- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
Smurf1976 said:Does anyone ever stop to think WHY these people hate the Western countries?
Perhaps it has something to do with our collective domination of other countries, stealing their resources and pushing Christianity where it is not welcome.
Just stop and think for a moment about how much of government policy is basically aimed at pushing "Christian" values. Hardly tolerant of a diverse culture now is it? And we wonder why others hate us.
By the way, I have nothing against Christians but Christian fundamentalism, like any fundamentalism, is arrogant in the extreme and yet that's exactly what the Australian, US and UK governments are pushing. How often do we hear about "family values" which is usually just a means of pushing a Christian viewpoint in disguise.
Since when did government properly have a role in such matters as religion anyway? Isn't it for each individual to decide? Meanwhile we wonder why other religious fundamentalists hate us. Not hard to work it out...
Get away from religion, get away from oil and get out of foreign countries (even if it hurts our beloved economy) and in all probabilty we wouldn't have had terrorists in the first place. Now we're stuck with a problem of our own making. We stamped all over a wasp nest and no we're being chased down the street by a swarm of angry wasps. Hardly surprising.
Ever stopped to think how many developed countries DON'T have problems with terrorists? Ever wonder why they're targeting Australia and not New Zealand? Think about it...
I don't understand that. What's "secular christian"?Snake Pliskin said:... a secular christian culture...
Until very recently Australia was NOT based on fundamentalist Christian (or any other religious) values but rather the concept of decency and a fair go for all. Religion played a part but not religious fundamentalism.Snake Pliskin said:Those are our Christian values you are trashing here mate!
We have rights in this country like the immigrants do. We have a secular christian culture; anything wrong with that? No, just like immigrants we have our own values and religion. Government and religion are not connected, but our politicians have values based on what they were brought up on. If you hate Australians so much feel free to leave and go to a handout nation. But guess what, you won't find one out there because it is all here - freedom, welfare, work, the ASX. Yes it's all here for you to enjoy though trashing it is the theme of the times.
Snake
OK, I'll bite. Just because you and I disagree, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I hope we can continue this without turning it into name callingSnake Pliskin said:doctorj,
A little immature don't you think. Where's your intelligence man? IR reforms, you've got to be joking!
I didn't believe it was that simple. My understanding was that they actually were charged under the old laws. My point was that politicians were beating the drum and publically giving each other a big pat on the back for being saviours of Australian lives when infact the old laws were sufficient for this case. See my point about politicising, above.They were under surveilance for a long time and the new laws have helped put them away where they belong for the time being. It's that simple.
Rights exist for those that are law abiding, those that are alleged to have commited crimes and those that have actually broken them. It should take more than being simply being accused of a crime to lose the expectation of a fair trial, proper representation, freedom of the press etc. Remember, law enforcement agencies sometimes get it wrong. They may or may not have in this specific case, but that's irrelevant.While you cry for your civil liberties, mind you if you are law abiding you'll have them, they plan the domination of the western world with their revolution of religious hatred.
ghotib said:I don't understand that. What's "secular christian"?
Thanks,
Ghoti
doctorj said:OK, I'll bite. Just because you and I disagree, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I hope we can continue this without turning it into name calling
It's clear the politicians are doing what they do best and using it to score political points. You only need to look to the child overboard thing for an example of something being made into something for political gain. It's within the realm of possibility that it is happening again.
Ofcourse it may not be, but it is worth chucking out there.
I didn't believe it was that simple. My understanding was that they actually were charged under the old laws. My point was that politicians were beating the drum and publically giving each other a big pat on the back for being saviours of Australian lives when infact the old laws were sufficient for this case. See my point about politicising, above.
Infact, the suggestion that they were using the new terror legislation to distract the Australian public was not originally my own. In an interview with an ABC owned radio station, a federal member (or senator, it escapes me, but I know he was an independant) said that he believed the purpose was to distract people from the IR reform. He still voted in favour of the bill because he didn't want to be the one branded as having supported terrorism.
Rights exist for those that are law abiding, those that are alleged to have commited crimes and those that have actually broken them. It should take more than being simply being accused of a crime to lose the expectation of a fair trial, proper representation, freedom of the press etc. Remember, law enforcement agencies sometimes get it wrong. They may or may not have in this specific case, but that's irrelevant.
"Those who are willing to sacrifice their basic liberties to assure their security
deserve neither." --Benjamin Franklin
Until very recently Australia was NOT based on fundamentalist Christian (or any other religious) values but rather the concept of decency and a fair go for all. Religion played a part but not religious fundamentalism.
RodC said:At least in this case the raids seem to have been conducted under the current laws which means we (the public) at least have some of the information as to what is going on. This allows open opinions and discussion and considered assessment.
Unfortunately in the future with limited reporting allowed and closed courtrooms, the only info we will get will be the spin the politicians want us to hear.
Remember "children overboard", "WMD" ?
Rod.
Snake Pliskin said:After Sept 11 everyone was blaming the government for not doing anything. No matter what anyone does there are those just waiting to criticise.
doctorj said:You'll note there are probably different groups of people that criticised the govt following 9/11 and now. I guess its the old right v. left thing - something I certainly don't hope to win within the scope of this forum, but theres no prizes for guessing where I appear on the ledger.
Besides, I firmly believe criticism through reasoned arguement is not only healthy but productive. You've now referred to people participating in this thread as unintelligent and a newbie. How about dealing with the substance of their arguement?
doctorj said:You'll note there are probably different groups of people that criticised the govt following 9/11 and now. I guess its the old right v. left thing - something I certainly don't hope to win within the scope of this forum, but theres no prizes for guessing where I appear on the ledger.
Besides, I firmly believe criticism through reasoned arguement is not only healthy but productive. You've now referred to people participating in this thread as unintelligent and a newbie. How about dealing with the substance of their arguement?
Bloveld said:He's just showing us a christian value, treat everyone like dirt.
Buster said:G'Day Rod,
I don't doubt for a second that politicians spin information, but they are not alone on that front.. I do remember the 'children overboard' and there were definately children in the water..
I share the view of some here that we need to act before an incident occurs, and if the recent events are found to be an over reaction, all will be revealed.. As far as not being able to wander the streets without having an ID, or as some here have referred a police state, I think I'd prefer that than not being able to wander the streets due to the thugs, gangs and hoodlums that are becoming more of a problem..
As far as the new laws are concerned, we are going to have to suck it and see..
Cheers,
Buster
Blair defeated over terror laws
Tony Blair has suffered his first defeat after MPs rejected his plan to allow police to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days.
MPs rejected the plans by a bigger than expected margin of 322 votes to 291, before later backing a 28 day limit..........
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm
Buster said:I share the view of some here that we need to act before an incident occurs, and if the recent events are found to be an over reaction, all will be revealed.. As far as not being able to wander the streets without having an ID, or as some here have referred a police state, I think I'd prefer that than not being able to wander the streets due to the thugs, gangs and hoodlums that are becoming more of a problem..
As far as the new laws are concerned, we are going to have to suck it and see..
Cheers,
Buster
Snake Pliskin said:Buster,
I agree. I would feel far better walking around at night in a police state than what we have now in the suburbs.
Snake
Snake Pliskin said:Buster,
I agree. I would feel far better walking around at night in a police state than what we have now in the suburbs.
Snake
wayneL said:Well the poms won't have a bar of it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?