Pages: 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 39

Topic closed

2010-07-02 12:03:23
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2007/6298
rofl, that's brilliant. amazing source, amazingly produced/edited video.
Islamic apologist playbook.


Dismiss....Check
Deny
Ignore
I think you'll find it went more like: question validity of source, await answer. Once there is an answer as to why the source could be considered valid then we can move on from there.

"I think it's valid" is not a reason. Reasons have been given as to why the veracity and reliability of the source could be questioned. Now provide reasons why the source could be trusted or why this individual extremist gives any perspective on the views of the Muslim majority.
2010-07-02 12:03:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:

im such a bitch? you complain everywhere. a grown man crying like a little girl almost every-day about this or that... bitch, groan, moan, piss.

you posted the video to supplement an argument that london is becoming overtaken or somehow 'conquered' by islam. posting a video about jihadists (when imam's and clerics worldwide have pretty much denounced the jihad and said that the 'war on infidels' is nonsense) and then claiming that, because of some extremist and radical fringe-groups, lowing's point is in ANY way correct or credible...

dude you know yourself that you're just trolling and trying to stir up more shit with that. it adds nothing - so bogus.
This has little to do with extremists and more to do with Islamic culture of intolerance and violence.
2010-07-02 12:04:36
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

rofl, that's brilliant. amazing source, amazingly produced/edited video.
Islamic apologist playbook.


Dismiss....Check
Deny
Ignore
I think you'll find it went more like: question validity of source, await answer. Once there is an answer as to why the source could be considered valid then we can move on from there.

"I think it's valid" is not a reason. Reasons have been given as to why the veracity and reliability of the source could be questioned. Now provide reasons why the source could be trusted or why this individual extremist gives any perspective on the views of the Muslim majority.
60 minutes is more valid then any links any of you have posted.  you dont accept it, fine.  they just dont toss people on camera without doing shit tons of research.

so, therefore, YOU prove it wrong then.  or keep crying about it.  w/e.

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-02 12:05:42)

2010-07-02 12:04:49
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6730
see my last post, lowing.

and you don't have a point when discussing london because there is no "intolerance" or "violence". we co-exist peacefully.

and lol at that suggestion, usm. they do shit tons of research because they made a video? never seen loose change about 9/11 have you? pseudo-scientific, faux-factual bullshit. never seen a 60 minute party broadcast by the British National Party? they dress that up to make their cause look really credible, too. only we know better. why don't you about islam? jihadists and extremists - fine, that documents a fucked-up fringe of their religion. never seen the documentaries looking at 'jesus camps' raising american 8-year olds to be 'soldiers of god' against the 'spiritual enemy'? they're out there, go have a look. does that mean all of christianity is like that? if the logic doesn't work for your own religion/people, then surely that must raise the 'wait a minute...' flag?

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-02 12:06:36)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-07-02 12:08:58
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio
so here we go again.  the only true source is zeek.
2010-07-02 12:09:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:


rofl, that's brilliant. amazing source, amazingly produced/edited video.
Islamic apologist playbook.


Dismiss....Check
Deny
Ignore
I think you'll find it went more like: question validity of source, await answer. Once there is an answer as to why the source could be considered valid then we can move on from there.

"I think it's valid" is not a reason. Reasons have been given as to why the veracity and reliability of the source could be questioned. Now provide reasons why the source could be trusted or why this individual extremist gives any perspective on the views of the Muslim majority.
It is valid because the information is factual. Period

WHat you say might be true if the source was not backing itself up with references and facts...As it is, it does. It addresses more than terrorism. It addresses Islam.

What you say might also be true if it were the only source exposing Islam. It isn't.
What you say might also be true if Islamic leaders themselves were not cited as references.
WHat you say might be true if Muslims were not not cited as references.

Plenty of evidence out there, that is if you actually read it, and do not open your playbook to find an "argument".
2010-07-02 12:09:51
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6730
where am i quoting myself as a source for anything there? what the fuck are you talking about?

im just saying to use some logic - i didn't invent logic.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-07-02 12:11:22
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Islamic apologist playbook.


