Board index Politics Australia and New Zealand Extreme Measures

Extreme Measures

Discuss Aussie and Kiwi stuff here

Moderators: Grrrrrrrrrr, Spot of Borg, Kat, BORG, AusPol Managers

Post Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:35 am
Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
[/b]The topic Extreme Measures has been discussed at length at three previous sites created. The last was at MSN. The basis for that discussion was from an interpretation of how Muslims responded to an enquiry made about them and their position in Australian society on an SBS programme of the same name: Extreme Measures. Ten points were uncovered. The discussion here is continued in the same spirit of inquiry from questions asked by the show's host and others.

The ten points highlighted attributes strongly associated with the Muslim community. For example, when Muslims are cornered on a particular point, they respond by creating an antithetical argument based on a false premise taken from the nebulous of communal consciousness and argue from that premise. The technique comes under the umbrella properly termed “al-Taqiyya”, and incorporates dissimilitude, dissimulation and dissembling or just plain lying to gain advantage.

If a Muslim argues that Islam is the religion of peace and then one highlights the atrocity of 11 September 2001 and the attack on the World Trade Centre, they quickly respond by talking about atrocities in the Middle-East caused by American soldiers in Iraq, or what have you. Thereby, they avoid the question directed at them. They do their best in response to lay the responsibility for the evil noted at one's feet. That is sheer sophistry. They use moral relativism as a tool.

The ten points were set out before and could be used as a point of reference to construct the debate, to highlight where any one of the ten points showed themselves publically in the actions of Muslims. The culture that those ten points described has taken on more definite form.

The debate had since moved on. The Bilal Skaf Gang rapes were evoked as evidence of the criminal heart of the Lebanese and Muslim communities and how they held those about them in contempt. The Cronulla Riot and the Revenge Attacks of December 2005 - as they are now called - brought to the fore what the debate had worked to uncover. The Revenge Attacks by gangs of Lebanese Muslims crystallised the threat and the philosophical or religious underpinning for their actions.

That night at Brighton-le-Sands where they attacked people and destroyed cars by notably smashing their glass windows, has been labelled "kristallnachte". The association with the rise of fascist, racist, bigoted Nazi Germany was never more pertinent.

And here we have it, the debate is still continuing. The management problems of MSN about these sites abound. This is the fourth site that Extreme Measures as a topic for discussion has used. The header for Extreme Measures at the first two sites listing first, the ten points, then at the second site, eight points as copied over, is now reduced to nothing. Unable to retrieve that header, those involved in the debate up until now are - it is hoped - knowledgeable enough about those points so as to continue with constructive debate within those guidelines.

Without much further ado, I present EXTREME MEASURES.

Hannibal

Post Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:38 am
Spot of Borg User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 1428
Location: Delta Quadrant
Slogan: You may be Assimilated

Here is the original post from MSN

============================

Scared ya hahahaha!

Okay only the first post and we will see if it goes anywhere without Hannibal..

=========================

From: MSN NicknameHannibalBarcaCarthage (Original Message) Sent: 17/06/2006 17:27
The topic Extreme Measures has been discussed at length at two previous sites created. The basis for that discussion was from an interpretation of how Muslims responded to enquiry made about their position in Australian society on an SBS programme of the same name: Extreme Measures, from questions asked by the show's host and others. Ten points were uncovered.

The ten points highlighted attributes strongly associated with the Muslim community. For example, when Muslims are cornered on a particular point, they respond by creating an anthithical argument based on a false premise taken from the nebulous of communal consciousness and argue from that premiset.

If a Muslim argues that Islam is the religion of peace and then one highlights the atrocity of 11September 2001 and the attack on the World Trade Centre, they quickly respond by talking about the atrocities in the Middle-East caused by Americans in Iraq such at Abu-Grahib or what have you. Thereby, they avoid the question directed at them. They do their best in response to lay the responsibility for the evil noted at one's feet. That is sheer sohphistry.

The ten points were clearly set out before and could be used as a point of reference to construct the debate, to highlight where any one of the ten points showed themselves publically in the actions of Muslims.

The debate had since moved on. The gang rapes were evoked as evidence of the criminal heart of the Muslim community and how they held those about them in contempt. The Cronulla Riot and the RevengeAttacks - as they are now called - brought to the fore what the debate had worked to uncover. The Revenge Attacks by gangs of Lebanese Muslims crystallised the threat and the philosophical or religious underpinning for their actions.

That night at Brighton-le-Sands where they attacked people and destroyed cars by notably smashing their glass windows, has been labelled "kristallnachte". The association with the rise of fascist, rascist, bigoted Nazi Germany was never more pertinent.

And here we have it, the debate is still continuing. The management problems of MSN about these sites abound. This is the third site that Extreme Measures as a topic for discussion has used. The header for Extreme Measures at the previous two sites listing first, the ten points, then at the second site, eight points as copied over, is now reduced to nothing. Unable to retrieve the header, those involved in the debate up until now are - it is hoped - knowledgeable enough about those points so as to continue with constructive debate within those guidleines.

Without much further ado, I present EXTREME MEASURES.

Hannibal

=========================

For extreme masochists It is your lucky lucky day! I have attached the entire sorry mess in 6 parts (minus the pictures) zipped for your painful pleasure . . . .

Spot
Attachments
ExtremeMeasures.zip
The thread from MSN
(790.93 KiB) Downloaded 31 times
Image . . "Cry MEOW! And eat the butterflies of war!"

Post Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:39 am
Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
Spot,

I am impressed. You have carried the Extreme Measures tome across to give weight and balance to "Orb.Mogkat".

You say: "I have attached the entire sorry mess in 6 parts (minus the pictures) zipped for your painful pleasure . . . . ", but where are the 6 parts? Reveal them with all their generosity to help enlighten the naysayers who hover about.

A topic for discussion under the banner Extreme Measures is starting to well-up. Any trouble in Auburn recently? Any more gang rapes?

God is Great,

Post Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:40 am
Spot of Borg User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 1428
Location: Delta Quadrant
Slogan: You may be Assimilated

The 6 parts are in the zip file Hannibal

Give me time I will see if i can upload the rest of it from the Orb as well.

Spot
Image . . "Cry MEOW! And eat the butterflies of war!"

Post Sun Jul 15, 2012 7:28 am
Spot of Borg User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 1428
Location: Delta Quadrant
Slogan: You may be Assimilated

ExtremeMeasures2012.zip
(414.36 KiB) Downloaded 63 times


Okay Hannibal here is the rest of it. 8 parts. The arabic was removed by notepad and a lot of the formatting but its all there and i made the links so you can see them.

Spot
Image . . "Cry MEOW! And eat the butterflies of war!"

Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:16 am
Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sharia-poses- ... 24p2d.html

Sharia poses problems, says judge

Date: August 24, 2012
Geesche Jacobsen
Legal Affairs Reporter

THE idea sharia could operate as part of Australian law was ''misconceived'' and minority practices that offend moral standards should be abandoned, the former High Court judge Sir Gerard Brennan said last night.

''No court could apply and no government could administer two parallel systems of law, especially if they reflect - as they inevitably would reflect - different fundamental standards,'' he said.

To do so would result in two legal systems and confirm dual cultures, Sir Gerard said during a lecture in honour of the former law professor Hal Wootten at the University of NSW.

''The democratic principle prescribes that the culture of the majority is determinative of the legal structure,'' he said. In Islamic law, he said - quoting the president of the Abu Dhabi Supreme Court - customs and legal reasoning had to agree with the Koran. But in Australian common law there was a gap between the requirement of the law and individual moral standards.

''We call that gap 'freedom' and it allows Australian law to protect the cultural moral values of our minorities,'' he said.

The lecture also featured anecdotes from Sir Gerard's career and his reflections on the value of juries and the need for procedural fairness. He said in a multicultural society individuals were free to follow their own moral standards because of agreement about fundamental values, and Muslims were free to adhere to the beliefs, customs and practices prescribed by sharia ''insofar as they are consistent with the general law in force in this country''.

''That freedom must be respected and protected but that does not mean that Islamic sharia should have the force of law,'' he said. His remarks follow comments by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who had called for sharia to operate in parallel with common law.

''That suggestion seems to me to be misconceived. It recalls the problem of recognition of traditional Aboriginal law,'' he said.
In Britain, there are 80 sharia tribunals operating in the Muslim community, and a few weeks ago the UTS law lecturer and Muslim convert Jamila Hussain told the Herald sharia operates in Australia. But she said the existence of sharia did not pose a problem, and the two systems were rarely in conflict.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sharia-poses- ... z24pSgNmXl

And,

http://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is- ... 1hmpv.html

What is sharia?

Date: July 19, 2011
Glenda Kwek

Meaning and applications

Sharia means "the clear, well-trodden path to water" in Arabic. While it is the religious law of Islam, there are only a handful of countries - such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Iran - where all aspects of sharia, including "hudud" punishments such as the cutting of hands and stoning people to death, for criminal offences, are applied.

"The majority of Muslim countries do not implement sharia criminal law at all. The interpretations and applications of sharia vary a lot between different countries," Jamila Hussain, senior lecturer in Islamic Law at the University of Technology, Sydney, said.

"You get a few countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan that purport to apply the whole of sharia in their legal system. Then you have a lot that apply it partially, usually in post-colonial countries. In Malaysia, for Muslims there is a sharia system for family law and for minor criminal punishments. You can't really say every aspect of sharia is applicable in every part of the world, because it is not."

The interpretation of sharia also differs from country to country and scholar to scholar, although most scholars agree broadly on many aspects of the verses that the laws are derived from, Halim Rane, senior lecturer at the National Centre of Excellence for Islamic Studies at Griffith University, said.

"And that's why we get a multiplicity of interpretations when it comes to Islamic law.

"Even in many Muslim countries today, if any aspect of sharia is implemented, it's piecemeal. Many Muslim countries implement aspects of the family law and not necessarily is sharia implemented comprehensively,"
Dr Rane said.

"We have to keep in mind that sharia was something that was developed in the 8th, 9th, 10th century and so many of those things were particular to the time, place and circumstances of that pre-modern era. So many of the aspects of sharia may not be applicable today."

