Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Jihad watch -- you mean the site that Robert Spencer uses to hock his book? It would be more credible if he wasn't spreading fear of Islam in order to scare people into buying his intellectually bankrupt "literature".

Every Muslim I know -- and I know many of them -- are extremely distressed over people with small-minded attitudes just like yours.

But it's nice to get down to the truth of the matter -- you aren't denying Pakistan's cooperation in the war of terror because of any actual lack of cooperation -- you're denying it because the're a largely Muslim state.



If you say so.



And, other than coincidentally being Muslim states, what does any of that have to do with Pakistan?

That's pretty much it, isn't it?

I thought so.



According to whom? Robert Spencer?

Try citing someone credible.



Don't be jealous. You can always marry Kevin Potvin, if you want.



Here's a good example of a credible source:

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RL31624.pdf



And that was produced by the Congressional Research Service. Tell me more about how your claims don't contradict US intelligence -- thus actually contradicting NATO?



You sure did post a link -- to intellectual, counter-factual garbage. And that's what you're building your arguments on. You're barely even worth the time it takes to read your rantings, let alone respond to them.



And you're stuck on stupid with your Robert Spencer garbage, which actually makes sense because he himself is permanently stuck on stupid.



:roll: I'm willing to bet that someone who seeks information would be able to spell "seek". Also, "prove". Unfortunately for yourself, you're too busy "proving" yourself "stupid" to actually "seek" "information".

[quoteHa, so the falsely-called historians who say that most of Germany didn't know about the holocaust are WRONG, and the rightly-called historians who say that most Germans did know about the camps and supported them are RIGHT.

To continue with that logic, the falsely-called experts who say that most of Pakistan do not support the jihad are WRONG, and the rightly-called experts that say that many-if-not-most Pakistanis support the jihad are RIGHT.



You often blast yourself like that ?[/color]

Given that the Pakistani state isn't involved the Jihad, that isn't a comparable example.

You often blast yourself like that?



ROTFL Well, the topic of argument has been the actions of the state of Pakistan. You brought up the Germany-Holocaust argument, then counterfactually argued that Germans didn't know about the Holocaust (they did).

You tried to use the same argument to suggest the Pakistani state is involved in something it isn't involved in. That is a counter-factual claim. So you can try to convince yourself that you're clever to your heart's content. The fact is that you have yet to even find any intellectual traction in this debate, and I really don't think you're going to.



Did yours?

[/quote]

Well, according to your own logic, Canadians think 9/11 was beautiful. As a Canadian, you must think 9/11 was beautiful. And you're precisely right. This is ridiculous. The most ridiculous thing about it is this is your logic.

   

I know there are the Americans, Brits and Dutch are fighting as well. And they're are many other nations in rear positions that aren't. Since our mandate is to stay there until 2009 and discuss it again then. I just think its premature and sends a bad signal about our reputation to say were out in two years no matter what. And this motion is just that were out no matter what 2009.

Imagine in WWII if we said ok no matter what happens we'll be out December 31 1941.

   

Good news for Afghanistan: The Liberals lost. If needed we will stay past 2009.

What puzzles me is why the NDP voted against the motion to bring our troops home by 2009.

   

Because they want them out now, thats the reason according to them. To think that all the NDP had to do to create a major upheavel in this country was to vote in favor of this. I was following this closely and would of been very pissed and ashamed if it passed.

   

The NDP understand they can't allow the Liberals to benefit from a Democrat-esque image. That, and they're suggesting they may introduce a motion in favour of an immediate pull-out.

   

And almost every Muslim I know -- and I know many of them -- are extremely PLEASED with small-minded attitudes just like yours that can't see what's hapenning in the world and what's coming up towards them.

But hey, as I'v said, don't listen, and some morning, you'll wake up and smell the coffee. (Remember 9/11 ? Yeah... all the ones saying THAT one was coming were "counter-factual garbage guys spreading fear of Islam in order to scare people". Man, people are never gonna learn.)



