Canadian Author dragged into woods and beaten by Muslim extremists. [Archive] - Page 2 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Canadian Author dragged into woods and beaten by Muslim extremists.


Pages : 1 [2]

Animal Mother
09-18-2011, 23:08
When will you ever start serving American freedom? I serve American freedom every time I defend the Constitution and founding principles of the nation against those, like you, who would twist them to suit their own ends.

Akil8290
09-18-2011, 23:26
You keep lying about Muslims not objecting to or protesting acts of terror, even after having evidence repeatedly presented to you that Muslims do, in fact, object to and protest acts of terror.

There are clinical terms for that sort of behavior.

That would be the clinical definition of Insanity; to repeat the same behavior over and over again expecting a different result.

On the flip side of that, its snowbird's lie; let him tell it.

Animal Mother
09-18-2011, 23:45
Cite? I've never heard of this poll that Americans approve of killing civilians willy-nilly. Yes, you have, because I've cited it here before. To repeat, "The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified." (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html)
The Islamist goal is to kill infidel civilians.Cite?
Where am I condemning Islam as a whole? In the line prior to this one, to cite one example.
I know that comes naturally to you and Ward Churchill. You're just obsessed with Ward Churchill, aren't you? I'm not condemning either America or Islam, I'm asking how you justify having very different standards when it comes to the two groups, a question you appear unwilling or unable to answer.

Paul7
09-19-2011, 07:33
Yes, you have, because I've cited it here before. To repeat, "The survey, conducted in December 2006 by the University of Maryland's prestigious Program on International Public Attitudes, shows that only 46 percent of Americans think that "bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians" are "never justified," while 24 percent believe these attacks are "often or sometimes justified." (http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0223/p09s01-coop.html)

I'd like to see the exact wording of this question. I certainly think bombing civilians at Hiroshima was justified, but we were concluding a war the Japanese started. There was no similar excuse for 9/11. We avoid civilian causalties in Afghanistan to the point of putting our own troops at risk.

Cite?

What happened at 9/11, the London and Madrid train bombings, and Mumbai? Who were targeted?

tIn the line prior to this one, to cite one example.

Stop making things up. I've never equated the Islamists with all Muslims.

You're just obsessed with Ward Churchill, aren't you? I'm not condemning either America or Islam, I'm asking how you justify having very different standards when it comes to the two groups, a question you appear unwilling or unable to answer.

You seem to never tire of denigrating the land of your birth.

snowbird
09-19-2011, 08:53
you're still spewing your B.S. rhetoric

And you're still defending Islamofascism, while takiyyaing about how moderate Islam is for all the gullible dhimmis.

You never did answer my question awhile ago about whether you have a beard. It's a sign of Islamic piety, as is a zebibah ( prayer bump on the forehead from doing Muslim head-to-the-ground prayers five times a day). Someone noticed Obama seems to have bumps on his forehead and speculated that maybe he is sprouting devil-horns, but someone else opined that they were just his zebibah.

snowbird
09-19-2011, 09:12
You keep lying about Muslims

You're as big a dhimmi as Animal (I-serve-American-freedom) Mother, and about as 'truthfu'l too.:upeyes:

In Pakistan, 7 women have been attacked with acid in two days. You see, in Islam, it's a sin for a woman to have her head uncovered, but not a sin for her face to be ruined by acid spray. And you dhimmis defend this.

And you dhimmis defend the likes of:
Naser Abdo, the would-be second Ft. Hood mass murderer,
Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, TX,
Muhammed Hussain, the would-be bomber in Baltimore,
Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be bomber in Portland,
Nidal Hasan, the successful Ft. Hood jihad mass murderer,
Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass murderer,
Abdulhakim Muhammed, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer,
Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle,
Mohammed Reza, the would-be mass murderer in Chapel Hill, NC,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber.


etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Real religion, as opposed to fascism disguised as religion, brings out the best in people.

Islam does the opposite.

Islam is where freedom ends and slavery begins. Why do you support that?

ksg0245
09-19-2011, 09:57
You're as big a dhimmi as Animal (I-serve-American-freedom) Mother, and about as 'truthfu'l too.:upeyes:

In Pakistan, 7 women have been attacked with acid in two days. You see, in Islam, it's a sin for a woman to have her head uncovered, but not a sin for her face to be ruined by acid spray. And you dhimmis defend this.

