Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Hehe, I keep pounding then !

FUNDEMENTALIST MUSLIMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFLICTS ON THE PLANET !



Is this a WORLD problem ???



Really ? Not me, most of the ones I know dislike Al-Qaida, but I also many ones who like Al Qaeda and/or chair their aims.

And you compare a couple of protestors from a single Babtist church to a worldwide terrorist mouvement that killed thoulsands of persons anf regroups thoulsands of fighters ? You could not be farther from common sense.



Still not comparable to the thoulsands of wahabi/kahamenist mosques scattered all over the world.



Yup, in a way that does NOT respect Christianism, while their freak muslim pseudo-equivalent are completely respecting Islam, I'll argue on that later.



Without people like me, my faith would only be practiced in secrecy on this earth, because without people like me who stoud up against islam for centuries, the whole world would be Muslim.



Half-true half-false, I'm not a wingnut but I am certainly deligitimazing Islam because it is not legitimate.



"Demonstarted" ? With pictures. I'll go into the texts with you a little more down ; my only problem is that almost all of my texts are in French, so it will require cooperation from your part.



[sarcasm] Please stop scaring me. [/sarcasm]



Like if I cared.

Between Muhamad and Hazrat Mirza Tahir, I'm going to go with Muhamad, thanks.



Yes, and probably that the only large-scale "Christian" terrorist organistation comparable to their muzzi equivalent is the LRA in Uganda.



So it is like I said : there is probably only one "Christian" organisation on earth that is like the tons and tons of muzzi terrorist organisation that flourrish on this planet.

Even if you can find a second and a third one, this number remains uncomparable to the global terror emanating from Islam.



Oh, and aparently, the LRA has ceased/reduced its activities (but I won't say I'm 100 % sure they really did), UNLIKE all the muzzi terrorist organisations on this planet.





In case YOU didn't notice, I've proven YOU wrong.

And when I think about it, what's the point with the Westboro Baptist church and Nazism ? Because I posted pics of islamo-nazis, but not plain islamists that live in our cities and rejoyce themselves whan they see useful idiots like P_R.

"You wanna play the picture game?" Here we go.



































































Please find a verse that orders White Christians to kill every person that is different. Go ahead, find it.

The Koran, even if *some* verses order to fight to defend you, many if not most jihad verses clearly order Muslims to kill infidels for the cause of Allah, without any notion of "selfe-defence" ; and denying that won't get you anywear in this debate.

I have been vaguely talking of "takia" for a while, now it's time to plunge into islamic thoelogy. Excuse my lack of english info on the

La Takia

The Islam : What the West Needs to Know documentary I have posted in my last message goes into more details with explenations from Walid Shoebat (I repeat : an ex-terrorist and islamic student).

==========

La Takia consiste à faire croire aux infidèles que les Mususlmans ont des bonnes intentions et que les terroristes musulmans n'agissent pas au nom de l'Islam et que si ils le font ils ont tord.

Il y a corrélation entre les versets de la Mekke (pacifiques et tolérants) et les versets de Medine (violents et intolérants). Ceux de la Mekke ayant été "revelés" au tout début de la "révélation" lorsque Mahomet n'avait pas encore suffisamment de fidèles, il n'avait pas d'autre choix que de montrer un bon visage pour assurer l'extension. Ceux de Medine en revanche ayant été "revelés" lorsque Mahomet était en position de force, il avait les moyens d'imposer l'Islam par la force et donc les versets "révélés" sont violent et intolérants envers ceux qui refusaient de se soumettre (Islam signifie soumission).

En fait l'Islam se contente de reproduire le modèle de Mahomet dans tous les domaines y compris dans celui de la conquête :

>>> Mahomet s'est servi des versets de la Mekke lorsqu'il etait en position de faiblesse, l'Islam continue de se servir des versets de la Mekke lorsqu'il est en position de faiblesse.

>>> Mahomet s'est servi de ceux de Medine lorsqu'il était en position de force, l'Islam continue d'appliquer les versets de Medine lorsqu'il est en position de force.

Mais en véritée, les versets de la Mekke sont carrément abrogés par les versets de la Medine...

2.106 Si nous abrogeons un verset quelconque ou que nous le faisons oublier, nous en apportons un meilleur ou un semblable. Ne sais-tu pas qu’Allah est omnipotent ?

16.101 Quand Allah remplace un verset par un autre – Et Allah sait mieux ce qu'Il fait descendre – ils disent : "Tu n'es qu'un menteur". Mais la plupart d'entre eux ne savent pas.

La doctrine des versets abrogeant (nasikh) et des versets abrogés (mansukh), c'est Allah lui même qui l'a révélée !

L’Islam autorise certaines omissions, falsifications ou mensonges a propos du Coran lorsque cela a pour but de servir les intérêts de l'Islam...

Quand le messager d'Allah envoyait un de ses compagnons en mission, il lui disait : "Donne des informations, ne crée pas d'aversion envers la religion dans leur esprit, témoigne-leur de la douceur et ne soit pas dur avec eux." (récit d'Abu Masa, Muslim XIX 4297)

La Takia (signifie "dissimulation") est un devoir des Musulmans quand ils sont en situation d'inferiorité = de minorité. Si les Musulmans ne suppriment pas les versets abrogés de la Mekke, c'est car ils sont utiles pour la Takia.

==========

Busted.



"Advocate" violence ??? LOL

Just as war documentaries from past conflicts ADVOCATE violence.

The Bible - for the most part - ADVOCATES violence of past violent conflicts. It is a story, like Le petit chaperon rouge, in wich the wolf violently swallows the little girl that wears a red scarf. ADVOCATING violence is not INCITING violence.

