Rage Space? Muslim Safe Space Draws Aussie Ire

[CaptainCourtesy]

Many Muslims are ideal candidates for American citizenship, like my friend Hani. I don't care at all that his English is broken, so its a little hard to understand him. He's currently in school, and all the staff at the school he attends attests to him being a polite, nice guy.
He's never shown any radicalism at school. His grades aren't very good, but I think that's down to the cultural difference, and the language barrier.

So don't accuse me of being Islamophobic. My loyalty to my friend Hani is proof that I can't be Islamophobic, and also proof that not all muslims of course are rabidly awaiting some terrorism plot. Thoughts?

I can't be a racist. I have a black friend.

You want to not be labeled an Islamophobe, then firstly, stop generalizing, and secondly... I expect the same courtesy. You have no evidence other than your own perceptions of how someone is to discuss this topic that they are an "apologist". In the past, I have constantly posted my disgust at terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, both at Israel, in the US, and other places. I do not hold ALL Muslims responsible for this, nor do I hold Islam in general. What you say that makes me is based on your perceptions of how you want me to react, which is a complete invalid assumption. So, drop the apologist bull****.

 

[Chagos]

The Koran and Hadith do not. ............~

But YOU do, that's the whole point.

 

[truthatallcost]

I will continue to compare based on the reasons I posted. Rejecting this is suspiciously absurd.

Americans are viewed suspiciously when they travel to most Muslim countries too. Does that mean that Muslims are discriminating against Americans? Are Muslims xenophobic when they view Americans suspiciously overseas?

Of course not. THEY'RE DEAD. How much money in support do you think jihadists got after 9/11? Don't be naive.

Nidal Hassan is very much alive and kicking. I'm debating someone with almost no intimate knowledge of terrorism and the realities of this subject, but I've known that for quite some time.

These kind of acts promote their positions which can generate monetary support. Advertising works.

It sure does. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq generated $4.5 trillion for the real masterminds of 9/11, which are the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

My suggestion would be for you to try being honest. There was no apologizing on my part. That's just Islamophobe speak for "you disagree with my rigid way of thinking". I'd suggest that you stop this kind of dumb debate tactic. It might work on others, but it won't work on me.

You tried to equate Muslims joining terrorist groups with other forms of crime that immigrants get involved with, as some sort of rationale. Which shows the degree of your sympathy for Islamic terrorists, that you're willing to imply that their choice of crime is in some way similar to the various crime that immigrant groups get involved with.

Are you kidding? 100% absolutely. If you are here illegally, you get deported. No amnesty, no nothing. You broke the law. Don't care why.

And that's pretty terrible and what needs to change. All immigrants. No exceptions.

Agree.

Eh, I don't completely agree. I can seen benefits to immigration... some of the folks who enter can be productive citizens who enhance the US. Also, adding different cultural aspects add to our own culture and help us to understand the culture of others. However, I don't see the need for lots of immigration. Let's see what we can do to make sure our CURRENT citizens have jobs and can be prosperous too.

We have plenty of other cultures to experience here. The days when leftists preached about the US being too white should be over, I think the country is currently about 60% white, and whites will be under 50% in about another 20 years.

False premise. Perhaps the UK sucks at vetting. Or perhaps they shouldn't have allowed in people that they immediately felt should go on their watch list. I wouldn't want the US to do that. THAT'S what I'm talking about in as far as vetting. Think they should go on a watchlist? Don't let them in at all. Problem solved.

Moot point. Many of the Muslims who are on the watch list are British citizens born in the UK, thus no vetting process could have weeded them out. Islamic radicalism is growing amongst YOUNGER people, which is why we're seeing non immigrant Muslims in the Europe joining Isis, or killing people for Isis.

If you know anything about Europe, you'd know that their border security is very lax, which was an intentional situation created by the EU to remove the limits of people traveling from one country to another.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Americans are viewed suspiciously when they travel to most Muslim countries too. Does that mean that Muslims are discriminating against Americans?

Yup.

Nidal Hassan is very much alive and kicking. I'm debating someone with almost no intimate knowledge of terrorism and the realities of this subject, but I've known that for quite some time.

No, your focus was on the terrorists who acted on 9/11. That's who I focused on. And Hassan was a lone individual. Perhaps he earned nothing, but that doesn't mean his cause didn't.

It sure does. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq generated $4.5 trillion for the real masterminds of 9/11, which are the United States, Israel, and Saudi Arabia.

