"Hunter" <hunter01 at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:b4ydnQV3wc5Ti0fXnZ2dnUVZ_jVi4p2d at (no spam) westnet.com.au...
regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4995 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.

They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept

And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got to
be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.


You seem to be bothered about it. Nothing like an alterboy `scorned`
I suspect...

As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
assault.

and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
greater iauthority than the courts.

Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
prior to the attack. Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
in their culture.in their quest for world domination.

They rape and brutalise . .

... They do not accept our Rule of Law.

their Imams tell them to live under our laws. At any time their Imams
can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
business associates _new_ laws.

.... As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
assault.

and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
greater iauthority than the courts.

Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
prior to the attack. ...

... Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
in their culture.in their quest for world domination.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:38:33 GMT in aus.politics, regn.pickford posted:

.... As for the Muslims, they have a predilection for sexual
assault.

To a greater degree than others?

Cite please.

They make thier women wear tents to protect them from sexual assault.

and there is only lipservice to the rule of law as their Imams have
greater iauthority than the courts.

The Imams give advice based on the texts. The texts say that a Muslim must
follow the law of both God and of the country they are living in.
So although they (their Imams) give advice with greater authority they do
not "have" greater authority than the courts. eg The texts may say that a
man can have as many wives as he can support but if the law of the country
says that he can only have one the Imam would advise a limit of one only.
I have heard of cases where a Christian has said that he would break the
law of the country where it went against the law of God. He also said that
he would accept the consequences.

The Imam lays down the law, your average male arsesniffer is a hypnotised

People's individual ethics are a result of their individual history.

The influence that an Imam has over a Muslim is no more and no less than
that of a minister, reverend or priest over one of his/her flock.
People have only as much power over one as one allows them.
The individual decides how he/she will act so the individual, not any
organisation they belong to, is responsible for those acts.
The actions of a individual organisation should be viewed similarly.

Getting together in a group and sniffing arses regularly is very important

Some individuals in a faith will not make any decision without advice from
their religious counselor (those that eg Ned Flanders is based on)
while others pay no heed to their nominal faith at all.
We are all the same only in that we are all different

Of course the 911 bombers were seen drinkng and smoking in the days
prior to the attack. ...

The Koran says that drinking alcohol is wrong, that suicide is wrong and
that to make war on the innocent is wrong, so why are the acts of the
non-faithful supposedly Muslim perpetrators of "9/11" constantly used to
vilify all Muslims?

It demonstrates what happens when incompatable cultures are

... Like pirates flying `false colours' it is permitted
in their culture.in their quest for world domination.

As you say `false colours', planned or not, is in operation
The perpetrators have been publicly identified of as Muslim rather than
terrorist, sectarian extremist, or anti American, or Al Quaida, or Al
Quaida influenced, or rabid twisted individuals with a Muslim background.

Those individuals had shared views but it was not typical of Islam any
more
than the actions of any "Christian" group with shared views can be passed
off as typical of Christians. eg the KKK.

regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink.  They
smoke.

They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept

And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.

Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote

http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x...

That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also here,
assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists and
criminally insane media people.

Who agrees?

Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink.  They smoke.

They doh't play good ice hockey, but their soccer is OK.

They are find people.  The ones who you wouldn't mind having your back.

98,000 Amerian soldiers are Muslim.

regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote
http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x....

That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also
here,
assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane jurists
and
criminally insane media people.

Who agrees?

Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink.  They
smoke.

They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221011/Sex-victim-wins-6-yea...

look at the people you are supporting.

You are delusional.

The OP claimed that "the assholes" are 10%. You quote a single event, a
single sample of a criminal who is certainly not representative of
British Muslims & neither is he an immigrant.

The fallacy you are attempting here is obvious. Given that you are
attempting such an obvious fallacy, you're either a delusional idiot or
you think that everyone else is an idiot.



If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable cultures
to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam  softly softly cause
in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
coward and they'll make you a slave.

You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them
that I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.

On Oct 17, 12:10 pm, Hunter <hunte... at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote:
regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.
They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.

Christians don't "rape and
brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
nominally Christian nation I can think of.

I'd like to see proof of your allegation.

regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.

They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept

And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.

Christians don't "rape and
brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
nominally Christian nation I can think of.

