3 hours ago, Biffen said:

Yes I clearly said let's go get Jaras nephew in law .

I admit invading Iraq was insane.

Afghanistan and Pakistan were training up more Jihadists if you recall.

I remember the time when Al Queda destroyed the huge Buddhas carved into those cliff faces in Afghanistan .They were about 3500 years older than Islam itself.

That was just before 9/11.

Do you suggest we sit back and watch it all happen ?

 

Yep, sorry, you're right about the reference to my nephew - I tried to edit it out when I re-read your post, but must have mucked it up. but I do still think, even when criticising fundamentalists, you have to be careful not to demonise the whole religion. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our country just trying to get on with their lives. I'd hate some bigger to criticise me because of some of the crap that's in our own holy book.

 

invading Afghanistan was insane as well. Nobody invades that shit -hole and comes out in one piece (read a great book by William Dalrymple on the British Invasion of Afghanistan in the 1840s - the American invasion was a replica)

 

i reckon the the correct response would have been to hammer Al Qaeda - ie Special Forces, drones, etc, not invade the place and get involved in local politics.

 

ps think the Buddhas were the work of the Taliban, not Al Queda. Still sickos, but I don't think the Taliban had an internationalist agenda (ie they weren't out to get us)

2 hours ago, A F said:

Lol. Where are you pulling these stats from?

By the admission of the Islamic world that 1 per cent are radicalised, that's a conservative figure.

I actually borrowed the figures from an Oxford debate

There are ,more and worse but I don't want to shatter your happy kindergarten world view.

13 minutes ago, Jara said:

Yep, sorry, you're right about the reference to my nephew - I tried to edit it out when I re-read your post, but must have mucked it up. but I do still think, even when criticising fundamentalists, you have to be careful not to demonise the whole religion. There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in our country just trying to get on with their lives. I'd hate some bigger to criticise me because of some of the crap that's in our own holy book.

 

invading Afghanistan was insane as well. Nobody invades that shit -hole and comes out in one piece (read a great book by William Dalrymple on the British Invasion of Afghanistan in the 1840s - the American invasion was a replica)

 

i reckon the the correct response would have been to hammer Al Qaeda - ie Special Forces, drones, etc, not invade the place and get involved in local politics.

 

ps think the Buddhas were the work of the Taliban, not Al Queda. Still sickos, but I don't think the Taliban had an internationalist agenda (ie they weren't out to get us)

Yes it was the Taliban sorry.The Buddhas.

I don't advocate victimising Aussie Muslims either- its not our way but they operate in packs,outside the law,and there seems to be bugger all normative influence from elders in Melbourne and Sydney.

Afghanistan is a hole - we should evacuate I agree. Then the Taliban will slime back in and rape 12 year old again but not our issue.

53 minutes ago, Biffen said:

By the admission of the Islamic world that 1 per cent are radicalised, that's a conservative figure.

I actually borrowed the figures from an Oxford debate

There are ,more and worse but I don't want to shatter your happy kindergarten world view.

So you're pulling these stats out of your arse then? What Oxford debate and show me the figures otherwise it's just meaningless jabbering.

This is what the Right are doing. There's a distinct lack of care for the truth. Just make it up as you go along. Where the news is whatever you want it to be, it means the facts amount to nothing and you end up with fascism or communism. Whatever side of the coin you what to read.

And further on my earlier point...
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-merkels-refugee-policy-isis/

11 hours ago, Biffen said:

By the admission of the Islamic world that 1 per cent are radicalised, that's a conservative figure.

I think you will find that the figures state that less than 1% of the world's Islamic population is AT RISK of becoming radicalised, and that radicalised is not necessarily an indicator that they will be tending towards violent extremism.

3 hours ago, A F said:

So you're pulling these stats out of your arse then? What Oxford debate and show me the figures otherwise it's just meaningless jabbering.

This is what the Right are doing. There's a distinct lack of care for the truth. Just make it up as you go along. Where the news is whatever you want it to be, it means the facts amount to nothing and you end up with fascism or communism. Whatever side of the coin you what to read.

You clearly don't like the truth ,or understand Taqiya.

You suffer from an outdated and trendy delusion that your University taught you the ONLY truth that exists. 

When you extend your imagination , or indeed read the Koran , you might see the reason for the rise of Neoconservative political theory.

Ive read texts who's outcomes are horrible,such as Mein Kampf ,which wasn't even available in Australia when I read it.I was roughly 14 or 15 at the time.

Do you think I swallowed it whole or dismissed it before page one?Before you go on a rant ,it was a terrible book full of holes in deduction.

