While the rest of the world, sick of the Left, is moving to the Right, Australia is moving further Left. The apology for a conservative party, the Coalition, is indistinguishable from the Labor right. We have the most Leftish PM ever. The only groups remotely conservative are One Nation, Family First and, just scraping in, the Nationals. Cory Bernadi is clucking around the edges but, so far, there is nothing to indicate that he is not all mouth and trousers. Even the 'mouth' seems to belong to speculating reporters and a few urgers; not much is heard from the man himself.

Michael Davis (The Spectator 6/2/17) seems to think that Bernadi might lead “...his people out of subjugation in Malcolm Turbull's Egypt”, but I doubt it very much. If Bernadi is our only hope, I think that we are well and truly stuffed.

I am a proud and patriotic Australian who will not tolerate anybody but another Australian criticising my country. But I really believe that we must be the weakest, most apathetic and downtrodden civilised people on Earth to put up with the way we are treated by our third rate political class.

People get what fits and wear it. If pollies are crackers then public policy debates are weak as. Slogans are not policies.

ttbn
It's simply not true that the rest of the world, sick of the Left, is moving to the Right.

What the rest of the world is sick of is people on the right pretending to be on the left. Hence the unpopularity of Clinton and the popularity of Sanders.

We may have the most leftish PM ever, but we may not - and judging by the policies his party try to introduce, I'd say we don't. But we're thoroughly sick of him anyway.

"The only groups remotely conservative are One Nation, Family First and, just scraping in, the Nationals"
What about the Bobcats and Lambs?

"I am a proud and patriotic Australian who will not tolerate anybody but another Australian criticising my country."
Why the intolerance? Surely the source of the criticism doesn't determine the validity?

IMO nobody, no organization and no country should be above criticism by anyone, because without criticism the problems get ignored.

Still, I believe and love Australia.

_____________________________________
http://www.adzoo.com.au/website-design-perth/

"I am a proud and patriotic Australian who will not tolerate anybody but another Australian criticising my country. But I really believe that we must be the weakest, most apathetic and downtrodden civilised people on Earth to put up with the way we are treated by our third rate political class."

Aiden, I can't speak for ttbn, but I find the idea of foreigners coming here and disrespecting our culture and way of life by demanding that we not only reach into our pockets to pay for them but also respect their culture at the expense of our own is one the most lowest and disrespectful form of behavior possible.
I wouldn't go into their countries and tell them how they should live and when they do it in my country I think it's despicable.

ttbn,
Speaking of 'the most apathetic and downtrodden civilised people on Earth'...

http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/mother-of-dead-backpacker-slams-trump/news-story/016ca8963265e933296a7b4ddfc73c6b

What a disgusting mother, her daughter's killed by someone screaming "Allah Ackbar" and she wants to blame everyone but Islam.
To her I'd say it's not about you so shut the hell up, I'm sure if it actually was you getting stabbed numerous times like your daughter was you'd have a lot more to say (probably in-between blood curdling screams for help whilst coughing up blood) than 'Move along, nothing to see here'.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Coward.

What it actually is about is the next one that gets killed by some Islamic nutjob who stabs everything in sight screaming "Allah Ackbar" dumbass.

Then we have this:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/police-slam-trumps-terror-claim/news-story/b2fda0f4d770d96301ef9abc7854d19a

"At the time of the attack, Queensland Police, the Australian Federal Police and the Joint Counter Terrorism Unit were in Home Hill and investigated any links between Ayad and radical organisations, and they did not find any evidence of radicalisation."

So foreign Islamic nutjob runs around stabbing everything in sight screaming "Allah Ackbar" for several hours witnessed by many people, and they can't find evidence of radicalisation...

What are they?
Deaf, dumb and blind AND mentally retarded?

AC,

A disgusting mother and disgusting human being.

I could not begin to understand how such a creature could use her daughter's murder to (a) make a polticial statement and (b) defend the Islamist terrorists who murdered the girl. It's very hard to believe that the balance of a normal person's mind could be so disturbed so as to do what this female has done and said. I say 'female' because there is no way I can accept that 'woman' and 'mother' fits this freak.

As for the Qld and Federal police not 'finding' any connection between Islam and just-about-anything, we have to accept that those in the police are not all that bright these days and worse, not capable of protecting the public from an evil they do not want to recognise and face up to.

yep the left and Islam are both death cults hence them defending each other.

Muslims don't hate pigs but aren't that keen on them. There could be a pig available in each local council for a decoy target if someone needs to do a pure victory merciful devotion killing .

I wish that people would get their facts straight
before they post. Venting one's spleen and getting
emotional about issues one cares deeply about is
one thing. However you have to get your facts
straight before you cast blame on others. There
are certain newspaper sources that are notorious
for their misinformation. The Daily Telegraph
being one of them. Also, President Trump has an
agenda regarding his ban on certain people. Unfortunately
in this case the name of Ayliffe-Chung appeared in error
on his "list," and the families had ever right to correct
this piece of misinformation.