Nope, the sources I have provided, you don't give a damn about them, too bad.



That's never gonna heppend because everytime I cite someone that has a different opinion than you, then "he's not credible".



Well, they are leaders that made statements just as much defamatory than the ones the pope made (and also the ones the Pakistani parliamment condemned), so I'm still wondering why the Canadian parliament does not go crazy and passes tons of resolutions condemning the statements they made, perhaps you could explain this to me ?



Yup, dated 2003. And I'd like to see the Saudi Arabia-U.S. Anti Terrorism Cooperation one, just for fun. I'm sure it proves with credible sources that the Saudis are doign their best to stop terrorism.

Some people are REALY gonna beleive ANYTHING, as long as it makes them feel comfortable.



Ha ha. English is my second language and I'm doing my best. Cheap shot.



OMG

X 10000000000

That one made my day ! [sarcasm]





Absolutely.

Apart from that, happy we stay there at least until 09', good to see this country is not tooooo far from the reality.

   

DUHHH?
I know you are just a child, but really......

   

You've already said that you recieve all your information about Islam not from actual Muslims, but from "people with a Muslim background who are not Muslim". The link connected to Jihadwatch.org, which, as I mentioned before, not only spreads the fear of Islam, but actually profits from it.

"Muslims are dangerous. By the way, buy my book."

The Ironic thing about this is that Robert Spencer has no Muslim background. He studied Christian theology, and has never studied Islam in any academic environment worthy of the name.



Having cited Spencer, you've already demonstrated the standard of quality of the information you're using. It's remarkably low.



Well, if you could only cite some sources that interpret the issue according to the facts, instead of practically fictionalizing their arguments, you'd be in business.



Well, Stephen Harper denounced the Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran an "offence to all Canadians". Is that condemning enough for you?



Here's another cheap shot: you never said anything about the source I cited. Which, as I will remind you, is an actual credible source.



So now you're going to suggest that Pakistan, a participant in the War on Terror, is also somehow involved in the Jihad as well?

You aren't terribly bright, are you?

   

No, I said most of my info, not all, and what convinces me that this info is some good one is input from actual Muslims I have talked to.



It DOES spread the fear of Islam, and HAS to spread the fear of Islam, because we HAVE to be scared of Islam. Tons of people profit from it.

You see, in WW2, the media made sure we were fearfull of Nazism, and that's the way things worcked back then.

But six decades later, the western civilisation has plunged into an abyss of PC, and the Media - along with most politicians - don't even dare to clearly state that we have a serious enemy and that we should be scared of it, so the only hard info we get is from people that know a lot about the enemy, but since their info is not "official", peaple like you don't listen.



And what is an "academic environment worth of the name" to study Islam ? A madrassa ? One of those islamic takia/"inner-jihad" universities in Saudi Arabia or Cairo ? Please give me a break.



I sited Spencer ? When ? Where ?



LOL

Let's start with something simple for you ; here's a single sentence I have quoted from Global Security :

"The religious alliance [MMA] won an absolute majority in October 2001 regional elections."

Now please explain to my why the above sentence is "fiction" and "unfactual".

Good luck my friend.



Great, that's a good start, but we are still millenias far from the victimisation coming out of the Muslim world.



Wich source ? The PDF ?

Here's what I said about it in my last post :

" Yup, dated 2003. And I'd like to see the Saudi Arabia-U.S. Anti Terrorism Cooperation one, just for fun. I'm sure it proves with credible sources that the Saudis are doign their best to stop terrorism. "



Could you elborate ? You only declare that everything I say/site is untrue because it is different from your own opinion ; and the only source you have provided is a PDF already 4 years old !

Who can you deny that some factions inside pakistan are providing support to the Taliban, or that children brainwashed in some Pakistani madrassas join the Jihad against the coalition ? Heck, even soldiers have accounts from Afghan villagers that some of the Taliban come from Pakistan (actually they come from all over the ummah, but that's another story)... you think you can diss that with a stupid PDF ?

