Apologies for Burqa Bob

Written By: - Date published: 7:03 pm, January 25th, 2008 - 109 comments
Categories: dpf, national - Tags: ,

clarkson-150.jpgIt would appear David Farrar is deeply concerned about the amount of traffic his mate Bill has been drumming up for The Standard this week, judging by his strange attack on our site this evening over a trifling error in our earlier post on Bob Clarkson.

The article in question was a repost of an earlier list of Clarkson’s complete statements in the house since August last year, which consisted of as few as nineteen barely coherent words.

Apparently there have been a few developments since that list was first published. According to DPF, Bob has since made speeches on the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill and the Building Amendment Bills, and has asked one oral question on tin-based timber treatment.

Some would call this an act of great pedantry on Farrar’s part, others that he’s simply trying to wind up his rabid horde of angry bigots, but we’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Clearly David is just keen to see Clarkson properly remembered for his achievements, a sentiment we can only welcome. So let us not forget Clarkson’s other notable contributions to New Zealand’s political discourse, which include:

  • His advice to Muslim women who wear burqas to “go back to Islam or Iraq”

  • His description of public displays of homosexuality as being akin to “picking your nose” in public, and

  • His alleged insistence on talking to an employee about his left testicle. When asked to explain the incident to a reporter, Clarkson “amazingly, said to me ‘I’m having to stand up, my crotch is so sore’, and actually grabbed his crotch.”

In light of this evidence we are naturally prepared to provide a full apology to David Farrar and the fine people in the comments section of Kiwiblog for our careless slight on Clarkson’s competence. Surely a statesmen of Bob’s stature comes but once in a generation, at least, in the New Zealand National Party, that is.

109 comments on “Apologies for Burqa Bob ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Whaleoil 1
    25 January 2008 at 7:07 pm

    So Labour’s Duty Blogger Tane says.

    More hollow spin from Labour via their sponsored mouthpiece the Stranded.

    Captcha: event tainted

    IrishBill says: http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/?q=content/state-housing-1-john-minto

    Good to see you taking the moral high ground Cameron.

  2. Kimble 2
    25 January 2008 at 7:16 pm

    You got it completely wrong and now you are acting like a petulant, ungracious little princess.

  3. michaels 3
    25 January 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Tane you’re a total fucktard!!!!

  4. Whaleoil 4
    25 January 2008 at 7:22 pm

    Come on Tane isn’t a fucktard, he is Labour’s Duty Blogger, give the guy a break.

  5. Inventory2 5
    25 January 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Don’t apologise to us Tane – apologise (and mean it!) to Bob Clarkson. He is the one you have defamed, not DPF

  6. Benodic 6
    25 January 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Ha ha, Farrar just got owned and the angry bigots can’t hack it.

    Whale – you still stalking John Minto? Is the photoshopping of 15 year olds onto gay porn running to schedule?

  7. Kimble 7
    25 January 2008 at 7:25 pm

    I just noticed the picture you chose. Do you keep a special folder full of pictures of people appearing to salute nazi-style?

    How old are you guys, 13?

    Labour should be embarrassed to have funded you for as long as they did (have??).

  8. Whaleoil 8
    25 January 2008 at 7:30 pm

    Great now you guys are deleting posts that don’t meet Heather’s rather stern idea of the truth.

    Hollow

  9. Barnsley Bill 9
    25 January 2008 at 7:31 pm

    easy guys, that was in the same postcode as an apology.

  10. Susan Deare 10
    25 January 2008 at 7:38 pm

    You people suck. Got nothing better to do on a Friday night than defend Bob Clarkson?

    (and no I’ve got nothing better to do than criticise those defending him on a Friday night, but hey, two wrongs don’t make a right 🙂

  11. the bean 11
    25 January 2008 at 7:46 pm

    good to see you guys back up and running – all power to you.
    nice declaration too.
    the shit they’ve thrown at you shows just how much you’re hurting them. now we just have to get rid of this infestion of RWNJ trolls delivered by the competition.

    oh please please can Burqua Bob stand again in Tauranga.

  12. the sprout 12
    25 January 2008 at 7:50 pm

    Sorry bean…just for the sake of transparency that previous comment was actually me. My computer smarts obviously don’t lend to checking who is logged in on which computer…

  13. mainstream minority 13
    25 January 2008 at 8:22 pm

    The real question is: are Bob Clarkson’s views acceptable to National party supporters?

    Official smiley smooth inclusive sweet-talkin’ diversity-lovin’ John Key line: no.

    But judging by the internet crowd: yes.

    There’s a nasty bigoted heart beating behind the makeover, isn’t there?

  14. Monty 14
    25 January 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Good to se the retraction – this year us righties will be watching out for all the lies of the left and exposing the bullshit for what it is – desperation by an corrupt and dying Government to do anything to hold onto power. Be warned – your lies will backfire on you everytime.

  15. Name 15
    25 January 2008 at 8:54 pm

    Gipsys, tramps, and thieves…a hollow apology from an invisible man

  16. Lisa 16
    25 January 2008 at 8:54 pm

    It dies seem to me that comments on this thread do indicate the election will be won around the catastrophic fallout when either side falls victim to the biggest personal lie.Nobody is immune to lies.

    I am very glad that I have no skeletons tucked away in a dark closest .

  17. Monty 17
    25 January 2008 at 8:55 pm

    seems like the year is off to a terrible start for this corrupt government – latest Roy Morgan Poll gives National 52% while Labour continue to drop and are on 33%. Bob will romp home on these figures – Auckland is now lost to Labour, and Winston is gone as well.

    Seems like around the bar-b-ques in holiday spots people have been talking politics and no one wants to even admit they are Labour supporters except the truest of the Labour Lickspittle.

    The funny thing is that uually a government expects to increase support over the summer break as we all forget about the terrible year Labour had. No wonder the labour party Members and staffers around Parliament are so sullen.

  18. andy 18
    25 January 2008 at 9:09 pm

    I googled Clarkson and, well he said what he said, and the sexual harrasment case right or wrong shows a lapse of judgement. That can’t be denied.

  19. the bean 19
    25 January 2008 at 9:11 pm

    and who do you work for monty – same office as IP per chance?

  20. Ex Labour Voter 20
    25 January 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Considering you just posted as sprout, bean you have a lot of courage to say that monty and ip are the same person. Morgan poll at http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4265/ . Labour are dead. Keep up the work though standard people you’re just putting more nails in their coffin. To think i used to be proud of this government!

  21. The Prophet 21
    25 January 2008 at 9:17 pm

    Is the Roy Morgan a good poll?, or a bad poll?

    I keep forgetting.

    Have to have (another) laugh at you Standard boys. You realise how completely dumfuck you look right? I mean, you got the story wrong and rather than just put a retraction at the bottom of the original post you put up a some load of bollocks that I’m sure you thought was very funny, but isn’t.

    You also give people a whole new forum to further expand the gaping rent in your credibility, that has already been exponentially enlarged in the last week or so.

    Keep up the good work

    The phrase above – “a hollow apology from an invisible man”

    describes you all perfectly.

  22. Ex Labour Voter 22
    25 January 2008 at 9:22 pm

    has the standard heard from the electoral commission yet?

  23. milo 23
    25 January 2008 at 9:41 pm

    I think you would have been better off giving a genuine apology, and leaving the criticisms for another post. I know it’s easy to fall into a bunker mentality when you are under the gun. But.

  24. Concerned from Tawa 24
    25 January 2008 at 9:43 pm

    “a hollow apology from an invisible man” supported by a hollow party. And who will I be labelled tonight. IP, or (shriek) D4J. Nice “about” page by the way. Since you were open and transparent all along I really don’t see why you needed one.

