Log in

View Full Version : LET’S MOVE TO AUSTRALIA



clandestino
20th February 2006, 03:26
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks. The same should be done in the United States.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. On the other hand President Bush hires security people from the UAE (United Arab Emirates of all places) to “secure” our nations ports.

It’s nice to know that at least one democracy in the world can appreciate the separation of church and state. Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television. "I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia, one the Australian law and another the Islamic law, that this is false.

If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law, and have the opportunity to go to another country which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off". "Basically, people who don't want to be Australians, and they don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well then they can basically clear off," he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spies monitoring the nation's mosques. This is Leadership with guts! While in the United States, recently Al Gore (presidential candidate for those who don’t know) was stopped at the airport for a random security check!! If the problem is clearly a “clash of cultures” why does the current administration continue to use THE PATRIOT ACT as a cheap excuse to break American law, in the name of 9/11 and defending terrorism, if the enemy is defending our ports?

Revolution67
20th February 2006, 04:34
Though I regard Australian government as just a puppet at the hands of the world's greatest imperial power i.e. USA, but I congratulate them for speaking in a such clear cut and staright forward manner. This does not mean that Australian government trying to divide people on the basis of religion, ethnicity, linguistically etc. According to a latest survey, conducted by a British newspaper, 40% of the muslim population wants the implementation of the 'Sharia Law' in Britain. Same voices are now being echoed in Australia too. This demand is not only offensive but it might lead to further friction amongst the communities. If Muslims are so concerned with the Sharia Laws, why do they want to force the governments of their adopted homeland to implement it? Why cant they just follow the rules, code of conduct and the law of the land? Muslims have never tried, owing to their blind allegience to Islam, to dissolve themselves with the larger community. Their reluctance to adopt and assimilate themselves with the values and custms of the countries of adoption, their reluctance to learn local languages/dialects, their dis-interest in the mainstream participation has led to alienation of the muslims from the larger masses.

The only way Muslims can leave in peace with the majority is assimilating and mingling themselves with the local population, adopting to positive points of the local culture, adopting the language, become less fundamentalist in their approach to religion. It is only after the bounaries of culture and language are broken down, the assimilation would be complete and hence there would be no so-called "Alienation".

clandestino
20th February 2006, 17:57
right oonnn my brother.

loveme4whoiam
20th February 2006, 21:15
Bloody hell, good on ya you Aussies :D I just read that 1 in 10 Muslims want this Sharia law; in which amputation of hands, stoning, and flogging (although this I actually support) are routine punishments; to be introduced in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain, seperate from the rest of the UK's laws. I mean really, what the fuck? If anything like this EVER happens here, I don't care, I'm going to move to Oz. These guys know how to actually LEAD. This isn't segregation, in fact the opposite of it. Bravo.

piet11111
20th February 2006, 21:29
i dont have much of a problem with sharia law if it only apply's to muslims.
sure let them govern themselfes perhaps this would take care of the "muslim punks" many european country's have problems with.
if they are not punished enough then the state could give them an additional sentance on top of their sharia sentance.

but how can we secure womens rights ?
and protect them from unreasonable punishment for something we would not punish them for.

Amusing Scrotum
20th February 2006, 23:23
Originally posted by clandestino+--> (clandestino)Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.[/b]

If just the people who want to throw acid in womens faces get deported, then I ain't going to grumble.

However, I'd be hesitant to take anything the Australian Government says at "face value" and this is likely just a "publicity stunt".


Originally posted by clandestino+--> (clandestino)A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard....[/b]

How touching! :lol:


Originally posted by clandestino
It’s nice to know that at least one democracy in the world can appreciate the separation of church and state.

Australia is hardly a "democracy" and there are a few Christian fascists within the Howard Government if I'm not mistaken. So I think you should "tone down" the praise a bit.

If they ever knock down every monument to superstition, then I think they can be praised.


Originally posted by Rudra
According to a latest survey, conducted by a British newspaper, 40% of the muslim population wants the implementation of the 'Sharia Law' in Britain.

Actually, all proper Muslims want "Sharia Law". The ones who don't, are fake Muslims.

The same way "liberal Christians" are fake Christians.

It's actually kinda' nice to know that around 60% of Muslims are "token Muslims" - hopefully in a decade that figure will be even higher.


[email protected]
Their reluctance to adopt and assimilate themselves with the values and custms of the countries of adoption....

That's unfair.

Deliberate Government policy - "multiculturalism" - has been designed to segregate the working class.

"Multiculturalism" most definitely, slows down assimilation and makes it more difficult for traditional assimilation to take place.


piet11111
i dont have much of a problem with sharia law if it only apply's to muslims.

Every Muslim woman is thankful for your solidarity. :angry:

piet11111
20th February 2006, 23:46
thnx for reading the entire post armchair socialism <_<


but how can we secure womens rights ?
and protect them from unreasonable punishment for something we would not punish them for.

Sentinel
21st February 2006, 00:44
thnx for reading the entire post armchair socialism

But he has a point&#33; You yourself said that we can&#39;t secure women&#39;s rights if sharia laws are permitted for muslims.

And that&#39;s not all, the ones who suffer worst are, as always, the children. Growing up forced to obey that fundamentalist crap can frankly said ruin their lives.