Sharia in Australia


Ms Hussain said: "One of the principles of sharia is that, if Muslims live in a non-Muslim country, they are expected to obey the law of the land. Which, in this case, is Australian law unless it clearly conflicts with Islamic law. For example, if the federal government passes a law that everybody should drink beer on Friday, Muslims couldn't do that because Islamic law says you can't drink alcohol.

"We don't have any recognition of sharia in Australia and we are probably not likely to have [recognition].

"For the most part, if you live in Australia, you can still obey sharia because there is very little conflict. That is something that a lot of the media and politicians simply do not get. There's not much conflict at all. The problem is that most of the time when you mention the word sharia, you are thinking of hudud punishments like the cutting of hands and stoning people to death. They don't apply except in very few countries."

Dr Rane said: "Here in Australia, Muslims are a minority and the law of the land is not based on sharia. In saying that, at the end of the day, sharia is concerned about the promotion of people's benefits and rights and the prevention of harm to people as individuals and societies collectively. So my perspective is that the higher objectives of Islamic law are already met by the higher objectives of the existing laws that we have here in this country.

"There is no jurisdiction for Islamic courts in this country. In an Islamic state, [a punishment] would be something that is done through proper legal processes, meaning it is brought before a court, a judge would officiate and would prescribe what the punishment is. The law is not to be taken into the hands of individuals."


Further reading:

• A concise summary of the evolution of Islamic Law (University of Pennsylvania)
• An introduction to sharia (BBC)

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/what-is- ... z24pT6tbvE


COMMENT

Sharia Law has raised its ugly head yet again.

The former High Court judge Sir Gerard Brennan has made a pronouncement intelligible to proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia, That is, “The idea Sharia (Law) could operate as part of Australian law was ‘misconceived’” and “in a multicultural society individuals were free to follow their own moral standards because of agreement about fundamental values, and Muslims were free to adhere to the beliefs, customs and practices prescribed by Sharia (Law) ’insofar as they are consistent with the general law in force in this country’”.

Hence, Sharia Law in and of itself has no currency by Australian law or as a mainstream cultural practice. It is merely a cultural attendant that can be preserved by Muslims in the Muslim community resident now in Australia provided it does not conflict with Australian law and mainstream cultural practices.

However, we have seen the brazen use of the appellate “Halal” by proponents and practitioners of Islam. It is used in Australia as a tool to assert the Way of The Paedophile over mainstream practices.

Why?

"The majority of Muslim countries do not implement Sharia ( ) Law at all. The interpretations and applications of Sharia (Law) vary a lot between different countries”.

And,

“(I)n many Muslim countries today, if any aspect of Sharia (Law) is implemented, it's piecemeal”.

Hence, even where Sharia Law would have more currency – in countries that assert the Way of The Paedophile – like in Saudi Arabia or Iran it is not applied with full integrity.

So why do proponents and practitioners of Islam even dare to assert Sharia Law in Australia – a vastly superior country when compared with those provinces beholden to the Way of The Paedophile – demanding such things as Halal meat?

The demand for the implementation of Sharia Law in Australia by proponents and practitioners of Islam is vacuous. It could not be applied without causing offence to people in the mainstream culture. The implementation of any aspect of Sharia Law would be quickly subverted as inferior to common law, or common standard, in Australia. The Australian legal system is vastly superior in the task of meeting the purported needs of proponents and practitioners of Islam: “the promotion of people's benefits and rights and the prevention of harm to people as individuals and societies collectively”. In fact, it was deduced “that the higher objectives of Islamic law are already met by the higher objectives of the existing laws that we have here in this country (Australia)”.

Hence, demand by proponents and practitioners of Islam for the implementation of Sharia Law in Australia has no substance other than to work to offend people of mainstream culture, a culture attendant to a vastly superior ethos and philosophy than that adhered to by those who follow the Way of The Paedophile.

As was seen in the comprehensive examination of the term ’Halal’, after that infamous Four Corners’ episode, the term “Halal” when applied involved many inconsistencies and found proponents and practitioners of Islam backtracking to revise and finesse their earlier statements in a pretence to give themselves and their definition of “Halal” a thread of consistency.

[See Post No. 219 MUSLIM CONFUSION: THE HYPOCRISY OF HALAL]

Hence, the claim “Sharia (Law) operates in Australia” is merely used to inflame people of the mainstream culture.

Why?

It keeps Islam at the top of mind of non-Muslims and gives Islam an undue sense of tangibility and credibility, one it does not deserve.

6. Proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot find reconciliation with non-Muslims in a non-Islamic environment. Consequently, they project out behaviour consistent with the Muslim delusion.

[Posts No. 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Those who assert Sharia Law in the Australian context are merely worshippers of the Way of The Paedophile and should be treated with the same derision as all paedophiles are by the people of a mature society for whom the crime committed is abase. Proponents and practitioners of Islam, who demand the implementation of Sharia Law, are representative of that weak, corrupted and impure element of contemporary society, one that aspires to higher ideals, ideals that barbaric, tribal, Islamic states have never and can never possibly attain, and something Australian society should be rid of.

1. Proponents and practitioners of Islam are prepared, willingly, to conspire to pursue the Muslim delusion, the imperative that Islam is to dominate society and polity.

2. Pursuit of the Muslim delusion permits corruption: proponents of Islam become abase pursuing the Muslim delusion.


[Posts No. 148 & 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM]

Former High Court judge Sir Gerard Brennan has made a pronouncement that Muslims were free to adhere to the beliefs, customs and practices prescribed by Sharia Law ”insofar as they are consistent with the general law in force in this country”.

Sir Gerard Brennan is a man of high standing in Australia. There is no one in the Muslim community in Australia of anywhere near his credibility or grace or intellectual precision. Hence, proponents and practitioners of Islam who espouse the implementation of Sharia Law are in conflict with Sharia Law where Sharia Law states: “if Muslims live in a non-Muslim country, they are expected to obey the law of the land”.

Clearly, then, to espouse anything connected to Sharia Law in Australia as applicable to some higher wisdom is contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

However, one notes, we are confronted then by an inversion, a conundrum. Proponents and practitioners of Islam who pursue the Muslim delusion where Islam is to dominate are true Muslims, yet what they pursue is in conflict with what is said by Islamic scholars about Islamic teachings.

Therefore, are those who say ‘if any aspect of Sharia (Law) is implemented, it's piecemeal’ as a description of the implementation of Sharia Law in other pro-Islamic countries in the modern Australian context not practising al-Taqiyya, dissemblance by dissimilitude, deceiving those about them in order to give themselves credibility? Perhaps, behind the scenes they actually believe and act contrary to what they asserted and applaud those who pursue the Muslim delusion in Australia.

“We don't have any recognition of Sharia (Law) in Australia and we are probably not likely to have [recognition]”, although we pine for such a state.

It is deduced any proponent or practitioner of Islam who asserts the implementation of Sharia Law in Australia or even promotes it as something worthy of recognition in any context is not only a hypocrite, but could also be labelled by people who understand the Islamic School of Thought as “apostates”.

Proponents and practitioners of Islam who promote Sharia Law should be cast aside like heretics.

(NB: Previous posts referred to are taken from the database saved here at this site or can be viewed at EXTREME MEASURES at orb.mogkat,com)

God is Great.


Hannibal

Post Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:00 pm
Brendiggg User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 703
Location: India
Slogan: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind (unless you are a fly)

That's nice.

Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/muslim-discus ... 265rk.html

Date September 16, 2012

Sydney violence has no place in our country, Gillard says

- Angry protests in Sydney triggered by film

- Police gas Sydney protesters angered by a US film, Innocence of Muslims, portraying the prophet Muhammad as a womaniser and paedophile.

- Prime Minister Julia Gillard says the violence seen at a Sydney protest against an anti-Islam film has no place in Australia.

- "What we shouldn’t do is condemn the great bulk of Muslims by the actions of a few extremists. " - Barry O'Farrell (Premier of NSW)

- Six police officers were injured during clashes outside the US consulate yesterday.

- Running battles ... protesters, furious at a US film denigrating the prophet Muhammad clash with police on the streets of Sydney yesterday.


‘‘I absolutely condemn the violence that we saw yesterday,’’ Ms Gillard told reporters in Brisbane where she addressed the Queensland ALP state conference.

She said the anti-Islam film, which was made in the US, was ‘‘truly repulsive’’ but ‘‘there is never any excuse for violent behaviour’’.

‘‘To anybody who wants to replicate that behaviour today, I just want to say very strongly that this kind of conduct has no place on the streets of our country,’’ the prime minister said.


- Protesters marching through Sydney's CBD yesterday.

- Footage of the clashes showed a young child carrying a placard calling for people to be beheaded.


‘‘I do not want to see in the hands of anyone, particular children, offensive signs that call for the killing of others,’’ Ms Gillard said.

‘‘This is not the Australian way.’’


- Horrified ... Barry O'Farrell.

- Violence not 'representative of Islam'


The ugliness of a Sydney protest by Muslims angry at an anti-Islam film does not fairly reflect the Islamic people of Australia, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says.

Mr Abbott said newcomers to Australia were not expected to surrender their heritage but were expected to surrender their hatreds.


- Sydney CBD protest

- Muslims protest against anti-Islamic film Innocence of Muslims in Sydney.


‘‘I think that’s the message that has got to go from every Australian to those people on the streets of Sydney yesterday,’’ he told reporters in Sydney.

‘‘I don’t believe we saw an acceptable face of Islam yesterday.

’’Every Australian looking at photos, including one of young children with a placard calling for people to be beheaded for criticising the prophet Mohammed, would be appalled, Mr Abbott said.


- Calm before the storm ... prayer.



‘‘I suspect that many of the protesters looking at the news last night and looking at themselves in the paper this morning would be starting to feel pangs of conscience.

‘‘I do not believe that the people on the streets of Sydney yesterday were truly representative of Islam.

‘‘I don’t believe that the ugliness we saw on the streets of Sydney fairly reflects the Islamic people of our country.’’


Calls to ban Muslim leader

Ms Gillard appeared unlikely to act on Opposition Leader Tony Abbott’s call for Australia to revoke the visa of visiting British Muslim leader Taji Mustafa.