  25. milo 25
    25 January 2008 at 9:54 pm

    Well, I’ll say nice about page without sarcasm. I think that’s all fair enough, and fair enough to update it when interest in these issues escalates. They are as entitled to their anonymity as I am.

  26. burt 26
    25 January 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Tane

    Milo is correct – you are risking alienating people that you are seeking support from. Your about page makes a compelling case for your views, I’ll give you that – however you supported the EFA and it’s disclosure requirements yet you seem to think it shouldn’t apply to you.

    You politics is your politics, you are welcome to it, however this blog is a self mockery of everything it apparently stands for.

    Until you categorically deny that until yesterday the standard was running on a server and/or a connection provided by the Labour party this site will be littered with allegations that show how you are behaving just like the party you seek to have elected. Dishonestly and without principal.

  27. Inventory2 27
    25 January 2008 at 10:02 pm

    The Prophet said “Is the Roy Morgan a good poll?, or a bad poll?

    I keep forgetting.”

    Roy Morgan was the polling organisation who came closest to picking the final result of the Australian Federal election. But at the moment, I’d say any poll is a bad poll – for Labour!

  28. Inventory2 28
    25 January 2008 at 10:06 pm

    So here’s what they have to say…..

    “Nationals hold election winning lead over Labour

    ——————————————————————————–
    Finding No. 4265 – January 25, 2008

    In January, support for the Opposition National Party rose a strong 4.5% to 52%, while support for the New Zealand Labour Government fell again and was down 1% to 33.5%, the latest New Zealand Morgan Poll finds.

    Current support for the Opposition National Party is 12.9% above its 2005 General Election result, at its highest level since the 2005 Election. The Labour Government is 7.6% below its 2005 General Election result and 18.5%, up 5.5%, behind the Opposition National Party.

    The Green Party vote increased slightly to 6.5%, up 0.5%, while support for New Zealand First was 3.5%, down 1.5%, the lowest level since October. The Maori Party vote was unchanged at 2%.

    Minor parties ‒ United Future New Zealand 0.5% (down 1%) and ACT New Zealand 1% (down 1%) ‒ both saw slight dips in support in the New Year.

    Electors were asked: “If an election were held today which party would receive your party vote?”

    Of electors who said they were likely to vote (90%, up 2.5%), 6% (up 0.5%) were undecided on who they would vote for.

    Gary Morgan says:

    “The latest New Zealand Morgan Poll shows continued weak support for the Labour Government.

    “With an election due later in the year, the increasing support for the Opposition National Party, now at 52% – its highest level since the 2005 election – should be a huge concern for members of the Labour Government.

    “With the Reserve Bank of New Zealand leaving interest rates unchanged at a record 8.25% on Thursday, and predictions of increasing inflationary pressures heading through 2008 putting upward pressure on interest rates, Helen Clark could become a political victim of the global economic uncertainty ‘washing up’ on New Zealand’s shores.”

    This latest Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted with a New Zealand-wide cross-section of 1588 electors between January 3-20, 2008.”

  29. Monty 29
    25 January 2008 at 10:14 pm

    Mr Bean

    I come from a working class irish background – My large Irish Cathoilc family are all supporters of the blue team – despite being raised in a Labour background. My Mother who has also supported Labour most of her life is now so anti-Labour she will never vote for the pricks again. She is absolutely horrified withthe EFA. Labour’s problems is that they have managed to burn off much support from across te population to the point where only unionist lickspittle will support this dying and corrupt governemnt (see Latest Roy Morgan Poll today toadys?)

    I have worked hard all my life to try and get ahead and have now become successful with a bloody good income and a good asset base. I would love to be ableto use my real name – but cannot because I have government contracts that I fear I will lose becaus of this nasty spiteful government. I do not know who IP is but if I did I would buy him a beer –

    Labour’s Problem (and the same for their lickspittle poodles) is that the country no longer is even listening to the rantings of the left – we are all looking forward to propserity and self responsibility under a National Government.

  30. Santi 30
    25 January 2008 at 10:17 pm

    Tane, if you are going to delete postings at least have the balls to state The Standard’s censorship policy. Maybe, I’am asking too much.

    Feeling a bit more socialist tonight, aren’t you?

  31. deemac 31
    25 January 2008 at 10:24 pm

    do any of the right wing trolls, whose lives are so empty they have endless hours to devote to flaming this blog, seriously imagine that anyone will be persuaded of anything (except their lack of social skills) by their incessant abuse? Has anyone ever been convinced by someone hurling swear words at them? Ever? So why do they do it? It can only be because the Standard has them rattled – otherwise why on earth would they bother?

  32. Chemist Peter 32
    25 January 2008 at 10:40 pm

    I just farted, must have been The Standard rattling me. The reason us righties come to this site is that we have a sense of humour and this is the funniest site I have been to in ages. At every post the bullshittometer goes thru the roof.
    52.5% ah, nice start to the New Year. I saw John Key today, he looks fresh and ready for battle, bring it on my lying socialist comrads.

  33. Leaning2tharite 33
    25 January 2008 at 10:44 pm

    if we didnt ‘bother’ deemac there might be a grand total of 5 posts on the topic, of which 4 are likely to be hollow opinions from those who have received support from the labour government to run the blog. ‘Rattled’ is not quite the effect the sub-standard has had on me.

  34. Name 34
    25 January 2008 at 10:54 pm

    Santi – apparently it’s this: “What we’re not prepared to accept are personal attacks, or tone or language that has the effect of excluding others. Such comments may be deleted without warning.”

    But they leave robinsod crusoe’s up? Why? Because it the Double Standard….

  35. Matthew Pilott 35
    25 January 2008 at 11:02 pm

    Deleted posting? More like ya ballsed up the captcha, just take it like the champ you are & re-post.

    Guys, Bob’s got thick enough skin, I doubt he’ll be having as much of a cry about it as you are!

    But keep it up, I’m sure you’ll get a nice “attaboy” from DPF or whoever it is you’re trying to impress these days 🙂

    Good evening all, I’m off to the ‘church for the weekend.

  36. Seano 36
    25 January 2008 at 11:14 pm

    All that you have said might be true. And yet people voted for him. But what do people know…

  37. schrodigerscat 37
    25 January 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Keep up the good work here at the Standard. Don’t get caught out and keep taking it too them.

    All they do is repeat the same lines hoping for the subliminal effect. Hollow liarbore helengrad, who’d want to live there. Well I do and I do have a choice about that.

    Is whaleoil from Mongolia?

  38. Inventory2 38
    25 January 2008 at 11:49 pm

    Schrodigerscat said “Don’t get caught out”

    Slip of the tongue there bro? Are you really suggesting that anything and anyone is fair game as long as you don’t get caught? Just one problem there – The Standard, and Tane in particular DID get caught this week – bugger!!!!!

  39. Dean 39
    25 January 2008 at 11:50 pm

    sprout: am I still a fascist?

    Tane: quite frankly I thought you’d be better than this. By the way, noone’s answered who’s paying the standard’s traffic bill yet. How many megabytes do you guys go through anyway?

  40. all_your_base 40
    26 January 2008 at 12:21 am

    Santi – read the policy. We usually warn you first though.

  41. Craig Ranapia 41
    26 January 2008 at 12:42 am

    Gee, Tane, good to see The Standard living up to its name.

    I’m not the biggest Bob Clarkson fan on earth, but you made a rather dopey – and easily debunked – assertion that his “entire contribution to Parliament since August last year” was five interjections.

    You could have simply acknowledged that the post was inaccurate, apologised and corrected it. Every blogger has had to do it at some point, and while it stings the ego for a bit you’d be surprised how many people respect those who own their mistakes.

    Instead you go off on a petulent little rant at the people who did the basic fact-checking you couldn’t be bothered with.