Noone should be condemned to that. Sharia laws such as all expressions of fundamentalist religion are inhuman.

Armchair also had a point when he stated that the fundamentalist muslims are the real muslims. They are the ones taking it seriously.

Religion should be completely banned from public life, and illegal to force upon kids.
That way it&#39;ll disappear from the face of the earth soon enough.

Severian
21st February 2006, 00:47
So: you&#39;re cheering the Australian government&#39;s threats to deport people based on their political views.

And denouncing other imperialist governments for failing to do the same.

What will you say when they come for you?

Sentinel
21st February 2006, 01:34
So: you&#39;re cheering the Australian government&#39;s threats to deport people based on their political views.

And denouncing other imperialist governments for failing to do the same.


I naturally realise that a bourgeois government doesn&#39;t have the "best intentions" to do that, or anything for that matter.

And I don&#39;t support any deportations. What I meant, was that it&#39;s good that practising sharia laws is condemned.

When it comes to islam, and other superstitions, I hold little love for them as they are as reactionary as it gets, and inhuman.

Therefore I don&#39;t really mind if they are suppressed.

It&#39;s also my opinion that the capitalists in this case are perhaps unknowingly furthering the proletarian cause, since a secular proletariat clearly has much better a chance to build communism when the time comes for that.

Capitalism is self destructive, and is digging it&#39;s own grave in every way.

That said, I&#39;m against deporting anyone, since the immigrants often face persecution and a certain death in their native countries. But it&#39;s good if they are made to grasp that superstition is wrong, and are encouraged to secularise.


What will you say when they come for you?

Well they undoubtedly will some day. As a matter of fact, communism is "demonised" by huge press campaigns on a regular basis where I live, since it has started gaining support again recently.

I understand that the bourgeoisie does that, it&#39;s in their class interest. As it is, I have little power to stop them. But I don&#39;t approve it naturally and will try to fight them best I can.

I&#39;m certain that any attempts to quell communism will fail though. You can kill the revolutionary but you can&#39;t kill the revolution. History will prove us right.

Delirium
21st February 2006, 01:57
To what extent is sharia law being implemented extrajudicialy in australia?


Actually, all proper Muslims want "Sharia Law". The ones who don&#39;t, are fake Muslims.

I dont think that anyone is in the position to declare people &#39;real&#39; and &#39;fake&#39; muslims. That like saying that redstar2000 isn&#39;t a communist because he doesn&#39;t believe in dialectics.

Amusing Scrotum
21st February 2006, 02:32
Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 21 2006, 02:24 AM

Actually, all proper Muslims want "Sharia Law". The ones who don&#39;t, are fake Muslims.

I dont think that anyone is in the position to declare people &#39;real&#39; and &#39;fake&#39; muslims.

Well actually the Qu&#39;ran is the "word of God" and therefore a real Muslim abides by it.

If you actually believe Allah is "almighty" and you must please him, then you must do X or Y, otherwise you are not a real Muslim.

Sentinel
21st February 2006, 02:37
I dont think that anyone is in the position to declare people &#39;real&#39; and &#39;fake&#39; muslims. That like saying that redstar2000 isn&#39;t a communist because he doesn&#39;t believe in dialectics.

Duh&#33; No, a fitting comparison would perhaps be saying that someone who doesn&#39;t believe in the revolution isn&#39;t a communist. And redstar2000 did last I checked. :lol:

These comparisons of communism and religion are highly annoying by the way.
Those words shouldn&#39;t be used in the same context in my opinion, other than when stating that communism absolutely rejects all forms of religion.

Delirium
21st February 2006, 02:40
Originally posted by Armchair Socialism+Feb 21 2006, 02:59 AM--> (Armchair Socialism @ Feb 21 2006, 02:59 AM)
Datura [email protected] 21 2006, 02:24 AM

Actually, all proper Muslims want "Sharia Law". The ones who don&#39;t, are fake Muslims.

I dont think that anyone is in the position to declare people &#39;real&#39; and &#39;fake&#39; muslims.

Well actually the Qu&#39;ran is the "word of God" and therefore a real Muslim abides by it.

If you actually believe Allah is "almighty" and you must please him, then you must do X or Y, otherwise you are not a real Muslim. [/b]
I believe the koran can be interpreted in many different ways just like any scripture. To declare that somone is a real or fake muslim you would have to say that there is some ultimate authority on the koran.

Amusing Scrotum
21st February 2006, 02:57
To declare that somone is a real or fake muslim you would have to say that there is some ultimate authority on the koran.

Well I think the various Clerics and Mullahs who spend their whole lives studying the Qu&#39;ran can be considered "authorities" don&#39;t you?

And as far as I know, all these various "authorities" agree that some form of "Sharia Law" is Islamic.

If you know of any Clerics or Mullahs that object to "Sharia Law" and deem it "un-Islamic", then I&#39;d be happy to read what they have to say on the subject.

Delirium
21st February 2006, 03:09
Originally posted by The [email protected] 21 2006, 03:04 AM

I dont think that anyone is in the position to declare people &#39;real&#39; and &#39;fake&#39; muslims. That like saying that redstar2000 isn&#39;t a communist because he doesn&#39;t believe in dialectics.

