Australian #racist

Australian #racist fstdt.com

[The modern version of the old Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda]

As far as I am concerned, any apologist of Islam is actively seeking to undermine the security and way of life of whatever Western nation they live in, and the only word to describe this is: treason. They are traitors, the snakes in the long-grass, taking our largesse and using it to subvert the ideals that built the modern world, the same ideals that prompted people to take them in from the very strife and wars that their own way of life triggered and fostered.

Their repayment: making London Londonistan, telling rape victims that they shouldn't have dressed "immodestly" (when they're not busy accusing them of willing fornication), fomenting riots, and using the tried-and-true tactics of divide and conquer against the people who took them in, until they can rule and get them all under their thumbs.

Pack 'em up and send 'em back to their benighted Third-World theocratic nations, and see how long they last there without their welfare payments, their police protection, the "rights" they've come to enjoy and abuse here and the peace of being able to sleep at night without worrying if the police will bash down the door at the bidding of a petty, corrupt tyrant.

24 comments

old comment by Exmuslim Turk.

He does have points, but misses inches.

Islamic law for rape victims are simply unjust and foul. Funnier yet, these Nazis ALSO deal with women on the same level.

"Pack 'em up and send 'em back to their benighted Third-World theocratic nations, and see how long they last there without their welfare payments, their police protection, the "rights" they've come to enjoy and abuse here and the peace of being able to sleep at night without worrying if the police will bash down the door at the bidding of a petty, corrupt tyrant."

He is right. If a Muslim openly starts some shit, just send him back to his country. Believe me. HE is right on that.

old comment by

All right, I'm sick and tired of this.

Australia has 21 million people. Do you know how many Muslims there are in Australia?

They make up one point seven percent of the population. That's about 364,000 people. Out of 21 million.

Muslims are NEVER going to take over the nation, no matter how much they wanted to, which they don't. It's just not fucking possible. If it happened it would take such an impressive feat of arms or political maneuvering on the part of Muslims and such colossal incompetence on the part of the rest of the population I'd say they deserved their success.

You are ignorant scaremongers who have no sense of perspective. Shut up.

old comment by Mat

I am here to defnd my statment - as advertised, I will defend anything I have said, even if it is under (inadvertantly) a different name.

@869737: Yes, in fact I can find any Middle Eastern nation you name on a map. And have been able to do so since I was twelve, as I pride myself on my education. Further I can state that the following Middle Eastern nations have Islam as an official state religion, with limited or no tolerance granted other religions: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Bahrain (de facto, more tolerance is given to Christianity, as it is the religion of the overwhelming majority of the foreign workers there), Qatar (ditto), Kuwait (ditto, but to a lesser extent), Oman, the UAE, Yemen and Jordan. In Syria, there is no official State religion, but the Constitution requires the President to be a Muslim. In Egypt, Islam is the state religion, and the President appoints the head of the Coptic Christian church in Egypt. In exchange for this, Christians are accorded citizenship in Egypt, although they are widely discriminated against.

Further, it is widely (and correctly) stated that homophobia is the last respectable expression of bigotry, not Islamophobia. Get it right.

@aaa - Wrong. One chooses to be a Muslim in the Western world. Either because one converted to Islam (which, unlike Judaism, proselytises), or because one moved there. If a person's parents moved there, fair enough - but they can always leave Islam and its 7th-century mandates behind in order to honour the ways of life of their homelands.

@Exmuslim Turk: Excuse me? Since when do I advocate such treatment of women as you suggest I do? Further, argumentum ad hitlerum is one of the more egregious logical fallacies out there.

@870161: S'funny, isn't it? There's enough of them to riot at the drop of a hat, to have enormous mosques built to accommodate their worship needs, to form criminal gangs and to pressure gutless politicians into doing their bidding. But there's not enough to take over? Yeah, right. Pull the other one mate, or open your eyes.

@DarthVader: Thank you. Islam is not a race. If this post should have been put anywhere, it's in FSTDT - as a hardline anti-(insert name of religion here)ist, FSTDT is the closest match.

EDIT: @Mortok: Just mention the name of Taj al-Din al-Hilali (you know, the former Grand Mufti of Australia) to any reasonably intelligent Australian. Then stand back and watch the reaction. After all, his remarks included (but were not limited to) denying the Holocause ever happened, his accusations that Jews cause all wars (made in 1988, well before he became G.M.), his support of terrorist in sermons and by funneling "charitable" funds, his statement that 90% of the time, a woman is responsible for causing her own rape by not being "in her room, in her home, in her hijab", and, last but far from least, his statements that Muslims have more right to own Australia than the Australian people do.

