Hi Joe,

I do not support, condone, agree, endorse, choose what ever suitable word you like, but get it out of your head that I support Islamic terrorist, in fact I don't support any kind terrorism what so ever.

Now you have cleansed your cranium receptors of that silly little bit of nonsense, take this on board, and in the words of the infamous leader the lovely Pauline "please explain". How was it that Ernst Röhm, equally infamous leaded of the Nazi SA, was able to dispatch his storm troopers to bash and murder homosexuals, whilst at the same time being home in bed bonking young boys? Or how was it that J Edgar Hoover, even more equally infamous FBI Director, btw no relation to the vacuum cleaner of the same name, was able to denigrate transvestites, whilst he himself was dressed up looking like Marilyn Monroe, high heels and all! When you have the answers, please get back to me.

Love and kisses Joe, from Paul, not that I am any of those types mentioned above.

Hi Paul,

Love and kisses accepted, at arm's length :)

I'm not sure what you are asking - that many homosexuals are frauds, publicly condemning homosexuality but rooting all the little boys they can ? Are you linking homosexuality with pedophilia ? You might be onto something there, but I couldn't possibly comment.

What has all that got to with Hanson ? Or, in fact, this thread ?

While we struggle valiantly to get this discussion back to topic, I was appalled by Shorten's comment in the paper today, to the effect that, in a sort of way, terrorists aren't so bad because a lot of their victims are Muslim. About that lovely young girl blown to bits while eating ice-cream in Baghdad, he said, "Let's not forget that , she was the daughter of refugees, she was a young Muslim girl."

Well, yes, she was Shia while the scum-bag bombers so beloved of the 'Left' were Sunni. How does that mitigate terrorism at all ? What a contemptible little turd. Or have I got him wrong ?

And he raised the notion, which may have occurred to most of us all some time ago, that not all Muslims were supporters of terrorism, that we shouldn't " ..... be vilifying a whole community for the actions of a criminal few."

Gosh ! Why haven't we thought of that before ? Of course that's so, and we all know it, so it's just a contemptible red herring. Let's repeat ten times: not all Muslims support terrorism.

BUT the entire Muslim community does have an obligation, given the vile actions of those 'few', to speak out, to condemn vile acts committed effectively in their name. Certainly, 'leaders' in the Muslim community have such an obligation, to speak out very loud and very clear.

Joe

False flag attack to manipulate the election.

Paul1405,
You are certainly right about Hoover.
He and Errol Flynn and Howard Hughes were all part of the same pediphile ring.

Hi Pal and Chris,

Insofar as your comments about pedophiles have connections to this thread, yes, it is well-known that - I hate to say this, I hate it so much, it may be so distressing - young Muslim men often have predilections for the arses of little boys, even in preference to the various other parts of little girls, at least until they are married at 12 or 14. In the 1935 Moseley Commission Report in WA, they advised banning any Aboriginal boys being taken on board pearling luggers, to avoid what they called 'the Mahometan vice.'

But in their defence, one can point out that they also have predilections for donkeys, chickens, goats and sheep: their tastes are a very versatile and eclectic, and from a Left point of view, quite anti-discriminatory. Boys will be boys :) Of course, it doesn't stop them from believing that WOMEN are the unclean ones, the temptresses, after all we know they would all be sluts if they got a chance.

Mind you, some of those sheep have lovely eyes. And chickens ..... ah, the memories of youth ......

Thanks,

Joe

Loudmouth: And chickens ..... ah, the memories of youth ......

Nah, never liked Chickens. Claws are too sharp just like their beak. Now Ducks on the other hand......