    Take a piece of advice Helen Clark used to like handing out: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

  42. Ex Labour Voter 42
    26 January 2008 at 1:25 am

    Did Irishbill really just call Craig an “Uncle Tom”? Is that what the Standard means when it says it won’t tolerate personal attacks?

    IrishBill says: Fair enough ELV. I’ve deleted the comment in accordance with policy.

  43. robinsod 43
    26 January 2008 at 1:28 am

    Oh man – it looks like I missed out on the fun tonight. I just read Farrar’s thread. He’s hurting. What a shame. I was very interested to find out the Ansell connection – I bet Davey let it slip while he was big-noting. Silly boy.

  44. The Prophet 44
    26 January 2008 at 8:04 am

    He’s hurting

    Bahahahahahahahahaha

    On the mushies last night Sod?

    Either that or you’ve forgotten to take your meds, again.

    ‘Uncle Tom’ huh Bill? Nice.

  45. schrodigerscat 45
    26 January 2008 at 8:15 am

    IV2 by “Don’t get caught out” I mean I would like them to not make mistakes. Clarkson has enough baggage without having to make any up.

    Not checking the sources (I saw this story on NRT where no comments meant no checking really)

  46. Lisa 46
    26 January 2008 at 9:23 am

    When “baggage” bursts open and dirty laundry spills the floor, many vultures will come in quickly and seize the opportunity .

    I genuinely think burqa bob would have many hidden secrets .

  47. deemac 47
    26 January 2008 at 11:10 am

    the “explanation” about why the trolls spend every waking hour on this site makes as little sense as their posts.
    If they visit cos it’s fun, they would read it, laugh and leave. Or do they only have fun by being abusive?
    And as to the number of posts – why would that bother them? If they thought the Standard had no influence, the fewer comments the better as people judge sites by traffic levels.
    So, no rational explanation for the flaming, so it looks like dysfunctional personalities is still the best bet.

  48. AncientGeek 48
    26 January 2008 at 11:34 am

    I’d agree. The right orientated trolls that clutter these pages seem to have very little to say that is new, seems to have a viewpoint or argument in it, or is even very origional.

    You have to wonder if they were trained in some kind of rote learning as children. They show all of the signs – keep repeating the same thing over and over again trying to remember what it is.

  49. robinsod 49
    26 January 2008 at 11:37 am

    I would imagine they can’t face the worldviews of others. Ironically that lack of tolerance is exactly what’s so repugnant about clarkson – if he were just a bit of a good ol’ boy he’d be fine (even the left testicle remark would pass as larrikinism). It’s his bigotry that puts people off him.

  50. AncientGeek 50
    26 January 2008 at 11:45 am

    As for Clarkson; well we live in a representative democracy. If Clarkson is whom the voters of Tauranga choose to have representing them in parliament – then that is their choice. I must say that he is not who I’d choose to have representing me.

    As a public figure, Clarkson should expect to have his track records and comments looked at.

    Craig Ranapia: there was a prompt update in the light of new information. However I’d have to agree that the new post wasn’t done very well – it should have been categorised as ‘humour’.

  51. Tane 51
    26 January 2008 at 11:47 am

    Wow, that sure caused a bit of a ruckus.

    Let’s make one thing clear. The reason I responded to DPF with a post was because that’s how he chose to play this thing. If he’d just flicked us an email or made a comment in the previous article I’d have been happy to fix the error and leave it at that. He chose to make a big deal about it and start demanding apologies, and this is how I’ve chosen to respond – with the sarcasm it deserves.

    Obviously DPF’s quite keen on drawing this out – there’s another post up today about Labour MPs who haven’t contributed much in the house, presumably on the assumption that I might want to defend them. I don’t see why I would. A useless MP is a useless MP, but in terms of stupidity, embarrassment and downright caveman bigotry Bob Clarkson is in a league of his own. I can only wish him the best for his selection.

  52. Name 52
    26 January 2008 at 12:17 pm

    Gee, that last comment really does show how shallow the so-called ‘apology’ was. People in glass houses etc…

  53. Lisa 53
    26 January 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Where the hell did my last comment go ?

  54. Sally 54
    26 January 2008 at 2:43 pm

    It must be the season for it. I posted for the first time ever on Kiwblog last night and was put into in moderation. Now my comment has completely disappeared. It might be because I posted a comment about how much I like the standard. Free speech indeed!

  55. Daveo 55
    26 January 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Captcha seems to be a problem here sometimes. It’s a good idea to save your comment just in case.

  56. AncientGeek 56
    26 January 2008 at 3:06 pm

    One thing that Catcha does it is that it seems to leave the same words there, and doesn’t put in posts that reuse them.

    I’ve getting into the habit of hitting the two curved arrows icon to get a new set of words before I submit.

    Also useful when I get words that aren’t word’s or are just unreadable.

  57. Name 57
    26 January 2008 at 3:07 pm

    whatever, silly. as for the captchas, it’s just an convenient excuse here to delete unpalatable posts.

  58. Murray 58
    26 January 2008 at 3:07 pm

    People who knowingly misuse tax payers funds should be the last ones to find fault in anyone. Shit, I forgot that’s the Labour modus operandi.

  59. Lisa 59
    26 January 2008 at 3:20 pm

    Yes Sally that kiwiblog is mad circus fill of silly – Redneck/Tory type persons. Sometimes when I visit (just to be nosey parker) it’s a bit like watching monkeys in a zoo .

  60. AncientGeek 60
    26 January 2008 at 4:13 pm

    Murray: what are you talking about? Whom, what, or anything at all would have been useful so we knew what you were talking about..

    Lets assume that you’re talking about the standard?
    I realise this may be a little hard for you to understand. It involves “thinking” – yes I know the concept is foreign to you… But try…

    The Standard used some resources that had been donated to the NZLP. The NZLP allowed them to use them. The NZLP as an organization gets no direct funding from tax payers.

    So what taxpayer funds are you talking about? Care to explain? Or should we treat your comment as the random burbling of a trained monkey?

  61. AncientGeek 61
    26 January 2008 at 4:15 pm

    I’m really starting to get tired of these trollers…..

    To forstall the inevitable. From my understanding of the events in 2005. Most MP’s and ministerial offices do receive taxpaid funds for various purposes. The auditor general detirmined that in the last 3 months of the 2005 campaign that almost all of the parties (including National) in parliment used those funds inappropiately for campaigning. I think that the Progressives were the only ones who didn’t.

    The reason it was so widespread is that the Auditor-General decided that a number of practices that had been deemed appropriate in previous elections were not appropriate under the act.

    If the inquiry had been for more than 3 months, then it would have almost certainly found that National MP’s were the largest misusers of tax payer funding. They just spent larger earlier prior to the official campaign period – remember those tui style billboards. I wonder how much came out of the Leader of the Oppositions communications budget for those.

    Amongst other reasons, the EFA was put in place with support from almost all parties in parliament, because the National Party did their best in 2005 to run a campaign for the whole of 2005. That way they avoided caps on the amount that they could spend in the campaign period. Pretty typical of their usual style, don’t break the law, just play end-runs around its spirit.

    It is such a pity that the Auditor General deemed that he was unable to look at earlier misuses of tax payer funds. Anyone got a link to the spending breakdown of the Leader of the Oppositions budget for 2005?

    Trollers – now start any discussion from that…. But of course you can’t read, can you…

  62. Murray 62
    26 January 2008 at 4:19 pm

    AncientGeek – gorilla shit

  63. AncientGeek 63
    26 January 2008 at 4:40 pm

    Murray: it figures. Don’t bother to argue, discuss, or even consider any issues.

    Much as I like to encourage the young – go back to the tweeny blogs until you can at least string an argument together. Look at milo or Kimble. They may have crazy ideas – but at least they can discuss them, sometimes they even make some kind of sense.

