Get out of Australia, 'radical' Muslims told

AFP ^ | 24 August , 2005 | Lawrence Bartlett

[Niuhuru]

I swear, there are times like this when I wish I were Australian.

[thelastvirgil]

Dayaaam! I'm gonna miss that Church's Fried Chicken.

[outofhere2]

What a man, what a man, what a man, what a mighty GOOD man!
Australians don't take SH&&!
He wouldn't have shown up for King's funeral to get slapped around and take it like Bush did today. Where are his balls?

[SkyPilot]

"Clear off!"

[John Lenin]

Driving Principles of Islam

Let me explain the principles that are driving the religion of Islam. Of course, every Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is only one God. But it's not enough to say that there is only one God. A Moslem has to acknowledge the fact that there is one God and Mohammed is his prophet.

These are the fundamentals of the religion that without them, one cannot be a Moslem. But beyond that, Islam is a civilization. It is a religion that gave first and foremost a wide and unique legal system that engulfs the individual, society and nations with rules of behaviour.

If you are Moslem, you have to behave according to the rules of Islam which are set down in the Koran and which are very different than the teachings of the Bible.

[grey_whiskers]

" live under the Islamic Sharia law"

On a different topic; just so everyone is aware, Caribou Coffee here in the US is run this way. I really liked their coffee, but because of this I won't go there anymore.

Details, please? I read rumors of such from Debbie Schlussel. Quite unfortunate.

No cheers, unfortunately.

[grey_whiskers]

Can you imagine the outrage that would erupt from the left if George W. Bush dared to say such things here?

If he did that and then faced down Vincente Fox, he would get elected to a third term :-)

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

Again, to quote the inimitable Puke and Snot:

P. He lost his eye when a seagull shat in it.

S. That's ridiculous. You can't lose your eye just because some bird just shat in it.

P. You can when it's your first day with a hook arm!

Cheers!

[John Lenin]

Islamic Rule and Jihad

What happens if Jews and Christians don't want to live under the rules of Islam? Then Islam has to fight them and this fighting is called Jihad.

Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule. That's jihad. They may be Jews; they may be Christians; they may be Polytheists. But since we don't have too many Polytheists left, at least not in the Middle East - their war is against the Jews and Christians.

A few days ago, I received a pamphlet that was distributed in the world by bin Laden. He calls for jihad against America as the leader of the Christian world, not because America is the supporter of Israel, but because Americans are desecrating Arabia with their filthy feet. There are Americans in Arabia were no Christians should be. In this pamphlet there is not a single word about Israel. Only that Americans are desecrating the home of the prophet.

[MillerCreek]

Wow. Howard and Administration have, well, you know, they HAVE them!

I'm finding these statements by Australia's powers that be to be incredibly refreshing and smart. Certainly right to the heart of things, and quite brave.

Good for Australia. Now I hope they will stick with it despite the inevitable "outrage" that we'll next hear/read about from the muslims about how bad Australia is, ~so bad they don't want to leave the place~.

[MillerCreek]

Verry interesting. What I've concluded is that their process ("Shari’ah-compliant companies") is to first and foremost provide inroads and lay groundwork for more "Shari'ah".

That means that these businesses (the "home nursing provider" TLC one is concerning) are avenues and road building processes.

Interesting how they describe their Bahrain office as also being home to "headquarters of the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet."

Wolf in sheep's clothing (not the fleet) indicated by the extent of obfuscation in that overall statement.

[MillerCreek]

See my previous comments. I think it indicates that eventually, there's some process pending fruition inherent in their very business presence. I'd never encourage anyone to just pass over these groups, their "laws" and all...not after what's transpired in the entire world in only the last six or so months.

[MillerCreek]

It's not a case of targeting one religion with potential because of that to target all religions, it's a case of one group of people who resort to violence of the most extreme and barbaric kind as an aspect to their group character.

That then becomes a defense issue. So far, I haven't seen Christians and/or Jews resorting to blowing themselves up and others along with them as "heroic" acts and similar.

Muslims are actually seen cheering and laughing when people are killed and destruction such as 9/11 occured. They aren't religious in any sense that is familiar to anyone else in the civilized world, to my view.

[MillerCreek]

Thanks for sharing that because I've always read what I now know to be very misleading comments...about Australia by mostly anti-gun legislation seekers in the U.S. who use Australia and the U.K. as examples.

Unfortunately, they represent Australia wrongly, I now see. What you describe sounds very reasonable and workable for nearly any/all who want to own guns in Australia. Which is good. I agree that automatic weapons should require a tad more examination for ownership if only because they bear a greater responsibility once owned, being as potent as they are by design. I'm not promoting increased restrictive gun laws anywhere, lest anyone misunderstand me, but am only commenting upon what is described here as being the case in Australia as to automatic weapons.

[Galveston Grl]

Well, I have been around for a long time watching the political scene. I have seen what happens down the road...how the left twists State actions like this to fit their politics down the road.

Here is an example: In the US Americans took power from Liberals mainly because they would not protect the public from criminals. Our streets ran with blood while liberals screech for more racial preferences and welfare. So we got rid of the liberals, changed sentencing and locked 'em up big time. Crime dropped.

Then liberals with the help of the old media tried to grab onto the anti-criminal sentiment and ban the second amendment of the US constitution by redefining it. They wanted to stop murder by banning guns...which they did to a certain extent when Bill Clinton was in power.

In the case of violent Muslims, liberals have pretty much defined Christianity as "hate" because we don't celebrate sodomy. It is a crime in Europe to say sodomy is evil; dirty, gross, whatever. I can see that Howard has to monitor what the terrorists are doing in mosques and schools but he is setting the way for liberals to monitor Christians for "hate" in churches and schools. That is the way moral relativity works- Muslims terrorists = Bible believing Christians to Marxists.

So that is what I meant when I said we will eventually all loose freedom because of what the Muslims do. Liberals will use it to get their political and social enemies.

[MillerCreek]

I completely agree. I have never met a Muslim in the U.S. who did not make a contemptuous sound and facial expression if/when I ever said something great about just any aspect of "America."

It's happened on many occasions, nearly predictably.

Same thing, too, with many from Mexico. I always wonder why they're here if they dislike us and the country so much (rhetorical question).

[MillerCreek]

It's often more productive to not explore and try to encourage discussion about everything that may happen because in the world of possibiliies, all things can happen.

Just think specifically. Liberals are always going to be among humans and so are terrorists. The rest of us need to be more efficient with our time and energy and especially in how we protect ourselves and one another and pursuing moral relativism is a waste of time because it always results in a big pool of goo that everything is stuck in right before it liquifies.

[HereInTheHeartland]

" Details, please? I read rumors of such from Debbie Schlussel. Quite unfortunate."

See the Snopes story.

They are Islamic owned. No reason to think that they have any connection to terror at all however. But they are Middle Eastern Islamic owned.
I beleive that the Sharia law came from a filing that they made with the SEC? Their are other sources out there on this.
Again I think thet have a great brand and a great product. It's just to bad they got in financial difficulty and had to lose control of their company to a bank in the Middle East.

http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/caribou.asp

[ridesthemiles]

Sure is great to see someone in politics who gets it and has the stones to stand up and say something logical.

Wish we had about 535 more like him here in the Congress.

[prairiebreeze]

bump for reading in the AM