WE MUST NOT TOLERATE TERRORISM or SUPPORT FOR OUR ENEMIES!

JOHN HOWARD: The government's position on the listing of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation will not change. We had very good grounds for that and nothing has altered the government's position.

KAMAL MOUSSELMANI-- head of the Supreme Islamic Shia Council of Australia -- said yesterday his entire community considered Hezbollah a "resistance group", not a terrorist network, and lashed the Howard Government over its support for Israel.

CONCLUSION: Mousselmani is giving 'comfort' to proscribed terrorist groups and SHOULD_BE_ARRESTED_IMMEDIATELY.

ARE THEY our ENEMIES? yes... they are. Hezbollah, HAMAS and ALL their supporters are our 'enemies'. We support Israel at a government level, thus, those who oppose Israel are our 'enemies'.

Hamas and Hezbollah have the specific goal and objective of the genocide of Israel(Zionist entity). Israel is simply defending its existence.
IF...Israel had the objective of mass genocide of Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims they could to it 'tomorrow'.... but they have not, and will not.

So, Kamal Mousselmani, in the name of Australia, (i.e. Government policy) I call you an ENEMY, and call for your immediate arrest, and subsequent deportation forthwith. (that goes for EVERY single Supporter of yours who shares your views)

You are however, welcome to stay, if you change your views, and embrace the Christian faith. (for those who's jaws are dropping at reading this, there is a specific reason for saying it.. and here it is:

Mohammads letter to the Persian Emperor:

"I am the Messenger of Allah to the whole of mankind, so that I may warn every living person and so that the truth may become clear and the judgment of God may overtake the infidels. I call upon you to accept Islam and thus make yourself secure. If you turn away, you will bear the sins of your Zoroastrian subjects."

So... Mr Moussalmani, embrace Christ, or you will bear the sins of your Shia subjects.

Sounds awful doesn't it. BECAUSE IT IS. Christ is not like that, we can NEVER call people to Christ by threat, but we can deport them on the grounds of LAW.

BD,

We need some Judge Richard Posners here. (Today's 'Australian').

AMEN Leigh.. I guess the Aussie legal eagles got a scratch they didn't expect from that judge :)

"Let his talons sink in deep"

I was not joking in my opening post.. I want this bloke kicked out of the country and EVERY Shiite who supports his view.

Today I had a most refreshing taxi ride. The driver was a student from Punjab. I asked him "Punjab is a Sikh area.. r u Sikh ?" he said 'yep'.. and I commented "Wow.. you must be a liberated one, no turban, short hair..." he replied "yep" :) His fellow more religious sikhs regard him as an apostage and heretic, but he is cool

I told him he is welcome in Australia anytime. A bloke who is prepared to forgo some external religious trappings for the sake of assimilating, is ok in my book.

After all, its not the OUTside which counts, its the INside.. as Jesus said many times..

Your obsession with bashing Muslims/Islam is unhealthy BOAZ.

But what is the motive? You are of the Christian faith and from a Christian organisation.

Dear Steel
I'm amazed at your comment.

I'm actually 'bashing' enemies of Australia. Islam is quite coincidental in this case. If they were supporting Tamii Tigers I'd be saying the same.

The point I'm underlining is that this bloke is OPENLY supporting our enemies, and is claiming that ALL his followers in Australia support them.

Now THAT is unhealthy... for you as well as me.

For your edification THIS is Shia Islam. (strong stomach required)

THE NICE VERSION. (For public consumption..what THEY 'want' you to see)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXEDhQ2CCKY

THE REAL VERSION.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1890541.stm

There is another link which I've lost, but it shows mothers hacking into their babies heads with large knives (poor kids are traumatized and crying badly while blood flows down their foreheads)

What I am doing Steel, is showing the side which NEVER is shown by those promoting Islam. A lot of innocent Australians are being sucked into Islam on the basis of the 'sugar coated' sanitized and purified 'screen saver' version. Only to be told later "Now that ur 'in'... if you want to leave, its the DEATH penalty"

Sounds rather like a 'gang' mentality, where the only way out is in a coffin. No, this does not happen much in Western societies, but why ? because of the RULE OF LAW.. ie.. Western law. But it DOES happen in Islamic societies, not all, but the degree to which it is acted on does not change the fundamental doctrine.