And you dhimmis defend the likes of:
Naser Abdo, the would-be second Ft. Hood mass murderer,
Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, TX,
Muhammed Hussain, the would-be bomber in Baltimore,
Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be bomber in Portland,
Nidal Hasan, the successful Ft. Hood jihad mass murderer,
Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass murderer,
Abdulhakim Muhammed, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer,
Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle,
Mohammed Reza, the would-be mass murderer in Chapel Hill, NC,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber.


etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Real religion, as opposed to fascism disguised as religion, brings out the best in people.

Islam does the opposite.

Islam is where freedom ends and slavery begins. Why do you support that?

I think I've asked you this before: why do you lie about me? What purpose do you think lying about anything accomplishes?

Pointing out that most Muslims aren't terrorists isn't "supporting Islam," it's "not rejecting reality."

Pointing out that some Muslims object to and protest terrorism isn't "supporting Islam," it's "providing factual information rebutting paranoid rantings."

Pointing out your lies isn't "supporting Islam." It's "supporting honesty."

kirgi08
09-19-2011, 11:27
Then why ain't they dropping dimes on those whom are?

I reckon there are 2 reasons-

Fear of reprisal or a deep seated support,as we've seen those that do rat out others have a short lifespan and havta go inta hiding.As a terror outfit the muslim folk are as or more ruthless than the PIRA or the Mob.'08.

Akil8290
09-19-2011, 18:10
And you're still defending Islamofascism, while takiyyaing about how moderate Islam is for all the gullible dhimmis.

You never did answer my question awhile ago about whether you have a beard. It's a sign of Islamic piety, as is a zebibah ( prayer bump on the forehead from doing Muslim head-to-the-ground prayers five times a day). Someone noticed Obama seems to have bumps on his forehead and speculated that maybe he is sprouting devil-horns, but someone else opined that they were just his zebibah.

Actually, I did. I answered with a simple, "Yes" and continued on to address something crazy you said. Go back and look. Your reading comprehension really, really needs work. Wow.

Defending Islamofascism? Uh, no. I've condemned it from the get-go; again, go back and look.

Taqiyyaing? I've never concealed my faith, so no.

Zebibah? Masha'Allah, masha'Allah..

Animal Mother
09-19-2011, 23:02
I'd like to see the exact wording of this question. I certainly think bombing civilians at Hiroshima was justified, but we were concluding a war the Japanese started. In other words, you believe that attacks on civilians are sometimes justified.
There was no similar excuse for 9/11. I don't really view the Hiroshima attack as needing an "excuse".
What happened at 9/11, the London and Madrid train bombings, and Mumbai? Who were targeted? I don't recall anyone denying that terrorists attack civilians, but you're claiming that's their goal, I'm asking for evidence supporting that specific claim.
Stop making things up. I've never equated the Islamists with all Muslims. Then why don't you be a doll and explain how we differentiate between the two, from your perspective.
You seem to never tire of denigrating the land of your birth.Stop making things up, I've never denigrated the US. You, on the other hand, still haven't answered the question you were asked.

Paul7
09-19-2011, 23:12
In other words, you believe that attacks on civilians are sometimes justified.

You're really equating Hiroshima with 9/11? That says a lot.

I don't recall anyone denying that terrorists attack civilians, but you're claiming that's their goal, I'm asking for evidence supporting that specific claim.

If it isn't their goal they're really incompetent. Lots of civilians in this list of most recent vicims. Many children and even four members of a peace committee. Nice.

2011.09.19 (Karachi, Pakistan) - A teacher and her child are among eight who lose their lives to a Tehreek-e-Taliban suicide bombing outside a house.
2011.09.19 (Peshawar, Pakistan) - Five people are killed when fundamentalists set off a bomb at a market selling DVDs and music.
2011.09.17 (Akka Khel, Pakistan) - Four members of a peace committee are among five killed at point-blank range by Jihadi gunmen.
2011.09.17 (Faryab, Afghanistan) - Five children are among nine civilians ripped to pieces by a Taliban bomb.
2011.09.16 (Maiduguri, Nigeria) - Boko Haram radicals kill one of their own for holding peace talks.
2011.09.16 (Yala, Thailand) - Islamists gun down two persons at a mosque.

Then why don't you be a doll and explain how we differentiate between the two, from your perspective.