The following two links explain:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-derbyshire-38893253

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/mia-ayliffe-chungs-mother-criticises-white-house-terrorism-claim/8250410

Hey Foxy,
Well I'd still argue that it's not about Mia Ayliffe-Chung or her mum.
If it was, then that would be blaming the victim would it not?
This is about what the perpetrator did and the way in which he did it.

Sadly, we can't bring Mia back.
This is about the next innocent person who will die on our shores at the hands of this ideology.
And the next person and the next person and the next.

On a different note Turnbull gave Shorten a real grilling today.
You really should see the look on his face as he just sat there while Mal tore into him.
Priceless.

Link to the footage below.
http://youtu.be/R5YbfEkuyNY

Fact 1. Her mother says a nation should not be demonised for 1 person.
2."Up to 30 witnesses — watched as Ayad burst in .. crying “God is great” in Arabic during the frenzied attack, The Australian reports.
“Initial inquiries indicate that comments which may be construed (as) being of an extremist nature were made by the alleged offender,” Queensland deputy police commissioner Steve Gollschewski said during a press conference.
“It is alleged that the suspect used the phrase ‘Allahu akbar’ during the attack and when arrested by police."
3. Turnbull doing hate speech to Shorten is different from being a MP in Parliament.

“What a disgusting mother” Armchair Critic

“A disgusting mother and disgusting human being.” ttbn

I have been trying to come up with an adequate description of this despicable pair and the best I can up with is they are OLO's white trash.

Unbelievable.

Steele,

I thought that you had grown tired of making a fool of yourself and moved on. Apparently not.

So, AC and I are 'white trash', are we. I take it that you don't like white people. Would you refer to anyone as 'black trash'? Or, are you just a white-hating racist? There are a lot of you in Australia now.

Well I'm quite more than happy to accept the opinion and judgement of others on this.
Sure, my opinion seems harsh, but when is it not?
Just remember I'm not the one who was around screaming "Allahu Ackbar" during a frenzied stabbing attack that killed numerous people just as I'm also not the one with Stockholm Syndrome willing to give this dangerous ideology a free pass when I've seen many of my fellow Aussies as well as visitors to our country go to an early grave.
I'm the one who would speak out if it was you 'SteeleRedux' stabbed to death and being zipped up in the next body bag.
- Judge me all you want, at least I have ethics.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Your attacks on this grieving mother were not ethical in the slightest. If you wanted to make the observation that her remarks were the product of some kind of Stockholm Syndrome then do so, no matter how ridiculous it may be. But to have denigrated this poor woman the way you two did purely because of some toxic ideology you are determined to espouse was wrong, sick and disgraceful.

Now I know you are not on the level of our resident pus purveyor but the fact you were singing from the the same songbook should give you pause. I know people from all walks of life and I am pretty confident most would take significant umbrage with your post.

Time to have a good hard look at yourself mate.

Steele,

So, no answer to my query regarding your white-hating racism. Read a book telling you that ignoring people who you disagree with is the way to go? Wrong. People like you who just pop up to bad-mouth others instead of contributing something are just sad little twerps, deserving of pity; and you certainly have mine.

Steele Redux,
Let me explain my 'ethics' to you.
I followed my 'disgusting' comment with:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." did I not?

Now we can't bring Mia back, but we can take steps to prevent the next tragedy by 'renouncing radical Islam'.
Mia's mum doesn't want to do that; for whatever reasons.
Maybe she doesn't want her daughters death to be a source of further discontent and a dividing issue between people, maybe she doesn't want to put herself at risk by speaking out.

Whatever her reasons, by not speaking out against 'Radical Islam' she "gives up liberty to purchase safety"; and therefore deserves neither.
Because what she actually is doing is giving this ideology a free pass; and therefore putting someone else's daughter at risk.
I told you already, I'm fine with myself on this.

I think you may have become too indoctrinated with political correctness to understand the difference between an opinion (what I did) and an attack (what they guy screaming "Allah Ackbar" did).

I'm not prepared to give radical Islam a free pass, so I'm not sorry for it; though I'll accept that passing judgement upon Mia's mum is harsh given none of us know her reasons or what she's going through.
Personally I would've stood up for my daughter instead of throwing her under a bus like her life had little value and I'd have 'renounced radical Islam'.

Dear Armchair Critic,

No mate that is rubbish.

You certainly could have made your rather puerile point about liberty without denigrating this poor woman as you did. On top of disgusting you called her "coward", a "dumbass" and told her to “shut the hell up”.

Mate this woman lost her daughter in a truly horrendous manner and I guarantee she knows far more about the circumstances of this tragedy than you do.

There was not one jolt of empathy or sympathy from you because you were on your bandwagon with the pustule. How on earth did you manage to go there? I mean when I read about her mother's comments all I could think about was the pain she must be going through. You went where anyone with a shred of common decency would not have. It was truly pathetic and deserving of censure.