Mr Mustafa is the star attraction at Muslim organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir’s annual conference at Bankstown in Sydney today.

Ms Gillard warned Australia had tight laws on people who urge violence, and very tight laws on people who incite terrorism, but didn’t say she would act against Mr Mustafa.

‘‘The organisation that he has come to visit is not a proscribed terrorist organisation, not here in Australia, not there in the United States, not in the United Kingdom, and was not under the Howard government,’’ she said.

NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell said he was not familiar with Mr Mustafa.

‘‘What I do know is that federal authorities in the past have sought to deny visas to people who are prepared to travel the world and come to Australia, to preach bigotry, to preach hatred,’’ he told Sky News.

‘‘We don’t need them in this country.

‘‘We don’t want to import into this country the problems we see elsewhere.’’


'Horrified' by Sydney protest

The violence at a Sydney protest against an anti-Islamist film revealed the ‘‘unacceptable face of multiculturalism’’, Mr O’Farrell says.

While people have the right to protest in Australia, that freedom comes with a responsibility to do so lawfully, he said today.

The premier said city authorities and police were not informed about Saturday’s protest in the CBD in which six police and 17 others were injured, and six men were later charged.

‘‘What we saw yesterday was the unacceptable face of multiculturalism,’’ Mr O’Farrell told Sky News.

‘‘I’m just horrified by what I saw.’’

The premier said he had discussed the protest with Islamic leaders, who considered it out of step.

But he said in any grouping there would be some extremists.

‘‘What we shouldn’t do is condemn the great bulk of Muslims by the actions of a few extremists, any more than you should do with Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus or others,’’ he said.

Mr O’Farrell said the film that sparked a global protest, which resulted in the US ambassador to Libya being killed in a attack on the US consulate, was made by a ‘‘fool in the US’’.

‘‘That foolish action doesn’t match what we saw in Sydney yesterday,’’ the premier said.

‘‘It was a stupid film, it’s a stupid reaction and worse than that it’s an unacceptable reaction because of the violence involved.’’

Australia and Sydney had one of the world’s most successful multicultural societies.

‘‘Episodes like yesterday really do attack what is one of the great foundations of our success which is our multiculturalism,’’ Mr O’Farrell said.


Muslim group condemns violence

Australia’s peak Muslim group has condemned the violent actions of protesters in Sydney and invited Australians to use forums to find out more about the prophet Mohammed.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, also known as Muslims Australia, issued a statement today following yesterday's clashes.

‘‘Muslims Australia condemns and deplores the unruly demonstrations and violent acts purporting to be in support of our beloved prophet Mohammed, peace and blessings upon him,’’ council president Hafez Kassem said.

Mr Kassem said he stood with all religions in condemning attacks and misrepresentations of religious figures seen in recent years, including attacks on Jesus.

Muslims Australia vice-president Ikebal Patel said the group condemned in the strongest terms the exploitation of God whether Mohammed, Christ, Moses, Abraham or any other prophet.

‘‘Peace be upon them all,’’ Mr Patel said.

‘‘Prophet Mohammed, peace and blessings upon him, promoted love and peace and deplored any acts of violence irrespective of circumstances.

‘‘His life on earth is described as ‘mercy to all living things’.’’


Running battles in CBD

Police fought running battles across Sydney's CBD with violent protesters angered by an anti-Islamic film that has outraged the Muslim world.

NSW Police used batons, capsicum spray and the dog squad to quell the angry crowd, who carried signs such as ''Behead all those who insult the prophet'', ''Obama, we love Osama'' and ''Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell''.

At the height of the five-hour protest, riot squad officers chased Islamic extremists out of Hyde Park to Stanley Street, near the Australian Museum, where The Sun-Herald heard police shouting ''hit them'' as dozens of people shouted abuse and threw bottles.

''Some of these people came forearmed to cause damage and potentially conflict an assault with police,'' Superintendent Mark Walton said of the demonstrators.

The protest began peacefully at Town Hall at lunchtime, where 400 protesters had gathered after receiving text messages and social media updates.

The fiery crowd moved through the city - stopping traffic - travelling via Market Street and Pitt Street Mall before settling in Hyde Park under heavy police watch.

A series of speakers denounced the United States and critics of Islam. Abdullah Sary said the protesters came in peace. ''The anger comes from the fact if you attack the prophet you are attacking our way of life,'' he said. ''This was a non-violent protest but people don't like seeing their brothers attacked by dogs and ending up in hospital. Our anger and emotion is purely for Allah and his message.''

Another protester said: ''The person who made this video, we want him held responsible.''

One protester said he had not seen Innocence of Muslims, which sparked global outrage.

The Sydney protest went in waves of calm, from prayer to rants about Christians lacking morals, then frenzied chanting and violent clashes with police. The Sun-Herald saw several arrests and seriously injured police and protesters. One protester being taken away by an ambulance spat at officers and chanted ''Allahu Akbar''.

Superintendent Walton said eight men were arrested for offences including affray, assaulting a police officer and a police dog and throwing missiles. Two protesters were taken to hospital suffering dog bites.

''Unfortunately six police have been injured during the contact with this group throughout the afternoon, two of which have received treatment in hospital for minor injuries,'' Superintendent Walton said.

He said police ''acted very professionally'' when dealing with the demonstrators.

The vice-president of the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Ikebal Patel, condemned the crowd violence. ''We don't in any way support violence,'' he said. ''It is not something that the prophet himself would like. He always talked about peace.'

Ilya Gridneff and AAP



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/sydney-violen ... z27pOjlXrJ



COMMENT

Well, well, what can I say? Hmm, let me see.... I told you so! I think that is appropriate. It was evident that an episode such as the Mohammed Riot would happen fron the Revenge Attacks of December 2005! The same sentiment held throughout the Lebanese Muslim community released at that point had to find vent yet again.

The successes of multiculturalism were on display yet again! It is a tired old story.

At Posts No.s 148 and 149 THE CONVICTION OF PROPONENTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF ISLAM, a conclusion was drawn. A number of streams associated with the character of Muslims and coming from proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia were isolated.

With the example of the Mohammed Riot in downtown Sydney - with people from the the Jihad Belt - we have demonstrated:

1. Proponents and practitioners of Islam are prepared, willingly, to conspire to pursue the Muslim delusion, the imperative that Islam is to dominate society and polity.
2. Pursuit of the Muslim delusion permits corruption: proponents of Islam become abase pursuing the Muslim delusion.
3. Proponents and practitioners of Islam behave forcefully and irrationally when the Muslim delusion is challenged, exposed and found false.
4. Amidst proponents and practitioners of Islam there is emotional and cognitive chaos that cannot be reconciled with good morals.

And,

6. Proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot find reconciliation with non-Muslims in a non-Islamic environment. Consequently, they project out behaviour consistent with the Muslim delusion.
7. Proponents and practitioners of Islam must defend and protect the Muslim delusion at all costs: deceit and manipulation are permissible.


The Muslims rioters grouped – as they are renowned to do – to attack something or someone non-Muslim - the U.S. Consulate or consular staff or the U.S.A, per se - who were not respecting their problem: Reverence for the Prophet, Mohammed the Paedophile.

By attacking the Consulate, those cowardly, particularly Lebanese, jihadists were abase pursuing the Muslim delusion.

When the rioters, those Lebanese Muslims, reacted to Police corralling them, the rioters behaved forcefully and irrationally.

That is consistent with the Muslim delusion inculcated. The Muslim delusion had been challenged. The Muslim delusion had been exposed and found false: the film "Innocence of Muslims " revealed Mohammed's paedophilia.

Unfortunately for those poor Muslim sods the Muslim delusion does not apply to everybody.

So, there you have it. We have proponents and practitioners of Islam behaving true to form. They behaved aggressively against non-Muslims as typical Muslims have a reputation for doing.

Why have the Muslim rioters behaved that way?

Those Muslims experienced emotional and cognitive dissonance, chaos, unable to reconcile the stricture of their beliefs and the message from the film "Innocence of Muslims" depicting their icon as an abundantly flawed man (as he was). Measured against the abundant freedom experienced by people in the West, symbolised by the U.S.A, who have the good fortune to be able to watch such poor acting unimpeded, we have proponents and practitioners of Islam who want to remove freedom people have in Australia to appreciate such acting.

The beliefs held close by Muslims, beliefs indoctrinated as critically important, were exposed to the test of everyday life and found false. Hence, they reacted and behaved forcefully.


The rioters - vulgar Lebs and feral Muslims - had to reconcile the anomaly about them with their perception of the world to make it consistent with the Muslim delusion. However, that aggressive behaviour engendered cannot be reconciled with good morals.

So, there you have it. Lebanese Muslims behaving true to form, behaving like typical Muslims.

[See Post No. 151 THE YOUNG JIHADISTS]

Will it happen again? Yes.

(See for Jihad Belt and Lebanese nvolvement: http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/fear ... 476859237# and http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 6475406735 and http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... 26lp9.html)

When? Those Lebanese Muslim rioters were more organised this time than with the Revenge Attacks of December 2005. They wore the garb of terrorists and bore the prepared signs associated with the teachings of the Paedophile. It has also been reported that the Muslim rioters came armed, ready to provoke and for conflict.

Children recited and chanted hatred of anything not Islamic. That is a litmus test for what is being heard from and taught by parents and religious leaders in the Muslim community.

(See also: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6475239074)

A mother who later pleaded ignorance about what the sign said stood amidst the crowd of jihadists and took a photograph of her child holding up a sign in defence of Mohammed's paedophilia, calling for the same conclusion she wanted to support,"Behead all those who insult the Prophet" (i.e. rid the world of those who expose the truth about Mohammed's paedophilia)!

Usual suspects, new faces, different episodes, same message.

Who seriously believes that the story expressed by those at the Mohemmed Riot does not reflect the sentiment held by proponents and practitioners of Islam throughout the Muslim community in Australia, particularly amongst Lebanese?

There are some like Peter FitzSimons as in his "Open Letter" in the Sydney Morning Herald who spend time arguing that this behaviour is all a surprise and those who highlight the event as an example of the failure of multiculturalism are racist as it does not reflect truly what is happening and stands in stark contrast to the reality on the ground.