Duh&#33; No, a fitting comparison would perhaps be saying that someone who doesn&#39;t believe in the revolution isn&#39;t a communist. And redstar2000 did last I checked. :lol:


My point was, that you can not declare somone a fake just because the dont subscribe to a particular idea in a nebulous ideology.


These comparisons of communism and religion are highly annoying by the way.

I&#39;ll make any comparison i care to.


And as far as I know, all these various "authorities" agree that some form of "Sharia Law" is Islamic.


Yes, some variation of it.

Amusing Scrotum
21st February 2006, 03:23
Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 21 2006, 03:36 AM

And as far as I know, all these various "authorities" agree that some form of "Sharia Law" is Islamic.


Yes, some variation of it.

Well for starters, all "variations" of "Sharia Law" are extremely reactionary.

Secondly, the BBC poll - which is what we are discussing? - did not ask "do you want brand X of Sharia Law?"

It asked: "do you think Sharia Law would be a good idea?"

Simply put, 40% of the 500 Muslims surveyed wanted "Sharia Law" "introduced in parts of the UK".

Delirium
21st February 2006, 03:35
Well for starters, all "variations" of "Sharia Law" are extremely reactionary.

No shit, nobody is defending sharia law here.


Simply put, 40% of the 500 Muslims surveyed wanted "Sharia Law" "introduced in parts of the UK".

What i am debating is your assertion that the other 60% of those interviewed are &#39;fake&#39; muslims.

Amusing Scrotum
21st February 2006, 03:40
Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 21 2006, 04:02 AM

Simply put, 40% of the 500 Muslims surveyed wanted "Sharia Law" "introduced in parts of the UK".

What i am debating is your assertion that the other 60% of those interviewed are &#39;fake&#39; muslims.

That&#39;s what I just don&#39;t "get". You see....

1) All "authorities" on Islam agree that a Muslim should believe in "Sharia Law" - whatever brand.

2) 40% of surveyed Muslims agree with "Sharia Law" being "introduced".

3) So 60% don&#39;t agree.

However, "Sharia Law" as we&#39;ve already discussed is an "Islamic principle". So if you don&#39;t believe in "Sharia Law", you are being "un-Islamic" and if you are "un-Islamic" - you&#39;re not a real Muslim.

Therefore, 60% of surveyed Muslims are "token Muslims".

What do you object to here?

Delirium
21st February 2006, 04:01
What do you object to here?


All "authorities" on Islam agree that a Muslim should believe in "Sharia Law" - whatever brand.

If 60% of (the polled) muslims disagree with sharia law then there must be &#39;authorities&#39; that are not in agreement with it.

Simply because they do not believe in (a particular principal) of orthodox islam does not make them fake muslims.

Amusing Scrotum
21st February 2006, 04:17
Originally posted by Datura inoxia+--> (Datura inoxia)If 60% of (the polled) muslims disagree with sharia law then there must be &#39;authorities&#39; that are not in agreement with it.[/b]

Well as I have yet to see even one Cleric "denounce" "Sharia Law", I&#39;m inclined to take an opposite position.

That that 60% are "token Muslims". Meaning they identify with Islam, but lead their lives almost as atheists would and they certainly find the barbarous parts of the Qu&#39;ran horrendous.

They have become civilised and rational human beings. :)

Unless you can show me some evidence of "authorities" disagreeing with "Sharia Law" - then I don&#39;t see on what basis you can dispute my statement.


Datura inoxia
Simply because they do not believe in (a particular principal) of orthodox islam does not make them fake muslims.

Of course it does.

Being a Muslim means you accept all that shit - granted there is some "lee-way" within certain theological debates, but on "Sharia Law" there appears to be no "lee-way".

Meaning you have to agree with it to be considered a real Muslim.

I really don&#39;t think that you&#39;ve quite managed to grasp what it actually means to be seriously Religious - you take the "serious" part seriously.

rioters bloc
24th February 2006, 23:11
i find it amusing that costello once again was as vague as can be.

which muslims want shariah law? where are they hiding? why haven&#39;t they come out and said anything in the last, i dunno, 50 years? what australian &#39;values&#39; is he talking about? does he know that under shariah law muslims are required to follow the laws of the land they live in, even if it&#39;s not an islamic state? and thus real muslims wouldn&#39;t try and enforce shariah law in australia?

another case of downright racism. go home, you fucking immigrants&#33;

Severian
25th February 2006, 00:32
Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 20 2006, 10:07 PM
That&#39;s what I just don&#39;t "get". You see....

1) All "authorities" on Islam agree that a Muslim should believe in "Sharia Law" - whatever brand.
Sounds like an assumption, and when you assume....

It&#39;s rare for all Muslim clergy to agree on anything - Sunni Islam is at least as fractured than U.S. Protestants - and its even rarer for you to do the kind of research that it&#39;d take to verify that.

Also, why do you assume the clergy have a unilateral right to define Islam? Many Muslims don&#39;t think so. In Sunni Islam, the clergy have less of an official role than in Christianity; even Shi&#39;a Islam is less hierarchically centralized than Catholicism.



2) 40% of surveyed Muslims agree with "Sharia Law" being "introduced".

3) So 60% don&#39;t agree.

However, "Sharia Law" as we&#39;ve already discussed is an "Islamic principle". So if you don&#39;t believe in "Sharia Law", you are being "un-Islamic" and if you are "un-Islamic" - you&#39;re not a real Muslim.