Dismiss....Check
Deny
Ignore
I think you'll find it went more like: question validity of source, await answer. Once there is an answer as to why the source could be considered valid then we can move on from there.

"I think it's valid" is not a reason. Reasons have been given as to why the veracity and reliability of the source could be questioned. Now provide reasons why the source could be trusted or why this individual extremist gives any perspective on the views of the Muslim majority.
It is valid because the information is factual. Period

WHat you say might be true if the source was not backing itself up with references and facts...As it is, it does. It addresses more than terrorism. It addresses Islam.

What you say might also be true if it were the only source exposing Islam. It isn't.
What you say might also be true if Islamic leaders themselves were not cited as references.
WHat you say might be true if Muslims were not not cited as references.

Plenty of evidence out there, that is if you actually read it, and do not open your playbook to find an "argument".
2010-07-02 12:12:54
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:

see my last post, lowing.

and you don't have a point when discussing london because there is no "intolerance" or "violence". we co-exist peacefully.

and lol at that suggestion, usm. they do shit tons of research because they made a video? never seen loose change about 9/11 have you? pseudo-scientific, faux-factual bullshit. never seen a 60 minute party broadcast by the British National Party? they dress that up to make their cause look really credible, too. only we know better. why don't you about islam? jihadists and extremists - fine, that documents a fucked-up fringe of their religion. never seen the documentaries looking at 'jesus camps' raising american 8-year olds to be 'soldiers of god' against the 'spiritual enemy'? they're out there, go have a look. does that mean all of christianity is like that? if the logic doesn't work for your own religion/people, then surely that must raise the 'wait a minute...' flag?
Plenty of evidence and protests that says you co-exist under tension. Whyt is finding articles regarding Islam in London not hard to find? WHy would the article that you embrace be written if there was not something to the controversy regarding Islam in London?

Let me guess, you think I made it up?
2010-07-02 12:17:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:

where am i quoting myself as a source for anything there? what the fuck are you talking about?

im just saying to use some logic - i didn't invent logic.
THat article promotes an Islamic London and seem to agree with it...If you do not see that, then are merely opening your playbook.
2010-07-02 12:17:59
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6730
as already said - protesting is a democratic right, an exercise of freedom of speech... no problem with that, no threat either.

articles aren't hard to find probably because there is a charged group of people that feel a lot of fear/hatred/animosity towards muslims following a terrorist attack here several years ago. look for something and it won't be hard to find - especially on the internet. are there any published books from credible sources/authors that document the same phenomenon in a 'real' sense? probably less, and they're probably just as controversial. however the point is that it is unsurprising that there are anti-islam websites with content about London, considering there was a terrorist attack here. lots of ignorant and afraid people in the world that choose 'islam' as their target as opposed to the specific offshoot of islam that perpetrated the attacks against our people.

and why would i trust an article written by a spite-fuelled, ideologue-american who subscribes to neo-con worldviews over MY OWN PERSONAL experiences with muslims in the EVERY-DAY life of london? sorry lowing, but we don't all shit in the face of common-sense and logic like you do; you have interacted with muslims yourself and found them to be agreeable people, yet prefer to trust propagandist websites, i interact with muslims every day and prefer to build my opinions out of something a little closer to home.

lowing don't say im "opening my playbook" because i can actually READ an article and you cannot. jesus h. christ.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-02 12:19:15)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-07-02 12:20:55
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Islamic apologist playbook.


Dismiss....Check
Deny
Ignore
I think you'll find it went more like: question validity of source, await answer. Once there is an answer as to why the source could be considered valid then we can move on from there.

"I think it's valid" is not a reason. Reasons have been given as to why the veracity and reliability of the source could be questioned. Now provide reasons why the source could be trusted or why this individual extremist gives any perspective on the views of the Muslim majority.
It is valid because the information is factual. Period

WHat you say might be true if the source was not backing itself up with references and facts...As it is, it does. It addresses more than terrorism. It addresses Islam.

