Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intelligence-chief-james-clapper-fears-grow-for-homeland-attacks-20140131-31spj.html#ixzz2s1PUcNZo

US intelligence chief James Clapper: Fears grow for homeland attacks

Al-Qaeda-linked groups enticing dozens of Australians to join the bloody conflict in Syria have begun setting up camps to train foreign fighters to launch terrorist attacks when they return home.

The alarming change in operational focus, revealed by US intelligence chief James Clapper, comes as Australia's counter-terrorism ambassador, Bill Fisher, said the threat of an attack on a bar, mall or another ''soft'' target frequented by Westerners had ''worsened'' in recent times.

Intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been grappling with a surprising resurgence of al-Qaeda over the past year, as its affiliates capture major cities in western Iraq and assume control of the military resistance in Syria.

As many as 200 Australians are believed to have traveled to Syria to help rebels trying to topple dictator Bashar al-Assad. Of those, a ''few dozen'' are actively engaged in combat, although authorities don't know exactly how many.

Mr Clapper says US intelligence has evidence of "training complexes" in Syria "to train people to go back to their countries and conduct terrorist acts''.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-intelligence-chief-james-clapper-fears-grow-for-homeland-attacks-20140131-31spj.html#ixzz2s1QFwM8q

A Different View on the Issue of Organised Terrorist Groups

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ." -- Pierre-Henri Bunel

"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".

So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"?

Islam is an insidious religion. It brings division to every western society it inhabits. Its goal is to dominate. It has zero tolerance for other religions even though it demands tolerance in return. And, of course, many bend over backwards to appease it and certainly not offend it.

Only fools don't understand the difficulties associated with large Muslim communities and their determination to never assimilate. Ultimately, domination is the goal. There are many moderate Muslims who do assimilate into communities, but Islam in itself is not a moderate religion and orthodox communities will never assimilate. They have other plans.

A Different View on the Issue of Organised Terrorist Groups

The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the TV watcher to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US . . ." -- Pierre-Henri Bunel

"Ana raicha Al Qaeda" is colloquial for "I'm going to the toilet". A very common and widespread use of the word "Al-Qaeda" in different Arab countries in the public language is for the toilet bowl. This name comes from the Arabic verb "Qa'ada" which mean "to sit", pertinently, on the "Toilet Bowl". In most Arabs homes there are two kinds of toilets: "Al-Qaeda" also called the "Hamam Franji" or foreign toilet, and "Hamam Arabi" or "Arab toilet" which is a hole in the ground. Lest we forget it, the potty used by small children is called "Ma Qa'adia" or "Little Qaeda".

So, if you were forming a terrorist group, would you call yourself, "The Toilet"?

well a toilet here is often called a thunder box

wonder why Peel Thunder would name themselves after a toilet?

--snip--

Bulltish!

Bulltish!

What part ?

How unlike a leftie to once again have no clue.

What part ?

How unlike a leftie to once again have no clue.

All of it... and how like the extreme right wing to have no clue.

All of it... and how like the extreme right wing to have no clue.

I'm far from extreme right wing. I have a religious faith, but It's low to moderate. I haven't been to church for decades, save for funerals, weddings, school functions. I believe in contraception. I believe priests should be able to marry. I believe in sex before marriage. In fact, plenty of it. I agree with abortion (although it's over done). I'm a conservative. But I recognise Islam for what it is.

You are simply stupid and naive about Islam. You don't understand Islam. And don't understand the dangers it can represent, or the problems with allowing mass Muslim migration to western societies.

It's your type of naivety that has got some countries in the mess they're in.

I'm far from extreme right wing. I have a religious faith, but It's low to moderate. I haven't been to church for decades, save for funerals, weddings, school functions. I believe in contraception. I believe priests should be able to marry. I believe in sex before marriage. In fact, plenty of it. I agree with abortion (although it's over done). I'm a conservative. But I recognise Islam for what it is.

You are simply stupid and naive about Islam. You don't understand Islam. And don't understand the dangers it can represent, or the problems with allowing mass Muslim migration to western societies.