  64. Jocko 64
    26 January 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Clarkson was right the first time on the berqua, if muslims cannot fit into our western culture, then they should have to leave.
    This Islam is a damn violent political ideaology and should not be part of any western culture.

  65. Kimble 65
    26 January 2008 at 5:15 pm

    “IrishBill says: Fair enough ELV. I’ve deleted the comment in accordance with policy.”

    But you still said it. Another fine example of the standards over at The Standard then eh?

    You delete your own comments when they embarrass you, why do I not believe that you dont delete other peoples when they do the same?

  66. AncientGeek 66
    26 January 2008 at 5:18 pm

    Islam is a religious ideology – not a political one. If you want to argue about that, then we should start to argue about the seperation of religion and state.

    Islam as a religion is more violent than the various forms of Christianity. In fact in history it has been considerably less so. So if we want to ban religious ideologies from NZ, then we should probably start with them.

    From the top of my head, lets look at a few examples of Christianity at work.

    I think the high point of Christian culture has got to be when the Christian knights on the 4th crusade sacked a Christian city Byzantium…

    “Speros Vryonis in Byzantium and Europe gives a vivid account of the sack of Constantinople by the Frankish and Venetian Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade:

    The Latin soldiery subjected the greatest city in Europe to an indescribable sack. For three days they murdered, raped, looted and destroyed on a scale which even the ancient Vandals and Goths would have found unbelievable. Constantinople had become a veritable museum of ancient and Byzantine art, an emporium of such incredible wealth that the Latins were astounded at the riches they found. Though the Venetians had an appreciation for the art which they discovered (they were themselves semi-Byzantines) and saved much of it, the French and others destroyed indiscriminately, halting to refresh themselves with wine, violation of nuns, and murder of Orthodox clerics. The Crusaders vented their hatred for the Greeks most spectacularly in the desecration of the greatest Church in Christendom. They smashed the silver iconostasis, the icons and the holy books of Hagia Sophia, and seated upon the patriarchal throne a whore who sang coarse songs as they drank wine from the Church’s holy vessels. The estrangement of East and West, which had proceeded over the centuries, culminated in the horrible massacre that accompanied the conquest of Constantinople. The Greeks were convinced that even the Turks, had they taken the city, would not have been as cruel as the Latin Christians. The defeat of Byzantium, already in a state of decline, accelerated political degeneration so that the Byzantines eventually became an easy prey to the Turks. The Crusading movement thus resulted, ultimately, in the victory of Islam, a result which was of course the exact opposite of its original intention.

    (Vryonis, Byzantium and Europe, p.152).”

    Not to mention the Protestant/Catholic reformation wars 3 or 4 centuries later. In particular the Inquisition, and its protestant equivalents in various countries.

    There is always Jonestown massacre, where a Christian guru caused his followers to suicide, and others were probably forced to die.

    I’m sure if you ask others will provide numerous other examples for you.

  67. Kimble 67
    26 January 2008 at 5:22 pm

    “the Auditor-General decided that a number of practices that had been deemed appropriate in previous elections were not appropriate under the act.”

    Actually he said they were inappropriate, he just didn’t do anything about it. The rules were clear, Labour deliberately breached them. Dont forget, they were warned.

    If you say that National breached the ‘spirit’ of the law, why do you hold them in lower regard than the party that breached them in practice and spirit, then changed the rules retrospectively to cover their own asses and who havent shown the slightest bit of remorse?

    Is it because your judgment of right and wrong is so warped that you refuse to accept Labour did anything wrong?

  68. AncientGeek 68
    26 January 2008 at 5:58 pm

    Agreed, and aafter being pulled up on it they paid it back, as did all of the parties including National. Except possibly NZ First (not sure where that saga is right now).

    My point is that the rules say that parliamentary services money should not be used for electioneering. The AG has now defined more clearly what items are considered to be electioneering. I’m damn sure that National, Labour, and probably all of the other parties did those things prior to the election period of 3 months in 2005.

    If that is the case, then the AG should have looked at all of the payments and electioneering that was done prior to that 3 month period. Maybe I’m missing something, but I can’t see anything inside of the legislation that gives that 3 month time period as being when electioneering should be considered. It seems to have been an arbitrary time frame that the AG picked.

    Probably because the Nat’s were expecting an early election, they spent all their available money earlier in the year. I suspect that they probably spent as much, if not more, of the taxpayers money than Labour did if you looked over the whole period they were in electioneering mode. But because of an arbitary decision by the AG they weren’t pulled up on that earlier spend.

    I’d love to see some numbers from parliamentary services for the spend on the Leader of the Oppositions office for 2005, and a breakdown of what it was spent on.

  69. AncientGeek 69
    26 January 2008 at 6:03 pm

    The problem with the whole thing is that parliamentary services didn’t have clear guidelines from day one about what or wasn’t appropriate. Consequently they paid out of things that weren’t appropriate.

    Now they have guidelines, they should at least look back and find out how badly those guidelines were breached.

  70. Santi 70
    26 January 2008 at 6:47 pm

    I urge to read “Infidel” by Ayaan Hirsi Ali to begin to understand how barbaric Islam is.

    Nothing but a religion based on myth and hatred (another one!) that deserves to be expunged from Earth.

    Islam and its followers belong to the Stone Age.

  71. IrishBill 71
    26 January 2008 at 7:21 pm

    But you still said it. Another fine example of the standards over at The Standard then eh?

    Yes Kimble, I said it and I acknowledged it was unfair and deleted it according to policy. At the time I made the remark I misread Craig’s comment as being in support of Clarkson. Given Clarkson is an unrepentant homophobe I felt Craig (as probably New Zealand most prominent queer blogger) was indeed being an uncle Tom.

    Subsequent to being called on my remark I re-read Craig’s comment and realised I made a mistake. Considering how much you’ve howled for accountability lately I would have thought you would be pleased to see me acknowledge and remedy a mistake. But I forget – like so many of your fellow trolls you have no moral compass, rather you simulate one in order to gain some advantage for yourself.

    You might be interested to know that that’s one of the key behaviours that is used to diagnose psychopaths.

  72. James Kearney 72
    26 January 2008 at 7:27 pm

    Santi –

    I urge to read “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens to begin to understand how barbaric Christianity is.

    Nothing but a religion based on myth and hatred (another one!) that deserves to be expunged from Earth.

    Christianity and its followers belong to the Stone Age.

  73. burt 73
    26 January 2008 at 8:11 pm

    James Kearney

    I could urge you to read a few books on socialism, it’s based on myth and envy and it deserves to be expunged from Earth.

    Socialism and it’s followers are dim-bulbs who have learnt nothing from history.

    Look at the standard, happy to be on brand spanking new Windows server cluster with great response times while somebody else is paying for it – then suddenly they are saying that “gift” was insignificant while they scurry to shift to a lower cost platform now they are paying for it themselves.

  74. Robinsod 74
    26 January 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Hey Burt – deserves to be expunged from Earth – just how would you go about such expunging?

  75. Barnsley Bill 75
    26 January 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Irish Bill, firstly stop using my name. Secondly, nice apology. Full credit to you.
    James kearney, I trust you feel that way about all religion. I certainly do. Religion is all about control.

  76. burt 76
    26 January 2008 at 8:22 pm

    Robinsod

    A new standard of openness and accountability should do it. Once people actually see where their hard earned money is spent they would quickly realise that socialism is about wastage. Look at this site for example – sucking on the Labour party teat to spread lies about the opposition while flouting the same laws the authors supported for the sake of transparency.

    No rational person would support or defend such behaviour.

  77. burt 77
    26 January 2008 at 8:27 pm

    “The New Zealand labour movement used to have its own newspaper. A group of us thought that now might be a good time for it to be digitally reborn: The Standard v2.0”

    The problem you guys have is that the original standard was a non interactive media, when people flicked through the pages and thought “this is just trash” that is exactly what they did with it – binned it.