What you say might also be true if it were the only source exposing Islam. It isn't.
What you say might also be true if Islamic leaders themselves were not cited as references.
WHat you say might be true if Muslims were not not cited as references.

Plenty of evidence out there, that is if you actually read it, and do not open your playbook to find an "argument".
Are these the opinions of a Muslim majority or the experiences of an individual who has been involved in, and therefore disproportionately exposed to, Islamic extremism?

A single person, who is more likely to be biased than most based on the extremity of their experience, is hardly qualified to represent the views of Muslims as a whole.
2010-07-02 12:22:48
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:

as already said - protesting is a democratic right, an exercise of freedom of speech... no problem with that, no threat either.

articles aren't hard to find probably because there is a charged group of people that feel a lot of fear/hatred/animosity towards muslims following a terrorist attack here several years ago. look for something and it won't be hard to find - especially on the internet. are there any published books from credible sources/authors that document the same phenomenon in a 'real' sense? probably less, and they're probably just as controversial. however the point is that it is unsurprising that there are anti-islam websites with content about London, considering there was a terrorist attack here. lots of ignorant and afraid people in the world that choose 'islam' as their target as opposed to the specific offshoot of islam that perpetrated the attacks against our people.

and why would i trust an article written by a spite-fuelled, ideologue-american who subscribes to neo-con worldviews over MY OWN PERSONAL experiences with muslims in the EVERY-DAY life of london? sorry lowing, but we don't all shit in the face of common-sense and logic like you do; you have interacted with muslims yourself and found them to be agreeable people, yet prefer to trust propagandist websites, i interact with muslims every day and prefer to build my opinions out of something a little closer to home.

lowing don't say im "opening my playbook" because i can actually READ an article and you cannot. jesus h. christ.
You are using denial to counter the evidence that Islam is intolerant and violent and superiority to counter anyone that exposes this. THese are not arguments.

Try countering these arguments with facts of your own, show where the information is not factual.

You seem to forget I am speaking of Islam, not your fuckin friends.
2010-07-02 12:26:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

as already said - protesting is a democratic right, an exercise of freedom of speech... no problem with that, no threat either.

articles aren't hard to find probably because there is a charged group of people that feel a lot of fear/hatred/animosity towards muslims following a terrorist attack here several years ago. look for something and it won't be hard to find - especially on the internet. are there any published books from credible sources/authors that document the same phenomenon in a 'real' sense? probably less, and they're probably just as controversial. however the point is that it is unsurprising that there are anti-islam websites with content about London, considering there was a terrorist attack here. lots of ignorant and afraid people in the world that choose 'islam' as their target as opposed to the specific offshoot of islam that perpetrated the attacks against our people.

and why would i trust an article written by a spite-fuelled, ideologue-american who subscribes to neo-con worldviews over MY OWN PERSONAL experiences with muslims in the EVERY-DAY life of london? sorry lowing, but we don't all shit in the face of common-sense and logic like you do; you have interacted with muslims yourself and found them to be agreeable people, yet prefer to trust propagandist websites, i interact with muslims every day and prefer to build my opinions out of something a little closer to home.

lowing don't say im "opening my playbook" because i can actually READ an article and you cannot. jesus h. christ.
You are using denial to counter the evidence that Islam is intolerant and violent and superiority to counter anyone that exposes this. THese are not arguments.

Try countering these arguments with facts of your own, show where the information is not factual.

You seem to forget I am speaking of Islam, not your fuckin friends.
So you're an Islamophobe?
2010-07-02 12:28:28
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio
no one liners, bert - zeek

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-07-02 12:28:41)

2010-07-02 12:28:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


I think you'll find it went more like: question validity of source, await answer. Once there is an answer as to why the source could be considered valid then we can move on from there.