I say it's not because the US government knows the Pakis have nukes, so they do the best they can to make an ally out of them because they don't want a nuclear war, but has recent events have shown, the Pakis do not always cooperate (and I'd like to know who you can cetegoraly declare that info untrue... exept by saying it's not "official") the US are still making it look like a love story between them and Pakistan because if they would not, things could be far worst (ie : Pak. could become like Iran WITH the bomb).



Yup, I suggested that on my first post on CKA and on my third post in this tread, but you seem to be veeeeeeeeeery slow in understanding asymetrical warfare.



Et la lumière fut.

   

[color=blue]OK. So most of your information about Muslims comes from people who have "a Muslim background who are not Muslim". Except that they don't actually have a Muslim background. Gotcha.



No, we don't have to be afraid of Islam. We need to be afraid of the wingnuts who use Islam as a political ideology -- just like we should be afraid of the wingnuts who use Christianity as a political ideology.

But we need not be afraid of Islam or Christianity. We need to be afraid of those who misuse both.



:roll: During WW2, noone needed to concoct counter-factual arguments to prove the threat of Nazism. Islam is not comparable to Nazism.



How about studying Islam under an expert on Islam -- perhaps an accredited Islamic theologian? Now, to the average individual -- let alone the average academic -- this makes sense. Apparently, not to Durandal, or any of the world's other Spencer-esque self-proclaimed "experts" on Islam.



So are you now going to pretend you didn't post a link to Jihad watch?



Ah, yes. Global Security. Directed by John Pike, another self-proclaimed expert on something or other. Citing self-proclaimed experts tends to really stretch the margins of credibility.



You seem to be veeeeeeeeeeeeery slow in admitting that you can't back up your false claims regarding Pakistan's cooperation in the War on Terror,

   

"They" (ie : R.S.) comes from a Muslim country and/or his famely does, and franckly, I don't care from where he/his famely comes.

And do you sincerely thik I give a shit if my info on Islam comes from persons with a stict Muslim background ???

Man, go ask a Jehovah's Witness, and you can be sure that he will tell you tons of beatiful things about his cult, but will you really know all what you have to know ? Nope ; same for Islam.

Actually, it's not quite the same, muzzis have a doctrine called "takia" according to wich they are autorised to lie to protect their faith (ie : make it look like a religion of peace) when they are in a position of inferiority, but that's another strory.

But hey, you REALLY want some info from people with a Muslim background ? Here you go kid :

APOSTATES OF ISLAM

FAITH FREEDOM

Or I guess than that's "not credible" either.



Humm, NO. Al Qaeda, the Muzzi Brotherhood, the Taleban, the French Muslims "youths", etc. all march in Muhammad's path, and they represent the REAL Islam, not the gentle/innofensive/tolerant/lovely Islam that came out as a result of two centuries of Western colonisation of muzzi lands.



Yup, and probably the only so-called "Christian" organisation that can be compared to any the of islamic terrorist organisation is the LRA in Uganda, and they should be faught just as hard as the jihadist organisations.



Yep, but during that time, we didn't have the PC we have today, the MSM we have today, and the self face-slapping mentality we have today in the West.



That one is gonna cost you a lot.



Let's have some fun !

THE NAZI ROOTS OF THE MODERN JIHAD

THE HISTORICAL COLLABORATION OF NAZIS WITH MUSLIMS/ARABS

THE DOCUMANTATION CENTER ABOUT NAZISLAMISM

ISLAMIC FASCISM, ISRAEL, AND THE AMERICAN LEFT

AND MUCH MORE HERE : ISLAMO-NAZISME











































But hey, perhaps the pics are "nor credible" and "nor official".



LOL, like the imams from the documantary I posted a few messages ago ? Or like Bin Laden ? Or a Saudi prince ?

