-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
Mufti "several sandwiches short of a picnic".
- Thread starter daedong
- Start date
Cityboy
Banned
daedong said:
Wait a minute. This is in conflict with your appeasement statements in the past. You have repeatedly posted that you feared pissing off the 6 million muslims right next door in Indonesia. You have repeatedly stated that the U.S. is barbaric in it's treatment of the terrorists imprisoned at Guantanimo Bay.
Out of one side of your mouth, you spout appeasement and critcize the U.S.; while out the other side of your mouth you spout pride in how your nation stands up to the islamist extremists?
I aplaud prime minister Howard and other Austrailain leaders for standing up to these islamic whackos. Assimilate into Austrailain society or leave is a logical policy and I support it 100%.
Care to explain your hypocrisy?
Cityboy said:
Yes, Vin what side are you on? BTW - The Australian method seems very similar to the Israeli side. Behave or get out.
It appears to me that our foreign contigent is much like the international media. Slam the USA until they're needed but much less critcal of they're own policy. It gets old and ain't much fun to listen to anymore. That's how I define Hypocrisy in this context!
mak2
Active member
I have always thought Russia, China, France, Germany and anyother contry iwth capitialistic (pretty much everyone except Cuba and Islamic countries) realize the Islamic nuts have to be stopped. But think about it, if you were a kid on the playground and the bully could whip your ass, but you had a buddy that enjoyed whipping up on bullys, why not let him. hyprocrisy or smart? I dunno. But all the economic powers in the world know the Islams cannto take over.
daedong
New member
There is no hypocrisy in my post, the point is we are just going to ignore him.Cityboy said:Wait a minute. This is in conflict with your appeasement statements in the past. You have repeatedly posted that you feared pissing off the 6 million muslims right next door in Indonesia. You have repeatedly stated that the U.S. is barbaric in it's treatment of the terrorists imprisoned at Guantanimo Bay.
Out of one side of your mouth, you spout appeasement and critcize the U.S.; while out the other side of your mouth you spout pride in how your nation stands up to the islamist extremists?
I aplaud prime minister Howard and other Austrailain leaders for standing up to these islamic whackos. Assimilate into Austrailain society or leave is a logical policy and I support it 100%.
Care to explain your hypocrisy?
The article was buried on page 15 of the state paper and the head line was “Ignore him”
Just for the record we have detention centres in Australia that I am embarrassed about and ashamed of as I am with our right winged Goverment.
As you stated in an other post the USA is not perfect but the minute an outsider makes a criticism you revert to accusing anti American rhetoric
Cityboy
Banned
daedong said:
I did not get that impression from the article. The impression I, and everyone else got from it was more like this excerpt:
"However, Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said the Sheikh should respect Australia or stay away. "I remind Sheikh al-Hilali that if he doesn't like Australia, our heritage or our way of life, he doesn't have to come back," she said."
daedong said:
Didn't see that either. Strange how you interpret prime minister Howards and immigration minister Vanstones words differently than the rest of us. It seems to me most Austrailians have the stones to tell the radical muslims to piss off and leave if they don't like the Austrailian way of life. BTW-What happened to your stones??
daedong said:
You know, you could immigrate to Indonesia and buy some property there and grow fruit among those peaceful muslims you so dutifully defend. I don't think they are in a drought these days.
daedong said:
Spot on mate! Because it is what it is. I'm tired of reading you constant barrage of anti-American rhetorhic.
You don't hear a soul here critcizing your country every single time they post about it as you do to the U.S. every time you post about our country. We respect your country, but you do not respect ours, and people here resent that condecending attitude.
daedong said:
While they continue to bomb and cripple innocents! I addressed this to Don some time ago. Typical answer from the liberal is the "chances of me being affected is minute" or "leave them alone". Hasn't work for centuries and what about the people more likely to be affected. Sounds to me like you might be a little selfish and heartless when chances are you're safe. Genocide, terrorism and segregation is OK as long as it ain't near me eh?
It's alright for some to criticize while playing both sides, again like some of our politicians and so called foreign allies, not to mention the "free" bleeding hearts amd the people we're trying to help. Appears it's OK to sit in the cheap seats not having any influence in the game, but still scream at the referee!
I happen to disagree with the thought of leaving them alone and ignoring the sickos is the answer! But then again my suggestion and answer for resolution is a whole lot more extreme. Alot like criminals with guns, you don't ignore them and you do all you can to stop it.
I can hear it now ........... you don't lower yourself to their level ........ but that's exactly how to handle it. There is no tolerence or political correctness in war and to think it ain't war is naive.
daedong
New member
Big Dog said:
War on terror
This war cannot be won, never, Christians and Muslims have been fighting since the inception of Islam and no one has ever won. What makes you confident that the Christian west can win now?
