Australia/Islamic Nation?

[vroom]

Sloth, it’s a bit of a running “joke” in debating circles if I’m not mistaken… losing by mentioning Hitler/Nazi’s.

Regardless, you are letting your emotions drive you. There are all too many people willing to press your buttons in order to control you in such a way.

Do you think perhaps the Nazi’s used fear and hatred to help promote their own cause?

Fear and hatred are not a valid reason. If you have a valid reason, then you must put in the effort to describe it and convince people.

Finding a way to compare something to the Nazi’s, which I also managed to do above, isn’t really all that useful.

Why should we ignore our own constitutions and stop citizens from discussing their beliefs, their views, of a religious nature, when such things are precisely held as ideals and freedoms by our governments.

If we can trample those, then what stops the government from trampling all kinds of rights?

It sounds silly, but if the government falls, there is always civil war… I mean, if you want to claim things are dire, let’s really think about dire solutions.

[Sloth]

I described my reasons. Frankly, I’m shocked someone would require an explanation. Read/watch the news?

[Sloth]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Regardless, you are letting your emotions drive you. There are all too many people willing to press your buttons in order to control you in such a way.
[/quote]

Yeah, that’s got to be it. I came to my conclusions solely upon emotion. I couldn’t possibly have considered and reasoned my way to them. I doubt you have ESP, so how about not speculating on something you can’t possibly substantiate. Hey, I could speculate that your conclusions are simply the result of inbreeding. But, that’s wrong to do and I can’t possibly know that, Vroom. So how about not stating as fact how I come to conclude what I do.

Do you think perhaps the Nazi’s used fear and hatred to help promote their own cause?

You just lost this debate. Sorry, had to.

Fear and hatred are not a valid reason. If you have a valid reason, then you must put in the effort to describe it and convince people.

I did.

Finding a way to compare something to the Nazi’s, which I also managed to do above, isn’t really all the useful.

When it’s valid, it’s fair game. You do understand the type of Islamic ideology this article illustrates, right? Caliphate, Kafirs…do you understand those terms? You realize how the thought process of those we’re talking about gel with Nazi ideology? It’s a valid comparison.

If a group, that is espousing the ideals of the enemy, is openly recruiting to take over…Again, where did common sense go. The question is valid. Would this have been tolerated amongst the allies during WW2? Yes, or no. Should the Allies have tolerated it during WW2? Effectively giving them a pulpit in the midst of their own countries? Yes, or no?

[vroom]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I described my reasons. Frankly, I’m shocked someone would require an explanation. Read/watch the news? [/quote]

LOL.

Dude, I realize that a flavor of Islamic fundamentalism is in fact at war with the western world, the western way of life.

However, I’m not panicked. Maybe at some point I’ll panic, but not yet. As far as I know, any citizens, Muslim or otherwise, still have all the same rights and privileges of other citizens.

So, as long as they aren’t plotting violence or other illegal acts, and they are citizens, then they are good to go.

Anything else looks like prejudicial bigotry based on fear and lack of understanding.

Perhaps you’d better try explaining things a little better than waving your hands in the air and invoking the specters of fear and terror…

[vroom]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
When it’s valid, it’s fair game. You do understand the type of Islamic ideology this article illustrates, right? Caliphate, Kafirs…do you understand those terms? You realize how the thought process of those we’re talking about gel with Nazi ideology? It’s a valid comparison.[/quote]

There is no need at all to try to trump up the situation with the allusion to Nazi’s at all. Everyone understands what Al Quaeda and related groups are trying to do.

If a group, that is espousing the ideals of the enemy, is openly recruiting to take over…Again, where did common sense go. The question is valid. Would this have been tolerated amongst the allies during WW2? Yes, or no. Should the Allies have tolerated it during WW2? Effectively giving them a pulpit in the midst of their own countries? Yes, or no?

Free speech is free speech. Can people discuss abortion - both for and against? Yes, even though some consider it murder.

There is no problem here at all. Either the constitution, the system, has problems that need to be fixed, or it is in fact in fine shape.