But it is true that in the Old Testament their are many advocations of inciting to violence, but this violence concerns only Canaanites, and Canaanites don't exist anymore, so the orders to violence verses from your Skeptic's Annotated Bible don't apply anymore.



Well, they are different, but share many things in common. For example, in both religions, the whife must be submitted to her husband.

But it goes further than that, you see, because the notion of "submission" are VERY different from one religion to the other.

=> Here is the Christian women submission :

The Marriage Bed - Headship / The Marriage Bed - Submission

More here : LE CHRISTIANISME ET LES FEMMES

=> And here is the Muslim women submission :



The above image was taken from Islamic Thinkers Society... CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO VIEW THEIR MUST-SEE WEBSITE :



Wife Beating : Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You

Quote of the above link :

" Verse 4:34 of the Qur'an is a challenge for contemporary Muslim apologists in the West.

The three major translations of the Qur'an from Arabic into English by Muslims were completed early in the 20th century. Though working independently, each translator came to the same conclusion concerning verse 4:34 - namely that it commands husbands to beat their wives in a manner that causes pain - if the circumstances agree. This agrees with the traditional interpretation that Islamic clerics have held since the time of Muhammad.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess at what Muhammad's position on wife-beating actually was, since the Hadith records at least one instance in which he struck his own (underage) wife in the chest while she was lying in bed. This would be Aisha, his favorite wife, and he did so because she left the house without his permission. Now, if he treated his favorite wife this way, one can only imagine how he might have acted toward his other wives, concubines and slaves. "

More here : LES FEMMES ET L'ISLAM

Very different.



Missed.

Even if many dumbasses try to reaproach them, they are extream opposites, Hitler himsefl said it.

The following quote was taken from a MUSLIM website.



RADIO ISLAM - HITLER ET LES MUSULMANS : http://www.radioislam.org/hitler/islam.htm



So what ? He still thinks that Islam can do a better job than Nazism ! You can't deny that !



It proves that you "neo-Nazi sects like the Final Solution Skins" argument can be applied to BOTH Islam and Christianity, while super-large neo-Nazi organisations like the Hizballah can only be applied to islamic organisations !



Geez, you'v got a short memory don't you ?!

Reminder : The Saudi top cleric orders Muslims living in the UK to "live in a state within a state [until you take over] and much much more sweet stuff...

Source : Dispatches - Undercover Mosque



Yes and no, but generally no.

It is true that the US presidency has too often ignored Saudi-caused terror - for obvious reasons - and decided to use apeasement instead.

But when Michael Moore says both are working hand in hand, he's totally wrong, as explained here :

Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 - Saudi Departures from the United the States



Funny you say that, because I'm not the Islam-lover here !



I like that one.

Les racines islamiques de la civilisation occidentale...

http://www.hautes-tensions.com/archives ... cident.htm

La civilisation arabo-musulane est un mythe...

http://www.hautes-tensions.com/archives ... e_385.html



I'm a poor student of your revisionist history, that's for sure !



Never said that, Al-Banna was an expert, Mahmoud Ahmedinajad is an expert.





Sounds like CAIR.

Anti-CAIR and CAIR Watch

The enemy is inside our gates.



So the muzz only faught to defand themselves in its beggenings.

That's too easy, I know that argument by heart.

So the muzzis also conquered all of Arabia, then Syria, Egypt, Nubia, the Magrheb, Mesopotamia, and Pesria in order to defend themselves from attacking ennemies, right ?

Of course, at the very very beggening, muzzis were on the defensive, but their religion's main doctrine - conquer the world by force - was established when they were strong enough to destroy everything in its path.

Busted once again.



To date, yes !



What's you point ? You are trying to be funny when you certainly didn't get what the book is all about.



Yes, he's quite good, but not perfect.



He's wrong one one point, but not necessarily because he desagrees with me, just because he dosen't get takia at all.



Absolutely.

And even if he has a lot of knowloge, he does not hold absolute truth.



Hehehe, and the worst is that your so sure aboute yourself.

Look, I can do the same :

According to you WALID SHOEBAT is one of the world's top experts on Islam.

> I posted a documentary prouving that Walid Shoebat (1) Disagrees with you and (2) destroys the arguments in your favor.

> But then, woups, you post tons of links disagreeing with Walid Shoebat ; therefor saying he's wrong.

SHOEBAT, "the expert" wrong. Buddy, you can't even keep your own ridiculous logic straight ! And YOU want to challenge the opinion of someone YOU YOURSELF labelled as an expert ???

Reminds me of " Isn't it cool how I made you argue my point for me ? "



Re : Suck it up, priceless.



Being yourself a result of colonization, you are extreamly hyporcitical.



WOW, NOW YOU REVEAL YOURSELF P_R !!!

Daring to take Tariq Ramadan as a source. OMG.

E-nough - Ramadan arrested after insulting policewoman

UN-BE-LE-VE-BLE.

>>>>> This guy is a Member of the Muslim Brotherhood (but he is not on the terror front, but on the information/media one), and his uncle (Al-Banna) is THE FOUNDER OF THE EGYPTIAN TERRORIST ORGANISATION.

We all see where your heart belongs P_R... with the islamo-fascists !

« Le fondateur des Frères musulmans dont il est question dans le clip, Al-Banna, est l'oncle et le père spirituel des frères Ramadan, dont l'un d'eux, Tariq, est conseiller de Tony Blair (shows to what extent we have been infiltrated). »

Click on image...

(yeah again this image... you force me to repeat myself once again)

Here is a written resumé of the above presentation : Nazislam

Here's what Tariq Ramadan thinks of stoning...