How do you know and why should anyone care? Did God tell you that? Unless Allah is real, there is no objective standard for what is or is not Islam. It&#39;s all just subjective beliefs that different people hold.

And why do you care what&#39;s "real Islam", since presumably you don&#39;t think that determines who gets into heaven?

On the other hand, there is this thing called politics in the real world....

And in politics, There is a debate among Muslims about a whole range of questions. (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=8084) And questions like whether sharia should be the law of the state are political, not theological questions. Like all political differences, they reflect (directly or indirectly) different class interests.

And some of the most reactionary political forces in the Muslim world like to accuse those holding relatively progressive views of being....not real Muslims. Apostates, infidels.

Usually just the most vile of the fundamentalists, people to the right of Osama bin Laden in a sense. They&#39;re called "takfiris", meaning excommunicators, for their habit of proclaiming others not Muslims. Zarqawi&#39;s an example, for his jihad against the Shi&#39;a, who he considers non-Muslims. Or the people who tried this BS in Egypt (http://www.mafhoum.com/press/57S24.htm)

So in this debate, in this real-world political conflict, which side are you on? In the absence of any objective material reality of "real Islam", why arbitrarily choose to proclaim the worst fundamentalists are right?

Amusing Scrotum
26th February 2006, 18:00
Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Also, why do you assume the clergy have a unilateral right to define Islam?[/b]

Why? ....well they are the people who spend their entire professional lives studying the Qu&#39;ran and "interpreting" it. So I&#39;d say they&#39;re the people who have the "authority" to "define Islam".


Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Unless Allah is real, there is no objective standard for what is or is not Islam.[/b]

There is an "objective standard" for what is Islam, it&#39;s called the Qu&#39;ran.


Originally posted by Severian
And some of the most reactionary political forces in the Muslim world like to accuse those holding relatively progressive views of being....not real Muslims. Apostates, infidels.

Good&#33;

When the Catholic Church deemed the French Revolutionaries as being "anti-Christs" and the Bourgeois Republic "un-Christian", people started avoiding Catholicism like the plague.

As for your link, it was relatively interesting....


Originally posted by The Muslim News
Beslan and 9/11 are leading millions of Muslims to search their souls. Even clerics now question the harshest traditional laws and look for a more humane interpretation of their faith.

In other words, Muslims are starting to find Islam revolting and therefore really want to "update" it to make it compatible to the modern World.

They seem to be replicating the approach of the British Anglican Church, which has come to the conclusion that the Bible really isn&#39;t meant to be taken "literally".

Which means in effect, that Anglicans who call themselves Christians aren&#39;t Christians at all - they just like the "label".

It&#39;s not as good as atheism, but it&#39;s a step in the right direction. :)

I mean this....


Originally posted by The Muslim News
The resulting family code establishes that women are equal partners in marriage and family life. It throws out the notion that the husband is head of the family and that women are mere underlings in need of guidance and protection.

I&#39;m obviously not an expert on this, but these "modifications" seem un-Islamic....


Originally posted by 66:5
It may happen that his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your stead wives better than you, submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, devout, inclined to fasting, widows and maids.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/66/index.htm#5

And....


Originally posted by 66:10
Allah citeth an example for those who disbelieve: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot, who were under two of Our righteous slaves yet betrayed them so that they (the husbands) availed them naught against Allah and it was said (unto them): Enter the Fire along with those who enter.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/66/index.htm#5

There&#39;s also this....


Originally posted by 2:228
Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

And this....


Originally posted by 4:34
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo&#33; Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#34

I could spend all day reading the Qu&#39;ran and finding appropriate passages that contradict what the article is saying is happening, but I suspect you get the point anyway.

Islam and Muslims are moving away from serious Islam and therefore becoming "token Muslims". I mean this....


Originally posted by The Muslim News
....and appeals to Muslims to be "inclusive", tolerant and outward-looking.

"Tolerance" is "un-Islamic"....


Originally posted by 2:191
And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/2/index.htm#191

And....


Originally posted by 4:89
They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#89

Plus....


Originally posted by 4:76
Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil. Lo&#33; the devil&#39;s strategy is ever weak.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#76

And of course....


Originally posted by 4:101
And when ye go forth in the land, it is no sin for you to curtail (your) worship if ye fear that those who disbelieve may attack you. In truth the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/4/index.htm#101

The Qu&#39;ran is pretty "objective" on this one, don&#39;t "tolerate" the "disbeliever".


Originally posted by Severian
So in this debate, in this real-world political conflict, which side are you on?

The secular and atheist forces within the "Muslim World" who want to destroy Islam, of course


Originally posted by Severian
....the absence of any objective material reality of "real Islam"....

Well, we know the "material reality" of Islam is that it is a Medieval Superstition and therefore those that imitate Medieval practises as best they can, are the real Muslims.


[email protected]
....why arbitrarily choose to proclaim the worst fundamentalists are right?

Well....


dictionary.com
Fundamentalism.

