TOPIC:

Grump wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote: I thought you were taking a summer break Swannie?

I was and I am. However, some things require a response including the lunatic fringe who think that if 1 or 2 members of the AMP (Australian Muslim Party) won Senate seats we suddenly would get Sharia Law in Australia. Baseless and moronic are perhaps two of the apposite words to describe that suggestion.[/quote/]

The biggest issue is that most folk do not know what Shari law is and where it comes from, they just listen to the media , the pommy bloke down the road and the hype the red necks want to put in front of them.

It is different to the judea system ours is based but their are similarities when it comes to the essence, thou shall not steal, we stopped cuting hands off a few centuries ago but for a loaf of bread most of aus was a sentence, thou shall not covet, adultery is still a crime in lots of places without shari law and the list goes on!

These countries include Egypt, Mauritania, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, the Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and certain regions in Indonesia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the United Arab Emirates. Mixed systems are the most common in Muslim-majority countries. not a lot!

And for the protestants out there in February 2008 Rowan Williams the Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the Church of England) lectured at the Royal Courts of Justice on Islam and English Law.[97] In this lecture he spoke of the possibility of using sharia in some circumstances.'' mmm

It is abt knowledge and understanding and then forming an opinion and not listening to 7 and 9 or reading the worst, listening to 6pr and its equivalent elsewhere.

?

Grump wrote:

Bazza wrote: They just shot a muslim women in a suicide bomb vest in Paris...

1 million arabs wandering into europe unchecked,,,what could possibly go wrong???

Baz I have a couple of questions for you, why is it that the bombers are never older people, what is the difference between the radicalised muslims and the radicalised members of gangs or the radicalised people in the us who walk into a classroom and shoot 20 other students and the difference betweenn the fborn again folk who give up their life and money to some guru or muppet who tells them he has seen god!

The only difference I can see is that the tin tanks, the poms and the even the french have colonised or invaded the countries and then left them to their own devices.

I in no way accept the terrorists, the bombings or the brutality of what these people are doing but not all muslims are terrorists just as all souths supporters are not bogans.

Your comparing entirely different things.

Islamists are commiting acts of terror for the cause of Islam, they are organised operatives and organisations with a philosophical cause, mainly the destruction of Jews, Christians and the West , the have the ability to bring down a aircraft full of people, to arm people with AK47's to equip people with Suicide Vests, There are no limits on the damage they will do , only restricted by the weapons they can get their hands on, they engage in genocide when in power against religous minorities they despise as a result of their religious beiefs, i.e Christians, Yazidis, Jews , Homosexuals. etc..

Their cause is based on the 7th centure Islamist Theologian Wahhibi take on Islam, this version is also very popluar in Saudi and the Gulf.

Mass shootings in the US are completely differnt they have no identifiable cause, no organisation, are normally pshychaitric cases, or simply in possesion of guns as a reult of slack gun laws.

its completely ridiculous to try and compare ISIS, the PLO or Hamas to a lone operator like Martin Bryant it also shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation barely worth debating with quite frankly.

Swandog wrote: It is time for troops on the ground, which is what they are gearing up for. The powers of the world are just waiting for the public outcry to give them a licence and then it will be on, wars make money for our super powers so it will definitely happen all they need is an excuse. This time the excuse might be a little more believable than when Bush, Blair and Howard falsely accusing Iraq of harbouring weapons of mass destruction

Watched the French President last night saying he was prepared to lead an international task force against ISIS, stating he would travel to Moscow and Washington in the next week to organise support, whilst this is admirable, its doesnt augu well for long term success unless they can accept a longer term occupation, not to mention Frances lack of military success in conflicts like this Algeria, Vietnam etc...they had 200,000 troops in Algeria and still could not win.

Grump wrote:

Peter North wrote: P

Grump wrote:

Bazza wrote: They just shot a muslim women in a suicide bomb vest in Paris...

1 million arabs wandering into europe unchecked,,,what could possibly go wrong???

Baz I have a couple of questions for you, why is it that the bombers are never older people, what is the difference between the radicalised muslims and the radicalised members of gangs or the radicalised people in the us who walk into a classroom and shoot 20 other students and the difference betweenn the fborn again folk who give up their life and money to some guru or muppet who tells them he has seen god!