That doctrine is always there just waiting for someone to drag it up and apply it against those who prefer to leave Islam.

I hope eventually you come to share my concerns.

Boaz,
What do we do about this Feiz Mahommed bloke? He apparently is now in Malaysia after looking after his sick dad in Lebanon, or somewhere.

He is the one that made the comments to a 1000 strong audience at Bankstown about Aussie women asking to be raped because of their scantilyway of dressing. He is born here so we can't deport him.

OH, whatever you do don't mention FGM to Steel, he has a phobia about male circumcission and won't let go. A real pain who will try to hyjack your thread.

Boaz,

Getting you to tell the truth about Islam is harder than teaching a fish to ride a bicycle.

The right answer for Steel's question is:
"Some sects of Shiaa Muslims developed a ritual to 'cut themselves' in the memory of his assasination. Few hundred thousands at best of the shiaa population"

Why are you painting a ritual practiced by a sub-sect of Islam as 'all muslims?
Do you call people who wip themselves 37 times in your faith "real christians"?

Islam is growing fast in Australia only because more and more people find out that it is not what you make of it. You are the same as the extremists within Islam in the misrepresentation of our religion.
Pouring that much hate doesn't reflect well on your religion either since it contradicts the teachings you claim to practice.
Peace,

BD, Jesus told me last night when i was praying to his Dad that he thought you were a nutter and that i should be mor patient and forgiving of you.
So i will..

F.H. a few points there..

1/ I focused on SHIA muslims.. not ALL muslims. Can you show me where my past thread mentioned 'all' Muslims?

2/ I also limited my admonition to deport the bloke (or at least arrest him) to 'He and all his followers' ie. those who share 'his' views.

3/ I pointed out that the practice of the Shia is limited to the Shia, I did not mention 'all muslims carry on this barbaric practice'.

4/ I also stated that my objective was to highlight 'enemies of Australia' and I provided a quote of John Howard to support this.

Ur safe. (unless you also share his views)

Banjo.. Faiz mohammad may not be able to be deported, but he can be arrested if he ever sets foot in Australia again. I suggest that all who FOLLOW his views might like a stint in a re-vamped baxter or woomera until the cessation of hostilities between radical Muslims and the West, with whom they are at war.

FH.. I suppose you noted the 2 bombs in London today ?

There are HUNDREDS of invesigations of radical Muslims (home grown in many cases) in UK at the moment.

If the Muslim community does not make extreme efforts to report the slightest hint of such activity, then.. all I can say is remember the Tutsi's.. what the Hutu did as their leaders are being picked off, one..by one...by one....

In other words, the British community (which share the same sinful human nature as the Hutu) might just react in a sorry knee jerk unthinking way and there could be a serious social clash in UK.

CONCLUSION. This thread is about 'enemies' and 'allies' and how enemies should be dealt with. If you consider yourself aussie, then I believe you would share my outrage over this clerics views.
He expressed them in a 'up yours' manner and he may as well have trampled on and spat on the Aussie flag as far as I'm concerned.

ISLAM IS GROWING IN AUSTRALIA...and its partly because of dills like me drawing attention to it. (says FH.)

Between the 1994-2001 census, Muslims grew in number by approximately 40%

Between 2001 and 2006 census, their numbers increased by approx 20%

The largest increase by far is in the 0-14 age bracket. (Approx 101,000 from a total pop of around 340,000) Relative to the population size (of Muslims) it is abundantly clear that most of the increase is biological- fertility and/or immigration based

So there has been a decline in growth of around -20% compared to the previous census period. A good sign in some respects.
But the real worry is that 101,000 in the 0-14 age bracket.
A staggering statistic.

It amounts to nearly 30%
Compare this to the Anglicans in that age bracket its about 16%
Pentecostals its about 24%
Catholics around 20%

This is suggestive of Muslims having MUCH larger families.. and dare I say 'outbreeding' us :)

But don't worry, in Australia no one is going to jail or execute us for evangelising Muslims. So.. let the Lord decide the end game.

Boaz,
If Kamal Mousselmani is preaching support for a terrorist organization, yes he should be arrested and tried for sedition or whatever the specific crime is.

