Australia launches anti-terror raids

[samran]

Why? Cause they've provided their citizens with jobs, employment opportunities and the ability to get out of poverty. Ever wonder why Malaysia and Nigeria, both who became independent from Britain around the same time and both with very substantial Muslim populations have gone down entirely different paths in respect the the rise of the fundamentalists? Cause when you have a job to go to and dignity to be gained out of economic freedom, the need to have 72 virgins after blowing yourself up becomes a very poor second choice.

Nigeria as an example. have you lost the plot completely. Have you never heard of Boko Harem ? Is it beyond the realms of possibility that some of the insurgency that is being carried out in the Southern Provinces could be carried out by people based in Malaysia ?

And if you want to use the analogy of poverty, unemployment as a part reason for their actions. Then those actions should be directed at their unscrupulous Governments, who are milking all they can get.

Edited to add,

To keep it on topic.

Please explain why it is the responsibility of Aus, UK et al, to open their doors, welcome them, provide them with jobs, housing and money ?

The UK had the cultural legacy of the commonwealth. Up to 1971 if you were a commonwealth citizen you were also essentially British. Plenty of people from the colonies took up that right. If you want an empire, then you take that with it I guess.

For modern day migration to the UK? I migrated legally in 2004 for a bit, had a green card for the UK. Hated it so we moved back pretty quickly, but it want easy to apply for or get, so I don't know what you are really on about. But I had no access to public funds, if was clearly stamped on all my visas.

As for Australia, Australia runs a highly targeted skilled migration system bringing on around 200,000 new migrants every year. It is key driver to Australia's economic development and has been since the post war era. You have skills, you qualify, you come and land as an permanent resident with all the things that come with that.

It's been a highly successful strategy. Waves of Asian migrant in the 70s to the 90s as made Australia's economic push into the region much easier.

Do I care if someone who arrives in Australia happens to be Muslim? No. What I care about is if they have the skills to grow the country. Indonesian Australians helping to link the fastest and largest country in Asia to the Australian resource boom. Arabic speaking Australians who can better flog Australian product to the Middle East, whether they be food stuffs or beefed up Holden's.

We should encourage and use their talents, rather than think they are going to be a target of he next police raid.

I really don't give a toss about the religion. We open up our doors as it is in Australia's national interest to do so.

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[JockPieandBeans]

What are you on about? Of course I've heard of Boko harem. Which was my point. Nigeria and Malaysia both were at comparative economic levels post British independence. One has prospered the other hasn't. One has a fundamentalist problem, the other doesn't.

I do apologise. I misread the part about Nigeria.

As for Southern Thailand, you clearly know nothing. It isn't an insurgency, it is a shit fight between various gangs, including military and police on smuggling routes and turf wars.

again, you make assumptions on what I know and what I do not know. That is your opinion, thats fair enough. That does not mean it is a correct opinion.

The whole thing about independence is a side issue, often overlaid by those like yourselves who seek to muddy the waters for your own anti Islamic agenda. Thailand probably really shouldn't have been there ruling the region, historically and culturally it fits better into Malaysia.

I am not muddying any waters, with any anti Muslim agenda. And as I pointed out to you yesterday, You have previously " Liked " some of my posts on what would be classed as Muslim threads.

And do try and keep it on Topic. Not really interested in oilfields et al. Lets keep it on topic and stick with Aus.

And try answering my question on why the Aus Government are responsible for all and sundry.

[samran]

What are you on about? Of course I've heard of Boko harem. Which was my point. Nigeria and Malaysia both were at comparative economic levels post British independence. One has prospered the other hasn't. One has a fundamentalist problem, the other doesn't.

I do apologise. I misread the part about Nigeria.

As for Southern Thailand, you clearly know nothing. It isn't an insurgency, it is a shit fight between various gangs, including military and police on smuggling routes and turf wars.

again, you make assumptions on what I know and what I do not know. That is your opinion, thats fair enough. That does not mean it is a correct opinion.

The whole thing about independence is a side issue, often overlaid by those like yourselves who seek to muddy the waters for your own anti Islamic agenda. Thailand probably really shouldn't have been there ruling the region, historically and culturally it fits better into Malaysia.

