You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Down Under
New Zealand Christians: Islam Destroys Countries
2007-03-24
Muslims slam conference of Christians

A conference of Christian church leaders on the "threat" of Islam to New Zealand is being condemned as a "conference of bigots" by senior New Zealand Muslims.


The organiser of the Mosque and Miracles conferences, national director of Middle East Christian Outreach Murray Dillner, said the conference would address the threat posed by Islam to New Zealand society – a threat he likened to the terrorist attacks in the United States of September 11, 2001.

"It's an underlying threat, but it's like the twin towers – they imploded. Islam does the same thing to a society – it makes it implode," he said.
Great analogy. US business would be crippled if facilities have to be built for quran thumpers. Texans would have to slow bleed cattle to meet halal standards. Television would be little more than recitations of the unholy quran, incitements to jihad and examples of jihai "heros." I'm with Zenster: head 'em off at the pass.

"The mindset of Islam is to take over the world. They will do that by any means they can.

"The church in England ignored Islam. If the church in New Zealand doesn't rise up, we will be in the same situation."

Federation of Islamic Associations president Javed Khan said it was a "conference of bigots".

"It's fearmongering; Islamophobia. The organisers are prejudiced, biased bigots," he said.
"Islamophobia" attacks are an excuse to squelch criticism.

"For heaven's sake, we are less than 1 per cent of the population. Muslims have been in New Zealand for a century. No Muslim has ever done anything like what they are afraid of."

The conference, scheduled for the Spreydon Baptist Church on July 23 and 24, will feature three Australian speakers.

Pastor Stuart Robinson, the author of the book Mosques and Miracles, lived among Muslims in Southeast Asia and has spoken at conferences in Australia and South Africa.

One of the speakers at the Australian conferences, Pastor Daniel Scot, was tried under Australian religious vilification laws in 2004.

Dillner said another speaker on the New Zealand tour, Daniel Sheyesteh, knew the militant side of Islam from his early years as a trainer for Hezbollah and from his involvement in the Iranian Islamic revolution.

Sheyesteh fell foul of the Iranian authorities and escaped execution by fleeing to Turkey, where he converted to Christianity, Dillner said.

"He speaks out very clearly about what Islam really is. Muslims don't have the freedom to change religion. If you do, they'll do their best to eradicate you," Dillner said...
Fair dinkum.<
Posted by:Sneaze

#13  Charisma isn't as important as it used to be. Go Tancredo!

Fuck all! Sneaze, as a life long democratic voter who abandoned that party after liar Clinton's return attempt at the Oval Office, Tancredo would be a welcome relief. If he runs, I will probably have to vote for him. I apologize for being equivocal, but I have never voted republican in my life, yet am confronted with the dire necessity of doing so. Please understand.

Confused in California,

Zenster
Posted by: Zenster   2007-03-24 23:28  

#12  Charisma isn't as important as it used to be. Go Tancredo!
Posted by: Sneaze   2007-03-24 23:12  

#11  Let's see the New Zealand Muslims deny this Bali Bomber:


Abu Bakar Bashir said:
"They have to stop fighting Islam. That's impossible because it is sunnatullah [destiny, a law of nature], as Allah has said in the Koran. If they want to have peace, they have to accept to be governed by Islam."
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=46
Posted by: Duh!   2007-03-24 18:43  

#10  ICBM disarmament is as bad as enemy ICBM armament.

Word, Sneaze. That was the gist of my post about China the other day.

Kalle, I don't have an answer for you. Tarbaby Iraq (hat tip to Hugh Fitzgerald), has become such a political third rail that the larger scope of global terrorism has been lost to tunnel vision over this puny short term goal.

This is why I have had to agree with Hugh and begin advocating withdrawal from Iraq. Leave behind a well-protected military presence to assist in operations against Iran, but withdraw the rest. Let the Sunnis and Shiites slaughter each other. Let them signal to the entire world just how murderous Islam's two major sects really are. World condemnation cannot get any worse if we are then blamed for an ensuing Iraqi civil war.

Regardless of global opinion, an Iraqi civil war will best serve American interests by sidelining jihadi manpower, absorbing terrorist financing and consuming logistical support. We cannot hope for more at this point until America's leadership sprouts a set grows a brain and reappraises the criticality of toppling Iran.

In an age where television's wasteland has become the chief arena for political campaigns, people like Thompson, Tancredo and Goode simply do not have the financial firepower or perceived charisma to fully sway the public's notoriously fickle opinion. Even worse is how comprehending the where and why any of the above individuals' positions requires actual mentative ability, something well beyond the average voter's ken.