Is your search function broken? From Wikipedia:

Islamism (Islamist+-ism; Template:Lang-ar الاسلاميين al-ʾislāmiyyah) also Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ ʾIslām siyāsī , lit., "Political Islam" is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to the roots of their religion, and unite politically. Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary. Leading Islamist thinkers emphasized the enforcement of sharia (Islamic law) on Muslims; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam.[1]

If you like we can use the word extremists.

Animal Mother
09-19-2011, 23:41
You're really equating Hiroshima with 9/11? That says a lot. No, I'm not. Once again, you're reading what you wish I would write instead of what I've actually written. Let's try again. The question is, "Are there instances where attacks on civilians are justified?" Your answer, according to your previous post, is "yes".
If it isn't their goal they're really incompetent. Lots of civilians in this list of most recent vicims. Many children and even four members of a peace committee. Nice. Killing civilians, and non-civilians for that matter, isn't the goal. In the minds that plan such things, it's a step towards the actual goal. Considering your wikipedia quotation below, I'd think you'd realize that.
Is your search function broken? No, not at all, read what you've pasted:
From Wikipedia:

Islamism (Islamist+-ism; Template:Lang-ar الاسلاميين al-ʾislāmiyyah) also Arabic: إسلام سياسي‎ ʾIslām siyāsī , lit., "Political Islam" is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system; that modern Muslims must return to the roots of their religion, and unite politically. Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary. Leading Islamist thinkers emphasized the enforcement of sharia (Islamic law) on Muslims; of pan-Islamic political unity; and of the elimination of non-Muslim, particularly western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world, which they believe to be incompatible with Islam.[1] That's why I asked for your definition. Much like your comrade snowbird, your definition of things and the one everyone else uses frequently differ.
If you like we can use the word extremists. OK, are extremists always bad?

Paul7
09-20-2011, 07:38
No, I'm not. Once again, you're reading what you wish I would write instead of what I've actually written. Let's try again. The question is, "Are there instances where attacks on civilians are justified?" Your answer, according to your previous post, is "yes".

You're trying to show moral equivalency between supporters of suicide bombers and normal Americans who supported our actions defending ourselves in WWII. It doesn't work.

Killing civilians, and non-civilians for that matter, isn't the goal. In the minds that plan such things, it's a step towards the actual goal. Considering your wikipedia quotation below, I'd think you'd realize that.

Creating terror among infidels in the goal, 'terrorism' in one of the instruments. If a better tool came along in their war they would use it, which is why the war on terror is a bit of a misnomer. The ultimate goal of the Islamists is worldwide Muslim domination. You wouldn't do very well in a world like that.

OK, are extremists always bad?

Only when they commit crimes like the violent Islamists do. As I've said before, unlike the Islamists I don't care what people think, I care what they do.

Animal Mother
09-20-2011, 08:12
You're trying to show moral equivalency between supporters of suicide bombers and normal Americans who supported our actions defending ourselves in WWII. No, I'm not. Once again, I'll suggest you read what I write, not what you wish I would write.
Creating terror among infidels in the goal, 'terrorism' in one of the instruments. If a better tool came along in their war they would use it, which is why the war on terror is a bit of a misnomer. The ultimate goal of the Islamists is worldwide Muslim domination. You wouldn't do very well in a world like that. No, I wouldn't, which is why I'm glad those pursuing the goal amount to a few thousand people largely living in caves rather than the 1.6 Billion Muslims on the planet.
Only when they commit crimes like the violent Islamists do. As I've said before, unlike the Islamists I don't care what people think, I care what they do. Now you're limiting the group even further, I doubt anyone, including the vast majority of Muslims has a problem with this latest position.

Paul7
09-20-2011, 10:33
No, I wouldn't, which is why I'm glad those pursuing the goal amount to a few thousand people largely living in caves rather than the 1.6 Billion Muslims on the planet.

The Ft. Hood killer lived on a US Army base, not a cave.

Now you're limiting the group even further, I doubt anyone, including the vast majority of Muslims has a problem with this latest position.

It isn't just a few people who support violence, 85% of Egyptian Muslims think a Muslim who changes his religion should be killed. That is a crime.

Animal Mother
09-20-2011, 11:23
The Ft. Hood killer lived on a US Army base, not a cave. See, you're not reading what I actually write again. Largely, in the context I used it, means mostly, not all.
It isn't just a few people who support violence, 85% of Egyptian Muslims think a Muslim who changes his religion should be killed. That is a crime. So now we're changing the topic yet again? Are you now saying that 85% of Muslims are included in your definition of Islamists?