I am not muddying any waters, with any anti Muslim agenda. And as I pointed out to you yesterday, You have previously " Liked " some of my posts on what would be classed as Muslim threads.

And do try and keep it on Topic. Not really interested in oilfields et al. Lets keep it on topic and stick with Aus.

And try answering my question on why the Aus Government are responsible for all and sundry.

Apologies too if I've misread your stuff. Followed up with another reply.

[Ulysses G.]

Cause when you have a job to go to and dignity to be gained out of economic freedom, the need to have 72 virgins after blowing yourself up becomes a very poor second choice.

Someone must have forgotten to tell the 9/11 Hijackers. They had middle-class backgrounds and plenty of opportunities, but chose a 'glorious' death murdering thousands of innocent people instead. Jihad is not limited to poor people.

[JockPieandBeans]

As for Australia, Australia runs a highly targeted skilled migration system bringing on around 200,000 new migrants every year. It is key driver to Australia's economic development and has been since the post war era. You have skills, you qualify, you come and land as an permanent resident with all the things that come with that.

And that is the way it should be. Nothing wrong with that. The problems occur, as the UK is finding out to its cost. Its not that group that is causing the problems. It is the 2nd and 3rd Generation. Something that Australia is just starting to find out about. Unfortunately, it came to the surface in the UK over a decade ago, and has gotten steadily worse.

[samran]

I thought all of these Jihadists in the west were educated, and not begging in the streets, it's not poverty that is the blame for jihad, it's islam

Jacky boy, we are swimming at the deep end of the pool now old chap. Suggest you run along now to somewhere else and go give someone a wedgie, which given your intellectual capacity, provides you the greatest entertainment. That, or do do some burnouts somewhere.

[samran]

As for Australia, Australia runs a highly targeted skilled migration system bringing on around 200,000 new migrants every year. It is key driver to Australia's economic development and has been since the post war era. You have skills, you qualify, you come and land as an permanent resident with all the things that come with that.

And that is the way it should be. Nothing wrong with that. The problems occur, as the UK is finding out to its cost. Its not that group that is causing the problems. It is the 2nd and 3rd Generation. Something that Australia is just starting to find out about. Unfortunately, it came to the surface in the UK over a decade ago, and has gotten steadily worse.

I don't agree with that. It is usually the second generation who work harder than their migrant parents and prosper.

The waves of Vietnamese refugees show that. If we has the internet in the early 80s many here would be calling them closet communist VC, given where they came from. Instead, they worked on shop houses on poor salary to give their kids a better chance, and now they are doctors and lawyers and the like.

I will say this though, and it just my observation. Places like Australia, NZ, Canada and the US have a better track record of dealing with migrants. I don't know what it is, perhaps a simple state of mind that we are all migrants ourselves, and it just seems to work better, though there is the odd hiccup and each new wave tends to be the whipping boy for a few years, till we move on to the end lot.

The uk fares okay, but you blokes have a hard enough time dealing with people from the EU, let alone anywhere else so I'm hesitant to take lessons from the UK. You seem to have these, for lack of a better word, class structures which makes social mobility harder. Even amongst yourselves i noted you are incredibly territorial, even to the extent accents change remarkably within the same city. Maybe that is one of the reasons why you find it harder to deal with migration as a country than the 'new world' when your still identifying yourselves as north or sauf of the river.

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

We are not talking about the Vietnamese. We are talking about radical Islam. The Vietnamese used their opportunities to improve themselves and help their families, not to try changing their adopted countries into another communist Vietnam. Most Muslims, all over the world, want sharia law everywhere.

Edited September 28, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[samran]

Cause when you have a job to go to and dignity to be gained out of economic freedom, the need to have 72 virgins after blowing yourself up becomes a very poor second choice.

Someone must have forgotten to tell the 9/11 Hijackers. They had middle-class backgrounds and plenty of opportunities, but chose a 'glorious' death murdering thousands of innocent people instead. Jihad is not limited to poor people.

They were plants from the start UG, half of the were there on student visas doing bogus courses learning to fly planes without landing them. None were us citizens from memory.

And if you look at places where they came from, like Saudi, these places are oil rich but do very little in the way of encouraging their people to work, which is all outsourced. Places like Malaysia and Indonesia never has that luxury. They've been forced to open themselves up for investment and economic opportunity followed. Your example isn't a good comparison.

