Pauline and Muslims

[red750]

https://au.yahoo.com/news/pauline-un-australian-comments-slammed-221751087.html

 

This will draw the ire of everyone here, but I think to a degree, she is right. It is part of their religion to eliminate all infidels, ie, non Muslim. Their Imams preach it in their Mosques. There may be many Muslims who would not go that far, but how would you know. Any religion or nationality is welcome if they accept others on an equal basis, but if they want to change us to their way of thinking they should be removed. If they want that kind of existence, there are many other places in the world that provide that. If it is so good, why did they come here in the first place?

[facthunter]

  You say "This will draw the IRE of EVERYONE Here and then go ahead? Pauline wouldn't give a stuff. She Knows certain People will side with her somewhat extreme views and vote for her. She wouldn't care that there's 350,000 Moslems in Indonesia Just North of here, we don't wish to upset unnecessarily, that we get on well with, and that's a good thing. MOST of US would agree.  Nev 

[onetrack]

She's a polarising shit-stirrer in the extreme, with inflammatory statements, and to say outright, "there's no good Muslims", is unacceptable to most Australians. However, it's probably a good thing she opens her mouth like this regularly, because it brings about discourse on how we should treat immigrants from vastly different cultures to the original Anglo-Saxon European culture.

 

When I was a kid, it was untrustworthy, "Dings", "Dagos", "Slavs", "Gyppos", "Wogs", "Slant-eyes", "Japs", and other cultures that were foreign to us that brought about a lot of friction.

 

In Kalgoorlie in 1934, there was a major 3 day race riot, that took major numbers of police reinforcements from Perth to quell. 3 people were killed. Migrants homes and tents and even Hotels were burnt, and many migrants left the Goldfields for good after the riot.

The riot was caused by festering cultural hatred of Southern and Eastern Europeans, and the belief that these migrants were securing local mining jobs by working for less money or by paying bribes to managers. A lot of that was true.

 

However, the W.A. Goldfields settled down after better enforcement of job conditions and a requirement for naturalisation before taking up jobs. There was still simmering resentment for years afterwards, until the migrants children grew to adulthood and considered themselves Australian.

 

The problem with the Islamic religion is that there are many conflicts in their Imams teachings. And the primary conflict in their teaching that goes against our Anglo-Saxon culture is that only Allah can make laws for Man.

All man-made laws are therefore regarded as being able to be broken without punishment, as Muslims are not beholden to them. In addition, the Imam is regarded as having the ultimate position on decision-making as regards rights or wrongs.

 

This places Imams as a defacto power broker, wielding greater power than any politician, policeman, magistrate, or judge. Until the day comes when the Imams abandon those teachings, we will continue to have problems with Muslims.

[facthunter]

There's at Least 3 types of Muslims. Shia, Sunni and Ibadi and at times  they don't get on that well with each other. They believe that Christ is a prophet but Mohammad is Better. Nev

[Marty_d]

The same goes for christianity.

Most followers and preachers are harmless.

But if you read the bible - and I did, until I turned 20 and got a clue - there is some downright nasty stuff in there that it tells you should be done to people who don't follow the strictest literal interpretation.

Slavery, stoning, and murder is fine for people not of your tribe or not heterosexual. Sound familiar?

I wouldn't read anything Pauline said because she's a broken record, and she's dead wrong far more often than she's right.

 

Yes we've just had a couple of rabid Muslims murder 15 people.

Don't forget a rabid caucasian white supremacist went to NZ and murdered 51 Muslims. 

 

Any philosophy is dangerous if you take it to extremes.

[facthunter]

Not to Mention some Priests who betrayed the greatest trust. Christ Mentioned Putting "Stumbling Blocks" in the way of Children. There's some "Really Bad $#!t in the Old testament".  Science was Opposed all the way by the Church. There's Plenty to Be critcal of.  Nev

[Grumpy Old Nasho]

I moved to the bush to get away from it all. I don't even vote anymore, it's not worth my time voting for idiot politicians who bring in murdering muslims and then blame everyone except themselves for the Bondi massacre. And now they're letting in more Islamic wives of ISIS terrorists just because they're Australian citizens. Would Mars bump into Planet Earth if their citizenship was revoked ... to the stupid far-left Labor party, it would.

[Marty_d]

You can't revoke the citizenship of an Australian if it would leave them stateless.

This is not something Labor or even the LNP can do if they were in government.

 

There is no doubt these women made a monumentally stupid decision (although some were pressured into it by family, and were only girls themselves).  And some may remain a security risk.

 

The government will need to eventually let them back, it has no choice. What it can do is charge them with whatever crimes they've committed and lock them up here.

 

The question it's facing now is, does it leave them and their children (who are innocent) in a terrible place where their kids are likely to be radicalised themselves while it dithers with the political pressure, or does it act quickly and provide those children the support services they need?

[old man emu]

1 hour ago, Marty_d said:

their children (who are innocent)

I would say that it is the children who are the problem. Imaging how they think after growing up in an ISIS dominated society. I bet none of those children knows how to play Footy or League; has ever ridden a skateboard, or done anything that kids of a similar age in Australia have done. Those kids ae, unfortunately, the next generation of Islamist radicals.

[facthunter]

They DON'T have to be and Islam is not the Only threat. Lack of TRUTH in the Media is a threat to Democracy and while we have a free Vote there is a chance of keeping the thing on the rails. Nev

[red750]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

I bet none of those children knows how to play Footy or League; has ever ridden a skateboard, or done anything that kids of a similar age in Australia have done. Those kids ae, unfortunately, the next generation of Islamist radicals.

