50 pages ago that economic refugees were more likely to work hard and contribute to the economy, and got dumped on. Glad to see that someone else recognises this.

Jayb: I'll put the 'Moccasins' for Maccasars down to a typo. Afghans were bought in with camels ca 1860s but not as surveyors. The British (and Irish) surveyors were already doing an excellent job surveying, with the most up-to-date techniques for the time (The Brits were at the forefront of navigation and surveying). However if you have any specific archival references to Afghan surveyors I'd be interested to hear. (Towns having Arab street names doesn't mean the surveyors were Afghans; lots of Aboriginal street names too, but I'm not aware of any early Aboriginal surveyor).

The WW1 attack was 1 Jan 1915 on the Silverton picnic train, ca 600+km from Wagga. Two 'Afghans', who may have been Pushtun from what is now Pakistan, took the ice-cream cart belonging to one of them, raised the Turkish flag, and shot up the picnic train (where families were sitting in open ore wagons.) Four people were killed (both on the train and passer-bys), and the men were later shot by police/militia.

There have been many historic and popular articles and two novels. One of these, by a (non-Australian) Turk, builds this into a conspiracy theory that the shootings were actually engineered by the military and the Afghans were the fall-guys, with the aim of inflaming public opinion and boosting army recruitment in Australia. The other is a piece of chick-lit on the rejected lover theme: it proposes that one of the Afghans fell in love with an Aussie girl, was rejected because of racism, set out to shoot her in revenge as she travelled on the picnic train.

The actual underlying motive seems to have been more prosaic - a grudge against the local Broken Hill council re health regulations (not a good basis for a popular novel), as well as resentment because Australia was at war with Turkey.