When sheik Feiz Mahommad gets back in Aus he hasn't (so far) said anything to break our laws, just stupid things. I don't mind the likes of Hilali and Feiz as they keep us informed from time to time about what they are teaching the young. You have a fat sheik in Melbourne that does the same occasionly.

I don't care about religion in any sense but I do care about how people conduct themselves in our community.

I don't buy it. So you can't defend a FOTM terrorist group now, and should be thrown in prison?? ??

"I'm actually 'bashing' enemies of Australia."
Enemies of Australia? O-kaay... do we officially live in a police state yet? I don't feel that comfortable living with you guys.

"If Kamal Mousselmani is preaching support for a terrorist organization, yes he should be arrested and tried for sedition or whatever the specific crime is."

Boaz, do extremists represent the mainstream of their religion? You seem to be advocating this position. And throw out your 300 DVD ;)

Boaz,

This is what you said to Steel after talking about shiaa subsect:
“ What I am doing Steel, is showing the side which NEVER is shown by those promoting Islam”
No comment.

“This thread is about 'enemies' and 'allies' and how enemies should be dealt with. If you consider yourself aussie, then I believe you would share my outrage over this clerics views”

Boaz, I don’t know of any Aussie Muslim in this country who wouldn’t die for it. I personally reported a couple of incidents I have seen that didn’t look right one related to Salafi books and the other related to Hizb Al Tahrir.
Stop playing the American style “I am more patriotic than thou” crap. Every Australian is as patriotic as the next.
I don’t follow what every sheikh says but I will take your word for it if he really said that it’s outrageous. But never the less they are his personal views and I doubt Muslim supports his view.

If your stats about Australian Muslims are credible then you should stop drumming "Muslims take over" as Australia will be Bhuddist long before Islam becomes close to popular.

FH.. the words of Moussalmani are from the media (The Australian)

The Stats are from the ABS.

Your statement that every Aussie is as patriotic as the next is not right and you know it. Mousselmani is a case in point.

He claims 'all shiites' are of one mind about this, but yes..in the absence of hard data it is just a 'claim'.

Well done on the things you have reported! Hizb is a danger, Mousselmani is a danger, I don't consider you one, except your sugar coating of Islam. ... thats a danger to the "informed" exercise of free will.

"Muslims will take over" is your mantra, not mine. "Radical Muslims drive agendas" is my mantra.

Your constructive criticism is always welcome.

Boazy: ""Muslims will take over" is your mantra, not mine."

What absolute rubbish. Boazy has been rabbiting on for years in this forum about how the dreaded Muslims have political designs on us, are establishing a caliphate by stealth, are outbreeding non-Muslims, are changing our culture under the guise of multiculturalism etc etc.

Are you actually capable of telling the truth, Boaz? I suspect you don't even know when you're telling bald-faced porkies like the one above.

C J Morgan. Silly one day, barking mad the next.

You really should be thanking BD for trying to do something in your interest and the interest of all Australians who value democracy, freedom and free speech.

On second thoughts, you don’t really value those things at all, do you?

Boaz,

"Hizb is a danger, Mousselmani is a danger, I don't consider you one, except your sugar coating of Islam. ... thats a danger to the "informed" exercise of free will"

You are contradicting yourself again and again.
If you are really supporting 'informed excercise of free will', then you should promote there are 2 sides to every story and your version is only one of them.

Your view above (you said FH is not a danger EXCEPT for expressing Muslims view on Islam) means you don't believe there is or should be 2 sides to a story. Face it my friend you are not into 'gobles' style one way propaganda.

Do you tell the truth about anything, at all, Boaz?
Hoping you won't get hit by the Pinocchio curse my friend, we would be seeing your nose in Sydney by now : - )

Peace as always,

Leigh: "C J Morgan. Silly one day, barking mad the next."

I've noticed that Leigh's joined Boazy's very small fan club - and he has the temerity to call me "silly" and "mad"! I guess the xenophobic old curmudgeon must've lost his grip completely.