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[simple1]

"Islam put in place laws for the rights of women, approx 1,000 years prior to today's Western countries."

What are you on (about)? Saudi women are so oppressed it's shocking.

"Each Saudi woman has a "male guardian," typically their father or brother or husband, who has the same sort of legal power over her that a parent has over a child. She needs his formal permission to travel, work, go to school or get medical treatment. She's also dependent on him for everything: money, housing, and, because the driving ban means she needs a driver to go anywhere, even the ability to go to the store or visit a friend."

LINK

If you wish to dispute my opinion, please do not cut and post, then argue out of context.

Islamic jurisprudence was the first to provide legal structure for inheritance rights for women and some other matters. The legal structure did not happen in our societies until around 1000 years later.

As I very clearly stated social rights in Islamic societies, not just for women, have made little progression since that time & I presented my thoughts on why this is so.

Rants, including suggestions such as dipping bullets in pigs blood (by you) in another topic are, in my opinion, dull.

Edited September 28, 2014 by simple1

[samran]

We are not talking about the Vietnamese. We are talking about radical Islam. The Vietnamese used their opportunities to improve themselves and help their families, not to try changing their adopted countries into another communist Vietnam. Most Muslims, all over the world, want sharia law everywhere.

A bit like the mad Christians in the us want more laws which reflect the bible. Which neither party should get.

My point is to separate the hysterics of the time from the actual realities.

Those who move to our countries are simply happy with lack of persecution, the freedom to worship and the protection they receive from existing law to protect those rights.

They can try to lobby otherwise, but they won't get far. I like the Israeli example cause it is a good one. The 25% of Muslims who are Israeli citizens like secular law just fine. The fact that Israel has a standing offer for naturalisation of those in Palastinians in East Jerusalem and Syrians in the golan heights tells me they aren't worries about that either.

They are at the pointy end of all of this. If they aren't worried, why should I?

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[Ulysses G.]

Your example isn't a good comparison.

Huh? You are claiming that "some cultures have evolved because they've provided their citizens with jobs, employment opportunities and the ability to get out of poverty" and I've given you examples of people with all of those who are jihadists anyway. What does their citizenship matter? My example is lot better than your attempt at diversion from the facts.

[JockPieandBeans]

The waves of Vietnamese refugees show that. If we has the internet in the early 80s many here would be calling them closet communist VC, given where they came from. Instead, they worked on shop houses on poor salary to give their kids a better chance, and now they are doctors and lawyers and the like.

Please leave other races out of this.

I will say this though, and it just my observation. Places like Australia, NZ, Canada and the US have a better track record of dealing with migrants. I don't know what it is, perhaps a simple state of mind that we are all migrants ourselves, and it just seems to work better, though there is the odd hiccup and each new wave tends to be the whipping boy for a few years, till we move on to the end lot.

Have to disagree in part. Taking the Political spin out of the equation. The US has been an Immigration disaster. Aus NZ, and Canada have fared better due to more robust Immigration Policies. The UK fared badly, because it did not really have Immigration Policies that were coherent or enforced.

The uk fares okay, but you blokes have a hard enough time dealing with people from the EU, let alone anywhere else so I'm hesitant to take lessons from the UK. You seem to have these, for lack of a better word, class structures which makes social mobility harder. Even amongst yourselves i noted you are incredibly territorial, even to the extent accents change remarkably within the same city. Maybe that is one of the reasons why you find it harder to deal with migration as a country than the 'new world'.

Sorry, the UK does not fare OK. Its problems are too numerous to list. What would be fair to say, is that a lot of Indigenous Brits, for want of a better phrase, are leaving in large numbers annually. The reason that we find hard to deal with Immigration, is that regardless what the Politicos say. The Country is at bursting point, full, services cannot cope and it is getting itself deeper in debt trying to keep its head above water. To give you a comparison. The UK has a population @ 70m, that is probably on the low side. Alberta, Canada has the same landmass, population @ 2m.

Do Muslims in Aus get interest free mortgages ?

Are Muslims in Aus allowed multiple wives ?

There is a couple of reasons the natives are getting up in arms.

Now apply that same analogy to Aus, and see what the reaction would be.