The only difference I can see is that the tin tanks, the poms and the even the french have colonised or invaded the countries and then left them to their own devices.

I in no way accept the terrorists, the bombings or the brutality of what these people are doing but not all muslims are terrorists just as all souths supporters are not bogans.

No worries they can move in with you eh? I havnt seen or heard one Moslem leader come out and condemn these acts.

That is cos u probably only use 7,9 or the worst as your reference point, Australias Grand Mufti has, as have most of the Islamic Councils from each state but then I am just open to a bit input than others.

The Grand Muftis, comments have been roundly condmened by just about the whole country , do you hang out at his Mosque?

Bazza wrote:

Grump wrote:

Peter North wrote: P

Grump wrote:

Bazza wrote: They just shot a muslim women in a suicide bomb vest in Paris...

1 million arabs wandering into europe unchecked,,,what could possibly go wrong???

Baz I have a couple of questions for you, why is it that the bombers are never older people, what is the difference between the radicalised muslims and the radicalised members of gangs or the radicalised people in the us who walk into a classroom and shoot 20 other students and the difference betweenn the fborn again folk who give up their life and money to some guru or muppet who tells them he has seen god!

The only difference I can see is that the tin tanks, the poms and the even the french have colonised or invaded the countries and then left them to their own devices.

I in no way accept the terrorists, the bombings or the brutality of what these people are doing but not all muslims are terrorists just as all souths supporters are not bogans.

No worries they can move in with you eh? I havnt seen or heard one Moslem leader come out and condemn these acts.

That is cos u probably only use 7,9 or the worst as your reference point, Australias Grand Mufti has, as have most of the Islamic Councils from each state but then I am just open to a bit input than others.

The Grand Muftis, comments have been roundly condmened by just about the whole country , do you hang out at his Mosque?

OK, when I make it personal then I expect it in return so once again you show that when an opinion is expressed that varies from yours your only comeback is to make it personal.

As for the comments by the grand mufti yes they were andd he has made further comments to make his position better, sorta like most politicians or religious leaders.

Bazza wrote:

Grump wrote:

Bazza wrote: They just shot a muslim women in a suicide bomb vest in Paris...

1 million arabs wandering into europe unchecked,,,what could possibly go wrong???

Baz I have a couple of questions for you, why is it that the bombers are never older people, what is the difference between the radicalised muslims and the radicalised members of gangs or the radicalised people in the us who walk into a classroom and shoot 20 other students and the difference betweenn the fborn again folk who give up their life and money to some guru or muppet who tells them he has seen god!

The only difference I can see is that the tin tanks, the poms and the even the french have colonised or invaded the countries and then left them to their own devices.

I in no way accept the terrorists, the bombings or the brutality of what these people are doing but not all muslims are terrorists just as all souths supporters are not bogans.

Your comparing entirely different things.

Islamists are commiting acts of terror for the cause of Islam, they are organised operatives and organisations with a philosophical cause, mainly the destruction of Jews, Christians and the West , the have the ability to bring down a aircraft full of people, to arm people with AK47's to equip people with Suicide Vests, There are no limits on the damage they will do , only restricted by the weapons they can get their hands on, they engage in genocide when in power against religous minorities they despise as a result of their religious beiefs, i.e Christians, Yazidis, Jews , Homosexuals. etc..

Their cause is based on the 7th centure Islamist Theologian Wahhibi take on Islam, this version is also very popluar in Saudi and the Gulf.

Mass shootings in the US are completely differnt they have no identifiable cause, no organisation, are normally pshychaitric cases, or simply in possesion of guns as a reult of slack gun laws.

its completely ridiculous to try and compare ISIS, the PLO or Hamas to a lone operator like Martin Bryant it also shows a complete lack of understanding of the situation barely worth debating with quite frankly.

Do some reading about the the psychology of the people drawn into sects and the like and those who undertake lone wolf type shootings.

You may find that the issues and feelings associated with these people are very similar. Loneliness, wanting to belong, wanting be remembered and the list goes on.

But then comparing them and seeing the similarities just weakens the argument and ignores the signals that can be picked and stop the processes in its tracks.