    In this format it’s like having only one copy where everybody who reads it scribbles their thought on it for the next person to see. Baseless allegations and blatant propaganda can’t survive in a format where people can question it. Just like this thread – an acknowledgment that a previous thread was pure garbage… Under the newspaper format many many people would have believed the original thread – under this format the anonymous authors breaking the EFA just look like a bunch of wankers.

  78. AncientGeek 78
    26 January 2008 at 8:31 pm

    Opps – made a grammar error…
    Should have been “Islam as a religion is NO more violent than the various forms of Christianity.”

    I’m afraid I’m with Barnsley Bill… I’m not a great fan of religions – at least not what has been done in their name. They have probably been the cause of more grief throughout history then any other single cause. Currently whatshisname in the Density Church is a prime exponent about what I dislike about religions.

    That being said. I do like quite a lot of people who practice their faith (and yes I have read both the Koran and the Bible). That is the majority of religious people in any faith.

    The ones that I dislike are the ones that merely use their charade of faith as a good excuse to be ars*holes. I suspect that Jocko from his comment is one of them.

  79. AncientGeek 79
    26 January 2008 at 8:41 pm

    BTW: Have a laugh – read this essay. It is called “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex” about Superman’s biological issues with reproduction. I read it decades ago, but it is still cracked me up today. Starts slow, but gets more and more halirous as you go on.

  80. Robinsod 80
    26 January 2008 at 8:44 pm

    Burt – you still haven’t answered my question (remember this is an interactive format where I can call you on your misdirection) – how would you expunge socialism? Education? Intimidation? Pogroms?

  81. Lisa 81
    26 January 2008 at 9:02 pm

    “Superman’s biological issues with reproduction.”

    Giggles -I feel rather faint – when is our darling friend from krypton coming again ?

  82. Outofbed 82
    26 January 2008 at 9:05 pm

    No no not the Pogroms I’ll vote National Honest not the pograms pleeeeeeeeease

  83. Lisa 83
    26 January 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Stalin thought he was superman -didn’t he – nasty man .Not my cup of tea.

  84. Jocko 84
    26 January 2008 at 11:28 pm

    AncientGeek, 50% in your attempt to defend islam, we are talking about THIS CENTURY, forget about the past, its the future that should concern us.
    Everywhere you look TODAY muslims are killing, and are killing their own as well.
    Come up with all the old junk you like, but you cant hide the facts.

    Our western countries will never be part of Dar al Islam under sharia law,and if you nurse such fantasies,pack your bags and return from whence you came,because you are the problem.

  85. Robinsod 85
    26 January 2008 at 11:46 pm

    Yes Jocko – you’re dead right. I was just doing my shopping in Newtown New World today and there was a Muslim family murdering everyone. I barely escaped with my life. And don’t get me onto those Greek orthodox bastards I mean my Yaya shoots at least three people a week – and she’s 83! I don’t know why they don’t all go home and leave this country to the people that found… hold on… I mean to the people that first took it off the people that found it. It’s the only fair thing to do after all.

  86. Outofbed 86
    27 January 2008 at 12:05 am

    Jocko? whacko

  87. Robinsod 87
    27 January 2008 at 12:11 am

    This is gold – here’s one of Bob’s speeches (in its totality) that Farrar was so outraged about Tane missing out:

    I seek leave to table the paper declaring where Winston got his funds from during the election in Tauranga‒Western Bay Finance‒but, unfortunately, I do not have a paper, so I cannot do it.

    I can see why Davey got so excited about this being lost to history.

  88. Robinsod 88
    27 January 2008 at 12:17 am

    Oh and he’s also said: “pay it back” and “woo-hoo”. With wit like that I feel he should be given a guest post at the bog…

  89. J 89
    27 January 2008 at 12:22 am

    I spend a lot of time checking out online , well all that time i use to watch t.v with. This site is fucking amazing. The standard will be the new herald in 5 years time.

  90. Santi 90
    27 January 2008 at 5:48 am

    James said: “Christianity and its followers belong to the Stone Age.”

    100% correct!!

  91. Lisa 91
    27 January 2008 at 8:59 am

    I like hunks who have rocks in their heads and a solid steel chassis.
    Oh Lord , please ?

  92. AncientGeek 92
    27 January 2008 at 9:33 am

    Jocko: Perhaps I should have added the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia. Such fine Christians.

    From the wikipedia article:-

    The Srebrenica massacre is the largest mass murder in Europe since World War II.[7] In the unanimous ruling “Prosecutor v. Krstić”, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), located in The Hague, ruled that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide[8], the Presiding Judge Theodor Meron stating:

    By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims [Bosniaks], the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity.[9]

    The International Court of Justice concluded that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide with the specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy Bosnian Muslims in the area.[10]

  93. AncientGeek 93
    27 January 2008 at 9:52 am

    Actually if you look at the whole of the Bosnian war, it looks remarkably like the quote I did on the 4th crusade sack of Byzantium above. It was all killing in the name of christianity.

    Unfortunately I can’t find a good article on the deliberate organised mass rapes that the fine moral Christian soldiers inflicted on Bosnian women. But you can find references to them in the in the link below. Anyone got a good link to educate Jocko with…

    They horrified me during the conflict. I’m afraid that I do not know of ANY islamic conflict in the 20th century that comes close to this level of Christian barbarism.

    Again from a wikipedia article:-

    “While wartime figures were propagandized to reflect current political interests of involved parties, the most recent research places the number of victims at around 100,000—110,000 killed (civilians and military), and 1.8 million displaced (see Casualties).[10][11][12] Recent research have shown that most of the killed people (soldiers and civilians) during Bosnian War were Bosniaks (65%), with Serbs in second (25%) and Croats (8%) in third place.[13] Of the 97,207 documented casualties, 83 percent of civilian victims were Bosniaks, 10 percent were Serbs and more than 5 percent were Croats, followed by a small number of others such as Albanians or Romani people. The percentage of Bosniak victims would be higher had survivors of Srebrenica not reported 1,800 of their loved-ones as soldiers to access social services and other government benefits. The total figure of dead could rise by a maximum of another 10,000 for the entire country due to ongoing research. [14] [15] [16] [17]

    According to a detailed 1995 report about the war made by the Central Intelligence Agency, 90% of the war crimes of the Bosnian War were committed by Serbs.[18]”

  94. AncientGeek 94
    27 January 2008 at 9:56 am

    And Jocko – I will point out that this all occoured in the early to mid-90’s – within your life time. Does that satisfy your criteria?

  95. AncientGeek 95
    27 January 2008 at 10:07 am

    “I’m afraid that I do not know of ANY islamic conflict in the 20th century that comes close to this level of Christian barbarism.”

    Actually I do. The Second Sudanese Civil War was also religious in nature, and probably has had even more casualties. It was as barbarous in nature – while I haven’t heard of the mass-rapes, there was a lot of slavery activity.

    But really I just don’t trust any religion. They all seem to result at some time or another in justifying these types of atrocities.

  96. burt 96
    27 January 2008 at 1:10 pm

    Robinsod

    Burt – you still haven’t answered my question…

    NO – you just didn’t like the answer. Still I guess you didn’t call me a drunken fool or tell me to take my Ritalin so things are definitely looking up.

  97. Michele Cabiling 97
    27 January 2008 at 3:05 pm

    The best thing the USA could do to promote world piece is to send in the B-52s and turn the Middle East (with the exception of Israel) into a parking lot.

    If someone’s declared intention is to kill you the smartest thing you can do is load your rifle. Making peace signs and hoping they’ll go away and leave you alone just don’t cut it.