Like nearly every post you've written in here .I don't blame you for that because you lack a critical mind.You have what is known as a luvvy worldview.

If you could take yourself out of the picture and seek a modern individual theory of geopolitical machinations ,before spouting from the ALP harmony theory of self destruction, you would see that all you are perpetuating is the repression of thought and human capability , not the growth of it.

I've just spent the last three hours listening to a pro communist in southern Vietnam ranting and raving, offering me jobs with the prols,trying to espouse the virtue of Mao.

The fact that this message may get to you in 2017 is proof that the misinformation may end soon.You lack any flexible intellect,no ability to concede that I and the majority of voters in Western democracy have decided that November 1917 is not suitable nearly a Century later.

I've studied Das Kapital, An Enquiry into the wealth of Nations,Down and Out in Paris and London,Of Miice and Men ,On the Road , Anders Breiviks manifesto, Jung,Freud, Schopenhauer ,Dostoevsky, Lenin,Lennon,Ho Chi Minh,Voltaire,Rousseau,Napoleon,Stalin,Kennedy,Nixon,Clinton,Keatings'Paul and John.

You have nothing to say that's original or enduring. You have a stagnant view of what Liberty might be.You put people In boxes,as religion does.

I can safely debate a person of strict faith becuse I know their knowledge is backed by an imaginary friend, tied to an out dated dogma.

The last book I read was "The Sympathizer", which won a small literary prize.It was complex and entertaining,fiction that could easily be factual.

You I believe are a film maker,a cutter and paster.

You make quick judgements about the power of images that you include or exclude based on a summary assessment of their power and ability to bring you recognition. You are a lightweight intellect withering on the vine of self congratulation and half- baked analysis without the skills of deduction to consider that your idea of yourself may be wrong .

2 hours ago, A F said:

And further on my earlier point...
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-merkels-refugee-policy-isis/

Oh just read that.

Are you on acid permanently?

Her 15 minutes of political backslapping is already reaping negative dividends.

Possibly the worst decision any political leader has made in the last decade and you think it's a good one.

You'd be more productive knitting yourself a sweater than dabbling in ideas.

On 2/3/2017 at 2:38 AM, Biffen said:

I suppose you've heard of Gallipoli ?That was the place where we fought the Turks allied with Germany inWW1.

Have you heard of Syria or Palestine, Lebanon,Libya,Tunisia or Egypt?Islamist countries.

That was where we fought Hitlers allies who identified with Nazism in WW2.

Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans was an attempt at retribution for Islamic atrocities committed over many centuries.

The Rwanda genocide was a tribal conflict so perhaps no Muslims to blame for that.

The other 3 points you  tried to make are flat out wrong.

 

Sorry?

1 - in case you never realised we were actually the aggressor at Gallipolli and wanted the area so we could control the Dardanelles. Turkey being Turkey, or Muslim had nothing to do with it at all. They simply defended their land from an aggressor and if you go back to their ally then it was the very Christian Germans.

2 - Much of the fighting in Africa and the Middle east in WW2 was against the Italians and Germans, again Christians, and this fighting had to do purely with strategic positions and nothing to do with Islam. Did you also miss the fact we fought alongside Muslims in North Africa and they were some of the best fighters going around. 

3 - WW2 was started by Hitlers reaction to the treaty of Versailles and the subsequent growth of extreme nationalism in Germany, nothing to do with Muslims, especially not starting the war, they were more the victims of it.

Do you care to re right history again?

2 hours ago, Chris said:

Sorry?

1 - in case you never realised we were actually the aggressor at Gallipolli and wanted the area so we could control the Dardanelles. Turkey being Turkey, or Muslim had nothing to do with it at all. They simply defended their land from an aggressor and if you go back to their ally then it was the very Christian Germans.

2 - Much of the fighting in Africa and the Middle east in WW2 was against the Italians and Germans, again Christians, and this fighting had to do purely with strategic positions and nothing to do with Islam. Did you also miss the fact we fought alongside Muslims in North Africa and they were some of the best fighters going around. 

3 - WW2 was started by Hitlers reaction to the treaty of Versailles and the subsequent growth of extreme nationalism in Germany, nothing to do with Muslims, especially not starting the war, they were more the victims of it.

Do you care to re right history again?

We've covered this Chris,

I outlined the involvement of Muslim countries in the great wars.

I've already stated that German militarisation was the largest reason they began.

Re-WRITE .Right

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

We've covered this Chris,

I outlined the involvement of Muslim countries in the great wars.