The real experts of Islamic theology are persons like Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, Anne-Marie Delcambre, Brigitte Gabrielle, Walid Shoebat (an ex-terrorist... not "credible" enough for you ???), Melanie Phillips, Michelle Malkin, Mark Steyn, and others.



Perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. By "cite", you mean "post a link" Because in French, "citer" means "quote", and didn't quote Spencer, just made a link to one of his sites.



Pakistan participates in the jihad, Saudi Arabia and Egypt do the same, but all of them also participate in the war on terror, it's the big game I'v been talking about all along.

By saying X country does this or that, it can mean their gouverment, parts of their goverment, jihadist groups based in these countries, their religious autorities, etc. so the way I'm speaking, I can say "X country does this or that" without speaking of the country as a whole, but of actions/attitudes/whatever that comes from this country ; and the groups - along with their actions - occupy an important place enough in the country so that I can simply say "X country does that".

Understand now ?



OK, let's make things clear :

>>> I think you sources are not credible and have explained why (old and politically-oriented) ; I'm not going to move from my position at all.

>>> You think that my sources are not credible because they are not "official" (!?) ; you are not going to move from your position at all.

So why continue this forever ? I defenetely think your info is total crap and you think the same for me, so I suggest we both let the debate evolve into something else than the credibility of the sources.



Exept to coalition forces in Iraq and A-stan (and also maybe Israel)... woooooups forgot about those ones.

If the US drop support for Musharraf, he will get thrown out by the islamists, and then, BOOM ! (exept if we lunch the boom thing first)

   

So, apparently, you can find sources that will denounce Islam as a hateful religion. Fair enough. And to be fair, there certainly are some sects of Islam that promote violence and hatred.

But, let's raise a point of comparison. How would you respond to the following?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

http://www.behindthebadge.net/apologeti ... uss11.html

Certainly, this is no more or no less credible than your sources. Now, shall we abide by your logic and brand Christianity as a religion of hate as well?

I wouldn't. Apparently, you will.



:roll:

Yep, and the KKK, the church of Jesus Christ Christian and the Westboro Baptist church are all model citizens of the west,



That is entirely wrong.

Allow me to introduce you to Terry Long and the Christian Identity movement:

http://www.zundelsite.org/english/sirc/ ... ter01.html

(This group, in particular, advocates the annhiliation of all non-white, non-Christians.)

And the Final Solution Skins (of Calgary):

http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2005_04_10_archive.html



No, but we apparently have bigots who are all to eager to decry "political correctness" because it challenges their hateful diatribes.



So you can find some pictures of a few Muslims being hateful and you want to try and use that as evidence that hate and violence are phenomenae exclusive to the Muslim world.

You wanna play the picture game? OK.

















So, as a point of comparison, these photos of people in the west serve as equal proof that people in the west (including Christians) can be equally as hateful and crazy as Muslims. According to your logic, this means we're all hateful and crazy over here, too.



Of those, Walid Shoebat actually qualifies. Like Irshad Manji, he actually does provide us with a valuable perspective on troublesome facets of Islam.

However, they do not hold a monopoly on Islam, or on anything else. For every Shoebat or Manji, there are plenty of practicing Muslims who speak out in favor of peaceful Islam, and have been for decades.

Furthermore, Daniel Pipes actually agrees with me:

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/437

Like myself, Pipes recognizes that it is not Islam itself that is dangerous and hateful, but the brand of Islam being used as a political ideology by people like Osama Bin Laden.

Ouch. That's gonna cost you.



Never post a link for a source you aren't willing to stand by.



So you want to claim that Saudi Arabia participates in the jyhad despite the fact that it exiled Osama Bin Laden and stripped him of his citizenship. Saudi Arabia has also helped American officials freeze Bin Laden's assets (although his connections with organized crime and neo Nazi crime networks tends to keep his funds flowing regardless).

You want to claim that Pakistan participates in the jyhad despite the fact that they have secured their northern border (previously neglected due to high tensions with India) so that Taliban sympathizers cannot pass across it so easily as before.