« L'islamiste Tariq Ramadan approuve la lapidation, l'amputation, la charia.

Le Frère Musulman de Genève, spécialiste en "takia", avait jeté le trouble dans les esprits avec son appel à un "moratoire" sur les châtiments corporels imposés par la charia. Mais la fameuse université Al-Azhar du Caire s'oppose à ce moratoire et oblige Tariq Ramadan à s'expliquer. Et l'héritier d'Al-Banna est explicite : "Je n'ai jamais remis en cause les textes [imposant les châtiments corporels] et leur caractère définitif". »

« Ramadan loue la République islamique d’Iran - où se pratique la lapidation et la flagellation des femmes - comme "le pays musulman le plus en avance sur le droit des femmes" et présente le Soudan esclavagiste et génocidaire comme un "modèle d’alternative économique et culturel". »

Sources : Le paradoxe du dit "féminisme" musulman and Presse québécoise.



Good try, but I don't need to ask Spencer, because many other persons already destroyed him.

Here's a nice peice of debunking on Tariq Ramadan's revesionism : Les révisions du taré de Tariq !

And here is a documentary unveiling the truth on this member of the Muslim Brotherhood :

Ramadhan Charlatan



Oh yes, I can :

Friend or Foe : The War on Terror In Afghanistan may be won or lost in Pakistan

Questions arise about the West's Policy towards Pakistan

Global Security - Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA)





Now I wonder who's starting to get upset. It isn't any fun being proven wrong, is it

BTW, you are NOT a waste of my time, you are my HOBBY.

   

WOW

   

Interesting what some people consider an intellectual triumph.

Interesting -- except that it requires a fundamental re-casting of various world conflicts in order to blame them on fundamentalist Islam.

For example, the conflict in Sudan has nothing to do with Islam. It is entirely ethnic in nature. The government has turned loose janjaweed militias in order to keep a particularly militant ethnic group under its control. As a matter of fact, the Darfur conflict is nothing more than a smaller microcosm of the typical North/South conflict in the region, which has historically been typified by the South raiding the North for slaves. To this day, southern Sudanese still call northern Sudanese "slave", often to their face.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm

In Kosovo, it was non-Muslim serbs and croats committing genocide against Muslims. I'd like you to explain how that is proof of Islam being violent, instead of proof that all humans are violent.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistor ... bosnia.htm

The tension in Israel primarily has political causes. When the British were still in control of Israel/Palestine, it was actually promised to three different groups of people -- Jews (in the Balfour declaration), the eventual kings of Iraq (in return for starting an Arab uprising against the Ottomans in WWI), and to the Palestinians.

History will also remind you that most of the outright wars against Israel were fought by secular Arab states, not religious fundamentalist states.

As was the case with the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. Under Suharto, Indonesia was a secular state, and the invasion was actually a land grab, taking control of territory that the Portugese had just vacated. By the way, the United States and UK supported Indonesia in that little endeavour.

China, as with Falun Gong, also oppresses Islam, and any militant action there is in reaction to that oppression.

Furthermore, you are also ignoring the various conflicts in the world today that have nothing to do with Islam. Allow me to name a few for you:

-Chinese threats to annex Taiwan
-Chinese occupation of Tibet
-Feirce tension between North and South Korea
-Haiti
-War on drugs in Columbia
-Georgia/Akhabazia conflict
-Internal tensions in Moldova
-Internal tensions in Macedonia
-Continuing conflict between Hindus and Buddhist/Christian Tamils in Sri Lanka
-Internal conflict in Myanmar
-Internal tensions within the Ukraine
-Constant tensions between the United States and Cuba
-Ongoing tensions in Nicaragua
-Border tensions between Ecuador and Peru

Funny how your little map doesn't recognize any of this.



First off, we've already seen how you interact with Islam. Do you think peaceful Muslims are going to spend much time with someone who is bending over backwards to mis-categorize Islam as violent? Not many. Certainly, those who are prepared to meet violence or oppression with violence will engage you. Others are worried about perpetuating a stereotype.

In reality, the WBC is merely a microcosm of a brand of Christianity that is becoming more militant, and more violent. A Christian bombing an abortion clinic (as has often happened) is also an act of terrorism. So were the thousands of lynchings of black men carried out by the KKK. The KKK, in particular, continue to have thousands of members today.

Christian Identity groups like the Church of the Creator and Church of Jesus Christ Christian have even established militias and begun training for the "race war" in which true Christians (caucasians by necessity) will eliminate all the other races, whom they believe were created by Satan in order to destroy god's chosen people.

There are thousands of these individuals, and thousands of Neo-Nazis as well. Islam does not own a monopoly on hateful crazies. You yourself are proof of that.

I'd like you to explain why it is that Islam isn't legitimate. It seems to me that terrorism, for individuals like yourself, is nothing more than a mask you try to disguise your religious hatred for Muslims with. Thus, the reason why you ignore so many conflicts at play in the world right now in order to claim Islam is the #1 cause of conflict in the world (it isn't, and it isn't even the cause of half). Also why people such as yourself refuse to ignore activists within the Muslim community who speak out against violence committed in the name of Islam.

$1:

$1:

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

Like if I cared.

Between Muhamad and Hazrat Mirza Tahir, I'm going to go with Muhamad, thanks.

[color=blue]Except that Hazrat Mirza Tahir was a Muslim scholar who based his work off the original Islamic scriptures. Hazrat Mirza Tahir knew more about Islam than you, or any of the so-called "experts" who you insist are the world's only Islam experts.



Wrong again. Remember the KKK? Still exist.