It is about the characteristics of the the people.

Grump: It is absolutely correct that Muslim people in western world join out of alienation, racism, islamophobia and lack of socio-economic opportunity. For people whom join such groups in the Middle East itself, it is much harder to blame the West. The UK and France were in the region for twenty years from 1919-1939. Turkey was in the region for 500 years, yet no mention of the role the Turks might have played. Saudi Arabia, the hot bed of Islamic extremism, never had Western rule at all.

The simple truth is that there is an extremist element in the Islamic World which views the West as a threat to their theocracy. There was an interesting story related to this about the Australian soccer team. As you would be aware, the soccer team plays in the Asian group, which, naturally includes the Middle Eastern countries. Those countries have actually launched a bid to remove Australia from the Asian region, because, when playing Australia, the pictures being beamed backed to the region -- the alcohol many in the crowd being perceived as half dressed -- offended Muslim society.

Grump wrote:

Bazza wrote:

Grump wrote:

Peter North wrote: P

Grump wrote:

Bazza wrote: They just shot a muslim women in a suicide bomb vest in Paris...

1 million arabs wandering into europe unchecked,,,what could possibly go wrong???

Baz I have a couple of questions for you, why is it that the bombers are never older people, what is the difference between the radicalised muslims and the radicalised members of gangs or the radicalised people in the us who walk into a classroom and shoot 20 other students and the difference betweenn the fborn again folk who give up their life and money to some guru or muppet who tells them he has seen god!

The only difference I can see is that the tin tanks, the poms and the even the french have colonised or invaded the countries and then left them to their own devices.

I in no way accept the terrorists, the bombings or the brutality of what these people are doing but not all muslims are terrorists just as all souths supporters are not bogans.

No worries they can move in with you eh? I havnt seen or heard one Moslem leader come out and condemn these acts.

That is cos u probably only use 7,9 or the worst as your reference point, Australias Grand Mufti has, as have most of the Islamic Councils from each state but then I am just open to a bit input than others.

The Grand Muftis, comments have been roundly condmened by just about the whole country , do you hang out at his Mosque?

OK, when I make it personal then I expect it in return so once again you show that when an opinion is expressed that varies from yours your only comeback is to make it personal.

As for the comments by the grand mufti yes they were andd he has made further comments to make his position better, sorta like most politicians or religious leaders.

www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

It's all in the interpretation Grump. For me, a "Bible" that allows its believers to lie to infidels for the good and promotion of islam can't be trusted. Also makes it hard to believe them - especially the grand mufti. Sorta like, whoops, better change my story.

I apologise for the opinions expressed about this matter buy my heart instead of my head ruled and I have found myself involved in a discussion about politics, religion and others beliefs.

You believe what you will as I will and I should not have got involved. Sorry if I have offended anyone but there you go it was always going to happen in a discussion like this!

ArkRoyal wrote: Grump: It is absolutely correct that Muslim people in western world join out of alienation, racism, islamophobia and lack of socio-economic opportunity. For people whom join such groups in the Middle East itself, it is much harder to blame the West. The UK and France were in the region for twenty years from 1919-1939. Turkey was in the region for 500 years, yet no mention of the role the Turks might have played. Saudi Arabia, the hot bed of Islamic extremism, never had Western rule at all.

The simple truth is that there is an extremist element in the Islamic World which views the West as a threat to their theocracy. There was an interesting story related to this about the Australian soccer team. As you would be aware, the soccer team plays in the Asian group, which, naturally includes the Middle Eastern countries. Those countries have actually launched a bid to remove Australia from the Asian region, because, when playing Australia, the pictures being beamed backed to the region -- the alcohol many in the crowd being perceived as half dressed -- offended Muslim society.

Funny I thought it was more to do with the fact that Australia were depriving small Asian nations already competing with the likes of Japan and South Korea a chance to qualify for major tournaments and get the world wide exposure on TV they would get by such appearances. This story came out during the Asian cup earlier this year in my memory and I don't remember seeing any comment about the crowds. Also you don't hear of Pakistani people boycotting cricket telecasts from Australia because they are offended by the crowd behaviour. I think this is a furphy like a lot of stuff expressed on this issue they are convenient to a particular point of view.