I have written the other clown off because his hatred is too ingrained for any redemption but I invite you again to think about what would drive someone like yourself to denigrate a grieving mother in such a manner. Time to reboot my friend and rejoin the human race.

Hey SteeleRedux,
I spent a few hours considering your criticism and position; and whether you're right that I should take a good hard look at myself.

I often make harsh criticisms, and many times it will be from a point of view that others mightn't consider.
I like to think for myself and not follow a herd-mentality and I don't hold an opinion for the purposes of being 'pleasing to others'.
Also however, by my rules, if someone else proves me wrong fairly, then I will happily concede the argument and accept their criticism rather that argue from a position of 'ego'; or 'not wanting to accept I was wrong'.

I gave your position a lot of consideration, and I wanted to concede I was wrong.
I tried to; but I just can't accept that I'm entirely wrong.

For someone who's lost a daughter maybe I did go too far, I'm willing to accept that.
In respect to the tragic loss of her daughter she should have our full condolences.
But does she hold a position of 'immunity from criticism' regarding her own statements? I'm not so sure.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/mia-ayliffe-chungs-mother-criticises-white-house-terrorism-claim/8250410

Then it occurred to me to think about it in a different way.
Instead of 'Radical Islam' what if this discussion were about 'Government Travel Rorts'?

- In response to that topic I've often said 'We need to put them in jail. If we let them get away with it then the next time it happens it won't just be their fault; it will also be ours, for not doing anything when we should've'.

In the same way, if we don't speak out against 'Radical Islam' then the next time it happens do we not have to take some of the blame ourselves for not denouncing it and doing more to stand united against it when we had the opportunity to do so?

So I honestly can't accept that I'm completely wrong, nor will I retract what I said (especially after watching the video) but I will accept your points and that maybe I was a little too harsh.

I have to stand by my original statements SteeleRedux, the way I see it I really don't have any choice.
I know the comments may be distasteful, but to retract them; to not criticise what Mia's mum said would in my opinion be equal to giving my silent approval to 'Radical Islam' and what the perpetrator did, and I just can't do that.

If the following arguments are true:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

- Then I truly do not believe I'm wrong for my criticism of Mia's mums 'Muslim Apologist' statements.
I stand firmly against acts of violence containing elements of radical Islamic extremism and I believe I that I'm doing the right thing morally by openly doing so.

AC,

You are perfectly correct in what you say, and that's the end of the matter. There is no point in arguing with an idealogical idiot like steeleredux, who has serious problems he tries to solve by spraying his nasty bile at all and sundry. Move on, my friend; steelredux is a dropkick.

//would in my opinion be equal to giving my silent approval to 'Radical Islam' and what the perpetrator did, and I just can't do that.//

What does 'what the perpetrator did' have to do with 'Radical Islam', AC? Beyond shouting a phrase that any person capable of pronouncing the correct phonemes (most people - some Asians may struggle, and end up crying 'Arahu Akbal' instead) can shout?

The Qld. Police, who investigated the matter, have stated that there was no connection with 'Radical Islam'. Indeed, the facts have shown that the murderer was not even a Muslim, let alone a radical one. If I shout 'Allahu Ackbar' when I commit crimes, would that make me a 'Radical Islamsist' even though I'm a baptised-but-reformed Catholic of Irish heritage? What about if I shouted the Rosary? Would I be a 'Radical Catholic', even though I don't believe in God, miracles, saints, the Holy Spirit, the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, the Bible or the Canon of the Church? Do people who get yin-yang symbols tattooed because they look nice but don't what they mean, then commit a crime, do so in the name of 'Radical Taoism'?

Do you really believe that the conclusions you jump to on the basis of scant factual information are actually more sound than those formed by experienced detectives through a painstaking and thorough process of investigation?

There's that old AC arrogance coming through again - your fundamental unwillingness to accept that there might possibly be anybody in the world who knows more about something you've firmly made your mind up about. Are you a narcissist?

//You are perfectly correct in what you say//

I guess that depends on your metric... I prefer facts, but I hear a lot of people are into what the Americans call 'alternative facts', the English call 'bollocks' and us Aussies call 'bullsh!t' these days.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Oh Jesus wept, did you really just quote “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.“?
Mate, this isn't about you being silent rather about conducting yourself like a normal human being who can put an opposing point of view without such denigration. Nor is it, by any stretch of fantasy, about you facing up to tyranny. You attacked her from behind the mask of anonymity. There is no courage in what you did only cowardliness. The fight against tyranny is not prosecuted at the feet of a grieving mother.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”?

Good men don't feel the need to do what you did. Your 'something' was pathetic, self serving, ideologically driven nastiness. There was certainly no morality on display.

However let me acknowledge your introspection. Some here are entirely incapable of it. You conceded you went too far and acknowledged partial wrongdoing to a degree.

But I reject completely your attempts of mitigation.

Your attack on this woman was unjustifiable under any circumstances but also based on the false premise that her daughter's death was the result of Islamic extremism. Something rejected by her, the Queensland police and the French anti-terrorist force.

