Sydney siege

[indica]

Please accept my condolences regarding the effect the truth has on you. As for the religion of raping children, I'm sorry, but that is simply garbage, unless you are talking about Islam that is.

I pretty much knew this would be a case of feeding pearls to the swine, but if one person out there makes that transition from being functionally an ape, infant or zombie to adult life, then it will be have been worth it.

.

Wow.
My Flabber is gasted.
Thanks for clearing it up though, I now know why the cover up has been so comprehensive. People actually believe this stuff did not happen.

 

[Pastavore]

Hey Turtleman, if you quote the good man Gower, you ruin my ignore button functionality.


Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.


Yours in secularity

Abu Sheikh Pasta.

 

[indica]

Abu Sheikh Pasta.

Oh yes my friend...

 

[pharmaboy]

From the wiki page you linked to:

A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified, and in the US, 81% of Muslims opposed such violence. About 14% of Muslims in the nations surveyed (and 8% of Muslims in the US) said violence against civilians is "often" or "sometimes" justified.


Doesn't fit with the figure you quoted.

Again, doesn't mean that those people are about to go and pick up a gun.

I don't know what that wikiislam site is, but I certainly wouldn't be comfortable using it as a source.

I'm incredulous that 20% or 30% matters frankly, but anyway look under the title "who speaks for Islam" - it's a re examination by the authors of the PEW study of their own data. It would be equally upsetting to me that 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 have that view. It still remains a problem that hundreds of millions of people feel there can be a justification for the murder of innocent infidels in the name of a religion

The site doesn't diverge significantly from the Wikipedia site which is why I used it, it just provides more commentary.

 

[Linga]

I'm incredulous that 20% or 30% matters frankly, but anyway look under the title "who speaks for Islam" - it's a re examination by the authors of the PEW study of their own data. It would be equally upsetting to me that 1 in 5 or 1 in 3 have that view. It still remains a problem that hundreds of millions of people feel there can be a justification for the murder of innocent infidels in the name of a religion

The site doesn't diverge significantly from the Wikipedia site which is why I used it, it just provides more commentary.

This book gives great insight in why those views would be held worldwide by not just Muslims, but of all 3rd world religious group (gross generalisation for brevity)
Sorry if it has already been posted

http://www.thelocusteffect.com/

 

[placebo]

As for the religion of raping children, I'm sorry, but that is simply garbage, unless you are talking about Islam that is.

Lol. The current royal commission into child sexual abuse by religious organisations, and the testimony of cardinal George Pell at the royal commission means this statement is simply garbage.

I'm sorry to have to point out the errors of your ridiculous logic, but out of charity, I will do so. The Roman Catholic Church is the only church with a Supernature and therefore the only Church with salvific qualities. It's teachings are infallible and can not change, as God can not change. The human nature of the Church is corruptible, as with anything human. To imply the Catholic Religion is the religion of child rape or what ever you called it is absolutely ridiculous, because you can show no evidence that it is a teaching of the Church.

Well, a large part of post-reformation christianity woud disagree with you there. I'm not totally down with the detail original roman-orthodox split however. Child rape may not be a teaching of the church, but they spend a lot of time and money defending child rape cases.

This is always what happens in place of accepting that someone has made a mistake when the maturity to accept it and admit it is lacking, which would be far more adult like.

lol.

... a case of feeding pearls to the swine, but if one person out there makes that transition from being functionally an ape, infant or zombie to adult life, then it will be have been worth it. I'll leave you all to beat your chests, carry on like some animated half whit on da toi voi, or simply glaze over.

Anyway, I said before this brought back a lot of memories from my school years. Googling to check the convictions and sentences, a name popped into my head after more than a quarter century. Not a priest this time just a teacher, I went to the school for two years in the 1980's when this guy taught, and everyone I knew thought he was a creeper:

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/2681911/victim-of-sacked-holy-spirit-teacher-speaks-out/

Only got community service for his first offence. Convicted again 7th November this year, due to be sentenced 19th December. Lol. Thanks for one last pearl there princess.

 

[outtacontrol]

Oh god, don't poke the bear (bear in this case meaning religious nutbag)

 

[placebo]

Fuck him. I spent my school years being lectured and judged by worthless religious liars. I won't cop it now. There's better arguments against islamic extremism than child sexual abuse, especially if you're a catholic. It's quite hypocritical to whinge about islam, when for a century british and american interests in securing oil in the middle-east have fought for, protected, and funded beyond imagining, the medieval wahhabist saudi arabian state which holds values antithetical to those of it's protectors, and much of previously mainstream islamic practices. The majority of 911 hijackers were from saudi arabia for that reason. The flag old mate had held up in the cafe, change the black to green, put a sword under the text, you got yourself an extremist flag then.

 

[pink poodle]

Hey Turtleman, if you quote the good man Gower, you ruin my ignore button functionality.


Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.


Yours in secularity

Abu Sheikh Pasta.

Ha...the ignore button.

Just reading the attacks on civilian discourse a few pages back. I would be interested to see what the stats are on american civilians (and Australian) regarding the same? How many people think that mass air strikes on civilian areas are OK if they "get the bad guy"? Western nations have been doing a pretty good job of blowing a lot of shit up in the middle east for a while now. The sensationalist anti Muslim ranters seem to forget that side of things. Expression difficult. Christmas syndrome.