For the record, I for one don't appreciate at all Boaz's constant hate and fear mongering in this forum. Unlike Leigh, I am also capable of detecting outright lies when I read them too.

try to play together nicely, children.

when kaiser howard dispatched soldiers to iraq, i hoped the result would be a bomb plot to remove federal parliament from the landscape. this would have taught the dummies that invading other countries was a serious business, not to be done unless electoral defeat was imminent.

alas, johnny was too slick for me, our presence didn't disturb the alqaeda radar. so no bombs bd, and no threat in oz unless we believe the police. they may be reporting real threats, i'm not sure they're smart enough to make it up.

but, bd, they're here in response to oz's attack on their land, or religion. they're not evil, just really angry and for good cause.

Read or seen the news lately?
Some idiots have just recently tried ramming their 4x4 into the terminal building at Glasgow Airport, bursting into flames, days after the threat in London.
Terrorists are alive and well all over the world and more active today than ever before, they apparently act in "cells" and looks like these cells act on command from another idiot, when the time is right, this is typical of a coward and the devices they use are typical of a cowardly regime, I mean..thousands of six inch nails together with home-made explosives placed in crowded areas, meant to be detonated, people not getting a chance to run. This is terrorism in its raw form, cowards walking amongst us, amongst our children. You make me sick.

SPANKY: "Some idiots have just recently tried ramming their 4x4 into the terminal building at Glasgow Airport, bursting into flames, days after the threat in London."

In the light of this development in Scotland, I think that all Australian Muslims should interned. Those who refuse to sign an oath of allegiance to John Howard's government should be rendered forthwith to Guantanamo Bay.

Then we'd all be safe.

>SPANKY, "Terrorists are alive and well all over the world and more active today than ever before, they apparently act in "cells" and looks like these cells act on command from another idiot"

The Iraq War has been a boon to all terrorist recruiters, on top of being a pack of lies and incredibly costly to taxpayers. Your paranoia exceeds reason though. Read this: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/09/71743
"But despite the never-ending litany of warnings and endless stories of half-baked plots foiled, how likely are you, statistically speaking, to die from a terrorist attack?"

>"this is typical of a coward and the devices they use are typical of a cowardly regime"

What regime are you referring to?? ? And please lose the coward slur. It takes a lot of guts and conviction to explode a deadly device in a crowd of people, considering what they are up against.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Asymmetric_warfare_and_terrorism

>"I mean..thousands of six inch nails together with home-made explosives placed in crowded areas, meant to be detonated, people not getting a chance to run."

So a terrorist should give people a chance to run and escape? That defeats the entire purpose of being a terrorist and setting off a bomb. I doubt the innocent Iraqis killed by Western forces in Iraq had a chance to escape either. In fact, many of them were targeted and murdered in cold indifference (if you don't know examples you only watch the biased mainstream media for news).

>"Read or seen the news lately? Some idiots have just recently tried ramming their 4x4 into the terminal building at Glasgow Airport"

Try to ignore the gaudy graphics...
"White Terrorists Don't Make CNN, Fox, or MSNBC"
http://www.icomment.org/index.php/main/video/show?id=5558703

As a “CONSTITUTIONALIST” I have considerably address the issue in my blog http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH as well as on my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and can only repeat that unless we act within the constitutional framework (which is not being done) we are only going to make matters worse.

In my view John Howard is a TERRORIST as I have extenively set out on my blog.

Wikepedia;
QUOTE
Unit 101 undertook a series of military raids against Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that helped bolster Israeli morale and fortify its deterrent image. The unit was known for targeting civilians as well as Arab soldiers, notably in the widely condemned Qibya operation in the fall of 1953, in which 69 Palestinian civilians, some of them children, were killed by Sharon's troops in a reprisal attack on their West Bank village. In the documentary Israel and the Arabs: 50 Year War, Ariel Sharon recalls what happened after the raid, which was heavily condemned by many Western nations, including the U.S.:
END QUOTE

Clearly Sharon was morally bankrupt to kill civilians, including children, as a reprisal attack. And, he also as Prime minister caused to have two Hams political leaders to be killed by a helicopter shooting rockets in to their office. An Israelis intelligent officer made clear (SBS program-Tuesday 3-7-2007) that one of the Hamas political figures that were killed had just published a book OPPOSING any violence and promoting to pursue a POLITICAL resolution.
And he was ASSASINATED by the Israelis for this!