It's your type of naivety that has got some countries in the mess they're in.

You have stated no facts about Islam... simply tried to justify your political leanings and "faith" to me (or anyone else who might care read it). At least we now understand your really motives for supporting the Libs asylum seeker policy... nothing to do with human life... everything to do with your hatred of Islam.

well a toilet here is often called a thunder box

wonder why Peel Thunder would name themselves after a toilet?

Peel Blunder LOL

They are run by fools is likely the reason.

I remember then on my day the West Perth Falcons was teaching them a football lesson so Whiskers (their coach) placed their whole team in the back-line and did not even have a single player to contest the bounce down ROFLMAO

Mind you this year they will be the Fremantle FC Reserves in the WAFL

You have stated no facts about Islam... simply tried to justify your political leanings and "faith" to me (or anyone else who might care read it). At least we now understand your really motives for supporting the Libs asylum seeker policy... nothing to do with human life... everything to do with your hatred of Islam.

God you're naive.

You have stated no facts about Islam... simply tried to justify your political leanings and "faith" to me (or anyone else who might care read it). At least we now understand your really motives for supporting the Libs asylum seeker policy... nothing to do with human life... everything to do with your hatred of Islam.

You said I was "extreme right wing". I'm not and never have been. Hence the clarification.

There are enough facts about Islam out there for the biggest simpleton to uncover. Do your own searching, googling Muslim migration to Europe would be a start. Only a fool doesn't acknowledge the massive issues.

My asylum seeker policy has nothing to do with Islam, which is why I've never brought Muslims up in any debate about asylum seekers. I believe that as a nation we should protect our borders as a minimum, in fact I can't fathom views to the opposite, I think it's unfair on those who are waiting in queue, and I also don't believe anyone should be encouraged to risk drowning at sea, which is what left wing policy entices.

For you not to comprehend that these two views can be mutually exclusive doesn't surprise me. After all, you favour policy that lures people to their deaths and you favour a tax that does NOTHING for the environment. You'll forgive me if I don't look to you for clarity on anything.

My asylum seeker policy has nothing to do with Islam, which is why I've never brought Muslims up in any debate about asylum seekers. I believe that as a nation we should protect our borders as a minimum, in fact I can't fathom views to the opposite, I think it's unfair on those who are waiting in queue, and I also don't believe anyone should be encouraged to risk drowning at sea, which is what left wing policy entices.

From the thread about Tony Abbott being an international embarassment and the consequent argument about asylum seekers (Sorry I can't use the quote button on this one)

4. I speak of determining "who enters our country and protecting our citizens" and you insinuate this is folly. You care not who comes here or how we can determine their background. You care not how they get here, or whether they die on the way. You care not how they'll assimilate into our society. There are many aspects as to who qualifies for refugee status and there are plenty of perils that we're currently facing with assimilation from a number of ethnic communities, not to mention the problems our and other countries are having with Muslim immigrants. But you dismiss these issues with a broad brush as though they're fabrications of an intolerant society.

You are aware that this stuff stays online after you say it right?

From the thread about Tony Abbott being an international embarassment and the consequent argument about asylum seekers (Sorry I can't use the quote button on this one)

4. I speak of determining "who enters our country and protecting our citizens" and you insinuate this is folly. You care not who comes here or how we can determine their background. You care not how they get here, or whether they die on the way. You care not how they'll assimilate into our society. There are many aspects as to who qualifies for refugee status and there are plenty of perils that we're currently facing with assimilation from a number of ethnic communities, not to mention the problems our and other countries are having with Muslim immigrants. But you dismiss these issues with a broad brush as though they're fabrications of an intolerant society.

You are aware that this stuff stays online after you say it right?

That quote of mine, as usual, makes perfect sense. We need to determine who comes here and asylum seekers often deliberately throw away their papers.