1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fundamentalist

Figure it out for yourself. :lol:

Ian
26th February 2006, 20:24
You&#39;re a moron, if you had a fucking clue about Australia you would know that every so often the government comes out with ridiculous statements to divert attention from other contraversies. Last week one government member said that abortion would make Australia have a muslim majority in a few decades (she even said that demographics research confirmed this, although it is bullshit according to demographers) and now Costello says this. All to cover up the Wheat Board Inquiry.

And if you have any dreams of coming here we already have too many right wing fucks and the Gov&#39;t came out immediately after the statements were made to say that no legislative changes were going to be made (i.e. we don&#39;t really give a shit, we just say stuff to stir up to pot)

clandestino
27th February 2006, 03:26
i dont give a fuck... still moving there

Nathe
27th February 2006, 07:17
You&#39;re a moron, if you had a fucking clue about Australia you would know that every so often the government comes out with ridiculous statements to divert attention from other contraversies. Last week one government member said that abortion would make Australia have a muslim majority in a few decades (she even said that demographics research confirmed this, although it is bullshit according to demographers) and now Costello says this. All to cover up the Wheat Board Inquiry.

And if you have any dreams of coming here we already have too many right wing fucks and the Gov&#39;t came out immediately after the statements were made to say that no legislative changes were going to be made (i.e. we don&#39;t really give a shit, we just say stuff to stir up to pot)

amen to that brother... you really dont want to come here...

but atleast the government has done something good for once... recognising the arrogance of extremists, and saying fuck you...

it would be interesting to commit a &#39;terrorist&#39; attack, just to see if they portray the terrorists as muslims... im not going to though... im too lazy... and it would be better to save it till the revolution (although that seems a while away yet)

Hiero
27th February 2006, 08:08
I wrote something before but it seems to be lost in server change over, basically it supports Ian&#39;s comments.


but atleast the government has done something good for once... recognising the arrogance of extremists, and saying fuck you...

It truely does not care and it over exaggerates. These comments are not coming from the proletariat, they are not coming from the materialist, they are coming from the imperialist.

For starters there is no threat of Sharia law coming into Australia. So these comments are irrelevant. Why did they say these comments then?

Obviously it is to scare Arabs and Muslims into conformity over imperialist adventures in the Middle East and Muslim dominated countries. The aim is to keep Muslims and Arabs quite. Some still have connections to places like Iraq or Palastine, some feel a connection to the Middle East or other Muslim countries. However if you have the larger white Christain based population believing such lies about Muslism conspriacies and then they will always be suspicious of Muslims and Arabs.

If this happens then Muslim and Arab are terrorised into submission and either need to fullfil the expections of moderate Muslism and support the government&#39;s imperialism and conservativism or be label a extermist Muslim. Soon we will have people who are for the liberation of Palastine or they are anti war as being labeled un-Australian and extremist Muslims who suppurt terrorism.

We should not support the bourgeois line, we should call them what they are "terrorising comments". We should take the proletariat line and expose the bourgeois lies that help support chauvinism and imperialism.

VonClausewitz
27th February 2006, 08:30
Hiero, what are you babbling on about ?


We should not support the bourgeois line, we should call them what they are "terrorising comments". We should take the proletariat line and expose the bourgeois lies that help support chauvinism and imperialism.

How, excuse my ignorance of the more subtle nuances of the English language, is it chauvinistic and Imperialist to take a stand against bloodthirsty extremists ? If these people exist, they should be opposed, by right, left, and all the other political directions you people can think up.

If the Australian government really is serious, then good, religious laws are a waste of space. If it&#39;s just blustering, then that&#39;s politics for you. They will though have some other aim in mind, whether or not it&#39;s to supress Muslims and Arabs is somewhat debatable, it could just be a sop to the majority of Australians, to help soothe raw nerves after all that violence that erupted a while ago. Said government could also be trying to help their own people, getting a notice out that barbaric laws will be forbidden.

Nathe
27th February 2006, 09:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 08:36 AM
It truely does not care and it over exaggerates. These comments are not coming from the proletariat, they are not coming from the materialist, they are coming from the imperialist.
thats true... but that dosent change that the government actually supported the non-muslim majority, and said fuck off to the Sharia law. something that if we think works, we should support, no matter the oppositions motives. what we should be carefull of is letting it run out of controll and submitting to their values, justifying it with &#39;jus cause their our enemies, dosent mean we have to oppose it&#39;. comeon. you have to draw the line somewhere... just support what YOU think is right... fuck anyone else... its your opinion, not theirs.


If this happens then Muslim and Arab are terrorised into submission and either need to fullfil the expections of moderate Muslism and support the government&#39;s imperialism and conservativism or be label a extermist Muslim. Soon we will have people who are for the liberation of Palastine or they are anti war as being labeled un-Australian and extremist Muslims who suppurt terrorism.

or the more likeley scenario is that the actual majority get their way... which unless you didnt know, was how democracy works (it actually happened in australia for once... im suprised). sharia law will not become legislature, which makes sure the minority extremist muslims do not opress the majority. its just saying "if you cant deal with our laws, too bad, you can always move. if your gonna incite violence about it... we dont want you here" thats all


We should not support the bourgeois line, we should call them what they are "terrorising comments". We should take the proletariat line and expose the bourgeois lies that help support chauvinism and imperialism.
this sounds to me like revolutionary babble... youve made your point and now you think that this is gonna make it more &#39;accepted&#39;. youve made your point... and the only conclusion that would help would be one that ACCURATELEY summarises your point without emotive words like &#39;bourgeois lies&#39; and &#39;terrorising comments&#39; and concepts like &#39;chauvinism and imperialism&#39;.
please... just because the bourgeois are opposed to most of our values and beliefs, dosent mean we have to oppose them on everything... its an important aspect of maturity. what if they said "the world exists" would we oppose them on that too

Monty Cantsin
27th February 2006, 10:07
I think that Costello’s statement are fundamentally right, no one wants a Muslim state in Australia but at the same time there totally irrelevant because it’s not going to happen…I’d be more worried about Costello’s own activities with Pentecostal churches being a thread to our secularism.