Mia's killer was clearly suffering some form of psychosis. Not only did he cry 'Ali Akbar' but he also sang the bloody La Marseillaise during the attack. Are we now going to ban all Frenchmen? You claim the right to absolutely pillory this poor woman based on your dismissal of the appraisal of two far more knowledgeable agencies than you my friend.

You were spurred on by our resident pustule, and your ideology did not allow any appreciation of the facts of the case nor the people involved.

You neither had the need, nor the right, nor the reason other than your blinkered point of view to have done what you have.

Desperately bad form.

Hey Toni,
Trust you to smell blood in the water and have your 2 cents...
I'm tired and irritable and I don't want to argue, I'll give you points for your effort though...
But for everyone else that wants to hassle me, I just want to say no matter how ANY OF YOU want to try and package it with pretty paper and a bow, I'm not going to give radical Islam a free pass, and I don't care what any of you say.
If you want to support ISIS ideology that's your business, just don't expect me to willingly go along with it.

Ok? Now that I've said that...

No, it wasn't just the cries of "Allah Ackbar" on it's own; it was the frenzied stabbing / cold blooded murder of two innocent people (as well as a dog I believe) during the cries of "Allah Ackbar" that gives me cause to give 'Radical Islam' the benefit of the doubt.

Regarding the Police investigation; an important thing to note is that they categorise these things as 'terrorist incidents' based on a proven connection to a terrorist organisation and not the extent of the act itself.

Referring to 'Radical Islam' or 'Islamic Extremism' in my opinion simply refers to an ideology, one well and truly demonstrated in the Home Hill Massacre.

Can anyone here present a logical reason why someone might start murdering numerous people in a psychotic frenzied stabbing attack screaming "God is Great"??

Can ANYONE here give me a reason why I should consider this behavior normal?
Or that it should be written off and normalised as the cost of religious freedom, par for the course or any other insane reason at all; then I'm all ears..
Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Does ANYONE AT ALL HERE want to stand up and openly give this behavior a free pass?

I'm still not going give this behavior a free pass, or allow others to normalise it.
Not now, and not ever.

//I'm not going to give radical Islam a free pass//

That's nice, dear. We neither expect or desire you to give radical Islam a free pass. Those guys are dicks.

//If you want to support ISIS ideology that's your business//

We don't.

//it wasn't just the cries of "Allah Ackbar" on it's own; it was the frenzied stabbing / cold blooded murder of two innocent people (as well as a dog I believe) during the cries of "Allah Ackbar"//

And as I've pointed out, shouting an empty phrase about a god you don't believe in doesn't make you a radical religious terrorist. Even if you stab somebody while you do it. Radical religious terrorists have radical religious views; they don't just go around shouting meaningless slogans.

//Can anyone here present a logical reason why someone might start murdering numerous people in a psychotic frenzied stabbing attack screaming "God is Great"??//

Psychosis.

//Can ANYONE here give me a reason why I should consider this behavior normal?//

You shouldn't. Psychosis is abnormal by definition.

//Does ANYONE AT ALL HERE want to stand up and openly give this behavior a free pass?//

I doubt it. There's not a lot of people out there who are in favour of murder, and I don't think any of them hang out around here.

//I'm still not going give this behavior a free pass, or allow others to normalise it.
Not now, and not ever.//

I don't understand why you have to claim it is something it is manifestly not in order to condemn it. Surely there is nothing to prevent you condemning it without attaching fictions to it?

Ayad had been drinking which is not majority Muslim practice. But if he could yell' Allahu Akbar' and the Marseillaise without spluttering he can't have been too drunk. The ice is the rum may have been the problem.

Toni,
Why should I accept 'psychosis' as a factor in the Home Hill massacre but not be willing to accept 'Radical Islam' as a factor also?

If I were an experienced investigator why would I not start with my feet on the ground and consider that both the effects of 'Radical Islam' and 'psychosis' played a part in the outcome?

Dear Armchair Critic,

But you aren't a police investigator and god help the country if you were.

This is from Mia's mum;

'The possibility of Mia and Tom’s deaths being consequent to an Islamic terror attack was discounted in the early stages of the police investigation through international collaboration on the parts of Queensland police department and the French ant-terrorist force. I have spoken to friends of Mia’s and other backpackers who worked for long days in the fields with Ayad, and none of them ever saw him put down a prayer mat. Salat or prayer is the second of five pillars of Islam, and calls for 5 daily rituals of ablution, prayer and prostration. An Islamic fundamentalist by definition must respect the five pillars of Islam. It would be very hard to imagine someone managing to perform this ritual five times a day in the close confines of Home Hill Hostel without witnesses.
One of the reasons I took to blogging in The Independent Newspaper was to discount this myth of a connection between my daughter’s death and Islamic fundamentalism. Any fool can shout Allahu Akbar as they commit a crime. I have lived and worked in the Islamic world for a number of years, and wrote ‘the Rough Guide to Turkey’. Some of the research was carried out with Mia as a baby. Mia travelled In Turkey and Morocco too, albeit too briefly. We encountered nothing but respect and hospitality from people who are committed to courtesy and honouring their fellow human beings. This vilification of whole nation states and their people based on religion is a terrifying reminder of the horror that can ensue when we allow ourselves to be led by ignorant people into darkness and hatred.'