Edited September 28, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[samran]

The waves of Vietnamese refugees show that. If we has the internet in the early 80s many here would be calling them closet communist VC, given where they came from. Instead, they worked on shop houses on poor salary to give their kids a better chance, and now they are doctors and lawyers and the like.

Please leave other races out of this.

I will say this though, and it just my observation. Places like Australia, NZ, Canada and the US have a better track record of dealing with migrants. I don't know what it is, perhaps a simple state of mind that we are all migrants ourselves, and it just seems to work better, though there is the odd hiccup and each new wave tends to be the whipping boy for a few years, till we move on to the end lot.

Have to disagree in part. Taking the Political spin out of the equation. The US has been an Immigration disaster. Aus NZ, and Canada have fared better due to more robust Immigration Policies. The UK fared badly, because it did not really have Immigration Policies that were coherent or enforced.

The uk fares okay, but you blokes have a hard enough time dealing with people from the EU, let alone anywhere else so I'm hesitant to take lessons from the UK. You seem to have these, for lack of a better word, class structures which makes social mobility harder. Even amongst yourselves i noted you are incredibly territorial, even to the extent accents change remarkably within the same city. Maybe that is one of the reasons why you find it harder to deal with migration as a country than the 'new world'.

Sorry, the UK does not fare OK. Its problems are too numerous to list. What would be fair to say, is that a lot of Indigenous Brits, for want of a better phrase, are leaving in large numbers annually. The reason that we find hard to deal with Immigration, is that regardless what the Politicos say. The Country is at bursting point, full, services cannot cope and it is getting itself deeper in debt trying to keep its head above water. To give you a comparison. The UK has a population @ 70m, that is probably on the low side. Alberta, Canada has the same landmass, population @ 2m.

You apply that same land mass theory to regions of Aus, and see what the numbers say.

Take the arable land mass and then please recalculate.

[samran]

Your example isn't a good comparison.

Huh? You are claiming that "some cultures have evolved because they've provided their citizens with jobs, employment opportunities and the ability to get out of poverty" and I've given you examples of people with all of those who are jihadists anyway. What does their citizenship matter? My example is lot better than your attempt at diversion from the facts.

It is hard to debate with you when your starting point is that all Muslims are evil. I don't believe that.

[samran]

The waves of Vietnamese refugees show that. If we has the internet in the early 80s many here would be calling them closet communist VC, given where they came from. Instead, they worked on shop houses on poor salary to give their kids a better chance, and now they are doctors and lawyers and the like.

Please leave other races out of this.

I will say this though, and it just my observation. Places like Australia, NZ, Canada and the US have a better track record of dealing with migrants. I don't know what it is, perhaps a simple state of mind that we are all migrants ourselves, and it just seems to work better, though there is the odd hiccup and each new wave tends to be the whipping boy for a few years, till we move on to the end lot.

Have to disagree in part. Taking the Political spin out of the equation. The US has been an Immigration disaster. Aus NZ, and Canada have fared better due to more robust Immigration Policies. The UK fared badly, because it did not really have Immigration Policies that were coherent or enforced.

The uk fares okay, but you blokes have a hard enough time dealing with people from the EU, let alone anywhere else so I'm hesitant to take lessons from the UK. You seem to have these, for lack of a better word, class structures which makes social mobility harder. Even amongst yourselves i noted you are incredibly territorial, even to the extent accents change remarkably within the same city. Maybe that is one of the reasons why you find it harder to deal with migration as a country than the 'new world'.

Sorry, the UK does not fare OK. Its problems are too numerous to list. What would be fair to say, is that a lot of Indigenous Brits, for want of a better phrase, are leaving in large numbers annually. The reason that we find hard to deal with Immigration, is that regardless what the Politicos say. The Country is at bursting point, full, services cannot cope and it is getting itself deeper in debt trying to keep its head above water. To give you a comparison. The UK has a population @ 70m, that is probably on the low side. Alberta, Canada has the same landmass, population @ 2m.

Do Muslims in Aus get interest free mortgages ?

Are Muslims in Aus allowed multiple wives ?

There is a couple of reasons the natives are getting up in arms.

Now apply that same analogy to Aus, and see what the reaction would be.

I don't care if someone gets an interest free loan. More the fool who lends money on that basis. But having been exposed to Islamic banking a tiny bit here in Thailand from a regulatory perspective, formal interest may not be charged, but other imposts and fees are used to cover the risks interest traditionally is used for.