Also the follow up remarks by other liberal about accepting ‘Australian value’ is totally vague. I mean am I unaustralian because I don’t particularly like beer? It’s pretty meaningless because our national myths are normally contradictory or not representative of actually day to day values and workings of Australia.

Ian
27th February 2006, 10:35
I realise that no one wants a system of Sharia law (never going to happen) and if such a system were being considered in any segment of Australian society then maybe it would warrant a comment from a Cabinet member or any member of Parliament.

Supporting the statement - which supposed leftists have done in this thread - is like being spooked by a non-existant boogey man, there&#39;s no real force to institute sharia law. But why let the facts get in the way.

But the thing is that this is a thinly veiled attempt to appeal to the &#39;love it or leave it&#39; lowest common denominator and if you can&#39;t realise that it&#39;s hard to believe you have a clue about the functionings of Australian politics.


Rule of thumb: If the Liberals do it, you&#39;re a fucking moron to support it.

Hiero
27th February 2006, 10:39
First of all you missed the point where Sharia Law is not a problem in Australia.

This is similar to trying to ban the Communist Party of Australia, on the grounds the Chinese and the USSR were going to invade Australia and install the Communist Party of Australia as rulers.

Now the Commonwealth of Australia is allowed to do such thing if a another nation is going to take away it&#39;s sovereignty. However this was all a lie, China and the USSR in 1951 never invaded sovereign nations or condoned it.

The aim of this move was again for the Bourgeoisie, they wanted to stop the growth of the working class movement and build up imperialism and chauvinism.

This is similar to what is happen now, though with Muslisms. The government claims the worse case scenerio, just as the did in 1951 with the CPA, when the reality is quite different.


this sounds to me like revolutionary babble... youve made your point and now you think that this is gonna make it more &#39;accepted&#39;. youve made your point... and the only conclusion that would help would be one that ACCURATELEY summarises your point without emotive words like &#39;bourgeois lies&#39; and &#39;terrorising comments&#39; and concepts like &#39;chauvinism and imperialism&#39;.
please... just because the bourgeois are opposed to most of our values and beliefs, dosent mean we have to oppose them on everything... its an important aspect of maturity. what if they said "the world exists" would we oppose them on that too

This is a common problem in the Communist movement, and in movements like the USSR and China it was what betrayed socialism.

The problems is that some people think it is ok to go soft on the class question. These type of people promote Human nature, like thoose in China like Liu Shao-chi who promote common ground over such things as art and literature. Then when this expands into much more important things like the economy then we begin to look for this common ground and give way to the bourgeoisie.

This is what your doing now, you deny the existance of Bourgeioisie policies and Proletariat policies. You are denying class nature and class needs.

The proletariat do oppose religion. The proletariat system does oppose the Sharia system. The do so based on the proletariat ideology of materialism and the system of Dictatorship of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie however do not oppose religion in most case. The do not always oppose Sharia law, remember the found it more beneficial to support the Taliban to defeat Soviet imperialism and thus get their hands more into Afghanistan.

Today the ygo on about Islam and militant Islam because imperialist drive takes them to Islamic countries. What good is it to invade a country if the people at home are not supportive of it? What better way to get support then to have a fear campaign. The plain to raise chauvinism as much as possible through fear campaigning

What you failure to understand is why the proletariat oppose Sharia law and why the Bourgeois are claiming to oppose Sharia law and why they bringing it up now.

If you do not understand and you continue to support this type of action, then you are a tool of the bourgeoisie, just as revisionist are tools. You support a attitude that helps imperialism, just as the revisionist think the bourgioesie investing in their countries will help them, they are infact helping no one bu the bourgioes and the local comprador bourgeoisie.

So you either play the role of building chauvinism which supports imperialism or you promote the proletariat ideology which attack&#39;s chauvinism and imperialism.

Ian
27th February 2006, 10:53
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/screenshots/lists/news_101.jpg

Ian
27th February 2006, 11:49
cut and paste from
http://www.maryams.net/dervish/2006/02/24/...should-go-home/ (http://www.maryams.net/dervish/2006/02/24/costello-says-disloyal-jews-should-go-home/)



Quote:
Costello Says: Disloyal Jews Should Go Home
February 24th, 2006

In a controversial speech to the Sydney Institute, Federal Treasurer
Peter Costello warned that Jews should pledge allegience to Australia
or go home. Jews who value Halacha (Jewish law) over Australian law
"should be refused citizenship if they apply for it. Where they have
it they should be stripped of it if they are dual citizens and have
some other country that recognises them as citizens."