And you want to defend the bunch of nutters that made THIS man their religious leader, and kept him there for 15 years, well after his beliefs and positions were well known, why? Oh, that's right. Because in your eyes, it's always a "tiny minority" of Muslims. Except, bright-eyes, that it's not. It's the majority of them, propelled by the words of their own holy book, which states that no peace will exist so long as religions other than Islam exist.

old comment by Mortok

Sure, fine, Taj was a nutcase. So are you. The majority of muslims fit in just fine here. I count a few as among my good friends. They do not force their beliefs on me. Religion has never been a topic of discussion.

In the same way that you are not representative of the majority of(presumably)Caucasian Australians, Taj al-Din al-Hilali is not represntative of the majority of Australia's muslim population.

There's no accounting for who people vote for. Both our current and previous Prime Ministers have cocked things up on occasion. The fact that a person like Sarah Palin has any sort of position in government would say a lot about America, if you were to judge a whole country based on the people that lead it.

Taj is a relic of the past. If you don't adapt, you will be too.

old comment by Mat

@Mortok: All fine, except for one thing: the Islamic community offered him another term as Grand Mufti AFTER he had made the "women = uncovered meat" comments and claimed that Muslims should own Australia. Citation: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/controversial-sheik-steps-down/2007/06/10/1181414120329.html

That seems to illustrate their priorities just fine. And remember, Palin was rejected (soundly) by the US electorate for the Vice-Presidency, so don't try to equate the two. And you seem to miss my point - it is this. After the nature of this man was well-known, the leaders of the Muslims in Australia moved to reappoint him to his position, knowing full well what the reaction would be. Why? So they would have their chance to cause trouble and win more concessions, aided and abetted by PC individuals like you.

P.S. I thought that all of Australia was being called upon to atone for past cockups, even those our ancestors had committed while no person alive today existed then (never mind those simply opposed by a majority of the populace) - or had you forgotten "Sorry Day" and the many calls for billions of dollars in compo from the Aboriginal leaders?

old comment by

@870161: S'funny, isn't it? There's enough of them to riot at the drop of a hat, to have enormous mosques built to accommodate their worship needs, to form criminal gangs and to pressure gutless politicians into doing their bidding. But there's not enough to take over? Yeah, right. Pull the other one mate, or open your eyes.

Rioting?

Fucking 4chan has enough members to riot at the drop of a hat. This isn't special. Also, Cronulla much?

Building mosques?

EVERY religion builds build houses of worship. Tremble before the might of the Buddhofascist threat!

Criminal gangs?

Don't make me laugh. If you think gangs can take over a modern, Western nation you're seriously delusional.

Able to pressure politicians?

If you think this is a sign of the mighty Muslim power you clearly have no idea how politics works.

old comment by LadyJafaria

I think if you can look at any religion or culture and only see what's bad about it, you're a narrowminded douchebag who's not trying hard enough. Every religion has its bad adherents and its contradictory statements. That's because religion is a human phenomenon, and humans are, for the most part, stupid dicks. The people that are stupid dicks for their religion wouldn't be much better if they woke up tomorrow morning and their religion never existed.

Rioting isn't unique to Islam. Neither is misogyny. I've seen our good white Christians victim-blame just as often as I've seen any other religion do it. There are badly behaved Muslims. There are badly behaved Christians. I don't see anyone saying that all Christians are like Fred Phelps and need to be removed from society.

Hating an entire religion because of its problems is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

old comment by Mat

@872733:

If you get to talk about the Cronulla riots, then I get to talk about the Muslim-committed gang-rapes of women throughout Sydney leading up to the riots. So I advise you not to.

Regarding mosques - I have no inherent problems with a religion building places of worship. However, why so many, and why such large ones, if Australia's Muslim population is so small as all that?

Regarding Muslim gangs - see the first part.

Lastly, regarding pressure - The Premier of NSW couldn't even identify the rapists as Lebanese-Australians without calls for his resignation, and eventually being forced to withdraw the comment. They WERE Lebanese-Australian. Already, the Muslims have made it such that no-one can ever talk about criminals who are Muslims publicly - that's "hate speech" against Islam, apparently.