I don't have a problem with multiple wives, so long as that is freely entered into. Again, more the fool the bloke who wants more than one wife, but he is a glutton for punishment then so be it. The state shouldn't stop him.

The point with the Vietnamese example was to highlight the hysterics of the time. Remember, they were communists, an ethos derided as evil and murderous. And 'we' didn't want them. We were wrong.

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[JockPieandBeans]

Sorry, the UK does not fare OK. Its problems are too numerous to list. What would be fair to say, is that a lot of Indigenous Brits, for want of a better phrase, are leaving in large numbers annually. The reason that we find hard to deal with Immigration, is that regardless what the Politicos say. The Country is at bursting point, full, services cannot cope and it is getting itself deeper in debt trying to keep its head above water. To give you a comparison. The UK has a population @ 70m, that is probably on the low side. Alberta, Canada has the same landmass, population @ 2m.

Do Muslims in Aus get interest free mortgages ?

Are Muslims in Aus allowed multiple wives ?

There is a couple of reasons the natives are getting up in arms.

Now apply that same analogy to Aus, and see what the reaction would be.

Take the arable land mass and then please recalculate.

Samran

That was a pathetic response to my post.

[samran]

Sorry, the UK does not fare OK. Its problems are too numerous to list. What would be fair to say, is that a lot of Indigenous Brits, for want of a better phrase, are leaving in large numbers annually. The reason that we find hard to deal with Immigration, is that regardless what the Politicos say. The Country is at bursting point, full, services cannot cope and it is getting itself deeper in debt trying to keep its head above water. To give you a comparison. The UK has a population @ 70m, that is probably on the low side. Alberta, Canada has the same landmass, population @ 2m.

Do Muslims in Aus get interest free mortgages ?

Are Muslims in Aus allowed multiple wives ?

There is a couple of reasons the natives are getting up in arms.

Now apply that same analogy to Aus, and see what the reaction would be.

Take the arable land mass and then please recalculate.

Samran

That was a pathetic response to my post.

Do tell me why? Most Australians live within 50km of the coast. There is a reason for this. Ever flown to Australia? You are flying over desert until about 20 mins before landing.

[JockPieandBeans]

I don't care if someone gets an interest free loan. More the fool who lends money on that basis. But having been exposed to Islamic banking a tiny bit here in Thailand from a regulatory perspective, formal interest may not be charged, but other imposts and fees are used to cover the risks interest traditionally is used for.

I don't have a problem with multiple wives, so long as that is freely entered into. Again, more the fool the bloke who wants more than one wife, but he is a glutton for punishment then so be it. The state shouldn't stop him.

Well, now we get into a bit of depth.

You see, it does not matter what you think. What does matter is the perceived injustice of the indigenous population. Dress it up any way you like, it is a miority of people getting preferential treatment, and sorry, that is just not acceptable.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/29/mortgages.islam

Sure, I agree with you, any fool that wants more than 1 wife is a glutton for punishment. That is immaterial. The law of the land states that bigamy is illegal.

However, not if you are a Muslim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512043/Muslim-husbands-wife-extra-benefits-ministers-recognise-polygamy.html

In the 2 instances that I have provided. Yes, the are specific to Muslims. However, that being said, I do not care a toss, what religion, colour or creed it applies to. It is just plain wrong.

Is Australia ready for these things? Have they kept quiet and accepted them ?

Believe what you like, it only leads to a slippery slope, and that slope is downhill all the way.

[NeverSure]

Cause when you have a job to go to and dignity to be gained out of economic freedom, the need to have 72 virgins after blowing yourself up becomes a very poor second choice.

Someone must have forgotten to tell the 9/11 Hijackers. They had middle-class backgrounds and plenty of opportunities, but chose a 'glorious' death murdering thousands of innocent people instead. Jihad is not limited to poor people.

Bin Laden's father was one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia, and Bin Laden himself was estimated to be worth between 100 and 200 million dollars. While he didn't choose to die, he chose to be the leader of Al Qaeda at the time of 9/11 and to mastermind it and fund it.

He also chose to live like a animal in the desert with other animals, and hide from civilized people.