You talk about your right to voice your own views but when this grieving mum did the same you ordered her to “shut the hell up”.

I'm not going to tell you to put a sock in it because it would add to your misguided sense of railing against tyranny, but you should really think about it.

//Why should I accept 'psychosis' as a factor in the Home Hill massacre but not be willing to accept 'Radical Islam' as a factor also?//

Because the investigators ruled it out.

//If I were an experienced investigator//

You're not. They are. Why do you presume that you know how do do their job better than them?

//why would I not start with my feet on the ground and consider that both the effects of 'Radical Islam' and 'psychosis' played a part in the outcome?//

They probably did, then ruled it out when they discovered the murderer wasn't actually religious. Despite the fact that it's been pointed out to you that he wasn't religious, you steadfastly cling to your pet theory that he was a radical Muslim. This is why you would make a shite criminal investigator, doctor or scientist: you try to make the evidence fit your theory, rather than make your theory fit the evidence. It's textbook dogmatism.

The French national anthem says "to arms, citizens" which sounds a bit like Koran. Napoleon was a terrorist and Beethoven wanted him out of the country. Frenchmen need to be carefully assessed after Brexit.

Armchair Critic,

I feel I was a little bit to harsh in my last post. You clearly have a highly creative mind, and whilst I still feel that you'd make a poor scientist etc.; I reckon you'd probably make a decent writer of fiction. Ever considered it? There's a lot of money to be had if you can write a good book; just look at J.K Rowling in wealth.

Or maybe your talents lie in the field of art. How do you fare with simple paper and pencil sketches? I draw like a retarded three year-old. Although that is probably doing a bit of a disservice the artistic abilities of retarded three year-olds.

Anyway, I reckon there is probably something you're really good at, AC. And I suspect it lies in some sort of creative or artistic pursuit.

I think you're probably wasting your time trying to be 'AC - World Detective' and that you'll be happiest when you figure out what you're good at and start doing that.

//Why should I accept 'psychosis' as a factor in the Home Hill massacre but not be willing to accept 'Radical Islam' as a factor also?//

Because the investigators ruled it out.

As I said earlier Toni you ISIS apologist,
"Regarding the Police investigation; an important thing to note is that they categorise these things as 'terrorist incidents' based on a proven connection to a terrorist organisation and not the extent of the act itself."

That means (you idiot) that I could piss on a coppers boots and if police find an ACTUAL connection and planning between myself and a terrorist organisation; or if the terrorist organisation claims responsibility then it is a terrorist attack and I am a terrorist.

On the other hand a person could run around on a stabbing rampage screaming "Allah Ackbar" spabbing countless innocent people or go crazy in a car running countless people over whilst screaming "Allah Ackbar" and if police cannot make an actual connection between this person and a terrorist organisation then it is not a terrorist attack and the person not a terrorist.

Person peeing on officers boots = terrorist.
Person stabbing or running over countless people screaming "Allah Ackbar" = not a terrorist.

Again you argumentative moron, these 'incidents' are based on a proven connection to a terrorist organisation and not the extent of the act itself.

To say no evidence of radical Islam when a (French / Syrian refugee no less) terrorised a neigbourhood killing numerous people for hours on a stabbing rampage screaming "Allah Ackbar" has nothing to do with radical Islam is ludicrous.

How many people are dumb enough to fall for a Jedi mind trick?

You come home find your wife sleeping with the neighbour.
She say's "You must be seeing things, you did not just catch me having sex with the neighbour".
"Fine, I must've been seeing things; lets go to dinner then shall we?"

You want to know the only logical answer Toni?
I think the investigators have psychosis.

"I feel I was a little bit to harsh in my last post. "

- And I hadn't yet read your next post, which I can't exactly tell if you are serious or taking the piss.
In any case I used to be fairly good at art and drawing as a child but kind of grew out of it in my teenage years.
I'm not trying to be 'AC - World Detective', if I was I'd have to concede I'm doing a crap job. I simply exercise my right to have an opinion on a 'free speech is like muscles - use them or lose them' basis.

Dear Armchair Critic,

No offence - but people who enjoy the right of
free speech have a duty to respect other
people's rights. A person's freedom of speech is
limited by the rights of others. Of course you
are entitled to your opinion - but you crossed
the line in the way you expressed it - totally
demeaning the mother. That was not called for.
And she also was expressing her opinion.

You’re wrong on both counts, Armchair Critic.