The fact that 50 people (some small number) want Australia to convert and they publicly say so is not an actual threat. You do understand the difference between an actual threat and some scary story reported in the media, right?

Your solution, if one is required, needs to be found within the framework of governance. Laws can made or changed. Heck, during real emergencies the government can declare martial law. However, it doesn’t look like we are there yet…

Get a grip.

Stop trying to tell me how “big and scary” the problem is, because everybody understands the basis of the problem. You won’t “fear” me into thinking we should throw out our principles.

[Sloth]

[quote]vroom wrote:

Perhaps you’d better try explaining things a little better than waving your hands in the air and invoking the specters of fear and terror…[/quote]

I suppose I could equate you with the image of a man shutting his eyes closed tight, wearing ear plugs. Perhaps you’re just naive to the core. But, where does that get us, in this topic?

Night Vroom, I’m out for the night. Try not to post so emotionally next time. Ironic, that is.

[vroom]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I suppose I could equate you with the image of a man shutting his eyes closed tight, wearing ear plugs.[/quote]

Silly bugger. I understand the threat, the danger, I just feel a different, more principled, course of action is appropriate.

It’s not like I’m even against warfare, per se, or anything.

Maybe I’m not the one with my eyes shut?

[etaco]

If the threshold for arrest for sedition was set at the level of speech of these guys then law enforcement and our prisons would be so overwhelmed as to make our defense against actual terrorists completely worthless. If if you put a bullet in each of their heads as HH seemed to be alluding then you would run out of bullets before you finished.

Why don’t we just cull the craziest 5% of our population? The Politics and World Issues forum would lose all it’s regulars, but that’s a small price to pay.

[Wreckless]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hitler always said, in his speeches and especially at his trial, that he would overthrow the Republic by its own rules.

One bullet in the head would have saved the world a lot of misery…[/quote]

Are you saying it’s ok for the government to work off a hitlist of right wing nutjobs?

Because you would probably be on it.

[pookie]

You guys are wasting your time with vroom.

He could have a bearded nutcase, wrapped in explosives, sprinting at full speed towards him while screaming “WA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!” and vroom would stand there defending the guy’s right to wear what he wants and to run and scream as he sees fit.

Vroom will get it when vroom goes boom.

[Headhunter]

Australians have real balls:

" We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language! “In God We Trust” is our National Motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan. We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools.

If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, Because God is part of our culture. If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don’t like " A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, And we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, “THE RIGHT TO LEAVE”.

— from the link

[Headhunter]

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hitler always said, in his speeches and especially at his trial, that he would overthrow the Republic by its own rules.

One bullet in the head would have saved the world a lot of misery…

Are you saying it’s ok for the government to work off a hitlist of right wing nutjobs?

Because you would probably be on it.
[/quote]

I don’t advocate overthrowing our government, establishing a dictatorship and working for more ‘Lebensraum’ (which he stated in Mein Kampf, after his trial).

Hey, that sounds a lot like those Muslims in Australia…

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
You guys are wasting your time with vroom.

He could have a bearded nutcase, wrapped in explosives, sprinting at full speed towards him while screaming “WA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!” and vroom would stand there defending the guy’s right to wear what he wants and to run and scream as he sees fit.

Vroom will get it when vroom goes boom.
[/quote]

LOL, that’s pretty funny!

Pookie, on the other hand, believes we should round up every Muslim on the planet and issue them a bullet through the brain for the crime of being born.

Well, obviously neither is true, but Pookie, I thought you were above such pure nonsense. I already “get it”. However, I also “get” the fact that things can get a lot worse if we continue to take steps to make it so.

Take out the radicals, those willing to do more than talk, and create as few replacements as possible in the process. Believe me, even with all the panic to date, we haven’t seen nothing yet.

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
LOL, that’s pretty funny!

Pookie, on the other hand, believes we should round up every Muslim on the planet and issue them a bullet through the brain for the crime of being born.[/quote]

Nice strawman you’ve got there. That’s definitely not my position, and I’ve never said anything that could even be interpreted that way.

Well, obviously neither is true, but Pookie, I thought you were above such pure nonsense. I already “get it”. However, I also “get” the fact that things can get a lot worse if we continue to take steps to make it so.