 

[johnny]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying/asking there but the rules of engagement on the current air op against IS are hugely restrictive and there have been few to no reports of civilians being smoked. From memory there were maybe two at the start of the campaign but I haven't seen one for a long time now. From what I am aware the ROEs also protect some historical sites and other non-human elements.

 

[pink poodle]

True my expression is currently not functioning. Too much turkey. Basically 2 things:
- when dropping bombs on targets, sometimes civilians and their shit gets blown up as well. Generic comment not specific to the current ops. Still remember the night vision style footage of the bus/train in Yugoslavia being hit.

- I would be interested to see what the acceptance level of that kind of collateral damage is in he western world. I can imagine a bunch of bible belt Yankees providing similar ℅ to pharma's find.

I know collateral damage is different to specifically targeting.

 

[John U]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying/asking there but the rules of engagement on the current air op against IS are hugely restrictive and there have been few to no reports of civilians being smoked. From memory there were maybe two at the start of the campaign but I haven't seen one for a long time now. From what I am aware the ROEs also protect some historical sites and other non-human elements.

I think the poodle may be referring the western efforts over the last 20 years against majority Muslim countries, which we have seen more of on TV with the introduction of televised war, not just the current effort against IS.

 

[pharmaboy]

PP, perhaps the question is one better looked at with reason. We and our justice system values intent, although there are always small minded fools who like to quote an eye for an eye to demonstrate their simplistic black white view of the world.

Having a car accident resulting in the death of another person is not the same as stabbing a stranger in a nightclub is not the same as buying a weapon, going to someone's house and shooting them in the head when they open the door. These are degrees separated by intent.

I happened upon a Facebook post yesterday on Monis and not getting a burial, I was shocked that a comment with lots of likes was one that denied him Islam and called him not muslim, period.

The inference was that the non burial has nothing to do with the siege and everything to do with him not being Sunni - even though he claims it , so presumably what you are born is all that matters?

 

[pink poodle]

I think the poodle may be referring the western efforts over the last 20 years against majority Muslim countries, which we have seen more of on TV with the introduction of televised war, not just the current effort against IS.

That's the one. The old "we got him with a smart bomb." Kind of footage that shows a blown up car and entire village in rubble. There was a lot of this kind of force dumped on Iraq between the wars. Trade embargoes the prohibited lots of medication in case they were used to make bombs etc.

No doubt intent is a big factor in a western view (collateral vs deliberate), but to take it back a long way when the allies flew over Germany and indiscrimnantly bombed them was it widely accepted as OK? Same for Japan. Plenty of people still view Hiroshima or Nagasaki as legitimate attacks. I wonder how western power nations would view this stuff in the modern era.

Slightly different, but in he eye for an eye mentallity, look at how media and politicians responded to he Bali bombing. Government ministers in Australia demanding the death penalty or at least saying that it would he apropriate. While hey are representatives of a nation that does not support such a thing.

 

[pharmaboy]

That's the one. The old "we got him with a smart bomb." Kind of footage that shows a blown up car and entire village in rubble. There was a lot of this kind of force dumped on Iraq between the wars. Trade embargoes the prohibited lots of medication in case they were used to make bombs etc.

No doubt intent is a big factor in a western view (collateral vs deliberate), but to take it back a long way when the allies flew over Germany and indiscrimnantly bombed them was it widely accepted as OK? Same for Japan. Plenty of people still view Hiroshima or Nagasaki as legitimate attacks. I wonder how western power nations would view this stuff in the modern era.

Slightly different, but in he eye for an eye mentallity, look at how media and politicians responded to he Bali bombing. Government ministers in Australia demanding the death penalty or at least saying that it would he apropriate. While hey are representatives of a nation that does not support such a thing.

Civilian bombing in ww2 seems to have gotten hold because of mistakes - dumped bombs causing Germans to think it was deliberate, and then bombing london, then tit for tat. This also is helped by total information control where the enemy is seen as worse than human - wars get particularly nasty when abject hate and superiority come to the fore. The pacific war cannot be looked at in isolation of what was occurring in Europe IMO.

Bali was tricky, I didn't see out and out support, I heard lots of selected language however to not say one thing or the other - mostly in terms of sovereignty ( referring the Howard radio interview that was artful in avoiding saying anything with clear meaning)

What statements were there in support?

 

[mtb1611]

Wrong thread.....oops! PLEASE DELETE

 

[pink poodle]

Civilian bombing in ww2 seems to have gotten hold because of mistakes - dumped bombs causing Germans to think it was deliberate, and then bombing london, then tit for tat. This also is helped by total information control where the enemy is seen as worse than human - wars get particularly nasty when abject hate and superiority come to the fore. The pacific war cannot be looked at in isolation of what was occurring in Europe IMO.

Bali was tricky, I didn't see out and out support, I heard lots of selected language however to not say one thing or the other - mostly in terms of sovereignty ( referring the Howard radio interview that was artful in avoiding saying anything with clear meaning)

What statements were there in support?

There was lots of strong language and rhetoric that was close enough. Still when next I am on a computer I will see what I can find.