@LadyJafaria - All fair enough. However, you forget - the Qu'ran, unlike the Bible, is perfectly clear on how to treat all other religions: war, until they submit to Islam. And even then, life as a dhimmi ("Protected" Non-Muslim) in an Islamic country is far from pleasant.

I have been ridiculed for "lack of tolerance" on this thread. I have a challenge for those who ridiculed me: name one nation governed by sharia (the ultimate, stated goal of Islam) that is tolerant toward other religions. One will be enough to make me think. And remember, both Turkey and Indonesia are avowedly secular states, although the Church-State barriers ae breaking down in those countries.

old comment by

I get to talk about the Cronulla riots because you specifically mentioned rioting. The rapes were five years before the riots; they're hardly an excuse. Also, what does that have to do with gangs? The ability to rape women does not translate to overthrowing a government.

You still haven't provided any sort of hypothesis for how Muslims will take over. Force of arms? Strength in numbers? Economic influence? Political positions? Relative to the rest of the population, they have none of these whatsoever. Muslims who wanted to start an Islamic revolution in Australia would have more success with Zombie Saladin and his army of leprechauns.

I have been ridiculed for "lack of tolerance" on this thread. I have a challenge for those who ridiculed me: name one nation governed by sharia (the ultimate, stated goal of Islam) that is tolerant toward other religions. One will be enough to make me think. And remember, both Turkey and Indonesia are avowedly secular states, although the Church-State barriers ae breaking down in those countries.

Malaysia. Not exactly a bastion of human rights, but still better than many secular states.

What is this supposed to prove? The very existence of Turkey and Indonesia (although the latter isn't actually secular) already shows that there are plenty of Muslims who are not raving, pro-theocracy fundamentalists.

If we're concerned about our secular society being undermined, perhaps we should take a look at the five million Catholics in Australia and their archbishops Pell and Hickey, who have threatened MPs into voting as the Church desires, hmm?

old comment by Mat

@874525:

Granted: Indonesia is not -quite - a secular state. Pancasila, however, is not Islam, and has as its central tenet tolerance. However, in both Indonesia and Turkey, the barriers between Church (Islam) and State are breaking down over time, unlike in Western countries, where it is being reinforced over time. In Turkey, the AKP (Justice and Development Party) advocates Islamist government, and won the recent elections. In Indonesia, Abdurrahman Wahid (an Imam) became the President and was much-loved. I compare this to Mitt Romney's candidacy for the Presidency. He didn't even make it out of the primaries.

Granted: Undue Catholic influence on the political process. This is another concern of mine, although it is not as strong. After all, the Catholic Church doesn't advocate putting me to death or making me a second-class citizen for not being Catholic. Ergo, it goes BEHIND Islam on my "to-watch" list of issues and potential threats.

Malaysia: Indeed? So a country in which a Muslim is forbidden to marry a kaffir (non-Muslim), in which non-Muslim religious centres may not be constructed without huge hindrance from the government, and in which all Muslims may appeal to the Shariah if they wish (natually, kaffirs do not get this privilege accorded only to Muslims) s your idea of a tolerant, multiconfessional society?

Further, all Malays are Constitutionally required to be Muslim and can be stripped of citizenship for renouncing Islam. No, this point I cannot grant - it is at odds with the available facts.

As far as growing Islamic influence in Australia is concernned, I have this to say: breeding. It is rare for a Western family to have more than two children, and virtually unheard-of to have more than four in the younger generation. However, the birthrate across the OIC (and, therefore, presumably across their emigres in the Western world) is considerably higher. Whether by intent or not, one side-effect of Islamic lack-of-womens-rights is to produce a set of conditions under which outbreeding the kaffirs is entirely possible, and indeed probable, within the next fourty years.

Suffice it to say that my reasons for distrust of Islam include, but are not limited to, the following:

I am a Kaffir, and hence the Qu'ran mandates war against me until I submit to Islam. (And, no, it isn't the Quranic equivalent of the Old Testament, either).

I am homosexual, and hence the Qu'ran commands that I be stoned to death. (Once again, not "Old-Testament" Qu'ran).