Wrong again. The neo-Nazis won enough of the vote in Germany to be allotted seats in the German legislative body:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/jou ... 79,00.html

They very much can wage wars and win elections.



Well, we've already debased your little map, and proven that Islam isn't even close to being the #1 source of conflict in the world today.

In fact, adjusted for the power of the states involved, China would closely follow the United States as numbers 1 and 2. Neither of those countries are Islamic.



ROFTL You really think so? You aren't even smart enough to know the difference. Need proof? Just watch:



The point about the WBC, Nazism, the KKK and the Christian Identity movement is that Islam does not have a global monopoly on hateful and violent crazies. You apparently aren't smart enough to recognize that, or too dishonest to admit to it. You may take your pick.



I'd say you've proven that you're hateful enough to catalogue hundreds of pictures on photobucket just to use to try and catergorize Islam as violent and dangerous. This being said, I can actually rebut all of this with a single photo. Watch this:



Those are Muslims holding a candlelight vigil for 9/11 victims. I already know how you're going to respond to this, and I've taken the liberty of forwarding your expected response to Hwacker. I'm sure he'll confirm it for us after you've made it.



I just provided you with a decent list of such passages. Go ahead and read them. Just remember that anyone who interprets them as proof that Christianity is hateful and violent is only interpreting them as you, yourself would have them do so.



I don't need to deny that. There are enough actual experts on Islam who are more than willing to do so for me:

http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_D ... ndex.shtml



If you say so, frenchie.



Not just in the Old Testament, either. But thank you for admitting that I am right.



Admitting that I am right again. Thank you. Now, hilarity ensues:



And now, he tries to pull the "they mistreat their women" card. Well, to that, there is plenty to speak to in Christianity, as well:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible7.htm

If you take all of that out of context, or even literally (as many people do), the Bible tells us to do all sorts of sick, twisted, and outright evil things to women. You gain no traction on this issue.



Yet Hitler exploited various religious beliefs, and used various religious motifs found within Catholicism, in particular.

Furthermore, Hitler's anti-semitism found most traction with Germans who had been taught anti-semitism in the Christian Church.



A terrorist converts to Islam after committing a terrorist act, and you think that's proof that Islam is violent? That's like suggesting that milkshake mix is frosty before you freeze it.



Not true. Already proven untrue. This is just another example of your desperation to apply a double-standard.



And Saudia Arabia is a secular state. Dummy.



It's funny how you wrap up that little bit by resorting to racist motifs. Bravo.



Next time you drink coffee, smoke tobacco, or fire a gun, thank a Muslim.



Who's revising history here? Who's the one who tried to cite Bosnia/Herzegovina as proof that Islam is violent when it was Christians killing Muslims?



Actually, he isn't. He's actually a secular leader who has to appease extremist Muslim clerics.





Sounds like CAIR.[/quote]

And people like yourself hate CAIR because they won't just roll over and disappear for you. It's actually a bit of a shame you people are so good at inciting them as well.



No. You're the enemy inside the gates of our tolerant society.



Except that Muhammad's teachings were embraced by the people of Medina, who were subsequently attacked by Mecca, and then continually attacked by other surrounding cities. The historical record verifies this.

Then again, given your personal love of revisionist history...



What's you point ? You are trying to be funny when you certainly didn't get what the book is all about.[/quote]

Well, all the countries listed have soldiers in Afghanistan right now.

America is far from alone. That is simply a fact, and idiots like yourself simply aren't smart enough to recognize it.



I'll remind you that you cited Pipes. Stand by your source. According to Pipes -- me: right. You: wrong. Live with it.



I said that Wajid Shoebat has a valuable perspective on Islam having been an actual Muslim. I said that he qualifies as an expert, having lived the life. He knows some of the things that are wrong with Islam. But the real experts can also explain to us what is not wrong with Islam. There are many of both.

Just like Christianity.

   

WOW is right.



There is nothing wrong with Islam. The problem lies with the violent lunatics that have historically populated the area we call the Middle East. These people have always held violence as central to their culture and would be bombing, controlling and killing in the name of Buddha or Confucius if those religions had taken root there instead.

   

[/quote]

I think the killing in the name of Islam is something that is wrong with Islam as much as killing in the name of Christ is something that is wrong with Christianity.

Other than that, I very much agree with you on your other points.

   

Now, for the rest of Durandal's garbage:

Not really. As the descendent of a post-colonial immigrant to Canada, I am hardly the result of colonization.

Aside from that, I recognize that colonialism is generally good for the colonizers, but bad for the colonized, which is why I personally support poverty relief for Canada's aboriginal population. But you don't know anything about that.



You mean the same Tariq Ramadan who was refused a US visa for alleged donations to groups in France and Switzerland who allegedly have ties to Hamas?

Personally, when the word "alleged" appears more than twice in a proposition, I become instantly skeptical. Here's an idea: instead of alleging something, these people prove it for a change.

Although I will personally admit that Ramadan's claims that Iraq was invaded to defend Israel are laughable at best.



:roll: Islamo-fascists.

Oh, no! The Muslim Brotherhood wants to restore the Caliphate! Everyone run and hide! They oppose violence as a means to conflict resolution! That's... somehow... scary... ?

If you weren't so engrossed with intellectual bankrupt "scholars" like Robert Spencer and outright fascists like the folks at the anti-CAIR site, you might actually be motivated to learn a thing or two about the Muslim brotherhood, instead of simply disinforming people.



Destroyed Spencer? I already knew that.





A random New York financier, the Heritage Foundation, and the self-proclaimed experts at Global Security, with no credible evidence, suggest that the border isn't secure, and you take it as the gospel truth.