"We have to ask: Do you have the first clue as to the ramifications of your actions? Do you not understand that the net result of such irresponsible, appalling action is to give ample fuel to every racist in the country to reinforce every bad stereotype they have ever had of you, and that will affect badly the hundreds of thousands of other peaceful and law-abiding Islamic Australians?"

I do not know what ideal state FitzSimons is refrerring to. I expect someone of his maturity to be clear about what he is talking, particularly in an open letter in the SMH. All I read is that FitzSimons is shocked that his ideal state - where everybody thinks like he does - was shown up as complete tosh. In fact, on the ground, the entire culture that FitzSimons works to deny has been festering in the Jihad Belt. for many years.

(See http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-a ... 25ziq.html)

Remember Keysar Trad of the so-called Iislamic Friendship Society who has been associated with the Lebanese lMuslim Association who argued in Court that the sentiment held by Lebanese Muslims who visit mosques in Australia toward the West and people in the West was particulalrly vile?

"Trad's provocative comments over the years [were taken] out of the context of the Muslim community. ( ) 'His honour did not take into account that Australia is a multicultural society and the viewpoints of ethnic groups are recognised by the Australian community even though not all members of the community agree with them.'

“( ) ‘His honour did not refer to or even consider the likelihood the average citizen would recognise that the views expressed by [Trad] were similar to beliefs shared by Muslims throughout the world including Muslims in Australia.’' ( ) ‘His honour appears to have given no weight to the fact that the speech was made to Muslims in a mosque and not in an address to the general community.'

And his view?

In 2005 he said, "The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and...the descendents of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keysar_Trad]

[Post No. 213 TRAD IS BACK]

[Post No. 195 MUSLIM DELUSION ON TRIAL]

[Post No. 101 TRAD THE RACIST]

Now, Trad is quoted as shocked also:

"Founder of the Islamic Friendship Association of Australia, Keysar Trad, condemned the violent protests, describing the marchers as a noisy minority.

'To be honest I am dumbfounded as to why people would deal with this issue in this particular way,' he said.

'It's counterproductive and does nothing to uphold the prophet's honour as they claim. In fact it does the exact opposite.'"

(http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-gas-sy ... 25yrb.html)

I think his "dumbfoundedness" is a touch insincere. I think he is merely trying to cause dissimulation by dissemblance, practicing Al-Taqiyya.

I found it amusing the Ikebal Patel, former President of the Australia Federation of Islamic Councils, tried to hose down the riots saying the rioters conduct was 'unIslamic' simply because he is involved with the corruption investiigations into the Malek Fahd Islamic School at Greenacre and the purchase of land at Hoxton Park for another Islamic school using otherwise allocated Government funding for Malek Fahd School. Ikebal Patel has little regard for the law and is only hosing the riot down because their are not enough proponents and practitioners of Islam in the country yet to take advantage of the situation.

[See Post No. 244 INSIGHT INTO THE ISLAMIC SCHOOL OF THOUGHT]

What would he have said if some 'positive' effect for the Muslim community in Australia had been wrought from the display like a preparedness to look at the partial implementation of Sharia Law in Australia?

His tone would be different then. I think because of the corruption allegations that surround him he might have been encouraged a little to downplay the riots and how they are all part of the grand plan for Islam to dominate Australia. I suggest he is playing with the old Muslim technique of Al-Taqiyya, or dissimulation.

Decry all those who deny Mohammed's paedophilia.

Our dead are dead, Your dead are dead, too.


It seems Multiculturalism has been used as a tool by proponents and practititioners of Islam to further their cause.

Next time, those proponents and practitioners of Islam will likely be more organised about how to circumvent the Police and have a more important target than the U.S. Consulate in Sydney.

Who knows? They could target State Parliament.

The reputation of Islam and of Muslims in Australia is brought down every time they raise their cause. Why? Their cause is irrelevant to Australia.

Islam brings shame upon itself.

Are proponents and practitioners of Islam innocent? No. They are as guilty of the crime as charged! The Mohammed Riot is proof.

Proponents and practitioners of Islam on that day sought to conceal Mohammed's paedophilia and failed! I interpret that they demonstrated the intimidation used by paedophiles toward their victims.

What is being taught at Islamic schools?

God is Great.

[Also see the comment logged at Orb.Mogkat http://www.orb.mogkat.com/viewtopic.php ... &start=240)

Post Sat Oct 13, 2012 6:28 pm
Brendiggg User avatar
The Borg
The Borg

Posts: 703
Location: India
Slogan: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind (unless you are a fly)

You don't say?

Hannibal User avatar
Lurker
Lurker

Posts: 13
Slogan: I will never be a friend of Rome.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4264412.html


17 SEPTEMBER 2012


Protests undermine the true message of Islam


646 Comments


GHENA KRAYEM AND MEHAL KRAYEM


The protests in Sydney's CBD on Saturday undermined the true message of Islam and the very message the protestors sought to defend, writes Dr Ghena Krayem and Mehal Krayem.

This is not an apology, for we have no reason to apologise. Nor is it a defence for the disgraceful display of human behaviour that took place on Saturday afternoon by people who happen to share our religious belief, because we owe no such defence.


It is merely a personal, subjective reflection on the events that have come to bear concerning the film, Innocence of Muslims, directed by former softcore porn director Alan Roberts.


There's nothing artistically sophisticated or even remotely cutting edge about a film that demeans a person held dear to Muslims the world over. In fact there's nothing sophisticated about slander full stop.


According to news reports, Innocence of Muslims is a horribly Orientalist portrayal of Islam, one in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed in the most offensive of ways. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have condemned the release of the bigoted and provocative film.


What was intended to be a peaceful protest in Sydney's CBD at the weekend came to be dubbed a 'riot'. It was also openly compared to the Cronulla riots of 2005. Regardless of how offensive the content of the film is to Muslims, few are left doubting that the Sydney protest's reaction to it was any less reasonable and indeed equally offensive.


It has been reported that the death of a US Ambassador Chris Stevens [paywalled], in the Benghazi consulate was the result of protests that turned violent earlier last week. A death that Muslims all over the Western world have strongly condemned. A life lost with no justification.


We do not wish to take away anybody's right to protest; of course protests have been a legitimate apparatus of democracy for centuries. Almost weekly there is a demonstration in Sydney protesting a myriad of social issues and anyone who's even marginally politically inclined has probably attended one.


However, the protests in Sydney on Saturday did little good in promoting any cause or communicating any message other than one of offence and insult to the wider Australian community. Understandably it has given ammunition to those that hold animosity towards the Muslim community and undoubtedly the coming days will bring forward claims that Muslims will never truly be Australians.


This is not to suggest that the cause of the protest was not valid, it certainly was. In fact had it been better (and legally) organised and carried out in a peaceful manner as many protests in the past have been, then we may have been talking about how the nation stands in solidarity with Australian Muslims in regards to the offensive nature of the film.


Instead, the protestors, some of them children, carried signs that proclaimed, 'Behead all those who insult the Prophet', 'Our dead are in paradise. Your dead are in hell' and 'Obama, Obama we love Osama'. This is hardly projecting the image of peace they apparently intended. Conjuring associations with terrorism and barbarism and spreading hatred is contrary to both our democratic beliefs and Islamic values.


Unless this was an academic exercise in irony, on all accounts protestors missed the mark with their placards, which were at best ill thought and at worst reinforced long-held beliefs that Muslims will never belong.


It is made even more ironic by the fact that these placards, banners and chants are far from the conduct that befits those who follow in the footsteps of a Prophet who came with a message of peace and mercy. Ultimately they undermine the true message of Islam and the very message the protestors sought to defend.


But let's be clear, this wasn't simply a protest about a film. It was a protest intended to address years of abuse suffered by the Muslim community and in particular by a section of the community that clearly feels marginalised and disenfranchised. The inconsistent messages on the placards being paraded by protestors were as clear an indication of this as anything could be.


Admittedly it did nothing, but give an already fearful section of the Australian community more reason to be afraid despite the fact the protests were not a true reflection of the way most Muslims choose to carry themselves.


It's safe to assume that nobody came off looking their best, not the protestors, not the police and more sadly not the Muslim community.


Regardless of what the intentions of the proportionally small group of protestors were, this action did nothing for a community that already has a serious PR issue. The entire community is implicated and left to deal not with facts, because most people have already made up their minds about the 'facts', but with an image of a religion that appears to use brutality or at the very least disrespect the notion of peace. An image that most Australian Muslims believe does not accord with the message of the greatest flag bearer of Islam, the Prophet Mohammed.


Dr Ghena Krayem is a lecturer at the Faculty of law, University of Sydney. View her full profile here. Mehal Krayem is a writer and PhD candidate at UTS. View her full profile here.



COMMENT


What is one to make of this response by, ostensibly, a pair of "moderate Muslims" to the provocation of the Mohammed Riot in Sydney two days before?

It represents a quick reply by well-qualified people who can speak about Islam particularly in Australia. They are Mehal and Ghena Krayem. Mehal is a writer and PHD candiate at University of Technology, Sydney. Ghena Krayem is a lecturer in the Faculty of Law at the University of Sydney. The University of Sydney proclaims its status as Australia's first university and part of the 'Group of 8' so-called leading universities in Australia. The recital above comes not only with the weight of a writer and a candidate for a PHD, but a Lecturer in Law at an esteemed academic institution.

So?

That would imply that an argument postulated by the Krayems in response to the Mohammed Riot, "Protests undermine the true message of Islam", would effuse credibility.

However, the Krayems' argument reads like a wafer-thin excuse designed to protect the Muslim community in Australia. The Krayems' argument is based upon an emotive appeal with dollops of self-justification. The Krayems' argument is one made based on assertions and is one supported by assertions. It reads like a propaganda piece.

Let us dissect what the Krayems wrote passing their expulsion through the filter here at Extreme Measures. We are talking about proponents and practitioners of Islam in the Australian context.

Let us look at the flawed argument line by line to see what is behind that which is stated.


Line 1 - This is not an apology, for we have no reason to apologise. Nor is it a defence for the disgraceful display of human behaviour that took place on Saturday afternoon by people who happen to share our religious belief, because we owe no such defence."

- A stance defiant is made.