<< Person peeing on officers boots = terrorist.
Person stabbing or running over countless people screaming "Allah Ackbar" = not a terrorist.>>

Per the National Security Information Act 2004 (Cth), a crime needs to meet two criteria to be considered a terrorist act:

1. It intends to coerce or influence the public or any government by intimidation to advance a political, religious or ideological cause.

2. It causes one or more of the following:
- death, serious harm or danger to a person
- serious damage to property
- a serious risk to the health of safety of the public
- serious interference with, disruption to, or destruction of critical infrastructure such as a telecommunications or electricity network.

http://www.ag.gov.au/NationalSecurity/Counterterrorismlaw/Pages/AustraliasCounterTerrorismLaws.aspx

So the incident that got yours and ttbn’s right-wing knickers in a twist fails the first test, while your ‘pissing’ analogy fails both tests.

You’re just going to have to find something else to become enraged over, I'm afraid. Why don’t you complain about the tiny percentage of people rorting the welfare system, while 679 companies pay no tax at all? That always seems to be a favourite amongst you lot, and you won’t be attacking a grieving mother who doesn’t want her daughter’s death politicised that way, either.

Hey Foxy,
Hmm... Demean?
No, honestly I truly think it was just really harsh criticism however I accept that other people might see my comments as demeaning; as SteeleRedux also pointed out.
Demeaning? - with respect; and forgive me for saying this, but an example of 'demeaning' might've been if I have said this:
She's a disgusting mother; who doesn't deserve to have a child.
That because of her blind and ignorant support for a religion that normalises the killing of innocents that it's karma her daughter was killed.
That her kid was better off dead than with a mother like her.

Those are the types of things one might actually consider 'demeaning'.

Now I totally respect the point you and others are trying to make.
I spent hours thinking on it.
That to criticise a mother who has just lost a child is immoral, unbecoming, disrespectful, heartless etc. etc.
I totally get it ok.

What bothers me firstly is we're living in a world where there is this need for me 'proclaim to everyone my sympathies for the mother' like we all need to do this ritualistic blowing of steam up others rear ends.
In my my world those condolences and sympathies are a given.

One thing had absolutely nothing to do with the other.
The sympathy and condolences are a given, the criticism was earned based on her own comments of giving radical Islam a free pass.
Giving this behaviour a free pass, earned the criticism.
Her giving Radical Islam a free pass normalises and gives silent consent to this behavior; and that puts other peoples daughters at risk.

So lets change the qestion a little bit.
If her actions normalise Radical Islam and give silent consent to it in our communities, then can you tell me why my criticism WAS NOT warranted ?

Theres pro's and con's in just about everything...

Dear Armchair Critic,

Please tell me in what way was the mother supporting
radical Islam?

From her statements she did not want her daughter's death
politicised. So far no connection has yet been made
between the killer of her daughter and terrorism, or Islam.

Hey Foxy,
"Please tell me in what way was the mother supporting
radical Islam?"

By not renouncing the way the perpetrator murdered her daughter in cold blood screaming 'god is great'.
Normal, civilised western people don't do that.
A non-religious person would not kill someone screaming 'god is great'.

"So far no connection has yet been made between the killer of her daughter and terrorism, or Islam."
Foxy, the next time I hear that I am going outside to scream...

And for those who are actually trying to say he wasn't a Muslim, (because a Muslim would never ever stab someone to death screaming god is great, thats not their MO) then this makes it all the more concerning that we get to the bottom of it.

"From her statements she did not want her daughter's death
politicised."
Probably not, but who knows how these weird liberals think.
Another alternative I considered was that she might be acting in a way that she thought her daughter may have wanted.
Though I don't think it's the case; after watching her video statement I think it was more likely the other way, that her mum was too liberal and trusting and in not teaching her that different cultures have different beliefs and customs she may have inadvertently put her in harms way.

Stabbing someone is radical behavior and screaming god is great whilst doing it is reasonable evidence of some kind of religious belief that the act committed is righteous.

Renounce the radical religious ideology, and uphold the values of civilised secular western society.

I honestly can't believe I have to spell all this out.
I feel like I'm dealing with 4 year olds, no offense.

Bottom line is I'm not giving Radical Islam a free pass.

Schizophrenic murderer 'who thinks he's the immortal Prince of God' to be executed in Florida tonight.
John Errol Ferguson convicted of killing 8 people in 1970s murder spree.
Appeals court lifted last-minute stay that was based on his mental illness.

Lawyers: ''It is a cruel and unusual punishment for a mentally ill man'
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article

"It is a cruel and unusual punishment for a mentally ill man"
More blatent defense of those that would harm innocent people packaged in the 'society blackmail / guilt-trip idea' that those not responsible for said crimes should bear the costs.

Defend the criminal and punish the innocent. More or less.

Dear Armchair Critic,

By not renouncing in the way he murdered her daughter?

Are you for real?

The way her daughter was murdered was by someone who the
authorities found had no terrorist or Islamic connections.