If you were slightly smarter, you would realize one thing:

The provinces they cited as proof the border is insecure are all securely under government administration.



Dummy.





Well, you would know if it was any fun being proven wrong a lot better than I would. It's happened to me so rarely, and has yet to happen here.





Really? Am I your hobby? Or is spouting your Robert Spencer-penned racist talking points your lobby?

   

I'm back !

Islamists killing other muzzis and non-muzzis (Animists).

Same in Algeria (exept for Animists), 125 000 dead only in the 90’. You will tell me the conflict in Algeria has nothing to do with Islam ?



But I agree it’s not all about Islam, as I have said here :

http://enpleindanslmille.blogspot.com/2 ... -lonu.html



Yeah the Serbs were not always nice, and they were even worst than muzzis (which are far from being angels themselves ).

http://rapidshare.de/files/34484698/Kos ... ration.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeC5zbA3F-U

Never mind the centuries of Muslim occupation the Christian people of South-East Europe endured (does not justify, but still explains).



And behind these politics hide religions.



Yup, and the Arabs eventually got about 75 % of "Palestine" -- e.i. Transjordan.

And BTW, here's a link that explains further on all those "promises" :

http://palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_britis ... _arabs.php



Yes, their leaders were not always to keen to hard-core islamists.

But the notion of "secularity" is VERY relative. Some researches made in Egypt are advancing that 97 % of the women in the country are clit-less. It's hard to know how many really are, but it's sure that millions of women in Egypt would enjoy some REAL secularity, if you see what I mean...

http://precaution.ch/wp/?p=279

Anyway, as we see with Hamas and Hizballah, the "Muslim" aspect it taking over the "Arab" aspect of the Arab/Muslim war against Israel.



The war is more and more about religion and less and less about politics.

http://www.jerusalemonline.com/4israel.asp



Well I didn't say ALL countries on earth are caused by Islam, but that most are. The fact that tons of conflicts have nothing to do with Islam changes nothing to what I said.



Communism ; an other VERY VERY dangerous ideology that must be faught, just as Islam.



In the case you haven't noticed, the maps focuses on Islam-related conflicts, dumbass.

I understand it is quite hard to compress all of this on a single map on or even on a single video, so I have SIX pages, with TONS of links and DOZENS of videos here...

LE DJIHAD GLOBAL EN BREF



Give me a breack with your "secularity".

Indonesia Hunts Down Christians Over 'Anti-Islam' Film...

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?c ... 9766&par=0

And when I think we refer to indonesia as a "moderate" Muslim country.



And because the UK and US support something, then it is ALWAYS a good thing ? Nope.



Well, I spend 30 hours a week with Muslims, and they all know I don't have a very positive idea of their religion, it does not stop me to live peacefully with them (because thay are peacefull with me).

But I don't get your point... you want me to start having muzzi friends, meet them outside work and school... become a multiculti-fanatic like you... or convert to Islam ?



LOL, you have it exactly backwards : I am prepared to meet the violence and oppression of fundamentalist Islam with violence.





Hizballah, Hamas, Muzzi brotherhood, the Baath party and Fatah have HUNDREADS OF MILLIONS OF MEMBERS/SUPPORTERS TODAY.



Oh yeah the nasty Evangelicals.

And taking the WBC as an example of Evangelism makes me >>>



So what ? They do so against Biblical orders, so this argument is worth NOTHING.



As if I had said such a thing.



Yup, with 55 000 Christians killed each year in the world by muzzis for the crime of beleiving in Jesus, and in a crumbling civilisation, what should I do ? Put my head in the sand like you ?



I repeat : find me the "biblical back-up" for these beleifs. Find it.



Ah, I ignore them ? Because I didn't speak about them I ignore them ? LOL

Not at all, these guys are very brave in my opinion, but, sadly, they just can't and won't change the course of things, because the islamic extreamists are too powerfull and too numerous.



Bla bla bla.

At the death of Muhammad, there were about 60 versions of the Koran, and it's his successor, Abou Bakr, that ordered them destroyed and made the official Koran we know today, the same Koran that orders jihad against unbeleivers.

As for experts this and experts that, I'm getting tired, what about you and me ? You bring the info to back your claims and I do the same.

It's useless to simply say "X person did Y thing and says Z things". You and me.



I repeat : Hizballah, Hamas, Muzzi brotherhood, the Baath party and Fatah have HUNDREADS OF MILLIONS OF MEMBERS/SUPPORTERS TODAY.

The KKK is just a little reject compared to the organisations listed above.



Interesting. They won a couple of seats. From the article :

"the result was as bad as everyone had feared."

Humm, so they are feared by everyone. Well, that's even more interesting ; they have LOTS of opposition, they won't go too far, they just can't.

Again from the article :

"Germany's neo-Nazis [...] winning 7.3 % of the vote"

7 %, and for Hamas, it was something like... err... 70 %. Whatever it was, the Fatah had most of the other votes, and both are neo-Nazi.

UNCOMPARABLE.



I'm waiting for some german neo-Nazis Katyushas to pound Israel.

And if they start doing large-scale stuff like islamic terrorist organisations, it won't be long that we will put all our efforts to destroy them. (so why don't we do the same with islamo-nazis ? lack of courage...)



Because it orders my death because I am a Christian.



Man, I think you don't understand me : THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS.

My point is that the bad ones are much more numerous than we think and that the bad ones don't distort Islam.



You guessed it.





And it's not just "Palestinians"...

http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/mideast/ ... he_USA.pps







Oh, no problem then. I'v read them, and found NO justification for the acts of the KKK and neo-Nazis.