Christians and Muslims have never got along yet for some reason many/ most in the Christian west think they can change that. Muslims and Christians will never live in harmony with one another. You may clean out some terrorist in places like Iran and Afghanistan, It will cost billions and plenty of lives but you will never be able to walk away and say mission is complete, there will still be Muslim countries, like Albania Algeria Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Benin Brunei Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad Comoros Djibouti Egypt Gambia Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Indonesia Iran Jordan Kazakhstan Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lebanon Libya Malaysia Maldives Mali Mauritania
Morocco Mozambique Niger Nigeria Oman Pakistan Palestine Qatartop Saudi Arabia Senegal Sierra Leone Somalia Sudan Suriname Syria
Tajikistan Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Uganda United Arab Emirates Y Yemen That will be willing or able to harbour terrorist cells.
Free ourselves from the madness, leave their oil where it is, let them live as they wish. Spend a tenth of what we are now and protect ourselves best we can, it will be cheaper and we will save more lives.
daedong said:
What stops the plotting against the Christians by the extreme Muslims. Do you really think it will stop if we leave them alone? I don't think so! I think it would be a different situation if they bombed the middle of Melborne. Oh how we can forget so soon!
Granted the majority of Muslims are good people but you can not allow terrorism to continue especially with extremist that have or are given the means to commit such acts!
It's tough being the strongest county in the world with so many expectations from the rest of the world! Seems to me the only time the USA is good for anything is when someone has their hand out but as soon as we take an initiative to protect ourselves and others that we deem important for security the critics come out.
Off topic but the example being the Democrats and their critique of Iraq. Pull out leave them alone to get stronger. I haven't heard a good arguement or solution to Irag or the war on terrorism even when the president ask!
Forgetting the past "How do we handle Israel and Palestine?" That effort won't stop and walking away from it will only result is severe tragety, maybe even nuclear. Terrorism has the same potential ......... !
mak2
Active member
daedong said:
OK explain to me how the west or China or India leaves the Moslems alone. Their stated goal is world domination. That includes pretty much everyone. Dont think the flaming liberals will fare too well under Sheria (sp?) law. Nor will the ChiComs or the French. Back to my theroy on letting the US contain them until it is no longer economically feasable. Eventually they will have to be beaten back like during the crusades. Perhaps someday the Islamic relegion will leave the dark ages and advace like the Christians did. If not, well economies always win wars, maybe that is why we are saving Alaska's oilfields.
Did we really expect to find Osama in Iraq?
The religious fundamentalists of the Muslim world are a huge problem but I think our present Iraq strategy is counterproductive, it is driving what was a secular nation into the hands of the fundamentalists.
Working for majority rule in Iraq means handing a greater influence to the (Shia) religious conservatives of Iran. Is that what we want? Did anyone consider this before going in? I doubt it.
The religious fundamentalists of the Muslim world are a huge problem but I think our present Iraq strategy is counterproductive, it is driving what was a secular nation into the hands of the fundamentalists.
Working for majority rule in Iraq means handing a greater influence to the (Shia) religious conservatives of Iran. Is that what we want? Did anyone consider this before going in? I doubt it.
mak2
Active member
The more radical muslims you kill now, the less you have to later. And dont say it just angers the Arab street, they are perfectly capable of staying pissed off for a thousand years all by themselves. You are approaching an irrational people and situation in a rational way, if you have ever been married to a red head you understand that does not work(sorry I dont know were that came from). Iran and Afganistan are merely a start.
You killed a redhead? Do you feel safer now?mak2 said:
mak2
Active member
No actually the red head thing was becasue my wife was yelling at me on the phone. But you know red heads are pretty dangerous. But back to the point, it still seems pretty difficult to deal with people whose verbalized goal it to dominate the world and kill the infidels. How would you handle them, appeasement until they are too powerful to stop?
Don't try to hang an appeasement label on me.
I would start by studying how India deals with Muslim extremists. A real, in depth study as the basis for forming a plan, which is the step that I think our administration overlooked.
At India independence (1947) there was a terrific power struggle betwen the Muslims, who had ruled the country before the British and wanted to take it back, and the Hindu majority.
Finally the Muslim-majority regions were split off to become Pakistan and Bangladesh. While there have been many incidents, this standoff has endured 50 years now with reasonable stability. What do the Indian strategists know, that we are yet to learn? I don't know the answer but I think that is one place to look for a workable answer. I really don't think a pure military response will work without a parallel diplomatic and strategy-assessment component.
I would start by studying how India deals with Muslim extremists. A real, in depth study as the basis for forming a plan, which is the step that I think our administration overlooked.
At India independence (1947) there was a terrific power struggle betwen the Muslims, who had ruled the country before the British and wanted to take it back, and the Hindu majority.
Finally the Muslim-majority regions were split off to become Pakistan and Bangladesh. While there have been many incidents, this standoff has endured 50 years now with reasonable stability. What do the Indian strategists know, that we are yet to learn? I don't know the answer but I think that is one place to look for a workable answer. I really don't think a pure military response will work without a parallel diplomatic and strategy-assessment component.
mak2
Active member
Reasonable stability includes coming very close to nuclear war a few years ago? You know, I would not use the label of appeaser on you, and I am not really an expert in Indian and Pakistani relations BUt it seems to me maybe you are right, India did the right thing, threatened nuclear war and at least obtained a standoff, with the help of the USA, by threating Pakistan. Like I said I dont call myself an expert so dont get all worked up, I just think that example perfectly demonstrates my point.