"This is not an apology, for we have no reason to apologise." That statement assumes first, we - the people of mainstream Australia - were seeking an apology. It places the Muslim community in Australia on the defensive. That is, they are the real victim.

To then argue with the strident statement: "(n)or is it a defence for the disgraceful display of human behaviour that took place on Saturday afternoon by people who happen to share our religious belief, because we owe no such defence", means what?

The Krayems are the voice for the Muslim community. The Krayems are busy maintaining their pride. The Krayems are dissociating themselves from the actions of their co-religionists. Those rioters put the Muslim community to shame.

That is, yes, those at the Mohammed Riot are part of the Muslim family. But, they do not speak for the Muslim community. Those Mohammed Riot rioters behaved outrageously. That outrageous behaviour helped destroy a proud image members of the Muslim community have of themselves. Those rioters put the Muslim community into disrepute.

- "The disgraceful display of human behaviour", describes what?

There is no talk about responsibility. The Muslim community is separate from and distinguishes itself from the riotous acts of those proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot.

In fact, the Krayems do not refer to them as "Muslims".

Why?

The whole charade was conducted by proponents of Islam in the name of Islam to protect the reputation of their iconic prophet, Mohammed. That abundantly flawed man was depicted in the film Innocence of Muslims as someone worthy of contempt.

The Krayems want to create the image that the proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot who conducted themselves purely in pursuit of the Muslim delusion, where Islam is to dominate society and polity, were not designated practitioners of Islam.

Who were those rioters then?

The Krayems scoop them up and describe those rioters, "people who happen to share our religious belief", as Australians. Those Australians gave a "disgraceful display of human behaviour ". Those rioters at the Mohammed Riot did not behave like Muslims. Those rioters were behaving as non-Muslim Australians are expected to do. That is, the rioters behaved as Australians and not as Muslims.

The Krayems argue Muslims are still superior.

Line 2 - It is merely a personal, subjective reflection on the events that have come to bear concerning the film, Innocence of Muslims, directed by former softcore porn director Alan Roberts.

- "It is merely a personal, subjective reflection". The Krayems want to qualify their opinion and salve the rest of the Muslim community from criticism on their behalf.

The Krayems compound their generalisation about Australians. The Krayems maintain that proponents and practitioners of Islam are superior. But, the Krayems moderate their opinion saying it is their own. The Krayems are protecting the Muslim community.

Yet, they pretend to speak for all Muslims.

- The Krayems' state that "(i)t is merely a personal, subjective reflection on the events that have come to bear concerning the film, Innocence of Muslims, directed by former softcore porn director Alan Roberts."

Please note the descriptive: "former softcore porn director". It is used to denote the director of the film Innocence of Muslims.

Why?

The denotation of Alan Roberts as a "former softcore porn director" is to try to slander or malign the man. Alan Roberts is made out as a man of lesser moral integrity than those he is purported to have offended - the high and mighty, virtuous Muslim.

The Krayems try to assassinate the character of Roberts.

The Krayems, however, neglect to propose and counter the quick, qualiified rejoinder to their brazen assertion.

Alan Roberts directed softcore porn where there was sex between one or more adults. I think people can reconcile that as consenusal sexual intercourse. There is no coercion or manipulation.

This brings focus back to the film. What was the film Innocence of Muslims about? Mohammed?

Question is then raised about Mohammed and his relations with Aisha as explored in the film .

When a person is young and innocent, below the age of consent, and pentrated by an adult then that is rape.

I find that act targetting a child repugnant to say the least.

However, there are people who say it is acceptable. The level of acceptance depends on one's moral code. Some people have enough levity to permit such abuse. That levity is linked to their religious conviction.

Mohammed's relationship with Aisha is brought into focus.

Did Mohammed behave like a pornographic film star in his relations with Aisha as the film Innocence of Muslims proposes?

Did Mohammed commit paedophilia having sexual intercourse with the young Aisha at age 9?

Mohammed was much, much older. Mohammed was a man 53 or 54 years old at the time. That is six times the age of the baby Aisha! I think that is important to consider.

People remark even today about couples where one partner is twice the age of the other. In some cases, the relationship is viewed with a degree of cycnicm. How do the two communicate outside the bedroom? What is the love? It is not one between equals etc. One's moral code comes to the fore.

With that light we can ask the same question of Mohammed, what did he see in Aisha?

Does that make Mohammed a paedophile?

On sober reflection the answer must be a convincing "Yes!" The relationship was not one between equals. Aisha played with toy dolls. Meanwhile, Mohammed fantisised about Aisha.

"'That the Prophet said to her, “ You [Aisha] have been shown to me twice in my dream. I saw you pictured on a piece of silk and some-one said (to me). ‘This is your wife.’ When I uncovered the picture, I saw that it was yours (Aisha's). I said, ‘If this is from Allah, it will be done."' (Bukhari :: Volume 5 :: Book 58 :: Hadith 235)".

(http://islamgreatreligion.wordpress.com ... nt-page-1/ and http://www.christianforums.net/archive/ ... 0f71a9a57f and http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/show ... p?t=305428 )

What is young Aisha doing in Mohammed's fantasies? At the time, Aisha would have been younger than six years of age.

At six, Aisha was of no consequence other than where "(f)rom islamonline.net: ' Most of his wives after the death of Khadijah were old, devoid of beauty, and previously married, except Aisha, who was the only young virgin'". That is, "most of his wives ( ) were old, devoid of beauty, ( ) except Aisha, who was the only young virgin". I thnk that delivers his interest.

(http://www.islamicboard.com/clarificati ... -pbuh.html)

If one has the basest moral code - even despite levity - one must condemn Mohammed's penetration of the child Aisha. Mohammed indulged his own sexual fantasy.

By trying to focus on the film Innocence of Muslims, the Krayems have tried to direct attention away from the content of the film. The Krayems want to sidestep Mohammed's paedophilia. It is a neat trick. The Krayems are practicing dissemblance.

In fact, by trying to diverge away from Mohammed's paedophilia the Krayems have only worked to highlight his dubious character.

That was not the aim of their argument.

So the subterfuge describing Alan Roberts a softcore porn director to undermine the film Innocent of Muslims has backfired.

- The Krayems want to decry the film Innocence of Muslims.

I watched a ten or so minute trailer. I was compelled to see what all the fuss was about. Those ten minutes were informative. I did not find the film's content to be in any way the slightest bit offensive.

I have determined that proponents and practitioners of Islam who have kicked up a stink must have very thin skins. Sensible people would not allow their sensibilities to be affected. They would simply say the film is puerile. Proponents and practitioners of Islam who spit the dummy every time Mohammed is rendered naked by some comic or film must struggle coping with everyday life in Australia.

The Krayems do not address the content of the film and its truth. They call the revelations about Mohammed's paedophilia offensive and merely use that as an excuse to conceal his wrongdoing.

- I found the film almost Pythonesque. I think that the film might have actually lifted the reputation of the Muslim community in Australia. But, alas, that hope is lost.

The Mohammed Riot 'caused' has caused more damage to a battered reputation for the Muslim community.

Rather than helping to cause a celebration of Islam, the Mohammed Riot over the film Innocence of Muslims has brought focus to questions about Mohammed and Islam.

Mohammed and Islam were portrayed as objects of ridicule in the film. Australians might have complained about the film, too, for that reason. Intead, the converse has been rendered. The Mohammed Riot has successfully brought the film an undeserved acclaim and Islam, the Muslim community and their icon, Mohammed, justified ridicule.

- Note that the Krayems describe the "Mohammed Riot" as an "event".

It is one "event" from a stream of "events" around the world. It is made to sound like getting a speeding ticket. It is made to sound like riding a bus from Greenacre to Bankstown.

The Krayems make no mention of the event where an innocent man confronted those riotous Mohammedans at the Mohammed Riot.

"In one ugly incident, a man whipped up the protesters when he began yelling at the crowd, screaming: 'Shame on you for using religion to advocate for murder.' He was set upon by a group of men before police dragged him to safety."

(http://www.news.com.au/national/police- ... 6474744811)

Why?

That brave man challenged those proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot on their violent means.

The brave man was then to be bashed by the Mohammedan mob!

The brave man offered his voice in protest. The brave man was to be made a fool. The barbarians would attack as a gang. A horde from the pack at the Mohammed Riot descended on him. The Mohammedans sought his silence. He would succumb to the bloodlust of the barbarians from the "Religion of Peace"! The innocent man would succumb to the bloodlust of those who emulate Mohammed!

But, he was scuttled away, saved by the Riot Police .

That "event" was an inconvenient truth that the Krayems could not reconcile.

- The Mohammed Riot is described as an "event" by the Krayems to diminish both recognition of the scale of the riot and its significance and importance on the landscape of ethnic crime and law-breaking in modern Australia.

The Mohammed Riot invokes in the communal consciousness ethnic crime in Australia. Crimes of gang rape and gang bashing, drive-by shootings and other lawlessness now have an ethnic flavour. Crimes unheard of in Australia fifteen or so years ago, they are committed with an ethnic agenda. The crimes are committed by proponents and practitioners of Islam, usually by Lebanese. Those rapists targeted non-Muslim Australians. The memories evoked rush back with a flurry. That is the natural reaction. The bad reputation of the Muslim community is etched in the nation's communal consciousness forever.

The decision to call the Mohammed Riot an "event" was taken by the Krayems despite the fact that Riot Police were assigned to manage the riotous crowd. Many of those police succumbed to attacks by armed, mutinous proponents of Islam!

(http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/fear ... 476859237#)

It is hardly appropriate to describe such a mass riot as an "event". That event absorbed 80 Riot Police for more than 5 hours. That event caused national outrage. The Krayems overlook the horror involved.

The Krayems are trying to dissemble.

Yet again by calling the Mohammed Riot an 'event" the Krayems try to gain some advantage. The Krayems try to diminish the responsibility for their co-religionists.

Line 3 - There's nothing artistically sophisticated or even remotely cutting edge about a film that demeans a person held dear to Muslims the world over. In fact there's nothing sophisticated about slander full stop.


So, a person held dear to Muslims cannot be demeaned? And, any attempt to demean Mohammed the Paedophile is slander? Then we have a problem.