After that I compared with the Koran, here things were VERY different.

La Bible est-elle aussi violente que le Coran?

Violences : islam et christianisme

Entre Mahomet et Jésus

Islam et Christianisme: des traditions équivalentes?

And, most of all, look for "Mythe PC: la Bible est aussi violente que le Coran" here...

Le Coran: un livre guerrier

The above links, especially the last one, explain how the New Testament does not push beleivers to violence, while it is exactly the contrary for the Koran.



Takia takia takia. Lovely takia.



"Frenchie"... what does that has to do with Jihad and Islam ?

Is this supposed to be an insult ? You insult me because I am a “Frenchie” ???

What a good example of respect and tolerance you are !



Not at all.



The fact that you ALWAYS heve to refer to Christianity in order to defend Islam is just a proof of your argumentation's weakness. You are unable to speak about Islam without refering to other religions.

And there are plenty to speak in Islam as well...

Islam Watch - Islam Under Scrutiny by Ex-Muslims



Yep, OUT OF CONTEXT. And tons of the verses from that site you posted are from the OLD Testament. OLD.

Actually, the Bible says : "MEN, LOVE YOUR WOMEN AS MUCH AS YOU LOVE YOURSELF, A MAN THAT LOVES HIS WOMEN LOVES HIMSELF."

That's for Christianity, now, Islam. You haven't responded directly to what I posted, so I re-post the same thing :



The above image was taken from Islamic Thinkers Society... CLICK ON THE IMAGE BELOW TO VIEW THEIR MUST-SEE WEBSITE :



Wife Beating : Good Enough for Muhammad, Good Enough for You

Quote of the above link :

" Verse 4:34 of the Qur'an is a challenge for contemporary Muslim apologists in the West.

The three major translations of the Qur'an from Arabic into English by Muslims were completed early in the 20th century. Though working independently, each translator came to the same conclusion concerning verse 4:34 - namely that it commands husbands to beat their wives in a manner that causes pain - if the circumstances agree. This agrees with the traditional interpretation that Islamic clerics have held since the time of Muhammad.

Fortunately, we don't have to guess at what Muhammad's position on wife-beating actually was, since the Hadith records at least one instance in which he struck his own (underage) wife in the chest while she was lying in bed. This would be Aisha, his favorite wife, and he did so because she left the house without his permission. Now, if he treated his favorite wife this way, one can only imagine how he might have acted toward his other wives, concubines and slaves. "



Yep, but as the quote I posted demonstrated, he had a lot of compassion for Islam and little with Christianity. You seem not to understand, so I repost it :



Of course he was still supposedly a Christian, but that was only to make sure he remains popular.

What about Hitler, wasn't he a Christian?

From this wabsite (CLICK ON IMAGE) :



Quote from the above website :

"So, you think the Ku Klux Klan is bad? So do we, but... Put the Numbers in Perspective...

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Klu Klux Klan has in the last 50 years."

And you DARE consider both as equal.



The Catholic Church ; being an Evangelical Zionist, you can imagine that I think the Cathos are not the best example regarding the Jews.

But still, allegations regarding the Catholic Church and the Jews are often false (remember “Amen” ?)...

Pie XII et les Juifs

Le silence de Pie XII



No, my point is that the guy is an ex-leader of a Neo-nazi party that said that the Nazi aims – exept from white total supremacy – can only be achieved by Islam. You missed everything after the first sentence of the queote. Here it is again, to refresh your memory :

"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.' "



You are so stuck on stupid.

Back to America Alone :

"The Saudis, who are famously 'our friends', behead folks on a daily basis. In 2005, the kingdom beheaded six Somalis. What for ? Murder ? Rape ? Homosexuality ? No, it was worst than that : auto theft. They’d been convicted and served five-year sentences but at the end thereof the Saudi courts decided to upgrade their crime to a capital offense. Some two-thirds of those beheaded in Saudi Arabia are foreign nationals, which would be an unlikely criminal profile in any civilised state and suggests that the justice 'system' is driven by the Saudis’ contempt for non-Saudis as much as anything else."



http://www.steynstore.com/product28.html

Now here is a video about the guy that carries these executions, he’s not a terrorist, he, just a normal Muslim doing his normal job…

The Saudi government-appointed executioner for Mecca, Abdallah Al-Bishi

This video will help you make the difference between a “moderate” Muslim and an “extreamist” Muslim.



I don't drink coffe and don't smoke tobacco. For the gun, I will thank the Chinese for the powder and the Westerners for the innovation.

Here's more about all the great things the muzzis brought to the West (FREE BOOK)...

L'ISLAM ET LA PSYCHOLOGIE DU MUSULMAN



And Muslims killing Christians. And I did not focus on this conflict because I know that the muzzis are not the only responsible, it is only mentioned in the video/map because it is part of the greater jihad. A jihad in which, I remind you, fundamentalist muzzis are on the attack almost everywhere.

I know very well about the Balkans, and it is a shame what Christians did there. But hey, my uncle bombed the Orthodox Christians in 99'. Case solved. Now it's the Serbs that are suffering...

http://www.solidarite-kosovo.com/index.php



Ahmed-Jihad ?????







Here's more about this guy...LE NUCLÉAIRE IRANIEN.



above image from http://www.onlythefacts.ca/



Not much different from the clerics…





Typical.



LOL, that does not answer to what I said :

"So the muzzis also conquered all of Arabia, then Syria, Egypt, Nubia, the Magrheb, Mesopotamia, and Pesria in order to defend themselves from attacking ennemies, all the time, right ?"

But don't worry, I still have plenty of ammo.