I'd like to see proof of your allegation.

well spotted.

regn.pickford wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster at (no spam) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbdno2$bpp$2 at (no spam) bjf.motzarella.org...
regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4995 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Michael Laudahn eOpposition wrote
http://media.aftenposten.no/archive/01127/Pakistan_G-Tittel-_1127840x.jpg

That's the way Mohammedanistan looks, and that's the way things go in
Mohammedanistan. And this is what arselifters want to introduce also
here,
assisted by our criminally insane politicians, criminally insane
jurists and
criminally insane media people.

Who agrees?


Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.

They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1221011/Sex-victim-wins-6-year-battle-attacker-deported.html

look at the people you are supporting.
You are delusional.

The OP claimed that "the assholes" are 10%. You quote a single event, a
single sample of a criminal who is certainly not representative of
British Muslims & neither is he an immigrant.


You are so fixated on defending your incomes you overlook the seriousness
of the Islamophile acknowledging 10% are these dangerous `assholes`
which people like you and this Dan fellow welcome into the country. Dan
cause
he's been suckered into thinking they're ordinary Joes and you cause it's
in your financial interests.

spit.

The fallacy you are attempting here is obvious. Given that you are
attempting such an obvious fallacy, you're either a delusional idiot or
you think that everyone else is an idiot.

They rape and brutalise .

Some rape and brutalise.

and it is lawfull in their cutural law

They do not accept our Rule of Law.

Some do not accept our Rule of Law.

their Imams tell them to live under our laws.

IOW, you're a delusional idiot.

At any time their Imams
can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
business associates _new_ laws.

Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.

It only takes a motivated government and a motivated electorate

You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have
increased
to 20 or 30% of the population.

This is the same with any group from any country when the rate of
immigration exceeds the rate of enculturation.

You speak of "rule of law". What *system* do you propose to use other than
RULE OF LAW to process migrants?

If these `tame' muslims you know personally were really `friends' they
would be advising you to do what you can to encourage incompatable
cultures
to return to their homelands than convert you to Islam softly softly
cause
in the `end game' , you convert or are butchered unless you're a craven
coward and they'll make you a slave.

You're delusional. I also have many Muslim friends and business
associates. None has ever attempted to convert me. The only people who
ever attempted conversion are Jehovah's Witnesses. I always tell them
that I'm Jewish (I am not) and they go away. Wonder why.

Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
circle of trust.

Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?

In Australi their number are still small enough to
encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
of moderate compliance.

I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.

In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will never
appear on the skilled occupation list.

You lot change your mind when your time is upon you.

I have done business with Muslims. Muslim money to reopen
a bush Abatoirs in NSW and I was exposed to their projections of their
domestic Muslim Markets and it was double the `official `Muslim
population..

So what?

The project died due to the Aussie dollar but has since
gone ahead in a different structure which I was not involved
(diffferent circles of associates - nothing personal against me).

I was exposed to the cultural corruption of Muslims
welfare rorting, law breaking and foreign Muslim goals toi
finance increased Muslim numbers in Australia.

If you were aware of law breaking, you should have reported it to the
police. What's the matter with you? Aren't you aware of your duty as a
citizen?

Like you I was probably influenced by their exceptional curtesy, honours

As I well expect you to have been ...


I am aware that Saudi Arabia funds so-called 'education' etc.

At the end of the day if people want to believe that kids memorising a
book of fairy tales is more important than mathematics, good luck to them.

and these madrassa -ised drones are likely to seek permanent residency

I've seen all of the same issues with Greeks and Italians. Ultimately we
keep the good attributes of these cultures and discarded the bad.

cornholio wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:10 pm, Hunter <hunte... at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote:
regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.
They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.

Christians don't "rape and
brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
nominally Christian nation I can think of.

I'd like to see proof of your allegation.


I'm using his rules of evidence as I said, which are that if one member of
a group, legally or illegal, performs an action then all members of that
group are responsible for it. I explained that in the post you replied to,
really can't see how you missed it.

But to elaborate, because a bunch of crazy Muslim loons rape and brutalise
women he is accusing them all of it, so I'm pointing out to him that
because a bunch of crazy Christian priests in Australia have been guilty
of raping and brutalising young boys that if he were not a hypocrite he
would also need to accuse all Christians of that. Both ideas are equally
as ridiculous as each other. Very simple.