You want to do this because there are groups within each country that do happen to participate in the jihad.

I comes down to the same faulty logic I pointed out before: by your same logic (which you yourself decried as "ridiculous") we also draw the conclusion that all Canadians think 9/11 was beautiful because Kevin Potvin published comments saying that he thought so.

The logic you seek to support this with barely resembles anything worthy of the name.



As previously stated, my sources are credible because they're official. Furthermore, they're based on actual facts and intelligence briefings. Your sources are based entirely on cynicism.

Logic trumps emotion any day of the week.



So long as you continue to insist that you can defy the official record -- compiled by people with a lot more knowledge of the topic than you -- based simply on cynicism, that will be an absolute non-starter.

   

Some "sects" ? Heh, these "sects" are big and active enough to be the prime cause of world conflicts !

Is this a WORLD problem ???



My response :

1) I am myself a Baptist, son of the man who founded the Evangelical church of my hometown, and I think this church is full of shit.

2) It is one single church, not thoulsands of wahabi/kahamenist mosques scattered all over the world. Oh yes, a few guys copied them in Canada and Scandinavia, but heck, they are little isolated loonies.

3) The members of this church talk talk talk, but do they ever bomb anybody ? Nope, so exept from serving as an argument for people trying to deligitimate my faith like you, they don't cause me any problem.



NO, because those crazies do not fallow Christianity (exept for homosexuality), but the jihadist are just normal Muslims doing their duty as a slave of Allah.



The KKK, nope. Jesus said to love the people around you, not to convert them by force.

On the other side, Muhamad ordered all Muslims to conquer all the planet by force, and he himself massacred hundreads if not thoulsands of persons who didn't want to convert to Islam.



LOL, and how many members do these organisations have ? They are just dirt residue from our society, have no support and are hated by everyone, especially Christians like me.

Uncomparable to, say, Hizballah and its leader Nasrallah.

And BTW, as you can see, I am a militarist AND ALSO a Christian Evangelical, and both don't get along very well for some of my relatives. Because of that, I desperately searched in the New Testament to find a verse that directly says that can kill somebody in order to defend myself/my beleifs, and I have found NOTHING yet. So when I speak to those annoying who-would-Jesus-bomb types, I have to tell them that the Bible says "policemen do not carry swords for nothing", and therefor that soldiers and policemen can carry guns and se them if needed.

So may I ask you, P_R, where do these neo-Nazi guys get their "biblical back-up" in order to say that their behaviour is - biblically speaking - legitimate ? Nowhere.

Meanwile, there are 164 Jihad verses in the Koran.

So please, P_R, stop comparing Islam and Christianity, both are COMPLETELY different !



1) Those pics I posted are not supposed to make people beleive that all muzzis are nazis, bat that Islamism and Nazism are connected more closely than we think.

I'v just re-opened my American Alone book, and if you think you are going to diss me with the KKK and stuff, your wrong my friend :

"In Britain, a white supremacist neo-Nazi whose writings inspired a 1999 Soho nail bombing that killed three people has since converted to Islam. David Matt, a founder of the British National Socialist Mouvement, is now Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt. Formely opposed to non-white immigration into the UK, he now says that "the pure authentic Islam of the revival, wich recognizes pratical jihad as a duty is the only force that is capable of fighting and destroying the dishonor, the arrogance, the materialism of the West. For the West, nothing is sacred, exept perhaps Zionists, Zionism, the hoax of the so-called Holocaust, and the idols which the West and its lackeys worship, or pretend to worship, such as democracy."

But why stop there ? I'll keep pounding you on that one...

WHEN HISTORY MEETS ACTUALLITY - CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW PRESANTATION :



----------





Clin-d'oeuil clin-d'oeuil... double game as always (how many times will I have to repeat it ?).

> Many Saudi citizens participate in the global jihad (especially Iraq).