Ah, no. You missed the point, of course.

You tried to equate Muslims joining terrorist groups with other forms of crime that immigrants get involved with, as some sort of rationale. Which shows the degree of your sympathy for Islamic terrorists, that you're willing to imply that their choice of crime is in some way similar to the various crime that immigrant groups get involved with.

It implies nothing of the sort nor did I claim anything of the sort. Don't put your own biases in someone else's words. You'll always be wrong, that way.

Agree.

See what happens when you don't assume?

We have plenty of other cultures to experience here. The days when leftists preached about the US being too white should be over, I think the country is currently about 60% white, and whites will be under 50% in about another 20 years.

Now, if you want to make it a righty-lefty thing, I'll start reminding you how so many righties play the "poor white victim" card as a ridiculous excuse to attack those who are not white. How about this? Stay away from the stupid and moronic partisan hackery so we can discuss this intelligently.

Moot point. Many of the Muslims who are on the watch list are British citizens born in the UK, thus no vetting process could have weeded them out. Islamic radicalism is growing amongst YOUNGER people, which is why we're seeing non immigrant Muslims in the Europe joining Isis, or killing people for Isis.

In that case, the issue has nothing to do with immigration, so it has nothing to do with our current discussion.

If you know anything about Europe, you'd know that their border security is very lax, which was an intentional intentional
situation created by the EU to remove the limits of people traveling from one country to another.

I completely understand that and am aware of that European policy. Perhaps they should rethink it.

 

[coldjoint]

Post where the site admits to their mistakes. And citing peaceful Muslims, of whom make up the majority of Muslims, may be irrelevant to you, but they are not irrelevant to the issue.

TheReligionofPeace.com strongly condemns any attempt to harm or harass any Muslim anywhere in the world over their religion. Every human is entitled to be treated as an individual and judged only by his or her own words and deeds. (see About Muslims).

TROP also denounces any act of vandalism against mosques or other property, including juvenile attempts to offend Muslims by desecrating copies of the Quran. (The best way of discrediting the Quran is to tell non-Muslims what it actually says about them).

At the same time, we see no use in pretending that Islam is just another religion - which always seems to be the assumption of those preferring not to look too closely. Over 99% of religiously-motivated terror is committed explicitly in the name of this one faith. How can that be if it is just like all the others?

Not exactly an apology as it is a statement.

Note also that in 2014 the BBC vetted the list of Islamic terror attacks for a single month and found that TROP undercounted the number of attacks by two-thirds and the deaths by half.

They really don't have anything to apologize for. They make their position quite clear.

https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/site/sources.aspx

 

[coldjoint]

But YOU do, that's the whole point.

No, it isn't when you discuss nothing quoted. How does what you say about me change anything about what is written in Islam and its credibility? It does not, so it is as irrelevant to truth about Islam as you are.

 

[coldjoint]

I can't be a racist. I have a black friend.

You want to not be labeled an Islamophobe, then firstly, stop generalizing, and secondly... I expect the same courtesy. You have no evidence other than your own perceptions of how someone is to discuss this topic that they are an "apologist". In the past, I have constantly posted my disgust at terrorist acts perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, both at Israel, in the US, and other places. I do not hold ALL Muslims responsible for this, nor do I hold Islam in general. What you say that makes me is based on your perceptions of how you want me to react, which is a complete invalid assumption. So, drop the apologist bull****.

Don't panic Truth, there are no Islamophobes because awareness of Islam is not an illogical fear. There are only people short on answers that grasp at anything to demean their opponent. The word was designed to end a conversation by stigmatizing the person critiquing Islam. End of story.

 

[coldjoint]

Australia: The Madness Continues

Australia is the country that is the topic. A little more information.

In Australia, according to judges, women and children must accept sexual assaults because it is part of the "Islamic culture" of their attackers. It would seem that in parts of Australia, this "Islamic culture" has replaced the rule of law.

Not good. There is much more on Australia's appeasements in the link.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10604/australia-madness

 

[Chagos]

No, it isn't when you discuss nothing quoted. How does what you say about me change anything about what is written in Islam and its credibility? It does not, so it is as irrelevant to truth about Islam as you are.

And there we have yet another demonstration of your lack of comprehension on the issue.

The simple fact that you show to be lying in nearly every post, illustrated by

1) your behaviour of stating something, then saying you never did
2) and insisting on that stance even when it's shown (again) to be untrue,
3) your propensity to cite sources that have no credibility at all, and
4) to misrepresent even those, plus
5) your recent demonstration of even forging an otherwise respectable source

all of those do not require any further discussion beyond.