"I think it's valid" is not a reason. Reasons have been given as to why the veracity and reliability of the source could be questioned. Now provide reasons why the source could be trusted or why this individual extremist gives any perspective on the views of the Muslim majority.
It is valid because the information is factual. Period

WHat you say might be true if the source was not backing itself up with references and facts...As it is, it does. It addresses more than terrorism. It addresses Islam.

What you say might also be true if it were the only source exposing Islam. It isn't.
What you say might also be true if Islamic leaders themselves were not cited as references.
WHat you say might be true if Muslims were not not cited as references.

Plenty of evidence out there, that is if you actually read it, and do not open your playbook to find an "argument".
Are these the opinions of a Muslim majority or the experiences of an individual who has been involved in, and therefore disproportionately exposed to, Islamic extremism?

A single person, who is more likely to be biased than most based on the extremity of their experience, is hardly qualified to represent the views of Muslims as a whole.
You do everything to dismiss the evidence EXCEPT address the information directly. Try doing so and convince me. Oh and you might wanna steer clear of articles like you posted before if you want to achieve the goal of showing how wrong I am.
2010-07-02 12:30:16
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

as already said - protesting is a democratic right, an exercise of freedom of speech... no problem with that, no threat either.

articles aren't hard to find probably because there is a charged group of people that feel a lot of fear/hatred/animosity towards muslims following a terrorist attack here several years ago. look for something and it won't be hard to find - especially on the internet. are there any published books from credible sources/authors that document the same phenomenon in a 'real' sense? probably less, and they're probably just as controversial. however the point is that it is unsurprising that there are anti-islam websites with content about London, considering there was a terrorist attack here. lots of ignorant and afraid people in the world that choose 'islam' as their target as opposed to the specific offshoot of islam that perpetrated the attacks against our people.

and why would i trust an article written by a spite-fuelled, ideologue-american who subscribes to neo-con worldviews over MY OWN PERSONAL experiences with muslims in the EVERY-DAY life of london? sorry lowing, but we don't all shit in the face of common-sense and logic like you do; you have interacted with muslims yourself and found them to be agreeable people, yet prefer to trust propagandist websites, i interact with muslims every day and prefer to build my opinions out of something a little closer to home.

lowing don't say im "opening my playbook" because i can actually READ an article and you cannot. jesus h. christ.
You are using denial to counter the evidence that Islam is intolerant and violent and superiority to counter anyone that exposes this. THese are not arguments.

Try countering these arguments with facts of your own, show where the information is not factual.

You seem to forget I am speaking of Islam, not your fuckin friends.
So you're an Islamophobe?
I have no phobias regarding Islam.

Islamic apologist playbook


Dismiss
Deny
Ignore..check
Emulate superiority

Last edited by lowing (2010-07-02 12:31:08)

2010-07-02 12:30:25
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6730

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Using Islamic Jihadis as sources that Islam is violent and everyone who says otherwise is in denial - priceless.

So a tiny minority (who happen to be extremists) claim Islam is violent whereas the vast majority claim that is not the case. What makes the minority more credible than the overwhelming majority?
actually, not true, Islamic leaders promote it, moderate muslims engaged in violence over cartoons also emulate it. Protesters and their signs calling for violence also emulate it. Not just terrorists.
Question: Have most Imams declared a holy jihad against infidels, and that killing them assures them a place in heaven?

Answer: The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams and clerics is not true.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
from? your own source, linked several pages ago, lowing.

http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask … p;act=view
'facts' from your OWN quoted sources to prove that islam is not a 'violent' religion
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-07-02 12:32:55
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6892|949

Actually lowing he is showing that you are incapable of objective, logical, rational thought in regards to Islam.  That is your bad, not his.

Question to you lowing - when is the last time you have engaged in any type of debate regarding Islam with a Muslim?  It seems like you'd much rather tell an internet forum your views on islam than engage in any type of discourse with someone who could have far more knowledge than you of Islam.  Most Muslims don't get their information about their religion from websites and news articles, FYI.
2010-07-02 12:34:46
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio
fact is people will go out of there way to defend islam for some reason....yet shit on other religions.
2010-07-02 12:34:50
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6730

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Actually lowing he is showing that you are incapable of objective, logical, rational thought in regards to Islam.  That is your bad, not his.