Here is the letter Muhammad sent to the people of Oman, and it clearly demonstrates that he did so not to defend himself, but to convert them by force to his new peaceful religion :

"[...] Je vous appelle à l'Islam. Acceptez mon appel, et vous serez indemne. [...] Si vous vous identifiez à l'Islam, j'accorderai la puissance sur vous. Mais si vous refusez de vous identifier à l'Islam, votre puissance disparaîtra, mes chevaux camperont sur l'étendue de votre territoire et nous régnerons en votre royaume.

Signé : Mohamet, messager de Allah."

Complete version of the letter can be found here :

http://www.stop-islam.com/presentation_islam.pdf

And here is the orginal letter :





OK, you don't get it. It's demography.

Don't try to diss a book when you don't even know what it is all about.

Criticizing the title of the book won't get you anywhere. Forget about it.



No dude, no.

Pipes was wrong on the point you picked-up, and I have demonstrated so.

The fact that you don't want to debate about what pipes said demonstrates your uncapacity to argue.

You are so desperate that the only thing you can do is say "Pipes said it" ; unable to argue farther than that.



Bla bla bla.

You accuse me of citing Pipes and then not agree with him on ONE point, and then you do the same with Walid Shoebat.

You are sooooo busting yourself !

Hey, I can play your little game ... "According to SHOEBAT -- me: right. You: wrong. Live with it."



And YOUR COUNTRY is the result of colonisation.



Nah, I have provided a LOT more stuff which you ignore because there’s just nothing you can say.

But you won't get away so easily with using Tariq Ramadan as a source !

You think you can ignore all the info I have provided on this guy, but... OH NO... here it all come back at you ...


E-nough - Ramadan arrested after insulting policewoman

>>>>> This guy is a Member of the Muslim Brotherhood (but he is not on the terror front, but on the information/media one), and his uncle (Al-Banna) is THE FOUNDER OF THE EGYPTIAN TERRORIST ORGANISATION.

« Le fondateur des Frères musulmans dont il est question dans le clip, Al-Banna, est l'oncle et le père spirituel des frères Ramadan, dont l'un d'eux, Tariq, est conseiller de Tony Blair (shows to what extent we have been infiltrated). »

Click on image...

(yeah again this image... you force me to repeat myself once again)

Here is a written resumé of the above presentation : Nazislam

Here's what Tariq Ramadan thinks of stoning...

« L'islamiste Tariq Ramadan approuve la lapidation, l'amputation, la charia.

Le Frère Musulman de Genève, spécialiste en "takia", avait jeté le trouble dans les esprits avec son appel à un "moratoire" sur les châtiments corporels imposés par la charia. Mais la fameuse université Al-Azhar du Caire s'oppose à ce moratoire et oblige Tariq Ramadan à s'expliquer. Et l'héritier d'Al-Banna est explicite : "Je n'ai jamais remis en cause les textes [imposant les châtiments corporels] et leur caractère définitif". »

« Ramadan loue la République islamique d’Iran - où se pratique la lapidation et la flagellation des femmes - comme "le pays musulman le plus en avance sur le droit des femmes" et présente le Soudan esclavagiste et génocidaire comme un "modèle d’alternative économique et culturel". »

Sources : Le paradoxe du dit "féminisme" musulman and Presse québécoise.

Here's a nice peice of debunking on Tariq Ramadan's revesionism : Les révisions du taré de Tariq !

And here is a documentary unveiling the truth on this member of the Muslim Brotherhood :

Ramadhan Charlatan



Ouch. I'll play your game once again.

"According to you TARIQ RAMADAN is one of the world's top experts on Islam" because you have braught this to the debate :

Professor Tariq Ramadan has studied Islam at the University of Geneva and al-Azhar University in Cairo and is currently senior research fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford. The Messenger is easily the most scholarly and knowledgeable of these four biographies of Muhammad.

And then you say that his claims are LAUGHABLE AT BEST. So I'm gonna throw you what you have thrown to me :

"RAMADAN, 'the expert' wrong. Buddy, you can't even keep your own ridiculous logic straight ! And YOU want to challenge the opinion of someone YOU YOURSELF labelled as an expert ???"

Walid Shoebat, and now Tariq Ramadan ; that's your second time.



Islamic fascists.

Islamo-fascists.



No don't run and hide, dumbass, STAND AND FIGHT !

And BTW, an orgnisation callad Islamic "Thinkers" Society based in North America ALSO wants to restore the Caliphate ; here's an image from their website :



And that's from one of their demos...



But don't worry, "that's never gonna hapen".



Above, 8 months before Pearl Harbor, April 28, 1941.



Ayoye, the Muzzi Brotherhood OPPOSE VIOLENCE

WTF.

From this page you can see a documentary - which aired on the History Channel - concerning this terrorist organisation. Check for "Videos" on the left...

Screw Loose Change Video



Between RS and a guy that says the Muzzi Brotherhood opposes violence, I wonder who's intellectually bankrupted.



N'importe quoi.



No, destroyed Tariq Ramadan.



Ha, then the Pakistani govt. lets the MNA and Jamaat-e-Islami indoctrinate children in Madrassas (and subsequently carry-out ops in A-stan) ?

Heck, everyone knows the Taliban have safe heaven in Pakistan.

And BTW, the Pakistani Minister of the Interior was targeted last week-end by a suicide-bomber ; 20 killed and over 30 wounded.

Let me quote the BBC (Bolchevik Broadcasting Corporation) Muslim guy from Pakistan :



See, Musharaf has enough opposition so that members of his goverment get attacked by islamists and even enough opposition so that the persons working with foreign media consider the US-led war on terror as a hoax against Muslims.