- First, free speech is not negotiable. If proponents and practitioners of Islam cannot suck it up then criticism of them will become more intense until they break and embarrass themselves yet again like they did at the Mohammed Riot in Sydney on Saturday, 15 September 2012.

In fact, one feels compelled to demean Mohammed the Paedophile to highlight Muslim hypocrisy and to put the Muslim delusion again on trial before the eyes of the general public so that people become aware of what members of that sick and depraved politico-religious cult resonant in their midst called the Musilim community really seeks to do. Policy-makers might then try to derive a solution and give it urgent priority rather than pander as they do now to the band from that infamous Political Correctness brigade.

- Secondly, what is slanderous about calling "Mohammed the Paedophile", a paedophile?

If something is stated that is true it is not slander. It is true if it can be verified. If what is stated about Mohammed relates to Mohammed then what is the slander?

It is not slanderous to call a whiteman white or a blackman black or an Australian Australian, or a Muslim a Muslim.

Mohammed was a paedophile who at age 53 or so penetrated a young girl of 9 years of age. He did that repeatedly with his victim until she was 18 and he died. That should be common knowledge. It is for people who have done the research.

(http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... ophile.htm)

Are we to quibble about what paedophilia constitutes when the sexual act of penetration is committed by a responsible adult taking advantage of a minor who does not have the physical strength, mental maturity or moral fibre to resist?

I think it is clear where the wrongdoing resonates. It resonates with Mohammed the Paedophile.

- Thirdly, describing the film as of poor quality is not a saving grace. The film reveals Mohammed's paedophilia. That is the content of the film.

That content is not raised or addressed by the Krayems in their response. Their offence alone at the film Innocence of Muslims is 'provocation' . Provocation is enough for the Mohammed Riot.

They Krayems argue that proponents and practitioners of Islam are morally above having to address those questions about Mohammed's paedophilia despite them being pertinent.

The Krayems' emotive appeal claiming offence is designed to quash any need for explanation. Mohammed's paedophilic acts with Aisha are not questioned. The Krayems' emotive appeal is a form of coercion.

The Krayems want to convey Islam as inscrutable truth.

In fact, the Krayems are merely practicising dissemblance feigning shock at an insult that exposes a critical flaw in the Islamic School of Thought.

The Krayems are defenders of Islam and the Muslim community.

One must remember the Koran is without flaw. It is the 'Word of God' through the Angel Gabriel as revealed to Mohammed the Paedophile. It is for proponents and practitioners of Islam the final source of Truth. Consequently, Mohammed's paedophilia must be accepted!

(http://www.givingananswer.org/articles/koran.html)

Line 4 - According to news reports, Innocence of Muslims is a horribly Orientalist portrayal of Islam, one in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed in the most offensive of ways. Muslims and non-Muslims alike have condemned the release of the bigoted and provocative film.

- I read "a horribly Orientalist portrayal of Islam".

Who are these horrible "Orientalists"? What have these "horrible Orientalst" gone and done? Why would those dang "Orientalists" want to portray Islam in such a way?

I am reasonably literate. I have only ever encountered the term "Orientalist" as a descriptive in histories connected to the Islamic world. It is used to render a disposition toward Europeans. The Europeans were the dominant colonial masters of much of the Islamic world throughout the 19th century.

I bring to your attention:

"Since the publication of Edward Said's 'Orientalism' in 1978, much academic discourse has begun to use the term 'Orientalism' to refer to a general patronising Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies. In Said's analysis, the West essentialises these societies as static and undeveloped—thereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture that can be studied, depicted, and reproduced. Implicit in this fabrication, writes Said, is the idea that Western society is developed, rational, flexible, and superior."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism)

That is, "the horribly Orientalist portrayal of Islam" is a portrayal of Islam done by people in the West. Those horrible people essentialise, generally patronise, the sociieties of the Middle East, North Africa and Asia, or the Islamic world, as "static and undeveloped".

The implication from the tone used by the Krayems describing the film as one with a "horribly orientalist portrayal of Islam" is that they have a chip on the shoulder. The Krayems do not like how the West perceives the Islamic world. In their view, the Islamic world is not "static and undeveloped".

Use of the term "Orientalist", however, signifies more. It signifies the Krayems have adopted the lexicon of the Islamic world with its anti-Western prejudice and have rendered their disposition toward Australia, a Western nation.

The Krayems have their own agenda. The Krayems have disclosed their own bigotry. The Krayems patronise those people in the West who patronise Islam.

- "Bigotry" is a word thrown around by proponents and practitioners of Islam to defend their politico-religious cult from just criticism. It is a way of saying, if one does not agree with what proponents of Islam state, or acquiesce to the assertions of proponents of Islam, then one does not deserve any recognition or credential. One will thereafter be labelled as a "bigot" and thereby be negated, done away with, dismissed from the debate.

What does "bigot" mean? "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot)

Hence, we have the "portrayal of Islam( ) one in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed in the most offensive of ways. Muslims and non-Muslims* have condemned the release of the bigoted and provocative film."

Why is the film "bigoted"? Because the film is "offensive" to Muslims?

The film portrays Mohammed "in the most offensive ways" to Muslims?

It is "condemned" because it is "provocative"?

I do not think anything about the film is "bigoted". It constructs a discourse about Mohammed the Paedophile in such a very low budget way it is laughable to merit it with any value greater than parody or satire.

The Krayems' assessment of the film "Innocence of Muslims" itself raises questions.

If Muslims are intolerant of the opinions of non-Muslims are they then not defining themselves as "bigots".

What are they doing living by their own choice in a nation populated by non-Muslim, "Orientalist" bigots?

If The Paedophile is the utmost being in the eyes of proponents and practitioners of Islam then Mohammed will naturally be the target of criticism by people in the West! That criticism will meter and assess Mohammed's true worth.

That is what the West is all about. Look at the influence of Socrates. Was Mohammed a sophist?

Muslims might be offended by that criticism, but their offence does not invalidate the criticism.

In fact, after the Mohammed Riot Muslim anti-social behaviour deserves more than mere criticism. Other questions are raised.

Will they fit in?

Hence, criticsm of proponents and practitioners of Islam is given renewed vigour, importance, and what that criticism uncovers greater merit.

The Krayems have failed to fend off the criticism they now enjoy.

Hence, Muslim bigotry reaps its own rewards like rave reviews for a cheap porn depicting Mohammed as a paedophile.

Just because Muslims find it offensive does not mean it is "bigoted".

- The Koran is full of admonitions about Muslims mixing with Jews and Christians.

"Qur’an (5:51) - ”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.'"

"Qur’an 5:53 Jews and Christians are losers."

*Ishaq: 364 'Muslims, take not Jews and Christians as friends. Whoever protects them becomes one of them, they become diseased, and will earn a similar fate.'"

(http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 094048/pg1)

The use of the word "bigotry" is hardly a prerogative of proponents and practitioners of Islam. Proponents and practitioners of Islam can throw the word bigot at anyone they like who dares question them. It will then be thrown right back. Proponents and practitioners of Islam are in no position to condemn others unlike themselves with the label "bigot"!

It is hypocritical for the Krayems to yabber on about "Orientalists" and "offence" and "bigotry" when in Australia proponents and practitioners of Islam have a reputation for just that, bigotry.

If the film Innocence of Muslims did anything it exposed to the full light of day the double-standard promulgated by proponents and practitioners of Islam.

Muslim bigotry is not to be countered. If it is it will cause offence. Causing offence to Muslims is beneath contempt and must be retracted and the person or group who has caused the offence must pay with their lives!

As moderate Muslims, the Krayems have ibeen nculcated with the puerile rantings of a paedophilic madman. The Krayems stand as high and mighty, virtuous Muslims to condemn a film. The film Innocence of Muslims was pitched at people who think like children. Hence, the film Innocence of Muslims achieved its aim. By inciting proponents and practitioners of Islam to react, the film Innocence of Muslims exposed their juvenile thinking. It exposed their infantile hates.

I suggest that Islam is a weak religion when moderate Muslim members must intimidate those who disagree with them. That is just cause for the criticism of Islam.

- The argument the Krayems propose in this line really opens them, the moderate Muslim Muslim community, up to criticism.

It was not a good move by the Krayems in their response to the Mohammed Riot trying to parade themselves as people of a higher moral code and culture. People that can label other people who disagree with them as "Orientalist".

Proponents and practitioners of Islam offer little by way of evidence in return they are people of a higher culture. People of higher culture would have better manners. They are manners worthy of emulation or consideration. I have seen no display of good manners. The rationalisation of the vulgar behaviour of proponents and practitioners of Islam at the Mohammed Riot by the Krayems proves my case. It is evidence of bad manners.

"Behead all those who insult the prophet"!

Really?

What classic form of Islamic art was flourished when that aphorism was floated?

I should get a picture taken with that aphorism above my head! Look, I have got a university education and this will show how cultured I am!

(http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/behead-sign-c ... 26368.html)

I just think the Krayems should grow up before condescending to lecture the broader Australian community.

- The moderate Muslim Muslim community, it is inferred but not portrayed, is sensitive. The Muslim community is so sensitive that they are highly offended by a cheap film depicting their icon as a paedophile.

The Muslim community in Australia has a reputation linked to crimes such as gang rape, gang bashing, car theft and re-birthing, drive-by shootings and being led by leaders like Sheikh Taj Hilaly and Keysar Trad.

Hilaly is fanous for his infamous cats' meat sermon comparing non-Muslim women dressed in less than black Islamic full-body clothing to cats' meat ready to be taken, raped.

(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 1112419114)

Other Islamic leaders have stated aloud the low quality of the non-Muslim Australian. Keysar Trad compared white Australians less than positively to his high and mighty, virtuous Muslims.

"The criminal dregs of white society colonised this country and...the descendents of these criminal dregs tell us that they are better than us."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keysar_Trad)

Proponents and practitioners of Islam do not sound like they are a people who have any sense of sophistication. How are they sensitive enough to have a right to be offended?

Moderate Muslims have not shown any felicity, any essence of delight, in the fabric of Australian society. Moderate Muslims condescend about all that around them.