> Saudi money funds hard-core mosques and islamist lobbies all over the world.

> 9/11 - many highjackers were Saudis, This is minimal, but I'v got more, don't worry.

"Oh, and the whife of the Saudi ambassador to America 'accidently' funded the September 11 killers : Princess Haifa makes monthly payments of several thousand dollars by cashier's check from the the Riggs Bank in Washigton to Majeda Ibrahim, an allegedly financially strapped woman in Virginia sge supposedly doesn't know, and Majeda Ibrahim sings at least some of those checks over to a friend of hers who's married to a guy in San Diego who's paying the rent for Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhamzi, who subsequently fly Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Pure coincidence.

[...] For a bunch of ramshackle bedouin, the Saudis got the hang of global networking quicker than the Camadians and Scandinavians."

But you are still "safe", P_R, you know why ? Because this info is not "official", see, Mark Steyn explains :

"And Barbara Bush, wife of the first President Bush, and Alma Powell, wife of Colin, call the princess to comiserate at all this unnesessary publicity."





As I said earlier, the gentle/innofensive/tolerant/lovely Islam we know today and used to flourish a century ago came out as a result of two centuries of Western colonisation of muzzi lands.

But what before that ? Muslims were very militant, just like today. And why ? Because of the teachings of the Koran, transmitted by the Prophet Muhammad. The same Koran that is used to endoctrinate children in madrassas all over the globe today. The Koran hasn't changed, Islam hasn't changed, only Muslims changed with the eradiction of their fanatical autorities (replaced by colonial autorities).

Let me continue with America Alone :

"The Saudis, whose state religion is Wahhabism, export their faith and affiliated local strains in lavish endowed schools and mosques all over the world and, as a result, traditionnally moderate Muslims populations from the Balkans to South Asia have been dramatically radicalised."

And what is Wahhabism ? A form of fundementalist Islam = Islam right out of the Koran = jihad/sharia = REAL Islam.

In the article you made a link to, Pipes said :

"The terrorism of al Qaeda, Hamas, the Iranian government and other Islamists results from the ideas of such contemporary radicals as Osama bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini, not from the Koran."

Well, according to *ME*, he gets this one WRONG, and many of the persons I talked about earlier disagree with his above statement.

Pipes presents the following arguments :

1) "Mild Islam: Like other sacred writings, the Koran can be mined for quotes to support opposing arguments [...] gentler passages from the Koran."

I can easely destroy that argument, but all my documentation on the matter is in French. I speaked of "takia" in my previous message ; the following documentary explains everything about those "gentle Koran passages" and Walid Shoebat is part of it...

ISLAM - DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS

TRAILER - ISLAM : WHAT THE WEST REALLY NEEDS TO KNOW

FULL MOVIE (FRENCH SUBTITLES)

Yes, anti-jihad theologians can be wrong some times, Pipes was wrong on that one, but hey, even if the jihadists distort the "real" Islam, they still represent a heck of a big treat and their doctrines MUST be faught ! (So it all boils down to the same thing.)

Oh, and I spoke about western colonisation's role, well, this part of the ducumentary explains further...

ISLAMIC CONSTISTANCY



2) "Mild Muslims: There have been occasions of Muslim moderation and tolerance."

Muslim actions don't affect in any way Islamic law and dictrines, which - according the Holy Koran - were never created and will never be destroyed/are ETERNAL.



Yup, and it's nice to see some of these folks take on Spencer...

Spencer vs. Armstrong : http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/ ... _Armstrong



Almost, almost.



Because I'm not willing to stand by Robert Spencer ? You just invented that ?



Good God, you want to claim that NOW, the border is secure, with a PDF from 2003 ?

Woooooush ! Give me a break !

   

ROTFL

Looks like someone's starting to get upset. It isn't any fun being proven wrong, is it?

That is such a ridiculously stupid comment I'm not going to go anywhere near it.