"Hunter" <hunter01 at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:HqudnZqcC_Kc50LXnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d at (no spam) westnet.com.au...
cornholio wrote:
On Oct 17, 12:10 pm, Hunter <hunte... at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote:
regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.
They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of
evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.

Christians don't "rape and
brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
nominally Christian nation I can think of.

I'd like to see proof of your allegation.


I'm using his rules of evidence as I said, which are that if one
member of a group, legally or illegal, performs an action then all
members of that group are responsible for it. I explained that in the
post you replied to, really can't see how you missed it.


Whose "rules of evidence" are those ?
Why should I be responsible for any and all actions of an group that I
may or may not belong to depending on how you define a "group"

If I'm white, am I automatically guilty by association for slavery ?
Is this still true even though I'm a first generation immigrant ?
This is total nonsense.
An attempt to manipulate people by declaring them guilty of this or that
sin, just because they exist.
TOTAL BULLSHIT

But to elaborate, because a bunch of crazy Muslim loons rape and
brutalise women he is accusing them all of it, so I'm pointing out to
him that because a bunch of crazy Christian priests in Australia have
been guilty of raping and brutalising young boys that if he were not a
hypocrite he would also need to accuse all Christians of that. Both
ideas are equally as ridiculous as each other. Very simple.


The only "flaws" of your stupid argument are as follow
In one group, the practice is proscribed
In the other, it is condonned
Can you see the difference ?

"cornholio" <andxornot at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38274b14-2d8d-4329-beff-285847380138 at (no spam) d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 17, 12:10 pm, Hunter <hunte... at (no spam) iinet.net.au> wrote:
regn.pickford wrote:
"Dan" <dan4... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25439baebc210d57989d20 at (no spam) news.x-privat.org...
Unlike you, I have faced off with Moderate Muslims, they drink. They
smoke.
They rape and brutalise vulnerable women and we foolishly treat them
as equals under the rule of law which they do not accept
And Christians rape and brutalise little boys by your rules of evidence.
Hey, if you're going to apply the extreme to the mainstream you've got
to be consistent about it, otherise you're nothing more than a lying
hypocrite.
Christians don't "rape and
brutalize little boys" at least legally in ANY
nominally Christian nation I can think of.

I'd like to see proof of your allegation.

well spotted.

"B J Foster" <bjfoster at (no spam) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbe8gn$luh$1 at (no spam) bjf.motzarella.org...
regn.pickford wrote:
They rape and brutalise .
Some rape and brutalise.

and it is lawfull in their cutural law

They do not accept our Rule of Law.
Some do not accept our Rule of Law.

their Imams tell them to live under our laws.
IOW, you're a delusional idiot.

That label belongs to people who do not see
the influences Moslem religious leaders have '
over Moslem `drones.`

At any time their Imams
can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
business associates _new_ laws.
Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.

It only takes a motivated government and a motivated electorate
we almost did something akin to restricting religions when we had the
referendum on banning the Communist Party

As it is we would only need to recognise Islam is fundamentally a
terrorist cult organisation actively pursueing a goal of world domination
rather than a religion.

You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have
increased
to 20 or 30% of the population.
This is the same with any group from any country when the rate of
immigration exceeds the rate of enculturation.

So you actually accept a policy of increasing the market share of Muslims
will result in social friction?

please explain why you support their numbers being increased?


You speak of "rule of law". What *system* do you propose to use other than
RULE OF LAW to process migrants?


Our rule of law as we accept it, has authority `of numbers' over them until
they
assimilate our culture. Incompatable cultures can not assimilate
they can only convert. They accept that "when in Rome ..."
they will lose `tilting at windmills' and so `play the game` breed up
in our welfare system protected by short sighted P.C. and
multiculti drones.

Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
circle of trust.
Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?

nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.

If a repeat pedophile moves next door to you, will you want them to fnn[
off becuase you're afraid of them? Will you be suspicious of them cause
you're quaking in your slippers?

wake up and smell the coffee.

the people who will claim not to be suspicious or refrain from
vilifying the creature are the ones with confidence or inadequacy issues
and (personally) fearfull..

In Australi their number are still small enough to
encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
of moderate compliance.
I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.

In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will never
appear on the skilled occupation list.

You lot change your mind when your time is upon you.

regn.pickford wrote:
"B J Foster" <bjfoster at (no spam) yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:hbe8gn$luh$1 at (no spam) bjf.motzarella.org...
regn.pickford wrote:
They rape and brutalise .
Some rape and brutalise.

and it is lawfull in their cutural law


No it's not, any more than it is in yours.