    Lengthy post follows (read it if you have a brain and an attention span) containing the truth about Islam:

    Western academics and media commentators wedded to the fashionable doctrine of multiculturalism continue to label Islamic terrorists a handful of fringe extremists giving a bad name to an otherwise “peaceful” religion. By thinking in their own cultural terms instead of researching the true nature of Islam, they have allowed themselves to be persuaded by glib Muslim apologists that the word “jihad” means nothing more than a “spiritual struggle against sin.”

    According to WorldPublicOpinion.org, more than 50 percent of Muslims polled in Indonesia, and 75 percent of Muslims polled in Egypt, Morocco and Pakistan believe in the strict application of Sharia, or Islamic law. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents expressed their desire to see the Islamic world united in a Muslim Caliphate. With numbers like these, portraying Jihadist war goals (Sharia, Caliphate) as belonging to a “tiny band of extremists” far from accurate.

    Islam is a religion that calls for the domination of all others, yet the majority of Christians, Jews, atheists and agnostics continue treating Muslims with the utmost respect and sensitivity. Persisting in this PC fantasy is nothing short of suicidal.

    Our governing doctrine of multiculturalism and its underlying assumption that violence always arises from rational grievances obscures the fact that Islamic terrorism is a problem rooted within the Muslim religion itself.

    Allah’s Book, the Koran, lacks any semblance of context or chronology. Adjacent verses are unrelated and often contradictory. It is only by rearranging the Koran in the order that it was revealed and infusing it with the context of the chronological Hadith narratives penned after Muhammed’s death by Ishaq, Tabari, Bukhari and Muslim that the book begins to make sense. These works provide the missing chronological and contextual account of Muhammed’s life and the formation of Islam. Together with the Koran, they make up the body of Islamic scripture.

    Those asserting Islam is a “religion of peace” selectively quote Koran 2: 256: “There is no compulsion in religion” and Koran 25: 63: “The worshippers of the All-Merciful [Allah] are those who tread the earth gently and, when the ignorant speak to them, they reply ‘Peace.'” These are suras (verses) of the early period, when Mohammed was living in Mecca, with few followers, and still trying to win converts by persuasion.

    What the deceivers don’t tell us is that according to Islamic doctrine, the Koran’s earlier suras are overwritten by Muhammed’s subsequent revelations once he was strong enough to disclose his real agenda. As recorded in the Koran and other Islamic scripture, these plainly state that unceasing warfare against non-believers is a pillar of mainstream Islam. While there are undoubtedly many peaceful Muslims, any Muslim who closely follows Islamic doctrine is far from peaceful.

    Bukhari: V1B2N25 makes clear that next to “Islam” or submission to Allah, the highest Muslim duty is to “jihad” or holy war. “Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle Muhammad.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next best in goodness?’ He replied, ‘To participate in Jihad, religious fighting in Allah’s Cause.'”

    Muslims are ordered to fight and kill until Islam is the only religious and political institution. Koran 8:39 enjoins: “Fight them [non-Muslims] till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam” and at Koran 9: 5: “Fight and kill the unbelievers wherever ye shall find them.”
    Koran 4: 95 excuses Muslims whose circumstances (age, gender, infirmity) mean they can’t actively engage in Jihad, though they still have a duty to fund it. Jihadists, however, are accorded the greater status: “Allah has granted a rank higher to those who strive hard, fighting Jihad with their wealth and bodies to those who sit (at home). Unto each has Allah promised good, but He prefers Jihadists who strive hard and fight above those who sit home. He has distinguished his fighters with a huge reward.”
    Koran 9: 44 confirms that Muslims cannot escape their Jihadist obligation: “Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not ask for an exemption from fighting with your goods and persons. And Allah knows well those who do their duty.”

    Koran 9: 68 describes those failing in this duty as “Hypocrites,” warning that they will suffer the same fate in the afterlife as unbelievers: “Allah has promised the Hypocrites, both men and women, and the unbelievers the Fire of Hell for their abode: Therein shall they dwell. It will suffice them. On them is the curse of Allah, and an enduring punishment, a lasting torment.”

    Koran 5:33 expounds further upon the fate of unbelievers and Hypocrites: “Those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger [refuse to accept Islam] and who do mischief [non-Islamic behaviour] in the land … shall be killed or crucified, or their hands and their feet shall be cut off on opposite sides, or they shall be exiled. That is their disgrace in this world, and a dreadful torment is theirs in Hell.”

    The above quotes have not been taken out of context to malign a religion followed by 1.2 billion people. They provide a brief sample of the repeated exhortations in Islamic scripture calling upon believers to engage in violence and terrorism in Allah’s cause. As the Koran and its associated commentaries make clear, such behaviours are based on core Islamic doctrine. It is Muslims favouring peaceful co-existence with other religions in secular, plural democracies who in fact merit the title “radicals” and “extremists.”

    Judged by the words of its own Prophet, Islam cannot be compared to other belief systems. It would be hard to find a more hateful, intolerant collection of writings than that contained in Islamic scripture. Yet Muslims continue to insist that the God of the Koran is the God of the Bible.
    If one “messenger’s” message was the opposite of the other’s then they couldn’t have been speaking for the same God. Compare Muhammed’s violent, expansionist world view as set out above to Christ’s words as recorded in the Gospels, “I say unto you: Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you. Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also … And as ye would that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them likewise.'” (Luke 6: 27-31, KJV)

    Islam is not a “live-and-let live” religion looking to peacefully win converts. It seeks instead to impose itself on unbelievers by force, though it is not yet sufficiently well established in most Western countries to openly pursue this objective. As such, it is a terrorist manifesto.

    Why do Muslims continually say otherwise? Islam explicitly condones lying to non-Muslims for strategic advantage and entering into treaties with them that are never intended to be observed. Muslims call this “taqueya” or “holy deception.” As Bukhari: V4B52N268 informs us: “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘War [against unbelievers] is deceit.'” And at Bukhari: V7B67N427: “The Prophet said, ‘If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.'” Koran 9:3 is similarly revealing: “Allah and His Messenger dissolve obligations [if this furthers Islam]” as is Koran 66:1 “Allah has already sanctioned for you the dissolution of your vows [if this furthers Islam].”

    Islam is the only major religion that does not require absolute truthfulness and teaches its followers to do to non-believers what Muslims themselves find objectionable if done to them. Contrast the Koran’s “ends justifies the means” endorsement of falsehood with the Bible’s unequivocal 9th Commandment: “Thou shalt not lie” (Exodus 20: 2-17) then ask yourself again if the God of the Koran is really the God of the Bible as Muhammed wants us to believe.

    All followers of Islam, “moderate” or otherwise, divide the world into two: the Dar-al-Islam and the Dar-al-Harb. The former, the house of submission, is that part of the world where Islamic governments and Islamic law prevail: the latter, the house of war, is the rest of the world that has yet to fall under the Islamic scimitar.

    Muslim propagandists carefully select their words to mask this when talking to Westerners and non-Muslims. While they really do mean and believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, this comes with an unspoken qualifier. Islam is only a “religion of peace” once all the infidels have been forcibly converted to Islam or killed by Muslims for refusing to do so.

    In the context of this article, a single example of deliberate Muslim misdirection will suffice: “[T]here is nothing in the Koran or the Islamic faith that encourages people to be cruel or to be vicious or to be criminal,” said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “Muslims worldwide know that for sure.”

    Such statements are strictly for non-Muslim consumption. Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish, an ex-Muslim whose father founded the terrorist Fedayeen in Gaza, had her own rejoinder for deceivers like Awad: “In the Arab world we were only taught one meaning for Jihad, and that is: A religious holy war against infidels and armed struggle against anyone who is not a Muslim.”

    Why do so-called “peaceful” Muslims not publicly condemn the violence of their more radical brothers and the liars who cover for them? The majority are passive supporters who agree with what’s being done to the infidels but don’t want to get their own hands dirty. Arab television shows thousands of these gleeful, slogan-shouting fanatics dancing in the streets and firing rifles in the air after every terrorist outrage. The minority are simply scared.