Question to you lowing - when is the last time you have engaged in any type of debate regarding Islam with a Muslim?  It seems like you'd much rather tell an internet forum your views on islam than engage in any type of discourse with someone who could have far more knowledge than you of Islam.  Most Muslims don't get their information about their religion from websites and news articles, FYI.
Dismiss
Deny
Ignore..check
Emulate superiority

... lol

usm i will shit on every religion equally, and you know that - you're just throwing the toys out... again. the fact is that islam comes under way more attack than any other religion at the moment; previously in history it has been the jews, the catholic church, the puritans, the pakistani-muslims etc. the flavour of the day is middle-eastern arab-islam and so i'll defend that against thoughtless criticism and what is basically racism. all religions suck equally to a non-believer... but it's not fair to see honest, decent people suffer discrimination from ignorant dumbasses.

Last edited by Uzique (2010-07-02 12:36:28)

libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2010-07-02 12:34:55
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:


You are using denial to counter the evidence that Islam is intolerant and violent and superiority to counter anyone that exposes this. THese are not arguments.

Try countering these arguments with facts of your own, show where the information is not factual.

You seem to forget I am speaking of Islam, not your fuckin friends.
So you're an Islamophobe?
I have no phobias regarding Islam.

Islamic apologist playbook


Dismiss
Deny
Ignore..check
Emulate superiority
I just wanted to see you saying it again, following another tirade like that. It's abundantly clear you don't understand what the word means.

It's quite hilarious.
2010-07-02 12:35:54
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5497|Cleveland, Ohio

Uzique wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Actually lowing he is showing that you are incapable of objective, logical, rational thought in regards to Islam.  That is your bad, not his.

Question to you lowing - when is the last time you have engaged in any type of debate regarding Islam with a Muslim?  It seems like you'd much rather tell an internet forum your views on islam than engage in any type of discourse with someone who could have far more knowledge than you of Islam.  Most Muslims don't get their information about their religion from websites and news articles, FYI.
Dismiss
Deny
Ignore..check
Emulate superiority

... lol
ya that helps the debate doesnt it?  and you cry when other people do it.  what a joke.
2010-07-02 12:36:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6911|USA

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:


actually, not true, Islamic leaders promote it, moderate muslims engaged in violence over cartoons also emulate it. Protesters and their signs calling for violence also emulate it. Not just terrorists.
Question: Have most Imams declared a holy jihad against infidels, and that killing them assures them a place in heaven?

Answer: The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams and clerics is not true.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai
from? your own source, linked several pages ago, lowing.

http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask … p;act=view
'facts' from your OWN quoted sources to prove that islam is not a 'violent' religion
lol well I now know where you get your argument techniques from

"Answer: The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams and clerics is not true."

Oh well as long as it is not true,  I see no need for proof of this in light of all that has happened and written and taught and quoted to the contrary.
2010-07-02 12:38:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6841|SE London

lowing wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Uzique wrote:

lowing wrote:

actually, not true, Islamic leaders promote it, moderate muslims engaged in violence over cartoons also emulate it. Protesters and their signs calling for violence also emulate it. Not just terrorists.
from? your own source, linked several pages ago, lowing.

http://www.islam.tc/cgi-bin/askimam/ask … p;act=view
'facts' from your OWN quoted sources to prove that islam is not a 'violent' religion
lol well I now know where you get your argument techniques from

"Answer: The decree of Jihaad against the infidels of the world attributed to most Imaams and clerics is not true."

Oh well as long as it is not true,  I see no need for proof of this in light of all that has happened and written and taught and quoted to the contrary.
And yet you accept the negative details from the same source?

There's no way that could be considered to be having double standards is there?

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 … 39

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard