Islam is the fastest growing faith in Britain. Hundreds and thousands of Brits are reverting to Islam. By the middle of this century, over half of Brits would be Muslims.

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.” [G.B. Shaw, THE GENUINE ISLAM, Vol. 1, No. 81936.]

A civilisation is measured not by the rights it grants its majority but the privileges it allows its minorities. Muslim families are as entitled as any other religious group to have Masajid, state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers, sharia laws and sharia councils, Islamic marriage ceremony in local Masajid, halal meat, two religious holidays per year and Muslim cemeteries. These demands are nothing to do with segregation, integration or community cohesion and harmony.
IA
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

So you support the following just a few of many barbaric things.

Throwing homosexuals from the top of tall buildings.
Sex with prepubescent girls.
The fact that a female needs 5 witnesses to her being rapes for it to be believed.
A man can say something like "I divorce you" three time for an end to a marriage.
Any female not a Muslim can be taken as a sex slave irrelevant of age.
If a female is raped and does not have 5 witnesses you support stoning her to death.

This list can go on and on.

What a bunch of crock dung! Iftikhar doesn't want to talk about the hate and violence in the Quran and hadith, or the evils that Islam does in every country where it dominates (or the problems it causes when a minority).

Note that Muslims never concede these so called "minority rights" he mentions to others, but claim them for themselves based upon Western liberties. NonMuslims in Islamic societies are always subject to severe persecution.

Using the words "Muhammad" and "peace" or "happiness" in the same sentene is obscene. Anybody that knows even a little about Islamic history (hadith, Tabari, Kathir, Hisham, etc) knows that Mo attacked his neighbors about 50 times, killing, plundering, raping, torturing and enslaving men women and CHILDREN. These vile acts are nicely summerized in Quran 7:4.

Iftikhar is like so many Muslims, he can't even get the basics of Islam right. Of course, any Muslim that dares to question the ethics and morality of Islam is punished or killed.

Oh yes, Muslims are so happy that they can't wait to get to a nonMuslim country. You would think that Muslims ("the best of peoples" according to the Quran) would want to be far from those "Lower than animal" infidels (also from Quran) - but Muslims aren't known for thinking.

So, IFtikhar, will you condemn Mohammad's attacks on his neighbors? Hint: Try doing a Google search for "How many expeditions did Mohammad make?"

Or maybe you think those ghazi were to deliver flowers?

Way back in the 16th Century, Catherine of Aragon, short term wife of Henry the V111 and daughter of the monarchs who booted Islam out of Spain after 700 years, wrote that Islam is “evil” and “will be with us until the end of time”. Since then, and probably before then, people who knew what they were talking about have been punching out the same messages: all treated with contempt by the ignorant political drongos who are supposed to be safe-guarding the West. Islam must be fought, non-stop.

30,000 Muslim atrocities since 9/11. We are losing the war against Islam because our stupid, gutless politicians believe bullshite put about by lunatics.

". Hundreds and thousands of Brits are reverting to Islam"

Codswallop, if they are reverting to Islam then they must have left Islam at some time in the past and as you are using the word in its verbal sense then its meaning is:
"verb
1.
return to (a previous state, practice, topic, etc.).
"he reverted to his native language"

You could have used it as a noun, in which case
"noun
1.
a person who has converted to the Islamic faith."
however, this is a specialized meaning and is not found in most dictionaries.

Do check your facts.

Dear Mr Iftikhar,

Thank You for raising this discussion about whether
we should have more state-funded Muslim schools
in the UK. It's forced me to do a bit of research
into the subject as there was such a wide gap in
my knowledge about the situation in Britain and the
problems faced by the communities there.

I had always believed that private religious schools
should be predominantly funded by parents who wanted
to give their children a religious education. They had
the choice of sending their children to state schools.

However, I did not think about certain consequences -
like radicalisation, exposure to extremism and
being under-regulated - which could have unfortunate
results for the well being of the community.

The following link from the BBC is worth a read:

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-37484358

Keep that shite in Britain thanks, don't infect my country with your madness.

I say NO to Muslim gang rapings,
No to Muslim Terrorism and Extremism;
No to Muslims blocking local streets whilst engaged in prayer
NO to Muslims making kids in OUR SCHOOLS cite the Koran and threaten to BEHEAD OUR TEACHERS.
And I say NO to and all the rest of your garbage.

We don't want or need a DICTATORSHIP.
The ELITES think we do, which is why they support YOUR migration into our countries and to cause civil unrest between ethnic groups and minorities and destroy our once free societies so that a dictator of THEIR CHOOSING can come and clean up the mess and rule over us.

Yours is a religion of slavery;
(How many Muslim countries is slavery considered normal)
Yours is a religion of subjugation of women;
Yours is a religion of using violence and fear for an close-minded authoritarian ideology.
Yours is a religion that caused the deaths of millions of people.

I don't care for you or your stupid death cult, that destroys other peoples countries.

Yep the hatred of Christ and His teachings mainly by secularist has led to this nonsense. The 'gays' might not be celebrating for long.

Voting so far 1 (Iftikhar)FOR 7 against, I call that a resounding NO to Muhammad

Also Quote "A civilisation is measured not by the rights it grants its majority but the privileges it allows its minorities" That went well for tens of thousands of Yazidis in Iraq.

Dear Philip,

«Voting so far 1 (Iftikhar)FOR 7 against, I call that a resounding NO to Muhammad»

One more YES for the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him - though not for the false cult that spreads lies and violence in his name, calling themselves "Muslim" as if they truly benefited from the peace of surrendering to God; and who fake the Prophet's holy words in their own-written book, called the "Quran".

I would gladly accept the dictatorship of Saint Muhammad himself - but never of those who defile their mouths by attributing to him words he never said and atrocities he never done.

Measuring a civilisation by how much it steals money from some in order to provide schools for others?
By how it uses my money to slaughter some families [of animals] so that other families can eat them?

Sick!

Dear Philip S.,

Not a very fair comparison - the UK with Iraq.

However, in a democracy (and the UK is a parliamentary
democracy under a constitutional monarchy) governments
should recognise the grievances of minorities that
have little political clout otherwise these groups may
resort to more radical tactics outside the
institutional framework as we've learned from the past.
It's worth thinking about and discussing.

G. B. Shaw was equally enthusiastic about Mussolini's fascism, Lenin's pseudo-Marxist Bolshevism (a.k.a. Tsarism in a worker's cap) and Chiang Kai-shek's 'efficient' control of most of China - he visited there just before Chiang Kai-She launched his almost genocidal crushing of the Left in China in 1926. Fascism has had some surprising supporters, as much from the Left as the Right.

NO, there will NEVER by Sharia law in Australia, not while Australians have any sense of universal justice, the equality of all before the law, the rule of law, democratic (if imperfect) forms of government and selection, equal opportunity and a rough equivalence between effort and outcome.

Hmmm ..... come to think of it, perhaps that list goes some way to revealing similarities between the pseudo-Left Greens and the secret supporters of extreme Islam. Interesting bedfellows, now that SSM may be something they have to agree on somehow to keep their alliance going.

I am personally amused with this post. Obviously iftikhar is having a lend of OLO islamaphobes.

A word created by fascists, and
Used by cowards,
To manipulate morons.

Christopher Hitchens

Kind’a puts everyone in the same bucket, that one.

But if it is true that Islam is improving its hold on the West, I'm not surprised.

Firstly, I think the West is a push-over for that inevitability. Islam marches forward with morality, while Christianity falls apart in its retreat.

Secondly, on a military front, Islamic Countries, could not be compared to the West, in terms of military might, but yet, the West struggles to contain the ISIS threat.

But further, sensible decent people engaged in day to day life, feel cheated with the Christian response to decadence and the State support of it.
Homosexuality is building itself a formidable enemy, and conservatives, likewise opposed to its advances into the daily life of their communities, should likewise consider the benefits of aligning with Muslims on this issue!

Yuyutsu,

Please give us some links to your true version of Muhammad so that we can all see him for what he really was.

In my opinion the recent foiled attempt to blow up one of our planes, a few months back, should be grounds to suggest allowing them in here was a failed experiment and the welcome matt should be taken away. We should also give those here a choice, change your ways, stop flowing Islam, or leave.

Never allow yourself to forget, of the 8 million odd Muslims in the US in 2001, just 19 of them brought the nation to its knees.

There is no such thing as a 'majority rules' with these people. We tried, they failed, so time for plan B.

Goodness me - again with the fear mongering.
Here you sit behind your computer screens
and anonymity and have opinions on matters
that few of you know anything about. Yet
you continue to rant and rave.

Phrases like "pseudo-left Greens,"
"Secret supporters of extreme Islam"
And then linking this with same-sex marriage.

It beggars belief.

"By the middle of this century, over half of Brits would be Muslims." ( population 65 million )

".. Muslim converts in the UK , think-tank Faith Matters suggests the real figure could be as high as 100,000, with as many as 5,000 new last year with half being 'white British'. "
In 20 years it should be about 200,000 , or 100,000 ethnic Anglo tribal-natives. 1/6 of 1 per cent . Liars go down, down into Allah's 7 hells , peace be upon him and his secretary.

Foxy's losing her grip. Accusing people of hiding behind anonymity; but calling herself Foxy with no other ID is not anonymous? Other people don't know what they are talking about? She would know all about that, being merely a pet parrot for the ABC. Rarely does she say anything that could be taken for intelligent, original, comment and thought. Ranting and raving? Look no further than the accuser and scald herself. And, she doesn't know that you are supposed to sit in front of the computer screen, not behind it!

ttbn,

Everyone hates being humiliated it's true.
Yet your posts still exist.

"ttbn,

Everyone hates being humiliated it's true.
Yet your posts still exist."

Foxy,

Are you able to explain, please, just what that is supposed to mean? Who is 'humiliated'? You? You certainly know how to make a fool of yourself. 'Yet (my) posts still exist'. What are you on about? Or, more to the point, what are your on? I'm convinced that you are losing it, old girl.

Foxy,
There's no law against being offended.
If someone is offended by my choosing to express myself within the laws of 18C and 18D then that's not my fault.
Go right ahead and be offended I say!

There's no 'laws of etiquette' that require me to 'play nice' and hold back from saying what I think because someone else with a different opinion to me might get offended.
It helps in a discussion to sometimes not be so blunt or abrasive but there's no 'requirement' that I implicitly must not offend another person.

Likewise others are free to say things that offend me, provided they are within the confines of 18C and 18D.

“Muslim families are as entitled as any other religious group to have Masajid, state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers, sharia laws and sharia councils, Islamic marriage ceremony in local Masajid, halal meat, two religious holidays per year and Muslim cemeteries”.

Muslims are not entitled to have 'state funded' schools. No other religion in a secular country has schools funded by the state. Christians pay private schools for education. These schools are subsidised, slightly by government. All other non-Christian Australians seem to manage with the state system or by sending their children to Christian-based schools where they are welcome. (This included Muslims in the Catholic college where my wife once taught)

Muslims are not entitled to sharia law in rule-of-law secular country. Those needing such a thing should move to a Muslim country.

Muslims can eat as much a halal meat as they want. It is not the responsibility of the state to oversee their diet.

They can have as many religious holidays as the want: in their own time, and on their own dollar.

As far as I am aware, nobody, including Muslims, have the right to their own cemeteries.

George Bernard Shaw was an old commo, too stupid too look up what many scholars had revealed about the truths of Islam long before he started his red rantings.

ttbn,

Are you even capable of doing more than just attacking
on this forum. That's all you ever do. And if you're not
humiliated - you should be.

Dear AC,

I realise that you can't change someone who doesn't see an
issue in their actions.

Enjoy the rest of your day.

Sorry, Foxy. I am not humiliated, so your mission is a failure, as usual. Your childish girl-games are passe.

ttbn,

Ah well, you can't change someone who does not
see an issue in their actions.

Enjoy your gruntlement.

You're noticed by what you say
and judged by what you do.
Having said that, I live in the middle of a Muslim community and I couldn't feel more comfortable or secure despite the fact that I don't follow the faith. I accept all and practice none.
I respect the fact that they feel somewhat alienated by their hosts but then all suffered the same fate at the different times of their arrival to Australia.
They do not understand the concept of catering to the lowest common denominator and they never will.
An ignorant man can never change his opinion as he would have to accept that his sum total to that moment is on a false premise. To do otherwise would mean a change had occurred.

Dear ilmessaggio,

Well said.

I also have Muslim neighbours, Muslim doctors, and
Muslim nurses who care for my mother in her
nursing home. However on this forum I never underestimate
some people's ability to try to make me feel guilty
for their mistakes.

Red neck hair Pauline says the burqa has no place in Parliament. Oh please vote in a Muslim mother with full hijab jihadi opinions who sits next to PHONP.

Hey Foxy,
Don't take this the wrong way, but now you're doing to me what you're doing to ttbn,
- giving seemingly cryptic responses...

I want you to know that you are free to say what you really think to me.
I've made it clear that I have to objection to criticism when it's reasonable.
You don't have to give confusing cryptic responses; just say what you REALLY think.
I WANT the criticism.
I see it as constructive.
I invite it.
- If you think I'm wrong in something I've said then feel free to call me out and HUMILIATE me if you want to.
That's how I play, and I'm prepared to give and take both ways.

I look at the pro's and cons of everything.
I see the Australian cultural manner of 'putting sh*te on others' as being beneficial for society.
It helps people to keep on the right path in life when being made fun of for doing stupid things.

Its a kind of 'non-violent way of correcting bad habits'
If you're made fun of or humiliated for saying or doing something stupid then your going to be more likely to learn and think twice before you say or do said 'stupid thing' again.

And so I ask in regards to your comment -
"I realise that you can't change someone who doesn't see an issue in their actions."

- What exactly do you believe is wrong with my opinions / beliefs and why?
Tell me straight.

Free speech is like a muscle, use it or lose it.
That's what I believe, and this is why I said the things I did.

- And at least I have the conviction in my beliefs to explain why I think and say the things I do.

I am conflicted in so many ways over this topic.
In one hand Australia has never had a majority of 'Australians' from the day we began shipping convicts. (well close enough) We are the only country with such a large mix of different nationalities. We are all from immigrant stocks. On the other hand we happen to be a christian majority. Having said this, I have lived in a Muslim country and being the 'outsider' I co-existed amongst the locals, ensuring I did not mock any of their beliefs and customs. I may have queried from time to time and even found some incomprehensible at other times, but still respected the fact that this was their country and things were the way they had been for centuries. I have mentioned before that I am not a religious man and that religious people lack self confidence and are in my view easily led. We are confronted with stories of symbols of Christianity being removed from schools. Generally making changes to our years of traditions to, all of a sudden, accommodate Muslims, is completely un-acceptable. Not because they are Muslims but because the demand was made and then acted upon. This has never happened at the hand of any other religion, and if it has, it should not have. I can assure you if a Christian approached anyone in a Muslim country to remove anything to do with worshiping Mohamed they would more than likely be deported, not before everyone had a good laugh and God knows what else. I am worried that these moronic polys are selling us out. I believe, you do your homework before you migrate and not just cherry pick the bits you like, then force your changes on the country by preaching guilt and entitlement once you are here.

Foxy is now doing 'repeats. Same stupid comments for anyone who dares criticise her ladyship. It's a bit sad, really, having to keep on excusing such a massive ego as she does. She is a real bore now. Time for me to leave her festering and get on with things. She'll probably go for the 'last word', which is typical of the type, but I won't be looking.

ALTRAV,

It's simple. Islam cannot be compared with anything else; it is evil, homicidal and in love with death. Apart from the few Muslims who descended from 'camel drivers', there should be no Muslims living in Australia. Stupidly, and despite all the evidence, politicians have steadily imported these people, most of whom are of no practical use to the country at all. Australia will never be safe while there are Muslims living here. No other group - and we certainly have many non-Anglo, non-Christian groups among us - have ever caused us problems. Islam and it's adherents are a huge problem, and they will always be so. They are at war with us, and the gutless wonders in Canberra don't want to fight the war.

Dear AC,

Why don't you start with your first post on
page 1 of this discussion and read what you
have written, then continue from there.
You absolutely vilify all Muslim people.
You state "Keep that shite in Britain thanks -
don't infect my country with your madness..."
And then it gets worse.

You make no distinction between fundamentalists,
extremists, terrorists, and the Muslim
population in general. Your words are rooted
in generalisations and you ignore the
differences among individuals. Your attitude is
irrational, and inflexible toward an entire
category of people.

Your words do violate our vilification laws.
You are preaching hate speech. And our
freedom of speech guidelines do not allow this.

There are also certain rules and etiquettes
that people are supposed to follow on public
forums. It's called civil behaviour, common
decency, and courtesy.

But as I stated quite clearly earlier I am in
no position to be able to change someone who
sees nothing wrong with their actions.
And obviously you don't.

Foxy, I applaud your love for life and your fellow man. You are the kind of person I would prefer over many others. (Yes we all have differing views and we argue and abuse each other and so on.)You sound as though you reach out to people, and that's commendable, BUT, what I think we are all afraid of is not the good, nice, normal Muslims, but the bad nasty ones. Now you and I and many Westerners can't tell the difference between the good the bad and the ugly, (Figure of speech). A Muslim can. I have asked the question before; these terrorists are well known amongst their friends and family. It is precisely this reason we are skeptical about them. If the Good ones were well intended, they would speak up in some way or another. But they don't therefore making them complicit in the terrorist attacks. It is a shame because generally I have found that ALL people the World over are basically good and just want to live their lives just like us.

Hey Foxy,
Yep, make no mistake I said that and I stand by it.
But lets keep 'what I said' in the right context.

Immediately after saying "Keep that shite in Britain thanks, don't infect my country with your madness";
I also said:

"I say NO to Muslim gang rapings,
No to Muslim Terrorism and Extremism;
No to Muslims blocking local streets whilst engaged in prayer
NO to Muslims making kids in OUR SCHOOLS cite the Koran and threaten to BEHEAD OUR TEACHERS.
And I say NO to and all the rest of your garbage."

Did I not?
Do you support these things Foxy?

Lets look specifically at "...all the rest of your garbage"
Lets look at what Iktifar said:

First he stated that Brits are 'reverting' to Islam which somehow seems to suggest that Britain was traditionally a Muslim country, which is false.
What about the traditional British people who lived there who weren't ever Muslim?
Isn't his statement ignoran't in that it doesn't account for all the people who live there?
But that's a side issue - and I digress;

Then he quotes G.B.Shaw, which he actually quoted incorrectly;
Correct quote should have read:
"...the wonderful man and in my opinion FAR from being an anti-Christ..."

Lets look at what Iktifar proposed:

"...state funded Muslim schools with Muslim teachers, sharia laws and sharia councils, Islamic marriage ceremony in local Masajid, halal meat, two religious holidays per year and Muslim cemeteries. These demands..."

He wants these things?
His own schools just for his 'people'; his own teachers just for his 'people'; his own 'system of justice' etc.
- In my country; and HE WANTS ME TO PAY FOR IT.
Focus on the word 'demand' again.

Who exactly is being offensive 'demanding a seperate system of justice' for themselves and their 'own people'.
I find that offensive.

Lets look at what else I said:

"Yours is a religion of slavery;
Yours is a religion of subjugation of women;
Yours is a religion of using violence and fear for an close-minded authoritarian ideology.
Yours is a religion that caused the deaths of millions of people.

I don't care for you or your stupid death cult, that destroys other peoples countries."

Are any of these things UNTRUE?
I believe slavery is accepted in 7 of 11 Muslim countries (correct me if I'm wrong)
And we can debate all the other facts I said if you want.

Have I said anything untrue;
Whilst also taking into account that whick 'Iftikhar' himself proposed.

I have said nothing that is not an extension of my true beliefs, therefore I should be covered by 18D.
If you think I've vilified ALL Muslims - and it's possible that I may have, though I'm not sure I explicitly crossed that line.
If I'd meant that I'd have simply said it since you suggest I'm that bad, would I not?

But that itself gets us to the real core of the issue.
We're supposed to be 'tolerant of all religions' are we not?
Why should we be tolerant of religions that themselves promote slavery, subjagation of women, and using fear and violence to push an authoritarian ideology, and wish for a future global caliphate'?
Why should we be tolerant of religions that practice things that go against common law?
Is it then wrong to associate said religions as being problematic to society?
And to oppose them on that basis?

And getting to the REAL CORE OF THE ISSUE is why I invite you AND OTHERS to speak your damn mind, and don't 'pussyfoot around' political correctness as you previous have with crypic responses; and I thank you for it.
Speak your mind and put your opinions to the test in "The Battle for Ideas"
That's how progress works and how better policies for civilisation are brought about.

I know what I said.

Mohammed: (((:~{>
Mohammed wearing sunglasses: (((B~{>
Mohammed blowing a raspberry: (((:~{P>
Mohammed with bomb in his turban: *-O(:~{>

AC I'm glad you don't subscribe to political correctness. I believe in saying it like it is and if someone is offended, so be it. I ask, why are they offended? Is there truth in the statement? If not then, move on. Unfortunately for the Muslims they have sworn to live by the Quran. This document, if taken seriously, advocates, promotes the killing and suffering of anyone who is not Muslim. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is the case then this is in direct violation or breach of our laws as it is inciting mass murder, genocide, etc; openly. So anyone who is a practicing Muslim should be arrested and charged with the appropriate breach of the law. I know it sounds a bit far fetched doesn't it? But the law is the law. I am concerned about this religion in particular over all the others, as it has a track record in killing non-Muslims en-masse. As I have said previously, religious people have little self esteem and feel the need to ask some fictitious man made all empowering creation for guidance and direction because they lack the self worth and intelligence to see that they should believe in themselves not some glorified cult leader who isn't even alive.

Interesting snippet from The Spectator: the Muslim population in Australia has increased by 77% over the last decade.

ttbn, I was concerned by the 77%, but then I asked, 77% of what. If it's 1000 people, we are still in time to stem the flow, as they say. If it's more like 77% of 300,000, then I feel it's too late. But either way I feel a study of some kind must be done. It's no good letting people in who are known to harbor terrorists or terrorist thoughts that can be enacted at any time, as we have already experienced. It's of no use for the federal police to say 'we are watching' someone. Big deal, you let them in to walk amongst us knowing full well these particular people are 'people of interest'. What an absolute bunch of morons. Sometimes I actually believe the Australian govt is actively engaged in assisting the terrorists so as to keep the plebs scared and beholding to the govt for an imaginary security scare, that was really created from within and not without.

As an atheists and opponent of organized religions, I believe the negative impact religion has had, and continues to have on human development outweighs any perceived benefits, that includes both the Islamic and Christians faiths. I do not have a problem with those adherents who hold benign beliefs in the supernatural, gods, heaven, hell etc, no matter how outrageous those benign beliefs might be. Nor do I have a problem with what devotees organize among themselves, including attendance at churches, mosques, temples etc to worship and pray to their supposedly "divine" gods and deities, asking for forgiveness of perceived wrongs committed, and praying for future guidance and favours. All generally harmless behaviour in my opinion!

The problem begins when the religious have undue influence on society as a whole, demanding negative action towards others, holy wars for example, or to grant the religious themselves special rights and/or privileges not available to all, tax dispensation in Australia is granted to the privileged religions. For far too long organized religions have exerted unjustified authority over others, and the broader community, something they are still doing today, some sections of islam are a prime example. That should not be tolerated by an egalitarian, enlightened, secular society. Organized religions hopefully one day will be seen for what they are, dangerous social retrogrades, and be put to rest forever.

and the State can distribute the free winter blankets that St. Vinnies do now, or perhaps the Greens might step in and fill the gap.

ALTRAV,

Forget the semantics. The are too many Muslims in Australia, and a 77% increase in any amount is an increase that we do not need.

Paul,

You try to hide behind 'atheism' but you cannot disguise your Christianophobia. The Left is the natural ally of totalitarian Islam. For that reason, the Left never criticises Isalm, but refers only to 'religion'.

This is obviously the type of future Foxy supports and wants for Australian women:
http://drsircus.com/world-news/islamic-rape-epidemic/

Dear AC,

To state something like that is rather low.
I stand by my posting record on this forum
where I have made it quite clear many times
that I do not support violence of any kind
and those who choose to practice it should
have the full force of the law thrown at them.
You should be ashamed of yourself for using
these kind of tactics on a public forum.
As far as I am concerned you have lost all
credibility Sir.

Hey Foxy,
"You make no distinction between fundamentalists, extremists, terrorists, and the Muslim population in general."

Lets talk about that.

Is it far to say that Islamic society has shown itself to be more problematic to western society than our traditional australian way of life? Yes or NO.
My opinion - Yes.

Should I make that distinction?
Given that making that distinction constantly serves to give that segment of people a free pass for their behaviour.

What if 99 out of 100 Muslims were committing acts that went against what Australians traditionally considered acceptable in our society?

Would you then say it's wrong to 'generalise' because just one out of a hundered was a decent person?

The fact remains Islam brings with it all of the things I previously mentioned, people who say 'It's wrong to generalise' are just making in easier for the criminals in that demographic to continue to commit crimes against the Australian people with less scrutiny.

These crimes get less scrutiny for no other reason that 'we might be victimising minorities'
Who exactly are the victims then?

All this PC crap does is prevent us all from having the guts to dig a little deeper and discuss matters realistically.

Dear AC,

I have stated quite clearly in the past that
in this country there is one law we are all expected
to abide by. It is the law enacted by Parliament
under the Australian Constitution. Religion instructs
its adherents on faith, morals, and conscience. But
there is not a separate stream of law derived from
religious sources that competes with or supplants
Australian law in governing our civil society. The
source of our law is the democratically elected
legislature. There are countries that apply religious
or sharia law - and if a person wants to live under
sharia law these are the countries where they might
feel at ease. But not Australia.

We are asking all our citizens to subscribe to a
framework that can protect the rights and liberties of
us all. These are not optional. We expect everyone
who lives in this country to subscribe to them.

Terrorists and those who support them and do not
acknowledge the rights and liberties of others -
the right to live without being maimed, the right to
live without being bombed and therefore they forfeit
the right to join in Australian citizenship and will
be dealt with accordingly to our rule of law.

I can't make it any clearer for you.

Foxy,

How long did it take your spacecraft to reach this planet?

foxy, you've made it very clear. What I am afraid of, I and others too, is that with an open border policy or being too welcoming to those less fortunate than us, we leave ourselves open to the bad people. The point I make is that based on current refugee and other asylum laws we are allowing the 'risk' of death and destruction in amongst us. Because Islam has made it quite clear that we must die, why would I invite such people knowing this fact. It's not me saying this it is the terrorists who have confirmed this. I am sorry but because these people don't come with a tattoo on them saying 'I am a terrorist', we only find out when it's too late. The federal police are as useless as 'tits on a bull'. So I am disappointed that it has come to this. As I said previously, I have lived abroad, in a Muslim country, amongst Muslims, for several years. They are a wonderful kind people. Where I feel let down today is that these same people are either friends or related to a terrorist. All it would take is for one of these people to report this information and we would see a totally different future. So unfortunately we have to accept the old mantra, 'if you're not with me, you're against me'. To simply be silent is not acceptable. We are talking about death, en-masse.

"You make no distinction between fundamentalists, extremists, terrorists, and the Muslim population in general."

The problem is that ALL Muslims accept the hate and violence in the Quran, and all (except one user here) have no problem with the murder, plunder, rape, torture, abuse and enslavement of men, women and children -- as narrated in all the hadith (Islamic traditions) and authorized in the Quran.

When asked about this, even the nicest Muslims will start making excuses (out of context, everybody did it, life was different then, the jews, christians, crusaders, imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, racism - there is no end to people and things that Muslims will blame for moral and ethical shortcomings in the dogma, their dear prophet and their societies)

This is why it is so easy for the so-called radicals to control Muslim communities. They know and preach the Quran, while the so-called moderates pretend Islam has nothing to do with the hate and violence in its writings.
In the house where the Barcelona terrorists lived, the police found hundreds of books about Islamic doctrine and the life of Mohammed (Mr "I am made victorious with terror", as he proudly proclaimed).

I would think Muslims would be happy to live far from those horrible infidels. They can have their sharia, halal foods, madrassas, mosques and live in a perfect society governed by their perfect religion following the perfect example of their great moral guide, Mohammad...... Ha ha ha I do have a sense of humour.

Oh wait, Muslims ARE following their religion. The Quran says that Muslims are put on earth to, to, to be nice? to spread peace? to teach love? to send flowers? to care for others? No. NO. It seems that verse 9:111 of the Holy, Sacred, perfect Quran says that Muslims are put on earth to "kill and be killed".

The Quran even mentions a verse that says that Mohammed sent his men to attack a mosque for unbelief. Great, so Muslims can attack each other, even mosques, and kill people if they feel that other Muslims are no doing Islam right.

So, all this killing and violence is just Muslims doing what Allah and Mohammad command. (How many people were killed today in that bomb in the mosque?) Ift would be nice if Muslims would go some place far away from us non-believers to practice their religion.

Dear ALTRAV,

I fully understand your concerns. HOwever,
I think that they are unwarranted. I feel
that our government is doing well in
handling the situation - considering the
mess that the world is currently in.

I do not support an "open door" policy.I never have.
I think the current policies that we have are
excellent ones and our government is doing
a very good job. Sure they make mistakes, but
overall they are doing well.

Dear Is Mise,

I was born here as you know, dear heart.

"I think the current policies that we have are
excellent ones and our government is doing
a very good job"

Such as welcoming jihadists who have fought for ISIS back into the country.
Ah! Tolerance where is thy sting?

Dear kactuz,

You generalisations about grouping all Muslims
together into one homogenous group does not
ring true to me. Muslims come from different
cultures, speak different languages and I am
sure that on the law of averages, just like
Christians and Jews not all of them practice
their religion in exactly the same way nor do
they take the Quran literally as we don't in
many cases with our Holy Books.

I feel that you are looking at them all as being
fundamentalists and extremists. I don't think
they all are. Fundamentalists and extremists
exist in all religions. Unfortunately with
Muslims they are the ones that now attract the
media attention because its newsworthy - but
we should not judge the majority by the actions
of a few.

They're here! whether you said yes...whether you said no...my bet is you said nothing until the media hyped up their presence.
The question now is how to invite uniform integration and not alienation.
The politicians that invited/let them in were those you voted for so stop bleating about who said what centuries ago otherwise I suggest you read the Bible/Torah from the beginning and take note of who said what first.
Australians have a legacy of victimising their neighbours while espousing bon home attitudes.
The Italians were victimised unbelievably given their contribution to the present cultural attitudes beginning with olive oil in their cuisine with Italian couture elevating the Anglo masses out of gabardine along with a few other things of note...but we'll just forget about those episodes.
There are times when Jingos would do well to saying nothing lest they draw attention to themselves and be seen as a joke.
So before one starts their ignorant yapping remember victimization scars bear long memories and rise to the surface at the most inopportune times.
All cultures have contributed something of value to the Australian social fabric
As an Australian born and educated in this country I still struggle to define an Australian, other than an extension of another culture, with respect to the indigenous.
When hard times are shared, a civilized society is born.

Dear Is Mise,

I'm sure that Peter Dutton could set you straight
on that belief of yours.

Foxy,

Dutton is part of the problem not part of the solution.

//These crimes get less scrutiny//

Well clearly that isn't the case. They've heavily reported, and we're up to 10 pages now of discussion on the subject. Similar threads have been similarly popular in the past. I can't think of any type of crime save perhaps paedophilia that receives such a high level of scrutiny.

"I can't think of any type of crime save perhaps paedophilia that receives such a high level of scrutiny."

and that particular crime is rife in some Muslim countries, it is part of the culture.

//You try to hide behind 'atheism' but you cannot disguise your Christianophobia.//

Oh dear... looks like somebody has developed Runner's syndrome.

Dear Is Mise,

If Dutton is part of the problem and not the
solution as you claim then can you offer us
your solution to the problem?

Hey Foxy,
"...one law we are all expected to abide by."

- Tell that to the women of Europe.
You won't hear those voices on the ABC.

Hear their voices:
Germany
http://youtu.be/uGfP8CyJAhg
Sweden
http://youtu.be/YL5C_uEXPCg
Denmark
http://youtu.be/Ls4frZwKUcI
Poland
http://youtu.be/YHZRBzf-9pc
Austria
http://youtu.be/WTmbn7nLZ1A
http://youtu.be/0raHWDojzWs
France
http://youtu.be/5tSYGfEg1IY
England
http://youtu.be/0EumvnGax7E

I can find heaps more out there if you want, all across Europe.
- Muslim Refugee/Migrants -

You want the real truth here it is:

WE ARE MADE TO FEEL GUILTY AND FORCED TO PAY OUR TAXES SO THEY CAN COME HERE COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST US RAPE OUR WOMEN AND DESTROY OUR SOCIETY.

You I and many others are so weak-minded, so scared of being called 'Racist, Nazi, Anti-semetic' or what-have-you so easily made to feel guilty for others plight, so willing to hold yourselves in higher moral value to the ideas of 'equality' that you would no only let them come here, take our land, take over our schools, our society and our system of justice, rape our women and children, attack our pets etc, but that YOU WOULD SUPPORT actually US PAYING OUR OWN TAXES to let them do these things to us; to ourselves.

And you say I'm involved in hate speech...

So that you can feel you hold some higher moral authority?
You would do this to Australians and Australian women?
Just so you can feel like you're a better moral person at night?
That you believe in 'equality' and 'fairness'?

Well newsflash, we might, but that doesn't mean a criminal does cares for any of these virtuous ideals.
And police don't show up until after the poor victims been gang raped live for 30hrs...

And so, if you want to be so naive then do so, but don't try to make me feel like a lesser person because I choose not to have my eyes closed.

As always, nothing personal and no offense.

Dear AC,

Australia is not Europe - and frankly you're becoming
a bit of a bore - raving on about the same thing constantly
that has no relevance to Australia.

You need to do
a bit of research regarding the way our country has
worked with migrants - and why because of recent
policies we have succeeded in building a relatively
cohesive society in this country that is the envy around
the globe and why so many people want to come here.

We are a more
inclusive society generally because of our
laws, legislations, and a great system of government
that works so well for us.
So please don't compare us with Europe and its problems.

BTW do you realise that much of our recent skilled labour
and professionals that are contributing so much to this
country especially in fields like medicine, engineering
and aged care come from Muslim countries?

Just like the Europeans, after WWII, built up Australia
due to the labour shortage and skills at that time.
Muslims are doing precisely that today - contrary to
the links you read about Europe.

I understand your concerns and fears about a mass influx
of undesirables to this country but don't forget that we
do have strict migration laws and restrictions on numbers
that have served us well thus far and we can trust that
this will continue to be the case. And also have keep in mind
what was it that caused the influx of refugees to Europe in
the first place.

Foxy,

My solution, ban Islam.

ilmessagio, my parents werepart of the post WWII migration. All that you say is true. I copped heaps from the local kids. Verbal and physical. I think there are several differences between then and now. In the main the migrants were Christians. Any reference or contact with women was of a light hearted and respectful nature, even if there was some bum slapping and pinching. There was a genuine eagerness to work. (It was a matter of pride) You were productive and because of this you were progressive. There was a real will to become an Aussie. The name calling was mostly tongue in cheek, even though there was always someone looking to pick a fight. Getting called names like 'Dago' was not a problem as it meant that the 'Wogs' had picked up on the fact that the sun had set and it was time to 'knock off'. Someone would say 'day go, boss'. And so it came to pass that they were called 'Dago's'. Now we compare with the Muslim situation. All the points made so far are all facts. I don't think religion is relevant normally. Except that now we have a religion that openly promotes the death and demise of the 'white infidels'. I am a Muslim sympathiser, up to a point. Unfortunately even I am saddened to admit that I cannot simply ignore the mention of killing 'the infidels' without some kind of restrictions or caveats ensuring our safety.

AC,

You are not a bore. Foxy herself could bore for Australia. She is a know-all, too silly to know she is making a fool of herself. You name it, Foxy is an expert. Along with Is Mise, I say ban Islam - and Foxy. Ignoring the old battleaxe is the best way.

ttbn, along with homophobia, you have added Islamophobia! Judging by your list of hates posted on the forum, you must be suffering from a dozen different phobias by now.
As a social progressive show me where I have been complementary of Islam, I find it as wacky as as all other religions. You have a certain warmth yourself towards Christianity. A treat of the rabid right. always liking to suck up to the conservatism found in the leadership of main stream Christianity.

Paul,

I have always loathed Islam; it's not a new 'addition'. And, it is true: I do not like homosexuality, but I don't fear or hate individuals who practise such awful behaviour. I come into contact with one once or twice a year, and I'm always civil to him. He and his partner, whom I don't know, are also opposed to SSM and they voted NO.

Watch your grammar, old son - you are the 'social progressive, not I. I think that you also meant to write 'complimentary, not ' complementary'. You need to be careful before trying to take the piss out of me:).

But, as a 'social progressive' - such a contradictory description for people wanting to take us backwards to the same old historic errors- you have to accept (on behalf of the designers of your creed if not personally) that the Left, as I prefer to call you, are in league with, or at least treating lightly, Islam, which pursues the same totalitarian methods as you do. It's a pity about the homosexuality, though, and I'm interested to know how you are going to deal with that problem when the Muslims are strong enough to do more than just vote NO.

BTW I think of myself as Christian, and I am a nominal Presbyterian. But I do not attend church because I have no time whatsoever for what now passes for Christianity - a mob of jokers trying to be relevant to a society that hates them.

Nice chatting with you, even though you are a Christianophobe.

Hey Foxy,
"You need to do a bit of research regarding the way our country has worked with migrants"
There's your problem right there.
You've got your thinking cap on back to front.

Because unless you think you can reform Islam or the behavior of migrants then I think 'YOU need to do a bit of research regarding the way migrants work with other countries'.

If I were to try to look at it realistically, you're in fantasyland being hopeful and optimistic in the face of all evidence to the contrary, whereas I'm just looking at things realistically GIVEN the evidence.

We could argue further, but would there be any point?
Let me just say this:
- You can criticise and judge me all you want and that's fine, but at the end of the day if ANY of the types of things happening in Europe start becoming more prevalent in this country, it was because PEOPLE LIKE YOU were too complacent, and because PEOPLE LIKE ME DIDN'T TRY HARD ENOUGH FOR OUR COUNTRY.

And I'm happy to be judged on this basis.

If it's a crime to care for and defend ones family, community and country, especially the innocent women and kids, then judge me all you want; I don't give a crap. You win. I'm guilty.

I think you believe in this idea of 'inclusiveness'.
'One nation all sharing similar values'.
Again you've got it all back to front.

It's not about OUR ideals of inclusiveness, it's about THEIRS.
They are the ones demanding their own laws.
Does that sound inclusive to you?

//My solution, ban Islam.//

Section 116 of the Constitution forbids the Commonwealth making any law for 'prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'.

Banning Islam would require a referendum, and I can't see it passing. There'd be too much concern that such a change of Constitution would be abused by the Parliament, i.e. used to ban the wrong religion. Comparisons would be made with the Soviet persecution of religion which saw the deaths of some 12-20 million Christians. If you thought the ACL were noisy during the postal survey... brother, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

Hi Foxy, there was a massive rally of men, women and children yesterday. Held at 7am in High Cross Park Randwick near the hospital. It was to show solidarity with the victims of Domestic Violence. A peaceful walk to Coogee Beach then followed. "T" said she was heartened by the number of men who took part. Lots of staff, nurses and doctors from the POW Hospital joined in so there were hundreds there, very successful. The fight will continue until Domestic Violence is eliminated from our society.

It being late, I thought I would check that quote quote praising Muhammad as the "Savior of Humanity" who would have succeeded in solving all the world's problems if he "were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world", found posted all over the Internet, and here at OLO.

According to the International Shaw Society treasurer Richard F Dietrich, who had compiled a complete list of Shaw's works, The Genuine Islam is "bogus".No such book exists. The origin of this hoax is an interview between Shaw and Muslim propagandist Maulana Mohammed Abdul Aleem Siddiqui published in a Muslim periodical in January 1936.The quotation appears in a separate quotation box without attribution, and not in the main body of the interview. However, the main body of the interview does feature Shaw challenging Siddiqui from a rationalist perspective."

As with many of these fabrications, the truth is the opposite of what is claimed. The International Shaw Society treasurer pointed out that Shaw described the religion of Islam in a 1933 letter to the Rev. Ensor Walters in the following way: Islam is very different, being ferociously intolerant. What I may call Manifold Monotheism becomes in the minds of very simple folk an absurdly polytheistic idolatry, just as European peasants not only worship Saints and the Virgin as Gods, but will fight fanatically for their faith in the ugly little black doll who is the Virgin of their own Church against the black doll of the next village. When the Arabs had run this sort of idolatry to such extremes [that] they did this without black dolls and worshipped any stone that looked funny, Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious, the great… And there was to be no nonsense about toleration. You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell.

Is anybody surprised?

Paul,

"The fight will continue until Domestic Violence is eliminated from our society."

You gunna join the ban Islam movement?

----

Toni,

Realistically we can't ban Islam as a religion but we could redefine it as what it really is, a subversive political movement.
However, banning would still be a massive problem as such an action would bring international sanctions and as Australia has been reduced to the level of a Client State, we do not have the resources to stand alone.

The Immigration Act is all that is needed to prevent any more Muslims coming here. Nothing to with what the Constitution says about religion. The Constitution says what laws can be made, and who can make make; and the Commonwealth can certainly make immigration laws. John Howard was correct when he said we would decide who comes here. All above board and constitutional.

Paul,

Can't see 'peaceful walks' no matter how "heartening" making much difference to domestic violence, which takes place in private, without warning. What you saw, or heard about, was just another case of 'virtue signalling'. Domestic violence is abhorrent, of course, but it's something that nanny governments can do nothing about, except punish perpetrators after the event.

Note that the instigator of this post hasn't been back to defend his daft comments.

Dear Paul,

There will be lots of activities at Federation
Square in Melbourne today. Being "White Ribbon
Day". It was great to read that things went so
well in Sydney yesterday. Give my Best Wishes to
lovely 'T".

Foxy,

As you all wallow in being nice to each other and stopping domestic violence, what are you all going to do about the Qur'an's sanctioning of beating the wife if she needs a bit of correction?

Count the number of Muslims attending the rally.

Foxy, you said my "generalisations about grouping all Muslims
together into one homogenous group" are wrong. I didn't say they were all radicals or fundamentalists.

No, what I said is that ALL Muslims accept the Quran and all except one here accept the traditions (ahadith)". I think that is a fair and accurate statement. Given that the Quran teaches hate and violence and slanders nonMuslims and all Islamic histories basically tell of Mohammed's vile attacks on his neighbors, I think my characterization is 100% accurate. Muslims accept and support hate and violence, at least that done by Mohammad and commanded in the Quran. Period. Double standards are no standards, at least in my book, or do you think absolute moral standards are too demanding or unfair?.

Tell me, Foxy, do you see any problem with the Quranic command to not just kill, but to brutally torture those that oppose Islam? There are a bunch of us here that fit that description. Do you have a good excuse for that verse? Do you even know what verse I refer to?

You know I have been doing this here at OLO for a long, long, long time. Have things gotten better in all these years or have problems with Islam increased? Why?

I have spoken with dozens of Muslims over the years and the results are not encouraging. When it comes to Allah, the Quran and Mohammad, it seems that all Muslims find them perfect, and any issues are due to (insert excuse here).

If I were to say that Muslims were sub-human, everybody would condemn me and rightly so. But getting a Muslim to condemn Allah and Mohammed for saying nonMuslims are "Lower than animals" is hopeless.

I believe we cannot trust Muslims. They cannot live in peace with us, in numbers, as equals.As I have said for years, it will get worse.

Now don't jump down my throat, BUUUUT, I want to test a couple of facts which surprisingly are covered in the Muslim lifestyle. The attacks and mutilation of women aside, (just for a moment), let's look at a couple of things the Muslims practice. The women dress in a modest and un-provocative way. Where-as Western women do not, making themselves look 'attractive'. In fact at times (at the beach) they are 'naked'. Then scream rape when a guy is 'attracted' to them. The Muslim women don't try to compete with men with stupid mantra's as 'we are just as good as any man' or prophes to be equals. They know they are not. The Muslim woman has a much more mature approach to life. She doesn't drink so she is NEVER drunk and disorderly, carrying on in a 'slutty' manner. Western women today actively seek men for sex in a role reversal form the past. All as a direct result of stupid parents and weak fathers pissing in the ear of their daughter with rubbish like 'your special', 'you can be whatever you want to be', and the like, when it is all false hope and gives the child a sense of entitlement. We have one of the highest divorce rates because women thought they were better off dumping their husbands rather than working things out with him. Now they are alone and having to fend for themselves. Not only have they stuffed themselves and their family or children, but now they have to work, taking jobs from husbands who are trying to support a family. But that's OK because selfish bitches only think about 'SELF' that's why they're selfish. I don't know the first thing about Muslim women, but I know more than I care to know about Aussie maggots.

Toni Lavis,
What we could do is stop accepting migrants and refugees from muslim dominate countries. We could simply say 'these blokes are too much trouble' and stop admitting them. We could also be far tougher in regard to deportation so that more are deported.

Also we could rule that Islam was not a religion, but a political movement as someone else mentioned and then ban them in our best interests.

Just because someone is treated like a god doesn't mean it is a religion. Whitlam was treated like a god by the ALP, as was Mensies by the Libs, but neither are religions.

Foxy, I know you don't like to compare Australia with Europe, however, the problems that have arisen there with Islam came about once the numbers of Muslims reached a level that they could cause problems.
Look at Sweden, one of the most inclusive, accepting societies in the world yet they are having huge problems with a massive increase in crime, especially rape, reluctance to work on the part of many refugees, no go zones that are dangerous for non Muslims etc.
I worked with Muslim health professionals in the hospital system and found them polite and friendly, however, they were very few in number and were highly educated, something we don't see in those causing the problems.
Surely as a nation we can't be that stupid that we ignore what has happened in other Christian countries and not do the best we can to prevent it happening here?

Domestic Violence
So long as women keep choosing the type of steroided alpha males that will turn on them, there will continue to be Domestic Violence.

You can blame men for being that way, but if you don't blame women for choosing these men then you're never going to completely deal with the issue.

By the same account women can be manipulative, and it's my belief that men are most likely to lash out when pushed into a corner.

I don't think a man chooses to have run-ins with Police and go to court for Domestic Violence any more than a woman asks to be beaten up and then get taken to hospital.

Until such a time as we start teaching young people the how's and why's of having good relationships, and of how to handle situations that they may not have the skills to effectively navigate themselves, then domestic violence has a great future in this country.

And you are all deluding yourselves if you think otherwise.
It's all well and good for older people to say 'we know better' but the real issue is the younger ones don't.

Responsibility Free Society
When the populace witnesses politician(s) running a state into the ground and wasting millions if not billions and then walking away with a golden handshake they're are going to feel entitled to the same.
It's the same law for all or no law for any, so say 'hello' to the responsibility free society, where an excuse can be found for any anti social conduct.
There was a time when people were named and shamed when their conduct was unacceptable to society in general...but were more civilized now
There was a time when punishment was meted out to fit the crime....but we're more understanding now...
There was a time when people voted for governments to keep the community safe....but we're smarter now.
There was a time when Australians voted for a politician they would willingly follow into battle...now they vote for a freebie and the right to have their wish granted.
Then we have those bleating about Christian values...just what are these Christian values that we need to hold so dear?....to be respectful?, considerate?, charitable?, honest?, sharing? because anyone thinking that Christianity gave rise to these civilized social values, think again because they existed long before Judaism and Christianity

Oh that's right....we have Father Christmas....what a feeble minded shallow society we have become.
Lotsa talking.... but no walking

I don't understand how anyone can generalise and
claim that ALL Muslims practice their religion in
exactly the same way.
And, these opinions are based on the
actions or words of people who may call themselves
Muslims but actually have very little real
knowledge about their religion.

I believe in sound knowledge and research.
Logically thinking, do all Catholics represent
Catholicism? All Jews Judaism? all Hindus,
Hinduism? Do all Germans represent Germany?
All Indonesians Indonesia?

So while one religion or one country is not generally
maligned by the action of a few people this has not
been the case for Islam especially post 9/11.

It is a fact that many crimes have been perpetrated
by individual groups and countries in the name of Islam.
When these atrocities occur, it has been the norm to
blame the religion of Islam instead of the perpetrators
themselves. Therefore if a person commits a crime and
then declares himself/herself a Muslim or shouts
"Allahu Akbar" then they are not judged but their
religion is.

Of course this is not an excuse for bad behaviour or the
perpetration of atrocities on the innocent. There are no
excuses for crimes like this. Background information
does however serve to help us understand why some people
commit crimes and atrocities against humanity against
themselves and ultimately against their religion.

When we read about or see on TV a person who calls him/herself
a Muslim perpetrating a crime too horrible to contemplate it
is important to understand that this person does not
represent Islam. The same can be said of all religions.
Throughout history humankind has used the name of God
to justify unspeakable acts.

One of the problems facing the world today in general and
facing Muslims specifically is that unqualified people
think it is possible to read a book, badly translated into a
language other than Arabic and instantly become able to
give religious rulings and interpretations on subjects
they really have no knowledge about. People with very
little real Islamic knowledge suddenly become experts
while the real experts are unable to have their opinions
heard.

Dear Foxy,

You're right, not all Muslims practice their religion in the same way: with the massacre of 250 or more Sufi Muslims in the Sinai while at Friday prayers, by Sunni Muslims, clearly they must have diverged views on what it means to be a Muslim.

But as you suggest, just as all of Christianity, or all of Catholicism, can't be blamed for the transgressions of a few pedophiles, since all manner of institutions, secular and religious, seem to attract vile people who use their powers, not all Muslims - perhaps not all Sufi, or Sunni, or Shi'a, or Ahmaddiyah - may believe in the same way. Maybe no two people on Earth believe in exactly the same way. Not even us atheists :)

But ..... if one does believe that, by carrying out some act, even if it means killing other people, that one will thereby somehow go to Paradise or Heaven, that does break all the rules of humanity. I don't understand, in those cases, what people imagine their god to represent. I would much rather believe in the depiction of a god who is merciful to all, to people who go astray, a god who recognises human failings and - perhaps because he or she is made, or makes us, in the image of humans, i.e. in his or her own image, and is prepared to forgive those failings, if there is genuine regret or repentance.

Islam does have problems, surely you would have to agree: its tribal and desert-culture roots pervade the sense of right and wrong which so many Muslims seem to espouse. The ancient attitudes to women and to strangers, typical of tribal cultures, really don't fit at all in modern society. So many Muslims have a long, long way to go to catch up with more progressive ideas.

[TBC]

[continued]

But being atheist also means a constant search, through one's own experience, and constant learning from others, for what is right and wrong, good and bad - it unfortunately also means that there is no rest, no end-point to that learning: one is constantly examining and analysing and dissecting, searching for truths. Atheism is a lifelong project, with - we are all too aware - nothing after the end of it :)

Love always,

Joe

Foxy,

"One of the problems facing the world today in general and
facing Muslims specifically is that unqualified people
think it is possible to read a book, badly translated into a
language other than Arabic"

My copy of the Qua'rn was translated into English at the behest of no other than the then current King and given me by the Saudi Embassy in Canberra.

It is bound in green leather with gold embossed lettering and design on both covers, it is in Arabic with the facing pages in English.
The page edges are also in gold.

I don't think that such a book would be badly translated, to do so wouldn't be worth the translator's neck.
How would one be qualified to read a book?
Would majoring in Religious Studies and specializing in Islam be qualification enough?

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Unfortunately many Muslims throughout the world
are marginalised and are struggling to overcome
colonial and imperial backgrounds. The military
conquest, economic exploitation and cultural
mutation imbedded in the colonisation of the
15th to 20th centuries has left generation after
generation of disaffected poverty stricken and
marginalised Muslims struggling to come to terms
with a globalised world.

This however as I stated earlier is not an excuse for
bad behaviour or the perpetration of atrocities on
the innocent. There are no excuses for crimes like
this. But again as stated earlier background information
does however serve to help us understand why some people
commit crimes and atrocities against humanity against
themselves and ultimately against their religion.

In 1987 when Sikh gunmen opened fire on Hindu bus
passengers in India's Punjab state, killing hundreds of
people, the media did not declare the Sikh religion to
be bloodthirsty and automatically condemn all Sikhs.

In Spain the Basque Separatist Movement has claimed
responsibility for over 800 unlawful deaths since 1968.
Even though Spain is 94% Catholic. These atrocities were
not attributed to the Catholic Church.

I've stated so many times in the past - I don't have
the answers to the big questions in life. I'm still on
my own road to discovery. And yes, I have been incredibly
lucky. But everything is relative, everything has its
story, and everyone has obstacles to overcome. They are
our greatest teachers. Each of us goes through transitions
and transformations. The important thing is that we
acknowledge them and learn from them.

I am no pundit. I have only my own life experiences to go
on. And some of the obstacles that I have overcome in life
have been difficult. But every relationship is a gift.
And I have learned so much from the people I have encountered
on my journey through life. They have helped shape me into
the person I have become and still hope to be.

Dear Is Mise,

Muslims are very prominent in the media.
Debates rage about various Islamic topics
or topics that invariably involve Muslims.
Most people have an opinion. Many base their
opinions on the actions or words of people
who call themselves Muslims but actually
have very little knowledge about their
religion. I believe in sound knowledge and
research.

If you feel you have that then I trust you
will use it towards the greater good.

Hi Joe, you make a very good point. The Christian God has not been static in nature, but dynamic. Over the past few hundred years main stream Christianities interpretation of the nature of God has undergone change. God has been transformed from a hateful, vengeful being, ever ready to punish, to a more benign merciful loving deity, full of forgiveness. Possibly the Islamic God is yet to undergo that level of change, and is still intent on the punishment of mankind for his perceived sins.
Of course we could say God is not real, and this is the figment of mans imagination., figment or not, what is real is the consequences of what takes place in gods name. I believe Islam lacks the enlightenment that has taken place within Christianity over time. It may eventually progress to a position where it to is more inclusive than now, but that appears to be a long way off for some adherents. Thes godly changes do not come about so much from within the religion itself, but from progressive secular pressure from outside, enlightenment is through education and self improvement. No accident the better adjusted devotees are also the better educated.

Hi Paul,

Yes, but some ideologies have what you might say faster dynamics than others, that Enlightemnment-oriented ideologies - with all their inevitable imperfections - are - somewhat helter-skelter - developing, evolving, progressing at a much faster rates than others which might still be embedded in pre-industrial economies, in pre-Enlightenment ideologies and religious beliefs. Those different rates of change portend growing disparities, not some sort of coming together, so a hell of a lot of future conflict.

I hope that, in all religious thought-systems, dissidents develop enough influence to break them down and allow their erstwhile adherents, slowly and probably painfully, to move away from magic and religion, towards rationality and more reliance on evidence and reality. It's not fool-proof: our politicians don't seem to live in a world of rationality and evidence, or even reality. But we can hope.

Cheers,

Joe

Foxy,

"If you feel you have that then I trust you
will use it towards the greater good."

That's why I would ban the political movement that is Islam.

Not all Muslims are fundamentalists and many, many Muslims just want a peaceful life but moderate Muslims will be told what to do and to follow the Qur'an literally by the fundamentalists and they, the moderates, are going to do what they are told, even if only through fear for their lives.

I have, as I have mentioned previously, a very good Muslim friend in India (we soldiered together) and he is firmly of the opinion, in private, that Australia is damned stupid to allow a Muslim community within its borders and he is a devout moderate follower of the Prophet; he is however politically astute.

Dear Paul,

Well said.

Here is what Prof. Tor Hundloe has to say:

" Let us not forget the Islamic scholars who
preserved much of the works of the great Greeks.
These were saved in Baghdad, translated, re-
translated and transmitted to Muslim Spain. These
texts started to become available to the west with
the defeat and expulsion of the Moors (Muslims) in
what was then known as Andalusia".

"What would society be like today if we had lost that
once-in-millennium era of Greek philosophy?
Would the Enlightenment have occurred? Or would we only
today be in the initial phase in inventing democracy,
law, science, and ethics? The answer must be "probably
yes". New ideas - better ideas - build on old ideas".

"Ideas can be lost and can be destroyed. Dark Ages resurface.
Dictators burn books because it is possible to destroy
the building blocks of civilisation. All these things
happened in the Dark Ages. Yet classical science and
philosophy was saved to be built upon. We did not have
to start from scratch".

"Today we might have very serious concerns with the
fundamentalist fringe of Islam - - but we
should never forget the role of the Muslim scholars of
1000 or so years ago. These people discovered (just as some
of their Christian counterparts did) that scholarship was
possible in an ostensibly religious environment. In that
particular era religious scholars were literate and they
lived off society's economic surplus".

"As long as scholarship is not destroyed, and scholars are
fed, clothed, and housed, progress is possible. That the
progress was going to occur in what had been the backwater as
far as Muslims were concerned, the West - rather than the
Muslim lands- set the scene for the "so-called" clashes of
civilisation of the early 21st century".

"The two cultures were set to diverge dramatically, one
pursuing progress based on Greek philosophy, science and
politics, the other regressed from its high point of
scholarship, art and invention and stagnated in a mire of
Old Testament beliefs and AD 700 desert culture".

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

We can only hope.

You're right.

Dear Is Mise,

Thanks for that.

I am optimistic that our government will do the right
thing by all of its citizens. Some people can try to
upset things in this country but as long as we insist
on the rule of law for all - hopefully we shall not
have too many problems.

Big Nana,
What you say is quite correct. If we have an ounce of common sense we will note what happens in other countries of like culture and not continue with policies that do not suit our society.

It is our females that end up being the sacrificial lambs for our obsession with multiculturalism. We should take note that all cultures will not integrate.

We should stop the importation of those groups that have shown us they hold our laws and social norms in contempt.

Hi Banjo,

Yes, I'm surprised to realise that 'culture' is not necessary friendly to women and women's rights. Perhaps 'culture' is really a sort of fig-leaf to conceal naked male power in many societies. Except in societies in which women have explicitly equal rights - and fairly tepidly in many of those - the position of women is still as submissive, inferior and relatively powerless. 'Culture' is NOT the ally of women in many societies.

Pity they don't analyse this sort of thing at universities.

Joe

Joe,

"Pity they don't analyse this sort of thing at universities."

But they do, particularly in Anthropology, for example, there are subcultures in India and China (and other places) where the women are all powerful.

See:
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31274/6-modern-societies-where-women-literally-rule
for a bit of an insight, there are others beside the ones mentioned.

The lack of knowledge about Islam and Muslims demonstrated in posts is abysmal. The only way to deal with Islam is fight it to the death, and the West doesn't seem to have the will to do this.

Hi Is Mise,

ReallY ? In one of those, " .... the society is matrilineal but not matriarchal: the men govern the society and manage property.... "

In another, " .... until .... the groom accepts her proposal (often after she has made many promises to serve and obey him).... "

In another, " .... All matriclan founders are female, but men traditionally hold leadership positions within the society. "

And where have we heard this before ? "In Minangkabau society, women usually rule the domestic realm while the men take the political and spiritual leadership roles. " What, back to the fifties ?

Does all this pass for 'equal rights' at universities this days ? And what, are we all supposed to go back to hunter-gathering and basic agriculture ?

Bit of a crock, Is Mise. :)

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

"Pity they don't analyse this sort of thing at universities."

But they do, you just acknowledged this fact, the analysis may not suit you but they do analyze.

If they will do this to fellow followers of Mohamad what will they not do to unbelievers (that's us, folks!!).

"The militants who carried out an attack during Friday prayers at a mosque in Egypt's Sinai peninsula were carrying ISIS flags, the country's chief prosecutor, Nabil Sadeq, said Saturday.

Sadeq also said that the death toll has risen to 305 worshipers, including 27 children -- a dramatic increase from the previously announced 235 fatalities. Another 128 were injured, he added.

Friday's attack was carried out by 25-30 militants who arrived at the mosque in five all-terrain vehicles, according to Egypt's chief prosecutor. They also torched seven cars belonging to the worshipers that were parked outside, Sadeq added."

http://abcnews.go.com/International/235-killed-blast-shooting-egypt-mosque/story?id=51359689

I asked myself why Muslims would kill other Muslims, particularly in a mosque. No answer, of course, because there is nothing same or logical about Islam. My guess is, they just have to kill, and when they cannot kill infidels, they are Left with those Muslims who don't really understand their rotten religion, and who are not expecting to be murdered, in a mosque, head down and bum in the air. There aren't many infidels in Egypt, so fellow Muslims it is.

This brings us back to the imperative of keeping Muslims out of the West, Australia in particular. All attacks in the West are against non-Muslims (the idiots who allowed them in). Seemingly harmless Muslims in Western Sydney are safe while they have us to kill. Confine them to the Middle East and those parts of Asia they already infest, and they can kill each other to their hearts content, or until some Muslims learn what their religion is really like, drop it altogether, and start defending themselves against the lunatics. Whatever happens, it should not be affecting us in the West.

The attack on Friday that took place in Egypt's
Sinai Peninsula took place inside a Sufi mosque
killed more than 300 people. After every attack of
this nature, observers are perplexed at how a
group claiming to be Islamic could kill members of
their own faith.

But the voluminous writings published by Islamic State
and Qaeda media branches as well as the writings of
hardliners from the Salafi sect and the Wahhabi school,
make clear that these fundamentalists do not consider
Sufis to be Muslims at all.

The article in The New York Times explains further:

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/25/world/middleeast/sufi-muslims-isis-sinai.html

//Realistically we can't ban Islam as a religion but we could redefine it//

Yeah, good luck with that.

The High Court's 1983 decision on the religious status of Scientology now serves as the current precedent for defining religious groups. They found Scientology to be a religion... if those con artists are a religion, you'll have a hard time convincing the courts that Islam is not.

http://web.archive.org/web/20140124215052/http://cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm

//We could also be far tougher in regard to deportation so that more are deported.//

Only works for migrants, Banjo. I've linked to an interesting documentary below, you should have a watch a pay particular attention to the 4th-generation Australian Muslim who points that 'deporting' her would mean moving her from Queensland all the way to the Northern Territory.

//Look at Sweden, one of the most inclusive, accepting societies in the world yet they are having huge problems with a massive increase in crime, especially rape, reluctance to work on the part of many refugees, no go zones that are dangerous for non Muslims etc.//

Nope, you've been conned. Don't believe everything you see on facebook.

http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/
http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-part-ii-refugee-men-overrepresented-swedish-crime/
http://www.snopes.com/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/

//Not all Muslims are fundamentalists and many, many Muslims just want a peaceful life but moderate Muslims will be told what to do and to follow the Qur'an literally by the fundamentalists//

Will they?

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/1081367107723/the-mosque-next-door

"//Not all Muslims are fundamentalists and many, many Muslims just want a peaceful life but moderate Muslims will be told what to do and to follow the Qur'an literally by the fundamentalists//

Will they?"

Yes, they will, I have Muslim friends who sold their lovely home in Greenacre (Bankstown) and moved well away, because of the local fundamentalists and the treatment that their daughters were getting because they did not wear, nor want to wear, headscarves.

Foxy,

Where do you get the quaint notion that there is one law for all Australians?

It's been explained a dozen times that some Australians are subject to tribal law but it doesn't seem to sink in.

Try this,

"VICTORIA'S Jewish community has set up a special court to resolve disputes involving its members.
Specially trained rabbis will handle civil and commercial issues using a combination of Jewish and Australian law"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/rabbis-to-settle-jewish-disputes-in-special-court/news-story/08dda8afcd8c3b27eb7a45c518c65d01

I agree that not ALL Muslims are 'bad', but, we cannot dismiss the reports and changes in social behaviour (for the worst), in certain countries. I choose not to take 'reports' too seriously as has been the case, in the past, they are usually skewed to a particular agenda.
As much as I try to imagine them wanting to live a happy life, not unlike us, the Terrorist factor is ever present and over shadows any thoughts or decisions. And so it should be. We did not imagine this evil. It came out and declared itself and it's intentions. So now that we know we are a target and therefore in danger, I believe Trump was right in closing borders to the Muslims. As I have said they are a good people, in some ways better than us. They may be naive and grossly mis-led but they are disciplined. You try going without food or water from sun-up to sun-down. Se how you pull up. You try praying five times a day, and that's not just stopping and saying two hail-marrys. They have to go through a ritual of washing then the ritual of prayer itself. Sure not all Muslims are practicing. But a damn site more than the Europeans do, by percentage. If only there was some way of getting the 'good' Muslims to 'dob in' the bad ones. We would start leveling the playing field. Unfortunately at this time all the negative commentors are justified in venting their concerns and suggestions, even if they are not socially acceptable. In conclusion, to the Muslims: let someone know who the bad guys are. Once we remove the threat of death we will accept you as friends and openly invite you into our country and lives.

Is Mise, what is this thing with the Jews? Over the years it has become apparent that they (the Jews) receive special treatment or get exemptions or preferential treatment. All totally inexplicable. So what the hell makes, if not all Jews, then certain Jews so special? I still cannot get my head around the fact that the original Rothschild wrote in his will, amongst other selfish demands, that their empire must NEVER be audited. And as far as I know, to this day this has been he case in one form or another. It has been reported that because of this it is not possible to know exactly how wealthy they are. Well in excess of 500 Trillion dollars was very a conservative guesstimated.

Muslims have all sorts of sects, schism and tribes. But, as far as we Westerners are concerned, a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim. They are all taught to hate us and kill us if we don't bow down to Allah. There is absolutely nothing good about Islam, and they are good for nothing. All the waffle about past (way, way in the past) achievements by Islam refers to things they stole from civilisations they conquered and claimed as their own. Islam has always used others to provide for them; they claim that Allah provides, but it is enslaved non-Muslims who really do the providing. In Australia, we are doing it by providing them with the dole, cheap housing and Medicare.

ALTRAV,

Rather than be 'special' the Jews would probably have preferred to have avoided the Holocaust and the two millennia of persecution they have copped, and are still copping, from the Muslims and the Leftists and Marxists among us.

ttbn, have you ever asked yourself why? I am a WHY kind of guy. I NEVER take things at face value. I don't know the truth behind an event. For example, you mention the Holocaust and more. Did you know that the Jews are one of the most class conscious races? It is not generally broadcast and you really have to dig to find any mention of the Elite Jews wanting to rid themselves of the 'lower class' because it was not befitting their position in society. Scratch a little further and I got the shock of my life. Apparently Hitler was somehow related to the Rothschilds. Now suddenly things started falling into place and making sense. Henry Ford designed and built the gas chambers and so on. Now all this could be BS, but why are the Rothschilds the wealthiest family in the world. That in itself is not a crime. What is a crime is using that wealth to control major events like the financial machinations of a country. Influencing the outcome of a country's election and the choice of ruler. I think you get my drift. Again these are all taken from articles and authors with history in the media. If anyone can disprove any of this I welcome any corrections.

Alt Rav,

So ...... you'll believe anything ? As long as it fits your prejudices ?

Joe

loudmouth, and your point is?

(continued........)

Loudmouth, I've said my piece. If you wish to challenge anything I wrote please do so giving me some form of explanation refuting what I have written. I am always willing to learn.

Altrav,

So where did you get this idea ht the Rothschilds don't have to submit any financial returns ? Are you saying that every British government since the early nineteenth century has connived at this ? Where's your sources ?

Joe

Joe,

Don't spoil a good conspiracy theory, everyone knows that conspiracy theories make the world go round.

Loudmouth, finally you're getting it. The answer is yes. King George the ? sold out to that bastard so he could fight Napoleon, by borrowing 1 million pounds off him to finance the war. In return Rothschids demanded he be allowed to start the first bank of England. In doing so charging interest, which they are still paying today. At the same time the scum also lent money to Napoleon. I want tell you what he did which led him to acquire all the stocks of England for next to nothing. (another day) Apparently they have banks in all but three countries in the world. They own the 'City of London' and therefore the Queen. These things are not 'in your face', you have to look for them. So, LOOK FOR THEM YOURSELF! Let me know where I am wrong and I will update my so called list of 'conspiracy theories'.

Alt Rav,

England has had banks for hundreds of years, long before the Napoleonic Wars. And they've always charged interest, nothing new about that.

If you assert, you must corroborate. It's not up to anybody else to prove you wrong.

Joe

OK Loudmouth, if I must prove yet another comment. I don't know how to do 'links' but Google this title;

King George the III, All wars are bankers wars, 2013.

There are too many other sites but even if I have mis-quoted some dates or details, the over-all point remains the same.

Alt Rav,

According to Wikipedia, the Bank of England was

" Established in 1694, it is the second oldest central bank in operation today, after the Sveriges Riksbank. The Bank of England is the world's 8th oldest bank. It was established to act as the English Government's banker and is still one of the bankers for the Government of the United Kingdom. The Bank was privately owned by stockholders from its foundation in 1694 until it was nationalised in 1946."

Anything else ?

loudmouth, yes you left out the reference to Rothschilds and their involvement in the banks. I may have named the wrong bank but my point is still valid. Look further, I may be excused for not being precise in my details as there is just too much to remember so I try to break it down into headings.

Alt Rav,

If you want to make accusations, you need to be pretty certain of your facts. So, you got the wrong bank. Rothschild's grandfather would have been a small child back in 1694, brilliant maybe but did you get the wrong bloke ? Have you got the wrong 'facts' ?

But I'll bet that you are 100 % sure that you can pin something, somewhere, somehow, on the Rothschilds. Somehow. Keep looking.

Joe

Issy you make a good point, "I have Muslim friends who sold their lovely home in Greenacre (Bankstown) and moved well away, because of the local fundamentalists and the treatment that their daughters". It would be difficult to live within some religious enclave, where the general participation rate is high, and not be affected in some way by fundamentalism. The true religious are the devout in any religion, the half-hearted are seen as "tainted", not true believers and open to outside influence, which to the devout is unacceptable. The moderates within are seen as equally dangerous, as the blasphemers from without.
I hark back to the point I made about the parallels between the development of Christianity and the development of Islam. Islam has not been subjected to the periods of enlightenment that Christianity has, and that makes it a very dangerous practice for some adherents. My beef with Christianity is not to do with its practice in general, or its beliefs, no matter how screwy they are, but with the internal management of the failings of its operatives.

Paul,

" It would be difficult to live within some religious enclave, where the general participation rate is high, and not be affected in some way by fundamentalism."

Greenacre is not a religious enclave but is still a Sydney suburb with a mixed population and at the time of which I speak was not anywhere near Lakemba and Bankstown as a favourite spot for Muslims, however the nearest big shopping centre is Bankstown and that was the main area where harassment took place as well as at school.

loudmouth, just because I don't have the where-with-all to come up with all the facts does not make my points any less relevant. It is an historical fact that the Rothschilds have done some very bad things to get to where they are today, or are you going to say it was all down to hard work and astute decisions? Please. They are the epitome of 'whatever it takes'. If people like you want to bury your head in the sand, fine go ahead, just remember your arse is clearly exposed and in farming circles is known as 'presenting'. Look that up. The Rothschilds are the most bent family to have ever walked on this planet. You believe what you want. If you decide to research this evil and dangerous family you will see for yourself.

Dear ALTRAV,

Unless you can give us something more substantial
like a link, or the name of a book and its author,
that you've read about the Rothschild Family, than
your claims about them don't amount to more than
just your opinions.

As far as the Rothschilds are concerned conspiracy
theories have been around for generations. This often
happens with rich and powerful families. As is often
the case - it is also true that these families are
also known for their philanthropic activities = which
should be noted. The Rothschild family has led
charitable campaigns - The Rothschild Foundation was
founded to further these efforts. It is world famous.
(You can Google this). The Rothschild family has more
than 30 Foundations which include - public libaries,
orphanages, hospitals, homes for the elderly.

Special funds have been allocated for the purpose of
education - including educational efforts in Austria,
France, UK, Israel, were all made possible through
their generosity.

In addition to monies put forward for education the
family has given an estimated 60,000 pieces of artwork to
numerous organisations. They have created social
housing in London and Paris - and the list goes on.

There's some excellent books available on the Rothschild
Family at your local book shops or at your local libraries.
They cast a slightly different picture of the
Rothschild Family to the one you are presenting on this forum.

cont'd ...

Dear ALTRAV,

The following book may be of interest:

"The Rothschild Family: The History and Legacy of
the International Banking Dynasty"
Charles River (Ed).

This book includes bibliographies and other sources
for further reading. It covers all the scandals and
conspiracy theories.

Dear ALTRAV,

My apologies for the mistake.

The book I cited on the Rothschild Family - should
have read - by Charles River Editors.
(they're a publisher).

Alt Rav,

As Senator Brandis says, quite rightly, everybody is free to be a bigot. Who defines 'bigot' of course, so it's a bit hard to make it illegal.

Thanks Foxy, I'll look around. Where do people get these ideas ? Do Gypsies really steal children ? Did Maori et their enemies ? Do the people over the hill really have their heads under their arms ? Sometimes we have to take unsupported accusations with a grain of salt. Still, he (or she) who asserts must prove, the Romans used to say.

Joe

foxy, loudmouth, it appears that you seem to find authors who portray this family as saints, by explaining all the good they have done. I on the other hand having lived through events where these kinds of people have prospered at the expense of many totally innocent people look deeper knowing what is usually the case. When one is so rich and wants to ensure a 'clean slate', they will spend money on helping people, but the primary reason is to lift their profile and image in the eyes of the skeptical public. I don't care how much good you say they have done. I only care about how much bad they have done. Gates is also very rich. We know where his wealth came from. One could say he played no part in garnishing that wealth. Once he had created a product, it sold on it's own strength, merits and value, so as the saying goes, 'he stood back and counted the money as it poured in'. The difference is his money was gained by 'honest' means. No one suffered during his ascension. The same cannot be said for Rothschilds

ALTRAV,

What do you not understand about referencing?

See:http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/

There is a wide selection there but for internet forums, a simple link to a source will do.

//foxy, loudmouth, it appears that you seem to find authors who portray this family as saints, by explaining all the good they have done.//

A brief disclaimer, in the interests of full disclosure. I am not currently, nor have ever been, a 42nd Degree Supreme Sword Bearer of the Ancient & Enlightened Brotherhood of Free & Accepted Masons. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, complicated secret handshake.

I suspect that both Joe & Foxy have enough healthy cynicism to not consider them 'saints'. They are, after all, bankers. They're not expected to be nice people. And given that they're a huge family... some of them are bound to be very nasty pieces of work indeed, just based on statistics. No doubt they pay a lot of money to keep the black sheep well hushed up.

However, there is zero evidence - or at least zero evidence that you have presented us with - to suggest that these guys are the power behind the throne within the 'Stonecutters'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSpOjj4YD8c

Zero evidence that they are some sort of Machiavellian puppet masters, orchestrating world events on a grand scale. Zero evidence that they wield any more power than the power that anybody with a big pile of cash has.

And yet, there is this vast body of conspiracy theory lore surrounding them. Some of which seems to be from good old-fashioned class envy. The rest of it, sadly, seems to stem from good old-fashioned anti-Semitism.

It's all 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', Holocaust-denying, Neo-Nazi bovine shite

For God's sake stop believing every damn thing you read on dubious websites run by lunatics and halfwits.

For one thing, some Puckish computer-savvy types (hackers) are in the habit of messing with these sorts of sites because they aren't well secured, so they're like the dirty whores of the internet: pay them a visit and you'll wind up with a nasty virus.

And secondly - more importantly - they're rubbish.

Failing that, you should marry Armchair Critic. I can see you two growing old together... gently whispering anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to each other as you drift off to sleep... dumping a pig carcass on the footsteps of the local Mosque together... the mental pictures in my head are both sweet and terribly disturbing, like Romper Stomper re-worked as a romantic comedy.

Stick your head up your rear-end and fart Toni.
- Hold your breath -

I was actually trying to stay out of this...
Here is "All Wars are Bankers's Wars"
http://youtu.be/5hfEBupAeo4
ALTRAV should've linked it earlier.

He's something you all need to understand.
If I create 1 billion dollars in 'new currency' with bonds -
Then I add the interest owed on that borrowing to the principle
Suddenly, the debt is greater than ALL the money that was issued.
Private Central Banking is a Ponzi scheme.
Money shouldn't be LENT into existence.

Mayer Amschel Rothschild
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws."

Haven't been keeping up with all the comments, but in regards Bank of England in 1600's
- Rothschild didn't come into his fortune until 1790's / 1800's and after Napoleonic Wars in maybe around 1815.
He wasn't around at the beginning of the Bank of England I don't think.

Stories about the Rothschilds well I guess I like the one about Rothschild, Jacob Frank and Adam Weishaupt.
What does all this stuff matter?
Well I suppose it does but do you know who you really outta be looking at?

Bloody GEORGE SOROS.
He works with Rothschilds, they're connected though banking.
We fight over the Muslims and Refugees etc
But the real problem is the OPEN BORDERS POLICIES
(In Europe anyway, apart from the EU's problems itself)

- And The Dirty Geopolitics -
And well you ALL know I'm putrid on Hillary.
Tried to tell you all from the start;
Have now been proven right on pretty much EVERYTHING I said;
- And you all tried to make out I was stupid...

Whatever, Lol

Australia: Devout Muslim butchered wife, mutilated her body, gouged her eye out
http://pamelageller.com/2017/09/australia-devout-muslim-butchered-wife-mutilated-body-gouged-eye.html/

"A devout Muslim who wanted to fight for the Islamic State has confessed to butchering his wife, and mutilating her body. The Australia court is not naming the honor killer. Such respect is given these savages in Western courts. Her body was wrapped in plastic, a quilt and electrical tape, and bore injuries including a gouged-out right eye and two amputated fingers.

The devout Muslim killer, who told relatives he wanted to fight for ISIS, slaughtered the mother of three, who was butchered after enduring a married life of violence in which she was a virtual prisoner. Her husband forced her to wear a full head-to-toe burqa, even while in her own backyard, and she was not allowed out of the house alone."

And you know what the dumbest thing of all is?
Muslims will do this, and we'll say nothing;
Leaders scared to say anything, stories hushed up.

But we'll literally tie Don Burke up to the back of a car and drag him down the highway to parade 'white males' around as being the worst kind of human beings instead...

I'm sorry if my comments don't appeal. I also appologise to those of you who I have offended with my comments regarding a particular family. But in my defense I can only say that my comments are a condensed version of the collective information I have read. My nature is to ignore the good things because they don't need to be said, they're good. What I focus on are the bad things. Especially if these things will compromise or have compromised me or any other person. I do not have a photographic memory so I tend to slowly build a sense of what someone or something is about. Normally it will be because they have accumulated enough 'bad' points for me to take note. The details escape me but as time and research goes on I form a conclusion on the topic, and that is how I come to these conclusions. Time has taught me that people lie to achieve a particular goal. If they want to cover up a wrong doing they will do whatever it takes to ensure they get their chosen outcome, and these guys have had a lot of cover-ups. To the observer it all seems very innocent and free of any wrong doing. And that's how I fly.

I stand by my words:

//you should marry Armchair Critic//

You two will make a great couple.

Is mise, I have read and read till I am blue in the face. What I've found is for every story saying how wonderful someone or something is, there are ten saying the opposite. I chose to dig in other ways and in so doing I find differing views but reasonable views with no agenda. The story about King George the III fighting Napoleon. The scumbags I speak of had one of his spies ride back to England to say that England had lost the war. The net effect of this huge CON/LIE was that the English economy crashed overnight. Stocks, bonds everything crashed. The scumbag quickly bought up everything he could. Shortly after he had bought England, the news came that England had won. He now owned England at the rate of a penny to the pound. You figure out the rest. Smart businessman you say, my arse. NO, disgusting, evil, opportunistic, predatory bastards and as many more bad words as there are in the dictionary is what they are. Some of you choose to see what they want you to see I choose to see what there is to see. I hope I see more articles about this mob so I can further read what others have discovered.

Guys, of course you're not going to find any evidence. I'm not sure which country has a law that if you go around suggesting the holocaust never happened, you will be arrested. Freedom of speech is fine as long as you don't talk about certain things.

//I was actually trying to stay out of this//

You should heed the wisdom of Master Yoda:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No

ALTRAV - Germany

The reason is obvious, when 6 million people were systematically slaughtered by a horrific state apparatus. As a nation and as a people, Germans will near be able to deny or diminish the extent, and their responsibility for the Holocaust. It is right and proper that it be written in law, and so it is.

Nothing what so ever to do with free speech.

OK here is only one example for those of you who question the origins of my comments. Remember, I only ask the questions. You can scoff and demean my comments but I am simply passing on what I recall of these articles. You can refute them all you want but remember, you wanted verification of my comments. None of you can confirm the veracity of these articles. So unless you have 'un-disputed' proof contradicting these articles, I have done my part by giving you the details of just one of my sources, so you can stop shooting the messenger now.
I can't link, but here is the title, Google it.

'Was Hitler a Rothschild?' by David Icke.

If this is 'an inconvenient truth' I would ask why? You have been hoodwinked into believing the Rothschilds are saints. Well they're not! You have seen what 'they' want you to see, now just for a moment consider, you might be wrong. I think this articles articulates the facts clearly enough so as to leave no ambiguities.

//'Was Hitler a Rothschild?' by David Icke.//

The David Icke? David 'Alien Lizardmen Walk Amongst Us' Icke?

Well now I know you're just taking the piss.

//I think this articles articulates the facts//

Well clearly not if it's by David Icke. The man doesn't write non-fiction. He's a science fiction writer who has copied L. Ron Hubbard's trick of boosting books sales by pretending to believe that your fiction is real.

Hey ALTRAV
"I'm sorry if my comments don't appeal."

Don't be sorry, you'll just come off as pathetic, after already coming off as a bit of a kook;
It's not a good look, but if that's what you were trying to achieve, go right ahead.
Get wise, do your research and choose your battles ALTRAV.
And if you can't add links, then best not to rant in the first place.

Why exactly do you think that suggesting a link with the title "Was Hitler a Rothschild? would suffice as evidence?
Obviously a video with that title poses a 'question' does it not?

If you're gonna jump in the deep end ALTRAV, then you need to learn to swim.
If you don't, you're just going to drown.
I ain't jumping in to save you, you need to learn to swim by yourself.
You're only making me look bad flailing around atm.

There's plenty of evidence.
You just think your time is better spent ranting about 'something' you learned 'one little snippet of info' rather than actually looking into it and learning ALL about it.

Here's a website I just found.
Not sure how good the content is.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/

Hey Toni, - Yoda
http://youtu.be/-IUMCyAR6U0

Look guys, you can't say do your research then turn around and say NO that info is no good. I didn't write this stuff. You can't have it both ways. If you have a problem with any info presented, go and bitch to the author or the printer. On the other hand if you simply don't like the information because you think the Rothschids are nice people, well tough 'if the shoe fits', as they say. What is it with you people. If the info I come up with is 'lies' and fabrications of a bent and twisted mind, fine, but how the hell am I supposed to know, and much more importantly who the hell are you guys to make outright statements of discredit. By all means mention your concerns on the veracity and the factual content of an article but you DO NOT make outright statements to ascert your authority in discrediting information without absolute proof to back you up. Now, you were about to show me the proof as to why I should believe you guys over guys like this? NO? haven't got any? Well now I have the right of reply. Unless your info can be confirmed as being the 'real deal' and mine not, just reply as intrigued consumers. Not as topical experts.

Well I can tell you that there is no video on the David Icke YouTube channel with the title 'Was Hitler a Rothschild?'; nor any other video on his channel with similar terms.
I couldn't even find a single video on his channel with 'Hitler' in the title.
If you can't post links, and you can't even name a video properly what exactly do you want us to do?

Do you want us to quickly scurry and trawl the internet for something you saw somewhere?
Start screaming and throwing paperwork everywhere calling loved ones to tell them to grab the kids and precious belongings and head for the hills?

So what IF you're right?
You're a bit late to the party.
Rothschild (sold his holdings first, creating a panic-sell and then bought it all back for pennies on the pound, he basically scammed all the other investors with insider knowledge)
But this happened 200 years ago.
And the Third Reich was in the 1930's, it's now 2017.

We have computers and crytocurrency now...

If you're gonna go learning all this stuff you gotta learn to keep your feet on the ground...
Keep it all in the right perspective, you know.
I see 'all new' crazy and ridiculous stuff every single day...

AC, I wrote 'I can't link but here is the title, Google it'. I said nothing about videos. Surely your not OK with scamming, whether 100 years ago or 100 years from now? What he did was WAY beyond any kind of traditional trading techniques, of any age. Now humour me one more time and google the title I mention. Not You tube. I only ask that I be given the same considerations as you afford someone who posts comments you agree with. Remember WE don't know the truth so we have to rely on what we hear, see and read. Beyond that, all we have is faith in the truth and our fellow man.

//If the info I come up with is 'lies' and fabrications of a bent and twisted mind, fine, but how the hell am I supposed to know//

Well, the constant references to the Illuminati in the article should be a bit of a giveaway. When Icke writes about the Illuminati, he's referring to his little green men from Mars (technically, Icke's aliens aren't little, men or from Mars. They are green though.)

see another of Iftikhar bros wanting to shoot a few infidels, gays and trans on new years eve in Melbourne.

Hi Runner,

Not to mention the 300 killed in the Sinai on Friday. But ..... but. ........ isn't Islam a religion of peace ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Joe,

Not as practiced by Islamic State, Isis,
and other hardliner extremists. Also the
masque that was attacked in Egypt was a
Sunni mosque and hardliners do not consider
them to be Muslims at all. Read my earlier
post on this subject.

cont'd ...

Sorry I meant to say - "Sufi mosque" not
Sunni. My earlier post is on page 19 of
this discussion.

cont'd ...

Again my mistake - it's on page 18.

Altrav,

If you saw it on Google, just post a link.

Hey ALTRAV,
Ok, I googled it.
Is this what you were reading? (on some sketchy looking bible site)
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_rothschild04.htm
The backlink to David Icke's website doesn't go to an article.
So I searched his site and found this:
http://www.davidicke.com/article/146302/19836-was-hitler-a-secret-agent-of-the-rothschilds
http://www.davidicke.com/article/148811/24765-did-hitler-blame-all-jews-for-the-manipulation-of-rothschild-zionist-bankers
- Also seem like they are linked to external bible sites...

Why can't you add links yourself?
Are you using some stupid old xbox for internet browsing or something?
Why can't you copy out the links by hand then type them into your comments?
And all this 'conspiracy' stuff is kind of off-topic, lucky no-one really cares too much about Iftihar
(because of the crappy things he says)

"Surely your not OK with scamming, whether 100 years ago or 100 years from now?"
Of course I'm not ok with it, I told you private central banking is a ponzi scheme.
You outta look into 'Bank of North Dakota' and also 'The Comer Lawsuit'
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-case-to-reinstate-the-bank-of-canada/5430132

"What he did was WAY beyond any kind of traditional trading techniques, of any age."

- I dunno, investing is just 'educated gambling', and what he did is not really much different to playing poker; bullying other players on the table when you're in a commanding chip position...

They would've all followed his trades in the stockmarket to make money off him, so really he just did the same thing to them - you want to follow me then fine, follow this, and he used his commanding chip position to initiate panic-selling... the rest is history.
- And he got the info by 'carrier pigeon' I believe, you said something else..

Happy now?
This really doesn't have much to do with 'Muslim Community', you realise that right?

AC, I have to agree with you. I don't know how we got off topic, but I will rectify that immediately and cease and desist any further discussion on same. I do however welcome any future discussion on my favourite family. Another day.
Is Mise, my apologies. As I previously mentioned I'm one of the old farts brigade. I am not computer savy, and at my age and state in life I enjoy debating and arguing with anyone who will bother, but the most I do on the computer normally is play, wait for it; SOLITAIRE. Although I have at some rare time in the past and recently written down the site and typed it in as I just did with the Rothschild site I mentioned. Anyway I look forward to another interesting post soon.

Hey ALTRAV,
If you're really into all this kind of stuff I think you should buy some books.
Fritz Springmeier's 'Bloodlines of the Illuminati' seems interesting.
http://rense.com/general77/POWERS.HTM

There's a whole heap of reading in this category, I myself always meant to get some of them and learn more myself but never got around to it.
Also I think there might be a wealth of good information on that website I found and mentioned earlier:
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp

I think it may even contain text versions of many of these books.
I saw 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy' on there.
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare

If you aren't good with all the facts you're always going to be put under pressure when challenged on these types of issues; and you will get challenged, you must expect it.
If you're unprepared, you'll only look stupid and do more harm than good.
Learn more, and choose your battles.
Best of luck to you.

Just started reading 'None Dare Call it Conspiracy'
http://modernhistoryproject.org/mhp?Article=NoneDare&C=1.0

It's a good book, 45 years old and still spot on.
Far better than you can expect from modern news and opinion.

"Most intellectuals, pseudo and otherwise, deal with the conspiratorial theory of history simply by ignoring it. They never attempt to refute the evidence. It can't be refuted. If and when the silent treatment doesn't work, these "objective" scholars and mass media opinion molders resort to personal attacks, ridicule and satire. The personal attacks tend to divert attention from the facts which an author or speaker is trying to expose. The idea is to force the person exposing the conspiracy to stop the exposure and spend his time and effort defending himself.

However, the most effective weapons used against the conspiratorial theory of history are ridicule and satire. These extremely potent weapons can be cleverly used to avoid any honest attempt at refuting the facts. After all, nobody likes to be made fun of. Rather than be ridiculed most people will keep quiet; and, this subject certainly does lend itself to ridicule and satire. One technique which can be used is to expand the conspiracy to the extent it becomes absurd. For instance, our man from the Halls of Poison Ivy might say in a scoffingly arrogant tone, "I suppose you believe every liberal professor gets a telegram each morning from conspiracy headquarters containing his orders for the day's brainwashing of his students?" Some conspiratorialists do indeed overdraw the picture by expanding the conspiracy (from the small clique which it is) to include every local knee-jerk liberal activist and government bureaucrat. Or, because of racial or religious bigotry, they will take small fragments of legitimate evidence and expand them into a conclusion that will support their particular prejudice, i.e., the conspiracy is totally "Jewish", "Catholic", or "Masonic". These people do not help to expose the conspiracy, but, sadly play into the hands of those who want the public to believe that all conspiratorialists are screwballs."

That book is gold - essential reading.
I wish I'd read it years ago, and actually feel like my IQ has increased just reading it.

AC thanks for helping me in my attempt to explain things and why they are not always what they appear or reported to be. I just read some of your link and am relieved to see that someone else see's things as I do. It is difficult trying to show someone something if they 'won't' see it. If I had tried to explain that things are never what they appear, I would have been shot down immediately. This link finally goes some way towards vindicating me. I am not a very patient researcher so thanks must go to those who do because with enough research, the truth shall be exposed. I would like to know of any thoughts or comments the others might have on this book.

You're welcome ALTRAV,
"I just read some of your link and am relieved to see that someone else see's things as I do"
I felt the exactly same way when reading it yesterday.
It's almost kind of uncanny.

All I can say is take what you've learned here and share it with everyone you know.

- And try not to make a fool of yourself in future.
You know you're going to get challenged, and if you're not on the ball you'll just make us all look silly.
I'll be happy to discuss more of the books contents with you, (I'm only halfway through atm though) but we might need to create a new thread for it.
It's not really proper etiquette to hijack other threads.

AC, carry on. Wait to hear any further info, as you say, maybe on another thread.

Alt Rav,

What's the difference between conspiracy crap and reality ? Evidence. Evidence which can be corroborated from a number of sources. Produce some or hold your peace.

Joe

Loudmouth, apparently there is no pleasing you. I come across a lot of info. Barely remember a fraction of it in detail. What I do is condense it into a sense of good or bad and variations there-of. I am not able to remember details. I have to leave that to younger minds. The other problem is that in reading different views on a topic, I find it is possible to end up with conflicting views. One either keeps digging or else has to make an informed decision based on what he has read. If there are conflicting views, which one is true? And so I rely on comparing the conflicting articles in an attempt to extract the truth. You know very well if you promote side A you will get challenges from those on side B claiming it is all a lie and a conspiracy and not factual and 'where's the proof'? If someone sets out to hide the truth then you will never find it. On the other hand if you know there is a chance of a cover-up then it makes it a lot easier to accept when everything 'sounds too good to be true'.

Been away for a few days.... Wow, 28 pages in this discussion....

Foxy, you say that some people read the Quran, translated or not, and don’t understand it because they don’t know Arabic or it is badly translated, and because of this they misunderstand Islam and do bad things, or something.

Well, bad news, honey, the Quran itself says it is “easy to understand” and “Written in your own language”. If something that is perfect can’t be translated adequately then obviously Allah chose a piss poor language it use. She should have chose Hebrew, Greek or English, because I have never heard Christians or Jews use this excuse about their writings. In fact, I usually look at several Quranic translations when doing research and the variations between them are astounding. The fact is that in so many ways, the Quran is a contradictory, unstructured, illogical and confusing piece of prose. No wonder what Muslims do and say what they do. Oh yes, another thing that I have noticed is that each of the newer translation is “nicer”. The translators seem to be trying to make it less harsh and inane with each new version. There is nothing more common that Muslims taking a line or two from the Quran, editing it and then say they are quoting the Quran, even while they ignore six other verses that say the opposite. As I always say, Islam and logic, Islam and facts, don’t mix.

Foxy again… So we have another “Muslims saved Western civilization” post, informing us if it weren’t for the Greek books saved and translated by Muslims then virtually all of ancient knowledge would have been lost. How inane!

Yes, Muslims of the Abbasids (in Bagdad) and Andalusia (Spain) particularly between the 9th and 12th centuries, did humanity a great favor by translating some ancient Greek texts into Arabic. While numbers are uncertain (I have never seen a comprehensive tally of the providence of ancient writing indicating where and how preserved), it is certain that the numbers translating into Arabic are inferior to those in monasteries and much less than those preserved in Byzantine libraries.

The fact is that Islamic scholars in both Baghdad and Spain did great things in science and philosophy, this mainly due to the riches of conquest (plunder) and trade, as well as the blessing of geography. Note that these great civilizations were made possible with the cooperation of Jews, Christians, Nestorians, Persians, Zoroastrians, and Hindus, who translated most of ancient works that enriched Islamic culture, even as second-class citizens. Alas, this did not last. In both kingdoms, Baghdad and Spain, corruption, internal divisions and fundamentalism led to the weakening of each, until they were destroyed by Mongols and Spaniards (the reconquesta), respectively. Islam always eats its own and harms others. Some examples of this are Al-Kindi , one of the greatest philosophers of the House of Wisdom, Baghdad, was flogged because be tried to combine Greek ideas with Islamic beliefs. Another great intellectual, Ibn Sina (Avisenna), was also imprisoned but steered clear of most controversy by concentrating on medicine and science. Then there is the case of Ibn Rushd (Averroes), the most famous of the Andalusian commentators, who was forced to recant by the Islamists. Nothing has change; even today Islamic nations reject the UN declaration of Human Rights because it is “Incompatible with Islam” and Arabic translations of Science and humanist works are still scarce.

Continued...

If credit is due to anybody for keeping the classics alive, it should go to the Byzantines. In fact, in a way, Muslims were responsible for the reintroduction of ancient works to the West in the 15th and 16th century. The brutal conquest of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453 caused thousand of Byzantines to flee to Europe, taking their knowledge and manuscripts with them. In fact, in the famous medieval book fairs in Germany, Switzerland and France, Byzantine texts were hot items.

The great Islamic civilizations were made possible by the acceptance and cooperation of nonMuslims, always, only. When either the infidels were expelled or Islamic fundamentalism prevailed, those civilizations went into decline. A measure of this can be seen in Arabia, the heart of and soul of Islam. Even the Arabian Nights, the apogee of Islamic literature, was not written in Arabia. Has there ever been a place so artistically and culturally desolate, so scientifically backward, and so intellectually barren, as Arabia?

The rebirth of Western civilization has very little to due with Islam and any so-called “saved” texts. Rather it was combination of many factors : Increased trade, introduction of paper, the invention of the printing press, the increased use of the vernacular, the rise of secular states and the weakening of religious authority, new inventions and technology (home grown and adapted from other places), new crops, new markets, new forms of art, etc.

So spare us the “Islam saved the world” inanity. Islam is based only on blind, irrational faith, not logic, facts and moral principals.

Did I say logic? Did somebody here mention “reverts” to Islam, referring to new Muslims? Well, by all Islamic jurisprudence, a person reverting is changing his/her religion, and must be killed. Didn’t Mohammad order, according to the hadith, “kill anyone who changes his (Islamic) religion”? Note that Muslims insert the word “Islamic” into the text, otherwise they would have to kill converts/reverts. As I said, Islam and logic or Islam and facts are not and have never been friends. Any country accepting Muslims has a death wish!

Dear kactuz,

During the first century
of the Muslim Abbasid dynasty, which lasted 500 years
until the Mongol leader Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258,
most of the great works of Greek philosophy and science
were translated into Arabic and kept safely in centres of
Muslim religious learning. This was a period when the
Muslim leadership supported scholarship, before Muslim
science and philosophy disappeared, leaving 21st century
fundamentalist Muslims believing seventh century customs.

The historian of Arab society Mansfield, in his clear and
concise history of the Arab world informs us that prior
to the religious ascendancy in the Arab countries -
"Poets, philosophers, orators, doctors, and scientists were
honoured and highly paid."

Like the Greeks and the Romans after them, an economic surplus
was put to good use in the Muslim centres of learning.
Just as the West commenced its slow but sure climb out of
the Dark Ages, the Muslim world came under the strict control
of leaders incapable of separating tribal mores from
government. What we now know as Sharia (Islamic) law became state
law, and has remained so in the remaining tribal areas of
Muslim lands.

Today we might have very serious concerns with the
fundamentalist fringe of Islam - just as we do with the
fundamentalist fringes of Christianity and Hinduism - but we should
never forget the role of the Muslim scholars of 1000 or so years
ago. These people discovered (just as some of their Christian
counterparts did) that scholarship was possible in an ostemsibly
religious environment. In the era we are discussing, religious
scholars had going for them what very few others had. They
were literate and they lived off society's economic surplus.

As long as scholarship is not destroyed, and scholars are fed,
clothed and housed, progress is possible.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

Dear kactuz,

That the progress was going to occur in what had been
the backwater as far as Muslims were concerned, the
West - rather than the Muslim lands - set the scene for
the "so-called" clashes of civilisation of the early 21st
century. The two cultures were set to diverge dramatically,
one pursuing progress based on Greek philosophy, science
and politics; the other regressed from its high point of
scholarship, art and invention and stagnated in a mire of
Old Testament beliefs and AD 700 desert culture.

Dear Foxy,

Yes, " ... we should
never forget the role of the Muslim scholars of 1000 or so years
ago. These people discovered (just as some of their Christian
counterparts did) that scholarship was possible in an ostemsibly
religious environment."

And it shouldn't be forgotten that, when the Muslims invaded the civilised cities of the Middle East, Central Asia and North Africa, they 'captured' vast numbers of scholars, who diligently had been copying ancient texts for centuries. When the caliphs in Spain wanted to build their magnificent palaces, etc., they had import Greek engineers and architects to-do much of the planning (and used Christian slaves to do much of the work, since a good Muslim didn't do that sort of thing, i.e. work): they even had to invite scholars scholars from Constantinople to translate works from Greek and Latin and Syriac into Arabic.

The early caliphs invited huge numbers of Berbers from North Africa to Spain to settle and occupy the plains, but had to order them, after a few years, to form into villages rather than allow them to keep their tents and pastoral animals and to keep them from wandering over the country. Again, probably, with local people doing the farming work.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The first two or three centuries of the new millennium
were not happy ones. A series of military adventures known
as the Crusades have their legacy today in the blood
feuds between two groupings of Semitic people, the Jews and
the Muslims. We should not omit the Christians from blame.
They were the Crusaders hell-bent on claiming (or
re-claiming) Jerusalem, Bethlehem and other sites, that all
three monotheistic religions asserted were exclusively
theirs.

In English history pride of place goes to Richard the Lionheart.
He is believed to have torn the heart out of a lion which
had been set upon him by an Austrian duke who had imprisoned
Richard. Richard amassed a large, well-equipped army for his
Crusade and in 1191 managed to capture Acre, but not
Jerusalem. He led his soldiers from the front, as kings (and
the occasional queen - Boadicea for example) were accustomed
to doing. Richard's Christian soldiers were on their own
"jihad". Like their Muslim enemy they believed they would
get easy access to heaven if they fought bravely.

Today, we seek the good sustainable life and find not only
unimaginable environmental problems (climate change), but we
replay, at a far more dangerous level than in 12th century
warfare, the Crusades. What is the point of saving humanity
and the planet from a possible environmental disaster if we
are going to keep killing each other in the name of different
prophets of the same god?

Foxy, I won't get involved with the theological too's and fro's, as I have never been interested in what are cults and conquerors. Neither of which have been of any help to humanity, in fact quite the opposite. What I am coming out of the shadows for is to pick you up on a point of order. Your reference to 'an environmental disaster'. Foxy, let me put your mind at ease. We are not heading for a disaster. If you will look at the evidence, (not the one's the greens try to push, but the ones they buried) you will find as recently as a week or two ago a scientist/researcher was on TV to bring us the breaking news of the new finding he and his team had discovered, that CO2 levels were more than 30% higher than previously recorded. What the greens have succeeded in was the suppression of this information as that was not the surprise. It was revealed years ago and confirmed again today that the BIGGEST emitter of CO2 by far are the tropical forests and in fact all forms of Flora, especially in large growth areas. Now go and smack a greeny in the face. This information has been suppressed and sidelined for decades, well not any more. So, (I love this bit) if you want to reduce CO2 levels, get rid of the trees. ROFLOL. I love it when a plan comes together. It was originally found by a satellite that was put into space to study the CO2 levels in cities. Well to everyones shock and surprise, the cities were nothing compared to jungles and large areas of plants and trees. Now before you come back look it up and then you can correct me. I know what I saw and heard. GO!

Dear Foxy,

Really ? Are we really 'killing each other in the name of different prophets etc.?" I don't think the West is opposing Islamist fascism in the name of any particular god or goddess, but in the name of the rest of humanity. And good on them.

Not sure what the Crusades have to do with anything: let's not forget that all of those cities in the 'Holy Land' were Christian for hundreds of years before the Muslim aggressions. And by the way, that the first versions of the Koran were probably written in Syriac and/or Aramaic (and without diacritica), not in Arabic, which didn't really develop as a written language till comparatively late. Interestingly, the first Muslim coins struck, in bout 680-700 AD, had a portrait of Muhammad on them. With a cross above his head.

Love,

Joe

Dear ALTRAV,

Tropical forests are a stabilizing force in the global
climate, for they absorb vast amounts of atmospheric
carbon dioxide. Many plants are medically valuable:
most anticancer compounds, for example, come from
plants of the rain forest, and this pharmaceutical
cornucopia is still mostly
untapped.
The rain forest itself is a vast and irreplaceable "library"
from which genetic engineers of the future may draw their
raw material. Many species among the millions of
uncataloged plants will surely prove to be edible, and
could become major crops in the future.

We need to seriously think about the pressure of
our human population and
our technologies that are devastating our natural ecosystems.