Islam cannot undergo such a Reformation as Christianity did to make it more tolerant. Christianity's central figure, Christ (duh!) advoacted tolerance, love and peace. Islam's central figure, Mohammed (again, duh!) mandated war, death and destruction so long as non-Muslims exist. Therefore, it can be argued that the Wahhabis are in fact Islamic reformationists - they seek to return the religion to its roots, as Calvin and Luther did with Christianity. And they are succeding.

I doubt that we are going to agree, so let us each believe what we believe and leave it at that.

P.S. Apologies for any spelling/grammatical errors - I am somewhat the worse for drink at the present. I have the first cocktail (actually, I'm on the sixth now, but you get the point) that I have been able to have for weeks, and I'm LOVING it!!! Merry Christmas from a a Pagan!

old comment by

As far as I am concerned, any apologist of Judaism is actively seeking to undermine the security and way of life of whatever Western nation they live in, and the only word to describe this is: treason. They are traitors, the snakes in the long-grass, taking our largesse and using it to subvert the ideals that built the modern world, the same ideals that prompted people to take them in from the very strife and wars that their own way of life triggered and fostered.

Their repayment: making London Ziondon, telling rape victims that they shouldn't have dressed "immodestly" (when they're not busy accusing them of willing fornication), fomenting riots, and using the tried-and-true tactics of divide and conquer against the people who took them in, until they can rule and get them all under their thumbs.

Pack 'em up and send 'em back to their benighted theocratic nation, and see how long they last there without their welfare payments, their police protection, the "rights" they've come to enjoy and abuse here and the peace of being able to sleep at night without worrying if the police will bash down the door at the bidding of a petty, corrupt tyrant.

Amazing how little it changes if you just change the religion and a few words.

old comment by Mat

@Jaces Ci:

I'd like to meet some of this kind of Muslim - if they existed in any significant number. Sadly, they make up (generously) two pecent of the Muslim population, at least in my experience. The closest that I ever came to it was when I was younger and (far) more idealistic, when an otherwise charming young Muslim man told me that I'd go to Hell for being non-Muslim, and that it'd be his pleasure (if the "kaffir" laws didn't protect me) to send me there personally. For a long time, I thought that he was an aberration and acted accordingly. I have since changed my mind.

@876744:

Except, of course, for the level of reality involved (for instance, Judaism doesn't seek to absorb or kill all non-Jews). But never mind that - I'm sure that many people like a good laugh, so keep going, sunshine.

old comment by POSW

"For instance, Judaism doesn't seek to absorb or kill all non-Jews."

Actually, it does. We're just not told to actively go out and do it - God will convert all the gentiles for us, and then the Messiah will come, or something like that. (I haven't really looked at Jewish Messianic beliefs for a while, so sorry if I'm wrong about this.)

As far as Islam goes, I'd say that as a religion, it's not any better than Christianity is or used to be (destruction of the Native Americans, anyone?), and the real difference is that Muslim countries tend to be in the third world, while countries with Christian majorities tend to be rich and industrialized.

Oh, and during the Middle Ages, today's situation was reversed. Europe was a dangerous, violent place full of Christian fundamentalists, and Baghdad was one of the world's centers of science, medicine, and scholarship. And if you don't believe me, look up Avicenna and Omar Khayyám. Then tell me who discovered the trigonometric law of sines.

No, I reject the idea that Islam is inherently bad.

old comment by #876744

Except, of course, for the level of reality involved (for instance, Judaism doesn't seek to absorb or kill all non-Jews). But never mind that - I'm sure that many people like a good laugh, so keep going, sunshine.

As POSW admitted, actually Judaism does, it simply has fallen out of favor and is nominally not practical in the eyes of most Jewish people. I do invite you to look at the possible rise of fundamentalism in Israel's future however; it seems an almost inevitable thing as a backlash at Islamic fundamentalism. And yes, you are quite amusing if I do say so myself, because you really aren't that much better than those from Storm Front and the like. I feel no 'automatic sympathy' for you because you're gay either. You're merely another faceless follower of the 'Islam must be destroyed' sheeple that so love to populate today's politics and media; it grows tiresome, really, and you come off no better than the wide-eyed al-Qaeda or Taliban fanatics (and sympathizers) who post their drivel and diatribe across the Internet and elsewhere.

Though I do wonder why you continue to bitch about this topic if you believe that it may never be reformed. Sort of defeats the entire purpose of talking about faults that, in your opinion, can never change.