I've already stated that German militarisation was the largest reason they began.

Re-WRITE .Right

You are yet to say how them being Muslim had anything to do with that involvement though.

Sorry for the typo as well.

1 hour ago, Chris said:

You are yet to say how them being Muslim had anything to do with that involvement though.

Sorry for the typo as well.

See post 45.

I misunderstood the question taking it to be that they had zero involvement in the wars.

21 hours ago, Biffen said:

You clearly don't like the truth ,or understand Taqiya.

You suffer from an outdated and trendy delusion that your University taught you the ONLY truth that exists. 

When you extend your imagination , or indeed read the Koran , you might see the reason for the rise of Neoconservative political theory.

Ive read texts who's outcomes are horrible,such as Mein Kampf ,which wasn't even available in Australia when I read it.I was roughly 14 or 15 at the time.

Do you think I swallowed it whole or dismissed it before page one?Before you go on a rant ,it was a terrible book full of holes in deduction.

Like nearly every post you've written in here .I don't blame you for that because you lack a critical mind.You have what is known as a luvvy worldview.

If you could take yourself out of the picture and seek a modern individual theory of geopolitical machinations ,before spouting from the ALP harmony theory of self destruction, you would see that all you are perpetuating is the repression of thought and human capability , not the growth of it.

I've just spent the last three hours listening to a pro communist in southern Vietnam ranting and raving, offering me jobs with the prols,trying to espouse the virtue of Mao.

The fact that this message may get to you in 2017 is proof that the misinformation may end soon.You lack any flexible intellect,no ability to concede that I and the majority of voters in Western democracy have decided that November 1917 is not suitable nearly a Century later.

I've studied Das Kapital, An Enquiry into the wealth of Nations,Down and Out in Paris and London,Of Miice and Men ,On the Road , Anders Breiviks manifesto, Jung,Freud, Schopenhauer ,Dostoevsky, Lenin,Lennon,Ho Chi Minh,Voltaire,Rousseau,Napoleon,Stalin,Kennedy,Nixon,Clinton,Keatings'Paul and John.

You have nothing to say that's original or enduring. You have a stagnant view of what Liberty might be.You put people In boxes,as religion does.

I can safely debate a person of strict faith becuse I know their knowledge is backed by an imaginary friend, tied to an out dated dogma.

The last book I read was "The Sympathizer", which won a small literary prize.It was complex and entertaining,fiction that could easily be factual.

You I believe are a film maker,a cutter and paster.

You make quick judgements about the power of images that you include or exclude based on a summary assessment of their power and ability to bring you recognition. You are a lightweight intellect withering on the vine of self congratulation and half- baked analysis without the skills of deduction to consider that your idea of yourself may be wrong .

I studied film at University, so you got something right in this thread. I read and consume as much mainstream media as possible (despite its standards dropping in the past 10-15 years), as well as conservative medias like FOX News, just so I have an understanding of what the other side is thinking. But I don't go as far down the loony right wing conspiracy theory lines of the INFOWARS and Breitbart, because they're simply conspiracy theorists. I'm not fearful of hearing the other side, but I will vigorously debate you if I disagree with you.

It seems you subscribe to the lunatic fringe and are very stuck in some old, outdated ideas and will never be swayed. I see that. That's conservatism. Fortunately, your types are nowhere near as common as you might think. And I believe humanity is intrinsically geared towards doing good, despite the selfishness inherent in all of us. So I subscribe to a worldview that is fundamentally optimistic.

You fringers on the Right can call me whatever you want, luvvy, cuck etc, go for it (despite you and others like you, tearing up when someone calls you a racist), but humanity on the whole has a much greater capacity to continue to better itself than you seem to think and therefore we need progress, not conservatism. Progress is forward, conservatism is hiding in the past.

I understand there are some that are afraid of what comes next so they cling to their religious texts, old ideas and made up facts, such as your embarrassing 'figures' borrowed from the Oxford earlier on. You are challenged by anything that you do not understand and when faced with facts and science, you bury your head in the sand. Just look at what Trump is trying to do to journalist's and scientists. And look at what the Liberal government did to CSIRO.

And finally, I've always found the complaint that 'the Left puts people in boxes' to be nonsensical. The Right does exactly the same thing. Only the Right are hateful about it and therefore a lot more corrosive and dangerous to a sense of democratic social cohesion. 

It's not left or right AF.

Iit's just a case of right or wrong. 

We will talk about it after the next terrorist attack that kills people in a secular state and see where you stand then.

It seems you are way off growing into a man.