But it's not the main driver of my views. I've already mentioned what are. There hasn't been many problems emanate from settled asylum seekers, except maybe one. It doesn't stop the need to be careful who we let in our doors, which is why we have policies to determine these things. Who migrates here legally presents a far greater issue than any asylum seekers.

The fact that I'd forgotten mentioning it only reinforces that it wasn't at the forefront of my mind. Thanks for proving my point.

Btw, you need how to learn how to spell "embarrassment".

You said I was "extreme right wing". I'm not and never have been. Hence the clarification.

There are enough facts about Islam out there for the biggest simpleton to uncover. Do your own searching, googling Muslim migration to Europe would be a start. Only a fool doesn't acknowledge the massive issues.

My asylum seeker policy has nothing to do with Islam, which is why I've never brought Muslims up in any debate about asylum seekers. I believe that as a nation we should protect our borders as a minimum, in fact I can't fathom views to the opposite, I think it's unfair on those who are waiting in queue, and I also don't believe anyone should be encouraged to risk drowning at sea, which is what left wing policy entices.

For you not to comprehend that these two views can be mutually exclusive doesn't surprise me. After all, you favour policy that lures people to their deaths and you favour a tax that does NOTHING for the environment. You'll forgive me if I don't look to you for clarity on anything.

Yes, and there are plenty of facts to prove that Christians are a dangerous bunch as well and that Catholics are thieves and plunderers and murderers... I'll let you search for all of that info rather than spell it out for you here.

"My asylum seeker policy has nothing to do with Islam, which is why I've never brought Muslims up in any debate about asylum seekers." - well CBF seemed to make a mockery of that statement with his citing of your own words.

Now I would like you to cite any post of mine that says I favour any policy or disregard any policy... in fact I have said that we should be organising to arrange these asylum seekers safe passage from Indonesia. Likewise I would like to to cite any post where I have said I favour a carbon tax.

That quote of mine, as usual, makes perfect sense. We need to determine who comes here and asylum seekers often deliberately throw away their papers.

But it's not the main driver of my views. I've already mentioned what are. There hasn't been many problems emanate from settled asylum seekers, except maybe one. It doesn't stop the need to be careful who we let in our doors, which is why we have policies to determine these things. Who migrates here legally presents a far greater issue than any asylum seekers.

The fact that I'd forgotten mentioning it only reinforces that it wasn't at the forefront of my mind. Thanks for proving my point.

Btw, you need how to learn how to spell "embarrassment".

You said you have never raised the Islamic faith in regards to asylum seeker policy and I have a quote where you did exactly that.

Oh and as for your last little pearler. I recognize that it's the tactic of a drowning man in trying to weaken another person's argument by pointing out typos or spelling errors but I do take a little exception to people having a go at my linguistic ability. I have just completed my masters degree in translation and interpretation, can speak two languages and am a NAATI qualified professional translator in my second language (which on occasion impedes on my first language, English). I am also a qualified ESL teacher and in fact that's my current field of employment.

Speaking of employment,if your first choice of employment doesn't work out, I have a great idea for your next career. If this video is anything to judge by, you would be a perfect candidate to be a television pundit.

http://www.videogum.com/45301/if_only_you_could_eat_shame/tv/late-night/

Edit: Also talking about your original post where you display your selective memory as to what you have said in the past, you started this sentence 'But you dismiss these issues with a broad brush as though they're fabrications of an intolerant society' with a conjunction which is grammatically incorrect. You would start that sentence with 'however'.

Weapons mass 'ruction!

Mobile gas labs!

Homeland (really? ..) army!

Bill Hicks would've continued to have a field day with this junk. Vale.

You said you have never raised the Islamic faith in regards to asylum seeker policy and I have a quote where you did exactly that.

And I stand by it.

Clearly it hasn't been a strong tenet of my argument otherwise I would have remembered and you'd find copious references. Talk about strawman.

Do me a favour, go through every one of my posts and tell me the percentage of the time I reference Muslims with regards to refugees by boat ? I'm guessing 1%.

Btw, I know a difference between a typo and an error.