You show to be utterly dishonest and thus most anything you say is best not believed. See my example of the sun rising in the East and the boy who cried wolf.

What someone showing to be as dishonest as you says about virtually anything is not relevant and thus as unworthy of being discussed as you, for the stated reasons, are ineligible for any discussion.

 

[Chagos]

Australia is the country that is the topic. A little more information.


Not good. There is much more on Australia's appeasements in the link.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10604/australia-madness

and as if any further outlining of what's stated in #759 were needed, further confirmation is readily provided.

 

[Chagos]

Don't panic Truth, there are no Islamophobes because awareness of Islam is not an illogical fear.

With the constant demonstration that you provide on your ignorance of Islam, you wouldn't know that one way or the other anyway.

There are only people short on answers that grasp at anything to demean their opponent.

Your dishonesty is so apparent that there can be no question of "grasping". More like ducking or side-stepping before one gets contaminated by the sheer abundance of it.

The word was designed to end a conversation by stigmatizing the person critiquing Islam.

The term was coined before you were even born.

End of story.

No such luck.

 

[coldjoint]

And there we have yet another demonstration of your lack of comprehension on the issue.

The simple fact that you show to be lying in nearly every post, illustrated by

1) your behaviour of stating something, then saying you never did
2) and insisting on that stance even when it's shown (again) to be untrue,
3) your propensity to cite sources that have no credibility at all, and
4) to misrepresent even those, plus
5) your recent demonstration of even forging an otherwise respectable source

all of those do not require any further discussion beyond.

You show to be utterly dishonest and thus most anything you say is best not believed. See my example of the sun rising in the East and the boy who cried wolf.

What someone showing to be as dishonest as you says about virtually anything is not relevant and thus as unworthy of being discussed as you, for the stated reasons, are ineligible for any discussion.

The Koran and the Hadith is credible and anytime I use or reference Islamic text it is credible. And as your constant repetition proves you know it is true and you can not find anything that discredits it.

What you think I misrepresent is not anything I worry about because you add nothing of substance ever. I suggest you get used to fact that Islam is what Islam says it is and that Muhammad is the only scholar that counts. That leaves you out.

 

[coldjoint]

With the constant demonstration that you provide on your ignorance of Islam, you wouldn't know that one way or the other anyway. Your dishonesty is so apparent that there can be no question of "grasping". More like ducking or side-stepping before one gets contaminated by the sheer abundance of it. The term was coined before you were even born.No such luck.

The term was coined to play on white guilt and used like a club to silence people. That is the truth, if you don't like it simply call me a liar again, it will not change the truth.


Next.

 

[coldjoint]

and as if any further outlining of what's stated in #759 were needed, further confirmation is readily provided.

You wish to see more from the article? No problem.

In March, a teacher at Punchbowl Primary School quit her job after she and her family received death threats from the children in the school, with some of them saying they would behead her. The teacher's complaints to the New South Wales Department of Education were dismissed.

Some Muslims have decided to create a "safe space" on their own, segregated from the rest of Australian society. In Brisbane, the Australian International Islamic College is planning an exclusively Muslim enclave, including a mosque covering 1,970 square meters; a three-storey elder-care and residential building, 3,000 square meters of retail space and 120 residential apartments, in addition to new classrooms and a childcare center for 2,000 students. The existing site is already home to the college, which caters to students from kindergarten to 12th grade. So much for "multiculturalism".

As anyone can see what is written and obligated is being acted on.

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10604/australia-madness

Clearly, the appeasement is not working

. It never has. Appeasement, in fact, usually seems to have the opposite effect. Here are a few recent examples of how Australian policies have been working out lately:

 

[Chagos]

The Koran and the Hadith is credible and anytime I use or reference Islamic text it is credible. ....................~

The Qur'an and hadiths in this case take the role of the sun that (see previous example) rises in the East,

IOW the claim of their credibility coming from you makes that particular claim (not Qur'an or hadiths themselves) highly suspicious.

As to not being able to find anything that discredits something, it's not about anything, it's about anyone.

With you as being that "anyone" having been clearly identified long ago.