The softly-spoken moderate Muslim Muslim community the Krayems try to speak for is led and guided by leaders like Taj Hilaly who makes excuses for Muslim rapists while he denies the Holocaust and Keysar Trad of the Islamic Friendship Society and the Lebanese Muslim Association who thinks Australians are "the criminal dregs of white society".

"In July 2006 Hilaly was sacked from Prime Minister of Australia John Howard's Muslim Community Reference Group following comments he made in which he denied the Holocaust, calling it a 'Zionist lie'."

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taj_El-Din_Hilaly)

Hilaly and Trad have hardly displayed anything like sophistication let alone any felicity in the fabric of Australian society.

How are the Krayems entitled to be offended then speaking in response to the Mohammed Riot for the moderate Muslim Muslim community in Australia about a low-budget film?

The Krayems as moderate Muslims have not cried out about Muslim criminals or Muslim bigots who have distinguished themselves in the past?

But, it is convenient for the Krayems to speak out now as they feel compelled and morally justified.

- The offence taken by the Krayems for the moderate Muslim Muslim community about the cheap film Innocence of Muslims is supposed to rationalise and justify by inference the behaviour of the Mohammed Riot rioters who were proponents and practitioners of Islam.

Hence, we have ostensibly moderate Muslims arguing in support of proponents of Islam pursuing the Muslim delusion.

Those Mohammed Riot rioters responded rightfully to "a horribly Orientalist portrayal of Islam, one in which the Prophet Mohammed is portrayed in the most offensive of ways'.

Yet, at the beginning of the piece the Krayems played a straight bat against reaction to the Mohammed Riot by mainstream Australians. The Krayems described the behaviour of the rioters as irrational. Those proponents and practitioners of Islam were unequivocally condemned by the Krayems for "the disgraceful display of human behaviour that took place on Saturday afternoon by people who happen to share our religious belief".

How are those conflicting threads of argument reconciled?

Say one thing for those prepared to listen who are gullible enough to be lured by nonsense propagated to gain advantage now and another to those who share the same religious conviction to vindicate themselves at time of review.

How is that done?

The "disgraceful behaviour" of the Mohammed Riot rioters as attributed to them was disgraceful because those rioters conducted themselves like typical, unruly, alcohol-drinking Australians!

Those yobbos at the Mohammed Riot were unrepresentative of the sensitive moderate Muslim Muslim community!

However, the principle that they rioted for was a worthy cause on review. The proponents of Islam involved were pursuing the Muslim delusion which happens to be beyond reproach. Excuses should be made for them.

There you have it! A moderate Muslim conspiracy perfectly consistent with the sensibilities of the Muslim community manufactured to comply with mainstream Australia.

The Krayems have presented a rationale to justify the crime committed by the Mohammed Rioters.

The behaviour of the Mohammed Rioters was wrong, but it expressed the feeling, the sentiment held by members of the Muslim community in Australia. The rioters at the Mohammed Riot who engaged Riot Police for 5 hours on Saturday, 15 September 2012, terrorising the people of downtown Sydney wreaking havoc should be excused.

Line 5 - What was intended to be a peaceful protest in Sydney's CBD at the weekend came to be dubbed a 'riot'. It was also openly compared to the Cronulla riots of 2005. Regardless of how offensive the content of the film is to Muslims, few are left doubting that the Sydney protest's reaction to it was any less reasonable and indeed equally offensive.

- The Mohammed Riot, the Krayems here infer, should not have been called a "riot" as it was a mere "protest".

The comparison with the Cronulla Riot of 5 December 2005 also - it in inferred - is unjust because at that riot heinous whites targeted people they thought were Lebanese Muslims for unadulterated racist bashing.

By that inference, the Krayems overlook the facts about the Revenge Attacks of December 2005. They are a smear on the reputation of the Muslim community. Then young people from the Lebanese Muslim ghetto of Lakemba gathered at Lakemba Mosque. They swarmed over Sydney in Mohammedan mobs, moving about in convoys of cars, terrorising residents and attacking and knifing innocent people by the road, notably white or Anglo-Celtic Australian citizens.

Hence, the Krayems adopt a position where they select parts of history that support their argument while overlooking that history which contradicts their higher moral position.

- They do their best to legitimise their argument as it is done in pursuit of the Muslim delusion, their higher ideal. The truth is contorted then to feed back into their perception of the world. It casts the moderate Muslim Muslim community, as it seeks to identify itself, as the marginalised, "victim" community of Australian society.

The Krayems speak as if the Muslim community in Australia stands, beleagured, alongside the Aboriginal community. They deserve an apology, too.

The Krayems argue as if the Muslim community in Australia deserve at least the same recognition and the same applause as other minority communities like the Italians and Greeks and Croatians etc who helped build Australia after the Second World War.

- The claim that the "Sydney protest's reaction to (the film Innocence of Muslims) was any less reasonable (than the impact of the film Innocence of Muslims on the Muslim community) and indeed equally offensive (as the film Innocence of Muslims)" would be laughable if it was not made so seriously.

The Krayems are here measuring the scale of offence taken by moderate Muslims and the Muslim community in Australia from the film of ten minutes called "Innocence of Muslims".

Really?

So the intensity of hundreds of riotous youths swarming through the main streets of Sydney stopping traffic and attacking passers-by, over a period of 5 hours where 80 Riot Police were required to try and maintain control, and where Police and Police dogs were attacked and suffered injuries is balanced by the offence those poor Muslims felt confronted by a depiction of their prophet Mohammed as a paedophile in some cheap U.S. porno?

For the rest of us, obviously not.

The Krayems have committed a crime by trying to justify and rationalise the conduct of that band of rabid proponents of Islam who sought to take control of Sydney. Hence, the moderate Muslim Muslim community did feel that their sentiments were reflected in the conduct of those proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot on 15 September 2012.

There was nothing "peaceful" about those proponents of Islam who promulgated the "Religion of Peace" through riotous behaviour.

The appeal by the Krayems looks to support the proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot. The Krayems look at the Mohammed Riot rioters' ostensible motive while overlooking their crime.

The Krayems look to obscure the crime conducted in their name. They seek to label themselves as moderate Muslims the "victim" even when they respond in such an obnoxious manner.

- The Krayems say for moderrate Muslims and the Muslim community that the reaction generated by the film Innocence of Muslims is of equal magntiude and balanced when compared the insult incurred by them. There is a direct correlation between the film Immocence of Muslims and the Mohammed Riot.

What was that?

There is no such direct correlation between a film made in the United States and the riots on the streets of Sydney unless one is forced to make the connection.

So why do the Krayems try to create an argument linking two unrelated things? One is a film, the other a riot. They have no real connection. The events - a film and a riot - are merely connected by a story one wants to write.

The argument that the Krayems make would be thrown out of Court as one ad hominem and one tu quoque. That is, one not substantial enough to sustain itself and contrary to the evidence at hand. The rioters - those proponents of Islam - broke the law! They should pay the price and not demand sympathy.

- The haughty tone taken by the Krayems to express their case also deserves ridicule.

The honourable intent of most of the participants at the protest at Cronulla of December 2005 is lost to the Krayems. The Krayems merely focus on the reputation surrounding a number of drunken louts and and a group of White Supremacists who hijacked the peaceful protest. Those malcontent elements caused the riot.

The Krayems also overlook the multitude of vehicle-riding Lebanese Muslim thuggish brutes who reined down terror on Sydney the following nights smashing glass in an exhibition one has come to associate with the terror of Nazi kristallnacht.

For the Krayems to infer that the Mohammed Riot was something less than or even equal to the Cronulla protest opens the Krayems up to ridicule for being one-eyed, unbalanced, and of conveniently distorting history for their own purposes.

So far, the Krayems' case does not look good.

Line 6 - It has been reported that the death of a US Ambassador Chris Stevens [paywalled], in the Benghazi consulate was the result of protests that turned violent earlier last week. A death that Muslims all over the Western world have strongly condemned. A life lost with no justification.

- "A death that Muslims all over the Western world have strongly condemned" implies that that condemnation should be clear in the communal consciousness.

I did not see in any video or in any of the pictures covering the Mohammed Riot in Sydney or read or hear in any of the reports afterward anything like a "strong condemnation" of the murder of the American Ambassador in Libya by participants.

I have not heard any apology or read any statement that rejected the conduct as not truly reflective of Islam.

The Krayems are the first I have read to even offer up that advice.

Instead, I have heard bleetings that the people who committed the murder did not conduct themselves like Muslims.

However, we find that Muslims committing any crime or doing anything that does not earn popular, positive recognition against Westerners are people described by Muslims in the West as 'un-Islamic' . That sounds like an expedient.

Hence, when Muslims commit crimes they are not behaving like Muslims. When a Muslim is a victim, however, they are martyrs and stereotypical Muslims. Muslims share no responsibility so Muslims cannot lose the moral battle.

- Why are Muslims in the Western World singled out and treated differently to Muslims in the Islamic world?

The distinction is not required and represents merely an artifice used to lend a hand to the diminished credibility allocated to proponents and practitioners of Islam. That is, a credibility now undermined by the Mohammed Riot and the arguments used by proponents of Islam to defend their behaviour.

Line 7 - We do not wish to take away anybody's right to protest; of course protests have been a legitimate apparatus of democracy for centuries. Almost weekly there is a demonstration in Sydney protesting a myriad of social issues and anyone who's even marginally politically inclined has probably attended one.

- "We do not wish to take away anybody's right to protest; of course protests have been a legitimate apparatus of democracy for centuries."

The Krayems are making an observation from a position of people outside the system looking in. It implies that the "right to protest" is something granted to people in democracies solely. It has merits and detractions. At this stage, it is not something the Krayems want to take away.

The assertion that 'the right to protest is not something they would like to take away' is quite rude. They are not in any position to take away anybodies rights so why even propose such nonsense.

The Krayems' tone, however, melds well with the sheer haughtiness of the rest of their piece and their argument. They have no right to presume they are in any position to take away people's rights.

- The smear that "protests have been a legitimate apparatus of democracy for centuries" is a weight compared to what?

The millennia of Islamic caliphates that operated without democracy!

I think the affectation ascribed to this line by the Krayems is a bit self-serving. That is, they would change the freedom to protest as allocated to democracy, a system governed by people, for a better system, one governed by God. That system happens to be one Islamic.