Paul7
09-20-2011, 19:02
See, you're not reading what I actually write again. Largely, in the context I used it, means mostly, not all.

Cite?

So now we're changing the topic yet again? Are you now saying that 85% of Muslims are included in your definition of Islamists?

No, but it does show that in Egypt at least, a huge majority of Muslims adopt an extremist position on this issue.

Nestor
10-10-2011, 01:29
Nice little note from the author of the book:

"I'm Paris Dipersico and I'm a narcissistic sociopath whose ego is bigger than Kim Kardashian's ass. Boundaries, Respect, Values, and a Conscience...I Lack. I say obnoxious things about fugly creatures (personally, I don't think fat people are real people.)"

Well, quite interesting to say at least :rofl:

happyguy
10-10-2011, 02:40
It isn't just a few people who support violence, 85% of Egyptian Muslims think a Muslim who changes his religion should be killed. That is a crime.

That is a frightening poll result and is one of the reasons so many of us view Muslims with suspicion.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

snowbird
10-18-2011, 10:02
See, you're not reading what I actually write again. Largely, in the context I used it, means mostly, not all

Kind of like comrade Clinton's obfuscating about what the definition of is is.:upeyes:

As someone said at another site, the unholy alliance between the western left and Islam is like 2 scorpions using each other to break down Christian-founded societies. Once that's accomplished, the left has the unrealistic notion that Islam can be marginalized along with all other religions in an atheisitc New Left Utopia.

But the Islamic scorpion has the more realistic plan of simply killing the leftist leaders once their usefulness is over.

Muslims see the left's foolishness, overestimating themselves while underestimating Islam's malevolence through the same intellectual laziness that keeps thinking it can make communism work. And many lefties have believed their pacifist propaganda a la Lennon's "Imagine", disarmed and made themselves easy pickings for sharp blades.

ksg0245
10-18-2011, 10:12
Kind of like comrade Clinton's obfuscating about what the definition of is is.:upeyes:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/largely
Definition of LARGELY
: in a large manner; especially : to a large extent : mostly, primarily <words largely unknown a decade ago>

Synonyms: altogether, basically, by and large, generally, chiefly, mainly, mostly, overall, predominantly, primarily, principally, substantially

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/largely
large·ly
For the most part; mainly.
On a large scale; amply.

http://www.collinslanguage.com/results.aspx?context=4&reversed=False&action=define&homonym=-1&text=largely
largely
adv
You use largely to say that a statement is mostly but not completely true. The early studies were done on men, largely by male researchers.

adv
You use largely to introduce the main reason for an event or situation. Today, largely because of their diets, over 50 percent of Americans are at risk for heart disease.

happyguy
10-18-2011, 10:19
Historically, if you publicly insult Islam you should provide for additional safety measures.

Does anyone dispute this?

Regards,
Happyguy :)

kirgi08
10-18-2011, 10:21
Historically, if you publicly insult Islam you should provide for additional safety measures.

Does anyone dispute this?

Regards,
Happyguy :)

Nope.'08.

snowbird
10-19-2011, 09:09
Definition of LARGELY...

Congratulations on knowing the meaning of 'largely'.

But do you know what a 'dhimmi' is?

It is a kafir (non-Muslim) who goes along with Islam, who enables Islamization, who appeases Islam, who licks Islamic sandals in a most craven manner -for example: promoting a giant 13+ story Islamic victory mosque at Ground Zero. In short, dhimmis are LARGELY Western leftards.

They are the opposite of Christian heroes, such as Charles Martel, Frankish leader at Tours in 732 AD when invading Muslims were stopped, or those Christian Italian sailors at Lepanto in 1571 AD who defeated Muslim Turkish oppressor galleys, or those Polish Christian soldiers who rescued the besieged Austrian Christians of Vienna on September 11, 1683 AD from attacking, rape-pillage-and-murder-minded Muslims.

God save us from leftard dhimmis and grant us another heroic Christian leader.

Colubrid
10-19-2011, 09:42
That's one hell of an ugly lamp!:wow:

I was thuinking the same thing. I think he should be dragged off into the woods just for bad taste.

ksg0245
10-19-2011, 10:53
Congratulations on knowing the meaning of 'largely'.

I posted the definition for your benefit, but would bet you didn't.

But do you know what a 'dhimmi' is?