Now it is all very well to concentrate on Hamas or other groups and ignore what Sharon and others did using Israelis forces!

Now, to do that to “BOLSTER Israeli image and fortify deterrent image” hardly appears to be showing a peace loving Israel.

Sure, Hamas and others may not particularly be Angels (other then Angels of Death) but the Israelis using “ASSASINATION” and “EXTERMINATION” instead of the “RULE OF LAW” should be condemned by any peace loving person.

Support Howard and you might just be regarded as supporting a terrorist (see my blog).

Dear Gerrit
unfortunately, the word 'terrorist' is a political one, chosen by 'us' to make out that 'they' are the bad guys and we the good.

As I've said a few times.. and now again..the issue is really about 'our friends'...and "our enemies".

Those seeking domination of us, or our destruction, or the destruction of our allies/friends, are our "enemies".

If we... seek to exploit, pillage, steal, kill for reasons of self gratification and raw power, then we ourselves are despicable.

If we engage our enemies in other places, to prevent them attaining a level of power which might give them success over us, then we are simply acting responsibly.

In the case of Muslims, I point you to the murder of Ka'b Bin Al Ashraf by Mohammad's hit squad late at night.

The "Justification" for this is:

a) He mocked mohammad with mean nasty poems.
b) He was stirring up the enemies of the Muslims to attack them.

So, they murdered him.

Important also in that particular incident is "They acted like friends" to coax him out of his home.

Ok.. if that is an example of how Mohammad the founder of Islam worked, then why would we expect less from his followers today, in the same geopolitical context ?

Should we wait until Iran gains nukes before we deal them a decisive blow ?

Are we stupid enough to think they will not try to use every means possible to extend Iranaian/Shia/Islamic power to all the world ? (Ahmadinajad has SAID as much for crying out loud)

You wax eloquent about our constitution, ok.. but one day, unless the rest of us take action, you will wake up one day mouthing the word 'Oh..the Constitution' and some bearded characters at your door will reply "What" constitution... you are now under the rule of the Sharee'a

“What constitution” is what really the politicians are already about, hence I keep hammering on it. They purportedly replaced it with the Australia Act, and we worry about some foreigners to be TERRORIST when we already have our home grown terrorist in the Federal parliament.

For over 25 years I have been involved with people who might be described in today’s language to be TERRORIST, but were people who simply, albeit far too often, saw violence, even mass-murder as their only way to make a statement, even if it was to include their own death. Nothing to do with religion at all, generally Family law cases. As such, the worry about some Muslim going to be some TERRORIST is for me on the lower end of the scale when it comes to current Australian home-grown TERRORIST.

The Federal Government will play the TERRORIST card time and again and by this creating fear and fooling many as their way to pretend to be better. They are the once putting more tyrannical (unconstitutional) laws in and so the real suffering from TERRORIST is next to nothing versus that of our politicians.

It was the Federal government who declared war against “INDIVIDUALS” with its stupid “War against Terrorism” and so we learned by the killings in Bali what the Federal-Government achieved to declare war against individuals.

You cannot expect that we have our troops killing innocent people in their own country and then will have no consequences of this. I may not like it and neither approve of it but can UNDERSTAND that they consider to have the right to hit back using the “Eye-for-an-Eye” argument.

Constitutionally John Howard had no powers to authorise the invasion and as such I view he is a criminal, traitor, etc. if you are willing to accept this kind of conduct, then the message you would give to others is that you are not the least interested to ensure that John Howard is held accountable and so his victims for themselves have to do what they deem appropriate instead.

For-this-also, we-must-hold-John-Howard-and-his-cronies-accountable-before-the-Courts, as-also-to-show-to-the-victims-also-that-we-will-not-tolerate-such-mass-murder, etc.
We, as-a-society, must-show-to-act-responsible-and-appropriate, so-others-can-follow-this-example.

Dear Gerrit
I think I'm beginning to gain some insight about where you are 'at'.
But correct me if I'm wrong, you place a very high value on the concept of 'rule of law'?

You then move from this staunch position, to evaluating many world events, and our governmental response to them, in terms of that understanding "Rule of Law".