No, you don’t get it at all. You keep spouting off about values and principles and freedoms, yet you seem completely unaware that those values are not shared by all other cultures.

I have no problems with any foreigners coming here to live their lives. What I do have a problem with is when they try to impose their cultures upon ours. When they request parallel courts to try their own according to their laws, that doesn’t work. When they want their own schools to be exempt from existing Education Board regulation, that doesn’t work.

Our principles and values inform our laws. And, I’m very sorry, those principles and values are not negotiable. Women’s rights are not negotiable. Equal access to education and services is not negotiable. If they disagree with our laws and how we run our societies in general, they are free to emigrate to a country that already operates in the way they prefer.

Take out the radicals, those willing to do more than talk, and create as few replacements as possible in the process. Believe me, even with all the panic to date, we haven’t seen nothing yet.

What panic? You wouldn’t come off as so desperately dumb and wordy if you’re only method of argumentation wasn’t to exaggerate someone’s position to the extreme and then attack that.

[Headhunter]

[quote]pookie wrote:
vroom wrote:
LOL, that’s pretty funny!

Pookie, on the other hand, believes we should round up every Muslim on the planet and issue them a bullet through the brain for the crime of being born.

Nice strawman you’ve got there. That’s definitely not my position, and I’ve never said anything that could even be interpreted that way.

Well, obviously neither is true, but Pookie, I thought you were above such pure nonsense. I already “get it”. However, I also “get” the fact that things can get a lot worse if we continue to take steps to make it so.

No, you don’t get it at all. You keep spouting off about values and principles and freedoms, yet you seem completely unaware that those values are not shared by all other cultures.

I have no problems with any foreigners coming here to live their lives. What I do have a problem with is when they try to impose their cultures upon ours. When they request parallel courts to try their own according to their laws, that doesn’t work. When they want their own schools to be exempt from existing Education Board regulation, that doesn’t work.

Our principles and values inform our laws. And, I’m very sorry, those principles and values are not negotiable. Women’s rights are not negotiable. Equal access to education and services is not negotiable. If they disagree with our laws and how we run our societies in general, they are free to emigrate to a country that already operates in the way they prefer.

Take out the radicals, those willing to do more than talk, and create as few replacements as possible in the process. Believe me, even with all the panic to date, we haven’t seen nothing yet.

What panic? You wouldn’t come off as so desperately dumb and wordy if you’re only method of argumentation wasn’t to exaggerate someone’s position to the extreme and then attack that.
[/quote]

Let’s give Vroom some ammunition — Pookie, this is an excellent post.

Cue Vroom: “If Headhunter agrees with you then you’re in trouble (or lost, or whatever…)”.

Sorry to steal your line, Vrooms!

[pookie]

Great. Now I’m stuck with this playing in my head:

The Vroom Song
(sung to the tune of Chamilionnaire’s Ridin’ Dirty)

They see me posting
They laughing
They all know I’m so desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
My thinking so bad
I’m swearing
They hoping this once I won’t be dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Nice strawman you’ve got there. That’s definitely not my position, and I’ve never said anything that could even be interpreted that way.[/quote]

How could it be a strawman when my next sentence dismisses it as garbage. Come on, you are much better than this…

No, you don’t get it at all. You keep spouting off about values and principles and freedoms, yet you seem completely unaware that those values are not shared by all other cultures.

My principles and values, or my belief in them, has nothing to do with the values and beliefs of others.

When, anywhere, have I suggested that others believe in these values that the western world espouses.

You are making a fool of yourself.

I have no problems with any foreigners coming here to live their lives. What I do have a problem with is when they try to impose their cultures upon ours. When they request parallel courts to try their own according to their laws, that doesn’t work. When they want their own schools to be exempt from existing Education Board regulation, that doesn’t work.

Have I suggested that I favor such things. You are the one fighting a mighty strawman I’m afraid!

Our principles and values inform our laws. And, I’m very sorry, those principles and values are not negotiable. Women’s rights are not negotiable. Equal access to education and services is not negotiable. If they disagree with our laws and how we run our societies in general, they are free to emigrate to a country that already operates in the way they prefer.