"Before entering a synagogue visitors are asked to put a yarmulke on
their head," Mr Costello said. "This is a sign of respect. If you
have a strong objection to putting something on your head don&#39;t enter
the synagogue." He warned Jews, "before becoming an Australian you
will be asked to subscribe to certain values. If you have strong
objection to those values, don&#39;t come to Australia."

In a rebuke to "mushy multiculturalism" he said "there is one law we
are all expected to abide by — it is the law enacted by Parliament
under the Australian Constitution." If Jews, and for that matter
Aboriginies, wish to live by a different cultural or religious law
then they should move somewhere else. The problem is what to do with
the children of disloyal Jews and Aboriginies who were born here.

World Vision chief executive and prominent Christian Australian Tim
Costello agreed with his brother&#39;s sentiments, questioning whether
those who practice male circumcision and say it is part of their
cultural or religious beliefs should be allowed to do so in Australia.

(Article in The Age, the Hun)


Minor correction: Costello made these remarks about Muslims, not Jews
and Aboriginies.

*Sigh* just because we belong to a socially-devalued religion, do you
have to try and resurrect your practically hopeless bid for being
Little Johnny Howard&#39;s successor (face it mate, Turnball pushed in
ahead of you) by slapping us around a bit?

Today Costello clarified his remarks by saying that people like Keysar
Trad should publically say that "Australian law supersedes all other
law including Sharia law." I&#39;ve news for you… it doesn&#39;t. One is a
secular law, and one is a religious law. Living as a minority I
observe shari&#39;a as a minority. Just because I live in a country that
is not predominently Muslim and thus does not institute shari&#39;a law,
does not mean that shari&#39;a law does not exist for Muslims. The very
method of praying five times a day, how we go to the bathroom,
avoiding alcohol and pork… all these form part of shari&#39;a law and as a
Muslim I give my loyalty to it, and I adhere to it.

Tough titties matie, if Danna Vale is right, your grandchildren will
just have to get used to halal meat pies&#33;

Monty Cantsin
27th February 2006, 12:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 11:03 AM
Supporting the statement - which supposed leftists have done in this thread - is like being spooked by a non-existant boogey man, there&#39;s no real force to institute sharia law. But why let the facts get in the way.

But the thing is that this is a thinly veiled attempt to appeal to the &#39;love it or leave it&#39; lowest common denominator and if you can&#39;t realise that it&#39;s hard to believe you have a clue about the functionings of Australian politics.

I totally agree with you.

Nothing Human Is Alien
27th February 2006, 13:11
Supporting the statement - which supposed leftists have done in this thread - is like being spooked by a non-existant boogey man, there&#39;s no real force to institute sharia law. But why let the facts get in the way.

Because it&#39;s easier? That&#39;s the only reason I can think of...


I’d be more worried about Costello’s on activities with Pentecostal churches being a thread to our secularism.

I was just going to bring this up.. how secular is Australia exactly? I&#39;m not very familiar with the position there, but until recently wasn&#39;t some religious zealout in charge of the health ministry, and saying that abortion must remained banned (including banning the &#39;morning after pill&#39;)?

Isn&#39;t religiodiocy a main reason that abortion is (effectively) banned in Australia?

As far as I can tell the question here isn&#39;t a secularism vs. theism thread, it seems to be a "who&#39;s god is bigger" pissing contest.

Since Muslims don&#39;t rule Australia in any form as has been said, it seems to be more of an attack on immigrants than anything -- looks like the guy is feeding into the sentiment that lead to that reactionary "race riot" a few months back.

redstar2000
27th February 2006, 13:44
On the rare occasions when modern bourgeois politicians attack religion, there is no reason not to assume that their motives are dishonest ones.

Their attacks on Islamic doctrines and practices are almost certainly motivated by racism...if all Muslims were "white", you&#39;d hear much less of that sort of language.

And making Islam "look bad" does serve as a "justification" for imperial ambitions in the Muslim world, no question about it.

Ok, those things are true.

Does that mean that the revolutionary left should support Islam?

Should we do or say anything that implies that attacking Islam is unjustified?

I think the answer is NO&#33;

By all means, attack the racist motivations of bourgeois politicians.

By all means, attack each and every one of their imperial adventures.

But leftists who say anything even indirectly supportive of religion are just shooting themselves in their own feet.

It&#39;s supporting a social institution that has not only enthusiastically advocated the murder of revolutionaries in the past but will inevitably do so again in the future.

I had occasion recently to read an article about Argentina&#39;s "dirty war" against both communists and even trade union reformists back in the 70s. The point was made that some Argentine army personnel were severely demoralized by the atrocities they were ordered to carry out...until their superiors arranged for meetings between them and Catholic priests&#33; The priests told the army guys that they were "doing God&#39;s work".

Problem solved. :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

Black Dagger
27th February 2006, 14:27
I agree with Ian and Hiero.


Originally posted by Topic Article

Treasurer Peter Costello hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you,"

This coming from a guy who moonlights as the best friend of australia&#39;s fatest growing fundamental christian group? And whose pal &#39;Super Catholic Action Man&#39; Tony Abbott, has been trying to deny womyn access to an abortion pill for the past how many months? Australians should look up the Knights of the Southern Cross, it&#39;s a christian fundy group committed to what Costello would call &#39;australian values&#39; but that are really, euro-christian &#39;values&#39;. George Pell (*vomit*) and Abbott are both members.