What he sang/screamed would explain a mental or a drug
induced connection - but blaming Islam is not rational
in particular when all the evidence disclaims this fact.
Yet you refuse to accept it. I am beginning to seriously
wonder why are you so adamant on blaming Islam in this
case.

Anyway, I don't think that anything productive will
be achieved in further discussion so I'll leave things
as they are.

Cheers.

//Toni you ISIS apologist//

I sincerely hope you die of bowel cancer within the next three weeks, you sad little shite-stain on the bedsheet of humanity.

//How many people are dumb enough to fall for a Jedi mind trick?//

I'm a Hutt, from Nal Hutta. Hutts are immune to Jedi mind tricks.

//You want to know the only logical answer Toni?
I think the investigators have psychosis.//

Ah, right... gotcha. It's everybody else that's crazy, and you're the only sane one. Spoken like a true paranoid schizophrenic.

//A non-religious person would not kill someone screaming 'god is great'.//

Well, I dunno about 'would not', AC. But I do know that a non-religious person killed somebody screaming 'Allahu Ackbar'. And singing La Marseillaise, that well known catch-cry of Islamic terrorists (sarcasm). Because he was psychotic. The ramblings of psychotic people usually don't make sense when examined under the lens of reason, and you shouldn't expect them to.

//And for those who are actually trying to say he wasn't a Muslim//

He wasn't. I can quote some Taoist and Christian scripture from memory; for all the other religions there is google. It does not follow that I am Taoist or Christian. To be Taoist, I would have to believe in the Tao and live according to the Tao Te Ching. I don't. To be Christian, I'd have to believe in the God and the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, and live according to the Bible. I don't. To be Muslim, you must believe in Allah and live according to the Koran. Especially if you're a radical Muslim. Just quoting 'Allahu Ackbar' doesn't cut it. Given the clear evidence that he did not live according to the Koran, the argument that he must have been a Muslim because he quoted a clichéd phrase is on very thin ice. And anybody accepting such an argument is probably on some highly pure ice.

All this discussion revolving around the phrase 'Allah Akbar' has reminded me of something I heard about a while ago on 'No Such Thing As A Fish', my favourite podcast. They were discussing the Allahakbarries, an English cricket team who named themselves that way because they were under the mistaken belief that 'Allah Akbar' translated as 'Heaven help us' rather than 'God is great'. They weren't very good at cricket, although they were very good at other things.

Presumably AC would go right ahead and paint the entire team as radical Muslims because of their name.

When I said they were good at other things, I was referring to writing. The Allahakbarries included a veritable who's-who of English literature: Rudyard Kipling, H. G. Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle, P. G. Wodehouse, G. K. Chesterton, Jerome K. Jerome, A. A. Milne to name a few.

Yep, clearly all dirty Muslims the lot of them. Have you read the Bertie & Jeeves stories? Cover-to-cover jihadi propaganda, every last one. And don't get me started on 'The House at Pooh Corner'...

"More blatent defense of those that would harm innocent people packaged in the 'society blackmail / guilt-trip idea' that those not responsible for said crimes should bear the costs."

Do you need laxatives? There is the flu , appendicitis and bonkers .
Insanity is a defence to murder. Yes mad dogs are put down , maybe mentally defective children should be. Another topic eh.

Dear Toni Lavis,

What on earth is this mate?

“I sincerely hope you die of bowel cancer within the next three weeks”

As reprehensible as being tagged by someone as an ISIS apologist might be it certainly doesn't equate with 'sincerely' wishing someone dead.

I get it is sometime hard to retain perspective when some one like Is Mise pulls that kind of puerile sledging, and I will often go out of my way to either challenge him on it or serve up a bit of my own, but in my opinion your retort was way out of line.

You know I honestly think this country is doomed, and that's a statement based on the opinions I see here right in front of me.
I think it's really telling that the majority of you would move to attack me, rather than accept my point; when my only interest in defending this country against extremist ideology; to stand firmly against it and say "No, I will not accept it, and no, I will not allow it to become normalised."

This says so much more than any of Toni's juicy outbusts; it says a real lot.
(And I respect and champion her free speech btw, I support her right to be offensive; within reason.)

I honestly get the feeling that many of you would be ultimately willing to give Islamic extremism a free pass, whether you realise it or not.
That most of you would be willing to write violent extremism off as 'the harsh cost of the road towards diversity', based on a misguided 'belief in the power of good' and that Muslims and Non-Muslims are all going to sit around one day singing Kumbaya's together.

They would be more willing to see our nation divided and see us constantly arguing amongst ourselves, than to 'not be seen as being PC' or to question religious freedom and ideology or put any pressure at all on Islam; that they might be offended or argue amongst theirselves.

And I honestly think these people must be deluded if believe that they are personally capable of stopping 1400 years of wars against infidels, using only 'the power of thought' which obviously they do.
That they think they can prevent any possible future attacks on Australians by Muslim extremists because 'they believe'.
That they speak with such voice they can offer an ironclad guarantee upon Australians safety against radical Islam for ever and eternity.