Current events are just prouving me right.



Cool, they look like an army, all moving at the same time.

   

Durandal:

   

Thanks.

P_R, even Daniel Pipes agrees with ME that Tariq Ramadan lies :

http://ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=534

Ouch, that's gonna hurt you.

But hey, that's not the end, I'm having too much fun here.

Here's a debate that took place between the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace mayor of London (Ken Livingstone) and Daniel Pipes. Daniel Pipes sooooo blasted the multiculti-freak (sounds like P_R, doesn't it ?) mayor that the BBC finally decided not to show the debate, but somebody else did.

http://ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=466

http://ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=482

Now, all skirmishes apart, we have to focus on the main point of this debate : jihad/holy war in the koran.. does it orders violence only to defend yourself or also to submit the world to Islam ?

P_R says it is the first option because we can find some tolerant verses in the koran, so it's all up to islamists to decide what they shoul/should not do.

I say it's the second option, and I have many arguments to back-up my claims (the letter to the people of Oman is one of them... se my precedent post).

I can re-destroy P_R's argument with one thing : the "removing/remouved verse" (in Arab : "nasikh/mansukh") doctrine, which is an integral component of "Takia", also known as "Taqiyya" (it means "dissimulation"). A few messages ago, I posted an explanation, but P_R didn't even dare to comment on it, (for obvious reasons ). A copy-paste of the following link was posted in this previous message, and P_R still has not made a sensed response to it.

LA TAKIA

It's quite simple : the tolerant verses - from the tolerant very begennings of Islam (when it was still weak) - are DELETED by the very non-tolerant verses - from the non-tolerant Islam we know today (that arised with the victories of Muhammad over the kuffars).

Here is the proof that the older, tolerant verses are deleted. (note : "nous"/"we" indicates Allah and the angels)



Of course I posted the following documentary before, but I do so again, because it explains MUCH FURTHER the doctrine of takia-remouving/remouved verses, and also about things like "inner jihad". Must-see. It leaves no room to debunking (especially that Walid Shoebat -- an ex-terrorist jailed by Israel who latter lived in the US as a "simple militant Muslim", so he knows very well how to strike with terror and then "prove" that your religion is peaceful -- is talking a lot in it).

TRAILER - ISLAM : WHAT THE WEST REALLY NEEDS TO KNOW

FULL MOVIE (WITH FRENCH SUBTITLES)



And here are two selected parts of the movie :

ISLAM - DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS

ISLAMIC CONSTISTANCY

That being said, I have to admit that Islam CAN be peaceful (think of Soufism), but only if we ignore these vital parts of the islamic holy scriptures. In other words, Islam is NOT peaceful.

I know Islam, P_R ; I can take everything you throw at me.

   

Look, I know all of this is complicated to understand for you P_R, so here's an example of takia.





V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V


{ GENERATING TAKIA -- REVISIONISTS AND APOLOGISTS AT WORK }


V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V





See ? Not complicated !

   

Sure you can: by spitting up the same old garbage as before, pretending that even if it was garbage a week ago, it somehow isn't garbage now.

And apparently you do know Islam: that is, know the Islam that you choose to know, and deny the existence of any Islam other than extremist Islam. Any evidence of the existence of that other Islam bigots like you choose to dismiss as, essentially, "calculated ambiguity".

Which, ironically, is the exact same way that critics of Christianity treat those who speak out against violence or general hatefulness in the name of Christ. Funny, isn't it?

Well sorry, Durandal, but a bigot is a bigot, and no xenophobic blindfold in the world can change that for you. The sorry fact of the matter is that you, yourself, are no less obsessive and hateful as the "Islamists" you claim to despise.

So, I suppose I have two options on my plate: I could waste even more of my time (and, just to reiterate, you are a waste of my time) debunking you're garbage, or I could simply walk away from this "epic battle over the truth" (as I'm sure you yourself would like to consider it) remaining what I have been the entire time: the victor.

Because frankly, you can spout all the Robert Spencer-penned talking points about the "scourge of Islam" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that it's already been shown how razor-thin your garbage really is once a person gets down to cutting through it. All the hand-picked photos of Islamic extremists (and certainly, they do exist) that you've catalogued on your photobucket account don't change that.

At the end of the day, if you were smart enough to realize it -- and I don't think you are -- the facts regarding this argument are very simple:

-The Pakistan border is secure - proven
-Islam is not the cause of all the world's conflicts - proven
-Christianity can lay claim to just as many wingnuts as Islam, many of whom are no less dangerous than Islamic extremists - proven

That being said, it's clearly entirely safe for me to choose the latter of my two options: exit the field of battle as the victor. Which I shall do.

You and all the other Robert Spencers of the world can feel free to "calculate" that.

   

Sometimes we agree and at other times we don't. I'm going to try and stay on the sidelines for this one to spare the mods the 50-100 PMs from Iceowl demanding my bannishment. However - trust me when I say that the Pakistan border is NOT secure and any information you may have to the contrary IS incorrect.

   

False.



Duh... I guess ; and I never made such a claim !



False, as demonstrated above.



True.





The "victor" ? This all what you want, be the "victor" ?

OK friend, you are the "victor", you can flee now...



Not really, try something else to save your face.

   

Ah, one last thing buddy, you said that Spencer (and the ones that agree with him) is racist.

Explain how he can possibly be racist, because Islam is not a race but a cult !

Ignorant !

No, don't try to explain, you'll just screw yourself even more.

   

Who said anything about racist? Bigotry need not necessarily be racial.

Enjoy your own personal jihad all the same.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next