    In the Koran’s 5th sura, the final revelation chronologically, Allah ordered Muslims “not to question the Koran.” Those who did so, he said, “discarded their religion.” Bukhari V4B52N260 is unequivocal regarding the fate of recalcitrants: “The Prophet said, ‘If a Muslim discards his religion, kill him.'” Koran 4:114 is one of many suras warning that “apostates” are also punished in the afterlife: “He who disobeys the Apostle after guidance has been revealed will burn in Hell.”

    The establishment of Islam in the West is fundamentally inconsistent with Western institutions and values, and must be resisted with every means at our disposal. Our ongoing failure to grasp the nature of this doctrine that turns men into deceitful killers means such men could eventually destroy Western civilisation in the service of their totalitarian religion.

    Accepting the presence of a snake and attempting to love it doesn’t permanently change the character or intent of the snake. If you accommodate and love the snake long enough, eventually it will bite you because that is the nature of snakes. The longer you accommodate and feed the snake, the less fear it will have and the longer its fangs will grow.

    If Western culture is not to fall to militant Islam, Islamic terrorism must be recognised as part of an undeclared war of religious ideology, one not of our own making. Since Islam cannot be reformed, we have essentially two choices: Either Islam must be quarantined, or it must be destroyed and replaced with a religious philosophy that is genuinely conducive to peace.

    Both options involve hard choices, but quarantine must be regarded as the better and far more peaceful course. It would involve ending Muslim immigration, restricting travel to and from Muslim countries, outlawing Islam as a hate organisation in Western nations (just as most Muslim states outlaw Judaism and Christianity), the immediate deportation of convicted Muslim terrorists and their families, and ending our dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

    The second option involves nuclear weapons and catastrophic consequences for hundreds of millions of people. If Iran gets the bomb and uses it, the second option may be in play.
    A more subversive strategy of Islamic jihadists is for Muslims to migrate to non-Muslim countries for the purpose of spreading Islam. The ultimate Muslim goal is to destroy the West and bring it forcibly into the Islamic world. Such migrants have no intention whatsoever of integrating or adopting Western values and culture.

    As former Muslim, Ali Sina confirms in his book Islam and Understanding the Muslim Mind: “Muslims will never assimilate … for to do so would mean they would essentially have to relinquish their faith, to compromise for something that cannot be abided, nor allowed under Islam, which is full acceptance of the equality between Muslim and non-Muslim.”

    Nonie Darwish observed on moving to America in 1978 that those attending her local mosque “were told not to assimilate” and to “show your pride in Islam by being noticed as Muslims in America.” Women were “encouraged to wear Islamic clothes” as a political and religious statement, even if they were from a relatively moderate Muslim country like Egypt and had never worn such garments before.

    Darwish noted that mosques were being built all over America with Saudi Arabian money and staffed with radical Saudi clerics, with predictable results: “I started seeing Egyptians and other Arabs getting radicalised right here in US mosques.”

    When Darwish asked why more mosques were being built than the American Muslim community needed, she was told “[W]e are here to fill them with Americans; to bring Islam to America and change America’s constitution to the Qur’an. I heard some say ‘congratulations, Europe is now dominated by Muslims; may God bless America with Islam too.'”

    The number of Muslims living in the West is increasing rapidly, not just from immigration, but because Muslim families are reproducing almost three times faster than Westerners. Current birth rates mean that in a few decades, Muslims will swamp us demographically. That’s why Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion, not because hordes of non-Muslims are converting to it.

    Even if we win some kind of military victory in the war on terror, we will still almost certainly lose the “population war.” Our ultimate challenge is the Islamic demographic explosion, which threatens to overrun the already dwindling populations of many Western countries.

    Humility need be only temporarily adopted until it is no longer necessary. Then we will get the real agenda that has been held back. Following Muhammed’s example, Islam preaches peace only until it is sufficiently established to impose itself through terrorism and force.

    As soon as there are enough Muslims in a population to begin talking each other into flexing their muscles, that country experiences problems. Anywhere Islam attains something approaching critical mass it becomes a bully subjecting unbelievers to violence and terrorism.

    Growing numbers of radical young Muslims throughout the West want to set up self-ruling enclaves within their host countries where Sharia law would supercede the law of the land. Since Muslims already comprise around 45 percent of the populations of cities like Rotterdam and Copenhagen, these demands are not to be taken lightly.

    Sina warns: “Once the Muslim population becomes a majority or even a near-majority within any nation, they no longer will have to accept, nor seek compromise, in upholding human rights of non-Muslims or in maintaining equality with the non-Muslim population. At that point, once they have achieved political dominance and secured power, they would be expected to move quickly to terminate all freedoms. Non-Muslim citizens, living in their own native countries would be relegated to second-class citizens, or worse, be persecuted …”

    With every new baby born to a Muslim family in the West, the threat of Islam grows, while the hope for democracy and freedom dwindles. Each new Muslim birth in the West increases the pace of that threat exponentially.

    We should also be aware that there is a bigger picture. Militant Islam is being used by Russia, China, and North Korea to wage a proxy war against America, Israel, and Western culture and values. It is these countries that supply Muslim states with their armaments, and their terrorist groups with training.

    Modern Islamic radicalism traces back direct to the Islamic Brotherhood (a front for Marxist-Leninist agitprop amongst Arab university students), which was set up in the 1920s after Stalin identified Islam as a force that could be harnessed and directed to serve Soviet regional aspirations.
    The Communists later recognised that Islam could be mobilised into a dialectical conflict with Western culture and values on a far broader stage. If your goal is a one-world Socialist state, you can march a long way beside those whose goal is a one-world global theocracy before you must part company

  98. AncientGeek 98
    27 January 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Michele: As you say a rather long post – copied from somewhere I think.

    I think I could change names, events, and do a carbon copy for radical Christianity for almost any century after inserting the relevant ‘information’. In fact I seem to remember ones that looked remarkably similar for the Vatican, Masons, Hitler did a rant that was very similar about Jews (and we all know how that turned out), etc etc.

    Somewhere around I think I even have one from the late 19th century that sounds exactly the same in tone about Irish immigration to NZ. Right down to the ‘they will out-breed us because their families are bigger’.

    Frankly it is just a paranoid fantasy by someone. I can’t be bothered talking about this. Don’t tell me you believe it?

  99. AncientGeek 99
    27 January 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Michele: just as a matter of interest – why didn’t you just link it. Then at least we’d have seen the providence of the rant, and more importantly it wouldn’t have chewed up my bandwidth.

    Maybe the standard should put instructions somewhere about anchor’s

  100. westmere 100
    27 January 2008 at 3:46 pm

    Judging by her views on other threads about “sodomites”, Michele might get long OK with Islamic extremists.

    But I assume this is really just a naughty leftie doing a parody … too over the top to be credible satire though, tone it down a bit if you want to reel us in!

  101. Michele Cabiling 101
    27 January 2008 at 5:40 pm

    Ancient Geek wrote:

    “Somewhere around I think I even have one from the late 19th century that sounds exactly the same in tone about Irish immigration to NZ. Right down to the ‘they will out-breed us because their families are bigger’.”

    The difference is that Irish people don’t only marry Irish, and don’t slash their daughters’ and sisters’ throats for even being seen talking on a bus stop to a man who’s not a bog-dweller.

    Your comments about “paranoid fantasy” merely point up the leftard habit of mind of pathologising anyone whose view are different from yours.

    Since I’ve presented a raft of evidence as to why Islam is NOT a peaceful religion — from the Koran and associated commentaries, and from people raised as Muslims — it therefore falls to you should you disagree to provide a reasoned rebuttal rather than a personal slur.