This pressure takes many forms - urbanization and highway
consturction; transformation of virgin land into farmland;
chemical pollution of fresh water' dredging and landfill in
coastal areas, uncontrolled hunting and poaching especially
of African wildlife, deliberate and accidental poisoning
of wildlife with pesticides; disruption of natural
predator-prey relationships; strangulation of millions of
birds and fish with discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic
bags, and other synthetic flotsam, dam construction and
irrigation, and massive deforestation.

Anyway, you get the picture. There is a very good
argument for protecting life forms - and it has nothing to
do with any benefits to ourselves.

The breath-taking diversity of species has evolved in
delicate and precarious balance over many millions of years.
Most of the plants and animals with which we share the
earth have been here a great deal longer than we have.
For a fleeting moment in planetary history, our
technology has given us domain over them. In awe, respect,
and humility, we might just let them be.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I won't argue with your logic.

You are always right.

Here's something interesting:
If you read this article, you'd think a large part of the country supported this view.
http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/12/04/22/34/bring-them-home-manus-island-refugees
But go here and you find NO-ONE wants them
http://www.facebook.com/9News/posts/1726483400732823

Just another way the media distorts public opinions.
Now ask yourself the question, why were comments disallowed on the original article.

- Obviously, they don't anyone's opinions shown with the article.
They won't write an article saying the public thinks her comments are offensive.

Foxy, as always you present very well informed answers. But, I'm not sure if I was clear in my previous comment. What I stated was a clear indictment on the green and global warming movement. I am asking because your comments are in direct conflict with what I wrote. To clarify. A scientist and his team of researchers found that the biggest emitters of CO2, by more than 30% more than previously thought, is in fact the tropical forests and all major forests and large areas of plant life. Some years ago a satellite was sent up to read CO2 levels in cities and built up areas. To everyones surprise it came as a shock that the cities gave off next to nothing, but the forests and large areas of plants were the huge emitters of CO2. It was later reported that the bloody greens buried these findings beneath natural disasters and global warming stories. This information was suppressed and never released. (Thanks to the bloody greens). I wanted to know if any other commentors could add to this story. It was on TV, about a week or so ago.

ALTRAV, your anti green bias is "bloody" self evident. maybe a little fact instead of unsubstantiated ravings is in order. Do you have evidence of "that the bloody greens buried these findings beneath natural disasters and global warming stories." Your's, and others, sycophantic support of vested interest on the issue is totally counter productive. The evidence for global warming is real, its overwhelming, and its there to be acted upon.

Foxy thanks for the interesting facts.

Dearest Foxy,

Perhaps not always :). But I certainly couldn't have put it any better myself, when you write:

"That the progress was going to occur in what had been
the backwater as far as Muslims were concerned, the
West - rather than the Muslim lands - set the scene for
the "so-called" clashes of civilisation of the early 21st
century. The two cultures were set to diverge dramatically,
one pursuing progress based on Greek philosophy, science
and politics; the other regressed from its high point of
scholarship, art and invention and stagnated in a mire of
Old Testament beliefs and AD 700 desert culture."

We can dig up the pre-industrial bones of those whose traditional beliefs we now are so superior to, but we really need to understand how our perceptions of the real world, our struggling to somehow bring our 'knowledge' into some rough correspondence with that reality, have been painfully built up from that traditional, and necessarily religious, base, towards a far more scientific interpretation.

Those backward, out-moded beliefs of our ancestors provide a base from which we continually build a better understanding of the world. We can stand back and slag them, or selectively slag them (let's not examine the Koran with as much vigour as we do the Old Testament), a bit like kids in the playground laughing at another kid who's crapped himself. But we are the children of those gr-gr-grandparents. Silly stories aside, the ancient texts, even to an extent the Koran, are the ancestors of what we think are brilliantly modern ideas now. We stand on the shoulders of many generations of, not just giants, but of intelligent people locked in pre-scientific and therefore magical and religious ways of thinking. Self-opinionated2 and the rest of us need to acknowledge that.

Love,

Joe

Alt Rav,

Vegetation, especially in its growing phase, soaks up CO2 and emits Oxygen. Vegetation uses CO2 and water to create cellulose to build plant tissue and grow. On the whole, animal life takes in oxygen and emits CO2. We breathe in oxygen and emit a proportion of CO2. Without plants taking up CO2, there wouldn't be enough oxygen to support human life.

Once any particular vegetation is fully mature, it takes in far less CO2, since it doesn't need it to grow much more. Clearing land enables new growth to soak up more CO2. I certainly don't agree with burning the 'junk' resulting from land clearances, but as long as it's replaced with new growing material soaking up CO2, I'm cautiously happy.

Anyhow, getting back to the thread. .......

As a general rule of thumb, before posting any half-baked theories you heard down the pub, it is a good idea to do some quick fact checking on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_and_the_carbon_cycle

"Most sources of CO2 emissions are natural, and are balanced to various degrees by natural CO2 sinks. For example, the natural decay of organic material in forests and grasslands and the action of forest fires results in the release of about 439 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide every year, while new growth entirely counteracts this effect, absorbing 450 gigatonnes per year."

"Anthropogenic carbon emissions exceed the amount that can be taken up or balanced out by natural sinks. As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2013, its concentration is almost 43% above pre-industrial levels. Various techniques have been proposed for removing excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in carbon dioxide sinks. Currently about half of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels is not absorbed by vegetation and the oceans and remains in the atmosphere."

Look guys I didn't makeup this stuff. I am merely repeating it. All that I have said, numbers and all are exactly what was spoken by others. In this case, the very person who headed the study. I don't dis-agree with the comments made here on CO2, but when I come across a report saying that the forests are a very large emitter of CO2, I'm not going to ignore it just because I 'think' it doesn't sound right. What you all have to understand is, I heard it on a public medium not 'down at the pub'. (I don't drink so I don't frequent any PUBs). These things I say sometimes come as a surprise to me too. Having come across such statements I feel it prudent to pass them on. If they sound a little far fetched, I would agree, that's why I mention them. Now unless someone heard the same story and can in some way, correct me, my comments stand.
There are enough people pushing all sorts of agenda. We don't know the truth so I keep an open mind and consider every event and new data.
Who wishes to question the findings of a satellite? Anyway the info is out there now so again, look it up.

//I don't dis-agree with the comments made here on CO2, but when I come across a report saying that the forests are a very large emitter of CO2//

The problem with isn't with the report, it's with your interpretation of it.

As I've already pointed out, forests are indeed very large emitters of CO2. But they are also very large carbon sinks, so their net emissions are effectively zero.

You've just latched onto the fact that they emit lots of CO2 and decided to conveniently ignore the other half of the equation where they absorb as much as they emit, in order to support your ludicrous notion that there is some kind conspiracy to prevent us from finding out that trees are actually to blame for the rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution.

Dear ALTRAV,

In pre-industrial societies people traditionally
treated nature with respect, considering themselves
a part of, rather than set apart from, the natural world;
this attitude was typical, for example, among our
Indigenous people in pre-Colonial times.

We are so used to exploiting natural resources and
dumping our waste products into the environment that we
frequently forget that resources are limited and
exhaustible and that pollution can disrupt the ecological
balance on which our survival depends.

Over the past century, pollution of the environment has
begun to threaten the ecological balance of the planet
and the health of many of its species, including ourselves.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult one to
solve, for several reasons. First, some people and
governments see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable
by-product of desired economic development - "where there's
smoke, there's jobs". Second, control of pollution requires
international co-ordination, for one country's emissions or
pesticides can end up in other countries air or food.
Third, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little
public awareness that it is taking place. Fourth, preventing
or correcting pollution can be costly, technically complex,
and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively
trying to limit the effects of pollution, but the populous
less developed societies are more concerned with economic
growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they
have to pay for it.

I won't go into the chemistry of atmospheric pollution here -
because it is extremely complex, as rain and sunlight blend
various compounds into a constantly changing photo-chemical
brew. Scientists are particularly worried about the effect
of air-pollution on the planet's ozone layer. Another
significant problem is acid rain. Then we also have - as a
result of the burning of fuels and wastes and the razing
of forests, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is steadily increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse
effect". You can look all of these things up for yourself.

cont'd...

cont'd ...

Atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable outcome
of -industrial technology; it derives also from
political decisions to tolerate pollution rather
than bear the costs - probably including slower
economic growth - of limiting it. Control of
pollution is politically difficult, however, for
the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries
are a powerful political lobby, that is reluctant
to commit the necessary resources to the task.

Nobody denies that the planet has a finite amount
of resources or that it can tolerate only a limited
amount of pollution. If world population continues
to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads
around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion
continue at an increasing rate - and all these things
continue to happen - we need to ask ourselves - where is
human society headed?

The most optimistic answer to these questions would be that,
one way of another, sweeping social changes await us.

Now let's get back to the topic.

Toni, as I said I don't have any 'ludicrous' notions, only questions, and remember I am quoting others, so I'm as curious as the next guy when there are so many conflicting reports. I don't comment on the CO2 versus Carbon formula. I only highlight the surprise that forests and areas with major plant growth give off more than 30% more than was originally thought. BTW, we don't need the amounts of Oxygen you speak of for survival. Air is 70% Nitrogen and Oxygen is way less than the remaining 30% as it has to share it with other gases. Anyway sorry I believe I've dragged everyone off topic again. I'll go back in the shadows now and let everyone continue with this topic.

Alt Rave,

Does vegetation give off CO2 ? Yes, of course, when it's decaying. Stick your head in a compost bin and smell what is coming off, although of course CO2 is odourless Does vegetation suck up CO2 ? Yes, of course, when it's growing. Get out into forest and smell the fresh air.

All vegetation does both: it blows and it sucks. Vegetation grows (x) and it decays (y).

x = y

So, Foxy, why isn't there far, far more tree-planting, to suck up the 'excess' CO2 ? Down here in SA, with our squeaky-clean, brand-new (well, it's unused) desalination plant @ $ 2 billion or whatever, why can't water be diverted from all the way up the Murray (i.e. in SA: we don't steal other people's water), to be used for massive, on-going tree-planting to all points of the compass, and replenished by water from our desalination plant ? There's the unemployment problem solved right there, forever, plus future milling and furniture businesses (i.e. don't burn the bloody stuff, turn it into something long-lasting), etc.

In other words, if there is a problem with CO2, find ways to use it, divert it, counter it. There may not be the slightest need for renewables in that case: Chop down the wind-towers ! Let Adani develop ! Meanwhile, switch to nuclear.

Some problems DO have solutions.

Joe

//Does vegetation give off CO2 ? Yes, of course, when it's decaying.//

And all the rest of the time as well. Plants need to breathe (respire) just like people do, and chemically it's much the same process: O2 in, CO2 out. At night, when they stop photosynthesising, they only produce CO2.

//So, Foxy, why isn't there far, far more tree-planting, to suck up the 'excess' CO2 ?//

Because you've drastically underestimated the amount of trees required, Joe. Getting work for the dole participants out planting trees isn't a bad idea, but it's not really going to do squat as far as decreasing atmospheric CO2 goes. Still, it'll get the planters out in the fresh air and sunshine, so it's good for them even if it's not going to save the world.

Joe (Loudmouth),

Other countries eg., Israel use Australian natives, eucalyptus, cassias and some others for desert greening. Canals, solar & wind powered desal and pumps could be used to bring sea water inland.

Incrementalist, and the trees produce their own climate to add benefit.

Of course the Greens would be protesting that too.

Dear Joe,

Here are two links that may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/stopping-land-clearing-and-replanting-trees-could-help-keep-australia-cool-in-a-warmer-future-63654

And -

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/about/our-challenge/land-clearing

As for why something is not being done?

I've already covered that topic.

Some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable
but inevitable product of desired economic development -
"Where there's smoke, there's jobs". The economic interests
behind the "smokestack" industries are a powerful political
lobby that is reluctant to commit the necessary resources to
the task. Anyway, I'm sure that you already know all the
reasons and I have no further wish to divert this discussion.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Just one last small diversion from this topic -

I heard recently that coal has been discovered
in Canberra in the locality of Gunga Derra, I believe
that the business entrepreneurs of Adani are very
interested. Do you think that the Coalition government
would approve such a project - if this is true?

Dearest Foxy,

Of course, when I go on about tree-planting, I'm using it as a sort of surrogate for the infinite variety of projects which could be carried out which mitigate the effects of excess CO2 production, etc. Whatever genuinely works.

I'm not convinced that an Adani coal-mine in Queensland is such a bad idea, PROVIDED that counter-pollution projects can be devised. If the Galilee Basin coal, which I believe may be less polluting than many other working deposits, can boost the use of electricity in India, and help people switch from burning wood and cow-dung for their necessities, and if adequate counter-measures can be also put in place, then I'm fairly happy about it.

Anyway, it seems that even the government in Saudi Arabia, with its reliance on oil, and its rent-seeking habituation, is trying to switch to renewables and perhaps nuclear power, neither of which put CO2 into the atmosphere. Current nuclear technology - no need total about Chernobyl or Fukushima, they're very much yesterday's technology - as utilised in France and Finland and other countries, may be as safe as anything else. I'm confident that our great-grandchildren will live securely and safely in a world including nuclear (my computer typed 'uncle') power.

And by the way, extra CO2 in the atmosphere seems to be stimulating vegetative growth, and thereby more efficient use of water too. What they used to call 'the greenhouse effect' but that term isn't used so much these days.

Love,

Joe

Loudmouth, 'that term isn't used that much these days' because they have been caught out promoting lies. You're quite right in your comment about CO2 promoting extra vegetative growth. It will come to pass as I have been preaching for ages, that this renewable rubbish is just another way of the scumbags to skim/scam money out of us. Shove your renewables, unless you have an abundance of high altitude water, or thermal activity, so far they are the only viable renewable power sources, forget it. Forget wind and sun. I think the word 'reliable' puts them well out of the running. I'd like to physically attack those who started pushing these 'renewables'. If it was clear to me when I first heard about them, it must have been clear to them. Because the public knows nothing about renewables it was not very hard to sell/con the people into compliance, even though they had no idea what they were agreeing to. Because the greens are at the head of these lies and cover-ups, I can't say things like they should be wiped out of existence, because the 'soft cocks' will suddenly come racing in with the 'sad metre' and declare you can't say that. So I won't say 'that'.

ALTRAV,

Just to keep off topic for a while longer.

What about tidal?

I saw a tidal seed grinding mill in Ireland that had been in use for 400 years, as far as the owners knew it had only been stopped for maintenance and heavy repairs, such as replacing millstones and the water wheel.

Is Mise, tidal is just one of the many renewables on the table. It works when it works and there-in is the problem. It relies on tidal and wave movement. Unless the mill is in a place where the water movements are constant or continuous it will work for a mill because a mill is not on a 24/7 or a 100% duty cycle. They can afford to grind seed when the conditions are favourable. Electricity unfortunately must have 24/7, 100% duty cycle. So I'm sorry Is Mise, tidal is just another pipe dream when applied to a massive infrastructure such as electricity generation. Another very important fact is that tidal requires a massive amount of moving parts/machinery. Making this system costly to maintain and un-reliable.