My response to your response:

1) All the Muslims I know also believe that Al Qaida and all the other Islamic sects that preach violence and hatred are full of shit. So, for any credit you believe is due to you for that belief, is also due to my Muslim friends as well.

2) Still allegedly a Christian demonination. Still spreading hate. The argument you're trying to use is something the rest of us would describe as a difference without distinction.

3) People like yourself do more than enough to deligitimize your faith. Furthermore, aren't you the wingnut trying to deligitimize Islam?



According to the belief of the WBC, Muslim suicide bombers are actually doing god's work when they bomb American soldiers.

The point is very simple: it's just been demonstrated that Islam doesn't have a monopoly on crazies taking religion out of context. You can deny that if you want, but at your own peril. It's factual.



Well, according to Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad (an actual Muslim scholar), proper Muslims aren't allowed to spread belief in Islam by the sword.



You're the one who claimed that there was only one Christian group like the Muslim groups you've been citing as evidence for your claims. In case you didn't notice, I've proven you wrong.



They find it as surely as people like Osama Bin Laden (and, in fact, yourself) find such things in the Koran.



COMPLETELY different, huh? If we were to accept your view, Christianity and Islam would be about as different as Islam and Nazism.

Allow me to direct you to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Here they cite the various verses of the Bible (858 in all) that either involve violence or, if we do as you do with the Koran and take them out of context, advocate violence.

Tell me more about how different Islam and Christianity are.



And, as the photos I posted demonstrate, according to your same logic (which you yourself dismiss as "ridiculous") Christianity and Nazism are connected more closely than we think as well.



He converted to Islam after he committed a mail bombing that killed three people. Until that time, he was an Aryan.

This proves nothing about Islam.

Fool.



Once again, holding a state absolutely responsible for the behaviour of individual citizens is an untenable position, especially when those citizens are demonstrably defying the state in order to do so, and especially when you aren't willing to apply it universally.

This all just comes down to how you thought that 9/11 was beautiful (and according to your logic, you do).



So then you're with Michael Moore on his theory that Bush is helping the Saudi royal family cover up their alleged complicity in 9/11?

If you're siding with Michael Moore -- all right then.



Wrong. Precisely the opposite is true. The dark ages didn't end in Europe until after Christian forces defeated encroaching Muslims in Hungaria. Yet, the Ottomans continued to occupy large portions of Europe, and the Western World just happened to benefit from the various things that the Muslims had brought with them.

Not only are you a poor student of common logic, you're a poor student of history, too.

Now, other than this, why so little to say about why one of the world's only "experts" on Islam agrees with me, and not with you?

Furthermore, why your insistence that none of the world's experts on Islam are actually Muslims?

What about these folks? Seem pretty expert to me.

http://www.islamonline.net/



Interesting. Let's take a look at a portion of Armstrong's review that Spencer didn't address:



Spencer runs through all his typical talking points (they're apologists, they're slaves to political correctness, I'm only saying what Islam is) yet fails to respond when someone engages his writing based on the facts.

Yet Spencer claims that no one challenges him on the facts. Ramadan clearly did. Where's the response, Robert? Maybe the next time Durandal sees mr Spencer, he'll ask.



You tried to claim that you didn't cite Robert Spencer, or Jihad watch. But who posted the link?



Good God, you want to claim that NOW, the border is secure, with a PDF from 2003 ?

Woooooush ! Give me a break ![/quote]

Let's just take a step back and look at this:

-The PDF, dated 2003 states the Pakistani border is secure.

-In 2007, you can't demonstrate otherwise, and have failed to make a credible attempt to do so.

I don't know if you're a glutton for punishment or if you just think that sticking out in the savage ass kicking I'm dealing you long enough to get the last word will make you the winner of the argument, but frankly, watching you try to dissemble your own faulty logic is actually worth the wasted time.

And trust me: you are a waste of my time.

   

they all need white feathers
http://www.cafepress.com/freepioneer.128284470

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next