Enjoy your yoof!!!

Chances are the next terrorist attack that kills innocent civilians will come from an American drone.

7 hours ago, Biffen said:

We will talk about it after the next terrorist attack that kills people in a secular state and see where you stand then.

That's exactly what this thread was about... a terrorist attack, that killed people, in a secular state.

7 hours ago, Biffen said:

It's not left or right AF.

Iit's just a case of right or wrong. 

We will talk about it after the next terrorist attack that kills people in a secular state and see where you stand then.

It seems you are way off growing into a man.

Enjoy your youth .

More likely, the next terror attack will either be another war declared by the USA for yet another bogus reason e.g.weapons of mass destruction, Tonkin incident etc etc etc, or another Israeli attack on Gaza.

2 minutes ago, dieter said:

More likely, the next terror attack will either be another war declared by the USA for yet another bogus reason e.g.weapons of mass destruction, Tonkin incident etc etc etc, or another Israeli attack on Gaza.

looks like you and jara could give nostradamus a run for his money, diets 

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

That's exactly what this thread was about... a terrorist attack, that killed people, in a secular state.

Indeed it is.

The 27 year old lone shooter was one of at least 5 lone gunman to attack in the state of Quebec in the last 20 odd years.

Some of the attacks have been against the French "Mafia" forcing cultural "difference" on ordinary citizens.

Another was a loony who shot up women in a  govt run women only school enraged as he was by Feminist dogma and policy.

Yet another was an attempt to murder Parliamentarians but unfortunately for that fellow he arrived at parliament early and his gun jammed.

Yet Trudeau, "The Hair Apparent" sees himself as a lone bastion of forgiveness and tolerance in a world gone mad and is about to outlaw ..........wait for it......

ISLAMAPHOBIA.

No checks and balances on the wording or whether it may extend to Journalists discussing Islam.

Quebec has been known as a place of discontent in Canada for it's residents for some time Hardtack.

One wonders if the government will be able to ban its way through the current problems it faces.

There was also a Muslim on Mounty attack but who cares, sweep it under the mat.

great news emerged today that Canada is hiring 55 people to monitor the net for "hate speech"which i presume is speech the govt doesn't approve of.

Oh Canada............

You dumbos.

1 hour ago, Jara said:

Chances are the next terrorist attack that kills innocent civilians will come from an American drone.

Then it would be within the framework of a state sponsored military campaign with the support of American constituents so therefore not a terrorist attack.

Cool man?

14 minutes ago, Biffen said:

Then it would be within the framework of a state sponsored military campaign with the support of American constituents so therefore not a terrorist attack.

Cool man?

But against a range of UN Conventions, to which America is a signatory. 

23 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

But against a range of UN Conventions, to which America is a signatory. 

The UN ,the Eurozone, The Trans-Pacific alliance,NATO,ASEAN.,The Paris summit on Man Bear Pig.....

Whatevs.

They're nice things to sign for politicians and give them a trip OS occasionally to catch up with like-minded bullsh!tters.

3 hours ago, Biffen said:

The UN ,the Eurozone, The Trans-Pacific alliance,NATO,ASEAN.,The Paris summit on Man Bear Pig.....

Whatevs.

They're nice things to sign for politicians and give them a trip OS occasionally to catch up with like-minded bullsh!tters.

Sorry Biff.  Of course, you thought you were wrong once, only to find out that you made a mistake on that as well.  Such Conventions and Protocols are binding under international law.  If they weren't no-one would ever have been prosecuted for war crimes.  So I guess those that prosecuted were bullshitters as well?

 

22 minutes ago, iv'a worn smith said:

Sorry Biff.  Of course, you thought you were wrong once, only to find out that you made a mistake on that as well.  Such Conventions and Protocols are binding under international law.  If they weren't no-one would ever have been prosecuted for war crimes.  So I guess those that prosecuted were bullshitters as well?

 

You forget, Iv'a, Biff only expects Muslims to abide by Conventions and Protocols.

6 minutes ago, dieter said:

You forget, Iv'a, Biff only expects Muslims to abide by Conventions and Protocols.

There are no protocols in Islam except those of slavery,dispossesion,theft,corpoaral punishment, capital punishment, honour killings, honour rapes,beatings,throwing people off buildings, destroying ancient architecture, killing jews,killing christians, killing westerners, outbreeding everyone, bombing ,running over or blowing up innocents ,beheading,stopping dissent, marrying off children to be raped,deception,keeping women in the house,not eating pigs and spreading the good word by force!

It's a cracking read.