    Put up or shut up, low watt bulb.

  102. Lisa 102
    27 January 2008 at 6:01 pm

    “Judging by her views on other threads about “sodomites”, Michele might get long OK with Islamic extremists.”

    That is hardly fair westmere, as a bit of trivial anal sex compared to nutbar terrorists blowing up innocent people with explosives is beyond my comprehension .

  103. AncientGeek 103
    27 January 2008 at 6:44 pm

    Michele: What you’re describing is a potential threat.

    I described a number of instances where potential threats in the past were simply red herrings, in that they never really existed, or never eventuated. What I usually get more concerned about are the people who treat potential threats as being real. They have a tendency to get very dangerous because they seize power based on a lie, then have to act as if the lie is real.

    That is what happened in Bosnia, using exactly the same justifications that you offered, and where the christian Serbs in Bosnia, and in Serbia launched what was effectively a preemptive strike against mainly civilians.

    Much the same occoured with the ideas in Mien Kampf against the Jews of Germany and occupied Europe.

    In my opinion, exactly the same thing happened with the second Iraq war. After 9/11, George Bush II talked up a threat in Iraq as a base for terrorism and with weapons of mass destruction. He did this in the face of very large amounts of evidence to the contrary, and invaded.

    After the ground war finished, they found that none of the justifications offered before the war were able to be proved. Because the Bush White House believed in their own propaganda – untold casualties resulted and still do. The scale of civilian casualties is many orders of magnitude than those in 9/11. The military casualties in the “Coalition of the Willing” are many times those of 9/11’s civilian casualties. I believe that they have enhanced the terrorist threat rather than reduced it.

    So who should I be more concerned about? The people described as being a potential threat, or the people who act as if the threat is real.

    History tells me it should be the latter – they cause far more damage. So do you intend to act as if a preemptive attack on Islam is the right thing to do? Should I start worrying about you?

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

    For the record: I fully supported the first Iraq war, and the war in Afghanistan. In both cases there was a clear and present danger to people outside a countries borders. In one case they waged an aggressive war against their neighbors, and in the second a failed state was offering terrorist training bases that were attacking worldwide. Both of those situations fall under the UN charter, and both were supported militarily by NZ.

    I might add that I’ve voluntarily done my military service and the last thing any soldier wants to do is fight an unjustifiable war.

  104. AncientGeek 104
    27 January 2008 at 7:08 pm

    And Michele, I don’t think that ANY major religion (except maybe the Buddhists) is peaceful.

    On the material I’ve looked over time, I don’t think that Islam is inherently more dangerous than say, US style pentecostal churches.

    They too would like to control population behaviors using the legal systems for people that do not believe as they do, would like to control the education systems, and have dangerous armed members who have been known to kill people. Look at McVeigh and a number of US internal terrorists for an example.

    Ok – I think thats about all I’m willing to discuss on that topic. Seems to be going nowhere fast. It is also getting too hot here in the late afternoon sun.

  105. Michele Cabiling 105
    27 January 2008 at 7:29 pm

    Ancient Geek wrote: “History tells me it should be the latter – they cause far more damage. So do you intend to act as if a preemptive attack on Islam is the right thing to do? Should I start worrying about you?”

    With the wisdom of hindsight, a lot of needless death and suffering would have been averted had more people read Mein Kampf and taken its pronouncements seriously. At that time Herr Hitler had no power to do what he was suggested therefore was regarded as a joke.

    We need to draw an important distinction between Islam and Christianity. While it is conceded there have been people who used Christianity to justify conquest and genocide, they are actually acting COUNTER to the commandments of their religion, rather than in accordance with it. Where the Bible tells Christians to go forth and spread the gospel there are zero zip nada injunctions to do it by force. As Christ makes clear, to follow him is a VOLUNTARY action.

    Muslims who engage in warfare and terrorism are doing precisely what their religion tell them to do. They are told to forcibly convert anyone who won’t do it voluntarily, and those who continue to refuse are to be killed or enslaved.

    “Both of those situations fall under the UN charter …”

    The last time I looked the USA was a sovereign country needing no permission from the Mother of World Socialism, the UN, to do anything.

  106. AncientGeek 106
    27 January 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Ok – I will comment further…..

    “While it is conceded there have been people who used Christianity to justify conquest and genocide, they are actually acting COUNTER to the commandments of their religion, rather than in accordance with it. Where the Bible tells Christians to go forth and spread the gospel there are zero”

    And I’d argue that I never saw any instructions in the Koran, when I read it as a young man, to forcibly convert people either. In fact there are some explicit proscriptions against doing it. I’m sure someone else who knows the Koran can dig them out.

    Of course there have been some documents done afterwards that said exactly that. In the same way that, for instance, there were papal bulls to forceably convert ‘heathens’ in the New World.

    ”
    “Both of those situations fall under the UN charter …”

    The last time I looked the USA was a sovereign country needing no permission from the Mother of World Socialism, the UN, to do anything.”

    Yes – you have identified the problem. The US helped found the UN with its charter, which was designed largely by the US to prevent another widespread conflict like the first two world wars. The US has had lapses in following that charter, which they agreed to, since. NZ and a number of other early signatory countries on the other hand have be GENERALLY been assiduous in following the precepts of the UN Charter. The old soviet union wasn’t exactly the best example to follow either.

    You can argue about the cause, but I’d say that the nett result of the UN Charter has been, that relative to the first part of the 20th, the world has been more peaceful. Mainly because the Charter’s prime precept has been the inviolability of sovereign borders.

    Logically, I’d argue that as the US waged an aggressive war against another country without cause, they should be treated in a similar fashion to Iraq after the first Gulf war – as a rogue state. Of course in realpolitik that isn’t going to happen, and the US has managed to

    Frankly the US has provided all of the justification required by your counterparts in Islam to argue that Christian based cultures are inherently aggressive. I know, I’ve talked to a number of islamic culture people on the nets over many years, and that is exactly what they worry about. If you can get Al Jazeera, or go to their website and dig down a bit – that is what you find.

    In the meantime all us civilians get caught in the middle between extremists.

  107. Jock 107
    29 January 2008 at 12:13 am

    Michele is right: “Muslims who engage in warfare and terrorism are doing precisely what their religion tell them to do. They are told to forcibly convert anyone who won’t do it voluntarily, and those who continue to refuse are to be killed or enslaved.”

    And i thought i was surrounded by left wing liberals.
    Good on you Michele at least a few of us know the truth on islam.

  108. Michele Cabiling 108
    29 January 2008 at 11:12 am

    Ancient Geek wrote:

    “Yes – you have identified the problem. The US helped found the UN with its charter, which was designed largely by the US to prevent another widespread conflict like the first two world wars.”

    Well … that’s how the UN was sold to the public.

    In fact, the UN has always seen itself as a one world government in the making, as the pronouncements of every Secretary-General since the organisation’s inception and indeed other prominent office holders have made clear.

    What most of us mean by “peace” is an absence of war between sovereign nation states. What a socialist means by “peace” is a world in which all opposition to the implementation of global socialism has ceased.

    A place where you do what you’re told or get shot.

    The USA pays about 60 percent of the cost of funding the UN and its headquarters are on US soil, in New York. The other 40 percent of UN funding is contributed by the rest of the world. Many third world states don’t bother to pay up.

    Yet the US has the same one vote on the UN General Assembly as every other country. Talk about “taxation without representation.” And every America-hating tinpot leftist dictatorship or Islamic theocracy will club together to bash America at will.

    Given the above, and that past chairmen of the UN’s Human Rights Commission have been beacons of human rights like Libya and North Korea, how seriously can one take such an organisation?

    In my opinion the UN is a load of crap, and were I the POTUS, I’d be withdrawing from it, and kicking it off US soil for good.

Links to post