The democratic candidates are irrelevant. Any prospect of their election cannot be redeemed as being even the lesser or greater of two evils. Their Politically Correct Multicultural platform has made them into nothing less than the enemy of America and its constitution.

As someone here at Rantburg so concisely put it, abortion is something that can be debated, while terrorism is not. The democrats seek to open debate over terrorism and thereby cement their political worthlessness.
Posted by: Zenster   2007-03-24 14:53  

#9  Which Presidential candidates and/or Senators understand what Zenster and Sneaze said here?
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2007-03-24 13:23  

#8  I would start by finding everyone that entered as a refugee from Afghanistan and Iraq and sending them back to help restore their nations.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2007-03-24 09:57  

#7  What's up ? New Zealand finally awake ? Why hell, it's only 2007.
Posted by: wxjames   2007-03-24 09:39  

#6  Yah, the Dhimmicrats would be a disaster. ICBM disarmament is as bad as enemy ICBM armament.
Posted by: Sneaze   2007-03-24 07:36  

#5  If he choses to run out his presidency with the security issue deferred, then an ICBM threat to the US Homeland will have been delivered to the worst enemy that America has ever faced.

Which enemy would that be: A nuclear armed Iran or an appeasing democratic president?
(Sorry, you didn't deserve that.)
Posted by: Zenster   2007-03-24 02:55  

#4  Zenster:
Pre-emption has been integral to US foreign policy since the President's "West Point" speech of May 2002. Unfortunately, Grover Norquist - a lobbyist for Muslim and Arab groups - convinced the President to export democracy into the Middle East. As an "Atlantic" magazine writer informs this month, that move only legitimated the Islamofascist movements. We didn't give Germans and Japanese freedom of choice to vote for fascist and militarist parties: we banned them. After 9-11, we created conditions for the Muslim Frankensteins that threaten our security. Although the public supported the democraticization process, the majority must be convinced that it made politicians out of al-Qaeda clones. Paleo polls have reported up to 75% support for suicide bombing against civilian targets. It would be suicidal to respect the democratic choices made by those savages. For a long time I have been saying that the President will move against Iran. He has the pretext and the means. If he choses to run out his presidency with the security issue deferred, then an ICBM threat to the US Homeland will have been delivered to the worst enemy that America has ever faced.
Posted by: Sneaze   2007-03-24 02:39  

#3  I'm with Zenster: head 'em off at the pass.

Thank you, Sneaze. Terrorism has to be "headed off", it must be pre-empted. It is not something that can be dealt with on a reactive basis. Much like chess, the winning player is usually the one who controls the game's overall tempo. The West's attempt to fight this battle on a bullet by bullet basis is simply ludicrous. Any sort of gradual approach simply does not attrit the population of combatants or their sources of finance and material support rapidly enough to have significant impact.

It makes no sense trying to win this war village by village when victory depends upon entire countries and their governments being deposed, overthrown or neutralized. Dr. John Lewis is absolutely correct in noting how Iran must top our list of priorities. It is the preeminent example of Islamic theocracy and a perpetual thorn in the entire region's side. Toppling Tehran's mullahs will serve a multitude of purposes.

a.) Make it unmistakably clear that Islamic theocracy will not be tolerated.

b.) Put a permanent halt to Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

c.) Send the message that surrounding Sunni "allies" must begin immediate reform.

d.) End substantial interference with Iraq's emergence as a democratic nation.

e.) Reaffirm the American nation's institutional memory for betrayal and treachery.

f.) Attach a visible price tag to support or sponsorship of international terrorism.

g.) Demonstrate the punishment awaiting all who advocate genocide against Israel.

The list is nearly endless and can be satisfied by crushing Iran without any expensive rebuilding process. For once the riot act would be read out loud and clear in a manner that no one could ignore.

As to New Zealand Muslims charging bigotry, bias and Islamophobia: Never forget how it is the world's most intolerant religion that levels these charges of religious intolerance. Muslims must be made to confront how the very core of their religious doctrine exhorts them to violence and domination. Until that time, the West has no choice but to limit all contact with this vile ideology and thwart its influence at every turn.


Posted by: Zenster   2007-03-24 01:58  

#2  If they're smart, they'll make adherence to Islam prima facie grounds for refusing entry to the country and deportation of the ones already there. New Zealand already has enough problems; they don't need to add the muzzy one.
Posted by: Mac   2007-03-24 01:15  

#1  "For heaven's sake, we are less than 1 per cent of the population. Muslims have been in New Zealand for a century. No Muslim has ever done anything like what they are afraid of."

The point of critical mass at which Muslims begin to endanger a society might be somewhere around 5%, but why take chances?

Besides, in this age of personal jihad even one follower of the Cult of the Moon God might be too many.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-03-24 00:44  

00:00