A guy on TV this morning said there are kids over there who have never seen a tree.

[facthunter]

Maybe  when they DO see some, they will not turn them into woodchips by clear felling.  Poorleen just said "there are NO good Muslims". What $#!t she goes on with to Get Noticed no matter the Consequences and damage done.. Nev

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

Maybe  when they DO see some, they will not turn them into woodchips by clear felling.  Poorleen just said "there are NO good Muslims". What $#!t she goes on with to Get Noticed no matter the Consequences and damage done.. Nev

Muslims watching the way she behaves could be thinking there's no good Anglos.

[Marty_d]

This is well written and thoughtful I think.

https://www.themandarin.com.au/307662-trust-fatalism-and-the-fragility-of-australias-social-fabric/?utm_campaign=TheJuice&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter

[old man emu]

5 hours ago, facthunter said:

Poorleen just said "there are NO good Muslims"

It is a quirk of the Hate Speech laws that, as I understand the law, saying that to noone in particular is not an offence, since it is not directly an incitement to violence. In NSW, this is the wording of the offence:

93Z Offence of publicly threatening or inciting violence on grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex or HIV/AIDS status

(1) A person who, by a public act, intentionally or recklessly threatens or incites violence towards another person or a group of persons on any of the following grounds is guilty of an offence--

 

Of course, my opinion is that the current worldwide increase in overt racism is the product of what we are told is the World's greatest democracy, and you know which one I mean.

[facthunter]

She has been widely condemned and she then issued a half baked apology. It's typical of her shifting RACIST stunts. Probably hoping she will be punished so she can do a dying swan act and get sympathy. Gina Rinehart is backing her all the way. THAT alone May draw the Crabs. . ALL these Predictions are Based on Limited POLLING. She's strongly supported by SKY. Merde Ock. A foreigner, owner of Newscorpse. Not a good sign either.. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

12 hours ago, facthunter said:

Probably hoping she will be punished so she can do a dying swan act and get sympathy.

Ahh.. She wishes to be, for her cause..... a martyr.. .A bit like those that are the sibject of her cause. 

 

I don't want to get into the argument about, what is in effect, Islamophobia. Because this is the way it goes:

- Muslims are wanting to kill everyone.

- Yeah, well the others aren't better.. Look at that Aussie bloke in NZ.. killed a 53 Muslims. 

 

They way I read it is that some people say "these people are bad"., and others say "yeah, well so are these people, so it cancels out".

 

It's toxic in itself. 

 

Here's a judg'es sentencing of Islamic terrorists who wanted to kill Jews. Not liberate Palestine.. Just kill jews out of pure hatred:

 

 

(It is Sky UK, not Australia; it is not affiliated with NewsCorp, and it is in full... not edited).

 

Now, if they were successful, they may have killed, say 157 Jews.. Do we look for an episode where there were more Muslims killed (in a civil, not war setting) and then jusitfy their actions?

 

The discussion (here, but in general public discourse) reminds me of this:

 

 

The difference is everyone gets blown to smithereens.

 

No actions in these cases - whoever commits them is justifed nor acceptable. And it doesn't matter if the other side did it bigger and, ahem, "better". 

 

What we need to get to is why people go off the rails like the Aussie bloke in NZ, or the two defendants of the case the judge is summing up, or any of the others; work out what drives it and try to address itl work out how to spot it to intervene. 

 

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't pull ONE line out of context and make  a story of it nothing like what I said. IF you don't mind. It's not fair.  Nev

[Siso]

Can she really be any worse then the alternatives!

[onetrack]

One word - YES. She has no plan for Australia's future and no ability to weld her political associates into a cohesive group. She divides people endlessly and PHON history is full of "abdications", resignations, fights and dead-loss party members such as Rod Culleton, who is more erratic than Pauline herself. 

[old man emu]

What a politcal Party needs is a philosophy. Then it needs to develop policies that would enable that philosophy to be applied to the needs of the people the Party wishes to govern.

 

As far as I can see, PHON doesn't have much of a philosophy other than hatred for others. Has anyone seen PHON's policies on trade, education, public health and so on? You might not support the policies of either the LNP, Labor or the Greens, but at least they seem to have policies. That's why Independents and likes of the TEALs could not form an effective government. 

[facthunter]

Independents are NOT a Party but Holmes a Court sponsors some of them and they go for Liberal seats They don't have to vote as a block. Greens apart from Tree Hugging and a few other such good things get "all over the place" on many other Matters and maybe that explains where they are. They Pushed a Very Pro Palestinian view that might not have gone down well and tend to want 100% or Nothing.  Small Farmers are All but gone and the NP wants coal and gas fracking  and to have the LIBS over a barrel . In  Qld there's NO Libs, only the LNP. Work that one out. Nev

[willedoo]

2 hours ago, old man emu said:

Has anyone seen PHON's policies on trade, education, public health and so on?

Some of their policies have some detail, but some others might just be one paragraph, single issue. An example is their health policy which is basically to encourage better health access for regional and rural areas through the introduction of three year contracts for graduating health professionals in return for their hecs bill being wiped. With some of the obvious issues like energy, climate change etc., they have more to say. It seems to me like they only put up policies where they want change. I'd assume the lack of a defence policy would mean they have nothing to change from the status quo. A lot of their policies are populist policies, like getting multinationals to pay their fair share of tax for example.

https://www.onenation.org.au/issues