In the truck massacres such as in France there must be victims who had been sexually abused by clergy. Rest in peace.

There isn't a lot of forward thinking really.
Because the fact of the matter is as long as we're fighting amongst ourselves, as long as we disagree with each other the extremism will win and we will all lose, it's inevitable.
I predict that when it all goes pear shaped (which it will), they (the liberal left) will blame us and we (the conservative right) will blame them and none of it will matter anymore when the nation is being overrun by Islamic extremists.
And these people would probably argue the point right down to the bitter end where the men are beheaded and the women are forced into sex slavery and our society is no more.

"I'm no bigot", they will tell themselves.

Each side of the argument needs only accept that the other side of the argument merely exists, to know that we are divided, and divided we fall.

I have to say that I cannot see what most of the stuff has to do with with the thread that I started.

Dear Armchair Critic,

Hells bells mate, are you really going 'I'm the victim here'? The rest is fear mongering at its worst.

Look, if you want to take an anti-extremist stance I'm right there with you and most thinking people would be as well.

It was the latest target you chose which had some of us take issue with and I know you accept that you went too far in doing so.

How about you stop picking on soft targets like grieving mothers and get fair dinkum. For instance I seriously think we as a country should be boycotting Saudi Arabia because of their extensive record of exporting terrorism and funding the spread of Wahhabism. Would you support such a boycott even though it may impact this country with higher oil prices?

Julia Gillard promised $450 million dollars over 10 years to Indonesia to help bring fundemenatalist schools into the mainstream education system within that country. A good investment designed to combat Saudi money from messing up our back yard. Abbott cancelled the program. Do you want to see it reinstated as I do?

Do you want hate speech delivered from the pulpits of our mosques and our churches sanction? Would you like to see rules enacted so such speech could be more readily curtailed as I do?

Or do you want to remain a keyboard warrior lashing out in ill-informed rants at soft target like women who have lost their daughter in strategic circumstances or refugee families who have fled the horrors of war?

Steele,

"
“I sincerely hope you die of bowel cancer within the next three weeks”

As reprehensible as being tagged by someone as an ISIS apologist might be it certainly doesn't equate with 'sincerely' wishing someone dead.

I get it is sometime hard to retain perspective when some one like Is Mise pulls that kind of puerile sledging,"

Puerile sledging I may or mayn't be guilty of, but I have never, and will never, stoop so low as to wish cancer on anyone; I realize that you don't intend to smear me with that statement but that's how it reads.

Dear Is Mise,

I had meant to refer to another poster but wrote your forum name.

This was a mistake on my behalf for which I unreservedly apologise

Steele,

Unreservedly accepted, I didn't think that you intended it that way.

Hey SteeleRedux,
"How about you stop picking on soft targets like grieving mothers and get fair dinkum."
Yeah fair call, but do you all think I'm someone who goes around deliberately looking for greiving mothers to pick on?
Well I'm not.
I'm just not willing to give radical Islam a free pass or allow it to be normalised.
If the mother had've said "I like many others stand against Islamic Extremism but I'm making this statement to calm and reassure people that Islamic Extremism was not a factor in the death of my daughter Mia...." then maybe I would've listened.
But all she was concerned about was Muslims being offended by not being allowed into America; and never mind if Non-Muslims just happen to be concerned about being murdered by Muslims, because those concerns aren't valid, only the former ones are.
(This video is worth watching on that topic.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITcet5uUSD4
- And like she should decide what US citizens should and should not do in their own country.
Trump won the election based in part on immigration / radical Islam policy.
He has a mandate from US citizens to tackle these issues.
Doe's she not believe the people have a right to decide what should happen in their own country?
[tbc]

[cont]
Saudi Arabia - Would I support such a boycott even though it may impact this country with higher oil prices?
In theory and principle I certainly would support considering it, though in truth I lack sufficent knowledge of the potential repercussions to make that call.
A different question might be 'Am I willing to cut my nose off to spite my face over principles?'
Well principles go out the window when people begin to starve, and I'd be very reluctant to do anything that would affect Aussies ability to go to work and put food on their own tables.

I may buy their oil, because that doesn't mean I have to embrace their culture.
If they think it does and they mistakenly think we need them and they can influence our domestic issues, then it's bye bye oil.

Regards spending money on Indonesian schools.
Nope, not one cent.
It's not our governments job to re-educate foreign citizens.
It's job is to protect Australians whilst build and manage our nation.
If Aussies are at risk in Indonesia then Aussies shouldn't go there.
These foreign aid system are just organised theft of citizens to pay for criminal foreign endeavours in support of globalism.

"Do you want hate speech delivered from the pulpits of our mosques and our churches sanction?"
No, not particularly, but that issue's a double edged sword.
Limiting speech (and the idea that its ok so do so under some circumstances) can be used to stifle good discussion as mush as bad.
How often does the so called liberal left scream "Hate Speech" to silence others opinions?

And yes sorry ttbn, for kind of hijacking your thread...