You&#39;re a moron, if you had a fucking clue about Australia you would know that every so often the government comes out with ridiculous statements to divert attention from other contraversies. Last week one government member said that abortion would make Australia have a muslim majority in a few decades (she even said that demographics research confirmed this, although it is bullshit according to demographers) and now Costello says this. All to cover up the Wheat Board Inquiry.

Agreed.

Nathe
2nd March 2006, 09:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 02:12 PM
Their attacks on Islamic doctrines and practices are almost certainly motivated by racism...if all Muslims were "white", you&#39;d hear much less of that sort of language.

And making Islam "look bad" does serve as a "justification" for imperial ambitions in the Muslim world, no question about it.

Ok, those things are true.

Does that mean that the revolutionary left should support Islam?

Should we do or say anything that implies that attacking Islam is unjustified?

I think the answer is NO&#33;

By all means, attack the racist motivations of bourgeois politicians.

By all means, attack each and every one of their imperial adventures.

But leftists who say anything even indirectly supportive of religion are just shooting themselves in their own feet.
thats more or less what i was trying to get across... it didnt really work that well...

Ian
2nd March 2006, 10:09
Originally posted by Nathe+Mar 2 2006, 08:14 PM--> (Nathe @ Mar 2 2006, 08:14 PM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 02:12 PM
Their attacks on Islamic doctrines and practices are almost certainly motivated by racism...if all Muslims were "white", you&#39;d hear much less of that sort of language.

And making Islam "look bad" does serve as a "justification" for imperial ambitions in the Muslim world, no question about it.

Ok, those things are true.

Does that mean that the revolutionary left should support Islam?

Should we do or say anything that implies that attacking Islam is unjustified?

I think the answer is NO&#33;

By all means, attack the racist motivations of bourgeois politicians.

By all means, attack each and every one of their imperial adventures.

But leftists who say anything even indirectly supportive of religion are just shooting themselves in their own feet.
thats more or less what i was trying to get across... it didnt really work that well... [/b]
No it&#39;s not Nathe, clearly you were supporting Costello and the government from anything but a proletarian perspective.

How old are you?

Monty Cantsin
2nd March 2006, 10:27
The stuff coming out now about Alexander Downer knowing of the payoffs for six years before the commission was called makes it sound like they are trying to divert attention.

Nathe
3rd March 2006, 04:36
Originally posted by Monty [email protected] 2 2006, 10:55 AM
The stuff coming out now about Alexander Downer knowing of the payoffs for six years before the commission was called makes it sound like they are trying to divert attention.
thats because they do divert attention. every time something big happens with the government, they publicise other less important issues to cover it up. watch and you will see it happens every time.


No it&#39;s not Nathe, clearly you were supporting Costello and the government from anything but a proletarian perspective.

How old are you?
im 16... why does that matter

as i said before, i didnt really take much care to what i wrote, and i didnt make it clear, so i didnt really get the point across as i meant it. but thats past, ill explain it better now. so just ignore what i said before, and focus on what im saying now

i do not like the howard government, or most of the desicions they make. but its not black and white. i support the desicion not to support shiara law so that the non-muslim majority get their way. i do not like their motives for doing it, but thats not the point.

supporting a desision to make a nation more secular is not anti-proletariat.

i have a feeling that we just have the same opinions, we&#39;re just expressing them in different ways

you dont like costellos motives (which i also dont like) and are condemning him for that. but i am looking at the actual desicion, without the motives (which i actually said were bad, i agreed when hiero said the government dosent care) and gave my opinion on the actuall issue, which i have a feeling you will support too (im not sure of that, but if you share the same opinions as most of the board, you will)

its just as redstar said,

By all means, attack the racist motivations of bourgeois politicians.

By all means, attack each and every one of their imperial adventures.

But leftists who say anything even indirectly supportive of religion are just shooting themselves in their own feet.

Black Dagger
5th March 2006, 02:47
i support the desicion not to support shiara law so that the non-muslim majority get their way

Okay, great, but the point that Ian, myself and others have been making is that this was never about sharia law. There is no major movement within the islamic community in australia to impose sharia law on the &#39;non muslim majority&#39;, sharia law is not an issue, this whole discussion is just a SHAM, a SMOKE-SCREEN, &#39;RACE&#39;-BAITING. Saying you agree with Costello is redundant because Costello&#39;s point is redundant, why? Because he bloody made it up to re-ignite the &#39;aussie pride&#39; SCUM.

Nathe
6th March 2006, 23:17
Originally posted by Black [email protected] 5 2006, 03:15 AM

i support the desicion not to support shiara law so that the non-muslim majority get their way

Okay, great, but the point that Ian, myself and others have been making is that this was never about sharia law. There is no major movement within the islamic community in australia to impose sharia law on the &#39;non muslim majority&#39;, sharia law is not an issue, this whole discussion is just a SHAM, a SMOKE-SCREEN, &#39;RACE&#39;-BAITING. Saying you agree with Costello is redundant because Costello&#39;s point is redundant, why? Because he bloody made it up to re-ignite the &#39;aussie pride&#39; SCUM.
and i agree with that

so theres no more discussion needed