Yes, and there are plenty of facts to prove that Christians are a dangerous bunch as well and that Catholics are thieves and plunderers and murderers... I'll let you search for all of that info rather than spell it out for you here.

To compare Christians and Catholics to the atrocities committed in the name if Islam is truly disgusting and reprehensible. You ought be ashamed.

And I stand by it.

Clearly it hasn't been a strong tenet of my argument otherwise I would have remembered and you'd find copious references. Talk about strawman.

Do me a favour, go through every one of my posts and tell me the percentage of the time I reference Muslims with regards to refugees by boat ? I'm guessing 1%.

Btw, I know a difference between a typo and an error.

I repeat again. You mentioned you have NEVER raised Islam and asylum seeker policy in the same breath. Again, I have pulled a post that you wrote within the last FRIGGIN' 24 HOURS where you did just that.

You are becoming a parody of yourself and are to be pitied more than despised. Most of us with a bit of shame would just slink off into the corner however you seem to bask in your own hypocrisy and ignorance. It's almost like a badge of honor to you.

I know that this might get me a warning or a banning but quite frankly, your style of debating is a joke. You confuse analysis with volume and vitriol and quite frankly, I'm sick of your arrogance. I don't mind debates with intelligent and articulate conservatives but you are a s**t stirrer, pure and simple.

To the block list with you.

Having grown up in the northern suburbs I have studied and worked alongside many Muslims. The overwhelming majority of which are peaceful and law abiding citizens.

However, I don't believe it to be a religion that shows much respect for women or tolerance for other minorities (i.e. homosexuals). I don't believe the burqa should be allowed to be worn in banks, airports or while driving for safety and security reasons.

I don't think it is the job of the government nor police to arrest any peanut wanting to leave this country to go and fight in Syria. However they shouldn't be allowed to return.

Having grown up in the northern suburbs I have studied and worked alongside many Muslims. The overwhelming majority of which are peaceful and law abiding citizens.

However, I don't believe it to be a religion that shows much respect for women or tolerance for other minorities (i.e. homosexuals). I don't believe the burqa should be allowed to be worn in banks, airports or while driving for safety and security reasons.

I don't think it is the job of the government nor police to arrest any peanut wanting to leave this country to go and fight in Syria. However they shouldn't be allowed to return.

Its my understand that it is illegal in Australia to go fight in a foreign country against the recognised Government.

Why would we want Australian Citizens to cause problems in foreign countries, as they should be left to determine their own future.

To compare Christians and Catholics to the atrocities committed in the name if Islam is truly disgusting and reprehensible. You ought be ashamed.

I suggest you do a little searching in relation to some of the christian groups operating in Africa, not to mention Ireland in the recent past and the Crusades in the distant past. The Vatican was built on the spoils of the pillaging and plundering and murder that took place during the Crusades... and they still claim it as their own.

I repeat again. You mentioned you have NEVER raised Islam and asylum seeker policy in the same breath. Again, I have pulled a post that you wrote within the last FRIGGIN' 24 HOURS where you did just that.

You are becoming a parody of yourself and are to be pitied more than despised. Most of us with a bit of shame would just slink off into the corner however you seem to bask in your own hypocrisy and ignorance. It's almost like a badge of honor to you.

I know that this might get me a warning or a banning but quite frankly, your style of debating is a joke. You confuse analysis with volume and vitriol and quite frankly, I'm sick of your arrogance. I don't mind debates with intelligent and articulate conservatives but you are a s**t stirrer, pure and simple.

To the block list with you.

Sometimes its not worth the effort to debate with certain people as it like talking to a brick wall.

I would recommend to put him on your black list.

I suggest you do a little searching in relation to some of the christian groups operating in Africa, not to mention Ireland in the recent past and the Crusades in the distant past. The Vatican was built on the spoils of the pillaging and plundering and murder that took place during the Crusades... and they still claim it as their own.

OMG

I just read the comment of Ben Her on your post.

He clearly does not have a clue on this topic which does not appear to slow him down with regards to his posts!