Yep, that's how I know you usually use the term incorrectly.

snowbird
10-20-2011, 08:13
Let's see, Christians invent airplanes, Muslims fly them into buildings, and all Christophobic leftist dhimmis want to do is quibble about semantics while continuing large-scale Islamic immigration.

What could go wrong?

Well, ask Guled Jama Muktar. Except you can't, because Muslims just beheaded him. This heroic young (17 years old) man could have saved his life by returning to Islam (he had converted to Christianity), but he has now been added to the long list of genuine historical martyrs. The murderers weren't "just a tiny minority of extremists". These Somalis were following Mohammed's orders, "If anyone changes his (Muslim) religion, kill him" (Sahih Bukhari 9.84.57).

Why do you support this?

ksg0245
10-20-2011, 10:10
Let's see, Christians invent airplanes, Muslims fly them into buildings, and all Christophobic leftist dhimmis want to do is quibble about semantics while continuing large-scale Islamic immigration.

What could go wrong?

Well, ask Guled Jama Muktar. Except you can't, because Muslims just beheaded him. This heroic young (17 years old) man could have saved his life by returning to Islam (he had converted to Christianity), but he has now been added to the long list of genuine historical martyrs. The murderers weren't "just a tiny minority of extremists". These Somalis were following Mohammed's orders, "If anyone changes his (Muslim) religion, kill him" (Sahih Bukhari 9.84.57).

Why do you support this?

Why do you lie about what people support?

kirgi08
10-20-2011, 13:41
There not doing anything ta stop it.'08.

Akil8290
10-20-2011, 17:26
There not doing anything ta stop it.'08.

Started drinking early today, did we?

They're, their and there. Hmmmm..

To, two and too. Never heard of 'ta.' Hmmmm..

May Allah guide you to a grammar book.

creaky
10-21-2011, 09:54
Started drinking early today, did we?

They're, their and there. Hmmmm..

To, two and too. Never heard of 'ta.' Hmmmm..

May Allah guide you to a grammar book.

I thought you left?

Did allah instruct you to return, or did you miss all your supporters here on GTRI?

creaky
10-21-2011, 10:08
Why do you lie about what people support?

Why would a muslim not support their own canonical scriptures/books?

ksg0245
10-21-2011, 11:02
Why would a muslim not support their own canonical scriptures/books?

snowbird's post: (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18064074)
Let's see, Christians invent airplanes, Muslims fly them into buildings, and all Christophobic leftist dhimmis want to do is quibble about semantics while continuing large-scale Islamic immigration.

What could go wrong?

Well, ask Guled Jama Muktar. Except you can't, because Muslims just beheaded him. This heroic young (17 years old) man could have saved his life by returning to Islam (he had converted to Christianity), but he has now been added to the long list of genuine historical martyrs. The murderers weren't "just a tiny minority of extremists". These Somalis were following Mohammed's orders, "If anyone changes his (Muslim) religion, kill him" (Sahih Bukhari 9.84.57).

Why do you support this?
Who here supports any part of that, or is a dhimmi?

snowbird
10-21-2011, 11:28
Who here supports any part of that, or is a dhimmi?

You, of course.

Lefties are often disingenuous, as you are being here.

In Post # 257, you said, "Pointing out that most Muslims aren't terrorists isn't supporting Islam". This is but a variation on the mother of all politically correct myths about Islam, that it's a religion of peace that has merely been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists. Propagating that myth, which has been proven wrong over and over again by mountains of evidence, means you support all of the evil of Islam, and are a dhimmi in the first degree.

happyguy
10-21-2011, 11:48
If we agree that those who insult Islam should provide additional measures for their safety.

The next question is, should those who insult Christianity provide for additional safety measures.

If the answer is yes then it would seem there is not a great deal of fundamental difference between these religions as to how they treat others.

If the answer is no...well, it seems to me there is something fundamentally flawed with Islam. Or at least it is at odds with my core Christian beliefs.

Regards,
Happyguy :)

creaky
10-21-2011, 12:05
snowbird's post: (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18064074)
Let's see, Christians invent airplanes, Muslims fly them into buildings, and all Christophobic leftist dhimmis want to do is quibble about semantics while continuing large-scale Islamic immigration.

What could go wrong?

Well, ask Guled Jama Muktar. Except you can't, because Muslims just beheaded him. This heroic young (17 years old) man could have saved his life by returning to Islam (he had converted to Christianity), but he has now been added to the long list of genuine historical martyrs. The murderers weren't "just a tiny minority of extremists". These Somalis were following Mohammed's orders, "If anyone changes his (Muslim) religion, kill him" (Sahih Bukhari 9.84.57).