To remind of the why again, the below being just a sample:

1) your behaviour of stating something, then saying you never did
2) and insisting on that stance even when it's shown (again) to be untrue,
3) your propensity to cite sources that have no credibility at all, and
4) to misrepresent even those, plus
5) your recent demonstration of even forging an otherwise respectable source

 

[Chagos]

The term was coined to play on white guilt and used like a club to silence people. That is the truth, if you don't like it simply call me a liar again, it will not change the truth.


Next.

Wrong.

Since it's origin and date of same have been addressed countless times, you nevertheless sticking to this dishonest narrative (as per your above) is just another example of your behaviour of lying.

 

[Chagos]

You wish to see more from the article? ..........................~

Why would anyone wish to see more from a site that lies?

As you yourself quoted from that article

In Australia, according to judges, women and children must accept sexual assaults because it is part of the "Islamic culture" of their attackers.

Okay, so this time maybe it's merely the site that's lying. But that confirms that you prefer to cite lying cites and that does for your credibility exactly what your own lies do.

Pulverize it even more.

 

[coldjoint]

Wrong.

Since it's origin and date of same have been addressed countless times, you nevertheless sticking to this dishonest narrative (as per your above) is just another example of your behaviour of lying.

I have multiple sources which, I have posted ,that say where and how the term came about. Instead of saying what has been addressed simply address again.

That means post your proof. Your word means 0.

 

[coldjoint]

The Qur'an and hadiths in this case take the role of the sun that (see previous example) rises in the East,

IOW the claim of their credibility coming from you makes that particular claim (not Qur'an or hadiths themselves) highly suspicious.

As to not being able to find anything that discredits something, it's not about anything, it's about anyone.

With you as being that "anyone" having been clearly identified long ago.

To remind of the why again, the below being just a sample:

1) your behaviour of stating something, then saying you never did
2) and insisting on that stance even when it's shown (again) to be untrue,
3) your propensity to cite sources that have no credibility at all, and
4) to misrepresent even those, plus
5) your recent demonstration of even forging an otherwise respectable source

Substance not accusations.

 

[coldjoint]

Why would anyone wish to see more from a site that lies?

As you yourself quoted from that article Okay, so this time maybe it's merely the site that's lying. But that confirms that you prefer to cite lying cites and that does for your credibility exactly what your own lies do.

Pulverize it even more.

Prove they are lying.

 

[Chagos]

Substance not accusations.

What you see are accusations of substance.

With you constantly providing the latter to the former.

 

[Chagos]

Prove they are lying.

There is no degree by Australian judges, not even any press release, stating that women and children must accept sexual assaults because it is part of the "Islamic culture" of their attackers. .

If you insist upon this narrative you are lying as much as your site.

 

[Chagos]

I have multiple sources which, I have posted ,that say where and how the term came about. Instead of saying what has been addressed simply address again.

Most everyone is by now aware of the nature (credibility) of sources you use.

The term was coined (obviously in its French form of "Islamophobie") as early as 1918 by painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad. Seemingly even earlier than that by French anthropologists in 1910, in order to designate a principle of colonial administration in West Africa as opposed to "Islamophilia".

le concept d’islamophobie est en fait utilisé pour la première fois par des anthropologues français en 1910, afin de désigner un principe d’administration coloniale en Afrique de l’Ouest, par opposition à l’«islamophilie».

«Islamophobie», mot de l?époque ou mal du siècle ? - Libération

The Oxford English dictionary records its English form as early as 1923.

The hell with your lying sources.

 

[coldjoint]

There is no degree by Australian judges, not even any press release, stating that women and children must accept sexual assaults because it is part of the "Islamic culture" of their attackers. .

If you insist upon this narrative you are lying as much as your site.

How would you know? That is not a source, it is your usual bull****. Prove it.

 

[coldjoint]

Most everyone is by now aware of the nature (credibility) of sources you use.

The term was coined (obviously in its French form of "Islamophobie") as early as 1918 by painter Alphonse Étienne Dinet and Algerian intellectual Sliman ben Ibrahim in their biography of Islam's prophet Muhammad. Seemingly even earlier than that by French anthropologists in 1910, in order to designate a principle of colonial administration in West Africa as opposed to "Islamophilia". «Islamophobie», mot de l?époque ou mal du siècle*? - Libération

The Oxford English dictionary records its English form as early as 1923.

The hell with your lying sources.

It seems from what you say its original meaning

colonial administration in West Africa as opposed to "Islamophilia"

. Does and is it defined as irrational fear?

I do not read French and on this forum I am not supposed to. Post your link in English.

BTW Islamophobia, not Islamophobie is the word.