Poison Deviny
"Suspected murderer of French Jewish school children cornered, and you’ll NEVER guess his name" *
Miranda “a fundamentalist Muslim killed people” party is BYO shame because she’s all out
Classic Miranda, 2006: Stenhouse says the Department of Immigration does not see the organisation as an extremist group, even though its aim is to convert the host country to Sharia law. But he points out: “If the Egyptian Government and the Syrians - not noted for squeamishness in dealing with militant opposition - fear the Muslim Brothers then Australia would be foolish to think it knows better.
They persecute Christians as well so I guess we should do the same if they know better.
Classic Miranda, 2006: Reports yesterday that Hilaly’s planned deportation in 1986 was stopped by none other than the former member for Bankstown, Paul Keating, and that a public servant lost his job for trying to stand up to the political interference, are certainly frustrating.
That argument could justify sending Andrew Bolt back to Holland.
Classic Miranda, 2006: “As well, by revealing so unequivocally his primitive views of women, Hilaly destroyed the claims by cultural relativists that Sydney’s series of gang rapes by Muslim men had nothing to do with culture or religion.”
So if a Christian pastor says victims of rape are to blame for a rape and a Christian rapes someone does it prove Christianity is at fault?
Classic Miranda, 2006: Which is all very well, but is it any wonder some Muslim families might want to segregate their daughters from the raunch culture that has engulfed the 21st-century West, in which a girl’s worth is measured by her “hotness”, 10-year-olds learn the art of “turkey slapping” from Big Brother, and schoolgirls have breast augmentation so they can look like Pamela Anderson.
No one wants breasts that looked like Pamela Anderson’s. Not even Pamela Anderson wanted breasts like hers that’s why she got them downsized. 
Miranda finally comes out of the Islamophobia closet, though I always suspected

Miranda likes to pretend her support for the War in Iraq was partly due to wanting to help the Iraqi people. But with her latest article it seems she doesn’t really care anymore about helping those who aren’t Christian. She even thinks we should allow dictators like Gaddafi and Assad to stay in power because they supposedly keep fundamentalist groups in check. She admits “Gaddafi was a brutal dictator who promoted terrorism abroad” but his brand of terrorism wasn’t Islamic so we could live with it. She then goes on to doubt Gaddafi was brutal at all because Amnesty International was unsure about some of the unsubstantiated claims of the rebels. But Amnesty never denied all the footage that came out of Libya of the army shooting at civilians. But hey if they’re Muslim how can you trust them?

She goes on to argue that we should never help a population that is mostly Muslim because there may be a section of them that is fundamentalist. The exception I’m assuming is a dictator/ regime who could be a danger to us in someway (how very Christian of her). So lets say we didn’t intervene in Libya; the National Transitional Council would have a more difficult job and Libyans may decide that to topple Gaddafi they will need to rally behind the subsection of fundamentalist Muslims because at least they can get support from abroad. Then we really would have a country to worry about; because not only did we sell arms to their former dictator and didn’t help them when they asked for it, but now the fundamentalist Muslims are in control. People turn to fundamentalist Muslims because they’re looking for support and can’t find it elsewhere. While people are being brutalized by a dictator like Gaddafi and Assad, fundamentalism is able to exist in hiding because they provide support and in turn receive support.

If we help them help themselves we can halt the growth of fundamentalist Islam. It’s not that hard when the fundamentalists keep blowing up mosques and killing family members of moderate Muslims. That was what the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to do, but alas the tactics used led to civilian casualties and the handing of power over to crony capitalists; both which turned out to be counter productive surprise surprise. The no fly zone over Libya allowed the Libyans to self determine with enough support so that they don’t have to turn to fundamentalist Islam. It also allows fundamentalist groups to come out of the wood work and try to seize control; but at least now they’re less likely to do so. Gaddafi was going to fall, it was up to us to decide who was going to still be standing in the aftermath. 

How can me win the “War on terror” if we turn our backs on moderate Muslims out of fear of them turning fundamentalist, thus forcing them to seeks support from fundamentalists? But Miranda isn’t interested in winning the “War on terror”, she wants to start and win a war of religion. She writes “as a predominantly Christian country, you could say it is our duty to actively discriminate towards Christian refugees”. So Miranda is saying religion should be a judge of character; well whether you’re a Christian or not should be the judge of character. Being prejudiced towards religions other than your own and allowing those of different religion than you to be harmed because hey they’re not our kind sounds an awful lot like fundamentalism to me. But hey; fundamentalist Christians never go around killing people.