Why do you support this?
Who here supports any part of that, or is a dhimmi?

I skimmed over the exchange a little too quick and thought snowbird was originally addressing Akil.

Akil or any other muslim would have a bit of 'splainin' to do about the disconnect between saying " I don't support that" (what snowbird described) and then saying they were a good muslim. How can you be a good muslim and not abide by the canonical words of mohammed?

Since he was actually answering you, I'll just say that he has a point. You never seem to miss an opportunity to be on the wrong side of the islam vs the world debate.

Paul7
10-21-2011, 13:44
snowbird's post: (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18064074)
Let's see, Christians invent airplanes, Muslims fly them into buildings, and all Christophobic leftist dhimmis want to do is quibble about semantics while continuing large-scale Islamic immigration.

What could go wrong?

Well, ask Guled Jama Muktar. Except you can't, because Muslims just beheaded him. This heroic young (17 years old) man could have saved his life by returning to Islam (he had converted to Christianity), but he has now been added to the long list of genuine historical martyrs. The murderers weren't "just a tiny minority of extremists". These Somalis were following Mohammed's orders, "If anyone changes his (Muslim) religion, kill him" (Sahih Bukhari 9.84.57).

Why do you support this?
Who here supports any part of that, or is a dhimmi?

There are certainly those here who object to such atrocities being brought up, Akil among them.

Akil8290
10-21-2011, 14:58
I thought you left?

Did allah instruct you to return, or did you miss all your supporters here on GTRI?

I did. Someone asked I come back and answer some questions. I never figured out how to delete my account, so people still PM me.

ksg0245
10-21-2011, 15:38
I skimmed over the exchange a little too quick and thought snowbird was originally addressing Akil.

Akil or any other muslim would have a bit of 'splainin' to do about the disconnect between saying " I don't support that" (what snowbird described) and then saying they were a good muslim. How can you be a good muslim and not abide by the canonical words of mohammed?

Probably the same way good christians don't kill disobedient children, for example.

Since he was actually answering you, I'll just say that he has a point. You never seem to miss an opportunity to be on the wrong side of the islam vs the world debate.

Please support your assertion, but keep in mind you won't be able to.

ksg0245
10-21-2011, 15:41
There are certainly those here who object to such atrocities being brought up, Akil among them.

That's odd, I've only ever seen Akil object to all Muslims being painted with the broad brush some Christians object to having applied to themselves.

ksg0245
10-21-2011, 16:01
You, of course.

Oops, you're lying again.

Lefties are often disingenuous, as you are being here.

It's disingenuous to point out facts? That kind of leaves reality at a disadvantage.

In Post # 257, you said, "Pointing out that most Muslims aren't terrorists isn't supporting Islam".

That's right, I said that. I'd really like to see the explanation of how pointing out that most Muslims aren't terrorists actually does support Islam, but don't expect I ever will.

This is but a variation on the mother of all politically correct myths about Islam, that it's a religion of peace that has merely been hijacked by a tiny minority of extremists.

I see, so if I'm reading you correctly, because a fraction of Muslims are terrorists, all of them are guilty by association.

Weird how that logic doesn't apply to Christians, but I guess it's because bad people who claim to be Christian aren't really Christian. Wait, that doesn't really work, either.

Propagating that myth, which has been proven wrong over and over again by mountains of evidence,

Where has this "proof" been offered? What "mountains of evidence" do you have that most Muslims are terrorists? I know, you've interviewed the majority of Muslims, and aren't just letting your obsession color your perception.

means you support all of the evil of Islam, and are a dhimmi in the first degree.

There you go, lying again.

Paul7
10-21-2011, 16:08
Probably the same way good christians don't kill disobedient children, for example.

If the New Testament told Christians to do that you might have a point.

Paul7
10-21-2011, 16:10
That's odd, I've only ever seen Akil object to all Muslims being painted with the broad brush some Christians object to having applied to themselves.

Bringing up the fact, for example, that 15,000,000 Egyptian Muslims support Al-Queda, and that 85% of Egyptian Muslims want 'apostates' killed, isn't painting all Muslims (like Akil) with that brush, but it does show there is a serious problem with Islam in Egypt, that is not limited to a few radicals.