Christianity has the Lamb. Islam has the pedophile war monger

They do not accept our Rule of Law.
Some do not accept our Rule of Law.

their Imams tell them to live under our laws.
IOW, you're a delusional idiot.

That label belongs to people who do not see
the influences Moslem religious leaders have '
over Moslem `drones.`


Some lunatic leaders have over some stupid Muslims. Much like fuckwits
like your very own Christian brethren and many other Christian cults have
lunatic leaders with the same influence of some stupid Christians.

At any time their Imams
can change their minds and whatever they spout will be your
business associates _new_ laws.
Australia cannot make any law about religion. You are delusional.

It only takes a motivated government and a motivated electorate
we almost did something akin to restricting religions when we had the
referendum on banning the Communist Party

As it is we would only need to recognise Islam is fundamentally a
terrorist cult organisation actively pursueing a goal of world domination
rather than a religion.


How about lumping Christianity in there as well, Australia would be much
better off with no religion. People like you on one side of the coin and
kangarooistan on the other are living proof of that. Sadly I couldn't vote
yes in such a referendum as much as I'd like to, as it would be unfair on
all the good Christians (which doesn't include you) and all the good
Muslims out there.

You're the one that is delusional if you believe the face they put to
you today is the same face they will put when their numbers have
increased
to 20 or 30% of the population.
This is the same with any group from any country when the rate of
immigration exceeds the rate of enculturation.

So you actually accept a policy of increasing the market share of Muslims
will result in social friction?

please explain why you support their numbers being increased?


You speak of "rule of law". What *system* do you propose to use other
than RULE OF LAW to process migrants?


Our rule of law as we accept it, has authority `of numbers' over them
until they
assimilate our culture. Incompatable cultures can not assimilate
they can only convert. They accept that "when in Rome ..."
they will lose `tilting at windmills' and so `play the game` breed up
in our welfare system protected by short sighted P.C. and
multiculti drones.


Easy way to fix this which I'd be extremely in favour of is a 5 year
"review period" on immigrants after tentative approval for permanent
residency or citizenship. It'd cost money but I think it'd be well worth
it for Australia. Set up a body that after 5 years goes over their lives
for the past 5 years with a fine-tooth comb, if they are not found to have
joined society as a whole, and adopted the Australian ethos (something
you've never done) of accepting everyone and getting along with everyone,
if they've decided to hide in little enclaves and shun Australians, then
send them home. And that should apply to all immigrants regardless of
race/religion.

Your Muslim friends will use you while you are of service but when
push comes to shove you will need to convert to enter the `inner'
circle of trust.
Suspicion and vilification are signs of fear, which often springs from
inadequacy. In what way are these people a threat to you?

nonsense mantra to help idiots `overlook' their personal cowardice.


Obviously a very defensive and illogical response to hide the fact he hit
one of your raw nerves square on the head.

If a repeat pedophile moves next door to you, will you want them to fnn[
off becuase you're afraid of them? Will you be suspicious of them cause
you're quaking in your slippers?

wake up and smell the coffee.


When did the conversation change to one about Christian priests?

the people who will claim not to be suspicious or refrain from
vilifying the creature are the ones with confidence or inadequacy issues
and (personally) fearfull..


Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy suspicion, I'm suspicious of
Aboriginals, I'm suspicious of anybody from a "refugee exporting" country,
I'm suspicious of large groups of young blokes sitting at train stations
after a night on the grog, I'm suspicious of Christian priests, all
healthy suspicions based on reality. In none of the above cases do I
pre-judge those people, I'm just a little more wary until I get to see
what they're like. But inadequate cowards (like yourself by the sounds)
will be too gutless to give them a go in the first place because they're
quaking in their boots with lips trembling going "what if they're one of
the bad ones, what if they're one of the bad ones". Pussy.

In Australi their number are still small enough to
encourage their Imams to proclaim a nuetral non threatening stance
of moderate compliance.
I would not allow in any religious 'leaders' for the simple reason that
they contribute precisely nothing to the economy.

In practice nothing needs to be done because priests/imams/etc will
never appear on the skilled occupation list.

You lot change your mind when your time is upon you.


Yawnnn... Been reading the Turner Diaries again have you?