So there you have the reverse: Someone who's incredibly wealthy choosing to live like a pauper in the worst of conditions and to be a ruthless mass murderer.

[JockPieandBeans]

Sorry, the UK does not fare OK. Its problems are too numerous to list. What would be fair to say, is that a lot of Indigenous Brits, for want of a better phrase, are leaving in large numbers annually. The reason that we find hard to deal with Immigration, is that regardless what the Politicos say. The Country is at bursting point, full, services cannot cope and it is getting itself deeper in debt trying to keep its head above water. To give you a comparison. The UK has a population @ 70m, that is probably on the low side. Alberta, Canada has the same landmass, population @ 2m.

Do Muslims in Aus get interest free mortgages ?

Are Muslims in Aus allowed multiple wives ?

There is a couple of reasons the natives are getting up in arms.

Now apply that same analogy to Aus, and see what the reaction would be.

Take the arable land mass and then please recalculate.

Samran

That was a pathetic response to my post.

Do tell me why? Most Australians live within 50km of the coast. There is a reason for this. Ever flown to Australia? You are flying over desert until about 20 mins before landing.

And your point is ?

What is the vast majority of the Middle East ? Sure as sh!t never seen much in the way of green oasis's in all the years I spent there.

[NeverSure]

I thought all of these Jihadists in the west were educated, and not begging in the streets, it's not poverty that is the blame for jihad, it's islam

Jacky boy, we are swimming at the deep end of the pool now old chap. Suggest you run along now to somewhere else and go give someone a wedgie, which given your intellectual capacity, provides you the greatest entertainment. That, or do do some burnouts somewhere.

Is that the best you can do? The Saudis who are very wealthy, and the same with the leaders of Iran, have supported jihadists all along.

And you want to not only make it about money, but you want to dismiss with derision anyone who can see the truth.

It's Islam.

[samran]

I don't care if someone gets an interest free loan. More the fool who lends money on that basis. But having been exposed to Islamic banking a tiny bit here in Thailand from a regulatory perspective, formal interest may not be charged, but other imposts and fees are used to cover the risks interest traditionally is used for.

I don't have a problem with multiple wives, so long as that is freely entered into. Again, more the fool the bloke who wants more than one wife, but he is a glutton for punishment then so be it. The state shouldn't stop him.

Well, now we get into a bit of depth.

You see, it does not matter what you think. What does matter is the perceived injustice of the indigenous population. Dress it up any way you like, it is a miority of people getting preferential treatment, and sorry, that is just not acceptable.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/29/mortgages.islam

Sure, I agree with you, any fool that wants more than 1 wife is a glutton for punishment. That is immaterial. The law of the land states that bigamy is illegal.

However, not if you are a Muslim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512043/Muslim-husbands-wife-extra-benefits-ministers-recognise-polygamy.html

In the 2 instances that I have provided. Yes, the are specific to Muslims. However, that being said, I do not care a toss, what religion, colour or creed it applies to. It is just plain wrong.

Is Australia ready for these things? Have they kept quiet and accepted them ?

Believe what you like, it only leads to a slippery slope, and that slope is downhill all the way.

Go back to my previous comments about the need for secular law.

[JockPieandBeans]

I don't care if someone gets an interest free loan. More the fool who lends money on that basis. But having been exposed to Islamic banking a tiny bit here in Thailand from a regulatory perspective, formal interest may not be charged, but other imposts and fees are used to cover the risks interest traditionally is used for.

I don't have a problem with multiple wives, so long as that is freely entered into. Again, more the fool the bloke who wants more than one wife, but he is a glutton for punishment then so be it. The state shouldn't stop him.

Well, now we get into a bit of depth.

You see, it does not matter what you think. What does matter is the perceived injustice of the indigenous population. Dress it up any way you like, it is a miority of people getting preferential treatment, and sorry, that is just not acceptable.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/29/mortgages.islam

Sure, I agree with you, any fool that wants more than 1 wife is a glutton for punishment. That is immaterial. The law of the land states that bigamy is illegal.

However, not if you are a Muslim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512043/Muslim-husbands-wife-extra-benefits-ministers-recognise-polygamy.html

In the 2 instances that I have provided. Yes, the are specific to Muslims. However, that being said, I do not care a toss, what religion, colour or creed it applies to. It is just plain wrong.