I honestly see value in that approach, but not a lot of practicality.
Mainly because sometimes events overtake us to the point where the whole concept of 'rule of law' is out the window and its 'dog eat dog/survival of the fittest' which at the end of the day 'rules'.

My own theory of society is this. "Noble concepts are promoted among the masses, to give them the feeling of order, and direction, but at the highest levels of power, its all a lot rougher and more brutal."

At this point, we are a little bit powerless, we end up with the choice of 2 evils. "Party A" or.. "Party B".. but in the long run they are self serving, and never provide anything other than the advancement of the interests which put them in power.

I think you are expending a VERY large amount of emotional and intellectual energy for something that I hold little hope of changing much, because human nature doesn't change. (Though, it can be transformed by Christ)

ISRAEL and HAMAS. It is widely known now that Hamas charter (their constitution) clearly has as its objective the actual destruction of Israel. Part III, Article 11http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html

This means the Israelis have a moral right to eliminate every single Hamas supporter, in acts of war. HAMAS have declared war on Israel in their charter, they simply don't have the means at this point to carry it out, but they are working on it. Israel can "lawfully" in the moral and legal sense, attack any Hamas supporter, and kill them at any time and place.

BOAZ_David

Since 1982 I have been dealing with people contemplating suicide/murder even mass murder. They too viewed that their cause to do so was justified in their circumstances.
When you have a man who contemplates to blow up a tanker in the midst of a large city being upset about a Family Court case and what the Court did against him, and in any event having the understanding he is going to die of cancer, then telling such a person not to do it is a sheer waste of time. Yet, more then 10 years later the person still admits that in my way I drove home the “RULE OF LAW” albeit in a way that he made himself the decision not to go ahead with it. As I made clear then, if he demanded his rights then he needed to accept that others had rights too. He could not go out killing people as that would violate their rights. I did assist as an Attorney (not a lawyer) him in his court case (FREE OF CHARGE) and he succeeded and discovered also he wasn’t going to die.
If I didn’t push the RULE OF LAW time and time again many people, in the many hundreds if not more, would have been dead!

Many made known to me that they gained strength to fight their own demons because of that I so much insisted on sticking to the RULE OF LAW, despite the Courts far to often themselves ignoring it.

Once I ended up in prison (compliments of the Family Court) and when I made clear it was unconstitutional/illegal they had backdating legislation to purport to make it legal. It was more of their way of trying to silence me but to the contrary I expose even more their wrongdoings. One of my daughters (who was in my custody all along, and remained so) was very upset in the belief that she was at fault for me ending up in prison but I explained that she had done nothing wrong is was simply a power play by the Courts. My daughter was forced to go on access to her mother, contrary to Supreme Court orders, despite that her mothers husband due to sexual abuse upon her sister (while she also was then sexual abused) was by the Children’s Court ordered out of the house!

Again I had Supreme Court orders which were valid, but the Family Court could not care less and had me imprisoned while my daughter was forced to go on access to her mother (and again was sexual abused).

Again, to me it was a power play because I was then already a severe critic upon the abuse of powers by judges and to them it was payback time. In fact, I was warned by Court staff more then 2 months earlier that the judges had decided to imprison me. I was even before the High Court to seek to avoid the hearing, but Dawson J insisted that they could use the Cross Vesting Act. Only years later it was declared by the High Court of Australia the Cross vesting act was unconstitutional!

So, while I had valid Supreme Court orders and acted accordingly, the Family Court could not care less about the “Rule of law” and abused their powers.

I was wronged against, and more over my daughter was by the Court. But I have my “sweet” revenge by using the law against them!
Nothing better then turning the law against the judges! Little doubt they wished they had never crossed my path.

I-proved-that-you-do-not-need-to-resort-to-violence-to-prove-your-point.

Thanx Gerrit for that, it helps me understand your passion on this issue.

I agree that you make a good case. If I may add though, law by itself is not really sufficient. People need a reason to obey the law, and in your dealing with the man intent on blowing up a tanker, you hit the nail on the head.

The 'law' as you so described it, should have the objective of facilitating "Do for others as you would have them do for you"...
This is very good reasoning, and sound logic. It (by itself) only lacks one thing.
That is... the divine authority to make it applicable at the heart level.