That better Islamic system would preclude such films as "Innocence of Muslims" and save everyone all the wreck and rancour committed justifiably to date by outraged Muslims.

Hence, if business was conducted the Islamic way - one superior to that of a democracy - Australian society would not have any problems like the Mohammed Riot: 1 point for Islam, 0 points for democracy. Let's make room for Sharia Law.

- "Almost weekly there is a demonstration in Sydney protesting a myriad of social issues and anyone who's even marginally politically inclined has probably attended one" so the Mohammed Riot of Saturday, 15 September 2012, was not unusual.

For the Krayems, the "Mohammed Riot" was nothing but a mere protest that has been elevated wrongly by a sensationalist press to a level of public recognition that overstates its true weight and to a level undue. It was a typical protest so all those who are criticising those proponents and practitioners of Islam who attended the "protest" should get over themselves.

The Krayems present the Mohammed Riot and the proponents and practitioners of Islam who participated in the "protest" as a typical protest with typical protesters. That is caricatured by the attached condition: "there is a demonstration in Sydney protesting a myriad of social issues" every week.

- The Krayems should have recognised that, perhaps, the film Innocence of Muslims was a protest one on a myriad of issues about Islam. Hence, if we are to accept the disgraceful conduct at the Mohammed Riot by proponents of Islam, proponents and practitioners of Islam should extend the same demeanour to cheap porn.

The Krayems' arguments sink their own case.

Line 8 - However, the protests in Sydney on Saturday did little good in promoting any cause or communicating any message other than one of offence and insult to the wider Australian community. Understandably it has given ammunition to those that hold animosity towards the Muslim community and undoubtedly the coming days will bring forward claims that Muslims will never truly be Australians.

- When the Krayems state the Mohammed Riot and the rioters did nothing but "communicat(e) (a) message ( ) of offence and insult to the wider Australian community", the Krayems are stating nothing short of the truth! I think that truth is glaringly evident and cannot be denied.

It is the only truth communicated so far in response to the Mohammed Riot from spokespeople for moderate Muslims recognised as truth.

The assessment that the Mohammed Riot "has given ammunition to those that hold animosity towards the Muslim community and undoubtedly the coming days will bring forward claims that Muslims will never truly be Australians" raises the question, what did the Krayems expect it to do?

The Mohammed Riot is the last and most recent disgraceful episode in a debauched history for proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia, particularly in Sydney.

I have not seen the same sort of attempt to offer an explanation by anyone fron the moderate Muslim community on a national broadcaster before like the Krayems' current vulgar effort. The Krayems vainly try to explain away a stain on the character of the Muslim community.

For example, where were their voices at the time of the Bilal Skaff Gang Rapes or the Revenge Attacks of December 2005?

All I remember is - like here - veiled attempts at justifying the behaviour by spokespeople for proponents and practitioners of Islam like Keysar Trad or Taj Hilaly. Their infamy resounds.

The Muslim community has no one to blame for its bad reputation but itself.

- To then point fingers and argue that the Mohammed Riot "has given ammunition to those that hold animosity towards the Muslim community" is to imply that the Muslim community is innocent and members of the Muslim community do not harbour any ill sentiment toward Australian society.

Where the Krayems say that "it has given ammunition to those that hold animosity towards the Muslim community", the Krayems have not explained why there might be any animosity toward the Muslim community in the first place.

Is it possible that the Krayems are trying to position the Muslim community as the "victim" subjugated by the glaring eyes of the general public?

That is, a general public likened to a mob where those who disagree with or find fault in the Muslim community are somehow wrong. Those people are cast adrift from a higher moral consciousness. That moral consciousness respects people in the Muslim community despite their history littered with perversions and travesty.

I think the Krayems are indulging a fantasy creating a straw man to feign injury and thereby make themselves or the Muslim community nothing less than martyrs.

Line 9 - This is not to suggest that the cause of the protest was not valid, it certainly was. In fact had it been better (and legally) organised and carried out in a peaceful manner as many protests in the past have been, then we may have been talking about how the nation stands in solidarity with Australian Muslims in regards to the offensive nature of the film.

- Here we have the entire thrust of the argument: "This is not to suggest that the cause of the protest was not valid, it certainly was". That is, the cause for the Mohammed Riot was valid!

The cause?

A cheap porn called "Innocence of Muslims". I do seriously think that the Krayems and the Muslim community have their priorities mixed up and the value allocated to soft porn in the big scheme of things is both contrived and distorted.

- The correlative to that is "in fact had (The protest) been better (and legally) organised and carried out in a peaceful manner as many protests in the past have been, then we may have been talking about how the nation stands in solidarity with Australian Muslims in regards to the offensive nature of the film."

That is contrary to what was asserted before. There the general public had an eye on the behaviour of proponents and practitioners of Islam with a prejudice against them. Now, if the Mohammed Rioters had registered 'like usual' then there would not have been such a commotion and the rest of Australia would have supported them in their protest!

I do think the Krayems have taken some licence yet again. "Australia" does not care about Islam or the issues faced by Muslims per se. Mainstream Australia wants the Muslim community to toe the line like everybody else rather than wasting our time and money spent accommodating an odd band of ne'er-do-wells. That pack has distinguished itself by peculiarities and fetishes, the oddities of a dysfunctional sub-group.

- Since when have proponents of Islam been concerned about registering their protest rallies? Do they know how?

A peaceful manner is what is expected of those who attend a rally. It is the display of culture. But, the rioters did not want a peaceful rally so the appeal is moot. The rioters came to cause conflict loaded up with weapons. They were pursuing the Muslim delusion. They wanted the public notoriety and got the attention sought.

Line 10 - Instead, the protestors, some of them children, carried signs that proclaimed, 'Behead all those who insult the Prophet', 'Our dead are in paradise. Your dead are in hell' and 'Obama, Obama we love Osama'. This is hardly projecting the image of peace they apparently intended. Conjuring associations with terrorism and barbarism and spreading hatred is contrary to both our democratic beliefs and Islamic values.

- The critical part of this line is: "the protestors, some of them children, carried signs that proclaimed, 'Behead all those who insult the Prophet', 'Our dead are in paradise. Your dead are in hell' and 'Obama, Obama we love Osama'. This is hardly projecting the image of peace they apparently intended."

Hardly projecting the image of peace that they apparently intended?

The Krayems have lost the plot.

We have moderate Muslims asserting that those proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot were there to promote peace!

I think "Behead all those who insult the Prophet" and children chanting hate Islamic raises questions about what peace means for moderate Muslims of Australia.

(http://www.news.com.au/national/top-aus ... 6475220467)

The rioters at the Mohammed Riot had no intention of pursuing peace. They wanted conflict. They hurt Police and a Police dog. That is not peace. Those proponents of Islam were pursuing the Muslim delusion.

- The appeal made by the Krayems to "democratic beliefs" and how they are like "Islamic values" in this piece and as part of their argument, like includng "non-Muslims" above*, is not credible.

The appeal to "democratic beliefs" is done to contrive a consensus of opinion that really does not exist.

The appeal to "democratic beliefs" is done to appropriate a message that has popular support and to manipulate that message and utilise it to give proponents and practitioners of Islam the essence of credibility where credibility is seriously lacking.

In fact, while they might assert that "democratic beliefs" and "Islamic values" share common ground where one is synonymous with the other such that Islamic values can take centre stage we have a position anathema to the general population of Australia.

- The Krayems insinuate that the position of moderate Muslims is the same position as mainstream Australia.

No evidence is produced to support that claim.

In fact, mainstream Australians find "Islamic values" - as attested to by mainsteam Australian reaction to any Sharia Law push - both objectionable and repugnant.

The assertion that "spreading hatred is contrary to both our democratic beliefs and Islamic values" is not properly qualified, is unsubstantiated, and therefore represents merely a piece of propaganda.

From the behaviour of proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot, spreading infantile hate inculcated from the rantings and ravings of Mohammed the Paedophile is very much part of sharing Islamic values. Children recited their little Mohammedan mantra looking down the TV screen with indignation. Where were their modest Muslim parents?

Line 11 - Unless this was an academic exercise in irony, on all accounts protestors missed the mark with their placards, which were at best ill thought and at worst reinforced long-held beliefs that Muslims will never belong.

- I find this assertion really quite perplexing: the "placards (with 'Behead all those who insult the Prophet' etc), ( ) were at best ill thought (out) and at worst (did nothing, but merely) reinforce( ) long-held beliefs (held by mainstream Australia) that Muslims will never belong".

Those placards were planned and "peace" was not part of that plan.

Those Muslim rioters at the Mohammed Riot were proponents of Islam pursuing the Muslim delusion where Islam is to dominate society and polity. They made a good effort trying to assert that dominance.

"Peace" was not a consideration, but aggression and intimidation were. They were the major considerations for those proponents of Islam who organised the rally or participated.

- The proponents of Islam at the Mohammed Riot tried to derive some advantage for proponents and practitioners of Islam in Australia. That goal was achieved when those rioters got blanket television coverage.

The insinuation that the use of placards with 'Behead all those who insult Islam' displayed above the heads of people draped in the garb of Mohammed the Paedophile, a violent, forceful mob chanting 'God is Great' or words to that effect, "was an academic exercise in irony" really stretches belief.

The Krameys are supposedly well-educated. Hence, one can only deduce that that claim is part of a contrivance.

Hence, the entire piece as it is constructed as a response by moderate Muslims to the Mohammed Riot is just that, a contrivance. It has no integrity.

It is a contrivance cconstructed to justify the Muslim community. The behaviour of those proponents and practitioners of Islam who participated at the Mohammed Riot is ejected as something atypical.

Why?

Because it derived such a horrible backlash from mainstream Australia! Because it reinforced the position of their nemesis, the Orientalist! Because it confounded the implementation in part of the Muslim delusion in Australia.

So what does that mean?

People from mainstream Australia have every right to be suspicious about the intentions of proponents and practitioners of Islam when moderate Muslims speak the same message as extremists.


Continued over.......
Last edited by Hannibal on Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:48 am, edited 21 times in total.

Next

Return to Australia and New Zealand

cron