Is Australia ready for these things? Have they kept quiet and accepted them ?

Believe what you like, it only leads to a slippery slope, and that slope is downhill all the way.

Go back to my previous comments about the need for secular law.

Unfortunately i cannot find your comment about the need for secular law. So if you know where it is kindly repost is.

I did find this. You said.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

As I demonstrated above, that is clearly not the case.

[JockPieandBeans]

I also found this

But what I don't do, which you all do, is lump everyone one together

Followed by

The beer gutted, whoring pensioner exiles here from mud island might not see it,

Pot and kettle perhaps ?

Maybe you would like to join me at 0530 for my morning run. Or at 0830 Mon - Fri at my gym and I could demonstrate the stupidity of your statement.

[samran]

I don't care if someone gets an interest free loan. More the fool who lends money on that basis. But having been exposed to Islamic banking a tiny bit here in Thailand from a regulatory perspective, formal interest may not be charged, but other imposts and fees are used to cover the risks interest traditionally is used for.

I don't have a problem with multiple wives, so long as that is freely entered into. Again, more the fool the bloke who wants more than one wife, but he is a glutton for punishment then so be it. The state shouldn't stop him.

Well, now we get into a bit of depth.

You see, it does not matter what you think. What does matter is the perceived injustice of the indigenous population. Dress it up any way you like, it is a miority of people getting preferential treatment, and sorry, that is just not acceptable.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jun/29/mortgages.islam

Sure, I agree with you, any fool that wants more than 1 wife is a glutton for punishment. That is immaterial. The law of the land states that bigamy is illegal.

However, not if you are a Muslim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512043/Muslim-husbands-wife-extra-benefits-ministers-recognise-polygamy.html

In the 2 instances that I have provided. Yes, the are specific to Muslims. However, that being said, I do not care a toss, what religion, colour or creed it applies to. It is just plain wrong.

Is Australia ready for these things? Have they kept quiet and accepted them ?

Believe what you like, it only leads to a slippery slope, and that slope is downhill all the way.

Go back to my previous comments about the need for secular law.

Unfortunately i cannot find your comment about the need for secular law. So if you know where it is kindly repost is.

I did find this. You said.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

As I demonstrated above, that is clearly not the case.

Wasn't me.

Post 346.

As for the run. Will 10km do?

Edited September 28, 2014 by samran

[jacky54]

Not all Muslims are jihadists.

But all jihadists are muslims.

And all crusaders were Christians. And more lately, so were bombers of family planning clinics.

Jihad is just a word.

The koran and hadith are just words, but look at the death toll (260 million) misery and darkness that those words have caused and continue to around the world today! Crusaders were merely answering at last 300 years of Muslim aggression and some abortion bombers were Muslim, straw argument from you as usual.

Edited September 28, 2014 by jacky54

[JockPieandBeans]

What wasnt you ? This ?

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

Try #327.

Those who move to our countries are simply happy with lack of persecution, the freedom to worship and the protection they receive from existing law to protect those rights.

Are they really ?

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australian-muslim-leadership-in-chaos-radicals-reject-australia-boycott-tony-abbott/story-fni0cx12-1227030032871?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

Seems like they dont want to accept Australian way of life after all. This is how it begins.

It seems that Sharia Law is already being practiced in Australia. Although this has not been given official recognition.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2010/fm84/fm84h.html

A 10k run ?

The beer gutted, whoring pensioner exiles here from mud island might not see it,

I'm really not sure if I could manage 10kms.

[JockPieandBeans]

Here is another one for you.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

Seems that your statement is way way wide of the mark.

[samran]

Here is another one for you.

Even if Sharia Civil Law were to be officially recognised in Australia (currently highly unlikely), as it is in the UK, Thailand and so on, current Civil Law will always have precedence; pluralistic legislation is not permitted.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/growing-number-of-muslim-men-and-multiple-wives-exploiting-loophoole-for-taxpayer-handouts/story-e6frf7jo-1225837150560?nk=7c4f7d521c67cc73a9c9fccdb4839db5

Seems that your statement is way way wide of the mark.

Not my quote. I think simple1 made it and got mucked up in my quote.

As for anything from the daily telegraph, that paper isn't even good enough to wipe my bum with.