This is why Jesus, when summing up the law to a 'scribe' (expert in religious law) said concerning the greatest commandments

The first is, love the Lord your God with all your heart....etc"
The second is like it "Love your neighbour as yourself"

I don't find it unreasonable to make 'Love for the Almighty' a pre-cursor to loving my neighbour, because if we view things on the totally natural plane, there will be times when I can gain great benefit from my neighbour, by NOT doing for him as I would have him do for me. Only if I have a feeling he could treat me equally shabbily (ie. if he finds out, or my deed is discovered) would I possibly be worried about doing such to him.

There is a verse in the bible

You have sinned against the Lord; and be sure your sin will find you out. Numbers 32:23.

When David arranged a 'hit' on Uriah Bath Sheba's husband.. a brave warrior, where David had his general 'pull the troops back' at the height of battle (leaving Urriah exposed) he thought he could get away with it... but God had other ideas, sending Nathan the prophet to 'deal' with David.

You would realize by now I see things in life in 'Christian' terms. So, I hope you will not be offended or distressed by this. I just call it as I see it.
blessings

THANKS FOR CONCERNS I MIGHT BE UPSET ABOUT REFERENCE TO RELIGION BUT I AM NOT!

I have never used the issue of religion when people contact me and if they desired to talk about it then I let them talk. Albeit, when assisting a person who is a devout Catholic I had to write his Affidavit material in his feelings, and while writing it I felt as if I had this huge anger in me for the insult to the catholic religion being done, but as soon as I stopped writing it was gone. In fact what I had written was meaningless to me but the person who I wrote it for made known I had precisely typed his true feelings.

A lot of people know about the group BLACKSHIRTS, and some about their desire (in 1994) to hang every lawyer/judge! I never joined them but became so to say friendly with them. I would at times speak to members and offered to assist them in litigation in return for them to leave the group. The leader once threatened to shoot me, (1995) realising he was loosing members every time the member succeeded in Court.
MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® is my registered trademark!

People may not realise it but the power contained in using the RULE OF LAW is considerable, albeit a slow protracted process when one take on the government and others like judges, as I do.

But, many a person who contemplated suicide/murder contacted me because they had been present in Court and were impressed how I was exposing judges in the Courtroom of double standards, etc.

I became aware that judges generally have little or not conception what is relevant to the case before them.
For example, if I were to state to a judge” Your Honour I refer to the matter of BOAZ_David v G. H. Schorel-Hlavka FLR 4, 20-35, page 23 1979 ( I just made this up as you may realise) in which His Honour stated;

“the-right-of-the-child-is-paramount-but-always-subject-to-the-jurisdictional-powers-of-the-court” (I just made this up) then unlikely would a judge challenge me.

Once, a judge did in 1985 about a statement I made at the Bar table (of head a statement referring to page and details) and triumphally stating I was wrong as he had the law report and the case I was (then) referring to was not at all in that Law Report and neither then on that page. I then produced my copy of the Law Report and handed it over to the Clerk.

The judge checked it out and then responded that I had a “later” edition and it did have in it what I had stated and asked me where I got it from. I responded “Your Honour I purchased it for 20 cents in the opshop.” Well, he got the message it was none of his business.

He asked me how I knew it all of head, and I responded; “Your Honour as a child my mother told me that if you put a book under your pillow then the next day you know it all.” The judge responded “I asked for that.” Never again did a judge challenge me as they had all been briefed how I had put this judge in place.

However, many lawyers (barristers included) do make nonsense of statements and generally get away with it. As I proved with Mr. Peter Hanks QC, when he had purportly quoted a judge quoting nine words, but in it had substituted two critical words to change the entire meaning. When I was subsequently before the High Court of Australia point out he had FRAUDULENTLY obtained orders, setting out also other inappropriate conduct by him, the response by Mr. Peter Hanks QC was to the Court that it was not relevant! As such he didn’t deny the issue, and he could not because I proved to the Court what he had stated and what the judge actually had stated. What cases ere about and how he had fabricated different versions of it, etc.
The lies and deception that goes on in the Courts is horrific. I pursue the RULE OF LAW against them!

See also
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_Q