Our principles and values change from time to time, at the behest of citizens, and constitutional amendments and so forth.

We can’t arbitrarily decide that “some” citizens don’t have the rights of other citizens… which has nothing to do with supporting the fantasy claptrap you are bringing into the discussion above.

What panic? You wouldn’t come off as so desperately dumb and wordy if you’re only method of argumentation wasn’t to exaggerate someone’s position to the extreme and then attack that.

Look who’s talking. The guy calling me on a strawman when I dismissed the very concept after stating it. You are the one who doesn’t know my opinion, and are making up fallacious arguments.

I’m standing up for principles. We can win this, without sacrificing our principles, if dumb panicky knee-jerk hatred isn’t allowed to convert all the moderates left in the world into extremists.

Even then, we can win it, but the price will be so much higher (and I’m not talking about the loss of principles). Why pay so much for victory when we don’t have to?

I’ve said in many threads that military force is but a single tool in our shed. Panicky scared haters don’t see any other tools…

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
Great. Now I’m stuck with this playing in my head:

The Vroom Song
(sung to the tune of Chamilionnaire’s Ridin’ Dirty)

They see me posting
They laughing
They all know I’m so desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
My thinking so bad
I’m swearing
They hoping this once I won’t be dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
So desperately dumb and wordy
[/quote]

LOL. Look in a mirror chump!

[pookie]

[quote]vroom wrote:
Have I suggested that I favor such things?[/quote]

The initial posting is about an article describing a group that proposes “an Islamic take over” of Australia.

While people are discussing various forms of opposition to that kind of movement, or even just voicing their general disagreement with that type of organization, you come in as the shining defender of “freedom of speech.”

I’m all for the democratic process, and if they respect the established laws and procedures for getting laws changed and/or amended AND get the majority vote for it, so be it.

But that’s not what is being discussed here. There was a somewhat similar case in Ontario two years ago, about Muslims using the court system to get their “Sharia” tribunal recognized in parallel with the Ontario judicial system. (Brief outline here: http://www.iheu.org/node/1739 anyone interested can Google ontario sharia - Google Search )

It eventually fell through, but they weren’t going about it by using a democratic process, instead trying to get a judge to give them the go ahead. Which, from previous debates, you’re also in favor of. The question is then if you think the various groups who formed to oppose the Sharia movement were exercising their freedom of speech, or simply being “panicky scared haters” oppressing that poor, misunderstood minority.

Anyway, this is getting boring, as you’ve got little to bring to this discussion except your habitual canned rhetoric and feeble put downs. Wake me up if you ever come up with a thought of your own that can actually stand up in a debate.

[vroom]

[quote]pookie wrote:
The initial posting is about an article describing a group that proposes “an Islamic take over” of Australia.
[/quote]

Perhaps you aren’t familiar with Headhunter’s style of bigoted prejudicial rhetoric yet?

While people are discussing various forms of opposition to that kind of movement, or even just voicing their general disagreement with that type of organization, you come in as the shining defender of “freedom of speech.”

Oh, so you think people were just arguing that opposition should also be voiced?

I’m all for the democratic process, and if they respect the established laws and procedures for getting laws changed and/or amended AND get the majority vote for it, so be it.

Then why on earth are you arguing with me about my suggestion that law abiding citizens should be let alone to exercise their rights – assuming they are law abiding citizens.

But that’s not what is being discussed here. There was a somewhat similar case in Ontario two years ago, about Muslims using the court system to get their “Sharia” tribunal recognized in parallel with the Ontario judicial system. (Brief outline here: http://www.iheu.org/node/1739 anyone interested can Google ontario sharia - Google Search )

It eventually fell through, but they weren’t going about it by using a democratic process, instead trying to get a judge to give them the go ahead. Which, from previous debates, you’re also in favor of.

Better check your memory. I’m in favor of them abiding by our legal systems, or exercising their own customs within the framework of our legal system. Maybe if you knew what I actually was saying it would help?

You are just whining because you’ve found yourself lumped in with the bigoted and prejudicial fearful crowd for a change.